Ech! As if the news isn't depressing enough. Jonah Goldberg on BH! Think I'll watch me some Olympics now. I'll tune back in and read the comments to find out why Bob looks like that.

The fact that so many of the attacks on Goldberg are ad hominim says a lot about his opponents' ability to actually present strong substantive counterarguments. If you can't beat him, spit on him, I guess. Pathetic.

Agreed. No way I watch Jonah. Once was way more than enough. Bye, Bob. See you next week. Congratulation, though. You have succeeded in your quest to find someone as obnoxious as Mickey. No need to try to book Ann Coulter after all. I will now grovel and beg: Please, Bob, give some thought to making Mickey's vacation permanent. (Whimper, whimper). Pleasssssssse.

Bob Holds up the mirror and Jonah fails to look in:
The short answer is yes

You mean ad hominem? What, I gotta prove to you that a pile of shit really stinks? Seriously, you expect people to document every inanity the Doughy Pantload ever written? How about this: the guy has no sense at all. His arguments never make any sense. His entire schtick is dedicated to syllogistic fallacy. But if you're not a troll, and actually care, Matt Yglesias stuck his nose in the pile: http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.c..._blog_post.php

I agree with Jersey Boy and disagree with the pathetic dismissals of Goldberg based on nothing at all. Goldberg on the criteria of substance, intellectual force, depth of knowledge, articulateness, fair mindedness, civility and other like criteria has every right to be on this site, and more so on these criteria than a lot of lacklustre people who appear here without protest--case in point Jane Hamsher. Goldberg is, as is, in a stylistically different way, David Frum, unfailingly interesting. I may or may not agree with them, but that is irrelevant. Those who snidely dismiss them have a concern with hearing interesting arguments they do not like being put forward competently, forcefully and undefensively, and would rather listen to echoes. Shame on such dismissers. Mind you nothing like some two women beach volleyball at the Potemkin Olympics. Itzik Basman

Edwards was never that big a deal to begin with. Off hand I can't think of one primary that he won in his 2 runs for the White House. Then, he lies about an affair which is par for the course. Caught in the lie, no surprise. Is he still lying due to no DNA evidence - probably. Again, not unusual. He's a pol isn't he? That's what they do. Oops! He was a politician. I don't think he could be elected to be a dog catcher at this point. John

You wish to rebut "syllogistic fallacy" with a link to Mat Yglesias. Isn't that somewhat oxymoronic.

Quoting JerseyBoy: The fact that so many of the attacks on Goldberg are ad hominim says a lot about his opponents' ability to actually present strong substantive counterarguments. If you can't beat him, spit on him, I guess. Pathetic.

You make a good point, but since a lot of the attacks are from those who aren't going to watch, I would have to make the counterpoint that maybe they just don't like his style.
On the subject of things pathetic, his arguments on the Kosovo / Georgia analogy read to me like the US cause is noble, and Russia, well, not so much.
In other words, our bullcrap is righteous bullcrap, and your bullcrap is just bullcrap.
I understand the rightist tendency toward subjectivity, and the hold it has on their profoundly subjective subjects, but do we always have to look at every issue through the filter of nationalistic subjectivity? Would it be at least marginally plausible to be objective once in a while?
Don't bother, I already know the answer, and I am just expressing frustration with the situation....

Ok so it's undemocratic to call people fascist - we shouldn't do it. In fact, it's fascist to call people fascist! So you fascist liberals knock off all your fascist rhetoric! (When did the left become represented by George Clooney? If Goldberg wants to challenge the left's knowledge of its own history, I think he could choose a slightly more learned voice to criticize. Isn't he supposed to be about challenging the left's best arguments, and not their worst???)

Wright almost gets it right here, but the meme this "pivot" meme really interacts with to Sen. Obama's detriment isn't one the Republicans put out but one from Sen. Obama's supporters; doing the typical politician pander-and-pivot cuts the legs out from under the argument that Sen. Obama is a new kind of political leader-but this assertion (both explicitly and implictly) was a large part of the meme most successful against Sen. Clinton's arguments that Sen. Obama didn't have enough experience and wouldn't be successful as either a candidate or President. Sen. Obama's campaign and supporters addressed this head-on, saying that Sen. Obama wouldn't be a typical politician and wouldn't even try to do things in the old ways, so the fact that by some old standards Sen. Clinton looked like a better candidate simply didn't matter--Obama was different (hope/change/future/new way). By acting like a normal politician--even to the understandable degree that now he's running in the general and has to appeal to a different audience--Sen. Obama's actions counter his own earlier rhetorical supports. Goldberg is closer to this idea here, although he goes a bit far in saying that

JG: "...one of the important things I'm trying to do is clear the air." What a dishonest sack of sh*t.

Best Total Lack of Self-Awareness Line: "Al Gore uses the fascism card against his critics more than is responsible in a democracy."

Did I miss the portion where Bob grovels and apologizes profusely to Mickey? I believe this is Bob's first appearance since Edwards finally confirmed the very story Bob repeatedly scolded and mocked Mickey for following. I personally didn't think the pro-Mickey front page linkage was sufficient!

Dear My Fellow Georgians and My Friends, Fantastic dialogue with a great American patriot, Jonah Goldberg! Hooah! Never pull out, Jonah, never surrender. HELP ME DECIDE We are getting down to the wire in the Veepstakes. And as promised, I will be announcing my pick right here on Bheads TV. Cast your own vote for one of my finalists here. You will be the frist to know. Today, I’m revealing my list of four finalists. I wrote in yesterday's Wall Street Journal “We are all Georgians. We mustn't forget it.” That’s because at my age, I often tell myself, “John, you mustn’t forget it. Mustn’t, mustn’t, mustn’t. ” Saying “mustn’t” three times helps a lot when I make groceries lists of have some hard name to remember like Snarkhosy. It also helps when you have a senior moment to make a whatchamacallit device (mnemonic?) like "Scar Cosy." As a maverick, I’ve eliminated all the establishment choices like George Romney, Hubert Humphrey (Wait, wasn’t the Hump a Democrat?) and Gulliani. (Mnemonic: Jew Lee Annie)
The Straight Talk finalists are: My Friend Salim Ahmed Hamdan. Attributes: excellent driver, veteran, young, does not crack under pressure, completely vetted by Homeland Security. Downside: Infidel with self-proclaimed “boiled mind” from 7 years of Gitmo torture. My Friend Ann Coulter. Attributes: Girl. Young. Reborn. Big knockers. Downside: Soft on Islamofascism. My Friend Nino Salukvadze, the Georgian Gold Medalist in

Quoting Exeus99: Wright almost gets it right here, but the meme this "pivot" meme really interacts with to Sen. Obama's detriment isn't one the Republicans put out but one from Sen. Obama's supporters; doing the typical politician pander-and-pivot cuts the legs out from under the argument that Sen. Obama is a new kind of political leader-but this assertion (both explicitly and implictly) was a large part of the meme most successful against Sen. Clinton's arguments that Sen. Obama didn't have enough experience and wouldn't be successful as either a candidate or President. Sen. Obama's campaign and supporters addressed this head-on, saying that Sen. Obama wouldn't be a typical politician and wouldn't even try to do things in the old ways, so the fact that by some old standards Sen. Clinton looked like a better candidate simply didn't matter--Obama was different (hope/change/future/new way). By acting like a normal politician--even to the understandable degree that now he's running in the general and has to appeal to a different audience--Sen. Obama's actions counter his own earlier rhetorical supports.

It seems that the gist of your point is that Obama has been proven disingenuous. I think

Jonah keeps mentioning Leo Strauss in his diavlogs. What is his claim to fame? I have never heard of him. John

Quoting JerseyBoy: The fact that so many of the attacks on Goldberg are ad hominim says a lot about his opponents' ability to actually present strong substantive counterarguments.

Ah, no. That's what we call a non sequitur. In fact, what the ad hominem attacks on Goldberg say about his opponents is their ability to present ad hominems.

Quoting piscivorous: You wish to rebut "syllogistic fallacy" with a link to Mat Yglesias. Isn't that somewhat oxymoronic.

Please describe the "syllogistic fallacy" you think you are referring to.

If Bob Wright can't beat Jonah Goldberg I think we can pretty much guarantee McCain is going to win the election.

Quoting bkjazfan: Jonah keeps mentioning Leo Strauss in his diavlogs. What is his claim to fame? I have never heard of him.

John

Father of Neoconservatism. If you want to watch a great documentary and learn a bit about neoconservatism in the process, watch the BBC's The Power of Nightmares. I don't agree with every word spoken in its 3 hours, but it's a very compelling history nevertheless. Strauss is the one who said that you need powerful myths to control the public. Like the myth of an omnipresent terrorism threat, for example. It works damn well, I think we could all agree. The Straussians never admit publicly that their arguments are lies (er, "myths" is the term of art) designed to control the population. It's harder to motivate people with mythology if you tell them it's mythology. Only the true disciples are supposed to understand it's all a lie; the rest of us are expected to believe it. All three parts can be viewed on Google Video. Here's Part One: — The Power of Nightmares: The Politics of Fear

Strauss was a professor at the University of Chicago, a political theorist, and is considered to have strongly influenced the neoconservative movement.

Quoting brucds: What a dishonest sack of sh*t.

Well said.

Hilarious post. But, really, shouldn't your VP nominee be Mikheil Saakashvili? Can he be president of Georgia and Vice President of the United States at the same time? Who cares what the Constitution says? If Bush proved anything, he proved you can do whatever the hell you want! Laws are for wimps, women, and Democrats!

I thought it was a good DV. It was an example of how facts on the ground can affect the discourse more than your typical ideologue would think. Bob's chair broke early in the discussion and Jonah pretty much had Bob in his clutches for the remainder. If strong fences have some positive relationship to good neighbors (that's more Jonah than Bob), strong chairs have an even more positive relationship to good arguments. Jonah was running wild once Bob was on his knees.

Quoting JerseyBoy: The fact that so many of the attacks on Goldberg are ad hominim says a lot about his opponents' ability to actually present strong substantive counterarguments. If you can't beat him, spit on him, I guess. Pathetic.

In the abstract, your point is sound. However, there gets to be a point where a person's history makes one believe that there's little chance of hearing anything more than more of the same. To illustrate with a more extreme example, if Richard C. Hoagland presents "new evidence" of NASA cover-ups, I do not feel obliged to consider his latest presentation with respect, nor dignify it by responding on the merits. So, in the concrete case of Jonah, I think it's an entirely reasonable position to dismiss him out of hand, given his record. You are more aligned with his views, I suspect, and therefore you would like people on the left to take him seriously, because he's a fairly good rhetorician in debates, given the right partners. I also suspect that I could name people on the far left, whom I would like you to listen to with an open mind, whom you would be just as inclined to dismiss out of hand. That said, I did listen to this

Quoting John M: You will be the frist to know.

Freudian slip? Is the former Senate Majority Leader your stealth favorite?

That’s because at my age, I often tell myself, “John, you mustn’t forget it. Mustn’t, mustn’t, mustn’t. ”

What was your excuse for this, then?

Quoting bjkeefe: In the abstract, your point is sound.

I would have to disagree. His statement, that ad hominems reflect on one's ability to construct a good argument, is a complete non sequitur. There is absolutely no relationship between the two. Your ability to constru