« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Killing ObamaCare is a Rational Act

One hour and forty minutes after the White House issued their Easter deadline for ObamaCare to pass Congress, Democratic House Leaders conceded “they may not meet President Barack Obama’s challenge for swift action.”

Whenever the House Leadership moves a vote, it means they don’t have the votes. In Spanish, that’s mañana.

With the White House issuing a deadline and the Dem House leaders immediately and publicly saying, not so much, the White House looks silly and limp and powerless. They look even more out of touch and desperate than they did when President Obama announced that he will not quit with his self-appointed Captain Ahab role of hunting the great-health-care-white-whale.

But the best news (finally) is that a group of Democrats are willing to have News at 11 film them shooting ObamaCare in the head. They are willing to say: we take responsibility for killing it. And they are telling anyone who will listen they will kill it:

“Yes. We’re prepared to take responsibility,” Stupak said on ABC’s “Good Morning America” when asked if he and his 11 Democratic allies were willing to accept the consequences for bringing down healthcare reform over abortion.

Rep. Stupak and his gang of 12 to 20 pro-life Dems, are no doubt being encouraged by their colleagues to please kill-this-bill so we can run screaming from the room. Save us from Captain Ahab and the irrational Speaker who are hell-bent on making us walk the plank again. Please save us from the fatal political injury that will come from months more of health care as it winds it way through the House and then the Senate — where the Republicans have promised a scorched earth, time-consuming policy of death-by-amendment. Remember, Easter is too soon for the House to act — imagine how long it will take in the Senate?

I wrote earlier that I expected a block of no votes to come from the progressives. They may be starting to flex their muscles.

From ABC News:

“Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., the co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told Salon.com today with the inclusion of Republican ideas and compromises in the president’s health care proposal he is leaning now towards opposing the legislation.

“As I weigh it, I think — for me — a ‘no’ vote is something that I continue to lean toward,” Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz told Salon.com today, “Especially the last additions — that was kind of a slap in the face for all of us who fought for the public option.”

The lack of the public option in the so-called reconciliation package, contrasted with the President’s announcement that he was open to expand and leave Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) unmolested, is apparently a bridge too far for the constantly disappointed House Progressives.

On another troublesome front for the Dem Leadership, Ace of Spades posted this little tid-bit: one of the supposedly undecided no votes is now firmly decided to be still no. And from Plum Line, here is another. (Shocking, isn’t it?)

Not a single No vote has announced their switch to yes. Stupak and his gang are at no. At least one House Dem yes is now at no — U.S. Rep. Michael Arcuri, D-Utica — because he wants to have smaller, more incremental bill. And one of the co-chairs of the Progressive Caucus is leaning no. Every piece of news for the delusionals is bad, as in lose-the-vote-bad.

This is what happens when the delusionals and an irrational Speaker push a bill that is widely opposed by the public, which carries a lethal political blow-back for anyone who backs it.

And this is the really fun part. The political opposition to the bill is so great, Members of Congress can pretty much pick any single thing and use it as their excuse for voting no. Members of Congress could essentially say, I’d love to vote for ObamaCare, but I have to stay home and wash my hair. Er, I mean I’m concerned about the lack of cost control.

In fact, the political failure of the White House — lead by the President, David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and their highly incapable lobbying shop — has tied a millstone around their fellow Dem Members necks. Millstone in tow, the White House is telling their House pawns to swim in the not-so-warm waters of ObamaCare — knowing some of them will drown.

Surprise, surprise, some Members are beginning to find their voice, and object.

The Dem herd is shifting their feet. They see Rep. Stupak confidently sunning himself in green pastures all over television, while they fight to stop drowning. Not surprisingly, Stupak is now saying his number has recently grown to include some others who voted Yes in November.

Simply put, for the Dems, the survival instinct is taking over. Others will start cutting the rope of the ObamaCare millstone around their neck, and head for the Stupak pro-life high ground, or the Grijalva either-put-the-public-option-in-or-I’m-moving-to-the-safe-and-sunny-pastures of No.

After all, the public hates the bill and wants Congress to stop working on it. Do nothing is their first choice. Members know, voting No will have the effect the public wants.

Even Howard Dean is giving them cover to vote no.

But the irrational and delusional will not let ObamaCare drift out into outer darkness. The irrationals and delusionals insist on having a vote. At least they are consistent.

But it turns out that the spell of the delusionals is finally wearing off, and Members of Congress are pushing back. And because the delusionals cannot understand or face the fact that all is lost, they continue to force their friends and colleagues in the House to jump off the cliff called we’re-going-to-vote-on-the-Senate-health-bill.

Not surprisingly, No-I’m-not-going-to-jump is going to be the dominant answer, because it is the answer that is rational and in their self-interest.

COMMENTS

  • stigmo

    A great way to start my morning.

    What is the end game here? When will this be over? I’m tired of despairing! I keep worrying that they’ll find some way to squeeze out the votes like they did in the Senate.

    • http://www.thesubstratum.com gman2008

      It was way at the bottom of your previous excellent post.

      Assume that Congress adjourns sine die later in the year, the Dems get slaughtered in November, and then a special session is called and, in a fit of a child’s tempter tantrum, they pass the damn thing.

      One insider I spoke to said this would lead to insurrection – literally and not figuratively. Another told me that after a sine die adjournment Congress is out for the rest of the year and the next Congress is seated in January, so it would not happen anyway. I think Congress can do whatever the hell they want – they seem to be quite apt at doing it.

      What are your thoughts?

      • http://www.scragged.com petrarch

        I just HOPE they try that. Look at all the good that has been done by Obama’s monomaniacal determination to turn America into a Eurosclerotic welfare state. We have Americans rising up in defense of their liberties like we haven’t seen in a century. Let’s get the totalitarian statists revealed in all their filth and degradation, so Americans can reject them and their works all at once and in one accord. Maybe then we’ll finally, finally, get some progress back the other direction.

        • http://www.thesubstratum.com gman2008

          I’ve had it with this crap. It’s time for nullification. Everyone I know is gearing up for it and educating themselves. We may not be able to recall a sitting member of the U.S. Congress, but we can recall governors and state legislators. Get ready for it:

          http://tinyurl.com/ya3dc7f

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Nullifiers are political losers, always have and always will, and if you call for it here we’ll just have to point at you and laugh.

          • writeblock

            It’s the next line of battle if this goes through since it cuts to the heart of the whole purpose for the Constitution–individual liberty in the face of expanding government control. Right now conservatives are preparing briefs to present before the Supreme Ct based on the 10th amendment–and other amendments protecting our rights. Obama will rue the day he openly attacked the Justices during his SOTU speech.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            We’re part of the political process.

            If you want buddies to pout with, you won’t find them here.

          • writeblock

            The tenth amendment is why Obamacare is unconstitutional. Are you saying the bill and its mandates are constitutional? If you answer no, then how is nullification not a valid turn of events? And how would this not end up in the Supreme Ct?

          • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

            What in the world are you smoking? Losers?

            Have you even read the post? Is everyone listed in the post, including Dr. Larry Hunter, former policy advisor and current CEO of the Social Security Institute a loser? Is Thomas Jefferson a loser?

            I am not talking about state sovereignty – I am talking about state’s rights or state’s powers if you like. This is NOT succession.

            Martin Luther King used this in reverse – increasing federal power thanks to Wallace. Is Dr. King a loser for attempting a passive-aggressive approach as a solution to a problem? Is Gandhi a loser for doing the same in India regarding British colonialism?

            Nullification has worked – read the post. Not only very recently, but also in the past.

            I think you are confusing the notion of nullification with succession. If true, then I forgive your transgression. Seccessionists are losers. But read the post and give it a chance. I also posted here at Redstate a shorter version:

            http://www.redstate.com/gman2008/2010/03/05/nullification-our-nuclear-option/

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            He was a proto-marxist and as far from conservative as you can get. He was a whack job who fantasized about violent revolution on a regular basis, and applauded the mass murder of France’s revolution.

            I haven’t a clue who Larry Hunter is, nor do I care.

            I have zero interest in reading the screeds of fringe nullifiers, though.

            This is a political site, not a take your ball and go home site.

          • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

            As people more intelligent than you or I put together have been thinking about this for years, I think I will let the public and Redstate readers decide this matter and not someone who appears to be disconnected to the point of appearing like a lunatic.

            Take the points raised in my post and refute them. Go ahead.

            And if you come up with a solution whereby the federal government will solve our problems, please enlighten us.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Just what I’d expect from a follower of Jefferson of all people.

          • Achance

            can’t spell secession?

          • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

            Is when you resort to pointing out a habitual mistake one makes at a keyboard when typing quickly, as opposed to refuting the salient points. Sheesh.

            And yes, I am a nullifier and no I am not a secessionist. There, I spelled it right.

            I don’t judge your statements based up the fact you would be unable to pour water out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel. I will judge what you have to say by looking at the facts.

            Still no refutation.

          • mschmitt

            Can you please source your accusations about Thomas Jefferson?

            Ron Paul’s followers quote from Reagan and Madison, but I’d hardly call either of them proto-Ronulan.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
          • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

            Thus the post.

            And per the post I would guess you are a sheep in sheep’s clothing.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
          • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

            Dr. Larry Hunter, one of the guys who wrote the Contract With America. Ring a bell yet? The guy who helped pass the Reagan tax cuts by attaching them to legislation that was an excise tax for fishing tackle. Anything yet?

            The guy who was almost singularly responsible for getting the GOP to obstruct ObamaCare by working with Senator DeMint and his staff? Spent thousands of dollars of his own money to expose the GOPs strategy to put up a half-hearted fight because they wanted to use the passage of ObamaCare for midterm gains?

            http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30869.html

            Anything ringing a bell yet?

          • writeblock

            …you are right. But nullification has nothing to do with secession. So Neil’s position baffles me since nullification is mainstream conservatism in action on the state level. It’s based on tenth amendment rights. Obamacare is obviously at odds with the tenth amendments–as well as being at odds with the Bill of Rights, the right to privacy and individual liberty. How can this be wrong for anyone to express on this thread?

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            It’s the dream of political losers and rejects and always predicts a total electoral wipeout of its proponents.

            Keep that stench away from me.

          • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

            and millions of others as a political loser and reject.

            Oh, and by the way, you have read the constitution right? You know the part that says “The powers not enumerated…”.

            Education man, education.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            You really are that ignorant, aren’t you?

          • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

            I grow tired of your blunt sword. If you had any wit I might actually give a whit. You obviously suffer from delusions of adequacy and I take my leave of your tiresome presence.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            I would welcome your permanent absence from this site in fact.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            If you can’t win elections, then that’s an admission that America is against you.

          • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

            Everyone has one of those horrible habits they wish they could fix. Mine is the constant, CONSTANT, spelling of secession and sucession or ever succession. The later is not flagged as a spelling error and my brain, like someone with dyslexia, has always had a problem with this word. There are a few others, and this is just one of them.

            You are right and I point out in my post the two are not the same. The secession issue has already been addressed and nobody wants to go back there. However, nullification is an entirely different animal and has even recently worked (Real ID Act). It is a political solution so I am not sure where Neil is coming from either.

          • Achance

            days in The South, I can tell you that virtually every thinking Southerner and virtually every Southern elected official believed that Brown v. The Board, the ’64 Civil Rights Act, and the ’65 Voting Rights Act violated both the US and the various Southern state constitutions. Some Governors tried to defy and they all tried by various means to nullify. As the result, nobody would mention the 10th Amendment in polite company again for almost a generation.

            There is no doubt in my mind that ANY attempt to actually do something in defiance of a federal dictate would see a federal court order to comply and the immediate federalizing of the offending state’s National Guard and troops surrounding that state’s capitol followed by what the federal government would consider to be the necessary arrests if that compliance was not obtained. If the state tried to continue its defiance, I suspect we’d find out what posse comitatus really means and how guts all the firebrands really have.

          • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

            I respectfully disagree and would point you to the post here at Redstate to the comments section. It addresses your scenario above and provides a reason why that scenario occurred as it did and why I don’t think it will necessarily reoccur. I would also ask you to explain to me how the nullification of the Real ID Act as described in the post has not lead to the scenario you describe?

            In the case of the Real ID act a very large number of states enacted nullification and/or refused to comply. You are talking about a singular incident at a specific location. I am talking about a movement spread out geographically wide across multiple states. There is a very real difference here. Also, I am not sure the military would act in the manner you perceive it would as I explain in the comments section of the post.

            http://www.redstate.com/gman2008/2010/03/05/nullification-our-nuclear-option/

          • Achance

            nor was GWB a proto-Stalin.

            I’m confident that it wouldn’t bother Comrade Obama one bit to militarize the Red States; he’d love the opportunity and don’t delude yourself that the military wouldn’t follow the orders. They would and they would shoot civilians if ordered to. At some point there would be desertions and mutinies but not quickly and not entirely.

            The thing the wannabe Strelnikovs that surround Comrade Obama would like most is some sort of civic disorder they could blame on a Red State government or on “the radical right.” That’s when they get their Helter Skelter.

          • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

            I will just have to say that we will agree to disagree on this one. I don’t see the military following orders from Obama to shoot civilians. And if the scale were wide enough and the nullifying states numerous, it would be physically impossible to enforce the law.

            Case in point. In OK they passed a law requiring police officers to round up illegal immigrants in jobs and deport them. The police refused, saying they did not possess the manpower to do so. In the end, the police won the day. It is not that they did not want to follow the law – they were physically unable to enforce it. Enough states and ObamaCare is dead.

          • Achance

            they were confident that every drop of blood spilt over secession could be mopped up with their handkerchiefs. And if the cops didn’t enforce that law, it is because their managers and supervisors didn’t want them to. If the cops had been given the formal order, they’d have done it, at least for awhile.

            The problem we have now is the same one the South had after the ’60 election. Lincoln and the Republicans didn’t need any Southern votes to govern and Comrade Obama doesn’t need any RedState, again mostly Southern, votes to govern.

          • Richard Mullins

            but that didn’t seem to stop the so-called “Calhoun Democrats” of the day from getting seceding at the very mention of his name. This nullification thing didn’t work then and it isn’t going to work now. The only things we can do is stall them until they run out of time or simply kill the bill outright. Those are the only 2 options. Having a sort of good read on Southern history(ok, Texas History but that mostly falls in line with other Southern states), I can come to a conclusion on the outcome on trying nullification.

          • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

            Nullification is NOT secession!

            http://www.redstate.com/gman2008/2010/03/05/nullification-our-nuclear-option/

            As I state in the comments: Naysayers of this approach only lack imagination. It takes guts, it takes gumption, and it takes perseverance. I don?t doubt the MLK and Gandhi had their Achance?s and Neil?s. Thankfully, they both had what it took to meet their goals. I am not ready to give up on this country yet.

            As stated in the post via TAC:

            “Nullification is not secession or insurrection, but neither is it unconditional or unlimited submission. Nullification is not something that requires any decision, statement or action from any branch of the federal government. Nullification is not the result of obtaining a favorable court ruling. Nullification is not the petitioning of the federal government to start doing or to stop doing anything. Nullification doesn?t depend on any federal law being repealed. Nullification does not require permission from any person or institution outside of one?s own state.”

            Reading is fundamental folks. Jumping to conclusions without reading an argument is tantamount to admitting a failure of intellect.

          • writeblock

            …When the military is called out–and sides with the common people. That’s exactly when the government falls. And how, pray tell, do you call forth the National Guard when nullification has to do with individual citizens refusing to go along with government mandates because of state laws? Obviously the next step is not calling out the military, but going to court to resolve the impasse. In which case the SC weighs in. That’s exactly what we WANT to happen!

          • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

            The purpose of nullification is the restoration of states’ powers. As I state in my post, many have made excellent arguments that a federal branch cannot have a say in the powers of the federal government over the states for reasons I will simplify as “a conflict of interest”. The post goes into far greater detail.

            The states are the final arbiters of the constitution, not the Supreme Court. It will always side with the federal government. Dr. Hunter’s excellent section on his site (also linked in the post) concerning the erosion of states powers over time is of great use here. Of course, the Tenth Amendment Center has a number of references as well.

            In providing my answer above, I am assuming you are not working from the point of view that an SC ruling would be needed to show the people the federal government’s abuse of power included all branches of government – assuming they ruled against us, which would be surprising given the Commerce Clause. If that was your intent, then I agree whole-heartedly with your statement.

            Professor Thomas woods says it better than I: The Framers of the Constitution were well aware of the tendency for power to concentrate and expand. Jefferson spoke of the calamity that would result if all power were to be concentrated in the federal government. Checks and balances among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches….offer little guarantee of limited government, since these three branches could unite against the states and the people.

            From the politically incorrect guide to American history. The book goes on to explain why nullification is not as crazy as it sounds. The writings of Dr. Hunter, the Tenth Amendment Center, and many others outline the history of just how what Jefferson feared has come to pass. Our government is out of control – both when Republicans controlled it and now even worse with Democrats. The judiciary is included as well and their complicity in centralizing power is well documented, the most egregious violation being the Commerce Clause ruling.

          • writeblock

            …since the Supreme Court’s reason for existence is to be the arbiter of the Constitution. This is especially true now, when we have strict constitutionalists in the majority on the Court–which had not been the case in the recent and not-too-recent past. Nor do I expect it to rule in favor of Obamacare should this go before the Court–as I’m certain it will if passed. The SC will almost certainly knock it down. Nullification is a gauntlet thrown down. The federal government will attempt to go around these laws–by turning to the SC–which is exactly what the states ultimately want since the Constitution is clear on federal limits to power.

          • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

            If you read the post, Dr. Larry Hunter demonstrates not only Jefferson’s argument, but the same argument that has been made by many others as well. The SCOTUS is the not the final arbiter of the constitution, the states are. The fact this has been slowly and deliberately turned on its head does not make the reality any less factual. As professor woods writes “Responding to the claim the federal judiciary and the states had the final word on the constitutionality of federal measures, James Madison’s Report of 1800 argued that “dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but…the judicial department may also exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution…However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department, is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, the resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties of the constitutional compact, from which the judicial as well as the other departments hold their delegated trusts”. Thus the Supreme Court’s decisions could not b considered absolutely final in constitutional questions touching upon the powers of the states.”

            Of of the greatest challenges faced by those who favor nullification is educating the public on the reasonableness of this approach. My first instinct was to distance myself from this idea as fast as I could, but I kept being bombarded by pleas to refute the arguments on rational grounds. I dove in with great passion, knowing I would figuratively send its proponents to the intellectual woodshed. Not only was I wrong, but was easily outmaneuvered by the constitution itself and the fact our founding fathers intent is clear – they were aware of the abuse of power issue if the federal government is used to police itself. It is almost the equivalent of touching the tip of ones right index finger with their right index finger or kissing your lips. You find yourself is a self-referential loop. In this case, the loop becomes a self-perpetuating power grab that occurs over time.

            I strongly urge a careful reading of the post. Thanks!

      • Dan Perrin

        but my sense is that the Dems have been extremely lucky that an external event — either a worsening economy or a foreign affairs crisis of some kind, has allowed them to consume every waking minute on health care.

        I also think there will be NO STOMACH for anything health care after this goes down in flames.

        A foreign or economic crisis, combined with a devastating November for the Dems will prevent this from happening.

        But even without an economic or foreign crisis, I think the loss will stop all health care bill activity pre-and-post election.

        • http://www.thesubstratum.com gman2008

          http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/05/new-house-dem-strategy-on-obamacare-hostaging/:

          Apparently this approach is also possible:

          Chances for a health-care bill grew dimmer on Thursday, by most indications, but House Democrats may have found a way to force the Senate to work with them that would remove a key roadblock to passing the reform desired by President Obama.

          Call it a ?hold-plus-reconciliation? strategy.

          The House could pass the Senate bill as is, then hold it in their chamber instead of sending it to the president so he could sign it into law. That bill, passed but not out of the House?s hands, would be the leverage to bring the Senate to the table.

          Many House Democrats who dislike the Senate bill fear that the upper chamber would pay lip service to making improvements through reconciliation, only to back away from promises after the House passed the Senate bill.

          ?We don?t trust the Senate to do anything they say they?re going to do,? Rep. Anthony Weiner, New York Democrat, told The Daily Caller.

          In other words, they want to hold the bill hostage to get reconciliation accomplished in parallel. It?s a novel approach, but one that exposes a deep mistrust between the two chambers. If House Democrats can?t trust their Senate colleagues, should we trust either group?

          Can this work? In Article I Section 7, the US Constitution requires that Presidents must veto bills within ten days of Congress presenting them in order to keep them from becoming law. After ten days, a bill becomes law with or without a presidential signature, unless Congress goes out of session in that period, in which case a failure to sign the bill would act as a veto. It was this clause that kept Presidents from traveling abroad while Congress was in session before the airplane. However, there is no definition of a time frame for presenting the bill to the White House, so arguably Nancy Pelosi could hold the bill until the end of the current session ? in December.

          • writeblock

            …since it wouldn’t withstand WH pressure and I doubt it can convince House members Pelosi would not eventually fold rather than kill the bill.

          • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

            I think I’ll sleep a little easier now.

    • sarg01

      The Dems may not be particularly good at this, but Rahm and Pelosi are too cunning to ever let it get to a “oops, we failed” point. Pelosi simply won’t let the vote happen unless she has 217. That’s the real hypocrisy in this whole “up-or-down vote” BS. It’s a lot like the Dem recount strategy – keep working until you get ahead for two seconds, then declare victory and insist that all work come to an immediate end.

      What we really need to stake it in the heart is for some non-Stupak-block Dem who voted yes the first time to go on the record as a “No way, no how” vote. Of course, that’s unlikely. Look how the Dems tagged removal of the Senate Medicare expansion completely on Lieberman, despite the fact that at least 7 or 8 Dem senators weren’t willing to support it. The one who speaks out gets blamed for the whole thing.

      Of course, we can always hope one of them realizes that in this case, the “blame” will be seen as heroism by independents.

      • Dan Perrin

        because they think if they don’t have a vote their progressive base will never forgive them for not trying.

        I think they are wrong.

        They should let it drift into outer darkness, but they are irrational.

        It is not possible to reason with them.

        • writeblock

          The first group I label, “Very Hard to Persuade,” i.e. it will be no little feat to bring that member from a nay to a yea. I put a member in there if:

          (1) The member has communicated something negative about the Senate bill, or the pending House-Senate compromise.

          (2) The member comes from a district where John McCain won 60% or more of the vote, and is running for reelection.

          (3) The member has a lifetime National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) score greater than 80%.

          Several of these members possess more than one of these qualities. I listed the above qualities in what I think their order of salience is. A member’s most salient quality is the one I’ve listed next to his name below.

          I count 25 in this group:

          1. Jason Altmire (PA-4) (communication)
          2. John Barrow (GA-12) (communication)
          3. Dan Boren (OK-2) (communication)
          4. Allen Boyd (FL-2) (communication)
          5. Bobby Bright (AL-2) (communication)
          6. Travis Childers (MS-1) (McCain won 62%)
          7. Artur Davis (AL-7) (communication)
          8. Lincoln Davis (TN-4) (McCain won 64%)
          9. Chet Edwards (TX-17) (McCain won 67%)
          10. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-AL) (communication)
          11. Tim Holden (PA-17) (NRLC score of 87%)
          12. Larry Kissell (NC-8) (communication)
          13. Frank Kratovil (MD-1) (communication)
          14. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10) (communication)
          15. Jim Marshall (GA-8) (communication)
          16. Eric Massa (NY-29) (communication)
          17. Mike McIntyre (NC-7) (NRLC score of 93%)
          18. Mike McMahon (NY-13) (communication)
          19. Charlie Melancon (LA-3) (communication)
          20. Walt Minnick (ID-1) (communication)
          21. Collin Peterson (MN-7) (communication)
          22. Heath Shuler (NC-11) (communication)
          23. Ike Skelton (MO-4) (communication)
          24. John Tanner (TN-8) (communication)
          25. Gene Taylor (MS-4) (communication)

          The next category I call “Hard to Persuade.” It’s based upon two factors.

          (1) The member’s race is currently rated “toss-up” by Charlie Cook, and the member is running for reelection.

          (2) The member comes from a district where John McCain won 55% to 60% of the vote, and is running for reelection.

          Here are these members.

          1. Rick Boucher (VA-9) (McCain won 59%)
          2. Ben Chandler (KY-6) (McCain won 55%)
          3. Betsy Markey (CO-4) (Cook rates toss-up)
          4. Jim Matheson (UT-2) (McCain won 58%)
          5. Glenn Nye (VA-2) (Cook rates toss-up)
          6. Mike Ross (AR-4) (McCain won 58%)
          7. Harry Teague (NM-2) (Cook rates toss-up)

          That leaves six members I’d put in the “Persuadable” category.

          1. John Adler (NJ-3)
          2. Brian Baird (WA-3)
          3. John Boccieri (OH-16)
          4. Bart Gordon (TN-6)
          5. Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24)
          6. Scott Murphy (NY-20)

          On the flip side, we have (so far) eight Democrats who voted yes in November who have since suggested they might not be willing to sign on to a new bill.

          1. Michael Arcuri (NY-24)
          2. Shelley Berkley (NV-1)
          3. Dennis Cardoza (CA-18)
          4. Raul Grijalva (AZ-7)
          5. James Oberstar (MN-8)
          6. Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL)
          7. Kurt Schrader (OR-5)
          8. Bart Stupak (MI-1)

          What about the so-called “Stupak Democrats?” Oberstar and (of course!) Stupak fall into this category, but there are probably others. I have two ways to gauge who they might be.

          1. They voted for the Stupak amendment and they have a lifetime NRLC rating of higher than 80%.

          2. They voted for the Stupak amendment and they signed a letter in June, 2009 saying that they would oppose a bill “unless it explicitly excludes abortion funding from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan.”

          I’ve made a note of those who fall into both categories.

          1. Jerry Costello (IL-12) (both)
          2. Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3) (both)
          3. Joe Donnelly (IN-2) (NRLC score of 82%)
          4. Steve Driehaus (OH-1) (signed letter)
          5. Brad Ellsworth (IN-8) (NRLC score of 91%)
          6. Paul Kanjorski (PA-11) (signed letter)
          7. Marcy Kaptur (OH-9) (signed letter)
          8. Dale Kildee (MI-5) (NRLC score of 87%)
          9. Daniel Lipinski (IL-3) (NRLC score of 86%)
          10. Alan Mollohan (WV-1) (NRLC score of 97%)
          11. Solomon Ortiz (TX-27) (both)
          12. Nick Rahall (WV-3) (NRLC score of 97%)

          Charlie Wilson (OH-6) has been mentioned as a Stupak Democrat, though he does not fit these categories. Using a different, but equally good, methodology – Chris Bowers of Open Left finds a lot of overlap. He adds Chris Carney (PA-10), Mike Doyle (PA-14), Baron Hill (D-IN), and Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-1) while removing Kaptur and Ortiz. Kirkpatrick does not fit his methodology, having voted against the Stupak amendment in November – but the rest of them make sense. Doyle has a very high NRLC score (77%) while Hill and Carney come from pro-life districts.

          Bottom line: Democratic leaders have a tough road ahead.

          I’m going to keep updating this. Check back regularly with this page if you are interested. Also, if I’ve missed an important news items that relates to one of these members, please forward it to me at horseraceblog@realclearpolitics.com!

          Posted by Jay Cost at 12:00 AM | Send to a Friend | Print | Permalink
          Login | Register | RSS

          • writeblock

            …the solid no vote is now 25, the probable no vote is 7–which equals 32. Add to these the yes votes that have publicly intimated they might change to no and that’s another 8, bringing the tally to 40 no votes. Add to these Stupak’s 12 and that makes 52. Subtract the previous no votes who might possibly switch to yes (only 6 in number)–people like Gordon and Boccieri–and you have a final tally of 46 no votes.

            The Republicans need 39 votes to defeat the bill. The biggest problem for Pelosi is Stupak’s obduracy. Abortion can’t be fixed through reconciliation. Just adding the solid no’s to the Stupak no’s gives us 38 no’s. We’d only need 1 probable no of the 7 probable no’s to kill the bill. I don’t see how they can pass this thing unless they can bribe all 7 and also bribe those 8 who have intimated they’re yes votes now leaning to no.

    • Dan Perrin

      I think it will be over when they lose a vote on passage in the House.

      Every deadline has been blown, and they will not stop until they are stopped.

      • Dan Perrin

        They cannot stop themselves.

        They keep trying to breath life into it.

        So if they do not know when it will be over, how can anyone.

        • earlgrey

          Add to that the Hill article where Steny Hoyer is trying to propose a side care or separate bill to address Bart Stupak’s concerns. We are losing this.

          Gordon
          Boccieri have switched to yes.

          • Dan Perrin

            One other yes is undecided.

            Boccieri, I have not looked at.

            But they are walking dead men if they switch to yes.

            I know for a fact that those No to Yes votes will get massive “special” attention by folk with the resources to inflict upon them career ending pain.

          • Dan Perrin

            check out bk’s comments below.

          • janis

            He has nothing whatsoever to fear from changing his vote from “No” to “Yes.” Which is a very good reason why term limits is not a good idea, but taking away all their perks is a better plan for limiting their time in power.

            And before anyone can tell me that won’t happen, I know it won’t. But it’s the only thing I can see that would limit their time with their hands on the levers of power.

          • writeblock

            …are six in number, according to the Cost head count. The yes votes possibly switching to no are eight in number by the same count.

  • treeofliberty

    I am becoming more (cautiously) optimistic day after day that this bill is going down in flames.

    My response to all these Dems finally waking up to the very real political reality of not getting elected in Nov in “About Time!” I’m surprised , not not shocked, that progressive/socialists like Maxine Waters are submissively conceding the public option with hardly a whimper. I expect Grijalva to start opening the floodgates of progressives angered as what they see as “too much compromise” Even Michael Moore is turning against Obama now.

    And the pro life Dems are even a bigger issue as they will not vote for the Senate version, Senate version can’t get changed without having to go back to the Senate for 60 votes and strong pro life language may further aleinate the progressive wing of the party.

    Combined with sinking poll numbers for the Pres and Congress they really are between a rock and a hard place.

    Watching Obamacare crash and burn will be priceless!

    • Dan Perrin

      Say the Dems realize they cannot pass the Senate bill in the House.

      Then what?

      I think the Speaker will amend it in the House, which will force it back to the Senate.

      She can say she passed it in the House twice, and then let Senator Reid deal with killing it.

      • writeblock

        …and that would be to pass a smaller bill. If that happens, the comprehensive bill would finally be dead. This could happen within weeks.

      • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

        because it sure does not look better with time. The closer we get to the fall elections the harder it would be to get anything.

  • rbdwiggins

    Killing Obamacare is “the will of the American people.”

    • Dan Perrin

      n/t

  • JadedByPolitics

    this sea of DELUSIONALS! I have stressed and worried and have been angrier then I had been since last November that these STUPID people in DC have no clue how to just get out of the way of the American public and let US just live and you have consistently been a voice of reason and kept me from going full bore CRAZY :)

    • Dan Perrin

      :)

  • bk

    If Stupak’s group sticks to their guns, Pelosi needs to flip at least a dozen nays to ayes and I don’t think there has even been a single one to state it yet, has there? And that doesn’t even count a few outside of Stupak’s who have flipped from aye to nay.

    Obama is desperately hoping the House will pass the Senate bill before the members have a chance to return back to their districts for a recess. Both his summit/sound bite/photo op and his meeting with wavering Dems this week were attempts to give them cover to vote yes, but that seems to have bought absolutely zip so far.

    Like you say, when Pelosi or any other Dem says “We will have the votes” it means “We don’t have the votes”. The longer this goes on, the further away they seem to be from passing the Senate bill.

    What seems to be happening is that the people in the House who don’t like the Senate bill – whether because they think it’s pro-abortion or because they think it’s not liberal enough or whatever – are thinking that the reconciliation and “Obama as White Knight” huffing and puffing are just ploys, and that as soon as the House passes the Senate bill Obama will sign it and then Obama/Pelosi/Reid will declare victory and move on to something other than health care.

    And on top of that, Pelosi from her safe seat can say that members need to be willing to sacrifice their seats by ignoring their constituents, but we know that for most of the House that getting re-elected overrides all other considerations.

    On the other hand, it’s not quite dead yet because all these Dems who are retiring may be willing to vote yes since it’s not costing them a seat. So far so good, but we’re not out of the woods yet.

    • antisocial

      They are looking at approaching recess and then elections. And they know The Mob Is Waiting for them to come home. And they want to save their jobs and perks that come with it.

      I hope this crap will go down. This is a power grab. The other day The Magnificent One had 10 members at WH. We know the nomination to 10th circuit. There may be others that we don’t know about.

      The baffling thing for me is – Why does the administration keep coming back to this suicidal bill? I see 3 situations:
      1>The administration is trying to distract from economy because they know nothing is going to improve for at least another 2 years. Hence the effort to tie health care insurance to economy. When the election campaign for 2012 is in full swing The Magnificent One can again give us crap about “gridlock in Washington”.
      2>The administration convinces dems to pass the senate bill and then try reconciliation. If that fails why does The Magnificent One care? ohh… ho… ho… The senate won’t approve the reconciliation measures. Continue with that through the elections. And then “Let us just sign this bill. This is better than no bill.” Meanwhile all those lefty squishes (moderates) will be voted out. Pass the damn thing. And then this will setup a permanent campaign issue for democrats going forward.
      3>The administration is just pushing this because they know it will fail. The failure will give cover to all those “No” votes. Close to elections.

      This smoke and mirrors is disgusting.

    • Dan Perrin

      It gives me great comfort to know that you and I agree on the current situation and trajectory of this, give our different perspectives.

      Also, I had not appreciated the sign & move on to something else — and forget reconciliation.

      This is highly credible in my mind, given the unbelievable time spent so far on this and it’s high political cost.

      Quoting you:

      The Dems “are thinking that the reconciliation and ?Obama as White Knight? huffing and puffing are just ploys, and that as soon as the House passes the Senate bill Obama will sign it and then Obama/Pelosi/Reid will declare victory and move on to something other than health care.”

      The unions, especially, must be concerned about this.

      • http://www.gemframing.com LisaDe

        If health care passes, the dems are slaughtered in November. Some top-notch very qualified, best of the best Republicans are elected (this is a given) and the second part of Obamas presidency looks REAL good. Fiscally responsible, job creating, deficit reducing men who really do the right thing. Who benefits? Obama.

        He wins re-election because of this, and with the help of Move – On and Acorns and the like, all the candidates for seats in 2014 are pumped up with “progressive” Dems. Obamas dream second term. This is what keeps me up at night. Passage of this Bill is real bad, but whats even worse – 2014.

  • http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

    Can we stop referring to him as a “progressive”? Anyone who wants to kill HSA’s is a committed socialist. Anyone willing to kill Obamacare over HSA’s is a radical Marxist angry that those of with HSA’s because we (“from each according to his means”) won’t subsidize as many Democrat constituents including illegal aliens (“to each according to his need”) as Rep Grijalva would like. I want to hear a GOP member of Congress dismiss the progressives with the simple declaration that most of what they want is unconstitutional.

  • Sundayjack

    Shy group, it seems.

    • stigmo

      http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/04/stupak-we-have-at-least-a-dozen-ready-to-flip-to-no-on-obamacare/

      • Sundayjack

        I know the list. It’s been hacked over quit a bit these last few days. Except for Bart Stupak, we just don’t hear from anyone ON the list.

  • marshmom

    I got my hopes up too many times that they wouldn’t pass this disaster and was always let down. Deep down I still hold on to hope and a diary like this makes me want to jump up and down, but I can’t let myself get too excited yet.
    I know that Obama will stop at nothing to “transform” America.

    • cari

      this roller coaster ride has been no fun. But something about this whole process just didn’t make sense to me: the argument that these are crazed ideologues that are willing to sacrifice their own political lives in order to pass the holy grail of healthcare. I believe it’s true of the leadership, but not of EVERY rank and file house member. Dying to yourself for a greater political cause is a SELFLESS act. Since when could a majority of politicians be considered selfless? At some point- a lot later than has been comfortable for me- I kept feeling that their SELF-PRESERVATION would kick in and trump the ideological selflessness. Heck, even at Jonestown, not everyone drank the kool-aid. Some “woke up” and thought “this is crazy” and ran for the jungle. It sounds like this is FINALLY happening in the house.

  • http://www.FranBaker.com frankieb

    They don’t even have a bill yet so they don’t know what’s in it. How crazy is this? Great article. Let’s keep the pressure on.

    • Leopard1996

      As for my understanding of it for the reconciliation to even work, the Senate bill has to be passed unchanged, then the houses reconciliation bill has to pass then be sent back to the senate to get the 51. Then again, I think Stupak and other dems are counting on the rules being what they say the rules are as opposed to what the rules actually are and not being called on it.

      • http://www.thesubstratum.com gman2008

        They do have a bill. The House bill. It must be passed and then “fixed” by Senate in reconciliation. There is also Obama’s bill, which when the legislative language is made available, can also be “attached” to the House bill via reconciliation (at least parts of it – unless Biden overrules the parliamentarian)

        If I were a House Democrat, I would worry about two things. One, if the Senate version passes the House, Obama can sign it into law and that’s it – there is no need for reconciliation. If it works – great, if it does not – oh, well. Then there is the other worry – that if reconciliation does work, Obama can just veto the bill and we are still stuck with the House bill. Or maybe they just use reconciliation to add the public option (there are now 33 signatures in the Senate for that – although I think this is a bluff to scare Republicans).

        I think the bill is dead, but we need to keep a watch out for any shenanigans.

        • Leopard1996

          The major malfunction of the house bill was that if that went to the senate as is, it would not pass through normal channels, and that for even reconciliation to start the Senate bill needs to be passed as is, then the reconcilliation house bill needs to be passed in the house, then sent to the senate.

  • kewgardens

    CQ says Bart Gordon is sounding like a yes.

    That would constitute a shift from his previous “no” vote in HCR.

    He is a representative from Tennessee who is retiring this year.

    • http://www.thesubstratum.com gman2008

      If I were a Rep who did this, I wuould change his name and move out of my state. I think a good disguise might also be in order. I don’t think the Dems are even remotely aware of the anger directed at them right now. They live in a bubble.

    • stigmo

      He does support the bill. Not good.

    • writeblock

      …all no votes who might switch to yes.

  • 4life

    night, and what scared me a little was that he kept saying he was for the bill if only they would write into it the same protection against federal funding for abortion that is already in other bills that have passed the House and Senate. So, it seems that it would be easy for Pelosi to give him what he wants and if the Senate has passed other bills with the same language, then they might go along with it. I hope they are just using this as an excuse to vote against something they really don’t want to vote for anyway, but if you listen to what he said it sounds like he really would vote for it if the abortion language was right.

    Is Pelosi not fixing the abortion language because she just wants to get the Senate version passed with no changes? Will the Senate really object to Stupak language?

    • JSobieski

      Stupak’s objections to the Senate bill have always been based on abortion, Stupak after all is in favor of the public option.

      The Senate passed its bill without the Stupak language knowing that the House (which passed its bill first) included the Stupak language

      The House has to pass the Senate bill as is for Obama care to become law, and Stupak has consistently said that he won’t vote for a bill without the “Stupak language”

      Stupak and his gang of 12 are pro-public option and anti-abortion, and the Senate bill disappoints them on both

      • 4life

        “they just need to give us this language and we will vote for it” he was really saying, we need to scrap the Senate bill and the Senate needs to send us another bill that includes this language. Because even though he may want a public option, he seemed willing to vote for the bill as is, if the abortion language was changed. And the Senate has already rejected Stupak language. This gives me more confidence that the bill may in fact be aborted.

        • JSobieski

          The abortion issue does manifest itself in language, but it is not simple and will not be resolved. Given the numerous closed door discussions he has had with Pelosi et al, he knows this or he should know. In any case, reconciliation requires that the House pass the Senate bill, which includes the language that Stupak objects to.

          Stupak wants to specifically preclude any federal money to go fund abortions, whether directly or indirectly. In contrast, the Senate bill allows subsidy moneys (vouchers if you will) be used to pay for insurance that covers abortion. There is also some funding of reproductive services that seem targeted to directly fund abortions, although I haven’t looked at that language.

          Supak wants a public option, and opposes the cadillac tax of the Senate bill. However, his opposition to the public funding of abortion appears to be his primary concern here.

          • writeblock

            …any bill containing Stupak’s language–in order to achieve their end. This won’t be easy since the pro-life lobby seems not to mind Obamacare. The Catholic bishops were quite happy when the Stupak amendment “fixed” the House bill and the House bill passed. They are liberals and socialists ultimately, with pro-life orientation.

          • stigmo

            It’s a dirty little secret that the Conference of Catholic Bishops is a bunch of leftists that don’t reflect the views of the bishops. Outside of that group, the pro-life movement has been fighting this tooth and nail–Stupak or not. In fact, without pro-lifers, this would have been signed into law last fall.

          • writeblock

            The pro-lifers in PA, for instance, voted against a strong conservative like Santorum and swung their support to Casey–who is a liberal. Too many social conservatives are one-issue types like Stupak.

          • writeblock

            …this would have been signed into law last fall. In fact just the opposite is true. Stupak, for instance, should have realized that Pelosi was throwing him some crumbs, knowing the Senate would reinstate the abortion language. Instead of killing a bill that would come back to bite him in the future, he voted for it and gave the bill new life. The bishops too seemed satisfied–prematurely. This is just one example of the short-sightedness of the pro-life community.

          • writeblock

            …that the pro-life lobby threatened Republicans who wanted to vote against the Stupak language inserted into the House bill–which made it so palatable to pro-life Democrats. So the Republicans went along with Stupak out of fear of the pro-life lobby. This saved Obamacare in the House–and the rest is history.

          • JSobieski

            Maybe Pelosi caved just to get the pressure off of her and the House, but I’ll be she regrets it now.

          • JSobieski

            and the only outstanding issues would be public option and cadillac tax. The odds of the Dems working these out before Brown’s election night seem pretty high.

            Incrementally, the pro-life issue was an important obstacle.

    • Dan Perrin

      House and Senate conferees has forced Pelosi into the position of either passing the Senate bill with no changes or to amend it and have it be sent back to the Senate where it faces a 60 vote margin.

      The Dems don’t have 60 so it will die.

      Pelosi could accept the Stupak language and send it back to the Senate.

      The bill would die, but she would have passed it through the House.

  • Scope

    have gotten the message that Pelosi may no longer be the political executioner come November? If the Republicans do win back the majority in the mid-terms, no amount of cliff jumping Dem votes will force the Communist agenda through. That thought has to be giving the no vote Dems more courage. Nothing makes me smile more than the thought of the bug eyed beeitch surrendering the gavel. I see a straight jacket in her future.

    • Leopard1996

      On whether the dems are thinking they are playing the long game of chess against a bunch of republicans that are playing checkers. What I mean by that is this. They pass the healthcare bill, and lose seats and possibly control in congress in 2010, but the senate is not going to be filibuster proof nor congress be vetoproof, therefore they spend 2 years gridlocking everything up to the 2012 elections, and with the sympathetic media whores they have the meme of “Look, the GOP did not do anything with their 2 years of control, and if you don’t vote for us, the benefits that come due now go away”.

      I hate that endgame to, but I have been looking at this and can’t see a counter move to it.

      • writeblock

        First, they take control of the budget.

        Second, Obama’s socialist agenda would be stopped dead.

        Third, they can INVESTIGATE, hold hearings, find out where the stimulus money is going, reveal the subversive nature of the Obama regime, etc.

        • Leopard1996

          I can understand what they can do. But what they do and what can be portrayed may be two different things.

          For example,

          They can take control of the budget. Hopefully, they use that power to keep Obama’s budgets in check for the 2011 and 2012, but if they do not, then the GOP is hung on the same petard as they were in 2006 and 2008.

          Obama’s socialist agenda is stopped dead, gets portrayed by the scumbag media as gridlock and the dumb masses that gave us Bambi turn around and say the GOP can’t govern and give control right back to the Dems.

          Investigate and hold hearings gets portrayed as litigating the past. The dumb masses will then use that and state that the GOP would rather punish the past then look to the future.

          I am not disagreeing with you on your points, but even though we see surveys that state that the country is a “center-right” country, I also do not have faith in the intelligence of the majority, who right now can feel something is not right, but if the MSM can preach the right meme, they can get in their heads and say well GOP control in 2010 and 2011 didn’t feel right either, and we are in the same continual loop.

          • writeblock

            …they are dying. The word gets out by us through the new media–in the same way it’s getting out now. Why do you suppose most Americans now strongly oppose Obamacare? Do you think it’s because the old media portrayed it unfavorably? Just the opposite. Nobody puts must trust in the msm these days. In fact, according to Pew’s most recent poll, Fox News is the only tv news outlet with a high level of trust. The way the msm portrays conservatism is not anything to wring our hands over. We just need to do the job the American people want us to do–fearlessly.

          • earlgrey

            most people getting their news from sources that are at least slightly non biased. Hollywood is a problem too. I agree the new media makes a difference, but we have a ways to go.

          • writeblock

            …They already do (get their news from other sources.) The new media has been wildly successful getting their message out. It’s been able to counter Obamacare successfully, for instance. Obama has tried everything but stand on his head. He went on talk shows, he did the Sunday circuit, he held town hall meetings, he addressed joint sessions of Congress. The public ain’t buying–mainly because it’s so well informed by the alternate sources.

    • Dan Perrin

      because she won’t be Speaker for long?

      Good point.

      • redneck_hippie

        because it will only be good for a couple more years. That’s why Obama is going to the justiceships. They don’t expire with the end of The One (termer).

  • oldprospector

    I am just considering all Dems who say they will vote no yes votes whose price has not yet been met by Obama or Pelosi.

    • azred

      as the corruption and vote buying will continue. They all have a price. It just depends on how deep the pockets have to be to meet that price.

      • Dan Perrin

        EVER, until after the vote.

        And any yes votes will get really special attention in the fall.

        :)

    • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

      on ObamaCare unless it is known it will not fail. More accurate to say that you never want to see a vote on the bill. This is one bill where if there is vote, is passes – every darn time.

  • jackbenimble

    from the vessel of Jonestown Guyana koolaide.

  • teresakoch

    “This whole thing doesn’t kick in until after 2013. Historically, since FDR the ONLY Democratic president to serve more than one term has been Clinton (and then only because he veered towards the right after the 1994 mid-term elections). Republicans have occupied the Executive Office for many more years than the Democrats.

    The way the Healthcare bill is structured, the Department of Health and Human Services is in charge of ALL healthcare decisions. Guess who APPOINTS and staffs the HHS department? That’s right – the president.

    Folks better think long and hard about how they feel about a Republican administration making their healthcare decisions for them before they throw all of their weight behind passage of this bill….”

    Feel free to copy and paste wherever you think it might “help”!

    • Dan Perrin

      but the Dems will never think that far ahead.

    • http://www.inthisdimension.com inthisdimension

      Remember how all the MI Daycare workers awoke one morning to find that they were dues-paying members of AFSCME?

      As soon as this passes, all doctors, nurses, healthcare workers in the US will awake to find they are paying dues (with our tax dollars) to AFSCME and SEUI.

      And THAT will be a permanent totalitarian majority… and THAT will be THAT.

      This is NOT about healthcare. And November maybe a fantasy given the billions that will be siphoned by the Feds into the SEIU and AFSCME coffers….

      They are NOT worried about a future GOP administration… at all.

      • izoneguy

        and if this get’s passed – hundreds of thousands more medical personnel will quit or be fired – to be replaced by leftists drones that are busy brushing up on how to deny you & me healthcare.

        • izoneguy

          I’m a Medicare doctor. Here’s what I make

          http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/04/news/economy/medicare_doctor_costs/index.htm

          But with a 21% cut in Medicare payments slated to take effect later this month, physicians who say they are making an OK living may be reduced to income levels that no longer make their profession viable. That’s especially true for those still paying medical school costs and other training.

          “After the costs of my own benefits are deducted, that will leave me with the equivalent of a minimum wage job,” he said.

          Unless Congress acts to adjust Medicare payments without considering the impact of rising health care costs, Schreiber said he could be forced into bankruptcy or shut his practice.

  • renny

    to flood DC with appeals for “Yes” votes and they are jamming the Cong. phone lines.

    So we cannot sit back and figure it’s all over but the shouting.

    Still call Cong. and say NOOOOOOoooooo! 202-224/225-3121.

    • Dan Perrin

      showing up in person, demonstrating and pressuring the No votes from November, the Yes Stupak votes and some of the shaky Yes votes on the bill.

      The letters signed by Members on the public option and the health premium tax issue are good places to start.

      I am not suggesting we stop fighting, we must keep up the pressure.

      • earlgrey

        I am having a lot of staffers tell me to focus on calling my own representative. So I urge Red Staters if you have family or friends in areas served by the dems to have them call their representative.

  • Mary Beth

    “President Obama?s message to progressives who are dissatisfied with the Senate health care bill is two fold: First: Don?t forget about the uninsured. Second: Don?t forget what failure to pass this bill would do to the party and my presidency.

    In a meeting with House progressives today, Obama made the pitch.

    Speaking to reporters in the Speaker?s lobby off the House floor, Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) said the President reminded them that ?If this opportunity passes, much of our agenda, on the progressive side?it would be difficult, if not impossible for a generation to get back to this issue.?

    I asked if the message was convincing to those in attendance.

    ?It?s pretty compelling,? Grijalva said.

    That?s a significant change from his tone earlier in the week, when Grijalva said he was inclined to vote against the bill from the left.

    Obama reminded the assembled Democrats that doing nothing would be politically disastrous. ?To maintain a strong presidency we need to pass this bill,? the President said, according to Grijalva.”

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/298996.php

    • Dan Perrin

      they don’t have the votes.

      But maybe not.

      I do not see how they can think they are being principled when they lost on their single payer and public option policies, after being repeatedly assured by Pelosi and the White House to the contrary.

      If the Progressives let this chance to get the public option go by, it will be another generation before they get their shot again.

  • mavericktime

    “The House passed the Pelosi health bill, as amended by Stupak, by 220?215. That 220 has now lost Murtha, Abercrombie, Wexler, Cao, Stupak, Herseth Sandlin, Oberstar, and probably Berkley. That brings Pelosi down to 213 when she needs 216 (or maybe 217, depending on the timing of Representative Deal’s resignation). Meanwhile, nobody has given a strong on-the-record indication of moving from no to yes. As of now it looks as though Pelosi needs a net gain of three to four votes.

    Update: Herseth Sandlin was already a no, so I removed her from the count.”

    • stigmo

      His office confirmed it when I called this morning.

      On the other hand, this number of 213 doesn’t account for all of the Stupak 12. So It’s possible this is closer to 200 than to 216, right?

      • kewgardens

        Not sure if this is a switch from no or a reaffirmation of a prior yes.

        • kewgardens

          That makes two.

          And I will bet my bottom dollar that McMahon (NY-13) will also switch to yes. These are Pelosi’s back pocket votes.

          Not looking good.

          • earlgrey

            made up his mind. They are taking addresses though.

      • tngal

        When I called they wouldn’t answer the phone at DC or the TN offices.. I left a message at his DC office. His email yesterday just generated the typical “thank you for contacting us” response.

        • earlgrey

          I called Cooper, Gordon and Tanner’s office. No one indicated they made up their mind, but who knows these days. My daughter is home sick so I am calling everyone I can.

          I got hung up on by Baron Hill’s office because I am not in the district. Some others are not very friendly, but the girl at Ed Markey’s office was really nice.

          • tngal

            Not that Hill hung up on you, but the other stuff. And glad Markey’s office was nice. Some of them do get tunnel vision and will only deign to speak to someone from their district. Hope your daughter gets better.

        • stigmo

          When I asked if it was true that Gordon supports the bill, the staffer told me yes.

          I asked if Gordon cared about the fact that his constituents hate the bill, and I was told that the Rep. thinks the bill will be good for his constituents. I asked if Rep. Gordon believes he knows what’s best for his constituents–even better than his constituents do and was told it’s an unfair question.

  • crusty

    Correct me if I am wrong. Someone above said they don’t have a bill yet. As I understand it they don’t need one. The house is planning to pass the Senate bill and rely on the Senate to reconcile it to include what the house wants. Isn’t that too late? If the house passes the Senate bill then Barry signs it into law no amount of reconciliation will change anything.

    That begs the question is the house so stupid they believe voting for the Senate bill they can trust the Senate to make changes. They can’t be that stupid to accept the notion passing a bill they do not like to be corrected later is a rational plan, especially as Nancy has complained the Senate has hung them out to dry before.

    It seems to me the real issue is stopping the house vote because if they pass that we are toast. Where am I wrong?

    • izoneguy

      with no revisions. That is the first step. And a really big one for any House democrat to do. Because you see – if the House Dems pass the Senate bill – they will be screwed. The Senate dems WILL NOT CHANGE THE BILL. Democrats should know not to trust each other.
      Believe me – the American public has lost all confidence in CONGRESS as a whole. Any democrat and moderate Republican incumbant up for election in 2010 will find it VERY HARD to get re-elected. The American people want REAL conservatives who have the balls to stop the Obama Express to hell.

      • Beasley Beesmeal

        they will get pwnd….it will go down as the greatest SHAFT in American history

        don’t do it Dems

        • izoneguy

          I really think Obama thinks he is the 21st century version of “Shaft” – you know – looking out for your fellow “brother”….

          Shaft or not – it won’t matter – America won’t be able to afford it when the credit card bills come due. America won’t even be able to pay the interest on it’s debt by 2020.

          America is broke and will go into default because of “Shaft” – watch out.

      • Richard Mullins

        and in a sort of a way to kill the Hard left from getting elected, just let them try. The more you press the issue the worse it get for this admin and Democrats.

    • Bill S

      I just listened to Limbaugh’s show from yesterday, and he said precisely what you just said. The bill passed in the Senate on December 24th is what counts right now. That is what Pelosi is trying to pass. The drivel that Obama produced the other day is utterly irrelevant at this point. It’s a distraction.

      And that’s why Stupak is pushing back. None of the language included in Stupak’s portion of the House bill is in the Senate version. So abortion again becomes an issue for him and his pro-life colleagues. The bill passed by the House in the fall is now utterly irrelevant.

      The hilarious part about this is that the House Democrats now have to depend upon the honesty of Reid and the Ds in the Senate that they will come back and “fix” the 12/24 Senate bill with a reconciliation bill. They realize what a pack of liars their Senatorial D colleagues are, so they don’t trust them to actually pass that “fix”.

  • Beasley Beesmeal

    they must start over….I watched him on Greta….he seems steadfast

    • crusty

      But can you rely on Stupak not to fold? I would like to think he will hold the line but can’t rely on that.

      • JSobieski

        which I was surprised about. There is no way Pelosi would have gone along with it if she could have rolled him.

        • nancylee

          I just heard Rush say that when he was given the chance to defund Planned Parenthood last year, he refused to do so. That says it all.

          Keep calling.

          • JSobieski

            or the stated rationale for Stupak’s vote.

            It does however merit some investigation . . .

  • crusty

    If the house tweaks the bill they have effectively created a new bill then the Senate has to vote again. Which means they are back where they started. I smell a rat and the whole issue of reconciliation is a red herring.

  • Menlo

    It will pass by the deadline, and it will have no impact on any future election that would not have happened anyway. It will never go away.

    And the ONLY thing we can and MUST do, come 2014, is refuse to buy or accept “health insurance” or pay the penalty.

    • Ausonius

      The ultimate trump card is the obvious one, especially for the Dems: there is no way they will let BIG BRObama crash and burn on this issue.

      They cannot let the first Afro-American president crash and burn on his main agenda item. They will take the bullet, willingly fall under the bus, walk off the cliff, “whatever it takes.” A mainly white Dem majority cannot let Hell-th Care fail.

      They can wail and gnash their teeth, and salve their consciences with Lard from the Pork, but they will pass this.

      I want to be wrong, and hope to be proven wrong! I fear I am right.

    • writeblock

      Why say it? The outcome is in doubt. Nobody believes Pelosi has the votes right now, but what she wants, and what Obama wants, is to stampede the House into believing exactly what you’re saying. Right now Stupak is only ONE contingent opposed to the Senate bill. There are a host of others who hate the bill–and will vote with the Republicans. Why assume the worst and breed discouragement? I’m not suggesting we be unrealistic–but neither should we be wringing our hands. It’s a fight–and we’re in the midst of it–and winning.

      • Menlo

        It just depends on who is saying it. I’ve seen enough in my life, in this past year, and currently, to know how this scene plays out.

        I also think that the type of positive pressure being placed on the “undecided” camp would be enough to turn anyone into a yes vote. If they had no strong reason to vote against it from the start, why would they suddenly have one? They know their own future fate is the same either way.

        • writeblock

          …today you’ve got these few no votes switching to yes. It’s an attempt to stampede the House through media publicity. My guess is there are right now a greater number of yes votes ready to switch to no than the other way around. Massachusetts happened, remember? The people are obviously opposed. Most House members know this. It’s a huge factor. Just weeks ago the estimate was as many as 100 Dems opposed to Obamacare as a result of Brown’s victory. What’s changed? Nothing except this publicity push by Obama. But it doesn’t alter reality.

          • earlgrey

            in demoralizing the public and the dems that want to change to no. We have to keep up the calls. I just wish I knew more people in dem districts.

            Dan also mentioned making personal visits to the congressen’s office.

  • earlgrey

    Keep calling offices.

    I called Atmire’s office and they wanted my zip code. I am not in his district. Some of these congressmen are really at least taking polls of who is calling.

    • nancylee

      Anyone in his district, zip15001, phone this guy and beg him to vote against the bill. Anyone who isn’t, find out who your representative is and call him!

  • nancylee

    He was a yes vote before, however, so it isn’t a gain for the pro-healthcare crowd. What scares me is the way the reporting on FOX is subtly shifting toward predictions of what will happen if the thing passes. I just hope a few Blue Dogs are more worried about their futures than about imposing socialism on America

    I wonder if any of these Einsteins have even considered what this monstrosity is going to do to the country’s financial health. All the taxes in the world aren’t going to fund it. Businesses are already making changes in anticipation of it passing, and the rest of us will also change our behavior accordingly. Between Medicare, which is about bankrupt, Social Security not far behind, and now this, I can’t see how we keep the financial system from collapse. Then what happens?

  • louisiana

    When the Rep get in the majority again, they better NOT be afraid to use every trick in the book to use against the D’s. The R’s better be prepared to put them through a wood chipper. At his moment, I really, really wish RS did not have a profanity ban.

  • Flagstaff

    or the liberals or the leftists or the statists or anybody else on the far left to help kill this bill.

    ALL Repub’s must vote NO and also help convince the few sane Democrats to do so, too. Those sane voters will know that there will be no changes to it once the Senate bill is passed.