WaPo - Ezra Klein - "The White House basically told us, 'We hope you guys know what you're doing."

[TomCADem]

Here is some background that the Huffingon Post story left out, which is that the White House is concerned about what will pass through the Senate. This is also corroborated by Bloomberg and an AP story describing this same meeting. Huffington Post portrays President Obama as against an Opt Out in principle because he is trying to please the insurance companies, and due to concern about political effects on various Senators. The AP story quotes a President Obama official as saying which one gets 60 votes first is going to be the proposal that President Obama will once again start rallying support for. So, if you want President Obama to fight a valiant fight, and fail, then you are going to be disappointed. Remember, a few weeks ago, even the trigger seemed to be dead in the water.

My take is that if Harry Reid can lock in 60 votes in support of the opt out, then we will have an opt out. If not, then we will have a trigger. This will come down to being able to move the conservadems and non-dems to commit to vote for cloture.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/white_house_to_reid_we_hope_yo.html

###

Here, stories begin to diverge. Depending on who you talk to, Baucus either held a routine, informational meeting telling the Senate moderates and members of the Senate Finance Committee what's going on, as he's been doing fairly regularly, or he held a meeting in which he tried to rally Senate moderates to change Reid's mind. Or maybe there's no difference between the two. The first to really speak out after the meeting was Sen. Ben Nelson, and, as one staffer pointed out, Nelson didn't need Baucus to remind him that he was opposed to a national public option. Soon enough, Olympia Snowe was also making firm statements against the public option, and threatening a filibuster.

On Thursday night, Reid went over to the White House for a talk with the president. The conversation centered on Reid's desire to put Schumer's national opt-out plan into the base bill. White House officials were not necessarily pleased, and they made that known. Everyone agrees that they didn't embrace Reid's new strategy. Everyone agrees that the White House wants Snowe on the bill, feels the trigger offers a safer endgame, and isn't convinced by Reid's math. But whether officials expressed a clear preference for the trigger, or were just worried about the potential for 60 votes, is less clear. One staffer briefed on the conversation says "the White House basically told us, 'We hope you guys know what you're doing.'"

###

[Lorien]

1. The Whitehouse should lead on this issue, not "Hope for change" from

the houses instead. This whole fiasco is being dragged out far too long by the out of power, unpopular opposition. Enough is enough! LEAD, don't follow OR get out of the way!

[saracat]

2. Amen.

[joeycola]

7. +1

[Go2Peace]

13. +1000!

This whole thing is looking like a circus.

[Clio the Leo]

4. The Clinton WH lead on the issue....

..... what, if anything, do you think the Obama admin could learn from them? What did the Clinton admin do RIGHT that the Obama admin is doing wrong?

[TomCADem]

10. I Think The Problem Is That The WH Is Being Pragmatic and Not Being Naive

If the White House was hoping, then it would simply demand an immediate Medicare-like public option even if he does not have the votes for it. I think many of us are used to George Bush making demands on Congress is an authoritarian manner.

[IndianaGreen]

11. The smoke-filled room in which Rahm Emanuel operates is the one in which the people get the shaft

Medicare for all is the answer!

[TomCADem]

12. How Do You Get There Without Declaring Martial Law?

That to me sounds like just hoping without actually having a plan.

[Undercurrent]

3. The following may shed some light

on the quandary the White House is facing, and the disaster they are trying to avoid:

Its also from WaPo and posted on DU:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/the_nightmare_scenario_on_the.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8714824


Imagine Reid puts Schumer's pulibc option proposal -- the national plan that states can opt-out of -- into the bill. The bill comes to the floor, and it loses Snowe and one or two centrist moderates. Byrd is sick and unable to vote. The sticking point is the Schumer plan, so it needs to come out of the bill.

But even though the bill can't get 60 votes to proceed, Reid's office also can't find 60 votes to strip the public option out of the bill. The liberals won't go for it. The left is organized against it. There's no reason, they say, that 55 Democrats should bow to the wishes of five centrists and a Republican on a popular provision. Reid and the White House should stop dithering and put their back into this, they argue. Indeed, maybe some mischievous Republicans even join the liberals in defeating the motion to strip Schumer's proposal. The bill is just stuck in limbo: It doesn't have the votes to move forward or backward.

There are reasons to think this isn't likely. Namely, it probably requires Republicans to engage in the sort of shenanigans that would persuade Democrats to vote as a bloc. If the Republicans play it straight and deliver 40 votes against the public option, you probably can find 20 or so Democrats willing to suck it up and water down the bill in order to ensure it eventual passage. Hell, 10 of those Democrats would do it happily.

[Clio the Leo]

5. Congratulations.....

..... you have just managed to give me indigestion this morning. :)

[Mass]

6. Well. If this happens, our leaderships are whimps. They are not ready to threaten these 2 or 3 Dems

who would block progress and make clear they are siding against people interest. Even Nelson and Lincoln need Democratic votes in order to get elected.

[stray cat]

8. I think no one in any leadership really knows what they are doing

[Pirate Smile]

9. The White House has always said the Conference is key. There aren't really 60 solid votes for a PO

in the Senate and their aren't 60 votes against it. Both seem to fall into the no mans land of 55ish.

During the votes in the Senate, there will be many Amendments voted on which will need 60 votes to get to a vote on each Amendment and then, of course, 50 to pass it.

The Big Difference - AND why I think the White House keeps reminding us about the Conference is that after the House and Senate Conference Committee comes out with their final Bill - NO Amendments can get ADDED. It will be one vote on Cloture - we need 60 votes for that AND one Up/Down vote on the Bill.

We don't have to have everything in the Senate Bill right NOW to get it in the Final Bill President Obama signs.

The White House has been saying since the very beginning - wait and see what is in the final legislation he signs. The battle isn't every Committee Bill or even the initial Bill out of the Senate. The final legislation is what matters.

Pelosi stated in a WSJ article over the weekend that they are open to the Opt Out. There is also chatter about a trigger that would change a PO from negotiating with the providers for the rates to going to Medicare +5 if the Insurance Companies don't lower their costs enough.

I think the final legislation will have the Opt Out even if the Bill passed by the Senate includes a trigger and gets Snowe's support. A trigger in the final bill could also be going to Medicare +5 from negotiating with providers if the Insurance Co's don't shape up.

Everyone should keep pressuring Congress and the White House but don't forget that what is in the initial Senate Bill isn't going to be the final product JUST LIKE what was in the Senate Finance Committee Bill wasn't the final product either.

[snake in the grass]

14. k/r