« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

“Passing Bills without Voting On Them”

In the latest Mad-Magazine-like-Spy-vs.-Spy move, the House Dems have hatched a plan which reminds me of their ill-fated plan to delay seating Senator-elect Scott Brown until they had another ObamaCare vote on the Senate floor.

The Dems backed down. Similarly, they will back down from the Slaughter plan.

Former Speaker Gingrich describes the Slaughter plan in a tweet about a Brian Darling blog:

“Incredible. We’ve gone from passing bills without reading them to passing bills without voting on them.”

They haven’t tried it yet, they are thinking about it.

But now that the Senate Parliamentarian has ruled the obvious, that you can not vote on a reconciliation measure if the bill you are attempting to reconcile has not been signed into law — the Slaughter plan looks both desperate and comical.

It is also (obviously) unconstitutional and will, if carried out, create a public outcry that will make burning witches at the stake look rational.

Just like the Black Spy thought the White Spy was caged and an easy target, the trillion dollar President and the Speaker find themselves without the votes and trying again to cheat the U.S. Constitution, public opinion and voters who want Congress to stop the irrational ObamaCare quest and start over. Their persistent problem is they keep causing their colleagues mortal political harm with their increasingly hare-brained-Slaughter schemes.

You know, like lets-use-reconciliation-to-pass-the-hated-Senate-ObamaCare-bill. (It’s no shock that Obama has hit his lowest Gallup poll approval rating ever.)

Ironically, the trillion dollar President has created a bi-partisan health care effort, it’s just that it’s a bi-partisan alliance against his bill. What is causing cognitive dissonance in the White House and among the Democratic Party’s cognoscenti is the simple fact that the only thing bi-partisan about ObamaCare is the opposition to it.

And the Slaughter plan of passing ObamaCare without voting on it, in the face of the Senate Parliamentarian decision, the current political anti-incumbent environment, the views of independent voters and seniors about ObamaCare is as if the Democrats are like the self-immolating monks protesting the Vietnam War.

The Speaker’s problem is that not every Democrat has signed up for the ObamaCare self-immolation school of Pelosi politics.

If the Dems actually try the Slaughter (no pun intended) plan, Americans will burn down the Dems’ house. Really. No kidding.

In the meantime, the House Republicans should petition the Supreme Court to hear their case against the-pass-the-bill-without-voting-on-it, should the Dems try it. The Supreme Court would quickly declare it unconstitutional. But just the fact that I am writing this sentence makes me feel like I am writing about a banana republic — you know — where the rules are ignored and a small minority is imposing draconian changes and hated laws on a public straining to also play by the rules.

But in banana republics, where leaders give the Constitution and the public the middle finger, the public eventually gets really very angry, and starts doing more than breaking windows. Something like this could persuade some that it is just not fair if only one side plays by the rules.

Meanwhile, outside of the Slaughter-Pelosi fantasy land, the news keeps getting worse for the Dems. The Hill ran a story today titled: “House Democrats’ ‘no’ votes are piling up as healthcare reform moves forward,” and Talking Points Memo reports another No is still at No.

An undecided who was not even listed on the NRCC whip count (meaning they did not think he would switch from Yes to No) but was listed in The Hill’s whip count as undecided, is sounding very much like a No vote, as Talking Points Memo reports.

And the Hispanic Caucus has seemed to learn their lesson from Rep. Stupak and Senator Lieberman — if you want a change that the House Leadership will not give you — take their bill hostage until they cave.

Of course, the Hispanic Caucus must shoot the hostage if the Leadership says No — and the perceived credibility on the shoot-the-hostage-part is really low for the Hispanic Caucus. Their beef is they want illegals to be included as beneficiaries in ObamaCare.

Regardless of whether or not you think the Hispanic Caucus has the cajones to pull the trigger, the Leadership is now faced with another pool of possible No votes against the Senate bill — just like the pro-lifers, maybe.

What is beginning to happen is pretty clear: since Members believe the leadership does not have the votes and ObamaCare will fail in the House — there is a line forming in front of No, so Members can get on the right side of their voters — the Speakers pleadings for her caucus to self-immolate notwithstanding.

(This post was written in response to those “paging Perrin” and the others who who have been commenting on Darling’s blog, asking for my take on the Slaughter “plan.”)

COMMENTS

  • 10ksnooker

    Obama write it down and sign it, like Hugo Chavez does.

    • Lloyd Davis

      …………………………………………………………………………………………………..

      The mistake a lot of politicians make is in forgetting they’ve been appointed and thinking they’ve been anointed.
      - Claude Pepper
      …………………………………………………………..
      No arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.
      - Ronald Reagan

    • Dan Perrin

      option since his legislative skill, uh, (fill in the blank, __________, below.)

      • Leopard1996
        • Dan Perrin

          I was thinking of something else

      • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

        The statists’ standard for passing a bill:

        49.9% or less.

    • JHancock

      as some people seem to think. After all, if the Dems are already messing with Article 1by trying to reconcile to fairly dissimilar bills (Article 1 clearly outlines the path of a SINGLE bill through the House and Senate). Liberals pay tribute to the shrine of ideology–not the Law or the Constitution. Does anyone think Obama would step down if offered a third term-or if by some Birther miracle he turned out on some technicality to be foreign born?? No-he would try to stay president and the far left would support him as a new FDR.

  • redneck_hippie

    I love you.

    The Vapor Vote. Spy vs. Spy. ROFLMAO

    • Dan Perrin

      (Me too.)

    • Dan Perrin

      Rolling On The Floor Laughing My As* Off

      NICE.

      • izoneguy

        NFIAA

        Kind of sums up the socialists

        http://shop.cafepress.com/nfiaa

  • joejm65

    You’re the only blogger who gives me any hope that passage of this bill will not occur. This has been a rollercoaster ride with twists and turns happening almost every minute, it seems. Now, the Dems are talking about passing…a shell bill? I look forward to your thoughts on that. Hopefully, you’ll write about it soon, since they want to vote on this next week. Thanks again…

    • Dan Perrin

      later, my brain is, uh, squeezed.

  • rbdwiggins

    Is Vice-President Biden stupid enough to reverse the decision of the Parliamentarian?

    • Bill S

      You have to ask about the depth of Biden’s stupidity?

      It is boundless.

      Fortunately, the SCOTUS has more sense than the VP.

      • Dan Perrin

        there will be violence.

        Really.

    • cwilson

      A) It’s Joe Biden.

      B) What could happen? You think he’d get impeached or something? Does overruling the parliamentarian count as a “High Crime or Misdemeanor”? While this action would be a metaphorical crime, and an abuse of power, it’s not actually ILLEGAL. In fact, as president of the Senate, Biden explicitly has this power.

      C) It’s Joe Biden.

      D) You think the White House cares whether we “burn down the (Democrat) House”? Obama’s not running for re-election this year; what does he care. And if he succeeds in the “permanent leftward shift of the political culture” (hat tip: Mark Steyn) that the left has been panting for since Woodrow Wilson…he’ll call it a proud victory and take his lumps in 2012. Besides, the ONLY thing he worries about is the R’s taking 2/3 of the House and Senate — what they’d need to override his veto when they attempt to repeal it. And 67 Senators ain’t happening — and neither is 290 House seats.

      E) It’s Joe Biden. Stupid is What. He. Does.

      • rbdwiggins

        If in the face of overwhelming public opposition, the Democrats, using parliamentary tricks and subversion of legislative rules, ram this unconstitutional government take-over of the Healthcare Industry down the throats of the American people, the electorate will retaliate.

        Even the bluest districts in the bluest states will lose all support from Independents, and at best, those districts will become toss-ups. The remainder of the legislative districts will lean toward, or fall squarely into, the Republican column.

        Under that scenario, there’s an outside chance that Republicans could sweep the Senate races. In the House, the Republicans could conceivably, but not likely, seat 300 members.

        After witnessing the slaughter of their colleagues in 2010 and knowing fully that President Obama is a lame-duck, is it realistic to believe that Senate Democrats up for reelection in 2012 would vote to sustain a presidential veto?

        The American people could awaken on November 7, 2012 with a Republican in the White House, Republican super-majorities in both Houses of Congress and a clear mandate to reverse all of President Obama’s un-American agenda.

  • chbroussard

    Well said. Great post. Concise, articulate, and clever. My favorite—the banana republic comparison. Priceless.

    • Dan Perrin

      writing this stuff.

      :)

  • http://www.neoavatara.com/blog neoavatara

    The Dem leadership may not realize it yet, but this process is dead, unless they find some unethical underhanded way of proceeding (and don’t be surprised if they do). They are so arrogant they believe that this is a cause worth destroying the constitution over.

    As for Biden…never question his level of stupidity.

    http://neoavatara.com/blog/?p=10359

    • earlgrey

      To make this happen. They really don’t have to bribe that many.

      • Dan Perrin

        Did you know Senator Nelson is wearing Kevlar, and his wife’s social life is in tatters, because they are pariahs in their state.

        • earlgrey

          Do the house dems know that? I love your posts too. Even if this gets passed I owe several nights of good sleep to reading your posts.

          • Dan Perrin

            Seems Nelson spends a whole lot of time hunkered down in his state.

            Really.

        • qixlqatl
        • mbecker908

          I love it. I hope it stays that way. I hope Harry Reid is watching. And Bob Bennett.

  • davidstone

    Thanks Dan. I really enjoy your writeups.

    • Dan Perrin

      and joy to the world of political warfare.

      Which I find to be really fun.

      • graciegirl

        with the idea of the conferees. You wrote the plot and lo DeMint did exactly what you suggested and it worked! It was fascinating to watch. It so thoroughly gumnmed up the works that they couldn’t reconcile it because of the objection but they pretended they’d “rather” discuss the bill in the closet. HA!
        You should be proud…you came up with one of the key ideas plus kept your spirits up and many of us obviously with you. Have you ever thought of going into politics? I know the war is not over by any stretch but hopefully one day we can say that Dan Perrin was right all along!

  • earlgrey

    Get mad. He is still at 46 %.

    • renny

      Regardless, he should be at 0.

    • xstriperguide

      when the Dems. took control of congress in ’06………madder when Hussein won the nomination…………you could see this mess forming four years ago! I guess 43% who approve of this guy are unrepentent commies ; or just plain stupid!

    • GCBWI

      for quite a while. If 46 per cent of the respondents to the poll you’re citing approve of his performance, then up to 54 per cent disapprove.

      As others have cited, Rassmussen Reports has him lower than 46%. Except for a spike in his support around the time of the State of the Union address, Rassmussen has consistently reported him to have a larger percentage disapproving him since the middle of last Novermber. For much of that time, the difference is larger than the margin of error for the poll, so it’s significant.

      Rassmussen also publishes a “Presidential Approval Index,” which they calculate using only the “strongly approve” and the “strongly disapprove” numbers from their polls. By that measure, the President has regularly had more than 10 per cent more in the strongly disapprove camp since the middle of last summer.

      Obama was supposed to be a uniter, but he turns out to be as polarizing a president as we’ve had.

  • joayn

    that will send a letter to your representative and the 58 Blue Dogs. You can edit the letter to your fancy to each – Hugh’s aiming for one million letters sent this week (over 500,000 have been sent so far).

    I think we should help Hugh out. Plus it’s fun. How about it?

    http://www.capitolconnect.com/freeourhealthcarenow/default.aspx

    • renny

      copied the link to send to others.

    • Dan Perrin

      Thanks.

  • patrickdalroy

    there will always be AT LEAST 44% who approve of Obama.

    • Dan Perrin

      if you can’t get 40% of Americans to agree with what ever poll question you write, fire your pollster.

    • IJB

      Because, if ObamaCare goes down, the Far Left (i.e. his Base) will abandon him.

      Losing them, along with solid opposition from Republicans and Indies, will put Obama’s support deep into the 30s. Or lower.

  • teresakoch

    to a bunch of my friends from high school. I’m AMAZED at how many of these folks are now staunch Conservatives, 30 years after we graduated (one of them thinks Rush Limbaugh is too liberal…..)!

    Anyway, several of them are quite happy to read what you have had to say on this subject -

    • Dan Perrin

      happy.

  • Dan Perrin

    which is a whole lot like Charlie Cook’s view:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031102904.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

  • retail1

    You helped not only lower my blood pressure but I do beleive my hair has stopped turning gray.

  • mavericktime

    According to Matthew Continetti and Paul Ryan.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/tws/daily/daily.asp#blog-429754

    “Why move ahead when the votes aren’t there? Pelosi hopes that launching the process will create enough momentum to flip Democrats her way. The clock is ticking. The speaker has two weeks before Congress breaks for Easter Recess. And the recess could kill off health care reform, since many of the wavering Democrats will get an earful from their constituents when they return home. Republicans expect Democrats to lose votes over the break.”

    I believe that Pelosi, Waxman and Obama are going to be making major deals and giveaways over the weekend and early next week. Apparently, there’s a lot of stuff they can do that isn’t evident or won’t be obvious.

    But, even if this doesn’t pass, I would think the Democrats would just want to get beyond this. It’s dragging everything they do down. Why would they want to prolong this?

    • stigmo

      If you’re still going home in November.

    • thurman

      I heard somewhere last night that one WH staffer leaked that they needed this fiasco over, win or lose, and wanted a final vote and then move on.

      Pelosi will call a vote in the next 2 weeks even if her whip count is short, and hope the drama and pressure will be enough to sway a few swing voters

      They also will call a vote because even they are finally realizing they need to move on, win or lose.

      We may finally, FINALLY see this horror film come to an end if we can kill this once and for all with a final vote on record, if we can kill it in the House.

      Do not let up, when we’re so close.

      • Dan Perrin

        is consistent with their arrogance, self-deception and I-can’t-stop-myself alcoholic type approach to health care: keep doing it until it kills me or hurts those around me, and then do it some more.

        • mavericktime

          Even if they lose. Don’t you think, Dan?

          • JSobieski

            “their” arrogance is not limited to the Democrat Congressional leadership

    • thurman

      I heard somewhere last night that one WH staffer leaked that they needed this fiasco over, win or lose, and wanted a final vote and then move on.

      Pelosi will call a vote in the next 2 weeks even if her whip count is short, and hope the drama and pressure will be enough to sway a few swing voters

      They also will call a vote because even they are finally realizing they need to move on, win or lose.

      We may finally, FINALLY see this horror film come to an end if we can kill this once and for all with a final vote on record, if we can kill it in the House.

      Do not let up, when we’re so close.

      • JSobieski

        I am going to start watching MSNBC again just to enjoy the angst

  • NDPhog

    Your posts are regular reading for me, and I forward it on to many friends who always ask me to “send on any articles by the Health Care guy.”

    • Dan Perrin

      I’m so glad you enjoy them.

  • qixlqatl

    (Yeah, I know, Yahoo is pretty much all in for this from the way their stories slant) I noticed that the comments were largely negative with regard to the bill itself AND that the “thumbs up/ thumbs” down rating counters show a 2.5+-/1 approval of negative comments, and a 3/1 disapproval for positive comments.

    • Dan Perrin

      Nice add.

      Thanks.

      • qixlqatl
        • qixlqatl
  • pragmatic

    I’m hoping, against my better judgment, that the Dems will learn from this. Then we won’t have to go through this again with Cap and Tax, “Immigration reform”, etc. I have no doubt though that we’ll be ready to thwart any more subverting of the Constitution they have in store.

  • Jonas Parker

    I think very salient your comment that:

    ‘the public eventually gets really very angry, and starts doing more than breaking windows. Something like this could persuade some that it is just not fair if only one side plays by the rules’

    I am personally ready to break windows. And more. But I don’t see a lot of folks in this camp, which troubles me. I get the feeling that while people’s hair is turning gray and whatever else, this is still sort of a ‘well, we’ll vote against them next time’ sort of exercise. I have a problem with that, because I think this is a tipping point for our democracy. If the Marxists shove this through, and we don’t fill the streets to whatever degree necessary and physically (if necessary) stop this, I think we have reached the time that many founders predicted that a democracy has a limited life. Our country and our constitution cannot survive the results of this bill. A very good comment by some pundit recently said that if this passes, non-Marxists may be in office, but they will never again be in power. That says it all, and that’s why the Marxists are willing to die for this.

    If there is sufficient public ‘bodies in the street’ reaction to a negative outcome here, and if the Reps are smart enough to petition the SCOTUS timely, it will give SCOTUS the confidence to stand up for the constitution.

    Look… I get it that a course of action that I describe could turn our lives upside down. But I have personally seen what people in the USSR and Eastern Europe were willing to do to throw off the yoke of dictatorship. I was there, I have an adopted sister who grew up there, and I witnessed it. Just a bonafide. Are we not in the pivotal time now where we must make a choice ? This is real life. If we don’t fight it now, we either agree to control over our lives, or we will fight it later, when the fight is much worse.

    So I request that we all consider what is at stake here, and to what degree we accept the challenge of the founders regarding the preservation of democracy and a government that governs with the consent of the governed.

    It is very likely decision time, shortly. Sleep on it.

  • eastbaylarry

    Until and unless Nancy gets the count she wants.

    From this perspective, the longer they delay the better.

    • Dan Perrin

      to “end it”

      She may not get the votes she needs but will have a vote to shut up their base and to end the political pain of everyone involved.

  • eastbaylarry

    Until and unless Nancy gets the count she wants.

    From this perspective, the longer they delay the better.

  • hunter

    Nice nation, while it lasted,
    This lack of judgment respect and leadership will inevitably lead to much worse decisions
    Our ‘leadership’ is too busy dissipating our national wealth and sensibility to make good choices.
    We are in grave peril of stumbling into a major war we are not prepared for.

    • Dan Perrin

      they went too far.

      And it makes a mockery of the Obama claim that he just wants an “up or down vote.”

  • grandma

    I feel like you just gave me a re-assuring night-night kiss on the cheek. Now I can go to sleep. Maybe tomorrow’s installment of the saga will bring the complete imploding of Obama’s Hellcare.

    • Dan Perrin

      Victory is at hand

  • antisocial

    I feel the administration is trying to tire us out. Otherwise this repeated trials don’t make sense.

    • whartman

      We aren’t getting tired. We are getting larger in number.

      • antisocial

        The vote is scheduled for next week… I don’t see the intensity.

  • libertyshrugged

    otherwise they would realize that it wasn’t just about WMD!

  • spicer

    It’s enough that the people know there was an election -
    The people who cast their votes decide nothing -
    The people who count the votes decide everything -

    - Joseph Stalin -

  • whartman

    Worst case, if Obamacare passes:

    1. Implementation is scheduled to be largely delayed (part of the attempt to minimize calculated costs).

    2. Legal action will delay implementation.

    3. There would be widespread protests.

    4. Liberalism is given a bad rep that will last for a decade or two.

    Then, in 3 years, we simply undo it. Lets not fall for the Marxist ploy of believing that we can’t reverse movement in the Socialist direction.

    • http://www.scragged.com petrarch

      The problem isn’t that we CAN not ever push back statism by repealing laws, ending programs, and sacking entire government departments. It’s that we never DO. I’d be a little more sanguine about “well, we’ll just ride public anger to power and then repeal it in a few years” if conservatives had ever, even once, accomplished that.

      • whartman

        We typically don’t push back because once it is in place, it becomes a part of life, and there is too much resistance. There are always some who profit from the Socialist experiments, or at least appear to, short term.

        What I am proposing is that IF if passes, we make it clear that we do NOT accept it, and will be reversing it in good time. Then instead of everyone making plans based on the assumption that it will continue (and thus make it continue), everything will remain “up in the air” and few will rely on the changes. I am not sanguinely assuming that we will reverse it; I am proposing — as a tactic — that from the very moment that it is passed that we declare that we will ultimately reverse it.

        • http://www.scragged.com petrarch

          Better than nothing, anyway. Then at least we’ll learn if that works or not.

  • potkas7

    Though we laugh at the idea today,in its day, witch burning was a supremely rational act.

    There were special tribunals duly enacted by statute; There were rules of evidence; there was a manual of court procedures, the Malleus Maleficarum, that was scrupulously followed. What we know now that they didn’t know then is that there are no witches!

    And don’t get the idea that thees trials took place in some dark age. Witch Burning reached it peak in the scientific age of Newton, Liebnitz and Hooke.

    Before you cavalierly dismiss the witch burning trials as an aberration, consider the idea that a century hence, a new generation, looking back at our politics and ideologies, will give out time its own chapter in the newly revised, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.

  • jetman

    it may be we are approaching the time to water the Tree of Freedom.

  • lightfootletters

    Based on my research, legislation can be passed without a recorded vote. Such a non voteing procedure would be binding on no one.

  • earlgrey

    Pass the bill.

    • stigmo

      I hate it when I need a second dose of Dan Perrin w/in 24 hours.

    • APA Guy

      It’s only a matter of time before they whip the last few apropos the way the House leadership runs its party.

    • APA Guy

      It’s only a matter of time before they whip the last few apropos the way the House leadership runs its party.

      • JSobieski

        Nancy has predicted imminent Presidential signing ceremonies for MONTHS!

        The democrat caucus in the House is in totally disarray and Pelosi is probably taking some strong meds.

    • Dan Perrin

      Really, it is.

      • JSobieski

        but how easily some on our side go in full Doomsday mode. Why are people trusting some of these idiotic reports?

  • Ausonius

    See:

    http://www.mail.com/Article.aspx/money/business/APNews/General-Business/20100312/U_US-Health-Care-Overhaul?pageid=1

    “President Barack Obama delayed next week’s Asian trip on Friday to seize on suddenly improved prospects for his sweeping health care legislation, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi forecast final passage of the overhaul in days.

    “It’s going to be historic,” she said as House and Senate leaders and the White House reached for final agreement on the measure.”

    And:

    “Pelosi spoke with reporters after a closed-door meeting of the Democratic rank and file, a session that she said left her feeling “very exhilarated” about the prospects of passing the legislation.”

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    At what point do we forget about calling this trickery or “stretching the rules” and call it an abrogation of our system of representative government?

    Or can centuries of protection against unbridled majority rule be simply overturned by a determined cabal of legislative leaders and the President/Vice President able to round up a simply majority in both houses to go along with overturning all prior rules and precedents.

    We had the “Friday Night Massacre” that sealed the doom of the Nixon administration; whenever this passes, we need to call this the “[day of the week] Slaughter” and memorialize the day as a “Day of Infamy”.

    • Beasley Beesmeal

      we need journalists to start doing their jobs….we know this

      the Truth will save us

      • Achance
    • Jonas Parker

      But the answer that seems to be missing on this blog and others is to the question: ‘what is to be done about it ?’

      If it is not stopped here, then when will it be stopped ? Does anyone think if this passes that the rest of the agenda is not far behind ? Does anyone think that one can sort of ‘play nice’ with these folks and survive ?

      Sorry to sound like a broken record, but my perception is that this is exactly what you call it, a coup d’etat, yet I don’t see very many calling for extreme action in response… I don’t mean violence, but rather mobbing DC, local federal buildings… whatever. An OVERWHELMING presentation of bodies on the street. Something that MSM can’t ignore, or at least big enough that people will hear of it despite them. The left has shown us this works, and so have our predecessor American patriots.

      Darn it, I just don’t see the willingness to get out and do something. One can blog all night, be active in the Rep or Tea Parties, but at this rate the next election will be too late. Personal view is that part of being a conservative is generally a reluctance to call attention with aggressive action, but that is the fulcrum of politics. Guess that’s why we’ve lost for the last 100 years, with a few exceptions (but NO exceptions to the general course of the country).

      I know there are many good hearted, passionate people here, but my radical background also informs that there is too little willingness to bring this out of the abstract and take immediate action.

      They are stealing the country as we type.

  • Achance
  • earlgrey

    One or two of his group has flipped according to national review

  • JSobieski

    read ?They Just Want This Over? [Robert Costa] over at the Corner at NRO.

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzU0MDYxMWEyOTdiNGU1OGU3ZjYzYmE3Y2ZlZDQ5NTY=

    Very interesting stuff.

    • earlgrey

      Bloc is crumbling. Do we have any other significant blocks against this?

      • stigmo

        Is it enough? Who knows. Hopefully Pelosi doesn’t.

        • earlgrey

          Gordon, boccieri and matheson are likely to flip to yes. Do you think Stupak’s startling revelations will have an impact?

          I keep hearing how close this is.

        • Menlo

          The latest count I saw had 33 “likely no” Democrats that include six who voted for the Stupak Amendment and for the bill in November.

          • earlgrey

            We need more nos!

            Anyone think Stupaks comments will make a difference? Maybe bring back a couple of his block into the fold? Or is it too far gone?

          • Menlo

            Of those, 5 or 6 look to be “likely yes” from what I’m looking at.

            Unfortunately, I expect all 73, save one or two, will be supporters, as well as a couple of the 33.

            If my math is correct, it would take 37 Democrats to defeat the bill.

          • mavericktime

            It appears that 26 Democrats who voted “no” last time will almost be unpersuadable. So, if you add those people to the 178 Republicans (that includes Joseph Cao and Nathan Deal), that makes 204 almost certainly voting no. That would mean that12 more Democrats would be needed to vote no. Does that add up to you?

    • mavericktime

      I read that. He sounds kind of bummed about the whole thing – disillusioned, I think would be the right word.

      If I was in his district, I would definitely support him. The guy has principles. I feel bad for him, but he’s a good man and a good Christian. He’s not nasty, he’s honest.

      • redneck_hippie

        I’d read the Stupak interview as well and it has me wondering whether Stupak is lashing out more because he thinks it will pass with abortion funding, or maybe he wants to derail it somehow so we get a do-over. Either way, he is definitely not happy with the way this is playing out.

      • JSobieski

        Stupak is still a big government lib, but I do respect his integrity.

  • AndrewHyman

    Regardless of whether the ?Slaughter Solution? is constitutional and regardless of whether the Slaughter Solution complies with the statute about reconciliation, still the Slaughter Solution would not really help wavering House members, IMO.

    They cannot avoid the consequences of approving the Slaughter Solution: Obama would then sign the Senate Health Bill into law, and the Senate could then reject the Reconciliation Bill. Pelosi has admitted as much:

    So we will pass the Senate bill. Once we pass it, the President signs it or doesn?t, it?s ? people would rather he waited until the Senate acted, but the Senate Parliamentarian, as you have said, said in order for them to do a reconciliation based on the Senate bill, it must be signed by the President.

    • Common_Cents

      He isn’t going to fall for the banana in the tail pipe again. That’s going to give them cover to let this go down the drain?

  • mavericktime

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2010/03/counting_the_heads_of_house_de.html

    He doesn’t add them up, but lists them in categories as to how persuadable he thinks they are based on 1) public statements about the bill, 2) how McCain did in their district, and 3) their pro-life voting record.

    • Menlo

      This one may be a better count.

  • earlgrey

    they schedule a vote they’ll have the votes. My understanding is that hey won’t even have the reconciliation bill up for 72 hours before they vote. Surely then they have the votes.

    Think about it. THe Dems aren’t talking, which means they are likely to cave and don’t want the public bugging them. Stupack’s coalition is falling apart.

    I think were done.

  • leehazel

    This talk of “burning” congress is way to reminiscent of the ploy used by Adolph Hitler in his climb to power. He had the Reichstag building burned.

    I see far to many parallels between Hitler and Obama and the last thing we should entertain is doing his “job” for him. At this juncture burning and mayhem in Washington District of Corruption is premature.

    If there is a substantive effort on the part of the Obamaites to disrupt the election process and thwart the will of the people in either the 2010 or the 2012 election then it is time for some “blood in the streets”

    I know I have a more than uncomfortable feeling that with literally $Billions in a Stimulus” slush fund and ACORN, the New Black Panthers, and the Farrakhan group Nation of Islam, to name but a few, are alive and well that the election could very well be in serious trouble.

    Keep Your powder Dry and PC is Thought Control
    LEE