Indeed.Great job on Torture/Reyonlds. It's why he is my least favorite commentator around - he can never argue a position straightforwardly or honestly. At least with Michelle Malkin or John Hinderaker, for example - or even the NRO types - you know exactly what they believe, because they say it.
But Reynolds constantly tries to preserve credibility by arguing that he opposes X but then spending all his time attacking and mocking anti-X advocates and promoting pro-X views.
He does that with global warming specifically and all political issues generally. Even though it was a small example, the most vivid case I ever saw of it was with the Jerome Armstrong/astrology mini-"scandal." The day that emerged, Reynolds did more than any other person to give that story visibility - he literally linked to one post after the next from right-wing bloggers pushing the Armstrong story, but then he inserted into the middle of a post, as a fleeting dependent clause, some sort of dismissive claim that he didn't really think the whole thing was a big deal, then proceeded again to link to more and more items about it.
That way, the same person who did more to bring publicity to the story would, if you made the point, say: "Oh, no - I made clear I didn't think the story was a big deal." It's the most dishonest and cowardly way possible for engaging in public debate - pretending to have one position and then doing everything possible to promote its opposite.
But I can't understand why Sullivan still thinks that Putz holds "consistently libertarian views." I'm sorry, but if you haven't voted libertarian in 7 years and you shill for the most un-libertarian administration in decades, there's nothing at all consistent about your supposed libertarianism. Putz is a neoconservative authoritarian who loves Republicans, hates Democrats, and has a few token moderate views on social issues that he trots out again and again to prove that he's "nonpartisan."
He's not a libertarian.
No comments:
Post a Comment