Like Taibbi, Greenwald, Carlson, etc., they both strike me as ideological astroturfers, using for-public-consumption political identities to defend and justify the right wing political movement in the US.
I have no evidence to support that view, just my own observation, so I understand if you happen to disagree. They just don't strike me as genuine.
Translation: "not right-wing enough yet"
Like Taibbi, Greenwald, Carlson, etc., they both strike me as ideological astroturfers, using for-public-consumption political identities to defend and justify the right wing political movement in the US.
I have no evidence to support that view, just my own observation, so I understand if you happen to disagree. They just don't strike me as genuine.