jeffreyw - March 20, 2010 | 3:25 pm · Link

That is good news.

scav - March 20, 2010 | 3:28 pm · Link

@jeffreyw: well then, happy birthday and I’ll try to arrange that you get a letter from the Queen!

HRA - March 20, 2010 | 3:30 pm · Link

I saw Steny Hoyer on TV moments ago. Yes, he said they have the votes. Even Dana Millbank conceded to it. LOL

AxelFoley - March 20, 2010 | 3:32 pm · Link

@jeffreyw:

That is good news.

For McCain?

mr. whipple - March 20, 2010 | 3:33 pm · Link

forgive me for C/P from the end of the thread below, but three more yeses!

YES

Rep. Chris Carney (D-PA) will vote YES… Solid GOP district and part of Stupak group… /via @politicojosh

http://twitter.com/pwire

ANOTHER!

RT @ThePlumLineGS: Henry Cuellar, who famously ducked POTUS’s calls, will vote Yes on Senate bill: http://bit.ly/aL0NeV

http://twitter.com/jeffreyyoung_hc

YES

Rep DeFazio tells me he “brought a hardball bat to the hardball game” to what he wanted on Medicare $ in #hcr. He’s a yes

http://twitter.com/todd_zwillich

Joseph Nobles - March 20, 2010 | 3:37 pm · Link

As twitterer rkref says, if they’ve dropped “deem and pass”, it means they’re confident they can pass it without. Good news.

mr. whipple - March 20, 2010 | 3:37 pm · Link

Obama speaking live to Dems:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/live

mcc - March 20, 2010 | 3:40 pm · Link

Arcuri’s phones are STILL constantly busy after two days.

Tried to call Teague’s office. The DC office did not answer their phones; guess they’re not in. I tried calling a local Teague office (apparently Teague is the representative for Roswell?): “This mailbox is now full”. Heh.

Teague’s funny because like Stephen Lynch Teague’s trying to co-opt FDL-style rhetoric about how the bill will help insurance companies more than normal people and pretend this is why he’s voting against it. Except it doesn’t really work because whereas when FDL or Dennis Kucinich makes that argument you know that these people really did spend months or years fighting for a public option and other provisions that would weaken insurance companies, Teague like Lynch has no history of this and in fact opposed the public option. Like Lynch, Teague seems to be pretty clearly lying about his motivations to cover up the fact he’s a Stupaker. I guess at least there’s a victory here that the Stupak faction has been made so unpopular its members have to pretend not to be in it.

Violet - March 20, 2010 | 3:42 pm · Link

This is so exciting! I might start crying too.

mcc - March 20, 2010 | 3:45 pm · Link

@mr. whipple: Awesome, thanks! I had heard this was going to happen but didn’t know if it would be televised.

I’m a little confused by this link. When I open it two separate audio streams start playing? Then if I press “pause”, one audio stream stops and the other continues. But it seems like the two streams are the same stream only one is delayed. All very Steve Reich. Maybe this is a problem with Safari? Anyway, it’s working (though it’s still audio only, is anyone else getting video?)

mr. whipple - March 20, 2010 | 3:47 pm · Link

@mcc:

Cspan 1 has video.

rikyrah - March 20, 2010 | 3:49 pm · Link

I love Reid’s basketball analogy.

mr. whipple - March 20, 2010 | 3:50 pm · Link

Steny is going thru the history of FAIL.

We have now overcome.

mcc - March 20, 2010 | 3:51 pm · Link

Reid actually made a pretty good basketball analogy! It was a really odd feeling to be hearing Harry Reid’s voice and not be rolling my eyes

Martian Buddy - March 20, 2010 | 3:53 pm · Link

Good. That means my hypocritical asshat of a Rep. can shut his yap about the “upperdown vote” now.

guhm61 - March 20, 2010 | 3:55 pm · Link

Obama on now on Cspan

mr. whipple - March 20, 2010 | 3:57 pm · Link

@Violet:

Me, too.

demo woman - March 20, 2010 | 3:58 pm · Link

Yesterday someone had the analogy that the President was like a boa constrictor.. I want to mention again that was a great analogy.

Corner Stone - March 20, 2010 | 4:00 pm · Link

Obama is either about to cry, or can’t find the teleprompter.

I keed, I keed.

JGabriel - March 20, 2010 | 4:00 pm · Link

@K. Grant:

Who will this satisfy the most in the House? Leary progressive types?

Leery centrists and “moderate” conservadems who are worried about process more than results.

.

Violet - March 20, 2010 | 4:00 pm · Link

@JGabriel:
It’s so cute when the Republicans concern troll.

Obama is calling out Republicans on their concern trolling right now. Very smart President.

Tim F. - March 20, 2010 | 4:01 pm · Link

Professor Obama explains concern trolling. Nicely played, sir.

demo woman - March 20, 2010 | 4:02 pm · Link

I love that some reps brought their children with them. They were there when history was made. How cool is that…

geg6 - March 20, 2010 | 4:04 pm · Link

I couldn’t be prouder of Nancy Pelosi. I’m just beaming at what a great Speaker she is. I am just humbled by her brilliance, and ruthlessness, and grit in running this process. She is my hero forever.

mr. whipple - March 20, 2010 | 4:06 pm · Link

@geg6:

Hell yes. If the DNC calls this afternoon, they’ll have much better luck with me than the last few months. LOL.

Violet - March 20, 2010 | 4:06 pm · Link

@geg6:
Me too. She’s teh awesome! Best damn Speaker in decades, maybe ever. Go Nancy!

Litlebritdifrnt - March 20, 2010 | 4:10 pm · Link

@Tim F.: I thought it was hilarious!

Tim F. - March 20, 2010 | 4:10 pm · Link

@Martin: I just hope that someone caught video of that and the protestors calling John Lewis, a civil rights hero, the N-word. I wasn’t even born during civil rights and some of those black & white photos and videos are nonetheless burned into my memory.

Violet - March 20, 2010 | 4:12 pm · Link

@Litlebritdifrnt:
You watching the rugby? I’m relegated to the computer for the politics stuff. Lol.

geg6 - March 20, 2010 | 4:15 pm · Link

Martin @52: Did you read the whole article on the teabagging assholes menacing Dem reps? It just shows you what these people are about. It’s not about HCR or taxes or anything policy based. It’s pure hate and resentment and anger. It’s really about their fear of women and gays and “other” people. It’s sad and frightening and outrageous all at once. These people are simply psychotic and sociopathic. No question about that in my mind.

Violet - March 20, 2010 | 4:15 pm · Link

Awesome mention of Betsy Markey and the local paper. Just awesome.

Lesson: Stand up for Democratic principles and goals and people come around. Smart, smart, smart.

mr. whipple - March 20, 2010 | 4:17 pm · Link

@Violet:

Yes, he’s got their back, and we have to, also.

Litlebritdifrnt - March 20, 2010 | 4:19 pm · Link

@Violet:

I cannot believe that I am watching CNN instead of the Six Nations on BBCAmerica!

demkat620 - March 20, 2010 | 4:19 pm · Link

Oh, I want to see this vote tomorrow.

216 baby, 216.

Please god, let john Boehner cry again. Please!

I won’t say the f word for the rest of the year. Please?

JCT - March 20, 2010 | 4:19 pm · Link

And it goes without saying guys, that when they pull this off and end this deep embarrassment and moral failing (that tens of millions of people in this country cannot obtain medical care)—we all need to be ready to get out there and fight for our representatives who will be marked for defeat by the GOP / Tea Party lunatics this Fall. Payback.

Oh, except for Stupak. He can rot.

Corner Stone - March 20, 2010 | 4:21 pm · Link

@demkat620:

I won’t say the f word for the rest of the year. Please?

Fuck that.

Xenos - March 20, 2010 | 4:22 pm · Link

@mcc:

“This is the most stringent insurance reform in history.”

This sounds like damning with faint praise, but I’ll take it.

thomas Levenson - March 20, 2010 | 4:23 pm · Link

@demkat620: Share hopes on John Boehner. On the other—don’t make promises you won’t keep.

Litlebritdifrnt - March 20, 2010 | 4:24 pm · Link

threatening gun violence now!

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/20/code-red-gun/

mcc - March 20, 2010 | 4:25 pm · Link

And now: Huuuuuuugs

Violet - March 20, 2010 | 4:27 pm · Link

Our President is amazing. Obot, right here!

mcc - March 20, 2010 | 4:29 pm · Link

@mr. whipple: That moment was amazing. I’ve watched that little call and response dozens of times, still somehow startling to see it being done by a bunch of 60 year old politicians

Tim F. - March 20, 2010 | 4:41 pm · Link

@Violet: If they get this done it will completely rewrite the narrative. I doubt that trends until today will have much or any relevance at that point.

Martin - March 20, 2010 | 4:48 pm · Link

@geg6: That’s what it’s always been about. Before it was the GOP, it was southern Democrats, but there’s always been a group of people in this country just scared shitless of change.

Yutsano - March 20, 2010 | 4:51 pm · Link

@mr. whipple: Oh snap! The wingnuts lose another talking point in a single Tweet. Teh awesome, it burns!

Martin - March 20, 2010 | 4:53 pm · Link

@rikyrah: Ok, can we please be adults about this and just say ‘nigger’. We all know what ‘n-word’ refers to. If you’re going to report that someone called Lewis a nigger, just say ‘nigger’. He knows the word, he was called it daily. They beat him with riot clubs near the point of death, I’m sure he (and the rest of us) can handle an honestly reported headline.

Protecting people’s delicate sensibilities just drives me fucking crazy.

Martin - March 20, 2010 | 4:55 pm · Link

@mr. whipple:

Asked WH for text on Prez’s speech. They said it wasn’t pre-written. He was just talking. It’s like there’s a teleprompter IN HIS BRAIN.

Ok, that’s really fucking funny.

mcc - March 20, 2010 | 4:58 pm · Link

Executive orders and signing statements, as originally used, were uncontroversial, reasonable instruments of government. The idea is that often legislation is ambiguous in places or contains mild contradictions; legislation doesn’t have to make sense, it just has to pass. Once it’s passed though it’s the executive’s job usually to actually enforce it, so the executive has to make a first pass at interpreting what the legislation means. Signing statements used correctly provide direction to the rest of the executive branch on how a particular piece of legislation is to be implemented, within the bounds set by the legislation’s text. This is particularly reasonable when a piece of legislation either explicitly gives the executive leeway in implementation or directs the executive to direct a rule—as, incidentally, the current health care legislation does.

The reason EOs and signing statements have become controversial this last decade is because George W. Bush misused them, using the signing statements not to fill in gaps in the legislation but rather to actually rewrite the legislation or direct his underlings to disregard parts of the legislation. This doesn’t mean the tool itself is a bad one, it just means that Bush misused the tool or that possibly there need to be more explicit limits on the tool’s procedure.

Either way one reasonable use of a signing statement might be if the President were to recognize that existing U.S. law bars federal funding of abortion and the new health care legislation as written does not change that, and specifically give direction to the rest of the executive that in implementing the new health care legislation the government should not federally fund abortions. Because there is nothing in the health care legislation that funds abortions this wouldn’t actually make any real world difference, but it might make certain lightly-informed citizens and their representatives feel better.

Yutsano - March 20, 2010 | 4:58 pm · Link

@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Oh jeez. He says that he thinks abortion should be safe, legal, and rare, and he suddenly is a misogynistic DINO. I guess I fall under the same category as I agree with that position totally. It is nowhere near saying that abortion is wrong (that’s not my place to say as I’ll never have one) and that it should be illegal.

Martin - March 20, 2010 | 5:07 pm · Link

@The Sheriff’s A Ni-: In your case, it’s perfectly accurate, however. So no, please don’t change.

wmd - March 20, 2010 | 5:20 pm · Link

@Chyron HR:

Do you have a citation?

Mike Kay - March 20, 2010 | 5:24 pm · Link

@wmd:

here’s the citation

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2.....nt-1631647

K. Grant - March 20, 2010 | 5:28 pm · Link

@Mike Kay: Quite true.

Of course, if their sainted dreamboat had won the nomination, we would now all be suffering under the torments of President Walnuts, as Edwards’ delightful extra-curricular activities would have produced the ugliest of 1984-like routs of the Democratic party in a presidential election.

wmd - March 20, 2010 | 5:29 pm · Link

@Mike Kay:

I do think they’d be screaming. The resentment is partly based in how ugly lobbying and campaign finance makes the legislative process work. The process is ugly. Insurance companies will make out well under HCR, and that seems unjust – insurance companies are blamed for a lot of the current problems with health care and with good reason. That they will profit under reform makes the resentment a very natural emotional response.

And part of the screaming is because Jane invested a lot of emotional capital in the Public Option and she’s lost that fight. She can tie that personal loss in with the natural resentment of insurance companies and get some personal egoboo from a big chunk of her readers.

Mike Kay - March 20, 2010 | 5:32 pm · Link

@K. Grant: Exactly. During the primary, all of the Firebaggers (Edwards dead enders) and PUMAs couldn’t stop praising them for championing mandates. Now, they’re tearing their follicles out over mandates.

Mike Kay - March 20, 2010 | 5:38 pm · Link

@wmd: If insurance companies are going to make out well, then why did they finance all those ugly ads opposing HCR?

As for Jane’s organization skills – what has she ever accomplished?

Mike Kay - March 20, 2010 | 5:44 pm · Link

@K. Grant:

here ya go.

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Me.....EGINS.aspx

Mike Kay - March 20, 2010 | 5:52 pm · Link

@Jim, Foolish Literalist:

Obama’s secret opposition to abortion rights is one of the key tenets of PUMAology

Jane was also one of the first creeps to push that lie, when she was supporting Saint Edwards.

Firebaggers and PUMAs – two sides of the same coin.

Mike Kay - March 20, 2010 | 5:58 pm · Link

@eemom:

This!

FlipYrWhig - March 20, 2010 | 6:01 pm · Link

@Mike Kay: I wish there were a term to apply to the Aravosis crowd. Because that was the first place on my map that went plumb loco about Obama’s stealthy conservative/bigoted/Christian/sexist/heterosexist agenda. He has to be kicking himself that all that pub went to Hamsher instead of him.

rikyrah - March 20, 2010 | 6:34 pm · Link

James Clyburn’s response to the teabaggers:

A staffer for Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told reporters that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-M.D.) had been spit on by a protestor. Rep. John Lewis (D-G.A.), a hero of the civil rights movement, was called a ‘ni—er.’ And Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was called a “faggot,” as protestors shouted at him with deliberately lisp-y screams. Frank, approached in the halls after the president’s speech, shrugged off the incident.

But Clyburn was downright incredulous, saying he had not witnessed such treatment since he was leading civil rights protests in South Carolina in the 1960s.

“It was absolutely shocking to me,” Clyburn told the Huffington Post. “Last Monday, this past Monday, I stayed home to meet on the campus of Claflin University where fifty years ago as of last Monday… I led the first demonstrations in South Carolina, the sit ins… And quite frankly I heard some things today I have not heard since that day. I heard people saying things that I have not heard since March 15, 1960 when I was marching to try and get off the back of the bus.”

It doesn’t make me nervous as all,” the congressman said, when asked how the mob-like atmosphere made him feel. “In fact, as I said to one heckler, I am the hardest person in the world to intimidate, so they better go somewhere else.”

Asked if he wanted an apology from the group of Republican lawmakers who had addressed the crowd and, in many ways, played on their worst fears of health care legislation, the Democratic Party, and the president, Clyburn replied:

“A lot of us have been saying for a long time that much of this, much of this is not about health care a all. And I think a lot of those people today demonstrated that this is not about health care… it is about trying to extend a basic fundamental right to people who are less powerful.”

they are who we thought they were:

a bunch of lowdown, nogood mofos.

wmd - March 20, 2010 | 7:00 pm · Link

@Mike Kay:

I’m not happy with Eshoo.

She was very deliberate in using ambiguous language in legislation that could be better – in fact the language adopted by the HELP committee has better language on “evergreen” exclusivity. Her staff and I had a few emails back and forth, I was told Eshoo would contact me directly about it and got a boilerplate “We’ve passed healthcare” email from her… actually 3 copies of the same boilerplate and no engagement on issues.

When a constituent bothers to engage with staff at a congresswoman’s office, is knowledgable and offers germane criticism it seems to me that it is very disrespectful to not address the substance of their critiques. Hence I’m not happy with Anna Eshoo. Of the four people I’ve had representing me she is tied with Baron Hill for last place in quality of representation.

I still have been calling her and expressing my support for PTDB.