Andy is answering your questions on the thread we started yesterday. Andy, you’re new to Ricochet culture–in fact, Ricochet culture itself is new–so I should let you know that Ricochet is like champagne: lots of bubbles, but you have to drink it right after you open it. It’s just not the same the next day. 

I’m going to re-post Andy’s reply here to make sure everyone sees it: 

I don’t want to debate Conor Friedersdorf’s review of my book — or, I guess, excerpt of my book. When it came out, and I remember thinking that what Conor called ”manifold inaccuracies” were strawmen (I don’t, for example, think Pres. Obama is afraid to say the word “war” just because his bureaucracies have been discouraged to use the word), and I think Conor read too much into the fact that Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin liked the book (in fact, he inferred that Rush’s blurb meant Rush and I had “collaborated” on the book, or the title, or … something). A lot of people liked the book, some didn’t, but it stands or falls on its own merit. We’re mainly talking about the Broadside here, and Conor has raised a number of good points about it. I’ll try to focus on those.

Shall we take it from here to keep things up-to-date and in the same place?