Posted on 03/20/2010 1:02:50 PM PDT by Uncledave
They Still Don’t 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 didn’t 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 drama’s Jefferson Smith (Jimmy Stewart’s 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 doesn’t 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 Obama’s 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, that’s 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
Get drunk.
The noes are seeing what the lefties have been putting Stupak and his family through. They’re wise to lay low and let Nazi stew in it.
True...better to stay "undecided" even when you're committed to noting NO.
“Something makes me think you’d have to be pretty clever to pull this off. I don’t think the RATS at the precinct and LD meetings could get past the clothespin on my (or anyone trying this) nose! :):)”
Not really. Honesty is usually the best tack. You’re conservative politically, but are a Democrat. Keep in mind that the ultimate objective is to see conservatism win. Whether it has an R, D, L, P or Q after it is really not all that important in the grand schema.
I look at it this way. Someday, there will be a deciding vote cast that will end the legalized practice of infanticide. I couldn’t care less whether that deciding vote is cast by a staunchly conservative Christian, or a slightly conservative wiccan with an odd crystal fetish. I care that infanticide ends.
“For the past 72 hours, FOX has been Pelosi’s handmaiden - or worse.”
Surprise, surprise. Do you *really* think that Fox is all that conservative? It’s a marketing ploy. A very successful one, but a ploy nonetheless.
You want conservative news, you need to go on the internet and be ready to wade through a lot of chaff.
This wouldn’t be happening if they had the votes, keep praying.
All Night Long [Robert Costa]
Senior Dem staffer says abortion/executive order deliberations will take place tonight at the White House.
Stupak won’t be there... Dem staffer says “this still isn’t nailed do
Sounds like he's already decided against this charade.
“Tell that to Scott Brown.”
I would. That was a different situation. The U.S. Senate runs on a statewide basis, the U.S. on a district by district. Massachusetts, while very liberal, is more centrist than it’s more liberal House districts. Those districts are carefully gerrymandered into what are really political ghettoes.
The only way Nasty Nancy is going to be thrown out by a Republican in her district is if she’s caught in bed with a dead girl. And come to think of it, I wouldn’t be surprised if her constituents would find that desirable.
You mean after the voting has started? I don’t think she can. But some other shenanigans, absolutely! They’ve done it before.
Rejected, yeah, but only because so much has been said about it. It’s been exposed. Too many people would be aware of what they did so the down side was too much to handle. But that’s the only reason. I don’t think it was a rejection of presidential fiat or it wouldn’t have had that much life in it for a full week.
I think their big fear and strongest motivating factor is the possibility of the entire vote being overturned by the SCOTUS for being unconstitutionally presented to zero for signature.
That is...if it’s really dead. One can never trust what they say.
1. You’re living in a dream world if you think the SEIU/ACORN/Moveon crowd won’t smell out closet conservatives at the primary level and make them unelectable.
A: I don’t advocate lying. People can smell it and it’s the wrong thing to do in any case. Honesty is the best remedy; you’re a conservative, but a Democrat. There is no ideological litmus test within the Democratic party. And even so, the idea here is to force the response. Winning the election is just gravy.
2. Once elected, they will be mardinalized by the ever-more liberal remaining Democrats.
A: Quite possibly they will. But you’d be surprised how pragmatic Democrats can be when they have to.
3. Trying to infiltrate the Democratic party dilutes the efforts to reclaim the Republican Party. If there is any direction to go outside the Republican Party, it probably ought to be in the direction of the TEA Party/New TRULY CONSERVATIVE Third Party.
A: Not really. The GOP has already read the tea leaves. It’ll move to the right in order to win, then do what it always does: screw over conservatives at the first opportunity. Conservatives need to be less of a captive audience. Much as I would like to see a conservative 3rd party, I don’t think it’s in the cards.
As the next election will likely be a rout, conservatives should have enough resources to spare.
4. Pelosi’s seat aside, as a general rule, when Republicans run as centrists, they lose; when Dems run as moderates/right of general Dem politics, they win. When Republicans run to the right, they have tended to win. If you have conservatives get them into the business of reclaiming the Republican Party.
A: Conservatives have claimed and reclaimed the GOP. They’ll reclaim it again this year. And sooner rather than later, they’ll be thrown under the bus. Again. Conservatives are truly the battered wives of American politics.
As to specific districts, you need to look at the district in question; many seats are not challenged by the opposing party because the district has been so carefully gerrymandered as to insure that the opposing party doesn’t have a chance.
I think the situation with the news is that, first of all, they’ve never been good at handling fluid situations. Second, the rat vote comes mostly from the rats, and the rats are taking full advantage of the media spotlight on their every word. The pubs don’t really have a lot to say except providing their ongoing observations, revelations and critique of the bill. Third, everyone’s waiting for this to resolve and there’s not much to report so the news stations, including Fox, are reporting every tidbit the rats throw at them. What we’re really experiencing is more like a void or absence of substantive news while we wait.
The rats are the main media focus right now and really aren’t using the situation to their best advantage when you really think about what they could be doing - selling their bill to the public. zero’s approval is down to 43% and he’s overexposed. Nazi comes off like a prissy little zombie, and Reid is nowhere to be found. Hoyer’s been keeping a real low profile, so they all seem to be hunkered down and not communicating with the media that much even though the media is hanging on any and every word they can dig up.
So I wouldn’t be ina hurry to blame Fox.
“The promises you’d have to make to stay in the party’s good graces would gag a maggot.”
Who cares about being within Nasty Nancy’s good graces?
Keep in mind that you’re trying to force a response. Winning the election is a welcome but probably unexpected end result.
Hmmm...Stupak won’t be there?
Sounds like he’s already decided against this charade
Since Stupak won’t be part of the deliberations, I feel secure in my belief that this is an attempt to peel votes off Stupak, not to actually make a deal with him. One thing that isn’t being discussed elsewhere is whether members of the Stupak group want there to be a deal. I think that Stupak genuinely wanted to get his amendment passed and vote yes for Obamacare, but seven of the nine other members of his group represent districts where a NO vote (for any reason) would be popular and politically expedient. Supporting Stupak was a great way to keep the pressure off
That's encouraging.
However, I read that Stupak said that some of these members had already defected to the dark side.
It would be nice if I read wrong.
One more thing to remember about the Stupak group: of the ten that I have left in the group, only Lipinski and Kaptur are in solidly Democratic districts. Stupak, Berry, Mollohan, Donnelly, Dahlkemper, and Rahall all represent districts that lean Republican, and Driehaus’ and Costello’s districts lean Dem by 3 points or less. That means that, except for Lipinski and Kaptur, it’s in their political best interest to vote against Obamacare regardless of its disposition of the abortion issu
So they can claim that some Dems were bought off by Insurance companies to vote "No!", when in fact they did so because of constituents.
Its the old, " WHE SHOULD HAVE WON BUT FOR THE DIRTY CRIMINAL CONSERBATIVES!" when in fact the Dems have been the thugs and criminals in this. We have been seeing it since 2000 and the Florida chad issue.
BTW, they are no longer "Dems". They are effing nationalist socialists , yes, FASCISTS!One look at the IRS provisions in this bill would lead any historian to that conclusion.
My cousin who is in Ike Skelton’s district is now telling me that on the Lebanon Daily Record blog that he’s now a no. She told me that he changes with the wind, really old fart who is absolutely hiding from his constituents, but used be the man about town, willing to talk to anyone about anything. Now, he’s tried to go with the national party, but his constituents are really pissed.
I’d rather not spin my wheels. I’ll work where my efforts can do some real good - the Republican party, particularly at primary level.
This November is going to be a BLOWOUT. I am putting my efforts into getting good CONSERVATIVES nominated. Not going to happen in the Dem. primaries.
Don’t go wobbly on us now, FReepers, reap the victory!
“It’d be delicious to watch the look on Nancy’s face as she realizes she’s being stiffed. “
Like a blindside on “Survivor.”
I sure hope we do see that tomorrow.
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.