A truly despicable NYT Editorial about Rand Paul

The Sunday New York Times has a truly despicable editorial by Ross Douthat about Rand Paul.

First, let's talk about some of the meat.  Rand Paul has expressed reservations about the government's statutory power to intervene in the private sector.  And it's clear that some such interventions would be an overreach, "wrong" on balance of power/privacy/"what is "right", issues, and probably unconstitutional.  For example, if spoiled rock-stars petitioned congress to pass a law forbidding red M&Ms, we could all disagree with that.  If congress forbids racial discrimination, I would support that, but Rand Paul thinks that falls into a grey area.

How about congress (I'm using lowercase to be non-specific) forbidding home schooling, gay sex, cigarette smoking, or smoking pot?  Is that o.k.?  I think many would argue that this is in a grey area and it may be best for them to refrain from such a law.

How about congress forbidding abortion?  Well, the Supreme Court has ruled that this is an overreach, an abuse of privacy. 

How about Congress passing a statute forbidding alcohol?  By precedent, we know that that would be an unconstitutional overreach, since it required a constiitutional amendment.

So, there clearly are limits to what congress can do regarding the private sector.   While I believe that Rand Paul draws the line in the wrong place, his basic intellectual argument is sound.  Those criticising him have not (to my reading) adressed the issue intellectually, just emotionally.  Yes, racism is bad, but not everything done to prevent racism is right.

Now, what's really despicable about the editorial?  Guilt by association.

It isn’t surprising that two of the most interesting “paleo” writers of the last few decades, Francis and Joseph Sobran, ended their careers way out on the racist or anti-Semitic fringe.

What?  Just because a few writers with similar opinions were wackos has no relevance to Rand Paul.  This is a truly sleazy line of attack and unworthy of some two-bit blogger like myself, let alone an editorial in a major national newspaper.

Douthat refuses to argue with the merits and demerits of Paul's opinion, and reverts to craven guilt by association.  It's a lame editorial.  BTW, Douthat is conservative, not a "typical" NYT liberal.