Oliver Willis

Like Kryptonite To Stupid

Breaking News
CBO Report: Health Care Reform Reduces Deficit By $1 Trillion

Jonah Goldberg: Just How Intellectually Dishonest Can A Conservative Be?

June 13th, 2009 News 27 Comments

('’)

Share

Based on this nice take-down by Dave Neiwert, the answer is clearly “very“.

Related Posts

• No Related Post

Posted in News |

« Dow Is Positive For The Year

Yawn Watch »

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

27 Responses to “Jonah Goldberg: Just How Intellectually Dishonest Can A Conservative Be?”

1. bikelib says:

   June 14, 2009 at 12:14 am

   Answer: As dishonest as the people who sign his paychecks want him to be. Next question.
2. fafaroo says:

   June 14, 2009 at 2:59 am

   There is not a single conservative who posts here who will read that piece and criticize Goldberg for his shoddy research and dishonest thesis.

   Not a one.
3. Grumpymann says:

   June 14, 2009 at 5:54 am

   fafaroo,

   I thought that too.
   Until I heard some con say that van braun was a “Lefty”.

   There is nothing beneath them.
4. C.S.Strowbridge says:

   June 14, 2009 at 6:49 am

   Grumpymann: “Until I heard some con say that van braun was a ‘Lefty’.”

   He was so far to the right, that he thought Fox News was leftist.

   If the left pulled half the shit the right does…
5. Frank DiSalle says:

   June 14, 2009 at 7:18 am

   fafaroo: Why should we? You guys are gonna riff off that guys critique all day, and you don’t have a nodding acquaintance with the book.
6. (: Tom :) says:

   June 14, 2009 at 7:45 am

   Frank DiSalle, June 14, 2009 at 7:18 am

   fafaroo: Why should we?

   Um, because DoughBob LoadPants used shoddy research and put forth a dishonest thesis? And, like any rational human being, you would condemn these tactics regardless of who used them…

   Wait – forgot i was talking to a card carrying Republican’t Limbaugh licker.

   Well – unless you’re a hyperpartisan Republican’t, you would criticize shoddy research and putting forth a dishonest thesis like this.

   You guys are gonna riff off that guys critique all day, and you don’t have a nodding acquaintance with the book.

   Really? Even though some of us have repeatedly acknowledged that we’ve read this waste of ink and paper, it seems that that knowledge still has to seep into your overripe and underweight brainpan. How much knowledge of the Whale’s book do you have? Have you read it cover to cover? Better yet, have you even read Niewert’s post? Would you care to try to engage in some fact based discussion, or are we going to get another exercise in Republican’t smear and deflect?

   Plus – now that you’ve shown yourself to be almost as intellectually dishonest as Goldberg himself, would you perhaps care to address the subject at hand? How intellectually dishonest will a conservative Republican’t such as yourself go?
7. Frank DiSalle says:

   June 14, 2009 at 8:05 am

   Tom: Did anyone in this thread mention reading the book? No.

   What would lead me to believe that they did?

   The fact they can attest to the intellectual dishonesty of “Republicans” without evidence?

   BTW, I would be willing to bet that in the last five years, you have listened to Rush Limbaugh more than I have …

   Limbaugh licker !! Hahahahahahahaha

   Tom — if you are looking for a “fact based discussion” , you might want to reread the thread.

   As for my opinion of his thesis, I understand where he is coming from. If anyone is engaging in an intellectual shell game, it is Liewert. That is not because the political spectrum of 1933 would have had National Socialism on the left; it is because on today’s political spectrum , the left is veering towards totalitarianism with each Democratic Presidential Victory since 1964.
8. Dennis says:

   June 14, 2009 at 8:08 am

   Neiwert’s writing is largely unreadable, other than to those few people who are just as bizarrely obsessed with all things Fox News as he is. The guy must spend his entire day watching Glenn Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly and the rest of the Fox line-up and then writing about them during commercial breaks.

   Evidently I’m not the only one who feels this way either, since the book he wrote is currently ranked #2,411 on the Amazon Sales Ranking. This is the book liberal bloggers are all pulling together to plug now that they can’t seem to formulate a coherent strategy for exploiting the latest extremist shooting.

   Neiwert can’t conveniently blame the usual foils he obsesses over daily since Von Brunn stated he hated Fox News and O’Reilly, so he attacks Jonah Goldberg for reporting on the many commonalities Von Brunn shared with those on the Left.

   And of course, no true lefty would ever consider this to be dishonest of Neiwert. But at least he admits that he’s an ankle-biter, and that pretty much sums him up right there.
9. jr says:

   June 14, 2009 at 9:13 am

   Goldberg will write anything to get airtime
10. Grumpymann says:

    June 14, 2009 at 10:42 am

    fafaroo,,

    Told you.
11. Oliver says:

    June 14, 2009 at 11:36 am

    Clearly its Neiwert’s fault that the left doesn’t have a propaganda arm like the right to go and buy books like Jonah Goldberg’s in bulk to push it up the bestseller’s lists. All we did was help elect a president, that’s all.
12. Amused Observer says:

    June 14, 2009 at 11:51 am

    LOL,
    Far left writer attacks right writer citing left sources as proof. In depth scholorship at its finest. Meanwhile left cheers country’s slide towards socialism. Business bad government good. Please increase our liberty with more regulations and government control. etc. etc. etc.
13. Dennis says:

    June 14, 2009 at 12:03 pm

    No one is buying his book, Oliver. Not even you. I don’t have statistics to prove it, but logic would dictate that more liberals have bought Liberal Fascism than Neiwert’s book.

    And Jane Hamsher’s plugging for him to get airtime on MSNBC, or whoever would take him, was embarrassing. To his credit, in his bit on Cooper Anderson’s 360, he displayed little if any of the blind partisanship and hyperbole he displays every day on the blog he’s the managing editor for. He’s smart enough to know that that’s not the way to sell books, that by and large the few people who watch CNN’s 360 share little in common with the red meat devotees he caters to where he blogs.

    Ankle-biting only gets one so far. Popularity at places like this, C&L, KOS, and Firedoglake, but little in the way of book sales. Evidently those folks are all tapped out.
14. Dennis says:

    June 14, 2009 at 12:25 pm

    OW-

    I just went online to my county library system’s website. There are eight copies in just my county alone, and all are currently checked out, with a 5 book hold. And this after the book has been out for nearly two years, not to mention a much less expensive paperback version is now available. The county to the north of mine, which voted for Obama greater than the national percentages, has one book in nine of their libraries, all loaned out currently.

    So in truth, your attributing Liberal Fascism’s sales numbers to bulk sales from the VRWC is a bit of the same type of intellectual dishonesty you assign to conservatives in this very blog post.
15. (: Tom :) says:

    June 14, 2009 at 2:31 pm

    Amused Observer, June 14, 2009 at 11:51 am

    LOL,
    Far left writer attacks right writer citing left sources as proof. In depth scholorship at its finest. Meanwhile left cheers country’s slide towards socialism. Business bad government good. Please increase our liberty with more regulations and government control. etc. etc. etc.

    LOL,
    Far right commenter attacks left wing blogger using right wing smear and deflect as ‘debate’. In depth scholarship at its finest. Meanwhile right starts shooting anyone they think is a ’socialist’. Government (now that Republican’ts aren’t in charge) bad. Please increase our ‘freedom’ with more domestic terrorism and hate specch. etc. etc. etc.

    Frank, try English next time if you want to make some sort of rebuttal. The fact that you use no facts in your attempt to justify the blatant falsehoods, dishonest theses, and rewritten history of yet another Republican’t hypocrite speaks volumes about your intent to harrass OW by any means necessary.

    Dennis – if you’re having problems reading Niewert, maybe you can ask your mommy to help you with the big words…
16. Dennis says:

    June 14, 2009 at 2:44 pm

    You mispelled Neiwert’s name, Tom, and your use of the invective ‘Republican’t’ shows your grade school level of seriousness.

    Neither one bothers me in the slightest, I only mention it as a reminder to you that it might be a good idea to proofread your trash before you throw out cuts such as telling someone to try English. You use no facts and display no scholarship in your rebuttal to Frank curiously enough, even as you admonish him for the same.

    And my mom is long gone, but she had a vocabulary that could put yours to shame, not that that bar is set very high.
17. Dennis says:

    June 14, 2009 at 3:04 pm

    And big words have little to do with ease of reading one’s writing, Tom, not in all cases anyway. Goldberg uses big words too, and he’s far easier to read. Hatred for the opposition is much, much more pronounced in Neiwert’s writing.

    His book may end up doing ok if more extremist murders take place, which hopefully does not happen, but I doubt if anyone on the right is going to start calling him names like Doughy Pantload. And seriously, read this and tell me how many times he has to tell you how dishonest he thinks Goldberg is. A guy that has spent as much time as he has researching him. Say it, show it, and move on. Neiwert can’t do that. I counted ten times in that screed alone where he called him dishonest.

    It’s bizarre, I tell ya. Strangely so. Not healthy kind of strange. Back away from the keyboard strange. Take a vacation strange. Maybe even two or three weeks.
18. Bill L. says:

    June 14, 2009 at 4:07 pm

    I don’t comment so much anymore, with work and family taking up most of my time, but the substance free “arguments” from the right are always fun to read on occasion.

    Claiming that someone who compares an entire swath of the ideological spectrum to Hitler and Stalin is somehow less hateful than the guy who calls out the right, and specifically the excreble Jonah Goldberg, on their revisionist history is pretty awesome.
19. Crusty Dem says:

    June 14, 2009 at 5:57 pm

    Shorter Dennis/AO: “Popularity = success, except when it comes to Obama, the democratic party, left-wing blogs, and reality in general”

    Even shorter Dennis/AO: “Intellectual honesty is for suckers”

    As for reading the book, why would any non-masochist choose to read a book equating liberalism and fascism by a moron incapable of defining either?
20. Dennis says:

    June 14, 2009 at 6:24 pm

    As for reading the book, why would any non-masochist choose to read a book equating liberalism and fascism by a moron incapable of defining either? Crusty Dem

    Must be an awful lot of liberal masochists in the world, Crusty.

    Neiwert must be a huge one.

    As to intellectual dishonesty, it’s funny you mention that, because in this rebuttal from Goldberg, he completely swats away the ankle-biting flea that is so obsessed by him, and quite evidently proves the intellectual dishonesty that Neiwert employs.

    Neiwert will be right back nipping at him again tomorrow though, rest assured.
21. Zython says:

    June 14, 2009 at 7:22 pm

    fafaroo: Why should we? You guys are gonna riff off that guys critique all day, and you don’t have a nodding acquaintance with the book.

    On the contrary, I’ve read passages of the book, and it’s just as bad as everyone sane says it is.

    Here’s a sample on saying Liberals(TM) are fascists because they both support *shudder* a healthy diet.

    Here’s another sample saying that because Liberals(TM) think that homosexuals are *shudder shudder* people, that they’re Nazis, which doesn’t make sense right off the bat.

    Here’s yet another sample saying that Joseph McCarthy was a Libearl(TM). Which makes even less sense.

    Neiwert’s writing is largely unreadable

    Just because you can’t read doesn’t make something unreadable.
22. C.S.Strowbridge says:

    June 14, 2009 at 8:18 pm

    Zython: “Here’s another sample saying that because Liberals(TM) think that homosexuals are *shudder shudder* people, that they’re Nazis, which doesn’t make sense right off the bat.”

    At this point, it is clear that his books are only useful as fuel.
23. Crusty Dem says:

    June 15, 2009 at 6:47 am

    Dennis – Link fail (unless your intention was to rebut with the corner).

    The sad thing is that if he were reasonable and intelligent, Goldberg could make a point that fascism does not equal conservativism. Unfortunately, he feels the need to play revisionist historian (as he said on the Daily show, where he made an absolute fool of himself) and claim that fascism is a liberal phenomenon. I get it, it sells books, but it doesn’t make for an intelligent argument; It’s pretty clear the argument has left the rails when Goldberg is claiming a similarity between liberalism and fascism based on organic farming. The better point is that the politics of today are so far removed from 50+ years ago that to use older terminology today is counterproductive.
24. Amused Observer says:

    June 15, 2009 at 7:23 am

    LOL,
    I’m willing to wager none of the people bitching about Goldberg’s book have done anymore than thumb through it, let alone checked his cites. Talk about intellectual dishonesty.
25. Dennis says:

    June 15, 2009 at 7:40 am

    Dennis – Link fail (unless your intention was to rebut with the corner). Crusty

    The link works, I’m just not aware of how to make the page load to the position of the blog post I wanted to highlight. Goldberg does blog at The Corner, yes. I thought you knew that, sorry.

    His nice takedown of the ankle-biting gnat that is Dave Neiwert is the next post after the one posted at 5:47 pm on Sunday. It’s not very far down the page at this point.

    The fact that there is demand from the left to dispel Goldberg’s book, speaks volumes. The fact that there is even a Dave Neiwert to take the inordinate amount of time he does to dispel Goldberg’s notions, speaks volumes, as does the fact that so many liberal bloggers refer to him on matters relating to Goldberg. Bloggers want to dispel Goldberg’s book, they just don’t want to read it. Someone who regularly posts snippets is quite satisfactory to them. “Hey, Neiwert reads it so I don’t have to- here’s his nice takedown”.

    Intellectual dishonesty is apparently quite contagious these days.
26. Michael Over Here says:

    June 15, 2009 at 4:39 pm

    I’m willing to wager none of the people bitching about Goldberg’s book have done anymore than thumb through it

    Are you kidding me? There are a host of bloggers, including the one IN THE LINKED ARTICLE, that meticulously go through the book and critique it point by point. How is it possible to do that unless you’ve read it? But keep living in your own version of reality.

    The title liberal fascism is such clear proof of Orwellian doublspeak that it’s enough to condemn Goldberg to the land of ironic obliviousness for eternity.
27. Diet says:

    June 23, 2009 at 7:41 am

    Goldberg,you don’t deserve this position…