For some reason, one of the weekly papers here in Atlanta insists on giving a forum to the ludicrous Jonah Goldberg, a man whose main claim to fame seems to be that he is the offspring of the atrocious Lucianne Goldberg*, and whose magnum opus is a preposterous book which making the laughable claim that Mussolini was a liberal.
When I first moved to Atlanta, this paper (initials S.P.) used to have 4 political columnists. Representing the Left were Jesse Jackson and Arianna Huffington, and on the right were Shrieking Harpy Ann Coulter and congenital Liar and rage-addict Bill O'Reilly, because, you know, who needs credibility? Now the first victim of the budget cuts at the "SP" is the pretense of objectivity. On alternating weeks, the sole political column is written by either the editor ( a reasonable, thoughtful, conservative voice) or the clownish buffoon, Jonah Goldberg.
Can You Spot The Difference?
Let's Take a look at some of Mr. Goldberg's writings shall we?
Here are a few selections from some recent columns:
By now you’ve probably heard: The GOP is becoming too regional, too white, too old to compete at a national level. Democrats look like a merging of the cast of Rent and Up With People, while Republicans look like diehard fans of Matlock and Murder, She Wrote.
That's right, the most hip, current pieces of youth culture Jonah can come up with are "Rent" and "UP WITH PEOPLE!" Up with people? Up with fucking people? That's about as relevant a reference as Frankie and Annette! Or Glenn Miller! Or Vaudeville! Up With People? Maybe someone like George Will or Bob Novak could be excused for this kind of "Those damn kids with their rock and roll" outburst, but Jonah was born in 1969! How does he even know who they are?
Well, given what Obama wants to do, I hope he fails too. Of course I want the financial crisis to end — who doesn’t? But Obama’s agenda is much more audacious. Pretty much every major news outlet in the country has said as a matter of objective analysis that Obama wants to repeal the legacy of Ronald Reagan and remake the country as a European welfare state.
Okay, first of all, do you even understand what you're saying? Barack Obama is trying to end the financial crisis. If the crisis ends, he will have succeeded. If he fails to end the crisis, then it will continue. You can't hope that he fails while simultaneously hoping that he succeeds.
Second, Who are these major news outlets? If any of them are saying what you are pretending they are saying, that would be editorializing, not "objective analysis." Do you even know the difference? And do you understand that the legacy of Ronald Reagan is Crippling National debt, the arming of Bin Laden and Sadam, and the destabilization of latin America? Who wouldn't want to repeal that?
What movie have they been watching? Because I could swear that conservatives opposing the expansion of big government is what conservatives do. It’s Aesopian. The scorpion must sting the frog. The conservative must object to socialized medicine.
So the objection to health-care is just a Pavlovian, knee-jerk response? There's no thought put into it at all?
Obama’s budget priorities are a great ideological bait-and-switch. He says he wants to fix the financial crisis, but he’s focusing on selling his longstanding liberal agenda on health care, energy, and education as the way to do it, even though his proposals have absolutely nothing to do with addressing the housing and toxic-debt problems that are the direct causes of our predicament. Indeed, some — particularly on Wall Street — would argue that his policies are making the crisis worse.
So the Wall Street guys, the guys who were wrong about everything? The Guys who didn't see any of this coming? The guys who were shocked when the dot-coms imploded? Those guys are saying that Obama's policies might make things worse? Those guys? The guys who thought Junk Bonds were a good idea? The guys who were bullish on Enron and World-Com? Those are the guys who are warning us about the President's policies? The geniuses who got us into this mess in the first place?
Oh, and do you understand what bait-and-switch means? Barack Obama ran on this platform af health care, green energy, etc. People voted for him because they liked these ideas. Why would anyone be shocked that he is now trying to implement the ideas on which he ran?
And yet, I’ve met innumerable writers and editors who are scared, even terrified, of one or more of these groups: gays, blacks, Latinos, Asians, Jews, feminists, evangelical Christians, and the handicapped.
Um, innumerable means "too many to count," not "I'm unable to count that high."
And where are you meeting these writers and editors? At he paranoid pants-wetter support group?
What a racket. I wish I could get paid for making shit up.
*most famous as a minor figure in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, she was also one of Nixon's dirty tricksters, being payed $1000/month to dig up dirt on the McGovern campaign staff.