Note Reps. Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.), Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.), and Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Mass.), when the momentum on an issue is going your way, don't back down from your position. Now these guys aren't really the "key" progressives that this Roll Call story would have them be, but their hints that a trigger might be acceptable are really not helping.
This is a way to get a bill," Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) said. "I believe it’s worth listening to because I want legislation that is going to, in some shape or form, expand coverage and bring down the cost of health care."
Liberals stressed that the shift does not amount to an abandonment of their commitment to a "robust" public insurance option. They said they would only support a trigger if that approach guaranteed the same access, quality and affordability.
"I don’t want to give the impression that I’m so flexible that I’m willing to compromise away meaningful reform," Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said. "But there may be a variety of ways of getting there than the one I originally formulated in my mind."
...
"We’re the caucus that least marches to a unified drummer — that’s not what we do," Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Mass.) said. "I’m serious about increasing access and quality, but that doesn’t mean it has to be a grand slam home run. I’ll take a ground-rule double if that’s what it takes. I’m happy to compromise if that’s what it takes. But compromise is compromise — it’s not rolling over."
This is the caucus that most needs to march to a unified drummer in this debate, particularly now that they've been able to turn it by forcing a response from the White House that they are not backing off of the public option. Now is the time to push that advantage, if they truly want meaningful, comprehensive reform. The alternative is to cede the power of their very large voting bloc to the smaller Blue Dog caucus on this, and on every issue moving forward.
The story brought a quick response from caucus chair Rep. Raul Grijalva, e-mailed to Greg Sargent:
Dem Rep. Raul Grijalva, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is issuing a strong rebuke to fellow liberals who may be inclined to accept a compromise involving a public option "trigger," saying it would amount to waving a "white flag" and "a surrender."
...Grijalva said that most House progressives would in fact stand firm and still vote against a bill with a trigger:
"The vast majority of CPC is not prepared to wave a white flag on public option. A trigger would be a surrender."
If the "vast majority" of the five dozen or so House progressives did vote against the bill, as Grijalva vows they would, it wouldn’t pass.
Also noteworthy: Grijalva’s description of a trigger as "surrender" leaves liberals no wiggle room to support it. When it comes to the trigger, House progressive leaders are refusing to budge.
Note, that as of last Thursday, Speaker Pelosi was backing the House progressive leaders, saying "A bill without a strong public option will not pass the House. Eliminating the public option would be a major victory for the insurance companies who have rationed care, increased premiums and denied coverage."
House progressives, if they really want the best that they can get out of this reform effort, need to follow their leaders on this one.