Ron Paul's anachronistic lucidity

I heard a clip of Ron Paul's rather scathing, yet well-informed analysis on how conservatism has been abducted by these, neo...theo...well, whatever-they-are-Republicans that happened to debate last Tuesday night (5/15/07) in South Carolina. He simply laid out the facts, beginning with Eisenhower, and brought the other nine gentlemen up to present day, and even included 9/11 for context.

This seemed to upset Rudy Giuliani, who, of course, has a monopoly on National Security and Patriotism because he was the mayor of New York when 9/11 happened, and he alone insisted that the command center be in the World Trade Center after it was bombed the first time.

Chris Wallace, the “moderator” (“batting tee”) then tried to corner Paul into rephrasing his assessment, trying to goad him into saying that the US “invited” the 9/11 attacks.

When Paul didn't immediately begin retracting and self-flagellating, Giuliani jumped in and demanded he take back what he said about inviting the attacks on America. I can understand Paul being a tad rattled. There they were, frothing and vibrating as if he had a well-marbled sirloin clinging to his rump, waiting for their chance to burst from behind their podia to call him an America-bashing traitor.

For his part, Paul didn't deny that he said the US invited the attacks (but he obviously didn't), he just gave the example of “blowback” as defined by the CIA in the '50s after we installed the Shah of Iran, and how it manifested itself in the '70s in the form of the Hostage Crisis.

But Giuliani: Wow! He was still operating on the 2002 RNC talking points that said quite clearly if you didn't agree with everything the president did, you were aiding the enemy, that if you weren't with us, you were with them, and that this was no time for understanding, this was a time for attacking anything that moved.

It's interesting spin, and the media still lets it play: “America's Mayor” is somehow not crazy and out of the mainstream when he insanely regurgitates five year old propaganda, but a guy who presents a clear, lucid argument based on verifiable historical facts is presented—with the help of Chris Wallace, Faux News, and a willing audience of True Believers—is clearly the deranged outsider.

How dare he lead people to believe there might be a Republican you could actually reason with? He obviously didn't get the Memo.