Justin Raimondo has this amazing trick in analyzing an article. He applies "detailed historical knowledge" and "research", backed up by links you can click to fact-check his assertions, and puts thing in context with lengthy quotes from original sources, (as opposed to brief out-of-context quotes replete with ellipses). If James Kirchick is in a humble frame of mind he could learn something about Raimondo's trick even as it is applied to his own article.
I really can’t bear to examine much more of Kirchick’s farrago of falsehoods: it’s like wading through waist-high muck without your pants on. I have to say, however, that this supposedly “devastating” attack on the Paul campaign is devastating, all right – to the author’s reputation as a credible reporter. His writing is crude, his manner slapdash, and his abilities seem to consist primarily of the artful use of ellipses. Intellectually dishonest, inauthentic in its outrage, and unintentionally humorous at times – don’t you realize that it’s a hate-crime to criticize Kirchick’s boss?—TNR’s attempt to portray the avuncular country doctor who preaches liberty, the Norman Thomas of libertarianism, as some sort of neo-Nazi is ludicrous – yet the neocons and their “libertarian” allies persist. Why?
Read Justin Raimondo's entire article