Frank Rich Editorial about Rand Paul

The Sunday New York Times features an editorial by Frank Rick about Rand Paul, entitled "The Randslide and Its Discontents".  As one one expect from a liberal NYT columnist, it isn't favorable.  But one section about Paul's views is interesting, because his views seem reasonable, and would appeal to progressives.

Paul is articulate and hard-line. When he says he is antigovernment, he means it. Unlike McConnell, he wants to end all earmarks, including agricultural subsidies for a state that thrives on them. (He does vow to preserve Medicare payments, however; they contribute to his income as an ophthalmologist.) He wants to shut down the Department of Educationand the Federal Reserve. Though a social conservative who would outlaw all abortions, he believes the federal government should leave drug enforcement to the states.

It’s also in keeping with this ideology that Paul wants the federal government to stop shoveling taxpayers’ money into wars. He was against the war in Iraq and finds the justification for our commitment in Afghanistan “murky.” He believes that America’s national security is “not threatened by Iran having one nuclear weapon.”

Many progressives should agree with a lot of this.  Earmarks are bad, agricultural subsidies are (generally) bad.  Those who wish to pass local laws to legalize marijuana or assisted suicide might support Paul's views on drug enforcement.  And of course they'd support his views on the wars.

So I'm really not sure what Frank Rich is doing in his editorial.  Naturally, he goes on to call Paul a racist - it's pretty much a requirement nowadays.  But, ultimately, either Rich didn't think things out at all, or he's up to something really devious.