It's true that "post consistently" is both good advice and part of why Matt is so successful, but the Washington Post profile and this item utterly fail to grasp the several ways that his writing is much better than most of what is published on the subjects that he writes about. By "better" I do not mean "asserts opinions that I agree with." I disagree with Matt a lot about various values questions and policy questions. What I mean is that is he much better versed in the nuances of policy debates than the vast majority of policy writers; that his arguments are logically sound and internally consistent much more than most pundits; that he tends to offer evidence for assertions that he makes; and that he is more willing than most people to follow his ideas where they lead and to be forthright about the critiques that he is making even though, as a consequence, lots of people who are unable to distinguish between *disagrees with me* and *is writing in bad faith* or *should feel shame* yell at him online. It is not entirely surprising that these strengths of Matt go unmentioned in the Washington Post profile because as a piece it possesses none of them.