Chris Bowers writes:

Many of these progressives were eager to support the opt-out because they believed it would ease passage of the bill, create political problems for Republicans, and that few states would opt-out. However, there were always two major problems with the opt-out, problems that have not been alleviated during the five days since the start of the craze: 1. No one knows what sort of public option states would be opting out of. [. . .] If we don't even know what type of public option is in the opt-out compromise, there is no justification for claiming it is a better compromise than Senator Schumer's "level playing field" compromise. For all we know, it might be worse.

This is misguided, at least as directed at me. I am for a robust (Medicare +5) Federalist Public Option. The reason I am for it is precisely because it is better than the level playing field option. If it is not robust, and is just a level playing field option, then obviously I will not be in favor of it over the national level playing field option.

As for whether it gains us votes, those of us who think it will gain votes (either for cloture or for final passage) are applying logical reasoning to the situation. To wit, some Dem Senators have talked about the effect of a public option in their states. Senators like Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln. Addressing their parochial concerns with an opt out provision seems the best compromise for getting their votes (at least for cloture.) Chris' basic argument is "we don't know." No kidding. Nobody knows for sure. But that is hardly a response to the arguments presented. Here's a question for Chris, what if the only way to get a robust public option was through adding an opt out? Would he oppose that and still favor the level playing field option? Hey, I get to ask questions too.

Speaking for me only