Showing posts with label House Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label House Democrats. Show all posts

28 July 2009

WHO KNEW THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S BALLS, BOTH OF 'EM...WERE IN MAXINE WATERS' PURSE ALL ALONG!


it's about time rahm emmanuel was exposed for the blue dog enabler he has been all along. remember, folks, this is probably the most powerful man with the president's ear (and, NO, that doesn't excuse the "fierce advocate's" lack of spinal fortitude!).

could we be witnissing the birth of a third party?

...the "blue dogs" are certainly making a case with their unwillingness to support health care reform in favor of health insurance reform.

via huffpost:
(emphasis added)

In the House, Democratic leaders continued to negotiate with conservative and moderate rank-and-file party members with time running out for a vote before lawmakers leave Friday for a monthlong vacation.

The fiscally conservative Blue Dogs were at odds with the leadership over how to pay providers in a government-run health plan that would compete with private insurance. The House bill models the payments based on Medicare, but the so-called Blue Dogs want a negotiated rate similar to private insurance. Other issues remain sticking points for the Democrats.

"We're not ready to support a bill yet," said Rep. Baron Hill, D-Ind., a member of the Blue Dog group, who added: "We'll get there. We are going to pass a health care bill, whether it's now or in the fall remains to be seen."

Without the backing of the 52-member Blue Dogs, it would be difficult for Democratic leaders to pass a bill, especially since no Republican supports the legislation.

if this isn't a complete abdication of party loyalty and betrayal of their constituent's wishes, i don't know what is...oh, wait, the blue dog's constituents are the lobbyists, insurance companies and big business...you know, REPUBLICON LITE.

08 June 2009

we've become republican lite...

via huffpost:

Conservative House Democrats agreed to a set of health care principles late last week that angered advocates of a overhaul of the health care system.

The Blue Dog Coalition issued a statement that said it would only support the public health care option as a fallback measure that would be triggered sometime down the road if private insurers don't meet a particular set of goals.

The backsliding took advocates of reform by surprise because 20 members of the coalition had previously signed a pledge expressing their support for a public option without a trigger. The statement was written and organized by the reform coalition Health Care for America Now (HCAN), which strongly opposes a trigger and sees it as an industry plot to strangle a public option in the crib.

Blue Dogs, by their charter, need two-thirds of their 51-member caucus to approve a position before it can be officially adopted. With 20 Blue Dogs backing a public option, they would be short several votes if everyone stuck to their pledge in the closed-door meeting.

A senior Blue Dog staffer, however, said that when the coalition first met to discuss the set of principles, they decided to stake out a negotiating position rather than draw a firm line


oh, well...less time spent playing activist within the party structure means more time to advocate without restrictions.

it's official...

i no longer recognize my party.

our platform has become a joke when examined under the microscope of reality.

this is really a sad thing for me. countless hours of volunteering, raising money, supporting candidates, doing gotv work, block walking...and for what?

from ap:

WASHINGTON — Senior House Democrats drafting health care legislation are considering slapping an unspecified financial penalty on anyone who refuses to purchase affordable health insurance, a key committee chairman said Monday.


who defines "affordable"? my partner and i live on disability and retirement income. we have significant financial responsibilities that were incurred prior to disability/retirement. will those be taken into consideration? if any other "social programs'" requirements are taken into account, the answer is NO.

fyi ~ in order to qualify for HIV/AIDS assistance under the "ryan white act", it is a requirement to disclose a partner's income. yeah, you'll know how much i make when i can enter into a civil marriage, receive the same benefits as heterosexual married couples and file a joint tax return.