Triggering a Democratic Civil War

by: Mike Lux

Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 10:30


Media reports and insider buzz make it increasingly clear that key people at the White House have become obsessed with Olympia Snowe on health care, and are willing to do pretty much whatever she demands in order to get her on board. The price is looking more and more like this incredibly bad trigger proposal she has been pushing, a trigger that quite literally is written to automatically never trigger a public option. You see, Senator Snowe is writing language into an amendment that is literally a Catch-22. The legislative language says that a public option will be set up in a state in which health care is not affordable to 95% of the state's residents, but it defines affordability as after the new tax credits that are written into the bill to make health care affordable. Not only would this be an incredibly weak public option (doing it in one state will mean it can't get the market power to compete with the big insurers), but it would be a public option that is written by its definition to never be triggered. This is a trigger specifically, intentionally designed to kill the public option.

Some senior White House staffers are now beginning to try to sell this trigger to progressive groups as the compromise version of a public option, saying the White House doesn't want to have a floor fight in the Senate, and that they can always fix it in conference committee. That way they can pick up Snowe, satisfy that desperate urge for being officially bipartisan (even though Snowe can't  bring a single other Republican with her), and not have to worry about procedural hassles in the Senate. But by finally winning Snowe over, the White House is risking something far more politically dangerous: an ugly fight within the Democratic Party, further erosion of Obama's standing with his base, the specter of more primary fights.

The AFL-CIO, Howard Dean and Democracy for America, bloggers, MoveOn.org, progressive media figures, and the tens of thousands of people coming to Obama rallies and cheering wildly for a public option will figure out quickly that this trigger proposal is a farce specifically written to kill any chance of a public option. The Congressional Progressive Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus already are angry at having legal immigrants thrown under the bus by Baucus, all will explode.

As someone who spends every single day working hard to build and strengthen the bridge between the progressive community and the White House, I feel like the White House is triggering a bomb to blow the bridge up from under me (pun fully intended).

This trigger will never trigger a public option, but I can tell you what it will trigger: a civil war inside the Democratic Party just when you most need unity to pass health care reform. I am convinced that there are deals that can be struck that will bring progressive and moderate Democrats, House and Senate Democrats together on a good strong health care bill that will pass. But a trigger designed to never trigger isn't even close to being one of them.
Mike Lux :: Triggering a Democratic Civil War

Tags: , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Triggering a Democratic Civil War | 80 comments
"White House is triggering a bomb to blow the bridge up from under me" (4.00 / 2)
The same WH that you always defend, Mike?
No misunderstanding, this is an important story, and it's good that you expose what's happening behind the scenes, but brace yourself for some commenters saying "we told you so!".
:-/
Me -- the old guy with his hand up, back there in the corner (4.00 / 4)
I hate to say this to such a nice guy, and such a hard-working one too, but honestly Mike, there's been a civil war in the Democratic party since 1948. Truman and the AFL-CIO ran us out of the party in the Fifties, but they decided they had to let us back in to help them with the Dixiecrats. (Everyone, even us pissed-on leftists loved 1964.)

Then Johnson and the warmongering Cold War liberals decided on another showdown with us over their fucking war in 1968. After all of that, first Clinton and now Obama think that the old party is so dead that they can piss on it -- and us -- again, and swear on a stack of bibles that it's raining.

I'm sorry, Mike, to hear that you're disillusioned, but being who you are, I expect you'll be back, bright and chipper next Fall, no matter how this goes. Me not so much.

[ Parent ]
Yep (4.00 / 1)
Ya know, when you say "chipper," I can't help but think of this....  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
To paraphrase a thoroughly disreputable scumbag.... (4.00 / 2)
When I hear the word pragmatic, I reach for Woody Guthrie's guitar.
[ Parent ]
Latest sales promotion from administration member (4.00 / 1)
White House Budget Director Peter Orszag talked about his support for so-called "co-ops" and "triggers."

   Orszag signaled the administration doesn't consider a government-run insurance program essential to the legislation. He suggested it would be sufficient to either create nonprofit insurance-purchasing cooperatives or set "triggers" to activate a public option if needed to cut costs..."The goal here is just to introduce more competition where competition is inadequate," Orszag said. "Either one could work."

http://campaignsilo.firedoglak...


[ Parent ]
Yeah, very impressive! Damn, why don't they hire Steve Ballmer°? (0.00 / 0)
Or some other guy who really can sell shit? Like those IBM  salesmen of the 60s, 70s, and 80s? What they need is a real pro if they want anyone to buy their crap!
|-(

(°Darcy Burner, if you're reading this, sry! But I have to admit I'm not the biggest fan of Microsoft. Not really. But I'm sure most of the folks in Redmond are very cool people.)

[ Parent ]
triggers (4.00 / 1)
What is the history of triggers in legislation?

Specifically, I have this question for Mike or anyone who knows: has a legislative trigger ever been pulled on any legislation, any topic, at any time? If so, what was the legislation? Or, is it the case that triggers in legislation have never initiated meaningful new regulations/programs and are always put in there as a fig leaf to win someone's vote?

From recent reports about the history of triggers... (4.00 / 4)
...I understood that in the overwhelming majority oif cases the trigger has never been pulled. And even when the conditions were met, Congress often refused to implement new legislation. So, a trigger that doesn't come with his own legislation, but instead relies on Congressional action, is totally useless. And most of the others are just propaganda moves and useless, too.

So, I guess it's safe to assume that in the case of healthcare reform, any trigger option is just lipstick on a pig.

[ Parent ]
Exactly true (4.00 / 2)
Do not be fooled. Snow is opposed to the Public Option, the trigger is to kill it.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.
[ Parent ]
Here's one example of a trigger designed to be useless (4.00 / 1)
"When Congress passed a plan to subsidize the cost of prescription drugs in 2003 known as Medicare Part D, lawmakers included a trigger to protect against drug companies submitting huge bills to the government. If the bills got too large, a government plan would be offered to promote competition. Despite big costs, the trigger was never pulled."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...
[ Parent ]
yes, that's the example i keep seeing (0.00 / 0)
and I know Snowe is up to no good. But in fighting the trigger idea it would be nice to be able to say "No federal legislative trigger has ever been effective on any issue." But I don't know if that is true or not.
[ Parent ]
I'm quite sure there has been at least one "successful" trigger... (4.00 / 3)
..in the long history of US Congress. So, what we need instead is a statistic showing that, say, 95% of legislative "triggers" in the last 50 years either haven't been executed, or Government and/or Congress refused to take action after they had been pulled. Hmm, isn't there an institute somewhere which is keeping records?
[ Parent ]
This is it Grey! (0.00 / 0)
In Fact I Propose: That we label the trigger in this case, a "Medicare Part D Trigger"

Four to you sir

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Another example (4.00 / 1)
David wrote about the abominable drug importation trigger here on OL and at salon.com:
"Importation bills were passed, but only those that gave the secretary of Health and Human Services the power to trigger -- or not trigger -- final implementation. Specifically, the secretary would have to first certify that imported medicines were 'safe.'"

The result?
"Importation has never been implemented, as no HHS secretary has pulled the trigger. Hence, Americans are still barred from wholesale importation of lower-priced medicine -- and pharmaceutical industry profiteering continues."

[ Parent ]
Ah, that was one of the stories I read! Good one. (0.00 / 0)
Couldn't find it with google. Thx, Jeff!
[ Parent ]
Triggers (0.00 / 0)
However, note the triggers you bring up required congressional action.  Obviously those would not work.  But there is nothing to prevent a bill that has a trigger that would automatically be pulled without congressional approval.  You could even put into the budget money to form a group to monitor the trigger conditions.

Certainly, I could make one up.  Say, we have a very strong public option where anyone can buy into Medicare "at cost" plus 10%.  The trigger is: less than 90% of the U.S. population does not have access to coverage as comprehensive as Medicare at a cost of no more than what the Public Option would cost.  The trigger conditions are checked monthly, forever.

[ Parent ]
Well, but the government may prevent it from being executed. (0.00 / 0)
Wasn't there also a trigger that required the Bush gang to take action regarding a Department of Labor issue? They simply ignored it. And then, what???
[ Parent ]
How is that different than any law? (0.00 / 0)
If we assume executive branch will ignore the law then what is the point of the law?  Any law?

Anyway, that is why I suggested putting in an actual budget for monitoring.  Obviously, the budget to launch after the trigger fired would need to be in there as well.

I'm not trying to promote a trigger.  But if that is what we are going to get, might as well make it real.  The trigger I suggested might actually be stronger than any of the public options currently on the table.

But my larger point is this.  When people claim X doesn't work, they often leave out X doesn't work for a reason.  Change the reason and the possibility of working is restored.

[ Parent ]
Well, Mark, as I see it, you're playing devil's advocate again. (4.00 / 1)
And imho this is a bit of self fulfilling prophecy. Once you start arguing how a trigger can be designed foolproof, people become more sympathetic to the idea. And that's not good. Not good at all now. So, sry, but I don't want to contribute to your reasons how and why a trigger may work.
TRIGGERS ARE BAAAAD, period. There are too few exceptions from that rule to warrant a discussion.
[ Parent ]
Sen. Schumer on triggers (0.00 / 0)
The trigger may be set up so, in effect, it never happens, similar to the Medicare Part D trigger that would have created a public prescription drug plan - but never did.  
[ Parent ]
Is tht supposed to be quote from Schumer? (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Wasn't sure how to do links here (0.00 / 0)
Quote from Schumer in a statement on the stupidity of going with a trigger in the current health insurance legislation.

http://discuss.epluribusmedia....

Evidently links are easier than I though since that seemed to work in preview.

[ Parent ]
A Youtube commenter on triggers: (0.00 / 0)
"Trigger shmigger no way we let this fly"
'Nuff said!
:D
[ Parent ]
they'll get a floor fight alright (4.00 / 7)
this is the Obama administration modus operandi in a nutshell, bend over backwards to appease the center right, then let the liberals and progressives drag them kicking and screaming to the moderate center position. They do it over and over on civil liberties and finance, it plays well in the Washington insider media, it is Broderism in a nutshell.
Why aren't we talking about having a Presidential primary challenge? (0.00 / 0)
Or a third party nominee?

It doesn't have to succeed, it just needs to threaten his ability to win the general long enough for Obama to see the light.  Seems like our biggest problem isn't the Congress so much as the man in charge of the show.  Until we flex our muscles (as we have on healthcare reform), seems there won't be any respect.

Maybe because it's a bit early for that, and would only be a distraction? (0.00 / 0)
Obama's term ends in early 2013. Talking about a primary challenger now won't impress him much, I guess.
[ Parent ]
I hate to burst anyones buble (4.00 / 1)
but Obama is not running this country.  A select few very well connected and rich folks both on the left and the right are running this counrty.  they are the ones that push all the buttons in congress and the senate.  I am sure if Obama had the ability to pass heatlh today he would.  This is not his show.  He's just the face on the lable.  
[ Parent ]
Would a civil war and a serious split in the Democratic Party be a bad thing? (0.00 / 0)
For all the talk of third parties, the only way I know for a third party to be viable is for a major party to have a serious schism. Ideally the rump party would be the blue dogs, but I think there are serious positives even the other way. I wouldn't mind hearing some reactions
Thank you very much Mike. (4.00 / 5)
The courage and principle it takes, it took, to write this, he commitment to the goals we share is admirable. Thank you again.

This is exactly he strength and firmness of principle that the pledge block was formed to uphold. This is exactly the moment that he vow was written, and signed, for.

This is where the pledge block stands and prevents the trigger before a civil war is started.

The plan as pledged is the base demand. Period.

If there is a trigger, there is but one option. For the pledge block to vote it done. There will be no health reform with a trigger.


Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

Thanks for the 4 spitball, but could you unhide the one you thought you disagreed with. (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Could be just another mistake, HoP! (4.00 / 1)
And I learned that it's more helpful for notifiying someone by adding such a comment to the most recent comment of the user. This waw, it will show up on "recent replies". Just a hint...
[ Parent ]
I generally TR rudeness (0.00 / 0)
But, I'll revisit when I get a chance.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Actually no. (0.00 / 0)
I have checked goiung back to July and tghe only other time you troll rated was again me when I asked for kwiatkowski to be banned for repeatedly troll rating comments of mine that he disagreed with.

Abuse of troll rating is a bannable offense. It disfigures a good site.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
What are you, some kind of purist? (4.00 / 2)
Why aren't you working to improve this bad bill, instead of trying to kill it?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
lol (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Wow, this is surprising! (4.00 / 1)
I always thought you're much more of a purist than HoP, Lambert!
:D
[ Parent ]
Are those two mutually exclusive? (4.00 / 2)
A threat to kill a bad bill is a means to push for a better one, no?  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
lamberts humour here is on topic, timed perfectly and appropriate (4.00 / 1)
he is quoting my arguments back to me, in an effective manner.

He highlites that there is similarity between his purpose and mine,

I like his post a lot.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Lambert blushes modestly (0.00 / 0)
I only inflict pain for what I consider to be good reason.

Translation: You have to hit the mule with a two by four to get its attention.

Over and over and over.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
Humour isnt policy. It was good joke, we share a desire to change (4.00 / 1)
and we share the constant expression of strategy and tactics to get to good healthcare for Americans, but we dont agree on the way there.

I try not to hit people with 2x4's, and I dont call them mules. This might be where I hope for your improved ability to make a difference.

I have never hit my children, ever.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Typical for you Yankees! Everything has to be done by car! (0.00 / 0)
Even hitting that poor mule. I'm only surprised that you don't choose to use a 4x4 for that!
:D
[ Parent ]
What kind of a signal does this send to everyone, everywhere, over all (4.00 / 6)
sorts of issues?

Media reports and insider buzz make it increasingly clear that key people at the White House have become obsessed with Olympia Snowe on health care, and are willing to do pretty much whatever she demands in order to get her on board.

This is leadership?

This is CHANGE we can Believe in?

Who knew last November that any Republican who merely signaled with the faintist twitch that he/she MIGHT be willing to sign on to something in some bill under an Obama administration that that same Republican would be given almost exclusive property or copyright ability to write said legislation???

Did anyone here vote for that?

I know I didn't.

It's change you can believe in... (4.00 / 2)
... if you believe in it.

The important part is the belief, not the change. (That, and the "progressive"
tribal tattoos). See under "Clap your hands; don't let Tink die."  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
I wouldn't worry, if I were President Obama or Sen. Snowe (4.00 / 2)
Hardly anyone has noticed that the "public option" plans on record are anything but "strong" or "robust."

All the major blogosphere and activist whipping is telling progressives to support "a" or "the" public option, without regard to who will actually have access to it (Obama says less that 5% of Americans will get it, a small sacrifice of low-yield customers to offset the millions of paying customers that he and Congress are delivering to Big Insurance), and how competitive the "public option" plan (if one) will be vs. the corporate ones.

If pretty much no one has spotted the farce in that, why the fuss about whether they can spot the farce in the trigger?

Chris Bowers has a front pager on just such amandements now. (0.00 / 0)
It includes amendments, on the "mark up" not the final bill, that will give an indication of where the Bill towards after it leaves "the most conservative" of the Democratic Ctte's the Bill is passing through. While it does give an indication of the fight going forward, and a snapshot of the Senators vote intentions going forward, it should no be confused with the final Bill.

I recommend CB's article as well as this one.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
I saw that (0.00 / 0)
I'd love to see more of the public pressure consist of taking a stand on the "strength" and "robustness" of the public option (if one). So often, it seems to be assumed or hoped for or ignored.

More like that, please.

[ Parent ]
Yers I agree, its what I said on his post. (0.00 / 0)
I went to say that his info should be cross posted, esp, on Satate blogs for the Ctte members, and to people intersted and campus news etc etc .

We have to stay on top ready to praise and to punish.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
The way to ensure (0.00 / 0)
Republcian gains to to create a phony trigger.

Already the conservadems have pulled Dem Party poll ratings down by their delays.

Fired Up!  Ready to Stay Home in 2010 is what this is doing.  

You have no place else to go (4.00 / 2)
So, you'd damn well better create a place to go, right? Staying home isn't an option either.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
lol (4.00 / 1)
[ Parent ]
I can't speak for anyone else (4.00 / 5)
but if the Dems pass a health insurance plan without a public plan based on Medicare rates and provider list, it will definitely "TRIGGER" a reaction from me.

Rather than contributing and working to elect more Dems (been there -done that), all my contributions will go to primary challenges against incumbents and I will sit home in 2010. BTW, my triggers are guaranteed to go off.  

[ Parent ]
If the Dems can't deliver truly universal reform... (4.00 / 2)
... that gets everybody care (not just insurance), truly saves money,  and truly saves lives, then they deserve to go the way of the Whigs. Unfortunately, when they took single payer off the table, they took the only legislation on offer that can actually do those things off the table, too.

The Civil War in the Democratic Party won't happen because the insiders made the "public option" (or "plan") 2% more or less pissant; it will happen  because they decided that health insurance reform was more important than health care reform. And here we are!

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

"Key people at the White House..." (4.00 / 2)
... "have become obsessed with Olympia Snow" means who? The fish? Or the head?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
lol its just a festival for lambert today! (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Yeah, but that characterization… (4.00 / 1)
...stopped me, too. Who are we talking about? Somehow it's hard for me to see this noise-loop between the Fresident and the public amounting to a mere trigger. The Republicans have already walked. We know this. Who, if not the President, are these holdouts in the White House? Thanx for the alert, Mike, but if you have that info you've gotta give it up.  

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams
[ Parent ]
"If only the Czar knew!" (4.00 / 2)
But perhaps Mike can tell us ...  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
Your framing is getting a little republican there lambert (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Bollocks (0.00 / 0)
You're confusing a word with a frame.

In fact, "If only the Czar knew" is a well-known phrase, describing the touching faith that Russian peasants had in the good motives of their leaderz.

This obviously has nothing to do with the silly campaign that the Republicans are running against Obamas various "czars" for the automobile industry, and so on.

Just a little too quick to smear there, guy.  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
Good job illuminating this planned deceit, Mike (4.00 / 2)
So, they don't want to have a floor fight, huh?  Nah, no use fighting for tens of thousands of their "constituents'" lives.  It's much more important to be polite ... to their corporate constituents in the health care complex.

They are really trying to thread the needle on this one rather than give 75% of the people, that they profess to represent, what they want.  No coincidence that these deceitful trigger tricks is what rahm wanted several months back and this is what they are trying to arrange to get to obama's desk so that obama can sign it and shrug like he has no choice.

The more people that are aware of their trigger tricks, the less cover they'll have to pull it off.  

Z

Need her (4.00 / 6)
Baucus needs 12 votes to get his abomination out of Committee. He has 13 Democrats but two won'tfollow him. That is 11.  He either has to woo the left or get a Republican.  It really is crucial for the creep to get Snowe.  

C'mon Kerry! De-Snowe the sucker.  One more no to Baucus Care and he needs 2 Republicans on the Committee and that train won't leave the station.  Then Baucus will have to backtrack to the left.

If nothing is an acceptable answer to this (a despicaable bill) or nothing, Baucus personally and this multi-Committee system in general have screwed the pooch.

PS-  Don't pressure Snowe, pressure Kerry.  And Baucus.  Hang him in effigy.  The creep deserves it.

Good info, David. It's important to expose the key figures. (4.00 / 1)
And now that people know that Kerry's vote will be so decisive, they can direct their pledges to make a stand for the public option to the good Senator from Massachusetts.
[ Parent ]
Promoting disunity is worse than waving around a loaded gun. (0.00 / 0)
Let's remember folks, "holding action". The culture is still balefully narcissistic and yet you expect holiness?

The horse of culture before the cart of government, please.

White House Denies Mikes Article. (4.00 / 2)
The White House, along with several progressive groups and high-ranking Democrats, is pushing back against reports that the administration is advancing a compromise proposal in which a public option would only be triggered by certain economic conditions.

On Wednesday morning, liberal strategist Mike Lux, who advised the Obama administration during the transition, wrote that White House officials were pushing the "trigger" compromise as a politically palatable way of avoiding "a floor fight in the Senate."

Lux's story affirmed, in some respects, reporting that I did several months earlier, in which a high-ranking Democrat who works closely with the White House on health care matters told me that the president's team saw the "trigger" as the end-game compromise to the public option debate.

Marvelous.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

Hmm, maybe Mike's "leak" spoiled their plan. (4.00 / 1)
At least it will become more difficult to pull this through now that they had to publicly dementi this...
:-/
[ Parent ]
At the very least every one is aware of how wary, how closely we are watching and how furious we will be, and what the consequences are. (0.00 / 0)
It is good no matter what. I say thank you again Nike, and btw I also say thank you to the WH for the quick respnse, the direct push back, that has strengthened the PO, strengthened the resolve of the pledge block and strengthened the vast left blogurbia to its work.

We are building an involved, engaged citizenry for America, this is proof, and its a very good thing.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Wait a moment, they didn't really "deny" it! (4.00 / 3)
Read carefully:

"The White House ... is pushing back"
This doesn't mean anything. They can push back even if it's true.

"The story about us reaching out to groups is not accurate,"
Ok, they didn't "reach out" whatever that means. Doesn't exactly say they didn't talk about this...

"The White House did not return requests for comment."
Now,that's strange. Where do those other quotes come from, then? I can only translate this as meaning they didn't comment on whether the triggered option is discussed. One way or the other, no real dementi in whatever they said. Ain't that telling us something?

[ Parent ]
Hehe, sry for beating a dead horse now, but... (0.00 / 0)
..I'm still thinking about that quote from the anonymous administration official "The story about us reaching out to groups is not accurate,"

Rememebr Nixon's Press Secretary, Ron Ziegler? During Watergate, he reacted to a Woodward/Bernstein story about CRP treasurer Hugh Sloan allegedly naming WH Chief of Staff Bob Haledman as being to a secret White House fund, when giving testimony to a Grand Jury. Ziegler said: "Mr. Sloan did not implicate Mr. Haldeman in that testimony at all... the information that the Post has reported...is inaccurate information. Apparently their sources are not accurate."

Yes, right, Sloan really didn't implicate Haldeman "in that testimony". It was a misunderstanding, he just hadn't been asked for that information! But Harry Robbins "Bob" Haldeman, former White House Chief of Staff, was convicted of conspiracy and obstruction of justice, on January 1, 1975. He was sentenced to serve 2 1/2 to 8 years, reduced to 1 to 4 years after appeal. In Lompoc Federal Prison, he worked as a chemist in the sewage treatment facility. After serving 18 months, Haldeman was released on parole, December 20, 1978.

So much for "not accurate" informations!
:D

[ Parent ]
Gray gray, you are reading quotes from quoted people quoting quotes from articles. (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
"The WH denied it"? SRy, but you did make this up, HoP. (0.00 / 0)
Have you never read "all the president's man"? You can learn a lot about denails from it. A real denial would look like: "The White House has never tried to prepare the ground for a triggered public option in any way". Saying they didn't "push it" doesn't deny they may have tried to sell it in a more subtle way. And saying a story is "not accurate" is not the same as saying its "wrong". It only shows there's a detail wrong, however minor that may be.
[ Parent ]
FYI Mike (0.00 / 0)
I talked to someone at Anthony Weiner's office who said this was "the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard" and said the White House was in no way pushing them to accept triggers and;

"The White House hasn't been pushing anything at all"


"pushing"? What's "pushing", exactly? (0.00 / 0)
Did they TALK with him about the trigger???
[ Parent ]
Gray! (0.00 / 0)
There are other places to look, the Senate is one, calling the Reps to push --this horse is dead, not that there wont be, in fact will be, another tomorrow, but this horse? She has past the pasture.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.
[ Parent ]
This parrot is no more? (0.00 / 0)
He has ceased to be? 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker?

Well, I don' think so. Me thinks the parrot doth protest too much.
And what is more trustworthy, Mike Lux's story, or the not totally denying statements of a Congressman, even if its Weiner?

[ Parent ]
There will be more places to see slippage, more attempts to cut and run. (4.00 / 1)
But every denial is a support for the PO, every exposure and strengthening. It was either caught, and denied or wasn't there, in either case, this one, this fight, was won.

I offer that we stay wary strong and determined, but watch the places where the most damage can be done, the most improvements be made. The amendment to ensure the "market of Insurance plans, with arobust option, and another to define it without a firewall, are where we must direct out greatest resouces now.

But as you like. Wary indeed and firm to the last or we lose, and the democrats have no Bill.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Wikipedia: Non-denial denial (0.00 / 0)
Non-denial denial is a phrase that became popular in the wake of the Watergate scandal, referring to an equivocal denial, particularly one made by an official to the press. The Times has defined it as "an on-the-record statement, usually made by a politician, repudiating a journalist's story, but in such a way as to leave open the possibility that it is actually true."[1]

A "non-denial denial" is a statement that seems direct, clearcut and unambiguous at first hearing, but when carefully parsed is revealed not to be a denial at all, and is thus not untruthful. It is a case in which words that are literally true are used to convey a false impression; analysis of whether or when such behavior constitutes lying is a long-standing issue in ethics.
...
- Characterizing a statement as "ridiculous" or "absurd" without saying specifically that it is not true;


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
[ Parent ]
obviously not (0.00 / 0)
They haven't heard from the White House at all.  
[ Parent ]
That's possible, DT, but he didn't explicitly say that. (0.00 / 0)
And then, Weiner sure is a very bad example. He's a determined, outspoken supporter of not only the p.o., but of single payer, as we know from his TV appearances! He would be almost be the LAST one the WH talks to. Even if they really haven't spoken to him, this may only show that they haven't completed making their round yet.
[ Parent ]
via TPM (4.00 / 1)
White House Trying to Pave the Way for Triggers
"Off the record interviews and emails with reform leaders resulted in no denials, and two confirmations that Lux's account is correct."


Yeah Okay is this the same TPM that said that Public Option had been removed from (0.00 / 0)
--Obama's site? I think so. Its sketchy so it might be sketchy. I want HuffPo to stop putting misleading sexist headlines on everything too. I guess tho, the only thing to do is call your resp, tell them to stand firm. the pledge or no BILL.

And donate to them too.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
all this "insider" s**t really rubbing me raw (4.00 / 1)
What ever happened to integrity? Nevertheless your advice is correct.
[ Parent ]
Triggering a Democratic Civil War | 80 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox