Breaking! Obama Traded Public Option For Deal With Hospitals!

Ok, maybe not breaking, but damned funny the way it was confirmed today by Tom Daschle. Glenn Greenwald was called a lunatic by the dishonest Jon Chait of The New Republic because Glenn pointed out what, Matt Yglesias now tells us, "many people have long suspected."

So apparently, the need for precision and accuracy is situational for the Beltway Bloggers.

Speaking for me only

< The Long-Term Challenge: Next Steps for Healthcare Reform | Disagreeing With The Beltway Bloggers Means You're Nuts >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Think Dascle will be Chief of Staff? (none / 0) (#1)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 07:15:36 PM EST

    There's a lot of (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 07:21:11 PM EST
    rumblings bout that. As MT says just shoot me now. Might as well just cancel the midterm election. No need for the GOP to spend any money on ads when Daschle will just hand them the keys anyway.

    Backpedal backpedal backpedal (none / 0) (#3)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 09:37:45 PM EST
    Saschle takes back hismown book. He has always been laughable.

    Same thing I posted in reply to Greenwald... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Romberry on Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 09:52:25 PM EST
    From my post in the letters at Salon:

    In the parlance of DC, Daschle committed a gaffe by telling the truth. Now he has to walk it back and explain why the truth isn't the truth.

    That "the" public option (scare quotes on purpose) was never really on the table is no longer debatable. Hell, it wasn't really debatable at the time for those who were paying attention and retained the capacity to be intellectually honest about what they saw. But even "the" public option was a ruse as by the time the coup de grâce was administered, "the" public option (always ill-defined) had been whittled down to utter meaningless insignificance: "The" public option at the end was not a plan for a robust, open to all public plan. It was no more than a public option in name only, one that would be available to very few who did not have and could not get insurance any other way (and therefore not an option open to the public.)

    My disgust over the health insurance give away and the neo-feudal corporate servitude that is the core of the "plan" remains in place. It was not a step forward, it was cement boots around our collective feet designed to keep the private, for-profit obscenity of our current health care system in place via force of law.

    Like I said, Daschle (in a momentary lapse) told the truth. And the truth is a gaffe.

    Pardon my anger, but #&$A#@ these people. After all, these people have #&$A#@d us. Well and truly.

    Another point I have been making, thanks to Tommy Douglas (the father of Canadian health care), is that deciding between the two major parties is like being a mouse trying to decide between cats. One may eat you a little faster, but they both eat you just the same. (See the story of Mouseland.)


    Great metaphor (none / 0) (#5)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 11:15:29 PM EST
    "it was cement boots around our collective feet"



    Fundamentally flawed process (none / 0) (#6)
    by Babel 17 on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 08:35:06 AM EST
    Reminds us why the HCR process was a travesty

    The truth was being held hostage in a corner, bound and gagged, and if we wanted to participate we were expected to behave as if this was not the case.

    The evidence was suppressed.

    Heh, many suspected..... (none / 0) (#7)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 08:43:27 AM EST
    but just couldn't, couldn't bring themselves to believe.  

    Anyhow, to the dishonesty, from Chait

    The problem is that left-wing critics like Greenwald have allowed their sense of betrayal in issue areas where Obama wields tremendous influence to bleed over into issue areas where he does not.

    In the public option fight, Obama may have personally wanted there to be a public option, but he had to know it just was not feasible.  There were no levers he could pull to influence the biggest factor - cost, that would've allowed a real discussion on the public option.  Hence the speaking out of both sides of his mouth on the issue.

    While I agree these folks aren't necessarily honest all the time, I don't think this is a good example.  I think Greenwald misses Chait's point.