Other than that it walks right past both Pauls' gigantic deficiencies in foreign and defense policy.
The author gives us a phony, head-faking "concession" on the libertarianism on "social issues" (while muttering under his breath, "who cares about social issues already?!"), and then tries to sneak the other stuff past us, on his way to concluding that "Paul's gotta be the guy".
Paulbot bullsqueeze from the git.
Say what? From the headline, to the opening sentence, to the conclusion...
“Bottom line: when it comes to 2016, Rand Paul is not the guy. But Ted Cruz might be.”
This is as anti-Paul as it gets.
Ummmmm, I may have misread the writer's intentions on this one. Now I'm not sure where he was going with all the pattyfingers stuff on social conservatism. He may be trying to point us toward Ted Cruz rather than boosting Paul, which is how I read the article originally.
Comments?