Bacchus als Kind – “panta rhei”
(Guido Reni, 1623) Ovid, Met. III, 317
Intro: G#m G#m Tell me something I must know The burning question why Half a man is twice as much When he's on the line Happiness, hard to get Valentine in hand None of them will ever guess But you understand E G#m How many men in a world of their own E G#m There is no end to the great unknown Tell me something I must know I'm outside looking in Train of mirrors none so fair Let the show begin E G#m How many men in a world of their own E G#m There is no end to the great unknown E G#m (lala) (lala) (lala) E G#m (lala) (lala) How many men in a world of their own There is no end to the great unknown (lala) (lala) (lala) (lala) (lala) Favorite album sides (cont’d.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_and_Girls_(album) SIDE 1 1.Sensation 2. Slave To Love 3. Don’t Stop The Dance 4. A Waste Land 5. Windswept SIDE 2 1. The Chosen One 2. Valentine 3. Stone Woman 4. Boys & Girls http://www.4shared.com/file/244265270/3385444f/06_-_The_Chosen_One.html http://www.4shared.com/file/244267740/b46a1dec/07_-_Valentine.html http://www.4shared.com/file/244272492/e7326556/08_-_Stone_Woman.html http://www.4shared.com/file/244273198/b99029c6/09_-_Boys_And_Girls.html
BlessedIsTruth's Blog 
March 19, 2010 at 6:05 pm |
Potential Byrd Rule Violations Would Add To Never-Ending Process of Health Care Passage
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/potential-byrd-rule-violations-would-add-to-never-ending-process-of-health-care-passage/
This is weedy, but basically the Republicans will try to knock out as much as they can just to force a House vote.
Until a sidecar with the same language passes both Houses, the Senate bill itself would be the law of the land.
Nancy Pelosi believes that their side has “scrubbed” the bill of all Byrd rule violations.
But it only takes one to ping-pong the bill back to the House.
Of course, voting against the sidecar would be spun by Democrats as affirmatively voting for the types of “special deals” Republicans have hammered throughout the past several months, like the “Cornhusker kickback” or the Florida Medicare Advantage deal.
March 19, 2010 at 6:06 pm |
Yes, but … (repost from previous thread)
Maybe I do understand the strategy of Senate Repubs.
They’re saying if you think you can run away from your vote by no recorded vote on the underlying bill …
When reconciliation bill comes to Senate we’re not going to make your life any easier by going along with your changes, EVEN IF those changes really would improve the underlying bill.
Message: You’re going to have to own up to your vote with your constituents.
God’s Will Be Done.
There are so many reasons for hoping that Pelosi cannot get to 216.
The main reason is it will fundamentally change who we are as a nation.
The thought of how brutal reconciliation will be in the Senate is just one more reason.
If only we were voting on Wyden-Bennett or Judd Gregg’s HCR.
If only.
March 19, 2010 at 6:12 pm |
Hatch Says ‘Nuts’ to Think Sunday Vote Will Resolve Health Care
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-19/hatch-says-nuts-to-think-sunday-vote-will-resolve-health-care.html
U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, said Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives are “nuts” to think that Sunday’s vote on health-care legislation will resolve the issue.
Senate Republicans have enough votes on at least two points of order to alter the measure and send it back to the House for a second round of votes, Hatch said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing this weekend.
“If those people think they’re only going to vote on this once, they’re nuts,” Hatch said as House Democratic leaders rounded up support before the scheduled March 21 vote on President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority.
Hatch warned that the approach Democrats are using to pass the legislation in the House may be unconstitutional because the House and Senate aren’t voting on “exactly the same language.”
March 19, 2010 at 6:15 pm |
Does it feel like a Saturday, or is it just me?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history
1 Date
2 Presidential Approval Index
3 Strongly Approve
4 Strongly Disapprove
5 Total Approve
6 Total Disapprove
1 3/19/2010
2 -21
3 23%
4 44%
5 45%
6 55%
March 19, 2010 at 6:34 pm |
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/on-special-deals/
Keep in mind that we’ve never had so much access to the behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing of politics that we’ve had in this debate.
Some of it has been undoubtedly ugly.
But in their quest to paralyze government, to disallow anything from happening lest politicians be blamed for “special deals,” Republicans have massively overreached.
If a politician trying to get medical care for people in Libby who were poisoned is an act of corruption and a “special deal,” then, bravo for special deals.
***
Geez Louise! This is not about Libby, Montana!
Both sides of the aisle overreach.
Honestly, the House should just vote DIRECTLY on the Senate bill, up or down,
– OR –
go to conference.
March 19, 2010 at 6:48 pm |
Freudian Slip: Double “conning” Medicare savings
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589664,00.html
Double conning Medicare savings, delaying the spending until 2014 and beyond, rating Social Security, et cetera, et cetera. … Remember, if CBO’s told to score gimmicks then they have to score gimmicks.
March 19, 2010 at 6:52 pm |
“People who are relying on the reconciliation bill in the House of Representatives …… may well be being sold a bill of goods,” Sen. Judd Gregg, RN.H., said on the floor Thursday.
March 19, 2010 at 6:55 pm |
You know, I gotta tell you, the fact alone that Senators Snowe and Collins aren’t going along with what the Dems are pulling should tell you something.
It’s just so wrong.
HCR isn’t wrong, tyrannical is the right word.
And these ladies haven’t forgotten that it was tyranny that the founders fought.
March 19, 2010 at 7:04 pm |
Funny Headline
Pelosi Prays To St. Joseph To Pass Health Care (I’ll pray to Sheriff Joe to stop the illegals)
Why St. Joseph, I wonder?
I don’t know what’s gonna happen, I don’t know what should happen, I’m not interested in winning.
I’m afraid for my country and her citizens.
I’m afraid for the world.
March 19, 2010 at 7:30 pm |
Good reporting. Biased yes, but the best.
Remind me to have a hermeneutical discussion with David Dayen.
What an interesting person, even if he is wrong half the time.
His reporting isn’t wrong.
He’s a good journalist.
Perriello A Yes On Health Care Bill
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/perriello-a-yes-on-health-care-bill/
Tom Perriello has decided to vote for the health care bill, per CNN.
I had him as a lean Yes in my whip count. So that makes it 196-208, with still 204-211 with leaners.
*** None of the true undecideds have announced today. ***
Again, if the Stupak side deal comes to pass, the whip count doesn’t matter as much, because there will be enough votes in hand to pass the bill and the only question will become who can be allowed to take a walk.
*** My suspicion is that Pelosi and her leadership team would rather handle this another way. ***
But with Stephen Lynch looking like a no and the Stupak gang expanding a bit in the final days, she may not have a choice.
UPDATE: If you want to understand what Stupak means by “enrollment corrections”, read this from David Waldman.
He seems to think that he can get the enrollment correction inserted into the Senate bill before the President’s signature.
It’s very weedy.
(Honestly, I thought Pelosi already said no.)
And don’t forget about the DeFazio complaint.
That could really screw everything up, and it’s hard to see how they can offer a firm commitment to fix the Medicare geographic disparity in the future.
“the Medicare geographic disparity” — Holy Shit!
March 19, 2010 at 7:55 pm |
I really just wanna listen to music and read books.
I wanna make love to my husband.
I wanna play with my grandchildren when they come.
I’m just like every other American.
March 19, 2010 at 8:05 pm |
March 19, 2010
http://www.4shared.com/play/10329682/efdae9dd/sharing.html
You can click on green arrow at end of each line, I mean if you choose to.
March 19, 2010 at 8:11 pm |
Favorite album sides (cont’d.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_and_Girls_(album)
SIDE 1
1.Sensation
2. Slave To Love
3. Don’t Stop The Dance
4. A Waste Land
5. Windswept
SIDE 2
1. The Chosen One
2. Valentine
3. Stone Woman
4. Boys & Girls
http://www.4shared.com/file/244257383/c17fd156/01_-_Sensation.html
http://www.4shared.com/file/244259034/5e765454/02_-_Slave_To_Love.html
http://www.4shared.com/file/244259322/ac487e79/03_-_Dont_Stop_The_Dance.html
http://www.4shared.com/file/244259383/21a0a665/04_-_A_Waste_Land.html
http://www.4shared.com/file/244260266/f4232009/05_-_Windswept.html
March 19, 2010 at 8:23 pm |
Cheaters Don’t Win!
http://www.4shared.com/file/240606494/5ccded21/06_Cheaters_Dont_Win.html
March 19, 2010 at 8:33 pm |
Sittin’ here on the bench, with my back against the fence.
http://www.4shared.com/file/242704495/dd00d7b0/Billy_Stewart_-_Sitting_In_The.html
March 19, 2010 at 8:44 pm |
What a strange conglomeration!
From my playlist.
http://www.4shared.com/file/241254140/b7ca9bc7/Daft_Punk_-_Around_The_World.html
http://www.4shared.com/file/198977981/57c9d56f/Electric_Flag__Buddy_Miles_-_T.html
http://www.4shared.com/file/169365390/7de78a2b/Fernando_Ortega_-_Let_All_Mort.html
http://www.4shared.com/file/159065822/7453a860/Jack_Jones_-__Fly_Me_To_The_Mo.html
http://www.4shared.com/file/240690964/fbf65f10/Maria_Muldaur_-_Midnight_At_Th.html
http://www.4shared.com/file/169366086/9d6c0fe8/Melanie_Safka_-_Gods_Only_Daug.html
March 19, 2010 at 8:58 pm |
If you want to sing along. Please sing with us.
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/l/e/letallmf.htm
http://www.4shared.com/file/169365390/7de78a2b/Fernando_Ortega_-_Let_All_Mort.html
March 19, 2010 at 9:03 pm |
Pray.
http://www.4shared.com/file/169365390/7de78a2b/Fernando_Ortega_-_Let_All_Mort.html
Words: Liturgy of St. James, 4th Century (Σιγησάτο παρα σὰρξ βροτεία); translated from Greek to English by Gerard Moultrie, 1864.
Music: Picardy, French carol melody; harmony from The English Hymnal, 1906, number 318 (MIDI, score).
Let all mortal flesh keep silence,
And with fear and trembling stand;
Ponder nothing earthly minded,
For with blessing in His hand,
Christ our God to earth descendeth,
Our full homage to demand.
King of kings, yet born of Mary,
As of old on earth He stood,
Lord of lords, in human vesture,
In the body and the blood;
He will give to all the faithful
His own self for heavenly food.
Rank on rank the host of heaven
Spreads its vanguard on the way,
As the Light of light descendeth
From the realms of endless day,
That the powers of hell may vanish
As the darkness clears away.
At His feet the six wingèd seraph,
Cherubim with sleepless eye,
Veil their faces to the presence,
As with ceaseless voice they cry:
Alleluia, Alleluia
Alleluia, Lord Most High!
March 19, 2010 at 9:21 pm |
test
March 19, 2010 at 9:47 pm |
A message to the wayward sons and daughters at RS.
I’m not looking for any hits, God Knows.
Please just pray.
I am thankful to all, especially those of you who are putting up posts.
We’re not so far apart.
I don’t want to intrude, but these are momentous times.
God Be With You All.
I do care about you.
If I didn’t think your prayers mattered, I wouldn’t be doing this.
No need to reply, sometimes we just have to stop and offer up a prayer.
I know some of you are already doing that.
Carry on, my wayward son!
March 19, 2010 at 10:03 pm |
What’s nice is 4shared seems to have fixed the downloads glitch.
So I know now, if what gets posted actually gets downloaded.
March 19, 2010 at 10:25 pm |
Scott Murphy To Vote Yes, Rumors Of A Fallback Stupak Deal
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/scott-murphy-to-vote-yes-rumors-of-a-fallback-stupak-deal/
So that could explain this tweet from The Hill’s Jeffrey Young:
Pro-choice female Dems are shuttling in and out of Pelosi’s office and they won’t say why.
The Speaker is probably preparing them for pulling the trigger on a Stupak deal.
Not saying it’s definitely going to happen, but that it’s in the realm of possibility.
My running count shows 201 yes, but I’m adding Rahall and Carney to the Stupak-curious bloc and making them lean no votes.
So it’s 201-209, but with leaners? 207-214.
If a Stupak deal is struck, passage looks secure, unless the Pro-Choice caucus revolts.
If not, Pelosi will have to draw an inside straight. It’s very tight right now.
March 19, 2010 at 10:30 pm |
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/03/healthcare_overhaul_gains_supp.html
But House and Senate leaders, say aides, were continuing to talk Friday about the potential of a separate future bill that would address coalition members’ concerns that Senate language doesn’t go far enough to limit access to federal funding for abortions.
The Stupak Coalition is named for Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak, whose successful amendment to the House health care bill barred recipients of federal health care vouchers from using them to purchase insurance plans that cover legal abortion procedures.
The Senate version being considered Sunday would allow recipients to purchase plans that cover abortion, but requires that the cost specific to abortion be reimbursed.
*** The separate legislation being negotiated would likely reflect the House language. ***
Members of the Stupak coalition that still look most in play as potential “yes” votes, if needed, include
Jerry Costello of Illinois,
Marcy Kaptur of Ohio,
Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania and
Kathleen Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania.
Aides say that Dan Lipinski is also still “in play.”
Unlikely to be persuaded are Stupak,
Steve Driehaus of Ohio, and
Joe Donnelly of Indiana.
March 19, 2010 at 10:33 pm |
2 House S. Baptists remain ‘no’ on bill
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPnews.asp?ID=32533
Two Southern Baptist Democrats in their first full terms in the House of Representatives have affirmed their opposition to health-care legislation scheduled for a Sunday vote.
Reps. Bobby Bright of Alabama and Travis Childers of Mississippi made clear they intend to vote against the proposal.
Both congressmen cited a failure to prohibit federal funding of abortion as one of the reasons for their opposition.
March 19, 2010 at 10:34 pm |
Catholic Doctors, More Bishops Insist: Catholic Teaching Incompatible with ObamaCare
March 19, 2010 at 10:46 pm |
Tomorrow, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI)–the most adamantly anti-abortion opponent of the Senate bill, who holds sway with several pro-life Dems–will hold a press conference to discuss reform.
March 19, 2010 at 10:49 pm |
Pelosi Secures Enough Votes for Health Care Passage…For Now (Huh!)
Fox “News”
March 19, 2010 at 10:52 pm |
Maybe Hugh Hewitt will have accurate info:
http://den-a.plr.liquidcompass.net/player/flash/audio_player.php?id=KRLAAM&uid=104
He just mentioned “fence-sitters” so …
March 19, 2010 at 11:23 pm |
David Dayen
UPDATE: If you look hard at the numbers, you can see why Pelosi is talking with Stupak and pro-choice women.
With 214 No or lean No votes (including the Stupak bloc), Pelosi would have to prevent Dahlkemper and Kaptur from joining them.
Then she would need all the other uncommitted votes, save one.
That means she would have to get everyone who voted yes last time, plus Jim Matheson or Harry Teague (and all the lean Yes votes who went No last time, like Brian Baird and John Tanner).
It’s just not that plausible.
(Holy Cow!)
March 19, 2010 at 11:25 pm |
Who knows?!
http://www.4shared.com/file/163088213/424b70f2/07_-_Cows_Of_Gladness.html
March 20, 2010 at 12:10 am |
I meant to tell you …
Arizona drops their CHIP program. California almost did this last year.
If the funding isn’t there in the states, and they refuse to raise the revenue, you’ll see more of this.
Awful.
March 20, 2010 at 12:12 am |
“they refuse to raise the revenue”
only a lefty would put it quite this way.
do you have a clue what we’re dealing with here in AZ?
March 20, 2010 at 12:17 am |
Anti-abortion Democrat Bart Stupak of Michigan is asking for a vote on his language restricting taxpayer funding for abortion, and a group of female abortion rights Democrats came out of an emergency meeting in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office Friday evening visibly angry about the prospect.
March 20, 2010 at 12:21 am |
Dr. Alveda King notes, “Abortion has done what the Klan only dreamed of.”
March 20, 2010 at 12:28 am |
I just love this video.
I was looking for something else, and happened upon it.
And BTW, ouch!
March 20, 2010 at 12:39 am |
Can you imagine what our world would be like if we welcomed every child, every conception, with open arms?
The Cherokees got it right.
Unfortunately, we didn’t acquire their knowledge.
March 20, 2010 at 1:01 am |
I do get frustrated.
When people come here for the politics, I want them to listen to my music.
And when they come here for the music, I want them to listen to my politics.
I can’t get no satisfaction.
March 20, 2010 at 1:24 am |
The Symphony No. 4 in F minor by Ralph Vaughan Williams was dedicated by the composer to Arnold Bax.
Unlike Vaughan Williams’s first three symphonies it was not given a title, the composer stating that it was to be understood as pure music, without any incidental or external inspiration.
In contrast to Vaughan Williams’s previous compositions, the symphony is characterised by a severity of tone.
The British composer William Walton admired the work greatly, speaking of it as “the greatest symphony since Beethoven”, and the score certainly contains many innovations.
Speaking about this work, Vaughan Williams said, “I don’t know whether I like it, but it’s what I meant.”
The work was first performed on April 10, 1935 by the BBC Symphony Orchestra, conducted by Adrian Boult.
The work is in four movements (the third and fourth are linked).
1.Allegro
2.Andante moderato
3.Scherzo : allegro molto
4.Finale con epilogo fugato : allegro molto
March 20, 2010 at 1:27 am |
http://www.4shared.com/file/235229202/812ea871/03_-_Symphony_No_4_in_F_minor_.html
March 20, 2010 at 7:16 am |
But that’s a very tough road. And so Pelosi is talking to Bart Stupak. Because there doesn’t look to be another option for passage. That may result in an annual standalone vote on choice in the exchange. It may result in some “tie-bar” legislation (although that is procedurally unlikely). But it’s almost certainly going to result in something.
David dayen
March 20, 2010 at 7:30 am |
Will the Senate parliamentarian insist that the bill be signed before permitting the Senate to begin its reconciliation work on the floor? He may have no say over what the House parliamentarian approves with respect to when the House passes reconciliation, but he can prevent the Senate from beginning until the Senate bill becomes “current law.” Nobody really knows if Stupak can pull this off; there’s very little precedent. If the vote occurs after the vote on the final bill, it would have to go through a very dicey reconciliation process. And as a concurrent resolution, it might have to exist as a standalone measure entirely, meaning it’s eligible for a filibuster. Now, we don’t know what assurances are being made on the Senate side to keep this in. Remember, if anything from the House reconciliation sidecar gets changed, the sidecar has to go BACK to the House for another vote. At which point we’re in exactly the same boat that we’re in right now. Democratic Senate leaders have already said they would whip to make no changes whatsoever to the sidecar. So there could end up being a “conspiracy of silence,” where nobody says anything about the abortion language (though presumably a Republican might) and it passes through the Senate without incident. Or Joe Biden overrules the chair on the point of order, and Democrats are whipped to sustain it (though Republicans have said they would not agree to that and would vote en masse against it). It’s about as clear as mud. But somehow, when something has to be done, the rules tend to melt away. It’s clear the House cannot pass the health care bill without Bart Stupak. That tends to concentrate the mind.
David dayen
March 20, 2010 at 7:51 am |
Pelosi would actually lose votes by agreeing to this unless one of two things is true. (1) It’s all for show. The pro-lifers want nothing more than a vote in the Senate. They expect to lose, but the political cover they’ll gain for making a minor stand on principle is enough to make it worth their while. Except … if it’s true that Stupak only needs 51 votes in the Senate, not 60, then this might actually pass. (If you’re wondering why they need only 51, cross your fingers and read this primer on “enrollment corrections bills.” Essentially, you’re allowed to make minor technical changes to a bill even after it’s been passed. Is this a minor technical change? Why, no. But Stupak will try anything, I guess.) (2) The pro-choicers are planning to cave. They caved in November, didn’t they? Problem is, this is the final bill and they … sure don’t sound like they’re going to cave. Diana DeGette, leader of the pro-choice caucus, claims she has the votes to kill it if Stupak gets his way, and given how close the margin is, it’d only take three or four stalwarts to walk to torpedo the whole thing. Drama! The good news here is that it surely means Madam Speaker doesn’t have the votes yet, right?
Hot air
March 20, 2010 at 8:01 am |
I know this may appear to be a longshot, but if the CBO can release their final numbers tomorrow, I honestly feel it will collapse support for the bill. We all know the price will increase exponentially when the final numbers are run!! Have faith my brethren in liberty, we will prevail!!
Comment at hot air
March 20, 2010 at 8:10 am |
Stupak, leaving the Capitol, said that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s willingness to talk to him about his idea shows Democrats “don’t have the votes, or they wouldn’t be talking to me,” he said in an interview with The Hill’s Molly Hooper.
March 20, 2010 at 8:19 am |
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/the-stupak-amendment-is-back-whats-an-enrollment-corrections-bill/
Link to David dayen
March 20, 2010 at 8:31 am |
One possibility appears to be allowing a separate vote on Stupak’s abortion measure, which would go to the Senate independent of the health care bill. If it’s an amendment to the Senate bill, and it passes, that could throw the whole complicated but carefully choreographed process of passing health care into flux. It would mean sending the health care bill back to the Senate, instead of to the White House for the president’s signature. – From CNN
March 20, 2010 at 8:41 am |
Stupak and his backers are hoping they have enough leverage to force the leadership to yield to their demand. “I think the vote count has always been close,” said Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., a co-sponsor of Stupak’s resolution.
Washingtonpost
March 20, 2010 at 10:42 am |
Update: Looks there is a deal to reinsert the Stupak language strictly banning abortion funding via an enrollment corrections bill to win over some or all of the Stupak Democrats. Don’t ask me what that means, though there seem to be real questions as to whether this could actually work via House and Senate rules. Pro-choice Democrats are not happy with the idea, though.
March 20, 2010 at 11:21 am |
It’s enough to make your head spin, and would seemingly require a lot of cooperation, including from both the pro-abortion Senate Dems AND the Senate GOP to work. The bottom line is that we’ll get even more shaky machinations than were already planned and Stupak and company will join in the fun. It is guaranteed to be even more of a zoo in the Senate than it would have been anyway.
March 20, 2010 at 11:50 am |
http://www.redstate.com/bk/2010/03/20/pelosistupak-deal-to-be-announced-this-morning/
Link for above quote
March 20, 2010 at 3:10 pm |
From The Corner:Two pro-life GOP members close to Stupak tell NRO that any Stupak deals are off. They just spoke with him and they said he’s finished with pelosi. They rejected his enrollment corrections proposal.
Some say this means pelosi has 216 wo stupak
Don’t know yet
March 20, 2010 at 3:13 pm |
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/20/bishop-stupaks-press-conference-postponed-confusion-reigns/
David dayen
March 20, 2010 at 3:17 pm |
The path of least resistance remains going around Stupak by peeling off a couple members of his bloc. But this will probably go all day. The Rules Committee has already started their markup, and remember in November, the deal wasn’t made to get a vote on the Stupak amendment until late on the night of the committee hearing
David dayen
March 20, 2010 at 3:43 pm |
New Whip Count, With Changes To Reflect The Stupak Bloc
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/20/new-whip-count-with-changes-to-reflect-the-stupak-bloc/
So if the deal is dead, Pelosi needs everyone in the first two categories and two from the Stupak bloc.
If she can peel off more from the Stupak bloc, it gives her room with the undecideds.
The only other option would be to try and flip one of the sure No votes, like Stephen Lynch or Mike Arcuri.
Expect the two committee chairs voting No, Collin Peterson and Ike Skelton, to get a lot of attention.
Given those odds, you can see why she explored the Stupak deal.
But pro-choice women apparently slapped it down so soundly, that the path of least resistance is now this agonizing trek to peel off enough votes to get to 216.
(I’m still trying to figure out where we stand.)
(And how has Fox News arrived at their number?)
March 20, 2010 at 3:48 pm |
So if you do that,
you have 202 sure Yes votes, and
206 sure No votes
(which includes all Republicans and 28 Democrats who have announced their intention to oppose).
12 members are still completely undecided.
March 20, 2010 at 4:01 pm |
Yes 202
No 206
Undecideds 12
(This doesn’t include lean yes and lean no?)
March 20, 2010 at 4:02 pm |
217 — 214
(Fox News with leaners included. I don’t trust their numbers.)
March 20, 2010 at 4:08 pm |
UPDATE: Melissa Bean will vote yes, as well. So will Baron Hill, but I already counted him as a Yes based on other statements.
So it’s 204-206, 11 undecided, 10 Stupak bloc.
David Dayen
March 20, 2010 at 4:10 pm |
So it’s
204 Yes
206 No
11 undecided,
10 Stupak bloc.
431 Total
March 20, 2010 at 4:23 pm |
Not sure if Fox has it
217 — 214
214 — 217
March 20, 2010 at 4:35 pm |
Pelosi: ‘No Separate Votes’ [Robert Costa]
Pelosi says there will be no separate votes on abortion, and that she will have votes for passage when she comes to the floor.
UPDATE: Reps. Driehaus (D., Ohio) and Dahlkemper (D., Penn.), two Stu-Packers, just went into Pelosi’s office.
March 20, 2010 at 4:40 pm |
On the Capitol Grounds [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
The two key days for people there are tomorrow’s vote — assuming there is one — and Election Day in November.
Apparently Ms. Lopez not convinced Pelosi has 216.
March 20, 2010 at 4:42 pm |
“Abortion foes, holdouts make outcome uncertain.”
http://hughhewitt.com/blog/g/d347e174-a1c8-4c63-ac04-4c35c637a8cc
March 20, 2010 at 4:50 pm |
So it’s
204 Yes
206 No
11 undecided,
10 Stupak bloc.
431 Total
***
David Dayen’s numbers
not much to report until he and others change their whip counts
I think I’ll listen to music while we’re waiting.
Fancy that!
March 20, 2010 at 4:57 pm |
March 20, 2010 at 5:03 pm |
March 20, 2010 at 5:10 pm |
March 20, 2010 at 5:13 pm |
The AFL-CIO and other labor unions are not the only ones talking about betrayal and primaries – Michael Moore has an open letter excoriating Bart Stupak for his hijacking of the health care debate, and endorses his primary challenger, Connie Saltonstall.
***
Michael Moore?! You mean “I just make shit up” Moore?
Oh, he’s been a real uniter! (sarc)
March 20, 2010 at 5:19 pm |
March 20, 2010 at 5:25 pm |
March 20, 2010 at 5:35 pm |
Abortion Question Remains In Flux
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/20/abortion-question-remains-in-flux/
But Stupak’s office said conversations were ongoing. And within an hour, he was sitting in Pelosi’s office.
The new deal, which would not include a separate vote, concerns an executive order:
Senior Dem source:
Exec order on abortion rights still on the table, under discussion #hcr #healthreform
No further information has been supplied: what kind of executive order?
It may be as simple as applying the Hyde amendment to community health centers, which could be enough to peel off a couple members of the bloc.
Or it could be something to do with the exchanges.
Or it could be just “no public funding for abortion” clarifying language.
There’s really no telling.
But that’s probably what Pelosi is explaining to the Stupak bloc right now.
It’s important to note that there are several nominally pro-choice Democrats, members who voted against the Stupak amendment, who are either no votes or undecided.
They increase Stupak’s leverage, says Darcy Burner, and are functionally voting with the anti-choice community at this point.
Stupak’s power only extends to the number of people he has in his corner and the number of people needed to get to 216.
So there’s a lot of culpability to go around.
“an executive order” — are you frigging kidding me?!
March 20, 2010 at 5:37 pm |
March 20, 2010 at 5:46 pm |
March 20, 2010 at 5:53 pm |
March 20, 2010 at 5:58 pm |
March 20, 2010 at 6:06 pm |
Rules? This. Is. Congress! [Daniel Foster]
Yes, Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings (Fla.) just said this in the most powerful committee of the United States House of Representatives. The people’s house:
“There ain’t no rules here, we’re trying to accomplish something. . . .All this talk about rules. . . .When the deal goes down . . . we make ’em up as we go along.”
***
I’m speechless! Was he kidding?!
Alcee Hastings was a friend of my Dad, I mean when he was still alive and active.
March 20, 2010 at 6:08 pm |
So that puts us at
202 Yes,
205 No, with
10 in the Stupak bloc and
14 undecided.
Theoretically, if Pelosi picked up every single one of those 14 undecideds, she’d have exactly 216.
But that would be a very surprising scenario.
That’s why she’s still working with the Stupak bloc on this executive order, clarifying no public funding for abortion, which is apparently getting a blessing from the pro-choice side of the caucus.
David Dayen
March 20, 2010 at 6:09 pm |
March 20, 2010 at 6:14 pm |
March 20, 2010 at 6:20 pm |
March 20, 2010 at 6:31 pm |
House Drops Deem and Pass? [Daniel Foster]
We’ve been baited. And here’s the switch, from a Washington Post news alert:
House Democratic leaders say they will take a separate vote on the Senate health care bill, rejecting an earlier, much-criticized strategy that would have permitted them to “deem” the measure passed without an explicit vote.
This is good news for the Constitution and transparency in government. I’m not sure if its good news for defeating Obamacare.
March 20, 2010 at 6:32 pm |
March 20, 2010 at 6:45 pm |
The right-wing freakout over “deem and pass” was massively hypocritical, but once they pushed the media into calling a perfectly normal procedure unconstitutional, the utility of doing it faded away.
One wonders what Republicans will freak out about now.
David Dayen
One wonders what centrist Dems and Independents will freak out about.
Don’t forget about us!
Now how about a conference instead of reconciliation?
No sense in me repeating what Judd Gregg has stated so eloquently.
For Snowe and Collins to have signed onto that “41” letter tells you a lot right there.
March 20, 2010 at 6:47 pm |
But the real action, of course, is going on elsewhere—mostly in the Speaker’s office, where Pelosi is searching for her last few votes. It’s clear she doesn’t have them yet. Let us hope it stays that way.
The Corner
March 20, 2010 at 6:49 pm |
March 20, 2010 at 7:02 pm |
March 20, 2010 at 7:13 pm |
Obama Admin Actuary Unable to Analyze Health Bill Before Final Vote
http://www.lonelyconservative.com/2010/03/20/obama-admin-actuary-unable-to-analyze-health-bill-before-final-vote/
They have no idea what this is going to cost us. This is unbelievable. Obama’s own actuaries won’t be able to analyze the bill before the final vote.
***
I’m friggin’ freakin’ out!
March 20, 2010 at 7:15 pm |
Manager’s Amendment To Reconciliation Sidecar Released
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/20/managers-amendment-to-reconciliation-sidecar-released/
March 20, 2010 at 7:16 pm |
March 20, 2010 at 7:23 pm |
Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.) says the Medicare payments disparity issue that held back Rep. Pete DeFazio (D., Ore.) and others from supporting the bill has been resolved.
(I don’t know if this changes Dayen’s whip count.)
March 20, 2010 at 7:28 pm |
Ramesh Called That One [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
DeFazio changed his vote to yes.
March 20, 2010 at 7:30 pm |
March 20, 2010 at 7:40 pm |
‘Clearly we believe we have the votes’ [Robert Costa]
Senate Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) And Whip Jim Clyburn (D., S.C.) spoke with reporters prior to the president’s arrival at the Capitol.
“We will adopt a rule which will provide for the consideration of a reconciliation bill and will provide for two hours of debate,” Hoyer said. “It will provide further, that upon passage of the reconciliation bill, the Senate-passed health-care bill will be in order for a vote on the floor of the House . . . We expect to have the votes to pass.” He also said “we have every reason to believe that the Senate will pass the House’s reconciliation bill.”
“Deem and pass,” he added, is over. “This gives us the opportunity to vote on the amendment first, then the Senate bill . . . We determined we could do this and believe it’s a better process.”
“Clearly we believe we have the votes,” he concluded.
The Corner
March 20, 2010 at 7:41 pm |
March 20, 2010 at 7:49 pm |
Carney To Vote Yes
The new count is
204 Yes,
205 No, with now
12 undecided and
10 assumed in the Stupak bloc.
David Dayen
March 20, 2010 at 7:51 pm |
March 20, 2010 at 8:01 pm |
Harry Reid showed up.
I assume he’ll be passing around the Senate letter which apparently has over 50 firm commitments for passing the reconciliation sidecar.
Reid: “I have a signed agreement to make that good law even better,” a reference to the letter.
Reid relates the health care endgame to March Madness:
Republicans are “trying to foul us, and foul us, and foul us” at the end of the game.
No harm no foul!
It’s Reid who’s committed the foul.
March 20, 2010 at 8:02 pm |
March 20, 2010 at 8:16 pm |
Kiss the Guitar Player Playlist
http://www.4shared.com/play/29839682/a36a729e/kiss_the_guitar_player.html
March 20, 2010 at 8:47 pm |
Question:
If Pelosi cannot get to 216, then can the House and Senate bills which already passed go to conference?
I mean, is that even within the realm of possibility?
March 20, 2010 at 8:50 pm |
“You can argue the policy details without being a racist asshole, I’m fairly certain.”
David Dayen
Mr. Dayen, do you honestly believe that the vast majority of “teabaggers” are racist assholes?!
tsk, tsk, tsk …
March 20, 2010 at 8:56 pm |
Hi Rose,
I still come here for solace and inspiration. Thank you for this! I spent the better part of this week between fits of anger and and endless bouts of tears. I attend a weekly prayer meeting at my church on most Saturdays and this one was at the very least extremely emotional as they usually are. Thank you Jesus for meeting with us today. I have explained to others at RS that many in my area are totally in the dark about this HCR bill and the evil cabal that is leading the way. It is so unimaginable that most do not have any clue what is happening in our country. Many are just so ill informed or not informed at all. I spent 2 1/2 hours this morning weeping for this nation and the many millions that will eventually suffer from rationing and will die from this catastrophic bill. I know that there have been many that have sent prayers up over this ugliness taking place and I do believe that the Lord will see his us through. If this HCR bill passes then God wants this to happen. My husband constantly reminds me that all of this will have to happen so that our Lord can return. I know this but I am having difficulty with the process that is to come with destruction. God help us…..
March 20, 2010 at 9:07 pm |
There’s always the race card
re: Clyburn Fuming Over ‘Shocking,’ Allegedly Racial Comments of Tea-Party Protesters [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Clyburn owes those protesters some more specific allegations.
I spent a few hours with them today and saw a very different picture.
There are nuts and racists in a lot of crowds, but the signs and their conversations and their chants today have largely
(actually, I saw zero racism and exactly one “long form” birth certificate sign)
covered these things up extremely well if Clyburn has their number.
March 20, 2010 at 9:08 pm |
March 20, 2010 at 9:16 pm |
For GOP, Not Over Yet [Robert Costa]
Eric Cantor tells NRO: “We’re still fighting and it’s still very fluid.”
March 20, 2010 at 9:18 pm |
bbl
March 20, 2010 at 10:01 pm |
This brings the count to 204-206, with 11 undecided and 10 (still?) in the Stupak bloc. Even if the Stupak bloc has been whittled to a half-dozen, you would still need to get all the outstanding Yes votes (Foster, Kanjorski, Michaud, Ortiz, Pomeroy, Schrader) and two of the remaining former No votes (Baird, L.Davis, Matheson, Nye, Tanner). And if that Stupak bloc is any bigger, it gets harder. At this point, Mike Arcuri and Stephen Lynch will probably get some phone calls. And Collin Peterson, too.
David dayen
March 20, 2010 at 11:23 pm |
Jim Matheson To Vote No on Health Care
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/20/jim-matheson-to-vote-no-on-health-care/
That makes it
204 Yes votes
207 No votes
10 are still undecided, and
10 are potentially part of the Stupak bloc.
March 20, 2010 at 11:27 pm |
Blue Dogs Get an Assist from Gullible Local Press [Stephen Spruiell]
In my homepage piece today, I wrote about how The Denver Post gave Markey (and by extension Pelosi) a key assist by reporting the CBO’s estimates as gospel truth, instead of the rigged numbers they actually are.
I had no idea that the Fort Collins Coloradoan — “somewhat conservative” in Obama’s telling — did an even worse job.
The editorial Obama referenced reads:
With a $940 billion price tag over the first 10 years, the legislation reduces the federal deficit by $130 billion from 2010 to 2019, according to the CBO. In the following 10 years, the federal deficit will be reduced by $1.2 trillion.
As I and many others have noted, the $940 billion counts ten years of revenue to pay for six years of costs and does not include the doc fix.
And the $1.2 trillion in the second ten years did not come from the CBO — the Democrats made it up.
It is a rough extrapolation based on an estimate that, according to the CBO itself, is barely better than a blind guess.
The Blue Dogs have gotten major cover from their local media, which due to laziness or gullibility or both have promoted Obamacare as a deficit-reducer.
Let’s hope their constituents are not similarly fooled.
March 20, 2010 at 11:28 pm |
Executive Order [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
I hear Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) has signed off on the idea. That’s an iron-clad guarantee it’s no real alternative for any member who calls himself “pro-life.”
March 21, 2010 at 12:14 am |
Kurt Schrader Commits To Voting Yes: 205 Yes, 207 No
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/20/kurt-schrader-commits-to-voting-yes-205-yes-207-no/
Schrader was a pretty necessary get for Pelosi.
It doesn’t totally change the calculus:
Democrats must limit the Stupak bloc to 6, and pick up 2 votes elsewhere, either from uncommitted members who voted No last time (Baird, L.Davis, Nye, Tanner) or from flipping some hard No vote.
205 Yes
207 No
9 Undecided
10 Stupak
March 21, 2010 at 12:21 am |
UPDATE: Three others to watch, who I think will come around but who aren’t totally confirmed: Loretta Sanchez, Jim Cooper, and Ron Klein.
UPDATE: Cooper talking about history in the making, sounds like a Yes.
March 21, 2010 at 12:53 am |
Executive Order Looks Like A Way Out For Dems
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/20/executive-order-looks-like-a-way-out-for-dems/
Looking at the numbers, I don’t see a really good way to evade the Stupak bloc without pulling the trigger on the executive order from the President clarifying no federal funding for abortion services.
…
In a twist, Republicans may offer their own Stupak language inside a motion to recommit.
David Waldman tells you more than you ever need to know about that action.
But basically, motions to recommit have in recent years been used by the minority to force a distasteful vote on the majority.
Certainly the Stupak amendment qualifies.
And as it has passed the House already with 240 votes, it certainly good again, which would cause all kinds of problems.
The session tomorrow will begin around 2:00 pm ET.
Three votes – potentially four – will be taken.
First there will be a vote on the rule, with an hour of debate on it.
Expect a vote around 3:00 ET.
Then there will be two hours of debate on the reconciliation bill.
That will get a vote around 5:00 ET.
There would be no debate in between the reconciliation bill and the Senate bill, which would happen around 5:30 ET.
If there is a motion to recommit, that would get sandwiched in before the vote on the reconciliation bill.
See you then.
(Thank you, Mr. Dayen.)
March 21, 2010 at 2:32 am |
New Thread: