Talk radio's biggest star unwittingly diagnoses the defining pathology of the ideological movement he helps to lead.
Sure, he's a deeply flawed candidate. But it's blatant scapegoating to blame him for the GOP's lackluster primary season.
A bill the former speaker introduced in 1996 raises serious questions about his moral compass -- and his fitness for the presidency.
He and Newt Gingrich, the two least ideological candidates on stage, are vying to emphasize one another's heresies.
A professorial style. Egotism. Lack of executive experience. A vision of themselves as men of destiny. And a vow to fundamentally change the establishment.
It's Beltway "thought leaders" on the right who are responsible for this flawed candidate.
Did Newt ask his ex-wife for an open marriage? Who cares? Would that be worse than cheating on her for years and then divorcing her for his mistress?
Four candidates, all flawed. The least charming, Rick Santorum, helped himself the most. And the biggest loser? Newt Gingrich, if substance counts.
Writers and magazines help establish the bounds of debate that reaches the masses -- sometimes for the worse.
Before the GOP heeds the hawkish pundit's advice that Paul is better outside the tent, it should consider his atrocious track record on past predictions.
The moderator tipped his hand on Hugh Hewitt's radio program. One definite subject of discussion: Iran.
No one contends that America shouldn't find and kill its enemies. The issue is whether it's done within the rule of law.
What he wants in a candidate is someone who understands how angry he is.
The socially conservative Republican is deeply confused about the tradition of liberty he so frequently derides.
Their lawyer doesn't think so -- but their latest sketch shows why its silly to think super PACs won't coordinate with the candidates they support.
The presidential hopeful and the Founding Father seem to disagree about whether the principle is embedded in the U.S. Constitution.
A major defense of the president exaggerates Obama's accomplishments and misses the point: his scandalous transgressions against rule of law.
Ron Paul was booed for advocating it, but a past president said much the same thing in a bygone State of the Union address.
Arguing against the policy, Rick Santorum begs the question and willfully ignores the other side's arguments.
Critics who claim otherwise must articulate how precisely he betrayed the foreign-policy principles of the Republican Party.