The folly of progressives for Paul

[MFrohike]

7. His valid points

He buttressed them with poorly chosen historical examples, which did not remotely support his claims, and the kind of weak reasoning I'd expect to see on cable news. Rather than engage Paul on his perceived, key word perceived, strengths, he chose to attack him on wacky shit that is easily refutable to an audience with little or no historical knowledge. This article makes me think of Krugman's line about Gingrich, "He sounds smart to dumb people."