Posted on 11/07/2009 2:08:39 PM PST by St. Louis Conservative
From Cantor's office:
Below is a list of 31 Democrats, from coast-to-coast & north to south, who have listened to their constituents and joined Republicans in a bipartisan fashion to oppose Speaker Pelosi’s trillion dollar plus overhaul of the nation’s health care system (Updated is bold):
1. Rep. John Adler (NJ)
2. Rep. Brian Baird (WA)
3. Rep. John Barrow (GA)
4. Rep. Dan Boren (OK)
5. Rep. Rick Boucher (VA)
6. Rep. Allen Boyd (FL)
7. Rep. Bobby Bright (AL)
8. Rep. Travis Childers (MS)
9. Rep. Artur Davis (AL)
10. Rep. Chet Edwards (TX)
11. Rep. Bart Gordon (TN)
12. Rep. Parker Griffith (AL)
13. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD)
14. Rep. Tim Holden (PA)
15. Rep. Larry Kissell (NC)
16. Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (FL)
17. Rep. Frank Kratovil (MD)
18. Rep. Daniel Lipinski (IL)
19. Rep. Jim Marshall (GA)
20. Rep. Eric Massa (NY)
21. Rep. Jim Matheson(UT)
22. Rep. Mike McIntyre (NC)
23. Rep. Michael McMahon (NY)
24. Rep. Charlie Melancon (LA)
25. Rep. Walt Minnick (ID)
26. Rep. Glenn Nye (VA)
27. Rep. Collin Peterson (MN)
28. Rep. Ike Skelton (MO)
29. Rep. John Tanner (TN)
30. Rep. Gene Taylor (MS)
31. Rep. Harry Teague (NM)
The blue dogs will let it pass by one vote.
Wonder how many of the listed are voting no because they already know it will pass. Gives them cover doesn’t it? Just a thought.
This is all for theater. They are releasing the most vulnerable Democrats to vote “no”. There will be enough left-over for passage. Even Pelosi would not be stupid enough to permit a vote without having the votes in the bag.
YEP....Brian Baird is running in Washington....probably running scared!
You are absolutely correct...they’re just now drawing straws as to who has to throw themselves under the Pelosi bus and who gets to pretend they were against this bill...
The Dems will want a bigger margin than that. A tiny majority will harm them politically, much more than a big margin would.
Owens of New York, right?
And Hoffman conceded without fighting.
1) 18,000 absentee ballots were not going to be counted on election night. (How many people voted altogether and were registered?)
2) At least 4 areas/municipalities were not going to post figures until the next day (How many votes do they represent?)
3) Voting machines ‘broke down’ in several cities/voting stations
4) D Scozzafava’s husband is a regional guy in SEIU
5) Reports had ACORN, SEIU, etc. rolling into NY 23 big during the week before the election.
I am slowly back peddling on my official stance this morning. I thought that Pelosi has the 218 or they wouldn’t be voting today. As the day moves on, I am not so sure and if anyone Dem strategist (Bob Beckel) thinks that what happened Tuesday has nothing to do with any vote on healthcare, they are crazy
What makes you think they may not have the votes?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus
I can’t believe Lincoln Davis (TN) is not on this list yet. If Tanner and Gordon aren’t going for it, he’d be absolutely nuts not to join them.
No, this vote will be a squeaker, the blue dogs, most of them, will claim to have fought against govt funded abortion and then they will all vote for the final bill no matter what it looks like.
Right...they’ll give cover to as many of the most threatened s they can...passes by one.
ITA.
This is a a (#*$)@# shame.
Yeah, you're right. But barely slipping a monstrosity like this bill through with the minimum of votes needed isn't too smart either.
They have the votes to pass it tonight, this is just to send it to conference. It will pass by a 40-vote margin tonight.
Blue dogs bark but they do not bite.
You are mistaken - Pelosi does not yet have the votes - Dem leadership can still pull the bill - the RATS will likely get it done, but passage is not yet assured.
Confirmed on Baird’s web site. He will vote no due to reservations about cost and potential loss of coverage for patients under private insurance plans.
But later tonight on final passage they’ll pass it pretty easily, the blue dogs will vote for it and claim they put up a good fight.
Good Old Lacy Clay votes with the communists..
It is assured I think.
Sending it into conference with 1 vote and then the Blue Dogs will be happy to vote for final passage even without the Stupak amendment.
Exactly! The no votes are political cover, nothing else. The
real fight is over who is allowed to vote no.
One would think. Or Pelosi knows this is their only chance to get it done. Remember the 72 hour pledge? Didn't see it did we. Dems know that if this gets on the net it will be henpecked. Additionally, it seems that there are many fractures within the Dem coalitions. Hispanic caucus is dependent on illegals being able to get access, blue-dogs are wary of having verbage in the bill that may allow illegals access and the list goes on and on.....
That was the first thing that entered my mind, too. The Dems are given “permission” to oppose something that might threaten their reelection chances. It’s not like they’re voting their conscience anyway.
yep.
Why don’t you post in some more threads, we get it chicken little.
ping!
Remember when Obama wouldn’t be going to Copenhagen if he wasn’t sure the Chicago Olympics was in the bag?
Geeezzz, that woman could not even speck English.
You are utterly mistaken- it will be a nail-biter and Pelosi will likely have to hold undecided votes in the back of the chamber and literrally escort the unlucky few who will have to walk the plank and be defeated next year.
How about them not voting for this thing and then when it doesn’t pass they can all throw Pelosi under the bus?
They would be heros.
Now they look like cowards and are in very serious danger of losing their jobs.
Some of the more sentient Democrats may wish to keep their jobs-!!
lol.
Don’t worry, I’m still HOPING it does not pass.
Nail biter yes, my nails look horrible now
So, if Hoffman didn’t concede, Owens wouldn’t be there today to vote for this crap? How tough will that be if it passes by one vote?
Giffords from Tucson wimped out. Show her the door next year!
Ahh Meeks who once said he wished he could slap a white man in the face to make him feel better.
You might be right - they'll let those in the tightest races opt out - so they can be re-elected.
Bart Stupak is on record (as of last week) as saying he would vote against if it included funding for abortion. Anyone know where he stands today?
I went to school with Bart Gordon and I don’t trust him. He might still change his mind again.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjY4NjNmYTI1ZGYxYmU1YWNhYmJiYTg3MzZmZTRlYTI=
RE: “EMAIL BLUE DOGS- just copy and past and send to ALL the Blue dogs at once !!!!”
*****
Already did that — only about 5 or 6 came back undeliverable. Everybody keep e-mailing. Phoning is impossible — I couldn’t get thru and tried for two hours straight.
Conyers who said he didn’t have time to read the bill and even if he did he would not understand it.
No, indeed. You guys need to read the blog Doctor Doctor over at National Review to stay current. The vote on Stupak is not assured either - if it fails, Blue Dogs will have their escape hatch. If Stupak passes, as is likely, it causes more problems for the RATS down the road.
The Dems would have made sure it passed by one vote even with Hoffman. It’s going to pass, and they are going to provide cover for as many Blue Dogs as possible. It’s not a Republic any more. Sorry Ben, we couldn’t keep it.
Were you expecting anything different?
This is how it must have felt back in 1933, when elements of the New Deal were being rammed through, with practically no debate.
Of course, a lot of that legislation was found later to be unConstitutional, by the Supreme Court, a fate this POS legislation would probably not suffer today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.