Whip Count (No. 6 in a Series) – Berkley Feels No Love for the Senate
EmailIn today's New York Times, Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., a Yes vote last November, expressed a hesitation to vote Yes this time.
The reason? She's unconvinced that the Senate will pass the "fixes" to the Senate bill that the House is being asked to vote for (along with fixes), and she's not crazy about the Senate bill without them.
“I am not inclined to support the Senate version,” Berkley said. “I would like something more concrete than a promise. The Senate cannot promise its way out of a brown paper bag.”
As we’ve previously covered, 220 members of Congress voted for the bill when Pelosi brought the House legislation to a vote.
Since then, four yes votes are no more: Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao, R-Louisiana, has said he won’t vote for final passage, Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hi., retired to run for governor, Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., also retired, and Rep. John Murtha, D-Penn., died.
That means to pass the Senate bill, Pelosi starts out with 216 members of Congress who votes yes last time. With the pending retirement of Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., there will soon be only 431 members of Congress total, meaning a majority will be 216 votes
- jpt
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
The bill is dead & the body is starting to stink.
Posted by: Mjim | March 4, 2010, 10:35 am 10:35 am
We’ve got about 9 or ten former NO votes who have indicated a willingness to vote YES this time. You will only know when Speaker Pelosi has the votes when she actually schedules the vote.
Posted by: SpoutingHorn | March 4, 2010, 10:36 am 10:36 am
Stupak told Georgie this morning how it is…. and then Georgie started whining the democrat talking points..
Diane Sawyer in a mag interview: ” no one knows my politics”……
Yes we do and we know where abc stands..
Obama VS America
Posted by: another crisis-another photo op | March 4, 2010, 11:10 am 11:10 am
***We’ve got about 9 or ten former NO votes who have indicated a willingness to vote YES this time. You will only know when Speaker Pelosi has the votes when she actually schedules the vote.
Posted by: SpoutingHorn | Mar 4, 2010 10:36:04 AM***
That would still leave the bill unpassable as stupak and his 11 all voted for passage last time and have switched. With those numbers, and the 9-10 no’s that are saying they may switch you are looking still at a defeated bill, somewhere around a 212-213(y)/218-219(n).
Time will tell though.
Posted by: bobtherepublican | March 4, 2010, 11:13 am 11:13 am
“The Senate cannot promise its way out of a brown paper bag”
A classic line.
She is saying ‘I’m a Democrat and I don’t trust elected Democrats’.
It’s not the Republicans fault that this thing will fail.
Posted by: Joe White | March 4, 2010, 11:28 am 11:28 am
“The bill is dead & the body is starting to stink.”
LOL Good one!!! somebody bring some lime!!!!!!
Posted by: The Big Boo | March 4, 2010, 11:52 am 11:52 am
Thank goodness for Stupak!
Posted by: Nigel | March 4, 2010, 12:05 pm 12:05 pm
And that is not all the Yes’s who are thinking of switching to No. The lefty blog “The Plum Line” is reporting that Kurt Schrader of Oregon, who originally voted yes is now undecided and is leaning towards no. If you add today’s probable defections to Arcuri and Grijalva yesterday and the Stupak dozen, it is now 16 possible defections. At this rate, Pelosi is going to need to start switching Republicans if she wants to get this piece of garbage passed. And, one of the people that the Dems were claiming ws on the brink of flipping, Frank Kravotil, has now confirmed that there is no way he will vote yes if the House has to vote first.
Posted by: Obama is Carter | March 4, 2010, 12:06 pm 12:06 pm
Kill this Rasputin of a bill.
Posted by: killthebill | March 4, 2010, 12:07 pm 12:07 pm
***We’ve got about 9 or ten former NO votes who have indicated a willingness to vote YES this time. You will only know when Speaker Pelosi has the votes when she actually schedules the vote.***
Wrong. One of them has now stated he is a definite no and all that was required to get on the AP list was a non-response to their survey. Another of those supposed undecideds, John Tanner, told a colleague, according to the NY Times, that there was no way he was switching. Another Brian Baird, told Salon, after the AP report, thathe probably won’t switch either. That list that supposedly contains nine people who are willing to switch gets smaller every day, as does the number of people who state they will vote yes for the Senate bill. Moreover, the AP article explicitly states that not all of those nine people stated they were undecided. Some were put on that list because they didn’t respond to the AP’s queries. Did you really think Pelosi was going to get 100% of those on that supposed undecided list to switch? Talk about wishful thinking. At this rate, even if all of them did, which as Idetail in this post is not going to happen, you still wouldn’t have enough votes to pass the thing. If all those who state they are switching from yes to no are true to their word, you would nneed to flip over a third of those who voted No the first time. I don’t think anyone in their right mind thinks that is going to happen.
Posted by: Obama is Carter | March 4, 2010, 12:19 pm 12:19 pm
Don’t get too excited folks. You have to remember there is only one kind of Democrat. Moderates and bluedogs are just imaginary. When the rubber hits the road all democrats put party before country. Party is everything to a democrat like the union is everything to a union member. This horrible bill will pass only because of the unity of democrats. Party comes first period. The country be dammed.
Posted by: Jimmie | March 4, 2010, 12:22 pm 12:22 pm
But for the egos of Pelosi and Obama, this bill would be dead. Exit question:
Are the members of Congress willing to reimburse the American Taxpayer for the time WASTED on this abortion that has little to nothing to do with “reform”?
Posted by: GarandFan | March 4, 2010, 12:28 pm 12:28 pm
But for the egos of Pelosi and Obama, this bill would be dead.
__________
Right. That only leaves out the growing number of uninsureds and underinsured and the Dems who voted them into office.
But for the egos of Republicans, lobbyists, and centrist Dems in the pockets of special interests, we’d have passed a better bill, and we wouldn’t be a joke on this issue to all other advanced and civilized nations.
Posted by: progressive mama | March 4, 2010, 12:53 pm 12:53 pm
Surely there must be a few more seats on the Federal Bench available for the relatives of the undecided?
Posted by: Lawyers Guns& Money | March 4, 2010, 1:05 pm 1:05 pm
Surely there must be a few more seats on the Federal Bench available for the relatives of the undecided?
Posted by: Lawyers Guns& Money | Mar 4, 2010 1:05:58 PM
Has to be, right? And I’m sure the GOP will back those nominations as well, right?
Per the Wonk Room and Think Progress:
“Of course, other than the timing of the press release announcing Scott Matheson’s appointment and his brother’s meeting at the White House, there is absolutely no evidence that the administration set up a quid pro quo. Rep. Matheson’s spokeswoman denied the story to Politico, calling the allegations, “patently ridiculous.” “Can you spell NO?” she asked. A White House official called the charge “absurd.”
In fact, no less than two Utah Republicans have vouched for Scott Matheson’s judicial qualifications. “I approve of that nomination. Scott is a very fine fellow,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz also praised Matheson’s nomination, saying, “His distinguished scholarship as an attorney and law school dean, and his devoted public service to Utah and to the United States, make him an excellent nominee. Good choice, Mr. President. Good choice.”
This isn’t the first time the Weekly Standard manufactured false quid-pro-quo stories about health reform. In December, Michael Goldfarb floated a baseless rumor that the White House threatened to close an Air Force base in Nebraska if Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) didn’t vote for health care reform. Nelson derided the Weekly Standard as “yellow journalism at its worst.” Indeed, it still is.”
Faux News, Beck, Bachmann and their blind followers are peddling this story— question is, what’s up with Hatch and Charffetz then?
Posted by: There is no Planet B | March 4, 2010, 1:17 pm 1:17 pm
Nobody’s saying the Matheson bro isn’t qualified. But there are thousands of people similarly qualified. All except for one don’t have brothers whose vote Barack needs to feed his maniacal ego and pass this idiocy. And that’s the guy who got picked, the same day the brother is invited to the White House.
Is this hope, or change? Or this this guy just completely, completely incompetent.
Rahm in ’12. Turns out he’s the smart one.
Posted by: Pedro | March 4, 2010, 1:48 pm 1:48 pm
All these Dems jumping off the SS ObamaCare and yet all these paid shills on here calling the Republicans the party of ‘No’
And no I am neither Dem nor Republican
Posted by: Denbo | March 4, 2010, 3:21 pm 3:21 pm
Unfortunately, the problem is that the national media doesn’t understand who Scott Matheson is or the power of the Matheson name in Utah.
A little examination into what Mr. Matheson has actually done in each of these positions confirms in my mind that a little quid pro quo action was happening between the Matheson family and President Obama. And I’m a Democrat.
I wish the media would actually investigate what he has actually done.
Matheson quit his national firm after only a few years, coming back to Utah where his name carried a certain gravitas. He secured a spot as U.S. Attorney, but ruined the morale in the office in the process. He became a dean, but drove Utah law school off a cliff and out of its position as a top tier law school in the process. He was essentially pushed aside and replaced after a national dean search.
And, mere days before the health care vote and many months since the seat opened up, Mr. Matheson just happens to be the best person for the job???
Please. He’s the brother of a blue dog hold out. Once again, he’s lucky to have the Matheson name.
Posted by: Voted for Obama | March 4, 2010, 6:24 pm 6:24 pm
You can’t trust the senate.
Posted by: Senate goes first | March 4, 2010, 9:19 pm 9:19 pm
…we wouldn’t be a joke on this issue to all other advanced and civilized nations.
Posted by: progressive mama
—
Let’s praise Bill Clinton for a moment (if nothing else, the man is smart). How do you think he’d be handling this disaster? He’d have hung this disaster around someone else’s neck 3 months ago, walked away and let it bury them.
How much is this disaster estimated to cost each of us?
What coverage does this disaster include?
Posted by: smartlillena | March 6, 2010, 7:38 am 7:38 am
Wall Street Journal Exposes Congress Shelley Berkley gambles against The United States Wall Street.
Rep. Shelley Berkley (D., Nev.), a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, has been a critic of Wall Street. In a statement on the House floor Feb. 23, she said: “Representing Las Vegas, let me assure you, no casino on the planet behaves as irresponsibly and recklessly as Wall Street does. Wall Street ought to be ashamed, and take a lesson from the casino industry.”
An account held by her husband, “Doctor Lawrence Lehrner”, shows 57 trades in 2008 in ETFs designed to gain $2 for each $1 drop in the value of a market index, the disclosures show. Between July 25 and July 29, 2008—four months after Bear Stearns Cos. fell—records show four trades in and out of ProShares UltraShort Financial fund.
On Sept. 16, 2008, the day after Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, the account added ProShares UltraShort S&P 500, a fund that thrives when blue-chip stocks tumble.
It was sold over the next two days at a 5% profit, according to disclosures. The account earned a modest net profit of a little over $700 on the trades in leveraged funds in 2008, based on The Journal’s analysis of trading records.
“All trades were done by a licensed money manager without any input from my husband or me?????LOL,” Rep. Berkley said. “This is exactly the way many people handle whatever monies they may have in the stock market. I know in our case, he operated wholly within the existing regulations.” Her office declined to make her husband’s money manager available for comment.
Posted by: Americans Who | May 6, 2010, 9:10 pm 9:10 pm