The Sunday shows always help crystallize where the fight is going to start Monday morning, but last week they were pre-empted a bit by news from the Progressive Caucus planning to start whipping votes:
The leadership of the Congressional Progressive Caucus plans a "whip count" for early in the week to gauge the strength of their coalition, caucus members tell the Huffington Post. The whip team will also approach members of the Congressional Black, Hispanic, and Asian Pacific American Caucuses.
Democrats hold 256 seats in Congress and need 218 to pass a bill, meaning 39 progressives, voting together, could tank the legislation, assuming all Republicans vote nay.
The whip count will send a message to the administration, said CPC co-chair Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.): "Don't cut deals with some elements of our party or with some elements of the Republican Party without including the progressives in that discussion," he suggested. "So we're going to count our votes, see how many we have and that's the number we're going to indicate to both the leadership and the administration."
That move could be coming from the Progressive Block in response to Obama's reneging on the meeting that was supposed to have happened with key House Progressive leaders before his speech, particularly in light of the White House meeting with conservative Dem Senators. CPC co-chair Grijalva's response to being spurned in favor of the Senate "moderates"?
"We're going to continue to ask for that meeting," Grijalva told me, adding that he hopes it can happen next week. "Sequence and timing, one can say we're being dealt with last. But, and not to overblow the situation that we're in, passage in the House will have to go through progressive test."
"I'm not bothered," Grijalva added, before warning, "I would hope that the administration is wise enough not to cut a deal without us. It would be a mistake."
That message is bolstered by lines currently being drawn in the Senate, as the Maine Twins take an increasingly hard line against anything at all in healthcare reform that would create meaningful competition to the insurance industry. Olympia Snowe opined that the public option should be off the table, though "she could support a so-called 'trigger.'" She also said that the Baucus Debacle was going to produce co-ops, which have already been declared a non-starter among her Republican colleagues. Meanwhile, Susan Collins rejected even a trigger--she's so opposed to competition for the insurance industry that she even rejects it in a hypothetical form.
No Republican support for a viable public option? A handful of wishy-washy Dems (Feinstein, who has no excuses, Landrieu, and even Shaheen)? It's looking more and more like reconciliation is going to have to be the route the Senate goes. President Obama stressed yet again last night on Sixty Minutes that there are Republicans willing to work on this. Those hypothetical Republicans would be Snowe and Collins, and if I'm not mistaken, they've just removed themselves from any meaningful cooperation.
At the same time, the White House has been reinforcing the message of a public option
President Obama: I think one of the options should be a public insurance option. Let me clear. It would only be an option, nobody would be forced to choose it. No one with insurance affected by it. But what it would do is provide more choice and more competition. It would keep pressure on private insurers to keep the policies affordable, to treat their customers better. I mean think about it. It's the same way the public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students. That doesn't inhibit private colleges and universities from thriving out there. The same should be true on the health car e front. Minnesota, I have said I'm open to different ideas on how to set this up, but I'm not going to back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage we're going to provide you a choice.
Did you see that reaction to the words "I think one of the options should be a public insurance option"? There's little question that a great deal of enthusiasm on the part of the Democratic base relies on policy. So maybe it's sinking in with the White House that the public option is really popular. On Face the Nation yesterday, Axelrod reiterated it's necessity in stronger terms than he yet has:
Senior White House adviser David Axelrod said President Obama is "not willing to accept" that a so-called public option "is not going to be in the final package" of health-care legislation on "Face the Nation" Sunday.
"He continues to believe it's a good idea," Axelrod told CBS News Chief Washington correspondent and "Face the Nation" anchor Bob Schieffer about a government-funded alternative to private health insurance. "He continues to advocate it, and I'm not willing to accept that it's not going to be in the final package."
Axelrod said the president "believes that it will add an element of competition where there is none in some places in this country where there's a monopolistic situation with insurance companies."
If you take everyone on their word--House Progressives, Senate Republicans, and the White House (mealy-mouthed Senate Dems don't count in this calculation)--then it's hard so imagine how it all happens outside of reconciliation and remains what Obama said he knows it has to be last night on 60 Minutes--a bill that is worth doing:
I have no interest in having a bill get passed that fails. That doesn't work. I intend to be president for a while, and once this bill passes, I own it.
Seatbelts for this week folks, it's going to get really interesting.