Braking Emale[!]

Consult* a  Congress ...person?


[!]= (sic) sarcasm / irony
[earlier two read]
Ribble:  What a Lefty Rush might have said about congressional testimony on the subject?
[Talk about a fluke: sorry to mix a ribble with real news.]
* actual most current email

[8-1-12:  Belated ** Fluke or Not ?  My original intent centered on one of two organizations, which I hoped to touch upon.  With irony I let the ribble rest in immodest irreverence.  The answer to my riddle is something I would not have put it past Gore Vidal to answer, but I will go no further than my hint in comment.]

** Nexus of tortured rhetoric : Not to be a Lefty Rush.

Etch-A-Sketch 2.0

Or is that redundant? 
Original intent* was Enough Smirking 2.0.
*or 3.0?[Or admiration for nuance]
[Anyway, choice of language was why I was reticent to continue the references to Smirking or Sketches.  I mean when does the Etch-A-Sketch stop?  I guess it is the nature of campaigns, like a Glenn Beck chalk talk.]
[Speaking of sourcing:

“Unless things change and Obama can run on accomplishments, he will have to kill Romney,” said a prominent Democratic strategist aligned with the White House. 

Needless to say this is disgusting and should be disavowed by the campaign.  However the full context just may be important, not that we have it !  Oar have we?] 



**Nature that [!]



[Hint: There is a Mitt of a geometricks re:sourcing. 
Or Platonic Multiplicity. Yeah, that's the ticket!
Vu due the math.]

[Hint 2.0?  The shortest distance between two points is a punchline. Ouch, not my point, but maybe Romney's straightline.  It's geometry, politics and the table.  Is Raw Money hiding behind Little Red Riding Hood?  Or vaccinating attacks strategy?***]

QED ?
*** Foot N. O. T.?
[TBA: PAGES and De-Baits! i.e.(Note to self) Obama v. Romney recent speeches.  JOBS/SCOTUS]
[It's not just me ? (7-6-12) Not Exactly !  The  Para-Gone Seg way ?  More later. ]

Democracy Upheld! (5-4) (R/x)**

Not to spike the ball. 
Mandate will become a tax!

Well... that was my idea or interpretation of the bill, but that was FOX News' claim.
But my original ball that might have been a spike was "Democrats Upheld" but Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act, is a bi-partisan bill, so I cannot claim a victory for Democrats.  It is a victory for congress and the political progress.  It is a victory for Obama and bi-partisanship.  Not that victory is a Burger King*, or having it my way.  I should admit that recently I thought that part of the ruling would be kicking the can down the road, since some of the provisions don't go into effect till 2014. 
Oops, in plain English, I may have been right about the can.
Senator Dan Coates on Jansing&Co. claimed lack of bi-partisanship.  That claim is a victory for politics and bi-partisanship.  The ACA was passed under reconciliation.  It was not a Democratic bill, but a democratic bill.  If the President can be blamed(see choice/bold-underlined) for congress not getting things done, when the Republicans obstruct with filibusters.  Republicans cannot have all the changes they could get and not take credit for them by voting against the bill to claim partisanship by not being able to filibuster. 
If anything this is a vaccine to the insanity of the partisan Issa Committee which doctor for the NRA. 
Pump it up! Obama Cares !  Chris Matthews has a very interesting Stupid Conspiracy.  On the other hand, I thought that the obvious was missing in the court arguments.  I think that means that it was plain that a loss of tax break is not a penalty, or is it the semantics of taxes.

* whose weigh or beef?
** still looking for the bullet ratio aka up 'n over or held/turned [People/$]
[of and for the people, over money]
[The real in'f-fable might be taxes/commerce. The High Five ?  4GETIT?
It is a win for Politics, Bi-Partisanship, Obama, and the Economy!  But according to Raw Money?  "A Choice"... between Government standing between you and big corporations or big corporations standing between you and your health care.(Bold over underlined ? )]
Not to strike a punchline, but bottomline:  Obama is Bush! A Political Capitalist!
Romney is Kerry!  A nuanced flip-flopper.  But only in the light of...(the president speaks)***

(asterisked anachronism888baneORspeaks.)

***  TBA
[Coff E T A B L E ]
[AM H&H game change? Tweet Morning Joe! ET? MR doc RM RL btw: NFIB v. SSHH$ ]
[PC v MF ! (?)]

(photo credit)

[Hi5-4th'tableCongressISjobWON!]
[Congress is open to a peel!]

[I don't have the rest of the story to back this up, but I think that Norman Goldman analyzes NFIB v. SSHHS the way I have.  Not only that but Justice Thomas or the D$ent may have bust the fallacy that health care is commerce.  Not only that but I think that Justice Roberts figured out how it can work or not work depending on congress, as I think that congress could have if they had more cooperation rather than partisanship.  NorMan really cut through it with a caller, regarding small business and Mitt RobbedMe.  How do you know when Mitt is telling a lie?  He is either talking about Obama or economics, if not both at the same time. Just between me and we, it seems that without fully reading the Affordable Care Act or the full decision, the Supreme Court seems to have understood it better than it was argued, but not much more than I thought it was.  The catch is that we are patching together various interpretations that make a decision that still takes some tweaking by congress.  It puts taxes and states at the table.  The catch seems to hinge on the powers of congress and the definition of commerce.  As Chris Matthews was want to call it a Stupid Conspiracy, I may lean toward calling it a Swift Strategy, despite the games some play with acronyms, initialism or caricatures.]
NG
GN
UP v UC
Unprecedent President vis a vis Unprecedented Congress.
Now that is PC! Due(or vu doo) the Math!
(Bush/Obama x Obstructive/Health Care)
[I would like to thank three people for helping me understand GeOhMeTry[!] Randi Rhodes, Lawrence O'Donnel and Michael [links 6-29] Moore... Well...there are host of others but in particular RR and LO, have brilliant insight if not intel.  Randi a quick take on Obama, Lawrence an understanding of the political process, and MM a way with the message and the medium.  MR-RM.
Plausible Deniability/Plausible Incompetence/ Deniable Competence. That is the voodoo some do.
[Upheld -  U p h e l d !]

Image processing

Backing Ryan:

Democrats have simplified their message saying the Republican plan, your plan, kills Medicare. What is the shortest clearest response to that, from you? "Obamacare kills Medicare as we know it."

Obviously they must know it differently* than it has been known.

Meanwhile my Re:Verb image has not yet returned. But it could have only been symbolic for the back and forth(give and take), need for another perspective, other than the third way**.

*apples and oranges
** generally known as the Clinton way, aiming for the middle of the political spectrum (when the target might not be in the middle, but above the bottom line***)

*** rhetorical geometrics of give and take in the political forum
[Speaking of image processing.]

Ironoclast[!]

Irony + Iconoclast NOT [/?]

OK, mixed characterizations.
Bill Clinton, Mitt Romney and why 1992 matters for 2012 *
The big debt lie
Clinton Chimes in on Health Care.
Not to mention Ally Gory

But mostly this is about the previous Obtusity[?] and the embedded Obliquity, via triangulation and Geometry.

On the other hand: less tergiversating "Orderly!" i.e. "Bring 'em on!"
[Foot Loose]

* Romney may be a Clinton, but he is no Obama!

Paradigm Rebuilding

I will have to read these two more carefully. And the 1 in 5 for expiration of all Bush tax cuts is interesting, and this Krugman piece may have slipped off my radar. Tangentially...and more Re-CAP.

FAUX CAMP (II)

My reason for bumping up, the extended portion of FAUX NEWS, is Rachel Maddow and the Constitution, namely the 1st Amendment,
regarding the free press, not my extended references in this blog.
NOT TO MENTION FINALLY THE BILL IS BLOOMIN' DONE>

I propose that Republicans are furthering their childish rhetoric to get attention as they are really running from a free press, in the likes of MSNBC. Not to mention the questions that they would have to face in the likes of Ed Schultz or Keith Olbermann(and Lawrence O'Donnell*). Dylan Ratigan and Chris Matthews are no slouches, but the latter is a bit too sophisticated for my taste at times.

I can understand now why Scott Brown in Massachusetts is running against Rachel Maddow since he actually thinks she is campaigning against him, when it is really he who is running on running from her.

* Lawrence O'Donnell catches the reality in this link on Olbermann's Countdown.

BTW: FOX's whole existence was built on the myth of the liberal media, aka The Mainstream Media, and it is a shame that it justifies MSNBC's approach or calling it out and calling on the country to wake-up and behave. And Lawrence, in seque[oops/Segue] to Rachel: not today, but between you and I, yes we did![oops and bold updated 3-26-10]

New Poll on Health Care Bill

49% a good thing
40% a bad thing
And we have yet to run with it,
Thanks to The Ed Show.

[Miscellaneous notes* and thanks:
Chris Dodd
The Fixes
Country First
Reconciliation
Thanks, Keith, Lawrence and Rachel!]
[Yet is this a hitch? If they lose the mandate it could just be a tax.]

* 3-24-10 link added but see run on...

The Truly Historic Moment

Thank You,
MSNBC

And I wish to thank a staffer at the Minority Leader's office for a discussion on the nature of the Republican complaints...(in progress/the process...) I have a message that might be returned regarding a dispute that there were 166 Republican amendments and some rhetoric about what the New York Times came out with yesterday.

Thank you.
Thank you, Very Much

H.R.4872 next up for Senate Reconciliation.[awkwardly phrased, linked and/or sourced]

Comparing an Error

And/or Era?

Baby Killer vs. the Great Society
The Texas Republican who shouted "baby killer" apologized as he was not speaking of Representative Stupak, just the bill. While the New York Times corrects Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, for saying Newt Gingrich was speaking about President Johnson and the Civil Rights Act, when he was speaking of the Great Society.

Minor corrections in both cases, but both seem to compound the point. As the blanks were needed filling, the former is still is for shame and the latter still for irony of whose Waterloo. On the darker side of irony there was the gauntlett congress bravely faced[*]to do their job, while the previous administration protected their leader from the signs of the times.

Moments before the historic signing moments I hear: Maybe the Republicans peaked too soon?

[Thank You - Keith Olbermann for Making History and Moving Forward ]

Historic Health Care Bill Passed

The House has Passed the Senate Bill.
Thank You Historic Speaker!
Thank You Minority Leader for so disrespecfully recording your nonsense for history.[*]

The Senate now has the option of adding a few Republican options or maybe even some Democratic plans.

*[3-22-10] Believe me, I don't believe I could more respectfully record my reaction to Minority Leader Boehner's address.

[In fact, I actually just had a long discussion with a Deputy Chief of Staff reflecting my displeasure with his antics. I may or may not summarize it later, but I can characterize it as a less than heated discussion. My main point was that it is difficult to imagine many reasonable people bothering to call in to respond to such behavior, given the visceral reaction and condescension possible. It might be likened to calling in on a childish tantrum. I was just curious about the decorum of their callers, I think I kept mine, but I did continually get caught by the whining rhetoric. The reported belief that the process was unprecedented and partisan like never before. Ha! Oh and the "blame it on emotions" mixed in with the "need to be heard" excuse.]
[Update: see runaround rhetoric and clean sheet of paper: the Republican "leadership" has been forced by Democratic leadership to be accountable but still whine about the politics while blaiming it on 200 years of heated words simultaneously martyring** themselves in the rhetoric and hijacking*** the word "change" from a "clean sheet of paper". They want history to be forced or a force, as long as it is thier force not the peoples. Which "common sense" would mean, no history, no constitution, no rhetoric, no politics.
** I hope I have not too incautiously used the word, but it might be better to say Cantor makes a rather heroic leap in his rhetoric and "akin" to self-sacrifice.
*** refers to office call]

Revolutionary Hospitals (and Back Again)

Recently a health reform critic(kindly put) claimed that the founding fathers had hospitals and did not mention them in the constitution(awkwardly put), but I cannot adequately paraphrase the rhetoric. But I did wonder at the time if it was accurate. Yesterday NPI, has a different angle on health care reform and technical advances and the baby boom face of more than half of recipients of health care. But an auxiliary question came to mind. When did health care become for profit? But the real question is when did health insurance become for profit? My problem is that there is always a deeper question. Our problem is that too many have the wrong answers*.

Some have such a weak definition of capitalism that it is the nature of economics since the public market. Others don't even realize what the "invisible hand" means? I have not fully read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, but at least I know he waved it. But I forgot who recently said, it is called the "Invisible Hand" because it is not there ***. While other's still... [trailing off] I might have been heading to a more substantial answer, but my point is that some people get caught up in the debate between dirty words and the only word. Too many are taking sides, especially when it comes to the word "progressive" by playing on fears and taking change for granted, and passing the buck, but not the money**.

In memoriam.

* and without picking sides I would add: too many feel they have the only answer. At least when it comes to history and what we are based on, with intentions to move forward.

** ironically these last two links have a good point in common(well not exactly): but in regards to the baseline, the blogger admits to some essentials or entitlements if you will, at least outside their argument for the need for profit, while Milton Friedman (a Libertarian) suggests a negative income tax to balance the social responsibility of companies to make profits. And entitlements are the real subject for the operating table, but so might be the flat tax and overall safety net reform. Actually speaking of dirty words, reform is not the word, adjustments are all that are needed to . Not that major adjustments might need to be considered in regard to globalization and world finance and diplomacy, which really scares the one word people, not to mention communities. It is not about the finger in the dike or the egg on the wall or the face of humpty dumpty, it is about the hands on the foundation of civilization.

*** maybe him but not here

Other links, invisible hand, or the pointing finger
[Sorry to not point a finer finger, but it is all about the revolving perspectives and finding balance without starting from scratch.]

P.S. I did not read these but did run across them prior this blog, let alone realize at the time I would be back. They could be the concrete mixer, mortar or cobble stone of my thinking.

Demon Pass

or Demonizing Politics with Deem and Pass!
At the 3 minute mark I agree the Democrats might be better off with a vote, but it is overly cynical of politics and ironically political to blame the creative process.
But Senator Stabinow defends or explains the process.
[Is that straight? I hope it is straight now, and I thought that the Klein and O'Donnell had fallen for some political spin, even though their intentions might be right. In fact, it is like the Valentine metaphor, but they just send them in one envelope.]

[Here are the demons who don't understand that self-executing is just what they seem to want, when it really means getting it done, and I don't mean Dennis Kucinich.]
[Belated Chalk Up and Kudos to Kucinich ]

Politics Local and National

Find your local party organization.
DEMOCRATS
Republicans- not so easy
Liberals- at your own risk*
Conservatives
Green Party
Independents (you are on your own)
Libertarian or Ron Paul
Actually this was just a quick search which evolved from "find your(specified)organization" to find your specified "party", and my comments are more about the ease with which they are found.

As a local example: 41st LD Democrats **
Puget Sound Liberals
Northwest Progressive Institute
Progressive Radio
Organizing for America
Democracy for America
King County Democrats
Washington State Democrats

This may seem condescending, but what the Beck!
MoveOn
Think Progress The Final Act for Health Reform
Media Matters
not to mention Democrats.com Save our Democracy!

[BTW: two proposals(rhetorically)
a. If corporations have individual rights, where do they come off as being able to own other individuals?
b. And where does an individual share come in? I mean there is the equal protection clause but an individual gets one vote per share of stock?
c. It seems that congress should tighten up immigration when it comes to such commerce let alone labor.
Actually these could be substantive considerations.]

*if I can't offend my own, who can I offend, well maybe everyone, but I am being ironic with a keen political calculus. Actually my own is "progressive", and we must stop running with(or at or from) words like scissors.

** attendance at District Nominationg Convention and Caucus was surprisingly low, but could be attributed to the forgone conclusion that there would be no opposition to our incumbents, satisfaction with work being done, anticipation of the work to come, and the nature of the top two primary holding some surprises if not a field for competition from the wings of hope and cynicism.

Message to the House.

There has been a March On Washington for the Public Option.
Here is the message to the House from Ed Schultz.

Thank you Senator Cantwell
Thank you Senator Murray
for supporting the Public Option if not signing the letter.

On the road again.

Health Care Reform Now.

[Comprehensive Letter]
[See Irony * ]
[Targeted side ways.]

* and "made progress" -> here

Comprehensive Letter

President Obama has presented his plan.
Find letter here.
He has taken some more Republican proposals from the bi-partisan health care summit, confirming he is the Fair and Balanced Centrist of the previous post.

Now, I am not decrying his lack of liberal leanings, only contrasting them with the Right, with hopes the left and Democrats get the job done. If there is only one letter between hope and hype, we should know the Y.

Fair and Balanced and Centrist?

Whether you are a trickle-down Tea Partier or a Bubble-Up Egghead, not to mention the victims of ad hominem, ad group'em, ad label'em, add lose'em rhetoric or its perpetrator, The New Yorker might be part of the problem. But maybe it's my problem* or maybe they have made progress ***.

Speaking of bull or the Rodeo Clown, we should ponder who is the bull and who is the cowboy in that self- prescription. Not to mention Irony.

* I'm actually a great admirer but thought it might be too out there **for others

** link is post hock (or add: pre-pawn)

***BOTTOM LINE: If you can get past Newt Gingrich and his "post-modern" interpetations of his "democratic socialist" buddies Camus and Orwell, it is a fair and balanced whack at a "comprehensive" problem, and I think the Hopi-ChangeY thing has a... quiver.

{embedded words: made progress(read link),bull(USATodayWeekend), Rodeo Clown(David Sirota), self (Bill Bennett), prescription(Dr. Dean), Irony(Robert Reich), too out there(Beck),comprehensive(Lamar Alexander), problem(cheap shot), quiver} (->)(see comment & ribble)

i.e. sometimes a scroll over of the embedded words(links) in this post will merit a full read or hint that will assist in context.(<-)

Presidential Take

The media does not always reflect the exact meaning of a presidential comment,
but I hope this one does.
The 2010 election will be the verdict on congressional action, rather than inaction.(my take)

Here are two quick clips. Senator Reid & Senator Alexander
Blair House Summit White House Summary

[Highlights]
[Special Hardball, Hardball, Hardball (1,4,7&9 of 9). *]

UPDATES:[*] 2-26-10 two links added [<-2]also these: earlier summit post , pre-summit summary, pre-summit push and pitch. Not to mention new swing. Admittedly Republicans "don't do comprehensive well". No, really well. And why.] (Really the issue addressed at Neo-Changian points to the comprehensive need, apparently Senator Alexander believes in the finger approach in spirit.

* There is a way that reconciliation will not be used on the whole bill, and I would suggest that it would be impossible for the Republicans to vote against changes that they brought up in the summit or at least getting an up or down vote. See Willie Brown and more, speaking of what will Brown do? The Senator(MA) and Attorney General(CA).

Fair and Balanced Summit

I did not return to the livestream after the break [*] but dealt with other issues. But did tune in to FOX for a "fair and balanced" perspective paraphrased that: If you were D you were pleased with the points made, and if you were R you were pleased with the points made.

But I do quibble that there was no change, because there is a fair and balance ratio of the 52% that do not want reconciliation who are either misinformed or hypocritical about its potential, which would flip-flop that matter to the left, not to mention future polls that might determine change in support for both the Obama plan and the public option.
(Not to mention CNN covering the wrap up. Ouch, I thought that it was a re-wrap*, since it seemed FOX already had a wrap, but I guess it was a pre-rap.)

* my point was that MSNBC switched to the Olympics, FOX seemed to have called the summit a wrap, and while I watched CNN provide what I thought was highlites, then found it was not wrapped up yet.

[*] 2-26-10 two links added also these: earlier summit post , pre-summit summary, pre-summit push and pitch. Not to mention new swing. Admittedly Republicans "don't do comprehensive well". No, really well.