The extent to which the writer is too dumb to grasp the issue in hand, I cannot say. It is true that Dr Paul's libertarianism loses him votes with anti-libertarians. For some, it will be his stance against the federal drug war, with others it will be his opposition to foreign military adventurism. The point of Dr Paul is that he is the same today as he was twenty years ago, and that he is prepared to stand alone for what he believes is right, and he is prepared to stand with others, who may be from the other end of the political spectrum in general terms, when there is a particular agreement.
As far as I am aware, notwithstanding his personal views on such things as the drug war and abortion, his stance with regard to the Constitution, and the role of President, is that these are matters which must be dealt with at the state level. So a Ron Paul President will not be imposing his views on the nation as a whole, but I guess such subtlety is beyond the Washington Times.
Hat tip: Lew Rockwell's Political Theatre