Quoted in an article in The Washington Post, an anonymous White House advisers is mystified by our behavior. Here's the lede:
President Obama's advisers acknowledged Tuesday that they were unprepared for the intraparty rift that occurred over the fate of a proposed public health insurance program, a firestorm that has left the White House searching for a way to reclaim the initiative on the president's top legislative priority.
I'm trying, through some impressive anger, to understand how a person could talk about the health insurance industry the way President Obama has, and then be shocked (simply shocked) at our reaction to not including a public option.
Here's more:
"I don't understand why the left of the left has decided that this is their Waterloo," said a senior White House adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "We've gotten to this point where health care on the left is determined by the breadth of the public option. I don't understand how that has become the measure of whether what we achieve is health-care reform."
It's mystifying really. The insurance industry is spending $1.4 million (of stinking Blood Money)a day to spread lies about healthcare reform, and yet we want an alternative to giving them our money. They calmly tell lawmakers that they will not abandon their practice of rescission, and here we are getting upset at the thought that we might be mandated to add to their bottom line.
When the Obama campaign first crafted its health-care proposal, the creation of a government-sponsored insurance option "was not the most important thing," said David Cutler, a Harvard University economics professor and campaign adviser on health-care issues.
Obama, like Cutler, embraced the concept because it would afford consumers more options, Cutler said.
But while the idea has given conservatives an opening to attack Obama for allegedly supporting government-run health care, "to the left it's become this unholy grail" without which any reforms would be inadequate, Cutler said.
I can usually read an article and get some idea of what might be going on behind it, but I'm lost here. Maybe someone could help me out. I'm glad that Barack Obama is our President. I think he's done a lot to expose the talking heads of the Republican party for the seditious jerks they are. Justice Sotomayor, nuff said. But I fail to understand how painting people who want to see a public option (76% of fucking polled Americans, BTW) as the "left of the left" is either going to help move healthcare reform along, or help us to feel like valuable members of the democratic party.
I'll tell you what it did for me. I will volunteer my ass off to primary any Democrat who wants to characterize my efforts to make this a more just country as adherence to an "unholy grail". And a hearty Fuck You to the anonymous senior White House adviser.
Update: Thanks for the rec list you guys. It's my first time up and I'm grateful to be here.
Update 2: NcrissieB has an interesting take on what is going on with the WaPo article. I'm willing to believe that the anonymous source quotes are BS. That still leaves Cutler's tone deaf "unholy grail" comment though. I'm fighting for the public option as a way to have our president's back, as a way to make this country more just. If Cutler wants to characterize that as an unholy anything I'm going to disagree.