PEAK PANTLOAD?

Jonah Goldberg is outraged that Virginia non-Republican candidate Terry McAuliffe is "lying about being a libertarian on economic issues." Gasp! Did McAuliffe call himself a libertarian? Cite Hayek or Ayn Rand? No, nothing like that. Attend Goldberg:

I haven’t been following the Virginia gubernatorial race too closely...

Every Goldberg argument is an argumentum ad ignorantiam, one way or the other.

...but I managed to catch the last few minutes of the debate last night. Chuck Todd asked the candidates whether they think the Redskins should keep their name. Terry McAuliffe responded: “I don’t think the governor ought to be telling private businesses what they should do about their business.”

“Even if it’s offensive to people?” Todd interjected.

“I don’t think the governor should be telling private businesses . . .” McAuliffe repeated. Todd interrupted. Asking what his personal opinion was. McAuliffe stuck to his bogus answer: “As governor, I’m not going to tell Dan Snyder or anybody else what they should [do] with their business, and I want to congratulate the Redskins, because I went down to the training practice here in Richmond and it is spectacular.”

OK, I'm assuming Goldberg thinks keeping the name Redskins is freedom plus ha ha ugh how woo-woo-woo. So what's Goldberg's objection to McAuliffe joining him in support?

Now, in what way is this remotely true? Don’t get me wrong, I think McAuliffe’s answer is basically right. And for all I know he won’t pressure the Redskins to change their name.

Goldberg literally just answered his own question, but forget it, he's on a roll:

But is that because he’s the sort of guy who doesn’t tell businesses what they should do? Or is it because he’s the sort of guy who says what audiences want to hear about their beloved football franchise? If the question was about businesses that refuse to comply with Obamacare’s requirement to pay for birth control, would he still be the sort of guy who doesn’t think politicians should be telling businesses what to do? Is he for no environmental regulations? Against all zoning? Is he now against civil-rights laws that tell business who. they must serve, hire, etc.?

It's one of liberalism's cherished stereotypes about conservatives that they believe any law they don't like is proof of Big Gummint tyranny, and here's Goldberg actually living out our dream. Oh, and there's also a great Moment Goldberg Realizes He's Said Something He Ought To Wriggle Out Of in the classic tradition:

I support some of those laws and I’m dead-set against others, but I’m not the issue here...

Farrt. The whole thing is that bad, and worse -- in fact, it's bad even by Goldberg standards. It's as if whatever small sliver of self-awareness he once possessed was squeezed out of him at the last National Review cruise, possibly by Allen West showing him how to kill a man with a dinner roll. For example, he's mad about a section on McAuliffe's website about women's healthcare, specifically the phrase “I strongly believe that women should be able to make their own healthcare decisions without interference from Washington or Richmond.” Healthcare! huffs Goldberg. I'll show you healthcare:

“Healthcare decisions” means exactly one thing here: “reproductive rights.” And reproductive rights, as far as I can tell, means birth control and abortion. Now there are serious and legitimate debates about those issues. But they aren’t debates about women’s “healthcare decisions."

Breast implants, now that's a healthcare decision! I fear soon we'll see Goldberg stumbling around the ancestral manse like Oswald in Ghosts, murmuring to Lucianne, "Mother, give me the SunnyD."