Leaderless: Senate Pushes For Public Option Without Obama's Support

[kpete]

Source: Huffington Post

Leaderless: Senate Pushes For Public Option Without Obama's Support
First Posted: 10-24-09 10:00 PM | Updated: 10-25-09 10:55 AM

Strategist: Who Knew That Harry Reid Would Be The One Who Stepped Up?

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/24/leaderless-senate-pushes_n_332844.html

President Barack Obama is actively discouraging Senate Democrats in their effort to include a public insurance option with a state opt-out clause as part of health care reform. In its place, say multiple Democratic sources, Obama has indicated a preference for an alternative policy, favored by the insurance industry, which would see a public plan "triggered" into effect in the future by a failure of the industry to meet certain benchmarks.

The administration retreat runs counter to the letter and the spirit of Obama's presidential campaign. The man who ran on the "Audacity of Hope" has now taken a more conservative stand than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), leaving progressives with a mix of confusion and outrage. Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill have battled conservatives in their own party in an effort to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Now tantalizingly close, they are calling for Obama to step up.

"The leadership understands that pushing for a public option is a somewhat risky strategy, but we may be within striking distance. A signal from the president could be enough to put us over the top," said one Senate Democratic leadership aide. Such pleading is exceedingly rare on Capitol Hill and comes only after Senate leaders exhausted every effort to encourage Obama to engage.

................

"Who knew that when it came down to crunch time, Harry Reid would be the one who stepped up to the plate and Barack Obama would shy away from the fight," emailed one progressive strategist.





Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/24/leaderless-senate-pushes_n_332844.html

[mvd]

1. IF true, it's disgraceful.

But instead of "multiple sources," I'd like to see names. Everything coming from the President's team seems to deny the story. I'd like to think Obama is not shying away right at crunch time.

[No Elephants]

16. If you insist on names in news stories, you will get a lot less news. People who asked to

be "off the record" or to speak without attribution often would not speak at all if they could not count on remaining anonymous.

And sometimes, the request to be kept off the record is simply so that the public does not know that the administration itself is leaking the info, for one reason or another.

[mvd]

22. Yes but it still makes the story a little suspect..

until there is real confirmation from actual names.

[tinrobot]

2. Huffington Post is starting to bother me...

First it was Arianna Huffington calling for Joe Biden to resign, now this.

Sadly, I am seriously starting to dislike this rag.

[ooglymoogly]

3. Truth is hard to handle for a lot of folks. nt

[tinrobot]

13. The truth that they're more about ratings than journalism?

They're pretty good at whipping up the outrage, though...

[ooglymoogly]

14. Outrage and action is exactly what is called for at this dangerous moment

in our history.

[No Elephants]

17. An online newspaper has ratings?

[tinrobot]

24. All websites have rankings

Right now, Huffington Post is ranked in the top 50 sites in the US. That amount of traffic generates a lot of advertising dollars.

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/huffingtonpost.com

[LWolf]

8. Because they don't automatically

support everything a Democratic administration does, that makes them a "rag?"

How is any media source that only spins one way any different from Rush/Beck, even if they are spinning "our" way?

[freddie mertz]

4. This would surprise me not a whit.

And if it is true, we have a lot of soul-searching to do.

[lonestarnot]

5. Nope, not falling for this bullshit.

[kpete]

6. i do not see it as "pure" bullshit

i see it as "reading between the lines"

peace, kp

[lonestarnot]

7. Harry Ried is full of bullshit. How has that changed? Someone w/o a spine cannot suddenly develop

one.

[ooglymoogly]

9. They can if their seat in the senate is at stake as is

Ried's; Particularly when it is being bombarded with adds in his home state decrying his weakness on this matter. He has to act fast if he has a chance of saving his seat. It is O's duplicity in this matter that is astonishing and incidentally, for many of us who knew this all along, his cover has now been blown to everyone. Come Monday he will, of course, deny all this, to calm his base, while continuing in the back rooms to affect a policy decided long ago with the wolves of the insurance gangsters that is not in the interests of the people of this county.

[lonestarnot]

12. You may be right, you may be wrong. Waiting and watching.

[No Elephants]

18. Why is it bullshit? Because it says something about Obama that you hope is not true?

[Spazito]

10. Well, the article also has this...

"The report is false," Dan Pfeiffer, a top White House aide whose portfolio includes health care, said of a story in Talking Points Memo. "The White House continues to work with the Senate on the merging of the two bills. We are making good progress toward enacting comprehensive health reform.""

This HP piece is full of anonymous sources, not much different, imo, than something Politico puts out and equally speculative as opposed to factual.

[Better Today]

11. I've never like Arianna's persona (since I can't claim to actually know her), but HP used

to seem to me to be fairly reliable. It seems as late, something has gone terribly wrong and their credibility is just not there anymore. HP seems to me to be just one half a step more reliable in its facts than Politico, which I find entirely un-credible.

Edited to add: HP may be right on this, but until it is confirmed by a reliably sourced article at a reliable news site, it's BS in my mind.

[ThomWV]

15. If the Nation's current situation isn't "Trigger" enough just how bad will it have to get?

What the fuck do they want?

[No Elephants]

20. In theory, the presence of a threat of a trigger will cause the insurers to clean up their acts. In

reality, triggers are often ignored, once the legislation passes. Besides, there's probably 100 ways to get around the trigger or fudge the situation so that the insurers never APPEAR to run afoul of the trigger technically.

[madokie]

19. I'm not sure I believe anything coming out of huffingtonpost anymore

Me thinks maybe someone has gone over the edge

[No Elephants]

21. We don't know for certain what Obama said. However, if he is for the trigger, the article is being

too generous to him. If he is for the trigger, he is not shying away from a fight. He is fighting for the wrong side.

[Hubert Flottz]

23. "Audacity of Nope"

No they can't?

"Don't look back"...to the campaign either.