Moore on the Table

Michael Moore jokes about what's on the table.
My Reply:

Hats Off to Moore and Clinton, but the former(Moore) jokes or charges that social security should not be on the table. But I maintain that it is and should be. But of course that depends on what your definition of "on"(the table) is:

Yes everything, including Social Security is on the table! If Republicans can put their Tin-foil Hats on the table and Democrats put their Cheesehead Hats on the table, then ending corporate welfare and tax breaks could solve everything. That is a big if, if not a bigger could. But that is the politics of the table

[Less on the Table: Republic Cons]]

Almost makes me want to tweet.

The Tweet
The lede?

Well truthout.org headed an email as:
The Model is the Message.
Everything is on the table.
That is what Obama has frequently said, so get to the table.
By Jove!
[10-20-11: Actually there are some things that are off the table for everyone, but they are not always the same things or the same people. Like violence and social security as just examples. A crowd is not always able to control the violence of individuals let alone individual authorities. And taking social security off the table would mean that it doesn't get the help it needs. Everything getting on the table does not mean that it gets off the table, but people had better be with it.]

On The Table!

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said "Impeachment is off the table", I am sorry if I do not have the exact wording, but I had the feeling that it was said calculated to get a response to put the people on the table.

Stephanie Miller has Cindy Sheehan discussing impeachment, and giving her two weeks or she will file to compete for her seat.

As I indicated earlier, for Pelosi impeachment may not be on the table but investigations are now on the table of many committees. And reliable sources, if I may filter through progressive talk radio, say two things. A. What is going on now is what would be going on, if impeachment were on the table. B. That Pelosi has gotten the message. No more funds for Iraq, that do not also withdraw the troops.

One progressive host has interpreted this pressure as a negotiation to keep the administration in line, much as a bargaining chip to further other issues. That does not seem to be in the spirit of actually holding criminals accountable.

Breaking News: Republicans filibuster Webb/Hagel support for troops. Republicans vote to not put issue up to vote, meaning not enough votes to end debate. I hope the debate continues.

Can you feel this working?

Or even follow this thinking?* Is George Lakoff practicing the same reinforcment and fine print? On the feeling front ? **

Does the market Lord over Republicans?
Does logic Lord over facts?
Is it really the slippery slope Lakoff sees?

The bold indicates the suggested read. Links are often footnotes or tangents(see [**] ), not primary sources that need a full read. I am commenting here on different results that reading this article may have on those from different parts of the political spectrum, and the impact of having read it on their perspective of their perspective.[*]
(You will have to read the Lakoff article, and then will you be prepared to answer the questions?) The focus on the metaphorical may have an underlying greater impact. The President is pounding on the pragmatics of values and that may be an over arching message.

*The Santorum Strategy by George Lakoff
** unembedded mixed front and other
*** (temp tech difficulties w/links: see footnotes)

Footnotes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ant_and_the_Grasshopper
Point: Metaphors evolve or are hijacked. (flip-flop over the centuries)
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=snob
Point: Pop Culture? Pontifical Santorum?
Concepts:
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Republican+table
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=divide+to+table
too http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=conquer

These last links found on Footnotes PAGE. (A, B, C)
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/p/footnotes.html

[*] last asterisk to note that these two "perspective" links are tangential[**] perspectives on perspectives.
[**] speaking of dump ties? (see *** ttdl See placement of link/asterisk inconvenience. )
[Related Breaking Toure on KONY 2012 (3-18-12 update)]
[Related Background: http://fora.tv/2007/06/28/Francis_Fukuyama_End_Of_History_Revisited ]
[And Martin Bashir: "but what am I?" Romney childishness.]
[Citizens United: http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Citizens+United,
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Strategy+of+right,
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Koch+Brothers,
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Roger+Ailes, purpose of these inconvenient (see *** & ttld) links, is to archive and find later reference to the divide further the table for their conversation. http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Koch+Table,
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2011/10/karl-rove-vs-wa-hyperbole.html,
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2011/10/politics-of-table.html, More Bashir: http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Pee+Wee , http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Herman ,
Happy Birthday Romney http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2010/03/snooki.html, Infinity http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOGWbzUM-y8 ]

Follow...up or Down.

Follow-Up or down?
The voodoo that some do do.
Including 9-11 and a horse of course, about the rule* of law?

DR-Deficit Reduction
NOW-"It's Complicated."

* not to pun on run down, but Thomas Roberts Rules,
[water gate ? B S: Uphold or Holdup?]

[ MSNBCTV is Thomas Roberts: live rule yesterday Jansing &Co Re:action swing flop De:volve Thomas Roberts ! ]
[Huff Times, AM**, Salon. NG v GN]
**Ruth Marcus: Obama Legacy? Re-do?

[ Politics Revisited / R M ? ! NewsNation M M. Jobs / Freedom ?]
[OK, the above line is as boggled as anything, but it is about the nature of the process and reality or the politics and die manics(to parse the dynamics or how of the beef) which is still spinning on The Cycle.  The Supreme Court is not a dictionary.  Justice Roberts reportedly did not say it was tax.  But Republicans need to see things black and white or they can't uphold their politics of holdup.***]

[Fee Fi Foe FUMM? MB on Mitt the Mandatious(ChamberMade). Fear and uh...
MR
RM.. uh, Martin Bashir pre-CP.  Mitt the Moderate? ]

*** Again, sorry for getting caught up in the pun and parsing of politics. It comes down to one word: running.  Running the government or running for office.  Another word: table.  Oops.  What is on the table?  Do we want them running the table?  Obama ran to put it all on the table and Republicans want to run the table.

Everything is on the Table!

That's right!  Everything is on the individual's table, but that does not mean how.

Robert Reich counts
 8 Principles to Guide Democrats in the Fiscal Cliff Showdown.*

ONE: HOLD YOUR GROUND.

 

TWO: NO DEAL IS BETTER THAN A BAD DEAL.

 

THREE: MAKE REPUBLICANS VOTE ON EXTENDING THE TAX CUTS JUST FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS.

 

FOUR: DEMAND HIGHER TAX RATES ON WEALTHY, NOT JUST LIMITS ON DEDUCTIONS.

 

FIVE: DON'T CUT SAFETY NETS.

 

SIX: DON'T CUT INVESTMENTS IN OUR FUTURE PRODUCTIVITY.

 

SEVEN: CUT SPENDING ON MILITARY AND CORPORATE WELFARE.

 

EIGHT: PUT JOBS BEFORE DEFICIT REDUCTION.

 

Number Five puts the Safety Net on the table. As in: DON'T CUT IT!
But it is not that simple. Medicare and Social Security do not need to be on the table at this time. That does not mean they need to be cut in the future. Addressing them is not just in the form of cutting them. Even so, if they address the top end or the bottom line, changes could be balanced in the tax code, not to hit those that need the safety net and even address the income gap.

 

* BOLDLY ENUMERATED taken directly from his post.

[Follow-down...I wouldn't go that far.  Despite quibbles with the terms of B.S. or F. C.  this is the kernel of the matter: 

Former Sen. Alan Simpson says ‘‘you have to have a blend’’ of revenue increases and spending cuts to achieve a deal to avoid the cliff.

Especially the bold below:

Simpson tells NBC’s ‘‘Today’’ show it’s ridiculous for Democrats and Republicans to speculate on which party would suffer more if no compromise agreement were achieved. He says, quote, ‘‘That’s like betting your country. There’s stupidity in that. This is big-time stuff.’’

I do not believe his "arithmatic" though.(in bold)

Speaking of Congress, Simpson says, in his words, ‘‘If you gave 90 percent of them a profit-loss statement in one hand and a balance sheet in the other, they wouldn’t know how to read it.’’

 It could not be that bad.]

...Looking and Hearing [HEAR HERE]

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Hearing on Executive Power and its Limitations
afterdowningstreet.org
tangibleinfo

Impeachment is not on the table.
Information is being brought to the table.
Alternatives and other measures are also on the table.
Justice is finally appearing before the people.
As well as injustices. Not to mention "representations".

It is not too fine a point to put this, as a
very important if not entertaining event in history,
which the media is not likely to cover as it did during the Watergate era.
But the fine point is that the internet coverage is where the media and the people may be buried. The "media" it must be realized is a word here that has been manipulated in this paragraph, but justice is what you will find manipulated by the media and the people at any table.

And the above tables must not result in information being tabled,
without at least enumeration and verification.

One may wonder where justice comes in. It is found in the constitutional process being used fully to uphold the law and sworn duties of every office. This could therefore be considered a criminal investigation, but primarily an investigation represented by what I believe is the contrast between what Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon claimed. The latter being the law if he says it is, and the former that all impeachments are political. The latter fell and the former excused, but justice should still be pursued. The process must be used even if politics is part of the investigations, for politics to recover esteem and its place for the people.

[The record will be held open for 5 days, according to Conyers, and there seems a lot of room for cross reference and verification, but there is probably no limit to what could appear.]

Bravo Maria

Senator Cantwell,
on Finance Committee Baucus Bill:
"I wouldn't vote for a bill that doesn't have Medicare reform and the public option,"

I would say that what comes out of committee will still be only one of what?
(3 on the table)

Republicans* are now officially at the table. And if it gets out of committee they will be on the floor for an up or down fight, amendment or reconciliation. **

* ironically their only plan other than the 160 amendments in the House bills and weeks of fighting the public option, that is what they have to show for bipartisanship. A choice between an option or no option.

[Update 9-18-09: On Republicans at the table. (McClatchy - WonkRoom ]

** 9-18-09 back to the table.

Pass the Trillion.

The problem with some Democrats? They listen. The problem with others, they play by the rules. Grayson is the new Democrat, Franks the old Democrat. OK, I am trying not to spin this, but others spin about the situation.

I find it hard to blame the Republicans for holding the line for what they believe, right or wrong. I find it hard to urge the Democrats to hold the line by taking back from the table what may have been put in the package to appear non-partisan or to please certain pockets. But that is the nature of politics and the transparency is apparently being worked on. There still may be some passing the buck but it is about what works and change. Ching, ching, no pun.

BIG HINT: There is a table at the table;
Fiscal Economic Bank for the Buck Moody's basically seems to dispute what Republicans think(or at least say) works. In fact it seems that spending is 2 to 6 times more effective than tax cuts depending on the focus. In fact there is little bang for the buck Bush style. But this is apparently on GDP and that may not be an effective metric. One must still follow the money.

[filed]more for later
Stimulus package: Jobs gained or saved? Christopher S. Rugaber AP
Senate to demand big changes in stimulus bill. Zachary Coile, SF Chronicle

[for tinkering]
Poetic Justice
hiatus or sabbatical
Stop that!
Tinkering...
American Recovery
Previous post may take unwinding

Jumping the Shark?

FOX so you don't have to...
Newshounds.us
Comic con:
so you* might have to.


Not to dock you mock ...** but Obama will be speaking on Education today.
Not that it was where I was going, but I did google*** the lede.

* put your hand in the hand
** not to skirt the tangent
*** see 2nd "have to" maybe.

GPS of sorts, (not to cross the road but Alex Wagner NOW(p.f. ) mentions the Sissy Fee 'n Task.)
scroll up 'n over, above the art:
Daily Kos, Medicare(so you don't) paraphrase.
youtube, Put your hand...
Robot 6 (art)
Robot 6 (heading)
Newshounds: Akin Redemption
Rationalwiki: FOX

[later: heading NFRY]
[AM: congressional under water]

Footnote:  the Hinge Pin(Not!)...to pun but to point out that it is about having it your way and if the beef (Ctrl F) is on the table, and if the Republicans have been at the table or under the table.
Tip a canoe or K-dense you? 
Mitt 'n Raw Money and Lyin' too.

(p.f.) [post footnote: panel pledge plan pols parsing or seg way ... to this AM?(or off target?) not including News Nation or more on Re-Cycle nor to pun nor pre-empt?]
MBakin to Anti(p.p.f) -Thetical.]
(p.p.f.: Martin Bashir "politics ain't bean ball" ) Martin Bingo!

[8-22-12: Speaking of* cultural metaphors.(Rachel Maddow) ]
R,R,R, or ouch, ouch, ouch.**




*b.s."privitization" Ctrl F order lost mo
** what is truly remarkable about this cartoon( or as Romney would say: Marvelous) is that it just arrived by email with link for Pete sake.

9-4-12 No dis. IsIs?  For rob sake?



HEAR HEAR!

The Audacity of Audacity by E.J.Dione Jr. The Washington Post

On the Road to Change: The Psychology of Progress by Roy Eidelson Cognitive Policy Works

I was going to make my usual preemptive comments after a glance at these, or headline this "for my coffee table" but read them instead. I have enough on my coffee table, or kitchen table, not to mention night stand. There is no relative weight to these tables but there is enough of an endorsement from the dark side.
(Both "enough" harken back to who is driving the GOP and who is good [see the bill] frum ofor what.)

Sum would cheer...

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

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

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

Loser?
The country
and the economy.

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

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

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

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

Obamanomics

[12-10-10 Update: No Wait. Yes weight. A play on matter over words, & a belated thumbs up. If the Democrats can get more done, go for it. But what have they been waiting for?]

The Plan: not exactly (the former is not fully read, but a link that may be more durable: funny business or hacking aside)
But back to funny business or the nature of our dilemma.
Obama+no+mics was not my original intent. No weight, it was! Obama is getting the message through, and giving Democrats the 4M in the $M to have everything on the table and a good fight over it. The people may see the difference, while Democrats do their best to Get'er done. The deficit commission is another wait-e matter. An Oak Table if you will to put ideas on the table without party characterizations.
[update part II, 12-10-10: 4M = 4'em & forum $M=buck media, money media for um?]

Under the Table?

The point is four legs[**].
Another point is that I have not posted them yet.
There just so happens to be four.
Not that they are Romney*, Gingrich, Santorum, or Hunt*[s]*man, let alone Paul.

*anachronism alert:
[**] done [As to in the process*** of coordinating the legs.]
[The previous four posts were rough drafted Thursday 1-12-12, here are some coordinated links.
Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell, No Bain Or...]
*** [They are Rachel, Lawrence and Colbert, not to mention Schultz.]
[But the "under the table" is a reference to getting things on the table [!]

And the not so plane truth.]

[Sub-Text? Freedom is not a fool.
Here are the four posts:
Up Tight?
Triumvirate
Vulture or Social Contract?
Heterodoxy.
Or context?]
[And as usual Martin Bashir covers it
in his show.]
[Then(later)there is Dylan Ratigan, The War on War and Iran, or who ran?]
[And Al Sharpton with PoliticsNation]
[another four legs:
Center for American Progress,
OurFuture.org,
NewYorkTimes,
Foreign Policy,
and odd balance.]

*[s]* 6-10-13 Spell check?  "s" added.

Links back

Health Care Summit: Tomorrow live stream
Everything on Table?: Bipartisan Realities.
March on Washington: Call for Public Option*. Who signed up for Reconciliation.
Hit by Pitch: Big Pitcher Economics.
February's Posts.

* Contact: Senators Murray and Cantwell

[Is everything really on the table? I mean I can understand a starting point or even a middle point, but if you want movement to an end point, you might need more points. And to clarify a different point, there is the Bennet letter, there is the public option, and there is reconciliation. They are not linked at the hip.** Starting from scratch is not an option unless everything is on the table including up or down votes on everything. That would seem ** to be how politics should work or it is more about politics than hope or change.

* i.e. some are hesitent to sign the letter supporting the public option and reconciliation, some are for the public option, but some can be for reconciliation to let their votes count and the process work.

** point blank: reconciliation, nuclear option and up or down votes are all Republican platforms for progress until Democrats became the majority.[Speaking of preemption***, knowing the rules is not the decision to enact them, but one should follow precedence.(*** as Rachel Maddow)]

BLANK NETWORK

Dot Tool* to be named later. This is just a list of the Wills and Bills.
[Not Necessarily the News Guru, but divagation or not maybe linked.]

The Anti-Billy Club
The Club of Association
King of Rhetoric?
A Generous dia-Gnosis.
Report from Sabbatical
Sabbatical

This is not necessarily a Newshounds blog, Colbert Report or Daily Show.
I don't read or view things so you don't have to, sometimes you do, and sometimes just scrolling over may provide enough. It is divagation and stochastic at its best, or sometimes worst. But it is not just all about them or us. My Navigation label needs updating, and the Navigation II label is about our course, or a combination or demonstration of it.

While names are not the thing(and they are coming slowly today), there is value in comparing and contrasting, and sometimes associations matter. Leadership and representation matters, and in journalism there is the ledership which sometimes leads back to my point: our headings, navigation and having to follow for oneself. Part of the spirit of this has been diffused in all seriousness, by the focus on the list and the Bills and Wills, but it is more about the network and bringing things to the table. So while the banner or name for the effort is still pending, as well as more on the principles(The club of association) I will begin listing the inspirations for the columns or sides of the table.

* Blank Network (Anti-Billy Club: see links)

RESEARCH (So I am frackin' fudging a bit with the Will, the HasselB, and the Williams.)
Bill O'Reilly
George F. Will
Elizabeth HasselBECK
William Kristol
Walter Williams
William Safire
Willam F. Buckley

DEVELOPMENT
Bill Maher
Will Rogers
Bill Press
William Shakespeare


Similar Wills
Rush Limbaugh
Glenn Beck
Steve King
Sarah Palin
Michele Bachmann

Honorary Anti-Billy Clubs
Noam Chomsky
Thom Hartmann
Rachel Maddow
Jon Stewart
Steven Colbert
Lawrence O'Donnell
Norman Goldman
Ed Schultz



[Under-construction, italics are postumous honors. Apologies for the orders, they are at my whim or some consideration or other. It is not about heirarchy or honors, or just Bill O'Reilly and Bill Maher. And it may be asked, do some really want to be at the table? If they don't work well with others? That may play out as the list and the principles evolve.(Network Theory)]
[2-17-11 Update: Walk Like A Cheesehead. Wrap mine in tinfoil..PU! NOT! But close enough to government work.]

Charlotte 2012!

The DNC Convention!
Turn-around is fair play. 
Missed sarcasm: watch word.
The watch word is turn around. 
Bring it on!
The whole table.

PIG: Progress is Good!
(Not to Or well[!]...exactly)
On elements or style...


Table of Context[!](to follow)...
CAUTION though.
[Updates used to leave the original date of post intact. That changed recently.
I don't know if that is a Rovism or an AlGoreRhythm, but what the google or frack.]

[!]TOC
[take to footnotes**/under construction]
frack
google*
Rhythm
recently
though- (scroll-over)
or- exactly- table- whole- word - watch- sarcasm- fair play- around- turn- convention- DNC-

*see chart
(need other image?)
** might not

SJM 8016 / US Attorney Scandal

Democrats must put ethics and the law back on the table.
While as Professor Domke said at one of our PCO trainings in Olympia, Democrats run to govern, and Republicans govern to run... I would say that those who are of neither party see what is not on the table. [ALSO MEANING: REPUBLICANS ARE ALWAYS CAMPAIGNING, POLITICS CAN NEVER BE OFF THE TABLE, PLAY IT FORWARD, PLAY IT HARD!]

Those on the so-called Left and those of the non-partisan middle, know what is right.

So while Democrats are working on issues for us, Republicans will be working on other issues against us. So we must face them on all fronts or they will flank us.

ON A RELATED ISSUE OF ETHICS, THE LAW AND GOVERNMENT: and where they will be putting the pressure...

Remember there are several levels of government but the people count, please help them count by supporting this getting from the ground up. Leaders won't go where people fear to follow, but they should go when they have the people and the issues.

WHAT IS THE PERSPECTIVE I NOTE BELOW?

A: Outside interests may not file ethics complaints against members of Congress. They may only file ethics complaints against each other. "And that almost never happens," said Sloan.
B. We sure hope Adam Smith will do the rare and righteous thing: make that complaint- and show us that Democrats will give equal treatment and oversight to both geese and the ganders.

ETHICS SHOULD NOT BE OUTSIDE INTERESTS! Italics quoted from BlatherWatch link [McKay testimony] previous post.


THE ONLY THING BLACK AND WHITE IS A VOTE: But while the law is not just ethics, even the law has a spirit and the letter. So gray areas matter, but people should count. THAT IS A BIG CONNECTION.

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.

Tolerance at the table?

People for the American Way presents a basic argument against the tolerance of intolerance.
Just what was Obama's purpose? ? [*] I hope there is some here.
I think I found it, and to shine the light on ...

[Maybe tabling the metaphor of the table as the well as the use of metaphor?
It also should not be a case of "reaching out" to the other side.]

[[No Dis-Respect but it is "fair and balanced".]]

[*][Update: link inserted for purpose driven foe-be-ah? And apples and oranges. I was originally focused on the lack of attention given to the benediction speaker but it is not a matter that balances the issue. Except if is balanced on the separation of church and state. It is my belief that there should be no government regulation to force the associations made in one's church and it may be said that the word marriage should be given to that category, with the caviat that states give equal rights to churches to determine their definition of marriage and the states provide for civil unions to those who choose. But no!!!! It seems that some people will not be happy with re-parsing of words, like freedom or rights..]