The so-called logic of the article, which attempts to reframe the grossest generalizations so as to equate statist leftists with strict constitutionalists (hey, they both “dream of perfection”) is utterly absurd.
Paul’s positions can be divided into two parts - domestic and foreign policy. There’s nothing about his domestic policies (small government all the way), that a true conservative can disagree with. And his foreign policy attempts to address the distinction between real protection, and what Jefferson referred to as “foreign entanglements.” Such discrimination is long overdue, no matter whether you agree to where Paul draws the line. But he IS for having effective military protection, but also common sense protections such as a border fence and, especially, economic safety (over which China is currently targeting us, btw).
This effort to associate him with Leftists, however, treats conservatives as idiots.
GRIN --- Still, I agree with David's analysis.
“I don’t, I don’t have all the evidence there, Glenn.
Yeah right... she is saying... "I don't have all the evidence yet that proves that Bush and our government was complicit in the 9/11 attack, but I'm still looking..."
[ ... it's out there somewhere..., doncha know... ]
LOL ...
This may qualify for the ping list...