President Obama may not be demanding a public option, but his replacement in the Senate, Roland Burris, is now saying he will vote against any bill without one:
For Democrats determined to get a health care bill, Sen. Roland Burris is like the house guest who couldn't be refused, won't soon be leaving and poses a plausible threat of ruining holiday dinner.
Suddenly, he can no longer be ignored.
The Illinois Democrat, appointed by disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, says he'll only vote for a bill to provide health care to millions more Americans as long as it allows the government to sell insurance in competition with private insurers.
And he says he won't compromise.
"I would not support a bill that does not have a public option," Burris, 72, said in a recent interview with The Associated Press. "That position will not change."
Can we start saying President Burris? Not just yet.
First, you would think that a proclamation like this from a Democratic Senator would get more attention. However, Roland Burris is only listed in 18 news stories on Google today, compared with 68 for Olympia Snowe (as of 4:15 pm eastern). Such a discrepancy strongly indicates that the national media simply doesn't believe Roland Burris--or really any other progressive, for that matter--when they claim they will bring down Democratic legislation because it isn't strong enough. If reporters and political types actually believed Burris, this would be a banner headline for dozens of national news outlets.
Second, one Democratic Senator opposing any health care reform bill without a public option is not enough to defeat any such bill, even in the 60-vote culture of the Senate. Given that President Snowe is still dangling the prospect of her support before the Democratic leadership, it would take two Senators (and, given Susan Collins, arguably three) for this to be an effective block. So, Roland Burris isn't enough, but if he were joined by another (hopefully more credible) Senator, then maybe we would really have something.
If someone in the Senate wishes to seize it, the opportunity is wide open. Last week, Senators Rockefeller and Wyden thought about it, but ultimately took a pass.
Of course, even if another Dem was to vow to vote against any health care bill that lacked a public option, it is still actually possible to pass a health care reform bill without a public option through the Senate. Reconciliation only requires 51 votes, is very much on the table right now, and can be used for non-public option health care bills, too.
Part of me would actually kind of like to see a bill without a public option pass through reconciliation. If this happened, it would simultaneously destroy the 60-vote process lie, and also clarify that the Democratic leadership simply wasn't pushing hard enough for the public option (right now, it remains unclear to me whether or not they are with us on this). Then again, we also wouldn't have a public option in that scenario, and satisfied recriminations are a poor substitute for potentially transformative legislation. |
