Yesterday, a report surfaced that Diane Watson’s office was telling constituents they were wasting their time calling her about the public option:

I spoke with someone, or I should say he spoke to me, for half an hour, explaining that so many calls are wasted saying the same things to the congresswoman over and over, when the calls should be going to the blue dogs and particularly to Senator Joe Lieberman’s office. He is unable to answer the above questions, because a) there may never be an opportunity to vote one way or the other, and b) to commit to a position that would kill any joint reform bill would be foolish. He apologized as he knew this was not what I wanted to hear, but it was impossible to say now, when there is no bill yet to discuss. He said she needs to be realistic, and that changes can be made after a bill is passed in the Senate.

What’s most confusing about this is that Watson is the chief whip for the Progressive Caucus. Her job is to enforce caucus discipline on issues where they have taken a stand, and that includes keeping a public option in the health care bill. Would she accept the same kind of response from her fellow Progressive Caucus members, that she is wasting her time talking to them, or that committing to any position that could kill a bill would be foolish?

As it happens, I was in the same room with Rep. Watson last night. She appeared at the opening of Organizing for America’s California headquarters in Los Angeles. The well-attended event – around 200 people turned out – featured several local elected officials and California State Controller John Chiang, in addition to Watson.

She addressed the crowd for several minutes, and the main topic was health care reform. She said everything you would expect, that she views health care as a right and not a privilege, that the insurance industry was trying to kill reform by ginning up protests (“those 10,000 people didn’t come walking down the road, they were organized, sent in buses”) because they can’t make the same kind of money in a competitive marketplace, that she’s been called “a socialist and a Scientologist” by conservatives for her beliefs, but that ultimately, “we will pass health care reform this year.” That doesn’t leave a lot of wiggle room if the Senate comes back with a bad bill.

But Watson isn’t really allowing for any wiggle room. Asked about the elements of the bill, she defended the public option – “is there anyone in this room who doesn’t know what an option is?” – but said that the cost of doing nothing is too high. “We can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” Watson said. “Originally, we wanted Medicare, we wanted Medicare plus five. And we still gotta go to that Senate. Bill Clinton laid it out to them this week, that they lost in 1993 because they had a campaign, that this would kill small businesses. But we need health care today, and we can’t let that happen again.”

There’s no question that the status quo is unsustainable; the Business Roundtable said it yesterday. But the fact that the House Progressive Caucus whip is saying that there’s no need for rigidity on any element of the bill is a pretty good indicator of why nobody in Washington takes the threats of the Progressive Caucus seriously.

Responding to the controversy over the Stupak amendment, Watson recalled how she got a letter while chairing the state Senate Health Committee many years ago from the Cardinal of Los Angeles. He asked her to remove reproductive choice from the menu of options for insurance coverage in the state. She replied, noting that choice has been allowable in California since the 1960s, “I’m an official sworn to uphold the law of the land. I have no right to impose any religious beliefs on the rest of the state.” She sounded confident that something would be worked out on the Stupak amendment, but made no ultimatums there either with respect to her vote.