Several 'yes's' and 'no's' in response to your post.

I think you're right--that passion, emotion and intellect aren't mutually exclusive. Where things get sideways is when 'intellect' is removed from the equation. That's how the politicians and their political advisors try to 'manage' the electorate--by avoiding a discussion of the facts and appealing always to the emotions of Americans. All I would say is that we should remain committed to being thoughtful about what is being said, seeking more information, and trying to avoid being emotionally manipulated.

I don't embrace Alinsky's Rules at all. But if I were a political advisor, I would definitely tell my client to use the Rules and I would create the sound bites and examples consistent with the Rules for my client to use. They worked in the 1930's and they work today. Virtually all politicians and candidates from both parties are using them. Basically, they're simple human psychology.

I disagree that communications technology will alter the effectiveness of Alinsky's Rules. Because of the ability to communicate so effectively and so quickly and in so many different ways, along with the 24-hour news cycle, the Rules may be even more effective than in the past.

I hope the electorate remains engaged and active as you do. The only reason I take the time to post in the forum isn't for the few people who active post, but rather the "lurkers" who I know are reading this stuff. If I can make my points with them, it would be worth the time and effort.

Like you, I am far, far from 'accepting defeat' and 'throwing in the towel'. I have said many times that what's needed is to replace the 435. But, other than writing to those elected to represent me and trying to convince the people who read these posts that they should really think about who they will vote for in future elections, I realize there is little I can do between now and November, 2010. That's far from lying back and accepting whatever comes down the road.