politics

WASHINGTON -- A week before Republican Scott Brown's upset victory in the U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts, Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison declared himself a solid no vote on the Senate version of the hard-fought health care overhaul.

Yet Brown's victory now appears to make that Senate version the Democrats' best option.

With the Democratic majority in the Senate reduced to 59 votes -- one short of what's needed to prevent a GOP filibuster -- strategists on both sides of the debate are looking closely at last-ditch gambits to save a bill that only days ago appeared close to becoming law.

One possibility: Force a House vote on the identical bill that the Senate passed on Christmas Eve, circumventing the need for another round of votes in the Senate.

But that would require an abrupt about-face for liberal House members such as Minnesota's Ellison, who has resisted the scaled-down Senate bill because it provides no government-sponsored insurance plan -- the "public option" that many of the Obama faithful had expected.

Democratic leaders, facing the biggest political test of the year-old Obama administration, also have to think about centrist Democrats such as Minnesota's Rep. Tim Walz and Rep. Jim Oberstar.

With Republicans taking heart in what they see as a repudiation of the Democrats' health care agenda, Brown's win puts pressure on outstate Democrats who helped pass the House health bill last November with only two votes to spare.

The result: A lot of anxious Democrats in Washington, including Sen. Al Franken, whose narrow recount victory in the 2008 Minnesota Senate race handed the Democrats their short-lived 60-vote majority.

"This is certainly a complication," Franken said Wednesday. "I wish we had won that seat [in Massachusetts]. But we'll have to deal with what we've got."

Way forward unclear

For Minnesota backers of the Democratic health overhaul, the way forward is anything but clear.

Some Democrats worry that moderate Republicans like Maine's Olympia Snowe could end up rewriting the Senate bill.

But in the aftermath of Brown's improbable Blue State victory -- he won a seat held for decades by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy -- Democrats would have to thread a legislative needle to secure even a single GOP vote.

"I can't imagine any Republicans now stepping up and saying, 'I'm OK with this,' especially in view of what just happened in Massachusetts," said Rep. John Kline, the ranking Minnesota Republican in Congress.

Democrats in Washington labored Wednesday to portray the Massachusetts Senate stunner as a personal rather than an ideological victory for Brown.

But for Democrats in conservative House districts, such as Minnesota's Collin Peterson, Massachusetts offers a cautionary tale.

"It means we need to be careful," said Peterson, who voted against the House health care plan. "I've been trying to tell our leadership that this is what I'm sensing in my district. People don't understand it, and they're not convinced it's going to work."

As Democratic leaders huddled in Congress Wednesday, their list of options seemed to shrink. The notion of slamming the health care bill through before Brown took office withered when Virginia Democrat Jim Webb called for the Senate to take a timeout on health care until Brown is seated.

Democrats also have discussed passing a health care bill under expedited budget rules that require a simple majority in the Senate.

But that process, known as "reconciliation," could produce a severe Republican backlash. It also could limit policy changes most Democrats want, such as regulations that bar insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Meanwhile, it's far from certain that Democrats could muster the 218 House votes needed to pass the Senate bill without changes.

Democrats who oppose abortion, such as Oberstar, are wrestling with federal abortion funding restrictions that are weaker in the Senate version. Unions oppose the Senate's special levy on high-cost "Cadillac" insurance plans. A special Medicaid exemption for Nebraska, dubbed the "Cornhusker Kickback," has grown increasingly unpopular on both sides of the aisle.

Then there's the absence of a public option in the Senate bill, which deeply frustrates liberals such as Ellison. "I can't afford to be doctrinaire," Ellison said Wednesday. "But I'm still inclined to vote no."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says Democrats will "push forward" with the overhaul, but gave no indication how.

New risks

There are fresh risks in the new political environment inaugurated by the GOP victory in Massachusetts.

In Minnesota, Mankato Democrat Walz, who voted for the House bill, is a top Republican target.

"We're going to wrap the public option around his neck," said Minnesota GOP Party Chair Tony Sutton.

Walz issued a statement calling the Massachusetts Senate race "a wake-up call for Democrats."

But he dismissed the suggestion that it's a bad omen for his fortunes in southern Minnesota. "The special election on the East Coast doesn't mean the status quo in health care is acceptable for Main Street Minnesota," he said.

Other Minnesota Democrats suggested that if they're feeling a voter backlash, it stems more from inaction.

"People are mad, granted," said Rep. Betty McCollum of St. Paul. "They should be mad. But they're mad things are taking so long."

Other Minnesota Democrats sounded equally chastened by Brown's win, and just as determined not to abandon a health care overhaul.

"It's a setback, there's no way around it," Ellison said. "Democrats are going through a period of reflection."

Kevin Diaz • 202-408-2752