Blind, Deaf, And Dumb Man's Bluff

You can always count on the DC Examiner's Byron York to report GOP talking points as "news", and he's not even hiding his stenography in this article on GOP House whip Eric Cantor:

House GOP whip Rep. Eric Cantor has sent out a brief memo outlining the health care vote count from the Republican perspective. The best way to look at it is not to ask whether Speaker Nancy Pelosi has gotten the 216 votes needed to pass the Democrats' national health care bill, but whether opponents have the votes to defeat it.

York goes on to repeat Cantor's claims almost verbatim. Eric Cantor's basically calling it 216-215 for Pelosi, and then counting on all 12 Stupak group votes to switch to no, and notes that Pelosi and the Dem leadership only have 5 switch to yes votes to counter, leaving them seven votes short. 

If Cantor's right and all 12 members of Stupak's group are solid, uncompromising no votes, then Pelosi's the most incompetent party leader in American history for calling the vote on Sunday.  Of course, Cantor also predicted the Republicans would win back Congress and keep the White House in 2008, too.  Somehow, I'm confident that the person bluffing in this scenario isn't Nancy Pelosi.

What benefit would the Democrats gain by bluffing?  Who would they end up fooling here?  The vote's Sunday.  If the vote's going to clearly fail as Cantor suggests, if the Dem whip count is off by that much, what's the benefit of holding the vote NOW?  That scenario makes zero sense.  Delaying the vote may give them time to cut a deal.  Forcing a losing vote is a 100% chance of losing.  Why do that?  What does Cantor think Pelosi's going to gain by calling a vote without having the actual votes?  Will she cut the power to the Capitol building and then secretly switch people's votes in the darkness and chaos like a Scooby-Doo villain?

If Pelosi's right, she called the vote now because she has the votes to win.  This makes logical sense.  If Cantor's right, Pelosi called the vote now and still doesn't have the votes to win. That makes zero logical sense.  In fact, a number of wingers have said Pelosi's bluffing.

But Pelosi bluffing makes no sense.  Cantor bluffing on the other hand makes a tiny bit of sense...but ods are overwhelming he still loses.  Ideally, the vote is called when the outcome is known in advance.  Cantor just looks like an idiot if he's wrong, and the odds of him being right are very, very low.  Granted, I guess it's better than taking the 100% chance of loss by agreeing with Pelosi, but it all seems like a stupid thing to do in the end.

Cantor knew he lost the moment Pelosi scheduled the vote.