To begin, very few of the progressives are likely to kill the bill, just as, at the end of the day, Feingold, Sanders and Burris all voted for the bill. The impending retirements of Congressmen Tanner, Gordon, and Baird have probably given Pelosi a few extra votes to play with. Moreover, a public option-less bill gives some of the less conservative “noes” some cover to vote yes; Democrats like Adler (NJ-3), Boccieri (OH-16), Davis (AL-07), and Teague (AZ-05) come to mind. This could offset losses among the progressive caucus.
I’m also guessing that there were ten-to-fifteen Democrats who voted “no” who were available for the Speaker if she really needed them, or wanted them badly enough. Given the buy-offs of Senators Nelson, Sanders and Landrieu, it is pretty clear that no price is too high for the leadership and the White House. If Congressman X’s life desire is to be King of Zamunda, we can expect to see a pro-US coup there the next day, with Congressman X installed shortly as King. What we saw in the Senate confirms what we already suspect to be true: Most votes in the House and Senate are for sale if the price is high enough (please note that this is not restricted to the Democrats; see House Republicans’ handling of the Prescription Drug Benefit).
But at the end of the day, Ben Nelson’s vote is the real reason I can’t imagine the bill failing in the House. As I noted above, his Senate vote makes little political sense. On paper there is no reason that he should be at “yes.” It is a potentially career-ending vote that isn’t supported by his constituents, and that, judging by his statements on Stupak and overall voting record, he doesn’t either. And unlike Blanche Lincoln, he’s not facing a potential primary challenge from the left.
But Democrats seem to have made the collective decision that, for better or for worse, their fate lies with Barack Obama succeeding with his legislative agenda.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member