Monday, August 17, 2009

Public Option Ploy

Yesterday, Kathleen Sebelius floated the suggestion that maybe a public option wasn't exactly necessary after all; late Sunday, administration officials say she misspoke.

Obama has been loudly in favor of the public option from the beginning and has made no secret about his perception of its importance.

Michelle Malkin today suggests that Kathleen Sebelius did NOT misspeak, that she was intentionally floating a trial balloon of compromise to guage the backlash from the left. I'm siding with Malkin on this one; I don't think Obama will EVER back down from the public option because that's why he's pushing this so hard. He's devoting an inordinate amount of time on ObamaCare right now. Certainly there are other things he could be spending his time on.

No, no. He wants the public option.

American Thinker has a scorecard of tactics today, if you're losing count of all the different ploys Team Obama is using to get this pushed through. The Sebelius "misstatement" would likely come under number 8:

8. Pretend to give up on controversial issues that were never acknowledged in the first place. We've heard that the alleged Senate bill has omitted the controversial "death committee" provision that was never acknowledged to have existed in the first place. This offers the illusion of compromise.

Sit back and see what today's spin will be.


Lynn said...

I think that most of the protestors, if not all, are no longer fooled by these Democrat ad Repulican charlatans in Washington. I only hope that the more they speak that more and more of us - the we the people sort - gather en masse. It seems to me that the town hall crowds are growing larger with each passing day.

Red said...

It's precisely what's wrong with this administration. It's about what he wants, not what we want.

Unknown said...

I would have to agree with you. Nothing comes out of this White House that isn't contrived.

I linked you at my site.

G. R. said...

Now the Obama Administration is spouting off about a possible compromise with introducing a "non-profit" insurance cooperative.

What's the difference between a "Non-profit" insurance cooperative (which will receive initial funding from the federal government) and the single payer initiative pushed by the Democrats?

Whenever the government gives money, it makes the rules. Plus there is no way private insurers can compete with with a non-profit.

I just pray that the people won't be fooled when the government switches a Hereford bull's crap with a a Charolais bull's crap. Bull crap is bull crap no matter what type of bull it comes from .