Child's Play

Freak Show vs. Bogeyman:

The Lyin' King?

While my original intent was the feeling that this is getting old, or rather childish. Then to see the nature of the exchange on Morning Joe, it takes some perspectivising.* Martin Bashir covers another aspect of the picture show. Back to the future, I mean Morning Joe, who is in the drivers seat? Mika or Joe? The image of President Obama getting into a car at an auto show. Who is in the drivers seat? Politically the President is. But it is like one of those drivers-ed cars with a second wheel and brakes on the passenger side, and congress is in that seat. But with Batman, I mean Bashir on West, Republicans would have no message if they did not have imagined monsters: "equality of achievement", "economic dependency"and "enslaving".

So...bottom line, Political is a double-edged sword. There is the race and there is the economy. Congress plays a role in both, and negative is not just ugly, it can have actual facts. So Mika can say that Obama is behind the wheel. And Joe can say he is not. Now you may see that the president is not the only one in the car, with a hand on the wheel.

* not that I take the Mediaite perspective (Donny Deutsch made a reasonable point, see negative/ugly/facts.)

[Not to call it a hatefest, just a hecuvafest.]

[Not to rob Peter to pay Paul. See Freudian/Austrian. Lit-urgeical hint]

[Couched Analogy?]

[not to leap fest** but I am missing a piece on certainty***.]

[Action item: FEC apointments & expired terms]

** tba: no pun on SBA, but to be arranged

*** dba? a pun/myst on the "free market" need(see drives-ed car) for certainty

[BTW: if you need GPS, why not Ctrl F frackin' fudgin"? Pun with acronyms, not to mention initialism. Speaking of caricatures and labelism.]

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 >

GOP-GAP

NOT!
Whether it the Grand Old Party or the Grand Oil Party there is no GAP filled by Governor Palin. OK, some executive experience. And she's human, they had to say.

OK, maybe we are both stretching things a bit. But this is serious. She did a fine job presenting a fine speech and a fine life story, after Reverend Rhetoric ** presented his fine rendering.

All in all it was a fine show that was very inspiring to the base who have faith in something beyond facts.

Governor Palin[*] has an inspiring way about her. It is the energy and her certainty that is her strength. Unfortunately, her selection seems to be aimed at the Plexiglas ceiling. There may be cracks in it, but when you are on top, you can say anything and still be standing on it. My original panic was that Biden's fire and humor would be tempered against a woman. But given her own fire and humor, and my original panic being sexist, he should give her all he's got. They are already complaining about the media, and unless she expects some affirmative action or pity, she should be able to stand on her own.

[*][9-4-08: Heck, even the above link has fallen for the flip-flop on the press ***. Granted the press was in McCain's corner or they were off the plane and missing the barbecues. (I have no confirmed reports of either.) But the flip-flop that the "mother lacked the soaring oratory skills of Obama", to the "calm, TV-friendly tones reminiscent of Ronald Reagan", belies her joke about "the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull" and her "beat and a smirk" lipstick.(I took liberties to finely edit this.)]

[I watched most of what I watched on C-Span, and bounced in and out of MSNBC, but did catch a bit of grousing about the timing of the speeches, not allowing for the media filtering. While I did not watch equal amounts of the two conventions or networks, they were probably right that the speeches were more tightly timed, but it seemed that MSNBC had filtered and missed several of the Dem ones anyway. So I could not tell if MSNBC gave equal time or equal filtering for both convention's speeches. Imagine, the convention speeches were getting in the way of the pundits "filtering". I noticed with the first convention the flip-flop, but they actually brought it up. Deleted reference to "moose gun" here. Audience: Aahhhh. Sarcasm there, but to the point, I don't know if the media is falling for or intentionally validating, the whining that comes from the Good Old Patronizing Party, but I think the brilliant selection of Palin was to preempt and to stay the course.]

** [these are chronologically added and I use the word Rhetoric as a compliment. Huckabee had a zinger of his own and Biden "Whoa"good show, fine "lines" and "heckuva" job.]--[I must add between the lines or just plain more lines: it is about leadership, not just being an executive, and intelligence, but more about who and how it is filtered.]

*** bold added and where I may have gotten fine but was filtered through MSNBC.

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)

Collateral Damage

Near Certainty?  LOL^

The Cycle / Fair and Balanced?
Intelligence Estimate~drone program. 

(/) verses FOX
Truth is a 2~4/9-7 letter word?
Like~free market
free speech
that's the ticket!

^Left Out Logic?

(Fb: L@): "of course", Fox, till, rake?
[Milibank petard?]

[NOW w/Alex Wagner: Drone Wars/WWLB ~"what we leave behind"
Also Hillary: There is a there there. ]

Pieces of History

"The only thing to fear, is fear itself." FDR

This quote came to mind in reference to an email exchange with a "friend". The air quotes could be removed, but I want to imply that he has a different perspective, not of the word "friend" but politics. Having just dug up the quote, it continues:
"--nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." I guess that is why labels are so in vogue on the right, but the thought that came to mind as follow-up, was whether FDR could have forseen that fear would be a not only a party, but a platform.

Speaking of tennuous links,(see below link) it is about the labels that imply there is something to fear, in one word. Nonetheless there is something to fight, and it is not ambivalence, but certainty, with courage and faith.

Slip of the tongue [2.]

I was going to be facetious and say in the tone of an Ed McMahon rejoinder to Johnny Carson: "I did not know that" instead of Slip of the tongue [2]
But
Bush as made some progress in candor at a Press Conference.

There were two exchanges that seem to bring light on our problems more than Bush or the Press apparently know. Emphases added for focus.

ONE:

THE PRESIDENT: I can say with certainty that the Quds force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated IEDs that have harmed our troops. And I'd like to repeat, I do not know whether or not the Quds force was ordered from the top echelons of government. But my point is what's worse -- them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and it happening? And so we will continue to protect our troops.

TWO:

THE PRESIDENT: It's an interesting question. One of the problems -- not specifically on this issue, just in general -- let's put it this way, money trumps peace, sometimes. In other words, commercial interests are very powerful interests throughout the world. And part of the issue in convincing people to put sanctions on a specific country is to convince them that it's in the world's interest that they forgo their own financial interest

Two brilliant examples where congress should take charge of their powers[the purse, war and treaty] that we address concerns like these at home before they become questions of foreign policy and the press refocus as well.

Special thanks to Rachel Maddow for covering things that are important. While I heard these earlier in the day, yesterday, and then found the sources.

Certainty out-sources faith.

[Saved from 10-18-04 10:03:00 AM]

It may not be those that think they know that are the problem, but those that don’t know they only think. Faith by definition rules out knowing. Faith believes in something that cannot be known. It has nothing to do with knowing what others should believe.

Separation of church and state has nothing to do with religion and government but with the freedom to progress with faith in society. Far from the being about the issue of marriage, is the actual divorce of reason from authority.

Unreasonable Proof of/or Reality.

[The point is that I wrote this "To The Uncommitted" and probably must insist, it was before I found the link "Believe". I also feel and have felt that I was closing a loop, or getting near to going loop d'loop. (I play with words, but it is serious. Only so much has been written before the rest of this and yet all will go on anyway.]

To The Uncommitted:

Bush may seem committed and to the fearful, courageous. Reality is not that simple. The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding needs a mix. An instant mix is certainly simple, and Kerry is certainly complex. But Kerry is the pudding, and the right mix. Proof is in the results, before, during and after we face what we must face. Bush’s simple certainty proves nothing but more to face and it is offensive.

Vote as if the results depend on it. In all reality they do. Especially in the sticky situation we find our selves. A good leader knows the risk of being followed. What they do will be followed in deed, whether their words can be followed or not.

Kerry has the mix. Let him bring the fix, not more of the offensive fix we are in.

Who is doing the posturing and could it be that some have principles.
(from Feb. 6th, 2003)

William Safire had a seemingly brilliant piece, "It’s better to err on the side of Iraq hawks" covering the "I told you so" posturing that will occur "post-war". His conclusion is indeed very serious, reflecting the benefits or casualties that will occur, if either side is wrong.

However his analysis reflects a bias in two ways. His assumption that this occurs post-war, and his characterizations and breaking down. He assumes that "Iraq hawks" will prevail and that those who "express reservations about removing him from power at this particular moment, or without U.N. approval" will fail. Hence allowing him to put the ifs on the side of the opposition and more certainty if not flexibility on the side of his argument. It could not help but have a justified point, the way he has postured.

The characterizations are further misconstrued. Given the assumptions it is fine to leave "hawks" as is, but those who have "reservations"? The many views that are held in opposition to the war are reflected throughout his argument. The concern that war be "at this particular moment" and "without U.N. approval" does not seem to be addressed. If this were not confusing enough, his thinking hints at the argument that one would be better off without the other. Post-war it would only make sense that some will hold on to their principles and appear as posturing. But pre-war where would the "hawks" be without the "opposition"? Will those willing to work for peace get anywhere with "hawks" that won’t address notions of patience or approval?