Kari, Healthcare reform is at a crucial stage. This sort of opportunity doesn't come along very often in American History. Can we set aside your weird leg-humping of Ron Wyden for a few minutes, please? I'm begging you.

It's as if - when the sun comes up in the morning - your first thought is how will it affect Ron Wyden's image? Enough, for God's sake.

  Let's focus on the public option for everyone, just as you-know-who mentions in the video but let's not turn this into points in a PR contest. This is way too important for that.

  Would it help if we all chanted, "Ron Wyden is all-knowing and all-wise. He is the light, the savior, and the lord. Ron Wyden is the beginning, the middle, and the living end. When he first spoke the skies were dark but he said the words, 'I Am the Public Option and It Is Good.' and the skies were full of light. Flowers bloomed, birds sang, and on the 7th day, Kari built Ron's website."

    If we all chanted that 50 times for you, would that satiate your needs and quench your thirst for the nectar that is Ron? Then, could we move past this phase and start thinking big picture here?

   We should be organizing a major progressive push right now. You know, like the one that got what's-his-name to clue in about the public option back in the summer. Only bigger. Because this is important.

Maddow was utterly dishonest last nigh when she introduced Wyden as:

"A consistent proponent of making the public option available to everyone,".

I was stunned when I heard her say this. In this one statement she revealed an enormous intellectual dishonesty, and genuine intellectual deficiencies that have characterized her career since her first Air America "Unfiltered" show way back in 2004.

Less than nine months ago, Ron Wyden was opposed to a public option for anyone. Except in a situation more extreme than even Olympia Snowe's trigger and only on a state-by-state basis in that very limited case.

Only because advocates started to make it known just how bad Wyden has been on the public option, and how precarious his re-election might be, did he start to voice slowly increasing degrees of passive support. But never has he been a "proponent" in the honest definition of that word as an active supporter and advocate working for the public option.

His various false "choice" amendments, first nothing more than a repackaging of his own reform bill with severely limited charade of a public choice option as just noted, also only slowly by degrees has become a very limited version of how he tries to present it. In fact his last wording did not allow anyone to opt out of their employer-provided plan, only those whose employer-provided plan doesn't meet certain very minimal requirements.

Rachel's words and Kari's quote here are unambiguous in how they are trying to misrepresent Wyden's support for the public option. Only by playing games in parsing the meaning of a "consistent proponent" to mean someone who in the last two months introduced a misrepresented choice option that at the time of the Finance committee vote still will only allow some people to choose the public option and consistently supported THAT could those words be accurate.

Frankly, I think the truth is that Maddow is not nearly as intelligent (verbal glibness does not intelligence make) as she wants people to believe and doesn't even realize just how bad this comment made her look last night. She and Olbermann are all about basking in the adulation they are receiving from the credulous contingent of our side and the ying-yang cults of Maddow-Olbermann though. I enjoy them as entertainers but they aren't honest and they aren't the people who are responsible for what the progressive community has managed to bring about in keeping the public option alive. And at this point, it's only by keeping the pressure on THEM and the Congress are we going to get what we need in a public option.

Rachel's utterly dishonest misrepresentation of Wyden and his role is proof enough of that.

Kari, I do it with the jokes. That's my personal contribution. A freelancer doesn't make enough to be in it for the money, but when one of these jokes hits nationally they can really add to the debate. I have a little list where I know they had an impact. When someone like William Bennett is on Meet the Press discussing your joke about him, you know you've helped. In this case, I'd suggest emailing your family in other states and reminding them to bear down. I get a constant stream of emails from my politically active sisters, including one who volunteers to answer phone calls to the White House. She has graduate work in public health from John Hopkins and she is psyched by the possibilities here. Remember the Dubai port security deal. That's one example lately that proves Congress still reacts to a public outcry. This is not like the war in Iraq where Americans can protest and then move on. Health problems are a guarantee if you live long enough, so we have to begin to make a system that isn't based on staying healthy or dying quick.

No, Rachel Maddow wasn't dishonest, "Checking the Facts." Even when he would only say that he was open to a public option, Wyden has always said that if we were going to have a public option it should be open to everybody.

But still, you are absolutely correct that Wyden's "precarious" reelection prospects (after all, Pavel Goberman and JoAnn Bowman are raring to take him on) are what has motivated him and the following list of well-known right-wing reactionaries to engage in "utterly dishonest misrepresentation" and outright lies about Wyden's progressive role in health reform in order to prop up his sagging reelection prospects:

Keith Olbermann David Herszenhom Rachel Maddow Dylan Ratigan David Shuster NY Times editorial board Ruth Marcus Bill Press David Leonhardt Ed Schultz David Sarasohn Ezra Klein Arianna Huffington Lawrence O'Donnell Jon Cohn Rep. Anthony Weiner U.S. PIRG

LOL, Mr. "tepid."

I just saw this from Sam Stein of Huffington Post, who called Wyden "one of the most thoughtful voices in the current debate." Add Stein to the list of shameless shills for Wyden!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/27/as-others-debate-health-c_n_335449.html

"Maddow was utterly dishonest last nigh when she introduced Wyden as:

"A consistent proponent of making the public option available to everyone,". "

I'll second that.

Senator Reid has taken a strong step in the right direction? Bullshit. At best it is a tip-toe that way because his proposal will still leave many uninsured.

And, talking of insurance, exactly (or even approximately) what will those insurance policies look like? Along the lines of current policies, including the federal employees plan, that come up way short of what the Europeans have and leave Americans vulnerable to inadequate care or bankruptcy?

The one consolation in all of this is that the Republicans are keeping us ideologically pure and blocking any attempts to taint our way of life (and dying) with socialism like the Brits, French, Germans, Italians, etc. So we sacrifice a few hundred thousand people every year. Too bad. Keep socialism out of this country. That's on the slippery slope to communism and good health justice for all.

Just a coincidence? Insurance Stocks Plunged As Reid Announced Public Option, Spiked After Lieberman Vowed To Filibuster It

"Less than nine months ago, Ron Wyden was opposed to a public option for anyone.

Cite your source, please?"

Just a few weeks ago when Wyden was touting his Healthy Americans Act there was no mention on his web site dealing with this item about a public option. Further, if Wyden had been promoting or supporting a public option his Healthy (?) Americans Act wouldn't have had the bi-partisan support of Bob Bennett of Utah and other Republicans.

Sorry, but you failed the challenge, Bill Bodden.

The key word used to impugn Wyden in the quote was "opposed" ("Less than 9 moths ago, Wyden was opposed to the public option for anyone.") and Kari challenged you and anyone else to cite a source for this assertion. Your attempt to cite a source is anecdotal evidence of Wyden's failure to promote a public option on his website. That is a rather comical far cry from evidence of "opposing" a public option.

You have failed even the truthiness test. Unless you or others can back up your claim with hard facts, you would be well-served to present your beliefs as just that - beliefs. e.g. - "I believe that, while he was too smart to say it aloud, Wyden was originally opposed to the public option." Kari and Wyden's defenders could argue with that assertion, but at least they could not successfully question your credibility, which they can at present.

"Sorry, but you failed the challenge, Bill Bodden.

The key word used to impugn Wyden in the quote was "opposed""

My point wasn't to prove HE "opposed" a public option in the sense that he argued against it but to note that he was aligned with people who were opposed to the public option. Add to that the comment I made regarding nothing about a public option in the Wyden-Bennett (Republican-Utah) Healthy(?) Americans Act and that cuts Wyden and his supporters off at the pass if they try to claim Wyden was "for" a public option. Either he was for or against a public option or undecided. If he was partnered with Republicans opposed to a public option then he was closer to opposing than being for. Since you and Kari are authorities on Wyden's support for a public option, can either of you name a date when he came out in favor of a public option and source his comment?

PS: This isn't a perfect analogy to my point regarding Wyden-Bennett-HAA and the public option, but it is close. Some kids were drag racing in Deschutes County. A sheriff came along and the kids (at least the young woman driving one of the cars) panicked. She lost control of her car and killed herself and her passenger. Two young men in the group - but not in the fatal car - were charged with manslaughter. One plea bargained and got a few months in jail. The other didn't see he was guilty of manslaughter and took his chances in court. He lost and got six years in jail. Governor Kulongoski - the Democratic governor of Oregon - had a chance to commute the remaining year of the second young man's sentence but declined to do so. Presumably, he believe in guilt by association.

I would never try to dummy up a source for the proposition that Wyden has long supported a public option because no such authority exists. I suspect Wyden was agnostic on the public option and wed more to the idea that true and fair competition through private (or public) insurance would hold down costs. And I think you are right that he was agnostic or quiet on the public option because it risked blowing up his bipartisan effort on the Healthy Americans Act.

You took Kari's challenge, however, as evidenced by your copying and pasting said challenge and then providing your answer. In your defense, it was the ironically named "Checking the facts" who first mangled the facts with the original assertion: "Less than nine months ago, Ron Wyden was opposed to a public option for anyone." Neither you nor Mr. Checking can provide a cite because none exist. I suspect Mr. Wyden was quite careful to never to provide you with one.

"Bill, that's easy. On September 29, 2009, Senator Ron Wyden voted (twice) for the public option in the Senate Finance Committee - once for the version by Chuck Schumer, once for the version by Jay Rockefeller. "

Kari: Is 9/29/09 the earliest date you could come up with? That was less than a month ago and after Wyden was probably getting a lot of heat from progressive Oregonians. If so, it would be difficult to make a case that he was an enthusiastic supporter of the public option.

In any event, after all will have been said and done, I'll give odds there will be no health care/insurance reform worth the name because of the bungled way this has been handled for the protection of the insurance corporations. If something does come out of Congress pretending to be reform it probably won't be worth what a Texan once said of the vice-president's office, "... a bucket of spit." I'll say it again, if Congress were serious about health care reform they would have given the job to a NON-partisan commission free of influence from the insurance corporations. Not, as has been the case, recipients of campaign donations from Big Insurance.

As for the quality of health care/insurance reform that we can expect out of Congress, Nancy Pelosi has probably given us a clue. The Democratic house plan will, as Ms. Pelosi breathlessly explained this morning, provide insurance for another 36 million people. That could be good news for those 36 million people, but what will the quality and affordability of those policies be like? And what about the 12, 14 or more millions of people who will still left uncovered?

More on the public option: <href=http: www.commondreams.org="" view="" 2009="" 10="" 29-5="">Not-So-Robust Public Option

"So this is basically a stupid conversation. "

Not really. We are just looking at this from different angles. You and other pro-Wyden people are touting Wyden's recent pro-public choice positions and votes as something to his credit. Some of us, on the other hand, are merely saying, "Not so fast" to this Johnny-come-lately position and questioning how genuine he is on this. Maybe he has seen the light and engaged in a Damascene conversion, but those of us who are not members of the Democratic tribe are more inclined to be skeptical and less inclined to be trusting.

“If this is the best we can do, then it is time to ask ourselves whether the two-party system is truly capable of representing the American people or whether the system has been so compromised by special interests that we can’t even protect the health of our own people. This is a moment of truth for the Democratic Party. Will we stand for the people or the insurance companies?” (Dennis Kucinich: Is the 2-Party System truly capable of representing the American people?, http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/dennis-kucinich-is-the-2-party-system-truly-capable-of-representing-the-american-people-2/)

Thank you, notkucinich for this link

It's time for Kucinich and the few progressives to leave the Democratic cabal. I once held the opinion that to correct some of the sins and reduce the corruption in the Dem party there was a need for two groups, one (independents) to fight outside the party and another to fight within. I no longer see any hope of success of either group having any effect as long as major corporate industries can buy the leading players in the party. It looks like the best we can do is expose naked emperors and empresses to a blind and deaf public. At least independents won't be providing any support to the lesser evil.

Before the FC bill was reported out, Wyden was circumspect at best about details, including the public option. I assume that this was out of respect for senate tradition and for committee chair Max Baucus. Since Baucus and Conrad conspired to kill Wyden's amendment, and now that the debate has shifted out of committee, Wyden has been solid. Some of us (well, me) were concerned about Wyden's stand during his uncommunicative stage, and are happy now that the real Ron Wyden has re-emerged.