He takes issue with this sentence of mine:
So the first reason we have Palin is the Christianist veto, not some reform fantasy that exists in David’s and Ross’s and Reihan’s brilliant heads.
His response:
I do think it’s worth noting that calling the project that David and Ross and I are committed to a reform fantasy is a little unfair.
(I won’t say I’m hurt by Andrew’s remarks, because I know he means well and that he sees our business as a brass-knuckle business.) We’ve articulated a set of narratives and frameworks and goals for the Republican party, which informs the advice we give conservatives in various writings. The project is prospective and prescriptive. So calling it a reform fantasy seems odd: it is a vision, it is an argument about the future of a political movement, so yes, it has elements of fantasy, broadly understood. Right now, I am fantasizing about eating the delicious chicken I just ordered from Astor Mediterranean here in Washington, D.C. I’m pretty sure, though, that I’m actually going to eat it within the next five minutes.
But I’m dodging the issue — is this vision for the future of the Republican party fantastic, the product of delusional minds? That’s not the sense I get.
No: I didn’t mean that Reihan’s and Ross’s ideas for reform are a fantasy. I mean that seeing Palin as anything to do with those reforms is a fantasy. I’m sorry if that wasn’t crystal-clear.
The Dish 