TPMDC
Would Progressives Primary Obama if He Compromises on the Public Option?
Brian Beutler | September 4, 2009, 11:38AM
Share
Send to a friend!
Impossible to say at this early date. But if it happens, Keith Olbermann will look awfully prescient.
The comment comes in the last minute of the clip. Think of it less as prognostication and more as a barometer of progressive frustration with the President.
Other Stories Featured at TPMDC
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
PollTracker
Most Popular
- Top 10 Wild And Wacky Political Voices -- For Whom We're All Very Thankful
- Perino: No Terrorists Attacked America On Bush's Watch
- Lou Dobbs: Friend Of Illegal Immigrants Everywhere?
- Top Ten Reader Tips Of The Year
- Limbaugh, On Obama's Visit To West Point: 'Will They Detain Him? Hopefully'
- WATCH: White House Spoofs Turkey Pardon
- Crack Down On This: A Catalog Of Fox's Mistakes
- Broder: Reid Is Parochial, Uninspiring Leader
- Who Visited The White House (And Why You Should Care)
- Death And Taxes (And Tea): The Top Right-Wing Protest Moments Of 2009
- No Anima, No Animus, Just Animation
- Top 10 Wild And Wacky Political Voices -- For Whom We're All Very Thankful
- Kucinich and Obama
- Thank You TPM Cafe
- Death And Taxes (And Tea): The Top Right-Wing Protest Moments Of 2009
- The Real Meaning Of The 'Freeze'
- Small things considered--with thanks
- Some Thoughts on a Way Forward
- Top Ten Reader Tips Of The Year
- When did we stop caring ??
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2009 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
CT Voter
September 4, 2009 11:45 AM
Answer, no, they wouldn't.
This is absurd.
If you're going to play Keith Olbermann, show his hilarious takedown of Glenn Beck.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matyra
September 4, 2009 12:16 PM in reply to CT Voter
It's called sensationalism. And, like you said, is absurd.
Jeez, we all are so caught up in the moment that we don't see that it's a war--it isn't decided by a single exchange within a single battle.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
September 4, 2009 12:29 PM in reply to matyra
We're also all caught up in some sort of delusional trance that makes us believe Democrats would have the cojones to do anything like this.
They don't.
That's part of the reason the healthcare debate has gotten so ridiculous.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
September 4, 2009 11:47 AM
I love Keith Olbermann, but does a quick comment by him really merit a news post on TPM?
It's not exactly news that progressives are frustrated at the lack of clear signals from Obama regarding the public option. And if Obama throws the public option under the bus, I will be as disappointed as everyone else. But seriously, aren't there more important things to report out there?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
September 4, 2009 11:47 AM
Nope.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Davis_X_Machina
September 4, 2009 11:50 AM
They're running up the Kucinich and Dean 2012 bumper-stickers right now over at DemocraticUnderground.com.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
September 4, 2009 11:51 AM in reply to Davis_X_Machina
I wonder if Dean will add a public option to his health care plan this time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
converse
September 4, 2009 12:05 PM in reply to Davis_X_Machina
Now that's funny!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
September 4, 2009 11:52 AM
Based on your other post Brian,
if HealthCare Reform is passed,
without a public option,
with mandates,
and no other cost control measures, a
nd without good subsidies,
it doesn't matter. Obama will be toast anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
September 4, 2009 11:55 AM in reply to Indie Pro
And if he passes a bill with death panels, that would be pretty bad too. If, if, if.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
September 4, 2009 11:57 AM in reply to Stroszek
accept death panels are not real.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
September 4, 2009 12:04 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Nor is there currently a bill reflecting what you just outlined. Speculation-based criticism is speculation-based criticism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
September 4, 2009 12:09 PM in reply to Stroszek
might I refer you to the post a couple below this one:
For weeks now, the health care debate has largely centered around the public option and its political feasibility. But some policy experts are concerned that a separate shortcoming of the health care plans under consideration could be damaging to working- and middle-class people. It's a substantive problem only gets worse if there's no public option, and could become a political disaster for Democrats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
September 4, 2009 12:18 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Do you know how the subsidies function? The problem comes from a budget perspective. The impact of a lack of public option is basically an increase in public debt until additional cost control measures are instituted down the line.
From the consumer's perspective, inadequate subsidies will be a deal breaker with or without the public option.
As I said, the subsidies are vital, but if you think current subsidy levels are inadequate, the entire public option debate is completely pointless.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
September 4, 2009 12:22 PM in reply to Stroszek
It's a substantive problem [that] only gets worse if there's no public option, and could become a political disaster for Democrats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
September 4, 2009 12:04 PM in reply to Stroszek
that should be, "except".
Healthcare reform without a public option, and with subsidies where they are (and are going), this bill is foisting a heavy burden on many average Americns. A victory for Obama is not worth that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
September 4, 2009 12:12 PM in reply to Indie Pro
So we've collectively decided the HELP and HR3200 subsidies are inadequate now? Well, that's awesome, though I wish I would have known this before we all engaged in this retroactively trivial public option spat (seeing as how "average Americans" will be paying just as much, with or without a public option).
Keeping pushing those goalposts, fellas!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
September 4, 2009 12:18 PM in reply to Stroszek
The subsidies are being lowered, as the Public Option is being cut.
The public option was the competition component that was supposed to bring down costs.
The goalposts aren't moving. I don't even understand what you are arguing.
If anything, leaving off the public option, and lowering subsidies is moving the goalposts.
It's making the bill a win for the Insurance Industry at the expense of regular Americans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
September 4, 2009 12:21 PM in reply to Indie Pro
The HR3200 subsidy levels have been set in stone for quite a while. The HELP subsidy levels only saw a modest shift. The Finance Committee bill will be a stinker but it's extremely doubtful it will be the final product of conference.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
September 4, 2009 12:23 PM in reply to Stroszek
they are not set in stone. Nothing is set in stone. The bills are being debated. Did you read his Brian's other post? What world do you live in?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
santee555
September 4, 2009 11:57 AM
No Public Option, No second Term!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
September 5, 2009 12:14 AM in reply to santee555
No Obama, No Democrats in 2012. I've never knocked on doors for a Republican before. Don't make me start now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
September 4, 2009 12:03 PM
Of all the stupid shit I've heard Democrats say in the three and a half decades I've been following politics, this is some of it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matyra
September 4, 2009 12:18 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
A-freaking-men.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
September 4, 2009 12:34 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
"this is some of it".
That's rather weak. How about: "This is the most colossally stupid thing I've heard Democrats say, and there's been a lot of stupid in the last 30 plus years".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
September 4, 2009 2:19 PM in reply to CT Voter
Unfortunately, having watched Democrats celebrate the perfectionizing power of cannibalism innumerable times over the years, I can't say that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
September 4, 2009 1:04 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Double stupid on everyone this idea touches, including those who spread it as a real story. Not least of which falls on TPM and HuffPo for taking this throwaway at the end of an overheated segment and hyping it.
Take a listen again to the introductory line of the Olbermann segment: "There seems little doubt at this hour the WH is preparing to sell out all or most of the following..." I guess the operative word there is "seems," right? It certainly "seemed" that way at airtime.
Honestly, are we getting paid by the word on health care? Things are just moving too fast for anyone to pretend to know what's happening. Take a breath, count the votes, and that will give you a better idea about what they'll come up with--more than any overpaid Beltway analyst will conjure.
I can't wait for the Kucinich/Obama primary. Wait a second! Kucinich ran in 2008!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dogjudge
September 4, 2009 12:10 PM
As a huge supporter of the President, I find myself retracting more and more.
Apparently, he's lost the concept that by these continuing "compromises" that the Republicans keep defeating, HE loses. The more they can prevent ANYTHING from happening, the more they win.
So where is Reid with the Democratic equivalent of the "nuclear option"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matyra
September 4, 2009 12:25 PM in reply to dogjudge
If we get a healthcare law that works, then none of the media's comments, the punditry misleading, the fringe lies, the multiple bill re-writes, the seeming Obama compromises matter. What matters is if we get a signed law that improves American lives. That's the bottom line.
If we don't get that law, then I'll retract my support of the president and let the spittle fly. He'll deserve it. But we're nowhere near that stage yet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matyra
September 4, 2009 12:28 PM in reply to matyra
Yikes. I only wanted the word "law" to be bold.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
September 5, 2009 12:21 AM in reply to dogjudge
With the exception of Olympia Snow and Susan Collins, "the Republicans" are totally irrelevant and I don't know why some people keep focusing on them.
Have you ever heard of:
Senator Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska
Senator Mary Landrieu (D) of Louisiana
Senator Mark Pryor (D) of Arkansas
Senator Blanche Lincoln (D) of Arkansas
Senator Joe Lieberman (I) of Connecticut
These Democratic senators opposed the public option, to say nothing of Senator Kent Conrad (D) who might also be coyly saying that he opposes the public option and is not just saying it won't pass the Senate.
Given that people such as former Chief of Staff of the Senate Finance Committee Lawrence explained last night on Hardball that "countless" amendments (each of which can be filibustered) can be inserted before a final reconciliation vote, thus rendering the reconciliation option DEAD, what exactly would you have Obama do? Don't go back and start talking about Republicans. Fuck them. Tell me how you're getting 60 Democratic/Democratic caucusing votes in the Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
September 5, 2009 12:22 AM in reply to Smooth Jazz
* Lawrence O'Donnell
"Reconciliation requires 50 votes plus the Vice President for final passage only. During the process of reconciliation on the Senate floor there are countless votes that require 60 votes because it requires you to waive the rules of reconciliation - that's done constantly in every single reconciliation process that goes to the Senate floor. They can't think about going to the Senate floor without 60 votes whether they're doing it in reconciliation or outside of reconciliation."
- Lawrence O'Donnell
Former Democratic Chief of Staff of the Senate Committee on Finance and blogger at the Huffington Post
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#32696599
Time Index on Video 3:30
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jim H
September 4, 2009 12:18 PM
This is absurd. But if that were to happen, you can bet damn well that the tea baggers (Beck, Hannity, etc) will accuse the progressives of being racist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Davis_X_Machina
September 4, 2009 12:46 PM in reply to Jim H
My first thought was 'they wouldn't have the temerity....'
But of course, they do. And the GOP is the natural political home for people of color anyways. I mean, look at RNC chairman Steele.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
September 4, 2009 2:21 PM in reply to Davis_X_Machina
Have you not seen all the ads on this site inviting you to support the Republican plan to save Medicare?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blmack
September 4, 2009 12:48 PM
Everyone needs to take a deep breath. If he backs away from the public option, it's because he knows there's no way it will pass, period! If he goes whole hog for it and loses, it would severely damage his presidency, and very early in his first term.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Frog Leg
September 4, 2009 12:51 PM
It's posts like this that remind me why I've been staying away from TPM for a while.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matyra
September 4, 2009 12:56 PM in reply to Frog Leg
what, the lack of level-headedness? I was drawn to TPM because I was put off from the frothing over at Kos.
Come on Brian, you don't have to add to the stupidity!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JustAChicagoVoter
September 4, 2009 12:52 PM
No. Anything else I can help you with?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mikedrevguy
September 4, 2009 12:54 PM
I've gotta think that if President Obama is infuriating both ends of the spectrum, both the progressives as well as the crazies - maybe he actually is doing something right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
September 4, 2009 12:55 PM
Obama doesn't have to worry about a progressive threat to his reelection. He needs to be very worried about a resurgent GOP, newly empowered by pissed off independents and the Old Guard moderates finding their way back home after believing Obama's Change.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
September 4, 2009 12:57 PM in reply to Schmed
What happened to the 'ley' part?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
September 4, 2009 1:06 PM in reply to CT Voter
Doesn't fit in the new TPM template. Looks like "8 characters or less" is the new standard.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
September 4, 2009 2:33 PM in reply to Schmed
Damn, that would be a bit of a problem for me. It would turn me into The Comme. Which, I suppose, would come as no surprise to the the Republican trolls.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
September 4, 2009 4:15 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
BTW, how did you get the multiline name?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
September 4, 2009 1:03 PM in reply to Schmed
I agree, no primary threat. A lot of newly-minted Democrats staying home on election day because they were promised "change" and told "now is not the time for small steps" and they got "more of the same" and "incremental improvements" is the threat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
OhioGuy
September 4, 2009 1:01 PM
Sure they will. Kucinich runs every time. With luck, he might even pick up a delegate next time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ron Thompson
September 4, 2009 1:22 PM
It's what we Democrats do when we have a failed President. McCarthy ran against LBJ, and Kennedy ran against Carter. If Obama continues on the path he's on, there will be a primary challenge.
There's only one example of a really successful political movement in this country in the last 40 years. When will we start to learn from it? The right wing made damn sure that when it's the Republicans' turn to win, they will be led by right wingers, not the mushy center. To do so, they defeated long-serving senators in primaries (Kuchel in 1968, Case in 1978, Javits in 1980), elected a third party candidate over the Republican in the 1970 New York Senate race, defeated John Lindsay in the 1969 primary when he ran for a second term as Mayor of New York, and wage primary campaigns against Ford in 1976 and Poppy Bush in 1992.
They were in it for the long haul. Even in 1968, when they had only 36 Senators, they were willing to lose the California seat in order to push their agenda. They never got it back--it's been held by Alan Cranston and Barbara Boxer ever since--but it was a small price to pay for the control they gained over the Republican Party and the country as a result.
Progressives need to learn from that experience. We began with the Ned Lamont campaign in 2006 and the Donna Edwqards win in 2008. I hope it won't be necessary with President Obama. He's got two years to turn it around. But I have to say the signs are not encouraging, and there will be no end to the triangulating from him and Rahm Emanuel if he knows there is no chance of a primary challenge from the left. If he won't see the light, we have to make him feel the heat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
September 4, 2009 2:06 PM in reply to Ron Thompson
This. One of the main reasons why the conservative movement has been so successful is that it has never given two craps about the Republican Party except as a means to an end.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
September 4, 2009 2:37 PM in reply to Ron Thompson
Right. And look how well it's worked out for the country and, for their party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oskieoskie
September 4, 2009 1:34 PM
Don't know which is more disheartening: the idiots on the right or the idiots on the left.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
September 4, 2009 1:48 PM in reply to oskieoskie
Idiots on the left, hands down! I don't care about the right imploding.
Idiots on the left are responsible for the left being punked so often. After 8 years of Republican gross imcompetence, draconian policies and defiling our country, the left says "there's not difference between the Dems and Repubs." Completely mind boggling.
Too many liberals are unrealistic AND fair weather friends. If something isn't perfect they say "I'm outta here
instead of looking at the big picture. When the president gets in trouble, they say "he can't win, let's run somebody else."
Republicans didn't turn against Bush until after Katrina. He got five years of complete fuck-ups before they started griping. Liberals have been threatening to primary the president because they don't like his chief of staff!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
September 4, 2009 1:53 PM
I think it's hilarious that corporodem-fellators think abusing liberals is the way to get them to keep supporting the Democratic Party. It's in keeping with their general cluelessness.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
September 4, 2009 2:08 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Yeah, because liberals have soooooo many other options.
They could become Greens. They won't be ignored but they would be irrelevant.
They could refuse to vote and let the Republicans win. They'd be thrilled with Jim DeMint and James Inhofe driving the agenda.
They could vote Republican. They'd be thrilled with Jim DeMint and James Inhofe driving the agenda.
So many choices.
Smart liberals are doing what Pelosi is doing--letting the president know they can't be taken for granted. Stupid liberals are talking about primarying the president.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
September 4, 2009 2:15 PM in reply to FreeRider
Yeah, it's so great to have the "options" of the country going to hell quickly and gaudily under Republicans or a little slower and less showily under bought-and-paid-for Democrats. Yay for the home team.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
September 4, 2009 3:44 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
I'm thinking of a word. It starts with bull and ends with shit!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
September 4, 2009 2:42 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
I think it's hilarious that the people who handed the country to George W. Bush because they thought he was indistinguishable from Al Gore still think everone else is supposed to take them as seriously as they take themselves.
Although whining about being abused by people who you describe with an ugly eptithet is pretty funny, too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
September 4, 2009 3:03 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I voted for Gore so you fail right there.
And once again, if you think this kind of crap is going to persuade me to hold my nose and vote for Dems who sell out the party's supposed basic principles, your thinking is distinctly odd. If this is what passes among Democratic loyalist as an attempt to persuade doubters, it's no wonder the party is in such bad shape.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
September 4, 2009 3:52 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
I haven't seen anyboey trying to persuade you. In fact, I wish folks who threaten to abandon Obama every day would just shut the fuck up and do it! Every day, Bluebell declares "that's it! I'm gone this time!"
But that's not going to happen because you don't want to leave; you just want to be begged not to leave. Boy? Wolf?
I've seen this crap too many times to count. During the primaries, up to 50% of Hillary's voters said they wouldn't vote for Obama. He got 90% of the Democratic vote.
In the general, the Kos-ites declared they wouldn't support Obama or give him more money--right before Obama raised $150m/month.
Now, we're supposed to believe that gays won't vote for Obama in 2012, even if DADT is repealed by then . . . because he didn't repeal it soon enough.
We're supposed to believe that if this president accomplishes more to make healthcare more available and affordable than any president in 45 years, Democrats won't vote for him in 2012 because there's no public option.
Excuse me while I yawn.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
September 4, 2009 4:28 PM in reply to FreeRider
Apparently you expect us to believe in the tooth fairy, who is every bit as "real" as what a compromised Blue Dog / Snowe piece of garbage is going to accomplish with respect to those objectives. You yourself, in your more lucid moments, have demonstrated your understanding of the vital importance of a robust public option and your strong support for it, so coming from you this is both disappointing and puzzling. I expect better of you, which is not the case for some others around here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
September 4, 2009 6:13 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Here's what I'm saying"
I want a public option. I'll be really, really pissed if we don't get one because I think it's the best way to achieve what necessary. But if we get some healthcare reform which means people can't be dropped when they get sick, they can't be denied coverage, you can take your healthcare with you when you change jobs, etc. . ., I'm not going to vote against this president come 2012.
In fact, I can't see how any sane person would say "sure Obama did more for healthcare than anyone since LBJ but the bill wasn't perfect so fuck him!"
And please don't tell me they might get more with a different president. Carter had the same kind of numbers in the Congress, he didn't even try. Clinton had similar numbers in Congress and he failed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
September 4, 2009 8:57 PM in reply to FreeRider
Jesus, FR, even Ezra fucking Klein is waking up to the fact that the turd that's being prepared, so far from "doing" anything at all for healthcare, could end up being actively harmful. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/what_if_they_had_a_health-care.html
"Something" is NOT better than nothing if the something is sufficiently bad. And all signs point to sufficiently bad being exactly what we'll end up with, if the House Progressives fold and allow it to pass.
This is not going to be an accomplishment of any kind. It's going to be policy disaster- making crappy insurance even more unaffordable and/or royally pissing off millions of Obama's new voters if a mandate is included- and political suicide for the Democratic Party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
September 5, 2009 8:18 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Looks like you polished your crystal ball up all nice and shiny.
Spare me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
September 4, 2009 2:37 PM
Let's ignore the question of whether Obama should be primaried.
The answer is: No. That will not happen. The primary elections are three years from now. There will be dozens of fights of this size between now and then, this legislation will not be the only event of Obama's first term. And although I continue to think the House should hold to its threats to block any legislation that lacks a public option, let's imagine for a moment that somehow these efforts fail and the public option is missing in the bill that gets signed into law-- seriously, what the hell is the argument going to be? "Obama signed landmark health care reform legislation that took tens of millions off the uninsured lists! We must punish him!" Does anyone really think that this is an argument that will resonate enough to even get a primary challenge off the ground? Really?
2010 is a different matter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
September 4, 2009 6:14 PM
>>what the hell is the argument going to be? "Obama signed landmark health care reform legislation that took tens of millions off the uninsured lists! We must punish him!" >>
My point exactly!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?