Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Short Takes: Politics and the Public Option

The Senate Finance Committee has just voted down a proposal by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) that would have amended the health care bill to include a public option.

Five Democrats -- Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.) Kent Conrad (N.D.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Tom Carper (Del.) -- voted against the Rockefeller amendment. President Barack Obama's average percentage of the 2008 vote in those states was 49.4 percent.

The eight Senate Democrats who voted for the Rockefeller amendment represent states, by contrast, that gave Obama an average of 56.75 percent of the vote in the last presidential election.

While there will be more votes on the public option between now and when (and if) a final bill passes, the vote on the Rockefeller amendment shows how Democrats are approaching the politics of the issue.

Democrats representing red or swing states clearly believe the public option is a non-starter politically despite evidence in recent polling -- in places like Arkansas and Montana -- that voters in these states favor the idea of a government-run program.

Can the White House change their minds?

By Chris Cillizza  |  September 29, 2009; 3:46 PM ET
Categories:  Short Takes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Best State-Based Political Reporters (2009 Edition)
Next: Morning Fix: Is Santorum Serious?

Comments

"or anything else here"

<Snicker.>

Posted by: nodebris | September 30, 2009 10:28 PM | Report abuse

to liberals, this is called "debating" cut and paste from loony websites:

==

you're the last person here with a leg to stand on about pasting from loony web sites.

to say nothing of posting from a loony bin.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 30, 2009 5:15 PM | Report abuse

to liberals, this is called "debating" cut and paste from loony websites:

More Americans Believe In UFOs Than Oppose A Public Option
September 29, 2009 9:16 am ET by Chris Harris

More Americans believe in UFOs (34%) than oppose a public option (26%).

http://mediamattersaction.org/blog/200909290001

Posted by: DDAWD

Posted by: snowbama | September 30, 2009 12:25 PM | Report abuse

leichtman:

I have never lied about my residency or anything else here. Feel free to "go back and retrieve whatever quotes" you think you can prove that with.

Posted by: JakeD | September 30, 2009 12:03 PM | Report abuse

shrink, I really am still interested in your critique of that Pearlman column. If it is sitting idly on your laptop, you could send it to me at

mark_in_austin@ operamail.com

Also, "reason5", if you see this would you email me at the same address?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | September 30, 2009 11:16 AM | Report abuse

The Senate doesn't have to change their minds, because there is provision for Public Option in the House bill, and that provision will probably still be there in any reconciled bill. The Republicans CAN'T filibuster that.

Posted by: ceflynline | September 30, 2009 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Public Option. "Option," as in "choice." Is it possible that Americans don't like the freedom of choice?

The Democrats' mistake was calling it the "Public Option." Should've called it the "Public Freedom of Choice."

Republicans know how to throw around words like "freedom" and "choice." Democrats go for words like "option."

You want Option Fries with that?

Posted by: dognabbit | September 30, 2009 10:31 AM | Report abuse

The Public Option is a stalking horse and it is working. Focusing Republican energy on it is allowing the key parts of the Great Health Industry Stimulus Package of 2010 to pass.

Posted by: shrink2 | September 30, 2009 9:57 AM | Report abuse

The American electorate has a Jekyll and Hyde personality when it comes to government. The same snoozy, apathetic voters who regurgitated socialist nonsesne fed to them by asinine, radio talk show hosts angry over last year's election results, will eagerly trot out to their mailboxes to make sure their social security check is there or run down to the clinic the minute they get a zit on their hoary rear ends all at taxpayer's expense.

The polls really don't matter. You can have 90% of the public in favor of some piece of legislation but if Rush Limbaugh is opposed to it his 10% dittoheads will at his feverish urgings flood Congress with angry emails demanding they vote against this government intrusion on Limbaugh's ability to go doctor shopping for illegal pain prescriptions.

Posted by: jaxas | September 30, 2009 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Gergen's take on this handful of rural states dominating the health care debate is spot on. And it isn't only health care. Recall that in 2007 when there was an attempt on the part of the Bush administration to pass a comprehensive immigration bill that would give illegals a path to eventual legalization--still the only sensible solution to the immigration problem--over 60% of the American people supported it. But a revolt instigated by the same bilesoaked radio talk show hosts that are drumming up anger today, was successful in hijhacking the debate, frightening the spineless weaknee'd Congress in precisely the same way they are doing over the public option.

Passing the public option requires the sort of moral courage American leaders once had when they passed civil rights, voting rights, medicare, the GI Bill, social security, the Intrerstate Highayt Act and a host of other legilation that made America an enlightened progressive country. All the very sorts of things the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks oppose.

When will we ever learn that America can never be great again until we rid ourselves of this 20% minority of morons who presently have our political system and media by the throat?

Posted by: jaxas | September 30, 2009 9:37 AM | Report abuse

The public option appears to be dead. That won't be a disaster if the final bill includes provisions that:
1) safeguard against rescission (denying coverage due to current health conditions) or denying claims for spurious, trivial reasons;
2) provide some way to negotiate drug costs with Big Pharma via collective bargaining; and
3) give whatever is the alternative to the public option (health insurance cooperatives?) some meaningful leverage with the insurance companies so that they don't get steamrolled.

We don't know what the final bill will look like, so predictions of doom are way premature. However, we do know that it must include some things to be health care reform and not a giveaway to the insurance companies. Let's see how the thing looks and then pile on.

Posted by: dbitt | September 30, 2009 9:19 AM | Report abuse

jakeD you claimed you were a California lawyer period 2 weeks ago and now you talk about "Our Commonwealth" and how you have talked with voters across the Commonwealth. I am sure that I can go back and retrieve your quotes about Fiorini. You earlier rambled about Fiorini and being part of the whack job Libertarian party in California. Whatever the topic you claim you live there and if talking about "Our Commonwealth" is not saying you live then I don't know what is. You lied about your residency which further erodes any shred of credibility you might still have here.

Posted by: leichtman | September 30, 2009 7:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm neutral on the public option and healthcare reform - but something really strikes me about the Democrats' handling of the issue.

Most of the Dems who will vote against the public option in the House won't get re-elected in the midterms. But instead of acknowledging that, and spending their two years in the House acting like Democrats, they're trying to act like Republicans, clinging to the minescule chance that the electorate won't throw them out.

Which leads me to wonder: what was the point of the DNC and DCCC investing money to win those races? Because it seems to me like it doesn't matter a damn who gets elected in the GOP-leaning districts, whether GOP or Democrat, because they'll still act and vote like a Republican.

Posted by: Breandan_from_Ireland | September 30, 2009 6:52 AM | Report abuse

More Americans Believe In UFOs Than Oppose A Public Option
September 29, 2009 9:16 am ET by Chris Harris

More Americans believe in UFOs (34%) than oppose a public option (26%).

http://mediamattersaction.org/blog/200909290001

Posted by: DDAWD | September 30, 2009 3:09 AM | Report abuse

I never once claimed that I would be voting for Carly Fiorini, much less three times.

Posted by: JakeD | September 30, 2009 1:18 AM | Report abuse

leichtman, re: "catching him in an obvious lie caused it"

jaked was quoting former Governor Wilder. He wasn't pretending to be from VA. Not to detract from your larger point about his veracity. To me, the amusing thing was his emphatic assumption about Wilder's intent when it's clear his knowledge of VA politics would fit in a thimble.

Posted by: nodebris | September 30, 2009 12:06 AM | Report abuse

And to think that Gergen is a very respectable and moderate man for a Republican. Now there is a disappointment, I always liked that guy.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 11:30 PM | Report abuse

Congrats to the Fix...er, I guess. On CNN, David Gergen just used CC's post in support of his argument AGAINST the public option. Gergen, a permanent resident of BroderWorld, argues it doesn't matter that over 60 percent of America wants the public option. It's more important that folks in a few rural states where nobody lives oppose it (or so we're told by the MSM). BroderWorld+BizzarroWorld.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 29, 2009 11:28 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, G&T, it's like all those sports biographies written by the subject athlete "with Phil Pepe." It stands to reason that if, as almost-son-in-law Levi says, Ms. Phalin does not read at all, she's not into to writin' much either. Maybe checks and grocery lists, but that's about it.

==

We're educated people and we've all had the displeasure of working with uneducated people who thought they could fake it. Like the guy in my office at a nuclear construction management site who one day started talking about "hyp'thetic'ly speakin'" this and "hyp'thetic'ly speakin'" that.

People who've heard the words but never read them, people who have some idea what educated speech sounds like, but aren't as good as mimicing it as, say, a macaw.

Palin sounds like that.

Yeah maybe she can sign her name to a check but the amount is probably spelled wrong.

"Seven hunderd and Fourty-Two Dolars"

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 10:43 PM | Report abuse

"Jake, since you hate government run health care so much, I sure hope you aren't taking Medicare. "

Um, the guy is like sixteen.

==

The phrase "registered independent" that he uses to describe his alleged party affiliation is idiotic enough that googling for it turns up lots of JakeD postings and you'll see that he's been doing this crap is blogs all over the country for several years, doing the same half-dozen posts in newspapers and political sites all over the country, same words and phrases as here.

His tolerance for repetition *alone* suggests serious disorder.

So yeah he's probably been doing this since he was fourteen.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 10:36 PM | Report abuse

JPRS, I take it that you would want to extend Medicare/Medicaid to all who are not in the VA system.

I think it would make more sense to replicate the VA System, frankly. But assuming your idea is M/M extension, do you first fix the underfunding of M/M or do you start from the enormous hole? Do you believe the cost savings from public insurance could be more than about ten per cent? Do you believe that without more doctors and nurses and more integrated clinics that runaway inflation of medical costs would be abated? I simply do not understand that line of thinking.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | September 29, 2009 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Well Mark as an American citizen with pretensions to morality I find it unacceptable that millions of my fellow citizens are without health insurance, and I have no objection to paying higher taxes to close that gap.

Most formulations I read, including most of yours, ignore any savings to be had, ignore the shift from employer to government, and talk only about increases, and once again talk about taxation even for the best of causes as "lost money," as a drain on the economy.

And I'm not even talking about the intangibles, the hard-to-measure benefits like fewer lost work-days, the availability of information about nutrition and addictions, everything that would make for a healthier populace.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 10:29 PM | Report abuse

CF8, I honestly do not believe there are significant savings to be had from the public option proposed. I read a fine article by Herbert in the NYT about federally supported clinic care and how well it works. Call public private partnerships through clinic care the public option and I would support it. It could achieve the front line care for the poor outside the ER you correctly point out is necessary. But to have the integrated and quick care clinics we need more RNs and more GPs, at least.

The current bill simply permits the SecHHS to offer Medicare Junior.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | September 29, 2009 10:23 PM | Report abuse

He also protested in front of Professor Gates' house in MA, has donated thousands to Republicans all over the country, bought a new Corvette to screw with the C4C fund, one big boast after another.

All lies. Everything, a loser living vicariously in the imagined admiration of others. It'd be pretty sad if he wasn't such a god damn nuisance.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Curious what the whining right will say years from now if there is no public option and healtcare premiums continue to rise?

==

They'll be doing just what they do now, cheerleading the wealthy, pounding their chests about what a great country we live in (YOU live in, I'll be gone by then), and baring their teeth in rage at anyone who would want any consideration put before profit maximization by insurance companies, even as they bury their own children, dead of treatable illnesses.

And the sickest part of all is how they all rail against "bureaucrats" who "think they know better than the people where their interests lie."

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 10:15 PM | Report abuse

how he now claims when discussing the Va Governor's race: "This is not the time in "Our Commonwealth" to talk about any kind of tax increase, especially those that are fundamentally regressive and will hit hardest those who are struggling.

==

uh, he's lying, as always

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 10:12 PM | Report abuse

sorry it posted multiple times, maybe catching him in an obvious lie caused it.

Curious what the whining right will say years from now if there is no public option and healtcare premiums continue to rise?

Posted by: leichtman | September 29, 2009 10:10 PM | Report abuse

"3. All others of the 22 industrialized competitors of ours have universal health care, but five are based on the private insurance market, which is profitable but regulated. No reason to think we cannot do that here."

I can give you several billion ($$,$$$,$$$,$$$,$$$) reasons at both the state and the federal level.

These are reasons that have been compelling enough to stifle reform for decades, because they are a significant source of campaign candidates for incumbents. These are reasons that the current overhaul could end up being a massive bonanza for the industry even if a public option is factored in.

The simple fact that Congress is struggling to put in a heavily qualified public option (available only to about 5 percent of the population 4 years from now with a variety of competitive restrictions) -- should temper any sort of belief that a heavily regulated Swiss or Dutch model can easily be imported here to the U.S.

Posted by: JPRS | September 29, 2009 10:08 PM | Report abuse

interesting that jakeD was lecturing us here 2 weeks ago about his perspective as a CALIFORNIA lawyer and resident of southern California how he would be voting for Carly Fiorini for Senator against Boxer.

how he now claims when discussing the Va Governor's race: "This is not the time in "Our Commonwealth" to talk about any kind of tax increase, especially those that are fundamentally regressive and will hit hardest those who are struggling.

Rather, it is the time to put "our" fiscal house in order, strengthening the Commonwealth for the future.

"Furthermore, In my conversations with the "people across the state(of Va)"

next week we should discuss the Texas governors' race so we can find out about his Texas roots and his voting for Perry.

Posted by: leichtman | September 29, 2009 10:06 PM | Report abuse

interesting that jakeD was lecturing us here 2 weeks ago about his perspective as a CALIFORNIA lawyer and resident of southern California how he would be voting for Carly Fiorini for Senator against Boxer.

how he now claims when discussing the Va Governor's race: "This is not the time in "Our Commonwealth" to talk about any kind of tax increase, especially those that are fundamentally regressive and will hit hardest those who are struggling.

Rather, it is the time to put "our" fiscal house in order, strengthening the Commonwealth for the future.

"Furthermore, In my conversations with the "people across the state(of Va)"

next week we should discuss the Texas governors' race so we can find out about his Texas roots and his voting for Perry.

Posted by: leichtman | September 29, 2009 10:06 PM | Report abuse

interesting that jakeD was lecturing us here 2 weeks ago about his perspective as a CALIFORNIA lawyer and resident of southern California how he would be voting for Carly Fiorini for Senator against Boxer.

how he now claims when discussing the Va Governor's race: "This is not the time in "Our Commonwealth" to talk about any kind of tax increase, especially those that are fundamentally regressive and will hit hardest those who are struggling.

Rather, it is the time to put "our" fiscal house in order, strengthening the Commonwealth for the future.

"Furthermore, In my conversations with the "people across the state(of Va)"

next week we should discuss the Texas governors' race so we can find out about his Texas roots and his voting for Perry.

Posted by: leichtman | September 29, 2009 10:06 PM | Report abuse

I don't think the White House wants to change the mind of the fence sitters.

I think it's preference is probably something closer to the status quo on steroids, because they think they can have it both ways.

e.g.

Go with where the popular sentiment is; or go where the campaign money is (or at a minimum neutralize it for 2012).

In the end, mandates without a genuine, strong public option are going to make for bad politics and policy in the long-term. They've come this far, they might as well get a compromise that the majority of the population is likely to want, rather than forging a compromise that reflects the priorities of traditional GOP special interest donors.

Posted by: JPRS | September 29, 2009 9:59 PM | Report abuse

These people are pretty unabashed about it. They were pretty disgustingly sexist for the runup to the 2008 primaries until Obama took the commanding lead. Then as Palin got nominated, those people got incredibly reactive. Remember Guiliani's speech at the RNC? With the "how dare!"s?

Disgusting people, but zook doesn't really know what he's saying.

==

Anyway hardly anyone reads snowbama posts, he's just too over the top to bother with. It's like the writing of a tenth grader on his way to an institutionalized adulthood, 'cept zouk's already there.

The funny (not the "ha ha" sense of the word) is how these uh people believe that but for the tyranny of PC that everyone outside NYC and SF is at heart as stupid and bigoted as they are. That's why they keep getting nastier and uglier, waiting for the moment that all but 5% come over to their side, relieved to let out the Inner Redneck.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Hey Mark, I guess you're one of those o/~ fiscally conservative an' socially liberal o/~ types, huh?

Any special reason you're so careful to omit the savings in a public option? The economies of scale, the shift from employer-paid to government paid? You're getting almost as repetitive as birther-boy with this stuff.

When uninsured people get sick and go to the ER and are unable to pay the government ends up picking up the very expensive ER tab. Those costs will be lost with a public option, transferred to far lower costs of prompt care.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 9:49 PM | Report abuse

"DDawd you did see that snowbama called the President "Boy" earlier today? He didn't mean anything racist by it, I'm sure.

Posted by: margaretmeyers "

Well, I'm pretty reluctant to throw that bomb without something blatant. The thing is that zook doesn't really think for himself. He copies and pastes from guys who make a living on skirting the line as closely as possible. Two reasons for this. 1) they know their audience and they respond to this. 2) when they get called on it, they have an excuse to hugely overreact with superlatives like "Anytime ANYONE makes the SMALLEST criticism of Obama, they are shouted down by the LIBERAL media as RACIST"

These people are pretty unabashed about it. They were pretty disgustingly sexist for the runup to the 2008 primaries until Obama took the commanding lead. Then as Palin got nominated, those people got incredibly reactive. Remember Guiliani's speech at the RNC? With the "how dare!"s?

Disgusting people, but zook doesn't really know what he's saying.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 29, 2009 9:48 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

Thank you for that reasonable perspective.

snowbama:

Did you see school children being forced to sing songs to Obama????

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/09/29/rnc_chairman_compares_kids_sin.html

Posted by: JakeD | September 29, 2009 9:02 PM | Report abuse

DDawd you did see that snowbama called the President "Boy" earlier today? He didn't mean anything racist by it, I'm sure.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | September 29, 2009 8:22 PM | Report abuse

I thought all the proposals of the PO required it to pay for itself, like the Post Office.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 29, 2009 8:18 PM | Report abuse

If I were a Senator from any state I would vote against the "public option" as it is written.

1. If the excuse for it is that we need a cost control comparator, we have three.
A. Medicare
B. Medicaid
C. The VA

But because the records of each are sealed from public view the records are not and cannot be used for cost comparison. Stupid government inefficiency.

2. If the excuse for it is that it will lead inevitably to Medicare/Medicaid for all it is an excuse to open a third black hole in national finances. Fix Medicare and Medicaid, first. The unfunded mandate runs into the trillions. Really. Something for nothing run amok. I am on medicare and like it. So what?

3. All others of the 22 industrialized competitors of ours have universal health care, but five are based on the private insurance market, which is profitable but regulated. No reason to think we cannot do that here.

4. 80% of our med costs are raw med costs, not insurance costs. The resolution of that problem is manifold. I will suggest three steps here.
A. Move away from fee-for-service to clinic care.
B. Increase the number of health care professionals in front line care [dramatically].
C. Demand a piece of every drug patent for which NIH helped fund the underlying research.

The "public option" seemed irrelevant to me early but now seems a boondoggle.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | September 29, 2009 8:08 PM | Report abuse

"Jake, since you hate government run health care so much, I sure hope you aren't taking Medicare. "

Um, the guy is like sixteen.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 29, 2009 8:07 PM | Report abuse

A little cadre of scaredy-cat, bought-and-paid-for Senators from sparsely populated states are deciding what 300 million Americans will get from health care reform?

Jake, since you hate government run health care so much, I sure hope you aren't taking Medicare. That would make anyone a hypocrite. Like all those unemployed or retired hicks and simpletons at the Town Halls, making noise and trouble with their ignorance. They've got their hands in Uncle Sam's pockets all the time, then they run around screaming about small government and Freedom. Right. And people who use Medicare are afraid of government monitored health insurance.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | September 29, 2009 8:06 PM | Report abuse

"Poor Obama needs Stephanapolous to help him define taxes."

Stephanapolus was being pointless when posing a public option premium as a tax. It's no more a tax than my buying a postage stamp is a tax. You think the most pressing topic on the public option is the semantical nuances between a premium and a tax? He absolutely was stretching and I don't see a point to it. Perhaps it disabused people of the notion that it would be free healthcare, but no one had that notion anyways. And besides, referring to it as a premium would accomplish the same thing.

(pssst, snowy, here's me responding a topic that you copied and pasted from somewhere else. I am actually aware of what was said since I didn't just copy and paste it. Therefore, I am able to respond intelligently. I just thought I'd show you what it looked like. Of course, to you, real debate is "idiocy")

Posted by: DDAWD | September 29, 2009 7:59 PM | Report abuse

And oh, it isn't "Sarah Palin's book" any more than Mr. T's biography was "Mr. T's book," in fact probably less so.

When you see a "with" after the "author's" name then the author isn't the author.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 6:02 PM
___________

Yeah, G&T, it's like all those sports biographies written by the subject athlete "with Phil Pepe." It stands to reason that if, as almost-son-in-law Levi says, Ms. Phalin does not read at all, she's not into to writin' much either. Maybe checks and grocery lists, but that's about it.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 29, 2009 7:41 PM | Report abuse

thats amusing. the use of legitimate and huffington post in the same sentence.

oh wait. you were serious????

Posted by: snowbama | September 29, 2009 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cillizza:

How would you describe Gov. Palin's rise to national prominence? Oh, wait, you used "meteoric" too:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

you can always count on Cilizza to revert to the most hackneyed phrase available. Never read strunk and white.

Posted by: snowbama | September 29, 2009 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Legitimate, non-Rasmussen polls show overwhelming support for the public option. A new NYT/CBS poll shows 65 percent support the PO while only 26 percent oppose it. So the Congressional hand-wringing is not about concern regarding public support. It's all about Big Pharma and the insurance companies paying Members of Congress billions to block Obamacare, with idiotic cheerleading on the sidelines from BHO haters and Yahoos.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/25/poll-public-option-favore_n_299669.html

For those who delusionally talk of some "grassroots" movement against Obamacare, think again. Tim Dickinson, author of the only fact-based, fully sourced profile of McCain during the campaign, explains in a new Rolling Stone piece how the obnoxious "Astroturf" events, with their racist signs and misinformation about health reform, were completely organized and funded by rich anti-Obamacare lobbyists. Another home run from TD.

Excerpt:

"Conservatives were quick to insist that the near-riot — the first of many town-hall mobs that would dominate the headlines in August — was completely spontaneous. The protesters didn't show up "because of some organized group," Rick Scott, the head of Conservatives for Patients' Rights, told reporters. "They're mad about the stimulus bill, the bailout, the economy. Now they see that their health care is about to be taken over by the government."

In fact, Scott's own group had played an integral role in mobilizing the protesters. According to internal documents obtained by Rolling Stone, Conservatives for Patients' Rights had been working closely for weeks as a "coalition partner" with three other right-wing groups in a plot to unleash irate mobs at town-hall meetings just like Doggett's. Far from representing a spontaneous upwelling of populist rage, the protests were tightly orchestrated from the top down by corporate-funded front groups as well as top lobbyists for the health care industry."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/30219673/the_lie_machine/print

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 29, 2009 7:31 PM | Report abuse

me⋅te⋅or⋅ic  /ˌmitiˈɔrɪk, -ˈɒr-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mee-tee-awr-ik, -or-] Show IPA
Use meteoric in a Sentence
See web results for meteoric
See images of meteoric
–adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or consisting of meteors.
2. resembling a meteor in transient brilliance, suddenness of appearance, swiftness, etc.: his meteoric rise in politics.
3. of or coming from the atmosphere; meteorological.


Poor Obama needs Stephanapolous to help him define taxes. Poor clinton needs help with "is". the resident brainless stooge always seems to get these simple definitions wrong. But in his own mind (speaking euphamistically) he is always right. no where else.

Posted by: snowbama | September 29, 2009 7:31 PM | Report abuse

I didn't see Barry anywhere on tv today. What's going on?

Posted by: snowbama | September 29, 2009 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Worst showing ever for socialists in Germany. Following France and Italy. How did Americans get so stupid.

I figure this is the last death rattle of the failed idea of liberalism/socialism.

Posted by: snowbama | September 29, 2009 6:17 PM | Report abuse

"intent on lining his thug homies back in chi town pockets"

Well, so much for your never having said anything racist.

Gotta love that about Republicans. They pretty much think all black people are inner city thugs with their drugs and tattooed gang members and their Fifty Cents rappers.

Even Michael Steele was having some debate on FOX News and told a bewildered Chuck D about the rapper's upbringing in the projects.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 29, 2009 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cillizza:

How would you describe Gov. Palin's rise to national prominence? Oh, wait, you used "meteoric" too:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?search=Palin&blog_id=73&MaxResults=100

Posted by: JakeD | September 29, 2009 6:14 PM | Report abuse

CC Wrote: The Senate Finance Committee has just voted down a proposal by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) that would have amended the health care bill to include a public option.
Five Democrats -- Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.) Kent Conrad (N.D.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Tom Carper (Del.) -- voted against the Rockefeller amendment. President Barack Obama's average percentage of the 2008 vote in those states was 49.4 percent.

Can you tell us how you came up with 49.4 percent to Obama? I did the math; I came up with 50.4% to Obama and 49.6 to McCain.

Here are the breakdowns:

Obama McCain Electoral Vote
Florida 4,282,074 4,045,624 27
Delaware 255,459 152,374 3
Montana 231,667 242,763 -3
North Dakota 141,278 168,601 -3
Arkansas 422,310 638,017 -6

Total 5,332,788 5,247,379 18
50.40% 49.60%

If you are making the points that three democrats (Montana, North Dakota and Arkansas) voted against the Schumer amendment, then your point makes sense rather than analyzing with Rockefeller amendment.

In fact, Montana and North Dakota, they had very close election results. Well, who cares about Arkansas?

Posted by: healthinsuranceripoff | September 29, 2009 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile as the health care agenda flounders, Obama shows his leadership skills and jets off the Denmark, intent on lining his thug homies back in chi town pockets. No worry about nukes, missiles wars. No bother with running a government. No need to stand by allies.

Posted by: snowbama | September 29, 2009 6:09 PM | Report abuse

"Dreams From My Father" by Barack Obama with William Ayers.

Posted by: JakeD | September 29, 2009 6:05 PM | Report abuse

"and her meteoric rise to national prominence ..."

==

*Meteors* don't rise, they fall

A *meteorite* is a meteor that has already ended its fall as a smoking hole in the ground.

Perfect metaphor for the Resignee.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 6:04 PM | Report abuse

And oh, it isn't "Sarah Palin's book" any more than Mr. T's biography was "Mr. T's book," in fact probably less so.

When you see a "with" after the "author's" name then the author isn't the author.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 6:02 PM | Report abuse

"Going Rogue: An American Life"

Publisher: HarperCollins Publishers
Format: Hardcover, 432pp
ISBN-13: 9780061939891
ISBN: 0061939897

Synopsis

Sarah Palin burst onto the political scene at the height of the 2008 presidential campaign and overnight became a national sensation. Adored by the right, bitterly reviled by the left, she is the most polarizing figure to emerge in American politics in decades. Yet for all the dirt digging and gossip that has surrounded her, very little is actually known about who she is, what she believes, and above all, about her plans for the future. In her new book, Sarah Palin tells the story of her Alaskan upbringing, her marriage and family life, her political career, her religious beliefs, and her meteoric rise to national prominence. With her customary blunt common sense, she sets the record straight about the many myths and lies that have been spun around her and lays out her vision for an America that is strong, independent, and free.

Amazon Bestseller #86 (and rising ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 29, 2009 6:00 PM | Report abuse

The public option is inevitable. Because any congress that is too squeamish for a public option is too squeamish to stop the thieves and liars in the health insurance industry. Anyone who thinks this issue is going to go away is delusional. People will continue demanding a solution until congress provides one.

Posted by: theamazingjex | September 29, 2009 6:00 PM | Report abuse

"He knows all. He tells all.

Posted by: snowbama "

OMG, you're such a good debator!!!1!1211!

I suppose you also believe him when he says that he plans on establishing residencies in Virginia, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Florida to vote for McDonnell, whoever runs against Dodd, Toomey, and Rubio. Also that he was in Cambridge to march against Skip Gates and that he has given to 20 different candidates.

For all your talk of homosexuality, you sure do a lot of d*ck riding. I think jaked is below you, but if you need to be coddled, then you need to be coddled and that guy is probably the only one willing to coddle you.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 29, 2009 6:00 PM | Report abuse

And in two more weeks it'll be in the clearance bins.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 5:59 PM | Report abuse

BTW (for everyone else):

Sarah Palin's book is already at #2 Bestseller.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Going-Rogue/Sarah-Palin/e/9780061939891/?cds2Pid=29205&inframe=y

Posted by: JakeD | September 29, 2009 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, yeah, just like I can't post here from an iPhone or won't read Sarah Palin's new book. We get your schtick already.

Posted by: JakeD | September 29, 2009 5:46 PM | Report abuse

He can't afford a new car.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite


He knows all. He tells all.

Posted by: snowbama | September 29, 2009 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Of course he's lying. When does he not?

He can't afford a new car.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Public Option would only matter if serious cost containment measures came with it and which were also applied to the private options, a risk in other words, of creating enough competition for a winners/losers scenario.

Since no such cost containment strategies are moving past the lip-service stage (pilot projects, optional incentive programs, etc.), it seems everyone in the industry is to be a winner. The Public Option may be moot, or perhaps, only a stalking horse.

Posted by: shrink2 | September 29, 2009 5:39 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

$68,974

Posted by: JakeD | September 29, 2009 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Customer: "Excuse me I'd like to return this vehicle."
Salesman: "Certainly. May I ask why?"
C: "........For spite..."
S: "Spite?"
C: "That's right. I don't care for the salesman that sold it to me."
S: "I don't think you can return an item for spite."
C: "What do you mean?"
S: "Well if there was some problem with the vehicle. If it were unsatisfactory in some way, then we could do it for you, but I'm afraid spite doesn't fit into any of our conditions for a refund."
C: "That's ridiculous, I want to return it. What's the difference what the reason is."
S: "Let me speak with the manager...excuse me.....Bob!"
(walks over to the manager and whispers)
S: "........spite....."(Manager walks over)
Manager: "What seems to be the problem?"
C: "Well I want to return this car and she asked me why and I said for spite and now she won't take it back."
M: "That's true. You can't return an item based purely on spite."
C: "Well So fine then ..then I don't want it and then that's why I'm returning it"
M: "Well you already said spite so......"
C: "But I changed my mind."
M: "No...you said spite...Too late."

Posted by: JakeD | September 29, 2009 5:37 PM | Report abuse

"You're a True American Patriot.

Posted by: justjoeking"

*rolls eyes*

this is just some nonsense he read off some website. I would bet the cost of whatever one of those GM cars that he's lying about doing this.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 29, 2009 5:36 PM | Report abuse

You're a True American Patriot.

Posted by: justjoeking | September 29, 2009 5:30 PM | Report abuse

(Sorry for the hijack of this thread about the Public Option.)

Posted by: justjoeking | September 29, 2009 5:29 PM | Report abuse

No. I hope enough of us return GM cars to put it out of business for good.

Posted by: JakeD | September 29, 2009 5:27 PM | Report abuse

The CEO was not fired. He resigned. And that was a condition of the deal they made last spring. At least Obama got something for the money, instead of the no-strings loans from Bush they started with. As of now, the US government has no votes on the board.

Posted by: justjoeking | September 29, 2009 5:27 PM | Report abuse

The concept of a "money-back guarantee" is very well-researched, on a wide variety of durable goods. Whether it is 1% returns or 10%, the company has a strategy and a risk assessment. The US government had no direct role in the decision, and has no money riding on it.

Yes, we own 60% of the stock. And it is worthless right now. That deal is done. Now let the company try to improve it's numbers so we CAN get some money back.

Posted by: justjoeking | September 29, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

And, let's say that the "insurance policy" (terms of which have NOT been disclosed) covers the expected 1% of returns -- I know that I am returning the GM car I just purchased -- who is "guaranteeing" GM cars if 2%, 20% or 50% are returned?

Posted by: JakeD | September 29, 2009 5:22 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! Not "government run" when the CEO is called into the Oval Office and FIRED?! Please, keep posting because I need the laughs!

Posted by: JakeD | September 29, 2009 5:20 PM | Report abuse

More doublethink. It's going to cost the taxpayers more money AND its going to run Ford out of business. Newsflash: If people return the cars, it doesn't hurt Ford. If they don't, it can't cost the taxpayers, even if we were on the hook. Which we aren't.

We've already gone over the GM "Money-back Guarantee" offer. First, it is a limited risk. The cars must be in pristine condition to be returned, and dealers need a certain number of "demo" cars, which are later sold as used cars anyway. Second, as you carefully researched, GM has insurance to cover the losses if they are more than expected. Third, GM needs to improve it's image, and a money-back guarantee is good for their image.

There is no new government money going into, or to back-stop, this offer, so your claims of unfair competition are unfounded.

Ford is well-positioned in the current market. If they start to lose market share to GM, they could sue. But they won't, because unlike you they can see that GM is not government-run.

Posted by: justjoeking | September 29, 2009 5:17 PM | Report abuse

According to a spokeshole, GM expects "way under 1 percent," of consumers who buy new Cadillacs, Chevrolets, GMC or Buick vehicles will return them in the 60 day money-back guarantee program.

This would seem to be a risky move for a company that was doing so poorly that it needed a $50 billion bailout from the federal government earlier this year. But what exactly is GM risking here? Not its money, but ours: Taxpayers, via the U.S. Treasury, own 61 percent of the company…so we are the ones guaranteeing GM’s products.

In case you’ve forgotten, we were the ones guaranteeing Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s products, too. And we know how that turned out…

Posted by: JakeD | September 29, 2009 5:15 PM | Report abuse

justjoeking:

Giving away free cars is "bad" from a business sense, yet GOVERNMENT Motors is doing that even if it puts Ford under.

Posted by: JakeD | September 29, 2009 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Wiggan's post shows the doublethink on the right. Government-run healthcare is bad, and yet it will somehow run the private sector out. If Medicare is so bad, why does everybody want it?

I personally don't care deeply about the public option--the other reforms are more important. But the idea that the "option" becomes a "requirement" is simply not borne out by the proposed legislation. Only a fraction of the public would even be eligible for the public option--its not going to run the rest out of business.

Posted by: justjoeking | September 29, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Well at least there are 5 savvy Dems on that comittee. Government takeover of the health care industry is not something you want to have on your resume in 2010.

Just look to Medicare and Medicaid. People do not have glowing stories of efficiency and cost savings about those government run health care programs. The lefty press seems to think they can ignore those living instances of cost overuns, inefficiency, rationing, waste, fraud and abuse as relevant examples of how our government would handle a 'public option'.

How many medicaid and medicare participants have received satisfaction surveys from the Washington Post? How much investigative journalism has been done with Medicaid and Medicare to take a hard look at what a public option would be like? Hmm...I suppose that would be politically inconveniant to cover any negatives of government run health programs when the lefties are sounding the drum to pass government health care.

It is bad enough that our Federal government has discretionary spending authority over 33% of my income, without them also having life and death decision authority over me. Sorry this is the land of the free, not the home of the subjugated.

Posted by: Wiggan | September 29, 2009 4:42 PM | Report abuse

The votes by Carper and Nelson are the most interesting of these to me. This isn't a case of conservative senators from small states voting as a bloc. Carper wasn't on my radar at all. Anything of interest there?

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | September 29, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse

lowercaselarry:

As I said, hopefully NOT, since there are other poll results showing a majority do not want a public option (when it's explained correctly ; )

By all means, libs, run Baucus, Conrad and Lincoln out during their next primaries -- making it even EASIER for conservatives to gain those seats -- not too bright, are ya?

Posted by: JakeD | September 29, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

OHIOCITIZEN, good stuff, thanks for posting.

Posted by: nodebris | September 29, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse


"That s.o.b. Nelson actually said he would vote for Schumers bill and then didn't! ..."

Actually Nelson supported the Schumer Amendment. He opposed the Rockefeller Amendment. He and Carper both opposed the Rockefeller Amendment but supported the Schumer Amendment on the Public Option. That is why the vote on Schumer's Amendment was 13-10 whereas the vote on the Rockefeller Amendment was 15-8. Carper and Nelson opposed the first amendment (Rockefeller) but supported the second (Schumer). Baucus, Conrad and Lincoln were the three Democrats who opposed both.

Posted by: OHIOCITIZEN | September 29, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Yes, the people HAVE spoken, and 65% want a public option. Further, the Senate Finance Committee is much more conservative than the Senate as a whole. The public option is included in the other Senate bill and all of the House versions. It's likely the insurance companies will be defeated and a public option will be passed. But since "everyone knows" the government can't do anything right, why are the insurance companies worried?

Posted by: lowercaselarry | September 29, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse

mrgavel:

America is a Republic, and the people at town hall meetings and now through their duly-elected representatives in Congress (except for "Senator" Kirk) HAVE spoken. Time to move on ...

sandsmith:

den put a widdle bip-bip onnat boo-boo baby an' 'top da weepy-weepy

Posted by: JakeD | September 29, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Good analysis of the voting Chris. It is indeed all about getting re-elected. At least they are finally debating the issue and voting on amendments, instead of the interminable Gang of Six closed-door bargaining.

Posted by: justjoeking | September 29, 2009 4:19 PM | Report abuse

How in the world can you say that the people have spoken when most polls show that the public favors a public option, (i.e. the CBS-NYT poll) and Obama, who advocated a public option during the campaign was elected by around 10% of the vote? What are you basing your statement on?

Posted by: mrgavel | September 29, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse

That s.o.b. Nelson actually said he would vote for Schumers bill and then didn't! I am seething! We don't need these corporatists. Its time to primary these lowlifes. Their own constituents want the public option!

These people make me sick. They only care about themselves. This country is so wrong when the american public is ignored. We need a revolution. Please get rid of these people!!!

Posted by: sandnsmith | September 29, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Like a ten year old with a purpose, the multiple responses of NO do not resonate. Perhaps if they ask one more time. and couple it with "the most important speech ever".

Posted by: snowbama | September 29, 2009 3:59 PM | Report abuse

The Schumer Public Option Amendment has just failed on a 13-10 vote, with Baucus, Conrad and Lincoln voting no with all Republicans. Carper and Nelson joined the same 8 Democrats who supported the Rockefeller Amendment.

Posted by: OHIOCITIZEN | September 29, 2009 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Hopefully NOT!!! The people have spoken: NO PUBLIC OPTION!

Posted by: JakeD | September 29, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company