Whip Count 3-18-10: 192 Yes, 211 No

—Gabriel Malor

Now let's talk about useful whip counts and whip counts that, well, aren't. The Hill's whip count, which is tracking in terms of "firm", "leaning", and "likely" votes, is useful. It lists which member goes in which group and why. FireDogLake's whip count, which most closely matches my own in the totals if not all the placements, has a helpful table to track votes.

By contrast, Fox News' whip count has nothing except the score, which it thinks as of this writing is 214-217. There is no explanation of how they got that number or why. Now, that's about as useful as a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest. It does nothing but encourage folks to DON'T JUST STAND THERE, PANIC!

For the record, none of the people tracking votes on this bill have it as close as 214-217. Except Fox News. Now, maybe Fox has info the rest of us don't, but I rather suspect they're busy making news instead of reporting it. Please don't declare defeat prematurely. There was some wailing and gnashing of teeth earlier today, but no one is ready to call it quits. Pelosi doesn't have it yet. We'd know if she did.

That said, there were some big changes today, so on with the whip count:

Pelosi picked up four votes from Betsy Markey, Bart Gordon, Luis Gutierrez, and Solomon Ortiz. Markey and Gordon had been "maybes." Gutierrez is the fellow who made the bizarre switch from "yes" to "pass my immigration bill and we'll talk." Well, today the President announced that he supported Gutierrez's immigration reform framework and Gutierrez promptly switched back to "yes." The other sponsor on the immigration reform bill was Solomon Ortiz, who was thought to be a "maybe", but who can securely be put in the "Voting Yes" group.

Three congresscreeps came out of that group, however, when Dina Titus, Mike Capuano, and John Tierney announced that they are now undecided. Let's not be fooled. I think they're looking for a payoff of some kind and will switch back, but for now they're something for Pelosi to worry about and I'm putting them in the maybe group.

Another possible "yes" to "undecided" is Bobby Rush, but this is so transparently a request for a bribe, that I'm not moving him. I know I said I'd go by their public statements, but his "I'm still thinking about it" claim is inherently unbelievable.

The big surprise of the day was this morning's announcement from Steve Lynch on local radio that he will vote against the bill. Everyone thought he was a "yes" so that pulls another from Pelosi's total, which means her score for the day is a wash. She picked up four and lost four. Unless you're prone to jumpiness around sudden movement, today's events shouldn't have set you off.

Finally, Travis Childers, comes out of the "maybe" crowd and goes to the "Not No Way" group.

And, as ever, the group of timid "maybes" telling their constituents by phone that they will vote no, but not announcing to the media, includes Lincoln Davis and Harry Teague. Davis, Teague, and John Boccieri are expected to announce their position on Friday. Actually, Teague said he'd decide today (Thursday), but his announcement was that he was still thinking about it.

All told, Pelosi has 192 "definitely voting yes." This leaves her 24 votes shy of the necessary 216. There are 28 maybes, 13 who voted "no" on the November House bill.

Thanks to David, Jack, Myryea, Lawrence, Paul, enoxo, Josh and Nick. The categories and names are below the fold:

Continue reading

CBO: Obama/Pelosi? Ummm...they lie.

—Purple Avenger

Actual ObamaCare™ 10 year cost is well over $2,000,000,000,000 and that's using the insane Alice in Wonderland scoring rules congress compels the CBO to use.

...To see the bill’s true first-decade costs, we need to start the clock when the costs would actually start in any meaningful way: in 2014. The CBO says that Obamacare would cost $2.0 trillion in the bill’s real first decade (from 2014 to 2023) — and much more in the decades to come.

But $2.0 trillion wouldn’t be the total ten-year costs. Instead, that would merely be the “gross cost of coverage provisions.” Based on earlier incarnations of the proposed overhaul, the total costs would be about a third higher (the exact number can’t be gleaned from the CBO’s analysis, which is only preliminary and is not a full scoring) — making the total price-tag between $2.5 and $3 trillion over the bill’s real first decade.

How would we pay for all of this? According to the CBO, by diverting $1.1 trillion away from already barely-solvent Medicare and spending it on Obamacare, and by increasing taxes on the American people by over $1 trillion....

...And what would we get for all of this? The CBO says that health insurance premiums would rise by 10 to 13 percent in the individual market, in relation to current law. The Medicare Chief Actuary says that the percentage of the gross domestic product spent on health care would also rise in relation to current law, increasing from 17 percent today to 21 percent in 2019. And, as the CBO reports in its latest scoring, as of 2019 there would still be 23 million people in America lacking health insurance...

Such a deal eh? Never before has "pay more get less" tasted so good! If the Robber Barons of old were alive to see this they'd bow their heads in awe of the shear brazenness and magnitude of this public fleecing and realize they'd operated like amateurs even during their heyday.

Continue reading

Overnight Open Thread

—Maetenloch

Happy Thursday M&Ms. And yeah it's an early ONT. Consider it a reward for the compulsive site reloaders.

The Japanese soldier who stayed behind

I think I first heard of Japanese soldiers still hiding in the jungle from a Gilligan Island episode where the castaways were held prisoner by a Japanese holdout. I assumed it was all made up until years later when I heard about the story of Hiroo Onoda who kept fighting for 30 years after the war.

On March 9 1974, Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda, from the Japanese Imperial Army Intelligence, surrendered after almost 30 years of hiding on a Philippine island. He had been a member of an elite commando unit and was given special orders in 1944 before being sent to Labang islands in the Philippines to conduct guerrilla warfare.

You are absolutely forbidden to die by your own hand. It may take three years, it may take five, but whatever happens, we’ll come back for you. Until then, so long as you have one soldier, you are to continue to lead him. You may have to live on coconuts. If that’s the case, live on coconuts! Under no circumstances are you to give up your life voluntarily.

For the next 30 years he stayed in the jungle initially with 2 companions then alone and occasionally terrorized nearby villagers. He refused all attempts to convince him that the war was long over even from emissaries of the Japanese government. Finally in 1974 his original commander from the war, Major Yoshimi Taniguchi, traveled to the island and personally ordered him to surrender through a megaphone. And he did, dressed in his old uniform and with his sword and rifle still in good condition. He is still alive today at 87 years old and now splits his time between Japan and Brazil.

I've read his book, No Surrender:My Thirty-year War, and highly recommend it. It's interesting to see things from his perspective. You both admire him for his determination and resourcefulness but also feel sorry for him for all the years wasted in the jungle.

Continue reading

Four Years of Nothing (But Taxes)

—Dave In Texas

This urgent thing that must be done now, must be done for some other reason than actually helping Americans with their health care. (chart via table 2 of today's CBO report, courtesy Geoff).

the dramatic improvement of healthcare for Americans

We're clued into this but most of the middle are not, so it bears repeating. There will be no improvement in health care coverage for Americans for four years after this piece of crap passes. What will happen for four years?

Taxes. Taxes, and businesses working and adjusting to figure out how these things affect the bottom line, and of course where taxes and operating expense crossover.

So there is an immediate impact. Just no immediate improvement. Ok actually no long term improvement either but I'm playing on their turf with this argument to make a point.

So Natoma Canfield will have to rely on the current system, given the calendar and all. Fortunately for her, the current system is working to take care of her, and I wish her all the best in her fight.

Think about that in the context of the woeful anecdotes and ask "uhm, if they kinda cared about these awful things, wouldn't this be sort of geared toward helping make a difference for them?"

Answer your own question. Which is very efficient.

Also, I think Gabe mentioned this earlier, Obama has postponed his trip to Indonesia and Australia while this thing works its magic in the House.

Until June.

UPDATE: Obamacare in fifteen seconds.

Continue reading

Another No to Yes: Betsy Marky of Colorado
FoxNews Says Count Is 214-217

—Ace

She was a "maybe" before and someone I think most figured would flip to "Yes."

On the plus side, Gabe thinks it will cost her her seat in November.

But there's another yes.

Fixed Headline: Whoops, got confused, it's No to Yes.

Fox's Whip: Their count -- how they're pinning down "maybes" I don't know -- says Pelosi is short a couple of votes.

Oh: Earlier Fox had it as 211 to 220, so there's either been momentum in favor of destroying the country or FoxNews never had it right to begin with.

Rumors: Two House Democrats Already Promised Administration Positions?

—DrewM.

Maybe Tom "Don't Screw With This" Coburn had some specific folks in mind when he said House Democrats who walk the plank for ObamaCare shouldn't expect cushy landings in the Executive Branch.

Seems Bart Gordon, a No the first time around who just announced that he's a yes, might be in line to take over NASA.

If true, this has at least two implications. First, the administration is willing to throw Charlie Bolden under the bus. Second, they’re also willing to throw the new plans for NASA under the bus for health care, because Gordon (who just happens to be the relevant committee chairman) has expressed skepticism about them.

Insty also says another Tennessee Congressman John Tanner might be named Ambassador to NATO.

I hear Brussels is lovely this time of year.

It's not clear if this kind of stuff is covered by "Hope" or "Change".

BTW- Tom Coburn needs a cool nick name. The Hammer is taken and The Sheriff has been damaged beyond repair.

What do you think?

Should Opponents Of Health Care Bill Hope The Democrats Use The Slaughter Solution? ADDED: Two More Yes Votes

—DrewM.

I think the Slaughter Solution is an affront to the Constitution but...if this monstrosity (an affront to freedom) is going to pass should we hope the Democrats use the most noxious means possible to do it?

I'm not optimistic that if the House uses Slaughter that it will be knocked down by the courts but others seem to think it might be. It would be awful to have to hope all of this rides on which side of the bed Anthony Kennedy gets up one day but it's better than nothing.

If it's going to pass, and at the moment I fear it will, then at least we'd have another bite at the apple. I have no faith in the repeal effort (it will be '12 at the earliest, which assumes Obama is defeated and not likely to get 60 votes in the Senate) so the courts maybe out best hope.

There's also the chance to hit Democrats during the midterms with their ugly procedural power grab to 'deem' a bill passed instead of voting on it. I think that will for the most part be lost in the fight over the passage or failure of the bill itself but hey, any weapon in a fight.

The question is, would using Slaughter be enough cover to turn a no into a yes and thus pass the bill when it otherwise would have failed? My guess is no. The votes are the votes at this point. The procedure probably won't change anyone's mind. But it's not possible to know either way for sure.

The Democrats haven't announce they are going to use Slaughter and the Republicans are going to try to gum up the Rules Committee works but I say if they are going to pass this thing, let them make it as ugly as possible.

Related: The Democrats have picked up 2 No to Yes votes today. Gutierrez (who was a yes, who went to no and back to yes now) and Gordon (a 'Blue Dog')

Don't Sweat the Slaughter Vote/Griffith Resolution outcome as a Proxy for Health Care

—Jack M.

I'm gonna throw a quick post up to try to re-assure y'all that this is still a fight worth engaging in, even after the House endorsement of the tyrannical "Slaughter solution."

It is awfully tempting to think (and I'm sure the Dem Leadership will soon be using this as a talking point) that the 222 votes for Slaughter means that the Dems have the 216 they need for passage of the bill.

After all, if they are willing to brazenly BS you about the CBO score, why wouldn't they BS you about this?

The truth is that this really isn't a proxy vote for the bill, except on the "no" side. The 203 who voted against the rule will likely all be No's on the bill's "deem vote" too.

But the Yes voters? Not necessarily.

Why? Because on procedural votes, parties guard these outcomes jealously. To lose a procedural vote introduced by the minority is seen as a direct rebuke to party leadership, as it temporarily gives the minority the upper hand on setting the floor agenda.

And in the House, you never give the minority party an opening. In fact, the House is institutionally set up to frustrate the ability of the minority to do anything of significance. That's 99% of what the Rules committee is designed to do.

So, about the Yes votes.

Some of them will be No's on the final roll call. But they aren't going to go out of their way to kick their party leadership and their President any more than they have too.

So they are hedging their bets, in a sense. They've voted to keep the door open for Pelosi and Obama, even though they may ultimately vote against the bill.

Would it have been preferable for them to vote No on the rule? Absolutely.

I may write about this more in the future...but House members are essentially insecure critters.

And that's a good thing. They are more accountable to the people of their districts because of it. Whereas most Senators look in the mirror and see a future President, most House Members look in the mirror and worry that they are going to get primaried by the highest-profile car dealer (who often has greater name recognition due to the ads that run all the time on local shows)in their district.

This means that they aren't going to rebuke their leadership when they have what they perceive to be a free vote to "stand with their party."

And Slaughter was pretty much a free vote for these Dems. They've burnished their party creds, even if they decide to vote no.

(Granted, it's not much.....but House members are often afraid to buck their leadership any more than they have to do so.)

So take heart and keep the phone calls going. It isn't really a proxy vote (in the sense that Cloture votes on Senate filibusters often are).

It's a last chance for some of these guys to claim they are team players. And to still vote no.

Edit: Changed the title to make it clear that I was referring to this afternoon's vote on the Parker Griffith (R-AL) effort, rather than a direct vote on Slaughter's rule.

Democrats Band Together To Approve of Slaughter House Rule, 222-203

—Ace

28 Democrats broke from the party to vote against it, joining a united Republican caucus in voting against it. (Although three Republicans didn't vote for some reason.)

I am getting really worried, because if 222 Democrats voted for this unconstitutional, very-unpopular maneuver, doesn't that mean that all 222 will also vote for the bill itself? Why vote for this if you're not going to vote for that?

Technically Speaking: Drew notes that this wasn't a vote on the Slaughter House Rule itself, but on a GOP motion to compel the House to not employ the Slaughter House Rule.

The Slaughter Rule is not yet actually implemented. But the motion to halt it was rejected.

Technically, they could still reject the rule itself.

Senator Coburn: I've Got News For You: If You Sell Your Vote for Earmarks or a Federal Posting, I'm Going to Block It in the Senate As Bribery
Video Added

—Ace

Rush apparently played this clip on his show:

“I want to send a couple of messages to my colleagues in the House.

If you voted no, and you vote yes, and you lose your election, and you think any nomination to a federal post isn’t going to be held up in the Senate, I’ve got news for you. It’s going to be held.

Nymber two is, if you get a parochial deal for you or your district, I’ve already instructed my staff that we will look at every appropriations bill, and we will associate that with the buying of your vote. I want to tell you that your deal isn’t going to happen.

And be prepared to defend selling your vote.”

Cool fact about Tom "Balls-Out" Coburn: He once got into a staredown with Dick Cheney and did not go insane.

Video: At NiceDeb.

Fox Poll: Opposition to ObamaCare Hits 55%; Sixty Five Percent Say "Do Nothing" or "Start Over"

—Ace

That's not actually a record level of opposition -- Fox found opposition at 57% in December -- but it is a recent high. It was back in December that this monstrosity was the least theoretical and most likely to pass, and as that escalated, people stopped saying they were unsure on the bill and registered their disapproval. Seems they're doing that again.

A lot of those "undecideds" do in fact have an opinion, but they only express it when the bill gets to a critical point.

And it gets worse:

When the option of starting over from scratch is included, that’s what a plurality of voters want: 46 percent would toss out the current bill and start over, while 30 percent would stick with what is now on the table. One in five (19 percent) would do nothing on health care now.

On several features, proponents of the reforms have failed to convince voters of the benefits. By two-to-one people think the quality of their family’s health care would be worse, rather than better, if the bill passed. In addition, majorities think the reforms would cost them money (66 percent), and increase their taxes (75 percent).

As the main reason for opposition to the current plan, quality issues lead the way (30 percent), followed by cost (22 percent) and an over-ambitious reach (19 percent).

The number one priority for Americans is the economy, and President Obama says reforming health care will improve it. Yet the poll finds around 6 in 10 voters don’t believe that health care reform would create jobs (56 percent) or boost the nation’s economy (64 percent).

If the bill passes -- or fails -- what should happen next?

If it passes, nearly half (45 percent) would like lawmakers repeal it, 29 percent would expand it, and 18 percent say lawmakers should leave it as is.

If the bill fails, most voters want to either start over from scratch (42 percent) or drop it (36 percent). One in five voters would want Congress to keep trying to pass the current plan (19 percent).

45% want a repeal! That's pretty damn close to 50%, isn't it?

Reconciliation Bill Released

—Ace

Here's the section-by-section explanation of the changes.

Field Poll: Babs Boxer In Big Trouble

—Ace

She's in a statistical tie with both Fiorina and Campbell, and leads DeVore by a mere four points, which, let's face it, is pretty much a tie, too.

And her favorables are falling, badly:

Last January among registered voters deemed likely to vote in the November election, Boxer was viewed more favorably than unfavorably by 48% to 39% margin. However, the current survey finds that her image has suffered over the past two months, with more voters now viewing her negatively (51%) than positively (38%). Just 11% have no opinion of Boxer.

Thanks to StarChamberMaid.

Whoops: Gabe had this up this morning, but he highlighted the intraparty primary numbers. Worth a post, I guess, to highlight that Babs is in trouble.

Gallup: Obama Ooches Further Underwater

—Ace

The big news yesterday was that Gallup had found that Obama had slipped underwater, 46/47 for the first time.

This finding was confirmed by Democratic polling firm PPP, which also showed him net-negative for the first time, 47/48.

A bit of statistical noise finds Obama slipping down a little further, 46/48, today.

I keep waiting for a 5-8% drop from Obama as the persuadable non-cultists finally get it.

Nomentum (?): One of Pelosi's Floor Whips Will "Probably" Vote No?

—Ace

Mentioned in Gabe's Top Headline comments -- one of Pelosi's floor whips, Stephen Lynch, says he'll probably vote no. (Not a repost; Gabe had sketchier information earlier.)

Even one of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s floor whips, U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch, says a proposed parliamentary move to pass health-care reform would be “disingenuous” and harm the credibility of Congress.

In a sign of how tough it’s been for Pelosi to round up votes for the massive bill, Lynch - a South Boston Democrat who supported a House reform package last year - said he’ll probably vote against a key Senate version of the legislation, unless unexpected major changes are made soon.

Lynch, who serves as one of Pelosi’s key vote counters, said he also can’t support a proposed “deem and pass” procedure that would allow Democrats to vote to strip out controversial portions of the Senate bill and then “deem” that the entire package has passed without a second, direct vote.

“It’s disingenuous,” said Lynch, who considers unfair a Senate provision to tack a surcharge on higher-end health plans. “It would really call into question the credibility of the House.”

I think Pelosi will wind up not using the Demon Pass maneuver at all. It's generating too much bad press. So I'm not sure if Lynch will really vote "No" at the end of the day. He has substantive criticisms too (Cadillac tax), but his focus seems to be on the procedural issue. And I don't think that will wind up being an issue.

Thanks to Shooter McGavin.

Firmer Than That? DrewM notes that Lynch's concerns over the Cadillac tax are more serious than I suggested.

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) is a firm "no" on health care reform — in large measure because he opposes the idea of any kind of excise tax on Cadillac plans, even one that's delayed for years and years.

Nomentum: Michael Arcuri (D-NY) Flips from Yes to No

—Ace

Gabe mentioned him earlier as a possible flip under the heading "It's an Election Year."

Indeed, it is:

Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY), a sophomore Dem who had a tougher-than-expected re-election bid in ‘08, has told the Dem caucus he will vote against the bill.

He's actually on the rules committee, and while his change of vote won't stop the bill from proceeding to the floor (Democrats stacked the committee with a 9-4 majority), it is interesting that a Democrat on that committee is voting Nay.

Concern Trolling: I am worrying that in-jeopardy Democrats are being set loose to vote no as each safe liberal in an overwhelmingly blue state is flipped from No to Yes. (Remember, a handful of liberals voted "No" initially, like Dennis Kucinich, because the bill wasn't socialistic enough.)

This is perhaps engineered, as Granny Rictus McBotoxImplants collects Get Out Of Voting Free cards and distributes them among her favorites.

Bret Baier Catches Obama In a Lie

—Ace

Charles Krauthammer noted this yesterday. This is the first time anyone in the press has challenged Obama on his dishonest claim that the cuts to Medicare can simultaneously be used to "strengthen" Medicare and also expand coverage to 30 million new people.

Paul Ryan mentioned this during the summit, but Obama ignored the question.

Here's Obama's answer, for the first time. The exchange begins around 2:14 and ends at 5:15.

Obama claims a couple of things here. First, he claims that "nobody's claiming" that this fixes the 38 trillion unfunded liability gap. But that's not true at all -- he's claiming that, for one. He continuously says that Medicare is going bankrupt without his supposed reform, but with his reform, it apparently won't.

Under pointed questioning, he walks his grand claims back to the is that his reform "doesn't weaken Medicare." Well! That's a lot different than claims the reform "strengthens the finances of Medicare," isn't it?

He also changes the terms of argument by stating that some of his "Medicare savings" will be used to pay off current seniors by closing the donut hole in drug coverage. But that deliberately misses the point, as that too constitutes new spending, and if we're plowing these alleged savings into new spending and new entitlements, it also can't be used to firm up future finances of current obligations. He is claiming that if he spends some of his "savings" on current seniors -- but new spending for current seniors -- this somehow "counts" as fixing Medicare long-term.

Of course it doesn't. Of course it doesn't. But he continues lying about this, claiming his that his "reform" addresses the long-term problem. It doesn't. It takes a big chunk of money and reassigns it to other spending -- most of it is taken from seniors to be spent on other groups -- and spends not a dollar to actually fix the financing for Medicare.

And little wonder is spin is so transparently dishonest: This is the first time he's ever been asked about it in an interview. His buddies in Big Media haven't given him any practice at answering the question because they've been too busy repeating his lies.

CBO Numbers: Smoke And Mirrors

—DrewM.

I'm not going to pretend to be a budget wonk but aside from the fact that the CBO projections are based on the 'facts' provided to them by Democratic leadership, the Director of the CBO says this isn't a real estimate (pdf)

Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections.

In other words, they don't really know yet since the bill hasn't been provided in it's final form.

Consider this little factoid from Eric Cantor's office.

Even after Dems cut $500 B in Medicare & raises taxes, their claims of deficit reduction over 10yrs won’t erase 1 month of 2010 deficit.

So even if there magical assumptions all come true (and they won't), the net reduction in the deficit is essentially zero. We're going to rework the entire health care system and if everything goes right, we won't even eliminate one month of deficits?

And just how gimmicky is this budgeting?

CBO: HC bills would cost $17 billion in first 4 years, $923 billion in remaining 6 years!

Does anyone have any faith in the numbers from the CBO for next year, let alone 5-10 years from now when the costs explode?

This is insanity.

The question is, will enough Democrats who claim to worry about the deficits drink this Kool-Aid and consider this a sufficient fig leaf to go over the cliff with Nancy? I fear the answer is yes.

CBO Health Care Numbers Are In And Democrats Are Pleased
Bumped and Updated

—DrewM.

Well, when you get something that you made to order, you should be happy about what you get.

The full numbers aren't out yet but Democrat leaders in the House are talking them up, no doubt to put pressure on the 'moderate' types.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) just released the first set of Congressional Budget Office numbers to reporters this morning.

The bill would cost $940 billion, and reduce the deficit by $130 billion over the first 10 years and $1.2 trillion in the second 10 years. The deficit numbers Democrats have been most worried about, and will be key to convincing moderates to coming on board with the bill.

Not so fast? [Slublog] - Rep. Paul Ryan's office just issued the following statement (pdf link):

"The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that there is currently no official cost estimate. Yet House Democrats are touting to the press – and spinning for partisan gain – numbers that have not been released and are impossible to confirm. Rep. James Clyburn stated he was “giddy” about these unsubstantiated numbers. This is the latest outrageous exploitation by the Majority – in this case abusing the confidentiality of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office – to pass their massive health care overhaul at any cost."

Chaos reigns.

I highly recommend this post by economist Greg Mankiw on why claims of deficit neutrality in the healthcare bill are unconvincing.

Whiplash- The CBO report is out. Ed at Hot Air has the details.

AOSHQ On Dealing With Stress

—LauraW.

Good Day to you, Morons, Moronettes, and all you drooling lovable pudding-eaters with your sneakers on the wrong feet.

As you all know, here at the 'Q, we usually depend on Val-U-Rite 'irregular' vodka and hobo-killin' to take care of any stress issues that may arise in the course of our daily meanderings.

However, sometimes the life's blood of a drifter slithering through our fingers in big wet chunky gobbets just isn't enough to calm us or take our worry away.

Let's be realistic; life has gotten difficult for many, many American working men and women. I'm sure there's plenty of tales of woe right here on this very blog. I have a couple of friends who are very, very, very tense right now. One of them is a working mom whose office staff has been pared back to the point where she feels that the world is resting on her shoulders. The other is the backbone of her family, who recently lost her (not-great paying) job and is trying to struggle along on some pretty paltry unemployment dough.

These are tense times. This post is dedicated to all you worried people, and to my friends Tammy and Lisa.

Most of us are probably familiar with these mental exercises that help affirm us and provide a healthy outlook.

I have a relaxing and enjoyable stress-reduction exercise for you under the break, here. Please consider it a gift from the Ace of Spades family, to yours.

Continue reading

Hitler's Pollster: Hayworth Catching Up To McCain

—DrewM.

Check you six Mav!

Longtime incumbent John McCain now leads conservative challenger J.D. Hayworth by just seven points in Arizona’s hotly contested Republican Senate Primary race.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely Arizona GOP Primary voters shows McCain ahead 48% to 41%. Three percent (3%) favor another candidate, and eight percent (8%) are undecided.

Following the announcement that Sarah Palin would campaign for his reelection, McCain opened up a 53% to 31% lead over Hayworth in January. The two men were in a near tie in November.

Everyone had been thinking Hayworth would run for awhile but he didn't officially announce his candidacy until mid-February, so you can see how quickly he's closed the earlier gap on McCain. The primary isn't until August 24th, so a lot can happen.

I have to admit, I've of two minds about this.

Hayworth isn't exactly my ideal candidate given some of his past problems and the fact that he lost his last election. I don't see someone who lost a House race as a natural choice to run statewide.

I'd love to see McCain sent packing but given how close we may be to get the House and the Senate (though it is still a long shot), I'm just not convinced that taking a safe seat and turning it into a potential toss up is a smart move strategically

On the other side, Ace lays out the case for Hayworth here.

My heart wants to see Mav kicked to the curb but my head says, suck it up. To me politics should be business, not personal. While personally satisfying, a Hayworth win could be bad for business.

Field Poll: Campbell Pulling Ahead of Fiorina, DeVore

—Gabriel Malor

A poll released today has Tom Campbell at 28 percent, Carly Fiorina at 22 percent, and Chuck DeVore at 9 percent among likely GOP voters. The remaining 40 percent or so are undecided. This echoes other recent polls showing Campbell pulling ahead of his competitors.

The poll also put the candidates up against Boxer:

In hypothetical matchups for the Nov. 2 general election, the poll found Campbell leads Boxer 44 percent to 43 percent, Boxer leads Fiorina 45 percent to 44 percent, and she leads DeVore 45 percent to 41 percent. The general election matchups have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.

Fifty-nine percent said they had no opinion of Campbell, compared to 58 percent for Fiorina and 78 percent for DeVore.

I've been pretty pessimistic about knocking Boxer out of her seat and I still think her support will come back once the general election season hits full swing. Obama will be fundraising and stumping for Boxer, while our GOP guys have visibility issues.

Later: Yeah, that's the problem with blogging while semi-conscious. Things like spelling and punctuation go bye-bye. I have corrected some loose shit in this post. Thanks.

Top Headline Comments 3-18-10

—Gabriel Malor

Good morning. This space is for commentary on the Top Headlines in the sidebar at the right.

Also, updated whip count will be out this evening, but early-morning news out of Massachusetts is that Steven Lynch was on Jim and Margery on WTKK 96.9 saying he's a "no" and that's "not likely to change." This is another unexpected turn, as nobody (including me) had him as a potential flip from "yes" to "no."

Other news out of Massachusetts show "yes" votes Dina Titus, Michael Capuano, and John Tierney all saying that they are now undecided. Once again, I had all three as "Definite Yes" votes for Pelosi based on their prior statements.

Thanks to David, Josh, and enoxo.

Whip Count 3-17-10

—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.

Continue reading

Great Moments in Somali Pirate History

—Dave In Texas

When you're out there in a couple of skiffs zipping over the waves looking for the big score, it's important to be able to recognize the difference between this, a freighter:

and this, a heavily-armed not-freighter, a Frigate in fact, the Dutch warship HNLMS Tromp:

That stick thingy on the front is a clue.

One of these could score you a big fat ransom. The other one not so much.

Troops aboard the Dutch warship HNLMS Tromp fired warning shots Wednesday off the coast of East Africa as suspected Somali pirates in two small skiffs raced toward their warship, the EU Naval Force said.

After the pirates realized they had made what spokesman Cmdr. John Harbour called a "rather silly mistake," they turned around and fled. EU Naval Force personnel tracked down the two skiffs and a third suspected mothership, finding ammunition and rocket-propelled grenades on board, said Harbour, a spokesman for the EU Naval Force.

The two skiffs were destroyed and the pirates were set free on the mothership after it had been cleared of weapons.

... huh?

I suppose there's not a lot for the pirates to worry about except for the inconvenience of losing a couple of little boats, a few RPGs and some rifles. I'll bet it's a total pain in the butt to find AK-47s and other small arms in Somalia.

Overnight Open Thread

—Maetenloch

Good evening and Happy St. Paddy's Day all

Anatomy of a Cable News Story
Language warning. And yeah this is about 75% of CNN's stories.

Continue reading

No CBO Score Wednesday Night; Saturday Vote Unlikely

—Ace

Because they have to wait a certain number of days after getting the CBO report.

So what's the hold up? I imagine they're changing the bill to cheat the score as we speak.

Al Qaeda Operative Who Supervised Attack On Afghanistan CIA Base Killed By March Madness And Drone Strike But Mostly Drone Strike

—DrewM.

Karma baby, she's a bitch.

No word yet if the modern day John Adams types at the ACLU will be suing on behalf of his estate.

Fauxmentum: Kildee a Yes

—Ace

This NYT article calls Kildee a "Stupak ally," but in fact he's not on many' people's lists of the Stupak 12.

Gabe tells me he already assumed Kildee was a Yes so this is no change from his analysis. But the media will claim he's one of Stupak's 12 -- note that deceptive way the NYT phrases it, "Stupak ally" though not a Stupak vote -- and will use this as evidence as more fauxmentum.

Thanks to both Drew and Gabe, and Gabe for "fauxmentum."

Playing Dungeons & Dragons With Porn Stars

—Ace

Dave @ Garfield Ridge sent me this a couple of weeks ago, and I found the blog... um, kind of really readable. And, see, I didn't link it, because I'm not talking about the porn star stuff. I mean the actual D&D talk.

So I didn't link it because I thought, "Is this what I'm reduced to? Do I really need to advertise the fact I just went through three months of posts? And wasn't even looking at the chicks?"

Anyway...

Go for the porn chicks. Stay for the uber-geek game theorizing.

Thanks to ChadH.

Obama On Fox

—DrewM.

Bret Baier says the interview is more "combative" and "confrontational" than his normal interview for him.

(I took the video out, the player wasn't loading)

What's the point of this for Obama? Is to reach the independents that watch Fox? To fire up the left by taking on the evil bastards at FNC?

Should be interesting.

Bit of a follow up to Ace's post on the one trillion dollar price tag, big labor is worried about the taxes on health plans. The problem is lowering them from the Senate bill's level adds to the cost of the plan and makes it harder to show savings that are required for reconciliation.

It's not a done deal yet.

Update: Yeah, I'd say contentious is a good description.

Howie Kurtz defends Baier's interruptions, at least until that point.

Obama says everyone knows what's in the bill. Uh, what bill? No one has seen the bill that will be voted on (the reconciliation bill).

In summary...I think it's fair to say Bret did not have a thrill up his leg during the interview.

Last thought: I think Baier missed one big point. Obama tried to squirm out of the Doc Fix by saying he 'inherited it'. Baier should have pointed out the issue with that is that for a decade the Doc Fix has put off promised savings in Medicare. Why should people believe him, Nancy and Harry when they say this time hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicare savings are really going to materialize this time? That's the big issue, will the "savings", such as they are, ever actually occur or are we going to be drowned in debt? Baier never went after him on those terms.

Five Different Whip Counts, And They All Conclude "It's Close But We Can't Say Either Way"

—Ace

Allah runs down the counts, including one by our very own Gabe. It's close, and we don't know.

Here's a fresh one from Michael Barone, stating it's close, and we don't know.

The GOP health care count: 209 no, 204 yes, 18 undecided By: Byron York

Chief Political Correspondent

03/17/10 4:31 PM EDT

...

Of the 18 Democrats who are undecided, Republicans will have to win seven votes to prevail, provided Republicans do in fact have 209 votes now. The Democratic leadership would have to win over 12 undecideds, if in fact Democrats are at 204 now.

"If you're trying to win a vote like this, you never want to be in the situation where you have to get virtually everybody who's still left in the pool," says the source. "That's difficult. They have to get two-thirds, and that's a lot."

Over at Critical Condition, a somewhat more optimistic and more conclusory count:

With March Madness fast approaching, it's best not to have Obamacare going very far in your bracket. According to The Hill's projections about which way Democratic members are leaning — and assuming that non-leaning Democrats would vote the same way as last time — Obamacare would currently lose by a tally of 207 (yeas) to 224 (nays). (And that's even assuming that Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) will announce later this morning that, since the president was nice enough to ask him for his vote and to give him a ride in Air Force One, he'll support the bill.) Andy Wickersham and I have outlined the 40 key Democrats that Americans most need to contact and to whom they most need to make their voices heard. If all other Democrats vote the same way as they did before, while all Republicans vote against the bill as expected, then President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and company would need 27 of these 40 for Obamacare to be deemed the law of the land. However, according to The Hill, only 5 of these 40 are currently leaning "yes," while 12 are now leaning "no."

That outline of Democrats we need to contact is here.

I have a sinking feeling. I am afraid as most of you are that there's no such thing as a "moderate Democrat," merely a liberal Democrat who takes a few centrist positions on social issues or makes moderate noises on occasion.

I think they are calculating, as I've long worried, that they are going to lose either the independents or the liberals, so they might as well choose to go with the liberals, who both vote and donate to them.

I also think they see this as Reverse Reagan. Reagan's tax cuts permanently (?) changed what was or what was not possible in politics; liberals had to forever (?) reckon with the fact that very popular tax cuts were in place and this restricted their plans to spend our money.

If the Democrats pass this, it will be hard to get off the books -- at least until January 2012, and probably even then -- and will therefore permanently commit future generations to paying for this abortion. I mean, if it's a law on the books, and the Democrats filibuster all attempts to repeal it, even a fiscal-conservative Congress and President will, I imagine, be compelled by force of law to implement it and pay for it.

Rep. Joe Barton Says New CBO Estimate Puts Cost At Over $1 Trillion

—Ace

Just a rounding error, really, in the ObamaNation.

Whip Count 3-16-10 BUMPED: As Heard On Rush Limbaugh

—Gabriel Malor

UPDATED (3/18, 4:20EDT) Welcome Rush Fans! You can find Gabriel's most recently updated whip count here.

[DrewM.] Rush was talking about this post, so I've moved it up so newcomers can see it.

First a note on the whip count. In one sense, a public whip count is pointless. It's only as good as each congressman's publicly stated word, which we all know is worth spit. On the other hand, one way of making congressmen more accountable for their word is to share it with as many of their constituents as possible. Demanding that they publicly declare their position, like what you see going on for the past week on the left, puts pressure on them to stick to their word.

It also helps give us an idea of who to target. Folks who fail to take a public stance are, perhaps, persuadable. Obama will persuade with bribes. We can bribe with votes. One of my favorite writers wrote: "Corruption means elected officials trading votes for their own advantage; democracy means a bloc of voters doing the same thing. The electorate knows the difference." And that's exactly what we're talking about with the healthcare shenanigans going on in Congress.

Alright, and now for the whip count update.

Dan Maffei says he will be voting for the healthcare bill, so I've removed him from "Yes, but Maybe" and added him to the Dems definitely on board. Same thing for Ann Kirkpatrick. Same with Mike Doyle.

Jason Altmire announced that "deem and pass is wrong", but that doesn't mean he won't support the bill. So I'm not moving him out of the "No, But Maybe" category just yet.

On the bright side, Glenn Nye is making noises that sound like "no" via email to constituents. Unfortunately, there's no public statement and he's still waiting for a final bill before he decides. So I'm not moving him out of the "No, But Maybe" group.

Finally, Ace and some others think Dennis Kucinich is about to switch from "Not No Way" to a sure vote for the bill. I'm going to wait to put him in the "Definitely Yes" group, but I'll move him to "No, But Maybe" to reflect that he may be having second thoughts about his Sunday op-ed which blasted the Senate bill.

All told, that gives Pelosi 192 votes. She's 24 short. There are 26 "maybes" left.

Thanks to Ryan, shank, enoxo, Brian, and Shooter McGavin.

Late Edit: Gahh! I was counting as if there were still 255 Dems in the House. There aren't. There are only 253. Which means that Pelosi is two votes behind where I thought she was. Total is adjusted to match. Somebody better check my math...

Alright, the names are below the fold:

Continue reading

Yes Stays Yes...Oberstar Accepts Senate Abortion Language. Plus: Rush Talks About The HQ

—DrewM.

Not that surprising given he's a liberal and part of the Democratic hierarchy (he's chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee).

Minnesota Rep. James Oberstar, an ardent backer of the House abortion restrictions, will vote for the final package after a further review of the Senate's language, giving top Democrats a critical endorsement as they lean on their rank-and-file to back the Senate bill.

"I wanted to see the language, understand it better, have conversations with Sen. Nelson," Oberstar said Wednesday. "On balance, it does what we need to do."

Meanwhile Rush was just talking up the whip count that Gabe posted. If you are stopping by looking for that, I think this is the post Rush was referring to.

Note: I changed the headline because he says Oberstar wasn't part of his Stupak 12 and was always in his Yes count,, so no loss to the cause.

More information from Gabe about members to contact here.

John Adams Sues Government For Information On Use Of Drones In War On Terror

—DrewM.

Via John Noonan, it's not Adams himself but his modern day incarnations at the ACLU.

Seems the group filed a Freedom Of Information Act requesting just a few details about an ongoing, top-secret set of programs. Surprisingly, given the predilections of the current administration, the government didn’t want to give up that information (or just hasn’t responded fast enough for the ACLU) so they are suing in federal court.

In particular, the lawsuit asks for information on when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, the number and rate of civilian casualties and other basic information essential for assessing the wisdom and legality of using armed drones to conduct targeted killings.

"The public has a right to know whether the targeted killings being carried out in its name are consistent with international law and with the country's interests and values," said Jonathan Manes, a legal fellow with the ACLU National Security Project.

"The Obama administration should disclose basic information about the program, including its legal basis and limits, and the civilian casualty toll thus far."

Oh is that all they want to know? Well asking questions about on going military operations is simply in the finest traditions of American justice. I mean, where’s the sport in going to war if you are going to hide information from your enemy?

What possible reason is there for the release of this information other than to hurt US anti-terror efforts and give the jihadis propaganda talking points?

I understand that in a democracy people need to know what's being done by their government to make informed decisions. Thing is, everyone knows the broad outlines of the program...we fly drones in and around Pakistan and Afghanistan. When we find bad guys we blow them up. Sometimes we are wrong and civilians are killed. How much more do you need to know if you support the idea or not?

Refresh my memory, who exactly elected the 5th Columnists at the ACLU to take it upon themselves to dig up all this information and disseminate it to our enemies? Of course it’s unfair to attack the lawyers who are doing this, I mean you can’t judge a lawyer by the cases he takes or the causes he decides to serve. Or so I’ve been told.

They aren't anti-American, they are pro-terrorist.

All I could think of when I saw this story was a skit from Saturday Night Live back during the first Gulf War...

Continue reading

Surprise! Virtual Border Fence Virtually Worthless

—DrewM.

Maybe it would work better if there were only virtual illegal aliens and drug dealers crossing the border instead of real ones.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has put the brakes on SBInet, the $3 billion plan to build a virtual fence along the U.S. border with Mexico.

“Not only do we have an obligation to secure our borders, we have a responsibility to do so in the most cost-effective way possible,” Napolitano said in a statement Tuesday. “The system of sensors and cameras along the Southwest border known as SBInet has been plagued with cost overruns and missed deadlines.”

With that in mind, Napolitano is withholding funding for the program’s first deployment until a review she ordered in January is finished. And she’s taking away $50 million in stimulus funds from the Boeing-managed program. Instead, that funding will be put toward “other tested, commercially available security technology along the Southwest border.”

And supporters of amnesty (Hello Mav and Lindsey!) wondered why proponents of enforcement weren't willing to accept their promises of securing the border someday for amnesty now.

I get that securing the border isn't quite as easy as saying 'build a damn wall' (though in a lot of places, it's a good start) but there should be absolutely zero talk of amnesty, comprehensive reform, bringing people out of the shadows, whatever you want to call it until we get a handle on the existing problem. Once we do that, then we can talk about the rest of the problem.

I have no voice in the house, and none of the other representatives are interested in listening

—Purple Avenger

See, its like this - Robert Wexler resigned his seat some time ago leaving this district I live in unrepresented in the house until a special election is held. A small token office staff remains to field phone calls and letters, and give out what information they can. BUT they don't vote in the house.

Now, if I were to LIE on the house email contact web forms and give a phony address and a zip code for another Florida district's rep, that email would go through.

If I TELL THE TRUTH, and give my actual address and zip code, they bounce me, and aren't interested in what the Wexler district phantom "non-citizens" have to say.

This really pisses me off. How can you have a vote on something so significant (be it good or bad) as this HCR monstrosity with a large part of the Florida population EXCLUDED from having a voice? Health care and how it get handled is a big deal down here with all the retirees. Wexler's district was heavy on retirees.

So Mr. President, are you all comfy with this present state of affairs where a big swath of FL has no say what so ever in these proceedings?

Kucinich: Getting His Moment In The Sun On Health Care-No To Yes

—DrewM.

History is calling, must deal with the bill as is, not as he'd like it to be.

He's been banging on this plan, saying, as recently as Sunday, it's a giveaway to the insurance companies.

Yeah, well that was then and this is now.

He's saying his vote might be the deciding one.

Relying on a health care socialist to derail ObamaCare was not going to be a winner for us.

Obviously every vote counts and loosing one is tough but this bit of theater may be a sign that Pelosi is short and needs to create some momentum. The question is how much cover will a leading progressive like Kucinich give to other liberal no switch to yes?

Now that we don't need Kucinich, we can stop pretending he's useful in the least, though in fairness, let's give the Devil his due.

Continue reading

ObamaCare: Who Should We Be Putting Pressure On?

—Gabriel Malor

If you intended to pick up a telephone, send a fax, an email, or a letter (although a letter is probably too slow to matter), here are my suggestions for Dems leaning toward voting against the healthcare bill. They are "maybes" who have not publicly declared, but who may need a gentle nudge from their constituents.

Jason Altmire (PA-4)
332 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-2565
202-226-2274(fax)

John Boccieri (OH-16)
1516 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-3876
(has an email form on his webpage)

Allen Boyd (FL-2)
1227 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-5235
(202) 225-5615 Fax
(email form)

Travis Childers (MS-1)
1708 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-4306
(202) 225-3549 (fax)
(email form)

Lincoln Davis (TN-4)
410 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: 202.225.6831
Fax: 202.226.5172
(email form)

Bart Gordon (TN-6)
2306 Rayburn HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-4231
Fax: (202) 225-6887

Scott Murphy (NY-20)
120 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-5614
(202) 225-1168 (fax)
(email form)

Glenn Nye (VA-2)
116 Cannon HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-4215
Fax: (202) 225-4218
(email form)

I've given you their D.C. contact info. If you can't get through there, go here to look up their local offices and talk to some of the staff there.

Top Headline Comments 3-17-10

—Gabriel Malor

Another day, but this should put a little hop in your step:

Continue reading