For one, Heritage itself has taken positions against the admin. in a manner which is very much in line with criticisms Bartlett has forwarded. Minimally that suggests your “hypothesis” rests on weak grounds, or absolute bare minimum upon grounds which deserve a skeptical/critical review, wherein more information is needed. At least a couple other equally critical points could be made, but you’re not forwarding your arguments upon rational or lucid grounds in the first place.

I’ll stand by the meaning of my comment, though.

The disinviting of people and groups on the basis of their criticism– from a conservative perspective– of the current administration provides support for the hypothesis that Heritage is a political animal. It selects which opinions to advance, and which straw men to criticize, partly on the basis of how it calculates it can help the Republican Party.

You’re also right that Heritage has an independent posture, and will sometimes criticize Republican actions. Think of it as a Republican entity slightly less independent than Lincoln Chafee.

The cheerleading and production of talking points in lieu of analysis on the war in Iraq, though, is a colossal blow to Heritage’s claims of intellectual honesty.

See, e.g.,

November 3, 2006
Stupid Soldiers: Central to the Left’s Worldview
by Tim Kane, Ph.D.
WebMemo #1244

October 5, 2006
The Dangerous Consequences of Cutting and Running in Iraq
by James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., and James Phillips
Executive Memorandum #1012
Congress should reject outright calls for America to cut and run…

I am not the Heritage press secretary, and this is my personal blog on which my employer allowed me to publish Heritage\’s official response. So this will be the only time I comment on this thread.

If you look at Heritage publications on the website and conclude they are nothing more than \”talking points\” I am afraid I cannot help you. They are what they are and I stand proudly by every publication Heritage produces.

And as was pointed out in the official statement, Heritage is not now, nor have they ever been in the business of shilling for Republican Administrations. I could list countless confrontations here but they would be unlikely to change your mind.

Finally, again referring to the Heritage statement. Failure to invite a non-Heritage member to a members only Heritage event in no way repudiates the work that non-member did for the conservative cause (and still does) and is in no way a sign of an anti-intellectual posture on behalf of the Heritage Foundation.

*sigh*

The WHOLE POINT of the discussion is that if the Heritage Foundation were a conservative think tank, it would have been making honest arguments all along, and would even now welcome small-government, fiscal-responsibility conservatives who played an important role in the 1981 tax cuts to relevant events.

Instead, as you correctly point out, Tim, Heritage has chosen to be a PR wing of the Republican Party, regardless of the effectiveness, or conservatism, of their ideas.

The poster above links to Heritage talking points on Iraq. All of them urge support for, or attacks on straw men from, the GOP’s talking points of the day.

The papers in the provided link represent studied arguments, not a reflexive kowtowing.

A studied kowtowing.

As pertains to any single issue, whether Iraq or some other specific issue, it’s not at all unusual for a think tank to take a decisive position, either for or against the administration in power. It would be unusual for a think tank to maintain positions such that all of them were in agreement with an administration. Likewise, going to a “liberal” think tank, such as the Center for American Progress, one is not likely to find a pro-Administration position on virtually anything, but certainly not Iraq.

Too, I doubt it’s an unthinking or “reflexive” support of the administration. The papers in the provided link represent studied arguments, not a reflexive kowtowing.