Andrew Sullivan publishes an odd email which A) celebrates Derb B) trashes NRO and C) offers some very backhanded compliments at me.

I don’t care about the stuff about me. But this “NRO just runs talking points” meme is among the most annoying in the blogosphere, in my book. Anyone who’s followed the debates in the Corner, for example, knows that there’s very little unanimity on many of the classic talking-point issues. Ramesh, a senior editor of the magazine, is against the “nuclear option.” He’s also against tax reform. Rich wrote a courageous and definitive cover story on how things went wrong in Iraq — right before the election. Kate O’Beirne has written powerfully against Bush’s faith-based initiative, the Department of Homeland Security etc. I think everyone here opposed the Medicare bill. It’s true most of us are in favor of Social Security reform (except for Derb) but why that should automatically be interpreted as talking-pointism is beyond me since the magazine was advocating such measures long before Bush was. David Frum, Ramesh, Rich and Kate have been critical to one degree or another of Bush’s immigration policies. And the magazine still opposes the drug war (though I don’t). I can’t remember the last time I read a celebration of “compassionate conservatism” around here. I could go on and on.

And yes, constructive criticism notwithstanding, we strongly support the administration on the war. But, again, why this should be seen as us taking marching orders from the White House or the GOP is beyond me.

And, sure, we often run pieces from conservatives who support the White House and/or the mainstream conservative position. But, uh, we’re a conservative magazine. That’s how things work.

I like originality in writing a lot, but originality in the form of contrarianism is only admirable if it is principled and heartfelt. Contrarianism just to be different is sophomoric. Claiming that NRO isn’t original when it’s speaking from conviction is an asinine criticism.

Again, I wish that people who traffic in this sort of criticism would provide examples, evidence, quotes — anything to back up such sweeping declarations. I hear this criticism once a week. I hear evidence to back it up almost never.