So why didn't Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) or Ron Wyden (D-OR) vote against the Baucus bill in the Finance Committee?
We know the merger process could have gone on even without the Finance Committee reporting the bill out. The only difference would have been a day or two of negative media stories which, while annoying, would ultimately have to be swept aside by the reality that merger negotiations were going forward regardless. You can't tell me Politico and the Post ignore it when Reid, Baucus, Dodd and the White House (and Snowe) sit down, no matter what may have happened in the committee.
And if it goes to reconciliation? Not much different. If the Finance Committee can't manage to report, the full body of the Senate can recommit the reconciliation package with instructions to report it back "forthwith" with an amendment that would substitute for the necessary but missing language.
So either way, there's a knowable path to exactly the same place. In neither direction does the failure of the committee by itself derail the process. Mean things about you in the paper? Yes. Death of health insurance reform? No.
So why didn't any of the public option supporters vote their conscience in committee? Oh, I suppose they might have. It's entirely possible that in the final analysis, they were more concerned with passing something like eliminating preexisting condition exclusions than with getting everything they wanted out of it. But then again, this wasn't the final analysis, was it? There are still the floor votes on amendments, passage, and then in all likelihood, the conference report after that. That being the case, why not vote no if you're unhappy and feel like you were screwed in the process?
Answer: because it was expected of all Democrats that they'd pitch in, be team players, and let the process move forward.
I'm sorry, what's that? Do what? Can you repeat that back to me, Evan Bayh? Joe Lieberman? Ben Nelson? Mary Landrieu?
Well, Senator Bayh?
"It’s not fair to ask people to facilitate the enactment of policies with which we ultimately disagree," said moderate Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.). "So the closer we get to the end of the process, the more, for me, the process and policy will be one and the same."
Oh, wow! Look at that! Man, that's, like, the complete opposite of what I thought you were gonna say there!
But yeah, you read it right. When it's time to pass conservative bullshit legislation "to keep the process moving," progressives are expected to take one for the team. But when it comes time to pass legislation that the majority of the caucus supports, but it's more liberal, guess what? Conservatives want progressives to take another for the team.
And everyone expects that they will, too. Even if it means going back on everything they said they would stand firm on in this bill. And all in the name of "moving the process forward."
Gosh, isn't that just so interesting how that works?
One day, if progressives want to be taken seriously in this game, it's going to have to change.