Campaign Money From Evil-Doers

A current blog dustup over Ron Paul's acceptance of campaign contributions raises an interesting question. Why should a campaign return (or contribute to charity) money it receives from a group it finds repulsive? It always seemed to me that if the KKK or Nazi Party wants to throw its money away by giving it to someone that disagrees with them, then great! Should we examine the views and history of a politician who receives such contributions? Sure. But then again, we should examine the views and history of any and all politicians seeking our votes.

It reminds me of the kudos Rudy Giuliani received for turning down a $10 million contribution from a Saudi Prince after 9/11 because the Prince suggested that American policies contributed to the attacks.

[Side note - will Rudy turn down any support from Pat Robertson given his belief that 9/11 was a punishment of God for America's sins, and that liberals "helped [9/11] happen."]

Why not take the money? Isn't it possible that some of that $10 million went to the madrasahs that teach the hatred that actually led to 9/11? I can only imagine that Rudy and his supplicants would prefer the money going to the victims of 9/11 than madrasahs or Rolls Royces, or another palace for the Prince.

In short, I say to Ron Paul, assuming you are not a neo-Nazi, take the money and run!

Rudy and Guns

I know I'm a little late on this one (boy, the blogosphere moves fast), but is anyone taking Giuliani's claim reagrding gun rights seriously? He said:

I also think that there are some major intervening events — September 11, which cast somewhat of a different light on the Second Amendment, doesn’t change it fundamentally but perhaps highlights the necessity of it.

That's just ridiculous. Does he think some pistol packing citizen would have shot down the planes on 9/11? Or does he think that we should be permitted to carry heat on airplanes to stop terrorists?

How exactly does 9/11 change one's view of the 2d Amendment? It is scary to think that a potential president thinks there are significant parallels between national defense and self defense. If I believe my neighbor is building up a collection of guns, should I be able to invade his house, occupy it, and instill my personal values on him and his family? Especially if I've asked him to destroy those guns on a number of occasions? In Rudy's world, why not?