The White House Calls Everyone's Bluff

[babylonsister]

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/thump-thump-thump-thump-thump-thump

Thump-Thump ... Thump-Thump
Jonathan Cohn


Friday brought yet more reason to think health care reform has a pulse--still a bit weak, perhaps, but getting stronger.

It came when President Obama issued his formal invitation to the bipartisan meeting on February 25. The invitation sketched out the who (Congressional leaders and ranking committee members from each party, plus a few guests), the where (Blair House), and the what (opening remarks followed by discussion about key policy questions.)

But the letter's most important passage was this one:

Since this meeting will be most productive if information is widely available before the meeting, we will post online the text of a proposed health insurance reform package. This legislation would put a stop to insurance company abuses, extend coverage to millions of Americans, get control of skyrocketing premiums and out-of-pocket costs, and reduce the deficit.

snip//

If the Republicans don’t post a plan, everybody will see that the GOP isn't serious about health care reform. If the Republicans do post a plan, they'll have to defend it. That might look even worse, given how unpromising their ideas are, although I realize that's a matter of opinion.

Here's how one insider analyzed the situation:

I think the White House is calling the bluff of leadership for both parties, in both houses. The Democratic leadership has consistently said they are quite close to finalizing an agreement, at least among themselves, so this forces them to finalize or cede the power to the White House to make final calls. The Republican Leadership constantly suggests they have ideas for thoughtful reforms that would constrain costs and expand coverage, but their policies to date do neither well or at all. In fact, there is an argument that they would make things worse, particularly for those who need the help the most–older, sicker American citizens. Insisting the Republicans lock in a particular vision forces their hand more than they want and makes them show the world they are divided or show that they are the obstructionists or show their unified policy vision doesn’t do much on the key issues.

To be clear, passing reform will still be tough. Among other things, it's one thing to get the Democratic leadership to agree on a proposal, quite another to get the wavering Democratic rank-and-file to go along with it. And the Republicans surely understand the situation as well as the Democrats do. They won't walk into this meeting unprepared.

[lazarus]

1. I sort of disagree with one point

"They won't walk into this meeting unprepared."

I think they either will 1. not walk into the meeting at all, or 2. come into the meeting with the same tired and useless proposals they've been pushing from the beginning (e.g. tort reform will cure every problem!).

At this point, it's even odds which happens. Boehner is putting up a lot of flack about preconditions complaining about how Obama is proceeding with this meeting, so they may well decide not to show and frame it as Obama's fault. That's their optimal approach right now, as actually debating ideas just doesn't work, as was shown a week or so ago when Obama handed them their asses for an hour and a half.

Their whole strategy is to obstruct and make the Dems look bad for not accomplishing anything. Having their ideas shown as seriously lacking doesn't fit that strategy. The more I type, the more I think they're just going to bail on the meeting altogether.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

2. We win either way....

If it's an invitation to a substantive discussion of the issue and they 1) don't show or 2) show up and spout talking points, the Republicans will have given ample proof that they have nothing to offer on the subject.

[lazarus]

4. Just watch, though

The Repubs, with the MSM complicit in the game, will frame it as, "Obama wasn't bargaining in good faith because they already had the bill written." That's the meme that's going to be pushed next week.

[babylonsister]

6. That's already happening...

luckily, boner's whining isn't getting him very far.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=181211

[olegramps]

15. The Democrats plan could be written on one piece of paper:

If Obama wants to deliver on Change You Can Believe In it only requires a one page draft that opens up Medicare for all along with severe restrictions on the Health Care Rip Off Artists and repeal of their anti-trust protection.

[Clio the Leo]

3. sigh.... next week can NOT get here soon enough. NT

[zipplewrath]

5. It's the blue dogs

This whole effort is an attempt by Rahm to avoid exposing the reality that the entire problem has been the Blue Dogs in the senate. They are willing to exploit the GOP opposition to leverage their own desires. The democrats could have passed something last year, and did in the House, where the Blue Dogs don't rule. But in the senate, they can work with the GOP to obstruct legislation, and they are. Even now, the reason they can't force through legislation is because the Blue Dogs won't give them the votes they need to push things through under reconciliation. And Rahm won't expose them.

[harun]

7. Exactamundo.

[vaberella]

9. I wouldn't say it's an effort by Rahm..that's a bit ridiculous.

But it is the Blue Dogs, in the house, and the so-called "Conservadems"of which there are 13 or so in the Senate, who did all of this.

[zipplewrath]

10. Then why don't they?

They are intentionally choosing to avoid exposing the Blue Dogs as the primary source of the problem. This is how it plays out. If Obama can get the GOP to move, even slightly, to the left, the Blue Dogs will have lost their "cover" for what they are doing. Alternately, he could merely expose the Blue Dogs for what they are doing. He has chosen to go after the GOP, not expose the Blue Dogs. I'm not sure why you'd give Rahm a pass for chosing to do this. He'd probably defend it.

[Arkana]

13. Yeah, I'm sure the President would rather antagonize his own party

than the guys who refuse POINT-BLANK to give his initiatives even the courtesy of a vote.

You people and your Rahm obsession are fast becoming sad. The guy is not Emperor Palpatine--he's the White House Chief of Staff and he answers to the President.

[zipplewrath]

16. You're right of course, he has absolutely no influence at all

How could we be so silly as to suggest that the chief of staff would have any influence over the President of the United States at all. Especially over something like political strategy. Guys just a clerk. Paper shuffler. Could replace him with a civil servant and nothing would change. Obama has no respect for his experience at working with congress at all.

[Hippo_Tron]

17. The President takes political advice from a lot of people

You assume Rahm has orchestrated and implemented this strategy because of the unsourced articles you read in papers like Politico. Those of us who don't believe what is printed in those publications generally don't assign blame to individual staffers.

The President is responsible for the strategy his White House implements, not Rahm.

[zipplewrath]

19. My boss is "responsible" for my work too, but trust me, I do it.

I don't read Politico, although I'm sure the same conclusions make their way into larger sources. However, I make this assertion basically because he is Chief of Staff and that is basically his job. The way he is conducting his job is consistent with the way he conducted himself as the head of DCCC. That he may find a favorable audience in Obama doesn't change the fact that he is there and successfully advocating his personal approach. My job is no different. I'm in a prime spot to heavily influence my bosses decisions by the results of the work I do, the way I explain the results to him, and the degree to which I am able to move his interests forward. If you think Rahm is some how LESS able than I to do such things suggests you think very little of Rahm.

Obama has a very small circle of primary advisers, and Rahm is on top of them all. That makes him VERY influential.

[Hippo_Tron]

22. How much influence did Andy Card have over Dubya as his Chief of Staff?

Most books that have been written on the administration say that it was minimal because Rove did the strategy. These people have only been in office for a year and no other accounts have been written other than the gossip articles in the papers. This strategy could be from recommendations by David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, Joe Biden, or any number of other people.

I'm not saying Rahm isn't influential, I'm saying you're assuming Rahm came up with and implemented this specific strategy when you don't really have any sources to prove that.

[zipplewrath]

23. For various values of "came up with"

If your concern is "authorship" have at it. He is executing a strategy that is familar to him and is consistent with his preferences and style. My situation is no different. I'm going to prefer and pursue strategies that are familar to me and address my primary concerns. The specfic details often come from others, especially subordinates, but they are in the plans because of the decisions I make and present to MY bosses. Rahm is no different.

The book on Andy was always that his style was to keep his fingerprints off of decisions. It is probably true which is why he lasted so long. However, there were "power shifts" within that administration, including Rove, and that was consistent with Card's style. You can bet that the people who had influence, had it because Card wanted them to, which is how Libby got thrown under the bus.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

18. But he was the same person who referred to us as "fucking retards."

It is obvious that he won't point the finger at Democratic obstructionists who have been siding with the Repukes for years now.

[zipplewrath]

20. The PRIMARY obstacles.

The Blue Dogs are the PRIMARY obstacles to progress. If he is unwilling to confront them, he's not going to get anywhere, as has been demonstrated by the last years worth of results. They undercut his stimulus plan. They're under cutting his healtcare reform. They will under cut his jobs bill.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

26. to be accurate: refered to *one* strategy by a small group as "fucking retarded"

[druidity33]

33. MoveOn is not a small group. nt.

[Arkana]

28. He referred to MoveOn's strategy as "fucking retarded"

Goddamnit, READ THE QUOTE. Agree or disagree with his assessment, I don't care--but he was not insulting you.

[izzybeans]

8. Sounds like a good opportunity for single-payer supporters to put something up as well.

Then at least we'd all see who is bluffing of the three camps (ie. the party of no, the blue dogs with their Romneycare plan in the Senate, or the progressives).

"President Obama, you asked for all ideas to be tabled. Well... here is mine and this is what it does to coverage in America and for your stated principles related to deficit reduction. I suggest you put it on the table as promised."

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer

[zipplewrath]

11. I believe several have tried

They can't even get an appointment with WH staff. Some guy was supposedly going to show up at the gate, mostly as a protest.

[yurbud]

12. it is a symptom of cancer in our democracy that single payer and the public option weren't

even part of the discussion when the first would do the most to bring down cost and the second had broad public support.

Instead, the best the supposedly Democratic Senate could come up with was Romneycare, which, like any GOP idea, is a gift to the already wealthy.

[izzybeans]

14. That's why I wonder if having the progressive caucus show up saying "I thought you invited us"

with a plan in hand would force both the administration and the republicans to tip their hands.

If its going to be a public debate, those being locked out already need to be shown on camera being locked out.

"I understand we couldn't meet before, but you said that you wanted to hear any idea that could realistically meet your principles. Let us discuss why our plan does that and more. You are a man of your word, no?"

Obama has been battered from the right, the left hasn't even begun to fight. Despite past defeats, this is an opportunity. I hope someone takes it.

[yurbud]

24. please repost this as a new thread. It will be worth it just to see the DLC lurkers froth

[yurbud]

25. and maybe some progressive staffer will see it and elbow his rep or senator

[Phx_Dem]

21. Thump-thump . . . Thump-thump. The Tell Tale Heart will

haunt you if you kill it.

Be warned Democrats.

[rhett o rick]

27. At last I think I can detect some leadership. nt

[BlueIdaho]

29. This should be interesting!

I looks like there's finally an adult in the room

[nilram]

30. "get control of ... out-of-pocket costs"

like prescription drug costs?

Just askin.

[Hekate]

31. KnR....

:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:
:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:
:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

[cleveramerican]

32. It offers a glimmer of hope

but why wait till the 25th?

why not tomorrow?

remember the fierce urgency of now?
remember the Christmas eve vote?

what happened to the urgency?

[ipaint]

34. So we are back to calling it health care reform again.

Do these people honestly think that televising the fact the majority class is this country- workers making under 40,000, a year is getting fucked again is wise.
No single payer, no expanded medicare, no strong public option, no weak public option, no effective controls on price, no re-importation of drugs, no price negotiation of drugs, ins. regulations with loopholes a city block wide and a perpetually non-negotiable mandate to buy or else. All real reform has been negotiated away by democrats.

And this televised drama passes for setting up republicans to be exposed for the shits they are.

I don't think washington can get anymore out of touch with reality.