Senator Baucus voted against both the Rockefeller and the Schumer amendments because, he said, the public option doesn't have the votes to pass the Senate.
First, echoing Beutler, does he mean to suggest that he's never voted for a bill in committee that didn't have a chance of passing on the floor? Max Baucus is psychic!
Second, this Baucus prediction isn't necessarily true. Healthcare reform with the public option can pass with 50-plus-Biden. Breaking the filibuster prior to that vote needs 60. And does Baucus seriously believe there are Democrats who are willing to filibuster with the crazy Republicans and against the first healthcare reform bill in a generation? I don't think so.
And finally, the fact remains that a final, post-conference bill won't pass the House without the public option. At least not currently.
So if Baucus was really interested in passing a bill and getting it to the president's desk, he should've voted for the public option amendments today.
The upshot is that we all know the real reason why Baucus voted the way he did. His corporate bosses paid him to vote 'no'.
UPDATE: Ezra Klein concurs:
There are two questions here. The first is "60 votes for what?" Do they not have 60 votes in favor of a health-care plan that includes a public option? Or do they not have 60 votes against a filibuster of a health-care plan that includes a public option? If it's the former, that's okay: You only need 51. If it's the latter, that's a bigger problem. But I'd be interested to hear which Democrats will publicly commit to filibustering Barack Obama's health-care reform bill. If that's such a popular position back home, why aren't more Democrats voicing it loudly?