The article contains mostly good news, and is being well-received around the blogosphere. But I feel compelled to play yet another round of "What's wrong with this headline?"
Liberals revolt over public option
By: Jonathan Martin and Carrie Budoff Brown
August 18, 2009 04:39 AM EST
The White House’s signal that it’s willing to back off support for a public health insurance option has sent congressional liberals into full revolt, bluntly warning the administration that no legislation will pass without a government-run plan.
A group of left-leaning House Democrats tells POLITICO that a bill without a public option simply won’t win enough votes in their caucus — a sentiment that raises fresh questions about the prospects to enact sweeping health care reform this year.
"A bill without a public option won’t pass the House," said Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), a member of Energy & Commerce Health subcommittee. "Not only are they weakening their proposal, but they are also weakening their hand. This is legislative subtraction by subtraction."
Good news, right? Yes, absolutely. And there's more where that came from. I invite you to read the article.
But what's wrong with the headline?
What's wrong with the headline is that it's not the progressives who are in rebellion here. The public option is a Democratic value. The rebellion here is among the conservatives in the Senate, who oppose this basic Democratic principle, oppose the White House, and oppose their colleagues in the House of Representatives. This is a counter-insurgency. It's Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh and others who are on the outs here, hoping to upset the apple cart, and fight for some reason on behalf of the insurance company CEOs who fuel their private jets with the cash they steal from you when they deny you the care you thought you were paying them for.
Interesting, then, that the media's insistence on framing progressives as the "out" group persists, even when the opposite is true.