The Problem with a Race to 60 Votes

[Tom Rinaldo]

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:

1) 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.

2) 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.

3) 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.

[Tom Rinaldo]

1. So, are any of the Unreccers willing to take on the substance of this OP?

Unreccing alone has all of the precision of high altitude bombing. Safe and sterile with no need for any personal involvement.

Unreccing WITH an explanation I respect.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JeffR]

7. And the GDP Hothouse Hyperbole Award of the Day goes to...

[Aramchek]

17. this is pure conjecture based on selective belief of rumors

and a healthy dose of you telling us how Obama thinks

Would you like to make a bet right now that there will be a PO w/ Opt Out in the final bill, and that Obama will support it?
I say he will support and sign it into law.

I'll wager a $50 DU donation.

Up for it?

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. Thanks for commenting

Actually though I didn't selectively state a belief in any rumor. I acknowledged that there was a range of rumors but all I asserted is that uncertainty exists and that uncertainty has consequences. I also said little about what Obama thinks. What statement that I actually made about what Obama thinks do you find fault with?

I have no douvt that Obama will support the final bill with our without an opt out. I am guardedly optomistic about an opt out rather than a trigger being in it. If so Obama will deserve a great deal of credit, but perhaps Harry Reid will deserve more credit than many of us might have expected to give him.

But I really do appreciate your responding.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Is your 60 vote conversation in reference to the Senate vote to get the bill to conference,

or are you speaking about the final bill coming out of conference
and what it will need to get passed on the Senate floor as the final bill/vote?

Because one needs 60 votes to get it to conference;
while the other one, the final one, only need 60 votes to invoke Cloture,
and 51 votes to pass the bill.

Which one are you referring to? :shrug:

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. Right now it's in reference to getting it to conference

Although I also think it is relevent to how strongly Senate conferees argue to counter the House version once it gets to conference. I think the point I am making is not exclusive to one or the other scenario. I discussed IMO how Obama can frame his preference without handcuffing the Senate to it for their first vote.

[FrenchieCat]

6. I think that Obama isn't planning on staking his political capital on the first vote.....

I think he is concentrating on the final vote,
and is only interested in getting 60 votes to get the initial bill
to conference.....

Because we both know that if the bill doesn't have 60 votes on the senate floor initially,
than the rest doesn't matter.

I believe that Obama isn't interested in principle so much
with that initial senate bill......as much as he is interested in its form coming out of
conference, when the bill cannot be amended, and only needs cloture and then 51 votes.

I think the difference between many here,
and Pres. Obama's approach is that....
the President is being Pragmatic about politics,
while many are stuck on the principle of what is in each bill,
no matter where in the process it is,
and want what they think should be in each bill, regardless that
any and all that they want can be adjusted in conferece.

I prefer Obama's approach, because principles doesn't necessarily get a bill through....
as we have witnessed over and over again......a good bill that goes to die.
See Bill Clinton on that example......him and his veto pen of the 1993 health care debate.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. I do see your point Frenchie

A wholistic strategy is needed because all that matters in the end is where this all ends up. But I don't think my observations fall outside of the realm of pragmatic politics. What ultimately comes out of the conference committee will in substantial part be effected by what goes into it; i.e. the Senate and House versions that initially get passed. For example, if both the Senate and the House pass versions of legislation that reject the trigger approach to a public option, a trigger can not emerge from that conference. And if a triggerless Public Option comes out of Conference, than centrists will need to muster 60 votes to prevent passage of a bill with it in it; essentially impossible at that point if Reid was able to get his caucus in line to back him on the opt out in the first place.

So there is much potentially to be gained by getting the opt out rather than a trigger into the initial Senate version if that is possible. Reid seemed to think that it is possible, and he has sat in that Senate a lot longer than Obama ever did. But to do so Reid needs to convince the hold outs that there will be no "get out of jail free" cards issued if they defect, and the perceived opinion of the President begins to loom large here.

Again, I think the same President that sold the nation on the fact that he strongly supports a Public Option approach but is willing to accept a different approach to reach his goal should be able to convince Congress that he strongly supports the opt out approach but is willing to accept a different approach to reach his goal. That is not the same as total nuetrality, not any more so than his overall stance on a public option is nuetral regarding that.

[FrenchieCat]

12. You glossing over an important point......

Does a senate bill with an "OP-Out" have a chance of passing as the initial bill?
Because if it doesn't, then your third sentence on in what you wrote won't matter......

You see, it is easy to make a statement of fact, that is not a statement of fact.....

That 3rd sentence of yours in your response? "What ultimately comes out of the conference committee...."

You are skipping the part of the 60 votes that we need to GET to conference......

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Not glossing it over

Harry Reid seemed to believe that it does from all reports and he is the elected leader of the Senate Democratic causus. He knows all of the players extremely well and consults with most of them virtually on a daily basis. And I'm talking about ways to increase the chance of it passing in the intitial bill beyond the chances that Reid initially assigned it. Furthermore I'm talking about actions that can be taken now to increase that chance before a final decision must be made as to what will be in the bill that goes to the Senate. In other words I am talking about what can be done to maximize the chances of the strongest bill passing the Senate before a final determination on that must be made. Nothing I talked about would chain the President or any other Democrat to a strategy that can not work.

[Clio the Leo]

16. "because principles doesn't necessarily get a bill through"

YAY!!!!! I now KNOW someone else gets it!!!! Thank you Frenchie!!!!

I am getting MIGHTY TIRED of the rhetorical boasting that insist the President adhere to some method that has no practical application.

"The Presidnet needs to man up!" ...... "Man up??" ...... seriously!? ......... are we playing basketball or trying to get a bill passed here?

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. Sometimes I gotta wonder

Why do I even bother to carefully spell out my thoughts on a complex matter in a nuanced manner when what I get back in return is a pablum response boiling it down to me having claimed "the President needs to man up!

If you agree with Frenchie why don't you try picking up on some of the points I made that she repeatedly failed to respond to? I credit her with at least commenting intelligently on some of them.

I wrote at length here about the practical applications of the point that I was making.

[Clio the Leo]

20. Look down the thread my friend....

.... none of what I said was directed at you love.

Now .... if you will excuse me .... you're interrupting me from REC'ING your thread. ;)

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. Oooops. My very bad. Thanks.

Now let me move down to your other post lickedly split :)

[Clio the Leo]

28. And for a point of clarification.....

..... I chose YOUR OP to let off a little steam NOT directed at you because I'd rather kick THIS thread than another thread that DID contain the BS to which I was referring. (I make a POINT of not posting in those even though I REALLY want to sometimes.) It's slightly twisted logic I know, but if a few more folks see what you and Frenchie wrote and see we can disagree w/out being disagreeable, then so be it. :)

[MarjorieG]

5. Excellent point that people confuse. Confusing strategic success with bully pulpit at this stage.

[FrenchieCat]

8. I think that many understand what I understand......

That the amendment process that comes along with the initial vote can bastardize that bill to where it is no longer recognized, and so Obama staking his presidency on that particular bill makes no political sense....

While the bill that goes into conference only must have certain elements in it;
elements that can be adjusted for the better (as far as we are concerned) in conference,
and then it cannot be challenged via amendments,
and then 60 votes are only required for Cloture,
and not for what's actually in the bill.

So conference makes more sense for Obama to flex his muscles....
and personally, I'm glad that he is the kind of leader
who has the patience of a Panther......
where he is stalk his prey, keep his eye on the prize,
no matter the constant speculative noise all around him.

That is how he will achieve our objective....
as opposed to becoming distracted at keeping everyone happy and smiling
throughout the entire process.

I'm glad he's our President for this exact reason....
his ability to wait things out to get what he wants in the end....
no matter those around him speculating as to what his agenda might be.....

Guess he's used to the 5 minutes of hate routine,
that he seems to have to put up with.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. There is a wide range of possible options that fall between

staking his Presidency on a particular version of a bill and not signalling a preference for any particualar version of a bill.

[FrenchieCat]

11. Guess this President would prefer not to give the opposition

any clear definition as to give them the time to come up with amendments and a PR Campaign carried out by their accomodating Corporate media to counter what he supports.

Guess Obama is strong enough to not mind being called weak, lacking courage, and not leading....
as long as in the end, he gets passed what he wanted to all along.

I'm glad he doesn't have a problem withstanding the 5 minutes of hate from those who "supposedly" support him in order to deliver what he said he would.

To me, that makes him a stronger leader than he will be given credit for
until the "after-the-fact" review is made.

Seems like he doesn't mind waiting it out...
Possibly because he is not as arrogant as
folks have speculated that he was.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. Almost sounds like you are calling me a "hater"...

...with plausible denyibility. This is a discussion board, not a workshop to write 30 second PR spots for a politician, even ones we admire. Sure Obama is great, do you also claim he, like the pope, is infallible?

I simply am not convinced that Were Obama to voice encouragement for the opt out provision that he would be empowering his adversaries to find new ways to thwart him. You may recall that Obama had no problem with saying something generally positive about Snowe's "trigger" idea, without committing himself to it. Just like he expressed generally positive things about the Public Option as a starting point without committing himself to that either.

Republicans will find ways of attacking Obama regardless, and they are not stupid. They have plans to oppose any possible route Obama and the Democrats might choose to achieve health care reform. The only thing they can not resist is 60 votes in favor of a bill. If Reid thinks he can get that for a stronger rather than weaker version there are ways for the White House to assist him. Even private ways. I hope Obama is doing just that. We have not seen any comments from anyone associated with progressive members of Congress to indicate that, but it doesn't mean he isn't.

Another thing. I also believe that Obama is secure enough in his self confidence that he doesn't mind the heat that comes with occupying the kitchen, and in fact I think he is skilled enough to know how to use that heat to cook a great meal. Democrats on DU have never shied away from making our feelings and concerns known to Democratic leaders, even those who we support. I seem to recall you writing something here about Obama using the FDR strategy of "go ahead, make me do it". If it wasn't you I apologize but some folks have. Obama does not need to be shielded from activist concerns, he can even use us behind the scenes to scare some centrists about the backlash the Democratic Party faces if it doesn't come through for America now.

[FrenchieCat]

21. I'm not calling you anything.

And I am not shielding anyone....
but providing my own take,
just as you and others are doing.

I give this President benefit of the doubt,
as he knows, and has said
that this bill will be identified with him
forever in the annals of history,
and I'm certain that his type of accountability,
is exactly why I give him the benefit....

I also think part of his strategy is that we continue debating
everything......

The more support we show for whatever it is,
the more likely this whatever it is will prevail...
regardless of the tactics in getting us there.

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. OK Frencbie, Thanks

I agree with everything you say in this post.

[Mass]

15. Can you explain this to me.

Except if Reid made another of these deals, both bills need 60 votes for procedural motions and 51 for a vote (well 50 + Biden if necessary).

The only difference is that the conference bill needs 60 votes for a cloture vote while the senate bill needs 60 votes both for a motion to proceed AND cloture.

But I may be missing something here. (I am not talking of the assumed reluctance of corporate Democrats to vote against cloture on the final bill, but not of senate bill. This I do not believe in).

The other point is that, the better the bill out of the Senate, the better it will be to have a decent bill out of conference.

There is no question that the Senate bill will be the floor, the House bill the ceiling. This is why it is so important that the Senate bill has a public option in it (and not a trigger).

[FrenchieCat]

24. .......

TayTay (1000+ posts) Mon Oct-19-09 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. How Conference Committee reports work
Edited on Mon Oct-19-09 05:28 PM by TayTay
Congressional Research Service
Report 96-708
Conference Committee and Related Procedures: An
Introduction
Elizabeth Rybicki, Government and Finance Division
November 6, 2007 Thank you Wikileaks!


The Senate usually considers a conference report by unanimous consent although, if necessary, a
Senator can make a non-debatable motion to consider it. The report may be called up at any time
after it is filed, but it is not in order to vote on the adoption of a conference report unless it has
been available to Members and the general public for at least 48 hours before the vote. (This
requirement can be waived by three-fifths of Senators duly chosen and sworn, or by joint
agreement of the Majority and Minority Leader in the case of a significant disruption to Senate
facilities or to the availability of the internet.) Under Senate rules, a report is considered to be
available to the general public if it is posted on a congressional website or on a website controlled
by the Library of Congress or the Government Printing Office.

When considered on the Senate floor, a conference report is debatable under normal Senate
procedures; it is subject to extended debate unless the time for debate is limited by unanimous consent or cloture, or if the Senate is considering the report under an expedited procedures established by law (such as the procedures for considering budget resolutions and budget reconciliation measures under the Budget Act). Paragraph 7 of Senate Rule XXVIII states that, if time for debating a conference report is limited (presumably by unanimous consent), that time shall be equally divided between the majority and minority parties, not necessarily between proponents and opponents of the report.

A point of order may be made against a conference report at any time that it is pending on the
Senate floor (or after all time for debate has expired or has been yielded back, if the report is
considered under a time agreement). If a point of order is sustained against a conference report on
the grounds that conferees exceeded their authority, either by violating the “scope” rule (Rule
XXVIII) or the prohibition against “new directed spending provisions”(paragraph 8 of Rule
XLIV), then there is a special procedure to strike out the offending portion(s) of the conference
recommendation and continue consideration of the rest of the proposed compromise.9

Under the procedure, a Senator can make a point of order against one or more provisions of a
conference report. If the point of order is not waived (see below), the presiding officer rules
whether or not the provision is in violation of the rule. If a point of order is raised against more
than one provision, the presiding officer may make separate decisions regarding each provision.
After all points of order raised under this procedure are disposed of, the Senate proceeds to
consider a motion to send to the House, in place of the original conference agreement, a proposal
consisting of the text of the conference agreement minus the provisions that were ruled out of
order and stricken.10 Amendments to this motion are not in order. The motion is debatable “under
the same debate limitation as the conference report.”11 In short, the terms for consideration of the
motion to send to the House the proposal without the offending provisions are the same as those
that would have applied to the conference report itself.

If the Senate agrees to the motion, the altered conference recommendation is returned to the
House in the form of an amendment between the houses. The House then has an opportunity to
act on the amendment under the regular House procedures for considering Senate amendments
discussed in earlier sections of this report.

Senate rules also create a mechanism for waiving these restrictions on conference reports.
Senators can move to waive points of order against one or several provisions, or they can make
one motion to waive all possible points of order under either Rule XXVIII or Rule XLIV,
paragraph 8. A motion to waive all points of order is not amendable, but a motion to waive points
of order against specific provisions is. Time for debate on a motion to waive is limited to one
hour and is divided equally between the majority leader and the minority leader, or their
designees. If the motion to waive garners the necessary support, the Senate is effectively agreeing
to keep the matter that is potentially in violation of either rule in the conference report. The rules further require a three-fifths vote to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair and limit debate on an appeal to one hour, equally divided between the party leaders or their designees. The purpose of these requirements is to ensure that either method by which the Senate could choose to apply or interpret these rules, through a motion to waive or through an appeal of the ruling of the Chair, requires a three-fifths vote of the Senate (usually 60 Senators). A simple majority cannot achieve the same outcome.

In the House, the conference report cannot be considered until three days after being filed, and
then only if the report and the joint explanatory statement have been printed in the Congressional
Record for the day it was filed. Copies of the report and the statement also must be available to
Representatives for at least two hours before they consider it. These availability requirements are
sometimes waived by a rule reported by the Rules Committee, and they do not apply during the
last six days of a session. Typically, the House calls up a conference report under the terms of a
special rule that protects the report against one or more points of order if the Rules Committee
reports and the House adopts a resolution waiving the applicable rules.

The House debates a conference report under the one-hour rule, with control of the hour equally
divided between the two parties. However, if both floor managers support the report, a
Representative opposed to it may claim one-third of the time for debate. At the end of the first
hour, the House normally votes to order the previous question, which precludes additional debate.
If Representatives could make points of order against a report, sometimes the House first
considers and agrees to a resolution, recommended by its Rules Committee, that protects the
report by waiving the points of order.

Conference reports are not amendable. Each report is a compromise proposal for resolving a
series of disagreements; the House prevails on some questions, the Senate on others. If the House
and Senate were free to amend the report, they might never reach agreement. At the end of
debate, therefore, each house votes on whether to agree to the report as a whole. However, the
house that considers the report first also has the option of recommitting it to conference. But
when one chamber agrees to the report, it automatically discharges its conferees. As a result, the
other house cannot vote to recommit because the conference committee has been disbanded.
If the House and Senate agree to the conference report, the bill is enrolled (printed on parchment
in its final form) and presented to the President for his approval or disapproval.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8707066&mesg_id=8707544

[Mass]

30. Exactly what I said. This does not answer my question.

Motion to cloture AND motion to proceed are both procedural votes that ask for 60 votes. The Senate bill and the Conference report, once these procedural measures are voted, all ask for 51 votes.

It is typically harder to get 60 votes for the cloture motion that it is for the motion to proceed (which literally prevents the bill to go to the floor and is seen as obstruction).

So, I stand by what I said. Either bill need 51 votes on it (and 60 on the previous motions that will try to prevent the vote) in order to pass.

[Clio the Leo]

19. I like your OP....

..... we need more like this.

But here's my question. You say...

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.

Are we presuming that just because the President isn't telling the public he backs an opt-out it must mean he's not saying this to the hold-outs privately? And if so, what makes you think this?

I suppose we could make the argument that if the President were to grandstand in favor of a stronger PO, he would embarrass the hold outs into supporting it. But "persuasion by embarrassment" has never seemed to be a tactic he's used.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. I'm really glad you asked that question

As you can probably guess from the length of my OP, I did a lot of rewriting and editing of it while I was composing it. Sometimes I find that the DU message box deletes whole phrases when I only intended to delete a word or two. Anyway your question just made me realize that happened with this OP without my realizing it.

The draft I was working on that I thought was still part of the final OP included one or two sentances that acknowledged that it was possible that Obama is giving clear private messages to key Senators about what he wanted which could include a preference for the Opt out in the Senate version. I also wrote that I have seen no comments made by progressive Democrats in Congress or their aids to indicate that Obama was sending out that type of message, but that doesn't prove he isn't. And I stated that I hope he is. I suspect that he hasn't because there is no one implying that he has and usually something bubbles up, but I concede that I don't know. If he has that's great and it would make most of what I wrote here moot. That would be fine with me.

I wasn't so much implying that Obama could/should embarrass centrist Democrats in public with his stated preferences, just saying that a head nod in one direction could serve a useful function. So could private communication, but given the number of blue dogs in both houses, private communication of that source risks leaks that would make it public anyway. So I thought even a gentle nod to one direction in public could cover the ground needed without boxing Obama in. Like I said in the OP, Obama obviously did not feel that praising Snowe and her proposals nailed him to a box of backing her ideas either.

[ProSense]

27. Public nod? Is the President allowed to work a strategy?

Seems to me people want it both ways. Obama has been accused of not having the fortitude of LBJ in strongarming Dems. Now that he's working behind the scenes, people want up-to-the-minute reports.

A public nod seems to be a cry for Obama to fill us in on exactly how he plans to woo Democrats to support his plan.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. The public, us included, has a role in this Democracy

I could care less how well informed he keeps me on strategy if the strategy he uses works, but that simple truth doesn't support a position that the public should just sit back and keep their mouths shut becaue for all we know our elected officials may always be doing a bang up job behind the scenes that we don't know about.

Don't you understand that I do not slam Obama, here or elsewhere? Sometimes I express this or that concern in the context of supporting his overall goals. There may be some who do come close to fitting some profile of an "Obama hater" but it would have to be a very broad profile to include me in it.

There is nothing that I would like more than to find out that Obama is working hand in glove with Harry Reid to get the strongest possible legislation out of the Senate into the Conference committee. But even if he is and no one is telling me and the rest of us DUers about it (and I know he doesn't owe it to us to tell us) sincere concerns expressed about issues he is addressing by the type of people he wants on his side in the long run do not hurt Obama. If they are in line with his true objectives they can actually serve to further empower him to press harder for concessions along the lines that he wants from waivoring allies.

Ultimately you can't have it both ways. You can't encourage the formation of an army of grass roots supporters of your causes who are willing to speak out on those causes but realistically expect them to remain mute when it comes to giving you feedback about their concerns also by simply repeating; Father knows best.

A good case can be made that Obama has always been trying to get the best legislation passed that is possible, but because of grassroots fears that the public option might be lost and our reaction to those fears, he is now in a position to get better legislation passed than even he thought possible a month ago.

[ProSense]

31. Yes, and nothing is stopping anyone from performing that role.

You said: "I wasn't so much implying that Obama could/should embarrass centrist Democrats in public with his stated preferences, just saying that a head nod in one direction could serve a useful function."

Which has nothing to do with the public's role in a democracy.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. Our instrument is perhaps not as sharp as a scalpel

We don't have the fine turned options available to us that a member of the inner circle does. I am blogging on a political blog, not advising the President in a private oval office meeting. I don't think our President is worried about the free expression of political thoughts on liberal blogs. His long term interests are best served by having us actively involved in commentary on American politics.

[ProSense]

33. You are throwing up straw men. No one said the President cares about the discussion in this thread.

No one said anything about prohibiting free expression. You made a point unrelated to freedom of expression, and I countered.

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. OK, let's regroup then

There are three options. One: The President is urging the Senate in private to support the opt out version of the Public Option and is helping Reid get 60 votes for that. Two: The President is instead attempting to influence the Senate to go with a "trigger" version of the Public Option. Three: The President is not attempting to influence to Race to 60 Votes that I refer to in the OP.

If the answer is number One than all my concern is misplaced, silly me. This is the only point you really commented on, the fact that the President is not giving a public indication of his preference, nor should he according to you. I pointed out that the President has said flattering public things about both Olypia Snowe's role in this reform effort, and of the trigger possiblilty as something worth considering. Has he made any specific positive public reference to the "opt out" version of the Public Option.

Here's the thing. I keep reading reports that the public option opt out plan is very near to getting the 60 votes it needs. Plus I note that some key centrist Senators started backtracking in their firm oppositon to it after Reid seemed to tip his hand. Plus no one has refuted reports that Reid thought he could get those 60 votes after meeting with members of his caucus. So I wrote this OP because I think that uncertainty about the President's position on the trigger vs the opt out now strengthens the hands of centrists, and I said why. I didn't accuse the Presdient of opposing it. If the President is not leaning on Senators in private to go with the opt out, do you disagree with me on the consequences? If so you haven't commented.

The other possibilities are that you support the President not making his preference known even in private, or that you support him supporting the trigger at this stage in the Senate deliberations.

I have to go out now for several hours but I will check in when I get back.

[Clio the Leo]

35. "the best legislation passed that is possible"

And on that, again, we might agree.

I tend to think that we're looking for an answer that's not there. The President's position is just what he keeps saying. He wants competition and he believes that a public option is the best way to achieve this ..... "now ..... yall go work it out." Bizarre I know to let the legislative body work out the details of a bill, it's not what Dick Cheney would do, more dithering I suppose. ;)

I think the line that separates those who can see the work for what it is, vs. those who are upset because the bill is not as strong as they'd like, is the line that separates the pragmatists vs. the ideologues here at DU. That's a line that's never going to go away.

All I know is that the closer we get to a bill signing, the better the bill (that will result) seems to get. There are a lot of people who can get credit for this obviously.

But I also know only one person has taken a stab at answering my question....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8712467&mesg_id=8713254

(again, not directed at YOU, but to EVERYONE ;) )