--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchy...@...> wrote: > > I'm not a fan of the assholes at Daily Kos, but I dug > one up that clearly shows how easily Obama can flip > flop on the the public option. "mcjoan" says that Obama > is for a "robust public option" and he believes him, > but he also reports that Obama is "Open" to Co-ops in > Place of Public Option. He thinks it's a terrible idea > and so do I.
It's not a great idea, but it's better than nothing and may be all we can get. I think Obama is seeing the handwriting on the wall. > http://tinyurl.com/nxddqz > http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/7/763238/-Obama-Open-to-Co-ops-in-Place-of-Public-Option > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > > > Lots of rhetoric and diddly squat about a public option. > > > > I think he's describing what he's pretty sure he's > > going to get, and not promising anything he's > > uncertain about. The provisions he lists are > > just crucially important. > > Obama, "outline" is pretty sketchy, at best. Sheesh, it's only a five-minute radio address! > There's so little "there, there" that no one can > fault him if it blows up. Oh, yes, they can. The elements he cited will make a substantial difference, and if he can't get those through, we might as well forget the whole thing. > My worry about any bill that passes without a public > option, is that it will turn into an insurance > industry feeding frenzy. Some co-op or other weasel > invention either is unacceptable. We have to have a > public option. Let's see what kind of co-op idea they come up with. There's lots of different possibilities. > > He's said over and over again that he would like a > > public option. I don't see any reason to think that > > he really *doesn't* want it. But there's *huge* > > opposition to it, and he'd rather get what he > > outlines here than have the whole thing go down in > > flames because he's insisted on a public option. > > Obama is in the middle of competing forces. He pleases > them by talking out of both sides of his mouth. On the > left he has activist pushing hard for a public option, > and he's telling them to back off. Actually he isn't. He was speaking to Blue Dogs, trying to get some cooperation from them by showing them some sympathy, saying he wished the left wouldn't attack Democrats. But there have been no reports from activist organizations that they've been told to back off. > The left's opponent is the insurance industry that > helped put Obama in office. Now of these two masters, > who has the most sway? I'd like to think it's the > folks that voted for him not the folks who bought him. > But as the saying goes, money talks. It's the *congresscritters* who have been bought. He's explicitly staked his presidency and his second term on health insurance reform, saying that's how folks should evaluate his effectiveness. <snip lots of stuff I agree with> > I'd like to trust Obama a little more and give him the > benefit of the doubt as you do, but history of flip flops > tells me otherwise. I think it will be a lot more effective to lean on Congress than to dump on Obama, flip flops or no. I really don't think he knew what he was going to be up against; that's one big reason why I didn't support him over Hillary. He's having to punt his way through.
