Ezra Klein: The Public Option. A Failure of White House Leadership.

[freddie mertz]

One other point on the public option: This has been a complete and utter failure of White House leadership. They need to give this effort their support, or they need to kill it by publicly stating their opposition. But they can't simply wait for someone else to make the decision for them, which has been their strategy until now.

If the White House decides that reviving the public option is a good idea, there's reason to believe the Senate would follow them on that. It would make some sense, after all: The public option is popular, its death was partly the product of industry pressure, and the sudden spate of high-profile rate increases offers a nice rhetorical pivot for anyone who wants to argue that individuals should be able to choose an insurer who's not a profit-hungry beast. Plus, Democrats need an excited base going into the 2010 election, and this may be the only way to get it. If the White House decides to stick with the effort to look like hopeful bipartisans in the face of Republican opposition, that would make sense, too. (snip)

But the White House has stayed quiet -- and confusing. Publicly, Kathleen Sebelius said the White House would do whatever Harry Reid wanted. Privately, there's been no support for this public option push, and the idea didn't even make a token appearance in their white paper. They wish this wasn't happening, but they're not willing to put a stop to it. Instead, they hoping someone else -- maybe Jay Rockefeller -- stands up and calls the play.

This is, however, the worst of all worlds. In refusing to disappoint the left early, they're assuring the sense of betrayal will be much more acute because the feeling of momentum will have far longer to build. And in refusing to embrace this strategy cleanly, they're making it harder to lay the groundwork for an effective communications strategy around a bill that's tougher on insurers. The problem isn't just that the White House is following, but that they're making it harder to eventually lead.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/a_failure_of_white_house_leade.html

This may be the best commentary on this issue I have seen yet.

[Vincardog]

1. The best commentary on this issue I have seen yet. K & R

[freddie mertz]

2. My sentiments exactly. This should put some of the more fantastic speculations to rest.

Fantasy narratives have a way of wilting when pressed against the cold reality of the truth.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

18. he achieved a sort of clarity that should ring bells in the Oval Office.

Pity the White House is too busy keeping their fingers in their ears.

Growing numbers of the public in every state support a public option. Even senators recognize it, and feel the pressure. Does Rahm (and his boss) really treasure the "image of bipartisanshit" so dearly, that they would risk tossing everything useful away simply to continue with what is obviously a charade?

[Uzybone]

3. These guys in the M$M will say anything

Klein just wrote a Newsweek article telling the President to stay out of HCR negotiations. Which one is it? Stay out of it, or show strong leadership?

[freddie mertz]

4. Klein has been pretty supportive of the WH, overall, as I recall.

Whatever, his analysis here is convincing enough.

[Uzybone]

8. I'm sure he has, after all we wouldn't read him if he was out and out in opposition

but I don't understand the two conflicting ideas that he spouted in just less than 3 days. No one is the M$M should really be relied upon for the truth nowadays.

[ProSense]

9. He's never been a great fan of the public option. n/t

[freddie mertz]

12. That's not really what the piece is about.

It is about the POLITICS of the public option.

Same with the Rockefeller piece.

[jgraz]

25. Yes. In fact, he's been a booster favorite on this board.

The fact is, the guy's damn smart and says what he thinks. It's pretty hard to deny the truth of this piece.

[freddie mertz]

35. They love him until he utters a word of criticism.

Even the teeniest little thing is enough make him--or anyone else--transform from a favorite to an MSM whore....

[ProSense]

5. Frankly, this played out perfectly,

much to the chagrin of the public option detractors. It's why groups like PNHP are advocating that the public option not be resuscitated.

It survived, and if Reid gets the votes, the President will sign it.

[Vincardog]

Will they pass some 'token' covering 2% or Medicare Part E for Everyone?

[brentspeak]

19. Another completely ludicrous post from you

1) "Frankly, this played out perfectly"

What "played out perfectly"? :crazy:

2) "It's why groups like PHHP are advocating that the public option not be resuscitated"

PHNP is a single-payer advocate while you, on the other hand, are some sort of anonymous internet political shill-for-hire. Obama's upcoming "bipartisan" health reform summit is, by nature of it being "bipartisan", not going to be about bringing the public option back. PHNP http://www.pnhp.org/news/latest-news">both wants single-payer put back on the table AND they are blasting Obama's useless summit. As usual, you are making things up.

3) "It survived, and if Reid gets the votes, the President will sign it."

LOL. :eyes: The whole point of Klein's piece is that the public option did not "survive". Do you employ a monkey to do your typing for you? What about your article-reading?

[ProSense]

26. Another bitter post from you.

Health care reform survived five committee votes and full votes in the Senate and the House and the assaults from all the distortionists.

The public option is still alive, albeit alive as it ever was, and some people can't stand that it is still being considered.

[freddie mertz]

28. Man oh man, this is some righteous clarifyin' goin' on here!!!

Thanks for 1. Clearing up that earlier, inscrutable post and 2. Making me laugh as you lifted the veil of truth and invoked the memorable image of frantically typing monkey in some grim little attic office in WDC.




"OOH-OOH AAH-AAH!!! Hot Spin! Hot Poop!"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :popcorn: :hide:

[polichick]

6. I agree - it's called "covering one's ass" and it ain't leadership. nt

[zipplewrath]

11. Feels like triangulation

I've lived through that before, and this looks real familiar. Say you support something, but the votes just aren't there, while you actively work to undermine it in the first place.

[freddie mertz]

14. Klein seems to think it is mostly just incompetence.

I don't disagree with him on that.

Occam's razor cuts again.

[zipplewrath]

22. Too many clintonistas

I made all the excuses for Obama as he hired a whole host of former Clinton era folks. Afer all, in the interveining 8 years it wasn't like there were alot of jobs for up and coming democrats. But I think we are starting to see them fall back upon old habits. Clinton did get a second term, but he lost the congress for a generation.

[freddie mertz]

24. This gang is far less competent, I fear, even than the first-term Clintonistas.

[Uzybone]

27. that is rubbish, how many HCR bills did the Clintonistas pass?

out of committee, let alone on the floor?

[freddie mertz]

29. How many has this one passed?

I know it is not over yet, of course.

[Uzybone]

30. 2. One in the house and one in the Senate.

[freddie mertz]

31. No final bill as of yet. And they had 60 votes.

Clinton had 57.

[Pirate Smile]

7. He also explained in the post preceding it the problem with reviving the PO:

Jay Rockefeller's inconvenient honesty on the public option

Sen. Jay Rockefeller did something very strange last night: He was honest. He said, publicly, that he does not support adding the public option to the reconciliation bill. And he's going to pay for it today.

Rockefeller isn't a closet public option opponent. He's not only been an advocate for the public option, but he offered the amendment proposing the strong public option. It like the old joke about the swearing pianist: Does Rockefeller know the public option? He wrote the public option. It was Rockefeller amendment C6.

-snip-
It would be fair, at this point, to ask why Democrats would have a problem if they attempted to pass the public option. The public option is popular policy, it's good policy, and it energizes the base. The problem is that it's not popular policy with the handful of conservative House and Senate votes that you need to push this bill over the finish line.

Caucus politics present another dilemma: The public option died due to the opposition of Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Lieberman and a handful of other conservative -- and vulnerable -- Democrats. Reid cut a deal with them, and they signed onto the final product. For many, that was a big political risk. The price was letting them say they killed the public option. Bringing it back to the bill will mean they voted for a bill that ended up including something they'd promised their constituents they'd killed. Cross them on this and you've lost their trust -- and thus their votes -- in the future.

Then there's the larger political strategy that the White House, and the Democrats, seem to have settled on. The idea, which is centered around Thursday's summit, is to look more bipartisan than the obstructionist Republicans. Resuscitating the most controversial part of the bill does not fit with that plan.

I'm not defending these arguments. I don't think conservative Democrats will pick up even a single vote if the final plan doesn't include a public option, while I think they'll probably gain a few if their base feels like they won something big this year. Nor have I seen any evidence that Americans will reward Democrats for being bipartisan if Republicans refuse to cooperate with the strategy. But that's the thinking.

Amid all of this, you have a lot of Senate Democrats getting the base's hopes up because, well, it's good personal politics to sign the letter, even if they think actually bringing the public option back into play would be bad legislative politics. I've had multiple offices tell me that they think this whole public option resurgence makes passage of the bill less likely, even as their bosses are being touted as supporters of the public option strategy.

The likely outcome of that will be another crushing and confusing letdown for the party's most ardent supporters, which leads them to turn on the bill and its authors, and makes final passage of health-care reform that much less likely.

Rockefeller will pay for his comment yesterday, because he said publicly what the other offices are saying privately: He supports the public option, but think it's too dangerous to attempt in a reconciliation meant to close out a fragile and uncertain process. The left is going to hammer him for that, and understandably so. I wouldn't be surprised to see him walk it back. But the truth is he's treating liberals with a lot more respect than the offices that are telling them what they want to hear but have no intention of actually passing a public option.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/jay_rockefellers_inconvenient.html

[freddie mertz]

10. Klein seems to have a pretty subtle grasp of the political culture that is in play right now.

I find myself impressed by this one too.

Clear, cold, realism.

[Pirate Smile]

16. I just posted a separate thread on that Klein post. It really helps to understand the dynamics of

what the hell is really going on.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x193790

[freddie mertz]

17. Right. I went in and rec'd it.

It might get buried in the unrec barrage here.

:hide: :shrug: :eyes:

[DrToast]

13. I do respect Rockefeller for being honest about it

It would be nice if the party leadership did as well.

Not going to be a public option? Fine. Then tell us that it's dead. Just stop jerking us around.

[freddie mertz]

15. Right. It's gotten beyond ridiculous. nt.

[USA_1]

20. Excellent - So Good to See the Truth Written At Long Last

Obama had plenty of opportunity to immediately create health care reform. He had the vast majority on his side during the inauguration and could have passed it then. But put it in the back burner so that the opposition could get organized. Obviously, he did so deliberately because he did not want it.

[FrenchieCat]

21. I don't get it. Why does Klein believe that reconciliation

has to be passed before the HC Bill...which is what he implies? :shrug:

The House could simply pass the Senate Bill pretty much as is,
have the President sign it into law,
and then the reconciliation could happen later,
as long as the house is assured with the 50 sigs from Senators
that they will do it at some point real soon.

[freddie mertz]

23. It's because certain deals and expectations have already been established.

Among the Senators, that is.

There is some chaos here, too, probably due in no small part to the WH's refusal to take a stand one way or the other, which has been the case since this whole thing started.

These people are human, fallible, and they are screwing up.

[freddie mertz]

32. I've never been optimistic about the PO, at least not since "Sliver"-Gate.

This seems to confirm my basic take on the state of things.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. Look at Obama's campaign rhetoric. By his own standards

he has failed. He is promoting a bill that is the opposite of what he campaigned on.

[freddie mertz]

34. Gibbs' statement today proves that Obama opposes the public option.

The president is actively trying to kill any prospect for the bill, before we even get to Thursday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x194192

So we have clarity at least.

And the picture ain't pretty.