For the record, my response to that silliness before was intended to communicate the fact I don’t take that Ravotti guy very seriously. A few people wrote me very nice notes to say “Don’t let him get you down….” Thanks, but it’s really no biggie. But I also got a few emails like this which bug me:
I enjoy the corner but I think your response was weak. This is coming from someone who doesn’t like Buchanan and thinks he’s nuts
First, much of the criticism of Buchanan was that the people he chose to criticize were Jewish (Perle, Wolfowitz, etc). Rivotti points out that the people you criticized happened to be Catholic (Novak, Matthews, Moran and Buchanan)
Then you go on a personal tirade about how well you get along with Catholics and how you married one etc. Fine, but couldn’t the same argument hold true for Buchanan? I’m sure he has plenty of Jewish friends. It’s the old “Some of my best friends are …” line.
Where did he say that you don’t like Catholics? If it’s wrong for Buchanan to single out Jews, it’s wrong for you to single out Catholics.
So, let me just do this very quickly:
1) I was joking around.
2) The emailer and Ravotti claim I singled-out Catholics. I didn’t. Ravotti cherry-picked the Catholics I criticized and then said “aha Goldberg’s attacking Catholics.” It’s dishonest argumentation and….
3) Not true. I believe that Moran is a Methodist and I don’t believe Michael Kinsley is Catholic either. But even if everybody I’ve ever criticized is a Catholic…
4) It doesn’t matter because I have never suggested, hinted, implied, winked, or even thought that their positions derive from being Catholic. It didn’t occur to me until I saw this joker’s column — which is why I thought it was so funny. Meanwhile…
5) Buchanan and Moran implicitly and explicitly suggested that Jewishness is the issue with their opponents. In other words, it is wrong to single-out Jews, or Catholics. I’ve done neither. This Ravotti guy did both.