Anonymous Bait

Posted on 10/25/2009 at 10:06 am by Bob Cesca

Regarding this, I’m wondering how many times we’re going to be baited with anonymous quotes about the death of the public option. How many times has it happened?

Over the last several months it’s almost become a regular feature of the news, like weather reports and stock market updates. Every week, stories about how the public option isn’t going to happen, or how the White House is telling the House progressives to STFU about it. We’ve seen numerous stories about alleged White House support for co-ops or triggers or nothing at all. And every time, there’s a wild kneejerk spaz attack about it.

The fact remains that the only named source in the piece is Dan Pfeiffer who insists that the whole trigger/Snowe story “is false.” Now any quote should be taken with a grain of skepticism, but in relative terms, it’s a good rule of thumb to take a named quote more seriously than an unnamed one.

However, based upon the verifiable information we have — the empirical evidence of the president’s steady position on the public option — the only reason the White House might’ve brought up the trigger/Snowe solution was because, as of Friday, Reid was still a couple of votes shy of breaking the Republican/Democratic filibuster (and it is — as long as Nelson and Bayh haven’t committed to cloture, they’re filibustering healthcare reform). I imagine that in the course of a conversation about the most important issue of the president’s first term, there’s going to be discussions about every possible path to victory.

As I wrote yesterday, this is evidence of a failure of leadership — Reid’s leadership — and his inability to muscle through the filibuster, even with 60 votes in his caucus. If Reid were sitting pretty with a solid 60 for the public option, the White House might not have mentioned the trigger/Snowe solution (if they did at all).

UPDATE: When are normally smart people going to stop taking the bait?

This entry was posted in Healthcare and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • eljefejeff

    Bob, if we’re left without a public option, it would have to be considered as much a failure of Obama’s leadership as Reid’s.

  • Terri

    eljefejeffI agree.

  • http://www.bobcesca.com Bob_Cesca

    eljefejeff wrote:>>>Bob, if we’re left without a public option, it would have to be considered as much a failure of Obama’s leadership as Reid’s.Okay. Sure. But that’s a big ‘if’. The public option has huge momentum right now.And besides, I’m talking about what’s happening right now — not some possibility in the future. I surely hope I’m not judged now for possible future failures. That seems a little unfair, no?

  • Eric

    I’m at a loss as to how to define ‘leadership’, as it applies to the president, in this matter. If it exists (and I believe it does) I should think it would not be readily visible to us. If you’re going to ‘browbeat’ someone into changing their advertised course of action, that’s going to happen behind closed doors, and someone doing that with a modicum of nuance and sophistication is going to pull it off in such a way as to make it look like it didn’t happen at all, at least as I see it.I wonder, when HCR passes with a public option (and I still believe it will), are the present-day naysayers going to capitulate and decide that it was due to, at least in part, the president’s leadership?

  • http://nanotyrnns.blogspot.com/ Nanotyrannus

    I agree that Obama could have taken a more forceful leadership role early on, but honestly, at some point Congress has to fucking realize it’s role as representatives of the people and do what must be done and not constantly run for cover behind the executive. They’ve shown some cojones recently. I would have never in a million years thought I would hear them even suggest taking way the insurance industry’s anti-trust exemption, let alone actually holding hearings about it.Maybe this is all part of the plan. If it had been rammed through four months ago, the industry and it’s defenders could cry foul. Now the truth is out about just what this industry’s purpose is. Now, Blue Dogs and Republicans are forced to defend an industry that wouldn’t insure a baby because it was too fat and wouldn’t replace the battery in a device necessary to keep a man alive because it was a pre-existing condition. They are now forced to defend an industry that considers domestic abuse a pre-existing condition. They are now forced to defend an industry that ended a particular program of care for an entire state because it didn’t want to have to cover one person.Maybe Obama knew that Congress didn’t have the balls to do this and has had to slowly bring them, and some of us, around to the necessity of reform. It’s been a long, slow slog through the summer, but many of the industry’s previous defenders have been exposed as shills and many of it’s enablers in Congress are now afraid for their seats. We wouldn’t have this particular climate if we had rammed something through four months ago.I may change my mind by this time tomorrow, but I think we’re watching a master at work…

  • http://www.bobcesca.com Bob_Cesca

    @Nano and Eric:Throughout the year, the president has taken on a challenge I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy: to gather dozens of different and vocally opposed groups to support a major and historical overhaul of a deeply rooted multi-billion dollar industry. And during a recession no less.This has required a considerable amount of finesse. Just to get some Democrats on board was a major balancing act. If Kent Conrad, for example, votes to break the filibuster, it’ll be in large part because the president was respectful to Conrad’s co-op idea and allowed him to play it out, rather than bully-pulpitting and embarrassing Conrad.I mean, how does a president achieve a strong reform bill while squaring all of the financial, political, ideological and circumstantial elements that conspire to kill it given the chance? No one knows, but the fact that we’re this close proves something about the strategy.If we get reform with a public option — and I think we will — it will be a massive achievement for this president. If he fails, he fails, but it’s not for a lack of trying.Reforming the healthcare system doesn’t have a template for success. It’s brain surgery times a thousand. Every cut, every move might harm another aspect of functionality. The secret is to get to the tumor without short-circuiting the whole thing. We’re *this close* to the tumor, and if there’s some extra caution coming from the White House, I can’t really blame them.

  • http://nanotyrnns.blogspot.com/ Nanotyrannus

    I think we’re going to get the public option as well. I again think that’s in part because the industry and it’s enablers were allowed to hang themselves this summer. They can’t defend their behavior or offer up a real reason to exist. And I think that Congress had to see that first.I agree with you that the White House has had to manage a full spectrum of Congressional egos/constituencies and has done it well, but I believe that the President’s message about HCR sometimes got a little muddled. Democrats almost always love to get lost in wonky details. That’s fine during policy discussions, but when you’re just giving a speech, it needs to be much simpler. I mean, why do we like Anthony Weiner and Alan Grayson so much? They say what needs to be said simply and they keep repeating it. It’s a messaging concept the Right adopted ages ago and hammered away with all summer. The Democrats responded with more wonkery. Until Weiner and Grayson, we didn’t have anyone out there just simply making the argument.I’m getting lost myself in stuff that should have happened blah blah blah. We’re at the finish line. I’m done with believing anonymous sources trying to rile up the base on anything. It’s an almost Rovian tactic and I would not be the least bit surprised to find out he and his coven were using our own grass rootsieness against us. Has anyone even noticed that the rumors almost always are about the White House abandoning progressives and never, never, about the White House abandoning/punishing Blue Dogs or other recalcitrant Democrats? Divide and conquer, boys and girls, divide and conquer…

  • nurunr

    I think there are 2 possibilities about what’s happening here: Either (1) this is an opportunity to “shore up” Reid’s public image (and his electability for 2010) by making it APPEAR that he’s finally grown some backbone, and is even stronger than Obama and will “get his guys in line” and get the public option, OR (2) the White House wants to just play “safe politics,” get A BILL out of the Senate and iron everything out in conference.I really don’t know much about politics, but we’ve got to stop this bipolar back and forth when we see something we don’t “agree” with. Hey, this political and public image game is brutal. Don’t get PLAYED!!

  • Allonfla

    I don’t really understand what anyone means by forceful leadership. From the amount of “arm-twisting” and “knocking head” comments I’ve seen, I am going to guess that these people wanted Obama to call out the hold outs in public. That’s good advice when it comes to the Repubs, a dumb move when it comes to members of his own party who he should not alienate and humiliate in his first term or at any time actually.

  • nurunr

    I’m with you, Allonfla. The game is to keep all Dems looking strong!

  • Allonfla

    @Eric – If HCR fails (as in no PO), first there will be calls for Rahm’s head, then there will be much more talk about who should primary Obama (with the usual list of perpetual losers and a few new ones),and the campaign to unseat Harry Reid (even if a Repub wins) will go into full force.If HCR passes with a P/O – The Left will take the credit, with a few scraps for Nancy Pelosi, Grayson, Weiner, etc. No one will thank Rahm, Reid or the President. Well, considering the latest reports of “betrayal” from the WH, Reid may come out looking rosy for a couple of weeks until the next legislation where something he said will cause the Left to hate him again.

  • http://cousinavi.wordpress.com cousinavi

    @ Nano

    I agree that Obama could have taken a more forceful leadership role early on, but honestly, at some point Congress has to fucking realize it’s role as representatives of the people and do what must be done and not constantly run for cover behind the executive.

    Just like back in the day, when we all screamed, “YOU HAVE TO HIT BACK AT THE CLINTONS!” (but he didn’t and won anyway)…And then we shouted, “Hit back at that lying old bastard McCain and his succubus idiot Palin!” (but he didn’t and won anyway)…Now, rather than make himself a target, he quietly (yet forcefully) allows the simple math – the distance between what’s right and wrong; what people want and what the pundits say – to work to good effect. THAT’S leadership. Without raising a sweat, slapping the stupid, or berating a single moron, the tide shifts under the watchful, yet quiet, attention of the president, who leads by clarity of thought; depth and breadth of intention.Evan Bayh’s political life hangs in the balance here. That anyone ever once talked of him as a possible VP nod makes me laugh. If that blithering C-Flap doesn’t get his shit together, it will a cold day with neither sun or moon before he manages to retain office.

  • Allonfla

    @nurunr: Your points remind me of diary I read on DKOS. The following statement was recorded by Ezra Klein. It is Obama discussing his health care strategy with Progressive bloggers during a conference call.”The House bills and the Senate bills will not be identical. We know this. The politics are different, because the makeup of the Senate and the House are different and they operate on different rules. I am not interested in making the best the enemy of the good. There will be a conference committee where the House and Senate bills will be reconciled, and that will be a tough, lengthy and serious negotiation process.I am less interested in making sure there’s a litmus test of perfection on every committee than I am in going ahead and getting a bill off the floor of the House and off the floor of the Senate. Eighty percent of those two bills will overlap. There’s going to be 20 percent that will be different in terms of how it will be funded, its approach to the public plan, its pay-or-play provisions. We shouldn’t automatically assume that if any of the bills coming out of the committees don’t meet our test, that there is a betrayal or failure. I think it’s an honest process of trying to reconcile a lot of different interests in a very big bill.Conference is where these differences will get ironed out. And that’s where my bottom lines will remain: Does this bill cover all Americans? Does it drive down costs both in the public sector and the private sector over the long-term. Does it improve quality? Does it emphasize prevention and wellness? Does it have a serious package of insurance reforms so people aren’t losing health care over a preexisting condition? Does it have a serious public option in place? Those are the kind of benchmarks I’ll be using. But I’m not assuming either the House and Senate bills will match up perfectly with where I want to end up. But I am going to be insisting we get something done.”

  • brutlyhonest

    Here’s how I see it: (a) anonymous sources “leak” information sure to make some liberals flip out (2) watch the dems tear themselves apart (again) (iii) profit.

  • http://www.bobcesca.com Bob_Cesca

    Cousinavi nailed it.

  • nurunr

    @brutlyhonest you’re too cute by half (with the wacky point numbering), but I think your points are spot on! we’ve got some folks who are playing this politics like a fiddle. To all freakouts: stay cooooool.

  • http://nanotyrnns.blogspot.com/ Nanotyrannus

    All great points, cousinavi.

  • caribbeanobserver

    Good on yer,cousinavi. Prez O does what he does,he is no fool, i.e he may say something just for re-action, and whilst everyone gets paranoid, riled up with ‘he say,she say’ chatter, flappin’ their gums, bitching,rights, wrongs etc..Prez O ‘cool as a cuke’ allows them to, and when HE is ready, then, and only then does he make his move.Think back, people, he does this all the time.Deadly..just deadly, but right on the button on just the same.Come on people,ye of little faith, STAY THE COURSE!

  • Jan

    I’m not going to spaz out over this. It is just another “rumor” as far as I’m concerned.I hate to say this but we just have to wait to see what the final bill is in the Senate. We still have the House bill with a po to hang on to.The “trigger option” is ridiculous and folks like Rockefeller et al aren’t going to support that. Opt in/out is not an option since a few rethug governors have already said the’d opt out. Individual mandates without a po will be challenged in court right off the bat. Millions will tell the guvmint to f–k off. It will be one big cluster—k.So I suggest we just chill out until we see what the final bill will be.

  • mrspeel2

    It’s getting to be a game with those people that keep leaking the “latest” in HCR. They just want us to have apoplexy, I guess, but I refuse to believe any of the “leaks” concerning HCR, until I hear it directly from President Obama himself.As jan @ 3:20 PM said: “So I suggest we just chill out until we see what the final bill will be”

  • Stranahan

    Real simple question.Why should I believe that Sam Stein and Ryan Grimm are either confused or lying?

  • Stranahan

    And why should I believe that Talking Points Memo is either confused or lying?http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/sources-white-house-pushing-back-against-senate-public-option-opt-out-compromise.phpYou aren’t entitled to your own facts.The White House is either doing what both these stories say – or both stories are the result of lies or bad reporting.Which is it?

  • ceu

    Fact, Lee. Obama said months ago that he wouldn’t sign a bill without a public option. It was pretty clear.And why should you not believe TPM?From the link you posted.“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.Who? Who said that?And it was followed by this:In response to this report, White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer issued the following statement. “The report is false…We know who said that, don’t we!THAT’S why you shouldn’t believe everything you read that quotes anonymous sources! And you should have learned this lesson by now.

  • veralynn

    “And you should have learned this lesson by now.”Amen ceu, amen.

  • Stranahan

    So – you believe one part of the report but not the other?I believe both. I believe that multiple sources are telling these reporters that there’s pushback from the White House, because there is.And I believe there’s an official denial because the White House has contempt for suckers like you.And I believe the President will sign a bill with a trigger and say he signed a bill with a Public Option.

  • http://nanotyrnns.blogspot.com/ Nanotyrannus

    Wow, Lee.My worry right now is not the influence of the White House. I still think that the WH, led by a former Senator that has a former Rep as his Number One, knows exactly how to work these guys into doing exactly what they want. Reid has shown reluctance to let the WH tell him what to do before. Maybe this is a “Three’s Company” style reverse psychology. Tell Reid the WH wants a watered down trigger and that there’s no wiggle room and watch as Reid starts to wiggle in the other direction.My worry right now is the outsize influence that may be wielded by Baucus, and through him, Snowe, in conference.And not to sound too conspiratorial… how better to weaken the President than by turning his own base against him? We’ve been getting lit up week after week for months now, all because of “anonymous sources.” Somehow we’re to believe that an organization, that kept such good message control for two years, is now suddenly rife with leakers eager to tell the Left just how much Obama despises them. And always the Far Left constituency. He always hates us. Are we really such suckers? Yes. Well, I think we’re waking up now.We keep talking about how the Republican Party has splintered into a thousand crazy pieces, but we’re not talking about how the Democrats have fractured as well. There’s a whole wing of the Party that has pretty much given up on the President. What’s the alternative?

  • Stranahan

    Nano,That doesn’t sound too conspiratorial at all! Obviously, Talking Points Memo and the Huffington Post are trying to weaken the President, so they have their reporters lie! Or they hire reporters who are easily duped!You’re onto something here…

  • http://nanotyrnns.blogspot.com/ Nanotyrannus

    Lee, obviously I’m not speaking about the reporters at TPM or HuffPo. But their sources seem to lead them to a lot of Emergency Large Font Oh My God The President Isn’t Doing Something About Something headlines and stories. And that has led to quite a few Democrats deciding, nine months into his presidency, that Barack Obama has completely abandoned us. That he despises us. That he wants us all to STFU and just do as we’re told.Whatever. You go ahead and sulk about the fact that the president is not quite as liberal or progressive as you might have liked. I’m going to have a little more faith and worry more about the bastards in Congress that might torpedo this whole thing before it even reaches his desk.

  • ceu

    Actually, Lee… I believe the part that actually names the person being quoted! And I think it’s YOU who has contempt for those of us who have ignored anonymous quotes and have been proven correct time after time. Otherwise why would you resort to ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with you?You’ve been on these Chicken Little rants, believing all the anonymous bullshit rumors on what the WH did & did not want in healthcare reform for months now and I’ll repeat what I said back in early Sept:There was a time when it was infrequent for a reporter not to name a source and when they didn’t, they made sure that at least two sources said the same thing. Now it’s commonplace to quote anonymously & that’s acceptable to many. To me, it smacks of laziness and reeks to trying to push a point of view for reasons other than informing the public of FACTS.

  • nurunr

    Yeah, Stranahan, why so eager to jump to the negative? Esp when it’s just as plausible that the unknown could or will be positive? Take a zen pill, and deal with what must be dealt with WHEN it must. That is not now.

  • Stranahan

    Yeah – why DID I believe that the Pharma deal had happened?Why DID I believe administration officials say on the record that the Public Option is not central to health cae reform?Why did I possibly believe the that the White House would compromise people’s health into a totally watered down ‘Public Option’ that millions won’t be able to opt into?I’m nutty…like most progressives.

  • brutlyhonest

    Yeah, Stranahan, why so eager to jump to the negative?

    nurunr not been around long?

  • nurunr

    @brutlyhonest — touche, but actually I’ve been “lurking” for awhile so I know of what you speak with Stranahan. Just wanted to see if we can get him to CTFO, since he won’t STFU.

  • http://www.bobcesca.com Bob_Cesca

    Stranahan:>>>>Why should I believe that Sam Stein and Ryan Grimm are either confused or lying?This is why I can’t debate you, Lee. Rather than debating the empirical facts, you immediately shifted the issue into a question of Ryan and Sam’s integrity as reporters, and for me to respond to you I’d have to indict their veracity — a move you know I can’t make due to my obvious connection with the Huffington Post.But for what it’s worth, Ryan and Sam or TPM for that matter, are allowed to print whatever they want. While I respect all three, I choose not to believe the unsourced material based upon both recent history with anonymous quotes turning out to be inaccurate.Nevertheless, you consistently refuse to acknowledge the on-the-record facts and procedural realities in lieu of unsourced rumor and your kneejerk hunches. I would be more willing to entertain your intuition about the president if you at least made an attempt to concede some of the empirical realities of the process — something you have refused to do for months now despite my better efforts. Suffice to say, your ongoing inability to accept basic facts speaks volumes about how shaky your position is.But anyway, good job trying to trap the rest of us into a discussion of Ryan and Sam’s integrity. Nice try.