Blue me

A few months ago Rahm Emanuel notoriously threatened with exile to political Siberia any Democrat who dared to vote against Obama’s request for money to fight the Afghanistan war. Given the ensuing gift of the Nobel Peace Prize, dissident Democrats could have argued that they were ahead of Obama on this point. [Artwork: John Pritchett]

In any case, it will be interesting to see how the White House responds to the gross display of disloyalty by 39 House ‘Blue Dog’ Democrats on health insurance reform, given that it was THE key vote of the Obama presidency so far. Will the Rahm-boys retaliate or call for ‘turning the page’ and ‘looking toward the future’?

Two of the 39 voted ‘No’ because the bill wasn’t tough enough, including the Nader-esque Dennis Kucinich, but all the rest fit into the Blue Dog category. A bunch of them are southerners (3 each from North Carolina and Tennessee), but some are from purplish districts that conceivably could respond to a pro-change stance. Larry Kissell’s Fayetteville-based district even went for Obama.

The blogosphere is abuzz with outrage and threats to go after these DINOs (Democrats in Name Only), and given the historic importance of this vote, that seems like a good idea, to a point. However, some cold-blooded strategic thinking is also in order. As we saw in the upstate New York debacle led by Sarah Palin and her glassy-eyed troops, a primary challenge can feel great, especially if you win. But it can also be a self-indulgent distraction.

I’d like to see someone with a sober grasp of the Washington game lay out which of the three dozen congressional districts are ripe for a solid challenge from a pro-reform candidate both within the Democratic camp and among the general voting public. That is, where can the furious defenders of health reform channel their energies into replacing the Blue Dog with a truer and more faithful representative of that district’s residents?

There are solid arguments for not letting this issue go away. One North Carolina blogger put it this way:

‘For [the Blue Dog congressmen], a vote against reform was really a vote against people they see and hear from every day. We know they were contacted again and again by people and families all over their districts who can’t afford coverage or have family members who have died or become gravely ill because they couldn’t afford coverage’.

That discussion could and should continue especially if people in those districts find their conditions improving under the new law even though their own elected representatives chickened out. An unrelenting focus on that underlying issue would be a good way to make these opportunist elements pay a price.

Otherwise, I fear we will see a raft of fund-raising pitches for all sorts of worthy, well-meaning knights on shiny steeds who are indignant that certain politicians acted in their narrow self-interest. It’s an outrage, I completely agree. . . and?