quote:

I'm no expert on Ron Paul's Israel views, and I reserve the right to be outraged later by what I don't know now, but what I find interesting here is the namecalling-to-content ratio. Here, let's count it out:

Name-calling: 1) "misguided and extreme," 2) "so far outside of the mainstream," 3) "like...ALLAH HUSSEIN OBAMA," 4) "will appeal to a very narrow constituency," 5) "dangerous isolationist vision," 6) "uniformly derided," 7) "claim[s] to be non-interventionist," 8) "Isolationist," 9) "differen[t]," 10) "crank."

Content: 1) "virulent and harsh critic of Israel," 2) "voiced his objection to the...killing of Osama Bin Laden," 3) "routinely adopted Arab talking points," 4) "compar[ed] Gaza to 'a concentration camp," 5) "would create a global power vacuum that would likely be filled by supporters of Israel's enemies."

Looking at the five content items, 1) is supported only by 4); 2) intentionally left out the phrase "legal method of," 3) is a general and largely contentless insult, 4) is a discrete piece of hyperbole that rubs my literalist heart the wrong way, too (though the full quote contains two qualifiers: "Palestinians are virtually in like a concentration camp"); and 5) is the Transitive Property run amok, though it does at least hint at the real-world question/critique of what, exactly, replaces hegemonic American responsibility for world affairs, and which bad actors are more likely to do badder things.

Does this, plus Paul's principled rejection of all foreign aid, his relentless espousal of the "blowback" theory of terrorism, and his negligence in allowing to appear under his name during the first Clinton administration some newsletter conspiracy theorizing about (among other things) the 1993 World Trade Center bombing being a "setup by the Israeli Mossad" enough to disqualify him for the grownups' table on foreign policy?

Well, I'm neither Republican nor Jewish nor a member of a Coalition, so the immediate event is not my call (though I do believe that dissonance is more illuminating than seven-part harmony). That said, this seems to me more of an attempt to draw boundaries around acceptable policy discourse than any active concern that President Dr. Ron Paul would be actively anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. The fact that he is a political outlier on an effectively bipartisan U.S. foreign policy that has become increasingly expensive and unpopular strikes me as a count in favor, not against. And nothing Paul said at last month's largely grotesque American Enterprise Institute foreign policy debate struck me as more objectionable than Mitt Romney's grovel that his first overseas trip as president would be to Israel.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by lord krondor
Those Jews have some big nostrils, I'll give them that.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Group Bars Presence of Irrelevant Man Who Hates Them

In other news whiny Internet Libertarians still can't stop whining.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Group Bars Presence of Irrelevant Man Who Hates Them

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's bullshit though. There's no indication that Ron Paul hates jews

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Bardock42
and he's also not irrelevant voting wise, he appear and might be irrelevant because the media decided to ignore him. He constantly polls around 3rd place in the Republican nomination, without any of the excessive media coverage that other Republicans enjoy.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I didn't say he hated jews, I said he hated this group. You know those people who love Israel?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He polls as popular then gets barely any votes. Irrelevant.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Cyner
I'm confused... how can someone be a jew hating, christian, zionist? This seems impossible.