Scientific discourse is based on a vigorous attempt to eliminate emotion from the arguments. Political discourse based on emotional arguments can be just as effective (and often more effective) than arguments driven by facts and reason.

This is how idealistic Americans will grant the benefit of the doubt to “hope and change” arguments, if the delivery is melodious enough, which it was. In this bargain there was no explicit trade-off (Take my trust and fulfill my wishes), but the magnitude of the trust investment commands the intensity of pain caused by the loss of faith if the tacit deal is broken, which it was, at least to a significant number of Americans.

None of this is easy to quantify, but most of it can be felt. Otherwise, why would the tea partiers be denied the most elementary consideration by those who sense the threat to their cherished utopian vision?

The protestors can win if they engage their opponents with more humanity than they have received so far. I believe they are capable of it.

The breach of decorum in the chamber was precisely the example of what not to do, regardless of how well it might have reflected the urge of some of the television audience. Keep you cool, and be considerate to those who have not felt the pain of disillusion.