Not that they make any sense. Personality neither bolsters nor detracts from position.
Breitbart, though, continues to try such ersatz reasoning, writing:
of the significant impact the practice of “outing” had in my evolution from the political left to the right.
He is responding to an “outing” of a gay member of Rick Perry’s campaign staff. He says that it should not have happened and that he stands:
by gay conservatives who boldly and in the face of much criticism from many fronts fight for limited government, lower taxes, a strong national defense as well as the other core conservative principles.
Thing is, the two things, hypocrisy and conservative principles have nothing to do with each other. Conservatives long ago proved they are as mean-spirited and as two-faced as the worst of liberals. This is a human condition, though it does not excuse behavior (something neither Horowitz nor Breitbart seem to understand, taking the bad actions of others as excuse for their own).
What I would ask Breitbart is just what I ask Horowitz: How do the failures of personalities lead you to change your principles? In other words, were your shifts from left to right driven by people or by ideas?
Personally, I don’t think either Breitbart or Horowitz had a real road-to-Damascus conversion. They both exhibit strong authoritarian streaks and an ego-centrism that twists politics to the purposes of personal success. They are out for themselves, and don’t really care about principle, changing that as easily as a suit of clothes. Each of them would change again, were they to think it would advance them financially and popularly.
Look at Breitbart’s record, for example, as Scott Wooledge does in discussing Breitbart’s reaction to this “outing” on Daily Kos: His actions show no principle, only a willingness to destroy in order to make his name more prominent. His desire to connect “outing” to his movement to the right rings hollow, for “outing” has nothing to do with ideas or ideals.