The Real Scoop?

The Whichgate?
The Yellow Leaks from Canada?
["NAFTAgate" Began With Remark From Harper's Chief of Staff]

It reminds me of the "yellow cake" from Africa
but they are on the trail,
and ready to send in the Mounties.

It was a very difficult read, [added 3-7-08]

["He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry."

Government officials did not deny the conversation took place.

They said that Mr. Brodie sought to allay concerns about the impact of Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton's assertion that they would re-negotiate NAFTA if elected. But they did say that Mr. Brodie had no recollection of discussing any specific candidate - either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Obama.

CTV News President Robert Hurst said he would not discuss his journalists' sources.

But others said the content of Mr. Brodie's remarks was passed on to CTV's Washington bureau and their White House correspondent set out the next day to pursue the story on Ms. Clinton's apparent hypocrisy on the North American Free Trade Agreement.]

but will it soon drop from the radar?

If this does not shine some light on the candidates,
maybe Canada can shine some light on the journalism. [the story continued]

[Although CTV correspondent Tom Clark mentioned Ms. Clinton in passing, the focus of his story was on assurances from the Obama camp.

He went to air on Feb. 27 with a report that the Democratic front-runner had given advance notice to Canadian diplomats that he was about to engage in some anti-NAFTA rhetoric, but not to take it too seriously.

The report wound up on YouTube and caused an uproar in the U.S. race - influencing the final days of the critical Ohio primary, with every indication it will also play a role in the upcoming Pennsylvania vote.]

Is this part of someones campaign or strategy?
Maybe the best we can hope is that it vets us,
even if they do not get to the bottom of it.
Of course they could sound sincere now,
but still leave someone at the bottom of it.

Canada could be shining a light on our own congress
to have the backbone to investigate our own media
and the madness of our own accountability. [more * YouTube 3-7-08 Barack Obama NAFTA Scandal: A Smear Says Canada PM 3/3]

*[3-7-08] I did not post an original YouTube that depicted CBC in this or others that ran on from it.

[3-6-08: see bottom link and is someone vetting us? and should the FEC or the FCC or both investigate YouTube? For it can spread without linking or correcting, oh what a web they weave and just who do they really peeve?]

[3-8-08 Label: NAFTAgate added]
[3-9-08: UPDATE see bottom link there ]

Fight On!

For New SC?

Social Contract?

Actually it was a simpler context:

Trojan Horse and Hide and Seek, see MR**PR. (Marvelous v. DC Comics)

[MR**PR The Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan plan for a MR. PResident is Marvelous! ]

[Tag you're Thommy*]

*Thom to be updated.


P.S. (Pre-Selection: Romney/Ryan 2012)

M. B. C.

M M*

s n

B B

C C

DR: Daily Rant?

Dylan Ratigan.

* need to insert the actual M M here,(Melber"s Minute: Budget Blunders)

or Ari Melber Rant.

Fertilizer?

[MR**PR Hardball (in field only).]

** see * (insert here)

[Or Full Court Press.]

[4-5-12: Trojan Horse and Hide and Seek, see MR**PR. (Marvelous v. DC Comics)]

Ironically(and indubitably) Perry is Right!

Pun intended:

You know yesterday the president said I needed to watch what I say. I just want to respond back, if I may. Mr. President, actions speak louder than words. My actions as Governor are helping create jobs in this country. The President’s actions are killing jobs.

...but parsing more important:

"You know yesterday the president said I needed to watch what I say."
"I just want to respond back, if I may. Mr. President, actions speak louder than words."
"My actions as Governor are helping create jobs in this country."
"The President’s actions are killing jobs."
[My bold added for a bit more context. The parsing is tricky, but it spins like a Texas Two-Step.]

And the president should take his advice, Go Left, Dear Sir*.
While context in an anthema to the Right,
nuance and parsing are a bitter pill for them, and a better bill** for the Left.

By not going whole hog or shifting from recovery to reform too soon, the President is killing jobs.
But he is not the unitary executive that can just get her done.
Perry and the QT party are too cute by their own Picard.

*7th minute on Public Priorities(Create Jobs 62%/Cut Spending 29%)
** 2 minute mark through 4:40

On "Duty"

"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.”

Those incendiary thoughts came, of course, from a prior holder of your job, Mr. Bush.

They were the words of Thomas Jefferson.

He put them in the Declaration of Independence.

For those that did not get to the link in the previous post, above is one section that goes to the heart of it, but his main point was on our freedoms to think and make comparisons and to disagree:

We must know that, to you,(Mr. President) thought with which you disagree -- and even voice with which you disagree and even action with which you disagree -- are still sacrosanct to you.

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]

Democracy Upheld! (5-4) (R/x)**

Not to spike the ball. 
Mandate will become a tax!

Well... that was my idea or interpretation of the bill, but that was FOX News' claim.
But my original ball that might have been a spike was "Democrats Upheld" but Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act, is a bi-partisan bill, so I cannot claim a victory for Democrats.  It is a victory for congress and the political progress.  It is a victory for Obama and bi-partisanship.  Not that victory is a Burger King*, or having it my way.  I should admit that recently I thought that part of the ruling would be kicking the can down the road, since some of the provisions don't go into effect till 2014. 
Oops, in plain English, I may have been right about the can.
Senator Dan Coates on Jansing&Co. claimed lack of bi-partisanship.  That claim is a victory for politics and bi-partisanship.  The ACA was passed under reconciliation.  It was not a Democratic bill, but a democratic bill.  If the President can be blamed(see choice/bold-underlined) for congress not getting things done, when the Republicans obstruct with filibusters.  Republicans cannot have all the changes they could get and not take credit for them by voting against the bill to claim partisanship by not being able to filibuster. 
If anything this is a vaccine to the insanity of the partisan Issa Committee which doctor for the NRA. 
Pump it up! Obama Cares !  Chris Matthews has a very interesting Stupid Conspiracy.  On the other hand, I thought that the obvious was missing in the court arguments.  I think that means that it was plain that a loss of tax break is not a penalty, or is it the semantics of taxes.

* whose weigh or beef?
** still looking for the bullet ratio aka up 'n over or held/turned [People/$]
[of and for the people, over money]
[The real in'f-fable might be taxes/commerce. The High Five ?  4GETIT?
It is a win for Politics, Bi-Partisanship, Obama, and the Economy!  But according to Raw Money?  "A Choice"... between Government standing between you and big corporations or big corporations standing between you and your health care.(Bold over underlined ? )]
Not to strike a punchline, but bottomline:  Obama is Bush! A Political Capitalist!
Romney is Kerry!  A nuanced flip-flopper.  But only in the light of...(the president speaks)***

(asterisked anachronism888baneORspeaks.)

***  TBA
[Coff E T A B L E ]
[AM H&H game change? Tweet Morning Joe! ET? MR doc RM RL btw: NFIB v. SSHH$ ]
[PC v MF ! (?)]

(photo credit)

[Hi5-4th'tableCongressISjobWON!]
[Congress is open to a peel!]

[I don't have the rest of the story to back this up, but I think that Norman Goldman analyzes NFIB v. SSHHS the way I have.  Not only that but Justice Thomas or the D$ent may have bust the fallacy that health care is commerce.  Not only that but I think that Justice Roberts figured out how it can work or not work depending on congress, as I think that congress could have if they had more cooperation rather than partisanship.  NorMan really cut through it with a caller, regarding small business and Mitt RobbedMe.  How do you know when Mitt is telling a lie?  He is either talking about Obama or economics, if not both at the same time. Just between me and we, it seems that without fully reading the Affordable Care Act or the full decision, the Supreme Court seems to have understood it better than it was argued, but not much more than I thought it was.  The catch is that we are patching together various interpretations that make a decision that still takes some tweaking by congress.  It puts taxes and states at the table.  The catch seems to hinge on the powers of congress and the definition of commerce.  As Chris Matthews was want to call it a Stupid Conspiracy, I may lean toward calling it a Swift Strategy, despite the games some play with acronyms, initialism or caricatures.]
NG
GN
UP v UC
Unprecedent President vis a vis Unprecedented Congress.
Now that is PC! Due(or vu doo) the Math!
(Bush/Obama x Obstructive/Health Care)
[I would like to thank three people for helping me understand GeOhMeTry[!] Randi Rhodes, Lawrence O'Donnel and Michael [links 6-29] Moore... Well...there are host of others but in particular RR and LO, have brilliant insight if not intel.  Randi a quick take on Obama, Lawrence an understanding of the political process, and MM a way with the message and the medium.  MR-RM.
Plausible Deniability/Plausible Incompetence/ Deniable Competence. That is the voodoo some do.
[Upheld -  U p h e l d !]

Breaking on Countdown

Now the Real Underestimator - Cheney!
Mr. Low Bar himself, or...

Mission Accomplished

(AP photo see link)
A case of colors.
The Wall Street Journal is not necessarily the first source for Obama flag waving, but the lede is this: Obama Lauds Troops as Iraq War Winds Up. But under my ledership*, I must note that "Mr. Obama was careful not to declare victory." But Colonel Wilkerson and Rachel Maddow rally** my reasons for the lede here. "Hooah!"

* yes "ledership"(sic)
[link is leadership]
** link yet to be embedded (here)

[Speaking of battles and drafts, yet to be. (Ground Troops***)]

*** i.e. foot noted
[PEA CE OUT]


12-15-11 [*] "Hooha!" Not Exactly,
but close enough[!] (for gov'meant work)
[Nor black and white, but here are four perspectives. This is a deeply embedded line. It is about working together and leadership, not without ledership. The gist of it is in regards to the process of crafting good documents(let alone with imperfect people). As in what the heck is Obama doing, let alone Ron Wyden, or Rand Paul.(or Keynes/Hayek) The most important ingredient in these threads is the people, their understanding, and elections that matter. Issues bring the people to the table, and the ballot box.]
[No Horsing around.]
[*]Well maybe a little horsing around. But with respect to follow-up to Awkward Segue, and "four perspectives"(text today) I note that Norman Goldman addresses the NDAA, and was looking forward to Randy Rhodes giving her perspective, but David Sirota was sitting in.]

"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"

Post Election

88 Keys ! 
That is 44 x* 2 ?
The energy was amazing!
Now for cracking the code, or my Maddowian reference**(knock on wood), but I will leave it to Paul Harvey.  The rest of the story.  There is Romnesia and there is the Arithmatic. 
Something Too Point Oh?  Or Owe?  Two out of three be bad branches. 
Speaking of Maddow and the gang(Ed, Al, Lawrence, etc) I can only weave so much !  ***

* arrived late, left early, but got a pic with Norm, won a book, and booked. 
** it was noisy, I fumbled my words, but we R R now Beyond the Norm.
***  doe$ that dog hunt? (I had to parse my inserts carefully[!])
[Conn, Kennedy, Bane Or(Tan Gent)]
[Bottom Line: Mr. President! Begin with your budget^ and your jobs bill on the table, before any grand B.S. ]

^ You know, the one that Romney said was part of everything that you had your way. 

11-9-12 (update)  Xfinity #9



11-22-12 [C-VC]
12-7-12 update: [listening to AM1090 online,
the following pic scrolled by as the 1st of 5 from 88Keys.
FYI, later scroll expanded to 240 or so pics.]

Supreme Court Jest Ice?

Where is the ice going? Well here is where it is coming from:

The New Yorker*: Rational Irrationality.

Well, not exactly: Obamacare Supreme Court Case is a Bad Joke.

Actually I will be intentionally preemptive**.

Is it some form of martial arts political calculus?

Maybe I have too much hope for Obama or too much faith in The New Yorker.

Bottom line, I have yet to read the article, but wanted to jump*** on the band wagon.(NOT!)

Not to make a federal case out of it, but I do intend to read more on this later.

* not that I have read it yet, but I like the heading.

** Jujitsu before reading.

*** case study[!] Reid sarcastic[!] Me...not read[!]

(also see "federal": not to mention Romney on Russia and Leno.)

[Seattle Times ]

[3-29-12 ALEC: Stand your Ground, Supreme Court Activism/ both sans comment.]

[Follow-up:

Seattle Excerpts, interesting hodge-podge of exchanges. If the constitution is not a living document, what is federalism? Killing two ironies in one comment?

Justice Antonin Scalia: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? And do you really expect the court to do that? Or do you expect us to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we're going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?

Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler: Well ...

Times "seemingly split over ideology"/

But Roberts and Kennedy also asked enough pointed questions of the law's challengers to give the overhaul's supporters some hope. In any event, justices' questions at arguments do not always foretell their positions.

Activism: "Justices Split".

Intentionally: Read Healthcare Jujitsu, Political Jujitsu, what's the difference? The party and the people. It would seem to me that Obama is the master, even without single payer as a goal. It might be called "free market" jujitsu where that is what could be flipped by even an option. The "free market" economic fantasy is under threat of being flipped as the fraud it is, under even the offer of competition. Maybe there is the jest ice.

Tangent of the day.^

[See original lede: Bingo on Faith, in paragraph two. Almost Bingo cubed !^^]

^ now that is an irony

^^ see bold "two" link re:cubed, but apologies for last four links.^^^

^^^ or penta coastal or cost us [!]

[Fixing News: as opposed to breaking, I must update the Fixing . But what kind of market is it when if you don't participate you die? Ask Raw Money. On the other hand, he is correct: "We can't play the game like that." Let alone are banking and insurance really commerce? I they aren't, maybe they aren't people, maybe they are Leviathan? i.e. governments bailiwick or not!][Ed on Hannity: the journalist calling the journalist read, or the con calling the convict con(pot meet kettle/camel meet domino) ]

[3-30-12 Justices Meet...

Book Review De...viewed... not to put a spin or pun on it. But I will depun a bit on the self-fulfilling profits. ]

Sen. Mitch McConnell

MR. POLITICAL:
In my humble opinion:

Senator McConnell sees what the Democrats have done as political and then defines it as a choice between not wanting to win the war and not wanting to end it, and it has been suggested that Democrats don't have the guts to propose a bill that does what he thinks need doing.

Therefore he should propose the bill, and the Democrats should allow it to come forward. The bill being the one that he feels that there is no will to vote for, and see if he will vote for it. Now of course the catch is that he is being political and by actually putting up a bill of that nature may be a good idea from either side to see how politics is more about flip-flop and Republicans are about not wanting the process to work than they can admit.

This may be an alternative after the veto and/or before or after my other idea at the bottom of this link.

Snooki?

With the comments of Republicans recently, like Senator Jim DeMint, and Senator Jim Bunning, it was tempting just to call their offices to ask if they are getting many expletive deleted calls. That is a serious inquiry, because I wonder just how many sensible people would even think their call mattered, considering their behavior * which is frequently rude and more commonly childish, and forget having any relationship to facts. Really, it might make more sense to quote Peewee Herman. "I know you are but what am I.(...)Infinity." Especially with the employment of Snooki. Peewee may be on the road to reform, but at least he knows he is childish. "Kids, these days." Speaking of cultural cracks: "Mr. Wilson!"(R)

*in the halls of Congress? Not to mention other whining.(SEE BTW)

BTW: Glenn Beck is a PC figure, standing for Pop Culture as in destroy civilization.
Oh and I have employed a new label, except it would too frequently be applied as it is the Republican Agenda.

(R) a ribble on a recent app

[On the other hand(American Exceptionalism) and foot in mouth, I can't remember who said... what?... but in regards to the fall of the Soviet Union, either before or after, in the thinking of Reagan or the latest Bush, just because a president will not put his actions into words, does not mean they cannot be justified, nor not be changed.]

Daily Sarcasm (I mean, Intel)

McCain suspends politics,
McCain/Bush Gimmick

Comment: Sarcasm aside the markets were stable yesterday, and given the credibility of the president, his scare tactics may just calm the market. Or could it be, when things get tough, the tough get going. Obama and congress (Democrats anyway) have kept their cool and continued their work, while Republicans may be in faux retreat. Meaning the "Paulson Plunder", 3-1/2 pages, which are no longer on the table, has evolved into something more sensible unless it can not make it into new words on paper that actually have teeth.

It is noted that "It was the first time in Mr. Bush’s presidency that he delivered a prime-time speech devoted exclusively to the economy." While I was thinking something similar, but mostly that this was the so-called MBA president, who is finally learning something.

Stay tuned... but I think I will suspend something.

Meanwhile: more whining, and I wonder what McCain will say about Letterman and CBS.

Other's comments: gawker? And to contrast the journalism of the New York Times. I suspect this is really why Palin was picked to create a media conspiracy. Almost hinted at here, as "anti-media manipulation", well this week was the test of "real dignity and cool". This last being my unspinning of spinmeister or mistress* Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal on Friday. (Noonan: Reagan speech-writer and Special Assistant, and free market think tank trustee.

* Is madame maybe more accurate? But they are probably against being PC.

Dancing and Company II

Not that I checked one. (FP1)
The Polar Cracks continue [!]. (FP2)
Not that these R Jansing & Co.
(Thomas Roberts: "Awkward"!?!)
There R domestic and international politics.
Initialism: (FE) fudging exceptionalism. (or was it EF?) 
(MR. "feeding frenzy") (TR: TD "tone deaf"? Not "TZ" but TP? "rally round" who? Syria-US-lee?)

9-13-13: Label added. (FP1) Meaks? Not to continue the spell check. "&","awkward","TZ" or TD!. 
The Oh genda.
Twilight Zone Diplomacy, "awkward",  Meaks !(to update) eek? ? eak!

Rudy Stastical Crime

Math Incarceration.
NOW w/ Alex Wagner
Rudy English 'n Rudy math.

Lede or ship?
Regardless of journalistic* license, lets do some quick and rough math.
70+% of ~crime is black on black
80+% of ~crime is white on white. 
Not to ~paint myself~ in a corner, but what are the incarceration rates?

Facts tend to round the edges.
Condescending** Hyperbola? ~
Font to be adjusted.

*such as it is
**sloppy word choice (unwinding hyperbole?) nuancing data?
Deflating Righteousness?
~the data evolved from Mayor Guliani to Slate's Jamelle Bouie(~4:00) .

~but demographics indicate a big issue.

11-26-14 Now from Mr.De-Meaner?
JDB
RMS (2)
TLW: Darned if you do, darned if you don't.  It is still a knit hat!

Moos Room

thanks to
The Colbert Report &
Mitt Romney***
(not to mention Aaron Sorkin)
MR-RM???
Rupert Murdock
Rachell Maddow
Cowpie Central ?
RL LR
Liaison Report!

[SEGUE]
Now I have stepped in it.
I could not have more Turd Blossoms** for The Newsroom.
Network meets Countdown for blastoff!*
HBO meets Swift Dawn Keys!

* I re-craft any Molotov metaphors. 
** Not to Mitt-Flop stars or thumbs.

[Seriously, I could not have been more thrilled with the first episode of The Newswroom.
From the producer of The West Wing, an HBO drama begins for the field of TV journalism.  The first episode and special features are available in the Top Picks section of Xfinity OnDemand even without an HBO subscription.]
*** I must eventually thank someone for playing a ColbertReport clip.
[UP?]

7-1-12
[The Newsroom, will get your patriotc juices flowing for the hope and changey thing of Edward R. Murrow.]
[Not exactly Good Timing ! Where's the party AT? ]

Choice v. Referendum

The choice is between looking back or going back.  Between Obama's turnaround and Raw Money's turnaround.   The economy has turned around and Obama can claim his second term.  The economy may turnaround* either way, but it does depend on actions and even inactions, not just words.  Ravi Batra predicts a double dip before the November election but also a recovery next administration.  So talk may be cheap, but it does depend on who you listen to***, and who we follow.

* Ravi Batra(2:06) on Thom Hartmann (also see 2:00 news of 3 hr show)

6-18-12 Mitt Romney health care comments ?
Not to make it a referendum on(awkward segue/lost line**) Obamacares v. Romneycare.
Choice is Greek to too many.

** only partial rethread, with awkwardness regarding the choice/referendum irony, not related to the eventual links here.

*** 6-19-12  Not FOX! Not Really!
A horse is a horse of course of course unless you're a Plato or Romney of course.

6-20-12 Re: De-funding?
"Sad day" for dribble [!]
What's the dribble? Not to be ironic. It's politics on the table, in regard to contempt of process.

6-21-12  The dribble ?
Politics Nation "Fast and Furious" [N BA: not to ribble]
Awkward Segue: **2
Bread and circuses*2 to a whole new level. Duoh!
Now there's the rub.

*2 Unless you're Mr. Ed!
**2 This line was insert after getting to the rub, not to mention the bread line or leveled links.  

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.... ",)