Thursday, June 15, 2006

Jonah Goldberg thinks we're retarded

Jonah Goldberg devoted his column in the LA Times today to promoting his National Review buddy Ramesh Ponnuru's book "The Party of Death." A little unseemly, but hey, not nearly as unseemly as anything written by Joel Stein, so I'm willing to roll.

I have no particular beef with most of it, but this part is amazing:

Some people are also vexed by the word "party," thinking it explicitly means Democrats. It doesn't (though it certainly includes many). Ponnuru uses the term "party of death" the way the Nation uses "the war party" to describe hawks everywhere.

Jonah, baby, did you just ask Ramesh what the book is about and not bother to look at the cover? Or do you just think that we readers are too stupid to look at the book ourselves? For the record, here's the subtitle of "The Party of Death":

The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life

It's not "The Democrats, the moderate Republicans, the libertarians, the Pro-Choice Independents, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life." Just "the Democrats." So maybe it's not so crazy for those associated with the Democratic party, or those of us who just value a political discourse that doesn't involve labeling one of the two major political parties pro-"death," to be a wee bit offended.


MisterJamo said...

B Kalter, if you had read the book yourself you would know that not more than about 50 pages in Ponnuru clarifies his definition and expans on it. Remember what your mother told you about judging books by their covers.

Uncle Mike said...

I've read "Party of Death", misterjamo, and it's just another crackpot screed from Regnery. And of course Ponnuru is talking about the Democrats.

What's the title of chapter 3? "Safe, Legal and Subsidized: Democratic Extremism In Defense of Abortion". On page 52, Ponnuru offers an excerpt of a floor debate between the pro-life Republican Rick Santorum and pro-choice Democrat Barbara Boxer. Ponnuru follows the exchange with: "These are the difficulties one takes on in defending the killing of a human being inches away from being born....Indeed, the party of death put up a little initial resistance to a bill that would protect those infants who were, so to speak, completely born".

On page 130, Ponnuru states flatly: "It was in the middle of the Schiavo controversy that the Democratic party, already the party of abortion and embryo-destructive research, started also to become the party of euthanasia".

Let's abandon this nutty charade that Ponnuru isn't talking about the Democrats when he mentions the "party of death" -- which his book does on every other page.

cyber joe said...

Even if he does mean it in the same sense as the "War Party," IT DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY BETTER!!! It's still total BS.

It's obviously just a cheap ploy meant to sell books. Putting "moderate Republicans" in the title would detract from sales, as almost all Republicans think of themselves as moderates in some ways (either socially or fiscally). If Goldberg and Ponnuru want to operate on Coulter's level, they at least shouldn't try to pretend that they're not.

Bobcat said...

I fail to see how "death" is inaccurate. After all, euthanasia and abortion kill things. Maybe Ponnuru should have called it "the party of ending suffering and/or preventing financial difficulties by killing things"?

Of course, Republicans defend all sorts of pro-death policies without being included in the death party (supporting war in Iraq and the death penalty). But in the defense of those who support war and the death penalty, some of them base their positions on the claim that going to war will save more innocent lives in the long run, and that the death penalty kills some people to deter the murder of innocent others. As for euthanasia and abortion, those are activities that don't (typically) save lives. I think that Democrats who supported abortion only when it saved the life of the mother would not be included in the party of death by Ramesh.