QUELLING Progressive Rebellion: " Here, Have A Cookie, After Tomorrow You Won't Remember A Thing "

[Segami]

Squeezing the Public Option out of the HRC deal was their intention from the get-go. Progressives have been blind-sided into accepting almost every comprimise that watered down REAL HCR.



Lets recap:


Huffington Post October 26, 2009



Who's Killing the Public Option? President Obama With A Rahm Bow.



Sometimes, if you follow the evidence, you find that the perp is hiding in plain sight. When it comes to repeated attempts to kill off the public option, you'll find that the person most responsible isn't Olympia Snowe or Max Baucus or any of the other the usual suspects. It's Barack Obama.


Those fighting for a "robust" public option need to finally accept the hard truth that Barack Obama is not any ally. He's an obstacle.


The evidence points to President Obama having made a deal with the devil--the for-profit health care industry--to kill any meaningful public option in exchange for their support for industry-friendly health care reform and campaign cash, and the time has now come to pay up, while trying to avoid leaving any fingerprints around the corpse.

Let's rewind to last summer. On August 13, The New York Times reported that while President Obama had presented himself as "aloof from the legislative fray," particularly in connection with the public option, "Behind the scenes, however, Mr. Obama and advisors have been...negotiating deals with a degree of cold-eyed political realism potentially at odds with the president's rhetoric." Among these deals by the Obama administration: A deal with big Pharma to reduce drug prices by a relative paltry $80 billion over 10 years in exchange for Obama reneging on his campaign promise to allow Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices; and a deal with the private hospital lobby to limit its cost reductions to $155 billion over 10 years in exchange for a White House promise that there would be no meaningful public option. According to the Times:


"Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying-Medicare rates...or controlled by the secretary of health and human services. 'We have an agreement with the White House that I'm very confident will be seen all the way through conference', one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, director of the Federation of American Hospitals, told a Capitol Hill newsletter...Industry lobbyists say they are not worried 'We trust the White House," Mr. Kahn said.


more

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/whos-killing-the-public-o_b_334372.html>

[MNDemNY]

1. That is what happens when we elect folks like that.(corporatists).

[Segami]

3. And they continue to remind us (like a broken record)that THEY'RE representing our best interests.

[MNDemNY]

5. Of course, and many here will echo that message. Sad.

[ProSense]

2. Where's the petition to keep the public option in the final bill?

There's one for investigating Rahm.

[jgraz]

4. You cannot be serious.

Petition? Try *petitions*:

Here:
http://www.standwithdrdean.com/

And here:
http://ga3.org/campaign/healthpetition?qp_source=hc%5furl

And here:
http://www.petitiononline.com/PubOp676/petition.html

And here:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/205855008

And here:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/265021056

And here:
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/keepthepledge (Oohh, from FireDogLake! Be afraid! Be afraid!!! :scared:)

And here:
http://open.salon.com/blog/rictresa/2009/09/04/petition_for_the_public_option

And here:
http://countdowntohealthcare.com/petition/

And here:
http://act.boldprogressives.org/cms/sign/porescue/?source=autoe1


Gee, I wonder how could you have found this out before you embarrassed yourself? Hmmm... maybe this will help: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Public+Option+Petition

[ProSense]

28. What a joke. Those petitions aren't even active

FDL: Latest update: 65,549 (9/13/09)

What a joke.

[MNDemNY]

7. In reality land. You've probably not seen them.

[jgraz]

13. .

:spray:

[Echo In Light]

6. K&R

[Skidmore]

8. I would happily wager that, if given a thorough investigation, about

half of that "progressive rebellion" is made up of teabaggers and other assorted R operatives trying to pump up stats for another group (and, might I add, an amorphous one since the whole label makes no sense to me) since they failed so miserably to demonstrate real turn out in their own.

BTW, I am a liberal who belives firmly in progressive ideas. I think the term progressive is a cop out.

[berni_mccoy]

9. +1

[jgraz]

14. You should learn some history

"Progressive" has a fine tradition and predates "liberal" as a term for a left-winger. Just ask anyone from Wisconsin.

The rest of your post? Too dumb to merit a comment.

[Skidmore]

17. During the past year or two, the term "progressive" has come to be

used as a hidey hole for those who did not want to own their liberalism, and I strongly believe that the Norquist and his group are going about destroying that brand as well. I'm very happy to be known as a liberal. And, if you are so naive, as to think that everyone who shows up on internet boards calling themselves progressives are what they say they are, then you are equally naive. During the 08 campaign, we learned that there were cadres of paid Republican operatives hitting the boards trying to cause division on the left. These people are even more motivated to cause division now because they have no real power. Little foxes nibbling the grapes. This is why I am not ready to embrace everyone who shows up here claiming to be a progressive but actually with a stated purpose of destroying the Democratic Party. Criticism is one thing, outright lobbying for or stated participation in its destruction will accomplish nothing.

[jgraz]

20. No, not really.

We've all seen the obvious Repuke plants on this site. Most of them are too dumb to keep their identity secret.

The real danger comes from the corporate shills -- paid or not -- who are working hard to establish the new center as somewhere to the right of Barry Goldwater.

[Sebastian Doyle]

32. "with a stated purpose of destroying the Democratic Party."

You mean the DLC, and all it's splintered subgroups (Basically, any thing that has the words "new" and "Democrat" in it)?

[TheKentuckian]

18. Yeah, liberals love being force fed into a predatory monopoly

to get "coverage" that many will not be able to afford that will still leave 19 million SOL.

There were like a billion posts when the finance mark came down saying it was garbage but now it has magically become cool and froody. Bullshit, I sez.

This is a nobody is happy bill if ever there has been one.

[WeDidIt]

19. You're wrong

It's more like 99%.

[unc70]

21. "Progressive" is not a cop-out.

In the South, a Progressive Democrat was, and probably still is, someone liberal on social issues (race, gender, "welfare", government support of education, health, social services) while fiscally conservative (balanced budgets are required for state and local govs) though willing to raise taxes for the public good.

I was probably a Progressive Dem growing up, but by college in the 1960's are was securely in the "liberal" category. In the South, "liberal" had long been associated with Federal, rather than state, power and control whether used in a context like "Liberal Kansas" or in efforts to obscure Federal actions that supported the interests of large banks and railroads (most based in the North) and which historically had preyed on ordinary citizens, often aided by corrupt local officials. This type "progressive" was firmly rooted in "populism".

By these definitions, Obama is neither a liberal nor a progressive in many of his actions. While I had hoped for somewhat better from him, I have not been surprised at all by his actions.
There are many at DU who first supported DK or JE who seem to share this view of things. I personally have thought from 2+ years back that Obama was the most conservative/centrist of all the Dem candidates, and nothing since has changed my mind.

I would take your bet from what I see variously on the net and in reality, if there were any independent way to determine "reality". My guess is that less than 10% fall in the category you describe.

[PassingFair]

24. I'm a Progressive. My family are Progressives. And most of my friends are Progressives.

But go on thinking we don't exist.

[mmonk]

26. How much?

[Hello_Kitty]

30. I'm a liberal, a progressive, and a populist.

They each mean different things.

[berni_mccoy]

10. K&U for paranoid delusional b.s.

[jgraz]

16. Only if you never pick up a newspaper.

Those of us who bother to stay informed saw this coming a mile away.


07/07/09: White House open to deal on Public Option: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124692407982802911.html

08/16/09: Obama doesn't mention Public Option on NYT OpEd: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8591084

08/18/09: White House signals Public Option may be dropped: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/health/policy/18talkshows.html?_r=1

09/02/09: White House offers "trigger" to Snowe: http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/09/02/snowe-trigger-wh/

09/04/09: White House memo omits support for Public Option: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/white-house-polling-memo-omits-numbers-showing-support-for-public-option/

09/06/09: White House backs away from requiring Public Option: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32714404/ns/politics-health_care_reform

10/16/09: Obama's 'trigger' stance irks the Hill: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/10/26/obamas_trigger_stance_irks_the.html

10/18/09: White House reaffirms Public Option not a priority: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/18/AR2009101802152.html

10/23/09: Public Option near, but White House pushes Trigger: http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/public-option-success-close-white-hou

10/24/09: Obama actively discourages Senate's Public Option: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/24/leaderless-senate-pushes_n_332844.html

11/11/09: White House Pushes Trigger: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/11/white-house-thinks-trigge_n_354380.html

12/06/09: Obama silent on Public Option in speech to Senators: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/06/obama-silent-on-public-op_n_381847.html

[Segami]

22. Shhh. you might shock them silly. LOL

[jgraz]

23. At some point, the scales are going to fall from their eyes.

I predict fetal positions and cries for Mommy.

[Segami]

25. Like watching crash-test-dummies twisting through the air in slow-mo after a PLANNED impact

[amborin]

27. +100

[tblue]

11. So those of us who thought the WH wasn't involved enough,

or in the ring fighting, were wrong. The WH was plenty involved. Just on the wrong side. I could just cry.

[highplainsdem]

12. K&R

[nightrain]

15. knr. fine informative post.

[tbyg52]

29. >>Industry lobbyists say they are not worried 'We trust the White House,"

(Shakes head sadly.)

[Segami]

31. Industry was NEVER worried to begin with. This was determined a long time ago and the staged theater

was for our benefit only.