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?

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

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.

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.

Ron Paul is a cult.

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.

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.

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.

Paul supporters are starved for attention.

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.

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

Ross Perot voters.

[ ahem! ]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Kevin:

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

GAMMA QUADRANT UPDATE..

I'd say Delta Quadrant. Resistance is futile!

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?

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.

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

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.

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

Poor thang.

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!

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?

"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.

TinyURL.com is endorsing Ron Paul:

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

My name is Richard McSchrotansacher.

Ron Paul is the new Lyndon LaRouche.

-Norman Rogers, 11/6/2007

"" 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.

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.

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

"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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Apparently they go to bed early.

Except for albertchampion. His parents must be out tonight.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

"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.

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....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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)

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.

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.

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.

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."

I think Ron Paul will make an excellent RNC Chairman.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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

Wherever they come from, there is no there there.

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."

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.

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

comments ≠ emails

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?
.

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.

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.

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.
.

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.

They come from the shadows of the night.

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

Thought for the Day

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

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.

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

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

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?)
.

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.

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.