9/30: Down, But Not Defeated

Although the netroots expected the Senate Finance Committee to reject the public option amendments being offered by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Nelson Rockefeller (D-WV), they're still upset about it. Liberal bloggers are particularly angry at the three Dems who voted against both amendments: Max Baucus (D-MT), Kent Conrad (D-ND), and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR). David Dayen writes: "Now we know which Democrats want to protect the insurance industry at the expense of people."

That said, liberal bloggers don't believe that the public option's prospects are nearly as bleak as some observers are suggesting. Because Sens. Tom Carper (D-DE) and Bill Nelson (D-FL) both voted in favor of the more cautious public option proposed by Schumer, liberal bloggers are confident that at least 50 senators are willing to vote for a bill that includes this type of provision. The big question, then, is whether any Dems would join the GOPers in filibustering a bill that includes a Schumer-type public option. Lefty bloggers are warning Dems that they would consider such a move "tantamount to mutiny".

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Lewison, Benen, Steven D, Aravosis) are criticizing Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) for calling Pres. Obama "an enemy of humanity" and urging Obama to release his birth certificate. Meanwhile, conservative bloggers (Allahpundit, Erickson) are criticizing Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) for declaring: "If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly."
• Liberal bloggers (Kurtz, Morrill, Dayen, Benen, Yglesias) are mocking Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) for arguing that U.S. health care is superior to European health care "if you take out gun accidents and auto accidents."
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Jessup, Morrissey) continue to criticize Obama for traveling to Denmark in order to support Chicago's bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics.

HEALTH CARE REFORM: You Call Yourselves Democrats?

Although liberal bloggers expected the Senate Finance Committee to reject Schumer's and Rockefeller's public option amendments, they're still angry at the Dems who voted against those amendments:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Why are 'fiscally conservative' Dems and Republicans opposing a money-saving public option?"
• Open Left's David Sirota: "In case you were looking for a good, succinct mathematical example of what corruption really looks like, consider this: (1.) The latest poll shows two-thirds of Americans back a robust public option. (2.) Two-thirds of the Senate Finance Committee just voted down a robust public option. I'd say that just about sums it up: On issues of economic and corporate power, you can basically take the majority percentage of public support for a given measure and expect to get that many Senate votes against it."
• Oliver Willis: "So, 5 Democrats voted with the Republicans against the Rockefeller public option. Good job. In 2006 and 2008 people circled around the Democrats in congress to give them their majority to make reform in America. In the realm of health care, they've taken the ball to the 20 yard line then took a knee. In 2012, we'll be on the front lines advocating for President Obama's second term. But next year, the Senate Dems are well-on the path of telling us to stay home."

Lefty bloggers mocked the logic employed by Baucus, who repeatedly claimed that even though he personally supported a public option, he felt compelled to vote against it because it wouldn't receive 60 votes in the full Senate:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "Max Baucus is a tool. 'We can't get 60 votes for a public option so I have to vote against it.' Well, gee, Max, maybe if you voted for it and actually worked for it, you could get your fellow ConservaDems on board. You failed, Max. On more levels than we've even been able to count."
• dday: "It's the 'innocent bystander' theory of government. Why, if only a Senator like Max Baucus had a vote on the bill, surely it could attract the necessary votes!"
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "I would love for Rockefeller to vote No on [the final Finance Committee bill] and intone, in open mockery of Baucus, that he is voting no on the bill because it does not have 60 votes."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Baucus proves over and over that he's really a fool. It's pathetic that the White House gave him so much control over the process -- and [WH CoS] Rahm Emanuel and [WH aide] Jim Messina did give Baucus way too much power."

Liberal bloggers also criticized Conrad:

• Big Tent Democrat: "While Max Baucus continues to look like a fool, the smoke has certainly cleared on Kent Conrad - he is a vehement opponent of a public option and always has been. All his protestations to the contrary, in the words of Don Corleone, it was always Conrad."
• mcjoan: "One thing that that's clear from today's Finance Committee votes on the public option: Kent Conrad is the problem for the Dems. He provided the cover today for Lincoln, who was virtually invisible, to vote against the Schumer 'level playing field' public option that would have done away with Conrad's supposed problem with Rockefeller's amendment -- that it was tied to Medicare rates. If that was truly Conrad's big problem with the bill, he should have had no problem with Schumer's bill."

HEALTH CARE REFORM II: Give Us An Up-Or-Down Vote!

Even though the Finance Committee rejected Schumer's and Rockefeller's amendments, liberal bloggers are still hopeful that the final Senate bill will include a public option -- assuming that no Dems join the GOPers in filibustering it:

• digby: "Carper and Nelson flipped on the Shumer public option amendment, leaving only Conrad, Lincoln and Baucus voting against it. This is good news believe it or not. It indicates that there are 51 votes for a public option in the senate. The question most certainly is whether or not the president can change their minds. And frankly, if he doesn't have enough juice to at least hold them together for one cloture vote then I have to wonder if he has any real juice at all. Every one of these corporate lackeys can vote against the final bill if they dare. Assuming they can bring Byrd in to do it, all they need to do is break a Republican filibuster and 'allow an up or down vote.'"
• mcjoan: "Progressives in the Senate need to take a page from their House colleagues. Tell [Senate Maj. Leader] Harry Reid and Max Baucus that there aren't 60 votes for public option-less bill. There are certainly more Democrats who support the public option than who do not. With that strong majority, Reid has no excuse not to be an enforcer over breaking a filibuster."
• Big Tent Democrat: "Finance is going to report a no-PO bill but then Senate leadership has to merge it with the HELP bill. The ConservaDems will threaten not to vote for cloture. Will Reid call their bluff? What if PO supporters start making the same threat? All it takes is 1 or possibly 2. If Senate leadership reports a PO-included bill to the floor, then the PO game is won. If it is not, then we should whip Progressives in the Senate to filibuster it (just like the Progressive Caucus in the House.)"
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "It is all up to the White House now. If it pushes for a public option to be included in the health care bill sent to the Senate floor, then a public option will pass as part of health care reform (at that point, all we would need are 60 votes for cloture, and from what I hear we have 57 already). However, if it allows a health care bill to go to the floor without a public option, it is pretty unlikely that a public option will pass as part of health care reform."

BooMan: "The ideal situation from a parliamentary point of view is to include the HELP version of the public option in the base bill, and then force the opponents to strip it out with an amendment. But that might not work out for the best. For example, if the Senate has a knock-down drag-out fight over the public option and defeats it, it will be harder to get them to turn around and support it if it comes back at them in the Conference Report. The liberal majority in the Senate Democratic Caucus might be better served to save their ammunition. Pass whatever can pass without a lot of fuss and then fight like hell to include the House's public option in the Conference Report. I could go either way on the strategy. The most important thing is that the progressives in the House hold firm in their pledge to vote against a Conference Report that doesn't have a public option. They must make sure it is included in the House bill and they must prevail for its inclusion in the Report."

Not every liberal blogger is impressed by Schumer's public option, however. FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver writes:

"Preventing the public option from charging Medicare rates may weaken it as much as adding a trigger. Nelson and Carper, who had indicated they'd support a public option only if it included a trigger, voted for the trigger-less version from Schmuer. This may reflect a point I had made a couple of weeks ago: it's not clear to me that a Schumer-type public option which lacks a trigger but must abide by 'level playing field' provisions is any better than one that contains a trigger but could charge Medicare rates if it were enacted."

HEALTH CARE REFORM III: Who Says We Need 60 Votes?

Liberal bloggers were surprised -- and worried -- when Schumer said, "We don't have the 60 votes on the floor for the public option":

• The Washington Post' Ezra Klein: "There are two questions here. The first is '60 votes for what?' Do they not have 60 votes in favor of a health-care plan that includes a public option? Or do they not have 60 votes against a filibuster of a health-care plan that includes a public option? If it's the former, that's okay: You only need 51. If it's the latter, that's a bigger problem. But I'd be interested to hear which Democrats will publicly commit to filibustering Barack Obama's health-care reform bill. If that's such a popular position back home, why aren't more Democrats voicing it loudly?"
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Chuck Schumer and Max Baucus just said that there were not 60 votes for the public option in the Senate. The Public Option doesn't need 60 votes. It needs 51. That is, unless the GOP filibusters it. What Baucus and Schumer are saying -- explicitly -- is that there are Democrats who would support a GOP filibuster to keep the public option from having an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. They are saying that there are Democrats who would vote with the GOP to block a vote on something that the President says he supports -- a public option. That is a very serious charge. It's tantamount to party treason. Schumer and Baucus need to say who these members are immediately."

Liberal bloggers are warning Dem senators who oppose a public option not to join a GOP filibuster of a bill that includes a public option:

• Atrios: "The real test will be when Dems do or don't filibuster a good health care bill or amendments. I'll be rooting for any of those who do to lose. If 60 votes doesn't mean shit, then... who needs'em."
• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "The big question [is]: would any Democrat not vote to bring about cloture for the up-or-down vote to happen? I would consider such a thing tantamount to mutiny. Is there a precedent for such a thing happening?"
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "[C]onsider two separate questions. One is if there's a health care bill on the Senate floor that does not feature a public option and an amendment is brought to the floor to add one, are there 60 votes to break a filibuster and pass the amendment? Another question is whether if you brought a bill to the floor which included a public option, would Democrats filibuster the overall bill? Those are separate things. To say 'I'm against such-and-such' is not equivalent to saying 'I'm against any bill that includes such-and-such.' Obviously you can't get 60 people to each get their way on each and every provision of health care. Is Blanche Lincoln so hostile to a public option that she would filibuster a massive health care package she otherwise likes just to avoid it?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: 2009's Results Can Have A Big Impact On 2010's Recruitment

NRO's Jim Geraghty:

"I had heard a version of this statistic, but wanted to find the precise numbers: '51 of the 74 Republican freshmen who won House seats in 1994, when the GOP won control of Congress, signed on as candidates in the two weeks following the election of Republican governors in Virginia and New Jersey in 1993.'

That was the year Christie Whitman and George Allen won (along with Rudy Giuliani as mayor of New York); one wonders how many potential Republican candidates will be willing to make it official if, 35 days from now, we're talking about Governor-elect Chris Christie and Governor-elect Bob McDonnell? And how many will hesitate a bit if Jon Corzine and/or Creigh Deeds pull off come-from-behind victories?"

LEST WE FORGET: Pepsi To Cease Advertising

From The Onion:

"PURCHASE, NY -- PepsiCo sent shockwaves through the carbonated beverage industry Monday when the multibillion dollar corporation announced that it would cease all advertising of its popular soda product, effective immediately.

'We know it's good, and everyone's pretty happy with the overall taste, so why spend all our time worrying about what other people think?' PepsiCo CEO Indra K. Nooyi told reporters during a press conference at the company's corporate headquarters. 'Frankly, it just feels sort of weird and desperate to put all this energy into telling people what to drink. If they don't like it, then they don't like it.' [...]

Executives then released a statement to shareholders declaring that PepsiCo is now 'what it should have been all along: a company that just makes soda, and doesn't get caught up in trying to make everyone like it.'"