I have seen a few columns by this National Review writer.
It's actually incredible that a magazine started by religious Catholics has regular columns by an Objectivist atheist, despite NR's pro-religion anti-secularism bent.
But as an economist, he sometimes seems fair and balanced. Sometimes. He is one of the few who both acknowledge the brilliant side of Paul Krugman and criticize Krugman for going against his own positions and stances on economics when it involves a promotion of a social democratic cause. He has market-leanings, but is somewhat critical of other market schools of thought, including the Austrian School on some occasions.
He has a wacko side, however. He is one of Krugman's most dedicated stalkers, going down to digging out letters written by Krugman all the way back to the 1980s. He once said that Soros is planning a "speculative attack " on George Bush to undermine his Presidency. He believed any recession would be Soros' fault but blamed on Bush. Then he also says that there is no recession in 2008. So was George Soros responsible for a recession that never happened?
A very very very mixed bag, I say. Donald Luskin is proof that it's okay to take a few good points from mainstream pundits, but discard a lot of the other things they say. Everybody has a point, but everybody is capable of being very wrong.