Mar 19 2010
Are Dems Within 1 Vote Of FAILURE!?
According to The Hill’s whip count Dems are within in one ‘no’ vote of Obamacare failing. They show 36 in the “no”, “leaning no” or “likely no”. The magic number is 37 defections and the bill goes down. Lots of wishy-wash in those numbers, except they also count 47 undecided or unknown?
Could all of the corruption and unconstitutional games have finally been too much for a large segment of the Democrat caucus?
Update: Did we get that one ‘no’ vote that breaks the damn and brings down Obamacare? H/T Hot Air
There is a post at national review “the corner” with Paul Ryan on the count. It’s about an hour old.
From what I have read, DeFazio is looking for some sort of handout. This is a very weak no.
If they’re within 1 vote of failure, they’re within 1 vote of success.
“Corruption and unconstitutional games” will not deter a democrat from selling out the American people and destroying the US. The only thing these people are interested in is “what does it mean for ME!!!” NO votes will only represent fear of going down in flames in November. That’s all. These people would dearly LOVE to pass this “enslavement of the American people act.” But many are not willing to get thrown out of their cushy jobs. Vote yes with no fear of just retribution….just show them where to sign!!
It looks like the votes are rolling to yes. Even Cao may capitulate.
WWS:
I heard Cao was a firm no. I think there is a lot of talk out there right now and it is impossible to know for sure what is happening. Cantor says the Democrats are still 7 away. Hell if I know what to think.
The Dems will cave, even though they know this bill is really $1.2 trillion dollars if you include the doctor fix.
Say good bye to the defense budget, it is the only place that money can come from to finance 30 million peoples health care. Here we come old Europe, you had better find a way to defend yourselves, we are just big copy cats.
Kathie,
I think the assumption has to be passage of the bill. The Dems are willing to do ANYTHING to get the votes and they’re just too close. But, who knows? And there was no way the CBO scoring was going to come in over 999 billion. No way. One trillion is the magic number. The Democrats were going to find all the money they needed on paper, whatever the source, whether they double-counted, triple-counted- it didn’t matter. I’ve read the bill and, just for an example, on Page 2,218, Section IV, Paragraph 7, it says:
Funds Source
8.3 billion Paper bag behind Lincoln Memorial
2.5 billion Senator Harry Reid’s rectum
5.7 billion Reimbursement from the Highway Trust Fund for 2007 expenditures related to the 2006 outlay for the 2004 special appropriations for the 2003 American Highways Reorganization Task Force
I am from Washington State, 3rd Congressional District. I read the Fox News article. Fox News is using the logic of the prior vote in November to count votes today. This is bad journalism! In November, Brian Baird voted against the bill. He did this after camp outs at his home offices, thousands of e-mails, thousands of phone calls and his memorable comment
“What we’re seeing right now is close to Brown Shirt tactics. I mean that very seriously”
regarding people actually speaking their minds at town hall meetings. Well since then he has decided to retire. Now he is undecided. When my wife called to voice her opposition to the bill, the phone clerk said they were getting comments 50/50 on the bill. This is B.S. but that does not matter. The truth is Brian Baird will soon announce he is for the bill after he reads it this time around, ha. He has nothing to lose now. If you have doubts visit his website here:
http://www.baird.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1056&Itemid=99
to see through the thin veil of a soon to be announced reversal on his vote. I am not sure how this will end up but if you listen to Fox News using their poorly researched logic, we may all be disappointed on Sunday. You can bet the Dems already know this. Anyone at Fox News reading, start with a visit to the websites of the Congressional Districts instead of your simplistic approach of prior positions.