Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (44684)	5/16/2004 7:17:27 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793696

What if the original concept is still viable and we are making progress? I have seen nothing to disprove either idea. That's not the point in my scenario. The point is to acknowledge that some people either never thought the original concept was viable or have since changed their minds and to speak to them in a way that doesn't turn them off. He doesn't need to say "we wuz wrong." He only, IMO, needs to acknowledge that some people think so and validate them, without agreeing with them. Once he has their attention he can explain what we need to do going forward and why. "I understand that you have problems with how we got to where we are, but..." If he can get into their moccasins long enough to tell them why, from their POV, and given where we are now, it's not a good idea to abandon the effort, I think he can stem the panic. Speaking as someone who thought he was dead wrong to go into Iraq, I believe it would be easy to make a case for not running away. But the case needs to be made with some empathy and respect for those who have opposed the war, not the same old arrogance and single-mindedness. Won't it give ammunition for the failure story instead? I suppose it could backfire. There's some risk. But I don't think that likely and I don't know that he would be any worse off than where he is now. Taking a newfound interest in those he has slighted would, IMO, be very disarming. The hard core Bush-haters would not be persuaded, certainly, but they aren't the target. Most people are very willing to support any president, even if they have to hold their noses to do it, if he gives them a persuasive rationale. To be persuasive it has to be respectful of them and where they're coming from and it needs to make sense. I know there's a rationale out there that makes sense if it's only to point out how the alternative would be disasterous. I don't know if he can can find the humility to reach out to non-believers.