Here's a good piece by Scott Horton about the set-to between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani the other night over whether the U.S. being "over there" was a factor in the attack by al-Qaida on 9/11. Of course nobody has read Osama's mind, but it's pretty much a certainty that it was. Scott makes some of the same points I made below, but more extensively.
The episode really demonstrates how thoroughly conventional politics thrives on a narrow range of opinions, most of them dead wrong, and recoils like somebody bitten by a snake when an unwanted piece of truth manages to find its way into one of the establishment's pet media. Ron Paul uttering a bit of truth has all kinds of people so upset at Ron Paul that many Republicans want him excluded from future debates, and a former aide has already declared he will run against him in next year's Republican primary.
I think they're frightened that it will turn out Ron's opinions are more widely shared than most people had guessed. He has scored first or second in almost every "who won the debate" online poll. The scared-rabbit establishmentarians say it's because his tiny band of fans are stuffing the digital ballot box. Certainly online polls are not a random sample, and that's true to some extent. His Website urges supporters to go vote for him. I'd be amazed if all the other candidates' sites didn't say the same thing.
The results suggest he has more supporters who are willing to go vote than the other candidates, or supporters who are more dedicated and willing to vote again and again. Either way, it's a sign of support most Republicans would rather deny or debunk than take honest notice of.