"We don't have the 60 votes on the floor for the public option," Schumer said. "I will be the first to admit that." Schumer thinks we're a deal or two short of 60 and that we can get it if we need it, but that we're short at the moment. No surprise there, Tom Harkin said almost the same thing. Which gets Klein to cogitatin'.There are two questions here. The first is "60 votes for what?" Do they not have 60 votes in favor of a health-care plan that includes a public option? Or do they not have 60 votes against a filibuster of a health-care plan that includes a public option? If it's the former, that's okay: You only need 51. If it's the latter, that's a bigger problem. But I'd be interested to hear which Democrats will publicly commit to filibustering Barack Obama's health-care reform bill. If that's such a popular position back home, why aren't more Democrats voicing it loudly?
Second, why give up the public option now? If these moderates want to kill the measure, let them get full credit for doing so on the floor. They can sponsor an amendment to strip it out of the final legislation and go home to their districts having played a clear and undeniable role in the elimination of the public option.
Instead, Baucus and Conrad did the work for them, all the while protesting that they didn't oppose the public option. Now the moderate bloc will need to extract something else in an eleventh-hour bargain to show that they applied their centrist convictions to the legislation. Baucus makes it sound as though he's attempting to ensure a deal. But in reality, he's just depriving the centrists of the ability to make their deal. That means they'll have to make a different one, and the bill will get worse twice rather than once.
The first question is pretty much rhetorical; of course Schumer's talking about a filibuster. But the second is pretty much the same thought I had in reporting on Harkin's comments -- who's going to actually take a stand and support a Republican filibuster? You can't just vote and hope no one notices, because that would be an incredibly misplaced hope. You'd probably be able to count the defectors on one hand and the media will give them some snappy title, like the "Gang of X." It would be a very public stance.
Is there anyone who would benefit from being perceived as a secret Republican? Maybe, but national polls say no. Republicans are less popular than the clap these days.
