I find myself thinking this again in light of George Will's recent twitting of John McCain.
Ah, George Will. Can you summarize him in three words? I can: prissy, snippy, effete.
And so McCain rightly expresses outrage at the Supreme Court's latest stupid ruling, but Will finds a way to diss him for it. And that's fine; every regular reader will know that I have no great love for John McCain. In fact, about the only bumper sticker I can imagine displaying during this election would say something like:
HSAT, here's Will, making McCain look stupid and all that. And I think, "Sure, whatever; Will doesn't care much whether McCain wins, or whether arguably the most powerful position in the world is held by an unqualified, unprepared, radically-liberal, racist-friendly gasbag. Either way, his job is secure."
I've often thought that. I've been forced to think it of Rush Limbaugh, with whom I usually agreed back when my schedule let me listen to him. Rush talks; he talks, and that's what he does. Talks. Talks to people who really do care, and who are energized and get up and do things — but he doesn't, much. Because talking is what he does, and it's just about all he does. He does it well, but he does it almost exclusively.
And that's punditry. Smash liberalism verbally, and your audience loves you. And if the liberals win, and further destroy America? No matter: your audience will love you all the more, because they'll need you all the more to help them keep their sanity, and to say out loud what none of the MSM outlets nor "leaders" are saying.
So: horrible government, or golden government. To the pundit, either way is fine. Because you have a lot to talk about either way. And talking (or writing) is what you do.
Someone may say, "Isn't it like that for the pastor?" Yes, and no. But that is perhaps a topic for another post.