In an interview with the AP, Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL) reaffirmed his commitment to a real public option:
“I would not support a bill that does not have a public option,” Burris, 72, said in a recent interview with The Associated Press. “That position will not change.”
By public option, Burris means a real public option. Not a trigger that might someday, hopefully create a public option. Not “allowing” states to maybe set up small, highly restricted state-based public plans. Burris is talking about a real, national, public health insurance option:
He won’t vote, for example, for Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe’s idea to use the threat of a public option to force insurers to lower premiums by certain deadlines. He hasn’t seen the details of another idea, proposed by Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., that would allow each state to decide whether to offer public coverage to compete with private insurers. The health committee’s proposal, he says, must be in the final bill to earn his vote.
The important question is what does Burris mean by his support? Harry Reid does not need Burris’s vote to pass a bill without a public option as long as Burris still votes for cloture. Reid would need Burris’s vote for cloture unless he can convince Snowe to vote with the other 59 members of the Democratic caucus to end a filibuster.
If Burris is willing hold firm to a refusal to vote for cloture unless the bill contains a public option, he could really affect the final outcome. If he is only going to withhold his vote for final passage, but not for cloture, Burris is just talking tough and blowing smoke. So far, Burris has not yet made his exact position clear.
29 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Advanced search
Assuming that progressive Senate Dems are presented with a bill with no viable public option, why not join Repubs in voting against cloture?
Unlike Repubs who claim that no reform is needed, the Dems can credibly appeal to the electorate by saying that they opposed the bill because it is a pro-industry scam.
The distinction between cloture and the final vote is one that senators are
quite happy for their constituents not to understand.
Slightly OT: All of today’s Beltway conventional wisdom on healthcare,
if you can stomach it, nicely wrapped up by Bloomberg’s Al Hunt.
I wish I could trust the guy to do what’s right for everyone and not just for Roland Burris. Unfortunately, we’re talking about the man whose children and grandchild are all named Roland Burris. I think White House jobs for all of them would probably secure his vote for cloture.
I do hope that the rest of FDL readers agree that if our elected officials do not vote to block a filibuster or to pass health care reform with a strong public option and anti-trust legislation they will join me in working to elect politicians who will…
Yes. Burris has always been all about Burris and nothing else. I just hope to God he doesn’t run when his term is up.
Citizen mesamick:
Yes indeed, there will be Democratic Party blood all over in November of 2010 if a public option does not pass…and ObamaRahma will be one and done in 2012.
By my count, if there are fourteen Senators willing to vote against a bill that doesn’t have a public option, there are enough to prevent passage. That assumes that three GOP Senators will vote in favor of such a bill. In any event, the number is fairly small. If there are that many, it will be defeated with or without the votes for cloture.
If it were any Democratic senator other than Burris I would say it will never happen. His mere presence in the Senate demonstrates his willingness to defy the powers that be. Withholding his vote for cloture would accord him inordinate power comparable to that of Snowe. Since Burris is a man of no small ego, that may be a factor. No matter, if it furthers the goal of including a robust public option, I say more power to him.
Consider that he is generally well-regarded in Illinois politics, or at least was. And he may, at this point, be trying to redeem his political legacy, and won’t be as easily cowed as say progressive “hero” Jan Schakowsky, who fold when Rahm says “boo”.
I think you hit that nail just right.Such a move might make him a “progressive hero” (gag).Hope that ego prompts him to do something right even if his motives suck.
At least I can’t vote for or against him, cause I’d have a hard time voting for…
How sad that only Burris has nothing left to live for so that the consequences are no skin off of his ass.
Why the handful of so-called reliable progressive Senators are not playing hardball, playing for keeps is simply astounding!
My sentiments exactly.
However, someone pointed out this morning that Burris is still subject to bribery: nice job after he leaves the senate, for example.
Citizen Cujo359:
I would like to believe that there are at LEAST that many…the real action right now is goin’ on behind closed doors with REPUBLICANS because that’s the way Rahm Tiny Dancer works and there may in fact be a whole lot more’n 3 Republican votes for a bad bill…jest remember the NAFTA bill and how it was that vote that made Clinton a minority president and insured fascist majorities for 12 years. I don’t think that he can get away with that this time but that’s the way he rolls and Obama knows it. Obama is really tryin’ ta keep himself from bein dragged into the decision-makin’ on this until the very last minute when the deal is done but if Rahm keeps it up in this direction Obama’s gunna be toast after 2010 and so are the Democrats…too many folks in both the Senate and House remember NAFTA and Obama’s is anything but stupid.
He’s not running for the Senate, but if he takes actually takes this stand, I’d happily vote for him, which I can’t, since he’s not running.
Oh no a reliable liberal vote! Who cares the circumstances that got him to be a Senator at this point. Better Burris than Bayh, or Nelson, or Lieberman, etc. etc. Morans.
I’m confused.
Burris is for something good?
The lefty blogs all assured me he was a piece of shit.
I’m not a sheep, but I sure feel like one. Go this way. No that. Don’t ask questions.
Smart people can do and say stupid things. For a current example, see Superfreakonomics. As long as Obama thinks that having insurance companies and other financials riding on the Democratic Party wagon instead of the other guys’ is less hazardous than the reverse condition, he’ll continue to appease them. It’s only when he realizes their money is more trouble than it’s worth that he’ll come around, if ever. I don’t see any sign of that yet.
You were free to stand up for Burris at any point during that evaluation, and people are free to change their opinions if the evidence warrants that.
What does Superfreakonomics have to do with smart people?
Citizen Cujo359:
Obama is not only smart he is ambitious and has a strong sense of self preservation…he knows he probably won’t survive until 2012 if Democrats lose their majorities and it has as much ta do with Superfreakanomics as it does to Marxism, which is nuthin’!
Citizen ART45:
Ok, now ya had yer 15 seconds of fame in the free world…go back under the bridge before ya catch yer death…the Emperor has yer cloths.
Shorter Burris: “We are all Olympia Snowe!”
Watch them, now, they will all pile in front of the microphones, cameras, and blogpens. This is what Jay-Rock was doing, scooping up lib-love, having seen Dodd get so much of it during FISA.
Funny how a simple declarative statement (”I will join a GOP filibuster of the health care bill should it omit Public Option”) would so easily answer all our questions for Roland Burris, yet it’s the one statement he hasn’t made, thus garnering for himself continued attention.
“We are all Olympia Snowe!”
I agree that O is smart and ambitious but I’ll be damned if I can figure out how his actions represent either.
Incoming.
Still don’t know what is right: praise Burris or condemn him?
That’s sarcasm, btw.
has “real” replaced “robust” in the lexicon of public options that are probably not even viable?
excellent, depressing analysis.
any senator could insist on a viable public insurance program – something, i will note, that is not contained within the HELP bill. but i expect that would mean moving the final bill further to the right in an effort to attract another R vote instead.
I don’t care if it’s Roland Burris, William Jefferson, Michael Dukakis, etc.
Anyone who’s willing to actually prevent a shitty bill from becoming law by standing up for a good bill that would actually help the American people is a great person in my book.
Collins & Voinovich appear lined up to fill that role. I expect that just makes conference that much more difficult.
I am not sure, when Roland Burris steps into the spotlight, that the Senate will actually do anything. The bill could die right on the floor.
re conference. yes, it must be very hard on someone like bernie sanders — knowing that if he objects, he may just end up pushing the outcome to the right as someone like collins and/or voinovich is brought on to take his place among the “yes” votes.
wow. since last winter i’ve expected that some faux po would be passed so that obama and the people who backed his approach to healthcare reform could have their “victory.” but as the months have passed, it looks more and more like i will be proven wrong.
Any bill that contains any individual mandate without a viable, robust public option SHOULD die on the floor.
Whether they can see the light and allow for the IM to cancel out the PO and only impose business practices regulations on the insurers is the next question.
How much fun would it be for them to take a step that everyone says they agree about–ending recision, preexisting conditions, lifetime caps and the like–without guaranteeing the insurers a captive customer base or without giving them serious competition! The insurers have endeared themselves to so many at this point they they might end up with their antitrust exemption lifted as well.