The Contextualization of Talking Points and Disagreement (and other grand meta-narratives)

» HuffPo: Dems Not Backing Obama? Rahm Will Deal With It (Nico Pitney)
» Matt Yglesias: Rahm Has Ways of Making You Stick to the Talking Points

A couple of angles that I enjoy about the HuffPo story and Matt's followup.

One obvious to anyone who knows what makes me laugh is this ...

The famously acid-tongued Chicagoan may be right, Democrats like Ellsworth and Boren may not pose a problem. But the Republican National Committee is sure trying to make them one. GOP officials have blasted out press releases highlighting Boren's claim that Obama has the "most liberal" voting record in the Senate.

It's just simple, basic communication theory how politically-driven talking points become the basis of too much of our political conversation. Though some former commenters here have denied and taken great offense at the suggestion that they do ... they do.

The second aspect of this interview with Rahm is what follows ...

(He was right: "My comments were taken out of context and as I have said from day one I will vote for the Democratic nominee in November," Boren told The Huffington Post.)

Yes, Virginia ... Democrats use talking points, too. Another thing that's beyond question. And I'd share Matt's eye-rolling with Boren's backtracking. Again, I've had my own fair share of cranks trying to play the "context" card for my temerity to quote their precise, exact words without including all those things they meant to say and never really did.

In the end, if the sole solace that our GOP-blogging friends are going to have this election is that Barack Obama has a small fraction of the problem Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis had with nervous Dems, I follow up my claim that this will be one brutal election for them.

For my own sake, I'll offer a heartening message to anyone concerned about my own voting status. If there's one thing that assists in the solidification of one's more natural state of voting, it's listening to a lot of nonsense, lies, garbage ... and yes, even Republican talking points, offered about Barack Obama. Of course, it's both unfortunate and probably beyond predictable that I'd get that experience in church. Fortunately, the folks I run with are grown up enough to know how to disagree strongly and still absolutely love one another ... a character trait that only makes me love 'em more.

One of these days, I'm going to do a post without at least pivoting over to a point made by Bill Bishop ... but if there's one detriment to the increased Balkanization of partisan politics (a trend I think I'd agree with Bishop's thesis on), it's that being able to have those conversations is a lost art of sorts. Certainly, that style of fun isn't for everyone (as it wasn't for the lone female portion of our weekly gaggle) ... but a lost art nonetheless. This may be an odd comparison of sorts, but one of the first thing you learn in the process of either rollerblading or ice skating (among other similar endeavors), is how to fall. Maybe it's just me, but I'm seeing a lot of similarities in those two exercises.

Now, that isn't to say I'm totally there yet on casting my vote for Obama. But due to the already short path I think that move represents on my part and the likelihood of some of the truly deranged statements to be parroted about Obama, an affirmative resolution on my part might be best viewed as just a matter of time.

TOTALLY TANGENTIAL SIDENOTE: Another stray thought or two occurred to me as I mull this article over. Pelosi is apparently pushing Rahm for the Senate if Obama moves up. Back when I first saw that, I thought "Well duh ... perfect self-protection move on Pelosi's part." Not that there's any major disagreement that I'm aware of between Pelosi and Rahm, but I seriously doubt I'm the only one in this world that can see Rahm being a very effective speaker (and feel free to use "effective" in any context you desire). But with this latest Rahm story, I'm curious how much of a loss his leadership in the House would represent. I'm not one to view anyone as indispensable - Van Hollen certainly warrants high marks for his tenure to date at DCCC - but I've got to think there's at least some void if he moves on.

And, of course, yet another thought is how a presumably Sen. Rahm might look as Presidential material in 2016. I've got to confess to at least a few misgivings here - I'm old enough to see the Tony Coehlo parallels between these two men. But by the same token, Rahm also seems to have represented one of those rare displays of another lost art re: politics - loyalty. And that seems directed at his relationship to both Obama and the Clintons.