Posted on 07/29/2009 7:09:41 AM PDT by markomalley
Liberal frustration started to boil over in the House on Tuesday as negotiations over healthcare reform with centrist Blue Dog Democrats dragged into a second week.
The delay prompted Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) to lash out at the Blue Dogs as hypocritical and even hint that more liberal Democrats might challenge them in primaries.
“On the one hand they don’t want to spend money, but on the other hand they want to spend money when it benefits them or their district,” Waters said on MSNBC, referring to Blue Dogs’ demand to increase Medicare reimbursements for rural physicians.
Seven Blue Dogs on the House Energy and Commerce Committee have effectively blocked the panel from working on the bill for more than a week, saying it’s too expensive and puts too much of a burden on small employers.
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.”
Waters is known as a firebrand who isn’t afraid to stir up controversy in her own party. But she is also a member of leadership, as a chief deputy whip, and chairs a subcommittee on the House Financial Services Committee
Her remarks were an escalation from more veiled remarks from liberals last week, such as Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman Barbara Lee’s (D-Calif.) saying, “We don’t think any one group in our caucus ought to be able to derail this.”
The comments ended a truce of sorts that has existed since Democrats took power in 2007 aiming to end the Iraq war by cutting off funding. Waters was a founding member, along with Lee, of the Out-of-Iraq caucus, which was frustrated by the unwillingness of centrist Democrats, particularly Blue Dogs, to support cutting off funds.
Liberals grumbled privately at the time that Blue Dogs were willing to spend hundreds of billions on the war but not on social programs. But they never went public with their criticism.
Attempts to get comments from a spokeswoman for the Blue Dogs and the spokesman for Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) were unsuccessful.
The tongue-lashing by Waters follows criticism by liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman on Monday that “the Blue Dogs aren’t making sense,” as well as Rep. Hank Johnson’s (D-Ga.) comment that the seven Blue Dogs are “a non-diverse group” of white men.
Other liberal Democrats on Tuesday expressed irritation that Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) had made an offer to Blue Dogs on his panel without informing other committee members.
One panel member, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), said that Waxman is in danger of losing the votes of liberals like herself and other supporters of a public option in the negotiations.
“There’s a point where you lose New Dem and Progressive votes on the bill,” Baldwin said. “Some of the proposals they’re bringing forward would have the net effect of weakening the public option.”
The seven Blue Dogs took the offer from Waxman — which they described as a “watered-down” version of their demands — to the entire Blue Dog Coalition on Tuesday morning. But they had not decided by press time whether to accept that offer or to send Waxman a counterproposal. After spending the morning with their membership, they spent the afternoon holed up with Emanuel, Waxman and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in the Speaker’s office.
The small group of Blue Dogs remain hung up on a number of items, including the cost of a public healthcare option and the need to see the eventual bill bring down government spending on healthcare.
Liberals were also less than pleased to learn the Senate Finance Committee has abandoned plans for a public option and an employer mandate.
“The Senate can dance to their own tune,” said Progressive Caucus Co-Chairwoman Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.). “There will be no voting for a bill that doesn’t have a robust public option.
“We’re not doing this in the House to have the Senate muck it up,” she said, noting that she had just come from a meeting with Pelosi where the Speaker had reaffirmed her commitment to a public option.
President Obama appeared to do much the same a little later in the day, when at a town hall meeting he said it makes sense to have a public option to compete with private plans in order to keep healthcare costs down.
House leaders also worked to prepare freshman lawmakers for a recess likely to be filled with protests and television advertisements from opponents of Obama’s drive for a healthcare overhaul. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, briefed the freshmen on polls and messaging to help sell the legislation.
That’s what I was thinking.
These conservative Dems were promoted and recruited because they COULD win in conservative districts.
Put some libs on the ballot and the GOP will take the seats.
I read an article in the WSJ yesterday that said when push comes to shove, most of the those Blue Dogs end up voting with the Democrats, even on big ticket items. It will be interesting to see just what happens with Obamacare.
If Waters wants to run more liberal Dems against them, that's fine with me. It will make for an even MORE clear contrast, if some conservative Republicans run against them in 2010.
Blue Dogs are those Democrats who can be somewhat conservative, compared to their more rabid colleagues. Those folks are called Yellow Dog Democrats, because it was always said they’d vote for a Yellow Dog, as long as it’s a Democrat.
She really is clueless, isn’t she? The only reason they were elected is because they ran as CONSERVATIVE Democrats. Go ahead Rats, run left-wing radicals in these districts next time and see what happens.
Doesn’t she have another illegal bank deal to make with her husband?
Is factual because her constituents keep electing her, they must not know enough to be embarrassed by this witless woman.
Oh, lord, I just ate...
You see, you have to actually have a brain along with common sense and she has neither.
Stupid, certainly. But probably just as much a factor is the liberal grievance world bubble she's in is not populated by any rational people. She's a modern day Pauline Kael:
"I don't know anyone who voted for these more conservative House members" that Rahm Emanuel foisted on us, but “the chickens are coming home to roost” now.
I could hardly understand him, but I DID understand the standing ovations!!! Hooray for him.
Now THAT was telling. We know what their objectives are.
Anyone that believes the Fuhrer and Congress cares about their health, they need a psychiatrist. It’s all about power and setting politicians up to determine who lives and who dies.
A point we should remember with leftists. Trying to apply logic to their actions is an exercise in futility.
Red dog threatens blue dogs.
The Dem “leadership” can’t stand it when congressmen represent the opinions of their constituents and not Nancy Pelosi’s. The only seat Pelosi could win in TX is already occupied by Sheila Jackson-Lee.
They are trying to claim they lost seats in '94 because they didn't get Hill's healthcare bill passed.
They are out of touch and liars!
Yes, Maxine, you are correct on one count anyway.
2010 is going to be rather interesting...
Yes Maxine, because your chickens (cap n' tax; 0bozocare; porkulus; etc.) are gonna come home to roost ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.