Reid’s Public Option Politics

Photo by the <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/americanprogress/3657601383/">Center for American Progress</a> used under a <a href="http://www.creativecommons.org">CC</a> license.


Who is this man leading the Senate Democratic caucus, and what has he done with Harry Reid?

Multiple sources are reporting that Reid’s big announcement this afternoon will be that he intends to bring a health care bill to the Senate floor that includes a public option that would allow states to “opt-out.” It will take 60 votes to strip the public option from the bill during the amendment process—votes that public option opponents don’t have right now. Democratic holdouts—presumed to include Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)—will be forced to actually vote against the public option instead of killing it with a “silent filibuster.”

There will be a lot of debate in the coming days about what exactly prompted Reid to include the public option in the draft bill. He didn’t have to do it, and by all accounts Reid doesn’t even have the 60 votes he’d need to overcome a certain GOP filibuster of a bill that includes public option. Reid is facing a tough reelection fight in 2010 and may have factored that into his decision, possibly to shore up support on the left, which has criticized him as a weak and ineffective leader. But unlike Chris Cillizza, Reid seems to think there might be benefits to shoring up his left flank. Ezra Klein highlighted a health care lobbyist’s speculation along those exact lines:

One Democratic health care lobbyist suggested that Reid’s trouble rounding up 60 votes to bring a bill with a public option opt-out to the floor suggests that the support isn’t there for the opt-out when it becomes time to vote on the bill. But if Reid gets the bill to the floor with an opt-out and is forced to water it down later to win votes, he can still make the case with liberals and unions that he did what he could to get it passed—a key point considering that Reid will need the left’s help in what’s shaping up to be a tough reelection bid.

This seems right. If the votes aren’t there, they aren’t there. The left was pressuring Reid to not allow a silent filibuster of its biggest health reform goal. “If Harry Reid Allows The Silent Filibuster, It’s All On Him,” Jane Hamsher warned at Firedoglake. Well, it looks like he won’t allow it. And the Democratic caucus may still filibuster itself—several “centrist” Democrats have certainly left that option open. But if Lincoln or Nelson or Mary Landrieu (D-La.) join a Republican filibuster to prevent health care reform from coming to a vote, you can bet that the left’s rage—and fundraising might—won’t be focused on beating up on poor old Harry Reid. It will be focused on the defectors.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate