Michael Kinsley has made a career of intellectually bankrupt and mindless contrarianism.<\/p>\n
Basically, you come up with an indefensible and silly argument, and through rhetorical tricks, you make it sound reasonable. Stupid people read it, and think that you are wise.<\/p>\n
Well, Ezra Klein at the Washington Post<\/i> has signed on to this bit of professional hypocrisy. (No link, he is clearly click whoring, and I won’t reward it) He is now arguing that the Mitt Romney winning the election might be better for the economy because Republicans won’t try to block everything:<\/p>\n Even if you disagree with every one of Mitt Romney\u2019s policies, there\u2019s a chance he\u2019s still the best candidate to lift the economy in 2013.<\/p>\n That\u2019s not because he has business experience. For all his bluster about the lessons taught by the private sector, his agenda is indistinguishable from that of career politician Paul Ryan. Nor is it because he\u2019s demonstrated some special knowledge of what it takes to create jobs. Job growth in Massachusetts was notably slow under Romney\u2019s tenure. It\u2019s because if Romney is elected, Republicans won\u2019t choose to crash the economy in 2013.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This ignores the recent history, which is that Republicans crashed the economy through their attempts to implement their ideology from 2001-2007<\/b>.<\/p>\n Note that the above argument ignores the fact that he is essentially advocating giving into terrorists.<\/p>\n This is pathetic. <\/p>\n