Nancy Pelosi: A Public Option Is Essential...For the Moment

[Better Believe It]

Pelosi: A Public Option Is Essential...For the Moment
by Brian Beutler
September 8, 2009

After a meeting with President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that she believes a public option will be essential to passing a bill in the House of Representatives...for the time being anyhow.

"I believe that the public option will be essential to our passing a bill in the House of Representatives," Pelosi said. " said, if you have a better idea, put it on the table. So if somebody has a better idea of how to do that, put it on the table. For the moment, however, as far as our house members are concerned, the overwhelming majority of them support a public option."

Pelosi appeared with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who said the public option "or something like" a public option will survive the legislative process.

Two things stand out. The first is that this is Pelosi's sounding less resolute about the need for a public option than she was last week when she said " bill without a strong public option will not pass the House."

The second is that Pelosi's explicitly leaving open the possibility that, down the line, support will exist in the House to pass something that falls short of a strong public option. Seems like there may be a bit of wiggle room emerging.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/pelosi-a-public-option-is-essentialfor-the-moment.php?ref=fpa

[Freddie Stubbs]

1. Pelosi and Reid have been counting votes

[Dr Fate]

2. As opposed to leading and getting support for votes.

Those idiots are letting tea-baggers/conservative voters & FOX TV steer the debate- as usual.

[polichick]

3. There is a significant difference there. nt

[Dr Fate]

4. No kidding-It's always "we dont have the votes" instead of "here is how we can get the votes"

Funny how they still use the same excuses over and over.

They will fool less people each time, until we reach a breaking point.

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. Congressmen are more afraid of their own constituents than they are of Congressional leaders

[Dr Fate]

9. By "constituents" you must mean conservative lobbyists & the insurance industry.

Becuase they are certainly not scared of DEM voters who support the President-they have no need to be.

Also, there is no need for Blue Dogs to be "more" afraid of congressional leaders- these "leaders" have let the Blue Dogs lead various committees and basically do whatever they want from the start. They have not been pressured at all.

No need to "twist arms" when you already plan to let people do whatever they want. The only arm twisting these "leaders" will be doing is when they put pressure on Liberals.

For the past 8 years, Blue Dogs have proved to be liars & hypocrites over and over- and they are lying now when they try to say this more about their "constituents" than their Right-Wing corporate sugar-daddies.

Blue Dogs are not scared of DEMS leaders or of their constituents- but they are bold in their support for & dependence on big insurance.

Skilled law makers can show & convince their constituents that they are doing the right thing- the problem is that Blue Dogs are conservatives with no intention of doing the right thing-just look how wrong they were when they were turning a blind eye to or even supporting Bush.

Blue Dogs had no problem LYING their constituents into a multi-billion dollar endless war- so they should have no problem telling the TRUTH about healthcare now. Problem is, they just dont want to.

I hope these Republican "constituents" make good donors & campaign workers for your Blue Dogs. As it is, they cant get elected without the support of the DNC and other DEM orgs made up of Liberals & Progressives.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. Many Blue Dogs have more Republican constituents than Democratic ones

[Dr Fate]

12. And I hope these Republicans make great DEM donors & campaign workers.

If Blue Dogs can LIE their constituents into a war and LIE to their constituents about their supposed "fiscal responsibility", then they should have the ability to convince those same constituents to support Healthcare reform- except they wouldnt even have to repeat FOX news style lies.

It's not about inability to sway voting constituents, it's about an unwilligness to do so.

Blue Dogs are skilled when they lie to their constituents to further conservtive causes, but not so skilled when it comes to telling the truth about healthcare reform.

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. They would not have gotten elected in the first place without some Republican support

[Dr Fate]

15. And I hope that "some Republicans" make WONDERFUL DEM campaign workers & donors for you.

Because I know that you cannot name one single Blue Dog who got elected w/o support from the DNC and other DEM organizations that have the support of moderates, Liberals, Unions, etc.

I cant speak for everyone, but I know that from now on, my money will only go to DEMS who I support.

[NYC_SKP]

5. OBVIOUSLY She means, "for the moment", there is not a better idea on the table, public option is it.

context

context

context

...if somebody has a better idea of how to do that, put it on the table. For the moment, however... ...the overwhelming majority of them support a public option."

to paraphrase, unless or until there's something better on the table, for the moment, we support the public option.

:eyes:

[Better Believe It]

6. A better idea has been put on the table .... single payer Medicare for All

President Obama and leading Democrats have rejected it.

[applegrove]

8. I think like alot of people she was worried Obama was going to take the public

option off the table. She looked visibly relieved and happy when Obama finally got to that part in his speech, two thirds of the way through I might add, where he reiterated his support for the public option.

[jsamuel]

10. I think it is pretty obvious that she simply echoed Obama's statement that the public option is it

"unless you have a better idea"

[dionysus]

14. FAIL unrec