Obama Rejects BaucusCare: Supports Public Option

Via daily kos:

< Tuesday Night Open Thread | Wednesday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    That's today (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 08:29:34 PM EST
    Wait until tomorrow and the story will have changed 3 times by then.

    I'll believe it when it actually passes.

    Sure (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 08:33:06 PM EST
    Tomorrow I'll write the post about his flip flop, IF he flip flops.

    You could (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 08:38:51 PM EST
    Probably write it now and fill in the details tomorrow.

    "IF" he flip flops??  C'mon - you've been paying much closer attention than that.  He WILL flip-flop.  I give it a day or two, depending on the audience he's speaking to.

    Gibbs might even walk this back in time for the morning news.


    In all honesty (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 09:10:55 PM EST
    Obama has never failed to say that he thinks the PO is important and should be in the legislation.  He's also been saying for months that it's not absolutely essential if somebody can come up with a better idea, but he's still saying, in essence, that nobody has come up with that better idea because he keeps pretty relentlessly promoting the PO.

    So I don't know what the "flip-flops" are that you're referring to.  His tightrope-walking on this is making me crazy, but he's been pretty consistent on it.  He's never "drawn a line in the sand" about it, he's always just said he thought it was the best way to go.  And he continues to repeat that he thinks it's the best way to go. (Since he's been president, I mean. I consider what he said during the campaign to be irrelevant. YMMV.)

    I actually think at this point, he's talked about it so much that he's getting very near the place where he really can't climb down from the PO without one whopper of a brilliant alternative nobody's thought of yet being presented by somebody.

    I haven't a clue what the heck kind of strategy he thinks he's pursuing, but he presumably knows that he cannot continue to give these barn-burner, red-meat speeches to labor unions and the like and then end up happily signing some piece of inadequate garbage legislation and claiming it's some kind of victory.

    Obama worshipers might go along with that, but the labor unions are not so dumb.  They clearly think they've been promised some things out of this (and other) legislation, and they're not going to politely accept a shrug and a smile and a lousy bill from Obama and the Democrats.

    IOW, the more he gives this kind of speech, the more he's boxing himself in.  I have to think that's deliberate.


    Well (4.42 / 7) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 09:18:38 PM EST
    he did exactly what you think he cant do when he was in the IL senate. He ended up with a committee when he started out telling voters that he was for single payer.

    He has said numerous things and gone back on his word time and again so why wouldn't people doubt him? This is what happens when your word is no good and have a reputation as a wimp. He can talk it up all he wants but nobody will believe that he means one thing he is saying.


    I'm at a loss to understand (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Spamlet on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 10:18:17 PM EST
    why Ga6thDem's comment deserved a troll rating. Would the rater like to explain that?

    Does anyone care about "troll ratings"? (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 11:35:00 PM EST
    Cowardly idiots put them on.

    Fire away, idjits!


    No one should care (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 07:09:27 AM EST
    But your comment is ridiculous.

    Enougb form all of you on ratings.

    Rate if you like. Ignore if you don't.

    But do not ever discuss them in my threads.

    I'll suspend for it.

    No way am I allowing my threads to devolve into Dkos silliness on ratings.


    The rater likes to do that (4.00 / 4) (#19)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 12:10:49 AM EST
    Almost never actually comments, just gives troll ratings if you say anything critical of The One.  I get troll ratings if I'm critical, 5s if I've defended him a bit, as in this post. <shrug>

    Yes, she is (3.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Cream City on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 08:02:10 AM EST
    so out of the culture here.  But it's allowed for some, if not for others.

    Yes (none / 0) (#28)
    by sher on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 06:37:41 AM EST
    for this portion of his comment,"reputation is no good and...wimp".  For those who care, I also gave "1" ratings to comments that crossed the line on Hillary Clinton but those comments were likely to be removed on this site.  The same commenter, Ga6th, has received "5" ratings from me and there is never a question about those and Gryfalcon, I do not only give "5" ratings for comments that provide approval of "The One".  Anne, MO Blue, among others, frequently receive "5" ratings from me and almost never provide favorable comments regarding "The One" and yet their comments are thoughtful and as important, not disrespectful.

    Thank you for the explanation (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Spamlet on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 11:00:56 AM EST
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 12:22:45 AM EST
    Being a member of the Illinois Senate is a wee bit different than being POTUS.  I would imagine you'd know that.

    The stuff he's actually flip-flopped on has almost entirely been between not being president and being president.  I'm inclined to think that's inevitable, and at least somewhat a result of having more detailed information and very different pressures once you've gotten to that position.

    Let me be clear that I HATE that, but it's hardly unique to Obama.

    But I do doubt him generally, actually, which is why I'm a little surprised and actually a bit puzzled by what he's doing now, which as I say appears to be deliberately boxing himself in on the PO.  If he's as feckless on this stuff as you and others are so certain he is, I can see no reason why he would do it.

    One thing is for sure and certain is that we will really be able, I think, to unravel a good deal of the Obama puzzle by the results of this.  If he does in the end capitulate on the PO, his word is indeed total garbage.


    Obama: man of words, but not a man of his word! (none / 0) (#26)
    by suzieg on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 01:46:19 AM EST
    So who gets to participate? (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 08:31:00 PM EST
    And who does not?

    A vital question. n/t (none / 0) (#5)
    by oldpro on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 08:46:37 PM EST
    Feh (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 09:01:58 PM EST
    Obama tells a different thing to every crowd he's in front of. His actions speak of support for the Baucus plan. His words are all over the place. His word is really no good at this point.

    That's nonsense (none / 0) (#21)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 12:24:10 AM EST
    On this issue, he's been remarkably consistent.

    Consistent? (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by ricosuave on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 12:56:32 AM EST
    If you consider saying that the public option is vital to the healthcare effort consistent with saying that you are willing to pass the bill without the public option, then I guess your Funk and Wagnalls is a different edition than mine.

    If Obama is back to the public option, then good for him.  Let's hope he stays there.  But let's not pretend that there is no discrepancy here.


    Billionaires for Wealthcare (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Peter G on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 09:14:17 PM EST
    Did everyone see my daughter's friends from U.N.C. Chapel Hill doing their satirical counter-protest?  They made a guest appearance at the 9-12 rally in D.C.?  As seen on Rachel Maddow: Let's hear it for some smart, progressive students with a sense a humor.

    Fool me once... (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 09:22:02 PM EST
    Well, you know the rest of that one.

    I simply do not believe anything anyone says - and by anyone, I mean politicians - on this issue.  I don't even believe most of them fully grasp all of the consequences of the things they say, or quite possibly the totality of the issue; it's hard to think when lobbyists are talking over the voices of the little people!

    The heck with all of them and their mighty morphin' messaging.

    Almost none of them (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 12:26:54 AM EST
    have so much as a frickin' clue what it's like to live on the margins financially.  We all had a good laugh when George Bush I didn't appear to know what a supermaket scanner was, but when pundits and Congresscritters talk reassuringly about how nobody should have to pay more than 15 percent of their income for health insurance, it's clear they live on a different planet from the rest of us.

    "richer Medicare Part D" (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by diogenes on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 10:09:05 PM EST
    Time for the pander bear to go after the senior citizens.  So much for not cranking up the deficit.

    Meeting with Senate Staff (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by jsj20002 on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 08:26:40 AM EST
    Two of my colleagues and I met yesterday with the local reps of Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow.  This meeting was to present copies of more than 4,100 signatures on a petition asking our Republican Representative Dave Camp to support a public option.  He likely won't, but Stabenow and Levin certainly will.  We made the point that healthcare reform must cover absolutely every American.  Since at least 30 and perhaps 47 million Americans can't affort health insurance, the U.S. taxpayers will end up paying for it eventually.  Since the Federal government already provides healthcare to the military, military retirees,  military dependents, veterans, the very poor and everyone over age 65, and since each of those programs has far lower administrative costs than private insurers, it makes economic sense to expand one or more of those programs to cover the uninsured than to not have a public option and have to pay the higher costs of private insurance for the uninsured.    

    Thank you! (none / 0) (#33)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 08:43:38 AM EST
    Sounds like you made the right points. Expanding one of those programs really is the best economic sense.

    Your hearing (none / 0) (#6)
    by Spamlet on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 08:54:52 PM EST
    is evidently more acute than mine. All I heard is what the president said last week to Congress. But at least he heard all that cheering from the AFL-CIO. Still don't know what you heard, so I'll switch sensory modalities and say, "We'll see."

    RE the cheering...he didn't smile (none / 0) (#17)
    by oldpro on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 11:35:09 PM EST
    or nod in agreement...just waited for it to die down and it took a long time.  The crowd just erupted when he mentioned public option.

    I noticed that (none / 0) (#18)
    by Spamlet on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 11:46:03 PM EST
    Understandable, I think. Smiling and nodding would not have looked "bipartisan." I took his deadpan reaction as a good sign--an effort not to look as if he'll be gloating at the expense of the Republicans and Blue Dogs he'll disappoint if/when he signs a bill with a public option.

    Supports Public Option, yes ... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Demi Moaned on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 08:58:39 PM EST
    and maybe that's an implicit rejection of BaucusCare, but I haven't heard an explicit one.

    Obama is telling the AFL-CIO (none / 0) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 10:17:01 PM EST
    what it wants to hear.

    "It can't be done without the public option. And that's why we've staked out the ground so clearly," he said.

    Trumka is also threatening to campaign against Democrats who stand opposed to a public option -- notwithstanding hints from the White House that such a provision could be sacrificed in the name of getting a bill through Congress.

    He said Democrats would be making a mistake if they back off of a public option in the name of bipartisanship.

    Wonder if this might be traded for support.

    At the same meeting with reporters, outgoing AFL-CIO President John Sweeney predicted that the controversial labor-backed Employee Free Choice Act will be signed into law "before the end of the year."

    President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have made clear they'll press for the law shortly after health care reform passes, Sweeney said.

    What they want to hear, yes (none / 0) (#23)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 12:28:16 AM EST
    But do you really think Obama thinks he can tell them that and they won't mind at all if he doesn't come through?  I honestly don't think he's that dumb.

    Obama's not dumb at all (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Spamlet on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 12:35:20 AM EST
    And the question is not whether or how much the AFL-CIO will mind if Obama doesn't come through. The question is, What does Obama think he can get away with? And the larger question is, Who has more influence with Obama, the AFL-CIO or the insurance companies and Big Pharma? That's what we'll find out. And I think you basically said as much in an earlier comment.

    Obama (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 04:35:18 AM EST
    isn't dumb but why wouldn't he think that he could get away with it? I mean he's been allowed to not be held accountable his entire political career so why would he think that thsi time would be different? He operates from the school of you have no where else to go.

    Difference between not minding at all (none / 0) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 08:58:03 AM EST
    and being mollified enough not to follow through with their threats.

    IIRC some other large unions are behind any Obama plan. Obama can put a lot of pressure on the AFL - CIO and the Sheet Metal Workers merely by stating that they cannot work on Employee Free Choice Act until health care reform passes (see previous comment) and that failing to pass HCR will make it impossible to get anything done on labor issues.


    Ah, I see (none / 0) (#36)
    by sj on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 01:13:47 PM EST
    I wondered how he was going to keep the unions quiescent.

    BTD, you are a zen master (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 07:54:36 AM EST