Garbage in, garbage out? The original piece wasn't particularly impressive (rather than blame taxes for business problems, why not suggest targeted tax cuts offset by targeted tax increases?), but this somehow manages to be worse.
The ostensible reason the op-ed was crap was that Micheal Fleisher is related to someone who served in the Bush Administration. Now, while I agree that not divulging that information was a mistake on the Journal's part, I hardly think that shores up MJ's argument. It is necessarily fallacious-- his point is wrong because he was wrong in the past, because he was associated with people we don't like, and because his business is in trouble. It is certainly possible that these things might be true, but they have little bearing on the (equally bad) arguments in his op-ed, which are: taxes are slowing job growth-- see, just look at my business!
MJ notes that the original article wasn't worth much comment. Why they decided to then ignore their own conclusion and comment on it anyway is a mystery to me.
The least they could have done was try to raise, rather than lower, the already miserable tone of the debate.
I think Kevin Drum meant the article wasn't worth much comment, but the fact that the WSJ chose to put it on the op-ed page was worth a few comments.
Why did the WSJ publish it? Perhaps it was a poor choice, perhaps it was a slow news day, or perhaps it was a double-cross to destroy Michael Fleischer's credibility with his own words.
But its the tone of that response that's the problem. Even if the fact that the WSJ chose to publish it is worthy of comment, its certainly worthy of more thoughtful comment. MJ looks as bad as the WSJ by responding to a clumsy op-ed with such a petty, ad-hom piece.
The ostensible reason the op-ed was crap was that Micheal Fleisher is related to someone who served in the Bush Administration. Now, while I agree that not divulging that information was a mistake on the Journal's part, I hardly think that shores up MJ's argument. It is necessarily fallacious-- his point is wrong because he was wrong in the past, because he was associated with people we don't like, and because his business is in trouble. It is certainly possible that these things might be true, but they have little bearing on the (equally bad) arguments in his op-ed, which are: taxes are slowing job growth-- see, just look at my business!
MJ notes that the original article wasn't worth much comment. Why they decided to then ignore their own conclusion and comment on it anyway is a mystery to me.
The least they could have done was try to raise, rather than lower, the already miserable tone of the debate.