First, Ron Paul has the temerity to claim that our foreign policy might have had something to do with the whole "airplanes and big buildings" attack six years ago. Giuliani, whose only plank in his platform is 9/11, was forced to leap on the assault. "How dare," I paraphrase, "Ron Paul claim that the terrorists attacked us for any other reason than that they HATE US FOR NO GOOD REASON!"
The rest of us, living in reality, probably don't see anything wrong with the claim. The various terrorist organizations don't merely have an irrational, overriding hate for our freedom- they have (real or imagined) grievances against us and our actions on their soil. This shouldn't be controversial.
That line of attack was derailed, but a second was launched against Ron Paul, by Michelle Malkin. She claims that Paul is a 9/11-truther- one of those tinfoil hats that claims 9/11 was staged by our government. Her basis for this claim is the fact that he was in the same room as 9/11 truthers once, and they claim he doesn't buy the official story. She's stretching the facts as far as they go.
My question is this- why all the struggle? It's not like Ron Paul stands a chance of getting elected. He's too libertarian, too anti-special interest. Too old. He'll never win the primaries, let alone a general election. So who cares, right? Keep him on stage and use him as comic relief, like Al Sharpton.
Or, is there something about his message? And more horrifying for the party- something about the way it's gaining traction? Over the past six years, the "Big Tent" party has turned into the "Big Government" party, displaying dangerous shades of Facism in the "Strong Executive" doctrine and the massively interventionist foreign policy (NB: I'm not calling the Republicans fascist, just demonstrating that there are some philosophical parallels as of late). Ron Paul is a Republican and he speaks the exact opposite.
And the Republicans are looking for any excuse to get him off the stage. Curious.