[u-89]

Nothing wrong with my comprehension, reading or otherwise. As stated in my previous post anyone who has followed the paleo-neo fight knows fully that the latest trick is to deny the legitimacy of the the term "neonconservate" saying it is a fabrication of the paleos and is a code word. This is not past tense but is on going and is amazingly bold as they identify themselves with the term while simultaneously deny its legitimacy when used by others. Clearly Frum alludes to this in the quote I pulled from the article and though this is an abbreviated form of that argument this column does picture the old right as racists.

I do not have time today to do a search and have not bookmark or saved the articles by Goldberg and others using neocon=anti-semite line of attack but they exist and some have been posted on this site.

As someone interested in honest debate I hate to see tactics ala Jackson, Sharpton et al employed and legitimized. This ideological debate could be enjoyable if it weren't for the slanderous invective. Indeed this is a debate that needs to take place though honestly I concede the battle is decided from a power standpoint - the neocons thoughts on policy are now policy in action, still questioning them is a good thing.

cordially,

[dirtboy]

this column does picture the old right as racists.

Actually, the column does nothing but cite specific utterances of a few members of the old right. I'm curious how quoting someone paints them as racist.