I sometimes think the point of having ideological or political allies is not support, per se, but in order to have someone who shares your ultimate aims to put forth arguments which support those aims but flatly contradict other lines of reasoning you might use to bolster your position.
It's very noticeable in the semi-anonymous tribalism of the Interwebs, and the endless, unwinnable arguments of discussion forums.
What do you mean? that's the exact opposite of what you conservatives/progressives/fundamentalists/atheists/flat earthers/whigs/cannibals were arguing last week in regard to the same principle applied to positions taken by liberals/neo-orthodox/relativists/religious fanatics/Roswell fanboys/tories/vegetarians!
Well, I never said that, it must have been some other conservative/progressive/fundamentalist/atheist/flat earther/whig/cannibal -- I'm not responsible for his arguments, I don't have to defend his position, (even if the time I more or less chimed in with a "What he said!" and an encouraging emoticon.)
There's a sort of tag-team (borderline trolls,) on one forum who have each other backs disagreeing with virtually everything the Church actually says, who, when one of them is called out on some piece of nonsense, cede the contra poistion on a thread to the other who can thentruthfully, if disingenuously, insist, "I never said that...."
Right now, from the overwhelmingly politically conservative Catholic chattering class, I am hearing the same sorts, but not perhaps the same, people, who, (rightly,) wondered why the Pope was blamed for not instantaneously fixing a mess he had not made and which he did not always have the tools to deal with, nor the cooperation of those who created the mess; blaming the president for not instantaneously fixing the oil leak in the gulf, a mess he had not made and which he did not have the expertise to deal with, nor the cooperation of those who created the mess and those who protect and shill for its creators.