|
I just read this news piece at Huffington Post saying that Colorado's senators and governor are circulating a letter to senators asking them not to filibuster a public option. I signed the petition, but let's just say I'm not a fan of an ask that has no leverage behind it. However, I thought of a strategy that might generate a little leverage.
As Chris has detailed elsewhere, the crucial battefield right now is the closed-door negotiation among Reid, Dodd, Baucus and the White House over whether a public option will be included in the bill reported out to the Senate floor. If a public option is not included in the bill, those who want to add one would have to overcome a filibuster. If one is included, then a filibuster would be required to remove it.
I don't know which way that negotiation is leaning, but here's a way we might be able to change the equation and influence the negotiators to include a public option in the bill: what if public option supporters like Udall and Bennet publicly promised not to filibuster an amendment that simply tried to strip the public option from the bill, as long as the option was included when the bill was reported? Essentially, they'd be saying, "include a strong public option in the bill, and we promise to allow an up-or-down vote on it, rather than relying on a filibuster to protect it." If the public option could get 50 votes, it would be preserved.
Our whip count says the public option has at least 50 votes (Harkin says 52), so unless someone is lying, we'll win the vote, right? And publicly setting aside the filibuster to go "all-in" on a majority vote on the public option would make it that much harder for opponents of the health care measure to justify supporting a later filibuster on the whole bill, wouldn't it?
Does this seem like a promising idea, or am I missing something?
|
STATE BLOGS
