Just got off a Rudy Giuliani conference call where, cementing my status as America's Luckiest Journalist, I wasn't selected to ask a question. But the question I wanted to ask was fielded by National Review's Jim Geraghty, whose take on last night's Ron Paul performance was:
[G]et the hell off the stage, Ron Paul. We're done with you.
Geraghty asked if there was anything to be gained from including Paul in future debates. Rudy's answer, roughly transcribed:
The last time I heard anything like that was when the Saudi prince put that press release out with his $10 million donation to New York after 9/11, saying our policies in the Middle East caused the attacks. I was surprised to hear that in a Republican debate. When I reflected on his answer I think there was tremendous confusion in what he was saying. Because we were dropping bombs on Iraq in the 90s, because there were occasional attacks that took place, because of that, al Qaeda planned to attack the WTC? Is that what the debate is about? The whole thing made no sense. And what made no sense was the desire to blame it all on America. Maybe because I've been studying Islamic terrorism since the 1970s I have a better understanding of this. They hate us because of our freedom of religion, they hate us because of the freedom we give to women. If we "solved" all of these foreign policy problems, if we did what they wanted in Iraq and Iran, they'd still hate us.
He didn't actually call for Paul to be cut out of the debates, and it was a short call where I didn't get to ask a follow-up.
UPDATE: Geraghty's take here.