Nebulous links!

Oh what a web... H.R. 1955 Stalled in Senate
Former Prosecutors Challenge White House Immunity Claim
_____________________________________________________________________

Maybe Michelle Malkin does "deserve a break today"*,
but "What Happened" by Scott McClellan
does not. Neither does the subtitle:
Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception

Maybe the Boston Globe has taken the Keffiyeh Kerfuffle(which I did not know was a title to one of her pieces) too seriously. But that does not mean they deserve a bad wrap.(poor pun) Having found a bit more on the story I will link here and here for later. (But I may not return as I believe the later touches my point on marketing, and what may be viral.**)

* I have no stock in Mc(anything), actually some stock, but not in McSame, or fear of change or a bad wrap.

** what ties this in, apparently fear of wraps, and keeping things under your kerfluffle.

[6-3-08: Hard Core Link? Blowing Bubble? ]

The Real Scoop?

The Whichgate?
The Yellow Leaks from Canada?
["NAFTAgate" Began With Remark From Harper's Chief of Staff]

It reminds me of the "yellow cake" from Africa
but they are on the trail,
and ready to send in the Mounties.

It was a very difficult read, [added 3-7-08]

["He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry."

Government officials did not deny the conversation took place.

They said that Mr. Brodie sought to allay concerns about the impact of Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton's assertion that they would re-negotiate NAFTA if elected. But they did say that Mr. Brodie had no recollection of discussing any specific candidate - either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Obama.

CTV News President Robert Hurst said he would not discuss his journalists' sources.

But others said the content of Mr. Brodie's remarks was passed on to CTV's Washington bureau and their White House correspondent set out the next day to pursue the story on Ms. Clinton's apparent hypocrisy on the North American Free Trade Agreement.]

but will it soon drop from the radar?

If this does not shine some light on the candidates,
maybe Canada can shine some light on the journalism. [the story continued]

[Although CTV correspondent Tom Clark mentioned Ms. Clinton in passing, the focus of his story was on assurances from the Obama camp.

He went to air on Feb. 27 with a report that the Democratic front-runner had given advance notice to Canadian diplomats that he was about to engage in some anti-NAFTA rhetoric, but not to take it too seriously.

The report wound up on YouTube and caused an uproar in the U.S. race - influencing the final days of the critical Ohio primary, with every indication it will also play a role in the upcoming Pennsylvania vote.]

Is this part of someones campaign or strategy?
Maybe the best we can hope is that it vets us,
even if they do not get to the bottom of it.
Of course they could sound sincere now,
but still leave someone at the bottom of it.

Canada could be shining a light on our own congress
to have the backbone to investigate our own media
and the madness of our own accountability. [more * YouTube 3-7-08 Barack Obama NAFTA Scandal: A Smear Says Canada PM 3/3]

*[3-7-08] I did not post an original YouTube that depicted CBC in this or others that ran on from it.

[3-6-08: see bottom link and is someone vetting us? and should the FEC or the FCC or both investigate YouTube? For it can spread without linking or correcting, oh what a web they weave and just who do they really peeve?]

[3-8-08 Label: NAFTAgate added]
[3-9-08: UPDATE see bottom link there ]

Owe what a web...

Elements of Style* Weaves. 

No you're audience[!]

[!]~(sic)/ sarcasm in coinage
Or We gee bored.

*Hint: E.B. White
Edit: 3-16-14 (asterisk/arrangement/labels)
(metapropism?)
(speaking of webs)

Give us a brake?

[Originally Posted evening 8-30-12]
Raw Hide!
OK, the RNC convention is over. 
It is hard to say much about the Clint Eastwood performance. 
Was he in character, or was he just acting his age? 
It was a good performance, but the Romney camp has defended it as an ad lib.
It was a break from the rest of the speeches, except for the empty chair. 
Rachel Maddow is reporting it as wierd.  I would give it more credit.
They are saying that much will be made of the Clint Eastwood performance. 
Which will detract from the other so-called messengers of the convention.
So much of the convention were good performances, if you forget that governing does not go by a script. 

[8-31-12]
The above** might not be my usual script.  But is less or more* a Charlotte's Web.
"Move em up!" might have been its original heading, but it is lost on the edit-room floor. 
"Give us a brake?" is the pun on the break or the foot in the mouth on the brake?
The point is what is the point.  And it's politics, not its politics.***

*Mitt Flop=?[!]=meaning? Not!
**written "as is" 8-30-12[UPDATE]
*** "Stunk and White(and Angell)"[!]?

[Note the simplicity of the bottom line(see bold ** to*** of text ).  Note the elements over the style. Not exactly a pun, far from Socratic.  A bit more Platonic, less Pythagorian, not exactly by the book as for the "Elements...(or)Style". See turn around and braking script or characters. Don't scratch too deep.  Or is it scroll ?]


[Footnote: I really should brake and change gears, but here I note that I may later insert links beyond the original raw hide.  BTW:  I know the series was one word, but it is the way I literally rove and un-rove.  

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.

Flow of Conscience

Not Exactly Either,
nor Out of the Box.
Speaking of Supply and Demand
or trickle down and bubble up.
No Dead C Scroll over, nor out.

Just a hint that things are not black and white,
nor up without down, let alone level or limited.
The original trigger was a conversation at a holiday party,
which I wished to amend here,
while John Dean and William James[***] were part of the head water or ledership.

[Speaking of flow, and roots or branches.]

[See Three Comments]
[Seg Way: E pit o'me[!]
/ I will now slightly edit a bit of above,
without adding any links as after thoughts unless noted.(see italics)]

[For the scroll-over challenged*, I will list the links in order...
(under construction I through XIX)
I Sciousness, wiki.
II Pandora, wiki.
III Theodicy, wiki.
IV Supply, blog search
V Demand, ibid.
VI slippery slope, ibid.
VII Power Broker, ibid.
VIII scroll, ibid.
IX ibid.,ibid[?]
X "Conservatives without Conscience"
XI "The Liberal Conscience"
XII Try-Unism
XIII google find "liberal conscience Dean"/Howard
XIV ibid. /Baker
XV "X & Y Chromo Somes", my blog
XVI "Image of Original In Tent", ibid.
XVII December 2011 archives, ibid.
XVIII "A PEAS Meant", ibid.
XIX "Post Script", ibid.
SEGUE:
Seg Elizabeth Warren replies to Karl Rove
Way Her way (video).
Epitome
[!] Sat Ire
A bit frayed at the edges.

*or to save you a trip

[See Comments up to the sixth, then I was Roving my web pages and found this. Speaking of Prophetic Tributes. Innocence bUy...to the good fight.]
[Speaking of frayed.**]

** see Seg Way source LA Times.
[***] 12-13-11 Correction to James(not Blake)