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.]
Showing posts sorted by date for query Republicans run from. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query Republicans run from. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Thursday, July 19, 2012
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.]
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.]
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
The Daily Counter Balance
From The Dylan Ratigan Show:
* to be linked here(Goodfriend Tribute to Snowe^)
[Speaking of preemptive embedding, Hardball on Romney speaking in pros, "looking for a KO"^?
Churning media or fulfilling the table, Killing Organizing, or Freedom of Foundation? Let alone "life among the cannibals.^" Not to mention AP-Paul-ING^ "Politics Nation". Do we want an Obama Nation or a Bane Nor Nation?*** Not to Pun on Lioness Pauling up Watson Creek.]
** actually this was on a panel (note anachronism of rant and panel)
*** Susan Del Percio^: Interesting Republican Spokes Person(2:42) in her opening talking points or not needing to defend Ryan but whine about the panel being 4 to 1 against her, before attacking the Senate or...
[3-21-12 ^ late links^^ added: Ryan Plan 2013]
[The Glorious Revolution is embedded in the academics of "/","not""^^". Republicans want to revisit the mid-17th Century. See ^^ cycle. Sometimes to tergiversate is better than too sate-yore-deceive. (pun on give/take/receive) (Slash Not what you can do...)(If I may quibble withRobert Reich, and Noam Chomsky, I will have to link later^^^, but the former is related byword play to the latter by George. Society plays a part in defining words, so I guess I can't blame Chomsky for using words that we want to change. This relates to the evolution of the wordholocaust and the war on evolution. It relates to groups claiming words while we also want to define them under the flag of progress. Is abortion genocide? Is war murder? The law decides, while some forsake it, and the politics that decide it.)]
^^^ I must find a Chomsky use of the word murder in the context of war. (The connectingtissueis the use of "social Darwinism" in a way that is contrary to the survival of the fittest, that nails trickle-down to the cross. )
Note that not only do Democrats spend less they generally contribute less to the national debt, at least since the late 70's. OK, so there are only two Democrats before Obama, but look what happened to Carter for being conservative, and at least in Clinton's case he bent the curve in two terms.
P.S. (Pre-Selection: Romney/Ryan 2012)
P.S. (Pre-Selection: Romney/Ryan 2012)
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
I Ron Knee Chef
Ctrl F Kitchen
Obama Takes it to the Kitchen.
OK, Lawrence O'Donnell is not there yet.[*]
True Man Label: Bring it On.
* 1-5-11 Lawrence O'Donnell: McCain Courage, Mormon Cult(ure) and perfect family. (Mitt Romney)
Recess appointment is perfect politics. Make our** day. (not to get Harry) i.e. take it to court or the people
Is Obama the 75% man? Mitt may be politically perfect, or the least of how many evils?
Trump wanted some enthusiasm, but who am I to be enthused by the choice of an even weaker candidate to face Obama? I hope the Republicans give us their best. It is a process that just might do that. Unfortunately their best for some Republicans, Libertarians, and farther wrongs would be worse for the country. A flip-flopping un-nuanced Romney is their best shot. Someone more extreme*** would be better for the race and the country by allowing Obama to carry the middle left.
** dirty Truman and his spatula
[Later The Daily Caller and Neo-Nuanced R's. ]
*** link added (**also & Neo)
[Neo-Bush, Frank/Dodd and Obamanomics.]
[Rachel Maddow, Star Chamber]
[Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartmann, Lawrence O'Donnell]
1-6-11 Paul Harvey, The Rest of the Story. "not really".
Jobs-check, Cuts-check, debt next, but that means revenue also. As for certainty?
Note: use of punctuation, (sic)/pun, "air quotes" or lack of... c-BTW/irony.
(Ctrl F: "best" link inserted above)
[Rachel Maddow follow up or vise verse us ? Steele and Obama!]
[Santorum: Civil ad cert'em, a lesson in logic and taking the 9th.]
[Lawrence O'Donnell follow-up and tetra heed run ! (c-1-5 "courage":It was noted that it would be a lack of courage for McCain not to endorse a Republican candidate at this late date. So he endorses after the first delegates have been selected? Typical fear of fear monger.)]
BTW: China Or Germany? Which Economy Stupid? This proves you can learn from others, but it doesn't say what.
Awkward Breaking(BTW/Less Embedded)News(Ein, Ein, Ayn?)
i.e. next post/segue!
Speaking of Newt Eyed Peas, what he said to the NAACP.
Just demand jobs instead of food stamps? Not to be snarky.
< previous post >
Obama Takes it to the Kitchen.
OK, Lawrence O'Donnell is not there yet.[*]
True Man Label: Bring it On.
* 1-5-11 Lawrence O'Donnell: McCain Courage, Mormon Cult(ure) and perfect family. (Mitt Romney)
Recess appointment is perfect politics. Make our** day. (not to get Harry) i.e. take it to court or the people
Is Obama the 75% man? Mitt may be politically perfect, or the least of how many evils?
Trump wanted some enthusiasm, but who am I to be enthused by the choice of an even weaker candidate to face Obama? I hope the Republicans give us their best. It is a process that just might do that. Unfortunately their best for some Republicans, Libertarians, and farther wrongs would be worse for the country. A flip-flopping un-nuanced Romney is their best shot. Someone more extreme*** would be better for the race and the country by allowing Obama to carry the middle left.
** dirty Truman and his spatula
[Later The Daily Caller and Neo-Nuanced R's. ]
*** link added (**also & Neo)
[Neo-Bush, Frank/Dodd and Obamanomics.]
[Rachel Maddow, Star Chamber]
[Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartmann, Lawrence O'Donnell]
1-6-11 Paul Harvey, The Rest of the Story. "not really".
Jobs-check, Cuts-check, debt next, but that means revenue also. As for certainty?
Note: use of punctuation, (sic)/pun, "air quotes" or lack of... c-BTW/irony.
(Ctrl F: "best" link inserted above)
[Rachel Maddow follow up or vise verse us ? Steele and Obama!]
[Santorum: Civil ad cert'em, a lesson in logic and taking the 9th.]
[Lawrence O'Donnell follow-up and tetra heed run ! (c-1-5 "courage":It was noted that it would be a lack of courage for McCain not to endorse a Republican candidate at this late date. So he endorses after the first delegates have been selected? Typical fear of fear monger.)]
BTW: China Or Germany? Which Economy Stupid? This proves you can learn from others, but it doesn't say what.
Awkward Breaking(BTW/Less Embedded)News(Ein, Ein, Ayn?)
i.e. next post/segue!
Speaking of Newt Eyed Peas, what he said to the NAACP.
Just demand jobs instead of food stamps? Not to be snarky.
< previous post >
Monday, October 17, 2011
Republicans Filibuster Economy
There, no more misledership!
Durbin Calls for Change to Filibuster Rule
Content from Legislation not Politics!(post asterisk *)
[Sorting it out: It was Eric Cantor who accused the President of politics over legislating. That is a ridiculous line of argument. As someone said about the market operating on society, like Siamese Twins performing brain surgery on themselves. But taking it to the bank or kitchen or pulpit,(the ridiculous line that is), the answer is in one word. VOTE! Up or down, package or separately, limit the filibuster, use reconciliation, WHATEVER! A vote is taking a stand. Take it and run on it, not from it. BUT THEN WE HAVE THE MESSAGE TO GET THROUGH THE MESS AGE OF THE MEDIA, not even punning on ledership. The American Jobs Act did not get voted down, it failed a cloture vote(50-49). That means that even if three more Democrats had voted with the rest, it would have been 53-46, but it takes 60 votes people!]
(*) post-asterisk at link, go there for more links, but I have rearranged two in this content: If Republicans want to walk the talk, of Where are the Jobs?* Then vote on every last one of these, as well as the American Jobs Act[*], and see who will be left on the ship of fools.
NOW MORE CONTEXT... later (Well maybe)
[just posted from draft]
Durbin Calls for Change to Filibuster Rule
Content from Legislation not Politics!(post asterisk *)
[Sorting it out: It was Eric Cantor who accused the President of politics over legislating. That is a ridiculous line of argument. As someone said about the market operating on society, like Siamese Twins performing brain surgery on themselves. But taking it to the bank or kitchen or pulpit,(the ridiculous line that is), the answer is in one word. VOTE! Up or down, package or separately, limit the filibuster, use reconciliation, WHATEVER! A vote is taking a stand. Take it and run on it, not from it. BUT THEN WE HAVE THE MESSAGE TO GET THROUGH THE MESS AGE OF THE MEDIA, not even punning on ledership. The American Jobs Act did not get voted down, it failed a cloture vote(50-49). That means that even if three more Democrats had voted with the rest, it would have been 53-46, but it takes 60 votes people!]
(*) post-asterisk at link, go there for more links, but I have rearranged two in this content: If Republicans want to walk the talk, of Where are the Jobs?* Then vote on every last one of these, as well as the American Jobs Act[*], and see who will be left on the ship of fools.
NOW MORE CONTEXT... later (Well maybe)
[just posted from draft]
Friday, October 14, 2011
Legislation not politics!
[Can't Or Bane Or...]
(10-17-11 or change: added sub-heading with links only)
Was it Cant or Bane or, who said such.
Well, I paraphrase, but it was an attack on President Obama and the American Jobs Act. The idea that he was playing politics by giving them a jobs plan, while it is the legislature's job to create legislation. Sure there is a disagreement as to what creates jobs, but there should be no disagreement that it is legislation and it is political.
Plan B? Walking the Plank? Take up or down votes:
[*] The American Jobs Act.
[This is Truman's kitchen and Teddy's stick or carrying a lever but no pit bully.]
[Sorting it out: It was Eric Cantor who accused the President of politics over legislating. That is a ridiculous line of argument. As someone said about the market operating on society, like Siamese Twins performing brain surgery on themselves. But taking it to the bank or kitchen or pulpit,(the ridiculus line that is), the answer is in one word. VOTE! Up or down, package or separately, limit the filibuster, use reconciliation, WHATEVER! A vote is taking a stand. Take it and run on it, not from it. BUT THEN WE HAVE THE MESSAGE TO GET THROUGH THE MESS AGE OF THE MEDIA, not even punning on ledership. The American Jobs Act did not get voted down, it failed a cloture vote(50-49). That means that even if three more Democrats had voted with the rest, it would have been 53-46, but it takes 60 votes people!]
(10-17-11 or change: added sub-heading with links only)
Was it Cant or Bane or, who said such.
Well, I paraphrase, but it was an attack on President Obama and the American Jobs Act. The idea that he was playing politics by giving them a jobs plan, while it is the legislature's job to create legislation. Sure there is a disagreement as to what creates jobs, but there should be no disagreement that it is legislation and it is political.
Plan B? Walking the Plank? Take up or down votes:
If Republicans want to walk the talk, of Where are the Jobs?* Then vote on every last one of these, as well as the American Jobs Act[*], and see who will be left on the ship of fools.
[*] The American Jobs Act.
[This is Truman's kitchen and Teddy's stick or carrying a lever but no pit bully.]
[Sorting it out: It was Eric Cantor who accused the President of politics over legislating. That is a ridiculous line of argument. As someone said about the market operating on society, like Siamese Twins performing brain surgery on themselves. But taking it to the bank or kitchen or pulpit,(the ridiculus line that is), the answer is in one word. VOTE! Up or down, package or separately, limit the filibuster, use reconciliation, WHATEVER! A vote is taking a stand. Take it and run on it, not from it. BUT THEN WE HAVE THE MESSAGE TO GET THROUGH THE MESS AGE OF THE MEDIA, not even punning on ledership. The American Jobs Act did not get voted down, it failed a cloture vote(50-49). That means that even if three more Democrats had voted with the rest, it would have been 53-46, but it takes 60 votes people!]
Friday, June 10, 2011
No Frackin' Way
Nuclear power is one thing*, but Frackin' with our water?
* not green(except for trickle up)
[What the frack is the connection to Newt Gingrich, well the paradox of green and being able to be a paradox period. His frackin' campaign seems to be burning the candle on both ends. But this is too complex for me to explain, except for the idea that he commits to Lean Six Sigma,*** but not to the concepts his staff thinks it will take to win. Is this a bringing it to the table moment ala the silver lining of the churned media cloud? It is bad enough that Republicans have enough money to run their lies in ads and Faux News, but they have enough to add cloud to the process.]
[Not to** mention lame stream media.]
** way
*** last frackin' link
[Post comments footnote(see my two comments): There is nothing wrong with Six Sigma as a tool, but it may be besides the point, but not aside from the point of whose hands it is in, and for what purpose it is wielded(people or profit). In fact, I believe that "Lean Six Sigma" violates "Six Sigma" principles by having a target of 25% spending reduction, which demonstrates my point on purposes and whose hands should wield it for what. Aside from the point: what the frack is the point of government?]
* not green(except for trickle up)
[What the frack is the connection to Newt Gingrich, well the paradox of green and being able to be a paradox period. His frackin' campaign seems to be burning the candle on both ends. But this is too complex for me to explain, except for the idea that he commits to Lean Six Sigma,*** but not to the concepts his staff thinks it will take to win. Is this a bringing it to the table moment ala the silver lining of the churned media cloud? It is bad enough that Republicans have enough money to run their lies in ads and Faux News, but they have enough to add cloud to the process.]
[Not to** mention lame stream media.]
** way
*** last frackin' link
[Post comments footnote(see my two comments): There is nothing wrong with Six Sigma as a tool, but it may be besides the point, but not aside from the point of whose hands it is in, and for what purpose it is wielded(people or profit). In fact, I believe that "Lean Six Sigma" violates "Six Sigma" principles by having a target of 25% spending reduction, which demonstrates my point on purposes and whose hands should wield it for what. Aside from the point: what the frack is the point of government?]
Friday, May 13, 2011
GOP @)!@ ...(2012)
2012 that is.
Mitch Daniels, was my earliest hunch, Huntsman was a close second. Ron Paul was an early hope, but Gary Johnson beat him to the announcement. Now when I say hope, this is from the perspective that there be a good candidate for Republicans and the 2012 race, not that they should have any shot at being good for the country. This does not take into considerations any impact of a third party or independent candidate, or any political calculus. I don't find any references in a search of my blog but could have embedded some comment or link that may mention them. I associate Daniels with a Chris Matthews* comment, and Huntsman with some China controversy, while Paul and Johnson are libertarian. Which may be why I have been focused on economics and Ayn Rand. I would like to have a good de bait on neo-classical economics. It is hard to imagine Mitt Romney making it but then the longer the so-called libertarian or tea party candidate split the vote he or these guys could run the fish ladder, and it is hard to imagine a third party candidate that would not be just another spoiler. I don't want to do the political calculus to rock that boat.
* one reason I might scratch Daniels, but then again
5-17-11 Related links: Needless to say** Label
(Republicans 2012)
One No Trump
Two No Huckabee***
**Calm Pend E Um has a reference to an anomoly
*** Raising Cain
Mitch Daniels, was my earliest hunch, Huntsman was a close second. Ron Paul was an early hope, but Gary Johnson beat him to the announcement. Now when I say hope, this is from the perspective that there be a good candidate for Republicans and the 2012 race, not that they should have any shot at being good for the country. This does not take into considerations any impact of a third party or independent candidate, or any political calculus. I don't find any references in a search of my blog but could have embedded some comment or link that may mention them. I associate Daniels with a Chris Matthews* comment, and Huntsman with some China controversy, while Paul and Johnson are libertarian. Which may be why I have been focused on economics and Ayn Rand. I would like to have a good de bait on neo-classical economics. It is hard to imagine Mitt Romney making it but then the longer the so-called libertarian or tea party candidate split the vote he or these guys could run the fish ladder, and it is hard to imagine a third party candidate that would not be just another spoiler. I don't want to do the political calculus to rock that boat.
* one reason I might scratch Daniels, but then again
5-17-11 Related links: Needless to say** Label
(Republicans 2012)
One No Trump
Two No Huckabee***
**Calm Pend E Um has a reference to an anomoly
*** Raising Cain
Friday, March 25, 2011
Follow Up
3-25-11
[A] Trick Question of the Day? Whose Libya Policy is worse?*
[B] here is to the brave...journalist link added: It is important to ask the hard questions, but it is important not to negotiate or spill strategy to the enemy.]
[C] bonus feature links added
* Blunt Bolton 2012! OR Trump Bolton 2012
Odyssey Dawn 2012(No Princess Cruise)
[Top link and asterisk added 3-25-11]
[2012 Dream Race/Debate: Sanders Fiengold, Biden Obama, Trump Paul. I'm just saying that by attrition or distribution, there may be a shift in the political spectrum of the so-called middle. This would at least make for an interesting debate not that the organizational structure would cooperate. Fiengold might not be a player or choose this field of endeavor in rocking the party boat, Kucinich may be an alternate, and Trump and Rand Paul would have their own problems with the Republicans. Heck, there may as well be Pawlenty Bush 2012.]
[D.] Speaking of Brackets
[E.] Speaking of Spills, someone is getting a run for their money. Bored of the Day: Is it funny how 1996 was the year?
[See C. Supplemental/Flops]
[Final Crack: One of the premises for preemption was meaning what you say or following through. Well just how is Gingrich cracked up?]
[Bonus Crack: In all fairness it is not!
[A] Trick Question of the Day? Whose Libya Policy is worse?*
[B] here is to the brave...journalist link added: It is important to ask the hard questions, but it is important not to negotiate or spill strategy to the enemy.]
[C] bonus feature links added
* Blunt Bolton 2012! OR Trump Bolton 2012
Odyssey Dawn 2012(No Princess Cruise)
[Top link and asterisk added 3-25-11]
[2012 Dream Race/Debate: Sanders Fiengold, Biden Obama, Trump Paul. I'm just saying that by attrition or distribution, there may be a shift in the political spectrum of the so-called middle. This would at least make for an interesting debate not that the organizational structure would cooperate. Fiengold might not be a player or choose this field of endeavor in rocking the party boat, Kucinich may be an alternate, and Trump and Rand Paul would have their own problems with the Republicans. Heck, there may as well be Pawlenty Bush 2012.]
[D.] Speaking of Brackets
[E.] Speaking of Spills, someone is getting a run for their money. Bored of the Day: Is it funny how 1996 was the year?
[See C. Supplemental/Flops]
[Final Crack: One of the premises for preemption was meaning what you say or following through. Well just how is Gingrich cracked up?]
[Bonus Crack: In all fairness it is not!
From the President, Monday -- quoting: "It is U-S Policy that Qaddafi needs to go."There is no inconsistency here: U.S. Policy is one thing. The Mission is another. Pure and complicated (and balanced.)]
From the Chairman, Sunday -- quoting. "It’s not about seeing him go," unquote. He added that the mission might be accomplished even if Qaddafi stays in power.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Wake Up and Eat Some Breakfast.
[Pulled from draft "as is" 12-29-10]
Rachel Maddow...and idioms or "tangents" and "connecting the dots".
Filibuster change "fix the senate" on Jan. 5th?
Haley Barbour Citizens Council? Segregation alive?
Revisionist History Melissa Harris-Perry*
*Huckabee Paul? Which Paul? There is something odd about some of the polling. Democrats of course would love to have the likes of Sarah Palin* [** See ** here] or worse as an opponent for the sake of their candidate, Obama or not. But what would be good for the country? Should one party really be concerned with picking the other's candidate? I am just saying that a Huckabee Paul team may be less bad, and have a more reasonable debate than what Rebulicans might end up with based on the calculus of divide and dilute.[lemon in dilute link is a reference to the movement of liquids(independents/moderates) from one party to the other: a moderate Rebublican would have an uphill battle against a real centrist in that Obama's support is coming from the middle while his policies are supported by more than the left.]
*not that she won't evolve or indeed run from herself (i.e. be a force) Not that this theory applies only to running but maybe to the media there is a three bears comparison of MSNBC, CNN, FOX. My tangent is the persective that for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction, and sometimes it applies to getting information out and the reaction is the point. [A prime example is Palin/Michelle Huckabee and the right to desserts. But Palin is a force that Republicans have a problem running from. But it is earned media or is it. It is kind of funny how the subject of entitlements or rights(freedoms) is confused here. ] [cnn SMART IS THE NEW RICH hunger is the sauce Hal Sparks on CNN]Home Sweet Home?
[See Asterisks here **]
Rachel Maddow...and idioms or "tangents" and "connecting the dots".
Filibuster change "fix the senate" on Jan. 5th?
Haley Barbour Citizens Council? Segregation alive?
Revisionist History Melissa Harris-Perry*
*Huckabee Paul? Which Paul? There is something odd about some of the polling. Democrats of course would love to have the likes of Sarah Palin* [** See ** here] or worse as an opponent for the sake of their candidate, Obama or not. But what would be good for the country? Should one party really be concerned with picking the other's candidate? I am just saying that a Huckabee Paul team may be less bad, and have a more reasonable debate than what Rebulicans might end up with based on the calculus of divide and dilute.[lemon in dilute link is a reference to the movement of liquids(independents/moderates) from one party to the other: a moderate Rebublican would have an uphill battle against a real centrist in that Obama's support is coming from the middle while his policies are supported by more than the left.]
*not that she won't evolve or indeed run from herself (i.e. be a force) Not that this theory applies only to running but maybe to the media there is a three bears comparison of MSNBC, CNN, FOX. My tangent is the persective that for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction, and sometimes it applies to getting information out and the reaction is the point. [A prime example is Palin/Michelle Huckabee and the right to desserts. But Palin is a force that Republicans have a problem running from. But it is earned media or is it. It is kind of funny how the subject of entitlements or rights(freedoms) is confused here. ] [cnn SMART IS THE NEW RICH hunger is the sauce Hal Sparks on CNN]Home Sweet Home?
[See Asterisks here **]
Friday, September 17, 2010
Belated Link(s)
We Got Ed
caller (Mel?): "Tea Partiers are people scared to call themselves Republicans."
Between One Nation and The Plan we have the American Dream.
Something about diluted by the play of running things. I think it is a Rovian principle that negative[*] gets attention, and if you don't have power, the more negative you go, because you have to run from your plans, which is not exactly all-in-ski(see Comment). I can't remember where I first hint and-correction-(at*) this theory, but if they are running against government, it would make sense that they would run from their own, but then join them.
[*] 9-20-10 speaking of negative attention principle; "at" inserted @ different theory
caller (Mel?): "Tea Partiers are people scared to call themselves Republicans."
Between One Nation and The Plan we have the American Dream.
Something about diluted by the play of running things. I think it is a Rovian principle that negative[*] gets attention, and if you don't have power, the more negative you go, because you have to run from your plans, which is not exactly all-in-ski(see Comment). I can't remember where I first hint and-correction-(at*) this theory, but if they are running against government, it would make sense that they would run from their own, but then join them.
[*] 9-20-10 speaking of negative attention principle; "at" inserted @ different theory
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
I'm not even
gonna read this yet, or MoveOn to this. But is this the deal?
[Scroll over links for 'nuf context]
It seems a spectrum of progress and contrast. From Bush, to Blair, from Tea Parties, to Newt. Each looks better in perspective to the others.
[9-15-10 Re: further preemption]
[Counter Balance[*] of Table]
[Just noting the complexities of international diplomacy and domestic politics, as well as the "two party" system. While we near a deal of major import, minor fears drive local divisions, and have major costs. Democrats run divided, while Republicans divide to run. While this is not a clear and fair analogy, as of course division is needed in races within parties. But Democrats have not created a party to run against itself, while it has those in office who run rather* independent.]
[And Under the Radar]
* see Balance above and cost of debt and war
[Image use and source; original.]
[*][On the other hand, extending only the middle-class Bush tax-cuts only reduces the borrowing by $700 billion.]
[9-16-10: extending the Bush Tax cuts: adds $3.9 trillion** to National Debt, while extending only those above $250K would add only $3.22 trillion. i.e. reduce by $680 billion. ]
** 3.8? Quote: Extending them for the next 10 years would add about $3.8 trillion to a growing national debt that is already the largest since World War II. About $700 billion of that reflects the projected costs of tax cuts for those in the top 2 percent of income-earners.
[Scroll over links for 'nuf context]
It seems a spectrum of progress and contrast. From Bush, to Blair, from Tea Parties, to Newt. Each looks better in perspective to the others.
[9-15-10 Re: further preemption]
[Counter Balance[*] of Table]
[Just noting the complexities of international diplomacy and domestic politics, as well as the "two party" system. While we near a deal of major import, minor fears drive local divisions, and have major costs. Democrats run divided, while Republicans divide to run. While this is not a clear and fair analogy, as of course division is needed in races within parties. But Democrats have not created a party to run against itself, while it has those in office who run rather* independent.]
[And Under the Radar]
* see Balance above and cost of debt and war
[Image use and source; original.]
[*][On the other hand, extending only the middle-class Bush tax-cuts only reduces the borrowing by $700 billion.]
[9-16-10: extending the Bush Tax cuts: adds $3.9 trillion** to National Debt, while extending only those above $250K would add only $3.22 trillion. i.e. reduce by $680 billion. ]
** 3.8? Quote: Extending them for the next 10 years would add about $3.8 trillion to a growing national debt that is already the largest since World War II. About $700 billion of that reflects the projected costs of tax cuts for those in the top 2 percent of income-earners.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
The Randslide?
I believe I must credit Sarah Palin for using this term. But Rand Paul must credit Rachel Maddow for giving him an even hand.
The Pre-Midterm Mandate: The Ed Effect Sometimes the Democrats ask too little.* I second Ed. And Stephanie Miller. Not to mention TeaParty of the Left?
There is a theory out there that slips my mind now, but if I have not recrafted it, mine is that the Republicans run down government and Democrats have an up hill battle.** Actually I just sharpened it a bit. But economically*** it is a serious theory, if you look at each of the past Democratic Presidents since Eisenhower. Each administration has had a lot to recover from, and have been progressively less timid in addressing the slide, yet increasingly needful of change. Careful change.
* my amendment to Sestak paraphrasing President Kennedy.
** and I don't mean the slippery tubbers(Cf)i.e. link and Ctrl F "tub"
*** Oh and my General(Mills) Eisenhower pun aside,(but not the inversion of the check mark), my theory actually covers the existence of the Democratic Party. I will simply say that since Vietnam there has only been Carter and Clinton while the Carter was not out of the shadow of debt he faced the energy crisis, Clinton failed to transcend the Reagan revolution. I think it hinges on the failure to understand Keynesian economics and the evolution of empires or power period.
[see comments presently three]
The Pre-Midterm Mandate: The Ed Effect Sometimes the Democrats ask too little.* I second Ed. And Stephanie Miller. Not to mention TeaParty of the Left?
There is a theory out there that slips my mind now, but if I have not recrafted it, mine is that the Republicans run down government and Democrats have an up hill battle.** Actually I just sharpened it a bit. But economically*** it is a serious theory, if you look at each of the past Democratic Presidents since Eisenhower. Each administration has had a lot to recover from, and have been progressively less timid in addressing the slide, yet increasingly needful of change. Careful change.
* my amendment to Sestak paraphrasing President Kennedy.
** and I don't mean the slippery tubbers(Cf)i.e. link and Ctrl F "tub"
*** Oh and my General(Mills) Eisenhower pun aside,(but not the inversion of the check mark), my theory actually covers the existence of the Democratic Party. I will simply say that since Vietnam there has only been Carter and Clinton while the Carter was not out of the shadow of debt he faced the energy crisis, Clinton failed to transcend the Reagan revolution. I think it hinges on the failure to understand Keynesian economics and the evolution of empires or power period.
[see comments presently three]
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Back Log and 4 Mat
Hit and Run Republicans, simply reflects the open field and many tents in which leadership is hard to locate. Not exactly hit and run, but more like running from various factions and issues.
As projected now by Chris Cillizza or 2B soon [*], but here is the point of my format. Democrats as well have their wings, but the political calculus depends upon whether there are closed or open primaries, especially when it comes to independents and progressives verses(sic) tea partiers** and disappointed liberals, not to mention the fluid* or radical moderates.(not to overly characterize)
[Hi! See Noon? Or midnight sessions where "Senate Republicans use the rules to stop things, Senate Democrats are going to use the rules to keep everybody working late."]
*pun on the oversea's similar difficulties and disappointments and party electoral process differences.[***]
** no disrespect but there are at least two major factions I call the Palin and Paul wings, both uncertain about whether they are running for or from the Republican Party.
[Teeter Totter? Gamble and Investments.]
[***] Not so puny. Plus it was only natural google that(or which) intersected the links.]
[*] 4wards ho!
As projected now by Chris Cillizza or 2B soon [*], but here is the point of my format. Democrats as well have their wings, but the political calculus depends upon whether there are closed or open primaries, especially when it comes to independents and progressives verses(sic) tea partiers** and disappointed liberals, not to mention the fluid* or radical moderates.(not to overly characterize)
[Hi! See Noon? Or midnight sessions where "Senate Republicans use the rules to stop things, Senate Democrats are going to use the rules to keep everybody working late."]
*pun on the oversea's similar difficulties and disappointments and party electoral process differences.[***]
** no disrespect but there are at least two major factions I call the Palin and Paul wings, both uncertain about whether they are running for or from the Republican Party.
[Teeter Totter? Gamble and Investments.]
[***] Not so puny. Plus it was only natural google that(or which) intersected the links.]
[*] 4wards ho!
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Faux Campaign
versus Real concerns.
The last post was so extended I have bumped the last portion up to here:
Anachronistic bracketed and segue.
[If one could raise the level of "sophistication" and be able to cherry pick the rhetoric, one could see that politics is the only method in resolving things, even if you do not feel "responsible" for being in positions of leadership: see Ratigan reference and Hardball below.]
[*** see my call to Boehner's office not to mention what is on their "clean sheet of paper" now.]
[Earlier references to the way media works not to mention this last minute source. And later, Ratigan is a bit of a mix of "targets": see link (here)[UPDATE], from which I have pulled the term "sophistication" (above) from a Tea Party guest, even though the host, Dylan might not understand community organizing perspectives or "responsibilities" in other matters, while Hardball might raise it too well.]
Anachronistic segue.
[I will finish with two issues that could easily be too political, but would love the exact words in law, to explain the "abortion funding" and "mandate" issues relationships to reality versus the rhetoric. But I believe it is a fungible economics issue or state options and commerce clauses relationship to the foot in the door and opening the door to get the TOW out in the form of there being room for improvement from both sides.]
[Hardall, "the reality is" in the "stirring up trouble"(segment) that media focuses more on raising the rhetoric and controversy gets more attention and distracts from issues(my take not guests)] and then covering it is called "whipping it up" when to naught is only more to blame.]
[OK, I can't say I didn't "play with words" especially in the last few bracketed's]
[On the other hand, I would like to reflect the reality that Republicans will not run against reform, just more reform, and note that they must now reverse Valentine, not as in massacre but in sending messages and bills that will get attention, hopefully not from their "clean sheet of paper"(meaning not rerun or failed ideas), but incrementals that will get responded to, run on, and even occasionally get up or down votes, only not necessarily with the kind of bipartisanship and change they hope for.]
*** asterisk applies to last post
The last post was so extended I have bumped the last portion up to here:
Anachronistic bracketed and segue.
[If one could raise the level of "sophistication" and be able to cherry pick the rhetoric, one could see that politics is the only method in resolving things, even if you do not feel "responsible" for being in positions of leadership: see Ratigan reference and Hardball below.]
[*** see my call to Boehner's office not to mention what is on their "clean sheet of paper" now.]
[Earlier references to the way media works not to mention this last minute source. And later, Ratigan is a bit of a mix of "targets": see link (here)[UPDATE], from which I have pulled the term "sophistication" (above) from a Tea Party guest, even though the host, Dylan might not understand community organizing perspectives or "responsibilities" in other matters, while Hardball might raise it too well.]
Anachronistic segue.
[I will finish with two issues that could easily be too political, but would love the exact words in law, to explain the "abortion funding" and "mandate" issues relationships to reality versus the rhetoric. But I believe it is a fungible economics issue or state options and commerce clauses relationship to the foot in the door and opening the door to get the TOW out in the form of there being room for improvement from both sides.]
[Hardall, "the reality is" in the "stirring up trouble"(segment) that media focuses more on raising the rhetoric and controversy gets more attention and distracts from issues(my take not guests)] and then covering it is called "whipping it up" when to naught is only more to blame.]
[OK, I can't say I didn't "play with words" especially in the last few bracketed's]
[On the other hand, I would like to reflect the reality that Republicans will not run against reform, just more reform, and note that they must now reverse Valentine, not as in massacre but in sending messages and bills that will get attention, hopefully not from their "clean sheet of paper"(meaning not rerun or failed ideas), but incrementals that will get responded to, run on, and even occasionally get up or down votes, only not necessarily with the kind of bipartisanship and change they hope for.]
*** asterisk applies to last post
FAUX NEWS!
I'm not in the mood to play with words today.
But it is nice to see the condemnations of violence from some Republicans, while even those that have, don't recognize their part in lighting the fire by their childish complaints and rhetorical run around with the process. Their complaints [***] of not being included and their complaints of unprecedented partisanship should ring hollow, especially in light of the comprehensive compromises and early sacrifices by Democrats for the sake of pragmatism.
The media plays a big part in not better informing the people. FOX is bad enough, but there is so much reactionary programming, that might be valid yet not really enlighten us on the actual basis in fact and correcting rather than repeating. It seems that there is a political ingredient in this as well as a childish back and forth, but also a misunderstanding of the actual difference in taking responsibility* for one's words and blaming others for politicizing their misuse.
My original thoughts were in support of independent filters, or earlier links, and other sources.
Republican Whip Cantor has complaints about the DNC and the D(triple)C using the threats for political gain.** [Boehner see my comment section]
* Andrea Mitchell(MSNBC): today's link to follow (here): now can we not condone whining?(to Cantor not Pelosi)
** The DCCC have now addressed the difference as well as you (the reader) being able to see and decide in the several links, not necessarily in my rhetoric.
Anachronistic bracketed and segue.
[If one could raise the level of "sophistication" and be able to cherry pick the rhetoric, one could see that politics is only method in resolving things even if you do not feel "responsible" for being in positions of leadership: see Ratigan reference and Hardball below.]
[*** see my call to Boehner's office not to mention what is on their "clean sheet of paper" now.]
[Earlier references to the way media works not to mention this last minute source. And Later Ratigan is a bit of a mix of "targets": see link (here)soon, from which I have pulled the term "sophistication" (above) from a Tea Party guest, even though the host, Dylan might not understand community organizing perspectives or "responsibilities" in other matters, while Hardball might raise it too well.]
Anachronistic segue.
[I will finish with two issues that could easily be too political, but would love the exact words in law, to explain the "abortion funding" and "mandate" issues relationships to reality versus the rhetoric. But I believe it is a fungible economics issue or state options and commerce clauses relationship to the foot in the door and opening the door to get the TOW out in the form of there being room for improvement from both sides.]
[Hardall, "the reality is" in the "stirring up trouble"(segment) that media focuses more on raising the rhetoric and controversy gets more attention and distracts from issues(my take not guests)] and then covering it is called "whipping it up" when to naught is only more to blame.]
[OK, I can't say I didn't "play with words" especially in the last few bracketed's]
[On the other hand, I would like to reflect the reality that Republicans will not run against reform, just more reform, and note that they must now reverse Valentine, not as in massacre but in sending messages and bills that will get attention, hopefully not from their "clean sheet of paper"(meaning not rerun or failed ideas), but incrementals that will get responded to, run on, and even occasionally get up or down votes, only not necessarily with the kind of bipartisanship and change they hope for.]
But it is nice to see the condemnations of violence from some Republicans, while even those that have, don't recognize their part in lighting the fire by their childish complaints and rhetorical run around with the process. Their complaints [***] of not being included and their complaints of unprecedented partisanship should ring hollow, especially in light of the comprehensive compromises and early sacrifices by Democrats for the sake of pragmatism.
The media plays a big part in not better informing the people. FOX is bad enough, but there is so much reactionary programming, that might be valid yet not really enlighten us on the actual basis in fact and correcting rather than repeating. It seems that there is a political ingredient in this as well as a childish back and forth, but also a misunderstanding of the actual difference in taking responsibility* for one's words and blaming others for politicizing their misuse.
My original thoughts were in support of independent filters, or earlier links, and other sources.
Republican Whip Cantor has complaints about the DNC and the D(triple)C using the threats for political gain.** [Boehner see my comment section]
* Andrea Mitchell(MSNBC): today's link to follow (here): now can we not condone whining?(to Cantor not Pelosi)
** The DCCC have now addressed the difference as well as you (the reader) being able to see and decide in the several links, not necessarily in my rhetoric.
Anachronistic bracketed and segue.
[If one could raise the level of "sophistication" and be able to cherry pick the rhetoric, one could see that politics is only method in resolving things even if you do not feel "responsible" for being in positions of leadership: see Ratigan reference and Hardball below.]
[*** see my call to Boehner's office not to mention what is on their "clean sheet of paper" now.]
[Earlier references to the way media works not to mention this last minute source. And Later Ratigan is a bit of a mix of "targets": see link (here)soon, from which I have pulled the term "sophistication" (above) from a Tea Party guest, even though the host, Dylan might not understand community organizing perspectives or "responsibilities" in other matters, while Hardball might raise it too well.]
Anachronistic segue.
[I will finish with two issues that could easily be too political, but would love the exact words in law, to explain the "abortion funding" and "mandate" issues relationships to reality versus the rhetoric. But I believe it is a fungible economics issue or state options and commerce clauses relationship to the foot in the door and opening the door to get the TOW out in the form of there being room for improvement from both sides.]
[Hardall, "the reality is" in the "stirring up trouble"(segment) that media focuses more on raising the rhetoric and controversy gets more attention and distracts from issues(my take not guests)] and then covering it is called "whipping it up" when to naught is only more to blame.]
[OK, I can't say I didn't "play with words" especially in the last few bracketed's]
[On the other hand, I would like to reflect the reality that Republicans will not run against reform, just more reform, and note that they must now reverse Valentine, not as in massacre but in sending messages and bills that will get attention, hopefully not from their "clean sheet of paper"(meaning not rerun or failed ideas), but incrementals that will get responded to, run on, and even occasionally get up or down votes, only not necessarily with the kind of bipartisanship and change they hope for.]
Thursday, April 02, 2009
"The play's the thing"
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Republicans war against class war. nOT!
The Provacateur: ThinkProgress
My play with words was the thing and the The Provacateur is aptly titled and actually fair and balanced for a righty but the results will be the thing. Oops, my "war against class war" typo lost an "n" which I picked up in OT*, whose link is accidently apropos in dropping the ball of context, like employment, the housing bubble, and debt. Which allows me to pick up and run with a comment which almost dribbled off my court of discourse, called inflation. One can keep passing the ball or the buck but when there is a leak or continual need to pump it up, something has got to get charged up. And I almost had a turn over again, but the bottomline is, that the median income would not have risen without all the spending, which would not have happened without the borrowing, not to mention the cost of war which buried us more. It must be remembered that no budget can exclude true costs, and they have always said that freedom is not free, but the budget must include the cost of peace and progress. Not to mention the price of values and the passing the buck.
* I had meant "warn" against, but the slip was priceless in the OT
BTW, I did foul out here by plowing to the basket and missing the point which could clear the net: inflation is a tax [Should the zebras call for another net that conflates March Madness, the month of Fools and other institutions?]
[technical foul or side line HINTS: war and nOT links are more like the wikipedia (last 3) with some "facts" in dispute or cherry picked if not even left off the court of reading, but The Provacateur: ThinkProgress links are more comprehensive if not comprehended only from a team perspective.]
Republicans war against class war. nOT!
The Provacateur: ThinkProgress
My play with words was the thing and the The Provacateur is aptly titled and actually fair and balanced for a righty but the results will be the thing. Oops, my "war against class war" typo lost an "n" which I picked up in OT*, whose link is accidently apropos in dropping the ball of context, like employment, the housing bubble, and debt. Which allows me to pick up and run with a comment which almost dribbled off my court of discourse, called inflation. One can keep passing the ball or the buck but when there is a leak or continual need to pump it up, something has got to get charged up. And I almost had a turn over again, but the bottomline is, that the median income would not have risen without all the spending, which would not have happened without the borrowing, not to mention the cost of war which buried us more. It must be remembered that no budget can exclude true costs, and they have always said that freedom is not free, but the budget must include the cost of peace and progress. Not to mention the price of values and the passing the buck.
* I had meant "warn" against, but the slip was priceless in the OT
BTW, I did foul out here by plowing to the basket and missing the point which could clear the net: inflation is a tax [Should the zebras call for another net that conflates March Madness, the month of Fools and other institutions?]
[technical foul or side line HINTS: war and nOT links are more like the wikipedia (last 3) with some "facts" in dispute or cherry picked if not even left off the court of reading, but The Provacateur: ThinkProgress links are more comprehensive if not comprehended only from a team perspective.]
Friday, September 26, 2008
And Bailout...
McCain it seems, is heading for the debate,
but it seems that he does not even know what plan is on the table.
And I am not sure too many do. And that was the day he suspended his campaign.
As usual the Democrats will get something done, while the Republicans hold onto their agenda of politics and business over people. [*]
Meanwhile progress at the UN Security Council on Iran is at risk of being more business as usual. I only heard a brief news item about a Russia calling something legally binding but without santions.
[* Bold only with this updated: Senator Bernie Sanders on The Thom Hartmann Show** has just now framed this. And last week mentioned the October Surprise as the bailouts arrived. Some people have said that the economy could not wait till October, but really politics could not wait, since congress was scheduled to go home to campaign.]
** must link this show "hit and run" aspect: Bush hits, Dems fix, Republicans Run. (see Domke)
Not to mention that this is a distraction that keeps politicians from being able to run.
but it seems that he does not even know what plan is on the table.
And I am not sure too many do. And that was the day he suspended his campaign.
As usual the Democrats will get something done, while the Republicans hold onto their agenda of politics and business over people. [*]
Meanwhile progress at the UN Security Council on Iran is at risk of being more business as usual. I only heard a brief news item about a Russia calling something legally binding but without santions.
[* Bold only with this updated: Senator Bernie Sanders on The Thom Hartmann Show** has just now framed this. And last week mentioned the October Surprise as the bailouts arrived. Some people have said that the economy could not wait till October, but really politics could not wait, since congress was scheduled to go home to campaign.]
** must link this show "hit and run" aspect: Bush hits, Dems fix, Republicans Run. (see Domke)
Not to mention that this is a distraction that keeps politicians from being able to run.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
"The irony..."
(in turning pages)
It is not fair of me to pick on "a few" words that bring up age, since it is valid as well, that Obama is young, but not that he has bought in to what is old, but maybe what works. And McCain has bought in to change, but who has bought in to him? It is good that attitude is brought up as well as faith, not to mention the people. But it is not these words that must be brought up, but the forces of history that must be held up to scrutiny and evaluation.
* "for too long" we have let Bushisms outrun our media filters(them and us). Have they been vetted enough to not get used to this? [...this run around? and I just caught a mis-embedded link, bottom lined**, that fits. The Bush exit strategy may be a good example of a Catch-44. Where is McCain? [Let me make perfectly clear,*** the above block quotes are direct from McCain's speech and three paragraphs in the gap are commendable] Where will the Democrats be? And where have they and Republicans been in "your government". I was going to say the bold was on me, but it also on you and on them (?).
** previous post bottom link
*** bonus hint
[final comment: "The irony" is that McCain's words start a paragraph here as well as a serious tone, while it is ironic that I saw any humor (not) in age earlier.]
...is that Americans have been experiencing a lot of change in their lives attributable to these historic events, and some of those changes have distressed many American families-- job loss, failing schools, prohibitively expensive health care, pensions at risk, entitlement programs approaching bankruptcy, rising gas and food prices, to name a few. But your government often acts as if it is completely unaware of the changes and hardships in your lives. And when government does take notice, often it only makes matters worse. For too long, we have let history outrun our government's ability to keep up with it. * The right change will stop impeding Americans from doing what they have always done: overcome every obstacle to our progress, turn challenges into opportunities, and by our own industry, imagination and courage make a better country and a safer world than we inherited.(in three paragraphs ...we... can agree) but he continues.
The wrong change looks not to the future but to the past for solutions that have failed us before and will surely fail us again. I have a few years on my opponent, so I am surprised that a young man has bought in to so many failed ideas. Like others before him, he seems to think government is the answer to every problem; that government should take our resources and make our decisions for us. That type of change doesn't trust Americans to know what is right or what is in their own best interests. It's the attitude of politicians who are sure of themselves but have little faith in the wisdom, decency and common sense of free people. That attitude created the unresponsive bureaucracies of big government in the first place. And that's not change we can believe in.
It is not fair of me to pick on "a few" words that bring up age, since it is valid as well, that Obama is young, but not that he has bought in to what is old, but maybe what works. And McCain has bought in to change, but who has bought in to him? It is good that attitude is brought up as well as faith, not to mention the people. But it is not these words that must be brought up, but the forces of history that must be held up to scrutiny and evaluation.
* "for too long" we have let Bushisms outrun our media filters(them and us). Have they been vetted enough to not get used to this? [...this run around? and I just caught a mis-embedded link, bottom lined**, that fits. The Bush exit strategy may be a good example of a Catch-44. Where is McCain? [Let me make perfectly clear,*** the above block quotes are direct from McCain's speech and three paragraphs in the gap are commendable] Where will the Democrats be? And where have they and Republicans been in "your government". I was going to say the bold was on me, but it also on you and on them (?).
** previous post bottom link
*** bonus hint
[final comment: "The irony" is that McCain's words start a paragraph here as well as a serious tone, while it is ironic that I saw any humor (not) in age earlier.]
Friday, May 23, 2008
Straight Talk Express?
Or Real Clear Politics
(nfry)But do I have to? Or should I hit The Trail?
Which would be "politic"? The good thing is that at least the former is only his words, and the latter is not his fault for being more viscious but will there be more course talk? I mean will it still be there when I get around to reading it?
Flash analysis: Filibuster, Flip-flop and appeasement Fridays. OK. David Bender is discussing The New GI Bill on The Rachel Maddow Show, and his theory is that the president will veto the bill to give the Republicans cover to run from him. I don't believe I got that right. I may have switched course midstream, and need to check back later.
But a point not lost is that the Republicans have flip-flopped on the filibuster from trying to abolish it to using it without using it on every vote. Meaning that the Democrats have appeased the Republicans on the rules. It is political but it is about progress. It was also not necessarily the point Bender was making except for the potential flip-flop on a veto.
(nfry)But do I have to? Or should I hit The Trail?
Which would be "politic"? The good thing is that at least the former is only his words, and the latter is not his fault for being more viscious but will there be more course talk? I mean will it still be there when I get around to reading it?
Flash analysis: Filibuster, Flip-flop and appeasement Fridays. OK. David Bender is discussing The New GI Bill on The Rachel Maddow Show, and his theory is that the president will veto the bill to give the Republicans cover to run from him. I don't believe I got that right. I may have switched course midstream, and need to check back later.
But a point not lost is that the Republicans have flip-flopped on the filibuster from trying to abolish it to using it without using it on every vote. Meaning that the Democrats have appeased the Republicans on the rules. It is political but it is about progress. It was also not necessarily the point Bender was making except for the potential flip-flop on a veto.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)