You'll have to explain to me what you perceive to be "idiotic positions". In sharp contrast to DiLorenzo, Jaffa seemed to be well read and have a deep understanding of the full context of historical events.
Keep in mind that DiLorenzo is an economist, not a historian. It shows. He's great at lifting quotes out of context to try to support his points, but it's obvious that he hasn't done his homework. I could tell from his errors of omission (including the example I gave above) that DiLorenzo has not read the civil war books written by Shelby Foote or James McPherson, nor has he read Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America even though he quotes it (totally out of context, of course).
It seems very apparent that DiLorenzo has simply read a few poorly researched pro-Confederate materials and then cobbled them together into a absurdly biased book that he is marketing almost exclusively to rednecks (and I suppose people who enjoy a good laugh at farcical literature).