Axelrod's White House Email: Truth and Myths, All Mixed Up

During President Obama's campaign last year, his team was frequently praised for always keeping on message, and keeping that message consistent and professional. And rightly so. It was an amazingly confident and error-free campaign. But ever since Obama has reached the White House, his administration has exhibited a few growing pains in doing the same. The inability to craft a clear, concise message has been on display especially in this raucous health care debate.

Case in point, the latest email from the White House, coming in today from David Axelrod, Senior Advisor to the President: He starts by outlining eight ways that "reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage" - fine, great, fantastic - and then goes on to list eight myths about health care reform. A simple procedure, right? Set up the myth, then knock it down with the truth. Easy as pie.

Unfortunately, Axelrod isn't up to the task. The truth quickly, maybe accidentally, manages to seep into his "myths." He starts with this:

1. Reform will stop "rationing" -- not increase it: It's a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.

Well, wait, what's the myth here? That reform will stop health care rationing? Do we currently have rationing that needs to be stopped by reform? This could be clearer, but the email does improve, if only momentarily.

2. We can't afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It's a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.

3. Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It's a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.

Okay, fantastic. I get it. The myth is that we can't afford reform, but the truth is that we can't afford not to. And then the ridiculous myth that reform will lead to euthanizing Grandma, clearly presented and then debunked. This is clear messaging, and it easily fits into the brain. But skip down the list a bit and things get more murky.

5. Reform will benefit small business -- not burden it: It's a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.

Now, we're on rocky territory. The myth is that "Reform will benefit small business -- not burden it." That can't be right, or else President Obama would not be pushing for reform. Yes, the text clarifies the "myth" but the header makes it read like reform is going to hurt local ice-cream trucks and bicycle stores. This is followed by my favorite myths:

7. You can keep your own insurance: It's myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.

8. No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand.

So the myths presented here are that, with reform, "You can keep your own insurance" and "No, the government will not do anything with your bank account." Those are myths? So the inverse is the truth? Now I don't want reform at all. I don't want the government taking away my insurance and withdrawing my dwindling dollars from my bank account to payoff bankers and sub-prime loans... Oh... wait a second...

Once again, Axelrod presents the truth as the myth, then describes the myth second, changing format from the previous items on the list. It's a confusing presentation, and representative of how poorly the White House has kept on message in this debate.

Yes, this is picky, but for anyone who is scanning this professionally prepared email, this is what you get: a list of myths and truths mixed together, forcing people to actually carefully read what is written to understand the true meaning. And we know how much people hate doing that. If the administration can't list 8 simple myths about what reform won't do, how can we hope to get a clear message on what reform will actually do?

Follow Blaise Nutter on Twitter: www.twitter.com/blaisetnutter

Comments

[mcmchugh99]

They forgot to mention the public option--again.

If I were them, I'd just say that the town halls are being packed by Republicans who would never vote for him or support anything he wants to do. That's all there is to it.

The Republicans are damaging themselves, but Obama's supporters are also beginning to wonder if he's going to throw in the towel on this one.

He can't possibly be serious about being bipartisan with people who are accusing him of planning to exterminate the elderly and disabled?

[devadasi]

Obama should probably kick out Axelrod and Rahm....the President needs progressive thinkers in the White House, not brilliant campaign strategists.

[chocolatecity]

Gibbs was the communications director for the campaign. Maybe he should take over that task entirely again. He did a great job on the campaign. Axelrod is great at strategy, but knowing strategy and being able to communicate are two different things. Besides, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

[BocaMom]

Scary! For such a smart White House, they sure do a lot of dumb things!

[lordjin]

Maybe, just maybe they aren't so smart? Luck and circumstance played their parts in his victory too. Let's not forget that.

[jhw22]

I had the same take. Of course, I get what he's saying, but I predict we will see "Axelrod's words used against him" when they are taken out of context. Once that crap gets out there then there's no getting ahead of it. I wanted to slap the email for being such a set-up for attack.

AND to top it off, Sargent or General, whatever his name is, from Faux News grilled Gibbs as to why the email was sent to people who never signed up to be on the emailing list. So now we will hear that the fishy emails forwarded to flag@white­house.gov, were added to the mailing list. Great! And in Gibbs' trying to get more info from Private or Lieutenant, whatever his name is, Gibbs basically asked for the names of the people complianing! TRIPLE DAMN DOH!!!

Jennifer

[Jonny38103]

Doesn't this man have a staff that reviews what he does?

[lordjin]

No kidding. I guess not.

[rainbowblue]

It's worth noting that Obama ran a great campaign because he never dwelled into specifics of any plan. He gave slogans and a loose overall of how he might get things done. This was effective since it gave people enough room to put in what they believed was the right solution to the problems as Obama's ideas. This made him a wonderful first time candidate, but not a good leader with a vision. A lot of people want to give him more time, but the political reality is that he will have to answer for all that has gone wrong in these first six months for next few years. If health care doesn't get passed, or is so watered down as to be worthless, then what makes one think he will be able to get anything else done? No, Obama's downfall is the inability to recoginize the power of the Presdency and use it to mold Congress in his image. He is letting the weak leadership of Pelsoi and Reid ruin his legacy, even though it was HIS coat tails that brought more Dems into Congress. He should be threatening Dems and Repubs not bending over for them. In short, we need a LBJ right now (minus Vietnam, of course). He's too much of a Kenedy, grandstanding and ineffectual.

[Blaise Nutter - Huffpost Blogger]

I would disagree that Obama gave no specifics during the campaign; he frequently released large documents that outlined specific policy approaches. Reading them, I always felt he (or his policy advisors) had a keen grasp on what they wanted to do once in office.

But upon getting in office, I think you're right: he doesn't recognize the power that he has. He isn't demanding certain policy proposals out of Congress - which may be related to the fact that he was a Senator and a legislator first, and now is trying to learn to govern. Pelosi and Reid are not up to the task of getting actual health care reform passed, and Obama - so far - isn't picking up the slack.

I can't imagine that if Obama made a quick visit to the state of every single Blue Dog Democrat, with the implicit threat of campaigning them out of office if they don't support his policies, that these half-hearted Dems wouldn't cave on real health care reform.

[PaxEterna]

Blaise, Obama was the weakest candidate on health care reform and actually came out with NOTHING specific until he had to. Meanwhile Clinton and Edwards were light years ahead of him in vision, articulateness, and specifics.

Could it be that the 19 Million dollars he took from the 'health sector" as candidate - more than anyone else by a long margin - kept him closed mouthed and tight-lipped on anything remotely related to true reform?

Here is one voter who now thinks so.

[lordjin]

During the campaign, even as my hopes soared, I couldn't help but think, "Wow, if he really does what he's saying he's gonna do (or even half of it), won't the richest and most powerful in this country instantly become his enemy?." I wonder how many kept this question alive in their minds during "Obamania."

He completely and unequivocally made the most spectacular promises to the groups analyzed as having the greatest potential impact on voter turnout to get elected. Is that a crime? Nah, it's just running a winning campaign.

But if not Obama, then surely Axlerod knew that these lofty promises, as effective as they were, didn't have as much to do with reality as the campaign was strenuously leading voters to believe. Is that something new or heinous? Nope, not heinous or even deceptive...round these parts, it's known harmlessly as "business as usual."

[rainbowblue]

He doesn't have to campaign against them, just have the DCCC cut their funding or put up a Primary challenge. He is the head of the party afterall. Dean has been talking about this. Of course the problem is Emanuel promised these Dems the ability to go against the Party when he recuited them, which is what now gives them the power to hold the legislation.


As for the primaries, Obama didn't really talk specifics untill Clinton and Edwards offered plans. For instance, he didn't have an economic plan until the WI primary, and that was ripped of the Clintion plan (which was somewhat ripped off of Edwards, which was ripped off of Feingold). He didn't offer a health care plan until Clinton made her (more liberal) plan public. He never really offered to lead on any of the issues. The only point I make with this is that he doesn't lead, so his Executive style isn't a surprise.

[dayala]

ever watch him on the sunday morning talk shows, he is the most gawd-awful speaker, he can't string an entire sentence without uhhs, ahhhs, pauses, dry-mouth swallows while monotonously droning on the same old tired talking points....I have to change the channel he is excruciatingly painful to watch.

Axelrod if you read this please sign up and join a Toastmasters Club.

[PaxEterna]

Axelrod can't write.

[fishypolitics]

I received the email and had the exact same reaction. It is poorly constructed and confusing, and sure to give fodder to the opponents of health care reform legislation.

[PaxEterna]

The administration is shadow boxing because of the failure of leadership.

Obama was weak as a candidate and is weak as President on the issue of health care because he is trying to defend and promote something that he is unwilling to articulate in detail. In fact, the Preident hasn't put forth a plan at all. Instead he makes vacuous statements about the need for reform, throws up idiotic savings measures like electronic record keeping (its own can of worms) and pretends to be waiting for the bills all the while making back room deals.

How can you stay on message, dispel myths, argue for reform when you have no framework with concrete details to point to?

Stupid, no leadership, and in the meantime the RW is having a field filling the vacuum with all sorts of slander, innuendo, and downright lies.

[ThePeacemakers]

PaxEterna,
Obama was a strong candidate.

Then he made his cabinet appointments - Republicans disguised as centrists, free marketers disguised as people who would bring about financial regulatory reform, etc.

Or were they disguised? I didn't think so....

Alot of this was expediency to get a cabinet in place that knew where the bathroom was in the White House with so much happening so fast...and to make the status quo feel less threatened by the obvious changing tide in the US population. "See, I's not dangerous..." each appointment seemed to say.

Let's see if he starts cutting some loose.

[Blaise Nutter - Huffpost Blogger]

I totally agree, ThePeacemakers...

Obama's cabinet appointments were a disaster, pushed through Congress too quickly, and represented too much of the past, after promising such a change for the future. I doubt we'll lose Geitner or Summers - but I would love to see Howard Dean knocking a few heads... A man can dream...

[PaxEterna]

My point is this: he was NOT a strong candidate on health reform.

[aftershock]

"Obama was weak as a candidate"

Yes that's why he ran the most effective modern campaign probably in American history, defeated the Clinton machine on Hilary's march of "inevitability" and beat McCain/Palin by one of the largest margins in American history... because he was a "weak candidate"... got it lol.

"is weak as President on the issue of health care because he is trying to defend and promote something that he is unwilling to articulate in detail"

Obama is weak as a President on everything. He refuses to take a stand because he's obsessed with compromise. When everything's open for compromise, you just end up getting walked on.

"In fact, the Preident hasn't put forth a plan at all."

That's probably because the executive doesn't write legislation (or isn't supposed to unlike the former admin)

[PaxEterna]

It's called leadership . Without it, we have the Magic-8 ball of special interests trading away what we the people need. Meanwhile we find out that our "hands-off" President is cutting back room deals right and left.