CQ WEEKLY
– VANTAGE POINT
Nov. 18, 2007 – 6:13 p.m.
Paul Devotees Spark Online Backlash
By Shawn Zeller, CQ Staff
He may be the Republican version of Howard Dean in this election cycle, creating an impressive online fundraising base made up of Net-savvy activists. But Ron Paul is having a hard time keeping his cyber-supporters in civil debate mode.
Indeed, things have gotten so bad that a growing number of political blogs and discussion boards — not exactly prime outlets of delicacy in public-spirited discourse — have taken the drastic step of barring especially vocal backers of the Texas congressman from their ranks. Two high-profile conservative blogs, redstate.com and littlegreenfootballs.com, have issued selective bans on the more disruptive Paul supporters trolling the sites. And this month, Bobby Eberle, who runs the site GOPUSA.com, addressed an open letter to Paul backers urging civility.
Eberle’s letter took pains to note that he wasn’t singling out Paul supporters per se but rather “the aggressive network of online fans who bombard discussion boards, spam Web sites, flood online polls, and behave in a manner that puts their candidate in an extremely bad light.”
Eberle says that in seven years of running GOPUSA.com, he’s never come across users as routinely abusive as Paul backers can be. “The typical e-mail from a Ron Paul supporter often contains profanity and is filled with name-calling and attacks on the other candidates,” he says. “They throw out slurs such as ‘neo-con’ or ‘fake Republican’ or ‘sheeple’ or ‘jerks’ or worse. They say people are ‘stupid,’ ‘idiots,’ ‘traitors,’ and worse for not supporting Ron Paul .”
In addition, Paul’s backers have spoiled the fun when the site has sponsored unscientific polls to gauge the popularity of the Republican field. In September, when Eberle sponsored one such poll, Paul’s backers bombarded the site. Paul ended up with 66 percent of the vote. Fred Thompson finished second, with 12 percent. By contrast, in the scientific polls sponsored by major news organizations, Eberle noted, Paul routinely finishes with less than 5 percent of the tally.
Meanwhile, last month, redstate.com barred newly registered users from writing any pro-Paul commentary on the site. “Effective immediately, new users may not shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada,” wrote Leon Wolf, a senior editor for the Web site.
Wolf added that the reason for the change was his view that backers of the libertarian Paul — who, unlike most Republicans, has always opposed the Iraq War and opposes federal laws criminalizing drugs — are “a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans.”
Likewise, littlegreenfootballs.com dropped Paul’s name from its online polls in May after Paul backers racked up another win by alerting colleagues to vote on the site. Site operator Charles Johnson acknowledged that they hadn’t cheated by voting more than one time but said they had clearly skewed the results through their get-out-the-vote campaign. “ Ron Paul ’s supporters are becoming notorious for sleazy, essentially stupid tactics like this,” he wrote.
At least some Paul enthusiasts have begun arguing that their online zeal may be on the verge of becoming counterproductive. “Now that Dr. Paul has more attention from the mainstream media, we have to take extra precaution to ensure that we are being as tactful as humanly possible,” one anonymous poster wrote recently on a popular Paul discussion board about the congressman, who’s also a physician. “We cannot afford to give the mainstream media or any of Dr. Paul’s opponents ammo.”
But the Paul campaign says it’s in no position to enforce such message discipline among its supporters. “These are independent supporters that are acting on their own volition,” says campaign spokesman Jesse Benton. “The campaign doesn’t have control of or influence over that.”
That would seem a considerable understatement, to judge by the candidate’s recent dealings with his fired-up base. The Philadelphia chapter of Paul’s fan club recently won a fundraising thank-you visit from Paul — but then refused to reconnoiter at the site in suburban Valley Forge that Paul had selected for the appearance, according to Slate.com writer Chadwick Matlin. Instead, they scouted an affordable venue in Philadelphia — and won the candidate’s assent to meet them there. Benton shrugs off such episodes as the price of a committed fan base. “None of this campaign’s growth would be possible without these grass-roots supporters out in the field unleashing their creativity and energy,” he says. “We have the kind of grass-roots energy that other campaigns are trying to buy.”
Comments
Perhaps if they would stop gratuitously bashing Paul using out of this world language, they would not be feeling the backlash. I find myself much less polite when someone starts flinging around casually the wacky, kook, nutcase, quirky, insane, retarded accusations. Or when they start reporting that his $4.2M haul was concocted (it was not -- all solid donations by CC) or that somehow he has some hidden flaws that people should be whispering about when he's the most honest man in Congress and the 'only straight talker' according to the heads on George Will's show. You get what you give....
Why can't the other candidates bombard polls like that? If there so unstoppable why are they so powerless here on the internet?
Give me a break -- Little Green Footballs is the most obnoxious site out there. That they have any moral standing to call Paul backers impolite is laughable. Paul backers are banned from sites because our arguments are winner over the Fox News-brainwashed neocons of America at a pace that is sending these tools into a panic. Ron Paul has more cash on hand than any Republican candidate at the moment, is drawing larger crowds than any other candidate, and wins all the post-debate polls -- which is also why you see Romney and Rudy finding fake "scheduling conflicts" to drop out of debates like Dec. 4 in Iowa. But there's too much time left to "run out the clock," and the neocons know it. We Ron Paulites are comin' for ya -- and we've got (metaphorical, naturally) pitchforks, and money, and the American people behind us. And they know it.
The entire basis of this entire article is faulty. "But Ron Paul is having a hard time keeping his cyber-supporters in civil debate mode. Indeed, things have gotten so bad that a growing number of political blogs and discussion boards -- not exactly prime outlets of delicacy in public-spirited discourse -- have taken the drastic step of barring especially vocal backers of the Texas congressman from their ranks. Two high-profile conservative blogs, redstate.com and littlegreenfootballs.com, have issued selective bans on the more disruptive Paul supporters trolling the sites. And this month, Bobby Eberle, who runs the site GOPUSA.com, addressed an open letter to Paul backers urging civility." All three of the website mentioned are neoconservative websites actively engaged in disparaging Ron Paul. The sites are NOT "high-profile", they are well funded and exist only to shill for neoconservatism. The neocons there could not win any civil debates so they are blocking all Ron Paul support on thier sites and encouraging anti-Paul rhetoric with no one able to defend him. It is absolutely shameful. Yes they can do it, it is their private property. But for anyone in public journalism to accept their lame excuse and actually base an article around it is pretty pathetic. Of couse this is CQ. Congrads on living up to your standards in reporting. Not too high a jumo to get over that bar, obviously.
If it isn't the blog that Ron Pail is a racist or nuts, then it is his fans that are nuts and crazies, and now they cheat and abuse others. Very interesting. What will come next? Ron Paul the child molester and his fans cheering on? The problem really stems from inaccurate and distorted blogs and opinion from people who don't agree with Dr. Paul. In response to that Paul's fans and supporter correct this, and yes, sometime sin an aggressive manner, but that isn't because they are crazy or aggressive. It is because any time any viable candidate outside the mainstream tries to run and begins to get some support they are ridiculed. I myself am happy to see people so passionate about someone. If you don't want aggressive responses, don't write bias and nonsensical articles and blogs. Thank God for people that are finally fed up with bias reports, which they generally can't do much about with the mainstream media, but with blogs then can. The reason why other bloggers who write negative blogs about other candidates is because either supporters are not very passionate about their candidate, which should tell you something about the candidate
Thats funny, I remember some pretty hardcore downright nasty mean spirited stuff online from bush and Clinton supporters in the last election, matter fact it is still going on as bad as ever. Do some looking on online forums now, other candidate supporters are far worse. Fact is, more bad stuff is said about Bush and Clinton by both Demos and Republicans on a daily basis than off color remarks made by some over zealous Paul supporters in a whole year. Ron Paul must have the GOP and others worried if this article (barely news worthy and interesting) and a few other ridiculous articles are the best dirt anyone can come up with. I am voting for Ron Paul and articles like this do nothing to make me question the man, better try and come up with something better, and true. Regards BK Fla
I'm not surprised that this would be the next issue for non-supporters to Ron Paul. Well, as it goes with all of us FREEDOM lovers, we're going to keep on keeping on. Ron Paul for President 2008!
On the contrary... Redstate in particular has not banned selected Ron Paul supporters over their behavior. Redstate has banned -all- discussion of Ron Paul. I spent a little bit of time on the site, and it is quite clear that the moderators have very strong political opinions... and that they've allowed those opinions to blur their judgement when it comes to handling their website properly. The sad truth of the matter is that the regulars on Redstate are typically more abusive than those they have banned. The "slurs" they throw out in response to a poster who disagrees with them make the behavior of even the worst Paul supporter seem civil. The bottom line is that most of what we are seeing here in regards to bans is politically and ideologically motivated.
Paul supporters are not any more obnoxious than anyone else. These websites discussed are simply afraid of being being exposed as fake conservatives for their support for fiscally irresponsible "wars," and hostility toward individual liberty. Those that point this fact out just happen to be Ron Paul supporters.
But it's ok for Glenn Beck to imply that supporters of Ron Paul are a clear and present terrorist threat to the United States and thus require military supervision? Interesting insight into the priorities of the Republican establishment your post reveals...
I can definitely understand how Ron Paul supporters can be quite over-zealous, with some (if not at least half) being young voters. But rather then being upset about dissenting or opposing opinions, we should engage them honestly and with respect, while avoiding obvious baiting/trolling. There no doubt that an evident evolving mature rational debate has been sparked by his campaign. There has also been very intelligent and thoughtful dialog exchanges from both pro and con RP camps. Both sides have used attacks and spins. We`re not all innocent of this, and some simple research can prove this -- positive constructive and negative degenerative comments alike. Doesn`t mean we should "end" the conversation, striking the idea out with a general ban and/or an ad hominum. Personally, I commend the RP supporters for having a forum post dedicated to teaching others how to engage people in discussion with etiquette and protocol, rather then coming up strictly with catch-phrases and sound-bytes.
"We have the kind of grass-roots energy that other campaigns are trying to buy." Enough said. He is our next President. 100% for Dr. Ron Paul 2008, registered and ready to caucus!
Oh please LOL "Indeed, things have gotten so bad..." RP supporters are a hard working bunch. Don't tell me that all the other candidate supporters are perfect angels?
Hi. I'd like to make a note about this article. Ron Paul supporters aren't the one doing the spamming. We discourage it strongly. What's happened is that anti-Ron Paul campaigns have caught onto the enthusiasm and internet circle surrounding Ron Paul - They've began to write bots and scripts to do nothing but spam Ron Paul in articles where he doesn't belong. I assure you that no Ron Paul supporter would do such a thing. We stand and debate our beliefs, and insert Ron Paul promotion in courteous manners.
So let me get this right. Its wrong for Ron Paul supports to to call someone a "fake Republican" or "traitor" but its fine to call Ron Paul supporters abusive trolls and spamers that are a "bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans"? Lets be honest, the complaint is not about name calling because its coming equally from every side, the real complaint is that Ron Paul has a massive internet following and his supporters follow the news, donate their money to his campaign (8.5 Mil so far this quarter) , form meetup groups (71,000 members 1200 groups) and most of all will get out and vote in the elections. I am really sorry that the people who run redstate.com and littlegreenfootballs.com are not having fun because their chosen candidates can not garner any similar kind of support so they throw a tantrum like little children in a playground. "If I can't win, you can't play my game!": They should be happy that Ron Paul is like Ronald Reagan in that he is attracting all freedom loving Americans with his ideologically driven and principled platform into the Republican big-tent. BTW Conservative – Someone who believes in traditional morality and capitalism, and the need for a limited government to allow both to flourish. Neoconservative – A "neocon" is more inclined than other conservatives toward vigorous government in the service of the goals of traditional morality and pro-business policies. Tends to favor a very strong foreign policy of America as well.
Wow! All the Ron Paul supporters are as civil as any other candidate in every forum I've ever seen. Why not smear other candidates, too? And isn't it a virtue to bombard discussion borads and flood online polls? It seems to me no other candidate has followers so passionate. All we want is for someone to follow the constitution. What's wrong with wanting a guy who follows the constitution?
I'm a Ron Paul supporter and I have to say that some of our supporters do not follow the path that Ron Paul treads. However, I can't entirely blame them for their zeal as most of the sites you are referring to constantly publish anti-Ron-Paul rhetoric filled with lies about Dr. Paul. Suffice to say the Anti-Paul articles do get old and what you are witnessing is frustration because of them.
If it isn't the blog that Ron Pail is a racist or nuts, then it is his fans that are nuts and crazies, and now they cheat and abuse others. Very interesting. What will come next? Ron Paul the child molester and his fans cheering on? The problem really stems from inaccurate and distorted blogs and opinion from people who don't agree with Dr. Paul. In response to that Paul's fans and supporter correct this, and yes, sometime sin an aggressive manner, but that isn't because they are crazy or aggressive. It is because any time any viable candidate outside the mainstream tries to run and begins to get some support they are ridiculed. I myself am happy to see people so passionate about someone. If you don't want aggressive responses, don't write bias and nonsensical articles and blogs. Thank God for people that are finally fed up with bias reports, which they generally can't do much about with the mainstream media, but with blogs then can. The reason why other bloggers who write negative blogs about other candidates is because either supporters are not very passionate about their candidate, which should tell you something about the candidate
Ron Paul supporters are often passionate. This passion can indeed lead to less civil tones. I suggest that any readers who are interested in the topic might scan the anti-Paul posts at the two websites which banned Paul posts and decide for themselves which group was more abusive. I found more than enough sophomoric cheap-shots and ad-hominems to go around. I am a Ron Paul supporter who tries to post as civilly as possible whenever I can. Ron Paul himself is a gentleman who seldom comments negatively on his opponents. Congressman Paul's focus is on the issues of constitutional liberty, fiscal responsibility, and smaller federal government. Many of these other issues are simply distractions. But I do agree with Mr. Eberle's call for civil discourse. I support that call to both sides. As a postscript, I offer this link as food for thought when Internet bloggers feel the necessity to initiate open debate, but find themselves with insufficient dermal depth for the inevitable variety of responses: http://www.fallacies.info/passiveaggressive.html
It hardly seems fair to claim that Ron Paul's supporters are any more or less uncouth as any other candidate's followers. In fact I recently read an article where during the Democratic Debate in Vegas the college infighting and hijinks were quite the spectacle. It's just the viewpoint of the proprietors of the website's interviewed, who clearly disagree with the Ron's message and are making this a platform to discredit him. It's becoming quite a trend. Hopefully the conscientious reader will find the truth for themselves. What are they so afraid of? --SOB--
We are essentially an injustice group of supporters. We love Ron Paul and stand up to the establishment for what he has to say. Even if you don't agree with what Ron Paul has to say, you can respect his honesty and integrity. Something I have never seen my lifetime. Honestly, we haven't seen this kind of statesman in 100 years. I am a democrat and I support Ron Paul... Kyle San Diego, Ca.
It's a two-way street when it comes to civility in debating politics, and any media pointing fingers at Paul supporters calling "Foul!" needs to take a good look in the mirror. Anyway, I fail to see how this has any relevance at all to the candidate or the Presidential race in general. I'd rather discuss the actual issues at hand instead of talking about a candidate's supporters, their character, or who endorses them. I think we can all agree the issues are more important.
It's unfortunate that as the grassroots of the Republican Party moves back towards small-government conservatism, that the fringe elements of neoconservatism still continue to attract so much attention. Fewer and fewer Republicans want anything to do with the massive failures of the neocon fringe during its short but ugly time in power: The failed presidency of George W. Bush; The failed military policies that fire Arabic translators for being gay just before going to war in an Arabic-speaking nation; The failed domestic policies that destroyed an American city by giving critical emergency management jobs to incompetent cronies; The failed economic and monetary policies that have led to the collapse of the dollar versus the euro, yen, gold, or the barrel of oil; The failed Iraq War that has brought not regional stability, but a new nexus of terror to the world. Let's quit listening to the real fringe elements here. The fringe, the lunatic, wacko, wingnut fringe, is not the supporters of Ron Paul and a return to quiet, normal, peaceful conservatism. The wacko fringe are the neocons. It's time to take this country away from the wackos before they finish their attempts to destroy it.
Notice how website operators use the very same language that they accuse the Ron Paul fans of using. What you see is websites attacking Dr. Paul because he isn't pro-war. They call Paul and his supporters kooks, liberals, etc. And then when they get hate mail, they go "Look at these crazy people! They needed to be banned!"
What you are suggesting in this entire article you've written, is group responsibility - that a person shares blame by being in a group. The notion that one person's poor behavior can be transferred, shared, claimed, rewarded or punished, to someone else by association is absurd. There is only one responsibility - personal responsibility. Ron Paul has said "just because someone supports me does not mean I support them". It is not Ron Paul's responsibility to nanny his supporters behavior just as it is not my responsibility how you raise your children. The responsibility lies with the person. Group responsibility, groupthink, or classism, is anethemic to liberty and personal responsibility - which is Ron Paul's message. Obviously, the argument stops there when discussing types of behavior that are supposedly attached by association, but I will mention, for your benefit, the term "neocon" is short for neoconservative, which is a term the "new" republicans gave themselves, and is used in conversation for brevity. See http://www.newamericancentury.org for the origin. As for "spoiling" "unscientific polls to gauge the popularity of the Republican field", Ron Paul supporters cannot be blamed for the lack of enthusiasm, dedication, or organization in other candidate. That is another stab using group association, which is fallacious. -Terry Hamel
The article basically says that Ron Paul fans are rude. Yet, are they rude? The article makes no attempt to address that question objectively. I think this is a baseless hit piece on Ron Paul and his support. James
Ron Paul is the real deal. The groundswell of support is just amazing! I see his signs all over the place, and almost none for the other candidates. I think the people are sick of business as usual, and see that Ron Paul is true to the Constitution, not the special interests. I am socially tolerant and fiscally conservative. I want to see the troops come home quickly. I want a strong and free America. This is why I support Ron Paul.
Its too bad some people have to ruin the peaceful revolution for us all, but you know what? If the peaceful revolution doesn't happen by Ron Paul winning the presidency, there will be a violent one, because we're sick of being owned by corporations and rich bankers. We will take this country back, whether its through peaceful means or violent ones. The majority of Americans will be on our side.
I have noticed that when someone reports startling nonsense and others start repeating this nonsense over and over in an attempt to make their misinformation appear to be the truth that suddenly when they are repudiated and called on these misrepresentations then the people who call then on their misrepresentations are the bad guys. Even in your article you fail to appreciate that a candidate such as Ron Paul who listens to his grass roots support will more than likely listen to the people when elected. What a strange idea, a politician that listens to his constituents and will adapt his plans to theirs if he believes they have the better idea. What a strange idea, a politician that will, on the campaign trail, consider ideas and plans to save the hard earned money sent to him from his supporters. What a good idea by Red State, they get massive readership by writing misrepresentative Ron Paul articles which they can then get extra income from advertisement. (By the way if the comments are massive then so was the reader ship.) In a true business like fashion they choose to ban Ron Paul supporters and lose advertising dollars. When they realized the follies of their ways they tried to get back the readership by posting other Ron Paul articles but those Paultards, as Red State and other seem to like refer to Ron Paul's supporters, simply stopped taking the bait and simply allowed Redstate to fall back into obscurity. Business wise isn't this a somewhat Re(tar)d (ed) action by Red State. As for the online polls and spammers, at least the accusation that there we a dozen or so spanners have disappeared which of course leads to the valid question of if 38,000 people could donate to Ron Paul in one day why are a few hundred or even a few thousand votes so difficult for other candidates to get. No money is involved. The regular polls are only now starting to mention his name so it is easy to see why he did not get more votes before. By the way how does a person get 2% of the vote when his name is not even mentioned?
Some corrections to your article: Ron Paul did NOT create "impressive online fundraising base"--it happened spontaneously as people like myself who heard his message voluntarily became active online supporters. There was no organization, I'm not even on any e-mail list, but I was ispired by his message of liberty and support for the principles of the constituion to do what I could to support him. Redstate did NOT issue selective bans of "of especially vocal backers" of Ron Paul--Redstate banned ALL new members from posting anything about Ron Paul. Paul's backer "spoiled the fun" by bombarding message boards and online polls? Couldn't it be that there are just a lot of us? A lot more than the mainstream polls will recognize? Why don't the supporters of other candidates show their support? Could it be because there are just not many of them? And don't try to claim that they're just not online. 80% of adult americans have internet access. Why not try to recall some of your journalistic training if you had any and investigate Ron Paul and the people supporting him and write an objective article?
Ron Paul Bots are zealots. I don't suggest you continue beyond this farce to say that Ron Paul is getting any media "coverage". I have yet to see a report on Ron Paul on any channel that didn't spend more time bashing him than saying whatever it is they had to report. "Of course he won't win." Is just about the least offensive thing I've heard. It's happening on both sides. People who are supposed to be neutral seem to want to tear his throat out, and they hold nothing back in saying so. Find me one neutral report on Ron Paul, just one that doesn't assert whether or not he WILL win, and then maybe I'd give a crap if his supporters use swear words. Things are getting ugly. Because Ron Paul represents change. Every other candidate is more of the same. The calming pacifism that the government has so longed to lull us into vs. Ron Paul. There are no Dems and Reps in this race, there is a pile of people, and there is Ron Paul. That pile is well known, I don't deny, but I can't pretend any of them aren't much different than each other, and none of them represent the Supreme Law of the Land. The average American has heard of the "Top 4". The average American has no idea what they represent, but they certainly have never heard of Ron Paul. That is not Democracy. Hell, this is a Mediocracy. CNN has decided who we elect. But nevermind the screaming millions the extreme minority of people who actually care. Ban them from your dog and pony shows.
Ron Paul gets 66% and it's deemed invalid because it's Ron Paul. Don't have an opinion poll online if you don't want to hear the opinions of the average internet user. Considering Ron Paul has more visits to his site than any other candidate and has more YouTube views, and wins text message polling as well, wouldn't it be foolish to think that he wouldn't win an online poll which tracks a younger more tech savvy audience? If you research how these "Scientific" polls are conducted, you will find them potentially more lopsided than the online polls. Case in point, if Ron Paul wins a poll, then it is instantly discredited by the main stream media. This will continue to happen until they achieve their goal of picking our candidate. Just go to ronpaul2008.com and see all the straw polls that he is winning that are not being reported.
The truth is,.... people are mad,... and they are mad at Washington. When looking closely at the situation, Ron Paul is practicaly the only candidate on the Republican side who is not a warmonger, and who is speaking with reason a logic. I don't believe cursing or insults are ways to express a message,.... but it's clear that the people who have done their research on our economy and foreign policy can clearly see how the rest of the candidates in the republican party are nothing more than Neo Con puppets,.. they've proved it on every debate...... People are mad,... really mad at the non sense these GOP wannabe conservatives come up with on every debate. I can't believe how anyone with a bit of sanity can't see that they only use fear tactics to push their War Agenda.
"Two high-profile conservative blogs, redstate.com and littlegreenfootballs.com, have issued selective bans on the more disruptive Paul supporters trolling the sites." You've got to be kidding me. Maybe these sites would be considered conservative if they were created and operated out of the Soviet Union.
You say tomato, I say tomato. Hmm. That doesn't come across so well in print. Anyway, you get the idea. One person calls it shilling for Ron Paul, another calls it a discussion. What is this? Shilling or discussing your article? Because if it is the latter then it is the exact same thing that Redstate and littlegreenfootballs are banning. Discussion. Any discussion. That is ok, because frankly, if they choose to limit their discussions to only a few candidates, (ever notice how when they discuss it Rudy it is never shilling) then there is no reason to take part in such a limited debate. It is boring. Also, anti-Paulites are much worse than the folks who support the candidate. The Antis are a group of people who tend to attack Dr. Paul's character and the character of the people supporting him without every discussing an actual issue. It is difficult to win an argument against Ron Paul on the issues: you have to claim you are against the Constitution, think the government should spy on its citizens more, and that we have way too many civil liberties. Since they can't say that, they say he is a kook and leave it at that. For the folks supporting Ron Paul, these direct insults are not taken lightly. This man is the most amazing patriot we have ever seen. He is like Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin or any of the other founding fathers. He wants to protect Americans, not big business. When you attack our one chance to get out from under oppression we get upset and fight back. It is always the fighting back that gets RP supporters in trouble, they rarely get in trouble for starting something. So, goodbye redstate and littlegreenfootballs and anyone else who complains that they have way too many people stopping by their sites when they discuss Ron Paul. The good news is that all of those sites have dropped drastically in web traffic so I am sure they are pleased. At GOPUSA.com they were very unhappy that all of their articles falsely attacking Ron Paul were costing them more bandwidth. I suppose they could have just stopped libeling him. But as I said it the beginning, tomato, tomato.
I am a Ron Paul supporter, I have been accused of un-becoming behavior! Well, if being pasionate after 20 years of apathy-due to lack of a worthy candidate- causes me to be over zealous SO BE IT! I am not a nut on a computer! I am a 41 year old, single mother, and an extremely proud American, that finally feels compelled to give my hard earned money to a "Politition"!!! That is a huge - huge- huge- accomplishment for a presidential candidate! GO RON PAUL 2008!
I am very supportive of the Ron Paul campaign. I am certain that we need to "put the brakes", so to speak, on the out-of-control size and scope of our federal government. Our founders were keen observers of history, and they tried to build as many safeguards into the Constitution as they could to prevent our federal government from doing precisely what it is doing now. I have no doubt that most of our elected officials in Washington are well-intentioned people, but they are so caught up in the Republican-Democrat, winner-takes-all sports mentality that our founders' recipe for the long-term health of our republic, the Constitution, is falling through the cracks. Judges are nominated not to interpret the Constitution as our founders framed it but to put a partisan spin on it. Our monetary system is inching closer and closer to collapse. The states, which would be able to best tailor solutions to their citizens' concerns, are powerless to the federal government's expensive, inefficient one-size-fits-all approach. I apologize that so many Ron Paul supporters have been less than civil in their use of blogging privileges. I consider it an amazing gift to be able to convey my opinions about what a journalist has written about my candidate, and provide coorection and clarification when needed. I think that the Internet is providing a very healthy shot in the arm to our democratic republican process. I cannot speak for all of those who have abused the privilege. I do know that the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters who blog do so civilly. But I can offer this as a kind of explanation for the rudeness of some: It is very frustrating to see this uniquely principled candidate getting spotty coverage by the press and be treated with scorn by the other Republican Party candidates for president mostly due to the single-digit poll numbers he has. The polling organizations use outdated means of contact that are most pronounced in the case of Ron Paul. Rapid changes in communication and information technologies have rendered the standard methods of contacting "likely voters" obsolete. The most enthusiastic supporters of Ron Paul are those who are avid users of the Internet who have been able to sidestep the inadequate major media coverage and find our more about him. They like what they see. Not coincidentally, this large segment of the population, being active users of new technology, have been discontinuing their land line phone service or have caller ID and do not answer unfamiliar callers. So, the supporters of Ron Paul KNOW there is much, much more support for him than the poll numbers show (Zogby pollsters this week acknowledged this), and are frustrated by the lack of coverage and lack of respect shown him by the media and political powerbrokers. Not to excuse the rude blogging, but just to try to explain it. It's too bad that it tends to reflect badly on Dr. Paul. He is an amazing candidate, and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for us to pull ourselves out of our death-spiral dive. I'm convinced that if we elect any of the others, it will be pretty much business as usual until our economy suddenly collapses.
while it's true there are some vocal supporters who fit the profile outlined above, the majority of posts I've read are from highly educated, articulate and passionate people. I think what's happening on the internet around Ron Paul is great - and absolutely riveting. There is no "spamming" going on. Just an active community that is taking full advantage of social networks and message boards. That to me is fair play when someone posts an online poll. Internet users tend to be highly educated and (in Malcolm Gladwell speak) influencers who create a tipping point for ideas. I would posit that if you split the difference between "scientific polls" (mostly focussed on land lines and registered republicans from past races) and the internet polls you would get a more accurate idea of Ron Paul's true support.
I didn't know "neo con" was a slur. so while the media is allowed to call Ron Paul supporters a bunch of terrorists, his supporters should quietly sit while the country continues its decline. I don't think so. http://www.teaparty07.com
"acknowledged that they hadn't cheated by voting more than one time but said they had clearly skewed the results through their get-out-the-vote campaign. " Ron Paul 's supporters are becoming notorious for sleazy, essentially stupid tactics like this," he wrote." So now not voting more than once in an online poll is sleazy? All Ron Paul supporters are doing is telling their friends, "Hey here is an online, poll why don't you vote for Paul in it." It that so immoral? If no one is votinig more than once, why can't other grass roots campaigns get people to vote for their candidates?
I am a Ron Paul supporter, and I comment online, but do not resort to profanity and personal attacks. However, I can understand to an extent why people might be driven to do so. They are passionate about what they see as core American values under attack. At the same time, they see that all the other candidates, as well as the mainstream media, back values that are compromises to these values, or even in conflict with them. Specifically, these candidates support a war that is bankrupting the country, destroying its international reputation, killing thousands of innocents and opposed by 70% of the population. It's hard not to get out of line in dealing with that. However, one complaint that I think is bogus is people getting upset about Paul fans helping him win online polls. Look, this is politics, at the end of the day, it's about motivating people to vote so you can win. Rather than cry about the effectiveness of Paul's supporters, the other campaigns should get off their butts and try to compete.
Nice one sided story. To bad you couldnt be civil enough to include the possible provocation from the other online posters. Thats right, its all the Paul supporters being rude, unlike Sean Hannity, Bill Oreilly, and the people who believe everything they say, and dont want to take the effort to read up on the issues. Maybe if it really was a fair and balanced political arena, then we wouldnt get suckered down into the mud with you.
I think that the writer here has it backward. I believe that he knows he has it backward, thus a cheap shot a Ron Paul supporters. I've been on plenty of republican sites and the bulk of deroggatory statements are aimed at Ron Paul supporters, not the other way around.
Seems the only sites that have a problem with Ron Paul's supporters are the ones that have already decided that Ron has no chance. Dr. Paul's message has widely been misrepresented on most websites and in the media. If the lies about Ron would stop on these sites the onslaught would too.
Mmmm, let me see if I have this correct. Let's highlight the bad behavior of a few ardent on-line supporters to prove that Dr. Paul is not presidential material. I guess corporate media coverage has to do something to derail his campaign since debating his message of freedom and sound markets is impossible (no good arguments) or bothersome (summarily dismissed because it runs counter to the establishment-government-runs-your-life-because-we-are-at-war argument). Corporate media will soon learn what makes for "scientific" polling when Ron Paul takes New Hampshire AND Iowa. The squirming by pundits to justify their myopic coverage of the presidential race will be entertaining, indeed.
Quote "Likewise, littlegreenfootballs.com dropped Paul's name from its online polls in May after Paul backers racked up another win by alerting colleagues to vote on the site. Site operator Charles Johnson acknowledged that they hadn't cheated by voting more than one time but said they had clearly skewed the results through their get-out-the-vote campaign. " Ron Paul 's supporters are becoming notorious for sleazy, essentially stupid tactics like this," he wrote." I would have thought that "get-out-the-vote" is what the democratic process is all about. Are these people saying that, because the Ron Paul campaign is way better organized online than any other campaign, this is, in itself, somehow "sleazy" and "stupid".
Nothing like cencership or bias in the news media to rile things up Huh? This is one of the most slanted pieces of psuedo news I've heard in a week! Making out that Ron Paul supporters are nuts or crazy or rude, Really? Red State and Little green foot balls Wow Really Intelligent web sites. Look everyone, point it out ,Bias, Slanted cencership. Calll a spade a spade, Anyone realize that these sites and a few others like them don't want you to hear about Dr. Paul? Why? Because he represents Real American values, thoughts and ideas, somthing the current cabal doesn' want you to hear. Why? Because they have another agenda and its not about American freedon or Liberty. Its about war and war profits and the destruction of our very country (NAU). Remember Blowback? thats what the establishment gets when you censer RON Paul. I'm a supporter and a donar to his campanigne and although I may seem direct, this is certainity not RUDE.......... RON PAUL 2008..........or gather up your chains of bondage, the ones your Children will get after you................
My experience has been quite the opposite regarding Ron Paul supporters. They have been almost unbearably pleasant and chipper, while making an effort to clear up misconceptions about their candidate. It doesn't sound like you are familiar with the topic on which you've chosen to write.
Enthusiasm for Ron Paul is being misinterpreted as not being "civil". What else would you expect for people who see Ron Paul as one of the last hopes for this country? I have observed many Ron Paul supporters online, and most all of them are civil, respectful, and kind. Since the volume of Ron Paul supporters is so high, this is often misinterpreted as "spam", "spambots", and other derogatory terms. You article did not present the other side of the story. Many of the anti - Ron Paul posters on websites such as Redstate frequently exhibit profanity and insults in their posts, and it is clear that the establishment is trying their best to bait Ron Paul supporters to put them to shame. You seem to be blind to prejudice, slander, and incivility that is being heaped upon Ron Paul supporters. The mainstream media is much to blame for this... almost always referring to Ron Paul as a "long shot". The derogatory terms heaped upon Ron Paul is more than enough to explain why many Ron Paul supporters get frustrated. For the most part, Ron Paul supporters are kind, tenderhearted people who want the best for their country. They are frustrated that many people cannot understand them. Ron Paul is doing very well, and there is a good chance that he could win the nomination. The closer he gets to the nomination, the more we are going to see articles such as yours slandering Ron Paul supporters as being "uncivil". Go Ron Paul!!!
If anybody does a little research, they will soon realize how biased the media has been towards Ron Paul. There is no need for them to constantly use terms such as kooky, nuts, fringe. The Paul supporters are fighting the only way they can. Let them fight.
If you think were good at getting out the vote online, Just wait 'till the primaries.
Of course, some publications realized this well before those mentioned in the article: http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/williams/11012007.htm
Dear Shawn, I am a Ron Paul supporter and do think this article could have been much more balanced. I do visit some Blogs though only one of the three mentioned here and article comments sections regarding Ron Paul. While I have witnessed some of what you reported it has been my experience that Ron Paul supporters are normally more civil than their counterpart Ron Paul detractors. For instance, you quoted Mr. Eberle "The typical e-mail from a Ron Paul supporter often contains profanity [I have rarely witnessed this]...throw out slurs such as 'neo-con'.' Well the truth is the term 'Neo' means new and 'Con' is short for conservative. Since, traditional conservatives (Ron Paul supporters) are not for big deficit spending and unjustified, illegal wars as the current so-called conservatives are then the term Neo-Con is not a slur but rather an accurate description. It sounds to me these new conservatives or Neo-Cons are just mad that there are actually some traditional conservatives left that wish to distinguish themselves from this new Neo-Con ideology. Whereas Leon Wolf says Ron Paul supporter are "a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans." This is a gross generalization that happens to be grossly inaccurate because probably around 90% of Ron Paul supporters are traditional conservatives that oppose the new warmongering Neo-Con ideology. We would rather return to traditional Republicans themes of less movement, lower taxes, fiscal restraint and no unnecessary war and UN police keeping. Does Mr. Wolf think that Barry Goldwater Jr. is a Liberal? The son of the conservative Republican movement has endorsed RON PAUL and is therefore himself a Ron Paul supporter. See this link Ron Paul Endorsed by Barry Goldwater, Jr. Sir, please try a little harder to be a slight-bit more balanced next time you write about us Ron Paul supporters. Thank you, David Douglas
I think it more likely that redstate and little green footballs dropped RP supporters was not because they were uncivil but because they challenged the perception of what it meant to be conservative. Granted, some RP supporters are uncivil and they make it known through the internet. As for "spamming" polls--this is ridiculous. Polls are there to increase traffic and measure popularity, and RP is incredibly popular on the internet. "scientific" polls use only land-line phones and call "likely voters"--meaning the 6.6% of republicans that voted in the 2004 Primary. Hardly scientific, wouldn't you say? And little green footballs says "Get-out the vote" campaigns are sleazy? I thought that's what democracy was about, but that's just little-old me thinking voting is a good thing, you know? But maybe I"m wrong and footballs is right--maybe convincing other people to vote is a bad thing... Tact is important, and it's important to be civil in a civil society, and i think that criticism of RP supporters is valid But I also think the writing is on the wall, and republicans who believe in American empire, policing the world, and asserting control of other country's resources are a dying breed, and as far as I can tell no one will go to the funeral but pundits who want to write on it.
Most of these problems you site are actually due to the number of Ron Paul supporters online and not necessarily the behavior. Also some of the websites you use as an example were already hostile to Ron Paul's message.
At face value, the following is just an unbelievably unfair spin of the issue. QUOTE: "'[supporters] had clearly skewed the results through their get-out-the-vote campaign.' Ron Paul 's supporters are becoming notorious for sleazy, essentially stupid tactics like this." Am I dreaming, or did you just call democracy "sleazy"? Folks organize and get behind a candidate, and that is cause for being labeled "notorious"? I'm sorry, but there are so many problems with this contention I won't even begin to enumerate. To be perfectly fair, you might also consider the following possibilities: 1) That due to the sheer volume of online Ron Paul supporters, his campaign could have a fraction of the number of discourteous supporters as the other candidates, but still have more net volume. It's simply a matter of record that Ron Paul's online presence is many times greater than the other GOP candidates. 1b) Per point 1a, this article could be profoundly misrepresenting Ron Paul's base. 2) Discourteous blog comments or emails could also be the work of Ron Paul detractors. It would be unfair to assert that supporters of other candidates are immune from the temptation, and it would be a plausible tactic to try and slow down the campaign, as nothing else has worked.
honestly, lets be serious for a moment. These broad generalizations about a group of people are unfair and unfounded. That being said, this could be said about any politicians supporters. by the way, I am a Ron Paul supporter. think.
I was banned from GOPUSA simply for defending Ron Paul. I did not swear; I only wanted to debate the facts as I saw it. GOPUSA may have gotten some off-color comments from Paulites, but the regular commenters on their site were just as nasty. I do not want to waste my time on sites such as these. The "new" republican base is shrinking, and Paulites need to spend their energy on the independents. I will try to be civil, but so many people like to lie about Ron Paul, and we are not going to let anyone get away with it. Two can play this game.
"In addition, Paul's backers have spoiled the fun when the site has sponsored unscientific polls to gauge the popularity of the Republican field. In September, when Eberle sponsored one such poll, Paul's backers bombarded the site. Paul ended up with 66 percent of the vote. Fred Thompson finished second, with 12 percent. By contrast, in the scientific polls sponsored by major news organizations, Eberle noted, Paul routinely finishes with less than 5 percent of the tally." Is it that hard to understand? On the internet, Paul has the most support. It is not because he appeals to "techies" like some claim..it is because people who do their research on the internet are not dependent on who the news outlets provide as "top tier candidates". Saying that Paul backers "spoiled the fun" implies a serious misunderstanding..that poll gave perfectly accurate results about those who are free from the mainstream media and use the internet. And, although you may find it distasteful, the real final results would (or will) match those internet polls if the masses are informed about Ron Paul. If you really believe that "scientific" polls provided by the major news outlets are accurate and trustworthy, then you are extremely naive. The the major news outlets were trustworthy, NBC would not have simply broadcasted poll results for candidates 1,2,3,5, and 6, while leaving out #4: Ron Paul.
Funny how in a democratic republic--that is to be for the people, by the people and of the people, a group of supporters is criticized regarding their ability to "get out the vote". I am a "rabid" Ron Paul fan because I believe in what he stands for--such "whacky" things as freedom and liberty and less government control. I agree that profanity and name calling are wrong, even though in the media, because I support Ron Paul, I have been called a "terrorist", "loony", "fringe"--the list could go on and on. The passion is evident in the Ron Paul campaign. His campaign is turning this election upside down and no amount of censorship and complaining will be able to stop it!! Go Ron Paul!!
I have to wonder what is wrong with 1 person 1 vote, I can understand complaining if people are voting multiple times when it's only meant for 1 person, but isn't a online poll designed to show interest? it's not Paul supporters fault that other candidates can't get support to vote in online polls.....Ron Paul wins all the online polls, he wins all the polls after the debates, and he has won over half the straw polls to date, those are polls that people attend in person and pay. Last election at this time John Kerry was getting about 5% in the polls, 4 days before the Iowa vote he was in 3rd place in polls and 27% behind Dean, yet he won the vote. Bush also did not poll well when he won his first term, Clinton did not poll well when he won his first election. ever think that maybe the media polls are inaccurate and the system needs to change?
One of the first honest and unbiased critiques of Ron Paul's supporters / campaign. I don't think the information posted above is highly relevant to Ron Paul's campaign, however - clearly a majority of voters are offline, not online (otherwise the national polls would reflect that) so being barred online doesn't really matter. What matters, is the $$$. And without a doubt, the online force (disruptive or not) stands by their candidate. It's hard to condemn people, diplomatic or not, that put their money where their mouth is. I don't see neo-con pushers putting their money towards their candidates. That's the primal difference - when you put your money where your mouth is, you're not bsing anymore. 99% of neo-con "discussion" is nothing but BS, just as all the pro-war discussion since its suggestion and inception was - I should know, I lost hair trying to make sense of it all until I realized they are not actually discussing anything.
I am a Ron Paul supporter, and I have read many, many blog postings and news stories with long comment threads. I try to be as objective as possible, and, while I have seem some abusive RP supporters, I really believe there has been more bad behavior on the part of anti Ron Paul people. Strongly stated opinions and honest, vigorous disagreement don't constitute bad behavior. And people being motivated to vote fairly in online polls do not constitute spam. But the anti Ron Paul people have been snide, demeaning, and many times don't argue in good faith. The RedState episode is a good example. I lurked there for a while before RP supporters were banned. Any supportive RP post was instantly met with dismissal, with a demeaning attitude like that of a school yard bully. No attempt was ever made to engage in actual debate. Also, many pieces that Ron Paul supporters respond to are out-and-out smears against a man we know has the highest level of integrity.
Spoiled the fun? Why should an unscientific poll be fun for non-Paul backers, but not Paul supporters? Generally, Paul supporters are irate in their comments because they are responding to people who have insulted them. By saying Paul supporters "spoiled the fun" of the Eberle poll completely dismisses Ron Paul supporters. Paul supporters face that kind of garbage repeatedly by people follow politics for sport. Yes, isn't it "fun" to speculate about the republican presidential horse race? It only comes once every four years, and we want to enjoy the ride! Please excuse Paul supporters if they don't take such a cavalier attitude to the presidential race. There's nothing fun about seeing the US stumble over it's excesses and seeing the world's best example of Liberty slip further and further from it's ideal. Many Paul supporters feel that the country may soon be beyond repair, so please excuse them if they are spoiling the good time of some online pollsters.
RE: name calling. 1st off how is neocon a bad word? If I took offense at being called a liberal who cares? How is this a bad word I ask. Neo=new, con=Conservative. Second, have you seen what they post about Ron Paul & his supporters? Nasty, nasty stuff. Try Wonkett or Redstate. They are spewing disrespectful jargon all over the place. They call us idiots, jerks, Ronbots, Paultards and much much worse. I feel like this debate is completely one sided. The anti-Paul websites are horribly unintelligent and slanderous. Yet when a few supporters email or post back, they get the "shame on you" label or they cry fowl and the media goes to town. I think these sites should buck up. If they don't like what we (or should I say the more fervored Ron Paul supporters) have to say, they should really look at their own posts and rhetoric before sicking the media on us. Third. The GOP is blindly following Guilliani for undemocratic reasons. I know this firsthand. I talked w/ several GOP committee members who have stated (off the record) they did not approve or think Guilliani best represented the party, but that he had the best chance because of name recognition, to beat Hillary & the Democrats. The GOP's actions are what we are mad about and this is the main reason for that specific backlash. I think you need to delve further. There is definately more to this debate about the supporters. The ant-Paul crowd yells fowl, but are throwing huge cackling chickens at us. Yours Truly, An active member of the voting public PS. Not all supporters jump to these internet polls. Makes you wonder what is really going to happen at the voting stations. I for one have never been polled via phone. Reason: I only have a cell phone, as most of us 35 and under do not have a need for 2 phone bills. AND I switched parties just so I could vote Republican. Maybe I'm not truly a Republican? I vote for whomever I trust to run the country and don't care about Party Lines. (As most Americans Don't)
"Two high-profile conservative blogs, redstate.com and littlegreenfootballs.com, have issued selective bans on the more disruptive Paul supporters trolling the sites." That is a fact. But your argument, Sir, that this a question of civility, is ridiculous. It is a question of control. Those two sites closed down Ron Paul supporters because they were tired of hearing people "shill" for Ron Paul. Since when is "neo-con" a slur? It is a part of the political discourse and the objective name for the promoters of the Bush foreign policy, Republicans and Democrats included. This is about message control, and people felt uncomfortable not being able to get together and talk about how wonderful the next neo-con Republican will be in '08 without being challenged. I believe the term for this sort of a line, cut and paste from those blogs, is yellow journalism: "...Ron Paul is having a hard time keeping his cyber-supporters in civil debate mode." Any proof of that but what the blogs, who are anti-Paul, are saying? Of course not. Not that you printed. And that's why it's slanted. And that's why it's not objective journalism. Have a nice day, Sir, and don't confuse an argument with incivility. Curtis E.
I am not sure if I have ever spoken to a Ron Paul supporter who was not civil. At least to my face. Ron's supporters love him so much and agree with his message of freedom they will many things to get him elected. But how do you spam a poll? I don't think you can do that. Each Person has a computer and I know myself that the sites I have gone to, if you try to vote more than once you simply can't. I wanted to see for myself. You get this message that says you have already voted. So you would need more than one computer to vote more than once. I think Dr. Paul is a very nice man. Most people like most doctors and Ron Paul is no exception. He went into the medical field because he wants to help people. His politics are no different. He simply and without any malice wants to help the American People keep their freedom. I see everday just how much Americans do not know their American History. They don't know their constitution and they don't know the law of the land. For instance, how many people do you know who know what the ten planks of the communist manifesto are. How many people do you know that know all ten of these planks are now operating in the united states? How many people do you know realize that by definition when all ten of the planks are in place we are living right now under a communist govt? Not many. How can they not know? Because one of those planks is Control of Education. You ever hear of the Department of health, education and welfare? Government agency? this agency decides what people learn. It is operating in the United States right now as are all the other planks. Did you know that the united states used to be number one in math and in science? They now rank number 21. This is due to government interference in education. How many do you know who are graduates of high school and cannot read or write? There are plenty. Now if they cannot read nor write in order to get their information once they are grown up, they rely on the what? The television. Television is run by the FCC. another government agency. So they tell you what you what they want you to know and you believe it because it was on the news. How ignorant is that? ignorance might be bliss but it is still ignorance. The government has stolen your land, and your private property. Why did all of you let this happen? Our founding fathers warned us of all this stuff which is happening and is still happening. But the people did not watch. They have let their elected officials do what they want to do and the government has run amok. The government now controls everything in America. Soviet. Communist. and worse yet, the people are still relying on the government to bail them out. So they will elect hillary or obama or giuliani and it will get worse not better. The dollar is falling more and more, we are getting less and less and its all due to the way the government runs this country. The soviet government who sit and laugh at the people because they are ignorant and the ones trying to wake these people up are their own countrymen. Now which is civil? Someone who takes extreme measures to wake you up, or a government who wants you bowing at their feet?
I must beg to differ with this article on some points. I have seen some of this abusive language on some sites I frequent including RedState.com. The times the name calling is present it is mutually destructive. The "Anti-Paul" often call Paul suporters names more readily than the other way around; liberals, nutjobs, wackjobs, and even terrorists, not to mention blatant profanity. Belittlement is also a common theme as evidenced in your own quote from Wolf. Really it takes two to tango and as we learned in kindergarten "sticks and stones", etc. And since when is voting in an online poll "spoiling the fun"? Isn't the purpose of a publicly accessible poll to get the opinion of the people who take it? How can Johnson call a poll that is not cheated upon skewed? It's not like Fred's supporters can't use the Internet. Frankly, Eberle, Johnson, and Wolf just don't like Paul and have chosen to ban him from their sites; this just shows their bias. This is a good article; I just think you missed out on an opportunity to fully represent both sides of this issue by focusing more on the "banners" than the "banned".
Excuse me, but when is it sleazy to be passionate about an ethical man who is willing to honor & restore the Constitution? How is it you can write such an article and truly stand behind your words. Maybe, just maybe, you might try to equal the research on Constitutional History Ron Paul supporters are doing. Thank God for Ron Paul, hopefully people will begin reading American History instead of watching American Idol...
I'm not a Paul supporter, but I like what he's bringing to the race. This article should have considered another reason Paul supporters are being banned: Some right-wing sites can't handle dissent within Republican ranks about the state of the party. Paul's breaking the GOP's 11th commandment by criticizing his own, and when so many bloggers like Charles Johnson have hitched their wagon to Bush's brand of Republicanism, they're intolerant of other views about the GOP. How could you quote Johnson without recognizing the hilarity of what he's saying? Since when is getting out the vote a sleazy, stupid tactic?
And over and over and over, when will the attempts to smear Ron Paul and his supporters end? There must be ALOT of scared people in the good old D.C. FIRST: Ron Paul cannot control what his supporters do. SECOND: There are these types of supporters with all the campaigns. I've seen them. THIRD: It's not that RP supporters have been banned by alot of blogs, just one that I know of and locked from commenting at one other post on another... but that being said.. yes there are some who do not maintain civility. MOST of us do. I think it is unethical to make it look like it's the majority of us rather then the tew "bad apples". I'm highly offended that I am being made out to be one of them. It's just getting to be a bit much to constantly be included in a smear campaign by you guys simply for no other reason then that I support Ron Paul.
I am a Ron Paul supporter, and this article tags something that has been concerning for months now. While I am an ardent supporter of Dr. Paul, I do not feel that hostile, profanity-laced emails and comments do any of us any good. I sometimes wonder what the heck some of these people are thinking. Certainly, the mainstream media has ignored Dr. Paul or engaged in ad hominem attacks. His positions have been repeatedly mis-stated, his supporters have been called every name in the book (often on sites that issue their brand of hate,but do not allow for rebuttle). It is my hope that my fellow supporters will try a little harder to emulate Dr. Paul, and engage in honest, intelligent, RESPECTFUL debate, even when those we are debating are being ...less than civil (had to edit myself there!). I could gripe a little about some statements in this article, but there's no real need. Overall, this is a message that some of my fellow supporters need to understand. Dr. Paul does not gain momentum by his supporters being uncivilized. Dr. Paul gained my support by his message and the example that he sets. Ron Paul 2008
Wow! Imagine a Ron Paul supporter calling someone else a "neo-con" or worse yet a "fake Republican". Yes those that use such awful language should loose there rights to post political comments. End free speech now!
You wrote that redstate.com had to stop allowing neg post by Ron Paul supporters and then you admit that they would not allow positive posts because it was 'obvious' that these could not be republicans. Well I am! You also wrote that they won a poll not by voting more than once or cheating but by.... well voting more than the other guys! Yeah that is sleazy when your guy does not win! I gotta go throw up now.
I think the reason alot of news networks and newspapers etc.. get angry posts from Ron Paul supports is because More often than Not the posts contain SLIGHTS against Ron Paul, MISS-QUOTES to Ron Paul. Call him *looney*, *fringe*, *crazy*, etc. etc. etc. and this inflames his supporters. Once the media quotes Ron Paul's political stances, messages, and other comments properly then perhaps the supporters might be more inclined to be nice. One of the main things that inflames us more than anything is saying "Ron Paul is a 9/11 conspiracy backet" which is furthest from the truth, but this comment is used in almost EVERY article about him. The articles are slanted and biased and anger people. No wonder you get negative feedback when post lies, mis-quotes, etc...
Wow, this article misses the whole point of Ron Paul's appeal. Ron Paul is not "having a hard time keeping his cyber-supporters in civil debate mode" because he does not attempt to control anyone but himself. It is not appropriate for Ron Paul or anyone in government to attempt to control free citizens in the United States. There are certainly annoying people of all political beliefs and all of the candidates have them. This article appears to attemp to smear Ron Paul by making him guilty by association. It reminds me of the media telling the voters that Ron Paul can not win so don't even think of voting for him. In fact Ron Paul dominates in Straw Polls, Debate Polls, Fund Raising, Web Traffic and Grass Roots Networking. Ron Paul is a "top tier" candidate and I have created a website to present this evidence. Please visit www.thecaseforronpaul.com and judge for yourself.
Very slanted in the Guilt By Association fallacy. There is great fear that drives the country. If you were riding in a car and saw that the driver was heading for the cliff yet he was arguing with someone in the back seat about some triviality; would you not be prompted to become very vocal to save yourself and the rest of the passengers? This is an analogy that fits with the present course of America. Ron Paul supporters have a greater awareness and thus are more vocal. Would not your frustration boil if the driver of the car denounced your warnings in favor of continuing the blather with the back row and the current path? War and Bankruptcy are coming. Will you raise your voice in protest or enjoy the ride over the cliff? Time Is Short; Vote Ron Paul To Avert Disaster.
This is interesting. Let's review: 1. Paul supporters express themselves. Heaven forbid! Unfettered free speech in forums where it is invited? How crass. 2. Blogs that claim to be Republican, with open comments, that are upset when some Republicans disagree with their GOP political norms? Tssk. 3. Paul supporters "get out the vote" for open on-line polls. Can't have that. Very "sleezy." Polls are only for those who agree with the poll writers. 4. Paul supporters are enthusiastic advocates, which is certainly a threat to the democracy. You're supposed to be compliant; conform with the norms; follow the program; or be quiet. 5. This creativity, independence, and zeal has to end. How can you control people who use their own resources and energy in support of a candidate? Unheard of. The leaders are supposed to lead and everybody else should just get along and go along. Gosh. Sounds like people exercising their freedom of speech. How pedantic.
The tin-foil hat loony crowd, fearing "islamofascists" under their beds and loving the mass murder of war as long as they don't have to fight it, have turned to insults and lies and generally uncivil and rude attacks on anyone who might dampen the public enthusiasm for a mighty military empire crushing harmless muslims everywhere. Having wrecked any civil debate by insulting and lying about Ron Paul for months as his popularity and success keep growing, they now turn to accusing his supporters of the rhetorical crimes that they themselves initiated and continue to deploy on a daily scale. Their dishonesty is, like their foreign policy, sadism on stilts, as they continue to cheer on the bombing of innocents and then accuse the victims of being "terrorists" when they defend themselves. These blood-thirsty hypocritical blowhards are claiming to be annoyed by the style of Ron Paul's supporters. Not so. The truth is that they are freightened by how many supporters he has. It is the quantity, not the quality that has them upset.
Being a Ron Paul supporter, I am very disappointed in the ways alot of his supporters have taken to criticism by using personal attacks and foolish arguments. Frankly, i've been getting a little pissed off by their attitudes and actions. These supporters DO NOT represent the majority of Ron Paul supporters, but by there constant actions they give this false impression and inadvertantly give Ron Paul a bad name. Ron Paul's monetary policy and foriegn policy opinions can be to a new comer seem very radical and off the wall. I myself was at first taken aback when I heard his ideas thinking that he was a little, let's just say "kooky" but then I listened more and found him concite in some issues. These troublesome supporters need to reach out to people, explain his ideas in a concite and rational manner and if people respond by disagreemant please don't call them neo-cons or other ridiculous slurs, just present his ideas again in a way they might be able to understand better and if they again don't understand try again or let it go and leave the argument agreeing to disagree. Ron Paul's philosophy is about reaching out to people, talking to people and being compassionate but some of his supporters are doing just the opposite and showing a sharp contrast as to his beliefs.
The GOP can't take their own medicine. Why should they be surprised that Paul supporters have an assertive attitude? After being ridiculed as tin foil hat wearing nuts, suddenly they're realizing that we're actual voters, not spammers. I'll be contributing my next $100 on the next "money bomb" date. Even if Ron Paul does not win, the movement will last.
I support Ron Paul, and I can't see how it is productive for me to stop voting for him in online polls or talking about him in comment sections that solicit my opinion. While I don't call names, I certainly believe that one of the prices one must pay for fame and influence is hate mail. I don't think this is reserved for bloggers. I don't condone it, but let's be realistic.
I'm an ardent Ron Paul supporter. I don't approve of profane or abusive posts and emails, and the small number of people who do that discredit themselves. That said, is such behavior nearly as bad as this sort of trash in the MSM? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg8M2JBIoqo&eurl=infowars.com/articles/us/ron_paul_glen_beck_considers_domestic_threat.htm
Still, it can't be as bad as the rhetoric of the GWB supporters.
If Ron Paul supporters are angry, it comes from biased or just flat out lazy reporting angering them. Your last paragraph is an example of this lazy reporting. The original site for the rally was the iconic independance hall in Philadelphia, which is perfect for Dr. Paul's campaign theme. After finding out the massive fees associated with independance hall, there was a decision made to move it to Valley Forge, PA. Supporters rallied, and a compromise was made allowing the event to remain in Philadelphia. Paul supporters were banned from Red State and Littlegreenfootballs (lol) for responding to attacks on Ron Paul made on those sites. Thier response was to ban anyone who dissents with thier opinion (it is a private site, that is thier right). Your article makes it sound like Ron Paul supporters trolled on Red State et al with no provocation, which is incorrect. How is it sleazy to organize and vote on a poll? You state that they did not cheat - so what about them voting thier opinion on an opinion poll was sleazy? P.S. - If Ron Paul fans have driven cross state to help him win most recent straw polls, will stand on corners waving signs in sub-zero weather, and have donated 4.38 million dollars to him in one day (with another scheduled for 12-16-07 that will be even bigger), do you really think they won't go vote in the primaries?
Your article is biased and slanted. The reason Ron Paul does so well in online polls is that he's very popular in the online world. Online polls, by definition, measure popularity in the online world. By every measure -- google searches, web hits, Youtube hits, meetup groups, etc. -- Ron Paul dominates the Internet more than any other politician. This may give a somewhat skewed result, because Ron Paul's supporters tend to be the sort of people that are online -- young, well-educated, and internet-savvy. This is a different demographic than the phone polls measure, which is generally older, poorer, and less educated. What's more Ron Paul supporters are far more passionate that the supporters of other candidates who take weaker, less principled stands on the issues. It's not that Ron Paul people are doing anything nefarious or underhanded. You suggest that Ron Paul supports' comments are laced with profanity. I've read lots of them, and I don't see any more profanity and name-calling in posts by Ron Paul supporters than any other candidate. Why didn't you challenge to person who made that claim to prove it. The real reason these web sites are banning Ron Paul supporters is that Ron Paul challenges the corrupt political establishment and is gaining in poplularity. Typically, Ron Paul's supporters will challenge and correct the lies and distortions these web sites publish about Ron Paul. It's not the name-calling and profanity that really bothers them -- it's really the truth that they fear.
I do believe that 'blaming the supporters' is just cover for Beltway Right types to block the message. Taft Republicans are making a comeback in the form of Ron Paul and that concerns those who have a vested interest in promoting ostensibly liberal Republicans as the frontrunners.
My impression of the article is that the author did not gain this information first hand, but is only relaying what he has been told by others. For example, I was reading RedState's blogs at the time that Paul supporters were starting to appear in great numbers, and I feel that RedState's account is somewhat disingenuous. Closer to the actual events would be to say that RedState would publish articles negative to Paul, Paul supporters would find the article via Google and respond, mostly in non-abusive ways. The RedState regulars were the ones that became more abusive and insulting, so that when a random Paul supporter posted on the site the regulars would promptly trash them with insults, calling them "crazy" "tin-foil hat wearing" "insane "and "stupid". It was only a small segment of the Paul supporters that reacted in kind. The choice to ban any and all favorable mention of Paul (criticizing and insulting Rep. Paul and his supporters by anyone was still allowed , of course) only came after the RedStaters found themselves in the extreme minority vs. the pro-Paul people. In other words, no longer able to shout them down, they pulled the plug. My own gut feeling is that the vast majority of the Paul supporters are not part of any network organized to flood internet polls and blogs, but are just very numerous and are personally affronted when they are accused of something underhanded. I think most of the new ones are actually taken aback when they are attacked for volunteering their opinion, when that is exactly what they were supposedly asked to do in the first place. It's not their fault they happen to be so numerous.
"In addition, Paul's backers have spoiled the fun when the site has sponsored unscientific polls to gauge the popularity of the Republican field. In September, when Eberle sponsored one such poll, Paul's backers bombarded the site. Paul ended up with 66 percent of the vote. Fred Thompson finished second, with 12 percent. By contrast, in the scientific polls sponsored by major news organizations, Eberle noted, Paul routinely finishes with less than 5 percent of the tally." I'm new to active political organizing, but it seems to me that being able to mobilize your supporters is an important component of any candidates campaign. Mr. Eberle seems to find it offensive that Paul supporters are mobilizing to demonstrate the strength of Dr. Paul's supporters. It's "sleazy" to want your candidate to do well by mobilizing his supporters. Mr. Eberle seems to think this isn't fun. I disagree. It is a tremendous amount of fun to see Ron Paul win every online poll, every post debate text poll and nearly every GOP Straw Poll. It's even more fun to hear these "political influencers" whining and crying about their lack of influence in controlling the results of "unscientific" polls. It is Mr. Eberle's inability to see the forest for the trees that leads him to remove Dr. Paul from his polls and then get upset when Dr. Paul's supporters "vent" their unhappiness to Mr. Eberle. We RP supporters are playing the political game in a new way with new tools because we are tired of the results of the old way and the old way doesn't like it. I'm sorry for Mr. Eberle's discomfort. Change is difficult. Unfortunately for Mr. Eberle, he's going to have to get use to it. A quote from Lao Tse comes to mind, "to resist change is like holding your breath, if you persist, you die."
"Site operator Charles Johnson acknowledged that they hadn't cheated by voting more than one time but said they had clearly skewed the results through their get-out-the-vote campaign." Isn't this what happens every election day? Don't we hear about vans picking people up, free meals, pushing, pulling, shoving, voters to the booths? What an incredible statement: "They didn't vote more than once but too many of them voted. Is it possible to say something more anti-democratic?
Sites like this, that publish articles like this, are just desperate to improve their site traffic and stickiness. I only come here to read the comments which are much better written than the article itself! Proud to be a Ron Paul Republican!
It is precisely this kind of shoddy journalism that makes Paul supporters unhappy. Had you, in fact, researched your article, instead of just parrotting the party line from RedState.com, you'd learn that they ban Paul supporters for defending their candidate from character assassination by Giuliani fans and others. In fact, it is not uncivil behavior that got us banned. It was our ability to civilly make coherent arguments that the RedState.com censors found hard to discount.
"The typical e-mail from a Ron Paul supporter often contains profanity and is filled with name-calling and attacks on the other candidates," he says. "They throw out slurs such as 'neo-con' or 'fake Republican' or 'sheeple' or 'jerks' or worse. They say people are 'stupid,' 'idiots,' 'traitors,' and worse for not supporting Ron Paul ." I WAS GONNA FIX THIS BUT: THAT"S PRETTY MUCH MUCH IT!
This myth needs to be exposed. Paul supporters are not rude or crude or sleazy in anyway. The problem is that there are so many of them that leave comments that it become cumbersome to wade through all the pro-paul comments. So I can see why it would be annoying to have to deal with 200 comments when you usually only have say 20 but you shouldn't call his supporters sleazy just because there are so many of them.
Wow. 92 comments that are respectful, invite discussion, and that are not using demeaning name calling. Makes one wonder that, perhaps, the real problem isn't the Ron Paul Supporters but instead is the writers at websites such as RedState and LittleGreenFootballs. It also makes me wonder if the other candidates could be employing trolls to pose as "Paulites". Yes, you got me, I too am a Supporter of "Dr. No".
I took the time to read all the posts responding to your article. I read a large number of well-reasoned, passionate, articulate responses. I found no profanity, and only the barest trace of strong language. Where are the raving nutcases here? Where are cursing blowhards? I only see a large number of normal Americans who are tired of the unbridled welfare/warfare rush into bankruptcy offered as the only alternative by all the other candidates. Does the author have the integrity to read the responses and comment honestly about their nature? I wait to see.
I am a former democrat who is very very concerned for our country. I have probably posted 200 to 300 comments online in support of Dr. Paul since i learned what he has been doing in the U.S. House of Reps for the last 10 terms. Every time I see a poll, i vote for Dr. Paul. It is truly baffling to me when profesional "communicators" from all mediums of discussion refer to me and my counterparts as "notorious for sleazy, essentially stupid tactics like this," or similar. I seek out discussion on Dr. Paul; are these online "masters of dialogue" not openly and vehomently insisting that we butt out of their dialogues? Please take 2 minutes to research and consider Dr. Paul on his own merits. That action alone could well deliver our country into an incredible and wonderful new state of Liberty.
The most manipulative words I've ever heard: "Don't throw away your vote!"
Will we need international election observers here soon?
He messed it up for Fred. Those Ron Paul voters are runing all the fun. (Maybe for the people who wanted to see Fred win) Yep it hurts when you get a taste of your own medicine. These blogs are not innocent and have in some cases accused Ron Paul a 10 TERM REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN of being a terrorist, a kook, and all kinds of other negative attacks. That is the problem with freedom, sometimes you can not control what others say. Not allowing them to say it because you do not agree however shows what kind of AUTHORITARIAN scum we are dealing with. Paul supporters are just voicing their opinion no limiting others from voicing theirs so who here has the problem.
Ha, Ha, Ha. Funny story. It's too bad all the sites you mention aren't exactly in Ron Paul's corner. I have never visited any of those sites and have no wish to. Anyhow their credibility is slim to none, if they are so dainty that they can't support FREEDOM OF SPEECH on the great grassroots gathering spot of the 21st Century, the Internet. Why not cover a REAL STORY (SORRY FOR BEING IMPOLITE WITH CAPITALS, my bad)... like how Ron Paul's poll numbers, money, and momentum are all surging while Red State favorites like Huckleberry and Thompson are flat lining nationally and in other early states (with the exception of Iowa).
What a ridiculous hatchet job on Ron Paul. I can't believe I was linked to this garbage by Reuters, who I assumed was more reputable than to print such partisan propaganda. Ron Paul has an extremely attractive political platform. It's a shame the medial isn't giving him a fair shake.
Redstate has more important things to go, like push the Islamophobia charade.
This is just another attack article at Dr. Paul. The man earned every supporter he has. It is sad, and very maddening that the majority of journalists just discredit him. That makes for an even stauncher base of support. In the eyes of a 'tuned-in' voter, Ron Paul is the only Republican that stands a shot at taking down Hillary. If you believe Rudy or Romney could beat Hillary, then we need to meet up and play some poker.
Oh, yeah? Well Neo-conservatives are a bunch of doodie-heads!
CQ, the Onion and the Daily Show are my favorite fake news sources.
Your article mentions that "in the scientific polls sponsored by major news organizations, Paul routinely finishes with less than 5 percent of the tally. Don't you find it odd that Ron Paul is left OFF many of those polls including the AP/IPSOS poll? How "scientific" is that? Enlightened individuals know those polls do not reflect what the American people as a whole feel. You need to look no further than the Internet, where 80% of Americans now reside, to put your finger on the REAL pulse of America. And Ron Paul is coursing through the veins of Americans who've had it with politics as usual. Open your eyes to the revolution. It's time mainstream media moved onto the next phase, the smear campaign. Rest assured, it is coming because ignoring Ron Paul is no longer working. And when the smear campaigns start we'll know the establishment is really frightened. As they should be.
Here is the REALLY suspicious part. (not really, it's so obvious, it's almost) Many Blogs devoted to Ron Paul, have been trolled excessively over the last few days. Much more than usual. Trolled by "supposed" Ron Paul supporters. They pop in, make off-the-wall comments. Insult the other posters. When they are told to chill-out, they start crying about "free speech". These people are NOT Ron Paul supporters. They are attempting to illicit a reaction. Sometimes they get a reaction. And VIOLA!..They have something to write about in THEIR BLOGS. "Ron Paul supporters are meanies" Nevermind that I just poked and prodded them on their home turf. But hey..we all know this: If you write about Ron Paul, you get Web traffic!
One only has to read all the comments posted here to see that us Paul supporters are civil even when responding to an obviously biased article. Everytime I hear the "national poles" figure thrown out I actually lol. To anyone even considering using this info, ask yourself how do they set criteria for polling. I cant think of a more slanted way to ask a question. Since when does 6% of republican primary voters in 2004 represent the majority of Americans? I very much wanted to vote democrat this time around, but after review I cant find them to be any different then the puppet neo-cons
Flood online polls? Hows that?
- Glenn Beck- in a show segment I could hardly believe I was hearing- explicitly called for the government to be vigilant with regard to Ron Paul supporters; doing so by calling them "right in bed with the Islamofascists," by calling them a "domestic threat" necessarily included in those threats servicemen and women have sworn an oath to eliminate, and linking a COMPLETELY volunteer-based and UNSOLICITED fundraiser by one of his supporters on November 5th DIRECTLY and OFFICIALLY to the Paul campaign hoping to capitalize on the Guy Fawkes theme as evidence of our supposed "Islamofascist/terrorist" leanings. - Bill O'Reilly regularly calls Paul's supporter's (as well as most people who speak out on any given issue he disagrees with) PINHEADS. Literally...each night he runs a segment in which he condemns someone he disagrees with as a "PINHEAD" and someone he likes as a "PATRIOT." The actual definitions of each dont really apply- he dubbed someone a "patriot" last week for supporting Xmas decorations somewhere. Recently, O'Reilly dubbed Ron Paul himself a "pinhead" for daring to describe his experience on the show as futile in that he was not allowed to answer for his positions with historical precedent and past foreign policy lessons. - Sean Hannity has openly referred to Ron Paul's supporters (on his radio show) as constituting a vast "conspiracy" to "stack polls" (whatever that means), to "vote twice" (in text polls where this has been proven impossible), and to dare to mention their candidate's positions or discuss their validity or lack thereof on his show. - The media AS A WHOLE has spent the first half of this entire year (if they spoke of him at all) disregarding Paul coldly as a "kooky," "moonbat" candidate who (they predicted) would "not go anywhere" and couldnt raise any REAL money or garner any REAL support. For MONTHS, they have COMPLETELY IGNORED the fact that our active and retired military contributes by an OVERWHELMING majority to Ron Paul first and Barack Obama second (TWO candidates both promising an "antiwar" approach). TO THIS DAY, despite a majority of straw poll wins, a majority of post-debate wins, opinion poll wins, PHENOMENAL first-tier-level and record-breaking lobbyist-free grassroots fundraising (often that Paul himself had NOTHING to do with), and unequaled Internet AND boots-on-the-ground support for Ron Paul over any other Republican candidate....the media continues to write Paul off as a "longest of longshots," as a "wacky fringe candidate," and as an "unelectable candidate" whose best hope is to be some kind of nuisance as a "spoiler." - As this article itself points out, several websites passing themselves off as places of "honest, open discussion" or promoters of conservative ideas have simply arbitrarily FORBIDDEN any discussion of Ron Paul's existence as a candidate, citing blanket excuses that "Ron Paul supporters are nuts" and that "Ron Paul is a moonbat" and relying on simple ad hominem attacks ARBITRARILY discounting CREDIBILITY- NOT calmly and intellectually discounting or arguing with REAL POLICY POSITIONS. This of course, shuts down the debate in two ways- you discredit any opinions (legitimate or not) as the supposed "ravings of madmen," and you literally shut down the debate by forbidding open discussion and citing those most frustrated with your fascist intellectual conduct as demonstrative of your assertion that "theyre all crazy." The "littlegreenfootballs" example demonstrates this silliness perfectly- if all did indeed transpire as you report; alerting friends to vote in an online poll does not constitute "silliness" or some sort of malicious manipulating of the poll...it constitutes VOTING/PARTICIPATING in it, PERIOD. It truly blows me away to hear someone claim that people telling their friends to go vote in an opinion poll is a "sleazy and stupid tactic." How exactly will we guard against this "sleazy and stupid tactic" of encouraging our peers to express their opinions come actual election day? As another question, how calm can you expect people to remain when confronted with such purely and blatantly nonsensical censorship and favoritism at every turn? Is it just us "loony Paul-supporters," or does littlegreenfootballs' rationale strike you as completely illogical and silly? Or is there some dark, unseen force that prevents Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, Clinton, Obama, etc. supporters from voicing their support online and in voluntary-response opinion polls? It just doesnt add up...when all is said and done. And people are getting frustrated with it. I'd like to know where dialogue-eroding and disrespectful conduct like this gets ANY of us? You'll have to forgive the Ron Paul supporters for getting so frustrated now and then....and I will admit that the immature conduct of a few now and then (as with ANY candidate) are downright unforgivable and simply childish. But in so doing I think its a colossal mistake to simply ignore the equally childish, hateful, reductive, and embittered desperation and disrespect shown by those to whom Paul's supporters are often responding in the first place.
Eberle says that in seven years of running GOPUSA.com, he's never come across users as routinely abusive as Paul backers can be. "The typical e-mail from a Ron Paul supporter often contains profanity and is filled with name-calling and attacks on the other candidates," he says. "They throw out slurs such as 'neo-con' or 'fake Republican' or 'sheeple' or 'jerks' or worse. They say people are 'stupid,' 'idiots,' 'traitors,' and worse for not supporting Ron Paul ." And of course all of the robocalls I got trying to annoy me into support the New Jersey stem cell bill were from Democrats. I have no doubt that some Ron Paul supporters are rude but I don't think I buy second hand accounts of rude e-mails as evidence.
Spammers? Did you ever consider that Ron Paul has Tens of Thousands of (real) supporters? (see his MeetUp groups= 70,000+ members) Those are real supporters, all of them (since meetup is on the internet) are Internet savy=thousands of them post on blogs...so that means: NOT spam, but MANY PEOPLE POSTING, got it? I am European, no one here would even consider to post on a blog for Rudy-9/11Spammer-Giuliani or Hillary-IraqWar-Supporter...I have heard of people from every country supporting Ron Paul; that would suggest that his supporters in the States are many more thatn the bias media and polls likes to suggest. Ron Paul= wisdom again from USA
What a bunch of hypocrisy. These people can dish it out but they can't take it. It's OK to lie about Dr. Paul, call him a "kook" or smear him as a racist, but lo and behold if someone responds with the facts, they're usually banned from posting. "Conservatives" have now embraced the tactics used by the totalitarian left, how pathetic.
The vast number of Ron Paul supporters are well educated and politically astute, and therefore above the media fray. The life of Ron Paul speaks for itself, if anyone cares to go directly to the myriad sources available. Amazon dot com, for instance, carries his written works, including 'A Foreign Policy of Freedom'. Ron Paul is the only GOP Candidate with a well-honed political philosophy. Most of the folks who criticize Ron Paul for his ideas, actually do so by confusing his political philosophy with the reality of politics and government, which discloses a lack of clarity and understanding between the two realms. Ron Paul is a true Statesman who possesses guiding political principles. Therefore it astonishes me that none of the media pundits have called any of the other GOP Candidates to task for lacking a coherent political philosophy. In sum, I am wondering why any GOP Candidates would run for office when theie only guiding principles are nonpolitical...
Just because you're late to the party doesn't mean what's new to you is newsworthy now, try looking forward instead. I'd suggest if you don't like the consequences/responsabilities of freedom (I think the Internet is a suitable microcosm) get out of the way.
So many articles are out now about Ron Paul supporters getting 'banned' from online forums for various shady reasons. Did anyone in hte media think that perhaps there are people posing as Ron Paul supporters in order to GET THEM BANNED? The majority of boards I post on have extremely polite and intelligent posts, and far less a percentage of rude, obnoxious and profane posters for Ron Paul than most other Candidates' supporters. I have noticed an uptick recently in obvious (and not-so-obvious) agents-provocateurs posing as Ron Paul supporters in order to post racist, misogynist and just plain hateful posts, some in Ron Paul's name, some on Ron Paul-favorable forums. Upon doing a precursory investigation, most of these 'flamers' are found to be newly created identities, many with laughably 'fake' personal information posted about their identities. In addition, many of the pro-Ron Paul forums have been invaded by hateful posters who obviously DON'T support Ron Paul! Of course the media lumps them all in as 'Crazy Ron Paul supporters', without even doing the least bit of minor investigation into their true source. If this is the first campaign in a long time without 'Dirty Tricks', I would be truly amazed. Get off your lazy butts, writers, editors and webmasters and INVESTIGATE allegations before ACCEPTING THEM AS TRUE! That is, unless your true agenda is to stifle any mention of 'a certain candidate' altogether! xtrabiggg ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: