51 Senators who will vote YES on a reconciliation bill if it includes a public option

Full Text Continued on Democracy For America


  1. They came up to 51? That's great!

    Now what is Pelosi's weird rationalization?

  2. Jeremiah, I think this process is quite amusing overall. My personal feeling at this point is that President Obama and the Democrats had no real intention to fix Health Care for all Americans to start with. Having a super-majority was actually a tremendous blow for the Democrats because it completely exposed their duplicity and their true intentions to manufacture a Corporate Welfare bill on the backs of US Taxpayers, and pretend it was some sort of "Progressive Advance".

    It was never in the cards for the American people to have a Health Care System along the lines of other industrialized nations because the true religion of America is Business ... and every sacrifice and Legislative Prayer exists to exalt this small-minded worship system.

    The problem is that the For Profit Health Care Industry has trapped itself in a flawed business model. You can't provide year over year profits without raising premiums and cutting costs (sick people). The only way to preserve the business model is to expand the customer base and prevent people from dropping their lousy coverage through mandates backed by IRS penalties ... locking in For Profit Health Care as the de facto American system.

    Since we really only have one political party in the US ... the Corporate Party ... it is obvious that the Democrats were counting on not having 60 seats so they could, with apologies, pass the Health Industry Corporate Welfare Act while blaming the Republicans in order to save face.

    The Republicans have had an easier job playing their part, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing, and providing the Democrat with the rationalization they needed in order to strip down the health care bill to meet the requirement of the Priests of Health Care at whose Money House they worship as well.

    The reconciliation process and these new developments are worthy of a soap opera ... should be fun to watch ... in the end they will all find a way to allow the exact kind of Corporate Welfare bill Obama and the Democrats always intended to pass in the first place.

  3. You're far too cynical, Irving.

    Now before being called "naive" or told to "wake up" let me say the picture you present is simply too one sided. Too black and white. There are members of Congress who agree with us, they're there. The problem is, for so-called "progressives," is that they''re not in the majority.

    I believe the Congress genuinely represents the American people. And that if we hate politicians we hate ourselves, for they genuinely do represent the American people. Who we as a people are.

    Some time ago a leftist activist friend of mine in Berkeley wanted to start a boycott of House districts which supported the Iraq War. Some of us didn't agree with this intent because, among other reasons, there is no such thing as a pure blue or red Congressional district in the United States. With such a boycott (if it had ever started) we would be hurting the like minded people living in those districts who agree with us. Including those districts which elected Marcia Blackburn, Steve King, Michele Bachman, Virginia Fox, etc.

    I agree that Capitalism comes close to being a national religion. And that we don't have enough sense here in this country to rein in its excesses. And that we offer an appealing model to the European right for disbanding their social safety net. In a way we are a "one party" country. But that does not mean to say there are not genuine progressives in the Congress. They're just in a minority.

    How to change that? Through the vote, of course. Education. Working to say the unspeakable and by bucking the national tide. All of which is hard to do since the machinery of our culture today is corporate. And, yes, the corporation has a strangle hold on the Congress. But the voter is still more powerful.

    I don't think I'm naive about this. But then, I may very well be wrong. Look at Chris Dodd, and at the way the Obama administration has dealt with Wall Street? Nor very encouraging. But rather than merely “vote the bums out,” why not vote in decent representatives?

    But how can that be accomplished in Michele Bachman’s district? Her constituents’ definition of a replacement for throwing her out would be someone just as rightwing. Even if they did see her as “bum.” Term limits, voting the bums out, and local referendums don’t solve anything.

    "We have met the enemy and he is us," Pogo

    Though I want more information and to see how this thing plays out it doesn't look good for the public option. And Pelosi's gobbledegook is not convincing. But we'll see.

    Have a good day, Quint