McCain Cover(age)

Image controversy.
It must be clarified that I am using a technique often used by the media. "All Palin, all the time..." Tweaking the headline.
The Atlantic Issue, is more about the work of the photographer.

An image has been rattling around my head.
American Neo Con But it is a composite of McCain and Palin, and they are not covered in lipstick, but what pigs are usually covered with.

And speaking of their only shot.

Reading the fine print or between the images, there really is more "straight talk" than the McCain campaign. The cover of The Atlantic is supposedly not doctored, but some of the other images should not see the light. Others are out there doing photoshop, it should not come from a professional. It demeans the journalism. Of course the Republicans demean politics and government, so the public should ask, who is de meanest.

Under the covers:
Jeffrey Goldberg : The Wars of John McCain

Marc Ambinder What We Learned This Weekend

Speaking of Age, it is a bit whiny to complain about tough ads. It seems that McCain not only hides behind his own attacks but his defense wreaks havoc with his own experiences. Bearings are crucial to a pilot and that he loses them is not about his age but his leadership. His age and Palin's gender are no excuse for not standing up for vets or women and facing the issues and the media would go a long way to correcting one's bearing. Bearing is not just something in the woods.

Anticipation Project ^

Or Atlantic/Pacific ?
RIP*, or prophetic affect ? 

(~)
Actually I have pretty much already bookended or bracked this text with notes and hyperlinks.  My original inspiration was in the field of geometric religion or practices.  The source is a project in The Atlantic(1) and further deconstruction involved that magazine as well. 

(~)CAUTION:  AS UN- EMBEDDED TO BE KANTINUED [!]

Now for the prospectin' ofor conceptions?  Or mining from the lede(or ship):
"The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it."

Now may be just the right time to stop
or wind down my own parsing or~religions~key~apocalypse.* 

(~)R,R,R~[!]

* Anachronistic Reasoning?
^ work in progress(2)[!]
(2) ring E dingy~N.

(~): Scroll Click?

* un circular file ?

Parsing Systems

P.S.  Are we Charlie?  Or why aren't we French? 
It is a shame that fame comes under such horrible circumstances.

Not to bury the lede in nuance or labels, but I intend to more heavily edit** insertion of links for the time being.  Unfortunately I may have now buried more nonsense*.  I am not Forbes, The Atlantic or Slate.  Not that I have placed then in any order of sense.  My point was to review any prior use elsewhere that I have yet to place in context~. 

*not that I have parsed the nonsense, be it the Daily Caller, the New York Times, David Brooks or any of their words.

** carefully filter

*~* I am not a Paper Bird! 
Je ne pax The String! 
Nor Car Tunist. 
R we all sat-irists?

RFD? ?[?]  Not to withdraw weapons.



1-13-15 The vig ? ** not fully read IRONY!

I am not Forbes ~!~  Context:  This is a difficult read.  Is it really necessary to disseminate examples to determine that the killings are not justified? Maybe we are more French than we might like[!]  Further context:  Images and cartoons in reaction to the massacre are not comparable to the images or cartoons that Charlie Hebdo publishes.  Not that I have avoided either, I just wished to review my m-beds.  i.e. links I have yet to parse or deconstruct
 
(Now, Romney? The Reid Report, pre-The Cycle. Un-parsed: -)

Two-wrongs don't mean a Left[!]

Too reads do not mean a dialogue. 

Mid-read(NFRY): (i.e. live footnoting)
Survival of the fittest verses(~) corporate species and arms races[!]
Battle of the Narratives? (Corporate offspring, peacocks and elk.)
(head or tails not treated equally, but...)[somewhat akin to gander or goose?]
[fundamental try-vergence]...(grain v ladder)[LOL read v regulations]
Survival of the Narratives?

4-3-16 to read:
The Atlantic: Obama Doctrine
4-4-16
Hedges/Hudson on Neo-Liberal Economics.

[related (b.s.): Spencer... demo/mice...DecomPart * Meantalizing]
*Moline's Platonics  / Darwinian Physics

War on Walls?

[Home on Derange?]

[Rhetorical Twilight Zone: ...]

Rev. Al is just starting to roll,

but Hard Ball had a guest that I will undertow.

Bane or Explained.

The Atlantic James Fallows.{!}

(note bracketed anachronism: pre-post'er us rhetorical ramble.)

[Foreign^ Policy War on Diplomacy.]

[Brokered^^ Con`vention?]

[Bill Moyers destroys Newt Gingrich Historian]

^by George Neo-F Will

^^The Last Word

The Last Boogieman?

[@ second google]
First (b.s.)
That's the ticket.
Not to keep it under my hat, but it all started in The Atlantic(!)
Don't take it Parsenal[!](?)

(FN#): a. Dichotomy of sorts., b. Proxymoron? , c. What, Me Worry?
[!] a. Parson Perspective 
(?) The Take Away? - Commander-in-Chief Obama - Irony versus Hypocrisy
An aside. War on Semantics?
The Nexus: Neo-Context

[Try-Lateral O-mission?]
But speaking of jobs... - filibuster-is - Neo-Context  [!]
Re: F(j)ord Blossom:
BlogSpot Has A New "Blogger"
escapement?
Middle C?

Of Course Correction

Not to pun on the rock.
But I have been fishing** in the Salish Sea.
Knot that Strait [!]*

* speaking of plot lines, the bold and the but if ul, inserted last.
i.e. The Atlantic(Strait) was not read at the time of the line, and the Washington Post(But) not even yet.
**Roger that.

[Breaking***: AM - PC RC ! ]
***(9-20-13) Not certain this is the piece. But 2014 is the point in the House.

Checking In:

The Nation's New 4mat? Yeah, that's the ticket!
Tangent? Or see can't, or inverse of a co-sign?* Even a google of Charle Pride** found same.

* pardon my trig, it was "water cooler" sourced.

** A metaphor for America, diplomacy and justice

[In balance not necessarily a relationship. The particulars are different but is seems that there is a two for one[***] style, Obama if you will, that works in different system. There are dimensional differences in the branches and partisanship of the way we have evolved from the British, that ironically may be 4shadowed in theTea Party/Brown wavering.]

*** sound words that do not necessarily cross the Red C or Atlantic. The more dimensions? The Paul/Sanders Fed Audit Bill, the Palin/Paul Tea Party gap, the Democrat/Liberal dialogue 4knot?
[see update: 5-17-10 Legend Label introduced with Comity expanded labeling. But see Ribble ** I was noting that Pride and Rich find the same tune under a google.]

All In

Mo~dem?**
New clear Charlotte?

Post-Obama~ no post-woe man?
Telephone~internet > post all?

Gohmert/Sam Sedar? R'adrenalizing/D'adrenalizing?
Rachel Ma'dow'N!  Camps vs. Draft? ** 
Red cabin/Blue label/Link'on! or lin`COD?
Post-9-11 Kaw'Kuss?
Talk me up!

BTW: Netanyahu pulls an^Obama ?

^ somewhere embedded in his speech(also my posts) is the Frost of the Table.

The Last Word ???? *
[See`DaR for the Trees / The Hillary Kamp / journalists at the gate?]

* thank yaH'way  [Net~n~hu`n?] Richard Wolfe/re:expert! 
Stat'N individual autonomy/sovereignT? The Atlantic SouthEarn Strategy?
Other guest: Canibalize Right Wing Parties? Pivot/Schill!

** may require service/sign-in/ or upgrade

The Pacific.

The Atlantic?
The Real Meaning of 9/11.
Is it really so simple?
It may be, but maybe not[!]
Ironically[?.] (Not to be too E. B. White.)

[Arctic Slash Antarctica or parallel v. perp(ouch)]

A GPS of Sorts

...with the try[**] angle of PACS[***].

[under construction]
Global Public Square *
Center for American Progress
Campaign for America's Future
New America Foundation.

* Atlantic Time

[**]note * differences

[*** 9-6-11 spare room for Three Faces of Eve?]
[Ledership is Tricky.]

[9-7-11 No comment, but see tetrahedron of comments. Well actually I will comment. While the numbers may not be what some may expect,(see Three Faces of Eve) the focus and targeted nature on schools may be a tantalizing stimulus for more: "Advocates for FAST have called for approximately $50 billion in upfront spending, with the hope that early investment would beget future ones as neighboring school districts petition their members of Congress for money of their own." ]

[9-8-11 Grand Slam to carry the model.
Pivoting the metaphor from personalities to the diamond, not to imply that there is any sexism in the sorting. Timing is noted in the lede reference in the last link on the prospects for the presidents speech. The Grand Slam is not as it seems, not necessarily personalities but aggregate hits. My original slam was against the Morning Brew that Joe Scorborough pours, but I had yet to hear Robinson swing. He hit it out of the park, while Obama has yet to come up to the plate in the ninth.]

"Fair and Balanced"

Unless you have been stuck in an allegory(Plato's Cave, not Obama's Cave), you should recognize this as the motto of FOX NEWS.*

Instead it is a review of an article in The Atlantic. In some circles it is almost name calling. But for James Fallows, I mean it as a compliment of his article Obama, Explained.

It is also a nice segue.

It is also a description of Obama's economic strategy.**

C-Try Angle(Chart and earlier context.)

*not that it is(News or "Fair and Balanced")

**Ouch Speaking of Truth in Name Only***.

*** Homophones Unite ! Utopia and Eutopia: or the tombs of balance.

(Original intent? Rowe and Rove under "Name Only".)

Flash Back

[Previous and old post is being updated and inserted* here on 11-8-10]

*insert here requires anachronism[See first link for original, second & bottom for contemporaneous frame of job.
[Prologue is past: edited (under construction) below]
* * * * *

[Violating my own scheme of things[11-8-10* under review and update] on this web log, it is necessary to jump to current issues. This was addressed to a particular individual, but is now addressed to those who can do something about it.]

No Fast Track for War-

News flash or Administration Rhetoric? Material Support for Terrorism must be considered as serious as Terrorism itself [?]. From terrorism to regime change, where are we going?

Sometimes statements are rhetorical when they can simply be ended with a question mark or are answers of the following nature. [...because we say it is.] See Mike Moran’s piece on MSNBC, "Say it ain’t so"** from Sept. 9th.

Please investigate the actions of the administration and all those of which previously contributed to the Taliban, Iraq and Iran’s power, or any other dictatorial regimes.

Why did we not invest more in the intelligence chatter that could have prevented September 11th?

More investigations and questions are needed. See Maureen Dowd’s "Cowboy in the Oval Office must be contained." in Sept 19th, Eastside Journal or elsewhere, NY Times.

If congress does not have the guts to stand up to the president and spell out conditions for any action, few people will have the stomach for politics. Without voices of reason to choose from, where will they turn? They will either resign themselves to having no voice or to taking actions themselves. The former will be the greater crowd but as we saw, from the Seattle WTO anarchists and the NY WTC terrorists, the latter can do more damage.

If most of the need for action is based on the intent of the other regime, we must clarify our own intent.

If George F. Will can impugn the intent of Democrats and the UN as "wishful thinking’, we must ask where their thinking and actions will end? [See his Seattle PI, Sept. 19th, "A for prestige, F for performance".]

Fast Track will be disastrous, if it is the wrong track. No action is better and further questions and answers are definitely needed if the action is to open a Pandora’s box. And that is what it will be if you follow the rhetoric and even if you have real questions and answers.

For Wonk reading: See "Looking the World in the Eye" by Robert D. Kaplan in the Atlantic Monthly, December 2001. He reviews the work of Samuel Huntington, (Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard), who spelled out the situation we face.

"Real conservatism cannot aspire to lofty principles, because its task is to defend what already exists. The conservative dilemma is that conservatism's legitimacy can come only from being proved right by events, whereas liberals, whenever they are proved wrong, have universal principles to fall back on. Samuel Huntington has always held liberal ideals. But he knows that such ideals cannot survive without power, and that power requires careful upkeep." pg. 82 [Italics mine, but uncertain of original location.]

That's our job in a democracy. The administration may know where they are going with this, but it is important they know they are not the only ones in the drivers seat.

[* 11-8-10 update bottom link added and edited revision posting here]
** temp link

Enough Smirking!

The Sport of Stairs!
Well
 ... a bit of a Tan gent. 
Not [!]

[This is a bit of a Mitt-Flop from a long story short.  But you learn something everyday.  In my case it is very embarassing, having constucted a home, that yes it is proper to use a stair for a step, as long as you don't trip.  Not to mention where I may have gone if I had had more sports.  But if it is not too late, don't miss the Stairs link.  It covers one of several topics covered at a weekend get together with friends.  Taxes that is.  Not to mention dressage*.  Little did I know that I actually know someone who participates in that sport.]  

* well not in the same link, don't forget the sport.

6-25-12 ["a" / "gent" brackets the meta 4, not to mention hard ware or punchline.]


Not my original intent [!][?][?]

[But certainly part of the puzzle, is immigration and citizens united and who cares!  Nail?  Emigration is as important as immigration, no new taxes does not mean old taxes aren't fine and public option is not a man date or woe man.]
[RM Nix On MR /on M B]
[I of Needle ? ...  One legged** coffee table! "Papers Please Ruling." Take 3/4?]

** This originated in a pun on Brewer and the SCOTUS in their two rulings today. Three of the four key ingredients of 1070 were over-turned and the only one standing duplicates federal law.  So basically it was overturned and leaves the state with existing law.  In the Citizens United/Montana ruling federal law was upheld as well, or rather state law was over-turned as well.  To keep this from getting messy, I will simply insert a few Ed Schultz links.

6-26-12 Robert Reich on the same page. 
LA Times "reality check".
G P S Cross Rhodes ?
Nav Grid ? / Ambiguous De- sign. (ouch ?)
[Ambiguous Muddle: Andrea Mitchell*** NoPR]

*** Ctrl F "inconvenient" "follow-up" of No Labels BS
Hell***N?

AM AG Definition Gap! Atlantic Pacific / Oceans Don't Protect Us.
[Issa attacks Obama Weakness: C-NewsNation (not looking back @ B*S*)
Hunch Left on the Table. "Court of Public Opinion" Bin/go!
Cause Ma*l Oh Ge!]
[Note: last four uses of asterisks are simply place holders, as in the last case for "u" or "l" or even no place holder. Not to mention !  Spin Cycle ?
Alternate Legs ?]
[Newt Romney Business Man (Green Economy)(Read Levi a thon)?]
[Victory VictiMothy: '68 yada yada]

Chicken Hawk Down? 2008 Frist-Bush?

They certainly aren't counting the Chicken Hawk down.

Move America Forward still has hope for Bolton and apparently getting the U.N out of the U.S.

They claim: "Senator Voinovich is taking a 'new' and 'fair' look at John Bolton - the man President Bush has nominated to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations."

They are "confident Senator Voinovich will vote 'YES' to allow Mr. Bolton's nomination to proceed from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee....that John Bolton's nomination will make it to the floor for a vote by the full U.S. Senate."

Not that there is any link to the Republicans or Frist, but they do have banner of a boot on Florida kicking the U.N symbol across the Atlantic. Does this mean Jeb Bush is the other candidate for the Fristian Soldiers?

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]

Fast Forward

[Violating my own scheme of things[11-8-10* under review and update] on this web log, it is necessary to jump to current issues. This was addressed to a particular individual, but is now addressed to those who can do something about it.]

No Fast Track for War-

News flash or Administration Rhetoric? Material Support for Terrorism must be considered as serious as Terrorism itself [?]. From terrorism to regime change, where are we going?

Sometimes statements are rhetorical when they can simply be ended with a question mark or are answers of the following nature. […because we say it is.] See Mike Moran’s piece on MSNBC, "Say it ain’t so" from Sept. 9th. http://www.msnbc.com/news/781783.asp

Please investigate the actions of the administration and all those of which previously contributed to the Taliban, Iraq and Iran’s power, or any other dictatorial regimes.

Why did we not invest more in the intelligence chatter that could have prevented September 11th?

More investigations and questions are needed. See Maureen Dowd’s "Cowboy in the Oval Office must be contained." in Sept 19th, Eastside Journal or elsewhere, NY Times.

If congress does not have the guts to stand up to the president and spell out conditions for any action, few people will have the stomach for politics. Without voices of reason to choose from, where will they turn? They will either resign themselves to having no voice or to taking actions themselves. The former will be the greater crowd but as we saw, from the Seattle WTO anarchists and the NY WTC terrorists, the latter can do more damage.

If most of the need for action is based on the intent of the other regime, we must clarify our own intent.

If George F. Will can impugn the intent of Democrats and the UN as "wishful thinking’, we must ask where their thinking and actions will end? [See his Seattle PI, Sept. 19th, "A for prestige, F for performance".]http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/87582_will19.shtml

Fast Track will be disastrous, if it is the wrong track. No action is better and further questions and answers are definitely needed if the action is to open a Pandora’s box. And that is what it will be if you follow the rhetoric and even if you have real questions and answers.

For Wonk reading: See "Looking the World in the Eye" by Robert D. Kaplan in the Atlantic Monthly, December 2001. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/12/kaplan.htm He reviews the work of Samuel Huntington, Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard, who spelled out the situation we face.

"Real conservatism cannot aspire to lofty principles, because its task is to defend what already exists. The conservative dilemma is that conservatism's legitimacy can come only from being proved right by events, whereas liberals, whenever they are proved wrong, have universal principles to fall back on. Samuel Huntington has always held liberal ideals. But he knows that such ideals cannot survive without power, and that power requires careful upkeep." pg. 82 [Italics mine.]

That's our job in a democracy. The administration may know where they are going with this, but it is important they know they are not the only ones in the drivers seat.

[* 11-8-10 update bottom link added and edited revision posting here]

Regime Rhetoric Reply

[Sept. 17th, 2002 to someone with appropriate concerns.]
[UPDATE: March 6th, 2009] Three Cups of Tea
The congressman’s work is much appreciated. The questions are good ones. While I have actively pressed others on the general issues involved, since you brought up rhetoric, here are some questions that came to mind. If we don’t get answers let’s hope it’s just rhetoric.

On the issue of regime change there arise three important questions:
1. What makes regime change legitimate?
2. Who determines it?
3. What methods are legitimate?

There are three important players in these questions:
a. The people under the regime,
b. The unilateral player (US) and
c. Multilateral players (UN).

Then if this is not complicated enough, there are three likely combinations, aside from uniting all three:
x. The people of the regime in question and the US.
y. Those people and the UN, or
z. The US and the UN.

There are three questions/variations that further complicate things:
i. Who represents the people?
ii. Who would be the next unilateral player?
iii. Who would be the next multilateral player combination?

If we cannot manage to tone down rhetoric we must try to run with it. If we do not get answers to the above we cannot act on it.

Running with the rhetoric: When Governor Bush was campaigning he said that he wanted to "trust the people not the government", and maybe the "people" were the ones in the Supreme Court but it is hard to see how he was a "uniter not a divider". Then in his first press opportunity he said something like: "Things would be a lot easier if I were dictator". Lately he has suggested an "Axis of evil" and "if you are not with us you are against us" and the latter could mean anyone who chooses the multilateral route.

I have not taken liberty with these words but worry about the liberty that is taken with some of "our" actions. If we act without answering these questions we may at least validate those that don’t even ask the questions. While many more questions would result from this effort maybe we can see why it seems easier to act rather than answer these questions.

Sincerely, Roger Larson

[Sent to same Sept. 19th, 2002]
NO FAST TRACK FOR WAR-

News flash or Administration Rhetoric? Material Support for Terrorism must be considered as serious as Terrorism itself [?]. From terrorism to regime change, where are we going?

Sometimes statements are rhetorical when they can simply be ended with a question mark or are answers of the following nature. [...because we say it is.] See Mike Moran’s piece on MSNBC, "Say it ain’t so" from Sept. 9th. [Unable to locate]

Please investigate the actions of the administration and all those of which previously contributed to the Taliban, Iraq and Iran’s power, or any other dictatorial regimes.

Why did we not invest more in the intelligence chatter that could have prevented September 11th?

More investigations and questions are needed. See Maureen Dowd’s "Cowboy in the Oval Office must be contained." in Sept 19th, Eastside Journal or elsewhere, NY Times.

If congress does not have the guts to stand up to the president and spell out conditions for any action, few people will have the stomach for politics. Without voices of reason to choose from, where will they turn? They will either resign themselves to having no voice or to taking actions themselves. The former will be the greater crowd but as we saw, from the Seattle WTO anarchists and the NY WTC terrorists, the latter can do more damage.

If most of the need for action is based on the intent of the other regime, we must clarify our own intent.

If George F. Will can impugn the intent of Democrats and the UN as "wishful thinking’, we must ask where their thinking and actions will end? [See his Seattle PI, Sept. 19th, "A for prestige, F for performance".]

Fast Track will be disastrous, if it is the wrong track. No action is better and further questions and answers are definitely needed if the action is to open a Pandora’s box. And that is what it will be if you follow the rhetoric and even if you have real questions and answers.

For Wonk reading: See "Looking the World in the Eye" by Robert D. Kaplan in the Atlantic Monthly, December 2001. He reviews the work of Samuel Huntington, Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard, who spelled out the situation we face:

Real conservatism cannot aspire to lofty principles, because its task is to defend what already exists. The conservative dilemma is that conservatism's legitimacy can come only from being proved right by events, whereas liberals, whenever they are proved wrong, have universal principles to fall back on. Samuel Huntington has always held liberal ideals. But he knows that such ideals cannot survive without power, and that power requires careful upkeep. (pg. 82) (italics mine)

That's our job in a democracy. The administration may know where they are going with this, but it is important they know they are not the only ones in the driver's seat.