So it's not particularly surprising that he would hold off on signing the Bennet letter at least until the President takes his final shot at a bipartisan solution.

Or it's not surprising that he would be a part of the shuck and jive to keep the public option off the table. I thought I was actually agreeing with you until that last bit. Interesting. Changing direction causing disorientation. I'm going to vote that #1 example this year for pure, unadulterated spin.

Since his two opponents may be reading still, I would love to hear your take on this!

Well, although we couldn't know he would be a last minute invite, this is about what we thought. Wait to see what comes of the summit, and then decide. I would have been a lot more impressed if he had said: "If the Republicans act as "wholly owned subsidiaries of the insurance industry" and we do not get good faith cooperation, then I will immediately sign the letter and I will wholeheartedly fight for the inclusion of the public option by reconciliation.

Obama calling this "bipartisan health care summit" is an oxymoron, we want less government and more freedom of choice. It has been proven the higher the levels of personal freedoms, causes less poor, less racism, better hospitalization, why is he trying to hurting the poor and disfranchised, I know he want to help, but building another very large inefficient bureaucracies is just the wrong direction.

"He not only continues to support the public option – which he twice voted for in the Senate Finance Committee – he continues to think reconciliation should remain on the table if it proves necessary to guarantee that every American has quality, affordable health insurance."

Trying to keep public option? You have got to be kidding. When Wyden says up, you say it's down. When Wyden says black, you claim it's white. I believe Wyden.

Typing too fast again. I was trying to reply to Zarathustra's stupid claim that Wyden is "part of the shuck and jive to keep the public option off the table." Shuck and jive is saying you are for public option and then voting against the Rockefeller amendment. Wyden voted for that amendment, one of the very few who did.

Now when this bipartisan meeting results in absolutely nothing, I expect Wyden to support public option under the reconciliation rules, just as Bennet's letter calls for. He has voted twice for it before, so that shouldn't be too hard.

"Full disclosure: My firm built Ron Wyden's campaign website. I speak only for myself."

Well, maybe now you can do Obama's website. Post his birth-certificate if you do.

Typing too fast again. I was trying to reply to Zarathustra's stupid claim that Wyden is "part of the shuck and jive to keep the public option off the table." Shuck and jive is saying you are for public option and then voting against the Rockefeller amendment. Wyden voted for that amendment, one of the very few who did. Now when this bipartisan meeting results in absolutely nothing, I expect Wyden to support public option under the reconciliation rules, just as Bennet's letter calls for. He has voted twice for it before, so that shouldn't be too hard.

No ignoramus, Wyden and Kardon have masters of a whole other level of political sleaze and lying.

First, don't forget Obama's mentor in the Senate was Joe LIEberman, so much so he only supported Lamont in an email after he was pressured that he had to support the duly elected DEMOCRATIC nominee. Obama's "public organizing" days was that elitist Ivy League tactic of "slumming" to build some cred. He's the son of a white, upper-middle class mother, and was raised by white, upper-middle class grandparents, and has always politically stood with that part of the Democratic Party.

Second, what this is about is rescuing welfare for the insurance industry in the form of a mandate with out a public option. Obama's White House for the last several days has been making fun of supporters of a public option, and they have been enlisting supposed "moderate" Democrats who have started to say they won't vote IN RECONCILIATION for any plan with a public option ("It's not a deal breaker") once they got cover from Obama and sleazy double-dealing Democrats like Wyden.

Third, Ron Wyden has NEVER actually supported a public option in the form of EVERY actually raising a finger to work for it. That single throw-away vote in committee only happened because he knew his vote would not cause it to pass and he's gambling there are enough stupid Oregonians like bradley to get away with it. His original "bi-partisan" plan, and actually all he has worked for since then, called for abolishing almost all current public health insurance programs and turning the whole system over to private industry. He is just a corrupt stalking horse for the health insurance and health care industry.

Fourth, as his own office in fact is admitting, the entire premise for "bi-partisan support" is no public option. The fact that he prioritizes his advocacy to put the bi-partisan no-public-option cause ahead of his supposed support of a public option he has NEVER worked or advocated for is prima facie case that he chooses no public option ahead of a public option. And why would he have any credibility in the summit as bringing bi-partisan support if anyone in the Senate actually believed he was an actual, principled supporter of a public option. In other words, THEY would look stupid to the public for being duped by Wyden that he was advocating a bi-partisan no-public option if he actually was a public option supporter.

And of course there is the sleazeball Rahm Emanuel behind this too.

This about Wyden, Obama, and the corrupted wing of the Democratic party trying to rescue the industry welfare plan that Obama has introduced. Nothing more or nothing less. And you have to be as stupid as losers like bradley to make a fool of yourself arguing differently.

At this moment, it's obviously Obama's and Wyden's goal to make sure there will be no reconciliation vote for a plan with a public option. The only way we will get that vote is if we the public make it clear we know they are dishonest, we know they have utter contempt for us and our intelligence, and that we will do everything we can to vote out incumbents of both parties, except Democrats who actually support a public plan, if we don't get that vote and it passes.

Being invited to join President Obama's heath care team at this point in time is like being offered a stateroom on the Titanic after it hit the iceberg.

I am outraged that Wyden is being intellectually consistent and getting huge coverage for being the only Democrat the President invited to the bipartisan summit. This could be the breakthrough issue for my campaign. Who does Wyden think he is saying he wants to actually try to find a bipartisan solution before coming out for a partisan solution?

Vote Pavel.

And in typical clueless political hack style that defines Kari. we have the fact that

Wyden late add to summit?

So the argument of the Karis and the bradleys of the world, is that Wyden didn't take a position of principle that he supports a public option so that he could sleaze his way at the last minute onto the summit meeting to advance his "bi-partisan" approach that has always been about no public option and turning even more of the system over to the private health insurance industry, with a mandate to boot.

And oh yeah, after Obama waited all this time to finally put out a plan that doesn't include a public option and his administration spends the last 72 hours trashing anybody who supports it.

And THAT is Ron's, and Obama's, extremely clever double-secret reverse plan to pass a bill WITH a public option. Yeah right.

bradley, the first three posts (counting Kari) said, it might be this, it might be that, have to wait and see, respectively. Is the "stupid claim", "that it might be"? First three say that we have to wait and see, basically. Are you saying that you already know?

Ronnie, are you saying that Goberman is for partisanship? I don't think he trusts any group of more than 2 people. And good on 'im for it!

Is it Wyden sleaze to be invited by the Prez to this summit? Really? If you ask me, it's seriously cool that an Oregon representative was seen as that important by Obama. I think it's an honor. Way to go, Ron!

Kari - Oh lord, speaking of those silly Cold War negotations over shape of the tables,

Kurt - Kari, you're young so are excused. those silly Cold war negotiations over shape of the tables were actually the Paris Peace talks aimed at ending the Vietnam War. Right era, wrong involvement.

and I welcome Senator Wyden to the mix. he is turing into something sorely lacking on the national political scene lately; a Statesman.

Is it Wyden sleaze to be invited by the Prez to this summit? Really? If you ask me, it's seriously cool that an Oregon representative was seen as that important by Obama. I think it's an honor. Way to go, Ron!

No brynn, the sleaze is how he got the invite, the purpose for in the invite, and Obama's behavior over the whole course of the debate. The invite is the payoff for being a sleaze.

Ron Wyden knows more about health care than any other member of the Senate. That Harry Reid and the rest of the "leadership" have excluded him from the much of the serious negotiations shows that they are not interested in producing a good bill, but rather paying back the big money special interests that give to their campaigns.

Republicans really should be thrilled about Wyden being added since he's the only Senate Democrat who has shown interest in producing a bipartisan bill with broad support. And it's a slap in the face to Harry Reid to boot. What's not to like?

This really was a slap in the face to Reid. I had not thought of that. Baucus too I bet. Now I am feeling slightly better about this bi-partisan show of the Presidents.

Don't see the harm in waiting a few days before voting up or down on a simple majority vote. Wyden HAD BETTER be one of those fifty or a lot of us on BlueOregon will be joining Wyden-harshing idiots like Jack Bog and "More Wyden-Kardon Sleaze."

And in another show of Wyden (and Merkley) cowardly sleaze:

Senate votes to renew Patriot Act

On a voice vote. Which means no one had to be recorded. But as we have come to learn, any Senator could have threatened to filibuster and that would have ended it.

Pretty clear just what that "Change you can believe in" really (doesn't) mean. Bullshit that most of you flies swarm excitedly around.

And one other thing:

Judge Alex Kozinski: The Fourth Amendment is Gone. "Welcome to the fish bowl."

The other case United States v. Black was decided in 1993 and the Senate under both Democratic and Republican control, and Presidents Clinton, Bush, and now Obama haven't done a thing to protect the Fourth Amendment. Ron Wyden who always bullshits about how much he cares about civil liberties has NEVER introduced and actually fought for any bills (such as filibustering to a cloture vote) to actually protect civil liberties in the wake of a bunch of bad court decisions.

jerome, good point about a slap in the face to Reid. Glad Wyden will be there but it is outrageous that only three of the 30 are women. If they leave either anti-women's healthcare items in this thing, I hope the bill is killed. I'm sick and tired of women having to trade their rights and privacy away. We've already compromised by agreeing that we can continue with Hatch, which itself is a travesty. But to make it nearly impossible for a woman to get proper healthcare is horrific.

3 friggin women. Screw that shit.

And in return for the inclusion of Wyden, we get Bart Stupak and the Abortion Summit Follies.

To the Democratic leadership: Learned Helplessness is not a political strategy, it's a mental disorder.

Obama's "healthcare reform" is the biggest fraud and scam yet perpetuated against the American people. Healthcare is nothing but a huge power-grab to pay off cronies and the "chosen few" such as General Electric (GE).

Did you notice that GE is already running television commercials praising how they're going to "help" facilitate healthcare? GE's commercial of the guy sitting in his underwear while about 200 people are staring at him says it all. Do you want ALL your medical records available to ANYONE that can hack a computer?

Seems to me, Merkley (and Blumenauer and The Faz) are still putting Wyden to shame when it comes to leadership on the issue. Now is not the time to negotiate with Republican terrorists. Now is the time for quick action to disarm and contain Republican terrorists and pass the solid public option.

What would happen if we embraced bipartisanship while voting? What if we marked our ballots for ALL of the candidates for US Senate that were listed?

Would bipartisanship THEN be recognized by Wyden as a pointless waste of time and resources?

Would bipartisanship THEN be recognized by Wyden as achieving no results that counted?

Would bipartisanship THEN be recognized by Wyden as a kinda dumb thing to do?

So far the big lie in the summit today has been how an exchange in which people can choose between private insurance companies controls costs. Scumbag Baucus even went so far as to compare the exchanges to Expedia.com. (Google complaints against Expedia.com (or use it) and you'll find out just one reason you don't want the Expedia.com of health insurance to have control over your health care decision making.)

The Exchange, without a public option, is a bogus concept for cost control and Ron Wyden, a moron who failed the bar three times before realizing his path to venal glory at 25(!) was duping and patronizing older people by forming the Gray Panthers, is one of the biggest proponents.

Lowering medical costs requires aggregating the purchasers of medical care into the largest possible purchasing pool so they have more power as buyers to dictate costs in the market than hospitals and doctors as sellers. In an Exchange model, insurance companies are the buyers for health CARE, not you. They buy health CARE and resell it to you as health INSURANCE. So there is no effective pooling of health CARE purchasing power needed to actually control costs. At least not if you believe doctors should be private businesses and not government employees as I do and I think most rational people do given our culture.

The propaganda for the Exchange is that many competing insurance companies are needed to supposedly lower the cost of insurance to you because they have to compete. The ignorant flaw in the argument is that this also means that those same insurance companies are smaller buyers in the market for health CARE. This gives the sellers of health CARE control over prices, not the insurance companies as buyers. Insurance companies then just pass that on to you as the uncontrollable part of the premium. (The alternative is skyrocketing pre-approval and claims denial rates for any care that isn't in a yet-to-be-defined set of service, which is also going to happen under this bogus exchange model.)

When there is a good public option in the Exchange, like allowing everybody to buy into Medicare if they want to, the credible polling shows people will flock to it. It will have the buying power as a single buyer of health CARE to control and lower costs in the market. That's the only way the Exchange can control costs, and you don't even need the Exchange to do that.

This whole summit, and Ron Wyden, is a fraud to resurrect welfare for the insurance companies and the health care industry by giving full control to the private health insurance industry and mandating we have to do business with them. Obama's has shown himself today to be intellectually dishonest by also promoting the Exchange model while talking solely about private health insurance in the Exchange and not mentioning a robust publicly owned plan.

So what would you have Wyden do, Admiral? Refuse the President and denounce his bipartisan summit? If Merkley, the Faz, or Blumenauer had been invited, would they have refused the President? No. Not in a million years. Wyden wasn't invited the first time by his leadership presumably because Baucus didn't want him on the team. Obama corrected that situation and invited Wyden because Wyden happens to be the author of the only bipartisan health reform bill of this whole sordid health reform mess.

If Rahm Emanuel and the rest of the "Chicago mafia" had any influence (as we can safely bet) in organizing this summit, then we can count on it being another piece of half-baked crap to ensure the insurance corporations will be taken care of.

Health care reform should not be a bi-partisan project. It should be developed by a NON-partisan commission utilizing the knowledge and experience of people with an interest in genuine reform who don't need to look over their shoulders to determine what some lobbyist or campaign donor thinks.

Think Progress has an interesting related thread: Debunking Republican Talking Points

Of course no single-payer advocates were invited to the summit. Sure, single-payer is going nowhere as of these sessions, but the voice that supports single-payer would be relevant to making a public option be one that's worthwhile.

So Wyden, whose "Healthy Americans Act" actually called for all public health insurance to be privatized, is invited, but any sentiment to the Left of Rahm Emanuel is excluded.

I make the odds 10-1 against a public option making it into the legislation. Has any of the leadership signed Bennet's letter? I don't think so. Obama/Emanuel and phonies like Jay Rockefeller, who publicly declared support for a public option when it looked like that had no chance, but now says he won't vote for it, will find a way to kill it. And Ron Wyden will go along with it and try to put a good face on it.

Politicians.

So what would you have Wyden do, Admiral? Refuse the President and denounce his bipartisan summit?

bradley, you've already proven you are dumb or intellectually dishonest defending Wyden here, and quite possibly both, but you are not going to get away with mischaracterizing what Wyden's own office has said to defend Wyden. Wyden sought out this invite, in part by refusing to sign the Bennett letter so he would have the stench of being "bi-partisan". So this isn't a case where the President sought Wyden out and it would be an insult to refuse it. One wonders what role Kardon played in this tawdry publicity stunt.

And let's be clear about his excuse making so he could get to the summit for his photo-op. It's not like he refused to sign the Bennett letter so that he could pull a "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and be the misunderstood and falsely maligned champion of a public option at the summit.

What did he actually say when he got a chance at 2:29 into the second half of the summit in his 3 minutes of egotistically basking in the spotlight (you can find the video on the C-SPAN website)? It was actually pretty sad and embarrassing. He clearly is not Senator material. All he said was that he was on board with selling the Exchange farce that ultimately delivers the mandate for the private health insurance industry he has always sought, with the dishonest promise of an impossible to deliver level of industry regulation (Citizens United v. FEC anyone?).

Patty Murray in her 3 minutes in the spotlight at 2:37 into the session (with Chuck Schumer leering in the background like the a vampire) was barely better. One more genuinely outrageous and heartbreaking story of the crime of our broken health insurance system they all tell to score political points but which never actually motivates them to genuine action. At least she mentioned how many people want a public option, but that was it.

An interesting bit from Glenn Greenwald about the sleazy game Wyden "Democrats" play:

This is what the Democratic Party does; it's who they are. They're willing to feign support for anything their voters want just as long as there's no chance that they can pass it. ... The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it.

Wyden and Kardon play the game better than most, with an interesting twist. Wyden all by himself, no doubt with Kardon's advice, behaves like the party as a whole. He says he's for something nominally progressive, like a public option, but never actually works to support it, even by doing something as easy as signing the Bennett letter.

You are insane, but pretty damn amusing.

You are insane, but pretty damn amusing.

Spoken like a true (Blue) Oregonian loser who insists on making patently idiotic comments. But just can't stand it when s/he is shown to be living anywhere but the "reality-based world".

Like Reid said at the summit: "Your opinion is something that is yours and you're entitled to that, but not your own facts." Wyden's record on talking big about supporting a public option, but failing to actually work to support it in every way possible when it actually matters, is a fact. His pathetic photo-op performance at the summit he sleazed his way into, which consisted solely of a promise to work to do his best to deliver the welfare check to the private health insurance industry that this reform has become --- because it includes a mandate and no robust publicly-owned option --- is a fact. The behavior of the Democrats Greenwald describes is a fact.

At this point, the polls show that the reform that the people want is simply the opportunity to buy into Medicare. That would be a one paragraph bill striking the age limitation from the Medicare law and specifying that the HHS would set a premium schedule. So every argument the Republicans made at the summit is taken away. Except of course when they were being honest they just don't want people to have access to decent health care if anyone has to pay more taxes. That can be passed through reconciliation.

So we know it's Democrats, including Wyden who has not supported that plan, who are actually the opposition to this because of their support from and for corporate America. And that's a prime example of what Greenwald is saying about the Democrats.

Obama's "Healthcare Summit" was another farce for which he and all the other politicians in the room were well-suited. John Nichols gives one of several reasons why this was so. The Missing Voices at the Healthcare Summit

So Ron wrote a helathcare bill that has support on both sides of the isle, establishes universal coverage and would reduce the deficit. Gee, how sleazy of him. I can see why so many people are upset he was added to the summit list.

"So Ron wrote a helathcare bill that has support on both sides of the isle (sic),..."

When Wyden's healthcare bill was supported by the likes of Senator Bennett (R-UT) on the other side of the aisle, that should have been the first and one of the more obvious reasons to regard it with skepticism. In case you never knew or your memory isn't sufficiently long, Wyden's bill had to room for a public option.

This bi-partisan nonsense that Democrats are spouting is just another sign that they want to be equal partners in the duopoly that the Republicans appear desirable to convert to a monopoly.

So Ron wrote a helathcare bill that has support on both sides of the isle, establishes universal coverage and would reduce the deficit. Gee, how sleazy of him. I can see why so many people are upset he was added to the summit list.

Looks like the Wyden campaign has it's shills out there. How do we know? Well, bearing in mind that the total number of Senators on "both sides of the aisle" who have signed on as co-sponsors is many less than the number of Senators who signed the Bennett letter, showing also that he isn't capable of convincing enough Senators to pass anything:

1) Republicans aren't supporting health care reform and the current bill looks a lot like Wyden's bill on key points. And before 2009, Wyden was only able to recruit a few Republicans as co-sponsors for his bill. So "Newton" is unlikely to be a Republican

2) Wyden could only mobilize a few real Democrats for his bill, which is why he resorted to trying to recruit Republicans. Real Democrats don't support his bill because it introduced the mandate that we all do business with private insurance companies, it abolished most current public health plans except for Medicare and the VA, and in it's first incarnation there was no possibility of a publicly owned plan. Ron changed the plan for the 111th Congress slightly, but only because of enormous public pressure, and as Bodden notes even with those changes a public plan is at best a theoretical possibility. So "Newton" is unlikely to be a real Democrat.

3) Wyden only managed to recruit a few of those Senators as co-sponsors who mouth idiotic comments about "bi-partisanship" as an implicit, passive-aggressive way of filibustering any bill which doesn't meet some undefined notion of bi-partisanship. So "Newton" is unlikely to be one of those "middle-of-the-road", "bi-partisan" worms.

That only leaves the probability "Newton" is either: 1) just an typical Blue Oregon loser who doesn't really know what he or she is talking about, 2) someone who actually supports Wyden's welfare for the insurance industry without any concern for Wyden, or 3) a Wyden-Kardon shill.

And "Newton" because you are too intellectually dishonest yourself to acknowledge what has been exposed as Wyden's sleaziness in this affair, here it is again: He used the summit as an excuse for not signing the Bennett letter affirming a position he claims fully supports AND he only offered that excuse after Obama's team started explicitly and implicitly opposing the position of the Bennett letter.

And to "Newton" and the rest of those defending Wyden-Kardon sleaze, in his address today Obama made it clear bi-partisanship isn't so important either:

Feb. 27 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said this week’s summit on health care showed Republicans and Democrats can find some common ground on the issue, while indicating he’ll move forward even if all disagreements can’t be resolved. ...

“I am eager and willing to move forward with members of both parties on health care if the other side is serious about coming together to resolve our differences and get this done,” Obama said. “But I also believe that we cannot lose the opportunity to meet this challenge.”

So he's saying the Democrats should do it alone if that's what it takes. And if the Democrats had any integrity, the "compromise" they'd reach going it alone is offering a publicly owned option with no mandate. The Republicans get their "no-mandate" (which is what real Democrats should support anyway) and no single-payer (which would be a government takeover, even though it makes the most sense). And we real Democrats get a publicly-owned plan which actually brings genuine universal coverage it the MOST cost-effective way, hands down.

Instead, the Wyden sleazy non-compromise, which the Democrats have actually adopted from the get-go anyway to supposedly get bi-partisan agreement, is no publicly-owned option WITH welfare for the insurance industry in the form of a mandate. This allows the Republicans to score politically by doing the right thing and opposing the mandate. Even though they actually do like the idea of welfare for the health insurance industry and oppose a publicly owned plan.

This is what you get when you send sleazy politicians like Wyden with staff like Kardon to DC. People who actually don't represent real Democratic positions, but instead carrying water for corporate America anyway sleazy way they can. Like advancing Republican-lite positions and calling it "bi-partisanship".

The following is an abstract from an e-mail I received from The Pen and more evidence supporting Gore Vidal's assessment that we are now in a proto-fascist era:

"By the time you read the next couple paragraphs the veil will be lifted from your eyes and you will finally understand what is really going on with the health care "debate", which up to this point has been a total fraud on the American people.

"On the one hand we have the Republicans. They are for privatization, deregulation and the "free market", all deceptive synonyms for giving all power to, and putting us totally at the mercy of, the corporations. In the Republican world view, we will be forced to buy corporate medical insurance if we can afford it, and simply die if we cannot (or if they cheat us out of our coverage).

"On the other hand we have the Democrats. They serve the SAME corporate contributors. But where the Republicans would force us to buy corporate medical "care" by direness of necessity, the Democrats would do it by force of LAW. Hence, they are pushing for a forcible mandate for everyone to buy insurance from an artificial "market" with no options OTHER than corporate insurance. And when the system goes bust from the overhead, and can no longer provide coverage because of unconstrained corporate greed, again people will simply die.

"It is a false and ultimately meaningless choice. It is like giving a condemned person a choice of the method of their execution."

<hr/>