One of reasons to think that Senators pushing the "trigger" are not being honest is, as in the case of Olympia Snowe, they say they "continue to oppose the inclusion of a public option in any package." So, if they oppose the public option in any package, why should we believe that they would ever support a trigger that would result in a public option?
A second reason to think that Senators pushing the "trigger" are not being honest comes from Senator tom Carper today. Carper says that he believes the trigger can bridge the partisan divide:
"I think that [the trigger] could end up being the compromise because it bridges the differences between those who are for a robust public option and those who are adamantly opposed to a public option."
"I raised it with the president," Carper continued, referring to his public option with a trigger proposal.
"Olympia Snowe and I are both advocates of this approach," he added, referring to the Republican senator from Maine who so far has been alone among GOP senators in wanting to craft a compromise with Democrats.
"I know she has raised it with the president," Carper added.
Here's the problem with this. Both Carper and Snowe have a seat in the Senate Finance Committee, the lone Senate committee to still not pass a bill. Three other Conservadems--Bill Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Kent Conrad--also holds seats on that committee. Olympia Snowe is even part of the "gang of Six" that is negotiating health care for that committee. So, if the trigger had such support and was such a great means to bridge the partisan divide, then why isn't there even a trigger in the legislative framework for that committee introduced by Max Baucus.
Carper and Snowe are not being very honest about the trigger. They should stop saying that they oppose all public options before trying to convince people they would actually allow a public option in through a trigger. Further, they need to at least show proof of concept through their own committee before claiming it was such a good idea. Until that happens, there is no reason to believe them.
Carper did not rule out stripping Lieberman of his coveted gavel running the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, or imposing other sanctions like taking away seniority on other committees or a subcommittee on Armed Services.
Carper said he and three other Senate Democrats have been making phone calls to "take the temperature of our caucus." He said the purpose of the calls was not to lobby senators for any particular action for or against Lieberman, but "just to see where people's hearts and their minds are."
Carper said that "many of my colleagues ... are very angry with his criticism of Sen. Obama," but he would not say which sanctions he prefers.
If tom Carper is wavering, then Lieberman could be in serious trouble tomorrow. For Tom Carper to be undecided on this vote is, in electoral terms, the equivalent of Georgia being a toss-up in the presidential campaign. If Lieberman is struggling to win a member of what should be his base voters, then we should be on a path to win this thing.
Then again, commenters have noted that every Senate office they call is claiming to be undecided on the Lieberman vote. So, rather than Carper's public indecision being a sign of Lieberman in trouble, perhaps this is simply a vote where almost no one in the Senate wants to tell the public where they stand. Either way, give one last call to your Democratic Senators, and help push them over the edge. Even though it's late, it's OK to leave a message. They will still hear it before the vote tomorrow.
