Health Care and the Dark Side of the Moon

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said this morning President Obama would "get in a rocket and fly around the moon if that's what it takes to get everyone together" on health care.

To extend the metaphor, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that -- for the moment, at least -- health care reform as defined by the White House appears as legislatively distant as the dark side of the moon did to Yuri Gagarin.

Interviews with numerous Democratic strategists reveal both wonderment and frustration at the White House predicament on health care -- a still-popular president who is shedding political capital the harder he pushes a vital Democratic priority. Democrats privately fret about a string of polls that show Obama's persistent push is costing him support among independents and hardening opposition from Republicans.

In the minds of many Democratic strategists, the contortions over whether the public option - a government-financed insurance plan meant to compete against private insurance in non-competitive markets - is on or off the table are beside the point.

These strategists believe the White House can and will achieve some degree of victory on health care reform. Why? They believe that failure would be too costly to Obama specifically and Democrats generally.

"Remember, when Bush lost Social Security his second term was effectively over," said Erik Smith, a former aide to the House Democratic leadership. "After that, everyone knew Bush wouldn't do be able to do anything big."

Other Democrats see the fight over the public option as the preliminary scuffle to get a bill to a conference committee.  White House flexibility on core priorities -- the public option is either a "must" or a "sliver" - is intentional. It won't get specific because it doesn't know what can pass the House and Senate. One Democratic strategist waggishly described the White House strategy this way: "We're for whatever gets the votes to pass."

The most telling part of Gibbs' briefing with reporters today wasn't about the New York Times story describing a potential "go it alone" strategy (which Gibbs disputed), or day-three of public option talking points, but what he said about legislative strategy once the House and Senate have acted.

"I have no doubt any disagreements will be worked out in conference," Gibbs said.

Kathleen Strand, a veteran Democratic strategist now based in Chicago, said many party regulars know the White House will wield the most clout in conference and is a bit hamstrung watching the painfully slow House and Senate deliberations.

And while Strand says some Democrats are a bit alarmed by the downward drift of health care poll numbers, she and other Democrats believe the White House will regain its footing once (some really nervous Democrats sometimes say "if") the debate lands in a House-Senate conference.

To make sure that happens, Senate Democrats are studying all parliamentary options  - meaning reconciliation - to circumvent an expected GOP-filibuster.

Publicly, the key players still speak of bi-partisanship. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus said today "progress continues" among his band of 3 Democratic and 3 Republican negotiators. He announced the so-called "Gang of 6" will meet tomorrow.

Baucus' GOP counterpart, Charles Grassley of Iowa released a statement saying health care "should have broad-based support," but laments "no one has developed that kind of support, either in Congress or the White House."

Grassley goes onto say, however, that "doesn't mean we should quit."

Baucus will be given time to create a bipartisan bill. He has, roughly, until the second or third week of September, according to White House officials and Democratic sources on and off Capitol Hill.

House Democratic leaders have announced no schedule for a health care floor vote. But aides tell Fox they can't begin to count votes until they do two things: merge the three committee bills; and understand what will be in the Senate health care bill.

Merging the house bills won't be difficult, merely time consuming. House leadership aides say they must see what Senate Democrats will do before they begin pushing for votes among centrist/moderate House Democrats who wonder if they should vote for something that will might not pass the Senate or survive a House-Senate conference.

"Some of our members are a bit nervous right now," a leadership aide said. "And we'll need some time after the August break for hand-holding and explaining how the process will move forward."

The leadership aide acknowledged anxiety among some Democrats about voting, for example, for a public option in the House if it doesn't survive in the final bill. In the districts of many moderate and conservative Democrats, the public option has become controversial. In some districts, it's become downright toxic.

While the House waits for a bi-partisan product to emerge from the Baucus-Grassley meetings, Senate Democratic leaders will not rule out the "go-it-alone" approach.

"We will not make a decision to pursue reconciliation until we have exhausted efforts to produce a bipartisan bill," says Jim Manley, a top aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "However, patience is not unlimited and we are determined to get something done this year by any legislative means necessary."

Of the many tea-leaf reading questions currently unanswerable is this -- what constitutes "get something done"?

For now, we can only rely upon the president's oft-stated desire for reform that increases competition, lowers cost and improves care. Does that include a public option? That's Obama's "preference." Will it be bi-partisan? That's Obama's "preference."

Where does the road in pursuit of preferences end and the turn toward hard, legislative results begin?

For now, that answer can't be found. Not even on the dark side of the moon.