Joe Gandelman of the Moderate Voice (who wites both sides of the issues) unknown to me, wrote a little review of my appearnce on MSNBC with Power Line's Paul Mirengoff. Bogus Gold took exception to the fact that TMV thought I came off better. So instead of debating the merrits of Joe's opinion he writes:
"Joe is a fan of compromises. Here's a compromise offer to him. How about I refuse to entertain anti-Jewish conspiracy mongering on the right (e.g. the anti-NeoCon/ Buchananish anti-Zionist stuff), and in return he declines to entertain the anti-Evangelical "theocracy" equivalent on the left? Sound like a deal? Seems moderate enough to me.
Does that make sense to anyone? The amount of time spent on the Justice Sunday crowd and their relentless attacks on the judiciary definitely makes this a valid argument to be brought up in context of that compromise.
Here's a compromise offer to Bogus Gold. How about I refuse to entertain anti-9/11 conspiracy theories on the left (Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks), and in return he declines to entertain the "liberal media bias" equivalent on the right?