March 17, 2010
— Gabriel Malor First, a note on the "fauxmentum" mentioned by Ace earlier. Today Democrats Dale Kildee and Jim Oberstar announced that they would be supporting the healthcare bill and the media had a spasm reporting that they were "Stupak allies" who were bailing on him. This is an extension of the argument over the weekend that Stupak's Dozen were really Stupak's Half-Dozen and that even they were crumbling.
Uh... no. This is a misleading attempt to scare wavering Democrats into thinking that momentum is building for deeming the Senate language good enough for pro-life Democrats (you see what I did there?). Look down at my "Stupak's Dozen" category. Guess who was never in it: Dale Kildee and Jim Oberstar. In other words, of course they're voting for the bill. Everyone knew this. Their announcement today, intended only to burnish their own dubious pro-life credentials for furious constituents and put pressure on Stupak, does not change the numbers. Their "yes" votes do not get Pelosi any closer to 216.
Now, today's changes to the whip count:
Going in the "Definitely Voting Yes" category is Dennis Kucinich. That puts Pelosi one closer to her goal and reduces the "maybes" by one. Kucinich was the only "yes" vote not already in my "yes" column who announced today.
But in a surprise announcement Sanford Bishop (GA-2) switched from "yes" to "undecided." I thought Bishop was a Definite Yes (and I still expect him to go that way in the end), but for now he's going back in the "Yes, but Maybe" pile, adding to Pelosi's headache.
Also going back into the group of "Maybes" is Heath Shuler (NC-11), who I had in the "No Means No" group. That gives Pelosi another possible target for a pick-up.
Tom Perriello (VA-5), one of the Stupak Dozen, stated that he is satisfied with the Senate language on abortion, but that he remains undecided on the overall bill. So Stupak's Dozen is now Stupak's Eleven (fine, fine, he's losing some, happy legacy media?) and Perriello goes in the "Yes, but Maybe" group.
As for "maybes" announcing that they will vote "no", I have no media statements from these guys today. There are a few reports that staffers in the office of Lincoln Davis (TN-4) are saying he is a "no" vote, but nothing has made it into the media. The same is true for John Barrow (GA-12). My whip count is based on media statements, "official" statements, because I think they're slightly less likely to lie when it's "on the record" than when they're talking to constituents on the phone. Sad, but not unreasonable. So, no changes for them yet.
So where does that leave us? Pelosi still has 192 (the Kooch and Bishop are a wash). This leaves her 24 votes short of the necessary 216. There are 28 maybes, 16 who voted "no" on the November House bill.
Thanks to Jane, Jonathan, Jeff, Rocks, Timothy, and Nick.
The names are below the fold. If you're going to make phone calls, I still think my list from yesterday are the ones most likely to vote no.
No Pretty Much Means No:
These are twenty "No" Democrats in November who still make noises that sound like "no". This group goes in the Definitely Not, Not No Way, Not No How category, having already announced that they will stand by their earlier votes.
John Adler (NJ-3), Dan Boren (OK-2), Bobby Bright (AL-2), Ben Chandler (KY-6), Artur Davis (AL-7), Chet Edwards (TX-17), Tim Holden (PA-17), Larry Kissell (NC-8 ), Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24), Frank Kratovil (MD-1), Jim Marshall (GA-8 ), Mike McIntyre (NC-7), Mike McMahon (NY-13), Charlie Melancon (LA-3), Walt Minnick (ID-1), Collin Peterson (MN-7), Mike Ross (AR-7), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-All), Ike Skelton (MO-4), Gene Taylor (MS-4).
Wont Vote For A Bill That Kills Babies:
Then there are Stupak's Dozen Eleven. These are "yes" votes in November that are now "no" votes because of the Senate abortion funding. The confirmed members are: Bart Stupak (MI-1), Marion Berry (AR-1), Joe Cao (LA-2, Republican), Jerry Costello (IL-12), Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3), Joe Donnelly (IN-2), Steve Driehaus (OH-1), Brad Ellsworth (IN-8 ), Dan Lipinski (IL-3). The conjectured final members include Henry Cuellar (TX-28 ), Marcy Kaptur (OH-9).
It's An Election Year:
Then there's the other "yes" votes who have publicly switched: Mike Arcuri (NY-24), Chris Carney (PA-10), and Luis Gutierrez (IL-4). Don't forget that Gutierrez may just be playing games for the proposed comprehensive immigration reform bill.
Maybe:
That leaves the maybes. There are now twelve who voted "yes" the first time, but have refused to commit to voting the same way this time:
Sanford Bishop (GA-2), Tim Bishop (NY-1), Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8 ), Baron Hill (IN-9), Paul Kanjorski (PA-11), Alan Mollohan (WV-1), Solomon Ortiz (TX-27), Bill Owens (NY-23), Tom Perriello (VA-5), Earl Pomeroy (ND-All), Nick Rahall (WV-3), Zack Space (OH-18 ).
And there are sixteen who voted "no" the first time who could be victims of Rahm-in-the-lockerroom-with-the-lead-pipe bullying or Cornhusker Compromise bribery because they haven't declared yet what they plan to do:
Jason Altmire (PA-4), Brian Baird (WA-3), John Barrow (GA-12), John Boccieri (OH-16), Rick Boucher (VA-9), Allen Boyd (FL-2), Travis Childers (MS-1), Lincoln Davis (TN-4), Bart Gordon (TN-6), Betsy Markey (CO-4), Jim Matheson (UT-2), Scott Murphy (NY-20), Glenn Nye (VA-2), Heath Shuler (NC-11), John Tanner (TN-8 ), Harry Teague (NM-2).
So Pelosi needs 24 out of 28 maybes to break her way.
NOTE: If you think I've got one of these guys in the wrong group and have a public statement from the Congresscritter demonstrating it email me at [gabriel.malor at gmail] and I will update the count.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
08:35 PM
| Comments (157)
Post contains 937 words, total size 6 kb.
Posted by: The War Between Something or Other at March 17, 2010 08:46 PM (DwlAL)
Posted by: ParisParamus at March 17, 2010 08:47 PM (TFs5o)
Posted by: Ben Woods at March 17, 2010 08:56 PM (6S5Mz)
Posted by: Jeff Weimer at March 17, 2010 08:57 PM (1Mn8Z)
Posted by: Jollyroger at March 17, 2010 09:04 PM (or6Aq)
Does stuff like this not matter?: "The 20 Undecided Democrats Just Loaded With Health Insurance Industry Money"
Posted by: curious at March 17, 2010 09:07 PM (p302b)
“Catholic nuns *for* health insurance industry reform.”
Being a rather bad Protestant constantly begging forgivness for numerous and continous sins and other wrongdoings, let me be the first to suggest that these ladies may have a little less opposition to abortion as the the rest of catholicdom.
For whatever reasonÂ…Â…
Posted by: Gerry Owen at March 17, 2010 09:11 PM (4Hy88)
Posted by: KilltheHippies at March 17, 2010 09:12 PM (VKfXw)
“Catholic nuns *for* health insurance industry reform.”
Being a rather bad Protestant constantly begging forgivness for numerous and continous sins and other wrongdoings, let me be the first to suggest that these ladies may have a little less opposition to abortion as the the rest of catholicdom.
For whatever reasonÂ…Â…Just sayin'
Posted by: Gerry Owen at March 17, 2010 09:12 PM (4Hy88)
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at March 17, 2010 09:12 PM (Mi2wf)
But the existing language on abortion in the current Senate bill meets the pledge I made to ensure no federal funding for abortion in this health care bill."
You are seeing similar statements from other previous pro-lifers. Isn't this statement a little ridiculous? Is it up to the individual to declare what's right? The point of making a public pledge is to say you will abide with how the public who agrees with you feels on that point. Except for some faux groups like the Nuns who are really health care lobbyists there's near unanimity in the pro-life community that the Senate Bill's provision doesn't cut it. Perriello's statement here is simply self delusion.
Posted by: Rocks at March 17, 2010 09:13 PM (Y8smK)
Posted by: progressoverpeace at March 17, 2010 09:14 PM (A46hP)
Posted by: Glaucon at March 18, 2010 12:54 AM (mP9Rx)
The Dems have already paid the political price and are already outed for the statest that they are. Many of them in close states are already screwed come election time no matter how they vote, and those that are solid blue might just weather the storm if they just go along. The more astute of them must by now realize that they are already committed to the process. If I were Obama I'd just go nuclear and run the ball into the end zone and see what happens. This congress is already tainted by Obama and so they don't have that much to lose by going all the way.
Posted by: Jim in San Diego at March 17, 2010 09:16 PM (F09Uo)
Posted by: AmishDude at March 17, 2010 09:21 PM (Vo2Ef)
I still cannot believe this is even a contest. this shit BARELY fucking passed last year, and now that the country has had a few months to look at this, digest it, get a grip of it, understand it... WE FUCKING HATE IT!!!!!
How the HELL do these ASSHOLES go from BARELY passing it last year to even FUCKING CONSIDERING PASSING IT AT ALL this FUCKING YEAR??????
This montrosity should go down in flames on voter sentimentiment alone. Because We are the ones who HAVE TO LIVE UNDR IT.
BASTARDS.
We either need Free fucking beer to keep us stupid and complacent, or open season (at least with water balloons!)on democratic congresspeople as they are that fucking stupid.
Posted by: Gerry Owen at March 17, 2010 09:21 PM (4Hy88)
Nope, Catholic teaching is Catholic teaching.....Catholics are pro life and anti abortion....period.
Oddly enough I know a lot of nuns.....don't piss them off....
Posted by: curious at March 17, 2010 09:22 PM (p302b)
I still think this thing can be stopped. We must not give them a moment's peace.
They are weak minded and will fall to Jedi mind tricks. Keep calling, keep writing, go to town halls and show your anger.
Posted by: Log Cabin at March 17, 2010 09:24 PM (3NehK)
Posted by: Jollyroger at March 17, 2010 09:29 PM (or6Aq)
It is a coup d'etat, so far as I see it, but I'm banking on some of them getting cold feet as they see where this is going and how inept and weak The Precedent really is.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at March 17, 2010 09:29 PM (A46hP)
Posted by: curious at March 17, 2010 09:30 PM (p302b)
Posted by: MDr VB1.0 CS1st at March 17, 2010 09:34 PM (ucq49)
Catholics are not all pro-life. Many are pro-social justice (social justice is the new way to say communism). Especially nuns, they have fallen for the women's movement brainwashing just as thoroughly as all other leftists.
There's a difference between the stated belief positions of the church, and the oftentimes weak positions held by those who lead the church. The Catholic church is quite the socialistic organization actually, the vows of poverty, the top-down management of the Pope and the College of Cardinals, everything run from Rome.........the many Catholic universities in the US are hardcore left. Remember that Notre Dame gave The Won a big award last year, in spite of the outrage of many alumni.
Posted by: Boots at March 17, 2010 09:34 PM (06JTY)
I have gotten through to several on the list. But they aren't even asking me for my name or address or anything. They listen and say thank you. I have said "don't you want my name address and phone number?" and they have just said no and thank you good bye....
On Tuesday they were asking me for name, address, etc. On Wednesday, they didn't care, it was like talking to a zombie. I hate zombies.
Posted by: Boots at March 17, 2010 09:36 PM (06JTY)
Posted by: Rocks at March 17, 2010 09:38 PM (Y8smK)
Posted by: Zombie Reagan at March 17, 2010 09:38 PM (or6Aq)
You are confusing Being a Catholic with Being Catholic. There is only ever one Catholic position on this issue.
Posted by: Rocks at March 17, 2010 09:40 PM (Y8smK)
Posted by: Jollyroger at March 17, 2010 09:40 PM (or6Aq)
Does that sound liek a good idea? Sure would be cheaper than sending money to Dick Morris' group.
Posted by: Smapty at March 17, 2010 09:41 PM (bAySe)
Posted by: curious at March 18, 2010 01:30 AM (p302b)
That is very telling. Me thinks the whores just went into kamikaze mode and are prepared to die gloriously for their emperor.
Don't get me wrong, we need to fight this all they way, and if we lose here, we just need to realize that we will have a much longer and bloodier fight on our hands than we originally believed.
Posted by: Jim in San Diego at March 17, 2010 09:41 PM (F09Uo)
Posted by: Jollyroger at March 17, 2010 09:43 PM (or6Aq)
Posted by: Jimmy Carter at March 18, 2010 01:48 AM (5I0Yr)
I miss your replacement.
Posted by: Jim in San Diego at March 17, 2010 09:49 PM (F09Uo)
Posted by: Smapty at March 17, 2010 09:49 PM (bAySe)
A nocturn rite
In the cruel garden of dark delights
Sixteen cages crawl in line
Desire is a heady wine
Posted by: garrett at March 17, 2010 09:52 PM (v3Jnr)
Posted by: Downfall Parody Hitler at March 17, 2010 09:53 PM (H6lGz)
Posted by: Downfall Parody Hitler at March 17, 2010 09:54 PM (H6lGz)
Posted by: Eeyore at March 17, 2010 09:54 PM (ujj2m)
Posted by: Drunk Irish Guy at March 17, 2010 09:55 PM (8/KZN)
I cannot believe this is still even under consideration-
think about it! It can't get past Senate Debate rules-
so they go the "Reconcilliation" route. If Senator Byrd weren't already friggin' brain dead or senile he would tell Obama what he told Clinton- that is not what Reconcilliation was meant for. 1/6 of the economy should require a higher level of agreement.
They then double down on stupidity with this Deeming crap. They can't muster the votes, so now they are just going to declare it passed it the house with some fixes that may or may not occur later!
WHY BOTHER???
I Think Obama should just go ahead and sign it through by executive order at the Easter Egg Roll and call it a day. We are already a Bananna Republic.
What the hell is anyone going to do to stop them, anyways?
Posted by: Gerry Owen at March 17, 2010 09:55 PM (4Hy88)
Posted by: beanervt at March 17, 2010 10:00 PM (/m8XT)
43-
I can't for the life of me figure out what the hell they are thinking. In my younger years I worked a lot of campaigns, the opposition was usually quite savvy.
This is beyond fucking stupid. It is suicidal. If I was a potential candidate, I wouldn't even HIRE a guy who had worked for a D that signed on to this vote. This is that devastating. They have to know this.
What is driving them to suicide?
...not to mention BANKRUPTING my kids?
Bastards. Every one of them.
Posted by: Gerry Owen at March 17, 2010 10:06 PM (4Hy88)
Biden at WH Today with Irish P.M. Brian Cowen, Blesses his Late Mother, "God Rest Her Soul"
Posted by: newser at March 17, 2010 10:06 PM (D2axM)
Ever hear the statement "liberalism is a mental disorder", your now seeing the fruition from those possessing said disorder. This is what you get from spoiled fruit brain.
Posted by: beanervt at March 17, 2010 10:13 PM (/m8XT)
What is driving them to suicide?
Posted by: Gerry Owen at March 18, 2010 02:06 AM (4Hy8The Precedent. They thought that they were just aiding and abetting him in the greatest theft in world history, which was true for the Porkulus, where he let the Congress run wild. Then, he kept pushing them on in the health scare, far past where any of them would have gone on their own (with a normal American in the White House, the health scare would have died at least 6 months ago, like the shamnesty did in its time). It was only with the Scott Brown election, and The Precedent pushing on from there, that the useful idiot dems realized that they weren't driving The Precedent to rob the mall, but escorting him in to set off his suicide vest. It was then too late for most of them - not to mention the crazy lefties who had never imagined anyone would have pushed things this far.
As I said above, I'm hoping that enough of them get cold feet about what they now realize they are part of. I put it at 65:35 after that pathetic interview, tonight. That was an epic fail for the Indonesian Imbecile.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at March 17, 2010 10:23 PM (A46hP)
So I see this missadministration is continuing it's fine work of pissing off/ offending the lot of the free world leaders. At least their good at one thing...
Isn't it amazing that the self proclaimed intelligentsia of this country could push off such a bunch of dumb asses on the voting masses.... Don't really say much for the masses.
Posted by: beanervt at March 17, 2010 10:24 PM (/m8XT)
Posted by: rawmuse at March 17, 2010 10:24 PM (eo8ss)
Posted by: rawmuse at March 18, 2010 02:24 AM (eo8ss)
Or marrying a person without looking under the veil.
Posted by: Rat Patrol at March 17, 2010 10:26 PM (dQdrY)
"As it currently stands, the vote count at electoral-vote.com has 198 Democrats voting yes and 178 Republicans and 20 Democrats voting no with 40 Democrats on the fence. Now unless I'm missing something, it looks like there is overwhelming bipartisan support against this health care bill. No matter how you slice it, even if the bill passes with 216 Democrat votes that still leaves a bipartisan coalition of 178 Republicans and 37 Democrats opposing Obamacare.
I believe those Americas who elected Barack Obama did so partly on his promise to end partisanship in Washington. As a self-acclaimed bipartisan President, it's very transparent that Obama has shown himself to be no more than another Chicago style politician. "
he has a point.
Posted by: curious at March 17, 2010 10:27 PM (p302b)
Yaw, you don't have to tell me, I'm from Vermont, land of the loonies...
Burton snowboards has decided to move manufacturing out of VT and take up the slack with their plants in Austria and China. The libtards here are all claiming that's why we need single payer to keep business from moving out. I would imagine it will be China taking up most of the slack and I don't believe they get the extra work because of their socialized medicine. Oh my fucking word, these idiots just drive you up the wall......
Posted by: beanervt at March 17, 2010 10:34 PM (/m8XT)
Here is some creepy shit:
Referring to the political struggle under way, Kucinich said, "You do have to be very careful that the potential of President Obama's presidency not be destroyed by this debate. Even though I have many differences with him on policy, there's something much bigger at stake here for America."
Posted by: Rat Patrol at March 17, 2010 10:34 PM (dQdrY)
"You do have to be very careful that the potential of President Obama's presidency not be destroyed by this debate. Even though I have many differences with him on policy, there's something much bigger at stake here for America."
And that is the zeitgeist of our current Congress. They are now driven by ideology fueled with revolutionary zeal and not self preservation, hence my earlier kamikaze observation.
Posted by: Jim in San Diego at March 17, 2010 10:41 PM (F09Uo)
53-
hope you are right. I call 60/40 this shit get crammed down our throats, and I told a good buddy "no way in hell they are that stupid" just last Sunday.
I cannot understand this march of the lemmings.
Posted by: Gerry Owen at March 17, 2010 10:44 PM (4Hy88)
I think that's a pretty good slogan for the DLC. How much do you think they might pay me?
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at March 17, 2010 10:47 PM (eNxMU)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 17, 2010 10:49 PM (9Cooa)
Well considering it comes from Kucinich probably not..
It's all about getting the progressive ball rolling at any cost and under any plan. When the ball starts rolling it will be awful hard to stop it, which is just part of the plan. This is why the left who wrote the bill could give a shit what's in it or don't care that they don't know what's in it. You'll find out once they "get that ball rolling".
It won't be anything freedom lovers will like I can assure you.
Posted by: beanervt at March 17, 2010 10:49 PM (/m8XT)
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at March 17, 2010 10:54 PM (eNxMU)
Referring to the political struggle under way, Kucinich said, "You do have to be very careful that the potential of President Obama's presidency not be destroyed by this debate. Even though I have many differences with him on policy, there's something much bigger at stake here for America."
Among the many things wrong with this statement, I'll provide another: Obama is already a failure. His own economic team has said that we should expect 9% unemployment as a perpetual state. They think they're propping up his sorry carcass with this, but their Zinn-soaked fantasies about the way history unfolds are just wrong. Obama will be the most hated man in America. Corruption is never something that just disappears.
Historians will write about it and, like FDR's court-packing scheme, it won't turn out well. And even if this thing passes with all of the bribes, there will be no Slaughter solution. They will just pass the Senate version, Obama will sign it and it will be over. Well, over except for the massive taxes and the ramped-up bureaucracy.
But there is still a lot more to be done. They have a long way to go and they have to get even more dirty to get there.
Posted by: AmishDude at March 17, 2010 11:17 PM (Vo2Ef)
Posted by: Filly at March 17, 2010 11:18 PM (onwJ3)
Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at March 17, 2010 11:26 PM (xsmXY)
Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, a leader of the anti-abortion Democrats, has said at least a dozen of the 40 intend to oppose the bill - and Driehaus announced through an aide he intends to be among them. The first-term lawmaker faces a difficult re-election race next fall against Steve Chabot, R-Cheviot, the man he defeated in 2008.
No shit it's a difficult re-election. That's Cincinnati, and it's always been the inner city and (relatively) sparsely populated Eastern suburbs vs. the packed-in Catholic Western suburbs. Chabot was swept in with the '94 Revolution, and was a solid conservative. Without ACORN to bus the ghetto to the polls in November, Driehaus knows damn well this is the only way to save his nice leather chair at the Capitol.
Posted by: Filly at March 17, 2010 11:31 PM (onwJ3)
What Kucinich is saying is that Obama is the First Black President and therefore he cannot be allowed to fail. I can't wait until the deluge of books come out lamenting Obama personally and angry that this jerk became the FBP, squandering the opportunity he was lucky to have for his own petty ego and his socialist fantasies.
Just never forget who sacrificed their integrities to prop up this man. This man who laughs at and mocks fools like Kucinich who will give up their very dignity just to prop up his sorry ass.
Posted by: AmishDude at March 17, 2010 11:31 PM (Vo2Ef)
Well since he's only a half ass black to begin with why can't he just be a half ass failure? Only seems right to me...
He already is a failure of epic proportions, 2 trillion debt in 421 days. I can't imagine anyone trying to be his epic failure..
Posted by: beanervt at March 17, 2010 11:39 PM (/m8XT)
This tells me that any fence-sitters who watched it should not feel reassured. The fucker didn't know what was in the fucking bill, and would not take a stand on such potential career-killers as the Slaughter rule or the Connecticut Compromise. There was no indication of a safety net or solid support or any alternative to being hung out to dry.
Posted by: arhooley at March 18, 2010 12:22 AM (VSKB6)
Does anyone know (see curious 53) just how the Republicans can force a vote on anything? I thought Nancy had control of the agenda, but evidently there are exceptions. What is the nature of this one?
Posted by: arhooley at March 18, 2010 12:24 AM (VSKB6)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at March 18, 2010 12:33 AM (mHQ7T)
from what little I understand about it, they can't force a vote on the resolution but they can force a vote on the vote (to make it a up/down vote). procedural bullcrap I suspect.. But what ever it takes to stop the idiot pisslosi will have to be taken..
Posted by: beanervt at March 18, 2010 12:58 AM (/m8XT)
Well he may not have dignity but he sure gets good BJ's. Wonder if slick willie knows about the little lady???
Posted by: beanervt at March 18, 2010 01:01 AM (/m8XT)
Yes he is black, liberal as hell (ACU 4/
He is ex-Army, he is a farmer, and he is religious. While he supported Obama (go figure), his wife supported Hillary. He has been known to part from the ways of some of the other liberals particularly in the WOT stuff and abortion.
He is hanging on to that district in Southern GA comprised of mostly peanut farmers largely because there is still a lot of blacks and a lot of white old timer yellow dog GA Democrats. One thing that the old timer yellow dog Dems and the Southern blacks in that area have in common is that old time religion. They may like farm subsidies and some socialism, but they sure as hell don't like abortion.
He truly may be a real maybe leaning towards a NO and you can bet his phone has been ringing off the hook. You can also bet that Rob "finger" Emanuel had better think twice before trying to corner him in the shower.
Posted by: Vic at March 18, 2010 02:35 AM (QrA9E)
Posted by: Mel at March 18, 2010 02:51 AM (RmUwq)
Please support the Hawaiian Earthquake Relief Fund.
The people of the 57th state are in desperate need for aid.
Posted by: Tinian at March 18, 2010 03:12 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: Snarky McSnark at March 18, 2010 03:47 AM (nS7nk)
vic, bambi gave black farmers some special items in farm subsidies. don't count on that Congressman from Ga.
i expect my Congressman, Perriello (5th CD, VA), to vote Yes. he knows it is political suicide--well, he should know it anyway. he only won with 727 votes last time. he is a true believer. (but note, he is also Roman Catholic & promised he wouldn't vote for bill that fed funds abortion which the Senate bill does).
Posted by: kelley in virginia at March 18, 2010 03:49 AM (Oan2w)
Yes, he gave out some farm subsidies in porkulous but it is not part of the specific bribes being done for individual reps.
Also, I am not saying this guy is a definite NO either, after all he is liberal as they come with single digit ACU ratings for the last two years.
But because of the things I mentioned when he says he is no longer a YES and has moved to the maybe column it can not be automatically be discounted as just another cynical ploy for bribes.
Posted by: Vic at March 18, 2010 04:00 AM (QrA9E)
Well he may not have dignity but he sure gets good BJ's. Wonder if slick willie knows about the little lady???
That thing about a tongue ring making a BJ better is a myth, you know.
Posted by: Snarky McSnark at March 18, 2010 04:01 AM (nS7nk)
Posted by: Snarky McSnark at March 18, 2010 04:02 AM (nS7nk)
Enough with this nonsense.
It's gonna pass and it's gonna be signed into law. Let's stop wasting time and figure where we go from here and how we can use it to our advantage.
Posted by: This is President Government at March 18, 2010 04:05 AM (AlREO)
Posted by: ParisParamus at March 18, 2010 04:05 AM (TFs5o)
Posted by: Mel at March 18, 2010 04:07 AM (RmUwq)
Ummm... I could be wrong, having only been a Catholic since birth 41 years ago, but I'm pretty certain they didn't pick up those particular ideas from Marx.
On the other hand, many of the sisters who've come out in support of this boondoggle entered the church during the heyday of liberation theology, a heresy that Rome eventually addressed, but which many of our socialist brethren still cling to, ignoring the pope and his predecessor.
But that's not the real reason they're supporting this. These women run a number of hospitals, and they want to tap into the federal funding they're likely to get if it passes. As always, FOLLOW THE MONEY.
Posted by: The Black Republican at March 18, 2010 04:14 AM (Sz7G2)
Posted by: The Black Republican at March 18, 2010 04:17 AM (Sz7G2)
Rand Paul will be an excellent senator.
Grrr!!! -- we're gonna have to sit through another round of Paultard spamming.
Posted by: Tinian at March 18, 2010 04:18 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: This is President Government at March 18, 2010 04:20 AM (AlREO)
"You do have to be very careful that the potential of President Obama's presidency not be destroyed by this debate. Even though I have many differences with him on policy, there's something much bigger at stake here for America."
So, follow the bad leader who led us all down this path to preserve thatbad leadership. Brilliant. The Lemming Strategy.
Posted by: nickless at March 18, 2010 04:21 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: Mel at March 18, 2010 04:24 AM (RmUwq)
Posted by: Barack the supreme Obama at March 18, 2010 04:26 AM (Ki7fm)
Posted by: The Black Republican at March 18, 2010 04:29 AM (Sz7G2)
Posted by: Crystal Grannie at March 18, 2010 04:30 AM (Ki7fm)
Which, as much of a piece of llama shit as he is, is a pretty accurate answer.
Of course, from the way he's talking it's obvious he reaaaalllly wants to vote for it. The only thing holding him back at all are those pesky constituents and the knowledge that if he does, he's finished here. We could run William F. Buckley's mummified penis against him in November and win.
Posted by: mr.frakypants at March 18, 2010 04:33 AM (zOP98)
Posted by: steevy at March 18, 2010 04:34 AM (SfI6Q)
I am sure Fox will have plenty of their patented "fair and balanced" debates where the Dem says "my man won handily and your guy sucked" while the Repub will say "Bret ate his lunch and your guy sucked".
I am waiting for the unfair third guy to come on and say something like this:
Bret asked him some questions and Obama did his normal thing; he avoided answering the question and used up 50% of the time with unrelated stuttering on irrelevant issues. What few things he did say were lies which is pretty much normal for all Democrats. So all in all I would say the whole thing was a colossal waste of time. That is unless you count it like Brit Hume, just going on Fox shows how desperate he is.
Posted by: Vic at March 18, 2010 04:40 AM (QrA9E)
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 18, 2010 04:41 AM (mR7mk)
many of the sisters who've come out in support of this boondoggle entered the church during the heyday of liberation theology, a heresy that Rome eventually addressed, but which many of our socialist brethren still cling to, ignoring the pope and his predecessor.
They are also in schism with their bishop if he gives a crap.
Because of a belief in the individual soul, the Church cannot ever condone even one death for the potential saving of another. For example, in her social teaching, the Church says Hiroshima was wrong. In her doctrine, abortion is wrong, period.
These lefty nuns know that but are, as you say, after the money. Of course, most of the bishops understand that because that is their motive when they don't openly condemn their local NARAL politicians.
Catholics don't have to follow social teachings but have to follow doctrine. Religious who depart from doctrine are in schism and should be removed from their positions by their bishop.
Posted by: dagny at March 18, 2010 04:43 AM (R+tWR)
Posted by: dagny at March 18, 2010 04:45 AM (R+tWR)
I figure most of these guys are in a prisoner's dilemma. There are enough of them that want the bill to pass, but they know that it's massively unpopular and there aren't enough of them that can vote for the bill and stay in office. So the crapweasels that know voting for the bill will be the end of their political careers are all either trying to get the other guy to take the hit without having to vote for the bill themselves, or they're trying to get a good enough deal for their vote to make ending their careers worthwhile.
Of course, a good enough deal changes every time the bribes are upped for the other holdouts, because why should they sell themselves for 300 million when this other guy is getting 500 million? Why commit political seppuku for a run of the mill presidency of a consulting firm when this other guy is getting a future cabinet position? What, you think I'm going to stay bought? I'm whoring my vote to you for a bribe, and you're talking to me about honoring a commitment that's not written down anywhere? Come back to me when you can offer me that Carribean island we talked about.
Posted by: Cautiously Pessimistic at March 18, 2010 04:50 AM (pZEar)
Posted by: steevy at March 18, 2010 04:50 AM (SfI6Q)
(Yeah, I know; but it's the classical station and they play Sousa every morning.)
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 18, 2010 04:50 AM (mR7mk)
Second studies show that it will not matter because 700,000 people will experience sudden death syndrome by 2019 so unemployment will be constant.
Posted by: Vic at March 18, 2010 04:51 AM (QrA9E)
Obama:
" I'm giving you an example of one that I consider important. It also affects Hawaii, which went through an earthquake. So that's not just a Louisiana provision. That is a provision that affects every state that is going through a natural catastrophe."
He may just be nuts.
http://tinyurl.com/y92c6lo
Posted by: dagny at March 18, 2010 04:51 AM (R+tWR)
That's all? The "part-time workers require coverage or fine" clause alone should destroy more than that.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 18, 2010 04:54 AM (mR7mk)
Posted by: The Mega Independent at March 18, 2010 04:55 AM (wAv4k)
The girl told police she was outside her residence last Thursday when a red minivan pulled up and the driver, who identified himself as "Tony" and said he was from Allentown, invited her to get into the vehicle.
They drove to the parking lot of Gerrity's on Meadow Avenue, where they went into the rear of the van and the man told her to sign his penis with an ink pen, which the girl did, police said. The man then returned the girl to her home.
Posted by: Tinian at March 18, 2010 04:56 AM (7+pP9)
Hysterical stuff from a commenter on Breitbart:
The Louisiana provision provided that the 57th state of Haiti will be taking all the Army corpses and feeding them to the Katrina victims in New OrleansÂ…It helps everyone Brette Come on let me finishÂ…and healthcare has been held up too long for the American Idols, we have people like little Timmy Jackson who lost his health coverage at the age of 3 when the doctors removed his right leg instead of his tonsils.
Brette,,, this is serious stuff here. Let me finish, you keep interrupting. The CBO today said my heatlthcare plan would save the Unranian Taxpayers 14.5 Bazillion dollars over the next 10 years. Now thats some real savings wouldnt you say Brette? The people in the State of Detroit need it. havenÂ’t you been paying attention Brette?
The Armenian people have spoken and the demand we do something up and down to fix healthcare as we know it. As soon as this bill lands on my desk i will sign it into law while on board Air Force One as I buzz New York on my way to bow to the Chinese leaders.
I cant wait to have some real egg foo yung BretteÂ…But I would add one more thing Brette, if you will be so kind as to let me finish. I dont like filibusters, so I now deem them null and void and reconciled because the people of antartica demand it.
Posted by: dagny at March 18, 2010 04:56 AM (R+tWR)
Posted by: The Lib Legacy Media at March 18, 2010 04:59 AM (8/KZN)
As soon as the media believes this things is going through (or as soon as it goes through), all the really bad news they know about it will start pouring out. Then they can begin with the story about what a sorry state our awful healthcare system is in and what an uphill struggle it's going to be for poor ObamaCare. This story should sound familiar. Eventually, the rationing/death panel justifications will start.
Posted by: The Mega Independent at March 18, 2010 04:59 AM (wAv4k)
Naggh, this is classic misquoting from someone use to using prepared text on a teleprompter.
When he is forced to rely on memory of talking points sometimes they get cross-threaded.
Someone who is truly good like Reagan doesn't try to memorize shit talking points. He gets his core principles down, thinks about potential questions and how they should be answered in relation to those core principles, and then is ready for any and all questions.
If something new comes up it only takes a second or two of thought to apply those to core principles.
You can see this because the opposite of it is the cynical politician who doesn't want to come down on any side of an issue unless it has been studied to death by focus groups. He comes across as either not answering the question (most of them) or stumbling over everything and making gaffs left and right.
Posted by: Vic at March 18, 2010 04:59 AM (QrA9E)
I'm not worried because I know a great veterinarian and he's not bound by all of this Obamacare malarkey.
Posted by: Fritz at March 18, 2010 05:02 AM (GwPRU)
Posted by: Mel at March 18, 2010 05:02 AM (RmUwq)
That's fine for you but the rest of us are not cats.
Posted by: Vic at March 18, 2010 05:03 AM (QrA9E)
I completely agree Vic.
Especially on policy.
But, Hawaii? He is from Hawaii, he was just there at Christmas (or Kwanza or Winter Holiday or whatever.) How could he think there had been an earthquake? He could have meant Haiti but that would be odd---I don't get Virginia mixed up with the Virgin Islands and I would never think the islands were a state.
The only thing I can guess is that he meant: If Hawaii had an earthquake but he didn't say that.
GWB made speaking errors? Not like that.
Posted by: dagny at March 18, 2010 05:05 AM (R+tWR)
That's fine for you but the rest of us are not cats.
I suppose we could pass for a species of ape? Vets work on chimps and gorillas, right?
Posted by: Cautiously Pessimistic at March 18, 2010 05:09 AM (pZEar)
"Project to get transplant organs from ER patients raises ethics questions," by Rob Stein, The Washington Post, 3-15
"The Future's Shadow," by George Neumayr, The American Spectator, 3-18:
...taxpayers are now financing, via a $321,000 HHS grant, a pilot program at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center-Presbyterian Hospital and Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh to obtain organs from emergency room patients, a practice heretofore "considered off-limits in the United States because of ethical and logistical concerns."
The goal of the project, reports the Washington Post, is to "investigate whether it is feasible and, if so, to encourage other hospitals nationwide to follow."
The article is somewhat obtuse about the longstanding moral problem at the center of organ transplantation, which is that the donors aren't actually dead. It seems to accept uncritically the bogus definitions of death as "brain death" and "cardiac death" that the medical community uses to take organs from the dying but not dead. (Organs from cadavers are useless, so the medical community had to come up with the convenient lies of death as "brain death" and "cardiac death" to pluck usable organs from the living.)
But for the proponents of this program, taking organs from the dying in an emergency room is no different than taking organs from the near-dead in other parts of the hospital, which is what already happens...In other words, it is just more efficient to do it in the emergency room and provides an enormous new opportunity for organ procurement. This discussion is so mired in euphemism and imprecision that most people don't even know what organ donation entails, and a utilitarian medical culture hungry for usable organs doesn't mind leaving them in that ignorance.This practice is new in location but not principle. Nevertheless, it is a grim accomplishment for the Obama administration, and the article mentions another...
Posted by: maverick muse at March 18, 2010 05:10 AM (H+LJc)
LOL, that was a takeoff on his posting name "Fritz".
Posted by: Vic at March 18, 2010 05:19 AM (QrA9E)
Ya know - I'm thinking that the crybaby in chief's interview yesterday could not have helped him. He reminded me of the Anikin Skywalker character in episodes two and three of the prequel - all nasal and whiney and stuff.
He certainly made Bret Baier look like the best interviewer in the universe.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at March 18, 2010 05:24 AM (RkRxq)
Posted by: The Black Republican at March 18, 2010 05:27 AM (Sz7G2)
This is why I'm not an organ donor. I'm not about to give them a reason to kill me faster. My family can donate my organs after I die naturally.
Posted by: Mal at March 18, 2010 05:28 AM (Z+qzA)
Posted by: The Black Republican at March 18, 2010 05:29 AM (Sz7G2)
Posted by: steevy at March 18, 2010 05:30 AM (SfI6Q)
But hey, it's still under a trillion dollars! BTW, our polls indicate that you people won't flip out if we just don't say the "T" word too often.
Posted by: The Lib legacy media at March 18, 2010 05:32 AM (8/KZN)
Posted by: Jean at March 18, 2010 05:33 AM (6Njk9)
Posted by: Jean at March 18, 2010 05:35 AM (h0rZ/)
Oh, it's only 940 billion? That changes everything, as long as it's under a trillion the American people will love it.
Posted by: Mal at March 18, 2010 05:44 AM (Z+qzA)
88. But that's not the real reason they're supporting this. These women run a number of hospitals, and they want to tap into the federal funding they're likely to get if it passes. As always, FOLLOW THE MONEY.
I agree the money should always be followed, but if the rules of getting the hospital money out of ObamaCare REQUIRE abortions be performed in Catholic hospitals, then the Catholic Church has a little problem on its hands.
As a lifelong Catholic myself, I have seen the sentiment regarding abortion amongst my fellow parishioners range from pro-pro-life, to pro-abortion. At one time I was a member of a parish that refused to host a pro-life committee, or engage in any pro-life activities. It was an urban parish that catered to young urban professionals, and they didn't want anything that would drive away the pro-abortion demographic.
The state of Illinois, where Obama & his henchmen learned their tricks, has put into effect rules that don't allow for "conscientious objectors" to refuse to dispense prescriptions that induce abortions. This forces pharmacists to either dispense abortion drugs or be fined/jailed for refusing to provide a legally required service.
Imagine if ObamaCare passes, and all those doctors who claim they will quit actually do try and quit. Will Obama then deem a law passed that will force those doctors to continue to work???
Posted by: Boots at March 18, 2010 06:02 AM (06JTY)
Let's wait to see what outrageous assumptions were required to keep the score under a trillion. The GOP then needs to beat that like a drum. Along with the doc fix.
Regardless, the Dims don't have the votes, and won't get them. Imagine your a rep that only got elected on Barry's coattails. The majority of your constituents are against HellCare. That majority is a lot more passionate than the minority that's for it. After you lose in Nov, you'll be returning to live in your district. Would you want to live where so many people hate your guts? Damn hard to pull up stakes and start over.
Posted by: MDr VB1.0 CS1st at March 18, 2010 06:03 AM (ucq49)
Posted by: The CBO cipherin' dudes at March 18, 2010 06:13 AM (8/KZN)
106 How does" Fr."Phleger stay in the priesthood?
That's easy. Phleger is a blue-eyed blond black man. The Chicago Archdiocese is scared to death of him. There's a rule in the archdiocese that priests can be appointed to one-six year term as a pastor, and then get an additional six year term, for a total of twelve years at any one parish. Then the archdiocese forces them to leave and go to a different parish. Except of course for Phleger. He's been at St. Sabina's forever.
Part of that, of course, is the simple fact that who else would want him as their pastor? So there's noplace to send him. The other part is who could possibly take his place without starting a riot? Also, I'm not sure about his position on abortion because it's never been discussed in the press, but he is constantly pressuring liquor stores and drug paraphenelia stores in his neighborhood in the city to stop selling their wares. He's also done some picketing at suburban gun stores (obviously the city of Chicago does not have any gun stores) but the suburbanites are far less welcoming to him and his cause.
Posted by: Boots at March 18, 2010 06:13 AM (06JTY)
Posted by: The CBO cipherin' dudes at March 18, 2010 06:23 AM (8/KZN)
Question for the ruling majority: What is the role of the CBO?
Note this disturbing passage from The Hill:
Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.), leaving that same meeting, said that the delay is the result of numerous technical issues involved, and stressed that, despite any rumors to the contrary, the delays are not the result of policy problems.
“My understanding is this has been much more technical than substantive,” Andrews said. “It’s not like what tax has to go or what spending has to go.”
Andrews did say, though, that the CBO is also taking extra time to protect the legislation from invariable legal challenges to the reconciliation process, if not the eventual law itself.
“Protect the legislation” from legal challenges?
Is that in CBOÂ’s mandate?LetÂ’s check:
CBOÂ’s mandate is to provide the Congress with:
* Objective, nonpartisan, and timely analyses to aid in economic and budgetary decisions on the wide array of programs covered by the federal budget and
* The information and estimates required for the Congressional budget process. @michelle malkin
Posted by: willow at March 18, 2010 06:36 AM (7FgWm)
Posted by: Peter at March 18, 2010 05:42 PM (E/ZYn)
Posted by: Houston Mover at May 01, 2010 11:50 AM (HGrtY)
Posted by: cosmo istanbul at October 04, 2010 05:44 AM (sO1X6)
Posted by: cosmo istanbul at October 04, 2010 05:57 AM (sO1X6)
Posted by: ogame at November 27, 2010 01:58 PM (eFThB)
Posted by: fenugreek breast enlargement at November 27, 2010 04:52 PM (bRsZ/)
Posted by: Mr Latty at January 12, 2011 05:24 PM (+XPLB)
Posted by: Cams at March 27, 2011 09:11 PM (DHqm4)
Posted by: Magyarország at March 28, 2011 08:26 PM (DHqm4)
Posted by: Magyarország at March 28, 2011 08:27 PM (DHqm4)
<a href="http://blog.163.com/davidpainting/">David</a>
<a href="http://blog.163.com/vermeerpainting/">Vermeer</a>
<a href="http://artistoilpainting.blog.163.com/">artistoilpainting</a>
<a href="http://variouspaining.blog.163.com/">variouspaining</a>
Posted by: oilpaintingart at May 08, 2011 10:16 PM (oJqFh)
For those of you who are purchasing ebridalgowns,we realize that this is one of the most important purchasing decisions you will make.<a href="http://www.faucetso.com">Faucets</a>
Posted by: ebridalgowns at June 13, 2011 09:26 PM (SuY4Y)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2049 seconds, 285 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: Jollyroger at March 17, 2010 08:42 PM (or6Aq)