![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumWhich bothers me.
This guy has two posts, (the second one was started after 10 updates to the first), about Obama's choice in mustard. (give the guy his due... he does allow comments, which isn't as common on the right wing side as I wish; though he does say the Left-wing [nutroots] blogs censor theirs; which has not been my experience)
WTF? I mean, people like what they like. The idea that somehow one has to like (or pretend to like) "just plain Joe" stuff to be a good politician is one of the damnfool things we have in the US. It's pernicious, and wrong. Me, I like dijon. I like german style mustards. I've been known to eat pirogs with chinese mustard (use in moderation, have beer handy). "Chacun a son gôuts" I always say. If you like something I don't, I don't care. Heck, I'll still cook it, and serve it.
So this whole, "He ordered poufy mustard," mustard thing confuses me. Bush liked to drink near-beer. All in all I think that shows a greater lack of taste/smarts than it would have for Obama to ask for a bit of mâche and arugula on his burger.
We are supposed to be a nation of rugged individuals, but a lot of people seem to want our leaders to be conformists. Burgers with "yellow death", and hot dogs with ketchup.
Ok, now for the kicker, why I'm pointing the laughing finger at this guy. He's a professor of law, at Cornell (Which US News/World Reports ranks as the No. 13 Law School in the nation). That's right, he's got nothing better to do with his time than obsess about what kind of mustard the President likes. Ten updates, each a bit zanier than the last (in one he implies Obama's preference is a bit OCD).
He says he went on about it because folks like me (who found out about it this morning, going to and fro in the Internets) are all up in arms about it. Right. I've looked at the rest of his site (so you don't have to), and I don't buy it.
The nutroots and mainstream media understand that Obama and the corresponding Democratic majorities in Congress were elected through a unique confluence of circumstances which may never be repeated. The historic election of the first black president; an unquestioning mainstream media which embarrassed itself with its biased coverage; an economic credit crunch just weeks before the election; a Bush administration which lost its will to fight for its policies soon after the 2004 election; a Republican candidate who refused to attack Obama's relationships with seedy characters even though Democrats showed no such restraint as to the Republicans; and a generalized discontent with the existing Republican power structure.
There is a lingering question, however, as to just who Barack Obama is, and whether we elected a blank slate who makes it up as he goes. This point is made not just by conservatives (who made this argument prior to the election), but also by Democrats and left-wing activists who openly wonder whether Obama's election promises on terrorist detention, gay rights, and a host of other issues were "just words." The nutroots doesn't know who Barack Obama is anymore than I do, and anything which fills in the void in a negative way is viewed as a threat.
This void in Obama's story leaves the Democratic hold on power vulnerable. One disastrous photo-op, open mike, or tape recorder left running, could puncture the Democratic bubble.
Riggggght!
That's why "The Left" has been ignoring the way Obama's advisors on the banking mess are all from the banking houses. It's why we haven't said anything about the way the Obama White House has continued with the Bush White House's abuse of the State Secrets Privilege. It's why we think torture is ok now that Our Guy TM is in power.
Oh.. wait, we haven't? Whoa!
Perhaps the real problem is the wingnuts (and this guy counts... if you don't believe me, look at his links) don't believe they really lost. It was a cock-up. The Republicans ran "too far to the left" or something, and so they lost (which seems bass-ackward to me. If the country is so republican, how is it that running to the middle [which I haven't seen, but hey I'm just a member of the Deluded Left). It's not that they were in charge, and screwed the pooch, got caught with their hand in the cookie jar, and generally failed to deliver on their promises.
No, it's that, "outside forces" (what caused that credit crunch? Why is it the Dems, not the Republicans, had that historic first black candidate (I mean what, Powell, Rice, Steele, all the blacks who are players in the Republican party weren't interested in the job, or something?)
No, the real problem is that people like William Jacobson think their party is entitled to power (the Permanant Republican Majority) and will grasp at any straw to try and make it seem the present holder of the Office is somehow a fake. They lost on the issues, so they have no issues to attack.
They are stuck with what kind of mustard he likes, and they don't like the one the president prefers, probably because it's not made by French's, but by Kraft
This guy has two posts, (the second one was started after 10 updates to the first), about Obama's choice in mustard. (give the guy his due... he does allow comments, which isn't as common on the right wing side as I wish; though he does say the Left-wing [nutroots] blogs censor theirs; which has not been my experience)
WTF? I mean, people like what they like. The idea that somehow one has to like (or pretend to like) "just plain Joe" stuff to be a good politician is one of the damnfool things we have in the US. It's pernicious, and wrong. Me, I like dijon. I like german style mustards. I've been known to eat pirogs with chinese mustard (use in moderation, have beer handy). "Chacun a son gôuts" I always say. If you like something I don't, I don't care. Heck, I'll still cook it, and serve it.
So this whole, "He ordered poufy mustard," mustard thing confuses me. Bush liked to drink near-beer. All in all I think that shows a greater lack of taste/smarts than it would have for Obama to ask for a bit of mâche and arugula on his burger.
We are supposed to be a nation of rugged individuals, but a lot of people seem to want our leaders to be conformists. Burgers with "yellow death", and hot dogs with ketchup.
Ok, now for the kicker, why I'm pointing the laughing finger at this guy. He's a professor of law, at Cornell (Which US News/World Reports ranks as the No. 13 Law School in the nation). That's right, he's got nothing better to do with his time than obsess about what kind of mustard the President likes. Ten updates, each a bit zanier than the last (in one he implies Obama's preference is a bit OCD).
He says he went on about it because folks like me (who found out about it this morning, going to and fro in the Internets) are all up in arms about it. Right. I've looked at the rest of his site (so you don't have to), and I don't buy it.
The nutroots and mainstream media understand that Obama and the corresponding Democratic majorities in Congress were elected through a unique confluence of circumstances which may never be repeated. The historic election of the first black president; an unquestioning mainstream media which embarrassed itself with its biased coverage; an economic credit crunch just weeks before the election; a Bush administration which lost its will to fight for its policies soon after the 2004 election; a Republican candidate who refused to attack Obama's relationships with seedy characters even though Democrats showed no such restraint as to the Republicans; and a generalized discontent with the existing Republican power structure.
There is a lingering question, however, as to just who Barack Obama is, and whether we elected a blank slate who makes it up as he goes. This point is made not just by conservatives (who made this argument prior to the election), but also by Democrats and left-wing activists who openly wonder whether Obama's election promises on terrorist detention, gay rights, and a host of other issues were "just words." The nutroots doesn't know who Barack Obama is anymore than I do, and anything which fills in the void in a negative way is viewed as a threat.
This void in Obama's story leaves the Democratic hold on power vulnerable. One disastrous photo-op, open mike, or tape recorder left running, could puncture the Democratic bubble.
Riggggght!
That's why "The Left" has been ignoring the way Obama's advisors on the banking mess are all from the banking houses. It's why we haven't said anything about the way the Obama White House has continued with the Bush White House's abuse of the State Secrets Privilege. It's why we think torture is ok now that Our Guy TM is in power.
Oh.. wait, we haven't? Whoa!
Perhaps the real problem is the wingnuts (and this guy counts... if you don't believe me, look at his links) don't believe they really lost. It was a cock-up. The Republicans ran "too far to the left" or something, and so they lost (which seems bass-ackward to me. If the country is so republican, how is it that running to the middle [which I haven't seen, but hey I'm just a member of the Deluded Left). It's not that they were in charge, and screwed the pooch, got caught with their hand in the cookie jar, and generally failed to deliver on their promises.
No, it's that, "outside forces" (what caused that credit crunch? Why is it the Dems, not the Republicans, had that historic first black candidate (I mean what, Powell, Rice, Steele, all the blacks who are players in the Republican party weren't interested in the job, or something?)
No, the real problem is that people like William Jacobson think their party is entitled to power (the Permanant Republican Majority) and will grasp at any straw to try and make it seem the present holder of the Office is somehow a fake. They lost on the issues, so they have no issues to attack.
They are stuck with what kind of mustard he likes, and they don't like the one the president prefers, probably because it's not made by French's, but by Kraft
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-05-09 05:11 pm (UTC)Perhaps on a tangent... Pat Buchanan's take (short form: It's All Bush's fault, because he was Bad just as the Leftwingers said) on the need to re-form (but not reform/change) The Republican/Conservative Party is quite amusing, and I suspect many conservatives will find it almost as ridiculous as I do.