I’m glad that Jane Hamsher clarified her odd timeline because I couldn’t figure out why she was attributing a July article about events in January to February 2009. But she doesn’t quite address my point. She’s been arguing for quite some time that Rahm Emanuel has been secretly pushing to kill the triggerless public option (presumably at the behest of Barack Obama). Now, as I noted, Emaunel did float the idea of a trigger in an interview with the Wall Street Journal that took place in early July. Two days after that article appeared, Sam Stein published an article in the Huffington Post that cited a “source close to the administration.” That source claimed that Emanuel had been pushing a trigger all the way back in January. And that article has formed the basis for Hamsher’s use of Emanuel as a bogeyman who opposes a triggerless public option.
Now, this could easily become a dispute about something totally tangential to the main argument. I took issue with a blast email that Hamsher sent out that said the Senate was trying to kill the public option by introducing a trigger, which was something that Emanuel had been fighting for since January. I noted that Emanuel had not publicly discussed a trigger before July. I did my best to verify that claim before writing my response. I did not come across Sam Stein’s article during that process, but when Hamsher cited it in her defense, I noted that the piece wasn’t written until July and that it relied on an anonymous source close to the administration.
I want to be clear about something. I’m not arguing that Sam Stein is unreliable. I am saying that his source was not willing to go on the record and was not a member of the administration. Stein’s article was headlined: President Tries To Put Out Fire From Emanuel’s Health Care Remarks. The premise of the article was that that Emanuel’s remarks about a trigger quoted in the WSJ had been off-message, and that Obama wanted to reassure supporters of the public option that he wasn’t backing off his support for the measure. There were a lot of people who wanted to push-back on Emanuel, and any number of public option supporters ‘close to the administration’ could be expected to make the dispute personal. I don’t think Stein made up the quote, but I think using this anonymous source to concoct a blood-feud conspiracy theory is going out on a limb in a major way.
But this dispute about articles written in July about what might have happened in January is actually kind of beside the point. What’s really at issue is an interpretation of facts and events and intentions. For Hamsher, the real enemies of a triggerless public option are Barack Obama and his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. In her worldview, Emanuel is a corporate-friendly centrist whose preferred outcome generally aligns with what Ben Nelson and Kent Conrad would like to see. Obama is like Czar Nicholas II in the thrall of Rasputin, allowing his chief adviser to undermine his campaign promises in the service of major insurance and pharmaceutical corporations. I find this view as unsophisticated as it is uncharitable.
Rahm Emanuel’s job is to understand process and count votes. He can cajole and offer certain sticks and carrots, but he ultimately has to understand what the best deal is that can be achieved. When the Obama administration took office in January, they did a preliminary whip count to find out where they stood in the Senate on their health care plan. They discovered that they didn’t have 60 votes for a triggerless public option and that they didn’t have enough Democratic votes on the Finance Committee to pass one. I think at that point Rahm Emanuel probably started thinking about compromises that might get the bill through the Senate. Initially, the Dems didn’t have anywhere near 60 reliable votes. Specter was still a Republican; Kennedy was generally unavailable; Byrd was in and out of the hospital, Burris’s appointment was held up; and Franken wasn’t seated until July. On top of that, several Democrats were indicating that they couldn’t support the health care plan the president used in the campaign. So, did Emanuel discuss triggers in January? It’s quite possible that he did. I am sure he discussed a variety of possible compromises that might garner the unanimous support of the Democratic Caucus as well as Specter, Snowe, Collins, and maybe more Republicans. The dispute is really over why Emanuel might have been discussing triggers back then, why he floated them in July, and why the administration has continued to discuss them up until today. Was it something they were fighting for? Or was it something they were hoping would sway the votes they needed to pass the health care reform through the Senate under regular order (at the 60-vote threshold)?
As the bill went to the Finance Committee, it became obvious that getting Olympia Snowe’s support might be critical to both passing something through the committee and getting a 60th vote. At that point, Sen. Kennedy was mortally ill. It was in that context that Emanuel went public with the trigger option. Was he trying to undermine the triggerless public option or merely bowing to political necessities?
One clue is that the administration allowed Speaker Pelosi to push a robust public option through the three House committee that had jurisdiction. No one in the administration dissuaded her from pushing for a robust public option to the very end, when it became obvious that she’d have to settle for negotiated rates. Still, the House passed a triggerless public option, which forced a lot of members to vote for a bill far more progressive than anything likely to ultimately pass through the Senate or become law. The idea was to pass the strongest possible public option in the House and use that as leverage in the Conference Committee. If the administration actually preferred a triggerless public option and were fighting for one, they wouldn’t have allowed Pelosi to endanger and discomfort so many of her most vulnerable members. In fact, it was precisely those members with the most to lose who were most indebted to Emanuel for their positions in Congress. He should have been attentive to their needs and spared them a tough vote if he really didn’t support the underlying legislation. That didn’t happen.
So, my disagreement with Hamsher is over motives and intentions, not over timelines. I am not a fan of Rahm Emanuel’s politics, but I see him as doing his best to pass the strongest possible health care reform in the service of the president. Hamsher sees him as secretly undermining strong reform. Her evidence is weak, unsubstantiated, and just doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Wasn’t it the Czarina who was under the spell of Rasputin? Maybe Michelle is in on this nefarious plot.
It was actually both of them. The Czarina was more enthralled, but Nick thought Rasputin could protect his hemophiliac son.
BooMan is good with details, just like the assholes who twist details and spout bullshit as they go about ruining this country.
Last week, he turned his attention not to those who are undermining real health care reform, but to an email sent out by Jane Hamsher, who is working to pressure the so-called Democrats in Washington who are trying hard to stop us from fixing serious problems in our health care system.
Seriously?
BooMan is showing nothing more than his own pettiness by wasting so much time formulating such twisted and totally unnecessary arguments that accomplish nothing (well, I suppose he got a bit of attention out of it).
Petty. Shameless.
What’s he going to turn his attention to next, a handful of scientists’ emails that “prove” that climate change doesn’t exist?
I’d argue that it was Jane, in her email blast, who turned her attention away from the people who are obstructing health care reform and blamed Obama and Emanuel.
And yet the real problem is far too many Democrats who think that giving in to so-called “moderate” Democrats again and again and again.
Here’s a piece from my Do Believe the Snark: Sunday Talk In Review (Dec 13, 2009):
And what those in the Obama administration are doing by pushing for bullshit compromises behind the scenes is far worse than Rockefeller said yesterday.
You’re right. They should just give up. What’s the point?
Who’s saying “give up”? I’m saying that constant appeasement is the problem. They need to fight hard for what’s right and push assholes like Lieberman, Landrieu, Lincoln and Nelson out of the way.
As I wrote in Matthew Spieler Attacks Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake (Dec 13, 2009):
Look, you seriously seem to be determined not to get the obvious staring you right in the face.
Rather than question your motives, I’ll just leave you to it (whatever it is you think you’re doing).
Brian – no one who knows Booman questions his motives. Booman’s complaint is that Jane questions Emanuel’s, without enough factual support. Nothing you have said negates his premise.
Lisa, I didn’t question his motives. I have questioned only whether there’s a point to this weak line of argumentation on this topic.
He argues minutia to assert bs generalizations, just like a Republican. Not saying he’s a Republican. Just pointing out that he’s invoking the same logical fallacy in arguing something that’s entirely pointless.
Arguing against minutiae seems Palinist to me. It’s a variation on ‘don’t confuse me with details,’ or ‘facts are stupid things.’
There are ways to generalize to distract attention away from what something really is, in which case looking at the details is very important.
For example, the Democratic failures are calling what they’re doing “health care reform,” though it is not.
And then there’s what you’re doing in this pointless argument, deliberately focusing on a point of minutia to dismiss a position that is entirely valid.
You’re arguments aren’t just bad, they’re not even interesting.
So uninteresting that they’ve caught your attention since late this morning…never mind Jane’s foul response.
Have a nice night.
Brian, you’re the one not making sense here.
We have factual support to question Emanuel’s motives. We have words out of his own mouth. He’d rather have a super-shitty bill than nothing at all. He thinks that Democrats will be running to the polls regardless of what chicken shit they attempt to call chicken salad. Emanuel comes from the DLC/Corporate wing of the Democratic Party. And who are always the assholes trying to block Democratic initiatives from being passed? And why is it that Progressives always have to cave? What ever happened to giving both sides something they were satisfied with? Besides. if the base doesn’t turn out for a tool like Lincoln, she’s toast. And the public option continually polls well, despite what certain Senators or Versailles says.
What Calvin said.
leopards do not change their spots booman.
I’m not buying what Brian’s selling about motives or anything like that. I’m just looking at the various actors, considering their records and past actions. My suspicion about rahm is he wants something they can call a win: what matters, it seems, is passing a bill on health, regardless of what’s in it.
and i realize you have a lot of faith in Obama, but isn’t it true that he’s downplayed the importance of a public option, said it’s not totally important, and moved the goalposts from “health care reform” to “health insurance reform”?
calvin’s points on the DLC/corporate wing also have resonance that you cannot deny.
Brendan-
They all want a win. They all want to pass a bill. How in the fuck could they pass a triggerless public option through the Senate when, as you can see now, they can’t even pass a triggered public option? They had a strategy to pass a strong public option in the House, and a trigger in the Senate, and then try to compromise between the two. Instead, they went for a non-robust PO in the House and an opt-out public option in the Senate. That shouldn’t have mattered much in the end, because the meeting point was still about the same, but this procedural move allowed Lieberman, Nelson, and others to start drawing all kinds of lines in the sand, and now the whole bill is essentially dead.
You think they wanted this? They have been working with what they have, which is not enough fucking votes. Being hard-asses on a robust triggerless PO wouldn’t have worked before, and that should be obvious by now. Ascribing nefarious motives for this situation to the wrong people seemed singularly obnoxious.
They have been working with what they have, which is not enough fucking votes.
How many votes do they need?!?!?!?!? Not all the Democrats have to vote for the final bill. Why don’t you call it for what it is. Why isn’t Mark Pryor being as much of a prick as Blanche Lincoln? They are both DLC. They are both from Arkansas. Yet, we only hear about Blanche Lincoln. There are certain people in the Senate, some of whom Obama has enabled, that don’t want to see the Democrats pass anything worth a damn. Those few are basically saying they prefer the Republicans in the majority. And why is the SEIU kissing Blanche Lincoln’s ass?
if “a win” is defined as simply “pass a bill”, can you NOT see that there’s no impetus to pass a “good bill” rather than a “bad bill”?
if all that matters is “pass a bill” who gives a fuck what’s in it?
I think, and maybe i am wrong, that too many in the Senate are not exactly in touch with what goes on in reality world. Over at daily kos, nyceve wrote last week that not one single senator (no reps either) has been out to those free health clinics going on, not one.
maybe it’s because they’re mostly millionaires and haven’t had to want for anything in years (remember that showdown between Robert Byrd and Paul O’Neill, about which one grew up poorer? that was a weird little exchange).
maybe because it’s difficult to imagine what life is like without health care, when you’ve had it for as long as you can remember?
or maybe it’s because losing an election doesn’t sting as much with a lifetime pension and a lobbyist job lined up.
and yeah, the republican assholes are very much to blame for delaying and delaying, but is there nothing reid or anyone else can do? the gop sure got things done when the democrats were in the minority. surely there’s something.
This might be of interest to you…
Rahm Emanuel on Healthcare:
* Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)
* Voted YES on giving mental health full equity with physical health. (Mar 2008)
* Voted YES on Veto override: Extend SCHIP to cover 6M more kids. (Jan 2008)
* Voted YES on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility. (Oct 2007)
* Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Jan 2007)
* Voted NO on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. (Feb 2006)
* Voted NO on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages. (May 2004)
* Voted NO on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
* Voted YES on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs. (Jul 2003)
* Voted NO on small business associations for buying health insurance. (Jun 2003)
* Voted NO on capping damages & setting time limits in medical lawsuits. (Mar 2003)
* Establish “report cards” on HMO quality of care. (Aug 2000)
* Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)
* Establish a national childhood cancer database. (Mar 2007)
what’s your point? Before Obama became President, Emanuel was aiming to become Speaker some day. He wasn’t going to get there by voting against his party. The BlueDogs aren’t a big enough block to elect him Speaker
The point is you argue for consideration of “facts” and don’t take all facts into consideration, only the ones that work for your argument while omitting or discounting others. The truth is that more facts exist that Emanuel has worked for the benefit of the Democratic party than to its detriment. Discounting a politician’s very solid voting record by saying he “had to vote with his party” and implying that he really didn’t mean to vote that way, for years on end, is ridiculous.
This is about money, the influence it buys in D.C. and the political reality that exists in the absence of sweeping campaign finance reform. Rahm Emanuel was a very liberal legislator working hard for very liberal policies. As a Clinton era advisor he had to deal with the political realities of keeping Democrats in power and unfortunately, at this point in our history, involves keeping corporations from giving all of their money to Republicans and keeping them from using all of their considerable muscle and influence to stop the Democratic agenda. This necessitated the stacking of the Congressional deck with Democrats, the fact that some of them are centrist and fighting more liberal policies are a fact of life that was inevitable. This is not as Progressive a country as we would like to think it is.
There are plenty of arguments to be made on the perils making deals with the devil. ie. the Obama admin./Congress negotiating with corporations, but letting your emotions overtake the reality on the ground is just silly and counterproductive.
This is not as Progressive a country as we would like to think it is.
On bread and butter issues(like health care!!) it sure is.
…when progressive Democratic or third party candidates learn how to consistently win in rural and conservative districts on their populism alone, without corporate special interest bundles.
I look forward to that day, too and will do my best to help the ones that try, but the corps still run the place and negotiating with those terrorists and their congressional lackeys, of which there are many, is the approach both the admin and Congress are taking right now. I don’t like it either, but that’s the reality.
Rahm Emanuel was a very liberal legislator working hard for very liberal policies.
Where is your proof for this? When he was head of the DCCC, he recruited Blue Dogs and others that seek to betray the Democratic agenda. And don’t give me crap about how those guys vote their district because we know that’s not true. And why would corporations give all their money to Republicans regardless? And wouldn’t passing good legislation help diffuse the corporate money?
He recruited Blue Dogs in Republican districts to get a majority. It’s what everyone does. I don’t like the Blue Dogs either, but I understand how they got in. Like it or not, the country is not like us. We’re in the minority.
You need to get your vision checked. If this is Rahm doing his best “to pass the strongest possible health care reform,” then he’s got to go.
Real reform has been undermined, the evidence is clear for all to see. The failure of leadership among Democrats (plus the total disregard for the American people among far too many Democrats), is entirely to blame.
As I wrote in Matthew Spieler Attacks Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake (Dec 13, 2009):
BooMan seems to want to defend Rahm. Well, BooMan said that Rahm works for Obama and that Rahm wouldn’t have said anything last July to the media that was against what Obama wanted. So let’s blame Obama. Jane Hamsher already sent out a call to sign a petition blaming Obama for his failure of leadership, you say?
Look, in BooMan’s effort to continue this nonsensical “debate,” BooMan’s is missing the point that, while the Dems screw up health care reform, the American people are losing faith in them, as I point out in Smoke, Mirrors, and CBO Scores: The Health Care Reform Bait-and-Switch (Dec 12, 2009) and Dems Fail to Reform Health Care; Seal Fate for 2010 (Dec 10, 2009).
Brian-
I take it that you have noticed that even a triggered public option is a dead letter. The reason? Unanimous Republican opposition plus Lieberman. Blaming other people might make you feel better, but the reality is that the opposition has the 41 votes they need.
Lol, this post looks like something David Sirota would write. Self-promotion much?
Look at BooMan’s pointless argument about Jane Hamsher, then look at my arguments about the Demcoratic failures who are ruining health care reform by giving in again and again and again to so-called “moderate” Democrats.
BooMan appears to be self-promoting by continuing his attack on Jane Hamsher.
Again, whatever they’ve given, it is apparently not enough. That’s why I argue they should use budget reconciliation, but you seem to think they should drive a harder bargain.
It’s as if you asked for $250,000 for your house, got offered $185,000, and came back asking for $300,000.
Either they accept $185,000, or they use reconciliation. Crying that they should have forced the buyer to pay the asking price is kind of petulant and pointless. Yeah, the buyers are a-holes, but you have a house to sell.
Not at all. I totally agree with you.
And if they don’t use reconciliation to pass real health care reform, then Reid and the Obama administration are entirely to blame for the failure of leadership.
But that’s exactly what Jane Hamsher has been arguing.
Why don’t you just thank her for all her hard work or just STFU?
I’m guessing that you are not really familiar with my work.
Nope. Haven’t much noticed you till now. Judging from your weak arguments in this nonsense, which you’ve been inexplicably been pushing for days now, I’m not surprised I haven’t.
Regarding your efforts to create a spat with Jane Hamsher over minutia, the same point I made to some loser named Matthew Spieler applies to you as well:
Please go back to FDL and stop insulting Boo Man.
Lay out your argument clearly and read his response. You undermine your reasoning when you are rude.
BTW, you don’t do FDL any favors by coming here and sneering down your nose.
Agreed. You can criticize the Administration’s handling of this debate and strategy but I still do not understand the premise that Obama would want a shitty Health Care bill to run on and defend, especially after what his mom went through.
The centrist ass holes in the Senate are preventing reform from even getting a vote. The dysfunctional under representation makeup of the Senate and their super majority requirements are not the fault of the Executive branch.
Jane Hamsher has had a personal vendetta against Obama ever since her favored candidate lost primary. I personally think Rahm is an egotistically prick and a Corporate lackey but her relentless pursuit to turn him into some super heron villian controlling Obama seems far off base.
This is not a Rove/Cheney/Dubya situation.
The President has liberal/progressive instincts but with a pragmatic, lets make a deal and move the ball closer to the goal approach. Observing those facts does not make me approve them but disagreeing with them does not make them evil either.
The centrist ass holes in the Senate are preventing reform from even getting a vote.
And who do you think enables them?
I’ll second that. abnd i read FDL every day, and typically agree morwe with jane Hamsher than Booman.
but brian/Knoxville, this isn’t the way to go about it.
“Why don’t you just thank her for all her hard work or just STFU?”
I see Jane has found a new poodle to replace Kobe.
And I think they know if they use reconciliation they will 1) unite the Republican party in an all-out war in the next election cycle, and 2) open the door for a Republican majority to use that on us the next time. It’s a terrible precedent to start, even if it would work. We might win the battle, but we’d definitely lose the war. I’d rather win the war.
but they’d get a lot better bill overall if they used reconciliation. And Democrats need the base to be fired up to get to the polls. So they can’t be worried about the Rethuglicans. They need to worry about their own party first. And why are you so worried about what Republicans might do? They’ll do it anyway, regardless of what we do(Especially the Republican Party of the present).
No, they wouldn’t necessarily get a better bill if they used reconciliation. With reconciliation you’re taking whatever you’re going to get and forcing it through with 51 votes.
Unless of course they do something like open up medicare to everyone by using reconciliation. I don’t see that on the table though or know if its possible.
Medicare for all – that would be fantastic! Does anyone know if this is even possible in reconciliation?
Well, every comment I see of yours on this blog has you linking to your own blog which is hopelessly empty with 3 comments. I think you’re more interested in readership and self-promotion than actual analysis.
In any case, I read both FDL and Booman, and when it comes to analysis of the process, Booman has been consistently right, and FDL has been consistently wrong. This was true in the primaries, this was true in the general election, and it’s been true with the legislative process during the entire administration.
Maybe you’re applying Occam’s Razor incorrectly, and perhaps so is Jane, but when I apply it, I get Booman’s conclusion.
If you’ve been reading Firedoglake, then you’ve been reading some of me over there. I cross-post all my writing at Firedoglake. Take a look for Knoxville, where you will see many comments.
Speaking of seeing comments, you do realize that you’re not debating me in a vacuum, right?
People are seeing my arguments and they see your weak responses.
I don’t care about convincing you.
I let the readers be the judge.
I’m really sick of those people.
According to Jane, and many like minded pouters, anyone who fails to fall in line with their tantrum must be a paid employee of the WH. Talk about weak.
I invite you to take a look at what this person is calling a tantrum over at Firedoglake.
Judge for yourself.
Wow. I don’t doubt that BooMan appreciates the clicks but, on the other hand, no one is forced to stay here.
Wow. Whatever my differences with Jane, i try to avoid making it personal. But she’s got a doozy of a comment on me.
I am a troll. I am a bottomfeeder. And I guess I am getting marching orders from the DNC or something. This is actually an interesting comment because it displays the level of conspiratorial reasoning that I am criticizing when it is leveled at Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama. It’s also ironic because one of her main substantive criticisms of me is that I am engaging in some kind of smear-the-messenger campaign when I question her actions. But she’s smearing me in a way I would never even consider smearing her.
Oh well, so much for a civil debate.
If I actually was an FDL reader, that comment would make me question my presence there.
Jane Hamsher is a bully, a name-caller and a shameless self-promoter. Whoever noted above that she has it in for Obama because he defeated Hillary was spot on. She was auditioning to be President Hillary’s Dana Perino.
The reason that she’s particularly pissy right now is because she won’t get to take credit for a public option in the final health care bill.
And if you want to see what a “bot” looks like, check out the brain-dead groupies that populate her comments sections. Anyone who disagrees with her gets the same sneering contempt that Booman did.
btw, you RAWK, Booman. Yours is one of the few progressive blogs that actually talks sense.
Agreed! Hamsher’s hamsters is what I call her groupies and paid shills.
Jane HamsherJoe Lieberman is a bully, a name-caller and a shameless self-promoter. Whoever noted above thatshe has it in for Obama because he defeatedHillaryMcCain was spot on.In other words, if we’re talking about grudges and vendettas, Hamsher and Lieberman are two peas in a particularly smug ‘n’ smarmy pod.
Her comment is unbelievably harsh and, to those of us who have been reading your work for years, she now looks like an ass. I’ve just deleted FDL from my Favorites and will never click there again.
Hamsher keeps making my point about her over and over. She wanted Hillary and now this is her way at revenge. What can Obama do to Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson to stop them from voting with opposition?
How much is the DNC paying these days, Booman? More than Soros? 🙂
The DNC doesn’t even spam me. Well, OFA spams me. But not the overall DNC.
Wow is right. What an a**hole. Never understood why anyone ever took Hamsher seriously. She’s a sky-is-falling drama queen, full of nothing but boycott threats and policy and procedural confusion. And her Stop Hadassah campaign is laugh-out-loud stupid.
That’s pretty fucking pathetic of her. Again: Booman, consistently correct, Jane Hamsher, consistently wrong. What is her problem? So she can criticize the President without anyone questioning her? This is what my problem is with the Obama-bot meme, and why I’ve been having a hard time taking both Hamsher seriously lately. Anyone who agrees with something Obama is doing or simply sees the problems with Congress is an Obama-bot, but someone questioning her? Bottom-feeder.
What a POS way to deflect criticism.
Life is always easier when you can just snark and smear the character of your opponents rather than trying to deal substantively with their arguments. Now where have we seen that type of thing being done before (cough – Cheney/ Bush/ Rove – cough)?
I admire Booman for taking on the Firedoglake-obots, for whom Jane Hamsher can never be wrong. She has done great work in the progressive blogosphere but her anti-Obama campaign is going to taint all the progress she had achieved.
My political philosophy is quite different from yours and I often disagree with your views; but I enjoy your thoughtful analysis. Your character comes through in your writing and you are obviously a decent person. I’ve always had a different feeling about Jane Hamsher. Her comments about you shocked me; but, after a few minutes I realized that that I was feeling the pleasure that one feels when ones judgment, positive in one direction and negative in another, is vindicated. Keep up the good work, Booman.
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/12/14/184421/17