Artificial...calls for impeachment.

Hit and Run.
[See New Label and bottom link: Straw Elephant - and other search options.]
Democrats should be cautious that Republicans don't get ahead of them on both the war and impeachment, but more likely it is just a "hit and run" diversion. However, Bush may take it as a message *. Hah!

The timetables will be removed and then they will continue to have the war and Bush to run from. Impeachment would put their jobs on the line, because they would have to put a vote on the line. If they ever get to impeachment it would be more of the same, but it would be there for the people to see them "hit and run". While Republicans are all about running, Democrats should be doing their jobs as well.

[8:39 AM link added: originally "the message" was the one from the Republicans to Bush, but the link incorporates the Democratic message]

I'm not even

gonna read this yet, or MoveOn to this. But is this the deal?
[Scroll over links for 'nuf context]
It seems a spectrum of progress and contrast. From Bush, to Blair, from Tea Parties, to Newt. Each looks better in perspective to the others.
[9-15-10 Re: further preemption]
[Counter Balance[*] of Table]
[Just noting the complexities of international diplomacy and domestic politics, as well as the "two party" system. While we near a deal of major import, minor fears drive local divisions, and have major costs. Democrats run divided, while Republicans divide to run. While this is not a clear and fair analogy, as of course division is needed in races within parties. But Democrats have not created a party to run against itself, while it has those in office who run rather* independent.]
[And Under the Radar]
* see Balance above and cost of debt and war

[Image use and source; original.]

[*][On the other hand, extending only the middle-class Bush tax-cuts only reduces the borrowing by $700 billion.]
[9-16-10: extending the Bush Tax cuts: adds $3.9 trillion** to National Debt, while extending only those above $250K would add only $3.22 trillion. i.e. reduce by $680 billion. ]
** 3.8? Quote: Extending them for the next 10 years would add about $3.8 trillion to a growing national debt that is already the largest since World War II. About $700 billion of that reflects the projected costs of tax cuts for those in the top 2 percent of income-earners.

Gitmo Got More

I don't know if it is mentioned here and I must look over my previous work, but the big news is the 8-4 [* should read 5-3 SEE BELOW]vote overruling Bush on his preemption and rendering of the constitution. Justice Roberts was sidelined because of conflict of interest rules that he upheld by recusing himself from the decision on a case that he had earlier ruled on.

That fact [his recusal] is mentioned but I do not think it is categorized as the big news, but it is a critical blow to a "unitary executive" if any Justice he selects must be "fair and balanced" not to mention follow rules,laws and the constitution.

Now it is a matter of not making new laws that will run this stay-the-course vicious recycle.

[* should read: "5-3" - keeping with my policy of not messing with my posts without notation, I must have done some wierd math, which indicates I should slow down. There were also no labels till now, and the thought of Hit and Run.] and a "run"+"Bush" search was what brought me here.]

What's going on?

Recent events are hard to stay on top of,
but it may be time to "run the table".
My reference earlier to "hit and run"
is the crowd that will stay the course.

But enough of the usual stuff.

Here are my recent post along with some links with more comments to be added later:

Election Fixes -- SJM 8016 / U.S. Attorney Scandal

Blatherwatch
CREW [Center for Ethics and Responsibility in Government]

Leahy on Wegoted.com
UNDER OATH! THREE CHEERS! Leahy! Senate Judiciary! Hearings!

Northwest Progressive Institute McKay v. McCabe
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Digging deeper: McKay "stunned" This one I endorse as a long article.
Earlier.
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
DIGGING EVEN DEEPER.

One Nail in the Coffin of Republican Slander: [1.]McKay nominated Sept. 19th, 2001

Carol Lam / [2.]Cunningham Corruption Case?
David Iglesias Three for Three[3.] Not prosecuting Dems fast enough?
OK THIS IS A CONSPIRACY It must be Wikipedia's fault. Blame Billy, Blame Wiki.

And Long Story Short: Congresspedia [First two sentences: Unbelievable!]

In late 2006, the Justice Department fired (or asked for the resignation of) eight U.S. attorneys all previously appointed by President Bush. Earlier in 2006, a provision included in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act allowed these positions to be filled by the administration without Senate approval.
[OK TWO MORE]In early 2007, hearings were held on the matter in both the House and Senate Judiciary Committee on the firings. Several of the fired attorneys testified that they had been contacted by members of Congress or executive officials about pending cases shortly before their termination. Such contact by members of Congress is a violation of both House and Senate rules.

I don't usually do so much homework, but then more than the media apparently. Unless it's the vast left wing conspiracy.

[4.]Paul K. Carlton in mid investigation of Republicans?

Not one the Eight: [5.] Kevin V. Ryan Resigns on principle
[6.,7. & 8. - H.E. Cummins III, - - Daniel Bogden - - Margaret Chiara ]

These are listed on the Wikipedia as 7 attorneys, plus an unlisted prosecutor who was replaced by a Rove aide. The math may not add up, but the 8 listed here include one, Kevin V. Ryan who resigned and all I could find were appointed by Bush. Which conflicts with the idea that Bush had not replace any attorneys, but fits in with that they were not serving at his pleasure.

So having done more homework than I have in quite some time; for not having done what Bill Clinton did, how were all eight of these appointed by Bush?

Two more sources - in their defense?

Hillary makes moot point.

The Guardian pointed out on November 26th, 2007: US pledges long-term presence in Iraq

MSNBC announces the same day: Bush signs 'principles' for long-term Iraq role
Deal sets foundation for negotiations on troop size, U.S. investments which is a little clearer.

On one hand, it seems it is only a, "declaration of principles, which is not binding," according to General Douglas Luke, in The Guardian. On the other hand, "He noted that the agreement, because it was not a treaty, would not be subject to oversight by Congress."

This is not the only moot part, where there is some worry that Bush will tie the hands of future administrations.

Here is the mooter part.
Hillary does deserves points for bringing it up. But it has been out there for some time.

But more to the point is why are Bush's hands not tied already. But not to worry, nothing that Bush does should tie any one's hands in the future. But Republicans will still try to tie things up, until they can be back in the untied crowd.

Seriously, just because there is no clear line, and precedence and laws are quaint and old fashioned, does not mean that the vicious cycle will stop, but freedom from such is a double-edged sword which the people need to wield.

This was my flash analysis before finding the above two links, the first of which I had probably run by and filed before. Here are two more detailed links I will review later, for possible update.

US, Iraq set stage for long US presence Brisbane Times

Bush, Maliki pave way for permanent U.S. presence www.back-to-iraq.com *

* a sharp comment
[post dated: see update

Political Strings Pulled

Bush upcoming big speech.

McCain wants debate delay.

Ed Schultz plays a good question McCain faced but refused to answer while spinning it back on the Dems. The administration has known this was coming for some time while McCain's advisor has been on the payroll of Freddie Mac.

If the debate is cancelled the meeting with Bush should take them to task or at least be framed as who you bring to the table. Who will Obama and McCain be bringing and who will Bush have there? What will the purpose be? It would really be fun if it were only Bush, McCain, and Obama and us. What would the Independents, the Greens, or the Libertarians bring to the table? I think it would be a smart move if the purpose is unclear to skip the meeting and let McCain and Bush play politics, and let congress give them the business. Or rather take them over.

On the other hand, could it be that McCain has finally changed?

Maybe we are finally there.

White House welcomes plans. Just as I suspected. Another Straw Elephant.

Meanwhile just as I post this and search for links, this breaks:
"We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved," McCain said. "I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so."

How this is enacted could be a clean break for us. But I think the real "panic" is political. And McCain ad proves it. Or at least not a clean break for McCain.

Now Ed's got it. The networks should give both candidates a rebuttal. Especially if one is going to run for the other rather than debate.

Notes from Al-Qaeda

"The Base" a translation: "Al-Qaeda"
Actually these are just notes from June 1, 2007

The Base: Al-Qaeda
The Bottom Line: The people.
Fundamentalists: Neo-Cons

Connections? People need to be the bottom line not money. The point needs to be progress not money. Money is a tool that is needed for survival. It is not the point of it all. The same goes for power. The point of the base which Bush brought together is their view from the top, to heck with the people getting there. The same goes for their thinking, starting at the end and expecting to get somewhere else.

Note: that now I have just found a post from someone with the same title. The Base

NOTES FROM TODAY:
People Matter

A paradigm is a worldview. This is a base world view that covers everything. First there is Physics which covers the reality as we know it, and don’t know it. Then there is Psychology which is the reality as we don’t know it, unless we think about it and then we still don’t know but feel something. Then there is Philosophy which covers the reality as we know it and would be nothing without us. [8-6-07: The Physics, Psychology, and Philosophy seem to be in evolutionary order, and in existence, feeling and thinking seemed to be the order of interactions. Society or Reality as these three interact seem to be embodied in the culture that is created, which can be for or against... Justice.]

These are the primary fields which form the fourth field which depends on time and the dynamics of the other three which each depend on the other three. The only other dimension in my mind is the direction these vectors can take which are either progress or back again which is a quality of the forces on each vector. But we cannot go home again. Even the second two vectors require our presence, so the direction seems to be aimed by and for us. Which puts people and progress as the primary matters of concern, or the alternative is only the return.

Now if this is a little over your head or seems loopy, you get a little more than you know. If this seems obvious you know a little more than you think. But if you could care less, that matters too.

Now for the less obvious. Just because I read, The Base , does not mean I read all of Asimov's The Foundation Series but there are connections: numbers and Psycho-History. Numbers matter and he's got them wrong; the writer of The Base, not The Foundation Series.

Condescending note: the difference between the president and congress and their polling numbers is that congress has more than one view point, and the president has only one. He may have it on many matters, but if things are black and white, all you have to do is flip flop and choose, between the the 32% (now 29%) who support Bush and the many Candidates who will run from him but not his policies are the balance of power the 68% who if they were united would probably go down in history. The miserable ratings of congress are because there are so many alternatives to Bush's stay the course, and that numbers are divided and low because they are not resisting him enough let alone sort out their options. alternatives.

And another earlier note revisited.
David Horsey wrote a piece in May of 2002, on Red and Blue America: my reply was apparently over someones head as a main point was blurred. The green was removed for color in the bottom line. In other words, the editor replaced one word (green) with another (color).

Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters

At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on David Horsey's "Red & Blue America" (May 19). For the sake of humor, it went overboard in its characterizations of those who voted for George W. Bush or Al Gore. I hope it is a good thing if people realize, like I did, how we can see one side funnier or less overboard than the other.

I hope the humor can be less dividing than the colors pinned on Gore and Bush. It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without color being a factor in making us see red.

So at the risk of being obvious again, I will give you my original bottom line.
"It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without green being a factor in making us see red.

Bold added, and at the risk of further condescension, green means money and third parties in general, not that they should not unite rather than divide. OK, I could not even keep the condescension up.

OK, I am not sure about that last double negative or even if it is, but...
The point is the difficulty in uniting, when we insist on black and white, or even red, white and blue, not to mention what we neglect, but the consequences are the result.

We have met the enemy and he is us. Well we should check the roots of this, but it seems we are the solution as well.

Truth Tellers

Thom Hartmann notes that the truth teller of the Democrats is Kucinich and for the Republicans it is Ron Paul, who notes the history of the Republican party as against wars. And thanks to a quick google, the first few paragraphs hits it out of the park **. "Way out", as it is put there. Or a slam dunk if you will.

That was still the situation when Clinton was president and even when the current Bush was campaigning against being nation builders and policeman to the world. Another point in this regard is that old Bush in a China Shop metaphor where:
when we broke it, we don't own it, but we might pay for it.

Final note: On Unity08 plans for a bipartisan ticket, I think it is crazy or at minimum won't work. Now, not that it won't succeed. But not necessarily for the country. It really is hard to take a negative attitude with something that seems so middle of the road, but then if we put the people in the middle of the road, they may just get run down. OK! So metaphors may not work, but the may make a point, and getting somewhere that has a point is the "hard work". There! Does that make any progress on the point. Well it may just be going round and round, but that may be another result, not that I am trying to get the geometry covered. But now that I have run that into the ground, I will take a tangent and note that there may be room for dialogue on the third party or third or fourth way. Dialogue and debate is happening within each party. If there are any outliers. Those hanging back; LaRouche (may get the point); Nader (I am not so sure); Bloomberg or Hagel; or not lastly Wesley Clark. But above we have noted, and I believe I recall now that my comparison (if not noted earlier) was between Ron Paul and LaRouche rather than Kucinich, that there are certain mavericks but at least they are participating now. I would harken back to my point about Red and Blue America and the threat to the green. It must be noted that "at the risk of being obvious" must have been too deep and the PI editors* changed my word "green" to "color" which put a completely different tint on my letter. My point is that Unity08 may be more about the green and may not get us out of seeing red.

*(In the last line of "the threat to the green" link, which may have been a threat to someone's green, if not not black and white enough to fit their grey matter.)

**11:35 AM amended [six paragraphs to be precise, I had not read much beyond "To many people, however..." and that is where we must remember the words of Rudy Guliani, on or shortly after September 11th, something like: Aren't you glad George Bush is president? Case closed. These guys cannot fight or debate without misconstruing the point or the enemy, period. Black and white enough?]

Culture War

(Humorous side swipes.)

Bush is a character with probably a spit personality or other problem. But unfortunately the two characters are fictional. Captain Picard and Larry the cable guy. He flip flops from "Make it so" to "Get 'er done".

Of this Neo-Con administration they are certainly no borg.*

Note: Hit and Run (Label) is similar to QCON label meaning Quick Comment On the News.

Comment Two: On potential Newt Gingrich candidacy and comment by Randi Rhodes about him not getting the support of Neo-Cons or the Bush backers... He is the natural heir to the policy of Hit and Run, his comments are carefully crafted to seem to be critical yet stay the course of the War of Terror.

* [5-23-07]Just like Dan Quayle was no Jack Kennedy... but borg is a Startrek reference to a Being Organized or Best Organization at least in my understanding if not in the creators intentions. Now Q was another being.

Science Fiction Writers

Enrolled in the War on Terror and blamed for the War on Terror. The usefullness of these writers presumably is their value in being imaginative and having some ability to influence the future. But to me the value is in their words and ones ability to interpret them, much as this blog. And here. And here. Just a few on intelligence.

But here I reference the "scale of justice" and now find in my mailbox The Scales of Justice. Coincidence? There are connections that make such more likely, like following what is going on and seeing similar consequences. Here was the ealiest reference to consequences. Here is the Search Blog for "consequences".

Speaking of "the latter" and looking back to the choice of words I realize my last post was a run on.

Earlier,[*] on the difference in liberal and conservative views. the good versus the evil nature of man and the purpose of government, that of protecting from the latter, the latter[**] has evolved to the point of doing no good.

[*] new link inserted here
[**] the latter evolved: and the second latter was the "purpose of government", the immediately prior latter was "conservative views".

OK, this "Speaking of" was out of the blue or a tangent but back to the choice of words and the latter (Oh that is where it was from) the latter link in my first sentence above on who is "blamed for" consequences. Asimov was a favorite writer of mine at an early age, but his science fact was as valuable as his fiction, but "The Foundation" series was not on my reading list, but the word "Foundation" is in the dictionary (Search Blog) and obviously in those of other languages and there is a connection when you go there and consequences when you don't as Rumsfeld confessed if you will do your own Contol F when you get there.

If you don't go there here is the segment.

On patriotism, we must have follow through. Do not ban flag burning or require the pledge of allegiance, but expect respect for and stand up for the principles "for which it stands". Without "liberty and justice for all" we can hardly be "indivisible". As Bush so eloquently said in his September 20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." Is it any indication to the contrary that on the very day Bush declared this a "war" the Secretary of Defense confessed that he had yet to consult a dictionary to define war?

Meanwhile: the word foundation is in the dictionary too, and it is not just the blame but a needed part to any stucture.

[10:05 AM The Foundation Series(Control Find "History") by Isaac Asimov may be more valuable in predicting our future than it's contribution to terror. However it is plane that Bush has made great contributions to Al-Qaeda: The Base ]

[I must note 10:26 AM that I had not read till just moments ago, the second link above> While I cannot now find a link that dismissed it, I find it touched on more relevant matters than the first link, many of which I have touched on above and before. From it:

One can't blame Asimov for fuelling the swollen fantasies of the murderous. It is the last thing this committed pacifist ("violence is the last refuge of the incompetent") would have wanted. He may not be the only famous sci-fi author to have been taken up by lunatics, anyway. Killer cultist Charles Manson's favourite book is said to have been Stranger in a Strange Land, written by Asimov's rival for the imaginative future Robert Heinlein.

if that is not a prediction that came true, I don't know what is. But there is a the law of cause and effect, which is may connect to the sentence which followed:

More generally, the space opera sub-genre of science fiction offers the possibility of a massive expansion of self-mythologising will-to-power.

... and so now we have the request for help from writers? By whom and for whom?]

And Bailout...

McCain it seems, is heading for the debate,
but it seems that he does not even know what plan is on the table.

And I am not sure too many do. And that was the day he suspended his campaign.

As usual the Democrats will get something done, while the Republicans hold onto their agenda of politics and business over people. [*]

Meanwhile progress at the UN Security Council on Iran is at risk of being more business as usual. I only heard a brief news item about a Russia calling something legally binding but without santions.

[* Bold only with this updated: Senator Bernie Sanders on The Thom Hartmann Show** has just now framed this. And last week mentioned the October Surprise as the bailouts arrived. Some people have said that the economy could not wait till October, but really politics could not wait, since congress was scheduled to go home to campaign.]

** must link this show "hit and run" aspect: Bush hits, Dems fix, Republicans Run. (see Domke)
Not to mention that this is a distraction that keeps politicians from being able to run.

Understanding the nature?

Bush defends surveillance program
President says Hezbollah lost, American economic foundation strong

"President Bush on Friday criticized a federal court ruling that said his warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional, declaring that opponents 'do not understand the nature of the world in which we live.'"


"'The first reaction, of course, of Hezbollah and its supporters is, declare victory,' Bush said. 'I guess I would have done the same thing if I were them, but sometimes it takes people a while to come to the sober realization of what forces create stability and which don't. Hezbollah is a force of instability.'"

Of course, force?
Understanding the nature of how force creates stability. There are no forces that create stability. Only forces that move one way or another against unequal or forces in other directions. Only equal forces directly opposed to each other create stability unless balanced by other vectors. How long will it take to see that the real losers were the Lebanese?

If they can't understand the three branches of government under one constitution which results in laws that are meant to be followed, there is not much reason to expect that they understand the physics of the laws of force in foreign policy.

Freedom doesn't have a vector but democracy is only a force if it is recognized as having many. It combines for a force that must be opposed with reason*, another force they fear to understand, let alone use.

I won't even start this analogy on economics except the subject of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid was touched on in the article:
"We think it is quite possible to come up with a fix that is quite doable," Paulson said of reforming the government programs. "The question is whether we can get the support of Congress to get something done."

There was an attempt to "reform" one these programs which was met with the force of democracy earlier. The question alluded to on the "support of Congress" implies that they were part of that force. But this is likely a "cut and run" vector from the failures of law and order, and national security, as well as economics. Reform is the wrong force to apply to these programs that work unless it is to help them work rather than replace them with "privatization" that is really "corporatization".

* The Constituion: Checking a Would-Be King
[This link by Ray McGovern from truthout/Perspective was read and added after the complete composition of this piece.]

Phase II?

Just what is Phase II? I'm not sure what I meant at the time. It was an allusion* to the investigation that never was done on the use of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq resolution. "We need some movement" was a reference to what Bush wanted on the Middle East Crisis or the U.N. in general.

My "bullet" points were on target to hint at the concept that the movement needed to come in his own administration. No triumvirate[E.D.] of past presidents will have any more success in diplomacy than the call for ceasefire or possibly the lack of demand for one.

The interesting tangent(s) noted in the footnote below were more accurately a triagulation. My implication was to save you the time by indication it was only a link to a dictionary. But the triumvirate link was more than tangent in the word "allusion"s relationship to illusion and delusion. All useful terms in foreign policy or diplomacy, but the magic may be in their administration. The fact is that we have a triumvirate designed into the constitution. Three branches of power, that serve to "check and balance". September 11th may have changed all that, but my opinion that it was preemptive in nature, merits serious consideration of and by the media and the people.

Any involvment by intermediaries to the administration should adress them first. The only hope is that it is Nixonian in nature, but like Nixon to China, where can Bush go? [Now that is a tangent and an allusion, and a dilemma.] Bush could go to the Saudis or the Corporations or just Oil and demand that they stand for freedom and democracy. Or the people could just change congress and work to bring back the triumvirate.

Phase II also pertained to the advances that have been made to my blog in the area of providing video links and the ability to comment. Both relate to the pacing and content that needs further review or work, the former looking back and the latter moving forward.

Here are two pieces that could be used as a table of contents for my points made over the years and summarized above.**

On authoritarianism or "Do as I say, not as I do"

And The Hidden Power or con-science.

I guess maybe Phase II means that I will do more "hard work" so that the read will be easier for my audience.

*[E.D.- Encarta Dictionary- for an interesting tangent]
** Bold added 7-21-06

TM-R (day 21)

Barely half-way though a period of review, today we have another quixotic mess which I was barely able to wade through.

HOWEVER I DID,
BUT ONLY AFTER THESE ACTIVITIES TRANSPIRED:

Last night my local Democratic Legislative district passed a resolution to urge our senators to support Russ Feingold's move to censure Bush.

HERE IS MY PLEA TO THEM THE DAY BEFORE:
Since impeachment procedures can only begin in the House, please support Senator Feingold on his resolution to censure President Bush for illegally wiretapping without court order.

This measure should get a full committee hearings with sworn testimony that will hold not only the administration accountable, but Republicans who won't uphold the constitution, accountable.

The argument is that this is a political stunt. It is also a constitutional stunt. If politics is not used at it's fullest to protect the constitution, it will be used to circumvent it. If it is not clear to partisans on our side, it is on the other. Even swing voters would likely prefer a clearer choice than between those that break the law and those that will not uphold it.
[boldness added here]

While some "loyal opposition" may call boldness an Impeachable Strategy and resort to political calculus and even the physics of gravity like trickle down...

My reply:

Gravity does not apply in politics!
Bush (or a con) knows that will does.
Gravity is a two way street and while the masses may pull down the politician's bootstraps, only real leaders with courage can choose to pull up the bootstraps of the people.

Those who will not stand up for clarity from the administration and those who cut and run from the constitution and conversation, have no lack of will to trust, but little faith or courage to verify. Only that makes the process quixotic.

"Secret Plans" sounds too much like Nixon.

Hit and Run Republicans are not exactly being cut and run from the process as they know it is difficult to avoid a vote.

But since we know that Bush's plan is not the Iraq Study Group's, if he has one, and the Democrats have a few plans, it is too late to say, let's just get along. The concept of a secret plan is most ridiculous for two reasons. 1. We got into this war not only based on secret plans but 2. leaked plans for political purposes. If we cannot get out for political purposes, it is too much to expect that anything change. Believe me, I could have been more strident in this terminology, but it should be pretty clear. (Except that the secret and the leaked plans are still not clear.)

The "too late" is also from the perspective of the calculations of whatever is read into it by the insurgents, but removing political pressure now will only make it more a political calculation later, besides removing the power to hold accountable not only from congress but from the people.

I don't know if this is almost as bad or much worse than the "cards dealt" to the president before the war, but it seems the same game.

"This is the policy, what happened?"'

"The Moment Has Come to Get Rid of Saddam": Bush's Faith Run Over by History By Mark Danner
TomDispatch.com

The only thing that worries me about you is your optimism.
- Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar to President Bush, from the Crawford Transcript of February 22, 2003

I was an optimist too.

And wrote about the nexus of faith.

Looking at causes and cures is a tricky business. If leaps can be taken, they should have been of faith in the process. If action before discussion is selected by the most civilized, how can we hope for different in those we chastise or fear and yet hope to civilize?

"WAR MADE SIMPLE" has an interesting nexus to power.

It is a link that I just found but had they it in mind?

Uncross Rhodes GPS

Tetra* Heed Run of Progress.

[But something is fishy.]

* Not in particular order**.

** But emphasis on Norman Goldman's plea: "Am I all alone?"
There are one or two & a half others.  Which makes "Three and a Half-Pundits"!

This was noted before he put his exclamation point on it(clip not available), in regard to a reference to the Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly Debate and the "fog of capitalism" (my paraphrase), not to mention AP-Paul-ING-Susan and End of Interview.(Fee, fi(dough), foe, King) 

And just to file Hartmann and Rhodes under Heed and Run,(another 3&1/2 including me) the latter wonderfully read former Republican Senator Pressler's endorsement of President Obama for a second term.

[Endorsing spit-takes... or convenient cup.***]
***or fish bowl? C-Not.  Bush Leagues under the C.

In Humor...

Timing is Everything. [*]
Senate Report: Bush Used Iraq Intel He Knew Was False
Huffington Post [**]
and More Change We Can Believe In (Not)
6 Other Things that Aren't "Change We Can Believe In"
Timing We Can Believe In?
America's 40 Years War at an End
Last Laugh?
No More Drama

Not Really
McCain Supports Bush's Warrantless Wiretaps
All (nfry) Stay the Course

[Looking Back: yet having to MoveOn - Ouch!
But really, can McCain have his cake
and will Republicans eat it too? Seriously?
I don't know if we can, but there is more parsing to do,
and let's work on it.]

[*] - This link is serious.
It is the Y that is funny? - Why "Y"?
It is the political charges, not the satire,
or saY tire and/of political spin.[**]

And while I plan to take a rest, the rest will be revisited later,
but for now two things,
A. I may have not said it but I do feel for those who feel so strongly about their candidate and their cause,
B. In many of my previous writings, the seeming satire may not reflect that. But in particular the potential for third party or other candidates being spoilers and brokers, was an attempt to ward off, and prepare for a much later or parsed political process, and while sometimes seemingly satire, it is mostly just trying to run with other's rhetoric and feelings rather than just to rock the boat or the vote.

[**] Each of these spins(mine) have a Huffington Post link on them, followed by their title in bold.

Carry On Comment!

Borrowed from an AM1090 caller to one of the afternoon talk shows, the interesting dilemma of Karl Rove is his confessing apparently...

that he has no diary or record of his work with the administration.

This with his apparent plan to write a book, means...

either he has a very good memory or it will be in the fiction section.

Actually I just rearranged the caller's comment to my own taste in my usual way.

His point was that it takes "I don't recall" and all it's variations "off the table" when it comes to congressional investigations.
I would add
the only alternative
is straight to "the pen".

More lines of investigation on Rove history
For later read, not that I have read the above.
"...who know what"
Democrats vow...
political fighter
Picking Bush's Brain ?
...avoid Capitol Hill
WaPo editorial

[pause]
Clinton, Rove's candidate in '08
U.S. Attorneys
First Read
Divider

[Having just read the last one first, it is a reminder that his nickname "turd blossom" is something that survives in a field of fertilizer.]

[Second thoughts on First Thoughts from First Read: There should NEVER be another Karl Rove. It is a cheap shot and a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to promulgate such a character [italics and link added 8-15-07]by looking for the next one.

At least they admitted that "they" (the media) create them (the turd blossoms), but of course there will be, on the Right, as several of his (Rove's) proteges are distributed amongst the Republican candidates. But on The Left there is too much distribution of brains to get away with anything like what the administration has so far distributed. Genius should be about what works, and nothing much has, with this administration, except accumulation of ruin and power. * [it.a.l.a. 8-15-07]
Shame on MSNBC for such work. There is some good news on the new Hillary ad, but to follow with a piece on Rove? And while running the bottom line, "the next Karl Rove" under "her inner Bill".]

* [8-15-07 Re: David Frum link "and power", reminiscent of Lakoff where he points out that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the former run to govern, and the latter govern to run. That may say as much about governing as running, and as much about the left as the right, but rather than looking for a third way in the middle of any political spectrum, maybe the perspective [way to see it] is from above the plane, while a plane requires a third perspective that is not in line.]

[ bold italics added 3-12-08]

Fooling Time & Table Turning Nuance

The New York Times has two pieces that barely need to be read, but unlike memos which the Bush administration had trouble even reading at least they are taking us somewhere. They are worth a read but obviously It's Voter-Fooling Time in America and it is no October Surprise that Tables Turned for the GOP Over Iraq Issue.

Republicans have said the Democrats have no plan.
Democrats have at least four plans:
leave,
redeploy,
do a better job,
and/or increase the level of troops.

Bush has said he is "the decider" but he is waiting for a plan, so he must not even be a planner.
He certainly doesn’t want to want to choose between "stay the course" and "cut and run", but at least he is the chooser of when he will listen to those he chooses to find a plan.

Then I hear Shields and Brooks. I must disagree that whatever the plan, it would matter how and who actually uses it, that decides whether it should be done. Nothing would be off the table after an election if everything is not on the table before the election.

* Since few of these options are absolute, actual plans may be a combination that only increases the number available, but that only explains how "tough" it will be to get anywhere when Republicans are more about just winning.