Here We Go Again

GOP Fights Back Over Criticism of Limbaugh
White House Is Accused Of Cynicism, Hypocrisy
by Howard Kurtz

I will save for later, what is probably a very good article or at least closer to what journalism is supposed to be. Which is to not always please me and not always be free of perspective. But the spin and same old tactics seems to be coming from the Republicans. The President had made earlier references to Limbaugh, but a recent one advising the Republicans to stop listening to him was what started the media echo. That was good advice from my perspective and from the perspective of most moderates. Republicans are the ones that have not decided who is their leader and what are their principles. Well, actually the former does not matter because the latter are no different. They need to work on their principles and by focusing on this, they are able to forget them. It is my opinion that it is their principles that are the matter and that they can not recreate themselves. It is not hypocrisy or childish to keep the focus and hardship on them.

In an aside: Chris Matthews is doing them or the country no favor by claiming they have an issue with taxes and keeping your money. All low and most moderate income will see tax reductions or at the point some do, will be compensated by other cost cuts or compensations. Even those that are getting some tax cuts may find other fees increased which only lends to the need for the cuts in the first place. As to Democrats being "all about spending", the Democrats, at least the Obama adminstration, are all about nothing but everything.

In this regard, it seems that if there is anything we can get on the same page on, it is entitlements. We should get back to the safety net concept. That does not mean that certain good ideas are not good for all. But that all entitlements are not needed by some. But in reality, no one wants to give up what they have, so it seems the best field to work it out on is taxes. Similar balance can be taken in regards to international finance, markets and social progress. Maybe a carbon credit for life?

[But back to the Dark Side or Gas Bag (Methane Head No Credit):
Hypocrisy is King!
The Republicans are rallying around Rush while he is eating it up.
He then challenges the President to a debate!
Well the Republican's should put up or shut up.
There is no equivalent to the President.
But the Republicans must decide, is he or is he not the one in charge or would Rush Limbaugh have a debate with Ed Shultz?
Actually the answer is no! Since I believe the challenge is out there. And there have been others (Ron Reagan) he has not accepted. But he should really stick to his own league and maybe Stephen Colbert. Or warm up to Rachel Maddow.]

[Seriously, Rachel Maddow and the link just provided, really put her in a league of her own, but actually the one that Rush Limbaugh and Michael Steele should live up to before they even merit the jobs they have, (not to mention the other intelligent Enternewsmeant or Fun'n Edifying Personalities I have noted above, depending on the job they aspire to)but here are some bonus links: Michael Moore * vs. Any Rand, talk about doubling down or matches.]

[And I don't know who got it backwards but Rush did say, he wanted Obama to fail before Obama suggested that Republicans stop listening to Rush. This was Obama taking on the old way with the Republicans, not a direct attack on Rush but his ideas and tactics which Republicans have so hard a time changing, and they need to make it about Rush. [Update: too enough!]

* [Plus Must See TV: FNBC ](For funny? No for real...


...Financial News with a real anchor!)]

Blame to go around?

Taking off from a Stephanie Miller topic in the background as I check the news on the internet, the topic of always having someone to blame was noted. From a Larry King show, Dennis Prager jumped on a question about the difference between Republicans and Democrats. His answer resulted in laughter, and so near the end of the show. Republicans he said are the party of "American Exceptionalism", and Democrats are the party of (blah, blah, blah...) something about "old Europe" or the French. What I am saying is that his definition of Democrats was not too clear or important, unless you take it to mean OUR ROOTS, OUR PRINCIPLES!

Now "American Exeptionalism" is not a bad thing, unless you forget that just what he forgot is important. We do have an exceptional history, and we do have exceptional potential, but we also have an exceptionally hard job, not to forget where we came from. But unfortunately by forgetting that, only the idea that we have some exceptional authority remains. That is probably where the laughter resulted. We know that for the administration and it’s defenders, they are the exception to every rule but theirs. [see footnote later]*

Whatever Stephanie Miller was talking about, sent me on the tangent and I will try to revisit the show, but it seems that the above can be tied in somehow. Always having someone to blame when things just do not go the way they are decreed. I had more to go on this, but maybe already got there. Something about the "hard work" that remains. We know that war is "hard work" and they said, "War is a last resort", but the hardest work is not getting there.

That is the irony, that there is always a last resort to resort to, if things don‘t go your way. But for us there will always we hard work, because that is what makes us exceptional.

And if I may depart on the note of an ancient comedian, "take my wife"...She might say: "Right, there is always hard work Left."

[ I was actually going to go into a more logical tit for tat on the difference between who had what to blame, but maybe I present a better demonstration of someone getting where they don’t know their going. Some just don’t want to say. Then they can declare victory when they finally define the mission.]

* [I know this seems loopy, but "I am the uniter, not the divider" said Bush. Now we know what is unified and he is the decider.]

NOTE: It is the opinion of many that Wikipedia is not necessarily the authoritative source, and I agree, but that does mean it is without a value that may just be academic. NOT!** Another little loop here that is closed by their own admission. Which is what is in dispute: authoritarianism.
LSS:[Long Story Short] We are the decider as in a government of by and for the people, with three equal branches, each having their own hard work, separate and related to others.

** Another little demostrative irony here is that "academic" has it's own loopy history, in that one can almost see, how others may be getting it. It is the process not the end all. [Epitomized by the dispute between practical and authoritative not to mention reality.]

Work-a-day Republicans

Or rather wonk-a-day sic.
Did you know that "wonk" is "know" backwards? But it is still of uncertain origin and could be WithOut Normal Knowledge? I think that Steele may be the missing link.
It could have arisen much the same as the attitude of suspicion that is cast upon those that might know or krow. And it seems that there is a real twist in the way sausage is made when it comes to what the Republicans claim and what they are about. You may be able to know things backwards and forwards but, that does not mean they will work either way.

Earlier Michael Steele was not a policy wonk, now he is a policy krow.

Politics is the Name.

The day began with my thoughts of politics. The politics that Bush says should not be used in a time of war, but which are regularly part of their daily method of operation. The budget later.

The House is considering a non-binding resolution offered by Republican leadership.
H.Res. 571 "It is the sense of the House that deployment of U S. forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

The politics?

Murtha’s resolution would have called for "redeployment" as quickly as possible. Instead the Republicans pushed for a vote just to vote against something. If that is not political, I don’t know what is.

If the Republicans claim that Democrats have no plans, they are first of all lying, but second, just voting against the Republican plans is a good enough plan.

Now Democrats can even vote against plans that are so bad, even the Republican makers can’t vote for them. If that is not political and irresponsible, I don’t know what is.

On the other hand, maybe that is the only way things will work. Republicans can blame Democrats for getting the troops out of Iraq.

If we got in on false pretenses, the only way out may be on false pretenses. The only test for the use of false anything is if they work. Wrong facts and shifting reasons usually won’t.

Thanks to Eleanor Clift of this weeks McGluaghlin Group for her fiery enthusiasm about the connection between Murtha and the military. I may be missing some credit to the false pretense concept.

[Below link and this comment added 11-24-05: Note the battle of the cut-and-run 2006 campaign has just begun, as that is the likely charge, no matter the outcome. Not in an attempt to have it both ways, let us not pre-empt success by such plays, but continue the work that will prevent, the continued hard work of war.}

Filibuster Final Draft

FILIBUSTER MORE IMPORTANT THAN BOLTON.

What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.

They claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates.
We have heard, "Life is not fair", on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address. Many in fact are fond of saying this yet feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.

Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the sectarian war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.

The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.

Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.

If may seem that compromise seems reasonable and often it takes extremes to enforce it. But in the case of the filibuster consider another power the president has to assure protection of another minority or abusive legislation--the veto. A supermajority is required to overturn it, but the veto balances abuse by a simple majority in congress. Should we consider taking the President's veto away? No!
Compromise on Bolton? Maybe. As long as the public understands that it means reform of the United Nations, like they meant to reform Social Security, and they won‘t need to go on a road show.

Filibuster more important FOR JUSTICE and against judges than Bolton.

[The previous post may be a footnote to the following, which had been in rough draft, but now serves as a preface, with footnote below and final link.]
What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.

He or his attorney general claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates. Life is not fair, on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address this. Many in fact are fond of saying “life is not fair”, and feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.

Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the cultural war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.

The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.

Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.

FOOTNOTES:
Incompetence may be another reason Bolton perfectly represents the administration, not only in methods but results. Sorting out the issue a bit more, on Committee issues related to the whole Senate, getting things out of committee is one thing that may be a compromise, but use of the filibuster must always be held as a last resort. Getting something to the floor is a great way to see where Senators line up, and there is nothing wrong with expecting them to line up to be held accountable. This seems to indicate that votes or reasons may not be black or white, BUT RESULTS OFTEN ARE!
SEE Link below:

"Secret Plans" sounds too much like Nixon.

Hit and Run Republicans are not exactly being cut and run from the process as they know it is difficult to avoid a vote.

But since we know that Bush's plan is not the Iraq Study Group's, if he has one, and the Democrats have a few plans, it is too late to say, let's just get along. The concept of a secret plan is most ridiculous for two reasons. 1. We got into this war not only based on secret plans but 2. leaked plans for political purposes. If we cannot get out for political purposes, it is too much to expect that anything change. Believe me, I could have been more strident in this terminology, but it should be pretty clear. (Except that the secret and the leaked plans are still not clear.)

The "too late" is also from the perspective of the calculations of whatever is read into it by the insurgents, but removing political pressure now will only make it more a political calculation later, besides removing the power to hold accountable not only from congress but from the people.

I don't know if this is almost as bad or much worse than the "cards dealt" to the president before the war, but it seems the same game.

It must mean...

Mitt Romney is a moderate, because Republicans know that Obama is a moderate* and they try to take on strength** with strength.

Newt Gingrich is a Conservative*, because he is trying to out value or nuance Romney.

Is the Republican race the old circular firing squad of the Hamilton/Burr conflict?

*see five minutes
** Ctrl F "Rove".
[Against Romney Obama can move left. Against Gingrich, he can stay moderate. The checks and balances are between the branches, we need cooperation, compromise and more progressives in the legislature to get anywhere. Failing that, gridlock is a failsafe.

Tea Party Down Grade

and the Undo- Everything House of Reprehensibles
(Note the counter-linkage or weaving of sources.)

Reading of the Day and relevant fn.

One great thing about Obama's primary victory is now we know that's not true. This is the modern Republican Party. It turns out they were the ones who adopted Malcolm X's slogan, "By any means necessary." As disgusted as I am with S&P's decision to downgrade U.S. debt, the ratings agency took the unusual step of calling out the GOP in its press release, predicting future fiscal peril "because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues," Sen. John Kerry was right to call it the "Tea Party downgrade" on "Meet the Press" Sunday. They have now made clear they'll wreck the economy as long as they can wreck Obama's presidency. And we have no way to know that Clinton's history with right-wing saboteurs would have enabled her to fight more effectively.

Simpson-Bowles and S&P Re: Revenue.

Hennessey’s assessment of Simpson-Bowles is even more puzzling. As I’ve noted before, Simpson-Bowles raised about $2 trillion in new revenues and cut defense spending by about $800 billion. The plan Obama proposed to Boehner raises half as much revenue and, from what I’m told, includes about half as much in defense cuts. It’s hard to see how that qualifies as "to the left" of Simpson-Bowles.

The fn. above discusses a narrative that is lacking in Obama's rhetoric. The actual recalcitrance of the Republican party, the lack of a filibuster proof congress, not to mention the media as we know it(Koch Brothers), argues more balanced narrative than Blame Obama. The Obama Inaugural was our calling.
(NFRY)

Candidate Obama was nuanced and President Obama is pragmatic and incremental, the message is clear.
[Hoist on our own Picard.]
[More Meet the Press.]

Green Span on Degree of Certainty: the only thing certain is change, and that the Right won't.

I mean Greenspan: "this deficit problem that is out there is a lot larger than we calculated. the actual numbers employed by those calculating the deficits are based on a level of economic activity, which we are not acheiving." Rather than translate IMHO the Greenspan quote, there is FIXING NEWS(as opposed to breaking) as the President addresses the downgrade now. (Remarks by the President: and previous remarks)

SJM 8016 / US Attorney Scandal

Democrats must put ethics and the law back on the table.
While as Professor Domke said at one of our PCO trainings in Olympia, Democrats run to govern, and Republicans govern to run... I would say that those who are of neither party see what is not on the table. [ALSO MEANING: REPUBLICANS ARE ALWAYS CAMPAIGNING, POLITICS CAN NEVER BE OFF THE TABLE, PLAY IT FORWARD, PLAY IT HARD!]

Those on the so-called Left and those of the non-partisan middle, know what is right.

So while Democrats are working on issues for us, Republicans will be working on other issues against us. So we must face them on all fronts or they will flank us.

ON A RELATED ISSUE OF ETHICS, THE LAW AND GOVERNMENT: and where they will be putting the pressure...

Remember there are several levels of government but the people count, please help them count by supporting this getting from the ground up. Leaders won't go where people fear to follow, but they should go when they have the people and the issues.

WHAT IS THE PERSPECTIVE I NOTE BELOW?

A: Outside interests may not file ethics complaints against members of Congress. They may only file ethics complaints against each other. "And that almost never happens," said Sloan.
B. We sure hope Adam Smith will do the rare and righteous thing: make that complaint- and show us that Democrats will give equal treatment and oversight to both geese and the ganders.

ETHICS SHOULD NOT BE OUTSIDE INTERESTS! Italics quoted from BlatherWatch link [McKay testimony] previous post.


THE ONLY THING BLACK AND WHITE IS A VOTE: But while the law is not just ethics, even the law has a spirit and the letter. So gray areas matter, but people should count. THAT IS A BIG CONNECTION.

Running List '08

[2-16-07: links added Richardson,]

[2-11-07: Coarse Filtering]- Richardson
Kucinich
ObamaClark
Edwards
Clinton
Vilsack
Dodd
Biden
(note: I will let the above typos speak for themselves as a filtering of sorts)
- - -
[original listing]Edwards
Clark **
Kucinich
Vilsack
Dodd
Biden {2-1-07}

[2-1-07]
This is only an order based on my obtuse criteria:
Kucinich
Richardson
Obama
Clark
Clinton
Edwards
Vilsack
Dodd
Biden




[added 1-18-07] I will footnote at the bottom but re-arrange the above evolving list, comment will appear in dated order below. Not that my feelings count and I have not investigated all these candidate yet but they are my current priority.

The "running list" will reflect consideration sometime of only one issue in prioritizing them, but they are probably all good. One issue alone could also put things in reverse order, for all I know Vilsack could be best. This is only an explanatory preface, hopefully not an attempt to cover myself. ***

[Original entry]
Vilsack

[added: 1-16-07 ]
Kucinich
Exploratory Committee:
Obama

[added: 1-17-07 ]
Edwards
These are in no particular order, I will comment on that later, but at this time Obama is in his exploratory phase. In the previous election I sent my first email with comments to the Kucinich camp, and continued to forward and Cc: each candidate till I arrived at my choice. Then I reviewed the candidates at Backbone Campaign * to rethink things . My choice was Howard Dean. Well it makes me want to scream as we know how that ended, but now we can scream because we know where we are, and Dean is the head of the DNC. I did not really plan to post this much now, but we have much more of a road to hoe, and I really don't want to jump on a bandwagon, and would really like a 20-mule team of great candidates so that we can sort things out even more, so that we don't have more wars and a president who is finally ready to feign dialogue while demanding a plan from the opposition. This is not a call for a plan or opposition, but to look at what each says and does. I did not really plan to go on this riff either, but just tossing things in the air, Edwards is a candidate I had enthusiasm for based on past considerations. But I look forward to processing all of these great candidates who are so good, I almost refrained from comment so far...

[added 1-18-07] Dodd a candidate long overdue, but too long?
Republicans ? **** and wannabes?

* [added 1-18-07] I will keep this * at the bottom as it will footnote here that this link does not have the presidential candidates yet, or needs to be changed.

** Obama will be left off until he declares, here Clark is inserted for Hope sake. For history sake I note the original five candidates in this order: Edwards, Clark, Kucinich, Vilsack, Dodd

*** I will not alter footnotes, comments will be inserted just above these footnotes, link below and others will be improved with time.

**** MoveOn.Org in this link is labeled a liberal group. I do not consider that it's draw, but was the forefront of pragmatism and progress that heralded the likes of Howard Dean.

Rough Draft or Quick Vent

Here is my reply yesterday, which I don't want to waste, and need to use as a preamble to other news.

Due to some maintanence problems, this post by Marjorie Cohn arrived in my email before I could get the rest of this posted.

REPLY RE: "Stuck on Stupid"

Please spare me such evil non-sequitors and I will spare you a useless reply.

However since men and women are dying for our freedoms, or "whatever" ( I know that they are mostly dying for their brothers and sisters and a cause they believe or believed) rather than get hung up on how a mother honors her dead or the living, we should all be honoring what I believe and I know many know they are fighting for, by using those freedoms for what we believe in.

[A LAST MINUTE INSERT: Cindy has more right and has done more to honor God, Flag, and Country of both the dead and living by practicing the freedoms that our military are fighting and dying for than the Commander in Thief has done by practicing his freedom from reality and checks and balances.]

Stuck on stupid should apply to anyone who says, "just get over it", when our constitution is being ignored, not only by the President, and many in Congress, but the so called "press". You may wonder why I left off the courts, well that is because they are divided into those that honor their job and those that have a philosophy, increasingly known as "the unitary executive". That is where the congress makes the laws, the president decides how to enforce them, and the justices have no cases since the president doesn't even need to veto a law if he doesn't have to follow it, and Republicans rubber stamp as much as they can get away with.

Hey, Democrats aren't exactly rocking the boat either, but believe it or not they are not in charge. Actually they got a lot of oars in the water and all the president does is make waves.

The president may understand one good point, that people can get away with whatever they can until they are caught, and he's a heckuva catcher.

Peace and Progress be with you, Roger

P.S.

One does not need to be a lawyer but should be able to read a full sentence even if they are sometimes paragraphs, to see how far the philosophy of "unitary executive" has violated whatever we are about.

FINALLY HOWEVER: The ABA investigates "Signing statements" and recommended full senate investigation of spying

Much ado about democracy.

President Bush claimed that the media was just a filter and I cannot agree [with] him more, especially when it comes to events just now coming to light. Sometimes I think that the filter is all in my head, but it is better than the president thinking the law is all in his hands. A careful look at his words and we see that at times there may be a calculated absence* of a lie as well as a careful navigation around the truth.

Much ado about nothing? It is only about the rule of law, the concept of checks and balances, the conspiracy of the messenger, the cherry-picking of intelligence and the preemptive war on democracy.

[* comment inserted after footnote]
I cannot help but feel that there should be a bigger distinction between leaking intelligence and declassifying them, and I have long asked, not what did the president know and when did he know it, but when did he decide what he did not want us to know? This leaves aside the issue of other lies, and whether outing an intelligence source was part of the authorization, whether anything was documented as authorized, and whether Republicans and some Democrats have the stomach for a government of laws with checks and balances. It also leaves aside a lot that he was up front about and the poor filters we have.

"There is an institutional interest and ultimately a public interest in having these decisions documented," said Ronald D. Lee, a Washington lawyer and former general counsel to the super-secret National Security Agency. "You can't have a government where everything is sort of done in people's heads."

* I hope to run across the specific words again, that were not a lie, but it was only because leaks were legal in his mind that he could be weaving what seems the truth. And I must add that I came across the quote above after making my comments, but having noted that the first link was very uncritical and hence must be what Bush called an "objective filter" or a co-conspirator in preempting intelligence or stalling the messenger of preemption.

Presidential SOTU

Huffington On Bipartisanship *.-Text-
PBS Annotated SOTU text/video
GOP Responds to SOTU
and promoteown solutions.
Oh, it's the economy(brainy)! -Newsweek**

My summary of SOTU: Heavy on hope, light on hype.

My reply to response: It was "fair and balanced" and with less rhetoric almost a Blue Dog, and with better facts almost a someone that could work across the aisle. Talk is cheap and hype costly. Hope is very economical, but progress takes investment.

* It seems that the following is very odd(my bold):

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the second most powerful Republican in the Senate, was just as blunt and brutal. "It was a campaign speech," he said. "I thought it was a very partisan speech. He did not help himself with Republicans tonight. You do not bash the opposition and then encourage them to work with you."

How, specifically, did he bash?

"Every third paragraph was complaining about the mess that George Bush got him in. He didn't mention the words George Bush but he didn't have to," said Kyl. "After more than a year, take ownership of the problems you have. You campaigned for president to solve these problems so stop complaining about the mess that you inherited. That was okay for a few weeks or a few months, but after awhile it gets a little tiresome."

Kyl went on to complain about "thinly veiled suggestions that all Republicans do is say 'no,' that we have to stop saying 'no' to everything. That's not the way to encourage productive cooperation with the other side."

Especially as it continues:

Was he offended by the shot at skeptic(sic) of the science behind climate change?

"Well, he probably meant it as such, but frankly I didn't receive it as such, since I'm one of the skeptics," he said.

Anything else?

"He started out talking about the constitutional requirement to report on the state of the union and in the very first part of the speech he did. And then he veered off of it and got into this big campaign mantra, which just isn't done. I know this is his first one, but still, it shouldn't be so much about him, and how he didn't come here to do this and he didn't come here to do that and he's going to fight on and so on. It's not about that. It's about the American people and how you're going to react to what they've been telling you -- or trying to tell you -- about what they'd like to see done."

I thought that was pretty much what President Obama did, and it seems odd if not forced that this Republican take makes any sense. Of course they believe in an invisible force (Ctrl F hand) not to mention freedom as a force, which is even less accurate.(just speaking economics and physics). It seems that MassAChooseIts independents, moderates, democrats, and apparently the Senate's #2 Republican has given the president a mandate. Now congress, "may the force** be with you".

BTW: we don't have to worry about deficits anymore**, there is no looking back and it is the President's economy.

footnote:
asterisk * is post I am commenting on
asterisk ** refers back to preemptive crack and source(Newsweek/YouTube)
But seriously.
*** see comment 3 of more there re: change agent

[UPDATE: On Thom Hartmann, Congressman Blumenauer suggests Valentines for the Senate (Valentines are the broken parts of the bills that need passing. Progressively: ping pong, reconciliation, nuclear option, Valentines [*] . Seemingly how I put it[**] & within the mechanics of the process and politics.)]
[*] 1-29-10 link to Valentines for the Senate
[**] The Nature of Things (posted 1-20-10) also "up, down, or side ways" not to mention the Mass A Choose Its Dilemma. Make it so! May the force be with you.[Is there a Mass A Choose Its Lesson?]

Supreme Court Decision on Voter ID

Is The SCOTUS Picking Another President? By making this decision now, it may have an impact on the Indiana primary, and the Democratic race. Not mentioned is the impact that John McCain being the presumptive nominee for Republicans has on voter turnout of crossover "Democrats".

While the whole Florida-Michigan fiasco, was based on the early elections hoping to put them more in play, that and the McCain "success" make late players more in play. These complicated cross-currents, not only make Florida-Michican but all late races more in play. It is ironic that so many want the race to be over, which would disenfranchise the late states, but the Supreme Court decides early to have their say on Indiana, while McCain is sidelined from the media scrutiny and Republican support as well.

[update: "Fair and Balanced"* Sermon ] And Breaking!
[on the Indiana law, I don't know if there is much evidence that there is actual voter ID fraud, but there is evidence (in different states] of voter disenfranchisement fraud and other violations of law by Republicans, a broad claim I will not detail at this time, but which include the "remedy" Indiana has installed.]

* for the culturally untuned: the motto of Fox News

[delayed broadcast of The Ed Schultz Show just ended: He points to the 180 that Obama has done on Wright but ...with McCain he can do it in a sentence or two. And I dislike the metaphor of throwing anyone under the bus, but it should call into question who will be "at the table" or what that means for Clinton, Obama or McCain.]

Value Added?

Chris Matthews is Value Taxed.

Mid-Speech (13:35 in video):

[quote]To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future

It is not so much was is said, but what is not[***] said or heard elsewhere.[**] Number one threat to national security now? Economic Crisis Second or was number one before the last administration: Nuclear Proliferation.

I don't know if I can find the point where a Republican critic complains that we can't address some of the concerns at home, how can we address them in Afghanistan? That is a great point. It should have been considered before we shifted from getting Bin Laden and to regime change in Iraq. But the important difference is that Afghanistan needs to build their governmental processes amidst turmoil, while we have got one already in turmoil thanks to the Chicken Hawks*, and Afghanistan does not have the stumbling blocks which are our foundations and which the previous administration and current Republicans continue to trample.

* I think we can safely say Chris Matthews is one now, but I don't really know he did not serve. The only wiki connection is other MSNBC military analysts. Not to mention Rube Goldberg. He did serve: "in the United States Peace Corps in Swaziland from 1968 to 1970 as a trade development advisor."
[**] added link
[***] similarly Pakistan has a government that must be dealt with with all our influence. (27:03) Values Sir CHARGE![Sometimes I can't believe Matthews was ever in politics or heard any of the Bush speechs- but that is maybe good for an interviewer, because we must listen to his guests.]
[Having now finished hearing the speech, after spending too much time on the reactions, I must say that the speech was a solemn thrill and no vapid rhetoric. I think I detected that in the faces and response from "the Corps" and one would not expect them to act like groupies at a rock concert or talk show hosts.
[And 1:15 to 1:52 with Rachel Maddow. Lastly I have sorted the bold links{see below index} and I hope you have "found my thrill". Maybe we should have a thrill added tax, but there "he goes" again.]
{Index of priority links: "Speech", "no vapid" (General Eaton), Pakistan, Maddow (1:15-1:52)}

Everything is on the Table!

That's right!  Everything is on the individual's table, but that does not mean how.

Robert Reich counts
 8 Principles to Guide Democrats in the Fiscal Cliff Showdown.*

ONE: HOLD YOUR GROUND.

 

TWO: NO DEAL IS BETTER THAN A BAD DEAL.

 

THREE: MAKE REPUBLICANS VOTE ON EXTENDING THE TAX CUTS JUST FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS.

 

FOUR: DEMAND HIGHER TAX RATES ON WEALTHY, NOT JUST LIMITS ON DEDUCTIONS.

 

FIVE: DON'T CUT SAFETY NETS.

 

SIX: DON'T CUT INVESTMENTS IN OUR FUTURE PRODUCTIVITY.

 

SEVEN: CUT SPENDING ON MILITARY AND CORPORATE WELFARE.

 

EIGHT: PUT JOBS BEFORE DEFICIT REDUCTION.

 

Number Five puts the Safety Net on the table. As in: DON'T CUT IT!
But it is not that simple. Medicare and Social Security do not need to be on the table at this time. That does not mean they need to be cut in the future. Addressing them is not just in the form of cutting them. Even so, if they address the top end or the bottom line, changes could be balanced in the tax code, not to hit those that need the safety net and even address the income gap.

 

* BOLDLY ENUMERATED taken directly from his post.

[Follow-down...I wouldn't go that far.  Despite quibbles with the terms of B.S. or F. C.  this is the kernel of the matter: 

Former Sen. Alan Simpson says ‘‘you have to have a blend’’ of revenue increases and spending cuts to achieve a deal to avoid the cliff.

Especially the bold below:

Simpson tells NBC’s ‘‘Today’’ show it’s ridiculous for Democrats and Republicans to speculate on which party would suffer more if no compromise agreement were achieved. He says, quote, ‘‘That’s like betting your country. There’s stupidity in that. This is big-time stuff.’’

I do not believe his "arithmatic" though.(in bold)

Speaking of Congress, Simpson says, in his words, ‘‘If you gave 90 percent of them a profit-loss statement in one hand and a balance sheet in the other, they wouldn’t know how to read it.’’

 It could not be that bad.]

"Trust but Verify"

Not Iran "That's what they say".
but the Left. (Psycho Talk)
No diplomacy or patriots left behind.
The end is near. Butt not to humor.

Re: Do you know what "shovel ready" even means?
[It struck me that the title is just part of the set up and works well at that. I mean it was typical of me to assume that each Cc: was an indication that the sender did not know what "shovel ready" even means. (Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but it fits into my spin as I fell for it.)]
FYI: Most projects start from the ground up. I can't really think of any that don't. There is also the term in projects called "breaking ground", which takes a shovel or other heavy equipment. So really I guess I have made even more sense of the cartoon, since stimulus is a lot like fertilizer. I wonder where the blank think it comes from?

I use the term "blank", because I did not want to pin it on just the Republicans, Conservatives or the rich since that would be too much of a PC.(Political Cartoon)* But I wonder just what they are thinking.

*originally thinking of Proper Characterization

(Answer to awkward riddle here: For some stimulus comes from above, and for others it is all in their heads.)

[Maybe for most (or at least too many) it is not even wondered about.]

P.S. Oh and I actually have a compost pile, I just need to work it.
[The above was concocted between the "left behind" and the "shovel ready" links being embedded, not that I dig burro wing anyone, but we do all end up worm food. Not to mention hot air.]

Edwards Endorsement!

Suspension?

John Edwards: "we will take back the White House."

Will you stand up for John Edwards?

Still voting Edwards on Feb. 5th! And Feb. 9th.

No Edwards Endorsement! But will he?

On the timing thing, and the media.

The Dream is Justice! Ever moot?
Hillary makes moot point.
Obama, a liberal cause?
Belated Calls and Commemoration?

"I have a dream"
We have a nightmare! Let us work for change by continuing support, and vote your conscience, if not for Edwards, how about Uncommitteds for Commiting?

Commiting for change, if not committing Bush. OK, so I have wrapped up here a bit harsh. Maybe that is what Edwards needed, a bit of an edge to cut through the media. It may be a double-edge sword, but we still need to wield it. Wield what you will, but it still needs to cut through some where.

[A counter point or flip-flop: the above may have its own timetable, in that after Super Tuesday, the Republicans may know their candidate and what would happen if the Democrats are still fighting for theirs? Well... Just because the candidate is still up in the air, does not mean that we have to follow the lead of Republicans and uniting for unity sake. Will they really unite? Will they really be able to focus on a Democratic candidate? Well our focus may shift, but that does not mean we not fight. In fact, it could be managed to get more media, and it (the media) could be a focus as well. If it is McCain, the focus should be on whether he is running as a Bush Republican or running from or for the Bush legacy? This update was inspired by a comment by Thom Hartmann, almost to the point of flip-flop, but then I put my usual spin on it, for what it is worth.]
{Maybe this is just my own problem with commitment or needing to have a commitment from our candidates, but having just reread Edwards' speech in New Orleans, I am inspired to encourage that commitment and have some leverage as a group. And part of that is having something to say, and getting it out.]

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 !]