I don't know which was more insulting: "60 Minutes"' Steve Kroft's blithering, decontextualized indictment last night of the federal government's ability to competently manage a "medical bureaucracy," or the anonymous Democratic aide who mentioned last week to the NY Times that "There is a growing sense that we need to lead on [the public-option] issue and not wait for it to be offered on the Senate floor. The idea is that it’s better to show some fight."
OK, so neither Kroft's cheap shot or Sleeping Beauty's missed opportunity makes much difference at this late stage -- now, that is, that the public option has been officially downgraded by observing realists from a political hurricane to a topical storm. Still, both demonstrated, and rather vividly, the sad extent to which comprehensive health-care reform has been mangled, from execution to coverage.
For in the beginning, no one bothered to count Democratic heads in the U.S. Congress: not its leadership, not the White House. No one. The fanciful concept of a public option (despite its not infrequent mindless bugabooing by some media) just sort of took loose hold among America's middle -- depending on which polls one reads -- and definitely, concretely, among the left.
But where the concept actually counted -- in, that is, the upper legislative body that would actually legislate a "robust" public option and thereby influence the lower chamber -- it was drifting about in a whirlpool of doom all along.
As the Times framed it somewhat wistfully on Friday: "A clear majority of Democratic senators favor a government-run plan." The paper failed to specify, for the arithmetically challenged, that this "clear majority" translates into only a few more than 30 votes. The majority of the majority, then, is a decided minority; it always has been.
And now that the majority/minority leader, Harry Reid, has signaled that he may humor public-option fans with some sort of public-option lookalike, "centrist senators" -- translation #2: conservatives -- have "come together in an informal group to resist creation of a uniform nationwide public insurance program."
They're the usual suspects. Republican Susan Collins expressed an extortionist "unease" about any kind of public option, noting that "In a 60-vote scenario, it is the centrists potentially who will hold the balance of power"; and colleague Olympia Snowe urged "the necessity of taking it slow ... We must not rush this train out of the station" -- since, I guess, it's only about 70 years overdue.
But those are the more usual of the usual suspects. What no one, apparently, in the Democratic Party's leadership ever counted on -- quite literally -- was that a Republican "balance of power" would be needed within a filibuster-defying, Democratic majority of 60.
Which is to say, what the leadership failed to count were immovable sentiments like this one, from Democratic Senator and "informal group" member Mary Landrieu: "I am pressing to get a government-run, taxpayer-supported public option out of the bill [note the 'taxpayer-supported' disinformation]. I want to rely on a reformed private marketplace" (cheer up, Mr. Kroft). Or Democrat Ben Nelson, who, as the Times put it, "said [he] did not like the idea of a uniform government-run insurance plan even if states could opt out."
"States should have the opportunity to deal with this," said Nelson, "without a national public option." Well, that's a fine platitude, but it leaves us without even an embryonic national solution to an enormous national problem, meaning we're back to Square One, from which his party thundered, in 2008, it would deliver us.
Ah, but on the other hand, surely Mr. Nelson would at least vote to overcome a filibustered watered-down public option, right? And that's precisely what CNN's John King asked Nelson yesterday morning on "State of the Union": Would the Democratic senator help, at a minimum, to clear a procedural path to permit an up-or-down Democratic vote?
Replied Democrat Nelson: that would be a "reckless" pledge. Translation #3: No.
Meanwhile, authentic Democrat Sherrod Brown was, on the same program, taking the more adult position: "I don't draw lines in the sand. I've gotten a lot of pressure from progressives saying, draw a line in the sand. I don't want to do that. I want to get the best bill possible."
And all along, the "best bill possible" has meant an effectively public optionless bill.
In retrospect we know that was the case; it's just that no one bothered to count the votes until late summer, which was when the White House went (so it seemed, to some) mysteriously silent about the progressive provision.
But back to that opening quote from a "senior" Democratic aide: "There is a growing sense that we need to lead on [the public-option] issue.... The idea is that it’s better to show some fight."
In short, blow some more smoke, you know where. And in that idea, I fail to see the fight; I see only an insult to intelligence.
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net
Still waiting for that
Still waiting for that Hillary-Harriet Christian trainwreck?
???
???
The Gloves are off! Progressives on the attack!
'The Democratic majorities in the Senate (60/40) and the House (258/177) are large enough to pass a "public option" even with no Republican support. But a handful of conservative "Democrats" are blocking the will of the Democratic majority.
These conservative "Democrats" refuse to listen to the Democratic voters who elected them. That means it's up to our Democratic leaders - Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and President Obama - to persuade them.
We will not accept a weak public option or worse, a "trigger." We want a robust public option (based on Medicare rates, not negotiated rates) that is nation-wide (with no state opt-outs), administered by Medicare (not a for-profit insurance company) and available immediately.
That is why we are joining together in a Democratic donor strike against the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC until the Democratic Congress passes - and President Obama signs - healthcare reform with a robust public option. Until then, we will only donate to individual Democrats who will truly fight for us.'
http://www.democrats.com/donor-strike-for-public-option
Perhaps we should also hold back donations to Buzzflash until they get rid of Conservative Carpy?
Civilized Society Healthcare
I could pass a kidney stone the size and texture of a farking mature pineapple with greater ease than what this Congress of oligarchy-loving lap dog suck ups; paleofascistic, homophobes; pederasts; microcephalics; reptilian brained; racist misogynists; closet fellators; cretins; twisted-minded, twittering twhits and twhats and run-of-the-mill misanthropes called Congress will pass the truly meaningful comprehensive healthcare legislation deserving of any civilized society.
Corporate personhood is a crime against humanity!
The Skeptical Cynic hath spake!
It is truly written in the sands of time...
One must never spit in a man's face.
Unless, of course his mustache is on fire...
The Misinformation campaign continues unabated
The only thing insulting that I can gleen from this article is that Carp is either an incompetant political analyst or is continuing to deliberately mislead his readers on the liklihood of Congress passing a genuine public option.
In the House, Pelosi is only a couple of votes from passing the MOST ROBUST of the plans--Medicare + 5. Some of the more moderate members are now withholding votes to obtain largess for their districts, you know the game. But with some compromising she'll get the votes for for something genuine.
In the senate, Reid is reportedly 2 votes from ACHEIVING CLOTURE on the state opt-out provision--again, a fairly robust plan. Now Carp would have you believe democrats (like Nelson) are in danger of filibustering their own party's bill when it hasn't happened in the history of this country to my knowledge.
Hey Carp, got news for ya. All we need is 50 votes in the senate to pass an opt-out bill, and we have it. We only need the bill to get to the floor. And to get that, we need something every other majority in the history of this republic has had--PARTY DISCIPLINE ON CLOTURE VOTES. Without that, you really don't have a party, do you. You have anarchy.
But your contention, apparently as a historian, is that this time is different. We are, according to Carp, about to witness a political anomoly of historic proportions.
Really?
Jeez, why do I keep having to clean up your rhetorical messes?
As for Obama, he apparently distrusts Reid's ability to count votes and so would rather go for the safer "trigger" option to get the bill out of the senate and into conference where he can really weigh in for the first time--ostensibly in favor of the most robust PO he can get. Do I believe that? At this point I don't believe it or disbelieve it. I'll believe it when I see it.
But for you to paint this cynical, misguided picture of what is actually happening up there is nothing short of political malpractice. There will be more compromising and weakening to be sure, but the president will sign a healthcare bill into law that contains a public option with a state opt-out clause.
I don't even know why I read this colum anymore--except, perhaps, for the daily trainwreck it has become. I'm just a gawker turning my head in sore amazement.
Carpy's hoping for failure, again
Yes, the insult to our intelligence comes from Carpy's smoke blowing.
Why doesn't Buzzflash just fire this propaganda ranting DINO already?
Now he is resorting to out right lies and distortions in pushing his pro corporate, anti public option crusade.
There is no question that the majority of people in this country want the public option. Plus there is no question that the Senate will have at least 50 votes in support of the public option, and not in the lower 30s, as Carpy contends.
So why is Carpy trying to disuade and dishearten the readers of Buzzflash? Meanwhile, real progressive bloggers actually encourage their readers to take action and fight for the public option.
And why does Buzzflash continue to allow this K Street trash to appear on its website?
What? No 12-dimension chess argument, PM?
Funny how you managed to write that whole piece without mentioning the elephant in the room. I'll help you out. It starts with an "O", ....
........ and ends with a "bama" ....
BTW - Who are these people that "gave up their jobs, their relationships and their lives ... to campaign for Obama"? Man, ......
.... have they gotta be kicking themselves....
As opposed to not kicking themselves for not voting for McCain/P
So what's your point Yman? We already have Snow on our side. You are posting old info.
Plus, Progressives already know Obama is in the pocket of big business, along with the other Blue Dog DINO-Fascists who are trying to hijack the Democratic Party, the same way the Neocon-Fascists hijacked the GOP a decade ago.
Because of their loyalty to the upper 1% plutocracy, the GOP got voted out of power over the last two election cycles. Now it is time to vote out the DINOs in the up coming Democratic Primaries early next year.
My point is, .....
..... Carpenter continually points the finger at Reid and Pelosi (and the Congress in general), while continually ignoring Obama's refusal to actually lead.
"Old info"???? What are you talking about? The Progressive Change Campaign Committee just came out with this ad.
BTW - When did Progressives figure out that "Obama is in the pocket of big business"? Strange, .....
....... since that's not what they were claiming last year.
surrender America
I see the point of your argument now PM America should surrender and let big corporations run this country.Why fight anything big business wants just let them make us cattle.you've got your wish PM,i surrender,I don't care which corporate party ruins America,sieg heil big business you've won