Ron Paul vs. Rudy Giuliani

In the early running for the Republican presidential nomination, Ron Paul continues to stick to his principles in the face of intimidation.  In the May 15th debate (watch highlights), he stood up to an out-of-line Rudy Giuliani.  Paul essentially stated that attacks by terrorists have been motivated primarily by anger over aggressive American military policy in the Middle East, which really shouldn't be a controversial statement—it's what bin Laden and al-Qaeda have been consistently saying.  But Giuliani was offended and made a purely emotional objection, asking Paul to retract his statement.  Paul refused and calmly justified it further.

Do Giuliani and other neoconservatives really believe that Muslim fundamentalists would have attacked us on September 11th if our military had never invaded and occupied their countries?  Or are they just making the emotional appeal that they think voters want to hear ("It's our fault? That's crazy!")?

Paul later spoke about the incident and further discussed his point of view on CNN and on Fox News.  His campaign came out with a press release, Why Hasn't Rudy Giuliani Read the 9-11 Commission Report?  His debate performance has stimulated discussion and admiration on shows as diverse as Real Time with Bill Maher and The View.  I don't think it's a coincidence that he now has more YouTube subscribers than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat.

The media simply want to see the frontrunners as Romney, Giuliani and McCain, and when poll results indicate otherwise, they're desperate to explain them away (I like: "Giuliani taking that opportunity with Ron Paul to make the case for terror"—a Freudian slip?).  Contrasting Paul with the other candidates throws into sharp relief the extent to which the Republican Party has deviated from its small-government ideals.  After over six years of the public's associating Bush with Texas, Ron Paul has made me politically proud to be a Texan again.