TPMDC
Gibbs: We Didn't Include The Public Option Because It Doesn't Have The Votes
President Barack Obama
Share
Send to a friend!
In today's press briefing, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said President Obama didn't include a public option in his health care plan because it doesn't have the votes to pass.
"We have seen obviously that though there are some that are supportive of this, there isn't enough political support in a majority to get this through," Gibbs said today, according to Sam Stein. "The president ... took the Senate bill as the base and looks forward to discussing consensus ideas on Thursday."
The White House released Obama's new proposal this week ahead of a bipartisan health care summit planned for Thursday.
In a renewed push to pass a public option, 23 senators have signed a letter urging leadership to do so via reconciliation -- which would require the support of 50 senators. It is still very unclear whether the letter will get 50 signatures.
A Senate leadership aide told TPMDC last week that in order to get the votes for a public option, Democrats would need strong, explicit support from the White House.
Adam Green of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which is pushing the letter, released a statement immediately after Gibbs' comment.
"The White House obviously has a loser mentality -- but America rallies around winners," Green said. "Polls show that in state after state, voters hate the Senate bill and overwhelmingly want a public option, even if passed with zero Republican votes. ... That's why Democrats in Congress should ignore the White House and follow those like Chuck Schumer and Robert Menendez who know that the public option is a political and policy winner."
Comments (296) | 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.
tchamp77
February 23, 2010 2:23 PM
pssssssssssssss. That's the sound of air coming from the Gang of 20's bubble.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tommy Douglas
February 23, 2010 2:52 PM in reply to tchamp77
absolute losers. Fire the whole Chicago team please.(Rahm, Axelrod, etc)
How are they all so out of touch with what people want?
And its good politically as well.
I'm sitting out the next election.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stephen Daugherty
February 23, 2010 3:18 PM in reply to Tommy Douglas
Sit out the next election. And watch the Republicans do, in absolute terms, far worse than Obama and the Chicago crew.
Quit voting enthusiasm. Vote cold, hard interests. Vote with your head. It's a simple decision, really: do you want to suffer the indignities and outrages of a Republican return to power? If not, vote Democrat.
You might be getting disappointing results right now from the Democrats, but I promise you, appalling results are assured from the Republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
February 23, 2010 3:39 PM in reply to Stephen Daugherty
I'm kind of sympathetic to your point but the fact is that nothing will ever change if we maintain low expectations from the Dem Party.
My suggestion for a better answer: Focus you resources (time and money) on progressive candidates and progressive organizations willing to work for progressives only within the Dem Party. Grow what you like and shun what you dislike.
That means not a dime for any Dem Party entity (unless you are fortunate to have a decent local or state party unit).
Give your funds to ActBlue, MoveOn and others.
That's a much better message than "progressives should suck it up and support people who stab them in the back." or, "pipe down, shut up and give us your money and time."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tommy Douglas
February 23, 2010 3:48 PM in reply to AlphaLiberal
Agreed.
But I just don't understand HOW YOU CAN FORCE PEOPLE TO BUY PRIVATE INSURANCE???
The administration is so out of touch.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stephen Daugherty
February 23, 2010 3:51 PM in reply to Tommy Douglas
Evidently, you've never driven a car in Texas.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
February 23, 2010 4:03 PM in reply to Stephen Daugherty
Not the same. Health care is a right, driving ain't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tommy Douglas
February 23, 2010 4:16 PM in reply to destor23
By the way, Stephen, does RAHM have you on the payroll doing some PR?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
February 23, 2010 5:06 PM in reply to destor23
No. You want health care to be a right. It is not currently a right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tommy Douglas
February 23, 2010 4:11 PM in reply to Stephen Daugherty
I'm talking about HEALTH INSURANCE obviously, which can run into TENS of thousands of dollars.
We need an alternative to the FOR PROFIT health care industry.
or make them all NON PROFITS like many other countries.
It's either insurance companies that are NON PROFITS or we need to have PUBLIC OPTIONS.
HCR is unpopular because its NOT REAL REFORM>
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 23, 2010 4:28 PM in reply to Tommy Douglas
Rockefellar says every exchange has to have at least one nonprofit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tommy Douglas
February 23, 2010 4:48 PM in reply to philogratis
Sounds promising. half measures, quarter measures, eighth measures gets us nowhere.
we need a ROBUST alternative to compete with greedy CORPORATE HEALTH INSURANCE.
This will contain costs considerably.
Obama/Rahm has let a crisis go to waste and pissed off their entire base as well as the Independents.
THE PUBLIC OPTION IS WHAT THE ELECTORATE WANTS!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
February 23, 2010 4:50 PM in reply to Tommy Douglas
It's not the profit, it's the overhead! They have tens of thousands of employees shuffling paper around in huge office buildings that eat up 30% of money spent on healthcare premiums. It's a classic MIDDLEMAN business model that does absolutely nothing to improve healthcare. They just skim off a third of the whole big pie to run their empires of death and denial. There is absolutely no competition so in the end it is nothing but legalized theft that makes US healthcare the most expensive and most useless.
CUT OUT THE MIDDLEMAN! SINGLE PAYER SAVES LIVES!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tommy Douglas
February 23, 2010 5:18 PM in reply to hollywood
Exactly. That's why we spend twice as much on health care per GDP then any other country. These huge monoliths need to be destroyed and taken down.
The Health Insurance Industry is the real BUREAUCRACY, not the Gov't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tommy Douglas
February 23, 2010 11:13 PM in reply to Tommy Douglas
I guess this is why they never supported the Public Option. They struck a deal, much like the one with PHRMA all the way back in August,
According to The NY Times:
"Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying-Medicare rates...or controlled by the secretary of health and human services. 'We have an agreement with the White House that I'm very confident will be seen all the way through conference', one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, director of the Federation of American Hospitals, told a Capitol Hill newsletter...Industry lobbyists say they are not worried [about a public option.] 'We trust the White House,' Mr. Kahn said."
Corporations interest first, and the people's second. Unbelievable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GreenDreams
February 23, 2010 4:56 PM in reply to Stephen Daugherty
If I'm not mistaken, it is *liability* insurance that is required of drivers. If I choose to risk my own car by not having collision coverage I can. (unless it's still under loan, but that's the lender's rule, not the guvmint's)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 23, 2010 6:06 PM in reply to GreenDreams
One difference is that in a life threatening situation, hospitals are required to treat you even if you have no money, but mechanics are not required to fix your car.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
goldiera
February 23, 2010 5:56 PM in reply to Tommy Douglas
They plan to enforce Americans to buy insurance from the same thieves who plundered this country. They are going to use the IRS to enforce everyone's purchase and have raised the fine from 2% penality, to 2 1/2% for those who don't comply.
IRS will be the new Gestapo for the insurance companies using our money and our civil servants to collect money for insurance companies. Extortion using our own resources reaches a new level.
Our government is as corrupt as Mexico's or any banana republic. The only reform we will see to health care will be to hand the insurance companies millions of mandated new customers. There will be no price constraint or consumer protection with any teeth. Lip service, nothing more.
Thanks to the supreme courts ruling in Jan, the congress now legally works for corporate interests, not ours. We have lost our voice and our country.
Obama works for corporate interests, he is one of them. A complete corporate package sold to Americans after it became clear nobody would accept another Clinton or Bush. However, the first thing Obama did was bring the Clinton team in, and follows the same right-wing, anti-labor anti-middle class policies.
Our votes will no longer matter because corporations will buy all candidates, the vote is officially a sham.
I won't vote, the process has lost all integrity, just like our government.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
February 23, 2010 5:43 PM in reply to AlphaLiberal
Nothing will change if you keep electing Republican either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 23, 2010 6:05 PM in reply to AlphaLiberal
That's what a lot of Republicans are saying about Scott Brown today. They just elected him a month ago and they are already regretting it.
I regret it too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
February 23, 2010 7:48 PM in reply to AlphaLiberal
"...nothing will ever change if we maintain low expectations from the Dem Party."
Ah, but it will change. Especially if one takes the mentality that there is equivalent good vs. evil on both sides of the party-line divide. That false equivalency is exactly what the neocons are counting on for next fall.
If it weren't for the fact that the neos are now all purified into their uber-libertarian mode (I'll say not so much about how racially "pure" they've become, but that's a big aspect of their current direction), then maybe nothing much would change when they win control of congress in the fall because we have a sad that Democrats are unable to fix 30 years of neo damage to our government in one year.
However, when they win, because we cut off our nose to spite our dreamy faces, you can now expect their energized, mandated selves to repeal Medicare and Medicaid. And Social Security. And repeal the tax cuts to the 95% that received them while deepening tax cuts to the very richest.
Forget stimulus spending. Gone. Pulled back in because, as one of their spiritual leaders (Norquist) puts it, their goal is to shrink the size of the Federal government so small it can be drowned in a bathtub.
"Government does not solve problems; government is the problem." Thus spake Reagan, when he started this neo revolution against democracy.
Who is the government, according to our founders? WE. What was he really saying? WE can not solve our problems; WE are the problem. We. Democracy. Government of, by and for the people. He gave the richest few all the money (trickle down) and took away power and money from the masses (killing regulations, unions, etc.).
We are at war with the Republicans as they attempt to kill democracy. Democrats may be ineffectual at legislating, but they are not (all) at war with the principles on which our country was founded.
Let the Republicans win in the fall, and that may be the final nail in the coffin for our democracy. Keep them from gaining the reins of power once more, and we may yet have a chance.
Those are the real choices we face. We are at war, a war started by neocon ideology, and they are the enemy, of you and me and every common person of the commonwealth.
Green Day said it so very well in the song by the same title from their album 21st Century Breakdown: Know Your Enemy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
February 23, 2010 3:41 PM in reply to Stephen Daugherty
Yes they will. But it's like Bill Maher says, we have two parties in this country, the Democratic conservatives and the lunatic Republicans. There is no party for progressives. And there never will be if we keep allowing the Dems to abuse us.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
February 23, 2010 3:44 PM in reply to rwc
3rd party politics do not work. We need a better alternative.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
February 23, 2010 7:56 PM in reply to AlphaLiberal
The alternative is to keep the neo-skinheads from ever holding the reins of power again. Then, when the very real and very nearly accomplished goal of theirs, to destroy this democracy and replace it with a corporatocracy, is finally put to rest and the country is restored to its founding principles, then we can worry about unbreaking the government they have broken over these past 30 years, and start chasing ideals once more.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tim
February 23, 2010 9:05 PM in reply to AlphaLiberal
It would seem that you can have a sub-party within a party.
That, I think, is the function of the Tea-Party: By now the Wealthy-Elite-Republicans the own and run the party are getting everything they want while the wing-nut-poor-culture-war Republicans get nothing.
The Tea Party vents the outrage overthis, without losing them from the Republican coalition. In fact, these folks are more energized and than ever.
For a while, they feel like they have their own party, their own sense of traction, and when the election comes they'll look around and vote Republican come what may. There influence is manifested during the primary season when they can most influence elections.
Why can't Democrats do the same? Why can't we have a sub party for progressives? Coffee-talk Democrats? Coffee talk rally's in the national mall, the whole nine yards.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
musgrove
February 23, 2010 3:46 PM in reply to rwc
Its that type of thinking that get Republicans elected. The two parties are extremely different. But the Democrats are more diverse, and sadly there arent enough progressive Democrats in office, but that doesnt mean that the two parties are the same.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
February 23, 2010 4:17 PM in reply to musgrove
I read somewhere today that "the two parties are the same" was used in pre-Nazi Germany against the Social Democrats. Then again, they really did suck in many of the same ways as our hapless Dems.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acf_ma
February 23, 2010 4:51 PM in reply to musgrove
Democrats are almost a coalition, instead of a party, while the Republicans are a monolithic party with one mindset which is why it is easy to get them to move in lockstep against Democratic bills. Democrats are really the "big tent', that Republicans like to call themselves after salting a few token blacks and minorities in their convention audiences. They claim the mantle, Democrats live it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
goldiera
February 23, 2010 6:00 PM in reply to acf_ma
You're dreaming. The democrats are just as corrupt and rotten as the republicans, they serve the same corporate masters. They could care less what the people think.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
musgrove
February 23, 2010 6:53 PM in reply to goldiera
Yea Bush is the same as gore, yada yada.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stephen Daugherty
February 23, 2010 3:48 PM in reply to rwc
So, you're saying that you would get a party for the progressives if the Democrats lost, and we endured a decade or two more of this BS?
I don't think we can build a successful progressive majority on defeat for Democrats.
The losses are already being painted as a repudiation to the left. We need the left to win for the Right to be fully discredited. We need to withstand the assault, and then, when they've lost the strength, push back, and organize to do more than just keep everything at the center.
But what we don't need to be doing is adopting the kind of political nihilism that doesn't heed the consequences of apathy and defeat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 23, 2010 3:54 PM in reply to Stephen Daugherty
Common sense is lacking here so don't even try to explain it even though you did a marvelous job of trying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
February 23, 2010 3:59 PM in reply to Stephen Daugherty
That kind of cheer leading does not garner many votes: look at Massachusetts. If Obama does not support his base, his base will not support him. Look at the interview with Dr. Cornell West for the impact of Obama's inaction on the black portion of the base.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 23, 2010 4:30 PM in reply to AJM
Dunno where Massachusetts comes in. Coakley did absolutely no outreach in minority communities, it's true. Obama couldn't turn it around on the last weekend, but he wasn't on the ballot either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
loudprogressive
February 23, 2010 5:00 PM in reply to philogratis
Yeah, blame it on lack of minority community turnout. I guess that explains why for the first time in how many decades the seat went rethugs. The minorities did it! God you sound beyond ignorant. I guess you'll blame the Dems record losses in the fall on lack of minority turnout too. Idiot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tommyo
February 23, 2010 4:48 PM in reply to Stephen Daugherty
I'm so sick of this "take whatever shit Obama feeds you because otherwise the GOP wiil be worse" bullshit.
I'll take my chances with a GOP victory before I support these fucking liars again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 23, 2010 6:24 PM in reply to tommyo
That's because you are a republican. Who the fuck do you think you are kidding?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tim
February 23, 2010 9:18 PM in reply to tommyo
One point of view that I read in a comment to Krugman's column last weekend was a guy wishing that McCain would have won the election.
Republican policies would have brought about a full fledged mega-depression that would have pushed the Republican party out of power for the rest of our lifetimes.
Like Germany during WWII, the hard headed right wingnuts won't change their minds until the nation lies in utter ruins.
Instead they are trying to pin the depression on the Dems and are plotting a come back while we can't get health reform that stand out like a sore thumb in the world as a case of ruinous, stupid, idiotic policy choice that kills tens of thousands of Americans every year for the sake of a few thousand people's stock holdings in insurance companies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 24, 2010 3:24 AM in reply to Tim
After reading this stuff about McCain claiming he didn't know what TARP was, I have no regrets about Obama. I never thought I'd say this, but I would have gladly had Bush and Cheney for a third term rather than McCain and Palin. Bush actually turned his administration around slightly in his final two years in office, compared to the utter feckless disaster between 2002 and 2006.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 23, 2010 4:54 PM in reply to Stephen Daugherty
I have been saying the same thing for months but these folks in here especially the progressives, don't want to hear it. All they talk about is failed leadership after one year in office.
It is pretty disgusting to watch dems eat their own. No wonder the trolls comes here and relish the pickings.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
toddincabo
February 23, 2010 3:42 PM in reply to Tommy Douglas
Your a pussy...waaaa waaaa waaaa......
Just wait until after Thurs. They still have a chance.
By the way....Do you really think that if Congress was'nt bought and paid for that O could'nt actually get something done.
Do you actually think that Rethugs would try for anything to help anyone but the Corporations......gget real
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
beltwayskeptic
February 23, 2010 3:45 PM in reply to Tommy Douglas
So why haven't 50 Democratic Senators signed the letter supporting a Public Option???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
goldiera
February 23, 2010 6:05 PM in reply to beltwayskeptic
That is part of the game. Every issue gets a few supporters, but never enough to cause a bill to pass. It is a game of basketball, they toss the issues back and forth and accomplish nothing.
The letters, petitions, etc are all a joke....on us. Those bastards work for the corporations, not us. If you or I worked for someone and took money from the competition, we would lose our jobs and reputations for all time. It is called self-dealing. However, those laws don't apply to the corrupt congress, they work for the same pigs who have plundered this country and destroyed our financial infrastructure for all time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
February 23, 2010 6:54 PM in reply to Tommy Douglas
Do you really think "the Chicago team" is the problem? Get rid of them and you still have the health insurance industry's BFF in the Oval Office. The reason the "team" is where it is, is because Obama agrees with them.
What galls me is the absolutely politically tone deaf posture of Gibbs, Obama and the restof them to the fact that the only thing that makes their rotten healthcare scheme go down the throat of the public without wiping them off the political map in November is the Public Option. It isn't even a close question. Yet they would rather face a political massacre than to disobey their paymasters in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
Incredible what corporate whores the Democrats of DC really are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 3, 2010 6:10 PM in reply to Tommy Douglas
They aren't out of touch. Its all a part of their plan. I worked for Dems and Obama in '07 and '08, but it is clear to me now they were never interested in health care or corporate reform.
Look at his White House team! All pro NAFTA and former Clinton appointees.
Geithner, Summers, Emanuel etc...
Call your Senators! Its their jobs on the line this November. Time to leave the White House and Republicans in the dust!
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
February 23, 2010 3:21 PM in reply to tchamp77
It is as it was from the start. The Obama administration would rather suck up to Republicans than push the Public Option. To Obama and Rahm, it's not important that it has 60% or better support among the people; all that matters is that it has no support among those all-important Republican Senators. As to votes in the Senate, Obama doesn't want it so he's making no appeal for votes to include it. Used up all his audacity in the election, none left for governing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stephen Daugherty
February 23, 2010 3:24 PM in reply to condew
If he was sucking up to the republicans, he would have capitulated to Boehner and the Republican's insistence that he only bring a blank piece of paper.
No, he's showing up with the stuff he knows he can get passed, rather than the stuff he would like to get passed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
loudprogressive
February 23, 2010 4:47 PM in reply to tchamp77
Obama is a "mental loser" on the public option. I'll be sitting out the next election and advocating other progressives do the same. There's no way the Democratic Party will survive FORCING people onto insurance monopolies. This will be a winning issue for rethugs for elections to come. Its time to acknowledge the rethugs are going to make a big comeback (thanks Obama, Rahm, DLC), we need to start base building to field REAL progressive candidates who will filibuster corporatist bills like this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tim
February 23, 2010 8:48 PM in reply to tchamp77
Might have been nice if they had, so much as, lifted a finger.
Obama & Co. worked their @sses off to get elected, and have been phoning it in ever since.
If it's not low hanging fruit, Obama & Co. couldn't bother, unless it's their own jobs at stake.
Millions of people's welfare are at stake and they hardly made an effort.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 23, 2010 2:24 PM
So the senate bill has the votes?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EvanR
February 23, 2010 2:50 PM in reply to Indie Pro
You know, "progressive", independent or otherwise, implies actually accomplishing something for people in this country who need help, particularly the most vulnerable, who aren't in a position to post bitter comments all day about how this or that policy isn't pure enough for their liking. Obama's proposal is somewhat better than the senate bill, though admittedly it's still far from what most of us on the left would like. But it's simply common sense that when you have two legislative bodies the one in which there's a stronger, more liberal majority, with progressive leadership that exercises far more control, is going to produce a better bill (by our terms) than the other, more structurally conservative and undemocratic, tradition-obsessed, fractious body with inherently weaker leadership. In order to get similar enough legislation approved by both bodies you're inevitably going to have to hew somewhat closer to what the latter can pass -- even with reconciliation. Do you want a decent, comprehensive bill or not? We all want a strong public option. But I don't think LBJ could get fifty votes for that in this senate. And if he tried to in this political environment, the bashing Reid and Obama took (including from some on the left!) for "bribing" Landrieu and Nelson would seem mild.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 23, 2010 2:55 PM in reply to EvanR
they have all the votes they need for what the President is proposing, is that what you are saying?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
February 23, 2010 3:01 PM in reply to EvanR
I think LBJ would have tried. Obama: Safety first!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
February 23, 2010 3:17 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
No Obama is Goldman Sachs first.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
loudprogressive
February 23, 2010 5:26 PM in reply to EvanR
Hey Evan, you don't have to like progressives. Your opinion at this point really doesn't matter. What matters right now is the collective opinion of progressives which constitute a majority of the party base and turnout machine. Massachusetts showed what happens when it becomes accepted opinion that the Dem party leadership is pushing a centrist/corporatist policy direction - they'll stay home. Whine all you want but that is exactly what they are going to do in the fall in response to this corporate bailout healthcare bill and Obama's corporations-first-and-last leadership approach. I've worked full time on two Dem presidential campaigns and I think now I'll focus my energies on getting these corporatist Dems OUT of D.C.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
February 23, 2010 6:14 PM in reply to loudprogressive
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
You think we lost Massachusetts because progressives stayed home!
Hahahahahahahahahahha!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
loudprogressive
February 23, 2010 6:39 PM in reply to dudeguy
Wait till you see the progressive turnout in November. The only ones laughing hysterically will be the rethugs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
February 23, 2010 6:44 PM in reply to loudprogressive
Anyone who doesn't vote this November really shouldn't be calling themselves progressive. I'd reserve that term for people with actual commitment to the cause.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
am4
February 23, 2010 7:46 PM in reply to EvanR
"We all want a strong public option"? Not Obama. He ran on it in the primaries and the general election to get progressive and moderate support, but once elected he jettisoned it to get campaign funds from his corporate owners and polish his bipartisan vanity. It was bad enough he betrayed this campaign promise, but to then lie about it and say he never ran on the public option is, um, audacious. Not sure why he's goes out of his way to alienate progressives and other supporters of the public option, but that's what the White House does. It's one thing to betray a promise, but to string your supporters along, build up and dash their hopes and then deny you ever made the promise...so gratuitous and strange.
Oh well, let's hope health care is done soon and the White House can move on to finding new ways to funnels trillions of dollars to their savvy, free market buddies on Wall Street.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
February 23, 2010 2:56 PM in reply to Indie Pro
The Senate bill has already passed the Senate. All that needs to pass the Senate now is a sidecar amendment, and the passage of that sidecar would be significantly MORE difficult if the PO were to be included. It's like throwing an anvil to a drowning man.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 23, 2010 3:03 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
so they have all the votes they need in the House and Senate?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 23, 2010 3:04 PM in reply to Indie Pro
and I agree with Adam Green (via The Plum Line), spokesman for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which has been leading the charge, emails over a sharp response:
“The White House obviously has a loser mentality — but America rallies around winners. Polls show that in state after state, voters hate the Senate bill and overwhelmingly want a public option, even if passed with zero Republican votes. More than 50 Senate Democrats and 218 House Democrats were willing to vote for the public option before, and the only way to lose in reconciliation is if losers are leading the fight. That’s why Democrats in Congress should ignore the White House and follow those like Chuck Schumer and Robert Menendez who know that the public option is a political and policy winner.”
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/gibbs-public-option-via-reconciliation-cant-pass-congress/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
February 23, 2010 3:18 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Adam Greene doesn't know what he's talking about. It passed the House by two votes only by including the Stupak amendment. The PO NEVER had 50 votes in the Senate. If you think otherwise, then you should be able to list who those 50 are. I'll be here all day.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
February 23, 2010 4:23 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Since you're the one who's insisted that there weren't 50 votes for the public option, why don't you provide the quotes from the 10 senators who said they'd filibuster Reid's bill when it had one in it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pirate jenny
February 23, 2010 6:16 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
"It passed the House by two votes only by including the Stupak amendment."
Pelosi had more votes in her pocket, she didn't need to force everyone to get in line. Like the gop with Cao.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stephen Daugherty
February 23, 2010 3:22 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Adam Green is wrong. It's not a loser mentality. He's showing up to this debate with the Republicans with stuff he can push as consensus legislation- stuff he knows will pass the Senate and the house. He is doing things with a Lawyer's mentality, and a lawyer doesn't ask questions or make proposals without first making sure that those they're representing are in agreement with it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 23, 2010 3:26 PM in reply to Stephen Daugherty
he knows will pass the Senate and the house
then why the summit?
Are you saying that they could pass the President's plan today, but they are holding off for a little political theater?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
musgrove
February 23, 2010 3:40 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Well its is politics.... so yea they are going to do political theater, they wouldn't need to do it if republicans would just do their job or if the media would accuracy tell people what is going on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stephen Daugherty
February 23, 2010 3:42 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Why the Political Theatre?
So the President can kick the asses of his critics from the Right over healthcare, help drum up soundbites that will help to turn public opinion.
If you've looked at the polls, you will see that we have a substantial disconnect between the popularity of our proposals, and the overall popularity of our bill.
Personally, I think a lot of that owes to the belly-aching we've done, and which the Republicans exploited. We have let the Public Option become a wedge issue that doesn't work in our favor. The President is trying to turn his proposal into a wedge that works against the Republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 23, 2010 3:45 PM in reply to Stephen Daugherty
so you think they can pass it, but they are holding off for political theater.
I think that's silly to believe. If it is true, I think it is stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
musgrove
February 23, 2010 3:48 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Well welcome to politics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 23, 2010 3:55 PM in reply to musgrove
I think you misunderstand.
If Obama has the votes to pass his proposal (which if we are honest, we know isn't true yet), and instead Obama is allowing time for the GOP to mount an assault against it (or liberals to bring up the PO), instead of passing it, for a little theater, then he learned little over the last year.
If that's the case, then Rahm advice to Obama truly sucks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
musgrove
February 23, 2010 3:58 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I think he has the votes but the Dems need cover to get it passed. The republicans can only attack it by lying none stop, when the president is there to correct them then they get worked over. So having them in this open setting with the president is the way to go. We wouldnt need to do this if the media called them out on lies, but they don't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 23, 2010 4:04 PM in reply to musgrove
Newsflash, the GOP will continu to lie after this summit, and the corporate media will continue to fail to call them on it. So, what is being accomplished again? The vote will be just as hard before the theater as after.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
musgrove
February 23, 2010 4:12 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Of course they will, but this gives them a few days to pass the dam bill and be done with it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 23, 2010 4:46 PM in reply to musgrove
I believe it is much more likely that this theater is designed to get more votes, amke a space where more congress people will be willing to cast that yea vote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stephen Daugherty
February 23, 2010 3:57 PM in reply to Indie Pro
If we were operating off the notion that everything was just the votes in Washington, perhaps. But it's not. It's about the mood in the country, and turning it back againse the Republicans, rather than ourselves.
The thing is, we have to look like we're putting something out there, and the Republicans have to look like they're just pushing more crazy stuff or nothing at all.
We need to influence the emotions of voters as well. Otherwise, even the rational individuals will feel the pull of the Republican's falsehoods.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 23, 2010 4:10 PM in reply to Stephen Daugherty
then allow me to repeat Ezra Klein's words again:
If the White House decides that reviving the public option is a good idea, there's reason to believe the Senate would follow them on that. It would make some sense, after all: The public option is popular, its death was partly the product of industry pressure, and the sudden spate of high-profile rate increases offers a nice rhetorical pivot for anyone who wants to argue that individuals should be able to choose an insurer who's not a profit-hungry beast. Plus, Democrats need an excited base going into the 2010 election, and this may be the only way to get it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 23, 2010 3:57 PM in reply to Stephen Daugherty
Bingo. Right again. There is another poster here FreRider who would agree with everything you say as it has said it before. Forget about discussing this issue with IndiePro = you are wasting your time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 23, 2010 4:12 PM in reply to lousgirl84
this may be a shock, but not everyone wants to discuss things with people who agree with them. Where's the fun in that?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 23, 2010 4:04 PM in reply to Stephen Daugherty
By the way, that survey had some pretty weird numbers (as tapped by Nate Silver). The support for the Senate bill is just terrible among Democrats, not much better than 50-50. Other polls shown 60-20 or 70-15 splits. So it kind of makes you scratch your head.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jdb316
February 23, 2010 4:47 PM in reply to Stephen Daugherty
As much as I disagree with (and even loathe) Sarah Palin, she was right when she said "We need a commander in chief, not a professor of law." Like so many prominent Democrats before him, he governs like an academic. Most Americans can't (or won't) evaluate health care reform and other issues in the same terms he does. They can get behind things that sound simple and easy to understand. But if you try to get nuanced and detailed with them, they'll tune you out in favor of something easier on the ears.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 23, 2010 5:00 PM in reply to jdb316
More or less identical to the Conventional Wisdom back in August of 2008. Obama was too soft, shallow, weak, professorial, McCain and Palin would eat him for breakfast because he's such a wuss and doesn't know how to fight.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 23, 2010 5:00 PM in reply to jdb316
More or less identical to the Conventional Wisdom back in August of 2008. Obama was too soft, shallow, weak, professorial, McCain and Palin would eat him for breakfast because he's such a wuss and doesn't know how to fight.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 23, 2010 5:01 PM in reply to jdb316
More or less identical to the Conventional Wisdom back in August of 2008. Obama was too soft, shallow, weak, professorial, McCain and Palin would eat him for breakfast because he's such a wuss and doesn't know how to fight.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
February 23, 2010 3:38 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
All the changes don't have to be in one sidecar bill. They could be split up and the PO could be voted on by itself so that it doesn't endanger the other changes.
And once again, I'll say that not only is the WH not leading on this issue, their actions over the last year indicate to me that they cut a deal with insurers -- like their deal with big pharma -- to dump the PO a long time ago.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NattyB
February 23, 2010 2:25 PM
This is why the Dems will lose hard in 2010. You expect me to work the phones and GOTV? Go F yourselves!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 23, 2010 2:28 PM in reply to NattyB
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/6947489?fr=yvmtf
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 23, 2010 2:53 PM in reply to FreeRider
LMAO.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 23, 2010 2:29 PM in reply to NattyB
Ezra Klein:
One other point on the public option: This has been a complete and utter failure of White House leadership. They need to give this effort their support, or they need to kill it by publicly stating their opposition. But they can't simply wait for someone else to make the decision for them, which has been their strategy until now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bushie
February 23, 2010 2:36 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Another example of the Admin pre-negotiation to a lower standard, before the negotiations begin. I guess the special interests pay and perks are better than tax payer pay.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
February 23, 2010 2:53 PM in reply to Bushie
Another example of circular logic~ It doesn't have enough votes .... because we won't back it .... because it doesn't have enough votes ...... because we won't back it .... because it doesn't have enough votes .... etc......
This is why I exactly why I backed Hillary Clinton in the primaries. When compared on healthcare reform she was very tough and advocated much stronger positions on reform. Obama was wishy-washy and stayed to the right of her. So now it is obvious to everyone I was debating back then, he was never going to fight the good fight but rather make some backroom deals and compromise the real reforms into mushy nothingness.
The further you compromise with the corporations the more people suffer and die!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
February 23, 2010 3:07 PM in reply to hollywood
It was an awful choice: weak corporate shill with great rhetorical skills and a poke in the eye of every racist or tough corporate shill who will probably bomb Iran tomorrow. But I voted for Edwards and look where that would've gotten us: paternity suits, sex scandal and probably 4 years fighting impeachment...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
February 23, 2010 5:44 PM in reply to hollywood
Hillary Clinton also said she would tackled healthcare incrementally over eight years and not in one bill, so I'm not sure yo would be thrilled by her healthcare attempts either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
February 23, 2010 2:53 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I'd like someone to explain to me how is it that 30 senators can't seem to make a move on the PO without the Prez's approval? They've seen the polls, they've heard the predictions for the mid-terms, they see how the GOP has behaved - that's not enough? All Obama has to say is "I want it" and these pols will see the light? Am I the only one who thinks this is complete bullshit? At the beginning of Obama's term, Harry Reid said he doesn't work for Obama, so why the fuck is he or the senate waiting for Obama to tell them what to do? 'Obama didn't make me do it' is a lame ass excuse.
I am so over the PO its not even funny. Every time people keep bringing it up without being able to guarantee the votes for it, whether at 50 or 60.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 23, 2010 2:56 PM in reply to Viva!America!
you've always been "over it"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 23, 2010 4:00 PM in reply to Viva!America!
If 40 Senators can't sign a letter without Obama holding their hand...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mike Drew
February 23, 2010 4:11 PM in reply to philogratis
Yes!!! Or 51, even. If the votes are there, then they're there. If they're not, get over it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
February 24, 2010 12:52 AM in reply to Mike Drew
exactly!
obama should wait until there are enough votes to pass something before he supports anything!
what's wrong with you guys??! it's like you think he's the president or something. it isn't like he's got a bully pulpit or anything. or should actually stand for anything (particularly anything that he actually claimed to support when he wanted me to vote for him).
sheesh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
happycozy
February 23, 2010 5:14 PM in reply to Viva!America!
I agree. These senators are cowards, and they're scapegoating the WH.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 23, 2010 5:45 PM in reply to Viva!America!
Me too. I am also tired of reading the same lame posts by the same whiners.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
February 23, 2010 2:29 PM
No courage. So sad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kentondem1
February 23, 2010 2:31 PM
NattyB, my sentiments exactly, with the exception of those candidates who have taken a strong position for the public option. The others are SOL.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mc mark
February 23, 2010 2:31 PM
70% of the country want a Public Option
GET IT DONE!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
February 23, 2010 3:16 PM in reply to mc mark
America is not a democracy! Period!
When a large solid majority wants something done so sensible and fair and cost effective and a minority of corporate whores with corporate money vetoes that idea then you MUST UNDERSTAND THAT THE POWER IN AMERICA IS CORPORATE AND NOT AT ALL DEMOCRATIC!
Corporations win = Citizens loose! Bring on the body bags because we just guaranteed tens of thousands of more unnecessary deaths! The dead and dying are piling up on the White House lawn and Obama looks the other way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expatjourno2
February 23, 2010 2:33 PM
Not enough votes and Obama is powerless, just powerless, to do anything about that. Nope. Nothing he can do to persuade anyone of anything. Just a wee wittle boy, helpless against those senate grownups.
That shithead never wanted the public option because his big donors don't want it, but he doesn't have the balls to say so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
February 23, 2010 2:40 PM in reply to expatjourno2
All he has to do is ask right? ask really hard and Obama will always get what he wants, cause......he's Obama, right shitface?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
darkrhyme
February 23, 2010 2:50 PM in reply to Viva!America!
He's something. "Leader" isn't it. And it will cost him dearly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
February 23, 2010 2:55 PM in reply to Viva!America!
He could do a lot more than "just ask", sorry to knock down your little strawman.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
February 23, 2010 3:18 PM in reply to Viva!America!
The President always has something he can offer or withhold wavering Senators. So it's not just a question of asking. He can also fight for the issue rhetorically. The man can speak, he's proven that. He could take this to the people; he has complete access to media. The President shouldn't be some passive cipher at the end of the legislative process.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expatjourno2
February 23, 2010 4:37 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
No, no. He's totally powerless in the face of those senate meanies. How could he possibly go on television to put pressure on? And it's not as if there are a whole bunch of reporters hanging around the White House ready to report what her says or anything. Not as if he could put pressure on a wavering senator by threatening to back a challenger. No, no. There's nothing a president can do to accomplish his agenda except ask politely.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 23, 2010 5:29 PM in reply to expatjourno2
In Blanche Lincloln's case, he could promise not to campaign for her.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expatjourno2
February 23, 2010 4:32 PM in reply to Viva!America!
I don't think you know very much about how politics works, you little putz.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
February 23, 2010 2:36 PM
In enterprise of martial kind,
When there was any fighting,
He led his regiment from behind--
He found it less exciting.
But when away his regiment ran,
His place was at the fore, O--
That celebrated,
Cultivated,
Underrated
Nobleman,
The Duke of Plaza-Toro!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
February 23, 2010 6:56 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
The Duke of Plaza-Toro, Ltd. ;)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Vertigo
February 23, 2010 2:36 PM
Glenn Greenwald nailed this in today's Salon: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/democratic_party/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/02/23/democrats
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreemanW
February 23, 2010 4:00 PM in reply to Vertigo
The Democratic Party = Drunk, Wife beating Husband.
They aren't always drunk, just when you need them to be on their best behavior; that is when they go on a bender.
When the American voter figures this out and decides to kill the two corporation strangle hold on the American political landscape, only then will there be any hope for The People's business.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 23, 2010 2:38 PM
I think Greenwald may be on to something, and other people are starting to notice as well:
As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama -- while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary -- finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted:...now that there's a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.
This is what the Democratic Party does; it's who they are. They're willing to feign support for anything their voters want just as long as there's no chance that they can pass it. They won control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections by pretending they wanted to compel an end to the Iraq War and Bush surveillance and interrogation abuses because they knew they would not actually do so; and indeed, once they were given the majority, the Democratic-controlled Congress continued to fund the war without conditions, to legalize Bush's eavesdropping program, and to do nothing to stop Bush's habeas and interrogation abuses ("Gosh, what can we do? We just don't have 60 votes).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
darkrhyme
February 23, 2010 2:51 PM in reply to Indie Pro
They are worthless. Worthless and pathetic and weak. And there are few things in this world more pathetic than those who possess power and still project weakness.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
February 23, 2010 3:05 PM in reply to darkrhyme
I agree, and sadly I must say I will be through with the Democratic party until after the 2012 elections. I am not the only that feels this way. For the leadership of the party to simply ignore what a huge of majority of Americans, not just Democrats, are clamoring for, is the stupidest political decision anyone has ever made. The democrats deserve everything they got coming to them in November.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EvanR
February 23, 2010 3:03 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Yeah, having too many Democratic votes is the real problem here. If Obama hadn't sold out to the insurance industry he could just snap his fingers and the fifty votes for the public option would magically appear. Have fun hunting for your next Ralph Nader (whom you'd loathe just as much for his intolerable compromises and corruption, if he ever actually could come remotely close to holding office).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 23, 2010 3:05 PM in reply to EvanR
I voted for Gore. Assume again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EvanR
February 23, 2010 6:02 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I take you at your word. I just think the constant venting, even advocacy, against Democrats as a whole is toxic and terribly counterproductive. And hell, one of my best friends voted for Nader in 2000...in Florida! I didn't know him at the time. He certainly voted for Kerry in 2004. He just believes that somehow, in spite of how this country is structured politically, constitutionally, a third party on the left will magically appear and gain power if enough Democrats and frustrated issue progressives somehow become enlightened...and then this third party will somehow (by fiat?) be able to win the general election and govern effectively, with none of the compromises and corruption that frustrates -- angers -- so many good people on the left. There hasn't been one saintly, corruption or compromise-free President elected by any party, ever. Who among the pantheon of greats, beloved after the fact by progressives, didn't wildly disappoint or transgress in some area of another. And the great irony is that, here we are, closer to passing comprehensive health care reform than ever before in our country's history...and the formerly strongest progressive proponents don't want it. Because any version that can actually pass needs actual votes and actual approval by the senators and representatives we've actually got....demoralizingly imperfect as they are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
February 23, 2010 7:27 PM in reply to EvanR
even we keep settling for whatever crap the democrats shovel us, we'll just keep getting more crap. Sounds like a plan to me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
February 23, 2010 3:07 PM in reply to EvanR
Yes, and have fun with your next George Bush.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
February 23, 2010 3:26 PM in reply to mophan
If that's what it takes. I mean, in all essentials, Obama isn't a great improvement, is he? War? That's a pretty big issue in my book, dealing out life and death and assessing the worth of a bellicose cause. Domestic spying? He's defending it. He wanted to set up a cat-food commission to start unraveling Social Security - something only a Democrat could get away with. So...live to fight another day. Watch the Democratic base punish leadership by staying away from the polls in droves. Leadership is making its bed. Why I wouldn't vote in the Mass Senate election. If you keep enabling bad policy, that's what you'll get forevermore. It may take generations, but it will have been worth it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
February 23, 2010 4:00 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
Sounds like me in 2000. So, tell me, when the base punished the leadership in 2000, has the Democratic party gotten better since then? No. Has the population become more progressive? No.
Your plan won't work. It will make the country worse.
Work to make the public more liberal and always vote Democrat. If you don't do these things, you're part of the problem.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
February 23, 2010 4:08 PM in reply to dudeguy
It will work, but it will take time. We've been on this course since Reagan, with Democrats internalizing all this free market pixie dust. It took the Rs a generation to turn back the D tide; it's going to take just as long to reverse the trend. Eventually, Ds will learn to stop condescending to independents, who aren't centrists at all. But it will be a long and ugly process.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
February 23, 2010 4:26 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
We've been on this course since Reagan, and what have we got to show for it? The country has lurched further to the right since 1980, not further to the left. Now is the time to turn back the tide. Do you honestly think that turning back the tide involves not voting? Staying home in 2012?
Pure fantasy. Conservatives didn't "turn back the tide" by refusing to vote for whoever won the primary. They did it by forming coalitions and settling for less than what they wanted (see Nixon), inching the country towards the tea party paradise you see before you today.
You want me to wait generations to see if your scheme has legs, but you give up on Obama after a year. Insanity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
February 23, 2010 4:44 PM in reply to dudeguy
No, just not voting for preordained DNC robots. People who mistake independent minded voters for idiots. Party loyalty got us Clinton, whose policies and rhetoric further enabled the right. The change has to come now and from the left. Obama's victory was symbolic. And symbols count. But unless the Democrats stop driving to the center instead of lining up behind good policy...sorry. There are candidates I'll vote and campaign for, give money to. But I'm not indiscriminate, and it takes more than a 'D' behind the name. Scott Brown: case in point. A Blanche Lincoln or Ben Nelson is no better than a McConnell or Boehner. Indies know this and are sick of the charade. They want good policy, not corporate shills. So, yeah, it will take time, but there's no other way. It's a long slog.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
February 23, 2010 5:19 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
Your strategy leads to self-marginalization and nothing more. There's a reason that pollsters usually only publish polls of "likely voters." People who don't vote aren't heard.
There are ways of making our politicians more liberal that don't occur in the voting booth. Advocacy. Public debate. Activism. These strategies sometimes work on Democrats in power. But if you let Republicans take over the government in the meantime, conservative legislation will get passed, things will get worse, changes will be come entrenched, and people will suffer. I won't put that on my conscience.
I gave spiel like yours in 2000, defending my Nader vote to friends, using such words as preordained, automaton, and independent. I was young and naive, and I would do anything to take that vote back today, even though Gore won my state. The amount of damage from Bush was so, so awful for so, so many people. I was hoodwinked.
If you don't vote for Obama, you may in effect be voting for Palin. It's the truth. You'll have to live with it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 23, 2010 5:35 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
Now you're regretting electing Clinton? That would have put the Republicans in the White House continously from 1980-2008...
Or do you mean Perot was better? Or that all the choices were bad?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
February 23, 2010 3:30 PM in reply to mophan
The following only applies based on the dubious assumption that mophan is not a Republican troll:
You're the one sitting out elections. I'm blaming you and other people who should know better. I blame our current leaders for how bad they are, but I blame YOU if they get beaten by someone worse.
You're an American. That comes with responsibilities. And that includes taking the blame when you sit out elections. You're a child. Grow up.
I voted for Nader. I learned the hard way. I hope you never have to.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
February 23, 2010 3:41 PM in reply to dudeguy
Dude, blaming me because I exercise my right not to vote for someone I have no trust in? And in making my constitutional protected decision not to vote for a closeted corporate shill, an openly in bed corporate shill defeats the closeted corporate shill, I am to blame? Forgive me for thinking the blame lies in the closeted corporate shill for loosing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
February 23, 2010 3:54 PM in reply to mophan
Yes. You are to blame.
If you honestly think the country will be better off with a Republican president, then you should vote for the Republican president.
If you think the country will be worse off with a Republican president, then you should vote for the lesser of two evils.
If you choose not to vote, you're saying you don't care what happens to the country. You're being a selfish a-hole, because you know that you'll be fine either way. You get the blame. You.
(If you actually think that the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate are equivalent, then you're just an idiot. And you're right, that's not your fault.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
February 23, 2010 4:28 PM in reply to dudeguy
You want someone to blame for Democrats loosing, you can begin by pointing the finger at yourself and everyone else like you who blindly vote the party ticket no matter what.
You can lay blame on the leadership of the Democratic for screwing their base and not having the common courtesy of giving them the reach around.
You can also blame me if it makes you feel any better. I don't really care. But maybe someday you, and others like you will wake up and realize some of us in the voting public actually expect elected officials to at least fight for the promises they make, and deliver on at least a few of them. If they don't, they won't receive our vote again. Simple as that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
February 23, 2010 4:58 PM in reply to mophan
You're just not listening. I "woke up," as you put it, 10 years ago when I refused to vote for Gore. What I got was eight years of George W. Bush. I DO blame Gore for running a lousy campaign. But I also blame myself -- and anyone else who was stupid enough to think that Gore was as bad as Bush.
If you actually cared about people other than yourself, you'd do ANYTHING -- whatever it takes -- to make sure that Republicans didn't control another decade of foreign and domestic policy. The pure unmitigated disaster of the last eight years may be too much for you to understand, but if you're willing to put the country through that again because Obama disappointed you, then you are part of the problem.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
February 23, 2010 5:14 PM in reply to dudeguy
Stop trying to belittle my mental capacity by connoting I have no understanding of the events this past decade. Just because I refuse to vote blindly for every opportunistic, prevaricating, corporatist Democrat does not make me a buffoon or an imbecile.
To dehumanize me, and all other progressives that have become disillusioned with this debacle, which is of the Democrats own making, is going to lead you, and every other Democratic Party supporter, to a resounding defeat in November.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
February 23, 2010 5:27 PM in reply to mophan
You think I haven't been disillusioned? You think I'm not progressive? You're out of your freakin mind.
You offer no credible explanation as to how your actions will make this country anything other than more conservative. That means that either (1) you're a buffoon or an imbecile, or (2) if you can't get sufficient progress from your elected officials, you don't care if one is astoundingly worse than the other. That's not stupid, it's just selfish. Congratulations. You're a Palin supporter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
February 23, 2010 5:51 PM in reply to dudeguy
You are just an idiot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
February 23, 2010 6:04 PM in reply to mophan
Hahahahahahaha. Quite a turnaround. One minute I'm "dehumanizing" you for "connoting" your idiocy, but that's all you have for a comeback. Nice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
February 23, 2010 7:00 PM in reply to dudeguy
No... saying that I am a Palin supporter because I disagree with you is what makes you an idiot. Try to pursued other progressives that are just as angry as me with the leadership of the Democratic party with that argument, and I suspect you'll get the same response.
I am more than willing to be open minded on why I should continue supporting the "Democratic" agenda if you are willing to have a civil discussion. I too, prefer not to have another eight years of Bush. The other argument you make that we have to support Democrats, or Republicans will take control is not sufficient enough for me to vote for Democrats in every single election.
The way I see it, progressives continue to be taken for granted, and when they complain about being taken for granted, then they are whiners. The Democratic Leadership makes more of an effort to appease Republicans than they do with progressives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
February 23, 2010 10:15 PM in reply to mophan
You can complain about being taken for granted. That I sympathize with. But if you seriously threat to not vote for the Dems, well, you're essentially voting for Republicans.
And that's all I'm saying. If it's Palin v. Obama, and you stay home, I consider you a Palin supporter. Because you should know better.
You can complain about that truth, and say that it sucks, and I'm with you: It's a sucky, sucky truth. But it's still the truth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 3, 2010 5:49 PM in reply to dudeguy
What's the difference? I had no job or health insurance under the Republicans and I have no money or health insurance under the Dems. Take your pick!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 3, 2010 5:55 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
That being said, we DO have the votes. More than 34 Senators have signed the Adam Green PO Letter and more than 52 committed to the public option before the filibuster vote. But the REAL vote that matters is the American voter in November.
WE approve the public option by 59%!
THIS, is the reality on the ground.
So, WE need to stop wringing our hands here and get on the phone to our Senators and tell them to pass the PO, PERIOD....
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NotBornEveryMinute
February 23, 2010 4:52 PM in reply to dudeguy
So, you think we liberals who are pissed off at the wimpy Pres and the wimpy Congress should vote Republican, and give them a real landslide and mandate, instead of the false one they claim any time they win?
No. I've never voted Republican and I'm not starting now. I've seldom missed a vote, even in off-years, (I'm 59) but I may withhold my vote, and my money, for a few elections.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
February 23, 2010 4:59 PM in reply to NotBornEveryMinute
No. Read what I write. You should vote Democrat. Suck it up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
February 23, 2010 3:06 PM in reply to Indie Pro
A little dark, don't you think? The reality is (and you seem to be one of the few in these blogs who actually is in touch with reality) that the "big mo" for the PO has yielded what, 26 or so signers in the Senate? I believe that Obama's folks have surveyed the field and determined that, for one reason or another, the votes ain't there.
If that's the case, what do we suggest? That he go to the mat for something he doesn't believe can pass? Or that he try to get what under any other circumstance is an historic breakthrough on health care reform?
The passion and idealism here is touching, but it's still naive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 23, 2010 3:21 PM in reply to George C
Yes, it is a little dark. Yes, the reality is 26 or so signers so far. Yet, I'm not sure if your ascertain is true.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 23, 2010 3:22 PM in reply to Indie Pro
shold be "assertion"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 23, 2010 3:22 PM in reply to Indie Pro
damn!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
February 23, 2010 3:25 PM in reply to Indie Pro
So? Where would you go from here?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 23, 2010 3:30 PM in reply to George C
Where it will inevitably go, sidecar recon bill to pass the Senate bill in the House.
I agree with Ezra Klein here:
If the White House decides that reviving the public option is a good idea, there's reason to believe the Senate would follow them on that. It would make some sense, after all: The public option is popular, its death was partly the product of industry pressure, and the sudden spate of high-profile rate increases offers a nice rhetorical pivot for anyone who wants to argue that individuals should be able to choose an insurer who's not a profit-hungry beast. Plus, Democrats need an excited base going into the 2010 election, and this may be the only way to get it.
I don't usually agree with Ezra Klein.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
decisivemoment
February 23, 2010 2:38 PM
I hear the sound of Grover Norquist's bath running.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
February 23, 2010 2:44 PM
Good luck looking for the votes in 2012.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ben_nelsons_hair
February 23, 2010 2:44 PM
Pathetic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
February 23, 2010 2:44 PM
Obama's "leadership" boils down to this: Don't try if it is even questionable.
All great leaders thought this way, right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
February 23, 2010 3:04 PM in reply to DA in LA
More like, don't bother trying if any of the Republicans and the six most conservative DINOs in your party objects. If any of them makes an extortionate demand in exchange for a promised vote, however, then you instantly cave.
I'm just very disappointed that the WH is trying to cut this off before they even hold the summit where they're supposedly going to at least discuss all ideas--which in turn allows the public(which already supports the PO) to make a more informed assessment.
I've already said that I'm willing to accept a bill without the PO, but why cut it off from discussion like this--especially when you've got members of the Senate leadership signing a petition and new sigs still being added?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
loudprogressive
February 23, 2010 4:57 PM in reply to DA in LA
I'm gonna have to steal that quote @DAinLA
:)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eratosthenes8
February 23, 2010 2:47 PM
So very disappointing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
February 23, 2010 2:48 PM
I enjoyed this from Armando's latest TalkLeft post: "I bet that, as of today, the Obama Proposal does not have the votes in the Senate or the House. Given Gibbs' answer, one can assume that Obama will be dropping his health proposal right after the summit Thursday."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 23, 2010 2:57 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
hear, hear!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stephen Daugherty
February 23, 2010 3:38 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
This is pathetic.
The Public Option is a policy I favor. But we were going along fine getting SOMETHING passed, and probably still will, if everything works out.
But no, we have to indulge this same pessimism.
Folks, grow up. The Public Option was one policy. It's not dead. It may in fact get additional support in the next couple of years. Meanwhile, we have a solid set of proposals that we know we can get passed.
Now, by all means, call your Senators up and insist they side with a Public Option so it can become consensus. But don't set all your hopes on it, and don't be throwing out tons of much needed reforms that could be passed for the sake of one we don't know yet will be passed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 23, 2010 3:48 PM in reply to Stephen Daugherty
and probably still will, if everything works out.
you seem less sure that President is proposing what he knows will pass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stephen Daugherty
February 23, 2010 3:50 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I don't fully know the future. That's why I hedge. But I think it will likely pass, because he's probably laid the groundwork for it already.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
February 23, 2010 4:00 PM in reply to Stephen Daugherty
I agree with you completely, Stephen. The P.O. can always be added later. Right now, we have to pass HCR with or without a P.O. Pass it now with no P.O. and we'll probably have to wait a few years for it to be added if it proves to be necessary. Don't pass HCR and we'll have to wait decades for any kind of reform, including a P.O.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
February 23, 2010 6:10 PM in reply to barbara63
Why would we have to wait for decades? Why do you accept that brainwashing technique, i.e., "We're so worthless that we'll be dead and gone before any people ever try to do anything progressive again. We can't do it. We're the party of CAN'T DO. Grow up. Don't you know WE CAN'T DO anything? Who would ever support us? Whoa. They'd be dumb to do that. No point standing for anything because what we stand for WE CAN'T DO."
Obama's strategy fits right in. WE DON'T HAVE THE VOTES! WE CAN'T! WE CAN'T!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
IndyLinda
February 23, 2010 2:49 PM
Hey, let's bitch at the president constantly for not showing leadership on HCR, although anyone with brain activity should be able to figure out what he wants to see in a bill by now. And then when he does show leadership, let's bitch because we don't like what he says. Brilliant!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsfox
February 23, 2010 2:50 PM
If the votes weren't there before why all of sudden do people believe they would be there now?
I am also going to cynically guess that a number signers of the Bennett letter know the PO doesn't have the votes as well. So they get to look good with zero risk.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jackster
February 23, 2010 2:50 PM
"Polls show that in state after state, voters hate the Senate bill and overwhelmingly want a public option, even if passed with zero Republican votes. .."
But Mitch McCheese says that a majority of Americans don't want a public, (gov't) option. Really, Mitch are you being disingenuous?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 23, 2010 2:51 PM
Off topic but I wonder why TPM is not allowing us to post comments on the Cheney heart attack. I guess they are afraid we might have some not so nice things to say.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shoto
February 23, 2010 2:54 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Cheney has a heart?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Vertigo
February 23, 2010 2:59 PM in reply to Shoto
Bada-bing!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shoto
February 23, 2010 2:53 PM
If Obama pulled the (possible) "no" votes into his office and said, "If you'd ever like highway funds in your state again, then vote "yes" for a public option," it would get done. Unfortunately, he ain't the LBJ type. A year ago he could have gotten pretty much anything he wanted. Now, however, the political capital is squandered. Thanks, Rahm, etal. And thanks, Robert, for throwing the bullshit spin out there, too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
February 23, 2010 2:56 PM in reply to Shoto
Oh so you are for backroom deals then? because the last time a deal was made, he got slammed for it. So backroom deals are OK when its for something that would make Progressives look good?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shoto
February 23, 2010 3:06 PM in reply to Viva!America!
I'm for doing the right thing. The time for stupid shit is over. We have neither the time nor the resources for that. Backroom deals happen all day, every day. Might as well be something that benefits the overwhelming majority of Americans, rather than large corporate entities.
My first choice, however, would be to see business conducted out in the open. Put real information on 24-hour cable news and see how long it takes before people are out in the street with pitchforks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
February 23, 2010 3:09 PM in reply to Viva!America!
No, backroom deals are good if it's for something that a majority of the public supports--as opposed to backroom deals with big pharma and insurers who bankrupt and kill the public, and who stab you in the back even when you do make deals with them.
See the difference? Probably not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shoto
February 23, 2010 3:14 PM in reply to human
Before you get too snotty about it, you might want to take note of the fact that I explicitly stated that my first choice is open negotiations, not backroom deals. I also said that I favor seeing deals that favor the majority of Americans, not gigantic corporations...which is what is happening now.
You might try reading more carefully next time. But..."probably not."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
February 23, 2010 3:22 PM in reply to Shoto
and you might try checking who I'm responding to--hint-it wasn't your comment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shoto
February 23, 2010 3:25 PM in reply to human
Missed it. Thanks for clarifying. We're on the same page.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
February 23, 2010 3:32 PM in reply to Shoto
Obama was all for negotiations on C-SPAN...before he was against it. He got a tap on the shoulder from Rahm, who got a reminder from AHIP and Pharma.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 23, 2010 4:43 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
Rahm Rahm Rahm Rahm Rahm Rahm Rahm is tyrannical dictator.
Why blaim Rahm? Why not just blaim Obama? He's in charge.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
February 23, 2010 4:46 PM in reply to philogratis
I totally agree. But I think he has the President's ear. I'm not excusing Obama at all!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 23, 2010 3:00 PM in reply to Shoto
That worked so well for LBJ during the civil rights battle. He called in Sam Ervin, Strom Thurmond, Albert Gore, Richard Russell and Robert Byrd and told them "stop the filibustering, vote for the bill or you'll never get another highway funded."
They were so scared they complied right away, didn't they? Byrd was so scared, he even became majority leader despite giving LBJ the finger. LMAO!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
February 23, 2010 3:14 PM in reply to FreeRider
It's funny that people have such fantastical ideas about what a President can do to get people to support an initiative...
Despite all the folk tales about presidents "cracking heads," presidents don't have as much leverage -- for a reason; the branches are COEQUAL -- over Congress, particularly congresspersons who are staunchly opposed to an idea or a path toward implementing an idea.
And for all we know, the WH has been trying to crack heads behind the scenes. Is any Senator gonna come forward and say that the WH is playing hardball with them? Unless the WH crosses a bright ethical line, we won't know much of anything about what the WH is actually saying to Senators individually.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
georgecs
February 23, 2010 2:57 PM
65% of the American people want it, but fuck them, who cares what they want. Obama has an election in 2012 to win.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
February 23, 2010 3:12 PM in reply to georgecs
65% of the American people want it, but fuck them, who cares what they want. Obama has an election in 2012 to loose.
There, fixed that for you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TBender
February 23, 2010 4:00 PM in reply to georgecs
65% of the American people want it, but fuck them, who cares what they want. Congressfolk have an election in 2010 and 2012 to win.
Fixed it further.
Obama only has 1 vote in the Senate, and that only comes into play during a 50-50 tie.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
February 23, 2010 2:57 PM
Someone talking some sense on the issue:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/opinion/23iht-edcohen.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RedMolly
February 23, 2010 3:14 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
That's an excellent read. Thanks for posting it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreemanW
February 23, 2010 4:39 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
A very good read, thanks for that link!
"Why not offer Medicare as a choice — a choice — to everyone? Aren’t Republicans about choice?"
Yes, but in a selective manner. Only when that choice improves the lot of the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.
"Pooling the risk among everybody is the most efficient way to forge a healthier society. That’s what other developed societies do. And they don’t have 30 million plus uninsured."
And doing so seems logical and smart for the country.
But neither the Democratic corporation or the Reprobate corporation are interested in acting on behalf of the country. They are both all about taking care of the wealthy who finance their campaigns and give them their marching orders.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GreenDreams
February 23, 2010 4:52 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
“When it comes to health it makes sense to involve government, which is accountable to the people, rather than corporations, which are accountable to shareholders.”
excellent. well said.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Ragin
February 23, 2010 3:01 PM
Obama's daughters are 8 & 11. Surely he has been exposed to the "If you want a kitten, ask for a pony" negotiating tactic by this point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 23, 2010 4:49 PM in reply to Barry Ragin
We're an entire year into negotiations now, and we've already compromised from a dog to a cat. It's a little late to go back to the pony.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
February 23, 2010 5:57 PM in reply to philogratis
Wait till Friday and we'll have a mouse. You know that donkey has had its day. Dems ought to rebrand with a mouse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 23, 2010 4:49 PM in reply to Barry Ragin
We're an entire year into negotiations now, and we've already compromised from a dog to a cat. It's a little late to go back to the pony.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
February 23, 2010 3:07 PM
Gibbs is just stating the obvious here. Where are the 50 Senators who support doing the public option through the reconciliation process?
If they're out there, they need to step forward.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
February 23, 2010 3:14 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname
Well, there's more than one obvious truth to be stated. Where are the 218 Representatives (or hell, even the 50 Senators for that matter)who support Obama's proposal?
If they're out there, they need to step forward.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stephen Daugherty
February 23, 2010 3:54 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
You're arguing he doesn't know the current whip counts on the different proposals?
By your logic, Obama must be going out there to fall flat on his face, set himself up for failure!
I know some people might have such a low opinion of him as to actually believe that he would sabotage himself in his way, but I doubt that the guy who could get sixty in the Senate for the bill there would not know what could be passed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 23, 2010 3:59 PM in reply to Stephen Daugherty
Exactly. I am so glad to see you here. A voice of reason. There are few very.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 23, 2010 4:47 PM in reply to Stephen Daugherty
you are the only person I've seen arguing that HIR is a done deal, and the votes are there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 23, 2010 4:09 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
The summit is on Thursday. Patience.
I haven't seen any Democrats in Congress trashing his plan. Just the Democrats here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
February 23, 2010 3:17 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname
I'd like to know who are the Dem Senators who would actually vote against a bill with a PO through reconciliation--I'm guessing not more than 8 or 9 if it actually came to a vote, even if they don't sign the petition.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
February 23, 2010 3:27 PM in reply to human
Here's my list from last week:
Baucus, Bayh, Begich, Carper, Conrad, Dorgan, Hagan, Klobuchar, Landrieu, Lincoln, McCaskill, Nelson (NE), Nelson (FL), Pryor, Lieberman
That's 15. Carper has indicated he'll sign, but Rockefeller is opposed. One step forward, one step backward, no net progress. They need to get six from this list. And keep Feingold and Byrd, which won't be easy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
February 23, 2010 4:13 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
These Senators have got to have some projects they need the President's support for, no?
Again, one of the greatest powers a President wields is the bully pulpit. And this man has some rhetorical skills, when it comes down to it. If Senators won't be whipped, the public can be.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
February 23, 2010 4:46 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
"Baucus, Bayh, Begich, Carper, Conrad, Dorgan, Hagan, Klobuchar, Landrieu, Lincoln, McCaskill, Nelson (NE), Nelson (FL), Pryor, Lieberman"
Of this list, who has been quoted as saying that they are opposed to a public option (whether it be robust, opt-out, or whatever) through reconcilation?
Carper says he expects to sign on.
Lieberman, and Nelson have got to be NOs since they were quoted as planning to filibustering any PO before.
Are there quotes for the others regarding reconciliation for the public option?
Or it's final Senate incarnation? (The opt-out)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 23, 2010 5:53 PM in reply to Kevin Sutton
Lieberman and Ben Nelson seem impossible. Blanche Lincoln has said she will not vote for it. That's down to 56. Bill Nelson (FL) has always generally been an obstinate opponent of the public option, although he has flirted with a triggered option. I wouldn't put a lot of faith in him. 55
Mary Landrieu? She's always been a staunch opponent of the PO, and her re-election chances are almost zero. Hard to have a lot of confidence here. 54. She has spoken in favor of reconciliation in general, which is a little surprising and encouraging.
Evan Bayh? The PO is a bit of a stretch for Mr. Bipartisan, although he's game for reconciliation. Maybe he's really a closet liberal and he'll play ball now that he's retired, but... really? Obviously, nobody has any political leverage over him. Down to 53.
Baucus and Conrad are pretty doubtful, but you never know.
Note the Blue Dog opposition is absolute.. At least three of these Democrats (Nelson, Landrieau, and Bayh) have specifically advocated reconciliation to pass the Bill. Reid might need these votes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 23, 2010 5:56 PM in reply to Kevin Sutton
Lieberman and Ben Nelson seem impossible. Blanche Lincoln has said she will not vote for it. That's down to 56. Bill Nelson (FL) has always generally been an obstinate opponent of the public option, although he has flirted with a triggered option. I wouldn't put a lot of faith in him. 55
Mary Landrieu? She's always been a staunch opponent of the PO, and her re-election chances are almost zero. Hard to have a lot of confidence here. 54. She has spoken in favor of reconciliation in general, which is a little surprising and encouraging.
Evan Bayh? The PO is a bit of a stretch for Mr. Bipartisan, although he's game for reconciliation. Maybe he's really a closet liberal and he'll play ball now that he's retired, but... really? Obviously, nobody has any political leverage over him. Down to 53.
Baucus and Conrad are pretty doubtful, but you never know.
Note the Blue Dog opposition is absolute.. At least three of these Democrats (Nelson, Landrieau, and Bayh) have specifically advocated reconciliation to pass the Bill. Reid might need these votes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
IowaKid
February 23, 2010 6:23 PM in reply to Kevin Sutton
You forgot Webb and Warner.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 23, 2010 6:33 PM in reply to IowaKid
Probably they are doubtful too. Carper has clarified his statement: He supports reconciliation , but NOT the PO. So by my count we are down to 52 possible votes, having excluded Lieberman, Landrieu, Lincoln, Nelson(NE), Nelson (FL), Carper, and Bayh. I would guess that Baucus, Conrad, and Webb at least are more likely than not to say refuse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
IowaKid
February 23, 2010 6:46 PM in reply to philogratis
I concur.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
February 23, 2010 3:12 PM
I hope you all realize that a bill that provides county insurance for dog catchers, if called "the Public Option", would get your support, but do nothing at all to solve the health care cost problem. Yes, that is a gross exaggeration but it makes my point. What we can get, with great effort, is a very weak public option, covering about 10% of us, about 4 years in the future. That is what the House passed. For that we are willing to give up a bill that eliminates the insurance companies right to refuse insurance for "pre-existing conditions"? That is a terrible decision.
A far better plan is to pass Obama's compromise plan, the immediately start the work on improving that plan, speeding up its implementation, adding a true public option, eliminating the anti-women parts of the bill, increasing the subsidies for those who still can't afford it, etc. The world will continue in its orbit long after this first step is taken.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
February 23, 2010 3:19 PM in reply to hoppycalif2
Indeed.
If a crock of shit can make your point, I guess your point is a crock of shit.
I don't really need to hear about your fantasy life, rich though it evidently is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
February 23, 2010 3:25 PM in reply to hoppycalif2
First of all, passing a PO through reconciliation wouldn't eliminate the ban against pre-existing conditions refusal from the bill already passed. The PO push doesn't involve scrapping the Senate bill that already went through.
Second, I don't think there's much if any likelihood of improving the reform once it's been passed. If there aren't the votes now, there definately won't be the votes in the future. Policitcally too, there's little reason to improve a reform that hasn't come into being because it suggests panic, and the Democrats are going to want to stay away from healthcare for as long as they can after this fight.
...and subsidies going up? Never happen. Instead, if the bill becomes to big for the government it'll be like Welfare reform; Democrats and Republicans will work together to make it less generous.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
February 23, 2010 3:37 PM in reply to Kevin Sutton
History says you're wrong. Both Social Security and Medicare in their initial form were nothing like the programs we see today. They were improved incrementally over a period of years. It's simply impossible to make all the changes that need to be made in one big leap.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
February 23, 2010 3:43 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
They didn't start out shoveling taxpayer dollars to private industry, either.
This bill entrenches the current system, which, according to Obama, works for most people. We'll see how long that holds true. With 10% unemployment, not long, is my guess.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
February 23, 2010 4:33 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
That you can point to two reforms that have changed doesn't prove that all reforms get better after being adopted. Looking at the political future of the United States, I don't exactly see a continuation of a large unbroken Democratic majority for the decades in which they enacted and tuned up those previous reforms. It may not even last the next few years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
February 23, 2010 4:36 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
your argument does not hold up...today's political world is not the one of 1960's and the civil rights movement. Wake up and smell the horseshit we are getting daily from our corrupt political system and the crooks running it!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 24, 2010 3:21 AM in reply to Progressive Party
You have a pretty idealized view of what the 1960s was like. I wasn't there, but the Vietnam war was between 10 and 100 times as bloody (for Americans and Asians, respectively), the Civil Rights struggle involved lots of riots and beatings, several major political leaders were assassinated, and the war on drugs kicked into high gear. Then Nixon was elected twice.
Doesn't strike me as a political golden age.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
February 23, 2010 6:19 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Then why aren't we simply expanding Medicare? The monumental sell-out on that idea disproves your point. MediCARE is about CARE. This bill is about insurance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
February 23, 2010 3:40 PM in reply to Kevin Sutton
True that. On the other hand, if nothing passes, I'd say the current situation is untenable and something better could be achieved. I mean, we're going to have to deal with the health care issue; three words: 10. Percent. Unemployment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
February 23, 2010 6:16 PM in reply to hoppycalif2
I doubt it will eliminate refusal to treat "pre-existing conditions" because who is going to regulate and enforce the provisions? We all know how insurance companies succeed in denying care. They deny, delay, deny, delay. The bill promises to do a lot but without the muscle and the WILL to enforce the provisions and hold the insurance industry accountable we've pretty much got a bill that puts the IRS in the business of enforcing a mandate but no one enforcing insurance provisions that will actually get you delivered care.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
February 23, 2010 3:21 PM
It's not that Obama and the Dems aren't working hard for a public option because "it doesn't have the votes" or "it lacks public support".
They aren't workin hard for a public option because their wealthy masters don't want it.
Wow, that was simple, wasn't it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sirclown
February 23, 2010 3:28 PM
Why did Obama run for president? When he decided to, polls showed he didn't have the votes to win.
What is the truth here? Does Obama himself not ideologically support a public option and is afraid to admit it? Does he support it but fears its passage would open floodgates of insurance money to GOP candidates including his 2012 opponent? Does he fear the meme of government takeover will cause major political damage? Or does he fear a "loss" by fighting for something and failing to achieve it? I think the political blows are coming even without fighting for the public option and the political gain from fighting for it is the only good remedy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Zeus
February 23, 2010 4:24 PM in reply to sirclown
Excellent points on both counts. 1) If Obama was employing his current rationale, he never would have bothered running for President, much less have even come close to winning. HEELLLLOO! 2) Obama has been far from an effective communicator about WHY he is doing what he is doing. He is letting all his proxies come up with rationales, and only speaks in policy generalities and options. He has not said a single word about WHY he is committed to what he has committed to. He'll sometimes say what he is committed to or stands for, but he either does not stand behind it or cannot get the necessary weight to make it happen. That's not a good combination.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Zeus
February 23, 2010 6:47 PM in reply to Zeus
Hey Obama, I guess I shouldn't have fought for you or given you a dime, because you didn't have the votes either! Oh wait, you won the presidency after a Hilary coronation consensus and the profligate racism of a good part of this country, through the tireless efforts and money of millions of people like me. But we can't expect the same from you? Getting you elected was a far longer shot than getting a health care bill through (whatever means including reconciliation) with a massively popular public choice option. That's gratitude for you. That's fighting for Main Street.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cecilfire
February 23, 2010 3:32 PM
Wow. Breaking news - public option doesn't have the votes. Why is TPM beating this dead horse? What's next - a TPM campaign for the Equal Rights Amendment?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
February 23, 2010 3:41 PM in reply to cecilfire
Because it has been news, with 20 Senators signing onto a letter supporting it. And more Senators willing to vote for it.
But the Obama White House prefers to act like hapless observers of the scene, rather than shapers.
Besides, I'm betting Rahm hates the public option and is helping to kill it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
spsie
February 23, 2010 3:33 PM
This Administration needs a basic lesson in Strategy 101, and maybe some new heads in the West Wing to boot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
February 23, 2010 3:40 PM in reply to spsie
I still think there has not been sufficient reckoning for the deal with Big Pharma. That is smelly. Who did it? Rahm?
Wasn't accountability returning to Washington? not so much!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shanefish
February 23, 2010 3:40 PM
In that case, THANK GOODNESS my two Senators had the foresight not to put their names on the list in support of the bill. I'd hate to see what would happen in the USA if we had fair and affordable health insurance. Whew, dodged another one there!
Sarcasm alert!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Harry Truman
February 23, 2010 3:40 PM
When will Dem leaders learn that voters want leaders, not whiners. Maybe they need some of that Balls Beer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
February 23, 2010 3:42 PM in reply to Harry Truman
good point!
here is the link for Balls Beer!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
musgrove
February 23, 2010 3:44 PM in reply to Harry Truman
Stop whining, Obama is getting what can get done, done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
February 23, 2010 4:30 PM in reply to musgrove
As pointed out repeatedly, the current state of play is not an independent variable; it was in part created by the White House's own decisions about what to push for and what not to push for. So attempted defenses like yours fail through their circularity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
musgrove
February 23, 2010 7:10 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
They decided what to push for on the basis of what they thought could get passed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
beltwayskeptic
February 23, 2010 3:43 PM
Before Obama's thrown under the bus and buried, will someone knowledgeable explain what would happen to his overall proposal if the PO had been included?
Would the overall healthcare reform bill have died because the PA option was included???????
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
musgrove
February 23, 2010 3:54 PM in reply to beltwayskeptic
ok... heres a sum up of where we are. The senate has already passed a HCR bill, and it doesn't look like it can win another vote that requires 60 votes now that we lost Kennedy. The house will not pass the senate bill with out it being changed. It can be changed by using reconciliation which would only require 51 votes. The president thinks that the changes he proposed which would be in that reconciliation bill will be able to get the 51 votes required. But if a PO was part of that bill then it would not get the 51 votes required and thus the senate bill will not be passed by the house and thus no bill will pass and HCR will die, and will stay dead for a long time since the dems will most likely lose seats in 2010 which would make it impossible to get HCR passed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shanefish
February 23, 2010 3:44 PM
I've got a different approach, how about easing up on the Federal side and allow individual states to try out their own system? If we think that we'll be able to find a system which will make the conservatives happy, we're DEAD WRONG. They will oppose every piece of legislation they get their hands on. If they want totally privatized health care, then let Oklahoma and Alabama give it a go, but let California and Illinois try their approach. Maybe, just maybe we could learn a thing or two from each other, rather than just seeing who can shout louder.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
February 23, 2010 4:12 PM in reply to shanefish
The best proposal for the public option, and the one that got the most traction, was the Opt-Out. State legislatures had the option to remove their state from a national exchange that included a public option.
ConservaDems rightfully realized the career killer it would be for them, and anyone else who depended on corporate coffers for their campaigns. The opt-out was allowed to die.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
loudprogressive
February 23, 2010 5:16 PM in reply to mophan
Who cares about a couple corporatist Dems. Was shielding them worth the loss of Massachusetts?? Is it worth losing both chambers in November? This is type of idiot BS you hear from the DLC. In what word is protecting a handful of moderate republicans (who call themselves Democrats) worth the Dems giving up the majority in probably BOTH the House and the Senate??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
February 23, 2010 7:37 PM in reply to loudprogressive
Exactly. The Opt-out was perfect. It handed the issue to the states. Republicans would have had a hard time making their case against it. However, appeasing the ConservaDems, and bashing progressives, is what the DLC is all about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CareyInLA
February 23, 2010 3:48 PM
No one has uttered these words here yet, so let me be the first:
Obama, Rahm, Gibbs, et al are acting like Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys!
You don't start negotiations by first dropping everything your opponent does not like. This just ensures you get much less than you could have gotten.
You push for what is important, what is effective (for providing competitive pressure on a trust controlled industry), and what is popular. And you relinquish it, if at all, only under duress, after having extracted every possible concession first.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 23, 2010 4:06 PM in reply to CareyInLA
Oh my god. There's nothing in the health care bills that Republicans don't like? Nothing at all? 100% Capitulation?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tbhull
February 23, 2010 3:50 PM
The Permanent Insurance Industry Profit Act of 2010 does not countenance a public option for such an option does not get any money into the pockets of our bought and paid for Congressional whores.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
February 23, 2010 3:51 PM
There may or may not be the votes for a PO, but the fact that Obama has never lifted a finger in support of the PO is probably why it never had a chance. To not even try from day one when it was central to his campaign is simply unforgiveable. This is going to cost him huge politically in November and beyond.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
February 23, 2010 4:04 PM in reply to xargaw
That's a great point. The White House description of the current situation is of course accurate. But the White House is also responsible for creating the current situation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 23, 2010 6:20 PM in reply to xargaw
Public option was never central to his campaign. It wasn't even very controversial.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Zeus
February 23, 2010 4:11 PM
It's a chicken or egg problem: The Senate won't sign up for support for public option unless they have White House backing. The White House won't back it, because they are dominated by Rahm "F***ing Liberals" Emmanuel, and are using the fact that 50 votes aren't yet committed to pretend they are for the public option in principle "if it had the votes." They are not.
They've cut their deals with big insurance and big Pharma, and the evidence is there. White House logs have repeated meetings with industry bigwigs and a ban of single-payer advocates. You can't get much more "in your face" than this. We supposedly elected a "once in a generation leader" according to the deceased Ted Kennedy, who would "fight for Main Street not just Wall Street," and we have evidence that we have neither.
We need leadership desperately and no one is stepping up. The status quo is filling the vacuum, and as Obama himself said, "The status quo is not an option" (because it is unsustainable), yet he has done nothing to fight against it nor to twist arms nor even to make a personal appeal to Joe Lieberman. One has to conclude either they are lying, cowardly or pragmatists so callow that they refuse to understand the history of all successful social movements. None of them "had the votes". The movement got momentum and got the votes and not by people wringing their hands.
Do what you said you would do! Use your thirteen million emails and house parties to stoke the movement to make the public option an inevitability, unless you really don't believe in it and don't want it to succeed. The Obama administration is either appearing stupid or disingenuous. Where is the leadership? Successful presidents have never been cat herders or cattle rangers. We need a leader not a manager of the status quo pumping out status quo lite.
By the way I'm still voting. I'm still donating money and time but only to progressive candidates with proven principles, actions, and willingness to fight for people. I thought Obama's community organizing would ensure his practical orientation toward the public, but I was wrong. He and his administration has been strategically inept and morally confused in their policy approaches.
This is not about purity. This is about an overwhelming popular mandate pissed away on sell-outs, crucially to the banks (which lost the independents and libertarian Republicans), and a health care boondoggle that is turning off liberals. There is no excuse. Despite what some sites are trying to claim, the majority of Obama's 3/4 billion dollar primary and presidential campaign coffers came from middle class donors and below, many of whom could not afford to make the donation but saw it as an investment in taking back the country. Where are we now? Back with ourselves re-devoting efforts to support people who will do what they say.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
February 23, 2010 4:19 PM in reply to Zeus
Amen, brother. That Big Pharma deal stinks to high heaven and there is no sign that the White House learned their lesson.
They turned off the grassroots operation and turned to DC corporate lobbyists.
So they're not on our team! Let's keep building the progressive team!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
February 23, 2010 4:46 PM in reply to Zeus
Wonderfully said. Thank you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 23, 2010 4:55 PM in reply to Zeus
yet he has done nothing to fight against it nor to twist arms nor even to make a personal appeal to Joe Lieberman.
Obama invited Joe Lieberman to his freaking Hannukah party. Do you think he never made a personal appeal to Joe Lieberman?
Do you mean that he should have done it in a public, grandstanding way so as to bully Lieberman into good behavior?
Old millionaire Senators aren't used to being bullied. It doesn't work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NobleCommentDecider
February 23, 2010 4:13 PM
Greenwald:
once the Government is going to mandate that all citizens purchase health insurance, it is preferable to provide an option to purchase a public plan rather than forcing everyone to buy from the private health insurance industry. On both policy and political grounds, a public-option-free mandate seems disastrous for Democrats.
We are not cars. Mandating money to go to private insurance companies will increase their control of government, and who in their right mind would trust the feds to 'regulate' these guys when they have lobbyists crawling all over the Hill, pockets loaded with new oodles of cash?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
February 23, 2010 6:46 PM in reply to NobleCommentDecider
That's the elephant in the room (and perhaps the elephant is in the party?). The regulation is a wish. They are doing this bill on the CHEAP. Who is going to enforce it? If you're some poor slob out in West Texas just barely making ends meet and they mandate you to buy a crap policy but there is no provider to honor it anywhere near you and they refuse your "out of network" care, what are you supposed to do? You think the state of TX is coming to your aid? Your Senators? The DNC? The White House?
People keep talking about all these ponies. Well the way this works is you are forced to buy the barn but there is no pony.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 23, 2010 10:22 PM in reply to bluebell
I am sure the Democratic National Council is of no help to anybody, not even Harold Ford Jr.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
February 23, 2010 4:16 PM
I'm not thrilled either. But he's juggling snakes and spiders here. Take another look at the faces on the other side. I want them all slapped. Pass the bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dschwarz
February 23, 2010 4:18 PM
You people amaze me. You think this is an opportunity to restart HCR with a blank slate. And, just like that, you WANT A PONY (public option) and you WANT IT NOW!)
There is no blank slate. This is an end game strategy to get HCR passed. What we have to work with is the Senate bill as passed previously, plus whatever improvements will satisfy the House and get 51 votes in the Senate. In other words, the House-Senate compromise that was nearly done when Scott Brown's election threw a wrench in the works.
Never lose sight of the fact that the bill on the table brings health coverage to 30MM Americans that do not have it now. It protects the rest of us from being denied coverage. Its faults, though many, can be fixed down the road IF there is a Progressive majority greater than we have today.
If the Dems don't pass HCR they will be thrown out of office for a generation. They will have lost all trust of the base, and alienated the rest of the country. Say hello to your new Republican members of Congress in 2010, 2012. Meet your new President Palin. Is that really what you want?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
February 23, 2010 4:22 PM in reply to dschwarz
Maybe you are responding to some other thread elsewhere. I'm reading people saying that the Obama White House should LEAD, not follow with a finger to the wind.
And, don't forget, they should deliver on their promises to the American people to change the way business is done in Washington. I don't think people expected that to be a bunch of whining about partisanship.
Pass the bill but fix it. If you will require health insurance from all then provide an alternative to the rapacious private health insurers.
I think Rahm Emmanuel is fighting the public option, personally.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
February 23, 2010 4:45 PM in reply to AlphaLiberal
There is an alternative. Every exchange must include at least one non-profit. Or didn't you know that?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
February 23, 2010 4:53 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
The non-profits (like BCBS) act in all essential ways like for-profit corporations. They're just as wasteful and dishonest.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rmwarnick
February 23, 2010 5:46 PM in reply to dschwarz
The proposal is for corporate serfdom. If we don't get a public option, then the insurance companies should not get a mandate either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
February 23, 2010 6:36 PM in reply to dschwarz
Sometimes I wonder about the average of people who comment here. Their failure to accept that all legislation contains compromises, and very, very rarely does one side get everything they want in any piece of legislation. But, programs that get passed and which generate a lot of public support then get improved as the years go by. We need to grow up. We need to then start pressuring Congress to improve on the health care (or insurance) bill that gets passed. Your grandchildren will still be working to improve on that bill, long after you have benefited from it to the degree that you can in your declining years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
February 23, 2010 10:18 PM in reply to hoppycalif2
Public Option was the compromise. So much has been compromised away since that original give-away that we're now expected to be grateful what ever crumbs might fall our way.
Guess what people, no matter how much the Administration gives away, the Republicans will still vote no. And despite what the usual gang of DLC-apologists posting in the HRC threads say, crumbs are not enough to even start to fix the greed machine that the American health care system has become.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
February 24, 2010 12:01 AM in reply to cwnidog
Yes, you are right, the public option was the compromise, with the ideal being single payer health care, i.e. Medicare for all. But, that was early in the negotiations. It took more compromises to get any bill at all through the Senate. And, what was left of "the public option" after all of the compromises on that alone was something that would never be recognized as a "public option" in reality. What was left would cover only a tiny fraction of us, and would take effect in 4 years, long enough for the Repubs to point to the failure of the new health care bill, and take over Congress again. It was a token symbol and nothing else. Now we have the House refusing to accept the Senate bill, in large part because it doesn't contain that token "public option", and that is ridiculous. The public option is now nothing more than a "red cape", as used by a bullfighter, used now to distract us while the real reforms that could be in the health care bill are compromised away as we watch the red cape flicking back and forth before our eyes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
February 23, 2010 4:20 PM
What can be more a more powerful force in someone's life than acting as gatekeeper to access to health care.
Insurance companies have proven themselves incompetent, greedy and wasteful. Medicare expansion is the way to go.
So that's off the table (for now). Providing the people with a Public Option (that's...yes, optional: it says so on the label) is the only ethical thing to do when the point of your legislation is to shovel money to health insurance companies in return for health care most people won't be able to access except at great cost to their financial security and the country (in the form of subsidies to insurers).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
William Andrews
February 23, 2010 4:20 PM
The warm spit Presidency! Change we can believe in!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
February 23, 2010 4:23 PM
Congress should give up their "gov't run" health care that we pay and provide for them. Let them be forced to go to the private insurance markets without the pull of the national exchange. I'd like to see Byrd and all these old white folks get great health care from the private insurance companies then. Let's level the playing field and have these congressional fuck sticks depend on the private insurance companies and pay the rates we do if they can even get health insurance. People need to revolt and overthrow the way Congress gets ther asses covered with affordable quality health care while we stress out and get robbed of our money while the fat asses get wealthier....Fuck'em!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 23, 2010 4:41 PM in reply to Progressive Party
The old whities are eligible for Medicare!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
February 23, 2010 6:40 PM in reply to Progressive Party
Congress gets the same health care benefits as other government employees, and it isn't much different from what employees of large unionized corporations get. As an ex civil service employee and ex employee of a large unionized corporation I have experience with both.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tommyo
February 23, 2010 4:34 PM
"there isn't enough political support in a majority to get this through,".
What a lying piece of shit.
Obama couldn't have made it clearer since his inauguration that he doesn't want a public option
This latest lame, bullshit reason for refusing to even attempt to fulfill his campaign promise (hell, he's actually fighting AGAINST his campaign promise) will hopefully make this fact clear for all those still making excuses for this prick.
He's a lying motherfucker. He got your vote and then he said hello health insurance corporations, fuck you american public.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 23, 2010 4:55 PM in reply to tommyo
Another troll heard from. Fuck you tommy asshole
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
February 23, 2010 4:41 PM
I'm beginning to despise this maternal fornicator as much as I did Ari Fleischer. His smugness towards, and contempt and for, the American people is repugnant.
The only people who won't have the votes, Mr. Fibbs, are the Dumbocrats in 2010. But then, I'm beginning to think Fauxbama wouldn't have it any other way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
February 23, 2010 4:55 PM
What Atrios said:
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bo
February 23, 2010 5:00 PM
After looking at the White House's dog's breakfast of a proposal, I started muttering about not giving a rip whether or not 0(zero)bama would get a second term. Then two words came to mind: Supreme Court.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lucieann
February 23, 2010 5:08 PM
I guess it is true what they say, they don't watch or care about the polling!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 23, 2010 5:10 PM
The way I look at it is: Rockefellor was the biggest supporter of PO in the Senate. He knows all 59 Senators in the caucus, and I'm sure he knows how to count. He counted nos instead of yeses, and the numbers didn't add up.
That is to say, there are probably 10 Democratic Senators who will not support PO, but they aren't willing to say so. CW here seems to be that Obama should send Rahm down to pursuade them with an ax. I don't think the Senate really works like that.
So he walked out and took one for the team, and now Gibbs and the Prez are taking one for the team.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
loudprogressive
February 23, 2010 5:17 PM
Obama's "leadership" boils down to this: Don't try if it is even questionable.
All great leaders thought this way, right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
musgrove
February 23, 2010 7:20 PM in reply to loudprogressive
and HCR in the first place was unquestionable?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zads
February 23, 2010 5:18 PM
Got my Farm Bureau/Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield of Iowa annual rate increase letter. It's gone up by huge percentages every year. Sure would like to see Sebelius push back on this like she did the Anthem Blue Cross rate hike in California.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
February 23, 2010 5:30 PM in reply to zads
Nobody cares, my friend. You're a slave to the man, a cog in the wheel, your shit on the heal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rmwarnick
February 23, 2010 5:43 PM
President Obama, if the public option doesn't have enough votes, then go and get the votes! How is it possible that the President can order the assassination of Americans, imprison people without charges, drop bombs all over the world... but the same man is powerless to deliver on a popular campaign promise to fix the health care crisis?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 23, 2010 6:02 PM in reply to rmwarnick
Separation of powers, dude.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
happycozy
February 23, 2010 6:37 PM in reply to rmwarnick
Because he's leading Democrats. Any arm twisting by the WH will immediately be leaked to the press, and Obama will be accused of bullying senators. Sestak just revealed the WH offered him a job to not run against Spector. Why did he reveal this?
I can see why the WH isn't threatening the dems. Any conversations they had would be tapped and leaked to the press. The next thing we know, Rahm's obscenity-filled tirades would be all over the internets. The senate is full of cowards who will turn on Obama in a minute.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
February 23, 2010 5:53 PM
Obama doesn't have my vote either
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zads
February 23, 2010 5:56 PM
Don't have the votes...all polls indicate great DISSATISFACTION with the current senate bill - but tremendous support if a public option is included. The CBO numbers all show that the public option saves the most money. We gave the dems the white house, senate, & house of reps to get health care passed and they don't have the votes. I don't understand ANY of this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 23, 2010 6:37 PM
I know of no poll which shows that HCR would be popular if it did have a PO, just ones that show that the PO gets high approval in isolation. All of the components of HCR (besides the taxes and spending) get high approval ratings, so that's not enough.
If you can correct me that's fine, but I've never seen any poll which claims that the current bill plus PO gets majority support.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 23, 2010 6:38 PM
I know of no poll which shows that HCR would be popular if it did have a PO, just ones that show that the PO gets high approval in isolation. All of the components of HCR (besides the taxes and spending) get high approval ratings, so that's not enough.
If you can correct me that's fine, but I've never seen any poll which claims that the current bill plus PO gets majority support.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 23, 2010 6:39 PM
I know of no poll which shows that HCR would be popular if it did have a PO, just ones that show that the PO gets high approval in isolation. All of the components of HCR (besides the taxes and spending) get high approval ratings, so that's not enough.
If you can correct me that's fine, but I've never seen any poll which claims that the current bill plus PO gets majority support.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
February 23, 2010 7:14 PM in reply to philogratis
That's the point. Public Option alone is sufficient. Medicare for all. It's so simple, even the cavemen could do it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 24, 2010 12:39 AM in reply to CranialRectalLoopback
Actually, Medicare for all kind of sucks without insurance reforms. Private insurance will have every incentive to push their sick patients out and cherry pick healthy patients, just like status quo. However, with Medicare for all, all the sick people will sign up in PO.
If PO is mostly full of sick people, and private insurers mostly cover healthy people, they will be able to charge much cheaper costs, keeping the vicious cycle going.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mateo123
February 23, 2010 7:15 PM
I have read a lot of these responses and I have to say that I'm excited that we're even having this debate. Seriously, for much of the last decade, we have debated little on the domestic front.
As I see the shape of the health care reform bill, I think there is a fairly decent shot the public option will emerge again in reconciliation. Why? Well, I don't see House Democrats caving if a majority of the senate believes in and will go to bat for the public option.
Having said this, I am not surprised why Obama is starting without a public option: right now, after 13 months of this debate, the public option is too controversial in light of the Massachusetts senate seat and a few other ominous signs. Obama wants, politically, to appear to respect senate rules. If he pushed a public option, folks like Rockefeller and Byrd would grow angry that he wanted to disrespect senate rules. And, Lieberman and Nelson and Lincoln would pitch a fit, too.
So, he will leave it to Reid and Pelosi, who will have to figure out which bill, in the end, draws a majority of the respective houses. My hunch is that the Obama plan will draw fewer supporters than the full public option through reconciliation. And, if that is the case, the full public option passes.
It's politically savvy. You guys may think he is a disappointment, but getting lectured by Byrd, Rockefeller, Levin or some other rules stalwart will only serve as a distraction. But, if Reid or Schumer proposes a public option, well, there you go. They carry some credibility and if they get the White House on board, this can get done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
February 23, 2010 7:29 PM
And after they pushed so hard for it ... Obama supports the PO, you know. No, really! He does! Honest!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tommyo
February 23, 2010 10:07 PM
Are you wondering why The White House is so opposed to the public option? Read the NYT, Aug. 13th, 2009:
"Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying Medicare rates — generally 80 percent of private sector rates — or controlled by the secretary of health and human services."
Gibbs is a lying piece of shit, just like his boss.
They literally sold out to the health insurance and hospital industry just like they did to the pahrmacutical industry.
Change you can be fooled into believing in and go fuck yourself too.
What a bunch of sell-out bastards.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 23, 2010 10:27 PM
Yglesias has a good point on this. A strong public option linked to Medicare rates was opposed by not only insurance companies, but also hospitals and doctors associations like the AMA, but only the insurance lobby got attacked.
It is easy to whip up populist anger against greedy insurance companies, but much harder to gin up opposition to hospitals and doctors, although I suppose that some doctors are greedy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
patmcgrowen
February 24, 2010 7:35 AM
I agree with the White House. It is up to the senate to provide the votes. It is on their backs. Next it is on the backs of the people who say they want the public option. Now is the time to call, visit, protest for the public option. They are trying to tell us, it isn't too late. But we the people must fight for it. I am still shocked that all the fervor I read on here about people being so passionate about the public option. There has not been one single demonstration on D.C. for it. Now is the time to nut up or shut up. Basically the President just has to sign the bill, it is up to the legislators to write and amend the bill. If you think the White House needs to do more than remember that when you are so eager to let a Republican move in again. It is not over for the public option, but it is very clear that it is up to its supporters to make a big final push for it. Your move guys, whatcha gonna do. Let me guess sit around and complain on blogs. I've been emailing (OFA, MoveOn, etc) trying to organize a demonstration for months, but no one seems to care enough to get in the car and make something happen. But we can all snicker when the frightwingers gather and make the national news night after night and are now considered a legitimate organization. So when the public option fails to make the bill, look in the mirror, and take the blame. Did YOU do enough?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
June 6, 2010 9:42 PM
Mary Landrieu? She's always been a staunch opponent of the PO, and her re-election chances are almost zero. Hard to have a lot of confidence here. 54. She has spoken in favor of reconciliation in general, which is a little surprising and encouraging.
Evan Bayh? The PO is a bit of a stretch for Mr. Bipartisan, although he's game for reconciliation. Maybe he's really a closet liberal and he'll play ball now that he's retired, but... really? Obviously, nobody has any political leverage over him. Down to 53.
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?