The best sign that the Democrats don’t have the votes on Obamacare is that they are still dreaming up procedural maneuvers to pass it. The latest, as report by The Washington Examiner, is the suggestion that the House will use a vote on the “Rule” to “deem” the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed. This option is being advocated by Louise “These-Dentures-Sure-Do-Hurt” Slaughter, the Chairman of the House Rules Committee.

The best explanation I’ve seen of this is over at NRO’s Corner blog from Daniel Foster. The whole thing is a must-read, but here is the gist of it:

[E]ach bill brought to the floor of the House is debated under its own “rule” setting the length and structure of debate, including which if any amendments can be considered. A given bill’s rule is created by the — you guessed it — Rules Committee and presented to the whole House for a simple majority vote prior to consideration of the bill itself. In this case, the Democrats would bring a “self-executing rule” to the floor that allowed for the adoption of the Senate bill when, and only when, the reconciliation sidecar is passed, thereby avoiding the need to bring the Senate bill to the floor for a separate up-or-down vote.

This procedure is nearly impossible to stop:

Unlike in the Senate, where individual Senators have broad discretion to steer debate and introduce amendments, the legislative process in the House is rigidly governed by the Rules Committee. This limits the Republicans’ options in fighting a self-executing rule for Obamacare. As one Republican House staffer put it to me today, “the Committee can do just about anything if they can get the votes to pass the rule.”

In case anyone was wondering how desperate the Dems are to pass the thing, here’s the proof.

If the Dems are going to ram this through at all costs—and I think that’s where we’re heading—I hope they do it this way. The use of reconciliation is unprecedented and unprincipled, as I explained here, but it has a certain empathic appeal. Dems can argue that they are simply letting the will of the majority prevail, which is always a powerful argument in a democratic-republic. But this is different. This is a pure act of political cowardice. They want to vote for the bill without actually voting for the bill. I think the Slaughter Solution will be a bigger rallying cry against the Democrats in November and 2012 than anything we’ve seen to date. Bring it on.

Now we know what really happened between Eric Massa and Rahm Emanuel in the shower:

On last night’s Red Eye from the mouth of Andy Levy:

“Dude, you’ve got to take a personal inventory. You’re getting thrown out of a curling match.”

Here’s a wonderful follow-up to yesterday’s spat between Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin over Eric “Tickle Me” Massa. Beck invited Malkin back on the show today just so that she could say, “I told you so.” Malkin, however, was incredibly gracious. Here’s the video:

Glenn is getting a ton of criticism on Twitter and elsewhere for tonight’s Massa debacle. In a sense, it’s deserved. I was skeptical of Massa, as were many other brighter lights. But here’s the bottom line: the show sucked, but Glenn admitted it and apologized for it—twice—before the show had even ended. That’s an example of class and honesty that deserves praise.

Rush Limbaugh, at his best, can be the most effective advocate for conservatism in the public sphere. But at his worst, he does crap like this. During a discussion of Eric Massa’s resignation, and whether New York Gov. David Paterson will be able to appoint a replacement, Rush started saying “massah” with a bad, southern-black caricature-accent. Here’s a clip via Media Matters:

I’m not saying Rush is a racist. I’m very sure he’s not. But sometimes he is an ass. Why invite controversy just for the sake of controversy? Oh, that’s right—I  forgot. He does it for the ratings.

On last night’s Red Eye from the mouth of Jim Norton:

“I thought The Hurt Locker was great. It would have been better if a man had directed it, but I thought it was great.”

Yesterday, I expressed my skepticism about Eric Massa’s claims and motivations. Today, the controversy is taking a turn for the ugly. Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin had a rather nasty exchange about it this morning on Beck’s radio program. Here it is:

Later in the day, Beck made a classy and heartfelt apology to Malkin (that you can listen to here).

So, who’s right on this one? I lean towards Malkin because Massa sounds like a scumbag and nutcase to me. But Beck is right that the guy ought to be heard and should be allowed to give his side of the story on the national stage.

The true test will be at 5:00 pm today when Beck interviews Massa for [Larry King voice] “the full hour” on his Fox show. Massa will have to demonstrate that he’s not a nutjob, and Beck will have to be appropriately tough on him. I’ll reserve final judgment until then.

UPDATE: Malkin has a must-read post about Massa here, but I’m still reserving final judgment until 5 pm.

UPDATE II: Poor Glenn! It was a rough night. Massa talked for an hour, but said nothing. Why? I don’t know and don’t care to speculate. As I thought, he’s a wackado. Beck even finished the show by apologizing to his audience for wasting their time! Let’s hope Massa’s 15 minutes of infamy are over. Here’s the video. The apology starts at the 2:00 minute mark:

This is a classic:

Breaking News: Some Bullshit Happening Somewhere