Wow, the righties are *petrified* of this guy. Read this WSJ article this morning and was appalled, and apparently it's spread throughout the interwebs at blistering speed. 1300+ comments on the article...
All that being said, calling Ron Paul a traitor because he thinks that American foreign and military policy in the Middle East might have contributed to 9/11 is appalling.
I have to say, I relish the idea of a Ron Paul nomination on the Republican side. One, I'm fairly certain that he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the presidency, but if he's running to the *left* of Obama on foreign policy and military issues, it allows Obama to walk back and stake a far more moderate/liberal stance on those. Obama had to tack right to go up against John "Bomb bomb bomb Iran" McCain, but if he's running against a guy who's advocating cutting our military in half, Obama looks like the sane rational person by only cutting it by 1/4. Same with civil liberties, the Afghanistan war, etc.WSJ said:He was speaking, it's hardly necessary to say, of a man who holds some noteworthy views in a candidate for the presidency of the United States. One who is the best-known of our homegrown propagandists for our chief enemies in the world. One who has made himself a leading spokesman for, and recycler of, the long and familiar litany of charges that point to the United States as a leading agent of evil and injustice, the militarist victimizer of millions who want only to live in peace.
All that being said, calling Ron Paul a traitor because he thinks that American foreign and military policy in the Middle East might have contributed to 9/11 is appalling.