Your Darn?

You're Republican if you do, you're Republican if you don't.
The Obama cares of the Affordable Care Act. 
Re: Healthcare is a right, that must be paid for. 

Republicans want to undo the legislation without having their own plan.  It makes it easy for them to play the victim.  They can be against something that they were a part of but against all along.  It was concieved from the right and obstructed by the right. But dismantling it would be only a mess age. 

I know, the irony is too steep.  But progress really requires accountability, as Rush plays the victim of culture backlash. But not having a plan, and having nothing to be for but what was before. Their logic is wackamole(see O'Reilly/Bachman).  And Democrats have the accountablity of paying for what Republicans aren't able to take away.  In other words, it would be fine, if we could simply keep what
works without forcing it to be provided or determining who pays for it.  But that is actually the irony of their baselessness. 

Darn, I didn't. Original Post not posted March 21st, 2014.
P.S. Your Darn (STET)

Everything is on the Table!

That's right!  Everything is on the individual's table, but that does not mean how.

Robert Reich counts
 8 Principles to Guide Democrats in the Fiscal Cliff Showdown.*

ONE: HOLD YOUR GROUND.

 

TWO: NO DEAL IS BETTER THAN A BAD DEAL.

 

THREE: MAKE REPUBLICANS VOTE ON EXTENDING THE TAX CUTS JUST FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS.

 

FOUR: DEMAND HIGHER TAX RATES ON WEALTHY, NOT JUST LIMITS ON DEDUCTIONS.

 

FIVE: DON'T CUT SAFETY NETS.

 

SIX: DON'T CUT INVESTMENTS IN OUR FUTURE PRODUCTIVITY.

 

SEVEN: CUT SPENDING ON MILITARY AND CORPORATE WELFARE.

 

EIGHT: PUT JOBS BEFORE DEFICIT REDUCTION.

 

Number Five puts the Safety Net on the table. As in: DON'T CUT IT!
But it is not that simple. Medicare and Social Security do not need to be on the table at this time. That does not mean they need to be cut in the future. Addressing them is not just in the form of cutting them. Even so, if they address the top end or the bottom line, changes could be balanced in the tax code, not to hit those that need the safety net and even address the income gap.

 

* BOLDLY ENUMERATED taken directly from his post.

[Follow-down...I wouldn't go that far.  Despite quibbles with the terms of B.S. or F. C.  this is the kernel of the matter: 

Former Sen. Alan Simpson says ‘‘you have to have a blend’’ of revenue increases and spending cuts to achieve a deal to avoid the cliff.

Especially the bold below:

Simpson tells NBC’s ‘‘Today’’ show it’s ridiculous for Democrats and Republicans to speculate on which party would suffer more if no compromise agreement were achieved. He says, quote, ‘‘That’s like betting your country. There’s stupidity in that. This is big-time stuff.’’

I do not believe his "arithmatic" though.(in bold)

Speaking of Congress, Simpson says, in his words, ‘‘If you gave 90 percent of them a profit-loss statement in one hand and a balance sheet in the other, they wouldn’t know how to read it.’’

 It could not be that bad.]

Ryan/Romney run from Ryan plan..

Ryan runs from own plan endorsed by Romney.
Not Exactly.
The lies and hypocrisy know no pail. 
Here is to Thomas Roberts. (Not... Today)*

*Links scrolling up.
(i.e. reverse order)
Rachel Maddow: Shrug Life **
Morning Joe: Romney "hate"/"chains" Biden
Today: Reince Priebus "blood"
Today: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Ryan Obama Pick?
Thomas Roberts under "Here". Who is Paul Ryan?
--
The Ed Show: unchained memory
**[?]
The Ed Show:  Romney Medicare Lies
The Last Word: SNL Republican War Hypocrisy Ryan***
Lean Forward? Or go back. Ryan Fiscal Conservative?
TheLiaisonReport: Wikileaks Ryan
Lean Forward(or back [FOX] to Morning Joe) Cuts and Run.
The Last Word: Romney and Ryan run from Romney Plan

**  Maddow Seg-way
***[Smoking Gun: Ryan votes against stimulus, says it works and takes funds for state.]

[The E Pit o'me of Nuance or Flip-Flop.(in reference to above layout, links and asterisks.] 

[And this AM: Ryan runs from Wonk and Partisanship.  That is a hoot, since he was on the BS Panel(Bowles-Simpson).  Reminds me of Saving Pirate Ryan, and "going postal".  The USPS(congressional failure) is the Iron Knee to Romney/Ryan I Ron Knee, Funding Bane Or...
(Note: Bane/Bain Boehner confluance and bracket of  "Funding"(...)"Or" or Mitt Rob Me.  The USPS is not going broke, anymore than the government is going broke, Republicans are breaking it by running their plan which ironically in moderation would solve so many problems.  i.e. investment.  But they are over-investing in the pension plan and at the same time hoping to privatise it.  Won't that be a boon?)  In proper context, pirates were a government program.  Speaking of hole in the Hart.(AM)]

[See bold book ends: Shrug Life /The Last Word. Not exactly.]
[A last clip (Jon Stewart on The Cycle!) And the pie chart of fiscal irresponsibility does not even include the flip-flop of going austere and focusing on cutting the debt while cutting taxes as soon as the Republicans no longer led.]

Not to Follow-Up...

...Or Down*
But that's the ticket.

While I did read the 2nd link, I have only glanced at the Sorkin critique and I am surprised at the criticism for the creator of Newsroom.  Not an HBO subscriber, I only saw the first episode OnDemand and was very impressed with the whole deal.  I don't know if I will have the same perspective of Alex Pereene if I could have seen the later episodes. Not that I was that impressed or critical of him to begin with. I thought he was fair and balanced, but not in the way it has come to be taken.  This actually this does follow from my not going that far and how some get** where they are.

My second line will be more fully digested later, and provide more fair and balanced context.

* actually it might follow(the only piece I have fully digested)
** BaneOr Side Show
*** anachronistic irony (I Ron Knee, Iron Knee of Bowles-Simpson/Balanced Solution)
[The Romney Tax problem is a sideshow so that they can say that Obama won't talk about the economy.  Republicans have been unprecedented obstuctionists so they can run against*** the economy, rather than the choice between more change and turning around to go back to what took us down.  Now that is a follow up.]

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 !]

The Anti-Angle.

Much ado about noting[!]

WOE-Wae:

War on executives / War against evidence.

Romney charges Obama with "real war upon women".

Hides behind women against women.

CSM: Rosen: “What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country, saying, 'Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that’s what I’m hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She’s never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing, in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry about their future.”

CSM: "It's clear from the context that Rosen wasn't criticizing Ann Romney for staying home. She was criticizing the Romney campaign for presenting Ann Romney as an expert on the economic concerns of women, when Romney's own economic circumstances (including the fact that she was able to stay home with all five of her sons) are not those that most women have."

MSNBC: The Last Word?

CNN: Rosen Apologizes !!!!!

Republicans better clean up their act or get out of the kitchen.

[Title is reference to Sharron Angle and her "press" encounters. Hilary Rosen used an inconvenient sentence unless it is about getting coverage. As opposed to Try Angle.]

Last Word: Banana Split? Mother's Day. Mitt Gap. Romney Rule? Florida v. Zimmerman.

The Ed Show: Biden Interview, N. Korea, GOP War on Women, Obama "hard work", Florida v.Zimmerman, Walker, Attack or Temp Late?

Rachel Maddow: Strikes Metaphor.

Welcome to the Machine

Not to drive this home, but...

here we go [!]

The altruism of WAR.

It must mean...

Mitt Romney is a moderate, because Republicans know that Obama is a moderate* and they try to take on strength** with strength.

Newt Gingrich is a Conservative*, because he is trying to out value or nuance Romney.

Is the Republican race the old circular firing squad of the Hamilton/Burr conflict?

*see five minutes
** Ctrl F "Rove".
[Against Romney Obama can move left. Against Gingrich, he can stay moderate. The checks and balances are between the branches, we need cooperation, compromise and more progressives in the legislature to get anywhere. Failing that, gridlock is a failsafe.

The Last Try Pod

Well, it was going to be the Last Word[*], but we know how that works.
So the Last Try Pod is more of the Tetrahedron.
A GPS of sorts, with the a try angle of pacs.
[No Relation or relative di-caught-o'me.]

9-2-11 Label added. See comment.

[*] Lawrence O'Donnell(see comment on comment above)

[The real tripod[!] (Articles 1, 2 & 3 of the Constitution)]
[In contrast to the "genius of freedom", our founding principles are pragmatic, incremental, and cooperative, like President Obama. Not to mention nuance from the right.]
[Simon says[**]: Smerconish]
[And We The People say to the White House]

[**] a subtle crack at coverage:
So it had to be in the House of Representatives, which the Republicans control. "But we couldn’t go if they didn’t let us come," the source said. "You can’t hold the speech in the lobby or in the parking lot. And you’re not going to get network coverage if you hold it at George Mason University."
Read more

Tea Party Down Grade

and the Undo- Everything House of Reprehensibles
(Note the counter-linkage or weaving of sources.)

Reading of the Day and relevant fn.

One great thing about Obama's primary victory is now we know that's not true. This is the modern Republican Party. It turns out they were the ones who adopted Malcolm X's slogan, "By any means necessary." As disgusted as I am with S&P's decision to downgrade U.S. debt, the ratings agency took the unusual step of calling out the GOP in its press release, predicting future fiscal peril "because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues," Sen. John Kerry was right to call it the "Tea Party downgrade" on "Meet the Press" Sunday. They have now made clear they'll wreck the economy as long as they can wreck Obama's presidency. And we have no way to know that Clinton's history with right-wing saboteurs would have enabled her to fight more effectively.

Simpson-Bowles and S&P Re: Revenue.

Hennessey’s assessment of Simpson-Bowles is even more puzzling. As I’ve noted before, Simpson-Bowles raised about $2 trillion in new revenues and cut defense spending by about $800 billion. The plan Obama proposed to Boehner raises half as much revenue and, from what I’m told, includes about half as much in defense cuts. It’s hard to see how that qualifies as "to the left" of Simpson-Bowles.

The fn. above discusses a narrative that is lacking in Obama's rhetoric. The actual recalcitrance of the Republican party, the lack of a filibuster proof congress, not to mention the media as we know it(Koch Brothers), argues more balanced narrative than Blame Obama. The Obama Inaugural was our calling.
(NFRY)

Candidate Obama was nuanced and President Obama is pragmatic and incremental, the message is clear.
[Hoist on our own Picard.]
[More Meet the Press.]

Green Span on Degree of Certainty: the only thing certain is change, and that the Right won't.

I mean Greenspan: "this deficit problem that is out there is a lot larger than we calculated. the actual numbers employed by those calculating the deficits are based on a level of economic activity, which we are not acheiving." Rather than translate IMHO the Greenspan quote, there is FIXING NEWS(as opposed to breaking) as the President addresses the downgrade now. (Remarks by the President: and previous remarks)

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

Woof Woof?

[Posted 12**-23-10 see segue: "Brackets aside..."]
Lame Duck?
[ Who let the dogs out ?]
92|Y
Yes He Did?
New Start?
Really?
Wiki Leaks
Landscaping?
Or Gloom?
Meow? Or Roar?

[The Dream Act]
Brackets aside this was saved in draft as dated, but now releases as a post and updated 10/23/10 7-8AM hour. Yes, the Dream Act is still a dream, but the Obama act, may be the Nightmare Act for Republicans.
The above word play from Meow to Woof was sometimes even beyond my drift, if you know what I mean. My metaphor is often between a rock and a hard place.
Now[*] for the main act. Woof woof and a rash of scratch marks, and its only halftime.
[*]Footnote or sideline coaching aside, I note the chart Rachel displays at about 12:01, but I could not find it online.

[Salutations & Segue]
Belated Preemptive Evolution
AND
Happy Halftime and Good Cheer!

[labels need updating: no really...below!]

[** Correction 12 not 10-23-10]

Psst... Ed...Ed Schultz

[Saved in Draft: Posting 11-4-10]
Just before Rapid-Fire you ripped Obama on Boehner. First, Boehner has mentioned "no compromise". So to be confrontational, Obama must lead with that. Second, since Republicans are the party of "know"(of course we know-no) the Senate must be the party of yes and say yes to reconciliation and the filibuster. Of course it is not black and white, but I mean being the party of "yes we can." Pass it on.

Game On!

[POSTED 10-22-10 10:37 AM]
Good Cop, Bad Cop Over:

If the Democrats manage to hold on, for the first time in a long time they would have an incentive to fight back against a system that is rigged in favor of the rich and the powerful. Because those same folks just declared war on them. If they don't join the battle soon, they are going to get wiped out in 2012. If you thought business interests spent a lot of money in this election, wait till you get a load of 2012.

To be clear, of course not all business interests are nefarious. They are a very legitimate constituency to consider when making policy. But when corporations use their power to kill a bill that would have stopped subsidies for offshoring jobs, then that is exactly the kind of abuse of power that is hurting this country. And that just happened last month.(Cenk Uygur)

It should be apparent that if so much money is going against the Democrats and for the Republicans, then there is a major difference between the two, and voters may know that more than the money and polls will tell.

Ground Zero & Logical Relativism?

[Please note that I stumbled upon this link 2-13-11 and believe it may have been held in draft]

OK, I will not expound upon whatever my headline means, except for this poll.
But have we learned anything from the Shirley Sherrod episode?
Others have a more nuanced stand, while Keith Olbermann attempts some perspective.
[Nuanced footnote: Grounds: Zero?. And yet, I can support* Harry Reid's statement, realizing he may know the difference which Republicans don't, basically like Chris Hayes does not support The National Review, but does not intend to ban it. It seems to hinge(or spin) on freedom and opportunity.
* I am using the word "support", which Hayes says is not the right word, but I use it in the Right's context. All words are nuanced or in context, which disconnects** many from the cause and effect of nature and progress, let alone values or taste.]
** note: emphasis bold links, and anachronism of last two

Snooki?

With the comments of Republicans recently, like Senator Jim DeMint, and Senator Jim Bunning, it was tempting just to call their offices to ask if they are getting many expletive deleted calls. That is a serious inquiry, because I wonder just how many sensible people would even think their call mattered, considering their behavior * which is frequently rude and more commonly childish, and forget having any relationship to facts. Really, it might make more sense to quote Peewee Herman. "I know you are but what am I.(...)Infinity." Especially with the employment of Snooki. Peewee may be on the road to reform, but at least he knows he is childish. "Kids, these days." Speaking of cultural cracks: "Mr. Wilson!"(R)

*in the halls of Congress? Not to mention other whining.(SEE BTW)

BTW: Glenn Beck is a PC figure, standing for Pop Culture as in destroy civilization.
Oh and I have employed a new label, except it would too frequently be applied as it is the Republican Agenda.

(R) a ribble on a recent app

[On the other hand(American Exceptionalism) and foot in mouth, I can't remember who said... what?... but in regards to the fall of the Soviet Union, either before or after, in the thinking of Reagan or the latest Bush, just because a president will not put his actions into words, does not mean they cannot be justified, nor not be changed.]

Presidential SOTU

Huffington On Bipartisanship *.-Text-
PBS Annotated SOTU text/video
GOP Responds to SOTU
and promoteown solutions.
Oh, it's the economy(brainy)! -Newsweek**

My summary of SOTU: Heavy on hope, light on hype.

My reply to response: It was "fair and balanced" and with less rhetoric almost a Blue Dog, and with better facts almost a someone that could work across the aisle. Talk is cheap and hype costly. Hope is very economical, but progress takes investment.

* It seems that the following is very odd(my bold):

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the second most powerful Republican in the Senate, was just as blunt and brutal. "It was a campaign speech," he said. "I thought it was a very partisan speech. He did not help himself with Republicans tonight. You do not bash the opposition and then encourage them to work with you."

How, specifically, did he bash?

"Every third paragraph was complaining about the mess that George Bush got him in. He didn't mention the words George Bush but he didn't have to," said Kyl. "After more than a year, take ownership of the problems you have. You campaigned for president to solve these problems so stop complaining about the mess that you inherited. That was okay for a few weeks or a few months, but after awhile it gets a little tiresome."

Kyl went on to complain about "thinly veiled suggestions that all Republicans do is say 'no,' that we have to stop saying 'no' to everything. That's not the way to encourage productive cooperation with the other side."

Especially as it continues:

Was he offended by the shot at skeptic(sic) of the science behind climate change?

"Well, he probably meant it as such, but frankly I didn't receive it as such, since I'm one of the skeptics," he said.

Anything else?

"He started out talking about the constitutional requirement to report on the state of the union and in the very first part of the speech he did. And then he veered off of it and got into this big campaign mantra, which just isn't done. I know this is his first one, but still, it shouldn't be so much about him, and how he didn't come here to do this and he didn't come here to do that and he's going to fight on and so on. It's not about that. It's about the American people and how you're going to react to what they've been telling you -- or trying to tell you -- about what they'd like to see done."

I thought that was pretty much what President Obama did, and it seems odd if not forced that this Republican take makes any sense. Of course they believe in an invisible force (Ctrl F hand) not to mention freedom as a force, which is even less accurate.(just speaking economics and physics). It seems that MassAChooseIts independents, moderates, democrats, and apparently the Senate's #2 Republican has given the president a mandate. Now congress, "may the force** be with you".

BTW: we don't have to worry about deficits anymore**, there is no looking back and it is the President's economy.

footnote:
asterisk * is post I am commenting on
asterisk ** refers back to preemptive crack and source(Newsweek/YouTube)
But seriously.
*** see comment 3 of more there re: change agent

[UPDATE: On Thom Hartmann, Congressman Blumenauer suggests Valentines for the Senate (Valentines are the broken parts of the bills that need passing. Progressively: ping pong, reconciliation, nuclear option, Valentines [*] . Seemingly how I put it[**] & within the mechanics of the process and politics.)]
[*] 1-29-10 link to Valentines for the Senate
[**] The Nature of Things (posted 1-20-10) also "up, down, or side ways" not to mention the Mass A Choose Its Dilemma. Make it so! May the force be with you.[Is there a Mass A Choose Its Lesson?]

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)}

Preemptive Comment

Only slightly: Pardon Cheney, he doesn't know what the "legal definition" of anything is. Pardon me, Chris Matthews, we need a new word for "beyond hypothetical". He asked a guest what they would be saying if Bush has just given the same speech. Since Ron Reagan was one the guests, it might have made sense if the other guest had been a Republican but maybe not. My point? This is not a speech that Bush could have given or ever would have given, no matter how similar one thinks it sounds. At least not on Cheney's watch.[**]

Speech - TEXT
CNN video
Biden support
Republicans agree. (OK this is a tangent, but I earlier thought that Cheney is getting too much coverage. If his comments would be filtered to what was really news and reasonably accurate, he would get none.)

MSNBC - General Eaton - Steve Clemons - Cenk Uygur * - Howard Fineman - Hardball - Rachel Maddow - also - Olbermann - Maxine Waters - Kucinich - Ed Schultz - Pragmatic
* I am in Karen Finney's corner
[**] 12-1-09 update: which gives short shrift to Bush's natural proclivities.

hiatus...

just the word to replace sabbatical

Mike Lux on Obama and Progressives.

Index
Republican Memorial Healthcare Bill 8-31-09
Work-a-day Republicans 8-30-09
"Are you who I think you are?" 8-27-09, (8-28,8-29)
Worse Segue 8-26-09
Awkward Segue: Ted Kennedy, R.I.P. 8-26-09
Political Terrorism 8-25-09
Health Reform? 8-18-09
Hope in Comedy's Clothing 8-14-09

FOX in Sheep's Clothing 8-12-09
What are they smoking? 8-10-09
Health Care NOW 8-10-09
The Awakening 8-06-09
Now we know 8-03-09

Work-a-day Republicans

Or rather wonk-a-day sic.
Did you know that "wonk" is "know" backwards? But it is still of uncertain origin and could be WithOut Normal Knowledge? I think that Steele may be the missing link.
It could have arisen much the same as the attitude of suspicion that is cast upon those that might know or krow. And it seems that there is a real twist in the way sausage is made when it comes to what the Republicans claim and what they are about. You may be able to know things backwards and forwards but, that does not mean they will work either way.

Earlier Michael Steele was not a policy wonk, now he is a policy krow.