EvilDetector, I hope you don’t mind if I pick on your theme. I’m inclined to believe the author’s intent was to plant an overall negative impression in the reader’s mind. However, I’m still on the sidelines as to how successful he was.
"Paul might be — indeed, has been — the kind of person who is summoned onto cable television around April 15 to ventilate about whether the federal income tax violates the Constitution."
In the second paragraph we learn he’s a hysterical ideologue. The a priori bullshit premise sets the tone for the piece.
"Paul understands that his chances of winning the presidency are infinitesimally slim"
Huh? When did he say that?
"But in Paul’s idea of politics, spreading a message has always been just as important as seizing office."
The implication is he runs just for the sake of promoting principles. After all, he can’t win.
"In recent weeks, Paul’s airport reading has been a book called “Financial Armageddon.”"
Sensationalism; giving the impression of paranoia.
"What resulted was a network of true believers who would be his political base in one of the stranger Congressional elections of modern times."
Is there a worse smear than ‘true believer?’
"Paul may have refused on principle to accept Medicare when he practiced medicine. He may return a portion of his Congressional office budget every year. But his staff has the reputation of fighting doggedly to collect Social Security checks, passports, military decorations, immigrant-visa extensions and any emolument to which constituents are entitled by law."
Nice spin attempting to invoke hyprocisy. This is prefaced by a paragraph that is mute for his reasons for being against farm subsidies, FEMA, or NASA.
"In the very district where, on the night of Sept. 8, 1900, a storm destroyed the city of Galveston, leaving 6,000 dead, and where repairs from Hurricane Rita and refugees from Hurricane Katrina continue to exact a toll, he votes against FEMA and flood aid."
The bullshit assumption here is that voting against FEMA will leave us helpless in disasters and condemns thousands to die.
"Paul has made a habit of objecting to things that no one else objects to."
No matter the reasons, he’s just a habitual recalcitrant.
"In today’s Washington, Paul’s combination of radical libertarianism and conservatism is unusual. Sometimes the first impulse predominates. He was the only Texas Republican to vote against last year’s Federal Marriage Amendment, meant to stymie gay marriage."
How is that an example of ‘radical libertarianism?’ It’s unconstitutional, you crappy journalist.
"The question is whether the old ideologies being resurrected are neglected wisdom or discredited nonsense. In the 1996 general election, Paul’s Democratic opponent Lefty Morris held a press conference to air several shocking quotes from a newsletter that Paul published during his decade away from Washington.
How does the first sentence relate to the rest of that paragraph? More crappy journalism.
"But his response to the accusations was not transparent. When Morris called on him to release the rest of his newsletters, he would not. He remains touchy about it. “Even the fact that you’re asking this question infers, ‘Oh, you’re an anti-Semite,’ ” he told me in June. Actually, it doesn’t. Paul was in Congress when Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and — unlike the United Nations and the Reagan administration — defended its right to do so. He says Saudi Arabia has an influence on Washington equal to Israel’s. His votes against support for Israel follow quite naturally from his opposition to all foreign aid. There is no sign that they reflect any special animus against the Jewish state."
Aaaah, very, VERY clever. Paul is the defensive one while the journalist resides in the dispassionate high road. Hmmm, maybe there’s some truth to those accusations after all?
Anyone writing this guy, please feel free to use any of my objections I've posted here.
[edit: I'm not encouraging anyone to email the author].
