The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Which Dems to Pressure on Health Care

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Which Dems to Pressure on Health Care

By Doug Bandow on 3.8.10 @ 11:09PM

Reid Wilson has helpfully created a whip count on National Journal. It provides a convenient list of Democrats who most need public pressure--either to shore up their opposition to a government health care takeover, or to encourage them to shift from support to opposition.

Explains Wilson:

A reminder of where we stand now: Health care legislation passed by a 220-215 margin on Nov. 7. Since then, Reps. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Robert Wexler (D-FL) and Eric Massa (D-NY) have resigned. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) passed away. Of that group, Abercrombie, Wexler and Murtha voted in favor. Massa voted against. Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao (R-LA), who voted for the bill, has said he will vote against.

That means Pelosi has lost 4 votes, bringing her to 216. Because there are only 431 members of the House, thanks to the vacancies, Pelosi needs exactly that number to pass reform. Arcuri's decision today brings the number of yes votes down to 215 -- one below the number needed to pass.

Enter Stupak, who claims to have a dozen total votes against the bill if abortion language remains the same. For each member Stupak has convinced to switch their vote, Dems will need to convince another "no" voter to vote yes the second time around.

View all comments (9) | Leave a comment

Spicy Joker| 3.8.10 @ 11:35PM

There are several Democraps like Massa who voted "no" because the bill didn't go far enough. They'll vote "yes" this time.

sre| 3.9.10 @ 9:27AM

I used to think this also. But if that were the case, why hasn't the vote been called?

Warrior| 3.9.10 @ 10:09AM

Because they do not have the votes. The House does not trust the Senate and knows if they pass the Senate version that it is over. There will be no reconcilliation of fixes.

PCC| 3.9.10 @ 12:09AM

The political winds have certainly shifted since the first House vote.

However, it is also true that Speaker Pelosi almost certainly had a reserve of "yes" votes that she released the first time around.

And the so-called Blue Dogs? There no different than the Ben Nelsons of the world.

In their entire history, these types have never withstood leadership pressure on any critical vote. It's all vanity and posturing with them. They ALWAYS cave in in the end.

Interested Conservative| 3.9.10 @ 12:29AM

A simple question and point or two.

Others have noted that we'll likely never get to reconciliation. The condition precedent is the House passage or the Senate bill, as written. THEN, the deal would be to fix issues through a reconciliation, or later process.

If the POTUS simply signs the Senate bill, after passage by the house, why would he care about any later action. The deed is largely done.

Given all that, why is there very little specific discussion of individual house members accepting the Cornhusker kickback? Why no explicit mention that a vote for the Senate bill is a vote to send what ($300m?) straight to Nebraska?

Simplify the mess - would your rep vote to send $300m to Nebraska to cement the vote of Sen. Nelson?

Where's Gov Palin? Forget the bait and switch reconciliation legerdemain - if the Senate bill is so awful, not even getting to the Stupak issues, why should a house member go along with the identifiably bad particulars? Spell them out all over again.

Mike| 3.9.10 @ 8:50AM

When we have to depend on Democrats to help us, we are in big trouble. Particularly Blue Dog Democrats - they will stab you in the back. Work with them - possibly - but do not ever trust them.

Sam| 3.9.10 @ 12:17PM

Yes- perhaps if Republicans hadn't gotten drunk off of all of their power early in the decade, we would not be stuck with people like Pelosi, Reid, Rangel, and the other inept Democratic leaders.

Jeff Perren| 3.9.10 @ 12:22PM

Even if reconciliation were used it would only nibble around the edges. Once passed, socialized medicine in America becomes a legislative fact.

Whether it becomes a fact of everyday life would depend on many things, including the odds of success for repeal, widespread civil disobedience, overturn by the Supreme Court, or other possible reactions, none of which have a very high probability of success and all bringing unpleasant side effects.

It's vital that this unconstitutional horror be defeated, and soon.