Ryan/Romney run from Ryan plan..

Ryan runs from own plan endorsed by Romney.
Not Exactly.
The lies and hypocrisy know no pail. 
Here is to Thomas Roberts. (Not... Today)*

*Links scrolling up.
(i.e. reverse order)
Rachel Maddow: Shrug Life **
Morning Joe: Romney "hate"/"chains" Biden
Today: Reince Priebus "blood"
Today: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Ryan Obama Pick?
Thomas Roberts under "Here". Who is Paul Ryan?
--
The Ed Show: unchained memory
**[?]
The Ed Show:  Romney Medicare Lies
The Last Word: SNL Republican War Hypocrisy Ryan***
Lean Forward? Or go back. Ryan Fiscal Conservative?
TheLiaisonReport: Wikileaks Ryan
Lean Forward(or back [FOX] to Morning Joe) Cuts and Run.
The Last Word: Romney and Ryan run from Romney Plan

**  Maddow Seg-way
***[Smoking Gun: Ryan votes against stimulus, says it works and takes funds for state.]

[The E Pit o'me of Nuance or Flip-Flop.(in reference to above layout, links and asterisks.] 

[And this AM: Ryan runs from Wonk and Partisanship.  That is a hoot, since he was on the BS Panel(Bowles-Simpson).  Reminds me of Saving Pirate Ryan, and "going postal".  The USPS(congressional failure) is the Iron Knee to Romney/Ryan I Ron Knee, Funding Bane Or...
(Note: Bane/Bain Boehner confluance and bracket of  "Funding"(...)"Or" or Mitt Rob Me.  The USPS is not going broke, anymore than the government is going broke, Republicans are breaking it by running their plan which ironically in moderation would solve so many problems.  i.e. investment.  But they are over-investing in the pension plan and at the same time hoping to privatise it.  Won't that be a boon?)  In proper context, pirates were a government program.  Speaking of hole in the Hart.(AM)]

[See bold book ends: Shrug Life /The Last Word. Not exactly.]
[A last clip (Jon Stewart on The Cycle!) And the pie chart of fiscal irresponsibility does not even include the flip-flop of going austere and focusing on cutting the debt while cutting taxes as soon as the Republicans no longer led.]

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.]

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

Out of Line? "Hogwash"

Cheney with Wolf Blitzer is on course. McCain and Cheney must stay the course so that the rest have a line to hit and run from. [The Situation Room]

[submitted from an email exhange]

... looking into the matter more fully myself. [Watch Cheney's response to questions about his daughter] I'm afraid I can't characterize the players the way others would.

[[ I "fundamentally disagree" with Cheney, and agree with Wolf that it was a "reasonable, fair question." It was a poorly framed question ending with, "Do you want to respond to that?" Cheney replied: "No". And before Wolfe could rephrase or follow up, Cheney interupted him with his response which I firmly believe was out of line. ]] *

On the whole issue of fair play I agree with your so called "naive" view but it seems more to my point, which I won't jab at again. [but the quote was from "Focus on the Family"]

The whole "Situation Room" is suspect in my book for having any of the Cheney's on. It must be for ratings or to serve the purpose of media whipping boy.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/30/lynne-cheneys-slapdown/

The old saying "if you can't stand the heat" sure takes on new meaning these days. http://www.bartleby.com/59/3/ifyoucantsta.html
When it comes to an interview we should all be served.

By the way, from the transcript p.6 (third from last paragraph): "Well, Wolf. If the history books were written by people who are so eager to write off this effort or declare it a failure, including many of our friends in the media, the situation obviously would have been over a long time ago." This is some piece of rhetoric which if it says anything seems to endorse my theory on the "Situation Room" if not that others could and should be in "the kitchen".

Roger

P.S. Did I start this? Sorry. Really, remind me.

* The bracketed section was inserted last as I seemed to be less than straghtforward in that area. Then I decided to read the whole transcipt but could not. It was out of line 2 1/2 pages into the 9 1/2 page PDF. It is a shame that this distracted from what was more of the same.

[ A full read of the transcipt seems to support this surmise, and today even the senior Bush has joined the chorus about the media being "out of line"(in other words)]

For Words!

4 the People
2B Partisan or a Different Club?

This is more of a play on words and numbers, than a criticism of a candidate or a system, except to point out the differences. Florida is a Closed Primary, meaning (I assume) an independent runs only in the General Election. Washington is an Open Primary in this case only the top two vote getters regardless of party will be in the General Election. (I won't get into the British system.)

(Embedded within are the links to particulars in regard to Washington candidates challenging Democrats while in Florida, the big news is that a Republican governor has decided to run from the party the tea partiers have taken over. I have almost considered it a Rovian calculation for them to run from their party. There is the theory of the two Santas, so running against a strength, would that be the two Grinches* theory?

* radical independents supported by divide to revive...the right.**
(In a bigger picture look at this, the difference is truly the pressure of politics which is valid. In Florida a survival of a moderate candidate for senate in the form of the current governor, and in Washington; pressure from the left on moderate or progressive candidates, but with different electoral processes.)

** more on the two Grinches, not to despair valid Tea Party issues but to the money and support that lumps or divides them

"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.

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.

Wake Up and Eat Some Breakfast.

[Pulled from draft "as is" 12-29-10]
Rachel Maddow...and idioms or "tangents" and "connecting the dots".
Filibuster change "fix the senate" on Jan. 5th?
Haley Barbour Citizens Council? Segregation alive?
Revisionist History Melissa Harris-Perry*

*Huckabee Paul? Which Paul? There is something odd about some of the polling. Democrats of course would love to have the likes of Sarah Palin* [** See ** here] or worse as an opponent for the sake of their candidate, Obama or not. But what would be good for the country? Should one party really be concerned with picking the other's candidate? I am just saying that a Huckabee Paul team may be less bad, and have a more reasonable debate than what Rebulicans might end up with based on the calculus of divide and dilute.[lemon in dilute link is a reference to the movement of liquids(independents/moderates) from one party to the other: a moderate Rebublican would have an uphill battle against a real centrist in that Obama's support is coming from the middle while his policies are supported by more than the left.]

*not that she won't evolve or indeed run from herself (i.e. be a force) Not that this theory applies only to running but maybe to the media there is a three bears comparison of MSNBC, CNN, FOX. My tangent is the persective that for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction, and sometimes it applies to getting information out and the reaction is the point. [A prime example is Palin/Michelle Huckabee and the right to desserts. But Palin is a force that Republicans have a problem running from. But it is earned media or is it. It is kind of funny how the subject of entitlements or rights(freedoms) is confused here. ] [cnn SMART IS THE NEW RICH hunger is the sauce Hal Sparks on CNN]Home Sweet Home?

[See Asterisks here **]

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]

Belated Link(s)

We Got Ed
caller (Mel?): "Tea Partiers are people scared to call themselves Republicans."
Between One Nation and The Plan we have the American Dream.
Something about diluted by the play of running things. I think it is a Rovian principle that negative[*] gets attention, and if you don't have power, the more negative you go, because you have to run from your plans, which is not exactly all-in-ski(see Comment). I can't remember where I first hint and-correction-(at*) this theory, but if they are running against government, it would make sense that they would run from their own, but then join them.
[*] 9-20-10 speaking of negative attention principle; "at" inserted @ different theory

Straw Elephant

Misery Loves Company
Or Day Late and a Dollar Short?

So much has been made of the pre-emptive leak that there will be a troop "surge" that it almost overshadows the rest of his potential plan. But the possibility that there are a "few good" ideas are overshadowed by the increase in "a few good men" and women. My pre-emptive take on the former is dampened by the pre-emptive reaction to the latter. My pre-emptive cynicism has taken the biggest hit, but here is my take nevertheless.

Whatever the reasoning behind the "escalation" there is always hope that it will work. However, there is more likelihood that it is just a form of "cut and run". It is more than the concept that we must "support our troops" which does not entail agreeing with the president, but that there is emotional strength in numbers in that they support each other. But it must be remembered that the president is the commander-in-chief in that he is responsible for the plan. The possibility that he will not be allowed to carry out his plan, lays the responsibility on congress where it also belongs, in their job of holding him accountable. That is the job that the voters have chosen the Democratic Congress to do, based on the president’s record and the rubber stamp his party has given him.

With all the hope for success and support for the troops always there, it is difficult to say that this is probably the ultimate cut-and-run. For if the president does not seem like he has a plan, there can be nothing for Republicans to cut-and-run from to cover their past, not to mention move forward on. The Democrats have the job to correct the past, and make sure it is not repeated, but Republicans will gladly settle for passing the buck, with an appearance that they are not as united as they were. This takes an old saying into a new camp, from "divide and conquer" to divide to run. There is something to be said here in that Democrats are divided to unite.

Where "fair and balanced" means putting up a straw dog, against a straw issue, there is a lot of "hard work" sorting the many positions and potential solutions to any problem. Is there irony or extreme congruity in the image of former Democrat Ronald Reagan and a 20-mule team not to mention the Borax needed to come clean?

From Pillar to Post?

Is truth really relative?
Is evil black and white or so obvious even, purely black?
Just a few questions to ponder
and wonder who would answer and/or who would even question.
The Frame?
Let's nail it down.
Does the end justify the means? Bush says no, but does otherwise.

The actual post here is possibly just as obtuse, before I nailed it.

Having not seen the new legislation calling for timetable for the removal of our troops from Iraq, it is important to note that it is only a bipartisan message from Congress. A timetable is a signal to the administration and the world the intentions of some in congress. It is the beginning of a true conversation that will require looking at our goals and methods including those past or we will continue to use them. Much could be said by running with this rhetoric but we must not run from getting more definition of our dilemma. But it may not mean much if war or having it his way is the way that Bush uses to let the world know he means what he says. And where knowing what he means is the most important area where preemption would have been wise and where knowing what other actions were preemptive.

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

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.

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.

Unity 08 / Bloomberg

NOT!

But not necessarily a NEW third party or Unity '08. Even though it depends on how the party actually gets things done, it could be just another "Third Way" which is just the middle of what we got and will get more of the same. The winner-take-all construction of the whole process mitigates against a third party, except as a broker or a spoiler. Forces of good, rather than unity, should pick a side and influence it, but even that has pragmatic problems in that the good is divided. On the other hand: upon further "hard work" they may be able to be just that broker. So rather than the spread of Second Lives, maybe a Fourth Way, is upon us, but it will depend upon the actions/reactions of candidates as well.]

[The above is an edited version from my earlier post and I will add that the action/reactions of the candidates is a reference to not just the major party candidates, but those that choose to wander.

Of course Bloomberg was the topic of the last post. Here are a few random notes. Unity 08 has an opinion on the New York Mayor's run from the Republican party.

Local: Progressive blogging at Horsesass.org gives a perspective on Washington State issues.

National: Huffingtonpost.com must also be noted. And some media studies matter at Mediamatters.org

Hit and Run or Quick Comment on the news.
Tag! You're it.

Day old note too late.

The earliest transition team in history, so it seems.
Less than 45 day from cut and run and we have transitioned from 06 to 08 transition.
A prediction I’m not sure I noted but the ouster of Cheney was a thought that applies to this transition.

Also going back to the QUAIL HUNT(Cheney accident), I saw not only a war on the press but a parting shot that would somehow work more than the WMD (WORK OF MEDIA DISTRACTION).

From cut and run to redeployment strategy in Rove from policy to politics. Must find a John Dean prediction of an October Surprise.

Lt. Watada: "Unbecoming" Mistrial

“Very interesting" Oops, wrong accent or show.

“I see nothing" from Hogan’s Heroes may be the one I was stretching for.

My commentary has to do with whose perspective or spin is taken off from. As in “here comes the judge": "saying the soldier did not fully understand a document he signed admitting to elements of the charges." And this take from other participants .

My perspective? Should not intention count? And what was the intention of the war? And can this ever stop spinning if "intention" is not on the table, but the war was all about preemption of intentions. I am not sure just who understood what about the charge but the defense put it all on the table, and it was "not a matter that can be settled in military court."

NOT A MATTER THAT CAN BE SETTLED IN MILITARY COURT?

I believe that the 1st and 3rd bold are from "Laugh In" or similar times, but that is not to make light of the seriousness of our "defining" times, as in Bush's ideological run around the dictionary of about all that matters.

But as you can see from the vision thing, it may not work if you focus, and I could be wrong about the links. NOT EXACTLY BUT...

NOT A MATTER? THERE IS NO OFFENSE IF THERE CAN BE NO DEFENSE.
Ow! The irony of circular intention or "the yellow brick road". Or maybe it is that there are only three branches of government and conscience is where principles are found or lost or the battle ground we should be on.

Straight Talk Express?

Or Real Clear Politics
(nfry)But do I have to? Or should I hit The Trail?
Which would be "politic"? The good thing is that at least the former is only his words, and the latter is not his fault for being more viscious but will there be more course talk? I mean will it still be there when I get around to reading it?

Flash analysis: Filibuster, Flip-flop and appeasement Fridays. OK. David Bender is discussing The New GI Bill on The Rachel Maddow Show, and his theory is that the president will veto the bill to give the Republicans cover to run from him. I don't believe I got that right. I may have switched course midstream, and need to check back later.

But a point not lost is that the Republicans have flip-flopped on the filibuster from trying to abolish it to using it without using it on every vote. Meaning that the Democrats have appeased the Republicans on the rules. It is political but it is about progress. It was also not necessarily the point Bender was making except for the potential flip-flop on a veto.

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]