White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs continued to push back against this morning's stories that the administration has given up on getting bipartisanship, even while saying President Obama agrees with the statement that set off those stories.
"Many (Republicans) want to see health care reform," Gibbs said. He also said the three Republicans working on negotiations in the Senate Finance Committee -- Sens. Chuck Grassley (IA), Olympia Snowe (ME) and Mike Enzi (WY) -- "are working in good faith," Gibbs said. "I have no reason to believe they're not."
But Gibbs suggested President Obama agrees with the statement that set off speculation about the death of bipartisanship. Chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said, "The Republican leadership has made a strategic decision that defeating President Obama's health care proposal is more important for their political goals than solving the health insurance problems that Americans face every day."
Gibbs was asked whether Obama agrees.
"Let's just say I haven't seen anything that would persuade me otherwise," he said.
Gibbs also said that reports of fighting within the Democratic party over the reform bill is mostly "contrived" by the media.


LarsThorwald
August 19, 2009 2:55 PM
Le sigh.
I miss the single-minded messaging of the Bush White House.
(Flashback ripple)
Fleischer: "Must kill! Must maim! Must destroy!"
Cheney: "Kill! Maim! Destroy!"
Bush: "Tell you what, let's call on, uh, Stretch over there. Stretch! Go. Howzat now? Look, it's real simple. We are going to kill and maim, and then we are going to, well, maybe before we will do some destroying, but we are definitely doing those three things. Killing and destroying, and the maiming. There's no question in my mind it's the right strat- the right path."
(End flashback ripple)
Um.
Okay.
Maybe I don't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
impik
August 19, 2009 3:04 PM in reply to LarsThorwald
It's really sad. Bush had evil ideas and no problem making them happen. Obama has great ideas, his heart in the right place, but he might be just too nice for this job.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
August 19, 2009 4:01 PM in reply to impik
I don't think Obama is nearly as naive as you think. Sure he's had some missteps but I think they are trying to play their hand the way they can. This story aint writ yet. We'll see who is the fool and who is the strategist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
August 19, 2009 4:32 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
I agree w/ you 100% (and hope we are right)
However it doesn't really make it any easier to deal with all this BS in the mean time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Alex39
August 19, 2009 4:01 PM in reply to LarsThorwald
Ah yes -- those were the days. Much appreciated.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PlanMeister
August 19, 2009 4:41 PM in reply to LarsThorwald
I'd be LMAO right now, except I'm so sad. We're reduced to pure message discipline, aren't we. Sigh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MAX TARDCORE
August 19, 2009 2:58 PM
Grassley... Snowe... Enzi --
WHAT ABOUT ME, DAMNIT!?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
impik
August 19, 2009 3:01 PM
Le Sigh indeed.
Man, i don't get that at all. If Obama knows (like everyone else) that the GOP won't support any reform - then why do the keep talking with these three clowns? Especially with Grassley making a fool of the president.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
betteb
August 19, 2009 4:51 PM in reply to impik
You write: "If Obama knows (like everyone else) that the GOP won't support any reform - then why do the keep talking with these three clowns?"
I think he'll keep those talks going right down to the wire, whether anything good comes out of it, or not, for one good reason. He promised bipartisanship in this -- and he's committed to trying and he's committed to keeping his promise.
Face it, there's gonna be a bill passed, one way or the other, and in the end, when that bill is presented, he'll be able to say with no word of a lie that he tried, he REALLY tried to get cooperation from them. If something they suggest gets into that bill - ok, fine. If not, tough toenails, he can then honestly say they had their chance and they either contributed, or they blew it. And nobody will ever, if they're being honest, be able to fault Obama one bit on going the distance.
I think he's showing the patience of Job in this thing -- am just hoping he doesn't face the trials of Job before he gets to his destination.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
August 19, 2009 3:05 PM
We'll see who the fool is when the public option gets included. My money's Grassley as the fool.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
impik
August 19, 2009 3:59 PM in reply to traitorjoe
Oh, i hope so. I really do. I have a lot of trust in Obama, i refuse to believe that he's weak or naive, but this whole process is crazy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
August 19, 2009 3:06 PM
I'm not sure I follow this. Obama thinks Republicans want to derail healthcare for political gain, yet he's still seeking bipartisanship?
What am I missing?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jerryfatheart
August 19, 2009 3:13 PM in reply to CT Voter
Seeking bipartisanship in the sense that he's willing to deal with GOPers who are willing to jump aboard (Snowe, Collins?). "Hey, you guys can come along for the ride if you like, but we're driving the car."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shrubbit
August 19, 2009 3:15 PM in reply to jerryfatheart
Yup. It's cover for Snowe/Collins imho.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kelliemb1521
August 19, 2009 3:22 PM in reply to CT Voter
Are they trying to make it look like they reached out to the Republicans so they can say "Hey, look we tried and they weren't willing to work with us, so we had to move on without them."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
August 19, 2009 3:49 PM in reply to CT Voter
Nothing...
He does want bipartisanship.
He alson knows the repubs are too petty and the racist protion of their base is too riled up to get it.
He will keep pushing for it, the repubs will keep pushing against and when reconciliation comes, Obama can he tried long past the time it was clear bipartisanship was killed by repubs.
I must say it takes some real guts and smarts to sit tight and let the repubs jump the shark with their craziness. In a sense he is almost daring the repubs to keep upping the ante.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
impik
August 19, 2009 4:02 PM in reply to _jonny_5_
It takes patience and iron nerves and uncanny ability to ignore the Hitler signs and the guns and the whole madness. I have no idea how he's doing it now. I would explode two months ago. ;)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
August 19, 2009 4:25 PM in reply to impik
Well after the marathon campaign, we should be aware that this man is up to the challenge.
That thought is what uis keeping me sane right now...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
August 19, 2009 3:09 PM
He's not seeking bipartisanship any more. Now he can say he's tried it, and Republicans weren't willing to deal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Grandmère Mimi
August 19, 2009 3:12 PM
Why doesn't Obama throw us a bone and say he won't sign a bill that does not include the public option?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jerryfatheart
August 19, 2009 3:15 PM in reply to Grandmère Mimi
That would be more than a bone, I think. That would be going all in.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
August 19, 2009 3:56 PM in reply to Grandmère Mimi
He doesn't have to... Many house members already said they wont pass a bill w/o it.
He, appropriatly, is leaving room for discussion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wyt
August 19, 2009 3:14 PM
If a nation can be no healthier than its citizens, then those opposed to universal health can be no other than traitors. Discuss.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scottsdalian
August 19, 2009 3:16 PM
Obama & Dems:
LEAD.
Don't try to follow someone who is lost or has no desire to find the right path.
LEAD.
You've seen what the repubs bring to the table: NAZIs and DEATH PANELS. I/O/W -- NOTHING.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kelliemb1521
August 19, 2009 3:19 PM
I have motion sickness from all the back and forth the past couple of days.
Is ANYONE on message? Is there a message to be on?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eve cairo
August 19, 2009 3:21 PM
The GOP don't seek bipartisanship so why should the dems? The Bush years were all about ramming what they wanted down other's throats. No dissent, no discussion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kelliemb1521
August 19, 2009 3:27 PM in reply to eve cairo
One thing you can say about Bush is when he wanted something done...it got done. He never asked the Dems for permission or tried to consider all sides. Health care is not the issue for Obama to be bi-partisan on. Especially considering the people he is trying to work with fundamentally disagree with him on this issue. I can see that, you can see that why can't he?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shrubbit
August 19, 2009 3:23 PM
Can't make this stuff up:
GOP/Blue Dogs are being asses why? To preserve THAT? Ho boy...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
August 19, 2009 3:43 PM in reply to Shrubbit
There you go again: living in a fact-based reality.
The GOP/Lap Dog contingent would respond thusly: "The United States has the best healthcare in the world".
Facts be damned!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Seeryer
August 19, 2009 3:46 PM
Obama will enver when a fight in DC as long as he brings his fists and the opponent brings an AR-15. Give us a break and just go for the jugular. Bipartisanship is dead and has been since people got over the shock of JFK's death.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
El Puerco
August 19, 2009 3:52 PM
Sens. Chuck Grassley (IA), Olympia Snowe (ME) and Mike Enzi (WY) -- "are working in good faith," Gibbs said. "I have no reason to believe they're not."
I don't understand how Grassley's false claim that any government plan will pull the plug on Grandma is not "reason to believe they're not" working in good faith. WTF!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
impik
August 19, 2009 4:06 PM in reply to El Puerco
Grassley pissed all over the president throughout August, and they just keep saying it's raining. I can't believe that TWH is *that* stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
joeinmaryland
August 19, 2009 3:56 PM
What is going on makes perfectly good sense. Progressives in favor of a public option may not fully love it, but Obama is playing political chicken with the Republicans.
Either come up with a bipartisan solution in the Senate that has a co-op that Republicans will publicly voice support for and will find the votes in the house and the senate to pass or face a purely Democratic bill that includes a full public option and goes through reconcilliation.
Are the Republicans willing to commit public policy malpractice to follow a political strategy that may blow up on them anyway? Based on the statements by Grassley, Kyl et. al. it looks like they are a batch of lemmings ready to go over the cliff.
September 15th is the date to watch.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
August 19, 2009 4:03 PM in reply to joeinmaryland
"Either come up with a bipartisan solution in the Senate that has a co-op that Republicans will publicly voice support for and will find the votes in the house and the senate to pass or face a purely Democratic bill that includes a full public option and goes through reconcilliation."
If this is the strategy, it is not half bad. I'm not sure why the GOP gave him an out and said outright" we won't support anything" but they did. So we have an excuse for going the partisan Dem route, since the GOP refused to play ball. The voters knowit, and the GOP excuses won't fly.
But the big problem remains and it is nto the GOP, but the blue dogs. How do we get Baucus & Co to sign on? The PO is essential. Coops are mediocre and won't save any money. Better than nothing but that's about it. PO will save $150 Billion according to CBO. How to get the Senate to vote for this?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
August 19, 2009 4:16 PM in reply to joeinmaryland
I think passing anything by reconciliation is going to be excrutiatingly difficult, will make the current brouhaha look like an afternoon tea party (the normal kind, not the ever lovin' TEABAGGIN' kind) and the end result may not even pass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
August 19, 2009 4:15 PM
Could we just figure out how much the insurance industry makes in profit each year and use that figure as a starting point as to how much we could save by going to single-payer. If the saving don't look huge enough the figure we could use would be Ins. Industry profit plus the millions they spend on lobbying, advertising and political contributions(not to mention executive compensation) that the single payer system would eliminate.
I know, I know, objective evidence and reasoned facts have no place in politcal debate when repubs are involved.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gandalf1974
August 19, 2009 5:13 PM in reply to _jonny_5_
So true! And eliminate all that awful money that gets paid to people (and union pension funds) from all those nasty stocks and dividends. MUCH better if we just eliminate them altogether and have a SINGLE payer system--you know for competition.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
3star2nr
August 19, 2009 4:59 PM
Its about darn time they wised up. Gibbs your about 3 months behind everyone else in the country.
Stop messing around create the best bill you can with a strong public option send it to the house, ram it through the senate, and call the blue dogs bluff.
7 blue dogs wouldn't dare filibuster a bill supported by a democratic president and the entire democrat party.
Worse if its a good health care bill?
It would be political suicide.
And say they do kill it, they will have to explain how they killed the best health reform bill since medicare.
The progressives and Obama hold all the Aces in this game time to play them
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gandalf1974
August 19, 2009 5:27 PM in reply to 3star2nr
"the best health reform bill since medicare."
BEST. LINE. EVER.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/us/politics/13health.html
[pssst...this is the part where you blame Bush]
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?