Reason's interviewer demonstrates what you really already knew: (1) most people hold large numbers of mutually inconsistent political views and (2) that is even true of people at a political convention whom you might have thought would have devoted more CPU cycles to trying to be consistent.
Being pro-choice only in cases where you might actually make the choice but not in other cases is a bit like wanting free speech only for people who agree with you (and there are many on both teams who hold essentially that position). It truly is amazing that we have any freedom at all.
The red team would, of course, have done no better if asked, for example, to account for the inconsistency inherent in believing that the post office and other domestic bureaucracies are hopeless failures while the military bureaucracy can be expected to successfully transform backward autocracies into liberal societies in a deacde.
