So it appears the dear lady and her yapping lapdog both need some instruction in elementary political science.

Surprising--I thought they were intelligent, well-read people. Perhaps I was wrong on that.

The dear lady should read her own link.   Especially "risky gambit". And note the people in favor of using reconciliation for the public option. Exactly how many are new supporters of the "public option"?

I've done a bit of research on the "polls" which "all support" the public option.   Now one is from the "Progressive Change Campaign Committee". Certainly a sterling objective group.

And another is the New York Times. But take some time to read the actual report on the "poll".   "In favor" of the public option, a majority. However, in the words of my favorite political analyst, Shania Twain:   "That don't impress me much". It's somewhat amazing I have to stoop to explain the situation to political cliches.   But perhaps the two posters mentioned above have a hard time with anything else.

Try: " The devil is in the details".

For a poll to be credible we will need:

1)   Date
2) Who sponsored it
3) Exact wording
4) Does it deal with the financing of the "public option"?. Sure, in isolation, I'm sure many would like to have the option of government-sponsored health care. But when you talk about deficits--which have been predicted by the CBO with the Democratic health plan reform basically forever--you play into the hands of Palin--remember her--the actual topic of the thread--and her cronies.

The usual line is something along the lines of: "We are burying our grandchildren under a mountain of debt".   Of course, added to the usual lines about "death panels" and "government bureaucrats substituting their judgment for that of your doctor"

The NYT poll appears to have mentioned nothing about financing.   This is a problem, to say the least.



And then we have the dear lady's assertion:   20 Feb 2010 4:58 PM:   "There is absolutely nothing preventing the Democrats from passing a health care bill with a public option".

A sublimely meaningless statement:

1)   "the Democrats".   I refer her to Will Rogers.

2)    I also refer her to the "big tent" concept.   And if she does not know what that is, I will be only too happy to explain. Feel free to ask.

3)   Don't forget the above "Devil".


But congratulations to you both for staying out of the gutter--for one post. Let's see how long you can keep it up.    Good work.