Skip to comments.They Still Donít Have the Votes
Posted on 03/20/2010 1:02:50 PM PDT by Uncledave
They Still Dont Have the Votes [Jeffrey H. Anderson]
The most likely explanation for the breakdown of talks between Rep. Bart Stupak and Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not that Pelosi decided she didnt need Stupak and his crew in order to have enough votes to pass Obamacare. Rather, it is that Stupak who is increasingly emerging as this dramas Jefferson Smith (Jimmy Stewarts heroic character in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington) held firm in insisting on language that would truly prevent taxpayer-funded abortions, and in insisting that such language be passed by the Senate before the bill could become law.
In turn, Pelosi either decided that by accepting the language, she would lose more votes in the House than she would gain, or else knew that Democratic senators, with their strong preference for taxpayer-funded abortion, would never go along with this concession to the views of the vast majority of Americans.
In any event, by all accounts, Pelosi is now trying to pass the bill without the pro-life Democratic vote or at least without Stupak. As of now, it doesnt appear that she has the votes. I currently count 208 leaning in favor of Obamacare and 214 leaning against, with 9 undecided. Here they are with the margin by which the presidential vote was won (by one party or the other) in their districts over the last three elections:
Marion Berry (D., Ark.) (GOP +8) pro-Stupak Amendment
Henry Cuellar (D., Tex.) (Dem +1) pro-Stupak Amendment
Bill Foster (D., Ill.) (GOP +4)
Jim Matheson (D., Utah) (GOP +30) with nearly two-thirds of his constituents having supported GOP presidential candidates over the last three elections, a yes vote on Stupak, and an earlier no vote on Obamacare, a yes vote would mean that, for the rest of his days, he would be remembered as the guy who sold his vote for the price of Obamas having just nominated his brother to a federal judgeship
Michael Michaud (D., Me.) (Dem +7) pro-Stupak Amendment
Solomon Ortiz (D., Tex.) (GOP +1) pro-Stupak Amendment
Earl Pomeroy (D., N.D.) (GOP +21) pro-Stupak Amendment yes, thats GOP +21
Nick Rahall (D., W.V.) (GOP +6) pro-Stupak Amendment
Zach Space (D., Ohio) (GOP +12) pro-Stupak Amendment
Also, here is a partial list of some particularly key members who are leaning no:
Christopher Carney (D., Pa.) (GOP +15) pro-Stupak Amendment
Dan Lipinski (D., Ill.) (Dem +22) pro-Stupak Amendment
Kathleen Dahlkemper (D., Pa.) (GOP +3) pro-Stupak Amendment
Glenn Nye (D., Va.) (GOP +9) no last time
So why is the MSM (including Fox) acting as though it’s in the bag?
So you and I and others will give up and shut up.
..they are behind the curve...lost in the dust....
THEY STILL DON'T HAVE THE VOTES!!
turn off the TV
What is “O” doing on TV? WHY do we have to listen to this drivel?
This must be why they closed the building... Heard earlier that Cavuto mentioned “something was going down at 17:00”
Don’t count on Berry.
Because the “process” is starting to smell like Gore has already won Florida, who cares what happens in the Panhandle where they’re still voting?
I got a gut feeling watching the pep rally they are having as we speak that they may not have the votes. It’s like they decided to have the honors ceremony now because they won’t be able to tomorrow. We must pray.
Zach Space (D., Ohio) (GOP +12) pro-Stupak Amendment
I had read yesterday here that he was voting NO, has that been confirmed
Amen! Excellent advise.
We must act.
Obama can not shut up.
"Let us hide and let (Gov.) Palin and the Tea Party
fight alone for the American people
as we (RINOs) scheme to screw them all mercilessly once again."
The irony here is that we’re all expecting Democrats to do something remotely conservative when conservatives are about as rare as ivory billed woodpeckers in the Democratic party. We’re pretty sure they exist, but we sure don’t see them much.
Unfortunately, the leftist moonbats within the Democratic party no longer need their more conservative counterparts. And thats bad news. Particularly for conservatives. You see, the more conservative side of the Democratic party used to be able to keep the moonbats in check. Not any more.
Let me suggest something really radical here: conservatives should join the Democratic party and challenge the leftist moonbats in the primaries. Bring the fight to where the moonbats are.
Remember that most seats in legislatures and the House of Representatives change hands as the result of primary elections not general elections; gerrymandering has done a pretty job of making most seats safe for one party or the other.
Bela Pelosi is never going to lose her seat to a Republican. It just aint gonna happen. And if a Republican runs against her, she simply ignores the challenge, secure in the knowldege that in her district, there is little chance that a Republican will win.
The same cannot be said of a Democratic challenger. She would be forced to run something of an election challenge, depending on how formidable the challenge was. And here is the key point: its not so important that the conservative Democrat challenger win, its important that they run a just credible enough challenge to force her to spend significant resources to fight the challenge.
The Libertarians do a great job of running a reasonably credible campaign on a shoestring. And thats all you really need to do: spend a little and make Nancy (or the leftist nutjob of choice) and their supporters spend lots more of *their* money. Just for example purposes, the cost of running a credible campaign for the House of Delegates here in VA is about $100K. It goes up exponentially for Congress. Make the moonbats spend the money to keep their safe seats.
What do you think it is? Is he going to let all the fishermen know he is going to make it illegal?
Great tag line.
Although they are far better than the alternative, I think FOX is just a lighter version of “Repeaters” rather than reporters, selling rumors and speculation.
I don’t know how many times I’ve heard Shep Smith refer to this as “Insurance Reform”, thus buying the Dem party line talking point
He’s as tedious as he is arrogant.
You may be right. They have to get in front of the people and ‘splain why this Healthcare Bill was so wonderful... and how they are all so wonderful for “fighting” for us. Praising of all the crooks... rah...rah...rah!
“So why is the MSM (including Fox) acting as though its in the bag?”
It’s disinformation. Can’t have the proles gettin all uppity now. As to the “why?”: just follow the money.
> “turn off the TV” <
I did as soon as that Maxist Kenyan’s face appeared on Capitol Hill.
We haven’t lost yet, but we haven’t won either. Everyone stay alert and involved. Please.
When Kusinich folded Sheppy described it as “good news.”
Somebody needs to yell “YOU LIE!” in the chamber right about now...
Sorry... make that “Marxist.”
Michael Moore is unhappy with Bart Stupak.
I still beleive there will be some surprise “no” votes.
And Matheson looks like s strong possibility.
Update 3-20, 2:35 PM: The list below is of the thirteen remaining truly undecided members. Pelosi needs all thirteen to win. There have been others that still say they are undecided but have really given strong indications of how they will vote, and almost all of those are the leaning yes types. So Pelosi could still lose one or two that we dont expect. Of these true undecided, though, the first five voted no last time, and this would be a flip. I feel very confident about Nye, who has consistently made signals that sound like no, and he is in a very tough re-election fight. Ive also been counting Space, who told Democratic leaders yesterday that he was strongly leaning towards a no. Berry, Carney and Kanjorski are pro-life. Though they arent in Stupaks group, its still a factor for them. Kanjorski would also lose jobs in his district from a Sallie Mae processing center which would be negatively affected by the student loan provisions in this bill. Baird and Tanner are retiring, and they clearly dont want to vote yes, but I expect that they will if Pelosi needs them.
Keep praying that America prevails in this fight!
“I still beleive there will be some surprise no votes.”
I thought this as well, perhap ssying “yes” to avoid the Chicago thugs.
I’ve had 57 faxes in the que since 11:40 this morning. None have gone through since then. So frustrating, errrr.
There are probably at least 50 spineless cowards who STILL have not really decided, who are just praying the deal is done before they have to vote, so they can jump on the winning side when no courage is needed.
It’s a good thing i don’t have a supply of bricks in the house. If I did I would lose a tv every time that lying sack of s—t is on.
I admire him for that, in part, because my pro-life views are not as strong as his I feel. Shames me in a way, a good way. I will re-evaluate my beliefs in this matter.
Funny...we keep hearing how Pelosi is talking to this one or that one. And Boehner's not talking to anybody?
Don't think so!!
I still beleive there will be some surprise no votes.
I thought this as well, perhap ssying yes to avoid the Chicago thugs.
Then they could hunker down and avoid the wrath of Pelosi until Beohner becomes the new Speaker after the election.
I think that’s actually a pretty good idea.
Libs always run as Conservatives, It would be funny to see Conservatives run as a Lib and spread havoc within the party once elected.
And likely the Conservative base would get the Wink< because libs pay no attention, they only vote for the most PC popular one with the little “d” after the name.
I’m liking that strategery!
For the last few days, Boehner’s demeanor has impressed me as having something up his sleave.
Cause they're Deemocrats, and their commie slimeball media sycophants trust their commie slimeball overlords to pull some shenanigan and get it done.
For what it’s worth, if they had the votes Obama would be out playing golf. Instead he is preaching to the choir.
Contact Congressman Pomeroy, ND. You will find him hiding under his desk.
He's not hysterically running after votes. He was very circumspect on Hannity.
Despite the media circus and the "triumphalism" on TV at these Dem meetings, they are short and they don't know what Boehner's doing.