“So, the latest New York Times OP/ED page conservative affirmative action case has his debut editorial for the paper, and what is his trenchant analysis?
It’s that the Republicans should have nominated Richard Milhaus Cheney as their presidential nominee in 2008.” ~ Matthew Saroff in a post titled “Ross Douthat is a F$#@ing Moron!”
Saroff, as Larison notes, is either “unaware that Ross doesn’t actually think Dick Cheney should have been the Republican nominee, or at the very least he hasn’t the foggiest what it is that Ross was actually arguing.”
I think it’s fair to say that if you’re not going to read someone’s piece, you probably shouldn’t go on to attack its merits (or lack thereof). I had my own quibbles with Douthat’s piece, but I damn well read the entire thing before putting pen to paper. It’s one thing to criticize ideas, and quite another to simply write every conservative writer you come across off as just “another Kristol.”
Perhaps Saroff is simply out of touch with, or uninterested in, the infighting within the conservative movement, which was the thrust of Douthat’s counter-factual regarding Cheney as the better loser. Perhaps then he should have avoided spewing such nonsense.
To quote Larison once more:
Ross’ column was a thought exercise, which can be difficult for people who do not think.