Rachel Maddow chats with the Congressman quarterbacking the repeal of DADT

I guess we agree about the need to engage in a conversation; on some level I hope we do, but I doubt anyone can ensure an outcome of much of anything in life. You can work together toward a shared goal and try to focus on your mutual interests, but you didn't mention any of that.

I'm just not seeing ostracizing. At all. I am also having trouble figuring out what you mean by a "process" that is being disrespected. I would like to help, but I really don't see someone who is seeking to ostracize anyone else because of their process. If I have insulted you or your personal process, I find that remarkable because it was far from my intention. But now I'm thinking, are you talking about your "personal process" or the various processes within our branches of government? If you are talking about governmental process, then yes, we do seem to disagree on that, don't we? And to be quite frank, sometimes grownups say things that confuse and hurt children who end up feeling ostracized and persecuted. That is why I always suggest that children have adult supervision when they participate in grown up discussions.

I have never said anything against the Presidents stated support, other than to remind everyone that words are cheap. And point out that words seem to be as far as his support will extend. It is the very least that he can do, anything less might alienate the left wing of his party.

I never said Congressman Murphy is protecting the president. But for the record, I think it is likely that because Murphy is taking such an active and vocal role on this legislation, he doesn't want his ambitious initiative to look like an affront to the President who happens to be sitting on his fat ass (in regards to this issue.) As a Blue Dog he would want to appear as working with the President as much as possible, rather than appear as an obstructionist, as you seem to suggest.

Pointing out that a politician might have ambitions beyond a single bill or act, that he might be looking at his political career, that he might be trying to work with his colleges rather than against them -all of that you consider "vilifying?" You may be right, perhaps this isn't a debate.

Please, write the book, will ya? I mean that. When I see Politics With Nuance by P. Ecola, on the bookshelves I will buy it and tell you what I think of your theory. But right now I have an argument, that's what debate is called. It is a fairly simple argument, so much so that you may think it lacks nuance. Also, the kind of nuance you are talking about sounds suspiciously like the apologizing you claim you aren't doing.

Allow me to put it another way. if Dick sits on his ass, he is pretty much sitting on his ass. Yes, the 'nuance' of that is that Dick might be daydreaming and speechifying about a better future, or might be saving his energy for that special moment when he sees fit to do something or he just might be selfish and chicken. All of those are nuances, as you say. The fact that Dick is sitting on his ass is an observational fact. But I can still debate the merits of those nuances. And if I go so far as to suggest that Dick is selfish and chicken and that his supporters are blind fools, believe me when I say this: I would mean that in the nicest way.

 

I am glad that you concede that Obama should be judged by his actions. I am judging him for his lack of action (which is the same thing.) You suggest that progressives are "Scapegoating?" Again you seem to be making the same point that perhaps this isn't a debate.

Being out is not "being an activist." It is being honest. Unfortunately it's such a rare commodity in this world that honesty often seems like activism.