To believe in something means you gotta sacrficice yourself.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

You gotta be willing to cut your nose off to spite your face.

Dems. got the numbers. We do. Don't let anyone tell you any different. We got the numbers because we hold the purse strings for those who wish to oppose health care.

So, to all those who stand in the way, well, keep standing. To those who are getting weak in the knees: don't. We don't need bipartisan support. When taking office, you agreed to serve your constituents and not those factors which could mean reelection. If you're doomed to be a one-termer, well, so-be-it. Quit being a coward. Take one for the team. The country needs this. You were voted into office for this. If your constituents have second-thoughts, well, they've got 2010. Right now is for right now. Don't be weak. Please, please be short-sighted (which, in terms of health care, means being far-sighted) and give us a public option (at the VERY least).

This goes for Obama. I'm willing to say right here, right now, your should stand or fall on a STRONG health care bill. If it's weak, veto it. If Dems. wont go along, DEMS FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, then you tell Rahm to do what Rahm does (except not for political longevity but for what is right). If you're a one-termer, so be it. My children will love to hear me tell stories about how you went out in a blaze of glory. Fuck 'em all with no regrets. Dig in and give us some of that Chicago bad-ass political shit. But get us health care.

So ignore the howls, the protests, the polls, etc. You were put in office for this. You may go down in flames, but it'll be fuckin' awesome.

Out.

[napoleon_in_rags]

1. I kind of feel the same way.

The main issue is, IS a disaster coming in the realm of health care as Obama warns? Will it come on his watch if action isn't taken? If the answer is yes, then the worst case scenario needs to be avoided, which is taking the blame for the horrendous damage done by continuing Bush era policies, and having it all happen under a Democratic banner. If it actually comes down to that, yeah, it would be better to be a one termer.

[dflprincess]

3. I think if nothing is done the current system will collapse on it's own

and then there would be no option but to extend Medicare to everyone. The disaster they're trying to avert is the demise of the insurance companies and the loss of all those campaign "donations". The bills floating around Congress now are only designed to protect those companies, not improve our access to health care. We're being scammed.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

2. Good one, again -

I think this health care matter is going to be make-or-break for Obama. He can mobilize the Democrats and show them how to do it, the way LBJ led the recalcitrant through the Voting Rights matter in 1964, or he can join them in their spinelessness and let the GOPIgs ride roughshod over everything, just as they've been doing.

Harry Reid needs to be bitchslapped until he comes, and when he finds out how much he likes it, to be promised more of the same after he gets out there and does his Majority Leader job properly. Outfit him in assless chaps, if that's what it takes.

Nancy Pelosi needs backup, something that hasn't been vociferously forthcoming from west by northwest on Pennsylvania Avenue. Get behind her, and give her what she needs.

The White House has so much power in terms of twisting arms, yet they seem like they're either reluctant to use or else they don't understand what they have. If they were in Chicago, and it was a group of alderman who were acting up and straying off the reservation, you'd better believe those aldermen would suddenly be explaining to their constituents that the police patrols will return, that fire station isn't really going to be closed, and, sure, sure, the trash pickups will resume any day now.

What we need is a display of raw power on the part of Obama and his henchmen, and Emanuel should be properly equipped to do this, given his history.

But, what we're getting is silence, and the occasional bullshit burp about "bipartisanship," a concept that should go over there with the debunked Shroud of Turin and left alone forever.

There is no bipartisanship. There is only anger and power and the willingness to do anything to win. Obama was the guy who was all about "Yes, we can," and I'd like to see some of that now. Instead, I'm seeing deals with the pharmaceutical companies and photo ops for medal recipients.

I want fire-breathing, arm-twisting, threats, promises, and elected representatives made to believe that they will be crushed by the White House if they don't go along.

Seems pretty basic to me. But, first, I need proof of spinehood among all these Democrats. So far, I see an empty space where the vertebrae should be...................................

[napoleon_in_rags]

5. "What we need is a display of raw power on the part of Obama and his henchmen"

The real issue, in my eyes, is that he needs a display of raw power on the part of the base, all the voters who want it. This is literally a grassroots shouting power thing. But that's not forthcoming. The thing is that people don't hit the streets over a possible government healthcare option, left or right, unless its been framed as a matter of resistance to Nazi death vampires. The right has done this, so their people are out, but the left is saying that's its just a government option, so the left is not taking to the streets over something that blah.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

6. Maureen Down said that yesterday -

her column referred to "Yes, we can," and she wondered why the young voters who had worked for hard for his election were now silent.

Here's the direct quote: "The young grass-roots army that swept Obama into office has yet to mobilize now that the fight is about something complicated rather than a charismatic hope-monger. No, they can’t?"

http://tinyurl.com/n7vv34

[RandomThoughts]

4. Well I wouldn't phrase it as going down in flames.

But many times, when people stand up for what is correct, and take some anger or attack for it, and do what is good anyway, they learn how beautiful it really is to live. Not in anger, or in fear, but with the better things in life.

Your comment requires a posting of a speech.

Braveheart Speech.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/882018/braveheart_freedom_speech/
http://www.kewego.com/video/iLyROoafth02.html


Note that both sides could take this argument, but what is tyranny...

On a side note, The Democrats and the public option have defeated the charge of their heavy horse.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

7. Let's say that polls show 60+% hate the idea of public option.

Most pols. would "listen" to the American public and do its bidding--even though the public is being horribly misinformed. I mean, jeebus, they took end of life counseling out of the bill because of basic misinformation--i.e., death panels. The question is simple: do pols. want to be re-elected or to do what they were initially sent to office to do (which, by the way, is more cost efficient, cost effective, and ultimately humane).

[RandomThoughts]

8. If the public is intentionally misinformed, they are not making a choice.

you can not make a choice without information, that is why it is called informed consent. If people are lying to make their case, and people follow them because of deceitful information, those people have had their free will stolen, and their ability to choose.

It is not a free will choice if it is made to be done while intentionally blindfolded, however many times it is also because of willful ignorance and in those cases it is not an excuse from responsibility.

It is why Jeffersonian democracy relies on education.

That does not mean a person having an opinion can say everyone else is not informed. Only if you can prove deception on one side can you make the claim that the foot soldiers of that deception do not have the ability of choice because of that deception.

It is also why media has to be an informative engine not a deceitful one, to give people the opportunity of free will choice.

So to some extent every opinion has a valid argument to make, but people that just believe something based on deceptive information, and that deception is proven, then those people have a limited claim of decision making. Also under rules of informed consent, mental illness limits the ability to choose, but it is a very difficult case to make, since one mans insane is some others clarity sometimes.

And the peoples opinions on health care are not against the public option, they are in support of the public option.