There’s been a bit of intrigue over the last 24 hours surrounding Sen. Mark Udall’s (D-CO) position on the public option. There were reports from DailyKos, the American Prospect, the Rachel Maddow Show and ColoradoPols saying that he had, in fact, signed the letter authored by Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) that endorses the use of majority rules (ie. “reconciliation”) to pass a strong public option. However, Udall did not actually physically sign the letter – he instead issued a separate statement that seems to support using reconciliation to pass a public option.
Seems like one and the same, right? Yeah, it does seem that way. Except, then why didn’t Udall just sign the letter like so many other Democratic senators? Why is he now explicitly telling the Denver Post he made a deliberate decision to not sign the letter? It could have to do with the fact that he may not actually support as strong a public option proposal as many Democrats have been pushing. I say that because of this recent but little-noticed story in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel on February 17th – a story that we discussed on the AM760 morning show at the time:
Udall will push for public option, but at local level, not national
By Gary Harmon
Wednesday, February 17, 2010Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said he is open to advancing a measure that would establish public-option, health-insurance providers in high-cost areas or regions deemed lacking in competition.
The public option he envisions wouldn’t be a nationwide provider, but would be established to provide local competition, Udall said in a visit Wednesday to Grand Junction.
Udall is not quite as far along as his colleague, Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., who earlier this week asked that the Senate move forward on a public option, he said. Bennet’s letter was signed by nine other senators, all Democrats, but not by Udall. (emphasis added)
Is Udall’s refusal to sign onto the Bennet letter a deliberate reflection of his statements in Grand Junction implying a potential substantive opposition to a stronger version of the public option than he is willing to support? I honestly don’t know – it’s hard to tell, but it sure seems that way between the recent Senintel story and his staff’s statements today to the Denver Post. And it most definitely means the questions are clearly worth asking as the final battle over key health care reform details takes shape.
We’ll be updating this story and examining what’s going on here on AM760 tomorrow morning from 7am to 10am. Tune in.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: joe_burly
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: Thorntonite
IN: The Republican Field for Congress in CO-08
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Still awkward. This is off subject but, until we have more updates on Udall position there’s this. I’m betting the National Enquirer may have some credibility on this as they have been pretty credible on all things Edwards and might want not want to screw that up? Or will this also have to be retracted? In any case, it ought to make those of us disappointed by the Udall retraction right now feel a little better:
More at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
But ColoradoPols saw fit to promote your baloney.
The letter doesn’t endorse any specific public option.
Show me where it does.
Sign the damned letter, Mr. Senator.