As to the issue of banning Paul from future debates, I think that Jonah Goldberg is dead-on here. I for one would love to see him go full-blown Buchananite at a debate and explain how the war in Iraq was masterminded by cabal of neoconservatives solely for the benefit of Israel or the need to revive the gold standard. The same goes with his apparent views that the United States was wrong to support the Cold War and that Osama bin Laden and his acolytes should have (Daniel Larison's impressive intellectual gymnastics to the contrary) a de facto veto on US foreign policy.
Furthermore, the fact that Mark apparently sees little difference between Ross Douthat and Ron Paul says more about Mark's ignorance (I'm assuming he wasn't seeking to insult Ross) than it does anything else. Also, his alleged "proof" that Paul was going to be banned from the next debate was hardly that (and none of them from neocons, near as I can tell), just people wishing that he would not appear. Given the similarities between the views of Paul and those of Larouche, I can certainly understand why they might have a similar opinion on Paul as many Democrats do about their own crazed lunatic and I'm not sure that I understand the problem.
I would also note that Mark is once again shifting the goalposts when he says:
But his kookiness is far less of a problem to me then the Enforcers of Newthink in the End to Evil Crowd who would ban his voice in the public arena because it shows up the Salvation Through Leviathan By Any Means Necessary guys as the brutal incompetents they are. We've already had one bull of excommunication from them when they shouted down critics of their disastrous adventurism. We don't need more.
Yesterday, the "Rubber Hose Right" (symbolized somehow by LGF) was against Ron Paul because he opposed torture. Today it's the "End to Evil Crowd" crowd (though Hewitt, Barnett, and Bennett aren't generally thought of as premier neocons) and for a very different set of reasons. One wonders how big the conspiracy to silence Ron Paul will grow tomorrow.
This, by the way, is just hilarious:
If Paul is a racist, then I have no use for him. However, I'd still be interested in letting him in the debates to see what he has to say about the quotes attributed to him rather than simply settling for a nice quick Crucifixion-by-Media followed by a noiseless disposal of the body without any questions or comments.
That's both big and rather self-righteous talk from a man who had no compunctions whatsoever about seeking to do the same (regardless of the justification) to Michael Ledeen, Michael Novak, Dean Barnett, to say nothing of what he has hurled against myself and Victor. I guess it makes all the difference in the world as to whose oxe is getting gored (or perhaps Mark is able to divine the truth of an individual's position through his apparent charism of telepathy) as to whether an individual should be given time to clarify his remarks or a Mark Shea anathema sit rendered against them.