A second fire has started on the public option fight, this time in the House.
Greg Sargent is reporting that House Whip James Clyburn has told the Congressional Progressive Caucus that he does not currently have the votes for the "robust" (that is, Medicare +5%, in current lingo) public option.
Clyburn told the assembled members at the meeting that the leadership does not have the votes to pass the robust public option, according to a House progressive familiar with the meeting. That sparked aggressive pushback from liberals, who argued that leadership - and the White House - should be working harder to win over the remaining votes the bill needs.
The document shows that 47 House Dems are committed No votes, and eight are Leaning No, for a total of 56. That means of 256 House Dems, only 200 remain, and a dozen of those are listed as undecided. The bill needs 218 votes for passage.
House progressives argue that the document should light a fire under Dem leaders. One House progressive tells me he's convinced that most of the undecideds, and a number of the No votes, can be won over with the right mix of pressure and incentives - which only the House leadership and the White House can provide.
I have seen the document myself. Sargent is reporting the numbers accurately, although 47 plus 8 is 55.
However, a source I know close to the process (yeah, take anonymous sources as you will) is disputing those numbers. Specifically, the source claims:
All of the 12 undecideds, except one (Representative Ann Kirkpatrick), are actually "yes" votes. That brings the total to 200.
Further, two of the "no" votes listed on the document, Eric Massa and Artur Davis, are actually "yes" votes. That makes 202.
Also, after November 3rd, at least one new supporter of the public option will be sworn into the House (the winner of the CA-10 special election). That makes 203.
Yet further, six of the "lean no" votes are actually "lean yes" votes, and four of the members listed as "no" votes are actually "lean yes" votes. Those 10 "lean yes" votes are Representatives Giffords, Klein, Maffei, Nye, Sanchez, Scott, Lipinski, Scott Murphy, Costa, Cardozza. That would make 213.
Finally, the source argues to me that if the whip count was conducted differently, then the Progressives could probably get over the top. Specifically, instead of asking members if they will vote for a health care bill with Medicare +5% public option, the whip should be asking if a Medicare +5% public option is a dealbreaker for members.
Given all of this, tomorrow I will be joining with a few other bloggers to engage in a snap crowdsourcing action to try and conduct exactly the sort of whip count described in the last bullet point. Even though Lieberman is causing problems right now, the House is more time-sensitive because the leadership will decide what to do with the public option in the House by mid-Thursday. Really, it is tomorrow or never to pull off a Medicare +5% public option in the House.
Stay tuned. Names, phone numbers, instructions and more coming. Tomorrow is going to be a big action day.
