Nomentum II: Only If All Pro-Life Democrats Vote for Bill Can It Pass

As a special bonus -- many readers were (pretty understandably) angered that a Republican "no" vote -- Nathan Deal of Georgia -- was retiring to work full-time on his gubernatorial bid. This reduced the total size of Congress, thereby lowering the number required for a majority from 217 to 216.

However, there's word he will stay in Congress through March to continue voting "No."

What if Obama then moves voting into April? Not sure what he'd do then -- however, I think maybe Mr. Deal needs to be informed by his fellow Georgians that resigning from Congress before this abomination is stopped will be a black mark against him.

Dude, you can be a part-time Representative for a while. Deal with it. Keep taking the paycheck, dude. Captain Wonderful did for two years. You can do it for five months.

Geraghty counts the votes and finds that Madame Palomino has no margin to lose a single possible-yes vote.

In short, at this moment, if every wavering Democrat votes yes, and all of the pro-life Democrats vote yes, the bill passes. If any one of them flips, and none of the previous "no" votes flip, it's game over, the bill can't pass the House.

Dick Durbin Defends the Cornhusker Kickback: "We Needed 60 Votes"

That's not a defense. That's a motive for the crime.

Durbin defended the Cornhusker Kickback's inclusion in the Senate bill.

"We needed 60 votes, if we didn't have 60 votes, we wouldn't be standing at the steps," he said. "At the time, it was an important part of the ultimate agreement."

Here's something:

Durbin said there are no firm no votes yet, but there are "some who've expressed concerns, but they haven't seen the bill. I told them all, 'Wait, take a look at what it looks like. It will be the Senate bill plus some pretty positive changes.' It's hard to argue against any changes we're considering. I think we improved the bill."

Bear in mind, we've been sold this piece of shit two or 40 times now, and each time we've been told it's perfect. And yet every time they are thwarted, they come back with a slightly different iteration, telling us that it's "improved."

Didn't you keep insisting there was no need for debate because the bill was as good as it could possibly be sixty-seven times before? How is it that there is all this room for improvement in a bill we've been told over and over is the best deal for the American public possible?

Thanks to Slublog for that.

posted by Ace at 03:43 PM

| Access Comments