Ron Paul is out of the mainstream on many issues (currencies, Fed, etc.), so out of it, in fact, that a bi-partisan Congress would stop him from implementing much of that extremism. Giuliani’s extremism, on the other hand, is much more dangerous because Congress would be not only less willing, but also less able to stop his extremism

This is because Rudy’s extremism has to do with both foreign policy and “nation security” – which, under Bush, have become “accepted” by the Republican Party as the de facto realm of the executive branch. If their party retained the executive branch, they would continue to support this un-Constitutional power grab that started under Bush.

Also, Congress would be less likely to stand up to him because that foreign policy extremism is now “mainstream” Republican Party thinking – the torture, illegal detainments, first-strikes, etc. – have been “normalized” and internalized by much of the party.

The media is culpable too. Because this extremism is “accepted” by the GOP, journalists pointing out how extreme it is will be immediately accused of a “liberal” bias, when it is simply an acknowledgement of fact and reality. And they've been nearly silent on this topic.

When will the media ask Rudy about this extremism? When will a member of the media ask him if he agrees with his advisor Daniel Pipes about internment of Muslims? Does Rudy agree with Pipes that Reagan’s apology for internment of the Japanese was, in Pipes words, “premised on faulty scholarship?”

This is just one question, but a powerful one that would point to just how far out there his advisors are? There are many questions like that, and none of them have been asked.

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2309

Paul is singing from the Lord's hymnal on the most critical issues of the moment, and smearing a man who holds enormous potential to change the terms of the national conversation in the right direction is very, very stupid, not to mention sleazy. ~Mona

Now I’m in agreement with that particular statement in terms of changing “the terms of the national conversation” but, in my opinion, Ron Paul has the potential to do far more than change the conversation - with his rising support among the anti-war crowd, he could change the election as well. And that’s what frightens me about his candidacy.

Given Ron Paul’s views that are totally out of the mainstream (on the New World Order, abolishing the Federal Reserve, etc.) as well as his relatively low support in national polls, I do not think a Ron Paul presidency is even remotely possible.

I do think, however, that if he went ahead with a third party run (or a write-in candidacy) that he could very well draw enough anti-war support to make Rudy Giuliani president.

Now I know that some Ron Paul supporters can’t see any difference between Rudy and whatever candidate the Democrats put forth, just like Ralph Nader supporters couldn’t see any difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush. Sigh.

That’s what I fear – not Ron Paul, but Rudy Giuliani. Changing the terms of our national conversation is one thing, inadvertently electing warmonger Rudy for Dictator is quite another. Sadly, that’s where I think this “Ron Paul Revolution” is headed.

It’s also why, on this Revolution – “you can count me out.”

I’m really glad that Glenn said that (he assumes) David Neiwert’s claim (on the flag resolution) is “unintentional.”

Let’s be clear here. When you read the text of the resolution sponsored by Ron Paul, as Neiwert no doubt did, he assumed that Ron Paul supported the very resolution that he sponsored. That’s a pretty safe assumption.

How many Congressman sponsor resolutions that they’re totally against? Not many. But it does happen on rare occasions – to make a point. And that’s what has happened here.

Ron Paul sponsored a resolution he didn’t believe in at all. Dave Neiwert in compiling a vast list of Paul’s legislative history can certainly be forgiven for not knowing that the speech Paul delivered in “support” of this resolution was actually “against” this resolution.

That detail, out of all of Ron Paul’s other legislative history, became the basis of this post.

When Glenn writes, “But Neiwert's claim here is, in one respect, completely misleading and, in another respect, outright false” -- we need to keep in mind that it is false only because Ron Paul didn’t actually support his own resolution.