Given this pronouncement by Kent Conrad, I expect that WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs will pronounce the health bills initiative over. After all, as Brian Beutler reports:

"The only way this works is for the House to pass the Senate bill and then, depending on what the package is, the reconciliation provision that moves first through the House and then comes here," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND). "That's the only way that works." I pointed out that House leadership has repeatedly said they won't take a flier on a reconciliation package--that they will only pass the Senate bill after the smaller side-car reconciliation bill has been all wrapped up.

"Fine, then it's dead," Conrad said.

(Emphasis supplied.) Apparently, in the words of Gibbs (when explaining why the Obama Administration opposes the public option now), "there isn't enough political support in a majority to get this through," so that's that. I mean it's not like the Obama Administration is willing to fight for anything here so what is there left to talk about. By Gibbs' reasoning, the health bills initiative is over. Better luck next time.

speaking for me only

Nate Silver endorses the White House strategy of depressing base voters going into the 2010 elections:

How close they could have gotten if Obama and Harry Reid had done everything in their power to whip the votes for it, we don't know. Instead, it's been pretty obvious, from the reporting of people like Ezra Klein and Jonathan Cohn, that the White House regarded the latest reincarnation of public option as a nuisance that they hoped would go away. But frankly, I think the White House is right on the politics of this. Yes, as public option proponents are fond of pointing out, the measure polls well in the isolate. But that's true of a lot of the individual components of the bill -- and the public option is not one of the most popular components, nor one of the ones that ordinary voters consider to be the most "important". The overall package fares poorly not because of concerns about the presence or absence of certain individual measures, but because people are exhausted and turned off by the process and have vague and ill-informed concerns about what the bill would do.

(Emphasis supplied.) Hilariously obtuse. I'll explain why on the flip.

Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) tells TPMDC that he plans to sign a letter urging Senate leadership to pass a public option via reconciliation. "I expect that I will" sign, Carper said. The letter, written by Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO), has been signed by 23 senators so far.

Carper is perceived as a moderate Dem. His signing of the letter would be a big deal, much like Diane Feinstein's joining the letter.

If this keeps up, Obama will clearly be seen as the obstacle to the inclusion of a public option.

Speaking for me only

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) is not budging on his opposition to the Senate health bill's provisions partially funding, through subsidies, private insurance that offers abortion services coverage:

[T]the President's proposal encompasses the Senate language allowing public funding of abortion. The Senate language is a significant departure from current law and is unacceptable. While the President has laid out a health care proposal that brings us closer to resolving our differences, there is still work to be done before Congress can pass comprehensive health care reform.

If Stupak carries enough votes with him, he can block the passage of a Senate health bill, even with a reconciliation fix. I've discussed this before, but one clear way of addressing the Stupak problem is to replace the subsidies and the exchanges with a further expansion of Medicaid. Remember, the Stupak Amendment is all about preventing subsidy monies from being used to fund private health insurance policies that cover abortion services. Expand Medicaid further, eliminate the subsidies and exchanges, expand the exemption from the individual mandate and you can eliminate the Stupak problem while still meeting the objectives of the current Senate bill. And all of this is doable with a reconciliation fix.

Speaking for me only

Sam Stein's report on Sen. Jay Rockefeller's reluctance to pass a public option through reconciliation has led to a lot of frustration. However, as is usual with Rockefeller, I think his statement not only does not make sense, it is also pretty squishy (he's not known as Jello Jay for nothing.) Rockefeller said:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) [. . .] sa[id] that he thought the maneuver was overly partisan and that he was inclined to oppose it. "I don't think the timing of it is very good," the West Virginia Democrat said on Monday. "I'm probably not going to vote for that, although I'm strongly for the public option, because I think it creates, at a time when we really need as much bipartisan[ship] ... as possible. "

[MORE . . .]

Meteor Blades correctly pointed out that former Vice President Dick Cheney confessed to a war crime when he said "I was a big supporter of waterboarding." As I have written earlier, you can argue that we should be committing war crimes against suspected terrorists, but you can not deny that Dick Cheney has confessed to a war crime. Unless you are the AP's Ron Fournier. Meteor Blades details Fournier's inability to report fats. Fournier wrote "Whatever one might think of Cheney's interrogation policies, the former vice president has never been charged with a war crime, much less confessed to one."

Actually, whatever one might think of Cheney's interrogation policies, which included waterboarding, the one fact that is clear is that Cheny confessed to a war crime when he stated his role in the adoption of waterboarding as US policy. Because Cheney has not (and will not) be charged with committing war crimes, does not mean he has not confessed to them. Stalin was never charged with war crimes either. Does anyone doubt he committed them? Perhaps Ron Fournier.

Speaking for me only

Evan Bayh bylines an insipid NYTimes Op-Ed that bemoans the alleged rise of "partisanship" in the Congress. (Jefferson and Adams would likely be surprised that party politics is of recent vintage.) The funniest part of the piece to me was this anecdote:

While romanticizing the Senate of yore would be a mistake, it was certainly better in my father’s time. My father, Birch Bayh, represented Indiana in the Senate from 1963 to 1981. A progressive, he nonetheless enjoyed many friendships with moderate Republicans and Southern Democrats. One incident from his career vividly demonstrates how times have changed. In 1968, when my father was running for re-election, Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader, approached him on the Senate floor, put his arm around my dad’s shoulder, and asked what he could do to help. This is unimaginable today.

(Emphasis supplied.) Bayh does not report what his father's answer was to Dirksen but the obvious one would be this - don't run a Republican candidate against me. It is truly ridiculous. More . . .

Newsweek poll:

Creating a government-administered public health insurance option to compete with private plans
50 APPROVE 42 OPPOSE 8 DK

Imposing a tax on insurers who offer the most expensive health plans, the so-called Cadillac plans, to help pay for health care reform
34 APPROVE 55 DISAPPROVE 11 DK

To be clear, this is the lowest approval for the public option I have seen. Perhaps because it was perceived as dead. No party breakdowns on that finding. But the excise tax has always polled badly and will continue to. There was a good reason Obama pilloried McCain's plan to tax health insurance plans - because it is a terribly unpopular idea.

Speaking for me only

On Thursday, when asked about the Bennett letter pushing Senate Leader Harry Reid to offer the public option through reconciliation, Senate Whip Dick Durbin's office told the Huffington Post that Durbin "has a policy of not signing on to letters sent to leadership since, after all, he's a member of leadership." However, Senator Charles Schumer, who is also in the Senate Leadership, and the Majority leader himself have come out in support of the Bennett letter. Reid released this statement:

"If a decision is made to use reconciliation to advance health care, Senator Reid will work with the White House, the House, and members of his caucus in an effort to craft a public option that can overcome procedural obstacles and secure enough votes."

What explains Durbin's reluctance to publically support the public option through reconciliation? Cynical minds will note that Durbin is especially close to the White House, and will further note that the White House will not include the public option in its proposal to be unveiled next week. Since I only possess a cynical mind, I do not know what an uncynical mind might think.

Speaking for me only

Senator Specter's folks sent out an e-mail last night that said:

Senator Specter announced today that he will sign Sen. Bennet's letter supporting a public option through the use of reconciliation.

I do not know what that brings the number to, but there must be at least 30 sure votes for this in the Senate. Are there 50 votes? I have no idea. But I think it will get interesting if the number on the record exceeds the 41 GOP votes in the Senate. I'll be curious how the "bipartisanship" argument works when you have an objective that over 70% of Democrats in Congress want ignored in favor of the desire of 41 GOP Senators. Another flash point is what the White House will put in its proposal next week. They'll definitely take some heat when the public option is not included and the excise tax is.

Speaking for me only

Ezra Klein thinks the revival of the public option could kill the chances for a health bill this year. His analysis is impenetrable in my opinion. But I am actually struck by something different -- Ezra Klein never seems concerned that the excise tax is going to kill the health bills period. And not once has Ezra raised any concern about the fallout of the excise tax. Indeed, he has been a big proponent of it despite the political poison that it is.

I think this is fairly easy to explain -- Ezra does not mind the public option, but he really loves the excise tax. Of course, I am just the opposite. But the reality is the reality. There are lots and lots and lots of people on the record opposing the excise tax. Not so many opposing the public option.

The available on the record evidence is that the excise tax is the much heavier lift than the public option. Indeed, I would posit that the only way to save the excise tax is with the addition of a public option. When will the Villagers start worrying about the political problem the excise tax causes? My prediction is never - because they really love that excise tax.

Speaking for me only

I wondered why no one had made this argument proferred by Matt Yglesias:

Given the level of liberal discomfort with the excise tax, the best policy option available would be for progressives to get their way on the public option (where progressives are right) and centrists to get their way on the tax question (where centrists are right) then you’d have an excellent bill.

Forgetting about the policy judgments Yglesias makes, such a political deal could make sense. The Senate bill has no constituency outside the Beltway and a fierce opponent of its excise tax in labor. The public option could rally progressive support for the health bills even in the face of labor opposition to the excise tax. Would it work? I don't know but at least it seems plausible.

Speaking for me only