Here We Go Again

GOP Fights Back Over Criticism of Limbaugh
White House Is Accused Of Cynicism, Hypocrisy
by Howard Kurtz

I will save for later, what is probably a very good article or at least closer to what journalism is supposed to be. Which is to not always please me and not always be free of perspective. But the spin and same old tactics seems to be coming from the Republicans. The President had made earlier references to Limbaugh, but a recent one advising the Republicans to stop listening to him was what started the media echo. That was good advice from my perspective and from the perspective of most moderates. Republicans are the ones that have not decided who is their leader and what are their principles. Well, actually the former does not matter because the latter are no different. They need to work on their principles and by focusing on this, they are able to forget them. It is my opinion that it is their principles that are the matter and that they can not recreate themselves. It is not hypocrisy or childish to keep the focus and hardship on them.

In an aside: Chris Matthews is doing them or the country no favor by claiming they have an issue with taxes and keeping your money. All low and most moderate income will see tax reductions or at the point some do, will be compensated by other cost cuts or compensations. Even those that are getting some tax cuts may find other fees increased which only lends to the need for the cuts in the first place. As to Democrats being "all about spending", the Democrats, at least the Obama adminstration, are all about nothing but everything.

In this regard, it seems that if there is anything we can get on the same page on, it is entitlements. We should get back to the safety net concept. That does not mean that certain good ideas are not good for all. But that all entitlements are not needed by some. But in reality, no one wants to give up what they have, so it seems the best field to work it out on is taxes. Similar balance can be taken in regards to international finance, markets and social progress. Maybe a carbon credit for life?

[But back to the Dark Side or Gas Bag (Methane Head No Credit):
Hypocrisy is King!
The Republicans are rallying around Rush while he is eating it up.
He then challenges the President to a debate!
Well the Republican's should put up or shut up.
There is no equivalent to the President.
But the Republicans must decide, is he or is he not the one in charge or would Rush Limbaugh have a debate with Ed Shultz?
Actually the answer is no! Since I believe the challenge is out there. And there have been others (Ron Reagan) he has not accepted. But he should really stick to his own league and maybe Stephen Colbert. Or warm up to Rachel Maddow.]

[Seriously, Rachel Maddow and the link just provided, really put her in a league of her own, but actually the one that Rush Limbaugh and Michael Steele should live up to before they even merit the jobs they have, (not to mention the other intelligent Enternewsmeant or Fun'n Edifying Personalities I have noted above, depending on the job they aspire to)but here are some bonus links: Michael Moore * vs. Any Rand, talk about doubling down or matches.]

[And I don't know who got it backwards but Rush did say, he wanted Obama to fail before Obama suggested that Republicans stop listening to Rush. This was Obama taking on the old way with the Republicans, not a direct attack on Rush but his ideas and tactics which Republicans have so hard a time changing, and they need to make it about Rush. [Update: too enough!]

* [Plus Must See TV: FNBC ](For funny? No for real...


...Financial News with a real anchor!)]

UPDATE ONLY?

Barack Obama gave the following speech
on March 18th, 2008
which has come to be know as:
"a more perfect union"? **
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
U P D A T E . B E L O W (SEE BREAK)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A great speech which I challenge anyone with a heart to listen to.
And for those who prefer to read
the text: in his own words.
or my peremptory comments here.
Obama is right, now what will others write? Never mind.
[Obama Explains Wright, Will McCain Explain the Far Right? 3-18-08]

As far as The Day After... and speechless:
Five years ago that day the war began.
Honor the dead and fighting, by hard work.
But belated? another speech.
[The Day After...3-19-08]

[BTW: articulated throwing under the bus? No Joke: 11-8-02 not update but a back draft, whiffed at by Ed Schultz today. My further update in the next hour as far as going far enough: a caller wanted to move on from race because of her fears of the dialogue* and its circular nature, but that is why Obama should be heard over and over in order to get through to the herd that are only sheep. Thanks to Cheryl and the process.]

* she is right about the media that feeds the dialogue and the sheep, but the only food is the proper light to face it head on. A ram charger, not to dodge or forget the ewe.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
H A P P Y WholeEday: [3-26-08]
I will be on sabbatical and hope to limit my postings to here.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

[UPDATE 3-22-08: Media Moment: Billed...]

** UPDATE 3-24-08: Having updated this intro to the speech,(another link) I will encourage that it be read and reread or reviewed. And further that its title as it will come to be know by, will direct people in just that review of our history.
McSane Speech (Marjorie Cohn) or McSame BuSh (only worse)
The New Wave (see Wave LABEL)
The Ed Schultz Show and thanks to caller Jeff
for an inspiring speech in defense of pews on Where America comes to talk.
A Tribute to McCain: So Plain - - In Spain,
Raining McCain - - A Good Sense of Trickle Down.(And math and English "24/7" in particular 3-4-08?)
McCain gives response "to that heart felt statement"
of his and mine and the old GOP.
And tort reform from Hillary? Not exactly.
QCON: Working group a good idea,
but link of war to economy is key. Reform of system that puts investor profits and executive bailouts over failure of so-called free markets, may be a pincer attack that Obama and Clinton can perform on the trickle-down. Meanwhile as far as pressure to get out of Iraq, remembering who the commander-in-chief is, not that he should get his way, but his way of getting out may be hampered by who he and his crowd are. They could leave a disaster as bad as they believe it will be, because they can or rather because they are unwilling to do what might work. Putting the war on the books is a start. (Thanks to Rachell Maddow and David Bender for this QCON linking in my mind, and Fox for Hillary and The New York Times for Krugman)

[3-25-08: Till further notice all links will be completely read prior to inclusion unless noted. The previous two have now been read, and the linkage made seems supported. As to earlier links, I may be cherry picking, but I don't rip off the branch or chop down the tree, or push the pits.
(Seemingly apropos to the following already posted and read.) ]
[ Bush "comma" 4000, "Say Goodnight, Gracie" "Sadly.."
(hint: scroll over links, read "4000," first) ]
[ McCain: "We're succeeding. I don't care what anybody says.
I've seen the facts on the ground," (Period)?
And a look back: links not necessarily read - (nnr) . ]
(Note: new notation during this segue/sabbatical,
except for retroactive exception of Gracie link )
[Note: error found in post, 6-29-06 - link (nnr). ]

[3-26-08: Only link inserted above referencing Easter ]
[ Responsible Plan presented by Darcy Burner to Take Back America Conference ][also noted at Politickerwa.com ]
[ Five years is long enough: A week and The Day After....]

[3-27-08: Supreme Court Rules Bush Exceeded His Powers]
An odd light on the roots of law which
which need to feed the branches of Government.]

[3-28-08: Federal Judge: Michigan's Presidential Primary Law Unconstitutional -
NPR News: National Pentagon Radio? -
Lhasa Monks Accuse Beijing of Lying Over Unrest -
Process, Process, Process. ??? ]
[Political Intelligence Disclosure Act to open insider market influence? and other
Updates in a look back ]

FOOTNOTE PAGE APRIL 2013

4-1-13 April * 1st. Big Bagel Theory: Springs from labels. (the * 1st are tangent shall references to April.) Not to be shell games for grown ups.

4-2-13: Sorting by order read(ge me oh) or inserted(heck tricks) followed by lines 3, 1 and 4. [** follow up?]

4-3-13 Charlotte's Web: Original search(Share) Ctrl F two "montage"('n Angle) / Not to[FP2] dimention.

4-4-13  (b.s. ) funny+thing: A. A Funny Thing Happened... (sc)[!] B... (Kantinued...?)
 [FP2.(oh) [Re:asterisk or FP (too.oh)]  Re:A & (sc) i.e. Not to create an MU puzzle, but please scroll over and click on (sc)]

4-5-13 TGIF *NFR  Not Fully Read.

4-9-13 Re:Figure & FC: Speaking of bread crumbs ...

Filibuster Bluster* 4-11-13 original title 68-31 to insert Maddow Link. (b.s.) jinx: A. I feel like a Tea Partier!(sc), B. Go Purple!(sc)

4-12-13 : Tan Gents from Mottos.  Bottom line is funny.  Not !  X, Y, ... [_] <- a=""> the solution is in the tax structure, the problem is in the Norquist. Francis Perkins and the Fiscal Party.

4-15-13:  insert Read (footnote tweak). Lost Thatcher reference(to be exhumed)? And OW/bubblenomics ?

4-16-13 Emphasis must be laid on parsing and timing, if not iron knee of profits.  Not to further M-bed or spec U late. (b.s.) tail+: A, B, C Tact and Tack

4-17-13: Now fully read. Ctrl F "not read".  Irony of threats and political dynamics as undiplomatic and unjust.[ Ctrl F "na•ve": set theory and justice.]

4-18-13: As to two "too"[!]  Not to Re-Knot the bottom line, but I thought that gun-control legislation would have a political solution to the obstruction of fear mongers. I had thought that Rebublicans could sign their letter promising a filibuster that would fail.  Four Democrats joined them for their political survival, but their votes alone would not have tipped the cloture.

4-22-13 Math is next 2...?

4-23-13 [Ctrl F] is not the pun but the practical. "F" = [find] but also "filter" and "fervor".  Nor to pun  on 4F or broaden the base.

4-24-13 First change? To read "?" mark.  Second line lede or ship!

4-25-13  Two Reads OW... (font is next to #$cape italicism)
4-26-13: Labelism(on the QT),  Social Media, Boston Strong, A^ peas meant or Green Genes?[!(o w)?] ^ found by blog search^^ of (red+blue+green) ^^(not the ticket)freedom from dickens?
4-29-13:  ***(insert) 4-29-13 Earlier Q.T.[but seriously! (O-W)] Rachel Maddow(2) , Steve Benen(1) & (8)... of Con Fluence or curve
balls?

4-30-13 Lose, Lose Ben Labolt on NOW /
4-30-13 to pun on ING ? (AP?, B, C(c), D, E(e), F, g, )

Other tracks.

Business Week and Russert and the Media.
My comment there:

Not being a regular consumer of his work, I did not have him on a pedestal, but given the nature of the business he was probably the best they could afford. And given the nature of the world, even harder to find one without more of an edge. Maybe as the comments on Kiley have shown.

My suggestion to MSNBC is to fill several pairs of shoes in memory of Russert's work. Not as in trying to fill his shoes, but to uphold his several jobs. It will still be difficult. [Maybe David Bender if not Rachel Maddow could fill one or more of those pairs, but not necessarily that they or GE* would want them to fit.]
[[[Ed Schultz would be a fit for some shoes here, but I think he enjoys the job he's got too much and could actually be in the running for the whole show. And of course Keith Olbermann would be great, if he was not so great at his present job.]]]

- - - - -

Meanwhile I have been writing in other formats, message board and email. And will get to the following (nfry), later.
- - - - -
When McCain Drops by Steve Rosenbaum
US General Accuses Bush Administration of War Crimes
Broken Laws, Broken LivesPhysicians for Human Rights
Michael Reagan Should be charged for terrorism
or they are right, our freedoms are what gives us terrorists.
How could a wrong be so right? NOT!

She talks about the real America. Will she be heard?
In no particular order:
Kucinich: Impeachment Not "Off the Table"

I hope to be back to these links, but wish that they did not tie in so well, that more will be following. But I will summarize my feeling that McCain may be just a place holder in a strategy where there is too much to loose not to give it more than he's got, and that plays into the way I see them always playing it.

Meanwhile Obama has "flip-flopped"[**] on the Public Campaign Finance System but faces it in a more honest a principled manner than the media can follow or wishes to follow. While McCain may just be a distraction for a sleeper candidate, they cannot come up with one that should not be asked what he or she would do about holding history accountable.

* GE profits are a picture that may not fit full disclosure journalism, economics or environment, but then I acknowledge I don't fit or have the full picture either. Meaning I have taken digs at them, and it does not mean that profits are above principles or question, but that it is another story.

** The Catch-22 for them not us, but we*** can't help it. "Flip-flop" is a charge that was created by those that fear nuance or the work required to do their jobs or an attempt to do too many jobs or diminish those that see your own flip-flops, which maybe is all they can see, since this has created a loop. [[I did not intend to throw the book at a term, but then we are all about the Catch-44. And then there is the actual records. Not that I want to go there, but that may be one of the reasons we are here, with McCain a candidate, not his record, but the difficulty in facing it all, and the actions/reactions that brings.]]

*** "we" does depend on a job sometimes and who "them" is, not to mention the word.(While there may be some typo's or gramatical sloppiness in this post, this line have been double and triple checked mentally, not technologically.)

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas to the Democrats
and Happy Boxing Day to the Republicans,
not to be PC or leave any others out.
Or other coping havens of hope.

[President Obama Hails Reform/Salon]
[Here they are! The Bills side by side. Detroit Free Press]

[Note that the above two links were read and inserted after the rest of this post, except ** and ***, not to mention David Sirota ]
My comment:

It would seem to me that Congress should be able to "get 'er done" without the 60 votes. Either as some suggest by "going nuclear" (I am against Nuclear Power but) by blowing up the filibuster or somehow utilizing a reconciliation or conference process to do it. Failing that, there are probably enough progressives to kill the bill, but that may not be necessary[or advised**]. Removing the mandate, just might put this in the category of a budget issue under reconciliation, but failing to remove the mandate, might just put this on the track for constitutional review and modification, where it is imagined that a public option just might be the only option. It just might be wise for the Republicans not to push the constitutional issue and settle for a public option now, possibly with a 10-15% buyin margin on Medicare. In the alternative, giving states an option to have a public* plan, and freeing those to sell out of state, might be another crack in the (just say no)[***] armor.

[TruthOut/McClatchy -- Steve Clemons/Huffington}

* one Representative mentioned that the option would have a name other than public, and that could just be non-profit or within the caps imposed.

[In a bit of Re-Mythication, I might say: From hurding cats to a real cat fight, this is no sausage or hot diggity dog eat dog world. Or from Real Mythication to Real Miffication in regards to others, it is better than FAUX News.]

[** semantics are more than a quibble between liberals and progressives, but between principles and progress (side note: some claim that "progressive" is just a label to avoid the "liberal" charge but both are needed, while labels should not give cover for inaction or misconceptions.]
[***(late insert) also: or just say now]

RETRO NOTE: The Ed Show. Not to mention Miff Maddow.
[1-7-09 Hit Ping Pong (see Shhhh!) on the table.]

Value Added?

Chris Matthews is Value Taxed.

Mid-Speech (13:35 in video):

[quote]To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future

It is not so much was is said, but what is not[***] said or heard elsewhere.[**] Number one threat to national security now? Economic Crisis Second or was number one before the last administration: Nuclear Proliferation.

I don't know if I can find the point where a Republican critic complains that we can't address some of the concerns at home, how can we address them in Afghanistan? That is a great point. It should have been considered before we shifted from getting Bin Laden and to regime change in Iraq. But the important difference is that Afghanistan needs to build their governmental processes amidst turmoil, while we have got one already in turmoil thanks to the Chicken Hawks*, and Afghanistan does not have the stumbling blocks which are our foundations and which the previous administration and current Republicans continue to trample.

* I think we can safely say Chris Matthews is one now, but I don't really know he did not serve. The only wiki connection is other MSNBC military analysts. Not to mention Rube Goldberg. He did serve: "in the United States Peace Corps in Swaziland from 1968 to 1970 as a trade development advisor."
[**] added link
[***] similarly Pakistan has a government that must be dealt with with all our influence. (27:03) Values Sir CHARGE![Sometimes I can't believe Matthews was ever in politics or heard any of the Bush speechs- but that is maybe good for an interviewer, because we must listen to his guests.]
[Having now finished hearing the speech, after spending too much time on the reactions, I must say that the speech was a solemn thrill and no vapid rhetoric. I think I detected that in the faces and response from "the Corps" and one would not expect them to act like groupies at a rock concert or talk show hosts.
[And 1:15 to 1:52 with Rachel Maddow. Lastly I have sorted the bold links{see below index} and I hope you have "found my thrill". Maybe we should have a thrill added tax, but there "he goes" again.]
{Index of priority links: "Speech", "no vapid" (General Eaton), Pakistan, Maddow (1:15-1:52)}

Speaking of Makeup

Rachel Maddow has the right stuff*...
for MSNBC.

As Olbermann's audience grew to rival, though not quite equal, that of longtime ratings king Bill O'Reilly, MSNBC gained an unwanted reputation as an emergent liberal version of Fox News--a view that became more prevalent after Maddow's show was announced.

Not exactly "Fair and Balanced".

Meanwhile Republican and former Congressman Joe Scarborough has a three-hour program every morning--more airtime than Maddow and Olbermann have combined. While MSNBC is experimenting with a block of liberal programming, as a network that shares offices with NBC News, it can't afford to be seen as having an ideological bias. The network recently bowed to conservative critics by moving Matthews and Olbermann, both seen as sympathetic to Barack Obama, out of the anchor chairs for live political events.

The only reason MSNBC should have resisted "conservative critics" is if they wanted to be the perfect counter-balance to FOX NEWS. If only they could find anchors without opinions or curiosity or personality, it might be a reasonable excuse. But I find it part of the "vast Right-wing conspiracy" of "do as I say, not as I do". Or part of their whiner nature, could it be "The squeaky wheel gets the oil"? No wonder the Straight Talk Express seems to have a rattle and need a pacifier.**


*intelligence + temperment

** double what?

[Update: I want to caution against too much ridicule of the way Governor Palin relates to foreign policy and economic issues. She is does a pretty good job of spinning up the trickle down. Meaning she is describing them in ways that obscure under sensible principles policies that will not achieve them. In other words she does a brilliant job of defending policies which are indefensible, yet fits the old pattern of what they think will work. But then I could just be too easy on her, or sexist, in an affirmative action sort of way.]

Progressive Break Fast

Campaign for America's Future.

The above link is a compendium of news, comments & hope for progress.
Meanwhile I have made a few comments w/minor corrections **,
but bring this up much as it is(was):

Does the Massachusetts vote mean that the House should pass the Senate Bill, or should they reject it?
My view is it should get a vote, up or down or side ways* meaning risking some changes, risking the filibuster. Then the Senate can up or down it, or break it up. Speaking of holding water or breaking a mirror.***

* just as Ed Shultz was unclear about the ping pong potential, this is as tricky a net in the parlaimentary procedures that would offer this option. (Reconciliation or Nuclear Option)[Adjusted snippets of original continued.] [Psst...(Rachell)Speaking of "mythical beasts"(...)at least Barney Frank got the mess-age(...){Ouch: Moment of Meek to Fine Man?} (and Governor Ed Rendell say and does go downe.)

BTW: It is Senator Reid, not House Speaker, Ed.(Take nothing from the order of these links than that I do not recall which has Ed confused on the Reid/Pelosi positions in the process but great coverage and dialogue.)

** see [*]& comment 2 there
*** the holding water bit is a play on the Hardball promo regarding Chris Matthews' style of argument, Waterloo, and his leaking all over the mirror Howard Dean holds up. But I really did not intend a restroom metaphor, and so it goes.

[Apologies for the anachronistic asterisks and shuffled links but Rachel Maddow's were not yet available and I wished to bring up a few points. Howard Fineman clarifies the fine men or Frank & Obamba not to mention the Governor in Rendell link. While the beast was the unicorn of 60 yet not meek Senator Stabinow, not to mention the Ouch of Geek Irony.]
[translation of apologies/index of links]
mirror: Matthews/Dean Hardball
beasts: Maddow/Stabinow unicorn filibuster
ouch moment: Maddow/parody of TeaDay
Fine Man: Maddow/Fineman Frank Obama
Governor: Maddow/Rendell
downe: Browne
Not to mention BTW: Ed Schultz/Huffington
Not: Schultz/Lanny Davis
Ed.:Schultz/Gibbs

And Countdown. Keith Olbermann/Gibbs et al.
Lawrence O'Donnell
Harpers/Gitmo
tasteless/Brown
Obama/promise?

Great Segue!

After Day 3 of the Democratic National Convention,
my first comments are:
So far, so good!
"No way! No how! No McCain!" Now that is a flip-flop.

Seriously...
From "Faint Praise/Criticism" to Progressive Narratives.
Not to mention pragmatism...

but I would like to note belated congratulations
to Rachel Maddow (nfry*) on getting her new show on MSNBC. Rachel refers to herself as a liberal not a partisan. Righteously so.[*] It is really hard to criticize Rachel, but she is the perfect flip-flop of Pat Buchanan. He is sometimes valid in his criticism of Republicans and praise or suggestions for Democrats, only the better to eat you my dear. Said the wolf to Little Red Riding Hood. While Rachel may be the same for Democrats, only the better for the country.** (Embedded in these asterisks are references to their work. Earlier encounters with Howard Kurtz, long time agitation by Pat Buchanan and recent enthusiasm tempered with caution for Rachel. Let me just say that her liberal enthusiasm and hopes may be cast as negative shadows on the pragmatism needed for progress.*** But criticism of Democrats and our process, taken in the right light, can be good for all.)

*The segue is filled with the likes of Howard Kurtz, and Patrick Buchanan.
** not a perfect flip-flop, the Democrats not the country.
*** it might have helped, yet it might not have, to remember the particular comment that I had a problem with, but it was only a comment on the progress of the convention or one of the speakers that caused me to wonder about her perspective as she makes progress. Had it changed or is it what got her where she is?

[A regressive update, meaning only a thought that I had when Biden was announced: That he should well vet humor and plagiarism. Now that is a well contained line. Of attack, for us, and by us, not necessarily of us. And depending upon McCain's VP a wonder of the Republican vetting process.]
[John McCain: An Experience We Don't Need! Thanks to Thom Hartmann.]{Not to mention: Breaking the Yalta Conspiracy}

[* 9-3-08 Update link]

Apples and Oranges?

National Hyperbole?
Herman Cain is trying to explain his 9-9-9 or Sim City tax code, while Perry(or Romney) is trying to make the point that people don't want another tax, without pointing out the regressive nature of it. It really is apples and oranges, both of which will impact the 99% more than the 1%.
(tough segue)
(all+politics.)
[Cherry Picking the L word?]
[Local? Laffer? the Curve? Liberal?]

[My original intent was to note the rhetoric* in the hyperbole link, and get to my compromise-D point via "apples and oranges". i.e. who am I to recommend a Republican candidate? But suggesting that it go all the way, to the convention. Which itself is un-conventional, but do I have the facts to back that up? However...after last nights debate and a Rovian theory I have been scrolling over in my mind, could it be? Romney/Perry 2012?** In my opinion the best thing for the country is a more moderate Republican that will still be too right, that would allow Obama to hold the 99'ers. But that is not the way Republicans work, and it is even difficult sometimes for democracy to work. It is fine to attack an opponents strengths in a game or a battle and that works in politics, but that is not what works in governing.]
[Lions, and Tigers and Bears(please excuse the Wizard of OWS* analogy) is an apples and oranges and cherry picking procedure. For Republicans it is Tea or Koch and Rove, for democracy it is apples and oranges and cherry pitting. Pitting is a good thing, with apologies to Martha Stewart, not to mention George Washington, with his supposed hatchet.]

* not to disassemble in either sense, it is a great not so calm-pendium. Note that I did say "tough segue". And CAUTION please note that I do not always review the complete links that I insert, in particular the code of Rachel Maddow. And I cannot be responsible for links expiring or changing.

** Note that a more "realistic" combo(pardon the pun) may be Romney/Cain. And no pardon for the quotation marks, but the ticket would be more debate worthy. [OK, I pun on the pardon, but not the debate, with CAUTION.]

Canard Lines

Special thanks to Rachel Maddow for her word of the day.
Canard.
I would like to reserve passage on that bumper sticker,
as Straight Talk Express takes to the seas with Flip-Flopper Crafters: apparently if it looks like a duck...

I think that vets should be up in arms over use of the term Swiftboating for any sort of political campaign. Not literally, but then we should be careful with language. My point is that I guess it is fair game if you want to be gung ho about your truth, but it would be better to know nuance and the difference between being defensive and taking offense, not to mention being being straight or able to lead.

[7-2-08: Over the years, terms have been highjacked or meanings adapted but this takes the cake and bites. Speaking of irony (clad) will wonders never cease? My real point is that Swiftboaters should be honored for their service not for the Flip-Flopper Crafting of the truth. You see I had to be straight about it because the mixed metaphors are probably lost or just pull the triggers or push the buttons of those that have experienced real anecdotes while now being used for weapons of rhetoric. In fact if one wants to circle ones wagons, leave the women and children in and let the truth out. Pardon the antiquated terminology(non-PC-ness)*, it is hard to keep ahead of the curve of progress, but is better than getting ahead of history.]

[MSM **is a big part of this problem in contrast and conflict to: Clark In Context : Slamming Wesley Clark

* another canard, not that it can't be talked about

** Main Stream Media (see comments embedded on MSM) and note that I did not see the original exchange on Face the Nation but here is the closest I found after posting above, while I did hear actual snippets and Clark defending himself and making a good case for why questioning the use of a record is not dishonoring the service, despite what writers put in their headlines or teasers for attention.***]

*** these asterisks(**) need their own asterisks for the sake of closing a loop or the long story short, the MSM is part of the tent, not just the mess, now that the people feel the need for more involvement and there is need for more attention to the process. One can respect the service of more than just the military, but should also have more than faith in the three branches of government and the distinguished press.

[Today's word of the day? Pandering. Or bringing issues to the front.]

The Challenge?

A legend for the Road map.[**]
[1-26-11 Update Dated below]

Are we there yet?
Pit Stops or Rest Stops?
Don't just spin our wheels.
Not that the squeaky wheel doesn't...
locating progressive perspectives may be in need of a key.

[Walking the line...w/Sam Stein, a tangent of empathy or introspection or straddling it with w/Paul Krugman, or neo-alterior line?*]

* there is some cognitive dissonance in this; America as a business, the private FED, and not just to pun on read or black [updated]

[** 1-25-11 Not exactly a huge effort to find the Republican Health care plan [Plan] but... here is more of a reply all, to the challenge, thanks to Rachel Maddow.]
[Not exactly up to the challenge above, nor exactly pro-rated, but still pre-speech... the challenge was the sources and keys to them, and it seems the media is not really up to the challenge or it takes more hard work. However, part of the challenge is the political nature of the media itself***. While attention has been given to a third so-called party within a party as a reply to the State of the Union, where is the so called Left? The Republicans have divided themselves to conquer so to speak, is there a voice let alone plan from the left in there, other than the pundits of lean forward? Or is Obama the Middle Bear's porridge? Just right.]

*** follow-upHowever: a turn spike.

[1-26-11 UPDATE: but just a hunch, as I pause the video, as the applause is still rolling, as the President enters the chamber, in the Welcome to the Enhanced State of the Union, the point is immediate: Winning The Future. Competition and Foreign Policy will not be foreign to Coordination.]

Congratulations KPTK! WE GOT ED!

And Randi and Stephanie, and Thom
[4-24-07: loopy link inserted for reconstruction]

- -
[8-2-07: ADJUSTED THIS DATE -
GO LEFT TV
Air America Radio
Progressive Talk Radio KPTK AM1090 Seattle
FILTER OF SORTS]
- -

[adjusted this date 8-11-07: ifilm of Spike TV
The Colbert Report
The Daily Show ]

Five of the Heavy Hundred are on one local station: AM1090

The 100 most important radio talk show hosts in America!

NUMBER 5.
Ed Schultz www.wegoted.com

Number 13.
Randi Rhodes: The Randi Rhodes Show

Number 36.
Stephanie Miller: The Stephanie Miller Show

Number 51 Thom Hartmann: The Thom Hartmann Show

Rounding out the court. Maybe the center.
Number 27. Clark Howard.

OK! My progressive spin almost missed Clark, but the term "important" over "popular" was a factor in the "Heavy Hundred", and his 1 hr time-slot midnight to 1AM may hint at that and the progressive lean of the listeners or hourly demographics. Clark is both important and popular, just not labeled progressive.*

FLIP FLOP THE LIST!
Considering these personalities and their news value, entertainment and progressive intent,Rachel Maddow (while not even found in the top 250) must be on the bench.
What I am saying is that, rounded out to a balance of sort
but with progressive and informative and entertainment value, she may have topped a list with the numbers flipped. It would be hard to say that Thom, Stephanie, Randi and Ed have any particular strengths that would flip-flop the list, other than my feeling that being progressive, informative and entertaining should be considered in that order, rather than the method used for the Heavy Hundred.
On my scale Rachel Maddow plays well off the bench and deserve her own honors, not to mention her on-air teammate Kent Jones.

MY IDEAL PROGRESSIVE LIST[Reality Flip Flopped]
Or from spirited to spiritual. Going up?

[RACHEL MADDOW] A UNIQUE BALANCE OF INFO AND HUMOR
THOM HARTMANN
STEPHANIE MILLER
RANDI RHODES
ED SCHULTZ
MIKE MALLOY: REALITY BASED
[NOT BEST REPRESENTED IN LINEAR FORM]

[Apologies for not noting one of the top 250, Mike Malloy who is a spiritual warrior of sorts.
If there were a FOX NEWS of the left, Mike Malloy would fit the bill as the nightly lead,
but for me he is too much on a Reality Rant to make good bedtime stories.]
Now just to sort my own review, I love all these guys, for different reasons, but would put progress over money and fun, and that is what I wish for all.

* I don't relish labels, but then, it is a sorting. Long Story Short: (or in my usual way: Runting the Rant) Maybe the Heavy Hitter (Oops) Hundred list does reflect the order of "Agressive Progressives", but I would flip flop the list and call it Just Progressive! But the problem always is, coming from a perspective or getting somewhere.

I Ron Knee Chef

Ctrl F Kitchen

Obama Takes it to the Kitchen.
OK, Lawrence O'Donnell is not there yet.[*]
True Man Label: Bring it On.

* 1-5-11 Lawrence O'Donnell: McCain Courage, Mormon Cult(ure) and perfect family. (Mitt Romney)
Recess appointment is perfect politics.  Make our** day. (not to get Harry) i.e. take it to court or the people
Is Obama the 75% man?  Mitt may be politically perfect, or the least of how many evils?
Trump wanted some enthusiasm, but who am I to be enthused by the choice of an even weaker candidate to face Obama?  I hope the Republicans give us their best.  It is a process that just might do that.  Unfortunately their best for some Republicans, Libertarians, and farther wrongs would be worse for the country. A flip-flopping un-nuanced Romney is their best shot.  Someone more extreme*** would be better for the race and the country by allowing Obama to carry the middle left.

** dirty Truman and his spatula
[Later The Daily Caller and Neo-Nuanced R's. ]
*** link added (**also & Neo)
[Neo-Bush, Frank/Dodd and Obamanomics.]
[Rachel Maddow, Star Chamber]
[Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartmann, Lawrence O'Donnell]

1-6-11 Paul Harvey, The Rest of the Story. "not really".
Jobs-check, Cuts-check, debt next, but that means revenue also. As for certainty?
Note: use of punctuation, (sic)/pun, "air quotes" or lack of... c-BTW/irony.
(Ctrl F: "best" link inserted above)
[Rachel Maddow follow up or vise verse us ? Steele and Obama!]
[Santorum: Civil ad cert'em, a lesson in logic and taking the 9th.]
[Lawrence O'Donnell follow-up and tetra heed run ! (c-1-5 "courage":It was noted that it would be a lack of courage for McCain not to endorse a Republican candidate at this late date.  So he endorses after the first delegates have been selected?  Typical fear of fear monger.)]
BTW:  China Or Germany? Which Economy Stupid? This proves you can learn from others, but it doesn't say what.

Awkward Breaking(BTW/Less Embedded)News(Ein, Ein, Ayn?)
i.e. next post/segue!
Speaking of Newt Eyed Peas, what he said to the NAACP.
Just demand jobs instead of food stamps?  Not to be snarky.

< previous post >

Clinton In South Carolina

Rachel Maddow on her show:

Rachel, Rachel, Rachel...
You suggest that Obama must go on the offensive? Maybe. But not in the way that you suggest. Not by making things up. Maybe by staging events or confrontations, but not by doing exactly what the opposition is doing. Maybe that is too much faith in the American people. Hillary and Bill, clearly are taking things out of context which display there intention to confuse or inability to understand. And when they are not, the media is. I may be unfair and unbalanced but to me, Obama is more careful in his context and less offensive in his connections. The Clinton campaign should cool it, and so should the media. Even Michelle Obama's comments could not clear the filters and it is not their fault that voters and the media add their own context, just like Hillary and Bill tend to do. Correcting any misinformation and exposing any misunderstanding is one thing but more of the same is counterproductive.

Ed Schultz on Hardball:
And I just turned on MSNBC to find Ed Schultz and Pat Buchanan and a third character on Chris Mathews, and the latter two fall into just these categories and Ed Schultz sure has his hands full cutting through what Edwards would call crap. [Meanwhile Clinton (Bill) takes a swing at the press and strikes at Obama again. It is like shadow jujitsu. Only good for the dark side.]

Dana Milbank on Countdown: On Obama not being uniter.
(OK, I don't have the exact quote. I am doing the press thing.)

Never has a candidate said they will not support the other candidate. (Although Kucinich missed a chance to be clear.) But to assume that they can bring their supporters is another thing.

[Live with Dan Abrams: now -> What some call politics: "I call lawyering". ]

The Democrats can be united. If they are not they are not really Democrats. Putting a Democrat in the White House is the important thing. But putting the best Democrat in the White House is the most important thing. To do that we need the votes of not just Democrats. But that does not mean that the candidate cannot be the best Democrat as well.

Finalizing in what Rachel Maddow also noted about lies.

[Speaking of from September 2002:
A for

Cowboy]

Temporal

Problematics
Rachell Maddow: more than just a perspective. Facts do change with time. Past facts are still past, but present facts will soon be. Not to pun on what will be, but Osama bin Laden's past was really not so much the issue. Nothing will change* the mishandling of facts and choices made by the Bush administration. (By this I mean the importance of not having focused on getting bin Laden when the Taliban made offers asking for evidence before September 11th, 2001)

*actually congress can change and the presidency did (see "hypocrisy" and "flip-flop" under can change link)]

[Dylan Ratigan: Mega Fatwah.The difference* between opinion and ruling.

A fatwā (Arabic: فتوى‎; plural fatāwā Arabic: فتاوى‎) in the Islamic faith is a religious opinion concerning Islamic law issued by an Islamic scholar. In Sunni Islam any fatwā is non-binding, whereas in Shia Islam it could be considered by an individual as binding, depending on his or her relation to the scholar. The person who issues a fatwā is called, in that respect, a Mufti, i.e. an issuer of fatwā, from the verb أَفْتَى 'aftā = "he gave a formal legal opinion on". This is not necessarily a formal position since most Muslims argue that anyone trained in Islamic law may give an opinion (fatwā) on its teachings. If a fatwā does not break new ground, then it is simply called a ruling.[1]

An analogy might be made to the issue of legal opinions from courts in common-law systems. Fatwās generally contain the details of the scholar's reasoning, typically in response to a particular case, and are considered binding precedent by those Muslims who have bound themselves to that scholar, including future Muftis; mere rulings can be compared to memorandum opinions. The primary difference between common-law opinions and fatwās, however, is that fatwās are not universally binding; as the Sharia is not universally consistent and Islam is very non-hierarchical in structure, fatwās do not carry the sort of weight that secular common-law opinions do.

*spirt and letter of the law]

[Speaking of timing, I mean Dylan. It is alsmost as if, I had already read these. Not. Actually I have read the last link here, before this Temporal rant, but the rest of the links in this bracket are yet to be read, yet seem to fit the bill or fill the tetrahedron, and a prior intent, or rather a comment yet to be found. Note on timing thing: refers to monkey see monkey do of original intent, meaning an email going around about the psychology experiment(a seam in time with the Dylan cracks), and how some people think they know better.]
[Note bolds as read in balancing act or narrative of labels and perspectives. Noam Chomsky, Paul Krugman, No Labels, Herman Cain, not in context of "more than as if not to be".]

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?