That's the question from John Derbyshire, and it's asked rhetorically. Derbyshire seems to think that no serious person would believe Ron Paul is anti-Semitic, and he's probably right. Ron Paul's antipathy toward this country's alliance with Israel and his groundswell support among the right's own lunatic fringe is a disconcerting combination, but given the kookiness of Ron Paul's other policy positions, it's easy to see how Paul would have a magnetic pull on the self-perceived disenfranchised of all sorts. He's a crank, and the other cranks have come out of the woodwork to support one of their own--he's the "Don't Tase Me, Bro Candidate," as Dean Barnett eloquently explained in a recent piece for THE DAILY STANDARD.
Still, there are a few things to come out of the bizarre back and forth over the Daniel Sieradski post at the Cabal. First off, Paul has accepted money from Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, and a notorious neo-Nazi. These things happen, and there are a lot of weirdos in this country--Paul shouldn't necessarily be tainted by the support of such a despicable character. But by this point, he should have returned the money, as any other candidate would have done. As to why he hasn't, presumably there is no pressure among Paul's energetic core of supporters for such a move, nor anyone on his staff with enough seasoning to insist on it. Even his mainstream supporters, like Andrew Sullivan, haven't demanded such action. Sullivan instead says "I'd give back the $500. Paul can afford it, at this point. And it would surely help diminish the neocon attacks that Paul is an anti-Semite..." Not exactly an ultimatum.
If Paul were to become a serious player, he would have to distance himself from his disaffected base, but until then--they're all he's got going for him.
As an aside, this whole story has been badly botched by Sieradski's editor, who publicly denounced him in a note to Sullivan before changing his mind just 24 hours later in a second note retracting the earlier statement. And Sieradski, once attacked by Sullivan for propagating a "smear," didn't do himself any favors when he reacted with dismay on his own blog, saying that he had "explained myself and my political orientation" to Sullivan but that Sullivan was "still misrepresenting me on his blog." Boo hoo. Between Sieradski and his editor, Ron Kampeas, I think we've heard enough out of the Jewish Telegraph Agency for this election cycle.
More from JPod here.
