October 22, 2009 09:51 PM UTC

NRCC struggles with its message on Markey and public option

• 3 Comments
• by: BobMoore

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

The National Republican Congressional Committee struggled Thursday to shape its criticism of Rep. Betsy Markey after issuing a clearly inaccurate press release on her stance on the public option in the health-care reform debate.

For complete links and background, see my Coloradoan blog: http://bit.ly/BXuAs

But here’s a summary:

The NRCC issued a generic press release aimed at several Democratic members of Congress, including Markey, who were listed as supporters of the public option on a Web site run by former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.  “After months of trying to hide his (or her) real position on the so-called ‘public option’, it appears that (fill in Democratic member of Congress’s name) has finally fallen in line behind his radical party leaders with support for their government healthcare takeover.”

The problem with that statement is that since August, Markey has said she supported the public option included in HR 3200, the House’s version of the health-care reform bill. Markey said she would have voted against HR 3200 because of cost and new taxes included in the bill, but her problem wasn’t with the public option. She said she believed the public option outlined in HR 3200 would be paid for through premiums and wouldn’t require financing from taxpayers.

Here’s how Markey explained her position in an article I wrote on Aug. 9:

“She said she supports the public-option plan in the current House bill, which would set up a government-run insurance provider to compete with current private providers. ‘The cost of the public option is basically, over 10 years, zero. It’s an initial $10 billion for startup costs, but that will be paid back through premiums over 10 years,’ Markey said. ‘Now if you have a program that is operated like a nonprofit, it is again paid for, this public option, totally through premiums, I don’t have a problem with bringing more competition to the insurance companies,’ she said. ‘They ought to welcome it.'”

I sat through 15 or so constituent sessions Markey conducted during the August recess, and in every one of them Markey reiterated her support for a public option that was funded through insurance premiums.

I know the NRCC was aware of her August stance because the committee’s spokeswoman, Joanna Burgos, included the above quote in an email she sent to me. After I asked for supporting citations for the claim that Markey spent “months of trying to hide her real position on the so-called ‘public option,” Burgos sent out a new release that essentially acknowledged that the earlier release was inaccurate.

The second release begins: “This summer, Betsy Markey was Hesitant to Fully Support the House Healthcare Bill or the Public Option Mostly Due to her Claims She Wanted to Protect Her Constituents.” It then includes a quote from July, gathered before HR 3200 was introduced, in which Markey stopped short of endorsing a public option but said “all options are on the table right now.”

The release then goes on to say (and this is where the NRCC tacitly admits its error in the earlier press release): “Then, in August, She Caved and Began Saying She Supported the Public Option IF it Met Certain Conditions.”

Markey’s stance on the public option is certainly fair game for Republican criticism. But it’s contradictory to both criticize her stance on the public option and criticize her for not taking a stance on the public option, which is essentially what the NRCC did Thursday.

This isn’t the first time the NRCC has used a generic press release that was clearly wrong on a Markey stance. In January, the NRCC issued a press release saying Markey and other freshmen Democrats had voted in favor of releasing the second half of the financial bailout money, despite her campaign promise to oppose such action. The problem was the press release was issued the day before the House voted on the bill and after Markey had said she would vote to block release of the bailout money (which she did when the vote was taken.)