While the Village and some in the "progressive" blogosphere are spinning as hard as they can against the public option, it is worth noting that the Washington Post poll they are using for this purpose actually shows 76% support the current public option proposals. Question 22A of the poll asks the 42% who are opposed/no opinion on a "public option" (55% support s "public option") the following question:

22a. (IF OPPOSE/NO OPINION FOR A GOVERNMENT PLAN) What if this government-sponsored plan was available only to people who cannot get health insurance from a private insurer - in that case, would you support or oppose it?

Support - 47, Oppose - 47, No opinion - 6

Since the plan described in Question 22A is in fact what is on the table, this means 76% (55% who support a "public option" plus 47% of the 45% who oppose or have no opinion on "public option = 76%) support the public option currently being proposed in Congress. That is a fact you won't hear in the Village, or apparently, in the "progressive" blogosphere.

Speaking for me only

DemfromCt (by contrast Nate Silver has a very cogent critique of WaPo analysis of its poll) appears to endorse the Village view that even though the public option is favored by no less than 55% of Americans (51% support mandates, though it would not occur to the Village to ask how people feel about HCR if mandates are removed), it is the public option that must go. And when you present the ACTUAL public option presented in the proposals on the table now, support for a public option rises to 76%. But that does not matter to the Villagers, of the Media and the blogger variety (I'm referring to DemfromCt, who disingenuously and inaccurately describes the support for the public option as less than perceived. Why is DemfromCt playing with facts on this?):

[I]t is the public option that has become the major point of contention . . . If that single provision were removed, opposition to the overall package drops by six percentage points, according to the poll. Without the public option, 50 percent back the rest of the proposed changes; a still sizable 42 percent are opposed. Independents divide 45-45 on a package without the government-sponsored insurance option, while they are largely negative on the entire set of proposals (40 percent support and 52 percent oppose). Republican opposition also fades 20 points under this scenario.

[More...]

I just noticed that digby called me an idiot* (apparently digby was joking about my propensity to actually call people idiots (which I do with some frequency) In this case, having missed the joke, I appear to have proven myself rather an idiot. My apologies for missing the joke. It is a pretty good one now that I think about it.) for disagreeing with her in this post. Digby writes:

There are many facets to negotiation but what really matters is what you are willing to to walk away from and what people think you are willing to walk away from. Here's the real difference between health care reform and war funding: Progressives want to vote for the first and they don't want to vote for the second. The strategy all flows from that.

(Emphasis supplied.) Apparently, Digby thinks making a pledge, repeatedly and in writing, and then capitulating on the issue, does not signal that you will cave in on everything. She seems to think that because the phrase "health care reform" is more pleasing than "war on terror," then of course the Progressive Block will be taken seriously on war funding. This part of Digby's post was particularly amusing:

Amazing:

New Hampshire Democrat Sen. Jeanne Shaheen[:] “I think we’re going to have a bill that has significant bipartisan input regardless of how the votes come out[.]”

This statement came after Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins unequivocally rejected the public option "trigger" compromise. So follow Shaheen's thinking - Democrats will let Republicans write the health care reform bill even though Republicans will not support it. This is simply insane. And unacceptable.

Speaking for me only

While many, including many in the "progressive" blogosphere and in the Progressive Caucus (look at the Progressive Caucus members who did not pledge to vote for a robust public option), are throwing in the towel on the public option, via Crooks and Liars, the President is still talking public option:

President Obama: I think one of the options should be a public insurance option. (Loud cheers) [. . .] I have said I'm open to different ideas on how to set this up we're going to set this up but I'm not going to back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage we're going to provide you a choice.

It is clear that those giving up on the public option are giving up on President Obama. Or were against the public option the whole time. Those who want to help President Obama on health care reform should do so by standing firm on the public option. Those advocating capitulation on the public option are working against President Obama.

Speaking for me only

Charlie Cook writes:

. . . The second Democratic camp, the Purists, is chiefly composed of liberal activists and bloggers who see the current problems of the president and the party as the result of their being insufficiently liberal and of not sticking with their convictions. [. . .](Without weighing in on the validity of the liberal Purists' arguments, I would like the record to show that when conservatives made a similar argument -- that Republicans lost the 2006 and 2008 elections because they had veered away from conservative principles -- liberals laughed hysterically.)

Charlie is both wrong on what the "Purists" think and in his comparison of the "Purists" to what conservatives said about the 2006 and 2008 elections. First, the reason why the Republicans lost big in 2006 and 2008 was because George Bush's policies stunk, not because the policies were insufficiently anything. And the Purists' argument is, in fact, that the danger Democrats face in 2010 is twofold - first that capitulation on policy will lead to BAD policy. Second, capitulation on policy will lead to a demoralized base. One last point, the Obamaite Loyalist position is obvious yet not likely - Cook describes it thusly "if the economy turns around over the next year, the president's fortunes and those of his party will improve." The economy is not likely to be strong enough in 2010 to avert major Dem losses. The question is how big the losses. A demoralized base means BIG losses. The half-a**ed stimulus not geared towards job creation means a half-a**ed recovery. Which means big Dem losses. At least, that is this "Purist's" view.

Speaking for me only

The normally astute Digby must be dreaming when she writes this:

I have never been particularly sanguine that congressional Democrats would ultimately vote against Obama on health care if it didn't contain a public option and I'm not even sure how many people in the progressive coalition would want them to. . . . But that doesn't mean that they will never vote to defeat their president. In fact, I believe it could happen on at least two important upcoming issues on the agenda: financial reform and the war.

(Emphasis supplied.) Digby must be joking. After all the letters and stances and pronouncements, if the Progressive Block folds on the public option, they may as well just close the thing down as no one will ever take them seriously again. Hell, the only reason they are being taken somewhat seriously now is that they pushed back against every Obama trial balloon on the subject.

It's now or never for the Progressive Caucus. If they can not buck the President on health care, then they will never do it and they will go back to being a bad joke.

Speaking for me only

Demonstrating more sociopathic indfference, Matt Yglesias is upset that President Olympia Snowe has called for less spending for health care reform. Nobody could have predicted that. It just goes to show you what imbeciles some "progressives" are about political bargaining. Honestly, they should just shut up now.

Speaking for me only

Via Greenwald, Paul Kane demonstrates just how stupid political reporters can be:

Paul Kane: No one else is gonna be switching parties any time soon, not after the way liberal Democrats have greeted Arlen Specter. That has ended any possible chance of any Republican ever switching parties to join the Dems for probably a decade or more. Why on earth would any Republican want to switch parties just so they can get attacked by the far left of the Democratic party?

(Emphasis supplied.) Ignoring for the moment the stupid "Far Left" nonsense, Earth to Paul Kane, why would a pol switch parties -- for the same reason Arlen Specter switched parties -- because it was in his personal political interest. If Specter had not switched parties, he would be a political dead man walking, as Toomey would crush him in a Republican primary. As it is, Specter is the favorite to win the Democratic primary over Sestak and has a shot in the general election in 2010. If he had stayed a Republican, it would be over already. Specter was not doing anyone any favors but himself when he switched parties. That it benefitted Dems was entirely incidental (and that's why Specter could not cut a better deal for himself with the Senate Dem Caucus. Unlike Jeffords, who really brought more to the table for Dems.)

Honestly, how stupid can a political reporter be? Kane is scraping bottom here.

Speaking for me only

An anti-choice protester in Michigan was killed today:

Local officials and state police are confirming that a pro-life advocate was shot and killed outside a high school in this Michigan town. The person, who is described as well-known but whose identity has not been released, was shot multiple times while protesting abortion outside Owosso High School.

I never heard of the man until today. As someone who opposes the death penalty, it goes without saying that I abhor the killing of any person. I have no idea what happened or why (UPDATE - It looks rather unlikely that there was any political motivation to the killing - Detroit Free Press and PFAW, looks like a senseless spree killing.) But I do object to the reaction of one Father Frank Pavone, of Priests for Life, to this killing:

"I am waiting to hear the abortion advocates condemn this killing," he said.

A man just died and a priest (a priest!) is using his death to politick! But this is nothing new for Father Pavone, who used the murder of George Tiller for the same purposes - see his You Tube release immediately after Dr. Tiller's murder. Shameful.

Speaking for me only

Tim Pawlenty looks like he is going to run for the Republican nomination for President. He is threatening nullification of health care reform:

Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), a possible presidential candidate in 2012, is now indicating that he could invoke state sovereignty and prevent his home state of Minnesota from participating in a federal health care reform effort if one passes, Minnesota Public Radio reports.

"Depending on what the federal government comes out with here, asserting the 10th Amendment may be a viable option," Pawlenty said, when asked about it by a caller on a Republican Governors Association conference call. "But we don't know the details. As one of the other callers said, we can't get the President to outline what he does or doesn't support in any detail. So we'll have to see, I would have to say that it's a possibility."

Pawlenty does not need to wait for a health care reform bill to test nullification. He can have Minnesota try and opt out of Medicare and Medicaid. I wonder if Texas Governor Rick Perry will top Pawlenty and try it. BTW, this is insane of course. The Party of Lincoln indeed.

Speaking for me only

It's like the old joke that you don't have to outrun the bear, you just have to outrun the other guy. Obama doesn't have to be bipartisan. He just has to look more bipartisan than the Republicans. . . . The White House can't stop the Republicans from using procedural tactics to obstruct legislation, but they can keep them from improving their electoral position while they do it. . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) But in fact the President can stop the Republicans from obstructing health care reform - he can follow Senator Charles Schumer's lead and use reconciliation for health care reform. If in fact that is President Obama's endgame, then good for him. Time will tell. In the meantime, the Progressive Block has to hold strong - no robust public option, no "health care reform" bill. (A bill increasing Medicaid funding and funding for health care for the working poor is always welcome, but let's not call that health care reform.)

Speaking for me only