Skip to main content

View Diary: Reid Aims for Vote by Saturday (215 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Pelosi got 220 last time for the PO (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JesseCW

    She may whip the votes this time as well.  I'm sure this has been discussed by them beforehand.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White

    by zenbassoon on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:55:03 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Do you notice that the PO isn't in there? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      flatford39, CalliopeIrjaPearl

      If they had had the votes for it, and wanted it, it would be there. It would be the height of foolishness to try to add it now. The last hope for the PO was at least a month ago.

      "Grab a mop -- let's get to work. "
      -- President Barack Obama, Oct 2009

      by davewill on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:58:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh yeah, and it required including the Stupak (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      flatford39

      amendment to accomplish even that much.

      "Grab a mop -- let's get to work. "
      -- President Barack Obama, Oct 2009

      by davewill on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:00:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Totally irrelevant. Stupak and his crew (0+ / 0-)

        already broke.

        Pelosi left the PO out to try to attract Non-Stupak Blue Dogs who claimed to care about "fiscal responsibility" (nevermind that it saves money).

        But those votes still didn't come home, and we cut a deal with Stupak and his crew.  Those anti-choice assholes support a PO.  They're "just" anti-choice.

        Now, the Senate Bill is law.  The Abortion ship sailed, and the deal is done with the executive order.

        We get all the Stupak Votes back for Reconcilliation with a PO.  We might risk losing some other Blue Dogs who get bought off by AHIP, though.

        It would be risky as hell, but let's keep our facts straight about why.

        This was not the Civil Rights Act of 1965. It was the Civil Rights act of 1957. Now get to work.

        by JesseCW on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:29:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site