Comments on: Poll: Public Option More Popular Than Health Care Reform

By: PaulaT

PaulaT — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 01:29:36 +0000

Glenn Beck is no Mormon. He himself admits he only joined the Mormon church because he wanted to have sex with his now wife and she wouldn’t have sex until they were married and wouldn’t marry a non-Mormon. Orrin Hatch is a better example of Mormon think. Although the Mormon contingent is strongly Republican, Kyl’s statement would go over very badly among Mormons. They tend to have large families and try to have the women stay home as much as possible. They even have a prophetic declaration that women should be home if at all possible, so if they work, they often work part time or do daycare in the home or one of the home sales businesses like Pampered Chef. They desperately need maternity care and they need it in their husband’s policies because they rely on them more than many women do. Kyl has a lot of Mormons in his state and I hope they were paying attention to his idiocy. They might not go Democrat, but I could seriously see them pushing a primary opponent or staying home.

By: marcos

marcos — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 01:01:29 +0000

This is tremendous. 65% demonstrated public support for the public option after three months of bat crap crazy banshee attacks on it means that something like 20-30% of conservatives in addition to 80% of liberals support a public option.

The contortions that are being deployed in order to save the crumbling employment-based insurance model are beginning to fall of their own complexity and one-sidedness.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:56:12 +0000

I wonder if any pollsters asked about the public option without mandates.

By: Gasman

Gasman — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:55:08 +0000

It’s funny how conservatives think that a “public option” in education – i.e., vouchers – are the greatest thing since sliced bread. In healthcare reform, a public option is tantamount to killing grandma while we all march to the gulag singing “The Internationale.”

How do they sustain such levels of cognitive dissonance without their heads imploding?

By: yellowsnapdragon

yellowsnapdragon — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:04:31 +0000

What makes you think that Rahm is toast?

It seems to me that he has been a powerful component in O’s falling approval numbers. Why would O choose that path just to get Rahm out of the House?

By: nick1936

nick1936 — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:58:46 +0000

the Dem’s coffers are drying up and they wounder why. Its been a little under 9 months and they have already proven that they are unable to govern even though we gave them the White House,the Senate and the congress what more can we do maybe a 3rd party. However that never seems to work we just might as well vote them out in 2010 the repuks run the show now so what would be different?

By: Sparkatus

Sparkatus — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:57:22 +0000

Um. There are plenty of places you might put someone you wanted to sideline. Chief of Staff ain’t it. COS is one of the most important functions in the White House or any organization, you’re access manager for the King.

Besides, Obama didn’t need assistance in establishing centrist cred. Even then, who’s he establishing this cred with exactly? He was coming off a significant win.

So, following your logic, which of the 59 other Blue Dog pretenders to the Speakership should be next on the list to be sidelined through the Norske Gambit?

By: NorskeFlamethrower

NorskeFlamethrower — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:40:32 +0000

Citizen Sparkatus:

No dear, Obama got the best of both worlds, he got to use Rahm to build credibility as a “centerist” and could use ‘im if things went south while at the same time he gets the bastards out of the way in the Congress…by the way…how’d it work out? Rahm is toast and Obama is stronger’n ever and so are the progessives. Look more than one move ahead brother Sparkatus.

By: Sparkatus

Sparkatus — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:36:02 +0000

Taking Rahm out of the House and making him your Chief of Staff as a strategy to sideline him? That makes zero sense.

If the President wanted to sideline a House member, all he’d have to do is back a primary challenger in the next cycle. It doesn’t require N-dimensional chess moves.

By: ThingsComeUndone

ThingsComeUndone — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:23:36 +0000

Hmmm promoting Rahm out of a position where he could do harm? That explains a bunch.