David Frum couldn’t be more excited about The New Republic’s hit piece on Ron Paul. It’s not enough that he finally has something more substantial than a complete misunderstanding of Paul’s monetary policy, but now he’s lashing out at Andrew Sullivan and Reason.com for putting their weight behind Paul.  I wonder if he also endorses TNR writer Jamie Kirchick’s allegation that Ron Paul speaks in a special “code” that only white supremacists can decipher. Anyway, here’s the ostensible product of his gleaning:

 “Jamie Kirchik quotes at length from old Ron Paul newsletters, revealing him to be a racist, anti-semitic, paranoid crank. And here is Reason.com shocked, shocked, shocked; Andrew Sullivan shocked, shocked, shocked; and here, refreshingly, is Lew Rockwell undaunted. (If there is any poor sap out there who doubts that the newsletters reflect the core values of the Paul movement, I recommend a visit to the library for a reading of Lew Rockwell's newsletter from the 1990s. Lew Rockwell served as Ron Paul's chief of staff from 1978 to 1982 and has continued as his chief supporter in the blogosphere.)”

Well, no one actually sounded “shocked”, certainly not enough to say it three times each. Reason writer Matt Welch actually said the movement goes forward. Andrew Sullivan said he’s glad that Paul disavows it, but he hasn’t gotten over it yet (It took me a while too Sully, but that was several months ago).  

Frum wasted no time descending into a criticism of the “core values” of the entire Paul movement though, did he? As proof, he cited Lew Rockwell. Right. Because the years Ron Paul has spent promoting liberty, peace, and prosperity are not the core values of his campaign, but some obscure writing by Lew Rockwell is. Michael Moore would be proud.  

But wait…Captain Postulate has more:

“All I can say is that I am surprised that anyone is surprised. I thought political writers were supposed to do at least a little bit of research before they pledged their enthusiasm to a candidate? The particulars on Ron Paul have been available to anyone who cared to know them for years. Who was it who said that there is a moral obligation not to be stupid?”

Maybe Frum is right. Political writers who endorse candidates, aside from listening carefully to their platform, should probably learn more about their background. But if that is true, shouldn’t the political writers who dissent be just as accurate in their criticisms? Accuracy about Paul, has not been one of Frum’s strong points.  

When Ron Paul supporters asked Frum why he has beef with Paul, Frum complained about the gold standard and downplayed the significance of his fundraising (Paul doesn’t actually advocate a return to the gold standard as even a cursory review of his platform would demonstrate). Worse, if Frum has been privy to this information for a long time, why did he choose to complain about gold? One would think that he would have a bigger beef with Paul being a “racist, anti-semitic, paranoid crank”. But I don’t want to prioritize for Frum; maybe he feels that the gold standard is a bigger threat to United States than a xenophobic president. Or perhaps Frum never really heard these particulars which have “been available to anyone who cared to know…for years”.

Also, Frum should know better than to call Andrew Sullivan “stupid”. Sullivan can string a line of rhetoric together without offending basic rules of Boolean logic. I have never seen him resort to hysterical, uncharitable disparages. Oh, and he didn’t predict the Iraq War would go swimmingly, did he?  

Of course, Frum’s hysteria is understandable. Having written the “axis of evil” speech and being Giuliani’s foreign policy advisor, Frum would practically have the job of his choice in a Giuliani administration. Since Giuliani only squeaked past Paul in New Hampshire and lost badly to him in Iowa, the curtain is closing on Frum’s BFF. Considering that Paul started at 0% to climb to the same percentage Giuliani dropped 30% to get to, Frum has got to be upset. I would be upset too. I wouldn’t spaz-out, but I’d be upset. 

Update: Frum took a shot at Paul and missed on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. There he says Paul is disturbing deep down. Stewart and the crowd sounded a little shocked. Some jeered. Stewart rejoined, “you should check into your guy”. The crowd laughed long enough for Frum to collect himself and say something like “my guy is the bestest executive America has since time T!”. I’ve never seen so many people qualify their qualifications as this group of GOP frontrunners. What was it Huckabee said the other day? “I’ve been an executive for longer than anyone else in the race”. I don't care if you've been a janitor. I care if you're impervious to groupthink.  

But then Frum exculpates Paul from the whole debacle! He blamed the racist newsletters on Lew Rockwell! I figured it was Eric Dondero, but now I can see it. I guess we’ll find out if Wendy McElroy gets her way. 

I should mention that I like Frum in an arrogant-buddy-who-you-sometimes-have-to-punch sort of way. I just think his criticisms of Paul are disingenuous. He’s already pledged himself to “turn[ing] his back” on Goldwater conservatives for not supporting the war. Plus he's Giuliani's advisor, so it’s not like his jumping on this anti-Paul wagon is without ulterior motive. And I don’t think he understands the central tenets of conservatism or he wouldn’t call himself a conservative. But the latter is probably a tired accusation for him. Finally, I’d like to see one of these life-long-civilian, Iraq War apologists swallow their pride and say what needs to be said about the war. They owe the veterans that much.