TPM LiveWire

Schumer To Reid: The Fate Of The Public Option May Be In Your Hands

Spread the word and support this article by retweeting it!


Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

Share

Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) threw down the gauntlet on the public option for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) last night. Appearing on The Rachel Maddow Show, Schumer essentially put the fate of the public option in Reid's hands -- saying that while the bill passed Tuesday by the Senate Finance Committee doesn't include a public health insurance option, it's up to Reid to decide whether to include a public option in the bill that merges the Senate Finance Committee bill with the bills passed by others committees -- all of which do include a public option.

"Leader Reid has the option of putting it in the final bill," Schumer said of the public option. "If he puts it in the final bill, in the combined bill, then you would need 60 votes to remove it. And there clearly are not 60 votes against the public option. And so we're urging him to do that, and he's seriously considering it."

Schumer continued:

It's very important to see if a public option is in the bill that Leader Reid puts together. He hasn't yet made up his mind, but many of us who believe in the public option are urging him to do so, and so far we're getting heard.

Schumer said this solution might take some of the heat off conservative Democratic senators like Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Ben Nelson (D-NE), since they wouldn't have to explicitly vote to put the public option in the bill, but would merely have to support a bill that already included a public option.

"If it's in the bill, you don't have to have every Democrat vote for it, because if it's in the bill, to take it out would take 60 votes," Schumer said. "So that's one of the cases, one of those rare moments, where this 60-vote rule which we usually abhor works in our favor."

Your move Sen. Reid.

Here's the video:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Join the Conversation!

41 comments

Recommend Recommend (2)

October 14, 2009 9:10 AM   

If Reid doesn't include a public option in the final bill, then he should be removed as Leader. Maybe I'm naive, but I would think that if Obama told Reid that the final bill must have a public option (not merely one with a trigger), then Reid would accede to his wishes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 9:31 AM    in reply to Rich in NJ

Hopefully now that the White House has FINALLY figured out the insurance lobby is public enemy no. 1, they will feel compelled to push for a public option in Reid's merged product.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 9:56 AM    in reply to jerryfatheart

Being that Reid is facing a tough Re-Election fight next year, Obama and Co. should suggest that if the Public Option is not included in the bill then there will be no Campaign appearances by anyone in the Administration on behalf of Reid. This is by far better than threatening to boot him from leadership which could look petty or vindictive whereas not campaigning for Reid is a far more passive threat with more severe consequences.

I'm sure this would be an effective motivator, even for an invertebrate like Reid.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 10:01 AM    in reply to _jonny_5_

It's not that tough. Kos mentioned yesterday that the GOP in NV is fourth in new registrations.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 10:08 AM    in reply to AnswerFrog

Fair enough,

but since we are fond of pointing out the spinelessness of Reid, a minor challenge probably to him is enough to scare him. The prospect of the Majority Leader unable to attract the President (of the same Party) to campaign for him says a lot and undercuts Reid's seliing point of being Majority Leader able to deliver for his state.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 11:40 PM    in reply to _jonny_5_

You're saying the President should take a stand against the Senate majority leader? And if Reid gets re-elected, then what?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 10:26 AM    in reply to _jonny_5_

You're assuming that Obama and, more importantly, Emanuel, want a public option. Nothing -- and I mean nothing -- from Obama's governing style, comments, or work suggest to me that he wants a public option. Sure, he raised it in the campaign, but Emanuel wasn't even on board for most of it and he's the one working on the final details.

He wants the path of least resistance. The HOUSE has to make everyone aware -- from Reid and Emanuel to Snow and Dodd -- that if the bill that Reid drafts omits a public option, it will not pass the House.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 10:44 AM    in reply to Mateo123

I think that the WH has been purposfully low-key on the PO. I feel that they have done so in order to keep every bump in the road from looking like a rebuke of the WH. Which would have killed HCR months ago. This is politics after all.

The administration wants a bill on Obam's desk to sign which means it must pass BOTH houses. Rahm is aware of the House's position on the PO, and I think the WH is trying to be a tortoise rather than the Hare.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 11:02 AM    in reply to Mateo123

Rahm does not want a PO but Obama does --so who is President...?

Rahm is also causing problems in the Middle east...he needs to go along with Reid.

If Reid is the leader he is clearly the QB that has fumbled on every play..but the special team coach likes him...who would that be--Not Obama for sure!

McCarran Ferguson should be repealed! Schumer should replace Reid till he is defeated in NV.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 11:26 AM    in reply to Docb

I love Schumer but, we can't go that far to the left out of the gate.

If Reid is removed(either forcefully, or next Nov.) than merely moving everyone up would be quite good for dems.

Durbin is certainly sufficiently Liberl (yet not a bomb thrower)and his state is sufficiently Blue he is perfect for Maj. Leader. Schumer would then move to Whip(asst. Leader), which is good for the party as well.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 11:30 PM    in reply to _jonny_5_

I always thought he was to the left of Schumer. But Schumer's certainly burnishing his progressive cred now.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 7:34 PM    in reply to Mateo123

You must have missed the 100 or so times that President Obama has voiced his support for the public option both on the campaign trail and since this debate started.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 8:26 PM    in reply to docrocktex

Obama has done nothing more than call the public option a good idea.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 7:41 PM    in reply to _jonny_5_

It's not mean or vindictive to boot Harry Reid from the majority leadership if he deep-sixes the public option. The public option is integral to the whole health care reform effort, and HCR is the fundamental thing the Dems are trying to do in this Congress and maybe the next. The majority leadership isn't some ceremonial position handed out to old doofuses for past service. It's key.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 7:42 PM    in reply to _jonny_5_

It's not mean or vindictive to boot Harry Reid from the majority leadership if he deep-sixes the public option. The public option is integral to the whole health care reform effort, and HCR is the fundamental thing the Dems are trying to do in this Congress and maybe the next. The majority leadership isn't some ceremonial position handed out to old doofuses for past service. It's key.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 9:37 AM    in reply to Rich in NJ

You're clearly right as to the second part. As to the first, you're assuming that what we think about Reid has anything to do with whether he keeps his job.

Being Senate Majority Leader is like being the Commisioner of Baseball. He serves at the whim of those he is supposed to lead. He has a lot of impressive-sounding powers but if he uses them in a way that rankles a majority of the owners, he could be fired before he even knows he's rubbed someone the wrong way. You're a lot more likely to lose the job by being too bossy than being too wimply.

Indeed, it's kind of like being the Commissioner of Baseball in the Star Trek evil parallel universe. All your trusted subordinates are potential intriugers who could suddenly hatch a plot to replace you if they sense your support is getting soft. (Especially if you're head snake of the Republican caucus snakepit.)

I have no idea why anyone would want the job. Worse than being POTUS in a lot of ways.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 9:52 AM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

I think it all comes down to the arcane Senate seniority rules. Of course, the Senate being a slow, plodding and out of touch institution was mostly by design. In fact, the Senate wasn't elected by the people until this century.

But the fact remains that Democrats should never have red state / blue dog type people in any leadership position. It would be the equivalent of having an Arlen Spector or Olympia Snowe as a GOP leader. It never happens. All of the GOP leaders are from hardcore red states and aren't constantly undermining the party's core values. I mean I don't see his wishy washy behavior from senators from New York or California. These folks from AK, MT and NV are killing me. All of the 'problem children' are from red states.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 10:02 AM    in reply to AnswerFrog

Agreed...

While I feel its important to the Democratic party to have Red State and/or "Blue Dog" Dems in the caucus, I agree that that do not belong in leadership. Commitee chairmanships. I'm OK with, even if it can be frustrating.

Ii like the sound of Majority Leader Durbin...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 11:10 PM    in reply to _jonny_5_

According to ontheissues.org he's more liberal than Schumer, but maybe it's a bit out of date.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 10:14 AM    in reply to Rich in NJ

If Obama has been right so far in political "stuff", then Reid would listen to Obama. What "stuff"? Things like the tea-baggers are nuts; political hi-jinks, polls, and pretty much anything else occuring in August needs to be ignored (Americans tuned out and/or on vacation apparently); here's a successful strategy for Congress; etc. It's hard to know this since there have been other advocates (Schumer, for example) that Reid might pay more attention to.

A couple of other points to consider: Senators hang around for quite a long time--Presidents, not so much. Senators can feel very free to ignore a President. Obama (unlike the Clintons, BTW) surrounded himself with politically savvy folks--and I mean savvy in the ways of Congress, particuarly the hide-bound Senate. Biden comes to mind as savvy and long-term about the Senate and the ways of WDC. It all comes down, in the end, to votes and that will be looked at throughout this process.

My two cents...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 9:33 AM   

"Schumer said this solution might take some of the heat off conservative Democratic senators like Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Ben Nelson (D-NE), since they wouldn't have to explicitly vote to put the public option in the bill, but would merely have to support a bill that already included a public option."

This is could be very telling. Schumer seems to have his finger on the pulse of these things, and wouldn't say things like this unless he's gotten some positive indications from the conserva-Dems or if he feels that making such sentiments public would influence the moderates.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 9:44 AM   

Back to Reid. Why do I not feel confident that he's going to do the right thing?

If the Democrats don't include it, they are making a big mistake that will hurt them next year. Democrats and Americans in general really want this. Why not give them what they want? If they don't include it, you will have disappointed Democrats who won't get out the vote next year -- why bother if they seem to work mostly for industry -- meanwhile the kooks/crazies/haters who currently make up the GOP will be raving mad about any HCR bill no matter what it includes. Do they not see that is a formula for defeat?

If Reid blows this, he needs to go. Someone else pointed out that the Replubicans don't pick leadership from blue states. Democrats should NEVER have leadership from red states. Reid has been a big mistake.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 10:15 AM    in reply to AnswerFrog

"If the Democrats don't include it, they are making a big mistake that will hurt them next year."

Definitely.

While I know they are afraid of not passing anything, which could hurt them electoraly, if they include the PO and the repukes block it the repukes will be blamed and Dems can use it to rile it's base back up in time for 2010.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 10:43 AM    in reply to AnswerFrog

You don't feel confident because Reid's own staff has told reporters that the merged bill won't include a public option. Sure, Reid retracted this, but that is why you don't feel confident.

I am not a negative-nilly all the time. But, on this issue, Reid and Obama have -- time and again -- shown an unbelievable willingness to court conservatives and Republicans, despite a massive majority in the senate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 10:54 AM    in reply to Mateo123

I'd love to be proven wrong. And I hope the AHIP report was a wakeup call. Stop playing ball with the enemy. The industry isn't a "partner" and we might get a single GOP vote, that's it. So stop watering down to placate. as for Dems, their survival depends upon success here, not timidity.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 2:48 PM    in reply to Mateo123

They don't have a "massive majority" in the Senate. Lyndon Johnson, with 69 Democratic senators at one point, had a "massive" majority.

What they've got is a "filibuster-proof" majority that depends upon prime assholes like Nelson, Bayh, Landrieu, and Lieberman, and a running-scared Lincoln to vote with them. And yes, how weird is it that I'm counting Specter as one of the reliable Democrats.

What they've got is all of the responsibility that comes with a filibuster-proof majority and none of the power.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 9:45 AM   

It isn't just Reid. I can't believe Harry Reid will leave out the public option if Obama asked him to include it. But does Obama really want it, too? The public option he described in his speech to Congress was a pathetic shell of an option. Will he want Reid to leave it out of the Senate bill so that they can water down the House bill into the pathetic Obama public option (the "handcuffed" option as McCaskill put it)?

I don't know why Obama and the Dims don't understand how important a strong public option is--not only for the American people but also the Democratic Party. Obama's pathetic option is not going to be useful to many people.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 9:56 AM    in reply to sagacity

The strategy is really opaque. As you note, it's not clear what the WH is pushing for behind close doors. And of course, you never negotiate by revelaing what your true endgame is. But I think some kind of public option is a must. And if we get our foot in the door, it can always be made robust. The lesson of history is that the Republicans have never been able to eliminate entitlements once enacted and popular.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 11:40 AM    in reply to AnswerFrog

My concern is that the public option will be so feeble that no one will know what all the fuss was about. I agree with what Howard Dean has been saying--they need to add a number of people under 65 to Medicare immediately so that the public can see a change in 2010. Otherwise, they have a good chance of lsing Congressional power and then making changes to make the public option more robust will be too difficult.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 11:21 PM    in reply to sagacity

You're absolutely right. As written, the po won't take effect until it's too late to to help at the polls. The best way to allay people's fears and teach them is to show them. A foot in the door - i.e. a weak option - will probably only lead to disillusionment with 'government healthcare'. We need something that show people firsthand it can work! As important as a po is, if it isn't written right, it might be worse than useless.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 9:49 AM   

So wait a minute here. The only way for a public option to make it into the final bill is for Harry Reid to grow a set of balls? Nice. Republicans win.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 10:05 AM    in reply to EastWest

That's exactly what I was just going to post. We're screwed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 10:25 AM    in reply to fcleff

One thing you can count on w/ Reid is that he will look out for himself first. So Obama should make it clear that Reid's fate in the senate rest with the fate of the Public Option.

If you are tasked with leading a project in Buisness, and that project fails, you are usually not in that position for very long afterwards...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 10:20 AM    in reply to EastWest

LOL. Don't be silly. Republicans haven't been winning for years now. In fact, the GOP seems intent on digging their way to Death Valley where they will set up camp for the next couple of decades. Good riddance.

Reid and Pelosi will be counting votes. If the public option has the votes in both houses, it will be included. Whether it is robust enough for you will be dependent on the votes it will garner.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 10:29 AM    in reply to cube3u

Bingo. A voice of sanity.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 10:30 AM   

I disagree. It's not "up to Reid" as this article suggests. Its up to the Democratic Caucus. Reid will put a PO into the final Senate version (probably something similar to the HELP committee version; which is already watered down), IF he can get 60 or more votes for cloture to end the threat of a filibuster and for the bill to receive at least an up or down vote.

I agree with one of the other posters out here. Reid is not in charge of shit when it comes to the Democrats in the Senate. The Democratic Caucus itself decides all important matters when the Democrats control the Senate. The majority leader has SOME power (like cancelling the Columbus Day break). But its limited. Not trying to apologize for Reid. But it simply is what it is.

So, if a PO type option does not make it into the final Senate version, it will be because some Democratic Senators told Reid, regardless of consequences, they would not vote for cloture with a PO type option in the bill.

The challenge at that point will be to do everything possible to find out exactly who those Senators were, and make them pay.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 11:26 PM    in reply to willia451

So hopefully Brown and Rockefeller and Schumer, maybe a few others, should make it clear that there won't be cloture without a strong public option. Beat them to the punch.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 10:38 AM   

If the strategy used to pass the stimulus bill is indicative of the Obama strategy, we will get the best health care bill possible, passed by the absolute minimum number of votes required. This means each vote for cloture and each vote for the bill is critical to the quality of the final product.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 8:37 PM    in reply to JoeTheMechanic

"... the best ... bill possible ..."

What planet have you been on? The stimulus bill was crap. Obama started too small and shrunk from there.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 10:48 AM   

what happened to shumer plan? -that red states could opt out of public option. that way the saner people in usa can get "socialized medicine" while the rednecks can freely opt out and continue to enrich private insurance CEOs.
this plan also helps Dems win elections in those states, since even the dumbest of the dummies may soon realize that their blue neighbors get a better deal.
is that compromise shumer plan dead?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 14, 2009 8:39 PM    in reply to baltimore

Must feel good to be so superior to all of your neighbors. Congratulations.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on