Digby has a great piece up, referencing a piece by Yglesias, in which she concurs with his observation that if the blue dogs kill health care reform because the public option offends their corporate sugar daddies, then they will be forever responsible for their actions.
If the blue dogs and their cheerleaders are right and the public option is in the end a minor facet of reform, then surely they wouldn’t kill the entire package of reform just because the other members of the Democratic caucus listen to the vast majority of Americans who favor the public option and include it in the bill they send to the president.
If they kill the entire package of reform over an aspect they claim is so minor, what is their real motivation? Of course, we all know that it is no coincidence that people like Baucus receive so much dough from the health industry but, for some reason, inconvenient little truths like that get little mention in corporate media, even some — but by no means all — of the more progressive venues.
But killing the entire reform package because of something they claim to be of such minor significance would be a bridge too far. They seem to have no reluctance to lecture the majority of Americans and the majority of their party that the public option is such a minor element of reform that its absence in a final bill should not be enough to kill the package.
By that same logic the reverse is true: if it is indeed such a minor piece of the more important whole puzzle, then its inclusion should not be enough of a bother for the blue dogs to kill the bill, fatally damage their president and in all likelihood snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and doom their party for at least a generation.
Of course, they are always free to publicly and explicitly state any other factors that might be motivating them to be so servile to the health insurance industry.