About Those Weekly Youtube Addresses

Think back for a moment to the day last year when the Obama administration announced that in addition to doing a weekly radio address, they would also be doing weekly YouTube addresses. Back then people were impressed that the White House was embracing social media and when they put up the first installment, it quickly went up over 1 million views.

Of course since then they addresses have kind of lost their appeal somewhat. In fact I just went over to watch this week's video and according to YouTube I was only the 311th person to view it. I mean I know the newness of it has worn off, but 311 views, seriously?

That got me to thinking. Why not use those weekly addresses to inform people on the issues. Not in a broad way like normal, but in an in depth way. The videos are usually around 5 minutes long and I personally think that is more than enough time for President Obama to break down some of the most important elements of the health care reform bill, the ones that effect the overwhelming majority of people. He could really change the game too by using visual aids like charts and graphs. Also because YouTube has a feature where you can link to information he could also reference studies that the viewer could think click on a link and go to and read themselves. And when you think about it, allowing President Obama to perform in that fashion is probably his best look. Republicans like to joke about him being "professorial" but you know what? When he breaks stuff down he really has a knack of explaining things to people in a way they can understand.

He could also use those charts and graphs to do addresses that focus on the unprecedented use of the filibuster by Republicans and on where I debt came from and how we can seek to reduce it. People love visual aids and they "get" them. For folks who don't read the paper every day or watch the evening cable news shows, its a way for them to see the information, coming from no less than the President himself, and judge for themselves who is to blame for everything and whether what the Democrats are trying to do is what is good for out country or not.
He could also use the end of the video to address some of the main lies about the health care reform bill and to also hit Republicans for their renewed push to cut medicare and privatize Social Security. Once again with links to them saying so in their own words.

At the end he could display some of the emotion that has been missing and pledge to get health care reform done one way or another.

If you ask me, that would be a helluva lot more productive than doing this health care summit that if anything will just give Republicans more reasons to complain over bullshit. And besides that, it would make the YouTube addresses relevant again.

Its one thing to have a Congressional Democrat or say David Axelrod trying to explain health care reform, its quite another to have the President of the United States taking the American people through the benefits of the bill 1 by 1 so they can understand what they are getting and why its necessary.

Right now the weekly address have turned into mind numbing broad strokes. The question at this point is why even do them if nobody cares about them anymore? The Republicans have now jumped in with their own YouTube addresses and they on the other hand aren't pulling any punches. Susan Collins made big news with her YouTube address by trying to hit President Obama on the way he is handling terrorism. Imagine if he clapped back with his own YouTube and had a chart comparing the treatment of underpants bomber to the shoe bomber. I'm telling you, folks would start to see what is really going on.

Now none of this would solve the actually policy problems of getting bills passed because we still have to deal with our own ConservaDems. But at the least when we make moves like going to reconciliation or using recess appointments the American people will understand why and won't blow a gasket when its all said and done.

Just a thought

Remember, SHE'S Supposed To Be One Of The Reasonable Republicans

Great job by Rachel Maddow of pointing out all the lies Susan Collins has been telling about the underpants bomber and the investigation. Its just frustrating as hell knowing that she can go on any cable network and tell these lies without even a hint of pushback. And Collins is supposed to be one of the Republicans we expect bipartisanship from?

Give me an effing break...

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Republicans Really Do Want To Cut Social Security And Medicare

But hey, don't take my word for it, just check out Congressman Hensarling, you know the guy President Obama bitch slapped last week over his bullshit comments about the deficit, on Hardball this evening.



Or you can read Ezra Klein's post on Congressman Paul Ryan's GOP budget proposal to cut the deficit.

As you all know by now, the long-term budget deficit is largely driven by health-care costs. To move us to surpluses, Ryan's budget proposes reforms that are nothing short of violent. Medicare is privatized. Seniors get a voucher to buy private insurance, and the voucher's growth is far slower than the expected growth of health-care costs. Medicaid is also privatized. The employer tax exclusion is fully eliminated, replaced by a tax credit that grows more slowly than medical costs. And beyond health care, Social Security moves to a system of private accounts that CBO says will actually cost more than the present arrangement, further underscoring how ancillary the program is to our budget problem.

snip

The proposal would shift risk from the federal government to seniors themselves. The money seniors would get to buy their own policies would grow more slowly than their health-care costs, and more slowly than their expected Medicare benefits, which means that they'd need to either cut back on how comprehensive their insurance is or how much health-care they purchase. Exacerbating the situation -- and this is important -- Medicare currently pays providers less and works more efficiently than private insurers, so seniors trying to purchase a plan equivalent to Medicare would pay more for it on the private market.

It's hard, given the constraints of our current debate, to call something "rationing" without being accused of slurring it. But this is rationing, and that's not a slur. This is the government capping its payments and moderating their growth in such a way that many seniors will not get the care they need. This is, in its simplest form, a way to limit the use of a finite resource: Money.

But here is the thing, none of this matters one whit if Democrats don't seize the day. Tomorrow every Democrat in the House should be lined up for their chance to address the body at the podium on CSPAN and point out what the Republicans are up to. And immediately following each Democrat in the House should put up a youtube online of their speech and send it out to every single email list they have. If Ryan's proposals and Hensarling's appearance are pushed into the national dialogue, the media will HAVE to cover it. And every single GOP House member that appears on CNN or MSNBC or one of the morning shows will HAVE to answer the question of if they agree with these "visionaries" in their own party.

But if not. If this is allowed to slide under the radar, well then shame on every person in any leadership position in the Democratic Party. You will have shown without a doubt that you do not deserve to lead this country.

Real talk.

Let's Try Something Unorthodox (Read Effective)

Frank Luntz is out again with a shiny new memo for the GOP. This time the veteran wordsmith and hood winker is after financial regulatory reform, specifically trying to kill it. Now one thing that was amazing about the health care reform fight is that Luntz released his memo to the GOP to the public prior to the fight and just about every talking point and cannard we heard for the next 8 or 9 months was contained in said memo. Still Democrats struggled to refute them or even to point out that they WERE talking points. Well its time out for that bullshit.

It's time to make inside baseball a little more outside.

I propose that Democratic members of Congress, particularly those up for reelection this year go on the offensive by sending a copy of the memo to their constituents right away, as well as to editorial boards of the papers that cover their home states and or districts. Point out the words that they will be hearing for the next few months and where they came from. And leave them with this advice, whenever they hear those words coming from a Republican's lips they should be reminded that they are being scammed.

This is what you call low hanging fruit ladies and gentlemen. Most folks are already fed up with the bankers. But now to show that the GOP is unequivically on THEIR side and not OUR side will put an end to all that bullshit populism rhetoric that they are trying to run on.

Time is of the essence however because if people aren't made aware of what is in that memo then once the ball starts rolling it will be hard to stop. We simply can't afford to let that happen.

How To Attack Right Wingers Over Climate Change

The next major initiative on the agenda as far as I can tell after health care reform is climate change legislation. Now it is apparent that in order to be a right winger or a right wing candidate for public office and win the hearts and minds of the idiotic base of the Republican Party, you basically have to reject science and deny climate change. You also have to play up the bullshit non scandal email scandal dubbed "Climategate" that recently went down. But I want to focus on where the origin of this denialism comes from, and how progressive Democrats can attack right wing candidates without offending a certain segment of the population and still making them look like fools.

You see when you listen very closely to politicians who claim the climate change denialism mantle there is one central place where they are coming from in their opposition to any notion that global warming comes from man made sources. And that place is evangelical Christianity. Well rather a perverted version of evangelical Christianity whereby humans can not possibly do anything to affect the fate of the earth because everything is in God's hands. Now most regular Christians do not see the world this way. Yes we believe that Jesus will return one day to bring us all to heaven and yes I understand that lots of people think that is crazy talk. But there isn't anything anywhere in the Bible about human beings not being able to hasten the second coming of Christ. So that is the first principle to know but its actually the death blow best held onto until the end of the argument with a right wing climate change denialist.


The best way to engage them initially however is to go on the attack right away. Don't get caught trying to defend accepted science as it doesn't need defending and any effort to do so will only serve to make you look defensive. What you want to do right away is establish the aforementioned "why" this particular politician doesn't believe in climate change. If they won't come out and say it right away then you should pointedly ask them if it has to do with their religious beliefs. That will put them on the defensive and they will absolutely feel the need to over play their own religious faith and pimp their Jesus cred and pretty much try to hang you with it. You should allow this without interruption and just allow them to ramble on for a bit and then continue with your deconstruction.

Once you have made them admit that their denialism is grounded in their faith and the belief that God is in control then its time to hit them with the killer hypotheticals. Now not all hypotheticals and analogies are equal and some are better for right wingers than others, so let me offer a few up for you to use.

Oil Spills

There is a certain former governor of a certan northern state that just so happened to have been impacted by a major oil spill by Exxon. Well that was one of many oil spills but the one that made the most noise. And so the question when dealing with that person or another person who hails from a coastal state is this:

If you believe that human beings can not affect our environment because God is in control, then do you also believe that if there is an oil spill somewhere off the coast of your state that it should not be cleaned up? If the idea is that God will fix climate change or global warming then why not take the same tact when it comes to something like an oil spill?

Nuclear Waste

If you happen to be dealing with a politician who lives in an area where there is a nuclear plant somewhere nearby then your question should be phrased thusly:

Are you willing to open up your area/county/city/state to nuclear waste dumping so we can expand our nuclear capabilities? If not, why not? Surely you can't be worried about the damage to the environment. Won't God take care of that just like climate change?

Hunting/Endangered Species
If the politician denying climate change hails from a state with a lot of hunting and or is a big NRA person then you can hit them this way:

How do you feel about hunting seasons? Why exactly should we have hunting seasons? Why can't Americans go and kill whatever animals they want to kill whenever they want to? Surely there won't be any impact to their numbers. I mean we aren't powerful enough to make a have a major effect on our environment are we?

This would also be a good time to ask them about endangered species, specifically one endangered species in particular:

As you know one of our great American symbols, the bald eagle, has been on and off the endangered species list in years past. Are you in favor of allowing people to go hunting for bald eagles? If not, why not? Why should sportsmen be deprived the opportunity to bag something as beautiful as a bald eagle? Surely it can't be because of their numbers. Remember, you said human beings aren't powerful enough to affect our environment, so according to you no matter how many bald eagles are killed won't God just create more of them?

I would almost pay someone to use that line of attack just to see the right wing politician damn near burst a blood vessel with anger. You know how much they love linking a bald eagle to FREEDOM!!! My advice would be to be careful though because some of them might want to fight you over this line of attack lol

Now, obviously those statements could still backfire at least initially because they will come off as condescending toward's their faith. I say WILL instead of MIGHT because the proper way to deliver those lines are as condescending as possible. You want to piss them off and challenge them on their faith and get the on the defensive. You ESPECIALLY want them to attack you and your faith once you go there with them. Because then its time to pull out the death blow.

When instead of addressing your hypothetical analogies, which most of them won't, they instead pound their chest about their faith and then wag their fingers at you to accuse you of not having any, then its time to calmly and respectfully ask them to quote anywhere in the Bible where it says man can not affect the environment. Then ask them to quote anywhere in the Bible where it says man can not hasten the end of the earth. Remember, calmly and patiently.

Once they are done fuming and yelling and screaming you just calmly state that there is no where in the Bible where you will find such passages. And that the politician's stance on climate change is blatantly at odds with whichever hypothetical analogy you used previously. Then you bring it home by saying something to the effect that "We all agree that when" (earlier hypothetical) "happens then we should" earlier hypothetical "to make sure that our impact doesn't have terrible consequences to our environment, well addressing climate change is no different. If it makes sense to clean up an oil spill/be careful with nuclear waste/impose hunting seasons/prohibit hunting of animals on the endangered species list then it should be obvious to all that we should also address our impact on climate change. Just like there have been permanent reprecussions from oil spills/chernobyl/eradication of whole species of animals because we waited too long to act to protect the environment from man made harm, the same will be the case if we continue to put off addressing the effects of climate change which are now staring us in the face"

Now you don't want to get too preachy about it, but you do want to make those points. And here is how you bring it home. You profess your own faith, and you say that as you see it there is nothing contradictory about being a good Christian and also believing in climate change. On the one hand you have seen (insert beautiful scenes in nature that you have personally experienced, the more the better) which are evidence of God's amazing abilities. But on the other hand seeing those things give you even more determination to make sure that we do not ruin what God has provided for us. It is your solemn duty to as a Christian and as an American that we do not squander our God given natural resources, one of them being our climate which makes our world liveable.

What you have just done, in an understated manner, is basically accuse your right wing opponent of not being a good Christian because they don't care about the environment, but hey let the audience figure that part out.

Well, that is my political advice for the end of the year. Hopefully someone will see it somewhere and put it to good use. Or not.

Merry Christmas everyone, hope you have a great holiday season!

Breaking: Attack At Fort Hood Texas

I have been trying to wait until more concrete information came out but I will just keep updating as time goes on. There has been an attack at Fort Hood in Texas with at least two gunmen killing 7 people and the latest report is that there were 30 injured. One gunman is in custody and was wounded. The other gunman is still at large. There is also a report that the gunman in custody was an officer army major on the base with and I quote, "an arabic sounding name". Like I said I will update as the story goes along.

Update: Per the press conference there was one shoooter. He was killed after the attack. There were 2 other suspects who have been detained as suspsects. The updated numbers are 12 people killed and 31 injured. The attack happened at the Soldier Readiness Center. And the attacker and the two suspects were all soldiers.

Prayers go out to the injured, the dead, and their families involved in this terrible tragedy.

Update II: The name of the shooter is evidently Major Malik Hasan, a psychologist recently promoted and transferred to Fort Hood from Walter Reed Hospital in Maryland. He reportedly was going to be deployed to Iraq soon and had made statements of dissatisfaction about that.

Update III: Well I don't know what the hell happened but evidently the shooter is NOT dead and instead is in stable condition after being shot multiple times. I guess at the least maybe this means we will get some kind of explanation.

AHIP's Slip Is Showing

I am not a fan of the Senate Finance committee's version of a health care reform bill but AHIP's transparently dishonest attempt to discredit it gives me even more reason to believe that health care reform will get done this year. Now the question is will how much of it will be REAL reform?

When Hate Speech Kills

Greg Sargent is reporting what many people had already guessed, that tonight Bill O'Reilly will address the murder of Dr. George Tiller along with the fac that many people feel he bears some responsibility in the crime. I have no doubt in my mind that Bill O will shirk any and all responsibility. That's what he does. He gins up the rage of his viewers and then when one of them acts he never wants to admit that he had something to do with it. Well Jed Lewison has put together a video with many of the attacks Bill O has lobbed at Dr. Tiller over the last several years. You can come to your own conclusion as to whether his kind of rhetoric might have sounded to Scott Roeder like O'Reilly was cheering him on.

One Trick Pony

I have seen a few postings on progressive blogs today about RNC Chair hopefuls Ken Blackwell's townhall blog and now a new Katon Dawson's youtube attack ad of sorts. First here is the rundown on both from CNN.com:

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Despite the climate of national goodwill surrounding Barack Obama as he prepares to take the oath of office, two of the candidates vying to lead the Republican National Committee unleashed harsh attacks against the president-elect on Friday.

Katon Dawson, the chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party, promised in a new a YouTube message to be Obama's "worst nightmare" and said it would be the party’s mission for the next four years to "expose" the Democrats for what they "want to do to this country."

"I can assure you that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will understand that Katon Dawson will become their worst nightmare," he says in the video. "We will expose them at every turn for what they are doing to the American public."

snip

Earlier in the day, former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, who has positioned himself as one of the most rigidly conservative contenders for the RNC's top job, published a column on Townhall.com accusing Obama's economic stimulus package of being a liberal "Trojan Horse" that has "serious flaws, some of which convey a partisan advantage."

Now at the Washington Monthly, Steve Benen chose to compare and contrast Dawson with remarks Tim Kaine recently made about his role as the newly appointed chairman of the DNC. I won't get into all of that but I wanted to point it out so you can understand the context of the excerpts.

Dawson, meanwhile, wants to fight. He wants to work hard to be a "nightmare" for his opponents. Democrats haven't started governing yet, but he's already outraged by what the majority party is "doing to the American public."

snip

Kaine has the advantage of helping lead the winning team. It's easy to be gracious when you've already achieved your goals. But putting that context aside, watching these two competing clips, on the same afternoon, on the same topic, makes clear how both parties have very different ideas about partisan warfare.

The DNC's vision is shaped by Obama; the RNC's vision has been shaped by Gingrich circa 1994.

Now I love Benen's writing and I comment on his blog a lot. I am not really disagreeing with anything he wrote, but I think he misses an essential point. This isn't partisan warfare for Dawson. This isn't just an "approach". What Dawson and Blackwell are engaged in predates 1994 by a long shot. What they are doing really shouldn't even be labeled attacks, rather what they are really doing is just being typical Republicans.

Katon Dawson and Ken Blackwell ARE the Republican Party. This is why their party's trip isn't going to be into the wilderness, its going to be into the abyss. They don't know any way other than to attack their opponents rather than promote their own ideas. Yes they attack when they are in the minority but a lot of people aren't pointing out that they also attack when they are in the majority. This isn't some stance they are adopting just because they got tossed out on their ass. Its truly all most of them know. And with the advent of new media it just makes it so much harder for them to be successful with any of the attacks they used to use. People don't have to settle for getting spoonfed propaganda by the mainstream media when the attacks come. Now they can go to the internet and find out for themselves if they are being snowed and that doesn't bode well for Republicans.

See its not that Katon Dawson or Ken Blackwell weren't paying attention to the election or don't realize that the people don't want this kind of bullshit anymore. I am sure he and other Rethugs know that. But when you have only one bullet in your gun thats really the only one you can shoot. The problem is their party has revealed themselves not to be committed to their own bogus policy platforms when they actually get into office so they can no longer point the finger at Democrats as big government spenders and their Reagan era "tax cuts cure all ills" mantra has been exposed again as "voodoo economics" by this current economic crisis. (As an aside I find it AMAZING that no Democrat ever points out that Reagan came into office when the top tax rate was above 70%. You have a lot of leeway to cut taxes at that point, 39% not so much). But I digress...

The more they continue expose themselves as one trick ponys all they are doing is sending their credibility level to new lows. But don't expect it to stop or change. For years that kind of politics worked so they never attempted to change or adapt. Now there is probably just too much ground to make up in the market place of ideas AND policy doctrine is you don't change your stance on issues even if they become unrealistic. Shorter me, they are fucked.

To use a baseball analogy they are like the character Cerrano from the movie "Major League". He could knock the cover off the ball if you threw him a fastball but he never learned to hit a curve. And after he was exposed the pitchers just threw him all curve balls and he kept striking out trying to swing for the fences. With all of the problems facing our nation and the kind of new politics Obama presents to them the GOP has curveballs coming to them at all angles. But like hard headed numbskulls they will keep looking for the fastball, swinging for the fences and ultimately striking out.

What You Gone Do When The Worlds On Fire?

There is a must read posted at Huffington Post on this new military offensive by the Israelis in the Gaza strip. I will just excerpt the final paragraph but you really need to read the whole thing.

But there is a bigger picture - and it is staring at the incoming Obama administration. Today's events should be 'exhibit A' in why the next U.S. Government cannot leave the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to fester or try to 'manage' it - as long as it remains unresolved, it has a nasty habit of forcing itself onto the agenda. That can happen on terms dictated to the U.S. by the region (bad) or the U.S. can seek to set its own terms (far preferable). The new administration needs to embark upon a course of forceful regional diplomacy that breaks fundamentally from past efforts. A consensus of sorts is emerging in the U.S. foreign policy establishment that this conflict needs to be resolved - evidenced in the findings of a recent Brookings/Council of Foreign Relations Report or the powerful statements coming from elder statesmen like Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, themselves building on the findings of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group. It will require tenacity and bold ideas - in framing the solution, bringing in previously excluded actors, creating mechanisms to implement a deal (such as international forces) and utilizing the Saudi-led Arab Peace Initiative - but the alternative is far worse, its what we see today and it guarantees ongoing instability in a region of paramount importance to the United States.