28 Democrats broke from the party to vote against it, joining a united Republican caucus in voting against it. (Although three Republicans didn't vote for some reason.)

I am getting really worried, because if 222 Democrats voted for this unconstitutional, very-unpopular maneuver, doesn't that mean that all 222 will also vote for the bill itself? Why vote for this if you're not going to vote for that?

Technically Speaking: Drew notes that this wasn't a vote on the Slaughter House Rule itself, but on a GOP motion to compel the House to not employ the Slaughter House Rule.

The Slaughter Rule is not yet actually implemented. But the motion to halt it was rejected.

Technically, they could still reject the rule itself.

Posted by: Ace at 11:11 AM | Comments (107)
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.

Rush apparently played this clip on his show:

“I want to send a couple of messages to my colleagues in the House.

If you voted no, and you vote yes, and you lose your election, and you think any nomination to a federal post isnÂ’t going to be held up in the Senate, IÂ’ve got news for you. ItÂ’s going to be held.

Nymber two is, if you get a parochial deal for you or your district, IÂ’ve already instructed my staff that we will look at every appropriations bill, and we will associate that with the buying of your vote. I want to tell you that your deal isnÂ’t going to happen.

And be prepared to defend selling your vote.”

Cool fact about Tom "Balls-Out" Coburn: He once got into a staredown with Dick Cheney and did not go insane.

Video: At NiceDeb.

Posted by: Ace at 10:47 AM | Comments (167)
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

That's not actually a record level of opposition -- Fox found opposition at 57% in December -- but it is a recent high. It was back in December that this monstrosity was the least theoretical and most likely to pass, and as that escalated, people stopped saying they were unsure on the bill and registered their disapproval. Seems they're doing that again.

A lot of those "undecideds" do in fact have an opinion, but they only express it when the bill gets to a critical point.

And it gets worse:

When the option of starting over from scratch is included, thatÂ’s what a plurality of voters want: 46 percent would toss out the current bill and start over, while 30 percent would stick with what is now on the table. One in five (19 percent) would do nothing on health care now.

On several features, proponents of the reforms have failed to convince voters of the benefits. By two-to-one people think the quality of their familyÂ’s health care would be worse, rather than better, if the bill passed. In addition, majorities think the reforms would cost them money (66 percent), and increase their taxes (75 percent).

As the main reason for opposition to the current plan, quality issues lead the way (30 percent), followed by cost (22 percent) and an over-ambitious reach (19 percent).

The number one priority for Americans is the economy, and President Obama says reforming health care will improve it. Yet the poll finds around 6 in 10 voters donÂ’t believe that health care reform would create jobs (56 percent) or boost the nationÂ’s economy (64 percent).

If the bill passes -- or fails -- what should happen next?

If it passes, nearly half (45 percent) would like lawmakers repeal it, 29 percent would expand it, and 18 percent say lawmakers should leave it as is.

If the bill fails, most voters want to either start over from scratch (42 percent) or drop it (36 percent). One in five voters would want Congress to keep trying to pass the current plan (19 percent).

45% want a repeal! That's pretty damn close to 50%, isn't it?

Posted by: Ace at 10:39 AM | Comments (38)
Post contains 390 words, total size 2 kb.

Here's the section-by-section explanation of the changes.

Posted by: Ace at 10:25 AM | Comments (94)
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

She's in a statistical tie with both Fiorina and Campbell, and leads DeVore by a mere four points, which, let's face it, is pretty much a tie, too.

And her favorables are falling, badly:

Last January among registered voters deemed likely to vote in the November election, Boxer was viewed more favorably than unfavorably by 48% to 39% margin. However, the current survey finds that her image has suffered over the past two months, with more voters now viewing her negatively (51%) than positively (38%). Just 11% have no opinion of Boxer.

Thanks to StarChamberMaid.

Whoops: Gabe had this up this morning, but he highlighted the intraparty primary numbers. Worth a post, I guess, to highlight that Babs is in trouble.

Posted by: Ace at 10:07 AM | Comments (53)
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.

The big news yesterday was that Gallup had found that Obama had slipped underwater, 46/47 for the first time.

This finding was confirmed by Democratic polling firm PPP, which also showed him net-negative for the first time, 47/48.

A bit of statistical noise finds Obama slipping down a little further, 46/48, today.

I keep waiting for a 5-8% drop from Obama as the persuadable non-cultists finally get it.

Posted by: Ace at 09:51 AM | Comments (73)
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

Mentioned in Gabe's Top Headline comments -- one of Pelosi's floor whips, Stephen Lynch, says he'll probably vote no. (Not a repost; Gabe had sketchier information earlier.)

Even one of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s floor whips, U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch, says a proposed parliamentary move to pass health-care reform would be “disingenuous” and harm the credibility of Congress.

In a sign of how tough itÂ’s been for Pelosi to round up votes for the massive bill, Lynch - a South Boston Democrat who supported a House reform package last year - said heÂ’ll probably vote against a key Senate version of the legislation, unless unexpected major changes are made soon.

Lynch, who serves as one of Pelosi’s key vote counters, said he also can’t support a proposed “deem and pass” procedure that would allow Democrats to vote to strip out controversial portions of the Senate bill and then “deem” that the entire package has passed without a second, direct vote.

“It’s disingenuous,” said Lynch, who considers unfair a Senate provision to tack a surcharge on higher-end health plans. “It would really call into question the credibility of the House.”

I think Pelosi will wind up not using the Demon Pass maneuver at all. It's generating too much bad press. So I'm not sure if Lynch will really vote "No" at the end of the day. He has substantive criticisms too (Cadillac tax), but his focus seems to be on the procedural issue. And I don't think that will wind up being an issue.

Thanks to Shooter McGavin.

Firmer Than That? DrewM notes that Lynch's concerns over the Cadillac tax are more serious than I suggested.

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) is a firm "no" on health care reform — in large measure because he opposes the idea of any kind of excise tax on Cadillac plans, even one that's delayed for years and years.

Posted by: Ace at 09:44 AM | Comments (46)
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.

Gabe mentioned him earlier as a possible flip under the heading "It's an Election Year."

Indeed, it is:

Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY), a sophomore Dem who had a tougher-than-expected re-election bid in ‘08, has told the Dem caucus he will vote against the bill.

He's actually on the rules committee, and while his change of vote won't stop the bill from proceeding to the floor (Democrats stacked the committee with a 9-4 majority), it is interesting that a Democrat on that committee is voting Nay.

Concern Trolling: I am worrying that in-jeopardy Democrats are being set loose to vote no as each safe liberal in an overwhelmingly blue state is flipped from No to Yes. (Remember, a handful of liberals voted "No" initially, like Dennis Kucinich, because the bill wasn't socialistic enough.)

This is perhaps engineered, as Granny Rictus McBotoxImplants collects Get Out Of Voting Free cards and distributes them among her favorites.

Posted by: Ace at 09:31 AM | Comments (71)
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

Charles Krauthammer noted this yesterday. This is the first time anyone in the press has challenged Obama on his dishonest claim that the cuts to Medicare can simultaneously be used to "strengthen" Medicare and also expand coverage to 30 million new people.

Paul Ryan mentioned this during the summit, but Obama ignored the question.

Here's Obama's answer, for the first time. The exchange begins around 2:14 and ends at 5:15.

Obama claims a couple of things here. First, he claims that "nobody's claiming" that this fixes the 38 trillion unfunded liability gap. But that's not true at all -- he's claiming that, for one. He continuously says that Medicare is going bankrupt without his supposed reform, but with his reform, it apparently won't.

Under pointed questioning, he walks his grand claims back to the is that his reform "doesn't weaken Medicare." Well! That's a lot different than claims the reform "strengthens the finances of Medicare," isn't it?

He also changes the terms of argument by stating that some of his "Medicare savings" will be used to pay off current seniors by closing the donut hole in drug coverage. But that deliberately misses the point, as that too constitutes new spending, and if we're plowing these alleged savings into new spending and new entitlements, it also can't be used to firm up future finances of current obligations. He is claiming that if he spends some of his "savings" on current seniors -- but new spending for current seniors -- this somehow "counts" as fixing Medicare long-term.

Of course it doesn't. Of course it doesn't. But he continues lying about this, claiming his that his "reform" addresses the long-term problem. It doesn't. It takes a big chunk of money and reassigns it to other spending -- most of it is taken from seniors to be spent on other groups -- and spends not a dollar to actually fix the financing for Medicare.

And little wonder is spin is so transparently dishonest: This is the first time he's ever been asked about it in an interview. His buddies in Big Media haven't given him any practice at answering the question because they've been too busy repeating his lies.

Posted by: Ace at 08:50 AM | Comments (220)
Post contains 379 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm not going to pretend to be a budget wonk but aside from the fact that the CBO projections are based on the 'facts' provided to them by Democratic leadership, the Director of the CBO says this isn't a real estimate (pdf)

Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections.

In other words, they don't really know yet since the bill hasn't been provided in it's final form.

Consider this little factoid from Eric Cantor's office.

Even after Dems cut $500 B in Medicare & raises taxes, their claims of deficit reduction over 10yrs wonÂ’t erase 1 month of 2010 deficit.

So even if there magical assumptions all come true (and they won't), the net reduction in the deficit is essentially zero. We're going to rework the entire health care system and if everything goes right, we won't even eliminate one month of deficits?

And just how gimmicky is this budgeting?

CBO: HC bills would cost $17 billion in first 4 years, $923 billion in remaining 6 years!

Does anyone have any faith in the numbers from the CBO for next year, let alone 5-10 years from now when the costs explode?

This is insanity.

The question is, will enough Democrats who claim to worry about the deficits drink this Kool-Aid and consider this a sufficient fig leaf to go over the cliff with Nancy? I fear the answer is yes.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:41 AM | Comments (50)
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.