This story is absolutely beautiful. However, the author's presumption that although "outright distortions and smears are ... completely misleading and, in another respect, outright false ... in both cases, I assume the error is unintentional," is not a presumption I'm remotely prepared to grant. The intellectually deft legislative tactic described therein is employed by Dr. Paul often and, I believe, always fully explained.
The most disturbing take-away here is that the attack is repeatedly used with virtual impunity (generally by individuals who, far more often than not, have arguably far greater -- and more powerful -- enemies to be concerned with than the good doctor -- assuming their politics are as advertised, of course -- and really no excuse for not being fully cognizant of that). Somebody has to be that intentionally dishonest, and/or that intentionally ignorant, after all: those repeatedly telling the lies, or those repeatedly accepting them as accurately representative. (This piece hit a particularly raw nerve this morning as I've seen "disgusting" examples -- a barrage, in fact -- on a local list in just the past 24 hrs. Yes, I expect you to do your own research if you're that curious... };-> )