Progressive Caucus Semantics II

UPDATE * : "strategy aside"

Here are some thoughts that I will put down. Both Edwards and Obama are very spirited speakers. While Edwards is not now in the senate, and Obama is, the negative rap that Edwards gets for being a trial lawyer is undeserved and indeed a Republican strategy, to paint lawyers as bad, while forgeting that corporations hire them too. My point is that Edwards has been rewarded for his emotional skills (not to mention handling of evidence)for the sake of his clients, while Obama has not so displayed them in work on the issues.

* NW Progressive Institute: "Some thoughts on the Iowa caucus": is the update (the link) which is also inserted the in previous post under "strategy aside" at the time the above comments were posted.

ALSO: going back to 12-26-07 saved in a file was my quiz results (unweighted)as follows:
Kucinich 11
Dodd 10
In alphabetical order:
Biden, Clinton, Edwards, Gravel, Obama, Richardson 8
Giuliani 6
Ron Paul 5
Romney 2
McCain 1
Note that by this time Dodd and Biden have dropped from the race.

[1-8-08: How Green Is Your Candidate? Grist

Segue/Sabbatical

Steel on Wheels Dylan Ratigan.
Rahm Rhetoric on going to waste.
Hardball Politics of them and us.
I will leave this post with this and rest as to reads for further thumbing.

The Steel on Wheels and Hardball are two MSNBC linguistic references(to be links) to a Genre Clash or Segue Slash between disciplines*. Ratigan and Business for the People, and Matthews and Political Partisan strategies of conflict.

* not to mention Apostles and Ledership

[YES! as I recall. Well I may have made to much of a leap here but, I think that Obama should be making the most of the Wiscsonsin Waterloo for the Republican Strategy.

Can you feel this working?

Or even follow this thinking?* Is George Lakoff practicing the same reinforcment and fine print? On the feeling front ? **

Does the market Lord over Republicans?
Does logic Lord over facts?
Is it really the slippery slope Lakoff sees?

The bold indicates the suggested read. Links are often footnotes or tangents(see [**] ), not primary sources that need a full read. I am commenting here on different results that reading this article may have on those from different parts of the political spectrum, and the impact of having read it on their perspective of their perspective.[*]
(You will have to read the Lakoff article, and then will you be prepared to answer the questions?) The focus on the metaphorical may have an underlying greater impact. The President is pounding on the pragmatics of values and that may be an over arching message.

*The Santorum Strategy by George Lakoff
** unembedded mixed front and other
*** (temp tech difficulties w/links: see footnotes)

Footnotes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ant_and_the_Grasshopper
Point: Metaphors evolve or are hijacked. (flip-flop over the centuries)
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=snob
Point: Pop Culture? Pontifical Santorum?
Concepts:
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Republican+table
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=divide+to+table
too http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=conquer

These last links found on Footnotes PAGE. (A, B, C)
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/p/footnotes.html

[*] last asterisk to note that these two "perspective" links are tangential[**] perspectives on perspectives.
[**] speaking of dump ties? (see *** ttdl See placement of link/asterisk inconvenience. )
[Related Breaking Toure on KONY 2012 (3-18-12 update)]
[Related Background: http://fora.tv/2007/06/28/Francis_Fukuyama_End_Of_History_Revisited ]
[And Martin Bashir: "but what am I?" Romney childishness.]
[Citizens United: http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Citizens+United,
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Strategy+of+right,
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Koch+Brothers,
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Roger+Ailes, purpose of these inconvenient (see *** & ttld) links, is to archive and find later reference to the divide further the table for their conversation. http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Koch+Table,
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2011/10/karl-rove-vs-wa-hyperbole.html,
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2011/10/politics-of-table.html, More Bashir: http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Pee+Wee , http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Herman ,
Happy Birthday Romney http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2010/03/snooki.html, Infinity http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOGWbzUM-y8 ]

Darned if you do, darned if you don't...

bring things(and people) to the table. There is a dynamics of griping in this piece(Sam Steins HuffPo), but one in particular I must note:

For one, various areas of policy disagreement within the White House remained unresolved. In particular, officials familiar with the discussions say, Obama's economic advisers warned against calling for a final balance of three dollars in spending reductions for every dollar generated in additional tax revenue, arguing the ratio was too explicit.

From his (President Obama's) Fiscal Speech:

I believe reform should protect the middle class, promote economic growth, and build on the fiscal commission’s model of reducing tax expenditures so that there’s enough savings to both lower rates and lower the deficit. And as I called for in the State of the Union, we should reform our corporate tax code as well, to make our businesses and our economy more competitive.

So it seems the realization could be made that the ratio is much more balanced, recognizing loopholes as spending not additional tax revenues. While this may seem like semantics it is actually a valid accounting of rhetoric. And in some ways it is similar to the gripe that the President as leader is either "the one" or is supposed to leak his strategy to followers. By this I refer to the complaints that he kept some in the dark, yet allowed the Republicans to go first on the fiscal plan. There are many fronts in the process called government, but it is different than partisan politics or military strategy.

[Future pacing? i.e. thanks to Thom Hartmann for reference to "previous pacing" in regards to: Why don't we call it the Republican Debt and Deficits?

But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program -- but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts -- tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade.

To give you an idea of how much damage this caused to our nation’s checkbook, consider this: In the last decade, if we had simply found a way to pay for the tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit, our deficit would currently be at low historical levels in the coming years.

That is not all...(later referred to as "hanging chad" .]

[The above presaged the Facebook Townhall with President Obama (video).(ABC? Real Clear or Misc?)]
[Then there is bold or miss-taking taxes.]

[Italics mark - editing - and I note here additional gripe from Sam Stein:

Several members of Congress also expressed agitation with the timing...(cont.) ]

Politics is local?

Ground Game ? *

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/an-embassy-statement-a-tweet-and-a-major-misunderstanding/2012/09/12/a2d32a8c-fd24-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_blog.html

http://open.salon.com/blog/ted_frier/2012/09/12/losing_gop_in_denial_over_own_failures
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/10/why_i_left_the_gop/

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/12/mitt%E2%80%99s_shameful_libya_statement/
http://theweek.com/article/index/233148/the-death-of-an-american-in-libya

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/an-embassy-statement-a-tweet-and-a-major-misunderstanding/2012/09/12/a2d32a8c-fd24-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_blog.html

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/13/cairo_embassys_statement_what_went_wrong/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/ns/meet_the_press-meet_the_press/vp/48959856/#48959768 ***

Not the usual MO.** 

[ http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/09/13/house-race-koster-opts-for-the-full-romney/ ]

*Scroll over is sufficient until [fn] and post /under-construction(also redux labels) R done.
** "well" not exactly [!]

*** dropped link [!]

[Unfinished read, refinished read.(perspectivism) Politics over war.  Obama has made progress in foreign policy, but Republicans want to take it back.  The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and Iran(an evolution) are the examples of diplomacy(d) over preemption.  It all sprung from the 2000 election debacle, resistance to Clinton policy and the failure on September 11th with the supposed post-9-11 world.  But it is spelled out in the perspective that we cannot expect to teach democracy or politics over there, without practicing it over here(^).  I will refrain from further tangents or links on this post, but I will note that the two reads just mentioned also reflect a bit of a balancing act that is not nearly as cut and dry as it might be written.  One of the key differences in the big picture that makes the previous administration a stand out failure in American History is the combination of the voodoo(b) economics(arithmatic/fuzzy math+fuzzy English) with the neo-con perspective of American Exceptionalism (which is not) exemplified by choosing a war without paying for it.  The success that is so difficult is because politics is local except for them^(f).  This is demonstrated by the current Radical Republican opposition(c) to the Arab Spring,^^^ which removed dictators and is allowing(a) for democracy that might not turn out to be to our liking.  Bush said war is hard work, but just because you want to fight, does not mean that progress and peace(with diplomacy and politics) are not harder work, and more profitable.  That is part of true exceptionalism.

^refrain from a bumber snicker]

9-15-12
(a) FOX wrong about Libya says McCain.
(b) Foreign policy is Bane of Politics: bankruptcy bailout business not an option in either.
(c)  Loose lips? Republican Threat to National Security
(d) not! but whiney!

(^) ibid re^frain [see (d)]

9-17-12 (e) not embedded  i.e. that's right, there is no (e)
Seriously [!] folks ?
[^^ Apologies for sarcasm, but there is a diversity of reliability in the perspectives/sources provided.]
[NOW^^^ w/Alex Wagner w/Martin Basher on America Abroad.^^ But natural track of changing the strategy for Romney of change or status quo. i.e. hijacking change and boogieman status quo. Cam-Pain not working, Obama not running.]
[There is an (f) ]
^^ viscous cycle of anachronism
^^^ then Martin Bashir (NeoMitt)(Mittastrophe of asterisked?)

To Democrats in the Senate:

CAP THE FILIBUSTER!

First I would like to support the filibuster as one of the best protections for the rights of the minority. But here are a few questions I pose:

Why are Republicans not required to hold the floor if they are filibustering?

I would suggest that a cap be put first on cloture votes and keep them talking to show who is stalling.

What is the number of cloture votes taken versus successful legislation passed? (1 in 6 as of July.)
It would seem that things are already mucked up quite a bit, with cloture vote on top of cloture vote, just how would they carry on all this filibustering at the same time?

It seems difficult to right this course, and the Democrats are at the helm.

The Democrats had a period of success and "hard work" at the start of the session, I think it is time they put their foot down, and start forcing filibusters. There are only so many hours to congress. Is there not a time limit for each and are there enough hours left?

The only thing that seems to come from this is the understanding that progress is so hard to make. "Compromise" was a key word in the defense of the Republican's expecting some from the Democrats, but if voters will look at the bills presented, they must ask who and what is already compromised.

The answer to the first question may be: Because the Democrats want to get things done.

If there is any validity to the claim that Democrats are "do nothing"(which is a strategy the Republicans promote), how can that hold water, when the minority Republicans won't allow votes to be held, even when they would be vetoed. Not to mention the power a minority of Progressive Democrats are not using, to make sure nothing gets done when it is warranted.

May the Republicans long hold the Right of the minority. It should be clear the the Democrats are making compromises, not necessarily good or bad or getting anywhere. But sometimes they are holding together. That is another number to watch.

We Can't Wait

...for Republicans to come to their senses or be good for anyone but the 1%.*

Well that is not exactly what President Obama has said, but it should be pretty clear. But it is not.(Michael Lind) We can't wait till the American people understand.

While Mitch McConnell and John Boehner provide the non-sense, Michael Lind provides some relief with Morning Joe a bit more consideration, with Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski. Note that Morning Joe follows up with a panel on Rick Perry. More message on the mess age, later. While I agree that the Perry birther talk is silly, but it may be a convenient distraction from his tax plan. Convenient for the media but not the country. And convenient for the blame the "gotcha liberal media" strategy that seems very much a part of the Republican story. There is a catch-44.**

* one per-cent
** I Ron Knee of all it is clear.(last link inserted see 4th link/I mean fifth.
*** and understanding: that is another column
[Speaking of the fifth.***]
[Yes, there is an anacronism in my asterisk 3. I have yet to link another column. Not it.]
[See comments.]