About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors


Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
 susanthe
ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Betsy Devine
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Susan the Bruce

Politicos & Punditry
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
John DeJoie
Ann McLane Kuster
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

And Then There Were 23 (24? 25?)

by: Dean Barker

Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 19:01:41 PM EST
Daniel Inouye joins Jeanne Shaheen and the ever-growing group of Senators urging for passing of a public option through a simple majority vote.

And it looks like Carper and Levin may be on board too.

Meanwhile, President Barack Obama continues to show little interest in re-energizing his base by backing the public option, despite it being popular with the American people, and one of the pieces of the health care plan he campaigned on.

I'm of two minds about this:

Theory #1, or, The Simplest Explanation is Usually the Correct One:  The White House, Obama, Rahmbo, (take your pick) has no interest in the public option, and is annoyed at the interference of this last ditch effort, being, as it is, external to how DC salon politics typically operates, or

Theory #2, or, You Cannot Fathom the Mysteries of Barack Obama's 11 Dimensional Chess: Expecting Republicans to behave very badly at the summit, which will culminate in total obstruction, they can wash their hands of bi-partisanship and do whatever they want.  At that point there will be thirty-something senators signed on to the letter, and a public option will become inevitable.
Dean Barker :: And Then There Were 23 (24? 25?)
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
And Then There Were 23 (24? 25?) | 37 comments
Theory 3: (0.00 / 0)
President Hamlet still doesn't know what he wants.
"What a piece of worke is a man. - (4.00 / 1)
how noble in reason,
how infinite in faculties, in form and moving,
how express and admirable in action, how like an angel in apprehension,
how like a god!"

Hamlet/Will Shakespeare

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world." A. Einstein

[ Parent ]
Yo, Bresler (4.00 / 2)
From the cookbook:
This is what the Democratic Party does; it's who they are.  They're willing to feign support for anything their voters want just as long as there's no chance that they can pass it.

Or have to vote for it?

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com
www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

telling isn't it ? (4.00 / 1)
from the article you linked to by Glenn Geenwald

http://www.salon.com/news/opin...
In other words, Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing (sadly, we just can't do it, because although it has 50 votes in favor, it doesn't have 60).  But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process -- which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option -- Rockefeller is suddenly "inclined to oppose it" because he doesn't "think the timing of it is very good" and it's "too partisan."  What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldn't pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he "would not relent" in ensuring its enactment.  

The Obama White House did the same thing.  As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it).  Yesterday, Obama -- while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary -- finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include?  The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted:  Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just don't have 60 votes for it; what can I do?.  As I documented in my contribution to the NYT forum yesterday, now that there's a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.



'Aints no more
[ Parent ]
Peanuts (0.00 / 0)
I can't escape the "Lucy with the football" image.

As long as we believe they are trying. Do we give an "A for effort" via the Act Blue page?  

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com
www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

[ Parent ]
You're Not Elected, Charlie Brown (4.00 / 2)


You're Not Elected, Charlie Brown

Following his victory, Linus goes to the principal with the intention of keeping his campaign promises and laying down the law, only to be taken aback with the realization that he is still strictly subordinate to the faculty. Regardless, Sally has a fit and accuses him of selling-out like all other politicians.



'Aints no more
[ Parent ]
Sen. Inouye (4.00 / 7)
The senator (and undeniable American hero) lives in my building.  Five minutes ago, I walked up to him in the hall and thanked him profusely.

I'd like to propose Theory #3: President Obama wants to pass the strongest bill for which he can get 218 votes in the House and 51 votes in the Senate.  He doesn't have this yet for the public option in the Senate, and, if he can't secure the necessary margin behind the scenes, he doesn't want to sink the entire effort by committing himself publicly to a provision that won't get the votes.  

Health care reform has nearly been killed once.  The last thing the White House wants to do is make the perfect the enemy of the pretty damn good (which, in my opinion, describes the current proposal), and drag this thing out deeper into the election year.  

Of course, Theory #3 is entirely consistent with Theory #2.  I wouldn't be surprised to see the public option more prominent after Thursday.

I'm with you, DD. (4.00 / 2)
I think the most likely thing is that the White House would like to have the public option but thinks (and has thought for some time) that the votes aren't there.  With even Jay Rockefeller wavering on doing this with reconciliation (surprising and disappointing), I don't blame them for that calculus.  But I do hope the Senators trying to do this are successful, and there's no doubt in my mind that Obama would support a successful bill that included as strong a public option as can be.

Having Inouye on board is big.  He's the second most senior Senator (behind Byrd) and the chairman of the Senate's most powerful committee, Appropriations.  With respect and admiration fot the other Senators signing onto this (especially Shaheen), I think having senior members in positions of power on board gives it more credibility than sheer numbers.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

[ Parent ]
If the White House (0.00 / 0)
wants/wanted a PO it has a funny way of showing it.
[ Parent ]
Comity (0.00 / 0)
trumps the people.  It seems that the WH is not going to get in front of Reid's funeral procession.


"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world." A. Einstein
[ Parent ]
They want to avoid being portrayed as losing. (4.00 / 2)
Political narrative culture is very destructive, but it's there.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin
[ Parent ]
Good Reason (4.00 / 5)
If the White House were to come out for a public option now, without the votes in the Senate, they would be practically goading the fence-sitters (Lieberman, Bayh, maybe Nelson) to make public statements in opposition.  And that could sink the whole deal.

I know that the President is a progressive, and he would not have sacrificed his entire stack of political capital on health care reform if he didn't want to get it done right.  He will get this done.  And the bill will be the most substantial piece of legislation that he can push through a half-scared, half-obstructionist Congress.

[ Parent ]
you are generous n/t (0.00 / 0)
   

'Aints no more
[ Parent ]
I'll guess I'll agree to disagree here. (4.00 / 2)
To me there has been far too much hoarding of political capital, and not enough leadership, from the WH, here and elsewhere.  And in the end, it may cost them the ability to do much at all legislatively for 2011-2012.

Gibbs could have reiterated the WH position from earlier - that the BO supports PO, but it's not a requirement of comprehensive HCR. But he went further than that, and basically hobbled the momentum on the outside push from the senators (unless I am blind to the 11 dimensional chess).

What's odd for me is that this whole strategy iscussion revolves around the PO, which poll after poll shows huge support among the people. I am beginning to get the sense, not just here but elsewhere, that the WH is microscopically fine-tuned in focus with whom they need to court on the Hill, but they need glasses to fix their vision outside the beltway.

(That said, I still agree with the initial paradigm that letting Congress go first, despite how badly they messed it up, was better than trying to re-do the Clinton approach in '92.)

[ Parent ]
Adding: (0.00 / 0)
And what I mean by this:
I am beginning to get the sense, not just here but elsewhere, that the WH is microscopically fine-tuned in focus with whom they need to court on the Hill, but they need glasses to fix their vision outside the beltway.

is: there are other ways of influencing some of the more recalcitrant and poll-tested members of the Democratic congress than direct courting.  

There is also the salubrious pressure from the opposite side, by building support for the President's agenda among congressscritters' constituents. They don't really do this, which is bizarre to me, given how many general election political newcomers Obama brought into the party, folks who will listen to him first before caring about (or even knowing about) who represents them federally in their state.

[ Parent ]
When this story is written (0.00 / 0)
1. It will reflect that the Democrats believed that such sweeping legislation needed broad bipartisan support and that the Republicans used that philosophical underpinning in crass political attempts to blow up the process and a president.

2. It will have clearly demonstrated that one ideology will use all levers of political power to manipulate the system while the other side is complicit through inaction.

Is there an historic precedent for this calamity?


"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world." A. Einstein

[ Parent ]
I'm sorry, but. . . (4.00 / 1)
. . . while the other side is complicit through inaction.

I'm sorry.  I, too, have been frustrated by this process, but our President is on the verge of pushing through legislation that would cover the vast majority of uninsured Americans, and would provide unprecedented authority to regulate the corrupt health insurance industry.

Hardly "inaction" or a "calamity", StaffordDem.

[ Parent ]
"You Keep Using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means." (4.00 / 1)
From Merriam - Webster

verge: 2) b.  brink, threshold
meaning, close but no cigar.  I'll believe it when I see it, and the house money stays off the table until the floaters show themselves.

On the other hand,

calamity: 1 : a state of deep distress or misery caused by major misfortune or loss

inaction: lack of action or activity

The wrong strategy, the wrong tactics, and the wrong political philosophy results in the lost opportunity of generations for a public option.  I'll be ok with a revised Senate bill, but disappointed that it will take a decade of hard work to get to the public option from there.  

To me, that's distressful misfortune that could have been avoided.  We have the votes, not the will.


"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world." A. Einstein

[ Parent ]
Number 3 (0.00 / 0)
It will reflect, as it did in the 1990s, that the right wing is clearly and consciously willing to let the nation fail if that's what it takes to keep the other side out of the White House.

That's not hyperbole.  Just as there were government shutdowns in the 90s and years wasted on phony impeachment proceedings, Republicans are now using every tool at their disposal to stop every nomination and kill every bill, even those necessary for the government to continue to function, even those they initially supported, even those whose critical necessity they would demagogue about, even those whose success they later tout. That's not putting country first, Mr. McCain.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

[ Parent ]
I hope you guys are right. (4.00 / 3)
Just too damn many tea leaves for me, and I am getting exhausted trying to read them. I am going to go read a novel now and chill for a while.
[ Parent ]
Ditto (4.00 / 1)


"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  
[ Parent ]
Paul, I'll assume that you don't REALLY think I'm a troll (0.00 / 0)
:)
[ Parent ]
no i did a JBB. (4.00 / 2)
meant a four.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  
[ Parent ]
; (0.00 / 0)


'Aints no more
[ Parent ]
whenever I hear (0.00 / 0)
"the pefect is the enemy of the good"  it seems to be a justification for passing something that isn't good at all. This case would be no exception.  
[ Parent ]
You are right (4.00 / 1)
Better we ignore the constraints imposed on our cause, push a plan that will die in Congress, and complain about the inadequacies of others for the next 15 years.  

Because, you know, that will provide health care to millions of Americans.

[ Parent ]
better (0.00 / 0)
we settle for less, screw women, and leave millions uncovered. Yay!

A pity that fighting for what's right never seems to be a consideration.  

[ Parent ]
Wrong (4.00 / 1)
A pity that fighting for what's right never seems to be a consideration.  

Achieving what's right is the only consideration.  Falling on the sword for principle won't provide health care to a single person.

[ Parent ]
oh, please (0.00 / 0)
this whole thing has been a clusterhump from the very beginning, when the single payer folks were kept out of the discussion. There has been no interest in actually doing the right thing - the interest is in keeping insurance and drug companies funding campaigns, while reeking of faux concern.  
[ Parent ]
In Response (4.00 / 1)
this whole thing has been a clusterhump from the very beginning, when the single payer folks were kept out of the discussion

Single payer was not presented before Congress because the Administration didn't have the votes to pass it.  (Sensing a theme here?)  This is not difficult to realize, given how difficult it has been to get through a considerably less controversial public option.

The purpose of this whole exercise is to pass a piece of legislation.  It is not an academic debate, nor is it designed to make us feel secure in our principled outrage.  If the White House can't get the Evan Bayhs and Joe Liebermans of the world to back single payer, it won't become law, and there is no point in making it part of the discussion -- no matter how much you (and I) support it.

There has been no interest in actually doing the right thing - the interest is in keeping insurance and drug companies funding campaigns, while reeking of faux concern.

If that's the President's goal, then he must really suck at political strategy.  You see, Susan, insurance companies don't like it when the government gives itself the power to roll back their rate hikes.  They also don't like it when a White House and Democratic Congress passes laws to take their anti-trust exemption away.

http://www.politico.com/news/s...

[ Parent ]
single payer (0.00 / 0)
was not allowed at the table. There were no votes at stake - single payer advocates were not even allowed to participate in the discussion that preceded the bill. You do remember the civil disobedience last year? Maybe not. It's inconvenient.

And now that you mention it, the President really DOES suck at political strategy. Remember that giveaway to Big Pharma?  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Insurance companies are getting a HUGE windfall from the taxpayers who are going to be forced to buy their product.

And anti-trust? You're going to try to credit Obama with that?  

[ Parent ]
In Response (Take 2) (4.00 / 1)
You do remember the civil disobedience last year? Maybe not. It's inconvenient.

Single payer was not "allowed at the table" because the Administration realized that it would not have the votes to pass the Senate.  It has nothing to do with convenience, Susan.  More about getting a bill that has a chance of becoming a law (and providing health care to tens of millions of Americans).  Once again, not an academic exercise.

And now that you mention it, the President really DOES suck at political strategy. Remember that giveaway to Big Pharma?

The pharmaceutical companies loved that deal -- so much so that they just canned the powerful leader of PhRMA for it.  Linky:

http://articles.latimes.com/20...

And anti-trust? You're going to try to credit Obama with that?  

Um, yeah.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITI...

[ Parent ]
Hectoring. (4.00 / 1)
There is only so much hectoring one can do.  At some point, you've just got to sit back and let the drama work itself out.
I don't worry over much about the individual mandate to purchase private insurance because it's unenforceable.  That's a designed to fail element to appease the Republican instinct to rule, rather than to serve.  If any Obama proposal is bound to be rejected, it makes sense to include the dispensable.  You know, like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

The thing about "Republicans by Rote" is that their behavior is predictable.  If they want to be obstructionist, you've got to give them something to obstruct.

What do Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Scott Brown have in common?

Getting interesting (0.00 / 0)
I was looking for wiggle room in the Bennett letter, and I don't see any.

We respectfully ask that you bring for a vote before the full Senate a public health insurance option under budget reconciliation rules.

Full text here. The letter also implies that they'll support the full bill either way.  

yeah (0.00 / 0)
that's why Obama proposed the anti-trust biz. I don't remember it going that way, but I'm sure you can invent a story where it was his idea.

As for single payer - they were not allowed to even discuss or offer a viewpoint. You can try to rewrite that any way you want (and you certainly are!) - but the fact remains that any expertise single payer advocates have, was exempt from the discussion. THAT has nothing to do with votes - and everything to do with the intent this administration went into those discussions with.

That said, though, I've really enjoyed being condescended to!  

When you get personal, I knock off (0.00 / 0)
Bye bye. Have fun getting angry. Must suck when people cite facts to defang your Obama-Hate.
[ Parent ]
I suspect (0.00 / 0)
it sucks even more defending the indefensible.  
[ Parent ]
And Then There Were 23 (24? 25?) | 37 comments
Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox