This is the same Michael Goldfarb who was practically begging Rick Sanchez to bring the issue up on CNN?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/30/rick-sanchez-v-michael-go_n_139357.html

What wonderful self-awareness he has.

They really are clueless. All of the McCain campaign morons running around talking about their "experience" as though it still hasn't occured to them that they were part of one of the worst campaigns in modern history. From the top to the bottom it was an inept circus. I'd be desperate to figure out how to keep it off my resume.

Five bucks says he gets Kristol's gig, if they don't give it to McArdle, Althouse, or Instahack.

Attack the press? The press was McCain's base! No wonder these buffoons lost; it's shocking to admit they ever even had a chance.

Attack the press? The press was McCain's base!

Greg Sargent offers this reminder.

It's only a couple paragraphs, but it makes donuts with sprinkles sound so ungrateful.

Sen. John McCain tended to his political base Sunday night: the entire national media. The maverick Arizona Republican, once (and future?) presidential aspirant and press secretary’s dream hosted a hyper-exclusive 68th birthday party for himself at La Goulue on Madison Avenue, leaving no media icon behind. Guests included NBC’s Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert, ABC’s Peter Jennings, Barbara Walters, Ted Koppel and George Stephanopoulos, CBS’s Mike Wallace, Dan Rather and Bob Schieffer...

Hell........Hannity on his radio show yesterday was talking to Bernie Goldberg and they both agree that Obama got a pass on the Rev Wright issue...I recall that Bernie said he refers to it in his "book"

One must assume that Goldfarb didn't pick up a paper or urn on cable news for the 3 or 4 weeks after the Wright story broke. Otherwise he's a lying sack of shit.

...compared The New Yorker covering her selection to having Jane Goodall "writing about fu**ing apes mating in the jungle."

Meaning, they are skilled observers? Experts in the field?

I don't understand the analogy. Unless Goldfarb is suggesting that Sarah Palin is a chimp in lipstick.

Ideologues will always bend history to fit their world view, and as such, we get to witness their great wealth of denial and delusion! McCain's campaign minion is no exception! -Kevo

I think we all recall how Edmund Burke, in his famous 'Speech to the Electors of Bristol', singled out an ability to piss off the media as the singular characteristic of a conservative.

Or maybe it was Hayek, in the Road to Serfdom -- but I'm sure it was one or the other.

...compared The New Yorker covering her selection to having Jane Goodall "writing about fu**ing apes mating in the jungle."

That's a bizarre analogy. So the New Yorker is the human anthropologist, and the McCain campaign are the primitive, grunting primates? Sounds about right to me, but I'm surprised to hear Goldfarb say it.

According to the Wiki which references a Bill Moyers story on RevRight, "The controversy sparked continuous media coverage, on both national media outlets and local sources. More than 3,000 news stories had been written on the issue by early April.[56]"

3000 stories in 45 days aint shabby, not to mention the endless repetition of the videos. The McCain/Palin camps problem was that the wall to wall coverage happened to far out from election day.

One must assume that Goldfarb didn't pick up a paper or urn on cable news for the 3 or 4 weeks after the Wright story broke. Otherwise he's a lying sack of shit.

The latter assumption sure seems safe.

The interesting comment is the one about expecting to lose from the beginning.

Everyone says that the campaign was a disaster, but that assumes that the goal was to elect McCain.

If they had given up on that, look to what they were doing. Noble lost cause myth for the faithful - "We didn't beat on Wright even though we could have" - positioning some new faces for the next run - stab in the back myth on who "lost" Iraq.

Nice. The only way this could've been more revealing is if Goldfarb had admitted that he "thought from the beginning McCain would lose. He hired me, for crying out loud."

Yeah, can someone please explain wtf he was trying to say with the jane goodall analogy? I would imagine what he thinks (using the term loosely) is that the new yorker is not qualified/ too biased to cover the Palin story. But that's clearly the opposite of what the analogy would imply. And its not the kind of phrase that can be flipped in meaning by simply having a couple words out of order. Could he possibly be so stupid that he doesn't understand what he said? My first guess is yes.

That he expected to lose is bullshit.

None of these dipshits get it, do they? Their loss was a simple one; they ran a shitty candidate with no message in a shitty campaign run by idiot bloggers who think 'pissing off the liberals' is the most important thing.

Not a single one of these dillweeds has the ability to look back on themselves and ask why they lost in an honest fashion. They choose to blame the media, Palin, the economy, EVERYTHING besides what was right in front of them; John McCain. McCain is the reason McCain lost. McCain picked Palin. McCain said 'our economy is strong'.

But wingnuts don't do introspection. They don't do self-reflection. Instead, like a cult, they will try to push the same tired crap through the channels again and again. Can someone inform them, they lost the culture wars and they lost badly?

I'm afraid Goldfarb is an ass who is trying to sell is "shock-hack" book: Liberal Fascism.

The Los Angeles Times columnist JONAH GOLDBERG calls for a re-evaluation of fascism. He argues that by using the word as a synonym for anything that is undesirable, we are blinded to the examples around us of real fascism from both Left and Right wing governments. Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning is published by Penguin.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/starttheweek.shtml

Go away, Jon Karak.

That broadcast was feeble, because in the UK the partisan context is completely missing. The panellists just say polite things about Goldberg's correct observation that some Fabians were eugenicists.

The book has been out for a year in America, and has already sold mystifyingly well. It will struggle to sell any copies at all in the UK.

It's by someone completely different.

Other than that, great comment.

His name should be shunned after promoting the killing of children and a man's family as reasonable ways of teaching your enemies a lesson.

This slob crossed a line of decency that will forever mark him as disgusting. He and Friedman should practice the "suck on this" tactic in the privacy of their own homes and not in the media.

I think what he meant to say was, "We tried to get the press to smear Obama to destroy him, but they wouldn't go that far. So, we tried to play the martyr by making like the press was against us, but the public wouldn't buy that. So, we tried using Sarah Palin to bring out the Southern bigots and nuts, but there just weren't enough of them. Maybe next time."

In other words, they didn't have a political argument the public would buy and all their crap tricks didn't work.