OFFICIAL EXCUSE-WATCH THREAD: Why we can't have a Public Option this time.

[optimal-tomato]

For the past few weeks, we've been told: "Everyone wants a Public Option, but we can't change the reconciliation bill even a little, because that would send it back to the House to be voted on again."

Well... Allan Frumin, the Senate Parliamentarian, just flagged two provisions that have to be changed in the reconciliation bill, so the bill is going back to the House anyway, public option or not. If their excuse was true, then you'd expect them to say: "By golly, we could add the public option now."

We're all grown-ups here, and we know that a significant number of Democratic Senators don't want a public option, regardless of what they said before or if they signed Michael Bennett's letter. So, what excuse will we get this time, do you think?

Also, does anyone think that a single brave soul like Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders, or Al Franken will have the guts to offer up a public option? By the rules, it only takes one Senator to propose the amendment and they HAVE to vote on it. I'll have my own opinions in a separate post.

[FrenchieCat]

1. If you are a grown up,

then you can see that we ain't getting a public option right this minute.

Progressives need to sell this bill, not continue to fight over it!
I'm fucking getting tired of the whining about this bill, that is historic,
no matter how much the Eeyores, and the fucked up media want to talk it down
(Republicans love that shit!)

I'll be goddamned if we, Progressives, kill our own chances in safeguarding Democratic
seats during the 2010 elections. We've already had the arguments; and already heard
all of the complaints like a broken record at this point,
and it is now time to sell the good shit in this bill to every single person out there.

I've noticed that while progressives were busy fighting about single payer vs. a P.O.
all through the summer, trash talking our President, and finding Teabaggers "entertaining", we didn't get out there, and the Teabaggers with the help of their media actually kicked
our ass as far as being out front.

This can't happen again for other policy proposals, and it certainly can't happen for the 2010 elections, or we ain't getting shit else, small, little or whatever.

We are dealing with Republicans who are willing to let people kill each other in the streets rather than do anything to make this President look good, and a media that ain't playing either. I'm not sure us being at each other's throat about a bill that just passed is exactly our best strategy to making more political gain, especially at a time that we have Citizen's United to deal with. I don't have time to fight other progressives when what needs to be happening is us fighting these funky ass Republicans.

We progressives love to debate the minutia, but when it comes to strategizing on how to make real gains, for the most part, we ain't shit! Some complaint about the Dem leadership, their lack of spine, lack of toughness with the opposition, but at least they know how to get shit done.

Didn't even get one day of feeling like we'd done something, before all of the naysayers go
back to the same ol' same ol' talk a lot about what should have been done, instead of what we
should be doing.

I'm ready to do something with this momentum that we have, instead of arguing about the same
shit over and over again, and doing not much else.

So we may eventually get the Public Option, but if you haven't noticed,
right now, we need to take what we did get and finish that job real quick...
and it already looks like there will be a small delay.

Anyways...end of rant.

[optimal-tomato]

3. Public Option has a 60% approval rating, your argument is invalid.

By adding a public option, support for this bill goes up significantly. You want to sell it? Sell something people like.

EDIT: And I realize that the public option isn't going to be included. I thought that was clear in my first post. That's why I hope that we can at least have an actual vote on it, so we can see which Senators are actually for it, and which against it, so we can focus our attention on primaries against those blocking this immensely popular provision, and rewarding those who vote for it.

Maybe you care more about getting Democrats into office than what they do once they get there. I don't.

[Zhade]

4. You want us to lie? Fuck that!

Love how you guys keep movng the goalposts.

[the other one]

5. We aren't fighting republicans. That is straw.

They were never expected to cast one vote for ANY plan. Don't use them for cover, they aren't a necessary part of the eqation.

We are fighting hypocritical democrats who proclaim to support a public option, but have failed to advance it at every possible juncture. How can dems be good salesmen to the country when their own constituency thinks they lack conviction?

[FrenchieCat]

6. from where I sit

the Hell No Party is exactly our problem.

So, for the next few months, I'll be fighting Republicans.

While you can continue fighting Democrats.

See, when the mediawhores report the pile ons,
they don't look to see who's in the pile,
just how tall it is, and they use that to their advantage,
not ours.

Read here to see what I mean... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x245689

[depakid]

7. Best.Excuse.Ever

Americans aren't grown up enough.

[Enthusiast]

9. Zactly.

Mischaracterize those in favor of the public option as juvenile.

[Enthusiast]

8. Why would you characterize

support for the public option as 'whining'? That's the kind of stuff we hear from Republicans.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. :yawn:

[Prism]

15. If you are a Democrat

You wouldn't spend six months smearing, slandering, obstructing, belittling, denying, and opposing efforts and pressure for the things Candidate Obama supported.

It is not my job to "sell" this bill. It is my job to push for a better bill. That was supposed to be your job, too. It is the politicians who are the salesmen. We do not work for them. They work for us. It is good to remember the right and proper order of that sort of thing, because forgetting it results in an authoritarian democracy.

The public option and mandates are not "minutiae" as you put it. At least, they are not minutiae to the people whom they will effect. If you've money and insurance and health care, I can understand how it can be reduced to "Bah, details. Such a small thing, really." but not everyone shares in your curious luxury.

And if you're so tired of arguing with liberals, then stop. You should've stopped six months ago and helped us put pressure on the politicians to get the right bill the first time. But you and so many others didn't, so here we are. And your best and only answer for the erosion of needed liberal policy that YOU helped happen is, "Gee, it's not perfect, but . . ."

Yes, having one room left of the house after it burned down isn't perfect either, which is why you shouldn't have run around squirting charcoal lighter all over the place from the start of it.

But there you were and here we are.

Can you put the matches down now?

[Stinky The Clown]

16. Excellent post

In answer to your question: Fat chance.

[QC]

17. +2

[optimal-tomato]

2. I'd put money down right now on "None and No".

Since the Senate will be passing the reconciliation bill tomorrow or Friday, I think the leadership will just try to ignore the entire issue of the public option, and hope no one notices.

As for whether someone will defy the leadership and propose a public option amendment, I sincerely doubt it. Most of the leadership are happy that the liberal grass roots are largely resigned that public option is dead, and won't touch it with a ten-foot pole in case it resurrects, zombie-style. There are some good guys like Harkin who (I believe) really do want a public option, but they know a vote would be inconvenient for those Dems who want to pretend like they want a public option but really don't. They're mostly team players, so no dice. Also, the White House has been perfectly clear: DO NOT PURSUE.

The only question mark is Sanders. He was a strong voice in the Senate, but some time ago, it seems like he just lost the fire in his belly. Like I said: it only takes one. If there is one, I would expect it to be Sanders.

[mmonk]

10. There will be no amendments allowed.

The excuses are that the Republicans could then derail or destroy the bill.

[thotzRthingz]

11. re: "There will be no amendments allowed" nevermind, since 5:30 PM ET yesterday,

that they've been voting on frivolous REPUKE AMENDMENT after REPUKE AMENDMENT.

One of the better ones, (I can't recall at the moment who offered it), was that the bill could NOT cause insurance rates to rise. NOW THERE'S ONE FOR THE HISTORY BOOKS... a REPUKE, wanting to regulate insurance rates! ROTFLMAO!!!

[Prism]

13. Asking for a vote in a democracy? Tch, purist.

Don't you understand? Our politicians' hands are bound by chains made of Higgs-Boson particles. The technology does not exist to free them. Why do you insist that something the people want by a sizeable majority be voted upon by their representatives?

Special political relativity does not allow this sort of thing. You're not . . . a creationist, are you?

(Yeah, yeah, I'm sitting here reading an astronomy textbook)

[piratefish08]

14. if we can't get our side on our side, how will we ever get THEIR side on our side??

[Javaman]

18. If I read the reasoning correctly, the two issues weren't correctly conformed to the bill

in order for the bill to pass reconciliation, it has to not be a burden to the budget.

The repukes, for the first time ever, decided to actually read the bill. And in it were to violations of the terms of reconciliation. Thus is goes back for reconsideration and a vote.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe I am.

I'm not defending the repukes here, just defending the rules of the senate.

[DefenseLawyer]

19. The House would do it, if only the Senate would get on board...

Whereas the Senate would love to do it, but there just aren't the votes in the House. Why is that so hard for people to understand?