In the wake of the House vote for President Obama’s government takeover of health care, some conservative commentators are asking what may have been had House Republicans decided to follow Rep. John Shadegg’s (R-AZ) advice to vote present on the Stupak-Pitts amendment.  The amendment prohibits the federal government from spending any funds to provide abortion under the plan’s public option and prohibits anyone receiving a federal subsidy from purchasing a health insurance plan that covers abortion.

Sixty-four Democrats voted with Republicans in passing Stupak.  The argument says that had Republicans voted “present” or “no” on the amendment, it would have failed.  The theory is that those sixty-four Democrats would have abandoned the final bill without the prohibition included, effectively killing the overall effort to socialize the nation’s health care system.

But that thinking represents the triumph of hope over experience.  It supposes that Nancy Pelosi, who has shown herself to be nothing if not a cold-blooded and ruthless political operative, would not take any other necessary steps to find the votes necessary to pass the bill.  The only reason Stupak was allowed to come to a vote in the first place was because Pelosi was willing to shiv two-thirds of her caucus to get the bill passed.  Pelosi, and Obama, would have moved any obstacle, made any promise, and broken any number of arms to get the White House a “victory” on health care, however hollow that victory may ultimately turn out to be.

Read More →

CongressDaily is reporting that the House Leadership thinks they have 218 votes for ObamaCare. Speaker Pelosi herself said she “definitely” has 218 votes.

Call the vote on ObamaCare NOW Mrs. Speaker, if you have the votes, call the vote.

But you will not call the vote, because you don’t have the votes. And you will not call the vote anytime soon.

Here is one report from one source, who is as credible and well informed as they get, who wrote this after meeting with a Dem Chief of Staff (CoS):

Rep. Bart Stupak, leader of the pro-life Dems, has at least 50 votes in opposition to the bill. The CoS [Chief of Staff] also said there are lots of pro-choice Dems who don’t believe federal funding should be used for abortion. Ratchet the number up some more.

Then there are the Blue Dogs who don’t like it. And the CoS does not think they will roll. The BDs [Blue Dogs] took a licking at home after the Cap-and-Trade vote and then again during the August recess. They do not desire to repeat that.

Then you have Dems with Dem Governors back home telling them they can’t afford what the feds are about to throw at them via Medicaid.

Then you have the Dems in districts with large senior populations who are not happy with the Medicare cutbacks being proposed.

And Pelosi thinks she can get 218 out of this? “Ha!” laughed the CoS.

The DailyKos is reporting that out of the 83 signatories to the we will vote no if there is no public option pledge, only 46 remain standing firm. The rest of the progressives have caved. For these 46 liberal Members, a robust public plan means a Medicare plus 5 percent reimbursement rate for providers. However, the Blue Dogs are pushing a rival “negotiated provider reimbursement rate” which the progressives say effectively kills the public option.

Progressives are being squeezed by two fronts, one is their dropping numbers of Members who will stand firm on the public plan or they will vote no pledge, and two, on the negotiated Medicare reimbursement rates which they believe will gut the public option. So, 46 Democrats signed a letter to the Speaker demanding no negotiated rates or we vote no because it will kill the public option.

The Progressives are losing the battle, however, according to the DailyKos, because the direction of the bill is clearly moving to negotiated rates.

But 46 liberals are still more than enough to kill the bill with their votes alone. These 46 votes likely does not account for the other Dem NO votes because of any of the following issues: taxes, spending, abortion, immigration or other bill-killing issues. According to pro-life Democrats, there are 40 NO Dem votes against ObamaCare solely on the issue of abortion, for example.

Curiouser and curiouser said Alice as she went down the rabbit hole…

A few months ago, a Republican U.S. Senator told me that he pleaded with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to pressure the HELP Committee Democrats to let the Republicans negotiate and help shape the bill, since the Democrats were not listening or including the Republicans in any discussions. Senator Kennedy’s staff told the Republican Senator to take a hike. No one told Senator Kennedy’s staff otherwise. (Senator Dodd was torn between helping his dying friend and letting Kennedy’s legendary staff be his legendary staff.)

On the House side, Chairman Waxman gave the Blue Dogs on his own Committee, and Blue Dogs outside the Committee the closed mouth, no information treatment. Forget about influencing the bill, he did not tell them what was in it until it was too late. The Blue Dogs told Chairman Waxman what they wanted, he just ignored them.

All the while President Obama was publicly “reaching out” to Republicans — while his Leadership colleagues in Congress ignored Republicans, and ignored Democrats in their own party.

Thus was born ObamaCare, of a strategy to allow the far left (Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Waxman) to design the plan and ignore those who disagreed, while publicly and repeatedly the President said he wanted to work with Republicans.

Read More →

The intolerance of the left wing of the Democratic Party’s members of Congress for those who do not agree with them on health care reform was on display again, in public. Many of the old bull Democratic House Chairmen are hard core leftists, like the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee’s Health Subcommittee, Pete Stark (D-CA).

Yesterday, Stark pounded his fellow Democratic colleagues on health care reform. In a media conference call sponsored by Campaign for America’s Future, Congressman Stark called Blue Dogs “brain dead,” and went on to say:

“They’re just looking to raise money from insurance companies and promote a right-wing agenda that is not really very useful in this whole process.”

(Subcommittee Chairman Stark has called Health Savings Accounts the weapons of mass destruction of health care and he is a strong supporter of a single payer Canadian style health care system.)

But his attack on the Blue Dogs really signals his general level of frustration and his contempt for his colleagues. (You have to be really over to the left if you think the Blue Dogs are “right-wing.”)

It also means that Stark has all but written off their support for his health care bill — and is yet another indication that the left-wing of the Democratic party is isolated and beside themselves over the attacks on their plan, and its lack of support among their Democratic colleagues.

There’s a revealing quote buried inside Politico’s account of a revolt by liberal members of the House Democratic caucus over the deal between Rep. Henry Waxmam (D-CA) and four members of the Blue Dog Caucus. Liberals are upset that the deal effectively guts the public option in President Obama’s healthcare takeover. And as is usually the case, when liberals get upset, the truth about the contempt that they harbor for their core constituencies begins to show. How else can this comment by Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick be explained?

At one point, Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-Mich.), a former Congressional Black Caucus chairwoman, expressed outrage that conservatives would insist on significant cuts and a weakening of the public option, arguing that many of the Blue Dogs were letting down their black constituents, who make up 25 percent to 40 percent of their voters, in some instances.”

Yeah, that’s right. Opposing the public options on cost grounds betrays blacks. Because, you know, all blacks are destined to be on the public dole, right Congresswoman?

Head’s up: there is a rumor circulating in the House of Representatives that enough Blue Dogs have caved on health care for Nancy Pelosi to get the bill to the floor this week. The memo to Republicans assuring them there’d be no vote could have been a ruse to turn down constituent heat enough.

Democrats are growing fearful that August recess will turn the Blue Dogs cold and want something out by Friday.

It appears they may have the votes to do that.

CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN RIGHT NOW.

Go here and get the number. Call now.

This throwaway line in a Hill article (”Dem healthcare infighting intensifies”):

And on Tuesday it prompted Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) to hint that more liberal members of the party should consider challenging centrist Blue Dogs in next year’s primaries.

…eventually led me to this (via The Patriot Room: he also has a related video there) article about what has to be one of the more, ah, creative strategies floated out there this year: taking down ‘conservative’ Democrats in conservative districts by weakening them or replacing them with liberal Democrats.

Wait, what?

Asked if she would recruit more liberal candidates to run against Blue Dogs, Waters said, “That’s normally not done.”

But she added: “There may be people out there listening and observing all of this who may get motivated based on what they’re seeing and throw their hat into the ring.”

She also criticized White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel for recruiting many of the House’s more conservative members when he headed the House Democrats’ campaign arm. Now, she said, “The chickens are coming home to roost.”

Read More →

The Politico is breaking some more bad news for Barry O and his socialist storm troopers. According to a CBO analysis, the $1 trillion healthcare plan’s independent panel designed to keep Medicare spending in check would, at best, save only $2 billion of the $1 trillion plan.

the Congressional Budget Office said the proposal to give an independent panel the power to keep Medicare spending in check would only save about $2 billion over 10 years- a drop in the bucket compared to the bill’s $1 trillion price tag.

“In CBO’s judgment, the probability is high that no savings would be realized … but there is also a chance that substantial savings might be realized. Looking beyond the 10-year budget window, CBO expects that this proposal would generate larger but still modest savings on the same probabilistic basis,” CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote in a letter to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on Saturday.

The Blue Dogs might want to hang their hat on CBO’s more speculative cost savings projections, but those will whither away as the bill expands through Congress.

In other words, this bill will devastate the economy and drive up the deficit even further.

Many on the Left are livid with the Blue Dogs because rather than fall in line in support of the Obama agenda, they have slowed consideration of both cap-and-trade and the health care overhaul. There is certain to be real anger at the report that their efforts are being rewarded with an unprecedented cash haul from affected industries:

So far this year, the political action committee attached to the fiscally conservative House Democratic voting bloc is on track to shatter all its fundraising records, raising more in the first six months of 2009 — more than $1.1 million — than it did in the entire 2003-04 fundraising cycle.

Nearly 54 percent of the Blue Dog PAC’s haul this year comes from the energy, financial services and health care industries, up from 45 percent in 2004, according to analysis of CQ MoneyLine data by the Center for Public Integrity.

Read More →

Note to historians, the following is a list of strange consequences from Obama’s self-destructive health care reform obsession:

i) Spooked the conservative Democrats who are disrupting the Committee on Energy and Commerce markup and pending floor vote because of their policy concerns about the government option;
ii) telegraphed to the moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats that President Obama agrees with Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator Chris Dodd and Chairman Waxman, in general, about the role of government in health care, making the plan an easy target for opponents;

Read More →

Politico apparently has a sadist running its assignments, because he or she sent out reporters to interview a bunch of ‘conservative’ Democrats to find out whether they’d be willing to let that woman campaign with them - and got everything from uncomfortable silences to Congressmen actually running away. At least, that’s what I’m going to characterize ‘lunging for elevators’ and suddenly remembering that they had meetings that they had to get to right now. And why would this be? Because there’s no right answer to that question:

For these Democrats, many of them part of the right-leaning Blue Dog Coalition, Palin presents a quandary: She’s deeply unpopular within their own party, but in the socially conservative, often rural districts or states they represent, the plain-spoken, wader-wearing Alaska governor has a following.

…hence the running away. There are a lot of Democrats who will be relying on both the largess of the national party and the forbearance of their majority-Republican districts to stay in office past next November. Embracing that woman will infuriate the former, but too-vehemently rejecting her (as in, rejecting her at all) will hurt them with the latter.  Even if you buy into the professional pundits*’ narrative on that woman, it must be admitted that she is popular with precisely the voter demographic that is currently sending a lot of ‘conservative’ Democrats to Congress.  So… well, nobody ever died of shame, right?  So Running Away really is the best answer, especially if you’re not actually mentioned by name.

I’m not going to claim that this was that woman’s plan all along.  In fact, I actually think that the original story got garbled.  But it’s funny to watch them scatter like this.

Moe Lane

*Who also, by the way, were usually astounded about how that man could keep getting his way on the war, not to mention re-elected.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

I pointed out yesterday that Democrats made a major mistake when they tied their credibility to porkulus, and then allowed Capitol Hill to debate health care rationing and cap-and-tax at the same time. Congress cannot both walk and chew gum - especially when they’re starting to worry about the 2010 political climate. The fights over which should be a top priority, and the uncertainty over the full cost of the Obama agenda, make it very difficult for Members of Congress to decide how to proceed.

As a result, it should be no surprise that Democrat leaders can’t rope a restive caucus together - even to debut the first draft of a health care rationing bill:

House Democrats’ health care bill has been delayed indefinitely as leaders continue negotiations with fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats.

Committee chairmen had planned to release their bill on Friday and begin marking it up on Monday, but notices were sent out this morning noting that both the release and markup would be delayed.

Read More →

As I mentioned a few days ago, I find it entertaining when liberals and the mainstream media question who leads the Republican party. The real question is who leads the Democrats. Is it the old line Pelosi/Reid/Rangel/Obama/Waxman liberals, or is it the moderates who worry that the voters will punish them for following a standard liberal agenda. On health care, we see yet again that the Democratic party is split between liberal safe-seaters who have nothing to fear in 2010, and moderates who will be turned out if they vote the liberal line. And the Blue Dogs at least, are acting as if they want to survive:

Members of the centrist GOP “Tuesday Group,” the New Democrat Coalition and the 52-member Blue Dog Coalition have been discussing both the policies and politics of moving their middle-of-the-road ideas in a body of Congress usually dominated by liberal or conservative ideology.

Those centrist factions are wary of the proposals their respective leaders will introduce this month. Blue Dogs are leery of the so-called public option in the healthcare reform bill that is expected to hit the House floor this summer. Meanwhile, GOP centrists opted to release their own healthcare plan a day before House GOP leaders are scheduled to unveil their reform package.

Read More →

The Blue Dog Democrats have genuinely boxed themselves in lately on their consistency regarding Iran.

On September 25, 2007, all the Blue Dog Democrats who were then in Congress voted in favor of H.R. 1400, the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007. The legislation would have prevented Iran from joining the World Trade Organization, imposed economic sanctions on the nation including banning the import of all goods originating from Iran, etc.

The bill never made it through the Senate, but all the Blue Dogs in the House supported it.

On March 31, 2009, Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade sent Barack Obama a letter regarding their conversation on “the need to prevent funding from the G-20 package from going to Iran.”

According to Sherman’s letter, “the World Bank has been providing assistance to Iran throughout this decade, and continues to do so as we speak. From 2000-2005, some $1.35 billion was approved for Iran in nine separate loan packages.” Further, Sherman insisted, “Iran should not receive any benefits from any of the institutions - World Bank, IMF or any other multilateral institution - that will be utilized by the G-20 to assist with the global recovery while Tehran insists on violating United Nations Security Council Resolutions concerning its nuclear program.”

You can read Brad Sherman’s letter here (PDF).

Despite the Blue Dogs uniting in 2007 to try to defund Iran and despite the Blue Dogs, via Brad Sherman (one of their own), expressing concerns over the IMF funding Iran as recently as March 31, 2009, some of them are even still considering voting for H.R. 2346, the 2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act.

Below the fold are the targeted members of Congress we need you to call ASAP. Find your state. Make the calls. Tell them to vote no on H.R. 2346, the 2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act. Report back what they say.

[UPDATED:] Brad Sherman wants it known he is not and never will be a Blue Dog Democrat. He’s just your typical left wing Democrat without any conscious about spending. I regret the error.

Read More →

Today is a big day for the Blue Dog Democrats. They’ve spent the first 6 months of this administration supine, voting for whatever spending Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi told them to. As a result, the federal deficit is approaching $2 trillion - with nothing to show for it. All along, Barack Obama has paid lip service to the Congressional budget rule known as PayGo. Today, with much fanfare, Obama called for PayGo to be enshrined into law. You might cynically point out that it has been a rule in the House since the Democrats retook Congress in 2006, and ask why you should expect it to lead to smaller deficits once it is a law.

You would be right to ask the question. But beyond that, you ought to note that PayGo doesn’t even apply to one major category of spending: discretionary spending. It applies only to direct spending (ie, entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare). And Obama has also specifically asked for 4 exceptions to the rule. As a result, the new ‘PayGo’ has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

Read More →

Starting with the background: AR-01 is one of those districts that is… interesting. It is currently rated as R +8 in the Cook Political Report, but is held by a soi-disant ‘Blue Dog Democrat’: in this case, Marion Berry. Berry has been in that seat since 1997: he won the 2006 election with 69% of the vote; and he was unopposed in 2008.

However, he will not be unopposed this term. Rick Crawford is going to be challenging him; it’s reported that the NRCC is looking at him as part of their planned campaign against selected ‘Blue Dogs’ that did not get challenged in the last election cycle. Rick is a business owner (AG Watch, a radio agricultural network) and military veteran (Army, bomb disposal) with strong roots in the area; he’s pro-life, pro-Tea Party, ready to run on an agricultural platform and is just as exceptionally happy to see the back of Arlen Specter as most of the people reading this, particularly after what Specter did to Kemp’s memory.

The NRCC is taking a challenge to this district seriously, and it’s no surprise why: while Barry has been comfortably winning elections lately - and didn’t have a challenger last cycle - the district itself has shifted on the national level (Gore in ‘00, Bush in ‘04, McCain in ‘08). Plus there’s the entire agricultural subsidy thing, which Berry is notorious for (and, apparently, has set up an arrangement to allow himself to continue to benefit from personally). Then there’s the ongoing neutering of the Blue Dogs in general; as this NRCC radio ad (H/T: ARRA News Service) points out, Barry’s voting for what Pelosi’s proposing.

As noted above, Rick’s website is here, this is his current donation link, and here’s his Facebook page. We will no doubt see more campaign-related items as time goes on.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

I have consistently argued that the ‘Blue Dog’ label is essentially meaningless - that it is nothing more than an advertising slogan to help Democrats get elected in conservative districts while voting with liberals in DC. Blue Dogs in Congress claim to have no higher priority than deficit reduction and balanced budgets, but they have acted as accomplices to Pelosi, Reid, and President Obama, as those leaders have exploded the deficit to historic levels. Their answer has been to claim progress toward implementing a pay-go rule, which prevents expansion of the deficit - unless Congress decides to ignore the rule.

That said, it seems that the Blue Dogs are starting to worry that their mask is slipping. Already on the hook for the enormous deficit, it seems they may be rebelling against government-run health care:

Forty-five Blue Dogs, led by Rep. Mike Ross (Ark.), on Monday warned that they need to be part of the writing of health care legislation in a sharply worded letter to Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Education and Labor Chairman George Miller (D-Calif.).

The Blue Dogs pronounced themselves “increasingly troubled” at the lack of involvement in the writing of the massive bill and said their limited role is “especially concerning in light of the collaborative approach taken by our Senate colleagues.”

Read More →

In the process of reading “Centrist Dems: Dogged If They Do, Dogged If They Don’t” by Froma Harrop (short version: pity the poor Blue Dog Democrats; the Left wants them to fall into line behind the progressives and the Right wants them to actually act as if fiscal conservatism meant something), I noticed this particular passage.

And Blue Dogs hold undisguised contempt for recent Republican conversions to fiscal rectitude. [Rep. Paul] Ryan’s appeal “to help us defeat this unprecedented taxing, borrowing and spending spree” drew a tart response from Louisiana Rep. Charlie Melancon.

“These statements come from the same individuals who wrote the president a blank check for eight years, driving spending to the highest levels in our country’s history,” said Melancon, a co-chair of the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition.

It struck me as an… odd reaction.

Read More →

George Soros, MoveOn.org, the SEIU, the unions, and Barack Obama’s other supporters are pouring millions into the effort to put pressure on swing Democrats to support the Obama budget. Apparently their money is being wasted:

Aides to moderate Senate and House Democrats being targeted by ads and e-mail campaigns said their offices have fielded a relatively light volume of telephone calls, especially in comparison to the crushing response to debate on the economic stimulus package earlier this year.

The office of one Democratic senator targeted by several pro-budget media campaigns reported about 2,600 calls last week about the budget, a mere fraction of the amount of feedback generated by the stimulus debate…

Read More →