Steve Benen points out a weird story in today's new York Times. Benen says he's "deeply skeptical" of an article stating "that the leadership is so confident about securing a majority [to pass the healthcare reform bill], the Speaker's office is now in the process of trying to figure out which vulnerable Dems to give passes to." According to the Times:
"That's about the most optimistic assessment for reform supporters I've seen," Benen writes, "which is probably why I find it so hard to believe." Apparently, so does the New York Times; their own whip count as of this writing is 198 yay, 200 nay.
Still, the speaker's count is likely more accurate than the Times', so who knows? Maybe the story's accurate. I'm with Benen here, though -- I don't see this as being true. Is it some weird form of arm-twisting, a hope for a sort of bandwagon effect if the majority is perceived as being behind it? Or is it that no one wants to be seen as the deciding vote, so the perception of some headroom is being created?
In any case, even if it isn't accurate, it suggests that they're close enough to bluff. Keep your fingers crossed.
Yes, the 11th-hour vote tallying is under way at a brisk pace in offices from Capitol Hill to the West Wing, with Ms. Pelosi and her lieutenants keeping hour-by-hour tabs on wavering Democrats.
But as the week inches along, with momentum steadily building to a Sunday vote, the party leaders are also beginning to decide which politically endangered lawmakers will be given absolution to vote no. [...]
There are, of course, very few votes to spare. Yet there are some. And even most Republican leaders concede that the mystery is not so much whether Democrats will reach the magic number of 216, but rather whose names will be included as yes votes in the final count.
"That's about the most optimistic assessment for reform supporters I've seen," Benen writes, "which is probably why I find it so hard to believe." Apparently, so does the New York Times; their own whip count as of this writing is 198 yay, 200 nay.
Still, the speaker's count is likely more accurate than the Times', so who knows? Maybe the story's accurate. I'm with Benen here, though -- I don't see this as being true. Is it some weird form of arm-twisting, a hope for a sort of bandwagon effect if the majority is perceived as being behind it? Or is it that no one wants to be seen as the deciding vote, so the perception of some headroom is being created?
In any case, even if it isn't accurate, it suggests that they're close enough to bluff. Keep your fingers crossed.
