ARRA News Service - Tina Korbe, Hot Air said: When “Cut, Cap and Balance” failed the Senate and both chambers of Congress regrouped around new plans, the first to go of the three crucial elements in the House’s original plan was a balanced budget amendment. Neither of the deficit reduction plans presently on the table provides for the passage of a BBA. It’s also the element of CCB most frequently decried as unrealistic. But political lights from Thomas Jefferson to Ronald Reagan have called for such an amendment, as this video from GOP Labs illustrates. Let President Obama say, “We don’t need more studies; we don’t need a balanced budget amendment.” If ever any unfolding drama proved the need for such an amendment, the drama of the past week has been it. Leave cuts to Congress and what do you get? CBO-certified gimmicks on both sides — even on the side of one sincerely trying to garner savings, one who says he also “wanted more.”
President Reagan Said in a Speech to the Nation on Federal Budget, 4/29/1982: As former President Ronald Reagan says in this video, “Most Americans understand the need for a balanced budget and most have seen how difficult it is for the Congress to withstand the pressures to spend more. … We tried the carrot and it failed. With the stick of a balanced budget amendment, we can stop government’s squandering and overtaxing ways and save our economy.”
Tags: balanced budget amendment, President, Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan, video, economic recovery, conservative, the Economy, taxes, bankrupt, Balance the Budget, Thomas Jefferson, American people
Campaigning does strange things to people. For instance, it makes some people think videos like these are a good idea....
This video from CAP's Campus Progress is....well, to paraphrase Douglas Adams: 10 out of 10 for trying something unusual. Minus a few million for execution.
On the other side of the aisle is the recent Mike Weinstein video....which, if you haven't seen it yet, go watch it right now. And then curse me when you can't get it out of your head for the rest of the day. They win on choreography, vocal talent and sheer enthusiasm (though, in fairness, it's not hard to out-enthuse zombies).
I can only assume that the new social media tactic in politics is camp. This may actually be an improvement over some of the previous social media tactics (send press releases about yesterday's news!)
This new health reform video produced by Colorado's Independence Institute (disclosure: my employer) is a great example of combining original research with short, viewer-friendly animation to convey a clear message about the dangers of greater government intervention in our health care.
It tells the story of Oregon's experience with Medicaid rationing, specifically how organized special interest groups were able to use their lobbying power to give higher priority to providing coverage for more politically correct treatments (eg, substance-abuse, birth control, weight loss) while treatments for others got lower priority or no coverage at all.
This video is a sequel to a similar animated piece on Obama Care that highlighted the dangers of health insurance mandates, using the Massachusetts story and a bus hitting
We need to keep framing the story with honest arguments based in real-world policy examples that are easily accessible to everyday voters. Yes, I'm biased, but this is excellent work from a state-level think tank -- I'd like to see more emulating this strategy.
Bill Smith, ARRA Editor:The Cato Institute has been following the Citizens United v. FEC case, in which the Supreme Court is set to rule on whether an organization can use speech about a political candidate in the days leading up to an election. The Federal Election Commission banned Citizen United from showing a film against Hillary Clinton on a pay-per-view basis shortly before the last year’s election.
The so-called Citizens United case offers the Supreme Court a chance to severely curtail the free speech abuses of the Federal Election Commission. If the government can ban broadcasts under federal law, that else can they ban? Books? Commercials? In the following CATO video, campaign finance law and free speech experts discuss the case, and what it means for the future of free speech. The Supreme Court is set to rule on it in the next few weeks. John Samples, Director of the Cato Institute's Center for Representative Government, Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Steve Simpson and George Mason University law professor Allison Hayward weigh in.
The infringement on free speech is troubling. We will be sure to let you know when the Supreme Court makes their ruling. While we cannot predict the outcome, the very thought that the government could eventually ban books, news print, this blog, and any other form of political commentary is nothing more than overturning the 1st amendment. What part of "Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ." does Congress and the Federal Election Commission not understand?
ARRA News Service - Dinesh D'Souza spoke at AFP 2008 Defending the American Dream Summit. An author and political science expert, D'Souza at age 26 was the senior policy advisor to President Reagan. The video has several vignettes. One of D'Souza's best is his attempt to explain to his mother, in India, about the American political system. He said, "there are two parties: the stupid party and the evil party. He is a proud member of the stupid party, but occasionally, (like with the bailout), we do things that are both stupid and evil - and we call that bipartisanship."
When copyright protection goes too far, you get stuff like this.
Last night, I created and posted the video below to YouTube. Immediately after processing, I received a notification from YouTube that ITN News, a British media company, has claimed all rights to footage of the Republican National Convention, and my video would be disabled unless I chose to pursue a denial of their claim.
No, there are two things to note. First, the video was not obtained from ITN, but rather from C-Span. Second, the video was used in accordance with C-Cpan's copyright policy here: http://rnc08.cspan.org/About/Copyright.aspx
So YouTube has effectively become the watchdog for ITN who is misusing the copyright process to a) prevent anyone from posting convention video and b) prevent anyone using video from another source for posting convention video.
Ed at Hot Air brought this video to my attention, which features 15 GOP Senators, including Tennessee's Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker, calling on the Democrats for a "balanced energy plan." A great addendum to the House GOP effort, actually.
Here's what I like about this video. It's fast-moving, it's solutions-based, and it's surprisingly Internet savvy for Republican Senators. It's a smart appeal to young voters (the Coldplay song would be passé, except I'll give the GOP a pass because at least it's from this century.), and it doesn't talk down to us. The call for their Democratic colleagues to do something is much more senatorial, which makes sense and bookends the revolutionary air behind the House's Guerrilla Congress.
My only hope is that the GOP in Congress uses this as an opportunity to step out of the way, not try to be too meddlesome like with Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Republicans need to know that what we do best is let the market and the people do their jobs.
Not all is lost for McCain's eCampaign. Silicon Alley Insider reports the "Obama Love" and "Pump" web ads have helped McCain to beat Obama lately in YouTube views:
To get a sense of how rare this is, McCain has beaten Obama on just two other days in video views since the campaign began: February 11, 2008 and November 29, 2007, according to TubeMogul. Thanks to his clever and aggressive use of video and obvious appeal to the YouTube generation, Obama has owned Web video: His clips have been watched 56 million times since the campaign began; McCain's have been watched 4.5 million times.
But McCain's team seems to be figuring out Web video. Or at the very least, they're having a good week, according to TubeMogul.
The videos use two issues that run well with conservatives: liberal media bias and more drilling. I think much of the viewership is from the conservative base who is coming to McCain.
We still haven't seen an over-arching theme from Team McCain but I'm getting confident they'll do an admirable job if/when they develop it.
If you have liberal friends, by now you've probably gotten this video emailed to you.
In it, a professional actor playing the role of a doctor explains his reason for voting Republican: "I don't want a cure for AIDS or breast cancer."
The liner notes helpfully explain:
The Bush administration has been more interested in promoting AIDS treatment in Africa (for the benefit of American pharmaceutical companies) than in assisting American citizens who have AIDS. The administration has also withheld money from organizations in Africa that distribute condoms in attempts to control the spread of HIV/AIDS.
Because treating AIDS in Africa couldn't possibly be important or anything. An estimated 22.5 million people are HIV positive in Sub-Saharan Africa, and nearly 100 times more people died of AIDS-related illnesses in Africa than died in North America last year.
For too long, we’ve conceded the creative, clever and artistic to liberal causes both on the web and on the street. Can someone tell me why? The left has used graphics and video to affect public opinions, generate earned media and most importantly raise funds. Need a recent example? Take a look at Shepard Fairey’s Obama posters.
Perhaps it’s just me, but it feels like the conservative movement on the web is reaching a tipping point. We’ve got this shiny new blog here and some renewed vigor as the elections approach. But we’re still lacking is the Do It Yourself, street campaign mentality.