Countdown: Durbin not firm on excluding PO - will push whatever the House gives to him!!

[HughMoran]

He's already backing down on his "no Public Option" comments!

Also mentioned - may be up to 53 votes for the Public Option in the Senate!

:woohoo:

[gateley]

1. Look at how things have changed! I wouldn't have believed all this a month

or two ago -- I'm feeling empowered! :bounce:

And Grayson has FIFTY co-sponsors on his Medicare For All resolution!!

[jefferson_dem]

2. Please...

Let this be true. :woohoo:

[HughMoran]

3. I know - I feel a bit of trepidation even posting this

But it was how they led the show off and it sure is breaking news!

[denimgirly]

4. i'm REALLY, REALLY HOPING FOR THIS!!!!

[babyblonde]

5. im afraid to

hope again:hide: :popcorn:

[HughMoran]

6. Same here.

Don't blame me if a story stating the opposite breaks tomorrow :hide:

[hulka38]

7. Jumped to 53 just now after he was reportedly whipping against it?

There must be a mad scramble in the Capitol. They must know the gig is up.

[pnwmom]

18. He's not whipping against the public option. He's against any amendment,

because if you allow any amendment, then the Rethugs can offer an endless number. And I mean endless. They have already used that tactic to kill other bills.

[pnwmom]

8. As I understood his comments, he wasn't against public option per se,

he was saying that they might have to bar all amendments in order to stop the Rethugs from offering endless amendments.

However, if public option were in the actual reconciliation bill -- not an amendment -- that would be a whole different thing.

[HughMoran]

9. Yes, I think that's what the "he'll push whatever the House gives him" language means

Where this has been reported differently within hours, I'm a little confused myself. This does seem to contradict the other thread where the implication was that he was going to prevent a PO from being included in the reconciliation as he didn't want to take any chance that the reconciliation bill wouldn't pass. That is my understanding, but I could be wrong.

[Jennicut]

14. They would most definitely have to bar amendments to get it through.

As long as the Rethugs threaten, there is a chance that of that. So the PO HAS to be in the reconciliation bill. I doubt Durbin is against a PO. But it needs to be in the bill.

[pnwmom]

17. I agree. Amendments won't work -- it has to be in the bill itself. n/t

[ProSense]

10. One thing is always certain

anything can happen, and there are enough self-centered saboteurs ready to stand in the way.

[HughMoran]

11. For sure.

It's going to be kinda fun watching this happen. I am, of course, assuming that failure is not an option and that the smile that almost jumped off Nancy Pelosi's face when Rachel asked about the bill was very comforting.

[hulka38]

12. My guess is the leadership's attempt to snuff out the PO while appearing to give it one last shot

is going none too well. I think they're feeling the heat from the left and assess it as dangerous. Maybe tonight for the first time, the leadership is considering the PO. I still don't think it'll happen.

[Festivito]

13. You don't want to be a dumb-butt Durbin. You know what's right.

Do it! A public option is a good thing. But, it better be a good public option.

[Clio the Leo]

15. I had this brief dream sequence a bit ago....

.... that the WH saying, "well, hey! There's no votes for the PO! So much for that idea" was a head fake to make Blue Dogs in the House vote for the Senate bill thinking the PO was dead and THEN when the Senate bill was passed, the PO would be "snuck" back in via reconciliation.

Yes, I realize that makes no sense at all because the House has already passed a bill containing a PO once, but like I said, it was a dream sequence. :)

[Cha]

16. I saw that original comment and I

could not believe it.

[karynnj]

19. Here's a good DKos Diary - the plan has the House writing the reconciliation bill

and the Senate leadership wants to give the House that they will pass it without amendment. This is an enormous concession from the Senate to the House - and it would seem to give them more reason to trust the Senate. It was NOT directed at the public option. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/3/11/845289/-Sen.-DurbinBETRAYAL-Not-so-fast...

Of course I do not know if this is correct - all of this is behind closed doors, but it seems to fit with all that we know about Durbin.

The fact is that Durbin is among the most trust worthy liberals we have in the Senate.

[HughMoran]

20. It appears to be a way of accomplishing the "conference committee" without Republican interference

I think it's a good plan, though if the Republicans would simply respect the Senate rules, none of this would be necessary.