this washpost editorial is substantive and devastating. this nytimes editorial is an empty exercise in mindless peer pressure. but the 'paul ryan is so weird' approach is completely puzzling strategically as well as rationally. so you chant 'paul ryan is an extremist.' now: what effect, on whom, do you expect that to have? it can't change anyone's mind who sympathizes with ryan's views; it's just an insult to them as well as him, without giving any reasons to think they're wrong. i guess for liberals, they can't hear this enough (evidence: they all produce the very same sentence to the tune of dozens of times each.) but they already agree with the positions. it has the function of trying to enhance polarization, without any actual cognitive content or engagement with actual arguments etc. really the only sense i can make of this rhetorical approach is that it is intended as self-esteem enhancement for the authors and like-minded readers: absolutely all it says is 'he's not like us.' but as in middle school, say, this is a way of saying: look how great (= how normal) we are.