Ping Pong Congress

Or Diplomacy?*
**[Health Reform that is.]
Between Ed Schultz and his spin-off, NorMan GoldMan(insert 2nd hour today)?
If it is ping pong, what is the scoring system? Is it We against change or corporations passing the buck?
[1-5-10: David Sirota on Secret Plans?
*also adjusted Diplomacy link from.]
**[1-6-10 H.R. clarification added along with "check up from the neck" down, it doesn't ryhme but it is Rush via Reagan. Rush Limbaugh endorses overseas public options. My original spin on this was the guts that Ed and Norm have, and a crack at the "Nixon to China" philosophy and the Obama to Corporations hope. (See My Comment)]
[1-7-09: see Shhhh!]

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?]

Two Clever by One Third?

Or both ends against the middle?

Does the Massachusetts vote mean that the House should pass the Senate Bill, or should they reject it?
My view is it should get a vote, up or down or side ways* meaning risking some changes, risking the filibuster. Then the Senate can up or down it, or break it up. Speaking of holding water or breaking a mirror.

BTW: It is Senator Reid, not House Speaker, Ed.(Take nothing from the order of these links than that I do not recall which has Ed confused on the Reid/Pelosi positions in the process but great coverage and dialogue.)

* just as Ed Shultz was unclear about the ping pong potential this is as tricky a net, in the parlaimentary procedures that would offer this option. (Reconciliation or Nuclear Option) Up down before or after change, either now or in 2010. I would risk the now. I am unsure how the cloak filled rooms would navigate the choice. Could they pass a progressive bill and the Senate Bill and then let the Senate choose? But do not risk doing nothing and leveraging 2010. See Countdown Tonight 5, 4,... 1-20-2010.

[Psst...(Rachel) speaking of mythical beasts, I believe one of these links(Mathews) had Gibbs noting $4 billion or so in health care gains in the market today[*], although other reporting (Keith) shows a market loss overall, but at least Barney Frank got the mess- age. Hmmm?]{Ouch: Moment of Meek to Fine Man?} (and Governor Ed Rendell say and does go downe.)
[Psst...It should be kind of hard for "Republicans" to declare a win as that word is kind of absent from his website. The same almost goes for the "Democrats" taking any responsibility when it comes to party identification]

[*](1-21-10) possible anachronism,(see BTW: Ed(9:45).) at least anecdotal(different sectors, different days?)(See comment 2)

Progressive Break Fast

Campaign for America's Future.

The above link is a compendium of news, comments & hope for progress.
Meanwhile I have made a few comments w/minor corrections **,
but bring this up much as it is(was):

Does the Massachusetts vote mean that the House should pass the Senate Bill, or should they reject it?
My view is it should get a vote, up or down or side ways* meaning risking some changes, risking the filibuster. Then the Senate can up or down it, or break it up. Speaking of holding water or breaking a mirror.***

* just as Ed Shultz was unclear about the ping pong potential, this is as tricky a net in the parlaimentary procedures that would offer this option. (Reconciliation or Nuclear Option)[Adjusted snippets of original continued.] [Psst...(Rachell)Speaking of "mythical beasts"(...)at least Barney Frank got the mess-age(...){Ouch: Moment of Meek to Fine Man?} (and Governor Ed Rendell say and does go downe.)

BTW: It is Senator Reid, not House Speaker, Ed.(Take nothing from the order of these links than that I do not recall which has Ed confused on the Reid/Pelosi positions in the process but great coverage and dialogue.)

** see [*]& comment 2 there
*** the holding water bit is a play on the Hardball promo regarding Chris Matthews' style of argument, Waterloo, and his leaking all over the mirror Howard Dean holds up. But I really did not intend a restroom metaphor, and so it goes.

[Apologies for the anachronistic asterisks and shuffled links but Rachel Maddow's were not yet available and I wished to bring up a few points. Howard Fineman clarifies the fine men or Frank & Obamba not to mention the Governor in Rendell link. While the beast was the unicorn of 60 yet not meek Senator Stabinow, not to mention the Ouch of Geek Irony.]
[translation of apologies/index of links]
mirror: Matthews/Dean Hardball
beasts: Maddow/Stabinow unicorn filibuster
ouch moment: Maddow/parody of TeaDay
Fine Man: Maddow/Fineman Frank Obama
Governor: Maddow/Rendell
downe: Browne
Not to mention BTW: Ed Schultz/Huffington
Not: Schultz/Lanny Davis
Ed.:Schultz/Gibbs

And Countdown. Keith Olbermann/Gibbs et al.
Lawrence O'Donnell
Harpers/Gitmo
tasteless/Brown
Obama/promise?

The Nature of Things

Air America Today shouts Fifty-Nine!
It seems to imply that Democrats are off the hook. The moderate/independent middle seems to say that they want checks-and-balances which in turn should turn progressives loose now that there is a potential filibuster. Some have accused this middle of being low-information voters, but others claim them to be those that want the change they were promised or in the case of Massachusetts, those that have their health care and worry about the cost, not to mention jobs being a priority. This is my preemptive take from the heading, not the article.

Also the word Revolution has been bandied about. A caller suggested that the Reagan "Revolution" should have been a called a Counter Revolution. I would suggest it would be appropriately called a Devolution but unfortunately Revolution implies a spin that will continue unless there is real change. Now to switch a flat tire to a flat earth, there is a slippery slope because there is trickle down. That means that progress will always be slippery and up hill, or those that rise will only be on* the backs of others. [Correction: they do need the backs of others but they can't rise by flattening them.]

*scratch "on the backs of others": replace with "the burden of others."

[See "nature of things"]
[Extended metaphor: The ping pong ball is flat!(maybe it always has been, or it is more than about games and parties.)]
[BTW: a conference table can be round but it is still flat]

Continue the Ping Pong!

I don't care if you just get it over the net(Reconciliation) or spin for the corner(Nuclear Option) but the House should have an up or down vote to let the voters know where they stand. If the Senate bill does not pass, then pass the 80% that is the same as the House or pass them in sections. Then only the Senate will suffer the Massachusetts effect, et al.
(if there is one link you open make it the bold)

BTW: Happy Anniversary! 1-20-09 Honeymoon Over!
[Remember the Hype]
[Remember the A Chord]
[Remember the Change]
See comment!
Yes, my comment on Arianna and the blessing of course corrections, but one more thought that occured earlier. (Lessons learned: a Marshal Plan for Haiti.)

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas to the Democrats
and Happy Boxing Day to the Republicans,
not to be PC or leave any others out.
Or other coping havens of hope.

[President Obama Hails Reform/Salon]
[Here they are! The Bills side by side. Detroit Free Press]

[Note that the above two links were read and inserted after the rest of this post, except ** and ***, not to mention David Sirota ]
My comment:

It would seem to me that Congress should be able to "get 'er done" without the 60 votes. Either as some suggest by "going nuclear" (I am against Nuclear Power but) by blowing up the filibuster or somehow utilizing a reconciliation or conference process to do it. Failing that, there are probably enough progressives to kill the bill, but that may not be necessary[or advised**]. Removing the mandate, just might put this in the category of a budget issue under reconciliation, but failing to remove the mandate, might just put this on the track for constitutional review and modification, where it is imagined that a public option just might be the only option. It just might be wise for the Republicans not to push the constitutional issue and settle for a public option now, possibly with a 10-15% buyin margin on Medicare. In the alternative, giving states an option to have a public* plan, and freeing those to sell out of state, might be another crack in the (just say no)[***] armor.

[TruthOut/McClatchy -- Steve Clemons/Huffington}

* one Representative mentioned that the option would have a name other than public, and that could just be non-profit or within the caps imposed.

[In a bit of Re-Mythication, I might say: From hurding cats to a real cat fight, this is no sausage or hot diggity dog eat dog world. Or from Real Mythication to Real Miffication in regards to others, it is better than FAUX News.]

[** semantics are more than a quibble between liberals and progressives, but between principles and progress (side note: some claim that "progressive" is just a label to avoid the "liberal" charge but both are needed, while labels should not give cover for inaction or misconceptions.]
[***(late insert) also: or just say now]

RETRO NOTE: The Ed Show. Not to mention Miff Maddow.
[1-7-09 Hit Ping Pong (see Shhhh!) on the table.]

More than guts.

That could be the theme of the Democratic ticket. It is also much more than country first. There are many countries that put country first. But are we not better than many countries? And what does this say to all those corporations that think they are people, with rights not responsibilities? Will they be second?

But I digress, do we want a Maverick who is more than a gambler? Poker or any table game may be about guts and calculations as I read more of the LA Times embedded piece. "Voting History" could be titled picking history, but there is more to unembed there.

Change vs. Experience *
More than just words,
and more than about history.

The media is at the table again or maybe working under it. The above two links keep coming to mind every time someone says what a surprise Palin is**. It seems this is more about ping pong than chess, but life is more than a ball.

* cut from link
** in the commentary/news world that is

[More than media
More than news
More than a concern.
More than Entertainment.
More than Patriotic.]