From The Illusion of Asymmetric Insight, by David McRaney



Link:
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/08/21/the...

Via Barry Ritholz's blog:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog /

This is important. Her fighting spirit, and voters' approval of it, can create room for other top Democrats to take a tougher stance, too.

And, no, that does NOT mean everyone on up to the President can or should start telling people to "go to hell."

Rep. Waters can take the heat for being the "angry radical" or "firebrand" in this discussion, while others simply make the strategic and tactical decision to be more provocative, more confrontational while still remaining polite or nice or whatever standard of decorum they feel it necessary to maintain.

Because provocative and confrontational are NOT dirty bad tewwible tewwible words.

It is possible to be provocative by speaking the plain, hard truth.

It is possible to be confrontational simply by saying, "You're flat-out wrong, and here's why..."

That's how you get a political message out, how you promote one party over another. And, in the long run, how you start to get policy enacted.

Not by asking permission to disagree, or apologizing for having a different opinion, or couching criticisms with kind words about how sincere and well-meaning and gosh just all-sortsa kindhearted your opponent is... when he's not busy destroying all that we hold dear.

But by laying it on the line, and giving voters a clear choice to make.

This is a basic, basic component of political messaging, as Rep. Waters is well aware. Lets hope she will continue to tell it like it is, and that other Democrats will profit from the opportunity she has presented.

"...Your loving son, Queen Victoria."

...referred to "the fourth and final paragraph" of Klugman's blog entry?

It makes no sense at all.

It reads as an insult, if anything.

Now you attempt, lamely, to add further insult with the "grandstanding" jibe.



Epic flail.

And that's exactly my worry: that desperate, increasingly angry flailing, is all that remains for far too many of Pres. Obama's supporters.

For far too many others, what remains is alienation and grief.

Is this any way mobilize support for a candidate? Is it?

...and are just kind of contemplating right now, rather than commenting?



It seems that a lot of people across America, not just progressives, are doing some soul-searching these days, regarding just that: Who will rise to the occasion?

No, that doesn't mean they're giving republicans another look, nor a third party, necessarily.

But if it's true what Krugman says (and it's an argument made often here on DU), that people were "blind to the warning signs" or mistakenly projected their own hopes and desires onto Mr. Obama's candidacy...

Well, if that's true, I imagine they might be hardening their hearts a bit right now, and vowing not to be taken in again.

Which doesn't sound like a fertile place for cultivating support in 2012.

Whether we like it or not, that's the way it is.

You simply have to be provocative and confrontational to get the invites and news coverage in general.

An no, folks, those are not dirty bad tewwible tewwible words.

It is possible to be provocative by speaking the plain, hard truth.

It is possible to be confrontational simply by saying, "You're flat-out wrong, and here's why..."

That's how you make the newscast, or the paper or whatever else.

Not by asking permission to disagree, or apologizing for having a different opinion, or couching criticisms with kind words about how sincere and well-meaning and gosh just plain kindhearted your opponent is.

This is a basic, basic component of political messaging.

(Another being, keep your answers short: say what you mean to say and then shut up until the reporter asks another question.)

Too many Democrats are unwilling or unable to do what the situation, what the REALITY of political and media life, requires.

And we're all paying the price.

or any of the sidling-up-quietly sort of language we often hear. No, flat-out CUTS.



P.S. Have you seen their Board of Trustees? Golly, it's hard to imagine why they don't share much enthusiasm for Social Security and Medicare!



Link:
http://www.thirdway.org/trustees

...whoever that might be... that I'm worried about.

It's the most ardent supporters who simply refuse to acknowledge the reality, the political reality, on the ground: GOTV is difficult, damned difficult, in this climate.

And scolding harangues accomplish nothing, except to increase the general sense of alienation present just about everywhere, from political message boards to the potential voters we need to persuade.

Some here seem to believe that screaming, in essence, "you're an idiot now shut up and vote the way I tell you!" is going to be a winning campaign argument... if only they scream it a little louder and a little more often. We've all seen how well that's working out so far: not well at all.

Others of us have seen the reality on the ground for a long time now, and have tried to sound the warning. All we've gotten for our efforts has been a long and growing list of put-downs:

- Fringe
- Far Left
- Haters
- Leftbaggers
- Professional Left
- Whiners
- Virulent screamers and hand-wringers
- Emo (the latest, and possibly most laughable, entrant)

(Basically, the same reaction we get from the right-wing, who practically spit when they say the word liberal.)

But guess what? The same doubts and fears expressed routinely here on DU are fully present among the voters out there on Main Street in Anytown, USA, too. Doubts and fears that can't be assuaged with instructions to Chill the Fuck Out, nor any of the other techniques of the most ardent supporters.

Those doubts and fears need to be met with solid accomplishments as well as, like it or not, believable gut-level rhetoric that makes it clear to voters who is on their side and will continue to press for their interests to be served.

So far, also like it or not, that's not the message that's out there in the minds of the electorate. Yes, I've seen the "85% support" poll. I've also seen its flaws. But, more importantly, we've all seen the results in January 2010 in Massachusetts. In November 2010 nationwide.

And now November 2012 is looming. There's too much at stake to indulge in denialism any longer. Too much at stake to throw away a big segment of voters who may seem "unreasonable" to some here... but who desperately need a reason to feel engaged and valued, nonetheless.

Futile as it may seem.

Has "DU" maintained that these programs will be ended?

Should those who oppose tampering with these programs remain silent while the decision-making process moves forward?

Will you ever have the courtesy to thank the activists for their willingness to play a part in the process, as best they can, even though it seems to earn them nothing but scorn from the sidelines?

None of the so-called triggers, should the committee deadlock, include automatic tax hikes.

I don't think the word "tax" even appears in the bill approved by the House today.

So... if the committee "fails"... what puts tax increases on the table?

The steely-eyed, iron-jawed resolve of Congressional Democrats?

Several more utterances of the word "bipartisan" by Pres. Obama?

Sparkles the magic unicorn?

What?

... to the principled critics on the Left... when they were warning us all, well ahead of time, that the mood among the voters had soured to the point of toxicity.

They refused to listen.

They learned nothing from the special Senate election in Massachusetts in January 2010.

Learned nothing from November 2010.

And now seem intent on losing in 2012.

They've taken the wrong path from the very start, choosing passivity, pitifully reduced expectations, and an utterly hollow notion of "bipartisanship" that has utterly squandered the years of work that put Democrats in control of the House, the Senate and the White House.

It's been a disaster, a failure of both strategy and tactics, to this very date.

And now they want to re-write our own, very recent, history? It's ludicrous, like Sarah Palin telling us the "real" history of Paul Revere.

Raise the debt ceiling to get us to 2013, yes or no. Period, the end.