Subject: [big campaign] Huff Post from Creamer-Difference between Tea Party Extremists and R Leaders
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:47:31 EDT
List-Id: <bigcampaign.googlegroups.com>

What’s the Difference Between Mainstream Republican Leaders and Tea Party  
Extremists? 

What’s the  difference between mainstream Republican leaders and the Tea 
Party extremists  that have been winning Republican primaries across the 
country?   
The main  difference is the willingness of the Tea Party gang to say what 
they believe out  loud.  This, of course, is driving  Republican political 
consultants crazy.  Republicans have never gotten elected by laying out to the 
voters the  core components of their economic agenda.  When they have been 
successful it has generally been by soft-pedaling or  sugar-coating the 
things that mattered most to their corporate backers and  playing instead to the 
fears and anxieties of their rank and file voters.  
During his campaign  for re-election in 2004, George Bush never uttered a 
word about his plan to  privatize Social Security, cut guaranteed benefits 
and replace this massively  popular retirement system with a risky investment 
scheme that allowed Wall  Street to get its hands on the Social Security 
trust fund.   But that was exactly his major  policy initiative once he was 
re-elected. 
In the 2000  election, Bush didn’t focus his campaign on his plan to slash 
the portion of  taxes paid by the wealthiest two percent of Americans and 
preside over a massive  transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich. 
And he certainly didn’t  explain the policy of pre-emptive war that resulted 
in the trillion dollar  foreign policy disaster in Iraq.  
Nor, of course, did  Bush campaign on the pledge that he would take the 
long-term surplus in the  federal budget he inherited from Clinton and turn it 
into more debt, during his  term, than all of the Presidents before him in 
American history put together.  
This  year, the Republican establishment is not worried about the primary 
victories of  Tea Party candidates because they will advocate “far out” 
extremists  policies.  Most of the Republican  Party leadership agrees with 
those policies.  The problem is that these candidates  don’t seem to have enough 
sense – or political experience -- to know that  they’re not supposed to 
go around talking about those policies before they’re  elected.  
Take Ken Buck, the winner of the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in  
Colorado.  He has made it crystal clear that he  simply does not believe in 
Social Security.  In fact he said that Social Security is  “horrible policy.”  
According to Politico, Buck told a right-wing audience last spring that ”I 
don’t  know that the federal government should be involved in a retirement 
plan,"  adding that the very idea of social insurance is "fundamentally 
against what I  believe." 
Now the actual content of this position is not really at variance with  
true Republican orthodoxy.  The  Republican Party opposed Social Security when 
it was founded seventy-five years  ago, and fundamentally Republicans have 
never supported the notion the  Government should be running a pension 
program. They believe in what President  Bush referred to as the “ownership 
society.”  Basically that means that the “private  market” should take care of 
things, and that if you’re not tough enough or smart  enough to make it by 
yourself, you’re “on your own, buddy.”  
When it comes to  Social Security, Republicans have been trying to 
privatize it and cut back  benefits for three quarters of a century.   
This year, they are particularly keen on taking action to cut back what  
they call this “entitlement” because they don’t want the wealthy to have to 
take  a hit when it comes to closing the long-term structural deficit that 
they  created with their massive Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and two costly 
wars.  
Republicans  would much rather cut the pensions of middle class retirees –  
to whom Social Security pays the princely  average of $14,000 per year -- 
than they would see tax rates for the rich go  back to where they were during 
boom years of the Clinton Administration. That’s  because the Bush tax cuts 
for the rich saved each of the tiny number of  taxpayers making over 
$1,000,000 per year over $100,000 per year in taxes. For  the truly wealthy “
masters of the universe” on Wall Street we’re talking  millions of dollars. 
Who can blame them?  I’m sure  most voters would agree that it’s more 
important to save millions for the guys  who sunk the economy and still make $10 
million dollar bonuses – rather than  protect the income of $14,000 per 
year retirees.  Actually, maybe not.  And that’s exactly why most seasoned  
Republican candidates keep their mouths shut about such things – but not the 
Tea  Party gang.   
Then there is Nevada Senate candidate Sharon Angle’s support for the  
proposition that Medicare should be abolished and replaced with vouchers for  
private insurance.  No worry that  virtually every Medicare beneficiary you 
talk to loves the program -- and that  almost everyone over 55 years old can’t 
wait to qualify so that they no longer  have to take their chances with 
ravenous private insurance companies.   
Of course, like  Social Security, Republicans have opposed Medicare from 
its very inception as  well.  In 1996, Bill Clinton ran  commercials of an 
iconic speech by his opponent Bob Dole bragging about how “he  was there, 
fighting against Medicare.”  And there was Newt Gingrich’s famous pledge that 
Medicare should “wither  on the vine.”   That makes it  doubly absurd that 
Republicans campaigned against health care reform by  repeating over and over 
the false claim that it would “cut Medicare.”  But truthfulness has never 
been endemic  to the Republican approach to political debate.  
In fairness there are some major, establishment Republican leaders who  
believe that they should actually argue the merits of their totally unpopular  
positions on issue like Social Security, Medicare and tax cuts for the  
rich.  Congressman Paul Ryan, who  would be Chairman of the House Budget 
Committee if the Republicans were to take  back control of the House, has published 
a detailed “Roadmap” on how he would  privatize Social Security and 
abolish Medicare and replace it with vouchers for  private insurance.   Much of  
that “roadmap” was actually included in the Republican budget alternative 
that  Ryan convinced the Republicans to support last year.  Now that vote has 
begun to come back to  haunt some of the Members who would just as soon keep 
their economic views  safely in the closet before the voters cast their 
ballots.  
Over the next 90 days many Republicans may rue the day that they took  that 
vote – or were seduced into believing that they could safely take the  
covers off their true views on Social Security, Medicare and tax breaks for the  
rich.  
The problem is  that many of those swing districts that they would so 
dearly like to win this  fall have lots of senior voters.  They had been counting 
on scaring those voters into supporting Republican  candidates with visions 
of “death panels” and lies about health reform-induced  cuts in Medicare.  
Many of those  seniors don’t like “government spending” – but by that 
they are definitely not  referring to their Social Security or Medicare.  They 
view both as social insurance – as  programs they have paid into throughout 
their working lives in expectation that  they would be entitled to the 
advertised benefits – the same way they would  under any insurance plan.   In  
focus groups the moment you tell these voters that Republicans support  
privatizing Social Security or replacing Medicare with vouchers for private  
insurance, Republican support plummets.  
The public soundly rejected President Bush’s attempt to privatize Social  
Security in 2005.  You’d think that  the experience of the stock market 
meltdown where millions of people saw their  life’s savings go up in smoke would 
be enough to convince even the most orthodox  right-winger that it’s a 
terrible idea to tie Social Security to the ups and  downs of the stock market. 
But economic reality doesn’t seem to break through  the Repubican’s 
ideological and self-interest blinders. 
Major Progressive organizations have launched a new coalition to press  
Members of Congress to defend Social Security and Medicare, and the issue has  
vaulted to the top of the issue agenda for Democratic candidates across the  
country.  Democratic House Members  conducted over 100 events to 
commemorate the 75th Anniversary of  Social Security over the last weekend – and to 
pledge their opposition to  privatizing Social Security or cutting its 
benefits.  That includes commitments not to raise  the retirement age – an idea 
that is just terrific for guys who fly around in  corporate jets, but doesn’t 
go over so well if you happen to haul bricks on  construction sites or flip 
mattresses in hotel rooms for a living.  
Americans United  for Change – which was first organized to run the 
successful campaign to defeat  Bush’s 2005 attempt to privatize Social Security – 
has launched a major new  initiative to stop the “Republican sneak attack on 
Social Security and  Medicare.”  
The Republicans  have a lot to worry about when it comes to these issues.  
Polls show that if the voters are  talking about Social Security and 
Medicare on November 2nd,  Republican fortunes will drop like a rock.  In fact, 
these two issues are like kryptonite to Republican chances.  That’s why you’ll 
see mainstream  Republicans scramble like mad to downplay their true 
intentions – and change the  subject over the weeks ahead. Republican Leader John 
Boehner – who completely  supports Ryan’s “Road Map” -- made the mistake 
several weeks ago of blurting out  that he supported raising the Social 
Security retirement age to 70.  Since then he has ducked and weaved when  it 
comes to Social Security. 
But the issue won’t go away, and the Republican record is clear.  Tea Party 
extremists who haven’t learned  yet to moderate their language – and 
earnest true believers like Paul Ryan who  think they can convince America that 
what’s bad for them is good for them – have  complicated the Republican 
problem.  But the real problem is that  Republicans don’t believe in Social 
Security and Medicare – and if the spotlight  shines long enough on those 
subjects, their true colors will ultimately show  through.  It’s up to us to make 
sure  that it’s not just a spotlight but a laser. 
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=1206567141&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.