What was that Lincoln Quote?

When Barack Obama was elected president we heard about his seeming obsession with our 16th president. He read books on Honest Abe, used his bible at his inauguration and even themed the January festivities after the top hat enthusiast's famous Gettysburg Address. Given all of this Obama must have come across one of Lincoln's most famous quotes, uttered in his famous speech named for the quote, that "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Now Lincoln was alluding to the dispicable practice of slavery in the States, but if we twist the quote a little bit and make it "A party divided against itself cannot stand," we see trouble looming for Democrats.

Yes, I'm going back into the realm of the public option. That elusive Ross and Rachel portion of the health care bill (on-again, off-again: lame Friends reference, forgive me). President Obama said back in August it wasn't essential to the bill. In September House Speaker Pelosi said it was essential while at the same time House Majority Leader Hoyer said it wasn't. In other words, there was no Democratic leadership on the issue, and that lack of leadership continues today over the public option.

It was bad enough that Schumer said a few weeks ago that an embarrassing loss in the Senate Finance Committee was really a win for the public option, but now he is saying that he and other key Democratic senators convinced the White House that the public option was the way to go.

But if Schumer and company have convinced the Obama administration to really get behind a decent public option, why are reports coming out that Obama essentially told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that he is on his own for getting votes. If the Obama administration were really behind the public option, if they were "convinced" of its validity, why would they make it clear that they would turn their back on Reid in a crucial vote-getting campaign to prevent a filibuster?

Here is why, if we get a public option, it will be watered down: the Democrats are running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Are they really unable to sit down, say this is our plan, and just stick to it? It's funny that Obama will take a risk on the 2016 Olympics for Chicago (read: going to Copenhagen without knowing for sure that Chicago would win the bid) but when it comes to insuring millions of Americans he doesn't want in unless he is guaranteed a victory. Schumer is saying one thing, and reports come out indicating the opposite. Reid could emerge as a leader on this, and Obama undermines that.

I would love to be proven wrong. I would love to get a robust public option that really shakes up the insurance industry and gives a decent level of care to millions of uninsured Americans. The problem is that no clear leader is emerging in this fight and the very backroom politics that is supposed to be used to get votes and get things done is creating miscommunications within the party and leaves the public scratching their heads and opponents on the offensive. Like Lincoln (kind of) said: "A [party] divided against itself cannot stand [for anything]." The problem is they're falling on us.

Photo - Obama and Reid (Politico)

Public Option: Fail

Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA),
ranking members of the Senate Finance Committee (Washington Independent)

Now that the Democrats have pulled a classic Democratic move by losing when they had all odds in their favor (for previous Democratic performances, see the 2000 presidential election), it is time to mourn to public option. That's right folks, the insurance system as it stands today has won the war on health reform, as their pockets will soon be lined by tax subsidies that the government will be giving out to Americans to shop around for their own insurance coverage. It's all right, though, because the insurance companies will play fair and follow the rules without strict government regulation, right Wall Street?

But we had to see this coming. It happened to Clinton in the 90s, and the powers that be (read: special interests and their lobbying arms) are just too entrenched to get anything done. Look at the massive amounts of money that they have donated to the folks responsible for the death of the public option. Chuck "Death Panel" Grassley has received $227,000 in the first half of 2009 alone from these interests. Max Baucus, the Democrat whose bill was supposed to garner wide bipartisan support but in reality was a bigger flop than a Vlade Divac offensive foul, has received $3.9 million since 1989 and is currently ranked fifth in terms of donations from the healthcare sector. It should be no surprise, then, that Baucus' plan had no public option.

But why do we need a public option so bad? Think about it: do you really think that the healthcare industry will police itself? No. Since that is a given, do you really think that the government will effectively ensure fairness in the insurance industry while making sure that those with horrible insurance or no insurance at all receive adequate coverage? If you do, then you're either a moron or have good enough insurance that you just don't care (this latter group, as indicated by the effort put forth by them, includes senators and congressmen).

A robust public option would have created what those in love with capitalism have wet dreams about: competition. How unfair would it be? The public option probably would not be that great to begin with, it would be a basic form of care. Those opposed to it on the principles (that great mass of people who refuse Medicare coverage because it is government-run) do not have to partake in it. To say that a public option would take down companies with a net income of more than $1.3 billion in 2008, or more than $1.2 billion sounds a little crazy.

But that's not even the point, as the popularity of a public option seems split according to public opinion polls. The point is that the Democrats have what has been deemed a "supermajority," a mandate if you will, that the country was sick of the way things were going and wanted to change things. Instead of ramming this legislation through Congress or making deals with their peers or doing whatever it took to fix this inherently flawed system, they held town halls, pandered to rumor mongers, and proved to the American people why bipartisanship simply does not work when you elect morons.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Democratic Super Majority
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

The death of the public option began (and in my opinion, ended) with the Senate Finance Committee. The committee shot down both public option amendments, and then in a twisted turn of events voted to restore $50 million for abstinence-only education. So how did Senate Finance Committee member Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), a staunch public advocate for th public option, feel about the day's activities? "We're feeling good," and "We're pleasantly surprised." In an utterly embarrassing day for Finance Committee Democrats (who outnumber Committee Republicans 13-10), Chuck Schumer says that he feels good about what took place? Two public options proposals were shot down and $50 million was allocated to a horrible educational curriculum that simply does not work. That's like Omar Minaya saying that the Mets have had a good couple of years.


So who's to blame for all of this? Democrats? Republicans? Tea bag nutjobs who don't understand nearly anything? That's a good start, but as we continue to vote in incumbents who really do not have our best interests at heart (if this bill affected their healthcare it would have been done decades ago and we would be pitying Canada for having such backwards, universal healthcare) and continue to allow special interest groups to dictate what we talk about in the media and in the legislative halls, we're only screwing ourselves. Because while the Chucks live in their own worlds - Grassley saying the government will pull the plug on grandma, Schumer saying two vote-downs of the public option and an increase in failed abstinence-only education is, essentially, a victory - we live in ours, and right now our healthcare system sucks and will continue to suck with no public option.

Obama's Indoctrination Message: Work Hard

In a move that speaks to the disruptiveness of the right as of late, Obama's speech to schoolchildren set to take place today was highly debated as some Republicans stated it was a move by the president to "indoctrinate" the nation's youth. The mere fact that some people think that the president of this country, who cannot even stay on message about healthcare reform and the overwhelming need for a public option, is going to try to, essentially, brainwash our schoolchildren into embracing a liberal agenda is ludicrous. It not only insults our president, but it insults the students of this country to think that they are so vulnerable and susceptible that a 20 minute speech (one via broadcast, not even in-person) will have them throwing any self-created notions out the window and pledge allegiance to the liberal "agenda."

Take the chairman of the Florida GOP, for example. Jim Greer stated last week that he was "absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology." He goes on to say that "The Democrats have clearly lost the battle to maintain control of the message this summer, so now that school is back in session, President Obama has turned to America's children to spread his liberal lies, indoctrinating American's [sic] youngest children before they have a chance to decide for themselves."

Looking at Obama's speech, however, there is not one word about healthcare. In fact, Obama has the audacity to discuss things like working hard and not letting a less-than-stellar home life get in the way of your studies. It's the "liberal agenda" at its worst: do-for-self. The socialist ideology that Greer points to? Well, Obama does say you should do well in school so that you can help the country, because "you'll need the creativity and ingenuity you develop in all your classes to build new companies that will create new jobs and boost our economy." Ahh, the main tenet of socialism: working within a capitalist framework.

Seriously though, do people really think that kindergartners are going to retain any of this? They are learning sharing, putting the square block in the square peg, and not pooping their pants. If Obama did delve into the public option or TARP funds do you think these kids would understand what he was talking about? That didn't stop one parent from calling into a radio show and announcing, "He [the caller's son] does not have to sit in on this, he does not have to go to school and he sure as hell does not have to listen to what he has to say."

But that's part of the problem. These parents who are willing to pull their kids out of school because the president wants to address them; what kind of message does that send to the kid? You don't agree with someone, you don't want to do something like listen to someone else talk? Just don't show up that day. Don't learn to listen to others when you disagree with them, don't learn to work with other people who you may not see eye-to-eye with, don't learn how to debate with someone civilly. Then you can go into politics.

The saddest part of this is the fact that now we're not talking about the war in Afghanistan, healthcare reform, or how Wall Street has one-upped themselves and returned to their old ways while at the same time betting on sick and old peoples' lives. Instead we are talking about a relatively routine speech done by both Reagan and Bush I with little to no controversy. It's embarrassing for the country, and it's embarrassing for the Republican party. I know there are smarter conservatives out there; I went to school with some, I'm related to some. They're capable of debate without mentioning death panels or brown shirts or any other knee-jerk reactionary language. But, alas, level-headedness and intelligence aren't what cranks newsmakers are made of.

Photos - Obama at an earlier indoctrination session (Current)