There it was, on the White House blog: a post from incoming White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer, posted at Friday night, 11:30 pm.
The tone was even a little snarky, as these things go: "Since some opponents of reform seem too obsessed with the length of the Senate health insurance reform bill to even bother looking at what's in it for American families," he wrote, "we thought we'd make it a little easier for them to find some key of provisions they're working so hard to kill."
Late night posting…snark….Congratulations, Dan, you’re a real blogger!
"We want to continue to look for new and different ways for the White House to communicate about the President's agenda,” Pfeiffer told us. “Greater use of the blog on whitehouse.gov is one of those ways."
The point of Pfeiffer’s blog is to be something like the electronic version of when White House press secretary Robert Gibbs uses the daily briefing to make a point about a specific issue.
So, on guns: "It’s amazing that after so many months debating health insurance reform, sometimes a myth we see being spread about it can still surprise us. In October, for example, we saw a rather shocking claim that one bill being debated in the Senate ‘could be used to ban guns in home self-defense.’ Politifact appropriately dismissed that claim as false, and we thought we could all move on from bizarre claims that reform was related to the 2nd Amendment in any way whatsoever. But apparently the Gun Owners of America, the same group that propagated that ridiculous claim, had simply gone back to the drawing board. Today they sent out an alert misleading their members again, raising the specter of some massive government database of ‘gun-related health data’ despite the fact that there is no mention ‘gun-related health data’ or anything like it anywhere in either the Senate or the House bills.
Sometimes he lets the numbers do the talking. As when last Saturday, during the Senate debate over health care reform, he noted that some of those criticizing the health care bill regarding its cost or legislative length had no such compunctions about those issues during the 2003 debate over the Medicare prescription drug benefit.
And so on.