Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

November 6, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

GAMMA QUADRANT UPDATE....I'm curious: does anyone know where all the Ron Paul fans come from? Not only does my short little Ron Paul post from this afternoon have nearly 300 comments already, but within hours of posting it I had gotten over a dozen emails from Ron Paul fans who were outraged that I had insulted him ("His family is certainly upset as I'm sure he is as well," one emailer wrote, overestimating my influence by several orders of magnitude at least). Most of the emails were the usual collection of ALL CAPS and exclamation points that we've come to know and love on the intertubes, insisting that I'd see the light if only I'd open my mind and read what Dr. Paul had to say.

Well, sure. Whatever. But where do they come from? Did my post get linked at some important Ron Paul site? Do Ron Paul supporters have RSS feeds set up to keep them apprised of anyone anywhere who blogs about Ron Paul? Do I just have a lot of Ron Paul supporters among my usual readership?

For purposes of comparison, I've never gotten more than one or two emails at most when I've criticized any other candidate. Usually zero. So what's the deal? Where do they all come from?

Kevin Drum 11:03 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (233)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

where do all the Ron Paul fans come from?

America. Need I say more?

Ever hear of this guy George W. Bush being voted in as president twice?

Posted by: Guy on November 6, 2007 at 11:10 PM | PERMALINK

The only Republican who thinks torture is bad and didn't sing "Bomb Bomb Iran" is the loony.

Posted by: Boronx on November 6, 2007 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul is a Libertarian. So is a large contingent of engineers and the like. Who are likely to be found haunting the web. Which is where you are. And there we go. You peed in their yard.

They all came from around here. If you'd written a letter to Time, it would have sunk without a trace.

Posted by: pjcamp on November 6, 2007 at 11:15 PM | PERMALINK

Let's see, every Ron Paul fan is a libertarian, and all libertarians have huge amounts of free time, desire endlessly to tell people their opinions, and are www-savvy.

But I'm surprised that criticizing other candidates hasn't gotten you criticism as well.

Posted by: Cryptic Ned on November 6, 2007 at 11:15 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul is a cult.

Posted by: Brojo on November 6, 2007 at 11:16 PM | PERMALINK

Bernie Sanders told Thom Hartmann that while he disagreed with most of Ron Paul's views, he was a friend (and I think he meant real friend, not congressional bullshit friend) of Paul's, and that Paul was honest, very intelligent, and very sincere.

I think a lot of disillusioned Republicans and Democrats find honest, intelligent, and sincere attractive and compelling.

I would never vote for Paul, but I would prefer to see his tear down the government approach than the Republican corruption as usual approach.

And there's a lot to be said for honest and sincere over triangulation and weaseling, or over Pelosi/Reid capitulation to the Bush.

So all the more power to the Ron Paul Revolution -- I suspect he's far better than Rudy.

Posted by: jerry on November 6, 2007 at 11:18 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I'm not sure if you read Wonkette, but every minorly snarky thing about Ron Paul winds up with dozens of earnest comments defending him. I do like their response, which seems to be to run two more funny Paul pieces for each one that they get a bunch of comments for.

As for these Paul folks, I just don't know what their deal is. They seem to spend their days fixing MySpace polls and trolling for any mention of Ron Paul on the internet, then carpetbombing the site in question with comments. If this is just some sort of therapeutic hobby, fine, but if they think that this is really the way in which minds are changed, well, then they're out of theirs. And it doesn't really speak too well of Paul's ideology that its supporters won't let anything be posted anywhere on the internet without having the last word. Or, more accurately, the last five thousand.

So, bring 'em on. I welcome their hatred.

Posted by: Lev on November 6, 2007 at 11:22 PM | PERMALINK

You said it yourself, Kevin, when you mentioned, "...the curious but well-known fact that technophiles are disproportionately libertarian." They're smart. They're well connected to the intertubes. And they love to argue. Sounds like a love connection to me.

Posted by: Howard on November 6, 2007 at 11:29 PM | PERMALINK

Paul supporters are starved for attention.

Posted by: Brojo on November 6, 2007 at 11:30 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul supporters are just old-school Deanics with more guns and cash stuffed in the mattress.

P.S. If Ron Paul won the nomination, wouldn't that mean there would be lots of red campaign signs saying stuff like, "Paul" or "Paul '08"? And then wouldn't people ask "Paul who?"? Seems like your just asking for trouble running for President with a last name that looks like a first name.

P.P.S. Which is why Rue Paul has always kept his/her nose out of politics.

Posted by: lampwick on November 6, 2007 at 11:31 PM | PERMALINK

Good question. Normally a post needs to discuss religion in order to get that many responses.

Posted by: Zathras on November 6, 2007 at 11:32 PM | PERMALINK

Ross Perot voters.

Posted by: bakho on November 6, 2007 at 11:32 PM | PERMALINK

[ ahem! ]

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 6, 2007 at 11:32 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, last time I ran for office (town meeting), I honestly and sincerely took the position that we needed to raise taxes, and I just barely made the cut. People are like honesty and sincerity much more when they happen to agree with it.

Posted by: dr2chase on November 6, 2007 at 11:34 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe because your commentary was so insufferably know-it-allish and Washington-centric that it set a new standard for smugness?

Posted by: Justin Raimondo on November 6, 2007 at 11:35 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul is a favorite of the Cyberbears, because he is one of the few Republicans to acknowledge that the financial world is in deep poop, let there by easy-money policies of Alan Greenspan. He gets a lot of cred for getting the diagnosis of the economic malady right. That he proposes extreme, maybe loony, solutions to the malady is not as important.

He is also the only Repub against the war, and there are a lot of Repubs who agree on that point now.

Posted by: troglodyte on November 6, 2007 at 11:37 PM | PERMALINK

Why not ask them yourself, Kevin? They sent you some emails. You can reply and say "Hi, I'm interested in how you came to support Ron Paul. What do you do for a living? Where do you live? When did you start supporting him? How often have you sent emails on his behalf?" Maybe a few would reply.

Or you can just write up those questions in a post. They'd probably be more likely to give direct answers to direct questions than to a vague "Where do they come from?" musing.

Posted by: Alex F on November 6, 2007 at 11:44 PM | PERMALINK

To follow up on trog's statements, you have a habit about making snarky comments about Paul's economic policies (as opposed to his other policies). His economic supporters are a major force on the Internet. Go read the comments section of Calculated Risk, Big Picture, Mish, or any other bearish economic blog.

I remember saying that you were brave last time you made a negative comment about his economic policies.

Posted by: Walker on November 6, 2007 at 11:46 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, somebody at dailykos(you know the great orange satin) had a post about his facebook, myspace, ect.... check it out.

Posted by: cheflovesbeer on November 6, 2007 at 11:47 PM | PERMALINK

Why not ask them yourself, Kevin? They sent you some emails. You can reply and say "Hi, I'm interested in how you came to support Ron Paul.

Oh, my aching ass. That's the last thing a sane person would do.

Have you never heard of the Jehovah's Witnesses? Good luck getting those Poindexters to leave you alone after inviting them into your home. I had to move once just to get them to quit coming around. It was either that or give up takeout, and I wasn't about to do that.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 6, 2007 at 11:48 PM | PERMALINK

I'm a Ron Paul supporter who utilizes the intrenet as a daily news source. I discovered Ron Paul on YouTube one day while I was bored, around May, 2007.

I am giving you an honest assessment of where I come from as I like you're writing style, you shoot from the hip. I was taken aback by your "Fruitcake" bit, but good job, you caught my attention.

I agree that the internet seems to have an orchestrated "blowback" of it's own, and I do not dispute that it is probably the brainchild of extremely motivated rule-bending Ron Paul supporters. His campaign does it's own thing while the Paul movement does the rest.

Above all, in my opinion, it is the growing resonation of disgruntled U.S. citizens who realize that the government is not in touch with the core of the population, and sorry, but Washington is severely outnumbered here, no matter what the "insiders" believe.

Take a moment to view Fox New's presentation of Ron Paul, and it is blatently clear that journalism has also lost it's way, biased to the core, forcing honest fact-loving people to search online for news and opinions, most of which, whether supremely orchastrated or not, slant favorably towards Ron Paul. I can also attest that I have convinced some friends to support Ron Paul, and his grass roots support is astonishing.

Again, because I want to help you understand the mindset of the Paulites, please take a moment to view the following link. In it's entirety it is a long view, but it offers what many supporters strongly believe, that Gov and Media are bought and paid for by the World Banks, and take too much iberty in influencing the opinion of the American population.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAcxGD6-c-E

Posted by: Dave on November 6, 2007 at 11:49 PM | PERMALINK


My name is Richard McSchrotansacher. I am the vice-chairman of the Ron Paul Awareness Committee. One of my key duties is to inform Ron Paul's legions of admirers when an important news item has appeared which impacts Ron Paul, positively or negatively.

I noticed your earlier post, Kevin, and alerted the rest of "The Team." I apologize if this caused an uptick in comments that you found surprising. It is just that we believe that Dr. Paul has an important message and we want that message to be heard clearly -- and correctly!

Thank you for your patience. I will now resume my monitoring activities.

Posted by: Richard M. on November 6, 2007 at 11:52 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin:

The tinfoil hats are actually tunable wireless Internet antennae, tunable to the bytes that encode the words "Ron Paul."

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on November 6, 2007 at 11:53 PM | PERMALINK

GAMMA QUADRANT UPDATE..

I'd say Delta Quadrant. Resistance is futile!

Posted by: F. Frederson on November 6, 2007 at 11:57 PM | PERMALINK

Some of the old time net libertarians I knew became fanatical warbloggers after 9/11. Now that they are deeply disillusioned, Ron Paul gives them a chance to return to their old faith.

Oh, and doesn't Instapundit still claim to be a libertarian?

Posted by: Joe Buck on November 6, 2007 at 11:57 PM | PERMALINK

Technophiles are disproportionately libertarian because of the nature of the internet. Historically, on the internet, absolute freedom had very limited consequences. While in the era of identity theft and crazed nutballs who go to people's homes this has changed, it's still true that anarchy, by and large, is a productive force on the internet.

They don't get out into the real world enough to realize that the consequences of anarchy or minimal government in the real world are far worse.

Posted by: dal20402 on November 6, 2007 at 11:59 PM | PERMALINK

Growing up in Idaho, I remember Ron Paul fanatics 15 or so years ago. Some of them were former John Birchers.

Posted by: matt on November 7, 2007 at 12:00 AM | PERMALINK

They don't get out into the real world enough to realize that the consequences of anarchy or minimal government in the real world are far worse.

Nothing is worse than having one's high score hacked out of the Zobotica 3010 Hall of Fame.

Asshole.

Posted by: Varth Dader on November 7, 2007 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINK

I think the real issue is that Kevin Drum is desperate for attention.

Poor thang.

Posted by: disinter on November 7, 2007 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINK

More than 36,000 RonBots managed to spam a record-breaking $4.2 million to Ron Paul during a spontaneous grassroots event on November 5th. But the fun doesn’t end there, as Trevor Lyman points out:

Of course we’re going to go for round two.. look for an event around the 15th and 16th of December (I’ll keep you informed). In the meantime there is another push for a donation rally on November 11th. This is a seperate group who are running the website http://www.ThisNovember11th.com. Check it out!

Posted by: disinter on November 7, 2007 at 12:04 AM | PERMALINK

I guess I have the larger question of why do Libertarians exist, anywhere, in non-trivial numbers? Why do people like Greenwald and Kos seem to think that they are owed some kind of respect?

Really, there are very few movements more obviously crackpot than Libertarianism. Nobody but a cretin imagines that it will ever see the light of day in a real live government.

It can't survive being explained, or its simplest logical entailments being mentioned.

How do you get depth out of such an ideology, or thoughtfulness, or anything worth a damn?

Posted by: frankly0 on November 7, 2007 at 12:05 AM | PERMALINK

"The only Republican who thinks torture is bad and didn't sing "Bomb Bomb Iran" is the loony."

I (and I think Kevin is likely to agree) would not say that Ron Paul is THE loony in the Republican bunch. They are ALL loonies, though Paul is looney in an idiosyncratic way, while the rest of the nut jobs are standard loonies of the Bush/Cheney/religious right variety (and Tancredo adds good old garden variety racism to the mix). If a gun was put to my head I might have to pick Paul over the others as the least horrific choice (and even then I might pick Romney for the small chance that he would revert to the sane, moderate, technocrat he was until recently). And, like Keven, I am surprised, and somewhat disturbed, by the outpouring of responses here.

Posted by: Marlowe on November 7, 2007 at 12:05 AM | PERMALINK

TinyURL.com is endorsing Ron Paul:

http://tinyurl.com/
(see the upper right-hand corner)

Posted by: disinter on November 7, 2007 at 12:08 AM | PERMALINK

Don't be disturbed. They're culty and mostly uneducated, but they irritate the shit out of movement conservatives, which means that they're probably all right.

GO RON!

Posted by: salto ethan on November 7, 2007 at 12:10 AM | PERMALINK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Edward_Konkin_III

I always found this character somewhat interesting.

Konkin argued against voting, and specifically opposed involvement in the Libertarian Party, which he regarded as a statist co-option of libertarianism. In The New Libertarian Manifesto he explained how he believed a libertarian society could come about. This would theoretically be through a process of people withdrawing their consent to be governed by the state, and moving their economic activities into the black market and grey market where they would be untaxed and unregulated. Konkin used the term counter-economics to describe this approach. In the introduction to The New Libertarian Manifesto he credited Murray Rothbard, Robert LeFevre, and Ludwig von Mises as influences.

Unlike many libertarians, Konkin saw libertarianism as a movement of the left. He was a founder of the Agorist Institute and the Movement of the Libertarian Left.

Posted by: Blackablakalack on November 7, 2007 at 12:11 AM | PERMALINK

What if Paul ran a Ross Perot-like third party candidacy? Perot, much nuttier than Paul, got nearly 20 million votes, and arguably tipped the 1992 election Clinton's way. How Paul would influence the 2008 election depends partly on who is running, but with all that money and support, I don't think people would snicker for long if he decided to run.

Posted by: John dh on November 7, 2007 at 12:13 AM | PERMALINK

What if Paul ran a Ross Perot-like third party candidacy? Perot, much nuttier than Paul, got nearly 20 million votes, and arguably tipped the 1992 election Clinton's way. How Paul would influence the 2008 election depends partly on who is running, but with all that money and support, I don't think people would snicker for long if he decided to run.

I just creamed my shorts.

Posted by: Ralph Navel on November 7, 2007 at 12:14 AM | PERMALINK

Did my post get linked at some important Ron Paul site? Do Ron Paul supporters have RSS feeds set up to keep them apprised of anyone anywhere who blogs about Ron Paul?

Yes and yes. Plus email lists.

And don't bother asking them. They deny it every time.

Posted by: Disputo on November 7, 2007 at 12:17 AM | PERMALINK

My name is Richard McSchrotansacher.

Ron Paul is the new Lyndon LaRouche.

-Norman Rogers, 11/6/2007

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 7, 2007 at 12:24 AM | PERMALINK

"" Do Ron Paul supporters have RSS feeds set up to keep them apprised of anyone anywhere who blogs about Ron Paul? ""

It's called google you fool . You go to google click on news on top of the page and enter his name and it searches all recent news articles on the man. How you don't know this and you write for cbs news is beyond my comprehension.

Posted by: John S. on November 7, 2007 at 12:24 AM | PERMALINK

All this email comes from real americans who still believe in freedom. If making fun of Ron Paul is the best you can do, then laugh it up. We the people have had enough of the same old corrupt, bought and paid for politicians telling us who can win and who can't. We are going to elect a real patriot this time. Then we will see who's laughing.

Posted by: Real American on November 7, 2007 at 12:24 AM | PERMALINK

Why do you have Michael Moore's banner on your site, you hypocrite?

Posted by: Danielle on November 7, 2007 at 12:30 AM | PERMALINK

"But where do they come from?"

I had the same question about all the ladybugs that suddenly invaded my apartment--there must have been over fifty of them in my study dive-bombing my head while I was trying to work. I went around with packing tape and sealed up all the gaps around the window frames and that did the trick. Maybe something similar would work for you, Kevin.

Posted by: Jess on November 7, 2007 at 12:30 AM | PERMALINK

RSS, Google, email lists ... I'm sure it's all of those. It's been happening for several weeks now on all the blogs I read. Any post on Ron Paul is almost immediately swarmed. It has come to be expected - hence the "cue the ron paul hordes" or whatever on your first post.

Posted by: es on November 7, 2007 at 12:31 AM | PERMALINK

Google votes:

"mitt romney" -- 1.6 million
"mike huckabee" -- 1.1 million
"rudy giuliani" -- 1.5 million
"ron paul" -- 5.2 million
"barack obama" -- 3.6 million
"hillary clinton" -- 11.7 million
"john edwards" -- 3.0 million
"britney spears" -- 51.6 million

Posted by: chris on November 7, 2007 at 12:32 AM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul is a sideshow, of course.

Nobody who really cares about the country right now is going to try to be a fringe "Republican" candidate. The GOP is, at present, a beast, out of control, and a real threat to the American Experiment. Paul can't possibly be taken seriously as a national candidate under the GOP tent. One has to assume that he is just looking for some cheap attention, otherwise he'd walk away from his corrupt party and stand as an indepenent. Even the egomaniac Ralph Nader has enough sense not to run inside one of the two big party machines for crissakes.


Posted by: ThymeZone on November 7, 2007 at 12:33 AM | PERMALINK

let us see if we can figure this out. for the last 15+ years, the demtillians, the reptillians have been engaged in the mass murdering of iraqis.

never forget, the clinton-blair sanctions were undoubtedly the most criminal actions ever imposed on a civilian population since the amerikan invasion of seasia.

and in a bipartisan manner, the bush-blair regimes prolonged the continuation of what some of us consider the greatest war crime of the 20th-21st century. in fact, bush-blair raised the ante: by dint of egregious prevarication, amerikan troops were invested to invade iraq and kill iraqis.

the amerikan embargo/invasion of iraq is damned similar to the israeli embargo/genocide of palestinians.

so, we have this very odd election coming up. all the candidates save one[ron paul] want to prolong the murdering of "wogs". want to continue to invest amerikan citizens into that maelstrom - subjecting them to harm's way.

the last time i encountered a similar situation was in the 1950's. general of the army, dwight david eisenhower, ran for the presidency on the platform that he would end the truman invasion of korea...that he would end the hostilities and bring the troops home.

and that is what happened.

what causes some to continue the invasion of iraq, afghanistan.

i know that kevin never wore a uniform. what about you norman?

the time has come to end amerika's imperialist adventuring. we cannot afford it.

why is it that only ron paul recognizes the balance sheet of a failing empire?

there are positions that ron paul holds that i disagree with. but i find his pov is the only one out there, among all the candidates, that is favoring life, abhorring amerikan mass murdering[can we call it genocide?].

so, let us end it here, kevin. i hate your smarmy tone when it comes to an appraisal of the only candidate opposed to mass murder.

as i read you, mass murder is quite OK with you as long as it is only "wogs" and foolish amerikan citizens who doff the uniforms who are the victims.

ron paul is the only candidate who wants to end the murdering. isn't that the best arbiter of his moral superiority in this gangsters' horse race.

Posted by: albertchampion on November 7, 2007 at 12:34 AM | PERMALINK

Apparently they go to bed early.

Posted by: junebug on November 7, 2007 at 12:35 AM | PERMALINK

Except for albertchampion. His parents must be out tonight.

Posted by: junebug on November 7, 2007 at 12:36 AM | PERMALINK

Danielle, WTF are you talking about?

Blackablak, if you go to Wiki and start following links under political philosophies, there actually is a "libertarian socialism." Of course, it's far more socialistic a philosophy than any Libertarian would subscribe to, but I found myself in agreement.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on November 7, 2007 at 12:37 AM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul is a reaction to an emerging police state. It should not be assumed just because Washington and its sycophant journalists have cynically strayed from democracy and freedom that these principles are not still popular.

Posted by: Luther on November 7, 2007 at 12:38 AM | PERMALINK

Mr. McSchrotansacher, are you ready for your appointment with Harry R. Sedingle?

Posted by: Harry S. on November 7, 2007 at 12:41 AM | PERMALINK

Where do we come from? The WORLD WIDE WEB. It isn't just a telephone.

Posted by: eatitkevin on November 7, 2007 at 12:46 AM | PERMALINK

Techies are a high percentage of libertarians and that's what Ron Paul is closest to right now.

On the bright side, maybe Kevin will show some passion if the 'Paulies annoy him enough.

Posted by: MNPundit on November 7, 2007 at 12:55 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, my aching ass.
Posted by: Norman Rogers

Take the president's dick out, Norm. It'll help.

As for Paul, I mean, the man wants to return to the gold standard. So I'm guessing he's got the votes of everyone who's never taken an economics class.

Posted by: mmy on November 7, 2007 at 12:57 AM | PERMALINK

Count me as someone who won't vote for Ron Paul specifically because of his base. I gave up reading comments on Digg months ago because you had to sift through 9 Ron Paul comments for every 1 normal person's comment. They are the most infuriatingly rabid and uninformed voting bloc I've ever come across.

Posted by: Fred on November 7, 2007 at 1:03 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin,
Maybe you're just a dipshit who isn't paying attention.
Good night.

Posted by: Michael Parker on November 7, 2007 at 1:03 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

I support Ron Paul, and I'll tell you where I come from, as requested.

I come from an unbroken line of military officers that began when my family fought for the Continental Congress under George Washington.

I am a career Naval officer who has been politically neutral for my entire life, but voting for Ron Paul is about voting for America and our Constitution--which I took an oath to preserve. Out of all the candidates, only Ron Paul takes this oath seriously, and it is why he has received more contributions from military and ex-military than any other candidate. I am now supporting Dr. Paul with my wallet, my keyboard, and my heart.

Posted by: J.P. on November 7, 2007 at 1:08 AM | PERMALINK

Dr. Paul is anti-torture. He is pro-civil liberties. He is anti-war. His positions on many issues are directly in line with a majority of Americans, and his *other* positions are directly in line with the Constitution, public opinion be damned.

Ron Paul is literally the ONLY candidate who honors the oath of office he's taken to protect and defend the Constitution.

Pre-9/11, Ron Paul supporters were called patriots. Now you call us crazy, tin-foil hatters, and worse. But yesterday, over 35,000 Americans voted with our wallets. While every other candidate gets their cash from a smaller pool of corporate donors, Ron Paul earns his from We The (little) People. How in the world can you dismiss that with a straight face? Are the implications of that dichotomy completely lost on you?

As a software developer, I must think rationally so my software will function. As an entrepreneur, I know that most people lack the vision to accomplish great things. Despite this, I am always surprised at the sheer volume of naysayers like yourselves who offer nothing but negativity.

Americans like me are visionary enough to imagine a future where the central government follows contitutional guidelines, and delegates everything else (education, air quality, etc.) to the States. And Americans like me are smart enough to see the looming financial catastrophe that awaits us and our children if we don't make that future happen.

So Americans like me offer our sincerety, and are met with your derision. We offer honesty, and are met with your insults. We offer a genuinely American future in line with the founders' vision, and all you have to offer is apathy and cynicism.

So don't act so surprised when your scorn ignites our anger. We are the most patriotic Americans in this country, and you lot offer nothing useful to us. With a ferocious intensity we will fight for our country, and with luck we will destroy DC's culture of corruption and, through peaceful revolution at the ballot box, restore this country's honor.

F**k the rest of you naysayers.

Posted by: butcher on November 7, 2007 at 1:10 AM | PERMALINK

oh, my parents are long dead. i haven't had to hide from them in years....

unlike you, i suppose, i was in the usmc. and after exiting that gang of murderers, i became a pacifist.

much like smedley darling butler and david monroe shoup.

shoup is the most recent tale of a man of honor who doffed the uniform. you are undoubtedly of an era and a persuasion where honor is unrecognized.

real quickly...as a colonel[battalion commander] shoup was awarded the medal of honor for his performance at betio island[tarawa] during ww2. his career ascended. eventually, he became commandant of the usmc, an adjunct member of the jcs. where he voiced his opposition to any invasion of vietnam. there are many reports that jfk favored shoup's pov.

after the "hit"in dallas, lbj was intent on invading vietnam. and he wanted to make sure that shoup was in his tent[pissing out], as opposed to outside lbj's tent[pissing in]. and so he offered shoup an unprecedented deal, if david monroe shoup would support the invasion, he could become the first commandant to serve two terms as commandant.

shoup refused the offer of the civilian devil[unlike the current breed of sycophants] and retired. after his retirement, he became an opponent of the vietnam invasion.

the press was always full of warmongering sycophants, however, and shoup's opposition to the invasion went unreported.

when david monroe shoup died some years ago, his demise got very little ink. a war hero opposing amerikan imperialism is not favored.

he was buried at arlington. the then commmandant of the usmc did not attend.

killing is amerika's game. and if you oppose that game, then you will become a nonentity.

smedley darlington butler committed a similar offense during the herbert hoover regime. seems that hoover hated the bonus marchers who had invested the anacostia flats in the pursuit of the bonus that the wonderful gangster[progressive dem], woody wilson, had promised them. but the promise had been reneged. the ww1 veterans had marched on dc for redress.

hoover wanted the usmc to roust those veterans. not only did butler refuse. he went public with his refusal.

so, hoover called up douglas macarthur. hey, for another elevation in rank, doug had no inhibitions. and like the tsar's cossacks, the usarmy cavalry rousted those ww1 veterans.

butler's reward? though he was the highest ranking usmc officer, and should have become the commandant by custom and practice, hoover would not allow it. butler retired.

now, butler was the last of the two-timers. a moh at haiti and mexico. a gangster as he described himself. fighting for us merchant bankers.

killing foreign non-combatants for amerikan imperial interests.

what disturbs me about some of these posts is that chickenshits[i think] have some affection to mass murdering. puts them in the ranks of richard perle, elliot abrams[son in law of norman podhoretz], et alia.

tell me. what causes you chickenshits to be so keen on committing mass murder?

for the record.

Posted by: albertchampion on November 7, 2007 at 1:21 AM | PERMALINK

His positions on many issues are directly in line with a majority of Americans, and his *other* positions are directly in line with the Constitution, public opinion be damned.

Ron Paul is both a dessert topping AND a floor wax! That's so fricking cool...

Posted by: F. Frederson on November 7, 2007 at 1:26 AM | PERMALINK

Regular reader here.

I agree that Ron Paul is a dipshit idealogue with an array of inflexible policy positions. Many people are comforted by his confidence, resolve, and quick answers and mistake libertarian dogma for intelligent leadership. Probably this is mostly about Iraq and taxes. I've seen many apolitical people jump on the band wagon. It's nice to have a rigid structure behind one's political leanings if you're not used to thinking through the consequences.

Posted by: B on November 7, 2007 at 1:28 AM | PERMALINK

"As a software developer, I must think rationally so my software will function. As an entrepreneur, I know that most people lack the vision to accomplish great things."

Nice to know that the ubermensch is out there somewhere.

Posted by: Stampy on November 7, 2007 at 1:30 AM | PERMALINK

this:

Maybe you're just a dipshit who isn't paying attention.

and this:

We are the most patriotic Americans in this country, and you lot offer nothing useful to us.

and this:

F**k the rest of you naysayers.

and this:

what causes you chickenshits to be so keen on committing mass murder?

I like how all RonBots just automatically believe that people can be insulted into supporting RonPaul....

And Kev thinks they are fruitcakes... for shame....

Posted by: Disputo on November 7, 2007 at 1:30 AM | PERMALINK

Stampy, Disputo, we're not trying to persuade naysayers like you. With you, we're merely trading insults because that's all you seem to understand. Good night.

Posted by: butcher on November 7, 2007 at 1:36 AM | PERMALINK

The real question is, why do the RP true believers think this tactic will help their candidate?

It's just schoolyard-level swarming, shouting down people before they're even really opponents, for merely raising questions. Will that improve blogger's opinion of RP, make them open minded?

Pretty doubtful. Much more likely that they're muddying his name on a grand scale.

Posted by: Bruce the Canuck on November 7, 2007 at 1:40 AM | PERMALINK

Stampy, Disputo, we're not trying to persuade naysayers like you. With you, we're merely trading insults because that's all you seem to understand.

What the fuck did I ever do to you, jackass?

You can't even be honest with yourself. The truth is that you have no idea who I am, and you are simply insulting me and everyone else in this forum for the fun of it. Is that how RonPaul runs a campaign? Is that how he intends to run the gvmt if elected?

So far, insulting people for the fun of it is the only plank in RonPaul's platform that all you RonBots seem to rally around. At the very least, it is the only plank that you've been able to clearly articulate.

PS I'm *still* waiting for someone to provide me with an explanation or link as to what RonPaul's "gold standard" policy prescription is. If any of you folks want to be treated as anything other than cultists, you may want to start by answering that.

PPS Links to what anyone other than RonPaul wishes to do wrt a "gold standard" does not count.

Posted by: Disputo on November 7, 2007 at 2:00 AM | PERMALINK

Luther, plenty of non-libertarians are concerned about civil liberties.

Many of us are also concerned about big business polluting us, busting up labor unions, etc.

It takes government regulation to fight that. Not the gold standard, which would cause our economy to be held hostage by every other country in the world.

And, yes, it is moonbat not to understand that.

As for the amount of response, I'm not surprised. At Watching Those We Choose, when one of us does a Ron Paul post, it's like a stopwatch check to see how quickly the first pro-Paul commenter can alight.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on November 7, 2007 at 2:01 AM | PERMALINK

Let's just say they're very fleet-footed.

Posted by: Jason on November 7, 2007 at 2:02 AM | PERMALINK

I disagree with probably 75% of what Ron Paul believes in but he is getting a serious look from me simply because you can't fake his kind of honestly. People are truly hungry for change and Paul, Obama to for that matter, have tapped into that. Do I think Ron Paul will be the Republican nominee? No but I do think he is going to do a whole lot better in Iowa & NH than anyone in the Republican establishment thinks he will. He is going to make some noise and he is going to be a voice they have to contend with. And after 7+ years of lying, bullshit, corruption & incompetence that has been the Bush administration & combined with the worst field of Republicans in a generation, Ron Paul, looney beliefs and all, is a refreshing change of pace.

Posted by: NHGinNOLA on November 7, 2007 at 2:07 AM | PERMALINK

Well, some stereotypes are true:
I gave fifty bucks to Paul's campaign and am an engineer by training and a rightish-libertarian since I was in high school.

But most are not:
I think truthers (of the both Rosie and Alex Jones) variety are imbeciles. (as well a mr albertchampion above with his lbj killed jfk nonsense)

I think fiat money is here to stay; I think the current management of the dollar is abysmal, but as long as their are five or six different independent fiat currencies still exist, the overall economic benefits outweigh the costs.

But most of all, I think Paul has all the correct enemies. Look at this board. The usual leftish suspects are against him because he's a Republican - ok I'll accept that's intellectually consistent - but your token rightwingers (trolls? strawmen?) are against him because, well, he's just crazy! As has been said by others, if the spectrum of "mainstream" Republicanism extends from Romney to Giuliani, WTF happened to the Republican party?

Posted by: Kenny on November 7, 2007 at 2:20 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

I'll second the various comments that found your dismissal of Ron Paul to be both smug and very "inside the beltway."

I'm a very regular reader, but I hardly ever comment. I'm an independent voter. I think that one of the weaknesses of the Founders' plans was their failure to provide us with a parliamentary system; I'd much prefer to vote for a smaller party that better represented my views and could govern in coalition with other parties. This is how most democracies function. I despise the duopoly of the Democrats and Republicans. I particularly despise the Democrats (the Party of Pusillanimity in Andrew Levine's pungent phrase) but I fear and loathe what the Republicans have become even more, so I tend to vote for Democrats as the lesser of two evils. This is particularly difficult because where I live the Democratic establishment is extremely corrupt.

I think you greatly underestimate the ability of someone like Ron Paul to appeal to a very important Republican constituency, one that the Republicans have increasingly ignored - the small stakeholder. These are the people that Dick Nixon was appealing to when he mentioned Pat's "good Republican cloth coat." (For those of you too young to follow the reference, google "Checkers speech.") People who are "wealthy" in terms of the average but aren't "rich" in terms of the interests the Republicans now represent. These people tend to be frugal, hard-working, non-fundamentalist, and extremely suspicious of foreign adventures and of Wall Street. These people have no natural home in the Democratic party but they no longer have much of a home with the Republicans either. A lot of them became Perot voters. I think this time around they could become Paul voters.

I'm an issues voter. That's why I read your postings; they tend to be long on substance and short on the sort of horse race nonsense that the MSM mostly focuses on. Since no party represents my interests, I decide early on which candidate has the best stands on the issues that are most important to me. I have to triage and accept voting for much less than what I want.

In this election cycle, I am very concerned about Peak Oil (we are now entering an era where energy supplies are going to consistently lag behind demand, so we are going to have to cope with shortages and a declining standard of living) and I am also concerned about the reemergence of infectious disease as a major killer - more like the 19th century than the 20th (deaths from hospital acquired infections have increased five fold in the last dozen years; if we don't quickly get a handle on this, infectious disease is going to kill many more Americans in the next generation than the terrorists could ever dream of). There's nothing I see that indicates that Ron Paul is even aware of these issues, much less proposing policies to deal with them. But since that's also true of all the "non-fringe" candidates, it's irrelevant.

In the meantime, what are the other issues that are most important to me this election cycle?

Stop the war and bring the troops home. Tear down the dream of American hegemony over the entire globe. Stop the insanity of spending more on our military than the rest of the world combined. Stop the slide away from the rule of law. Support Magna Carta, habeas corpus, and restraints on executive power. Stop kidnapping, torture and murder done in our name. Stop trying to inflate all moral hazard away from the big banks and hedge funds at the price of eroding the value of our annuities, pensions and 401k plans that the rest of us are counting on (and foo to all the commentators that say that we're all debtors so what's a little inflation - I don't want our pensioners to end up like the elderly in Russia after the fall of the USSR).

So what's to dislike about Ron Paul? Well, he's anti-abortion so to vote for him I'd have to cross a redline I haven't crossed in thirty years. On the other hand, Paul appears to be a Nat Hentoff, civil-libertarian opponent of abortion rather than a religious fanatic.

Many of his more extreme positions won't ever pass any imaginable Congress, but I'm beginning to think a little libertarian reaction to the legalized bribery our government has become might be a good thing. How much damage could he do, compared to the incompetent criminals now incumbent?

I can't vote for Hillary Clinton. I don't want any more dynasties and I don't trust her. I certainly can't vote for any of the "mainstream" Republicans. So what's a concerned citizen to do?

I want to thank you for your Ron Paul postings, Kevin. I have friends who support him, but I, too, had dismissed him as just another libertarian loon. Before I posted here, I read up on his voting record and his positions. There's a lot to like. I may not end up voting for him but I might at least send him some money. And that's another thing to like about Ron Paul - almost all his campaign money comes from individuals. That's a long way from the stench that surrounds Hillary's fundraising.

Posted by: Enon on November 7, 2007 at 2:28 AM | PERMALINK

perhaps i can educate you concerning the value of gold.

let's think on the past. 2002 is a good year. in november of that year the usdollar and the euro were in parity. as opposed to a year earlier when the euro was only worth $00.86.

i don't have all my data, but gold was probably being valued at $350-$450 per ounce in that time.

now, let us see what has transpired since 2002.

gold is being valued at $800+ per ounce.

the euro[another fiat currency] is being valued at $1.46+.

and the dollar? approximately $00.75.

what has been happening over the last five years?

the world has seen that the usa is stupid. has very little to offer the global economy. especially when major us corporations keep moving salient aspects of their operations offshore.

the other aspect of this decline in the dollar is the continuing theft by the bushies, and their friends, of us assets.

you know, all the rest of the world knows, that the events of 11/09/01 were a usg bit of fraud.

and they bet on the future accordingly.

the sheep in the usa are the last to figure it all out. even though more than 60% admit to thinking that the official story of 11/09/01 is a fraud.

much like the public's thinking on the kennedy hit. the govt want to promote its sty. the majority of the populace don't buy into that fraud.

it is only the usg, in all its branches, that continue to try and hoodwink the electorate.

most astonishingly, there are these individuals on this board who promote this hoodwinking.

along with these presidential candidates: hillary clinton, john edwards, barack obama, dennis kucinich, st john mcclain, fred thompson, rudy guiliani, etc.

of course, we morons don't know enough to be considered suitable for commenting.

END THE INVASIONS OF IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN.

ONLY RON PAUL ADVANCES THESE COURSES OF ACTION. IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THIS PROPOSITION, WHAT DOES THAT MAKE YOU...A GOOD GERMAN-A MASS MURDERER?

Posted by: albertchampion on November 7, 2007 at 2:37 AM | PERMALINK

When I orgasm, I scream out Ron Paul's name....

Posted by: Disputo on November 7, 2007 at 3:05 AM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul is the new Kibo?

Seriously, it does seem like a case of some search tool that uses regular expressions, then injects the results into the channels. It all seems highly automated, more like a game than a real movement. Like Discordians or Kibologists.

Heck, I would not be surprised to hear that many Ron Paul supporters are really in it just to Jake the Republicans...

(ooh, I'm going to get in trouble now for spoiling the joke)

Posted by: Saint Fnordius on November 7, 2007 at 3:23 AM | PERMALINK

I just skimmed the thread and the one thing that struck me is this:

It appears the average Ron Paul supporter can type like a beatnik pumped full of roofies.

Posted by: dt on November 7, 2007 at 3:40 AM | PERMALINK

Had Ron Paul been around in 1787, he would have been a defender of the Articles of Confederation.

Many people are coming to view the 2008 election as a choice between corrupt, incompetent Republicans and corrupt, spineless Democrats. It should come as no surprise that some people have come to the conclusion that the best solution is to do away with the federal government altogether.

Posted by: dr sardonicus on November 7, 2007 at 3:56 AM | PERMALINK

There are lots of people out there who have given up on the Republican Party, but would never, ever vote for a Democrat because they believe that all Democrats are Communists. Therein lies another clue to Ron Paul's appeal.

Posted by: dr sardonicus on November 7, 2007 at 4:07 AM | PERMALINK

I have admired Ron Paul in Congress for about seven years, so when he announced he was running for president it was natural that I would support him. I originally came across your column on CBS and wanted to comment on it, which they don't allow and they didn't have an email address for you. So I asked someone who Kevin Drum is and they pointed me here. Your column did not make any sense to me claiming that Ron is unimportant while reporting he has raised so much money. I also am surprised that someone who writes for CBS and the Washington Post would use words like "buttload."

Posted by: Joe on November 7, 2007 at 4:42 AM | PERMALINK

I think Ron Paul will make an excellent RNC Chairman.

Posted by: Forrest on November 7, 2007 at 5:25 AM | PERMALINK

albert:

Let me see if I've got this straight (your prose can be a little bit hard to follow) :

- the value of the dollar has declined while the value of the euro has risen;

- the U.S. doesn't make enough product that sells well on the international market;

- folks outside the U.S. see the events of 9/11 as a fraud and are punishing the U.S. by not buying American goods;

- we should end military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, Ron Paul supports this, and anyone who disagrees is a "good German"

Now, how exactly does this explain "the value of gold" and support a return to the Gold Standard? That was your topic, wasn't it?

Posted by: keith on November 7, 2007 at 5:29 AM | PERMALINK

I'm not a Ron Paul fanatic, but I have admired his political career for a while. He strikes me as a Goldwater conservative and he sticks to his principles. Amongst the current crop of Republicans, that's the best I think we can hope for.

If I lived in his district, I'd vote for him. If I had a vote in an Republican primary, I'd vote for him. If it were a Presidential match up of Clinton v. Paul, yeah, I'd vote for Ron Paul.

Put Ron Paul up against Kucinich, Richardson, Dodd, Edwards...I'd vote for any of them over Ron Paul. You get a really strange cross section.

Posted by: PC on November 7, 2007 at 6:05 AM | PERMALINK

To those of you who THINK you know economics because you have taken one or two college economic classes, think again. They do not address the core problem of financial/usury capitalism - the creation by private central bankers of money from nothing as debt at interest. This interest can never be repaid unless the money supply is continually expanding.

While Ron Paul's gold standard idea may or may not be the best idea, the idea of a private central bank creating fiat money at interest has been at the heart of most of the great conflicts in US history starting with the Revolutionary War.

“The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament, which has caused in the Colonies hatred of England and the Revolutionary War.” -- Benjamin Franklin

Do some research for yourself rather than spouting off childish insults.

To the original post, your story hit digg...I posted the web address of this blog in the comment section and suggested some people come over here and give you their thoughts on the matter. Hopefully, that accounts for some of the response. Welcome to the 21st Century.

Posted by: Steve on November 7, 2007 at 7:00 AM | PERMALINK

I'm no Ron Paul supporter, but my reaction to your post, to your suggestion that they ask him some real questions and to the general dismissal of Ron Paul's candidacy is pretty simple.

Hell yeah, ask Ron Paul about a return to the Gold Standard. It wouldn't actually be that hard to state how such a policy would work--new instruments backed by gold could be created, and set free in the marketplace to try to reverse Gresham's law. It's loony, but you can certainly make a case.

But if you are going to ask Ron Paul real questions, then you should also start asking the other candidates Ron Paul's questions. Why is the US in Iraq? What's the mission? Why is the US on a permanent war footing? Who is the enemy? Why are you supporting a farm bill that is really, really terrible policy?

Moreover, to the degree that Paul is a loon, these guys are all loons (or claim to be). They say an eight cell blastocyst is the same thing as a six year old. They propose deficits for as far as the eye can see---making them bigger, in fact--with no prospect for ever paying for them. This is every bit as loony as Ron Paul's gold standard position.

Their foreign policy is batshit crazy--been PROVEN to be batshit crazy because a merely stupid, nutty and shortsighted foreign policy has left the US in the toilet--and their policy position is "more cowbell." Where are the people asking them to explain their batshit crazy foreign policy positions?

So, Kevin, why are you picking on Ron Paul? He makes as much sense as any of them do.

Posted by: jayackroyd on November 7, 2007 at 7:16 AM | PERMALINK

I showed my students a documentary on Sacco and Vanzetti last night. I heard one mention Ron Paul during the break and out of curiosity asked the class if anyone could distinguish anarchism from libertarianism. No one could. I explained to them that libertarianism, despite its social liberalism places capitalism, private property and the acceptance of any level of wealth and power disparity at its center. Anarchism, in contrast, is radically leftist ideology, which rejects hierarchy, capitalism and private property. They had no idea, and it appears that this ideological and historical confusion maybe a particularly American product. Few in Europe, for example, would view a deeply right-wing ideology like libertarianism as progressive.

Posted by: shoebeacon on November 7, 2007 at 7:34 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin never reads this far in comments, but fwiw: what is the harm in taking Paul seriously?

And how would you do it?

There's always a useful distinction between the candidate and the cause, between the positions that somebody like Paul (or Clinton, or Romney, or McCain, etc.) advocates and the voters who support the candidate. They may not vote for him or her cuz they LIKE all the positions, they may like just one of 'em, or the balance struck, or they may just like the person.

And a protest vote is a PROTEST; it's a vote against, not a vote for.

Steven sounds like a real Paulbearer, with the argument that "debt at interest... can never be repaid unless the money supply is continually expanding."

I take more or less as an article of faith that nobody actually understands this stuff (which isn't quite to test the constant refinement of my personal version of the Heisenberg Principle, which I have been working on but isn't ready yet: "If I don't understand it, nobody understands it." Still, I'm gathering data.) But as the engine for a protest vote, it'll do.

Paul is actually a likeable guy, where, for example, Giuliani is not. He compares with McCain in some ways, cuz he's obviously willing to say stuff that attracts attacks, as when he asked why we were attacked on 9-11, and explained it was cuz we've been mucking around in the Middle East: Giuliani and others demanded that he take it back, which struck a chord with many people BECAUSE he was attacked for what in fact many people say as their second insight into terrorism.

Plus, he's the only solid pro-lifer in the race.

That's not a negligible combination: throw in the easy sneering that ignites populist resentment, and it ain't impossible that he will place in Iowa and WIN in New Hampshire, insha'allah.

Remember Garrison Keillor's take on Jesse Ventura's election, where he said Minnesota woke up the next morning and realized it had been dancing on the sofa in its underwear: we elected WHO? What progressives doesn't LONG for a GOP nomination fight where Paul has a significant chunk of delegates????

So, give the Paulbearers some love.

Steve -- isn't the issue whether the amount of WEALTH has expanded? Wealth counts more than money. Isn't increased wealth more efficiently exchanged with more money, right? There's a multiplier effect from debt -- I create more wealth than I consume, which means savings, which means investment. The investment is a kind of debt -- a loan of MY property that someone else uses to create more wealth. They pay me interest, so my money works for me, AND creates jobs, and thus, more money as it builds wealth.

Right?

Oddly enough, there is an alternative economic vision that rejects interest, which dominates Muslim countries and was considered, but discarded in the US back in the Depression, in which instead of debt it is equity that is traded.

But it would be real interesting to hear the Paulbearers talk to the Malaysians about ribbah.

So I dunno that dismissing 'em as cranks is the most productive approach.

Posted by: theAmericanist on November 7, 2007 at 7:40 AM | PERMALINK

I wish Ron Paul well in the Republican nomination campaign. Presidential TV debates between Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich would be a hell of a lot more interesting than debates between Giuliani and Clinton.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on November 7, 2007 at 7:57 AM | PERMALINK

Pretty funny stuff.

One thing is certain. After Iraq, Cheney, Bush, and the Duke-stir, Republicans are going to be struggling to redefine themselves for the foreseeable future. It would be fun to see what the evangelicalists, big military/neocons, corporate lobbyists, Lieberman, and the duct tape crowd do with a Libertarian candidate.

Posted by: B on November 7, 2007 at 8:19 AM | PERMALINK

I live in Naperville IL, a Republican stronghold. I see Ron Paul signs quite a bit. His name is spray painted into the grass above a little underpass heading into the downtown neighborhoods.

Posted by: Laura on November 7, 2007 at 8:29 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum,

I never heard of you before the other day, so that makes you a nobody, and from what I have read from your site, you lack any intelligence whatsoever.

Posted by: John on November 7, 2007 at 8:32 AM | PERMALINK

Libertarianism appeals to man-boys who delude themselves into thinking that they can control external events to the extent that they require little or no reference to the society in which they live. Since few women are deluded by this fantasy, there are few women libertarians. Which means that the libertarian males become alienated with the "castrating bitches" whom they see as trying to control their lives. Which means they mostly don't last long in relationships and therefore have plenty of time to post comments on the web and support quixotic, cult candidates.

Posted by: Virginia on November 7, 2007 at 8:38 AM | PERMALINK

The only yard signs I see are Ron Paul signs, and there are a lot. While it may be a lot of fun for some to make fun of the boobs and rubes who are true believers, this sort of phenomenon should be taken seriously and the reasons he is appealing to so many should not be dismissed or taken lightly. Ross Perot, another fringe candidate, had a significant impact on the '92 election. While I may think Ron Paul's ideas are wrong, the kind of snobbism that dismisses him and supporters isn't very smart.

Posted by: Chrissy on November 7, 2007 at 8:41 AM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul has won FOX text polls after several deates now and has gained popularity with the troops. People are becoming worried about the constitutional issues as well. The old school Republicans have finally begun to figure out that the neo-cons are just extreme lefty come righty cons whose 'liberals mugged by reality' mantra is a lie. The American conservative magazine, now has a site 2007, both started by Taki Theodorocopulus [Takimag.com] has decided to take in the neo-conservatives. Justin Raimondo, Anti-war.com has sided with Taki and the anti-war network, which has an Austin, TX following. By watching the media one comes away with this idea that only Democrats and liberals are against this war, thats so not so.
So, they come from FOX news, from freeper land and many other old school [with many young followers] Republican publication/sites.

My POV of course...

Posted by: Ya Know.... on November 7, 2007 at 8:41 AM | PERMALINK

How long has CBS been cross-posting PA with a direct Digg link button?

Posted by: fdsa on November 7, 2007 at 8:44 AM | PERMALINK

Wherever they come from, there is no there there.

Posted by: Bob M on November 7, 2007 at 8:46 AM | PERMALINK

All I know about Ron Paul is that his supporters put up the best non-professional political videos on the web and if you want to drive traffic to your site, just mention his name. Within seconds your hits will spike. Oh, I think they really believe they are part of a revolutionary movement. They are mostly middle aged, at least old enough to remember "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised."

Posted by: corpus juris on November 7, 2007 at 8:54 AM | PERMALINK

Mr. Drum,

To answer your question, I saw your piece on CBS, so you can blame/thank them for the deluge. And I come from just north of Atlanta, GA, if it satisfies your curiosity.

I just did quick perusal of the 300+ replies to your 'Fruitcake' piece and:

1. The vast majority of the comments there did not have ALL CAPS as you indicated (no: GOP and IBM don't count). Does your blog engine un-capitalize, or did you just make that up for effect?
2. Hard to say for sure, but I think the number of anti-Paul replies accounted for at least 1/3 of those comments. So, I would ask: "Where do THEY come from?" It's not at all hard to imagine people who support someone coming to their defense when their candidate is called a 'fruitcake.' But I think the real story is that there are people who wait around to pile on and be critical of Rep. Paul's supporters. Now that, my friends, is sad.
3. Forgive me, for I am unfamiliar with your past great work at WM. Have you ever called another candidate a 'fruitcake' or any other equally juvenile name in the past? If you did and there was no reply, that tells us a lot about their supporters.

Finally, it almost sounds as though you are blaming the answerer (Paul) for the questioner's choice of questions (at the debates)? Does that sound fair to you?

Thanks for the vine.

Peace be with you.

Posted by: Chris F on November 7, 2007 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINK

Most of the emails were the usual collection of ALL CAPS and exclamation points that we've c. . .

comments ≠ emails

Posted by: tbroz on November 7, 2007 at 9:02 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe because your commentary was so insufferably know-it-allish and Washington-centric that it set a new standard for smugness? ~ Justin Raimondo

Seconded! Drum, of late, appears to have anointed himself Supreme Arbiter of "political legitimacy". From my experience, that's decidedly laughable, considering the mere "gossip columnist" treatment he typically affords other, allegedly "viable" candidates.

Kevin, just when and how did you achieve this privileged "omniscience"? Should we just abandon all pretense of democracy, and simply let "wonderful you" decide who's fit for the Presidency? Much more of this kind of nonsense, and the Washington Monthly's Internet presence will be regarded as a mere source of "Infotainment", and a rather dubious one at that.

It's the night-and-day difference between political commentary and shameless campign propaganda that's manifested by this type of slur. Moreover, I vaguely recall disdain towards "candidate trolling" expressed here previously by the site's Moderator. Et tu, Drume?
.

Posted by: Poilu on November 7, 2007 at 9:06 AM | PERMALINK

While Ron Paul's gold standard idea may or may not be the best idea, the idea of a private central bank creating fiat money at interest has been at the heart of most of the great conflicts in US history starting with the Revolutionary War.

Just one coherent, economics-based defense of Ron Paul's economics. Applause for the only Ron Paul fan informed of Ron Paul's actual policy platform.

Maybe if he's still around, he can explain to me how Ron Paul is going to scrap the Federal Reserve and all banking regulation, and yet protect our financial system from the kinds of panics and collapses that dominated the nineteenth century.
This is an important question, because our financial system is pretty much all we have left in this country.

Posted by: glasnost on November 7, 2007 at 9:09 AM | PERMALINK

I will admit that they have half a point, though, Kevin - your first post was pretty smug and makes a lot of assumptions. I don't know what's going to become of the Ron Paul movement, but anything that has this much energy cannot be guaranteed to just vanish into the ether without a trace.

I am getting worried about a Ron Paul third-party run in the general election that allows the Republican candidate to win the presidency with less (much less) of the popular vote than even in Bush 2000. That scenario could literally destroy the country.

Rudy-Hilary-Ron Paul. Someone in the Guliani campaign is thinking about it, and I don't trust Ron Paul to have the wisdom to decline. I'm sort of afraid even to type it out for fear of planting a seed.

Posted by: glasnost on November 7, 2007 at 9:13 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, my aching ass. That's the last thing a sane person would do. ...

Yeah, Normie ... as if YOU would have ANY idea what sane people do. [Snort.]

However, you do in this instance have one trait in common with our Mister Drum: a penchant for snide condescension.
.

Posted by: Poilu on November 7, 2007 at 9:19 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin and his lackeys (like Norman) wouldn't recognize greatness if it slapped them upside the head. Let's quit this place and work on freeping that CBS poll. We're slipping into the 50's.

Posted by: A. Slater on November 7, 2007 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

They come from the shadows of the night.

Posted by: Alex on November 7, 2007 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

If Mr Paul wasn't anti-war, none of us would recognize his name.

Posted by: david on November 7, 2007 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

Thought for the Day

First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you win.
~ Mohandas Gandhi
.

Posted by: Poilu on November 7, 2007 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

I'm not sure how many Paul voters are actually out there, but they seem to be the most media-savvy group out there. I know from my many years in tech jobs that many techies are libertarian, and also tuned in to all forms of media. There are always a couple of Paul supporters calling in to every radio show I listen to - starting from the C-Span call-in show in the morning, which I get on XM radio, as do many of the Paul callers, and going through all of the Air America shows during the day. I'm sure it is the same if not more on the rightie radio.

Posted by: Dawn on November 7, 2007 at 9:38 AM | PERMALINK

Where ever they come from, don't let them breed with Clark supporters or we will have real trouble on our hands!

Posted by: Nazgul35 on November 7, 2007 at 9:44 AM | PERMALINK

Welcome to Political Animal, all Paul supporters. Come for the snide condescension, stay for the Friday Cat Blogging!!

Posted by: Dawn on November 7, 2007 at 9:50 AM | PERMALINK

there actually is a "libertarian socialism."

SocraticGadfly: Thanks for the tip. Now I don't feel so off-balance, assuming I'd coined an ostensibly "mutually exclusive" label to describe my own position.

Of course, it would also be genuinely helpful if people around here were a little mindful of proper capitalization!:

"Conservative" != "conservative"
"Libertarian" != "libertarian"
"Liberal" != "liberal"
"Democratic" != "democratic"

...etc., etc.

Alas, such is the generally bastardized state of modern American "English"! (Somewhat like "New Speak", eh?)
.

Posted by: Poilu on November 7, 2007 at 9:59 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin's original post reminds me of the famous complaint that Averill Harriman was supposed to have said about Jimmy Carter early in 1976: "Carter? How can he become President? Nobody I know has ever met him."

Folks on the Web are fond of dissing Mainstream Media, but it's worth noting that part of the legend of the late Johnny Apple of the NY Times (as he would tell you himself in a heartbeat) was that he realized before anybody else that the combination of Watergate, Carter's outsider position, his own proud naivete, plus the Iowa caucuses, made this unknown into a genuine contender.

And then, a President. (okay, so not a GOOD one.)

The building blocks of the political dynamic are first, name recognition: people are hearing Ron Paul's name.

Second, favorables: Paul's positives are way ahead of his negatives. When people hear his name, they sorta like it.

Third, negatives: Clinton, for example, has extremely high negatives, they've peaked. Everybody has heard of her, and virtually everybody has formed an opinion. Paul basically has no negatives -- and what Kevin wants, is for that to change. Finally,

Organization. What nobody can tell yet is if Paul has (or is capable of putting together) an organization that identifies and turns out his supporters.

But Lordy, Kevin: the reaction to your posts, the lawn signs, etc., oughta be a CLUE.

Posted by: theAmericanist on November 7, 2007 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

The emails come from people who give a damn about this country and who realize that if a candidate doesn't platform on hard change, then he/she is just another sellout like you. RP supporters are apparently the polar opposite of jerkoffs like yourself. You tout superficial 'research' as news worthy - get a phuckin clue dickmuncher. The only reason your article got posted on CBS is because there were no facts in your piece, just the usual insults and psychological manipulation - a predictable tact of the major media players bandwagon attack on RP. If only you knew why they are so scared of RP's policies. I bet you can't even begin to have an intellectual debate about any of RP's prospective policies can you?? You are worthless and weak writer Kevin Drum. However, I'm sure your piece will do more to spin the masses in the negative direction than any good despite the objection of RP supporters. It's too bad the people's choice won't be heard because the so called 'free press' is exactly the opposite of what it says it is. This country's press has been taken over by corporate sellouts!!! Thanks again for helping to destroy liberty and freedom. Be ashamed loser.

Posted by: Kevin Drum is a Corporate Sellout on November 7, 2007 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I read and enjoy your posts routinely and I'm unlikely to actually vote for Paul, but I was one of the people who wrote in with something positive about his Constitutional arguments.

So perhaps some of "them" are always here? Them is us, some of us at least.

Posted by: Davd again on November 7, 2007 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

B at 1:28 nailed it.

Posted by: shortstop on November 7, 2007 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

I like the idea that it's a cult. Ron's cult started in 1974, and I was there. It's a cult based on the simple logical belief that individual liberty is ALWAYS better than government coercion. It actually got organized in 1776 and spread slowly amongst well-educated, thoughtful people who read and think for themselves instead of feeding on the self-serving and state-serving bilge served up by the MSM.

Posted by: Lonzo on November 7, 2007 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

First, we had no "national bank" during the Mexican War or the Civil War. We had what was known as a "sub-Treasury" system for currency issues, but no federal bank.

Second, the Civil War saw the first issuance of U.S. paper money, again without a federal bank or Federal Reserve. Some of you Ron Paulers might read your U.S. history more closely.

Third, cutting through Albert's failure to actually talk about a gold standard, what he's trying to say is that gold is, in essence, a notional method of accounting for economic fluctuations between different countries. But, if only one country is playing that game, it produces a money run, just as happened in the 1970s before Tricky Dick took us off what was left of the gold standard.

Given today's U.S. economy, going on the gold standard here would last about one week before the U.S. ran out of gold.

Again, you Ron Paulers really need to actually read some U.S. history, along with some better economics books.

Muttering "gold standard" as a shibboleth is about as bad as the most right of the Religious Right talking about red heifers being sacrificed on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on November 7, 2007 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK

Come for the snide condescension, stay for the Friday Cat Blogging!!

Friday Cat Blogging r0x0r5!!!

Posted by: e. nonee moose on November 7, 2007 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

Paul supporters are libertarians (I know, duh.) But most libertarians don't like to be identified as libertarians. They think people will brand them as impractical, dogmatic loonies (I don't think they're loonies, but their principles are undeniably both dogmatic and impractical as a means for governing the U.S. in 2007). But dress up a true libertarian in a republican (or maybe even democratic) uniform, and all of a sudden it's OK to boisterously support your candidate.

Posted by: Tom in Houston on November 7, 2007 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

But most libertarians don't like to be identified as libertarians. They think people will brand them as impractical, dogmatic loonies

You don't say.

Posted by: Gregory on November 7, 2007 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

The problem with the Paulines is that their support is essentially religious. Their prophet, you see, must be right about everythning. If one criticizes any aspect of his belief system, one must be cast out. That produces the swarm.

In these more rational climes, one can actually evaluate the policies of candidates, reject some, accept others. I personally, for example, like Clinton's health care proposal, and I do not like her foreign policy positions.

But no Ron Paul supporter takes measured positions. Many on this site would agree with most of his foreign policy and bill of rights positions. Many might accept the notion that government regulation of "commerce" has stretched a bit far, but have doubts about where the line can be drawn between commerce the government can regulate and what it can not. Most would doubt that it's sensible to unleash corporations upon us without regulation -- they're bad enough as it is, worse than government in fact. Finally, hardly anybody here thinks stuff like the gold standard makes a bit of sense, because it doesn't. The existence of the gold standard in late 19th century America enriched banks and impoverished farmers and other debtors. Reimposing it is simply crazy. That Paul supporters support the entirety of this mishmash without the least consideration of likely effects of the more radical proposals confirms its essentially religious aspect.

Those who favor Paul are pretty good at pointing out the problems, a divergence from America's historical values and widespread economic insecurity among both blue- and white-collar workers, even those who have family incomes that put them in the top 10% of the nation. I think that they would do well to evaluate the positions other candidates take, or solutions that policy wonks propose, to see how they stack up against Paul's. In the economic arena, an informed evaluation would show that Paul is a fruitcake to the point that his proposals, even if they could be implemented, would ruin the country. In other areas, he is certainly worth listening to.

Posted by: David in NY on November 7, 2007 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, kevin...you missed your window of opportunity! Have another fundraising drive and write a couple of posts about how great ron paul is (we'll all be in on the joke and post about how awesome he is) you could totally shake the paulinas down for some serious cash!

by the way, why are people so impressed by 4.5 million bucks? The goal was ten, right? So they achieved 45% of their announced goal, and people are impressed?

Posted by: Northzax on November 7, 2007 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

I love all these new people on the post here especially the rocket scientists like John. He said" Kevin Drum Ive never heard of you until the other day so that makes you a nobody etc., etc. Wow what hole did this new DaVinci crawl out of.

Posted by: Gandalf on November 7, 2007 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

I think the whole thing is a plot my Norman Rogers to make himself look sane.

And to repeat myself: many Paul supporters seem to be new to this coutnry. Welcome, friends. Now learn fucking English!

I'm talking to you, Mister Dig-Up-From-The-Grave.

Posted by: thersites on November 7, 2007 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

Or should I say a plot by Norman Rogers.

OT: I hope Kevin keeps the moderators well supplied with quality booze. They're earning it.

Posted by: thersites on November 7, 2007 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

"but anything that has this much energy cannot be guaranteed to just vanish into the ether without a trace. ... glasnost"

That's what they said about Ross Perot and whatever his "party" was called. Where have you gone, Ross Perot?

Posted by: David in NY on November 7, 2007 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

Kevins article is a 4 paragraph essay which attempts to characterize Ron Paul as someone whos crazy but like all hit pieces, provides no substantive arguments to show it. Rather, its an amalgamation of emotion and contradiction. In the last Republican debate I saw, this noted truth-teller gave a strange and convoluted answer about his economic policies that the audience plainly didnt understand, writes Kevin. Nor do I understand as Kevin forgot to cite what that example was. This is no different than the village idiot trying to sell someone three magic beans saying trust me they work.

http://www.ronpaulnewengland.com/index.php/ron-paul-fruitcake

Posted by: disinter on November 7, 2007 at 11:06 AM | PERMALINK

Someone upthread suggested that we (non Paulites) don't understand that Paul can have broad appeal among Republicans.

Well, um, yes I think I do understand that issue, and I reject the assertion out of hand. No, I don't believe that, and even if it were true, which it is not, the important point is entirely missed: Our two parties are exemplars of machine politics, and at this time, the GOP machine is a beast, a reckless and power-committed monster intent on ruining America, a coalition that sold its soul to the devil of the Dobsonites and the Limbaugh Dittoheads and cares nothing for any real values at all, Paul's or anyone else's.

And therefore, as I said upstream, Paul cannot be taken seriously as a candidate as long as he stands with the GOP or just rests under its tent. The party is toxic and corrupt. If the man is serious, he has to walk away from the Republican party, otherwise, fuck him, he is just wasting everyone's time. The GOP machine will not tolerate him on any serious level. It will crush him, and he can't represent that party, even if it didn't crush him.

Posted by: ThymeZone on November 7, 2007 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

Hehe. Oh boy, my man, have you yet again stepped in it. This new post will generate yet ANOTHER 300+ posts (check out Glenn Greenwald's RP count...OVER 500!).

If you disturb the hot, fetid hornet's nest that is the "libertarians" and the Paulians, you will get swarmed and attacked...and you did it AGAIN!

This will be "fun" in a sick kinda way. The zombies will be coming out of the woodwork, the basements, the tombs, and congregate right here in an attempt to eat you brain. Sheilds up Kevin!

The ME ME ME ME I GOT MINE SO FUCK YOU libertarians are volatile and often to be found among the immature ranks of college campuses, attending on mommy and daddy's rich pockets. Then you will also get a few dregs from the militia movement or bitter divorced men who were "taken to the cleaners" by their abused spouse.

I shall stand back now and watch the inchoate post count climb towards the stratosphere.

Posted by: Praedor Atrebates on November 7, 2007 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

why are people so impressed by 4.5 million bucks?

Not to mention the figure of 36,000 donors, proudly touted above--as if, in an nation of 330 million, 36,000 nutjobs were a significant number.

Posted by: rea on November 7, 2007 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

i am just wondering how Mr. Drum pulls it off to say that Guliani is just like every other candidate (which any aware person can see) and so doesn't support Guliani but still doesn't have enough faith in this country to believe they could comprehend Ron Paul, or are ready for a change that could save our country. Is it fear? I'd like to know who is he voting for?

Posted by: hopeful future on November 7, 2007 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

I think Ron Paul voters are smart guys (yep, nearly all men), probably good chess-players with low-ish social and emotional intelligence, who fervently believe that if the rules of the game were fair, they would take their rightful places at the top of the heap. If Ron Paul's supporters are engineer-types and tech-savvy, perhaps they will expose the Republicans who will no doubt try to supress his primary votes. Wouldn't that be nice!

Posted by: notasheep on November 7, 2007 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

Regarding the role of Google News, I strolled over and in a few clicks found the Google News Help Desk, where among the several general technical inquiries was the plaintive question: "Is Google Blocking Ron Paul from Top Stories? What do you think?"

But a desultory search on Google News for Ron Paul did not cough up Kevin's "Fruitcake" post.

My guess: Some of the regulars here are Paul supporters and they communicate any Paul commentary to the rest.

Posted by: paxr55 on November 7, 2007 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

"the idea of a private central bank creating fiat money at interest has been at the heart of most of the great conflicts in US history starting with the Revolutionary War."

Gee, there I was thinking Gavil Princip offing the Archduke was the cause of WW1, and that the Civil War was about slavery, or the Cold War was an ideological conflict about the role of government and the market. Turns out it was all the central's banks fault.

Yup, totally unjustified calling Paul's supporters loons.

Also, the Bank of England didn't take the role of control of issue of banknotes until 1844, genius. If Franklin was pissed off with the English bankers, it included private bankers who had the power to issue their own scrip.

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on November 7, 2007 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

hopeful future: i am just wondering how Mr. Drum pulls it off to say that Guliani is just like every other candidate

Where did he say that? You guys must get awful sore pulling these "facts" out from between your buttocks all day.

Posted by: thersites on November 7, 2007 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

It doesn't hurt to pull your heads out of, um, your perspectives now and then, and notice the obvious: Clinton's election in 1992, and Bush's in 2000, were decisively affected by third party candidates -- Perot and Nader.

Neither of 'em built actual third PARTIES, but there's a recurring theme that ain't insignificant: a third candidate who draws more from one side or the other has decided who took over the White House the last TWO major changes.

So, think about it: what are the ISSUES on which a critical mass of voters would be sufficiently motivated to cast a 'plague on both your houses' vote in 2008?

Gee, those wouldn't be Iraq, the mysteries of the economy, the perception of political corruption andnot a dime's worth of difference between the parties, also pro-life, now would they?

Posted by: theAmericanist on November 7, 2007 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

"To those of you who THINK you know economics because you have taken one or two college economic classes, think again."

Actually took a course from an Austrian school guy once. Fortunately, it was a micro class, so not too much damage done. Topped the class, BTW.

"They do not address the core problem of financial/usury capitalism - the creation by private central bankers of money from nothing as debt at interest. This interest can never be repaid unless the money supply is continually expanding. "

Why's it a problem if the money supply is expanding? Do you know what the identity IP = MV means? And what it implies if the economy is growing? Do you understand how dipping into deflation risks a further contraction of the economy?

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on November 7, 2007 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

I'm a senior history/political science major in college, and the few elections I've participated in, always voted democratic. Until Ron Paul. When I first learned of him, I thought his opinions and ideas were too good to be true. I do not agree with everything he says, but his voting record is indicative of his character and what he has to offer. The other popular candidates are all controlled by corporate interests, aside from Kucinich and Gravel. They say one thing, but will do another, not Ron Paul. He doesn't want a North American Union, he never wanted War, and he wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve that is illegal. I'm disappointed in the die-hard Ron Paul supporters going crazy every time someone negatively criticizes him without merit..but there are a lot of sane supporters too. We believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and we see that he is a candidate that speaks for us.

Posted by: Kelley on November 7, 2007 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

Why's it a problem if the money supply is expanding?

Since the entire universe has been expanding (at an ever-increasing rate) from the moment of the Big Bang, it seems only fitting that money should expand to fill the space. If it didn't, there would be a net money vacuum and it wouldn't only be going south of the border.

Posted by: Praedor Atrebates on November 7, 2007 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

See? As Kelley demonstrates, college kids with no actual life experience, a VERY naive idea of how society and the world at large works, and very likely a lot of monetary help from mommy and daddy to get them thru school nearly debt-free (and growing up with their every want and need handed to them) fall under the siren call of ME ME ME GIVE ME MINE FUCK THE REST OF YOU that is libertarianism and Paulianism.

Posted by: Praedor Atrebates on November 7, 2007 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

There are people that hold dear the freedoms written down on that piece of paper called the US Constitution and The Bill Of Rights. Also there are people that could care less about the US Constitution and The Bill Of Rights.......Enough Said! Ron Paul 2008!!!!!

Let the lovers of Big Govt,massive foriegn aid,endlesss wars and BAD economic policy fans, whine all they want!

FREEDOM lovers will never stop till we win!!!!

Posted by: Robert on November 7, 2007 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

"money should expand to fill the space. If it didn't, there would be a net money vacuum and it wouldn't only be going south of the border."

Actually, a money vacuum is very, very bad. Not enough money (which is a result of the gold standard), produces deflation, which encourages people to hang onto, rather than spend, their money, which is what went wrong in various economic crises of the 19th century as well as the Great Depression. Minimal deflation is vastly worse than moderate inflation, and I don't see why Paul's supporters think otherwise. They're trying to cut their own throats.

Posted by: David in NY on November 7, 2007 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

Praedor, you really should call the MSM: 'Hey, did you know that some college kids are idealistic and naive? I mean, something should be DONE about this!!!'

Give.Me.A.Break.

Kelley: welcome to fullblown participation in the republic. Raise some hell. Win some (not many for awhile yet), lose some -- and learn from your mistakes.

Ya know, one of the small honorable things about Paul (IIRC) is that he refused to take payments from Medicare, which made a lot of doctors rich (and computerizing the system is what made Perot a billionaire). So the argument that Paul is all about selfishness is a little weak.

I'm just sayin'.


Posted by: theAmericanist on November 7, 2007 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, You started it and you know it. The words "Fruitcake" "Buttload" and "political infants" have no place in a serious political discussion. I would have expected more from CBS, even on a blog. And to then have the audacity to tell your readers to "grow up". Well I hope you and CBS continue to get a "buttload" of commentary until you both claen up and present yourself a bit more professionally.

Posted by: Miranda on November 7, 2007 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

"Minimal deflation is vastly worse than moderate inflation, and I don't see why Paul's supporters think otherwise."

'Cos they're using the wrong metric of economic health - fetishizing gold and money supply instead of GDP.

And, frankly, I don't think they know enough economics to realize that they are doing so.

"They're trying to cut their own throats. "

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on November 7, 2007 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

I have been a conservative republican of 30 yrs and can verifiably attest to the fact that when a writer or blogger attacks a candidate with "name calling" then they are most definitely "intimidated". Reminds me of 1st grader antics. No worries...at least not for my candidate. www.ronpaul2008.com

Posted by: Kate on November 7, 2007 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

To any fellow liberals:

Here is the problem. We sit here on our little blogs, often deriding the narratives given us by the MSM, acting as though we were somehow above it all. But are we? Do we focus on Clinton and Obama because they are the frontrunners, or are they the frontrunners because we, like our mainstream counterparts focus on them? The relationship is surley symbiotic, but I think to a great extent we follow the MSM narrative. We narrate based on polls and TV appearances rather than the meat of the issues. Obama mania! Hillary this! Hillary that! What is Drudge saying today?! I don't agree, but I'll talk about it.

Meanwhile, you have these people over here fighting for a guy on the otherside who has been marginalized. And we play along with that MSM game. We can pretend we ignore Paul because of his "crazy" views, but we kid ourselves. We don't consider Paul because nobody told us we could. He was never ordained a serious candidate by the guy holding the conch.

I am not familiar with all his views, but if I had to vote based on what little I know, (Paul versus Obama or Clinton). I'm would go with Paul. My top concern is the resurrection of the constituion and the abolition of unwarranted mass murder. He voted against torure, Iraq, and the Patriot Act.

That means more to me than all else. Obama and Clinton are a joke. We need leadership. I prefer progressive leadership. But if the democrats won't dismantle Bush's baby fascist state, then I maybe Paul will.

We've gone this long without healthcare we survive another 4 to 8 years. I'm not going to worry about my unpaid doctor's bills so long as we are torturing innocent people in the name of secutrity. Does that make me a fruitcake?

Posted by: john stephen lewis on November 7, 2007 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

An interpreter's suggestion: translate jargon like 'fetishing gold and money supply instead of GDP' into plain American.

"Do you know what the identity IP = MV means?"

No. And ya know what? I'm in a VAST majority in that.

I think what ultimately motivates Paulbearers, like most economic populists, is simply 'them' vs 'us'. These folks may pose as economic sophisticates, but I don't think they have that much of their ego invested in it (Kelley, Exhibit A) the way supply siders did.

What really moves 'em is the idea that politics and economics have become a racket, manipulated by BOTH parties.

So talking jargon just confirms their alienation. Why do that, Puppet?

Posted by: theAmericanist on November 7, 2007 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

Those who regard Paul as a fruitcake seem to focus on his economic policies. I think you need to consider him in the context of the policies and practices of the modern Republican party.

After seven years of Bushco, Ronald Reagan conservative ideology has been revealed as crock of s**t. Well, duh. Personally, I have never understood how Republican minds didn't explode as they rationalized the inconsistency inherent in their cut taxes/spend more/pro-miliatry approach; How did they ever expect to govern when their ideology simultaneously holds that 1) government IS the problem and taxes and government should be slashed AND 2) the US should dominate the world militarily to ensure oil supplies and profits? (Perhaps it was the fog of greed?)

It seems to me that Ron Paul supporters are conservatives who still believe in conservatism: limited government, civil liberty, individualism, the Constitution, avoidance of foreign entanglements. They also appear to be people who are fed up with the modern marketing of candidates, the targeted policy positions and newsworthy soundbites; Paul supporters are attracted by a candidate who has integrity and the courage to speak from principle. He clearly respects the Constitution. In the pack of Republicans running for the nomination, Paul stands out as the most sane because he is the only one who comprehends how badly the Iraq war has damaged America. On several of these points (integrity, pro-Constitution, anti-Iraq) I agree with them.

If Paul were to win the Republican nomination, I would consider voting for him. We're talking a 10% chance versus absolutely never, 0%, for the other Republicans. But I would be tempted by his integrity, his willingness to adher to principle (even though I disagree with the libertarian model), his respect for the Constitution, and his recognition of how Reagan conservatism has damaged the American republic. Pit him against groomed, legacy candidate, Hillary Clinton, and the odds might increase to 1:4.

Posted by: PTate in MN on November 7, 2007 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

theAmericanist wrote:

"So talking jargon just confirms their alienation."

If I meet someone proposing to use phlogiston theory to explain combustion, then I'm probably going to have to use concepts like enthalpy, entropy, free energy, thermodynamic equilibrium, and activation energy.

If someone is going to lecture us [as "Steve" did) about monetary and banking theory, I'm going to have to use some concepts that one would learn almost as soon as one's butt has barely warmed the classroom seat of an Econ 101 class to refute him. Sorry, but that's it.

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on November 7, 2007 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

Use the concepts, sure. It's the JARGON I'm pointing out is a license to fail.

FWIW, I had an epiphany of sorts when I took Econ 101. The professor talked about equilibrium, and the TA's spent lots of time explaining how to graph x and y, supply and demand and price, and I remember having the damndest time trying to do the graph of the "break even point"...

... until I realized what an incredible pile they had built up to obscure drawing a LINE DOWN THE MIDDLE.

Talk plain.

Posted by: theAmericanist on November 7, 2007 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

When I first saw Ron Paul in a Republican debate. I was struck by the fact that saying blatantly obvious things about U.S. foreign policy and civil liberties has been taken by so many as inspired revelation.

I'm guessing that a substantial proportion of his followers are people who wholeheartedly believed that "9/11 CHANGED EVERYTHING!!!e1even!" before two wars bogged down their bloodlust.

Bandwagon revolutionaries, how cute

Posted by: uri on November 7, 2007 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

Am I the only one who thinks it's hilarious that all these self-described political mavericks get their news from CBS?

Posted by: shortstop on November 7, 2007 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

I just gave Dr. Paul $100 the other night. I have never, ever given $$ to a republican candidate prior to this.

I'm just not sure the question of "where do (we) come from?" Physically, I'm in Massachusetts. Philosophically, I hate the vast majority of Republicans with a burning intensity.

However, since the majority of democrats really are spineless, and are almost as corrupt as republicans (case in point: the capitulation of guys like Reid and Rockefeller on the wiretap issue because of large $$ donations from telecoms), and since the system itself is hopelessly broken, I am supporting Ron Paul because he seems to be one of the few candidates that recognizes this fact. I may not agree with all of Paul's opinions, but I respect the guy for actually having principles.

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand - that there are a huge # of disaffected people across ideological lines who are desperate for a true agent of change.

Posted by: scott on November 7, 2007 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

One thing I've noticed is that freedom is more free when you spell it all uppercase.
FREEDOM!!!!!
Feel better now?

Fucking pinheads.

Posted by: thersites on November 7, 2007 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

CEO, top tax bracket, husband, father, combat veteran, regular voter, IQ in the 2 percentile.

I just like honest people in positions of power as opposed to liars.

I hope this clarifies things for you.

Good luck with your blog, hope you get buttloads of pageviews.

Posted by: frank parker on November 7, 2007 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

IQ in the 2 percentile

Who's helping you with the keyboard?

Posted by: thersites on November 7, 2007 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

We are legion! All your base are belong to us!

Posted by: A. Troll on November 7, 2007 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

That would be the right hand side of the bell curve, it goes both ways- should I say it slower just for you?

http://investmenttools.com/futures/forex/welcome_the_us_dollar__page__dollar_point___figure_chart__dollar_futures_.htm

And while you wasted your time being a smartass, the dollar fell to record lows.

Good luck wif dat.

Posted by: frank parker on November 7, 2007 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul is a global warming denier.

This demonstrates that he is a fool or a cynical liar seeking support from the libertarian fringe... or possibly both.

Posted by: jefff on November 7, 2007 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

Geez...after reading through these comments, I've decided that for whatever is supposed to commend Ron Paul - purported honesty, consistency, drawing a conclusion or three that I agree with - it's the prospect of people like the ones here supporting Paul ending up in the executive branch that turns me off cold.

Y'all mostly sound like a bunch of cultie loons, and I don't want the likes of you anywhere near this country's levers of power...Had enough of that already with Dubya's administration.

Posted by: grape_crush on November 7, 2007 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin:
I'm not an Original Ron Paul supporter--but I AM a staunch progressive and consider myself a Constitutional Conservative.

Ron Paul is not an extremist. He just believe the Founding Fathers actually meant what they said when they wrote the Constitution.

Anyone can find something in Paul's platform to mock and exaggerate as "extremee."

But his ideas are sound, pragmatic, down-to-earth, and perfectly consonant with the core values of the American People and consistent with the Constitution that expresses those values and makes plain our social contract.

It is the Establishment (Dems & Repubs) that is extreme. It is extreme to fritter away the plain meaning of the Constitution in specious legal decisions and openly anti-Constitutional legislation and executive decrees. And that's open the door to an "official"/"legal" form of treason.

There's nothing extreme about Ron Paul--and don't you dare pass off his popularity as the actions of a bunch of wingnuts.

I'm as progressive a Democrat as you can get--and I'm giving $500 to Ron Paul. Best thing that ever happened to Republicans. And I mean EVER.

Posted by: sombrerofallout on November 7, 2007 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

Sobrerofallout--

"But his ideas are sound, pragmatic, down-to-earth, and perfectly consonant with the core values of the American People and consistent with the Constitution that expresses those values and makes plain our social contract."

This statement is directly and fully contradicted by his stated support for a federal ban on abortions.

But thanks for playing.

.

Posted by: MFA on November 7, 2007 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

After reading most of these comments, I think Kevin should take the advice Posted by: Jess on November 7, 2007 at 12:30 AM

Posted by: Mazurka on November 7, 2007 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

One thing this thread ABSOLUTELY demonstrates is that the Ron Paul supporters in attendance appear FAR more rational and genuinely civil than the frenzied Ron Paul bashers, who've typically offered nothing but juvenile, sneering invective. (My apologies to those who DON'T fit this characterization; as for the rest, well, you know who you are, as always.)

Reflecting again on my capitalization critique, what is there that's remotely liberal about Drum's original post, this audaciously smug follow-up, or the various snipes made here by frothing "gate-keeper" types?

This is the type of combative frenzy that illustrates the astonishing IL-liberalism of some so-called Liberals. (Other hot buttons for same include gun control and anti-smoking sentiments, which also tend to bring out the worst in them.) The rest, I assume, are really red meat Conservatives of the NeoConNazi persuasion yearning for continued Fascist dominion. But it's simply AMAZING how many self-proclaimed libertarianism "experts" emerge here, professing an ability to "analyze" libertarians as a whole and from a significant ideological distance, whenever Kevin perpetrates one of these totally off-the-wall smears.

Last but not least -- and I can hardly believe I'm saying this -- Americanist, your own comments above were remarkably commendable, measured, and spot on! (Credit where credit's due, I guess.) Bravo!
.

Posted by: Poilu on November 7, 2007 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

Am I the only one who thinks it's hilarious that all these self-described political mavericks get their news from CBS?

I'm still puzzling over why all the RonBots think that Kev works for CBS and WaPo?

Bad intel in the swarm orders?

Posted by: Disputo on November 7, 2007 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

nothing but juvenile, sneering invective written in whole sentences, and properly spelled. (In most cases.)

Of course, every comment by a Ron Paul supporter on this and the previous thread is calm and well-reasoned. OF COURSE IM RIGHT!!!!!!!

Posted by: thersites on November 7, 2007 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin - your piece was posted at Libertypost.org which has a sizeable Paulista following. They are rabid.

Posted by: steve on November 7, 2007 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

I do have to admit that the RonBot BlogSwarm has given me a new appreciation of the relative sanity of our regular trolls.

Posted by: Disputo on November 7, 2007 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, this post at ronpaulforums.com appears to be the chatroom post that ordered the attack on you.

Google "RON PAUL, FRUITCAKE" to track all the other venues where orders were issued.

Posted by: Disputo on November 7, 2007 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

I'm still puzzling over why all the RonBots think that Kev works for CBS and WaPo?

Ah. Well, a quick glance at cbsnews.com shows that Political Animal links from the bloglist there. Why people who brag that they're too sharp to fall for politics as usual a) are even on cbsnews.com, b) can't tell the difference between a link and formal employment (or is there something you should tell us, Kev?) and c) are berating Kevin for not being up to "CBS standards" remains a mystery.

Presumably it's something similar on the WaPo site.

Posted by: shortstop on November 7, 2007 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop-
People read CBS news because... they are just normal people, not these tehcno libertarian hordes you guys keep making them out to be. You guys are absurd, you write these blogs and posts calling Ron Paul supporters every name in the book and ridicule their candidate, but when they respond with praise for their candidate or maybe even offense to what you've written, then suddenly they are irrational weirdos.

douchebags.

Posted by: Miranda on November 7, 2007 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

Great RonBot parody there, Miranda. Kudos.

Posted by: Disputo on November 7, 2007 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

MRA wrote:
This statement is directly and fully contradicted by his stated support for a federal ban on abortions.

But thanks for playing.
Posted by: MFA on November 7, 2007 at 1:41 PM

Nonsense, you patronizing twerp!

Privileging a single issue at the expense of the entire Ron Paul menu is irresonsible. And precisely why Democrats--and feminists--fail us, and fail themselves, utterly.

You don't bother to stand up for Constitutional issues OR environmental issues WE cherish as your brothers and political allies--so why in hell should any of us bow and scrape before your singleminded, politically costly litmus test?

It's not a trump card. It's a recipe for electoral defeat and a deeply divided nation.

For your own pet issue, you'd sacrifice the entire Constitution. How patriotic. You'd debase yourself, and abandon civil discussion entirely, to smear a good man who happens to be, hands-down, your intellectual superior. So much for civil discourse; so much for honest engagement.

Two things: Ron Paul would never succeed in passing a federal ban on abortion. Your concern is moot. Second, were he to succeed, and succeed putting into practice a policy of adherence to OTHER Constitutional clauses--it'd easily be well worth the bargain.

So take presumption of authority, along with your self-privileging single-issue litmus test, and shove it.

Posted by: sombrerofallout on November 7, 2007 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK
...For your own pet issue, you'd sacrifice the entire Constitution. How patriotic. .... sombrerofallout at 3:31 PM
For someone seeking support and a vote, this is singularily nasty. Ron Paul does not stand up for the Constitution. He stands for corporations, the gold standard and other positions. Each and every one of his positions are important, and they are for the most part loony. The Constitution as written by the Founders stood for individual liberty against tyranny. Ron Paul does not believe that Americans have the right of choice and the right to be protected by crony corporatists of the government

Since Ron Paul stands against individual choice and freedom, he does not stand for me.

.... the Ron Paul supporters in attendance appear FAR more rational and genuinely civil than the frenzied Ron Paul bashers.... Poilu at 2:06 PM

Review the comment referenced above. Try again.

Posted by: Mike on November 7, 2007 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

You want to know where all the Ron Paul supporters come from?

I come from Brazoria Texas. I want my rights and don't need government to do a damn thing for me but leave me the hell alone.

I am a 40ish mother with 4 kids and I don't want them to be drafted into another war for oil, or any other war for that matter.

I teach them to believe in God and the Golden Rule and the American regime foreign policy is completely against my religion, which is Christianity.

Ron Paul supporters are main stream working Americans who want to keep what they earn.

That is WHO and WHAT we are.

Thanks and I hope you get the message.

Posted by: Peggy on November 7, 2007 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

Mike,
As a die-hard Democrat--and dyed-in-the-wool progressive, it takes EVERYthing for me to even consider supporting a Repuglican.

So I'm not a Ron Paulite.

I was hardly "nasty" relative to the abusive attitude displayed by the blindered and counterproductive attacks I responded to.

On that one issue, I believe Ron Paul is wrong.

Even so, your assertion that--
"Ron Paul does not stand up for the Constitution. . . . [and] his positions are ... for the most part loony"--
--is wholly dishonest. It displays little integrity and less political acumen. It doesn't speak to the issue, nor to the merits of your position.

Ron Paul is far better versed in the "Constitution as written by the Founders" than ANY Democratic elected official to the righ of Russ Feingold (my guy).

Take the force-fed dogmatism you were weaned on--and grow up.

Attacking Ron Paul because you've been lied to in the classroom does not legitimate the smear tactics you so eagerly resort to. It also speaks volumes about your lack of integrity.

It is revealing that Establishment Democrats heavily invested in a compromised Constitution actually have the chutzpah not only to smear & lie about Ron Paul--rather than treat him as an ally capable of working in tandem to restore legitimate governance in this country--but can actually claim the Constitution as their own baby. 'Tain't remotely true.

Poor Mike! Try again, because the plate tectonics of national politics just shifted beneath your feet. Good luck with your equilibrium--may it be as unreliable as your sense of egalitarianism.

Posted by: sombrerofallout on November 7, 2007 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks peggy!

Stick around! These guys need to hear more of what you have to say.

It shouldn't be a surprise that our electoral victory will be based on the territory where "Right" and "Left" overlap: i.e., the Constitution.

It's the shared political terrain that unites Red Staters and Blue Staters in a self-evident common bond.

Too, too bad that to succeed in repairing the Constitution and healing the country, Horton, Ron and Russ will inevitably have to run out the Democratic and Republican scoundrels who've compromised the Constitution, but do not own it.
Ron Paul and Russ Feingold are like Horton in Dr. Suess's "Horton Hears a Hoo." And I quote: "I mean what I say and I say what I mean":

Posted by: sombrerofallout on November 7, 2007 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

(oops--here's the correct order)

Ron Paul and Russ Feingold are like Horton in Dr. Suess's "Horton Hears a Hoo."

And I quote: "I mean what I say and I say what I mean." Meaning that the Constition is a valid document that means what it says.

The pretense that the Constitution can be interpreted away, such that it's essentially inoperative, is essentially dead in the water. The Legislature joins the Judiciary by knowingly passing UnConstitutional laws; the Exec, but usurping tyrannical powers. As Democrats and progressives, let's call these "interpretations" what they are: treason. Time to win at the polls, and then to form a more perfect union.

After all, it's our birthright. And NO one can take away from us. Not by hook, and not by legislative crook.

Too, too bad that to succeed in repairing the Constitution and healing the country, Horton, Ron and Russ will inevitably have to run out the Democratic and Republican scoundrels who've compromised the Constitution, but do not own it.

Posted by: sombrerofallout on November 7, 2007 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK

"But it's simply AMAZING how many self-proclaimed libertarianism "experts" emerge here,"

Look, if Ron Paul's supporters believe so fervently in the value of e.g. the Gold Standard, then they should be able to explain it, right? (Without giving us the homework assignment of reading a mises.org paper.) Instead, we get intimations of a sinister banking cabal, and at least one 9-11 truther above, and paeans to the Messiah-like qualities of St.Paul.

The reality is: He's Barry Goldwater come again, (but a bit more eccentric in his views). Now, a son-of-Goldwater would be a great improvement on the current crop of GOP'ers, and *but that doesn't mean I want to vote for him or like his followers*. It's great that he's critical of current US foreign policy, but frankly I can get that from Obama or Edwards or Dodd and get it without a bunch of other baggage. And frankly the herd-like quality of 40-odd RonPaulers coming here and lecturing us all to think for ourselves gives me a creepy feeling I haven't felt since being accosted by a guy trying to sell me a copy of "Dianetics".

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on November 7, 2007 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

It looks like the RonBorg has finally begun to adapt to the local environment and are now pretending to be progressives.... how cute!

Posted by: Disputo on November 7, 2007 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

Miranda on November 7, 2007 at 3:17 PM:

People read CBS news because...

No, a majority of the Paul supporters in the two comments sections came here due to postings on Ron Paul fansites, high-fiving each other over how many comments they can generate. Once the blogswarm has subsided, maybe a couple of you will stay around, but most will retreat and wait for the next time you feel your favorite candidate is besmirched and swarm out again.

You guys are absurd, you write these blogs and posts calling Ron Paul supporters every name in the book..

Not every name...'tho I'd like to amend my earlier namecalling to read "somewhat well-intentioned cultist loonies", similar to how I feel about a number of fundamentalist Christians. You're mostly nice until someone disgree with your beliefs...then lookout...

..douchebags.

I guess we need to add another name to 'the book'...right, Miranda?

Peggy on November 7, 2007 at 3:46 PM:

That is WHO and WHAT we are.

Ron Paul supporters are people who - generally - possess a Republican group identity which keeps them from supporting a Democratic candidate, but who rightfully can't seem to muster enough cognitive dissonance to support a mainstream Republican candidate.

Posted by: grape_crush on November 7, 2007 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

Where do they all come from?
France.

Posted by: not thersites on November 7, 2007 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

Nobody who BELIEVES in it can explain the meaning of the Gold Standard, Puppet.

It's like JP Morgan said about the price of buying stuff you want -- if you have to ask, you can't.

Posted by: theAmericanist on November 7, 2007 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

where do all the Ron Paul fans come from?


Well. when a mommy and a daddy love each other ...

(I'm surprised you don't know this :)

Posted by: Terry on November 7, 2007 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK


"Nobody who BELIEVES in it can explain the meaning of the Gold Standard, Puppet."

I see. It's a bit like the Holy Trinity or Transubtantiation then?

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on November 7, 2007 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

In the immortal words of that noted economist Flannery O'Connor: "If it's just a symbol, then the hell with it."

Posted by: theAmericanist on November 7, 2007 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

We work together and keep each other informed. When two-bit writers insult our candidate, we aim to set the record straight! It's called community! I'm sure you'd much rather listen to your own words as you read them aloud to the mirror, but we communicate with each other.

Posted by: Constitutional Monarch on November 7, 2007 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

I always thought of Libertarianism as a Science Fiction version of political theory. You can create all sorts of fantasies from it but they don't get tested in real life. There is probably a large overlap among Libertarians, technical people, and people who read SF. Not everybody who reads SF thinks the "scientific explanations" involved in the stories are convincing and logical, but there are some who do. I've always thought of Ayn Rand novels as Science Fiction, but many don't.

And Neo Conservativism is the Science Fiction version of foreign policy. However now that some of their fantasies are being put into practice we find that they really don't work too well.

Posted by: MonkeyBoy on November 7, 2007 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

But folks, if you think the system is broken, you either fix the system, or at least propose viable alternatives. Ron Paul does neither; his approach is basically smash it all with a sledgehammer and let Nature take its course.

If you really think the system is broken beyond all repair, voting for Ron Paul won't do you a damn bit of good. You'd be better off learning to speak Chinese.

Posted by: dr sardonicus on November 7, 2007 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK

I understand that libertarianism is big around the professional wrestling circuit.

Y'all can interpret that how you wish. :-)

Posted by: BongCrosby on November 7, 2007 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINK

That's because the other candidates have little support from the American voter. Ron Paul is the only one not lobbying for the Military Industrial Complex.

Posted by: Jason H. on November 7, 2007 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINK

That's because the other candidates have little support from the American voter.

It's self-delusional comments like this that make me wonder whether we should have a RonBot suicide watch for the evenings of IA and NH. As crazy as they are, I'd still hate to see them end like Jonestown or that UFO-comet cult.

Posted by: Disputo on November 7, 2007 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

To the question of where people come from : I was researching Obama & Hillary's Lobbyist & PAC [over 620 PAC's between the two] donation trail, when I came across this site. I'm Middle-class. My work: HVAC tech. Married w/ 2 children. 43 YO. & have hated politics since I can remember.

Until heard Ron Paul!

He gives people HOPE.

Mr. Paul may, or may not, have solutions for everything, but within the simplicity of what he envisions, lies more promise and potential than the same old, typically scripted, empty promises and rhetoric from the spineless, life-time politicians that have been propped up before us by big money donors and big money media.

Let's be honest: The people that have "donated" to the so called top-tier candiates, want favors in return. Also: The media is pushing their pro-war candidates down the American citizens throats, while being led like sheep to slaughter.

Enter - Ron Paul, and those willing to take time & personal money to aid in the restoration of the Republic and its principles - not wasteful wars and nation building. Let Mr. Paul's record speak for itself.

Now I've a question.
I'd like to know who the anti-Paul's here are voting for - and why.

Posted by: Michigan on November 7, 2007 at 10:48 PM | PERMALINK

If I were a conspiracy theorist I would suggest that Kevin, CBS and the rest of the MSM have a secret agenda of seeing Ron Paul elected president.
The MSM's weird behavior toward him is what is fueling his revolution.
They started by ignoring him, which is what first caused me to notice the Ron Paul campaign. It was impossible not to notice the MSM ignoring his winning of the post debate poll, and their subsequent accusations of spamming, (as though the "front runners" wouldn't do that if it could be done.)
Then they began disparaging him with the constant talking points of, Ron Paul can't win, and Ron Paul supporters are all freaks, which has brought him more attention and fueled the fires of his enthusiastic support.
Then they started attacking him with the "spambot scandal," which fueled the fires of his supporters even more. (apparently spambots can come up with record amounts of money;))
Ron Paul's campaign couldn't pay enough to get this kind of ongoing boost. The MSM is literally providing the fuel for the Ron Paul revolution.
All there is left for him to do is win.

The truth is that my support for Ron Paul would have never happened if it weren't for the weird behavior of the MSM. In fact, I would have never noticed Ron Paul.

I wonder how many others like me there are?


Posted by: James on November 7, 2007 at 11:48 PM | PERMALINK

I must say, it's very amusing watching how you political wonks just don't "get it" when it comes to Ron Paul. He has what I would call "ROSS PEROT APPEAL." If anyone should be able to see what's happening, I'd think it would be you guys that live and breathe the established system. This man is a true alternative and a claw that can help us fight the quickening slide into the maw of the New World Order.

Those of us who have found Dr. No for the first time are thrilled - absolutely THRILLED - to have a real alternative to the beltway gang. Someone that has political experience, is not likely to drop out after he's got the momentum, citing some dirty tricks, and best of all, someone that supports a strict interpretation of the Constitution & true American values. Someone from OUR corner, not the CFR's. Not the Rockefellers & banking cabalists. US, the citizens of the USA. I just hope he isn't assasinated when he really starts rolling next year.

Thank heavens people are beginning to wake up and pay attention, instead of listening to douchebags like you. You wonder why you get angry mail? Because those of us who have found Dr. Paul know YOU make or break every candidate. I for one, am not out there searching the internet, looking to argue with the trolls, but when I do an occasional Google search for the latest campaign news, and I see even the good reports on Ron Paul's campaign make backhanded sleights, veiled and not-so-veiled insults & other comments designed to restrict any real hope for Ron Paul's nomination, it does tend to make me feel insulted. You and every other reporter in every media format playing this little game of predict the winner collectively makes up the mind of the average non-thinking, non-caring American.

This is a battle for the minds of the mindless masses. If we have our way, this thing will reach critical mass, and those zombies will start to snap out of it increasingly faster.
Just keep kidding yourself that it's just a bunch of Libertarians with no job & nothing better to do than hassle whiny little prick political hack reporters. (I'm a registered Independent who tends to vote Republican, and I work in the Manufacturing sector.)
Even if Paul doesn't get the nomination, he will have the positive effect of getting thousands, or millions, to wake up and re-learn what created this country, and that can only end in improved representation for us all.

Posted by: James Moore on November 8, 2007 at 12:55 AM | PERMALINK

Could it be that there are 1000's of us and you only get the 300 that were at the wheel when your blog came up. I personally have been canvassing house to house and not getting too much net time in lately, hence the late hour of correspondence.

Posted by: JIm Lundberg on November 8, 2007 at 2:53 AM | PERMALINK

So far it appears that there are two traits that all RonBots share:

1) none of them has any clue as to what are the specifics of RonPaul's policy prescriptions.

2) their fav put-down is "douchebag".

Posted by: Disputo on November 8, 2007 at 3:56 AM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul seems to epitomise the H Ross Perot 'angry white male (and female)' vote.

He offers simple solutions (many of his followers don't know what they are, perhaps?) to complex problems. The Gold Standard to beat economic insecurity. Complete withdrawal from Iraq to beat the dependency on foreign oil. Ban abortion. Retreat to the core values of the Founding Fathers (whatever they are imagined to be-- did we mean Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton?). And he's not 'one of them' ie not a Washington insider.

I keep seeing the movie Network in my mind's eye 'I'm mad as hell, and I can't take it any more'.

I predict the normal party machinery will prevent him being the nominee, but particularly in New Hampshire (an ornery state, electorally, to say the least) he will surprise everyone by his performance.

Remember the weaker party in a contest often tilts towards its electoral extremes: think Goldwater in 1964 or Mondale in 1984 or McGovern in 1972. In the Republican case, that is an awkward choice between Christianist candidates, and libertarian ones.

Posted by: Valuethinker on November 8, 2007 at 5:06 AM | PERMALINK

I've found the repetition among the anti-Paul's here quite humorous. As are your attempts of trying to make others out to be the buffoons.

Your're fighting a war you cannot win.

They [you] keep mentioning "the gold standard" as if it's the only subject of importance. They [you] also fancy ignorance and/ or extremism on the part of people that back Ron Paul. It's quite the reverse, I assure you.

Paul has said it would NOT be gold alone that backed our currency, but an ASSET BASED CURRENCY as well.

He wants to give the Fed competition that would result in its demise and America's debt reduction.
Among other things: He has authored 6 books concerning econimics [meaning he has actually studied the issue], is a counsilor to the 'Ludwig von Mises Institute' and is backed 100% by traders such as Kitco [.com].

To those who deny Mr. Paul's integrity: Have you any such credentials?
PS: You never answered my question of who you deniers are voting for - and why.

Posted by: Michigan on November 8, 2007 at 8:11 AM | PERMALINK

Dude, you still don't get it! Congressman Paul is going to be the next US president.

He's not just some fringe candidate as you say and he's not the hand picked 'anointed leader' by the BIG $$ power brokers and other corporate fascist elite. Dr. Paul speaks for all the average all the Americans. Those who are are at the bottom of the massive dung-heap created by our government since Bush and his cronies took control almost 7 years ago.

Posted by: Mark Maxwell on November 8, 2007 at 9:23 AM | PERMALINK

..and yes we do all have RSS feeds .. welcome to the 21st century!!

Posted by: New York on November 8, 2007 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINK

Michigan, if you'll pardon me, I think the better question is who any of us favors OVER Paul, and why.

I say that cuz I'm not gonna get a chance to vote for Paul in any case, cuz I'm not a registered Republican in a primary state -- or at least, none that comes up before the nominations are generally long settled.

In the proverbial "if the election were held today" race, I might vote for another candidate cuz of personal loyalty, but the one I'm most likely to vote for is Clinton. Why?

The short answer is that I think she's a grownup. I don't think she's gonna do anything disastrously wrong. (I know, that's not much of an endorsement, but hey, it's the 21st century.) On a long list of domestic issues, starting with health care, the tax code, immigration, and so on, she's likely to turn the Federal government and lead the Congress in a better direction. I think Clinton 'works and plays well with others' in legislation, for which her "Hillabeast" experience with the right wing is actually a solid credential.

I could live with the other leading Democratic candidates -- Edwards, Dodd, Obama. Edwards, I kinda like. Dodd, I do like. Obama, I wish he had a bit more seasoning and substance to him. LOL -- Biden, well, 'nuff said. (Though it would be sorta fun, in an alarming way, to watch President Joe Biden give a press conference during some international crisis, don't ya think? "Well, let me say at the outset...." of a 45 minute answer to a six word question. )

One thing the Democratic candidates are (for me) that the Republicans other than Paul aren't, is simply good for the country. I don't like the state of the art manipulation of the electorate typified by, f'r instance, Bush the Elder's use of flagburning in the 1992 campaign. (It's not like what to do about flagburning occupies a lot of a President's time.)

I watch the Republican candidates -- Romney, Giuliani, even McCain at least some of the time -- and I think: these guys are not levelling with us about what they will DO in the job.

I'll give it to McCain on immigration, cuz he really has shown political courage, though his solution actually sucks. (Though "I'll build 'em a fence if that's what they want" erodes confidence.) And he deserves credit for being forthright about being willing to lose over Iraq.

Ya don't actually have to AGREE with a candidate to be proud of him for standing for something.

That's one reason I sorta like Ron Paul in the race, and I hope he hits a home run or two in the early primaries. I DON'T think he's like Goldwater, who lost spectacularly but essentially took over the Republican Party over the next decade (despite that unfortunate Nixon detour).

I don't sense the Paulbearers are gonna become the orthodoxy of the Republican party: do you even WANT to?

And who would be the Reagan, the Paulbearer who would give the 2008 equivalent of The Speech that Reagan gave for Goldwater, which made him Governor of California?

But anybody who brings idealists into practical politics is doing a good thing America -- so a hearty welcome to all you goldbug nutjobs. (he said, nicely)

Posted by: theAmericanist on November 8, 2007 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINK

"In the Republican case, that is an awkward choice between Christianist candidates, and libertarian ones."

Oh contrae..

The choice is clear .. simply more of the same GOP culture of corruption, borrowing from the Chinese to pay for our failed foreign policy and pandering to the radical American clerics or voting for Dr. Ron Paul.

Congressman Paul is not all talk, his voting record speaks for itself. If he was just all talk he'd have a voting record like Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: New York on November 8, 2007 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

Has anyone mention Ron Paul and "Cross Burning?"

Sorry for the long post, but holy cow! You have to read this WHOLE thing to understand the Ron Paul phenomenon. Now we KNOW why the Ron Paul supporters are so vicious and violent!

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/trouble-with-ron.html

The Trouble with Ron
Wednesday, June 06, 2007

-- by Sara

Molly Ivins, God bless her big heart, warned us about Ron Paul over a decade ago. Her coverage of this 1996 Texas congressional races included this prescient precis:

Dallas' 5th District, East Texas' 2nd District and the amazing 14th District,which runs all over everywhere, are also in play. In the amazing 14th, Democrat Lefty Morris (his slogan is ''Lefty is Right!'') faces the Republican/Libertarian Ron Paul, who is himself so far right that he's sometimes left, as happens with your Libertarians. I think my favorite issue here is Paul's 1993 newsletter advising ''Frightened Americans'' on how to get their money out of the country. He advised that Peruvian citizenship could be purchased for a mere 25 grand. That we should all become Peruvians is one of the more innovative suggestions of this festive campaign season. But what will the Peruvians think of it?

Molly, with her usual insight, laid out the essential struggle we're having with Paul. As a libertarian leftist, I understand viscerally the charm of Paul's message. Who wouldn't be charmed? He's anti-war, anti-torture, anti-drug war, and anti-corporation -- a real progressive dream date. Until you reflect on the fact that he's also anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-environment, anti-sane immigration policy, and apparently, anti-separation of church and state as well:

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

-- From a "War on Religion" article Ron Paul wrote in December 2003 (found at Lew Rockwell.com):

And that's the trouble we're having with Ron. There's just a whole lot going on under that affable exterior that deserves a hard second look before we clutch the man to our collective bosom. The political writers in Texas back in that '96 campaign knew quite a bit about this, and their writing survives to tell some interesting tales. Here, for example, is Clay Robison, writing in the Houston Chronicle the same week Molly wrote the above:

[Democratic candidate] Morris recently distributed copies of political newsletters written by Paul in 1992 in which the Surfside physician endorsed the concept of secession, defended cross burning as an act of free speech and expressed sympathy for a man sentenced to prison for bombing an IRS building.

Cross-burning as free speech? (And sympathy for domestic terrorist bombers?) Um, yeah. Two months later, the Austin American-Statesman let Paul share his views in his own words:

Not all officials express alarm when discussing cross burnings. U.S.Rep.-elect Ron Paul, a Texas Republican from Surfside, described such activity as a form of free speech in some situations.

"Cross burning could be a crime if they were violating somebody's property rights,'' he said during his campaign. But if you go out on your farm some place and it's on your property and you put two sticks together and you burn it, I am not going to send in the federal police."

See, here's that problem again. When Paul explains it, it sounds all nice and reasonable. What you do on your property absolutely should be your business, and nobody should be able to tell you what you can and can't put on your Saturday night bonfire. But Texas was having a huge upswing in cross-burnings that year, which were part of an (all-too-successful) effort to terrorize its African-American community.

There's plenty of legal precedent that one person's right to free speech ends when it begins to terrorize others into silence -- and, because of this, cross-burning is recognized as a hate crime in many jurisdictions across the country. But Ron Paul, for all his libertarian talk, apparently doesn't believe in putting any restrictions on speech, even when it damages other individuals and the overall level of civil behavior in society.

And then there's the company he keeps. Dave is going to have more on this soon; but if you want to know someone's character, look at the people he surrounds himself with. (Most of us wish we'd understood more about Bush's friends before the 2000 election -- let's not repeat that mistake here.)

First, there's Tom DeLay. Paul may be loudly anti-corporate and anti-GOP establishment; but that didn't stop him from taking $6,000 from DeLay's ARMPAC. According to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Paul returned the favor by voting to weaken House ethics rules when DeLay proposed doing so as GOP Majority Leader; and to allow DeLay to continue to serve after an indictment. Since DeLay is easily the biggest corporate whore Washington has seen since Mark Hanna, we're not wrong to wonder about Paul's true enthusiasm for curbing corporate excess.

Then, there's the 100% legislative ranking Paul got from Cannabis Culture magazine -- a fact that lifts liberal spirits everywhere, and is very consistent with his libertarian views. But we shouldn't let that blind us to the fact that he also got 100% rankings from both the Christian Coalition and the John Birch Society -- two entities far more powerful and serious than Cannabis Culture,, and which actively wish ill on people like us. Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson actively helped midwife Paul's budding political career: according to the New York Times, his political teams were circulating campaign letters promoting Paul over Bush I as a presidential candidate all the way back in 1988.

More serious are the friends on the farthest right edges -- the tax patriots, "sovereign citizens," and proto-fascists who have supported him from the beginning and are supporting him still. It's been quite a while since the militia fever of the early 90s acquainted us all the permutations of these loony-right movements (if you can't tell the players without a scorecard, the ADL provides a very good one here); but commenter Hume's Ghost pointed us to this excellent summary:

Many commentators have portrayed the Patriot and militia movements as fascist. We believe it is more accurate to describe them as right-wing populist movements with important fascistic tendencies-thus they are quasifascist or protofascist. Like the America First movement of the early 1940s, the Patriot movement and the militias represented a large-scale convergence of committed fascists with nonfascist activists. Such coalitions enable fascists to gain new recruits, increase their legitimacy among millions of people, and repackage their doctrines for mass consumption.

Mary Rupert dubbed the Patriot movement "A Seedbed for Fascism" and suggested that the "major missing piece in looking at the Patriot Movement in relation to fascism is that it does not overtly advance an authoritarian scheme of government. In fact, its emphasis seems to be on protecting individual rights." According to Rupert, there are two "portents of possibility" that could shift this situation: "First is the below-the-surface disposition of the Patriot Movement towards authoritarianism, and second is the way in which Patrick Buchanan...picked up and played out the Patriots’ grievances." We would add that "individual rights," like states’ rights, can also be a cover for the sort of decentralized social totalitarianism promoted by the neofascists of the Posse Comitatus and Christian Reconstructionism -- both of which helped lay the groundwork for the Patriot movement itself.

This puts a new context around Paul's relationship with The Patriot Network, a South Carolina-based group that's part of the "tax resistance" movement. This crew threw a 2004 banquet in Ron Paul's honor, as I mentioned in an earlier post (their newsletter noted that "most of the state's leading nationalist figures attended,").

Groups like this one aren't just a bunch of Howard Jarvis-type disgruntled taxpayers. The Patriot Network, like others going all the way back to the Posse Comitatus of the 70s, coaches members on how to avoid taxes, bilking them of thousands of dollars by selling them "untax" packages that will enable them -- under their own bizarre theory of government -- to exempt themselves from taxation. These "untax" theories have been repeatedly refuted by the courts across the country over the past couple decades; and several leaders of previous organizations offering similar services have been convicted and jailed for tax fraud. As noted above, the Patriot movement overlaps strongly with a variety of Christian Identity, militia, "sovereign citizen," and other ideologies dear to the heart of the far-right domestic terrorist agenda.

Another site that's endorsed Paul is the Dixie Daily News, a neo-Confederate website full of articles on states' rights, gold-backed currency, and how the South was right all along. Paul writes for this site frequently -- as does his friend and former legislative aide Gary North, who is also R.J. Rushdooney's son-in-law and a leading light of the Christian Reconstructionist movement. At the moment, the headline at the site is promoting Ron Paul's appearance at the group's "FreedomFest" in Las Vegas next month.

If Paul is making public appearances for this group, we need to be asking: why is he running for office in a government he clearly doesn't believe in?

If you doubt that Paul has the support of our proto-fascists, don't take my word for it -- take theirs. This endorsement, for example, recently appeared on national KKK leader David Duke's website. And I'll let an anonymous commenter from Stormfront, the far right's favorite Web watering hole, have the final word:

Anyone who doesn't vote for Paul on this site is an assclown. Sure he doesn't come right out and say he is a WN [white nationalist], who cares! He promotes agendas and ideas that allow Nationalism to flourish. If we "get there" without having to raise hell, who cares; aslong as we finally get what we want. I don't understand why some people do not support this man, Hitler is dead, and we shall probably never see another man like him.

Pat Buchanan's book "Where the Right Went Wrong" is a prime example of getting the point across without having the book banned for anti semitism. The chapters about the war in Iraq sound like a BarMitzvah, but he doesn't have to put the Star of David next to each name for us to know what he means. We are running out of options at this point, and I will take someone is 90% with us versus any of the other choices.

Not to mention if Paul makes a serious run, he legitimizes White Nationalism and Stormfront, for God's sake David Duke is behind this guy!
Bill Maher and Jon Stewart may love the ratings Ron Paul brings in. But the growing pile of evidence is proving that Paul, for all his freedom-loving talk, is in the pocket of the very people this blog has spent the past four years warning about. His links to the murderous brownshirt fringe that brought us the Freemen standoff and the Oklahoma City bombing are too strong to be ignored.

If America ever becomes a fascist state, it will be Ron Paul's long-time followers who bring it about. And we -- progressives, miniorities, feminists, gays, "intellectuals," and Jews like Maher and Stewart -- with be the first ones to feel their genocidal rage. We cannot overlook his long association with far-right extremists just because he agrees with us that the war is wrong and pot should be legal. If Bush has taught us anything, it's that we need to hold ourselves and our candidates to much higher standards than that. What we choose to overlook now, we will live to regret later.

Valuable research assistance for this piece was provided by Hume's Ghost, librarian Dan Harms, and our commenters. -- SR

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 8, 2007 at 9:56 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, Pale... HUSH.

LOL -- a reading from the experiences of that bugaboo of the blogosphere, Tim Russert: when Russert was Pat Moynihan's chief of staff, there was a Republican primary to choose the nominee to run against him. One of the Republican candidates had served in the Army, but not in Vietnam, somewhere in the late 60s to early 70s. His original campaign biography said that in a paragraph or so, which Russert noted when, as a diligent political aide, he read the opponent's material, along with all the other Republican primary candidates.

A few weeks later, as the primary heated up, Russert saw that the flyer the guy had written up (or more precisely, hired someone to do) had cut everything down to bullet points -- and now the paragraph that had described his military experience was just a few words.

But in what Russert realized immediately was essentially a typo, it said he was a "Vietnam veteran" instead of a "Vietnam-ERA veteran," along with how he had done this, and that, and the other distinguished thing that qualified him for the US Senate.

A lesser man would have attacked him right away. Russert simply filed the flyer, with a date and place on it.

The guy wins the Republican primary. Russert has volunteers go to the guy's campaign events -- and at each one, he has 'em pick up a copy of his campaign biography, the flyer with the typo: he dates each one and writes down where they were collected.

The summer goes by. The leaves turn. Election day is nigh.

Two weeks before the election, Russert provides copies of the flyers, with the dates and places they were collected, and issues a BLAST of a press release attacking the guy for misrepresenting his military record and falsely claiming Vietnam service for months, even getting the guys who lost to him in the primary to bitch about getting the nomination under false pretenses. Russert takes care that the first folks notified, even before the media, are Moynihan's many allies in veterans organizations, and makes sure that at every one of the guy's remaining campaign events, there are veterans with signs attacking the guy for lying -- AND, of course, the press is all over it.

The poor bastard never knew what hit him. He spent the last two weeks before the election explaining a typo, and got buried.

Dr. Paul's actual views are documented out the wazoo -- but NOW is not the time to expose 'em.

Wait at least until he wins New Hampshire, willya?

Posted by: theAmericanist on November 8, 2007 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

Who the fuck are you, Donnelly? You sack of dishonest shit.

You seriously want to play an electoral game with this shit? You seriously want to game this and play this like a goddamned game of cards? Like it's something to be trifled with and left to the likes of the Main Stream Media. News flash, asshole--how many times have the media failed to expose the likes of Ron Paul and how many times have they missed the forest for the trees?

I'll come down on exposing these freaks for what they are as soon as possible so the threat the pose can be eliminated and dealt with accordingly.

What an ass you are, Donnelly. What a worthless, unethical and deceitful ass you are. No wonder you are where you are right now.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 8, 2007 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

"They [you] keep mentioning "the gold standard" as if it's the only subject of importance."

"He has authored 6 books concerning econimics"

Think you mean "economics"

Firstly, most of those 'books' aren't. They're polemical pamphlets, really. You won't find any serious discussion of monetary history in them (like the panic of 1907 or volatility of the economy in the 18th century, or the damage done to the economies tryig to return the gold standard (e.g. European countries after WW1, the US after the civil war). They're mostly fanboy lit for Ludwig von Mises.

"To those who deny Mr. Paul's integrity: Have you any such credentials?"

Well, I've topped the class of most econ courses I've taken, including micro at a top-5 B-school MBA in a class of over 100.

I've also been taught by an Austrian school guy, and I thought his ideas were nuts.

" [meaning he has actually studied the issue], is a counsilor to the 'Ludwig von Mises Institute' and is backed 100% by traders such as Kitco [.com]."

" is backed 100% by traders such as Kitco [.com]."

Gee, you mean a guy who want to return to the Gold standard is backed by gold traders? What a surprise!

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on November 8, 2007 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

'Firstly, most of those 'books' aren't. They're polemical pamphlets, really. You won't find any serious discussion of monetary history in them (like the panic of 1907 or volatility of the economy in the 18th century, or the damage done to the economies tryig to return the gold standard (e.g. European countries after WW1, the US after the civil war). They're mostly fanboy lit for Ludwig von Mises.'

I take that back: I hadn't looked at the Minority Report he co-wrote in 1981, which has a buttload of banking history (but is still polemical: not a lot of stats). But he manages the odd feat of write 242 pages on banking and the gold standard and not mentioning GDP once.

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on November 8, 2007 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

LOL -- Pale, lighten up. Everybody KNOWS how all the major candidates seek your advice, no need to rub our noses in it.

Puppet -- that's the Gold Commission report, ain't it? The one with a Monetary History of the United States? IIRC, it's holding up a corner of the old bench in my woodshop; works quite well, very stable.

See, this is what I mean about engaging Paulbearers in language ordinary people understand. You can talk about GDP,IP = MV, etc., and their eyes glaze over. (Or they become convinced you're in on the con, and are trying to fool 'em.)

But people who care about the gold standard enough to wonder about it, much less believe in it, think about WEALTH, about protecting and accumulating it, even creating it. That's what GDP means, of course (more or less), at least that's what growth in GDP means: more goods and services, more wealth.

Modern folks who believe in the gold standard (if that isn't an oxymoron), unlike, say, the 19th century Lords of Finance, tend to think in terms of: the government should not control the means of production, so it should ALSO not control the means of exchange. It's comforting, in a way, to imagine that if you fixed the value of money to some physical characteristic, the world would be less confusing and progress more certain.

The thing is, if you DO go back to the gold standard, AIUI, and stop increasing the money supply as wealth increases, you have deflation: the same amount of dollars buying and selling a greater amount of goods and services means the dollars are more valuable (measured in money) and the goods and services are less valuable (measured in money). Ordinary folks understand that, where they don't get the identity IP = MV.

Prices go down. When the price of stuff goes down, people are more likely to invest in MONEY (cuz it's artificial value is greater), rather than in stuff that actually creates wealth -- inventions like airplanes and personal computers.

I'd bet that Kelley (just to pick on her) wasn't persuaded to back Paul cuz she'd thought that through -- but that's a good thing, not a bad thing, and it's why Pale is wrong: Ron Paul isn't a threat, and the folks he brings into the political system are an ASSET, or they will be.

Just speak plain to 'em, they'll come around.

Posted by: theAmericanist on November 8, 2007 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

LOL -- Pale, lighten up. Everybody KNOWS how all the major candidates seek your advice, no need to rub our noses in it.

No, YOU fuck off, Donnelly--

This one's gonna haunt ya!

You actually think we should keep the fact that Ron Paul is linked to racist hate groups and supported by them because of his views on cross burning quiet until Tim Russert--TIM FUCKING RUSSERT?!?--can "expose" Ron Paul before the New Hampshire primary?

You are such a stomach-churning, pathetic excuse for a person. You turn everything into an exercise in bullshit, don't you?

What an idiot! The Americanist actually believes that Tim Russert--TIM FUCKING RUSSERT--is suddenly going to do the right thing and act in the public interest?

This one's gonna hang on your neck like an albatross. Good luck getting this one off your rap sheet.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 8, 2007 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

'See, this is what I mean about engaging Paulbearers in language ordinary people understand. You can talk about GDP,IP = MV, etc., and their eyes glaze over. (Or they become convinced you're in on the con, and are trying to fool 'em.)

But people who care about the gold standard enough to wonder about it, much less believe in it, think about WEALTH, about protecting and accumulating it, even creating it. That's what GDP means, of course (more or less), at least that's what growth in GDP means: more goods and services, more wealth."

Yeah, and this is what gets me about the goldbugs: talk about the value of money, money, money, but not a lot of talk about growth or GDP, and certainly not a lot of talk about how that growth is spread around.

"Prices go down. When the price of stuff goes down, people are more likely to invest in MONEY (cuz it's artificial value is greater), rather than in stuff that actually creates wealth -- inventions like airplanes and personal computers.'

That was very elegant, Americanist: I take your point.

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on November 8, 2007 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

Sigh.

Someday the "Paultards" will grow weary of correcting and defending, because the Paul-bashers are like rocks: Very little seeps in. I don't even think they read, let alone think about, the reasons people give as to why they support Ron Paul. Case in point: This thread.

As to this already-debunked smear Pale Rider just posted, I hope Snopes is setting up a "Ron Paul" category and responding to the outright lies and half-truths meant to derail his populist train. Then when the next newbie jumps into the debate thinking his contributions are original and relevant we can say: "Here's a link to Snopes."

Ron Paul is not a racist. Some of his supporters are. That doesn't mean Paul's a racist. Guilt-by-association appeals to people's knee-jerk emotions, not to their logical thought processes. Ron Paul has a sizeable minority fan base: African Americans, Hispanics (really, despite his views on immigration), gays and lesbians. They like him so much they take time out of their days to make YOUTUBE videos about it. His district is very left leaning (Texas repugs redistricted him to supposedly "hostile" territory" to get rid of him), but they continue to vote for him over and over and over because they know they can trust him.

The most objectible writings attributed to Paul weren't even written by him. The female employee who DID write it was fired once Paul caught wind of it, because he'd neither read nor approved of the article.

As for him being Dr. No, well, here:

Let's say the president is convinced the country has a Puppy Problem and wants a puppy policy. There are puppies in the White House and he wants the good puppies snuggled and fed, and the bad puppies sent to obedience school. Congress hops to it because, egad, they can't be seen as anti-puppysnuggles, no sir, PETA would be all over them! Besides, everybody loves puppies! What a good idea, and we vote YES on good ideas! YAY! Vote for meeeeeeeee!

Doctor No would roll his eyes and say "Oh for feck's sake not again." Well, maybe he wouldn't swear. Whatever. His detractors would be overjoyed at his vote and sream,CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL HATES PUPPYSNUGGLES! BAD PAUL! DON'T VOTE FOR RON PAUL!

Meanwhile, Ron Paul has well fed and snuggled puppies of his own.

Ron Paul wouldn't vote no because he hates puppies; he would not vote no because he didn't think there was a White House Puppy Problem. And he would most certainly NOT prefer that the White House puppies run amok and pee on the carpet in the Oval Office.

Rather he'd vote no because puppy management authority wasn't given to the President or Congress. Puppies aren't even mentioned at all in the US Constitution. He'd vote no because the best way to manage the White House Puppy Problem is via a locally enforced DC ordinance or even just White House policy. Ron Paul thinks passing a Federal laws on puppies is just stupid, even if cute and needy puppies stand to benefit. He doesn't care how cute they are, or how many he has at home.

I hope this seeps in, even if it's slooowwwwlly.

Posted by: The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker on November 8, 2007 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

Pale, switch to decaf. My point was about timing.

I didn't say (and didn't mean) that Russert, as the Meet the Press guy, should be the one to rely on getting Paul's actual views out. In fact, that'd be, er, Paul who does that.

I'm just sayin' that, as a practical political matter, the time to smack one of your political opponents on his glass jaw is NOT when he has lots of your OTHER rivals around. Let them do it, if they can -- and if they can't, so much the better.

Cuz when a guy with a glass jaw comes up through all of the preliminaries and winds up your opponent in the actual match: he still has a glass jaw.

Too complicated? Read it again.

Posted by: theAmericanist on November 8, 2007 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul would support the end of child labor laws because there is nothing about protecting children in the constitution.

Posted by: Brojo on November 8, 2007 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

My goodness, I forgot to answer Mr. Drum's question.

ME

25 year old trophy wife, Philadelphia.

KIDDING!

I live in the Philly area and spend millions of your tax dollars on military hardware. I have a college degree, a lovely home in a very chi chi old Republican town, a 15 year old daughter, an ex-husband, a veritable UN of ex-lovers, and three cats. I drive a Civic hybrid. My zip code puts me in the Soccer Mom demographic, but I'm NOTHING like one. I'm more like Jessica Rabbit when it comes to my private habits and my lifestyle. The international high maintenance girlfriend demographic?

Oh, and I'm clairvoyant. Consequently I have this annoying habit of always being right.

My politics: Always progressive in outlook, a lifelong Independent who always voted for Democrats anyway. Until now. Why? All the reasons the other folk upthread are.

I don't think you Paulbashers are even remotely aware of how close we are to martial law and a fascist police state. Good GOD, I feel it in my bones and it's lmaking me sick.

Hillary is a neocon shill. If you take time to read some European history, most neocons are closet Bolsheviks. Some are Fabian socialists. Ironically, none of them have the best interests of The People at heart; one would think they did given their sloganeering. But scrap even deeper and you'll find fascists.

Both Hitler AND Lenin swore they would destroy the USA from the INSIDE. They're rubbing their hands with glee in Hell. Their neocon children and grandchildren have finally managed to pour gasoline all over the US Constitution. It took almost 80 years and three generations to pull off. All they need now is a match.

Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich. I'm not so sure about Gravel. If these guys don't succeed in this quest to save the Republic we are DOOMED to a Fourth Reich. A global one this time.

Anyone who finally "gets" this and votes for Hillary on "Democratic Principle" is selfish, IMHO. The genocide has already begun, and I can't BELIEVE you can't see all the blood on your hands.

I'd vote for a head of cabbage over Hillary or Giuliani. At least it couldn't do any damage.

Posted by: The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker on November 8, 2007 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

Pale, switch to decaf. My point was about timing.

No, your point was about how Tim FUCKING Russert was going to save us from Ron Paul by exposing him in a wise and timely manner.

Thus revealing that you are a cringe-inducing douchebag.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 8, 2007 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

Interestingly enough, Hedonistic Pleasureseeking Booby Prize Wife, the people who have done the best job at gathering and sourcing the outright racist and anti-semitic statements of Ron Paul are found at none other than....[drumroll!]

Freerepublic.com!

I mean, if THEY think he's too racist, well...

But why not let the actual news stories and the actual things that Ron Paul has said speak for themselves?

--------------------------
Candidate Had Newsletter With Controversial Stance On Blacks
24 May 1996
CongressDaily/A.M. English
Copyright (c) 1996 National Journal Inc.
A 1992 political newsletter by former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, included portrayals of African-Americans as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about political issues, the Houston Chronicle reported Thursday. Paul, a former Libertarian Party presidential candidate who defeated Democratic-turned-Republican Rep. Greg Laughlin in the March primary, in November will face Democratic attorney Charles (Lefty) Morris, whose campaign is distributing Paul's writings.

Under the headline "Terrorist Update," Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and wrote, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." About blacks in Washington, D.C., Paul wrote, "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Paul said Wednesday that his comments came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time," and that he opposes racism.

In later newsletters, Paul wrote that lobbying groups who seek special favors are evil, and that "by far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government."

Texas
Newsletter by Paul attacked
Associated Press
329 words
24 May 1996
San Antonio Express-News English
(Copyright 1996)

A 1992 newsletter by Republican congressional candidate Ron Paul highlighted portrayals of blacks as criminally inclined and lacking sense about top political issues.

Reporting on gang crime in Los Angeles, Paul commented: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Paul, a Surfside obstetrician who won the GOP nomination in the 14th District runoff by defeating incumbent Rep. Greg Laughlin, said Wednesday he opposed racism.

He said his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."

Paul's Democratic opponent, Charles "Lefty" Morris, said many of Paul's views were "out there on the fringe" and that this fall voters would judge his commentaries.

Morris' campaign distributed selected writings by Paul this week.

Paul, a former congressman and one-time Libertarian presidential nominee, said allegations about his writings amounted to name-calling by the Democrats.

He said he'd produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers.

Writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, Paul commented about black men in the nation's capital.

Citing statistics from a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia, Paul concluded in his column:

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"These aren't my figures," Paul said this week. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report.

He also wrote: "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered "as decent people."

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 8, 2007 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider, that's it: The newsletter HE DIDN'T WRITE. The one who did write it was fired.

And you know what? Bush the Lesser said "Poor people are poor because they're lazy" and still got elected. Every politician has made stupid remarks and later regretted them. Probably without exception.

As for the child labor quip upthread, I think states are more than capable of passing child labor laws that best fit their demographics. As the spawn of a long line of farmers (gentlemen and dirt, respectively) I can assure you some states have different ideas about when a child reaches the age of responsibility/consent.

Posted by: The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker on November 8, 2007 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

that's it: The newsletter HE DIDN'T WRITE. The one who did write it was fired.

So you're using "incompetence" as a defense? As in, "I was incompetent about reviewing things that were published in my name and I missed some pretty outlandishly racist statements?"

That's not a great platform to run on if you're running for President--"oh, and you know, once I was so incompetent I let a staffer write some things in a political newsletter that was published under my name. My bad!"

Well, have a little cheese with your whine.

I'm sorry but if the newsletter says that it is the "Ron Paul Political Report" and it gets published, then I think the adult thing to do is to maybe, ummm, admit that what he did was extremely racist and unforgiveable.

Oh, and why--why?--does a staffer write something for the Ron Paul Political Report and use the possessive, "I"? Why did the staffer write it that way? Wouldn't a staffer have written it out as if it were being said by a collective group instead of by Ron Paul?

Here's some more to tempt you, in case you think it was just a fluke:

Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not
going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities
across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good
sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly
avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of
actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color
of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for
many, entirely unavoidable.

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among
blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5%
of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market,
individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know
many who fall into this group personally
and they deserve credit--not as
representatives of a racial group, but as decent people. They are,
however, outnumbered. Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages
of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence,
reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center
also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before
they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their
lives. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal
justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males
in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.


If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who
doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that
it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black
men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of
proportion to their numbers.

Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots,
burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial
politics. The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting
booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you
are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the
streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their
Congressmen to arrange the transfer.

Blacks have "civil riqhts," preferences, set-asides for government
contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black
mayors, black curricula in schools, black beauty contests, black tv shows,
black tv anchors, black scholorships and colleges, hate crime laws, and
public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.

Two years ago, in a series of predictions for the 1990s, I said that
race riots would erupt in our large cities.
I'm now predicting this will be
the major problem of the 1990s.

Taken from the Ron Paul Political Report, 1120 NASA Blvd., Suite 104,
Houston, TX 77058

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 8, 2007 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul supporters are passionate because they are VERY ANGRY, and well they should be. The GOP has decided the HAND the general election to Hillary Clinton, who will be BACKED by a DEMOCRAT congress. It will be a socialist takeover, which will exalt the globalist socialist SPP (google the SPP, a white house intitiave) to new heights, erasing the United States forever.

What can you say? Some people value and love their country. Why are these people so upset?

1. It is an absolute FACT that the owner of FOX NEWS has been running fundraising breakfasts and events for Hillary Clinton. Ignore this FACT at not just your own but at the PERIL of ALL OF US.

2. The next in line man at newscorp, Andrew Knight, runs FOX NEWS and he also served on the steering committee of the Bilderberg group, a globalist socialist group whose AIM is the death of the U.S. replaced by a worldwide authoritarian socialist regime unaccountable to the laws of our constitution.

3. Most "REAL" republicans are told what to think by this globalist, socialist run FAKE republican NEWS NETWORK which is fundraising for HILLARY CLINTON.

4. The result of this is that republicans follow the Fox News strategy to ridicule, ignore and marginalize the only GOP candidate who can beat Hillary in a General Election where 70% are vehemently opposed to the war.

5. This "honorable strategy" simply HANDS a general election to comrade Clinton, allowing her to declare martial law at the next "emergency," allow the dollar to crash and fulfill the socialists wet dream of offering us a North American Union as the only solution to our security and prosperity issues. The security and prosperity partnership the white house has been working so hard on for the past couple years is setting all this up to happen and the GOP is playing right into their hands.
SPP.gov goes out of their way to call detractors "conspiracy theorists." Why can't we talk about what our government IS ACTUALLY doing without being marginalized and called a crazy person?

6. We are mad as hell and we are NOT going to take it anymore.

Posted by: Mark on November 8, 2007 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Mark--

So it's okay by you that Ron Paul is a racist nut?

You seem to have popped in from one of the linked sites, and I've only got one thing to say to you ass clowns who come here looking for a fight--

I'm angrier than a one-legged man with in a butt-kicking contest and I'll spit in yer eye for a nickel! Grr!

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 8, 2007 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

Aww, c'mon, Hedonistic: you can see that Pale is a premature .... um, opinionater. One-legged man, indeed.

What I wanna know is, just how big is the international high maintenance girlfriend demographic?

This calls for serious investigation. I want a grant. Puppet, call those gnomes in Bilderberg, willya?

Posted by: theAmericanist on November 8, 2007 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

, Hedonistic: you can see that Pale is a premature .... um, opinionater.

True, but at least I'm not *quite* as big of a flaming asshole as you.

How's that discussion with Chris Dicely going? Still have the deed to your own ass? Or was the foreclosure on it after he handed it back to you final and absolute?

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 8, 2007 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

(snort) Riiight. Another knucklehead who can't tell a sin from a crime.

Posted by: theAmericanist on November 8, 2007 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I'm a longtime reader and fan of your writing. What I found so distasteful was the tone and dismissive, fact-free, nature of your post on Paul. It smacked of the same We are Serious/You are Not attitude that has made the MSM so contemptible to so many of us for so long.

In a field of midgets, Paul stands tall. Do I agree with his views on the Bible, or the gold standard, or social security, health care, or a host of other issues? No, but I give him credit for honesty and candor and I applaud his views on American empire, the invasion of Iraq, torture, illegal wiretapping, expansion of Presidential power, and other central issues of our time.

Posted by: Todd and in Charge on November 8, 2007 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

I believe the answer to your question :does anyone know where all the Ron Paul fans come from?

Is really pretty simple,,,,,United States of AMERICA.

You should try to stay ahead of the curve a little more if you think you are such a political genius.

They are tired of the bastardized form of socialism that has crept into modern American politics.

I understand that most of the citizens in the US could care less about the US Constitution, or how it came about. I see that you are on of them.

Posted by: Jim Liberty on November 8, 2007 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK

Pale, You are flying off the handle, theAmericanist has a good point. He's not saying Tim Russert is going to save any Democratic candidate. But he saying that they (and us) should hold off about laying into him so that he disrupts the chances for any of the other Republican candidates.

Then, if by luck, he gets the Republican nomination whoever ends up winning the Democratic nomination will have an easy time tearing him apart.

I.E., never interrupt your enemies when they are making a mistake.

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on November 8, 2007 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

Don't underestimate the possibility that the Paulbearers are a genuine phenomenononaumannum, either.

The thing about a political Event, is that you don't see it coming. You can't, almost by definition. You're looking for somebody who is LIKE the last guy, or the other guy, so when you get supporters who come from a different place motivated in some other way, you generally don't see 'em at all, and when you do start to catch a clue, you underestimate 'em or dismiss 'em, and so on.

It's not about their candidate. It's about THEM.

(And I for one welcome our goldbug nutjob overlords....)

I'd love it if Paul placed in Iowa and WON in New Hampshire, though I'm not quite to the point of predicting it... but I do know that I've done some travelling lately, and the only signs for a Presidential candidate I've seen anywhere have been Ron Paul signs... and some of 'em were home made.

Posted by: theAmericanist on November 8, 2007 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider:
"How's that discussion with Chris Dicely going? Still have the deed to your own ass? Or was the foreclosure on it after he handed it back to you final and absolute?"

For Christ's sake, anybody arguing with cmdicely would be lucky to keep their abdomen, never mind their ass. When he graduates from Law School, I want him as my lawyer. If I can afford him.

Americanist:
"Don't underestimate the possibility that the Paulbearers are a genuine phenomenononaumannum, either."

The question would be: are they like Goldberg, or Thatcherites, or like the Perotistas?

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on November 8, 2007 at 7:21 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, who'd a thunk it. Rupert Murdoch, recognizing the writing on the wall as Democratic and (possibly) feminine, has decided to hedge his bets by hosting fundraisers for HRC. I get that part, I must have missed the whole globalist threat or is it the North American Man Bo--no not that one, the government thing.

Which is it Mark? Are Murdoch's minions going to have the UN worldwide gov't ignore the Constitution (which is still in Boston and hard to miss but can be ignored) or the North American gov't thing with them damnable Canucks and Mexis?

I'm confused, although not as confused as you.

Posted by: TJM on November 8, 2007 at 8:38 PM | PERMALINK

Why DO ALL RonBots have THE same POSTing STYLE!!!11!!!????

Posted by: Disputo Liberty on November 8, 2007 at 9:37 PM | PERMALINK

I have voted Democrat my entire life. After hearing Ron Paul's message I will be voting for him this year.

I usually read about politics on the larger news websites, CBS,ABC,MSNBC,CNN, and so forth. The CBS page had your blog. That is how I ended up hear telling you where at least on NEW Ron Paul supporter comes from.

Posted by: Sally Merchanthouse on November 8, 2007 at 11:02 PM | PERMALINK

They come from everywhere that the people of this country are fed up with being treated like a flock of sheep to be shorn be the political and financial elite.

Posted by: W J Adams on November 10, 2007 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly