Mona Charen has a pretty interesting piece about Ron Paul today that is worth dissecting a bit.

Okay, enough is enough. Like every other journalist in America, and who knows, maybe the world or even the universe, I’ve been deluged with your letters and e-mails.

First warning alarm: Charen calls herself a journalist, which is patently ridiculous.  She is an opinion columnist, which bears little resemblance to journalism, a trade that is supposed to be based on factual reporting.

Charen then proceeds to write a list of problems she has with Paul.

1. Ron Paul is inconsistent. Though he calls himself a man of principle and is apparently admired as such by his ardent fans, his principles seem somewhat elastic. He rails against the Bush administration for its supposed assault on civil liberties, yet when he was asked at one of the debates whether Scooter Libby deserved a pardon, he said no. “He doesn’t deserve one because he was instrumental in leading the Congress and the people to support a war that we didn’t need to be in.” Notice that he didn’t say it was because Libby was guilty of committing a crime.

If that is the best example of inconsistency that she could find then her point falls quite flat.  Libby was convicted of two counts of perjury and one count each of making false statements to federal investigators and obstruction of justice.  He committed those crimes as part of an effort to bolster the justification for the war.  Even the president didn’t grant a pardon, although his commutation took away the real punishment that was levied against Libby.  Paul didn’t delve into a legal treatise as to whether or not Libby was guilty because A) it was in a live debate in which he had about 30 seconds to respond and B) Libby’s guilt isn’t even in question.  But like I said, if this is the extent of Paul’s inconsistency then he is a pillar of virtue.

2. Ron Paul is historically challenged. He argues that by embracing isolationism…

Let’s just stop right there with #2.  Charen calls Paul an isolationist because she is either too ignorant to understand the difference between non-interventionism and isolationism or she is intentionally misrepresenting Paul’s position.  I believe the latter.

3. Ron Paul is unserious. Suggesting that you will eliminate the IRS, the CIA, the FBI and other government agencies within weeks of taking office is ridiculous. These are bumper stickers, not serious reform proposals.

I disagree that eliminating the IRS is an “unserious” proposal.  I agree that his timeline is bumper sticker though, because nothing gets done in the government that fast.

4. Ron Paul is too cozy with kooks and conspiracy theorists. As syndicated radio host Michael Medved has pointed out, Ron Paul’s newspaper column was carried by the American Free Press (a parent publication of the Hitler-praising Barnes Review). Paul may not have been aware of this. But though invited by Medved to disavow any connection, Paul has so far failed to respond.

This is a particularly interesting claim to make because it fits a tactic that pundits on the right always accuse the left of using.  If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard radio guys like Medved demand that Republican politicians not dignify attacks by leftists with an apology I would be a rich man.  Paul cannot control who supports him any more than Giuliani or Clinton can.  His platform of freedom and limited government appeals to all - that means not only regular folks like me but also goofy conspiracy theorists, hateful racists, and other societal oddballs.

I admit that I am uncomfortable every time I see a Paul supporter write some crap about who was “really” behind 9/11.  Those people are, to be quite frank, idiots.  But, it doesn’t make sense to avoid supporting the first true small government presidential candidate of my lifetime just because a vanishingly small percentage of his supporters are fruitcakes.  Paul himself has made it abundantly clear that he does not think anyone was responsible for 9/11 other than the “thugs” on those four planes.

Moreover, Paul seems to be playing a sly game with his conspiracy-minded fans. He does not explicitly endorse the crazier theories out there, but he hints at dark forces in the U.S. government threatening our liberties… 

That “dark forces” line is a real hoot.  Just this week a headline on the Drudge Report, one of the most heavily trafficked site on the entire web, blared that a top U.S. official said that Americans should “change their definition of privacy.”  The threat to our civil liberties isn’t exactly a closely guarded secret.

Charen’s column is actually good news for Paul for two reasons.  One, to paraphrase Mike Huckabee - you don’t waste your ammo on a carcass.  That Charen is writing the column is a testament to the vitality of Paul’s campaign.  Two, the manner in which her column strains credulity shows just how weak and tenuous her criticism of Paul is.

Related content:

This entry was posted by Brian on Friday, November 16th, 2007 at 9:36 pm and is filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Please note the copyright policy.