Poll: Public Thinks Democrats Should Give Something Up For Bipartisanship

I'm really tempted to use this poll and talk about how it illustrates the attitudes behind all the Administration's bipartisan kabuki play, and the need to orchestrate events that demonstrate to the public and the Beltway Asshats that there is, in fact, no amount of compromise that will get Republican votes because their opposition is entirely tactical and not in any way substantive or principled.

I'd really like to do that. But in good conscience, I can't because the simple fact is that this is a junk poll. It's about as scientific as astrology and as meaningful as as Nostradamus couplet. It's pollster malpractice and whatever company that did it is a disgrace to science and the polling industry.

Because these are blatatently leading and suggestive questions designed to generate a result that ties in to CNN's preferred narrative. They do that at CNN as much as at Fox.

And the sad part is had they done a real poll, they probably would have gotten results that supported they same narrative, but it doesn't even occur to them to try.

Didn't we *just* have an article where Cantor essentially stated that the Republicans wouldn't vote for *any* HCR bill?

Although, the poll does bring up a good point: the Democrats are the only ones who can "give up" things they want in HCR, as the Republicans don't want it at all and it's hard to split up "NO".

The second and third questions should be used in graduate-level sample surveying courses as examples of leading questions. They depend heavily on premises that the respondent is given no choice but to accept, and the premises pretty well dictates what the answers should be.

Giving up the public option was more than enough... f- giving up anything else!

Bullshit. The uneducated electorate is the Progressives' biggest Achilles heel. The average voter doesn't understand the stark differences on the Dem agenda vs. the party of No's agenda. They just see the parties as 2 sides of a coin, when really the difference is like night and day in terms of where each party wants to take the country. I blame the MSM for most of the confusion.

If you support HCR, call your Senators and Reps today and be a part of the "1,000,000 Voices for Healthcare" effort being conducted today by several pro-HCR groups.

Americans are dumb arses. Does it make sense that the do nothing hypocrites should give up less? I guess since they have nothing to offer by default they have less to forfeit? Americans are still dumb FMers

Process & Substance.

Process:
Judging from the spectacle of the President’s public humiliation, it’s evident he’s lost the support of virtually all Americans. If this is what he meant by 
‘consensus’, he’s achieved it: moderates, conservatives and liberals are united 
in their opposition.

The ‘reforms’ are variously considered a sham, trivial or an
institutionalization of the current disastrous health care system (only with 
more public subsidies to the insurance industry). The complete and utter 
powerlessness of this President is all too evident in the drama unfolding in DC, as he seeks ‘bi-partisanship’ for a proposal the voters of neither party support. 
Pity Obama, the Democrats and the nation.

Substance:
The confusion and endless gyrations evident in the plan (try reading it) are the result of trying to fit ‘reform of the system’ into the system’s current contorted, inefficient and costly contours (in other words, the plan is not a ‘reform’, but more pasting things on to a broken system).

Here’s what the people wanted when the Democrats started:

“A mere seven months ago (that would be around June 2009), The New York 
Times/CBS poll found that 72% of Americans ‘supported a government-
administered insurance plan—something like Medicare for those under 65—
that would compete for customers with private insurers.’”

From then until now, Obama has:


1. Rejected single payer; 

2. Stiff-armed the government option;

3. Mandated individuals and families pay premiums to private sector insurers; 

4. Assured billions in tax payer subsidies for private sector insurers; 

5. Stipulated actual health care service at 80 cents of every dollar, while 
insurers can spend 20 cents of every premium dollar on lobbying, ‘sympathetic’ 
candidates, CEO bonuses, ‘administration’, fighting claims for treatment and, 
now we can add, participating on the new Federal ‘rate review’ Board.

The substance of the President’s proposal is the current costly, inefficient and 
ineffective insurance system on Federal steroids.

The process, which the President invited on himself, is resulting in little more than the public pillorying of the 
weakest President since Jimmy Carter.

If Obama wanted to cast himself as a leader, this was surely his last chance, and he blew it with a plan to keep the current system in place, while supplementing it with taxpayers’ money in the form of mandated premium payments and Federal ‘subsidies’. That’s no reform at all.

With respect to 'bi-partisanship', there's been plenty back and forth, 'bargaining' etc. What has been lost is concern for the public good. Bi-partisanship is becoming the newest weapon for defeating the will of the people.

Democrats should be patted on the back for bipartisanship just by getting agreement between the Democrats and the Blue Dogs. What more do they want?

***Here's the thing. And whatever polls say is what the polls will say. But not one single Republican vote is needed to pass HCR. It's not out of the ordinary to pass health care measures with a simple majority vote. And, most importantly, considering the GOP's track record of fiscal irresponsibility there is absolutely no reason Democrats should give them the opportunity to stand up and pretend to be fiscal conservatives and talk about billions here and there.

If we are going to have summits and include the GOP to help come up with some sort of bipartisan package, then at least have the balls to cite their history on spending and challenge them with their track record. In the very least do that.***