The Politburo Diktat

I read your post again (your link to your post goes to the comments and not the post). You don't sound like you are accusing the Malkins of this world of simply ramping up the vitriol on opinions they already hold. To me, it looks like you are saying that the deal is obviously the right answer for the country, and anyone who opines otherwise is putting their Sitemeter ahead of honesty and the good of their country.

People can read your post and make up their own minds. That's the way it looks to me.

Forget motivations. That discussion is not helpful. Why not discuss the "deal" itself? Perhaps I could convince you that good judges have enough importance in this country that the capitulation was a bad idea.

"I don't think that most bloggers have consciously manipulative online personas, but I do think that it's become a "political team sport" on almost every issue. ... there's a subconscious tendency to appropriate positions that result in positive reinforcement from the faithful, the folks that butter your bread."

If one insists on speculating about the motives of others in expressing a particular opinion, what about Jeff Goldstein's speculation as to the possible motives of some blogging moderates who like the compromise:

I might just as easily point out that playing the fearless maverick unafraid of preaching to a partisan choir can itself be construed as a calculated affectation . . .

Indeed. Of course, he goes on to acknowledge that this certainly isn't true in all cases. And you should acknowledge the same about people who oppose the compromise.

"The commissar" came to my blog and posted the following comment:

"Don't you think that Patterico, is a little, you know, UNPATRIOTIC?"

For one thing, the post on which he commented was completely unrelated to any political issue whatsoever; in fact, it was merely an alert that I had posted new pictures. It seems this was merely an attempt to throw a bomb to a random blogger to get him to comment on something he had written about. Fine, but next time try e-mailing me instead.

Besides, who are you to accuse others of self-interested blogging practices when you do things like this, Commisar?

For the record, Patterico is right: the deal sucks. It is, above all, a declaration that the constitutionally proscribed duty of the Senate to give Presidential nominations an up-or-down vote is for sale in the interests of contemporary political expediency.

Besides, people who refer to the ostensible need for the Senate to move on to more important matters simply insult my intelligence. I would be glad to have the Senate embroiled in the judge controversy even if the only result of it is that it stopped them from trying to transfer the contents of the U.S. Treasury wholesale into the pockets of their constituents for a week or so.

Is this how you define irony? I think it is. Dissent is Loyalty, Comrade! Push back the Republican running dogs which do not bark against their own convictions for the sake of your convictions! Down with the SoCons, Up with the NecroCons! Your bravery and nobility will be a light throughout all history and the leaders and followers of both parties will hail your name as the bridge to Utopia!

Commissar, on a more serious note you seem to be objecting to the debate itself instead of arguing against specific positions or policy formulations. And this is only my personal opinion and doesn't reflect a lot of serious consideration or deliberation, but I find affected nobility to be tedious and I don't think it becomes you.

It isn't about a Republican getting out of line. Most people aren't Republicans because they feel some unexplainable allegiance to that particular party. People become Republicans because they agree with them on most issues. Fact is, the Republicans are supposed to be the ideological conservatives, and yes, when they don't act it, they hear it from the voters.

Side note: We had Daniel Pipes on our show last week and he called Sharon a 'left-wing liberal' so the opinion that he's weak isn't that unusual and it isn't limited to the blogosphere.

J. Hagglund, you mean prescribed. And it's not a constitutional duty. I'm not thrilled with this compromise, but the consitutional argument is horsefeathers.
Neither the filibuster nor the up-or-down vote is constitutionally required; both are internal to the senate.

That's your opinion, but there is a decent argument going the other way.

Just a small observation: I see remarkably little questioning of people's patriotism in the blogosphere. Mind you, I do it--and I do it a good deal more than most other people that I've seen. But I'm terribly specific about what behaviors I call that, and it usually boils down to obviously putting partisan interests ahead of country.

I'm not certain that's a fair cop to everyone who objected to the Senate compromise (and for the record, I'm on record as not giving much of a shit about the judicial flap anyway), but I would say bashing people who disagree with you just because it feels good when there are greater causes would qualify. But Patterico's one of the more honorable people I know in the 'sphere.

I'll also say for the record: I think the phenomenon of "preaching to the choir" only works for most people for a while. Then it gets old and stale and uncomfortable, and the only people who can keep it up are the complete lunatics and whackjobs, or those who are making serious money doing it (Coulter, Kos, Krugman, etc.).

I do notice after three and a half years of this that every once in a while when a flap starts, other people accuse others of this sort of thing. It used to be called link-whoring, now I guess it's choir-preaching. But whatever. I would merely point out that at some point, unless someone's making serious money blogging, it's probably safest to assume that most of the time they're just being honest in how they feel.

For the record, I don't think anyone at all anywhere in the story covered themselves with glory on the judicial flap. I don't think Democrats did by filibustering, I don't think Republicans did by hemming and hawing for months on end trying to figure out how to respond in any way other than whining, and I don't even thing the 14 "moderates" did anything particularly noble either. So, let the people who are mad be mad.

(Hmm, did I say anything substantive here or am I just spinning my wheels? I'm not sure.)

"People who oppose any compromise, who hold out for their inflexible partisan position at all costs, hurt the country."

This is the rub. The statement above may or may not be true. It depends what the "partisan position" is. What if one party wanted to defend against a nuclear threat from terrorists and the other didn't?

The problem is simple: You don't like the compromise. Fine. To play word games and call people like Patterico "unpatriotic" is absurd.

So, wrong headed-political positions hurt the country. Then, we're unpatriotic when we're wrong?

The willingness of the Dems to resume their filibustering has better informed us on this issue. I believe that it is now clear that the compromise was a huge mistake, one that the leftists will exploit as best they can.

I didn't suggest that Michelle Malkin, dKos, Hugh Hewitt, or Patterico himself for that matter, express views contrary to their real opinions in a phony sham.

You wrote that "they regularly churn out manufactured controversy," and that their behavior is "shameful" and "beneath contempt". It's hard to believe you weren't accusing anyone of conscious dishonesty.