I don't have time for Nick, but . . . .

This paragraph from his column today amused me --

Money already pollutes politics. If it also comes to dominate commentary, there will be no room for actual debate and discussion on the issues.

"Actual debate and discussion" has never exactly been Nick's strong suit -- or did I miss his column on school choice?

UPDATE: Some time for a quick thought

It strikes me that Nick's overwrought concern about disclosure and writers on the take stems from how he views the job that he does. I mean, when your writing reflects neither principle nor logic, whether tearing something down or changing a person's perception about something that exists -- when your tools are misrepresentation and personal attacks -- when you use statistics like a drunk uses a street light, for support not for illumination -- then yeah, that kind of writing can be bought . . . usually pretty cheaply.

But no amount of money can buy a principled, well-reasoned argument. Regardless of who's paying the bill, regardless of the bias of the writer, regardless of topic, ultimately an argument must stand on its own merits. If that it does, then how it came to be is of secondary importance.

The principled, reasoned argument of a well-connected "partisan hack" carries more weight, and ought to carry more weight, than the incoherent ramblings of an "independent" propagandist.