President Obama was quoted yesterday at a ceremony at the White House as hoping that he’ll get a "bipartisan" health insurance bill:
Earlier today, at a White House ceremony honoring NASCAR champion Jimmie Johnson President Obama said he’s "absolutely confident that we are going to get a [health care] bill, and I hope it’s bipartisan."
That hope is truly audacious, given that he’s also apparently concluded that Republicans don’t have any interest in being good faith health care negotiators.
And now how does Senator Grassley reward President Obama’s effort to work with Republicans in the Senate to produce a health insurance reform bill out of the Senate Finance Committee? According to Greg Sargent at The Plum Line, this is how Senator Grassley rewarded President Obama’s hopes for a bipartisan bill:
In recent days, however, some Democrats have accused Grassley of trying to undermine the reform effort, for example by refusing to debunk rumors that the Democratic health bills would create “death panels” empowered to decide whether the infirm live or die.
On Wednesday, he denied those claims and fired back at Obama, saying the president should publicly state his willingness to sign a bill without a controversial government-run insurance plan. Such a statement, he said, is “pretty important … if you’re really interested in a bipartisan bill.”
And here’s more from Greg Sargent:
Grassley knows the White House is under tremendous pressure to contain a revolt on the left over the public option. It’s hard to imagine any reason for demanding Obama renounce the public option right now, before there’s even a bill out of the finance committee, other than to make life politically difficult for the President.
How does that compare with the White House’s treatment of Grassley? When the Senator endorsed the “death panel” claim, the White House reaffirmed its commitment to working with him. Dems quietly let Grassley claim a big victory by dropping the public option from the Senate bill he’s negotiating. And when Rahm Emanuel questioned the sincerity of GOP leaders yesterday, an apparent shot at Grassley, the White House rapidly walked it back.
Grassley, meanwhile, has now raised the bar yet again for what will constitute true bipartisanship on the White House’s part. Pretty telling.
Will the White House draw a line in the sand against the public option in order to produce a "bipartisan" health insurance reform bill? I don’t know yet at point, but it’s patently ridiculous watching these Republicans kick sand in the face of our President. When will the White House stop letting themselves being beaten about by the Republicans for some farce of a health insurance bill?
I’ve had enough of this kabuki theater. This is precisely why we need to keep up the pressure on our progressives in the House to stand firm on the public option as a requirement for passage in any bill, including the conference report.



6 Comments








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
graasley is obviously interested in “peeling” us away from the president. he might well make such a statement, because probably, most of us are already peeled.
sorry for the typo, its “greasely” of course
How about some ads running in grassley’s district, explaining to his constituents that Sen. grass hole is trying to pass a law forcing them all to buy private health insurance. we could even “speculate” and say that some MAY even be thrown off medicare and forced to buy private insurance.
Maybe Obama will now realize that negotiating with Grassley is “like arguing with a dining room table.” h/t to Barney the Great!!
Does waiting on a committee consisting of three democrats and three rethugs not constitute proof asshat? If the rethugs were in charge there would be six rethugs in the room and dems would be barred.
The longer Obama hangs on for this “bi-partisanship” dream, the lower everyone’s opinion of him goes.
Why on EARTH is he so stubborn in this direction, and why couldn’t he have been this stubborn with regard to single payer?