I really don't understand what is so conceptually difficult here. I'm saying that CK is a hypocrite, but I'm trying to understand why he doesn't think he's one.

I don't know why people think I'm defending him, and I'm surprised that so many people fail to be able to distinguish between defending someone, and trying to understand them.

Regarding DClaw1's smarmy accusation of my being a "concern troll" ("people in other blogs might call..." is a pretty low way to make an accusation), obviously I have no way to prove to you that my Political Compass scores are -8.5, -8.7, but that's what they are. I'm probably to the left of you, and probably more politically engaged than you are, unless you are a professional politician. I don't know what dishonesty you imagine of me, but please stick to what I say, not motivations that I have no way of proving to you. More generally, I think the "concern troll" is a terrible concept, encouraging a forum to justify banishing not just the opposite side (the full-fledged "trolls") but also anyone who entertains their ideas even just to better understand how the opposite side thinks ("concern trolls"). In any case, if you want to accuse me of that, do so, but don't put it in cowardly quotation marks.

Regarding the idea that we should suppress such arguments as mine because it "helps destroy liberals' arguments in the minds of the undecided," that too is pretty sleazy. The job is to convince people by argument, not by carefully editing our arguments.

Finally, to reiterate my point, I don't really give a damn whether one is "playing to centrists" or not. But what is the point of arguing with Ann Coulter (as GG used to do) or Charles Krauthammer if you aren't? If I want to read "CK is a wanker," I can (and do) go to Artios for that. The added value I see in GG's posts is a) eloquently dismantling their arguments, b) figuring out how they think in order to better defeat them on the political playing field. It's in furtherance of b) that I intended my comments.

To wearily repeat my substantive point, then: GG asks (rhetorically) how CK can demand that people not score political points off of the tragedy, while having done the same thing himself the day before. I take the question seriously though -- how can CK do that? It raises the even more perplexing question, how can CK say that while himself making political points not just the day before, but in the middle of his own column? The answer is that he sees certain types of political points (such as his own) as more legitimate than others, and certain types of people making them (such as himself) as more legitimate. For me, it's an interesting insight, that what matters to these guys is not the type of argument you make (linking a tragedy to a political lesson) but who is making the argument, and what type of political lesson you conclude. I don't understand what's so inflammatory or "concern trollish" about trying to understand someone you deeply disagree with.

I gather that GG agrees with your positions, if the stars next to your posts are dispensed by him.

@ DCLaw1, I agree that I was making no great substantive point about the psychology of Charles Krauthammer. For the record, 3 of the 4 paragraphs of the post of yours that I was responding to were meta issues, about whether I was a "concern troll" and what should and shouldn't be discussed at all. Paragraph 2 was your only substantive paragraph, and that mainly engaged in accusing me of being "incoherent." My post responded to both of your points, my main point being that there is nothing incoherent about trying to understand the psychology of CK. In fact, you say this is what GG himself is doing. As for the leftist credentials part, the definition of a "concern troll" is that one is pretending to occupy a political position one doesn't actually believe (in order to sow discord); my point was that that accusation was false. Finally, I'm not quite sure where you get the "scornful" thing from, but the only actual scorn I intended was in response to your accusations against me, which were unfounded and, like your follow-post, aggressively accusatory. I'm not complaining, just explaining.

@Arne, I do think the subsequent posts here have made some interesting headway in getting at the "authoritarian mindset," though mainly I see rehashing of the usual "can't deal with a chaotic, contradictory world" argument. But, on a slightly separate topic, I do wonder who the "rest of the folks out there" or the "passers-by" are that we believe are going to affected by our or even GG's arguments. I think Jack was well-meaning (though I maybe I missed his more aggressive posts), and my usual assumption is that every poster represents about 10 to 100 non-posters with similar viewpoints, so I figured that they might be the undecided passers-by and whatnot that you and GG seek to convince. If not them, then who? (Not a rhetorical question.)

In any case, the "Clear now?" and "Spare me the..." tone aren't very productive for convincing anyone. I can take it -- I've encountered plenty of sententious garbage from old-time posters who feel like they own the forum -- but you sure aren't going to win over anyone. Again, I'm not concerned about language or tone per se, but simultaneously making an argument (about CK) that only would change the minds of centrists, while at the same time attacking any centrist-seeming sentiment you see, is a bit perverse.