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

Washington Examiner ^ | Mar. 17, 2010 | Byron York

[Al B.]

Bottom of the ninth folks.

[a real Sheila]

as Neal Boortz pointed out, there are no “undecideds.”
They WILL vote yes. They are just holding out for more pie.

[StAnDeliver]

"Republicans feel it is accurate, particularly in this sense: They believe that no Democratic lawmaker who is definitely planning to vote yes on the bill would want the activists on the left, in this case exemplified by Firedoglake, to believe he or she is still undecided. Why take a beating for nothing?"

Brinksmanship is a beautiful thing, especially when people do the right thing out of character, out of character...

[longtermmemmory]

we meed TEN (10) declared no’s

I suspect some of the fence sitters are going to be the excused to vote no.

[PhiKapMom]

If I am going to believe anyone, it is Bryon York — he seems to always have a sense of what is happening through his contacts.

Washington Examiner is by far the best place for news that I know of in the DC area.

[JPG]

To expand on that a bit...holding a one run lead on the home team, bottom of the ninth, bases loaded.....and here’s the 3-2 pitch.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Undecided just means that they are holding out for the best deal.

[ncalburt]

i think its only 7 .

[jakerobins]

With all the knee capping and spines removed by Nancy Pelosi and Obama Congress is going to need top notch health care...

[dblshot]

To expand on that a bit...holding a one run lead on the home team, bottom of the ninth, bases loaded.....and here’s the 3-2 pitch.
American or National League strikezone?

[dalebert]

they will get it..all congressmen have a price...

[throwback]

7 votes. Biblical number. It would be nice to see the “Cool One” handed his head, but the country is pretty decrepit.

[TxAg1981]

After some thinking...a dangerous thing...
Piglosi is telling the deemocrats that, as dangerous as it is to vote for this turd, it is fatal to vote against it.
For this to fail means that they cannot govern, even with large majorities.
So, to the avg deemocrat, voting against it is certain retirement. Voting for it means possible retirement.
Unless the fence sitters know with CERTAINTY that they will be removed from office, they will "roll the dice and takes they chances".

[Recovering_Democrat]

The Republicans ought to offer some refuge for Demon-rats who do the right thing. Seriously. The CIA knows sometimes you have to deal with unscrupulous characters to get things done...no different here.

I don’t say we embrace them or anything like that—but offer something.

Plus, the ‘rats ought to know: they’re doing something to protect liberty.

[freekitty]

What pie. There is no pie. Obama and Co are lying to them and they know it.

[Recovering_Democrat]

What if the press began running “pelosi has the votes” stories...forcing the nazi to think she has it...then the vote happens...and it fails. :)

one can dream, right?

[BruceS]

Nazi Pelosi is defining the strike zone. We are in trouble.

[MrB]

She will NOT hold the vote if she’ll lose.

And the speaker of the house will know if she has the votes.

[Aria]

At this point I’m hoping that the SCOTUS destroys this bill.

[henkster]

I agree, and even if it means the GOP does not provide support to a GOP candidate in November against one of them that votes no, then so be it. The “representation” could be a statement like “We know that with our resources spread so thin, we cannot target every race. We would naturally consider voting record on highly visible legislation to be a top campaign issue, and those incumbents who don’t offer us this angle, we will probably have to pass on contesting their seats. On the other hand....”