Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2009
| Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds RSS | Follow Newser on Twitter Twitter

OFF THE GRID
Jul 27, 09 | 12:21 PM

What’s the Matter With the Blue Dogs? Don’t They Like Beer?

Share
Now that Obama has taken the sting out of the big racial standoff of the summer by inviting the parties to the White House for a beer, we can’t help wondering why the same personal touch hasn’t worked on the Blue Dogs.

Who are these supposed Democrats who seem not only immune to the charm offensive but determined to derail the Obama express?

In case you haven’t already gone to Wikipedia yourself, the Blue Dogs are descendants of the Yellow Dog Democrats (Southerners still punishing the GOP for the behavior of Abraham Lincoln—ie, they would "vote for a yellow dog before they would vote for any Republican"). The Yellow Dogs said they had been “choked blue” by what they considered extreme behavior of their leftist colleagues in the party. (And yeah, they’re also linked to the “Blue Dog” paintings of Louisiana artist George Rodrigue. Two of the founders were Louisiana lawmakers who had Rodrigue on their office walls, before both seceded and became Republicans. Now that we’re all reading Infinite Jest, it’s hard not to think in footnotes.)

Anyway, said Blue Dogs, who annoy the hell out of other Democrats by getting themselves called “moderate,” cleverly suggesting that other Democrats are crazies, have slowed the train down so much that everyone’s worried sick that all the old opponents who colluded in killing health care reform last time around will clamber on board.

The Blue Dogs say health care reform is too expensive, but they’re making Democrats pull out their hair by opposing everything the Dems have proposed to make it affordable: taxing the top 1% of earners, deploying a public plan to compete with private insurers, requiring businesses to either offer insurance or kick in to the government plan.

Last week the Blue Dogs nearly came to blows with Henry Waxman, before someone stepped in to separate them. Unfortunately, Waxman isn’t the kind of guy you’d really want to have a beer with, so all they agreed to was a cooling off period, which is pretty much what they wanted in the first place—a delay.

Waxman aside, where do they get the nerve to stiff-arm the president on his No. 1 priority? Depending on who you believe, it’s either because Americans have actually turned against the health care reform they seemed so passionate about when they went to the polls to vote for him 8 months ago, or because they’re really in league with special interests on health care.

A lot of the 50-some Blue Dogs were elected in what had been Republican districts, where they say the Obama effect is beginning to wear off, and they don’t want to be left stranded when voters “come home” to the GOP.

Paul Krugman can't resist noting grimly that one of the original Blue Dogs—one of the two who turned Republican—helped push through Bush’s Medicare bill, which was a huge giveaway to drug and insurance companies, then got himself on the very lucrative payroll of PhRMS, big pharma’s lobbying arm.

The Journal can't resist noting gleefully that the Democrats have only themselves to blame for this predicament, after they actively recruited “moderate’ candidates (Republicans in Democratic clothing?) to run in conservative districts. The strategy worked brilliantly—until it came to getting something important passed.

So Americans may in fact be relieved not to have to spend August reading about health care reform—reading about Democratic infighting in Congress is almost as depressing as reading about the recession—but it's even more depressing to contemplate a collapse of health care reform come fall. Nancy Pelosi assured the nation on TV yesterday that she’s 100% certain the bill—a bill, some bill—will pass. But nobody is afraid enough of Pelosi to posit that her birth certificate must be a fake, and nobody has every accused her of being charming. It's time for Obama to throw a helluva cocktail party.

4 comments
VIEWING:
 
Deebles
Jul 27, 09 2:47 PM CDT
I certainly understand your frustration since like the Obstructionists who sired the Blue Dogs frustration seems to be the intent. It makes me feel better to call them Blue Ball Dog Democrats. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
Deebles
Jul 27, 09 9:31 PM CDT
It's been six hours. I think that you must agree that this is an unyankable dog. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
hsr0601
Jul 28, 09 1:16 PM CDT
A pay for outcome / value payment system, key to the deficit-neutral, might be capable of bringing all groups together. Supporters of the agreement say it could save the Medicare System more than $100 billion a year and 'improve' care, that means more than $1trillian over a decade, and virtually needs no other resources including tax on the wealthiest. (Please visit http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=820455&catid=391 for detailed infos). As much as 30 percent of all health-care spending in the U.S. -some $700 billion a year- may be wasted on tests and treatments that do not improve the health of the recipients,” Thus the remaining $239 billions over a decade do not matter. Dr. Armadio at Mayo clinic says, "If we got rid of that stuff, we save a third of all that we spend and that is 2.5 trillion dollars on health care. A third of that and that is 700 billion dollars a year. That covers a lot of uninsured people." 1. There is no need for infighting and class conflict. 2. It can satisfy revenue-neutral raised by the Republicans. 3. It is able to resolve the regional disparity. 4. It may bring the private insurers to competition, innovation. 5. The focus on 'outcome' over volume can make the practitioners more accurate and creative based on IT SYSTEM and evidence, while eliminating the additional, unnecessary care that is increasing patients' pains, frustrations, and possible side-effects. 6. It undoubtedly allows for massive medical job creation. 7. The desperate people will get back American dream. THANK YOU ! Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
KoalaJohnson
Jul 28, 09 3:48 PM CDT
What a lame-ass logo. Looks Clifford's tiny self-pitying cousin. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
LEAVE A
COMMENT
Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.

 
RECENT POSTS
Nov 24, 09 | 10:10 AM

Murdoch and Microsoft: The Mice Are Trying to Roar

Nov 23, 09 | 8:41 AM

Books Are Bad for You

Nov 20, 09 | 8:32 AM

The Health-Care Wars Have Just Begun

Nov 19, 09 | 10:14 AM

Sarah Palin Deserves Some More Attention

Nov 18, 09 | 2:40 PM

And We Thought We Hated Mammograms

Nov 18, 09 | 8:43 AM

China and the Obese: The President Meets His Greatest Problems

Nov 17, 09 | 6:50 AM

Rupert Murdoch’s Guy Gets It

Nov 16, 09 | 12:30 PM

Obama's Secret Weapon: The Hug

Nov 16, 09 | 8:01 AM

The President Wants You to Know He’s Too Dopey to Use Twitter

Nov 13, 09 | 6:55 AM

Does Warren Buffett Know What He’s Talking About?

ABOUT

OFF THE GRID is about why the news is the news. Here are the real motivations of both media and newsmakers. Here's the backstory. This is a look at the inner workings of desperate media, the inner life of the publicity crazed, and the true meaning of the news of the day.

FeedRSS