We were told to shut up and sit down: There WILL be a public option in the final bill

[GOTV]

What do you think the odds are NOW that Obama is claiming he never campaigned on a public option anyway?

[IndianaGreen]

1. The problem are the Dems 'that look to the capitalists to give workers some gains'

Moreover, the united front approach is an attempt to win the majority of the working class to a revolutionary perspective by organizing workers, first and foremost, to put up a fight in defense of their interests. It begins with those issues that workers themselves want to win and are prepared to fight for, no matter how modest these issues might be from a revolutionary perspective. In this respect, the united front approach is distinguished from the approach of social democrats, who are fundamentally reformists and do not want to put up a fight. The social democrats look to the capitalists to give workers some gains and are prepared to accept anything that comes their way, or nothing. The united front approach is also distinguished from the approach of the ultra leftists or sectarians who are only prepared to support a struggle if it exhibits a sufficiently revolutionary content. For example, the united front approach is prepared to take up a struggle for higher wages, if that is what workers want and if that is all they are prepared to fight for. The ultra leftists or sectarians insist on injecting more revolutionary demands into the struggle, even at the expense of alienating all, or almost all, the workers in the process.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5007

[Unvanguard]

2. No, it was fairly clear that there wouldn't be a public option in the final bill

and long before Obama said anything about what he did or did not campaign on. It's a matter of numbers.

[GOTV]

4. To you maybe. But many told us not to complain so much ....

... and they're still telling us to settle down.

[Unvanguard]

7. Yes, but for the most part they (we) did not argue "there will be a public option later"

but rather "it's still a whole lot better than nothing" and (sometimes) "there was little Obama and the Democratic leadership could do about it."

[quakerboy]

13. Funny, cause any concerns anyone put up

were responded to with promises of a public option via transdimensional chess. And then the concerned parties were told they were pumas and that they needed to trust Obama cause "hes got this".

[dkf]

5. If numbers = Joe Lieberman.

[Unvanguard]

8. If you need 60, 60 - 1 doesn't cut it. And he wasn't the only one either. n/t

[quakerboy]

12. So get rid of the rule

blow it up. No more filibuster. Thats a senate rule, one they made for themselves and can remove from themselves.

[stevenleser]

14. We just spent several years telling Republicans it is an evil thing to do that

I'd like to hear your suggestion for how we explain that.

I had a suggestion that we modify the filibuster so that it can only be used when the bill in question specifically takes rights away from people. Unfortunately, "takes rights away from people" is a tough thing to define.

[quakerboy]

18. Honestly?

I would explain it by building a case that the senate is an anti-democratic body, seeing as its possible for senators representing the votes of 17% of the population to override the other 83% of the country. And I would explain how the filibuster makes it all that much worse, making it so that people chosen by 10% of the population can override the rest of us.

Assuming wikipedia's information is correct, we have about 207 million residents in the us. 80 million, or 68% of whom are considered eligible to vote. About 80 million, 38% of the eligible, or 26% of the total voted in the 06 elections. What we have is a situation where, worse case scenario, the votes of 2 million people could elect enough senators to filibuster everything the rest want. (the population of the 20 least populated states times 26% of population turning out time 51% for a win)Mind, that's not where we are right now, but it is possible. And that is a profoundly imbalanced system.

Then I would make a slightly hyperbolic case that the current crop of corporatists have abused this inherently antidemocratic body and its antidemocratic technicalities to a level that would shame your average blood thirsty dictator.

Whether this would fly with the greater population, I cannot say. But that's how I would do it.

[Unvanguard]

15. In principle, yes; in practice, rules of custom are not so trivially discarded.

Especially not over bills as unpopular as this one. And it's not entirely clear they'd have the fifty votes to do it either.

[quakerboy]

17. That is true

I would really love to see the attempt made though. I want to see some real fight in the senate. I don't mind losing a vote, if its done honestly. Its the part where its never even attempted that bothers me.

Honestly, I am really questioning the purpose of the senate as a lawmaking body, But I know that wont go far so long as we are not as a country ready for an armed insurrection. Which I hope will never happen, even as I pessimisticly contemplate that it might be the only way we ever achieve any real level of honest government.

[niyad]

3. I don't take orders from my employees--which is exactly what congress and the senate are supposed to

be, a tiny fact they hope we have all forgotten. if the final bill is anything less than a disaster for us, you can colour me surprised.

[neverforget]

6. If there was a public option in the conference bill, it'll never pass the Senate

because of the ConservaDems.

[On the Road]

9. Since the Reconciled Bill Can't be Vetoed,

is it clear it wouldn't even get 50 votes + Biden?

[Jersey Devil]

10. sigh - yes it can be filibustered

which is what I think you meant by "vetoed". It certainly can be.

[harun]

11. It won't be, although it could be.

[Garam_Masala]

16. Youtube video on Public Option

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-6jEOVG-IE

[truedelphi]

20. He lied. Bush the Elder lied and that was the end of him.

In this day and age, those who give the MIC and Powers that Be all that they want, will indeed have the voting machinery to set the vote in their favor.

Barack is a liar and even if he only lied once, many of us take offense.

[SoCalDem]

19. you mean the un-passed bill that the house delivers to the senate?

the one they cannot get 60 votes, to pass?
the one that will never see the oval office or the rose garden?

that one?