I've been thinking that Democrats have decided this is doomed, so now they are playing exclusively to their base, pushing as "robust" a "public option" as possible. They maybe want to campaign on "We swung for the fences but struck out."

Given that the "robust public option" can't even get enough Democratic votes to pass, I think maybe that's right.

The House Dem leadership has conducted its preliminary whip count and has tallied up less than 200 likely Yes votes in support of a health care reform bill with a robust public option, well short of the 218 needed for passage, according to an internal whip count document IÂ’ve obtained.

The document — compiled by the office of House leader James Clyburn — was distributed privately at a meeting between Clyburn and House progressives today where the fate of the public option was the subject of some contentious debate, with liberals demanding that House leaders push harder to win over votes.

Clyburn spokesperson Kristie Greco would only say: “We currently do not have the votes for a robust public option.”

It's all the Republicans' fault, of course.

Thanks to Gabe for the tip.

By the way, a Blue Dog Democrat is basically accusing Barack Obama of lying in his big stupid primetime speech on health care.

Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.) told CNSNews.com that President Barack Obama told him in a telephone conversation that when he said in his Sept. 9 speech to a joint session of Congress that “under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions” he was not talking about the actual bill drafted in the House but about the president’s own health care plan—which has never been written.

“I don’t know if it is a game of semantics or what,” Stupak said of Obama’s nationally televised declaration to Congress that the health-care plan will not allow federal funding of abortion.

Both the House and Senate versions of the health-care bill permit federal funds to pay for insurance plans that cover abortions.

In his speech to the joint session of Congress, Obama directly rebutted the claim that the plan would fund abortions, calling it a “misunderstanding.” But in his later telephone conversation with Stupak, according to the congressman, Obama said that when he claimed in the speech that the plan would not fund abortions he was not talking about the House plan, he was talking about his own plan.

Interview with Stupak, stating "that's exactly what he [Obama] said," at the link.

Last tip via Hot Air.

Posted by: Ace at 12:19 PM | Comments (199)
Post contains 457 words, total size 3 kb.

First link I've found.

DeMint said: "Too often, we're told that Republicans have to be like Democrats to be competitive in states like New York, Pennsylvania and Florida. But the truth is voters don't want to be forced to pick between two liberals; they want a real choice. If voters want to give Washington more control over our lives, they can always vote for Democrats."

Limbaugh, by the way, argues persuasively why he does not consider this a bona-fide third party challenge. He's not interested in a third party, he says, but because there was no primary here, and the "fix was in" for the GOP chairmen's BFF Scozzoflava, this is simply having the primary we needed to have in the first place.

Bonus: Sarah Palin says vote -- vote like the wind.

Americans who believe in smaller government and free enterprise have a chance to show Washington that people all across the U.S. donÂ’t want an ever-increasing national debt, more dependency on foreign energy sources, and more wasteful government spending. If, like me, this is what you want to show Washington, then I hope you'll support Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell and the RGA, as great efforts are put forth in these East Coast races.

Tipped by Gabe.

Posted by: Ace at 11:25 AM | Comments (172)
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.

Sure.

The government cannot have my dog.

Don't tell that to the authors of the new book, "Time to Eat the Dog?: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living." The authors calculate that dog owning is much worse than SUV driving for the planet. So when you see a car heading to the dog park with some very happy labs drooling out the window, you should think "climate criminals."

Meanwhile, in less surprising news, cats (long known as the handmaidens of Satan) have roughly the ecological paw print of a Volkswagen Golf.

The authors don't actually suggest you eat your dog. But they do say we'd all be better off if we weaned ourselves from pets that treat Gaia like a fire hydrant. Better to play fetch with our pet chickens and then eat them.

The book has gotten lots of press because dogs and cats sell newspapers. What interests me is how environmental activists live in a fantasy land.

He makes a common-sense point, lost on leftists, progressives, and various other paranoid schizophrenics:

Meanwhile, an international bureaucracy pushes "global governance" to combat climate change, heedless of popular sentiment. America's founders revolted to protest too much taxation and too little representation. The notion that America will sacrifice its sovereignty and treasure -- and dogs! -- to reduce warming by a fraction a century from now is absurd.

If you cannot afford -- politically, morally or economically -- the solution to a perceived problem, then it's not a solution.

I linked David Thompson's recap of a Guardian piece suggesting that English children have 30 times the carbon footprint as starving Saharan children, and so, you know, of course we should not have any more English children. (England's already doing that, of course; on the other hand, Muslim immigrants in England are picking up the slack and then some.)

The stubborn determination to spread a politics of perfect fantasy -- we are talking Dungeons & Dragons elf politics here, for God's sake; we are so far removed from reality we might as well be discussing whether it's time to forgive Drow Demon Queen of Spiders Lolth for betraying Elf God Corellon Laerethan -- is a sign of gross immaturity or mental illness or both. These people continue blathering on in order to placate their moral vanities while, of course, demonstrating absolutely no willingness whatsoever than do more than talk about crap.

Talking nonsense, it seems, is their version of "carbon offsets." If they talk ludicrously enough, they're somehow convincing others to do absurd things, and that, in turn, gives them enough carbon credits to continue living sinfully carbon-oriented lives of comfort and convenience.

Enough. Enough already.

By the Way: This isn't merely about hypocrisy. Of course they're hypocrites. Ludicrous hypocrites. But that's such a standard charge to make. It's wallpaper.

The more important thing is that they're fantasists. It's not just that they, hypocritically, advocate lives of squalid sacrifice and misery they have no intention of living themselves. It's that they ought to realize that if they, the Global Warming Cultists, aren't willing to live by the stern dictates of their martinet goddess, then no one else is either, and they really, really should grow the hell up, get a life and get a clue.

I'm sure I could reduce my carbon footprint if, every time I ate meat, I slammed my genitals in a desk drawer to "raise my consciousness" about my lifestyle choices.

It's not going to happen. And that is precisely the sort of thing these dour eco-flagellants drone on and on about every three seconds.

Shut up, it's not happening, start over.

Posted by: Ace at 10:36 AM | Comments (300)
Post contains 629 words, total size 4 kb.

Nice.

Lieberman did say he's "strongly inclined" to vote to proceed to the debate, but that heÂ’ll ultimately vote to block a floor vote on the bill if it isnÂ’t changed first.

"I've told Sen. Reid that if the bill stays as it is now I will vote against cloture,” he said.

“I can’t see a way in which I could vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated-run insurance company,” Lieberman added. “It’s just asking for trouble – in the end, the taxpayers are going to pay and probably all people will have health insurance are going to see their premiums go up because there’s going to be cost shifting as there has been for Medicare and Medicaid.”

Lieberman said he “very much” wants to vote for health care reform but that he’s worried about stifling “the economic recovery we’re in” or adding to the federal debt.

Warning: Link goes to Politico but they are the ones with the story at the moment and I changed the part I excerpted to get to the filibuster quote.

If the Republicans stay together and vote no, Harry Reid needs all 58 Democrats and the 2 Independents that caucus with them to push this through. He just lost one.

There were stories earlier today where Olympia Snowe (R(ish)-History) said she will stay with the Republicans. I'm looking back for the links now and will update. In the meantime, no one let her answer the phone!

It's not done but it's good news.

Update:Snowe's statement wasn't as strong as I remembered it.

Sen. Olympia Snowe tells Fox's Trish Turner "at this point" she's a no on Reid Public Option. Says gambit "sends a terrible message."

Maybe we can pick up a Democrat or two more to make sure Snowe doesn't have her second history making moment this year.

Slublog passes along this story with more from Snowe. She seems pretty dead set against a government option but she has been wooed by Reid or history yet.

Quote [ace]: Here's the key quote from the above-linked article.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, expressed similar concerns. Democrats had hoped to have Snowe's support, since she endorsed a different version of health care reform on the Senate Finance Committee. But she said she cannot back Reid's plan. She said Reid's government plan would have an unfair advantage, even though the national program would have to negotiate rates with providers just like private insurance companies do.

"It does give the government a disproportionate advantage in the marketplace. They can set ... the prices and certainly negotiate those prices at whatever level," she told Fox News, adding that she was "surprised and disappointed" by Reid's decision.

Snowe wanted a proposal that would "trigger" a public plan down the road if the insurance companies do not meet certain benchmarks. She told Fox News that the CBO indicated her plan would yield $10-$15 billion in savings.

She said the lack of GOP support "sends a terrible message that [Democrats are] no longer interested in working with Republicans."

Senator Snowe, history is on the line. What should I tell them? You're not here? Okay, I'll tell history you're in a meeting.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:59 AM | Comments (109)
Post contains 550 words, total size 4 kb.

As Drew quips, "Who cares? He's from Oklahoma."

He doesn't have the easy familiarity with Candadian-border New York like former Royal Mountie/free-range syrup magnate Newt Gingrich does.

THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned that veteran and widely-respected Rep. Tom Cole (R, Okla.), former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee and a member of the GOP Steering Committee and a Deputy GOP House Whip, will be endorsing Doug Hoffman in the NY-23 race.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post says that sources close to "both" camps (not all three?) say Scozzoflava is imploding and it's now a two man race.

That last bit thanks to Hot Air's headlines, drawing a "Whoa" from Allah; main tip courtesy of Dave in Texas.

Posted by: Ace at 08:32 AM | Comments (167)
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.

Yeah. Damn outside meddlers.

Gingrich also attacked Hoffman for not having proper knowledge of local issues and living outside the 23rd district.

"So I say to my many conservative friends who suddenly decided whether they're from Minnesota, or Alaska, or Texas, they know more than the upstate New York Republicans? I don't think so," Newt Gingrich said from his beautiful Savannah home, with north-facing windows offering a breathtaking view of view of northern New York's Niagra Falls.

I added that last part.

"This idea that we're suddenly going to establish litmus tests and all across the country we're going to purge the party of anybody who doesn't agree with us 100 percent; that guarantees Obama's reelection, that guarantees Pelosi as Speaker-for-life," he told Fox News last night.

Gingrich called Scozzafava a "liberal Republican" for her support of gay marriage and abortion rights. But he defended those positions as in-step with her district and her predecessor, former Rep. John McHugh (R-N.Y.), who was tapped to be President Barack Obama's Army Secretary.

I understand the concern about litmus tests and purges, but Scozzoflava does not pass a single test, litmus or otherwise, establishing her as conservative. She has long resisted any no-new-taxes pledge -- and in fact spoke favorably about them -- until Gingrich asked her to sign his pledge as a precondition for his support. Then she finally announced herself as against tax hikes.

As for her opposition to cap and trade and ObamaCare -- given the fact that she even supports card check, I'm thinking she's receptive to "new ideas" from the Democrats on these issues too, and her purported opposition is overstated.

I'm not exactly sure what he means about her being in-step with John McHugh on abortion. McHugh has a 100% rating from the National Right to Life Committee. He co-sponsored legislation to make it illegal to transport a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion (such trips taken to frustrate state laws on parental consent, etc.), which seems pretty hardcore on the issue.

But what do I know. I'm from downstate New York. I don't commute between Atlanta and Poughkeepsie like Newt Gingrich does every day.

Does Newt Gingrich understand the politics of NY-23? He doesn't seem to have done a thirty-second due diligence Google search on the race or McHugh's views of abortion.

Thanks to Gabriel Malor.

Posted by: Ace at 08:10 AM | Comments (168)
Post contains 446 words, total size 3 kb.

One week to go and here are the latest polls I could find on some important races.

Virginia Governor: Robert McDonnell (R) vs. Creigh Deeds (D). The WaPo editorial staff must be gnashing their teeth after their absolute failure to sink McDonnell with another "macaca" moment. He's up 11 with likely voters: 55 percent to 44 percent. (Is there not a single undecided likely voter in Virginia?)

New Jersey Governor: Chris Christie (R) vs. Jon Corzine (D). After an alarming poll over the weekend showing Corzine in the lead and outside the margin, Rasmussen's latest release has this race back in familiar territory. Christie is up 3 among likely voters at 46 percent, possibly because spoiler Chris Daggett is shedding support. Corzine is at 43 percent, which puts this race within the margin of error.

New York 23rd Congressional District: Doug Hoffman (C) vs. Bill Owens (D) vs. Dede Scozzafava. The latest in the 23rd is the weak Club for Growth poll which only sampled 300 likely voters and a disproportionate number of Republicans. It may be a better indicator of where Republicans are going (away from Scozzafava as fast as their feet can take them) than the ultimate outcome of the race. Scozzafava and Hoffman are still splitting the Republican votes in this normally Republican district. According to the Club for Growth, a full 22 percent of likely voters still haven't decided who they are going to vote for next week.

Maine Question 1: Whether to reject Maine's new marriage law allowing gays to be married. Among registered voters, the latest poll found 52.6 percent would vote against Question 1 — in other words, to keep the new marriage law — and 41.5 percent said they were likely to vote for Question 1 and the repeal. Six percent were undecided.

Washington Referendum 71: Whether to approve Washington's new "everything but marriage" domestic partnership law. Polling 500 likely voters, the latest poll shows approving the law is up with 53 percent. Those seeking to reject the law have 36 percent. The survey was commissioned by one of the groups seeking to approve the law, but is consistent with the other polls in this race.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:45 AM | Comments (194)
Post contains 372 words, total size 3 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:09 AM | Comments (111)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Good evening all. We're now at Day 92 in the great White House Shunning of Fox news. So it looks like they're serious about boycotting the network for the rest of the year. And even Columbia J-school students have gotten the White House's message that Fox is not a legitimate network.

The Top 10 Most Unfunny Comedians of All Time
Carrot Top used to be kind of amusing but now is a steroidy, plastic surgical mess. And I never though Louie Anderson was that funny yet he's been successful for decades.

And how could they leave off the unfunniest woman comedian ever, Margaret Cho?!? Maybe she's no longer legally considered a comedian now that she's 20% tattoos and doing burlesque. [Warning - these links show exactly what they describe]

Another Blast From The Past: Tricorner Hat Girl!
Unfortunately the Purdue chapter of the Conservative Coalition for American Values seems to have been quiet for a while so no update on THG.

Posted by: Open Blog at 06:10 PM | Comments (834)
Post contains 235 words, total size 3 kb.

F John Kerry spoke today at the Council on Foreign Relations on his cunning plan for A-Stan. He is not a bright or wise man and his plan basically involves kicking the can down the road and then cutting and running sometime before the next election, or 2012 at the latest. It would be nice if we could just train up some Afghan security forces, magic up some competent non-corrupt government and then hand them the keys. Problem is that ain't possible with the Taliban whacking folks. We either smack them to gain some breathing room for some Afghan institutions to grow, or we are better off packing our bags now and saying screw 'em. Anyhow I cut together a little call and reply with me answering Jacques since McChrystal and Petraeus can't say what they think.
Fixed Link to vid. What a maroon I r.

Posted by: Uncle Jimbo at 04:32 PM | Comments (97)
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.