Perfect Presidents or Perfect Politicians?

Perfect Hosts?
No such thing, they might agree.
The host of this panel of talk show hosts aside, the rest are the closest to what this country needs and were all at Seattle Town Hall this last evening. (This is a flip-flopped if not awkward complement to the host.)

As introduced:
The Young Turks
Mike Malloy
Ed Schultz
Stephanie Miller
And the moderator/host Thom Hartmann

One thing it reminded me of, is that with all the ideas and great personalities, not to mention candidates, who needs Republicans. That is especially represented in the sometimes heated discussions. Seriously, who needs Republicans?

Especially when it comes to leadership and unity, who needs Republicans? The American voter should remember that as well as the so-called base of either party. The idea of divided government is not about pitting parties against each other, but each branch doing its job. But if congress is not going to do its job, it may be best to have divided Democrats. And still, who needs Republicans.

OK, this was just a quick rant, to make a point. One I am not sure hit its mark. I think it's that Congress should do its job, and Democrats will get elected. And if there are some Democrats that upset some of the people, who needs Republicans?

Well I will close with this. It was a really hot show.

Eating Their Own?

Perfect Presidents, or Perfect Politicians?
The Forum Part A, and Part B.
To be broadcast on the Seattle Channel.

It has been complained that Democrats have a problem of eating their own, meaning beating each other up in the political races, but compared to Mike Malloy who sometimes wants to eat his own arm, it is all relative. I call it dialogue and debate and impassioned perspectives, and just what politics needs. Not that anyone should be eating anyone, for Republicans who view things as "Us and Them", there is probably no problem with eating others. But if one just looks at the Democrats and the amount of "dialogue", who needs Republicans? [One always needs loyal opposition, but loyal followers? That was just answering a rhetorical with a rhetorical.]

Clear Eyes,

Full Hearts, Can't Use* ?

It is unclear what the Romney ticket is going with, Mo'better Bush or Mo'better Obama, but certainly not No Drama Either or is it ether?  Somewhere the Romney/Ryan/RNC use of the term quarterback escapes me.  Even if it was just me, I think that Monday morning or anyday other day than game day is their style. 

* was going to go with caffeinated but that was too Mormoney. 

(Tagg we are it ?)
Replacement Refs or Not...  (Bu' dump 'ump [!] ... ** )

===============
10-18-12
RETRO_SEG_WAY?
UNCLE SAM KNOT?
Or Fair and Balanced, not ? !
Or Just US!
=========

** updated, Thom Hartmann(Bu'), Norman Goldman(Dump), Randi Rhodes ('ump) (Bu' dump 'ump)/Re:tale.
Re:R,R,R A - R(not exactly) (j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r )

Not to Dump on Norman Goldman(nor Republicans), he is describing RepubliCONS as smart and fighting like cats and dogs over congress, while compromise is only for the president as candidate.  He makes further cracks about the difficulties of Bozo John Boehner as House Speaker in hurding*** them. (my paraphrasing & rhetorical metamorphing.)

*** circular firing rhetorical metaphors(cats and dogs)
(Obama has a better record given his opposition, Romney had to cooperated with a 78% Democratic legislature which has the power.***) Yeah that asterisk is redundant... who needs Republicans when ...  democracy is all over the map?)

[Bin Go ! Who let  the names out? Con $(c)ent Ration ? (C S c R !) ]

Who needs Republicans

with fungible Democrats who don't even know they are at the table. Well, consider that they may have pushed themselves from the table and no scraps for the blue dogs.[*] But if and when they vote for the bill or not, they can be considered bi-partisan. I mean that is the fungible logic that has come from Republicans**.

[7-24-09 * asterisk and link added(and bold to first link) of this saved in draft QCON which I now post with the addition of two perspectives: Obama at Shaker Heights / Spinning Health Care: A Bad Case of Vertigo Norman Soloman - Truthout Perspective
** I need a better link to the logic of previous Republican claims of their bipartisanship, but I think fungible applies to their logic almost across the board. And I am not suggesting we remove the Blue Dog scraps and Republican amendments, but you might better see the link I make depending on how they vote.]

Buy In?

[[UPDATE 12-23-09:
Salon v. Huffington*
Throwing in the towel of bipartisanship and/or getting it together?
Who needs Republicans when the Democrats have two wings?
(On the other hand: High Stakes Poker [**] anyone?)

* Wonk Room actually, but the sentiment counts and change happens. ]]
[**Thanks to Thom Hartmann ]

[Resume original post]
The Senate Hurdle? The Federal Option.
[OurFuture.org]

Optimistic Sense?
Real Mythication
UPDATES
Saving the spot *
Get 'er done
Hiatus of Thought
Rubric's Cube...
[12-22-09: Think Progress Hopenhagen, (FT, WaPo, NYTimes) OurFuture.org Bumbling Economy?]

CAD (To be or not 3d)

Cause Affect Disorder* or Culturally Aided Design
[Objective / Subjective ?]

(counter point)

* Ted Nugent had a deficiency,
Romney's may be full blown disorder.

[Not to demonstrate the former...(see *)]
** yet to be linked/asterisked (see [**])
*** again who needs Republicans ?
[To cut through the CAD part...]

[**] Maybe the Title should read (3B or not 2D) As in three branches with discernible diplomacy?  Except for the disorder bit. Now that is survival*** of the asterisks.

[If President Obama were half of what is feared and smeared from the Right he would be more than then Left even hoped for, and even the middle might understand they are better off.  If he were the other half he would be just another empirical politician.  The point is that there is only so much that a President can do, to undo what previous administrations and congresses have undone.  Not to be a CAD, but computer aided discernment brings a hopeful and peaceful May Day?]

[Ryan Shrugged = more Mitt-Flop or disavowing the moral case for capitalism. Note on The Last Word. ^ Not to mention The Ed Show ?!?!]

^5-1-12
[Led Better Bill?]

P.S. (Pre-Selection: Romney/Ryan 2012)

Raw Notes

[above posted 11-22-10 The following are the Raw Notes on Codevilla.]

[p3 re class(parapraph) or summer break(diversity) who needs Republicans when Democrats have class and diversity?]
[p4 :change]
[p5 blatant error non-gov Kissinger Fed IMF]
[p6 wait two classes?]

[Divide to whine - ? - before the political divide I think, is a thought "divided against itself" {statistiacal? r*}]
[greater of two evils]
[Royal palinisms]
[The Uniter]

[Us and them]
[Schlock]
[Wealth Associations? Enclaves?]
[Market - Educations? Shiboleths? ... Adam Smith "specialization"? language]
[Tribe Kagan court]
[Certifiable] italics reread.]

Dependence Economics

...

The Country Class? "non-orientation to government"
p3 small v. large
p6 country class American ways
p7 Snobsian
"Congruent Angendas?"
p1 Resistannce
p2 Moral Revolutianary
Suppose...

republic chain
(constitutional monstrosity)
Anti-Climatic)

Paradigm?

Or Ribble? Hint? Or shifts?
The origins:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

One thought...
[above posted 11-22-10 The following are the Raw Notes on Codevilla.]

[p3 re class(parapraph) or summer break(diversity) who needs Republicans when Democrats have class and diversity?]
[p4 :change]
[p5 blatant error non-gov Kissinger Fed IMF]
[p6 wait two classes?]

[Divide to whine - ? - before the political divide I think, is a thought "divided against itself" {statistiacal? r*}]
[greater of two evils]
[Royal palinisms]
[The Uniter]

[Us and them]
[Schlock]
[Wealth Associations? Enclaves?]
[Market - Educations? Shiboleths? ... Adam Smith "specialization"? language]
[Tribe Kagan court]
[Certifiable] italics reread.]

Dependence Economics

...

The Country Class? "non-orientation to government"
p3 small v. large
p6 country class American ways
p7 Snobsian
"Congruent Angendas?"
p1 Resistannce
p2 Moral Revolutianary
Suppose...

republic chain
(constitutional monstrosity)
Anti-Climatic)

QCON: TruthOut

Quick Comment On the News or Question Context:

The following pieces deserve a more careful read, but for me, not yet.[*] TruthOut does a filtering of sorts, and I notice rather heavy reliance on the NY Times. Not that that is a bad thing, just not necessarily a liberal thing. The left, right and the middle can characterize a source as from a different perspective, but that should be the mark of good journalism. Again, not that they have hit the right mark, from our own perspectives.

While Super Delegates are an example of a problem that voters wish they could fix without being a part of the process, so are the choices of primary, or caucus, and financing and electoral college procedures. These are all complicated by the nature of our goverment, its three branches, a bi-cameral legislature, and the individual composition of state governments and their rights in relation to the federal government. And have I thrown in partisanship? This is not a civics lesson, but it would be nice if it were in schools.

For me this is the first time in 24 years I have not come out of my precinct caucus a delegate for some candidate. This year it was by design or rather lack of design. I was for Edwards. I ran the caucus as a PCO and was a decimal point or voter or two shy of ending up an uncommitted delegate. This is more than I intended to say today, but I guess it ties in. Because even if civics were in schools, the media and the voters would still have a very big job to understand what mechanisms are operating in each state. Did I mention partisanship? Not to mention the constitution? I won't go there, but too many feel that there is a conspiracy, and there is, only if you are not part of it.

What is represented in the following articles may very well be best efforts to represent reliable pictures, but that is not to say that other perspectives and sources do so well. [*] While some of the tactics candidates use are not appreciated by many, they are apparently working on some. And it must be remembered that we filter as well or poorly as the media or format we use.

I would like to close this comment with the feeling that it is hard to unite when the leader is still unknown, but it is better than being party to having a leader who will unite without knowing who the enemy is. If there is any obtuseness in this, maybe it is a riddle to solve.

In Two Battlegrounds, Voters Say, Not Yet
By Patrick Healy
The New York Times

Ballot Shortages Plague Ohio Election Amid Unusually Heavy Primary Turnout By Ian Urbina
The New York Times
A Clean, Fair Fight
The New York Times | Editorial

McCain Clinches GOP Presidential Nomination By Michael D. Shear and Peter Slevin
The Washington Post

[Update: Just as I put the finishing links on this post, breaking news on Thom Hartmann Show, about the Texas crossovers that Rush Limbaugh encouraged. (Guest David Sirota) Where in the primary, voters got their ballots, and if they were Republican and wanted to vote for Hillary, found that there were no Rebulicans on their ballot. Hmm. Who needs a civics lesson? Well, of course it seems wrong, but parties should be able to decide their candidate not a talk show host who wants a circus. Republicans were disenfranchised, by trying to vote for Hillary while not intending to support her in the general election. They could not vote for Hillary, and hope to influence their own party on local elections too. This "monkey business" is why the parties and the process is so complicated. It is further complicated by the electoral college process not to mention the winner take all nature of that delivery system. Independents and third parties are so hard to fit into this picture without major changes that themselves are so hard to bring about, but I really don't want to go there.(the link not the idea). Oh and that ploy by Rush Limbaugh may have hurt some local candidates and I won't hurt our heads by figuring that out, but it is a way to sort out some math.]

[*] I have yet to fully digest the four links above, but apparently the press have nibbled on some ribs. (Links, sausage, democracy: get it?) But I did scarf this down and indeed have had my own beach party.

Now Dat's...

what I am talkin' 'bout.
And I had not even found the latter link before I had this line. But the former link needs updating and post dating.

Here it is:

Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Post Inserted Rough ramble old style.(pen and paper)

NO LABEL (constitutionalist)
Dragnet: names are changed (no association)
Bubble Up(Still) Party
No Champagne, but trickledown of whine.
Private Corps./Adam Smith
History / Our foundation.
Guilt by association, innocent by No.
Social Darwinist[Fundamental wordist}
Free Association, Not a Force.
Free Willie? So who(said)dat?
Play the cards, dealer.

Post-Sub Title: Buddie to remain nameless,
can you (S)paradigm and Party Less.

[The above will stand alone, substantially as originated and linkless so to speak, and for others to Google or search(of blog) themselves.]

NOW FOR THE FOOTNOTES: Who Dat? Chuck Knox. The Saints were no cards but the Seahawks are no joke! Now I will not try to trace back the rest of my ramble, but it is what I had in mind. But I will make a further association. The party to remain nameless, was asked for a label for himself(Constitutionalist). While others may be Tea Party Republicans or Libertarian Free Marketeers, to label or not to label that is the question. Whether is is nobler in the minds... Regardless we can associate 3rd partiers that may or may not associate with a party as having common strains* if not roots.

Note: changed "changes" to changed in ref. to Dragnet line.

BTW: whatever happened to the Gatorade for Carrol? I guess that is for college. But it seams a crack at the changes or no whine team. But in regards to the whine, I know parties that did not think a losing teams should go to the playoffs, but it is the way the rules were made. It is the process that matters whether you like it or not. Results of course matter, but you can't always change them.

*strains: on another thread elsewhere

Running List '08

[2-16-07: links added Richardson,]

[2-11-07: Coarse Filtering]- Richardson
Kucinich
ObamaClark
Edwards
Clinton
Vilsack
Dodd
Biden
(note: I will let the above typos speak for themselves as a filtering of sorts)
- - -
[original listing]Edwards
Clark **
Kucinich
Vilsack
Dodd
Biden {2-1-07}

[2-1-07]
This is only an order based on my obtuse criteria:
Kucinich
Richardson
Obama
Clark
Clinton
Edwards
Vilsack
Dodd
Biden




[added 1-18-07] I will footnote at the bottom but re-arrange the above evolving list, comment will appear in dated order below. Not that my feelings count and I have not investigated all these candidate yet but they are my current priority.

The "running list" will reflect consideration sometime of only one issue in prioritizing them, but they are probably all good. One issue alone could also put things in reverse order, for all I know Vilsack could be best. This is only an explanatory preface, hopefully not an attempt to cover myself. ***

[Original entry]
Vilsack

[added: 1-16-07 ]
Kucinich
Exploratory Committee:
Obama

[added: 1-17-07 ]
Edwards
These are in no particular order, I will comment on that later, but at this time Obama is in his exploratory phase. In the previous election I sent my first email with comments to the Kucinich camp, and continued to forward and Cc: each candidate till I arrived at my choice. Then I reviewed the candidates at Backbone Campaign * to rethink things . My choice was Howard Dean. Well it makes me want to scream as we know how that ended, but now we can scream because we know where we are, and Dean is the head of the DNC. I did not really plan to post this much now, but we have much more of a road to hoe, and I really don't want to jump on a bandwagon, and would really like a 20-mule team of great candidates so that we can sort things out even more, so that we don't have more wars and a president who is finally ready to feign dialogue while demanding a plan from the opposition. This is not a call for a plan or opposition, but to look at what each says and does. I did not really plan to go on this riff either, but just tossing things in the air, Edwards is a candidate I had enthusiasm for based on past considerations. But I look forward to processing all of these great candidates who are so good, I almost refrained from comment so far...

[added 1-18-07] Dodd a candidate long overdue, but too long?
Republicans ? **** and wannabes?

* [added 1-18-07] I will keep this * at the bottom as it will footnote here that this link does not have the presidential candidates yet, or needs to be changed.

** Obama will be left off until he declares, here Clark is inserted for Hope sake. For history sake I note the original five candidates in this order: Edwards, Clark, Kucinich, Vilsack, Dodd

*** I will not alter footnotes, comments will be inserted just above these footnotes, link below and others will be improved with time.

**** MoveOn.Org in this link is labeled a liberal group. I do not consider that it's draw, but was the forefront of pragmatism and progress that heralded the likes of Howard Dean.

Reel Ledership

Unknown candidate more favorable than Obama.
Obama leading over known persons.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!
2000th post.
(Counting 90 in draft, that is.)
 
Unfortunately, the blog format has evolved, and needs getting used to.
In fact, it seemed to evolve mid-post, as I managed to get in a bottom link here, but cannot not locate that process going forward or even in edit format.  


THIS just as I had declared MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, I mean, ACCOMPLISHED[!]
And just as I had reached a pinnacle of a point, (That was redundant, or was it?) {one of the the new features}
the irony* of Mission Accomplished, let alone leadership. (David Sirota and the Star Chamber)

NOW with** ALEX WAGNER,
But earlier with Jansing & Co.
And earlier with Ed Schultz and Nancy Pelosi.

BUT HERE IS part of the Mission CON *** TEXT,
and UNDERSTANDING "Who-w-Aww!"

* nails it:"Battle Him of the Republic".
let "alone" "leadership"
** or rather not yet with Alex Wagner
(and before I forget, it is the "pretty please" hyperbola of Romney, and the childish cycle.)
*** see CON 5 minutes on.
[Note Labels and comments(2),'n  Odd need.]

[The Alex Wagner link HERE.]
[Speaking of Dawn Key Ody]
[Late Possible Link inserted, let alone Try Angle.]

[Final note in reverence to Christopher Hitchens, and reference to Bashir and Ratigan. (oops)]
[accidental tangent found error in "Final" link/search/pun]
Mean[!]while: Ratigan has a panel on "Straight Talk" where Mission Accomplished applies to the popularity of congress.  With Republicans in charge of the House and having record filibusters,(meaning a minority has the responsibility in the Senate), their schtick is gridlock, not progress or compromise, let alone all truism. These are my prose not the panel's or guest's, but it can certainly be said that for the Republican goal of making sure there is a one term president by passing the buck, it could be mission accomplished.  But that hits the nail on the head with my lede (and the source) of Reel Ledership[!]. 

9-13-13 Jansen and Co label corrected(added).

Anachronistic Reasoning?

Rational Actors?

The X-Factor?

Not Exactly.

[Note: it was not my original intent to post so much comment. A reading of the asterisks in order,(* through ***) may help the flow of reasoning, such as it is. (i.e. get to *** before reading asterisks.)]

Chomsky/Pillar.

The dilemma*** of dealing with irrational actors, seems to argue that the reason for not allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons, is the same reason for supporting the Republicans for leadership: Only irrational actors can deal with irrational actors.**

Ironically it seems that it is the same reason for nuclear proliferation. Nuclear arms are needed to prevent the will of an enemy from being forced on one's homeland. Hence the irrational* also enforces the rationale that Iran needs nuclear arms for rational reasons.

This is not to argue for nuclear proliferation or disarmament, only to expose the paradox of expecting forces to be irrational, except when it is one's own. And this certainly does not argue for Republican leadership, at least as it expects to enforce their rational behavior on irrational bases. Such rationale is only loose talk or worse, intentional escalation of world tensions, and certainly not incentive for nuclear non-proliferation, global understanding or economic progress.

* not so irrational in the foundations here: as it is irrational to claim that Iran is irrational as a rational for preventing their nuclear capabilities. It is rational just attempting to rationalize behavior despite potential irrationality of the players.

**dualing ironies or double down dueling[!]

[or just dualing down?]

*** this paradox is also rational

This piece is based on a reading of the Chomsky and Pillar pieces.(in light of the "Actors" clip) But not before a re-reading of the complete Kroenig piece in a paper bound edition of Foreign Affairs, not fully available here. I had not yet stumbled on these articles, which may shine more light on the exorcise here.[!] From the former of the last two:

Matthew Kroenig's argument for preventive military action to combat Tehran's nuclear program -- "Time to Attack Iran" (January/February 2012) -- suffers from three problems. First, its view of Iranian leaders' risk calculations is self-contradictory. Second, it misreads nuclear history. And third, it underestimates the United States' ability to contain a nuclear Iran. When these problems are addressed, it is clear that, contrary to what Kroenig contends, attacking Iran is not "the least bad option."

--

Kroenig's inconsistency is clear: If Iranian leaders are as reckless as he seems to believe, a preventive strike would likely escalate to a full-blown war. If they are not, then there is no reason to think that a nuclear Iran would be uncontainable.

[Bingo: just in! Generals against of war ! or "loose talk"^]

[No Fluke? Yeah Right! ...and more Breaking Presidential Press Conference ! And ABC Fact Check is not Fact Check.]

^[Under "loose talk" a self-deprecating reference to my occasions to both hear and speak in-person with General Eaton.]

[Note that "anachronistic" pertains to the reading of the sources and the top three lines, not to mention the ongoing nature of who's interests are reasonable or to be forced, in the flow of the rationalizing. (Also asterisks and late found sources.)]

[Not exactly breaking, but Ed Schultz notes that Bill O'Reilly believes it was "No Fluke", that Sandra Fluke did not get "in front of that committee" by accident. No, she was rejected by a House Committee and was forced to appear before a Democratic Sub-Committee.]

Bleep 'n Compromise

The President is speaking out of both sides of his mouth,
because he is the President of both sides of the country;
Spending, short term, long term.
Entitlements slash safety needs.
Media slash Try Pod of perspective*.

*unintentional pun of an insert @TryP: Do you remember where Obama was when he said that? In the Senate, but he was talking about both Houses of Congress. The Buck Stops Here, actually it starts in the House (per the constitution) and must pass the Senate. Do you remember who is the majority in the House at the present time? Republicans. Understood in this light, I am sorry he regrets his Senate vote.

[7-18-11 Although this was a rough draft, I will let it ride re: [7-16-11 Bleep & Compromise ]]

New Approaches?

New Intelligence Estimate New York Times
New Approach to Terrorism Associated Press
CUT FUNDS means RAISED TAXES
Unless we consider the war won,
state and local taxes must cover the cuts.
[There is still something to be said
about the [Act to]PVRHT
and Pre-Empting Crimes] *

Much may be due about nothing.
But it is the grey areas or
"in the shadows" where they operate.

Another benign bill, but in conjunction with The Patriot Act, and failure to follow FISA or II and over 750 Presidential signing statements, do we really need more bills that will be followed at the whim of the administration? But it really is in the definitions and the intentions which are pre-emptive and likely pre-empted by intentions.

* LINK RECAP:
11-10-07 Alicia Mundy Seattle Times Washington Bureau
11-1-07 Chip Berlet quoted in this piece. In These Times
The long and the short of it?
Slate 11-27-07 ThruthOut 11-29-07

FURTHER COMMENT: Senate Bill 1959 has made strides in one area only since the House version, H.R. 1955 and that is the balance of the committee appointments, but what about the fields that will be covered, and the collections of material and the following of laws. The following is a crack at a critique of this attempt (S. 1959) to make up for the poor performance of the administration and congress in the areas of accountability:

While many disciplines and departments are involved there are three primary fields that make up the dynamics of individuals in society, and those are the Physical, Psychological, and Philosophical, and the fourth is represented by the dynamics which is about the people and their goals and that is Politics. These are the areas that need work in society before we can hope to prevent let alone predict people who will take thoughts and feelings into actions. But some of the circumstances that one guest listed as contributors to radicalization are the lack of issues being addressed by society, issues that could be said to cause violent radicalization. Issues which are just the ones that Republicans refuse to address, and Democrats just barely stand up for. Those being basic needs and government accountability

.

Others may look at the fourth dimension of this world view and think economics, religion or spirituality, but what are these all but the power of working with others.

PC / Hypocrisy Round Table

My main PC is down, but Politically Correct is the term I mean. Spending the last several days on a trip to Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park there is a lot that has piled up or slipped off the table.* Edwards. Greens. Economics. Gregoire. FBI investigation

It is a shame that Edwards has been potentially removed from further service to the country while greater problems hamper so few Republicans. I don't doubt he will continue to work hard. As for the next four links the thread is economics which needs further hard work.

Not to mention Georgia.
e.g.? Hypocrisy runs round it.
Who is Bush to tell Russia what to expect now? I won't touch that for now.

e.g. (note the other link's letters.) Except for F for potential follow up of failures. Don't forget the AAA link above.

Economics seems to trump all sense sometimes.
By George or Georgia, I believe I did it. (see trumps)

But these links do take a careful read to catch the nuance of my thread. And money not being the only factor or party to our equations, I urge participation in the process, and if you can't pick one of the two major parties, make sure that your vote counts, and know that it will, even if you waste it. Of course that is another story and ironically links to how the buck is passed.

* now I have piled on more than enough and hope to follow-up with other matters, speaking of PC; my computer and Politically Correct. The latter always requires context and is not always a con text, let alone a pre-text. And given the runaround that words can provide it may be sensible that there is no use for protext.(without a capital P)

GOP Plan to Hurt Economy

Huffington Post reports that ABC reports that:

A Goldman Sachs economist has warned that the $60 billion package of spending cuts proposed by the Republicans to counter President Obama's proposal could slow economic growth.

[Bucking Beck and Bank for the Buck?
As I passed on to MoveOn the one thing that needs to be known.]


WISCONSIN UPDATE:
I'm not going to make a big production out of this but I see it differently than Ed Schultz**, who wants to hold Obama to his word about "comfortable shoes" and the picket line campaign rhetoric. I believe that circomstances are above and beyond the original scenario and he will be dealing with it more like Libya, behind the scenes and strategically and with everything at his disposal from a big picture perspective. That is not at all to use a violent analogy, only one within the bounds of his responsibilities and the law.

Before the straw that broke the camels back* and I almost violated my original intent here, I will simply add one (or two) more link.

* a computer or blog-spot glitch wiped out a more complete draft regarding mixed metaphor and big productions(original intent)

** loved his passion and intent though

[Speaking of anti-4-shadowing. Slippery Slope? See Domino Theory. Ouch.]
[Mean While In Pair O'Lax world: Beck on Democracy and some of us rather than "you and me"]
[Segue / Sabbatical - Out!]
[Speaking of Rhetoric some people are better with words than others. The exact words are always important, but there are different understandings of the whole process.]

Dubious is the word...

NOT PRINTED [a reply to Ari Fleisher's letter to the editor in the Washington Post]
Dubious is the word of all words.
Or Facts needs quotation marks.

At first it was hard to believe that "Solid Facts From the President" on Oct.24th was really Ari Fleisher and that his reply to the Oct. 22nd front-page story "For Bush, Facts are Malleable" emanated from The White House. But then again, it further demonstrated the shallow if not dubious and wrong thinking there.

In his charge that it "was both substantially flawed and a distortion of what the president said", he attempted rebuttal on two issues. The first on Iraq’s "growing fleet" of unmanned aircraft "targeting the United States", Fleisher focused on the targeting aspect to sidestep the "fact" that other intelligence called the "fleet" an "attempt" or "experiment". The article went much further than the reply in explaining this confusion. The second attempted rebuttal was where the "the president stated that the International Atomic Energy Commission said Iraq could possess weapons in as few as six months" which was actually from a different source; the International Institute for Strategic Studies. The article did give the administration's excuses but the reply sidestepped the "fact" that the quoted source reached a contrary conclusion in 1998.

Now granted that the sources and time frames do complicate the distinctions. But not enough to excuse the president for quoting an Iraqi "nuclear" defector speaking in 1998, who had retired in 1991 and not been in Iraq since 1995, as a source on Iraq’s nuclear threat. Nor for drawing other conclusions regarding Iraqi or terrorist use of chemical or biological weapons "at odds with congressional testimony by the CIA.'

In the Press Secretary’s case these two rebuttals do nothing to support his claim that the front-page article was "substantially flawed and a distortion of what the president said." Nor does it excuse him from reading and addressing the many other "malleable" issues in the piece, not to mention the only "In fact" statement in the article, on education.

On education the article claims the president took credit for "the biggest increase in education spending in a long, long time" when it was (1) not even bigger than the previous increase under Clinton. It also claimed (2) that the smaller "Bush" increase was Congress’ and (3) larger than Bush had wanted. Then when moderate Republicans complained to the administration that even that was not even being spent, the same contact in the administration "decried" the (4)"explosively large education bill." Left unrebutted these not only prove dubiousness but in fact three wrongs, and one dubious and wrong.

In the case of this writer(me), leaving aside what was left unrebutted still allows me to demonstrate that his conclusions that "Each point in The Post’s story is refuted by the facts" and "It is The Post’s reporting that is dubious, if not wrong", is pure “expletive deleted *". Hence, confirmed to be emanating from the Dubious administration.

[*] 9-13-08 unknown if this is my "expletive deleted" or actually from the article, note that McCain actually uses his fingers when he says the word quote, I sometimes uses the marks to indicate borrowing or replacement (italics added for emphasis).