« Why Lieberman is like Mickey Kaus | Main | The nasty rhetoric of Joe Lieberman »

August 10, 2006


This is really not intended as snark: isn't some part of the neocon ethic all-but-explicitly authoritarian? That is, isn't there some notion that there is one truth for the ruling class, and one for the hoi polloi, and that it's important to keep those two groups distinct?

I thought I was going to flame on Brendan, until I read "SomeCallMeSnark" above.

Your point in saying "This is really not intended as snark" is that it is self-evidently true? As far as I can tell, liberals think an authoritarian is anyone using logic and evidence to win an argument with a liberal.

And, Brendan: May I quote?

Back in 2002, David Broder, the "dean" of the Washington press corps, wrote that Heritage and the Cato Institute's "usefulness in Washington politics stems from their intellectual honesty and their willingness to question conventional wisdom, even when their friends are in power," ignoring ample evidence of their intellectual dishonesty.

By that last "their", you lump Cato and Heritage together. When I do the same site:Spinsanity search on Cato, I find six cites. Sometimes you cite Cato as honest, in fact you approve their critique of Bush on nuke power. Sometimes (as in Stephen Moore) not so much.

But to claim, as your post IMPLIES (intentionally or not) that Cato and Heritage are equally hypocritical...well, let me just ask. Did you mean that, pumpkin?

The comments to this entry are closed.