This NYT article calls Kildee a "Stupak ally," but in fact he's not on many' people's lists of the Stupak 12.

Gabe tells me he already assumed Kildee was a Yes so this is no change from his analysis. But the media will claim he's one of Stupak's 12 -- note that deceptive way the NYT phrases it, "Stupak ally" though not a Stupak vote -- and will use this as evidence as more fauxmentum.

Thanks to both Drew and Gabe, and Gabe for "fauxmentum."

Posted by: Ace at 03:06 PM | Comments (173)
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.

Dave @ Garfield Ridge sent me this a couple of weeks ago, and I found the blog... um, kind of really readable. And, see, I didn't link it, because I'm not talking about the porn star stuff. I mean the actual D&D talk.

So I didn't link it because I thought, "Is this what I'm reduced to? Do I really need to advertise the fact I just went through three months of posts? And wasn't even looking at the chicks?"

Anyway...

Go for the porn chicks. Stay for the uber-geek game theorizing.

Thanks to ChadH.

Posted by: Ace at 02:32 PM | Comments (63)
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

Bret Baier says the interview is more "combative" and "confrontational" than his normal interview for him.

(I took the video out, the player wasn't loading)

What's the point of this for Obama? Is to reach the independents that watch Fox? To fire up the left by taking on the evil bastards at FNC?

Should be interesting.

Bit of a follow up to Ace's post on the one trillion dollar price tag, big labor is worried about the taxes on health plans. The problem is lowering them from the Senate bill's level adds to the cost of the plan and makes it harder to show savings that are required for reconciliation.

It's not a done deal yet.

Update: Yeah, I'd say contentious is a good description.

Howie Kurtz defends Baier's interruptions, at least until that point.

Obama says everyone knows what's in the bill. Uh, what bill? No one has seen the bill that will be voted on (the reconciliation bill).

In summary...I think it's fair to say Bret did not have a thrill up his leg during the interview.

Last thought: I think Baier missed one big point. Obama tried to squirm out of the Doc Fix by saying he 'inherited it'. Baier should have pointed out the issue with that is that for a decade the Doc Fix has put off promised savings in Medicare. Why should people believe him, Nancy and Harry when they say this time hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicare savings are really going to materialize this time? That's the big issue, will the "savings", such as they are, ever actually occur or are we going to be drowned in debt? Baier never went after him on those terms.

Posted by: DrewM at 01:56 PM | Comments (450)
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

Allah runs down the counts, including one by our very own Gabe. It's close, and we don't know.

Here's a fresh one from Michael Barone, stating it's close, and we don't know.

The GOP health care count: 209 no, 204 yes, 18 undecided
By: Byron York

Chief Political Correspondent

03/17/10 4:31 PM EDT

...

Of the 18 Democrats who are undecided, Republicans will have to win seven votes to prevail, provided Republicans do in fact have 209 votes now. The Democratic leadership would have to win over 12 undecideds, if in fact Democrats are at 204 now.

"If you're trying to win a vote like this, you never want to be in the situation where you have to get virtually everybody who's still left in the pool," says the source. "That's difficult. They have to get two-thirds, and that's a lot."

Over at Critical Condition, a somewhat more optimistic and more conclusory count:

With March Madness fast approaching, it's best not to have Obamacare going very far in your bracket. According to The Hill's projections about which way Democratic members are leaning — and assuming that non-leaning Democrats would vote the same way as last time — Obamacare would currently lose by a tally of 207 (yeas) to 224 (nays). (And that's even assuming that Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) will announce later this morning that, since the president was nice enough to ask him for his vote and to give him a ride in Air Force One, he'll support the bill.)

Andy Wickersham and I have outlined the 40 key Democrats that Americans most need to contact and to whom they most need to make their voices heard. If all other Democrats vote the same way as they did before, while all Republicans vote against the bill as expected, then President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and company would need 27 of these 40 for Obamacare to be deemed the law of the land. However, according to The Hill, only 5 of these 40 are currently leaning "yes," while 12 are now leaning "no."

That outline of Democrats we need to contact is here.

I have a sinking feeling. I am afraid as most of you are that there's no such thing as a "moderate Democrat," merely a liberal Democrat who takes a few centrist positions on social issues or makes moderate noises on occasion.

I think they are calculating, as I've long worried, that they are going to lose either the independents or the liberals, so they might as well choose to go with the liberals, who both vote and donate to them.

I also think they see this as Reverse Reagan. Reagan's tax cuts permanently (?) changed what was or what was not possible in politics; liberals had to forever (?) reckon with the fact that very popular tax cuts were in place and this restricted their plans to spend our money.

If the Democrats pass this, it will be hard to get off the books -- at least until January 2012, and probably even then -- and will therefore permanently commit future generations to paying for this abortion. I mean, if it's a law on the books, and the Democrats filibuster all attempts to repeal it, even a fiscal-conservative Congress and President will, I imagine, be compelled by force of law to implement it and pay for it.

Posted by: Ace at 12:45 PM | Comments (269)
Post contains 592 words, total size 4 kb.

Just a rounding error, really, in the ObamaNation.

Posted by: Ace at 12:30 PM | Comments (136)
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

UPDATED (3/18, 4:20EDT) Welcome Rush Fans! You can find Gabriel's most recently updated whip count here.

[DrewM.] Rush was talking about this post, so I've moved it up so newcomers can see it.

First a note on the whip count. In one sense, a public whip count is pointless. It's only as good as each congressman's publicly stated word, which we all know is worth spit. On the other hand, one way of making congressmen more accountable for their word is to share it with as many of their constituents as possible. Demanding that they publicly declare their position, like what you see going on for the past week on the left, puts pressure on them to stick to their word.

It also helps give us an idea of who to target. Folks who fail to take a public stance are, perhaps, persuadable. Obama will persuade with bribes. We can bribe with votes. One of my favorite writers wrote: "Corruption means elected officials trading votes for their own advantage; democracy means a bloc of voters doing the same thing. The electorate knows the difference." And that's exactly what we're talking about with the healthcare shenanigans going on in Congress.

Alright, and now for the whip count update.

Dan Maffei says he will be voting for the healthcare bill, so I've removed him from "Yes, but Maybe" and added him to the Dems definitely on board. Same thing for Ann Kirkpatrick. Same with Mike Doyle.

Jason Altmire announced that "deem and pass is wrong", but that doesn't mean he won't support the bill. So I'm not moving him out of the "No, But Maybe" category just yet.

On the bright side, Glenn Nye is making noises that sound like "no" via email to constituents. Unfortunately, there's no public statement and he's still waiting for a final bill before he decides. So I'm not moving him out of the "No, But Maybe" group.

Finally, Ace and some others think Dennis Kucinich is about to switch from "Not No Way" to a sure vote for the bill. I'm going to wait to put him in the "Definitely Yes" group, but I'll move him to "No, But Maybe" to reflect that he may be having second thoughts about his Sunday op-ed which blasted the Senate bill.

All told, that gives Pelosi 192 votes. She's 24 short. There are 26 "maybes" left.

Thanks to Ryan, shank, enoxo, Brian, and Shooter McGavin.

Late Edit: Gahh! I was counting as if there were still 255 Dems in the House. There aren't. There are only 253. Which means that Pelosi is two votes behind where I thought she was. Total is adjusted to match. Somebody better check my math...

Alright, the names are below the fold: more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 10:26 AM | Comments (531)
Post contains 942 words, total size 6 kb.

Not that surprising given he's a liberal and part of the Democratic hierarchy (he's chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee).

Minnesota Rep. James Oberstar, an ardent backer of the House abortion restrictions, will vote for the final package after a further review of the Senate's language, giving top Democrats a critical endorsement as they lean on their rank-and-file to back the Senate bill.

"I wanted to see the language, understand it better, have conversations with Sen. Nelson," Oberstar said Wednesday. "On balance, it does what we need to do."

Meanwhile Rush was just talking up the whip count that Gabe posted. If you are stopping by looking for that, I think this is the post Rush was referring to.

Note: I changed the headline because he says Oberstar wasn't part of his Stupak 12 and was always in his Yes count,, so no loss to the cause.

More information from Gabe about members to contact here.

Posted by: DrewM at 10:20 AM | Comments (259)
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

Via John Noonan, it's not Adams himself but his modern day incarnations at the ACLU.

Seems the group filed a Freedom Of Information Act requesting just a few details about an ongoing, top-secret set of programs. Surprisingly, given the predilections of the current administration, the government didnÂ’t want to give up that information (or just hasnÂ’t responded fast enough for the ACLU) so they are suing in federal court.

In particular, the lawsuit asks for information on when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, the number and rate of civilian casualties and other basic information essential for assessing the wisdom and legality of using armed drones to conduct targeted killings.

"The public has a right to know whether the targeted killings being carried out in its name are consistent with international law and with the country's interests and values," said Jonathan Manes, a legal fellow with the ACLU National Security Project.

"The Obama administration should disclose basic information about the program, including its legal basis and limits, and the civilian casualty toll thus far."

Oh is that all they want to know? Well asking questions about on going military operations is simply in the finest traditions of American justice. I mean, whereÂ’s the sport in going to war if you are going to hide information from your enemy?

What possible reason is there for the release of this information other than to hurt US anti-terror efforts and give the jihadis propaganda talking points?

I understand that in a democracy people need to know what's being done by their government to make informed decisions. Thing is, everyone knows the broad outlines of the program...we fly drones in and around Pakistan and Afghanistan. When we find bad guys we blow them up. Sometimes we are wrong and civilians are killed. How much more do you need to know if you support the idea or not?

Refresh my memory, who exactly elected the 5th Columnists at the ACLU to take it upon themselves to dig up all this information and disseminate it to our enemies? Of course itÂ’s unfair to attack the lawyers who are doing this, I mean you canÂ’t judge a lawyer by the cases he takes or the causes he decides to serve. Or so IÂ’ve been told.

They aren't anti-American, they are pro-terrorist.

All I could think of when I saw this story was a skit from Saturday Night Live back during the first Gulf War... more...

Posted by: DrewM at 09:17 AM | Comments (198)
Post contains 465 words, total size 4 kb.

Maybe it would work better if there were only virtual illegal aliens and drug dealers crossing the border instead of real ones.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has put the brakes on SBInet, the $3 billion plan to build a virtual fence along the U.S. border with Mexico.

“Not only do we have an obligation to secure our borders, we have a responsibility to do so in the most cost-effective way possible,” Napolitano said in a statement Tuesday. “The system of sensors and cameras along the Southwest border known as SBInet has been plagued with cost overruns and missed deadlines.”

With that in mind, Napolitano is withholding funding for the program’s first deployment until a review she ordered in January is finished. And she’s taking away $50 million in stimulus funds from the Boeing-managed program. Instead, that funding will be put toward “other tested, commercially available security technology along the Southwest border.”

And supporters of amnesty (Hello Mav and Lindsey!) wondered why proponents of enforcement weren't willing to accept their promises of securing the border someday for amnesty now.

I get that securing the border isn't quite as easy as saying 'build a damn wall' (though in a lot of places, it's a good start) but there should be absolutely zero talk of amnesty, comprehensive reform, bringing people out of the shadows, whatever you want to call it until we get a handle on the existing problem. Once we do that, then we can talk about the rest of the problem.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:46 AM | Comments (163)
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.

See, its like this - Robert Wexler resigned his seat some time ago leaving this district I live in unrepresented in the house until a special election is held. A small token office staff remains to field phone calls and letters, and give out what information they can. BUT they don't vote in the house.

Now, if I were to LIE on the house email contact web forms and give a phony address and a zip code for another Florida district's rep, that email would go through.

If I TELL THE TRUTH, and give my actual address and zip code, they bounce me, and aren't interested in what the Wexler district phantom "non-citizens" have to say.

This really pisses me off. How can you have a vote on something so significant (be it good or bad) as this HCR monstrosity with a large part of the Florida population EXCLUDED from having a voice? Health care and how it get handled is a big deal down here with all the retirees. Wexler's district was heavy on retirees.

So Mr. President, are you all comfy with this present state of affairs where a big swath of FL has no say what so ever in these proceedings?

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 06:33 AM | Comments (203)
Post contains 250 words, total size 1 kb.