Yes rumors continue to swirl about President Obama's tactical preferences for pushing health care reform through Congress this year. Some believe that Obama is playing 11 dimensional chess which will ultimately result in getting the strongest Public Option possible under the current political circumstances. Opposing voices worry that Obama is now protecting special interests and/or centrist Senators that he cut deals with earlier in this process, so therefor he prefers a watered down version, possibly "a trigger".
More in the realm of speculation below, but first some facts:
- President Obama has never changed his tune regarding his support for "a public option". He believes health care reform needs mechanisms to control costs, force competition, and keep private insurers "honest." He thinks a public option is the best way to achieve those objectives but he is open to considering all ideas for doing so.
- President Obama is now actively engaged in the process of crafting the legislation that ultimately will be put to a vote in Congress. He is not now, if ever he was previously, sitting back patiently waiting for Congress to present him with their ideas for accomplishing his objectives.
- Uncertainty about President Obama's current tactical preferences extends beyond idle chatter on discussion boards like this, and it extends beyond media coverage of the health care debate also. Members of Congress, Democrats included, who ultimately must vote on the final legislation are uncertain of which specific approach the President most favors and how strongly he prefers it.
In regards to President Obama's unchanged support for a public option, including clear denials issued by White House spokespersons that he is not in any way backing off from that support, the key lies in Obama's original and consistent position. None of the varied reported things that Obama is said to have told Democratic leadership in Congress this week contradicts that long held position. I repeat, NONE of those alleged reports are at odds with Obama's consistent views on health care reform. Obama is not now nor has he ever "backed away" from a public option, but there would be ample opportunity for him to claim that legislation dictating that a Public Option be offered to Americans IF it is shown that private insurers are not capable of providing the solutions America needs would in fact be legislation supportive of a Public Option.
Much has been said about the strategy session held at the White House on Thursday where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is reported to have told the President that he was leaning toward including a triggerless public option with an opt out for states that want it in the bill that will be brought to the Senate floor for debate. Some unattributed sources report that the President expressed a preference for moving forward in the Senate with a trigger proposal instead. Others report that the President instead just commented that "I hope you know what you're doing" in regards to pushing the opt out version over a trigger. Finally some have said that President Obama signaled he will rally support for whichever version rounds up 60 votes first, and I haven't heard of any denials issued by anyone regarding that part.
Whatever Obama is reported to have said or not said at that meeting, the fact that it was held is obvious evidence of Obama's involvement in the nitty gritty aspects of the process at this stage, that and the fact that his Chief of Staff and Cabinet members have sat in on the meetings being held by Democratic Senate leaders to craft the bill that will get presented for a vote. If anyone wants to debate that assertion, we can do so below.
Which brings me to my third assertion of fact, and to the title of this OP; The Problem with a Race to 60 Votes. It's not simply that some political blogs ranging from left to right, from Huffington to Politico, report a suspected Obama bias for moving forward with a trigger proposal in the Senate. Back it up from that brink, a suspicion that Obama is actually pulling for one specific approach, and view this "controversy" instead as minimally more evidence of uncertainty, at this relatively late stage, over what approach Obama prefers.
It is highly dubious that any sane Democratic political source would be willing to go officially on record with an assertion that President Obama is the guy riding the brake pedal against faster movement toward real health care reform. So "un named" sources are a little harder to push out of mind in a political scenario such as this than might otherwise be the case. Actual leaks afterall are part of how even well connected people, foes AND friends, in Washington sometimes attempt to force an Administration's hand. It all feeds into an atmosphere of uncertainty regarding TACTICALLY how Obama wants Congress to proceed on health care reform now.
It is an uncertainty that Obama can choose to clear up anytime he wants to. Just like he has always nuanced his support for his professed first choice toward achieving his health care reform goals in the first place; a Public Option, the President can do so regarding his preference for a specific Senate approach now. This is a man, afterall, with excellent communications skills. It would not be difficult for President Obama to craft a statement, if he wanted to, that encouraged those seeking to include a non-triggered Public Option in the Senate bill while still expressing an appreciation that some may have principled concerns regarding that approach that would lead them to prefer a different route to reach the same ultimate end; quality affordable health care for all Americans. And, just like Obama has repeatedly stressed regarding health care reform in general, he could then purposely leave the door open to accepting that some other approach, a "trigger" or whatever, might be included in the Senate Bill instead.
Here is why Obama's perceived stance on all of this means so much now. Uncertainty carries a very strong conservative bias. Whenever the hunt for 60 Senate votes is talked about, the same few names predominantly occupy center stage as potential hold outs to reaching that magic number, and those are the public option "skeptics". Those are the relative handful of Democratic caucus Senators who repeatedly have expressed varying degrees of opposition to the overwhelming majority sentiment in the Democratic caucus for the inclusion of a Public Option in health care reform legislation.
Experience on this subject has already shown us that only very strong pressure focused on these holdouts causes them to ever so slightly undig in their heals from using their essentially veto like powers to block a public option from inclusion in legislation. The Public Option has long been branded as Obama's baby, his preferred way forward. His opinion matters. A lot. The President risks sending a signal to the Senate hold outs by NOT actively encouraging Harry Reid's trial balloon for an opt out rather than a trigger approach to achieving a Public Option. He risks encouraging the hold outs by giving them reason to believe that not only can their intransigence be rewarded by victory on this matter, but that they may be shielded from the wrath of other Democrats by the President himself if they simply hold firm to their opposition to an "opt out proposal" now.
The last time a Senator sitting in the Democratic caucus faced real consequences for breaking with the overwhelming majority of that caucus on a key party loyalty issue was when Joe Lieberman campaigned for John McCain. Lieberman escaped those consequences then in large part because President Obama provided him with political cover. Minimally now it will be far more difficult for Senate Majority leader Harry Reid to twist enough Senate arms to reach the magic 60 vote threshold to include an opt out version of the public option into the Senate Bill because of the President's silence in support of it, making it easier for the trigger to win the race to 60 by default.