Shades of Charlie Hebdo?

The E-bomb[!]

(fp!)
Economic
Groove thing. 

The point is embedded in reactionary word play and lede or ship.  Redistribution(the R-word) is the result of economics(the E-word).  Politics has become the (proxy)bad word. 

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 !

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 Daily Counter Balance

From The Dylan Ratigan Show:

The Daily Rant**: Today*

Speaking of headings or ledes or 4 ehs [!]

* 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]

^^ Like a Rolling Stone / Wired (Dylan not Belushi)

[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. )

[update: Rober Reich ponders run ]

[on balance and more.]

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)

Catch-44

President Obama seems to have doubled down on the culture war.

2-15-12 Politics and the Table.

Politics is the pinnacle of the power play.

Physics, Psychology and Philosophy are the base.

Culture is the result and the field of play.

Economics, values and pragmatism the material.

The Irony Leviathan.*

* not the same vehicle

(Million Dollar Baby/Inconvenient Segue)***

[I have a hecuva lot in draft as well as embedded in previous posts that need sorting, and this may be a crack at that. And to un-Ribble it is in the social Darwinism and the yo gurt! If this is too fantastical, well just ask Raw Money, "Corporations are people too, my friend." See Leviathan, and intestinal Darwinism or rather the cultural state of progress.]

[Andrea Mitchell** and Ginzu Alice: Santorum and Romney slash the economy, with GM and the big dig but we need a big deal.]

** two segments Santorum spokesperson Alice, and reference to slashing the budgets in Michigan and Massachusett, under the light of federal projects.

***[Just caught this Thom Hartmann.]

[Common Ground the Enemy? Recent enlightenment on "The end justifies the means." At the moment I can't locate the link.*^^ But it might be Twain "The Prince"*^ and the Pauper. Martin Bashir segments enlighten, especially the Bane Or Change. Also on the Clint Eastwood Filmography, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, not to mention the Three Little Pigs. Not Bashir, that was elsewhere. Doom and Gloom Snobbery?]

*^ The Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution, not exactly ugly but three pigs in a blanket of rhetoric. Freedom is not a force, but the government is our creation.

*^^ Somewhere there may be embedded some links on the evolution of the 3 founding documents through the likes of Madison and George Washington.

Un-Exceptionalism

Are there conflicts of interest in economics today?

Undoubtedly[!]
Buy definition and nature.

This may take us back to my Try-UNism, and one, none or all of punderous pondering.
[Mid-post tangent and update.]

No Twain in Try-ing. Well, I did not mean to display un-exceptionalism by example, as in "there he goes again." But my original point was that conflicts of interest are what economics and politics and government are all about. There, is that clear enough?

The "Try-UNism" is a pun in this regard. A sorting of one, none or all. Now, technically the physics might be beyond anyone to say if freedom is a force, and psychologically it may be closer to philosophy for some. But economically, I am saying that without an intent, we will be getting only where we are going, and even that is not a won way street.

My apologies for any missed links or leaps(in your scroll or click-on), but it is an ongoing process. Economics contains and is about conflicts of interest, and politics and government, play crucial rolls for (sum) people.

In regards to my lede, Un-Exceptionalism, I take it from one of the economists, who notes that any field will present conflicts of interest between the professional and the profession or the field if it has a purpose other than the individual. Well, he did not go that far, but I think he could. The "one, none or all" of my tangent relates to Exceptionalism, as it is seen, possibly in that light.

BTW: The first three links are an economic series of videos. Other links may require clicking on and scrolling the link address for a compendium of purpose. For example, "Buy definition and nature". The first two simply reference the ledes. The "be-all-and-end-all" a reference from part 3 of series. The "funny-thing-happened" is a recap of the CW. And regarding "nature" the address is a search of my blog for "Adam+Smith"(without, now with the quotation marks). Skipping over the "Try-UNism" and "Mid-post tangent"(lines) the Twain is deeply embedded in Trying.
[Speaking of exceptions(won): just to be sure.]

[Insert more Ed here and here: enthusiasm gap]

Third Time's The Charm

[Finally posted 3-14-11 ]
Three times lucky? Actually I have not been lucky in finding the origin of the first, but I have been several times knocked off course. Just as I wrote this the news was noting the passing of a local law enforcement officer who had three centers of gravity, friends, family and work, so is that the message? "Every cloud has a silver lining" has also recently infiltrated my blog. That is credited roughly to John Milton and Katty Macane.

Numbers may play a big part in superstitions, but they also may play a big part in meanings. Past, present and future is just one case for threes, though not necessarily in that order, and this is not just to play with words. Of course if superstitions play any part in society, they will play a part in words, and words play a part in meanings, but which comes first? Some of this math and meandering came to my attention in regards to politics. Have you heard of the third way? The Clinton Adminstration was the first occasion I became aware of it in a political form, not that I had done the math in regard to other departments. But basically there are the two ends of the political spectrum and then there is the centrist. But is it the people, the target or the answers that are there? Or is it target, people or answers...who knows? However at this time I intend to apply it to the topic of navigation, or at least The Myth of Triangulation and wonder if a silver lining plays into any of this. While it is plane* to see where three plays into many things, it should suffice to read Robert Reich's article yourself as I have now read it twice. But I have yet to revisit the concept of navigation itself or any application of the tetrahedron to other perspectives of improving on our picture.

*pun on points

The Billy Club...

needs some explaining.

---
[INSERT UPDATE 2-18-11: << SERIOUSLY these are a serious sortings of views.] >> Note sortings link is important to the explaining of The Billy Club lost in the scuffle.]
---

(original post continued)
It was a reference to the Bill Maher-Elizabeth Hasselbeck feud over humor and politics. aka: rhetoric and intelligence

It also pertains to the King of Rhetoric and the Genre Clash. But in regard to the "Billy Club" it was based on the "Billy Boy" name Elizabeth used, (which I use) to indicate that Beck(Glenn, nor HasselB) is not in the league of Bill Maher let alone the likes of other Bills. Now I have realized that the Billy Club could be easily mistaken as including O'Reilly. It does, but in the likes of not being in the same league as any on the so-called "left". Indeed Bill O'Reilly does make FOX look respectable, considering the field(Comedy News Network). So to be sure, the Billy Club is a fan club not a weapon, but is about the Genre Clash which is more of an evolution(note mutation) than a revolution (actualy Spin Zone).

I will pause to review the above and maybe find more to explain, and in that vain, well actually on a new path(vein or vane) I might not have more to explain, if I am more careful.

But back to the original forum of explaining(The View) and my not always having viewed sources completely (we all cherry pick-but some don't know apples from oranges, and I may be a fruit salad maker by not wanting to clean my kitchen of the tools or fruits* and nuts of the right) here is a countertop** I don't use. But my embedded point of the first asterrisk is my own suggested answer to Bill O'Reilly for why President Obama is hated. "Because of the likes of you, Bill O'Reilly". It even has a sense of balance.

* as often happens the right link is an aftersearch(pun on my link not the Right)
(It is counter intuitive or not a dis of the likes of Lawrence O'Donnell)

** in reference to link or lede into "so you don't have to" sometimes we must. And I am sure that Beth Beck(aka Elizabeth HasselB) would turn up her nose if I segue from Kings(Tut) to Queen Tit for Tat, "that perhaps others would want to call" her.

[Speaking of salads and segues(see comment 1)or vain(vein or vane) attempts:Current TV (any relation to Shock Jocks or anti-Pop Culture)
CNN Comedy News Network
ABC Anti-Billy Club ***
And what about that Calm Cast or America on Hypocrisy?]
*** maybe more later
[Well actually I was thinking about the organizational structure of the ABC: the Anti-Billy Club. Bill Maher would be the what? Only the original Billy maybe. Heck this is metaphorical anyway. Maybe ASZ would work. Anti-Spin Zone? Too court jestery but maybe a hint at the structure. So structure aside it is the thought that counts.(Though some are free to flow down D'Nile or the slippery slope.) The Try Angle of ABC's aside, it might be too fruitless. But recognizing some of the negativity in the words adn sybolism is a bit like the expectations of Representative Steve King. Thankfully he is a Represenative that may obviate the label of leadership. The pulling back he expects of our President, is the other end of this candle burning on both ends. I won't drag philosphies or ideologies in at this point, only the word play or lack of efficiency in its utilizations. The Anti-Billy Club is a sentiment that is not about Bill Maher or Bill O'Reilly(Or a reflection on the Bill of Rights, but justly might be.) It is about the club of association, a tool that some wield as a weapon or simply run with scissors when a spoon may do.]

[Please note my equal opportunity jest you'ring, not to leave CBS out or dis Comcast or Huffington let alone Salon. There will always be critics or those that have opinions on the intentions of people or organizations. But I am hinting at the Calm Cast sentiment of the MSNBC/Comcast merger along with the Olbermann departure and the Huffington some say sell out to AOL. Hence the America On Hyposcisy, I just had to fit in an H for the sake of merger. Not to pull back, or Palin drone.]

Clause Wits

...war is politics by other means
I'm sorry... someone*** has made a point of my tangents. But it might be Germane*, or was he Austrian. No.. Prussian and Hegelian.
Could it not be said that economics has been the same, politics by other means?
What about religion?** Is that a valid spin?

*intended spelling
** in an evolutionary sense

[See update paradox of congress regarding line item veto]

*** also bowing to someone I include a definition from spin link:

Clausewitz’s trinity comprises three specific elements. The identity of those elements is readily evident to anyone who actually reads the first paragraph of his description: It is "composed of primordial violence, hatred, and enmity, which are to be regarded as a blind natural force; of the play of chance and probability within which the creative spirit is free to roam; and of its element of subordination, as an instrument of policy, which makes it subject to reason...." (emphasis added). This set of elements is usually labeled "emotion/chance/reason"; sometimes "violence/chance & probability/rational calculation"; or, even more abstractly, "irrationality/nonrationality/rationality."

It would seem that this creates our reality as opposed to an original intent begetting results, let alone values. Oh, but I guess it does. But some just have a different ge oh me try.
[12-15-10 Speaking of timing or tangents(footnote)the original purpose of my blog was to record such leaps, not always capable of recording their inspiration.]
[In the above footnote I succeeded in not loosing that inspiration, though it was close, but we have lost a very important piece in our power portfolio in Richard Holbrooke, may he rest in peace.]

The C Word.

Clever?
[Saved in draft for unknown reason, unedited*
i.e. written date above, posted 11-9-10 AM]
Toure's Turn? Do me a Favre and remember, government and politics are not football.
Except maybe for the commercialization with make me think of the Gecko and Aff Quack. But explain to me how the House, the Senate and the President, not to mention the two parties not being teams play into it.
Fair Game? Well that may be a separate rant. "Life is not fair..." that is why society evolved and gave us our founding documents. Freedom is not a force. But I'll give you something to cry about.[Mixed aphorisms or patronizing jingles.] There's no crying in baseball, is there in football?
* due to possible construction distraction and grapes of whine or patronizing refs.

The Bully...

Poor Pit. Not to pull my R's upon my return from Japan, it does seem odd though, for billionaires(and corporations) for free speech not wanting their names known for fear of bullying. The pity is in the pendulum of victim hoods. Not to mention[*] the other slap shot at robustness.

[*]10-14-10 My sarcasm might be too subtle here, in that the Poor link(above) on Taleb's Robustness may be a slightly slanted perspective of economics from the business perspective. The Business Insider might be no more than a blog or astro bagger in terms of its criticism or incomprehesion of Taleb's theories. Taleb online The New Yorker under my usual meanderings. I would also suggest whether Bernanke has read Taleb or not, he should explain that there has not been a replacement for Keynesian economics, and that the government has a role to play or the balance will continue to teeter for the moneyed rather than the purposeful. On the other hand this may just be an incompresible way of saying that unless Taleb is understood and improved upon, we can suffice with continued tinkering as long as it is with purpose and for the people. Unfortunately this may be a bigger task than understanding Taleb. What I allude or have links here to, are the international and comprehensive nature of economics evolution. And simply put, the economy must not fall off the wall, but work on the wall must be comprehensive if not wholistic. If I may reiterate my tetrahedron of physics, psychology, philosophy and politics ofor purpose. The pinnacle of the project is the purpose of the structure and the process that works whatever is intended** to work.

** And I have not intentionally left "we" out of this, but it puts politics, religion and economics as part of the process not the purpose, or the be all and end all, intended or not.
[At the risk of further incomprehensiveness, I suggest that the administration is doing what it can short of a complete replacement of Keynesian economics, otherwise know as my Egg/Wall metaphor, while Taleb's approach may be just the thing as a goal. There are natural laws, and they must be worked with or they will be against us all. See tetrahedron not theology.]

Bane(Or) Change

[11-17-11 Update Labels]
I guess my chant was heard. But it is not substantial.

There are still three ways of looking at it.
Boehner Change(noun) = debt up, government down
Boehner Change(verb) = nuanced no
Bane or Change(choice) = Reverse or Drive
Might he be bending to the mighty Dem mo'.

Then there is the False flag of divisiveness or moderation?
A pre-curse-or-Y look at narrative? Gingrich supports colonialism**, and in conjunction with Blair, confirms the narrative, the U.S. is more than* patronizing or condescending to the world. I prefer the practical, incremental and political nuances. I feel that there is a major difference in the diplomacy and strategy in the Middle East, compared to the Bush Rumsfeld Cheney unified blame 1% solution.

*[bold irony] It is difficult to balance our national security with national politics in the aim of international justice, let alone diplomacy. Congress in the name of the people must play an important part in the checks and balances as well as the separation of powers. It is a lot easier to say make it so, or make it no, than to make progress. [Segue in time.]

** emphasis "precursory" yet that is the Blair which
projection in the academic twilight*** zone.
*** Gingrich and D'Souza are scary academics
[Speaking of academic lore and narrative not to mention bait and switch.]

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

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

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.]

Pass the Trillion.

The problem with some Democrats? They listen. The problem with others, they play by the rules. Grayson is the new Democrat, Franks the old Democrat. OK, I am trying not to spin this, but others spin about the situation.

I find it hard to blame the Republicans for holding the line for what they believe, right or wrong. I find it hard to urge the Democrats to hold the line by taking back from the table what may have been put in the package to appear non-partisan or to please certain pockets. But that is the nature of politics and the transparency is apparently being worked on. There still may be some passing the buck but it is about what works and change. Ching, ching, no pun.

BIG HINT: There is a table at the table;
Fiscal Economic Bank for the Buck Moody's basically seems to dispute what Republicans think(or at least say) works. In fact it seems that spending is 2 to 6 times more effective than tax cuts depending on the focus. In fact there is little bang for the buck Bush style. But this is apparently on GDP and that may not be an effective metric. One must still follow the money.

[filed]more for later
Stimulus package: Jobs gained or saved? Christopher S. Rugaber AP
Senate to demand big changes in stimulus bill. Zachary Coile, SF Chronicle

[for tinkering]
Poetic Justice
hiatus or sabbatical
Stop that!
Tinkering...
American Recovery
Previous post may take unwinding

Political Strings Pulled

Bush upcoming big speech.

McCain wants debate delay.

Ed Schultz plays a good question McCain faced but refused to answer while spinning it back on the Dems. The administration has known this was coming for some time while McCain's advisor has been on the payroll of Freddie Mac.

If the debate is cancelled the meeting with Bush should take them to task or at least be framed as who you bring to the table. Who will Obama and McCain be bringing and who will Bush have there? What will the purpose be? It would really be fun if it were only Bush, McCain, and Obama and us. What would the Independents, the Greens, or the Libertarians bring to the table? I think it would be a smart move if the purpose is unclear to skip the meeting and let McCain and Bush play politics, and let congress give them the business. Or rather take them over.

On the other hand, could it be that McCain has finally changed?

Maybe we are finally there.

White House welcomes plans. Just as I suspected. Another Straw Elephant.

Meanwhile just as I post this and search for links, this breaks:
"We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved," McCain said. "I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so."

How this is enacted could be a clean break for us. But I think the real "panic" is political. And McCain ad proves it. Or at least not a clean break for McCain.

Now Ed's got it. The networks should give both candidates a rebuttal. Especially if one is going to run for the other rather than debate.

POLITICS

NOT A DIRTY WORD!
But it is in the eye or ear of the beholder.
Embedded in the previous postings are two points about accountability.
Politics and timing.
They seem to play a big part in the planning of any endeavor.
These too, are not dirty words.
Except possibly in the grip of the wielders of power.

But I digress, the particulars are that accountability is part of the process and success of our process. There must be investigations because they are political and because of the timing. The arguments must be held and there is never a better time, especially for politics. But the actual particulars of accountability are what role politics has played and will play and whether they preempted accountability. It is not just a coincidence[*] that Watergate involved the Nixon/Ford administration and their respective views on what is legal and what is political. It is the same characters and the polarity between the president being unitary (Nixon) and accountability (the process) being political (Ford), not to mention subsequent success and failures of economics, war and foreign policy. I won't get into the respective overlap and/or disconnect between committees and their intelligence sharing and responsibilities, but I will note the relation to issues in the current political campaigns and the press for or on the bottom line, the people.
[As usual I have embedded too much in rhetoric, another word that is not dirty, except in how it is used, and in which the administration and probably McCain places its only hope. But the point of politics and timing being important hinges on the process and the administration has been preemptive with too much. Now rhetoric is lost in anachronism, while accountability was lost before September 11th, 2001.]

[*]footnote: "positive polarization" and somewhere there was a political calculus of the Bush impeachment, but this is only the rhetoric and all that is needed in this rhetorical war on aftermath and preempting of hope.

Bottom Line Update

[Caution: There are a few tangents here
but the shorter course is in
Rising above the Math below]

On GoLeft.TV the crawler below RFK Jr. on The Morning Joecried for the impeachment of Gov. Spitzer, just after the line that he would resign. [Broken News! S...F]

On Democracy Now the resignation of Admiral Fallon is noted in context. Could it be that distraction is the case for both? * [Ferraro Flap]

The governor resigns so that there hopefully will be less distraction from the job of governing, while the admiral resigns so there will be less distraction from the game of war. Unfortunately investigations are needed into the procedures of both, the selective prosecutions and use of intelligence. Could it be that Fallon wanted to play the hand that is dealt instead of the game of bluff with the wrong cards? My point to the last two posts [Oh what a weave...*** ]are that there be more focus on the differences between Democrats and Republicans in governing and war.

* [Ferraro Flap: in response to question: "why do you think Barack Obama is where he is today" she replied "in large measure because he is black". It could just as well be because there was a large field of too much of the same old politics. But then should we be careful of ageism here?

[Speaking of bottom lines: I don't know why I wanted to embed the link below and say "from here to" infinity,(or "to infinity and beyond") but the cost of war is a big bottom line, and the courage to do something is fraught with calculations. (and fright)** While the administration is light on the math (search fuzzy)and deeply in fear: how much more fear can one have than the fear of nothing. Maybe because reality is somewhere between nothing and the ridiculous.

[ ** The Real Bottom Line? [Source: ThinkProgress Rising above the math:

The White House doesn't care for the estimates by Stiglitz, a former chief economist of the World Bank who's now a professor at Columbia University.

"People like Joe Stiglitz lack the courage to consider the cost of doing nothing and the cost of failure. One can't even begin to put a price tag on the cost to this nation of the attacks of 9-11," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto, conceding that the costs of the war on terrorism are high while questioning the premise of Stiglitz's research.

Fratto Fraught with Naught and Fear of Failure. Here's to the sinking of the makers of the boogeyman.
final note: there may be a lot to quibble with in the math but the logic is infallonable. hmmm? and based on the premise of uncertainty, can we fathom the course? aka Going deep but not even scratching the surface. ]

[***] I had to unweave the points, posts or links here.

Attention Fine Print Readers!

I don't want to throw anyone under the bus...
except maybe my keyboard.

[UPDATE 9-28-07: As Passed some improvements have been made. But the tactic of terminology on "terrorist organizations" (see Webb) in the context of continued stonewalling of investigations into the administrations tactics: "use of intelligence", "use of funds", "use of politics", not to mention any one's sovereignty.]

But I have read this on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and only found this on the evidence against.

Earlier I read this on Pelosi/centrist/Iraq
and only glanced at this on congress, foreign policy and our allies.

This about "feed and forage" and the war powers represents and requires a little more "hard work" and I don't know if it matters. I agree with the bottom line:

What is clear is that all this legal tap dancing gets us nowhere. To end the war, the Congress can do one of two things, or preferably both: it can repeal the Iraq AUMF, and/or it can refuse to fund the war. This sophistry from Democrats, politicians and legal scholars, does neither us nor our principles credit.

But to the Progressive Majority, or what ever number there are, it should be put in black and white:

THIS DOES NOT REPRESENT AUTHORIZATION FOR WAR PERIOD,
Let alone AS A FOREIGN POLICY

Unless there is something that makes this perfectly clear, this is a political football with a hair trigger, playing out on the world field, while making it clear would likely make it pointless. I hope that someone can sort out these play signals, but Do not punt congressional responsibility, and hopefully there will be 41 votes to take this ball away.

[TALKING POINTS MEMO Takes a little steam out of this but not necessarily my concern that there is something that can be read between the lines without having real dots to connect.]

[NEXT DAY UPDATE: The best spin on this? It was not a vote for war. but further reading is needed. ]

[10-9-07: "Kyle-Lieberman amendment passed" these words have now been spell checked and corrected]