[JTN]

Here's an eye opener if I ever saw one.

When even National Review feels compelled to defend Paul, you know the criticism is bunk.

[lormand]

"When even National Review feels compelled to defend Paul, you know the criticism is bunk."

Let's do the math.

Which one weighs more?

A) Ron Paul's own words?

B) an article written by someone else?

I have a degree in Engineering, but I think this is 4th grade logic math.

[x]

When even National Review feels compelled to defend Paul, you know the criticism is bunk.

That's the way it goes. First Paul arouses only yawns. Then things heat up, and some people get enthusiastic about him.

Next there's a strong reaction against him. And now there's a reaction to the reaction.

People who were fed up with Paul's shtick now get irritated by the cheap shots taken against him.

There's something about these New York Times or New Republic attack pieces that makes readers sympathize with the victims, even if we wouldn't actually vote for them otherwise.