I wrote last week that Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was bluffing on the supposed healthcare compromise reached between liberal and moderate Democrats.
The other side is also bluffing that it is thisclose to having the votes needed to surmount the next procedural hurdle to pass a healthcare bill in the Senate.
I wrote yesterday that prominent liberals, major unions, and rank-and-file Obama groupies are now up in arms against the newly configured Senate healthcare bill, tailored to get Joe Lieberman's vote with major liberal concessions.
With the Left's ire in mind, and also recalling how pro-aborts went ballistic when the Stupak Amendment passed in the House, consider this from ABC News today...
Senate Democratic leaders are in a tough spot. They need 60 votes to avoid a Republican filibuster of their health care bill, but there is little political capital left to spare. Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-CT, objects to a government-run insurance option. Liberal Democrats want the opposite....
But the question of whether [pro-life Dem Sen. Ben Nelson's] fellow party members will take the [abortion] language as far as he wants is another issue....
Pro-life compromiser Sen. Bob Casey tried to sweeten the pot for Nelson by adding, according to ABC, "an increase in a tax credit for people who adopt a child, funding to help pregnant teens and others with alternatives to abortion and stronger language to protect health care providers who don't want to perform abortions."
But note Casey's "compromise" still allowed public funding of abortion via insurance companies participating in the government plan.
The other side will apparently not yield on this point. But if the White House and Senate leadership cave to allow the Nelson-Hatch Amendment (identical for all intents and purposes to the House's Stupak-Pitts Amendment), all pro-abort hell will break lose, in addition to the anger that has erupted over the other liberal surrenders.
Again, do not believe Democrats are on the verge of a 60-vote victory. Add the following to all the above, from RedState.com yesterday:
So, if you are counting Senators who are not YES votes, that count would be:
1. Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE)
2. Senator Roland Burris (D-IL)
3. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
4. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) - from The Hill: "The WI senator said he has not yet made a decision on whether to support the legislation. 'I am not making a judgment until I see the CBO numbers and that's only the beginning.'"
5. Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) - [from Fox News]: "Webb wrote in an op-ed published in the Winchester Star on Wednesday that "I have yet to decide whether I will support final passage of the bill."...
Who knows where Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) is, she says she will decide based on the CBO score..... [A]ccording to A1 Senate sources... Sens. Snowe and Collins are at No, a firm No.
However, the bottom line is this, Senator Reid does not have 60 votes. He cannot, therefore, have a vote on his hidden-not-yet-released-vapor-bill.
Senators Not-at-Yes matters because what the Senate ObamaCare bill has been doing for weeks is spinning-in-place.
And support has eroded, not strengthened as Senator Reid keeps trying new formulations to get to 60 votes. He never has had 60 votes for the bill (only 60 to proceed to consideration of it) and he may never get to 60 votes. I do not think he will ever have 60 votes.
Perhaps I missed something - why is Roland Burris not a YES vote?Posted by: Alex at December 18, 2009 9:49 AM
I was thinking the same thing.
Roland pledged to vote no for any bill that does not have a firm public option. As a lame duck senator who's never been welcomed (for good reasons) by the other senators, he claims he can't be swayed by promises of future benefits. Ergo, no public option, no vote. Public option, no Lieberman vote.Posted by: Michael at December 18, 2009 10:45 AM
Re Burris: http://www.lifenews.com/state4653.htmlPosted by: Steven Ertelt at December 18, 2009 10:51 AM
Anyone who knows how to play "Connect The Dots" should be very concerned about any "health care reform" bill that does anything more than repeal the ban on interstate sale of health insurance and establish real tort reform. Anything is designed with the intent to put private insurance out of business. Once the government controls all health insurance for everyone put the ruling and wealthy elites, the government then controls everything we do with the claim that X impacts all taxpayers by increasing the cost of health care to taxpayers. That is how motorcycle helmet laws are justified already.
Can you imagine Japanese style mandatory pre-work exercise in the parking lot? The movie Gung Ho made fun of that.