consultants are sandburs

Friday, October 30, 2015

" Jeb Bush’s death spiral?"

The headline is shared from the source item, Gary Gross posting at his LFR blog:

http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=19197

Gary links to a US News online item, which in turn links to an alleged 100+ page Bush campaign internal staff analysis/update.

Detailed news about CD2 debate status of both parties.

Sorensen at Bluestem Prairie, here.

American Military Boots soon to be on the ground in Syria.

This link.

What specific tasking has been set? The Reuters item notes:

U.S. President Barack Obama plans to deploy dozens of special operations forces to northern Syria to advise opposition forces in their fight against Islamic State, a major shift and a step he has long resisted to avoid getting dragged into another war in the Middle East.

The number of special operations troops in Syria would be fewer than 50, said a senior administration official, speaking ahead of an announcement on Friday by the administration. One U.S. official said the number was likely to be in the range of 20 to 30 but could not provide details.

[...] Although the United States has dispatched special operations forces into Syria in the past, including an operation in May that killed an Islamic State leader, Obama’s decision paves the way for longer-term deployments of American ground forces.

Hit squads? Longer-term hit squads?

Somebody in mainstream media should ask about rules of engagement these teams will have when they're installed as operative in the Syrian hinterlands.

The expected government response, "They will be special operations troop teams so the press is encouraged to conclude they in large measure will be conducting special operations while stationed within Syria."

Guess who?

The quote from an Elkhart Indiana online report names names, and thereby does tell you what you might have guessed, in context if you only read the final paragraph of the quote.

The project addresses the need for high-end housing not only for young professionals, but also empty-nesters who want to downsize.

Rent for studio apartments will start at $700 dollars per month and go up to $1200 per month for two-bedroom units.

”What we do fits very well with what we view as the mayor's vision for downtown Elkhart and what we think a lot of the citizens want here. That is really to put a focus on downtown, where you bring people back downtown,” said David Flaherty, CEO, Flaherty & Collins.

Before the project can officially start, funding needs to be finalized. Some of that money will need to come from TIF funds.

First and last paragraphs of the quote - a dead giveaway. Our Indiana developer friends: Friends of leveraging other people's money to their benefit.

___________UPDATE___________
Parallel coverage, The Elkhart Truth, here. REjournals.com with a rendering, here.

Thursday, October 29, 2015

Hegsetyh offends. The only question, is the operative adverb "again," or is it "still?"

News Hounds report.

Hegseth left the active military and has been exploiting his ties to the military ever since, for money from FOX, for member contributions to his astroturf Veterans promotion, for getting his name politicized. To me that is slimy. To Hegseth it likely is business as usual, as if always intended, from Guantanamo guard duty days onward. Most veterans have too much pride in their service to do as Hegseth does.

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

If enough parties will attend they could hold the talks in Vienna, and call it a "Congress."

Reuters, here:

World | Wed Oct 28, 2015 12:44pm EDT
Arch-rivals Saudi Arabia, Iran to discuss Syria face-to-face for first time
RIYADH/DUBAI | By Angus McDowall and Bozorgmehr Sharafedin


[...] It will be the first time that Tehran attends international negotiations on Syria's war. Other participants, notably the United States, say Assad can play no part in Syria's future.

The Saudi foreign minister added that the kingdom and its allies would hold a separate meeting on Friday to seek "the time and means of Bashar al-Assad's exit".

Egypt, Iraq, Qatar, Lebanon, the European Union and France also said they would attend Friday's talks, which come a day after a smaller round of negotiations between the United States, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

Around a dozen participants are expected in total.

It was not clear whether any invitation had been issued to either the Syrian government or the opposition. Neither side was present at the last talks in Vienna.

[italics added] Already did Vienna? Well, still they can exile Assad to Elba, or mid-Pacific to St. Helena.

Do the exile, then congress again, in Vienna of course - but get time sequences correct.

"Jeb Bush and other candidates are trying to turn the tide in a campaign that is dominated so far by provocative rhetoric that has played to the strengths of Trump, a bombastic reality television star and developer, and Carson, a soft-spoken surgeon who has been gaining support in opinion polls. The two-hour debate, moderated in Boulder, Colorado, by business network CNBC, will begin at 8 p.m. EDT Wednesday. With Trump and Carson holding a firm grip on the race in polls of likely Republican voters for the November 2016 election, the forum comes at an increasingly perilous time for lower-ranking candidates. Former Florida Governor Bush, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, Ohio Governor John Kasich, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie are under pressure to shake up a race [...]"

"Provocative rhetoric" indeed.

Is that what it is called? And, is that the opposite of low energy?

And, you "lower ranking candidates" let's see you liven up yourselves. Shake up a race. You hear? That headline is a quote from a Reuters online item.

Same Reuters item also says,

Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Florida Senator Marco Rubio also need solid performances to build on recent momentum.

Officials from several rival campaigns said they believe the debate could help make Trump and Carson less popular if they are shown to lack knowledge of the intricacies of policy.

“If they run this thing well and push people to see if they're smart on the economy and job creation and how fiscal restraint fits into that, you could finally start separating the sheep from the goats on an important issue," said an official in the campaign of one of the Republicans vying against Trump.

Rand Paul not mentoined. A Halloween and then what situation when you fall off the bottom of the list atop Rick Santorum.

For those unwilling to read long headlines, Republicans debate, again this evening - go back through the post for time and network. They do this, they do - time after time, yet again, yet again. The evening high tide rearranges the driftwood, some swept to sea. Another tide will come.

Do not forget the NBA season opens, Wolves against Lakers [both Minnesota teams ...] matched up this evening in the current hometown team's first game of the season - on the road in LA, where the Lakers now play.

Likely televised locally.

Sunday, October 25, 2015

"Republican Jeb Bush's struggling presidential campaign is cutting salaries across the board and reducing staff in a money-saving effort intended to concentrate resources on early voting states, an internal memo said on Friday. The memo, seen by Reuters, said payroll costs were being slashed by 40 percent and staff at the campaign's Miami headquarters drastically cut back with some workers offered positions at reduced pay in states that vote early in the nominating process, such as New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada. The move follows a dramatic fall in Republican voters' support for Bush's attempt to secure his party's nomination for the November 2016 election and to become the third member of the famous Bush family to win the White House."

Death rattles of John Ellis Bush's present ambitions? We can hope, but it looks like a midstream change of horses, possibly in pursuit of more energetic staff to bolster a low energy campaign/persona.

This Reuters link, for the headline quoting in context.

Meanwhile, here, a different GOP contender is critical of the entire SuperPAC situation, something you will not see the Bush family criticizing:

Reuters -- Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:43pm EDT - Republican Trump calls on White House rivals to drop Super PACs
- WASHINGTON, By Erin McPike


[...]While Trump disavowed Super PACs, a prominent supporter of his launched one this week. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn said Wednesday he was putting $150 million toward a new group to raise money to fight corporate "inversions" by pushing for legislation to change the tax code.

The Make America Great Again PAC said it would shut down after the Washington Post reported that one of its employees, Mike Ciletti, contacted a Trump employee to obtain information for potential donors. That would violate rules preventing coordination between campaigns and Super PACs.

Trump's campaign also asked all of the super PACs claiming to support the real estate mogul stop raising money and return funds to donors. The letters, sent on Wednesday, say the PACs do not have authorization to use Trump's likeness, according to his campaign.

Republican operatives close to Trump believe he will be hit with attack ads in the coming months, and they think calling on rivals to drop their Super PACs could pre-empt those attacks, a person close to Trump said.

Things candidates say these days are so genuine in content and motivation that who are we, as citizens, to be either critical, or disbelieving?

Readers decide. Does the image relate to the Bush candidate's staff cuts,
or to the Trump candidate's eschewing SuperPAC influence?

Saturday, October 24, 2015

Friday, October 23, 2015

More Planned Parenthood hate mongering. Texas style.

Dan Burns at MPP posting online here.

"Netanyahu Denounced for Saying Palestinian Inspired Holocaust"

The post's headline is shared with this NY Times item.

"Our drug costs are out of control because that's the way the pharmaceutical companies want it. Drug lobbyists have been able to block Medicare from negotiating better prices on behalf of the American people. [...]Americans should not have to live in fear that they will go bankrupt if they get sick. People should not have to go without the medication they need just because their elected officials aren't willing to challenge the drug lobby. The public is fed up, and they have a right to be fed up. It is time we joined the rest of the industrialized world -– not only by enacting a national health care program, but by implementing prescription-drug policies that work for everybody, not just the CEOs of the pharmaceutical industry."

The quote is from a Bernie item, online. Bernie not only cares, he has legislative answers, actual pending bills. All that is needed is more backbone and less Pharma lobbyist love among his Senate colleagues, and in the House.

Instead of the Republican lust to prolong their little Benghazi circus act, which is becoming tedious and counterproductive to their aim of derailing Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy, they should concentrate instead on fixing things that are broken big time. And Big Pharma (and Little Boutique Pharma too) screwing us all, the loyal and trusting citizens of the US of A, is an obscene situation that should be ended. If the Republicans continue their blind eye to the problem, vote them out and put in people who will actually change things, beyond CHANGE as slogan.

Vote the bastards out.

Fix things with new and better people in office.

It is the only chance at having a better nation, one more caring over citizen comfort and well being and less caring about serving the goals and ends of corporatism over all else.

A veto.

Reporting here, here, here and here.

Handing things back to the Republicans, saying, "Fix things correctly, not piecemeal," was a needed step. The notion that budget sacrifices among civilian needs and aims should happen to keep a bloated military offends, and the veto was the right thing to do.

We have domestic reform needs. We have war monger wants. It is time to be reasonable.

Sunday, October 18, 2015

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Jason Lewis deems himself fit for Congress.

Reporting online. Crabgrass editorial link.

Monday, October 12, 2015

Tuesday, Oct 13, and follow the link for more info on next week's first Dem Presidential debate, CNN hosting.

Biden invited but so far declines to participate. A low energy step with which the one Bush son might identify.

Biden could join the debate right up until the day of the broadcast if he should so choose. It doesn’t seem as though it will happen, but that sure would make the debate more interesting.



http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2015/10/democratic-debate-details-live-stream-and-podium-order/

Sunday, October 11, 2015

Thousand words post of the day -

photo credit

CFR - "Biden's proposal for resolving the conflict in Iraq continued to generate discussion late into 2007. Biden, along with CFR President Emeritus Leslie H. Gelb, back creation of a federal state in Iraq with Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia autonomous regions. Biden was also one of the only candidates to support using U.S. ground forces to end the conflict in Sudan’s Darfur region."

The Quote in the headline is from:

http://www.cfr.org/staff/b1451

a status quo

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/07/28/biden-agenda

Last, a trade policy

http://www.cfr.org/trade/future-us-trade-policy/p36422

This you have not gotten from a Clinton nor from a Bush.

Raw Story, here. Is it not surprising a candidate with a business honed wit and instincts, Fiorina, goes all silence-is-golden without caring to raise Wall Street bailout questions of the kind Bernie asked in the one embedded video?

Is he, Bernie, (if you follow the link and play the embedded video), talking more resonantly with the informed common family voter than Trump or one of the lesser known cluster, e.g., Rubio?

What do you figure Rubio would have asked Bernanke in a committee hearing setting? These days, or earlier?



Lunch money debt, a burning issue, gets privatized into the hands of debt collection agents.

Privitization that generates Gipper nostalgia - you know it would have warmed his heart and entered into his communications, were he still with us to voice his thoughts and hopes.

Lunch money, unpaid: The Daily Meal reports:

 http://www.thedailymeal.com/news/eat/school-district-hires-debt-collectors-go-after-unpaid-lunch-money/10515

The children were fed, half the contract's been performed, so pay up. After turning to a debt collection firm, What next? Conciliation court filings? Withhold the student's diploma and transcript access in applying for jobs or college, until every lunch money penny's been squeezed, via the proud face and hands of privatization?

What kind of a school district would institute such an arguably Draconian measure? Where would they have gotten the idea? What is the teaching value of the lunch money squeeze, and isn't that value elusive because of how different community members might set goals of  "teaching an education" with an aim to prepare the young for entry into the dog eat dog rat race - real world.

Does the lunch money squeeze idea have any such perverse "teaching value," and should it? Or is it in one way or another too wrong a step that should be halted? Too raw?

Friday, October 09, 2015

Paul Ryan as House Speaker?

Reuters reports.

Minnesota - Republican Congressional candidate news.

Brodkorb in two instances writing for Strib - each about a different candidacy, in different Congressional districts.  CD2 and CD8.

Thursday, October 08, 2015

Low energy logo?


But as a momentum gainer from low energy, how about all in, the deep end:

both images are from this website

Had an email the text of which is the post, for all the choice hating gun loving Republican friends in CD6, SD35, Anoka County, and of course, Ramsey.

Here it is:

"How about we treat every young man who wants to buy a gun like every woman who wants to get an abortion — mandatory 48-hr waiting period, parental permission, a note from his doctor proving he understands what he's about to do, a video he has to watch about the effects of gun violence, an ultrasound wand up the ass (just because). Let's close down all but one gun shop in every state and make him travel hundreds of miles, take time off work, and stay overnight in a strange town to get a gun. Make him walk through a gauntlet of people holding photos of loved ones who were shot to death, people who call him a murderer and beg him not to buy a gun."

And, last and actually least. Let's have policy pitbull numero uno Ted Cruz added at the paragraph end, and have him hating on guns and wanting the NRA defunded. Critical of McConnell if denied a demogouging floor speech opportunity by a cloture move. SNAFU Ted ...


What a Canadian, that Ted Cruz. He was born there, wasn't he? The birthers are after him, all over the nation of birth question, aren't they? Fair game for the experience, Mr. Cruz, isn't he? Or am I misunderstanding the detailed birther Gestalt, its nuances, its strategic elasticity?

Sunday, October 04, 2015

Gary Bauer, Dick Cheney, Steve Forbes, Dan Quayle, Don Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, John Ellis "Jeb" Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Fred Ikle, Ellen Bork, Mark Gerson, William Kristol. What have they in common?

Each is a war-mongering neocon set to put our nation deeper in debt to the Chinese in the course of miring the military into another non-winnable war. Because each is who each is, and none should be allowed anywhere near the Presidency where great harm would be possible due to collective bad - make that awful - judgment in line with past awful judgment during the time W. was messing things up with a two-front war on Islam, for oil.

This Wikipedia link on the Project for The New American Century. The Bush family's candidate this election cycle, do a word search on the page, on the boat when it sailed. Deporting into war mongering, with a set mind. Jeb!

We do not need more of the same. Failure before was failure enough.

Shades of Henry Kissinger, without the heavy German accent.

Ellen Bork. Daughter of the Beast. Like Jeb! S.O.B. for Son of the Beast.

Does LaRouche overstate a case?

This link.

Statement of so-called "Principles," here. What an awful negligent mistake, leaving Vin Weber off the headline, but he is clearly listed there.

CounterPunch and Politico paint the picture true to the facts.

The internationalist adventurer can dance around whether he'd have done as big brother did; he is a core, at the outset, signatory to that awful mistaken adventure into Iraq and a quagmire over its oil, and its leadership.

Vote your conscience, but please, look for a candidate with one.

____________UPDATE___________
The cited CounterPunch item clearly explains:

His brother’s Administration meant to invade Iraq from its first days in office, and Jeb Bush was prominent among those demanding it.

“Faulty intelligence” is a facade and a fraud. America was taken deliberately into war by a fanatic group obsessed with democratizing the world by force—the force of U.S. military supremacy. The group was called the Project for the New American Century. Dozens of PNAC members–Vice President Richard Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, for example—dominated the Administration of George W. Bush in setting foreign and defense policy, and leading the nation to war as a result.

Jeb Bush was a founding member of the Project for the New American Century.

The genesis of the Iraqi war—and the PNAC ideology—was a 1992 Defense Department document, Draft Defense Planning Guidance, written by Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, and Zalmay Khalilzad at the direction of Richard Cheney, then Secretary of Defense. It advocated the economic and military domination of the world by the United States, using pre-emptive war if necessary, and noted the strategic importance of Persian Gulf oil for achieving this. The objective was global dominion, unabashed imperialism, and Iraq was in the crosshairs.

Even in some quarters of the Administration however, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Libby, and Khalilzad were seen as extremists; the President, Jeb Bush’s father, rejected their draft.

In 1997 neoconservatives William Kristol and Robert Kagan organized the Project for the New American Century, inviting the founding members to sign a Statement of Principles. It was essentially a condensed paraphrase of the discredited Draft Defense Planning Guidance, recasting and advocating the vision of global dominion through an invincible military.

Figure for yourself why Mainstream Media is giving a free pass on who he is being who he was, for the esteemed former Governor of Florida, John Ellis "Jeb!" Bush.

And that above quote, last paragraph, "invincible military." Do you remember "shock and awe?" After that was wtf, and "Mission Accomplished," and "Homeland Security," and the "never ending war on Terror."

When the dust settles, it will not be Trump carrying the Republican banner. It will be John Ellis "Jeb!" Bush.

Also - Not Ted Cruz. Not the eye doctor in Kentucky. Not the failed HP CEO. Instead, the one and only. Wait and see.

Oh, forgot. Not George Pataki. Not Gov. Bridgegate. Not Huck nor Rick.

____________UPDATE___________
HISTORY LESSON, UNNEEDED FOR MANY. For others who believe the never ending war on terror was an artifact crafted by cynical politicians after 9/11, it in fact is an artifact crafted before 9/11. It was crafted as another sole superpower analysis - by the Hart-Rudman Commission, going into the twenty-first century. Do you find this familiar but troubling gov-speak, dateline Sept 14, 2001?

Gary Hart: Great nations, like great individuals, are tested in ways that ordinary nations and ordinary people are not. Given what we’ve seen of the American character from the extraordinarily brave rescue workers in New York to the thousands and tens of thousands of Americans queued up in Denver and all across this country to donate blood, I would not want to be in the shoes of those who perpetrated this attack. But our purpose here today is not to discuss retribution or to look back. It is in fact to propose measures of prevention.

I think we must assume that the events of Tuesday were not the end. I am afraid they are just the beginning. They are in fact the introduction to a totally new century. We have seen the nature of warfare change from that of nation state against nation state, to that of urban conflict carried out by tribes, clans and gangs, against whom we find it very difficult to declare war. As Warren has said, on September 15, 1999, this Commission in its first report reached the following conclusion. And the title of that report by the way is “New World Coming.” That first conclusion reads as follows. “America will become increasingly vulnerable to hostile attack on our homeland, and our military superiority will not entirely protect us. Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers.” That was two years ago almost to the day.

On January 31st of this year we delivered to the President and his Cabinet our proposals as to how to deal with this new world. And of course, as Warren has said, principal among those was to create something like what we called a National Homeland Security Agency to direct under one command, one civilian command, the 40 or more disparate agencies or elements of agencies that have to do with the protection of this country. When we proposed this we heard a lot of complaint from people in this city who said, “Well, the bureaucracy will not accept it.” I wish those people would step forward today and address the American people and explain why it is more important for one agency to keep one of its bureaus than it is to protect the people of this country.

[italics added] A CFR document:

http://www.cfr.org/homeland-security/national-security-21st-century-findings-hart-rudman-commission/p4049

FAS has the "New World Coming" Preface online here (dated Sept. 15, 1999). Please refer to it, read it, think about it as we move toward the 2016 election. It is linked w/o excerpt.


Statements of Hart and Rudman, again online via FAS, (w/o a headlined date but almost certainly 1999); Rudman stating at the time in report-transfer testimony to a congressional committee:

It is a great pleasure for us to be here today to discuss with you the work of the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century. As you all know, this Commission was chartered in 1997 under the Federal Advisory Commission Act, with the sponsorship of the Congressional leadership, the White House, and the Department of Defense, to be the most comprehensive reassessment of the structure and processes of the American national security system since the passage of the National Security Act of 1947. The fourteen Commissioners and the Commission staff have taken this mandate to heart. We have worked hard to make a difference, because we all believe firmly that, left to drift without a conscious and concerted effort at re-design, the U.S. national security system will end up dangerously out of synch with both the dangers and the opportunities that a changing world is even now generating.

The Commission’s work is designed as an integrated three-phase effort. The first phase, which we completed on September 15th after nearly a year’s labor, and which we are here today to discuss, is descriptive in nature. It has aimed to discern the shape of the new world coming between now and the year 2025.

The second phase is generally prescriptive. Due in April of next year, it calls for the development and elaboration of a U.S. national strategy appropriate to the world forecast in phase one.

The third phase is more specifically prescriptive. Due to be handed to the next President of the United States in the winter of 2001, its task is to carefully analyze the U.S. national security system, and propose changes to it as deemed necessary, so that it may effectively implement the strategy proposed in phase two.

We believe that this tripartite structure makes good sense. We believe that you have to start with the facts before engaging in strategy building, and that you have to know what you want before you can properly organize yourself to get it.

Establishing "facts" about the future, however, isn’t easy. [...]

Hart following with a statement:

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the world has begun to change with dizzying speed. With the paralysis of the Cold War broken, captive nations have breathed anew the air of freedom. New states have been born, as well, sometimes in peace but sometimes, regrettably, in war. New patterns of innovation in science and technology have emerged. Wedded to increasingly integrated global economic processes, these patterns of innovation are rapidly transforming the international economy.

Taken together, the technological and economic changes before us are putting novel pressures on states. Some are adapting well, but many find themselves suspended between the habits of old ways and the promise of new ones. In the balance, world politics has become simultaneously more hopeful since the collapse of communism, but also more fragile as new forces have been unleashed upon the unwitting and the unprepared.

This Commission’s conclusions about the world we see emerging are not particularly comforting. We would not describe them as pessimistic, however. They simply are what they are. They are what we honestly see in the world’s future.

We believe that the United States will remain a principal economic, political, and cultural force in the world for at least the next 25 years. And we believe that the United States will be the preeminent global military power throughout this entire period.

But we also believe that there will be much resentment of American power and culture. We believe that the development of asymmetrical strategies to assault our interests and those of our allies will cause us real problems despite our military superiority. We believe that some new technologies, benign as they may be for the most part, could have a dramatic leveling effect, allowing an increasing array of states, and even small disaffected or fanatical groups, to inflict enormous damage on unsuspecting civilian populations—including our own.

We believe, as well, that the unprecedented integration of the international economy, while on balance a highly promising development, also bears many uncertainties and will generate novel vulnerabilities for those who become dependent on its underlying infrastructure. We believe that pressures on states, including some large states, could lead to collapsing governments and disintegrating countries in some cases, bringing major regional crises in their wake. We believe, therefore, that crises abroad issuing mainly from the internal instability of states will continue to crowd the American foreign policy agenda.

We believe, too, that developing effective ways to cope with such crises, along with allies and appropriate international agencies and organizations, will require a far more systematic effort than has been made thus far. But let us say no more about this for now, lest we intrude on the two study phases in our future.

The Commission has also concluded that, although the essence of war will not change, several aspects of conflict and combat will change. Space will become a more critical and competitive military environment. U.S. intelligence will face more challenging adversaries, and even excellent intelligence work on our part will not be able to prevent all surprises. Non-state actors will probably play a larger role in issues of war and peace than they have heretofore. We have also concluded that U.S. alliance structures are likely to become more fluid, that the forward-basing we have relied upon for many years may be more difficult to sustain, and that technological gaps may make it harder for us to cooperate effectively with allies and other partners in the field.

[italics added] The 1999 date is inferred from the link:

http://fas.org/man/congress/1999/99-10-05hart-rudman.htm

The index to the entire FAS body of preserved reporting,

http://fas.org/man/docs/nwc/index.html

As another example, the Phase III report is online apart from FAS archives, here, entitled/dated, "Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change --- The Phase III Report of the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century --- The United States Commission on National Security/21st Century -- February 15, 2001."

Largely about a foreseen need to secure the homeland.

Prescient?

Aspen Institute, "ALARMS UNHEEDED" tells a narrative from the perspective of Feb 11, 2014.

A closing thought, some readers might disagree, the initially noted  PNAF "Project for a New American Future," might have also been abbreviated, BB-YFIFU, standing for Bibi's Blueprint, You Fight Iran For Us. But, there also is this, in terms of which US list Iran is put onto. Saddam, Qaddafi, not pricing oil in dollars. Not here to talk about it ...

If any reader familiar with the Iran agreement knows of online reporting of whether Iran will shift over, as part of the accord, to pricing its oil in dollars, please leave a comment/link.

Friday, October 02, 2015

COON RAPIDS -- HOPE 4 Youth overnight shelter approval steps.

This link.

Should Kim Davis enter the Republican Presidential primary contest?

At least ten reasons (twelve actually, and stop there, thirteen would be unlucky):

First, she has name recognition together with a positive image within the GOP theocratic base.

Second, she could campaign that Fiorina does not represent regular American women, having been born on third base and telling everybody she'd hit a triple. Davis, on the other hand started out in the family business, the Morehead clerk's office run by her mom, and worked her way up to where, when mom died, she took over the business. A rags to rags story resonates more with the Republican Tea Party part of the base than a rags to riches one.

Third, she fits in close to Ted Cruz on the issues, yet she is more likable.

Fourth, Jeb's never been tested in jail, she has been while she, like Trump, has not accepted lobbyist money but, unlike Trump, she's also never contributed large sums of money to politicians of either or both parties.

Fifth, unlike Trump and Bush having tax plans offering sops to the super rich, she has no tax plan whatsoever, and likely would formulate none. But her office does mail out local property tax bills, so she's experienced.

Sixth, Trump has never signed nor declined signing marriage licenses in Morehead, and until he does he has no direct experience in key issues motivating the Republican theocratic base.

Seventh, she might out poll a good half of the GOP field.

Eighth, she'd be the second candidate claiming roots in Kentucky, but she was born and raised there, not a carpet bagger.

Ninth, Florida would be like Kentucky with two candidates from the state in the contest, but those two are career politicians whereas Kentucky would have an eye doctor and a career town clerk.

Tenth, adding her into the "debates" would likely boost TV ratings while she could fill the void created by early departure of others from the fray, possibly having more to say.

Eleventh, she has her major announcement team standing ready, poised only for her making a decision, with son Nathan or lawyer Staver available to serve as press secretary.

Twelfth, she already has an undeniably made-to-order campaign song.

___________UPDATE____________
Twelfth, ... - Or not. Or not.

Hey, eleven is a fine number.

Moreover, if you demand a number twelve, she is less a Dress-For-Success clothes horse than Fiorina.

__________FURTHER UPDATE__________
image credit; also, this link; http://www.miopapa.it/

... Or not. Well, Trump too is not always careful first time with his details. No red tee shirts? Or would that only be a detail?

Was the who and how and why of the Davis presence with the Pope "just details?"

That old saying, who again, is in the details?

__________FURTHER UPDATE__________
The questions of who the Pope met and who beyond a meeting was accorded an audience is perhaps as important and probably more important politically back at the Vatican then in our nation, given the full dimensions of the Vatileaks situation and the abdication of Benedict - with this Guardian item from those times noting:

The paper said the pope had taken the decision on 17 December that he was going to resign – the day he received a dossier compiled by three cardinals delegated to look into the so-called "Vatileaks" affair.

Last May Pope Benedict's butler, Paolo Gabriele, was arrested and charged with having stolen and leaked papal correspondence that depicted the Vatican as a seething hotbed of intrigue and infighting.

According to La Repubblica, the dossier comprising "two volumes of almost 300 pages – bound in red" had been consigned to a safe in the papal apartments and would be delivered to the pope's successor upon his election.

The newspaper said the cardinals described a number of factions, including one whose members were "united by sexual orientation".

In an apparent quotation from the report, La Repubblica said some Vatican officials had been subject to "external influence" from laymen with whom they had links of a "worldly nature". The paper said this was a clear reference to blackmail.

and then Guardian continued

It quoted a source "very close to those who wrote [the cardinal's report]" as saying: "Everything revolves around the non-observance of the sixth and seventh commandments."

The seventh enjoins against theft. The sixth forbids adultery, but is linked in Catholic doctrine to the proscribing of homosexual acts.

The Vatican bank, first and foremost, is a bank. Holding a large church's large wealth, and dealing in banking in ways its executive leadership felt best. Sometimes strange happenings within the banking world were reported in the press, the Calvi death being one, and in that context there are other bridges in London besides Blackfriars. It is interesting that the Kim Davis' lawyer and Boehner both claim in private moments Francis said, "Pray for me." One recent Pope was in office but a brief moment in time, before death. Francis continues and perseveres, as the first Jesuit Pope, and the first taking the Papal name, Francis.

Thursday, October 01, 2015

Bernie is legit. [UPDATE - NY Times reporting, "Bernie Sanders’s Campaign, Hitting Fund-Raising Milestone, Broadens Focus," By PATRICK HEALY, OCT. 1, 2015]

WaPo, Oct. 1, 2015:

Clinton held 58 fundraising events to raise her total; Sanders held seven. As of the end of September, Sanders had brought in 1.3 million total donations from 650,000 individuals since he began running. Clinton's campaign did not release how many total donors she has. And Sanders ended September with $25 million in the bank; Clinton did not release how much money her campaign had on hand.

Read between the lines, and you get this: Sanders is drawing huge amounts of small-dollar donations via the Web. That means two important things: (1) Sanders has been able to concentrate on meeting and greeting potential voters rather than spending his time courting donors, and (2) He has been able to conserve money because he isn't spending cash on lavish events for donors.

Why do the small donors flock to Sanders? Because he offers a break from the steady pattern of GHW Bush, the Clintons, GW Bush, Obama, which were all close shades of neoliberal corporatism favoring moneyed interests, Wall Street and banks primarily prospering, as well as giant multinational corporations where top executives extract intemperate, indeed obscene amounts of wealth from shareholders without any real checks and balances. Bernie offers CHANGE. The real thing. Not small change. And not small hope.

______________UPDATE_______________
This link, for item noted in this post's headlining.

Mr. Smarmy, called another thing at another time and place.

See red meat to the wolves.

A link.

Demagogue? Is that a better term than the Speaker's? Smarmy remains my Ted Cruz vote. Snake is another possible Cruz descriptive word. I stick with smarmy.

Regarding the Speaker, an interesting monologue, and note a couple of references to 1980 and onward.

As to differing terminology, Breitbart.com appears to indirectly deny the Speaker knows one when he sees one.


UPDATE: After the recent vote to fund the government through Dec. 11, to avoid a GOP shutdown and the unpopular results for that party another GOP shutdown would have brought, other terms for Mr. Smarmy, one man's opinion at Salon [with editorial approval there], "grifter," and the trifecta headlining, "self-promoting narcissist" "a fraud and a nihilist;" online respectively, here and here, embedded video and all. But Salon leans left, correct? Well, Politico leans right, but is NOT batshit crazy nor super-mean, so check out its posts here and here. Cruz is wearing thin on his own party, being too much of an ass among Republicans; and that is a tall order given the context. If they were to have discovered a foreign object in their punch bowl, many in that group might think it was Cruz that put it there. Politico, here in a Sept. 28, 2015, item (as already cited), writes:

On Monday night, Cruz’s colleagues ignored his attempt to disrupt Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s efforts to fund the government without attacking Planned Parenthood. In an unusual rebuke, even fellow Republicans denied him a “sufficient second” that would have allowed him a roll call vote.

Then, his Republican colleagues loudly bellowed “no” when Cruz sought a voice vote, a second repudiation that showed how little support Cruz has: Just one other GOP senator — Utah’s Mike Lee — joined with Cruz as he was overruled by McConnell and his deputies.

It was the second time that Cruz had been denied a procedural courtesy that’s routinely granted to senators in both parties. The first came after he called McConnell a liar this summer.

Cruz was incredulous on Monday, calling it an “unprecedented procedural trick."

“What does denying a second mean? Denying a recorded vote. Why is that important?” Cruz said. “When you are breaking the commitment you’ve made to the men and women who elected you, the most painful thing in the world is accountability.”

Indeed, denying Cruz a vote prevents the Texas senator from dredging up the roll call in the future and using it to attack his colleagues.

[...] Cruz’s speech was filled with familiar accusations that Republican leaders were capitulating, even as he praised Democrats for being more resolute than the GOP. But Cruz also personally lambasted McConnell and his deputies for denying a roll call vote that would have failed anyway, arguing that results are rigged in the Senate and that conservatives have no influence anymore.

“There are no mystical powers that allow you to roll over that. But in the House we still got 30, 40, 50 strong conservatives,” Cruz said.

In reality, it’s not Senate procedure that stymied Cruz on Monday night. Republicans have grown tired of Cruz pushing proposals that he knows McConnell and other Republicans will never back, like defunding Planned Parenthood in a spending bill, then criticizing McConnell for not taking up the plan even as he uses the fight to bolster his presidential campaign as Washington's consummate outsider.

When Senate GOP members as a bloc discredit and distrust the motives of one of their own, publicly, you are dealing with week old fish, noted as pungent.