Progressive Break Fast

Campaign for America's Future.

The above link is a compendium of news, comments & hope for progress.
Meanwhile I have made a few comments w/minor corrections **,
but bring this up much as it is(was):

Does the Massachusetts vote mean that the House should pass the Senate Bill, or should they reject it?
My view is it should get a vote, up or down or side ways* meaning risking some changes, risking the filibuster. Then the Senate can up or down it, or break it up. Speaking of holding water or breaking a mirror.***

* just as Ed Shultz was unclear about the ping pong potential, this is as tricky a net in the parlaimentary procedures that would offer this option. (Reconciliation or Nuclear Option)[Adjusted snippets of original continued.] [Psst...(Rachell)Speaking of "mythical beasts"(...)at least Barney Frank got the mess-age(...){Ouch: Moment of Meek to Fine Man?} (and Governor Ed Rendell say and does go downe.)

BTW: It is Senator Reid, not House Speaker, Ed.(Take nothing from the order of these links than that I do not recall which has Ed confused on the Reid/Pelosi positions in the process but great coverage and dialogue.)

** see [*]& comment 2 there
*** the holding water bit is a play on the Hardball promo regarding Chris Matthews' style of argument, Waterloo, and his leaking all over the mirror Howard Dean holds up. But I really did not intend a restroom metaphor, and so it goes.

[Apologies for the anachronistic asterisks and shuffled links but Rachel Maddow's were not yet available and I wished to bring up a few points. Howard Fineman clarifies the fine men or Frank & Obamba not to mention the Governor in Rendell link. While the beast was the unicorn of 60 yet not meek Senator Stabinow, not to mention the Ouch of Geek Irony.]
[translation of apologies/index of links]
mirror: Matthews/Dean Hardball
beasts: Maddow/Stabinow unicorn filibuster
ouch moment: Maddow/parody of TeaDay
Fine Man: Maddow/Fineman Frank Obama
Governor: Maddow/Rendell
downe: Browne
Not to mention BTW: Ed Schultz/Huffington
Not: Schultz/Lanny Davis
Ed.:Schultz/Gibbs

And Countdown. Keith Olbermann/Gibbs et al.
Lawrence O'Donnell
Harpers/Gitmo
tasteless/Brown
Obama/promise?

Two Clever by One Third?

Or both ends against the middle?

Does the Massachusetts vote mean that the House should pass the Senate Bill, or should they reject it?
My view is it should get a vote, up or down or side ways* meaning risking some changes, risking the filibuster. Then the Senate can up or down it, or break it up. Speaking of holding water or breaking a mirror.

BTW: It is Senator Reid, not House Speaker, Ed.(Take nothing from the order of these links than that I do not recall which has Ed confused on the Reid/Pelosi positions in the process but great coverage and dialogue.)

* just as Ed Shultz was unclear about the ping pong potential this is as tricky a net, in the parlaimentary procedures that would offer this option. (Reconciliation or Nuclear Option) Up down before or after change, either now or in 2010. I would risk the now. I am unsure how the cloak filled rooms would navigate the choice. Could they pass a progressive bill and the Senate Bill and then let the Senate choose? But do not risk doing nothing and leveraging 2010. See Countdown Tonight 5, 4,... 1-20-2010.

[Psst...(Rachel) speaking of mythical beasts, I believe one of these links(Mathews) had Gibbs noting $4 billion or so in health care gains in the market today[*], although other reporting (Keith) shows a market loss overall, but at least Barney Frank got the mess- age. Hmmm?]{Ouch: Moment of Meek to Fine Man?} (and Governor Ed Rendell say and does go downe.)
[Psst...It should be kind of hard for "Republicans" to declare a win as that word is kind of absent from his website. The same almost goes for the "Democrats" taking any responsibility when it comes to party identification]

[*](1-21-10) possible anachronism,(see BTW: Ed(9:45).) at least anecdotal(different sectors, different days?)(See comment 2)

Co-Op-Ed

A Deeper Mess Age.

Yeah that's the ticket! An Op Ed from "The One" and "The Prince". No Diplomat I, but I'm not jest punning. A joint op-ed is no joke, but beyond imagining what the two could say. Or maybe it is the imagined reaction to more involvement by outside forces, more local or not. I am generally in favor of the two suggestions, the joint Obama/Al Nahyan op-ed and an Obama Al Jazeera appearance. But it is not just the awkward sound of the suggestions but the concern for an over-reaction and how and who receives it, in terms of further inspirations for, or resistance to change.

Republicans Cuts and Runs

"Distract and Conquer" (Maddow's links) but Ed's Heading!
Not to mention skirting issues.*

*scroll up
(i.e. links from bottom up)
9 The Ed Show: Dissecting the details of "Romney-care".
8 ibid.: Ann Romney talks tax returns.
7 TLR: b.s. (or more mention) skirts
6 TLR: b.s. WOE
5 The Ed Show: They're literally running to their mommies.
4 Lean Forward: Dean on Soviet Propaganda
(ibid.: Really / Running to Mommies )
3 The Ed Show: Distract and Conquer
3b ibid.: The Great Medicare LIE
2 Rachel Maddow: Romney takes on Ryan Social Security baggage
1 ibid.:  Americans not eager to gamble on Social Security, Medicare privatization   

[ Butt Heading Re: Fuse shUn ]

[8-17-12 Not to pun on Trilogies or Tetrahedronogies, but there is some ironic order ! ]
.

Congratulations KPTK! WE GOT ED!

And Randi and Stephanie, and Thom
[4-24-07: loopy link inserted for reconstruction]

- -
[8-2-07: ADJUSTED THIS DATE -
GO LEFT TV
Air America Radio
Progressive Talk Radio KPTK AM1090 Seattle
FILTER OF SORTS]
- -

[adjusted this date 8-11-07: ifilm of Spike TV
The Colbert Report
The Daily Show ]

Five of the Heavy Hundred are on one local station: AM1090

The 100 most important radio talk show hosts in America!

NUMBER 5.
Ed Schultz www.wegoted.com

Number 13.
Randi Rhodes: The Randi Rhodes Show

Number 36.
Stephanie Miller: The Stephanie Miller Show

Number 51 Thom Hartmann: The Thom Hartmann Show

Rounding out the court. Maybe the center.
Number 27. Clark Howard.

OK! My progressive spin almost missed Clark, but the term "important" over "popular" was a factor in the "Heavy Hundred", and his 1 hr time-slot midnight to 1AM may hint at that and the progressive lean of the listeners or hourly demographics. Clark is both important and popular, just not labeled progressive.*

FLIP FLOP THE LIST!
Considering these personalities and their news value, entertainment and progressive intent,Rachel Maddow (while not even found in the top 250) must be on the bench.
What I am saying is that, rounded out to a balance of sort
but with progressive and informative and entertainment value, she may have topped a list with the numbers flipped. It would be hard to say that Thom, Stephanie, Randi and Ed have any particular strengths that would flip-flop the list, other than my feeling that being progressive, informative and entertaining should be considered in that order, rather than the method used for the Heavy Hundred.
On my scale Rachel Maddow plays well off the bench and deserve her own honors, not to mention her on-air teammate Kent Jones.

MY IDEAL PROGRESSIVE LIST[Reality Flip Flopped]
Or from spirited to spiritual. Going up?

[RACHEL MADDOW] A UNIQUE BALANCE OF INFO AND HUMOR
THOM HARTMANN
STEPHANIE MILLER
RANDI RHODES
ED SCHULTZ
MIKE MALLOY: REALITY BASED
[NOT BEST REPRESENTED IN LINEAR FORM]

[Apologies for not noting one of the top 250, Mike Malloy who is a spiritual warrior of sorts.
If there were a FOX NEWS of the left, Mike Malloy would fit the bill as the nightly lead,
but for me he is too much on a Reality Rant to make good bedtime stories.]
Now just to sort my own review, I love all these guys, for different reasons, but would put progress over money and fun, and that is what I wish for all.

* I don't relish labels, but then, it is a sorting. Long Story Short: (or in my usual way: Runting the Rant) Maybe the Heavy Hitter (Oops) Hundred list does reflect the order of "Agressive Progressives", but I would flip flop the list and call it Just Progressive! But the problem always is, coming from a perspective or getting somewhere.

Reel Ledership

Unknown candidate more favorable than Obama.
Obama leading over known persons.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!
2000th post.
(Counting 90 in draft, that is.)
 
Unfortunately, the blog format has evolved, and needs getting used to.
In fact, it seemed to evolve mid-post, as I managed to get in a bottom link here, but cannot not locate that process going forward or even in edit format.  


THIS just as I had declared MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, I mean, ACCOMPLISHED[!]
And just as I had reached a pinnacle of a point, (That was redundant, or was it?) {one of the the new features}
the irony* of Mission Accomplished, let alone leadership. (David Sirota and the Star Chamber)

NOW with** ALEX WAGNER,
But earlier with Jansing & Co.
And earlier with Ed Schultz and Nancy Pelosi.

BUT HERE IS part of the Mission CON *** TEXT,
and UNDERSTANDING "Who-w-Aww!"

* nails it:"Battle Him of the Republic".
let "alone" "leadership"
** or rather not yet with Alex Wagner
(and before I forget, it is the "pretty please" hyperbola of Romney, and the childish cycle.)
*** see CON 5 minutes on.
[Note Labels and comments(2),'n  Odd need.]

[The Alex Wagner link HERE.]
[Speaking of Dawn Key Ody]
[Late Possible Link inserted, let alone Try Angle.]

[Final note in reverence to Christopher Hitchens, and reference to Bashir and Ratigan. (oops)]
[accidental tangent found error in "Final" link/search/pun]
Mean[!]while: Ratigan has a panel on "Straight Talk" where Mission Accomplished applies to the popularity of congress.  With Republicans in charge of the House and having record filibusters,(meaning a minority has the responsibility in the Senate), their schtick is gridlock, not progress or compromise, let alone all truism. These are my prose not the panel's or guest's, but it can certainly be said that for the Republican goal of making sure there is a one term president by passing the buck, it could be mission accomplished.  But that hits the nail on the head with my lede (and the source) of Reel Ledership[!]. 

9-13-13 Jansen and Co label corrected(added).

McCain camp sexist.

Sarcasm? (see video)
No- perfect rhetoric.
[If you can't stand the heat...]
I don't know about Sam Stein's comment, but Ed Schultz's callers thought Campbell Brown was being sarcastic? Could be, but that only misses who it is aimed at. Ed and I take it serious. Maybe I missed where Ed is lost, but the Palin selection is no Joke. The point is that sexism is their defense for their offense. It is great that she is a woman. But if she were a man, her policies would be the point where we would have issues. Meanwhile she (the Maverick) is being trained in the same old politics. Oops, now I have trampled into agism. But referenced back to training and issues should bring to mind Reagan not to mention Nixon handlers, by way of Bush and Rove.

Forget about Truman and his "get out of the kitchen" metaphor: they can't even stand the sarcasm, let alone the media.
[get out of the sarcasm...]
[But it remains to be seen when she does face the media, will she be prepared or just polished and the media still the battered significant other.]

Senator Gravel on The Ed Schultz Show

Listen to the Senator interviewed by Ed Schultz. His campaign got a boost from the first debate and I concurr with a lot he has said. "The congress is more powerful than the president." Gravel has "the kind of toughness that they have to have..." and suggests it is the type of leadership we need.

Also on The Ed Schultz Show there is an interview with Former Major General John Batiste on some targeted ads by Vote Vets and on the "big mistake" in Iraq.

"If the president won't listen, the congress must." Major General Paul Eaton.

Speaking of tuning...

The Ed Schultz Show and the Rachel Maddow Show seemed to be operating on the same wave length, but with a bit of a backwash on the issue of who the Democratic candidate will be.[*] I will try to bracket the Fine Tuning with the tangents it led to, but here are some other points: The Process? [**] and A Source
And the guest on The Ed Schultz Show: Jonathan Alter
Scoping Out Obama vs. McCain
To be bracketed...
maybe but my point is: Go filter!
Ed and Rachel have valid assessments and processing of information which the campaigns could aspire to and hopefully run with. If only I could pull more from them.

[*] is it over or is there hope?
[**] It is a valid point that primaries reflect more "moderates and independents" than caucuses, but that is by intention that parties should have a right to pick their own candidates, of course with due consideration of other issues, but as for Washington, there is an added question of whether those that showed up for caucuses bothered to also vote in the primary which for Democrats, will not count in the process.

Ed's Up, Ed Heads!

Alert the troops! There is a missing seat at the table.

Arrested for fighting healthcare reform [May 7: MSNBC Ed Schultz talks with Dr. Margaret Flowers, who was advocating for a single-payer system when she was escorted out of a Senate hearing and put into jail, and Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., who was present when this occurred.]
To be replayed 9PM PST and yesterday the language advisory from the right.

Keith Olbermann Advisory
Rachell Maddow reports
Thom Hartmann interviewed

[5-8-09 and Mourning Transcendence or Transcendental Tour? And Rehashing Matters.]
[Or should be say Transcendental...Bear. Is it a listening tour or a bare hunt?]

Clinton In South Carolina

Rachel Maddow on her show:

Rachel, Rachel, Rachel...
You suggest that Obama must go on the offensive? Maybe. But not in the way that you suggest. Not by making things up. Maybe by staging events or confrontations, but not by doing exactly what the opposition is doing. Maybe that is too much faith in the American people. Hillary and Bill, clearly are taking things out of context which display there intention to confuse or inability to understand. And when they are not, the media is. I may be unfair and unbalanced but to me, Obama is more careful in his context and less offensive in his connections. The Clinton campaign should cool it, and so should the media. Even Michelle Obama's comments could not clear the filters and it is not their fault that voters and the media add their own context, just like Hillary and Bill tend to do. Correcting any misinformation and exposing any misunderstanding is one thing but more of the same is counterproductive.

Ed Schultz on Hardball:
And I just turned on MSNBC to find Ed Schultz and Pat Buchanan and a third character on Chris Mathews, and the latter two fall into just these categories and Ed Schultz sure has his hands full cutting through what Edwards would call crap. [Meanwhile Clinton (Bill) takes a swing at the press and strikes at Obama again. It is like shadow jujitsu. Only good for the dark side.]

Dana Milbank on Countdown: On Obama not being uniter.
(OK, I don't have the exact quote. I am doing the press thing.)

Never has a candidate said they will not support the other candidate. (Although Kucinich missed a chance to be clear.) But to assume that they can bring their supporters is another thing.

[Live with Dan Abrams: now -> What some call politics: "I call lawyering". ]

The Democrats can be united. If they are not they are not really Democrats. Putting a Democrat in the White House is the important thing. But putting the best Democrat in the White House is the most important thing. To do that we need the votes of not just Democrats. But that does not mean that the candidate cannot be the best Democrat as well.

Finalizing in what Rachel Maddow also noted about lies.

[Speaking of from September 2002:
A for

Cowboy]

I'm Sorry?

Did I get that right? OK, I will skip the wise cracks and just link to other references to what touched me off, and one weird coincidence. Also. WWWWWH?

And yesterday, Ed Schultz had a caller that claimed that the auto industry should have known about the coming financial crisis, which Ed met with skepticism or faith in our fellows, so to speak. But really they should have known given their interconnectedness, and that is probably the problem.(Thanks Thom Hartmann) And the connectedness to the media. So I hit two bailins on the head. Randi Rhodes helped with the Larry King link(weird). Lou Dobbs helped with the Bush link(references). Not to mention what* matters.

My morning joe is only in the cup, sometimes I get my morning wakeup first (AM1090)

* a challenge (where I embed links that might matter)

Also (Randi)
More (Ed)
Rant (Thom) Respectfully
GoLeftTV (Ring of Fire)
And not the least (Rachel Maddow)
Nor the worst.(Keith Olbermann)

As long as I'm digging (the Daily Show) Jon Stewart and my name sake .

4M and the Fix

Navigation 3.0

Looking Back
and the path forward.

Yesterday was a rough day,[final straw?] sometimes you had to be there, other times things get in the way and I missed both and not in the normal way. Personally(really! however Really?) it was demand side* activities that ruled the day.

OBAMA 2012!

[Under Construction]TO BE EVOLVED:
Seattle AM 1090 (sidetrack)
NPR .org KUOW

Stephanie Miller
Thom Hartmann WOW => OpEd **
WeGotEd We Need Ed The Ed Show

Norman Goldman Plan
Randi Rhodes No Hair is Good Hair In con text?

Rachel Maddow [*] NOW
Center for American Progress
OurFuture.org
Just Foreign Policy
Progressive Policy Etc.
Steve Clemons
David Sirota[**]
Lawrence O'Donnell The Last Word***
FOKS News Bleeped and Frackin' and saved for later folks.
* no really, not Keynesian, but personally just real work, real demands

** two for one [Bernie Sanders and MoveOn]

*** yeah right moore left/

[Tom Yesterday? And Beyond. ]
[Note Labels(sic?), Lucky Three?]
[Go jump in the Lakoff, and this will be a the start of a project itself.
[*] BOLD ADDED 4-6-2011 and THE TEST.
[PopQuiz.]
[** bold added and update]

"intolerable truths"

are what Pat Buchanan called Ron Paul's "extraordinary statement" which is what Rudy Giuliani called them.

I will also note that Ed Schultz claims the possibility of more than a third party. Earlier I had noted the contrast between Ron Paul and Lyndon LaRouche in their coming to a party with a different approach, but Ed finds the immigration bill as a potential for break outs. Meanwhile I forgot to mention the "break ins" of Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich. Not to mention Mr. Inconvenient Truth himself.

But I would suggest that some of the candidates talk about merging their tickets. Now that would present it's own difficulties but no more than Democrats and Republicans splitting off from their "party" for a Unity08.

Maybe the debates could be shuffled to facilitate some mixing up. Bloomberg/Sanders Hagel/Liebermann
Now I know I'm mixed up, but just in the break down. It was mainly a combination of some independents thrown in with some Unity08 potentials.

FOR ME TO READ LATER MAYBE:
The Year of the Third Force by Howard Fineman
A Third Way? by Elenor Clift

MY EARLIER TAKES
ONE (see Fourth Way)
and TWO "the voodoo that y$$ do"

Lean Forward

MSNBC

My References,

my labels.

today.

Morning Joe,

Up with Chris Hayes,

and more.

Alex Witt...

[*Willie Geist

Morning Joe,

Daily Rundown,

Jansing & Co.,

Now w/Alex Wagner,

Andrea Mitchell,

News Nation, w/Tamron Hall,]

Martin Bashir,**

Dylan Ratigan,

Politics Nation, Rev. Al Sharpton,***

Chris Matthews,

The Ed Show, Ed Schultz,

Rachel Maddow,*

The Last Word, Lawrence O'Donnell,

Up, w/Chris Hayes*^

Weekends, w/Alex Witt

[*2-8-12 inserts/links and rearrangements, I have not asterisked all the additions

** "the Dickens" some say [!] (Newt'n Con Science?)

*** "no spin" but "doom and gloom"]

*^ Up w/ 4wo men

[!]= irony mark but link is the "Dickens"(a, b,c & x-y?)

A Funny Thing Happened...

On the Way to the Republic.

This thread was triggered by something Mike Papantonio said, sitting in for Ed Schultz on the Ed Schultz(radio) Show. The trigger is now lost, but it may have been the follow-up to the Class War or as some say, Culture War.

Randi Rhodes is not the funny thing. But I hope to find the serious thing she read on tonights show. But it might better play out on The Last Word with Sam Stein about triggers. [Guy Faux?]
[Allow me to recap: week before last, the president held his joint session on the American Jobs Act, followed last week by his method of payment, followed this week by his long term plans. To sum it up, basically he said, there are 14 months left before the election, let's get something done. The Republicans basically said no way. So instead of bring it on, IT IS ON! BTW: I missed this, but that is for the afore mentioned editing(which I edited).]

Child's Play

Freak Show vs. Bogeyman:

The Lyin' King?

While my original intent was the feeling that this is getting old, or rather childish. Then to see the nature of the exchange on Morning Joe, it takes some perspectivising.* Martin Bashir covers another aspect of the picture show. Back to the future, I mean Morning Joe, who is in the drivers seat? Mika or Joe? The image of President Obama getting into a car at an auto show. Who is in the drivers seat? Politically the President is. But it is like one of those drivers-ed cars with a second wheel and brakes on the passenger side, and congress is in that seat. But with Batman, I mean Bashir on West, Republicans would have no message if they did not have imagined monsters: "equality of achievement", "economic dependency"and "enslaving".

So...bottom line, Political is a double-edged sword. There is the race and there is the economy. Congress plays a role in both, and negative is not just ugly, it can have actual facts. So Mika can say that Obama is behind the wheel. And Joe can say he is not. Now you may see that the president is not the only one in the car, with a hand on the wheel.

* not that I take the Mediaite perspective (Donny Deutsch made a reasonable point, see negative/ugly/facts.)

[Not to call it a hatefest, just a hecuvafest.]

[Not to rob Peter to pay Paul. See Freudian/Austrian. Lit-urgeical hint]

[Couched Analogy?]

[not to leap fest** but I am missing a piece on certainty***.]

[Action item: FEC apointments & expired terms]

** tba: no pun on SBA, but to be arranged

*** dba? a pun/myst on the "free market" need(see drives-ed car) for certainty

[BTW: if you need GPS, why not Ctrl F frackin' fudgin"? Pun with acronyms, not to mention initialism. Speaking of caricatures and labelism.]

FOOTNOTES PAGE DECEMBER 2013

Begun 12-3-13

12-1-13:(sc) math problem un4m~ulated. (NFRY)
12-2-13(cont.) Too Random... Righty? 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (the point ?)
[4 the record : 3 squared? ]
12-3-13: Parallel [!] un-Pink Floyd, He- /^\ , van-NO JOKE, ven-Rough Philosophy, Cry- / Star Chamber Revisited, river- / creek ? 

rtd 12-3-13

Retrieved from draft 12-13-13
State Theory <- heading // lede -> and duality // trinity/body  Headings and^ Leadership*. (dynamics)
  ^    of/or 8:  Snooze/Dream(4,6) *prof(it)C? (7,8) Bane or Right?  [Not to blog both ends against the middle.]
Don’t celebrate yet!: Why Boehner won’t really ditch the right-wing nutjobs. /  The Christian right wants civilization to collapse / (3/5) Head ~ Lead Paul Krugman: The GOP’s austerity agenda is winning / My critics have “income envy”: Ed Schultz unloads after backlash to his union quote 
Dual / nd: When will the media learn? Conservatives are not “centrists”! / 3 essential (and ignored) questions about Detroit’s bankruptcy  Try Ad of Caution?  (not fully read yet) (anachronistic construction) (duel conflation)~ (bc: bubble critics)  OW Hegel ~ Liebniz [!]
RTD


12-23-13 (4) A.  Rubric's Cube and Rhetorical Realmifications., B. What's good for the goose? Goose the gander! c. Snooze Alarm d. Tony Baloney e. WWW Wisconsin Lesson? f. We Need Ed  g, What's good for the goose...

12-27-13 
12-28-13 1 Was Wittgenstein Right? or behind [?^] 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 9  // 10 / 11
^ insert a - h
12-29-13 - Original 5 links.  A. Frank O File? B. Pi cAP Delta rOW(USC) C. 1. Inverse Reality?,  2.(i), 3. Fair and Balanced..., D. Wittgenstein , E. Re-Mix  ///
12-30  F.rough- 1. Punderous Ponderings , 2. State of Politics , 3. A Revolution? 4.Un-Exceptionalism 5.  , G.notes^ -1. 2.Heuristic Concurrence and  3.My Respects to Those who Celebrate. (re-search*) , H.math^^ - 1. Too Random... , 2., 3.Bury the lede?, 4. ROW MAN #Sign [Numeral (i)] . *(under the case of not fully read yet, but back to math... why now 16?  too cubed by two? Speculation that the 5th perspective is from apart too pun? The three-body problem regards intitial circumstances from within or without. R 1st 3 models different than recently added.  The pow#r of i(V)?

March on Washington

Ed Schultz, Norman Goldman*
Whip Congress Dot Com
Sign up to support the Public Option.

Ed Schultz has been arguing for a march on Washington ala Tea Party.
Pardon the last crack but we should listen to some of what they say.
Norman Goldman has more suggestions for addressing issues that are not being faced.

Contact: Senators Murray and Cantwell
* Depose Harry Reid: unless (I will add)he has progress and the Obama agenda (such as I hope it is) up his sleeve.
Update 2-22-10: That was fast! Two days actually: Maddow and Olbermann point to the movement politics taking effect.

[Boehner reply kicks legs out from under the table of summit. Put simply, the House Republican leader has knocked the president's proposal, even though it addresses many of the complaints that Americans have about the differences between the House and Senate plan. We are not starting from scratch but presenting and addressing proposals.]

We need Ed!

Top Left Search of this Blogspot. No pun or April Fools!
Ed Schultz has a Guest Host(Jeff Santos) today, but it reminded me to think more locally. Ma Bell?

OK, this is not a good start, but I must MoveOn. (i.e. this is heavily embedded with edutainment) Not pun on the (actually that usually means there is a pun) but the Other Ryan, is like the Other Washington, then there is the Other Bellevue. Kudos to Jeff Santos for having the dialogue with the Ohio Ryan(Rep. Tim Ryan D-OH) rather than the Wisconsin Ryan. (House Budget Committe Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan R-WI) Speaking of two Homers. Dough Nuts. Not to mention Other Simpsons. Alan v Homer.

Foot Note: DFA noted as well as...oops. Bully Metaphor.