TPMDC
Poll: Dems, Independents Overwhelmingly Disappointed With Obama's Public Option Performance
President Barack Obama
Share
Send to a friend!
A finding from a new Research 2000 poll suggests Democrats and Independents are deeply disappointed with President Obama's unwillingness to truly engage in the fight for a public option.
Commissioned by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, and Democracy for America, the question, to 800 likely voters was: "President Obama has said he favors a public health insurance option. Senator Joe Lieberman is widely credited with forcing Senate Democrats to take the public option off the table in order to win his vote. Do you think President Obama should have done more to pressure Lieberman to allow the public option to move forward?"
Overall, 63 percent said yes, 29 percent said no, and 8 percent had no opinion.
But among Democrats, and Independents, the numbers are far more striking.
A full 87 percent of Democrats say Obama should have upped the pressure on Lieberman to play nice (10 percent answered no). And 72 percent of Independents agree, Obama didn't do enough to rein in Lieberman's bid to kill the public option. Eighteen percent of Independents disagreed with that.
The grassroots are divided over whether the Senate health care bill deserves a "next step." But they are certainly in agreement about the president's leadership on the health reform issue they cared most about.
Comments (102) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Stroszek
December 18, 2009 9:49 AM
It seems "progressives" have reconsidered their position on that whole "unitary executive" idea. They want an autocrat after all.
But let's not kid ourselves. Lieberman would have loved a high profile showdown with the President and it wouldn't have brought us one inch closer. This is all about getting Snowe's vote anyway, and the White House has known that for a while.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 18, 2009 9:54 AM in reply to Stroszek
Please can the drivel and face reality. The numbers don't lie. Obama has to step up right now on health care. One way or another he has to get meaningful reform enacted or fail trying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 18, 2009 9:59 AM in reply to wbgonne
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that public opinion polls indicated absolute truth and not opinion. You're right. Obama needs to bust out the magic wand and start casting some spells. Or at least, ditch hundreds of billions of dollars of aid to the working poor in exchange for five minutes of pointless theater.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 18, 2009 10:01 AM in reply to Stroszek
Magic wand? How about acting like a president and controlling the debate. Or at least entering it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 18, 2009 10:06 AM in reply to wbgonne
Yes, we've established that you want an autocrat, not a president of a constitutional republic. I agree that there are too many veto points in our system but that doesn't change the reality of the system that exists.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dizzy Izzy
December 18, 2009 10:16 AM in reply to Stroszek
It's not autocratic to tell Senators you expect a public option or some other form of real competition to the health insurance cartel. Your argument is stupid. He is the leader of the party and the President. He has leverage he refuses to use. Which is very telling. He stands with Aetna, not with his base.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
December 18, 2009 11:51 AM in reply to Dizzy Izzy
What leverage does the President have that he refuses to use? Tell us, please.
People like you throw around terms like "leverage" and "fear" and "bully pulpit" without ever once explaining how this works.
You know so much. Let us in on this secret of how Presidents get Senators to do what they want. I'm sure Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter and Harry Truman and John Kennedy would have appreciated this little bit of information, too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eztempo
December 18, 2009 1:17 PM in reply to FreeRider
One word: reconciliation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DaddyD
December 18, 2009 2:49 PM in reply to eztempo
Another two words: his voice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shekissesfrogs
December 18, 2009 10:55 PM in reply to eztempo
:::applause::::
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 18, 2009 10:18 AM in reply to Stroszek
An autocrat? You really don't understand how our government works. But here's a tip; the president is really powerful.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
December 18, 2009 10:23 AM in reply to wbgonne
Here's another tip, Senators are really power as well.
They are even more powerful when they are vote #59 or vote #60 in a cloture motion and they don't face an election for another 3 years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 18, 2009 10:26 AM in reply to Darrius
Which is exactly why you don't let things get to that point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
December 18, 2009 11:48 AM in reply to wbgonne
You still haven't told me how Obama could put the fear of God into Nelson. You said he could then ran away like a wimp when I asked you what he could do to make Nelson afraid of him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
December 18, 2009 11:54 AM in reply to FreeRider
How about, I'll support you primary challenger? How about, we're not giving you a dime in your next campaign? There are many ways to pressure a Senator. We know this, because Obama did it recently with a legislator over the war funding bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
December 18, 2009 12:00 PM in reply to DA in LA
Do you really believe that? In Nebraska (which is Ruby Red) it's amazing that we have ANY democrat in the Senate. Supporting Nelson's primary challenger will only make sure a Republican is elected.
1. Nelson doesn't need Obama's support in a blood red state or the party's money because he's got plenty of his own!
2. Nelson isn't up for election until 2012. Threats for things 3 years away are worthless.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
December 18, 2009 12:06 PM in reply to FreeRider
We don't have a Democrat from Nebraska in the Senate, champ. We have Ben Nelson.
http://bit.ly/7hybaI
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
December 18, 2009 1:57 PM in reply to DA in LA
Ben Nelson who votes with the Democrats 90% of the time. As opposed to Mike Johannes, the Republican from Nebraska who votes with us 0% of the time. I'm sure you'd rather have Johannes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shekissesfrogs
December 18, 2009 10:53 PM in reply to DA in LA
So,now at least we know he can show balls when it's important to him..
Thank.
He's a one term president, as far as my vote goes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 18, 2009 10:26 AM in reply to Darrius
well here's hoping some liberal or progressive senators accept that power for people over industry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
December 18, 2009 1:23 PM in reply to Stroszek
Oh, I'd have been please if he'd just wondered out loud whether or not Lieberman should lose his chairmanship.
Nothing real magic about it, but the results might have been interesting. Lieberman is treating him like a door mat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
December 18, 2009 11:48 AM in reply to wbgonne
Waiting for you to put some mean on the bone of your pronouncements. Tell us: exactly what can Obama do to make Ben Nelson afraid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 18, 2009 12:18 PM in reply to FreeRider
Ever read Robert Caro on LBJ?
Ever watch clips from FDR's presidency or read his speeches?
It's not clear to me why you fail to understand the significance of the bully pulpit.
Your argument is absurd on its face, and the poll numbers reflect that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
December 18, 2009 2:05 PM in reply to again
I have read all three of Caro's books on Johnson. I have read two biographies of FDR. Apparently you have not or else you would not be referencing them.
FYI, when Johnson was majority leader during the 1950s, he couldn't get the southern democrats to vote his way on civil rights. When he was Veep under Kennedy, he couldn't get southern Democrats to vote his way on Civil Rights. When he was president, he couldn't get southern Democrats to vote his way on Civil Rights.
So, please stop the crap. There are people here who actually know history and know that despite the persistent pronouncements that LBJ corralled every stray Democrat to get his bills through, that is a big fat lie! LBJ succeeded because liberal Republicans existed at the time and they voted to end the filibuster of southern Democrats. 13 Republicans voted for Medicare.
Keep spinning your fairy tale but some of us actually read instead of repeating talking points from Kos.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
varney
December 18, 2009 9:51 AM
Howard Dean-Bob Graham ticket in 2012.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 18, 2009 9:53 AM in reply to varney
Yet, let's relive the progressive glory days of the early 1980s! Down with that corporatist Carter! Mondale 84'!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 18, 2009 9:58 AM in reply to Stroszek
You are foolish because you are living in the past. The 80s are long gone. Clintonian triangulation is not necessary. The country has changed and it open to much more than Establishment Dems think. And it would be open to much more if Obama and the Dem Est didn't run like terrified children from progressive ideas.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stone
December 18, 2009 10:04 AM in reply to wbgonne
Is that the same country that elected Bush two times?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 18, 2009 10:24 AM in reply to Stone
Indeed it is. And 8 years of the Worst President in History gives the opposition party . . . something to work with.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SOS ICEBERG
December 18, 2009 11:37 AM in reply to Stone
No, it's the country that was hijacked by a disgraceful Supreme Court junta and then by a stolen vote count in Ohio, producing the consequence of Bush's illegitimate tenure, not "the country that elected Bush two times." That country doesn't exist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 18, 2009 10:05 AM in reply to wbgonne
Well, I can tell someone just came to political consciousness over the last three years. For someone "living the past," here's a history lesson: triangulation isn't the same thing as being forced to make deals to get legislation passed.
And FWIW, based on Dean's 2004 health care plan, it's obvious to anyone who was actually paying attention a mere four years ago that he would have ended up cutting the same deals if he were in the White House today.
There's a reason you guys never can actually make a political reality out of "the political realities" you like to talk so much about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 18, 2009 10:17 AM in reply to Stroszek
Anyway, to illustrate that point further, triangulating on health care would involve merely co-opting the existing Republican position. The Republican position does not involve regulating insurers, expanding Medicaid and giving subsidies to the lower middle class. Those would be dismissed as socialist entitlements. Instead, we'd see Obama standing with McConnell, pushing for high risk pools, tort reform and state level deregulation. The plan we're getting looks like something a Democrat would have run on in 2000 or 2004. It's not as progressive as you or would like, but it's not the product of triangulation either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 18, 2009 10:27 AM in reply to Stroszek
The Dems are triangulating themselves. The Repubs withdrew from relevancy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
December 18, 2009 11:57 AM in reply to wbgonne
You always say WHAT Obama should do but never say HOW he should do it.
Wbgonne: Obama should make Nelson afraid of him.
Me: How can he do that?
Wbgonne: Silence.
Wbgonne: Obama should make Lieberman vote for the medicare buy-in or public option.
Me: How can he do that?
Wbgonne: Silence.
Wbgonne: Obama should have never allowed the vote to come down to Lieberman or Nelson.
Me: How could he prevent that?
Wbgonne: Silence.
You're a typical big-talking, know-nothing, armchair quarterback who couldn't legislate your way out of a wet paper bag. And you've got plenty of company!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 18, 2009 12:17 PM in reply to FreeRider
I would have taken it directly to the people. Clinton never tried that. It was all devised behind closed doors, then sprung on Congress. The President was in a perfect position a few months ago to get a single payer bill passed. People were fed up with Bush and ready for an alternative to free-market (corporatist) solutions to kitchen sink problems. It's not too late, but it has become clear the President himself is not on board. He's Mr. Don't Rock the Boat. That's something I can't get fired up about. And judging from the numbers on health care reform, I'm not alone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 18, 2009 12:20 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
a la FDR.
Or twist some arms a la LBJ.
But don't just SIT there, dude.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
December 18, 2009 2:09 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
>>The President was in a perfect position a few months ago to get a single payer bill passed. >>
ROTFLMAO!! Wait. Let me stop laughing and up off the floor! A position to pass single payer???? Stop making a fool of yourself. There have never been more than 25 votes in the Senate for single payer, yet Obama could have passed it?
Oh, please. STFU! This proves that idiots like you don't deal in reality. Go back to your video games and pot smoking and leave governing to the grown-ups.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benny 4 facts
December 18, 2009 3:13 PM in reply to FreeRider
I am so impressed on how much you know about Democratic Presidents passed, present and maybe future. But do you need to act like a Republican ass to show it? Two things a president can do to get votes on a bill he wants—show by his actions he wants it---promise money for bridge to nowhere--you know buy the votes like any politician worth their salt would do. Hillary Clinton 2012
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
December 18, 2009 3:15 PM in reply to FreeRider
You see, Obama has this magic wand that he got from Harry Potter.....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
December 18, 2009 10:10 AM in reply to wbgonne
"Clintonian triangulation is not necessary. The country has changed and it open to much more than Establishment Dems think. And it would be open to much more if Obama and the Dem Est didn't run like terrified children from progressive ideas."
And your evidence for this is what, exactly? Because I think that there is a huge percentage of Americans who love "progressive" ideas up until the moment they hear a Republican demagogue them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
December 18, 2009 10:20 AM in reply to brewmn61
It is simply a delusion. He has no credible evidence for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 18, 2009 10:31 AM in reply to brewmn61
I guess this explains why some of you don't mind Obama and the democatic party adopting conservative ideas.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
December 18, 2009 10:48 AM in reply to Indie Pro
It doesn't explain that at all, especially since one of the reasons I was so strongly anti-Hillary in the primaries was because of her husband's failure as a progressive, and her inability to convincingly distance herself from a basic DLC-style platform.
It's called acknowledging poltical realities. Try it sometime.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 18, 2009 10:53 AM in reply to brewmn61
adopting ideas of your opponent is part of triangulation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 18, 2009 10:56 AM in reply to Indie Pro
maybe I'm missing something. It seems when you ask for evidence that triangulation isn't necessary, you ar supporting it. Maybe that is not what you intend to mean.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
December 18, 2009 11:09 AM in reply to Indie Pro
I was objecting to the idea that the American public has moved leftward far enough that triangulation is no longer necessary. I don't see any evidence of that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 18, 2009 11:11 AM in reply to Indie Pro
"Triangulation" is coopting the proposals of your opponent in order to undermine their political position by robbing them of an electoral issue cudgel.
Accepting the ideas of your opponents because they have a gun to your head is called "compromise" (or "duress," depending on where the gun falls on the metaphor-literal continuum).
There's a legitimate argument to be had as to whether they fucked up tactically by letting themselves get into a position where they had to compromise or whether they were inevitably going to be in that position because of instituional realities. (Or, there's a third argument, I suppose, that they were mesmerized into inaction by their mistaken belief about the inevitability, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.)
But they weren't "triangulating" unless you're just choosing try to win the argument by declaring that the word means whatever you want it to mean.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 18, 2009 11:23 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
But they weren't "triangulating" unless you're just choosing try to win the argument by declaring that the word means whatever you want it to mean.
I didn't accuse anyone of anything. But adopting the ideas of your opponent is part of triangulation. It's the hallmark of the DLC and "centrist" democrats, or "The New Democrat".
I did note that if triangulation is seen as needed, then it helps me to understand the position of many people around here in their support of Obama's and the democrats more conservative positions.
Afterall, the DLC knows where Obama stands:
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254931&kaid=85&subid=900184
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 18, 2009 12:49 PM in reply to Indie Pro
It makes a difference, because conflating compromise with triangulation implicitly conflates the underlying motives. Triangulation is an obsolescent electoral stragegy. It's one of the stages a party inevitably goes through after it's lost a realignment election. Eisenhower was a triangulator. So was Nixon as president. Clinton was too, but he's the one who gave it a name.
Compromise is a policy decision, a decision to achieve less than you would like in lieu of accomplishing nothing.
I know it all looks the same to some of you guys, but there's a real difference.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 18, 2009 1:14 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
conflating compromise with triangulation implicitly conflates the underlying motives
I agree
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 18, 2009 11:28 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I don't understand your objection. The Democratic Party had been triangulating ever since Clinton. That is exactly how they have ended up in the predicament they're in. Establishment Dems became Republican-Lite because that's what they thought they had to do to win. They have failed to re-examine their assumptions and those assumptions are now clashing with the new political reality.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 18, 2009 12:19 PM in reply to wbgonne
Precisely. And this comments section is feeling increasingly astroturfed to me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shekissesfrogs
December 18, 2009 11:08 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
Me too, for a few days now. I think they got their OFA marching orders to go forth and protect Dear Leaders agenda.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 18, 2009 10:34 AM in reply to brewmn61
You have a point but I think it is the same one I do. When you say people "love progressive ideas up until the moment they hear a Republican demagogue them" I absolutely agree. But demagoguery can be combated; it can even be turned against those employing it. Indeed, that is precisely how demagogues must be handled. But to that one must undermine the demagogues by directing confronting them over and again. And, far and away, the best person in America to do that is the president.
As for my evidence re: the untapped progressive movement, most obvious is the war on drugs and specifically legalization of marijuana. The people are far ahead of the Establishment Democrats on this and it is potentially a real winner for Dems (and the country). Of course, health care reform should have been a real winner for the Dems too but they've screwed it up so badly there is no easy way forward now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
December 18, 2009 11:04 AM in reply to wbgonne
Oh, come on. First, half of the Democratic Senate would barely qualify as a "progressive" even under the most generous definition of that term. Second, we have a media that has barely talked about the potential benefits ordinary Americans would receive under a bill, but only aboput how much it will cost. For example, the fact that our country has worse health care outcomes, at twice the cost, of most other advanced nations simply doesn't get a mention anywhere in the television and print media.
The American people may be coming around to a more progressive agenda, but our institutions are far behind. And what Obama needs now are the votes of Senators and Congresspeople and the companies that own them, not oprdinary Americans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 18, 2009 11:22 AM in reply to brewmn61
That, to me, sums up how so many people are missing the boat. Who do you think derailed heath care in the first place? The Tea Partiers, that's who. While we were all laughing at them they ran away with the debate. Now, of course, they were manipulated but they were "regular people" just the same. If you think that popular opinion doesn't affect Senators and Reps you are quite mistaken. And the president, especially when his own party control Congress, is in an enviable position to move public opinion. Oh, and it doesn't hurt when the president in question is a master rhetorician and is entering a world of crisis engendered by his predecessor from the opposite party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
December 18, 2009 12:03 PM in reply to wbgonne
The tea partiers ran away with the debate? The tea partiers derailed healthcare?
Those two sentences prove you're a total moron. The tea partiers are a joke and so are you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 18, 2009 12:33 PM in reply to FreeRider
Probably too late to use the bully pulpit - that's a lost opportunity - so the bill should be killed if they can't strip it of the mandate. The debate could be rekindled later if it were framed properly. There is nothing to suggest it will be easier to revisit reform if this is passed.
This bill institutionalizes government subsidies for private insurers - a sector that adds nothing of value to the delivery of health care. That's a terrible precedent, and one it will be hard to get out of in the future. The fact that there are a multitude of insurers, each ruling its own relative fiefdom of customers by state, means extraordinarily high processing expenses for providers and a multitude of small risk pools that rely on separate companies cutting secret deals with providers instead of a unified negotiator using its leverage to get the best deals for customers. The government is being asked to subsidize this inefficiency to protect those fiefdoms. There's no reason for it to do so apart from campaign contributions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shekissesfrogs
December 18, 2009 11:16 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
You have a gift for narration. I feel the same way, but can't ever find the right words to express it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bdh
December 18, 2009 10:00 AM
Thinking Obama should have "done more to pressure Lieberman to allow the public option to move forward" = a generally overwhelming "deep disappointment" with his handling of the public option and a perception of an "unwillingness to truly engage"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 18, 2009 10:03 AM in reply to bdh
Yes. Why doesn't it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bdh
December 18, 2009 11:26 AM in reply to wbgonne
You'll notice what's on the left of the equal sign isn't the same as what's on the right. If considered as a generalization, it's a hasty one. People who disagree with how Obama handled Lieberman in this case are not necessarily disappointed with his overall approach to the issue of the public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 18, 2009 10:03 AM
Lose the mandate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ru4862
December 18, 2009 10:05 AM
Barack Obama has decided to adopt the Clinton 90s way of doing business instead of carving out his own domestic agenda for America. What i cannot understand is the president for two years of the presidential campaign went around the country blaming republicans (rightfully) for creating the economic mess we know face, and those same republicans that got us into this mess he now wants to work with. Where is this president's logic?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stone
December 18, 2009 10:13 AM in reply to ru4862
Last time I checked the Republicans are almost unanimously opposed to all of his initiatives.
Come back to reality please.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 18, 2009 10:36 AM in reply to Stone
"the Republicans are almost unanimously opposed to all of his initiatives."
So why isn't the White House slamming the Republicans every minute of every day?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ru4862
December 18, 2009 10:51 AM in reply to wbgonne
wbgonne,
Thank you. Stone is clearly an Obama loyalist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 18, 2009 11:24 AM in reply to ru4862
Believe it or not, I am an Obama loyalist, too. But I'm not blind.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shekissesfrogs
December 18, 2009 11:06 PM in reply to ru4862
This is the bankers agenda, put together by John Podesta and Bob Rubin. That's why it looks the same. It was a one size fits all government set up in advance to house the winner, Hillary or Obama. it's on whorunsgov.org
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
December 18, 2009 10:15 AM
123 will die and Obama we are stupid and we see what you are supporting. Stop with the stupid and fight the good fight for the people. Burning the base is not worth it for CorporateCare
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chigger
December 18, 2009 10:16 AM
I'm done--went to the courthouse yesterday and switched my party afilliation from Dem to Independent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sbv
December 18, 2009 10:23 AM in reply to chigger
as the old saying goes, "don't cut your nose to spite your face." the mess we are in now, while there is blame to go around, is the product we should have seen coming, when single payer was taken off the table. one can not satisfy the health insurance industry and the teabaggers at the same time while attempting to reform the corporate greed with what is best politically.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
December 18, 2009 10:59 AM in reply to sbv
Another old saying is, "when you're up to your anus in seawater, it's time to man the lifeboats." If this poll doesn't tell the Dems that their ship is sinking, then maybe the drop in donations will.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 18, 2009 12:24 PM in reply to Schmed
What's sad is that when you say, "this isn't working" the DNC says, "at least it's not Palin."
They don't get that they need us.
And stop calling me a "progressive!" I'm a Democrat! Five generations of Dems in my family now.
Public option was always a traditional Democratic idea - at one point even a GOP one.
It's very centrist. Not "progressive" or "left" or "radical."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sabocat
December 18, 2009 10:17 AM
It is if you stand to profit from it. Like these people really care more about representing their base than lining their pockets.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ru4862
December 18, 2009 10:28 AM
Stone,
Take your tongue out of the president's butt. He's the president not your lover. Ok.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I mean sure the white house is regretting the day they crossed Liberals and Progressives. Never play off the emotions of those who support your agenda. This president played off of our hopes and aspirations. And worse, to mock and label your supporters as "Insane or "Irrational" is just outright disrespectful.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
maya89
December 18, 2009 10:29 AM
really?? and how many of these "Dems" and "independents" are uninsured? and don't give a s___t whether the uninsured finally get health care coverage or not???
I don't think people who have good health care coverage have any credibility when they say they're against a public option.. (I have my own coverage, screw the folks who don't have coverage.. only in America.. merry Xmas..)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 18, 2009 12:27 PM in reply to maya89
I don't have coverage and I have deep reservations about this bill.
I think it's worse than what is going on now in that it will be a very substantial giveaway to insurance, which means we'll never be able to regulate them.
Has the admin made any serious attempts to regulate the banks they bailed out? They can't. They're too powerful.
Now insurance companies can enjoy the same privilege.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
December 18, 2009 10:34 AM
I must say, I am amazed at how stupid people on the left can be. To deliberately sabotage their parties own work, just when they are about to pass it for the first time in 40 years.
Harsh words, I know, but it is stupid is the best word to describe it. Years from now people advocating that we kill this bill will back and wonder how they could be this green.
I really did not expect people like Dean, and Olberman to fan the flames like this. But note that Democrats who actually hold office, or have had high level government experience, like Matthews, want this bill to pass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 18, 2009 10:38 AM in reply to Darrius
EOM.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 18, 2009 10:39 AM in reply to Darrius
I must say, I amazed when democrats call the democratic party the progressives own party, and then go about attacking progressives, putting them down, calling them names, and marginalizing them. Aren't you really pushing liberals and progressives further away?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
December 18, 2009 11:54 AM in reply to Indie Pro
That is exactly what people on the right say when someone points our that they are stupid for voting against their own best interest.
"I'm not stupid just because I keep voting Republican even though they put my family into poverty."
And yes, normally calling someone or their position stupid only makes them dig in and support their position more. I am banking on the fact that people on the left are normally smarter than people on the right and hoping that in this case the former will actually start thinking and realize that defeating this bill destroy any possibility of changing the health care system for at least 40 years.
The fact is all of you who want HCR but want to kill this bill are advocating against your own best interest. Working against yourself is the opposite of smart.
If you want HCR you need this bill to pass, in spite of its flaws. You want it to pass so that you keep the power to change health care in the future.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 18, 2009 12:04 PM in reply to Darrius
if progressives and liberals belong in the democratic party then
isn't calling them stupid and marginalizing them working against yourself, which as you say, is the opposite of smart. Espeically when most progressives and liberals are working to make the bill stronger for people?
Dean advocated reconciliation, still he's called crazy. many others have always advocated "no po, then no mandate" since this process started. Yet you lump us all together as "wanting to kill the bill", and others like this is a new position.
You also equate us with the far right. You don't seem very smart to me. You seem to be pushing people away from the ever increasingly more conservative democratic party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 18, 2009 12:36 PM in reply to Indie Pro
thank you on that last sentence
(and the rest of your post)
I'm not a progressive. I'm a Democrat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
December 18, 2009 2:48 PM in reply to Indie Pro
No, it is not working against myself, because "kill the bill" Democrats need to hear the truth. Me not telling you that its stupid, doesn't stop it from being stupid. It just IS what it is.
Sometimes people do stupid things. Helping a person realize that what they are doing is stupid actually helps them.
I find that people have a hard time being deliberately stupid. They may not know what to do. They may have a different goal from what they say the have. They may be hopeless and think it doesn't matter what they do. They may be mistaken and think that what they are doing is smart. But they normally can not know that what they are doing is stupid and keep doing it anyway.
If nobody says, "killing this bill would be stupid" then lots of people will never know that. So I'm saying. If Dems kill this bill they will be doing something incredibly stupid. You may wish that it wasn't stupid but it would be stupid anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
December 18, 2009 2:48 PM in reply to Indie Pro
"You seem to be pushing people away from the ever increasingly more conservative democratic party."
See, to me, this staement is a big problem. The Democratic Party is not becoming "more conservative."It is the same party it's been since FDR. FDR was reponding to a true crisis that affected almost every average American; even then, he killed a sustained recovery by focusing on balanced budgets prematurely.
The Democratic Party has never been the tribune of progressive values that so many now seem to wish it was. Furthermore, the relationship between Democratci presidents and Democratic Congresses has been especially dysfunctional. See Carter, Jimmy; or Clinton, Bill. It wasn't Republicans that destroyed (Carter) or irreparably hobbled (Clinton) recent Democratic presidents. It was Democratic Congresspeople who decided to work for their own political fortunes and own narrow constituencies rather than support a President whose agenda many of them felt was TOO "progressive." The fact that there are a handful of Senators and Representatives who are more liberal than the president doesn't change these underlying dynamics.
Even now the right-of-center holds. Obama is probably the most liberal president we've had since LBJ. But all of the effective opposition to his success is coming from his own side of the aisle.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
December 18, 2009 3:02 PM in reply to brewmn61
Which is my point. Obama is being hurt from his left, not from the right. Moreover, the left is hurting him for championing their issue.
P.S.
Unlike FDR Obama has a real shot at passing universal (or at least near-universal) health care.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shekissesfrogs
December 18, 2009 11:36 PM in reply to Darrius
There hasn't been any compromise with the left, only concessions given by the left.
Get a new whipping boy. This is getting old.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 18, 2009 12:38 PM in reply to Darrius
So we owe our party undivided allegiance? That seems nuts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shekissesfrogs
December 18, 2009 11:26 PM in reply to Darrius
You don't get it. The first split is along class lines. This bill represents that divide, not a false party line. There are at least 3 different parties inside the Democratic Party right now.
Progressives are actually closer ideologically to libertarians than New Democrats.. you know, the corporatists.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
maya89
December 18, 2009 10:41 AM
and who the heck is this "Research 2000" joint? last entry on their website is from November (http://research2000.us/)
most of the stuff on their home page is college football stuff.. and there is no way to contact them by email either.. supposedly there is a form on their contact page (http://research2000.us/?page_id=147), but it's not there...;-)
these folks should be told: next time you do this kind of polling, you should also ask folks if they presently have health care coverage or not.. and break down the for-and-against a public option results by whether or not respondents have health care coverage themselves...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chris
December 18, 2009 10:49 AM
Count me in on the disappointment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
December 18, 2009 11:02 AM in reply to Chris
Stick around. There's plenty more to come.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
December 18, 2009 12:04 PM
Ooooooh! I can't wait until the immigration debate starts. good times, good times.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsdc007
December 18, 2009 12:07 PM
The "Indies" were against a public option just a month ago. Now they're disappointed. Frankly, they're just a bunch of schizophrenic whinos who like to bitch about everything.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 18, 2009 12:13 PM in reply to jsdc007
surely this isn't a cowardly passive aggressive dig at me. if it is, just let me know, and I'll be happy to explain the differences to you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
williamwalker
December 18, 2009 12:10 PM
My students are taking a test right now on the Presidency (AP Government). We ended our discussion yesterday on this very issue: the use by the President of the "bully pulpit" to achieve his agenda. The consensus of my seniors is that the President seems to want a health care bill not necessarily one that will be truly reform. I suspect that President Obama is disappointed in his party in the Senate. (I am most thankful to those same members for giving me a "teachable moment" in the currently dysfunctional, always anti-majoritarian Senate. The best part of that particular discussion was Senator Lieberman's assertion of "conscience" as the irresistible force driving his Rule 22 procedural vote: no, we cannot, as a matter of conscience, allow a substantive vote on the issue because it might succeed. Brilliant, and a moment in our political history for the under 20 crowd similar in affect to President Clinton's "meaning of is" grand jury testimony. Very distressing)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
HCTexas
December 18, 2009 12:37 PM
So who the hell isn't disappointed? We're ALL disappointed that the health care bills aren't everything we want. Well, get over it. Both bills are huge improvements over the current system. And it's rare (if ever) that anybody gets everything they want in American politics. That's not the way the system is set up here. You get what you can, and you keep fighting to make it better. Or you throw up your hands, give up and nothing ever changes. That's insane.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 18, 2009 12:43 PM in reply to HCTexas
Both bills are huge improvements over the current system.
Disagree: they're a really dangerous precedent, privatizing what should be a government function - making sure everyone can afford health care. Just like public schools, etc. The government should be AT LEAST the health care negotiator of last resort. Preferably the only health care negotiator.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
HCTexas
December 18, 2009 12:52 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
But health insurance(for non-seniors) is already a private-sector function in this country. The precedent is already set. Most of us would love to chang that (I know I would), but it won't change until there are enough votes to do it. And it almost certainly won't change in one big effort. It will take a series of victories that pushes the ball forward over time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 18, 2009 1:17 PM in reply to HCTexas
That's a pretty recent change, though. And it's costing us loads of money, as I understand it. Something so recent should be easier to change, especially since it's still under gov't oversight.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PoorMansLobbyist.org
December 18, 2009 1:55 PM
Yes, President Obama and The White House are at a dangerous point right now, risking losing the support of their base. There are even whispers of a primary for 2012, which no one would have believed 6 months ago.
I wrote a blog post about this, "Democrats United (Against the Party), Republicans Just Say No (to Solving Problems)."
http://blog.poormanslobbyist.org/2009/12/democrats-united-against-party.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?