[steve-b]

The author is highly inconsistent. First, he contrasts classic political rhetoric with the modern left's "New Anger":

...The newspapers and pamphlets of 1800 are full of Jeremiads, hard-hitting satire, and libelous personal attacks, and the writers give the impression (usually behind the mask of a pseudonym) of enjoying the rollicking pleasure of their verbal extravagance.
But there it stops. As far as I can tell, the partisan writings of 1800 never venture into the logic of, "Listen to me because I am really, really angry," or, "The extremity of my anger proves the righteousness of my cause," or, "Behold my disdain! It is a thing of wonder." Those are some of the ways to tell the difference between the traditional forms of political anger and New Anger in its political manifestations....

OK; that's a readily understandable and clearly stated distinction. However, he then quotes "anonymous libertarian responding on a message board to a comment by Jonah Goldberg":

Yeah, I'm going to take advice from Jonah Goldberg about how the conservatives are more friendly to liberty.
"Don't go looking for someone who doesn't beat you honey. Nobody else loves you like I do. Especially not that suave Democrat. He'll just beat you worse. Trust me. I can change, we just need counseling."
Just say no to Battered Voter Syndrome.

OK; clearly an example of the sort of "Jeremiads" and "hard-hitting satire" Adams' and Jefferson's partisans launched at each other back in the day. (It clearly does not suggest any real identification of Goldberg with a wife-beating husband, and so doesn't qualify for the category of "libelous personal attacks".)

However, for some reason he doesn't attempt to explain, the author somehow categorizes this as "New Anger-ish vituperation", though not even Penumbral Emanation Spectacles, or even a Penumbral Emanation Hubble Telescope, could find any trace of a suggestion that the author is asserting that his anger proves his rightness.

[MNJohnnie]

Except the only point made in the comment by the anonymous poster is a mindless scream of his rage at NRO for not worshiping the utter brilliance of his 100%er dogmas. The NRO author is correct in showing how this sort of commentary illustrate how anger is used by some modern Losertarians in place of anything even remotely resembling a rational point.

[Bishop_Malachi]

steve-b wrote, "OK; clearly an example of the sort of "Jeremiads" and "hard-hitting satire" Adams' and Jefferson's partisans launched at each other back in the day. (It clearly does not suggest any real identification of Goldberg with a wife-beating husband, and so doesn't qualify for the category of "libelous personal attacks".) "


steve-by,

I don't think that Goldberg was quoting that libertarian response as a way of demonstrating a "libelous personal attack". Rather, he was illustrating a prior point that Libertarians are chaffing under the rule of their "purblind inferiors".