Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) threw a wrench into Democratic efforts to get a public option passed through reconciliation, saying 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. "
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."
Rockefeller is a huge proponent for the government run public option, but his opposition, publicly stated like this, deals a huge blow to Harry Reid who would need 51 votes in order to bypass the procedural filibuster which would require him to have 60 votes.
With the toxic atmosphere surrounding the Democrats coming into mid term elections, how many other vulnerable Democrats will join with Rockefeller in opposing Reid'Obama's desire to jam Obamacare through the Senate against the opposition of the majority of Americans?
With congressional disapproval up to 73.4 percent and Democratic Senators, like Reid himself trailing their Republican challengers for November's election, the question remains as to how many Democrats are willing to throw their careers away to follow Reid off the cliff?
Interesting little tidbit, via Rasmussen: "Only 9% Say Most in Congress Interested in Helping People - February 23, 2010 "
.
