"Multiple Sources tell TPMDC" WH is pushing trigger over opt-out

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

It would be lovely if this is NOT TRUE, but this is not a second-hand Politico hit piece. This is presented as MULTIPLE SOURCED and ORIGINAL reporting by Talking Points Memo DC, not a rehash of other reporting. As with almost all such reporting, the facts are only as reliable as the sources, meaning that what is being reported is that people TPM trusts have told TPM x, y and z. TPM can be wrong, of course, but TPM is some of the finest original progressive journalism, not credulous RW propaganda. (And tomorrow it may be completely overtaken by events, as is often the case with this kind of story.)

Sources: White House Pushing Back Against Senate Public Option Opt Out Compromise
Brian Beutler | October 23, 2009, 3:11PM

Multiple sources tell TPMDC that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is very close to rounding up 60 members in support of a public option with an opt out clause, and are continuing to push skeptical members. But they also say that the White House is pushing back against the idea, in a bid to retain the support of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME).

"They're skeptical of opt out and are generally deferential to the Snowe strategy that involves the trigger," said one source close to negotiations between the Senate and the White House. "they're certainly not calming moderates' concerns on opt out."

This new development, which casts the White House as an opponent of all but the most watered down form of public option, is likely to yield backlash from progressives, especially those in the House who have been pushing for a more maximal version of reform.

It also suggests for perhaps the first time that the White House's supposed hands off approach that ostensibly allowed the two chambers in Congress to craft their own bill has been discarded...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/sources-white-house-pushing-back-against-senate-public-option-opt-out-compromise.php

[villager]

1. Yes, but the un-reccers can't stand it, and wish to look the other way...

On the other hand, the months of spinning are about to come to a definitive end, and we will know then exactly where we stand...

[Aramchek]

11. same article, nth post

and it was shite to begin with

[bluestateguy]

2. Repeating crap over and over again still makes it crap

nt

[fujiyama]

3. This better not be true

If it is, there's no point in trusting this administration on anything after. I'm so fucking sick of Snowe. Who cares what she wants.

If the administration wants her, they can have her. But they'll lose the support of millions of others that donated time and money to get them elected. This is the most important piece of his agenda. He better not give in to Snowe and her tantrums.

[janx]

4. Who are these sources?

:shrug:

[katandmoon]

5. K&R. The WH has been ANYTHING but straightforward on this issue. And I'm supposed to believe that

now, all of a sudden, it's really pushing for the public option? THIS Republican-lovin' White House?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. I believe the WH is pushing for a public option

I don't know what specifics they are pushing (devil meet details...) but I believe they want to avoid a blow-up with the left (including Pelosi)

And the biggest reason this positive thing is happening is that a lot of people who were told to shut up and fall in line did not shut up and fall in line.

The left-o-sphere made the PO a line in the sand and it seems to be paying off.

[Vincardog]

7. Good on the left-o-sphere: Keep pushing, damn the corporatists full speed ahead

[ej510]

8. I believe he wants Olympia Snowe's vote at the expense of

a public option.

[janx]

9. No, he doesn't.

But he has the brains and the fortitude to hope that this country isn't ethically and morally bankrupt. Debate is discovery; it's an exchange of ideas. It's not a food fight or an either/or situation. That's what Obama seeks in his plea for bipartisanship.

[Thrill]

10. Hope this isn't true. If you it tells us what type of President he is going to be

A weak one

[jenmito]

12. Valerie Jarrett, a NAMED source, DENIED that Obama prefers/is pushing for a trigger.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8712929&mesg_id=8712929

[Mass]

14. In this case, somebody is selling bullshit to Democratic blogs.

Dont you want to know who? I do. If somebody (apparently plural) is trying to sabotage this, it is important to say so.

[jenmito]

18. I'd LOVE to know who. But they're "unnamed sources."

What can we do other than to believe the NAMED sources?

[Cha]

19. Thanks for trying

to the facts out there, Jen. This happens all the time.

[jenmito]

23. My pleasure.

I can lead them to water but I can't make them drink. :)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

21. She doesn't say that at all, but whatever

She doesn't "deny" anything about a trigger unless you accept Mike Allen's (extraneous) characterization of a trigger plan as "a bill without a PO"

She is presented with a string of suppositions then says "no" to the statement that Obama doesn't want a PO.

I don't know what the truth of the matter is but I do know what a denial is. A denial would be to say that President Obama is against a trigger and is not encouraging a trigger.

[jenmito]

22. Yes, she does. Here's Joe's question about the trigger and her answer:

Joe: "Hey, Valerie, we had Mike Allen from Politico on earlier this morning, he said Nancy Pelosi didn't have the votes for a public option and said that there was some suggestion that the President wants a health care reform bill that doesn't have a public option, but has a TRIGGER in case insurance companies don't start playing ball. Is that a fair description of the president's current position?"

Valerie: "No. I think the president has always said that he's committed to the public option, why, because he thinks it will create competition and therefore bring down costs. He's always said he's open to new ideas but at this late stage in the game he still thinks it's the best option..."

[Mass]

13. I read that too and this is making me dizzy.

TPM is not a MSM rag sheet and is not an Obama hater site.

They are often well informed. So, who are these sources and why are they saying this?

Also, what is the point of this attempt when Snowe has said she opposed the trigger now.

Of course, you'll get unrecs, but I am happy you posted this. I was going to post it. This is certainly something that requires an answer . This is Talking Points Memo, not Politico.

If this story is not true, there is somebody that is trying to kill the Public Option. It may be the case, of course. But is it not worth knowing it.

[ej510]

15. Talking Points Memo is a credible source of information.

[Mass]

17. I agree. Somebody in the Senate is spreading these rumors.

The only question is "Why?". Is it because they oppose the public option, or is it because the back story as said by these Senate people is true.

[ej510]

20. There probably centrist white house staffers who want

to see the public option fail. It is either that or Obama wants Olympia Snowe's vote at the expense of the public option.

[janx]

16. Just because you may agree with a source ideologically,

it doesn't mean that the source has done some good reporting. Look at the sources TPM names. What sources have they named? Where are they getting their information?