New Poll: What is the most important thing Obama does in his address to Congress

Vote now! Tell us what you think is the most important thing President Obama needs to do in his address to congress! Give us your opinion over to the right of this blog!


(Mind the grammatical errors--we cant change the poll)

The Bare Neccisities Of Obama's Address to Congress

After two months of having his health care reform propositions be muddled, twisted, and turned in every which direction, the president is ready to take matters into his own hands. It is about time. Frankly, it has taken him to long to take initiative on the health care issue--and he has quite the mountain to climb to make up for his passiveness. As history has proved, a home run speech in front of congress simply won't do the trick to pass an effective health care reform bill--Obama needs a grand slam. Anything short, will be ineffective. Here is what Obama needs to do in his speech to be effective.

First thing, dispel all rumors quickly and decisively. Obama, to put it bluntly, has let the GOP walk all over him with their fear mongering tactics. Aside from a few defensive comments, he really hasn't done much battling these rumors-- really it has been the media doing the dirty work for him. The first thing he needs to do, before getting into the plan itself, is let everyone know, in an authoritative, commanding, almost aggravated fashion that these rumors about "death panels", veteran health insurance, gov. take over of health care, all of it...is nothing but false. However, because he has done such a poor job battling these rumors in the past months, dispelling these false notions won't be enough to get the job done. He is not only trying to win congress, but the American people as well. He needs to reprimand those elected politicians who encourage the rumors--let everyone know that anyone who has progressed these rumors are doing so for political reasons. Point out the hypocrisy in the rumors. Get the message across, these far fetched ideas have no place in the health care debate, and anyone who introduces them should be ashamed.

Second, clearly,concisely, and emphatically address the problems with the current health care system. Make sure everyone understands the problem with the health care industry is the private insurance companies. Too often the President glosses over this section of the argument, leaving the question to many conservatives, who have this notion of American infallibility, that there really is nothing wrong with the health care system. Part of this explanation should be emphatic. President Obama recently gave a speech on health care where he showed more emotion than I have ever seen him show, and it was incredibly effective. When he talks about the horrors of the health care system today, he must, MUST, utilize his incredible charisma, arguably more than any other part in his address to congress. The reason is because congress really already knows a lot of he details in bill--they are writing it. This is for the American people. It seems that of those who understand what the bill proposes, the majority supports it. The chunk of nay-sayers are people who don't understand the need for reform, and don't really understand the bill. These type of people are not going to be persuaded by by facts, or by a clear cut plan. They will be persuaded by rhetoric filled with the pathos of an ailing nation in dire need of reform. Obama's charisma, if used effectively, has the potential to sell this idea to reform to Americans, who simply don't, and really will not, understand the contents of the bill that is being proposed.

Thirdly, clearly address the details of the proposed plan. Most importantly, Obama needs to be clear, crystal clear, on what he wants in a plan, and how he plans to pay for it. This is more for Congress than for the American people, but it definitely wont hurt to have the public hear his plan. He needs to be stone cold on the idea that a public option is must. No more of this wishy washy, maybe co-op, maybe public option crap. We need a public option. That's what we want. That's what you are going to give me. That's the attitude the President needs to take. When it comes to details of the plan, so far, Obama has done a pitiful job explaining. When asked about competition between private sectors and the public option, or about costs or raising taxes, he has either beat around the bush or sugar coated it. He needs to make up for that Wednesday. Give congress a clear cut answer on why private insurance company will be able to compete with the public option. Most of all, explain how he plans to pay for his proposed health care plan. In gaining votes this is the most important part of his speech. If he can effectively produce a rational answer to come up with the 1 billion dollars needed to fund this thing, he will be able to win over the moderate democrats, and maybe even a 1 or 2 republicans.

In short what needs to happen, is the timid, passive, Obama that has shockingly emerged for these last two months needs to disappear. He needs to show the American public and congress, with the confidence and authority he had campaigning that he has full faith in the public option. Any speech that doesn't radiate confidence is a failed one. Any speech that doesn't address these three steps is a failed one. Obama has dug this whole through his passiveness, lets see him get out of it.

I invite anyone to give us what you think is necessary for Obama to do in his speech. I am interested to see what everyone thinks.

Not to cool for school?...Your a Communist.

Yesterday the notion that Obama's address to school children all across the nation is a scheme to indoctrinate students into Obama's "socialist ideology" really hit the fan. I really can't justified why I am surprised this notion exploded from pundits of Florida's Republican Party to actual legitimate republican elected politicians such as Minnesota Govenor Tim Pawlenty, but honestly I am. I am surprised for two reasons: 1) I am surprised this blew up into such a big issue, or an issue at all and, 2) it is hard to fathom the rhetoric being used against this address.

I mean lets take a look at what Obama actually plans on talking about. Well first, he plans of addressing the children to give them motivational instruction to stay in school, to set goals for themselves, and to stay motivated to succeed. Originally, that's what opposition was against...this apparent, far fetched, socialist agenda to motivate children. Anderson Cooper did a wonderful interview of Jim Greer, Florida Chair of the Republican Party, to which he asked Mr. Greer, how can you claim Obama will be pushing his agenda onto children when 1) You haven't seen his speech or have any hard evidence to to support your claim, and 2) Obama has already told you what he will say, and that is.... well this motivational stuff. Coopers point is valid one, how can people cause such a riot over a fear they are basing off of pure whimsical irrationality. Its not like this is the first a President addressed the school children of America. George Bush sr. addressed the schools of America...and when he received political criticism (which was incredibly mild to what we are seeing now) the Republicans were quick to their feet to defend him. George W. Bush soon followed suit with a double-whammy. Not only did he address the school children, but he actually was promoting his agenda of No Child Left Behind.

So then the pundits turned their argument around. Its not the speech anymore. Its the curriculum. Now the republicans focused their attention on an assignment the White House suggested schools: Have the kids write a letter explaining how they can help President Obama. Keep in mind these kids are well, kids. Its highly unlikely the topic of their letter will be creating left wing "socialist" propaganda for health care reform, or the new cap and trade bill. I think its safe to say the majority of these kids will be writing about generic ways they can help the country and the president as whole. Such as stay in school, don't commit crimes, try to do good...maybe if they get real radical socialist(y) they will write about supporting the country. This assignment should be viewed as what it is... a reflective writing assignment to strengthen critical analysis and writing skills, rather than a secret plot to bring communism/socialism to America.

As if it was bad enough that this blew up into an issue in the first place, the magnitude of the rhetoric used is a bit extreme...and its not exclusive to the pundits either. This speech promoting staying in school, setting goals, and being motivated, its being compared to ...wait for it...fascism. That's right. Fox News Channel and other right wing bloggers compared Obama to "Chairman Mao [Zedong]" creating the Red Guard, to North Korean and former Soviet Union dictatorship. But the Fox News channel is always pretty radical, as are the right wing bloggers; unfortunately it didn't stop there. Elected officials such as Oklahoma state senator Steve Russel made the same comparisons he said, " this is akin to something you see in North Korea or under Saddam Hussein's Iraq"

Like I said, we shouldn't be surprised...this summer has been filled with ridiculous falsities to say the least. But when the right compare a motivational speech about staying in school to fascism and totalitarian dictatorships like Stalin, Mao, and Saddam I just cant help but shockingly say, "What the fuck?!

Ruining the Sanctity of Marrige...

So I was watching Rachel Maddow today and she brought something, totally non-health care related, that was very, very interesting about Massachusetts.

For those who don't know, Mass. is the first state to legalize same-sex marriage. Now this was back in 2004...since then there has been all eyes on Mass. to see what results the highly controversial bill would yield.

To religious conservatives same sex marriage is the end of all things civil. Many on the right have made pretty radical comparisons to legalizing homosexual marriage to things like bestiality and polygamy. Some have even argued that quality of life, in general, will decrease. Yet all these, rather radical statements have been topped off with the argument used most against same-sex marriage: it will ruin the sanctity, or definition, of marriage.

Never mind the fact that the definition of marriage has changed quite a bit (polygamy used to be legal and black marriage was illegal), lets take a look at the big fish: ruining the sanctity of marriage.

Maddow reported in her segment on MSNBC that the divorce rates in the Mass. has actually declined to pre-World War II levels. Back when stereotypical perfect families like the "Stevens" or the "Johnson's" existed. Yeah. The sanctity of marriage is that good in Mass.

To make matters worse for anti-gay marriage activists, the number of divorces in Mass is declining. So not only is the sanctity of marriage being preserved....its getting better.

I guess I just really don't understand the argument against same sex marriage. They claim same sex marriage will, disarm the quality of life...yet the only proof relevant to this claim, is proof against it! Massachusetts is doing fine.

Then they say...well gay marriage will ruin the traditional lifestyle of Americans . I have two problems with that argument. 1) I don't really see why it matters if there is no consequence for doing so. 2) the tradition of American lifestyle is reforming outdated ideals! Such anti-gay activist ideals...

My favorite is that if gay marriage passes...the definition of marriage will fundamentally change. To which I respond...are you holding a definition above the undeniable rights of a human. But in all seriousness, unless changing the definition has some sort of invisible consequence we are not aware of...why does it matter?

I invite any conservative reading this, to give me one good reason same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed. Anything is fair game.


But to be honest...I don't think there really is any merit behind anti-gay marriage activist ideals. If Massachusetts has taught us anything... its that gay marriage 1) does nothing but allows gay marriage, 2) preserves the "sanctity of marriage" the same if not better than straight marriage, and my favorite... 3) makes an entire population happy.

Anti-Semitic Slurs Thrown at a Jew for Supporting Health Care

Check out this video out, unbelievable....

Swine Flu Hoax?

I was planning on writing a blog today on the "cash for clunkers" program today, but hearing certain information...I felt I had to address this. We all know there are lies, or "mis-information" as Obama would call it, on health reform. Death Panels, abortions, gov. take over etc. etc. We all know people on the right, and people funding the right, are trying incredibly hard to fight of reform at any cost. But honestly, I couldnt belive what I read today. Dick Armey, chairman of Freedom Works, released this statement this week, "

"In September or October there will be a hyped up outbreak of the swine flu which they'll say is as bad as the boubonic plague to scare the bed-wetters to vote for the health care reform"

This will probably one of the few times I will swear on this blog. But honestly, are you fucking serious?! Dick Armey, former House Majority Leader, says swine flu is hoax to pass health reform. Let show you how utterly out-of-this world this statement is, at the time Armey made that comment, according to the Wall Street Journal, more than 7,511 people have been hospitalized due to the swine flue, and 477 have died...in the US alone. And he has the nerve to say swine flu is a hoax!?

This is why, liberals in congress taking a hard nose view on health care, saying public option or no reform is good thing. Because republicans like Armey, Grassley, Palin, Mccaughey, all of them, will stop at nothing to break reform. They will do whatever it takes, ethical or non-ethical, to make sure reform doesnt pass. Check out these numbers from an NBC poll based on "mis-information" and downright lies,

THE POLL: 45 percent said it's likely the government will decide when to stop care for the elderly; 50 percent said it's not likely.

THE FACTS: Nothing being debated in Washington would give the government such authority. Critics have twisted a provision in a House bill that would direct Medicare to pay for counseling sessions about end-of-life care, living wills, hospices and the like if a patient wants such consultations with a doctor. They have said, incorrectly, that the elderly would be required to have these sessions.

THE POLL: 55 percent expect the overhaul will give coverage to illegal immigrants; 34 percent don't.

THE FACTS: The proposals being negotiated do not provide coverage for illegal immigrants.

THE POLL: 54 percent said the overhaul will lead to a government takeover of health care; 39 percent disagree.

THE FACTS: Obama is not proposing a single-payer system in which the government covers everyone, like in Canada or some European countries. He says that direction is not right for the U.S. The proposals being negotiated do not go there.

THE POLL: 50 percent expect taxpayer dollars will be used to pay for abortions; 37 percent don't.

THE FACTS: The House version of legislation would allow coverage for abortion, but the bill says a beneficiary's own money — not taxpayer funds — must be used to pay for the procedure. How that would be enforced has not been determined.

What is the red is not my writing either. That is sheer fact, no opinion based on the poll and whats in the bill. My point is, democrats need to get on board like the republicans did these past 8 years to pass some of their legislation. If republicans like Grassley do not want to negotiate, so be it, make the best bill you can and sign it without them. If they don't want health care reform, do not cater to them.

Note: I have been getting email's asking me to write on other topics in todays hot topic bubble besides health care as well, look for the next blog about cash for clunkers by the end of today.

Revived from the Dead; Public Option

Thank goodness. This weekend was a scary time for the public option, but somone has seemingly rose from the dark and is attempting to revive it. Anthony Weiner. Since Monday, he has been on T.V non-stop arguing relentlessly for a public option. So far, it seems 100 liberal democrats have decidedly said they will not vote on a bill that does not contain the public option. Weiner recently had a chat with Chris Matthews regaurding the public option. Check out this excperpt:

MATTHEWS: Suppose it’s got four elements in it. It’s got individual mandates. Everybody’s got to join. It’s got subsidies for people who are working people. It’s got some kind of encouragement to business to insure people. And it’s got something to do with reform in terms of pre-existing conditions and portability.
WEINER: And no...
MATTHEWS: Will you vote for a bill like that?

WEINER: And no cost containment so the costs keep going up and it bankrupts our government? I can’t vote for that.

Not giving in, thats what Weiner and the progressives are doing, and frankly thats what needs to happen right now. It is because of these progressive liberals that are playing decisive hardball that other "blue dog" democrats and other memebers of congress mroe likely to fold simply wont be able to. Its all or nothing with the public option...Republicans vs. Democrats...luckily the Democrats have the advantage. Weiner understands that, and its time all Democrats in congress...and even Republicans understand it too:

MATTHEWS: OK, let me ask you this. Is there any way to get a bill past the Congress except with 60 votes in the Senate and 218 in the House?
WEINER: Yes, I think we can do it with 51 in the Senate under reconciliation.
MATTHEWS: But you would never be — what — what — you would be willing to blow up the Senate rules and basically push it through that?
WEINER: What do you mean blow up the Senate rules? Look, there’s a reason that there’s a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate, and Democratic presidency. That middle block of Americans want us to get this done.
MATTHEWS: OK.
WEINER: I don’t think we’re blowing up anything....
WEINER: Look, outside of this town, the American people really don’t care about whether Chuck Grassley [votes] ... for it or not.

Enough is enough.