I really don't like the process of politics or the process of how people game with words in politics. Both of those make me want to kick through my garage door (try it sometimes when you feel under stress), because everybody knows what's going on and everybody pretends not to know. And yes, I do like some smart political moves, the kinds Barney Franks excels in. But still. Most of that stuff is like gossip to me.
Take the way you attack something the opposition supports. Here's an example from the stimulus debates:
Most notably, Thrush suggested supporting funding for contraceptives would make Pelosi look like a "Bay area liberal" with a "far left agenda." In fact, backing public funding for contraceptives isn't a "far-left" position, as Thrush later acknowledged. It is a position that enjoys overwhelming public support. So overwhelming that opposing such funding could probably be described as a "far-right" position.
It's silly to argue what Thrush is arguing. Over ninety percent of American women use contraceptives at some point in their lives. But argue that Thrush does, because the trick is to always try to place your opposition far out of the mainstream, with the hope that you might succeed and then you'd win.
How does one respond to something like that? You could give the facts, from opinion surveys and such, but giving facts turns out to sound like distant and boring humming in many people's ears. Or you could turn the tables on Thrush and accuse him of being a far-right weirdo. Where does that get us then, hmh?
Hence my impatience with all this. It's like a choreographed dance, where one party first acts all outraged and then the other party responds. I'd like to fast-forward all this to the end and then discuss what we actually got.
Sad, am I not? It's also annoying to find out that discussing the stimulus package just muddies the waters, on the whole, as most of the discussing consists of the above-described dances. There. That's my rant for the week.