TPMDC
Pelosi: No Hope For Public Option At This Time
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Share
Send to a friend!
The public option already died once. Today it died again.
House progressives have been trying to use the health care stalemate to revive the public option. Almost 100 have signed a letter urging Congressional leaders to include a public option in a separate bill, which could in theory pass the Senate with a simple majority of votes. If that happened--a big if--it could then be included as part of comprehensive legislation, securing progressives a major victory. But on a conference call today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put a second set of nails in the public option's coffin, saying it would not be part of any grand bargain to push ahead with health reform. But in so doing, she took a veiled swipe at the White House for not standing enthusiastically behind the proposal.
"The Senate never supported the public option," Pelosi said.
There was talk that there would be 51 votes for it, but it never passed on the floor of the Senate. It did pass in the House and, of course, I think it would be the way to go. But it isn't the way that the Senate went. And so I think that what you might see coming out of some reconciliation would be those areas of agreement that all three--the White House, the Senate and the House--had already agreed to...more than two weeks ago.
That echoes more or less the sense that Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) had about the prospects for reviving the public option. But it's unlikely to provide much comfort to the vast majority of House progressives who were hoping the popular provision might have a second shot.
"I myself think that I did a very heavy lift on the public option, very enthusiastically," Pelosi said. "I believe in it and the rest. But it did not make the cut on the Senate side. As far as the White House's enthusiasm for it, you're just going to have to ask them."
Comments (122) | 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.
Lucieann
February 2, 2010 5:45 PM
Then there's "no hope" that she will be Speaker of the House after the 2010 election!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dswx
February 2, 2010 7:04 PM in reply to Lucieann
Except why would anyone in their right mind return to power the people who have done nothing (the Republicans) to even attempt HCR? And who are responsible for the economic train wreck and of course the war in Iraq? You reward them for destroying the American dream for millions by returning them to power?!?!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
February 2, 2010 7:34 PM in reply to dswx
Part of the Democrat's job is to give their supporters a reason to give, volunteer, and turn out to vote. Showing that they tried every way possible to pass a popular policy is part of that, and Obama, Pelosi, Reid FAILED.
Another part of winning is to win back independents by putting popular policy up for a vote and make Republicans vote against them. They failed again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
February 2, 2010 10:38 PM in reply to condew
It's hardly Pelosi's fault. Give her a BETTER caucus! You don't like the current Dems in congress? Elect BETTER ONES. Electing the GOP again is the height of insanity.
And frankly the House has done everything we've wanted it to. The Senate is the place where everything goes to die.
Attacking Pelosi in a fit of rage = childish and misguided
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trippin
February 3, 2010 8:54 AM in reply to AnswerFrog
I need not remind you who abrogated their sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution for crass political purposes. This woman took impeachment off the table as if it were her table.
Well, I'm here to tell ya, she can have the freaking table, but we're taking the silver and the china back.
That said, she did a damn sight better than that feckless dottering corporate kow-towing fool who is supposed to be leading the Senate majority.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
a Mary Queen of Scott
February 3, 2010 11:24 AM in reply to trippin
I would loved to have seen Bush CO. impeached, but there were never in a million years the votes to do that much less de-fund the wars. It was never on the table. Ever. It would have been a needless distraction to the election. She was shrewd to make the statement.
Also, it is a few Dems in the Senate who are fukcing everything up. Not the whole caucus.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trippin
February 3, 2010 8:50 AM in reply to dswx
Simple.
In 2006, we rewarded do-nothing Democrats who told us the reason they couldn't get anything done is they didn't have the votes.
We gave them a supermajority in the Senate, in the House, and the White House. And they STILL can't get anything done.
So there are no consequences to serving them a dish of "dance with the people you brung ya." It is mandatory they learn a lesson by putting them so far in the minority they finally remember who they're working for. What we don't do is reward malfeasance just because we think the alternative will be worse.
If that means Republicans win, so be it. Democrats had their chance, in spades, and proved they're in it for the same reasons, namely, delivering quid pro quo for corporate campaign dollars.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
February 3, 2010 10:59 AM in reply to trippin
You ain't trippin. You are simply telling it like it is and they THINK you're trippin.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dick c
February 2, 2010 7:15 PM in reply to Lucieann
She has no control over the senate, and certainly no control over Obama -- whose promises, apparently, aren't worth shit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
February 2, 2010 8:07 PM in reply to Lucieann
This is not good news. It's also not unexpected news.
Pelosi has shown a hell of a lot more leadership this past year than Harry has. If anybody should be replaced, it's he. It sounds like Nevada's voters may be thinking the same thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
February 2, 2010 8:22 PM in reply to Lucieann
Nancy just sealed the fate of her Democratic Congress. I guarantee you, it will either take a full recovery back to 2006 levels of employment OR a public option to save these guys. That's what we hired them to do in '08.
The American electorate isn't going to give bonuses to execs that fail. That may be the way they do things in Congress and on Wall Street, but it ain't gonna fly with the American electorate!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Liberal Jesus
February 2, 2010 11:30 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Why do you expect the Democrats to fix the problems in 2 years what took 20 years of conservative policies to create? You are either very short sighted or possess such a lack of intelligence as not to be able to tell the difference between trying and not trying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
February 3, 2010 1:55 AM in reply to Liberal Jesus
Cause they have the largest majority of any Congress in at least 20 years?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
February 3, 2010 7:25 AM in reply to JorgeOrwell
And an overwhelmingly popular, newly-elected president. And because the country is still reeling from 8 years of those GOP policies that brought the country to its knees. And because . . .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MrDean
February 3, 2010 9:42 AM in reply to JorgeOrwell
...and that doesn't mean anything when the GOP is united in their filibuster. Politics is all about leverage, and Nancy Pelosi has no leverage over Ben Nelson/Joe Lieberman/Mary Landrieu/Blanche Lincoln/Evan Bayh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
February 3, 2010 10:56 AM in reply to MrDean
Nobody disagrees with that. But the the political reality is that people will blame ALL Dems not just the oligarchs in the Senate. Reid has the chance to fix this by simply going nuclear. Obama's strategy of winning the right is one that will take a generation. This country only has until November.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFCWallace
February 3, 2010 11:22 AM in reply to Liberal Jesus
Uh...Dems have been in charge of both houses of Congress since Jan 07...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mtiffany
February 4, 2010 2:33 AM in reply to SFCWallace
But the Dems did not have (and still do not have) the 2/3 majority to override Dubya's presidential veto.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Frex
February 2, 2010 9:33 PM in reply to Lucieann
That's because she'll be minority leader.
Pass The DAMN Senate Bill
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shekissesfrogs
February 2, 2010 9:53 PM in reply to Frex
There's no PO in the senate bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
February 2, 2010 11:16 PM in reply to Frex
The Senate bill is worse than nothing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
February 3, 2010 2:57 AM in reply to NR
Not at all. The Senate bill is better than the way things are now! You must have some great insurance ..... asshole!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
February 3, 2010 3:49 AM in reply to hollywood
Actually, I have insurance, and it has gotten so bad that I can't use it anymore. The deductibles are so high, the wait times so long, and the service so bad that I just don't go to the doctor anymore (and use fee-for-service when I absolutely have to).
And guess what? This is at what is supposedly the BEST health insurer in my state. Imagine what the care is like at the worst insurer!
Chaining 50 million new customers to this system without any significant reforms is a recipe for disaster. A health care disaster for America, and a political disaster for the Democratic party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
February 3, 2010 12:10 PM in reply to NR
Without a public option and a repeal of the antitrust exemption, this bill will only worsen our economy.
What's worse, is even if the bill HAD these two provisions, Americans wouldn't even feel the benefit until 2014.
Dems better start moving quickly and have this thing in affect by June or pay the price in November.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
February 3, 2010 1:58 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
I agree they better get it in effect MUCH SOONER! No Dem is going to get reelected in 2010 on what they are going to do for us in 2014. The stupidity of this is just amazing!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mtiffany
February 4, 2010 2:36 AM in reply to hollywood
Oh yeah, the Senate Bill is soooo much better. At last I'll be able to afford private health insurance -- since the Senate bill makes rent, food, and utilities FREE.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
February 4, 2010 12:34 PM in reply to hollywood
The Senate bill actually deepens our slavery to the insurance and pharma giants, by forcing us to buy from them. Anybody remember what your car insurance rates were before the states mandated coverage? I do! Mine were half what they are today under the mandate.
The IRS will be holding a gun to your head as you hand your cash over to a fat ass banker on Wall Street.
F'ckin beautiful!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFCWallace
February 3, 2010 11:26 AM in reply to NR
I agree!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
February 3, 2010 1:54 AM in reply to Frex
Then she'll just be looking for a job. lucky for her, every health insurance outfit will be sending her offers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
onceler
February 3, 2010 9:21 AM in reply to Lucieann
oh please, Pelosi has been the lone Democrat in a leadership position who has done well throughout the whole health care debacle. she got a public option passed in the House, she did what she could. she can't control what the Senate does or does not do. Reid and Obama get the blame for failing to even remotely try to hold their caucus to account and lead on this issue. Pelosi has been the only Dem on message pretty much the whole time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
February 3, 2010 12:23 PM in reply to onceler
I agree. I like her. She's got some dangly brass ones. But unfortunately, the public doesn't do nuance. They are the same angry hordes that overthrew the Republiturds in '06 and '08.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
February 2, 2010 6:31 PM
What do you expect? Obama rolled over for the Republicans and the insurance industry before negotiations even started.
Now that the craven Democrats have pissed away any opportunity for real reform, even the fallback position is out of reach.
Maybe with a little more bipartisanship, they can pass a law that requires every American to pay insurance companies thousands of dollars to deny all claims.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sailormarlowe
February 2, 2010 6:42 PM in reply to farnsworth
Hee hee hee hee hee public ain't paying for death panels & mandatory abortion, fagsworth hee hee hee strong survive hee hee hee.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
February 2, 2010 6:53 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe
Wait, aren't you the guy who said that Sarah Palin was a military position?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
February 4, 2010 12:37 PM in reply to farnsworth
These Dems are a shadow of their compatriots from the New Deal days.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
February 4, 2010 1:31 PM in reply to farnsworth
I think that's what they're shooting for! REALLY!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
existenz
February 2, 2010 6:35 PM
Can Pelosi explain her math to me? Just because the public option couldn't get 60 votes in the Senate doesn't mean it can't get 50 votes!
Good god, the Senate was about to pass a Medicare buy-in until it was sabotaged by Lieberman/Nelson. Bayh/Landrieu/Lincoln were on board. The public option clearly had 50 votes.
I don't know what Pelosi is talking about here, but it isn't helping.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
richard f
February 2, 2010 7:21 PM in reply to existenz
She's just counting. At least six dem Senators oppose the public option (Landrieu, Nelson, Bayh, Lieberman, etc) so you're down to 53. Two democrats - Russ Feingold and Robert Byrd, the man who wrote the reconciliation rules (Byrd told Clinton in 1993 that he would oppose passage of health reform through reconciliation although he favored passage of the bill through normal Senate processes) - have said that passage of health reform through reconciliation is inappropriate. At least another half dozen would join them. They wouldn't get close to 50 votes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
February 2, 2010 7:55 PM in reply to richard f
Well, then I'll blame the rest of the Senate that lets them get away with it.
There is no hope of a vote from me at this time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
February 2, 2010 8:41 PM in reply to existenz
Because there weren't even 50 for the public option, there's barely 50 for reconciliation at all.
Lieberman, Lincoln, Landrieu, Nelson, Bayh, Conrad, Baucus, Byrd, McCaskill, Webb and Feingold all either oppose the public option, reconciliation, or both. Right there you're down to 48.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Riesz Fischer
February 2, 2010 6:50 PM
Well I think it's pretty sad to hear the centrists crowing about losing the public option. And I don't think the quotes above sound like Nancy Pelosi is "giving a reality check". To the contrary, she said "As far as the White House's enthusiasm for it, you're just going to have to ask them.". That doesn't sound like she's supporting the centrist policies of ObamaRahma to me.
It's sad to see Josh Marshall and David Kurtz try to frame this as a move to the middle in response to the loss in Massachusetts. And I can hardly wait to see how Josh and David try to spin Obama's loss in 2012. That's gonna be fun.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
February 2, 2010 7:30 PM in reply to Riesz Fischer
Obama gets a lot for his invitations to join a conference call.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
February 2, 2010 7:14 PM
Wait. Where was the swipe at the WH? Was it not included in the transcript?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zeabow
February 2, 2010 7:16 PM
What a sad spectacle it is to read someone write that it is a sad spectacle that the house is trying to push a measure that would make health insurance cheaper for Americans and provide some competition to the greedy damn insurance companies.
I'm sure you'll get your pat on the head from rahm, david ...
Z
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
February 2, 2010 7:26 PM in reply to zeabow
politically, the editors/authors here are about as feckless as dems far too often. never too bold, too "out there." let the winds control your moral compass. and smugly pretend to be the sensible detached observer, pretend that whatever shakes out is what they've steadfastly stood for all along
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
February 2, 2010 8:55 PM in reply to twirling fartknocker
as a case in point, I'll cite TPM demi-god Josh from about a month before we invaded Iraq. sure, he hems and haws enough and uses enough qualifiers to potentially still stand by what he said then if you asked him about it now, but I'd bet that he eventually came to see the ruse he'd inadvertently bought into at the time, when something like 70% of Americans supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq...
a threat to whom?!? while he doesn't say it, all I can think he means is Israel. anyone who had been paying attention to the region for the years since pappa's Gulf War I knew that Saddam barely had two nickels to rub together in weaponry and standing soldiers, the country was in serious disarray and staggering poverty, esp. after their war with Iran and ongoing US sanctions
he's basically arguing that people like me, amongst the 30% of naysayers, many of whom protested in the streets before the war started, were wrong in refusing to support an invasion. Josh didn't think containment was "sustainable," bought into the phony urgency of military action, so amongst a slew of bad choices invasion was a "sensible" position to take.
supposedly reasonable centrism, lives on at TPM unshaken by past mistakes. it's probably a condition of employment as it pops its head out all too often amongst the minions running about these parts. so solidly sure of themselves to openly sneer at and condescend toward those who remain committed to certain values regardless of which way the wind blows
as in the lack of fortitude on healthcare, it's the same pusillanimous commitment to principle that allows this country to make major mistakes such as the Iraq War. only after the war has begun, when the winds shift against it, and it's too far late to prevent, do these centrists come on board as "anti-war"
they think it's the safe place to be, stubbornly in a mythical middle, but it's entirely dangerous for the country. but when you are middle class and of the preferred race in this country, who's to care if others suffer? same for this site's coverage of Israel, told from on high with a "let them eat cake" lack of urgency there. it's easy to be patient when your needs are more than covered
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 2, 2010 10:22 PM in reply to twirling fartknocker
thank you. word.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Agaricus
February 2, 2010 7:25 PM
I agree with zeabow, whose comment touches on a larger issue that Josh and others at TPM ought to take seriously. You are rightly merciless about other journalists who get so caught up in the status and excitement of covering Washington that they become mere transcribers of "the narrative." But in your effort to be realistic and hard headed, you sometimes come across as cynical and thick-skulled.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
February 2, 2010 7:36 PM
This is why Pelosi is such a good Speaker and leader of her caucus. She's progressive at heart, but has her head firmly planted in pragmatism.
Whether the 'true' progressives want to join her in reality is ultimately her call.
Hell... have all you naysayers noticed that you cannot even get consensus among people that are nominally and normally on your side!
Doesn't that tell you something?
And save the nonsense on polling... policy polling, especially specific aspects of policy, is so fraught with error and peril that it's about as valid as saying "well, everyone I know..."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
February 2, 2010 7:36 PM in reply to zonk
ultimately their call, I mean...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
February 2, 2010 8:07 PM in reply to zonk
Tonight is precinct caucus night in MN. I am at home. If I figured there was any Democrat that would fight for universal healthcare I might bother to go out, sign up and fight the good fight but there are no Democrats who will fight the good fight anymore. They all surrendered.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
February 2, 2010 8:25 PM in reply to bluebell
Amen Bluebell. There just isn't any enthusiasm left on the liberal side. This Congress and President have turned "yes we can" into "NO WE CAN'T" in less than a year. Pathetic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
February 2, 2010 10:34 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
= quitters
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
February 4, 2010 1:14 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
Yes, the Dem leaders are "quitters"! If only they had taken the public option to reconciliation, they may have had a chance in November.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 2, 2010 9:25 PM in reply to bluebell
You said you left the Democratic party so how could you caucus? {snicker}
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
February 2, 2010 10:04 PM in reply to FreeRider
Bluebell exemplifies what happens when a politician does not feed his base ---- all those folks who claimed that the left had no where to go are beginning to figure out that the left does not have to go anywhere --- that has to happen is that they feel insufficient enthusisam to get up out of their chairs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 2, 2010 10:23 PM in reply to AJM
Bluebell left the party before Obama was even sworn in because she didn't like that he appointed Hillary as Secretary of State.
There is no amount of care and feeding that could please someone like Bluebell because she is looking for a hero, a white knight and the minute he/she does something she doesn't like, she trashes him.
Any pol would be a fool to waste time with demented losers like Bluebell.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
February 3, 2010 7:33 AM in reply to FreeRider
You are one heck of a Democratic recruiter. Do you work for the Republican National Committee?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 3, 2010 10:36 AM in reply to wbgonne
Did LBJ work for the segregationists? How else can you explain the fact that (according to you) he gave the thumbs-up to the southern racists in his own party to filibuster and rail against his top priority--civil rights legislation?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
February 3, 2010 12:04 PM in reply to AJM
THAT is exactly what is happening. I was an independent who swung into the Obama camp. Even worked for the campaign and I'm already there. Just imagine how most independents (liberal and conservative) who simply showed up at the polls feel.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
February 2, 2010 8:50 PM in reply to zonk
"Hell... have all you naysayers noticed that you cannot even get consensus among people that are nominally and normally on your side!"
That could be more accurately said about the health care bill as a whole wouldn't it?
As for polling; I think it's safe to say that something polling consistently with enormous majorities of support among the public is not due to some bizarre ongoing multi-firm polling error. It's because it's popular.
It may not be as popular with certain members of congress, but then the public doesn't get money from the insurance industry so much as they pay into the insurance industry. Congress is reflecting their own interest not the public's opinion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
February 3, 2010 1:37 PM in reply to Kevin Sutton
It's not a matter of "polling error" -- it's a matter of engagement and knowledge having a near infinitely greater shades of grey.
Will you vote Obama or McCain?
Simple matter of sampling out people who don't know one or other, intention (history) to vote, and tossing in proper party weighting.
"Public Option - yea or nay?"
Simply cannot be polled as easily... Do you even know what a "public option" IS? Do you know how it will be funded? What will it cover? How will it compare to private policies? How well do you understand Medicare? Do you know how IT is funded? Do you know what IT covers?
That's even before you get into where it ranks vs. other items.
I mean, fer chrissakes, in a vacuum - the "public option" ought to poll in the 80% range, without only the true blue "kill all entitlements and all government programs" conservatives opposed.
The shrill PO'ers were essentially Frank Luntz's dumber, younger brother in their analysis of the PO polling.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
February 4, 2010 1:29 PM in reply to zonk
I'm a "PO'er" and I've cited the most nuanced polling out there. The Public Option is the most popular aspect of the health bill, period.
Dems: 82% support
Inds. 68% support
Reps. 34% support
If Dems don't get on board with the public here, there will be dozens of Scott Browns joining their ranks in November!
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/d/w/dwitkowitz/2010/01/is-it-health-care-reform-or-ob.php
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
February 2, 2010 7:40 PM
Although it is only a 300 foot walk from my home to my polling place, it seems less and less worth the trip.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
USgreentech
February 2, 2010 7:55 PM
There is hope for universal health insurance now and forever!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Twisp
February 2, 2010 8:08 PM
The public option is now a political Hail Mary not just a reform imperative.
Polling shows that of the three happy meals (1. with mandate/without public option, 2. without mandate/without public option, and 3. with mandate/with public option) the only one supported by a majority (71%) is Menu Item No 3. The LEAST liked and MOST disagreed with, Item No. 1, is the one the White House (and TPM for that matter) is advocating. Item No. 2 is gets a tepid "meh."
Some good can be done by passing the Senate version, but don't think that's going to help Democrats at the polls. The mandate is toxic now; just wait till the ads run. They'll say JAIL! and we'll be whining, "That's not true!"
I don't give a crap what the wonks say. Passing a mandate without a public option will alienate the independents and infuriate the Democratic base, but more, it disarms the street fighters, the people debating with their neighbors, buddies, family and fellow workers.
I know, I know, the strategy is to try and demonize the GOP by linking them with the Tea Bagger extremists. Yeah, well... boogie man + no cash -- vs. -- reality + open corporate coffers.
Good luck, Col. Custer. Send us a note from the battlefield.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
February 4, 2010 1:34 PM in reply to Twisp
YEP! Twisp, eh? Nice town.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Truff
February 2, 2010 8:10 PM
Nancy - I am an independent in your district. Public option or I vote Republican across the board in November.
If you are too old, tired, and dispirited to fight, get out of the way and let someone willing to do the job take over.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
February 2, 2010 8:36 PM in reply to Truff
Wow, that's idiotic
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
February 2, 2010 8:37 PM in reply to Truff
Wow, that's idiotic
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gpleigh
February 2, 2010 9:16 PM in reply to Truff
Yes, Republicans will surely fight for you.
Anyone who thinks that voting for Republicans or not voting at all will move the ball forward has a very, very short memory. And in your rush to punish the Hill, you punish all Americans. But go ahead and feel good about the lesson you're teaching us.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
February 2, 2010 11:22 PM in reply to gpleigh
I don't condone voting Republican, but the Dems do need to be taught a lesson. Remember how much they complained about losing 2% to Nader in 2000? Well, the Dems need to start losing 10-20% on the left to make them realize how important that 20% is.
In the short term, that means more Republicans will get elected. But the Republicans are already running the government from the minority, so this isn't as big a downside as some people think. And in the long term, we might finally start to see real change.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
February 3, 2010 3:23 PM in reply to gpleigh
"Anyone who thinks that voting for Republicans or not voting at all will move the ball forward has a very, very short memory. And in your rush to punish the Hill, you punish all Americans. But go ahead and feel good about the lesson you're teaching us."
QFT
Quoted For Truth
+1
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
February 2, 2010 8:14 PM
Ideologically, I'm in sync with the progressives, but perhaps because I am, I am embarrassed by their idiocy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
February 4, 2010 3:13 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
Amen! How did "progressives" ever vote for these "Dems" in Congress?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Eric Jaffa
February 2, 2010 8:19 PM
"But it isn't the way that the Senate went."
Everything which might be changed from the Senate bill, by definition, "isn't the way that the Senate went."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ethan
February 2, 2010 8:24 PM
Harkin said that he's getting to work on a reconciliation fix and should have an outline out before the 12th.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnMcCSF
February 2, 2010 8:40 PM
Nice try Madam Speaker (my Congresswoman)
If Health Care Reform dies, it dies in the House, at your hands, and quite possibly your Speakership along with it
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ethan
February 2, 2010 8:45 PM in reply to JohnMcCSF
I think she's trying her hardest. She knows how important this is and will play the ultimate balancing act to get it done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnMcCSF
February 2, 2010 8:56 PM in reply to Ethan
I am sure she is..that's what she's told me now 8-10 times (the penultimate paragraph in her email responses)
That and fifty cents won't get you a cuppa at Peets. If I had a penny for every reassurance from the Speaker not to mention the other House and Senate "leaders", then I'd be able to afford a large cup
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
February 2, 2010 9:01 PM
Anyone who can't even be bothered to vote against evil in November may as well be working for the other side. If you don't have the enthusiasm to work for a candidate or give money, that's understandable. But to not even vote? Or worse, to vote Republican because the Democrats didn't give you what you wanted? That is incredibly stupid and totally irresponsible. Election Day is not the time for drama or symbolic gestures. Unless you actually want the Republican agenda to become law, act like a grownup and vote for the Democrats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cujo359
February 2, 2010 9:08 PM in reply to Skybolt
I suggest you stop being a jackass.
We did vote for Democrats, and what we got in exchange was more of the same. I'll vote, but I won't be voting for Democrats unless they proved by their voting records that they're worth keeping in office. Otherwise, vote them out, and we'll see if we can't find better two years from now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
February 2, 2010 10:04 PM in reply to Cujo359
A Democrat or an "independent" voting for Republicans is the same as a Republican voting for Republicans. You should consider how much suffering you'll be helping to cause if you help Republicans get elected. The fact is that having Obama and the Democrats running things, as disappointing as they have been, is a lot better than having Republicans running things.
At the level of power the federal government has, a small difference can save a lot of lives and make a big difference in those lives. Obama has done a lot of good things over the past year, and it's not hard to find long lists of those things. He should have done more, but if you think that putting Republicans back in charge of any part of the government is going to end up making things better, then you must not remember what it was like in this country from 2001-2006.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
February 2, 2010 10:40 PM in reply to Skybolt
Sorry, but if the best you can do for a slogan is, "We're not as bad as the other guys - well, some of us are but most of us aren't ... most of the time," you have a problem.
Unquestioning support for the democrats simply because they are not republicans has only caused them to shift farther to the right.
Give us something to vote for. If you can't, then don't blame us for not voting for you. Go find some more Blue Dogs - that's worked out so well for you ...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
February 3, 2010 4:30 PM in reply to cawleybo
"Unquestioning support for the democrats simply because they are not republicans has only caused them to shift farther to the right."
I don't think there *is* unquestioning support for Democrats here, or anyplace else. Many of us, myself included, are very upset and disappointed in how the Democrats have handled the healthcare issue, the torture issue, the banking issue, and a host of other matters that we believed would be properly taken up by the Obama Administration and this Congress. Clearly, we've gotten much, much less than we bargained for.
But sticking by the Democrats, even given our disappointment, hardly constitutes "unquestioning support." You do us all a disservice when you mischaracterize our positions in that way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cujo359
February 3, 2010 2:01 AM in reply to Skybolt
And you need to consider how much suffering you'll cause by continuing to vote for people who say they'll do what progressives want them to, and then don't. If I have to own up to the suffering I cause, you have to own up to what you cause.
What you do by saying that your vote is always going to be for Democrats is lose any power to influence them. No matter what they do, you'll still vote for them. You'll keep on enabling them, and they will keep on ignoring what you want. It's only when you, and lots of people like you, are willing to take your votes elsewhere that they will take you seriously.
Meanwhile, enjoy being annoyed at the people who are trying to change things.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
February 3, 2010 8:52 AM in reply to Cujo359
You don't change things for the better by giving more power to Republicans. You may not get to vote for who you want, but the choice is among the candidates who are actually on the ballot.
The difference between nearly any Democrat and nearly any Republican is significant enough to produce different policies. Republican policies harm people, and if we can get any distance to the left of those policies it is going to be better for people and for the planet.
Primary challenges are smart. Helping the other side win in the general election is dumb. If you want respect from the Democrats, the way you don't get it is by supporting the other side when you don't get exactly what you want.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cujo359
February 3, 2010 6:17 PM in reply to Skybolt
First of all, this response of yours is basically just a recitation of simplistic nonsense. "You don't change things for the better by giving more power to Republicans?" Is that some law of physics I slept through?
And to suggest that I, or anyone else, is saying what I'm saying merely because I'm not getting everything I want is condescending BS. In fact, that tone explains my first paragraph, because not only have you just recited this stuff as if it were a catechism and insisted it is somehow invariably true, you have now dismissed us as a bunch of little whiners. I'm not voting for Democrats because they've done absolutely nothing that I voted for them to do.
Like I said, stop being a jackass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
February 3, 2010 10:39 PM in reply to Cujo359
Condescension seems to be the proper tone with you, because apparently you have no idea what the Democrats have accomplished over the last year, and no idea how bad it will be if the Republicans re-take control of the House or Senate, and no idea how the American electoral system works.
You will be given two actual choices on Election Day: the Democrats and the Republicans. These are the only parties that have a chance to control the House or Senate. We do not have proportional representation. A vote for anyone but the Democrats is a vote for the Republicans. If you think that things in this country would not be far worse right now with the Senate, the House, or both of them in Republican control, then perhaps you have just come out of a coma.
Really, whether the Democrats have given you zero, fifty, or eighty-two percent of what you wanted is irrelevant. What is relevant is what will happen to the country if Republicans get any more power than they have now. If Republicans take back Congress this year, tantrum-throwing progressives will be just as much to blame as Republican wackos.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
February 2, 2010 9:27 PM in reply to Skybolt
you can be more strategic than that. if there's no threat of a repug winning, as is the case in many safe districts and states across the country, VOTE GREEN if for nothing else than to pressure dems to remain honest in what they claim to be.
when dems think leftie voters will line up like lemmings every election it's far too easy for them to cuddle up to corporate interests instead of those of their constituents
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
February 2, 2010 9:58 PM in reply to twirling fartknocker
Yes, this is a reasonable option in (very) safe districts. I don't really believe it makes a difference, but it's not idiotic. However, I do think that once a Democrat is in office, they are in a stronger position if they won a larger percentage of the vote. So I think it's wisest to vote for the Democrat unless you think that the third party candidate can actually win.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
February 2, 2010 10:31 PM in reply to Skybolt
Progressives/Liberals, go to hell. Just make sure you vote for us in November because we're you're only real option. Then, you can go back to hell.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
February 3, 2010 8:36 AM in reply to cawleybo
They are the only real option. I don't like it either, but that's how it is. If you want to make slow progress toward a different sort of system, you aren't going to get there by helping the Republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
February 2, 2010 11:31 PM in reply to Skybolt
Sorry, but you aren't going to scare me into supporting a center-right agenda by saying that the other side is even worse. I'm done voting for people who won't advance my interests.
It's become clear that the only way progressives are going to get any respect from the Democrats is by demanding it, and unfortunately that means watching some Dems lose some elections. But the sad fact is, no matter how much we call or write supposedly progressive Congressmen and Senators, they are going to march in lockstep with what the center-right DC Democratic leadership wants. We can't let that continue. The only leverage we have over the Dems is our vote, and to continue to give it to them while they ignore what we want is insanity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
February 3, 2010 8:44 AM in reply to NR
I don't care if the Democrats "respect" us, and I already know that they don't. Our political and electoral system, and the structure of the government, make the kind of voting (or non-voting) you're talking about a losing tactic. If you don't vote for the Democrats, you are voting for the Republicans. If you vote for Republicans, you get Republican elected officials, and that means more campaign money to Republicans, and that means more Republicans, which means more and more Republican policies.
If you don't support the Democrats in the general election you will get even less of what you want. If you want to primary every fake Dem in the country, great. That is the time to fight out these kind of disagreements. But on Election Day, the only rational thing is to vote for the best candidate who can win, and that is nearly always going to be the Democrat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cujo359
February 2, 2010 9:01 PM
Well, let's see, the Senate didn't like
- The public option
- Enforcing the insurance regulations in the bill
- being able to buy drugs from Canada, or making them less expensive in any other way, for that matter.
They do like the individual mandate, and they like the excise tax, which the House seems now willing to accept.
I think what we're saying here is that the Senate will get what it wants, and the Democrats will be the minority party by the end of November, 2012.
The one lesson these people should have learned from the DFA poll after the Massachusetts special Senate race is that a mandate without a public option will be disastrous for Democratic chances down the line. That's what they should have learned. Instead, they've decided they need to do the same things that got them into trouble in the first place, only do them harder.
They really are incredibly stupid people, assuming what they want is to remain in power.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
February 2, 2010 9:08 PM
Typical DC Democratic bullshit. "Well since the Senate didn't like it we'll just have to swallow every piece of shit they sent our way but there's no point in even trying to do anything about the most popular feature of healthcare reform in the opinion of the public. Nope. It's a dead letter." Fucking cowardly morons.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Twisp
February 2, 2010 9:10 PM
Voting against evil...
That's what the Republicans do, ain't it? I mean, that's exactly what defines the tea baggers.
I'd rather vote FOR something. So tell me, what's it going to be?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcdonald928
February 2, 2010 9:15 PM
David Kurtz sums up my sentiments when he says "one of the sadder spectacles to watch since Scott Brown's win in Massachusetts has been House progressives suggesting that now is their chance to ram a public option through the Senate."
Indeed, I'm still astounded by the delusional capacity of my friends to the farther left to think that most of the country wants what they want.
It is clear to me at least that a public option is not necessary if the special exchange set up for affordable plans is executed well enough.
The real tragedy is that we have too many people on both the far right and far left with poor concepts of democratic (small d) compromise.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cujo359
February 2, 2010 9:55 PM in reply to mcdonald928
That's because we know how to read polls like this one. That's particularly true when the Democrat's slide in the poll coincided almost exactly with the Senate vote on the health care bill. Time correlation doesn't prove cause, but combined with a buttload of polling data it certainly can.
If you think we're delusional, maybe you need to get to know a few people. Or maybe you can explain how a bill that has regulations but no provision for enforcing them on a multi-hundred billion dollar industry is going to work out well for that industry's consumers. I have yet to get an explanation from any of the condescending people like you who seem to think we're delusional. Maybe you can be the exception. Go ahead, try.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
February 2, 2010 10:34 PM in reply to mcdonald928
And some of us know the difference between compromise and capitulation.
And good luck on getting those exchanges executed properly. But, it will STILL be better than nothing, I'm sure. It always is ...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
February 2, 2010 11:24 PM in reply to mcdonald928
Yeah, it's not as if the public option was consistently supported by over 60% of the public in every poll taken on the subject over the past year. I guess I'm delusional and I just imagined all those polls. Whoops.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
February 5, 2010 12:03 AM in reply to mcdonald928
Indeed, I'm still astounded by the delusional capacity of my friends to the farther left to think that most of the country wants what they want.
Quinnipiac poll January 14, 2010:
Question #28. Do you support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans?
Yes: 59%. No: 35%. DK/NA: 6%.
Democrats: Yes 82%. No 12%
Republicans: Yes 34%. No 59%.
Independents: Yes 61%. No 34%.
Support fairly evenly spread across all age groups 18-55+ (spread 53%-68%)
Support even more evenly spread across all income groups $100K (spread 57%-62%)
85% of self-described liberals support it
69% of self-described moderates support it
Indeed, I'm still astounded by the delusional capacity of my friends in the mythical Realistic Grownup Center to think that most of the country doesn't want what that same public, consistently, in poll after poll after poll, even after months of Republican lying and mudslinging, says it actually does want.
I'm still astounded by the delusional fact-challenged status of those who purport to be the Grownup Realistic Center.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnMcCSF
February 2, 2010 9:22 PM
Gee what happened to the groundswell of support across the country for the public option????
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
February 6, 2010 11:59 PM in reply to JohnMcCSF
Gee what happened to the groundswell of support across the country for the public option????
It's right here, ignorant asshole.
That link is to a Quinnipiac poll from 14 Jan 2010. Three weeks ago as of this writing.
Question #28. Do you support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans?
Yes: 59%. No: 35%. DK/NA: 6%.
Democrats: Yes 82%. No 12%
Republicans: Yes 34%. No 59%.
Independents: Yes 61%. No 34%.
Support fairly evenly spread across all age groups 18-55+ (spread 53%-68%)
Support even more evenly spread across all income groups $100K (spread 57%-62%)
85% of self-described liberals support it
69% of self-described moderates support it
****
It's the same place it's always been, with 55-80% supporting it. Read those numbers again. 69% of MODERATES support a public option. 61% of INDEPENDENTS support it.
This is only the latest poll (that I know of). Others here have posted other polls. The support has been reflected in poll after poll after poll, from last summer until this month. Good grief.
The public option has retained strong popularity. Meanwhile the shit sandwich of a Senate bill has tanked in popularity.
Get your f$¢king head out of the sand and look at political reality, instead of looking at the world through fanboy sunglasses. Join the reality-based community, if only for a few moments.
And you guys continually pretend to be the "realistic grownups." Un. Goddamn. Believable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Troops
February 2, 2010 9:43 PM
The saddest thing for me is to see people like Kurtz and sites like TPM wasting no time in kicking progressives for their own gain and selling the American poor down the river. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
February 2, 2010 10:32 PM in reply to Troops
Some liberals posting here need to drink a big ole cup of SHUT THE FUCK UP and stop the fratricide -- attacking Pelosi, the White House, Dems in general, "The Village"(tm), or even TPM. Some of yall have spent more time over the last year engaging in friendly fire and infighting than actual pushing for a progressive agenda.
The PO died in the Senate. That's AN EXTREMELY WELL DOCUMENTED FACT that everyone knows. And that's because the Senate, as an institution, SUCKS, and it is currently filled with an assortment of spineless and corrupt idiots. Pelosi can't do jack about it.
Whining and attacking each other doesn't help us any in the fight against the real enemy = the GOP and the corporate media pals in the MSM.
And it's just not enough to be right, you have to make the case, make it loudly, make it often and win the debate in public. Obama and progressives have found this out this year.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
worthy9
February 3, 2010 1:19 AM in reply to AnswerFrog
Word is born.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
todd432
February 2, 2010 9:51 PM
Obama lost me when he showed NO support for the public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dannyluv
February 2, 2010 10:17 PM
Read my lips
No public option for me? NO VOTE FOR YOU!
Could it be simpler?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 2, 2010 10:25 PM
Reduces the deficit
keeps the industry honest
widely popular
why would the democrats try to pass that, I mean besides being afraid of the GOP calling them names, which they'll do anyway!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jimbo92107
February 3, 2010 1:18 AM
That's okay, Nancy. Most of us figured you'd blow it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
krcook
February 3, 2010 2:12 AM
Alinsky said, when you can get a little bit, take it. Rake your chips back to your side of the table. Do a little celebration dance to make the other side feel like you're gaining on them. Then roll up your sleeves, go to work, and try harder to get what you really want. Republicans know the correct rituals better than we do. Our rank and file includes an awful lot of squabbling whiners. All most of you guys wanna do is vote, and then complain later how that didn't get you where you really wanted to go.
What would the public at large think and what would the press be writing if the House progressives had applied the Alinsky method to the health care bill thats on the table now? (OK, if I were in the House I would be wrangling for a few more concessions from the Senate. But, I sure wouldn't be going on strike over it.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
February 3, 2010 7:29 AM in reply to krcook
I don't know who Alinsky is but I do subscribe to the sage of Tammany Hall's pronouncement: "I seen my opportunities and I took 'em." That what politics is all about. Hell, that's what life is all about. Still there's hope if the Dems can at least follow Keith Richards: "I never blew a second chance, no, no." We'll see.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
February 3, 2010 7:22 AM
Yeah. Democrats actually fighting for something they believe in. Such a "sad spectacle." Nothing like the proud moment like when the Senate Dems capitulated to the Republicrats and removed the overwhelmingly popular and absolutely essential public option from health care reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trippin
February 3, 2010 8:45 AM
Impeachment might be off the table, you botox-addled political hack, but putting you on the unemployment line isn't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
burndtdan
February 3, 2010 11:49 AM
Sure, the voters made it clear that they were unhappy with the Democratic strategy before Massachusetts, but why should that be any reason to change that strategy?
We're the Democrats, we refuse to learn from our mistakes! Why would we shift to try an include a provision that is popular with the same voters we are trying to court for our elections? That's just nonsense!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
February 3, 2010 12:05 PM
She is a lying scumbag, she would of killed a public option if she needed to, she just knew baucus and his wellpoint whore were getting rid of it, saved her that "heavy lifting".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Agaricus
February 3, 2010 12:57 PM
Smart politics involves both tactical compromise and philosophical clarity. We've seen a high level of attention to tactical compromise. That the tactics chosen seem to have done poorly isn't a reflection on the value of compromise. You don't say: our tactics failed, let's give up tactics! To this extent I sympathize with work Democratic leaders continue to try to do, and I value TPM's nuts-and-bolts account. But the lack of philosophical clarity in the Dem approach is also completely obvious. What is the appeal Obama is making to the country on health care? Where is he trying to take us? He seems to be nibbling around the edges of the problem, afraid to alienate or provoke the powerful. TPM seems to think Dems can win the battle of ideas by convincing people that strong, clear ideas are for wild-eyed idealists and children. TPM's point of view is: no big ideas. That's downright silly, and a sign of being confused by the noise of the daily news cycle. It's an occupational hazard. I hope somebody closer to the editors than this distant commenter can help them make a good self-diagnosis and defend their relevance more effectively.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
manyamile
February 3, 2010 6:50 PM
She's right. i respect Pelosi's efforts, her results
far more than i do Reid's.
but it is time to
just pass the bill
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Owen
February 3, 2010 9:42 PM
"the vast majority of House progressives who were hoping the popular provision might have a second shot"
Are these people for real? Those clowns need to get on with governing and stop pretending that widespread disgust with Bush Republicans was some sort of mandate. And I say this as a supporter of the public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Quelle
February 3, 2010 11:37 PM in reply to Owen
Now that the Super Majority (60 Senators) is a thing of the past, it is time for the Democratic Senators to forget about a filibuster-proof position, ignore those few Senators in the Democratic Party who wouldn't support the Public Option, and the 1 Senator who demanded the anti-abortion language. Remove the anti-abortion language. Reinsert the Public Option. This should still give us 56 votes in the Senate for A BILL THAT IS WORTH PASSING.
Then make the opposition do their damnedest to be obstructionists.
Let them filibuster something that will help millions of Americans.
Wake up Democrats... stand for something!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?