A bit of analysis

Congressional Republicans are banking on a strategy of slowing down the process in implementing health care reform - reform that includes a public insurance option favored by more than 70 percent of the nation in three recent polls - as a way to regain political momentum and politically damage President Obama. They've offered no plan, are stalling on key committees and are gearing up to blast the proposed reforms using deliberately misleading language during the upcoming recess.

Blue Dog Democrats, like former Athens-Clarke County Commissioner and current 12th Congressional District Rep. John Barrow, are willingly supporting this strategy under the guise of fiscal responsibility. The actual reason, of course, is the fear of political reprecussions in their moderate to conservative districts (particularly since the Congressional Budget Office has repeatedly scored their proposals as the more costly alternative).

Both of these strategies, however, are misguided. While there is a legitimate political rationale for the Republican line of attack, the hesitancy of the Blue Dogs is rather puzzling for one simple reason ... it's 2009, not 1994.

Despite the drama surrounding the ongoing health care debate, it's a virtual certainty the House of Representatives will pass a comprehensive reform package that features some element of the public option. Given that there are 55 votes in the Senate for a public option, two of the three committees charged with addressing the problem have included said public option in their approved plans and that, in order for the bill to fail, it would require five Democrats to side with Republicans in filibustering a popular Democratic president, it's evident something is going to happen here.

Now, consider that the House will approve a plan featuring a public option and that Democrats have 55 votes for a public option in the Senate ... then those five senators, coupled with a big, ole heap of Republican obstructionism, will be the only thing standing in the way of much-needed reform.

Blue Dogs are looking over their shoulders, fearful of the wrath of the voters. They don't realize, however, that by standing in the way of what is, by and large, a popular reform proposal, they're proving to be obstructionists themselves ... and that's something that Democratic primary voters will take very seriously. While a more progressive candidate may not be able to win a general election in those districts, they surely can compete with a conservative Democrat in a primary.

As evidenced with Sen. Arlen Specter, primary challenges work.

And if the Blue Dogs' ultimate goal is political preservation, that's something they ought to keep in mind.