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

[Simon_Jester]

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.

Does making the opposition look like a bunch of idiots count as "rational" conversion? You can certainly do it by rational argument, but with a good helping of showmanship it can be far more effective than the arguments alone.

[Knife]

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.

Does making the opposition look like a bunch of idiots count as "rational" conversion? You can certainly do it by rational argument, but with a good helping of showmanship it can be far more effective than the arguments alone.

It has long been my opinion that sometimes an asshole needs to be called an asshole. If not, they get away believing that they are normal in their actions. No, it is not 'rational conversation' but sometimes you have to address the 500lbs gorilla in the room or it does get ridiculous.

[RedImperator]

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.

So tell me, how many House Republicans crossed the aisle over the stimulus bill? Ten? Six? Three? No--it was zero. Not one. How many crossed over in the Senate? Three--Specter, Snowe, and Collins, and Specter had to switch parties afterward because the Club for Growth was gunning for him. And that was on an issue less important to the GOP than health care reform. You can't possibly compare health care reform to earmarks hypocrisy--which every fucking Republican engages in anyway. By the way, where was that wild rebel Judd Gregg when the stimulus bill was up for a vote? Oh, that's right, he was voting with Tom Coburn and Jim DiMint.

I'm going to say this again, because you don't seem to get it: there will be no Republican support for this bill in any form. Doesn't matter how much the Dems compromise. Doesn't matter how nice they are. Harry Reid could give Mitch McConnell a big sloppy blowjob and then send the "Give Insurance Executives a Billion Dollars Act of 2009" to the floor and he still won't get any GOP support. The Republican Party is betting its future on health care reform failing. Negotiating with them is pointless--Boehner and McConnell proved they won't negotiate in good faith with Obama all the way back during the stimulus debate. Being nice to them has, to this point, only allowed them to dominate the public debate with boogeyman tales of socialism and death panels and astroturf mobs at town meetings. The longer this fiasco drags on, the less chance anything will pass and the more chance anything that does pass will be a piece of shit.

Meanwhile, what are your reasons for trying to get Republicans on board? To convince Blue Dogs to vote for it? Isn't that the fucking majority whip's job? Isn't that what Armbreaker Emmanuel is supposed to be doing? Can't our charming, articulate, and still-popular president do that with sweet reason and his unstoppable money machine? For political cover in case it fails? How the fuck is that supposed to work? "Oh shit, the public thinks reform is a disaster--quick, somebody blame Susan Collins!" Like the Republicans would take ownership of Barack Obama's health-care reform if it didn't work even if they did vote for it. How many Democrats took ownership of the Iraq War when that went tits-up? One--Holy Joe Lieberman. How many voted for it? A fuckload more than one. You think the GOP is going to be less effective at blaming the other side for a mess they helped make?

And speaking of the Iraq War, back in November 2002 when the idea was popular, how much did supporting the war resolution help the Democratic Party? If you need help remembering, you could ask Max Cleland. Another lesson about the value of bipartisanship the GOP obviously took to heart even if the Democrats still haven't.

What good fucking reason is there for bipartisanship? Right now, the Dems have a majority in Congress that could change the colors of the American flag if it wanted to, and they're squandering it by acting like limp-dicked, jelly-spined cowards--and you apparently think what we need is more of the same.

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.

Okay, first of all, the guy O'Donnell skinned was some penny-ante Texas Congressman with a hard-right voting record who was never going to cross the aisle, not an important moderate Senator who could be persuaded to switch for the good of his constituents. Second, you already conceded that passionate debate is more likely to sway moderates than meekly letting some right-wing fuckface duck questions and talk bullshit, so why are you still even bothering with this line of argument?

[Erik von Nein]

Never mind the stimulus bill, looking at the climate change bill (Markey-Waxman) is an even better example of not only what compromising will get you, but of the same enemies that supporters of healthcare reform will be facing. James Hrynyshyn over at The Island of Doubt shows just who is helping to defeat or destroy the healthcare reform bill here.

[CmdrWilkens]

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.

Its actually highly likely that she is dumb, lying AND honestly doesn't know how her healthcare system is made up without invoking either of those two. One of the arguments for taxing employer provided health benefits is that right now we operate in an environment that negates the central principal of unfettered capitalism that of universal knowledge. The current employer-based system hides a huge portion of the costs in a web of premiums, co-pays, deductibles, employer sponsorships, COBRA payments and a host of other items that make easy analysis of the ideal plan almost impossible without significant expenditure of resources to find the information.

[Themightytom]

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.

Okay, first of all, the guy O'Donnell skinned was some penny-ante Texas Congressman with a hard-right voting record who was never going to cross the aisle, not an important moderate Senator who could be persuaded to switch for the good of his constituents. Second, you already conceded that passionate debate is more likely to sway moderates than meekly letting some right-wing fuckface duck questions and talk bullshit, so why are you still even bothering with this line of argument?

I conceded that evidence suggests a moderate could be persuaded by a passionate argument, not that a Republican couldn't be swayed by public opinion shifting against his personal views. he just internally rationalizes "Well I represent the people, not msyelf." does his thing and then acts like its all what he wanted.

Its a VERY different game when your actually a politican versus just a centrist viewer deciding what stance to take or not take on an issue with little significant personal investment.

[RedImperator]

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.

Okay, first of all, the guy O'Donnell skinned was some penny-ante Texas Congressman with a hard-right voting record who was never going to cross the aisle, not an important moderate Senator who could be persuaded to switch for the good of his constituents. Second, you already conceded that passionate debate is more likely to sway moderates than meekly letting some right-wing fuckface duck questions and talk bullshit, so why are you still even bothering with this line of argument?

I conceded that evidence suggests a moderate could be persuaded by a passionate argument, not that a Republican couldn't be swayed by public opinion shifting against his personal views. he just internally rationalizes "Well I represent the people, not msyelf." does his thing and then acts like its all what he wanted.

Its a VERY different game when your actually a politican versus just a centrist viewer deciding what stance to take or not take on an issue with little significant personal investment.

Well just how the fuck do you think public opinion is going to shift against Republicans if the people making Republican arguments aren't aggressively challenged in public debate? Never mind the actual political reality, which is that after 2006 and 2008, the overwhelming majority of Republican federal legislators are either hard-right conservatives in hard-right districts, or moderates like Arlen Specter, who are stranded in states where the Democrats have such a registration advantage that the surviving Republican primary electorate are right-wing loonies who'll support a Club for Growth primary candidate.

And wait a minute--a politician will abandon previously-held political positions and buck the whip on an issue his party thinks is critical to its future chances if he thinks his own electoral survival depends on it, but if a journalist is mean to him, he'll get all butthurt and vote against his constituents' wishes even if it's political suicide? Are you even capable of making a consistent argument here?

[Themightytom]

Well just how the fuck do you think public opinion is going to shift against Republicans if the people making Republican arguments aren't aggressively challenged in public debate? Never mind the actual political reality, which is that after 2006 and 2008, the overwhelming majority of Republican federal legislators are either hard-right conservatives in hard-right districts, or moderates like Arlen Specter, who are stranded in states where the Democrats have such a registration advantage that the surviving Republican primary electorate are right-wing loonies who'll support a Club for Growth primary candidate.

And wait a minute--a politician will abandon previously-held political positions and buck the whip on an issue his party thinks is critical to its future chances if he thinks his own electoral survival depends on it, but if a journalist is mean to him, he'll get all butthurt and vote against his constituents' wishes even if it's political suicide? Are you even capable of making a consistent argument here?

Obama didn't "Aggressively" challenge John McCain, he is the epitome of calm, his slip up with the cambridge police was startling in that for once he hadn't seemed to have thought out what he said. His victory was the most significant for the Democratic party and embodies its current personae as the "thoughtful, reasonable party"

Theres apparently a balance between a passionate reasoned argument, and a foaming at the mouth irrational clusterfuck. If the democratic party can strike this balance, it can attract moderates without alienating its opponents. Lawrence demonstrates this with katie, but not.. in my apparently baseless decision... with Culberton.

While the evidence clearly points that a passionate argument is more persuasive, regardless of its reasoning that doesn't preclude the possibility that while a moderate is persuaded, the Democratic party could lose its disctinctive identity as the reasonable party with an overly impassioned argument. It also doesn't preclude the possibility that Republican representatives might not be impossible to dissuade from their position.

As the reasonable party, Democrats can counter Republican propoganda effectively without alienating Republicans, as Lawwrence appeared to do with Katie.

Do you not see a difference between shouting " I'm right!" and shouting "He's wrong!" In either case the opposite will be inferred by a viewing party and in response to the passion, endorsed, the difference is, the opposite party being referred to is either given to make the conclousion himself, or have it forced upon him.

The more forceful approach opens the door to the cognitive dissonance we were talking about, and the opponent tries to rationalize his behavior in whatever way possible. On the other hand if you don't force the response, you don't trigger the defense mechanism and the other person is at least open to have their conclusions influenced.

[Themightytom]

Barney Frank subscribes to the "Fuck 'em" policy as well. I admit the way he handles this seems effectivve, but on the other hand, this ladies claims were significantly less rational than the woman Lawrence spoke with. At least with the tax arguments you can get some footing, nott so much with the nazi argument. Although I DID overhear my little brother, who has a master's in history dissect the nazi argument pretty effectively to a friend of ours who also has a masters in history and is a Republican. She's not a convert but she proably won'tt drag out the nazi claims anymore.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/hea ... ama-hitler

[Darth Wong]

Is it not obvious that both approaches are useful? This topic has been rehashed before. The "play nice" folks argue that the direct approach is WRONG, which implies that it should be completely avoided, which is stupid.

The smart thing to do is to have your leader be calm, to project an air of being above the fray, while your lieutenants aggressively go after the bullshit because the rebuttals need to be made and their air of calmness is more expendable than that of the leader. Why is it even necessary to explain something so blatantly obvious?

[Patrick Degan]

The smart thing to do is to have your leader be calm, to project an air of being above the fray, while your lieutenants aggressively go after the bullshit because the rebuttals need to be made and their air of calmness is more expendable than that of the leader. Why is it even necessary to explain something so blatantly obvious?

"You are an excellent tactician, captain. You let your second-in-command attack while you sit and watch for weakness."

A Khan quote which neatly sums up this approach.

[CmdrWilkens]

Is it not obvious that both approaches are useful? This topic has been rehashed before. The "play nice" folks argue that the direct approach is WRONG, which implies that it should be completely avoided, which is stupid.

The smart thing to do is to have your leader be calm, to project an air of being above the fray, while your lieutenants aggressively go after the bullshit because the rebuttals need to be made and their air of calmness is more expendable than that of the leader. Why is it even necessary to explain something so blatantly obvious?

Because everybody missed the lesson of Sarah Palin on the campaign trail whereby both Obama and Biden were virtually silent after her slection as McCain's running mate. The left-leaning blogs and progressive groups out there went to work right away attacking her for being the shallow mindlss bimbo she is but the whole time Obama remained aloof about the entire ordeal. That nobody noticed it just reinforces how wildly succesful it was at defining Palin in the negative while never even rubbing off slightly on Obama as would normally happen in a negative campaign.

[Simon_Jester]

It has long been my opinion that sometimes an asshole needs to be called an asshole. If not, they get away believing that they are normal in their actions. No, it is not 'rational conversation' but sometimes you have to address the 500lbs gorilla in the room or it does get ridiculous.

I agree. And if you do it cleverly enough, you can convince people you would never convince by directing rational arguments at them. Just as they can score points with the nonthinkers by making up bad things to say about you, you can score points by revealing bad things about them.

[RedImperator]

<returning from four days in the Outer Banks, mercifully free of Internet access>

Obama didn't "Aggressively" challenge John McCain, he is the epitome of calm, his slip up with the cambridge police was startling in that for once he hadn't seemed to have thought out what he said. His victory was the most significant for the Democratic party and embodies its current personae as the "thoughtful, reasonable party"

Yeah, and so what? The President needs to appear calm and in control at all times, because nobody wants a hothead with his finger on the button. Dubya appeared calm and in control all the time during his campaigns, too--he let his underlings and allies do the shit-smearing, while two different Democratic candidates floundered around being "thoughtful" and "reasonable".

Theres apparently a balance between a passionate reasoned argument, and a foaming at the mouth irrational clusterfuck. If the democratic party can strike this balance, it can attract moderates without alienating its opponents. Lawrence demonstrates this with katie, but not.. in my apparently baseless decision... with Culberton.

What "foaming at the mouth irrational clusterfuck" are you talking about? O'Donnell was curt with Culbertson, yeah, but frankly, that's the only way you're going to get shitbags like him to answer questions. O'Donnell's no idiot--he pinned Culbertson with a question that makes the congressman look bad no matter how he answers, and Culbertson was trying to get out of it by bullshitting to the commercial break. I used to teach debate and I taught my kids if they got caught with a question like that, they should do the exact same thing: bullshit until the other guy's time runs out or he gives up on the question. And I also taught them that if they were doing cross-examination and someone tries to bullshit them and waste their time, cut them off and repeat the question.

And another thing: yeah, O'Donnell was nicer to the crazy lady. But there's a perfectly good reason for that: the crazy lady isn't a professional liar, scumfuck, and bullshitter who's trained her whole life to talk journalists in circles. It wasn't necessary, and anyway, he would have looked like an asshole, even to a sympathetic audience. On the other hand, who gives a shit if a journalist is mean to a congressman? Nobody even likes congressmen, especially somebody else's congressman--and judging by Culbertson's voting record and the number of times he's been re-elected, you're not getting his constituents on board with UHC anyway. So what's the percentage in being nice to him? All he had to do was answer a yes or no question and the whole "foaming at the mouth irrational clusterfuck" would have been avoided, anyway.

While the evidence clearly points that a passionate argument is more persuasive, regardless of its reasoning that doesn't preclude the possibility that while a moderate is persuaded, the Democratic party could lose its disctinctive identity as the reasonable party with an overly impassioned argument.

What about the possibility the Democratic party could lose it's identity as the spineless boot-licking coward party? At any rate, how does one aggressive journalist characterize the entire Democratic party as unreasonable? I don't even see how O'Donnell looked unreasonable.

It also doesn't preclude the possibility that Republican representatives might not be impossible to dissuade from their position.

If I can untangle the double negatives in that sentence, you seem to be claiming that some Republicans could be persuaded to vote for UHC by calmly appealing to reason. Even if that's true, a three-minute interview by a TV journalist isn't going to do it, and Culbertson was never one of those Republicans anyway. Nobody's arguing that Obama should be calling Republicans into the Oval Office and upbraiding them for being obstructionist.

And here we go again with you changing your arguments: last time, Republicans could be persuaded by persuading their constituents. Now we can apparently change their minds directly. Which is it? Because my point above about the character of the Republican electorate stands: voting "yes" on UHC is going to seriously piss off most GOP representatives' and senators' constituents as well as the party leadership, and there are very aggressive right-wing political organizations lurking out there which have not only successfully fielded primary challenges in the past, they drove a six-term pork king from a blue state into the arms of the other party in order to save his career. Just about the only possible Republican votes in the Senate that I can see are Collins and Snowe, and that's because neither of them are up for reelection until 2012, and I find it far more likely they'll only vote for cloture. And at any rate, I guarantee you, nobody is being mean to them.

As the reasonable party, Democrats can counter Republican propoganda effectively without alienating Republicans, as Lawwrence appeared to do with Katie.

All right, let's play a game. You're Lawrence O'Donnell. You've just asked Culbertson 1) is Medicare is a socialist program, and 2) if so, would he have voted against it in 1965, or 3) if not, why would he not vote to extend it to all Americans? Culbertson is spinning up the bullshit machine--there's no way he's answering your question if he can help it. You have three minutes until the commercial break. What exactly is your suggestion here? Because if you think Culbertson can't stonewall for three minutes, you're out of your tree.

Do you not see a difference between shouting " I'm right!" and shouting "He's wrong!" In either case the opposite will be inferred by a viewing party and in response to the passion, endorsed, the difference is, the opposite party being referred to is either given to make the conclousion himself, or have it forced upon him.

The more forceful approach opens the door to the cognitive dissonance we were talking about, and the opponent tries to rationalize his behavior in whatever way possible. On the other hand if you don't force the response, you don't trigger the defense mechanism and the other person is at least open to have their conclusions influenced.

This is a dumbshit false dilemma which basically entails treating every one of the other side's hacks and flunkies like open-minded moderates addressing an audience of wilting crybabies who can't stand to see anybody lose an argument. This, more or less, has been the Democratic modus operandi for years, and it cost them two presidential elections and seven straight Congressional elections. And the more accommodating and "reasonable" they were, the worse they lost. The only successes were Bill Clinton, whose people merrily savaged Republicans, and the elections of 06, and 08, where both times they were running against a man with a 24% approval rating, a losing war in Iraq, a Congress full of thieves and perverts, a drowned American city, and the Dow down 7,000 points. Now that they're back in control, their approach has been "reason" and compromise, and they're losing again. They make compromise after compromise, get nothing in return, and now we're on the cusp of this bill, and maybe Obama's entire domestic agenda, turning to shit. This is like watching the New York Yankees lose to a single-A farm team for the Kansas City Royals. My solution is, "Hey guys, maybe you should swing at the ball or pitch a breaking ball or turn a double play or something", while yours is, "Maybe if we give the pitcher another blowjob, he'll walk in a run out of gratitude."

No, fuck this stupid idea. There's room for sweet reason and principled debate, and that's with people who are honestly listening, from people with reputations to protect. For fuckoffs like Culbertson? Send a journalist to kick the shit out of him on television. That's O'Donnell's job, and really, that's Culbertson's job, too.