• RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
AdLib On October - 23 - 2009

one wayPolitico is reporting today that Pelosi does not have enough votes for a robust public option in the House,  Politico is in fact reporting that it is all moving towards a triggered public option.

House Dems are saying they’re outraged and that they will have enough votes a robust public option in their bill.

HuffPo is reporting that Reid is only one or two votes away from an opt-out public option.

And Glenn Beck is tearfully wailing that his mother didn’t love him enough and let him nurse until his teens.

Of all that’s swirling around, it is impossible to know what is true at this moment in time. It is not surprising that Republican leaning sites like Politico would try to push opinion against Dems and the public option. I actually find them the most objectionable. They are reporting their beliefs as fact even though it contradicts other information. Yes, they have some sources telling them what they print but when a site represents itself as a news site, conflicting accounts should be vetted. Instead, as we’ve seen at HuffPo as well, internet journalism means never having to say you’re sorry.

Publishing opinion or one side of conflicting views as fact is A-OK in today’s world of news. Just look at the WSJ.

So, the public option on being informed is, “Who do you choose to believe?” Most Fox loyalists believe Obama is a Marxist, Nigerian Al Qaeda member who wants to outlaw guns, pizza and naming children “Clem”.  Meanwhile, many  HuffPo loyalists claim to have seen Arianna on “Walking on Water with the Celebrities” and see any criticism of Obama as an act of betrayal.

In the current marketplace of ideas, there is brand loyalty. Many news shoppers choose their news product like toothpaste and remain a faithful customer of that brand, even if an item is highly questionable, clearly exploitative  or patronizing.

The truth does not necessarily lie between all of these sources, consuming news from multiple outlets that mislead from time to time or often will not point the way to truth.

As with being a smart shopper, a news consumer’s loyalty should only be to acquiring the truth for oneself. You have to be a smart shopper and analyze the ingredients of what you’re consuming, the more hysteria, exploitation for financial or political gain and high fructose corn syrup are contained in that news you consume, the less beneficial that news is for you.

So, shop smart. Compare all news products, even the smaller brands you’ve never bought into before so you can ultimately buy fresh, unprocessed organic news whenever possible. Your country, your planet and your blood pressure will thank you.

Written by AdLib

My motto is, "It is better to have blogged and lost hours of your day, than never to have blogged at all."

6 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. KevenSeven says:

    Quark is right as right.

    The status of the Public Option, (for which I currently could not give a damn about) is utterly amorphorous, and as much as everyone would like to believe that someone on the inside could tell us what is what, nobody actually knows what is what nor will they until the legislation exits the reconcilliation process.

    Bugger the rethugs. I just had to toss that one in.

  2. KQuark says:

    This is exactly why negotiations like these are NOT public. Everyone reads something different in the same meeting. I should know working in corporate America for over 20 years. Nothing is final until it is put in writing and our part is to keep up the pressure for the public option. I’ve stopped worrying about the “daily” developments because they don’t mean anything. The momentum is for a public option now and that’s the only real development.

    • AdLib says:

      One thing I think Dems in Congress are FINALLY getting is that if there is no robust public option, they can forget about robust support in 2010.

      Far too many of those in Congress are whores who just care about turning the next trick every 2 or 6 years. So selling out the American people is not a tough choice at all, they know they usually get re-elected anyway.

      Thank goodness that the American people are making it clear that we’re not going to let it happen again if they abandon us on health care reform.

      Not this time, Pols, not this time.

      • KQuark says:

        This is the problem with that mentality. For example 210 Dems in the House by last whip count would go for the robust public option. ZERO Republicans will go for a robust public option. Part of what Republicans feed off is apathy and they love what you are saying. My point is we need to get the TRUE progressive Dems in Congress and if we don’t get all we want the first time and waiver that apathy will get more Repubs elected and we will be going backwards again.

        • AdLib says:

          Sometimes you have to go backwards to go forwards.

          My proposition is that the most likely way to put progressive Dems in place of corrupt Dems is for a Repub to beat the corrupt Dem then for a progressive Dem to beat the Repub in the next election.

          The problem with our democratic system is that incumbents have a reelection rate of around 95% and Dem challengers to incumbent Dems in primaries are at an even greater disadvantage.

          So, would a Republican beating a Dem assure the Repub job security?

          Not if the reason the Repub was elected was due to Dems not turning out to vote for a corrupt Dem who opposed what was best for them.

          Run a progressive Dem against a Repub in a Dem state or district and the Dem will win.

          My question to you is, how else can we dislodge the corrupt, anti-citizen Dems in office who are responsible for blocking or watering down important Dem legislation?

          How can we afford to eave them in place to work against us?

          • KQuark says:

            I disagree completely with your premise. We went backwards for eight years under Bush and the Republicans. I have no problem dislodging the corporate Dems but that’s not what ends up happening when progressive get apathetic towards dominating the Democratic party and do things like look for third parties.. What happens is corporate Dems get replaced by corporate Repubs and things get far worse. It’s amazing how much people have forgotten that last eight years already. Face it apathy gave us W because too many progressives voted for Nader. Why can’t people learn from history?

            Target corporate Dems where we can. It’s the state wide Senate races in Mountain and Midwestern states that progressives need to act the most.

            The problem is progressives are too impatient we want all the change NOW. It took over 20 years of dominating electoral politics for conservatives to pass their agenda. The reason they did so was they did not accept going forward in their case.


Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories
Features