How much evidence does the media need?

Randal Paul, the conservative Republican, has made it quite clear that he is NOT a libertarian. He has repeatedly said he is not a libertarian. There are three broad areas of libertarian policy and Randal Paul only agrees with libertarians one-third of the time, he's less libertarian than many leftists. Paul doesn't even agree with his father on foreign policy, making him even less libertarian than his conservative father.

Randal Paul, who was NOT named after Ayn Rand, says he is a religious conservative who wants his morality enforced by the state. He has also said he supports an interventionist foreign policy, just one that is more "judicious" than now—which would mean he has a relatively low bar on that one. Paul told fellow Right-winger Sean Hannity that had he been in the Senate he would have voted for war in Afghanistan. Yep, that's a real libertarian: he wants our government not only in Afghanistan but in our bedrooms as well, not to mention his desire to make every uterus the property of government.

So Randal's only area of agreement with libertarianism is on economics. Whoopdie-do! Nothing to get excited about.

Randal has been quite explicit in recent weeks that he does not support a libertarian view of the world, he is a conservative statist. Yet the New York Times, perhaps meaning to smear real libertarians, calls the Pauls "the First Family of Libertarianism." I could just vomit. At least they noted that Ayn Rand "was not the inspiration" for Randal's name and mentions that he was usually called Randy by the family.