A little clarity, please

HolyJoe's stated reasons for opposing the public option plan, and therefore his reason for joining the Repubs in a filibuster, are just plain bogus. They don't make sense, even if you think that health care reform is a terrible idea.

HolyJoe's kewpie-doll jowls flutter as he bares his bottom teeth in that precious way he holds his mouth when he's being sanctimonious -- and he prattles about a new entitlement and run-away costs.

The fact is that the public option will save money and it is not an entitlement.

The stronger the public option, the more money it will save. Yet HolyJoe wants to do away with it because it will cost too much money.

Matt Iglesias distills it down to this:

He's talking about filibustering a deficit-reducing bill in order to try to remove a cost-reducing provision, and doing so on grounds of fiscal probity. It's ludicrous, and the political reporters covering him need to point this out.

Come on, people. Don't let this happen. Progressives have already seen their desire -- and what would really save money -- hardly even be considered at all. Instead of starting with that and letting public option be the compromise, Dems started with a weak public option and then negotiated that away -- almost, until public pressure forced an opt-out public option back onto the table. Even that was way too little, but at least it was something. Now HolyJoe thinks he holds the key to doing away with that too.

The compromise has been compromised to the 4th power already. Stop acting like it is something to negotiate on to reach some mythical compromise that will appeal to conservatives. They just don't want it, will never vote for it; but the people do, and liberal Democrats do, and we have the votes, if the leadership will push for it.

Ralph