House liberals are the key to getting a public option

[bluestateguy]

I think the way to get the PO is for the House liberals to demand it as a litmus test for their votes. They can't pass a bill without them. The White House wants any bill that they can claim victory with, and don't want to invite comparisons to the Clintons of 1994, who came up empty-handed. It also generated months of hand-wringing negative news coverage and of course the tsunami in 1994. Not wanting to repeat that experience, if the WH has to choose between giving the liberals what they want and no bill, they will go with the liberals.

The only leverage the House liberals have is to say they will only vote for a PO bill. If they say "well gosh, we favor the public option and really hope the bill has it, but we'll go ahead and vote for a bill without one", then that is an open invitation to taking the provision out. They would have no leverage over the process. So the House liberals have to hold firm, with enough strength in numbers to present a show of force that will only allow a bill with a PO out of the House and on final passage.

I think that's the way to get the PO.

[Hippo_Tron]

1. Which is precisely why the President has drawn no lines in the sand

"I will veto this bill if there is no public option" is not a credible threat coming from a President who has a political incentive to settle for anything he can sign. But a threat from the Progressive Caucus is credible because they don't have the same incentives to settle for just any bill.

I think the President's lack of commitments was a strategic move to get more liberal members of congress to step up and draw those lines themselves.

The problem is that the way the media talks about health care, you would think it's just a negotiation between the White House and Max Baucus. For all the drama that is going on in the Senate right now they've completely ignored the fact that this bill has to pass the House as well.

[bluestateguy]

2. He understands this process far better than we do

and his White House is chock full of battle-hardened Clinton veterans who remember the mistakes of the past on this issue.

Clinton drew a line in the sand (in his case it was the universal coverage plank) and he came up empty handed.

[OHdem10]

3. He is more like Clinton than Clinton.--I cannot understand why

the false concern over being compared to Clinton.

The Mark of DLC is non-committal.

Running as defender of Middle Class but the first important
legislation--bow to Business.

[BzaDem]

4. The liberals in the House are really irrelevant in this debate unfortunately.

If Obama gets the absolute best bill possible out of the Senate, he then goes to the House and tells them that. If the House says no, then Obama will just say "fine. Come to me when you change your mind" and end the debate over healthcare reform. Blue dogs will laugh, since they don't really even want healthcare reform and many would rather it not even have been brought up in the first place. They would have gotten what they wanted.

Eventually, the liberals, who being good people want to end the ban on pre-existing conditions/end lifetime caps/give health coverage to 25+ million people/etc will budge. People might be able to bet money over how long it would take for them to cave, but rest assured it will happen. All the Blue Dogs have to do is wait.

[Hippo_Tron]

5. The thing is that time is not on the President's side

The progressive dems come from safe liberal districts and will be re-elected no matter what happens. Obama needs this bill to pass in time to campaign on it for the midterm elections. And the thing about the blue dogs is that they want this to pass too. They need it to pass because if the President and the Democratic Party fail they will be the first victims of a Republican resurgence. They don't want to vote for it if it has a public option but they do want it to pass.

[BzaDem]

6. No, Joe Lieberman does not care about what happens to the Democratic party.

And he alone can determine the future of Healthcare reform. Reconciliation would not allow a public option because it would not allow any regulation to force private insurers to accept everyone at the same rate.

Liberals may be safe, but they don't want to belong to a powerless minority for another decade. They will eventually come around. It isn't because they are weak -- it is because they are good people, who actually want healthcare reform. Joe Lieberman really doesn't.

[Hippo_Tron]

7. Joe Lieberman is not a typical conservadem

He's a conservadem who represents a blue state. People like Blanche Lincoln need the Democratic Party to be successful or they will get their asses kicked in the next election. Even if they don't want a public option they need health care to pass in some form or people will become disgruntled with the "do-nothing congress" and send her packing.

And your usage of "good people" to describe the progressive caucus is not relevant. Being good people don't negate the fact that they want to exert their influence over this legislation. And while they don't want to be in the minority for another decade, the conservadems don't want to be in the minority either. In Joe Lieberman's case that means he loses a chairmanship. In Blanche Lincoln's case it probably means she loses her seat.

There are no good and bad people in political analysis. There are just rational actors who all want to gain power.

[BzaDem]

8. No one matters if Joe Lieberman votes against cloture on a public option.

Liberals won't try to kill the bill to exert their influence because they will have no influence to exert. Yes, Lieberman will probably lose his chairmanship. And maybe that threat will convince him to vote for cloture. But it very well might not. He would of course become a Republican if that were to happen, and could immediately become ranking member on the same committee. There's no chance he will win re-election in 2012 as a Democrat, and possibly not as an independent either. It is possible he might as a Republican (or would at least have a better chance of doing so than as anything else). Though I think Lieberman will lose either way and knows this, and would be voting against it because he really hates the idea of it.

If Lieberman says no, it doesn't matter that he isn't the "typical" conservadem. He is the one that can single handedly kill the public option (assuming Olympia Snowe won't vote for it). You could have Evan and Bayh and Ben Nelson singing its praises in a duet and it still won't matter.

I really wish I could be as optimistic as you are, and I sincerely hope that you are right (that Lieberman and all the other Senate Democrats will vote for cloture on a public option). I just can't see that at this stage. The Senate is an incredibly anti-democratic body. Entire bills can and are written according to the whims of a single Senator.

[Hippo_Tron]

9. Connecticut voted for the President 6 to 4 in 2008

There isn't a chance in hell that Joe Lieberman wants to run as a Republican in 2012. The campaign will be about how he endorsed McCain and has switched parties twice now and is just a turncoat not to be trusted. He will likely run as an independent again if he senses he would get contentious primary opposition like last time. Doing so fragments the opposition and allows him to get a good share of the Democratic votes because he still agrees to caucus for the dems. It also makes it less likely that the President will come to Connecticut and stump for the other guy.

[bluestateguy]

10. kick

:kick: