home

Remember No Drama Obama?

Mike Lux argues that the anonymous leaks from the White House may be coming from people seeking to undermine the President's agenda:

My question now is why are certain anonymous White House officials trying to undermine the President? I ask this question in all seriousness, because this is exactly what happened in the Clinton fight for health care reform. We would do these terrific, thoughtful, complex policy meetings where we go over various options on the health care bill but make no firm decisions. The next day in the New York Times or Washington Post, some particularly controversial aspect of the bill would be headlined as in "High-ranking administration officials say Clinton is considering X." It was without question one of the things that eventually killed health care reform.

What I discovered when I worked in the White House was that there were plenty of people who work in that building whose primary loyalty is not to the President but to themselves. They leak things to reporters to cultivate them and make sure they write puff job articles about them.

Hmm. Anyway, Lux's argument hardly explains the contradictions today between Rahmbo and Gibbs. Not such a well oiled machine anymore.

Speaking for me only

< Ras Poll: Removing Public Option Craters Support For HCR | Ambinder: Obama Will Toss Public Option >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Ugh (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 02:09:49 PM EST
    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.

    Liberals are supposed to warm to a "goodybag" with individual mandates and a giveaway to insurance companies?! Sounds like O is setting up backroom deals to buy votes? Mr Transparency . . .

    Glad my space under the bus was secured during the primaries. . . .

    Instead of an AT&T giftbag at (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by cawaltz on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 04:56:02 PM EST
    the next DNC get together expect your bag to have Wellpoint or Cigna on it. Oh goody!

    Parent
    That gift bag will only cost you (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 05:35:25 PM EST
    somewhere between $2,000 - $10,000 this year.

    You could purchase a a nice selection of Coach purses for less.

    Parent

    Yeah, you can see the "goodybag" pitch (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by kempis on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 05:41:51 PM EST
    ...coming.

    And then there will be a civil war among the Democrats: those who object to the lack of the public option will be derided by the Obama-boosters as handwringers and defeatists and bad progressives who cannot appreciate the brilliance of what the good progressive Obama accomplishes.

    I'm gagging already.

    Parent

    I pride myself on being (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 09:11:54 PM EST
    a bad progressive.

    I, also, pride myself on being a d@mn fine liberal.

    Parent

    I don't know (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 02:10:42 PM EST
    how many times I can say it.

    In our culture, visuals are everything. A guy like Gibbs is poison; glib, smarmy, an easy target. He irritates all sides, and doesn't add anything that shows confidence..

    We need a guy like Tony Snow; in spite of who he represented, he came across in an appealing way.


    The eye of the beholder... (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by desertswine on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 05:16:17 PM EST
    Personally, I couldn't look at Snow w/o vomiting.

    Parent
    As much (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 05:53:56 PM EST
    as I disliked Snow for the whole conservative lies he spread he was way better than Scotty or Ari. both of them just oozed sleaze.

    Parent
    Oy! Why did you have to remind me about Ari? (none / 0) (#31)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 06:44:32 PM EST
    I had successfully put His Grand Odiousness out of my mind.

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 08:08:33 PM EST
    it wasnt pleasant for me either. Talk about a sleazebag.

    Parent
    A brilliant debater though... (none / 0) (#33)
    by weltec2 on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 08:54:58 PM EST
    vile, a bully, but brilliant. He and Scalia would make a good team if they could both get their heads into the same room at the same time.

    Parent
    Well some people are benefiting (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 02:26:52 PM EST
    from Obama dropping the public option.

    WellPoint's stock price surged as the prospects for a new "public" health insurance plan appear to be fading.

    Shares of the Indianapolis-based health insurance giant rose Monday -- a down day for the broader market -- in reaction to recent comments from the Obama administration that a public plan is not essential to health-care reform.

    WellPoint shares shot up 3 percent to close at $53.70 on Monday, even as the S&P 500 index fell 2.4 percent. Other insurers, such as UnitedHealth Group and Aetna, also saw their share prices rise.
    link



    Evan Bayh and his wife are celebrating (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 02:42:57 PM EST
    As Jane Hamsher pointed out on MSNBC the other day, Bayh's wife sits on the board of Wellpoint.

    Parent
    oops wrong thread (none / 0) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 02:27:33 PM EST
    Nah, fits here just fine (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 05:18:20 PM EST
    Very bad message control ... (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 02:28:41 PM EST
    luckily it's late August, and the public isn't  paying attention.

    Obviously, Rahm's position is the only logical one if they want to pass a bill. But if they don't want to get behind that yet, they should just be offering bland, non-headline inducing statements.

    Saying stuff like this is idiotic:

    [The President] would get in a rocket and fly to the moon if that's what it would take to get everyone together.

    If they don't want to pass a bill, they can continue doing what they're doing.

    at this point (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by CST on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 02:32:53 PM EST
    it seems like every time you blink they come out with another contradictory statement/article.  I'm getting news fatigue, and I'm a news junkie.

    Parent
    This cracked me up. (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by dk on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 03:34:27 PM EST
    What I discovered when I worked in the White House was that there were plenty of people who work in that building whose primary loyalty is not to the President but to themselves.

    He had to work in the White House to figure this out?

    Thanks for the Ambinder link (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 02:10:07 PM EST


    There are two ways to reign in the big boys (none / 0) (#12)
    by Slado on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 03:28:28 PM EST
    meaning the big insureres.

    Gov't mandate - not going to happen

    Relaxing regulations and expanding choice - not on the agenda.

    Since Obama has dropped the first way he should take a page out of the Ron Paul book and get government out of it's cozy relationship with the big insureres and allow smaller insurers, co-ops and anyone with money a fair shot at our health care dollars.

    This would mean blowing up the state regulations that allow someone to pay $5K for a plan that would cost $1K in another sate etc..., man

    The cozy relationship works both ways.   While it is stifling any real chance of a public plan it is at the same time stifling the competitive marketplace from containing costs.

    From either political spectrum we loose.

    Ah yes (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 03:37:53 PM EST
    Relaxing regulations will really rein in the big insurers!  That's why the big insurers spend billions of lobbying dollars to tighten regulations, right?

    Yes, let's get rid of regulations and let any old idiot pretend to be a health insurer.  Whey they go belly-up and can't pay any claims, well that's just the price the policyholders have to pay for wanting cheap policies, right?  Free market uber alles!

    Parent

    While I understand your snarkiness (none / 0) (#15)
    by Slado on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 03:48:37 PM EST
    there is no defending the fact that as individuals we don't have the same rights to buy insurance as employers (this due regulations)

    There is also no defending the fact that an individual or employer can't choose to buy a plan that offers a high copay (due to regulations).

    I'm not saying open the door and anyone in.   I'm saying get rid of the regulations that drive up cost for no reason.    Mix some marketplace solutions with progressive ideas like limiting who you can reject etc ... could work to provide a better product at less cost.

    But go ahead.  Stick to a purely partisan agenda and see what it get you.

    Parent

    You're funny. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 03:54:37 PM EST
    Which regulations would those be? How much $ would be saved?

    Parent
    drive up costs (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by CST on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 03:58:47 PM EST
    for no reason?  How does allowing a higher co-pay lower costs?  Sure your premium may go down, but you have to pay more for every visit so it's all the same in the end.  Having a low co-pay doesn't seem like "no reason" to me.  It seems like "so people will go to the doctor early on, instead of waiting to the last minute and incurring much more expensive costs (preventative care???)"

    Parent
    I don't know of any regulations (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 04:05:53 PM EST
    that drive up cost for no reason.  I know of plenty of regulations that specific individuals would love to do without.  For example, there are many males who would like the option to purchase insurance with no pregnancy coverage at a cheaper price, but that wouldn't actually cut costs, it would simply shift costs to the female policyholders.

    What is amazing is that I never see anything from you except a blindly ideological demand for less regulation, and yet you accuse me of having a "purely partisan agenda."  Ok dude, you got me.  The Republicans have all the best ideas, and I only pretend to oppose them because I'm a partisan Democrat!

    Parent

    Move to WAshington state (none / 0) (#25)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 05:21:42 PM EST
    Regence here has plans that don't cover maternity.

    http://wa.regence.com

    Parent

    And wouldn't it be great (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 05:31:12 PM EST
    if insurance companies could get around the laws of all the states that do require maternity coverage, just by issuing their policies from Washington?  Wouldn't that be wonderful for consumers?  Well, at least the male ones.

    This theory of letting insurance companies flee to whichever state has the most hands-off regulatory framework hasn't worked out so well for consumers in the credit card context, has it.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#35)
    by cawaltz on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 11:01:19 PM EST
    because we all know that females impregnate themselves right?

    Ironically even without pregnancy coverage we(meaning women) still get charged more then males?
    Why you may ask? Evidently we cost the insurance companies by seeking preventative care and living longer lives.

    http://www.insureme.com/content/insurance/are-health-insurers-innocent-eggheads-or-chauvinist-pigs/

    What I also find amusing is the dolts who insist they shouldn't have to provide birth control on their formularies are quick to point out that pregnancies are about 1/4 of the cost for hospital stays.(Doesn't it seem like if that were the case it would be a good idea to put birth control on your formularies then....uh duh.)

    Then again, the Democrats in Congress couldn't even connect the dots to put low cost birth control in the stimulus either. Evidently it's smarter to pay for pregnancies and health care for children that have families who can't afford to pay for their health care. D'oh.

    Parent

    Good lord... (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 04:15:28 PM EST
    ...Individuals don't have "the same rights to buy insurance as employers" is because the individual market is not as regulated as the group market.  Therefore, insurers are free to do whatever their cold, black little hearts desire.  

    Carriers are free to design and market any kind of plan they so desire.  There are no restrictions or regulations preventing that at all.  That's why there are carriers out there that market hundreds of plans.

    Please Slado, at least attempt to be somewhat educated before you spout your nonsense.  

    Parent

    Sure they can (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 05:19:43 PM EST
    I just did in Washington state (on the individual insurance market).  Look up either Regence or Premera insurance.

    In addition, employers in the past constantly re-negotiated co-pays, always higher than before.

    It's ridiculous to say they can't negotiate copays.

    Parent

    What (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 05:58:16 PM EST
    planet are you on? Individuals ARE free to buy policies with high copays. Tehy are free to buy any crappy policy their heart wants. The problem isn't regulation it's the cost of the policies and the cost shifting that goes on. Also insurance is one of the few companies that is allowed to discriminate by age. Your policy can be determined strictly by your age.

    Parent
    and gender (none / 0) (#36)
    by cawaltz on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 11:02:24 PM EST
    unless a state specifies against it not being allowed.

    Parent
    But this does explain how a more horizontal (none / 0) (#21)
    by The Last Whimzy on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 05:07:23 PM EST
    power structure (like a board of directors) can be disadvantageously misrepresented by the media, and I believe Democrats will always suffer problems in this area.

    This never happens to Republicans (vertical power structure like the military) because they never take anything but what they already know to be right under consideration.