This is bad. Here's his statement.

And ((search for "Boyd") he voted against the bill last time, and was, until now, supposedly leaning against it.

This is, unfortunately, congruent with the idea they've decided that they will have 216 votes for ObamaCare; now they are just drawing straws to see who will be among those 216.

Posted by: Ace at 12:10 PM | Comments (99)
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

There's a lot of debate whether DeFazi is a real No or a fake one. He seems pretty firm in this letter. His problem is the formula for Medicare payments:

I voted for the original bill for three principal reasons: it had a public option which would get people out from under the thumb of the insurance industry; it had national exchanges which would give people lower rates and better coverage; and, after decades of trying, we finally fixed the Medicare geographic disparities formula which discriminates against Oregon and 16 other states. The most current version of the health care bill includes none of these provisions and unless we fix the geographic disparities, I cannot vote for this bill. We negotiated this change for months and we finally got an agreement included in the House bill and expected it to be in the final bill, but it has been removed.

This isn't negotiation over the terms bill, I reckon, as the caucus seems firm that Sunday will be votin' day. So it is presumably too late to reinsert that part.

It could, however, be DeFazio's demand for a separate provision, or some other payoff, or his insistence that he won't be joining the Suicide Squad.

DeFazio has little to worry about from the right, though -- he district is solidly Democratic and he doesn't seem to have a competitive race. (Yet.)

So I'm not sure why he wouldn't gladly join the Suicide Squad.

Posted by: Ace at 12:08 PM | Comments (16)
Post contains 259 words, total size 2 kb.

I don't know if I believe him. He tends to offer up the most optimistic projections possible -- he has predicted, for example, that the Republicans will take the Senate, which is possible but still seems pretty unlikely. I always worry with Dick Morris that his predictions and reports are, um, tailored some to please his clients. And we're his clients.

But he says he has a report from a top Democratic leader that they don't have the votes:

From a top level source in the House comes the news that the Democrats are still short of the 216 votes they need to pass Obamacare. They have decided, however, to go for broke on Sunday and attempt to pass it whether or not they have enough support. They feel that only by forcing a vote can the force members off the fence. They hope that by employing all means at their disposal, they can round up enough votes for passage. But, if they don't have the votes, they will allow the measure to be defeated. One source called it a "suicide run."

But that was sent out six hours ago, too.

Keep the phone lines hot, he advises. Indeed.

Posted by: Ace at 11:32 AM | Comments (111)
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

A Tweeter wrote to me that Fire Dog Lake only has the Democrats at 203 votes, and that out of all the "undecided" votes, Republicans only need 7 to block the bill, while the Democrats need a large fraction of what's left.

That doesn't comfort me in the least. That kind of thinking is a sort of probabilistic thing where someone's saying, "Gee, it would be hard to almost run the table on all these independent trials." Like flipping coins -- if you have to get 20 heads to come up on thirty filps, that seems less likely than failing to get all 20.

But that's the wrong way to look at it, because these are not independent trials. They're not independent flips of the coin. All of these votes are in fact interrelated, and will tend to break the same way because they're all animated by a similar set of circumstances and influences.

It's no less likely that the Democrats will get 20 of 30 undecided votes than, say, they'll get 217 of their 250 votes (or whatever) on a big bill. You can't just say "Gee, it seems unlikely they'd win such a large fraction of these votes." It's perfectly likely.

We know these votes are being arranged:

So why did he oppose it in the first place? It looks as though Boccieri got a pass from Nancy Pelosi the first time around to protect his election prospects this fall. The 16th CD in Ohio elected him in 2008 as its first Democratic Representative since 1951. In a year when Ohio went to Barack Obama, John McCain won this district, 50/48.

The Democrats game is to get to 216 while exposing as few as possible vulnerable Democrats to having to vote "Yes." Even some Democrats supposedly "against" the bill, like Boccieri used to be, are actually for it, in that they wish the caucus to prevail... they just don't want to cast a bill in favor of it. They want other Democrats to vote for the bill, so that they get the best of both worlds: The measure passes, and so they're not despised by the nutroots as having blocked the bill, and yet they can tell their constituents they voted Nay.

My fear is that all this "undecided" crap is really just an argument about Democrats about who is the most vulnerable -- that Democrats are largely agreed on the idea that the bill should pass, but are now arguing among themselves about which of them should take the hit and vote Yea, and which should be spared and allowed to vote Nay. So many of them are posturing as long as possible to convince Nancy Pelosi to allow them to vote Nay -- or even Present -- but if the word comes down from the top their votes are needed, they'll cast the Yea as instructed.

Of course, this is a bit like a platoon charging the beach at Normandy. The platoon may agree, as a group, that the beach may be taken. But they may disagree among themselves about who will be first out of the boat (and virtually guaranteed to be killed). And, since Democrats' courage doesn't quite equal that of the troops at Normandy, maybe those selected to charge first into the fire will wind up balking.

But it is my fear that this has all been settled, pretty much, behind the scenes, as far as vote number, and now the lobbying is just over who must be part of that 216 and who gets to hang in the back of the boat as one of the lucky 34.

Dina Titus (D-NV) Back to Yes After Pretending to be Undecided: Drew just wrote this in an email. That is congruent with my thinking -- she tried to hold out to win her Get Out of Voting Free card, but Granny Rictus McBotoxImplants rejected her plea, and so she dutifully becomes one of the Unlucky Vulnerable Democrats "Volunteered" By Nancy Pelosi for Her Suicide Squad.

Posted by: Ace at 11:10 AM | Comments (178)
Post contains 683 words, total size 4 kb.

That was on Fox, so no link yet. But Clyburn, the Democratic Whip, is no longer saying he doesn't have the votes yet. He's saying instead that by Sunday he will.

That, of course, is precisely what you'd expect him to say, whether he has the votes or not. He (and Pelosi, and Obama, and etc.) need to convince people this is inevitable.

Still, it's worth noting the change in tune:

"I feel very sure that we will vote sometime after 2 o'clock on Sunday and the bill will pass," Democratic Representative James Clyburn, the top House vote-counter, told reporters.
...

Clyburn said he and his lieutenants were trying to educate about two dozen publicly undecided Democrats on the benefits of the overhaul. He said they picked up a valuable tool when budget analysts gave the bill a good grade.

...

"There are five or six people who have concerns over here, six or 12 who have concerns over there -- there is no one thing," Clyburn said.

A business lobbyist pushing against the deal and tracking the votes said on condition of anonymity: "Our count is that they are still four short. But they are going to get there."

CNN: Cao Back on the Fence. As Tweeted by KLopez.

In an email, DrewM. points out Cao's district is +25D. He only won because he followed William "Cold Cash" Jefferson. He is extremely unlikely to hold the seat and will then, presumably, need to run in some other, more Republican-leaning district.

Does he really want to throw his career away?

If the votes for this, he might as well make it official and become a Democrat.

I've Got A Bad Feeling About Jason Altmire: Jason Altmire was on all the cable stations two days ago talking about how undecided he was, and how he was opposed to this, that, and the other thing.

I initially took that as good news, but now I'm thinking he just wanted to get on the air to make a big show about being torn about this vote so when he does vote for it, as he plans to do, he can claim that at least he took a long time pondering it and all that crap.

Just One Vote Shy? Boccieri's No-to-Yes was apparently vote 215, according to FoxNews' count.

Posted by: Ace at 09:57 AM | Comments (253)
Post contains 406 words, total size 3 kb.

North Dakota has a state owned bank, in fact Kent Conrad tried to get an exemption for it from the federal takeover of student loans, now other states are considering it.

What in the world could go wrong with this idea?

Bank of North Dakota officials said that at least 10 states have turned to them for guidance, including some states, like Michigan, hardest hit by the financial crisis. They include California, Florida and Illinois, where a bill to create a state bank already is under consideration by the state legislature.

Michigan State Sen. Hansen Clarke hopes his state will be the first to follow North Dakota's lead and establish what he and others call an economic development bank.

Michigan currently carries the dubious distinction of having the highest unemployment rate in the nation.

"What I'm trying to do is help create jobs for probably one of the most economically-depressed states in the country," Clarke said. "The state economic development bank would be one way to be able to provide small businesses the capital they need to expand and create jobs."

The people who have run their states into financial holes so deep they can't even see the sky anymore think they are qualified to run a bank? It would be funny if it weren't so damn scary.

And gee, what are the odds that a bank run by a state government would wind up pushing loans to politically connected individuals or groups? Can you imagine what kind of loans say, the State Bank of Illinois would be making to ACORN approved groups or Tony Rezko connected politicians for home purchases?

Guess who would be on the hook for those bad loans? Yeah, all of us.

Insanity.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:43 AM | Comments (50)
Post contains 303 words, total size 2 kb.

Keep in mind he's a waaaay lefty Dem, but he's stompin around about the Medicare spending issue and wants it fixed (he also wants a public option, he is not our bestest friend forevah).

I think all this manuevering by left Dems is pure posture, when it comes time they will vote for the thing because they are committed statists first.

Still, if he puts a pill in that gums up the works later, well I'm just fine as hell with that.

ALSO. Granny Rictus tells Bart Stupak and his band of brothers to piss off.

That really doesn't encourage me in the short term, she knows she doesn't need them (or peeled a couple off).

In the long term, yeah, I like the stark positioning required to make her declare this. You keep on irritating the populace Nancy. You go girl.

UPDATE: Pelosi working her magic.

more...

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 08:30 AM | Comments (211)
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

First immigration, then Cap and Tax and now this. I guess with McCain in "Pretend to be a Real Conservative Mode" all the heavy lifting of selling out Republicans is falling to Graham.

Sadly, he seems more than up to the task.

The deal would put the alleged mastermind of the attacks of September 2001, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, his fellow plotters and other top terror suspects before revamped military commissions, rather than in civilian trials as the Obama administration had sought. These courts would offer defendants more rights than they had under the Bush administration, but fewer than they would be afforded in civilian court.

The effort, led by White House counsel Robert Bauer and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, further sidelines Attorney General Eric Holder, who at a hearing Tuesday continued to argue that the planners of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and other terrorists should be given civilian federal trials.

Any such deal would represent the final repudiation of Mr. Holder's November decision to bring the 9/11 plotters to civilian trial in New York City, and a switch for the White House, which suspended the Bush-era military commissions as one of its first acts in office. The White House and the Justice Department appear to be at loggerheads on the matter, and Justice Department officials say they are not a party to the negotiations

The framework of the deal is being led in Congress by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Mr. Graham wants civilian courts to be reserved for low-level Al Qaeda operatives and terrorist financiers, a far smaller group than previously considered.

Forty-eight Guantanamo prisoners—men who cannot be convicted in court but deemed too dangerous for release—would face indefinite detention without trial. Democrats are willing to expand the number of detainees brought before military commissions, but want more discretion than in Mr. Graham's proposal.

This is among the most idiotic 'deals' in history. Memo to Lindsey...KSM and the others aren't going to be tried in civilian court no matter what. It's far to unpopular among, well just about everyone. The reason the White House took this away from Holder is precisely because his plans were politically untenable. They were going to have to back off it anyway.

As for this the idea that you can hold people on US soil indefinitely without trial is, let me think of a technical term here. Ah yes...bat shit crazy. One of the reasons Gitmo was created was that under existing law and Supreme Court precedent (Eisentrager) people held outside the territory of the United States during the course of a war were not able to challenge their detention in US Courts. Boumediene changed that and opened the courthouse door (though it didn't say exactly how wide) to Gitmo detainees.

Does anyone really think, given the arc of modern jurisprudence on detainee issues, that courts are going to allow a two tier system of justice for people held on US soil? Okay, anyone not named Lindsey Graham that is.

I wouldn't be surprised that that's what the White House is banking on. They can say, "KSM will be tried in a military commission on the US mainland" but then the courts will say, "No, they are held in the US so they get all the rights anyone else does".

Add to that the cost and security issues involved and you see just what a great 'deal' this is.

Thanks Lindsey!

Posted by: DrewM at 07:53 AM | Comments (105)
Post contains 597 words, total size 4 kb.

He never quite says yes but it's pretty clear from the context of his speech. He says he's a yes.

Gabe had him in the Maybe and Susceptible to Pressure category.

Indeed.

He's giving a fairly emotional speech using a bunch of constituents who are standing around him as the reason he is voting yes. And now they are going to tell his story.

Fox says they had him on yesterday and he was worried about cost. I guess the CBO-House Dem leadership two-step on the budget was good enough for him.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:59 AM | Comments (233)
Post contains 106 words, total size 1 kb.

Actually, it's one point worse than President Bush's final job approval at the beginning of January 2009:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-four percent (44%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21. That matches the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President.

The "deeply unpopular" President Bush's final "Strongly Disapprove" rating was 43%. Obama retains a slightly more devoted core than Bush (23% vs. 13%). more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:39 AM | Comments (122)
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.