The email address for syndicated column — not the same as the one you folks use, and less frequently checked — is always good for hearing from folks further outside the readership base of NRO. Most of the feedback was very positive, but a bit to my surprise a few folks came proudly to the defense of Senator Kerry. I liked these:

Yes, yes, attacking Kerry is always good copy. It’s not good citizenship, though, given that your fake, trust-fund suckled, chickenhawk cowboy boyfriend in the White House has killed thousands unnecessarily, lied to the nation about something that actually matters, and generally worsened the discourse of American politics by his very presence. I dare you, dare you, to actually say that you believe Kerry was denigrating the troops rather than Bush. I dare you. In your column. Publicly. I think you’re either a fool or a liar; publish that column and remove all doubt. Thanks for working so hard in the on-going effort to destroy journalism and, incidentally, my country. You’re almost there.

And then there’s this:

Oh for God’s sakes, Jonah. Are you that afraid of Kerry running that you have to perpetuate the lie that Americans don’t like him? It’s funny how you guys always act like Kerry lost in a landslide in 2004, like 57 million Americans voting for him gave Bush a mandate. In all intellectual honesty, you know that if that election was held again today, Kerry wins Florida and Ohio plus every state he won last time and easily slide into the whitehouse. Something must frighten you about our coun Kerry is a man of practical leadership and he would make a great President. I know supplying you with a laundry list of the Senator’s achievments would be fruitless, since you seem to be just another conservative idealogue who thinks everybody sees things as you do, despite any evidence to the contrary.

And there’s this:

I’m fairly certain there can be no reasonable motivation behind Jonah Goldberg’s column denouncing the presidential aspirations of Senator John Kerry. Since his observations about Kerry’s current standing in the polls and increasingly remote chances of winning the Democratic nomination are indisputable, we can assume Mr. Goldberg is not genuinely interested in convincing his readership — as if this even includes any Democrats (other than me) — to stay away from Senator Kerry. Do we really need 1000 words from a nationally-syndicated columnist opposing something unlikely to happen? There are two other possible driving forces behind this hatchet job — and either one, or a combination of both, amounts to the usual heavy-handed right-wing propaganda we’ve come to cherish from the delightful Mr. Jonah Goldberg. One possibility is the old reverse psychology ploy. As Goldberg admits, conservatives drool at the prospect of another Kerry candidacy; so if an RNC mouthpiece (like Jonah Goldberg) says don’t vote for him, maybe Democrats will do just the opposite. This seems like a long shot since, again, Mr. Goldberg’s audience cannot include many potential Kerry voters. More likely, what’s really behind this shameless character assassination is a desire to polish the tarnished image of President George W. Bush (without having to actually mention him by name). By slamming Kerry, Goldberg panders to the Republican base (and partisan historians) by indirectly suggesting that voters did the right thing by electing (not once, but twice) a man who’s performance continues to prove him completely incapable of delivering the inspired leadership the United States requires. John Kerry may have been a poor candidate, but he certainly would have been a far better president than George Bush. Some would dispute this claim, but I’d still like to see Jonah Goldberg say what he means. Perhaps Mr. Goldberg should try convincing the people who actually agree with him to nominate (for once) a decent Republican candidate who can demonstrate the ability to run this country somewhere other than into the ground.