Skin In The Game: Progressive Groups Demand More From Obama On the Public Option

The Bystander President method can only work for so long. Greg Sargent reports on a letter from progressive groups to the White House Chief of Staff:

Dear Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel:

We, the undersigned alliance for a robust public option, write to request that President Obama heed the will of the people and the organized progressive grassroots and take a strong leadership position in support of a robust public option. The public has spoken and the majority of members of Congress have spoken: Health care reform must include a robust public option…

The House has shown leadership by moving forward health care reform that includes a robust public option. We respectfully ask that the Office of the President take a stronger stand on a robust public option in order to enact true health care reform this year. We request a meeting with you at your earliest opportunity to further discuss this matter.

That's a call out.

Speaking for me only

< Jarrett: "President Committed To The Public Option" | White House Again Supportive Of Public Option >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    If Obama was waiting for people to (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 12:15:39 PM EST
    "make him do it," people who support a public option have done their part.

    Seems like the ball is in your court, President Obama.

    The question remains, what will you do and when?

    True dat (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 12:17:00 PM EST
    Time for the unions to send the (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 12:28:42 PM EST
    same type of letter.

    Trumka, McEntee good time for you to jump in with a letter supporting the other organizations request for strong presidential support.  

    Why is the letter in this post addressed (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 12:30:16 PM EST
    to chief of staff.  Why not to the President?  

    Sargent's take (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 12:34:12 PM EST
    That's pretty confrontational; it's questioning Obama's commitment to the public option and demanding that he show stronger leadership. The decision to call out Rahm is also suggestive, since he is widely seen on the left as the main voice within the White House pushing to trade away core liberal principles for moderate support and calling on liberal groups to refrain from training fire on their own.

    Rahmbo has his own agenda (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 12:35:55 PM EST
    which is to be Speaker of the House.

    It is precisely why he should not be Chief of Staff. His own agenda is always in the way.


    Jarrett seems to be ascending whilst (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 12:40:32 PM EST
    Axelrod and Rahm are descending.  

    Axelrod is with Jarret (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 12:47:44 PM EST
    from what I understand.

    IMO Obama could reign him in (none / 0) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 12:45:32 PM EST
    if he chose to do so.

    For gawd's sake. (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 12:35:34 PM EST
    Well, at least they sent it (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by mentaldebris on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 02:39:14 PM EST
    to the right person...Co-President Rahm.  I wonder if they cc'd President Snowe.

    "True" reform my sweet Aunt Fanny (none / 0) (#1)
    by lambert on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 12:11:11 PM EST
    Start with none of the proposals on offer actually saving any money*, and go from there.

    So, sure, it's a "callout." On the kabuki stage!

    NOTE * Except single payer, of course, which, being off the table, wasn't evaluated.

    Have you seen this? (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 12:17:54 PM EST
    It's nice picador work (none / 0) (#18)
    by lambert on Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 12:05:13 PM EST
    Though I note it's reproducing the dishonest "progressive" meme that Medicare and [a|the] [Federalist]? [strong|robust]? public [health insurance]? [option|plan] are equivalent.

    My understanding is that single payer (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 12:16:40 PM EST
    will be scored and offered as an amendment.

    It will fail by more than 100 votes. Then what Lambert?

    Do we just stop there?


    Why would we stop there? (none / 0) (#17)
    by lambert on Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 12:03:10 PM EST
    Why are you even asking that question?

    For those who were concerned about Congress's (none / 0) (#15)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 03:32:33 PM EST
    increasing irrelevance during the dark days of Bush.  

    This HCR legislaiton development process must be some change you can believe in.

    Do we just stop there? (none / 0) (#16)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 04:57:41 PM EST
    Well, maybe. It depends on just how crappy the alternatives are.