A question about the Blue Cross Dems: How badly do they really want to be re-elected?

[backscatter712]

I started wondering after reading this on FiveThirtyEight.com:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/07/dear-mr-blue-dog.html

Health care reform is incredibly popular right now. Even among Republicans, and even in a lot of red districts. Many of the Blue Dogs are from constituencies that have a lot of poor people, who do want reform.

So why do they continue to oppose reform?

Is it merely because of brain-damaged ideology?

Or is it because they think they can buy themselves their re-elections with the campaign cash from the insurance companies? It didn't work so well in '94, did it. Didn't work so well with the Republicans either - they had all the corporate money, and the corporate media was at some points, a 24/7 GOP infomercial. They still lost.

So why is it that they still oppose this, even though opposing something as popular as health care reform presents a clear and present danger to their political survival?

Or do they really want to survive?

Some clearly want to be reelected and will do anything to get it. There's ego on the line, some politicians clearly do fear the humiliation and crushed egos that go with an election defeat.

But at the same time, what happens to these politicians if they don't get re-elected? They're all set - they become lobbyists and consultants! They end up walking the same floors they did when they were elected officials, schmoozing with their former colleagues, only this time, they're doing the lobbying instead of being lobbied, and they don't have to worry about being in front of the TV cameras all the time. All while collecting millions of dollars of salaries and bonuses.

Not so bad is it?

So here's the question: How many of the Blue Dogs (and other politicians, especially Republicans) have cut a deal with the lobbyists to "take a dive in the fifth round," fucking their constituents for lobbyist interests, letting themselves get thrown out, so they can take those cushy lobbyist and consultant positions?

[madaboutharry]

1. I like you calling them "Blue Cross Dems"

That's a good name for them. :)

[backscatter712]

3. That's their new name!

As long as they continue to stand in the way of health care reform, they will wear this name!

[thunder rising]

2. "Blue Tick" Dems didn't take off ... Blue Cross Dems it is!!!

[Indydem]

4. You assume that every American shares your opinion.

Not every American believes that health care reform starts at a public option, and polls show they certainly don't think it starts with single payer.

A lot of people want "reform" starting with lowering costs by making it harder to sue and easier to get insurance.

They are wrong, and the only solution for true inexpensive and equal health care is with single payer, but I don't think we are going to get it.

[backscatter712]

5. Not every American, but a lot of them do.

Read the 538.com article - some of these Blue Cross Dems are from constituences where health care reform is popular - they're bucking their own constituents.

And like I said, look what happened in '94, when health care reform fell apart and the Democrats got their asses whooped in the election by the Gingrinch revolution.

It's not every state - there are some where the Limbaughtomized are howling about "socialized medicine" but at the same time, they're not the majority in a lot of the Blue Cross Dem constituencies.

[moondust]

6. Implicit threats.

1. The health/insurance industry will provide overwhelming support (i.e. install) to their opponents in the next election.

2. The health/insurance industry will not welcome them to the lobbyist army when they lose their jobs in Congress.


The implicit threats alone may be enough to convince them to back the status quo, especially those in reddish districts with tepid support.