Here at Open Left, in partnership with Democracy for America's Stand With Dr. Dean and Health Care for America Now, we are keeping an ongoing count of public option supporters in the Senate. The most recent count showed at least 44 public option supporters, and a few more who were either on the brink pending certain conditions or who had stated "not vote no" if a public option were included in a health care bill.
Last week, Nate Silver criticized the addition of the "will not vote against" category in the whip count. He argued that there were several ways that a Senator could pledge not to vote no, but could still work to defeat a public option in the Senate:
But what could Warner do -- while still being true to his word?
-- He could vote for an amendment that stripped the public option from the health care bill.
-- He could vote against, or even filibuster, an amendment that sought to add a public option.
-- He could lobby the Senate leadership not to put a bill with a public option on the floor.
-- He could try to become part of the conference committee reconciling the House and Senate bills, and negotiate against a bill containing a public option.
--Technically speaking, he could filibuster a health care bill containing a public option -- provided that he didn't vote against it if it overcame the filibuster and came to a floor vote.
--If the health care bill were cleaved into two pieces, he could arguably vote against whichever half of the bill contained the public option -- and then claim later that he'd indeed voted for health care reform (before he'd voted against it)
I don't disagree with Nate on this one. Senator Warner could be technically true to the literal meaning, though certainly not the spirit, of his words and still take actions against the passage of a public option. He could also decide not to be true to his word, as Senator Mary Landrieu has done, and as some House Progressives are indicating they might do, and simply flip his position later on. In short, just because of his statement, there is no guarantee Senator Warner will never work against a public option in health care reform legislation.
However, while I understand Nate's objections, they would only apply if the purpose of the Senate whip count was to find 50 Senators who would do everything they could to pass a public option, thus guaranteeing passage. Since we can't guarantee the actions of others, the actual purpose of the whip count is to demonstrate that it is possible to pass a public option through the Senate.
Demonstrating that it is possible to pass a public option through the Senate is important because it prevents Democratic leaders from using their longstanding cop-out line to the progressive base: "oh, we fully support your position on issue X, but it was necessary to abandon that position in order to pass legislation / get elected." Arguing that progressive ideals are not politically possible has been a longstanding bludgeon that Democratic leaders have used to play both sides on key legislative battles. They can reassure industry by passing bad legislation on the one side of the fence, while still receiving the support of the progressive base by telling them they secured the best outcome possible on the other.
I, for one, am tired of these repeated attempts to avoid accountability to the progressive base. Through the whip count, I am seeking to demonstrate that any decision to abandon the public option will be a choice Democrats make, not a decision they were forced into due to limited political possibilities.
In fact, the whip count has already done this. While only 44 Senators have clearly stated their support of a non-trigger public option, Mark Warner, Jon Tester, Ron Wyden, Mark Pryor, Max Baucus and Mark Begich have all indicated there are types of non-trigger public options they could support. Really, a minimum of 55 Senate Democrats have stated there are types of public options they can support. Given that it is possible to pass a public option through reconciliation according to some of the top experts on the subject, it is therefore possible to pass a public option in the Senate.
If no public option is passed as part of health care reform, it will not be because it was impossible to do so. Instead, as the Senate whip count demonstrates, it will be because Democrats decided not to pass it. As I have written in the past, it is possible to pass a public option as part of health care reform. There are 235 votes for some sort of non-trigger public option in the House, and the Blue Dogs who have implying they would vote against a public option don't add up to enough to block passage (not to mention that Eric Massa is actually opposing the bill as part of the Progressive Block). Further, there are over 50 votes in the Senate, and procedural maneuvers that could be used to pass a public option with only 51 votes in the Senate.
If it doesn't happen, don't accept the lie that it was impossible to pass a public option through the Senate. In the meantime, fight like hell to make sure that Senate Democrats choose the right path.
STATE BLOGS
