The obsession with liberofascism

One has to wonder: How does a man--a very serious, thoughtful conservative--get drawn down to the point of flinging excrement at his ideological adversaries and calling it an "argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care"? Why did Jonah Goldberg decide that writing a book highlighting the irrelevent and tenuous points of similarity between some liberals and some fascists was a good use of his platform? And then I did some wikipediaing:

[Lucianne Goldberg's] career started at the Washington Post in 1957 followed by a year working at the Democratic National Committee in 1960. She became a consultant to the White House staff under President Kennedy in 1961 for two years. She set up Cummings and Associates in 1963.

Decades later, Jeffrey Toobin's book A Vast Conspiracy alleged that Goldberg claimed to friends that she had an affair with Lyndon Johnson while working in the White House. After Goldberg threatened Random House with a libel suit, a Washington Post writer claimed he and others overheard her bragging about an affair with Vice President Hubert Humphrey as well. Goldberg denied both affairs and denied telling any such stories.

Well that might help explain it! Still, there's the question of arbitrariness. For instance, in addition to being liberals, Johnson and Humphrey were members of the United States Senate. Why didn't Jonah write Senatorial Fascism instead? Johnson represented Texas and Humphrey represented Minnesota, so why not Fascism in Central Standard Time? I suppose those titles might not have sold particularly well. But they would probably have enjoyed just a bit more in the way of accuracy, wouldn't they?