I think he will put in a Public Option (0.00 / 0)

He has very little to lose.  He has the support of many progressive groups and very poor leadership numbers among the average citizens.  He really has nothing to lose if he intends to be a one term president.

---

by: Money Man @ Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 18:36:08 PM CDT

Obama's preference is probably a PO (4.00 / 2)

But its pretty obvious that the WH long ago stopped approaching these negotatians with a policy implementation strategy and have been going with a "what will get this passed" strategy. That's why, as Chris said, its imporant for us to make the WH believe that what's politically expediant is the inclusion of a PO.

---

by: ai002h @ Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 19:48:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

He will lose insurance industry money. (4.00 / 2)

That's why he didn't want a public option, and had to be forced into it.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 21:04:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not to sound like an apologist (0.00 / 0)

but is there a scenario in which democrats (meaning Obama and leadership in congress) actually want a public option but in which it was to their advantage to make it seem they were still unsure? What would happen if Obama threatened to veto a bill without a public option? I can easily picture Republicans, lobbyists, insurance companies, right wing media converging on this point and applying enormous pressure on democrats, using every means available to stop it. And then what would happen if congress were actually forced to pass a bill without a public option? That would be rather disastrous politically, no? Perhaps a wishy-washy approach for now is better since Obama doesn't have to draw a line in the sand, which he might eventually have to cross, and the opposition can't get organized enough to stop it in time since they can't be sure if it will actually be there. I get the feeling Obama does want a public option but that the cost/benefit of drawing a line in the sand is too high. In other words, I'm not sure it improves the likelihood of a public option in the final bill if Obama puts himself on the line. Not a very popular opinion here (multidimensional chess and all that), I know, but just a thought.  

---

by: frankenheimer @ Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 18:38:59 PM CDT

Pushing for something, and making the case for something (4.00 / 3)

is not the same as drawing a line in the sand. There is a lot of space between a veto threat and a "wishy washy" approach.  Republicans and the rest did in fact converge on the public option, and they did in fact put as much pressure on possible on Democrats to end it.  No need to imagine. But of course, they could just as easily be using death panels or "illegals" or some other made up nonsense. Indeed, they will call it a government take over no matter what the content of the bill. Democrats, on the other hand, did little to mobilize, in part because no one knew what was in the bill or what the White House was truly committed to.  

Voters don't like wishy washy. Politicians and lobbyists don't respect wishy washy.  The DC establishment saw the 'I'm for it but it's not the important and I won't fight for it' talk as kubuki to appease the base. Losing a fight is less politically disastrous than appearing as if you don't stand for anything, or worse, appearing bought and paid for.

Who are the best keepers of the people's liberties? The people themselves. The sacred trust can be no where so safe as in the hands most interested in preserving it.
James Madison

---

by: David Kaib @ Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 18:49:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't think there's that much space (0.00 / 0)

Either you're for it, against it, or ambiguous in one direction or the other. If you make a case for the public option (which Obama has), then you must be willing to veto, otherwise it will be viewed as not strong enough. There's no way around that. Obama has been repeatedly asked if he's willing to veto as is. Imagine if he made a big push. They would be asking Gibbs daily about it, and Obama whenever he had a press conference -- "Yes that's all good, but are you willing to veto?" The difference between a strong or weak position on this issue is the willingness to use a veto, there's no middle ground. Otherwise, it's just words.  

I also think politicians, by necessity, can never truly stand for their convictions and be successful at their jobs, except in particular cases where the convictions happen to match certain favorable conditions -- being from a district that supports your views entirely, being independently wealthy, not caring about being voted out, there being nothing at stake (ex, Nelson voting yes on the public option on a vote destined to lose), etc.  

Also, I don't think we've seen the worst of the right wing on the public option. Anytime Obama draws a line in the sand, the premium on defeating that particular agenda increases proportionality. The noise would be unbearable. Look what happened when he staked his credibility on the Olympics? But since he hasn't, the focus has been on other issues -- medicare, death panels, etc. Ambiguity has strategic advantages, even if it appears hopelessly wishy-washy from the outside.

That being said, I agree with most of your views. I just don't expect politicians to be clear on most issues since their livelihood depends on being ambiguous out of necessity, especially in a case where there is no guarantee that a public will make it out of the senate or house. The real problem is the lobbying it seems to me.

The tea leaves look promising for a public option though. I hope it's there, and I hope people keep applying pressure, because it has made a significant impact.

---

by: frankenheimer @ Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 20:02:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This should be telling. (4.00 / 2)

Both the White House and the Senate want to blame dropping the fake public option on someone else.  This should indicate two things.  First, no one really wants to pass health care reform, not even the pretense of it (which is what the so-called "public option" has been all along).  Second, no one wants to bear responsibility for killing it, but the major players involved all want someone to do just that for them.

But right now it's not the Republicans making the most obvious and concerted efforts in the Legislature to prevent any sort of reform; it's the Democrats who are trying to ensure no reform ever passes (not intact, anyway).  The Democrats realize what a shit storm they'll create for their prospects of maintaining control of the Legislature if they blow this.  But neither can they afford to risk offending their corporate owners by passing something that works.  This is where we must step in to turn up the heat.  Instead of demanding that they cave in and pass some toothless bill that won't cover everyone and that won't even kick in until 2013, we should make every effort to pressure the Democrats into passing H.R. 676 - intact.  We must let them know in no uncertain terms that they've been allowed to play games long enough; it's time to pass something meaningful, and let them know the awful consequences for refusing the demands of their base.

The truth is out: the frauds the electorate put in office have been exposed as opponents of the very thing they promised their party's base.  We can call them on it and demand something real, or we can keep timidly pushing for something doomed to failure and watch even that disappear.

---

by: Michael Kwiatkowski @ Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 18:42:31 PM CDT

I'm with you on this one. (4.00 / 1)

When I look at this page and see the ad showing Stephen Hemsley's house and realize that it's the Democrat congress that's to blame for paying him.

Yes, we have truly frauds in power positions and have only ourselves to blame.  

---

by: Money Man @ Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 20:09:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Slowly but surely… (0.00 / 0)

...the obstructionists are being moved aside. I actually think the President truly wants to "own" this legislation, to be where the buck stops as a show of the kind of strength he hasn't exhibited thus far. It'll be good for him going into 2010. The good news is that the populace is kinda on the left side of this debate, just like they were last Election Day. For once, the real pressure is coming from our side, which is why us lefties should be thinking bigger, completely ratcheting up the debate on this thing.

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams

---

by: tru blu @ Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 00:29:52 AM CDT

The "Public Option" won't make into the final bill... (4.00 / 1)

and the prog/libs will be blamed.

Gay-ron-FUUKIN'-TEED, chers...

---

by: konopelli @ Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 10:25:26 AM CDT

Oh, I forgot: And Obama will sign any piece of shit 'bill' (0.00 / 0)

that gets to his desk.

He's GOTTA have something to show for all this bullshit kabuki. He's GOTTA somehow blunt the critics who'll call him a failure if NOTHING gets signed...

So there'll be some kind of bullshit 'bill' that will pander to the health insurance parasites, and make nominal nods to the People, but it'll be bullshit.

---

by: konopelli @ Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 10:28:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]