Ninety percent of political conversation amounts to dueling "talking points." Best-selling books reinforce what folks thought when they bought them. Talk radio and opinion journals preach to the converted. Let's face it: the purpose of most political speech is not to persuade but to win, be it power, ratings, celebrity or even cash.

By contrast, marshaling a case to persuade those who start from a different position is a lost art. Honoring what's right in the other side's argument seems a superfluous thing that can only cause trouble, like an appendix. Politicos huddle with like-minded souls in opinion cocoons that seem impervious to facts.

And who was to blame? The Media is the obvious answer.

With due respect to Miller, a smart guy, politicians and partisans have never respected facts UNLESS they are required to do so. That is what a free press is supposed to do and simply does not anymore. Miller considers it a problem of a Media focused more on heat than light. I believe the problem goes much deeper than that. The utter disrespect for the truth exhibited by all media is the heart of the problem. Liars are not called liars. Falsehoods are not called falsehoods. What passes for reporting these days is "Republicans say . Democrats say __." When someone spews falsehoods, there is not a Media outlet in the country that will say 'that is false.' Not the New York Times, not the Washington Post, not any of them.

For crissakes, the former hack who had the title of Ombudsman for the Times claimed to stand up for truth by issuing slanderous falsehoods. Who was outraged? The Lefty blogs. Anybody else? Jay Rosen? Anyone?

I got bad news for Miller. The "beardstrokers," with few exceptions (Herbert, Krugman) have not demanded the truth. Miller wrote on social security and instead of demanding truth from the Bush Administration he chose to chastise Democrats for not being open to discussion. And you believe you can be persuasive with such an attitude? Not a mention of the pack of lies that Bush has peddled?

It is pretty simple, there will be no meaningful political discourse as long as lies are tolerated and ignored. To lament the loss of political persuasion while ignoring the elephant (pun intended) in the room is to insult the intelligence of your audience. And that is never persuasive.

Consider Ignatius himself. Does he believe that he stuck to the facts on Iraq? That he held the Bush Administration and Republicans and himself to a standard of truth? Of course not. The fact is Ignatius does not even know what rational discourse is. He has accepted and disseminated lies now for the past 4 years. Splitting the baby is NOT rational discourse Ignatius. "He said she said" reporting is NOT rational discourse.

The funny thing is Ignatius demonstrates his cluelessness in this very column. He writes:  

In Montana, Democrat Jon Tester is running ahead of Republican Sen. Conrad Burns by presenting himself as the ultimate regular guy, a lumpy ex-farmer with a bad haircut. One of his spots, "Creating a Buzz," actually celebrates his crew cut.

Jon Tester? The daily kos candidate in the Democratic primary against the centrist DLC candidate? The one who wants to repeal the Patriot Act? Sheesh. Ignatius lives in another world.

And how about this one:

The great synthesizer himself, Bill Clinton, was out campaigning this week for Deval Patrick, a member of the Clinton Justice Department who is running for governor of Massachusetts. "Everyone knows that, somehow, the wheel has run off of our national discourse and our common life," Clinton said Monday. "And people don't want us to shout at each other any more. They want to be talked to, reasoned with, lifted up."

See my post Bill Clinton Answers for my rebuttal on what Clinton thinks.  And Ignatius, it ain't pretty for you. The Big Dog thinks you stink. You'll excuse me for not giving Ignatius much respect - he seems to be a nice man but he is clueless.