Subject: [big campaign] New Huff Post from Creamer-Republicans-Vote Against Health Care- Make My Day
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:01:43 EST
List-Id: <bigcampaign.googlegroups.com>

Memo to Republicans: Want to Vote Against Health Care  Reform? -- Go Ahead, 
Make My Day  

Over the last several weeks various pundits – and Republican talkers –  
have fanned out across the airwaves to proclaim that Democrats face grave  
political danger this fall if they are so bold as to pass health care reform in 
 the face of united Republican opposition. 
For Congressional Democrats, the source of this advice should be enough  to 
make it completely suspect. And in fact, history shows that just the 
opposite  is true – and many Republicans know it.   
Republicans do not win  when Democrats are successful at making fundamental 
progressive change.  They win when they stop Democrats from  making 
fundamental progressive change. 
As a progressive Democrat, I would be thrilled if every Republican votes  
against a health care reform bill that passes Congress and is signed into law 
by  the President, since history shows they will pay a steep price for 
their united  opposition to progressive change. 
All you need to do is look at the last century of American politics.  When 
has the modern Democratic Party  been most successful?  When it  delivered 
on fundamental progressive change. 
After Roosevelt delivered Social Security, the right of unions  to 
organize, the regulation of Wall Street through the SEC, the reorganization  of the 
banking system and FDIC, public works programs, and by massively  increasing 
the share of taxes paid by the very rich, Democrats maintained huge  
margins in Congress and the Presidency for two decades.  They also lay the 
foundation for the  most robust period of economic growth in the history of 
humanity.  
When President Johnson and the Democratic Congress passed Medicare and  
Medicaid, the Civil Rights Act and the War on Poverty – and later the 
Democratic  Congress created the EPA -- Democrats had majorities in the House for 
three and  a half decades that outlasted the conservative Reagan revolution of 
the 1980s by  14 years.  
It wasn’t until 1994 – largely because of the failure of Congress to pass  
the Clinton  health care reform plan – that Republicans gained control of 
the House.  
Why do Democrats do so well when they make fundamental progressive  change? 
 Because those policies  benefit the vast majority of the voters rather 
than the tiny super-wealthy  minority – the top 2% of the population – that 
are the chief beneficiaries of  Republican status quo economic policies. 
Ask any senior, or person with a disability, how they feel about Medicare  
and Social Security – policies that were passed by Democrats and opposed 
tooth  and nail by Republicans. Even some Tea Party activists carry around 
signs that  read: “Hands Off My Medicare.”  Ask  most everyday Americans how 
they feel about child labor laws, or the minimum  wage, or the Food and Drug 
Administration that protects consumers from unsafe  food and medicines.  Ask 
any  consumer how she feels about the Federal Trade Commission, or federal 
laws that  protect us from unsafe products.  Ask anyone who breathes how they 
feel about laws that cleaned up our air  and water.   
Ask virtually anyone in America how they feel about public  education – or 
a woman’s right to vote. 
All of these fundamental changes in American society were fought by the  
conservatives of the time, and once passed they all came to define the high  
political ground. 
Americans are not disgusted with Washington today because of the bold  
initiatives it is considering.  They  are disgusted, in considerable measure, 
because it appears gridlocked and unable  to deal with the problems 
confronting the nation, and their stagnant standard of  living.  They are tired of  
politicians who see politics as a “gotcha” game instead of a way to deal with 
 the problems and opportunities that confront their families. They hate the 
idea  that their political leaders are in bed with Wall Street, the oil 
companies and  the insurance giants – that campaign contributors have more sway 
than the  voters.   
They want decisive action to make  fundamental change every bit as much as 
they did when they elected Barack Obama  a little over a year ago.   
When Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) said last year that Republicans could make  
the defeat of health care reform “Obama’s Waterloo,” he understood that it 
was great  politics for Republicans to prevent fundamental reform, not the  
opposite. 
If, once it is passed and signed  into law, the Republicans want to 
campaign to repeal health care reform I say,  go ahead, make my day. 
As a Democrat, I love our odds if we can campaign against Republicans who  
voted against allowing ordinary Americans to have the right to buy the same 
kind  of health care that is available to Members of Congress.   
Something like:  “Republican Congressman Mark Kirk is happy  to let the 
government pay for his health care, but Congressman Kirk voted  against 
requiring that ordinary Americans be eligible to buy the same  health insurance as 
Members of Congress. 
Congressman Kirk may enjoy being an important Member of Congress,  but when 
it comes to his health care, he should be no better than the rest of  us.” 
When Congressman Roy Blunt runs for the Senate in Missouri this fall, I  can
’t wait to see ads like: 
“When it came to health insurance  reform, Congressman Roy Blunt knew which 
side he was  on. 
Blunt voted against reining  in the power of health insurance companies to 
raise rates – by thirty nine …  fifty… even sixty percent.   
He voted to oppose preventing insurance companies from denying coverage  
because of pre-existing conditions. 
He opposed requiring that insurance  companies spend at least 80% of our 
premiums on medical care instead of CEO  salaries, lobbyists, exploding 
profits, and  armies of bureaucrats that do nothing but  deny claims. 
In  fact, Congressman Blunt stood up for the insurance companies every time 
he had a  chance.  Isn’t it time we had  someone who stands up for us?” 
The pundits who are blathering on that passing the health care bill is  bad 
politics for Democrats either don’t know what they’re talking about, or 
are  running a deliberate misinformation campaign to persuade swing Democrats 
to vote  no.   
Democrats are already subject to whatever down side they will get for  
voting for health care reform.  That  isn’t going to change.  But if they  pass 
the bill they will get a big up side for actually delivering  change. 
And Democrats in Congress can’t be confused that the voters will “punish”  
them for “jamming the bill through” or other procedural issues.  First, it 
is impossible to “jam the bill  through” with a majority vote.  That’s 
what we do in a democracy – a majority rules.  We believe in up or down votes.  
 
But just as important, no one ever votes based on “procedural” issues –  
or even remembers them.  Who knows  or cares what procedures were used to 
pass Medicare or Social Security.  What people care about is the impact  
policies have on their lives – not procedural bickering.  
One of the  reasons the public support for “health care reform” in general 
has dropped is  the focus of news stories on the procedural “sausage making”
 of Congress.  The voters still strongly support the  components of reform, 
and those are the questions that will be issues in the  upcoming election.  
The fact is that when Democrats act boldly to pass fundamental  progressive 
change, we win.  That’s  why changing the Senate filibuster rule is 
fundamentally good for  Progressives.  Some say, “Oh wait  until the Republicans 
are in the majority, then you’ll wish you had a filibuster  to stop their 
policies.”  The  problem is that we are the party of change, and they are the 
party  of the status quo.  We win when we  have the ability to make 
fundamental change.  They win by stopping us. In addition, it turns out that when we 
actually make change,  we don’t lose our majorities. 
Sunday’s New York Times ran a  story about Obama Senior Adviser David 
Axelrod.  It was part of a continuing analysis by  the media attempting to place “
blame” on various members of the Obama inner  circle for the difficulty of 
creating fundamental change.   
In general, I find these stories irritating for two reasons.  First, they 
ignore the real reason why  it has taken longer than hoped to pass health 
care reform, climate change  legislation, financial reform and immigration 
reform: real change is hard to do.  When you take on the wealthiest vested  
interests in America they don’t just give up. They  pressure members of 
Congress, they lie to the public -- they do everything in  their power to stop 
reform dead in its tracks. 
Second, these critiques generally rely on the opinions of a pundit  
chattering class in Washington that has never run a political or  issue campaign, 
much less made fundamental change. These pundits are rarely held  responsible 
when their predictions or analysis turns out to be completely  off-base.  
And often they behave  like the little schools of fish you see in the shallow 
waters at the seashore:  the entire school turns on a dime – first going 
this way, then another – all as  a group.  Like the little fish, that  kind of 
“schooling” mentality may help them protect them within the safety of  the 
pack – but it does nothing to promote accurate analysis or political  
insight.  
David Axelrod is one of the most  accomplished political and message 
strategists of our era.  Along with David Plouffe, he crafted the  best-run 
presidential campaign in American history. He happens to also be  dedicated to 
fundamental progressive change. 
Axelrod doesn’t always get it right, any more than anyone who is actually  
in the arena trying to make change happen.  But I’d trust our success at 
making that change – the strategy for making  that change – to David Axelrod 
any time compared to virtually any of his  critics.  
The political problem facing Democrats in the Mid-term elections has  
nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of leadership from people like David  
Axelrod.  It has everything to do with actually  delivering change.  
In the next two weeks, Democrats  in Congress must come together and pass 
health care  reform. 
Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and  strategist, and 
author of the recent book:  “Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win,” 
available on _Amazon.com._ 
(http://www.amazon.com/Listen-Your-Mother-Straight-Progressives/dp/0979585295/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213241439&sr=8-
1)  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "big campaign" group.

To post to this group, send to [email-masked]

To unsubscribe, send email to [email-masked]

E-mail [email-masked] with questions or concerns
 
This is a list of individuals. It is not affiliated with any group or organization.