The pop analysis of why conservative Blue Dog Democrats have slowed the health care overhaul to win concessions is that they are tools of the insurers and drug company executives who donate to their campaigns.
Nobel Prize-winning New York Times op-ed writer Paul Krugman fumed this week about the Blue Dogs, raising the possibility that they are "nothing but corporate tools, defending special interests" and noting their campaign receipts before softening his stance to say he's "not quite that cynical."
Krugman, who doesn't cover Congress, and others of his ilk should look at an electoral map in addition to campaign finance reports.
In 2008, President Obama lost six of the seven districts of the Blue Dogs who temporarily put the brakes on the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee. And, it's safe to say Obama is more popular in those districts than the House leaders who wrote the health bill.
Here's a scorecard of how Obama did in the seven districts.
Mike Ross, Arkansas . . . 39%
Baron P. Hill, Indiana . . . 48%
Zack Space, Ohio . . . 45%
John Barrow, Georgia . . . 54%
Charlie Melancon, Louisiana . . . 37%
Bart Gordon, Tennessee . . . 37%
Jim Matheson, Utah, . . . 40%
In the district Obama won, Barrow is trying to figure out how to earn another term in 2010, if, as expected, fewer black voters turn out to the polls than they did with Obama on the ballot in 2008.
The bad news for the Democratic leadership is that the dynamic is not limited to the Energy and Commerce Blue Dogs.
There are 49 districts in which Republican John McCain bested Obama in 2008 while voters elected a Democrat to the House. While the list doesn't precisely match the roster of Blue Dogs, the high coincidence is inescapable.
Two of the three members of the Ways and Means Committee who voted against the health overhaul -- John Tanner of Tennessee and Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota -- watched Obama lose their districts in 2008. So, too, did Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania, the only Democrat on the Education and Labor panel to vote against the bill in committee.
The Blue Dogs say they share the president's broad goals for a health care overhaul, and that he shares their desire to contain costs. Indeed, there's no reason to assume that Obama and House Democratic leaders are any closer to agreement -- beyond the broad concept of moving forward -- than Obama is with the Blue Dogs.
"The premise that they do not agree with the president on health care doesn't hold. The Blue Dogs want to contain costs - as does the president. The want to make sure it is deficit neutral and lowers costs over the long term - as does the president. If you look back, all of their positions and statements to date have been consistent with the president's goals for comprehensive reform," an aide to the group said.
"For anyone to suggest that they are tools of any group is an inappropriate attack on members who are not only trying to take a hard look at legislation that affects the lives of all Americans, but who, by the very nature of their districts, have to remain committed to voting with their constituents or be voted out of office," the aide said.
And, it should be noted, Blue Dogs from California districts where Obama won handily, Rep. Mike Thompson of the Ways and Means Committee (65.6 percent for Obama) and Jane Harman of the Energy and Commerce Committee (64.4 percent for Obama), are supporting the bill. No one is suggesting they are tools of the corporate interests backing the bill.
![[RSS]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
![[ARCHIVES]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/archives_icon.png){kind=icon}
Comments
What do you expect from Krugman, his views are akin to Leon Trotsky.
Posted by: NObama
| July 31, 2009 6:41 PM
Comparing Kruggers to Trotsky but not Lenin -- clearly you are an anti-Semite!
Seriously, though, this post doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The author seems to be saying the Blue Dogs are just voting against Obama, not against health reform? It seems like Obama is much closer to the left wing of the party, most notably in wanting a robust public option, versus the blue dogs. So what is the author talking about when he says they have a policy agreement?
Similarly, I wasn't aware that many corporate interests were in favor of healthcare reform. Maybe they're just distributed about, you know, the entire rest of the economy, versus the healthcare industry which is sucking an extra 8% off our GDP compared to any other advanced country, and is showering money on Baucus if not others.
I think I'm starting to rant. The point is, many of the authors assertions, that Obama and the Blue Dogs agree, that the Blue Dogs are just voting against Obama because their constituents are "anti-Obama", and that corporate interests are working equally to influence both sides of healthcare reform, seem unsupported by the evidence.
Posted by: jamdox
| August 2, 2009 6:37 PM
Post A Comment