The Non-Revolt "Revolt"

The media is portraying the 39 Democrats voting against Nancy Pelosi's desire to adjourn the House as a "revolt", but not so fast:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had to stop a revolt from her own caucus this afternoon, when 39 Democrats sided with the GOP in an effort to block the House from adjourning until mid-November.

The more than three dozen Democrats were opposed to the House quitting until they took a pre-election vote on extending the Bush-era tax cuts.

The Adjournment Resolution was tied up on the House floor 209-209, when Pelosi made the rare move of coming to the House floor to break the tie herself. Speakers hardly ever vote on procedural resolutions. If Pelosi had not voted, the motion to adjourn would have failed.

Many of the 39 Democrats who voted to stay in session are among the most politically vulnerable and supported extending the tax cuts to all income levels. Democratic leaders and the Obama administration want the tax cuts to be prolonged only for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples making less than $250,000.

Getting more votes than needed to prevent the adjournment would be a revolt. Coming up with all but one needed vote is a set-up. Those 39 House Dems were allowed to vote against adjournment in order to try and save their sorry butts in November, but Pelosi made sure she didn't allow too many of them to vote "no" and mess up her plans.  The fix was in.

Just the other day 47 Democrats said they wanted to extend all of the Bush tax cuts.  Today only 39 voted to oppose adjournment.  You do the math.

This is very similar to what happened on the Obamacare vote when a selected number of Democrats were allowed to oppose the bill so they'd look better back home.  It's all kabuki.