In a largely interesting and insightful column, David Horowitz takes a needlessly juvenile shot at me. Before admittedly “cribbing” from my column about Zell Miller, Horowitz asserts that “Like several other conservatives Goldberg has gone wobbly under the left’s assault.”

C’mon David, poor form. I have no problems with criticisms of my positions. But I think this sort of thing amounts to cheap bravado and bullying on the cheap. How would you know why I came to my position? Are you aware of any leftist “assault” I was subjected to that caused me to go wobbly? Or are you just making that up because it makes your position sound braver and more pure? Since my motives are plain to you, perhaps you could make your own a bit clearer too. Because from my experience the tendency to assume bad motives of those you disagree with is a leftist tendency, as you should know better than anyone. Why can’t I be wrong? Why must the answer be that I don’t have your intestinal fortitude? If the answer lies in my writing, please send examples.

However, as you should be able to deduce from the plain meaning of my column, I was offering analytical and strategic objections to the speech more than anything else. But even on the substance, am I supposed to bite my tongue on such matters for the cause? By the way, I also said in the Corner that I thought Miller’s speech was “fantastic” and never retracted that.