Get To Know Kansas Progressive Democrat Jim Thompson A Little Better-- The Reddit AMA

Earlier this week Kansas Berniecrat James Thompson, the progressive candidate running for the Wichita-based congressional seat (KS-04) did an Ask Me Anything on the Sanders For President reddit page. If you were unable to participate, the archive is available at the link just above. Thompson has been endorsed by Blue America and we enthusiastically vouch for his character and his positions. He's our kind of candidate. Here are some of the questions and responses that I hope will help you get a better understanding of who James Thompson is and why he deserves your support.

Q: In a state that historically votes Republican, what do you plan on doing differently as a democrat to capture some of the moderate vote or even some of the Republican vote?

JT: We only had 60 days during the special election to get out to 16 and a half counties-- talking to people and hearing their concerns is the key. This time, we have 15 more months to go out and listen. I believe that people will follow their convictions and choose me over my opponent if they're just given the chance to meet me. With all the success we had in just two months in our April election, imagine what we're going to do with a full election cycle!... I'm going to get out to the whole district more, talk to as many folks as possible, and help build infrastructure across the district. Specifically, we're working to register voters and continue the progress we made in Sedgwick County, and building out across the district. We believe this will help up and down the ballot. We're identifying and supporting local candidates. We're doing weekly training with volunteers working with these local campaigns... I know a lot of Republicans who respected Bernie Sanders because they always knew where he stood in regard to the general public. I will also never waver in my fight for the people of Kansas. While we may not always see eye to eye, people from all parties respect me because they know I care about them and the issues impacting their lives. That's something that's important regardless of party. In the end, people want leaders who are real."

Q: 5 months ago in an AMA, you wrote: "I like the idea of single payer, I don't see it getting accomplished in our current political environment. The main goal is to make sure that everyone gets covered, and we have to keep pushing towards that goal in whatever steps we can take to get there." I have some follow ups and want to know your current opinion of Medicare For All.

1- Most importantly, would you co-sign HR 676 if elected?
2- What steps do you think we should take to get to universal coverage?
3- Shouldn't the main goal instead be to get everyone healthcare without a financial burden, not just "covered"? Many people are "covered" by the ACA but have such high premiums and deductibles that they are too discouraged by costs to go to the doctor. Also, medical debt is the #1 cause by far of personal bankruptcy.

JT: 1- I would absolutely be a co-signer for HR 676 because that's where I want us to go, eventually. Rep. Conyers' bill has a lot of good pieces to it. However, I think that this bill as it stands now faces a hard uphill battle to pass in the current political environment.
2- I plan to push for a Medicare public option, similar to what was in the original Affordable Care Act before it was removed in the Senate. If you want to learn more about where I stand on healthcare, please check out our healthcare town hall coming up on this Sunday, August 20th. We'll be livestreaming the Q&A from 4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. CST on our Facebook and Twitter pages!
3- There's always going to be a financial burden for healthcare. The goal is to make it affordable for everyone; so yes, I agree with you. This public option will decrease costs for everyone because the program will also have the power to negotiate medical costs and drug costs. There will be some, namely the very poor, who would be unable to pay for coverage with a premium. The public option will have a large enough risk pool, however, that we can cover the unemployed and very poor.

NOBODY should ever be forced into bankruptcy because of a medical crisis. We have a moral obligation to ensure that everyone in our country receives healthcare.

Q: What was the most surprising and/or difficult thing you learned about running for office? What advice do you have for anyone who might be thinking about running for office, especially if they might not have institutional support?

JT: Great question. The most surprising thing? Some of our worst enemies are within our own party. That was pretty disappointing, and the most difficult thing to come to terms with. But that's OK. You just have to build up your campaign, your vision and your movement on your own terms. My advice? Be true to yourself, no matter what. Stay authentic. Don't talk at people, listen to them and discuss issues. If you want to help on a grassroots level, that's amazing, because that's exactly what we're going to need: click here.

Q:: As a civil rights lawyer, what's your take on tearing down the confederate statues?

JT: As a civil rights lawyer, and as a human being, I believe they should be taken off of public lands. I believe they belong in a museum, and not in places of honor like public squares or schools. They should serve as reminders of a history we need to remember but not memorialize.



Q: You ran in the special election, and for that race, you were considered the sign that midwest progressivism was a real thing.

What have you learned, other than you need to get more people in rural areas?

JT: We learned many important lessons, the need for rural outreach being central among them. We also learned that there's not a great deal of difference between what urban and rural voters want. We all want a good job to support ourselves and their families, a good education for our kids, and affordable healthcare.

Most importantly, though, is that people respond to authenticity. I never said anything on the trail that I didn't believe and refused to hedge on my convictions. Voters can smell bullshit from a mile away. More Democrats need to stand up for their progressive beliefs and stop running away from them!

Q: What are your foreign policy views? Specifically, in what circumstances would you advocate military intervention?

Thanks for doing this!

JT: I believe we should always seek diplomatic solutions before using force. If diplomacy fails, we should seek to create multinational alliances as we did during the first Gulf War. Unilateral actions should only be used when American lives or land is at stake. I believe in the Powell Doctrine that says if you use force, you should use overwhelming force.

Q: Stand up for progressive values (like Bernie) and you might win. If you try to be "conservative lite," you don't deserve to win.

JT: I agree! We can't pretend to be Republicans running under a different banner anymore. It's time for us to stand up and make our voices heard and run as proud progressives.

Q: What policies would you support to strengthen the union movement; i.e. increase union membership and make it easier to form/join a union, etc. Also, what do you think of a federal jobs program, similar to the WPA, that would be devoted to the transition to green energy.

JT: The best thing we can do is ensure if employees have an election petition, that they hold that election within a short timeframe, say 21 days. If you give longer than 21 days, companies often wage a misinformation campaign. During the Bush administration, many stretched out campaigns over years. If we're to be a democracy, we need to honor the right to organize. We need to give teeth back to the NLRA. It's been watered down continually since the Wagner Act, making it harder and harder to organize. Right now, the NLRB is rolling back more and more rules that help workers make their voice heard in the workplace. W/r/t a federal green jobs program, I think the idea is good in theory, but I'd be curious to see legislation dedicated to this before proceeding. Green energy is an economic engine in Kansas, and it's the right thing to do, so of course I like that idea.

Q: Should there be a "litmus test" on abortion for Democrat candidates?

JT: I am a pro-woman candidate and I support our Constitution and the Democratic platform, which are both pro-choice. I believe we should be seeking other pro-woman candidates whenever we can find them. I trust women to make decisions about their own healthcare. I also support a woman's right to accessible and affordable birth control. In the end, being pro-woman is not solely about access to abortion. We need to close the wage gap, make health care affordable, ensure families have access to affordable and excellent childcare, encourage our school girls to be involved in the hard sciences and mathematics... among other things. This is just a start. Women's rights are human rights and none of us make progress until we on equal footing. As far as a "litmus test," I will leave that up to voters to decide.

Q: Hey James-- I live in Olathe (KS for you non-Kansans, which isn't in his district). Thanks for doing this AMA.

How do you see the race between Democrats shaping up in your area? I know Lawrence would have a lot of further left supporters, but I'm not as familiar with Wichita. But outside that, it seems like you'd be trying to attract more center left rural Dems, who maybe wouldn't have supported Bernie.

What's your take on how segmented Dems are between center and further left, and what your approach is to attracting each group?

Edit: Another follow-up question-- I think we're familiar with the type of talking points you're running on, but if you're elected, what are the things you'll work on where you expect to actually get something done in a currently GOP-dominated Congress?

JT: Great questions. I believe progressive values are much more prevalent in rural areas than many people believe. Rather than try to shift my positions with the various political winds out there, I give my opinion on what I believe to be right. People respond to authenticity and honesty and want their elected representatives to listen, even if they disagree. I think Bernie winning the Democratic caucus, and then our special election showed that the Democrats as a collective group respond to the progressive platform. I do believe there is some segmentation in the party but that people will hopefully come together for the greater good. It often plays itself out in a Hillary vs Bernie model, which is counterproductive. 2016 is over and we need to move on together.

When I am elected, I will go to Washington to get things accomplished regardless of who holds the majority. That means looking for common ground. For example, infrastructure is a great area where both sides can come together and accomplish great things for the good of this country. Kansas is in desperate need of infrastrure repair and improvements, especially in the rural areas and green energy. This will create good jobs with fair wages. I also see opportunity in Agriculture with the upcoming farm bill to provide certainty for our producers. Education is also ripe for reform to better fund our schools and protect our teachers. Finally, healthcare is an area where I think we can make improvements and get somethings accomplished to reduce the burden on Americans, particularly in regards to closing loopholes in the ACA that cause hardship on poor people in states like Kansas because of the Republicans refusal to expand Medicaid.

If you happen to be in Wichita on Sunday... James' campaign is hosting a healthcare town hall tomorrow to hear from the people of Kansas about their concerns and ideas for America's healthcare system. It's planned for 4pm at Aero Plains Brewing, 117 N Handley St in Wichita. If you can't make it and want to support Jim's campaign, please consider clicking on the Blue America ActBlue thermometer just above and contributing what you can. Just because the DCCC persists on writing off huge swathes of America, it doesn't mean progressives have to.

Conservatives Are Not Finished Trying To Prevent Working Families From Getting Affordable Health Care

House Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi and Steve Israel came close to rending their garments after the Republicans' 52nd vote to wreck the Affordable Care Act this morning. Pelosi boldly proclaimed that Republicans "are wasting their time using that as their electoral issue" and attacked them for wasting time. "We shouldn't be wasting time on this foolishness and recklessness," she told journalists. "The Republicans' fixation with destroying the health security of millions of Americans through their efforts to destroy the Affordable Care Act imperil the permanent doc fix, and that must stop." And she had Hoyer whip the caucus against allowing anyone to cross the aisle and vote with the GOP. Normally they encourage endangered Democrats in red-leaning districts to do just that. However, their efforts failed-- giving the anti-healthcare forces a 238-181 victory-- and a full dozen Democrats, all of them Blue Dogs and New Dems, skipped over to the Republican side to join in the 52nd effort to, in Pelosi's words, "destroy the health security of millions of Americans." The culprits are the usual suspects:

• Ron Barber (Blue Dog-AZ)- R+3
• John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA)- R+9
• Ami Bera (New Dem-CA)- Even
• Joe Garcia (New Dem-FL)- R+1
• Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)- R+16
• Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC)- R+12
• Patrick Murphy (New Dem-FL)- R+3
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)- D+2
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- R+6
• Nick Rahall (Blue Dog-WV)- R+14
• Brad Schneider (New Dem-IL)- D+8
• Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ)- R+1

The Senate won't take the bill up and, like the 51 other bills the Republican and their Blue Dog/New Dem allies passed to kill Obamacare, will never be heard from again. Unless, as is somewhat likely, the Republicans hold onto the House-- thanks, Steve Israel-- and win a majority in the Senate-- thanks, Guy Cecil/Michael Bennet. Then they'll pass the bills all over again in both houses and Obama will veto them, setting up a 2016 election cycle based on how Hilary's poll-driven teams decides the issue will play in the voting booth.

The otherwise pointless bill they passed today, according to the CBO, would delay the individual mandate by five years, which translates to 43 million uninsured people in 2018, It would increase the premiums for people with individual plans by something like 20%. And, worse yet, there's a hostage: a big one. The Republicans and their Blue Dog and New Dem allies tied the mandate delay to the annual must-pass "doc fix" for doctors participating in Medicare. Doctors are furious:

A bipartisan deal in Congress to spare doctors from recurring Medicare pay cuts was in jeopardy on Thursday, as Republicans ignored protests from physicians and moved forward with legislation that would use the so-called "doc fix" to undermine Obamacare.

Hundreds of thousands of doctors who participate in traditional Medicare face a 24 percent pay cut on April 1, as part of a 1990s initiative to restrain federal spending on the government healthcare program, which today serves nearly 50 million elderly and disabled people.

Doctors thought they would see a permanent fix this year after Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives and Senate agreed on a policy to replace the payment formula, known as the sustainable growth rate or SGR, according to lobbyists, congressional aides and analysts.

But efforts to seal the deal broke down over how to fund its $138 billion cost over the next decade, and the doc fix appeared to be in danger of political oblivion as Republicans in the House and Senate pursued legislation that would pay for a solution with money from President Barack Obama's signature healthcare reform law.

The sudden partisan character of the doc fix debate brought an unusual public rebuke from the American Medical Association, one of the most powerful lobby groups, representing 225,000 physicians.

"I am writing to profess our profound disappointment that a strong bipartisan, bicameral effort to repeal the Medicare sustainable growth rate has become a victim of partisan approaches," Dr. James Madara, AMA's chief executive, said in a Thursday letter to House Speaker John Boehner and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi.

"We renew our call for all parties to engage in good faith, bipartisan efforts to address the budgetary implications of this bill and enact it. We stand ready to work with you in this endeavor."

Other physician groups also expressed their displeasure over the partisan turn.

"It's a sad state of affairs," said Dr. Thomas Barber, a lobbyist for the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, which represents 16,000 physicians.

"To see something that was supported by both parties get shanghaied into the partisan politics of the day is very frustrating," he said.

…Behind-the-scenes efforts to reach a deal on money quickly ran aground, with Republicans demanding that the money come from entitlement reforms to Medicare and the Medicaid healthcare program for the poor, and Democrats pushing for hypothetical savings from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The AMA, which has led more than 600 other physician groups in a lobbying effort to secure a permanent doc fix, says it is still hoping for a permanent solution this year. Analysts say some doctor groups are pressing lawmakers to agree to a shorter patch of only a months to sustain the opportunity for dialogue.

The AMA says there have been 16 temporary SGR patches so far, costing taxpayers $154 billion. Securing an agreement on the doc fix is one of the association's highest priorities.

Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN), co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, were livid after yesterday's vote. They issued this statement on behalf of their members: "House Republicans have proven once again that they can’t be trusted when it comes to Medicare. Instead of taking this opportunity to pass a bipartisan agreement that finally fixes Medicare physician payments, Republicans decided to attack the Affordable Care Act and leave seniors wondering if this problem will ever be solved. Republicans need to bring a bill to the floor that doesn’t repeal health reform or force people with Medicare to pick up the tab. A proposal that shifts costs onto seniors would not be a real solution and may actually prevent them from getting care they need, which doesn’t serve physicians or patients. The Congressional Progressive Caucus looks forward to voting on a serious, bipartisan proposal. We insist on a solution that does not shift costs onto seniors. We want fair pay for doctors and fair rates for patients."

AMA Endorses Public Option, Blue Dogs Endorse GOP and Corporate CEOs (PLUS: Why we need reform -- a harrowing story)

Yesterday the dependably conservative AMA came out in favor of the House compromise on health care reform. It doesn't include single payer but the robust public option it does include seems like the best deal working families can expect from a political system as corrupted by corporate money as ours is. In a letter to Charlie Rangel, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the AMA's Michael Maves pledged to work with the House leadership to help build support for the bill with the public. (Presumably that would mean combatting Republican and Blue Dog efforts to diminish the 70-80% support for the public option already showing up in all polling on the subject.) Maves letter:

Dear Chairman Rangel,

On behalf of the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association, I am writing to express our appreciation and support for H.R. 3200, the “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.” This legislation includes a broad range of provisions that are key to effective, comprehensive health system reform. We urge members of the House Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means Committees to favorably report H.R. 3200 for consideration by the full House.

In particular, we are pleased that the bill:

• Promises to extend coverage to all Americans through health insurance market reforms;

• Provides consumers with a choice of plans through a health insurance exchange;

• Includes essential health insurance reforms such as eliminating coverage denials based on pre-existing conditions;

• Recognizes that fundamental Medicare reforms, including repeal of the sustainable growth rate formula, are essential to the success of broader health system reforms;

• Encourages chronic disease management and care coordination through additional funding for primary care services, without imposing offsetting payment reductions on specialty care;

• Addresses growing physician workforce concerns;

• Strengthens the Medicaid program;

• Requires individuals to have health insurance, and provides premium assistance to those who cannot afford it;

• Includes prevention and wellness initiatives designed to keep Americans healthy;

• Makes needed improvements to the Physician Quality Reporting Initiative that will enable greater participation by physicians; and

• Initiates significant payment and delivery reforms by encouraging participation in new models such as accountable care organizations and the patient-centered medical home.

The AMA looks forward to further constructive dialogue during the committee mark-up process. We pledge to work with the House committees and leadership to build support for passage of health reform legislation to expand access to high quality, affordable health care for all Americans.

This year, the AMA wants the debate in Washington to conclude with real, long overdue results that will improve the health of America’s patients.

President Obama seemed satisfied with the AMA response to the House bill and issued a brief, clear statement: "I am grateful that the doctors of the AMA have chosen to support health insurance reform that will lower costs, expand coverage, and assure choice and quality health care for all Americans. Along with the nation’s nurses, these doctors are joining the chorus of Americans who know that the time to reform what is broken about our health care system is now."

The Medical-Industrial Complex and the Insurance Industry will now attempt to counter this with a fake "bipartisan compromise" that will be presented by two of the Senate's worst corporate shills, Max Baucus (DLC-MT) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA). The fractured Blue Dog caucus in the House has been trying to get a consensus among its reactionary members to oppose health care reform but has been unable to persuade Blue Dogs from blue-leaning districts to go along with their malevolent intentions. Blue Dogs are afraid of Democrats. Yesterday reactionary Democrats struck hard-- joining with Republicans to sabotage working families' efforts to be able to organize unions. This isn't one any decent American should ever forget.

In Florida's Polk County it will be interesting to see if Democrats nominate a real Democrat, progressive Navy vet Doug Tudor, or a slimy corporate Blue Dog, Lori Edwards, to replace Adam Putnam, one of Florida's most anti-family elected representatives, who is retiring from Congress to run for State Agricultural Commissioner. We're asking progressives to consider donating to Doug's ActBlue page as a way of sending the DCCC a message that we want them to support Democrats, not gussied up Republicans calling themselves Democrats.


WHY DO WE NEED HEALTH CARE REFORM?
ASK OUR COLLEAGUE MARTIN BOSWORTH

As wise men from Aesop to Frank Lutz have known, people like stories. Spinmeister Lutz's road map for maintaining the health care status quo stressed the importance of personal stories -- you know, stories of how wicked socialist medicine has led to personal tragedies in commie-rat-infested countries that have dabbled in it.

Of course the real horror stories are those of people who have victimized or simply shut out of the American health care system -- or both. Many of you are probably familiar with our colleague Martin Bosworth, of Boztopia.com and many other venues, one of the clearer-headed and more knowledgeable folks we know. Yesterday Martin told a story that had us on the edge of our chair, about suddenly finding himself in the grip of --

a sudden, mysterious, and incredibly painful ailment that I thought was going to kill me. I ended up going to the hospital to get treatment after exhausting all other options, and am now on the hook for several thousand dollars’ worth of medical bills, because I had the bad luck to fall ill right in the void between insurance plans.

The story has a much happier ending than one dreaded. Martin is feeling much better now, thank you, even though the mysterious whatever-it-was was never diagnosed, and he's also getting various kinds of help on the financial front. And as he wrote in a note:

If nothing else, I feel like this whole experience is more fodder that people can use to make the push for the public option happen. If we get that, or even if we get some form of real reform that doesn't end up as a shitty insurance company bailout, it'll be worth it.

If your nerves are up to it, I encourage you to read Martin's spine-tingling account of the week he's just been through and happily survived, "Why We Need Health Care Reform: My Story." It will have special resonance for anyone who has ever faced a no-kidding immediate-emergency medical crisis without health insurance. In my case, what I remember best is that, terrifying as the medical fears were, there wasn't a moment in the entire ordeal when my first terror wasn't: how the hell am I going to pay for this?

#

Gigantic Overrides Of Bush's Medicare Veto In The House And Senate-- Republicans Flee Bush Agenda In Droves

Even Republicans aren't buying this crap anymore

Republicans hate government programs that help working people; that way they can use all our tax money to bail out millionaire campaign contributors who run big corporations into the ground. So they cut and slash and do whatever they can to destroy programs that make difference in people's lives. McCain has made it perfectly clear, for example, that if he gets into the White House he will do what he can to finish off Social Security, a decades' long dream for the old guard greed and selfishness wing of the Republican Party. He will also continue Bush's work eviscerating the regulatory agencies, something which has worked out so poorly put that few Americans understand is an actual Republican goal.

A couple weeks ago they ran into a little big bump in the road to further crippling working people financially: in their last ditch effort to accelerate the weakening of Medicare before Bush leaves office, they wound up giving a core Republican constituency-- doctors-- a huge pay cut. Doctors have a powerful "union" and they don't whine; they took action-- spending a "whatever it takes" on radio ads in Republican districts. The Texas Medical Association actually unendorsed Senator John Cornyn, a huge move. And the result was preordained. Enough cowardly Republicans abandoned their "principles," their instincts, and their leaders, crossed the aisle and voted with the Democrats in both houses of Congress to present Bush with veto-proof majorities.

Needless to say, that didn't stop Bush from vetoing the bill. This afternoon both the Senate and the House overrode Bush's veto. Harry Reid: "Congress today did its part to make sure the President’s stubborn opposition to the millions of American seniors and veterans who rely on Medicare does not stand.  Refusing to respect the will of the American people or its elected representatives, the President vetoed a bipartisan bill passed overwhelmingly by both houses.  We wasted no time in reversing the President’s carelessness and protecting our nation’s doctors and the patients they treat-- and this responsible and overdue Medicare fix is now law."

In the House the override was a reflection of the contempt that even Republicans feel for the lamest lame duck in anyone's memory-- 383 against Bush and only 41 to sustain his veto. That 41 is especially interesting because it includes 22 frightened little Republicans who changed their vote since voting with Bush just a few days ago. Most of the flip-floppers are Republicans with big fat targets on their backs, representatives whose constituents have begun to wise up to their shenanigans. Examples of Republicans who had voted against Medicare last week and then voted against Bush this week are some of the most out of touch extremists in Congress, but each one facing a daunting challenge in November:

Scott Garrett (R-NJ)
Patrick McHenry (R-NC), who used to brag he would never compromise his right-wing "principles"
Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
John Shadegg (R-AZ)
John Culberson (R-TX)
Dan Lungren (D-CA)

So who stuck with Bush? 41 pathetic dead-enders: a handful of crazy extremists with believe they are immune to November accountability [Westmoreland (R-GA), Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Neugebauer (R-TX), Pence (R-IN), Barton (R-TX), Cantor (R-VA), Campbell (R-CA), King (R-IA)]; plus most of the party's ineffectual leadership [Blunt, Cole and Boehner; even Howdy Doody abandoned them]; and many of the ones who are retiring or on their way to prison or a presidential pardon [Renzi (R-AZ), Doolittle (R-CA), Weldon (R-FL), Tancredo (R-CO), Cannon (R-UT), McCrery (R-LA)]. That's what's left of Tom DeLay's once mighty Republican coalition that could respond to Democrats' demands that taxpayers get a break for buying fuel efficient vehicles by passing a law that gave tax breaks of over $20,000 to Americans who bought Hummers and other giant gas-guzzling SUVs.

Meanwhile, over on the Senate side, the 26 most right wing extremists were the only ones who had the nerve to stand up to the doctors threats-- most of whom aren't up for re-election. Chastened-- or scared for his political life, Cornyn voted to override a veto he completely agrees with-- what a wimp! At least the even more crazy, more out of touch and more extremist Inhofe stuck with Bush, probably figuring that no one in Oklahoma was paying attention. Oklahoma State Senator Andrew Rice was paying attention-- very close attention. Not only is he running against Inhofe, he is also one of the Oklahoma legislature's most respected voices when it comes to affordable medical care for seniors and veterans.

"Even as more of his Republican colleagues came around to support restoration of Medicare and Tricare reimbursements to physicians, Jim Inhofe refused to budge," Rice said. "That leaves him with George W. Bush and insurance companies, not with seniors, military families and the physicians who treat them... "In this case, where three votes occurred over just two weeks, it is hard for Oklahomans not to notice where Jim Inhofe chooses to stand. If Inhofe and Bush had prevailed, seniors and military families would have lost access to health care."

Also sticking with Bush to the bitter end were McConnell (R-KY), Sununu (R-NH), Thune (R-SD), Sessions (R-AL), Graham (R-SC), Barrasso (R-WY). I had to laugh as Roger Wicker (R-MS), who voted against the doctors last week, tripped over his own flat feet as he scurried across the aisle to vote with the Democrats to override. He had been especially targeted by the American Medical Association and recent polling shows that it is unlikely that he will be re-elected. Needless to say, the double-talking McCain skipped the vote and refused to stake out a public position.

AMERICA'S DOCTORS ARE PRESCRIBING VERY STRONG MEDICINE FOR THE GOP-- AND THEY DON'T WANT ANY OF IT

Health care professionals as an industry are huge campaign contributors. Since 1990 their PACs and lobbyists-- and individuals-- have showered politicians with $410,976,959. In the early 90's, the industry was given about equal amounts to Democrats and Republicans. But, like many Americans, they were seduced by Newt Gingrich's siren song in 1994 and the 50/50 pattern turned overwhelmingly in favor of Republicans. That last a dozen years and culminated in 2006 when Republicans reaped $33,770,168 (62%) and Democrats got $20,186,251 (37%). Several factors have made health care professionals start to seriously reassess their donations. So far in the current cycle, 54% of the contributions ($26,623,398) have gone to Democrats, the first time since 1992 that Democrats were given more than Republicans.

Perhaps you saw or heard some of the ads the powerful American Medical Association ran this past weekend threatening Republican senators who had voted to cut doctors' fees by over 10% when they serve elderly Medicare patients. Many Republicans did-- and they are angry... and scared. Yesterday's Hill pointed out that health care professionals have been abandoning Republicans and supporting Democrats, although the Hill has an odd slant: Docs Risking Ire of GOP on Medicare.

The risk is pretty one-sided at this point and the Republicans are up the proverbial creek without a paddle. "The immediate interests of the American Medical Association (AMA) and allied groups clearly lie with the Democrats, who control Congress and have been pushing legislation to undo a 10.6 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors that kicked in on July 1."

Senate Republicans have stood in their way. Though the House passed a Democratic bill to prevent the cuts by a whopping 355-59 vote, a cloture vote in the Senate failed by a single vote, with most Republicans voting against cloture.

That drew public condemnation from the AMA, backed up by a television and radio advertising campaign over the Independence Day recess. The broadcast spots called out individual Republican senators by name, including Sens. John Sununu (N.H.), Roger Wicker (Miss.) and Arlen Specter (Pa.), who all voted against cloture.

... When the Medicare bill failed by a single vote, though, the AMA and some of its allies let their “outrage” show and directed their invective squarely at the Republican Party.

In states like Texas, Mississippi and New Hampshire, medical societies took aim at their incumbent senators. The Texas Medical Association made headlines when it withdrew its endorsement of Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) in retaliation for his “no” vote. If Cornyn holds on to his seat, he’s not going to forget that his state’s doctors turned their backs on him.

From the physicians’ perspectives, they’re siding with themselves, not congressional Democrats.

Snarlin' Arlen, for one, squealed like a stuck pig. He clearly didn't like being singled out as the butt of an ad from such a prestigious group, one he has assiduously cultivated. Every Democrat voted for the doctors but the only Republicans to join them were the ones who are running scared in tight re-election campaigns and have suddenly decided to start voting like Democrats (perennial rubber stamps like Susan Collins, Norm Coleman, Gordon Smith, Pat Roberts, Elizabeth Dole, even Ted Stevens! Too stupid and pig-headed to even understand the jeopardy they face are nitwits like James Inhofe, Cornyn, Lindsey Graham, Miss McConnell, Sununu and Wicker.


UPDATE: LONELY NO MORE

Sometimes the Blue America bloggers have felt pretty lonely battling the atrocious and corrupt Blue Dogs on our own. Of course our pals at OpenLeft, Color of Change, The Seminal, Glenn, etc have bolstered our efforts and led the charge when we were out of breath. But today we hear that "a consortium of progressive groups, think tanks, trade unions and activists are set to launch a $40 million health care campaign to prepare the ground for the next president to sign expanded care early in 2009." And part of that preparation is defanging Blue Dogs. "We'll have an organizer in the district of every Blue Dog Democrat," said HCAN campaign manager Richard Kirsch of the conservative Democrats, some of whom have opposed more expansive health care reform. "The focus of the campaign," he added, "is on national legislation. "This year, however, it is also a referendum: do you support quality, affordable, health care for all, or an alliance with the private insurance industry?"