From an interview with the former McCain campaign hatchet-man:

"It's unbelievable the way the media has covered this and the way has been played -- which is partly from the bullshit inside the campaign. When you have The New Yorker write a story about how Sarah Palin was selected... well, that was like Jane Goodall going in and writing about fucking apes mating in the jungle--they don't know what's going on. They're writing from another planet. I like Sarah Palin, I think she was a very attractive candidate, but I think she made a lot of mistakes. But so did Biden."

First, Jane Goodall did groundbreaking work on ape-fucking. She was also the first scientist to observe chimpanzees using tools, which changed the way humans understand their primate cousins. So if The New Yorker is to Sarah Palin what Jane Goodall is to ape-fucking, then The New Yorker obviously did a fine job covering the campaign.

Second, is this guy nuts, or what?

UPDATE, 6:46 P.M. -- According to Patrick Appel, Goldfarb may be echoing, consciously or subconsciously, Michelle Malkin, who told David Remnick once that she would be disinclined to sit for a New Yorker profile: "I have neither the time nor inclination to sit down with your staff Jane Goodall and serve as an anthropological specimen for The New Yorker's readership. If I want to play ape for amusement, I'll do it for my kids."

This doesn't change the fact that he seems nuts.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.