« Considering the Senate Compromise on Health Care | Kevin Cassidy's Blog | Ignore the teabaggers with closed caption »
Blue Dog = Republican
It is more clear than ever who the Blue Dogs are working for. Born in the wake of the "The Reagan Revolution" the Blue Dogs are actually Republicans who are from strongly Democratic districts. They work for the corporations and moneyed interests. Let their true constituencies vote for them in the primaries and they will receive a few hundred votes in each state. Let the rest of us vote for candidates who are willing to fight for our interests.
In short, throw the bums out. Seriously.
Here is a list from the "Blue Dog Coalition Website". If you are an activist or prone to donating campaign money, its time to work for progressive democrats who are gearing up to run against these obstructionists
Blue Dog Leadership Team
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration
Rep. Baron Hill (IN-09), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy
Rep. Charlie Melancon (LA-03), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications
Rep. Heath Shuler (NC-11), Blue Dog Whip
Blue Dog Members
Altmire, Jason (PA-04)
Arcuri, Mike (NY-24)
Baca, Joe (CA-43)
Barrow, John (GA-12)
Berry, Marion (AR-01)
Bishop, Sanford (GA-02)
Boren, Dan (OK-02)
Boswell, Leonard (IA-03)
Boyd, Allen (FL-02)
Bright, Bobby (AL-02)
Cardoza, Dennis (CA-18)
Carney, Christopher (PA-10)
Chandler, Ben (KY-06)
Childers, Travis (MS-01)
Cooper, Jim (TN-05)
Costa, Jim (CA-20)
Cuellar, Henry (TX-28)
Dahlkemper, Kathy (PA-03)
Davis, Lincoln (TN-04)
Donnelly, Joe (IN-02)
Ellsworth, Brad (IN-08)
Giffords, Gabrielle (AZ-08)
Gordon, Bart (TN-06)
Griffith, Parker (AL-05)
Harman, Jane (CA-36)
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie (SD)
Hill, Baron (IN-09)
Holden, Tim (PA-17)
Kratovil, Jr., Frank (MD-01)
McIntyre, Mike (NC-07)
Marshall, Jim (GA-03)
Matheson, Jim (UT-02)
Melancon, Charlie (LA-03)
Michaud, Mike (ME-02)
Minnick, Walt (ID-01)
Mitchell, Harry (AZ-05)
Moore, Dennis (KS-03)
Murphy, Patrick (PA-08)
Nye, Glenn (VA-02)
Peterson, Collin (MN-07)
Pomeroy, Earl (ND)
Ross, Mike (AR-04)
Salazar, John (CO-03)
Sanchez, Loretta (CA-47)
Schiff, Adam (CA-29)
Scott, David (GA-13)
Shuler, Heath (NC-11)
Space, Zack (OH-18)
Tanner, John (TN-08)
Taylor, Gene (MS-04)
Thompson, Mike (CA-01)
Wilson, Charles (OH-06)
Anyone on this list who in fact supports the Public Option needs to be reminded that one is judged by the company one keeps. Those of us who live in any of these districts need to give these folks their walking papers.
Oh yeah...Yes we can.
Advertisement
I believe your starting premise is incorrect, Kevin. As I interpret the evidence, the large majority of Blue Dogs are Democrats who won in conservative districts, most of which went for McCain in 2008. They won over their Republican opponents by espousing conservative fiscal principles in combination with Democratic philosophies on providing important services to those who need them. It seems unlikely that primary opponents significantly more liberal than they are could be nominated next time. If nominated, most would probably lose to Republicans, and the Democrats would lose their majority in Congress.
When it comes to healthcare reform, the Republicans are united in their opposition to a public option, as well as most other features of proposed legislation. Conversely, the Blue Dogs have just announced a compromise within the Democratic caucus to support a public option. The compromise appears to entail limiting the ability of that option to reduce reimbursements to providers to Medicare rates - a concern related to the disadvantage many rural districts suffer due to lower rates for rural than for urban providers.
Prospects now look reasonably favorable for a healthcare reform package that while highly imperfect, also represents a major step forward toward making affordable healthcare available to all Americans.
July 29, 2009 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate your measured reply and your analysis which I accept is closer to the realpolitik that is at work.
But when I hear "they won over their Republican opponents by espousing conservative fiscal principles" and a compromise that "appears to entail limiting the ability of that option to reduce reimbursements to providers" my reaction is ""That's what I said. They are Republicans." They are concerned with their own re=election and the money they receive from "health care" and insurance corporations.
If their is a fear that the Public Option will inadequately provide for rural health care then by all means write in the necessary guarantees but don't pretend that the Blue Dog obstruction and disempowerment are intended for the good of the people. First and foremost, they intend that the rich stay rich.
July 29, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben Nelson even said he isn't sure if he will vote for Sotomayor because he's afraid she is an "activist." I agree with you, and I am shocked that there are so many of them, which I have taken to calling, "Blue Mongrels" because it is more descriptive.
July 30, 2009 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
If their is a fear that the Public Option will inadequately provide for rural health care then by all means write in the necessary guarantees but don't pretend that the Blue Dog obstruction and disempowerment are intended for the good of the people.
It's a complex issue, Kevin, because "the good of the people" can be defined in more than one way. You're certainly right that an undiluted public option would be best for Americans as a whole, but not necessarily for "the people" in individual Blue Dog districts. Those "people" are not all rich. For example, community hospitals in some districts are struggling to stay afloat financially, and reimbursement at the Medicare level would exacerbate their situation. The fault lies not with these hospitals themselves, but with an insane health care system that promotes unnecessary duplication of facilities and services, as well as unnecessary treatments and procedures. In that sense, healthcare reform requires not merely reforming insurance, and reforming exorbitant drug costs, but also reforming the internal workings of the health care system itself - something none of the current proposals addresses adequately.
July 30, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Colorado's Western Slope Rep.(3rd CD) is always a Blue Dog or a Republican. For the Senate, we are Democratic lately. Like you, I get mega-peeved sometimes, and I have to shake myself to remember that one of the major votes Blues can almost always be counted on is Choice. In these days of encroaching theocracy, to me abortion rights are huge. Our new Senator Bennet, appointed by the guv when Salazar went to Interior, hasn't voted with the Dems on much so far, is very iffy on health reform, and I know he will have a strong challenger, I think he's up in 2012.
I also worry that lowering Medicare reimbursements will hurt rural areas. Very few docs here take new Medicare patients at all. I help start a low-income clinic through a health cooperative a few years ago, but all the paper-work is a blooming nightmare.
July 30, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink