March 21, 2010
— Ace The retiring Tanner isn't voting for it, due to budgetary considerations.
Lincoln Davis too.
Drew thinks that Davis is being given a Get Out of Voting Free card, because Nurse Nancy has the votes. Jay Cost thinks it's too close to attempt such a thing.
They were both previously nos.
Call Stupak: enoxo says his office is counting calls in favor and against. (202) 225-4735.
Posted by: Ace at
10:19 AM
| Comments (117)
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: yarrrrr at March 21, 2010 10:20 AM (9DPQr)
Posted by: wherestherum at March 21, 2010 10:21 AM (gofDd)
Posted by: yarrrrr at March 21, 2010 10:21 AM (9DPQr)
Posted by: enoxo at March 21, 2010 10:22 AM (Aterp)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 21, 2010 10:22 AM (UOM48)
Posted by: Twinks at March 21, 2010 10:24 AM (wRPBa)
John Boehner just issued a release declaring: “Make no mistake, a ‘yes’ vote on the Democrats’ health care bill is a vote for taxpayer-funded abortions.”
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at March 21, 2010 10:24 AM (0fzsA)
that number is not to Stupak's office, btw.
Posted by: redc1c4 at March 21, 2010 10:24 AM (d1FhN)
Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at March 21, 2010 10:25 AM (zBO6w)
If you can, please try to work the word "tenterhooks" into a headline for an update.
It's a good sounding word that's used not often enough.
.
btw - this morning's sheep augury revealed that ObamaCare will fail by two votes and that the sheep need more fiber in their diet.
Posted by: BumperStickerist at March 21, 2010 10:26 AM (ruzrP)
Posted by: Dr. Phil at March 21, 2010 10:26 AM (34yXu)
Posted by: Deanna at March 21, 2010 10:27 AM (JXlgX)
Posted by: Mr. Pink at March 21, 2010 10:28 AM (RI9Pd)
2348 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225 4735 Fax: (202) 225 4744
stupak@mail.house.gov
Posted by: redc1c4 at March 21, 2010 10:28 AM (d1FhN)
Posted by: Dr. Spank at March 21, 2010 10:28 AM (muUqs)
CALL STUPAK NOW
Posted by: AHFF Geoff at March 21, 2010 10:29 AM (5r0Tz)
(202) 225 4735
Call Bart Stupak, he's taking a poll on yes/no. Tell him NO
Posted by: enoxo at March 21, 2010 10:29 AM (Aterp)
Posted by: cthulhu at March 21, 2010 10:29 AM (u+gbs)
Obama isn't going to let this die today over a silly EO that he will rescind before it matters (if it matters at all).
Posted by: DrewM. at March 21, 2010 10:29 AM (9B5OK)
Posted by: incognito at March 21, 2010 10:30 AM (u6X4c)
I can't believe none of them are smart enough to think of Patches Kennedy casting the vote that approves the piece of shit bill they've been invoking his father's bloated carcass over. Well, I can, but I can't believe people that fucking stupid are going to control every facet of my life, including my early and preventable death.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 21, 2010 10:30 AM (OkT2m)
Posted by: Jollyroger at March 21, 2010 10:31 AM (wJMVP)
Posted by: cinyc at March 21, 2010 10:32 AM (gFbRn)
Posted by: jdp at March 21, 2010 10:32 AM (QgZTp)
Too....Stressful. Must...Step....Away...From... Computer.
Why are you people even wasting any time worrying about this stuff?
Due to our impending demographic catastrophe [within the next two or three years, whites babies will become a minority of all babies born in the USA], the GOP can only continue to [even hope to] win any branch of government for the next six or eight [or maybe ten?] years.
Every single day for the remainder of your life is going to be just like this - over and over and over again.
Or at least until some sort of a secessionist movement takes hold and we finally succeed in radically reorganizing our approach to governance [or the absence of governance].
Posted by: Lt. Quarles Harris Jr. at March 21, 2010 10:32 AM (kyg+f)
Posted by: incognito at March 21, 2010 10:34 AM (u6X4c)
Sic. Semper. Tyrannus.
Please tell me it's not the real IowaHawk who posted that execrable Latin.
Tyrranis. Dative case. To the tyrant. Declension, men, declension.
Sweet Jesus Jiggs-dinner Capitoline Christ. I don't know if we'll go down in history today, but we're sure as hell dropping in Romance Languages.
Posted by: comatus at March 21, 2010 10:34 AM (/VEEI)
Posted by: bebe's boobs destroy at March 21, 2010 10:34 AM (6NDQy)
Posted by: Traci at March 21, 2010 10:34 AM (/L+UX)
Posted by: Jollyroger at March 21, 2010 10:35 AM (wJMVP)
Posted by: bebe's boobs destroy at March 21, 2010 10:35 AM (6NDQy)
Posted by: Twinks at March 21, 2010 10:36 AM (wRPBa)
Posted by: Dr. Spank at March 21, 2010 10:36 AM (muUqs)
pathetic
and the dems are all telling stories of dying folks who will get norelief from their stupid bill
amazing demagogery, and paul ryan is whipping ass right now
"every 8 seconds" people file "foreclosure notices" because of health care?
what a moron that dem is
Posted by: AHFF Geoff at March 21, 2010 10:36 AM (5r0Tz)
Because the Speaker can't control everyone, especially a guy who is retiring. What leverage does she have on Tanner or a guy like Berry? They aren't going to be back. And Berry fucking hates what she and Obama are doing the Democrats.
Funny thing is, neither will Nancy. Sure she'll win re-election but she ain't going to be Speaker next year.
The Democrats who know better are going with the 'all hang together' rather than seperately. They are following the liberals off the cliff, except the liberals are only losing their majority perquisites, not their seats.
Posted by: DrewM. at March 21, 2010 10:36 AM (9B5OK)
Posted by: DrewM. at March 21, 2010 02:27 PM (9B5OK)
I agree, but Pelosi & Co. are taking a serious risk on assuming that those from red districts who have told them they will vote "Yes" for the bill won't change their minds and go rogue at the last second and vote "No" and end up killing the bill. They would certainly become an instant celebrity among those of us on the Right. They could even then switch parties if they have a somewhat conservative past and perhaps save their job in November by running as a Republican. Unlikely but certainly not improbable.
BTW, are there any Democrats in the House that would be a strong candidate for doing something like this? Perhaps we may want to call them.
Posted by: Slappy at March 21, 2010 10:37 AM (ljvjO)
Posted by: Mr. Pink at March 21, 2010 10:37 AM (RI9Pd)
Do we know if she has skipped town for the vote or she headed back?
Posted by: sharrukin at March 21, 2010 02:29 PM (593B
--I'm tellin' ya, jetting to Florida on the public dime to raise more lucre is sweet!
Posted by: Loretta "Dirty" Sanchez at March 21, 2010 10:38 AM (Mmw0q)
Posted by: koopy at March 21, 2010 10:38 AM (ctR4U)
Plus the excise tax on any prescription medications you may require.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 21, 2010 10:39 AM (OkT2m)
Posted by: Mjim at March 21, 2010 10:39 AM (mMdWG)
Posted by: Jollyroger at March 21, 2010 10:39 AM (wJMVP)
I was in DC yesterday. I estimate 120,000 of my closest friends were there. Talked to approximately 35 office staff. The Massachusetts delegration was the only one filled with asshole staffers- even those staff who hailed from MA and worked for other reps were very very nice.
From my ear to the ground work, it sure seems over to me, and not in the Constitutional direction. Several maybes flipped to yes, and none flipped to no. Only one staff, one of the Ohioan dems, even had a running tally of yesses and nos.
Props: to me, for asking Kucinich to his face what he got on Airforce One.
Slops: to me, again, for greeing John Conyers by calling him "Mr. Dingell"
More Props:
1. 120,000 in-person rallying patriots, and the several thousand who actually shut down the fucking halls of power in the three rep office buildings down First Street
2. The millions at home who kept the Capitol Switchboard fucking melted down for the entirety of the week and wekend
3. The Capitol Police, for not shooting anybody
4. Chris Christie, for being a superior fat bastard
5. Rep Conyers for handling someone calling him John Dingell with such grace
6. The Jamaican woman who sold me two awesome weiners from her push cart. Capitalism is Good.
More Slops:
1. The antiwar protestors who were supposed to rally on the other lawn but somehow never materialized
2. The gutless crapweasel representatives who needed to be there for their constituents, but instead, kept the doors to their offices locked. There were a few such vile subhumans...
3. The Route 95 Interstate Toll system, for charging wildly differing amounts of money northbound and southbound.
4. The State of New Jersey, for charging me $11.12 for a packet of cigarettes.
Pictures on request
Posted by: Truman North at March 21, 2010 10:40 AM (FjC5u)
POLITICO... STUPAK IS A YES. Deal struck.
game over.
Posted by: Timbo at March 21, 2010 02:39 PM (7GgDy)
That's an old report that MSNBC pushed out and it was corrected. He's still a no "for now."
Posted by: enoxo at March 21, 2010 10:41 AM (Aterp)
Posted by: koopy at March 21, 2010 10:41 AM (ctR4U)
You're awesome. What did he say?
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 21, 2010 10:41 AM (OkT2m)
If that's from their 44 blog, it's the old story that ran and was walked back.
I don't see anything other than that but my guess is it's just a matter of time.
Posted by: DrewM. at March 21, 2010 10:42 AM (9B5OK)
3/4 of the states have already said they don't want the mandate. The only thing to be put in front of the convention is the amendment which would say that the feds cannot mandate that the states pay for a federal mandate unless passed by 2/3 or 3/4 of the states. That doesn't mean you open it up to everybody. Besides what comes out of the state conventions has to be the same thing.
There are 3 ways to amend the constitution. We have used one way every time but one.
1. An amendment may be proposed by 2/3 vote in each house of congress and ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures (38. 26 or 27 amendments were adopted this way.)
2. An amendment may be proposed by congress and ratified my conventions called for that purpose in 3/4s of the state. Only the 21st amendment (1933) was adopted this way.
3. An amendment may be proposed by a natonal convention, called by congress at the request of 2/3 of the state legislatures (34). It must be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. This has never happened.
It is time that it did.
Posted by: dagny at March 21, 2010 10:42 AM (OfFBH)
Posted by: bebe's boobs destroy at March 21, 2010 10:42 AM (6NDQy)
Posted by: koopy at March 21, 2010 02:41 PM (ctR4U)
Look, the trolls are just trying to dissuade people from calling Stupak. You telling them to stop saying it is not going to make them stop saying it.
Recognize them for what they are.
Posted by: Editor at March 21, 2010 10:42 AM (YX6i/)
Posted by: rdbrewer at March 21, 2010 10:43 AM (rZLZR)
Posted by: Mr. Pink at March 21, 2010 10:43 AM (RI9Pd)
Posted by: Jollyroger at March 21, 2010 10:43 AM (wJMVP)
Posted by: jmflynny at March 21, 2010 10:43 AM (x3ghH)
1) The House passes the Senate bill.
2) The House then passes their "reconciliation" bill with all of the changes they want to see in the Senate bill.
3) So at this point the Senate bill has passed both chambers and could go right to the Presidents desk..right?
4) Who the fuck thinks it won't...what obligation does the Senate have to do anything the House wants?
5)What's to stop them from just screaming NEEENER at the top of their lungs and rejecting any and all reconciliation crap?
This drama is stupid, it looks like it's always been the plan to do what ever it takes to get the House to pass the Senate bill and make all those Dem Reps take the fall for it in Nov.
No wonder the Senate is considered the "high house".
Posted by: A. Weasel at March 21, 2010 10:44 AM (OWVgG)
BREAKING: Stupak denies deal
"I'm a no vote There is no agreement. Until there is an agreement I'm a no vote."
Posted by: incognito at March 21, 2010 10:45 AM (u6X4c)
Posted by: Mr. Pink at March 21, 2010 10:46 AM (RI9Pd)
Posted by: dagny at March 21, 2010 10:46 AM (OfFBH)
Yes, yes, if you could also include "farrago" and "growlery", it would be appreciated.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at March 21, 2010 10:48 AM (ympF8)
Posted by: Jollyroger at March 21, 2010 10:48 AM (wJMVP)
Posted by: dagny at March 21, 2010 10:48 AM (OfFBH)
Posted by: TypicaWhitey at March 21, 2010 10:48 AM (xeVap)
Plus -- how did you phrase the question? "Y'know, for someone who looks like a gnome, you've got a seriously hot wife....is what you got on AirFarce One really better than what you get at home?"
Posted by: cthulhu at March 21, 2010 10:48 AM (u+gbs)
Posted by: Driver at March 21, 2010 10:49 AM (eXZjc)
Posted by: Peaches at March 21, 2010 10:49 AM (9Wv2j)
Posted by: dagny at March 21, 2010 10:50 AM (OfFBH)
Posted by: bebe's boobs destroy at March 21, 2010 10:50 AM (6NDQy)
I suggest that you only select single, physically fit, highly indoctrinated officers for your early-morning Obamacare Dissent raiding/roundup parties.
Just a suggestion.
Posted by: sifty at March 21, 2010 10:50 AM (nAHLN)
For the love of God, Congressman - you are being played if you think anyone will keep any promises after they get what they want.
You and your colleagues stand between unborn babies and those that would destroy them.
Please vote no, so we can all sleep well tonight.
Posted by: ProudinNC at March 21, 2010 10:51 AM (Edv29)
Posted by: bebe's boobs destroy at March 21, 2010 02:50 PM (6NDQy)
I agree (about the Con-Con, not about dagny being baked).
The original was called to tweak the Articles of Confederation.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at March 21, 2010 10:51 AM (UQLAD)
Posted by: dagny at March 21, 2010 10:51 AM (OfFBH)
For the love of God, Congressman - you are being played if you think anyone will keep any promises after they get what they want.
I agree with what you told him, but it could be seen as a re-phrasing of "Come on, all Democrats are liars, you can't trust them...Mr. Democrat."
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at March 21, 2010 10:53 AM (eNxMU)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at March 21, 2010 10:54 AM (ympF8)
Posted by: iowahawk at March 21, 2010 10:54 AM (veL4N)
Posted by: dagny at March 21, 2010 02:51 PM (OfFBH)
Don't know. I don't like asking questions I don't already know the answer to.
We could amend it, though, and I suggest that Amendment 28 be as a previous commenter suggested:
"No. And go fuck your mother."
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at March 21, 2010 10:54 AM (UQLAD)
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at March 21, 2010 10:55 AM (eNxMU)
Posted by: Vic at March 21, 2010 10:56 AM (QrA9E)
Posted by: iowahawk at March 21, 2010 02:54 PM (veL4N)
That wasn't funny at all. Make with the funny!!
But it's true.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at March 21, 2010 10:57 AM (UQLAD)
Who's counting the votes? Who gets to go to the state conventions? What are the compositions of their legislatures?
New York would scrap it for a dollar.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 21, 2010 10:57 AM (OkT2m)
Posted by: bebe's boobs destroy at March 21, 2010 10:58 AM (6NDQy)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at March 21, 2010 11:00 AM (mHQ7T)
Considering that it's only considered binding on Republicans, why cling to it? When Dems have the votes, they ignore it -- and when they don't have the votes, they hide behind it to keep their crap from being repealed. Why not throw everything on the table? We have 21 pages of 230-year-old good at risk, they have 2100 pages of crap in just what they're looking to pass today. If 99-44/100% of things get thrown out, how is this not better?
Posted by: cthulhu at March 21, 2010 11:01 AM (u+gbs)
Posted by: ProudinNC at March 21, 2010 11:03 AM (Edv29)
Posted by: Sharon at March 21, 2010 11:09 AM (ZWIlt)
Voice mailbox that is... Goes straight to "Leave a messaage" and then you can't.
Posted by: Sharon at March 21, 2010 11:10 AM (ZWIlt)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at March 21, 2010 11:18 AM (mHQ7T)
67 Props: to me, for asking Kucinich to his face what he got on Airforce One.
You're awesome. What did he say?
"assurances from the president that we'll be moving toward a more fair and more equitable public solution to this healthare issue for the American people."
Right off the cuff. Clearly I wasn't nearly the first.
And he never looked me in the eye. More like, he was looking at my left ear. It was unnerving.
Posted by: Truman North at March 21, 2010 11:22 AM (FjC5u)
It's not just about nationalized health care. Not really about health care at all. It's about the entire American experiment, the idea of our government and laws being rooted in the bedrock of the Constitution. Unless there's a widely shared agreement to adhere to it, and what it means, it's just a thin sheet of vellum with ink stains. And it's the only thing that separates us from being an out-and-out banana republic.
Well, in this whole process, it's apparent that Pelosi, et al. (and the people who elected them) have decided it's a minor inconvenience to the exercise of raw political power at the highest levels of national government. Not by a Chicago alderman, or some backroom ward heeler in New Orleans. Inside the the White House and the US Capitol. I fucking laugh at the law school professor types arguing on the "constitutional merits" of this or that little legislative maneuver, because it's painfully obvious the people conducting it don't give a shit, and at this point why should they? Let's say the SC rules it unconstitutional. So what? What evidence, at this point, indicates such a ruling would actually stop these people? As if Obama would suddenly say, "nevermind." You know as well as I do it would simply be his cue to send out his Media Matters flacks to start demonizing John Roberts. Don't like it, Supremes? Come and get me, coppers.
Posted by: iowahawk at March 21, 2010 11:44 AM (veL4N)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2166 seconds, 245 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Rodney at March 21, 2010 10:20 AM (tq1ol)