“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 he should try try e-mailing me instead.

Besides, who is he to accuse others of self-interested blogging practices when he does things like this?

For the record, Patterico, you’re 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.

It’s fine to attack those who play party enforcer for party enforcement’s sake, e.g., someone who doesn’t care about judicial nominations but rails at the Gang of 14 anyway just because they bucked a trend. I don’t think that’s a fair characterization of the individuals you named, however, and even if it were it wouldn’t have a f’n thing to do with patriotism, one way or the other.

Patterico *whom I like* definitely muddied the waters here.

If you feel that my ‘questioning patriotism’ was over-the-top, so be it.

But you both wholly missed the object of my ‘over-the-top’ vitriol. It was not those who disagree with me on this one issue, but those who predictably and regularly play the Party Enforcer role. Since you both defy the Party Line on various issues, you’re not included.

Now, you still might want to object to my ‘over-the-top’ rhetoric on general principles, but it was directed at the consistently Party Fatihful, which you both took pains to define yourselves out of.

Patterico is “shocked, … SHOCKED … to find out there is impugning going on here.” He didn’t like this post, in which I lit into the filibuster deal nay-sayers. Welcome to the internets, Patterico. The other day, the NY Times ran a piece on the C…

Then came post-election time. And it seemed to change him, in a way. The shtick left, and he decided to do more serious punditry. And that was fine, until he started a major blogwar with Paul of Wizbang over some absurd evolution debate. It ended with Commie calling Paul a coward in one of the worst smears I’ve seen on our side of the isle. Suddenly, taking position against the Republican mainstream became the norm, with him constantly stating that he was a “conservative.” And anyone who dared disagree with him on the evolution debate was deemed a “flat-earther” or a “liar.”

Again, I really was disappointed by all of this. I do not know what could have brought it on. Perhaps this is now the “Devil’s Advocate” shtick, but I doubt it. It’s a big comedown from the humble blogger last year who publicly apologized to WONKETTE of all people for an implied, tounge-in-cheek observation on her role in the Cutler story.

Could it be that all we as bloggers are susceptible to the Andrew Sullivan bug? I sincerely hope not.