The rule is two-for-flinching. We did not create this rule. We are merely following it.
I actually don’t really care what the President puts on his burger, but this Legal Insurrection post about the reaction to his post about the condimenting in question is still pretty interesting:
My post the other day, MSNBC Hides Obama’s Dijon Mustard (aka Dijongate), has hit a nerve unlike anything else I have written.
[snip]
Like most of my posts, Dijongate could have and probably should have fallen into the black hole of internet punditry, never to be seen or heard of again. But the reaction from the nutroots was widespread and swift, and they have kept the story alive.
[snip]
What gives here? Why the out-sized reaction? If this is a non-story, why is the left obsessed with it?
Judging from his comments section from both posts, ‘obsessed’ is being kind. The reaction resembles more dogs worrying at stitches than anything else. That being said, I am raising an eyebrow at this:
I think the answer to why the nutroots cannot let Dijongate rest is the inherent insecurity of the left with their hold on power. While the mainstream media and left-wing blogs constantly tell us that Republicans and conservatives are dead politically, I don’t think they actually believe what they are saying.
…not because I disagree, but because I thought that it was obvious already. Then again, I got to watch in some vicious bemusement as a great number of people reacted badly to my rather straightforward observation that by supporting Obama in the wake of his embrace of rendition they were now pro-torture by their own, loudly proclaimed, quote-unquote ‘moral code’: the fact that the Other Side has some of the most insecure partisans in Western civilization is hardly a surprise. Nor is it that the Online Left absolutely hates the fact that, despite it all… nobody respects them*. Heck, not even their own party even likes them very much.
Of course, why should they? You can’t demand others respect you if you can’t respect yourself.
Moe Lane
*It does astound me slightly that there are people out there who I have never met who go through considerable time and effort to make it clear that they think that I’m a poopyhead, and that all of my colleagues are poopyheads. That this means that I merely come out the automatic winner in the resulting power exchange never seems to enter their minds.
Crossposted to RedState.
…not because I disagree, but because I thought that it was obvious already. Then again, I got to watch in some vicious bemusement as a great number of people reacted badly to my rather straightforward observation that by supporting Obama in the wake of his embrace of rendition they were now pro-torture by their own, loudly proclaimed, quote-unquote ‘moral code’:
And, of course, as Mark Steyn astutely notes, by supporting gay marriage they are implicitly supporting polygamy, and perhaps down the road, bestiality with their favorite pet or farm animal, all notarized and legalized at the local town hall. Mark even free-associates that since a corporation is a legal person, two people could merge as two corporations and derive tax benefits or whatever perks might derive therewith…..to use the legal mumbo-jumbo the Mass Supremos employed to put gay marriage forward BECAUS IT WAS NOT FORBIDDEN in the Mass state constitution drawn up by John Adams in the early 1770’s. Anything not expressly forbidden is therefore legal contractually…
Well, it’s a threadjack; but that’s one major reason why I’ve always considered it best to permit SSM through the legislative process, not the judiciary; that way we can strictly define what we’re permitting, and if a different group wants something similar later, they can go out and convince the country or states, too.
“It does astound me slightly that there are people out there who I have never met who go through considerable time and effort to make it clear that they think that I’m a poopyhead, and that all of my colleagues are poopyheads. That this means that I merely come out the automatic winner in the resulting power exchange never seems to enter their minds.”
What does the fact that you’re going through your own time and effort to make it clear that you think they and all their colleagues are poopyheads mean?
That I’m a sadist? I thought that this was fairly well known. 🙂
Besides, they rant about me; I primarily rant about their owners.
You were ranting specifically about them there, which, by your own stated logic, meant that they won.
Define “them” and “they,” Prodigal. If you mean “Congressional Democrats,” well, yes, they come out ahead on this one. If you mean “various bloggers linking to me that I don’t think are worth starting a traffic-bumping feud with*”… umm, no. They splutter, I smile. 🙂
*A somewhat deadly insult in this business.
I was referring to your statement about the “people out there who I have never met who go through considerable time and effort to make it clear that they think that I’m a poopyhead”, Moe. If them calling you a poopyhead means that they lose to you, the fact that you posted an entry about how they’re the real poopyheads means that by your own logic, via the act of posting this entry you just lost to them.
Not particularly, no.
You see, there’s a couple of people watching this exchange right now, quietly fuming that they don’t get to participate – at least, judging from the hate mail that I’ve gotten today on the subject – and then they’ll probably go off and write bitter little posts mentioning me by name and linking back to this, and not incidentally boosting my traffic by a couple of hits, and as soon as you’re tired of talking about this the subject’s pretty much over from my point of view.
Just the way it is, man. Some of them hate me and mine; I simply find them vaguely contemptible. Subtle, yet profound difference. 🙂
And yet you hoist yourself on your own rhetorical petard by posting about how you were rubber and they were glue, regardless.