And your statement is a great example of how logic and assumptions are also used and abused. To wit:
Over the long haul it's more effective? Based on what empirical evidence? I'd be interested in seeing those data points. You do realize, I hope, that its effectiveness may very well be only relative to you and your particular point of view....I like the notion of being an "honest partisan." Over the long haul, it's more effective. Of course, it's harder to do, so the extremists and dullardsnever like it. ...
In your statement, you making the following assumptions:
-Being a Honest Partisan is more effective over the long haul.
-Being a Honest Partisan is harder.
-Extremists and Dullards never like doing anything hard.
-Therefore Extremists and Dullards don't like "honest partisanship".
You imply that since you like the idea of Honest Partisanship, anyone that dislikes the ideadoes sobecause it's harder and therefore an extremist and dullard, and implying thatyou are neither which is not necessarily true.
I could take your statement and use it this way:
I like the notion of being a "fast driver." Over the long haul, it's more effective. Of course, it's harder to do, so theslowpokes and cowardsnever like it.
Since I can drive my car quite easily and safely at 126 mph (damn limiter), anyone that can't chooses not to do so onlybecause it's harder and therefore they are a slowpoke and a coward and because I drive fast, I amneither. And that is equally a completely false statement.
The only true statement in the entire argument is that you like the notion of being an "honest partisan". Not that you necessarily are, just that you like the notion.
That was a good article, thanks for finding it and posting it.