Jane Hamsher: Obama’s Speech: Trapped In the Gap Between Action and Rhetoric

[seafan]

Obama’s Speech: Trapped In the Gap Between Action and Rhetoric


By: Jane Hamsher Thursday September 10, 2009 7:30 am

The President did a great job last night on selling the country on the need for health care reform. He made the moral case, and every metric indicates that people were overwhelmingly moved to support his plan. That's the good news for the White House.

The not so good news: the White House has been trying to get out from under the burden of supporting the public option for weeks. The trouble is, every time they try to do it, the President's numbers take a huge hit. And so last night he came out and indicated that a public plan would be a part of his reform package. Today on the White House website, under "The Obama Plan," it says:

If You Don't Have Insurance

Offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can’t find affordable coverage with a real choice.

The website is not so quick to commemorate the qualifiers regarding this public plan from last night's speech:

* "The public option is only a means to that end – and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal."
* "For example, some have suggested that that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies." (triggers)
* "Others propose a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring." (co-ops)

The administration's inability to close the gap between expectations and reality is a boon for progressives members of Congress. Earlier this week, the co-chairs of the Progressive Caucus -- Raul Grijalva and Lynn Woolsey -- wrote a letter urging the President to mention it in his speech. I spoke with Rep. Grijalva yesterday, and he reiterated the need for the President to mention it in his speech. As long as the President keeps expressing his support for a public option, they -- and we -- can quite rightly say that we're only insisting on something Obama himself endorses, something he campaigned on.

Of course, the actions of the White House betray quite a different intent. The deals they have negotiated with health care industry stakeholders do not include a public plan, they don't believe they can back out of them without triggering a rush of lobbyist money to GOP coffers. At some point there will be a day of reckoning when the public understands that the public option is gone. The White House wants to stop their opponents -- and let's face it, progressives who are insisting on the inclusion of a public plan are at this point their opponents -- from being able to exploit that gap. Because every day that goes by the base gets more and more wedded to the promise of a public plan, encouraged by the positive rhetoric of the President himself. And it becomes that much harder for the White House to extract itself from the double bind they have created without paying a huge political price.

One day the 11 dimensional chess set is going to have to come to terms with the fact that Rahm Emanuel worked with Max Baucus to cut deals that they force into the House through the Blue Dogs, and that the goals of the White House are not at odds with those of the Blue Dogs. Which is why Rahm protects them. And why we keep hearing things like this:

Remember back on Friday, President Obama discussed the public option on a conference call with House liberals?... Well that meeting never happened. (I)t doesn't seem to suggest that House liberals are being roped in to the health care negotiations between the House and the Senate.

Meanwhile, the President meets with the Blue Dogs this morning.

And the football keeps inching down the field.

Added to all of this are the turncoats in our own party:

Senator Claire McCaskill: I'm Happy We're 'Handcuffing The Public Option', September 10, 2009




And among those from the other party:



Rep. Joe Wilson, (R-SC), September 9, 2009





And the circling vultures of Big Health Insurance and Big Pharma:

A Speech Even Insurance Companies Could Love, September 10, 2009






So much time wasted. So many people losing hope.


Who are the remaining few left in our government who truly care about the good of the people? And will they gather their forces and make a lasting stand?



Thank you, Jane Hamsher, for your courageous and tireless work.

[mike_c]

1. kicking and recommending-- Hansher is spot on, as usual...!

The political calculus being played here is labyrinthine and designed like a shell game to hide the machinations behind the curtains, where insurance industry lobbyists with deep pockets are busy buying politicians whose only hesitation to sell out the people lies in waiting to learn who will bid the most for their betrayal.

[katandmoon]

2. BINGO. K&R

[ProSense]

3. It's a good thing Jane mentioned the letter Woolsey wrote, and not her response to the speech

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), the co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said that her caucus would work to define the public option in debates over healthcare reform as Congress and Obama press forward with their top legislative priority.

"Last night, we got our marching orders," she said in an interview on MSNBC. "The progressives in the House, we're ready, we're going to help define the public option so it's actually what the president want."

But she said that the caucus, comprised of the most self-identified liberals in Congress, wouldn't settle for a compromise on the public (or "government-run") option.

"The public option is the best idea, so I won't be open to any options that would weaken what the public option would bring," she said.

link

[Tansy_Gold]

4. K&R. I've been saying this all morning on DU and getting

flamed for it. But I haven't shut up yet!

[blueworld]

5. Thanks for the facts & this post, sincerely n/t