An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
« Like America, China, Too, Must Confront Racism and Prejudice: The China Daily, China
THIS JUST IN! Obama’s Kenyan Birth Certificate (OOPS! Wait a minute …) »
Embrace (and Thank) the Blue Dogs
Writing for The Daily Beast, John Avlon argues that the Blue Dogs and their counterparts in the Senate are “Obama’s best friends.”
Attacked as villains by liberals and accused of slowing down the legislation’s passage, they are the unsung heroes of health-care reform. They are not trying to kill Obama’s initiative; they are trying to save it.
H/t The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room.
55 Responses to “Embrace (and Thank) the Blue Dogs”
The Blue Dogs are doing the job Republicans should be doing.
Avlon's entire argument is based on the idea that Democrats need Republicans to pass health care legislation. Which is simply not true.
The meaningful obstruction is coming from the Blue Dogs.
Actually the Blue Dogs are turning it into something that won't work. There is no evidence that the co-op model will work on a national scale.
Chris, the article had nothing to do with needing Congressional GOP to agree- it laid out the entire argument based on the fact that they don't have enough Democrats to pass it, and the reason for that is that they gained seats in moderate, fiscally conservative districts. This isn't about the votes in Congress, it's about whether or not they have a mandate from the American people for legislation written by the left wing of the party, and clearly they do not.
@Jim- there's no evidence that a nationalized public option will work either.
CStanley,
The evidence is France, Canada and Great Britain… to name a few.
Chris, how did the Blue Dogs get elected? They're listening to their constituents, not the national polls. But on healthcare, their consituents form part of the 55% of Americans who oppose the debacle of a bills that were rushed through the various committees.
The evidence is France, Canada and Great Britain
Do you really want to go there? I thought every time a conservative says that these are the systems that the Dems are seeking to emulate (particularly when UK and Canada are cited), and points out the problems in those systems, we're told that we're making strawman arguments because that's not in fact what the Dems want to imitate.
Now, France might be a better comparison than the others- but there are several elements that went into the French system that so far liberals in the US have either been averse to or have overlooked. French physicians earn far less than US physicians, and part of the reason that's not big problem there is that they don't have our malpractice costs and another reason is that med school tuition is FREE. If we were to look to France as a model, we'd have to emulate those facets as well or we'd never get provider fees down low enough to reach their cost levels.
Aside from that, there's also a huge difference in scale there (which was the whole point of the argument about a national public option vs. regional co-ops.)
I doubt it, unless their constituents are insurance companies…
>Blue Dogs Receive More Health Industry Backing Than Other Democrats – washingtonpost.com
In which case they are doing a great job…
What the blue dogs are trying to do is not opposition to the left-wing of the DNC – they are merely doing what their financiers want. CStanley, you know well there is no ideology or philosophy at play for the blue dogs, and you also know that there is no real ideological or philosophical opposition to the progressive reform ideas among the constituents of the blue dogs.
Or, gee, maybe they're concerned about reactions from their constituents like these. I suppose those folks are all health insurance lobbyists?
Why do you guys pretend that there aren't a lot of Americans who oppose the plan that the Dem leadership put on the table?
Kastanj- sorry, but I know no such thing and in fact see plenty of evidence to the contrary. Meanwhile, you present your claim as though it's self evident and give no evidence that the majority of voters in the Blue Dog districts actually wanted them to vote for the plan.
The problem isn't the Blue Dogs. It's the Republicans. They have no investment in solving this problem.
Just the opposite. They think they'll benefit if the problem isn't solved. Republican Senator DeMint wants to break Obama. Republican Senator Inhofe's expressed argument that opposition to health care reform will be beneficial to his party in the 2010 elections. And let's not forget the insanity of Republican Representative Louie Gohmert claiming the health care reforms will kill senior citizens.
And while it's easy to show video of a few complainers at townhall meetings, health care reform is popular whether Republicans care or not.
Remember who really wants to stop this.
Liberals were enjoying the delusion that the election of Obama and the DemCong was a validation of the liberal philosophy………unfortunately, reality bites.
GS- If the problem is just that the GOP won't get on board, then why didn't the Dems pass this with their comfortable majority in the House and their 60 Senate votes?
Because they are, have been and will continue to be spineless whores…
Like I was saying, that's just an excuse for inaction or obstruction. Blue Dogs, like other congressfolk, vote however they want on a wide range of issues. They have that power in a representative democracy.
Two things…
1) The systems being proposed are not exact copies of European style single payer systems.
2) Unlike the Dems you speak of, I don't fear your arguments against Canadian, French or UK style health care. The simple truth is that they pay far less per person for similar (in most cases better) health care outcomes.
Don, pack a bag and buy a plane ticket……..I sense it is only going to be down hill for you from here.
Like I was saying, that's just an excuse for inaction or obstruction. Blue Dogs, like other congressfolk, vote however they want on a wide range of issues. They have that power in a representative democracy.
They're not obstructing, they're proposing alternatives. It's only obstruction from your point of view because you want the bill to tilt farther to the left's priorities.
“Or, gee, maybe they're concerned about reactions from their constituents like these. I suppose those folks are all health insurance lobbyists?”
Oh look, a bunch of rude idiots shouting their childish convictions and easily reproduced soundbites – seeing as they are American citizens, that must immediately mean that they are brave, upstanding and have a good grasp of the discussed legislation and the impact it will have on their lives, not to mentiona solid, eloquent explanation as to why they feel the democrat reform-offerings are obviously un-American and would no doubt be contested even if it came from another party than the DNC…
They're not health-insurance lobbyists, but they don't have any more relevance (or actual interest in the issue) than that cute little old lady who didn't want the government to interfere with her Medicaid. Any politician who actually respects these kind of childish outbursts (rather than humor them and then impose legislation on them anyway, knowing full well there won't be any repercussions for opposing partisan hobbyist activists) are obviously victims of the great tide of intellectual relativism and anti-meritocratic demands for respecting the lumpen. “Descent, the highest form of patrotic.”
“Meanwhile, you present your claim as though it's self evident and give no evidence that the majority of voters in the Blue Dog districts actually wanted them to vote for the plan.”
I'm not saying either way. I know that there is a precedent for the entire DNC being punished for failing to reform healthcare, “centrists” or not. I also know that the constituents of the blue dog districts have the most to gain from “socialist”, “government-controlled” health-care (with RATIONING and BUREAUCRATS) and I also know that good legislation and good politics go hand in hand for all DNC congressmen and representatives. They can't afford not getting decent reform, and neither can their constituents. If some wannabes have convinced themselves that there is anything brave or American about shouting slogans at a townhall in defense of the stupid status quo (or just in plain offense of the hated DNC), it's good that they have something to spend their time on.
“why didn't the Dems pass this with their comfortable majority in the House and their 60 Senate votes?”
Because the blue dogs value lobbyist money more than the interests of the general populace. Nate Silver has been through this – the blue dogs' opposition and obstructionism is *not* validated by any demands from their supposedly moderate left-wing constituents or by any defense of a more “centrist” left-wing philosophy. The blue dogs are the first one's to go in 2010 if reform fails or is turned into a “bipartisan” inanity when it is finished, and their constituents will suffer under the status quo whether they have been convinced otherwise or not. Good reform without any ideological luggage is good politics for all democrats in congress.
“They're not obstructing, they're proposing alternatives. It's only obstruction from your point of view because you want the bill to tilt farther to the left's priorities.”
It's obstruction because they are trying to water down the bill in the name of fiscal conservatism, when in fact beefing up the bill (and the public option) would result in more cost savings.
Yes we do… They have their problems, but on any given day of the week, they produce on average better heath-care for more people for substantially less money than the US spends on health-care. World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems
Re: your last paragraph, Kastanj- even if it were true that the Blue Dogs are only opposing their party leadership because of lobbyist money (a point which I don't concede but am using it for the main point here), that still doesn't validate GS's claim that the GOP opposition is the problem.
“And that link that you posted to prove that healthcare reform has support from the public actually goes into the many details of why Americans aren't supporting this particular reform effort:
By significant margins, survey respondents said they believe the final health-reform legislation is likely to raise health-care costs in the long run (62%), make everything about health care more complicated (65%) and offer less freedom to choose doctors and coverage (56%).”
So a majority of them are misinformed, or fail to recognize that these same issues are already more widespread and severe in the American status quo than anywhere else. The DNC should impose reform on these doubters anyway – just like with Medicare, the doomsday prophecies and scary rumors will turn out to have been exaggerations, and the GOP will no longer be able to use it for political purposes. Only the hypothesis of reform is scary, the reality of it will be in hilarious contrast to the trembly grievances and worries the people have absorbed due to the dissemination of rumors and narratives by the GOP via the malleable MSM.
Reform can fail, which would be punished. No reform is intrinsically a failure and all of the DNC – including the precious blue dogs – will be punished. The GOP knows this and would gladly oppose any reform to get a repeat of the '94 midterms. You, CStanley, is not partisan enough to be able to speak for the GOP's congressmen and pundits.
It would be if I wasn't such a cynic, I have low expectations and I have doubts that they will be met…
In 2012, when Obama leaves office and one of his clones get elected to the Presidency, we will still be in AF-PAK, in Iraq and probably in a couple of other wars, the healthcare system will still be be second rate, the infrastructure will still be third rate, there will not be any meaningful global-warming legislation and the economy will still be in the crapper. The best Obama and the Democrats can do is slow our descent into the third world.
So a majority of them are misinformed, or fail to recognize that these same issues are already more widespread and severe in the American status quo than anywhere else.
It's funny how often this is repeated- the opponents of the current proposals must be misinformed. They're confused because of the fearmongering ads and statements against the proposal, and the reason for the misinformation is a) lobbyists trying to protect the status quo and b) obstructing 'creeps' in the GOP and moderate Blue Dog Dem caucus.
Instead of repeating that ad nauseum, why don't the proponents of this healthcare reform bill ever actually answer the criticisms and explain how or why you believe the bill won't do what the opponents say that it will? The closest anyone here comes to that is citing the success of Medicare, yet Obama is specifically pushing for healthcare reform because current entitlements like Medicare are soon going to bankrupt us. You can't have it both ways- either the costs of public programs is a problem which should be curtailed, not expanded- or the cost is just something we have to find a way to address through rising taxes (in which case you're going to have to convince people that that's possible and sustainable.)
CStanley–
I'm not sure what you mean when your refer to “this particular reform”. Do you have some text referring to the particular reform or do you mean the general reform process? Something else?
And I think everyone knows the Democrats don't have a majority where they can pass any old thing because they aren't monolithic like the Party of No. I'm not sure why you're referring to the 60 majority. Do think if there is no reform, Republicans will get away with blaming the Democrats?
I posted that story about the polling because everyone knows there are concerns and I'm not trying to sugar-coat anything. But you forgot to quote this part:
I added some emphasis to help you out. ; )
CStanley–
The Democrats are trying, in fact, to make this revenue neutral. That's why they're sweating the CBO numbers.
Why don't opponents acknowledge this simple fact? Is it because Democrats are doing everything, including worrying about the sort of cost issues Republicans were once reputed to concerned with?
WRT the comparisons of quality of healthcare systems brought up by several commenters…
I hope you will all acknowledge that each of those systems has problems of its own. Some are turning more toward privatization (Canada), some are realizing that their low expenditures sometimes leads to poorer outcome like in cancer screening and treatment (UK.) I'd actually say that of the three countries Chris cited, France might be the one to look at to see what they are doing which we might emulate, but I've also already pointed out a few areas that no one in the US is willing to touch- tort reform is unthinkable to the left even though that would be necessary to get provider fees down as in France, and they also provide free med school tuition which I don't think anyone in the US has suggested.
And France isn't a single payer system, so that counts them out as an example of where that type of system 'works'.
The WHO study did in fact rank the US at 37, but it's criteria weighted heavily toward costs and access for the poor. Those are undoubtedly problems in the US and most everyone now acknowledges that. But you can't simultaneously cite the study which faulted the US system mainly due to cost and say this proves that we 'pay more and get less.' It shows we pay more, not that we 'get less,', and in fact in individual categories relating directly to quality of care we rank at or near the top (we're number one in patient responsiveness, and rank high in many outcomes like cancer survival rates.) Where critics of the US system misquote the quality part of the study is in longevity and infant mortality- the first is skewed since the study didn't factor out non-health care related deaths from accident or violence (when you factor those out our longevity is #1), and infant survival stats are inaccurate comparisons since live born infants data is recorded differently in different countries. We count, and save, a lot more preemies.
Why don't opponents acknowledge this simple fact? Is it because Democrats are doing everything, including worrying about the sort of cost issues Republicans were once reputed to concerned with?
I do acknowledge that all the time, GS- it's the bill's proponents here who keep saying that the cost isn't a problem or that this will actually save money (see some of Kathy's posts, for example.) But the Dems haven't come up with a politically palatable way to pay for this, and that's a huge part of the reason that the plan is foundering.
And I think everyone knows the Democrats don't have a majority where they can pass any old thing because they aren't monolithic like the Party of No. I'm not sure why you're referring to the 60 majority. Do think if there is no reform, Republicans will get away with blaming the Democrats?
If the current Dem plan doesn't pass, Republicans won't be blaming anyone, they'll be celebrating the fact that a badly constructed, rushed bill didn't get rammed through. And I'm referring to the 60 because yes, the Dems can either succeed in passing legislation or fail without it having anything whatsoever to do with the GOP. It's their own moderate wing that is holding this up- and for conservative Dems AND GOP, that's a good thing, not a negative.
CStanley–
The Democrats are working mightily to solve this problem, as anyone can see.
Just as anyone can see the Republicans doing nothing.
CStanley–
Did you see my links to DeMint, Inhofe and Gohmert, further up this thread?
Why pretend Republicans aren't playing politics?
GS- you misunderstand. GOP consituents feel this bill would be a disaster, so the GOP would not be blaming anyone if it fails- they'll be happy that a bad bill got killed. You can call that playing politics, but it's also an example of doing what your constituents want you to do.
And we've been through before the discussion of what the GOP can do right now, and ideas that are out there but not able to be voted on right now because the party is in the minority. I've also made my views pretty clear, I think, that I do wish that their ideas were getting more attention but at the same time I realize that might be counterproductive since the public option and single payer plans need to be put before the voters first, and let them see why there are serious problems with those approaches.
“If the current Dem plan doesn't pass, Republicans won't be blaming anyone”
Ha-ha. He-He. It is to laugh.
I'll be honest, too, George- your comments about the GOP just saying no and offering no alternative, and playing politics, are the mirror image of how I felt about the Dem's opposition to the Iraq War. And my honest admission is that I now see that they really weren't in a position to offer alternatives and had to focus on building opposition to the GOP majority so that they could get to the head of the table. If we had a parliamentary system it might be different, but in a two party system this is pretty much what we're stuck with.
Seriously, guys, you aren't thinking through what I'm saying about blame. Would the Dems have 'blamed' the GOP if various Iraq War bills hadn't passed? Obviously they would have laughed and ridiculed the party for not having the votes to get what the party leaders wanted- but they would have cheered if a policy they believed was wrongheaded had failed.
[sigh] Earth to liberals on this “moderate” [sic] site once more: The Dems' health care effort is so bad, even worse than its other idiotically rushed, destructive efforts already made (including the “climate” bill that so much of the public opposed), continuing to reveal defect after defect in it and about its proponents' behavior, that even some _Democrats_ are worried about embarrassing or disgracing themselves by continuing to stupidly press “forward” [sic] with this effort, and they no doubt fear their re-election prospects.
” If we had a parliamentary system it might be different, but in a two party system this is pretty much what we're stuck with.”
Actually, going to a parliamentary system (such as on the Canadian model, the explicit subject of a book I have published in the 1940s, as a result of FDR's New Deal executive overreaches and threats to do even more, worse) is a fascinating subject, as is (a more common idea pursued mainly by the fringe far left, who can't win representation of their views in any other way, normally) conversion to a multi-party (I like to say, four to six, at least, and that actually is sufficient) system with proportional representation in the House of Representatives (possibly on a regional basis to address small-population states) in DC.
But — as with, say, starting a manned moon attainment effort now, from scratch, could you trust modern government and the many activists swirling around it to do this the right way nowadays?
“Liberals were enjoying the delusion that the election of Obama and the DemCong was a validation of the liberal philosophy………unfortunately, reality bites.”
I laughed my ass off, frankly, at not only Geithner and Summers (doing Obama's dirty work as handy warning-trial-balloon-flying lightning rods once more) for saying what was obvious, that future tax increases, once more, on the very people Obama p r o m i s e d [gasp] would never see a tax increase, are likely (“We can't rule anything out,” etc. [snicker]), but specifically might be “needed” to fund their continuing-to-disintegate-faster-than-it-can-be-frantically-assembled health care effort — as well as laughed my ass off at all those who have believed Obama and the other Dems' p r o m i s e s to this day.
(Earth to libbies: Any upcoming middle-class-and-downward tax increases by the Dems', greatly dwarfing the financial mischief of Republicans early, and who are continuing to generate increasing public concern and opposition, will no doubt be introduced with “The Bush administration left us with this huge deficit…”)
CStanley–
Oh my God, come on!
The Democrats could have stood up and spoke out.
And you know what? Some did.
Right?
George- the Dems spoke out against Bush's policies but offered little alternative- just as you are complaining the GOP is doing now against the Dem's healthcare policy proposals.
Surely you remember all the discussions here at TMV- and I was being honest in admitting that although I criticized the Dems then for not having alternative plans, I now see that it was wrong to be so critical of them for that (although then, like now, I feel that voters who back the dissenting minority party should have some idea of what they want the alternative policy to be, and should expect that their party should be able to articulate those alternatives before turning over the car keys to them.)
“George- the Dems spoke out against Bush's policies but offered little alternative”
Don't invade the wrong country, you endlessly idiotic farce of a parody. You don't invade the wrong country, because the wrong country to invade is the wrong country to invade. Wrong!
There, I just provided an alternative more intellectually rigorous, pragmatic and reality-based than anything any Iraq War supporter ever said pre-invasion.
“Following several days of anti-Hillary rhetoric on local talk shows, Hillary Clinton — at a bus rally in Seattle — is confronted by hundreds of angry men shouting that the Clintons are going to destroy their way of life, ban guns, extend abortion rights, protect gays, and socialize medicine. When she finishes speaking and tries to leave the rally, her limousine is surrounded by protesters.”
That's a report from 1994. Once again, CStanley, you act in good faith but is forced to share the premises with indefensible hostage-takers of good principles (such as bipartisanship or citizen awareness).
CStanley–
There was serious debate about defunding the war.
Right?
“[W]hy don't the proponents of this healthcare reform bill ever actually answer the criticisms and explain how or why you believe the bill won't do what the opponents say that it will? “
How many of the proponents (or Dems in Congress) have read and understand what is in the bill?
* * *
“George- the Dems spoke out against Bush's policies but offered little alternative”
Note with entitlements (which, does anyone with any intelligence expect the Dems to reform as Obama has Promised?), when Bush tried to change Social Security, the Dems not only were simply, stupidly, mindlessly, robotically obstructive, but they refused to provide any other alternative, when all but the most incompetent know that Social Security as-is is unsustainable, and it's a program that the Democrats _own_ politically, and which they could have exploited at the time to have begun winning elections on their own merit and appeal rather than benefit instead from disenchantment with the GOP that was the truth in 2006 and 2008.
“There, I just provided an alternative more intellectually rigorous, pragmatic and reality-based”
You probably believe that, too, along with buying “Bush left us with this huge deficit” for new US taxes…
Don't invade the wrong country, you endlessly idiotic farce of a parody. You don't invade the wrong country, because the wrong country to invade is the wrong country to invade. Wrong!
OK, so along those lines I'll offer what should be the GOP response to the Dems' healthcare proposal:
“Don't enact healthcare reform that creates more problems than it solves, in a bill that everyone admits they haven't even read so they can't possibly understand. You don't enact the wrong bill with votes by Congressmen who haven't read the bill because the wrong bill is the wrong bill to pass. Wrong!”
In case you haven't noticed, Kastanj- neither of those scenarios contains an alternate proposal. I realize that the Dems like to pretend that aside from the WOT and WMD arguments, there was a need to address Saddam Hussein's recalcitrance in abiding by the terms of the cease fire (not truce, but cease fire) of the first Gulf War, and that the sanction program administered by the corrupt UN was falling apart so could no longer be relied on to contain him, but the reality is that those problems did exist and were part of the rationale for invasion.
@ George- as far as I recall, defunding was never brought to a vote just as various current GOP healthcare reform bills haven't been brought to a vote. And as far as debating- it seems to me that proponents of defunding were always unwilling to respond to their critics so I don't see how that was much of a debate. Anytime someone pointed out how that would affect troops or how it would affect the situation on the ground in Iraq, the response was basically that their critics were calling them traitors. I realize some GOP really did cross the line with their rhetoric in that regard, but really there's no way to address the shortcomings of the policy decision to defund without acknowledging that there would be some potential harm to troops that were still in the theater during the withdrawal process, and that the hostilities might flare up again and necessitate redeploying, etc. But the proponents of defunding answered all of these criticisms as though it were beyond the pale to mention them.
CStanley–
Really, it wasn't long ago you were complaining that Republicans weren't pushing that Ryan bill. (I don't have the time right now to find the link, but surely you'll admit that.)
Now you're talking about “various current GOP reform bills”. What are they?
And if there is an elected Republican pushing for reform (or, really, whoever–whoever is the best you've got) I'd like you to name him, show what he's doing.
Thanks.
George,
CS has mentioned Republican proposals. They're rather bad jokes on the American public that would accomplish nothing to really reform anything but they are Republican proposals.
GS, there is a House and Senate version of the plan I've mentioned before, the Patients' Choice Act of 2009. Aside from that, there's also a true bipartisan plan, Wyden-Bennett…though to be accurate, I'm pretty sure Wyden(D) initiated that and then got Bennett (R) to work on it with him, so it's stretching it to call it a GOP plan.