Blue Dogs

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (388)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1473)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Evan Bayh has decided to retire and another ConservaDem bites the dust. And the media blaming the dirty f#%king hippies for Bayh leaving will begin in 5, 4, 3, 2... Steve Benen has more on why he might be leaving and this lovely tidbit:

For what it's worth, a great deal of the early talk -- and by "early," I mean "the last hour" -- is about the DSCC recruiting Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D), a Blue Dog and former county police sheriff from Indiana's Southwest corner.

It appears that the signatures for a prospective candidate are due tomorrow, and it's extremely unlikely any Dem could pull this off in time. What's more likely, then, is that the Indiana Democratic Party will be responsible for selecting a candidate -- there would be no primary.

So Bayh made it next to impossible to have a strong candidate or anyone decent to replace him. Thanks Bayh. He's going to have a press conference a little later today.



Stupid Or Venal? Blue Dogs Want More Spending Cuts

blue_dog_0beee.jpg

Are the Blue Dogs shamelessly self-interested and venal, or are just plain stupid? Economists are predicting these high unemployment numbers through the end of 2011, and these clowns want to cut government spending even further. As long as they get to keep their jobs, they don't give a crap about putting even more Americans out of work. Lovely!

Blue Dog Democrats want Congress to go further than President Barack Obama’s proposal to freeze spending in next year’s budget.

The group of House centrists will soon introduce a bill capping discretionary spending at specific levels. The move would challenge their leadership and the president, who are balancing concerns with the nearly $1.6 trillion deficit in 2010 with those who say government spending on job creation is the way out of the recession.

The spending levels sought by the Blue Dogs may result in spending cuts, which would go beyond Obama’s proposal to save $250 billion over the next decade by freezing non-security discretionary spending for three years, said Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.), a senior Blue Dog.

“Two hundred and fifty billion is a lot of savings with a freeze on discretionary spending, but I think we can do better,” Hill said in a brief interview.

The group has yet to hash out the details on the spending caps bill, but it has near-unanimous support among its members, a Blue Dog aide said.


Woolsey-Harman-funraiser_93eaf.jpg

This is completely unacceptable. The co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus is throwing her support behind a Blue Dog named Jane Harman for reelection in 2010, and who happens to be the representative in my own district in California. I've been thinking of running against her because I'm so upset at Harman's actions in Congress, but for Woolsey to be holding fundraising events for a known Blue Dog should be a firing offense for the CPC.

Rep. Raúl Grijalva has been excellent for the CPC, but obviously Lynne needs to go. The idea is to grow the CPC and progressives in Congress, not support odious Blue Dogs who obstruct progressive legislation and take this country to the far, far right. This is a complete betrayal.

I'm calling for the CPC to remove her as the co-chair immediately.

Howie Klein has more:

Harman supports a wide range of Republican policies that Woolsey has always opposed-- from the Iraq War, the anti-family/pro-bankster bankruptcy bill, and abolishing the estate tax to warrantless wiretaps (except the ones that expose her as an Israeli spy) and offering "special treatment" to defense contractors. She is widely considered to be the least trustworthy and most disliked Democrats in the House by her fellow Democrats. And Lynne Woolsey understands that completely.

Is this how the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus builds a progressive movement? Marcy Winograd is in a tight primary race against Harman. It may be too much to expect Woolsey to campaign for Winograd, but endorsing the Blue Dog who is consistently voting against -- and working behind the scenes against -- everything the Progressive Caucus is supposed to stand for? Then they wonder why no one takes them seriously? Woolsey should be relieved of her position as co-chair...

Please have your phone in hand and start calling. Please be polite-- and firm:

Washington DC Office:
202-225-5161
Fax: 202-225-5163

District Offices:

Marin Office:
1050 Northgate Drive
Suite 354
San Rafael, CA. 94903
Ph.: 415-507-9554
Fax: 415-507-9601

Sonoma Office:
1101 College Avenue
Suite 200
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Ph.: 707-542-7182
Fax: 707-542-2745


Parker Griffith's Press Conference on His Switch to the GOP

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (450)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (867)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

By the way don't forget to check out Blue America's Bad Dogs page. It's been set up to help defeat Blue Dogs. As Media Matteres did a fine job of pointing out for everyone, this guy was already a Republican. How this House version of Tom Coburn on steriods was ever allowed to have a D behind his name is beyond me. He pulled out every Republican talking point during this press conference along with calling his former party the "Democrat Party". Since he voted against every single Democratic platform that he should have been well aware of before he threw his hat in with the party, I say goodbye and good riddance. Don't let the door hit you in the ass.

As much as the GOP might like to claim this as some sort of victory, the wingers over at Red State are already ready to run a primary challenger against him. Welcome to the Republican Party Congressman.

John Amato:

What a great day for progressives. A horrible Blue Dog took his rightful place with his fellow conservatives. Good riddance. Howie Klein was the first one to point out how disgusting he was, but as usual the media ignored it. But suddenly yesterday they discovered that he existed. This is why blogs are so important. We analyze voting records and candidates thoroughly before we comment on them. The NRCC loved Parker so much they hit him with their usual fear-mongering ads about radical Islam. Now there surely will be an interesting primary fight between the teabagging conservatives.

Howie Klein writes:

Last August DWT posed the question How Does One Justify Singling Out Just One Blue Dog-- In This Case Parker Griffith Of Alabama-- As The Worst Democrat In The House? It wasn't a tough case to make, and back at the link I have a chart, a snarky photo and a video of another one nearly as bad. Then just over a month ago I tried to point out that Griffith, a multimillionaire whose personal self-interest is always with the GOP, was hysterical about the estate tax.
--
Today, when the mainstream media suddenly discovered Parker Griffith for the first time, as he announced he would be joining the GOP, Media Matters was prepared to show that his voting record had never strayed from that of any slimy Republican. In fact there are 7 House Republicans with either an identical ProgressivePunch score on crucial votes or a better one! He opposed equal pay for women, opposed the stimulus bill, opposed clean energy legislation, opposed healthcare reform, voted against the budget and against regulating the banksters. Basically, from the day he slipped into the House he was a charter member of the Boehner Boys.

This is the guy, as we mentioned last summer, who promised his constituents that if they re-elected him, he would vote against Nancy Pelosi, who he referred to as a mental case, as Speaker next year. Now the DCCC won't have to waste another $1,000,000 trying to save a seat for someone who votes with the GOP all the time. Come to think of it, they'll need that money to try to save the seat of the only other House Democrat as bad as Griffith, Mississippi reactionary Travis Childers. Blue America has a page, Bad Dogs, dedicated to defeating Blue Dogs. If you have any interest in helping out, please let us know.


Blues_d5b86.png

You know, I always said the Democrats would be just as easily bought as the Bush Republicans, but that doesn't make it any easier on my stomach. Howie Klein:

Or, you might want a different kind of candidate from one who isn't even in Congress yet and already selling her ass to K Street whores who represent Countrywide Mortgage and Morgan Stanley. How about making a donation today to the grassroots candidate for the seat, Doug Tudor? You can do it here.

By the way, if you can't quite remember who Allen Boyd (Blue Dog-FL) is, please recall that when George W. Bush wanted to push his bill to kill Social Security as "bipartisan" he only managed to find one "Democrat" to co-sponsor it. That's Boyd, the fella bringing Lori Edwards around Washington to meet all the lobbyists. Boyd is on the Budget Committee and on the Appropriations Committee. He's taken in $1,048,609 from the financial sector-- but not because they're buying his votes; only because he's so handsome and debonair.


865 Times

That is the number of times suspected terrorists, those on actual watch lists, successfully bought guns or explosives in the good ole US of A over the past five years. Why? Because of the Terror Gap. That is the space in our law created by right wingers with celery-stalks-for-brain-stems, bed-wetting Blue Dogs, and neglectful progressives that allows those on watch lists to pass background checks when purchasing weaponry that kills. You can't get on a plane--but you can buy a freakin' explosive.

Even Rahm agrees! (or at least he did):

Remember, conservatives are in a corner shivering over the prospect of KSM being tried in New York, but if a member of Al Qaeda buys a cache of guns the FBI won't know about it and the any background information given when purchasing said weapons is destroyed faster than you can say Nidal Malik Hasan or Eric Rudolph. Now that seems just downright crafty!

Learn more about how you can close the Terror Gap, so that our laws to protect the homeland make just a modicum of sense.

Full Disclosure: I happily advise Mayors Against Illegal Guns


Send A Coat Hanger To An Anti-Choice Democrat

Coathanger_a1663.jpg

Blue America is teaming up with Working Assets, the folks behind CREDO Mobile and CREDO Action in a project we think you'll like. We're urging you to sign a petition to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid regarding the 20 formerly pro-choice men who voted for the virulently anti-choice Stupak Amendment last Saturday. Working Assets will send one of them a coat hanger for each signature. Here's the text:

We know what happens when women are denied access to reproductive health care including abortion. And we can't go back to an era of coat hangers and back alley abortions. Reconsider your vote on the Stupak Amendment. Tell House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that the final health care bill that emerges from the conference committee can't turn the clock back on women's rights.

Working Assets will also donate $1 to Blue America for each signature we gather (up to $5000) towards a fellowship to support a blogger. We got to choose who to support and we can’t think of anything more deserving than the incredible work of Mike Stark. So, please, sign the petition here.

Cross-posted at Down With Tyranny.


Taking Away Patients' Rights To Further Enrich Insurance Companies

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (2130)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1844)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

What a week. We've already seen Blue Dogs take women to the back of the bus (or was it the alley?) with Stupak's impressively Stupid Amendment. Now we're hearing that those who supposedly worry about "too much spending" when it comes to health care--you know, the meatloaf-brains who rejected the public option, which would create competition and actually bring down costs--are now blathering on about embracing "tort reform."

Because you'd really want to take away the rights of victims in a democracy to lower the health care costs by...wait for it...wait for it... ".5%" (according to the CBO).

All you really need to know is that Blue Dogs/GOPers (is there any difference?) are those in favor of this counterproductive course of action, yet if you do indeed need more, watch the heart wrenching videos recounting the tragic results of medical malpractice. To learn more about the 98,000 lives lost due to medical error each year--or 268 every day--go to 98,000 reasons, a website set up by the American Association for Justice. Once there send a message to your Senator: Remind them you won't have your rights further stripped away so they can scarf down more caviar with their contributors at Big Insurance.

More videos below the fold:

Continue reading »


Lessons

I was writing something pretty close to this and decided to link to the Great Orange Satan.

KOS:

There will be much number-crunching tomorrow, but preliminary numbers (at least in Virginia) show that GOP turnout remained the same as last year, but Democratic turnout collapsed. This is a base problem, and this is what Democrats better take from tonight:

  1. If you abandon Democratic principles in a bid for unnecessary "bipartisanship", you will lose votes.
  1. If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes.
  1. If you forget why you were elected -- health care, financial services, energy policy and immigration reform -- you will lose votes.

Tonight proved conclusively that we're not going to turn out just because you have a (D) next to your name, or because Obama tells us to. We'll turn out if we feel it's worth our time and effort to vote, and we'll work hard to make sure others turn out if you inspire us with bold and decisive action.

The choice is yours. Give us a reason to vote for you, or we sit home. And you aren't going to make up the margins with conservative voters. They already know exactly who they're voting for, and it ain't you.

Health care should have been passed by the August recess, but to have it go on and on has been a huge mistake. And waiting until next year only makes it worse.


Blue Dog Fundraising Takes A Nose Dive. Wonder Why?

From the Center for Public Integrity, some very interesting news. This sort of undercuts Obama's "let's make the Blue Dogs happy" strategy, doesn't it?

It’s official. The Blue Dog’s fundraising slowdown was not just a symptom of the dog days of summer. Newly released public disclosure forms indicate that over September, the coalition’s PAC took in its smallest monthly total yet this year.

Our analysis of the fiscally conservative and increasingly influential Blue Dog Coalition and its funding noted that the group’s political action committee had averaged more than $176,000 in receipts from other PACs over the first half of 2009. Their monthly haul dropped to a surprisingly low $27,000 in July, rebounded somewhat in August, and but then dropped again to just $12,500 in September.

That September money came from just three donations — $5,000 from accounting and professional services giant Ernst & Young’s PAC, $2,500 from the Food Marketing Institute PAC, and $5,000 from the National Rifle Association of America Political Victory Fund.

After raising $1.1 million from January to June, the committee raised less than $87,000 between July and September — less than it brought in during any one of the preceding five months. And in just three months, the Blue Dog PAC’s monthly fundraising average dropped by more than $50,000 — probably not the sort of fiscal conservatism the 52-member coalition was hoping for.


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1321)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1818)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

To hear Joe Scarborough on Meet The Press, you would think he was sitting on Harry Reid's lap clutching an E-Ticket during the healthcare bill negotiations. Not only does he know exactly how many votes the "opt-out" option has in the Senate, he knows for a bonafide fact that the White House wants to protect "conservatives and Blue Dogs" during the 2010 election cycle by favoring a "trigger" scheme over the public option.

Scarborough is really good as usual at hoping we will read his loud, pompous 'certainty' as honesty. But not so fast, Joe: The White House issued an official communique Sunday afternoon:


A rumor is making the rounds that the White House and Senator Reid are pursuing different strategies on the public option. Those rumors are absolutely false.

Where does Joe Scarborough get his leaks? Who, exactly would take Scarborough's call? Could it possibly be...opponents of a public option?

In his September 9th address to Congress, President Obama made clear that he supports the public option because it has the potential to play an essential role in holding insurance companies accountable through choice and competition. That continues to be the President's position.


Senator Reid and his leadership team are now working to get the most effective bill possible approved by the Senate. President Obama completely supports their efforts and has full confidence they will succeed and continue the unprecedented progress that is being made in both the House and Senate.

Okay that last paragraph is a bit of Rahm-approved blah blah blah, which points to the urgent task at hand: to continue to pressure the White House to get much more involved in pushing for a public option in the final bill. Mister President? It's double overtime, and if you really want to score on the public option? Mere cheerleaders do not put the ball in the net.


Jacob Hack, the policy wonk who was the architect of the public option idea, talks about opening Medicare instead.

It's a concept that many people in the netroots resist on the basis that Medicare is a public insurance system, and the public option... isn't. (They point to Medicare Advantage as the perfect example of misleading branding.)

But the idea is picking up steam because it solves several problems. It offers political cover for Blue Dogs and even Republicans who want to support the plan. It also makes it more likely that at some point, the public option will be rolled into the traditional Medicare plan:

House Democrats are looking at re-branding the public health insurance option as Medicare, an established government healthcare program that is better known than the public option.

The strategy could benefit Democrats struggling to bridge the gap between liberals in their party, who want the public option, and centrists, who are worried it would drive private insurers out of business.

While much of the public is foggy on what a public option actually is, people understand Medicare. It also would place the new public option within the rubric of a familiar system rather than something new and unknown.

The idea has bubbled up among House Democrats and leaders in the past week, most prominently in a caucus meeting last Thursday.

Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) spoke out last week in favor of re-branding the public option as Medicare, startling many because he has loudly proclaimed his opposition to a public option.

[...] Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) planned to unveil a proposal to her caucus Tuesday night that would include the public option favored by liberals in the healthcare bill Democrats want to bring to the floor, according to two House sources.

The plan, called the “robust” option or “Medicare Plus 5” in the jargon that has emerged on Capitol Hill, ties provider reimbursement rates to Medicare, adding 5 percent. Leaders are planning to roll the bill out next week, and are hoping to vote the first week in November

Some Democrats say there’s no need to rename a legislative concept that’s gained steadily in support since being lambasted as a “government takeover” in August. A Washington Post-ABC poll published Tuesday showed 57 percent of the public supports the idea — up five points since August — while 40 percent opposes it.

“It keeps polling better and better as a public health insurance option,” said a senior Democratic aide. “I don’t think it’s changing.” Polling experts, however, have documented that many people don’t know what a public option is, and that small changes in language can cause poll results to vary widely. An August poll by Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates showed that only 37 percent of those polled correctly identified the public option from a list of three choices.

“Before this year, few people had ever heard of the term ‘public option,’ ” Ross said last week.

It’s not clear exactly how the new Medicare idea would work. Some want to expand Medicare itself to uninsured people under 65. Others want to simply rename what is now called the public health insurance option.

Lots more, go read and tell me what you think.


queen olympia_5a755.jpg

This is just plain crazy. Why should one woman in the opposing party have so much power over our futures, just because Obama has a "bipartisan" fetish? This is about offering a protective cover to Blue Dogs; I get that. But man, it's galling that everything gets pulled down to the lowest common denominator by one woman who's been enjoying taxpayer-funded healthcare coverage for a very long time:

WASHINGTON — As the White House and Congressional leaders turned in earnest on Wednesday to working out big differences in the five health care bills, perhaps no issue loomed as a greater obstacle than whether to establish a government-run competitor to the insurance industry.

One day after the Senate Finance Committee approved a measure without a “public option,” the question on Capitol Hill was how President Obama could reconcile the deep divisions within his party on the issue. All eyes were on Senator Olympia J. Snowe, the Maine Republican whose call for a “trigger” that would establish a government plan as a fallback is one of the leading compromise ideas.

No "deep divisions" out here with the overwhelming majority of Democrats, or anyone else for that matter. It's only the Democratic Blue Dogs who have such "dainty" concerns. Oddly enough, the more those members got in contributions from the death-for-profit healthcare industry, the stronger those "concerns" are! Hmm.

Two senior administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the White House looked favorably on the Snowe plan. But liberal Democrats were maneuvering against it Wednesday, arguing that Ms. Snowe, the lone Republican to vote in favor of the Finance Committee’s bill, was gaining undue influence over the talks.

“It’s one vote, she won’t make the commitment on the final product, and she says she’s got to have the trigger,” said Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, Democrat of Arizona, who is leading an effort in the House to round up votes for a government plan akin to Medicare. “I think the administration has put her in the driver’s seat; it’s very disconcerting.”

Of the many difficult decisions remaining — including how to pay for an overhaul and how many people will be left uninsured — few carry as much political weight for the president as the public option. The plan, which would be for people who do not get health care through their employers, has become a proxy for a larger debate over where Mr. Obama is taking the country.

“What’s going on here is not simply health care and the public option,” said Kenneth M. Duberstein, a chief of staff in the Reagan White House. “In light of the auto bailout, the bank bailout, the stimulus package, the public option fight is a surrogate for how much government is too much.”

I wish all those Members who have such concerns would turn back the government-funded healthcare largesse they enjoy and turn instead to the free market. Perhaps I wouldn't despise them quite so much.

With Democrats split, an array of compromises are being floated — including the nonprofit cooperatives in the Finance Committee bill and the latest idea to capture some Democrats’ fancy, leaving the public option to the states. But economists say few would fulfill Mr. Obama’s stated goal of injecting “choice and competition” into the marketplace.

Mr. Obama’s health care adviser, Nancy-Ann DeParle, said she was convinced that Democrats could “find convergence.” She and several other officials, including Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff, and Peter R. Orszag, the budget director, met Wednesday with Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, to discuss merging the Senate’s bills.

Aides say Mr. Obama has reviewed the alternatives to the public option but has not settled on which, if any, he prefers. And some Democrats say a backlash against insurers is creating renewed interest in a public plan. But in private conversations with Ms. Snowe, Mr. Obama has brought up her idea for a trigger that would create a government-run plan in states where at least 5 percent of residents lacked access to affordable care. One senior White House official called the idea “very reasonable.”

Must. Go. Hit. Head. On. Wall. Now.


Mike's Blog Roundup

Talking Points Memo: New Ambassador Needed

First Draft: The last time you trusted a politician

Greg Palast: "Medical Loss Ratio" [MLR] is the fancy term used by health insurance companies for their slice, their take-out, their pound of flesh, their gross - very gross - profit.

The Plum Line: GOP Rep again accuses gay Obama advisor of covering up child abuse - even though his office was infromed the charge is false

Corrente: Leading Blue Dog suggests opening up Medicare for everyone

TheZoo: GOP blocks another attempt to extend unemployment benefits


fire breathing liberal1_9ccda_0.JPG

Jeez, all we need now is one less liberal to push those damn Blue Dogs into doing the right thing. From Rep. Wexler's site:

“Today, I am announcing that I will be accepting the position of president of the Center for Middle East Peace and will leave Congress effective in January of 2010.

“More than anything, I want to thank the voters of Palm Beach and Broward Counties who have allowed me the privilege of representing our community in the United States House of Representatives and the Florida Senate for the past nineteen years. I have truly cherished the opportunity to serve my constituents – many of whom make up the generation that sacrificed in World War II and Korea and rebuilt our nation after the Great Depression.

“I have both admired and learned from my constituents, especially their love of country and commitment to community.

“I am proud that everyday I have sought to advocate for and provide a voice to my constituents: whether it was fighting for a legitimate vote during the 2000 election, working toward enacting a voter verified paper trail in Florida, or advocating for health care, education, Social Security and countless other issues. Therefore, my decision to leave Congress did not come easy.

“Those who know me, and those who have followed my career know that one of my overriding passions has been my work on the Foreign Affairs Committee helping to strengthen and preserve the unbreakable bond between the United States and Israel, and working toward a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East between Israelis and Palestinians and between Israel and the Arab world. Additionally, I have made a special effort to improve congressional relations with key allies in the Muslim world by founding the Turkey and Indonesia caucuses. Moreover, it was an extraordinary honor to serve as a Middle East advisor to President Obama during the presidential campaign, and I treasure the experiences I had traveling the country, and especially throughout Florida, advocating for the President’s Middle East agenda.

“Taking over as president of the Center for Middle East Peace offers me an unparalleled opportunity to work on behalf of Middle East peace for an important and influential non-profit institute. After much discussion with my family, I have decided that I cannot pass up on this opportunity.

“My one regret is that I will be unable to complete my current term in office, but I truly believe there is no time to waste. We are at a unique and critically tense moment in the history of the Middle East with both significant opportunities to succeed in the Arab-Israeli conflict as well as major challenges involving Iran, Hamas, and al Qaeda. In the coming months, Israeli and Arab leaders will be faced with monumental decisions that will dramatically affect the region and the entire world for decades to come. Critically important American security and foreign policy interests are also at stake. I am convinced that now is the time for me to engage on these issues on a full time basis.”

Continue reading »