|
|
"A comprehensive, collaborative elections resource."
|
I'm Down With Dennis
|
|---|
| Parent(s) |
Candidate
|
| Contributor | Craverguy |
| Last Edited | Craverguy Mar 15, 2010 05:41am |
| Logged |
0
|
| Category | Commentary |
| Author | David Swanson |
| News Date | Monday, March 15, 2010 11:00:00 AM UTC0:0 |
| Description | Let me get this straight. The Senate will pass a public option if the House will. And the House will, because it already did. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi won’t allow it. So the mortal enemy of public-option backers is . . . Dennis Kucinich.
Why? Because when Congressman Kucinich said he'd stand for a public option he stupidly thought he was supposed to mean it.
Let's review a brief history of the disease known as "health insurance reform."
...
Where does Dennis Kucinich fit into this story? He's the reason the word "almost" appears in it so many times. He didn't open negotiations by proposing the lowest he'd accept. He pushed for a real single-payer solution. He single-handedly framed the public option as a compromise rather than a communist plot. Kucinich signed the letter committing to take a stand for at least a public option. But he made the mistake of thinking people actually wanted him to mean it. So he took that lonely stand. And he introduced and passed the amendment that would have allowed states to provide their residents with a serious healthcare solution.
Now, all the astroturfers applauded and encouraged taking a stand for a public option when there were 60 congress members pretending to do it, without apparently giving any thought to how greatly weakened progressives would be in Congress if they didn't follow through. Did they think the chance that a bluff might work was worth damaging all future campaigns? Did they disbelieve all their own talk about how the bill would be worthless without the "public option." It's hard to know. The so-called public option had shrunk to such a token gesture that it was always hard to know what good they imagined it would do if included. And today they talk about passing a bill without even that token included, and passing it "for political reasons," usually avoiding the question of whether the bill is actually better or worse than nothing. |
| Share |
|
|
2¢
|
|
| Article | Read Full Article |
|
| Date |
Category |
Headline |
Article |
Contributor |
|
|
