by Jonathan Singer, Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 04:00:23 PM EDT
Tonight I'll be Twittering President Obama's address to Congress @jonathanhsinger for those interested. What are your thoughts?
My quick take: Fantastic, historic, game-changing speech. Expectations were astronomical, but amazingly met and exceeded.
Tags: Barack Obama, Healthcare, Public Option (all tags)
Actually, you've been going for weeks. Prematurely.
Here's an interesting latecomer just barely making his Presponse:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424 052970
SEPTEMBER 9, 2009, 7:40 P.M. ET
By KARL ROVE
Millions of Americans watched President Barack Obama's speech last night to a joint session of Congress.
What a pain in the ass.
He made a strong stand for a public option. Not as you define it, perhaps, but as it is defined in reality, for sure.
yeah he did not throw it under the bus, lock, stock and barrel. So if that is a strong stand for you, I guess your expectations are either very low or you cheer everything and anything that the President says (I think the latter is true). In any case we are moving towards a Massachusetts type health care.
The speech was good because at least he was willing to be combative and take on his critics.
You said, and I responded to this:
still no stand on public option, so I have been on the money.
can you hear yourself?
YOU SAID NO STAND!!!!
YOU SAID NO STAND!!!!
but then you ct as though you hadn't said that:
yeah he did not throw it under the bus, lock, stock and barrel......
You need help. MARK MY WORDS!
What are you a kindergartner? Show some civility.
What stand did he take? Did he say anything new about the public option, other than what he has been saying all along? This is the same equivocation we have heard for the last month. The words on public option were "the public option is only a means to an end. We should be open to other ideas that let us achieve our ultimate goal". So no, there was no new movement on public option. There was no stand subliminal or otherwise, except there was no outright capitulation.
I didn't want to put it quite so bluntly, but, you originally stated that you were correct in predicting what the President would say because he said nothing about the Public Option, and I responded to you.
You then responded as though you original LIE never occurred, and now you've done it again, and I fully expect you to continue to LIE about it, passing up the two better options: letting it drop and hoping more people don't see you bad behavior OR admitting that you 'mispoke' or 'made a grave error', you know - the standard stuff.
If I hear Lawrence O'Donnell harp about his health plan being taxed at 35% one more time, I think I'll scream.
during the Clinton presidency (when he was a senior Senate staffer), so maybe he wants to help kill it again.
Someone somewhere said that the reason why health care is never discussed by the media is because there is yet to be a reporter without health care. O'Donnell is the worst type, neither a reporter nor a pol, but a color commentator with health care. So he can say any shit to stoke the flames and make his color commentary as the city burns.
Usually I think he is on the mark, but here he is bringing in and selling his own spin.
He's against health care reform as far as I can tell.
on the Senate Finance Committee. MSNBC should not have him on this beat, or they should always put up on the screen "used to work with Baucus" every time he's on tv.
From FactCheck.org
False: Illegal Immigrants Will Be CoveredOne Republican congressman issued a press release claiming that "5,600,000 Illegal Aliens May Be Covered Under Obamacare," and we've been peppered with queries about similar claims. They're not true. In fact, the House bill (the only bill to be formally introduced in its entirety) specifically says that no federal money would be spent on giving illegal immigrants health coverage:
H.R. 3200: Sec 246 -- NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
Also, under current law, those in the country illegally don't qualify for federal health programs. Of interest: About half of illegal immigrants have health insurance now, according to the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center, which says those who lack insurance do so principally because their employers don't offer it.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-f alsehoods-about-health-care/
If I hear anyone on this site criticize the President for his belief and defense of civility.....
that the only veto threat Obama made is that he won't sign a bill that adds to the deficit. We can do all kinds of other things that add to the deficit, but somehow health care reform isn't important enough.
If we do this right we should be able to save money through health care reform, but even if we don't save money, providing universal health care for a reasonable cost is an appropriate use of federal money in my opinion.
Congress now understands that they can send Obama the most sellout bill imaginable, and he will sign it as long as it doesn't add to the deficit. Pathetic.
I think the speech is completely a rorshach. He says a little bit from column A, column b and c. It was not a bad speech, but a game changer? no, not really. I mean- what did he say that would make health care reform more likely tonight? I ask for people to provide me with that context, because I am not seeing it.
Is there a rule around here about calling someone a turd, because I don't want to break any rules.
The sad thing is you really think it is me you have to convince. You are right you can't convince me. I will wait to see what happens with actual behaviors in COngress. Does this speech shift any behavior or not. That's my test, and not how you and the regular cheerleaders line up to say "it was great." As I keep asking of someone who also just said the speech was wonderful, do you think this will change the trajectory in anyway between the two polls of Baucus care and the House health care bill? I don't see that it will. It was not a bad speech. It just did not change the emotional dynamic. Here;s hoping the post speech spin will. But I am not holding my breath.
That's my test, and not how you and the regular cheerleaders line up to say "it was great." As I keep asking of someone who also just said the speech was wonderful....
As of 9:47 EST you are only one of two people in this thread who have commented on the speech qua speech.
The sad thing is you really think it is me you have to convince.
Do I? I couldn't care less what you think...or even if you're still alive tomorrow.
God, what a fucking ego.
You don't care,but you feel the need to tell me that I am wrong as to my questioning how this speech pushes forward, fo rexample, the Public Option more than it was before teh speech. I don't get it. It's my ego that's driving you to respond with comments regarding my questioning the speech's impact on the dynamic of say the public option? 60 some percent of the public support it. Do you think it is more or less likely or as i suspect no impact at all after this speech?
You don't care,but you feel the need to tell me that I am wrong as to my questioning how this speech pushes forward
I never commented on your questioning of anything. I barely said five words.
You need help dude,
You have now written multiple posts in response to my simple statment that I did not find the speech would change the dyanmics of the debate in congress. I am not sure why this is such a big issue.
and strained criticism of the speech, wrapped in your characteristically stilted tone of superiority, is persuasive to perhaps two in this audience, both of whom share one name. While it may be insecurity that motivates your non-stop criticism of the President, I can't forgive you for it or let it go unchallenged. You need help, but this isn't an intervention.
"It just did not change the emotional dynamic." may be true for you, personally, but that wasn't open to change going in. The speech was great, as I had predicted, and will have a beneficial effect on moving a good Bill into law. Your points of view (well some of them) will be crushed if a good Bill passes. You have a stake in the outcome. If Obama succeeds, you fail. You're no more impartial than those you like to criticize.
You childishly think that your passive aggressive Obama disrespect is a game changer, that it will change the emotional dynamic. That's delusional.
It's why so many aspiring entrepreneurs cannot afford to open a business in the first place, and why American businesses that compete internationally - like our automakers - are at a huge disadvantage.
A competitive "free market" ploy for sure, but will still win points.
Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem.
Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch.
It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don't. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government. It's a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge - not just government and insurance companies, but employers and individuals.
These are just some of the "words" that will help to get those on fence and those who were skeptical about why they should support it, to fall into the camp. As we know most people don't really know what is going on, and these blurbs will go along way to win them.
Who was on the fence when the public is 60 percent (let's go conservative 55 percent) in support of the PO for example ? Wasn't the real issue tonight pushing congress, and did this speech push them?
the speech was aimed at the public. it was to get the public's attention back on reform and eliminate confusion.
Then I don't get it. a large bulk of the public supports the democratic agenda such as the PO. This is true after a month of GOP lies. The issue is congress.
but getting the public, their constituents, to demand something. That's what the speech was supposed to do.
I wills ay it again. It was not a bad speech. It was pretty good, but the issue of pressuring congress is what I was trying to figure out how this fits into the picture. This is where the disconnect lies. I don't know how he could have done it. Perhaps by asking more Americans to get involved if they suppor the P.O. by contacting their representatives? Did he do that specific point at some point because I do not remembering hearing it? It is just an idea. Something to change the dynamic because the Congress and DC press knows that the American people support the PO, but they are ignoring it. So how do you get people who are ignoring what the American people want to pay attention to what the American people want? Let's say the polls come out just as high with a supermajority as they already have been- will this change anything?
Since you are way smarter that me (because you are smarter than Obama):
Why do you presume that your version of the P.O. is the version that every American among the (conservatively 55%) wants? Do you even get 55% of the people here to agree that your version is the only acceptable option?
Immediately after the speech. This hit my inbox:
Fogiv --I just finished laying out my plan for health reform at a joint session of Congress. Now, I'm writing directly to you because what happens next is critical -- and I need your help.
Change this big will not happen because I ask for it. It can only come when the nation demands it. Congress knows where I stand. Now they need to hear from you.
Add your voice: Ask your representatives to support my plan for real health reform in 2009.
The heart of my plan is simple: bring stability and security to Americans who already have health insurance, guarantee affordable coverage for those who don't, and rein in the cost of health care.
Tonight, I offered a specific plan for how to make it happen. I incorporated the best ideas from Democrats and Republicans to create a plan that's bold, practical, and represents the broad consensus of the American people.
We've come closer to real health reform in the last few months than we have in the last 60 years. But those who profit from the status quo -- and those who put partisan advantage above all else -- will fight us every inch of the way.
We do not seek that fight, but we will not shrink from it. The stakes are too high to let scare tactics cloud the debate, or to allow partisan bickering to block the path. Your voice, right now, is essential.
See my full plan and call on your representatives to support it:
http://my.barackobama.com/Supp...
Ours is not the first generation to understand the dire need for health reform. And I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last.
Thank you,
President Barack Obama
This is good. However, you are one of the people like myself already involved inthe effort. I have been calling my representatives, the White House and emailing my friends since May as I suspect have hopefully many here.
There are quite a few Americans sitting on the side lines. When I speak of the part that I wish had been a part of the speech and why I think it was okay to good (and have had a chance to fully think it through) it was a desire that he include a call to action while giving the speech to those who are not already doing so. Those not on the mailing list who liked his speech.
It may have been risky but it would have brought in more americans such as like the ad where the Republican calls the other Republican to task for not supporting the public option that was posted here. I can not remember who did the ad, but I thought it was a good way to bring the realliyt of wide scale bipartisan support outside of DC Republicans home as is reflected by the polls.
Anyone that thought the entire purpose of this speech was the public option is spending WAYYYYYYYYY too much time on left Wing Blogs.
This was to take the conversation back.
As someone said, lets see how many more Death Panel quotes we hear, compared to "NO MORE DENIAL BASED ON PRE EXISTING CONDITIONS!"
Now, when Republicans vote AGAINST it, THAT is what they are voting against....
The insurance companies denying care. BINGO!
He was TRYING to take the conversation back, and making it ALL ABOUT the public option would have been a tragic mistake.
cost control is not a leftist issue. it's the core question of creating reform. without i all the other things you describe become irrelevant.
views are universal, or even represent the universe of possible views from the left, but Bruh, one of the main scare arguments that has sunk in is, THE PUBLIC OPTION WILL BE EXPENSIVE...
Get it? THE OPPOSITE of what you are claiming, cost containment...The public option is a scare tactic which is being used to fuel RISING COSTS
in the way of taxes, NOT cost containment.
Yes, YOU inherientely only see the left arguement, that the Public Option will bring down cost.
But the right has been incredibly successul in convincing people the public option will RAISE cost, Raise their taxes....
One more time, if the ENTIRE SPEECH would have been a bust their chops about the public option:
1. That would NOT have increased the pressure on congress, that argument is silly. It would have done quite the opposite.
2. That would have allowed the right wing to pivot and say
"See, nothing else matters, this is a government take over of congress...."
And the phone calls pour in to Congress, hence the speech is a bust.
Again, OBAMA put the question back to them:
What, you are FOR allowing the Health Care Companies DENY Coverage?
You are FOR people going bankrupt?
That is what he is going to make the right vote against.
All you wanted was a diatribe on the public option.
Thank Goodness Obama is too smart to have gone there.
a bill that adds to the deficit would never pass Congress anyway, so the whole thing is moot.
That's a bone for the deficit hawks.
he will sign it as long as it doesn't add to the deficit
To be fair, his point was that not adding to the deficit was a necessary, not a sufficient, requirement for his signature.
But I found his description of the plan confusing. He said 95% of small businesses would be exempt from having to buy insurance. Sounds like a lot of folks. Well, maybe the employees could take advantage of the public option, but that would be available as part of the "exchange" that won't go into effect until 4 years from now. And so...
in the meantime, for those Americans who can't get insurance today because they have pre-existing medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill. This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign, it's a good idea now, and we should embrace it.
Well that's sounds like it covers only certain folks and isn't comprehensive insurance. What comprehensive affordable coverage is there for the average Joe and Jane?
I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road - to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.But that's not what the moment calls for.
Anyway, I did like the part where he said every American citizen will get a "Health Security" card, just like we now have a Social Security card, which will guarantee us all coverage. That part was clear and easy to understand.
Oops, wrong speech.
What Obama said folks will get are tax credits (maybe), an exchange (someday), a mandate (or an exemption).
Oh, the contortions our politicians will go through to avoid the "radical" change to a simple to understand public insurance system!
Did I hear everything I needed? No. Did I hear enough? Yes.
As long as the fire and the action is followed by the words, I WILL fight to get the best of what was outlined.
If the waffling and caving start again...I will not stand for it.
But overall I gave it a 500/10 speech. Not batting 1,000 but close enough to "go to the mats".
I BELIEVE...as long as the President does.
Only the PUMAs will hate this speech. I want to see the public option, but let's see how the insurance exchanges will work. I'm not a fan of the individual mandate, but I see there's a waiver for those who can't afford it.
I'm wondering who wants Obama to fail more, the GOP or those "disappointed" lefties (you know who you are). If he fails (and I'm really worried about Afghanistan), we all fail. Despite everything, Obama is still our best hope.
only 5 million people will sign up for the public option. Nearly 50 million people are uninsured, and many tens of millions more are underinsured or have junk insurance. What he's talking about isn't enough to provide real competition.
I don't want him to fail, I want him to stand up for his own campaign promises.
His veto threat over deficits will end up reducing the level of subsidy available to those required to buy insurance. So now we will have a new regressive tax affecting middle-income Americans. Great job, Democrats!
The waiver for those who can't afford insurance only means that a bunch of working poor will continue not to be covered.
We need an affordable public option open to everyone. I would be happy to ditch my current plan for a public option, but I won't get that chance.
Your numbers arent accurate. That 47-50 million uninsured includes roughly 10 million non citizens of the US and another 27 million who can afford insurance based upon income but choose not to purchase. The real number is properly estimated at around 17 million who want but cannot afford or gain access to insurance....
He said "only 5% of Americans", not "5 Million Americans".
5% of 306 Million = 15.3 Million
Yes, wish it was a lot more, but let's stick with what he actually said, not what we imagined he said.
Actually I believe it was "less than 5 million". Semantics to be sure, but just the same.
No. Not "Million", but "percent".
But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear - it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up.
Now, there's a good argument that it still doesn't really go far enough, but if we want to criticize the proposal, let's not act like Republicans here. Criticize it based on what he actually said, not on what we imagine he said. He said "less than 5% of Americans", not "less than 5 Million Americans".
5% of Americans is more than 15 Million Americans - 3 times the number some people here seem to think he said.
No - insurance exchanges are an idea from Obama's first policy paper on health care. They're the mechanism by which a public option - or no public option - would compete against private plans and where they would compete against one-another.
Not to nitpick, but a lot of people hear "insurance exchanges" and think "co-ops". That's not what it means.
Not true, there were many, many things I didn't like simply b/c there ability to manipulate and water it down is too easy. However, at least with a framework and what MUST be in and what is not, there can be some kind of movement forward.
As long as the fire stays, and the actions are indeed followed on from the words, unlike what we have been disappointed by lately, I think we can FIGHT and get most of the framework done.
as I said before, as long as he believes, so will I. Actions will speak louder than words.
Thought it was a great speech. Wish he had given the middle finger to that repugnican who yelled out 'liar' but Obama obviously has more class than me :
Dont like the 4 year wait. Gives the Health care lobby and its bought politicians too long to weaken, poison, or kill it. 18 months would have been reasonable in my opinion.
Glad he more or less supported a public option. Imo there will be no controlling costs without one.
SUPER happy he called the Rs on the unfunded Trillions spent in Iraq and on the Bush tax breaks.
We'll see.
Everybody has to push from here until the finish line.
If not, it will just be a good speech with no follow through.
Let's see if people are still talking about death panels one week from now.
My money says we get health exchange or co ops....no mandates.....
You are doing a lot of praying post speech, bruh3. It's got the sound of desperation in it.
Hey just my guess....but I think they are desperate to pass something that will be generally acceptable to the public......mandates arent.....and although a public option is......it wont get thru the senate. So I think we get co-ops and a host of other items that will indeed lower costs and improve access......that would still be a victory for the administration.
I have had time to think about it more. My two issues as to why I thought the speech was okay to good, bu tnot great
a) He was defending his plan rather than making a call to action. It is as if DC is behind where the public is. I wanted to see more of a call to action because I already think the American public supprots for example the PO so a call for people to contact their representative may have moved us into new territory of using the bullypulpit for direct action rather than having americans just generally say they support reform. This would have been a game changer. Maybe or may be not? I do not know. I just think the speech by itself motivates people how?
b) I think my expectations were different than "oh he's going to get some plan through that does something that's not going to be horrible." I do understand your point, but that's a really low bar. The other items will not lower cost because of the concentration fo the market. This issue remains at play.
Well, pretty much th epublic option is dead. I read a great analysis this morning about the speech and his position. H eknows he doesnt have the votes in the Senate to get it done and doesnt want to have them use reconciliation. SOme in Congress say they wont vote for a plan with the PO. I disagree...they arent stupid. If they vote against it and the plan fails, the leader of the Party, our Democratic President most important agenda item fails. They wont let that happen.
We will get a bill without a public option and I believe no mandates. We will also likely get some tort reform as well. In the end I believe we will get a plan that increases accessiblity thru co-ops, reduces cost and also thereby increases accessibility. This idea that we either get all or nothing is pure stupidity. We will get a plan that can be paid for, lowers costs and improves access. The President comes out a winner....the majority of the public is satisfied and most importantly we achieve a major step in reform.
and a robust defense of realistic liberalism....
but is it a game changer? Does it pass the rorshach test. It had a little bit from column A, column b and c, but not enough from column P or column O. I've forgotten it already. We're doomed.
but a good speech..the best a President can do to move the Congress. I personally wished he outlined the main planks of his healthcare plan before, but I think this is best a President can do. It is now upto the Congress to deliver a bill to the President's desk.
Is this speech any different from the three previous ones at Colorado, Nevada and Montana.
Substantively not. Nothing new in there. We still do not know what kind of public option we will have or for that matter if we will have one at all. The left was chided for getting to fixated on public option.
There was a bunch of Republican ideas introduced, which included emergency coverage and also tort reform (incidentally I am all for tort reform). However the only veto threat was for a bill that is not deficit neutral.
The only saving grace of the speech is that for once he appeared combative and took on the Republicans. However my take on the speech is very different from Jonathan's. While is a very good speech I will be loath to call it game-changing until and unless I see the president signing a health care reform bill that contains meaningful cost containing measures, which means just not cost saving to the government but also cost saving to the consumer.
From reading the comments above, it seems that the point of this speech was to defend and clarify rather than aggressively push for a liberal bill coming out of Congress by using the public to create that pressure.
What i am hoping is that oterh things such as DFA, which hired people, will be used for that purpose. I don't see how this speech is the openning to such a move. It was not a bad speech, but it was not what I thought he would be doing either. Rather than defending the bill, I thoguht he would be moving to advocate for it, even if he did not use the veto words. It again was not bad, but it was not a game changer either.
As I've said above...game changing? No. Momentum changing? Yes. Just enough to be able to get something done within the framework laid out.
As long as the actions and fire follow the words tonight.
There is a possibility.
purely from the reaction of the desperate critics, I have to rate this speech a 10!!
It would be worth engaging you if you actually behaved like an adult or thought rationally or had anything substantive to say. Guess it is too much to ask of you. But FYI:
Ezra Klein: "Obama Promises Improvement, Not Change" (shorter: he trying to set an achievable goal)
Jane Hamsher: "President's Comments on Public Option: No Commitment, Open to Triggers"
Jon Cohn: "But he also makes clear, to left as well as right, that he's open to compromise."
So once again if there was a "stand" on public option it was invisible.
Your desperate prevaluation of the speech as flaccid and weak is transparently flaccid and weak.
Making stuff up does not make you right, but makes you a very good liar, very Rovian. I said what I said I stand by it and I am right.
You are right in the context of how you view the world and our current political reality. Your view is neither objective nor shared by the entire world. The truth of the matter is this- Obama was never going to stand up the way you and others here want him to because he can't win that way and like it or not the administration has to put some points on the board before the midterm elections.
I agree with you that a public option is our best course of action where we disagree is that you believe it is the only possible course of action. I do not feel that way, I have a lot of faith in our President and I am willing to see what he can accomplish here.
Everyone knows that if the final outcome lacks a public option you, and many others, will view it as a failure at first. For me though, and for many others,if it lowers the costs of healthcare and forces the insurance companies to actually cover people it would be a big win. Shit, if a year from now I can afford health insurance I will consider it a big win.
And just as you are right according to your view of things QTG is right according to his. Now, I disagree with both of you for the most part and fall somewhere in the middle...and I am sick and tired of the way you both, and others, attack one another but that is something I just have to live with.
I truly wonder if either of you would vote for the same person if you knew the other person was voting the same way you did, but it doesn't matter.
Like I have said many times before, the boat with public option has sailed. I was hoping rather foolishly that he might make a stand on public option, I am not alone. There are many like me some more famous than others.
In any case right now I am waiting for the final bill. I am all for choice and competition and insurance reform and regulation. What I am against is a mandate with fines without ensuring that there will not be a rise in premiums.
Why? Because everything that he is suggesting now is in MA. Commonwealth care ensures choice and competition and has dramatically reduced the number of uninsured by mandates, but it failed to cap costs of health care and stem the rising premiums. As a result the MA care is in a lot of trouble and the governor has to take drastic steps which includes revoking care from tax paying legal immigrants their right to subsidies under Commonwealth Care. What's more the state now faces lawsuits from hospitals.
That is mistake we can ill afford on a large scale. So if you want mandated coverage, so be it but the government must provide sustained affordability. How they do it is up to them. I thought the public option was the best way to go, but if that cannot be implemented something else must be there as a viable long-term alternative.
Another reason why I fight for affordability is that I am the captive audience. I am a healthy person with good insurance but the person dearest to me has a preexisting condition and even though I am paying for her insurance I still do not know if she will be covered the next time we are up for renewal. Already her insurance has gone up three times in small increments. The only thing that is saving us is my employer provided insurance.
You also lead the way in throwing in some links and saying
"See, they agree with me, therefore I am right!"
No, it means they AGREE WITH YOU!
Nothing more, nothing less.
If you watch Keith, there was a parade of people saying the opposite.
Of course, that AGAIN is just people's opinion.
But, most of them thought Obama DID NOT throw the public option under the bus? They said the opposite, that Obama made a strong defense of the public option WITHOUT making it the entire speech, and therefore the target from the right.
I will see your Jane Hamsher, and raise you a Barbara Boxer?
See your Jon Cohn, and raise you a Sherod Brown?
Finding people who agree with your point of view doesn't prove you are correct, just that people have different points of view.
As a policy speech it was kinda meh. Not the sort of ambitious program I was hoping for, just your basic incrementalism. I'm not saying it's a bad bill, exactly... although I do want to know where all those people were who used to say that individual mandates are the end of the world.
As a political speech, I think the primary goal was to reestablish Obama's identity as the grownup in the room. On that level I think it worked spectacularly well. Of course the GOP can't stop helping him out.
Where Senate experts have said that reconciliation can be filibustered by voting on every item in the reconciliation and proposing amendments to it.
Where 60 votes for the public option are needed for passage.
Where only 45 votes for the public option exist and even if the President were to go barnstorming through the rest of the country to bridge the gap, he would not be able to overturn the minds of Senators who come from areas where the public option is opposed by the public.
To list two examples:
Democratic Senators Ben Nelson opposes the public option, and the plurality of his state does as well, by a margin of 47% opposed to 38% in favor.
Democratic Senators Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor oppose the public option as do the majority of their state (60%).
There is no polling data available on Louisiana, but that's the Deep South, and thus likely to be even more opposed to the public option than Nebraska or Lincoln, thus causing Demoratic Senator Mary Landrieu to oppose the public option.
We really need to stop ignoring facts here and stop ignoring the barriers that exist to the public option in the Senate.
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
101 Comments