Obtusity?

Not Here.(Kay label added)
Nor Here.
But in context the former Here is the proper angler.

In a less embedded aside, Leonard Pitts Jr. hits the nail on the head of American Exceptionalism.

In another arena, a friend noted how trustworthy FOX and Bill O'Reilly are. Well, 28% and 9% are far from a margin of victory unless you are looking for an American Icon. NBC, MSNBC, CBS, and ABC combine for 29% while CNN's Cooper and Blitzer match O'Reilly's 9%, and the a4mentioned other network's hosts(Matthews, Brokaw, Couric and Sawyer tied) combine for 12%. So it is only in the winner[*] take all, not knowing what it takes world, where follow the leader matters. Now that is a real Laffer Curveball! Or is it?

[Then there is Pawlenty of problems. Bottom line: if money is a maker then tax it as much as labor. That is an inverse paradox or maybe praximoron.]
[The bottom line is obliquity with intent.]
[Sub** Text]

** asterisks apply to that link, but is not the missing link, but does fit the leadership narrative over people.
[*] boo yeah! Stewart boosts O'Reilly's ratings(**), which likely rigs poll. i.e. maybe FOX viewers are more fair and balanced when the left is presented.
(**) I don't have the Nielsen ratings but it might be reflected in the poll.
[Footnote: scroll over some links for some understanding, but unfortunately links that may need clicking on do not last forever. Hence I hope to be less obtuse but no less oblique in the future. There should be no joy in mud-ville, as the outcome of the NY26th shows, as divided meta(for) prevails. But to unembed these analogies, the Ryan plan was the issue in the divide to lose in New York, 48% takes it, while the issue will next be before the U.S. Senate with Democrats in the majority and Republicans faced with laying their votes on the line. Some will leave the sinking ship, diluting the lemonade. If I may make a few Truman references it is not a direct analogy, but hanging their votes on their necks will be like dividing to conquer.]
[Meanwhile Up-Date]
[Speaking of not Truman--something about:

If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.

With my lemon twist on it:

If it's a choice between a genuine Moderate, and a Moderate in Republican clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Democrat before they will a phony Moderate(update 10-11-2011), and I don't want any phony Moderate candidates in this campaign.

OK, it loses a little bit of it's zest, but that is the nature of the slippery-slope, trickle down, lemonade, mudville.]

[Update 12-8-11 The Last Word? As it seemed to line up.]

A common thread

No Truman, No McArthur.
Rose Garden
Announcement
The Exit* Strategy?

* somewhere it is suggested that this was McChrystals exit strategy, and I would say one that furthers the President's Afghanistan Exit Strategy.

The Truman Crack? There are limits to what a President can do...legally, but too often politically as well.
[6-24-10 update ** Chain of Command and McChrystal(Military/**MSNBC/Grist)labels added and thread of BP or D-Day? or deeper Ctrl F ?]

McCain camp sexist.

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

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

Heck Oven(~)

[Truman's] Indictment.

Colbert's Ire Ron Knee [!] ?

Hume or...* Letterman? [~]

* (5-8-15) links need work

I Ron Knee Chef

Ctrl F Kitchen

Obama Takes it to the Kitchen.
OK, Lawrence O'Donnell is not there yet.[*]
True Man Label: Bring it On.

* 1-5-11 Lawrence O'Donnell: McCain Courage, Mormon Cult(ure) and perfect family. (Mitt Romney)
Recess appointment is perfect politics.  Make our** day. (not to get Harry) i.e. take it to court or the people
Is Obama the 75% man?  Mitt may be politically perfect, or the least of how many evils?
Trump wanted some enthusiasm, but who am I to be enthused by the choice of an even weaker candidate to face Obama?  I hope the Republicans give us their best.  It is a process that just might do that.  Unfortunately their best for some Republicans, Libertarians, and farther wrongs would be worse for the country. A flip-flopping un-nuanced Romney is their best shot.  Someone more extreme*** would be better for the race and the country by allowing Obama to carry the middle left.

** dirty Truman and his spatula
[Later The Daily Caller and Neo-Nuanced R's. ]
*** link added (**also & Neo)
[Neo-Bush, Frank/Dodd and Obamanomics.]
[Rachel Maddow, Star Chamber]
[Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartmann, Lawrence O'Donnell]

1-6-11 Paul Harvey, The Rest of the Story. "not really".
Jobs-check, Cuts-check, debt next, but that means revenue also. As for certainty?
Note: use of punctuation, (sic)/pun, "air quotes" or lack of... c-BTW/irony.
(Ctrl F: "best" link inserted above)
[Rachel Maddow follow up or vise verse us ? Steele and Obama!]
[Santorum: Civil ad cert'em, a lesson in logic and taking the 9th.]
[Lawrence O'Donnell follow-up and tetra heed run ! (c-1-5 "courage":It was noted that it would be a lack of courage for McCain not to endorse a Republican candidate at this late date.  So he endorses after the first delegates have been selected?  Typical fear of fear monger.)]
BTW:  China Or Germany? Which Economy Stupid? This proves you can learn from others, but it doesn't say what.

Awkward Breaking(BTW/Less Embedded)News(Ein, Ein, Ayn?)
i.e. next post/segue!
Speaking of Newt Eyed Peas, what he said to the NAACP.
Just demand jobs instead of food stamps?  Not to be snarky.

< previous post >

State of Politics

Speaking of Johnsons*,
CAD(Culturally Aided Designs)
Objective/Subjective
Ge-oh-me-try!
The Presidents Club









The origins of this club in Hoover and Truman, harken back to mark a distinct difference in the act of presidential transitions, from the Bill Clinton/George W. Bush, George W. Bush/ Barack Obama turnovers.  Is it fair to mark the common factor, when congressional partisanship also plays a part? Or is it fair to ask if Hoover could change, what change will Romney bring?  Do we want to change course** or is it still our turn?  [Ctrl F "still"]

*Andrea Mitchell interviews author(The Presidents Club)
** NOW with Alex Wagner (need^ update)
[Polling Seg Way*** ? See AM* Gimmickry or plans ?]
*** WOE (and Bashir)
[Must search for Manichean links(or leaps) of punderous pondering and other posts for Ant and Grasshopper and "render unto Caesar".]

^ color of change?
(see CAD: cause affect difficiency)

[4-24-12 link inserted@ ^ update, not ]

Use Dispersants On BP!

Not the chemical kind, the market kind.

The Answer to BP is Dispersants

Chapter 11 or Receivership? NO! Let the market work. As their stock goes down, someone will by it. Let them be taken over, but don't let them escape their responsibility. This idea started as a joke, what is the solution? Dispersants. Use them on BP, on the executives as well, might not be bad. As they are dispersed hold their new affiliations accountable.

Do you know who else started as a joke? Ayn Rand, at least as a fiction. But her ideas were soon dispersed, from Objectivism, to Libertarianism, Reaganomics. She was anti-collectivism, so she would rolling in her grave over the corporate personhood, but it is hard to tell, given how her ideas were dispersed, and never dispersed the foundational errors of government expansion. Or she could be just a misunderstood tea partier. But back to our problem, the BIG PROBLEM OF BIG PROFITS AND BIG POLLUTION. Too big to fail? Too big to bail... out that is.

If Obama does not quite meet the level of FDR, I might just say...GO BUSH! That is right GO BUSH ON US,GO BUSH ON BP, GO BUSH on the Bush Problems.**

Of course I am being facitious in part. But if he would at least GO TRUMAN on us, or even Milton Friedman. Few probably know (if wiki is right*) that Milton Friedman, proposed a negative income tax. And he was a Reagan economic advisor. Take what you will from this, but it better be a lesson that the government is not the problem, but it is part of it, and so are corporations.

* others call it left
** how about those quaint laws like commerce: Article One of the constitution, and congress

[Big Patriot Act: if I may disperse or chemically adjust a Thom Hartmann/ Ellen Ratner exchange. (Can we see their papers?)]

[Sub-section II,(Heck I dunno what #/article or Hyperlink), but BP should evolve from Bad Practices to Better Purposes, not Beck-headed Prophets. BTW: the BP on this my(Bulk Perspective) is the comment in the first link at OpEdNews.]

Truman Labor Day 1948

I don't know Jack,
but a caller to Ed,
led me to this search.
I am not sure this is the exact audio, or there is some anachronism here.
But I believe that it was 1948 he mentioned, the difference is that 1949 was into his second term.
[Belated post 9-10]

The Great Wall Recycled.

My teaser hints at a tangent
of Nietzschean proportions.
Bush Army in Brzezinski's Afghan Trap

Or Rumsfeld's ReDucks
or Donald's Duck and Cover Up History
I will not dig into the depths of it,
or what fell into my inbox from TruthOut.
But to feel we have been there before.

My threads:
Berlin + Wall
Vietnam + Economy
Not a wall

Out of the Blue Summary:The irony of intelligence I have recently heard is the contrast between Truman and Eisenhower over the long and the short of it as far as agency and militancy, not to mention in-corporations of it.
A set-up or by intelligent design?

[6-22-08 Bicameral NOT.]
[Prior Restraint: Post Information ]

Legislation not politics!

[Can't Or Bane Or...]
(10-17-11 or change: added sub-heading with links only)

Was it Cant or Bane or, who said such.
Well, I paraphrase, but it was an attack on President Obama and the American Jobs Act. The idea that he was playing politics by giving them a jobs plan, while it is the legislature's job to create legislation. Sure there is a disagreement as to what creates jobs, but there should be no disagreement that it is legislation and it is political.

Plan B? Walking the Plank? Take up or down votes:

If Republicans want to walk the talk, of Where are the Jobs?* Then vote on every last one of these, as well as the American Jobs Act[*], and see who will be left on the ship of fools.

[*] The American Jobs Act.

[This is Truman's kitchen and Teddy's stick or carrying a lever but no pit bully.]

[Sorting it out: It was Eric Cantor who accused the President of politics over legislating. That is a ridiculous line of argument. As someone said about the market operating on society, like Siamese Twins performing brain surgery on themselves. But taking it to the bank or kitchen or pulpit,(the ridiculus line that is), the answer is in one word. VOTE! Up or down, package or separately, limit the filibuster, use reconciliation, WHATEVER! A vote is taking a stand. Take it and run on it, not from it. BUT THEN WE HAVE THE MESSAGE TO GET THROUGH THE MESS AGE OF THE MEDIA, not even punning on ledership. The American Jobs Act did not get voted down, it failed a cloture vote(50-49). That means that even if three more Democrats had voted with the rest, it would have been 53-46, but it takes 60 votes people!]

Pan-Flyin' Forward

[NFRY: If you can't stand the heat, burn your past.***
Awkward** Segue / Try Angle.]

**Pun on Truman and pan-F-fort.
(NFRY: not fully read yet.)
*** 8-17 drafted ironically chronologically

"Caesar's work"

"The View"

After a quick Google or Yahoo(!) I found an anachronism. Of course everything is, if you are trying to catch up with history or follow John McCain. But it was his leap from "founding fathers" to "In God we trust".

Ok, now follow me: He believes in God, he believes in the Constitution, "God" is not in the constitution, "trust" is. Nor is "Creator", so who made these things up. "Being" and "Power" is; usually in relation to requirements and connections to the people.

Ouch! I did not know I was going there. But the point is the flip-flop from his "no litmus test" to his interpretation or "quote" interpretations as exposed on the grill, I mean "The View". For those not down with computers, the point is that embedded in the above links is the fact that the motto of the United States is "In God we trust" and came about in 1956. And for those who are reminded of the Pledge of Allegiance, it was changed in 1954. And back to the history of our motto: e pluribus unum: "Out of Many, One." I guess this is McCain's interpretation of change or quote interpretation, or nuance.

[And speaking of stretch, as in Caesar's Salad, I refer to the tossing of "isms" as coat of arms. The dressing and heat of the kitchen metaphors, makes her no Truman or Teddy, but she has been referred to as "Reagan in a dress" and it should be checked if her lipstick is teflon.]

An Outer Truman

His Inner FDR.

The Real Deal?

I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.

Re: con text
[5-25-10 Say it is so, Joe!]
[And the tale of two leaks? President Obama, Please. Step on some throats! I think the administration should have some "anglers" and "philosphers". This is an obtuse reference to Cheney and Rumsfeld*, but what with the blame that the likes of Palin and Paul place on them, since we don't have "the one" in the White House, we may need a czar of rolling some heads. i.e. "get her done" or out the door types.]
* not in paticular a defense matter, but more on the Secretary of Infotainment front.

Christie Endorses Romney.

FOX
CBS
MSNBC

I have yet to filter,
but a pre-emptive comment:
"Danger, Will Robinson!"

Buy Witch I mean: Romney/Christie[!]
Not that I might actually get around to reading the above takes, yet:

If it's a choice between a genuine Moderate, and a Moderate in Republican clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Democrat before they will a phony Moderate**, and I don't want any phony Moderate candidates in this campaign. *

[Jammed to the Right?
See Matthews (Beating Mitt) and weaving moderate creds.]

*My spin on a Truman quote.
** corrected today

["who am I" to advise the GOP? BO see fuss?]

That's Politics...

or it's political.*

GOP Code*** for "Get out of the Frackin' Kitchen!"

[Segue Post-read see asterisk**.]

More True Man Shows, and the real man.

Catching the heat?(see ***)

Truman: "If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen".

Framing the Kitchen:

With my lemon twist on it:

If it's a choice between a genuine Moderate, and a Moderate in Republican clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Democrat before they will a phony Moderate(update 10-11-2011), and I don't want any phony Moderate candidates in this campaign.

Note: Regarding the lemon twist, Ctr F "sinking ship".

Before I parse the C-rap out of this... here is a scary BS.(blog search)

* Joan Walsh, back from vacation & Ground Hogs Day.

(I have barely cracked the cook book in Salon, but ran with my earlier thoughts.)

** Having now read "it's political", I find where I had heard Joan(see *)

*** the Code they need to get

[Also Politics; Foreign Policy & Economics in balance.(from rational images)]

[And here is the Un-Wrap of the G'Ribble of the cost all [!]

Obama is Obama!

Not an FDR, nor a Truman,
and most definely* not a Bush,
burning or not, but a man of faith.
Faith in our Founding Fathers,
and team leaders not just cheer leaders.

[Bold is speech link, like it or not.]
* definitely also

[6-16-10: Ironically I think I nailed it: Obama stayed his course. He can't exactly "Go Bush on us", but he intends to get it done, with our help.]

Pandora's Box[!]

Truman's PanTry

Bane or Change ?



Not to muck rake the art, but ...

Also not to be too Greek to too many ! (...)