Sometimes people - experts even - make pronouncements that seem so out of line with reality that I've got to double take.

I was reading this article in the New York Times today, which summed up the opinions coming out of Reuter's Investment Outlook Summit this week. Here's the lead sentence:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain's tax policies have given him an edge as the better man for the economy, various Wall Street experts said at this week's Reuters Investment Outlook Summit.

I guess that's not so surprising. Wall Street likes tax cuts, for sure. But aren't we now in a current economic crisis AFTER massive tax cuts were given by the Bush administration? I know the reasons for our current economic struggles are complex and that tax cuts by themselves were not necessarily the cause. But it sure doesn't seem like our economy has done better because of them, does it?

So I've got to wonder, how do supposedly smart people expect to do the same old thing (tax cuts) and get different results (better economy)?

More puzzlement of mine below.

I'm increasingly disturbed by the campaign of misinformation that's out there in email land. Every day someone in my family stuns me with stupidity and the terrible effectiveness of misinformation. As we get closer to November, I know it's only going to get worse. I want to fight back, and I'm hoping for some help here.

Since over dinner tonight the issue of the economy came up (and the absurd argument that the economic boom during Clinton was actually due to Reagan. Sheesh!) I wanted to try to find some actual real information I can circulate around. Amazing to me how there seems to be mass delusion on this issue, where somehow Republicans are thought to be better for the economy by too many Americans who don't read the news, but do somehow read and forward inane, vitriolic emails and trust them implicitly.  

Below I've cobbled together something I wanted to massage into a counter-point viral email that people will actually read, so it's got to be short and to the point. I'll try to make it punchier when I've got a better handle on the facts.

I'm hoping for some feedback and perhaps some more recent information to help make this case a little better, so if you've got sources or ideas, please share!

I'm picking up on teacherken's excellent Guilt by Association diary this morning. I needed to ask a few more questions about this.

What happens when we permanently shun those who offend us, or those with whom we strongly disagree?

This question is in reference to the flawed logic that when one of our political candidates is discovered as having an association with a person who has said or done something controversial, the only acceptable course of action is to denounce and reject one's ties with that person forever.

Representative of this would be Hillary Clinton's assertion that "You can choose your pastor" and that "I would have left." This of course, an assertion that Barack Obama should have left his church after the Reverend Jeremiah Wright made remarks that some, including Obama, found offensive.  

People get information and form opinions in a lot of ways. The inane email chain is one of them I think progressives need to tackle.

The "Scare the Piss out of People over Taxes" email quoted below landed in my inbox today. I'd like to find something that I can send out in direct response to it.

Does anyone know if there's a website or a group dedicated to taking these kinds of emails apart? I don't have the time nor expertise necessarily to do it right - with sources, etc. If anyone here wants to do it, or knows of a group that does it, please comment below. My plan is to send it to every dumbass on the cc list.

I'm upset.

I was listening to Air America tonight and the host covering for Rachel Maddow asked callers a simple question. "If you are an Obama supporter, would you vote for Clinton in the general if she won the nomination?" or, "If you're a Clinton supporter, would you vote for Obama?"

3 out of the 4 callers I heard said, "No."

When asked, "Did you feel this way six months ago?" they all said, "No." The longer it drags on, the more divided we become.

Did anyone hear the warped rationale Hillary Clinton gave this morning on why Michigan's primary should count? I heard this on NPR this morning and almost had to pull off the road her thinking on Michigan was so absurd.

The quote is below the fold.

This afternoon I heard NPR's broadcast follow-up of the story, Black Lawmakers Rethink Clinton Support. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri was interviewed about some of the pressure being exerted on black members of Congress who support Hillary Clinton.

I was particularly struck by Rep. Cleaver's explanation of his support for Clinton. He explained that she is his friend, and then boiled it down to one statement:

"Loyalty trumps all," he said.

Smart negotiators are masterful at controlling the agenda when they sense a conflict in the needs of two parties. Democrats lose  these arguments because we unwittingly engage with conservatives on issues they prioritize, like gay marriage and abortion.

Gay marriage and abortion are not our issues. Issues are agenda items that represent problems. Within our own ranks, these social issues do not represent problems for us as  most liberals already believe gay people are entitled to equal rights and that women's reproductive rights are sacred. These are only issues for conservatives as the right wing of the Republican party continues its attempts to erode civil liberties and religious freedoms in this country.

I say it's time to to fight back. We need to take control of the public agenda and to set conservatives up to lose by making them talk about our issues - freedom from oppressive governments and social and economic justice.  Republican policies naturally undermine these fundamental American values, so this should be fairly easy to do.