SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Blue Dogs Vs. Waxman -- Uh Oh?

THE PLANK JULY 24, 2009

Blue Dogs Vs. Waxman -- Uh Oh?

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

This sounds like a problem:

House healthcare negotiations dissolved in acrimony on Friday, with
Blue Dog Democrats saying they were “lied” to by their Democratic
leaders.The seven Blue Dogs on the Energy and Commerce
Committee stormed out of a Friday meeting with their committee
chairman, Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), saying Waxman had been negotiating
in bad faith over a number of provisions Blue Dogs demanded be changed
in the stalled healthcare bill.“I’ve been lied to,” Blue Dog Coalition Co-Chairman Charlie
Melancon (D-La.) said on Friday. “We have not had legitimate
negotiations.“Mr. Waxman has decided to sever discussions with
the Blue Dogs who are trying to make this bill work for America,”
Melancon said.Although those Blue Dogs were supposed to be
headed back into another meeting of the Energy and Commerce Democrats,
their anger was visible.If the two sides cannot reach an
agreement, the only hope for passage of the bill in the House will be
to go straight to the floor, an option leaders shied away from
endorsing but said was an option.But the Blue Dogs issued dire warnings to leaders contemplating that approach."Waxman
simply does not have votes in committee and process should not be
bypassed to bring the bill straight to floor,” Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.),
the lead Blue Dog negotiator, said on Friday. “We are trying to save
this bill and trying to save this party.”Melancon said there would be 40-45 “solid no” votes from the 52-strong Blue Dogs, among other problems throughout the caucus.“If they try to bring it to the floor, I think they’ll find out they have more problems than the Blue Dogs.”A leadership aide said no decisions have been made on how to proceed.

But they can just get back together and work it out, right? Not necessarily:

“It’s my understanding that will be the last meeting we have,” Ross said. 

Well, that's troubling.

Here's the basic dynamic. The Democrats want the House to pass a liberal bill, so that whatever gets passed out of the Senate can get nudged to the left. But the Blue Dogs don't want to have to vote for a more liberal bill than what gets signed into law. So there's a conflict between their interests and the party's interest.

The blue dogs have focused their muscle on the Energy and Commerce Committee, where they have enough strength to bottle up the bill. But the House is considering letting the bill go straight to the floor, bypassing the Energy and Commerce Committee. I have no substantive problem with that. But will it create a huge blowup with the Blue Dogs? Enough of one to sink the bill? I have no idea. Waxman is a famously skilled legislator so I doubt he'd make such a blunder. On the other hand, this talk about being lied to is pretty serious.

--Jonathan Chait

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 15 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

15 comments

This is serious talk, Jonathan. It is not just a misunderstanding; Henry Waxman's veracity is being questioned. The Blue Dogs aren't my favorite people, but one hopes that they weren't lied to by Waxman.

- liberal reformer

July 24, 2009 at 5:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This sounds like a problem: House healthcare negotiations dissolved in acrimony on Friday, with Blue

- Anonymous

July 24, 2009 at 5:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ryan Grim at HuffPo says negotiations are back on for now.  Let's cool off for a second until we know the whole story.  Might have just been a temper tantrum.

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../lead-blue-dog-health-care_n_244496.html

- fbacon2

July 24, 2009 at 5:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

They want to "save the party"?  Save it from what, electoral success?

- cspencef

July 24, 2009 at 6:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You know, sometimes I really wish we had a parliamentary system in this country, so that the party that won the election can pass its legislative agenda and get something done.

- ironyroad

July 24, 2009 at 6:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm tired of hearing about the Blue Dog Democrats.  The mainstream Democrats need to win more seats so they can boot these folks from the caucus or let them become the Republicans they really are.  All they're doing at this point is trying to save their electoral skins at the expense of serious reform.  Enough already.

- shaw-man

July 24, 2009 at 7:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Don't blow this out of proportion. If everyone is so clear on what will and won't pass in the Senate, then there are two options for the House:

1) let the 'blue dogs' vote against a more liberal house bill,  send it to the Senate, modify it and (presumably) they will vote for the final version passed out of conference.  Or this may mean by-passing committe to bring it to the floor.

2) modify the bill now to what the Senate will go for, so the 'blue dogs' will vote it out of committee

If the Democrats can't solve this, they have no reason to lead the House.  If they can't decide on what the final bill will look like, for the unity of their own Party, they are fools.

- CAMtwo

July 24, 2009 at 7:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You're gonna miss old John Dingell. The little shit from Beverly Hills has not idea about th rest of the country.

- lsernoff

July 24, 2009 at 8:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Apologies for the typos.  None to Waxman.

- lsernoff

July 24, 2009 at 9:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Pick one:

Jonathan Chait does a good job informing us of the ongoing debate in Congress over healthcare legislation.

Or:

Jonathan Chait does a mediocre job informing us of the ongoing debate in Congress over healthcare legislation.

Hmm...

How exactly would we go about confirming one description over the other?

First we need to know this:

What is Chait's moral and political philosophy with respect to the relationship between a government, its citizens and healthcare?

How informed is Chait about the historical evolution of healthcare in America and its relationship to the capitalist political economy?

Where does Chait get the information he needs to form arguments that form assessments that form narratives about the ongoing healthcare debate? How much of it comes from reading or viewing other mainstream media pundits who in turn are getting their insights from reading him?

How much does Chait know about the stuff going on behind the scenes?

How informed is Chait regarding the substantive give and take between K Street and the Blue Dog Democrats in Congress?

How insightful is Chait's analysis in conjunction with to his knowledge of the meetings in the White House between the healthcare industry and Obama's healthcare team? Was Obama's take at the news conference an accurate portrayal of what went on?

george walton

- iambiguous

July 24, 2009 at 10:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

lsernoff:  "The little shit from Beverly Hills has not idea about th rest of the country."

Hm.  Waxman's district includes "Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Agoura Hills, Calabasas, Hidden Hills, Malibu, West Hollywood, and Westlake Village as well as such areas of Los Angeles as West Los Angeles, Fairfax, Pacific Palisades, Brentwood, Beverlywood, Topanga, Chatsworth, Westwood and Woodland Hills." (wikipedia)

As I lived in several of these places, and know the general area, I'm wondering what makes the folks in them second-class citizens?

Oh I know -- I should have remembered -- they aren't "real Americans," as per the Palin Definition of Americanness (she's the one with the secessionist husband, btw).

- ironyroad

July 24, 2009 at 10:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad;  Please don't hang Palin on me.  My comment was intended to point out that the demographics and political perspectives of Waxman's district are very different from those of districts represented by many "Blue Dogs".  The thought of Waxman's constituency being regarded, much less treated, as second class citizens is a hoot.

My chosen descriptor of Waxman himself was not characteristic of me; usually I am a better editor.  I developed a strong dislike for the guy before he attained a leadership position, and I think he is doing more harm than good for his party and country now that he is in a leadership position.  But I should have kept any expletive thoughts to myself.

I continue to believe that you'd being seeing less evidence of intra-party squabbles if a concededly aging John Dingell had kept his chairmanship for one more term.

- lsernoff

July 25, 2009 at 9:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"My comment was intended to point out that the demographics and political perspectives of Waxman's district are very different from those of districts represented by many 'Blue Dogs'."

Right, but there's no cosmic law that suggests that inhabitants of those "other" districts hold any more valuable or weighty perspectives than those in Santa Monica etc.  Indeed, one might point out to the "Blue Dogs" that, if they are truly concerned about their own electoral futures, they might be better advised to spend their time securing a Democratic achievement rather than pretending to be Republicans.  After all, why should their voters elect a fake Republican when they can elect a real one?

- ironyroad

July 25, 2009 at 11:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Great point irony. The Blue Dogs are probably actually the ones that have the *most* to lose if the bill fails, since it could damage the party as a whole, and when sentiment turns against a particular party, it's usually the moderate types in areas that lean toward the opposite party who get hit the hardest. Just ask Lincoln Chaffee or Chris Shays.

- AlanSP

July 26, 2009 at 1:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Paul Krugman's column today has some good analysis of the House Blue Dogs, who have been raising

- Anonymous

July 27, 2009 at 9:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close