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.]

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 [!]

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.

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.]

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

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

Moderate Progressive Triad

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


[Hobby Lobby  ???]

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.]

Here We Go Again

GOP Fights Back Over Criticism of Limbaugh
White House Is Accused Of Cynicism, Hypocrisy
by Howard Kurtz

I will save for later, what is probably a very good article or at least closer to what journalism is supposed to be. Which is to not always please me and not always be free of perspective. But the spin and same old tactics seems to be coming from the Republicans. The President had made earlier references to Limbaugh, but a recent one advising the Republicans to stop listening to him was what started the media echo. That was good advice from my perspective and from the perspective of most moderates. Republicans are the ones that have not decided who is their leader and what are their principles. Well, actually the former does not matter because the latter are no different. They need to work on their principles and by focusing on this, they are able to forget them. It is my opinion that it is their principles that are the matter and that they can not recreate themselves. It is not hypocrisy or childish to keep the focus and hardship on them.

In an aside: Chris Matthews is doing them or the country no favor by claiming they have an issue with taxes and keeping your money. All low and most moderate income will see tax reductions or at the point some do, will be compensated by other cost cuts or compensations. Even those that are getting some tax cuts may find other fees increased which only lends to the need for the cuts in the first place. As to Democrats being "all about spending", the Democrats, at least the Obama adminstration, are all about nothing but everything.

In this regard, it seems that if there is anything we can get on the same page on, it is entitlements. We should get back to the safety net concept. That does not mean that certain good ideas are not good for all. But that all entitlements are not needed by some. But in reality, no one wants to give up what they have, so it seems the best field to work it out on is taxes. Similar balance can be taken in regards to international finance, markets and social progress. Maybe a carbon credit for life?

[But back to the Dark Side or Gas Bag (Methane Head No Credit):
Hypocrisy is King!
The Republicans are rallying around Rush while he is eating it up.
He then challenges the President to a debate!
Well the Republican's should put up or shut up.
There is no equivalent to the President.
But the Republicans must decide, is he or is he not the one in charge or would Rush Limbaugh have a debate with Ed Shultz?
Actually the answer is no! Since I believe the challenge is out there. And there have been others (Ron Reagan) he has not accepted. But he should really stick to his own league and maybe Stephen Colbert. Or warm up to Rachel Maddow.]

[Seriously, Rachel Maddow and the link just provided, really put her in a league of her own, but actually the one that Rush Limbaugh and Michael Steele should live up to before they even merit the jobs they have, (not to mention the other intelligent Enternewsmeant or Fun'n Edifying Personalities I have noted above, depending on the job they aspire to)but here are some bonus links: Michael Moore * vs. Any Rand, talk about doubling down or matches.]

[And I don't know who got it backwards but Rush did say, he wanted Obama to fail before Obama suggested that Republicans stop listening to Rush. This was Obama taking on the old way with the Republicans, not a direct attack on Rush but his ideas and tactics which Republicans have so hard a time changing, and they need to make it about Rush. [Update: too enough!]

* [Plus Must See TV: FNBC ](For funny? No for real...


...Financial News with a real anchor!)]

The Nature of Things

Air America Today shouts Fifty-Nine!
It seems to imply that Democrats are off the hook. The moderate/independent middle seems to say that they want checks-and-balances which in turn should turn progressives loose now that there is a potential filibuster. Some have accused this middle of being low-information voters, but others claim them to be those that want the change they were promised or in the case of Massachusetts, those that have their health care and worry about the cost, not to mention jobs being a priority. This is my preemptive take from the heading, not the article.

Also the word Revolution has been bandied about. A caller suggested that the Reagan "Revolution" should have been a called a Counter Revolution. I would suggest it would be appropriately called a Devolution but unfortunately Revolution implies a spin that will continue unless there is real change. Now to switch a flat tire to a flat earth, there is a slippery slope because there is trickle down. That means that progress will always be slippery and up hill, or those that rise will only be on* the backs of others. [Correction: they do need the backs of others but they can't rise by flattening them.]

*scratch "on the backs of others": replace with "the burden of others."

[See "nature of things"]
[Extended metaphor: The ping pong ball is flat!(maybe it always has been, or it is more than about games and parties.)]
[BTW: a conference table can be round but it is still flat]

GOLEFT TV

Finally: Real News Featuring video from progressive hosts. (Some from Air America Radio)
The choir grows. (The local affiliate)

[subtitled: STOP THE LOOPINESS! ]
But hold on to your seat, following these links can be challenging to your sense of peace.
Example: and this is a moderate one
Air America (select program)
The Randi Rhodes Show
Senate Democrats introduce Habeus Corpus Restoration Act of 2007
The vicious cycle completed
"as long as..."
NSPD51
But I don't have time for the ride.

An even worse ride:Plan Ready for Iran
On watch list for some time
Science Fiction or...

It might be one thing for Empire to win, but who will be the loser, even if it could? Not China or other powers, no matter what they choose. Failure is too scary to imagine, but progress is even scarier work. And with preemption on the table?
"Help me Obi-Wan///"
There is no secret message there or suggested solution, but it may not be just about "the force", but every player has a part and countries and corporations seem to play for keeps.
"As long as" who is the dictator?

"Failure is not on option..." is the most true oxymoron *. Failure is a result we must live or die with. In the case of the NSPD51, if failure is not preempted, or caused, it is at least incentivised and to some rewarded.

[apologies for a linky piece, all of which I have not read, and for any excessively creative wording *]

[It is funny how I seem to form a rather loopy cycle myself, as I had intended to insert somewhere a Huffington Post link. Not that particular one, but just the site in general. Speaking of Generals: Wesley Clark. Speaking of failures. Putin's eyes, which Bush looked into. (see paragraph before last "other powers") Our only hope.]

THANK YOU: Progressives Everywhere, in particular Huffington Post and Common Dreams
Speaking of forutituous links. The Telegraph and mine
with a search of "telegraph" and search "blows" it. Speaking of dreams. It is about the nightmare.

Democrats are about the American dream, Republicans are about keeping it that. And even the dream is a nightmare for the world.

* there is probably a better word for it, but then look at what we are dealing with.

[11:08 AM - - As I have noted, I have not read or reread all of the above links, and there are even some that I had intended to, but I must add this one,{Illiberal Moderates: The Global Swing Vote} by Amitai Etzioni - - a piece which I did just read and suggest caution in reading and sorting it out, but I do agree with it's approach. I have been familiar with his work prior to 1995, and that may have been important in my seeing the "grand misconception" even before I knew who was promoting it. Re: the misconceptions of Huntington and Fukuyama.]

The New Wave

Having survived the tide of the caucuses I turn to the next matters.
For now I simply post two links, only the latter has been fully read.
X*Y ... *
and John McCain's qualifications to be President?
here are some I hope to follow up on:
Let the Swiftboating Begin.
and Deadly Invitation
They look forward to the next opponent
and the magic * of the media.

Meanwhile to keep that top burner: I will note that my precinct with 86 voters elected 6 Obama and 3 Clinton delegates. And I may provide further comment in that regard.

* note: there are two *'s beyond the one in the X*Y context and note the watery links as well. They say "a rising tide lifts all boats" unless there is a hole in it or others trickle down in yours, but "hope floats" someone said I think and the tide still runs from the man with hope and the woman from hope or back again. I just tide that in with what I hope to get back to here. (spelling hopefully intentional, but I'll check later, I ran it by spell check [Y] )

[2-18-08: QCON: The term "Swiftboating" does not do justice to the task, given its history. It would seem to imply a campaign of disinformation, rather than some clarity. Maybe Clearwater would work, in retribution for Whitewater, Blackwater, and Swiftboating. Maybe Ironycladding would work? And one more for me to read. If McCain's a Moderate, I'm the Easter Bunny*. seems that some doth protest too much. Yet he is the best they can come up with. Oh, unless the original was a flip-flop? Meaning I have to reread the earlier to see if a skilled editor is implying that the swiftboating will be coming from the right. Duh! i.e. sacrificial goat. Bingo. No ageism intended. Meaning who better to swiftboat than a veteran of swiftboating. But I think that the editor was not as swift as I imply, and the writer implies what I wish to flip-flop.**
* No holiday connection, but this article (I did read) is a twofer on the McCain and the Media front. ** Howbout: FlipFlopperKrafting.]

[3-24-08: Wave LABEL added ]

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.]

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)

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].

Confusion is Right

But it does not mean the left is cleared.

above links in order:
(1) Iran and Leftist Confusion by Reese Erlich
(2) Iran: The World Is Watching by Steve Weissman
(3) A Response to Steve Weissman's "Nonviolence 101" by Stephen Zunes
truthout / Perspective(s)

It should be clear that nuclear weapons proliferation (little did I know it was so little mentioned**) is the underlying concern.

"Some demonstrators wanted a more moderate Islamic government. Others advocated a separation of mosque and state, and a return to parliamentary democracy they had before the 1953 coup. But virtually everyone believes that Iran has the right to develop nuclear power, including enriching uranium. Iranians support the Palestinians in their fight against Israeli occupation, and they want to see the US get out of Iraq."(1)

"...criticizing US policy on Iran, including Bush administration efforts to overthrow the Islamic government. The US raises a series of phony issues, or exaggerates problems, in an effort to impose its domination on Iran. (Examples include Iran's nuclear power program, support for Hamas and Hezbollah, and support for Shiite groups in Iraq.)"(1)

(4) Iran: Nonviolence 101
"the Iranian activists want to win. At least some in the America government might prefer to provoke a brutal defeat, a Tiananmen Square, to further isolate Iran and bring pressure within the Obama administration for a military response to the Iranian nuclear program."(4)

"Washington's promotion of non-violent resistance in other countries is already casting suspicion on a number of activists and thinkers who, wittingly or not, have allowed themselves to become pawns in open and covert programs to "promote democracy." Non-violent activists everywhere need to draw a clear line against cooperating with governments of any stripe in this foreign meddling."(4)

"The leftist critics must answer the question: Whose side are you on?"(1)

President Obama's or proliferationists? The world's or being right? These are my cherry branches or olive pits.* Just as it is unclear who the leader of Iran is, aside from the election, so is it a more muddled group than coalition of the willing, that must be part of the solution.

*rhetorical answers and the muddled willing
** hence the fourth link

Media Whores*

Media wars was my first thought for this post. My intended sabbatical, a break from my customary work for other matters, was to be one week. I indicated the difficulty it may be, to not post, and in fact not even work on related stuff, but here is one I noted and saved as a draft:

[* *]
To whom it may concern:(THE FCC?)
Regarding a seemingly meaningless spat between Rosie O’Donnell and Bill O’Reilly:

Bill O’Reilly is of the opinion that she should not be free to give her opinions as a "broadcast professional" and I think that it falls into your auspices to determine that. It seems to me that the term either applies to the broadcasting engineers or the terms of an FCC licensee. If there are any standards, as I would have them, Bill O’Reilly and Fox News should lose their licenses. This is no joking matter. While the O'Donnell and The Donald spat may be about ratings and while Rosie may choose to not renew her contract and let the market determine she has an even greater value, again it is hard to stomach the excuses for the airtime wasted by O’Reilly or Fox News if there are any standards. Further, no joking matter, while Rosie’s opinions may be fringe, and O’Reilly truly unreliable, if there is any such ruling that could shut down Rosie and not O‘Reilly, she has demonstrated that she knows what she is talking about in her claim that he is worse than a character from 1984, and that there is a "big brother".

[The best I can tell the above was written, April 3rd]

Now we have the Don Imus issue. It is too bad that he is the more moderate of a list of disagreeable personalities, who if there were standards may not have the airtime they enjoy. Yet the very idea of standards is also a problem while the idea of the market alone may not be the solution. It is unfortunate that he may end up the scapegoat and a distraction if not a martyr to the cause of those that do not have the guts to face the consequences of their words.

It seems that he has faced his error, yet still seems to be putting it in context. Of course everything is needed to be looked at in context and taking it elsewhere may be unfair, but if Imus is determined to be the problem, broader problems may not be faced.

* whores:
A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

Considerations are twice removed from personal gain: first by the person, then by the principle.

* * [4-17-07: for clarification I must reitterate that "To whom it may concern" was written and saved on April 3rd, 2007]

[4-18-07: Stereotype Threat the cultural impact ignored. Just look at lawyers and politicians and what you expect from them. Not to mention...

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 **]

"More Scrutiny Needed!"

Bloomberg Commentary by Betsy McCaughey
Not necessarily the one to do it.

Update: 2-13-09 [Shout Out: Media Matters]

[Update 2-12-09 "Conservative Media Echo Chamber..."
Also more on Misinformation... ]

[from dialogue with Thrasymachus * ]
...the last paragraph was an eye opener if you believe it. Well not really; it confirms my world view or rather your world view. Health care should be a growth industry and cost is no object.

But second: health-care reform is made up of more than just government programs, and will not replace the healthcare industry or the insurance industry, so it is very easy to cherry pick and hits the nail on the head with my last post:

It might be easier to agree what not to do, than what to do, as long as failure is an option. But failure is not an option; it is a choice. This may seem like lost words, but failure is a potential outcome. And it can no more be simply allowed**, than freedom. Maybe this is Philosophy 701, but the Washington Post is not up to Journalism 201, let alone the economy.

And this gal is not not up to Journalism 101. WWWWWH? (that too...or also)

BTW: I really did some ridiculous math (further amendment to my blog) that went on in the comment section. If the $800 billion (jobs bill) were purely partisan or completely extremist (utopian?) and the choice were between more Bush tax cuts, and all food stamps (which I can't imagine anyone proposing) (but probably some on the right might) the Bang for the Buck would be negative .71 / dollar or positive .73 / dollar. But that is only if some would have it only their way. HOWEVER it seems even a balanced partisan bill would result in closer to zero effectiveness. This is extreme rhetoric(and math), but seems to demolish the moderate approach as well. It does however prove the importance of new thinking rather than more of the same.

* a nickname for an emailer
** see previous post for these asterisks and below link for Bloomberg