Obama Still Talking Public Option

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 04:31:41 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

While many, including many in the "progressive" blogosphere and in the Progressive Caucus (look at the Progressive Caucus members who did not pledge to vote for a robust public option), are throwing in the towel on the public option, via Crooks and Liars, the President is still talking public option:

President Obama: I think one of the options should be a public insurance option. (Loud cheers) [. . .] I have said I'm open to different ideas on how to set this up we're going to set this up but I'm not going to back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage we're going to provide you a choice.

It is clear that those giving up on the public option are giving up on President Obama. Or were against the public option the whole time. Those who want to help President Obama on health care reform should do so by standing firm on the public option. Those advocating capitulation on the public option are working against President Obama.

Speaking for me only

< Free Speech for Everyone But Lawyers | Shaheen: GOP In Charge Even When They Aren't >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama Still Talking Public Option | 25 comments (25 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

hehe (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by andgarden on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 04:43:35 PM EST

(Take that Rahm!)

What does Obama want? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 04:50:44 PM EST

No idea. I know what he said.


He seems to want... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by Dadler on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 05:04:43 PM EST

...to avoid having to say what FDR did: "I welcome their hatred." And then to act accordingly. I think he has a terrible personality flaw for a president -- like an athlete or team that cannot summon the "killer" instinct to put your opponent away when you have the chance.


From where I sit, (none / 0) (#8)
by Left of the Left on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 05:13:15 PM EST

It's to be loved by everyone, with just enough involvement to get credit for the good, and avoid blame for the bad.

But pols will be pols.


Sure (5.00 / 4) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 05:15:15 PM EST

but my point is different. If you want a certain result, you USE what the President said to your advantage.


: I understand that, makes perfect sense (none / 0) (#13)
by Dadler on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 05:31:29 PM EST

But a tepid president is a tepid presdident. I can't help but react to it. With all due respect, you can make presidential lemons into lemonade, and you might be able to hear, but you gotta make it rain A LITTLE to bring some water into the pitcher. He's bringing very little when it MATTERS.

Hey, WORM away! (none / 0) (#19)
by andgarden on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 05:58:08 PM EST

It's useful.


I'm on the side... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by lambert on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 04:44:16 PM EST

... that the other two sides are trying to suppress.

676 or bust right? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 04:51:08 PM EST

A respectable position.

Not shared by me.


I don't recall trying to surpress you (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by cawaltz on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 05:41:02 PM EST

As a matter of fact I applaud the single payer group for the effort to pull the debate left.


: No, nothing personal, sorry (none / 0) (#21)
by lambert on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 06:16:51 PM EST

It's just that the D vs. R discourse really reinforces a system that's a terrible and lethal one. (So, BTD, my point is a larger one than 676.)
It's like:
D + R = 1 = Versailles
so,
(D * 80%) + (R * 20%) = 1 = Versailles
(D * 40%) + (R * 60%) = 1 = Versailles
(The math is probably wrong, but you get the idea. It's like a seesaw, with the Dems up, or down. It seems to move, but it's screwed firmly in place.)
and so on. Classic example, the Van Jones thing, where the Rs and the Ds worked seamlessly together to get rid of a guy who'd stepped outside the bounds of official discourse.

The crowd exploded when (5.00 / 4) (#11)
by MO Blue on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 05:22:56 PM EST

Obama said that he thought one of the options should be a public option.

Had he passionately stumped for a full blown public option (not 5%) from the beginning he could have sold it to the American people. The Dem politicians would have fallen in line especially if Obama said he could not reign in the advocacy groups that support real reform.

Corporate guy? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by good grief on Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 12:01:17 AM EST

"I have said I'm open to different ideas on how we're going to set up [a public option] but I'm not going to back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage we're going to provide you a choice." (Obama in Minnesota, 9-10-09)

While sounding tough ("I'm not going to back down"), he positioned the public option within an array of "different ideas" and took no firm stand, instead placing highest value on "basic principle" of "choice" -- an appealing tactic of salesmanship that allows the customer to believe he or she is making the decision. If Americans can't find affordable coverage, that would likely mean there would be no public option or even co-op plan (no evidence if co-ops will work anyway), leaving a choice of what? Medicaid available only to the lowest income levels state by state? That's a choice Americans have already. It's our safety net for the poor. What about the income level between Medicaid and the lower middle class? No comment from the president. And what about government financial resources intended for the public good like education, the environment, energy etc stripped to subsidize private insurance premiums without getting back a share of the mandate windfall to help cover the low income margins. He didn't mention this, either. And what will control insurance premium rate increases without a public option? (Or a co-op). No comment. I can't believe he got through a 60 Minutes interview tonight without being asked this question -- and of course he didn't volunteer an answer.

Thanks a lot, Mr. President.

He has a fabulous smile. He's seems like a nice guy. He's a corporate guy. It's taken me months to figure out his modus operandi. At first, especially because of his calling to end the Iraq war and various things he said during the primaries, I assumed he might be progressive, but when I saw how he folded on FISA, sided with coal companies, and after the mortgage crash appointed the same financial idiots who allowed us to get into serious economic trouble in the first place (Geithner and Summers), I began to wonder what was going on. Now, with this HCR bill set up on a forced-buy system of commercial insurance (with a public option "to keep insurers honest" hanging by its fingernails -- meant to be the compromise for single-payer, ha! some compromise, likely to be lost in the final bill), and watching Obama let himself be sucker-played for a "bipartisan" solution (or doing it on purpose as a way to signal his corporate, non-political intentions), I began to see that he had formulated himself as a broad-based demographic political salesman, not a Democrat or a moderate, not partisan at all or a fighter. Salesmen don't fight They don't go out on limbs. They take few risks. They keep the doors wide open on both sides to let in as many customers as possible. He has been acting as a corporate lobbyist for the insurance companies in a very unusual and skillful way.

To be fair, most of his Dem colleagues (and Republicans) are acting in the same manner, making us less a democracy and more a demography.

Weak, weaselly verbs (4.00 / 3) (#20)
by Cream City on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 06:14:44 PM EST

as in "I think" and what a bill "should" have -- they tell it all, especially from a guy whose teleprompter has had strong action verbs in past . . . in the last campaign, at least when he was talking about primary opponents. Clearly, in his current campaign -- for re-election -- he is going to be a different guy. I'm not sure that it's a winning posture, if such caution fails to encourage all those first-time voters to come back to the polls.

And if he thinks that this will win Repub voters, he's just wrong. They are the reason for the recalcitrance of their Repubs in Congress.

: Yeah, I have a hard time (none / 0) (#25)
by ruffian on Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 09:16:05 AM EST

using the WORM method to act like he strongly supports it when the current dominant options on the table for 'how to set it up' seem to be triggers and co-ops.

Maybe they just don't believe him! (none / 0) (#5)
by mexboy on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 04:55:30 PM EST

It's hard to know what Obama truly believes in, or wants.

Does not matter (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 04:56:31 PM EST

He says what he says.


: But, that's the problem. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by mexboy on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 09:48:38 PM EST

He says what he says, then he changes it, and then changes it again.
It's like living with an alcoholic, you just never know what is real or how to respond.

He wants to be the President of the US!!!!!!!!!! (none / 0) (#10)
by mogal on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 05:16:19 PM EST

I think I understand.. (none / 0) (#12)
by Left of the Left on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 05:24:25 PM EST

Your intention on posting this, but even in that quote he's slipped in his escape hatch.

President Obama: but I'm not going to back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage we're going to provide you a choice.

Using the fancy trick of mentioning things together, but not actually wedding them to one another. He's open to whatever acomplishes his "basic principle".

I think it's clear by now his speech wasnt only to boost his numbers, but to shift the death of the public option over to congress. Give a decent defense of it, stand by it in subsequent speeches saying what supporters want to hear, while signaling to those in DC that you dont care if it dies, just give you some "basic principle" to spin as reform.

He won't be able to shift it (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by cawaltz on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 05:38:04 PM EST

being in charge means taking responsibility for others sometimes. I hope President Obama gets that basic principle. The failure of Congress to provide comprehensive health care reform will be laid at his feet and he will be judged for it in 2012.

It's all the more reason he should be using the bully pulpit at every opportunity to widen majority opinion for a public option.


: Unless I'm wrong (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by Left of the Left on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 05:47:30 PM EST

We already have majority opinion on the public option. Somewhere like 60-70%. The only thing to save it now (imo) will be a reigning in of the bluedogs, which he will not do. How much does it matter ultimately if after every defense of it he points out that it isnt needed?
Of course he gets it, thats why nothing starts until after 2012.

Too little too late. And I doubt he (none / 0) (#14)
by oldpro on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 05:36:08 PM EST

means it as we are interpreting his meaning...his intention. WORM? Who knows? But this way, he has it both ways...loses the public option and blames it on the congress.

Not the change we need.

Hey, I support BTD WORMing this! (none / 0) (#18)
by andgarden on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 05:57:48 PM EST

: Wal, I ain't agin' it.... (none / 0) (#22)
by oldpro on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 06:32:25 PM EST

but it's sorta like a party game we used to play as kidz.