[Jane will be appearing on MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports today at 1pm EDT. --Ed.]
When I wrote that 64 Democrats in the House had pledged to vote against a health care bill with no public plan, I limited the list to those who have made that known, publicly and officially, by putting their names to that commitment (no anonymous whip counts, no “leaked” lists that the members won’t acknowledge). It’s been a long hard slog to get people to go on the record.
But we’ve heard many times that the universe of Members who feel this way is probably larger, and this morning, Anthony Weiner confirms it on CNBC:
WEINER: The President does seem like he’s moving away from the public plan, and if he does, he’s not going to pass a bill. Because there are just too many people in Washington who believe that the public plan was the only way that you effectively bring some downward pressure on prices, and if he says well we’re not going to have that, then I’m not really quite sure what we’re dong here.
BECKY QUICK: So you would not vote for a bill that made it through, if it got through…
WEINER: Not only I but I think there’s probably a hundred members of the House, who believe for various reasons that you need to have something to bring down prices. Otherwise you’re basically, what you’re doing, you’re keeping the cost arc. . . the CBO agrees with that. You know as it was, I think the public plan had been watered down so much. So if the President thinks he’s cutting a deal to get Senate votes, he’s probably losing House votes.
Weiner makes it clear later in the segment that he understands a co-op is not a public plan. He doesn’t address triggers. I’m putting him in the “only robust” category.
There was one final amusing moment:
JIM QUINTIANILLA: So you think he will lose the liberal wing of his own party, and you don’t think he can make it up by attracting Blue Dogs, Republicans, anyone on the other side of the aisle.
Yes, Blue Dogs are “on the other side of the aisle.” And everyone but Rahm seems to know it.
(via The Hill)