A Cartesian qualification

I feel I owe you an explanation. Not an excuse, just an explanation.

When I began writing the previous post, I was reasonably sure I had a point to make. It was there, I thought, locked in. Yet a couple of paragraphs into the piece, said point had vanished. Nonetheless I persevered; I wrote another line or two in the hope that recent memory would serve.

Happily the point's shadow then made a brief appearance; but, unhappily, it was gone just as fleetingly. Still, I persisted.

Toward the end of my rambling in search of the lost cause, I rudely asked myself (as you can plainly read therein): What in God's name am I talking about?

What came to mind -- I think -- was a rediscovery of what originally sparked the post. So I got it down in cyberprint just as quickly as my hapless hunt-and-peck fingers could commit a recapturing.

All of which is only to confess: I think, therefore I am, somewhat. I'm trying my best to re-engage, with acceptable lucidity. The process may be bumpy, but I'll get there.

Comments

[Peter G]

I found nothing particularly objectionable in that post and I would certainly not question your lucidity. I am going to point out one thing that was lacking and that is the recognition that pleasing moderates is child's play compared to pleasing progressives. Moderates will tolerate compromise by their very nature. Progressives, on the other hand, divide unequally into two camps, pragmatic progressives who get things done and the purists who are as inflexible as the most ardent tea partier. To these people any thing not purely progressive, anything smacking of compromise, is treason. I have written before that I believe the jobs bill is political theater. Any attempt to compromise even slightly will result in paroxysms of progressive ranting about spelunking and the Republicans no way and no how are going to increase taxes. This is a flag to carry through a campaign and I believe it would be wise at this point to give the "progressives" exactly what they want: no compromise and no progress.

[Ansel M.]

I agree with Peter G: I thought your first post of the day was lucid and that I understood your points. I just really don't want to hear a lot of pissing and moaning from the purists on the left about President Obama's proposals ... but we probably will.

[You Don't Say]

Re: the purists: one of the more depressing and infuriating realizations of late has been how much I can disagree with people I seemingly agree with ... if that makes sense. ;-)