Censored Whig Letters

OPINION

OCTOBER 28, 2009, 10:37 P.M. ET

Tuesday’s Elections and the Democratic Agenda

Losses in New Jersey or Virginia could spook Congress.

By KARL ROVE

Democratic enthusiasm for President Barack Obama’s liberal domestic agenda—particularly for a government-run health insurance program—could wane after the results of the gubernatorial elections next Tuesday in Virginia and New Jersey. GOP victories in either state will tell Democrats in red states and districts that support for Obama’s policies is risky to their political health.

The more significant is the open race for governor in Virginia, a purple state. The Washington Post poll released Monday showed 55% support for Republican Attorney General Bob McDonnell and 44% for Democratic State Senator Creigh Deeds. The president is trying to reverse these numbers by stumping the state for Mr. Deeds.

Mr. McDonnell has relentlessly focused on the economy, transportation and education. Mr. Deeds tried to make the race about abortion and his opponent’s supposed animus toward working women. But Mr. McDonnell understood that anti-Obama, anti-Washington sentiment was not enough to win and bent the contest back to jobs, roads and schools. He also has a good ground game to turn out the vote, which the GOP hasn’t done for too many years in Virginia.

Former Attorney General and Republican gubernatorial candidate, Bob McDonnell, left, and Democratic gubernatorial candidate and Virginia State Sen. Creigh Deeds, right.

If Republicans also win the races for lieutenant governor and attorney general by five points or more, it will strengthen the case of those predicting a GOP “wave” in 2010.

Also watch the races for the 100-member Virginia House of Delegates. Republicans are hoping to add four seats to the 53 they now have. The bigger the GOP gains, the larger the warning for Democrats nationally.

Reaction against Mr. Obama and his policies plays a smaller role in the New Jersey governor’s race. There, voters are principally concerned with whether they should keep incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine.

In 59 public surveys since January, Mr. Corzine has been at or above 42% just six times, normally a terminal condition for an incumbent. But Mr. Corzine opted out of New Jersey’s campaign finance system, spending at least $24 million so far to Republican Chris Christie’s $9 million.

About Karl Rove

Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy making process.

Before Karl became known as “The Architect” of President Bush’s 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.

Karl writes a weekly op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is now writing a book to be published by Simon Schuster. Email the author at Karl@Rove.com or visit him on the web at Rove.com.

Or, you can send him a Tweet@karlrove.

Neither major party candidate in New Jersey has offered a compelling or comprehensive agenda. At times the independent candidate, Chris Daggett, has appeared the only contender with an agenda to rein in property taxes. But the GOP is arguing there is too much corruption, too many taxes, and too few jobs under Mr. Corzine. It may be working: In one of America’s bluest states the race is too close to call. If Mr. Christie pulls out a win, it would badly shake Democratic confidence.

The Republican Governor’s Association has played what could be a decisive role in both states, spending $13 million on early and extensive TV blitzes. In Virginia, the association tattooed Mr. Deeds as a tax raiser and slippery liberal. In New Jersey, they cut Mr. Daggett’s support in half by arguing a vote for him is a vote for Mr. Corzine.

Two other elections on Tuesday’s ballot have national implications: the New York Congressional District 23 special election and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court race. The special election in New York’s nominally Republican district 23 was brought about when the White House lured an otherwise unbeatable GOP Congressman, John McHugh, into giving up his seat to become Secretary of the Army.

The contest shows the danger of smoke-filled backrooms in the age of tea parties and town-hall angst. New York law says each party’s 11 county chairmen in the district pick their candidate. The local GOP chieftains settled on Dede Scozzafava, a five-term liberal Republican state assemblywoman. This led one of the disappointed nomination seekers, accountant Doug Hoffman, to mount a red meat campaign for the seat on the Conservative Party line.

With the GOP vote split, the lackluster Democrat standard-bearer, Bill Owens, is likely to win. If that happens, the combined vote of Ms. Scozzafava and Mr. Hoffman will signal what a GOP candidate chosen in a primary could get in the 2010 general election. House Republican leaders could help unite the party by saying now, before the election, that Mr. Hoffman is welcome to caucus with the GOP if he wins.

Finally, the Republican-endorsed candidate for Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court, Judge Joan Orie Melvin, is mounting a strong effort against Democrat Jack Panella, despite a $1 million ad blitz targeting her that’s bankrolled by Philadelphia trial lawyers. A GOP victory would indicate trouble for Democrats in a state Mr. Obama carried by 10 points.

A year ago, Democrats crowed that Mr. Obama had reshaped the political landscape to their advantage. Voters have lived under Democratic rule for nine months, and many of them, especially independents, don’t like what they’re seeing.

Tuesday’s election will provide the most tangible evidence so far of how strong a backlash is building—and just how frightened centrist Democrats should be of 2010. For Republicans, it looks as if hope and change are on the way.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

—————————————–
EDITOR’S NOTE: Article published in the Wall Street Journal. Although not exactly labor-friendly, the Wall Street Journal is certainly worth buying and reading. We now know how important it is to get ourselves, our friends and our families to the polls. Please share this information as widely as possible.

It is looking like we need to reduce the number of Senators it takes to end a filibuster from 60 to 55 to stop this obstructionism from the Right and our own corporate Democrats.

These corporate Democrats are a tiny minority in the Democratic Party and represent essentially almost no Democratic voters. We would be better off as a nation and as a political party if they were marginalized. If they want to sell-out American consumers and workers, they should not be calling themselves Democrats in the process. They are betraying what Democrats are all about…. betraying our deeply held core principles for campaign cash from health insurance corporations.

Any Democratic Senator who fails to support closure on healthcare reform should be stripped of any committee or sub-committee chairmanships they might hold as a result.

FREE: Movie Night! Presents SICKO

Join us for a free screening of Michael Moore’s award winning documentary on Health Insurance in America.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 6:30pm at Perryville Public Library.

Brought to you by Cecil County Young Democrats. http://www.Cecilyoungdems.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 20, 2009

CONTACT:

Sue Walitsky 202-320-0819

CARDIN, DEMOCRATIC SENATORS URGE SWIFT PASSAGE OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS EXTENSION

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD), along with 13 fellow Democratic Senators today called on Senate Republicans to stop playing politics and immediately help pass legislation that will provide relief to jobless workers by extending unemployment insurance for the nearly 2 million Americans who will exhaust their benefits by the end of the year. The pending bill would extend unemployment insurance by up to 14 additional weeks for jobless workers in all states and up to 20 weeks in hard-hit states with unemployment levels at or above 8.5 percent. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this extension would be fully offset. Every $1 spent on unemployment benefits has been found to generate $1.61 in new economic demand.

“Families are hurting. In every region of every state, there are people who cannot find jobs today. Minorities are being hit even harder. Extending unemployment benefits is the right thing to do for those who can’t find employment and for our economy. We have to pass this now. There should be no obstacles put in the way of passing this bill promptly,” said Senator Cardin.

7.6 million Americans have lost their jobs and the deficit has grown massively since the recession began under President Bush in 2007. Now, hundreds of thousands of Americans have exhausted unemployment insurance benefits and another million are expected to exhaust these benefits by the end of this year.

Despite the urgent economic imperative, Republicans have held up the bill for nearly two weeks by offering amendments that have nothing to do with helping the unemployed.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 13, 2009

Contact: Tim Bradley (BerlinRosen Public Affairs), 314-440-9936

NEW REPORT: SO-CALLED “CADILLAC” Tax Would ACTUALLY IMPACt 40% of Health Care Plans

JCT data shows Senate Finance Committee excise tax would have similar impact as health-care tax McCain proposed in presidential campaign

Also: Data shows tax would impact middle class far more than millionaires and discriminate against union workers, older workers, those in hazardous jobs

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The so-called “Cadillac” tax (also known as an excise tax) on health care plans proposed by the Senate Finance Committee would actually slam 40 percent of health care plans and disproportionately hit middle-class workers, older workers, and those in hazardous jobs, a new report released today reveals. Moreover, there would be about a $7,800 average tax increase between 2013 and 2019 to households affected by the tax — and middle income households making $50,000 to $75,000 affected by the tax would see their taxes increase 2% while millionaires affected would see their tax increase just 0.1%, according to the report.

The report released by the Communications Workers of America (CWA) compiles data from the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ).

“This is not a tax on ‘Cadillac’ plans; it is a middle class tax,” CWA President Larry Cohen said today. “It hits 40 percent of all health plans and will lead to even more cost shifting to workers. Rather than make those employers who already pay toward their workers’ health coverage pay more, let’s make employers who don’t pay, pay.”

Legislation voted on today by the Senate Finance Committee would raise $200 billion by imposing a 40 percent excise tax on insurance company health plans and self-insured plans offered by companies to their workers. The excise tax would be assessed on the value of health care plans exceeding $21,000 for a family and $8,000 for an individual starting in 2013. The “threshold” levels are higher for pre-Medicare retiree plans and high-risk industry plans such as in construction and mining – $26,000 and $9,850, respectively.

Contrary to claims by excise tax proponents that it will affect only “Cadillac” health plans, the tax is projected to affect up to 40 percent of health care plans by 2019 – just six years after it takes effect – according to a preliminary analysis by the JCT.

According to the JCT’s analysis, the effects include:

· 25 percent of family plans and 26 percent of single plans will be affected in 2015 — two years after the tax begins. By 2019, 37% of family plans and 41 percent of single plans will be affected.

· 24 million households will be affected in 2015, growing to 39 million households in 2019. One-third of middle class households making $50,000 to $100,000 will be affected by 2019.

· $1,005 will be the average tax increase paid in 2015 by all households affected. The tax will grow to $1,344 by 2019. Extrapolating from the JCT data, CWA estimates that the total average tax paid by a household affected by the tax would be $7,777 between 2013 and 2019.

· The tax is very regressive. For example, among households affected by the tax in 2019 a family making $1 million a year will pay twice as much as a family making $50,000 to $75,000 ($2,300 vs. $1,250), but the wealthy family’s income will be 14 to 20 times greater.

· An analysis of the JCT data by Citizens for Tax Justice found that households affected by the excise tax making at least $1 million would see a 0.1 percent tax increase, whereas those affected households making $50,000 to $75,000 would see their taxes increase 2 percent.

Middle class families will be affected significantly by employers demanding deep health benefits cuts to avoid paying the tax or shifting the cost of coverage to working families or, as projected by JCT and the Congressional Budget office (CBO), by employers cutting benefits to get below the threshold but subsequently increasing workers’ wages so that workers will pay increased income and payroll taxes. This is precisely the kind of tax on health care benefits – taxing workers’ health benefits as income – proposed by Sen. John McCain during the 2008 presidential campaign for which he was lambasted by candidate Barack Obama and most other Democratic officials.

Rather than impose a new tax on the middle class, CWA supports other revenue sources:

· Require most employers to provide coverage or pay an 8 percent penalty if they do not, as proposed under H.R. 3200 in the House of Representatives. This would raise $163 billion over ten years, according to CBO.

· Levy a modest surtax on the wealthiest Americans – 1.2 percent of U.S. taxpayers – as proposed in H.R. 3200, raising $544 billion over ten years according to JCT.

· Limit the charitable deductions for individuals earning more than $250,000 and families earning more than $500,000, as proposed by President Obama, which would raise $318 billion over ten years.

“It is simply wrong to make those employers who already are paying, pay even more by hitting them with a 40 percent excise tax, while not requiring anything from employers who don’t provide health care to employees,” Cohen added. “The way to end our recession is to improve, not cut, the wages and benefits of middle income families.”

The JCT analysis is based on the original “chairman’s mark” proposed by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus in late September. While the measure was subsequently altered during committee markup, the revenue raised declined modestly – from $215 billion to $201 billion between 2010 and 2019 – which should have a limited effect on the JCT’s original estimates of the number of plans, households and income groups affected by the excise tax.

To read the entire CWA study released today, please contact CWA for PDF (please open using Adobe Acrobat).

####

______________________

Tim Bradley

BerlinRosen Public Affairs

15 Maiden Lane, Suite 803

New York, NY 10038

Cell: 314.440.9936

Frank Clemente
Communications Workers of America
202-434-1166
202-441-9818 (M)
501 Third Street NW, 8th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20001

Memo to the media: Fox News is now the Opposition Party
by Eric Boehlert

Fox News has changed the rules. Now the press needs to change the way it covers Fox News.

Rupert Murdoch’s cable cabal is now, first and foremost, a political entity. Fox News has transformed itself into the Opposition Party of the Obama White House, which, of course, is unprecedented for a media company in modern-day America. That partisan embrace means the news media have to expand beyond typing up Fox News-ratings-are-up and the White-House-is-angry stories, and it needs to start treating the cable channel for what it is: a partisan animal.

The press needs to drop its longstanding gentleman’s agreement not to write about other news outlets as news players –not to get bogged down in criticizing the competition — because those newsroom rules no longer apply. Fox News has exited the journalism community this year. It’s a purely political player, and journalists ought to start covering it that way.

I understand Fox News still wants to enjoy the benefits of being seen as a news operation. It still wants the trappings and the professional protections that go with it. But it no longer functions as a news outlet, so why does the rest of the press naively treat it that way?

Fox News is now at the forefront of a political movement. As blogger Glenn Greenwald tweeted at the time of the Sept. 12 Washington, D.C., rally:

Seems like a fairly new phenomenon that we now have a political movement led by a TV “news” outlet — that usually happens elsewhere.

In a follow-up email to me, Greenwald noted the similarities between Fox News’ overt role in U.S. politics with places like Venezuela, where the opposition TV station led the failed 2002 coup attempt against Hugo Chavez, as well as Italy, where Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, a media magnate, uses his TV ownership to agitate. “Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch are really using that model to organize and galvanize this protest movement,” wrote Greenwald. “It’s a totally Fox News-sponsored event.”

Completely detached from traditional newsroom standards, Fox News has become a political institution, and the press needs to start treating it that way. The press needs to treat Fox News the same way it treats the Republican National Committee, even though, frankly, the RNC probably can’t match the in-your-face partisanship that Fox News flaunts 24/7. Think about it: Murdoch’s “news” channel now out-flanks the Republican Party when it comes to ceaseless partisan attacks on the White House.

Truth is, in recent years the RNC used to use Fox news to help amplify the partisan raids that national Republicans launched against Democrats. It was within the RNC that the partisan strategy was mapped out and initiated. (i.e. it was the RNC that first pushed the Al-Gore-invented-the-Internet smear). But it was on talk radio and Fox News where the partisan bombs got dropped. Today, that relationship has, for the most part, been inversed. Now it’s within Fox News that the partisan witch hunts are plotted and launched, and it’s the RNC that plays catch-up to Glenn Beck and company.

And I’m sorry, but the Fox News defense that it’s a just a few on-air pundits who (relentlessly) attack the White House and that the news team still plays it straight is, at this point, a joke. What kind of “news” team, in the span of five days, airs 22 clips of health reform forums featuring only people who oppose reform? What kind of “news” team tries to pass off a GOP press release as its own research — typo and all? What kind of “news” team promotes a partisan political rally? (Or did I miss the 100-plus free ads that CNN aired in 2003 promoting an anti-war rally?)

As Media Matters has meticulously documented this year, there is no real difference between Fox News’ Obama-hating pundits and Fox News’ Obama-hating news team. They have become a seamless operation at this point.

A few years ago, the dumbed-down debate surrounding Fox News was whether it truly was fair and balanced. (It wasn’t.) Today, it’s whether Fox News is truly a news organization. (It’s not.) Yet journalists remain way too timid in spelling out the truth. Spooked by right-wing attacks about the so-called liberal media, Beltway media insiders, who certainly understand Fox News’ brazen political maneuver in 2009, continue to play dumb on a massive scale and cover Fox News as a news media organization.

There are small signs that the Beltway press corps is catching on. “The United States has two parties now — the Obama Party and the Fox Party,” Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter recently noted. And in the pages of The New Yorker, Hendrik Hertzberg was quite precise in spelling out the extraordinary changes under way [emphasis added]:

This sort of lunatic paranoia — touched with populism, nativism, racism, and anti-intellectualism — has long been a feature of the fringe, especially during times of economic bewilderment. What is different now is the evolution of a new political organism, with paranoia as its animating principle. The town-meeting shouters may be the organism’s hands and feet, but its heart — also, Heaven help us, its brain — is a “conservative” media alliance built around talk radio and cable television, especially Fox News. The protesters do not look to politicians for leadership. They look to niche media figures like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and their scores of clones behind local and national microphones.

Too often, though, journalists have danced around the obvious. It’s important that this trend now stop. The self-evident truth needs to be told, and news consumers need to understand the extraordinary forces that have been unleashed — forces that dramatically altered the media landscape. News consumers also need to understand why it’s becoming increasingly impossible to maintain any kind of public discourse regarding the issues of the day, especially health care reform, when a major so-called news organization is devoted to spreading as much misinformation as possible.

And succeeding:

In our poll, 72% of self-identified FOX News viewers believe the health-care plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, 79% of them say it will lead to a government takeover, 69% think that it will use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, and 75% believe that it will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the elderly.

Instead of telling the truth, too many journalists have ducked the issue of Fox News. That trend was especially rampant during this summer’s health care mini-mobs, which were egged on by Murdoch’s team. For instance, look at this passage from Newsweek, as the weekly tried to detail the anger behind the mini-mob madness while politely turning a blind eye to Fox News’ central role in it:

In contrast, there is no shortage of groups, politicians, and just plain folks intent on proving that health-care reform will lead to, say, the rationing of medical treatments, and they all seem to have a Web site, blog, and/or Facebook page. Given that people who are sure that the U.S. government faked the moon landings (and that Obama was born in Kenya) can find support for their view online, how surprising is it that you can Google your way to “evidence” of all the evils of Obama-care?

See? According to Newsweek, people were going “online” and using “Google” to find proof that Obama’s health care proposal was pure evil. Perhaps. But guess what? All Obama haters really had to do was flick on the TV, plop down on the couch, and watch America’s most-watched cable “news” channel fear monger with dire warnings about health care. But Newsweek made no mention of Fox News.

Instead, it was simply “groups,” “politicians,” and “just plain folks” who were behind the wild anti-Obama rhetoric, according to Newsweek, which forgot to mention that the country’s most-watched cable news channel was driving that bus.

Indeed, this summer, Fox News was the (literal) elephant in the room. The press kept trying to explain who or what was the behind the health care mini-mobs craze; who or what was whipping people into such an unhinged, anti-Obama frenzy just seven months after the mainstream Democrat was sworn into office. Yet time and again, refusing to acknowledge the cable channel’s purely political play, journalists politely declined to point the finger at Fox News.

For example, The New York Times belatedly published a detailed look at how the death panel lie was spread into the mainstream press. The article was approximately 1,200 words long. Exactly seven of those 1,200 words were set aside to acknowledge Fox News’ role. (And only Glenn Beck was singled out.) Again, I’m not overstating anything when I say if it weren’t for Fox News there wouldn’t have been a death panel “debate” this summer. Period. It was bought and paid for by Fox News, and the whole news crew; not just the nighttime hosts. But the Times only set aside a fragment of a single sentence to highlight the cable channel’s irreplaceable role.

Time and again this year, the Beltway press has politely refused to call out Fox News’ new political role. Look at this Politico passage, which was utterly typical of this year’s fare:

By doing so much, so fast, Obama gave Republicans the chance to define large swaths of the debate. Conservatives successfully portrayed the stimulus bill as being full of pork for Democrats. Then Obama lost control of the health care debate by letting Republicans get away with their bogus claims about “death panels.”

All the highlighted phrases, of course, are placeholders for “Fox News.” But Politico politely declined to mention Fox News. Politico would never place Fox News front and center of a political movement, because it’s just a media outlet. They don’t do politics, right?

It’s clear that in 2009, Fox News is no longer in the business of journalism. Fox News isn’t trying to inform people, it’s trying to misinform them. That’s not journalism. It’s propaganda. But as long as the press continues to hold up the façade of journalism, Fox News will try to hide behind it.

Follow Eric Boehlert on Twitter.

DATE: October 5, 2009

After Raising Premiums Four Times Faster than Wages, Did the Health Insurance Industry Actually Just Claim Health Insurance Reform Efforts Will “Increase Premiums?” Yes. Yes, they did.

Americans United for Change: “If you think the health insurance industry is concerned at all about premiums going up, Bernie Madoff probably has a golden investment opportunity for you.”

Washington D.C. – Americans United for Change Acting Executive Director Tom McMahon issued the following statement in response to a laughable new report by the health insurance industry that attacks health insurance reform efforts, claiming they will “increase private health insurance premiums.”

“If you think the insurance industry is concerned at all about premiums going up, Bernie Madoff probably has a golden investment opportunity for you. No one should be surprised that at the 11th hour, the private health insurance industry has pulled out all the stops to block health insurance reform. But after raising premiums four times faster than wages in the last decade, for the health insurance industry to attack health insurance reform claiming of all things it will “raise premiums” – now that’s just laughable. It’s interesting that the insurance industry didn’t make a peep about skyrocketing premiums until the Finance Committee added a cap on insurance CEO pay.

“The bottom line is that the insurance industry wants to kill health insurance reform so they can continue to be free to exclude people with pre-existing conditions, free to rescind policies when people get sick, free to use their exemption from the anti-trust laws to monopolize markets, free to continue increasing profits for Wall Street — and free to give their CEO’s tens of millions in compensation. And they certainly don’t want to be forced to compete with a public health insurance option. The only surprise in the insurance lobby’s last minute assault on health insurance reform is its jaw dropping brazenness.”

_______________________________________
Jeremy J. Funk

Communications Director, Americans United for Change

Office: 202.470.5878

Combating the Disease of Progressive Cynicism

Lately there has been a growing wave of cynicism on the Left. Many progressive voices are poised, at the drop of a hat, to believe that the Obama Administration – or the Democratic leadership in Congress, or even the leaders of many progressive institutions – can’t wait to abandon progressive values and sell out the aspirations of the base of the Democratic Party.

It’s easy to understand where that cynicism comes from. On many fronts, the last eight years – in fact, the last forty — have been incredibly frustrating for those of us who have struggled to make fundamental progressive change. Of course it is always hard to change the status quo. Just as in physics, inertia is a powerful force to overcome. It is easy for those with a vested interest in the way things are, to exploit the fear of the unknown — even among those who would gain the most from change.

The collapse of the economy, the failure of Neo-Conservative foreign policy, the election of Barack Obama and Democratic majorities in Congress, have created a new moment of possibility that Progressives don’t want to waste. Many of us are passionately committed to taking advantage of this extraordinary opportunity to make real progressive change.

But the best way to squander this rare, historic opportunity is to allow the disease of cynicism to infect our ranks — to be ready, on a hair trigger, to bet against our own success.

My late father liked to spend time at the craps tables in Las Vegas. He had a betting system that worked pretty well for him over the years. Among other things, he always bet against the shooter. In the end, after all, the shooter in craps always craps out.

That makes a lot of sense when it comes to craps. It makes no sense at all when it comes to making progressive change.

Take the question of the public health insurance option. Many progressive commentators and bloggers seem intent on believing that, at every juncture, the public option must be dead. They willingly join in the narrative of the “sophisticated” commentators in the mainstream media who always think it’s “naïve” to think that real change is possible in Washington.

Now, I don’t claim to have perfect knowledge of the future. But I believe the odds are very high that by the time the Senate Finance Committee bill is merged with the Senate Health Committee bill – and the final Senate bill is merged with an excellent House bill in the House-Senate Conference – Congress will pass strong, progressive, health insurance reform that will finally fulfill the promise of health care for all and include a public option.

One thing I know for sure. If Progressives constantly pronounce the public option dead – it will be. The cynics will create a self-fulfilling prophecy. In fact, the cynics who are so convinced that the President and Democratic Leadership will “sell them out” on health care help empower the opponents of change. The health insurance industry would like nothing better than for everyone to agree with them that it is impossible to pass a public option. That would mean that it would fall off the agenda – off the menu of the possible. That is exactly what the health insurance industry wants.

In forty years of fighting for progressive change, I have become more convinced by the day that in order to win, you have to believe that you can. If you don’t believe you can win, you won’t win. Optimism that winning is possible is not always sufficient to guarantee success, but without it no success is ever possible.

There are two other corollaries to this rule.

First, progressive optimism isn’t naïve. It understands that you have to make change starting from where you are, not where you wish you were. You have to transform the present into the future. You have to understand that making change involves the exercise of power, not wishful thinking.

The health care sector involves one-sixth of the economy. There are dozens of massive vested interests. The battle over health insurance reform is not mainly conflict over policies or ideas. It is mainly a battle over who gets how much money and who gets how much health care. It is a battle of vested interests against the public interest.

The other side is very powerful. To win, we have to be tougher, smarter, more determined – and believe absolutely that we can succeed. Cynicism and defeatism simply have no place in a battle like that.

Second, to win, we cannot allow ourselves the luxury of being cynical about the motivations of our leaders. When you’ve struggled for years against long odds – when you’ve seen lots of political leaders with weak knees that get cozy with every special interest around – it is easy to fall into the trap of mistrusting every political leader. It’s easier just to lump all politicians into the same bucket of unprincipled, uncommitted, egotists who don’t care about anything but getting their pictures on TV or “being important.” The problem is that it’s not true.

Before he entered public life, Barack Obama was a community organizer who shared a passionate dedication to progressive values. He still does.

His Deputy Chief of Staff, Jim Messina – the man in charge of the political campaign to pass health insurance reform – is as dedicated to serious progressive reform of the health care system as any one else in America. And Rahm Emanuel is the perfect person to use the levers of political power to make the President’s progressive agenda into reality.

Nancy Pelosi and many in the House Leadership are dyed-in-the-wool Progressives. She is literally working full time to get the strongest possible health care bill out of the House. The same is true of many members of the Senate. Both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Majority Whip Dick Durbin are completely committed to fundamentally reforming health care in American – including a strong public option.

Progressives have an enormous domestic agenda: health insurance reform, reform of the financial sector, creating a clean energy economy, immigration reform, labor law reform – and most importantly, reviving our economy. To win that agenda a unified progressive community must relentlessly challenge entrenched vested interests.

We have to work together to make sure that as these battles unfold, each element of the progressive community is empowered to promote its priorities. There must plenty of room for vigorous advocacy and debate. But there must be no room for cynicism.

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 http://www.amazon.com.