The Cycle: Rep Peter Welch 3-5-14
Spoiler alert or Stay'n the Course: Good Cop / Bad Cop / Rowbeau cop (*)?
I should not be so hard on Beach Boy McCain, as he serves the part of a bad cop, in order for Obama to have any stick for his bully pulpit.
(*) Bully
Pulpit Not for Pitbulls
['n Ari Melber Toast!]
3-20-14: ^ too dig stochastic rhetoric? [Godwin/s blog search? Pare a digM, Pair a docs. ] [Stock Home Vaccine?] ** it also might be RealDiploma$y[to pu(i)n on c or k?]
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query good cop bad cop. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query good cop bad cop. Sort by date Show all posts
Saturday, March 01, 2014
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Where's a cop when you need one?
Is this a good cop/bad cop deal or is it more of "staying the course"?
Here are a few headlines that I will comment on in the light of hope that it is the former.
Hamas' win muddles Mideast peace prospects
Palestinians who vow to destroy Israel get 76 of 132 seats in parliament
[1-27-06: editors note actual link title: Olmert: Israel won’t negotiate with Hamas Militant group quiet after landslide victory in Palestinian elections]
Bush: Hamas must renounce stand
Peace is never dead,’ he says when asked if he’d rule out relations
U.S. releases five Iraqi women prisoners
Official denies move is linked to demand of U.S. journalist's kidnappers
Actually I may let them speak for themselves and read them later, but I am reminded who the Secretary of State is and who the President is and with Rumsfeld and Cheney to cloud the picture I think that there could be hope that Rice is working in this area, and that with all the bad around that some good may come from the "hard work" our troops are doing, and we that politics will actually prevail over violence.
I lighted upon the following segment from the middle link:
But behind the scenes, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will be talking to Russian, European and U.N. officials later Thursday in a bid to get them to pressure Hamas into renouncing terrorism and accepting Israel’s right to exist.
Of course, the devil may be in the details, but then the administration hasn't done a "heckuva job" with them anyway. Renouncing violence and accepting Israel's right to exist seems like a good starting point. Maybe even politics can clean it's name and be brought home again.
Here are a few headlines that I will comment on in the light of hope that it is the former.
Hamas' win muddles Mideast peace prospects
Palestinians who vow to destroy Israel get 76 of 132 seats in parliament
[1-27-06: editors note actual link title: Olmert: Israel won’t negotiate with Hamas Militant group quiet after landslide victory in Palestinian elections]
Bush: Hamas must renounce stand
Peace is never dead,’ he says when asked if he’d rule out relations
U.S. releases five Iraqi women prisoners
Official denies move is linked to demand of U.S. journalist's kidnappers
Actually I may let them speak for themselves and read them later, but I am reminded who the Secretary of State is and who the President is and with Rumsfeld and Cheney to cloud the picture I think that there could be hope that Rice is working in this area, and that with all the bad around that some good may come from the "hard work" our troops are doing, and we that politics will actually prevail over violence.
I lighted upon the following segment from the middle link:
But behind the scenes, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will be talking to Russian, European and U.N. officials later Thursday in a bid to get them to pressure Hamas into renouncing terrorism and accepting Israel’s right to exist.
Of course, the devil may be in the details, but then the administration hasn't done a "heckuva job" with them anyway. Renouncing violence and accepting Israel's right to exist seems like a good starting point. Maybe even politics can clean it's name and be brought home again.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
The Choice
Forward or Back.
Speaking of back, I know that Dorothy was not the one with the Tea Party, but Alice had the preemptive dream not to be stuck on a party theme.
Meanwhile Ed Schultz made some interesting progress, and Norman Goldman covers the same issue or Harry Reed calling out Obama. Well... not exactly. My preemptive analysis is that maybe it is good cop, bad cop routine, with several caveats. They aren't cops, they aren't just good or bad, and they aren't even the same branch of government. When it come to courage and pragmatism there is a difference between legislating and administering, and how their leadership is navigated, not to mention running the national or states governments, and their party navigations. A caller soon after with Ed, suggested that this was orchestrated, well... maybe. Who let the dogs out. Woof, woof. They are not dogs* either, but they are giving license to each other and are tugging on our leashes.
*Actually there are blue dogs, yellow dogs and maybe green or purple dogs.
[On the other hand, who knows? ...but comparing other countries debt concerns does not reflect their relative investment in infrastructure, social and jobs policies.]
Speaking of back, I know that Dorothy was not the one with the Tea Party, but Alice had the preemptive dream not to be stuck on a party theme.
Meanwhile Ed Schultz made some interesting progress, and Norman Goldman covers the same issue or Harry Reed calling out Obama. Well... not exactly. My preemptive analysis is that maybe it is good cop, bad cop routine, with several caveats. They aren't cops, they aren't just good or bad, and they aren't even the same branch of government. When it come to courage and pragmatism there is a difference between legislating and administering, and how their leadership is navigated, not to mention running the national or states governments, and their party navigations. A caller soon after with Ed, suggested that this was orchestrated, well... maybe. Who let the dogs out. Woof, woof. They are not dogs* either, but they are giving license to each other and are tugging on our leashes.
*Actually there are blue dogs, yellow dogs and maybe green or purple dogs.
[On the other hand, who knows? ...but comparing other countries debt concerns does not reflect their relative investment in infrastructure, social and jobs policies.]
Saturday, February 01, 2003
The French. (Why do they hate us?)
Because we are dumb and they don’t. First I must qualify that "we" here means some of us(are dumb), and "they" means most of them(the French, don’t hate us). Second, most of us need to use dictionaries more frequently than emotions.
Just because we want to find out why someone hates us, does not mean it can be attributed to a whole region or nation, or any individual. A poll, or book, does not an argument or emotion-make. It is especially ironic when the search becomes instead, for a caricature of foreigners, for use as propaganda in the war on terrorism.
The bee in my beret comes from the lack of citing any polling indicating that "they" "hate" us. It is only slightly less ironic that a poll is cited where "the percentage of French who viewed the United States 'with sympathy' dropped from 54 to 35 percent between 1988 and 1996". I would wonder whether we ask for any sympathy or need it. But aside from the several interpretations of sympathy, I would say it should be a two way street.
But in the end I guess that Chris Suellentrop makes a good point. That one must sacrifice principles for power. With a "hyperpower", is there any other choice? There should be, other than hate and terrorism. Is it ironic or apropos that we find supporters of the administration irritated about making up words, compounded by the fact that when one checks a dictionary so many words came from "fureners * "?
Touché or "nuke em" that is the question. Which for some reason brings to mind a whole other analogy when I think about why we can’t work together for our principles. Where would any of us be without opposition or dissension? Is this not a good cop-bad cop routine that we all hope will work?
[(My view of what seemed a parody)Same title** by Chris Suellentrop posted Wednesday, January 29, 2003 ]
[* upgraded 6-11-08 caricature of speech ]
** 4-4-14 update link
Just because we want to find out why someone hates us, does not mean it can be attributed to a whole region or nation, or any individual. A poll, or book, does not an argument or emotion-make. It is especially ironic when the search becomes instead, for a caricature of foreigners, for use as propaganda in the war on terrorism.
The bee in my beret comes from the lack of citing any polling indicating that "they" "hate" us. It is only slightly less ironic that a poll is cited where "the percentage of French who viewed the United States 'with sympathy' dropped from 54 to 35 percent between 1988 and 1996". I would wonder whether we ask for any sympathy or need it. But aside from the several interpretations of sympathy, I would say it should be a two way street.
But in the end I guess that Chris Suellentrop makes a good point. That one must sacrifice principles for power. With a "hyperpower", is there any other choice? There should be, other than hate and terrorism. Is it ironic or apropos that we find supporters of the administration irritated about making up words, compounded by the fact that when one checks a dictionary so many words came from "fureners * "?
Touché or "nuke em" that is the question. Which for some reason brings to mind a whole other analogy when I think about why we can’t work together for our principles. Where would any of us be without opposition or dissension? Is this not a good cop-bad cop routine that we all hope will work?
[(My view of what seemed a parody)Same title** by Chris Suellentrop posted Wednesday, January 29, 2003 ]
[* upgraded 6-11-08 caricature of speech ]
** 4-4-14 update link
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
By Polar
wise crackers re:cycled?
Re:dimentionalism and polls*, beyond them and us.I will take the brunt of the crackers crack, and crumble the pun on the wise words of Simon or who says... what?
Post Bracket Eds(below): Somewhere there has been a leak of a congressional sense that more needs to done in Syria. Are the wrest** leaning back as the west stands ground?
*Not to trans\pose Ed and Aye. Formerly(ed. note) =columns.
(FP2)[on the tick tock ? (kn-0t)]
[Closing Bracket Eds?]
** con-volution of lean and means: Re. cheer leaders (stand up/stair down)
9-11-13 Pre-Post Or Us. (I/eye) The Byrd is the Word ! (the tick tock) or teddy?
Harmony and Irony? Duh Bares ? [!]
[The Last Word yesterday in regards to Polar Culture. My original intent was in regards to columns of cracks; mine and others, but also the polarities of the process that brings progress. Not to mention a crack @ the cold war. Related anachronistic theory: Good Cop/Bad Cop?(Congress/Obama), (Russian Foreign Minister/Putin) or by/bye? Let alone Re:Cycle(today). (The Fog of War and Tactical Voices.) ]
Friday, October 15, 2010
Game On!
[POSTED 10-22-10 10:37 AM]
Good Cop, Bad Cop Over:
It should be apparent that if so much money is going against the Democrats and for the Republicans, then there is a major difference between the two, and voters may know that more than the money and polls will tell.
Good Cop, Bad Cop Over:
If the Democrats manage to hold on, for the first time in a long time they would have an incentive to fight back against a system that is rigged in favor of the rich and the powerful. Because those same folks just declared war on them. If they don't join the battle soon, they are going to get wiped out in 2012. If you thought business interests spent a lot of money in this election, wait till you get a load of 2012.
To be clear, of course not all business interests are nefarious. They are a very legitimate constituency to consider when making policy. But when corporations use their power to kill a bill that would have stopped subsidies for offshoring jobs, then that is exactly the kind of abuse of power that is hurting this country. And that just happened last month.(Cenk Uygur)
It should be apparent that if so much money is going against the Democrats and for the Republicans, then there is a major difference between the two, and voters may know that more than the money and polls will tell.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Monday, November 25, 2013
A New Draft
If corporations are people...*
i.e. I diverge: The Gum Ball Theory?
KP PK
Regarding the prism** of history. ***
On the left we have the good cop. On the right we have the bad cop.
Too bad cops(or filibusters), aren't in the constitution, but they are metaphors for elements of progress. ^ [There are three equal branches of government. On the left we have the Republican executive, on the right we have the Democratic leader.]
*pre-emptive syncratic process
The Divergence of Hardball
** compliments to and complement to David Gregory [11-26-13 Roger Simon]
^ OW (Ted Cruz' Glass House) see Hardball.
Re:image- on the right the unified executive, on the left the constitutional O~B^^won.
[Bush/Cruz/Walker/Rubio? The pure pol?] ABC (anacronistically blogging culture)
^^ Remitt-flop (i.e. Congressional infinitive)
FP All In. Fear of Process.
Chris Hayes No chyron? This is what Democracy looks like. Too diluted.
*** the big hint
, comma added , also Roger Simon link
[fair and balanced ? ]
The two Manicheans?
i.e. I diverge: The Gum Ball Theory?
KP PK
Regarding the prism** of history. ***
On the left we have the good cop. On the right we have the bad cop.
Too bad cops(or filibusters)
*pre-emptive syncratic process
The Divergence of Hardball
** compliments to and complement to David Gregory [11-26-13 Roger Simon]
Re:image- on the right the unified executive, on the left the constitutional O~B
[Bush/Cruz/Walker/Rubio? The pure pol?] ABC (anacronistically blogging culture)
FP All In. Fear of Process.
Chris Hayes No chyron? This is what Democracy looks like. Too diluted.
[fair and balanced ? ]
The two Manicheans?
Friday, May 22, 2009
Side Tracks
Note to self at a forum last night.
There are right decisions not to vote for right legislation because the right exists.
This could be obtuse but it could be the nature of progress. It is at least how our government works.
I wish I could paraphrase my contribution to the dialogue, or even recapture the sentiment, but I will add that sometimes progress is a result of mistakes, and Boy George have we learned. And in context add that all politics is local, but it takes a... well at least four. Thanks Hillary.
And now an allusive leap:
I don't believe in if anymore by Roger Wittaker
If by Rudyard Kipling
(inadvertent proof of...) by David Sirota
Our plight?
[Back to local fireworks and our side of the pond, there as a bit of good cop, bad humor dynamics that is not all about spatial or heirarchical orientation but potentially an ingredient in our evolution. Note the * irony Graham at the 15:40 of *]
There are right decisions not to vote for right legislation because the right exists.
This could be obtuse but it could be the nature of progress. It is at least how our government works.
I wish I could paraphrase my contribution to the dialogue, or even recapture the sentiment, but I will add that sometimes progress is a result of mistakes, and Boy George have we learned. And in context add that all politics is local, but it takes a... well at least four. Thanks Hillary.
And now an allusive leap:
I don't believe in if anymore by Roger Wittaker
If by Rudyard Kipling
(inadvertent proof of...) by David Sirota
Our plight?
[Back to local fireworks and our side of the pond, there as a bit of good cop, bad humor dynamics that is not all about spatial or heirarchical orientation but potentially an ingredient in our evolution. Note the * irony Graham at the 15:40 of *]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)