No, the point is you are identifying with people like QTG who come into my diaries saying contradictory  things like the government has no place in giving loans to businesses, and then saying they do when it suits them. This person wrote a total of 30 plus comments, argued with the likes of Steve M including pretending that s/he did not get Steve's analogy, etc. Your sticking your nose in that as if it is my fault that they acting like that is telling of how you think. It's not about the arguments. It is about who you think is in your club.

LIke I said, that comment you choose to cut and paste was not about you. That you are continuing to make excuses for cutting and pasting it in a non sequitur response to my criticism of your position is telling. I do not expect you to like me. But I do expect that you will not rationalize bad behavior from posters who are not here to debate issues, but instead to attack anyone and everyone who remotely say anything about the Democratic Party.

In this case, the diary that QTG was crapping on was about wage deflation. I said a couple of lines about how the Democrats must address the issue going forward. They used this as an excuse as others said in the diary to crap all over my diary with what were basically stalker-esque behavior for online since they kept changing their arguments and attacking anything said throughout the diary. Indeed, there are several posters who do this with other diarists include Des Dem, J Orton, amongst others. You can rationalize that as supporting Pres Obama I suppose, but at the end of the day the behavior is meant to harras rather than discuss issues. If you think, for example, Nfa is simply here like you to discuss the issue then that again is telling. Have you seen this poster harass others here? I have.

The fact is - I should not have to explain that to you because it has nothing to do with you. You are rationalizing a poor decision on your poor to not respond to my criticism by pretending that comments about the behavior of others has something to do with you.

Which is why the public option is so illustrative. Why exactly is this policy idea labeled as the fall left despite the fact that he is supported by the great bulk of the American people? In the case of the banks, the idea of  we must allow "too big to fail" assumes that any other alternative view is not capitalism and is a far left idea. That the only choice for capitalism is laissez faire capitalism or plutocratic capitalism. The debate is limited to those things that justifies the status quo rather than is actual reflection of what can be done.

Your claim to being "attacked" by my subsequent assertions does not justify your very first non sequitur response or claims that I must be on drugs because I point out that Obama's policy goals are not particularly ambitious when compared to the problems he is being asked to address.

Indeed, I attempt to illustrate why this is case by comparing Obama to FDR and LBJ and their policy challenges.

I pointed out factually that your argument have certain implications. That's not an attack. You may disagree with the facts, but the first response should have been this , your more recent post, as to why you disagree. It would have saved you a lot of trouble.

As for your claims, your arguments strike me as  the most positive spin on what these things mean. They can be viewed as possibly correct, but the problem is the overall number of facts  together do  not seem to agree with that spin. By analogy, it is like those who argue one or another leak is false out of the White House. My problem with the claim is that there are so many leaks saying similar things from multiple news sources. It would require that they are all lying about the unnamed sources. Similarly here, for me to buy your spin on the facts requires that I ignore any number of facts here.

Assuming your argument about Snowe being window dressing is true, why was the deal with big pharma necessary? You claim that the Snowe situation is window dressing, but why is that window dressing necessary regarding a public option-less bill once you are pass the SFC?

Explain the comments this weekend by Obama's team regarding the public option being optional even at this late date in the process after we have gotten the bill out of SFC:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/19 /0127/3992

Why might they not get the robust public option if this is a influential president negotiating now with his own party given both his appeal and that of the public option along with the electoral weakness of the other players like Reid. In Reid's state, the public option enjoys a high level of support.

Again, this is about implications of argument when one examines the facts. Not what you say directly. Thus, when you argue that Obama is trying to do the possible, I look at the facts and ask why they do not match up with that.

My point with this last example is how the possible here requires us to pressume that President Obama has less power than Reid. Part of the issue here is you trust President Obama. I don't trust any politician. I am skeptical. I look at what they say and do with skepticism.

Do you buy this argument from the White House, for example, that they have not the determinant at this point of what will go to the Senate floor? I don't. If the various whip counts are right and the robust public option is brought to the Senate floor, the numbers are there to pass it.

This is also a matter of policy outcome. Doing something here is not the same thing as doing what is sufficient to the health care problem. Indeed, without cost containment, and with mandates, it can end up worse. Why is this president claiming not to have enough power to ensure cost containment in a bill he claims to be his key legislation?

To buy their argument, and to accept your idea that the White House is focused on what is possible, implies that they are less influential here, for example, that Harry Reid or Baucus.

Follow up:

Your belief over what is happening with the public option regarding outrage as you call it is also false.

a) It is not ideological. It's populist as orestes points out above. There are indeed several scales here. One of them is left versus right. Others are pragmatic versus non-pragmatic. Plutocratic versus non-plutocratic. Etc. To properly gauge what is happening you have to view it from the right scale.

b) The progressive pressure has worked. You may not like it. But it is working. The 60 voting block in the House along with public action ensure that the White House and others must consider this in their calculus when negotiating the issue. This is negotiation 101.

c) I am not interested in either pressure President Obama or the legislature. Both should and need to be pressured. It does not matter if he's up for a vote next year. It matters that he feels he must move to the center, toward the public option, because the public says he must. This again can be verified by comparing what the White House is willing to give up with what they have been forced through the process of push back to include. I am really not sure why you think we should not pressure President Obama. He is a particularly powerful player in the mix. As such, given his power with say that of Reid, one of the targets must be PResident Obama since Obama can influence Reid.