Sebelius' comments today that, due to public pressure and in the interest of bipartisan progress, the public option for the proposed health care reform may be off the table, reminds me of an experience I had in the courtroom some years ago. The opposing attorney, who knew how to play very dirty very successfully, asked the jury for damages that were totally beyond reason. The jury, in its infinite wisdom, ruled against the inflated requests, but then proceeded to award damages that were still outrageous, but only in absolute terms. Compared to what the attorney had originally requested, the award didn't seem so crazy.
The manner in which the White House has handled the public option reminds me a lot of those courtroom tactics. I'm not convinced that Obama or his team really thought that health care reform would get through with the public option intact. But it couldn't hurt to try, right? What's the worst that could happen if they had to put that part of the plan aside? Why, now the public would see Obama, Selelius and others as "reasonable;" now the public expects the opposition to also "give something up," "compromise," "cooperate" in the interest of political give and take, or risk being labled obstructionist.
Brilliant. Sneaky, deceptive, harmful to our country.... but brilliant.
They head fake every time.
Posted by: www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=528033439 | August 21, 2009 at 11:27 AM