As noted on Twitter, opposition to the health-care reform bill in poll after poll is a majority or near-majority, and often well ahead of support. In the latest Rasmussen, 54 percent; Fox News/Opinion Dynamics, 55 percent; Public Policy Polling, 49 percent; NBC/Wall Street Journal, 48 percent; Pew, 48 percent; Gallup, 48 percent; Newsweek, 49 percent; Public Opinion Strategies, 52 percent.

Support, by comparison,  in latest Rasmussen is 41 percent; Fox News/Opinion Dynamics, 35 percent; Public Policy Polling, 45 percent; NBC/WSJ, 36 percent; Pew, 38 percent; Gallup, 45 percent; Newsweek, 40 percent, Public Opinion Strategies: 40 percent.

The constituents of Virginia Democrat Tom Perriello are taking his “if you don’t tie our hands, we’ll keep stealing” comment quite seriously, including Republican candidate Laurence Verga:

After Congressman Tom Perriello said last week that “If you don’t tie our hands, we’ll keep stealing”, he has once again stolen from us by voting tonight for an unconstitutional Senate health care bill that includes over $569 billion of job-killing tax increases. Since Mr. Perriello clearly has no self control, we will do exactly what he has told us to do, Tie His Hands!

Tomorrow I will be hosting a “Tie His Hands Rally” at 12 pm at The First Amendment Monument in Charlottesville where we will protest his support of ObamaCare and then march over to his office and drop off a pair of handcuffs so he can finally to tie his own hands and do no more damage to our district and nation in the short term.  In addition, dozens of his constituents will be delivering him pink slips, letting Mr. Perriello know that his days in office are numbered and long term he will not be employed any longer by the people he continues to steal from.  

For those who aren’t able to attend the rally, click here to send Congressman Perriello a pair of handcuffs to his Martinsville office, where unemployment is a staggering 20%: 10 East Church Street, Suite K, Martinsville, VA 24112

Insert your own double entendre about the use of handcuffs here.

The RNC debuts a new “Fire Pelosi” site.

Last night, Rep. Joe Donnelly of Indiana voted to pass the health-care bill.

Here’s how it plays, according to the polling company™, inc./WomanTrend in their survey of 300 registered voters in Donnelly’s north central Indiana district:

IN-02 Joe Donnelly
80% oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions (66% strongly oppose)
78% oppose taxpayer funding of abortions as part of healthcare reform (66% strongly oppose)
70% agree that abortion and abortion funding have no place in healthcare legislation (58% strongly agree)
60% would be less likely to vote to re-elect Congressman Donnelly if he votes for healthcare legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion (47% would be much less likely)

There are a few Republicans in that district who seek to shift Mr. Donnelly to a position where he can do less damage to the interests of his constituents: state representative Jackie Walorski, Jack Jordan, and Martin Dolan.

My Morning Jolt excepts are going to get shorter, so subscribe. And mind you, it’s free; you can get the other 1,200-1,300 words each day only by signing up. (And Chaka is getting better at getting it out in the actual morning.)

Take a look at all of those so-called pro-life, or conservative, or centrist Democrats. Not every last one of them, but a heck of a lot of them sold out: John Boccieri, Charlie Wilson, and Steve Driehaus of Ohio. Joe Donnelly and Brad Ellsworth of Indiana. Bart Stupak (more on him in a bit) and Dale Kildee of Michigan. Suzanne Kosmas and Allen Boyd of Florida. Betsy Markey of Colorado. Perriello of Virginia. Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota,  Dina Titus of Nevada. All of them touting how centrist they are, or how they have conservative values, or how no matter how much they march in lockstep with Nancy Pelosi on other issues, they have deep and abiding respect for the unborn.

Horse$#@%&.

“Centrist Democrat” is a synonym for a liberal who wants to get reelected in a conservative district.

(By the way, not that it’s a surprise, but Captain Hook can count on his bad hand how many members of the House Progressive Caucus kept their threat to vote against any health care bill that didn’t include a public option.)

Brad Ellsworth doesn’t really want to be a senator from Indiana, does he? Public Opinion Strategies found that in Ellsworth’s district, nearly half of voters say they ‘strongly oppose’ the bill.  By more than a three-to-one margin voters ‘strongly oppose’ the bill (12 percent strongly support, 47 percent strongly oppose). And this man wants to be senator?

The NRCC’s initial video response on the health-care vote:

Rich mentioned in his column:

Obama is becoming increasingly heedless in his salesmanship. When he calls the bill a deficit-reduction measure, at least he has the backing of a Congressional Budget Office analysis that — taking all the bill’s unrealistic assumptions at face value — says it will reduce the deficit. He has no serious warrant for his otherworldly claims that it will control costs and reduce insurance premiums. The provision he has dubiously touted as a solution to rising premiums, a federal review board, won’t even make it into the final bill.

The president engaged in similarly shameless overpromising when hawking his stimulus bill. How did that turn out? He won’t even mention the word “stimulus” anymore. On health care, his most alluring promises will soon be discredited as costs, premiums, and the number of uninsured (in the near term) remain high. To paraphrase Colin Powell, if you reform it, you own it, and all the discontent with the health-care system will now adhere to Democrats.

A more cautious and shrewd leader would have avoided making easily falsifiable representations or putting himself on the hook in this way. Not Obama. On health care, he’s immoderate in his substance, his risk-taking, and his rhetoric. He’s all in, and he doesn’t care.

I don’t know how the final vote will shake out, but for a while, I’ve said that we know they don’t have the votes until they call a vote. They’ve called for a vote. It should occur Sunday. We’ve seen a few folks fall into place. They probably have (at least) 216; it seems like a lot of vulnerable Democrats are saying they’ll vote yes and roll the dice on their reelection in November.

But if it passes Sunday, as of Monday, if Americans have problems with their health care, they know where to send their complaints. If your premiums jump, thank most House Democrats, Senate Democrats, and the Obama administration. If your doctor takes early retirement, you know who to call. If you can’t get an appointment because the system suddenly has 30 million new patients, don’t blame the GOP. Patient care, premiums, what’s covered, access to prescription drugs, the rate of innovation in new drugs and procedures, the out-of-date magazines in the waiting room – hey, it’s all Obama’s show now. We laid out all the reasons this wasn’t going to work according to plan. (Exhibit A: Government programs never work according to plan.)

A lot of Democrats seem to think that they’ll vote this into law, and then the anger will go away. Nope. In the months and years to come, they’ll have the anger of the opponents and the anger of all the supporters who thought this would give them top-dollar care for low costs.

For a while, I’ve said that the first indicator that Pelosi has the votes would be when she scheduled a vote. The Democrats have done so, and we’ve seen a few wavering Democrats fall into place: Betsy Markey, John Boccieri, Charlie Wilson.

But not everybody. Altmire’s a no.

With word that Tom Perriello of Virginia and Allen Boyd of Florida are on board, I think most House Democrats have decided to hold hands and jump off the cliff, hoping that the others cushion their fall.

Ohioans who are displeased with the much-touted doubts of John Boccieri and Charlie Wilson amounting to nothing much might wish to check out the men who would force them into involuntary retirement.

Boccieri is likely to face former Wadsworth mayor Jim Renacci, who’s already putting up web and radio ads on the health-care vote.

Several Republicans are lining up to take on Wilson, including veterinarian Donald Allen, veteran and former Belmont County sheriff Dick Stobbs, and Air Force veteran and entrepreneur Bill Johnson, who is collecting “pink slips” to deliver to Wilson’s office.

While sitting in traffic, trying to get to Obama’s rah-rah fest at George Mason University, I heard the audio from Rep. John Boccieri’s press conference, about as disingenuous a display as I’ve seen in politics.

In short, every wavering Democrat has now put themselves in a box. After weeks of insisting that this was a tough call, that they saw many competing advantages and drawbacks in the legislation, and that the arguments for support and opposition were almost equally compelling, they have to decide, and then downplay all the counter-evidence that they spent all that time weighing.

Boccieri began by mentioning his mother’s fight with breast cancer. Of course, the breast cancer of his mother apparently wasn’t enough to get him to vote for the House version last fall.

His entire presentation was anecdotes about those suffering without health care. To hear him tell it, this was the Jesus Shows Up at Your Door and Heals You Act of 2010. Of course, if the bill was that terrific, one can’t help but wonder why he’s been wavering and undecided for weeks and weeks.

Boccieri made no concession to any drawback in this bill – not the cost, not the mandates, not the abortion issue, not the Medicare cuts, not the potential interference in the doctor-patient relationship, not the certain hike in premiums, not the ridiculous maneuver in which the House avoids a vote on the actual legislation. Instead, Boccieri railed about the “lies and fear mongering” that surrounded the legislation.

A recent poll indicated that 62 percent of voters in Boccieri’s district would be less likely to support a lawmaker who votes for a bill that enables public funding of abortion, and 50 percent would be much less likely. I hope that percentage, and perhaps more, make Boccieri eat this vote in November.

Betsy Markey, Colorado Democrat, said she’ll vote for the health-care bill; she was a “no” last fall.

Here’s what a survey of 400 likely voters conducted March 16 by Pulse Opinion Research found:

1) Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly
oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional
Democrats?
23% Strongly favor
13% Somewhat favor
11% Somewhat oppose
52% Strongly oppose
2% Not sure

2) Would you be more likely to support a candidate who votes for the healthcare plan proposed
by President Obama or less likely to support a candidate who votes for the healthcare plan
proposed by President Obama?
32% More likely
61% Less likely
4% It has not impact on your vote
3% Not sure

3) If your Congressman, Democrat Betsy Markey, votes in favor of the Obama healthcare
proposal how likely are you to vote for her in the next election?
28% Very likely
10% Somewhat likely
17% Not very likely
41% Not at all likely
3% Not sure

Judging from these numbers, and the likely consequence of her “yes” vote, you might suspect she doesn’t really want to keep her current job.

Obama’s final health-care rally is being held at George Mason University.

What would its namesake say at a moment like this?

Perhaps: “Attend with diligence and strict integrity to the interest of your correspondents and enter into no engagements which you have not the almost certain means of performing.”

(So that’s a “no” to we’ll-pay-for-it-with-a-tax-hike-in-2018, huh?)

“There never was a government over a very extensive country without destroying the liberties of the people.”

“In all our associations; in all our agreements let us never lose sight of this fundamental maxim – that all power was originally lodged in, and consequently is derived from, the people.” (Sounds like a Tea Partier.)

Also, it looks like he met a young Robert Byrd: “I wish I knew where to get a good one myself; for I find cold Sheets extremely disagreeable.”

The Virginia Republican party has been torturing various staffers and volunteers, making them read the Senate version of the health-care bill aloud. Why?

J. Garren Shipley, the state GOP communications director, explains: “If it has taken our team more than 48 hours of non-stop reading to get through this bill, do you think the average Democratic member of Congress has read this bill they’re rushing to pass on Sunday? We’ve found some outrageous stuff in this legislation that has nothing to do with health care, like a federal mandate to put nutrition information on fast food menus. I don’t think you’ll see that in any of the Democratic talking points.”

“And there are tons of other examples of things in here that have nothing to do with health insurance,” Shipley continues. “But you’d never know it was in there unless you read the bill. Got an FSA or HSA through your employer? There are severe limits on how much money can be put into these accounts and how it can be used, like a prohibition on the purchase of non-prescription drugs. And we haven’t even touched on the fact that this bill — and the reconciliation package — levy billions upon billions of dollars in new taxes on citizens of all income levels. This bill is a Democrat Christmas tree of government expansion, packed full of pet projects and fixes to pet peeves — a vision of the federal government as the cure for any and every ill in society. And you wouldn’t know any of this, unless you read the bill. That’s why we’ve been reading it. Hopefully, Gerry Connolly, Glenn Nye, Tom Perriello, and Rick Boucher have been listening. Because if they really knew what was in here, there’s no way they’d still be undecided.”

And you thought the time for talk was over. Obviously, reading aloud takes more time than simply reading a bill, but just how quickly can a lawmaker read a 2,407-page bill and a 153-page reconciliation package?

You can listen to the hoarse-throated, exhausted staffers here.

As usual, subscribe, subscribe, subscribe . . . Selected highlights from this morning’s Jolt:

Speaker of the Devil

222 House Democrats signed on for the Demonpass. Multiply that by three. No wonder this legislative penta-debacle is heading to committee for the Markup of the Beast. It’s not like we weren’t warned; they’ve been telling us the devil is in the details since day one. Now there’s higher premiums and hell to pay . . .

Indo-Amnesia

An ironic quote over in Foreign Policy: “In many ways, America has been somewhat absent from the region over the last several years and we are committed to restoring that leadership,” said National Security Council communications director Ben Rhodes on Monday, calling the trip an “important opportunity to advance American interests in this vitally important part of the world.” Boy, nothing dispels a sense of being absent from the region like putting long-promised, long-expected trips on the Wimpy hamburger reimbursement schedule.

By the way, think the Aussies are cool with getting stood up to the Pan-Pacific prom? Headline in the Sydney Morning Herald: “Obama ditches Indonesia, Australia trip over health care.” I suppose we should be glad the words “DROP DEAD” weren’t used . . .

Is This Israel Policy Real?

I know, it’s Day Three of Jim Callously Dismissing Palestinian Suffering, and you’re probably tiring of this topic. (Of course, compared to health care, it feels new and fresh. I don’t mean the recent diplomatic brouhaha, I mean the health care debate feels like it’s been going on longer than the Arab-Israeli conflict.) But each day there’s some new “what the hell is this schvitz” moment that illustrates how wildly off-course we’ve gone. Fox News: “President Obama has delayed his trip to Indonesia and Australia to deal with health care, but has not committed to any meetings with Israeli leaders who are scheduled to be in Washington next week and are perhaps hoping to repair what many observers are calling a mis-step between the U.S. and Israel over settlements and a trip to the region by the Vice President.”

My first thought when Obama refuses to meet with a foreign leader is that the Chinese must object. But no, this is apparently a continuation of our temper tantrum from earlier last week. Recall, the offer to meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions has never been off the table, but the head of state who’s an ally is not welcome. With his absolute inability to get a face-to-face meeting with the president, you would think Bibi was Stanley McChrystal or something.

From a reader who called Massachusetts Democrat Stephen Lynch:

Because Altmire and Lynch have both come out against the Slaughter Rule (and Lynch released a statement announcing his switch to NO today), I contacted their offices to ask how they could have voted to permit the Slaughter Rule in the just-concluded House vote.  Altmire’s office said they haven’t gotten a statement just yet, but Lynch’s office maintains that today’s vote was purely a procedural vote, and one which had nothing to do with health care.  They maintain that Lynch is still against the Senate Bill and the Slaughter Rule.
 
I informed Boehner’s office and they couldn’t explain this except to say that it was technically true (even though everyone knew what the purpose of this procedural vote was), and that there have been cases, such as TARP, where someone will vote to allow legislation to come to the floor and then vote against the legislation.
 
Perhaps Altmire and Lynch think leadership should have the right to use the Slaughter Rule, even though they personally are against it?  Altmire said pretty much exactly this on Hannity last night.
 
A lot of people are now saying if Pelosi had 222 votes to defeat the Republicans’ attempts to block the Slaughter Rule, that she must then have at least as many to vote for the actual Rule on Sunday (or whenever it’s brought for a vote).  But perhaps there other reasons why some Democrats votes with their party this afternoon . . .

I’m not sure how you explain calling a rule “disingenuous” one day and literally vote to okay it the next, but if Lynch votes “no” on health care, I suspect few will remember that aspect of this debate . . .

Perhaps the “House Democrat logic” that eludes me below rests on the supposition that constituents are stupid and will believe anything you tell them. Stacy, a constituent of John Barrow, Georgia Democrat, shares this less-than-edifying discussion with a staffer:

Just got off the phone with a Barrow lackey.  He tried to convince me that Barrow wants an up or down vote on the health care bill and blamed the Republicans for forcing Barrow to vote against requiring an up or down vote on the health care bill.  I have been told for days and days that he is reading the bill.  They will not tell us how he will vote on the health care bill or even how he will vote on the rule regarding the self execution of the bill.  Is he reading that too?

He also told me that no matter what is in the Senate bill, the Hyde Bill will prevent federal funds from being used for abortions.  So I asked what all the fuss was about then.  He told me the fuss is once again because of the Republicans.  I asked him if Stupak was a Republican.  Then he rambled off a bunch more nonsense about Republicans and threw in a few lies about the Bush tax cuts – HUH?!?

I was asked if I had a message for my Congressman.  I told them to tell Barrow that we aren’t as stupid as the people answering the phones want to believe we are.

Barrow’s position, apparently, is that he wants an up-or-down vote on the health-care bill, so he voted for a resolution that ensures there will be no up-or-down vote on the health-care bill.

UPDATE: From another reader in Georgia, living in the other district represented by a vulnerable Democrat:

I called Jim Marshall (D-GA), my former congressman before I moved a few miles outside the district. I was assured by the guy answering the phone that he is a definite no. But then I asked, OK then why did he vote for the Slaughter rule? The guy mumbled something about procedure to pass. I think he was just a guy reading off a script and so I didn’t want to get into it with him, what’s the point. But he did say 3 or 4 times that Jim Marshall is a no. FWIW.

John Barrow sounds like a definite cave.

To be fair, just about every count I’ve seen has considered Marshall a likely “no.”

Two readers offer completely contradictory views on what it means that so many vulnerable and wavering House Democrats chose to vote “yes” on a resolution approving use of the deem-and-pass/demonpass maneuver.

The optimist, a smart, well-plugged in reader:

If a Democrat is planning to vote NO on the bill, it doesn’t hurt to vote YES on Slaughter as some proactive restitution to Pelosi. The majority party has to win a procedural vote. It also keeps Pelosi’s henchmen at bay for a few hours. I note that both Nye and Dahlkemper voted NO, which is truly encouraging.

The pessimist: “How many ‘yes’ on demonpass and will vote ‘no’ on the healthcare bill . . . I’d bet less than 5.”

Today’s result surprised me, because I figured a vote on health-care bill is easier to defend than this maneuver. On health-care, you can argue, ‘Yes, I didn’t like X, Y, and Z, but I liked that the bill wouldn’t allow health-insurance companies to turn down applicants for preexisting conditions,’ etc.

On deem-and-pass, the defense is “Well, it’s legal.” Voters can’t get their heads around passing a bill without voting on it, and they aren’t interested in hearing about how the other guys did it too (considering how nothing that it was used on had as far-reaching impact this bill does). It looks like an attempt to hide one’s vote, and it adds to the notion that this is a bill you don’t want to brag about supporting.

The logic of the House Democrat mind eludes me sometimes.

At first glance, here are some of the vulnerable House Democrats who just voted that the health care bill does not require a separate vote, and that demonpass/deem-and-pass is just dandy:

• Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania.
• John Barrow, Georgia.
• John Boccieri, Ohio.
• Allen Boyd, Florida.
• Leonard Boswell, Iowa.
• Steve Driehaus, Ohio.
• Joe Donnelly, Indiana.
• Brad Ellsworth, Indiana.
• Baron Hill, Indiana.
• Marcy Kaptur, Ohio.
• Dan Maffei, New York.
• Jim Marshall, Georgia.
• Jim Matheson, Utah.
• Michael McMahon, New York.
• Betsy Markey, Colorado.
• Patrick Murphy, Pennsylvania.
• Earl Pomeroy, North Dakota.
• Nick Rahall, West Virginia.
• Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania.
• Carol Shea Porter, New Hampshire.
• Ike Skelton, Missouri.
• Zach Space, Ohio.
• John Spratt, South Carolina.
• Charlie Wilson, Ohio.

This does not count retirees.

UPDATE: A reader nominates Mike Ross of Arkansas, a worthy addition. As I wrote, this was a “first glance” list.

Another argues that Kaptur is not that vulnerable (it is a D+10 district), but she seems to be sweating the abortion angle of the legislation, so I suspect she senses significant political fallout from this vote.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Another reader makes the case for Gerry Connolly of Virginia.

Here are the latest Whip Counts from various blog and media sources. Remember, once either side hits 216, it’s game over.

NRCC’s Red Alert: Yes: 200 No: 206 Undecided: 25

Washington Post: Yes: 149 No: 207 Undecided: 75

Reid Wilson: No: 197 (Update to come this afternoon)

Gabe Malor: Yes: 192.

FireDogLake (from yesterday): Yes: 191 No: 206

In short, neither side has the 216; the noes look a little bit ahead, but that means nothing if most of the remaining undecided – all Democrats – support the bill and just don’t want to say so yet.

UPDATE: A couple folks quibble with the phrase, “game over.” Put another way, once there are 216 certain “no” votes, Pelosi will not call the vote. They’ll keep trying to pry someone loose, and note that three empty seats will be filled in the coming months. (Democrats have a really good shot in Wexler’s district, a decent shot in Murtha’s district, and a still-workable shot in Abercombie’s district.)

I’m almost convinced by the logic of this reader:

Obama has been pressing Cao? If they need him, they’re screwed.

2 new Yes votes go to No.

President puts off trip until June, which must mean it isn’t going to happen by Sunday.

This is bad news, I don’t care how much they spin the CBO score.

I concur on Cao; he’s been talking about his doubts on the Senate version since January.

Arcuri was more or less suspected to be a “no.” Lynch surprises me.

The Sunday departure was in trouble when the CBO didn’t offer its score yesterday afternoon.

By my count, Pelosi still needs a lot of folks to flip from “no” to “yes.” You know the likely crew: Bart Gordon, John Tanner, Brian Baird, John Boccieri, Suzanne Kosmas, Betsy Markey, Scott Murphy,  Jim Matheson, Harry Teague, Travis Childers, John Barrow, Jason Altmire, Glenn Nye.