If there’s anything that’ll prove that politicians or political parties are worried, it’s when they put out ill-prepared statements. Yesterday, I quoted DNC Spokesman Hari Sevugan following the Freedom Rally on the Capitol Hill steps. MinnesotaIndependent is quoting Sevugan in this post. Here’s a portion of the DNC’s official statement:

But it is surprising that after Congressman-elect Owens won a special election by supporting the President’s agenda in a New York district that hasn’t elected a Democrat since Benjamin Harrison was President, that the Republican party would continue to allow itself to be led around by nose by the likes of Bachmann, Beck, Limbaugh, Palin and the rest of the extreme tea party crowd. It’s their extreme right-wing, rigid ideological agenda that has Americans leaving the Republican Party in droves, and so, if displays like today are what they think is a smart political strategy, all we can say is: go for it.

If that’s the best that the DNC can do, then they’re in a world of hurt. That’s easily exposed as pure BS.

First, the GOP’s “extreme right-wing, rigid ideological agenda” was so unpopular that it carried Creigh Deeds and Jon Corzine to victory. No, wait. The GOP’s “extreme right-wing, rigid ideological agenda” didn’t lead to an anti-GOP tidal wave. The GOP’s beliefs and policies appealed to independents so much that they voted 2:1 for Republicans and against Democrats.

Second, let’s be blunt about this “Democrats haven’t gotten elected to NY-23 since the Civil War” meme once and for all. Michael R. McNulty held that seat for 4 years from 1989-1993. While it wasn’t called NY-23 at the time, it was the geographic region now called NY-23. If Democrats want to argue on that thin point, I’ll let them knock themselves out over it.

Thirdly, Bill Owens campaigned on the fact that he opposes the public option. That’s hardly winning “a special election by supporting the President’s agenda.” Most people would rightly argue that that’s winning by running away from President Obama’s agenda.

A more telling sign that Democrats are running low on intellectual ammunition is this statement from Maureen Reed’s campaign:

Bachmann claims her rally is to remind Congress of the town hall meetings over the summer, but those meetings were orchestrated by insurance companies opposed to meaningful reform from the start. One insurance company in particular was caught urging employees to attend tea parties and has already spent $3.5 million this year lobbying Congress.

Michele Bachmann shouldn’t be defending her political contributors who have reaped billion dollar profits last quarter; she should be focused on helping the hard working families and small businesses of Minnesota’s Sixth District that need health care reform now.

Reed Campaign Manager Jason Isaacson has to do better. People don’t hate insurance companies making profits. It’s a huge industry. It isn’t uncommon for huge industries to make billions of dollars of profits, though I’ll admit that it’s getting more rare with each Obama policy enacted.

If Mr. Isaacson wants to play that game, then let’s have Ms. Reed defend the contributions she’s gotten from environmental groups that are driving up the price of a gallon of gasoline and preventing us from being energy independent. I’m betting that Central Minnesota voters care every bit as much about energy prices as they care about insurance company profits.

Isaacson’s statement implies that Michele isn’t interested in health insurance and health care reform. The DFL and DNC have trotted out that meme ad nauseum. It isn’t working, especially after the House GOP plan got a great review from the CBO:

CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that the amendment would reduce federal deficits by $68 billion over the 2010-2019 period; it would also slightly reduce federal budget deficits in the following decade, relative to those projected under current law, with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between zero and one-quarter percent of gross domestic product.

That amendment contains several provisions that are intended to increase rates of insurance coverage by reducing its costs or subsidizing its purchase, including:

• Regulatory reforms in the small group and non-group markets, including establishing association health plans (insurance coverage that is offered to members of an association) and individual membership associations, and allowing states to establish interstate compacts with a unified regulatory structure;
• A State Innovations grant program to provide federal payments to states that achieve specified reductions in the number of uninsured individuals or in the premiums for small group or individually purchased policies;
• Federal funding for states to use for high-risk pools in the individual insurance market and reinsurance programs in the small group market; and
• Changes to health savings accounts (HSAs) to allow funds in such accounts to be used to pay premiums under certain circumstances, to make net contributions to HSAs eligible for the saver’s tax credit, and to provide a 60-day grace period for medical expenses incurred prior to the establishment of an HSA.

CBO and JCT estimate that those provisions would increase federal budget deficits by about $8 billion over the 2010-2019 period, reducing the number of nonelderly people without health insurance by about 3 million in 2019 and leaving about 52 million nonelderly residents uninsured. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019—83 percent—would be roughly in line with the current share.

Let’s compare Pelosicare’s policies with the House GOP’s plan.

Insurance premiums continue going up under Pelosicare. They drop under the House GOP’s plan. ADVANTAGE WITH VOTERS: GOP

Pelosicare raises taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars. The House GOP plan DOESN’T RAISE TAXES. PERIOD. ADVANTAGE WITH VOTERS: GOP

If implemented, Pelosicare would increase deficits by $750,000,000,000 in the first decade and would cost $1,800,000,000,000 for the first decade it’s fully implemented. The House GOP plan shrinks the deficits by $68,000,000,000 the first decade. ADVANTAGE WITH VOTERS: GOP

Now who’s for reform that (a) doesn’t explode the already-exploding deficits, (b) actually shrinks insurance premiums, (c) actually reduces lawsuit abuse practices and (d) that actually does something to help people who’ve been diagnosed with pre-existing conditions?

Dr. Reed, I’d welcome your response to the substantive, AND sustainable, reforms proposed by the House GOP, legislation that Michele Bachmann enthusiastically supports.

This is what happens when you send boys out to do a man’s job. That’s what happens when you rely on someone who’s gravitas-deficient.

Technorati: Reforms, Health Care, Maureen Reed, Hari Sevugan, Pelosicare, Tax Increases, Deficits, DNC, DFL, Democrats, Creigh Deeds, Jon Corzine, Elections, Michele Bachmann, Lawsuit Abuse Reform, Health Insurance, GOP, Fiscal Restraint