Thought experiment.

On the suggestion that there are different dimensions of a religion or ideology based on the do amicus [!] ...dynamics of political power, akin to my lemony ship it...*

*links and edits 5-23-16
[!] spell check LOL
(do amicus: auto fill)
[and labels]
[This originated from a comment that there are different "levels" of Islam. Well... there are certainly different perspectives on Christianity.  Do they really depend on whether they are in the majority politically?  This might open up an whole new bailiwick.  ( !?! Sanders and Trump "followers" and the rules.) ] 

Separate thought or tangent:  $13.50 Too muddle against the means.

5-28-16
Jennifer Rubin: Raw Story on Clinton Republicans
Michael Bourne: Salon on Bernie as Clinton VP
David Sloan Wilson: Evonomics on Corporate Evolutionism
Anne Gearan: (RSN) Washington Post on Sanders DNC platform (Cornel West)committer persons.

5-30-16
Perspective in Progress [ ? ]  (/)

Middle C?

Hit it!
Awkward Segue^ ?
Gracious Notes*?

(F'n) Bingo!**

Bottom Line ? [!]
or not ?

Not F'n...or vise verse us?










*unintended link redundancy potentially related to F'n(Tan Gent)Bingo/Bane or Fiscal Cliff

^



** C$(oops)C4? coom ba ya w/MSN Now ... Jansing?[Go Team Rendell v. Magic Pony?]
[Editor's note(as if): The last shot was my first shot on the scene from an Olympus D-550.  Like Romney's concession, and Boehnor's press conference, everything is Relative.^^  Not that it is a good shot, but compared to my others...this takes the cake...especially for timing... in relation to my retro trek(if you zoom).]
^^ mmmm Pizza [!] ? !
[not to mention AM(...grand bargain processing)]
MC nail-time.  Buh Dump Ump[!]...Ouch Retro. Scoop Dog...

11-22-12 [C-VC]

Post Election

88 Keys ! 
That is 44 x* 2 ?
The energy was amazing!
Now for cracking the code, or my Maddowian reference**(knock on wood), but I will leave it to Paul Harvey.  The rest of the story.  There is Romnesia and there is the Arithmatic. 
Something Too Point Oh?  Or Owe?  Two out of three be bad branches. 
Speaking of Maddow and the gang(Ed, Al, Lawrence, etc) I can only weave so much !  ***

* arrived late, left early, but got a pic with Norm, won a book, and booked. 
** it was noisy, I fumbled my words, but we R R now Beyond the Norm.
***  doe$ that dog hunt? (I had to parse my inserts carefully[!])
[Conn, Kennedy, Bane Or(Tan Gent)]
[Bottom Line: Mr. President! Begin with your budget^ and your jobs bill on the table, before any grand B.S. ]

^ You know, the one that Romney said was part of everything that you had your way. 

11-9-12 (update)  Xfinity #9



11-22-12 [C-VC]
12-7-12 update: [listening to AM1090 online,
the following pic scrolled by as the 1st of 5 from 88Keys.
FYI, later scroll expanded to 240 or so pics.]

Anac(R)onism? Election Day!

[ Hump Day ? ] 

[Post-date Re: De-Calf ]
[pardon the M-b/ed/s ! ? ]

2012 General Election Endorsements

US President: Barack Obama US Senate: Maria Cantwell US House 8th CD: Karen Porterfield 9th CD: Adam Smith Legislature (41st LD): Senate: Maureen Judge Rep #1: Marcie Maxwell Rep #2: Judy Clibborn State Supreme Court: #9: Sheryl Gordon McCloud

Governor: Jay Inslee Lt. Governor: Brad Owen Sec. of State: Kathleen Drew Treasurer: Jim McIntire Auditor: Troy Kelley Attorney General: Bob Ferguson Public Lands: Peter Goldmark Insurance: Mike Kreidler County Sheriff: John Urquhart Superior Court: #42: Sue Parisien

YES

Referrendum 74 (marriage equality) Initiative 502 (legalize+tax marijuana) Advisory vote #1 (ESB6635 - close bank tax loophole) Advisory vote #2 (SHB2590 - keep tank safety fee) King County Prop. #1 (renew fingerprint ID funding) Mercer Island Fire Station Bond

NO

Initiative 1185 (Tim Eyman's 1/3 rule) Initiative 1240 (defund public schools) SJR 8221 (clamp debt limit; stick it to local govt.) SJR 8223 (allow UW/WSU speculative

Association is Not Free!

Unless given con text. 

Original intent ?  A Mitt-Flop on ** "free association"* or snooze in peace?

Put up or shut up? 
Yeah, that's the ticket!  NOT!

* anachonism of the ... N'th kind [!]
** ribble this

[Ouch!  A tribute to Specter and McGovern?]

10-22-12:  The point?  Bold added above, not really the point. Put up, don't shut up! That is the point.  So-called "un-decideds" may just be hesitate to settle on a pick for fear of ending up being responsible for being on the wrong side of history.  Like Herman Cain, "I don't have facts to back this up" but along with the potential that being undecided has for getting attention, there may be something to not being associated with a loser.  So... Put up, don't shut up!  VOTE!   BTW:  Obama may be the one, but is Romney the other one?  The other point?  There is less point in the effort to Restore Our Future(grammatically pointless), than to have Priorities USA !  

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 !]

Badge of Courage(Read or not.*)

Nailed to the Cross Rhodes.**

aka "calling card"
IRonKnee Rx.

* no pun on post-Civil wars
(but I did read post draft)
[i.e. now I will post this without amendment]
** retro-embedded C-R links

$tar Buck$

De Calf THIS!
(with these)
No  $hit ! ?


No foot note on way to irony.
Or ribble?

P.S. No Oh"F"Fence!

State of Politics

Speaking of Johnsons*,
CAD(Culturally Aided Designs)
Objective/Subjective
Ge-oh-me-try!
The Presidents Club









The origins of this club in Hoover and Truman, harken back to mark a distinct difference in the act of presidential transitions, from the Bill Clinton/George W. Bush, George W. Bush/ Barack Obama turnovers.  Is it fair to mark the common factor, when congressional partisanship also plays a part? Or is it fair to ask if Hoover could change, what change will Romney bring?  Do we want to change course** or is it still our turn?  [Ctrl F "still"]

*Andrea Mitchell interviews author(The Presidents Club)
** NOW with Alex Wagner (need^ update)
[Polling Seg Way*** ? See AM* Gimmickry or plans ?]
*** WOE (and Bashir)
[Must search for Manichean links(or leaps) of punderous pondering and other posts for Ant and Grasshopper and "render unto Caesar".]

^ color of change?
(see CAD: cause affect difficiency)

[4-24-12 link inserted@ ^ update, not ]

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!

Freedom of Speech

Or Freedom of Diagnosis?
I don't mean to make any diagnosis myself, but it does seem preemptive to dismiss a killer with a diagnosis and not being political.

"paving the path..."

"...for divided government"...
The Debt Panel? My point is that "paving the path for divided government" means getting everything on the table for discussion. This is in light of the Right's method of rhetoric and politics over ideas.

Inconvenient

or ignoble* hope.

* original word more bombastic but escapes me
[I will get straight to the point, the bold link is the point, and it will be thrilling if Republicans think they can sustain their gameplan. It is clear that this is an overreach** of analysis and polling to think that Republicans will have a veto-proof House and is admitted in their very next step, a "piecemeal approach".]

** this link is self-reflective not on Krugman's (Voodoo to Dance Video)
No pun intended.

[vis a vis "on the other hand", the fulcrum of the see saw?]
seesaw = pun on perspectivism (Right-Left, Tea Party-No Label, Republican-Obama)Progressive is the fulcrum not the lever, people are the load and counterbalance. In the last contrast; a party with a leader, we may have something. I can't really see No Labels as a movement, let alone a party, but it could have a dialogue at a coffee party.

Sarcasm or (halftime/nadir)

cynicism aside, I will consider the No Labels as follows.
(nfry)=not fully read yet

[1-2-11 Bold= been read*
The New Voodoo(?) Paul Krugman ]

* applies above and leaning forward...Pun on MSNBC as in follows
i.e. bottom line or niching change
(word play aside)

Speaking of timing

Or counting (or FOX)and follow-up(I could swear there are 6 legs unless it is on the other hand*.)
{italics not fully read yet but it is the point of departure}
{the point of arrival is not always originally intended, or that is the question.}
{note on labels, Navigation is regarding the blog, Navigation II is regarding our course changes. Maybe I should add Navigation III(a combo?).}
(Oh, and a leed change is also a challenge...to read)
* Third Way is point of tangent
[Maybe Thom Hartmann(AM1090) is coming to a realization, which I just missed(taking a call) regarding the power of Obama and his base and secondary potential thread. My points here are: Obama's base is not the liberal left. The Right's loss is the Left's loss, but the middle's gain.(I just coined** that.) My original metaphor*** was, as Republicans lose voters, they become more concentrated, while as Democrats gain voters they are diluted. ]
** critics please pick a better word for this new paraphrase of my original concept, other than coined, is in not that it is not making money for me, but I am just not sure that you coin a phrase. "turned" may suffice.
*** actually a metaphor would have a concept like Lemonade or Kool-aid as an ingredient, which apparently I have previously avoided saying directly at least.
[Still needing to read the italics link, Thom Hartmann and callers are still frustrated, and discuss the Marxist concept that things have to fail first. I am uncertain that is technically a valid name for it, but my point is that dynamically it will not work that way on two counts. It would take people who want it to fail(whatever it is) and it would take people giving up on changing it. That is why peace is much harder work than war, and why it is much harder and slower to make progress than to see the same things again.]
[Post-Pre-emptive Comment: or rather footnote regarding bubbles and cliffs and easing the wall down. Post Hartmann comment: one of my tangents was inspired by the concept of not enough mentionalism, a pun on the dimension of perspectives and whether there are two parties, or three or four or whether the labels matter. But the more the merrier or at least the more the discussion and the bigger the table.]
[Post Building on Change update: "That is why peace is much harder work than war, and why it is much harder and slower to make progress than to see the same things again." Bold added above, but link back provided as promised here.]
[Just in...Breaking or rather Re-Creating the mold: and I am only up to the word "defecit" in Steve Clemons question but I am having a feeling it relates to my just bolded and repeated quote in last bracket, and to wrap this up before it is too diffuse I seems to build upon earlier comments if not leeds.]

Risky Business

Risking progress?
Update: "the filibuster"
The other guy?
If Democrats can manage any improvements on this plan, go for it. But not at the risk of doing nothing. Even breaking it up for the sake of getting what should not be bargaining chips*, for the sake of "the debt" or sticking to principles or campaign promises, may have adverse impacts to the econonomy, and with it being even more of an up hill, problematic legislature, getting more done may not be on the table. Some have argued for a line item veto...for the president. Not to revive that arguement, but imagine[**] the impact on the political calculus if congress had a line item veto after all the work of crafting legislation, be it this plan or another.

*trading doing the right thing for allowing the wrong thing
[post-post-google tangent hmmm?]
[** post post realization that this sentence is a paradox of sorts; Congress is bi-cameral and does have line item vetos, it just has to go back to the other house and branch. I guess my point rests on one body having a line item veto or final say on another branch's work.]

Silent Majority

Now that takes us back.
Speaking of the future.
(4 more)
Now this is what I am talking about.
Not to mention, No More Fall...Well.
[Breaking balance also NFRY, Bold "that" indicates full read above, and reminder that I spun this off (and update/see "Well") before I saw the points Kornacki made regarding the presidential history.]

Chew On...

Or Eschew [*]... on This.
One might bite.
(Speaking of class or was it paradigms?)
[Ribble in a Tea Pot?]
[BTW: I am crafting a reply to the ribble or paradigm. It bites...a thought "divided against itself"?]

[*] update 11-22-10 bold italics update bold indicates I have finally read fully but italics not a recommend [P.S. asterisk is post everthing above]

Amazing Precedence

Not really, I occasionally agree with a Republican. Senator Richard Lugar(Republican) challenges Democrats to hold the vote on the "Trust but Verify". And I would say to all Democrats "call their bluff". But there is a bit of false equivalence*, in staying the course.[**]
[Breaking Related]
[Speaking of Breaking.]
* news and democracy

[Not[***] to mention, or include irony and fair and balanced.]

[The Wave In Balance: Act]
[Belated Ribble: actually the ribble is not late, but the importance of a new START? Without a treaty and the respect for law, it only leaves disrespect for politics, the tyranny of anarchy, and the terrorism of preemption.]
[** Ripple in the pond or splash?]
[*** it is not about replacing Obama, nor about finding a Karl Rove for the Left, it is about politicians and media doing their jobs, and both fighting for the people and changing the process.]

Starting from Scratch

Well, not exactly...the Lame Swan.*
[New Label,(Navigation II] may be redundant or too all inclusive as it is all about course change. and vector dynamics of tact and tack. Original Navigation label was a pun on getting around this site as well as an overarching purpose. But I will further aid navigation, noting the bold links here, as well as pulling out an embedded link from the last one, and hope I remember to include enough labels below.]
* lameduck

[Just in Dream Act, yes, but Nightmare Act: not using Lameduck Congress and Reconciliation to pass as much as possible*. Priority: Disclose Act and Net Neutrality and anything that effects the Citizens United irony. I would add that there be something that prevents House investigations from being a rerun of the previous congress.]
* November Surge to be updated.