Speaking of interacting with the public...

Ok, see, here are the issues that arise when talking to the public. If all Congress did was broadcast the non-partisan cost analysis of new programs, we wouldn't be in the bind that we're in today. Instead, we have this:

"I think if you asked, do you want a public option but it would force the government to go bankrupt, people would say no."
- Sen. Landrieu (D-LA)

This is the charming, constructive debate we're engaging in. The point where I start getting confused is when I can't tell if she's being disingenuous or not. Surely she can't actually believe this to be the case? Between the CBO estimates that money will be saved, the inevitable cost-reduction for consumers, and the plans for the public option to be a self-sustaining plan, is this a genuine fear of hers? If so, she hasn't been keeping up with the most basic analysis of the legislation she's voting on. If not, she's engaging in bad-faith arguments, evoking fear rather than reasoned opposition that you could rationally compare side-by-side with the arguments FOR the plan.

This is nothing new; every day my RSS feeds dump these little stories into my brain about a deceptive talking point from this side or a fallacious argument from that. It's all part and parcel of the daily political drama. The thing is, I enjoy it. I seek it out. I want to see all this so I can get a sense of how the plans are moving forward and what's going on down the road. What about the people that aren't political junkies, though? I have the privilege of getting to hear these grandstanding opinions either bolstered or refuted across the blogosphere.

If I were, instead, interested in finding out what would be the best way forward to ensure health care for my family and wasn't interested in the legislative process, I'd be SOL. There's the country that I know and love going bankrupt and death panels on the one hand and skyrocketing premiums on the other. Is it too much to ask that we try to generate genuine support from constituents?