That is a matter of opinion.
Francis and Buchanan, whatever you may say about the substance of their screeds, write beautifully.
So did Marx. Richard Cohen of the Washington Post writes beautifully also. I qualify their ramblings as incoherent, not the writing style.
If you find them "incoherent", I suggest it is you who may be deficient. Maybe a remedial class in reading and/or writing at the local community college might give you the boost you need.
You may suggest anything you like. I don't need another college class to know that Buchanan has gone from a social conservative to a left-leaning populist. However, if I feel the need to pretend I'm in a college class, I'll just chew down one of Raimondo's 4000-word nonsensical screeds.
Do you even know what insipid means?
Lacking qualities that excite, stimulate, or interest; dull. I stand by it. I can't make it through a Raimondo or Rockwell piece without feeling that they continually re-write the same article. It is dull, boring, lacking in any real-worl intellectual argument. It is argument for the sake of being contrary.
Incomplete?
Being as none of them seem to think out their positions to the logical conclusion, yes I will stand by that too.
Frum writes a diary and Goldberg often writes columns that are a series of non-sequiturs and you're calling polished writers such as Buchanan and Francis "incomplete". Mind-boggling.
I think Goldberg is amusing. Frum I can take or leave, but in his Buchanan piece I think he was right on the money. Apparently, you do not. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Oh well, c'est la vive (I know what that means, too).
Again, congrats on being clever but you're really devoid of any accuracy here
I'll take the compliment for what it's worth. Look, Buchanan, Raimondo, et al are obviously big hits with you. Good for you. I don't agree with them and find their claim to be "conservatives" ludicrous. In your attempt to defend them you suggested I'm stupid-
I suggest it is you who may be deficient
Maybe a remedial class in reading and/or writing...
Questioned my command of the language - Do you even know what insipid means?
And re-iterated the "stupid" part - but you're really devoid of any accuracy here
I find the tone of your "argument" haughty and arrogant, with a tinge of intellectual superiority (and yes, I know what all those words mean). If I want to debate with someone whose entire argument is based on my not being intelligent enough to grasp the nuances of the discussion, I'll go find a liberal.
And since you also found the need to reply to my off-the-cuff remark about "unhinged/inhinged", I'll assume you were looking to pick an argument. I'll pass, thanks.