Grassley’s Office Clarifies: The “Obamacare” He’s Working To Defeat Is Just The Public Option
A spokesperson for Senator Chuck Grassley is clarifying his claim in a fundraising letter that he’s working for the “defeat” of “Obamacare,” saying that the Senator was only referring to defeating the public health care option.
As I noted below, a fundraising letter from Grassley to his constituents starkly proclaimed his desire to defeat both “Obamacare” and the proposal from Ted Kennedy’s committee — raising yet more questions about what, exactly, Grassley is prepared to support.
Asked for clarification, Grassley spokesperson Jill Kozeny emailed:
The letter describes the government-run plan in the House and HELP committee bills that President Obama supports and Senator Grassley opposes.
The fundraising letter does seem to suggest much more general opposition to Obamacare and to the Kennedy effort, and this appears to be a bit of a walk-back of that, though it’s unclear how reassured Dems will be about Grassley’s true intentions.
Either way, it’s back to the bipartisan drawing board!
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
This is going to sound mean but, I don’t really care. Grassley should retire. When he speaks he sounds like a dottering old man who is long past his prime. He sounds like a crazy old man. The stilted way he speaks, to say nothing of the garbage coming out of his mouth is embarrassing. He’s too old to hold office and way too ignorant and stupid. I hope the Dems grow a spine and jam through the public option. Grassley has 1 foot in the grave and the other in his mouth. I hope his foot leaves his mouth and joins his other foot!
And let’s not, by all means, discuss whatever might have been printed in the WaPo this Saturday!
Greg:
Speaking of a walk-back, what about that WaPo piece this weekend on EITs and the intelligence they apparently elicited? After last week I would have thought you would have to address this.
Here is the funny thing, Greg hasn’t walked back a got d@mn thing. YOU guys want him to and are mad that he hasn’t. Its been well established that Fred Hiat is a neocon’s dream but Greg’s reporting is out there for the world to see. I would understand if he DID try for a correction or a walk back but he hasn’t so that speaks for itself. I know it really pi$$es you guys off that some folks aren’t cowed by wingnuts but I think you can save your key strokes waiting for Greg to walk back from the truth. It ain’t happening and so far, everybody is laughing and pointing at the people Hiat got to write that love letter to Cheney this weekend. It is what it is.
ScottC:
“Speaking of a walk-back, what about that WaPo piece this weekend on EITs and the intelligence they apparently elicited?”
You obviously are thinking about an un-story that was not printed about a non-subject.
Doubleplusungood, Comrade.
So, if nothing comes out of the Finance Committee what exactly does that mean legislatively?
Anything?
# Bilgeman | August 31st, 2009 at 03:13 pm
ScottC:
“Speaking of a walk-back, what about that WaPo piece this weekend on EITs and the intelligence they apparently elicited?”
You obviously are thinking about an un-story that was not printed about a non-subject.
Doubleplusungood, Comrade.
……………………….
Torture loving BARBARIANS flock together, and they call their selves; “comrades”.
bilgeman – your puppy love for your master scott and eagerness to echo his every post is sickening, especially since he seems to be ignoring you. Even he thinks you’re an infantile and he is avoiding you like plague. Take a hint and take a hike.
Greg,
Since Grassley is working to defeat the Public Option, could you ask him, or his staff to spell out, what specific Health Care Insurance reforms he is working to have enacted. We hear all about what the Republicans are against. Isn’t it time to require them to spell out what they want enacted?
amk:
“Take a hint and take a hike.”
Yeah-yeah…I know:
“SHUT UP!!!!!!”
(Points to you for verbosity, though.)
Hey Bill Mahr, got a New Rule for ya (if you haven’t done it yet):
New Rule: No more “clarifying” idiotic comments from fundraising letters.
RE: Bilge + Scott, the reason he’s not answering you, multiple choice, ya ready?
A) The WaPo article had been thoroughly debunked
B) Nobody cares about what you think
C) He is getting ready to write an article supporting EIT of blog trolls
D) All of the above
Bilgeman the BARBARIAN, loves torture, and he wants to use Nukes on another country. He does not care about the millions that would be killed, or about the fallout that would travel around the the planet. However, he does support preemptive wars to head off other countries from ever getting to the point that the can use Nukes like he wants the USA to use them.
What a degenerate Maroon!
amk:
Your logic is weak. Let me help you.
…especially since he seems to be ignoring you. Even he thinks you’re an infantile and he is avoiding you like plague.
My inclination to respond to someone bears no necessary relation to what I think of them positively or negatively. I have responded to several people here several times, including those I have an intellectual respect for and at least one that would have a hard time outwitting my 9 year old. BTW, have you noticed that I respond to you on occassion?
Ethan:
“A) The WaPo article had been thoroughly debunked”
But not by Mr. Sargent.
“B) Nobody cares about what you think”
Then why so many irritated demands that I “SHUT UP!!!!”? Scroll right past.
“C) He is getting ready to write an article supporting EIT of blog trolls”
Ah, this was humor…ha-ha-ha.
“D) All of the above”
Nope.
Try:
“E) He’s been traumatized by being made such a chump out of by his own employer, and hopes to salvage his reputation by hoping everyone forgets all about it. To effect this, he’ll be even MORE of a Talking Parrot Moron for “Progressive” agendas than he was before.”
(Which is how he ended up in this sad state in the first place, if he would/could think about it).
Time for Snake-in-the-Grassley to recede. His name is now officially MUD. He is officially dead to Barack. No soup for you, grASSley — one year!
sg:
Greg hasn’t walked back a got d@mn thing. YOU guys want him to and are mad that he hasn’t.
You are correct that he hasn’t walked back on his EIT position. Nor has he reiterated it. He seems content to let it disappear, which is unfortunate.
BTW, I am not mad that he hasn’t walked back on his position. I would respect him more if he did, or even if he attempted to defend his position by challenging the WaPo article. But silence, as if it didn’t exist or had no impact on the debate which was so important last week, suggests at the very least contempt for his audience.
Hey Scott C, this thread is about your boy Grassley pledging to defeat the HCR bill that he is currently negotiating.
Stick with the topic or shut the hell up.
Bilgewater:
Try to follow me here. English, I know it’s hard.
This post is about HEALTH CARE REFORM and its leading detractor Chuck Grassley.
Respond on topic or shut the hell up.
The WH is through wasting time with grASSley and that other useless hump from WY. The wingnut “negotiation” facade is shattered, and they are finished.
There will be a strong Democratic health care reform bill — WITH a public option — on the President’s desk by Nov. 1 at the very latest. Sorry FReeptards.
And all of that rabid screeching and mouth-foaming from the ignorant old white hillbilly trailer-trash teabaggers and brain-dead “town brawlers” will have, as always, amounted to much sound any fury, signifying NOTHING.
grassley’s word is worthless as we’ve seen as events
have unfolded these past few weeks. he twists himself
into a pretzel to deny what he has said and done.
he’s the LYIN KING
To the right wing crazy guy trolls concerned about the WaPo article:
Greg is not going to reply because the article does not refute his point. His claim has been that Cheney claimed two specific documents would prove that EITs worked to prevent attacks. As much as I disagree with Sargent some of the time, his point is not that EITs don’t work, or that attacks were thwarted, or that EITs are illegal, or any of that. His very narrow point was that two documents did not prove beyond all possible doubt that what Cheney said (in Greg’s opinion/paraphrase) was true.
I wish y’all would stop now at trying to score points. I am not enjoying the comments section right now. I believe your point has been made so let it go.
ScottC:
“But silence, as if it didn’t exist or had no impact on the debate which was so important last week, suggests at the very least contempt for his audience.”
I can’t blame him for being contemptuous of such gibbering half-wits as these…can you?
This is why they love him so.
They hold him to be so much WISER and BETTER than they that none dare point out the enormous broken-off stick protruding from his posterior.
Let’s let Sen. Grassley know he is no longer doing battle against “Obamacare” but now he is up against what we, American citizens, want – TEDDY CARE! -Kevo
Greg
I wouldn’t be so quick to grant Grassley the ‘walk-back.’ Has the senator sent out another air-gram ‘clarifying’ his position to the [thousands of?] constituents from whom he hopes to receive monetary reward for his opposition to the unaptly euphemized ‘Obama-Care?’
Or is he trying to, merely plausibly, confuse the public record to confound his critics?
In light of the unclarified issue these questions surfaces all we can really report is that ‘Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA)is now using his cynical multiplicity in the debate over healthcare reform to profit monetarily as well as politically.’
Shorter Grassley: ‘I can profit from bad faith on healthcare.’
Ethan:
“Try to follow me here. English, I know it’s hard.
This post is about HEALTH CARE REFORM and its leading detractor Chuck Grassley.
Respond on topic or shut the hell up”
Yeah-yeah…”SHUT UP!!!!!”
Congratulations, you have just passed amk on the Verbosity Tote Board!
A very good analysis of what happened and where it’s headed:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574370301468452872.html
@Bileman,
“But not by Mr. Sargent.”
So you’re aware the story has been debunked.
Sure I’d like to see him take WaPo to task for running such a garbage piece, but if Greg had to do that with every WaPo article, he might never post an original thought on this blog.
In this case however, since you’ve already stated that you know the story has been debunked, it reveals that your heel-nipping at Greg is merely in the hope of tarnishing credibility in some way. I’m fine with Greg ignoring the pathetically transparent partisan hackery you seem so determined to practice.
And back ON TOPIC:
The White House just called out Enzi for walking away from the bi-partisan talks.
I don’t know if this email, after the clarification, will warrant the same for Grassley – but boy has he got to be getting on their last nerve by now…
Yeah, I’m sure the recipients of that fundraising letter were looking for that nuanced clarification.
Pietro said “I wouldn’t be so quick to grant Grassley the ‘walk-back.’”
I agree. He wants it both ways. It’s time Grassley gets the message loud and clear that we live in ONE AMERICA. Not one that consists of brainwashed constituents and another that contains “the rest of us.”
Besides, does he really need to fundraise off HCR when he’s getting millions from mega-corporations? Stupid doesn’t even come close with these idjuts.
The White House appears to be signalling it’s writing off Enzi:
…”In Senator Enzi’s case, he doesn’t believe there’s a pathway to get bipartisan support and the President thinks that’s wrong,” Gibbs said. “I think Senator Enzi’s clearly turned over his cards on bipartisanship and decided that it’s time to walk away from the table.”…
ENZI RESPONDS TO GIBBS — “Sen. Enzi hasn’t budged an inch — nothing has occurred to lessen his commitment to the process, nothing has occurred to dilute his commitment to a bipartisan bill,” said Craig Orfield, Enzi’s spokesman. “That is the reason he has stayed in the meetings and he still hopes they can come to an agreement on a bipartisan health reform bill. Nothing has changed in those two regards. I expect him to continue in the discussions.”
To signal an intent to walk away from bipartisanship, “was not the intent of the radio address at all,” Orfield added.”
“Also, the Finance Committee’s bipartisan group of six negotiators are scheduled to talk again Friday.”
Seems to me Grassley’s walked away from the table as well. It’s hard to take him even half-a**ed seriously anymore. Olympia Snowe is the only one left and I wouldn’t want to be her. She at least tries to have some input on legislation. The rest of the repubs seen intent upon giving it up to dems and see what happens. I just hope the dems are up to the task. That remains to be seen.
Ethan:
Respond on topic or shut the hell up.
Is this that tolerance for which the left is so famous?
sbj:
I wish y’all would stop now at trying to score points.
I am not trying to score points. But I don’t want to call him out as an intellectual coward without giving him plenty of chance to be a stand-up guy. If Greg would acknowledge the article and either comment, say he will get to it, or announce that he’s not going to, that would be fine with me.
BTW, I wish that various posters would stop heaping sycophantic praise on Greg, but you don’t hear me complaining about it. I ignore them, which is what you should do with mine if you don’t like them.
catfight! Klein slams Greenwald: ‘thoroughly dishonorable’
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0809/Klein_slams_Greenwald_thoroughly_dishonorable.html
“I agree with Greenwald on some things, and appreciate his insights on others. But he is a thoroughly dishonorable person–as he proved by releasing my private emails–and, when it comes to his oft-trumpeted belief in the right to privacy, a stone hypocrite as well.”
Thanks oddjob for that TPM link. Time to throw away the bipartisan cloak and bring out the reconciliation dagger.
BBQ:
“So you’re aware the story has been debunked”
Hat-tip to you for that nice bit of sophistry.I can appreciate partisan hackery when I see it.
Will you be in the Partisan Hackery Lodge Lounge later? I’ll buy you a brewski.
I used short-hand in order to move on to another point.
I was aware that the story had been ADDRESSED, but not necessarily “debunked”.
As I pointed out another thread, Sully swatted at with his hand-bag, but that “debunking”, (so-called), itself was shown (by Althouse) to contain glaring factual errors tantamount to a mis-characterization.
“Sure I’d like to see him take WaPo to task for running such a garbage piece,”
Sure you would… I sure would…who sure wouldn’t?
I don’t care much, (either), what Sully hyperventilates about.
Sargent is the guy whose cred is most directly tarnished by the piece.
He sure is “sphinxing” about it though.
“…but if Greg had to do that with every WaPo article, he might never post an original thought on this blog.”
Is there be some kind of signal light or warning bell to notify when when this event will occur?
Quite frankly, this blog seems more like the cyber Asylum for Incurable Bush Derangement Syndrome Sufferers than anything that might remotely be considered a “thought tank”.
“”"To signal an intent to walk away from bipartisanship, “was not the intent of the radio address at all,””"”
Aka: caught trying to have it both ways.
The duplicity won’t go unnoticed forever.
@ScottC: “If Greg would acknowledge the article and either comment, say he will get to it, or announce that he’s not going to, that would be fine with me.”
But that makes you sound like a control freak. Greg doesn’t have to respond and I don’t believe he will. You have made your charge that he is an “intellectual coward” so please consider the matter done. You are a smart fellow, please don’t get into these pointless back and forths with the other commentors. Ethan, for instance, is undeserving of response. Be the bigger man, won’t you, and don’t return insults with more.
Troll, your only hope for posting here is to distract from the MAJOR blunder your idiot GOP friends are making by scuttling bipartisan reform. It’s going to burn when you lose. Can’t wait.
To signal an intent to walk away from bipartisanship, “was not the intent of the radio address at all,” Orfield added.”
No, of course not!
Then again, when you tell your constiuents at a town hall meeting that your intent in attending is to get the Dems. not to include things at all, and that if you hadn’t attended we’d already have reform in place now, maybe THAT indicates you had no real intention of coming to a bipartisan bill!
OT (but then may be not, courtesy some whiners here)
Dam Froomkin (yes, of WaPo fame) roasting darth.
Teaser – The first bit of context for any Cheney comment, of course, is that he is a monstrous liar.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/31/cheney-still-manipulating_n_273034.html
Read it and howl, you trolls.
Blah blah blah blahety blah blah Obama isn’t a citizen! Blah blah blah blah blah blah He’s aiding the terrorists! Blah blah blah blahety blah blah He’s a socialist! Blah Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Obamacare is going to kill granny! Blah blah blah blah blah blah Clenis! Clenis!
@Bileman
No sophistry needed. And also no need, based on the sad scrawl of a response you posted, for me to respond further. I think it’s clear to everyone here – both liberals and the few rational conservatives – what your agenda is.
BBQ:
Yeah. pal…you de Man!
Don’t break your arm patting yourself so vigorously on the back.
amk, thanks for that link.
sbj:
I have rarely stooped to throwing the insult, and on the rare occassion I have tried not to be too overt. We all deal with the loons in our own way. I will deal with them in mine.
On Greg, of course he doesn’t have to answer. But I don’t think asking him to do so is out of bounds, nor do I think pressing him on it, especially when I have no way of knowing whether he’s actually seen the question, is out of line either.
BTW, I have not yet determined him to be an intellectual coward. That’s a strong accusation and one that I think he deserves every opportunity to preempt. I’m trying to give him that opportunity, much to the chagrin, it seems, of his acolytes here.
Scott C, you are the intellectual coward. Greg’s frigging email address is at the bottom of every post. Bug him if you feel you must, not us.
well, dearies … I may get some words confused, but I know when a bilgeman equals a sock puppet.