If I Feel It Strongly, It Must Be True

Thanks for your response mentioning both Emotional Reasoning and appeal to intuition 

Question:   appeal to intuition  is defined by Dr. Bo as "Evaluating an argument based on 'intuition' or 'gut feeling' that is unable to be articulated, rather than evaluating the argument using reason."

Emotional Reasoning appears to be the same, except substituting "emotion" for "intuition."

Why is the latter a fallacy and the former a bias?  I understand that emotions about issues in arguments result from bias, but to then use fallacious reasoning to conclude that what one feels must be true--is a fallacy.  If not, why not?

I don't really know whether Emotional Reasoning is a bias or a fallacy. I reckon that a bias is a perceptual or cognitive distortion of reality while a fallacy is using that distorted perception to draw a conclusion? But in that case the wrong belief/distorted reality, should be considered a factual error, so it would not be a fallacy? And that would also disqualify a lot of the fallacies in the book like stereotyping (the fallacy) , or appeal to the law , or argument from age , or appeal to novelty (which are all based on biases). Personally, I think emotional reasoning is a special case of affirming the consequent , something like "if something is dangerous I get scared. I got scared so it is dangerous." or "If my wife would cheat on me, I would feel jealous. I am feeling jealous, therefore my wife cheated on me." Perhaps it would be worth making a new, separate question about that issue - maybe Dr. Bo or some other member can elaborate on that. 

It's more like a cognitive process that usually leads to fallacies. That said, Dr Bo might still include it (as he did for magical thinking).

Thanks, will do.

Can you re-state your first two sentences?  I don't understand what you're saying when you say "this is more of a case.."?    I think your attack is extremely vague.   (I understand what Tu Quoque is and what Whataboutism is, but I don't understand your point).  

Also, is saying someone has a "Catholic conservative ideology" even relevant to whether they have something of value to say or not?  If so, what is your authority for that claim?  Do Catholics or conservatives or people with a Catholic conservative ideology automatically have nothing of value to say?   Again, I think your statement needs clarification.

By the way, I think her article that I included a link to was very thoughtful.   If you were attacking her generally as a writer, is that relevant to whether she had something of merit to say in a particular article?  

I've read Peggy Noonan for years and I find she can be quite thoughtful, but most of the time I find her to be rather smug and self-righteous. 

I grew up reading WFB, Irving and William Kristol, Midge Decter, Commentary, National Review, David Brooks, Bret Stephens, Jennifer Rubin,  and other political commentators and voices of the Conservative right.

I still do, but I find underneath it all a rather distinctive Judeo Christian ethos beneath their political views and began to see the modern Republican (Conservative) movement as a would-be political wing of Judeo Christianity, and, to a certain degree the instigator of the divisive and seditious political landscape we are experiencing today. That's just my personal opinion.

And thusly expresses my apprehension about the political commentaries of one Peggy Noonan. For me, she is a bit like Charlie Brown's nemesis, Lucy, always eager to hold the football and then yank it away at the last moment. She regularly disappoints.

Good answer; it does sound like a cognitive bias.