You are correct - I am not familiar with the editorial attitide of this newspaper. And I want to thank you for making a point that encouraged me to re-read the article and think about it again.
Doing so - I still don't really like how the states rights versus conservative principles are briefly presented. That said, on second, and third reading - particularly with your help identifying a different perspective to view from, I am beginning to get a better appreciation of their point.
I am not too proud to admit that my first read, impression, and reaction might have been a bit lopsided in this case. Still not exactly sure if that is the case, but can better appreciate what might be better presented as an effort to provoke thought rather than an attack.
I appreciate your pointing this out - we are only as good so far as we are willing to fix our imperfections and challenge our opinions.
That's why I changed my response as follows:
Initially, it was: "That's paranoid nonsense."
After second thought it was: "That's nonsense," with an explanation.
Finally, it was: "That's not true." I try to correct misunderstanding with an explanation when I can.