Schumer: "the White House probably preferred a stronger public option than a trigger"

[Clio the Leo]

My apologies in advance for posting an article that contains an actual named source.

So how did we go from a White House at loggerheads with the Senate leadership last Thursday night over a public option, to a deal today that's exactly what the leadership wanted?

This evening I spoke with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who was in that infamous Thursday night meeting with President Obama and other Senate leaders--and who has been one of the most persistent advocates of a public option on Capitol Hill. As Schumer explains it, the disagreement between the White House and Senate wasn't substantive so much as it was tactical: The White House had its doubts that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could really get 60 votes for a public option with an opt out for states.

"The President listened very carefully," Schumer said in an interview moments ago. "He wanted to make sure that the strategy upon which we were embarking had the ability to carry through."

<snip>

"I think substantively the White House probably preferred a stronger public option than a trigger," Schumer said. "We talked about this for a while in leadership and the White House wanted to hear our thoughts--and when they heard them they thought that this was the right strategy to get our caucus together."

Today, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the President stands behind Reid as he builds support for the public plan.

"A lot of people around here have faith in Harry Reid's abilty to count votes," Schumer told me.

Does that mean that triggers are dead? Schumer wouldn't characterize things that way, but he did note that, as Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) suggested, the move risked alienating many in the caucus.

"I think that, to many many people in the caucus...the trigger was never very attractive. I think it was Jay Rockefeller that said whenever you have the trigger, it never goes into effect," Schumer said.

At the very least, then, triggers were dealt a very serious blow today. But what happens now in the House? Should leaders there settle on a public option with negotiated rates to minimize the differences between their bill and the Senate's bill? Or should House Speaker Nancy Pelosi keep pushing for a public option that sets reimbursement rates slightly above Medicare's, to ensure that the most robust public option on offer gets a hearing in the final negotiations?

Schumer's mostly mum, "each body has to find its sort of middle point in the Democratic caucus, and I think this is the middle point in the Senate."

But, he says, the public option will redound to Democrats' benefit in the end.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/schumer-we-prevailed-on-the-white-house-that-public-option-was-the-way-to-go.php?ref=fpa

[mkultra]

1. sounds somewhat promising, screw triggers

i would rather have the strong PO as well.

[avaistheone1]

2. Triggers are a scam. They are meant to stall and circumvent the public option.

[freddie mertz]

3. We are stuck in a house of mirrors...

Who really knows what the president "wants" anymore?

Certainly not any one of us!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. Yes, tactical. EXACTLY AS REPORTED

None of the various stories said Obama hates the PO in his secret heart.

Reid and Obama haven't been having abstract dorm-room discussions about ideal HCR policy. It's about legislative strategy.

The story was always a tactical disagreement between Reid and the WH over what could pass the senate.

And there is nothing intrinsically monstrous about such a disagreement.

[Clio the Leo]

5. Where in the above article does Schumer back up the original claim.....

"They're skeptical of opt out and are generally deferential to the Snowe strategy that involves the trigger,"
(was the WH skeptical of it in order to get the bill passed, or skeptical of it as being the best alternative in the grand scheme of things, the article certainly wasn't clear was it?)

or

"This new development, which casts the White House as an opponent of all but the most watered down form of public option"

(that statement was inflammatory at best, incorrect at worst and written to slam the WH. That was MY problem with it.)

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/sources-white-house-pushing-back-against-senate-public-option-opt-out-compromise.php