A very interesting quote from Rep. Raul Grijalva of the Progressive Caucus at the end of this Ryan Grim post about the “live whip count” now going on in the House:

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said he counted eleven no votes and two undecideds. Roughly 60 members were not at the meeting, he said. During floor votes on Friday, Democratic leadership continued to survey its members.

“I think if the rolls (sic) were reversed and we were an obstinate number of ten or nine on the progressive side, there would be tremendous pressure on us to move it along,” Grijalva said.

I mean, we have evidence of this, from during the war supplemental. Progressives faced enormous pressure to back war spending.

To be clear, there is some pressure from leadership, just by virtue of a live whip count. It’s one thing to say that you’ll support or oppose privately, it’s another to have to announce it in front of the entire caucus. That is being done explicitly to increase pressure. But I don’t think Grijalva’s main point is disputable.

…incidentally, what the Progressive Caucus should consider is to MAKE THE WHIP COUNT PUBLIC. If it does in fact fail, and the robust public option goes by the boards, that would be a kind of “silent filibuster” as well. I just put the question to Rep. Grijalva’s press secretary. We’ll see if we get an answer.

UPDATE: OK, here’s what Grijalva’s office told me. The Speaker’s office isn’t releasing a whip count, and there really isn’t one publicly available at this time, or privately available. There was a full caucus meeting today, but not everyone was there – reports I’ve seen had up to 60 members missing. So the data that came out of the “public whip” wasn’t really enough to make any determination.

As for where things stand, Grijalva’s press person said, relayed from Grijalva, that “six or seven votes are still needed,” and that is consistent with where things have stood throughout the week.

And just to follow up on that dust-up yesterday where Rep. Anthony Weiner appeared to support an opt-out provision. The Progressive Caucus still doesn’t support that in any way, and Weiner himself went on Countdown with Keith Olbermann last night and clarified his position, that the public option would have to be available in the states for “two, three, four years” before any opt out, in his view. And he said “I worry about some people in some states being luckier than others based on the ideology of the government.” So he basically walked it back.