This is not to say that Paleoconservatives are always innocent themselves. Innocent?
I personally, however, find Pat Buchanan to be far more tolerable than David Frum. I did not question whether Buchanan is tolerable to you: I claimed that Buchanan is intolerant of others.
Now, the question was NOT what Frum's or anyone else's views were: I said that accusing that person of treason merely on the basis of that person's Jewishness, of Catholicism, is defamation and bigotry.
The very standpoint from which you approach this issue is also faulty: the fact that a person --- say, Frum --- is not "innocent" does legitimizes criticism of that person's behavior; it does not justify prejudice towards that person on the basis of that person's religion or origin.
I should have qualified that claim. Extremists in both the Neoconservative and Paleoconservative camps are prone to poor reasoning at times. From my standpoint, on the Neoconservative side, this usually involves an unwillingness to relent (i.e., David Frum can't seem to take any criticism or admit that he's wrong and lets blind emotion or taste color his analysis). On the Paleoconservative side, this is usually due to "tin-foil hat syndrome," connecting the dots before they're all there (i.e., Pat Buchanan takes his criticism of Neoconservatism and of U.S. policy as it relates to Israel to quasi-conspiracy theory levels).
Now, the question was NOT what Frum's or anyone else's views were: I said that accusing that person of treason merely on the basis of that person's Jewishness, of Catholicism, is defamation and bigotry.
The very standpoint from which you approach this issue is also faulty: the fact that a person --- say, Frum --- is not "innocent" does legitimizes criticism of that person's behavior; it does not justify prejudice towards that person on the basis of that person's religion or origin.
Oh. Well, I misread you, then, and I stand corrected.