Will Obama Drop Health Bills WhenThey Don't Have The Votes?

Wonderful use of the bully pulpit, we don't have the votes, and we won't try to get them says the White House:

In today's press briefing, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said President Obama didn't include a public option in his health care plan because it doesn't have the votes to pass.

"We have seen obviously that though there are some that are supportive of this, there isn't enough political support in a majority to get this through," Gibbs said today, according to Sam Stein. "The president ... took the Senate bill as the base and looks forward to discussing consensus ideas on Thursday."

I bet that, as of today, the Obama Proposal does not have the votes in the Senate or the House. Given Gibbs' answer, one can assume that Oama will be dropping his health proposal right after the summit Thursday.

Speaking for me only

< Court Hears Arguments in Challenge to Material Support of Terrorism Law | Carper "Expects To Sign" Letter Calling For PO Through Reconciliation >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    [smacks head to desk] (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 01:46:00 PM EST
    It's like "Dumb and Dumber" redux.

    And (none / 0) (#48)
    by cal1942 on Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 12:05:19 AM EST

    Blame game of the Exit Strategies (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by BTAL on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 02:07:08 PM EST
    As Keith Hennessey opined yesterday:

    It is possible that we are witnessing uncoordinated Democratic leaders each pursuing their own exit strategy in anticipation of legislative failure:

        * The President proposes a "compromise" and blames Republicans for being unreasonable and unconstructive.  Legislative failure is the Republicans' fault, not the President's.

        * Speaker Pelosi continues to press for a two bill strategy in which the House and Senate will pass a new reconciliation bill.  If the Senate cannot or will not do so, legislative failure is the Senate's fault, not the House's or Speaker Pelosi's.

        * Supported by outside liberals, Leader Reid points out that the House could just take up and pass the Senate-passed bill.  Legislative failure is therefore not his fault or the Senate's.

    Each of these strategies is consistent with telling your allies that you're continuing to push forward, right up until the moment you give up and blame someone else.  Of these hypothetical blame-shifting rationalizations, the President's would be the weakest.  It is common knowledge that Republicans have no procedural authority to block either Speaker Pelosi's two bill strategy, nor to prevent the House from taking up and passing the Senate-passed bill.

    Spot-on. Charlie Cook (none / 0) (#33)
    by kidneystones on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 06:31:16 PM EST
    provides the necessary back-drop for the kabuki.

    ...Cook has, of late, been extremely down on Democrats' chances -- an attitude born, he argued in the interview, of "fundamental, total miscalculations from the very, very beginning" by the White House about the direction to take the country. Cook added that the White House's miscalculations in terms of their agenda were "of proportions comparable to President George W. Bush's decision to go into Iraq."...

    Up for election Dems are only interested in one thing -- winning. The entire exercise is designed to paper over the abject failures of the majority in the house, the majority in the senate and the WH.


    Epic Fail (none / 0) (#42)
    by kidneystones on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 07:01:15 PM EST

    I listen to bbc.afrique most days. Dem fail in MA and the fall of Obama remains the big US story.

    La victoire de l'opposition républicaine dans un Etat traditionnellement démocrate traduit le mécontentement populaire et risque de peser lourd sur le reste du mandat de Barack Obama...

    Après Ronald Reagan, il est ainsi le président américain le plus impopulaire, à l'orée de sa deuxième année de mandat, depuis 1945.

    Many will be able to get the sense of this.

    Roughly: the loss of a traditionally strong Dem seat reflects the unhappiness of the nation and points to the risks of forcing the Obama agenda on the public...

    After, Ronnie, he is the most unpopular American president starting his second year since 1945.


    Glenn says it best (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 02:25:24 PM EST
    via Twitter:

    Gosh, how strange that after insisting for a year that Obama vigorously supports the public option, his first-ever plan excludes it.

    I'm gonna get a PONY!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by lambert on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 03:10:12 PM EST
    Oh, wait. I guess Glenn's pony is on back order too. Like mine.

    Ponies! (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Zorba on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 04:02:42 PM EST
    Maybe rainbow-colored ones, with wings!  Maybe not, lambert- like you, I think we've long left the "My Pretty Pony" era.  ;-)

    I think Glenn was dead-on today, (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 02:44:13 PM EST
    in his post on The Democratic Party's Deceitful Game:

    This is what the Democratic Party does; it's who they are.  They're willing to feign support for anything their voters want just as long as there's no chance that they can pass it.  They won control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections by pretending they wanted to compel an end to the Iraq War and Bush surveillance and interrogation abuses because they knew they would not actually do so; and indeed, once they were given the majority, the Democratic-controlled Congress continued to fund the war without conditions, to legalize Bush's eavesdropping program, and to do nothing to stop Bush's habeas and interrogation abuses ("Gosh, what can we do?  We just don't have 60 votes).

    The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation.  They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it.  One minute, it's Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, it's Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and "breaking with their party" to ensure Michael Mukasey's confirmation as Attorney General; then it's Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then it's Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they can't blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they don't need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.

    It's a feature, not a bug.

    I don't know why anyone ever believed Obama wanted any kind of government option - not only did his actions never live up to his words (also a feature, apparently), but how could he have supported the creation of a new program, or the expansion of one he has shown way too much interest in cutting?  

    The only thing I expect to have come out of the Summit is an announcement that in spite of the fact that Dems were willing to give the Republicans everything they wanted - and then some - the Republicans refused to go along.  "Boo-hoo...the mean Republicans knocked us to the ground, beat us up, and even though we gave them all our lunch money, they still don't like us!  Waaah!"

    The American people, meanwhile, will still be asking why the people who represent them can't muster up the courage to ever give us what we want.

    And this is just the beginning of Year Two...argh.

    One thing that Glenn failed to mention (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 03:20:07 PM EST
    in his post, is that part of the game is fund raising by individual Dems for their so called support of positions that are important to a large segment of their base. Dems raised a whole lot of money on the issue of providing affordable health care to every American.

    Yes, MO Blue, but if (none / 0) (#26)
    by Zorba on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 04:09:28 PM EST
    the Dems lose contributions from individuals for whom affordable health care is important, they can more than make up for it with contributions from the health "care" industry (and I use the term "care" very loosely)- insurance providers, medical device manufacturers, Big Pharma, etc, etc.  With its Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court has made this even easier.

    I'm thinking of responding to the (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 05:12:23 PM EST
    next request I get to contribute with, "Gosh, I'd love to help, but all my money now goes to the Great Health Insurance Racket that you guys think is more worthy of political and legislative support than making sure all Americans get affordable, accessible health CARE," but I'm sure it would go right over their heads.

    LOL! (none / 0) (#29)
    by Zorba on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 06:14:09 PM EST
    Well, when I emailed my Senators about my desires on health care reform, wanting a strong public option (and no mandate without a robust public option), etc, all I got were pro forma, totally milk-toast non-responses (and, oh, I wound up on their totally useless email-update lists).  And this is in a very blue state with two (supposedly) somewhat-to-the-left (but not, apparently, enough) Democratic Senators.  They can whistle for my money when they run for re-election, because they ain't getting any.  (And I already conveyed my opinion to the DNC, DSCC and DCCC.)  

    There are many reasons to like (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 06:27:34 PM EST
    what Mikulski and Cardin have done and are doing for Maryland, but they've been too quiet on this issue for my liking.

    I recently got a survey from the DSCC, and I let them have it with both barrels - not that they will take any of it to heart, but maybe they are getting enough similar responses to begin to get a clue that they are way, way off course.

    I think the last question was something along the lines of "Won't you make a contribution to help us in the very important work we need to do for the American people?"  My answer was "HELL NO!!! Because you stopped working for the American people a long time ago, and now you are just working for yourselves and the corporations that put millions in your campaign coffers."


    Oh, I'll (none / 0) (#36)
    by Zorba on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 06:41:51 PM EST
    vote for both of them again (absent a more liberal primary challenger, which is unlikely), but I really don't think I'll be giving them any campaign contributions- their replies to me on health care were totally disappointing.  As for the DSCC- the last time they called, I ranted and raved so much, their caller actually hung up on me!  (And I didn't use any profanity.)  My husband was practically falling off the couch laughing as he was listening to me.  Oh, well, they haven't called back since, so I guess that's something.  ;-)  

    The Surveys (none / 0) (#53)
    by cal1942 on Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 08:45:13 AM EST
    If the survey is returned without a contribution, no one will read what's been written, it'll be tossed away.

    That's okay - it was mailed back on (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 08:57:59 AM EST
    their dime...

    Sometimes, when I am feeling particularly cranky, I just cut the whole thing up into little pieces and mail it back; if they are frustrated at not being able to find a check buried in the shredded paper, perhaps they will understand how I feel about not being able to find a pony buried in the tons of manure they've been dumping on us.

    Probably not; I don't get the sense that there is enough collective intelligence there to power even a low-wattage light bulb.


    If you tell them no money until health CARE passed (none / 0) (#58)
    by jawbone on Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 03:28:35 PM EST
    they just might get the message.

    One would think our saying No VOTES until you pass it would do the trick, but, they don't seem to hear us.

    So, say, write to Dems:

    No health CARE, no Medicare for All??


    Political Bargaining (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 03:15:57 PM EST
    Mike Pense gave me a little insight into political bargaining on one of the Sunday shows. He basically said that any Republican ideas that were baked into the HCR bills in private don't count as things the Dems compromised on, because they didn't happen on the floor. I can see his point in a twisted way - even though the Republicans got many wins, they did not get as many public wins as they may have wanted.

    The Dem 'strategy' of caving before there is even a public fight in order to look magnanimous and bipartisan backfires. Well, we knew that already, but there is one reason why - the other side needs to be able to claim a victory in battle.

    I hate to say it (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 06:15:45 PM EST
    but Tweety has this right.  He's been saying for months the Republicans are like Lucy holding the football, and the Charlie Brown Dems. fall for it every single time.

    Anyone here care to address (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by BTAL on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 06:38:24 PM EST
    the fact that Obama's background is only based upon his two books?  

    Effectively, zero history of any type of leadership or executive experience.  The proverbial empty suit.

    There is a huge difference between college activism, community organizing and the big boy chair of governing.

    Youse gets whats youse pays for.

    It's very strange to me (none / 0) (#39)
    by Zorba on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 06:52:40 PM EST
    how he came out of nowhere to win the Senate seat from Illinois in the first place.  My parents lived in southern Illinois (a very red part of a blue state), and I knew he was going to win the US Senate there when I visited them and saw signs on the most red-neck of red-neck bars in their area with "Obama for Senate" signs.  You could have knocked me over with a feather.  We were all speculating if the Chicago Machine had anything to do with this.  Who the heck knows?  I don't want to get into any tinfoil hat territory, but the Machine remains very, very powerful in Illinois politics (and maybe national politics, if Barack is indeed their guy.......oh, never mind, too "Reynold's Wrap territory" for me.  I hope).

    Chicago Politics (none / 0) (#43)
    by norris morris on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 07:02:38 PM EST
    Definitely prevail in our White House.

    This is what Chicago cesspool politics looks like.


    This is exactly where (none / 0) (#44)
    by BTAL on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 07:20:36 PM EST
    the conservatives (I included) are coming from.

    Screw the birther BC crap/nonsense.

    There is zero validated history on Obama.  I'd be happy just to see some college transcripts or legislative official records from IL.  

    Even setting those issues aside, it still boils down to experience, or lack there of in this case.


    well, If Republicans hadn't elected (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by observed on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 07:27:27 PM EST
    a warmongering nutjob and then nominated a senile warmonger nutjob in 2008, they might have had a chance.
    I don't like Obama, but it's hard to say with a straight face that McCain/Palin was a better choice.

    His voting record (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Zorba on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 07:43:50 PM EST
    in the Illinois Senate is there, if you care to do the research.  Out of 4,000 votes, he voted "present" 129 times.  Link and link.  Which does sound odd, but I grew up in that area, and Illinois politics is not like the politics in most states (for which we can be eternally grateful)- voting "present" is not all that uncommon, and is meant to send a message.  I'm not excusing all this- I don't think that he had the necessary experience to be President.  A great speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004, a couple of years as a US Senator, preceded by three terms in the Illinois State Senate, seem like pretty slim political "chops."    

    Well (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 09:12:31 PM EST
    I agree that his lack of experience is/has been a problem but then it was a huge problem with Bush too and the GOP didn't seem the least bit concerned with assisiting in foisting that loser on the country.

    Didn't Bush have two terms (none / 0) (#49)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 02:24:11 AM EST
    As Governor of one of our largest states?  He was not without experience.  Obama had never been in charge of anything.  

    Yes (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 06:13:45 AM EST
    but Gov. of Texas is really pretty worthless. It's a figurehead type job so his experience level was pretty comparable with Obama. Heck, as son as he got in the Governor's office he started plotting his run for President much like Obama.

    It had that character (none / 0) (#57)
    by JamesTX on Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 11:41:20 AM EST
    in the beginning. It was a brutal campaign that took the kiddos by storm after the "rock-star" fashion (with no real selling points other than being a "first"). There was really unusual gang-like oppression of dissent or questions. They came out of nowhere on the blogs and gave little good-bad/bad-cop performances. If they could bring you around and make you abandon your question or dissent, you got a pass with a warning. Otherwise, they stomped you.

    No Credibility (none / 0) (#41)
    by norris morris on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 07:00:38 PM EST
    It's not just a mattter of inexperience.

    He has none, we know that.

    But it's a matter of ethics, character, and common sense.  All have been seriously lacking.

    Gibbs smart alec snarls and feelings of superiority that reek of elitist stupidity haven't been a help.  The others from Chicago are in an alternate universe.

    Obama's hesitant and elitist nature has prevented him from any originality or wise choices as he seems to be "run" by the Chicago pols.


    Here we agree (none / 0) (#55)
    by cal1942 on Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 09:15:30 AM EST
    Many of the people who comment here, probably the majority, were completely against Obama as nominee.

    Among the Democratic contenders for the nomination I ranked him tied for 7th place with Bill Richardson.  In other words, LAST.

    I felt then that he would damage the Democratic Party.  He has, with help of course from other Democrats.  It's a team effort.

    Empty suit indeed.  The emptiest of empty suits.


    It all makes sense now... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Makarov on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 01:55:05 PM EST
    the summit on Thursday is just to make it easy for Dems in November to ride the tide of public outrage labeling Republicans as the party of "no".

    Back in the real world, "no" to a mandate to buy private health insurance, "no" to a big giveaway to Pharma and insurers, and "no" to nebulous Medicare cuts will play pretty well.

    Here are the invitees to the summit (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 01:58:36 PM EST
    Besides Mitch McConnell, the list includes:

    Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., Senate Republican Whip

    Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., Senate Republican Conference Chairman

    Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Ranking Member Senate Finance Committee

    Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., Ranking Member Senate Help Committee

    Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., HELP Committee

    Sen. Tom Coburn, M.D., R-Okla., HELP Committee

    Sen. John Barrasso, M.D.,R-Wyo.


    Where's the single payer advocate? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by lambert on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 03:06:48 PM EST
    Ask Representatives Weiner and Welch.

    As I remarked to the staffer at Weiner's office: "It's gonna be great when we get a Democrat in the White House!"


    No One Is In The WhiteHouse (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by norris morris on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 06:25:34 PM EST
    Democrats are headed for a huge collision, and Obama's tin ear is a result of his need to be a "reformer of great legislation".

    What a sellout.

    Democrats in congress have behaved shamefully.

    Obama has made his pact with the Devil.

    We have been totally snookered and not a revolt, just a peep from our grass roots about two wars ala Bush and the rest of the garbage. Whew!


    Glad to see Wyoming... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by NealB on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 03:59:37 PM EST
    ...the least populous state (after D.C.) will be 100% represented.

    Why isn't Scott Brown's name on that list? (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 02:37:42 PM EST
    Because (none / 0) (#23)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 03:47:18 PM EST
    he's a newbie, an unknown.  The list includes only the most proven GOP a$$holes.

    Looks like a list of "No"s, (none / 0) (#50)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 02:25:54 AM EST
    Or perhaps, Hell NO's!  

    Again, the Democrats are doing the dirty work (none / 0) (#12)
    by bridget on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 02:27:30 PM EST
    for the Republicans and they will be blamed for being unable to push health care through for all Americans. For a second time around.

    Of course, the answer is YES to above qs. Besides, who believed that Candidate Obama was interested in public health care? Not me.

    What is next? Social Security. And Medicare.
    George W. knew that he had to back off privatizing SS ... so wait for Obama and the Demns to attack SS while in office.

    I recently read an excellent article about the "hand in hand" work of the Dems and Repubs. I'll post the link once I found my printout.


    It's the ratchet effect (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by lambert on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 03:08:22 PM EST
    The Great Bi-Partisan Deception (none / 0) (#35)
    by bridget on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 06:38:51 PM EST
    A Joint Mission for the Corporate Elites
    Shamus Cooke

    just found the article -

    thanks lambert, for the link

    I did read the "ratchet effect" and several other Smith articles re Stop Me Before I Vote Again.

    I am busy printing out the rest I missed.
    thanks again


    Only Nixon could go to China (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Zorba on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 04:11:27 PM EST
    And I guess only Obama can cut Social Security and Medicare.  (Sigh)

    Heh (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 02:01:33 PM EST
    After the latest Stupak statement, I believe that HCR is more likely than not dead.

    The Final Insult (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by norris morris on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 06:52:24 PM EST
    Has been perpetrated against women's rights by our Republican president, Barak Obama.

    He apparently is tone deaf about the fallout to come over this sneak attack on women.

    I have lost respect for Obama for not coming to bat for women's rights, but then he hasn't stood up for anything so far.


    I do have a sneaking suspician (none / 0) (#8)
    by CST on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 02:09:39 PM EST
    we might find out for certain the answer to the question in the title of this post.

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 02:12:49 PM EST
    It's really pathetic how badly they've bungled this.

    Almost... purposefully (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by desertswine on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 03:13:26 PM EST
    That ain't even a pulpit anymore (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 02:03:12 PM EST
    It's a shriveled frankfurter.  

    Seriously, with this kind of savvy PR, you'd have a hard time selling, scratch that, giving away charcoal at a barbeque convention.  

    Not even soft sell (no offense to shriveled franfurters), it's no sell.

    Hoyer: Failure is an Option (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by kidneystones on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 06:46:22 PM EST
    Those who dream, sometimes fall short...

    Party of no, party of no, party of no.

    Might work. I'm not seeing it.


    Per top aides (none / 0) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 02:03:24 PM EST
    on vote counts for Obama's plan for health insurance bill through reconciliation.

    More: "Top aides tell us there are not currently 50 votes for the plan in the Senate, or 218 in the House. Moderate and endangered lawmakers want the spotlight off comprehensive health reform. Instead, it's about to take center stage." link

    After Obama's performance on Thursday, the Dems need to shut up and count the votes. Either pass the bill with modifications through reconciliation or go on to something else rather than making matters worse. IMO they are going to take a political hit for wasting a whole year on creating a unpopular bill whether it passes or not.

    Count The Votes?? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by norris morris on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 06:54:05 PM EST
    This bill needs to die.

    Quickly. Or forget the Democrats.


    a large, comprehensive bill (none / 0) (#9)
    by Makarov on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 02:11:13 PM EST
    with mandates and subsidies is dead now.

    Better Thursday is spent reviewing what things Reps and Dems agree on (ending rescission, regulation to cover preventive care without deductibles and cost sharing, perhaps some form of national high risk pool or guaranteed issue without mandates).

    It won't happen, because Obama, Rahm, Gibbs, etc are just too dumb.


    I don't really think any of them are dumb (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 02:40:33 PM EST
    as in unintelligent or uneducated.  But there opinion of what should happen does not seem responsive to the wishes of those who voted to elect Obama to the Presidency.  

    Unless their plans (none / 0) (#22)
    by Makarov on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 03:40:47 PM EST
    included Obama being a one term President, they've been acting dumb since they took over the White House.

    I could laugh (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 07:59:18 AM EST
    if the hot breath of insurance company corruption wasn't constantly felt on the back of neck.  I'm furious with the President, completely furious.  The only thing that was going to help any of us was a public option and he is a liar and he never wanted one.....not ever!

    Well, don't feel too bad MT (none / 0) (#56)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 10:47:05 AM EST
    The "public option" was never actually going to help anyone, because it never really existed except as a marketing slogan/sop to pacify people who wanted real reform. They made up this cool-sounding term that could be anything its advocates wanted or pretended it to be--they're good at this, it was Obama's whole campaign, remember?--and then pretended that "the battle over the PO" was the centerpiece of the healthcare-reform battle.

    It wasn't. It never existed. It's like the Hopeychangey Antiwar Brilliant Intellectual Obama, he never existed either, except in the fevered imaginations of his supporters. Anyone who fell for the "Public Option" hoax was just falling for the same con job, put out by the same people.

    Obama didn't want any "reform" that would deny one dollar, one penny, to the insurance companies, and that's the underlying problem here. He never wanted it (or if he did he changed his mind very quickly) and he made sure nothing that had a whiff of real reform--even the nebulous and undefined "public option"--ever saw the light of day.