They’ll be infinitely flexible tactically as to how to achieve this goal. What we’re going to see in the next few weeks is an intricate kabuki dance that’ll alternate between making Progressives seem like the White House supports the PO one day — only to change their position the next day. Or as Matt Taibbi accurately descibes — the possibility of a strong PO, in this case, will take place by ” showering a real problem with a blizzard of ineffectual decisions and verbose nonsense, then stepping aside at the last minute to reveal the true plan that all along was being forged in the furnace of monied interests and insider inertia.”

We’ve already seen a version of this procees at work in Geithner/ Summner/Bernanke’s obscene bailout of Wall Street — a bailout with very few strings attached, and real regulatory reform only a distant possibility.

It’s not that Obama, et al.don’t feel strongly about bringing affordable, quality health care to Americans. It’s just that they feel stronger about looking out for the interests of their corporate sponsors and donors.

Let’s see whether Progressives in and out of Congress can hold together in a strong push-back to what the White House, the DLC, and their monied interest friends really want. I hope so. I think so — oh hell, I’ll go all the way and say I know so!

Make him pay.

As for what happened to the public option… thank Jane Hamsher that it hasn’t been gutted altogether.

That bare minimum where FDL drew the line is now Pelosi’s “strong public option.”

And yes, the Dem “leadership” will disappear that version as well if given even a tenth of a chance.

If you introduce a public option then the private insurers can either respond to the new competition or they can try to maintain their pricing power. Why any politician should think that the private health insurance industry must be exempt from competition, a la OPEC, is beyond me.

She insisted that the congressman is sticking with the progressive caucus pledge to vote against any bill that doesn’t have a public option.

I suggested that if there is misinformation or the congressman has been misquoted that a statement be posted on his website or here – that he isn’t going to vote for a “triggered” public option.

Alison said she can’t control when the Congressman is misquoted, but she can do the PR work needed to make it clear what his views are. If she’s not blowing smoke I expect that there will be a press release re-affirming the congressman’s support for the progressive caucus letter and spelling out in more detail what he will and will not vote for.

Farr could be my congressman after 2012 and I pointed that out to his staffer.

I realize the idea to revise Rule 22, aka the “nuclear option” and the “constitutional option” was originally proposed by Republican Senators in 2005 and was opposed by Democrats Senators. Nevertheless, I think the Republican arguments were constitutionally sound and that true change in this country is unlikely unless and until Rule 22 is revised.

Pro-nuclear option Republicans argued that they had won recent elections and in a democracy the winners rule, not the minority. They also argued that while the Constitution requires supermajorities for some purposes (such as 2/3 needed to ratify a treaty), the Founders did not require a supermajority for confirmations, and that the Constitution thus presupposes a majority vote for confirmations. The same would be true to pass legislation.

If the Democratic Senators are to be believed, there should be at least 51 Senators who support a public option, ENDA, repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, etc. I suspect, however, that some Democratic Senators are hiding behind the filibuster rule to conceal their true values and beliefs. They know how difficult it will be to get 60 votes to stop a filibuster on progressive issues. It’s time we find out who the other closeted Blue Dog Democrats are in the Senate, who proclaim support for legislation, which they know will not get past a cloture vote in the Senate. At the same time, they continue to take campaign contributions from big business, insurers, Wall Street, phrama, etc.

The Constitution and the structure of the Senate already give considerable power to small states. California, New York, Pennsylvania and Illinois have the same number of Senators as Wyoming. There is no justification to further increase the undemocratic power of red states or Blue Dog Democrats by the super-majority filibuster rule. I think the current filibuster rule is unconstitutional and unconscionable.

Even the Congressional Progressive Caucus, whose 80-plus members have overwhelmingly supported single-payer legislation in the past, decided not to draw a line in the sand. They agreed to back down on single-payer, seemingly with the understanding that Pelosi would push for a strong public option — a sort of miniversion of single-payer, a modest, government-run insurance plan that would serve as a test model for the real thing. But one of the immutable laws of politics in the U.S. Congress is that progressives will always be screwed by their own leaders, as soon as the opportunity presents itself. And with a bill the size and scope of health care, there was plenty of opportunity.

Bottom of page 3 of 7 here:
http://www.rollingstone.com/po…..nd_wrong/3

If the deal was to get a strong PO then they got screwed because none of the house versions was strong. If so then why do they not go back to demanding single payer? Deal off?

Or do they see Pelosi as still supporting a strong PO per her recent statements? But it seems clear this process will never achieve a stronger PO than the best it has already produced which would not be strong at all (far too few people, no price control and not starting until 2013).