Folks are asking me what this Slaughter business is all about. First, a description of the process is in today's WaPo. They describe it as "procedural slight-of-hand."

Second, why it's unconstitutional, according to retired 10th Circuit judge Michael McConnell in yesterday's WSJ. (Click on either of the top two links to get past the Journal's subscriber wall.) The short version: the Constitution requires that both houses of Congress pass the exact same bill before it can become a law. Reconciliation is only used on laws. So, no matter how they do it, the House has to pass the Senate Bill before they can alter it via reconciliation.

There's more than a little chicanery to the Slaughter Solution. With one breath, Democrats are saying that it's constitutional and entirely business-as-usual because a vote for Slaughter is a vote for passage of the Senate bill, even as they simultaneously amend it. But then, in the very next breath, they claim that it will be easier for reluctant Democrats to vote for Slaughter than the "unpopular" Senate bill. Really:

"It's more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know," [Nancy Pelosi] said in a roundtable discussion with bloggers Monday. "But I like it," she said, "because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill."

Undecided Democrats appeared unconcerned by the flap. Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), a retiring lawmaker who opposed the original House bill and is undecided on the new package, mocked Republican criticism of the process. Ultimately, he said, voters will hold lawmakers responsible for any changes in law.

"I don't think anybody's going to say that we didn't vote for the bill," he said.

Uh huh.

Here's the problem. If they vote for the Senate bill and simultaneously amend it via Slaughter, they will be sending to the Speaker two mutually-contradictory bills. One of which, having been passed by both houses, is constitutionally supposed to be presented to the President (the Senate bill) and one of which is constitutionally supposed to be sent to the Senate (the reconciliation sidecar).

That Democrats are openly referring to this as "sleight-of-hand", "cover-of-darkness" legislation should be having more impact, but after their Christmas Eve shenanigans they have exhausted most voters' capacity for outrage.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:39 AM | Comments (89)
Post contains 388 words, total size 3 kb.

Forgot about the Top Headlines yesterday. My bad.

Also, updated whip count will be out this evening. Some interesting news to whet your appetite, though. The NY Times is reporting that the President is focusing some effort on Dina Titus (NV-3), Betty Sutton (OH-13), Bob Etheridge (NC-2), and Mike McIntyre (NC-7).

You will note that Titus, Sutton, and Etheridge are not named in my whip count. That's because everyone had them in the 191 Dems "definitely on board." I guess not. McIntyre is on my list as "No Means No" and I've seen nothing to suggest that has changed.

The President and Nancy seem to lose one Democrat each day. That is, at least one each day for the past week has announced that they are voting against the bill. If that trend continues, Democrats will be two votes shy if the vote is taken on Saturday. But if the bill isn't going to pass, expect it to fail by more than just one or two votes. Dems are coming to this only reluctantly. If it's going to not pass, it's going to not pass by ten or twenty votes in the final roll call.

Folks I'm hearing are "no" votes who haven't stated it yet: Rick Boucher, Allen Boyd, Lincoln Davis.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:14 AM | Comments (79)
Post contains 220 words, total size 1 kb.

Actually I don't think it's a problem at all really, it's not the facts that surface from the story, it's the telling of the tale that accomplishes its purpose.

Still, dude.

Natoma Canfield, the cancer-stricken woman who has become a centerpiece of President ObamaÂ’s push for health care reform, will not lose her home over her medical bills and will probably qualify for financial aid, a top official at the Cleveland medical center treating her told FoxNews.com.

Though Canfield’s sister Connie Anderson said her sibling is afraid she’ll lose her house and Obama warned at an Ohio rally Monday that the patient is “racked with worry” about the cost of tests and treatment, she is already being screened for financial help.

Lyman Sornberger, executive director of patient financial services at the Cleveland Clinic, said “all indications” at the outset are that she will be considered for assistance.

“She may be eligible for state Medicaid … and/or she will be eligible for charity (care) of some form or type. … In my personal opinion, she will be eligible for something,” he said, adding that Canfield should not be worried about losing her home.

“Cleveland Clinic will not put a lien on her home,” he said.

Funny how he screws up "need health insurance right now" when he meant "need health insurance reform right now". Stupid TOTUS.

I don't think Obama's team is so dumb they don't know this. They just don't care. She's a prop.

Think about that context. The current "system" cares a hell of a lot more about Natoma's well-being than Obama does.

h/t Carin, or Car in. The space means something but I'm an idiot and I don't remember things so good.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 06:37 PM | Comments (108)
Post contains 296 words, total size 2 kb.

Monday all.

Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus - Plane Attack!?
Back in 2009 the movie Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus came out about two giant creatures that terrorize California. Apparently it was pretty horrible except for one scene which has become internet-famous. Here's an infographic explaining what would be required for mega Shark to pull off this stunt.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:04 PM | Comments (895)
Post contains 346 words, total size 4 kb.

John Adler is a "No." I've moved him from the "No, But Maybe" group into the "No Means No" category, which means Pelosi now needs 25 out of 28 "maybes". See update below.

Put another way, we only need four of the "maybes" to vote "no" and there aren't enough Dems left to pass the bill.

Additional signaling today came from Marion Berry, one of the Stupak Dozen, who voted for the reconciliation bill in committee, and from Allen Boyd, one of the supposed "No, but Maybe" guys, who voted against the reconciliation bill in committee.

Berry swears he ultimately won't vote for abortion funding, but, well...he lies. A lot. Boyd hasn't told anyone what he's up to, and he may still be courted by Pelosi. Without more info, I'm not moving them from where I've got them.

Oops. And More Updates:

First, I only had eleven folks in the Stupak Dozen. That's because I left off Tom Perriello (VA-5), who has said several times that he will not support the Senate abortion language. His staff just confirmed to one of our commenters that "if the abortion language is not changed he will vote no." I've added his name to the Stupak Dozen category below (and checked my math to make sure all 255 Dems are accounted for).

Second, Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8 ) released a statement a few minutes ago, announcing her willingness to be bought. She says, "When and if these problems are addressed, I will publicly commit to vote for this historic health insurance reform legislation." Based on that, I'm not ready to move her out of the "Yes, but Maybe" category. I think it very likely that she will vote for the bill, but she hasn't said that she will yet.

Pelosi's goal is still 25 out of 28 "maybes."

Thanks to Nick and Brian for the updates.

Whip Count is below the fold: more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:17 PM | Comments (168)
Post contains 837 words, total size 5 kb.

Oh dear.

Details at the link, but here's the video:

Posted by: Ace at 02:03 PM | Comments (225)
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

Madame Palomino is unabashed about declaring health care reform the first step in a fundamental reordering of America along far more socialistic lines.

Also in Allah's post is this interesting piece by Peter Beinart, worth reading in full. But here's a taste. The term "Superjumbo Democrat" means much as you might guess it does -- the metaphor is to Boeing building superjumbo planes even when the market doesn't want them, thus strengthening its brand. A superjumbo Democrat, then, pursues hardcore liberalism even when the public doesn't want it, in the belief that... I don't know. That for some reason the public learns to respect Democrats for doing the opposite of what they ask of them.

Why exactly Obama—advised by David Axelrod, Rahm Emmanuel and Valerie Jarrett—decided to double down on health care remains unclear. But it’s a good bet that President Hillary Clinton—advised by Mark Penn—would have acted differently. And in acting the way he did, Obama has turned himself into a superjumbo Democrat. For the foreseeable future, he has forfeited any chance of bridging the red-blue divide. Prominent Republicans have already announced that if Democrats try to pass health care via reconciliation, they will not work across the aisle to pass anything major this year. Conversely, Obama has cemented his bond with the netroots. It doesn’t really matter that the health care reform bill he is fighting for isn’t particularly left-wing. For the netroots, a politicians’ ideological purity has always been less important than his willingness to resist pressure from the other side, which is exactly what Obama has just done.

Whether health care reform passes or not, Obama has embraced polarization over triangulation. He has chosen Karl Rove’s politics of base mobilization over Dick Morris’s politics of crossover appeal, with consequences not merely for how he campaigns for Democrats in 2010, but for he campaigns for himself in 2012. And that’s a disaster for “don’t scare the bear” Democrats whether Obamacare passes or not. The reason is that the DLC wing of the party is much more top-down than the MoveOn wing. It has always wielded influence primarily through elected leaders rather than grassroots activists. But today, Obama is the only leader in the Democratic Party who really matters. As the retirement of Evan Bayh illustrates, there are few nationally prominent DLC-aligned politicians left. (The one person who could have rallied that faction of the party against Obama is now his secretary of state). The DLC wing’s best hope for relevance, therefore, was that Obama himself would restrain the party’s base, that his White House would nurture a new generation of centrist candidates.

That hope is now gone. From top to bottom, Democrats have decided to bet the partyÂ’s future on the belief that Americans prefer bold liberals to cautious ones. Now itÂ’s up to the bear.

"The bear" is the American public -- for years cautious DLC types argued that liberals mustn't "scare the bear." Obama, Pelosi, Reid et al. have decided to call the bear's bluff and to try to back the bear down.

Posted by: Ace at 12:58 PM | Comments (141)
Post contains 522 words, total size 4 kb.

Confirming, sort of, Gabe's own whip count:

n a press conference on Capitol Hill today, Rep. David Dreier (R., Calif.), ranking Republican on the House Rules Committee, said the word around the House is that Democrats are still about 10 votes away from securing the 216 they will need to pass changes to the health-care bill. Dreier added that that number might be moving in the wrong direction for Democrats.

“You are hearing that people are peeling off,” he said.

Dreier also repeated the warnings about the Senate that many Congressional Republicans have been issuing to the other side of the aisle. He said that, assuming House Democratssucceed in passing a reconciliation measure along to the Senate, even marginal changes made there would require the measure to return to the House yet again.

“I would not be terribly sanguine about the prospect of the Senate effectively dealing with this,” Dreier said, adding that only once in history has a reconciliation measure passed through the Senate without a single amendment.

Posted by: Ace at 12:31 PM | Comments (133)
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.

It seems Lindsey thinks that's a bad thing.

"The idea that the president has‬‪been unwavering on immigration doesn't really pass the smell test," Graham said. "One line in the State of the Union that was unnoticeable is not‬‪ 'unwavering.' A hastily called meeting Thursday because of a rally next‬‪ weekend is not 'unwavering,' is CYA."

Graham said that "unwavering is sending two Cabinet‬‪ members over to the House and the Senate two hours a day for two months‬‪ with dozens of senators trying to write a bill.‬‪ That's what President Bush did. President Obama has not been‬‪ unwavering on immigration reform. He has pretty much ignored it because‬‪ he has been consumed by health care."

Graham called Schumer a "great partner" and said the two would soon release a‬‪ document "about our way forward on immigration."

I wonder if Lindsey is starting to get the sense that maybe Obama is using him get Republicans fighting with each other over the issue and setting him up to be the scapegoat when the left gets pissed Obama doesn't deliver. Obama will say, "Let me be clear, I tired. Chuck Schumer tried, hell even Lindsey Graham kind of tried but he couldn't deliver those racist Republicans".

Of course, that won't stop Lindsey from actually trying a reigniting the whole intra-party fight.

When I hear conservatives from other parts of the country complain about "Damn northeast RINOS!", I'm kind of sympathetic (they drive me nuts too) but then I think, "Lindsey Graham? That's the best South Carolina can do?" Seriously guys, what's up with that?

Posted by: DrewM at 12:22 PM | Comments (83)
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.

It's sexually graphic -- metaphorically. Maybe that's a contradiction but if you click on the pick you'll get it -- it's a picture of a guy getting literally teabagged by a couple of tea bags, but looks just like... well, Althouse has the picture.

The article is about the Tea Party's "frustrated moderates," by the way. Frustrated by the wingnuts.

They only do that one story, eh? The "moderates" are always so close to ditching the party over the wignuts; we're almost in a state of civil war. It's always that way in the GOP. Now it's that way in the Tea Party, too.

Meanwhile, no wingnuttery or frustrated moderates in the Democratic Party, eh?

Posted by: Ace at 11:41 AM | Comments (67)
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.