The neocons hate Ron Paul. No, "hate" isn't the right word. They loathe him. They despise him. In their minds, he is no better than a liberal Democrat or perhaps even a Muslim terrorist -- you know, because only evil people would dare to criticize President Bush's war in Iraq.

Just for fun, go to FreeRepublic.com (a.k.a., Neocon Central) and run a search for "Ron Paul." You won't find too many nice things being said about him among the recent articles and comments. Before 9/11, he was considered to be a heroic defender of the Constitution. Now, he's an America-hating crackpot who wants to surrender and turn the world over to "Islamofascists." They can't debate him on the issues, so their only recourse is to try to silence and discredit him.

A few months ago, Pajamas Media, a pro-Bush, pro-war, pro-big government blog, began a straw poll to see which potential candidates were popular among its readers. On week four, Ron Paul was the winner by a large margin. Naturally, his name was removed from the poll on week five. The official reason given for Paul's exclusion was that he "did not reach one percent on Gallup." The only logical conclusion here is that these so-called "conservative" blogs are allowing the mainstream media -- the "liberal" institution they love to hate so much -- to set the ground rules for political discussion and debate.

AFK, one of Townhall.com's blogs, featured a hit piece written by pro-war, pro-abortion, ex-Libertarian Eric Dondero that tries to paint Ron Paul as a bitter, selfish, greedy, unpatriotic hypocrite:

[W]hat concerns me most was the fact that for many years he played both sides of the aisle. In the very Conservative South Texas CD, he was always Mr. Red, White, and Blue. If he couldn't make a Veterans event, he made damn sure that his one Vet on staff could go, even if it was just 8 VFW guys meeting for a couple hours 3 hours drive away. Ron was very careful to portray himself in the District as Pro-Troops, and even Pro-Defense.

But after 9/11 and most especially after the War in Iraq, he played up his non-interventionist side to a national audience. This while still keeping the facade of Pro-Troops/Pro-Defense in the District. As late as last year I got a constituent mailing from RP with 4 pages of nothing but Patriotic/Pro-Troops/Pro-Veterans information from the Congressional office. I suspect the reason why RP has gone south on foreign policy for the national audience is simple: To gain more dollars from a National fundraising base, and to gain more National media attention from Liberal media sources.

This bitterness starts to make sense when you learn that Dondero was fired by Paul, that he is campaigning for Paul's congressional seat next year, and that he has a reputation in libertarian circles of being somewhat of a whiner. He has also been quick to lash out at anyone who might disagree with him. On January 31, 2005, for example, Dondero posted on a Yahoo discussion group that patriotic Americans should have the "right to kick the sh-- out of flag burners with no fear of any consequences."

On March 3, 2005, Dondero whined in an e-mail about how anti-war libertarians like Lew Rockwell and Justin Raimondo were "incredibly big losers in the recent successes of the Bush Doctrine." He even called on them to apologize to the libertarian movement for their Bush-bashing and their "idiotic foreign policy remarks post-9/11." (If you want to see just how unhinged this neocon nutjob has become, listen to his interview on the late Harry Browne's radio show in October of 2005. [1st hour | 2nd hour])

Sadly, most Republicans seem to share Dondero's perspective. Sean Hannity is another neocon apologist who is hell-bent on demonizing Ron Paul. As a charter member of the Cult of Bush, Hannity bought the president's lie that "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world." So, naturally, he has a problem with Paul's belief that American foreign policy may have had something to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Following the most recent GOP debate, Hannity wasted no time launching an attack of his own (video). In typical neocon fashion, he deliberately misrepresented what the congressman actually said:

SH: Are you suggesting that our policies are causing the hatred of people that would cause them to want to kill us?
RP: I think they contribute significantly to it -- and that is exactly what our CIA tells us -- and anybody who has done any research on this has found out…
SH: What have we done to cause…
RP: Well, let me answer it.
SH: What did America do to cause the attack on 9/11?
RP: Okay, the Americans didn't do anything to cause it, but policies over many years caused and illicited hatred toward us so somebody was willing to commit suicide.

In addition to giving Ron Paul the silent treatment, calling him a hypocrite, and labeling him as a traitor, the neocons are also trying to make him out to be a nutcase. Michelle Malkin, syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor, tried her best to associate Paul with the conspiracy theorists of the far-left fringe who think George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand and may have even had a hand in their execution. She said that "Ron Paul really has no business being on stage as a legitimate representative of Republicans, because the 9/11 truth virus is something that infects only a very small proportion of people that would identify themselves as conservative or Republican."

Fox News played along with Malkin's feeble effort to link Paul to the 9/11 "truth" movement. At one point during her interview, the images of Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul were shown with the caption "RUDY SLAPS DOWN 9/11 'TRUTHER'" emblazoned across the top of the screen. Yet another example of the kind of "fair and balanced" reporting we've come to expect from that joke of a network.

Okay, let's review what we have so far: shunned, hypocrite, traitor, nutcase. Oh, yes! I almost forgot. Ron Paul is also a racist and an anti-Semite. Ladies and gentlemen, we have now achieved full demonization.

This latest accusation is the most bizarre because it has absolutely nothing to do with policy differences or political disagreements; it is just blatant character assassination. The charge of racism comes from pulling selected quotes out of context from a 1992 newsletter, while the charge of anti-Semitism is based solely on the fact that Paul had spoken critically of the Israeli government lobby in Washington. Yeah, what a Nazi.

So, what drives this hatred for Ron Paul? Why are the Republicans so eager to not just distance themselves from him, but to stoop to the level of liberal Democrats and try to destroy his reputation? The answer: the neocons are scared.

Paul actually puts into practice the very principles for which his fellow Republicans pretend to stand. He believes in smaller government. He's pro-life. He wants to cut taxes and abolish the IRS. He wants to stop government meddling in education and health care. In short, he wants government held within its constitutional limitations.

Imagine...a politician who has actually read the Constitution and believes in what it says. No wonder the neocons consider him such a threat. That kind of restriction on power is exactly what they are hoping to avoid.

And that's just it. The one, single issue on which Ron Paul and the neocons disagree in principle is the war in Iraq, and for them to admit that Paul might be right when he says that American foreign policy had something to do with people wanting to kill us means giving up the one issue that has kept their side in power for over six years. They are willing to throw every other issue under the bus. They will increase spending, expand the size and scope of government, and crack down on civil liberties. They will sacrifice every principle they claim to hold dear, but come hell or high water they just won't give up their precious war.