MLB trade deadline: Boston Red Sox's pursuit of Victor Martinez of Cleveland Indians heats up - ESPN
The Boston Red Sox got the big bat they were looking for, acquiring All-Star slugger Victor Martinez from the Cleveland Indians on Friday.
The rebuilding Indians received right-hander Justin Masterson and minor league pitchers Nick Hagadone and Bryan Price. The trade came shortly before the 4 p.m. ET deadline to complete deals without waivers.
Prior to officially acquiring Martinez, Boston spun off first baseman Adam LaRoche and cash in a trade with his former team, the Braves. LaRoche, who was acquired from Pittsburgh for prospects on July 22, returns to Atlanta in exchange for first baseman Casey Kotchman.
The 30-year-old Martinez has split his time at catcher and first base this season. The switch-hitter is batting .284 with 15 home runs and 67 RBIs.
July 31, 2009
If Health Care is so badly needed, then why are so few people supporting it?
Benefits of Healthcare Reform a Tough Sell for Americans
Forty-four percent of Americans believe a new healthcare reform law would improve medical care in the U.S., contrasted with 26% who say it would improve their personal medical care. Forty-seven percent of Americans believe reform will expand access to healthcare in the U.S., while 21% say it will expand their own access to healthcare.
Forty-four percent of Americans believe a new healthcare reform law would improve medical care in the U.S., contrasted with 26% who say it would improve their personal medical care. Forty-seven percent of Americans believe reform will expand access to healthcare in the U.S., while 21% say it will expand their own access to healthcare.
Aren't We a Little Full of Ourselves, Mayor?
I really don't like it when people play the "History is Calling Me, The People are Calling Me, Here I Come to Save the Day" Card. It's really annoying.
Depends on how bad it is: Rudy Giuliani says he might have to save state and run for Gov.
Depends on how bad it is: Rudy Giuliani says he might have to save state and run for Gov.
Rudy Giuliani slapped New York's GOP leadership for having no bench on Thursday, then hinted that if things get much worse, he may have to run for governor.
"If I thought I could make a real difference in the state, really change things...then I would [run]," he told a Crain's NY Business Breakfast Forum.
He joked that "the only way I could get elected governor is the way I got elected mayor - things have to be so bad," he joked, referring to the chaos and crime he inherited when he took over City Hall in 1993.
So how bad is New York State right now, he was asked.
"New York is in pretty bad shape," he said.
There is no question that if you have to rely on George Pataki and me, you are in deep trouble," the former mayor said, referring to the former governor, who many believe could run for U.S. Senate against Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand.
"We should be moving forward with dynamic new candidates," he added, "but the party at some point stopped developing."
July 30, 2009
The Business Sector and Obama
I read this and thought, very well balanced and thought-out aricle. I think that there is a generalization out that that the Business Sector, to a person, is hostile towards this administration. I don't think that's the case. That is not to say that I agree with everything Obama has done -- anyone who has read this blog's postings about healthcare, in particular, will recognize that. Same thing with the deficit and the bailouts. That being said, the administration did not inherit the greatest of circumstances.
Obama: What Business Thinks - BusinessWeek
excerpts:
Obama: What Business Thinks - BusinessWeek
excerpts:
In the hour-long conversation that resulted, the corporate executives gave
Obama's economic policymakers an earful. On the campaign trail, the President
had used populist language to demand an end to what he called loopholes that
encourage companies to ship jobs overseas. The executives feared that meant he wanted to eliminate deferral altogether. One by one, the bosses warned that the Administration's move would gravely damage U.S. companies' ability to compete overseas. "It was a broad-based reaction that said, 'Look, we understand there's a problem and a need for revenue,' " Cote says. " 'The thing we don't want you to do is put us at such a disadvantage to our worldwide competitors that we just can't get
anywhere.' "
Message received. By the time the Administration released a
more detailed proposal in May, it had ratcheted back to a more limited position
on deferral, combined with an end to other more questionable international tax
breaks. Pressured as well by congressional opposition—much of it spurred by
intense corporate lobbying—the White House team soon moved the plan to the back
burner. Administration sources now say the measure will likely return only as
part of a comprehensive overhaul of corporate taxes, as the executives sought.
"We expressed substantial concerns, and they were very responsive," says another
CEO who was on the call.
The truce reached on tax deferral has helped defuse some of the tensions between the Obama Administration and business, but not all. Case by case, the President and his team impress CEOs with their accessibility,
knowledge, and willingness to listen. Many corporate chiefs, though, remain
unsure of what to make of Obama, and many can't tell how well he understands the
challenges they face. That wariness has only been accentuated by the
antibusiness tone many felt the new President and his advisers took as they
moved to stem the financial crisis in the winter. "I think there's a fair amount
of trepidation in the business community," says Robert Greifeld, CEO of Nasdaq
OMX Group (NDAQ).
To Obama and his economic staff, such anxiety—and even hostility—are more
than a little baffling. Many of those "who think we're antibusiness seem to
forget that it was just three or four months ago, when, at great political
expense, we yanked them out of the fire," Obama told BusinessWeek in an interview on July 27. Later, he added: "My working assumption has always been, if the market could do it better, have the market do it." As Summers is quick to point out, much of the Administration's long-term program—reducing dependence on foreign oil, cutting the crippling growth in health-care costs,
and bolstering the skills of America's workforce—is designed to address
longstanding business complaints. "We are very mindful that you can't have
employees without employers," he says.
Unemployment and Unionization
Economists often talk about unionization, wages, and unemployment. Well, I decided to test it myself. So, here are the numbers (Unionization rates from fiscalpolicy.org):
Top Ten State Unemployment Rates, June 2009 / Unionization Rates
Michigan 15.2% / 21.3%
Rhode Island 12.4% / 16.4%
Oregon 12.2% / 15.6%
South Carolina 12.1% / 4.4%
Nevada 12.0% / 16.1%
California 11.6% / 17.6%
Ohio 11.1% / 16.1%
North Carolina 11.0% / 3.9%
Kentucky 10.9% / 11.2%
Tennessee 10.8% / 6.9%
Lowest Ten State Unemployment Rates, June 2009 / Unionization Rates
North Dakota 4.2% / 8.4%
Nebraska 5.0% / 9.7%
South Dakota 5.1% / 7.7%
Utah 5.7% / 6.4%
Wyoming 5.9% / 9.7%
Iowa 6.2% / 13.4%
Oklahoma 6.3% / 7.5%
Montana 6.4% / 13.5%
LA, NH, NM (tie) 6.8% / 7.6%, 11.3%, 10.7%
Clearly, the high union states have higher unemployment (There are only 5 exceptions on these lists -- SC, NC, TN, IA, and MT). Labor's defenders would have you believe the unionization follows unemplyment, but I doubt it. How could you get so many people to join a union if they are not working. Isn't that, uuuhhhh, a prerequisite???
Unionization is supposed to make it more difficult for companies to fire workers. However, don't you think that companies know this? So how do they react?? By not hiring in the first place. Especially at so-called prevailing wages.
Top Ten State Unemployment Rates, June 2009 / Unionization Rates
Michigan 15.2% / 21.3%
Rhode Island 12.4% / 16.4%
Oregon 12.2% / 15.6%
South Carolina 12.1% / 4.4%
Nevada 12.0% / 16.1%
California 11.6% / 17.6%
Ohio 11.1% / 16.1%
North Carolina 11.0% / 3.9%
Kentucky 10.9% / 11.2%
Tennessee 10.8% / 6.9%
Lowest Ten State Unemployment Rates, June 2009 / Unionization Rates
North Dakota 4.2% / 8.4%
Nebraska 5.0% / 9.7%
South Dakota 5.1% / 7.7%
Utah 5.7% / 6.4%
Wyoming 5.9% / 9.7%
Iowa 6.2% / 13.4%
Oklahoma 6.3% / 7.5%
Montana 6.4% / 13.5%
LA, NH, NM (tie) 6.8% / 7.6%, 11.3%, 10.7%
Clearly, the high union states have higher unemployment (There are only 5 exceptions on these lists -- SC, NC, TN, IA, and MT). Labor's defenders would have you believe the unionization follows unemplyment, but I doubt it. How could you get so many people to join a union if they are not working. Isn't that, uuuhhhh, a prerequisite???
Unionization is supposed to make it more difficult for companies to fire workers. However, don't you think that companies know this? So how do they react?? By not hiring in the first place. Especially at so-called prevailing wages.
Open Left:: Progressive Health Care Backlash Update
Here are the Left's Demand on Health Care (I say no deal):
Open Left:: Progressive Health Care Backlash Update
It's hard to see how a winning coalition is built here..... This is probably for the best, since this a a bad idea from the get-go.
Open Left:: Progressive Health Care Backlash Update
It's hard to see how a winning coalition is built here..... This is probably for the best, since this a a bad idea from the get-go.
Here is the current status of the House Progressive backlash against the health
care "deal" negotiated by Henry Waxman and four Blue Dogs on the Energy and
Commerce Committee: 53 House Progressives will vote against deal: In their
press conference today, the Congressional Progressive Caucus stated that53 Progressives will vote against any bill containing the measures in the
Waxman-Blue Dog deal. With 218 required for a majority, and 178 Republicans,
that is more than enough to block health care reform from passing the House
until these Progressives are statisfied. Medicare rates are the line in the sand: There were several Progressive objections to the Waxman-Blue Dog deal, but the line in the sand appears to be a public option with Medicare rates.From the letter signed by 53 House Progressives:
Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, for a public option with reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates - not negotiated rates - is unacceptable.
Waxman-Blue Dog deal will pass out of committee. The progressive backlash will not stop the Waxman-Blue Dog deal from passing out of committee. The markup in the committee has continued today, and none of the 53 progressives mentioned above sit on the Energy and Commerce committee. Progressive plan is to change the bill both
before, and in, the Rules Committee. Before there can be a full House vote on
health care legislation, the three different health care bills that have / will
come from three different committees need to be merged by the Rules Committee.
One of the other committee chairs to produce a health care bill, Charles Rangel, has
made it clear that strengthening the public option in the rules Committee is his
plan.Rules Committee is relatively progressive. You can see the members of the Rules
Committee here. Democrats hold an 8-5 advantage on the committee. There are
five members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, plus Doris Matsui. There
are also two Blue Dogs, Mike Arcuri and Dennis Cardozza. However, while they are
Blue Dogs, neither Arcuri nor Cardozza signed any of the various letters expressing "concern" over health care reform. As such, this is indeed fertile ground for making sure the Waxman-Blue Dog deal doesn't make it to the floor.
Baker's Launch
OK, OK, I read the article, I checked out his Web site. He just seems a little bland, milktoast, boring. I mean, what's all the excitement about? Would he be better than Deval? Sure. But that's not saying much. Is it?
For starters, Baker jabs at Patrick - The Boston Globe
Republican Charles D. Baker Jr. officially entered the governor’s race yesterday, filing his paperwork with the state and then swiftly launching into an attack on Governor Deval Patrick’s handling of the budget and economy.
Baker immediately pledged not to raise taxes and said he would try to repeal the recent increase in the state sales tax, which will go from 5 percent to 6.25 percent Saturday, if he is elected.
“I’m a no-new-taxes candidate,’’ he said, adding later for the television cameras: “Yeah, read my lips: No new taxes.’’
Patrick, who signed the sales tax increase last month, dismissed Baker’s criticism.
“That’s a message that is stuck in the past, that is stuck in rhetoric,’’ Patrick told reporters yesterday afternoon. “I mean, there’s a campaign coming, but right now, I’m having to make these decisions, and I keep meeting people who actually want the schools to be funded, who actually want our healthcare experiment to succeed.’’
Baker’s candidacy, which he informally announced earlier this month, jump- starts the 2010 campaign as Patrick faces low poll numbers and declining state revenues. Baker will be running for the Republican nomination against Christy Mihos, a former member of the Turnpike Authority board who ran against Patrick three years ago as an independent. State Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill, who left the Democratic Party July 8, is weighing a run as an independent.
Baker, who announced the same day that he would resign as chief executive of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, is seen by many of the party faithful as the leading Republican challenger, but he is largely unknown outside political and business circles.
He seemed comfortable in the spotlight yesterday, with a ready smile, several jokes, and light banter with reporters during a 19-minute press conference.
As he walked into the state’s Office of Campaign and Political Finance to file his papers, he was greeted by about a dozen supporters carrying signs. A campaign worker filmed the process for Baker’s new website, http://www.charliebaker2010.com/.
But Baker’s background in finance, which can make him seem wonkish, was also on full display as he spoke of the state’s unfunded pension liability and a financial instrument known as a swaption. He mentioned the state’s “structural deficit’’ at least four times during the first 2 1/2 minutes of the press conference.
It was clear, on Baker’s first formal day in the race, that Patrick’s financial stewardship will be a central issue in the campaign.
“I think he let the budget get away from him, and once the budget gets away from you, really bad things happen,’’ Baker said.
When asked what needs to be cut from the budget, Baker said that “everything should be on the table,’’ including scaling back the state’s landmark healthcare initiative.Continued...
Even before the press conference, Democrats pounced on Baker’s candidacy. Lieutenant Governor Timothy P. Murray released a statement saying that the Republican is “nothing more than an overcompensated insurance executive who placed profits over patients at the expense of hard-working families and employers in Massachusetts.’’
Murray also criticized Baker’s involvement in the financing of the $15 billion Big Dig, saying, “if you look up crisis in the dictionary, you’ll find a picture of Baker and a narrative on the Big Dig financing scheme.’’
Baker sought to distance himself from the project yesterday, calling it a “bipartisan headache.’’
“I do think it’s kind of ironic that I’m being criticized for my small role in the Big Dig, when one of its chief architects and enablers is the transportation czar for the current administration,’’ Baker said.
Patrick’s transportation secretary, James A. Aloisi Jr., is a former general counsel for the Turnpike Authority and drafted the legislation that put the authority in charge of the Big Dig.
It was also clear yesterday that Baker is attempting to position himself as the kind of Massachusetts Republican voters have favored in the past: fiscally conservative, but socially moderate.
Baker said he supports abortion rights and same-sex marriage, adding: “My brother’s gay, and he’s married, and he lives in Massachusetts, so I’m for it. Is that straight enough?’’
He also said he supports the death penalty, which puts him at odds with Patrick.
Baker attempted to distance himself from the national Republican Party, although he would not rule out taking money from the party.
“I’m not going to participate in national discussions and national politics; I’m interested in what happens here in Massachusetts,’’ he said.
Baker quickly won the endorsement of retired Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling, who wrote on his blog that Baker is “a man of his word and a man of integrity.’’
“I’ll vote for him because he’s someone that has always appealed to me as being out for the greater good above all else,’’ Schilling wrote. “This state is in dire need of exactly that right now.’’
Meanwhile, Patrick failed to gain a full-throated endorsement from one of the state’s top Democrats.
Senate President Therese Murray, asked whether Baker or Patrick would better manage the economy, said, “I have no idea,’’ the State House News Service reported.
But will she support Patrick next year?
“I’m a Democrat,’’ she said, repeating those words when pressed. “I’m a Democrat.’’
Noah Bierman of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Matt Viser can be reached at maviser@globe.com.
© Copyright 2009 Globe Newspaper Company.
Big Shocker....Schilling likes Baker. Gee, didn't see that coming.........
For starters, Baker jabs at Patrick - The Boston Globe
Republican Charles D. Baker Jr. officially entered the governor’s race yesterday, filing his paperwork with the state and then swiftly launching into an attack on Governor Deval Patrick’s handling of the budget and economy.
Baker immediately pledged not to raise taxes and said he would try to repeal the recent increase in the state sales tax, which will go from 5 percent to 6.25 percent Saturday, if he is elected.
“I’m a no-new-taxes candidate,’’ he said, adding later for the television cameras: “Yeah, read my lips: No new taxes.’’
Patrick, who signed the sales tax increase last month, dismissed Baker’s criticism.
“That’s a message that is stuck in the past, that is stuck in rhetoric,’’ Patrick told reporters yesterday afternoon. “I mean, there’s a campaign coming, but right now, I’m having to make these decisions, and I keep meeting people who actually want the schools to be funded, who actually want our healthcare experiment to succeed.’’
Baker’s candidacy, which he informally announced earlier this month, jump- starts the 2010 campaign as Patrick faces low poll numbers and declining state revenues. Baker will be running for the Republican nomination against Christy Mihos, a former member of the Turnpike Authority board who ran against Patrick three years ago as an independent. State Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill, who left the Democratic Party July 8, is weighing a run as an independent.
Baker, who announced the same day that he would resign as chief executive of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, is seen by many of the party faithful as the leading Republican challenger, but he is largely unknown outside political and business circles.
He seemed comfortable in the spotlight yesterday, with a ready smile, several jokes, and light banter with reporters during a 19-minute press conference.
As he walked into the state’s Office of Campaign and Political Finance to file his papers, he was greeted by about a dozen supporters carrying signs. A campaign worker filmed the process for Baker’s new website, http://www.charliebaker2010.com/.
But Baker’s background in finance, which can make him seem wonkish, was also on full display as he spoke of the state’s unfunded pension liability and a financial instrument known as a swaption. He mentioned the state’s “structural deficit’’ at least four times during the first 2 1/2 minutes of the press conference.
It was clear, on Baker’s first formal day in the race, that Patrick’s financial stewardship will be a central issue in the campaign.
“I think he let the budget get away from him, and once the budget gets away from you, really bad things happen,’’ Baker said.
When asked what needs to be cut from the budget, Baker said that “everything should be on the table,’’ including scaling back the state’s landmark healthcare initiative.Continued...
Even before the press conference, Democrats pounced on Baker’s candidacy. Lieutenant Governor Timothy P. Murray released a statement saying that the Republican is “nothing more than an overcompensated insurance executive who placed profits over patients at the expense of hard-working families and employers in Massachusetts.’’
Murray also criticized Baker’s involvement in the financing of the $15 billion Big Dig, saying, “if you look up crisis in the dictionary, you’ll find a picture of Baker and a narrative on the Big Dig financing scheme.’’
Baker sought to distance himself from the project yesterday, calling it a “bipartisan headache.’’
“I do think it’s kind of ironic that I’m being criticized for my small role in the Big Dig, when one of its chief architects and enablers is the transportation czar for the current administration,’’ Baker said.
Patrick’s transportation secretary, James A. Aloisi Jr., is a former general counsel for the Turnpike Authority and drafted the legislation that put the authority in charge of the Big Dig.
It was also clear yesterday that Baker is attempting to position himself as the kind of Massachusetts Republican voters have favored in the past: fiscally conservative, but socially moderate.
Baker said he supports abortion rights and same-sex marriage, adding: “My brother’s gay, and he’s married, and he lives in Massachusetts, so I’m for it. Is that straight enough?’’
He also said he supports the death penalty, which puts him at odds with Patrick.
Baker attempted to distance himself from the national Republican Party, although he would not rule out taking money from the party.
“I’m not going to participate in national discussions and national politics; I’m interested in what happens here in Massachusetts,’’ he said.
Baker quickly won the endorsement of retired Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling, who wrote on his blog that Baker is “a man of his word and a man of integrity.’’
“I’ll vote for him because he’s someone that has always appealed to me as being out for the greater good above all else,’’ Schilling wrote. “This state is in dire need of exactly that right now.’’
Meanwhile, Patrick failed to gain a full-throated endorsement from one of the state’s top Democrats.
Senate President Therese Murray, asked whether Baker or Patrick would better manage the economy, said, “I have no idea,’’ the State House News Service reported.
But will she support Patrick next year?
“I’m a Democrat,’’ she said, repeating those words when pressed. “I’m a Democrat.’’
Noah Bierman of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Matt Viser can be reached at maviser@globe.com.
© Copyright 2009 Globe Newspaper Company.
Big Shocker....Schilling likes Baker. Gee, didn't see that coming.........
July 29, 2009
The GOP's Southern Problem
Voinovich seems to be taking some heat for these comments, however as the data I have added below demonstrates, He's kinda right...
(thanks, theelectoralmap.com)
The Electoral Map » Blog Archive » Voinovich Blames GOP’s Troubles on “Southerners”
In an interview with the Columbus Dispatch this afternoon, Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) blamed the recent struggles of the GOP squarely on “southerners.” When asked about the “GOP’s biggest problem,” he replied:
“We got too many Jim DeMints (R-S.C.) and Tom Coburns (R-Ok.). It’s the southerners. They get on TV and go ‘errrr, errrrr.’ People hear them and say, ‘These people, they’re southerners. The party’s being taken over by southerners. What they hell they got to do with Ohio?’”
A more accurate description probably wouldn’t have been that the GOP has too many southerners, but that it doesn’t have enough non-Southerners. As Ron Brownstein noted in the National Journal in May:
The Republican Party today is more electorally dependent on the South than at any point in its past. Today the GOP holds a smaller share of non-Southern seats in the House and Senate than at any other point in its history except the apex of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s popularity during the early days of the New Deal.
It may be a vicious cycle where the loss of moderate northern Republicans opens the doors for the rise of the Tom DeLay’s of the party, who in turn pave the way for the defeat of more moderate northerners. The same cycle played out in the 1980’s and ’90s when the loss of Dixiecrats enabled liberals to take power of the Democratic Party, and thus prompted the death of more southern Democrats.
Even Voinovich’s Ohio, once the bedrock of the Republican Party, has shifted to the Democratic Party in recent years despite having little gain in minority and/or suburban voters that have turned other regions (mid-Atlantic, Mountain West) blue.
Voinovich is retiring in January 2010 and probably doesn’t care about popularity points in his caucus, so he’s not going to win any friends south of the Ohio River for that comment. But he is correct that his party increasingly speak with a southern accent (i have added the Pew data myself.):
As this recent Pew data shows, almost a full 40% of the nation's Republicans live in the South. Add in the GOP's problems with hispanics and young voters, and you don't need any shades at all in regard to the GOP's future, 'cause it ain't so bright......
(thanks, theelectoralmap.com)
The Electoral Map » Blog Archive » Voinovich Blames GOP’s Troubles on “Southerners”
In an interview with the Columbus Dispatch this afternoon, Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) blamed the recent struggles of the GOP squarely on “southerners.” When asked about the “GOP’s biggest problem,” he replied:
“We got too many Jim DeMints (R-S.C.) and Tom Coburns (R-Ok.). It’s the southerners. They get on TV and go ‘errrr, errrrr.’ People hear them and say, ‘These people, they’re southerners. The party’s being taken over by southerners. What they hell they got to do with Ohio?’”
A more accurate description probably wouldn’t have been that the GOP has too many southerners, but that it doesn’t have enough non-Southerners. As Ron Brownstein noted in the National Journal in May:
The Republican Party today is more electorally dependent on the South than at any point in its past. Today the GOP holds a smaller share of non-Southern seats in the House and Senate than at any other point in its history except the apex of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s popularity during the early days of the New Deal.
It may be a vicious cycle where the loss of moderate northern Republicans opens the doors for the rise of the Tom DeLay’s of the party, who in turn pave the way for the defeat of more moderate northerners. The same cycle played out in the 1980’s and ’90s when the loss of Dixiecrats enabled liberals to take power of the Democratic Party, and thus prompted the death of more southern Democrats.
Even Voinovich’s Ohio, once the bedrock of the Republican Party, has shifted to the Democratic Party in recent years despite having little gain in minority and/or suburban voters that have turned other regions (mid-Atlantic, Mountain West) blue.
Voinovich is retiring in January 2010 and probably doesn’t care about popularity points in his caucus, so he’s not going to win any friends south of the Ohio River for that comment. But he is correct that his party increasingly speak with a southern accent (i have added the Pew data myself.):
As this recent Pew data shows, almost a full 40% of the nation's Republicans live in the South. Add in the GOP's problems with hispanics and young voters, and you don't need any shades at all in regard to the GOP's future, 'cause it ain't so bright......
July 28, 2009
Here we go again on Health Care.....
I suppose that we have gotten so much attention heaped upon us in recent weeks is a sign of our growing strength and influence.... Let's use this influence wisely and prevent that major damage to our economy that would come from this bill....
Another non-Blue Dog Telling Blue Dogs What to Think and Do.
The argument of many Blue Dogs is that there shouldn't be a public option at all. Also, this is a nice article of the downfalls ... (Thanks Rob from FB):
5 Freedoms You Would Lose in Health Care Reform
FYI, many Blue Dogs don't come from rural districts. The big lesson here is that if you're not sure what the Blue Dogs are thinking, don't assume.
Anyways, the second section that I emphasized is the most concerning. What authority is this public plan going to have? And, what innovations have ever come from the public sector?????
Another non-Blue Dog Telling Blue Dogs What to Think and Do.
The fate of health-care reform hangs on what President Obama and leading Democrats do in the next few weeks. In particular, it hinges on an effective response to moderate Democrats in the House -- known as "Blue Dogs" -- who are threatening to jump ship.
The main worry expressed by the Blue Dogs is that the Congressional Budget Office has predicted that leading bills on Capitol Hill won't bring down medical inflation. The irony is that the Blue Dogs' argument -- that a new public insurance plan designed to compete with private insurers should be smaller and less powerful, and that Medicare and this new plan should pay more generous rates to rural providers -- would make reform more expensive, not less. (emphasis mine) The further irony is that the federal premium assistance that the Blue Dogs worry is too costly is the reform that would make health-care affordable for a large share of their constituents.
The Blue Dogs are right to hold Obama and Democratic leaders to their commitment to real cost control. But they are wrong to see this goal as conflicting with a new national public health insurance plan for Americans younger than 65. In fact, such a plan, empowered to work with Medicare, is Congress's single most powerful lever for reforming the way care is paid for and delivered. With appropriate authority, it can encourage private plans to develop innovations in payment and care coordination that could spread through the private sector, as have past public-sector innovations.
Increasing what doctors and hospitals are paid by the new public plan, as the Blue Dogs desire, would only raise premiums and health costs for their constituents. It would also fail to address excessive payments to hospitals and specialists that private insurers say they have lacked the leverage to bring down. Offering public plan rates at close to Medicare levels while giving doctors and hospitals the choice of accepting them -- as the House legislation does -- is a way to test the market. If providers accept the rates, as the CBO projects they will, the Blue Dogs will get what they want: lower costs. If not, the bill in the House contains provisions for adjusting the rates, including nearly $10 billion to raise rates in rural areas if an independent study determines that higher rates are needed.
Many Blue Dogs fret that a new public health insurance plan will become too large, despite the CBO's projection that the overwhelming majority of working people will have employer coverage and that the public plan will enroll less than 5 percent of the population. Their concern should be that a public plan will be too weak. A public health plan will be particularly vital for Americans in the rural areas that many Blue Dogs represent. These areas feature both limited insurance competition and shockingly large numbers of residents without adequate coverage.....
Yet the Blue Dogs have mostly ignored the huge benefits of a new public plan for their districts. They have also largely ignored the disproportionate benefits promised by new federal subsidies for low- and medium-income workers. Right now, large swaths of farmers, ranchers and self-employed workers can barely afford a policy in the individual market or are uninsured. They will benefit greatly from the premium assistance in the House legislation promised for workers whose earnings are up to 400 percent of the poverty line, from additional subsidies for small businesses to cover their workers, and from a new national purchasing pool, or "exchange," giving those employers access to low-cost group health insurance that's now out of reach.
Continuing.....Blue Dogs have the future of health-care reform in their hands. If they hold firm to their principles of fiscal responsibility and effective relief for workers and employers in their districts, what's good for Blue Dogs will also be good for America.
The argument of many Blue Dogs is that there shouldn't be a public option at all. Also, this is a nice article of the downfalls ... (Thanks Rob from FB):
5 Freedoms You Would Lose in Health Care Reform
FYI, many Blue Dogs don't come from rural districts. The big lesson here is that if you're not sure what the Blue Dogs are thinking, don't assume.
Anyways, the second section that I emphasized is the most concerning. What authority is this public plan going to have? And, what innovations have ever come from the public sector?????
July 27, 2009
CFB Preseason Top 25 - ESPN
Aaahhhh, College Football Season is approaching....my favorite time of the year.
NCAA Football - Offseason Analysis - Preseason Top 25 - ESPN
No. 25: Florida State
No. 24: BYU
No. 23: Utah
No. 22: Kansas
No. 21: North Carolina
No. 20: Nebraska
No. 19: Iowa
No. 18: TCU
No. 17: Notre Dame
No. 16: Georgia
No. 15: Georgia Tech
No. 14: Boise State
No. 13: Cal
No. 12: LSU
No. 11: Oregon
No. 10: Oklahoma State
No. 9: Penn State
No. 8: Alabama
No. 7: Ole Miss
No. 6: Ohio State
No. 5: Virginia Tech
No. 4: USC
No. 3: Oklahoma
No. 2: Texas
No. 1: Florida
My previews of each team will be forthcoming -- Suffice it to say that I think you will find my rankings better......
NCAA Football - Offseason Analysis - Preseason Top 25 - ESPN
No. 25: Florida State
No. 24: BYU
No. 23: Utah
No. 22: Kansas
No. 21: North Carolina
No. 20: Nebraska
No. 19: Iowa
No. 18: TCU
No. 17: Notre Dame
No. 16: Georgia
No. 15: Georgia Tech
No. 14: Boise State
No. 13: Cal
No. 12: LSU
No. 11: Oregon
No. 10: Oklahoma State
No. 9: Penn State
No. 8: Alabama
No. 7: Ole Miss
No. 6: Ohio State
No. 5: Virginia Tech
No. 4: USC
No. 3: Oklahoma
No. 2: Texas
No. 1: Florida
My previews of each team will be forthcoming -- Suffice it to say that I think you will find my rankings better......
George Will instructs America on Fashion Sense......
George Will telling other people how to dress????
George F. Will - America's Bad Jeans - washingtonpost.com
You should really go through the reader comments to this article -- hysterical.
On any American street, or in any airport or mall, you see the same sad tableau: A 10-year-old boy is walking with his father, whose development was evidently arrested when he was that age, judging by his clothes. Father and son are dressed identically -- running shoes, T-shirts. And jeans, always jeans. If mother is there, she, too, is draped in denim.
Writer Daniel Akst has noticed and has had a constructive conniption. He should be given the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He has earned it by identifying an obnoxious misuse of freedom. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, he has denounced denim, summoning Americans to soul-searching and repentance about the plague of that ubiquitous fabric, which is symptomatic of deep disorders in the national psyche.
It is, he says, a manifestation of "the modern trend toward undifferentiated dressing, in which we all strive to look equally shabby." Denim reflects "our most nostalgic and destructive agrarian longings -- the ones that prompted all those exurban McMansions now sliding off their manicured lawns and into foreclosure." Jeans come prewashed and acid-treated to make them look like what they are not -- authentic work clothes for horny-handed sons of toil and the soil. Denim on the bourgeoisie is, Akst says, the wardrobe equivalent of driving a Hummer to a Whole Foods store -- discordant.
Long ago, when James Dean and Marlon Brando wore it, denim was, Akst says, "a symbol of youthful defiance." Today, Silicon Valley billionaires are rebels without causes beyond poses, wearing jeans when introducing new products. Akst's summa contra denim is grand as far as it goes, but it only scratches the surface of this blight on Americans' surfaces. Denim is the infantile uniform of a nation in which entertainment frequently features childlike adults ("Seinfeld," "Two and a Half Men") and cartoons for adults ("King of the Hill"). Seventy-five percent of American "gamers" -- people who play video games -- are older than 18 and nevertheless are allowed to vote. In their undifferentiated dress, children and their childish parents become undifferentiated audiences for juvenilized movies (the six -- so far -- "Batman" adventures and "Indiana Jones and the Credit-Default Swaps," coming soon to a cineplex near you). Denim is the clerical vestment for the priesthood of all believers in democracy's catechism of leveling -- thou shalt not dress better than society's most slovenly. To do so would be to commit the sin of lookism -- of believing that appearance matters. That heresy leads to denying the universal appropriateness of everything, and then to the elitist assertion that there is good and bad taste.
Denim is the carefully calculated costume of people eager to communicate indifference to appearances. But the appearances that people choose to present in public are cues from which we make inferences about their maturity and respect for those to whom they are presenting themselves.
Do not blame Levi Strauss for the misuse of Levi's. When the Gold Rush began, Strauss moved to San Francisco planning to sell strong fabric for the 49ers' tents and wagon covers. Eventually, however, he made tough pants, reinforced by copper rivets, for the tough men who knelt on the muddy, stony banks of Northern California creeks, panning for gold. Today it is silly for Americans whose closest approximation of physical labor consists of loading their bags of clubs into golf carts to go around in public dressed for driving steers up the Chisholm Trail to the railhead in Abilene.
This is not complicated. For men, sartorial good taste can be reduced to one rule: If Fred Astaire would not have worn it, don't wear it. For women, substitute Grace Kelly. (Emphasis mine)
Edmund Burke -- what he would have thought of the denimization of America can be inferred from his lament that the French Revolution assaulted "the decent drapery of life"; it is a straight line from the fall of the Bastille to the rise of denim -- said: "To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely." Ours would be much more so if supposed grown-ups would heed St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, and St. Barack's inaugural sermon to the Americans, by putting away childish things, starting with denim.
(A confession: The author owns one pair of jeans. Wore them once. Had to. Such was the dress code for former senator Jack Danforth's 70th birthday party, where Jerry Jeff Walker sang his classic "Up Against the Wall, Redneck Mother." Music for a jeans-wearing crowd.)
Laugh?? Cry?? Burst Out in Hysterics??? YOU Decide......
Kos gets heated up over Healthcare Plan
Benedict Baucus? Craptacular? Wow, that is creative, KOS
Daily Kos: MSNBC.COM Reports (Leaks?) Craptacular Baucus 'Plan'
KOS goes on to write:
Grassroots Fury?? You mean Nutroots Narcissism??? Really, KOS, Big Pharma? Big Insurance? The left always needs its' whipping boys, doesn't it??
Daily Kos: MSNBC.COM Reports (Leaks?) Craptacular Baucus 'Plan'
WASHINGTON - After weeks of secretive talks, a bipartisan group in the Senate edged closer Monday to a health care compromise that omits a requirement for businesses to offer coverage to their workers and lacks a government insurance option that President Barack Obama favors, according to numerous officials.
Like bills drafted by Democrats, the proposal under discussion by six members on the Senate Finance Committee would bar insurance companies from denying coverage to any applicant. Nor could insurers charge higher premiums on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.
But it jettisons other core Democratic provisions in a reach for bipartisanship on an issue that has so far produced little.
KOS goes on to write:
I suspect this is a leak, because if Baucus were to release this plan and then go into recess, he would reap the whirlwind of grassroots fury that he so well deserves. My thought was that Baucus would wait until after the break to release such a plan -- the better for Big Pharma and Big Insurance to rip apart the public option that is in the body of the other three proposed reform plans on the floors of Congress during the summer recess. That way, Baucus' phony 'white knight' 'plan' could then appear on the scene that would be accepted by everyone willing to accept anything as 'health care reform.'
But not to demand businesses cover their employees? I can't imagine even the Blue Dogs would go for that, would they?
Whatever the case, the best thing that could happen is to leak this turd now so we can fight it. Huzzah to the leaker of this piece of rancid cheese.
Maybe they'll save health care this way.
Grassroots Fury?? You mean Nutroots Narcissism??? Really, KOS, Big Pharma? Big Insurance? The left always needs its' whipping boys, doesn't it??
Do I have to write something on this?????
Facebook: I Support Cambridge Police Sgt James Crowley
OK, so since I now have a blog, and since I do happen to live in Massachusetts, I guess I need to comment on the James Crowley situation....
I guess since, even when Governor Patrick is sportin' an approval rating around 40% , Charlie Baker is still running third in a three-way race, people will try to make political hay out of anything they can. No surprise.
The president has already apologized for his, umm, less-than-well-though-out, OK, stupid, comments.
People use incidents like this to thump their chests saying "I support the Police", "I support the Police" all the time. I support them as well. I think that people might be losing a little bit of perspective, however, in a time of 10% unemployment and $1 Trillion annual federal deficits. Maybe we could ALL walk this back a couple of steps.
I saw a sign posted to a bridge driving in to work Monday Morning that said some less-than flattering things about the President, Governor Patrick, and Professor Gates. Has this really struck that much of a nerve? Or are people getting a little nervous about their party's overall approval ratings?
Just a question.
OK, so since I now have a blog, and since I do happen to live in Massachusetts, I guess I need to comment on the James Crowley situation....
I guess since, even when Governor Patrick is sportin' an approval rating around 40% , Charlie Baker is still running third in a three-way race, people will try to make political hay out of anything they can. No surprise.
The president has already apologized for his, umm, less-than-well-though-out, OK, stupid, comments.
People use incidents like this to thump their chests saying "I support the Police", "I support the Police" all the time. I support them as well. I think that people might be losing a little bit of perspective, however, in a time of 10% unemployment and $1 Trillion annual federal deficits. Maybe we could ALL walk this back a couple of steps.
I saw a sign posted to a bridge driving in to work Monday Morning that said some less-than flattering things about the President, Governor Patrick, and Professor Gates. Has this really struck that much of a nerve? Or are people getting a little nervous about their party's overall approval ratings?
Just a question.
Paul Krugman attacks Blue Dogs
I guess this is what one should expect from a lavishly paid liberal editorialist from the New York Times...
Op-Ed Columnist - An Incoherent Truth - NYTimes.com
Krugman's basic points here are the following:
1. Some of the Blue Dogs voted for the Bush Tax Cut, therefore they have no right to talk about fiscal responsiblility.
2. Employers would drop coverage without the employer mandate.
3. We're all just corporate tools, defending special interests.
Now, let's put aside Krugman's hostility towards corporations, and by inference, capitalism, for a moment. How does Krugman explain how so many people in this country have health insurance now, WITHOUT an employer mandate? If he reaches his second conclusion because of the costs of this plan, then that just reinforces the objections to this bill, doesn't it????
Op-Ed Columnist - An Incoherent Truth - NYTimes.com
Krugman's basic points here are the following:
1. Some of the Blue Dogs voted for the Bush Tax Cut, therefore they have no right to talk about fiscal responsiblility.
2. Employers would drop coverage without the employer mandate.
3. We're all just corporate tools, defending special interests.
Now, let's put aside Krugman's hostility towards corporations, and by inference, capitalism, for a moment. How does Krugman explain how so many people in this country have health insurance now, WITHOUT an employer mandate? If he reaches his second conclusion because of the costs of this plan, then that just reinforces the objections to this bill, doesn't it????
July 26, 2009
Bush may haunt GOP for decades
One example of the many demographic hurdles facing the GOP in the years to come.
Seriously, with the damage that Trickle Down Supply Side has done to our economy, is it any wonder?
FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: demographics
Seriously, with the damage that Trickle Down Supply Side has done to our economy, is it any wonder?
FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: demographics
Globe poll shows Patrick’s approval rating falling - The Boston Globe
Globe poll shows Patrick’s approval rating falling - The Boston Globe
This is of absolutely no surprise.... Cahill could very well win a three-way race....I wonder if there are enough moderate / conservative Dems in a state like Massachusetts to elect someone like Cahill.
Cahill is clearly the best candidate in this field.....No contest.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/07/26/globe_poll_shows_patricks_approval_rating_falling/
Governor Deval Patrick, fresh off signing a major tax increase and still battling through a historic budget crisis, has seen a huge drop in his standing among Massachusetts voters and faces a tough road to a second term, according to a new Boston Globe poll.
The survey, taken 16 months before the election, shows that the public has lost faith in Patrick’s ability to handle the state’s fiscal problems or bring reform to Beacon Hill, as he had promised. He is either losing or running neck-and-neck in matchups with prospective rivals, according to the poll, conducted for the Globe by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center.
Patrick’s favorability rating has dropped sharply over the past seven months, with just 36 percent of respondents holding a favorable opinion of him, and 52 percent viewing him unfavorably. As recently as December, 64 percent of voters viewed him favorably.
The governor’s job-approval rating, sampled after Patrick scored several major legislative victories but also approved $1 billion in new taxes, is even worse, with just 35 percent of respondents approving and 56 per cent disapproving of his performance. Just as ominously, 61 percent said the state is on the wrong track, compared with 31 percent who said it was headed in the right direction, down from 44 percent in December - numbers reminiscent of voters’ mood before Patrick captured the corner office from Republicans in 2006.
Even the state Legislature, traditionally held in low esteem by the public, won higher marks when voters were asked whom they trust more to manage the state budget crisis and faltering economy. Forty percent said they put more faith in state lawmakers to handle fiscal issues, compared with 23 percent for Patrick.
“These numbers indicate that Patrick is in a very difficult position regarding his reelection,’’ said Andrew E. Smith, director of the survey center. “Voters do not think he is up to the task of dealing with the state’s fiscal problems, and he has lost his mantle as a reformer.’’
This is of absolutely no surprise.... Cahill could very well win a three-way race....I wonder if there are enough moderate / conservative Dems in a state like Massachusetts to elect someone like Cahill.
Cahill is clearly the best candidate in this field.....No contest.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/07/26/globe_poll_shows_patricks_approval_rating_falling/
Governor Deval Patrick, fresh off signing a major tax increase and still battling through a historic budget crisis, has seen a huge drop in his standing among Massachusetts voters and faces a tough road to a second term, according to a new Boston Globe poll.
The survey, taken 16 months before the election, shows that the public has lost faith in Patrick’s ability to handle the state’s fiscal problems or bring reform to Beacon Hill, as he had promised. He is either losing or running neck-and-neck in matchups with prospective rivals, according to the poll, conducted for the Globe by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center.
Patrick’s favorability rating has dropped sharply over the past seven months, with just 36 percent of respondents holding a favorable opinion of him, and 52 percent viewing him unfavorably. As recently as December, 64 percent of voters viewed him favorably.
The governor’s job-approval rating, sampled after Patrick scored several major legislative victories but also approved $1 billion in new taxes, is even worse, with just 35 percent of respondents approving and 56 per cent disapproving of his performance. Just as ominously, 61 percent said the state is on the wrong track, compared with 31 percent who said it was headed in the right direction, down from 44 percent in December - numbers reminiscent of voters’ mood before Patrick captured the corner office from Republicans in 2006.
Even the state Legislature, traditionally held in low esteem by the public, won higher marks when voters were asked whom they trust more to manage the state budget crisis and faltering economy. Forty percent said they put more faith in state lawmakers to handle fiscal issues, compared with 23 percent for Patrick.
“These numbers indicate that Patrick is in a very difficult position regarding his reelection,’’ said Andrew E. Smith, director of the survey center. “Voters do not think he is up to the task of dealing with the state’s fiscal problems, and he has lost his mantle as a reformer.’’
Palin resigns, her future unclear
Uuuuh, Sarah Palin's future is PRETTY clear to me -- that is, she has none
Palin resigns, her future unclear - More politics- msnbc.com
Palin resigns, her future unclear - More politics- msnbc.com
Mitt Romney is a Null Skull
Mittens, dude, You are NOT God's Gift to Everything.
Get over it.
Hasn't Mitt Romney said, in the past, that he is a "Full-spectrum" conservative??? You know, economic, social (uuuuhh, he used to be pro-abortion), and foreign policy.
I've never seen someone so full of himself for so little reason.
Mitt Romney Null Set and Non-Sequitur
Get over it.
Hasn't Mitt Romney said, in the past, that he is a "Full-spectrum" conservative??? You know, economic, social (uuuuhh, he used to be pro-abortion), and foreign policy.
I've never seen someone so full of himself for so little reason.
Mitt Romney Null Set and Non-Sequitur
Boxer in Trouble in California
Fiorina would be a great improvement over Boxer....
Democratic incumbent Barbara Boxer leads former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina in an early look at California’s 2010 race for the U.S. Senate.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that Boxer attracts 45% of the statewide vote while Fiorina, her best-known possible Republican challenger, earns 41%. Seven percent (7%) say they’d vote for some other candidate, and seven percent (7%) are undecided.
In March, Boxer led Fiorina by nine, 47% to 38%.
Any incumbent who polls below 50% early in a campaign is considered potentially vulnerable. However, a Democrat running in a heavily Democratic state like California is often able to overcome weak poll numbers.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? Sign up now. If it's in the news, it's in our polls.) Rasmussen Reports updates also available on Twitter.
Twenty-one percent (21%) of voters statewide have a Very Favorable opinion of Boxer. That’s down six points since March. Thirty-six percent (36%) have a very unfavorable view of the incumbent, who has been in the Senate since 1993.
Fiorina is far less well known. Just seven percent (7%) have a Very Favorable opinion of her, and 12% hold a Very Unfavorable view.
Only five percent (5%) of California voters rate the economy as good or excellent. Sixty-four percent (64%) say it’s in poor shape. Twenty-eight percent (28%) say things are getting better while 45% say they are getting worse. Nationwide, just 25% believe that the economic stimulus package passed earlier this year has helped the economy.
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of California voters approve of the way President Obama is doing his job. Nationally, the president’s ratings have fallen a bit in recent weeks.
Thirty-eight percent (38%) approve of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's job performance. However, only five percent (5%) Strongly Approve.
Democratic incumbent Barbara Boxer leads former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina in an early look at California’s 2010 race for the U.S. Senate.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that Boxer attracts 45% of the statewide vote while Fiorina, her best-known possible Republican challenger, earns 41%. Seven percent (7%) say they’d vote for some other candidate, and seven percent (7%) are undecided.
In March, Boxer led Fiorina by nine, 47% to 38%.
Any incumbent who polls below 50% early in a campaign is considered potentially vulnerable. However, a Democrat running in a heavily Democratic state like California is often able to overcome weak poll numbers.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? Sign up now. If it's in the news, it's in our polls.) Rasmussen Reports updates also available on Twitter.
Twenty-one percent (21%) of voters statewide have a Very Favorable opinion of Boxer. That’s down six points since March. Thirty-six percent (36%) have a very unfavorable view of the incumbent, who has been in the Senate since 1993.
Fiorina is far less well known. Just seven percent (7%) have a Very Favorable opinion of her, and 12% hold a Very Unfavorable view.
Only five percent (5%) of California voters rate the economy as good or excellent. Sixty-four percent (64%) say it’s in poor shape. Twenty-eight percent (28%) say things are getting better while 45% say they are getting worse. Nationwide, just 25% believe that the economic stimulus package passed earlier this year has helped the economy.
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of California voters approve of the way President Obama is doing his job. Nationally, the president’s ratings have fallen a bit in recent weeks.
Thirty-eight percent (38%) approve of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's job performance. However, only five percent (5%) Strongly Approve.
Yeah, Right, this is what Hillary said back in the '90's.
No, no, A thousand times no!!
Why can't the liberals understand that socialized medicine is a losing proposition?
WASHINGTON (CNN) – The top House Democrat says she is standing by her support for a public health insurance option as part of a broader overhaul of the nation’s health care sector.
“No, no, no, no,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in an interview that aired Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union when asked whether she had softened her position on the public option.
“The president has said he believes the public option is a way — a way to keep the private insurance companies honest. But he said if you could find another way to do this, show it to me.”
Pelosi also rejected the idea of using a trigger to kick in a public option three to five years after passage of any health care reform bill.
“I think the private insurance industry has had a long enough time to have a trigger. We know what happens left to their own devices,” the California Democrat said.
“This is about having an alternative to give much more leverage to the individual. And the president has said if you like the insurance — insurance that you have, you like your doctor, you can keep it,” Pelosi also said.
Insurance industry has had a 'long enough time,' Pelosi says
Why can't the liberals understand that socialized medicine is a losing proposition?
WASHINGTON (CNN) – The top House Democrat says she is standing by her support for a public health insurance option as part of a broader overhaul of the nation’s health care sector.
“No, no, no, no,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in an interview that aired Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union when asked whether she had softened her position on the public option.
“The president has said he believes the public option is a way — a way to keep the private insurance companies honest. But he said if you could find another way to do this, show it to me.”
Pelosi also rejected the idea of using a trigger to kick in a public option three to five years after passage of any health care reform bill.
“I think the private insurance industry has had a long enough time to have a trigger. We know what happens left to their own devices,” the California Democrat said.
“This is about having an alternative to give much more leverage to the individual. And the president has said if you like the insurance — insurance that you have, you like your doctor, you can keep it,” Pelosi also said.
Insurance industry has had a 'long enough time,' Pelosi says
Basic Housekeeping
What is a Blue Dog????
Good Question. In general, a Blue Dog is a Democrat that strays from the Democratic Party’s liberal orthodoxy on most, or at least several, issues.
I have seen the Blue Dogs kind of splinter in recent years into two camps. The first camp is what I’ll call the populist camp. The tend to come from the Midwest and Appalachia, and are to the left on economic issues -- anti free-trade, pro-union, etc. The second camp is I guess of a more traditional conservatives, tending to favor business, free trade, deficit reduction, etc. The tend to come from the so-called Red States, mainly the South and the Rocky Mountain States. I happen to be of the latter camp.
Most Blue Dogs are probably of the former camp. Recently, Blue Dogs have been key in implementing PAYGO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO and in blocking the Employee Free Choice Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act and President Obama's Healthcare Reform proposals.
In the current Congress, we seem to be exerting more and more influence.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/07/22/healthcare/index.html?source=rss
Good Question. In general, a Blue Dog is a Democrat that strays from the Democratic Party’s liberal orthodoxy on most, or at least several, issues.
I have seen the Blue Dogs kind of splinter in recent years into two camps. The first camp is what I’ll call the populist camp. The tend to come from the Midwest and Appalachia, and are to the left on economic issues -- anti free-trade, pro-union, etc. The second camp is I guess of a more traditional conservatives, tending to favor business, free trade, deficit reduction, etc. The tend to come from the so-called Red States, mainly the South and the Rocky Mountain States. I happen to be of the latter camp.
Most Blue Dogs are probably of the former camp. Recently, Blue Dogs have been key in implementing PAYGO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO and in blocking the Employee Free Choice Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act and President Obama's Healthcare Reform proposals.
In the current Congress, we seem to be exerting more and more influence.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/07/22/healthcare/index.html?source=rss
First Post
All over the place in Cyberspace, I see Liberal Bloggers setting forth the Left-wing orthodoxy for the Democratic Party. Kos, MYdd, you name it. Of course you also see alot of Republican, Conservative, and Libertarian bloggers. What I don't see that often is a moderate or conservative Democrat blogging. The aim of this blog is to give a voice, however small, to Blue Dog, moderate, and conservative Dems. I am looking forward to the opportunity, and hope to dedicate adequate time and effort.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
