Lawrence O'Donnell tears GOP Congressman a new one. For real

[Gil Hamilton]

I really loved it when she complained about the healthcare system...and then didn't know how much money she made or how her healthcare plan is made up.

So either she is really dumb or she is lying in order to satisfy her partisan agenda. I'd suspect the latter except that some people really are stupid.

I suspect the former. She seems like someone who spouted some empty rhetoric to Arlen Specter and got her 15 minutes without actually understanding the issue or knowing very much. This happens alot in the media today. Fortunately, they usually disappear and don't pull a Joe the Plumber.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I really loved it when she complained about the healthcare system...and then didn't know how much money she made or how her healthcare plan is made up.

So either she is really dumb or she is lying in order to satisfy her partisan agenda. I'd suspect the latter except that some people really are stupid.

I suspect the former. She seems like someone who spouted some empty rhetoric to Arlen Specter and got her 15 minutes without actually understanding the issue or knowing very much. This happens alot in the media today. Fortunately, they usually disappear and don't pull a Joe the Plumber.

They won't, your average war veteran actually believes that they brought freedom and democracy to Iraq, I have no doubt the majority of soldiers in the brass believe it too.

[Themightytom]

That study does not say they don't understand you cognitively, it says

The brain registers the conflict between data and desire and begins to search for ways to turn off the spigot of unpleasant emotion.

Its not referring to an inhibited cognition comprehension. Cognitive processes are taking place, but an emotional response is generating a defense mechanism.

My gods you're dense, that sentence describes how the brain usually reacts. Read the very next fucking paragraph:

You think the "political brain" is some kind of abnormal brain process? THey are describing a process applicable to anyone with deepset beliefs or patterns of behavior. The purpose of this study isn'tt to examine human behavior as a whole, it is to examine political partisans. That doesn't mean "political brains are abnormal":wtf:

Not only did the brain manage to shut down distress through faulty reasoning, but it did so quickly—as best we could tell, usually before subjects even made it to the third slide. The neural circuits charged with regulation of emotional states seemed to recruit beliefs that eliminated the distress and conflict partisans had experienced when they confronted unpleasant realities. And this all seemed to happen with little involvement of the neural circuits normally involved in reasoning.

But the political brain also did something we didn’t predict. Once partisans had found a way to reason to false conclusions, not only did neural circuits involved in negative emotions turn off, but circuits involved in positive emotions turned on. The partisan brain didn’t seem satisfied in just feeling better. It worked overtime to feel good, activating reward circuits that give partisans a jolt of positive reinforcement for their biased reasoning. These reward circuits overlap substantially with those activated when drug addicts get their “fix,” giving new meaning to the term political junkie.

In other words, twit, their brains fail to register any cognitive disconnect at the outset and then reward them for this failure. It doesn't matter if the response is emotional, the people in question cannot comprehend that they are wrong. It cannot be done.

On the contrary, they determine on the outset that they "might" be wrong and immediately act to circumvent continued reasoning in order to avoid unraveling schema upon which the threatened reasoning is based. That recognition is a cognitive process, most likely tempered by experiental prediction. The quote you posed clearly says that there was "little involvement" of neural circuits, NOT none. You CAN reason with people as long as you either avoid triggering their defense mechanisms, or redirect and reframe those responses.

What the hell is the genesis of the term "Cognitive Disconnect" ? It sounds like you are trying to say people aren't processing information, when the defense mechanism clearly demonstrates information is being processed to some extent. The defense mechanism is protecting against "cognitive dissonance" is that what you are referring to? I would agree that the brain is taking steps to avert cognitive dissonance.

Then again if there's a clinical term I am not familiar with it would probably be good to learn about it before I go plowing into it on a case file, so if you have a source I would be grateful.

YES! The Democrats have a massive majority everywhere you look and have (had) rock solid backing. SO WHY ARE YOU CATERING TO A MINORITY WHICH YOU CAN JUST AS EASILY IGNORE AND LEAVE ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD LIKE ROAD KILL!? You don't need to win the Republicans over, there's nothing there that should make you want to win them over either. Instead of fighting for those morons ignore them, keep the "middle" in your camp by showing them to be a bunch of lying sons of bitches, and get this fucking bill passed. End of story.

Straha, not even all of the DEMOCRATS were behind the bill, did you forget all the crap about the "blue dogs"? Moreover if the republicans aren't involved in the process, they can continue to harp on the president's lack of bipartisanship, blame him for everything that could go wrong and paint him has a typical big spender who accomplishes nothing. The PROGRAM will endure, after all social security and Medicare have been normalized for the most part, but the political entity will suffer the stigma at a critical time. if the democrats could pull off 12-16 years of dominance, than they could safely discredit the republicans, because a new generation would have been socialized into their ideology. That’s what I mean when I say shift the debate". That’s what Republicans are talking about when they use the term "Orwellian". Ramming through ideas until the opposition is forgotten.

Maintain a rapport?! Build alignment!? THE DIE HARD RIGHT ARE IDIOTS! NOTHING YOU DO WILL WIN THEM OVER! THE ONLY THING THAT WILL ALIGN YOU WITH THEM IS DROPPING HEALTHCARE! Any compromise is a failure to the American people, and an utterly unnecessary one because of the huge majority the Democrats have!

They all have agendas that you can identify. Right to life wants to be sure that tax money isn't spent on abortion. Well their followers LOSE that strident argument when you point out that the money that ISN'T being spent on baby killing is being spent on starting wars and executing criminals, both of which are associated Republican tendencies.

At the very least you can point out to them that the Republicans aren't the bastions of morality they want to pretend to be. in the resulting confusion, or "cognitive dissonance" You can point out that this is why there is separation of church and state, because they are two different conceptual models, one applies to running a society practically here on earth, one applies to an individual's conduct during his or her own life according to his or her own moral values.

When you do this you don't even have to connect the dots for them, typically they respond "Well its all just politics but..." as though their acknowledging that their deepest emotionally charged beliefs are just so much cannon fodder for a politician. You can manipulate the cognitive dissonance by directing it back at the source. If the representative of a fringe element is sitting their scratching his head and questioning his beliefs, either his followers are doing the same, or they are already discrediting their leadership and looking for a new spokesperson. They've been scraping the bottom of the barrel. if you just bulldog them, they can make technical excuses. "Well I knew what I was going to say but those darn MSNBC people let this guy walk all over me. No one's listening to reason!"

this is the reason why Democrats are such failures at government. Because when given a position of total control they immediately start compromising and trying to find a golden mean with all the opposition instead of telling them they're wrong and actually god damn legislating!

They aren't failures! Who told you that?? Democrats have sponsored some of the best programs in our country. They are constantly painted as weak and pedantic by Republicans, and I think you're still smarting over the bullfuckery Bush pulled off, first "beating" Al Gore and second "beating" John Kerry. They were both not very charismatic candidates, yet they both had incredibly close elections. Obama avoided that by effectively galvanizing the country but we're talking elections, not governance. What are some examples of Democrats failing where they could have easily succeeded?

Strategically choosing core issues and validating the sentiment while reframing the statement gets your opponent to begin verbalizing agreement with YOUR sentiments as though they were theirs. Lawrence was doing this fairly effectively with Katie, She wasn't even fighting him at the end, she was giving ground, which undermines the position she represents fantastically, in the eyes of both moderates AND in the people who tuned in to watch her make her points.

Because she was a flipping retard and he had her on the defensive by being an aggressive questioner. But do you think any Republican was won over by that argument? You think she was won over to his side? No. The man in the middle saw she was a retard when he blew her position to smithereens in the opening of the interview. That's the man the Democrats have to keep in their corner.

She presents no evidence of mental retardation
She wasn't agreeing with him, but she was acknowledging that her beliefs were lacking, that’s a step in the right direction, and the manner in which he did it, didn't alienate her from other viewpoints.

Yes, that makes me cringe. But I've talked with these people. You can't win them over. But you know what the great thing is? You don't have to. Ignore them and move on. They'll get healthcare once it's over and then you just have to wait for it to become status quo and fight that battle. Pierre Trudeau did it in Canada, and Barack Obama can do that here.

What are you referring to when you say "Trudeau did it" was he famous for pushing through legislation? All I can find is that he got a no confidence vote which he appears to have engineered and had no compuction about riding roughshod over others, nothing about healthcare reform.

Obama probably doesn’t have the support he needs to act unilaterally, because his OWN party isn’t in lockstep. If he tried to pull that he would open up a shitstorm that would dog him for four years.

I don't think right wing conservatives are beyond reach, providing an appropriate strategy is used to address them. . Republicans are going to play political games no matter what we do, but if we shift the debate as far to the left as possible and cultivate an environment of thoughtful discussion, they're going to have to back up their "alternatives" to democratic proposals, which means they will have to actually think about them and present a rational case.

SPELL CHECK BEFORE YOU POST! For fucks sake.

Sorry about that.

And before you were arguing that we should go to them and try to establish a "rapore", now you're saying shift the debate as far left as possible? Make up your mind and come back with a proper response.

[/quote]

Rapport doesn't require lock-step agreement, it requires understanding. The two goals are not at all mutually exclusive unless you're only debate tactic is to CRUSH you're opponent rather than persuade them. I can understand that Katie would be concerned about escalating taxes that she can't afford to pay. By pointing out that these taxes won't be put on her shoulders, but rather the shoulders of those who can afford it, I maintain my rapport with her but have changed the argument in her mind to whether or not UHC is something that we need in our country versus whether its something we can afford. Lawrence did that with her, pulling the argument onto solid ground. With the Senator he did not build any rapport. he established from the onset that this would be an adversarial and confrontational argument. it escalated from there, and while you and I are able to see that his points could not be addressed, the senator can go home and tell his constituents he had a rebuttal prepared but was not permitted to air it.

Hell Lawrence missed dropping the A bomb of healthcare debate. The senator opposed prescription drug coverage but would have voted for Medicare? THAT’S a giant flying waste, you can pay a doctor to tell someone what’s wrong with them but they still can’t afford to get the meds to treat it? That’s downright cruel, and wasteful, and it sets the stage for the scale of reform that needs to happen, we can’t do it piecemeal, we need comprehensive coverage with no gaps. When you bulldog someone you not only give them the opportunity to call technical fouls but you miss golden opportunities too.

[Straha]

Yes, that makes me cringe. But I've talked with these people. You can't win them over. But you know what the great thing is? You don't have to. Ignore them and move on. They'll get healthcare once it's over and then you just have to wait for it to become status quo and fight that battle. Pierre Trudeau did it in Canada, and Barack Obama can do that here.

Actually Straha credit goes to Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson and Tommy Douglass in 1966, Trudeau didn't become PM until 1968.

Yes, but IIRC (and I'll gladly admit to possibly misremembering because it's been quite some time since I studied this) there were a number of pushes to change, modify or overturn Medicare in Canada and Trudeau was the one who was able to quash those until it became status quo and showed itself to be a major success, partially due to his intense popularity. That's what I'm talking about here, if Harry Reid/Pelosi/Hoyer can get the bill passed then Obama can defend it for 2-6 years until it can't be ripped asunder anymore.

You think the "political brain" is some kind of abnormal brain process? THey are describing a process applicable to anyone with deepset beliefs or patterns of behavior. The purpose of this study isn'tt to examine human behavior as a whole, it is to examine political partisans. That doesn't mean "political brains are abnormal":wtf:

Edit your posts before you post them. There's a button down there labeled "preview". Hit it, read over what you've written. Cringe appropriately, and then edit what you've said.

And yes, this process does apply only to people with deep set beliefs or patterns of behavior. You ever try to convince a creationist to abandon their beliefs? Or an addicted gambler that roulette is a losing game? Or an astrologer that there's no evidence for the planets controlling our actions? I have. It's hopeless then, and just as hopeless with the far right now. So fuck 'em, because the Democrats don't need them and then move on.

On the contrary, they determine on the outset that they "might" be wrong and immediately act to circumvent continued reasoning in order to avoid unraveling schema upon which the threatened reasoning is based. That recognition is a cognitive process, most likely tempered by experiental prediction. The quote you posed clearly says that there was "little involvement" of neural circuits, NOT none. You CAN reason with people as long as you either avoid triggering their defense mechanisms, or redirect and reframe those responses.

No, they don't. Reading comprehension isn't your forte either I see. There is a immediate gut reaction offering a justification and then pleasure for that justification. There is no mid-step with "maybe I'm wrong..." it's immediate, emotional and unthinking. Just like how the brain makes most split-second decisions first and rationalizes them later, the 'thinking' is post hoc and fuzzy at best. If you want a perfectly good example of this happening go look at the thread with Bill O'Reilly on the Canadian system. Someone sends him an e-mail asking why Canadians have a longer life expectancy than Americans if their health care system is so bad, and he responds, without missing a beat, "Because there are more Americans."

Straha, not even all of the DEMOCRATS were behind the bill, did you forget all the crap about the "blue dogs"?

I know about the Blue Dogs. I also know the Democrats have a sixty seat majority in the senate and can crack the whip on quite a few of the people who are coming up for re-election (Kirsten Gilibrand and Arlen Specter to name just two) in the name of party discipline. All the Democrats need is 50 votes to get this through, and they could have had that vote if they weren't such cowards.

Moreover if the republicans aren't involved in the process, they can continue to harp on the president's lack of bipartisanship, blame him for everything that could go wrong and paint him has a typical big spender who accomplishes nothing.

And how is that different from what they're doing now? If the Democrats forced this through then they'd be able to point out a success to their supporters at least. But as it stands they've got nothing. Whoop-de-shit.

The PROGRAM will endure, after all social security and Medicare have been normalized for the most part, but the political entity will suffer the stigma at a critical time. if the democrats could pull off 12-16 years of dominance, than they could safely discredit the republicans, because a new generation would have been socialized into their ideology. That’s what I mean when I say shift the debate". That’s what Republicans are talking about when they use the term "Orwellian". Ramming through ideas until the opposition is forgotten.

The program will endure once it's passed into legislation. Once it's there it won't go away. It has to get there first, and this is not how to get it there.

They all have agendas that you can identify. Right to life wants to be sure that tax money isn't spent on abortion. Well their followers LOSE that strident argument when you point out that the money that ISN'T being spent on baby killing is being spent on starting wars and executing criminals, both of which are associated Republican tendencies.

Do you think if you went out there and found a fundamentalist who was against this program and showed how money isn't going to abortion doctors that they'd suddenly switch sides? No. The Right to Lifers will say this is just the tip of the iceberg, and wait a few years until the liberals expand on this issue. The Sarah Palin "death panelists" will say that sure there might be no death panels now, but wait until the system is clogged with people and is running way over budget, then you'll have death panels for sure. Even the fiscal conservatives, when shown that universal healthcare is cheaper than our system, will point out that Medicare in America has over a third of its budget spent fraudulently in parts of the country and question the wisdom of increasing spending on fraud. With them the cause is lost. Move on.

At the very least you can point out to them that the Republicans aren't the bastions of morality they want to pretend to be. in the resulting confusion, or "cognitive dissonance" You can point out that this is why there is separation of church and state, because they are two different conceptual models, one applies to running a society practically here on earth, one applies to an individual's conduct during his or her own life according to his or her own moral values.

My gods... you are a blithering idiot, aren't you?

They aren't failures! Who told you that??

The Democrats have had legislative control for two and a half years. Name one unequivocal success of their own making in that time frame.

She presents no evidence of mental retardation

I can't tell if you're joking or not here.

What are you referring to when you say "Trudeau did it" was he famous for pushing through legislation? All I can find is that he got a no confidence vote which he appears to have engineered and had no compuction about riding roughshod over others, nothing about healthcare reform.

See above. And look up Trudeaumania.

Obama probably doesn’t have the support he needs to act unilaterally, because his OWN party isn’t in lockstep. If he tried to pull that he would open up a shitstorm that would dog him for four years.

He doesn't need all of his party. He has the house securely tied down with liberals, and he needs but 50 votes in the senate. With that, he's set. And do you see this shitstorm? It's going to dog him for four years unless he gets this bill passed.

RapportWith the Senator he did not build any rapport. he established from the onset that this would be an adversarial and confrontational argument. it escalated from there, and while you and I are able to see that his points could not be addressed, the senator can go home and tell his constituents he had a rebuttal prepared but was not permitted to air it.

Those constituents don't matter. They don't need to be won over. They don't need to be brought over. Their support is unnecessary. Let them think the liberal media is crushing them, just as long as you get the damn bill passed.

Hell Lawrence missed dropping the A bomb of healthcare debate. The senator opposed prescription drug coverage but would have voted for Medicare? THAT’S a giant flying waste, you can pay a doctor to tell someone what’s wrong with them but they still can’t afford to get the meds to treat it? That’s downright cruel, and wasteful, and it sets the stage for the scale of reform that needs to happen, we can’t do it piecemeal, we need comprehensive coverage with no gaps. When you bulldog someone you not only give them the opportunity to call technical fouls but you miss golden opportunities too.

And the middle of the road viewer of the program caught that. That middle third of American politics, the people Barack Obama and the Democrats do need, saw that program and came away with the impression that the Senator was a self-serving hypocrite more interested in political protection than his ideology. That middle third is won over by interviews like that. They are not won over where you play nice, don't argue and try to build a rapport with a rabid raving loon. Then they think the other side has a valid argument too and go for the Golden Mean in between, whatever it may be.


Addendum: If your next post isn't edited, run through a spellchecker, and mostly coherent I'm not going to respond until it is.

[Simon_Jester]

Re: Straha
None of what's written below is meant to contradict your argument that we should push to "get the damn bill passed." But a group whose basic PR strategy is "fuck 'em, we don't need 'em" isn't going to last long no matter how good the results it delivers are, so we need something more than that.

And yes, this process does apply only to people with deep set beliefs or patterns of behavior. You ever try to convince a creationist to abandon their beliefs? Or an addicted gambler that roulette is a losing game? Or an astrologer that there's no evidence for the planets controlling our actions? I have. It's hopeless then, and just as hopeless with the far right now. So fuck 'em, because the Democrats don't need them and then move on.

It's very likely that we do need at least the people who are on the fringe of our side of their camp, or the fringe of their side of our camp... and so we still need a "convince" tool in the arsenal.

The fact that the Democrats won a large majority in the last election is not proof that 60% of the country thinks exactly like you, which would give you carte blanche to ignore what everyone else thinks. It's proof that the bell curve has shifted over to your end of the spectrum, but that couldn't have happened if it weren't for the fact that lots of people were temporarily convinced to support the Democrats by the manifest failure of the Republicans. That support is not eternal, and it can't be maintained in the face of propaganda if our preferred stance towards people who disagree with us is "fuck 'em, we don't need 'em, move on."

The Republicans, despite their heavy reliance on Dark Side epistemology, despite the obvious irrationality found in both their followers and their leaders, were smart enough to figure this out. When they had the upper hand, they pressed it as far as it would go. They were constantly scrambling for wedge issues that they could use to slice off chunks of the Democrats' right wing, and they had a lot of success with doing that.

No, they don't. Reading comprehension isn't your forte either I see. There is a immediate gut reaction offering a justification and then pleasure for that justification. There is no mid-step with "maybe I'm wrong..." it's immediate, emotional and unthinking. Just like how the brain makes most split-second decisions first and rationalizes them later, the 'thinking' is post hoc and fuzzy at best. If you want a perfectly good example of this happening go look at the thread with Bill O'Reilly on the Canadian system. Someone sends him an e-mail asking why Canadians have a longer life expectancy than Americans if their health care system is so bad, and he responds, without missing a beat, "Because there are more Americans."

OK. So don't argue with Bill O'Reilly. Argue with somebody who occasionally watches his show but thinks he's kind of a dick and doesn't always make sense but has some good points.

Don't argue with Slimy Republican Congressman #47, argue with Idiot* Town Hall Lady. Town Hall Lady may be clueless, but she appears to at least have some clue that there are people who know more than she does. If such people are polite, they may actually be able to get worthwhile information to her. Unlike Slimy Republican Congressman, she has no direct personal stake in refusing to admit that you have a point other than the jolt of pleasure she gets from doing so. And that jolt of pleasure can clearly be overridden in at least some cases, or it would never be possible to convince anyone of anything ever.

Of course, that may not work... but there are a lot of people who know as little about all this as Idiot Town Hall Lady without being as wrapped up in propaganda as she is, as proven by the fact that those people don't drive to town hall meetings with the purpose of delivering a vague, buzzword-laden philippic against public health care. They're the real targets of all this.

*In this case, we have a double reason to use "idiot" rather than related words for stupidity, because of the Greek origins of "idiot" as in "one who is too clueless to exercise good judgement in politics."

[Aaron]

Yes, but IIRC (and I'll gladly admit to possibly misremembering because it's been quite some time since I studied this) there were a number of pushes to change, modify or overturn Medicare in Canada and Trudeau was the one who was able to quash those until it became status quo and showed itself to be a major success, partially due to his intense popularity. That's what I'm talking about here, if Harry Reid/Pelosi/Hoyer can get the bill passed then Obama can defend it for 2-6 years until it can't be ripped asunder anymore.

Well, the only thing I've been able to find about Trudeau and health care was that his government introduced the Canada Health Act in 1983 which passed unanimously, it dealt with changes to the billing. I see your point now though, I'll not derail the thread further.

[Straha]

Re: Straha
None of what's written below is meant to contradict your argument that we should push to "get the damn bill passed." But a group whose basic PR strategy is "fuck 'em, we don't need 'em" isn't going to last long no matter how good the results it delivers are, so we need something more than that.

I agree wholeheartedly in principle. When it comes to this bill, however, "Fuck 'em, we don't need 'em" fits, because at the end of the day you don't need them except if you want to compromise, and any compromise is going to hurt the bill and the American people.

What I say here applies almost solely to the health care initiative, and I acknowledge that applying it universally would not be a good idea, at all.

It's very likely that we do need at least the people who are on the fringe of our side of their camp, or the fringe of their side of our camp... and so we still need a "convince" tool in the arsenal.

I agree, in theory. I disagree with the current practice of it. There should be a convince tool in the arsenal, it should be brought out for the people in the middle and it should be shown that Universal Healthcare is A. Cheaper than the current system, B. Fairer than the current system, C. More efficient and less prone to fraud than the current system, and D. Needed very very direly. Using those arguments with middle of the road voters could, I think, prove very very persuasive.

But, when confronted with people like the slimy congressmen or the lady when she was at the town hall I think it's counterproductive to attempt to convince them. Partially because doing so will get you nowhere with them, but also because when you sit down and debate them you lend your legitimacy to them. So now the moderate thinks that both sides have a valid argument and might lean either way or go for the middle ground. It's like debating Birthers or Truthers, merely by giving them the time of day you offer them some sort of legitimacy, and I think it's wise to avoid giving legitimacy to the people whose response to Health Care is "This will make us Russia!" If you must confront these people instead of using the "convince" tool use the "obliterate" tool. Show them to be baseless, mindless ideologues who argue out of gut instinct instead of fact and most of the moderates will stick with you.

The fact that the Democrats won a large majority in the last election is not proof that 60% of the country thinks exactly like you, which would give you carte blanche to ignore what everyone else thinks. It's proof that the bell curve has shifted over to your end of the spectrum, but that couldn't have happened if it weren't for the fact that lots of people were temporarily convinced to support the Democrats by the manifest failure of the Republicans. That support is not eternal, and it can't be maintained in the face of propaganda if our preferred stance towards people who disagree with us is "fuck 'em, we don't need 'em, move on."

See above. When the Democrats were elected there was all sorts of polling data indicating that Health Care was a primary concern in the voting public. Having been elected to fix health care I believe the Democrats should get off their butts and actually fix the damn thing, instead of acting like a bunch of wallowing pigs. This mandate does not exist for other heavily left ideologies, like affirmative action for instance, but it certainly does for health care just as it did for economic stimulus.

The Republicans, despite their heavy reliance on Dark Side epistemology, despite the obvious irrationality found in both their followers and their leaders, were smart enough to figure this out. When they had the upper hand, they pressed it as far as it would go. They were constantly scrambling for wedge issues that they could use to slice off chunks of the Democrats' right wing, and they had a lot of success with doing that.

That's true. The flip side is that the Republicans were much more united than the democrats. It's very hard to win people over from the other side when your party is a barely organized rabble that can only just put one foot in front of the other. Further, I'm not talking about not convincing the moderate right, my argument, in short, is that any debate or attempt at compromise with the right and far right is pointless and detrimental, and thus it shouldn't be tried and they should instead be either ignored or shown to be lying hypocritical bastards that most of them are.

Of course, that may not work... but there are a lot of people who know as little about all this as Idiot Town Hall Lady without being as wrapped up in propaganda as she is, as proven by the fact that those people don't drive to town hall meetings with the purpose of delivering a vague, buzzword-laden philippic against public health care. They're the real targets of all this.

Yes. They should be targeted and persuaded over, and I'm all for that. (I'm sort of, kind of, a member of that crowd myself.) But to engage in polite debate with the far right wing doesn't help win them over.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I really loved it when she complained about the healthcare system...and then didn't know how much money she made or how her healthcare plan is made up.

So either she is really dumb or she is lying in order to satisfy her partisan agenda. I'd suspect the latter except that some people really are stupid.

I suspect the former. She seems like someone who spouted some empty rhetoric to Arlen Specter and got her 15 minutes without actually understanding the issue or knowing very much. This happens alot in the media today. Fortunately, they usually disappear and don't pull a Joe the Plumber.

They won't, your average war veteran actually believes that they brought freedom and democracy to Iraq, I have no doubt the majority of soldiers in the brass believe it too.

Woah, WTF I was sure I had put this response in the Afghan Starving Women thread.

[Themightytom]

Edit your posts before you post them. There's a button down there labeled "preview". Hit it, read over what you've written. Cringe appropriately, and then edit what you've said.

Actually this was edited word by word... which is VERY time consuming for someone who is legally blind and touch-types... and THEN through Microsoft word. I cringed a lot. I suppose I will cringe some more. I’m starting to think I need a beta editor for life.

And yes, this process does apply only to people with deep set beliefs or patterns of behavior. You ever try to convince a creationist to abandon their beliefs? Or an addicted gambler that roulette is a losing game? Or an astrologer that there's no evidence for the planets controlling our actions? I have. It's hopeless then and just as hopeless with the far right now. So fuck 'em, because the Democrats don't need them and then move on.

Rolling with resistance is a strategy developed for use in counseling recovering addicts. It WILL work properly applied and regularly with a gambling addict as a component of a motivational interviewing regimen. The problem is you are not deeply invested in helping someone else to change. Fair enough, it’s not necessarily your responsibility. If you decided to take your gambling addict on as a pet project, and took the time to become well versed in such strategies I have no doubt you COULD help them to see reason.

Your other two examples are not examples of addictive behaviors and admittedly represent more of a challenge. You CAN convince a creationist to subscribe to evolution as long as you don't try to yank the WHOLE carpet out from under them. Pointing out that their belief in a God does not necessarily require that they turn their back on science protects their core belief and allows you to address the more obvious target. By all means, maintain that rapport and someday maybe you can challenge their conceptions of a higher power, but you are not being realistic in expecting YOUR conversations to be persuasive enough to change someone else's fundamental beliefs.

As a third alternative, to either applying consistent strategic rebuttal, or to addressing secondary arguments before going for the real thing, you could just compromise. I know what you're talking about with astrologists, pseudo science is maddening. My Kung Fu instructor is always talking about Chi kung and Reiki. The two of us have established that I am not interested in that and continue to learn martial arts from him without subscribing to Whole Of Eastern Philosophy.

No, they don't. Reading comprehension isn't your forte either I see. There is an immediate gut reaction offering a justification and then pleasure for that justification. There is no mid-step with "maybe I'm wrong..." it's immediate, emotional and unthinking. Just like how the brain makes most split-second decisions first and rationalizes them later, the 'thinking' is post hoc and fuzzy at best. If you want a perfectly good example of this happening go look at the thread with Bill O'Reilly on the Canadian system. Someone sends him an e-mail asking why Canadians have a longer life expectancy than Americans if their health care system is so bad, and he responds, without missing a beat, "Because there are more Americans."

The "gut reaction" you refer to is an initial cognitive process. I ASSUME you don't actually think it takes place in your gut. All you have to do is ensure that the gut reaction isn't more hostile than it needs to be.

I know about the Blue Dogs. I also know the Democrats have a sixty seat majority in the senate and can crack the whip on quite a few of the people who are coming up for re-election (Kirsten Gilibrand and Arlen Specter to name just two) in the name of party discipline. All the Democrats need is 50 votes to get this through, and they could have had that vote if they weren't such cowards.

So you’re still acknowledging that Obama probably can't galvanize his complete constituency as thing stand. on the other hand if he can pull a few Republicans in, it’s persuasive to Democrats, because they really don't want to seem less progressive than Republicans.

And how is that different from what they're doing now? If the Democrats forced this through then they'd be able to point out a success to their supporters at least. But as it stands they've got nothing. Whoop-de-shit.

First of all you’re assuming both that we will achieve success the first time around, and second that it will be PERCIEVED as a success. People in Massachusetts bitch about Mass Health all the time, Democrats won't necessarily be able to say more than "Well at least we did SOMETHING". You also heavily rely on the assumption that once a program is put into place it doesn't attract negative fire. That is COMPLETELY FALSE. If we get a public health system in place, it will still be constantly under fire for how its run and Democrats will hear for YEARS that they pushed it through without support. Do you really want to hand over that leverage?

The program will endure once it's passed into legislation. Once it's there it won't go away. It has to get there first, and this is not how to get it there.

It’s a really pyrrhic victory if we get UHC and discredit the Democratic party in the process. We're only just getting our economy and our international relation back together, I’m not sure we can take another Reign Of Republicans.

Do you think if you went out there and found a fundamentalist who was against this program and showed how money isn't going to abortion doctors that they'd suddenly switch sides? No. The Right to Lifers will say this is just the tip of the iceberg, and wait a few years until the liberals expand on this issue.

Absolutely. If you can make a stronger link to their ideology with UHC than the Republicans have against it. There has to be an open dialogue, and you have to be able to understand what their priorities really are.
it doesn't matter what the "liberals" do, the conservatives are already supporting state sponsored killing in the form of military action and capitol punishment. I ALWAYS remind right to lifers that they can't oppose abortion if they don't oppose capitol punishment or war, because it’s all killing and by choosing one over another they are deciding what manner of human life is more valuable. if one accepts tax money used for killing as a given, UHC stops being about the remote potential for abortion, and more about the tangible prospect of helping the sick and the needy.

The Sarah Palin "death panelists" will say that sure there might be no death panels now, but wait until the system is clogged with people and is running way over budget, then you'll have death panels for sure. Even the fiscal conservatives, when shown that universal healthcare is cheaper than our system, will point out that Medicare in America has over a third of its budget spent fraudulently in parts of the country and question the wisdom of increasing spending on fraud. With them the cause is lost. Move on.

Again in both cases the opposite approach to what you suggest would prove successful. Acknowledge what their true fears are and point out that these aren't them.

My gods... you are a blithering idiot, aren't you?

Maybe your Gods can explain an abstract conceptual model to you.

They aren't failures! Who told you that??

The Democrats have had legislative control for two and a half years. Name one unequivocal success of their own making in that time frame.

That’s an invalid request, they were balanced by a Republican executive branch and a conservative supreme court, also give me a better definition success. Do you want a program that accomplished its intended goal, its stated goal or both?

She presents no evidence of mental retardation

I can't tell if you're joking or not here.

Just forget it. My pet peeve is people using a MH diagnosis as an insult with no interest in accuracy.

See above. And look up Trudeaumania.

Thanks. For some reason Canadian politics never make news down here, you'd think we'd care about the GIANT neighbor above us.

He doesn't need all of his party. He has the house securely tied down with liberals, and he needs but 50 votes in the senate. With that, he's set. And do you see this shitstorm? It's going to dog him for four years unless he gets this bill passed.

That’s a fair point but it’s only been two months following several sweeping changes. I think the shitstorm is due more to him doing his job than anything else. We don't know how to handle a president who reforms things.

Those constituents don't matter. They don't need to be won over. They don't need to be brought over. Their support is unnecessary. Let them think the liberal media is crushing them, just as long as you get the damn bill passed.

Turn them into an unmonitored disenfranchised fringe element? That is morally dubious and completely unwise. They are part of the US too, I think we have an obligation based at LEAST on the school system that failed them to at least TRY to avoid making them feel repressed

And the middle of the road viewer of the program caught that. That middle third of American politics, the people Barack Obama and the Democrats do need, saw that program and came away with the impression that the Senator was a self-serving hypocrite more interested in political protection than his ideology. That middle third is won over by interviews like that. They are not won over where you play nice, don't argue and try to build a rapport with a rabid raving loon. Then they think the other side has a valid argument too and go for the Golden Mean in between, whatever it may be.

No the middle of the road flipped to another channel because they don't want to see people screaming about something they aren't entirely invested in. The only people watching that wanted one side to crush the other.

Addendum: If your next post isn't edited, run through a spellchecker, and mostly coherent I'm not going to respond until it is.

Who cares? I type the best I can; I won't lose sleep if you don't make up pop psychology phrases, misquote Canadian political figures and preach crushing the enemy.

[Darth Wong]

That middle third is won over by interviews like that. They are not won over where you play nice, don't argue and try to build a rapport with a rabid raving loon. Then they think the other side has a valid argument too and go for the Golden Mean in between, whatever it may be.

No the middle of the road flipped to another channel because they don't want to see people screaming about something they aren't entirely invested in. The only people watching that wanted one side to crush the other.

Do either of you have any evidence to support these competing statements?

[Themightytom]

That middle third is won over by interviews like that. They are not won over where you play nice, don't argue and try to build a rapport with a rabid raving loon. Then they think the other side has a valid argument too and go for the Golden Mean in between, whatever it may be.

No the middle of the road flipped to another channel because they don't want to see people screaming about something they aren't entirely invested in. The only people watching that wanted one side to crush the other.

Do either of you have any evidence to support these competing statements?

Nobody wanted tow atch him?

http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... onder.html

[Darth Wong]

No the middle of the road flipped to another channel because they don't want to see people screaming about something they aren't entirely invested in. The only people watching that wanted one side to crush the other.

Do either of you have any evidence to support these competing statements?

Nobody wanted tow atch him?

http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... onder.html

Perhaps this whole "how to demonstrate cause and effect" concept totally escapes you, because you're not doing it right.

[Themightytom]

Do either of you have any evidence to support these competing statements?

Nobody wanted to watch him?

http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... onder.html[/quote]
Perhaps this whole "how to demonstrate cause and effect" concept totally escapes you, because you're not doing it right.[/quote]

I do, but the only evidence that Lawrence turns viewers off is that he doesn't have many.All of the articles I have read are polarized either for or against with people either cheering him on for ripping Culberton a new one and demanding he get his own show, or calling him a bully, pointing out the many many times he's badgered his guests and applauding Culberton for "telling him off."

As you can tell I am not eager to align with either group, and of course moderates aren't SAYING anything. That doesn't mean there isn't any. I remember an article reporting that extrmist views alinate moderates, and I remember tons of articles coming out about negative cmpaign ads having an adverse affect on viewers, and assuming the characteristics of negative ads are comparable to Lawrences' strategy I'll post better evidence if I find it, I just wanted to start somewhere.

[Straha]

That middle third is won over by interviews like that. They are not won over where you play nice, don't argue and try to build a rapport with a rabid raving loon. Then they think the other side has a valid argument too and go for the Golden Mean in between, whatever it may be.

No the middle of the road flipped to another channel because they don't want to see people screaming about something they aren't entirely invested in. The only people watching that wanted one side to crush the other.

Do either of you have any evidence to support these competing statements?

There are a number of scholarly articles out there showing that news outlets merely covering certain points of views on popular political subjects help provide legitimacy to those views*. The conclusion of most of these articles is that when journalists merely try to present a complex debate between two opposing camps, like Genetically Modified Crops or Nuclear Energy, in a balanced perspective both sides gain legitimacy, something that one side (or both) don't deserve. To just use articles I've read in the past couple months and have noted down: This talks about it with biotech (though it claims that reporting isn't totally responsible for acceptance of biotech.) Here's one, which I have as a .pdf on Nuclear Energy and how media coverage colours public acceptance. This talks about reporting and immigration in the U.K..* This talks, in part, about how public attention is dominated by how the media covers a problem. This is an example of that in action in West Virginia (and also an article I read thanks to a thread you started a little while back.) There's a bunch more out there (and I imagine there must be something on Global Warming and how it's portrayed in the U.S. media, which would be perfectly germane at the moment), but I'm not going to spend too much time looking them up for this thread. The long story short is: By representing two views as both having legitimate arguments and ideas in a debate you, surprise, grant both sides legitimacy.

My reasoning as to why confrontational approaches in this situation is better goes like this: If you treat the "arguments" hoisted against UHC by the Right in a uncritical manner you only lend them public legitimacy, and serve to bring people to their side or help lean them towards that point of view. By contrast, if you were to report their arguments in a critical, objective light they'll be shown to be unfounded, false and irrelevant and will, hopefully, be taken as such. I'll admit to assuming that people would be able to understand objective criticism leveled against the critics, which may be something of a stretch.


*It's not the crux of her article, but there are a large number of relevant sections. For instance, she talks about how the reporting of a study suggesting that immigration to the U.K. was far higher than government figures stated came to dominate public attention, and the floor of the House of Commons, despite the study's questionable methodology simply because it received wide-spread coverage in popular newspapers.

[Straha]

Ghetto Edit: I put an asterisk in there twice by accident. The first one shouldn't be there.

[Darth Wong]

I do, but the only evidence that Lawrence turns viewers off is that he doesn't have many.

And Rush Limbaugh is an extremely polarizing figure who turns off many people, yet he does have many listeners. You are completely failing to grasp the entire thrust of my criticism.

[Elfdart]

Daily Kos found out that this stupid woman was an organizer for one of Glenn Beck's coven meetings.

[RedImperator]

So you’re still acknowledging that Obama probably can't galvanize his complete constituency as thing stand. on the other hand if he can pull a few Republicans in

Stop right there. The entire problem with your argument is that you're assuming the Republicans are being stubborn or stupid or ideological or have genuine misgivings about the proposed legislation. They aren't and they don't. While there are undoubtedly very many stubborn, stupid ideologues and probably even a handful of honest legislators with real concerns which deserve real answers in the GOP, I'd bet you a million dollars those are not why the GOP is opposed to this bill. The GOP is fighting this bill because

1) The Republican leadership's entire strategy for taking back Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012 is based on obstructing every single thing Obama tries to do and then accusing the Democrats of being a "do-nothing" party, and

2) After health care reform crashed and burned the last time, the Republicans won a landslide victory in the House and Senate

I'll bet you a million dollars if this bill ever actually comes up for a floor vote, not a single Republican will vote for it in the Senate and possibly none in the House, either. There's no fucking point in trying to compromise or persuade Republicans to get on board, because they've hung all of their hopes on making Obama, Pelosi, and Reid look impotent despite Obama's popularity and Pelosi/Reid's majority. And you want to know what else? I'll bet you another million the GOP's backup plan if they can't obstruct the bill is to spend the next three years crying to the rafters that it doesn't work, it's broken, it costs too much, Obama's death panels are right around the corner, the Democrats fucked up your health care and they can't do anything else right, either, vote for Mitt Romney (or whoever) and he'll make it all better. They have no incentive whatsoever to vote for this bill, and they won't do it, either. Watering down the bill to get them on board will only increase the chances it won't work, and indulging their lies on television just makes it more likely it won't pass at all. So fuck them, fuck bipartisanship, fuck compromise, and fuck engagement. The Democrats should cram health care reform right down their throats.

[Themightytom]

I do, but the only evidence that Lawrence turns viewers off is that he doesn't have many.

And Rush Limbaugh is an extremely polarizing figure who turns off many people, yet he does have many listeners. You are completely failing to grasp the entire thrust of my criticism.

I guess I am. My position is that while passionate overbearing advocacy might be appealing to a right wing republican demographic, it would be a mistake for the left wing democratic party to adopt such an approach.

Lawrence O'connell's treatment of two different interviews demonstrates two differing approaches. in both off them he constantly reframes arguments and persistently requires his interviewer to verbally commit to arguments he substitutes for what they believe they are making. it is taken as a given that viewers with strong beliefs in support of the views Lawrence advocates for wouldn't be alienated by his behavior. I have argued however that it may alienate potential recruits among right wing supporters, and Straha argues these recruits don't matter. Where you have asked for supporting evidence is my assertion that such a demeanor is off- putting to moderates, whom Straha and I agree it would be desirable to persuade.

So you want me to prove that lawrence O'Connell alienates moderates when he aggressively tears apart a politician?

I have to be honest, in looking for evidence to support that assertion I have found maybe two locked articles that might support me, a ton that refer to REPUBLICANS alienating moderates, but a significant number of articles that state that a passionate position persuades more people than it alienates. I guess I have to concede that a confrontational attitude IS more persuasive in a public forum.

[ray245]

I do, but the only evidence that Lawrence turns viewers off is that he doesn't have many.

And Rush Limbaugh is an extremely polarizing figure who turns off many people, yet he does have many listeners. You are completely failing to grasp the entire thrust of my criticism.

I guess I am. My position is that while passionate overbearing advocacy might be appealing to a right wing republican demographic, it would be a mistake for the left wing democratic party to adopt such an approach.

Lawrence O'connell's treatment of two different interviews demonstrates two differing approaches. in both off them he constantly reframes arguments and persistently requires his interviewer to verbally commit to arguments he substitutes for what they believe they are making. it is taken as a given that viewers with strong beliefs in support of the views Lawrence advocates for wouldn't be alienated by his behavior. I have argued however that it may alienate potential recruits among right wing supporters, and Straha argues these recruits don't matter. Where you have asked for supporting evidence is my assertion that such a demeanor is off- putting to moderates, whom Straha and I agree it would be desirable to persuade.

So you want me to prove that lawrence O'Connell alienates moderates when he aggressively tears apart a politician?

I have to be honest, in looking for evidence to support that assertion I have found maybe two locked articles that might support me, a ton that refer to REPUBLICANS alienating moderates, but a significant number of articles that state that a passionate position persuades more people than it alienates. I guess I have to concede that a confrontational attitude IS more persuasive in a public forum.

However, these type of people who can be converted in a rational manner are so small that they becomes more or less irrelevant in politics.

Relying on these tactics, no matter how nice they sound would not win you elections or get the public to side with you.

[Themightytom]

Stop right there. The entire problem with your argument is that you're assuming the Republicans are being stubborn or stupid or ideological or have genuine misgivings about the proposed legislation. They aren't and they don't. While there are undoubtedly very many stubborn, stupid ideologues and probably even a handful of honest legislators with real concerns which deserve real answers in the GOP, I'd bet you a million dollars those are not why the GOP is opposed to this bill. The GOP is fighting this bill because

1) The Republican leadership's entire strategy for taking back Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012 is based on obstructing every single thing Obama tries to do and then accusing the Democrats of being a "do-nothing" party, and

2) After health care reform crashed and burned the last time, the Republicans won a landslide victory in the House and Senate

You can't assume Republicans are in lock step either though. Two of them crossed the aisle already, which is a MUCH bigger commitment than justifying a vote that might curry favor with their constituents. Judd Gregg for example bent over BACKWARDS to get earmarks for several prgrams where I live, I was on the phone every week with him for most of last year, and he was coordinating with Paul Hodes of all people to get funding reinstated for both my program and a community learning center. Meanwhile Gregg is publicly denouncing earmark spending along with all the other republicans.

PAUL HODES got the credit, he got a little press conference some hand shaking and a bunch of little inner city kids sitting on his knee and what not, of COURSE Gregg would have liked that publicity.
The media heavily influences public perception, whether its craptastic fact making from fox, or relentless satire from Comedy central. Confrontational Democratic leaning pundits contribute to an atmosphere of adversarialism, which forces Politicans to toe the party line or risk being orphaned.

[Themightytom]

However, these type of people who can be converted in a rational manner are so small that they becomes more or less irrelevant in politics.

Relying on these tactics, no matter how nice they sound would not win you elections or get the public to side with you.

Apparently so. But I'm not looking to win elections, I would settle for bolstering support.

[ray245]

However, these type of people who can be converted in a rational manner are so small that they becomes more or less irrelevant in politics.

Relying on these tactics, no matter how nice they sound would not win you elections or get the public to side with you.

Apparently so. But I'm not looking to win elections, I would settle for bolstering support.

Which is essentially the same thing. The same tactics you used to convince the general public to vote for you would be the same tactics you used to convince the Senate to vote in favour of your proposal.

[Next of Kin]

You can't assume Republicans are in lock step either though. Two of them crossed the aisle already, which is a MUCH bigger commitment than justifying a vote that might curry favor with their constituents.

Two?!? That doesn't strike me as winning the hearts and minds of Republicans. Themightytom, in Canadian politics there have been numerous floor crossings from one party to another. Usually the incentive the cross the floor is a reward and not just and ideological one. Could this be a reason why they broke ranks?

[Themightytom]

You can't assume Republicans are in lock step either though. Two of them crossed the aisle already, which is a MUCH bigger commitment than justifying a vote that might curry favor with their constituents.

Two?!? That doesn't strike me as winning the hearts and minds of Republicans. Themightytom, in Canadian politics there have been numerous floor crossings from one party to another. Usually the incentive the cross the floor is a reward and not just and ideological one. Could this be a reason why they broke ranks?

Well thats pretty much a given with a politician, the incentive usually is a voting constiuency that will support your decision. So if the Democratic party remained somewhat accessible to Republicans the possibility would remain for more crosses. It may nott ENCOURAGE more, but publicly neutering a Republican senator is going tto make him dig in to save face rather than cross lines to save votes.