“I have three simple questions Ms Pelosi.  Are you so arrogant that you think you know what’s best for the American people? Are you so ignorant that you are oblivious to the wishes of the American people? And are you so incompetent that you are going to ignore the Constitution of the United States, use tricks, deceptions, bald faced lies to try to ram down the throat of the American people something that they do not want and is going to be absolutely worse for their healthcare?”

- Dr./Rep. Paul Broun

Here’s what we know, Pelosi doesn’t have the votes….yet. She may get them, but she’s looking at a pretty uphill climb (more on that in a second). The Slaughter Solution is looking less and less likely….in fact one Congressional office was reporting it dead Wednesday afternoon. I’ve seen nothing to confirm that, but it’s likely that Democrats are fretting over the PR hit they’re going to take over this. After weeks of Obama and the Senate demanding an up or down vote, the House is now doing everything it can to prevent one. Even Chris “Mr. Tingle” Matthews is seeing the folly in the Slaughter Solution.

One of the biggest factors driving lack of votes is lack of a CBO score for the bill. In order to qualify for reconciliation, the House changes have to reduce the deficit by at least a billion dollars in order to qualify. And for political reasons they need to get the cost of the bill below one trillion. Numerous sources have indicated that so far the Democrats haven’t gotten the language to that point, hence they don’t have an “official” bill yet and no vote. Undoubtably many of the current undecideds are waiting to see what the final form takes.

So where do we stand?? This is the way it breaks down. There are 431 members of the House, 253 Democrats and 178 Republicans. All the Republicans oppose the bill and the Democrats are divided. Pelosi needs 216 votes to pass it, and opponents need 216 votes to defeat it. Nobody really knows exactly where we stand, there are a number of different whip counts out there. By far the most accurate (and therefore useful) one I’ve found so far is by the lefties over at FireDogLake. Their numbers are tracking pretty closely with what I’ve seen elsewhere. Plus you have to figure that any Democrat that’s going to vote Yes will tell the lefties for sure…why put themselves through the hell of their base revolting for no reason.

According to FDL

With leaners, you’re at 205-210, with Democrats able to lose only 5 of the remaining uncommitted 16:

Jim Matheson, Harry Teague, Travis Childers, John Barrow, Zack Space, Chris Carney, Brad Ellsworth, Henry Cueller, Nick Rahall, Solomon Ortiz, Earl Pomeroy, Bill Foster, Harry Mitchell, Jason Altmire, Marcy Kaptur, Melissa Bean

So by that count, opponents need 6 of 16, and Pelosi needs 11 of 16. But there are a couple in that undecided list I think you can easily move into one of the two categories. Obama said that Teague is ready to announce his vote, which pretty much means he’s in the Yes column. And Altsmire has been increasingly declaring very negative opinions of both the bill and the process, so he’s a pretty good candidate for the No column. Which makes the count 206 – 211. It’s damn close and it’s a toss-up on where things go from here.

On one hand, public opinion is still solidly in the No category, and anyone considering a Yes vote should be pretty confident in their re-election chances. On the other hand, Pelosi can still bribe her members. She’s somewhat constrained by the fact that the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisana Purchase has left a sour taste in the publics mouth. So any bribe is going to be of the under-the-table IOU variety.

But it all still depends on the CBO score. And since we didn’t get one today, a Saturday vote is pretty much impossible, Sunday is the soonest likely vote if we get the CBO score today which we’re supposed to. But the Democrats appear to be having problems getting the score they’re gonna need to plausibly pass this. Democrats are only asking for things that cost money, nothing that saves money. Call that a temporary hurdle, as there is no way the Democrats will let that stop them. They’ll come up with some accounting tricks to eventually get the CBO score they need.

Even then reconciliation is in doubt, as the Senate has put the House on alert that reconciliation is an unlikely bet. So these remaining Democrats are going to have to make their decision with the liklihood that these “fixes” probably won’t pass.

Ultimately, it really comes down to what 14 Democrats think. If any five of those fourteen think the political risk isn’t worth it, it’s game over and Katie bar the doors, you’ll have Democrats scrambling to switch sides. Otherwise this is just step one of a long process to this bill passing. The Senate almost certainly won’t pass reconciliation, but Obama will sign the Senate Bill.

Then you’ll have the inevitable court challenges. Any challenges to the procedural process are going to be a PR move at best as there is pretty solid (and recent) case law indicating that this Slaughter Solution is constitutional. Any court challenge is likely to hinge on whether the courts agree that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution covers this health care bill. That’s far from certain but it’s a long shot. More than likely the court cases will be to score political points and drag the Democrats through more mud than they dragged themselves through.

Bottom line though is that even the White House agrees the economy isn’t recovering in 2010, and approval ratings tend to track very closely to economic performance. So basically the public opinion polls numbers you’re seeing is what we’re likely to have in November. So Democrats are going to have an disastrous year, and hopefully those 14 Democrats are making their decision with that in mind.

My favorite part is that Gibbs has no neck.

Democratic leaders should be asking themselves just how they have gotten to the point that their strategy is to amend a law that doesn’t exist yet by passing a bill without voting on it. Surely it’s time to start over.

- Yuval Levin

The Rankings Are As Follows:

• Lloyd :8
• Drunkguy :6
• NightWriter :5
• Triple “I Whine Like A Child” A : 5
• Dan S : 4
• Harvey : 3
• Mall Diva : 3
• Professor_Rackmaster : 2
• jroosh : 2
• Bogus Doug : 2
• Aelfheld : 2
• Sola-Man : 2
• Bobby_B : 2
• Joelicious : 1
• Uncle Ben : 1
• Tiger Lilly : 1
• J Ewing : 1
• kingdavid : 1
• tommy g : 1
• spurringirl : 1

For this contest you get to make up your own answers!! That’s right…just pretend you’re a real life journalist and just make shit up. Post answers in the comments. They will be judged on creativity, plausibility and humor.

Question : What is this madness?

Previous contests

Kevin –

Bammy!!

Last Thursday’s first-of-its-kind summit capped off a debate that has lasted nearly a year.

You do realize not EVERYTHING you do is historic right?

Every idea has now been put on the table. Every argument has been made. Both parties agree that the status quo is unacceptable and gets more dire each day. Today, I want to state as clearly and forcefully as I know how: Now is the time to make a decision about the future of health care in America.

Er, hate to point this out, but you did forget one critical step. You forgot to consider the opinion of the American people, who have been trying to tell you in every way possible, be it polls, mid-term elections, whatever, that they hate this shit pile of a bill.

The final proposal I’ve put forward draws on the best ideas from all sides, including several put forward by Republicans at last week’s summit. It will put Americans in charge of their own health care, ensuring that neither government nor insurance company bureaucrats can ration, deny, or put out of financial reach the care our families need and deserve.

You realize that your bill is self-contradictory right? You can’t suddenly add a bunch of people to a failing government program and have it NOT dramatically increase in price AND introduce rationing AND reducing quality. Price caps have NEVER worked, they’ve only created shortages and lower quality. Which when we’re talking health care is a rather fatal mistake.

I strongly believe that Congress now owes the American people a final vote on health care reform. Reform has already passed the House with bipartisan support and the Senate with a super-majority of sixty votes. Now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that has been routinely used and has passed such landmark measures as welfare reform and both Bush tax cuts.

Oh yeah, we owe the public an up or down vote on this bill the public hates.

One Republican vote is NOT bi-partisan, and even that one Republican has changed their mind. Actually more Democrats voted against this than Republican have voted for it. The only thing bi-partisan about this bill is the opposition to it.

And there is nothing routine about what you’re doing. If this had the support you’re trying to pretend it did, it would have passed before Thanksgiving of last year. You’re having to cram it through a method reserved for budgetary bills to get around the fact that you just don’t have the support for this bill.

Plus, it’s misleading to say this bill passed both the House and Senate, because it’s actually two very different bills that have passed each. And you’re now proposing yet a THIRD bill.

Earlier today, I asked leaders in both houses of Congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks. From now until then, I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform. And now, I’m asking you, the members of the Organizing for America community, to raise your voice and do the same.

Fair enough, but while you’re waiting for them, how about you listen to the vast majority of the public who has been raising their voice and letting you know what they think for months now. People that have never been involved in the political process have been showing up to rallies. Polls have consistently shown the public hates this bill. Nobody wants a massive government takeover of anything anymore.

The final march for reform has begun, and your participation is crucial. Please commit to join with me to take reform across the finish line.

Fair enough, if you want to lead a herd of lemmings, that’s your deal. And I’m certainly not going to stand in your way, but watch the first step off that cliff.

Essentially, my proposal would change three things about the current health care system:

First, it would protect all Americans from the worst practices of insurance companies. Never again will the mother with breast cancer have her coverage revoked, see her premiums arbitrarily raised, or be forced to live in fear that a pre-existing condition will bar her from future coverage.

Is this another one of those tales of woe that turn out not to be true, just like every other one you’ve shared??

Second, my proposal would give individuals and small businesses the same choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves. And my proposal says that if you still can’t afford the insurance in this new marketplace, we will offer you tax credits based on your income — tax credits that add up to the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history.

Does that mean you’re going to agree to be covered under this plan as well??

Finally, my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for everyone — families, businesses, and the federal government — and bring down our deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades. These savings mean businesses small and large will finally be freed up to create jobs and increase wages. With costs currently skyrocketing, reform is vital to remaining economically strong in the years and decades to come.

You’ve made claims like this before, but they’ve always proven incorrect. In fact it usually means that people will be dropped from their employer’s insurance and be forced to join the government program, even if they were fine with their employer’s coverage.

In the few crucial weeks ahead, you can help make sure this proposal becomes law. Please sign up to join the Organizing for America campaign in the final march for reform:

http://my.barackobama.com/commit

Doesn’t it concern you that while you’re having to plead to get people to push for this, millions of every day voters are coming out without prompting to oppose this legislation??

When I talked about change on the campaign, this is what I was talking about: coming together to solve a huge problem that has been troubling America for 100 years and standing up to the special interests to deliver a brighter, smarter future for generations to come.

Seriously? THIS is what you were talking about?

Coming together? This has been the most partisan railroading we’ve seen in a long time. Standing up to special interests? They wrote most of the bills, and you’ve been having closed backroom meetings with them to craft these bills in secret.

I look forward to signing this historic reform into law. And when I do, it will be because your organizing played an essential role in making change possible.

Historic, you keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

It was your pleasure I’m sure.

[H/T : Lloyd]

In the initial pages of the transcript it appeared as if the Petitioners lawyer Alan Gura, was woefully unprepared, as he was arguing for incorporation via the Privileges and  Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which nobody on the court seemed even remotely interested in considering.  Not just because it essentially runs contrary to about 140 years of law, but also because justices were concerned about just how many other rights would come along with that sort of incorporation.  In retrospect though, I think Gura’s argument was more skillful framing than anything else, as it essentially made incorporation via due process seem like the measured and reasonable option.

Most of the debate seemed to center just how much jurisprudence comes with the Second Amendment in it’s incorporation, to which both Clement (NRA) and Gura argued, that’s of minimal concern because short of Heller, there really is no jurisprudence regarding the Second Amendment at the moment.  It’s difficult to gauge how much traction that argument got, because the argument generally seemed to focus on several other points.

On one hand Heller essentially related strictly to the use of a handgun in self-defense in ones home, so does incorporation just relate to that narrowly defined definition of the Second Amendment or a broader understanding of what it means to keep and bear arms.  To that end, it seemed pretty firmly established by even the liberal bloc of the court that the rights to keep and bear arms and of self defense preceded the Bill of Rights and would exist even absent a Second Amendment. Despite several Justices demonstrating some discomfort with incorporating a broad view of the Second Amendment, the point was made several times that it would be unwise, and contrary to court history, to establish a Federal understanding of the Second Amendment, and then a watered down version that applies to the States.

The lawyer, Feldman, representing the city of Chicago was worse than ineffective in the argument, with even the liberal bloc of the court, stopping just short of openly mocking his arguments.  It was clear that Feldman was never really able to argue his point because he was continuously interrupted by Justices pointing out flaws in the basis for his arguments.  In fact at several points, Feldman seemed to try to revist Heller and argue against it’s findings…a position that did not find any support amongst the Justices.  Even Justice Kennedy, whose support is critical to any pro-gun-control victory, seemed a little irritated by the suggestion that Heller might not say that the right to self-defense was not a fundamental right.

Eventually, Feldman’s arguments seemed to eventually boil down to “Sure I’m wrong, but guns are icky”.  A viewpoint which was roundly dismissed by Scalia who pointed out that this case shouldn’t be decided on the basis of statistics, but rather determining what the minimum constitutional right was and everything above that is up to the States.

To be quite honest, it was sort of hard to gauge the thoughts of the liberal bloc of the court, since the argument of Feldman was such a disaster that none of the more liberal Justices really had a chance to argue for their likely view of the issues.  Trying to navigate Feldman’s ramblings was futile and counter-productive to trying to make a statement for a gun-control approach to the issue.

In summary, it seems that incorporation is a slam dunk via the due process clause.  How much of the Second Amendment is codified by this ruling is probably the point of dispute at this point.  While it seems likely that SCOTUS will find a Second Amendment broader than that defined in Heller is incorporated, it remains to be seen how broad that is.  In fact, Chief Justice Roberts seemed to revel in the mystery  of that, pointing out several times that they’ve never said anything of the content of the Second Amendment beyond what is in Heller.

The issue of “reasonable regulation” was barely touched, and seems destined to not be addressed by this case.  It seems likely that the eventually finding will cite a very loose definition of the Second Amendment as it’s incorporated against the States, and leave it to lower courts to define what constitutes reasonable, as there is existing case law defining “reasonable regulation” for other rights.

I would expect this to be one of the last cases decided by SCOTUS, because while there was broad agreement on the overriding issue, the details seemed to be a source of a lot of speculation by the Justices.  Of course, I could be wrong on that last point, because like I pointed out, getting a read on the liberal bloc of the court was exceedingly difficult.

[Crossposted at True North]

In 2002 both major candidates had slates at my convention.  I was on the “wrong” one for my BPOU, and, as a “new guy” in a re-districted BPOU, I was left as neither a delegate nor alternate for the marathon Pawlenty-Sullivan convention.  I went anyway to see some outstanding political theater- and had the benefit of being able to leave at a reasonable hour.

It struck me that despite there being slates, supporters of both sides got elected from my BPOU, beginning with the most recognized “names” such as elected officials and the top leadership.

Fast forward to 2010 and another contested race for governor.  This time, instead of being on the wrong slate, I was on no slate.  This is because 1) I was and remain undecided and 2) I wanted to be able to chair our convention without the appearance of favoritism.  Despite one candidate concluding his speech with an appeal for my support, I re-iterated my uncommitted status in my long, rambling, “vote for me as a delegate” pitch.  And, I was elected.

It seemed to me that just one of the major candidates organized a slate at our convention.    What occurred confirmed the some of the intuition I had in 2002.

We had 10 of our BPOU executive committee members run.  Nine were elected delegates and one is a high alternate.  Whether they were on a slate or not, these folks got elected.

So, if you are an individual seeking to be a state delegate, the surest route to success in our BPOU was to be active as a BPOU executive committee member. This entire group was elected delegate or a high alternate regardless of their “slating” status.  Almost all of these people ran unopposed for their positions at our convention last year.  Great foresight, and/or a reward for folks that had stepped forward as leaders.

We also had nine people run that I consider “core” folks at our BPOU conventions.  These are people that are at almost every BPOU convention and are names and faces recognizable to many of the local delegates. These include current & former elected officials, former BPOU officers, & “long-time activists”.   Seven were elected.  Again being on a slate would have appeared to have no real impact on whether this tier of folks got elected.

So, does this strategy work for a candidate?  If Minnesota Democrats Exposed’s count is to be believed the candidate whose supporters used the slate went from losing the caucus straw poll in our BPOU to winning the delegate count by a substantial margin.  While part of that was winning over some people who presumably would have been elected anyway, the ability to get the more anonymous candidates across the line was huge.  I think this makes sense since slating combines votes that might otherwise be scattered.

Is it unfair?  Looking down the list of who was not elected I am sure a handful of people might think so as their status might be a step below what it was before due to slating.

As a BPOU chair, I have no idea how I would prevent it.  You can’t stop people from discussing who they might want to vote for whatever the reason.  I guess we could have banned all paper on the floor during this process, and people would have to have the information written on their hands Sarah Palin-style.  Practically, I think there’s no way to prevent it.

I am certain that there are “slated” delegates that will go to the state convention and never show up for anything again.  However in past years we have had people elected without slates that went to the state convention and never showed up for anything again.  From an organizational perspective, I don’t see a big loss here.  The flip side is a “slated” delegate who might not otherwise participate may go to the convention, catch the bug, and decide to stick around and help.

Back to an earlier point- in my BPOU the delegates clearly respected the folks who have worked over time for the benefit of the BPOU- the executive committee.  Incrementally votes may have been gained or lost by being on a slate, but the work was rewarded.  Bottom line: if you want to have influence in the process, becoming active and staying active is the best way to gain it.

[Crossposted at True North]