You +1'd this publicly. UndoIt occurs to me that I've been at this blogging gig for a couple of years now, and one thing I've gotten very good at is pointing out how Liberal behaviour is contradictory and false, and that it is deliberately so.
But when I point out how somebody dying this week because ORNGE couldn't get their act together kind of blows a hole in the smug Liberal attitude of "Conservative ideology kills people, therefore what is needed is Liberal oversight and regulation", a weird thing happens. I get lots of views (close to 400 on that one two-line post), and I know some of those views must come from Liberals who read this blog, but very few of them ever comment or tweet at me. There's the odd anonymous person who seems to disagree, but it's never clear what their affiliation is.
I know Liberals read my stuff because a week or so ago one of them took a whack at me when I made a mistake. I was later proven right, but when I pointed this out to him, he suddenly had nothing to say. Hmmmmm.
The prevailing explanation I have for this regularly observed behaviour is that Liberals operate within bubbles of social acceptability. And if there is a bubble, it stands to reason that there is stuff outside that bubble. Dangerous stuff. And that's where we conservatives come in.
Liberals get a real kick out of making us conservatives look silly. Doing so reinforces the bubbles in which they operate. If they are engaged in fighting us and running down the stuff we believe in, they are less likely to acknowledge that what they believe in doesn't work a whole hell of a lot better.
So they need us. But they don't want us to effectively expose their own contradictions. If we do that, they focus on errors we make or possibly offensive things we say so they can win the argument. But if we say stuff that really doesn't have a lot of errors or possibly offensive things (like what I put on my blog, for example), they just don't engage. If they engaged with a conservative who says stuff that makes sense, they might start agreeing with that stuff and their bubbles would pop.
Here are just three examples of how Liberals will just flat out ignore stuff that threatens their worldview that they can't argue with:
1) No Liberal would be caught dead voicing support for Harper's agenda, but if Dalton copies it, by, say, hiding environmental policy changes in an omnibus bill, Liberal criticism is nowhere to be found. And this contradiction won't be reported anywhere outside the Post, that's for sure.
2) It is possible for Liberal MPP's to be personally in favour of, oh, let's say, subways, while voting against them. As per Martin Regg Cohn. But you can't be a PC MPP and be personally for gay straight alliances, but then vote againt them. As per Martin Regg Cohn.
3) Yesterday I noticed that Adam Radwanski had committed an error of sorts. He wrote, "Ontario Liberals, who came to office shortly after the fatal police shooting of unarmed native protester Dudley George during the Ipperwash land dispute, have tried hard to avoid confrontation with first nations." Except....the shooting of Dudley George happened in 1995, while McGuinty came to power eight years later, not "shortly" after.
In this case, instead of just poking Radwanski on my blog like I usually do, I actually tweeted at him and pointed that out. No response. Not a whisper. Keep in mind this is a journalist who gets paid for reporting facts.
By the way, you may be surprised to learn that I actually tried contacting the War Room Boss through the proper channels, all friendly-like, through a mutual acquaintance who told me he was open to a meeting and connected me to his people over email.
A few weeks went by, in which I sent a follow up email, and I got nothing.
Why do you suppose that happened?