Harry Reid's Great Escape

I'll try, I'll really try, to be as serious about this as I can, but such flagrant snookering by our progressive finest on Capitol Hill does provoke the irrepressible chortle.

In a NY Times story filed last Friday but written, obviously, on Thursday, we were told that Democratic leaders in the House "are so confident of their ability to round up the necessary votes" for the heartiest of pubic options "that they have told members of their caucus to be prepared for action on the House floor before Veterans Day."

Same story, Minority Leader John Boehner was described as "skeptical." You think? Because what he said was, "This talk of the Democrats’ having 218 votes is nonsense."

Next morning, top story, opening line, the Politico: "Speaker Nancy Pelosi counted votes Thursday night and determined she could not pass a 'robust public option.' " Oops. One wonders if Mr. Boehner's whip team is available for lease.

"Votes aren’t there," said a "top" Democratic official. "The progressives are always more optimistic than reality." Indeed, the House leadership "privately concede[d] that [theirs was] wishful thinking that ignore[d] the power of moderate Democrats."

So talk of the "robust" public option instantly converted into murmurs of "a" public option. The former was no longer "the only way to go," said the speaker. From that day forward, let "robust" escape no one's lips; the Holy Grail had become, perforce, progressive taboo.

So -- again, this was last Friday -- that good count gone bad then "point[ed] to an increasingly likely compromise for a 'trigger' option," reported the Politico. In fact, the White House had been telling the paper "for weeks now that this is the most likely compromise because it can probably satisfy liberals -- albeit only reluctantly and after many vent frustration and some even threaten to walk away from the bill."

But there was more to it than that. "Obama told Senate Democratic leadership at the White House Thursday evening," the Times printed Friday morning, "that his preference is for the trigger championed by Sen. Olympia Snowe" -- and, OK, everyone gets three guesses as to the why of his preference.

Naturally, then, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday that the trigger is out: "I spoke to Olympia on Friday.... At this stage she does not like a public option of any kind. And so we'll have to move forward on this." And "at this stage" means Mr. Reid is "moving forward" with between 56 and 57 votes in the Democratic caucus, versus the 58 to 59 votes he reportedly (according to the Politico yesterday) possessed for the trigger.

Also on Friday, the Times reported that on Thursday "Obama did not sign on" to Reid's "opt-out" plan. So of course yesterday the Washington Post was reporting that Harry "has the support of the White House." The president is "pleased."

Harry said yesterday that he'll have the votes. And Senate (suddenly) pro-opt-outers were everywhere on cable news, confirming with exceptional confidence that Harry will indeed have the votes. But then there's that "on the other hand" thing. Reports the Times this morning: "A Democrat on Capitol Hill who backs the public option said 'there is a lot of concern' that Mr. Reid had made his decision without nailing down the votes to prevail on the Senate floor." Calling John Boehner.

But let us imagine the unimaginable for a moment; let us imagine that Senators Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu and Joe Lieberman and Blanche Lincoln all fall into line and bend to Harry's powerful ways. And let us further imagine that the House falls into line, as well, and that all the financing disagreements are resolved, and, presto, Obama has an "opt-out" bill.

And that's what it would be: just an "opt-out" bill -- as the Times characterized it this morning, Reid's "proposal came with an escape hatch" -- not a genuine public-option bill, any more than a trigger.

Yet, as the Times further reports this morning, Reid's "decision was acclaimed by liberal organizations like MoveOn, Families USA and Health Care for America Now."

I'm perplexed. All along I've conceded the necessity of compromise. And, all along, "liberal organizations," such as those above, have stridently demanded inflexibility. And now that progressive pols on Capitol Hill have caved -- yes, caved -- the advocates of inflexibility are cheering them on and I find myself saying, No way.

Because an opt-out is in no way akin to the public option; enacted, it would be but a broad patchwork of state-varying mishmash, unrecognizable to the original concept of universality. It would actually be a step backward, locking in non-universality for years more.

Yet "liberal organizations" are cheering. That's either sad or laughable. I'm not sure which.

Probably the latter, since the Senate-passage odds of the rather cynical "Reelect Harry Reid Act" are slim. Very slim. Perhaps rank-and-file progressives were just hungry for something to celebrate, even if it that something is fraudulent and, likely, exceedingly momentary.

The bills' worthy provisions are still worthy -- a prohibition on preexisting-conditions denial, annual expense caps, and the like -- but the opt-out is a monumental turkey. Drop it. Congressional progressives should just drop the entirely unworkable idea of a workable public option for now. Just pass a readily passable health-care bill and then work instead on jobs and regulatory reform and come back in 2011 and try an actual public option again, and again, and again if necessary -- but don't insult this nation with the fowl cave-in of an opt-out.