I used to think that editorially USA Today veered left, but I was corrected in that assumption the other day when I discovered that it supported Max Baucus’ plan to tax insurance policies with high premiums to fund a private insurance “option” in place of a public option. The opposite view is that just because premiums are high does not mean they are “Cadillac” plans; anyone over 40 or has individual insurance knows that insurance companies tend to raise premiums indiscriminately, and companies that provide health coverage for their employees must either pay excessively for the same level of coverage every year, or offer plans with lesser benefits. USA Today’s editorial board also saw fit to deride complaints over such “trivialities” as increasing deductibles and co-pays. Perhaps its board members make so much money that deductibles and co-pays are trivialities, but for people just barely getting by, excessive up-front costs for primary and preventative care mean the difference the seeking needed care, or not.

Why must we keep discussing the need for a public option? Why is the Senate finance committee being the held up as the end all be all? Doesn’t the Senate Health committee have a say in this? It's already approved a much lower cost bill that includes a public option. Why does Obama continue to equivocate? Why didn’t he forcefully state that he will not sign a bill without a public option? Even if deep down he doesn’t really mean it, it would have at least put pressure on the Baucus and the other Democrats from populousless states from imposing their own will on the vast majority of the people. The House must stick to its guns and keep the public option in its version, and hold the line in conference committee. The public option is the only legitimate means to which universal care and cost control can be had. All this whining by insurance companies and the right is an evasion; given the choice between putting people before profits and executive paychecks, we need not speculate on what they would rather do.

Obama ought to take a tip from Brett Favre. Favre has a well-known habit of equivocating, and quite often admits to having a less than positive assessment of a game situation. To hear him talk, it always seems that he is hedging his bets. Many football commentators have said he has nothing left, that he is merely a hanger-on on good football teams, and more like a drag on them. The graybeard can’t step up and win a game with his arm anymore.

This past Sunday, the Favre-haters seemed to be having their way. Favre misfired for most of the day; fans were booing in the second half, and some left building when the Vikings gave up the ball on downs with 1:49 left in the game. The game was over, right? Not quite; the Vikings still had three time-outs. Their defense stopped the opponent on a three-and-out in only 20 seconds; on the punt, the return man faked-out the opponent by calling for a fair catch but allowing the ball to bounce into the end zone untouched for a touchback. With 1:29 left and no time outs, Favre calmly led the team downfield on his arm alone, finally firing a bullet into the end zone for the game winning score with :02 on the clock.

Obama has equivocated on the public option long enough. Even during his last speech, he seemed not entirely sure of himself. He seemed to leave the door open for backing away from a public option. The Senate finance committee will not pass a public option given its current predilections. But he can count on the House—if it includes a public option in its bill—to put up a stiff defense and stop the Senate from winning the game. It is then that Obama should pick-up the ball and drive for the winning score with no time left to stun the Obama-haters.

Where is David?

Do you remember the self described centrist Republican who tip-toed onto this turf a short while ago? What happened to him? I thought we gave him a fairly gracious welcome. Why hasn't he returned to share his thoughts with us? Perhaps we were too nice to him. Maybe he was hoping for a little more drama and bombast. OR Perhaps we scared him off with rational argument. Whatever the reasons, I was looking forward to hearing his viewpoints. As far as can be determined, the most likely reason for his silence may be that he has retreated to his party's main refrain, i.e. NO. Yes David, that was bait. Are you out there?

Here are a couple of paragraphs from the Tikkun Daily.

Perhaps the most interesting look at where the “peace process” will go, and what Obama will do next comes from Larry Derfner, in the Jerusalem Post:

THIS CANNOT go on. Obama, for the sake of his presidency, cannot allow this to go on.
Which is why I’m optimistic that he won’t. Obama didn’t come this far and didn’t set such lofty goals to be hamstrung, to become a lame duck, so soon after entering the White House. He may not be a gut fighter, but he’s too ambitious, too smart, and he’s surrounded himself with too many barracudas to let the likes of Likud, Israel Beiteinu, Shas and the settlers do him in….I also believe Obama has learned … that there is no meeting point between him and the Israeli government on the peace process, that one of them is going to have to give in, and God help him if he’s the one. Obama’s learning that if he allows the most right-wing government in Israeli history to dictate his Middle East policy, that policy will fail utterly and his presidency will suffer the most devastating blow.
He’s learning that at some point in the not-too-distant future, he’s going to have to either bend Israel to his will or admit defeat in the Middle East and get blamed for the next war….He’s not there yet. But he’s getting there. He’ll have no choice.

I have to agree with Derfner on one thing: Obama absolutely needs some degree of success in Israel/ Palestine negotiations. Without it, his speech in Cairo becomes just words, dissipating before the facts on the ground. That would fatlly weaken his hopes in building some coalitions amongst Muslim states around Afghanistan, and in the continuing problem of Iran. As Defner also points out, the Republicans and the Israeli Government are deeply allied here: when Obama falters, the Republicans are strengthened as much as Netanyahu is. So perhaps what Obama is coming out of this round with is a sense that Netanyahu and he cannot be allies in peace. That might well lead to Obama’s speaking directly to Israelis, over their government, arguing in effect that his approach better meets their security needs than their government’s does. The only thing that’s really certain is that while Netanyahu may be ahead on points, this battle is far from over.

At the risk of sounding vain or self promoting, I would put forth for your consideration my last post which appears on Wednesday's blog roll concerning a crazy theory of mine. It has to do with how evolution may well select against conservatives. I'll call it the "Pop Goes the Weasel Paradigm". I would welcome any comment, derision, or feedback on it. Someone may remember more information than I ( about the scientific study mentioned), or be able to expand on it. It may well seem to frivolous "empty calories" for some serious types, as it is intended as a confection, but, it might amuse others and perhaps add an arrow to your quivers.

BTW, the caller who thought Thom was the rudest of the rude...would fall in the second or third group in the aforementioned scientific study. Either a dullard or a fraidy-cat. i.e. the proto-Republican

Given Rahm Emanuel’s involvement with the Obama Administration . . . We are looking at a redux of the Andrew Johnson Administration rather than a re-do of the Clinton Administration. Anything progressive coming out of the Obama White House will be purely by accident OR because they could not utterly squelch it and it got away from them. I am just surprised that corporate ties have not bled into public scandals yet.

@MARK: Seriously? USA Today veers left? Have you ever read a single issue? USA Today has never been more than the pictorial version for semi-literates of the fusion of People Magazine and the Wall Street Journal.

Have we noticed how three people have talked over Thom and then accused him of talking over his guests and him. The CRAZIES are calling in today. When are we going to organize???????

John's call just now about the word "holocaust" ... he just spoke for me. I take offense to the offense to Rep. Grayson's use of the word in his comments to the House. The word holocaust is totally legitimate to be used outside of the horrible events of the first half of the 20th century. Why we grant this word such an exalted and limited use is a continued source of frustration to me.

My Merriam-Webster (11th edition) has TWO definitions for the word holocaust before it gets around to mentioning what Nazi Germany caused.

Please, can we all agree -- what Hitler did was inexcusable and not to be repeated. We get that. Now can we move on and act like adults and stop this phony posturing that everyone in the media takes regarding a single word. It's wrong, and Rachel Maddow was wrong to make such a big deal of it. In fact, I was embarrassed for her; it was a cheap shot against the congressman, and it plays right into the hands of the Rethugs.

Quark, I'll have to disagree with you on Thom's guests, providing a different point of view is enlightening. The guest was bogarting the conversation as most Republicans do. I admire the way Thom took much needed control of the conversation.

DDay

I will respond to your post about your theory today when I have time. It is fun, and hopefully useful, to ponder these questions.

@Mary T & Quark: You both spoke my feelings pretty darn well.

@ B. Roll: Thank you. Warning!: Useful is a word seldom associated with my musings.

Mary T

It's an unfortunate fact of our lives that certain words have been appropriated by certain groups who guard them jealously.

"holocaust" is such a world and has been made into a proper noun, which many Jewish people feel should only be used to refer to the actions of the Third Reich. The right wingers can only make it an issue because some powerful forces in the Jewish community have taken offense at ti being used in any other way.

Many other groups use the word "holocaust" to refer to mass scarle killings of their people and usually don't get much flack, e.g., American Indians, African-Americans and Armenians, though some may not like their using the term. But generic use often gets criticism.

But this whole brouhaha is another case of artificial rage on the part of the Republicans who are only interested in waging political war against the Democrats and economic war against average Ameicans.

Possessiveness about words isn't limited to the world "holocaust". Many African-Americans feel that they have ownership of "civil rights" and resent it when other groups, i.e., woment and especially gays use it. They feel like these other groups are riding on the backs of their people and usurping the gains they made through hard struggles.

This was something the opponents of Proposition 8 in California. They thought that when they framed "gay marriage" as an issue of "civil rights" that the black community would understand and support their position. But the truth is that many in the black community take great offense at that framing.

People rationalize more than they are rational.

B Roll:

You are right about word possessiveness -- although I feel that the use of "civil rights" is far less controversial than the use of "holocaust" in our national conversation.

I just fired off an e-mail to Maddow (and Hardball too) to make a point I formed after researching the word "holocaust" via four different hardcover dictionaries I have at home (editions that span 1959 through 2003).

My point?

The evolution of the American definition of the word "holocaust" over six decades makes me wonder whether our country is trying to downplay our own violence committed on the planet (nuclear holocaust perpetrated TWICE less than 50 years after annihilating the Native American populations) by elevating Hitler's? Just a thought.

When Thom interviewed Michael Moore, he asked a question as to why there was so little demonstration. Michael Moore felt that the people were in a state of despair. The people had such high hopes and Obama has failed the people. It is the same old, same old.

Alan Grayson, a Congressman from Florida is becoming an American hero. We need more Alan Graysons in America.