I used this metaphor on another Paul thread. It’s a racist policy to punish people for using crack more than those who use cocaine. It’s the same drug but one form is used more by blacks than by whites. Thus the end result of the law is that blacks are punished more than whites for committing the same crime. The end result is racist even if the law was not implemented by racist people. It’s the same deal with Paul, Israel, and anti-Semitism.

Intent is irrelevant when it comes to politics. The end result is what matters.

Great! I mean how do you fight that?! but that’s the name of the game. So. Let’s sound off when and where we can.

I do not see Glenn as angry. To me, he appears passionate, enthusiastic, but well reasoned and in control. To some, the word “mad” even denotes a certain level of insanity and I hope they are not trying to imply that but my guess is that they may be. I don’t even want to read the article. Who needs it? except of course if it’s for homework to become better able to influence others.

I am sure glad I have “someone to talk to” even if it is in the blogosphere. Sometimes I feel like I am going to explode from frustration over things like this unfair and even nasty-spirited magazine cover.

Well said! How can we do this? just keep talking and blogging and whatever else makes sense. I believe with the victory in the Congress today with the govt health insurance option not making it out of committee we have then on the run!! This is a new coalition…some Dems not going with Nancy and Harry, and instead joining some Repubs who apparently have found their brains. Rejoice! but keep moving!

Marylou

And his foreign policy views are nowhere near those of the Left, who are perfectly content to engage in pointless wars as long as they get to be in charge (as witness the pretty much total evaporation of the left’s outrage over our misadventures in the middle east since the advent of Obama). Lumping him in with actual anti-American scum like Noam Chomsky is insulting to the intelligence of your readers.

I stand by my point; absent justification, Mr. Horowitz’s slurs against Dr. Paul’s character are on a level with Mr. Franken’s slurs against his; I don’t see how Mr. Horowitz can pretend to be on some higher moral ground than Mr. Franken.

In brief: Paul is referred to as an anti-Semite because of his foreign policy views on Israel. (Paul wants us to stop aiding Israel and become neutral in the conflict — ideas which would lead to the deaths of thousands, perhaps millions of Jews.) And an anti-American because said foreign policy views are almost identical to those of the anti-American Left.

Until I read this, I had the utmost respect for Mr. Horowitz; that respect has been intensely diminished by these unjustified attacks on another man’s character. Perhaps Mr. Horowitz hasn’t distanced himself quite as far as he’d like to think from his radical leftist roots.