On Wednesday afternoon, Olympia Snowe told MSNBC's David Shuster and Tamron Hall that she has personally asked President Obama to remove any mentions of the public option from his speech to Congress.
Snowe said she wanted the president to take the public option "off the table" because doing so "would allay the concerns of so many of whether or not there's a government takeover." Snowe added, "The point is, I don't support a public option, and none of my Republican colleagues do."
(Snowe echoed her comments to MSNBC in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash.)
So here's the question: how in the world can Olympia Snowe be negotiating in good faith if she is demanding that the public option be taken off the table while simultaneously peddling false taking points about a government takeover of health care?
Snowe claims that she supports a "trigger," but when she says that she is absolutely against the public option, why in the world should we believe that she would ever agree to a trigger that could actually lead to a public option?
Moreover, in the unlikely event that Snowe would actually accept a trigger with teeth, it's still not a good idea. The reason we're having this debate in the first place is that the health insurance industry is already doing a bad job. The metaphorical trigger was pulled a long time ago.
That's why most Americans want to see health care reform, and they want it to include a public option. It's up to Congress to deliver, and it should be obvious that Olympia Snowe isn't interested in playing a helpful role in that effort.
Update (3:42PM, by Jed): Despite Snowe's demands, all indications are that President Obama will in fact defend the public option, although he will not insist on it's inclusion in the final bill. Early excerpts of the speech don't include references to the public option, but those are just excerpts. The final speech will almost certainly include a defense of it, along with an acknowledgment that there have been suggestions for alternatives like co-ops and the trigger.