Meanwhile...liberals heads exploding over potential loss of public option (updated)

Oh my. Bloodcurdling threats, weeping and wailing, gnashing of teeth - liberal emotionalism on full display as they lose it over the possibility that their precious public option in health care reform will be thrown under Obama's very crowded bus.

Liberal hysteric Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake:

Only an arrogant nitwit would believe they could negotiate a deal that gave health care away to the pharmaceutical industry, the doctors, the hospitals and the insurance companies, tie everyone's hands and keep the government from being able to negotiate costs for the next decade and then jam it on progressives to sell in their districts at the end of the process.

How you doin' today, Rahm? Hope you enjoyed your trip under the bus, courtesy of the New York Times on Saturday.  Nice pushback to your attempts to make Max Baucus and Jim Messina the scapegoats for your grand mess.

If you're dueling it out on the pages of the NYT as to who takes the blame when this all turns to s**t, I imagine the answer is "not so good."

Similar sentiments can be found elsewhere among the netnuts who are pushing Obamacare to the brink of oblivion by accepting nothing less than nationalized health insurance.

Jonathan Martin and Carrie Brown of Politico:

Even if top aides didn't intend to do it, the White House got a glimpse of what may well happen - a Democratic civil war - if President Barack Obama does indeed give up on the public option.

The liberal uprising comes after weeks in which Democratic congressional leaders have focused their energy on winning over moderates - with House leaders trying to woo Blue Dog fiscally conservative Democrats, and Senate negotiators concentrating on a handful of Republicans.

Obama also has been put on the defensive by conservatives who have dominated congressional town halls, saying Obama's government-run insurance goes too far.

But the weekend's events show that one of Obama's biggest problems - and ultimately a critical test of whether he can get a bill at all - revolves around convincing liberals he's going far enough.

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), a member of the Health subcommittee and a close friend of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said a healthcare bill without a government-run insurance plan would be difficult to move out of the House in part because liberals are right now accepting less than what they want.

"I think it would be very tough," said Eshoo. "There are those who view themselves as having already compromised on single-payer."

I'll tell you why the public option is dead. If it is included in the final bill, moderate Dems as well as all Republicans will vote against it and defeat it. Obama's only chance is to ditch the public option and hope that at least some Republicans hop on board and some progressives swallow their pride and vote for reform.

Which scenario is more likely? Obama would rather lose the liberals and get health care reform rather than vice versa. It's that simple - and it's driving the left crazy.

C. Edmund Wright adds:

Rick Moran's analysis about what is going on inside the Democrat Party is right on the money.

I saw another "teachable moment" in his piece as well.

Consider these words in Moran's piece from liberal hysteric Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake:

Only an arrogant nitwit would believe they could negotiate a deal that gave health care away to the pharmaceutical industry, the doctors, the hospitals and the insurance companies, tie everyone's hands and keep the government from being able to negotiate costs for the next decade and then jam it on progressives to sell in their districts at the end the end of the process.

This is a great window into the mind of the liberal. Yes, God forbid healthcare is run by doctors, pharmaceutical makers, hospitals and the folks who pay for it (insurance companies). Why would a good liberal accept that when it could be run by government bureaucrats?  The liberal mind is blind to the fact than any industry should be run by those who have dedicated their lives to practicing that craft while consumers get to choose which practitioners to patronize.

This is the same mindset who has taken the car industry away from the auto makers, dealers and lenders -- the mortgage industry away from the lenders -- the banking business away from the banks -- and so on. They do it all under the assumption that anyone who engages in any exercise for profit is by definition evil and that any bureaucrat who will rule over them is pure as the wind driven snow, not to mention competent. 

To use the words of Ms. Hamsher at Firedoglake, "only an arrogant nitwit would believe" that health care should be run by anyone other than "the pharmaceutical industry, the doctors, the hospitals and the insurance companies" with a free market for consumers to choose among them. 

I think the Town Hall reaction is also asking the question: Now just who is the arrogant nitwit? 

Oh my. Bloodcurdling threats, weeping and wailing, gnashing of teeth - liberal emotionalism on full display as they lose it over the possibility that their precious public option in health care reform will be thrown under Obama's very crowded bus.

Liberal hysteric Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake:

Only an arrogant nitwit would believe they could negotiate a deal that gave health care away to the pharmaceutical industry, the doctors, the hospitals and the insurance companies, tie everyone's hands and keep the government from being able to negotiate costs for the next decade and then jam it on progressives to sell in their districts at the end of the process.

How you doin' today, Rahm? Hope you enjoyed your trip under the bus, courtesy of the New York Times on Saturday.  Nice pushback to your attempts to make Max Baucus and Jim Messina the scapegoats for your grand mess.

If you're dueling it out on the pages of the NYT as to who takes the blame when this all turns to s**t, I imagine the answer is "not so good."

Similar sentiments can be found elsewhere among the netnuts who are pushing Obamacare to the brink of oblivion by accepting nothing less than nationalized health insurance.

Jonathan Martin and Carrie Brown of Politico:

Even if top aides didn't intend to do it, the White House got a glimpse of what may well happen - a Democratic civil war - if President Barack Obama does indeed give up on the public option.

The liberal uprising comes after weeks in which Democratic congressional leaders have focused their energy on winning over moderates - with House leaders trying to woo Blue Dog fiscally conservative Democrats, and Senate negotiators concentrating on a handful of Republicans.

Obama also has been put on the defensive by conservatives who have dominated congressional town halls, saying Obama's government-run insurance goes too far.

But the weekend's events show that one of Obama's biggest problems - and ultimately a critical test of whether he can get a bill at all - revolves around convincing liberals he's going far enough.

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), a member of the Health subcommittee and a close friend of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said a healthcare bill without a government-run insurance plan would be difficult to move out of the House in part because liberals are right now accepting less than what they want.

"I think it would be very tough," said Eshoo. "There are those who view themselves as having already compromised on single-payer."

I'll tell you why the public option is dead. If it is included in the final bill, moderate Dems as well as all Republicans will vote against it and defeat it. Obama's only chance is to ditch the public option and hope that at least some Republicans hop on board and some progressives swallow their pride and vote for reform.

Which scenario is more likely? Obama would rather lose the liberals and get health care reform rather than vice versa. It's that simple - and it's driving the left crazy.

C. Edmund Wright adds:

Rick Moran's analysis about what is going on inside the Democrat Party is right on the money.

I saw another "teachable moment" in his piece as well.

Consider these words in Moran's piece from liberal hysteric Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake:

Only an arrogant nitwit would believe they could negotiate a deal that gave health care away to the pharmaceutical industry, the doctors, the hospitals and the insurance companies, tie everyone's hands and keep the government from being able to negotiate costs for the next decade and then jam it on progressives to sell in their districts at the end the end of the process.

This is a great window into the mind of the liberal. Yes, God forbid healthcare is run by doctors, pharmaceutical makers, hospitals and the folks who pay for it (insurance companies). Why would a good liberal accept that when it could be run by government bureaucrats?  The liberal mind is blind to the fact than any industry should be run by those who have dedicated their lives to practicing that craft while consumers get to choose which practitioners to patronize.

This is the same mindset who has taken the car industry away from the auto makers, dealers and lenders -- the mortgage industry away from the lenders -- the banking business away from the banks -- and so on. They do it all under the assumption that anyone who engages in any exercise for profit is by definition evil and that any bureaucrat who will rule over them is pure as the wind driven snow, not to mention competent. 

To use the words of Ms. Hamsher at Firedoglake, "only an arrogant nitwit would believe" that health care should be run by anyone other than "the pharmaceutical industry, the doctors, the hospitals and the insurance companies" with a free market for consumers to choose among them. 

I think the Town Hall reaction is also asking the question: Now just who is the arrogant nitwit?