If Sebelius Misspoke, So Did Obama
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Barack, Democrats, Health Care, Obama
Looks like the left is realizing that the bait and switch was in from the start and now the White House is trying to do a little damage control. But let’s not kid ourselves…it wasn’t just Sebelius who said it. Obama said it too. In fact, her response was after she was asked a question about Obama’s recent comments.
Still, the White House is maintaining that a public option is still viable.
The official said that the White House did not intend to change its messaging and that Sebelius simply meant to echo the president, who has acknowledged that the public option is a tough sell in the Senate and is, at the same time, a must-pass for House Democrats, and is not, in the president’s view, the most important element of the reform package.A second official, Linda Douglass, director of health reform communications for the administration, said that President Obama believed that a public option was the best way to reduce costs and promote competition among insurance companies, that he had not backed away from that belief, and that he still wanted to see a public option in the final bill.
“Nothing has changed,” she said. “The President has always said that what is essential that health insurance reform lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes that the public option is the best way to achieve these goals.”
Let’s go back to Obama and parse what he said…
The public option, whether we have it or we don’t have it, is not the entirety of health care reform. This is just one sliver of it. One aspect of it.
Yes, it’s not him saying explicitly, “The public option is dead,” but you don’t go out there on the road and play it so “maybe, maybe not” if you’re not willing to throw it under the bus.
Again, why do you think the White House asked the Blue Dogs to come up with alternatives to the public option? Because they realize that they didn’t have enough votes and needed a fallback.
But hey, convince me that I’m wrong.
This entry was posted on Monday, August 17th, 2009 and is filed under Barack, Democrats, Health Care, Obama. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Obama has always said “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” So when Blue Dogs were uncomfortable with the public option he responded “What else you got?”
He’s not too enamored with the co-ops, but he’s never said that without a Public Option he’d veto the bill, or publicly chastised anyone for opposing it. He lets guys like me do that.
I’ll admit that it doesn’t look like the public option will survive the Senate. Conrad’s against it, and that’s enough. But the Public Option is only a small part of the bill. It’s orange in this graphic:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/assets_c/2009/08/hayes_flowchart.html
But it could still come out of the House. There’re 60-odd House Dems who have said they’ll vote no on a bill without a public option. Which means there’s gonna be a dick-measuring contest of Progressives vs. Blue Dogs.
If the Progressives win (and I think they will) it goes to conference committee. And a new dick-measuring contest that pits Pelosi vs. the Senate Blue Dogs…
August 17th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
I have zero problem whatsoever taking this at face value. If Obama doesn’t want reform to sink or swim on the public option, that’s his prerogative.
It’s not at all clear to me why some folks think Obama is somehow required to cheerlead for this aspect of reform even if its not, in his view, the biggest or most important part of it.
The more liberal part of the democratic party wants it really bad. Well, they’re stuck doing the math. They either find a way to 51, find an alternative HC reform they can stomach, or scuttle it.
It’s the progressive wing that has insisted that the public option must be part of reform. Meanwhile, a substantial portion of folks across the country are wondering “must it?”
Now’s the time to make the case. Parsing and whining about retreat and presidential position shifts is loser-craft, plain and simple.Make the case, go to the people, find the support. THAT is democracy,,,finding out what the people want, not telling them what they need.
August 17th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
@Nick –
Nancy Pelsoi (my representative btw) wins that particular contest hands down.
This is one of the few days I can actually tolerate watching the full MSNBC afternoon liberal lineup end to end. Pretty interesting. Of course they keep taking shots at Republicans, exactly as if the GOP has the slightest bit of relevance in what health care bill will pass. That part is just weird. Just a reflexive knee jerk habit I guess. They can’t help themselves.
But there is sure a lot of sanctimonious self-righteous chest beating about the public option and blue dogs. To Justin’s point in this post – Ed Schultz is now wondering whether Obama is “backing off on backing off of the public option.”
Of course he is Ed.
The real question – When will he back off on backing off on backing off of the public option?
August 17th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
More Monday MSNBC Miscellany:
Keith and Ariana are having their usual mutual deep journalistic probe-fest. Their hard-hitting conclusion? President Obama needs to stop appeasing Republicans. Really.
Keith, Ariana -News flash: The GOP has nothing to do with this. There is a Democratic President. An 80 vote Democratic plurality in the House and a speaker with the biggest swinging gavel in Washington. A 60-40 filibuster proof Democratic Senate. Whatever comes out of this process is a 100% Democratic bill. The Democrats will get all the credit if it succeeds. The Democrats will get all the blame if it fails.
August 17th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Monday MSNBC Miscellany – Maddow wrap-up:
My take is that Maddow is the most intellectually honest of the leftist line-up. She led right off with a “no-holds barred” piece that lays responsibility for the shape of this health care bill squarely on Obama and the Democrats. No GOP bogeymen to blame here. Sure, there were a few gratuitous shots at Republicans, it is Rachel after all. She nets it out by calling this clusterfork a “failure of political ambition” on the part of the president and Democratic leadership. Interesting phrase, I’ve not heard it before. The more common phrase is a “failure of political will.” What’s the distinction? Why that choice?
August 18th, 2009 at 2:16 am
She nets it out by calling this clusterfork a “failure of political ambition” on the part of the president and Democratic leadership. Interesting phrase, I’ve not heard it before. The more common phrase is a “failure of political will.” What’s the distinction? Why that choice?
The whole point of this plan was that it would be easy politically. That’s why he made all those deals with various groups. Apparently Maddow’s concluded that anything the President tried would be fought tooth and nail by the GOP, including Grassley, and that moderate Dems would insist on finding some random provision to oppose simply so they could say “we’re opposing this.”
In other words if he proposed universal MediCare with one other thing the moderate Dems would oppose that one other thing, but support universal MediCare.
Given that pretty much all GOP opposition is justified by fantasy, and that the House Blue Dogs are apparently opposing the public option simply so they can show their constituents they didn’t roll over and die, she might have a point. Pelosi can afford to lose 40 Blue Dog votes in the House.
I disagree. Every major interest group has at least one strong supporter in the Senate Democratic Caucus. And if you convince one guy to filibuster the whole plan goes *boom*.
August 20th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
There’s a hypothesis floating that suggesting the public option won’t make it was brilliant political tactics by Obama. I don’t know whether or not that’s true, but one cannot help but notice the rather abrupt rally from the left.