7/30: The Blue Dogs Get A Bone

Liberal bloggers weren't too upset about the concessions made by House Energy & Commerce Committee Chair Henry Waxman (D-CA) in order to strike a deal with four Blue Dog Dems on the committee. Jonathan Cohn analyzed the deal and concluded that "most of the bill's core elements seem to be intact, including the public insurance option." That said, the netroots are still disgusted that the Blue Dogs succeeded in delaying a vote until after August. Joe Sudbay fumed: "The Blue Dogs consider this a great victory. Of course, the biggest beneficiaries are House Republicans and the insurance industry who wanted a delay." Indeed, conservative bloggers believe that the August recess will provide them with a great opportunity to pressure wavering Dems into voting against the bill. Ed Morrissey writes: "Now the House will return to their constituents and hear an earful from all sides of the health-care debate [...] When Congress reconvenes, expect the moderates to have even more pull -- and for the split between Democratic leadership and its rank-and-file to widen."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Yglesias, Benen, Sudbay) are pleased that Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) "suggested a secret-ballot vote every two years on whether or not to strip committee chairmen of their gavels" -- which they viewed as a warning to Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-MT).
• Liberal bloggers (Blue Texan, Lewison) are blasting Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) for declaring that his co-op plan "is the only one that has the prospect of getting 60 votes" in the Senate. Liberal bloggers (Klein, Eskow) do not consider Conrad's co-op plan an adequate substitute for a public health insurance option.
• Liberal bloggers (Kleefeld, Lewison, Benen) are criticizing Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) for saying: "What I don't know is why the president can't produce a birth certificate. I don't know anybody else that can't produce one, and I think that's a legitimate question."
• Conservative blogger Matt Lewis slammed Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) after she announced that she would resign her seat this fall in order to challenge TX Gov. Rick Perry (R). Meanwhile, righty blogger Moe Lane hopes that Perry appoints RR Commis. chair Michael Williams (R) as Hutchison's replacement.
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Erickson, Hinderaker, McCarthy) are buzzing about a Washington Times article reporting that a senior DoJ attorney "was consulted and ultimately approved a decision in May to reverse course and drop a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party of intimidating voters in Philadelphia during November's election."

HEALTH CARE REFORM: Delay, Delay, Delay

Liberal bloggers weren't too upset about the concessions made by Waxman in order to strike a deal with four Blue Dog Dems on his committee:

• The New Republic's Cohn: "Waxman has now pried away four Blue Dogs, enough -- apparently -- to get the bill through his committee. And he did so with what appear to be pretty small substantive concessions, like a slight reduction in subsidies and a modest reduction in the program's overall size. Most of the bill's core elements seem to be intact, including the public insurance option."
• The Washington Post's Ezra Klein: "[T]he real concession was timing: The Blue Dogs didn't want to vote before the August recess if the Senate wasn't going to vote before the August recess. They won on that point. But that's really the substance of the deal: They won't have to take a hard vote before they know what the Senate will do. But the bill they'll have to vote on is pretty much the same as it was a week ago."

That said, lefty bloggers are still disgusted by the Blue Dogs' behavior:

• AMERICAblog's Sudbay: "The Blue Dogs consider this a great victory. Of course, the biggest beneficiaries are House Republicans and the insurance industry who wanted a delay."
• The Reality-Based Community's Jonathan Zasloff: "What is interesting is what the Blue Dogs wanted. Recall that the supposed entire reason for being of this caucus is 'fiscal conservatism.' So it might surprise you to learn that the Blue Dogs' chief demand was increasing the public option reimbursement rates to health care providers, otherwise known as doctors and hospitals. Increasing reimbursement rates? Doesn't that mean, you know, spending more money? Well...er...yes. This once again demonstrates that the Blue Dog position is pretty incoherent. But have no fear: the Blue Dogs had a solution to this undermining of the supposed central tenet of their philosophy: reduce the subsidies for families making between 300-400% of the official poverty line. [...] In other words, in order to pay hospitals and doctors more, the Blue Dogs decided to take money away from middle-class families."

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are pleased that the Blue Dogs succeeded in delaying a vote on the legislation until after August:

• Hot Air's Morrissey: "Now the House will return to their constituents and hear an earful from all sides of the health-care debate, but the ground has shifted considerably in the meantime. The popularity of ObamaCare has plummeted as the costs have become more known, and so have Obama's polling numbers. Moderates will face more conservative constituents, but even more traditionally liberal districts are going to look at hundred of billions of dollars in increased deficits with some skepticism. When Congress reconvenes, expect the moderates to have even more pull -- and for the split between Democratic leadership and its rank-and-file to widen."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "This means that members will have time to study the legislation before voting. And because they will be hearing from their constituents during the August recess, some members may actually take advantage of their study time."

HEALTH CARE REFORM II: Stop Taking Progressives For Granted!

Liberal bloggers were pleased when progressive House Dems rebelled against Waxman's compromise with the Blue Dogs and forced him to postpone the committee mark-up:

• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "I'm cautiously optimistic. Look, we always knew that if there was any hope for a public plan whatsoever, it would come from progressives in the House. [...] It appears they're doing it. For now anyway. [...] Keep calling. This is the first time anything even close to this has happened, and the calls you make letting progressive members of Congress know what you expect is making it possible."
• Sudbay: "I've had the sense that White House negotiators have long believed their biggest (only) hurdle was the Blue Dogs and the Baucus/Conrad roadblock. They've taken for granted the wishes of the real progressives, who actually support Obama's agenda. But, the progressives are letting it be known they won't be taken for granted. This is what we want from progressives -- a spine."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "In 2009, this has been the template for how legislative fights end in the House of Representatives. Blue Dogs hammering out the final details with [Speaker] Nancy Pelosi and the relevant committee chair, the rest of the Democratic caucus swallows whatever is served up, and the place of the Blue Dogs as overlords is cemented even further. This time, however, progressives appear ready to force the House down a different path."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "I think the general sense is that this uproar is out of proportion to the relatively modest amount that was conceded on substance. But the fight is about more than the specifics of the fight; it’s about the fact that liberal Democrats feel powerless within their own caucus relative to the Blue Dogs even though they badly outnumber Blue Dogs. To gain leverage, you need to show some ability to throw fits, to hang together, to threaten to derail things, and to demand some courting and hand-holding."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Crisis In Israel

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg:

"One of the chief complaints leveled against the Palestinian Authority in the years of the Oslo process was that it did not, or would not, control the people who lived under its rule. The Palestinian government had no monopoly on violence, in other words; anyone with a gun had power. This was a legitimate complaint. It went to the seriousness of the Palestinian regime, and to its competence.

Well, the government of Israel today is facing a similar crisis. The building of new 'illegal' outposts by West Bank settlers -- building accompanied by racist slurs directed at Israel's main benefactor, the President of the United States -- is a direct challenge to the legitimacy of Israel's democratically-elected government. If these outposts are allowed to stand, it will mean that the government of Israel is incapable of enforcing its own laws, or unwilling to do so. Israel and the United States demanded of the Palestinian Authority that it jail those who defied Palestinian law and threatened the Palestinian national cause. Israel should treat these settlers in the same manner. They are criminals who undermining the sovereignty of the Jewish state. If they are not stopped, then we might as well face the harsh truth, that the settlers are in open revolt against the government of the State of Israel, and that their fanaticism may destroy the 2,000-year-old dream of Jewish independence."

LEST WE FORGET: When Science Meets Religion

From Overheard in New York:

Guy: I'd like the two-for-one sundae deal.
Employee, agitated: It's not two-for-one!
Guy: It's not?
Employee: It's "buy one, get one free"!