Via Hot Air's round-up of all the Nomentum (most of it posted here, but still, more good stuff), another Representative cheerleaded by Obama's wannabe-girlfriends at AP as a good, solid chance of voting for this Comprehensive Piece of Shit says Yes to Nomentum.

Rep Frank Kratovil of Maryland, a previous No vote who was now said to be undecided, will vote No on the Senate health reform proposal, his spokesman confirms.

“He would vote against it,” the spokesman, Kevin Lawlor, says. Crucially, Kratovil would vote against the Senate bill even if there’s some kind of verbal guarantee that it would be fixed via reconciliation later, Lawlor says.

The only way Kratovil — one of the targets of a barrage of NRCC robocalls hammering the reform proposals as “dangerous” — could support the Senate bill is if it’s fixed first via reconciliation, before the House votes on it. But no one expects this to happen.

Because it seems to be illegal to use reconciliation to fix a law which is not even a law.

But that's just a no-staying-no. Welcome, of course, as the pool of possible no-to-yes votes dwindles and dwindles.

But what about some hot yes-to-no action?! We've got some of that too!

Next post!

Posted by: Ace at 12:33 PM | Comments (30)
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.

Darling, cute cuddly Knut. THEY WANT TO CUT HIS BALLS OFF. That's some harsh shit. I would think he's got a right to keep his junk intact and maybe snack on a few of those crazy moonbats that want to mess with his manhood.

In other German news, what would you do if you were a contractor and found 100,000 Euros stashed under some old bathtub during a remodel?

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 12:27 PM | Comments (29)
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.

Some small-beans nomentum this time -- the Democrats can afford to lose a full nine votes in the Senate. They'll lose... well, like six or seven. At the end of the day, though, they will almost certainly have enough hardcore liberals to push this monstrosity through.

However -- that being said -- it does demonstrate which side is having the better of it in the public square. One doesn't advertise one's unpopular votes.

And it demonstrates she's running against her party and her president.

She brags in this video of voting against the supposedly-popular public option.

And, of course, it demonstrates that Obama's big sales closer-line -- unlike in 1994, you've got me, baby -- isn't going to move a lot of units.

Not only is he 0 for 3 in recent high-profile big-time elections, but he's toxic in any state or district where anyone's wavering.

And on that -- remember, 2010 is especially important, because it's the election in a census/redistricting year. The party who gets to draw the maps builds itself a strong advantage for a full decade.

Will the Tea Party Uprising cost the Democrats control of state houses, too?

Most likely a few:

Control of the state legislature matters whether a state loses or gains seats. Take fast-growing Texas, which is expected to pick up as many as four seats next year. Democrats had a 17-13 edge in the state's congressional delegation after the 2000 elections. Republicans won control of the Texas House in 2002 and redrew the state's congressional map. As a result, the GOP now controls 20 congressional seats in Texas while Democrats control 12. Similarly in Georgia, following the 2000 census Democrats redrew district lines to give themselves control of the state's two new congressional seats.

In Pennsylvania, Republicans controlled 11 congressional seats and Democrats 10 before reapportionment cost the Keystone State two seats in 2001. Afterward, the Republican legislature redrew the map to the GOP's advantage, creating 12 Republican seats and seven Democratic ones. (Democrats later picked up some of those GOP seats.)

To understand the broader political implications, consider that the GOP gained somewhere between 25 and 30 seats because of the redistricting that followed the 1990 census. Without those seats, Republicans would not have won the House in 1994.

Control of redistricting also has huge financial implications. The average winner of a competitive House race in 2008 spent $2 million, while a noncompetitive seat can be defended for far less than half that amount. Moving, say, 20 districts from competitive to out-of-reach could save a party $100 million or more over the course of a decade.

There are 18 state legislative chambers that have four or fewer seats separating the two parties that are important for redistricting. Seven of these are controlled by Republicans and the other 11 are controlled by Democrats, including the lower houses in Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana and Pennsylvania.

Republican strategists are focused on 107 seats in 16 states. Winning these seats would give them control of drawing district lines for nearly 190 congressional seats. Six of these states are projected to pick up a total of nine seats, and five are expected to lose a combined six seats.

Nationally, the GOP's effort will be spearheaded by the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC). Funded by 80,000 donors, it spent more than $20 million in the last election cycle on legislative races and for attorney general, lieutenant governor and secretary of state campaigns.

They've got a "REDMAP" reapportionment strategy going, and, if you're inclined, they'll even let you give them some of your money.

Posted by: Ace at 12:23 PM | Comments (16)
Post contains 630 words, total size 4 kb.

Now, she's voted "No" last time, so this is not a gain. But recently in the WSJ she said she was undecided on the new vote -- but now says she's not undecided at all.

The more interesting thing is that she's also saying she'll vote Hell, No to the reconciliation package. She has gone from undecided to a firm No on all of it, including her denunciation of the process of reconciliation itself. She rejects the procedure itself, nevermind the substance.

Wavering on health care reform? Not Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. At least, not on Thursday.

The South Dakota Democrat confirmed during a telephone conference call with reporters that she won't vote for the Senate version of health-care reform, just as she didn't vote for an earlier version approved by the House of Representatives.

As for an additional piece of legislation being developed by President Barack Obama to answer some concerns about the existing Senate bill, Herseth Sandlin said she won't vote for that if it comes to the House by way of the reconciliation process in the Senate.

"I will not vote for the Senate bill as is," she said. "I will not vote for a package of changes that would go through the reconciliation process."

...

Even though House approval needs only a simple majority, Herseth Sandlin opposes that alternative in the Senate, where rules are different.

"I don't support using reconciliation," she said.

Her position on that issue seemed to clarify and strengthen from Wednesday's comments, when she told the Journal she was not sure how she would vote on the president's proposal.

Interesting that she is willing to use her vote to stop a procedural dodge in the Senate -- that is, she's willing to enforce the Senate filibuster rule by voting "no" against a bill that it passed through avoiding a filibuster.

Thanks to CharlesA -- no, a different CharlesA this time.

"Nomentum:" There really is a lot of Nomentum today, isn't there?

I am still not seeing the no-to-yes votes. Instead, we are seeing some yes-to-no votes -- and some no-to-Hell-no votes.

Posted by: Ace at 12:06 PM | Comments (58)
Post contains 403 words, total size 3 kb.

As a special bonus -- many readers were (pretty understandably) angered that a Republican "no" vote -- Nathan Deal of Georgia -- was retiring to work full-time on his gubernatorial bid. This reduced the total size of Congress, thereby lowering the number required for a majority from 217 to 216.

However, there's word he will stay in Congress through March to continue voting "No."

What if Obama then moves voting into April? Not sure what he'd do then -- however, I think maybe Mr. Deal needs to be informed by his fellow Georgians that resigning from Congress before this abomination is stopped will be a black mark against him.

Dude, you can be a part-time Representative for a while. Deal with it. Keep taking the paycheck, dude. Captain Wonderful did for two years. You can do it for five months.

Geraghty counts the votes and finds that Madame Palomino has no margin to lose a single possible-yes vote.

In short, at this moment, if every wavering Democrat votes yes, and all of the pro-life Democrats vote yes, the bill passes. If any one of them flips, and none of the previous "no" votes flip, it's game over, the bill can't pass the House.

Dick Durbin Defends the Cornhusker Kickback: "We Needed 60 Votes"

That's not a defense. That's a motive for the crime.

Durbin defended the Cornhusker Kickback's inclusion in the Senate bill.

"We needed 60 votes, if we didn't have 60 votes, we wouldn't be standing at the steps," he said. "At the time, it was an important part of the ultimate agreement."

Here's something:

Durbin said there are no firm no votes yet, but there are "some who've expressed concerns, but they haven't seen the bill. I told them all, 'Wait, take a look at what it looks like. It will be the Senate bill plus some pretty positive changes.' It's hard to argue against any changes we're considering. I think we improved the bill."

Bear in mind, we've been sold this piece of shit two or 40 times now, and each time we've been told it's perfect. And yet every time they are thwarted, they come back with a slightly different iteration, telling us that it's "improved."

Didn't you keep insisting there was no need for debate because the bill was as good as it could possibly be sixty-seven times before? How is it that there is all this room for improvement in a bill we've been told over and over is the best deal for the American public possible?

Thanks to Slublog for that.

Posted by: Ace at 11:43 AM | Comments (60)
Post contains 454 words, total size 3 kb.

She doesn't commit to voting "no." But it's hopeful that all the musing along these lines is from yes-to-no with no one I know of saying they'll flip from no-to-yes.

Nomentum?

In today's New York Times, Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., a Yes vote last November, expressed a hesitation to vote Yes this time.

The reason? She's unconvinced that the Senate will pass the "fixes" to the Senate bill that the House is being asked to vote for (along with fixes), and she's not crazy about the Senate bill without them.

“I am not inclined to support the Senate version,” Berkley said. “I would like something more concrete than a promise. The Senate cannot promise its way out of a brown paper bag.”

Those switching from yes-to-no seem to have an easier rhetorical time with this: They can placate independents with their vote, and their liberal base with their reasoning, just by saying (as we keep hearing) this bill isn't liberal enough for them. The nutroots, after all, can't get too angry about such people demonstrating too much ideological loyalty to progressivism -- that's what they demand, day in day out.

I mean, they can't get too self-righteously frothy in suddenly demanding ideological flexibility and political realism, can they?

It just might be, then, that there is ample political cover for yes-to-no votes, and very little of it for no-to-yes votes.

Which is, you know, what tends to happen when you have a massively unpopular bill. There are all sorts of political reasons to vote "no." "Yes," not so much.

Posted by: Ace at 10:46 AM | Comments (94)
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

Looks like the fall of David Paterson maybe reaching it's climax.

Today, Paterson's spokesman resigned and blasted the Governor on the way out the door.

"I have been honored to serve the people of New York during a difficult time in our stateÂ’s history. As a former officer in the United States Navy, integrity and commitment to public service are values I take seriously."

"Unfortunately, as recent developments have come to light, I cannot in good conscience continue in my current position. I have notified the Governor that I am resigning as Director of Communications."

Kaufman joins Paterson's Director of Criminal Justice Services and State Police Chief on the resignation front.

In addition to the charges that he interfered with a domestic violence case, Paterson is also facing ethics charges in conjunction with some Yankees tickets he accepted.

Now the WSJ is reporting the Governor is holding an emergency meeting with his staff.

Time to say goodbye? Let's just say I have in front of me a skull, some lighter fluid and a match.

Posted by: DrewM at 10:42 AM | Comments (61)
Post contains 184 words, total size 2 kb.

After ticking off the names of twelve Democrats who will switch from yes to no over abortion funding, Stupak offers a way out for Democrats:

Stupak suggested that the House could work on a parallel bill to reinsert the Stupak language on abortion, but that would have to pass the Senate, too — and Obama would have to sign it. Do any of the people on Stupak’s list really think that Pelosi will pursue that and that Obama would agree to it? Or do they just need a fig leaf?

That's a possibility I worry about. Because Pelosi and all the other pro-abortion Democrats can vote against the bill -- but pro-life Republicans will swarm to vote for it, despite the fact that doing so would remove an important hurdle to getting ObamaCare passed. I just can't see pro-life Republicans making the case that they are voting against a pro-life measure in order to achieve some other purpose -- for many of their constituents, the pro-life cause is well ahead of any other competing consideration.

Would Obama sign it, assuming it gets past the House and Senate with Republican votes? I'm 99% certain he would. He's selling out the left a lot to get his all important "W." I don't see him suddenly coming down with a case of purity on this one issue. It can always be overturned, later.

After all, the payouts from this bill wouldn't even start until 2014 or thereabouts.

Posted by: Ace at 10:40 AM | Comments (95)
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

Sorry, I meant, Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller

Rockefeller's bill, one of several recent congressional efforts to curb the EPA's authority to address climate change under the Clean Air Act, highlights the resistance the administration will face if it attempts to limit carbon dioxide through regulation. Obama and his top deputies have repeatedly said they would prefer for Congress to set mandatory, nationwide limits on greenhouse gas emissions, but the EPA is moving ahead with plans to do so if legislation fails to pass this year.

"Today, we took important action to safeguard jobs, the coal industry, and the entire economy as we move toward clean coal technology," Rockefeller said. "This legislation will issue a two-year suspension on EPA regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary sources--giving Congress the time it needs to address an issue as complicated and expansive as our energy future. Congress, not the EPA, must be the ideal decision-maker on such a challenging issue."

Republicans, too, have repeatedly tried to rein in the EPA's climate authority--Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has introduced a resolution of disapproval that would overturn the agency's scientific finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, and House Republicans introduced their own version of the resolution this week. But Rockefeller's effort is especially significant because it points to growing unease among Democrats over the prospect of the administration tackling climate change without explicit congressional approval.

Cap and Trade was never going to become law because there are way to many states that would have been bankrupted by it Death by EPA regulation was (and sort of still is) the real threat so it's nice to see push back not just from Republicans but Democrats as well. They'd never get this through the House but it won't be a problem should the Republicans get control there in November. Obama won't sign a stand alone bill stipping the EPA of this power but it'll get rolled into something that has to pass and be signed and Gaia worshipers will cry sweet, sweet tears.

Like health care, Cap and Trade is a wedge issue that Democrats have inflicted upon themselves. Their left wing base loves it but the grown ups known it's death and will fight it.

Added bonus...the House passed their Cap and Trade bill only to see the Senate walk run away from it. That's one of the factors that has created such ill will between the two houses that has held up health care.

Posted by: DrewM at 10:14 AM | Comments (53)
Post contains 434 words, total size 3 kb.

Did a tree fall on him during his hump-night Ewok drum meditation?
Did he run into a ninja hobo?
Did he finally tie one on so bad he can't find his way back to his mom's basement?

Winning entry gets a one year subscription to AoS HQ, a pat on the head, and a snickers bar. (Bonus points for whoever matches the joke for that punchline.)

Posted by: Open Blogger at 09:50 AM | Comments (214)
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.