I asked Claire McCaskill, on twitter, this morning the following:
Can you give a plausible explanation for preferring a weak bipartisan health care bill to a strong partisan version?
She didn't answer, of course.
There IS no plausible reason for a Democrat to ignore a large majority of her constituents, and an even larger number of her Democratic constituents on this issue. Yet here we are. Just getting an up or down vote on a bill containing a public option is apparently an extraordinary challenge.
In fact, if the Democrats pass legislation that simultaneously expands health care coverage, improves its quality, lowers costs, and, most importantly, frees American workers from basing their employment decisions on access to health care, many many voters will be pleased to support them. If the Democrats pass this legislation with no Republican support, then there will be no question about who cares about both health care access for Americans and fiscal responsibility, because the public option is both the best alternative for providing health care, and the best alternative for lowering health care costs. (See Y's jaw dropping chart on just how out of whack our system of for profit gatekeepers is with the rest of the world.)
Moreover, it is, in my Cheetos stained pajamas opinion, very unlikely that a bill with the public option in it would pass without any Republican votes. There are 18 Republican Senate seats up in 2010. Does John McCain really want to run on a platform opposed to health care reform, in a state where nearly one in five is uninsured? Do you think Martinez not running is unrelated to this issue, in his state where one in five are not covered? A bill with a public option would definitely pass; Democrats could not vote against it given the polling data. So there is no reason for a Republican Senator to risk his or her seat over the issue.
In fact, this could be the issue that cracks the GOP caucus.
So.....
Why aren't the Democrats playing hardball? Why are they "spineless" or needlessly "caving"? Why all this bipartisan ("date rape" when Republicans are in power) whinging?
I read, at the Washington Monthly, in diaries, in comments, on twitter lamentations like this.
They aren't caving. They aren't pursuing bipartisanship. They are looking at Billy Tauzin's and Tom Daschele's career arc.
Jane's right.
Whip it. Whip it good. It is not about spines, it is about accountability. Not to mention graft.
[update: dumbass double reference to the Washington Monthly (which I love) corrected]