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.

Historic Health Care Bill Passed

The House has Passed the Senate Bill.
Thank You Historic Speaker!
Thank You Minority Leader for so disrespecfully recording your nonsense for history.[*]

The Senate now has the option of adding a few Republican options or maybe even some Democratic plans.

*[3-22-10] Believe me, I don't believe I could more respectfully record my reaction to Minority Leader Boehner's address.

[In fact, I actually just had a long discussion with a Deputy Chief of Staff reflecting my displeasure with his antics. I may or may not summarize it later, but I can characterize it as a less than heated discussion. My main point was that it is difficult to imagine many reasonable people bothering to call in to respond to such behavior, given the visceral reaction and condescension possible. It might be likened to calling in on a childish tantrum. I was just curious about the decorum of their callers, I think I kept mine, but I did continually get caught by the whining rhetoric. The reported belief that the process was unprecedented and partisan like never before. Ha! Oh and the "blame it on emotions" mixed in with the "need to be heard" excuse.]
[Update: see runaround rhetoric and clean sheet of paper: the Republican "leadership" has been forced by Democratic leadership to be accountable but still whine about the politics while blaiming it on 200 years of heated words simultaneously martyring** themselves in the rhetoric and hijacking*** the word "change" from a "clean sheet of paper". They want history to be forced or a force, as long as it is thier force not the peoples. Which "common sense" would mean, no history, no constitution, no rhetoric, no politics.
** I hope I have not too incautiously used the word, but it might be better to say Cantor makes a rather heroic leap in his rhetoric and "akin" to self-sacrifice.
*** refers to office call]

Posts from Wednesday, September 25, 2002:

Distributed by email Sept. 17th 2002

REGIME RHETORIC REPLY

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

ADDITIONAL QUESTION: What happens after a regime change and when there are other regime changes within the various players? It should be easy to see a pandora's box, but some have the curiosity to open it, without the curiosity or even patience to ask the questions let alone expect any answers.
To those who would go to war: If you have the stomach for blood, do you have the guts for democracy?

FAUX NEWS!

I'm not in the mood to play with words today.
But it is nice to see the condemnations of violence from some Republicans, while even those that have, don't recognize their part in lighting the fire by their childish complaints and rhetorical run around with the process. Their complaints [***] of not being included and their complaints of unprecedented partisanship should ring hollow, especially in light of the comprehensive compromises and early sacrifices by Democrats for the sake of pragmatism.

The media plays a big part in not better informing the people. FOX is bad enough, but there is so much reactionary programming, that might be valid yet not really enlighten us on the actual basis in fact and correcting rather than repeating. It seems that there is a political ingredient in this as well as a childish back and forth, but also a misunderstanding of the actual difference in taking responsibility* for one's words and blaming others for politicizing their misuse.

My original thoughts were in support of independent filters, or earlier links, and other sources.

Republican Whip Cantor has complaints about the DNC and the D(triple)C using the threats for political gain.** [Boehner see my comment section]

* Andrea Mitchell(MSNBC): today's link to follow (here): now can we not condone whining?(to Cantor not Pelosi)
** The DCCC have now addressed the difference as well as you (the reader) being able to see and decide in the several links, not necessarily in my rhetoric.
Anachronistic bracketed and segue.
[If one could raise the level of "sophistication" and be able to cherry pick the rhetoric, one could see that politics is only method in resolving things even if you do not feel "responsible" for being in positions of leadership: see Ratigan reference and Hardball below.]

[*** see my call to Boehner's office not to mention what is on their "clean sheet of paper" now.]

[Earlier references to the way media works not to mention this last minute source. And Later Ratigan is a bit of a mix of "targets": see link (here)soon, from which I have pulled the term "sophistication" (above) from a Tea Party guest, even though the host, Dylan might not understand community organizing perspectives or "responsibilities" in other matters, while Hardball might raise it too well.]
Anachronistic segue.
[I will finish with two issues that could easily be too political, but would love the exact words in law, to explain the "abortion funding" and "mandate" issues relationships to reality versus the rhetoric. But I believe it is a fungible economics issue or state options and commerce clauses relationship to the foot in the door and opening the door to get the TOW out in the form of there being room for improvement from both sides.]
[Hardall, "the reality is" in the "stirring up trouble"(segment) that media focuses more on raising the rhetoric and controversy gets more attention and distracts from issues(my take not guests)] and then covering it is called "whipping it up" when to naught is only more to blame.]
[OK, I can't say I didn't "play with words" especially in the last few bracketed's]
[On the other hand, I would like to reflect the reality that Republicans will not run against reform, just more reform, and note that they must now reverse Valentine, not as in massacre but in sending messages and bills that will get attention, hopefully not from their "clean sheet of paper"(meaning not rerun or failed ideas), but incrementals that will get responded to, run on, and even occasionally get up or down votes, only not necessarily with the kind of bipartisanship and change they hope for.]

"It's my turn"[!]

...is what came to mind as I saw Romney frame the race as a decision between the three winners of the last three contests. That's what Ron Paul(8:45) should say. Or maybe Herman Cain or Stephen Colbert should say it**. I am in the process of watching last night's debate on CNN and Rick Santorum (9:10)kicked off the debate with a thread that crosses another thought I had during the introductions, "We are a country of laws".* Actually Ron Paul had already started a few threads in his introduction, we are not nation builders. Romney(15:58) stands up to a Gingrich charge or rather a question on rhetoric and deals with it in legal terms. My original thought had to do with the irony of the conservative nature, but Gingrich is almost a false flag of rhetoric.

* quoting Santorum, not my thought or thread which I may have lost, but laws are the thread of building our nation

BTW- Not necessarily the missing thought: but in regards to Romney's financial reporting, does it bode well for his credit as a business leader, let alone maker of laws? I mean the mis-reporting, and his math regarding taxes and charitable contributions adding up at times to 40 to 45%?

[related irony (slash) update: what I thought was a churned media book event, may turn out to be good for the debate. What can we learn from Arizona? Will we take her up on it? Will the NAACP take Newt up on his charge? Just how do we demand paychecks*** over food stamps? Is it as easy as rhetoric?]

[1-28-12 In defense of PolitiFact... c4*]

[** 1-28-12 link added, Keep Paul Alive! (Courtesy of Buddy Roemer via Bill Maher.)

*** link added]

[c4* I have used as many asterisks as I intend but I would like to connect two pieces(or 3) which relate to the PolitiFact wordplay. Facts are facts and economics and politics everything else. (i.e. context and con text.) But more specifically The Economist has a perspective.]

Speaking of "people who"...

...if you think that this is just tortured rhetoric, then please at least take it as an opportunity to investigate the tortured rhetoric of the administration, not to mention the GOP. Otherwise the constitution is just a don't ask, don't tell policy and congress can just go back to a closet.

[The text of my reply in the previous post preempted this action item from my inbox, to which I attached the above, and I withheld the following, but have now brushed up a bit.]

Not that there is anything wrong with closets. But just because congress has such a high "wrong direction" rating, does not mean that rating does not tell them which way to go. Of course some of the 80% may want more of the same *. But many of them will be there when you go the right direction which in this case is left or we will be left behind.

CONGRESS:
Please follow the tortured rhetoric and act.
See BUSH CONFESSION
[see comment section]
* elitist irony

Faux Campaign

versus Real concerns.
The last post was so extended I have bumped the last portion up to here:

Anachronistic bracketed and segue.
[If one could raise the level of "sophistication" and be able to cherry pick the rhetoric, one could see that politics is the only method in resolving things, even if you do not feel "responsible" for being in positions of leadership: see Ratigan reference and Hardball below.]

[*** see my call to Boehner's office not to mention what is on their "clean sheet of paper" now.]

[Earlier references to the way media works not to mention this last minute source. And later, Ratigan is a bit of a mix of "targets": see link (here)[UPDATE], from which I have pulled the term "sophistication" (above) from a Tea Party guest, even though the host, Dylan might not understand community organizing perspectives or "responsibilities" in other matters, while Hardball might raise it too well.]
Anachronistic segue.
[I will finish with two issues that could easily be too political, but would love the exact words in law, to explain the "abortion funding" and "mandate" issues relationships to reality versus the rhetoric. But I believe it is a fungible economics issue or state options and commerce clauses relationship to the foot in the door and opening the door to get the TOW out in the form of there being room for improvement from both sides.]
[Hardall, "the reality is" in the "stirring up trouble"(segment) that media focuses more on raising the rhetoric and controversy gets more attention and distracts from issues(my take not guests)] and then covering it is called "whipping it up" when to naught is only more to blame.]
[OK, I can't say I didn't "play with words" especially in the last few bracketed's]
[On the other hand, I would like to reflect the reality that Republicans will not run against reform, just more reform, and note that they must now reverse Valentine, not as in massacre but in sending messages and bills that will get attention, hopefully not from their "clean sheet of paper"(meaning not rerun or failed ideas), but incrementals that will get responded to, run on, and even occasionally get up or down votes, only not necessarily with the kind of bipartisanship and change they hope for.]

*** asterisk applies to last post

POLITICS

NOT A DIRTY WORD!
But it is in the eye or ear of the beholder.
Embedded in the previous postings are two points about accountability.
Politics and timing.
They seem to play a big part in the planning of any endeavor.
These too, are not dirty words.
Except possibly in the grip of the wielders of power.

But I digress, the particulars are that accountability is part of the process and success of our process. There must be investigations because they are political and because of the timing. The arguments must be held and there is never a better time, especially for politics. But the actual particulars of accountability are what role politics has played and will play and whether they preempted accountability. It is not just a coincidence[*] that Watergate involved the Nixon/Ford administration and their respective views on what is legal and what is political. It is the same characters and the polarity between the president being unitary (Nixon) and accountability (the process) being political (Ford), not to mention subsequent success and failures of economics, war and foreign policy. I won't get into the respective overlap and/or disconnect between committees and their intelligence sharing and responsibilities, but I will note the relation to issues in the current political campaigns and the press for or on the bottom line, the people.
[As usual I have embedded too much in rhetoric, another word that is not dirty, except in how it is used, and in which the administration and probably McCain places its only hope. But the point of politics and timing being important hinges on the process and the administration has been preemptive with too much. Now rhetoric is lost in anachronism, while accountability was lost before September 11th, 2001.]

[*]footnote: "positive polarization" and somewhere there was a political calculus of the Bush impeachment, but this is only the rhetoric and all that is needed in this rhetorical war on aftermath and preempting of hope.

BIG TENT v. MESS TENT

Do I need to explain the frame?

BUSH'S WAR

THE FRAME

REGIME CHANGE

I have not read all the above links although my word play may foreshadow.
The following was more timely.

To Trent Lott:(5-18-02: Though parts may have been posted later)

The President said today: "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people." It must be noted that he was very careful in saying it. I think that few would claim that he knew anything, but rather demonstrated a great lack of intelligence.

The following applies to what is despicable about this matter. It is represented in your May 17th posting: "Senate Republican Leader Urges a Quieting of the 9/11 Terrorism Rhetoric". I agree with your statement, "We should knock down the rhetoric." Unfortunately, much of your portions in bold contained too much rhetoric and the rest was sometimes reasonable yet too often defensive and blaming if not unimpressive rambling.

If you'd stop wasting time blaming the "blame America first" crowd, you could concentrate on your intelligence briefings and your job instead of being depressed and nervous about too much information in the press.

(Below Sent to Local Papers)

It is the height of hypocrisy and ironic that Vice President Cheney should warn the Democrats about taking partisan advantage of the attack on the World Trade Center or using incendiary language, after their use of the September 11th photo-op and the words they have so often chosen. Granted that there may not have been enough information to rise above the background and know exactly what to expect, only enough apparently to plan for a war.

Given that the administration turns its back on world justice and the International Criminal Court and has justified any means to fight terrorism, or defend our sovereignty, it is no wonder that violence has been established as a solution. If civilian collateral damage is accepted routinely, and lack of a declaration of war and consulting with congress are accepted without passionate argument, then it is no wonder that someone could attack us.

Apparently it was the case that a war was about to be declared by the administration and that one was already declared against the U.S. by terrorists. It may even be that threats were made by the administration that included threats of war (direct and indirect) and given the administrations record there is much to support that if they were up front about anything it was that a declaration of war was not necessary. In fact the language the president often used was tantamount to declaring war all the while acknowledging that we would not telegraph our blows.

Again, is it any surprise that an enemy would use the same tactics? Apparently surprise is the most the administration will admit. Instead of investing more power in our intelligence operations, we should more intelligently use the powers we have. Oh, and it would help if we use the laws we have too.

Roger Larson
Bellevue, WA

Conservative Foray (4A)

The right wing rhetoric suffers
from four faults or defaults:
Anecdotal
Apocryphal
Anachronistic
Academic[*]

In particular:
Lew Rockwell
Anne Wortham
Betsy McGaughey
Floy Lilley **

I did not select these, they were being spread by a victim of the victim hoods.

[* This 4A was held in draft, and pondered till I arrived at the right Initialism. Speaking of design and initialism the origin was:
often A$$ Backward Oops!! - Pardon my Cheney , I meant acronym-ism.]

**[Hopefully I have these in descending order.]
[(CTTC)Cutting through the Cr@p:
I would love for economists to cut through some of this.]
[Academic is a word like politician and lawyer that have developed a poor reputation, not to mention rhetoric and Swift Boaters. Or Bottom Line? ]

[(CTTC2.0)I have two bold links above that I would like economists to examine, in particular in light of the bad rap Keynesian economics keeps taking. In that regard, on a lighter and less silly or harsh note; Greenspan seems to be learning, or has he, and in regards to the Floy piece and the bottom line;
is there not some synergy that needs to be worked out? Meaning current efforts cannot be compared to past efforts directly, while problems that are missed will be the devil in the detail. The Carbon Market may be a solution, but not if the Market period is the problem. In other words, I have not looked too deeply into the hot air side (climate matters) of the equation, but feel that the thin air problem (financial matters)is deeper. To re-embed in aphorism, there is bang for your buck and there is the value of your bang. And there is likely more that matters.

A picture's worth 1000 words?

[Italics: Edited next day.]What are actions?
These are rhetorical question(s). Ones which are only the beginning of the dialogue, not that I will extend or finish it. But in relation to the issue of rhetoric and politics and the meaning of words, it might be kept in mind, that if it is so,[**] then what does a symbol or icon say that the politician can't for whatever reason say? And in many cases the participants and our freedoms, in relation to the dialogue and the media only confound this rhetoric or meaning as to the various positions of responsibility or fields of endeavor(arts if you will) they cover.

[AND...How many words is a link worth? Let alone a leap*? I say this in regards to the hopeful turning point, in regards to this walk-back. Not that I have anything to walk back, but in context to consideration of a possible change in regards to the aforementioned arts.]

* let alone a name: Tucker? But actually my intent was to note: "the value of the unexpressed thought" under "mixing it up."[see second video: Mediaite]
[Main context? Irony of what counts.]

[And I don't mean to find reason in everything, but the words and intent embedded (and parsed and paraphrased)here are for all our consideration.]

[**] the pictures worth
[1-12-11 In relation to edited above: President Obama has been accused of using violent language in regards to, in a knife fight bringing a gun. It was a metaphor. We are not in knife fights. It is even a poor metaphor. But when that causes their opponent to use stronger language, that tie in issues, misplace facts and use imagages. Then they are responsible for even worse metaphor. That does not mean it will be easy to change things. Using the original to make matters worse, is oddly justified, but only by way of extending the metaphor and being claimed victim of it and feeling their freedoms threatened. Some people apparently can't handle extending metaphors, and they are not even always meant to be extended. But again it seems that by extending them, they intend to break the original metaphor, for the battle of our ideas.]

In the Beginning

is Rhetoric*.
Paraphrased:  Everything begins with rhetoric.
i.e. there were many nice Iowa speeches
It seems very parallel to "all religions begin as cults."
Also very Platonic in relation to form.
In terms of the idea and the ideal,
not necessarily in kind.

Not to run with caricatures, but what is that look on Romney's face?
A hard to be humble when I'm lying look?  Or a devil may care but I don't look?  Or is that his do, or due?***


* I wish I could remember who said something close yesterday. Either a candidate or a commentator.**
BTW:  ledeRship is often provocative [sic/pun]
Bring it On! The Table[!]  
Footnote: [!] / Irony.

[** who else is there?]
[Related later comments Thom Hartmann Show.
Rough notes on Romney/Bachmann: He fears us being European.  She touts China as example.
Sanders on Colbert, Citizens United.]
*** NPR & NYTimes ( retrack, field narrowed, what it means, Republican Strategist, Foreign Affairs, Romney, Obama v. Congress. Bachmann out, Dionne/Continetti, End Run Recess Appt., good riddance)

< previous post >

Sum would cheer...

the* death of Keynesian Economics, but a super Congress? Compromise is the art of not making anyone truly happy. Not to mention metaphor happy, or blossom.

[8-1-11: Debt Deal[!]
OurFuture.org , The White House, Paul Krugman, AmericanProgress.org

Winner?
Obama(& Bane Or)
and Compromise & Filibuster
(The Table and Partisanship).

Loser?
The country
and the economy.

Not to mention:
O
'N[!]
Joe.]

[*]pun will lose
[Re: The Table, with Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd(paraphrased)...those who oppose the deal will roar in primaries not in the general] that puts the sword of Damocles on the people and in their votes.]

[My sum mary: the sum will cheer...BULLY[!]

[And some will whine. EXTREME RHETORIC ALERT for link one of the previous three. While in all actuality, I can agree that people are dying, and there are forces alligned against the common good to blame, I cannot use the Hitler analogy that LaRouche utilizes, though the results do border on treason, it is for the people to decide not a determination that can be legally formed. Glass-Steagall is probably one solution, and the offensive PDF probably summarizes the deal accurately, and the only good thing that can come from this hyper-rhetoric is if it works, but it should not make too many people happy that it does. There is also something about the table which links what seems to be a common cause of both La Rouche and Tea Party supporters(at least of the more pragmatic and incremental Libertarian strain).]
[Process in context[!]? Right On!]
[Final Notes: Hall and Bashir 2B updated (alter or Bane).]

The Billy Club...

needs some explaining.

---
[INSERT UPDATE 2-18-11: << SERIOUSLY these are a serious sortings of views.] >> Note sortings link is important to the explaining of The Billy Club lost in the scuffle.]
---

(original post continued)
It was a reference to the Bill Maher-Elizabeth Hasselbeck feud over humor and politics. aka: rhetoric and intelligence

It also pertains to the King of Rhetoric and the Genre Clash. But in regard to the "Billy Club" it was based on the "Billy Boy" name Elizabeth used, (which I use) to indicate that Beck(Glenn, nor HasselB) is not in the league of Bill Maher let alone the likes of other Bills. Now I have realized that the Billy Club could be easily mistaken as including O'Reilly. It does, but in the likes of not being in the same league as any on the so-called "left". Indeed Bill O'Reilly does make FOX look respectable, considering the field(Comedy News Network). So to be sure, the Billy Club is a fan club not a weapon, but is about the Genre Clash which is more of an evolution(note mutation) than a revolution (actualy Spin Zone).

I will pause to review the above and maybe find more to explain, and in that vain, well actually on a new path(vein or vane) I might not have more to explain, if I am more careful.

But back to the original forum of explaining(The View) and my not always having viewed sources completely (we all cherry pick-but some don't know apples from oranges, and I may be a fruit salad maker by not wanting to clean my kitchen of the tools or fruits* and nuts of the right) here is a countertop** I don't use. But my embedded point of the first asterrisk is my own suggested answer to Bill O'Reilly for why President Obama is hated. "Because of the likes of you, Bill O'Reilly". It even has a sense of balance.

* as often happens the right link is an aftersearch(pun on my link not the Right)
(It is counter intuitive or not a dis of the likes of Lawrence O'Donnell)

** in reference to link or lede into "so you don't have to" sometimes we must. And I am sure that Beth Beck(aka Elizabeth HasselB) would turn up her nose if I segue from Kings(Tut) to Queen Tit for Tat, "that perhaps others would want to call" her.

[Speaking of salads and segues(see comment 1)or vain(vein or vane) attempts:Current TV (any relation to Shock Jocks or anti-Pop Culture)
CNN Comedy News Network
ABC Anti-Billy Club ***
And what about that Calm Cast or America on Hypocrisy?]
*** maybe more later
[Well actually I was thinking about the organizational structure of the ABC: the Anti-Billy Club. Bill Maher would be the what? Only the original Billy maybe. Heck this is metaphorical anyway. Maybe ASZ would work. Anti-Spin Zone? Too court jestery but maybe a hint at the structure. So structure aside it is the thought that counts.(Though some are free to flow down D'Nile or the slippery slope.) The Try Angle of ABC's aside, it might be too fruitless. But recognizing some of the negativity in the words adn sybolism is a bit like the expectations of Representative Steve King. Thankfully he is a Represenative that may obviate the label of leadership. The pulling back he expects of our President, is the other end of this candle burning on both ends. I won't drag philosphies or ideologies in at this point, only the word play or lack of efficiency in its utilizations. The Anti-Billy Club is a sentiment that is not about Bill Maher or Bill O'Reilly(Or a reflection on the Bill of Rights, but justly might be.) It is about the club of association, a tool that some wield as a weapon or simply run with scissors when a spoon may do.]

[Please note my equal opportunity jest you'ring, not to leave CBS out or dis Comcast or Huffington let alone Salon. There will always be critics or those that have opinions on the intentions of people or organizations. But I am hinting at the Calm Cast sentiment of the MSNBC/Comcast merger along with the Olbermann departure and the Huffington some say sell out to AOL. Hence the America On Hyposcisy, I just had to fit in an H for the sake of merger. Not to pull back, or Palin drone.]

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.

Fear and Running

in the Republican Party. 
It could be said that the 1st Amendment of the constitution kills more than the 2nd Amendment.

Amendment 1-  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 2-  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I was going to go with "gunning" instead of "running", but I did not want it to suggest* a 2nd Amendment solution.  But with Romney running on an ad that misunderstands English, that is only one bullet point to my argument.  "You didn't build that." is completely out of context**.  But out of context does not necessarily mean misleading.*** 

Post asterisks:  The impact of the first amendment on what gets done has more impact on life and death than the fallacy that anyone is going to kill the second amendment.[**]

* b.s. (blog search) to be footnoted
** (no pun on con text but I need to replace[*] the Daily Rundown links)
*** not to suggest (not exactly)
[*] close enough for blog work
[**] There are very constitutional reasons for the political calculus of this rhetoric to influence and create reality.  But from another dimention, NorMan GoldMan has a rhetorical rant (not not it) that could fit Romney's rhetorical style in a silly Obama ad that could decimate [***] the Romney race.
[***] Pardon the Palin term, but not her.

[Post bracketed asterisks: regarding the NG rant, "that" is not quite "it" but on target, in more ways than one.  But in appreciation of the nature of our progress, it is not about any new legislation.  It is not about obliterating the constitution or its amendments or even new amendments.  Old taxes and legislation are always on the table, for all three branches of government, and the people are the deciders. C-heading and lede!]

[Follow-up of sorts.  But first a note on "gunning" as a rhetorical term.  I'm sorry I can't give proper credit, but it may be embedded in the links above.  However, Lawrence O'Donnell, noting the Brian Williams interview of Romney was not my original follow-up, but may be on target (That is not a course.) Ouch.  Guns don't kill people, people do.  Find them(Ctrl F)? What about the law?  Not for the silly season, or gatlin salad?  And oh no, not atTax of the meta4rhetoric.  I really think there is a problem with the use of Senator Thelma for Patty Murray, since she puts Boehnor at the wheel.]
[Transparency Destroyed?]
[Re-sorts of sorts... sort of, or not, of course.  This was basically an exercise in logging some clips of some MSNBC shows.]

[My best to Wendy & Ed Schultz!]

[7-26-12: update and effect (label)]
[Scroll up to "Post bracketed"]

HIT AND RUN (QCON)

"HIT AND RUN" is my term for the Righty Republicans. Righty Republican is another running with terms. This blog has been about Running with Rhetoric. Rhetoric, like politics or the law, is not good or bad, but that is another story.

QCON is an acronym, for Quick Comment On the News. It also runs in line with this post. It suffices to stand for Questioning Cons, and that is the link to the Hit and Run. The Hit and Run refers to the crowd, usually the Righty Republicans who would bash the so-called "Liberal" media or press" while running from the questions. Tommy Thompson recently did an amazing "hit and run" on the abortion issue.

Now in these cases of representing such an exchange it may make more sense to skip from the transcript. A closer look may ruin my thesis. But the portion I did hear, had him for making abortion illegal, but sending people to jail was a "liberal" thing. By Jove I believe I did it. A one liner.

But on another track, "liberals" are about running the government, not running from responsibility for their actions or questions, while Righty Republicans are about bashing and running for it.

Search: QCON, Hit and Run
and bonus search: MAD

Muffin-Gate

[MIFF IN GATE?]

Fire the Filter.
Heads should roll over 2 cents.

Bill O'Reilly: "so we should shoot them".
[Caution: This is not True Ledership, but spelling intended.]

True ledership, would put the fired up rhetoric as the headline. Nor is it true journalism, except for the 2 cents.

Speaking of firing the filter, google might be the problem. Of course it is "hard work" getting words just right, and here is another exception to the rule, or what I was so fired up about. FOX10TV.com actually had an update that did headline the correction.

[I won't call it inconvenient or truth, but the so-called journalistic links are in bold, while the roll and the filter are ingredients of more than just rhetoric. Speaking of brown-and-serve or oven or shovel ready.]

[UPDATE: 10-12-11 The bored game.]

Parallel (Or Not So Pair o' Lax) Channels

[POST CONSTRUCTED 2-18-11]
Seriously from Media Matters with my spin.
Con-Text
2-9-11 A Generous Dia-Gnosis
- King of Rhetoric?
2-10-11 The Billy Club...
- The Club of Association
- Blank Network
2-11-11 Excitement in Egypt! [See Follow Up]
2-12-11 Bridging the English Channel
2-13-11 Frackin' Trickle Down
2-14-11 Said Relief?
- The Answering Machine...
- Fair and Balanced...
2-15-11 The Maze of Mace
2-16-11 Six-Edged Rhetoric
- Slash Segue
- Seconds
- Tip of the IceBurg
- Revisiting History
2-17-11 Recreating History
- The New Compendium

YES! THIS IS CON-TEXT TO A PARALLAX VIEW. and pun on the Billy Club and Blank Network to be named later.
The Pair o' Lax View* . I'm not just axing like Palin asks of Obama.

BUT THIS IS THE POINT!
The exchange between Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly actually makes both of them look better. It is the closest thing to two perspectives as might be found on FOX NEWS. Not that there is not a heckuva lot to pit and parse the cherries from the twigs, but there is something about the analysis(in the exchange) that may be not only valid but worth sorting and in respect to the audience about as much as they might be able to handle. That is not to say that it does not also serve as an inflammatory tool in a more nuanced way**.

* The Billy Maher/Elizabeth Hassel("Boy Billy")Beck Feud
** See BTW: Going Egypt...and Going Cheesehead

Killer Ad from Killer Group

Crossroads GPS employs Killer Rhetoric.

Here is the missing link. Applying even a modicum of similarity one can more reliably say that indeed, Crossroads GPS are taking people down. Not that this is "fair and balanced" rhetoric, nor Lemony* Snicket.

* rats leaving us die looted