This seems to be nonsense to me. It seems to be a fig-leaf to establish that Nancy Pelosi has struck a deal with the Stupak 12 and is informing her pro-choice female Representatives about it:

Pro-choice female Dems are shuttling in and out of Pelosi's office and they won't say why.

See, the idea is she's breaking the news to them that she's going to have to allow an up-or-down vote on more restrictive abortion language.

But that's nonsense. She has no intent to offer an anti-abortion deal after she no longer needs to offer a damn thing. If this is anything, it's theater for the idiots willing to believe Pelosi is seriously about it.

They will vote for this and then claim they were "tricked" or "sold out" by Pelosi or the Senate Democrats.

This is a lie. They were not "tricked." They never expected the promise to be honored. They just want a promise which they know is to be broken that they can point at and claim "I tried -- but I was betrayed!"

No, you're the Betrayers; you just want Nancy Pelosi to play the heavy for you and take the blame for the betrayal.

Thanks to enoxo.

Posted by: Ace at 02:27 PM | Comments (103)
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

Isn't that special.

[T]he people who live in California's San Joaquin Valley have had their water turned off in order to protect a tiny fish called the delta smelt. As a result farm land that used to be prime agricultural land are now dust bowls. It devastated the economy as well, driving up the the unemployment rate in some areas to as high as 41 percent. Yet for months on end, President Obama said and did nothing to help the people in the Central Valley.

But now the president's health care reforms are on the ropes and the San Joaquin Valley's two blue-dog Democratic congressmen Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa have been reluctant to support the president's reforms. So imagine everyone's surprise when the Department of the Interior announced yesterday that it is dramatically increasing the water supply to the valley's parched lands. And what a coincidence, now the two California congressmen who were once "undecided" are being moved over into the "yes" column[.]

Posted by: Ace at 02:22 PM | Comments (78)
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

Byron York reporting:

he best way to look at it is not to ask whether Speaker Nancy Pelosi has gotten the 216 votes needed to pass the Democrats' national health care bill, but whether opponents have the votes to defeat it.

Start with all 178 GOP lawmakers. (There have been rumors that Rep. Joseph Cao, who was the only Republican to vote for the health bill the first time, is wavering, but Cantor says Cao is a firm no.) Beginning the count with 178 Republicans means that opponents need 38 Democrats to vote against the bill for it to be defeated.

...

[I]f there are in fact 32 original Democratic no votes that are still no votes, then Republicans need to find six other Democrats to vote no in order to defeat the bill. Cantor points to one original yes vote that has switched to no -- Arcuri -- and suggests there might be five others who could switch: Berry, Costa, Giffords, Lynch, and Space.

That leaves the much-discussed Stupak Group. The pro-life Democrat originally said he had 12 colleagues who originally voted yes but would now vote no. Stupak has lost some of those, but it is not clear how many.

Cantor suggests that in combining those two categories -- the yeses who have become no plus the Stupak group -- there might be another 12 votes against the bill. "If we add 12 to 32, we get 44 -- which leaves Speaker Pelosi seven votes short," Cantor concludes. Of course, if there are less than 32 original no votes who remain no votes, the margin is tighter.

But that's the problem -- a lot of these "no" votes weren't very serious the first time around.

Posted by: Ace at 02:08 PM | Comments (96)
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

Not in the least bit surprising.

He was in Gabe's hopeful to keep list.

Hey Jim Tedisco and John Sweeny (enjoy your jail time asshole)...screw you to hell wherever you are right now.

Posted by: DrewM at 02:06 PM | Comments (13)
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

Gee, I wonder if she was promised a job after she's booted from office.

Another bad one.

Posted by: Ace at 01:49 PM | Comments (86)
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

This is a bad one.

Thanks to Drew.

And Now Anh Cao: He's going to "reconsider" over the weekend.

He wants what the fake-pro-life Democrats want -- an empty CYA promise from radical pro-abortionist Nancy Pelosi and the pro-abortion Senate Democrats that they'll themselves consider, maybe, passing a standalone bill forbidding taxpayer funded abortions.

As I mentioned in my last post, the Senate rejected this and only agreed to Ben Nelson's weak, wiggle-room language in order to secure his 60th vote.

What possible reason would either the pro-abortionists in the House and Senate have to pass the tougher Stupak language once the bill is already signed into law and no further deals need be made?

Posted by: Ace at 01:25 PM | Comments (160)
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

A little more optimism, since Gabe's call me a pussy.

John Boccieri becomes the fourth Democrat who voted against the health care bill in November to flip his vote to "yes". He joins Betsy Markey, Bart Gordon, and Dennis Kucinich. I expect Scott Murphy of New York to become the fifth soon. Other potential flippers from "no" to "yes" include Suzanne Kosmas (Fla.), Brian Baird (Wash.), Jim Matheson (Utah), and Jason Altmire (Pa.).

But there's good news (I think): Peter DeFazio just announced he's flipping from Yes to No. And even if Pelosi can flip ten "no" votes to "yes," she's still short. Here's why.

If the number of Democrats who flip from "yes" to "no" is greater than the number who flip from "no" to "yes," the bill will be defeated.

Bart Stupak's coalition of pro-life Democrats is larger than many had assumed. While Stupak has claimed to have a dozen members willing to flip from "yes" to "no," most Democrats assumed he only had five. I think Stupak has at least nine Democrats in his coalition. Yes, I know politicians can go back on their word, but House leadership is still frantically trying to cut a deal with Stupak, which indicates they don't have the votes.

Meanwhile, though, some of Stupak's votes are talking with the Senate about the "guarantee" of a standalone, separate bill to forbid federal dollars being spent on abortions.

“There could be some kind of commitment from the other body to act on this later … to ensure that the Senate language does not remain law,” he said.

Rahall said that securing such an agreement could open up six to 10 members, including himself, to voting for the Senate bill and reconciliation language.

...

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), another member who remains a no because of the Senate abortion language, on Thursday hinted that discussions along the lines Rahall mentioned were in the works.

Right, a "guarantee" to implement what they have previously categorically rejected. Remember, they only gave Ben Nelson his weaker language on abortion because they did not have a 60th vote without him.

But you know -- if Chuckie Schumer now "guarantees" he'll put up an anti-abortion bill, when he has absolutely no incentive to do so whatsoever, then these guys will vote for the bill.

Unbelievable.

McCormack addresses this, too, noting there are only 39 Republican pro-life votes in the Senate, meaning they'd need 21 Democrats to vote with them to overcome a filibuster.

Which 21 Democratic Senators could those possibly be?

Posted by: Ace at 01:12 PM | Comments (45)
Post contains 444 words, total size 3 kb.

Barrow keeps his No a No and Sanford Bishop keeps his Yes a Yes.

Posted by: Ace at 12:59 PM | Comments (20)
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

Folks, you are effing pussies. As of this morning, Pelosi had 192 members "definitely voting yes." She was 24 votes shy and there were 28 maybes.

After "yeses" from Boyd, Boccieri, Titus, Perriello and a "no" from DeFazio she's at 195 members voting yes. She's 21 votes shy and there are 24 maybes left. This isn't bad. Guess what, puddin' heads: the race was always going to get tighter before it was finished. Big, giant DUH.

Now, sure, all those maybes are Democrats, which means their natural tendency will be to stick together. Going against that tendency is their individual desires to get reelected and the certain asswhoopin they're going to get in November as a result of voting in favor of this bill.

Pelosi can definitely do this. I'm not saying that we're going to win. But it is far from clear that we're going to lose at this point. She and Hoyer are still racing around trying beg, buy, and steal votes. MoveOn just sent out an "emergency" message trying to gin up support.

A reminder once again, Fox News' "whip count" which supposedly places Pelosi one vote away from 216 has no basis in reality. No other whip counts on either the right or the left have things that close. We don't have it that close because too many members keep saying they are undecided. Fox is making too many unexplained assumptions.

Also, all this "OMG they switched from 'no' to 'yes'" is also unhelpful. Divorce in your mind any member's November "no" vote from anything they are doing now. They're not flipping "no" to "yes." At least, it's not any worse than a "yes" staying "yes." All that matters is the total 216 votes, not where they get them from. It's not like we're going to lose if we don't get a certain amount of "no" votes. What does it matter? Remember, several "yes-in-November" votes have become "no-in-March" votes. Doesn't mean anything except: (1) this is a different bill; and (2) the political environment is vastly changed.

Instant Update: And even as I wrote this, Altmire confirmed that he's voting no. That brings the maybes down to 23. Guess what, three more declare for us and Pelosi cannot reach 216! Smile, it's not over yet.

And be sure and read FDL whip count's latest pre-Altmire update He's also coming up with a three-vote deficit being the margin.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 12:33 PM | Comments (182)
Post contains 407 words, total size 2 kb.

This guy at NRO also thought Altmire was posturing, but apparently he's a firm no. At least he claims so:

Congressman Jason Altmire will vote against the latest version of health care reform when the U.S. House of Representatives votes on the bill this weekend.

Altmire confirmed that he has decided to vote no in a telephone conversation with KDKA political editor Jon Delano.

The McCandless Democrat is expected to post a statement on his website later today.

In a live interview on KDKA-TV News at 6 on Tuesday, Altmire said his constituents would help him make the final decision.

"I'm deciding it by doing everything I possibly can to hear what they have to say," he said. "The rallies at my office, the phone calls, emails, and letters that are coming in to Washington and in the district."

Altmire voted against the House health care plan last November.

But, as you see, Altmire voted No last time, so this is a good vote to have, but doesn't make up for Boyd's No to Yes.

Posted by: Ace at 12:28 PM | Comments (17)
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.