For example, do I think that Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional? That depends on whether you accept that our court system ultimately determines constitutionality. If so, that and 40 million dead babies since Roe versus Wade are perfectly constitutional. But if you're definition of constitutionality has to do with original intent irrespective of intervening Supreme Court findings of penumbras, you have a different conclusion and a different discussion.
If you're talking about legalizing cocaine, I am for it but I do not think any candidate for it has a ghost of a chance of getting elected. So when we discuss Paul's drug policy, are we talking about it in terms of constitutionality or electability or whether it makes practical sense? I think it makes eminent practical and constitutional sense but very poor electability sense.
If we are talking about his views on why we were attacked on 9/11, and whether we are in danger from a nuclear Iran, I think reality makes him look pretty silly. But when he says that we have not made America safer by our action in Iraq, reality makes him look less silly and, when weighed against the cost, reality makes him look rather wise.
My problem with dealing with Paul bots is that they jump from one criterion to another and we are always jousting with phantoms.
