TPMDC
Schumer: How Do You Scrap Public Option If Overwhelming Majority Of Dems Support It?
Brian Beutler | October 5, 2009, 4:06PM
Share
Send to a friend!
Appearing on MSNBC today, public option-advocate Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) asked a provocative question.
So if you have a conference committee where the House has it strongly, almost rock solid, in their bill, and the Senate...if we don't have it in the bill there are 54, 55, 56 Democratic senators for it, how are they going to report back a bill without it?
One difficulty that both the White House and public option skeptics appear to be facing is that, though they may be perfectly happy to advance a bill without a public option, the measure remains very popular, and intensely so among politically engaged, Democratic voters. That's a dynamic to keep an eye on: At this point, nobody wants to be identified as the driving force behind its demise.
Maybe that's why Schumer says he's finding conservative Dems pretty open to the idea.
Other Stories Featured at TPMDC
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
PollTracker
Most Popular
- How Clemmons Went From Prisoner To Alleged Cop Killer -- And Why It Matters For Mike Huckabee
- Another Huckabee Pardon
- Why Are Dem Voters Now Less Motivated Than Republicans?
- CBO: Health Care Reform Will Lower Out-Of-Pocket Burden For Most Consumers
- Bachmann: Just Over A Year Ago, The Private Economy Was 100% Private
- Rep. Hinchey: Bush Purposely Let Bin Laden Escape To Justify Iraq War
- Radio Host Bill Press: Glenn Beck Is A 'Ticking Time Bomb' Who Will 'Explode In The Face Of Roger Ailes'
- Family Guy Mocks Chris Matthews' Inflated Ego
- Latest High-Flying Accused Ponzi Schemer Has Ties To Indiana Guv
- Limbaugh: Obama Is 'Wimpy Little Man-Child'
- Obama Issues New Orders On Afghanistan
- Why Are Dem Voters Now Less Motivated Than Republicans?
- Dems Add Entitlement Reform To Packed Agenda Ahead of 2010 Elections
- Huckabee Cites System's 'Failures' In Response To Washington Police Killings
- Gibbs: Social Office Not Problem With Dinner Crashers
- How Clemmons Went From Prisoner To Alleged Cop Killer -- And Why It Matters For Mike Huckabee
- Rep. Hinchey: Bush Purposely Let Bin Laden Escape To Justify Iraq War
- Radio Host Bill Press: Glenn Beck Is A 'Ticking Time Bomb' Who Will 'Explode In The Face Of Roger Ailes'
- Bachmann: Just Over A Year Ago, The Private Economy Was 100% Private
- Progressives (and Obama) are Doing Better Than We Think -- and We Won't Know What We've Got 'Til It's Gone
- Not Getting Distracted
- Why Have We Subjugated Ourselves?
- Obstructionism Trumps Transparency
- Jeff Goldberg Faults Obama For Suggesting Settlement Expansion Leads To Violence
- Progressives (and Obama) are Doing Better Than We Think -- and We Won't Know What We've Got 'Til It's Gone
- A Dime In My Pocket
- Great Moments in CNN Journalism
- Return to Sender: Feigning Indifference & Losing My Religion
- The Pivot
- Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2009 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Moose49
October 5, 2009 4:16 PM
Really, the question to be asked is why the so-called Democratic leadership in the Senate isn't demanding that the overwhelming majority position in the majority party be the one that prevails. That's what the Repugnuts did and they enforced party unity even on those who felt differently (witness Specter when he was an R, Snowe and Collins on most key issues). While their aims were awful, their ability to get things done is something any Dem with half a brain in his head ought to be emulating.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
October 5, 2009 4:19 PM in reply to Moose49
It may have been effective, but I'm not so sure it's something the Dems should be emulating. Doing it right is invariably messier, but it's generally worth the extra effort.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
QuiteAlarmed
October 5, 2009 4:43 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
The "doing it right" comment is a non sequitur. This is about doing it at all, not about doing it right. Legislators have invested ample time to "do it right." The question is whether they will do it at all or instead rely on procedural excuses.
We should accept no excuse for the Democratic caucus in the Senate failing to maintain party unity on procedural votes. Individual senators should certainly be allowed to vote their conscience on substantive issues. Using procedures to thwart the caucus, however, should not be remotely acceptable. If the Senate Democratic caucus is not structured in a way that allows it to control its members on procedural matters, then it needs to change.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
October 5, 2009 5:01 PM in reply to QuiteAlarmed
I'm with Scooby, not Goofy.
My view is that when it comes to health care reform, "doing it right" means including a public option (along with lots of other things, such as ensuring that subsidies are high enough so that everyone can find health coverage affordable).
I also don't think that "doing it right" is the least bit inconsistent with insisting on party unity on procedural votes. After all, it should be majority rules, not 60 percent rules.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
October 5, 2009 5:28 PM in reply to QuiteAlarmed
This has little to do with procedural votes. Right now there are at least 12 Democrats who are likely or at least potential "Nay" votes on the public option. Most of the back-and-forth negotiations are directed at producing a bill that can garner at least a few of these votes. Without them it would fail to garner a simple majority. If all they had to worry about was a cloture vote, they'd be home free.
And the reason the R's had so little trouble maintaining party unity is because they're a much more homogeneous bunch. On a political scale from 1 to 10, they're all 8, 9 and 10. The D's span a much wider range, so it's always going to be harder to herd them along. Personally, I'd rather have the broader range.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
October 6, 2009 12:56 AM in reply to mans_best_friend
You're right, of course. We are the middle, and everything left of it. Unfortunately, the right is turning into zombies of the corporatist overlords and are marching in lockstep. A solid 30% is a very good base to build on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
QuiteAlarmed
October 21, 2009 9:59 AM in reply to mans_best_friend
There aren't 12 Democratic votes against the public option. When you tried to name 12 senators before you double counted one and included several who have publicly stated support for the public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chris
October 5, 2009 4:19 PM
Well Mr. Schumer, you don't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed- ley
October 5, 2009 4:43 PM
You do it the same way you push bank bailouts through, Sen. Schumer. You make it sound like the end of the world is coming (doesn't this sound like a page from the GOP playbook) and then pass sweetheart legislation with no regulative teeth in it that banks would cream their jeans for and then you do absolutely nothing for the little guy who's been screwed by mortgage sharks. After a few months, the banks come out way ahead, the little guy is still screwed and nobody in government looks too closely at the banks to see if they're doing what they were supposed to with all that tax payer lucre.
It worked for the banks. Why not the insurance companies too?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 5, 2009 8:36 PM in reply to Schmed- ley
They've already passed the new toothless banking regulations? Wow. I must have missed that. Do you have a link?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rambler american
October 6, 2009 8:02 AM in reply to Schmed- ley
(You make it sound like the end of the world is coming)
How about "If we fail to include a robust public option the terrorists will have won." or "The insurance companies want to pull the plug on your grandmother." Actually that one sounds pretty realistic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Micheline
October 5, 2009 5:15 PM
Brian,
Shame you! The LA Times has reported that Obama has been working behind the scenes in getting the public option. This is getting to be ridiculous.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 5, 2009 5:54 PM in reply to Micheline
The LAT story is the Chicago Tribune from yesterday that I just did a reader blog about. Now that the LAT has picked it up, it's starting to get some attention from a lot of blogs that I know these guys keep an eye on--Steve Benen, TalkLeft, Salon--and, yet, though seemingly a big story, it somehowhas not yet been deemed TPM-worthy. Most perplexing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
October 5, 2009 6:11 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Imagine a counterfactual: the LAT and Chicago Trib do a behind-the-scenes report about how the White House is expressing skepticism about a public option to wayward Senators and tacitly promising them cover for voting no. No more sourcing and no more grounding than the stories that they printed today, but in the opposite direction.
Now, what would the reaction have been?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Micheline
October 5, 2009 7:49 PM in reply to fbacon2
But that's not what have been said.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CyberDuckie
October 6, 2009 2:47 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Just a link to the Trib story.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-tc-nw-healthcare-obama-1003-oct04,0,1969667.story?page=1
Thanks Former NCSteve!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
October 5, 2009 5:55 PM in reply to Micheline
Really? I've certainly seen and heard a lot that would indicate the opposite. I sincerely hope you and the LA Times are right. It certainly is one of the big reasons I voted for Obama, but so far his reported sweetheart deals with big pharma, banks and the insurance industry don't give me a lot of hope.
The proof will be in the pudding, however. If we come out of this with real health care reform, a solid public option to compete with private insurers and a system that holds down costs not only at the expense of the average person, I will gladly and gratefully stand corrected.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
October 5, 2009 5:17 PM
A strong objection to the wording of this sentence: "One difficulty that both the White House and public option skeptics appear to be facing is that, though they may be perfectly happy to advance a bill without a public option, the measure remains very popular, and intensely so among politically engaged, Democratic voters."
This formulation makes it sound like the WH is on the same side as the public option opponents. If you can make the argument, and it's one that I agree with, that the WH would pass a bill without a public option, it's quite something else to suggest that the WH would be "happy" to do it. And it's also going much further to assert implicitly that the WH might actually be fighting off efforts to include the public option, which as the evidence shows, has not been the case and may even be the opposite of the truth.
The White House is motivated to get the strongest bill they can out of the Senate. If they have help on the inside and out to strengthen the bill, they'll take it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brian Beutler
October 5, 2009 10:06 PM in reply to fbacon2
Apologies for the sloppy wording. The intent was to characterize Obama as distinct from public option skeptics (in that Obama supports the public option) but similar in that, like skeptics, Obama would sign a bill without a public option and doesn't regard it as a particularly crucial element.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
October 5, 2009 11:37 PM in reply to Brian Beutler
Appreciate the response, Brian. I imagine the things that are crucial to a president are directly proportional to the responsibilities they feel in getting something through Congress. The perspective must change once the person's in office. I don't see how it couldn't.
Yes, I think he'd abandon the public option if given the choice between passage and failure of the final bill. The trick is to avoid that scenario, and his actions to date have tracked closely with what I think that strategy would look like.
But in the end, everyone in the White House wants the best bill they can get, and on policy, they know that a public option is part of it, along with affordability and access to dependable coverage. If there are risks in a bad bill, they are certainly aware of them. As Obama told 60 Mintues, once he signs the bill, he owns it. That's an important distinction between him, his team, and the opponents in Congress who don't have much of an interest in health care reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
October 5, 2009 5:55 PM
Intensly is an understatement. Let's put it this way. I will unregister as a Democrat if they pass a bill without a PO.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 5, 2009 6:42 PM in reply to theone718
Yeah, and who are you going to vote for instead?????
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
October 6, 2009 1:06 AM in reply to theone718
Register as a Republican.
Then you'll get all their push-poll gimme questionnaires, and you can tell them what you think about tax cuts for the rich.
And if you ever get phoned by a real poll, you can be part of the 48% of registered Republicans who approve of the public option (you and a few other could maybe increase the percentage).
If there's a Democratic primary that's contested and important to you, can always switch back.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Karl the Marxist
October 5, 2009 6:13 PM
An overwhelming majority of Americans, not just Democrats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
we r all husseins
October 5, 2009 6:22 PM in reply to Karl the Marxist
Exactly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 6, 2009 5:03 AM
We should be looking more closely at what the po contains. The two most widely discussed bill in the Senate, Finance and HELP, contain placebo public options. The HELP po enlists private insurance companies for health care delivery! Maybe we should be putting all our support behind a single payer House bill, HR 676. With unemployment hovering at 10%, there are going to be more and more people without insurance, more and more people on Medicaid, which is means tested. Anything means tested really creates resentment among people who get a service and those who have to pay. It's pitting the disadvantaged against the less disadvantaged. Tactically, I can see a lot of reasons for progressive Dems to scuttle the reform process in the Senate and start over.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?