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.
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.