So it seems that Jonah Goldberg wants your opinion on the legacy of George W. Bush:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/...

Some choice items which I sent him follow below the fold.....

http://www.236.com/...

Here's Max's biography:

http://en.wikipedia.org/...

Lately he had been eying a Tory safe seat. The sex scandal is referenced at the bottom.

this'll make you laugh a bit it's about a Sex Scandal in Britain (you know it's kinky now).  How do conservatives connect Hillary Clinton and fascists (and thus prove the love between fascism and liberalism.)

Take it away Jonah:

"Mosley's (Oswald Mosley, Max's father) sister-in-law Jessica Mitford, one of the Mitford Sisters (natch'), was a committed Communist who wrote The American Way of Death (which by many accounts is a good book I have yet to read). When Hungarian freedom fighters were slaughtered by the Soviets, Mitford said they were "fascist traitors" who had it coming. Jessica married the Stalinist California lawyer Robert Treuhaft (this NYT obit is hagiography), for whom Hillary Clinton worked as an intern."

They are jumping all over Max Moesely's rather "interesting" sexcapade.

And gets what he asked for, though I doubt he'll be happy about it.

In an editorial in the LA Times today, Goldberg called on Barack Obama to use his speech in Philadelphia to distance himself from Rev. Jeremiah Wright, saying:

Obama needs to do two things. First, he needs to make it incandescently clear that Wright doesn't speak for him in any meaningful way. If he won't do that, his campaign is a fraud and he is not qualified to be president.

Second, he needs to explain to black America why Wright's views are so poisonous.

Words have power.  Define the terms of discourse and you make the rules of the game.  A name evokes an emotional response, and right wing propagandists are trying to hang the negative connotations of "Osama" and "Hussein" on Obama.  

Fight fear mongering with humor.  We can have a lot of fun with the words "Barack," "Hussein," and "Obama" and in the process mock the Repuglies, who are incapable of fun, and/or bad taste on purpose, i.e., irony.

Take a break from primary coverage and pick the one you like/hate best/most.  Think of your own.

Boy, this took a lot of courage ... And what prescience!

Move over Nostradamus, there's a new kid on the block ...

Maybe he has a "feeling" on how the Cubs are going to do this season ... Or, does he already know who our next president will be? ... Or perhaps, he's holding high over our guilty pleasures, teasing those around him, smug with the knowledge of who is this season's American Idol winner?

Drum roll, please ...

If facts have a liberal bias, then lies have a conservative bias.

It turns out that it's true, on both counts.

On dispelling Jonah's lies about Hitler and liberals.

On revealing Hitler's deep hate for, and fear of, liberalism.  And Jonah's.  And Burke's.

(This is another Not A Candidate Diary)

So, yesterday my lo-cal newspaper ran Jonah Goldberg's recent column in which he celebrated the use of torture in the war on terror.

As I am wont to do, I decided to write a letter in response. Our lo-cal paper is still family-owned, which is great. That the family makes Goldberg look liberal is, in my opinion, not. Their regular op-ed columnists are Goldberg, falafel-man, Michael Reagan, and a few other wingnuts. I once wrote to them pleading that if they were going to run that kind of stuff, at least carry George Will. So much for the liberal media. Anyway . . .

Nevertheless, I was unprepared for what followed my letter. About an hour after I had sent the letter, I received a call from the guy who edits the opinion section [he's also the son of the owner of the paper]. He spent 10 minutes on the phone haranguing me about being a leftist, about spewing "Nancy Pelosi talking points," and about making assertions without evidence.

Eh? More below the fold.

Much has already been written on the subject of Jonah Goldberg's no-doubt-fantastic tome Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation from Something or Other to Something Entirely Unrelated to That Particular Something or whatever title it was that he finally settled on. Thus, I'd like to write on the subject of people writing on the subject of the subject in question. Don't try and stop me. I swear to God that I'll do it.

It's a simple little storefront building that had been the mosque in Columbia TN for many years. Maybe it was a bright and cheerful place, but now it's a gutted shell of a building, The cement block walls were painted white and are still standing, but there are swastikas and white supremacist slogans spray painted on them.

http://www.myeyewitnessnews.com/...

The neighbors are upset; they never had a problem with the mosque. The full details won't be know for a while, so we have no way of knowing what sort of group committed this act.

But it's a good time to reflect that while conservatives talk about "Islamo-Fascists" and "liberal Fascists," that there really are fascists and fascist wannabees in this nation, and I'll bet I can guess who these nimrods voted for in 2004.

For the best treatment of that issue, check out Orcinous

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/

In Sunday’s Washington Post "Book World," UCLA’s Michael Mann reviews Jonah Goldberg’s excremental Liberal Fascism, and he does a good, if unenviable job.  But he errs badly in his third sentence, asserting that, "Hurling the calumny ‘fascist!’ at American conservatives is not fair." In this he echoes Ezra Klein’s recent assertion, in his otherwise cogent American Prospect response to Goldberg, that "The contemporary right is not fascist."  Both men are dead wrong.  It may not be fair to call today’s "conservatives" conservative, but it is certainly fair to call them fascist.  

Washington Post

Given the wingnut genuflections in Goldberg's general direction these days, you just knew this had to happen.

Kathryn Lopez puts this out on NRO's The Corner:

In other news: Guess who has been nominated for a Pulitzer? Yes...the P word. Can I even say that around here?

Tribune Media Services (his syndicate) has nominated our Jonah for a Pulitzer in opinion journalism.

Now, if they only know what’s good for them ...

For now, it is an honor to be nominated — we’re all delighted here for our friend and colleague and know so many of you are just as excited for all his success. Liberal Fascism has been a long-time in coming and the degree to which it is being talked about and purchased is great news and a testament to a job well done.  The Corner 1/24

Which was breathlessly picked up by such wingnut notables as Hog on Ice.

Which makes you wonder...how dishonest and/or gullible is the blognutosphere?

I have no intent of reading Jonah Goldberg's new book Liberal Fascism.  I fully expect it to be a complete and absolute waste of my time to read.  But I do encourage you to read this amusing review of his book in The American Conservative, Pat Buchanan's magazine.  Reviewer Austin Bramwell will have none of Golberg's games.  Excerpts below.  

Over at Sadly No!, contributer Jillian plans on writing a response to Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism: Bad Shit From Adelai Stephenson to the Atari 2600" called Conservative Communism: The Collectivist Temptation from Mao Zedong to the Hoover Institute.

Little did Jillian know that parody has already been long outstripped by reality.

More on the flip...

We can't say if Jonah Goldberg woke up wearing last night's dress, but, almost undoubtedly, he'd be happy emerging from his slumber if there were "fewer, but better, liberals".

Privileged people passing themselves off as victims is very nauseating to witness.

Yet every election cycle (and even in non-election cycles) this is what we get from Republicans.

You don't agree with a Republican?  Then you are not only wrong, you are, by not agreeing with the Republican, purposely persecuting the Republican. (Perhaps  this is why they are given to screaming fits when "debating" someone possessing an opposite view. Because they feel the opposing viewpoint is literally hurting them).  Here's an example...

http://www.newshounds.us/...

It's like Glenn Greenwald said (paraphrased): "Neocons never err:  They are just the victims of other people's shortcomings."

That sums it up (and what I am trying to articulate) beautifully.
 

Even upon casual examination,  'tis clear posing as a victim is fundamental to modern-day conservatism.

Michael Kinsley nudged his way into the Familiar Quotations world when he noted that "a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth."  Barack was caught in just such a gaffe at the Nevada debate.

His worst flaw???  Are you kidding me???  Every entry-level interviewee knows that you never answer that question with a genuine flaw!  You say something like, "My biggest flaw is that I work too hard!"  "Sometimes I fight too strenously to defend the innocent!"  "I sacrifice too much for the common good!"  You never say something like "I lose everything."

And naturally, everyone jumped on that after the debate to make it sound like he may accidentally Push the Button when the cartoonishly huge stack of papers in his in-box collapses onto it.  And so Tim Russert readies his penknife to carve another notch into his belt, counting up another victim to his inane line of questioning.

Is there a limit to how much bullshit neo-con pundits can throw at us? Evidently not. I’m of the opinion they believe that if they hurl enough, some of it may stick to the wall. Rich Lowry has displayed his blissful ignorance, in touting the new book Liberal Fascism, written by his crony at the National Review, Jonah Goldberg. The book contends that Hitler and Mussolini were Liberal left-wingers and that today’s Progressives have intellectually inherited their Fascism. Of course, Goldberg substantiates his allegations with his usual Because I said so resources. This would be laughable, if not for the mindless sheeple who blindly accept the ranting of these lunatics as gospel.

I few months back I set out to illustrate prominent Chickenhawks. At the time I was offering to do images on request. DailyKos diarist 8ackgr0und N015e took me up on the offer and requested a series depicting "Fledgling Chickenhawks" as named in his diary.

The Chickenhawk frame had interested me for a while. I was particularly offended by these wingnuts who passionately argue for and defend the use of force in Iraq and the so called Global War on Terror, yet fail to heed their own call to take up arms. You can enlist up to the age of 42. The Chickenhawks I have chosen to illustrate are all under 42. I now call this group of under 42 year olds "The 43^rd Chairborne Chickenhawks, The George W. Bush Brigade". The 43 is meant to honor our 43^rd President of the United States. I started with 8ackgr0und N015e's list and expanded it a little.