Hi folks... my apologies if I'm takin up valuable diary space.. but I received an interesting email today.
I was taken to task by one of my conservative acquaintances for daring to call one of his acquaintances in the conservative press up here plus other people in the conservative sphere of politics "wingnuts". Apparently that was an insult of the highest degree, and these folks didnt deserve that title foisted upon them, because they were "reasonable people" who one could be disagreed with but didnt deserve such an extreme framing of them.
The people that were classified as being "reasonable" were:
Bill Bennett
William Kristol
David Frum
+ the general writers of the NRO and Weekly Standard. Apparently they arent "wingnuts" according to my conservative aquaintance.
I'm a tad annoyed today anyways because of a job loss I suffered on Friday (though I did get good severance pay), so I've withheld answering him because I'd probably get pretty um.. snarky over it.. but I'm going to answer him eventually. Just wanted the general opinion here of those who feel like taking a stab at whether the 3 names I threw out there could be considered "wingnuts" or just "reasonable conservative people who you can disagree with but not call them names"
I can already answer about Bill Bennett I think; the "killing black babies and automatically reducing crime if it were done" seems to me to fit into wingnut territory... but I wonder what you folks thought of the other 2. Frum is a neo-con... but has anything he said been considered "wing-nutty"? And the same for Kristol?