|
|
|
September 24, 2008
The double-secret Tom Eagleton non-prediction prediction!
How many Eagletons do we need in this election? I mean, no sooner was Sarah Palin's nomination announced than the liberals went ballistic with Palin/ Eagleton comparisons and predictions. Which went nowhere. It was just a lame attempt to rattle the McCain campaign. So, when I read that poor Tom Eagleton's political corpse had been disinterred yet again by pundits invoking his specter vis-a-vis super-gaffer Joe Biden, I figured it was some kind of "Let's even the score!" deal. Possibly by vengeful right wingers (or by wishful thinkers on the left who want to float the idea while crediting the right wing). That might explain the peculiar attempt to make it appear that the prediction came from Glenn Reynolds -- the "notorious conservative blogger" who has been dutifully not predicting Biden's Eagleton moment right from the start. But will Glenn's "non-predictions" really fool the truly reality-based searchers for the truth? To these seasoned conspiracy theorists, the fact that Reynolds would predict by not predicting (especially because as "notorious conservatives" go, he's notoriously non-conservative) makes infinite sense. As I have explained in more posts than I have written, expert analysts (especially Gleen Grenwald) have determined that when Glenn Reynolds says something, he really means quite the opposite, just as when he links something, he's really not linking it at all, but he's playing a complex game of passive aggressive linking. This also means that when Rush Limbaugh says something but Glenn does not, Glenn actually said what Limbaugh said, whether he did or not! (Likewise, when Glenn says someone is straight, he means they're gay. Hmm... Did he ever say Joe Biden was straight?) So obviously (at least to anyone who studies these things in the detail that's required) it would be a simple thing for Glenn to predict something by not predicting it. As a matter of fact, I can't think of a more effective passive aggressive way of predicting something will happen than by predicting it won't happen! The real question no one is asking is: who didn't predict this first? posted by Eric on 09.24.08 at 09:50 AM
Comments
So you make fun of Instapundit and he breaks your blog with an Instalanche. Veeshir · September 24, 2008 01:08 PM So you make fun of Instapundit and he breaks your blog with an Instalanche. Veeshir · September 24, 2008 01:11 PM Eric, you have hit upon an important related point which will provide a yardstick for you for years to come, however the political winds change. Reynolds is also a libertarian, and that just messes with people's heads, especially liberals at the moment. They absolutely cannot figure out what you guys mean, and so they go through contortions to fit it into into categories. When they can't they conclude you must be on the other side. It is evidence that libertarians are currently closer to conservatives. Your ideas mess with conservatives heads as well, but nowhere near as much. Ten years from now, when you are again examing candidates from the major parties and wondering which is least far from your views, you can apply this Absolute Derangement Test. "Which side is absolutely unable to even absorb what I'm saying without getting it backwards and throwing in irrelevancies?" Vote for the other guy. Assistant Village Idiot · September 24, 2008 01:42 PM So you make fun of Instapundit and he breaks your blog with an Instalanche. Nah, that was clearly M. Simon's post he linked earlier. I don't believe that Glenn would ever passively aggressively link a post like this, because doing so would only force me to be passive aggressive! Plus, it would tend to prove the correctness of the theories I ridiculed. Geez, what are the implications of what I am saying? This is becoming a hall of mirrors! Eric Scheie · September 25, 2008 01:25 AM |
|
November 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
November 2008
October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• "Will this put a stop to the idiotic rumors? Of course not!"
• Soothe The Monkeys • McCain Is Against Coal • All speech is like pornography! And libertarians don't exist! • The election is over, but the geographical literacy campaign continues • The Obama Economy - An Anecdote • cynically naive? • Criticism is not hatred • Marxing Off A Cliff • A time for hope?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
So you make fun of Instapundit and he breaks your blog with an Instalanche.
Coincidence? I think not. Especially from the way he's not admitting that he broke your blog on purpose.