Cantor, Stupak: Pelosi’s 15 votes short of passing ObamaCare; Update: Boehner calls on Dems to invite Stupak to summit
posted at 1:54 pm on February 24, 2010 by Allahpundit
Actually, as you’ll see, Stupak says it may be more like “15 to 20.” Cantor’s head count of likely no’s this time around via the Daily Caller:
He estimates that House Democrats will likely only be able to attract 202 votes out of the 255-member caucus, 15 votes below the 217-vote threshold they need to pass the bill…
But a House Democratic leadership aide responded Wednesday to Cantor, saying he was “assuming the president’s proposal is a final bill.”…
On the abortion issue, here are the key lawmakers who voted for the House bill in November that Cantor says will not vote for the president’s proposal:
1. Cao, Anh (LA)
2. Costello, Jerry (IL)
3. Dahlkemper, Kathy (PA)
4. Donnelly, Joe (IN)
5. Driehaus, Steve (OH)
6. Ellsworth, Brad (IN)
7. Kaptur, Marcy (OH)
8. Kildee, Dale (MI)
9. Lipinski, Dan (IL)
10. Oberstar, Jim (MN)
11. Stupak, Bart (MI)
12. Wilson, Charlie (OH)
He’s got several others pegged as possible no’s in protest of the Senate’s use of reconciliation. NBC is keeping hope alive, noting that Blue Dogs who voted no on the House bill last time because it had a public option and raised taxes may be wooed by Obama’s more “moderate bill.” But that assumes that (a) no progressives will walk away from Obama because he didn’t include a public option, and (b) that the political risk to Blue Dogs in voting yes now is the same as, or even less than, the risk they faced when voting on Pelosi’s bill in November, which of course is insane. In fact, Jason Altmire, one of the Blue Dogs whom NBC cites as a potential flip, told the AP that he’s highly skeptical that there are enough votes to pass anything. The nightmare for The One is that any Democrat, left or center, who’s eager to find an excuse to not vote for this thing can find something in the compromise bill to latch onto as a “dealbreaker.” And that being so, given the current political climate, why would anyone think Pelosi’s likely to get more people flipping yes than flipping no?
As for the sudden burst of enthusiasm among Senate moderates for reconciliation, that’s an even bigger bluff than the recent revival of public option fee-vah. If you’re Blanche Lincoln or Ben Nelson or Mary Landrieu, why on earth would you commit to reconciliation until you knew for sure that Pelosi had the votes to sneak the Senate bill through the House? You’d be accepting a fantastic political risk — a toxic procedural bypass — with the prospect of absolutely no reward. Exit quotation from an unnamed House Democrat who voted for Pelosi’s bill: “This is a career-ending vote.”
Update: Very clever. A nice play by Boehner to turn the cameras tomorrow on dissension with the Democrats’ own ranks:
On February 8, House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) and I wrote a letter to your chief of staff, Mr. Emanuel, posing a number of questions about the proposed February 25 summit. Among the questions we asked was whether congressional Democrats who are opposed to the House or Senate versions of the health care bill would be invited to participate in the summit. As of this writing, Mr. Emanuel has not responded to our letter, and the Democratic leadership in the House has not indicated any plans to include such members in the delegations they are sending to Blair House.
I write today to respectfully ask that you invite Rep. Stupak to participate in the February 25 health care summit so that the will of the American people – and that of a bipartisan majority in the House – on the critical issue of life will be appropriately represented during the discussion.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air


Bobby Jindal: Paternalistic, big-government liberalism is the biggest loser here

Super Nannies: EU bans olive oils, Germany ponders Autobahn speed limit






Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
As I just posted HotairLib has their whole head up their six o clock.
hamradio on May 24, 2013 at 2:43 PM
Who wrote the speech? Or are you just praising the messenger?
mixplix on May 24, 2013 at 2:57 PM
Connect the dots: journolist meeting by invitation only at the White House on, what Tuesday?, “big”speech by Obama on Thursday, lame stream media fawning over speech on Friday. Who would have seen that coming, huh?
parke on May 24, 2013 at 2:58 PM
They need the “war on terror” in order to further erode our Constitutional freedoms and to deflect criticism from the administration’s and Federal government’s ongoing corruption.
They are just trying to massage it so that they don’t offend the Muslims, international Libtards and their own sensibilities anymore than necessary.
A few Muslim terrorists here and there are quite expendable to this Administration despite their sympathies for them. These drone attacks also do much deflect any potential criticism that the Administration is weak in dealing with such matters.
Dr. ZhivBlago on May 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM
MSNBC is nothing but a left wing propaganda machine serving their master, Obama.
rplat on May 24, 2013 at 3:07 PM
I believe that he was officially nominated 10 days after he was sworn in. Wow! The WON really worked long hours that week and a half to earn that POS medal. During those ten days he ordered NO DRONE STRIKES to keep his peaceful record clean.
fred5678 on May 24, 2013 at 3:22 PM
Obama: Don’t worry about that Ben Ghazi guy. I killed Bin Laden, and Bush didn’t!
And Obummer still wants to close Gitmo? Good luck with that–not even Upchuck Schumer was willing to hold trials in New York!
Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM
They just changed the definition of terrorist. They used to be jihadis from the Middle East–now they’re Minutemen in Arizona and Tea Partiers in Ohio.
Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:29 PM
Erika, sometimes your writing shows signs of rivaling even the Master of Snark himself, Allahpundit. Good work!
KS Rex on May 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM
I love how crazy Al invoked the Nobel Peace Prize in praise of a speech that spoke about dropping bombs on people’s head. Maybe it was the “fewer” bombs than before that raised this to historic levels.
Do they even know or care that they are morons.
marnes on May 24, 2013 at 3:46 PM
His speech made less sense than Bluto’s Animal House Speech and was far less entertaining. Nothing less than base rallying time. Never thought I would say this, but Code Pink was the best part.
DDay on May 24, 2013 at 4:01 PM
Sperling posted this at the Examiner on May 23 about this “historic speech of Obysmal’s:
You see, we are just not working hard enough to “work with the Muslim American community” who are a “fundamental part of the American family.” Watch out, too, because Obysmal is again trying to limit the impact of the Internet.
onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:22 PM
That Chris Hayes is a bit of a twink, isn’t he?
onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM
Obama apparently gave two speeches yesterday and I watched the other one.
myiq2xu on May 24, 2013 at 5:03 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2