They Still Don’t Have the Votes

NRO ^ | 3/20/2010 | Jeffrey Anderson

[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

[Persevero]

Your “conservative democrats” will do their whip’s bidding.

Your “liberal republicans” will do their whip’s bidding.

As we can see the Republicans are standing rock solid on this, to a man.

I am glad we have every one of them.

[proudCArepublican]

If they have the votes and this passes I want a tax refund for the extra taxes I am paying in Alameda County CA
In the mid term elections several years back they raised the sales tax 1/2% than the gov raised it again because we are in debt up to our eyeballs we pay in my Country 9.75% sales tax the 1/2% increase was to give everyone in Alameda county health care that does not have it I want my money back if this things passes I feel like I will be double, triple and more taxed.

[chilltherats]

Stupak should vote no knowing that he’s doing the right thing concerning the abortion funding issue and, setting that aside, he’s doing his constituents and all America a favor because it’s a lousy bill, it’s a fraud, something much better can be done and he can author it if he likes, and the American public are AGAINST it by about 2 to 1.

[chilltherats]

They just chew those newer House members up and spit them out. The rat leadership abuses them and then throws them away like used condoms.

[chilltherats]

I doubt that SEIU/ACORN and MOVEON could sniff out a fraud, but some others with more education might.

Still, I think it could be done. I’m pretty sure I could pull it off, as could other people I know.

[RKBA Democrat]

“They just chew those newer House members up and spit them out.”

Oh sure they do. But I fear you miss a couple of points.

First, the party leadership has only so much control over it’s members. Members are elected by their district and can pretty much tell the leadership to take a long walk off a short pier if they wish to. This is especially true in a case where the member isn’t looking to be re-elected. In a moonbat district, a strong conservative is going to have a real fight to be re-elected anyway, if by some miracle they can get elected in the first place. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. You get elected, you spend a couple of years moving the football in the right direction, and then you go home. All the while forcing the moonbats to spend their resources to defeat you.

But the bigger point here is that we don’t need to necessarily “win” the election in order to win the election. We’re thinking a little too linearly here. One measure of our success should be the amount of resources we force the socialists to spend to defeat us.

Let’s take Nasty Nancy as an example. Democrats have held her seat since the late 1940’s, and Republicans have not made a serious bid for the seat since the 1960s. She won the seat in 1988. Besides allowing her to be re-elected at essentially no cost, the fact that she has no significant opposition from within or outside the Democratic party allows her to generate huge amounts for others. She does not need the campaign funds for her own district. And guess what: being able to give out money to other candidates is one way she maintains power.

[chilltherats]

Beccera from CA was on C-Span a few minutes ago and let the cat out of the bag. He said that at the end of the day he thinks they’ll win. He was real keen on making a big deal out of stating they would win. So, they haven’t won yet and they don’t have the votes - just expect/hope to by the end of the day.

Also, rules have changed - they will vote on the senate bill first.