Report: Obama won't insist on a Public Option

Note: This is a report based on reports from aides. Obama has been hedging his support for the public option for the past month, reducing the option to a 'sliver' of the reform and sending up test balloons to gauge the public stance. If this report is true, and Obama does cave to the corporations (not Republicans, the Republicans aren't in control and he does not have to weaken health care legislation to get votes, he has received NOTHING from the Republicans for stripping the legislation thus far and they have made it plain as day their goal is to stop Obama from enacting ANY health reform)....if this is true, Obama will have verified beyond all doubt that he is a corporate frontman.


In a move that is sure to raise the hackles of his party’s liberal base, President Barack Obama will not insist that Congressional legislation to reform healthcare include the so-called public option to compete with private health insurers, according to a report Wednesday.

Politico reports that Obama officials have allegedly decided not to insist on a public option in a planned speech the President is set to deliver on healthcare.

Expected to come in early to mid-September, an Obama speech to the nation will outline what the president is looking to see in healthcare reform.

“Obama is considering detailing his health-care demands in a major speech as soon as next week, when Congress returns from the August recess,” Politico’s Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen write. “And although House leaders have said their members will demand the inclusion of a public insurance option, Obama has no plans to insist on it himself, the officials said.

“We’re entering a new season,” senior adviser David Axelrod told the two reporters. “It’s time to synthesize and harmonize these strands and get this done. We’re confident that we can do that. But obviously it is a different phase. We’re going to approach it in a different way. The president is going to be very active.”

“On health care, Obama’s willingness to forgo the public option is sure to anger his party’s liberal base. But some administration officials welcome a showdown with liberal lawmakers if they argue they would rather have no health care law than an incremental one,” the two add. “The confrontation would allow Obama to show he is willing to stare down his own party to get things done.”

..........................MORE AT THE LINK BELOW.............................................................................

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/09/02/obama-wont-insist-on-public-option-aides-say/

Nothing else should be expected.

Yes, give into the republofucks for NO reason. They will vote No to ANY bill.

That's different than what you do away from cameras and reporters.

with anonymous sources quoting other anonymous sources is not proof of anything, shit it's not even a story. Yet another unsourced piece of rumor not worthy of TMZ.

big breaking story from 2 years ago.

Truthout?

Go... find... link.

several orgs were all over that. they were one.

Rawstory has pulled the links in shame, but Google still remembers:


link

they're in my last post. Clearly Raw Story had a story posted on it.

Read post 55 a little more carefully. Your links are all for October 2005, not May 2006.

Not a single one.

My point is that Raw Story had an erroneous story about Fitz prosecutions posted. Whether someone else got a similar story wrong again, later, I don't particularly care, and is not particularly relevant to my point.

Because I think you might still be confused about two separate events. After all, when you replied on post 26 to EFerrari, this was in regard to the contention made by Phx_Dem that Raw Story wrote a report about an "arrest" of Karl Rove. If you don't support that contention, I'm not sure why you replied to EFerrari's contradiction of that claim.

How is the October 2005 story "erroneous" as reported by Raw Story? There is a world of difference between seeking indictments and getting them. There is nothing inaccurate about Fitzgerald seeking to indict Rove; your own link points to a CBS Evening News TV report that Rove was "in legal jeopardy", I don't recall any retraction from CBS on that point, so why would you say that Raw Story pulled their link to that report in "shame"? As I pointed out in post 55, Raw Story stated in October 2005:

The grand jury had not yet decided on whether to make indictments at the time this article was published.

http://faithfulprogressive.blogspot.com/2005/10/raw-story-report-fitzgerald-seeks.html

Again: Two separate events. I never said you made an argument about dates, just that you might be confused about two different stories: the October 2005 story that Fitzgerald was seeking indictments and the May 2006 story that Rove was indicted. Raw Story carried the October 2005 story, it did not carry the May 2006 story.

Raw Story reported that Libby was indicted... NOT ROVE. Raw Story reported that correctly I might add. They also, correctly reported that Fitz was seeking indictments - which is why Rove rushed back to testify for like his 15 time. It is not a similar story. It is your reading skills that are a problem.

to people who are either too stupid to care for facts or paid to lie. either way, the person is not remotely interested in reality. don't even bother. you can tell them the earth is round and they will argue back that "no, i know for sure because I saw a picture that the earth was flat."

any other handy tricks with Google?

http://faithfulprogressive.blogspot.com/2005/10/raw-story-report-fitzgerald-seeks.html

Here's a reference to the Raw Story report (Jason Leopold was the author as I recall).

Raw Story reports:

Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has asked the grand jury investigating the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson to indict Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby and Bush’s Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, lawyers close to the investigation tell RAW STORY.

Fitzgerald has also asked the jury to indict Libby on a second charge: knowingly outing a covert operative, the lawyers said. They said the prosecutor believes that Libby violated a 1982 law that made it illegal to unmask an undercover CIA agent.

Libby’s attorney, Joseph A. Tate, did not return a call seeking comment.

Two other officials, who are not employees in the White House, are also expected to face indictments, the lawyers said.

The grand jury had not yet decided on whether to make indictments at the time this article was published. It appears more likely that the jury would hand down indictments of perjury and obstruction than a charge that Plame was outed illegally.

Those close to the investigation said Rove was offered a deal Tuesday to plead guilty to perjury for a reduced charge. Rove’s lawyer was told that Fitzgerald would drop an obstruction of justice charge if his client agreed not to contest allegations of perjury, they said.

Rove declined to plead guilty to the reduced charge, the sources said, indicating through his attorney Robert Luskin that he intended to fight the charges. A call placed to Luskin was not returned.

Yes, Jason Leopold did report a story that Karl Rove was indicted. But that report occurred on May 13, 2006, not October 26, 2005. That story appeared in Truthout, but not Raw Story:

KARL ROVE HAS BEEN INDICTED.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1179819

The report you linked to does state that Fitzgerald was seeking an indictment of Rove, not that he had been indicted or that "Fitzpatrick" would "arrest Karl Rove". Your link that you provided makes that clear:

The grand jury had not yet decided on whether to make indictments at the time this article was published.

I'm not sure whether that is Jason Leopold writing that or not. Wish he had been that careful in his reporting for Truthout in 2006.

I've never visited Truthout. Jason supplied stories to multiple blogs so maybe Truthout posted it as well, but I read it RAW STORY.

One poster on the link I provided even says, "Why hasn't...Raw Story...picked this up?"

If you've got a link, I'll stand corrected. But my memory of that time, painful as it was, is pretty sharp. I was reading Raw Story every day during that time and I never read them report the infamous indictment that was not to be.

We got a lot of shit from DU for not posting it.

but the facts are it was TruthOut and until you locate a link proving your point, you may as well just bang your head into a wall

Rove was indicted nor even suggested any such thing. In fact, Raw Story reported that Rove was cooporating with Fitz's investigation. I know this for a fact!

which is actually what Fitz did is not the same thing as someone having been indicted, which Raw Story never reported.

You might want to wait for Fitzgerald instead, since there is no Fitzpatrick. Like I said somewhere in this thread... you don't read much, do you?

considering giving a speech, and nowhere does anyone confirm he's dropping the public option, except you.

The media has written the story before it's even happened and you are all over it just the teabaggers who believe everything the GOP tells them.

Bite me, he has been backing off it for months. "Reform" will end up being just a huge windfall for the insurance industry. That is what a corporatist does.

They do not jive.

across the board!

Don't pick all the stones from the pile of cherries and then pretend that stones was all there ever was.

any of the others throwing the word sliver around have a fucking clue as to what that means?

When there are many pieces that need to be fixed, one part of it is indeed a sliver.

As far as the opening post, I suppose we're to believe that Obama lied to us from the jump about insisting on a public option. That he lied to us three weeks ago when he stopped in Arizona, Colorado and other places telling us that he was insisting on a public option.

Sorry, I don't believe he lied to me or anyone else. He's been firm from day one on the public option. When he tells me, from his own mouth, that he's not going to insist on it then I'll believe it. Until then fuck these bullshit reports that have been shot down many times now.

The medias goal is to divide Democrats and I'll be damned if it ain't working.

and the same brigade of whiners will follow her down the path as they always do.

also known as "who the hell knows who this guy is and what he wants."

I am unrecommending, due to the sourcing.

I don't do anonymous sources.

Not everything you read on-line or even in print or hear on the "tee vee" is fact!

Most of it is written so the writer gets a paycheck.

That just in to our news desk.

Film at 11:00

There is no confirmation of that yet. "Anonymous sources" can be anyone with an agenda, as we have seen over the years and past few months.

anonymous aide and its raw story via Politico via the Internet and nothing is to be trusted. It's all someone who doesn't know shit posted by someone who doesn't support Obama who wants him to fail. :sarcasm: I think I covered it. On the other hand sometimes aides leak things to the press.:shrug:

Their work revolves about the headline. They want a startling headline, even if it means writing a crappy body.

Yes, Raw Story tilts left, but it doesn't make their journalistic approach any better.

Gimme news, not gossip.

No exclusive reporting from Raw Story? No Siegelman, Minor, or any of the award nominated exclusive investigative pieces ever made your radar? Read much at all or just talk much out your backside?

on anonymous. Anonymous is a troublemaker.

One of his three guiding principles.

What part of that is unclear???

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/organizingforhealthcare2

Obama is going to do about the PO.

CNN. It appears he will become more active in the process
of passing HCR. He know believes the GOP will never
be on board so he is developing strategy for our Party
to pass the bill.

IMO, Beware of these official anonymous reports. There are
DLCers around him who are more than willing to push their
wishes and call them Obamas. Watch and see if we can catch
them.

See this is why his poll numbers are dropping. People who don't even agree with you, can still respect you if you take a strong stance and stand by it. We have to face it, even those of us who are Obama's biggest supporters, he hasn't showed good leadership on this at all. This sounds like it will be another weak attempt to appear in control of the debate, but will just say the same old things. Refusing to demand what he wants.

you can respect that.

;)

I think you're on the wrong site.

don't give an inch more than you get :)

and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again, etc., ad nauseum.

you should do it.

It's a matter of who I want to associate with and BE associated with.

Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen swing about as right as you can swing.

and it will be in the bill he signs

and how important it is, as much as BooshCo did for their wars.

Obama tries to play neutral to much and needs not too.

The OP is one of the worse. You Better Believe It! Especially if your a mom from earth.

what kind of discussion did you offer here?

:spray:

Are you perhaps confusing TruthOut with Raw Story? Or just trying to look foolish?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.