. . . desperately need to learn (the sake of the nation and for the sake of future of the Party).
The position that the person who gives voice to our outrage holds makes a big difference in the effect.
When Keith gives voice to our anger, people come out of the woodwork because he gives them hope that they are not alone in their anger. They see
a fellow traveler in the fight. Our anger and his anger are directed at the same target: Bush and Cheney and the elected officials who are failing to stop them.
Recognizing we are not alone is energizing, but the power is muted if we don't believe that something can be done. When the outrage is given voice by
those who are in a position to do something (e.g., members of Congress who have the power to impeach)
the electrifying effect is many orders of magnitude more powerful.
Thought the following post from
Oct-18-06 Post might bear repeating here (
emphasis added)
The "strange silence" does not reflect a lack of alarm and outrageThe dismay and seething anger is all around us. But our "leaders" have failed to give voice to the outrage.
When outrage is given no voice in the public square, people tend to keep it to themselves, believing they are alone.
When no one gives voice to outrage, the floodgates remain closed. But when a public figure speaks out and taps into the energy, whoosh!
I saw a microcosm of this after the theft of the 2004 Presidential election. I was on a Democracy for America conference call. From the back and forth, it sounded like there were maybe 5 or 10 people on the line as they talked about this or that agenda item and possible things to focus on as we "learned lessons" and "moved forward." There was little energy.
As the moderator neared the end of the agenda someone piped up "What about Ohio? What about the stolen election? What does Burlington plan to do about that?" Suddenly there was a chorus. Dozens talking at once. It was unbelievable. It sounded like there were about a hundred people on the line -- people who had been "strangely silent."
If no one had given voice to the anger, no one on that call would have thought that anyone else cared -- they would have withdrawn in silence. And the "leaders" would have been able to tell themselves the stolen election just isn't something that people are interested in. They would have walked away from the call believing everyone else was on board with their "let's move on" agenda, which was the opposite of the truth. In fact, the mother lode of energy was with the "It Ain't Over 'Til it's Over!" people.
We see this over and over again in ways large and small.
The unprecedented and amazing response to Keith Olbermann's first "Special Comment" is one such event. When he gave voice to the outrage, outraged Americans came out of the woodwork in numbers that so shocked the programmers they realized the segment was such a powerful activator they replayed it several times, not just in response to demand, but to boost ratings.Whenever our leaders touch on the theft of Florida or Ohio in public appearances, whenever they tip toe anywhere near a call for impeachment, the audience bursts out in cheers and applause -- usually the loudest and longest of the event. Leaving that kind of energy untapped is political insanity.
There is enormous public support for impeachment. We can see it in the anger at Bush. We can see it in our Republican acquaintances who think Bush "needs a good spanking." We can see it in the polls . .
{confirmed again after the OP by Newsweek 10-21}Until members of Congress who are sworn to defend the Constitution speak the truth, accuse Bush and Cheney of their crimes, and take up the fight for impeachment and removal countless Americans will continue to seethe in frustration and silence, believing they are alone in a world gone mad.
As long as members of Congress fail to give our outrage a voice they can continue to believe the opposite of reality, that Americans prefer to trade away the Constitution to avoid the "negativity" of impeachment.