Legal Commentary

Parsing Rockefeller On Reconciliation And The Public Option

By Big Tent Democrat

Sam Stein's report on Sen. Jay Rockefeller's reluctance to pass a public option through reconciliation has led to a lot of frustration. However, as is usual with Rockefeller, I think his statement not only does not make sense, it is also pretty squishy (he's not known as Jello Jay for nothing.) Rockefeller said:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) [. . .] sa[id] that he thought the maneuver was overly partisan and that he was inclined to oppose it. "I don't think the timing of it is very good," the West Virginia Democrat said on Monday. "I'm probably not going to vote for that, although I'm strongly for the public option, because I think it creates, at a time when we really need as much bipartisan[ship] ... as possible. "

[MORE . . .]

Rockefeller added: "I don't think you [pursue] something like the public option, which cannot pass, will not pass. And if we get the Senate bill--both through the medical loss ratio and the national plans, which have in that, every one of them has to have one not-for-profit plan, which is sort of like a public option."

Here's my read -- Rockefeller is thinking about the Thursday "bipartisan" summit, wants the best optics for it, and does not want the Republicans to have the public option to kick around. What happens after Thursday when bipartisanship is dead? Indeed, to follow Rockefeller's thinking, and Stein should have asked him this, then he should oppose ANY reconciliation fix, with or without a public option. After all that would not be "bipartisan."

Indeed, nothing in Stein's report indicates that Rockefeller supports a reconciliation fix. IF Rockefeller is to be taken seriously on this, his position would be a serious blow to passing a health care fill in any form, not just one with a public option. I think it will be interesting to see what Rockefeller says AFTER the Thursday summit.

Cuz if he is going to be for a reconciliation fix, it is not at all clear how he can be against including a public option if he is, as he claims, "strongly for the public option." I think he is for the pubic option and would not be the vote to stop it.

I would count him as the 49th or 50th vote for it. Clearly he won't be the 25th vote.

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on February 23, 2010 (boomark / email).