Jan
9

Oh, for frack’s sake…




Posted at 17:07 by Brad

Is there any public “intellectual” who’s more comically fraudulent than Jonah Goldberg? Well no, but that doesn’t mean I still can’t be amazed by stuff like this NPR interview that General JC Christian dug up:

Jonah Goldberg: The benefit of Bush’s compassionate conservatism [in 2000] was that it was majorly a marketing slogan…

Alex Chadwick: You mean you’re worried Mike Huckabee might actually mean it?

Goldberg: Yes, that’s what I’m terrified of.

This is really Jonah’s worldview in a nutshell: it’s perfectly OK to pay lip service to the mindless, inbred rubes that make up your party’s base as long as you don’t follow through on any of your promises to help the poor goobers out. This dovetails nicely with Jonah’s past praise of elitism in which he wrote that:

[P]opulism is a useful and healthy passion when aimed at the liberal elite. But conservatives can get drunk on it when they proclaim that elites are bad simply because they are elites. Conservatives respect authority — the authority of ideas, traditions, morals, religion, customs, reason, law, excellence and so on. One cannot believe in this kind of authority while having a blanket hostility to elitism in any form.

In other words: it’s cool to rile up the idiot vote by telling them that liberals want to ban Christmas, but helping them pay for their kids’ health care goes way, way over the line. Religion, in Jonah’s world, truly is the Cheetos bag of the masses.

104 Comments »

  1. a different mikey said,

    January 9, 2008 at 17:19

    That’s the one! That’s the one I was talking about a couple of threads back where he got stupid all over the inside of my truck and I can’t wash it out.

    All this time I thought y’all were exaggerating but, Sadly No!, he defines preposterous blithering idiocy.

  2. Worst. President. Ever. said,

    January 9, 2008 at 17:20

    The benefit of Bush’s compassionate conservatism [in 2000] was that it was majorly a marketing slogan…

    Damn! If only someone had been able to figure that out before November 2, 2000!

    BTW, I’m told that if you go to the page of the Whitehouse website called “compassionate conservatism” you’ll find an entire gallery of Bu**sh** posing for photos with black people!

  3. D.N. Nation said,

    January 9, 2008 at 17:21

    I’ve long held dear the notion that Jonah the Whale (and to a similar extent Billy Kristol) is gleefully self-aware…some sort of performance art piece in of himself, a satire of what we think he is.

    I mean, that’s gotta be it, right? Who really goes around twirling his mustache and admitting to duping the GOP’s “family values” base like this?

  4. El Cid said,

    January 9, 2008 at 17:22

    So, were the French Revolutionaries fat-cysts because they got all mean & stuff and did the head-chopping, or because they took that whole “Revolution” thing serious for a while?

  5. D.N. Nation said,

    January 9, 2008 at 17:23

    And I love how the picture on the link makes it look like we’ve caught Jonah in a special moment.

  6. Legalize said,

    January 9, 2008 at 17:26

    I don’t want to know anything about Jonah’s special moments, and that picture only confirms that this is central ro my point.

  7. MileHi Hawkeye said,

    January 9, 2008 at 17:27

    “Conservatives respect authority — the authority of ideas, traditions, morals, religion, customs, reason, law, excellence and so on.”

    Now, that’s just funny. Conservatives respecting reason? Ha! Repspecting the law? Ha, Ha! Respecting excellence? Oh please, you’re killing me…

  8. zsa said,

    January 9, 2008 at 17:29

    It says something about the current state of the conservative movement that Jonah Goldbrick is one of its pre-eminent intellectuals.

    Seriously … in conservative circles, Jonah is an intellectual.

  9. El Cid said,

    January 9, 2008 at 17:30

    “Conservatives respect authority — the authority of ideas, traditions, morals, religion, customs, reason, law, excellence and so on.”

    Now, that’s just funny. Conservatives respecting reason? Ha! Repspecting the law? Ha, Ha! Respecting excellence? Oh please, you’re killing me…

    No, no, no, no, no. You read it wrong. Conservatives don’t have to respect reason. They respect the authority of reason. All you have to do is have an authority declare that something is a good idea, moral, religion, custom, reason, or law, or vice versa, and they respect that authority.

    The actual reason & whatnot are for the liberal fascists who only care about making Jo’butt Bitburg stop throwing his Slim-Jim wrappers on the carpet.

  10. MileHi Hawkeye said,

    January 9, 2008 at 17:36

    “No, no, no, no, no. You read it wrong.”

    Fascist! I’ll read it anyway I darn well please–especially before I’ve reached optimal caffeine intake.

    Sometimes a guy just needs a good laugh in the am.

    I hear what you’re saying though–they are pretty spineless and need someone (are you my Daddy?) to tell them what to think, say and do.

  11. kingubu said,

    January 9, 2008 at 17:38

    You know, the chief prerequisite for keeping the rubes in the tent is that you never let them know that you think they are rubes.

    Jesusgodamighty, he’s stupid.

    Someone with more ambition than I needs to start collecting these disdainful little snerks from the DollahCons and spam the Fundie mailing lists with ‘em.

  12. zsa said,

    January 9, 2008 at 17:44

    Conservatives respect authority — the authority of ideas, traditions, morals, religion, customs, reason, law, excellence and so on.

    That is a priceless little gem … it’s a pocket definition of the phrase “authoritarian follower”. They do what they’re told.

    How much clearer can it be stated?

  13. empressmitzi said,

    January 9, 2008 at 17:47

    “majorly” a marketing slogan?? What is he, 16 years old? Majorly lame.

  14. Ripley said,

    January 9, 2008 at 17:47

    the authority of ideas, traditions, morals, religion, customs, reason, law, excellence and so on.”

    I was gonna say… the authority of ideas? traditions? customs? excellence? What authority, exactly, do these things have? Am I, somehow, morally and existentially bound to adhere to customs and traditions? How does excellence have any control over my Life? Goldberg is a campaign speech writer’s wet dream

    I like how he ignores the the fact that there are (or even the possibility of) conservative elites. Intellectual, my corn-sucking ass…

    Wait, that came out really, really wrong. You know what I mean.

  15. saul said,

    January 9, 2008 at 17:53

    Shalom, gentlemen.

  16. Dan Someone said,

    January 9, 2008 at 17:54

    I think he forgot “the authority of a Dear Leader” — that’s the one that gets most of the respect, neh?

  17. saul said,

    January 9, 2008 at 17:54

    The truth of the matter is that liberals hate all authority, including that of physics and economics, and think they are immune to natures laws. We here in the heartland know we must bow in the face of authority, temporal or spiritual, when we know the authority is right.

  18. MileHi Hawkeye said,

    January 9, 2008 at 17:55

    “Goldberg: Yes, that’s what I’m terrified of.”

    One of oh, so very, very many things. I mean, what isn’t the poor boy terrified of?

  19. El Cid said,

    January 9, 2008 at 17:57

    But I thought Gary Novak had disproven all those liberal physics some time ago?

  20. Legalize said,

    January 9, 2008 at 17:58

    It’s true. I hate the authority of physics more than any other authority! Well, maybe the transit authority.

  21. Some Guy said,

    January 9, 2008 at 18:00

    There’s authority in excellence? And ideas?

    Irregardless that traditions, morals, religion, customs, and laws are all subjective are derived from authority, not inherently given power.

    Anyways, my feeling on this subject is to do the Time Warp again.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdu7xoHU9DA

  22. javafascist said,

    January 9, 2008 at 18:00

    SATSQ time:

    I mean, what isn’t the poor boy terrified of?

    Jello Pudding Pops and being proved wrong.

  23. dan b said,

    January 9, 2008 at 18:01

    Of course, to be fair, he did recognize that conservatives respect authority and didn’t try to argue that conservatives respect facts. We all know that Jonah and pals have shown a particular allergy to facts.

  24. Blue Buddha said,

    January 9, 2008 at 18:02

    a different mikey said,

    January 9, 2008 at 17:19

    That’s the one! That’s the one I was talking about a couple of threads back where he got stupid all over the inside of my truck and I can’t wash it out.

    Hey, whatever you do with Jonah inside your truck is your business.

    But dude… TMI.

    ;P

  25. Some Guy said,

    January 9, 2008 at 18:02

    The truth is that Saul, who I strongly suspect is actually Episcopalian, is right. I, myself, routinely jump off my roof at least once a day to give the “Law” of gravity the big swivel on it. My only regret is that it doesn’t have a flag that i can burn.

  26. MileHi Hawkeye said,

    January 9, 2008 at 18:03

    “We here in the heartland know we must bow in the face of authority, temporal or spiritual, when we know the authority is right.”

    What kind of crap is that? You sure sound like one of those brown skinned a-rab islomoterrorists to me.

    You just keep bowing to Mecca, Saul. This heartlander bows to noone.

  27. Arky - Fascitanata said,

    January 9, 2008 at 18:05

    Nice one Johan. Now tell us how the lefties are the elitist doody heads.

  28. Bill Rutherford, Princeton Admissions said,

    January 9, 2008 at 18:06

    I liked it better when I thought the JG pic said “I CAN HAS UR FUNYUNS?”

  29. J— said,

    January 9, 2008 at 18:12

    Mierenneuker alert: He says mostly, not majorly.

    More from the interview. Asked why The Corner writers have been so harsh on Huckabee of late, Goldberg responds:

    Right now any success for Huckabee comes out of the hide of Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, John McCain, or the others, and that is one of the reasons why things have gotten so sort of nasty. I don’t think it has to do with an anti-evangelical bias or a snobbishness on the right. But at the same time, I don’t want to see the party go the way of Mike Huckabee.

    No bias or snobbishness at all. Of course not. Just a marketing scheme gone awry.

    The interviewer mentions Bill Kristol’s debut column at the New York Times, in which Kristol posits Huckabee may be the party’s best candidate. Goldberg concedes this may be true then adds:

    But I’ve never been personally that invested in the Republican Party. I’m invested in the conservative movement and what’s good for America.

    Right.

  30. Davis said,

    January 9, 2008 at 18:12

    Liberals don’t respect authority, and that makes us fascists.

  31. g said,

    January 9, 2008 at 18:13

    But I’ve never been personally that invested in the Republican Party. I’m invested in the conservative movement and what’s good for America.

    Jonah suspects those grapes were sour, anyway.

  32. dan b said,

    January 9, 2008 at 18:18

    @g –

    Jonah? Grapes? Sour grape soda, or kool-aid maybe.

  33. julia said,

    January 9, 2008 at 18:25

    Who really goes around twirling his mustache and admitting to duping the GOP’s “family values” base like this?

    Someone who’s given up on his party holding political power for a few years, knows he’s going to keep getting paid, and wants to make sure that everyone on the upper east side knows he had his fingers crossed because he’s sure that’s why he never gets invitations?

  34. Johnn y Coelacanth said,

    January 9, 2008 at 18:27

    When did this corpulent, legacy-hire turd become an “intellectual”? Does writing a book make you an “intellectual”? According to that definitive source, Wikipedia, an intellectual is “…a person who uses his or her intellect to work, study, reflect, speculate on, or ask and answer questions with regard to a variety of different ideas.”

    You would be hard pressed to prove that Dr. Pantload, PhD., is using his intellect to ask any questions that don’t begin with “I can has yr…”

    What a fucking piece of work. What a shit time to be alive.

  35. Trilateral Chairman said,

    January 9, 2008 at 18:32

    Jonah has always come across with that delightfully honest sort of idiocy. Most of the rest of the NR cons know better than to say this sort of thing outright, though of course most of them believe it.

    I do wonder if they get tired of Goldberg blowing their cover on a regular basis.

  36. Gundamhead said,

    January 9, 2008 at 18:34

    Well, what can you add to that? Jonah really is the gift that keeps on giving (BTW when are you going to do a few more pages of his book?). I do think that it’s pretty amusing that he seems to think he’s some sort of enlightened over-man who gets to guide the ignorant masses with his noble lies. I’ve said it before, but the fact that Goldberg is taken seriously as a political philosopher/historian by ANYONE is a national disgrace.

  37. zsa said,

    January 9, 2008 at 18:45

    What “terrifies” Jonah is that Huckabee might actually have real convictions? He, like, believes things and acts according to his beliefs? Terrifying indeed.

    That Huckabee truly believes the Jeebus thing and believes the stuff Jeebus said about compassion and treating the poor fairly and all that other turn the other cheek crap? That’s terrifying?

    I don’t believe any of that junk about Jeebus, and I’ll happily ridicule Huckabee for thinking that Jeebus rode a dinosaur, but Huck actually does seem to have convictions and I respect that. (Caveat, I don’t know much about Huck and he could be just another in a long line of Elmer Gantry southern preacher/swindlers, all as crooked as Dick Nixon’s penis.)

    Jonah’s convictions extend to whatever spewed out of the fax machine this morning.

  38. dBa said,

    January 9, 2008 at 18:46

    A conservative movement differs from a classical bowel movement, wait..no it doesn’t, indeed, that is central to my point.

    Just go away Jonah, the conservative movement has fucked up virtually every facet of American life, and any conservative proud of the lowered standard of living as a result of the conservative movement is just a fucking moron.

    That’s right Jonah, I’ve compared the price of cheetos and mountain dew before and after the conservative movement, so you can take your conservative movement and shove it up your momma’s ass.

    Conservative movement…give me a fucking break.

  39. J— said,

    January 9, 2008 at 18:46

    The Liberal Fascism blog now has content.

  40. Righteous Bubba said,

    January 9, 2008 at 18:48

    I don’t think it has to do with an anti-evangelical bias or a snobbishness on the right. But at the same time,

    Jesus Christ that asshole can’t argue his way out of a paper bag.

  41. Righteous Bubba said,

    January 9, 2008 at 18:51

    The Liberal Fascism blog now has content.

    That’s a strong word, content.

  42. dBa said,

    January 9, 2008 at 18:52

    You wouldn’t think a highly enlightened thoroughly researched and thoughtful tome would need a blog (without comments) defending it.

    Unless…

  43. SamFromUtah said,

    January 9, 2008 at 18:53

    That’s a strong word, content.

    I read “content” here in the strictly information-theory sense – that there is a larger number of bytes shoved through your browser when you access the page than there was before.

  44. Blue Buddha said,

    January 9, 2008 at 18:53

    zsa said,

    January 9, 2008 at 18:45

    What “terrifies” Jonah is that Huckabee might actually have real convictions? He, like, believes things and acts according to his beliefs? Terrifying indeed.

    That Huckabee truly believes the Jeebus thing and believes the stuff Jeebus said about compassion and treating the poor fairly and all that other turn the other cheek crap? That’s terrifying?

    Yep… that’s what has all the neocons and pundits’ knickers in a twist: the fact that Huckabee is going by Jesus’s word on compassion and whatnot. It freaks them out in both that those ideas are more progressive than theirs, and it makes the point that they were most likely lying their asses off for all these years when they claimed to be “upstanding Christians”.

  45. Righteous Bubba said,

    January 9, 2008 at 18:54

    Just for the record, I knew about the fact that Mussolini was the first world leader to stand-up to Nazi aggression. In fact, I spent months reading and writing about this sort of thing when I first started only to have all of it fall on the editing room floor or be reduced to a couple paragraphs.

    Awww.

  46. Blue Buddha said,

    January 9, 2008 at 18:59

    #

    SamFromUtah said,

    January 9, 2008 at 18:53

    That’s a strong word, content.

    I read “content” here in the strictly information-theory sense – that there is a larger number of bytes shoved through your browser when you access the page than there was before.

    Exactly. The CIA defines information and intelligence in this manner:

    – Information is data.

    – Intelligence is data or information that is usable.

  47. Smiling Mortician said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:01

    Call me crazy, but there’s actually one thing I like about Saul — the fake shalom thing functions like the popping sound in the fire swamp so I know it’s time to get out of the way.

  48. Blue Buddha said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:01

    Righteous Bubba said,

    January 9, 2008 at 18:54

    Just for the record, I knew about the fact that Mussolini was the first world leader to stand-up to Nazi aggression. In fact, I spent months reading and writing about this sort of thing when I first started only to have all of it fall on the editing room floor or be reduced to a couple paragraphs.

    Awww.

    Wait… you mean his book was actually edited by someone?

    Well, I suppose, since the excerpts seem to be grammatically correct and do not wax poetically about the virtue of Cheetos and chocolate cake.

  49. ice weasel said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:02

    Bah. Pantload is the same as the rest of the republican scum. They’re worse than carnies (at least carnies are entertaining…wait, maybe I’m wrong there…hmmmm).

    Pantload is just fucking dumb enough to blurt out whatever floats the top of that sack of pus his mom calls a brain.

    All republican “thinkers” are frauds. They’re shills, trolls, nothing more. Pantload is merely one of the most egregiously stupid legacies of thinned out DNA they have. He’s no different in content, just in presentation.

  50. J— said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:02

    The comments of Righteous Bubba and SamFromUtah are central to my point.

  51. Arky - Fascitanata said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:03

    The Liberal Fascism blog now has content.

    So does a Port-A-John.

  52. El Cid said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:04

    Just for the record, I knew about the fact that Mussolini was the first world leader to stand-up to Nazi aggression.

    Now, the question is, is this at all addressed by the book’s central primal screams, that fascists are of the left, the liberals are the real fascists, and the old timey fascists aren’t the important ones.

    Now, Mussolini actively called himself a fascist, so, if he went up against the Nazis, does that make the Nazis not fascist? Or liberal? Or conservative? Or is it simply yet another interesting historical fact which shall be treated ironically, entertainingly, and without any effects on any theses (feces) or arguments?

    Britain also didn’t back the Spanish Republic when it was under attack by fascists, but it did block other allies who wished to send weapons and aid by sea. Was this a liberal thing to do? Or conservative? Or were they being liberal fascists for not helping the anti-fascists fight the fascists?

  53. phleabo said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:06

    But I’ve never been personally that invested in the Republican Party. I’m invested in the conservative movement and what’s good for America.

    Right.

    It makes more sense when you know that “America,” is Jonah’s pet name for himself.

  54. dBa said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:06

    “All republican “thinkers” are frauds. They’re shills, trolls, nothing more. ”

    So true, except in the real world, a lot of dumbasses have been feeding them.

  55. J— said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:06

    Wait… you mean his book was actually edited by someone?

    Adam Bellow, editor-at-large for Doubleday.

  56. zsa said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:08

    Has Saul ever posted here on a Saturday?

  57. Righteous Bubba said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:12

    Was this a liberal thing to do? Or conservative? Or were they being liberal fascists for not helping the anti-fascists fight the fascists?

    This is why that Tech Central Station guy was writing about the virtues of stupidity. Jonah has crossed the line and gotten hisself all befuddlicated.

  58. tigrismus said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:15

    Elites aren’t bad simply because they are elites, so no blanket hostility to elitism or to ideas, traditions, morals, religion, customs, reason, law, excellence and so on. Unless they are liberal elites, ideas, traditions, etc; then feel free to get your unthinking hate on!

  59. J— said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:19

    Re: the Spanish Civl War

    The Republicans were fascists and the Nationalists were conservatives. Among the Republican coalition, one finds liberal fascists, communist fascists, anarcho-fascists, and even a few Lincolnian fascists (they had a brigade). The Nationalists were all just conservatives, though they were not compassionate. That would’ve made them fascists.

  60. SamFromUtah said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:20

    Has Saul ever posted here on a Saturday?

    The Li’lest Rabbi isn’t all that wound about the Sabbath, for some reason. Were you around for the bit where he was thinking it ended at midnight?

  61. El Cid said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:22

    The Republicans were fascists and the Nationalists were conservatives. Among the Republican coalition, one finds liberal fascists, communist fascists, anarcho-fascists, and even a few Lincolnian fascists (they had a brigade). The Nationalists were all just conservatives, though they were not compassionate. That would’ve made them fascists.

    Isn’t it pretty liberal fascist just to expend so much effort on getting this kind of list so organized & stuff?

  62. Robert M. said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:24

    zsa,

    Has Saul ever posted here on a Saturday?

    Yes. Then he compounded the error by saying that it was past midnight where he was. I’d find it for you, but since then I installed a GreaseMonkey script that translates Saul to Terry Pratchett’s Foul Ole Ron, and I don’t feel like undoing it.

    Also, as far as the Liberal Fascism blog is concerned, there’s no information there. Since everything Jonah says is entirely predictable (“libruls r bad! lolz”), there are no bits there that cannot be precisely determined from the current state, so no information exists.

  63. Owen said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:24

    It seems worth pointing out that for all of Jonah’s “Gotcha”-calling over the phrase “national socialist,” most historians agree that the arc of the nazi party was to use the compassionate facade of socialism to gain the support of the masses in the face of the depression, then to cast all that aside once they were in power, eliminate the real left, and establish an authoritarian and anti-liberal regime. Wouldn’t saying that it’s okay to pay lip-service to the concept of a compassionate conservativism, so long it allows you to gain power for your real, nation-building neoconservative agenda, be pretty analogous?

    Just a thought.

  64. jimmiraybob said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:25

    The Liberal Fascism blog now has content.

    If by content you mean words and spaces between words and punctuation, ayup. Otherwise not so much.

  65. J— said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:28

    But the list is partial! I haven’t even got to the international players, like Britain and Germany. And partialness can’t be fascist, because fascism is totalitarian. When my list is done, then I’ll be fulfilled as a liberal fascist, which makes what I’ve done so far partial fascism in the process of totalization. Once again, all this is central to my point.

  66. Worst. President. Ever. said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:28

    Huff!

    Out of breath hurrying back from TownHall.com, where I just posted this:

    ************************************

    Eddie writes: Wednesday, January, 09, 2008 12:23 PM

    I’m surprised by the lack of response…

    But I’m going to go ahead and post again anyway. I have a question for everyone here.

    According to a recent NYT article by Tim Weiner, “A newly declassified document shows that J. Edgar Hoover, the longtime director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, had a plan to suspend habeas corpus and imprison some 12,000 Americans he suspected of disloyalty.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/washington/23habeas.html? ex=1356066000&en=51115b422df80200&ei=5090&partner=rssuserla nd&emc=rss

    Here’s my question:

    Who would it be correct to label a “fascist”:

    a) the conservative J. Edgar Hoover

    b) the liberal Harry S. Truman

    c) both Hoover and Truman

    d) neither Hoover nor Truman

  67. Flying Fox said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:30

    I apologize for being vulgar, but its just a rub and tug at that blog. Jonah just links to reviews of his books, says “look, a good one, Gotcha!” or “A bad one, but he doesn’t take me seriously, so bah.”

  68. Simba B said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:30

    I’d find it for you, but since then I installed a GreaseMonkey script that translates Saul to Terry Pratchett’s Foul Ole Ron, and I don’t feel like undoing it.

    Right click on the Greasemonkey icon in the status bar and uncheck the name of a script to temporarily disable it without uninstalling it.

  69. El Cid said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:30

    It seems worth pointing out that for all of Jonah’s “Gotcha”-calling over the phrase “national socialist,” most historians agree that the arc of the nazi party was to use the compassionate facade of socialism to gain the support of the masses in the face of the depression, then to cast all that aside once they were in power, eliminate the real left, and establish an authoritarian and anti-liberal regime.

    Sure, such a thing would be worth pointing out and in fact we’ve gone over it several times here too, myself noting how Mussolini directly negated Marxist class-conflict theory by saying that it was really nations in conflict, not classes within nations.

    However, it would only be “worth pointing out” for our own entertainment or edification on this blog, or because you’re talking to a moderately sane person actually interested in history.

    It would not be “worth pointing out” with regard to someone releasing the verbal flatulence that we’ve seen from Liberal Fat-Systems: From Ho Ho’s to Carl’s Jr, because there is no such thing as a real argument based on definitions which are consistent and theses which can either be verified or falsified.

    It’s “empty” in the old fashioned logical sense, meaning that if the contrary thing is stated or alleged, it doesn’t have anything to do with damaging the various arguments hurled — because they are empty arguments unassailable by fact or examination. They are ‘right’ because if you don’t agree you are a stupid poopyhead. That’s it.

  70. Flying Fox said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:30

    a) the conservative J Edgar Hoover

  71. El Cid said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:33

    Nice try, good honest effort, Flying Fox. Because according to Jo’butt, that would only have been evidence that J. Edgard Hoover was copying the Liberal Fascists who preceded him like Woodrow Wilson.

  72. SamFromUtah said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:35

    …Jonah’s “Gotcha”-calling over the phrase “national socialist,”…

    Heh, indeed. I wonder what he thought of the Republican Guard?

  73. jimmiraybob said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:38

    a) the conservative J. Edgar Hoover

    The special genius that is Jonah has produced a rock solid thesis that when activated by a super secret special super power makes this answer impossible. The correct answer id FDR.

  74. stringonastick said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:39

    Owen nails the projection perfectly, thereby exposing how Pantload performed the triple lutz with a halfgainer. And most importantly, WHY.

  75. MzNicky said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:47

    I just checked out Pantload’s “Lieberal Fat-heads” “blog.” Holy cow. If he weren’t so stupid, he’d be ashamed of himself for being so stupid.

  76. Righteous Bubba said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:50

    Right click on the Greasemonkey icon in the status bar and uncheck the name of a script to temporarily disable it without uninstalling it.

    Or just click on the happy monkey and make it sad for a minute, heartbreaking though it is.

  77. Worst. President. Ever. said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:55

    The Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers Party) were so well known for its strict policies of socialism and worker’s rights that German industrialists were unanimous in steadfastly refused to contribute a single pfennig.

    So the poor NSDAP was forced to survive by holding bake sales until it came to power in 1933.

    The NSDAP achieved power thanks to the generous help of liberals and communists, and, once in power, showed its appreciation of its friends on the the left by totally limiting its persecutions to Jews and conservative.

  78. moondancer said,

    January 9, 2008 at 19:56

    I guess the lie that Goldbergs universe is built on is exposed. He argues that there is a fascist elite that are allowed to say anything to the rubes to maintain power.
    The problem Pantload is that you are not part of the elite. You can’t elect yourself to that status either. You are a common pseudo-intellectual that is self-unaware enough to not know how stupid you really are. Luckily for you, your stupidity is profound enough to protect you from the knowledge that you are the laughingstock of all that can walk and breathe at the same time.

  79. Gus said,

    January 9, 2008 at 20:16

    Yeah, what empressmitzi said. Intellectuals do not use the (non)word “majorly.”

  80. Arky - Fascitanata said,

    January 9, 2008 at 20:27

    I’d find it for you, but since then I installed a GreaseMonkey script that translates Saul to Terry Pratchett’s Foul Ole Ron, and I don’t feel like undoing it.

    Ooo! I kan haz millenium hand an shrimp?

  81. r€nato said,

    January 9, 2008 at 20:28

    I never tire of telling this tale… sometime during campaign 2000, on one of those weekend pundit talking heads’ shows, Jonah sneered [paraphrased], “I can’t stand that phrase, ‘compassionate conservatism’. What we need are more cruel conservatives.”

  82. J— said,

    January 9, 2008 at 20:29

    I notice the LibFacha blog has yet to mention or link to Dave Neiwert’s review (via albany layman here yesterday). I anxiously await Goldberg’s response.

    Also, this paragraph from Neiwert’s essay goes out to a certain professor of history and reviewer of the book in question for the Times of New York.

    Liberal Fascism is like a number of other recent attempts at historical revisionism by popular right-wing pundits — including, notably, Michelle Malkin’s attempt to justify the Japanese-American internment in her book In Defense of Internment, and Ann Coulter’s attempt to rehabilitate McCarthy’s reputation in her book Treason — in that it employs the same historical methodology used by Holocaust deniers and other right-wing revanchists: namely, it selects a narrow band of often unrepresentative facts, distorts their meaning, and simultaneously elides and ignores whole mountains of contravening evidence and broader context. These are simply theses in search of support, not anything like serious history.

    As Montell Jordan would say, “This is how we do it.” And it ain’t that hard either.

  83. Pope Ratzo said,

    January 9, 2008 at 20:33

    Bush’s compassionate conservatism was…a marketing slogan

    I knew that.

  84. Robert M. said,

    January 9, 2008 at 20:40

    Everyone’s probably moved on to the next thread, but…

    Right click on the Greasemonkey icon in the status bar and uncheck the name of a script to temporarily disable it without uninstalling it.

    Or just click on the happy monkey and make it sad for a minute, heartbreaking though it is.

    I know how to turn Greasemonkey off; the problem is that since being introduced to Greasemonkey, my physical tolerance for trolls has faded–and I’m afraid that exposing myself to BoogerSaulKevinGary’s unfiltered verbal diarrhea might land me in the hospital, a gibbering shell of my former self.

  85. Bill in Chicago said,

    January 9, 2008 at 20:42

    A blast from the past on the same point:

    “The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees,” Scanlon wrote in the memo, which was read into the public record at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. “Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them.” The brilliance of this strategy was twofold: Not only would most voters not know about an initiative to protect Coushatta gambling revenues, but religious “wackos” could be tricked into supporting gambling at the Coushatta casino even as they thought they were opposing it.

    http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/11/03/abramoff/index.html

  86. Trilateral Chairman said,

    January 9, 2008 at 20:50

    Heh, indeed. I wonder what he thought of the Republican Guard?

    Or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, where “of” is perhaps the only honest word.

  87. annejumps said,

    January 9, 2008 at 21:06

    the fact that Huckabee is going by Jesus’s word on compassion and whatnot

    I wouldn’t go that far. I would say that he believes in the Bible in the way that Bush was told to pretend to, not that he’s actually compassionate.

    Sorry, I just can’t let what seemed to be grudging admiration for Huckabee (and apologies if that’s not what you meant) go by without comment.

  88. Ali said,

    January 9, 2008 at 21:06

    “majorly”?

    That’s majorly awesome liek woah.

  89. Rick Massimo said,

    January 9, 2008 at 22:19

    You know, in every new bloviation from Pantload, Coulter et al I just hear this somehow simultaneously desperate-yet-smug “Aren’t I bracingly contrarian and interestingly provocative and someone you’d like to have back on your show? Aren’t I? Aren’t I?”

  90. wtf said,

    January 9, 2008 at 23:31

    Davis said,
    January 9, 2008 at 18:12
    Liberals don’t respect authority, and that makes us fascists.

    ‘Zackly!!

  91. chuck said,

    January 9, 2008 at 23:35

    Religion, in Jonah’s world, truly is the Cheetos bag of the masses.

    It is the Cheetos bag of the masses.

    But Jonah is still a pantload.

  92. Anne Laurie said,

    January 9, 2008 at 23:46

    Most of the rest of the NR cons know better than to say this sort of thing outright… I do wonder if they get tired of Goldberg blowing their cover on a regular basis.

    I have always assumed that the Doughy Pantload’s right to hang out with the less stupid, somewhat more self-aware NR “intellectuals” is based on a contract, written by Lucianne, that permits his slightly smarter Reichtwing brethren to smack Jonah upside the earhole, open hand only, not more than a specified number of times per 24 hours. You know — the same contract Lucianne herself signed with the Social Services people, once it became obvious that even the most disabililty-hardened, stress-tested foster family wasn’t going to take little Jonah.

  93. jill said,

    January 9, 2008 at 23:48

    Similar to Delay saying last night on MSNBC that “moderates are people who think too much.”

  94. Northern Observer said,

    January 10, 2008 at 0:46

    The naked cynicism of the right…

  95. Bitter Scribe said,

    January 10, 2008 at 0:46

    I’m not sure Bush even realized, or realizes to this day, that “compassionate conservatism” was nothing more than a marketing slogan. All this means is that he’s less cynical than Goldberg. (Dumber, too, although that’s a given.)

    St. Augustine was right when he called cynics “canine philosophers.”

  96. Righteous Bubba said,

    January 10, 2008 at 1:00

    The naked cynicism of the right…

    If it was naked it’d be more interesting but they keep pretending that Janet’s nipple is a weapon of mass destruction.

  97. Lancelot Link said,

    January 10, 2008 at 3:13

    Wait… you mean his book was actually edited by someone?
    Adam Bellow, editor-at-large for Doubleday.

    Another legacy hire.
    Author of In Praise of Nepotism.
    Surprise, surprise.

  98. billy bob tweed said,

    January 10, 2008 at 4:32

    GWB’s phony “humble foreign policy” promise was another marketing slogan sham.

  99. RandomObserver said,

    January 10, 2008 at 7:25

    So the problem with Huckabee is that he isn’t a shameless liar? Hmm…curious…

  100. pbg said,

    January 10, 2008 at 9:19

    Huckabee is dangerous because he’s the (unintentional) trial balloon for a proprietary Religious Right candidacy.

    That would split the Republican Party right down the middle.

    That’s why they hate him.

  101. noncarborundum said,

    January 10, 2008 at 20:36

    .Saul said
    ” . . .we must bow in the face of authority, temporal or spiritual, when we know the authority is right.”

    But if you only “bow in the face of authority” when you know it’s right, you’re not bowing to authority at all, are you? You’re following your own internal sense of what’s right and what’s wrong, which is to say, the dictates of your conscience. This is a non-authoritarian position, unless for some reason you wouldn’t do what you think is right unless you could find some authority figure to ratify it for you. Is this what you meant? Or do you even know what you meant?

  102. Smut Clyde said,

    January 10, 2008 at 22:57

    we must bow in the face of authority, temporal or spiritual
    No discussion of “the face of authority” is complete without mentioning Teh Great Countenance, Macroposopus.

    The Zohar devotes 13 chapters simply to describing the beard of Macroposopus.

    CONCERNING THE BEARD OF MACROPROSOPUS IN GENERAL.

    210. This is the praise of that beard; the beard which is concealed and most precious in all its dispositions; the beard which neither the superiors nor the inferiors have known; 1 the beard which is the praise of all praise; the beard to which neither man, nor prophet, nor saint hath approached so as to behold it.

    I can’t get enough of this.

  103. Jonah Goldberg: Is Writing this Drivel Really What You Aspire To? « The Bad Idea Blog said,

    January 13, 2008 at 18:50

    [...] candidates are lame, the people who vote for them are lame, and Mike Huckabee, the one guy I really don’t want to win our primary, is sort of lame [...]

  104. Bozo the Cocksucker said,

    December 8, 2013 at 1:24

    I tihnk you’ll find its spelt “frak”, you CUNT.

Leave a Comment

  • Things of Interest

  • Meta Goodness

  • Clunkers

  • httpbl_stats()