Many Democrats in Staten Island, NY are hopping mad right now because our Rep in the 13th, "Democrat" Mike McMahon went with the wrong side on Sunday. Now we all know the weaknesses of the "freeping" game, but this poll's a little different. You see, it doesn't ask if you favor HCR or not, it asks:"How do you feel about his vote? Are you:
More likely to vote for him
More likely to vote against him.
More likely to vote for him regardless.
More likely to vote against him regardless."
But this diary is not so much focused on the poll (although it's for real and I'll post the link later). Rather, it's about an old friend who primaried against McMahon in '08 (and stood against Vito Fossella in '04).
I thought I was angry with McMahon's vote on HCR, but read this, from Steve Harrison (emailed the day of the vote):
March 20, 2010
"I ran against Congressman McMahon in a Democratic Primary in 2008. He won. After he was elected I believed it proper to respect the vote of the people and the victory of the Congressman by my silence. Despite my differences with him, I genuinely believed that Congressman McMahon would ultimately vote for the people of this district on healthcare. It appears I was wrong, so the time for silence is past.
"Congressman McMahon’s looming “no” vote on the Health Care bill before Congress is an abdication of his leadership role as an elected official. The Congressman was overwhelmingly elected with a Democratic President and Congress. He had a mandate for change in many things but especially in healthcare. That’s why he was elected. His failure to take this opportunity to effectuate some change breaches good-faith with the voters and will condemn our nation to do nothing for decades to come.
"Doing nothing means 3,000,000 people will be priced out of the insurance market every year as insurance companies continue to deny coverage to the sick and raise premiums on those who remain insured, even as they reap record profits. This pattern will continue every year until all but the super rich are unable to afford coverage.
"Who will pay for the rest of us? The government of course. There will be no alternative. Socialized medicine will become a necessity by default. The irony is that it is Congressman McMahon and the Republicans who are so frightened by socialized medicine.
"The plan before Congress is far from perfect. In my opinion it does not go far enough. (This nation needs some kind of universal insurance. We are the only major nation in the world without it and we pay much more for our care than any of the others). But it’s a critical step in the right direction and it simply must be passed for the good of our nation.
"This bill is the signature reform of our time. It is to the 21st century what Social Security was to the 20th and the Congressman looks like he will be on the wrong side of history. Mr. McMahon should be leading and educating the good people of our district on the benefits of this plan. He should be rallying them to its support. Instead, he has fallen prey to the same scare tactics the minority leadership is using on the less informed, allowing those tactics to go unchallenged.
"This is a solid bill. In addition to insuring another 30,000,000 people, it would immediately stop abusive insurance practices (no dropping sick people when they get sick, no denial because of pre-existing conditions.). You can keep your current policy if you want to.
"And it is bi-partisan, the crocodile tears of the minority notwithstanding. The Republicans did not want a public option. There is no public option. The Republicans said the cost was too high. The Democrats listened. The independent budget office of the Congress confirms that the bill will now actually reduce the deficit, not increase it. If that’s not good-faith bipartisanship, I don’t know what is. We must never confuse bipartisanship with capitulation. The Democrats won the election. They get to write the bill.
"If Congressman McMahon sees himself as politically vulnerable because of this bill, that is understandable. In a conservative district, a vote for healthcare probably means that many of the the Republicans who voted for him in ‘08 will not in ‘10. But the solution is not to abandon party and principle, either from a practical or a moral perspective.
"From a strictly practical point of view, in a year where Mr. McMahon is already being targeted by the Republican machine he can not genuinely expect support from across the aisle. They will attack him despite his vote. In abandoning the Democrats who supported him, he will no longer have a rational claim to their support. So he can expect a primary and a Working Families Party challenge which may weaken him to the point of losing. His best chance for re-election lies in supporting the healthcare bill and rallying the Dems to his side.
"But, more importantly, there is a moral issue here. The Congressman is not entitled to abandon his constituents to promote his own career. His re-election is secondary to the needs of his people. On healthcare, policy trumps politics.
"The benefits of good change are frequently obscured by the fear of change. This leads to temporary resistence. If good policy is enacted, but the temporary resistence does not fade before the next election, well, you lose. Such is the price one pays for what I call “electoral courage.” Fear of losing an election can never be an excuse for voting against the best interests of the people you represent."
STEVE HARRISON
Boy, I know Steve and he's angry!
I worked for Steve in both his campaigns for the 13th, but the second campaign was waged against McMahon in a primary that was high on the sleaze and cowardice scale on the part of our current Congressman. Harrison's first campaign against Fossella (that Republican Congressman, you'll remember, who got caught harboring a secret family with a mistress who lived in Alexandria) earned him the highest percentage ever attained by a "real" Dem in this 60%-40% conservative district (he earned that before the scandal broke - it was a head-on battle).
Harrison announced within a year of that first contest, that he would run again in '08 and started earlier than the first time, raised capital, built an organization and campaigned for a year before Fossella's scandal broke. NO OTHER DEM, INCLUDING MCMAHON WAS WILLING TO STAND AGAINST FOSSELLA UP TILL THEN (sorry for the shout - I promise - I didn't use caps lock, but held down the shift key for the whole rant!)
Mike McMahon was City Councilman at that time and was probably the most powerful elected Democrat in the area. But when Vito's scandal broke, without having lifted a finger of effort, McMahon stepped into the race and literally stole the position from Steve. There was a primary, but the Democatic committee backed their first stringer and McMahon went up in November against no substantial Republican competition (Borough President Molinaro, the Republican leader on the Island, was even at McMahon's victory celebration at the Dem's party site!)
Anyway, today's Staten Island Advance announced in an article, that Steve is considering a primary challenge to McMahon, or even playing the role of spoiler by running on the Working Families Party line (told you he was angry).
Now, there's a lot of noise here at KOS along the lines of "Primary the MF'S" or some such. There's also a bit of sympathy, I seem to detect, for Dems in overwhelmingly conservative districts, of which Staten Island is a shining example. But, I believe it's the role of my Congressman to vote for the good of the COUNTRY first, and then educate the ignorant in his district. I held my nose and voted for Mike last time in the general, but no more. I may as well vote for a Republican next time. If Harrison runs (and he hasn't decided yet), I'm going for him whatever line he runs on. For Kossacks looking to support a really progressive firebrand: if he should "primary Mike's ass", here's a guy for you.
But, back to freeping. It might seem to be unethical for out of district people to freep a poll on a local congressman, and if readers want to hold back, it's understndable, but then - would 'out of districters' from the other side hold back? - hmmm.
If you do freep it and are really angry, choose the option not to re-elect. The poll is at the article's link, above.
And onward and upward with HCR!
Update: As commenter pointed out, of choice between "I'd vote against him regardless" and "I am more likely to vote against him", the second ("more likely") is the best choice.