Yep, I can imagine it going down to --- and taking you with it.

These guys and gal(Lincoln) will only listen if they can more $$$ from individual progressives and liberal PACs than they do from big healthcare. AND, it has to be year in year out, not just this cycle. OR, we could change campaign contribution laws, WHOOPS! too late SCOTUS already ruled money is 'free speech'. SO, we have to put liberals on the bench. This is gonna take a looooong time.

Bayh hasn't been out bloviating (a la Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln)on the subject and he is a fairly low key senator.

It sounds to me like he has the backbone to stand with the bill because if he can't image Reid's bill will fail that means Bayh would have to vote for it.

Sure its kinda Doublespeak, but he is a politician...

Brian? Is your headline Bayh's actual words, or is that a paraphgrase of his answer to your question?

It's not clear.

His own chief concern, he says, is the deficit.

What a load of crap, considering that the public option will reduce the cost of health care reform. He's either being ignorant, disingenuous or both. Or being a complete asshole, which is par for the course for him.

Or, if you think about it another way, setting himself up to be consistent in letting the bill go forward. He can say, my main concern was the deficit and the score says this bill with a public option will help reduce the deficit, so I'm for letting it move ahead.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that Bayh and even Lieberman are just making noise - they will vote for a MTP and then do whatever makes their little conservative hearts go pitter patter on the floor during debate, then stand back and let the bill pass with or without their final vote.

So is this "I'd be against if it exploded the deficit" concern something that would be assuagable by actual data, like, for example, a CBO score showing it would reduce the cost of reform, or is this "I'd be against it if it exploded the deficit" ala Lieberman and Landrieu meaning, "this is the lie I've decided to pin my opposition on and no mere fact will shake it?"

Given that he's allegedly been a member of Congress for the last year and hasn't suffered any evident head trauma, and thus would presumably have been aware of the fact that the CBO has consistently said public option saves money every time it's scored a bill, I'm kind of wondering whether maybe it's the latter.

"It's possible"??? What a non-statement. What's he going to say, it's impossible? Toss this one onto the "more heat than light" pile.