Why OWS is bigger than Left vs. Right.

Stuck in the game frame?
Bright Bart and Big Government?

Why OWS is bigger...

Tactically, what we'll see here will be a) people firmly on the traditional Democratic side claiming to speak for OWS, and b) people on the right-Republican side attempting to portray OWS as a puppet of well-known liberals and other Democratic interests.

Whine and G's?

On the Democratic side, we've already seen a lot of this behavior, particularly in the last week or so. Glenn Greenwald wrote about this a lot last week, talking about how Obama has already made it clear that he is "on the same side as the Wall Street protesters" and that the Democratic Party, through the DCCC (its House fundraising arm), has jumped into the fray by circulating a petition seeking 100,000 party supporters to affirm that "I stand with the Occupy Wall Street protests". (I wonder how firmly the DCCC was standing with OWS sentiment back when it was pushing for the bailouts and the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act).

Really?

What nobody is comfortable with is a movement in which virtually the entire spectrum of middle class and poor Americans is on the same page, railing against incestuous political and financial corruption on Wall Street and in Washington. The reality is that Occupy Wall Street and the millions of middle Americans who make up the Tea Party are natural allies and should be on the same page about most of the key issues, and that's a story our media won't want to or know how to handle.

Not your grandfather's "traditional".

This is an issue for the traditional "left" because it's a classic instance of overweening corporate power - but it's an issue for the traditional "right" because these same institutions are also the biggest welfare bums of all time, de facto wards of the state who sucked trillions of dollars of public treasure from the pockets of patriotic taxpayers from coast to coast

Really?

Both traditional constituencies want these companies off the public teat and back swimming on their own in the cruel seas of the free market, where they will inevitably be drowned in their corruption and greed, if they don't reform immediately. This is a major implicit complaint of the OWS protests and it should absolutely strike a nerve with Tea Partiers, many of whom were talking about some of the same things when they burst onto the scene a few years ago.

I have read Matt Taibbi's piece three times now over the course of parsing this, and I will let you read your own conclusions.

[Then I signed the petition at DCCC (see bold) "I stand..." with the following amendments.(see 3 links)]

[Each of the above blockquotes are directly from Matt Taibbi's piece, with the bold segues my comments. But the final Really?, "Both traditional constituencies want these companies off the public teat and back swimming on their own in the cruel seas of the free market, where they will inevitably be drowned in their corruption and greed, if they don't reform immediately." sounds a bit naive if not libertarian. Companies and Wall Street will not reform themselves any more than they will let themselves fail or let the market do its magic. But it is a matter of who's on board or overboard as well as some sort of tents.]
[Speaking of ironies, or Bright Bart and Big Government, just whose side is who on?]
[Meanwhile I have four posts to further parse. Starting with the big bite. @ 7 minutes 15 seconds in: Over two thirds of New Yorkers support Occupy Wall Street.]

[Oh what a web. No E.B. White:
SCroll up! Tol Keen? Rubric, Elements, what "October", Mis-attribute? Justice and/or sand witchbracket.]
[Alternative Reich? Not to pun on the furor, but is there an alternative?]
[A Democratic* strategist touched on something(on Martin Bashir) that has been embedded in my thoughts, and even more embedded in my writings. The Republican candidate will not come from the activist wing. And indeed the current leader often trails "anybody else". Well, they are not really polling that candidate, but the leaders are still struggling for less than a third of the Republican's votes(current Gallup Romney 20%). My point is that there just might be a compromise or coalition candidate. On the other hand... who am I to say democracy will prevail over the Republic?]
* 10-19-11 I have yet to find the proper link but place some others under Democratic Strategist and Martin Bashir.

Rough Draft or Quick Vent

Here is my reply yesterday, which I don't want to waste, and need to use as a preamble to other news.

Due to some maintanence problems, this post by Marjorie Cohn arrived in my email before I could get the rest of this posted.

REPLY RE: "Stuck on Stupid"

Please spare me such evil non-sequitors and I will spare you a useless reply.

However since men and women are dying for our freedoms, or "whatever" ( I know that they are mostly dying for their brothers and sisters and a cause they believe or believed) rather than get hung up on how a mother honors her dead or the living, we should all be honoring what I believe and I know many know they are fighting for, by using those freedoms for what we believe in.

[A LAST MINUTE INSERT: Cindy has more right and has done more to honor God, Flag, and Country of both the dead and living by practicing the freedoms that our military are fighting and dying for than the Commander in Thief has done by practicing his freedom from reality and checks and balances.]

Stuck on stupid should apply to anyone who says, "just get over it", when our constitution is being ignored, not only by the President, and many in Congress, but the so called "press". You may wonder why I left off the courts, well that is because they are divided into those that honor their job and those that have a philosophy, increasingly known as "the unitary executive". That is where the congress makes the laws, the president decides how to enforce them, and the justices have no cases since the president doesn't even need to veto a law if he doesn't have to follow it, and Republicans rubber stamp as much as they can get away with.

Hey, Democrats aren't exactly rocking the boat either, but believe it or not they are not in charge. Actually they got a lot of oars in the water and all the president does is make waves.

The president may understand one good point, that people can get away with whatever they can until they are caught, and he's a heckuva catcher.

Peace and Progress be with you, Roger

P.S.

One does not need to be a lawyer but should be able to read a full sentence even if they are sometimes paragraphs, to see how far the philosophy of "unitary executive" has violated whatever we are about.

FINALLY HOWEVER: The ABA investigates "Signing statements" and recommended full senate investigation of spying

The Irony of the Message

The Politics of Fear[*] was not on the cover.
One has to open the magazine and I presume read.
They even might like you to buy the New Yorker.
There is one irony. The reader who already gets it, probably gets it and will read the articles. The reader who doesn't get it, might not get to the articles, let alone get them. Maybe that is the satire.

Here are some I might not get to:
Politics of Fear (2005)
The Mythical End to the Politics of Fear (2006)
The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear (2004)

Speaking of "caricatures and satire:

witty language used to convey insults or scorn; "he used sarcasm to upset his opponent"; "irony is wasted on the stupid"; "Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own"--Jonathan Swift

Not exactly Swift or Swift Boating, but can we count on certain believers in McCain to know the difference or do they believe in Lilliputians? (and pardon me I am a bit dingy today, not that you'd notice)

Lost in the message?

[7-16-08 And Characters "my friends", By George...
Uncuruious & ...George of the Jungle.]
[No Teddy: No Pragmatist: Is talking to Iran a ploy? Advice should be Speak clearly and stop waving the stick.]

[*] 4-13-09: link substituted Hint: It was the title of the art work.
[Bonus search: stuck on stupid]

These two could have something(in A chord)

(This material is now being posted on 1-20-2010 from a 1-18-10 email to a spot held in Save Now & bracketed by Remembering(s))
These two
Steve Clemons
David Sirota
could have something(in A chord):
at least it is not this,
Ayn Rand
Who knows? Oh, Brown?;
or this,
Mythification
George F. Will.

Oh No! Uh?
We sink?
Not again?
Non Sense
Move On
Warning for above:
do not get stuck on the ladder two.

Harmony?
Three Dog Night
Tenatious D *
No Whit Holmes! ***
Sixth Chord?

* search for yourself find holmes in lyrics

and ** sixth chord

WTShhhhh...
What(or where) the ** is the missing asterisk(no ribble?)

(The incongruous nature of this ** is due to minimal adaptations from email 4mat to blog, and the ribble for open ended reconstruction.)

Note: any future alterations will be [bracketed] and there is a bit of a ribble of error(and asterisks) in the last stanza after the ladder[sic] crack.

The Choice

Forward or Back.
Speaking of back, I know that Dorothy was not the one with the Tea Party, but Alice had the preemptive dream not to be stuck on a party theme.
Meanwhile Ed Schultz made some interesting progress, and Norman Goldman covers the same issue or Harry Reed calling out Obama. Well... not exactly. My preemptive analysis is that maybe it is good cop, bad cop routine, with several caveats. They aren't cops, they aren't just good or bad, and they aren't even the same branch of government. When it come to courage and pragmatism there is a difference between legislating and administering, and how their leadership is navigated, not to mention running the national or states governments, and their party navigations. A caller soon after with Ed, suggested that this was orchestrated, well... maybe. Who let the dogs out. Woof, woof. They are not dogs* either, but they are giving license to each other and are tugging on our leashes.

*Actually there are blue dogs, yellow dogs and maybe green or purple dogs.

[On the other hand, who knows? ...but comparing other countries debt concerns does not reflect their relative investment in infrastructure, social and jobs policies.]

Democrats choose not to filibuster

[On the filibuster, bipartisanship and third party involvement.]

(02-02-01) {Responding to "Abolish the Filibuster!" by Timothy Noah in Slate, Chatterbox.}
The filibuster does seem like a useless tool. It, like the Electoral College, is rarely used for the good they were intended. However, the vote for Ashcroft does help support it as a tool to define bipartisan, if anything can. The interesting thing is that both sides claim bipartisanship. The Republicans with the idea that it was a bipartisan vote since 8 Democrats were on the side of the nominee. The Democrats with the idea that they split votes and did not vote in a block. I would like a little more on why the Republicans can make this claim though.
It really seems that the Dems have three points on their side. One, the Democrats that voted for Ashcroft, were the ones that made that decision. Two, the Republicans were unified in their support. And three, the Democrats had enough to block a cloture if they had stuck together, but chose not to waste the country's time and offered another olive branch to a white flag.
I do feel that enough white flags(whoops)olive branches were offered with the earlier Senate confirmations, and if this was not important enough to filibuster, what would be?
However there are also three important political motives for the olive branches, and one is to define the terms that Bush uses. If they are surrounded by olive branches, the Republicans will be caught up in their own words, before they can get out.
The second political motive is that it only takes one to start a filibuster, but reality is, that not enough would choose to continue it because they are not being as partisan as the other side and its nominee. Third, they will have established this record and try to use it in the next election.
More important though, is that abolishing the filibuster will do too much to drive us to majority rule. That is a bigger point you saved for last. Decisions on the process, let alone legislation, should not be made based on the convenience of those with power. But wait till a third party tries to use it. Whoops. Maybe it would be worth having a third party, if it could contribute to the proper use of a dictionary without the shifting sands of political power.

Clog Alert!

Not to Ribble, but regarding two points here:
The tenor of Bane Or. 
Rather than footnote, I will say Ctrl F "anachronism..." and scroll over "speaking of speakers"
Note to Editor(i.e. me): review dating 4mat. Chuck Todd, Today Show (R)

A. Norman Goldman comments on Boner.(I say Bane Or...)
B. The political parsing of wills and divided government, not to joke about punchlines or politicians and lawyers or bitter pills.

Further parse N later ...  [^]

^ not [exactly]
Review Saved in^^ Draft and Tangents.
^^ 12-31-12 [!] ?  w h ?

[C-The Cyle: "Stuck on Repeat"  RE/A+B "Amen Gov" (...) or E-Moat-Iconn?  i.e. "Boehner in a Bind?" /// F B D (S.E. Drift)^^^ or working with hope? and case studies!(patton lee adsurd?)/(Re:N-dell) (M.C.Time**) Not my comity of journalism]*

^^^ live drafting
*[1-4-13 e-N-f  / Re:Turn to C? i.e. inserting links now.(& later*)
** must review re:hope? & *

Leaking Intelligence

Why are Republicans Forcing a Shutdown of Government? This is the ledership to a preemptive thought bubble blown earlier. i.e. I thought that the Republicans are going to force a shut down because they have already blamed one on the Democrats just as the Democrats are about to present their compromise. Now this is not to predict a shutdown, but it is easy for the Republicans to predict one. And indeed it may only be in the Democrats power to force one. Just look at Wisconsin. Woops, even their out of state filibuster did not stop the Republicans. Now, cutting the jest and my tangent. Back to the thought bubble. The Republicans may force a shutdown to blame the Democrats, or the Democrats may force a shutdown to hold their horses. It seems that false equivalents, make it either the Trojan Horse or the Four Horseman. But back to my thought bubble, I just said that.

{Further leaking of nuance and exceptionalism, the so-called Constitutionalists, orginal intenders, and frackin' flip-floppin' neo-cons or Libertarians forget all about the Bush administration and the congressional behaviour then. As I have sketchily outlined the constitution and the war powers act and the partiot act, the president is within his powers until the law or the spirit changes it. How much Iron Knee or I Ron Knee is there that the UN Libya resolution is Numbered 1973? Or that the Patriot act was just extended?

BTW: Freedom is not a license, in reaction to or spin-off of Bill Maher, in respect to the requirement of humor for him and not Beck or O'Reilly, and I might add or Trump a few others.

Hint: on labels and scroll-over tangent I have not always read nor will I read (or reread)all links that are embedded in my blog. But I do wish to note them as sometimes serving as footnotes which I sometimes google post post, which sometimes may just be scrolled over or glannced at after clicking on to get the gist of.

[Toxic Leak? I am concerned with the roles that government spouses play. Not to mention Media Matters and its battle with FOX related to its non-profit status. But let me burst my thought bubble. The Republicans may not hold together on the ability to shut it down, but it will likely be another extention. I don't think either side wants to shut it down, but look who's talking.]
[Speaking of breaking or thought: here is the why, which will be inserted later, but it is for now to get the Democrats to move, and blame them for failure when the Republicans can move the line away a better economy. Stuck bubble: Should Corporate Executive go to jail for killing people? No, since corporations are people the whole corporations should. Just being facitious but really, they should be paying the same taxe rates as people, and have passports.]

Lean Back

Anniversaries from "Unhistory".

4women: [under construction]

Or should I?

I won't get stuck on numbers, but this is an interesting tangent.

Passing the buck in "the culture war"?

One Million Moms claims there is a culture war.

How is one neutral in what is their war?

Mourning in America:***

for the Raw Money* Class?

It's half-time in America.

(RM** w/Chris Hayes)

*Thanks to Norman Goldman for Mint Raw Money, and a Thom Hartmann caller who wanted a new class label for the 1% if Romney is the nominee. Do we really want to go back to where we were in 2008?

**only a coincidence he is in for Rachel Maddow

*** they used to call it "doom and gloom"

[***B:(link added) I take it back, they doo doo irony! Talk about twisted bridge of rhetoric.]

[2-7-12 An Inconvenient Acronym: PU Action as opposed to just PU**^? Actually it is more*^ of an inconvenient blog search.]

*^ a,b,c

**^ Speaking of Bowls[?] (irony mark: a,b,c,d,e,)("parsed"=a+b)

Missing link?

No really. A headline two posts ago is what was missing or what started me on Wag the Dog...

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat a New York Times piece by Mark Mazetti was on the front page of my Sunday local paper. Not exactly an October Surprise, but then there was the Fox appearance of Bill Clinton that topped the cake.

Democracts are stuck in pre-9/11 thinking and Republicans are thinking post-9/11. We must run with that. Pre-9/11 thinking by the Democrats may have gotten Bin Laden if the Republicans had used it. Post-9/11 thinking by Republicans, is actually no different than their pre-9/11 thinking.

This is where I think I was going, when I left off, Sunday.
This whole Liaison Report is where we have been.