You're right, it wasn't the first paragraph. But this is a paragraph from the article you omitted, and what Williamson is echoing in his last line:
"I don’t mind that Rush misunderstood my point, which is the sort of thing that happens all the time, but I could do with a good deal fewer butt-hurt lamentations from him and his radio brethren about how National Review “used to be a conservative magazine.” Given that Rush has filled up many minutes of his precious airtime reading my work to his audience, it is strange that he would think of National Review, or me, as something other than conservative."
So...? Williamson states all the time that he disagrees with conservatives. He is not a conservative. If you read the article, he even reflects the Rand Paul thinking that conservatism is not a winning ideology, so why go there because conservatives are mostly bumpkins who can’t get their thoughts across.
Williamson justifies the flip flopping and the lack of deep seated core political philosophy as the only way to win. That sounds an awful lot like Gruber and needing to lie to the stupid voters to get Obamacare passed.
The big difference between conservatives and Libertarians is that the ends do not justify the means for conservatives. Rand Paul needs to learn that. I don’t care if Williamson learns it or not.