That’s a legitimate question.

That’s a good question.

I’m not trying to dodge anything…

But I think the problem is you get into one of these sort of overly doctrinal, "let's go to the text" approaches where words get confused for things.

Did this guy even read "Brave New World"?

I thought it was a great interview. Koppelman asked excellent questions and made interesting points. All in all it was an intelligent discussion.

My peeps, the right doesn't have the market cornered on revisionists.

And I can't agree with those who refused to even read this interview. I'm not impressed by your vitriol. You have to try to know your adversary as well as you know yourself. Outright dismissal of someone comes from a fear of being proven wrong and WE are not wrong.

Thank you, Salon.

A point that people criticizing this book keep missing is that it's not just historians who have put Hitler on the right side of the political spectrum. Contemporaries of the Third Reich, journalists, diarists, letter writers, etc. referred to the Nazis as right wingers. Time Magazine, which by no stretch of the imagination can be considered liberal, referred to the Nazis as right wingers. Heck, even travel books at that time referred to the Nazis as being on the right rather than the left. What Goldberg and other revisionists are trying to accomplish is a massive redefinition of "right wing" and "liberal" that defies, not just all those dastardly "leftist" historians, but most living observers at the time of Hitler's rise and fall.

You mean like, say, a Republican guy in his 30's who's already too soft and corpulent from a lack of vigorous, honest work because he's been given everything including his "career", which was given to him by his mommie? (I guess one could argue if one gets one's rear from mommy, why not one's career)

And who in turn acts as an emotional "nanny" for the latest crop of anal-cystian, other-prioritizing, macho posturing young Republican chicken hawks, by holding "lectures" entitled "Give War a Chance", while at the same time "they're having everything done for them" in that war by others.

And would that Republican feel like a "nanny" when he's assuring those young chest-beating cheerleaders (as well as himself) that the glaring gap between advocating and enlisting isn't really meaningful?

And when those young Republicans, who'll pick up a slogan but never a gun, look to this older wiser version of themselves to assuage and excuse that nagging feeling, that concomitant to the mixture of hypocrisy and cowardice that bubbles up from their subconcious even through the filter of denial, and offer up to him their myriad and mundane rationalizations of exemption - "I would but mom and dad always expected me to take over the business", etc - will he feel like a "nanny" as he pats them on the head with assurances that one can serve at home as well?

The problem is though he sounds reasonable, talks coherently, and even claims otherwise, the ultimate message is simply - liberals are fascists.

There really is no other reasonable explanation as to why to write such a screed. Additionally, all of his rebuttals to Alex's questions essentially point in that direction. It's sort of, "I'm not really saying liberals are Nazis, but, um, they're Nazis."

No matter how he candy-coats it, that's the gist. Otherwise I'd like him to explain what the point is and what this book "brings to the table" that might be useful instead? How is pointing out that liberals are more like Nazi fascists than conservatives going to improve society and politics in general?

out of Salon. Goldberg is intellectually vapid, cowardly, insincere, arrogant, and generally reprehensible. He is everything that is wrong with humanity. Why would Salon choose to give him a forum to spew his venom? That decision seriously damages the credibility of this publication.

"You know, you have environmental groups giving out kits and instructions about how to have environmentally conscious sex. You don't have conservative groups talking about what kind of condoms you should use or what positions you can be in. That kind of thing doesn't really go on."

I'm sorry, but in what way is this true? Conservatives quite often talk about what kind of condoms to use (none, because birth control is an abomination) and what positions you can be in (none, unless you're married.)

Also, I'm having a hard time imagining which sexual positions are favored in terms of environmental impact. No doggie-style for vegans, maybe? "Dude, the reverse cowgirl is totally better for the environment..."

It almost makes me suspect that he's making this stuff up.

The word Fascist fits his own ideology so well, but is so hurtful that he is desperately trying to stick it to his superior opposition. He would have been better off Hiring Luntz, than wasting his time writing this fevered fantasy.

Goldberg is much more reasonable-sounding than I expected. His column in the LA Times is often quite silly, especially when he's trying to cover up the GWBush turds he finds in the national political cat box on a regular basis. Here, he seems open to discussion, admits the difficulty of saying anything with perfect certainty and has opinions which, even if one disagrees, make for interesting debate.

I'm impressed.

I've heard Goldberg more than once in various interviews on other subjects, and he is, not to put too fine a point on it, a fucking moron. Vapid. Grotesquely intellectually dishonest.

If he believes the crap he spews he's so stupid it's a wonder he knows how to tie his shoes. If he doesn't believe it, he's a contemptible, opportunistic liar.

Why do you give this guy a platform? To hoist him on his own petard? It doesn't work. People remember the name, but not the game. NPR has been having this yokel on for years now, and I write them a blistering e-mail every time they do it, because Jonah Goldberg doesn't deserve a platform anywhere, let alone on a national news show.

He's a vicious dunce, and you could do us all a favor and just IGNORE him from now on. Ok?

All he's doing is projecting a long-held right-wing agenda on his opponents. Us. To defang the accusation of fascism when it rightly redounds where it belongs. His book has the same purpose, writ small, as the Bush Administration's 7-year effort to completely undermine our mass-media. Why do you aid him in this?

I don't see you doing any interviews with Ann Coulter. And Goldberg is absolutely in her league as an utterly contemptible bullshit artist.

Gah.