Matt Welch loses hope

Farewell to Warblogging

But as I look back at December 2001, and prepare to hang up the blogging fun of Reason's Hit & Run for the stodgier print pages of the L.A. Times, I can't shake the feeling of nostalgia for a promising cross-partisan moment that just fizzled away. Americans are always much more interesting than their political parties or ideological labels, and for a few months there it was possible for readers and writers alike to feel the unfamiliar slap of collisions with worlds they'd previously sealed off from themselves. You couldn't predict what anyone would say, especially yourself.

He was one of the first bloggers I started reading after 9/11. I even pulled for the Angels in the Series because he was a fan.

Welch is a libertarian and does not like the Culture War battles. I can understand that. What I don't understand is why he made Reynolds such a target. Malkin is conservative, Hewitt is a Republican apologist, Willis seethes with Bush-hatred 24/7. But Instapundit is usually with Welch on the social issues. So why the venom?

Has Welch fallen into his own partisan trap? Does he feel the need to bash the targets of partisans whether they deserve it or not?

The subhead for the article reads:

I used to think blogs would transform ideologues into nonpartisan truth-seekers.
Man, was I wrong.

If that is true, Matt Welch was naïve. If it has taken him this long to wise up then he is a slow learner. The writing was on the wall a long time ago.

When Instapundit speaks

In fact, I think the promise of the blogosphere suffered its first serious set back when so many bloggers joined Sullivan's campaign against Howell Raines and slimed Rick Bragg as a means to that end.