The spin on the GOP debate last night is just getting up to speed. Here‘s good ol’ David Weigel of Reason magazine,
“Ron Paul is asked why everyone on stage was wrong about the war, and Paul sticks to ‘a policy of non-intervention.’ He’s a bit loud, but more concise than usual: ‘Think of how Eisenhower won the Korean War, think of how Nixon was elected to end the mess in Vietnam.’ Basically he reads the paleocon playbook much more clearly than anyone expected.”
“Paleocon playbook”? Uh, Dave — that’s the libertarian playbook he was reading from, but, then again, it’s totally understandable you didn’t get that, working for Reason magazine, and all. I mean, without calling for the legalization of methamphetamine in the same breath, Paul’s antiwar stance is plainly incoherent ….
Those warmongers over at National Review know better than that, however. Here‘s James S. Robbins on Paul’s performance:
“Taken in aggregate the candidates presented a coherent if superficial national-security policy. Yes, there was Rep. Ron Paul, one of the six congressional Republicans who voted against the war in Iraq, repeating his perennial non-interventionist libertarian position.”
What kind of a world is it when National F***ing Review knows what the libertarian position is on invading and conquering a country, and killing 650,000 of its people, and “Reason” magazine is utterly clueless?
Why, a Bizarro World, of course ….