There is a diary on the rec list that was written in opposition to another diary, also on the rec list, and these diaries follow a slow-boil history over the public option, which has become a sort of Shibboleth, and what started (I think) as a discussion between whether Congress would or could or even should adopt a public option has devolved into a situation where you can open up a diary and see one prominent diarist saying "Fuck off Obamabot!" and declaring "all out war" while another prominent diarist publicly questions the health-claims of another prominent diarist, while said prominent illness-stricken diarist becomes a lightning rod for her own health care diaries.
And this is not considered unusual.
I gave up cable news in 2000 because too many people were talking past each other. I just stopped watching it. Because it (1) does not contribute to the debate, and (2) it gives me a fucking headache, and (3) it's enough to make a Bishop want to kick out a stained-glass window.
Kossacks are talking past each other. Not everything is mutually exclusive.
To wit:
You can hate meaningless compromise while at the same time not believe that Rahm Emanuel is a sworn enemy to everything that is wholesome and kind and good in this world and that he is Meaningless Compromise made flesh as a man wearing a smirk and a sharp suit and who goes around farting evil all over the place.
You can actually believe that Obama is a good President and express admiration for him and want to post pictures of him in your office and choke up with genuine inspiration over who he is and what he has accomplished while at the same time thinking -- wait for it -- that he could do a better job at his job.
You can be for a strong public option and yell louder and blog about it to your heart's delight and rally the cry everywhere you can while at the same time being a complete ally to those who disagree with you on tactics and strategy.
You can question actual policy while at the same time not being an enemy to the end goal. You can hold a man's feet to the fire while at the same time being loyal.
Kossacks are talking past each other. With greater alacrity and greater personal invective.
We are better than those on the Right because we tolerate -- tolerate? Hell, we thrive on -- dissent and debate within our ranks. We are liberal precisely because we are willing to see facts as facts, and to change our conceptions of the world as the facts require. That kind of outlook fairly depends on vigorous, strong, and sometimes heated debate.
You can have vigorous, strong, and sometimes heated debate while at the same time being civil.
It's time. It's now time for those who will decide the fate of health care reform in this nation to hear our voices and our ideas, as loudly and as forcefully as possible, as loudly and as forcefully as they have been at any time before.
These people ought to know who we are and tell that we were here.
Tearing ourselves up won't get us there. I'm betting we can avoid it if we try.