Seven tried and seven failed: what's really driving Obama?

I'm sure he is thinking that. (6.00 / 2)

... and he's also realizing that he's not all-powerful, that he's not 60 Senators all at once. Therefore, he's giving them a lot of space to hash it out: No bright lines, no absolutes.

As a side note ... if you want to understand how Obama operates, I recommend the Tao Te Ching, eg.:

17
When the Master governs, the people
are hardly aware that he exists.
Next best is a leader who is loved.
Next, one who is feared.
The worst is one who is despised.

If you don't trust the people,
you make them untrustworthy.

The Master doesn't talk, he acts.
When his work is done,
the people say, "Amazing:
we did it, all by ourselves!"

---

Blue Mass. Group
So what politics do you deserve?

---

by: Charley on the MTA @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 20:47:36 PM CST

Heh. Well, time will tell, won't it. (6.00 / 2)

A less erudite way of making a similar point about Obama was when Jon Stewart wondered aloud whether Obama was a Jedi who was ten steps ahead of everyone else, or a rookie who had lost control of the debate.  He knew it was one of the two, but he wasn't sure which.  I'm not either.

---

by: David @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 20:51:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

that's the thing, though (0.00 / 0)

one day, people are saying he's the master of 11th dimensional chess and all the other fools questioning his logic are just too dumb to understand. The next day, those very same people are complaining that he just didn't have the power and didn't have the control.

The truth of the matter is a president has tremendous weight in DC, more than most would even think (and most would think a lot). He could have threatened the Landreua's of the world by saying the DNC and DSCC would not give one drop of support to her in her reelection effort if she didn't vote for cloture on the bill. They could have threatened Ben Nelson with major speeches in Nebraska on the importance of the public option. They could have threatened Joe Lieberman with his committee chairmanship. These were all options open to Obama and Reid that they refused to take, and Reid would have followed Obama's lead on these issues. The truth of the matter is this is what Obama supported in the end -- he didn't give a crap about the public option and other important aspects of health care reform, which is precisely why he not only didn't lift a finger to help it, but went out of his way to thank the likes of Lieberman and Snowe, while putting immense pressure on Dean and others to stfu.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 21:28:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Brilliant. (6.00 / 1)

Could have threatened Landrieu with withholding $$$ ... who then goes down to defeat to a R who votes against everything, PO or no. Goes against Nelson in a cherry-red state ... who then loses to a cherry-red R.

Lieberman I don't know about. I don't know what his pressure points are. It's a decent question.

---

Blue Mass. Group
So what politics do you deserve?

---

by: Charley on the MTA @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 21:37:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Only if (0.00 / 0)

she refuses to consent to supporting cloture.

And you ignore the possibility that Landrieu is just as likely to lose the primary as she is the general. What is it with you and straw men today?  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 21:53:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Lose the primary? (0.00 / 0)

Evidence that's possible or likely in LA?

---

Blue Mass. Group
So what politics do you deserve?

---

by: Charley on the MTA @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 21:56:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A) (0.00 / 0)

the fact that she's wildly unpopular within the democratic party and democratic voters

B) the fact that it's probably the best shot the Democratic Party has in keeping the seat

C) the fact that primary opponents are already being recruited and will get national support, especially after the stunts she's pulled on health care.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 22:12:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"who then goes down to defeat" (6.00 / 1)

Well, no, actually -- the point is to get them to modify their behavior so that they can keep their jobs with support from the party.  That has worked pretty well when the WH has pressured lefties to toe the line.  No reason it wouldn't work in this case as well.  There does seem to be a double-standard at play, where lefties have to play ball and conservaDems have to be appeased.

---

by: David @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 09:24:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

but they may have done this in other cases (6.00 / 1)

From the Greenwald article:

Indeed, we've seen before what the White House can do -- and does do -- when they actually care about pressuring members of Congress to support something they genuinely want passed.  When FDL and other liberal blogs led an effort to defeat Obama's war funding bill back in June, the White House became desperate for votes, and here is what they apparently did (though they deny it):

The White House is playing hardball with Democrats who intend to vote against the supplemental war spending bill, threatening freshmen who oppose it that they won't get help with reelection and will be cut off from the White House, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) said Friday.  "We're not going to help you. You'll never hear from us again," Woolsey said the White House is telling freshmen.

That's what the White House can do when they actually care about pressuring someone to vote the way they want.  Why didn't they do any of that to the "centrists" who were supposedly obstructing what they wanted on health care?

Seems like a fair question to me.

---

by: Jasiu @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 09:50:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Bunk always sounds better wrapped in Chinese mysticism. (6.00 / 1)

Obama wants any bill passed.

He's negotiated from a stance of weakness all along, and has done very little with his much ballyhooed rhetorical skills to publicly shame the insurance companies and lobbyists who have spent hundreds of millions on campaign donations instead of on health care for the people who need it.

The people wanted a public option.  The people wanted Medicare to be available for buy-in.

Obama did not trust the people.

He may have grown up without much money, but I'm beginning to think he has forgotten how tough it is for most people, now that he's selling millions of books.

---

by: joeltpatterson @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 21:26:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You haven't addressed ... (0.00 / 0)

what might have happened if he did insist on a PO, if he did more to shame the insurance cos (I seem to remember that he did, and has).

Lieberman says "no" ... and then we're ... where exactly? Ah yes, the same place?

The dude is not God, people. He can't do it by himself. The last Prez to do that was Clinton (with a big assist from Hillary) ... and again ... what happened?

---

Blue Mass. Group
So what politics do you deserve?

---

by: Charley on the MTA @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 21:40:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You really should address (a) reconciliation and (b) allowing a filibuster (6.00 / 2)

If you want to make this argument.

My position is that (a) much, if not all, of desirable health care reform can be passed with 50 votes in the Senate, and

(b) that a Republican filibuster against health care reform would be a disaster for them and could not be sustained. Can you imagine the Congress not being able to vote funds for our troops in the field, for example, because the Republicans were filibustering health care reform that a big majority of the population wants? They'd be routed.

Conclusion: Obama and the Democrats could do much more if they wanted to.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 23:11:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Addressing those questions (0.00 / 0)

On (a), reconciliation:

(1) It is likely that at least some pieces of a "dream" health care bill would not be eligible for reconciliation according to the Senate parliamentarian's reading of the Byrd rule (particularly the new insurance regulations).

(2) If reconciliation is used, there is no guarantee that it will be permanent. Under reconciliation, the bill must be revenue-neutral, and if it is not in any year after a 5-year window, the whole thing will expire. This is major point about reconciliation that is oddly absent from the debate over this method.

(3) There is hardly any guarantee that a reconciliation bill with a strong public option will get 50 or more votes, especially if some (overly?) sensitive Senators believe that this is "ramming it down their throats". Plus, the use of this method for health care could endanger support for key initiatives in 2010 (climate change, financial regulatory reform, a jobs bill).

On (b), the Republican filibuster:

(1) It is unlikely that a Republican filibuster will prevent anything else from being passed, due to the double tracking procedure in the Senate. An "actual" filibuster does not have the effect that you imply here.

(2) Even if it were the case that all Senate business slowed to a halt in the case of a filibuster, which it does not, then this would threaten other elements of the Democratic agenda noted briefly above. Further, history has shown that voters tend to attribute the lack of congressional production to the majority party, not "obstructionists" using obscure Senatorial rules.

(3) Why would a Republican filibuster be a political "disaster" for them? Polling is pretty clear that the public has soured on the Democrats' handling of health care. They would certainly not be "routed" for doing so.

---

by: Hoyapaul @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 11:14:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Couple of points -- (0.00 / 0)

re (a)(1), that's true, but it's my understanding that some of the insurance regs (e.g. banning pre-existing condition exclusions) have 60 votes.  The idea is to split out the stuff that can be passed that way from the stuff that has to be done via reconciliation.

(a)(2) - that's an interesting wrinkle.  Can you give us a link explaining how this 5-year rule actually works?  Who decides?

(a)(3) - presumably one would not begin the push for reconciliation without being certain of 50 votes + Biden in the bag.  As far as endangering a climate bill goes, what's the argument -- that Joe Lieberman will be mad that he got marginalized via reconciliation, and therefore won't back a climate change bill out of spite?  Honestly, we can't let the assholes control every debate to that extent.  Sometimes, you just have to do something.

---

by: David @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 11:28:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Byrd Rule (0.00 / 0)

Yes, apologies for not including a link to back up my claim about the five-year sunset. It's not the greatest summary, but this summary put together by Rep. Louis Slaughter (Chair of the House Rules Committee) is OK at getting to this point. If I can find a clearer summary, I'll post it. The link to the CRS report below might also be helpful, but it is 48 or so pages.

I'd direct your attention to one aspect of the definition of the test for "extraneous-ness" under the Byrd rule. One of the several tests is that the provision cannot "increase net outlays or decrease revenue during a fiscal year after the years covered by the reconciliation bill unless the provision's title, as a whole, remains budget neutral." The "years covered by the reconciliation bill" are the current budget years and (usually) the four out-years following this budget year, as noted in this excellent [PDF] (but lengthy) Congressional Research Service document detailing the process.

To "get around" this aspect of the Byrd Rule requires the incorporation of sunset provisions into the bill going through reconciliation (for example, the Bush tax cuts had to do this). The period covered by reconciliation is 5 years, which is the maximum amount of time allowed before the sunset must trigger, absent additional action by Congress.

That "additional action" is what concerns me -- Republicans will have a hard time dismantling aspects of this health care bill if passed (e.g. subsidies) -- even if they regain the majority -- because the filibuster will require them to secure 60 votes to do so. But if the legislation automatically expires due to a sunset clause required under reconciliation rules, Republicans can simply allow it all to die, with no possibility of a Democratic filibuster.

---

by: Hoyapaul @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:52:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No problem, according to the summary you cite (0.00 / 0)

Under the Byrd rule, the Senate is prohibited from considering extraneous matter as part of a reconciliation bill or resolution or conference report thereon. The definition of what constitutes "extraneous matter" is set forth in the Budget Act; however, the term remains subject to considerable interpretation by the presiding officer (who relies on the Senate Parliamentarian).

In the present case, all the presiding officer has to do is announce that the various provisions of the health reform measure are not extraneous matter and move on through reconciliation. Point of order challenges to such a determination, as I understand it,  interesting report on filibusters prepared by Lieberman's office are subject to a majority vote.

The administration can pass all, or much of, the current health care reform legislation through reconciliation if it wants to do so.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 13:22:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If it only takes one senator to change the bill . . . (0.00 / 0)

why shouldn't someone, Sanders maybe, declare that the bill is unacceptable unless they strip out (or gut) the individual mandate?

---

by: Bob Gardner @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 10:18:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The people are idiots. (0.00 / 0)

The public plan is for the most part pointless. It was slightly less pointless when medical reimbursements was tied to Medicare (which didn't even last long in the House), but it's still pointless. The public plan would just be another health insurer, with no structural advantages over any other insurer, in fact it might have disadvantages since the other insurers would be more inclined to play dirty (finding loopholes and whatnot) to keep its profit margins up, whereas the public option would (presumably) not do that, and thus would have to charge higher premiums to compensate, leading to risk selection pushing the sick to the public plan and the healthy to private plans.

If everything went well, it might lower prices slightly, but it would still be a small segment of a small segment of the health insurance industry. The only difference between the public option and the other insurance companies would be that it would be led by government appointees. It would, of course, bring competition into an industry which is severely lacking in that, but it is merely one way to do that, and "one more" is a fairly limited kind of competition. The health insurance exchanges themselves do quite a lot, by making it easier for people to select between insurers.

Most people (by which I mean the average voter, not people here) do not actually understand what the public option is. But in so far as people do, it's more about the symbolism than anything else. They like the idea of being able to choose "something" other than the current health insurers, and those more to the left really like the idea of the government getting some sort of symbolic foothold into the industry. But does it actually mean anything?

---

by: UserGoogol @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 22:13:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The insurance industry certainly seem to thing it means a lot (6.00 / 2)

That why they hates it, precioussss, hates it.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 23:13:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Big business is perfectly capable of being irrational. (0.00 / 0)

I think there are various explanations for that without it being all that important. First, there's a difference between helping people and hurting insurance companies. For instance, if the public option transfers patients away from the for-profits while providing basically the same level of quality, "the people" don't benefit all that much, but the insurance companies lose revenue. Secondly, even though the public option is broadly popular, it's really easy to demagogue with the conservative base, since it's much easier to attack as being "socialist" than other aspects of the health insurance exchange. So it's easier to kill than trying to keep recissions and being able to reject people for pre-existing conditions, or whatever, which are technical issues which are hard for even the stauchest conservatives to get behind. Third, the industry hates the public option for the opposite reason that progressives love it: they're afraid that it would lead to single-payer, which would be basically game over for the health insurance industry. But that doesn't mean they're right; big business is perfectly capable of doing very stupid things.

I mean, I really am willing to be convinced that the public option really is the best thing ever, and I do think that it is ultimately on balance something that would be nice to pass if we can, but the argument that we should support something just because industry opposes it seems way too simplistic. Especially since it would be so easy for industry to game that sentiment by purposefully using the public option as a diversion: get everyone debating over the public option, while you get your lobbyists to work at the gritty level trying to work on weakening the bill in other areas.

---

by: UserGoogol @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 04:27:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Circles inside circles (0.00 / 0)

"the argument that we should support something just because industry opposes it seems way too simplistic."

I completely agree. My only point was that opposition by the industry is an indicator that it might be detrimental to their interests.

In general, the most obvious interpretation is probably the right one. One can go on forever spinning double-cross theories.

"they're afraid that it would lead to single-payer, which would be basically game over for the health insurance industry."

Personally, I think this interpretation is more right than wrong, and is one reason among many why a public option can, in fact, be considered quite important.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 10:50:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The Public Option is Good Politics (0.00 / 0)

It is a foot in the door, for a public plan.  Even if it only applies to a few people at first, it can be expanded.

People are being gouged right and left by insurance companies.  You make everyone in America buy insurance and the people who are already under stress will feel even more stress, and blame it on Democrats.

We need some good politics in this bill.

---

by: joeltpatterson @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 05:47:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

thank you for that Charlie (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Judy Meredith @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 10:58:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

He wants to hold on to power, and is thinking 2012? (0.00 / 0)

If he gets some bill, any bill, he can claim victory as a political matter. If the current bill is passed he also in all likelihood will be able to collect big checks from the Powers that Be in the health care industry. Win-win.

I think he is miscalculating. Forcing millions of Americans to buy insurance plays right into Republican assertions about his ambitions and will hugely energize them -- the Great Republican Line of No is an indicator. "I can't buy milk for my children because of those bill bills Aetna keeps sending me that the President says I have to pay."

Stripping the progressive heart out of the health care reform project (as I suspect even my esteemed co-editor Charley would agree is the sorry present state of things) will further dismay a good chunk of his base.

But Obama is a political genius and I am not. No doubt he knows exactly what he is doing. There are some good things in the bill. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and vote Jedi.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 21:21:42 PM CST

Hardly (5.33 / 3)

But Obama is a political genius....   No doubt he knows exactly what he is doing.

Uh, no.  A genius would not have allowed this effort to become an obscene parody of what he claimed he was going to secure for the people.  The problems are  he doesn't know what he is doing, he listens to people steeped in the bullshit days of the Bush administration,  he is cowed by Republican discipline and "vision," and he is too cowardly to stand up and lead.

I said it before the presidential primary season was over and I'll say it again now:  Barack Obama is too conciliatory.  And that will be his Achilles heel.  

---

by: lightiris @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 05:41:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

And the opposite (5.50 / 2)

I'd say that if this bill goes down in flames, rather from the right or the left, Obama's main legacy in 2010 will be the continuation of George W Bush's policies on Iraq and Afghanistan...not the "change" people voted for.  Without a health care bill, people will wonder what he has accomplished since his inauguration.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 06:25:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

the 3 overarching issues of our time (5.50 / 2)

for Obama are: the ECONOMY - which has "stabilized" with Wall Street feeling better but you, me and Main Street still reeling; the WARS, with full occupation and more still going on in Iraq and Afghanistan (for all the talk of success in Iraq, let's see what happens if we dare leave); and HEALTH CARE REFORM. Show me how he has carried the progressive flag into battle on any of the above. Lots of talk but disappointing results on all three.

---

by: hubspoke @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 08:39:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

easy answer (0.00 / 0)

this is the bill obama wanted all along.

http://www.salon.com/news/opin...

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 21:23:20 PM CST

Is it a doublecross or not? (0.00 / 0)

Ryan, I've posted this Glenn Greenwald column and you've posted it but I haven't seen anyone wanting to comment on it. How about it, Charley? It's quite inflammatory. If Obama & Braintrust have been toying with us, never wanting serious reform, it's awful. Or do people believe Greenwald is wrong?

---

by: hubspoke @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 22:04:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think ... (6.00 / 1)

... it proves nothing other than that they want something that will pass, and that means co-opting the insurance and PhRMA industries. To say this is secret is mystifying. That's been the obvious model, even from the MA plan. When the WH and PhRMA came out to announce $80 bill in savings, of course that was the result of negotiation. Where else would it come from?

It's realpolitik, it's sausagemaking, it's unsavory, and it may not even be good politics -- QED. I'm hoping that it's policy that will be an improvement in a lot of ways, and I have good reasons to think so.

---

Blue Mass. Group
So what politics do you deserve?

---

by: Charley on the MTA @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 22:17:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm concerned about who is co-opting whom. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: hubspoke @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 22:19:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"they want something that will pass" (5.67 / 3)

Well, yeah.  That's kind of the point of my post: that Obama's principal goal here is starting to look more and more like being able to say he was the first president since FDR who was able to sign something plausibly styled "health care reform," and less and less like signing a good bill.

In other words, it's starting to look like a PR stunt, and a plank for his 2012 campaign.  Rather than good health care policy.

---

by: David @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 08:39:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Except... (0.00 / 0)

...FDR gave us the famous 100 days.  He had huge majorities too, I believe, and said we have to get a bunch of things done NOW.  He wouldn't put up with a lot of this nonsense.  FDR said he welcomed the hatred of the naysayers whereas Obama doesn't want to upset anybody.  Bringing people together is a nice idea, but clearly some people want no part of it.

---

by: Christopher @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 10:21:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Bingo (0.00 / 0)

And thus, I think, some very justified criticism of the president here and elsewhere and a health reform bill that, as David writes, looks increasingly shallow.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 10:53:53 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Also... (0.00 / 0)

...Democrats gained seats in FDR's midterm, rare for the incumbent party AND he won by one of the most lopsided margins of either the electoral or popular vote in history.  This should calm any fears about pushing too hard.

---

by: Christopher @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:57:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It should be noted... (0.00 / 0)

.. that all the 'good' healthcare policies didn't start out all that 'good'.  They got modified once they were in place over time.

I'm in Charley's camp.  I agree a lot with Greenwald on a lot of stuff (especially when he's in is area of expertise - the law), but I disagree with him about Obama's intent here.  I wouldn't purport to 'know' if this is the bill he wants, but this is the bill he thinks he can pass (and if the left lets him - he'd be correct).  If he telegraphed what the bill would look like early, I take that as an indication of early recognition of what would pass, not necessarily what he 'wants'.  This shouldn't be surprising... he knew before his oath that the challenge would be congress and the senate.  You can see it in his staff picks.  The whole WH team seems engineered to help them maneuver through the body to passage.  The staff picks were and are an acknowledgment that to get legislation done, all the major plays are in the other court.  If this armed him with pretty good strategic knowledge of 'what will pass', then that's a feature, not a bug.

Sure I think he just want's to get it passed,... but I don't think that's a bad thing.  The problems with the particulars can and no doubt would be handled in future fights.  We're in a much better position going forward with the ground that is gained here than without it.  

I think my strongest misgiving was echoed by Stomv in that this would mandate a legal contract with a private entity.  I can see the practical and structural reasons why a mandate is a 'feature not a bug', but the private nature of the mandate is very regrettable.  That being said,... I don't see the order of operations in what we can accomplish on this front as - public option then mandate.  If that won't pass then it wont.  I do see, however, that from a no-public -option with a mandate we could 'get to' a public option more easily.  Once the cost and competition controls happen through the exchange along with the information and transparency features are implemented, it will be much much harder for anyone to make the case that a public option wouldn't help control costs.

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

---

by: Mr Lynne @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 13:11:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Seven tried and seven failed: what's really driving Obama? (6.00 / 2)

History.

He and Rahm are so comfortable ramping up privatized forms of government, such as military contractors in Afghanistan, it never occurred to them the American people might have a problem turning over 20% of their income to private corporations for crappy poorly-regulated insurance products, by law.    

Requiring insurance, by law, is a big step.  You'd think they do more to make sure what they're making people buy, by law, is something they want to buy.  

www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option"
www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb
www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty!
www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights  

---

by: NeilSagan @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 23:49:31 PM CST

What do the things the Dem Leadership in the WH and Senate didn't do tell you about what's driving Obama? (6.00 / 1)

   Since you asked, "What exactly should they be doing?" here is the list of what it would have looked like if Obama was willing to exert leverage and actually fight.

       - Threaten to veto any bill without public option.

       - Barnstorm Connecticut before Lieberman dug in his heels (Connecticut, where Obama campaigned for Lieberman in 2006, and where voters want the public option by 3 to 1).

       - Barnstorm across Maine (where voters want the public option 2 to 1, Independents 3 to 1, and where only 24% of voters like Snowe's trigger). Instead, Emanuel met behind-closed-doors with a senator out of touch with her own constituents and tried to cut a deal for a trigger nobody wants.

       - Publicly leak that Obama is furious that he went to bat for Lieberman's chairmanship, and Lieberman is threatening to filibuster reform.

       - Publicly leaking that reconciliation is on the table - and will be used to push an even stronger public option if Senate Dems don't get in line.

   Bonus:

       - For Reid...threating Lieberman's committee chairmanship, and reconciliation with stronger public option.

       - For Pelosi...drawing a line in the sand now. Saying a bad reform bill simply won't be brought up for a vote...forcing 30 million people to give money to insurance companies is not reform.

       - For progressives in the senate like Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Roland Burris, and Sherrod Brown...saying publicly that this bill is unacceptable and they will not support cloture.

   That's what leverage looks like. Supposedly pro-reform Democrats have failed to exert any real leverage in this fight. You can't not fight and then expect the public to compromise...doesn't work like that.

MORE

www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option"
www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb
www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty!
www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights  

---

by: NeilSagan @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 00:22:04 AM CST

takeaway (6.00 / 1)

You can't not fight and then expect the public to compromise...doesn't work like that.

www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option"
www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb
www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty!
www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights  

---

by: NeilSagan @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 00:24:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

the bill the WH wanted all along (0.00 / 0)

The evidence was overwhelming from the start that the White House was not only indifferent, but opposed, to the provisions most important to progressives.  The administration is getting the bill which they, more or less, wanted from the start -- the one that is a huge boon to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry.   And kudos to Russ Feingold for saying so:

   Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), among the most vocal supporters of the public option, said it would be unfair to blame Lieberman for its apparent demise. Feingold said that responsibility ultimately rests with President Barack Obama and he could have insisted on a higher standard for the legislation.

   "This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place, so I don't think focusing it on Lieberman really hits the truth," said Feingold. "I think they could have been higher. I certainly think a stronger bill would have been better in every respect."

read the whole post

www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option"
www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb
www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty!
www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights  

---

by: NeilSagan @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 00:36:04 AM CST

Wait?! (0.00 / 0)

This is the bill President Obama "wants?

So, as with Afghanistan, people are angry because he's doing what he said he'd do, rather than what they WISH he'd do?

---

by: Argyle @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 07:47:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

yes - it's what he wants but not what he campaigned on (0.00 / 0)

he campaigned on the public option and no mandate.  

www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option"
www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb
www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty!
www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights  

---

by: NeilSagan @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 07:56:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

the reason this is important (0.00 / 0)

is because ire should be placed at Obama if we want this thing to be fixed soon. If he exerted any of the pressure Neil quoted above, a public option could still likely be had.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 08:01:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

newsflash: it won't stop at the womb (6.00 / 1)

given that Obama and Reid aren't willing to fight for what's right with even one iota, this bill won't even stop at Stupitts... now there will even be a state opt-out for the small increase in medicaid. http://www.americablog.com/200...

Given that no one will say no to LieberCare and NelsonCare, when will this all stop? I'll tell you when: when we stop compromising with these devils, tell them to all stfu and take it to them hard if they keep trying to torpedo this.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 08:14:40 AM CST

Special to Charley (0.00 / 0)

We both worked for John Edwards in NH. I think we were both moved by Edwards' condemning the destructive influence of corporations and lobbyists on democratic government and believed his stated commitment to fighting it if elected. So I copy two passages from Glenn Greenwald's latest post - The underlying divisions in the health care debate - for your reaction. Thanks.

As I've written for quite some time, I've honestly never understood how anyone could think that Obama was going to bring about some sort of "new" political approach or governing method when, as Kilgore notes, what he practices -- politically and substantively -- is the Third Way, DLC, triangulating corporatism of the Clinton era, just re-packaged with some sleeker and more updated marketing.  At its core, it seeks to use government power not to regulate, but to benefit and even merge with, large corporate interests, both for political power (those corporate interests, in return, then fund the Party and its campaigns) and for policy ends.  It's devoted to empowering large corporations, letting them always get what they want from government, and extracting, at best, some very modest concessions in return.  This is the same point Taibbi made about the Democratic Party in the context of economic policy:

"The significance of all of these appointments isn't that the Wall Street types are now in a position to provide direct favors to their former employers. It's that, with one or two exceptions, they collectively offer a microcosm of what the Democratic Party has come to stand for in the 21st century. Virtually all of the Rubinites brought in to manage the economy under Obama share the same fundamental political philosophy carefully articulated for years by the Hamilton Project: Expand the safety net to protect the poor, but let Wall Street do whatever it wants."

Even if one grants the arguments made by proponents of the health care bill about increased coverage, what the bill does is reinforces and bolsters a radically corrupt and flawed insurance model and and an even more corrupt and destructive model of "governing."  It is a major step forward for the corporatist model, even a new innovation in propping it up.  How one weighs those benefits and costs -- both in the health care debate and with regard to many of Obama's other policies -- depends largely upon how devoted one is to undermining and weakening this corporatist framework (as opposed to exploiting it for political gain and some policy aims).  That's one of the primary underlying divisions Kilgore identifies, and he's right to call for greater examination and debate over the role it is playing.

---

by: hubspoke @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 10:02:33 AM CST