Archive - Oct 12, 2005

Gooooooldberg! Gooooooldberg!

« October 2005 »

Memo to Jonah Goldberg: YOU ARE DUMB.

Or willfully disingenuous, which in my book is just as bad. When you have to ignore the obvious to such a mind-boggling degree to make your point, either you're an idiot, or you want me to believe you're an idiot. And that's something I'm more than willing to oblige you on.

We once again dip our toes into the sticky morass of the blogosphere, but it's OK, 'cause Jonah Goldberg is moderately famous for things beyond his blog (National Review editor, TV commentator, etc.). He gets to be rated as a notch or two above Generic Wingnut With A Blogspot Account, and thus I am comfortable making fun of stupid shit he says on his blog about the Harriet Miers nomination.

Ah, Harriet Miers. She's like a Pokemon. Yesterday, she evolved from Cronyta into the more advanced form, Sycophantusaur, with the embarassing revelation that her correspondence with the President wouldn't be that out of place in a high school yearbook. Anyone stroking Dubya's ego that unabashedly is suspect on general principle.

Jonah Goldberg doesn't like Harriet Miers either, but for the same reason the rest of the right is cranky - she's not one of the dozens of judgebots they've spent the past twenty years constructing for this specific occasion. This archconservative grumpiness over their manifest destiny has met with certain rhetorical tactics by die-hard Bush supporters, and this does not sit well with Goldberg. ACTUAL QUOTE TIME!

"Fed by what are to me very cheap arguments by RNC spokesmen and independent stalwarts of the administration -- chiefly, it seems, Hugh Hewitt -- there is now this permanently established belief in some quarters that people around here and elsewhere oppose Miers based purely on bad motives -- elitism, cowardice, sexism etc. I find this horribly disappointing and the sort of thing I normally expect from leftwingers."

I guess the tip of the arrow flying towards you really does look different than the ass of the arrow moving away from you, because Goldberg is apparently incapable of recognizing it as the same goddamn arrow the administration shoots off every single time they're threatened. Discrediting the dissenters has been such a well-worn MO for the past five years that I'm amazed and astonished that Goldberg didn't expect it the instant he stepped out of line. But if we are to believe him, shooting the messenger was the last thing on his mind.

"It is one of the cheapest forms of argumentation to assert bad motives, particularly to your friends, when you disagree with them. Judging by a torrent of email over the last week, I am supposed to take seriously the accusation that my fellow NROers* and I are troubled by Miers solely because we're fair-weather supporters of the President and the GOP who get the vapors the moment Bush is in trouble. We want to impress the liberal and left wing media. We are elitists. We are sexists. But most of all, we're just not tough enough to take the heat."

I love how the cheap argument somehow gets cheaper when you use it against your own side. That's a telling double standard right there. No, you're not supposed to take seriously the charge that you oppose Miers because you're sexist. Nobody's suppoed to take that charge seriously. But they do.

Nobody's supposed to take it seriously when anti-war protestors are called unpatriotic, either. Or when senators are accused of aiding and comforting the enemy by not voting the right way on an energy bill. Or when candidates are compared to Osama Bin Laden. But they do. That's why the tactic works, and that's why the tactic keeps getting used, and anyone who's been hanging around the National Review for as long as Goldberg has either knows this and is lying, or doesn't know this and is delusional.

And either way, once he's done helping keep the crazy Bush-fellating lawyer off the highest court in the land, he should probably take a few minutes to go fuck himself.

*National Review Online, which Goldberg's blog calls home.