Michael Barone tends to be either very right or very wrong. Today, I think he's wrong:
Contra Barone's assertion, there's not really any evidence that health care reform is unpopular in the Blue Dog districts. Although there are exceptions, most of the Blue Dog districts are fairly poor. A Quinnipiac poll released earlier this month suggested that while 53 percent of voters overall think "think it's the government's responsibility to make sure that everyone in the United States has adequate health care", 61 percent of voters making under $50,000 do. Also, while Quinnipaic did not break out the results for moderate and conservative Democrats, which are plentiful in these Districts, one can reasonably infer them. In this poll, 79 percent of liberals agreed with the statement as did 77 percent of Democrats -- not a very big difference. Since almost all liberals are Democrats and about half of all Democrats are liberals, that suggests that support for health care reform among non-liberal Democrats is something like 75 percent.Obama and congressional Democratic leaders are blaming Republicans for their problem. Obama noted that Republican Sen. Jim DeMint and Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol want to "kill" the Democratic bills. But the Blue Dogs' and Polis' letters showed that the mortal threat comes from elected Democrats. Twenty-nine of the 57 letter signers defeated or replaced Republicans in 2006 or 2008. Thirty-three of them represent districts carried by John McCain in 2008.
What we're seeing is the people speaking through their politicians. Obama and many Democrats assumed that the financial crisis would predispose most Americans to favor a larger and much more expensive government than we ever have had before.
But suppose that Barone is right, and that health care -- or at least the current Democratic version of it -- indeed is unpopular in these districts.
Well, then, Mr. Blue Dog, you have a problem on your hands.
You're going to lose anyway.
If these voters are not capable of supporting health care, what other planks of the Democratic agenda are they going to support?
The carbon tax? Not rural, energy-intensive districts.
Maybe your constituents liked the bailout? Didn't think so.
Perhaps they're waiting for Obama to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act? Um, probably not.
The fact is, Mr. Blue Dog, there's a good chance that the reason you're in power is because George W. Bush was in power. When Bush was in power, you didn't have to advance your party's own agenda -- you just had to block some of the more unpopular elements of his.
But you don't have that advantage anymore. You're going to have to endure at least two more elections with Obama as your President -- and since the Republican candidates in 2012 are Dopey, Sleazy and Romney, probably four. You're going to start having to find at least a few things to vote for.
And if health care isn't one of them, it's hard to see what else is, at least in your sort of district.
Maybe you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. But the only world in which you are popular enough to get re-elected is one which this bill is popular enough for you to vote for.
Sincerely,
Nate

93 comments
Facts: 1,379,324
Conservative Columnists: 0
Looks like Facts wins again!
Nice letter, Nate. But what's missing from your analysis is the side payments and next career steps of these folks.
Did you happen to catch the NPR story about Max Baucus the other day? Many of his former staffers and committee colleagues are now lobbying for the healthcare and insurance companies -- lobbying him.
For these Blue Dogs, their current position in Congress isn't the last job they will hold in their career. And their income as Congressman may pale in comparison to what they could earn if the sell themselves to the insurance/pharma interests.
So in this letter you are asking them to forego a lot of future income by voting for the public option, etc. After all, staying in the electoral arena is risky business no matter how they vote on this single issue (especially for them, if there is a pro-GOP swing in 2010) -- while they can secure their future income stream by selling out now.
You need to put the calculus of future career lines into their "expecte value" of their votes on health care.
I assume that if the voters turn against Democrats, Blue Dogs are the most vulnerable. Progressive Caucus members generally represent safe districts.
Ask two questions:
Will the Democrats has health care reform?
Will the voters punish Democrats for what did or didn't happen on health care?
1. Reform passes; voters punish. In this scenario Blue Dogs lose out on money from medical-industrial complex and get ousted from office.
2. Reform passes; voters don't punish. In this scenario Blue Dogs break into winners and losers. Those that voted for health care reform get to cash chips with party leadership in the future. Those that voted against are marginalized.
3. Reform fails; voters punish. Blue Dogs go down, but they have well-paid campaign staffers along the way. One or two get long-term media gigs constantly harping on the idea that Democrats need to avoid repeating the failures of Obama Care.
4. Reform fails; voters don't punish. Blue Dogs find their position within the Democratic Party strengthened.
My take is that voters are not going to hand Democrats a 1994-like defeat. Reasons: 1. voters need time to truly sour on Democrats; 2. GOP is in disarray.
So, I think Pelosi and the leadership needs to convince individual Blue Dogs that they have futures as individuals, not as a caucus.
If individual Blue Dogs think that a bill is going to pass, they will probably want to vote for it.
Alternatively, the push from the liberal leadership could have other effects. Blue Dogs being hammered by cap-and-trade, massive spending bills, and health care reforms that do make cost control worse could take other actions.
Specifically, if 2010 sees a 20-30 seat shift back to the GOP, we could see another round of party switching. Rep. Boren (D-OK) already sounds like he would put himself ahead of the President of the Democratic agenda.
If these Ds won because of backlash due to the Iraq War and the War on Terror, they may not be willing to go along with a liberal economic agenda no matter what. If these changes don't happen now with the 60 D Senate and large House majority, they aren't happening after 2010.
But the other very real alternative is that Blue Dogs actually push their own reform with support from some GOPers. It focuses on cost instead of on govt provision. That would probably doom the Pelosi-style reform, regardless of if the cost-focused bill passes or not. And the Blue Dogs can go back to their constituents saying a) I fought Pelosi and b) I tried to reform health care to cut costs.
I'm not sure your "Pascal's Wager" works much here. Many conservative Ds have stayed in pretty red districts by opposing most of the liberal economic agenda (see, e.g., Sen. Nelson (D-NE), Rep. Boren (D-OK)). And there are health care bills they could support, just not the House "throw money at the problem" version. And even that version that might be able support in a year when the deficit wasn't already over 10-15% of GDP.
Give it to em Nate-right on the money as usual
OT here, but request for Nate: Could you bring back the front page graph which shows Presidential approval rating after accounting for house effects and other issues. Pollster's is good but their simple averaging which includes Rasmussen's polls with their ridiculous likely voter screens seems off.
I am guessing the Blue Dogs firstly are less impressed on the need for a public option. Heck less impressed on the need for any healthcare reform. But also they are likely to be the most vulnerable, as you would imagine they are more likely to be in 'purple' districts.
My own view is still that this is a moment for principle, and to ignore the electoral risks. Fair enough, if they really aren't sold on a public option, thats one thing, but if they are running scared, thats a whole other thing.
Facts: Average Obama approval rating now below 54%.
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama.php
Today's gallup poll puts him at his worst performance to date since inauguration (55/39 approval/disapproval).
Drip, baby, drip.
>> the Republican candidates in 2012 are Dopey, Sleazy and Romney
FTW
Today's gallup poll puts him at his worst performance to date since inauguration (55/39 approval/disapproval).
And it is still miles ahead of any congressional/senate republican and the GOP as a whole.
Cry baby cry.
Obama's loss is not the GOP's gain. If you think the electorate is going to run back to the very people that caused all these problems and destroyed the constitution and bill of rights just because Obama is not perfect, you are more delusional then PK, GROG, and MR combined.
I suspect his drop has more to do with his refusal to hold the GOP war criminals responsible for their actions and his breaking of the pledge to be more transparent, and less to do with health care. After all, the direction it is going in the house and senate have very little to do with Obama.
Nate the Super Snark!
Wow! Normally wonkish wanker Nate is a bit more measured in his commentary, befitting his day job as statistician of all things beisball, but today his desperation is showing. He seems in a lather, a panic.
I suppose if I too wanted to see the destruction of the United States as a bastion of free enterprise and the place where equality and opportunity allows anyone to make it to the top and supplant that with some sort of socialist welfare state, then I too would be feeling dispirited and would be lashing out.
But, of course, the vectors are going the way of free enterprise and popular freedom and contra to Obama’s desire to take over our lives and impose on us his socialist vision.
How eerily disconnected the President seemed last night at the presser. Very much the ideologue, calmly haranguing us to join his revolution. Terribly short on specifics and lacking emotional punch, his tired delivery I think actually did as much damage to his cause as his documented lapses in truthfulness and the calculated misimpressions he attempted to weave in support of his doomed vision of healthcare reform. (See, e.g., today’s NYTs).
Congress will adjourn for a month’s vacation in August and our nation’s representatives will return to their districts – red white, blue and purple – and they will find a public distrustful of Obama’s healthcare reform ideas and wary of his ability to pay for it all. Our Senators and Representatives will return chastened and bowed.
At best we will get some sort of watered down version of the bill involving perhaps some needed reform of the insurance industry (which was all that Obama seemed focused on anyway).
Oh, and while he is at it, whiling away the balance of his term, Obama maybe can start using his executive power to get those hundreds of billions of savings that he claims are out there that can pay for healthcare, savings that are ill-defined right now to be sure (as most likely they do not exist except as figment to fool us into believing this mess is paid for), but he can keep working on it. He’s gotta do something ,right?
Maybe he can tackle the two big medical entitlement programs that already exist and that are broken instead of creating a new one, heaping bad on bad. Medicare alone is said to be unfunded to the tune of $42 TRILLION dollars. Let’s fix it and Medicaid first before creating another massive broken program.
Obama missed his chance to teach us anything last night. He did not communicate at all on the details of the plan, because he knows how unacceptable and unpalatable they are. This is why he wants it done now and why he was so fearful of Congress adjourning for the August break.
Now it’s too late and healthcare reform is doomed.
In September perhaps the Congress can take up sensible bill like Ryan-Coburn, the GOP alternative.
As far as the politx goes – voting for Obama care, like voting for Cap n’ Trade is death to so many members of Congress. They know it, and Nate knows, it but he is a Commie, pinko wacko so he, like Obama, would rather lose in 2010 and 2012 that abandon the chance to socialize America.
Well, it ain’t gonna happen!
petekent01 (on twitter)
Any idea how the Blue Dog caucus breaks down in terms of how many are primarily social conservatives and how many are primarily fiscal conservatives? While the fiscal conservatives will probably vote with the Republicans on this, I'm not sure why socially conservative Blue Dogs would necessarily be opposed to health care reform.
So, which one's Dopey and which one's Sleazy?
Gallup:
Obama: 55%/39%
[Lowest Approval and Highest Disapproval to Date]
Fox:
Obama: 54%/38%
[Lowest Approval and Highest Disapproval to Date]
---------
Connecticut Senate (Quinnipiac)
Simmons (R): 48%
Dodd (D): 39%
The Tide is turning. 2010 will be a 1994 repeat!!!
This is hilarious.
Looks like Nate even has dittoheads
now.
You liberals are really too much and to think you guys actually think you are smarter than conservatives.
Now before you jump on me I am not a liberal or conservative. The fact is both groups are exactly the same.
If you aren't with us you are against us. Thats your argument.
So in this case yall would rather have a district go Republican than have a Democrat questioning the CURRENTLY PROPOSED healthcare reform bill.
Wow just wow.
Obama's popularity according to Gallup is now lower than DUBYA'S at this point in his term!
Obama is getting failing grades on healtcare, the economy, deficits and HIS JEANS!
petekent01 (on twitter)
The Blue Dogs are nervous about supporting a bill that NO ONE KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT (not even the president).
Even Senator Reid today, in announcing the vote delay, said as much:
"It's better to have a product based on quality and thoughtfulness rather than try to jam something through."
Seriously, what exactly, are Americans, not just moderate/conservative Democrats being asked to support? Why this rediculous August deadline endlessly repeated by the White House?
This is a huge, disastrous cluster-^#%& in the making.
Worse than Hilary's effort in 1994.
How could a new President squander so much goodwill to such an extent that now he perceived by over half of voters are untrustworthy on "health care"? This is a Democrat we're talking about here. To be at this level is not good. It would be like a Republican falling below 50% on questions of national security.
Obama has failed in this.
To think otherwise, is frankly a little embarrassing, and makes me question your political insight.
Insetad of being a forum for endless Walter Duranty-style cheerleading for Obama this website could benefit from some evenhandedness and, yes, even criticism.
It seems you've entirely missed the point, nova_middle_man.
By a mile. :/
Bear in mind -- for many employers it will be far cheaper to pay the 8% penalty than maintain insurance for their employees. Employers want out!
Under Obama's plan, you can keep what you got now, BUT YOU CAN'T CHANGE IT! If you do you are required to switch to the public plan.
This crap is nothing more than a backdoor way of moving us to single payor. It is a transparent attempt (how ironic!) and the trick of a small child.
Y'all should thank God there are still conservative voices out there able to communciate the truth.
The MSM media is so over the moon for Obama, they conseal the truth so as to feather his and their own nests. I mean, did you watch the presser last nite?
petekent01 (on twitter)
I think there are a lot of Blue Dogs out there whose major hope of re-election lies in their incumbency. Not to underrate that factor but, in addition to name recognition, it's strength lies mainly in the incumbent's ability to "get things done" -- favors and/or influence on behalf of people/businesses in his/her district. All of that goes away if the Blue Dog switches parties, and a lot of it goes away even if the Blue Dog remains a Democrat but votes against health care. Pelosi and Emanuel are surely making that very point right now.
They won't get all of them, but they'll get enough to put something through the House by ten votes or so.
Another thing to bear in mind is that 2010 is the election that chooses the state legislatures that will redistrict based upon the new census, which means that there is a strong reason for politicians to consider party strength to a degree that would not apply otherwise.
For example, Kristen Gillibrand, as a Congresswoman, was a Blue Dog who might have opposed health care in an ordinary year. But in 2010, she would have had to consider that undermining Obama might very well mean returning the Republican Party to power in the state senate, which in turn might mean that her district would be drawn less favorably than otherwise. New York is going to lose some House seats, so it would have been a major consideration for her. Obama remains VERY popular in New York, so she'd have had to think twice about appearing to give aid and comfort to his opponents.
Her counterparts in one-party states -- for either party -- don't have to consider that, but there are enough Blue Dogs who will have to worry about it to pass a bill.
Dwight in all seriousness feel free to enlighten me
Are you basically aruging the districts are going Republican no matter what so it really doesn't matter
In all seriousness I am genuniely interested.
The other possibility I see is some Specter type transformations in reverse. If the Ds keep pushing these Blue Dogs could easily flipd sides. Thats what I view Nate wants. If you aren't going to vote for the HealthCare bill REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS. Go ahead and become a Republican. Thats not a good policy for actually governing. I'm not sure if Nate is all that interseted in policy/debate after all. His whole trend on this issue has been too political.
Its classic overreach liberals and conservatives do it all the time. This country is moderate thank goodness.
As far as the politx goes – voting for Obama care, like voting for Cap n’ Trade is death to so many members of Congress. They know it, and Nate knows, it but he is a Commie, pinko wacko so he, like Obama, would rather lose in 2010 and 2012 that abandon the chance to socialize America.
Not that everyone didn't already know, but you are a retard.
$440 Billion in unfunded mandates make nation's governor's wary of Obamacare.
Did you hear how lukewarm towards the plan Ed Rendel sounded on Hannity last night? Ya'd think he was a GOPer!
petekent01 (on twitter)
Now before you jump on me I am not a liberal or conservative.
Yes you are you lying piece of shit.
You are the worst sort of conservative, the kind that can only parrot Limbaugh talking points.
And beavis, you are a butthead, without a thing to say exept to attack me in childish fashion.
Go lather up with Nate, the wanker!
petekent01 (on twitter)
Funny how the right wing retards always post in clusters.
All these accounts are from one or two racist freepers.
Hey guys, I'm still curious when I can get the letter on how I can stop being a dirty liberal and start being a manly republican. I'm pretty sure it's not connected to any ideology, so...
Anyway, I think this is an interesting point, really, on how the Blue Dogs could spin this vote - and I also think the post earlier in the thread about how there's their overall "potential earnings" is interesting as well. A lot of them may in fact be angling for the lobby posts.
Also, uhm, liberals, libs, liberals, liberals, libs, Obama falling like a rock, liberals. Liberals.
Am I doing it right guys??
petekent01 (on twitter)
Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said last week that the White House’s health-care proposals would not “reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount.”, shattering the central claim Obama has been making: that his health-care plan controls costs.
In a July 17 letter, Elmendorf added that the House’s health-care bill would result in a “net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion” over 10 years.
Obama's fuzzy math rages on! This is worse than what he did to us with the stim-u-less bill!
petekent01 (on twitter)
Beavis I am going to respond to you once and only once
1. Yuu are a troll
2. You don't know me
3. You never actually try and debate
4. You only know one thing how to attack
5. You are a troll
6. Your handle name is very accurate
perfect tommy like beavis and Obama likes to attack the messengers and not their ideas.
It is Stalinsim at work!
petekent01 (on twitter)
Gallup (today):
A new USA Today/Gallup poll shows that 59% of Americans say President Obama's proposals to address the major problems facing the country call for too much government spending, and 52% say Obama's proposals call for too much expansion of government power. It is striking how Obama is being abandoned by independents.
INDs are going to be among the first to turn to the GOP in 2010 simply to check Obama's power. His vast majorites in the House and Senate are like sterioids to him.
We need to get Obama off the roids!
petekent01 (on twitter)
Man, I can not wait until Secretary of State Clinton starts distancing herself even more from Obama.
Also, it will be so, so sweet to see the Democrats start eating their own. What we are slowly but surely seeing is the true implosion of a presidency.
Once the veneer is off, all bets are off, and wait until the media starts truly reporting on who Obama is.
Man, where's the popcorn??!!
Oh, and did you hear how Obama attacked cops last night, went out of his way to call them "stupid"!
And I can tell you that doctors are outragedd by rhe thinly veiled aspersions he cast on their characters.
Ca-ching! That's the cash register at the RNC going up!
CA-CHING!
petekent01 (on twitter)
@PeteKent:
No man I'm totally serious. Your stream of rhetoric has persuaded me that my political party of preference and general if not universal agreement is completely wrong and foolish, and I would like to join the "real" party.
As for Stalin, consider that without Stalin we would have had no Joseph McCarthy. Perhaps the true blood of patriots needs the blade of Communists to evoke it??
Also we totally haven't staved you in the head with rifles. I am desperately trying to get you to tell me how I can be a cool Republican too! beavis seems to be saying you're a schmuck. If this is Stalinism, Stalin himself must have been practicing some form of Double Stalinism, with actual violence and everything.
Anyway, please let me know how all of us can join the proper opinion clusters. Is there somewhere we need to send the checks?
petekent01 (on twitter)
Missy,
so rite about HRC -- let the feeding frenzy begin.
I think it all started at the All Star Game with those jeans!
LOL
BTW, speaking of the All Star Game, did y'all catch that video of Obama at the begining before he bounced his pitch to the plate? I noticed it again, as I noticed it before during the debates -- Obama has a crater on the left side of his head just behind the eye socket and towards his temple. It looks like he was kicked in the haid at some point with a jackboot.
I swear!
Look for it!
They film and lite him carefully to avoid showing it.
However did it happen?
I wonder if some tribal woman in a mud hut in Kenya got a little ruff with the forceps when he was being birthed and cracked his skull.
Maybe it was just some ruff homsex gone wrong.
Dunno, but it has me wonderin'
petekent01 (on twitter)
@PeteKent, further if you'll forgive me sir:
Really, in a lot of ways Stalin is responsible for the modern conservative movement. Obviously we could not have had what we had today without the global effects of WWI's outcome, which caused the Soviet Union. And just as obviously, without the glaring example of "Communism" which right-minded citizens could point to whenever civil ri- I mean, whenever interstate high- I mean, whenever - OK, whenever something came up that they had reasoned was negative, they would not have gotten involved.
Without the prominence of Marxism caused by the Soviet experiment, many of the founding fathers of the Conservative movement would never have become college socialists, and then boomerang as hard as they did back into the right, Right areas of thought, with only these new enhanced methodological studies gained from observing the Soviet experiments.
Without Stalin, there might never have been a Gorbachev, and without a Gorbachev, how could Ronald Reagan (pbuh) have ever said "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."
What does any of this have to do with Barack Obama's health care proposals and its difficulties? Well, I'm told that they are Communism, and I must ask: If we hadn't been able to see Communism at such close quarters, might he have gotten Communism past us?? Just something to think about. Perhaps we should thank God for Stalin... after all, he only affected foreign lands, mostly in Europe, anyway.
petekent01 (on twitter)
WV: Peter
Must be an omen!!!
How did Obama get that crater in his skull?
Will we ever learn the truth?
I am a "skuller" and proud of it!
petekent01 (on twitter)
Tommy:
God created the devil so mankind could perceive evil for what it is. So it is with communism.
And now with Obama.
And wat up with that hole in the left side of his haid anyway???
petekent01 (on twitter)
@PeteKent:
I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that Communism created the Devil to show us evil? Are you saying that Barack Obama is simultaneously the Devil and Communism? Which things are good? Can you provide a short list?
And here's one final thought:
I'm pretty sure that Stalin actually wasn't that bad a guy, because I'm similarly quite sure that he was also setting out to destroy "liberals" and "enemies of the people" when he liquidated the Kulaks. Can we get a conditional up for Stalin on this one? I mean, liberals, man.
petekent01 (on twitter)
I too read it as Nate saying the only way for them to get elected is for them to vote for the bill AND support this or else you aren't a democrat and might as well become a republican.
These are moderate to conservative districts and they were elected as a "anti-Bush protest votes" I agree. These are for the most part not Pro-Obama districts and there are less and less as Obamas numbers are slowly dropping.
Why then would any politican vote for something IN ITS CURRENT FORM that a MAJORITY OF AMERICANS NOW DO NOT SUPPORT.
nova_middle_man
If the Ds keep pushing these Blue Dogs could easily flipd sides. Thats what I view Nate wants. If you aren't going to vote for the HealthCare bill REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS. Go ahead and become a Republican.
Um, I'm not sure we were reading the same post.
In the post I read, Nate was arguing that Blue Dogs should vote for health care reform to improve their chances of reelection, not that they should fall on their swords for the sake of party purity.
Nate started with the premise that many Blue Dogs were elected on the strength of anti-Bush protest votes. Without Bush to rail against, they'll need to campaign on something else. Usually, for members of the party in power, that means campaigning on "accomplishments" in Congress that the representative was part of. One such accomplishment would be the passage of health care reform, which Nate believes would be more palatable to Blue Dog constituencies than a climate bill or stimulus support.
Now, you may agree or disagree with that argument. However, I'm not at all persuaded by someone who (a) didn't even read Nate's post or (b) so egregiously misunderstood the argument Nate was making.
WV: plases - a "rediculous" spelling of the word "places (just for you Missy @ It's Almost Naptime)
nova_middle_man,
Reading this post in context with Nate's other posts on the issue, I don't believe Nate is imposing an across the board litmus test for Democratic representatives (i.e "support this or else you aren't a democrat and might as well become a republican"). I think he would look at a no vote on health care differently if it came from a Blue Dog in a wealthier, east coast district. In that case, the representative's constituency would probably view climate change and/or financial bailouts as better places for the representative to hang his hat.
I don't think the issue depends on Obama's popularity as much as it does on the popularity of health care reform in general (although, given Obama's role as a health care reform salesman, the two are clearly corelated).
Also, I don't buy that we have a clear picture on whether or not "A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS" support the plan "IN ITS CURRENT FORM" or not. Nate has pointed out the mushiness of polling numbers on health care a few times on this site. What we can say is that people (1) generally support expanding access, quality, and cost-effectiveness of health care, (2) are worried about changing their insurance, but simultaneously worried about staying on the status quo, and (3) are worried about costs of any government involvement. I don't think we can extrapolate from that whether any given plan is supported or not by "A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS," especially when the details of the plan are not set and both sides are still spinning away at full force.
I think the name of this blog should be changed to "Politics Done Left."
Its great isn't it. This time last year we had a President with 30% approval ratings, and PK and the likes were happy to be apologists and act like somehow approval ratings don't matter. Now a mid 50s% approval rating is a sign of a failing presidency.
I'm interested to know how many of the dissaprovers are those who wish the President to be more radical with healthcare in particular. The media presents it like everyone who is unhappy with how the President is handling healthcare must be against a public option. I am not so sure that is true. Maybe there are some, maybe many, who want the President to take more of a lead on the public option.
What I find a bit funny as well is the way some people seem to be reacting as if healthcare reform was aleways going to be easy and somehow Obama is making a mess of it. Personally my slight dissatisfaction has more to do with Obama being too passive on the issue. I wonder if now isn't the moment for Obama to start cracking heads together.
Aren't there like 4 or 5 versions of the bill going around congress? Why do we only hear about the one that was passed by that house commitee?
Perfect Tommy.. you might want to remove the petekent01 twitter tag from your self-debates.
The win-win-win for the Blue Dogs is to support a watered-down version of the bill.
To the Democratic voters, they got it done, whereas if the Republicans had been in power nothing would have happened.
To the Republican voters, they showed their independence and kept Obama in check. They showed they were "reasonable".
And to the Democratic powers that be, they showed themselves to be the deciding votes, a power independent of the other Democrats.
And that's exactly how I expect it to play out. It could be something as simple as an 8% tax paid for by employers on employees who don't have health care, with the money going directly to hospitals. That would be a huge boost to hospitals, which right now are in bad shape. And some sort of patients' bill of rights and appeals process against HMOs, and some limits to the "pain and suffering" portion of malpractice suits.
Or it could be something else. The point is, it won't be what's being suggested right now. The President will compromise, and the Blue Dogs will show themselves to be a force to be reckoned with. And if you don't think Obama knew this to begin with, you're naive. This is how the game in Washington is played.
Forgive me for asking, but why do you advertise for Pete Kent on twitter at the end of each of your posts exactly the same way he does? (e.g. “petekent01 (on twitter)”)
If I were of a suspicious nature I would think that you two are more connected than you have so far admitted.
Matthew H
Very well said and to the rest of you this is what is actually best for the country and what I have personally supported since day one.
As an independent. YES I AM AN INDEPENDENT. I appreciate keeping liberals in check.
And as an independent I understeand the REAL NEED for healthcare reform
and finally as an Independent I understand that neither party can do what is best for the country and divided government/compromise provides the best for all.
I would love to be a fly on the wall when Obama, Axelrod, Emmanuel, Reid, and Pelosi debrief on this cluster-#^$%.
I imagine Pelosi will unfang her Vampire veneer chompers and go for Reid's neck. Luckily for him his Mormon underwear should ward off her evil.
Mr. Emmanuel will also verbally slap the Congressional leaders to little avail. His frail, MJ-esque, ballerina frame is of little consequence to an intrepid, western frontiersman like Reid.
Hilary, discrete and quiet on the outskirts of the Oval Office, grinning like a Cheshire Cat, will be texting key donors, lining them up for 2012.
Obama will be mute in the corner doing what he does best...planning another vapid, self-referential, America-neutering speech in a foreign locale...
PeteKent: Don't you have a job? Wait, forget I asked.
"Dopey, Sleazy and Romey" = A+
PeteKent said...
Obama's popularity according to Gallup is now lower than DUBYA'S at this point in his term!
Obama is getting failing grades on healtcare, the economy, deficits and HIS JEANS!
PeteKent said...
And beavis, you are a butthead, without a thing to say exept to attack me in childish fashion.
Go lather up with Nate, the wanker!
PeteKent said...
perfect tommy like beavis and Obama likes to attack the messengers and not their ideas.
It is Stalinsim at work!
PeteKent said...
WV: Peter
Must be an omen!!!
How did Obama get that crater in his skull?
Will we ever learn the truth?
I am a "skuller" and proud of it!
petekent01 (on twitter)
Couple days ago I sarcastically asked you for some originality, you're starting to repeat yourself again ie spamming twice in consecutive threads lol shocking I know pk repeating his childish, impish talking pts.
Sooo much negativity! Yea, it's conclusive now. Dude you really do need to get laid. An impossibility to be sure, but at least give it a try! Miracles do happen ... :)
ciao
Wow, Missy, what an insightful and persuasive post!!! But is there room for both you and Pete Kent in the personal attacks and fantasy-dreaming niche of the conservative blog-comment universe?
My money's on Pete Kent. I doubt anyone can match his near-religious devotion to posting on this site.
So what if Obama is lower than Shrub after 6 months on the job?
What was Bush the 43rd doing at this point in time?
If I recall correctly:
A) Nothing
B) Clearing brush as he took another vacation.
All Bush may have been doing was calling for tax cuts, which is, of course, highly controversial and easily called "socialist" by vocal minorities seeking to prevent the...
Yeah, I can't keep the sarcasm up for that.
Or that in order to prevent an economic recession, government spending had to be ...
No, not that either.
Face it. Bush had nothing to deal with, and so didn't do anything to really change public opinion.
I know the right would prefer Obama not do anything about anything, but not everyone can be like Bush the 43rd.
In short: Is it ANY surprise that pursing legislation that stomps on the toes of industries and the wealthy draws out message battles designed to spin the arguments and reasoning into partisan divides?
Finally:
Call me crazy, but I'll make a wager that:
After September 11, Obama's popularity really won't stack up well against Shrub's.
I'm sure PeteKent will crow about THAT, too.
It is not an impossibility for Pete to get laid. Apparently, he has a very close friend named Tommy.
Wayward Son said...
It is not an impossibility for Pete to get laid. Apparently, he has a very close friend named Tommy.
That was my first thought lol but I didn't want to go there and went out of my way to be nice ;)
ciao
nova_middle_man said...
I too read it as Nate saying the only way for them to get elected is for them to vote for the bill AND support this or else you aren't a democrat and might as well become a republican.
Reading comprehension FAIL! :) It is a matter that they will have that "Democratic" label regardless. The realities of US politics is the motivation for switching parties is based on the Primaries, do you really think a Blue Dog in serious trouble in a general election would fair better against those exact same opponents during a GOP primary???
No, what Nate is getting at is that they probably should think hard about their electorate on this. It isn't a party unity thing at all.
No, what Nate is getting at is that they probably should think hard about their electorate on this. It isn't a party unity thing at all.
Which is exactly what they are doing. Standing up to the current liberal piece of crap bill to get something that they actually will support.
This is making Nate and the other liberals upset because they won't get all the far-left things they are looking for.
FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL ;-D :-* :-p
The dialogue on health care has finally begun. Expect massive amounts of FUDD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt and Disinformation) to be dished out by those opposed to any kind of health care reform, and those who think they see the potential for political gain.
But one thing is certain: A lot of people have been burned by the existing system. So if you position yourself in opposition to reform, you're going to get steamrolled, sooner or later.
That's Nate's point, and it's a good one.
Which is exactly what they are doing. Standing up to the current liberal piece of crap bill to get something that they actually will support.
Ummm, you failed at your reading comprehension even worse than I thought. :/
P.S. Why is it that when someone insists that they are an Independent my mind keeps rolling back to this? ;)
I don't see how this delay can possibly be anything but bad news for Obama and the Democrats.
Forty-nine congressmen are going to go home in August and the GOP and GOP-friendly groups are going to tar this plan to kingdom come. Already the idea has majority disapproval. I don't understand why the president pushed so hard for this. He's clearly lost political capital. He's down to 54.8 in the RCP average - which means that he's in the 40's in those red districts that elected Democrats to congress in 2006 and 2008. Why would a congressmen be fearful of a president or be compelled to follow the lead of a president when his approval rating within the congressman's district is net negative?
This is just what happens with a "big tent". In order to win majorities one party has to branch out to the center. And then when you govern from the far left (or the far right) you scare away your members from the center.
Keep on postin' Missy!
"My my, at waterloo napoleon did surrender
Oh yeah, and I have met my destiny in quite a similar way
The history book on the shelf
Is always repeating itself
Waterloo - I was defeated, you won the war
Waterloo - promise to love you for ever more
Waterloo - couldnt escape if I wanted to
Waterloo - knowing my fate is to be with you
Waterloo - finally facing my Waterloo..."
La la la.... La la la...
Do you guys think Nate & Company are nursing Scotch sodas today?? Maybe watching a good chick flick to buck them up?? I heard Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants was on LifeTime this afternoon...
PeteKent said...
Keep on postin' Missy!
Missy, you got the PK 'seal of approval' lol. You're life is now complete! ;)
btw Missy, you don't need PK's permission to keep on posting, just sayin' ...
take care, blessings
I am writing as we speak as searing account of the first 6 months of Obama's presidency.
Title: Obama, the god that Failed
I have first hand accounts of Obama practicing his flaccid, self-referencial, America-debasing speaches in foreign locales in the White House West Room while basking in the radiant, expectant glow of hand-picked media pundits.
Axelrod, Obama's ghomish consigliari is startled one morning to see Karl Rove's visage in the mirror on morning winking at him...
Strangely, Clinton comes off as a suprisingly sympathetic character...her ability to crack walnuts single-handed is most impressive!
It will be published on St. Martin's Press in the Spring of 2010. An initial run of 400,000 is promised.
Obama's crappy presser and slipped deadlines are good...FOR JOHN MCCAIN!!!
Nate -
My guess is that you do not have the call logs and e-mail logs for these Congressmen.
If there was evidence that they could vote for any of these bills and survive, my sense is that they would do so.
In fact, my sense is that it is much worse for them.
Not only can they NOT vote for the bill, they have to put on a show of being AGAINST the bill in the first place. They have to be VOCAL opponents of it if they hope to stay in office.
My sense is that they are seeing the call logs and listening to their local pollsters, pundits, and interest groups and getting a very clear message--if this thing passes as-is, you lose.
Therefore the only way to insulate yourself against that is to be obstructionist, not simply behind the scenes, but in front of cameras and with you name attached to letters that vociferously object to the concept of this legislation.
There is no way most will vote for it, they probably hope it goes away.
The whole effort now is so tainted and branded that anything short of a big bipartisan compromise will sink most of them. Regardless of how great they can make the bill, if it does not get bipartisan support these guys will still be accused of supporting socialized medicine.
The American people, at least the independents, seem to believe (according to polling) that any bill that Obama signs that does not get GOP support is probably a trojan horse of some sort to socialized medicine.
Health Care is a hard issue because 85% are happy with their coverage situation. It is all pain and little gain.
Why could this number be so high? Well, it is because private health spending that is not the real threat, it is the spending on Medicare and Medicaid.
The crisis is in the government run systems we already have, so the logic of another one fixing that is just spurious.
Most people see that they pay $25 co-pays for $300 medicines. They pay almost nothing, yet get statements that show that childbirth "costs" upwards of $15,000 in most cases.
They only see the 25% of their premiums coming out of their paycheck, and that is pre-tax.
People do not see the true cost, no wonder they are happy.
Of course with Obama subsidizing even more of the cost for more of the population, it is hard to see how this reverses what is wrong with out spending trajectory, either in private health care or government administered programs.
Anything given away at less than full price (or the appearance of less than full price) will be overused and abused.
We need an effective price system in health care. There is none. Consumers do not bear the direct price of anything.
To counter all the off-topic posts of "sore losers, sour grape, I can't believe a bi-racial Dem won the presidency conservatives/republicans" so I'm going to go off-topic 24/7 and be totally negative re: Obama.
Just let me add my own off-topic post. The DOW closed at 9069.29 +188.03 (2.12%) today the first time above 9000 since January 2009.
carry on
take care, blessings
p.s. If you're going to be totally negative, please I beseech you, at least stay on topic ;)
Honestly you would think the GOP had won some massive triumph. A slightly awkward performance at a presser really doesn't count for much in the whole scheme of things guys.
You also forget that most blue doggers are DLC-types who focus much more on triangulating themselves to beat Republicans than they focus on Democratic primaries.
A lot of liberals like to laugh at the Club for Growth and the kind of Republicans they support but the truth is they've been the 'bad cop' that keeps GOP members in line-- Republicans who tilt too far to the left can expect a CFG backed conservative to challenge them in a primary, and possibly knock them off. That may backfire on the CFG sometimes (i.e. Arlen Specter) but overall they've been successful at providing the billy club GOP leaders in Congress need to keep their troops in line.
Except (debatably) for Joe Lieberman, progressives haven't had similar kinds of successes. That kind of lack of primary firepower gives blue dogs room to stray.
If one or two of them gets beat (or barely escapes) in a primary against a progressive (because in the primary their appeal to Republicans won't help them) you will probably see Blue Dogs reigned in.
In a larger strategic sense (though a political party is made up of individuals each with their own agenda and this kind of strategizing rarely is successful) it would probably be good for a progressive organization (DFA?) to back some serious primary challengers to these folks (even if the ultimate cost was one or two seats in the house.)
Put it this way: If you are a politician and your challenges on the right are more dangerous to your survival than your challenges on the left you would be foolish not to bend to the right.
And until progressives figure that you you will continue to see Blue Dogs break with the party.
And here is an issue which could in fact create a solid base and issue for a challenge. But someone has to take the reins and run a serious campaign against these folks or they will have no reason to support the party agenda.
I think people aren't really understanding the nuances of this. We have tons of different versions of the health care bills in Congress right now. No one knows what the final bill will end up being, and its hard to say how people will support it or not until this is decided.
Furthermore, the "Blue Dogs" are a pretty diverse group. I can give some practical experience of a certain type of Blue Dogs because I grew up in Arkansas. The Blue Dog here is quite socially conservative and very religious. That said, they are most concerned with economic issues. They come from a VERY poor part of the country where the lack of quality health care is a SERIOUS problem. I can't emphasize this enough. Many of these rural and poor people don't get much of any dental care and often deal with their medical problems because they wouldn't be able to afford treatment. These guys are a lot more supportive of health care reform than you think. Blue Dogs like Marion Berry and others in Arkansas and other parts of the South will be much more supportive of health care than other Democratic initiatives.
This type of Blue Dog is also a lot different than Blue Dogs from the West (who I imagine have a more libertarian bent, but I don't have any first hand knowledge of that), or from the East who I imagine are a lot more fiscally conservative. If your constituency is politically moderate, rich, and fiscally conservative it'll be a lot harder to vote for a strong program of health care reform than if its socially conservative, very poor, and politically very one-sided on issues.
You guys really don't get it. These districts wont elect progressives. Challenging from the left makes the Blue Dogs spend capital and weaker
You guys have the MAJORITY have the republicans taught you all nothing.
Would you rather have all these Blue Dog districts represented by Republicans????
Thats why I keep saying liberals and conservatives if they truly had their way would actually create a permanent minority Democratic/Republican party.
P.S.
Dwight you now join the troll ranks with many others
Dwight you now join the troll ranks with many others
For what, pointing out that you are badly misreading Nate's post?
He's point out that helping those in your district will ultimately help you get re-elected to Congress. That's why CFG's current poster boy Bobby Jindal was, when in Congress, was in like Flinn with the earmarks.
When all those voters notice they have medical coverage now that they didn't or aren't getting charged huge amounts for crappy coverage, said voter for the bill isn't going to look too bad at all to them. The deficit as a whole is more abstract. Hey, these regions already manage to convince themselves that it's all those urban areas rather than their areas that are the direct net gainers from government dollars. That it is that other guy in the city that is sending the country to hell in a hand basket. You really think this will be that much different?
You'd like to be treated with maturity? Then I suggest you grow the fuck up.
P.S. Nate isn't suggesting that the Blue Dogs have to take the first thing that comes down the pike. That's just a silly thing you are projecting onto his post, another thing you are reading in that is NOT there. :/
Wow I never knew how many disgusting trolls patrolled 538. My favorite part about reading their posts is how they claim to not be Republicans when they clearly are. Well I guess I would be pissed off too if I wasn't part of a regional Southern white male party.
Wow I never knew how many trolls stalked 538. The funniest part is how many of them claim to not be Republicans when most of them are clearly. I guess I would be pissed off too if I were a member of a shrinking regional party of Southern white males.
I was giving petekent crap mostly because of the following pattern I have discerned:
538 blog: *post on something or other*
petekent: OBAMA'S SURE IN THE TANK... NEGATIVE THIRTY TWO PERCENT APPROVAL AND FALLING LIKE A BRICK... FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
And another place I often hang out likes to pick fun of people with unnecessary cruft at the bottom of their messages. Such as, yes, petekent01 (on twitter).
I've been reading this thing since the election, and while obviously everyone's got an opinion, sometimes it seems like the gentlemen on the right are interested in promulgating some kind of overall attack on Obama, I guess because... people like him? I mean, like, personally like him, leaving aside his policy approval stuff.
Getting back on point, I basically agree with Nate, and any of you who are living under the jurisdiction of a Blue Dog ought to go write them a letter to this effect.
markymark said...
Its great isn't it. This time last year we had a President with 30% approval ratings, and PK and the likes were happy to be apologists and act like somehow approval ratings don't matter. Now a mid 50s% approval rating is a sign of a failing presidency.
Taking the analogy a bit further, remember that last year at this time, the barking dogs of the GOOPers were baying up a storm that little shrub wouldn't be in the ballot, so it didn't really matter what his poll ratings were - the only thing that mattered was that 'McCain is a maverick', and 'The [GOOPers] on Congress don't have to rely on [little shrub] for their reelection', etc.
Now, even though President Obama won't be on the ballot in 2010 (just like little shrub was not on the 2008 ballot), somehow his poll numbers matter (and isn't it funny that they are touting poll numbers that are on the high side of 50?).
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
NMN said...
Now before you jump on me I am not a liberal or conservative.
But then goes on to say:
the CURRENTLY PROPOSED healthcare reform bill.
NMN,
I won't jump on you for what you think I will.
You are a wingnutter of the right wing. I don't know if you are conservative or not - some of your blatherings tell me you are way to the right of the most right wing of the conservatives.
But further, the CURRENTLY PROPOSED healthcare reform bill?????
Which bill?
1. The one passed by the House Ways and Means Committee?
2. Or the one passed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee?
3. Or the one that is still in the Senate Finance Committee?
4. Or the one that will emerge from the House after floor debate?
5. Or the one that will emerge from the Senate after floor debate?
6. Or the one that will emerge from the conference committee?
And that's just the different versions that I can think of off the top of my head, but there are at least six different versions.
So when you state "the CURRENTLY PROPOSED healthcare reform bill", exactly which one are you discussing?
And it's not a trick question, as all the bills are different, with different details, and different approaches.
In other words, there IS NO "CURRENTLY PROPOSED HEALTHCARE BILL".
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Pete Kent, nova_middle man, and "conservatives" like him is the reason why voters, even those dissatisfied with some of Obama's policies (i.e. the partial lack of "transparency"), are so reluctant to turn the Republicans () And on the subject issue of the blue dogs and healthcare reform, I believe that in the end, the bill should be a compromise worked out between Blue Dogs and more liberal democrats so that Democrats of all stripes (and perhaps even the handful of remaining Republican moderates)will vote for it (like the tentative agreement that Baucus is currently working out in the Senate). The Blue Dogs are fifty members strong in the house, and together with the 178 House Republicans (who have tended, in recent years to vote as a single, "conservative" bloc) have a plurality strong enough to axe any potential healthcare reform. My only desire is for an America where any citizen of any age has to die from an illness because he/she can't "afford" to live. I don't care whether my wish is fulfilled by government or by co-op, a "millionare's tax" or a "benefits tax." so long as its fulfilled NOW!
@Nova Middle Man--
...But I am (usually) a Liberal. (Depends on the issue.) I know that the Red district in Mississippi which somehow has a ConservaDem representing it is not going to vote for a Liberal, and would end up returning to Republican rule if a Liberal won a primary there or forced the ConservaDem to the Left. And I recognize that the reason that Liberalism is still not flourishing in national policy (despite a popular D president and big majorities in both Houses and an utterly worthless opposition party) is that the Conservatives who are upset with the Republican Party (which is why so many of you call yourselves "independents" now, thus skewing the "independent" numbers in every poll) haven't gone away, and are instead just pouring tenuous support into ConservaDems. In other words, there will not be Liberal reform unless either the country shifts Leftward enough to be amenable to this platform, or we have fearless D leaders willing to buck their constituents' demands for the sake of the base of the D party (me), even if it almost surely costs them their seat. And yes, I'm not actually sure that this is their job--to put their party above the public, and I'd probably be quite upset if my Congressman veered away from public opinion just to placate his friends in Washington.
But I am (usually) a Liberal. I don't want obscenely watered-down versions of Progressive bills which end up barely passing, gutted by compromise to emerge largely ineffective, which are then hung around the necks of the Democratic party when they don't do what they were crafted to do. I don't care if the people compromising (i. e. ruining) these bills have a corporatist, sell-out D next to their name, or a flagrantly obstructionist giggling saboteur R next to their name. The bills are the worst of all worlds--no one will challenge them if they pass, since Democrats crow about getting _something_ (lousy) done, and Republicans don't want to do ANYTHING about health care or green energy, etc.; and Democrats will be blamed for decades for these lousy bills that were literally "the best they could get done" given the dug-in obstructionism they are facing. Bad policy, bad politics, sure to break a few of the promises made when these Democrats envisioned an actually GOOD bill before it got trounced, and long precedents set.
So if we don't pressure the Blue Dogs to get something more helpful done (i.e. try to move them to the Left so that less ugly compromise is necessary), how do we do it? Conservatives are all the way on the Right. You believe that there should be zero compromise on anything--any Republican who steps an inch out of line is labelled a "Liberal RINO" and you run a candidate against them while talk radio eviscerates them. But there is no mainstream Liberal party in America. If there were (and if it were the Democratic party), a Liberal agenda would actually be getting done by the D congress, instead of dying in pieces. Liberals already have to compromise halfway by just tolerating the mainstream of the Democratic party (the big business, pro-Afghanistan, pro-drug war, anti-gay-marriage, "single payer is off the table", increased military budget Democrats led by opaque compromise-happy status quo protector Obama). Now to compromise away a public option to a bunch of Blue Dogs is an insult to the formerly-energized base that helped get Obama elected.
So what else should we be doing?
P.S. On behalf of all frustrated Liberals who have helped drive Obama's poll numbers down by being unbelievably upset at his insistence on working with/protecting poisonous Republicans bent solely on destroying him to the detriment of the country, it is especially galling when you paranoid disingenuous lunatics call him and the Congress and the media a bunch of "crazy far Left Liberals." Other than on (mostly necessary) spending, Obama might be to the right of George H. W. Bush and Richard Nixon.
Man I have really hit a nerve with the liberal loons.
Guess what America agrees with me
Drip, drip, drip.
The economy continues to hemorrhage jobs . . .
The stim-u-less plan is now widely perceived as a failure . . .
Details about ObamaCare are deeply disturbing to the people . . .
When word get out about the details of Cap n' Trade . . .
More soldiers have died in Afghanistan already this month than in any month since the Taliban were defeated in 2001 . . . .
Drip, drip, drip.
I think Obama suffers a nice big hit over L'Affaire Gates this weekend. . . .
Drip, drip, drip . . .
The President acted "stupidly" . . .
Gallup has a strong pro-Obama bias, so I'd put the under/over at 47%.
Obama was elected as one man and is now governing as another. The people don't like the one they have now and are starting to turn away.
petekent01 (on twitter),
a proud skuller!
Said this before. Will say it again. Nate has raised some interesting issues here and instead of discussing them, all too many posters get into exchanges with PeteKent and a few other wing nuts.
Look, PeteKent doesn't have an opinion about Nate's post -- he probably didn't even read it. He's discovered that he can get attention by being as wildly reactionary as he can, and people who ought to know better rise to the bait. IGNORE HIM. All he's trying to do is stroke his ego with your anger.
This forum should be for the purpose of discussing the points Nate raises. People who don't do that -- people who simply use it to bait liberals with bogus points that Nate doesn't even dignify with a mention -- distract us from serious discussion.
Nate can't ban them from the site, but WE can ban them from distracting us. I'm sick and tired of raising issues that get ignored because others get waylaid by right-wing propagandists that nobody ought to waste time with. This isn't a FOX NEWS forum for windbags -- it's a forum for serious political discussion.
nova_middle_man said...
Man I have really hit a nerve with the liberal loons.
Guess what America agrees with me
Which America would that be? The one that Palin claimed over and over during campaigning agreed with her and was ready to elect McCain and her [grossly incompetent ass] into the White House?
Micheal said ...
Furthermore, the "Blue Dogs" are a pretty diverse group. I can give some practical experience of a certain type of Blue Dogs because I grew up in Arkansas. The Blue Dog here is quite socially conservative and very religious. That said, they are most concerned with economic issues. They come from a VERY poor part of the country where the lack of quality health care is a SERIOUS problem. I can't emphasize this enough. Many of these rural and poor people don't get much of any dental care and often deal with their medical problems because they wouldn't be able to afford treatment. These guys are a lot more supportive of health care reform than you think. Blue Dogs like Marion Berry and others in Arkansas and other parts of the South will be much more supportive of health care than other Democratic initiatives.
It is going to vary to be sure. But in support of the effect and regional nature you are pointing out: Mike Huckabee. Little coincidence that intersection of him being a long way outside the libertarian camp for being inside the GOP and him being a termed-out AK governor.
The thing that I keep wondering is whether some of these Blue Dogs actually mind losing an election.
Sure, there's the public humiliation and ego-shattering that comes with an election loss, but what happens to these politicians after their constituents throw them out of office? They become consultants, or lobbyists, walking the same Capitol floors and schmoozing with their former colleagues, except now, they're not in front of the TV cameras so much, and they're making multi-million-dollar salaries. Not so bad - I think a lot of politicians may not mind if they do the political equivalent of taking a dive in the fifth round.
President Obama campaigned and won ...and health care reform was right at the top of his agenda.... So have people changed their mind about HC reform in 8 short months? I think the Democrats - Blue Dogs as well - will be in trouble if they don't pass reform. I can't see people voting for Republicans, so will everyone just stay home?
Can we agree to just stop calling these politicans "Blue Dog" Democrats? I like the term "Blue Ball" Democrats.
The Blue dog's make it very clear that they have been bought and sold by the big insurance companies. Washington is so corrupt it is a waste of time to worry about it. It's the corporations that are running this country.
The plicticians need to be run out of office. The sooner the better.
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment