Matt Taibbi is a columnist for Rolling Stone and the author of about a half dozen books and a winner of the "National Magazine Award for Commentary".
He has an opinion piece in Rolling Stone's July issue criticizing Mitt Romney's speech to the NAACP. Here is part of the first paragraph,
"...Romney really showed us something in his luridly self-congratulating
N.A.A.C.P. gambit, followed by the awesomely disgusting "free stuff"
post-mortem speech he delivered the next night in front of friendlier
audiences. The twin appearances revealed the candidate to be not merely
unlikable, and not merely a fatuous, unoriginal hack of a politician,
but also a genuinely repugnant human being, a grasping corporate
hypocrite with so little feel for how to get along with people that he
has to dream up elaborate schemes just to try to pander to the mob."
and here is part of the 4th paragraph,
"... Without accepting blame or admitting guilt, he could have talked about
the increasingly strident tone of the national debate over racially
charged issues, and wondered aloud if politicians on both sides perhaps
needed to find a new way to talk about these things without
fearmongering, stereotyping, or trading accusations. He could have met
the racial-tension issue head on, in other words, just by saying out
loud the simple truth that white and nonwhite Americans, and Democrats
and Republicans both, need to find more civilized ways to talk about
their political concerns...."
So after Mr. Taibbi declares Romney to be fatuous, unoriginal and genuinely repugnant, Taibbi comes for more civilized ways to talk.
I think Mr. Taibbi might not consider labeling Romney as fatuous, unoriginal and genuinely repugnant to be uncivil. This would be so if Mr. Taibbi considers such labels as objective truth. However, I can't find a specific fact that would lead to the labels established by Taibbi except that Romney said that there is no such thing as a free lunch (Taibbi doesn't actually use these words but acknowledges that Romney's speech to the NAACP was similar to a speech Romney gave to a mostly Republican audience in Montana later that same week and the 'no such thing as a free lunch' quote was in the Montana speech but not the NAACP speech). It seems Taibbi construes the 'no free lunch' comment as a racist as well as fatuous, etc. comment. The 'no free lunch' meme goes back many generations and, up until now it was, as near as I can tell, never considered racist or repugnant, but simply a general observation.
So whether Taibbi is a hypocrite depends on whether he believes something is obviously true (the 'no free lunch' comment is racist) even though there is no evidence that anyone else believes this. I gotta say 'NO' on this and therefore conclude that Taibbi is a hypocrite and manages to show it in a single published article (no wonder he is an award winner).
The Rolling Stone piece is
here.
The transcript of the Romney speech to the NAACP is
here.
I can't find a transcript OF The Romney Montana speech as of this posting. Nor did the Rolling Stone piece link to it but
Ann Althouse, a Wisconsin based blogger, points out that Taibbi left off the explanatory part of Romney's Montana speech in his (Taibbi's) quote to make it seem more menacing than it was.