home

Pelosi: No HCR Bill Can Pass The House Without A Public Option

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:11:01 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she won’t be able to pass health-care legislation in her chamber if the measure doesn’t include a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers. “There’s no way I can pass a bill in the House of Representatives without a public option,” Pelosi, a California Democrat, said at a press conference in San Francisco today.

The Blue Dog revolt in the Senate, led by the insane and extreme Kent Conrad, is acting against the expressed wishes of President Obama:

Obama today reiterated his support for the proposal. “If we have a public option in there it will help keep insurance companies honest,” he told a group of community volunteers in Washington.

The question Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Kevin Drum and Paul Starr need to ask themselves is why are the aligning themselves against the express wishes of President Obama and with the Blue Dog position?

Speaking for me only

< The Madman Theory Of Political Bargaining: Part 4 | Thursday Afternoon Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Pelosi: No HCR Bill Can Pass The House Without A Public Option | 73 comments (73 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    "why are the aligning themselves . . . (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:18:44 PM EST
    . . . against the express wishes of President Obama"

    hopefully they do not have information about his wishes that we do not.

    Personally (5.00 / 9) (#2)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:25:48 PM EST
    the person I've been enjoying watch in this debate on reform is Weiner. The guy seems to "get" how to move the Overton window. The other day he was selling single payer as a public option, and "the" public option that made the most sense.

    that guy is looking (5.00 / 9) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:27:54 PM EST
    better and better.  I laughed out loud the other day when he smiled knowingly and said "Rahm is not returning my calls right now"

    I'll bet

    Parent

    I thought I heard on the news that Rahm and (none / 0) (#71)
    by DFLer on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 07:56:55 AM EST
    Axlerod were both on vacation.

    Parent
    Well, the reality is that we know that (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 05:48:19 PM EST
    single payer will work based on our experience with Medicare.  It is actually the most practical and sensible option on numerous levels - not the least of which is that we know how to administer it effectively and economically - and the risk pool is far, far greater.

    Parent
    Howard Dean (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 08:44:19 PM EST
    was pushing expansion of Medicare as most efficient and inexpensive way to cover the uninsured while he was head of the DNC.  What's the point of creating a wholly separate bureacracy with all of the costs and time same entails.

    Parent
    The more you look, the better (none / 0) (#57)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 07:44:16 PM EST
    single payer looks...

    Parent
    Not only that but IMO (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 08:22:23 PM EST
    it would have been easier to sell the idea to the public.

    People are familiar with Medicare. They might not understand that it is a single payer government system but the majority thinks it works just fine.

    Parent

    The Congress and White House have (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 08:11:07 AM EST
    allowed the debate to go in so many different directions - some so outrageous and ridiculous that my aversion to the public option v. single payer has increased significantly - primarly because I don't trust these people to create a whole new and necessarily complex buracracy.  I barely trust them to undertake the task of expanding Medicare at this point.

    Parent
    So, you trust insurance companies more? (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 12:34:31 PM EST


    Parent
    No. You don't understand (none / 0) (#74)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 04:06:54 PM EST
    what I am saying.  What I was trying to say is that I am becoming less and less enchanted by the public option because I think that expanding Medicare for all is probably the safest choice given how screwy and ignorant this Congress has shown itself to be throughout this process.  Keep in mind that some versions of the public option require that you pay private insurers - which isn't really a public option by my definition.  There are a lot of people attempting to pull a bait and switch here.  Harder to do when all they are doing is expanding Medicare without changing the basics of that administrator.

    Parent
    Nancy Pelosi (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:28:13 PM EST
    has always been very underrated on the blogs.

    She is fighting the good fight on this one.

    I will wait (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:30:43 PM EST
    through reconciliation to make that judgment.


    Parent
    I love you Steve (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:31:06 PM EST
    Put she's a damned pol of the first order.  I will stroke her when she does what I want and what the people of this country really need, and I will discipline her when she doesn't :)  And I'm still not buying that stupid book because I still doubt she knows how to own her own power enough to instruct me.  Maybe she'll write a second book now that she seems to have found her mojo :)

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:31:27 PM EST
    I do not trust her not to roll over for Obama when the moment comes.

    But I'll pretend for now that she is our Master of the House.

    Parent

    Pelosi (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:32:39 PM EST
    Rolled over for Bush - why wouldn't she roll over for Obama?

    But kudos to her on this one.

    Parent

    Pelosi never rolled over for Bush (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:34:43 PM EST
    Let's stick to the facts please.

    Parent
    Impachment is off the table (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:36:46 PM EST
    even before she was sworn in as Speaker?

    Parent
    Oy (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:41:08 PM EST
    Never figured you for an impeachnik.

    In the words of John McEnroe - you cannot be serious.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:44:30 PM EST
    I just think she started off badly by saying that before she even got to the table.  Gave the Bushies the pass they needed because they knew Nancy wasn't really going to give them a hard time.

    Dem Negotitation 101.

    FAIL.

    Parent

    impeachment (none / 0) (#20)
    by CST on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:48:51 PM EST
    isn't really something you negotiate.  It's something you either do or don't do.

    Parent
    Ridiculous (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:49:02 PM EST
    Nothing to negotiate or even discuss on impeachment.

    Parent
    Nonsense (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:55:42 PM EST
    You don't start off your term as Speaker of the House in a fresh Democratic win by saying impeachment is off the table, before you even get the gavel, especially when part of the reason you got the gig in the first place is that voters were tired of the Bush abuses and wanted someone to look into them.

    Nancy's been a disappointment from the beginning.

    Parent

    I'm sorry she said it the way she did (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 05:02:38 PM EST
    but since impeachment would not have been a good political decision I'm glad she didn't attempt it. She knows the people on her team - can you imagine this group of congresscritters pulling off an impeachment that was not downright embarrassing?

    Parent
    LOL! (none / 0) (#41)
    by hookfan on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 05:25:11 PM EST
    That's an excellent point I've never considered. . .

    Parent
    I shudder to think (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 07:37:55 PM EST
    and believe me, no one wanted Bush gone more than I did.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 05:04:21 PM EST
    I thought it was smart politically and obviously true.

    Parent
    Pelosi has been impressive (none / 0) (#66)
    by NealB on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 09:29:32 PM EST
    since the beginning. Lucky for us Nancy Pelosi isn't just the first Democratic Speaker of the House since 1994, but the first woman. I'm 52, so maybe overly impressed by the history-making aspect of it, but agree or not with individual decisions along the way since January 2007 when she took the gavel, she's been a team player, a true blue Democrat, and wielded her power with grace and humility.

    Say the bar had been set so low by Gingrich and Hastert that any Democrat would be better, and that would be true. Nancy Pelosi's already done better than Foley, Wright, O'Neill, and Albert, and she's just getting started.

    Parent

    Okay (none / 0) (#42)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 05:25:52 PM EST
    let me lay it out for you- despite what the RNC and its apparatchiks led many to believe during the 1990s, impeachment is not a normal tool of government, its for the most extreme cases, and while I think a case can certainly be made that the Bush admin was guilty of say war crimes, I don't personally see even that as rising to the level of impeachment (if it was many admins would arguably have been impeachable), using it as a bargaining chip would only serve to further cheapen what is essentially the single most extraordinary tool that the legislative branch weilds- the ability to remove members of the executive and judicial branches.

    Parent
    Memories... (none / 0) (#24)
    by magster on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:55:44 PM EST


    Parent
    According to you ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:43:10 PM EST
    she detests Obama.  So why would she roll over for him?

    Parent
    When did I say (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:46:44 PM EST
    Pelosi detests Obama?

    She kissed his a$$ from the primaries on....

    Parent

    You must be speaking (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:48:11 PM EST
    to someone else.

    Parent
    You made a comment (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:55:59 PM EST
    a couple days ago that was like "she detests Obama" and, based on the context, I was like Pelosi detests Obama? what? but then I realized you were actually saying that a certain TL commentor detests Obama.  I think Robot may have been confused by that same comment.

    Parent
    I had the same reaction (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Spamlet on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 05:02:14 PM EST
    That Pelosi detests Obama was news to me, after she referred to him during the primaries as a "gift from God."

    Then I realized that BTD's comment was a reply to andgarden, alleging that another commenter "detests" Obama. That commenter denied the charge, FTR.

    Parent

    Steve's right ... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:58:24 PM EST
    it was in the comments section here.

    I just looked back at it.  Re-reading it, I think you were referring to a commenter.

    Sorry for the confusion.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 05:03:28 PM EST
    Obviously you did not spend much time here during 2008.

    I wrote about Pelosi' unabashed love of Obama during the primaries. It was harmful to PArty unity at the time.

    the person who destes Obama that I was referring to is GA6thDem.

    Parent

    Note that Ga6thDem objects (none / 0) (#34)
    by Spamlet on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 05:05:31 PM EST
    to your characterization (while defending to the death, no doubt, your right to make it).

    Parent
    Got it ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 05:11:05 PM EST
    I recall your comments during the primaries.  Thought you were suggesting she'd changed.

    I don't follow every twist and turn in the House/White House relationship.

    Anyway ...

    Parent

    We'll see (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:34:36 PM EST
    I've been burned more than once by believing in Pelosi. I think before the champagne corks are popped that we need to see what the minimal acceptable public option is. If it is going to be limited in scope it will likely dismantled or eviscerated the first time the political winds shift. Both sides have no problem using the poor as political footballs.

    Parent
    Coordination (none / 0) (#61)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 08:35:57 PM EST
    between Pelosi and Admin on public option?  I don't see leadership.

    Parent
    Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Obama (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by pluege on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:51:06 PM EST
    have badly squandered the once in 80 years opportunity for real reform in America. They've delayed, obfuscated, and moved the debate so progressive isn't even on the table. Single payer is a perfect example.

    Instead, they've managed to make every issue a Herculean effort to move the debate and policy just slightly to the left of bush - they've cemented bush as the center even though the American people are far to the left of that on most issues.

    They can only be classified so far as epic failures to progressivity; for republican/conservatives, they've been just about right: adopting and legitimizing bush policies, frustrating the left and making it expend energy just to keep democrats in line (they have actually progressed nothing), and re-establishing republicans as players despite the widespread disdain among most American people for republican policies and politicians.

    Parent

    In this particular instance though (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 05:01:37 PM EST
    she appears to have done something that benefits the community. by insisting a public option remain on the table there is still an opportunity to get to single payer if it is indeed the most cost effective option.

    People who want single payer need to follow Weiner's lead. Single payer is a public option. It allows for choice while tasking the government with policing, regulating and paying premiums. Move your argument to mainstream opinion which calls for a public option.

    Parent

    Pelosi in this (and every) instance (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by pluege on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 07:43:50 PM EST
    is a follower, not a leader. You think for one second she would be saying this if the progressive caucus had not already made it crystal clear that she CAN'T PASS A BILL without a public option. No thanks to her, no leadership from her or her sycophants, or reid, or obama - they're all followers and just stating the obvious about a condition they can do nothing about. THAT is not leadership.

    Parent
    At the end of the day (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 08:57:36 PM EST
    does it really matter WHY she is saying it? I wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth. I'd build on her position.

    That's my pragmatic streak though.

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#68)
    by NealB on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 09:45:01 PM EST
    I think I know why she says what she says; so what? It's most reasonable to assume that she agrees with the progressive caucus. The progressive caucus is the heart and soul of the Democratic caucus in the House. They overwhelm anyway. It's a fortunate coincidence.

    Parent
    No real choice (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 05:53:55 PM EST
    I just admire how well she has managed to keep a very ideologically diverse caucus unified on the vast majority of votes.

    In some cases that means the left doesn't get everything it wants.  In this case she accurately recognizes that the left is not giving in.  She knows her people.

    The problem on the blogs is that if a politician goes against us on a single thing ("impeachment is off the table") then they're on the enemies list, forever dead to us.  I certainly don't agree with everything Pelosi has done, but I don't think there are many other pols who could have kept this Democratic caucus so unified for the past 3 years.

    Parent

    I've been (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by NYShooter on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 06:31:55 PM EST
    noticing that too.

    I guess it takes a woman; health care is a nurturing thing. If we can't have Hillary, Nancy is carrying the torch pretty well.

    Go, girl!

    Parent

    Pelosi rules (none / 0) (#65)
    by NealB on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 09:08:29 PM EST
    If/when this passes, I give her and the house committees the most credit.

    Parent
    A More Important Constituency (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by pluege on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:38:36 PM EST
    the insane and extreme Kent Conrad, is acting against the expressed wishes of President Obama

    Conrad and all blue dog Senate Dems are acting against the expressed wishes of the American people as evidenced in recent polling showing 77% support for the PO.

    If the Senate is supposed to be the more worldly, more national body of Congress, Conrad and all Senators frustrating the national will of the American people are expressly failing in their duty.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 05:30:02 AM EST
    but here's the rub: Conrad doesn't represent the whole country only N.D. So maybe he's acting in the interest of his constituents?

    Parent
    When you can score a touchdown (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:40:34 PM EST
    don't kick a field goal.  

    The more Pelosi or the progressives (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by magster on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:59:42 PM EST
    draw a line in the sand, the harder it will be for them to cave.  

    That SurveyUSA poll was a breath of fresh air.  

    Any chance that once the Republicans figure this public option just might pass, a group of 50 Republicans in the house announce support for a co-op compromise?  Or are they too committed to a strategy of Obama failing?

    Health care reform (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 05:15:34 PM EST
    IMO, really makes no sense if there isn't a public option.  In this chart, take away the public option, and all you have is our government handing out money to insurance companies.  How does that make sense for Democrats politically at all?  

    And Ezra hasn't really cared about the public option for at least a few months - March or more.

    More on Klein...Kind of funny - this article is super supportive of the public plan idea.  Why?  It's in the article - "In recent weeks, however, the Obama administration has put some muscle into the preservation of the public option."

    But when the context is this past week's Sebelius remarks and Obama's hedging he writes:  "The public plan is one of the entries. But only one of them. And not the one that would help the most people."

    I don't know why he annoys me so much and what exactly he does that makes me think he's deviating from his proper role.  He is sort of like a Fox News broadcaster to me.  Day to day it's what the President says that is right.  At least KO is willing to criticize Obama some of the time.  And certainly Klein's politics are plain as day.  So why not keep it real?

    There was a story by mcjoan (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by magster on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 05:22:45 PM EST
    on the front page of Kos about a study on why co-ops don't cut it.

    Parent
    Hacker certainly hasn't backed down! (none / 0) (#45)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 05:49:58 PM EST
    And Obama chose to - there was no political necessity there.

    Parent
    Read the first few pages (none / 0) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 06:45:45 PM EST
    Looks like a good study that doesn't take a medical or legal degree to understand. Plan to finish reading later.

    Thanks for providing the link.

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 05:18:41 PM EST


    Parent
    What organization put out the chart? (none / 0) (#50)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 06:41:57 PM EST
    Curious why they are assuming that only 13% (3.8m) of the unsubsidized pool (28.8) will select the public option.

    Parent
    I think the answer I arrived at (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 05:54:49 PM EST
    Is they were just trying to protect their hero from failure.

    Unless they've expressed any preference on the issue itself, I wouldn't know.  it's pretty clear to me that no matter what happens they just want to be in a position to say "that's what Obama wanted all along, isn't he magnificent?"

    Do we know what version of (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 06:09:05 PM EST
    this "must have" public option we are fighting for?  Or doesn't it matter, so long as it  is so named and high hopes exist for it someday, somehow, somewhere becoming a route to what is really needed?

    It matters to me. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 07:17:42 PM EST
    The public option must be structure so that it can survive and compete in the market place.  Hacker's study from above post link outlines important criteria:

    Good provisions are those that allow the federal government to create a public plan with a broad provider network across the United States and that help ensure that this plan can act as an effective competitor with private plans on a level playing field, obtain drug price discounts, and innovate in the delivery and financing of care. Three crucial good provisions are (1) a "Medicare tie-in" that allows the public plan to develop a broad national provider network with competitive payment rates quickly, (2) the creation of a national exchange that can give a wide range of firms, as well as uninsured Americans,  access to both the public plan and regulated private insurance options, and (3) providing the public plan with enough authority to reduce medical inflation through drug-price bargaining and innovations in the financing and delivery of care.

    He states that the House bills the House Ways and Means Committee and  House Education and Labor Committee are the strongest , containing the first two elements. The House Energy and Commerce Committee bill is weaker containing only the first elements.

    The HELP Committee bill has an even weaker guarantee that the public plan will be able to establish itself.

    From everything I've read, early indications are that the Baucus bill, if ever finalize, falls in the No Way category.

    Parent

    Sorry about the double post (none / 0) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 07:27:17 PM EST
    This is the second time this has happened to me today. Don't know what is going on.

    Parent
    It matters to me. (none / 0) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 07:17:44 PM EST
    The public option must be structure so that it can survive and compete in the market place.  Hacker's study from above post link outlines important criteria:

    Good provisions are those that allow the federal government to create a public plan with a broad provider network across the United States and that help ensure that this plan can act as an effective competitor with private plans on a level playing field, obtain drug price discounts, and innovate in the delivery and financing of care. Three crucial good provisions are (1) a "Medicare tie-in" that allows the public plan to develop a broad national provider network with competitive payment rates quickly, (2) the creation of a national exchange that can give a wide range of firms, as well as uninsured Americans,  access to both the public plan and regulated private insurance options, and (3) providing the public plan with enough authority to reduce medical inflation through drug-price bargaining and innovations in the financing and delivery of care.

    He states that the House bills the House Ways and Means Committee and  House Education and Labor Committee are the strongest , containing the first two elements. The House Energy and Commerce Committee bill is weaker containing only the first elements.

    The HELP Committee bill has an even weaker guarantee that the public plan will be able to establish itself.

    From everything I've read, early indications are that the Baucus bill, if ever finalize, falls in the No Way category.

    Parent

    In their defense-it's not easy sussing Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jawbone on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 08:19:56 PM EST
    express wishes or stands on things. Seriously.

    Glenn Greenwald things Obama has the debate (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by jawbone on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 08:26:36 PM EST
    exactly where he wanted it all along: No public option.

    Yglesias and Drum... (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by NealB on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 09:04:29 PM EST
    ...were both supporters of Bush's unilateral intervention in Iraq six-seven years ago. Enough said about them. Ezra's got to suck up in his new job at WaPo. Who is Paul Starr?

    If there's a common thread, it's that none of them seem to have much use for, or comprehension of the real life consequences for tens of millions of Americans of our disastrous health care system.

    Writing for all four of them seems to be a form a masturbation.

    Dem on Dem crime (2.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Slado on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 09:29:48 PM EST
    Interesting to watch

    Since when does (none / 0) (#16)
    by hookfan on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:43:32 PM EST
    If it is in equal I want it in ? If we don't have it in there does he care? He doesn't even state a preference. Sounds like cya to me.

    Sometime I think he likes the public option (4.80 / 5) (#26)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:57:48 PM EST
    like I like filet mignon for dinner every night. He admits it's great but will not object to being told he can't have it.

    Parent
    It's not a priority. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by hookfan on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 05:21:34 PM EST
        Something else is a priority (wonder what that could be?). So this is probably the best he could state.
       But since it's not a priority (the administration has stated so-- Gibbs stated it's only a slice) stating that those who oppose it are opposing Obama's wishes is gratuitous and overblown, unless one also assumes that by opposing it any bill getting passed is jeopardized 'cause obama needs a bill passed.
       Heck, for all I know Obama favors Baucus and Conrad 'cause it would please the insurance industry more. If so, the progressives in the house are opposing obama's wishes.

    Parent
    Of course Yglesias, Klein, Drum and Starr aren't (none / 0) (#37)
    by JoeCHI on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 05:16:51 PM EST
    closet Blue Dogs.

    They're just Obots.

    Ah, Yes, Obama wins again! (none / 0) (#69)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 11:57:03 PM EST
    He won't have to admit to a failure on health care.  He'll simply declare that was his intent all along, therefore it's a victory!  <crowd roars in the background>  

    Pelosi: No HCR Bill Can Pass The House Without A Public Option | 73 comments (73 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment