I gotta tell ya, I have no idea how it kept going this long.

Posted by: Ace at 11:01 AM | Comments (104)
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

Bizarre, and would, I imagine, almost immediately be undone by the Supreme Court.

Guess what? The Supreme Court requires that bills actually be voted on to, you know, become laws. You can't make up some absurd rule that says a bill has been voted on when in fact it has not.

But that is precisely what they're attempting.

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.

Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBOscores on the corrections bill. "Once the CBO gives us the score we'll spring right on it," she said.

[. . .]

House members are concerned the Senate could fail to approve the corrections bill, making them nervous about passing the Senate bill with its much-maligned sweetheart deals for certain states.

"We're well beyond that," Pelosi said Tuesday, though she did not clarify.

They're doing this, I think, to escape the rule that if the Senate bill is passed with changes or alterations the bill must be re-voted on in the Senate, which would invoke the filibuster. So they're trying to create some bizarre new "rule" that says "We're making changes to this law, and passing it with those changes, but we're counting it as 'not changed.'"

Um, you can't do that. If the bill is changed, it is not the same bill voted on by the Senate.

Thanks to AtaLien.

Let Me Try to Explain... to myself.

I think this starts from the fact that the House doesn't trust the Senate to reconcile anything. So what they'd like to do is change the bill so that the Senate has to accept the House changes.

The problem with that is if they change the Senate bill, the Senate can't use reconciliation. A changed bill is a new bill, and that is subject to filibuster.

So what they're trying to do is pass a bill which includes 1) changes to the Senate bill and 2) some kind of clause stating that "if these changes pass, the bill we're trying to change also passes." And what they're claiming then is that the Senate bill would be self-executing; it would vote for itself, or something. It would be "constructively passed" if the changes are passed.

And so they are doing this to accomplish two fundamentally irreconcilable goals:

1) Pass the Senate bill without changes so that the Senate can use reconciliation.

2) Pass the Senate bill with changes so that the Senate bill can't pass without those changes.

But if a bill is changed, it gets voted on again by the Senate. You cannot change this by "rule" -- this is a Constitution-level thing. Obviously, all legislation must be voted for by House and Senate; the Constitution says so. You cannot claim that a bill "automatically passes" by voting on some other matter. You cannot claim that you're passing a changed bill for one purpose but an unchanged bill for another purpose. Either it's changed or it's not; either it requires a new vote by the Senate or it doesn't.

This is the typical nonsense desperate leftists try. If you can't do it by the rules, change the rules, and rely on the media to pretend what you've done is perfectly reasonable.

In fact, it would undo a good third of how our constitutional system operates. Suddenly we'd be in a brave new world where House and Senate merely have to to pass "similar" bills for those bills -- often conflicting and contradictory -- to become our new "law."

Posted by: Ace at 10:58 AM | Comments (222)
Post contains 674 words, total size 4 kb.

A Yes to No, that is, unless the abortion language changes, which it most likely will not.

Rep. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., voted for the House Democrats' health care reform legislation last November, but he told the Rochester Sentinel that the abortion language in the Senate bill is not restrictive enough for him.

The Senate’s abortion language is a "fatal flaw," he told the newspaper. "I would not vote for it.” He added that the Senate legislation’s abortion language is opposed by "a significant" number of House Democrats and could kill the bill.

Little by little, Stupak is proving that he was on-the-level when he said his bloc would stand firm and vote against this.

Posted by: Ace at 10:38 AM | Comments (40)
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.

I emphasize "next Congress" because the majority then just could be the GOP, and this is a great softening-of-the-ground for the GOP stripping the Democrats of the filibuster.

I also think it's hysterical that Harry Reid still thinks he'll be part of the next Congress.

"The filibuster has been abused," Sen. Harry Reid said at a reporter's briefing this afternoon. "But next Congress, we are going to take a look at it. And we're going to make some changes in it.”

Speaking of Harry Reid, do non-Nevadans realize the Democrats' most likely candidate for governor there is one Rory Reid, son of Hapless Harry?

He's doing better than his dad -- he only trails GOP rival Brian Sandoval by 18 points. He also trails GOP contender Mike Montandon by five.

I really can't wait to gang-tickle the Reid family in November.

Posted by: Ace at 10:28 AM | Comments (50)
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

Oh, did I say Global Warming? I guess I meant "Climate Change" because this show seems to be nothing but Hoth parkas and Conan furs:

Can't blame the fashionistas for their confusion -- after all, it's the "climate scientists" themselves that global warming can cause extreme cold.

Newsbusters has the link, and provided the Zoolander reference too.

They used real icebergs as a backdrop -- surely that somehow destroys the environment, right?

This wasn't part of that show, but it's covered in the same AP article. Here is one of several designs rather optimistically deemed "ready-to-wear:"

Posted by: Ace at 10:05 AM | Comments (129)
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.

He's among the 39 previous-no-votes being whipped. Except it's not 39, it's 38, but people keep saying 39. (One of the 39, Griffiths, flipped parties and now, obviously, will not be joining Pelosi's Suicide Squad.)

On the other hand, one no vote says "maybe."

Dem Rep Jim Marshall, a prominent Blue Dog who voted No last time but was believed to be open to backing the Senate bill, is now a definite No, his spokesperson confirms.

“Marshall is a no,” Marshall spokesperson Doug Moore tells our reporter, Ryan Derousseau.

...

But: Another Blue Dog in that same pool, Rep Jim Matheson, who also voted No last time, is now undecided.

“He is waiting for, among other items, the CBO score on the changes proposed by the President,” Matheson spokesperson Alyson Heyrend tells us.

Being "undecided" is the safe, default play, or it would be the safe, default play if this bill weren't so toxic. So it's no big deal if someone says he's undecided -- he should be undecided, theoretically, until he sees the legislative language. It's notable that so many don't need to see specifics to confirm their no.

Thanks to DrewM.

Posted by: Ace at 09:50 AM | Comments (54)
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

Lost Boy: Apparent drug overdose.

Hope you're near your fainting couch.

Posted by: Ace at 09:36 AM | Comments (60)
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

Wait, that's not right. It's Markos Moulitsas threatening to support a primary challenge against...Dennis Kucinich because Kucinich won't support ObamaCare.

Yes, it's Larry O'Donnell talking to Kos on Countdown but it's worth watching for the 100 proof schadenfreude induced high it provides.

I'm really looking forward to all the stories on "The coming crack up of the Democratic Party" and the editorials defending Kucinich for being "a maverick who is willing to buck his party when principles are on the line".

Any day now. Any. Day.

Now, from a practical stand point I agree with Kos. If single payer socialism were my goal, I'd vote for this plan in a heartbeat. You're never going to get there in one bite but with a little patience this ObamaCare crap will destroy health care and the solution to any failed government program is always...more government programs. Kucinich and his ilk are tilting at windmills and making the perfect, the enemy of the good (from the liberal point of view).

Whatever his motivations, I'm more than happy to Kucinich as a no vote.

Update: It's too late to file for a primary in Ohio. But hey, it's the stupidity of the thought that counts!

Posted by: DrewM at 09:33 AM | Comments (46)
Post contains 237 words, total size 3 kb.

That'snot exactly what the poll tested. But on every one of Obama's specific pledges of cost containment and premium reduction, the public doesn't believe him.

This poll, by the way, was commissioned by Adolph Hilter's cryogenically-sustained brain.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters say the health care reform plan now working its way through Congress will hurt the U.S. economy.

...

Two-out-of-three voters (66%) also believe the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats is likely to increase the federal deficit. ThatÂ’s up six points from late November...

Eighty-one percent (81%) believe it is at least somewhat likely that the health care reform plan will cost more than official estimates. That number includes 66% who say it is very likely that the official projections understate the true cost of the plan.

...

Seventy-eight percent (78%) also believe it is at least somewhat likely that taxes will have to be raised on the middle class to cover the cost of health care reform. This includes 65% who say middle-class tax hikes are very likely, a six-point increase from late November.

...

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of voters say cost is the biggest problem with health care. But 54% believe passage of the proposed health care legislation will lead to higher health care costs.

Here's the big problem, of course:

While the president and supporters of the plan view the lack of universal health coverage as perhaps the biggest problem with health care, only 22% of voters agree.

...

Seventy-six percent (76%) of those with insurance now rate their own coverage as good or excellent.

Obama is attempting to help the 15% without insurance at the direct expense of the 85% with it, and the 85% are, not surprisingly, not huge fans of the idea.

Dick Morris casually tosses out a new outer-bound of the number of Democratic House seats in jeopardy -- possibly more than eighty.

And now the House Democrats line up at the instruction of their blind commanders for a final charge into glory as they battle to foist a healthcare system on a country that neither wants it nor can afford it.

The charge may or may not reach its objective. But one thing is certain: The carnage among those who vote for healthcare will be reminiscent of the Battle of Balaclava during the Crimean War. As a French military leader who witnessed the spectacle said, "C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre" (It's magnificent, but it's not war). The sight of so many Democrats throwing away their political careers may be arresting, but it is not politics.

Before this last, demented attempt to pass healthcare, the Democrats would have lost control of the House anyway. But with it, they face the loss of a historically high number of seats -- perhaps more than 80.

Count Liberal Senator Dick Durbin in the 54% Who Expect Premiums to Go Up: This is pretty damn good:

Sen. Dick Durbin, March 10, 2010: "Anyone who would stand before you and say 'well, if you pass health care reform next year's health care premiums are going down,' I don't think is telling the truth. I think it is likely they would go up."

And guess who just said yesterday most premiums would go down?

Posted by: Ace at 08:59 AM | Comments (89)
Post contains 608 words, total size 4 kb.

I'd say it's safe to say he's move beyond Charlie Crist and is looking forward to the general election.

I normally hate, "do it for the children" appeals but if the thing we should be doing for them is 'stand up to Obama, not join with him', then I'm in. A very sweet ad, with a great partisan punch...nicely pulled off.

Oh and an addendum to yesterday's PPP poll showing Rubio trouncing Crist, it doesn't matter if Charlie runs as an independent or even a Democrat, he's in big, big trouble.

An independent Charlie Crist bid for the US Senate would work to Marco Rubio's advantage, because Crist would win more Democratic votes than Republican ones. In a hypothetical three way contest Rubio leads with 34% to 27% for Crist and 25% for Kendrick Meek.

Crist gets 32% of the Democratic vote but only 18% of Republicans running as an independent. He also leads among independents with 35% to 24% for Rubio and 22% for Crist.

Crist's overall approval rating now is a 35/51 spread. He's most popular with Democrats at a 45% approval rating followed by independents at 29% and Republicans at 28%.

Right now PPP has Rubio up by 5 or less in a heads up contest with Meek. Still given where Rubio came from against Crist, there's every reason to believe as more people see Rubio they will like him. That's why he's already started pivoting to position himself for the general.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:30 AM | Comments (43)
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.