Two tributes, the second chuckleworthy, to last night’s media harangue heard ’round the world via the Right Scoop. Even Dave Weigel of WaPo’s “Those Darned Wingnuts” beat seems to have enjoyed it, although he wonders why Christie tearing a reporter to pieces is super cool on the right while Obama occasionally getting snotty with his opponents is grounds for outrageous outrage. Quote:

I can’t help but notice, however, the difference between the reaction Christie’s getting and the reaction President Obama gets when he rips into reporters, either to their faces or at rallies. Obviously, you expect conservative partisans to like Christie and liberal partisans to like Obama. But we’ve seen conservatives deride Obama’s “lecturing tone,” to Republicans, exhibit outrage when he reportedly used the word “teabagger,” accuse him of stiffing the press when he told a reporter his question was a “waste” — in other words, no atta-boys for Christie-esque behavior.

There are a lot of reasons for this. Obama’s tone is not Christie’s tone, and Obama’s rationale for office was not Christie’s. Obama ran explicitly as a uniter, so any swing at the opposition or his critics gives conservatives the opportunity to be “deeply disappointed” at Obama’s rhetoric. Christie has less to lose — despite defeating an unpopular incumbent, he’s not all that popular in his state. But the split reaction is interesting.

Some of the difference is due to pure partisanship, of course. Remember how John McCain’s temper supposedly made him a borderline lunatic who might push the button on a whim if elected president? Meanwhile, people like Rahm Emanuel and David Obey who are famous on the Hill for spitting F-bombs in people’s faces are just “colorful” or whatever. Part of it too is wanting to hold Obama accountable for the aura he’s built up around him. After the millionth fawning media tribute to his “first-class temperament” and Obama’s own tedious above-the-fray tut-tutting about civility, rubbing his face in his own displays of incivility is irresistible. He’s entitled to sell himself as a mix of Jesus and Bambi, but that’s going to raise the bar of expectations a bit, yes? Plus, as president, more decorum is expected of him simply by virtue of the office he holds.

There’s another explanation for the difference, though. One of the reasons righties dig Christie, I think, is the perception that he’s on something of a one-man mission. As a deep red governor in a deep blue state with a blue media haunting him, he’s besieged on all sides. His pugnaciousness seems like a virtue because it shows his determination to confront entrenched liberal interests in New Jersey notwithstanding the armies arrayed against him. The One, by contrast, has most of the media in his pocket and giant Democratic majorities in both houses (albeit not for long). He’s got it made, for the moment. No wonder, then, that when he gets irritated, it seems not so much pugnacious as … peevish, and petty.