Skip to main content

Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 8/31-9/3. All adults. MoE 2% (No trend lines)

Do you favor or oppose creating a government-administered health insurance option that anyone can purchase to compete with private insurance plans?

         Favor  Oppose  Not Sure
All        58      34      8

Dem        81      12      7
Rep        26      69      5
Ind        57      33     10

Northeast  69      22      9
South      47      46      7
Midwest    61      31      8
West       59      33      8

The public option remains popular, by a nearly 3-2 margin. Seems like people like the idea of competition in the insurance market, that would help lower premiums and keep currently unaccountable insurance companies honest.

What's more, the public option is favored by over a quarter of self-identified Republicans, which is more "bipartisanship" than you'll ever see in DC. And if you look at the regional crosstabs, support for the public option would be even higher if it wasn't for the South, were birtherism and Obama derangement syndrome is at its highest.

If a candidate for office opposed a public health insurance option would that make you more or less likely to vote for that candidate or would it have no real effect on your vote?

         More    Less    No Effect
All        23      36     41

Dem         8      58     34
Rep        58      12     30
Ind        17      32     51

Northeast  12      46     42
South      36      25     39
Midwest    19      40     41
West       21      37     42

Opposing the public option is electoral poison in every region of the country except the South, while both Democrats and Independents are willing to punish opponents of the public option at the ballot box.

Democrats have a national electoral mandate, they have public opinion on their side, they have dominant majorities in both chambers of Congress, and they have the White House.

No wonder Independents and Democrats are abandoning the Democratic Party:

Change in Favorability: Democratic Party (From 6/4 to 9/3)

OVERALL: - 10 (From 49 to 39)
DEMOCRATS: - 17 (From 84 to 67)
INDEPENDENTS: - 12 (From 48 to 36)
REPUBLICANS: No Change (From 4 to 4)

Change in Favorability: Republican Party (From 6/4 to 9/3)

OVERALL: +3 (from 20 to 23)
REPUBLICANS: +12 (from 61 to 73)
INDEPENDENTS: No Change (From 11 to 11)
DEMOCRATS: +2 (From 4 to 6)

Democrats and Independents voted Democratic to get stuff done. Democrats are showing that no matter how big their margins, no matter how popular the policy, they are still too incompetent to get anything done.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:28 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Being corrupt *is* kinda stupid. And evil. nt (6+ / 0-)

      No more money for non-progressive Democrats from me, ever.

      by iconoclastic cat on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:31:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And this corruption (13+ / 0-)

      is going to get a lot of their sorry asses thrown out on the curb.

    •  and come on - (6+ / 0-)

      What the hell are we supposed to do with blue dogs who derail things even more so?
      It's so simplistic to write this:

      Democrats and Independents voted Democratic to get stuff done. Democrats are showing that no matter how big their margins, no matter how popular the policy, they are still too incompetent to get anything done.

      And other that yelling "let's primary them", what can anyone do?
      They are a thorn in our side, and will remain that way.

      "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

      by Christin on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:36:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, let's just give up. (6+ / 0-)

        Let the blue dogs win.

        They "prefer an America where parents will lie awake at night worried if they can afford health care their children need."

        by TomP on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:38:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  stop it. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Boston to Salem

          not in the mood for your b.s. games today.
          i'm still annoyed with your crap about how you  continually post what a great progressive you are, and anyone that does not agree with your tactics is a weak centrist.
          nowhere did i write "let's give up" so don't play your "i hear what i want to hear'" nonsense.

          what i am saying is that these assholes don't want to budge, and won't.
          so they will try to thwart change, and will hold up what they can, and the pubic perceives this as all Democrats being weak.

          "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

          by Christin on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:43:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So - then... (4+ / 0-)

            ... is the solution not to primary them

            Or do you have an alternate solution?

            You say that they won't budge, that they make the Democrats look weak.  OK, I agree.  My own solution would be to primary them.  Do you have a different one?

            Co-op is a cop out. It is not an option, let alone a public one.

            by JRandomPoster on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:48:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't know. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              YucatanMan, alkalinesky

              That's why I'm so frustrated.
              They are like a cancer that chemo can't get too at this point.
              And they are effing everything up.

              "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

              by Christin on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:56:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Look, they represent their constituencies (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Christin

                if you want change, change their constituencies' minds.  Advertise, do grass-roots stuff, whatever, but that's how.  If you simply primary them, you go down the Club-for-Growth road.  

                Be prepared not to get everything hoped for this time around.  Be prepared also, to move ahead and keep things going in the right direction.  Remember, JFK wanted civil rights legislation, Medicare, etc., but couldn't get it done.  LBJ did due to a number of factors (JFK's death, Goldwater's implosion, etc.).  

                "The degree of responsibility increases as we draw further away from the man who uses the fatal instrument with his own hands." Israeli Court, Eichmann Trial

                by dizzydean on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:14:49 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  agreed. which is why the primary them! yells (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dizzydean

                  are beyond boring.
                  it's how i started this - by throwing around simplistic statements we don't do ourselves any favors.

                  christ - i was in a recc'd diary last week in which the 80 percent of the commenters were yelling that my congressmen, who is a ally and friend to all progressives, needs to be taken out.
                  it was surreal.
                  and I got a taste of what it feels like to have a bunch of out of staters try to insert themselves in our business with yells of primary him!!!!!!!!
                  our congressman does an outstanding job for my district, my state, and this country.

                  "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

                  by Christin on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:26:56 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Too often, though... (0+ / 0-)

                  ... their "constituencies" are the monied lobbyists.

                  This is what makes them so reheprensible.  If it was just a case of the folks in their states thinking that, in this case, a PO would be absolutely terrible, that would be one thing.  But it isn't in too many cases.  Rather, the folks in their state aren't even getting represented, and the rest of us are getting screwed right along with them.

                  Co-op is a cop out. It is not an option, let alone a public one.

                  by JRandomPoster on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:43:42 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I would disagree with you (0+ / 0-)

                    For example, the latest polling in AR (if reliable) has the PO with a 60% unfavorable.  If Lincoln and Pryor vote according to their constituencies, then we lose two votes.  See Kos's poll for NE--it's not favored there (do we lose nelson?).  Ditto for LA.

                    Bottom line is that as things are right now, there are not 59 votes in favor of the PO if the Sens vote according with their constituencies.  Maybe 52-54.  

                    "The degree of responsibility increases as we draw further away from the man who uses the fatal instrument with his own hands." Israeli Court, Eichmann Trial

                    by dizzydean on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:49:53 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Which is still enough. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      missississy

                      The whole 60 vote thing is a myth anyway.  I still say let them filibuster.

                      I'd also note that when PO was polling at 76% approval prior to the vacation and the big money push by the insurance industry, then by voting with their constituents wishes, we would have had a public option.

                      But no - they wouldn't vote with their constituents then.  They stalled, they allowed time for the lobbyists to deliver the goods, and to run the big money ads.

                      And of course, if we continue with the delays and games and lack of lines in the sand, the 1.4 million per day being spent against a PO will truly turn the entire health care reform thing into just a cash pipeline into the insurance companies.

                      I realize that folks are getting weary, that this fight has gone on long enough.  However, it seems like more and more folks are willing to accept reform that is really reform in name only these days just to be done with it.

                      Co-op is a cop out. It is not an option, let alone a public one.

                      by JRandomPoster on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:56:44 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Thank you for personal insults. (5+ / 0-)

            I dispute your depiction of how I post as untrue and rather maliciously made.  

            As for blue dogs, let them not budge.  The Progressive Caucus will not either and there is no bill and blue dogs lose.  

            Democrats are weak if they cannot push around a few blue dogs. That is what "weak" means.  

            They "prefer an America where parents will lie awake at night worried if they can afford health care their children need."

            by TomP on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:52:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Please. I had to call you out on it in the one (0+ / 0-)

              recc'd diary the other day.
              You wouldn't stop saying it.
              And it was said in a sneering, snide manner.
              Again. And again. And again.
              Anytime someone did not agree with the tactics of going after our allies, you claimed they were centrists in the way of progressives such as yourself and those who were going after those who are on our side.  
              Easy to find and pull up.
              But why should  I have to
              So please spare me the "who me?" and personal insults nonsense.
              You did what you did.  Why refute it now?
              This is why I said I"m not in the mood for  games today Tom.
              This hurt feelings stuff is waste of everyone's time.

              "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

              by Christin on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:01:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You seem (4+ / 0-)

                to think that I realluy care about your illusions about me and how you "calld me out."  That heroic effort by you seems to be in your head alone.

                You are rather insulting and rude.    

                You claim not to be in the mood for games, but that is all your comments have been with me here. Personal insults, strange depirtctions of reality in which you "called me out" somewhere and some weird battle you are having with me that I seem to be unaware of.

                My feelings are not "hurt" by some person on a blog.  My God, who cares what you think of me?  

                You insult and I identify the insults.  It's not political discusion in which you engage, at least not in this thread.  It is a series of personal insults.  

                So have fun.  I am sure you will add a reply full of personal insults.  Knock yourself out.  I find it boring.    
                 

                 

                They "prefer an America where parents will lie awake at night worried if they can afford health care their children need."

                by TomP on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:08:20 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  then stop. as i told you from the first time (0+ / 0-)

                  you responded to my post with meaningless garbage  about giving up.
                  i honestly  don't think anything about you, other than get annoyed with you post false statements about how you are a progressive and those of us who don't like the tactics you endorse are centrists, period.

                  as for the heroic effort nonsense - i have no clue as to what you're even talking about now.
                  you were insulting commenters in the diary.
                  I simply wrote a post telling you to that you were not helping, and should stop throwing out snide remarks how they were centrists bent on destroying the soul of the party.
                  if you want to define that as some kind of bizarre heroic efforts in my head, go for it.

                  And if you find it boring, then don't attach yourself to a comment I made in which you twist my words around, then cry who me?  and think that's acceptable behavior.

                  "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

                  by Christin on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:21:01 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Blue Dogs won't lose (0+ / 0-)

              The history is clear - those Dems voting against the Clinton budget and the assault weapons ban from Republican leaning districts all won in 1994.

        •  Is it never possible for anybody (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Christin

          to ask a difficult question without getting some bullshit reply about "giving up"? Man, my Hide finger is itching but that would be wrong.

          Everybody talkin' 'bout Heaven ain't goin' there -- Mahalia Jackson

          by DaveW on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:53:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  -- A robust public option for campaign finance. (6+ / 0-)

        Make the necessity of dialing for corporate dollars an ancillary financing mechanism.

      •  Let them fail to be reelected (0+ / 0-)

        Noone in the Progressive caucus will suffer if there is no healthcare bill.

        If there is no healthcare bill the Bluedogs will lose 20 seats in the house.

        GOOD!!

        http://dumpjoe.com/

        by ctkeith on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:41:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  really. you think it's that simple? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tnproud2b

          many of them are popular in their districts, which lean conservative as it is.
          if they fail to get re-elected, it will be because the GOP base comes out in force.
          not because they didn't vote for PO.

          "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

          by Christin on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:44:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm Ok with that either way (5+ / 0-)

            I'm fine with losing 20 Dems in the House that can't be counted on to vote for the Democratic Agenda.

            http://dumpjoe.com/

            by ctkeith on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:48:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  i don't disagree with that. (0+ / 0-)

              they're nothing but a pain the ass.
              unless someone has their voting records in which it shows they are supportive of at least part of the our agenda.
              and as long as the speaker of the house remains D.

              "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

              by Christin on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:04:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  The GOP base (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            slinkerwink

            is already mobilizing, our base is more interested in primarying blue dogs than voting for them, which is a recipe to lose seats.  We just have to make sure it is the "better" dems that survive the base election.

            I'm not really worried about 2012 or the future, since Republicans are pretty much dying off in the generational change, but 2010 isn't looking so hot. We're going to get a full dose of the crazies trying to "save" America.

            If this country is becoming Russia, then why didn't Sarah Palin see this coming?

            by Jeffersonian on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:50:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I see it differently. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ctkeith, JRandomPoster

              In many ways, the Democrats in both chambers would benefit from having fewer members who work to undercut the party's own platform. In the Senate, replacing Reid with either Schumer or Durbin would likely make the caucus more effective at 54 members than it would be with Reid "leading" 60.

              We especially have to take out Bleu Dogs who represent solidly progressive constituencies: Feinstein, Lieberman, Jim Cooper, for example. There is no reason to tolerate them.

              I don't think we lose the majority by primarying our worst offenders. I also don't think we're talking anything near the ideological purge the GOP experienced.

              Plus, in 2010, we still have the Senate landscape swinging in our favor, with good shots at getting at least decent Dems in MO and NH.

              When dealing with elected Democrats, this approach is vital: We're with you when you're with us, we're against you when you're against us. No exceptions.

              by surfbird007 on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:15:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Really (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              itsbenj, surfbird007

              How many Dems lost in 2006 when we made an example out of Joe Lieberman?

              http://dumpjoe.com/

              by ctkeith on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:19:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Nobody can do anything unless the administration (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mogolori, hester, Raybin

        leads the way.  An awful lot of people stand for election in 2010.  Pitch the public a plan they can get excited about and things can happen.

        Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

        by dinotrac on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:43:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Even these guys are smart (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Raybin, GN1927

      enough to know that if they lose the next election, their corruption would stop too.

      This is something else. It's them still thinking like it's the 90's and the GOP is going to smack them down. They listen to the pundocrity and believe that those idiots know what they are talking about, regardless of the fact that they have been catastropically wrong this entire decade.

      FOX and Drudge still rule their world.

    •  Bingo n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mogolori
    •  The Senate's problems are worse than incompetence (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      YucatanMan

      Yes, the Senate's problems include incompetence, but even worse than that, they can also be attributed to the roll of lobbyists in affecting legislation, and to the fact that the Senate is an outdated institution that reflects the politics of the eighteenth century.  At that time, democracy and voting were something very new, so the Senate was created to give every state in the union equal representation and balance the more democratic representation based on population that existed in the House.  Also, the Senate, by giving each state an equal voice in who would be elected President, seemed to balance the more democratic situation in the House.

      I hope we've finally decided that being more democratic instead of less is a good thing, so isn't it time to change how electoral votes are used to decide who becomes President?  It's also time to stop allowing states with less than one million voters have the same power that states with forty times that many people have in the Senate.  What's happening in the Senate is grossly undemocratic and it makes it almost impossible for Congress to reflect the true will of the majority.  Why should states with less than one million people have the same number of Senate votes as states with forty times that number of people?  

      Why do you think no country on the planet has copied what we have in the U.S. Senate?  It isn't that long ago that George W. Bush got more electoral votes than Al Gore even though Gore got more popular votes.  This happened because of the situation in the Senate.  Is this what we want for our country?  Also, most small states tend to be conservative, or by world standards reactionary, and they continue to make it impossible to pass anything even remotely progressive.  This has got to change, because the situation we have now is making our government backward and dysfunctional.

      •  Conservative states. (0+ / 0-)

        It is possible that the states we think are leaning conservative might not be that conservative anymore.  I'm thinking of states like Montana, the Dakotas, Nebraska, etc.  Still, their senators are still functioning like they did when Reagan was in the White House.  Maybe it's due to lobbyists, or maybe they are still thinking that the country is conservative.  It isn't.  Things are changing dramatically with the young, and we're probably at the beginning of a more progressive era.

    •  Can we get some state-by-state data? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      trinite

      As your poll in NE showed, these national numbers mean little when it comes to how each senator will vote.  Can we see IN, AR, LA, ND?  Your MT poll seemed to have an impact on Baucus...maybe seeing where these states are will help influence their senators.

      "The degree of responsibility increases as we draw further away from the man who uses the fatal instrument with his own hands." Israeli Court, Eichmann Trial

      by dizzydean on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:09:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I just wrote to the DNC (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      YucatanMan

      Asking their leadership to speak up NOW.  At the local level we have been active hosting forums and rallies, passing resolutions, door belling and gathering signatures of support, writing letters to the editor and members of Congress.  As a local party leader I am doing all I can to see that that the public option is included in Health Care Reform legislation.

      One Washington-Gregoire! One Country-Obama!

      by yakimagrama on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:50:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  That's funny (10+ / 0-)

    Everywhere I fucking turn Obama and me are Stalinists who want to eat children on the Public Option operation table of life.

    I'm willing to pay more in taxes for a public option.

    by plok on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:30:30 AM PDT

    •  Thank our corrupt, corporate media (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      YucatanMan, plok

      for fanning the flames for the far-right loonies.  I hope that every one noticed that even the SOUTH favored a public option in this poll.  Our congress critters had better start paying attention to the needs of their constituents instead of their personal wallets or many of them will hit the curb beginning in 2010.

      To Congress: "GO BIG" or go home

      by mjd in florida on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:03:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Forget 2012, look at 2010 (26+ / 0-)

    If the Dems cave on healthcare, it will completely deflate the base heading into 2010, and then, as the results suggest which Kos posted, many Dems may just stay home at the polls (at a time when you are seeing a resurgence in the GOP enthusiam gap). Not a good formula for electoral success in 2010.

    "That's quite a jump. But you keep it up, I'm sure one day you'll clear that shark."

    by Steve In DC on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:30:33 AM PDT

    •  And that will trigger a domino effect (19+ / 0-)

      Just like after the 1994 debacle, a heavy loss in 2010 will put the DLC wing of the party into "I told you so" mode; cause Obama to dust off the Bill Clinton playbook and revert to "small ball" initiatives (school uniforms, anyone?); and result in thousands of activists turning their back on the Democratic Party and politics in general, perhaps for all time.

      "You can never guarantee victory, but you can guarantee defeat."--Hall of Fame baseball writer Leonard Koppett.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:32:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's already happening. (10+ / 0-)

        Obama way over promised change and hope.  Now we are looking at 10% unemployment (with the real number much bigger) and people will soon stop blaming Bush.

        Weakness is the real thing.  Why fight when you know you own side will (1) give in without a fight and (2) kick you in the teeth if you fight.

        All we can do is start all over.  and stop supporting "more" Democrats.  Only "better" ones.

        They "prefer an America where parents will lie awake at night worried if they can afford health care their children need."

        by TomP on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:40:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          missississy

          And it's not like we even have to be talking about an purist purge of all moderates like the GOP has experienced. We have plenty of "moderates" who are behaving just fine on most issues, and don't undermine the party.

          The problem is the Democrats who are actively seeking to undermine the party's agenda from within. Why wouldn't we want to separate ourselves from them. Especially egregious are the Feinsteins of the world who represent thoroughly progressive constituencies.

          I could see the party being twice as effective with better leadership and a smaller majority.

          When dealing with elected Democrats, this approach is vital: We're with you when you're with us, we're against you when you're against us. No exceptions.

          by surfbird007 on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:20:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Well, the odds are... (3+ / 0-)

        that a GOP resurgence in 2010 will mostly knock off Blue Dog DLC'ers so I think the DLC will have a tough time spinning that.

        The White House strategists can't be so stupid as to not see the drop in Obama and Dem support from Dems and Indies. If they persist with foolish dreams of "bipartisanship", then we'll know we were sold a bill of goods. But I hope they recalibrate and that Obama gives a speech like FDR did in 1936:

        For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent.

        For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.

        We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace: business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

        They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

        Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me and I welcome their hatred.

        I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.

        Just another socialist fuckstick!

        by Ian S on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:17:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I certainly hope they do too. (0+ / 0-)

          Rec'd for an excellent FDR reference and quotation.

          When dealing with elected Democrats, this approach is vital: We're with you when you're with us, we're against you when you're against us. No exceptions.

          by surfbird007 on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:22:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks but I have to credit... (0+ / 0-)

            Thom Hartmann who played it this morning on his show. I just googled for a transcript of it. But it's amazing how well it still applies nearly 3/4 century later.

            Just another socialist fuckstick!

            by Ian S on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:28:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Obama has already allowed himself... (6+ / 0-)

      To be emasculated by his opponents. His speech to both chambers makes him look panicky. We all know he's capable of a good one, but I think the most damage he's allowed to occur is in allowing the Republicans a platform. His pandering to the center and endless search for "bipartisanship" brings the Republican brand out of the dungeons of the far right and squarely back into territory that doesn't seem that bad to people. Every time he allows the contrast between the parties to be continually bumped down he serves to legitimize his opponents, who, at their worst want him physically harmed, and at best want him wholly discredited.

      They are well on their way, when all they had to do was act on the mandate they were elected to enforce.

      Slap happy is a platform.

      by averageyoungman on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:45:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I've figured out the purpose of Capitol Hill Dems (23+ / 0-)

    Their divinely ordained function is to serve as a buffer between the party's rank and file and the lobbyists and consultants who still run the country.

    "You can never guarantee victory, but you can guarantee defeat."--Hall of Fame baseball writer Leonard Koppett.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:30:34 AM PDT

    •  Yep. D-U-M-B... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      They may like their cushy jobs at times but they are going to be out of power soon because many of them are going to lose their jobs and the ones that keep their jobs will lose more money from those fucking lobbyists when they do lose the majority.

    •  It actually is something (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      surfbird007, lotlizard, Predictor, DRo

      like that. You are joking half seriously, but I have been thinking a lot lately of a model of politics as an extortion game.

      Even corporations get sick of it.

      Rs extort campaign contributions.  Then Dems threaten to make change, but back off real change in return for, yes, you guessed it, campaign contributions.

      The vote getting is advertising and slogans (hope, change), but the real game is $$$ and power.

      Much of wwhat we see is theater when deals are really done behind closed doors.

      August was about the remainig terms of the deal between Dems and Big Insurance.  There were details to be haggled over and more contributions to be extorted.

       

      They "prefer an America where parents will lie awake at night worried if they can afford health care their children need."

      by TomP on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:44:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  For Chicago Politicians in the Whitehouse (7+ / 0-)

    to be obsessed with bipartisanship is disturbing

  •  Why do only Republicans know how (7+ / 0-)

    to wield power?

    All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

    by fizziks on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:30:45 AM PDT

    •  Bad premise. They're supplicants as well. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wolf Of Aquarius, FistJab

      The GOP and the Blue Dog wing are all flower sniffin', kitty-pettin', baby-kissin', corporate ho-bags.

      No more money for non-progressive Democrats from me, ever.

      by iconoclastic cat on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:33:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Republicans do, however (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mentaldebris

        tend to approach their agenda from a position of power, while Democrats usually approach their agenda from a position of comprimise and caution, which turns to weakness in the face of the GOP's power position.

        When dealing with elected Democrats, this approach is vital: We're with you when you're with us, we're against you when you're against us. No exceptions.

        by surfbird007 on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:26:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hey Ya'll (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dotalbon

    Let's party like it's 1692! Obama's a witch. All together now!! /snark

  •  A quarter of Republicans want a P.O. (12+ / 0-)

    That would qualify as bipartisanship, to me.  If Congressional Republicans aren't in tune with that, that's a Congressional Republican problem, not a Democratic problem.

    "Competent statisticians will be the front line troops in our war for survival..." George Box, 1976

    by aztecraingod on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:32:26 AM PDT

  •  The media and Congress need to see this poll (12+ / 0-)

    58% want a public option. The next idiot to say the public option is unpopular needs their ass kicked.

    "I'm going to be on you like a numerator on a denominator." -Principal Skinner

    by dufffbeer on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:32:37 AM PDT

  •  Finally a Daily Kos poll (11+ / 0-)

    where the South is not wildly out of step with the rest of the country. They favor a public option 47 to 46.

  •  Now, THAT'S how you word a poll question (18+ / 0-)

    on the PO:

    Do you favor or oppose creating a government-administered health insurance option that anyone can purchase to compete with private insurance plans?

    Will you ask the President to show me his gift certificate? - Tom Delay

    by blueyescryinintherain on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:33:04 AM PDT

  •  How dare you post that, kos! (11+ / 0-)

    How dare you! [snark]

    I work full-time with the FDL team on health reform thanks to your donations.

    by slinkerwink on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:33:06 AM PDT

  •  Public approval has never (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hester, Dump Terry McAuliffe, lgmcp

    meant a damn thing in Congress.  Every poll since creation has Americans favoring gun control, and so what?

    Until the corrupt lawmakers are primaried out, we'll continue to get exactly the legislation the lobbyists want.  

    It is scarcely possible to conceive of the laws of motion if one looks at them from a tennis ball's point of view. (Brecht)

    by dotalbon on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:33:32 AM PDT

  •  All How You Ask The Question (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clarknt67, dotalbon

    If you asked, "Do you want the gummint deciding whether your Grandma should live or die?" the numbers might have been different.

  •  It's not the vote margin (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    paradox, fat old man

    Democrats are showing that no matter how big their margins, no matter how popular the policy, they are still too incompetent to get anything done

    ... it's the money.  Voters are a side-bar to what our senators really need.  

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:34:40 AM PDT

  •  But will Congress be held properly accountable? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lotlizard

    "Opposing the public option is electoral poison in every region of the country except the South, while both Democrats and Independents are willing to punish opponents of the public option at the ballot box."

    I wish I could believe this, but I am skeptical.  I am not questioning the polling, but given how poorly the GOP is viewed, it is not clear to me that either Dems or Independents would vote GOP members back in.  Given that in most cases, it is either Democrat or Republican as a choice, accountability could be problematic.  I personally find that very frustrating.

    •  It's about activating the base (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      paradox, Dump Terry McAuliffe, GN1927, DRo

      I can't say I'm very inclined to be nearly as involved in canvassing, donating or getting the vote out in 2010, based on what I've seen since January.

      It's sad, yes, it's defeatist. But really. I think I'd rather tour Paris, than spend another vacation in Florida.

      Never forget: it's a slippery slope from providing all citizens with affordable health care and exterminating 6,000,000 Jews.

      by Scott Wooledge on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:41:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Voter turnout has driven Democratic gains. (0+ / 0-)

      The way this is going, it is inconceivable that voter turnout for Democrats will be as high as it has been in the last few cycles.

      The Republican Party could not have asked for a better Democratic standard bearer than Barack Obama. He played on people's hopes, he promised change we can believe in. He appealed to people's better angels.

      And then he sold them out.

      A politician that plays on people's greed, fears, stupidity and prejudices and then doesn't deliver is one thing. What Obama is doing is much, much worse than demagoguery. It is a new low in cynicism even for American politics.

      Obama got $42,268,366 from Wall Street, more than any other member of Congress, and $20,064,596 from the Medical-Industrial Complex, also tops.

      by expatjourno on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:40:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Once again (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hester, Raybin, TJ, fizziks, tr GW

    Pierce says it best

    The serious people don't lead in that party any more, and the leaders of it -- Hello, Michael Steele -- are not serious people. It is a major political party run now as an elaborate radio talk-show and completely in thrall to the maniacs who run actual radio talk-shows. Goddammit, the Spartacists are more intellectually honest and the Hemp Party folks are a helluva lot more fun. Why do serious political journalists take this careering clown car seriously, ignoring the evidence plainly in front of their own eyes? Why does a Democratic president, and an overwhelmingly Democratic congress, both elected at least in part because the country had determined that the Republicans had gone completely mad, care what these people think about anything? Why does a party led by people who think the president is going to hypnotize schoolchildren with his magic Kenyan-Socialist spinning eyeballs scare the living protoplasm out of putative tough guys like Rahm Emanuel?

    The perfect should not be the enemy of the good? Maybe not, but the good has many actual enemies. Evil is the enemy of the good. Greed is the enemy of the good. Ignorance is the enemy of the good. Cowardice is the enemy of the good. How's about, just once, somebody worries about those enemies of the good, all of which are amply in evidence in the campaign to make sure we never reform the criminally negligent and morally indefensible way we deliver healthcare in this country?
    ...
    P.S. Oh, hell. They've even started selling their alibis already. Watch this unfold. The D's will sign off on some nutless POS and then have to run in 2010 on their support for a massive giveaway to the insurance companies, a group of institutions whom everyone I know hates. The elite press then will ponder earnestly whthe administration couldn't work with "serious conservative voices" on a "bipartisan" plan, as though any of the former even exist. The Beckite "Socialism! Fascism! Soup!" crazoids will go zipping down the memory hole. Call me Kreskin.

    I'll call him Kreskin any day.  Fight with me all you want, but all of you, in your heart of hearts, even while you're posting that "We won't know what he says til he says it."  or some other exercise in deniability, know that that is EXACTLY  how this is gonna play out.

  •  Budget Reconciliation Time (4+ / 0-)

    Enough of the worrying about 60 votes (hard to get with Kennedy's seat open, Byrd very sick).  Ram it through the Budget Reconciliation process with Dem votes.  Worked pretty well for Clinton (excepting 1994 which was a disaster).

    •  A better-informed person than me (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jmnyc

      could maybe recount for us what useful legislation was ever passed with Republican support.

      The difference between ignorance and apathy? I don't know, and I don't care.

      by pjeans on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:45:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Recently or Years Ago (0+ / 0-)

        Recently I can't think of anything.

        When there were moderate Northeastern and Midwestern Republicans - the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), the Civil Rights Act (1964), the Voting Rights Act (1965) Medicare and Medicaid (1965)to name a few.

        As Kos and others have noted these days are long gone but people whistfully wish they were still here.

        •  Republicans voted against the Social Security (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jmnyc

          amendments of 1965 (Medicare/Medicaid) 17-13 in the Senate, and were evenly split in the House, even with all those now-defunct moderates they once had.
          In point of fact, they were very against Social Security in the first place.
          I definitely take your point that the GOP is not the same party it was then, though.

          The difference between ignorance and apathy? I don't know, and I don't care.

          by pjeans on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:35:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not A Majority But A Decent Number (0+ / 0-)

            of Rs supported these bills.  And the Dems need their votes b/c the Southern Dems were very conservative and opposed a lot of these bills.

            In those days many of the NE and MW Repubs were Repubs b/c the Dem machines were incredibly corrupt - the Daley Machine in Chicago, Tammany Hall in NY, etc.  Policy-wise there was very little difference b/w the liberal Rs and Ds.

            Obviously, not true today.

  •  totally stunning (6+ / 0-)

    that democrats could blow this huge opportunity is absolutely stunning.

    Someone is an inside man on all of this.  Someone is working directly for the insurance companies.  is it rahm?  is it baucus, conrad, bayh?  who are the inside men? because this makes not motherfucking sense.

    "A lie isn't a side of a story. It's just a lie." The Wire

    by glutz78 on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:35:38 AM PDT

    •  It's not stunning to me (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hester

      Disappointing.

      I wonder if this government (1+ / 0-)
      is too corrupt to effectively stem this country's multiple crises
      .  The mishandling of the Lieberman situation, creating a soap opera where fast and resolute action should have happened immediately, is a small sign pointing in a disappointing direction.
      by GN1927 on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:47:33 AM PDT

      But not stunning.

    •  bingo! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GN1927

      "Out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made." Immanuel Kant

      by hester on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:03:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  And ironically, the South, with its lax worker (4+ / 0-)

    protections and every-man-for-himself policies, would benefit from the public option more than most.

    I was paid to post this comment by my cat, but he's a deadbeat.

    by decembersue on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:35:59 AM PDT

  •  "...that anyone can purchase" (4+ / 0-)

    Does any of the current proposed legislation allow anyone to join the public plan? (I'd love it if that's the case; I'm just not sure it is.)

    •  not that I know of (0+ / 0-)

      the House bill has the strongest PO of the 4 reported bills, and it won't kick in until 2013, and nobody is eligible who gets employer coverage.

      What carpet-man doesn't understand is; if carpet-man don't dance, carpet-man don't eat! - Bob Fossel (The Mighty Boosh)

      by itsbenj on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:30:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  the entire south is an outlier. n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    expatjourno, condorcet

    Obama - Talk to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost...he seems to know more than you do.

    by JerichoJ8 on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:36:54 AM PDT

  •  Why are you even a democrat if your against (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ctsteve, condorcet, FistJab

    one of the main cause s of being a democrat which is healthcare for everyone? I don't understand these conservadems in the senate.. A public option provides choice and helps everyone. They simply should not even be democrats.

    "Love the life you live. Live the life you love."- Bob Marley

    by sillycilla on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:37:02 AM PDT

  •  So true. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fizziks, Predictor, FistJab

    Democrats are showing that no matter how big their margins, no matter how popular the policy, they are still too incompetent to get anything done.

    Obama showed the senate he will blink before they even stare.  A shame.  He'll do anything but fight for what's right and popular to get a deal.

    Now it's phony triggers.

    They "prefer an America where parents will lie awake at night worried if they can afford health care their children need."

    by TomP on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:37:07 AM PDT

  •  I'm really missing Lyndon Johnson right about now (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YucatanMan

    And remember: If you don't like the news, go out and make some of your own. - Scoop Nisker, the Last News Show

    by North Madison on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:37:10 AM PDT

    •  LBJ had 68 democratic senators (4+ / 0-)

      he wasn't just an arm twister.

      First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win - Gandhi

      by mysticlaker on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:38:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He also (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jabuhrer

        came on the tail end of what, 6 Democratic terms as President to 2 for Republicans?

        If this country is becoming Russia, then why didn't Sarah Palin see this coming?

        by Jeffersonian on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:55:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  AND (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        YucatanMan, jabuhrer

        his filibuster margin was 66 back then. it was changed to 60 in 70's I believe.

        He had a similar situation in other-words.

        The Baucus caucus is quite raucus and in the end will fauckus

        by FistJab on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:59:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  where do we add 8 Progressive Senators ? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jabuhrer

        See, most (not all) of the places where we could add a Democratic Senator are places which would elect or draw very conservative Democrats who would not necessarily favor a public option.

        This is as good as we can get (optimization problem) probably.

        Iowa could be better.

        Diane Feinstein should be replaceable.

        Bill Nelson of Florida could be replaced by a better Democrat.

        Maine Senators could be replaced by Democrats who are fairly progressive.

        Nevada Senators Reid and Ensign could be really improved. Reid the democrat could be better. Ensign the Republican could be replaced by a better Democrat.

        Off the top of my head, that is where I can see possible improvements.

      •  QUIET YOU! (0+ / 0-)

        You're supposed to get on the pity party bandwagon and talk about how Obama has already sold us out. Nevermind that he hasn't said he's going to drop the public option yet, we have anonymous White House sources!!! Obama's perceived lack of resolve justifies our actual lack of resolve! Didn't you get the memo?

        If "Don't Tread on Me" means "Don't fix health care," then please...tread on me.

        by jabuhrer on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:08:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Throughout the campaign, there were never (0+ / 0-)

          any "anonymous sources."  This administration knows how to run a tight ship and run a disciplined campaign.

          The very fact that "anonymous sources" are proliferating tells us that the administration is dithering and not dedicated to one proposition or another.

          Upsetting to me....

    •  LBJ had J Edgar Hoover. (0+ / 0-)

      Hoover spied on congressmen and sent the files over to LBJ.

      Obama got $42,268,366 from Wall Street, more than any other member of Congress, and $20,064,596 from the Medical-Industrial Complex, also tops.

      by expatjourno on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:42:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yup. (10+ / 0-)

    Democrats and Independents voted Democratic to get stuff done. Democrats are showing that no matter how big their margins, no matter how popular the policy, they are still too incompetent to get anything done.

    kos, do you know that there are increasing calls to ban you from your own blog because you are insufficiently loyal?

    •  It's time for Obama to show some (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ek hornbeck

      loyalty to his base (Yeah, I'm thinking of our little tussle a couple of months back where I gave Obama some loyalty. Damn.) He could even pass it off as leadership, if he doesn't want to fraternize with DFH's.  

      It's not a campaign anymore, Mr. Obama.

      by huntergeo on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:07:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's why he needs to reach outside the beltway. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink, buckstop, FistJab

    There are lots of people who will benefit from good health care reform.
    Put together a plan worth having and pitch it relentlessly to the clientele (ie -- the voters) and you can scare people who have to run in 2010.  It's the only way to get something meaningful past all the money being showered down.

    Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

    by dinotrac on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:38:32 AM PDT

  •  How can Congressional Dems be vacillating (9+ / 0-)

    on a policy that has 81% support from Democrats? It blows my mind. That can't even be characterized as "base." That's way bigger than what we mean when we say "a party's base."

    Never forget: it's a slippery slope from providing all citizens with affordable health care and exterminating 6,000,000 Jews.

    by Scott Wooledge on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:38:51 AM PDT

  •  Growing transparency (0+ / 0-)

    lesson: change takes time.

  •  58 to 34 (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927, buckstop, Clarknt67, FistJab

    That means a congressional district can be as much as R+10 and the constituents still favor the public option.

    "I'm going to be on you like a numerator on a denominator." -Principal Skinner

    by dufffbeer on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:39:50 AM PDT

  •  Force The Senate's Hand By Passing A House Bill (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hester, Clarknt67, FistJab

    with a public option.  The media and the netroots (to a lesser extent) has become completely obsessed with the Senate and the Finance Committee in particular.  It takes two houses to pass a law and the House is a major player especially with its large progressive caucus.

    The votes for a public option are clearly there in the House so let's get one passed and then force the Senate's hand.  

    I have done some research and Reid could bring the House bill directly to the floor basically bypassing Baucus.  I don't know if he will but a House bill changes the dynamics for the Senate leadership if they choose to use it.

  •  I don't know (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tnproud2b

    Polls on this question have been all over the place.  If this poll was that reliable, I don't think there would be the squeamishness in the Congress...or the WH in particular, on the PO.

    If Obama is ready to drop the public option, it's based on a political calculation that's not reflected in this poll.

    I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places...arousing and persuading and reproaching you.-Socrates

    by The Navigator on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:40:42 AM PDT

    •  A political calculation (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      expatjourno

      or a financial one?

      Never forget: it's a slippery slope from providing all citizens with affordable health care and exterminating 6,000,000 Jews.

      by Scott Wooledge on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:43:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Polls are pretty consistent (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GN1927

      Polls on this question have been all over the place

      Margins of support differ based on the poll wording but I don't think I've seen a poll yet that shows a majority against the public option.

      I'm a dyslexic agnostic insomniac. I lie awake at night wondering if there really is a dog.

      by rennert on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:00:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We've been through this. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pointsoflight

      The polls are not "all over the place" when the question makes it clear what the public option is. A third of Americans don't know what it is, though.

      Obama got $42,268,366 from Wall Street, more than any other member of Congress, and $20,064,596 from the Medical-Industrial Complex, also tops.

      by expatjourno on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:45:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tnproud2b

        when the question makes it clear what the public option is.

        I can think of several ways to describe the public option in a polling question, all of them completely accurate and honest, but would yield significantly different results.

        For example, just switch the words "Government Administered" for "Government Run" (both accurate) and you'd have at least a five to ten point swing.  Putting the  words "Medicare" or "Competition" in the poll will change the results.  

        And since many progressives see the Public Option as a first step towards single payer, add that to the question and the fun really begins.

        I don't  trust polls on this issue, especially private ones.

        I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places...arousing and persuading and reproaching you.-Socrates

        by The Navigator on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:39:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  i want results (3+ / 0-)

    but you have unrealistic expectations on how long this stuff takes.

    If it's not done this fall, let's talk. Till then, imho, the best use if lobbying and calling, not calling the game over.

    First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win - Gandhi

    by mysticlaker on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:40:53 AM PDT

    •  Could not agree more. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      condorcet

      It's ridiculous to expect anything of any import to happen before next week at the earliest. Obama is giving 2 speeches next week, and I expect we'll have more actual information to go on re: how this is going to play out.

      The pearl-clutching around here these past few weeks has been unbelieveable.

      Lisa

      All Kossacks are my allies.

      by Boston to Salem on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:55:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  yep (0+ / 0-)

      many ppl here panic and give up so quickly.

      FDR did not get social security passed for 2 years, even with huge majorities in both houses and a nearly dead R party.

      medicare failed on several senate votes before it was passed in '65.

  •  Have you noticed how all of the congress critters (6+ / 0-)

    have quit posting diaries here?

    when they look for money they come flocking.  time to do stuff and they disappear.

    Who is your favorite congress critter that has quit dailykos cold turkey?

    mine.....Dick Durbin.

    Republicans===the party of the 1% rich people in America. Or in other words..The Party of NO!

    by jalapeno on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:40:58 AM PDT

    •  John Kerry is a close second though. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Raybin

      others that deserve honorable mention for quitting cold turkey.

      Rep. Louise Slaughter
      Rep. Brad Miller

      Republicans===the party of the 1% rich people in America. Or in other words..The Party of NO!

      by jalapeno on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:44:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good point (0+ / 0-)

      "And the biggest self of self is, indeed, self." Mark Sanford

      by Paleo on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:53:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good question (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Raybin, jalapeno

      Who is your favorite congress critter that has quit dailykos cold turkey?

      Kirsten Gillibrand.

      Member of the Blue Dog Coalition in the House.  Now claims to be a progressive.  Open admirer of Fox"News" host Greta Van Susteren who Gillibrand notes is her "favorite" so-called journalist.  Appointed to the senate by an unpopular unelected governor.  Had the likes of Chuck Schumer muscle any and every viable progressive who considered competing for that seat fair and square out of participating in a meaningful primary.

      Grandstanded on the public option long enough to float a petition and collect email signatures, most likely for fundraising solicitations.

      Is now a ghost, because she will not have to face a primary.

      These people are simply unreal.

  •  Is the president seeing this data? (7+ / 0-)

    the thing that perplexes me the most is why the president doesn't fight for the public option when it's so popular.  It's practically a gimme and the progressive base would get really fired up.

    I know that Rahm Emanuel would probably answer that a public option can't pass the Senate because not enough senators would vote for cloture to kill a filibuster, but why not dare the fuckers to do that?  Whichever Democratic Senators stand with Republicans in refusing to kill a filibuster should then be made to pay a steep price.  

    I just don't fucking get it.  

    •  I know I'm in the minority here (4+ / 0-)

      but I think you will see the President come out in strong support for the public option. Just a hunch, but I'm not as convinced as the other folks here by the "anonymous sources" in the White House that the PO is going to be dumped.

      If "Don't Tread on Me" means "Don't fix health care," then please...tread on me.

      by jabuhrer on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:44:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That would make me (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hester, Raybin, jabuhrer, FistJab

        so fired up, so happy, and so energized.

        No moral nation lets people die because they don't have money.

        by alkalinesky on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:45:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I hope you're right (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Raybin, alkalinesky

        but I've seen no indications whatsoever that that's what he'll be doing.  The discouraging thing is that all the "anonymous sources" have pointed to either dumping the public option or putting in some bullshit trigger.  I'd be more encouraged if there were also anonymous sources indicating that the president is also considering taking a strong stand on the public option or at least shooting down the other anonymous sources, but there have been none to date.

        Today there's a conference call between the president and progressives in Congress, so I'm hoping that the progressives chew his ass out and make clear that if he doesn't start fighting for a public option, they'll kill health care reform to save it.

        The president is a politician first and foremost, and issuing threats is generally the most effective way of getting politicians to do what you want.  If the president is made to understand that health care reform, which he has staked so much of his presidency on, will be killed without a public option, then maybe he'll finally do the right thing.

      •  Speaking before Congress & ditching the P.O. (0+ / 0-)

        will make Obama look like a weakling.  Who's giving him this bad advice?  He needs to speak to the American people from the oval office, he needs to be strong and raise his voice a little, and he needs to continue to support the public option.  We want a leader in the White House, not a rubber stamp for the fools in the Senate and their lobbyist friends.

      •  Graea by me (0+ / 0-)

        But I've gotta ask, why'd he wait?

    •  It's very easy to get (5+ / 0-)

      It's about the $.

      This is NOT Dem vs. Repbub. This is about the $ corporations vs. the people. We need to change the frame, and it makes much more sense.

      No moral nation lets people die because they don't have money.

      by alkalinesky on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:44:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Solidarity for regular people (3+ / 0-)

        is what we need. You're totally right. It's not left vs. right, it's top vs. bottom. The opposition is so successful because they have managed to frame everything around the myth of the "individual": individual rights, individual responsibility, individual liberty, etc. In other words, fuck the other guy, I'm trying to get mine.

        As easy as it is to hate the teabaggers and morans, the truth is that most of them are poor people that would benefit from universal health care more than most of us that are advocating for it. It's just too bad that the waters have been muddied so much by right wing economic propaganda, which is now taken for granted as the mainstream.

        If "Don't Tread on Me" means "Don't fix health care," then please...tread on me.

        by jabuhrer on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:50:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Midwest numbers = hope? (0+ / 0-)

    It seems to me that the only sector of strong opposition is in the South, which we have already seen as a more or less isolated, dying demographic that is likely to be a permanent minority.

    I was surprised and hopeful to see the numbers in the Midwest so high. I was born and raised there, and left as soon as I got the chance, but lately it appears that the area is not as conservative as it used to be. (Not that you'd really have to be conservative to oppose a public option...it is a much more conservative option than what the conservatives in other countries support, but that's another story).

    If "Don't Tread on Me" means "Don't fix health care," then please...tread on me.

    by jabuhrer on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:42:09 AM PDT

  •  It's too late. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Raybin, scribe

    I earnestly hope a real reform bill passes, but I just don't see it happening. The cancer of moneyed interests has metastasized into all our organs of government. Every time we try to reform the system, it just becomes more difficult to make any sort of change. If reform in 1994 was a long shot, it's an even longer one today.

    Sure, you might say that the solution is to send emails or make phone calls, but why would a rational politician heed a few ordinray people and endanger their actual base? Using corporate money, they can get elected anyway.

    "So, get money out of politics", you might say. Well: who's going to do that? The very people that benefit from having the money in the first place? Even if a few principled lawmakers agree to sensible limits, the vast majority of people in Washington are no more saintly than you or I, and will continue to act in interests in promoting the current system.

    Well, what about that last bastion of accountability, actual votes? The sad thing is that our collective faculties have deteriorated to the point where rational policies are easily drowned out by reactionary cries of "socialism", "not a citizen", "fascism", "indoctrination", and "death panels". And the sad thing is that these tactics are stunningly effective. Every decade, they become more so.

    Well, that's the fault of a deficient education system, you might correctly state. True, but who will fix the system? Not you or I? That's a government job, and we've already established that the government is dysfunctional. I'm not going to take the "the rich are deliberately crippling education" line: it doesn't take a conspiracy to do it. Anti-government ideology feeds upon itself, growing stronger and stronger every generation as education is continually weakened. The products of a weakened system vote for weakening the system even further based on ever-meaner advertising.

    Trying to reform the government from within is truly hopeless. Really, what's the point of trying? The battle is lost. It's like trying to fight the wind.

    Now, all a sensible person can do is try to make the most of a bad situation and try to find a good life somewhere.

    •  I understand your frustration (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Boston to Salem, condorcet

      but I'm not willing to give up til the fat lady sings. If Obama comes out and says that the Public Option is roadkill, and we come up with a weak, watered down bill, then I'll join you in shedding a tear in my beer. But considering how much progress we've made in a year (say what you want about Obama's shortcomings, but remember who was President this time last year) I've still got a little bit of that hope (and fight) left in me.

      If "Don't Tread on Me" means "Don't fix health care," then please...tread on me.

      by jabuhrer on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:58:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So... (7+ / 0-)

    ... Democratic politician numbers are down.

    Public option numbers are still strong.

    Democratic representatives not being strong on public option.

    Politician:  "Lets see... two plus two is... ah... ermmmm... well... let's have a bipartisan compromise on this, and say that it's three!  Yeah!  That's the ticket!"

    Co-op is a cop out. It is not an option, let alone a public one.

    by JRandomPoster on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:42:24 AM PDT

  •  Time for a new party? (0+ / 0-)

    How does the American Progressive Party sound?  How bout finding out how many current members of Congress would just shift into the American Progressive Party...40-50 in the House?  10-15 in the senate?  I grow weary of watching America of, by and for the corporations.

    Hey Look! The pigs are at the trough eating your future.

    by mojavefog on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:42:47 AM PDT

    •  Our stupid electoral system though (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mojavefog, jabuhrer

      Third parties are certain death to one's causes in our stupid undemocratic winner-take-all district based electoral system.  If we had three parties - Progressives, Democrats, and Republicans - the Republicans would have 400 House seats and 90 Senate seats, and would usually win those seats with 40% of the vote.  It is the least democratic system where there is actual voting that I can think of.  

      If we had actual proportional representation - that would be a different story.

      All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

      by fizziks on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:50:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I hear ya, but I dunno. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slinkerwink

      The nice thing about that is that we would have actual voices in congress that are not afraid to tell the truth. They may always be in a minority, but who knows, maybe it would balance the argument and pull the mainstream Dems to the left...? Just having rational arguments from actual liberals (which are no considered radical socialists) in the debate might balance things out, even if there would never be enough of them to be in the majority. I guess coalitions and voting blocs would be possible. Bernie Sanders is a great example.

      On the other hand, Kos's philosophy of "more and better Democrats" does seem to be the most efficient and effective ways to get progressive ideas on the table. That strategy got Obama elected. I suppose, depending on how Obama's term turns out, we will see how effective it really is in practice. I'm hopeful.

      If "Don't Tread on Me" means "Don't fix health care," then please...tread on me.

      by jabuhrer on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:55:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I hope the Bluedogs are reading this poll..great (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckstop, huntergeo

    post and thanks for making such a significant poll possible.

    •  Unfortunately, and although (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buckstop, louisprandtl

      Research 2000 produces solid polls including ones that tracked well with polls-of-polls throughout the past election cycle, Blue Dogs would brush this poll off as far-left biased. That's complete bullshit, for sure, but they see everything through corporate-colored glasses, too.

      It's not a campaign anymore, Mr. Obama.

      by huntergeo on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:56:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Public option.. (6+ / 0-)

    ...even polling positive in the South?

    This is adequate proof the town hall thuggery did not work.

    When it comes to the public option, the South should be 70%-Oppose; 30%-Favor.

    As far as Republicans at least firming their foremost base against the public option, something has gone wrong.

    Mott the Hoople and the game of Life, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

    by wyvern on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:45:09 AM PDT

  •  Has anyone in the White House called you Markos? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hester, buckstop

    Seriously. Do they give a shit what people like us have to say? Or are they so insulated and arrogant that they think we are a bunch of morons or amateurs?

  •  Incompetent or corrupt? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hester, buckstop

    Nobody's that incompetent. If we don't get real reform it's because elected Democrats don't want it to happen.

    Everybody talkin' 'bout Heaven ain't goin' there -- Mahalia Jackson

    by DaveW on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:45:38 AM PDT

  •  I might not say the Dems are too incompetent (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckstop

    Instead I might say weak-willed and/or cowardly

    Some might also say, too beholden to insurance companies.

    But tomato, overpriced insurance. Let's call the whole thing off - as in, "If the Democratic party doesn't get this done with AT LEAST a public option, they might as well call the whole party off."

    "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

    by jbeach on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:48:52 AM PDT

  •  I am one of ready to cut bait (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hester

    I grew up in a family of hardcore democrats.  In fact, my father and his brother don't get along primarily because of the extreme differences in their views.  I have voted democratic in every election EXCEPT 1996, when i voted for Nader. Why?  Because Clinton didn't deliver.

    Every year since, i have voted Democratic on the national stage and third party on the state/local stage unless the Democrat had proved his mettle and worth.

    But since 2006, i have grown so deeply disaffected from this worn-out, corrupt, and entirely incompetent party that has lost sight of its goals, forgotten how to govern, and has dropped out of touch with the people it is supposed to represent.

    if we don't get the health crae we've been promised since fucking Truman, with the majorities we have, then I really AM taking my ball and going home.

    Fuck it: what is the point of supporting a party that doesn't do what it's supposed to do? It's like refusing to buy a new circular saw when the old one has missing teeth, a warped blade, and an engine that only starts on occasion.

    they are worthless.

    •  Third party (0+ / 0-)

      A third party would be viable if we could get a good portion of the progressive Democrats in congress to bolt.  The problem is that a lot of them have built up seniority, and won't want to lose it.

      "And the biggest self of self is, indeed, self." Mark Sanford

      by Paleo on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:52:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  i'm not saying form a third party (0+ / 0-)

        i'm saying that if the democrats, with their congressional and senate majorites can't get their most basic fundamental promise to their constituents accomplished, a promise that has the support of 70& of the people, then there is no reason for the party to continue. It will be a failed endeavor, undeserving of anyone's support.

        And i will not only not support it, I will use my blog and my newspaper column to encourage my readers to do the same.

        I know the name is unpopular here, but I will be on the Ron Paul bandwagon so fast Joe Biden's hairplugs will fall out.

        i have not worked and donated my time, energy, and money for the Democratic Party to shit on my face and expect me to say thank you for the fresh fudge.

  •  Tell that to the White House (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Raybin

    As if it would make a difference.

    "And the biggest self of self is, indeed, self." Mark Sanford

    by Paleo on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:50:03 AM PDT

  •  Put up or shut up time (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Raybin

    The Democrats have to realize that times have changed. Once they could have passed a sham piece of window dressing, call it Health Care Reform, and only a small number of activists and political junkies would ever know the difference.
    Today, the word will be out instantly to a much larger audience.
    This is the moment for Obama to step up. If he wants to enact real reform that actually takes on the massive problems of our current system then he needs to say so in straight forward, unambiguous terms in his speech on Wed.
    If the Wed. speech is just more generalities about a bill that may or may not have a public option which may or may not have a "trigger" and may or may not tax heath care to pay for it, he has wasted his breath and tried our patience for nothing. We will see on Wed. whether this is our president, elected to do the peoples business, or just another corporate puppet.
    The public wants a public option, the polling has shown this for months even in the face of all the major media outlets doing everything they can to tell us they don't. The public understands that it is the essence of reform, not just a minor feature to be discarded at the first chance. If the Democrats and Obama throw this chance away I think we will see the first real push for a third party that has come along in many years, and the Dems. will have shot themselves in the foot with an elephant gun.

  •  Do You Agree or Disagree With This Statement? (5+ / 0-)

    "I would let Rush Limbaugh shove a red hot poker up my ass."

                 Agree    Disagree
    Northeast    16         82
    Midwest       21         72
    South          52         41
    West           19         80          

    The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by easong on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:50:53 AM PDT

  •  All self-inflicted... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Raybin

    The Democrats have been awful at both messaging, and keeping campaign promises (consentions for bipartisenship). Obama and the Dems need to start acting like they ACTUALLY won the election...

    I love the smell of napalm in the morning

    by Jazzenterprises on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:52:38 AM PDT

  •  So, my question is this (seriously) (7+ / 0-)

    if most folks want a PO, and most dems for sure, and independents, wtf is going on in the WH? What is it they don't get?

    It seems they don't have their fingers on the national pulse.
    What the eff is going on @ 1600 Pennsylvania Ave?

    "Out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made." Immanuel Kant

    by hester on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:56:05 AM PDT

    •  Here is what I think. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jabuhrer

      I think Obama has been using a tactic. By keeping the opposition engaged in "negotiations", he keeps them from being on the out-and-out attack, he looks like a good guy, and the nutcases in the opposition look awful in comparison.

      He has deflected the resistance rather than confronted it directly, which has really helped with the fence-sitters who aren't sure exactly what they want.

      It's frustrating to watch if you are someone who badly wants the changes that have been proposed, but it's a well known strategy amongst community organizers and other 'change agents'. I use it myself quite a bit in my job.

      Lisa

      All Kossacks are my allies.

      by Boston to Salem on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:09:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  u wrote; (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Boston to Salem, tnproud2b

        He has deflected the resistance

        Do you really think this? The resistance has been full and frontal.

        "Out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made." Immanuel Kant

        by hester on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:19:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yes, I do. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          hester

          I disagree that the resistance has been "full and frontal" from everyone. It's been "full and frontal" from the nutcases - like the people we see in the town halls, and the Michelle Bachmanns. And I think that's going to backfire on them when elections roll around.

          But I think we'd be seeing much, MUCH worse from more credible sources (paid for by the Insurance Industry/Big Pharma) if he'd come out very aggressively pushing his 'socialist agenda'. He's been able to keep people who should be our enemies at the table talking rather than beating him up because he is willing to keep talking/mulling things over. They can't attack him for 'insisting' or 'forcing' if he and his reps are constantly saying "hey, we're happy to consider things..."

          Think about the crazy shit Hillary got back in the Nineties - and that was before the internet. Can you imagine how much worse it would be now?

          Lisa

          All Kossacks are my allies.

          by Boston to Salem on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:26:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  We don't know what is going on in the WH! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Raybin

      All we know is that there are a-holes like Rahm that say stupid shit, as they have been doing since inauguration. Obama purposefully filled his cabinet with some folks that he often disagrees with (team of rivals, remember?) and those folks have been saying stupid shit to the press for months, yet somehow in the past week progressives apparently think this is relevant.

      If "Don't Tread on Me" means "Don't fix health care," then please...tread on me.

      by jabuhrer on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:15:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Mistaking corruption for incompetence. (5+ / 0-)

    See "Max Baucus" for further details.

    The question is, will the corrupt ones see poll numbers like this as a bigger threat to their power than the prospect of being abandoned by their corporate patrons?

    The whole thing hinges on which is the bigger threat, as far as they're concerned.

  •  There is absolutely no reason to not have the PO (4+ / 0-)

    short of the governing equivalent of malpractice.

    "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

    by heart of a quince on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:58:36 AM PDT

  •  DNC calling (6+ / 0-)

    Got a phone call from the DNC last night asking for money.  They said (I kid you not): "We'd like to thank you for your prior contributions and would ask for your continued donations as we support President Obam's agenda."  Really?  Supporting Obama?  Killing the public option? I told them no money now or ever again if democrats kill the public option.

  •  It is a one-state party (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hester, Homer Sampson

    with a minor split in it.  Both are members of the Capitalist Party.  The Republicans screw the average person as fast as they can.  The Democrats take their time at it.  In the end, they are working for Corporate America and not we, the people.

  •  Has anyone polled the Dems in the Senate? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927, dizzydean

    Because so far, they don's seem to care about all these polls supporting the public option.

    And at this moment, they are holding all the cards.

    And that is the President's fault, because  . . .

    (Nobody knows why but it just is.)

  •  Keep hammering away Kos (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink, Homer Sampson

    You have our support 110%.

    But I'm getting seriously down about this. It is plain to see Democrats are wholly owned by corporations.

    With 60% of the country in favour of a PO and Super Majorities and a President who campaigned on a PO with the Republicans not playing ball at all. You don't need to be an expert to see this is the PERFECT time for the Public Option.

    If it doesn't pass it's because Obama doesn't want it plan and simple.

    "You show me a capitalist, and I'll show you a bloodsucker." - Malcolm X

    by Dr Marcos on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:11:51 AM PDT

    •  You had me until the last sentence. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GN1927, Dr Marcos

      So the corporately owned Senate is not at fault, just the President?

      •  Dunno plenty of blame to go round (0+ / 0-)

        Yeah the Senate are in my view showing there true colours. But where is the fighting spirit?

        I mean Obama is a smart guy he must know it useless to negotiate with Repubs and yet that all he keep talking about. He needs to make a stand on the Public Option. If he just made a stand most of country would back him up.

        Is the Senate at fault Yes. But does Obama have the power to draw a line in the stand and twist there arms on the public option. Yes.

        If Obama wanted the PO and 60% of the country wants it how can it not pass?

        "You show me a capitalist, and I'll show you a bloodsucker." - Malcolm X

        by Dr Marcos on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:24:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  What does the Democratic Party (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Raybin

    stand for?

    ............................ The Public Option IS the compromise.

    by ctsteve on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:13:53 AM PDT

  •  For all the bleating about the public option (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dizzydean

    I am yet to see anybody offer a solution for the negative perception people have for the actual plan being discussed. The polls clearly show that the electorate supports the public option in theory but obviously they aren't buying what they are actually being sold.

  •  "Incompetent"? Spare me (5+ / 0-)

    They spend $3 trillion in less than 60 days to bail out the entire financial sector. They can get as much done as they want to.

    •  although, there is a certain (0+ / 0-)

      amount of incompetence involved in the Dems' inability to take a position that 70-something% of the country believes in and turn a profit off of it at least as large as their payoffs from the corporations du jour...

      What carpet-man doesn't understand is; if carpet-man don't dance, carpet-man don't eat! - Bob Fossel (The Mighty Boosh)

      by itsbenj on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:42:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wrong question? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ctsteve

    I suspect the results would go off-the-dial positive if the questions were rewritten as:

    Do you favor or oppose creating a government-administered health insurance option Medicare-like plan that anyone can purchase to compete with private insurance plans?


    Medicare For All (TeddyCare):The Hundred Percent Solution™—and made in the USA!

    Next up campaign finance.

    by KingBolete on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:20:26 AM PDT

  •  The problem is Constitutional (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dizzydean

    No more than a third of the U.S. Senate is ever up for election at the same time. The other two-thirds can safely ignore the polls, knowing that even a month is a political eternity. This translates into inertia unless some catastrophe or a war has intervened. It is the first principle of administration: Never do anything unless you have to.

    In short, it is not a matter of competence, but of the inevitable politics of Constitutional government. That's the way the Founding Fathers set it up.

    •  And also, with the Great Compromise (0+ / 0-)

      the Senate gives smaller states equal say to the big states, meaning that sens like Landrieu, Nelson, Pryor, Lincoln, etc. can follow their constituencies and block things.  

      "The degree of responsibility increases as we draw further away from the man who uses the fatal instrument with his own hands." Israeli Court, Eichmann Trial

      by dizzydean on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:24:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not incompetent. Corrupt. n/t (4+ / 0-)

    Obama got $42,268,366 from Wall Street, more than any other member of Congress, and $20,064,596 from the Medical-Industrial Complex, also tops.

    by expatjourno on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:25:56 AM PDT

    •  When Progressives work on bill for 40 years (0+ / 0-)

      without getting anything done, it is a stretch to blame Obama.

      •  Obama has the biggest majorities since LBJ. (0+ / 0-)

        And a country screaming for health care reform. No one else has had anything like that.

        Obama got $42,268,366 from Wall Street, more than any other member of Congress, and $20,064,596 from the Medical-Industrial Complex, also tops.

        by expatjourno on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:52:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But, it took 20 years and numerous attempts (0+ / 0-)

          from the time Harry Truman proposed insuring all Americans 'til LBJ was able to sign Medicare, which was the watered-down version.  Oh, and the assassination of a POTUS who had been proposing it since his Senate days probably didn't hurt.

          Those opposed to health care for all have been fighting it long, hard, and effectively.  Even now, some of the biggest roadblocks in the Senate are from the Dem caucus, the President's own party.

  •  Those are just raw numbers, not adjusted ones (0+ / 0-)

    To be genuinely useful in our political context, the raw numbers need to be corrected: poor and minority voters have to be removed since they're not supposed to participate, the numbers for the Northeast have to be halved while the numbers for the South have to be doubled (in deference to its former status as an independent country), and the numbers for the elderly have to be weighted by [agex2]/100, i.e. a 65 year old gets 1.3 votes, and 80 year old gets 1.6 votes, etc.  

    With these technical adjustments, you get a much more accurate sense of the prospects for the public option.

    Al que no le guste el caldo, le dan dos tazas.

    by Rich in PA on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:28:16 AM PDT

    •  You missed the real adjustment... (0+ / 0-)

      They need to be "adjusted" to account for the voting habits of the public in a midterm election....be by age group or regional...

      And the results historically don't favor the party in power, and don't favor Dems when Repubs have their energized base.

      It will, once again, all be about TURNOUT

  •  MISSING THE ESSENTIAL (0+ / 0-)

    The point being "overlooked" in all this is that 85-90% of Congressional Dems would support a public option.

    Unfortunately, it's that handful of Senate Dems that are making it nearly IMPOSSIBLE to pass a Senate Bill with a public option.

    And these Senators are aware of polls too, and apparently don't think that their seats are in danger if they oppose the option.

    It still comes down to the devilish choice of do you get NOTHING, while maintaining the PO, or SOMETHING?  

    And if it's SOMETHING, then of course the devil will be in the details....

    And I wonder how many of those Independents abandoning the Dems are doing it over public option? Or maybe it's just because nothing seems to be getting done.

  •  Public Option more popular than Obama (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    missississy, JRandomPoster

    PRESIDENT OBAMA 52

    Do you favor or oppose creating a government-administered health insurance option that anyone can purchase to compete with private insurance plans?
            Favor  Oppose  Not Sure
    All        58     34      8

  •  It’s about more than the public option. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JRandomPoster

    A public health insurance option to private health insurance doesn’t seem like too much to ask, especially when medical costs are responsible for a majority of bankruptcies.
    If the people don’t have enough power to defend themselves against the atrocity of private-sector healthcare, how much power do the people actually have?
    If we fail to get a public option, people will conclude they have no power and public apathy will become even stronger.
    I wish these "democratic" sellouts would understand what they’re doing when they reject a public option, especially in the face of what the private health insurance industry has done to America.
    Promoting public apathy is the worst part of "democrats" rejecting a public option. And we should know where this will leads. Republicans back in power.

  •  I'd like to see a poll (0+ / 0-)

    of a public option on purchasing gasoline. While prices are not as high as last summer, big oil recorded record profits with their price gouging methods. A robust public option for gasoline without the wicked profit margin could allow a robust government gas station to charge considerably less than big oil charges with their obscene profit margins. Once we bankrupted big oil, we could then help the environment by distributing gasoline (while still at better prices) in a more environmentally favorable manner and based on need, rather than ability to pay the exorbinant prices charged by big oil.

  •  Yup: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink

    Democrats are showing that no matter how big their margins, no matter how popular the policy, they are still too incompetent to get anything done.

    I worked my ass off and donated money that I couldn't afford to get a leader elected to the White House.  I really want to see leadership.  

    Those who are advocating the theory 3-level chess and multiple fake-outs of the Reptilians are much more optimistic than I am at this point.

    As a comment on the radio this morning stated:  

    "a speech to a joint session of Congress is the highest point of appeal there is. By going there, and not doing it from the White House, President Obama leaves few other options if more 'push' is required."

     (Sorry, I didn't catch who was speaking.)

    So, next week's speech better be one hell of an appeal for public option. It's what we need. It's what a lot of us have worked for. It's what we were promised by the Obama campaign.

    •  I know Markos doesn't read comments, (0+ / 0-)

      he just posts and leaves, but consider this: this used
      to be a blog about electing Democrats, and most of the commenters here, and apparently Markos, too, seem like they're ready to abandon the Democratic Party.

      And remember, from Markos's "mission statement," it's a blog about electing both moderates and progressives across the board. He didn't signal out any subset of Democrats as more desirable than another.

      I say it's time for a poll that asks what is this blog really about now?

      •  he actually does read comments (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        YucatanMan

        fyi...

        "Republicans drove the country into a ditch and now they are complaining about the cost of the tow truck"-Jim Cornette

        by justmy2 on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:10:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I am not suggesting -- in any way -- (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wildthumb

        that I am ready to abandon the Democratic Party or "Democrats" in general.

        However, many people actually leapt into this campaign with all their energy, time and money, because it was a campaign that we believed in.  It promised us "Change You Can Believe In."

        Well. "Compromising" with "moderates" and abandoning those who worked with all their might to get this ticket elected is no way to encourage such a passionate outpouring of support in the next campaign.

        To be clear:  To me, this is not just about the Public Option. It is about Gay Rights: DADT. DOMA. It is about many other accomodations to a hateful, lying, cheating, corrupt and theiving Republican that never should have happened. That is not "Change" we believe in. Cooperating with evil is not cooperation. It is selling out.

        I will continue to WORK HARD to support Progressive Democrats. I will donate to Progressive Democrats anywhere in the nation. I will do what I can to make the Democratic Party more Progressive.  After all, it is the only game in town.

        The Reptilians are retreating into their cave-like minds and denying all reality. There is zero hope there.

      •  In no place do I say I will abandon (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wildthumb

        the Democratic Party.

        Nor does Markos.

        Moderate and Progressive Democrats, by definition, excludes Blue Dog conservative Democrats or by their other name: Corporocrats = sellouts to big corporations.

        But working for a party and working with all the passion and dedication in your heart are not the same thing. I will continue to work for Progressive Democrats.  But recapturing that sort of passion - from last year's presidential election - will be hard to do.

  •  This should be a slam dunk (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pointsoflight

    How in the fuck have Reid, Pelosi and Obama fucked this up?

  •  Abandonment justified? (0+ / 0-)

    Republicans began abandoning the party after nearly eight years of an Administration with so many botches and aspiring leaders with no ideas.  

    That Independents are losing support for Democrats, but not supporting Republicans seems reasonable, after all--they're Independents, that's what they do.

    But, IMHO for Democrats to "abandon" the party after 7 months is ridiculous.

  •  "Incompetence"? Or corruption? (0+ / 0-)

    "Democrats are showing that no matter how big their margins, no matter how popular the policy, they are still too incompetent to get anything done."

    I am getting a bit tired of the "Democrats-are-incompetent" meme.  Occam's Razor would seem to me to dictate that a much more logical reason exists for the manifold failures of the Democrats: CORRUPTION.  The correlation between corporate money received and corporate (and thus anti-American) positions taken by these corporatist Dem's approaches unity.  

    So why don't we call it like it is?  When the Harlem Globetrotters took the field they always brought with them the hapless Washington Generals to play the fall guys.  That's what is happening here:  The Dem's are just doing what they are paid to do, which is to deliberately fail and take the heat for the continuation of corporatist policies.

    Oh, the Dem's are competent alright--they are very ably giving the corporations everything said corporations want.  Just as they are being paid to do.

    How can this be anything but obvious?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site