What does it mean when one of the House whips gives an interview indicating that he'll vote 'NO' on Obamacare? Nothing good for Obama.

Even one of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s floor whips, U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch, says a proposed parliamentary move to pass health-care reform would be “disingenuous” and harm the credibility of Congress. In a sign of how tough it’s been for Pelosi to round up votes for the massive bill, Lynch - a South Boston Democrat who supported a House reform package last year - said he’ll probably vote against a key Senate version of the legislation, unless unexpected major changes are made soon.

Lynch, who serves as one of Pelosi’s key vote counters, said he also can’t support a proposed “deem and pass” procedure that would allow Democrats to vote to strip out controversial portions of the Senate bill and then “deem” that the entire package has passed without a second, direct vote.

“It’s disingenuous,” said Lynch, who considers unfair a Senate provision to tack a surcharge on higher-end health plans. “It would really call into question the credibility of the House.”

South Boston? Hmmm. The Scott Brown victory isn't something he can lightly dismiss, which reminds me that I haven't heard anything from the normally ebullient Barney Frank either in recent weeks.

A few days ago, I wondered out loud if Deem-and-Pass wasn't an unforced error on the scale of Bush's 16 words in the State of the Union address. I was reminded of this recently as Karl Rove made the rounds promoting his new book. The Democrats had been driving the meme that Bush was operating on bad intel, and then he gives them the gift of an unverifiable, second-hand report of Iraq's intention to buy uranium-oxide. It was the "sign of the dove" for anyone who had doubts about the war--a confirmation that everything the Democrats were saying was true.

For years, if not decades, conservatives have been slamming Democrats for ignoring the constitution, then boom--"sign of the dove" in Nancy Pelosi's off-the-cuff comment about liking the Slaughter rule which hides the health-care vote inside of another vote. For many Americans, all benefit of the doubt has been removed.

Just like the 16 words controversy, the offense can fit its message on a bumpersticker, while defenders must engage in long, complicated technical explanations. Like Tiger Woods, the Democrats have been caught with unexplained telephone numbers in their cell phone and desperately spinning tall tales to explain it.

Its been interesting to watch Congressperson after Congressperson come onto Fox News and express their concerns over the massive bribes and special deals and perceived process impropriety. These aren't the talking points used as moral justification to vote for the bill--they clearly lay the groundwork for voting against it.