The White House and Senate Democrats won't buckle to demands from liberals that they revise their health care strategy, officials said today.
White House advisers and Democratic strategists concede that President Obama's poll numbers are at post-inauguration lows, and that the public has grown queasy about the health care debate. But they insist that the discontent has its roots in disenchantment over Washington's ways. They note that large majorities of voters disapprove of how Republicans are handling health care in Congress and that President Obama remains the most popular active politician in the country.
Steve Schale, Obama's Florida campaign director in 2008 and a Democratic party strategist, said via Twitter that Obama "is DC's adult. Make [the] GOP show its cards, give mods a few wins, and go sell it. He's still the U.S.'s most credible poll."
In a statement today, Sen. Max Baucus said he was committed to a bipartisan bill. "The Finance Committee is on track to reach a bipartisan agreement on comprehensive health care reform that can pass the Senate," he said. Republicans and Democrats, and their staffs, will hold a conference call tomorrow to discuss their progress.
A White House official conceded today that Obama would have to weather anger from liberals for a while.
More worrisome, officials said, was the growing belief that Obama's brand is being tarnished. A new Pew poll shows that voters don't think Obama is working with Republican leaders, and that a plurality blame Republican leaders. They believe that Obama's favorability rating declines, largely from independents (and within that group, women), can be reversed if he reminds these voters of the bipartisan instincts in his bones.
Another Pew poll finding underscores a second White House strategy: because conservatives are paying more attention to the health care debate than liberals, the White House needs to double down on its efforts to convince liberals that passing health care will be a major accomplishment. That's one reason why Obama will be speaking directly to his Organizing for America base tomorrow.
House Democrats are on a different track, and it's hard to see how it intersects with the White House's. Leaders plan to redouble the sales pitch for a public plan, reasoning that if they can move public opinion a few degrees -- largely by exciting liberals -- they can help their colleagues respond to conservative pressure. Privately, White House aides have communicated to the House leadership that the onus on changing minds about the public plan is on Congress, not on the president.
In private, White House officials are selectively attending to threats that interest groups will work to defeat Democrats who oppose a "public option" in the House and Senate. RIchard Trumka, likely the next president of the AFL-CIO, threatened over the weekend to withhold union support from those politicians. The White House isn't scared. An AFL-CIO official close to Trumka said that no one from the administration has been in touch with him to protest his words or endorse him.
The president continues to operate under the belief that liberals will warm to the bill when presented with a goodybag that includes includes an individual mandate, community rating, guaranteed issue, and a minimum required package. There's no chance, really, that a bill WON'T feature these reforms. Quietly, to secure and keep Democrats on board, the White House is going to bargain, providing inducements, like more money for favored projects, etc., in order to secure individual votes.
On the other hand, the left is getting tired of being given the proverbial back of the hand by a White House that looks at the world in increments of four years, rather than two.
If this is what the WH really thinks, they truly are blind to what's happening in their own backyard. And only Baucus would keep negotiating with a guy (Grassley) who says he probably won't vote for any bill in the end. Train wreck.
Baucus isn't negotiating with Grassley. He's negotiating FOR the insurance lobby.
He's doing a nice job of it.
they are all negotiating for the insurance comparys because they contrubt to them grassley and reb leadship should remembre elet. are comeing and us old people vote vote vote
if a bill doesn't get out of the finance committee, healthcare will be stalled. so the white house's only concern right now isn't making liberals feel good. Once all the bill is out of all the committees, then he'll have time to mend to liberal concernst. But if the bill doesn't get out of finance, every other committee might get a bill with strong public option, healthcare won't go anywhere.
i absolutely cannot believe that someone as smart as President Obama cannot see that he's being played like a fiddle by republicans.
Republicans are NOT going to vote for any kind of health care reform bill because its not in their political interest to do so. By their thinking, they have more to gain by demolishing health care reform and weakening the president's administration than passing any kind of reform because, hey it worked in 1994!
Grassley just today called the president a liar. And he's the guy we're supposed to believe is negotiating in good faith for a good bill? Are you serious?
I know the president was elected to bridge the partisan divide in washington, but you can't be bi-partisan when republicans aren't willing partners. The American people know, and can tell, that republicans aren't trying anything other than obstruction. I don't think they would mind much if the president pushed the obstructionists out of the way in order to achieve the things we elected him to achieve, especially after dems are the only ones making concessions and giving things up.
I mean, democrats and liberals have had to give up single payer, and now, probably the public option too. But can anyone name ONE thing republicans have had to give up? Or name one thing we're going to get in return for giving up those two major things?
This "negotiation" seems all one sided to me. And thats a problem because America gave democrats huge majorities in the house and the senate, not to mention the white house, and yet, they're acting like they're the MINORITY party, who instead of dictating the terms of the negotiations, are bending over backwards and substantially weakening any kind of reform chasing republican votes that will absolutely NOT be there in the end.
It's the stimulus battle all over again. You'd think they would have learned by now...i mean, how many times do you have to bash your head into a wall before you realize that the wall ain't going to move, no matter what?
"...how many times do you have to bash your head into a wall before you realize that the wall ain't going to move, no matter what?"
Long enough (it's already happening) to allow the 30% that is mostly whack-mobs and Palinistas to overreach enough to convince that important swing Independent and moderate Republican that Obama is actually trying to make a reasonable deal.
And, as someone said above, if the bill doesn't make it out of the Senate Finance Committee, the future of the entire effort is seriously in doubt. Do you want that?
Conference Committee is coming, and this fight ain't over yet. It's important to not get weak knees now. Make a fuss with your congressperson, go to public meetings, write letters to the editor, and make your voice heard. But this is a long-term strategy, and it's no time to get shaky now.
The White House is so, so wrong if they think they can "weather" liberal anger if they water down the healthcare bill too much - and at this point, that means if they concede the public option.
All those liberals might still vote for Obama again but I can guarantee a majority of them will be making phone calls and knocking on doors no longer.
This is exactly my personal sentiment right now. If this is the pattern for the next four years, don't expect me to give money or donate my free time like I did in 2008. They'll get my vote -- and that's about it.
What officials? Sounds more like Ambinder style manufactured controversy to me a bit like all those ridiculous quotes from "advisers" and "activists" in this morning's Wapo. Sorry Marc sounds like bs to me. In fact your whole shtick that the Obama white house don't know what they are dealing with on this (you've taken much the same stance in another piece elsewhere) assumes these guys are amateurs instead of some of the sharpest political minds in the country. This pot stirring is awfully juvenile but anything for traffic I guess.
Oooohhh...a mandate. I loves me a mandate. Nothing better than people telling me what to do without giving me to the tools with which to do it.The White House and Senate Democrats won't buckle to demands from liberals that they revise their health care strategy, officials said today.
Because they've had it under control so far. LOL!!!!!! And what officials are those? Are they too cowardly to put their name to it?
A White House official conceded today that Obama would have to weather anger from liberals for a while.
Rahmbo afraid to go on record? Does he really think "Liberals" are gonna keep re-electing his beloved Blue Dogs? Sounds like Rahm learned the wrong lesson from 1994.
Another Pew poll finding underscores a second White House strategy: because conservatives are paying more attention to the health care debate than liberals, the White House needs to double down on its efforts to convince liberals that passing health care will be a major accomplishment. That's one reason why Obama will be speaking directly to his Organizing for America base tomorrow.
This doesn't make any sense. Passing watered down chicken sh-t isn't the answer. Trying to make us believe you are giving us chicken salad when you are giving us chicken sh-t is a recipe for disaster if the Blue Dogs expect to go back to D.C. in January 2011.
Is Ambinder now the official WH trial balloon site?
Mr. Ambinder,
My brother died at age 18 of a heart defect. My father's insurance company avoided paying for his end-of-life care because his heart defect was a "pre-existing condition", even though when my father first obtained the policy he was verbally assured that my brother would be covered. My family lost its savings, though we managed to keep the house.
So prevent the insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, right? They'll find other ways to avoid paying. For example, when my wife's father died, his widow didn't collect a dime on the life insurance policy. Her agent had told her that there was a grace period between the first and (I think) fifth of the month, and for years her checks had been arriving during that period. The insurance company successfully claimed that the policy had lapsed because they didn't receive payment on time.
And you think that progressives will be happy if we mandate that everyone has to give money to these people, and we just open the taxpayer spigot as wide as necessary? Forget it. The only thing that will force these people to clean up their act is competition from a nonprofit with sufficient clout to be a threat.
PO or NO.
And if health reform fails, and Democrats lose seats, it will be mostly blue dogs who lose their seats. Don't they know that? Or are they just planning to trade their puny congressional salaries for insurance company lobbyist salaries?
Or you could even try this for a narrative: Libruhls (meaning the greater part of the country) worked their butts off to elect a candidate who promised change, whose "anonymous senior officials" are now saying he will give away the rest of the store to corporate interests!
Rather obviously, a mandate without a public option does nothing but provide more forced customers to the same insurance companies who are causing most of the problem to begin with.
The reality is that although the White House and Senate are going to pass nothing or a joke of a bill, they are very, very afraid and aware that this will have very bad repercussions for Democrats in 2010. They are whistling pass the graveyard and watching out for their own individual careers --- which means doing the dirty work for corporate interests who will hire them as lobbyists after 2010 or 2012.
How do we know this? This quote:
The president continues to operate under the belief that liberals will warm to the bill when presented with a goodybag that includes includes an individual mandate, community rating, guaranteed issue, and a minimum required package. There's no chance, really, that a bill WON'T feature these reforms. Quietly, to secure and keep Democrats on board, the White House is going to bargain, providing inducements, like more money for favored projects, etc., in order to secure individual votes.
There are no genuine liberal/progressive groups pushing for a public option or single payer who are on board with an individual mandate for people to buy insurance from private insurance companies IF there is no public option. To argue this would be in a "goodybag" is completely at variance with the facts. There is something very fishy about this report --- as in it should career ending for Armbinder because it is actually propaganda for some political faction, or outright fabricated.
The Democrats will weather handing the insurance industry 45 million new premium payers without getting the price curve bending offered only by a public option, you say?
Don't bet on it.
TURN OUT THE TURNCOATS IN 2010.
Oo, I can't wait! A mandate that I must buy insurance, with no limits on the price insurance companies can charge and no government alternative to provide price competition. But I agree with the commentators who are pointing out the fishy nature of Ambinder's comment here. It's got "political operative" written all over it.
It seems obvious that Obama was a Manchurian candidate all along. He isn't stupid. He never intended to reform health care. If "insurance" coverage is mandated without a government option, the bill will be nothing but a huge giveaway of public dollars to the health industry leeches.
This will be the last straw for me. Should such a bill pass, I will quit the Democratic party...as it no longer exists. And this comes from someone who has counseled against voting third party for 30+ years.
It'll be painful to vote for Nader or his equivalent, but the Democratic party has ceased to exist.
It seems obvious that Obama was a Manchurian candidate all along. He isn't stupid. He never intended to reform health care. If "insurance" coverage is mandated without a government option, the bill will be nothing but a huge giveaway of public dollars to the health industry leeches.
This will be the last straw for me. Should such a bill pass, I will quit the Democratic party...as it no longer exists. And this comes from someone who has counseled against voting third party for 30+ years.
It'll be painful to vote for Nader or his equivalent, but the Democratic party has ceased to exist.