Richard Day's picture

    POST PARTISAN!

    La Vérité "Truth" by Jules Joseph Lefebvre

    I have been reading the Washington Post lately—no fees and I can read it all I want and I do not have to pay $30.00 to NYT for nothingness.

    Anyway, if one clicks opinions within the vast array of choices contained in its menu, I might choose leaning Right or leaning Left or Post-Partisan!

    So I thought, hell, what is Post-Partisan? My Latin lessons tell me that this phrase somehow translates as 'after partisan'.

    What the hell does after partisan mean anyway?

    1. Relationships are as important as convictions.

    2. Criticism needs to be well-balanced by self-criticism.

    3. There must be an overriding commitment to dialogue and deliberation.

    4. There must be an overriding commitment to diversity of opinions and perspectives.

    5. Compromise is not the only endgame.

    6. Be simultaneously creative and practical.

    7. Demonstrate a penchant for big ideas.

    8. Support a bias for action.

    9. Demonstrate concern with values and principles.

    10. Have a long-term vision.
       

    Health innovation researcher Neil Seeman was the first to apply these principles to health policy decision-making, specifically to public health (Seeman, 2008)

    Might we heed instructions from a guy named Seeman without snickering?

    I mean we have a Speaker of the House named Boner; why the hell not?

    Okay then.

    I mean let us examine how these tenets might apply to the repub candidates that remain in the mix!

    Relationships are as important as convictions.

    Well the only thing I can think of is that Newt had a lot more relationships than most folks so that must mean he has had more convictions than most folks. Although I do believe, deep inside my soul that Newt should be doing at least twenty years for the convictions that have never taken place for his sins

    Now Mitt has had only one conviction that we know of; even though he has had a hell of a lot more great grandmas than most.

    And Santorum has had only one conviction and since he only has eight kids we must assume, considering his position on birth control that he has only 'done it' eight times his entire life; although an undisclosed source claims one of the middle children looks like one of the Santorum's neighbors.

    Paul has only one conviction and the last time he took advantage of that conviction was on January 5th, 1974.

    So much for convictions..

    Criticism needs to be well-balanced by self-criticism

    Well, in my humble opinion, Newton Gingrich is inhibited by his ego to ever involve himself in some sort of self-criticism.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMJz-puzniU

    WHAT ME WORRY? Cries THE NEWT!

    Mitt has undergone quite a bit of self criticism. Is problem is that he has no clear definition of self to begin with!

    Santorum thinks he speaks directly with God Almighty. Hard for him to criticize God Almighty!

    Paul wrote most of his material forty years ago and he really is not up for rewrites!

    Speaking of self-criticism:

    The radio host called Martin "a dope," an "idiot," and a "bad guy," among other things. "He's harmless because you see him coming a mile away," Beck said. "You're like, 'really, Roland, you think that you're fooling anybody? You're a clown.'..

    Beck agreed that Martin should be fired from CNN for "a myriad of reasons," including that "he's an idiot." But he said he did not support GLAAD's call to fire Martin for the offending tweets. "You don't fire people for what they say in their personal life or what they happen to believe," he said. "You fire them because they're idiots.

    There must be an overriding commitment to dialogue and deliberation.

    Newt has dedicated his life to dialogue and deliberation. Of course he has spent the last four decades dialoguing and deliberating with himself.

    Mitt likes to dialogue and deliberate with polls.

    Santorum, again, dialogues and deliberates with God Almighty.

    Paul just re-reads the stuff he wrote forty years ago.

    There must be an overriding commitment to diversity of opinions and perspectives

    Well, I think we can forget about this maxim applying to any repubs.

    Compromise is not the only endgame

    I cannot even comment on this statement. I frankly have no idea what this post partisan is talking about?

    Be simultaneously creative and practical

    Well Newt can be creative and sometimes practical (in a political sense) but never at the same time.

    Mitt has not had a creative thought in his entire life.

    Santorum gets his thoughts for the day from some Vatican talking points memo.

    Paul? Again he just re-reads what he wrote forty years ago.

    Demonstrate a penchant for big ideas

    Okay, so Newt is the only relevant subject as far as this maxim.

    We will have a 51st State on the Moon; he will sign his name to 1,000 Executive Orders nullifying every damn thing the Obama Administration did over 4 years and then he will give his great Oration on the day he takes office. (The way he talks he will need one of those robot signing machines.)

    Support a bias for action

    I have never witnessed such a bias against ethnic groups, lower economic groups, women, religious groups (non Christian), the sick, the down-trodden, immigrants...you name it; I have never witnessed a more biased set of repub candidates in my lifetime.

    Demonstrate concern with values and principles

    Oh all four of these clowns (as well as the other dozen clowns who have quit the race) demonstrate concern with values and principles—as long as they are their own values and principles.

    Have a long-term vision

    Well, I guess all the repub candidates have a long-term vision of things. I mean they have each planned to run for the Presidency for at least a decade.

    Well except for Santorum. Santorum's long term vision is to see at least 60% of our citizens go without health insurance (cause they have not earned that right), receive no SS in their old age, receive no benefits once they are laid off, receive no recompense from mortgage bundling bastards, receive no acknowledgment as members of the national labor force, receive no food stamps when they are down and out, receive no right to vote without jumping through complicated hoops and receive no consideration without getting down on their knees to Ricky's capitalist god(s).

    POST PARTISAN

    Sounds kinda French does it not?
     

     


     

     

    Comments

    Gee...all this time I thought it meant "after the party." Thanks for the heads up on the paper. I am always looking for new reads that is in my budget.

    After the party, that is for sure.

    Hangovers!


    I thought post-parmesan meant the spaghetti after you put on the cheese.  

    Looks to me there are too many over-riding commitments on your list.  Remember, you can't over-ride if you're under-funded.  

    'A bias for action' is what a tailor calls making a dress for a woman wrestler with a big bosom.

    'Compromise is the only endgame' means that if all else fails, get some credit for yourself by agreeing with the other guy to stop hitting each other with clubs.

    'Criticism needs to be well-balanced by self-criticism' means that you can call a guy a schmuck as long as you add, "I understand, I used to be one too."

    Being 'simultaneously creative and practical' is a trick axiom.  That's like saying be simultaneously brilliant and full of beans'... it's only accomplished in two ways; by 1) lying about being creative or 2) hiding all the financial records.


    This is precious.

    Hell, this is better than my blog. hahhahahah

    Thank God I now know for sure what bias for action means.


    I don't think any of the four horsemen (or others of their ilk) have uttered the words, 'I am open to and will listen to ANY who have other ideas and approaches about -insert issue-.' 

    Hmmm. But, I know I've heard that said (with, IMO, sincerity and open mind/heart) from another.  Now, let me think, who has stated this and followed thru more than once?  Hmmm.

    So many good, valid talking and thinking points dd!  Again, will copy and keep in file - no doubt to quote often.  

    Appreciate.


    Well thank you again.

    Ironically, as I write this, Larry O'Donnell is skewering Trump again.

    Larry holds nothing back and certainly would never call himself post partisan. hahahaha


    Having not taken Latin and sleeping through French and German, I took the term Post-Partisan to meant that the Washington Post was presenting partisans.


    Post Partisan, where no-one gets totally what they want, is, of course, not to be confused with Most Marzipan, in which the very rich get way too much of everything they want.  

    The 1% live in a Most Marzipan world.  The 99% can only dream of a Post Partisan world ... And it was ever thus..


    That is kind of my take on this 'category of pundit' bologna.

    Somehow that portion of the editorial staff is above it all.

    When I discovered the definition from Seeman; it sounded more like Obama's take on things--at least during his first two years.


    You might be right here.

    This is logical.

    Except it is not logical. If you have left leaning and right leaning then it would have to be Post leaning. hahhah

    Oh well...

     

     


    I think we'd all like to believe that there are certain issues that should be post-partisan; a universal need or desire, embraced and supported by everyone.  

    The trouble is, there are always b*st*rds out there that have no desire other than their own enrichment and they will take advantage of any post partisanship and f*ck us all.  


    The criteria for what is logical has dropped dramatically. Donald Trump talked about running for President. Roseanne wants to be President. Santorum is winning races. We're in a "Twilight Zone" episode.


    Latest Comments