Moderate Progressive Triad

New America Foundation [?]
Center for American Progress
OurFuture.org


[Hobby Lobby  ???]

FOOTNOTES PAGE ONE JULY 2014

7-9-14  Consolidated Legends Page


7-7-14 Go Jump in the Lakoff[!],   Moderate Progressive Triad


7-1-14 Not Newfangled, Stiglitz, Reich, (7-2)-14 Bernstein, O'Donnell



7-14-14 Ge-oh sarcasm aside there are 6. A. Hi Ate Us, B. A Penchant for Leaning, C. "just supposed to 'call balls and strikes'-"  (FP2)

Divide to conquer?

Or back fire*?

This is a geometrical analysis of the partisan nature of politics.  We are familiar with the terms Fiscal and Social Conservative. But then there is the un-like Ike wing** and the Atlas Shrugged foundation or ^ fountain.  Here I may have already divided, to fight on.  I will try to keep the links and notations down. 

From what was earlier work on The Third Way, akin to the moving the center off the absolute, the moderate left seems to be moving the country.(See 1st link).  But is more than about geometrics of the left and the right and there being a middle.  If conservatives have branches(BTW the gov meant has three^^^); the FC and the SC (owe the irony oar^^), is there a third or more? 

A "friend" is counting on either a Tea Party, Conservative or Republican landslide this year.  But I am concerned with how branches work and how if there were already two, how Godwin[!] might play[?] Which is a sarcasm[!]slash[?]tangent on the hazzards of branching.

* not to target
** un-like Ike (USC)
Tin Foil Herman
R.S.V.P.
Mmmm MOW, MOW

^ oar shrug heads?(sc)
^^ paddle Fiscal Cliff and (YOU)Scroll Click or NEO-CONservative bent

[!] punctuation mark for irony/sarcasm/rhetorical***

*** anachronistic inserts [Francis Fukuyama was in the crowd that plowed the field and half regrets it.]
^^^ 3-body fig Newtons.or Phig Physics

BTW: USC is one of my alma maters.  UW the other.  But here I play on the initialism of "You Scroll Click" and Al Gore Rhythms and anomalies of the (b.s.) blog search[!]   

Final Note: Under wiki of Divide And Conquer ? [!] (or pyth helmet ?)

Go Hawks !

Fiddle Sticks^

by George ...

Lede or Ship Politcal** Gaming*.

(fn)
 Boehner tells Geithner, ‘You can’t be serious 
White House to GOP: It’s your move
“The Hobbit” is not a hipster!

(b.s.) "Lede+or+Ship"
Swift craft
Swift satire
M-bed ***

* by Jenga (enough! )
** un-M-bed
*** not to charm but what the?



[Anacronism of asterisks is a real problem between ** & ***, 
but it was through Slate*** under Osmosis** that I found the Doonesbury.]

[[That's the ticket! But this is a preemptive read. Support for raising taxes on the rich even runs over the barrier Republicans have constructed with their new minority of obstruction(4f), except for their "arithmetic" and Twain. Actually the link at TED did not cover the error that is made when comparing percentiles with shares, or per capita with any tiles and individuals with dollars.  Where4, there is more money in the top 1% therefore the top 1% are going to be paying a greater share of the taxes. Not to be competing with TED, but that means a progressive tax will look more unfair the more unfair income distribution is, unless you have a regressive tax.]]

(4f)= a, b, c, d ?   Crtl F and (b.s). for more moderate yet political approach.

^ last insert ? (See "^" there)  It is called leverage and political capital !
[Follow-up].

December (4f) FOOTNOTES

12-3-12  (4f)= a, b, c, d ? Crtl F and (b.s). for more moderate yet political approach.
(4f)= (b.s.) "obstruct+work"
"=" is there really only 5 under "obstruction"?

12-18-12  To scroll up or down that is the question. (LG)
N F R Y(k a n t . . . ! ? # $ % ^ ) Not exactly Building Specs.

12-21-12 (Mod M leap)
Alter Under Construction (algorithm anomoly: under scroll/click)
N-oddly Enough... (U 'N -S C)
All Politics is Local? (RE:un-S C)

Follow...up or Down.

Follow-Up or down?
The voodoo that some do do.
Including 9-11 and a horse of course, about the rule* of law?

DR-Deficit Reduction
NOW-"It's Complicated."

* not to pun on run down, but Thomas Roberts Rules,
[water gate ? B S: Uphold or Holdup?]

[ MSNBCTV is Thomas Roberts: live rule yesterday Jansing &Co Re:action swing flop De:volve Thomas Roberts ! ]
[Huff Times, AM**, Salon. NG v GN]
**Ruth Marcus: Obama Legacy? Re-do?

[ Politics Revisited / R M ? ! NewsNation M M. Jobs / Freedom ?]
[OK, the above line is as boggled as anything, but it is about the nature of the process and reality or the politics and die manics(to parse the dynamics or how of the beef) which is still spinning on The Cycle.  The Supreme Court is not a dictionary.  Justice Roberts reportedly did not say it was tax.  But Republicans need to see things black and white or they can't uphold their politics of holdup.***]

[Fee Fi Foe FUMM? MB on Mitt the Mandatious(ChamberMade). Fear and uh...
MR
RM.. uh, Martin Bashir pre-CP.  Mitt the Moderate? ]

*** Again, sorry for getting caught up in the pun and parsing of politics. It comes down to one word: running.  Running the government or running for office.  Another word: table.  Oops.  What is on the table?  Do we want them running the table?  Obama ran to put it all on the table and Republicans want to run the table.

Clinton(Bill) is full of B.S.

Balanced Solutions like Bowles Simpson.
Also a bit of Share'N Angle.

Recently embedded remarks regarding Bowles Simpson were made by Nancy Pelosi.***
Similarly* under "Balanced Solutions" we have reference to budgets and sarcasm. Ouch!**

* not this link but the links (First B S) above!
** related to image(poster) in prior link and evolved sarcasm:
where they think they agree but you are connecting their dots and it does not follow.
*** third times a charm (asterisk 3) under Nancy
[missing link]

Footnotes or GPS of sorts ? [!]
[Not exactly the bottom line, but FB equal GB equal CB, then ironically corporations are people? Where acronym's stand for Family, Government and Corporate Budgets. That may though be a good base.]
[A missing leap regards some rant to AM. Not your father's GM...no American Moderate. Not Andrea Mitchell, but Tamron Hall and Cory Booker^.]
[Pin the Tale on the MB eh! (3R's)( Reeding, Wrighting^^ and Mitt-matic?)]

^needs updated link
^^ anachronistic messaging? RMegaDon DieSign?
[The Sting of Inoculation^^^]
^^^ meme wars (video) (I am trying to find my most recent shot on this matter.)

5-22-12 So is Hillary. Either one.
Not so random self searching.
Peter Piper picked a Peck of Pickled Predecessors.
[See Format Change in PAGES column.]

^^^ update "wars" CTRL F "calling card" Good answer, see FB/GB/CB equal formula above.
See original Balanced Solutions links above.
Speaking of 4moolah and math ...

[related LEAP mission creep(^^[!]): tba Thom Hartmann ]
[Speaking of Forks ? Yes! But you can't handle the conversation, and it is exactly the conversation Obama is having, yet it is not his alone to have. The "yet" part means that as a leader he cannot tip the hand of equity^^^ from congress, the judiciary and the people. Well, he can all that but it is political as well and that is why there are three hands so to speak(the but/and/yet here). See CTRL F "calling card". ]

That's Politics...

or it's political.*

GOP Code*** for "Get out of the Frackin' Kitchen!"

[Segue Post-read see asterisk**.]

More True Man Shows, and the real man.

Catching the heat?(see ***)

Truman: "If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen".

Framing the Kitchen:

With my lemon twist on it:

If it's a choice between a genuine Moderate, and a Moderate in Republican clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Democrat before they will a phony Moderate(update 10-11-2011), and I don't want any phony Moderate candidates in this campaign.

Note: Regarding the lemon twist, Ctr F "sinking ship".

Before I parse the C-rap out of this... here is a scary BS.(blog search)

* Joan Walsh, back from vacation & Ground Hogs Day.

(I have barely cracked the cook book in Salon, but ran with my earlier thoughts.)

** Having now read "it's political", I find where I had heard Joan(see *)

*** the Code they need to get

[Also Politics; Foreign Policy & Economics in balance.(from rational images)]

[And here is the Un-Wrap of the G'Ribble of the cost all [!]

Will Lard 16:3

Dog so loved...

Calm adore Perry and the FOF Found- ation [!]

(sic)* series.[unspelled asterisks]

* Ctrl F: "(sic)" i.e. irony mark

[unmarked segue between line one and two,

with two bold links actually read this time, but with transliterated** ledes.. ]

** Well, not exactly, maybe transmitterated(sic), ala Costa Concordia.

3rd (sic) > BS*** "trumanesque"

*** i.e. blog search

BTW: those still standing

Romney: moderate/conservative flip-flopper

Gingrich: populist flip-flopper

Santorum: conservative

Paul: libertarian

This about rounds it out.

[But who am I to tell the GOP?]

[1-20-12: What is Governor Perry "talking turkey"?

It is the the pot calling the kettle white.]

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.

Apples and Oranges?

National Hyperbole?
Herman Cain is trying to explain his 9-9-9 or Sim City tax code, while Perry(or Romney) is trying to make the point that people don't want another tax, without pointing out the regressive nature of it. It really is apples and oranges, both of which will impact the 99% more than the 1%.
(tough segue)
(all+politics.)
[Cherry Picking the L word?]
[Local? Laffer? the Curve? Liberal?]

[My original intent was to note the rhetoric* in the hyperbole link, and get to my compromise-D point via "apples and oranges". i.e. who am I to recommend a Republican candidate? But suggesting that it go all the way, to the convention. Which itself is un-conventional, but do I have the facts to back that up? However...after last nights debate and a Rovian theory I have been scrolling over in my mind, could it be? Romney/Perry 2012?** In my opinion the best thing for the country is a more moderate Republican that will still be too right, that would allow Obama to hold the 99'ers. But that is not the way Republicans work, and it is even difficult sometimes for democracy to work. It is fine to attack an opponents strengths in a game or a battle and that works in politics, but that is not what works in governing.]
[Lions, and Tigers and Bears(please excuse the Wizard of OWS* analogy) is an apples and oranges and cherry picking procedure. For Republicans it is Tea or Koch and Rove, for democracy it is apples and oranges and cherry pitting. Pitting is a good thing, with apologies to Martha Stewart, not to mention George Washington, with his supposed hatchet.]

* not to disassemble in either sense, it is a great not so calm-pendium. Note that I did say "tough segue". And CAUTION please note that I do not always review the complete links that I insert, in particular the code of Rachel Maddow. And I cannot be responsible for links expiring or changing.

** Note that a more "realistic" combo(pardon the pun) may be Romney/Cain. And no pardon for the quotation marks, but the ticket would be more debate worthy. [OK, I pun on the pardon, but not the debate, with CAUTION.]

Christie Endorses Romney.

FOX
CBS
MSNBC

I have yet to filter,
but a pre-emptive comment:
"Danger, Will Robinson!"

Buy Witch I mean: Romney/Christie[!]
Not that I might actually get around to reading the above takes, yet:

If it's a choice between a genuine Moderate, and a Moderate in Republican clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Democrat before they will a phony Moderate**, and I don't want any phony Moderate candidates in this campaign. *

[Jammed to the Right?
See Matthews (Beating Mitt) and weaving moderate creds.]

*My spin on a Truman quote.
** corrected today

["who am I" to advise the GOP? BO see fuss?]

Obtusity?

Not Here.(Kay label added)
Nor Here.
But in context the former Here is the proper angler.

In a less embedded aside, Leonard Pitts Jr. hits the nail on the head of American Exceptionalism.

In another arena, a friend noted how trustworthy FOX and Bill O'Reilly are. Well, 28% and 9% are far from a margin of victory unless you are looking for an American Icon. NBC, MSNBC, CBS, and ABC combine for 29% while CNN's Cooper and Blitzer match O'Reilly's 9%, and the a4mentioned other network's hosts(Matthews, Brokaw, Couric and Sawyer tied) combine for 12%. So it is only in the winner[*] take all, not knowing what it takes world, where follow the leader matters. Now that is a real Laffer Curveball! Or is it?

[Then there is Pawlenty of problems. Bottom line: if money is a maker then tax it as much as labor. That is an inverse paradox or maybe praximoron.]
[The bottom line is obliquity with intent.]
[Sub** Text]

** asterisks apply to that link, but is not the missing link, but does fit the leadership narrative over people.
[*] boo yeah! Stewart boosts O'Reilly's ratings(**), which likely rigs poll. i.e. maybe FOX viewers are more fair and balanced when the left is presented.
(**) I don't have the Nielsen ratings but it might be reflected in the poll.
[Footnote: scroll over some links for some understanding, but unfortunately links that may need clicking on do not last forever. Hence I hope to be less obtuse but no less oblique in the future. There should be no joy in mud-ville, as the outcome of the NY26th shows, as divided meta(for) prevails. But to unembed these analogies, the Ryan plan was the issue in the divide to lose in New York, 48% takes it, while the issue will next be before the U.S. Senate with Democrats in the majority and Republicans faced with laying their votes on the line. Some will leave the sinking ship, diluting the lemonade. If I may make a few Truman references it is not a direct analogy, but hanging their votes on their necks will be like dividing to conquer.]
[Meanwhile Up-Date]
[Speaking of not Truman--something about:

If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.

With my lemon twist on it:

If it's a choice between a genuine Moderate, and a Moderate in Republican clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Democrat before they will a phony Moderate(update 10-11-2011), and I don't want any phony Moderate candidates in this campaign.

OK, it loses a little bit of it's zest, but that is the nature of the slippery-slope, trickle down, lemonade, mudville.]

[Update 12-8-11 The Last Word? As it seemed to line up.]

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 Effect

Well, not really.
The Scott Brown effect should really be called the Tea Party Vaccine Effect.
[Actually to be fair and balanced(not to pun on FAUX news) but this really hinges simply on the Scott Brown/Tea Party(ish) claim that what happened in Massachusetts could happen across the country. That is really an uphill job in that state, and the connection to what happened in the rest of the country really had to do more with the targeting of money and conservative/tea party on Republican and swing districts. I have not really looked at that piece of data, but it seems to be a natural dynamic as well. Moderates are knocked off because they have to be moderate in swing districts. I don't think that Massachusetts was ignored by the influences of money and party powers but the people may have learned from the Scott Brown rhetoric. And naturally liberals and progressives are so, because their people may agree with them. So this really balances the dilemma whether the nation or even a state, needs to be more moderate or progressive[**].
[Maddow 11-3-10*]
**[The Last Word]
*date of show not update

Three Clauses for

Freud!

“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?" Gingrich asks. "That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior."

"This is a person who is fundamentally out of touch with how the world works, who happened to have played a wonderful con, as a result of which he is now president," Gingrich tells us.

"I think he worked very hard at being a person who is normal, reasonable, moderate, bipartisan, transparent, accommodating -- none of which was true," Gingrich continues. "In the Alinksy tradition, he was being the person he needed to be in order to achieve the position he needed to achieve . . . He was authentically dishonest."

Aye of Newt!
[bold irony]

In Balance

In a recent conversation with a rather critical* or independent Democrat(i.e. moderate or typical American) the issue of why the Democrats might lose in the mid-term elections came up. I don't think he used the word populism, but he did note that something should be done about jobs, or rather outsourcing/imports and addressing it dramatically with some sort of tariff. The discussion revolved around doing something, even if it was not the effective thing; it would be what the people want and it would show that the Democrats were doing something. One of the tangents took off on the Arizona immigration laws, as an example of the states doing something because the federal government wasn't. And fighting them in court was wrong, because it went against what the people wanted. i.e. do something about China and imports because it looked right, not necessarily that it would be most effective.

Needless to say the conversation did not go exactly like this, but this is possibly clearer than my usual meandering.**

*bordering on cynical
** this is not mine, nor meandering
(The American Prospect*** magazine: "Forget Populism")
(The New Yorker Online: "Risk and Robustness")
[With proper perspectivism, pragmatism and incrementalism, we could balance nature with our values, or make our values work.]
[***8-12-10 revised only to note magazine(also corrected) was in my mailbox after our discussion, New Yorker Online, was view prior to, but discussed and Meet the Press was found later.]
[update Taleb Label and The New Yorker link.]

Gusher Stops

In Gulf:
Well...Integrity?
The Ribble? The True Man Show? (Between the moderate and the one who acts like a moderate.) [No general pun.]

The Obama Effect?

The Specter Effect!
The Hartmann Effect?
Bottom Line? Not Devolution.

The President is a progressive that needs pushing or convincing while it might be just a hunch that it was more than just self preservation for Specter not to run to the right. I think history should look kindly on Specter to have fought for what he believed rather than go with the flow of Republicans. While Specter was always a crafty navigator of issues, I think that he would rather lose as a moderate than run as a revolutionary.
[This opinion does not rely** on a read of the first two links, while a scroll over of the rest may suffice to get a jist.]

[** nor certainly endorse or bother read]
[Just in! Thom Hartmann predicts Sestak for President in 2016! Not to mention my ironic endorsement of my 2nd link. Ironic in that, how can one believe an NRSC ad? It makes me endorse him, although I am not a Pennsylvanian.]

For Words!

4 the People
2B Partisan or a Different Club?

This is more of a play on words and numbers, than a criticism of a candidate or a system, except to point out the differences. Florida is a Closed Primary, meaning (I assume) an independent runs only in the General Election. Washington is an Open Primary in this case only the top two vote getters regardless of party will be in the General Election. (I won't get into the British system.)

(Embedded within are the links to particulars in regard to Washington candidates challenging Democrats while in Florida, the big news is that a Republican governor has decided to run from the party the tea partiers have taken over. I have almost considered it a Rovian calculation for them to run from their party. There is the theory of the two Santas, so running against a strength, would that be the two Grinches* theory?

* radical independents supported by divide to revive...the right.**
(In a bigger picture look at this, the difference is truly the pressure of politics which is valid. In Florida a survival of a moderate candidate for senate in the form of the current governor, and in Washington; pressure from the left on moderate or progressive candidates, but with different electoral processes.)

** more on the two Grinches, not to despair valid Tea Party issues but to the money and support that lumps or divides them