Admittedly, his are often more thoughtful and substantial, such as:

Ted Cruz utterly misstates what carpet bombing is, says it’s what happens in 1st Gulf War. Nope, that was precision bombing, the opposite.

— Nicholas Kristof (@NickKristof) January 29, 2016

Attn: Ted Cruz! Carpet bombing is when you bomb hospitals, schools, civilian neighborhoods, everything that moves. It’s a war crime.

— Nicholas Kristof (@NickKristof) January 29, 2016

I had that very same thought when Cruz said that, but didn’t think to Tweet it. I don’t know why. Instead, I Tweeted this within one minute of what Kristof said:

Of everything Cruz just said, the thing I agree with the most: The Navy has shrunk dangerously. Not that he’s done much to fix it…

— Brad Warthen (@BradWarthen) January 29, 2016

Which is OK, but not as pointed, not as helpful, as what Kristof posted. Dang. And in retrospect, it was too soft on Cruz. What Rubio said a moment later, that not only had Cruz not helped the Navy; he was part of the problem, was way better. As were Kristof’s Tweets.

But even if they were better, he WAS using up a blog post to call attention to his Tweets — something I’ve been criticized for doing.

Of course, he wasn’t doing it instead of his thoughtful, well-crafted columns. It was in addition to. And yeah, I sometimes post Tweets as a substitute for extended commentary, when I don’t have time to write a real post. Under the theory that something is better than nothing.

But in my defense, I’ll say this: Kristof still gets paid to write those thoughtful columns. I do not. He doesn’t have to find time around his job to write them; they are his job.

And though I’m envious of that, I do appreciate his commentary on all levels, from Tweet to blog post to column.

Of course, there are people who won’t pay attention to what he says because he’s a liberal, and they think they are conservatives, and they’re thick enough to think that means they should not be exposed to his views. Such as the Trump supporter and member of Congress who wrote, “We could have written them for you before you started, my friend. The bias is simply that intense and unchangeable.” (At least he said “my friend.”)

Yep, Kristof is a pretty consistent liberal, which means I disagree with him frequently. But he’s the kind of liberal who posts such things as this:

The GOP has some first-rate international security experts, like Bob Gates and Brent Scowcroft, but GOP candidates never cite them.

— Nicholas Kristof (@NickKristof) January 29, 2016

… which means he is not only a talented observer, but an intellectually honest man who doesn’t reflexively dismiss what those on the “other side” have to contribute. And we should all listen to such people more.

Related Posts

• Editing the Declaration of Independence
• The NYT’s front-page editorial about guns
• My piece for the Brookings Institution
• Our own Burl wrote ‘The Greatest Movie Review Ever Written’
• Last night’s debate news (or part of it) this morning — another problem for what’s left of newspapers
• Here’s what a Coble endorsement looks like
• Yo, GOP: Huntsman may be your man, if you’d calm down and listen for more than 30 seconds
• Laurin and Nancy at the social media symposium
• I won’t sell MY Tweets, either — unless and until someone offers to buy them
• “What Happens in Vagueness Stays in Vagueness”