Preface to FOOTNOTES OCTOBER 2012

Jolly Roger?  October Motif?
R,R,R! Or Simon Says?  (Right off the bat...)(*fn) 

September(**fn) Archive.
closing 10-1-12 Forward to FOOTNOTES: continue here: FOOTNOTES OCTOBER 2012  ]


NOT TO MITT-FLOP: but I will process the footnotes scrolling down in time as opposed to September's format.

[[]]
10-1-12
IN FACT SCRATCH THIS AS PREFACE OF SORTS.
[EDITOR"S NOTE: SEE FOOTNOTES OCTOBER 2012 Continued there. ]
10-1-12
[[]]

[]
[10-1-12 preemptive post to month of October.]
(*fn) =footnote on (FOOTNOTES OCTOBER...)
[bat= pun on Halloween and my going right off track with the footnotes protocol]
Not to trickle-down. (Scroll over for Ribble?)
B'log Search(b.s.): jolly + roger ( a, b )
October: Walking the Plank[!]
Motif: (b.s.) PEG'd ( a , b )
(**fn) Still some in draft for September.
(Ribble= ribbing/riddle  Hint: a bit of a pin the foot on the pirate.)
[] braketed close of asterisks to Forward.


FLASHNOTE: 10-5-12  http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/presidential-debate-top-7-romney-comments-youd-swear-he-could-never-have-said-but-did/news/2012/10/03/50276NOT!  OCTOBER NO SUPRISE!
Nor: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/

First Debate: Zinger Score 2 to -1:  (comcast log)"take" etc.
Tough reviews for Jim Lehrer as debate moderator.
Romney barrels out of first debate on offense.
FACT CHECK: Presidential debate missteps.
Obama: Jobs report shows economy is on right track.>?
What the?  Ouch* < ! 

Replacement Refs or Not... 
I can't keep up with the debate ball of wax, or FOX-coop and egg heading. 
Post Ouch^*:
"spiracy":The Vice President Rolls
"math+godliness": My Respects to Those who Celebrate.
Might be maybe?

10-7-12 <*> "debate" http://xfinity.comcast.net/video/McCain-Romney-wins-first-debate-but-/2287378762/FoxNews/newest/ <*> 

First Debate: Zinger Score 2 to -1

Although I did not take an official scoring of the First Debate (Transcript) , two zingers the President came up with regarded Trump and SNL.  For Romney it was his "five boys" under the bus or at the President's lies.  "Never mind".

OK, so it really wasn't a debate for zingers. I happen to have heard the debate on the radio**, with only a few interruptions and don't wish to give them a grade, but only remind that it was only first of three, and try to find a commentary(Thom Hartmann?) that what matters is the post-debate spin.  Not that I will follow-up on the links here, but will suggest that Obama* will probably ramp up his urgency but remain steady in the next debates.

* Is it too late to score the Big Bird as a zinger?
[Re:FLASHNOTE (*there)]

**10-5-12  If it were a debate they would have stopped it[!].

March Madness

Normally this refers to Basketball,

which involves a tournament.

There are reasons Sarah Palin is not in the running.

She is only in the change game.

And that is a shame.

Simply put: Put up or shut up!

Get in the Republican race and you can have your debate.

Short of that, someone should accept her challenge.

And I don't mean Hillary or Katie*.

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin might do well to find out what a debate entails.

Even Comedy Central or MSNBC, should not be considered as early round qualifiers for the Final Four.**

* The Colbert Report or No Labels is not the shame, but Olympia Snow did come up. Being an enemy does not make you a candidate or a debater, let alone a journalist.

**Who would compete in this evolution?[i.e. Who would stoop to taking Sarah Palin serious let alone qualified to debate. Not that that would qualify her to advance to a final debate round. There was so much C-rap here, I thought I would d'ribble the punch line. Wouldn't we love Palin to actually debate*** someone of her watch-ama gotcha?]

[But speaking of tournaments, I don't think the Raw Money Class wants to be facing Obama anytime too soon.]

*** Buddy Roemer has left the building. Not to mention Gary Johnson.(C-Hillary Link*/see "actually debate" links.)

[3-21-12 Robert Reich ponders run.]

Pre-Palin-Biden-Debate

Governor Palin should not be allowed to be condescending.
She has already given condescending a new meaning. Well...maybe it is the old meaning.
Maybe it is the full meaning of irony, she gives out.
Lowering the bar, to be above it all.
[POST DEBATE COMMENT:
Governor Palin clearly hit the hockey puck out of the park*.
Senator Biden clearly kept it on ice and scored the goals.
Debate winner: Biden
Of course my expectations were met.** Palin clearly could not be as uninformed and goofy as she portrays herself. She is still wrong and uninformed but had a wonderful performance. She performed well above the bar she had so casually stomped on. Biden held to his promise and avoided being condescending, while Palin raised condescension to almost a snottiness mixed with the matronly scolding of an errant child.]
[Early Polls: Independents
Biden won, little game change.
Secondary winner? The media. They survived her bashing. Meaning that the debate did not change the composite picture the people have.] Belittle. The word used in post debate comment on MSNBC, that is the word for the condescension.
The debate may have halted Palin's drag on the ticket, it just won't drag it in the right direction.
** I am relieved that Palin was not worse than she has been shown to be, and that Biden was not cowed by her tactics.
* this asterisk inserted much later to include a just found reference to park and

MemoGate

Bush catches critics off guard
Weakened president still can set terms of debate
ANALYSIS: The Washington Post
Read- OPINION. TheLiaisonReport.com

Memogate has dual meaning: The weakened president could not accurately read memo headings.
The media cannot write accurate heading titles. While the former does not bother reading the full memos, this reader has at this point not finished reading the article. My point is that The Washington Post is more likely not off guard and is setting the terms of the debate for a weakened president. Even the term debate is very shaky, implying that there is: 1. an argument and 2. they will actually face a debate. The point is that we would not be in much of this mess if the media had not been his cheerleader and the administration had been able to read memos. While headings do get attention, we would not have this course or the terms of the debate without the media still blowing it.

Fourth Estate Blowing It!

The Journal posed an interesting question in their December 20th editorial, "9/11 changes debate on electronic spying". Unfortunately by taking the President's answers they have dropped out of the debate, presuming there ever was one. The point is not whether eavesdropping would have prevented anything.

If going to war was necessary because existing policies were not working, the President should at least be required to prove not only that wiretaps prevent something but that he could not have used them under the law, both before September 11th, and after congress granted broader authority. Until congress finishes the promised and forgotten investigation into the use of pre-war intelligence, we should be very concerned whether any is being used to protect our constitution.

I don’t know if enough in congress have learned any lessons, but certainly not this editorial board. They concluded, "Once we may have joined in that debate. But that was before Sept. 11, when we were awakened to a reality we didn't see coming. If electronic spying could have stopped Mohammed Atta and his cohorts ... you should be able to finish that sentence yourself."

If it is that simple, what is the next thing we won’t see coming and what will prevent another wake-up? How much power is needed to prevent power from being grabbed, either by leaders or followers? Maybe in the Journals dreams it will all work out, but they certainly can‘t be depended upon to burst any bubbles either as a member of the fourth estate or by knowing a debate if there was one. The problem is that those who could finish the answer to the one question miss the irony in having one point of view.

[The Journal probably thinks their readers don't know that the media is the Fourth Estate, and that is just fine with the paper as they are not doing their job anyway.]

QCON that [Anonymous Interview]

Thanks to Anonymous we have some truth.
CIA insider says U.S. fighting wrong war
Anonymous career officer makes bold claims in book about U.S. war on terror By Andrea Mitchell, NBC NEWS 6-24-04

QCON: I would half agree with his conclusion, "It's not a good option; it's the only option." The first half not the second. On his way he makes many assumptions and caveats to his conclusion that must be explored.

Some excerpts: SEE LINK BELOW >>>>
My bold added.

Mitchell: "You call for some very tough actions here. You talk about escalating our war against them, and you say in your book that killing in large numbers is not enough to defeat our Muslim foes. This killing must be a Sherman-like razing of infrastructure. You talk about civilian deaths. You talk about landmines. Is that really what we have come to in this war on terror?"

Anonymous:
…“I think we've come to the place where the military is about our only option. We have not really discussed the idea of why we're at war with what I think is an increasing number of Muslims. Which — it's very hard in this country to debate policy regarding Israel or to debate actions or policies that might result in more expensive energy. I don't think it's something that we wanted to do, but I think it's where we've arrived.”

Mitchell: "Where is the falling down? Where is our effort falling down?"

Anonymous: "Part of it, I think, is again, as I wrote in the book, is the unwillingness of senior bureaucrats in the intelligence community to take the full truth, an unvarnished truth to the president, whether it's Mr. Bush or Mr. Clinton. I'm not sure that it's proper to blame al-Qaida's existence, continued existence or attacks on any elected official. I think the, the bureaucracy at the senior levels in the intelligence community is selective in what they take to the president. I think they are loath to describe the dire problem posed by bin Laden for a number of reasons. One of them is basically political correctness. It's not career-enhancing to try to engage in a, in a debate about religion and the role it plays in international affairs. And so we, we, we address bin Laden from the perspective of law enforcement, picking them off one at a time, arresting them, killing them. And I think that's a, the, the, the result of no one frankly discussing the size of the problem or the motivation behind the problem."

Mitchell: "And what are you going to say to those who say that this is anti-American and that this is a really prejudiced approach? What do you say to those who say that your call for a war against Muslim people, is really only going to make the situation worse?"

Anonymous: "I wonder how much worse the situation can be, in the first instance. We continue to believe that somehow public diplomacy or words will affect the anger and hatred of Muslims. And I'm not advocating war as my choice. What I'm advocating is, in order to protect the United States, it is our only option. As long as we pursue the current policies we have, until we have a debate about those policies, there's not a lot we can do. We won't talk them out of their anger, we won't convince them we're an honest broker between the Israel and the Palestinians. We won't convince that we're not supporting tyrannies in the Arab world from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean.
"It's the only option. It's not a good option; it's the only option. And I'm not saying we attack people who aren't attacking us. But in areas where we realize our enemies are, perhaps we have to be more aggressive."

QCON: I think reading this interview and maybe the book would be helpful with an open mind, and I wonder what his next book would be. Remember what he was not an expert in, and question where he and we may also be "myopic".

The truth is out there and maybe in there too. It may even be in the title of his book: "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror."

NOTE: [QCON = Quick Comment On News or
Question Connections and several other con words]

WAR? NO! DEBATE? YES!

[faxed and e-mailed before the Presidents Speech]
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
[COWBOY MANIFESTO (NSS)? NO! ANSWERS TO RHETORIC? YES!]
Below is a short compendium of the argument.
It cuts through the scholarly to almost the common sense.
We need more than common sense,
but even it says... NO TO WAR!
NO TO THREATS!
YES TO INTERNATIONAL LAW AND CO-OPERATION.

PLEASE READ!
Debate Iraq Resolution!
Debate Cowboy Manifesto!
Further debate must be held on the Iraq Resolution indeed on the Cowboy Manifesto (National Security Strategy of the United States).

I am very concerned about the new preemptive policy in defense of the nation. Congress must not lose the power to declare war. The president still has the duty to inform congress of his actions in defense of the nation. Congress should review authorization for the National Security Act of 1947 and be informed of all covert actions taken in the name of defense. Congress should make sure all treaties and international laws are complied with or amend their actions and consent on the basis of any violations.

In regards to Iraq, enforcement of UN resolutions should be made in cooperation with the UN Security Council or there is no authority but that of congresses to go to war. Since Iraq’s transgression was mainly the invasion of Kuwait, regime change other than for purposes of enforcing UN resolutions is an act of war. Inspections and disarmament must be done under clear guidelines that prevent war preparations prior to violations being found and corrected.

If the United States chooses to take this responsibility on their own, what will the U. N. or any other nations that disagree hold us responsible for? Indeed which of our actions will other nations or groups take as an example?

The rhetoric must be cut through. There is a fine line between a bluff and a lie. Both should be difficult to do in a democracy. Questions must be answered or we must insist actions remain rhetorical!

"It's my turn"[!]

...is what came to mind as I saw Romney frame the race as a decision between the three winners of the last three contests. That's what Ron Paul(8:45) should say. Or maybe Herman Cain or Stephen Colbert should say it**. I am in the process of watching last night's debate on CNN and Rick Santorum (9:10)kicked off the debate with a thread that crosses another thought I had during the introductions, "We are a country of laws".* Actually Ron Paul had already started a few threads in his introduction, we are not nation builders. Romney(15:58) stands up to a Gingrich charge or rather a question on rhetoric and deals with it in legal terms. My original thought had to do with the irony of the conservative nature, but Gingrich is almost a false flag of rhetoric.

* quoting Santorum, not my thought or thread which I may have lost, but laws are the thread of building our nation

BTW- Not necessarily the missing thought: but in regards to Romney's financial reporting, does it bode well for his credit as a business leader, let alone maker of laws? I mean the mis-reporting, and his math regarding taxes and charitable contributions adding up at times to 40 to 45%?

[related irony (slash) update: what I thought was a churned media book event, may turn out to be good for the debate. What can we learn from Arizona? Will we take her up on it? Will the NAACP take Newt up on his charge? Just how do we demand paychecks*** over food stamps? Is it as easy as rhetoric?]

[1-28-12 In defense of PolitiFact... c4*]

[** 1-28-12 link added, Keep Paul Alive! (Courtesy of Buddy Roemer via Bill Maher.)

*** link added]

[c4* I have used as many asterisks as I intend but I would like to connect two pieces(or 3) which relate to the PolitiFact wordplay. Facts are facts and economics and politics everything else. (i.e. context and con text.) But more specifically The Economist has a perspective.]

Parsed (& Partied) Political Process

Debate!
(the rest I needed)
OK, I have some catching up to do,
but will probably not.
(rocking the boat ain't bad,
but not Gilligan's Island)
OK, I was out of touch for the weekend.

As far as the vote and third parties,
I feel that more competition will help the debate.
As long as people realize where their vote will lead.

Triangulation may be the change we can believe in * ,
but not the leader. My hope is that indepedents from the left or the right, (say Nader and Barr) will be included in the debate, where triangulation is a form of navigation based on principles, but also where practicality hits the road. Give the poor track record of the media, and the bifurcation -(Red and Blue America)- of the internet(unfiltered), expanded participation may better focus the dialogue, but don't forget the green.
[Nader, Barr, and Green?]
[I leave you and Green to search and speak for your selves.]

[*: under Geometry of Purpose: related efforts, links no longer appear, but my point was by contrast to Bill O'Reilly, and definitely not to agree with the parable nor what is still found at American Thinker.]

Throwing the Game

or Tetrahedron.

Or should we call it die with less perspective?

Bottom line? I mean, who am I to advise the GOP, but the Pizza Guy may just be the best thing for the country. Not that I would go that far, but if he makes it to nominee, I mean, it just might be good for the national debate. At least he will have one up on the MBA president, if not the constitutional law and community organizer president. I mean just what business is the country in? Let alone what it means to grow the pie.

The other lines? Well I will work on them later, but there may be something to Jon Stewart's point, if not baiting photobombers. I don't want to run the table, but I guess that is another table.


[Post-Ribble or Meta-4: the above was written without the benefit of having followed much ofor many of the links. It was based simply on the point that we have an executive of Godfather's Pizza running for president, and it might be good for the debate. That and the pun on dice(plural) or the lesser perspectives/dimentions of the tetrahedron. But I will now add that I will also contrast in a less dimensional way, Andrew Breitbart and Jon Stewart, they only hinge on the 1st amendment. In that regard I clicked on a link at the latter's and note the "freedom of speech" and the rest of I.T.

Bocephus had a point, even though he was wrong about almost everything else. There is something strange, to say the least about Boehner and Obama playing golf, while some fiddle.

What are the odds? (I can't find where I buried the original ref: but I guess that means that Netanyahu not only might have played golf with Hitler, but he would pin a badge on him. I guess that leaves me off the Picard(cunnard) upon which Brietbart has hoisted himself.) It is not uncommon for me to lose links, but what are the odds the last thing in my email is on Cain.]

[10-6-11 update: Hank Williams Jr.-No Dylan - I agree with Hank Williams Jr. in his apology "The thought of the Leaders of both Parties Jukin and High Fiven on a Golf course, while so many Families are Struggling to get by simply made me Boil over and make a Dumb statement and I am very Sorry if it Offended anyone. I would like to Thank all my supporters. This was Not written by some Publicist." But I beg to differ on the move to get money out of politics. [The devil is in the details, and what is left out. I think the petition is flawed. While I support the intent and wish it well, what will it be replaced with? What influence will the media then have in filtering the debate? What influence will corporations then have in crafting any messages? Get money out of the news! Get money out of "free speech"! If you catch my drift.] HW Jr. used a disgusting analogy, but Dylan Ratigan's petition just falls short of being comprehensive.]
[If wishes were fishes...we'd be fed up. Bain or cut bait, and candy and nuts.]

Hardball

Follow-up to the Tool Shed 10 AM (PST)today:

Military style: Rumsfeld v. Gates
I don't know if I will find the quote but Rumsfeld noted his style of management as heated or open to heated dialogue. I will only contrast this with what I feel is a more healthy debate. Of course there is no debate as to whom is in charge. (Yeah right!) But I feel that reading between the lines is not so much the problem as actually reading some lines. The short answer? Not. I feel that the actual strategy may be not as much a push back to the administration but a pulling forward (see "shared responsibility) in support of a more robust change. It should also be realized just who are rationals actor and who are less so. I won't characterize any groups by even saying "them" or "us" but I mean those that see violence as the primary tool. And what is military strategy is no longer just in the shadows.
[footnote: chain of command ]

THIS AFTERNOON:
Maj. General Eaton: "healthy debate"[*]
White House Leaving Afghanistan not an option.

Not to mention:
the leak last month.
[*][6-24-10: McChrystal(Chain of Command) labels added]

Apples and Oranges?

National Hyperbole?
Herman Cain is trying to explain his 9-9-9 or Sim City tax code, while Perry(or Romney) is trying to make the point that people don't want another tax, without pointing out the regressive nature of it. It really is apples and oranges, both of which will impact the 99% more than the 1%.
(tough segue)
(all+politics.)
[Cherry Picking the L word?]
[Local? Laffer? the Curve? Liberal?]

[My original intent was to note the rhetoric* in the hyperbole link, and get to my compromise-D point via "apples and oranges". i.e. who am I to recommend a Republican candidate? But suggesting that it go all the way, to the convention. Which itself is un-conventional, but do I have the facts to back that up? However...after last nights debate and a Rovian theory I have been scrolling over in my mind, could it be? Romney/Perry 2012?** In my opinion the best thing for the country is a more moderate Republican that will still be too right, that would allow Obama to hold the 99'ers. But that is not the way Republicans work, and it is even difficult sometimes for democracy to work. It is fine to attack an opponents strengths in a game or a battle and that works in politics, but that is not what works in governing.]
[Lions, and Tigers and Bears(please excuse the Wizard of OWS* analogy) is an apples and oranges and cherry picking procedure. For Republicans it is Tea or Koch and Rove, for democracy it is apples and oranges and cherry pitting. Pitting is a good thing, with apologies to Martha Stewart, not to mention George Washington, with his supposed hatchet.]

* not to disassemble in either sense, it is a great not so calm-pendium. Note that I did say "tough segue". And CAUTION please note that I do not always review the complete links that I insert, in particular the code of Rachel Maddow. And I cannot be responsible for links expiring or changing.

** Note that a more "realistic" combo(pardon the pun) may be Romney/Cain. And no pardon for the quotation marks, but the ticket would be more debate worthy. [OK, I pun on the pardon, but not the debate, with CAUTION.]

Replacement Refs or Not...

If it were a debate* we would have stopped it. 
Not to pun on Xfinity, but while the Comcast links*** will expire.**,
it's the congress John!  Bring it on, Joe!  The President needs to hold a Sit Down.

Before I get down to the task of preserving<*> those links whether read or not, I will explain the Rogue John and Wax Leak of the asterisks.  Although the lesson learned from "Simon says"^^ might be to actually read links more thoroughly, the lesson from the Debate may be more complex but parallel of sorts.  By "rogue",<*> I mean that former Presidential Candidate McCain(first link) confesses an expectation for him lowering the expectations of Paul Ryan, while  disrespecting the Vice President and framing an expectation for gaffs.  Then in regard to the " ball of wax " that Palin leaks, it connects the "boys" to the other "race" speech.^^^  (There, that's the GPS-uncross-Rhodes.)

And a far as my Tan Gents(Dr. Trumps), being a Seahawk fan has nothing to do with my take on the moderator.  Well, who knows?  But Mr. Lerrer has been critcized for not moderating or having a good performance, but I think that given the style over substance versus substance with style, these are not legitimate debates.  And within the political system (such as it is) it was not his job to interfere with the players being themselves in order to let them make the proper contrast.  Again having only heard most of the debate on the radio, I thought that the President walked away with it, but that was under the condition that facts matter.  Neither he nor Lehrer could have done a better job in the case that they don't. 

BTW^: Speaking of "boys", we have heard cracks about the Harvard "professor" and I suspect he has had to deal with a few wise-guys or gulls[!]

*if the link were fact checked...ditto.
(McCain goes rogue.)(Palin leaks ball of wax .)
** not that I have read them yet or the recommend them.
***The point of this lede and the heading...

^ apologies to literary geeks for my style over elements.(But that was Core Knell.) 
^^ added in edit mode
^^^ to be expanded later(but see lede and stupid...I mean congress and John, Joe & Ryan. i.e. the context of the politics of "relief' legislation.)
[In the spirit of medium...? ]
[Not to parse too acutely, but it is the medium and the mess age.]
(Bu' dump 'ump [!] ... )
Re:Ouch?(see FLASHNOTE)
Post-Subjectivism?  Might it be, rational subjectivism?

<*> 10-7-12(See FLASHNOTE: under construction)
<*> 10-9-12  slight edit ( "r.... ",)

A Wonderful Conversation!

You take the high road,
and I'll take the low road.
We take the pre-road,
and now for the post-road.

And we'll all be in blank
before we can say...

Who, What, When, Where and Why,
by How. (3-20)

OK... enough Rant or Ramble.

The real story is that considering the past debates, ABC's was nothing new, except that it was broadcast on the airwaves, not just on cable.

So... I will conclude that it was a success,
given d'meaning of the medium.

Obama took the high road, and shone as best he could on the road, while Hillary took the old road, and may be shone the road.

Now for footnotes, on what got me on this road, of which I have only read from the search engines not the pieces.
Clinton-Obama Debate: ABC Hit on Focus on Minor Issues -
The ABC Debate: A Shameful Night for the U.S. Media -
Debate: ABC Decides Top Issues Facing Americans Are Flag Pins and '60s Radicals

HERE IS A BIG HINT: You don't have to read all three. In fact if you just read the headings you have a bigger hint.
Thanks to Thom Hartmann, and Editor and Publisher, and again for me these are (nfry): not fully read yet

[speaking of pre-posts and the media shone up: or is it pre-post-er-o-us? or is it just...]

Political Strings Pulled

Bush upcoming big speech.

McCain wants debate delay.

Ed Schultz plays a good question McCain faced but refused to answer while spinning it back on the Dems. The administration has known this was coming for some time while McCain's advisor has been on the payroll of Freddie Mac.

If the debate is cancelled the meeting with Bush should take them to task or at least be framed as who you bring to the table. Who will Obama and McCain be bringing and who will Bush have there? What will the purpose be? It would really be fun if it were only Bush, McCain, and Obama and us. What would the Independents, the Greens, or the Libertarians bring to the table? I think it would be a smart move if the purpose is unclear to skip the meeting and let McCain and Bush play politics, and let congress give them the business. Or rather take them over.

On the other hand, could it be that McCain has finally changed?

Maybe we are finally there.

White House welcomes plans. Just as I suspected. Another Straw Elephant.

Meanwhile just as I post this and search for links, this breaks:
"We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved," McCain said. "I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so."

How this is enacted could be a clean break for us. But I think the real "panic" is political. And McCain ad proves it. Or at least not a clean break for McCain.

Now Ed's got it. The networks should give both candidates a rebuttal. Especially if one is going to run for the other rather than debate.

DEMOCRACY IN A REPUBLIC IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE.

Americans for Democratic Action: A group that I will refrain from labeling but hint at it’s irony. (It may just be too democratic in that it is for the tyranny of the majority as the powers that be can manipulate.) Whoops, too much of a hint. Maybe I have cured my obtuseness but I hope not to be too obvious, or at least not exactly using a label.

Principles and debate are two words that Bush just throws out there occasionally, which I will return to later, but on to my comments.

A spokesperson for the above ADA, claimed Kerry to be (and we can maybe even accept as accurate) the most liberal Senator, then goes on to claim that he is on both sides of issues. Bush defenders cannot have it both ways, though they want to have their cake and eat it too. Kerry in my mind may have won the mantle of nuance.

But continuing in my need to adumbrate, I will try not to distance myself from previous comments. Will Kerry be able to ride this nuance or will the press now start complicating things by doing their job more seriously, but no less * independently? Will we be able to see these principles and their connection or disconnection through words to actions and debate them?

If things are black and white, things should be clear. If our principles are clear a debate should be easy. Yet solutions are harder than conclusions. If the end justifies the means, what justifies the end? If the end is clear, how do we get there?
[5-10-07: Upon review of this it, it may have sounded good but the reverse was my intention. "Nonetheless still not independently" may be more correct but more awkward.]

Truth Tellers

Thom Hartmann notes that the truth teller of the Democrats is Kucinich and for the Republicans it is Ron Paul, who notes the history of the Republican party as against wars. And thanks to a quick google, the first few paragraphs hits it out of the park **. "Way out", as it is put there. Or a slam dunk if you will.

That was still the situation when Clinton was president and even when the current Bush was campaigning against being nation builders and policeman to the world. Another point in this regard is that old Bush in a China Shop metaphor where:
when we broke it, we don't own it, but we might pay for it.

Final note: On Unity08 plans for a bipartisan ticket, I think it is crazy or at minimum won't work. Now, not that it won't succeed. But not necessarily for the country. It really is hard to take a negative attitude with something that seems so middle of the road, but then if we put the people in the middle of the road, they may just get run down. OK! So metaphors may not work, but the may make a point, and getting somewhere that has a point is the "hard work". There! Does that make any progress on the point. Well it may just be going round and round, but that may be another result, not that I am trying to get the geometry covered. But now that I have run that into the ground, I will take a tangent and note that there may be room for dialogue on the third party or third or fourth way. Dialogue and debate is happening within each party. If there are any outliers. Those hanging back; LaRouche (may get the point); Nader (I am not so sure); Bloomberg or Hagel; or not lastly Wesley Clark. But above we have noted, and I believe I recall now that my comparison (if not noted earlier) was between Ron Paul and LaRouche rather than Kucinich, that there are certain mavericks but at least they are participating now. I would harken back to my point about Red and Blue America and the threat to the green. It must be noted that "at the risk of being obvious" must have been too deep and the PI editors* changed my word "green" to "color" which put a completely different tint on my letter. My point is that Unity08 may be more about the green and may not get us out of seeing red.

*(In the last line of "the threat to the green" link, which may have been a threat to someone's green, if not not black and white enough to fit their grey matter.)

**11:35 AM amended [six paragraphs to be precise, I had not read much beyond "To many people, however..." and that is where we must remember the words of Rudy Guliani, on or shortly after September 11th, something like: Aren't you glad George Bush is president? Case closed. These guys cannot fight or debate without misconstruing the point or the enemy, period. Black and white enough?]

South Carolina Debate Winner!

The Tie goes to Edwards.
Actually it was not a tie,
but I thought I might tie them together.

Yeah! That's what I meant.
Clinton-Obama barbs dominate debate
Early on, but Edwards closed in.
The exchange between Clinton and Obama seemed to go to Obama depending upon whether one can follow the flip-flop and nuance. Clinton attacked Obama for some "present" votes in the state legislature, although they were about 100 out of 4000, and he explained them as technical tactics that seem valid. Edwards brought up the issue again in a fairer way, and it all depends on whether he was giving him a second shot or another shot at explaining, and Obama did. So it depends on who was listening and who was following, but Edwards was not about the barbs, but hopefully tried to sort them a bit. So in my view he deflected them to Clinton, in a way that hopefully enough people caught, while using the issues well.

It is not necessarily that Clinton is a flip-flopper, but that she tries to paint Obama as one, and misses the nuance, either by choice or by filter. (Not only that but she has her own nuance to explain). She could also have a little more patience, in not trying to reply when it is being explained to her.

Home Economics

As I noted in the last post, some things I will let others sort out.
But I must do a resort of sorts. In Washington state, there is a constitutional amendment on the ballot: 8206
[SJR 8206 (1%) BUDGET STABILIZATION ACCOUNT]

The King County Democrats held a mini-debate (two presentations) and no endorsement resulted, in fact the debate was carried by the opposition. I felt that that was a reasonable result of deliberation at that moment. However I present the above link and have changed my mind. Information and who is carrying it, matter. But in context I feel that the argument that a rainy day fund would mean a 1% reduction in spending and an eventual risk to it being squandered, carried the day. But it will always depend on who is in office and not always on who is presenting the information.

[Update 10-25-07: Dino Rossi: The GOP's sacrificial lamb. Northwest Progressive Institute.]