>Well, to point out that a particular attack on a particular candidate is
>spurious does not amount to the "defense" of that candidate--just
>a questioning of the psychopolitical basis for that attack. Particularly
>when the attacker compulsively repeats precisely the "anti-evolution"
>accusation that has been proven spurious, and that he admits to be
>spurious.
well, i thought your defense of him is in your repeated reminder that dewd is an antiwar candidate. apparently, that is the shield that supposed to protect his sack from getting whacked.
what i'm not clear on is why that matters when dewd is also anti-immigration. e.g. this beauty of a campaign ad:
Today, illegal immigrants violate our borders and overwhelm our hospitals, schools and social services. Ron Paul wants border security now. Physically secure the border. No amnesty. No welfare to illegal aliens. End birthright citizenship. No more student VISAs for terrorist nations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T-iJKwskH4
also, i could be wrong, but IIRC the people who rag on paul have been doing it for years, before 9/11. my first introduction to him was via B., Doug and budge (j noonan) on this list. B. and budge are in Texas and seem to have a special place in their (bless 'em) hearts for Paul.
http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)