Again, Frum lays out factual information that can not be denied. One quick example, to specifically offset an allegation you made. It is well known, that Joe Sobran, Pat Buchanan and Bob Novak are not pro-Israel, don't support Israel and have never been defenders of the Israeli people. I don't consider Novak to be an anti Semite, but Buchanan brushes up against anti-Semitism now and then, and Joe Sobran is an anti-Semite, IMO. Frum's entitled to his opinion. As for labeling people with individualized set of political standards, big deal. We all do it. The fact Frum lumps these conservatives together, labeling them "antiwar conservatives", should come as no surprise to anyone. All of the parties mentioned have that fact in common. They're all against the war with Iraq! LOL
Look, I'm no fan of David Frum, but you obviosuly don't like the man. Okay fine.
Have it your way.
I've already demonstrated the pervasiveness of Frum's use of that tactic in the article, to which you have not responded. How can you deny its presence?
I believe truth dominates the piece
Insofar as he correctly pings American Renaissancer fringe types as anti-semites, the piece is truthful. But Frum takes liberties well beyond that, and among them is his lumping of mainstream conservatives such as Novak in with the American Rennaissancer fringe and tarring them all at once with the label of anti-semitism. That is an intellectually dishonest tactic and his use of it overshadows the presence of smaller items of truth in the piece.
and as with Bob Novak, that truth seems to have you very upset.
Rather than responding to arguments, you are appealing to motives that you know not when you make suggestions such as that.
Needless to say, no effort on your part will convince me otherwise.
At least you are honest about your mind having been made up.
You take certain well known truths, twist them using a form of convoluted reasoning
If that is the case, they surely you can demonstrate how it is so, as the last time I checked, you have yet to respond to my detailed outlining of Frum's tactic.
--- in this case, an over dramatized version of guilt by association
Calling it overdramatized does not make it so. I have stated and will continue to state that guilt-by-association is the central argument of Frum's piece. I have also made my case as to why I believe this is so by quoting Frum's piece extensively and demonstrating where it occurs. To date, you have not responded to that demonstration in any substantial way. Therefore you have no basis on which to characterize it as overdramatized.
Guilt by association isn't driving this article.
If that is so, the tactic would not be present in Frum's writings. I believe that it is present and have, to the best of my ability, backed my belief with extensive quotations to demonstrate that it is not only present but pervasive in the piece. Thus far you have not responded to it in any substantial way.
Again, Frum lays out factual information that can not be denied.
With regards to some of the people mentioned in that article, that is certainly so. What facts he does lay out are quickly overshadowed though by his extensive and pervasive use of a dishonest guilt-by-association smear tactic.
One quick example, to specifically offset an allegation you made. It is well known, that Joe Sobran, Pat Buchanan and Bob Novak are not pro-Israel, don't support Israel and have never been defenders of the Israeli people.
Indeed it is. And while I disagree with those three on that issue, I cannot dispute their right to hold beliefs other than mine as to how we should conduct our foreign policy with Israel. The same cannot be said of Frum, who, as his article evidences, cannot bring himself to tolerate an opinion other than his own on Israel without throwing out the leftist race card of anti-semitism and attempting to implicate respectable people in it by fabricating a link between them, the American Renaissancer fringe nuts, and an anonymous neo-nazi emailer.
I don't consider Novak to be an anti Semite, but Buchanan brushes up against anti-Semitism now and then, and Joe Sobran is an anti-Semite, IMO.
You are entitled to that opinion and, if you can support it, state it to your hearts content. That does not, however, give you a right to fabricate ties between Novak and known and blatant anti-semites from a fringe nutcase organization. That is exactly what Frum did when he lumped Novak and others in with the American Renaissancer crowd and attacked them all as one in the same.
Frum's entitled to his opinion.
Yes he is, but, as I just noted, he is not entitled to make gratuitous attacks and intellectually fraudulent smears on other individuals without expecting to be rightly smacked in return.
As for labeling people with individualized set of political standards, big deal. We all do it. The fact Frum lumps these conservatives together, labeling them "antiwar conservatives", should come as no surprise to anyone. All of the parties mentioned have that fact in common.
You are arguing against a straw man. Frum noted them to be anti-war conservatives, but the label he attached to them was "paleoconservative" or "paleo." He then proceded to make a seconf association of that label of "paleo" with anti-semitism, thus permitting him to smear the persons he named as anti-semitic.
Look, I'm no fan of David Frum, but you obviosuly don't like the man.
You are correct at that. And I say that even though Frum's politics on Israel and the mohammedan world are likely fairly close to my own. I find Frum's writings to be adolescent, self-absorbed, and in this case offensively dishonest. David Keene and other conservatives who probably agree with both myself and Frum on the war and Israel have reached the same conclusion about his writings. That in itself speaks volumes. When people who agree with Frum on a certain issue nevertheless express disgust with his treatment of people who disagree with us on that same issue, it suggests that there's a problem with the way he handles himself.