David Gregory is a tool, in discussing taxes with Eric Cantor he plays a clip of Obama stating that he wants to eliminate the tax loopholes available to the wealthy and then turns to Cantor he states the same thing but Gregory doesn't press him to agree that they just said the same thing and be specific..."which loopholes"...

I just love it. Eric Cantor isn't answering directly any question that David Gregory is asking.

As usual another fence sitter. And then when talking about the passage of a immigration bill he basically said it would be a (WIN)!! Meaning the republicans would get a win. Isn't it so amazing how there is such a change of face from 4 years ago when the republicans wanted everyone who wasn't born in America to be deported. What a joke. They haven't listened to Americans in over 12 years; instead just listening to those who can and do throw their money into a super pac. They only started listening and (not very well yet) to the people who've put them in office just after President Obama was re-elected.

@Tim Hainds,

Wow it's amazing how you state that David Gregory is a tool; when the Republicans have been TOOLS of the super pac's for years and are only worried about paying their fair share of taxes which they SHOULD, instead of always going after the actual working shelp, who pays more than their fair share. Talk about Tools!!

Eric Cantor, in zoning-in on family-ties, seems more astute than Oils-man Bush.

Where Maureen Dowd discusses his strokes (like back-crawl (?)) one might be forgiven for thinking of the scandal with 'entering Mrs. Galt?'

Not only do Bush's tic-tac-TOE renderings (with a seeming BOARD in tile, with WATER then 'hovering' over the less-than-'deep'-blue shower-stream...(Bush as like with a self-image as in Auschwitz (?)) implicate conflicts which aren't winnable (like his election if not stealing Florida, or a so-called war-on-terror), but that, in-spite of Maureen Dowd paying heed and compliment (hey, she also had an overview on Che Guevera in the summer, as a Lynch), that Bush didn't claim any Irish connections in his 2000 run (one of the few things going for him with me not because I dislike Ireland or the Irish but because I don't like grifting), it's underscored in the painting, because what Bush paints ISN'T a 'cracked looking-glass of a servant' ('a symbol of Irish art.')

What we SHOULD then think (and this brings us back to Cantor and what Bush seems unaware of vis-a-vis degrees-of-separation, in-spite of his dad, the Bin Ladens, and The Carlyle Group, as per that Michael Moore film (they've met, incidentally)) is that objects-in-mirror-may-be-closer-than-they-appear!!

(Maybe Bush really did think that the first plane hitting the towers was just an accident...due to over-reliance on the auto-pilot...or that he hadn't read the briefings as to not having his reading-glasses?)

Dick Durbin's parsing of ambiguity regarding sequester reception makes me think of the subtle shifts (like what he's trying to draw-out) and why concerning 'massive retaliation' to 'mutual-assured-destruction?'

Dick Durbin's focus on what others (which feminist writer it was and where I have to reflect on) might call an "agony opposition" (like an implicit un-sophie's-choice (as unwise and sounding like a 'daily double' bet regarding just the kids as amnestied but not the parents) concerning citizenship equity reminds me not just of Emma Lazarus but that Missourian, 'Tsetse': 'April is the cruelest month.'

'April showers...bring....'

(Elliott -> Eliot was focussing on the difficulty of the alone-in-a-crowded-room disconnect whereby there is life (lilacs) indifferent to the suffering which preceded it -- which then would ignore 'moral hazard' with 'anchor babies' and the like as part of a larger issue -- which both Durbin and Cantor seem on-board with, thankfully.)

In American letters, proper, the palimpsest tabula-rasa in 'The Great Gatsby' (a general amnesty, and new beginnings....like 'The White Sox,') might be a way to consider matters, symbolically?

on the drone issue i do not understand why the issue is should drones be used on americans who join the enemy, and not if americans join the enemy should they be called americans. If someone pickes up an weapon and joins the enemy in a conventional war should troops not be able to shoot at that person. I understand if we are talking about people living in the U.S. but, we are not these people have gone to another country to fight the united states, and have clearly joined the enemy

Hmm...a general sequester -- wipe the slate clean -- fiscally, AND with undocumented people within the borders, simultaneously?

Guy says of Obama 'he's changed his speech, in Nevada' -- yeah, to an untenable position, emphasizing an 'earned path towards citizenship,' whereas Jefferson invoked in the Inaugural was about 'all men are created equal' (all people are, not that rights are earned.)

Chris Rock got that and said it best when he noted that his 'dad didn't earn the right to eat at lunch counters but that white-people got less crazy,' with my then adding not-less-crazy-enough, though.

About the drone issue used on americans who join the enemy, should the issue sound more like if an american joins the enemy is that person still an american. I would understand if we were talking about drone use on americans in the united states, but that is not what everyone is saying. along those lines in a conventional war if a person picks up a weapon and joins the enemy should troops not be aloud to shoot at that person. to end the point i do not fell that if someone joins the enemy to fight the US they should be called american

Katty Kay seems to present Congress being informed as a secondary matter.

She doesn't seem to understand that under the American constitutional jurisprudence, virtually NOTHING comes between Congress and what it wants to investigate.

It HAS to be well-informed so as to be able to legislate.

THAT was why McCarthy's antics were otherwise so unstoppable, as that his approach was based on that which is otherwise sacrosanct.

Where the guy now says that Obama takes nothing more seriously than being 'commander in chief,' um, how many US personnel are there?

I agree with the view of that person who said that 'the president is not my commander-in-chief.'

The point is CIVILIAN control of the military, anyway.

We don't want a Barracks emperor regime, right?

I think Obama has given more carte-blanche to the military first-term as being like a neophyte mashgiah working with experienced caterers, and didn't want to ruffle feathers?

Blackstone writes about a Roman case without equity which then became a model for how to have it by correcting the defects:

In Rome there had to be notification as to new laws and regulations. Some thought to put new laws in fine-print atop long poles, and then to claim people had been informed.

(Not if they CAN'T read the notification -- as opposed to where it's POSSIBLE to do so but arbitrary as to where -- I seem to remember how Blackstone is implicating that government can use its own Gazette and not have to put matters on the front page of the NYTimes, with all due respect to Maureen Dowd -- but it must be PUBLIC, and not a mere internal memo, the notification, or REGULAR as needed to be (but hasn't yet been) in my own case, and not a random pitch, so to speak, of doubtful reliability.)

So, as to all such matters treat of EQUITY, of POLES, and of modes of information conveyance and propriety (one thinks, what with Illinois themes with the president and Dick Durbin, of the strip-o-GRAM in 'Ferris Bueller' (and what's not quite spelled out) with '...so now I'm here to restore your pluck, cuz I'm the nurse who likes to....')

Given Eric Cantor's citations, we want an end to POLE-GRAMS?

(We want EQUITY, in other words.)

Hmmm....Bush in the mirror as like Cameron in the museum, with that painting?

(And then that actor's portrayal (like Bush, out of office) had to jostle for notice in SPITE of holding the command on the Enterprise-B?)

George W Bush (as having 'Dubya' traits) as Not-Carbon-Copy 41B?

Why are we discussing bombing/killing Americans who have joined the enemy or terrorist group? Last time I checked an American who joins the enemy becomes a traitor and is no longer an American! We need to be discussing what are the implications of using drones to bomb terrorists groups in other countries without their government's consent.

So Bush W, as like Cameron, in 'Ferris Bueller' (a little RUSTY though, in spite of not being Ferris) looking at the painting (in the rear-view-mirror, and objects-in-the-mirror-may-be-closer-than-they-appear -- as what's closest, one's relatives, as implicated) as then like Cameron in wrecking the car (if not bus -- had to still work for Mr. Rooney to ride-in) as like wrecking the country, so that his dad will have to deal with him?

Cautiously, though, Bush sends it to his sister, first, as a kind of try-out, to see what she thinks, rather than directly to his dad?

Why such Bush imagery with a rear-view-mirror?

(He's haunted by his D W I, and is clinging to the false-hope that taking a shower can restore sobriety? You know, the false-hope like as entertained in 'Ferris Bueller,' that turning to the 'Obamater' (and her 3AM instruction on civics) is a policy-option we might consider outside of magic-realism (in negative aspects) of 'The West Wing' with an apparitional Mrs. Landingham (fortunately that did not continue as a conceit.) No Number Six was she, nor Marlovianly effective was that.)

Warren S. Levine...hmm...just curious, vying for the 'not less crazy enough' award?