[mnehring]

It has been parsed based on the parser's opinions, and as I've pointed out, in many of those cases, the end result is going against incremental improvements. Take the reduction in gun waiting periods. Sure, Paul may have claimed he voted against reducing it because he is against all waiting period, but the result is the longer period. Reagan preached incremental ism, something Paul has a history of opposing, offering no incremental improvements because it doesn't achieve perfection.

It is Constitutional Munchhausen by Proxy. He can't stand with incremental improvements, to him, it must always remain sick as so the attention is always on him.

[jmc813]

Take the reduction in gun waiting periods. Sure, Paul may have claimed he voted against reducing it because he is against all waiting period, but the result is the longer period.

There are plenty of issues in which compromise is an admirable thing. When it comes to basic constitutional issues, though, it's not. That sort of thing leads to crap like NCLB and the Medicare Prescription nonsense. Don't you remember all the Bush lackeys going on about how, "if Bush doesn't compromise, the Dems will come up with an even worse plan". A lot of good that compromise did us.

[CautiouslyHopeful]

He can't stand with incremental improvements

I don't think that's true. In the last debate, did he not talk about incrementally phasing out SS, while keep it solvent for the older generations?

[Dead Corpse]

If we were actually seeing ANY incremental improvements out of the FedGov, you might have had a point there...