Here we go again:
Andrew,The reason why Sullivan's logic is twisted in knots is because it is so hard to defend the indefensible.
On your blog you state:All protests against spending that do not tell us how to reduce it are fatuous pieces of theater, not constructive acts of politics. And until the right is able to make a constructive and specific argument about how they intend to reduce spending and debt and borrowing, they deserve to be dismissed as performance artists in a desperate search for coherence in an age that has left them bewilderingly behind.
Perhaps I missed it, but can you direct me to your coverage of the anti-Iraq War protests where you excoriated them for lacking a detailed plan of withdrawal and standing for nothing more than "End the war"?
Apparently the current standard is that no protest movement is legitimate unless it contains a "constructive and specific" alternative -- talk about moving goalposts.
Your logic in attacking the tea party movement is becoming ever more tortuous.
Regards,
Colin
