My eyes are practically bleeding from staring at computer and TV screens for so long, but there’s just one more video you need to see tonight.

At the 7 second mark in this video, you’ll hear a Republican member of Congress shout “Baby Killer” at Rep. Bart Stupak on the floor of the House.

...maybe instead of trying to turn health care into Barack Obama's "Waterloo", they should have been doing their jobs. 

You know, serving the American people. 

Instead, this will be the GOP's Waterloo, as David Frum rightly points out here.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

My personal hope is that this forever banishes from politics the idea that playing rank partisan games that delay and deny addressing the problems facing our country just to get back in power somehow serves the American people. 

It doesn't.

And the GOP is on the losing end of the proof of this, fittingly, because the idea started with the scorched earth politics of some guy named Newt Gingrich.

The Ohio Reps voted much as expected, you can find the roll call here.

Can I get an Amen?

Nice job, Dave, on scoops in last 24 hours with Driehaus going "yes" and Space going "no."  The Exec Order from Obama apparently secured the Stupak group, including Driehaus.

As for Space it's hard to tell  which is the worst gibberish issued by the Space camp to explain his flip flop from 'Yes" to "No": Press secretary's statement to Dave and BSB below or Space's statement to the PD on "payfors" in the bill.

The Space presser sounds like Dennis Kucinich justifying his old utopian "No" position before safe-district DK switched to "yes." Zack's statement to the PD about "opening the door" to taxing what he calls the middle class (individuals making more than $250,000 and couples above $500,000 a year)is a stretch at best for a populist-sounding excuse to vote "no" today.

Either explanation is hardly a Space profile in courage -- given all the good the bill does for those families who are one health emergency away from bankruptcy under current law.

The hunch here is that the Obama/Pelosi vote counters got enough votes without Space for the bill and gave him a pass today to do whatever he felt he had to do in his GOP-dominated/ Bob Ney district. We will soon see. Hopefully, Space will have a last minute change of heart or intestinal fortitude.

From cable breaking news on Bart Stupak's announcement, it looks like House will easily exceed 216 Dems -- and, dare we dream, might give some cover to Space and  a few Republicans to vote "yes."

So says CNN.

Update x1: And it seems the rest of the Stupak bloc is coming with him.

Update x2: Why the change? This:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release                           March 21, 2010

STATEMENT FROM COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR DAN PFEIFFER

Today, the President announced that he will be issuing an executive order after the passage of the health insurance reform law that will reaffirm its consistency with longstanding restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion.

While the legislation as written maintains current law, the executive order provides additional safeguards to ensure that the status quo is upheld and enforced, and that the health care legislation's restrictions against the public funding of abortions cannot be circumvented.

The President has said from the start that this health insurance reform should not be the forum to upset longstanding precedent.  The health care legislation and this executive order are consistent with this principle.

The President is grateful for the tireless efforts of leaders on both sides of this issue to craft a consensus approach that allows the bill to move forward.

A text of the pending executive order follows:

Executive Order

- - - - - - -

ENSURING ENFORCEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ABORTION RESTRICTIONS IN THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (approved March ­­__, 2010), I hereby order as follows:

Section 1.  Policy.

Following the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“the Act”), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment.   The purpose of this Executive Order is to establish a comprehensive, government-wide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors—Federal officials, state officials (including insurance regulators) and health care providers—are aware of their responsibilities, new and old.

The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly-created health insurance exchanges.  Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, Pub. L. No. 111-8, §508(d)(1) (2009)) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

Numerous executive agencies have a role in ensuring that these restrictions are enforced, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

Section 2.  Strict Compliance with Prohibitions on Abortion Funding in Health Insurance Exchanges. The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014.  The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires state health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.

I hereby direct the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this Executive Order, a model set of segregation guidelines for state health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act's segregation requirements, established in Section 1303 of the Act, for enrollees receiving Federal financial assistance.  The guidelines shall also offer technical information that states should follow to conduct independent regular audits of insurance companies that participate in the health insurance exchanges.  In developing these model guidelines, the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS shall consult with executive agencies and offices that have relevant expertise in accounting principles, including, but not limited to, the Department of the Treasury, and with the Government Accountability Office.  Upon completion of those model guidelines, the Secretary of HHS should promptly initiate a rulemaking to issue regulations, which will have the force of law, to interpret the Act's segregation requirements, and shall provide guidance to state health insurance commissioners on how to comply with the model guidelines.

Section 3.  Community Health Center Program.

The Act establishes a new Community Health Center (CHC) Fund within HHS, which provides additional Federal funds for the community health center program.  Existing law prohibits these centers from using federal funds to provide abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), as a result of both the Hyde Amendment and longstanding regulations containing the Hyde language.  Under the Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds for Community Health Centers under section 10503 and all other relevant provisions.  I hereby direct the Secretary of HHS to ensure that program administrators and recipients of Federal funds are aware of and comply with the limitations on abortion services imposed on CHCs by existing law.  Such actions should include, but are not limited to, updating Grant Policy Statements that accompany CHC grants and issuing new interpretive rules.

Section 4.  General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this Executive Order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:  (i) authority granted by law or presidential directive to an agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This Executive Order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This Executive Order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Or at least he really, really likes making an ass out of himself.

I specifically had asked about what had changed in the bill to prompt Space to switch his vote from a yes to a no, this is what I got from Space’s press secretary:

"Congressman Space fought through this entire process to make sure that the working class families in his district did not have an additional burden placed on them as a result of reform. He has very serious concerns that this bill would provide a huge giveaway to the already bloated insurance companies out of the pockets of his constituents. That would hurt the working class families he represents, which is absolutely unacceptable."

Promoted from the forums. --David

Update: There's some debate about this in the comments.

If you've taken part in Jennifer Brunner's 'Hands Off Our Primary' campaign, then one of the Executive Committee members has a message for you: you're crazy.

Amy Groya is a member of the Executive Committee, and responded to the campaign via Twitter and Facebook.  On Twitter, she whined, "Jennifer Brunner is ruining my life!".  On Facebook, she remarked that she had "turned the blackberry on silent" because "I am being harassed by crazies via email".

Who is this lady who thinks that the idea of an open primary is crazy?  She was elected President of College Democrats of Ohio and, as a result, became a member of the Executive Committee.  In December of 2009, she resigned from CDO. Why?  To work on Lee Fisher's campaign in the finance department.  Yet she still retains the Executive Committee seat that is supposed to be occupied by College Democrats of Ohio's president.  Why?

Groya needs to be taken off of the Executive Committee.  One, she's resigned from the position that entitled her to the Committee seat in the first place.  Two, she's insulting members of the political party she's supposed to be representing, and calls those that fight for the idea of an open primary crazy.

Marcy Kaptur, another undecided Ohio Rep, seems to be leaning yes on healthcare reform.

Now that Space has admitted he’s voting no on healthcare, some are wondering if that signals that Democrats have the votes to pass and are releasing vulnerable Democrats to vote no.

In fact, Greg Sargent is saying that’s exactly how the Republicans are reading this.

The trick is that if Space was released, it would defeat the purpose to admit it.

So says the Coshocton Tribune:

"Getting it done just to get it done is not something we should be doing. We should be doing it right.

"I'm doing what I think is right. I have been under enormous amount of pressure this week in Washington. I have spoken to the president twice, once in the Oval Office. My own leadership has been working hard to get me to vote for this. But I don't represent them. I represent the people in the 18th Congressional District."

It’s worth noting that I still haven’t gotten a response or even a release from Space’s office.

UPDATE: Shortly after publishing this post, Space’s office emailed me confirmation that Space is voting against the healthcare reform bill.

UPDATE x2: There's now some speculation that Space may have been "released" by House leadership because they have the votes needed.

My letter to the Ohio Democratic Party Executive Committee

Members of the Ohio Democratic Party Executive Committee,

I'm David Potts, and I'm the current administrator of the Buckeye State Blog. Over the last year I've met or communicated with some of you, and I believe most of you are familiar with the website at the least.

I'm writing you today to urge all of you to think very carefully about the consequences of making a pre-primary endorsement in the U.S. Senate race.

If Lee Fisher really needs this endorsement to win the primary, this should cause great concern about whether or not he actually deserves it. I've dug through many of Fisher's campaign newsletters and he's done all he could to act like there is no primary. If this rather conceited strategy is coming back to bite him now, he needs to prove himself by cleaning up after his mistakes.

If, on the other hand, Fisher no longer believes Jennifer Brunner can win the primary; seeking the endorsement will do nothing but cause unnecessary friction between the two sides of the party.

And finally I'd like to remind you that you should and will be held accountable for your actions, good or bad. Regardless of your feelings on this, I urge you to conduct this process in an open and transparent manner. The moral and unity of the party rests on your shoulders, and Democrats of all levels have a right to know what you're doing.

Sincerely,

David Potts
Chief Editor, Buckeye State Blog
david@buckeyestateblog.com

Because when he talks to real reporters, this happens...