To my satisfaction, Bob finally found a conversation partner as irritating as Mickey.
Bob's mode of argument tends to be:
Wouldn't you agree that A?
And you have a previously stated the principle B.
So therefore you agree with me.
See the discussion of Clarence Thomas. Bob's implicit argument is: Wouldn't you agree that Clarence Thomas is not sufficiently brilliant to be a jurist? And you believe that SCOTUS judges should be the best legal minds. So therefore you agree that Barack Obama was right to say he wouldn't have voted for Thomas.
The Jonah Goldbergs of the world would go after premise B and say it's not enough to have a brilliant legal mind, you also have to have the right opinions (or judicial philosophy). Ann and Mickey, however, see where the argument is going, and attack premise A. Since premise A tends to be something widely believed but which is difficult to prove, this leaves Bob sputtering.
It is that Coffee/Tequilla/Tabsco taste that has been missing from the previous Kaus replacements. Bravo Ann!
Crossposted to BH.tv forum