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.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (2096)

PLAYS: (1689)

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 »

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.

2. If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes.

3. 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.

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: (1310)

PLAYS: (1775)

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.

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.

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

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 »

Via Ezra Klein, this heartening news. As Howard Dean said, there's simply no point without a good public option:

According to Congress Daily, the CBO says attaching the public plan to Medicare rates will save even more money than originally thought:

In a bid to wrangle concessions from the Blue Dog Coalition on healthcare reform, House leaders Thursday released CBO estimates for liberals' preferred version of the public option that show $85 billion more in savings than for the version the Blue Dogs prefer.

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D., a Blue Dog co-chair, said any possible new momentum toward a public option tethered to Medicare rates is, in part, "because of the cost issue" and the updated CBO score.

The original House bill required the public plan to pay providers 5 percent more than Medicare reimbursement rates. But as part of a package of concessions to Blue Dogs, the House Energy and Commerce Committee accepted an amendment that requires the HHS Secretary to negotiate rates with providers. That version of the plan will save only $25 billion.

In total, a public plan based on Medicare rates would save $110 billion over 10 years. That is $20 billion more than earlier estimates, a spokesman for House Speaker Pelosi said.

In other words, the conservatives want to spend $85 billion more than the liberals do. Moreover, the CBO is estimating savings to the government. That is to say, the $85 billion reflects reduced federal spending on subsidies because premiums in the public plan will be lower. Savings to individuals and businesses paying lower premiums will be much larger than $85 billion, and politically, much more important.

The D.C. crowd really does live in another world, don't they? Interesting that this article concludes the Dems are having trouble raising money is that they're not business-friendly enough!

The reporter doesn't mention that the netroots community (aka the Democratic ATM) has stopped donating to the DCCC and the DSCC, and instead donate directly to candidates - mostly because we're so disgusted with the Blue Dogs Rahm Emanuel and Co. have recruited.

The party's obliviousness is costing them money at a time they really need it. Worse, it will end up costing us a majority. But why should we give them our money when they're more interested in serving corporations than they are in us?

Democratic political committees have seen a decline in their fundraising fortunes this year, a result of complacency among their rank-and-file donors and a de facto boycott by many of their wealthiest givers, who have been put off by the party's harsh rhetoric about big business.

The trend is a marked reversal from recent history, in which Democrats have erased the GOP's long-standing fundraising advantage. In the first six months of 2009, Democratic campaign committees' receipts have dropped compared with the same period two years earlier.

The vast majority of those declines were accounted for by the absence of large donors who, strategists say, have shut their checkbooks in part because Democrats have heightened their attacks on the conduct of major financial firms and set their sights on rewriting the laws that regulate their behavior.

As the battle over President Obama's effort to overhaul the health-care system reached a fever pitch this summer, the three national Republican committees combined to bring in $1.7 million more than their Democratic counterparts in August. The pair of Democratic committees tasked with raising money for House and Senate candidates -- and doing so at a time when the party holds its strongest position on Capitol Hill in a generation -- have watched their receipts plummet by a combined 20 percent with little more than a year to go before the November 2010 midterm elections.

Gee, Rahm. We didn't have that problem when Howard Dean was DNC chair, did we?

Large-scale defeats in the midterms could be a crippling blow to the ambitious agenda mapped out by Obama's top advisers, particularly if they happen in the Senate, where Democrats caucus with a 60-seat filibuster-proof majority. The party will have to work furiously to defend at least six Senate seats and as many as 40 in the House, including many snatched from Republicans.

"If they take them back, this is the end of the road for what Barack and I are trying to do," Vice President Biden said Monday at a fundraiser for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), whose district was held by a Republican for more than two decades before her 2006 victory.

Democrats said a struggling economy is only partly to blame for the poor fundraising performance and acknowledged a more perilous problem: satisfaction among activists that the party now holds the White House, 60 votes in the Senate and 60 percent of the House.

Barney Frank is weakening the administration's proposed regulation of predatory lending because, well, the conservative Blue Dogs won't go along with the original version. The industry, of course, is taking that as encouragement, and they're pushing for an amendment that would neuter state consumer protection laws:

He would also drop language requiring providers to adhere to a “reasonableness” standard in offering products; in other words, financial institutions would have been required to asses whether there products were clearly understandable to consumers. That language was seen as too vague and would leave providers open to legal challenges.

The Administration is willing to go along. In an appearance Sept. 23 before Frank’s committee, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner acknowledged some of the criticism of the Administration’s proposals and called Frank’s proposed changes, “a pragmatic helpful way to make sure you have the choice for protection.”

“There are lots of different ways to make sure that you don’t create too much unbridled authority that would be damaging to what’s an important part of our financial system,” Geithner said, according to the Associated Press.

Frank is also seeking to clarify just who would be regulated by the new agency, to address complaints by the US Chamber of Commerce that every small business that provides credit to its customers, or the service providers such as CPAs or advertisers who work for them, would be regulated by the new agency. Administration sources from economics chief Larry Summers on down have dismissed those criticisms as nothing more than “scare tactics” but they have nonetheless been effective. In an effort to eliminate that confusion and take it off the table as an issue, Frank will propose language that clarifies that many such businesses will not be included in the new agency’s mandate. Only bona fide providers of consumer finance offerings will be included.

In proposing the changes, Frank is “bowing to political reality” says Howard Glaser, a former top lobbyist for the Mortgage Bankers Association who now runs his own firm. In a note to clients, he points out that the Administration’s proposal was running into trouble with conservative Blue Dog Democrats.

They appear to have raised many of the concerns that have been voiced by the financial services industry and its allies at the US Chamber of Commerce, who have been lobbying heavily against the plan for the last couple of months. They argue that the proposed agency would cut back on the availability of credit, discourage innovation, and tie up many banks and small businesses in a new web of regulation. The Chamber and the community bankers have been taking the lead in fighting off the Administration’s proposal, since small business folk and local bankers who serve them win far more sympathy than do big banks and mortgage brokers at the moment.

Not that Frank’s moves are likely to slow them down. Even amidst news reports this AM that Frank was pulling back on the proposal, the Chamber announced a press conference for tomorrow morning once again criticizing the agency and how it would hurt small business.

This is encouraging, because untying the public option to Medicare virtually guaranteed no significant cost savings:

Speaker Pelosi is nixing a deal she cut with centrists to advance health reform, said a source familiar with negotiations.

Pelosi’s decision to abandon the agreement that was made with a group of Blue Dogs to get the bill out of committee would steer the healthcare legislation back to the left as she prepares for a floor vote.

Pelosi is planning to include a government-run public option in the House version of the healthcare bill. She wants to model it on Medicare, with providers getting reimbursed on a scale pegged to Medicare rates.

"The speaker is full-steam-ahead," said a senior Democratic aide.

Blue Dog Democrats, many of whom represent rural districts where Medicare reimbursement rates are low, vehemently oppose tying the public option to Medicare.

Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) and a group of fellow Blue Dogs had negotiated a deal with Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) in July that would remove the link to Medicare. Under that plan, officials with the government-run plan would negotiate individually with providers.

That move, which drew howls of protest from liberal members, prevented the bill from getting stuck in committee. But Ross returned from the August break saying he couldn't support a public option under any circumstances, essentially withdrawing his support for the deal.

Pelosi is now effectively withdrawing her support. In leadership meetings last week, she said the public option in the House bill should be linked to Medicare.

Other Blue Dogs involved in the deal have said they realized the public option they negotiated was likely to change before it went to the floor.

Pelosi has also told her fellow leaders she still wants an income surtax on the wealthy, rather than a tax on "Cadillac" health plans, as a means to help pay the $1 trillion cost of the bill. The rest is to be made up with savings in Medicare by eliminating wasteful spending.

I'm happy to see that despite what must be enormous pressure, the House progressive caucus is standing firm on the public option. Not only that, they're pushing Nancy Pelosi to dump the Blue Dogs. Via The PlumLine:

The latest: The two top House progressives have just fired off a letter to Pelosi that, in effect, urges her to stick with them and to ditch the Blue Dogs when the public option rubber hits the road. Progressives have reiterated not just their support for a robust public option, but their opposition to the Blue Dog's weakened version of it passed out of Energy and Commerce.

The letter, which was sent over by a source, makes this point by noting that the version of the public option in the House health care proposal negotiated by Blue Dogs — the version that emerged from Henry Waxman’s Energy and Commerce committee — pales beside the ones created by two other key House committees, which have a more robust public option.

The two progressives — Dem Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Raul Grijalva — ask Pelosi for a meeting to discuss these pertinent facts. They write flat out that the version negotiated by Blue Dogs is “unacceptable” to them, because it results in far less savings than the two other versions.

You should read the letter yourself. But suffice it to say that it’s another sign that when it comes to the public option, House liberals are preparing for a showdown with Blue Dogs — and showing no intention to budge.

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
H-232, The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Madam Speaker:

We write to see how we can best work with you to ensure that a robust public plan with Medicare rates plus 5% is included in the final health reform bill.

In July, 60 Members signed a letter saying they could not support an agreement made in the Committee on Energy and Commerce that would require the public plan to use negotiated rates rather than Medicare plus 5% rates, which could delay the start of the public plan, reduce its savings, and reduce its ability to drive down costs. As you stated last week, the Congressional Budget Office scored the Committees on Education and Labor and Ways and Means bill with the Medicare plus 5% rates at $110 billion in savings compared to the Committee on Energy and Commerce at $25 billion in savings. The loss in savings the Committee on Energy and Commerce brought by this change was offset by reducing subsidies to low-and middle-income families, requiring them to pay a larger portion of their income for insurance premiums, is something we find unacceptable.

As we’re sure you agree, these numbers demonstrate the importance of a robust public plan tied to Medicare. We look forward to meeting with you to discuss how we can work together to include a robust public plan that will increase competition, bring down costs, and provide the necessary savings to ensure robust subsidies to those who need help paying for health insurance.

Sincerely,
Lynn Woolsey
Raul Grijalva

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 50

PLAYS: 10

(Tip O'Neil - always wondering when Reagan was going to leave the pony)

In the 1940s up to the 60s we had that segment of the Democratic Party known as Dixiecrats, the ones who appeared to have no party unity and seemed to march to their own sets of erratic drummers. Now we have the Blue Dogs who, much like the Dixiecrats, seem incapable of following their party affiliation and are, for some bizarre reason, intent on undermining what they were elected for in the first place. But I almost forgot about the Boll Weevils of the 1980s, those conservative Democrats, like their brethren before and after who almost always voted with Republicans and actively supported Reagan programs.

There's been a lot of talk of late about recriminations for the Blue Dogs, particularly with their seeming contempt of the party that brought them there.

It appears Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neil had much the same predicament on his hands during the Reagan Years with the Boll Weevils. It cost the party quite a lot during those years, especially since the Republicans had adopted a lock-step approach, much as they do now.

Here is a "Face The Nation" episode from June 27, 1982 featuring Tip O'Neil and a panel of CBS reporters asking about the current state of the Democrats on the Hill.

O’Neil: “Approximately 90 percent of the Democratic party has always stayed with us. Through the years . . . we never needed the Boll Weevils, we always had twenty-five or thirty Republicans, moderates and liberals, particularly from the Northeast of the country who always voted with the Democrats. We lost 43 Democratic seats last year, And so the discipline in our party has been good. Now that the Boll Weevils haven’t been voting with us . . but for thirty years they have been voting with us. The Republicans interestingly, have voted in robot step – all of those Northeastern and city Republicans , they have voted the . . .the Republicans have also had better discipline than they ever had before. Now, there are those who want to criticize the Boll Weevils and say we should punish them. That the Speaker should remove them from the committee. Our day of reckoning is the week of . . . the first week in December of every other year when we meet to formulate the rules. That is the particular time when we elect the members to the committee. That is the time for the people to stand up, if they want to write in to the rules of our caucus that you must go along with the rules as offered by the leadership, the previous question and things like that and punish somebody for that reason . . it’s not in our rules at the present time. Secondly, I’ve seen punishment along the line. I saw a man leave our party and go to the Republican party and get elected and take a Democratic . . .I saw a man removed from the second spot in the committee to the last spot in the committee, go home and become the Governor of his state. Punishment hasn’t worked out there, to be perfectly truthful. But the interesting factor – it’s in the caucus where these things should be done. There is no way in which we can remove a man from a committee. Because it goes from the policy committee to the caucus. And after the caucus it then goes to the floor, it’s a perfunctory matter when it goes to the floor. But in order to remove a man you’ve got to start where you finished. You’ve got to start and remove him from the committee by a vote of the Congress, and that’s an impossible thing to do”

Although the circumstance are different, my guess is O'Neil had much the same problems as Pelosi does now.

That unwillingness to dance with the one what brought them there.