December
17th 2012
Posted under Interventionism & Paleoconservatism
Daniel Larison and Justin Raimondo are arguing again. This isn’t the first time. (See here and here) Those two remind me of a couple of brothers. Raimondo called Larison an “insufferably priggish anti-interventionist.” Ouch. That stings a little bit.
The gist of the disagreement is that Raimondo is excited about the nomination of Hagel and thinks it represents a significant break from the status quo. He thinks Larison’s more measured assessment of Hagel is throwing water on a hopeful developement.
You decide who’s right, but I think it’s kinda of fun to watch.
Hawthorne on 17 Dec 2012 at 11:47 pm #
Raimondo backed Hagel for President back in ’07 prior to jumping on the Paul ship, so it’s not shocking that he has to demonstrate some fight here to maintain his reputation as a legit watcher of the elites.
We are better off with the Brent Scowcroft wing then the Hillary-Neocon wing–I’ll agree with that.
Savrola on 18 Dec 2012 at 3:09 am #
Larison is correct and to be commended for his astuteness.
Raimondo is fine, but he’s over the hill.
Sean Scallon on 24 Dec 2012 at 5:15 am #
Basically it’s a “You don’t agree with the same intensity as I do!” kind of fight