Who Are They Calling Elitist?

By Eric Altermann
[now fully read]
My reply:
Who are the "cultural elite"? I think it is pretty "fair and balanced" to say that it is "people who only think they know better than you". It is also a label brought to you by people who don’t think they need to, and don‘t know they are, but don‘t either. The same people who brought you the "culture warrior". The same people who brought you "trickle down" * . The same people who brought you "lift yourself up by your own bootstraps". The same people who now probably don’t have boot straps, no matter how much they rely on the bottom line. The same people who think the bottom line is all that matters. The same people who don’t see people as the bottom line. The same people who see corporations as people. The same people who put people under the trickle down, rather than in the first line of the constitution. The same people who can’t read the second line of the constitution but can read the second amendment, and don’t worry again about the 1st amendment. Of course unless you are far enough above the line to own a corporation. And then of course it is best to forget about what people are, or what one owns, until of course, it comes to democracy. Then it is stay the course of course, don’t ask the people. But more important is, don’t ask, don't tell...US.

* (nfr) - This is an actual footnote from Wikipedia **:
"A major feature of these policies was the reduction of tax rates on capital gains, corporate income, and higher individual incomes, along with the reduction or elimination of various excise taxes. David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed these cuts but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the term "supply-side economics" was used to promote a trickle-down idea.[4]

It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory. [5] - David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director "

And from the other "fair and balanced" perspective called denial, Thomas Sowell wrote of The "Trickle Down". Economics Straw Man (nfry), and claimed: "No such theory can be found in even the most voluminous and learned books on the history of economics. It is a straw man." Who apparently is not elite enough to be an economist ***, but was allowed into the ranks of politicians, businessmen and budget directors.
** Now, Wikipedia should not be considered the most authoritative source, but it is usually sourced, so don't be elitist. And reading footnotes might put you in that crowd or is it not needing them.
***(The strawman and Stockman (nfry), not Sowell (nfry) .)

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.

PHASE II: We need some movement!

Here is a look at the Middle East conflict through the filter of Bush,
using my own bullet points rather than artillery. Bush being the straight shooter, err talker.

--- Ceasefire? Or stay the course?
The latter is preferred or the former later.

---A Bi-partisan Delegation to resolve the conflict? Or change the course?
The former would need the latter, so much later.

Actually the above were more fleshed out than mere bullet points.

---Isreal v. Hezbollah
---Democracy v. Disarmament
---Hostages v. Prisoners

Movement is needed, but not forward ho! Nor bring 'em on.
It is more than about who started it, or who will finish it.*
Only the Shadow knows, but Bush thinks...

THE ABOVE preceded Bush's comments in regard to this issue.

His approach is that the root cause of the current conflict is terrorism. That seems to be as valid as that the root cause of terrorism is the current conflict.
That does seem to make sense now. But is it not as valid to say that terrorism is the result of conflict or war is the result of conflict?

Not if you don't care who started it, but intend to finish it. Or may not intend to finish it. Syria and Iran and supporters of terrorism must be dealt with. Terrorism must be dealt with {in Bush's view), but issues are what must be dealt with or in my view the course is set. [7-19-06: Italics added to my take on Bush's take, and senentences flip-flopped here for better flow.] As difficult as it is to see the difference between cause and effect and what starts anything, a change is required to be made.

Maybe later I will fill in a few more details without tampering too much with the format above, but part of the Phase II concept is to move forward in that regard as well as look back.

* Reference a comment by Congressman John Dingell on The Ed Shultz Show. I have previously noted the childish nature of such tit for tat arguments as who started it, or what justifies what or what is the means of ending anything.

It's Obama's Turn

[Keep the Change(scroll down)]

Of course.
Stay the course.
The private* sector is fine
verse US economic turn around.
[Hardball Metaphor.  Making the case.***]

* E. G. Private Equity Government
(The nuts and bolts?  If Romney cannot understand that the economy has turned around, then what will happen when he turns it around.)
[Ouch ! ]
[Politics Nation ? ]
[Whip Republicans with Reagan and Clinton!]
Thom Hartmann?
Word of tomorrow?  Pernicious.**
[Coffee Table This! The Fifth Element.]

6-10-12 Keep the Change!
Yes this is a bumper sticker for Obama!  Though the links may be a bumper sticker for Clinton or nuance.  Not that I have fully read them yet, I will try to stay the course, not to mention other threads.

6-11-12
Inconvenient Try-Angle !
NOW w/ Corny Copy Ah. "Mind the Gaffe(added 6-13)": "food fight"



Verse us Tony TruthyahKnow.

** anachronism approved:  "Perspective" was Norman Goldman's word of the day(Thursday). "Scale" was my suggestion(for Friday), and "pernicious" was my word for Monday.

6-12-12
Curb Your Enthusiasm !
[Duct Tape?  Goose Pate!]
[(Middle - Name / N SC ?)]
[ Bubble Up]

6-13-12
Jeb Bush: Walk Back ?
(Hardball)
*** link(s) added
McCain sabotage.
NOW "Picking up the Tab".

6-14-12
Keep the Change!
"Different Visions" NOW!
Past is prologue or (unpassed)Middle - Name.(Scroll-up)

Happy Birthday to us!
The Dickens We Say!
Better to look back than go back!
Preemptive Comment this AM:  Obama battles for Fiscal Reality!
Geitner is speaking on Andrea Mitchell Reports.
Andrea Mitchell pulls Geitner's leg on Romney, but he doesn't bite.

Romney wants to get it done.  He doesn't want to look back, he wants to Re-Right!  If we look back we will see his Re-Write. 
Overhang of Obamacare? 
It's coming back?
[Not to mention "No New Taxes"!  Old taxes will do fine.]
Segue: Presidents Speech to be inserted later.
[Thom Hartmann Couples Counseling/Next President will take credit for "breaking up" better economy.] Talk is cheap?

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)]

I'm not a lawyer but...

my post on Lt. Watada's "Unbecoming" Mistrial seems to have gotten to a point that others seem to run around. [Breaking Related News * ]

Here is the crux of the matter:
"...the military judge, said the case could end in a mistrial if Watada’s lawyers refused to let the defendant answer the judge’s questions about potential inconsistencies with a "stipulation of fact" that Watada agreed to before the trial began. "

"The defense has consistently tried to call into question the legality of the war, because Watada said the war is illegal and a command to fight in Iraq is also illegal. But the judge has said the argument over the legality of the war is not a matter that can be settled in military court." *

Note that a crux must have two lines. It seems that the case cannot proceed under the "stipulation of fact" that the prosecution prepared and the defendant agreed to, yet the judge felt had inconsistencies that he expected the defendant to clear up and was not for the court to decide.

Later reports seem to confirm this thinking even without necessarily getting to that point so easily. That's what I am here for, even if an occasional misspelling or misthinking is occasionally caught. At least it is not as bad as the misjudgement that brought us here. Not that there will not be calls to stay the course.

By the way, is that not another error or actually what we should be doing? I may not be much for grammar and neither is "The Decider", but what we seem to have here is a missing preposition. We have never been on a course but it must be stayed. It may be a "Catch 22" or the "8th Wonder" but there is often a missing link and sometimes you have to follow them.

* [IMPEACHMENT EFFORT: see link go to February 1oth on calendar]
In my view, this is where the matter lies.

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.

...what about the damage to your Presidency?

Bush: Anger over war won’t change U.S. policy
President, conceding unpopularity, vows to stay the course in Iraq

Brian Williams meets with Bush for "a wide ranging and exclusive conversation".

Brian Williams made a quick transition from New Orleans to the above question heading the "hard work" of transcribing two section of the video.

Brian Williams: Do you have any moments of doubt, that we fought the wrong war. That there’s something wrong with the perception of America overseas.
George Bush: Well those are two different questions. Did we fight the wrong war and absolutely, I have no doubt. The war came to our shores, remember that. We were ah, we had a foreign policy that basically said, "let's hope calm works" and we were attacked.
Williams: But those weren’t Iraqis.
Bush: Nap,nop, they were, they, they worked ah, no, I agree, they weren‘t Iraqis. Nor did I ever say that Iraq ordered that attack. But they are a part of, Iraq is part of the struggle against the terrorist.
[...]
Williams: (...)Is there a palpable tension when you get together with the former president who happens to be your father? A lot of the guys that worked for him are not happy with the direction...
Bush: Oh now listen, this a, th, my relationship is adoring son.
Williams: Do you talk shop?
Bush: Sometimes, yeah. Of course we do. But ah, ah, but hhahhe. That’s a really interesting question. I mean it's a kind of a conspiracy theory at it’s most, uh, rampant.

On his "eculectic"(misspelled as pronounced) reading list or is it his understanding of what he understands:

Bush: "Lemme, lemme, look, the key for me is to keep expectations low."
Williams: Is that what everyone doesn't get?
Bush: I don't know Brian, what they get or don't get. Le, lu, my-
Williams: You see all the talk.
Bush: -my life- Here's the thing. I don't. Here's the thing, ee ee. The great thing about the presidency is you're totally exposed. And people spend a lot of t(...)time...analyzing decisions(...) And I understand that.
[...]
Williams: How have you been read wrong?
Bush: (...)I frankly I don't pay that much attention.

I must admit that I took very few liberties in skipping a few questions and parts of replies, but still did justice to the conversation. [All transitions or leaps reflected by ellipses or brackets for more than one party] Especially in contrast to the liberties and justice taken by the administration.

FOOTNOTES (Janurary 2013) PAGE ONE

THIS IS THE FOOTNOTE PAGE ONE !!!
...FOR JANUARY 2013!
Begun 1-3-13(appropriately)
[!] punctuation = irony/sarcasm/pun
(now to scroll up or down...that is the question) (fn2)
(fn3) anachronistic (b.s.) blog search 1-3-13 "me me"(sc)
"but seriously" Killer Ad from Killer Group(sc)
Out Foxed? ...knot!(fn4)
--- --- ---
1-3-13 [^] Clog Alert!  For later parsing the (b.s.) of Clog and Clogs, but now for the "Rodney".
Stay the Comity of Course (sc*) , P.M. , Spare the Rodney! , #1 Discipline - Philosophy , Give an inch, Take a mile.
*ouch :  Stay the Comity of Course / Ctrl F (SC) (spare me: fn2)

1-4-13: [p.s. on (fn) (b.s.)]  Pop Yogurt[!], Now this is the ticket., A Revolution?, A wonder..., Where everyone needs to read... 

1-4-13 (fn) date noted  Pre-Capitalization   i.e. posted Friday for Sat.

1-5-13 Try-Mentionalism ?[!]   Normal post/time stamp.
" You know ": by Stiob?!?, I'm not saying..., Flip-Flop, Nuance, Mitt-Flop, The Other Debates,  FOOTNOTES: SEPTEMBER 2012, Dimentionalism(sic)(sc), Frackin' Trickle Down(sc),  Bridging the English Channel(sc)?
(sc) scroll click anomoly (swift creak?)
I Ron Knee (Iron ne) of Progress.


1-7-13 Punchline?  Level Three. Last Resorts?

1-8-13 (1) Change of Tune?  See this heading! (fn)HAPPY NEW YEAR[!]
RE:TITLED THIS PAGE
(1) Fearnauts , Pre-Capitalization , December FOOTNOTES 2.0 , December 3G FOOTNOTES, BlogSpot Has A New "Blogger" , Rubric's Cube and Rhetorical Realmifications. , Turning the Page (2.0) , Turning the page (On Humor)? , THE COUNCIL OF NICE , ROW MAN #Sign [Numeral (i)] 

1-11-13 CapTenseLog (English+only)? Not found under Ctrl F "as is", i.e. interesting Al Gore Rhythm

http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2003/02/exercise-lie-or-confusion-original-of.html , UPDATE ONLY? ,

Democracy Upheld! (5-4) (R/x)** , Comprehensive English or Reform Immigration? , Axe not what you can , 

FOOTNOTES: SEPTEMBER 2012 ***INTENIONS  SNAP , Fear and Running , V for Victim , Parallel (Or Not So Pair o' Lax) Channels , QCON and Flip-Flop: AN IRAN OUT , Flip-Flopper-Crafting

1-14-13 UnTense?  (*) before I go all footnutty... [2]  {un in ten did undid but 90 =uncap brackets (qwerty CAP'd or De-bubba upped?}

1-16-13 Ouch.  Grid Irony and Tour de'F(LA)?  Or should I say Off Law?[1]

= = = 
1-18-13  SoDo Amalgam  /Post-PAGES: FC, TBA/\  (bs): The Real B. S. of the F. C., FC "Hammer", In "F"n able?, QCON* - JERRY FALWELL OPENS LAW SCHOOL (may he ... live strong and prosper)

FOOTNOTE PAGE FOUR

2-12-13 See*FP3*: ^
(b.s.) "stay+course" Who Are They Calling Elitist?, It's Obama's Turn, Spare the Rodney!, PHASE II: We need some movement! , FP?  Stay the Comity of Course , Are We "IN" Yet?, Stay the Comity* What's going on? , I'm not a lawyer but..., Out of Line? "Hogwash", *knot*, ...what about the damage to your Presidency?,  The other ground game..., Tony Baloney, Rest in Peace: Andrew Breitbart , Off the Cuff?, GO OBAMA!*(note2) Weeeee! or Fb?

(b.s.) "navigate"  Fine Tuning. OW2*3, Borrowed Comment!, All Politics is Local? , Try Angle,C-weeeee*, I Told You So.yeah(sc)right, Two Clever by One Third? , ABA Retracts "Lawyer" of the Years, Unity '08 (pOW), Local Content , LeftyBlog? , Once, Twice, Three Times A Charm, **

Note: problematic to LABEL at this time.[[?]] [^^] 
* (sc) [F&progress?]or *knot*
** note on progress in regard to this blog 'n case studies re:CAD) (fn)

(fn) TBA? CAD (Culturally Aided Design), CAD (2 out of 3 be bad), CAD (To be or not 3d), State of Politics, "you people..."? 

^ see more than one level of problematic aster risking and design.  Which should be revisited from the top line down, with focus on Labels, all annotations marks, PAGES and *FN* heading, and TBA laters.

[^^] 2-13-13 [Do I have to return to *legend*
[!] = pun, satire, etc.  [[?]] could mean later question mark inserted. Of course most puns are a matter of timing and sometime anachronistic.  
BUT BACK TO TODAY'S (FP4) Here: Not that I intended to hit(A.) on (B.) the anachronism.
(b.s.) "articulated+bus"= A. NO JOKE , B. UPDATE ONLY? KNOT[!]  [**] {L}

Are We "IN" Yet?

Can you hear me now?

Are we there yet?

Or is there more of the same? ("catastrophic success"}

The president's problems are "IN", and if it is only a choice of black or white, us or them, they must be either INcompetence * or INtentional! Is a third option there?
Oh yeah, stay the course and look back later, and when we have more to face, stay the course and look back later.

* * Why New Orleans is in deep water.[by Molly Ivans]

[My personal note] is that we really need someone to simultaneously kick butt and filter the memos or whatever is not being read to the Captain or whoever is in charge. Meanwhile if we cannot point fingers and fix things at the same time, how can we hurry into a decision on a Supreme Court Associate Justice now Chief Justice nominee? How can we depend on due diligence in that decision while we find so few holding the President accountable? All I am saying is that given the president's catastrophic successes do we really have confidence in his ability let alone meaning in making any decisions?

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?

Spare the Rodney!

"I get no respect"
That is what the troops can say.
But who also gets no respect?

To put it plainly, lawyers and politicians have been the butt of jokes for quite some time, but it should be noted that "we the people" are the real bottom line.

What does this have to do with the issue of supporting troops? Talk is cheap, lives are dear. Law and politics should have the highest priority because of this connection. And that was not even where I started out on this course. My intention was to show that when all is said and done it matters who is in charge. So even behind what some say, what they do will be different. Context is always important, who says what is also important, but who is leading and who can follow it is the key.

It is too much to ask that those that disagree just shut up, but that seems what some are doing, without having the guts to even stay the course of saying it.

The point I can't put too plainly is that whatever is said, the context of who said it is important but that even different players taking the same course could do a better job, but it could be more important avoiding them.
[update beating around the job]

Stay the Comity of Course

I think the president’s address could be summarized by a comparison I made the day before, but which Senator McCain reminded me of in his call for comity after the speech and which he spelled out so as not to be confused with comedy. The Senator made a reference to bygone days of cooperation across the aisle, and a plea almost of why can’t we just get along. The day before a thought had crossed my mind, that Bush is probably a cross between Rodney King and Rodney Dangerfield, but you just take out the first names. Senator McCain expects that we should just get along, while Bush just gets no respect. That will be very difficult if Bush thinks he is King and we are expected to stay the course through the Dangerfield.

Rehashing Avoidance Issues

Recently Senator Dole has pleaded for us to MOVE ON over the issue of Kerry's military record while not resisting throwing in a few more jabs pulling us back by suggesting that Kerry apologize for his words more than 30 years ago. He tries to step above the fray by kicking up more dirt. To top it off, the childishness is obvious in the final claim that Kerry started it.

Military records are valid topics but not the most crucial. However since the Bush administration has depended on the war on terror as an excuse to stay the course, Kerry was playing to the same minimalist thinking as counter balance.

Now that Bush has capitulated belatedly by denouncing ads by the Swift Board Veterans of a Different Opinion, we will have another chance to see if anything changes.[CORRECTION: He has apparently not disavowed them aside from smearing 527s in general] (For another ad commentary see link.) Another childish ploy is while not taking credit for the "fear and smear" campaign, he blames the process that allows money on the other side to be spent on issues that he could address by confronting.

But the final point that military honors are now deserved by only some of the veterans seems to do more injustice to veterans than Kerry’s freedom to speak his mind. The sacrifices that many veterans made for their country are very important but what they were fighting for is important to remember. Though the reasons seem disputed it must have had something to do with freedoms. If wounds can be a comparison that divides some veterans they should remember those that did not return. If opinions and words are what divide other veterans they should remember what others at least thought they died for.

Fine Tuning.

THE GAME (Slightly updated: bold Stay the Course - job->search) The topic is our job which is to help navigate embedded with a link to help you navigate. Not to mention bottom links that brings some news to light if you go there, or sometimes just a previous connection as below.

In this case, The New Wave is a switch in focus from the battle for the Democratic Candidate to the Republican potential candidate and the media who is filtering it all. The issue of negative campaigning and super delegates are an example of what may make for a rocky boat. They are not easy to explain away, but there are so many perspectives that it is not just a matter of declaring what is the will of the people. There is a process that people are a part of and parties are a part of. It is unfortunate there are not alternatives in some cases, but playing like they are part of the process is no better. What I am alluding to is that without something such as Instant Run-off Voting any wish that things should go smoothly is a pipe dream. Not that things won't turn out to be much smoother than anticipated, but each voter must accept that they have a part that is no bigger than the next voter, but that involvement does matter. Finally, (obtuse as I am) 1. charges of lack of substance must have substance themselves 2. charges with substance are not negative campaigning, but the voter is the decider 3. super delegates are not super nor necessarily committed.

The other ground game...

<*>

I am for some reason unable to put my usual* into this lately.
Not to quote Martha Stewart but it might be a good thing, or I just have other things.

I have two submissions saved in draft:
IMHO ^
Turn Around(F'N 3.0)
Time Stamp: 8:19 10-9-12

*  Don't you mean refreshingly in accord with "your perception" of reality?  OUCH.  I did not mean to hit so close to the bone of reality or nuance, just making a preemptive comment based on a reading of the first few sentences, where the logic seems... interestingly framed to say the least.  And while I might read more, I might not have more to say.  It just seems to fit a playbook of sorts that may or not be written but is my "perception" of familiar tactics.  BTW:  Sorry "F" "bailed"^^^ so-to-speak,but I will not feel the need to fill his loss.  

OCCUPY FACT-CHECKERS**
Yeah... that's the ticket.*** 

** well... the anachronism of my asterisks is my usual (as well as links inserted)
***  To the Obama campaign: an unembedding of diplomacy and humor, stay the course (Ctrl "F" 'n zingers.)   Far be it from me^^ to tell people not to be them, but I don't think Joe Biden will go overboard with humor, I think he will be taking things serious.  Make it about congress, and bi-partisanship, and the dynamics of cooperation and compromise, without being too patronizing.  Substance seems to be the football that the Republicans Lucy to our Charlie Brown.  
    
^ posted(and links added) post-time-stamp
^^ latest M'bed (The irony is steep.)
^^^ FB link removed @*

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.

FEINGOLD'S STAKE

I posted (pardon the pun) the previous post prior to finding one in the ground. [Senator Russ Feingold's VERY BRIEF MUST READ: The GOP's Stake in Checking the President]

The Republicans probably feel the Check is in the mail or the form of a bill.

The people must call it due and process.
It is the least that need be done to "stay the course". [As in transitive verbs 9 through 12: stop something, postpone or hinder, alleviate something in the short term, and or restrain something.]

October Surprise? Changing "Staying the Course".

Is this the October Surprise? Bush has changed the words he will use to stay the course.

Let us hope that things don't get any worse or better, depending on whether you are planning the "October Suprise"

Hint: The suprise is buried in the planning, but they won't say it.