Ron Paul mania sweeping the ‘Net
posted at 10:08 am on May 10, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Nutroots Truthers to the left of us, Bircheresque cranks to the right.
Update: U.S. News & World Report has noticed too.
[H]is supporters have flocked to the Internet with such enthusiasm that Paul is now showing up among the much richer candidates in various measures of Internet traffic. Using sites like Digg.com, which allow users to vote on their favorite items to vault them to more prominence on the site, they keep a steady diet of Ron Paul material coming through the pipelines.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Good, just what we need, a Republican Nader.
Bad Candy on May 10, 2007 at 10:14 AM
Can’t wait to see what his “Howard Dean” moment will be. Someone as unhinged as he is can’t keep it bottled up forever.
BacaDog on May 10, 2007 at 10:15 AM
Great, now I’ll have that frickin’ song stuck in my head all day…
Steve LLamabutcher on May 10, 2007 at 10:21 AM
C’mon Folks Its Still Early in the Game.
Way Freaking early….
Sit back and watch the Implosions from Both sides!!!
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on May 10, 2007 at 10:23 AM
Why are online polls mentioned as some sort of “surge” they are manipulated. Kooks, who aren’t even republicans, are supporting him. Who cares?
lorien1973 on May 10, 2007 at 10:34 AM
Well I guess we will all be very surprised on SuperTuesday. I guess since everyone else is picking Paul I might as well ‘Eat mor Chikin’ too.
Limerick on May 10, 2007 at 10:40 AM
If I were to buy into the Conspiracy Theory, and I’m not saying I am, it seems to me, we must find someone at the top.
I think, we could “connect the dots” to George Soros, just as well as anyone else.
Call me “crazy,” but isn’t it a fact, that in Conspiracy Theories, the most likely suspect is usually the one’s, who you’d normally suspect last?…And, the one’s who howl the loudest in “protest” to deflect attention from themselves?…And, wouldn’t that make the “Truthers” a PART of the Machiavellian plot?
Methinks, they doeth protest, too much.
franksalterego on May 10, 2007 at 10:44 AM
But guys, unlike Fred, he had the b*lls to declare his candidacy for president…does it really matter that he’s a fruitcake wasting everyone’s time? At least least he announced. Sorry, thought I should step in for team turd sandwich. Normally the fred bashing starts in the first 4 posts. Carry on. I’ve got a theme song to work on.
austinnelly on May 10, 2007 at 10:44 AM
Why do morons (like Ron Paul) buy into conspiracy theories? The answer is that it makes them feel smart. That’s what was said the other night on Red Eye.
Hilts on May 10, 2007 at 10:49 AM
You people who are enjoying this early political season are nuts. I’d be happy if ~none~ of the GOP would have declared for several more months.
And I agree: Online polls are bogus and fairly easily manipulated–though they ~do~ get press.
eforhan on May 10, 2007 at 11:05 AM
A conspiracy is usually fabricated from a gathering of facts that may or may not be connected. The facts behind conspiracies should be addressed.
Why do people in power keep pushing for multinational currency?
Valiant on May 10, 2007 at 11:07 AM
the Ron Paul crowd(Libertarians, kooks and other extremist) are a coalition of political ignorants. I would almost like Paul to get elected so they could see their hero not be able to do what he stands for, then maybe they would begin to grasp political realities.
jp on May 10, 2007 at 11:10 AM
he’s a Republican LaRouche.
how long until the anti-Semetism shows up?
you can’t have a good conspiracy theory without it.
stevezilla on May 10, 2007 at 11:17 AM
Ron Paul might be a Libertarian, might. However, his supporters are no such thing. They are mostly anarchists who oppose ANY and all government.
BohicaTwentyTwo on May 10, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Can some of you here on this site, please identify ONE issue that Ron Paul advocates that you have a problem with? Is it the elimination of the IRS? Is it the drastic downsizing of the State? What are the issues that you disagree with him on? It is easy to call him or his supporters (I am one of them) anarchists or moonbats to dismiss them. Provide some content to your dislike of Ron Paul.
King of the Britons on May 10, 2007 at 11:43 AM
I hope “Bircheresque” is not a slight on birch trees. They smell like root beer!
Kevin M on May 10, 2007 at 11:45 AM
This should explain it. Look at the right hand side, where it says “SPECIAL MESSAGE TO SUPPORTERS OF RON PAUL:”.
amerpundit on May 10, 2007 at 11:47 AM
As noted by Pajamas Media, Ron Paul’s online supporters have been flooding the polls and strongly biasing the results. There’s no Ron Paul surge. You can see how aggressive Paul’s Internet supporters are by how quickly they swarm the internet looking for references to his name.
I put up a post late last night (3 am EST) and had 4 search engine hits looking for “Ron Paul” within 15 minutes. On an AoSHQ thread last night, about 4 of his supporters came in on a Ron Paul thread at the same time (must’ve been a Ron Paul action alert). They are determined to dominate the internet’s dialog on Republican candidates.
geoff on May 10, 2007 at 11:48 AM
All this means is our side was only one bad election away from being Daily Kos. Adults, indeed. Let the slide into insanity begin.
a4g on May 10, 2007 at 11:48 AM
Ask and you shall receive.
Lehosh on May 10, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Ron Paul isn’t a very good candidate and has some strange views on a lot of things. Here are some of the things he’s said regarding blacks:
But that said I think his sudden surge in popularity definitely represents a longing on both sides for a different kind of candidate; someone who is not going to spout the same party-issued talking points and change their position on any issue as many times as necessary to pander to whomever they are trying to woo at the moment.
Paul appeals to libertarians everywhere, Republicans who have seen their party hijacked by neocons and theocons whose policies are completely the opposite of traditional small-government conservatism, as well as self-described liberals like myself who believe in social justice and equal opportunity, but who simply cannot stand the current PC nanny-state socialism that many in the left wing are currently pushing.
Communities like Digg and Reddit which you always describe as liberal and socialist are actually very libertarian; the Internet community in general is probably more small-government libertarian than any other cross-section of America.
JaHerer22 on May 10, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Anyone want to talk about what Ron Paul (and not a ’supporter’ or staffer) has to say and has voted on the issues? Please discuss what about Paul you do not like? Is there ANY candidate running for President who ANYONE is in 100% agreement with the entire platform? Those on this board who support Rudy – do you agree with EVERYTHING that Rudy does or says? What about Fred? EVERYTHING? Every candidate says or believes things that you may not agree with 100%, but for me, Ron Paul is more on target with many more issues than any other candidate.
King of the Britons on May 10, 2007 at 12:03 PM
I think Mr. Paul “buys” into it, because enough people in this country actually believe the conspiracy theory. It’s a voting bloc…
I just hope Paul doesn’t pull a “Perot” and take votes from the Republican candidate on election eve…
JetBoy on May 10, 2007 at 12:15 PM
alot of these types are also anti-gun and in favor of some type of Socialized Medicine, and of course anti-Iraq and against the Patriot Act. Many think the govt. had something to do with 9/11 in some capacity.
they are more bill maher type of ‘libertarians’, don’t have a clue about reality
jp on May 10, 2007 at 12:16 PM
I don’t care what he says. He’s a nut and is UN-ELECTABLE. He doesn’t communicate well. He’s a one trick pony. He has no clue how to work within the global political arena. His insane rants about isolationism would give others countries the freedom to project their power to our shores. We would be at the whim of other countries import/export policies. The cost of goods and services would increase dramatically. The free market would be stifled.
No, the previous comment about Paul and his loony followers is dead on, and I even submit he was being overly kind.
csdeven on May 10, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Ron Paul is an arch idealogue, prone to conspiracy theories about the “Jewish Lobby” (always a good sign), with an idealized vision of how the world is and a host of ideas addressing this dreamscape instead of addressing reality.
He is an arch-libertarian anarchist of the kind that even Ayn Rand refused to break bread with. THAT is why so many on the fringe, both left and right, are flocking to Ron Paul: because ideology is not a line, it is at least a circle. Ron Paul meets both edges at Anarchy Land.
Lehosh on May 10, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Tommy Thompson is the huge winner in that straw poll. That alone should indicate the poll has been hijacked by those trying to discredit Republicans. I’m sure there’s an Important Action Alert being circulated to “go and vote for the looniest of the candidates so the Repukklicans look bad.”
NTWR on May 10, 2007 at 12:32 PM
There are some of “liberal libertarians” who favor gun control and some “conservative libertarians” who favor the government outlawing abortion. You don’t have to purist on every issue to sympathize with the ideology.
But come on, no true libertarian can support the Patriot Act.
JaHerer22 on May 10, 2007 at 12:33 PM
That happened because some people at certain blogs (/glance at Ace of Spades HQ) thought that Tommy Thompson = Fred Thompson.
Lehosh on May 10, 2007 at 12:37 PM
@BohicaTwentyTwo
Nice generalization, but that will get you no where. I like Paul, because he’s one of the few fiscally reponsible politicians left.
* He has never voted to raise taxes.
* He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
* He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
* He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
* He has never taken a government-paid junket.
* He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
* He voted against the Patriot Act.
* He voted against regulating the Internet.
* He voted against the Iraq war.
* He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
* He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
While I don’t agree with 100 % of what he says, I don’t agree with 100% with what any one of them says. Seems like some people still like spend big/run us into debt Republicans…I personally don’t.
bentman78 on May 10, 2007 at 12:55 PM
csdeven on May 10, 2007 at 12:23 PM
CS, How would the free market be stifled by removing barriers and making it more free? He is a nut? That sounds much like a comment from a liberal blog. Nothing to back it up, just feelings. You may not think that Paul speaks well or believe him to be unelectable, but I will not vote for someone who believes in the big government Nanny-State but sounds and looks good on TV. Ron Paul believes in freedom. Period. Why do you have a problem with that?
King of the Britons on May 10, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Libertarians believe in smaller government, but they also believe in effective government too. I would think that libertarians can see that the Patriot Act does not effect any of their civil liberties. However, it seems that most self-proclaimed libertarians are also paranoid delusionals with percecution complexes.
BohicaTwentyTwo on May 10, 2007 at 1:02 PM
Freedom is an overused cliche’ in these types of discussions. All behavior has limits and what Paul suggests works on paper but not in the real world. Paul would destroy corporations and leave weak businesses in it’s place. HUGE corporations in other countries would destroy our smaller businesses and before you know it, our resources would be bled dry and we’d be another darfur.
Instead of having freedom as a lynchpin issue, we need to try practicality.
csdeven on May 10, 2007 at 1:20 PM
AND RON PAUL IS UN-ELECTABLE.
csdeven on May 10, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Ron Paul is the crazy grandpa who you feel obligated to invite to Thanksgiving dinner, but you hope to God that he leaves immediately after desert so you don’t have to listen to that special brand of old person crazy any longer than necessary.
As much as I’d like to see some Paul’s small-government libertarian stances advanced, I still can’t see how anyone of sound mind would think this guy would make a good nominee or President.
Personally, I prefer candidates who aren’t dumber and crazier than myself, and Ron Paul is both.
Hollowpoint on May 10, 2007 at 1:34 PM
CS,
So then who are you going to vote for? What big government, big spending, influence selling, look good, sound good politician are you going to vote for?
I agree that many of the things that libertarians advocate could not work as it stands now – like legalizing drugs without getting rid of free healthcare – but anyone who is on record in both deed and word advocating more freedom and lesser government and not the other way around will get my support. You believe that freedom is an overused cliche – you have my condolences. The world will never be changed by people who accept things as unchangeable. The big government Nanny-State will never be reduced by people who have accepted it as a part of life.
King of the Britons on May 10, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Paul is tough on illegal immigration, unlike most Libertarians.
He supports a very isolationist foreign policy which is being twisted by some as anti-semitism.
He is not electable, but does bring Constitutional issues to the forefront in a field of left-leaning candidates.
Valiant on May 10, 2007 at 1:37 PM
I promise to beat the living daylights out of the first person to bust out that “he who is willing to give up their essential liberties for freedom…” Ben Franklin quote. The key word there is ESSENTIAL. Not every single liberty is an essential liberty. Just because you are forced to wear your seatbelt, it doesn’t mean the US is a fascist state.
BohicaTwentyTwo on May 10, 2007 at 1:39 PM
It won’t be reduced by Ron Paul either because he can’t and won’t be elected for an office higher than the one he already holds.
Hollowpoint on May 10, 2007 at 1:41 PM
Same question to you Hollow – who is your man? What are his credentials?
King of the Britons on May 10, 2007 at 1:51 PM
Is Ron Paul the best that the GOP can do in the 14th congressional district of Texas?
Hilts on May 10, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Right now I’m in Fred’s corner. He hasn’t formally announced yet, but it seems pretty clear he will.
True he’s not a Perfect Conservative Candidate, but neither has any candidate I’ve ever voted for (and Ron Paul sure as hell isn’t) and he seems much stronger and more authentic than any of the current front runners.
His record and written articles suggest he’s pretty strong on Federalism issues, in favor of tougher border security before any solution to the millions already here, strong on defense and homeland security, etc. While his lack of executive experience may bother some, he’s no babe in the woods with regards to politics. Given that the top three Dem contenders don’t have such executive experience either (unless being married to a President counts), so that point is largely moot.
Furthermore, no matter how good a candidate is on policy, it’s useless if they’re unelectable, and I believe Fred! would make a strong showing in the general election against any of the Dem front runners.
Hollowpoint on May 10, 2007 at 2:01 PM
The Ron Paul crowd have the collective IQ of an ashtray. They remind me of the LaRouchites that I see everyday who congregate around the ruins of the World Trade Center peddling the type of conspiracy theories that their minds suffering the effects of tertiary syphilis can only come up with.
Hilts on May 10, 2007 at 2:12 PM
It’s now about to be hijacked by the fleeocons.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on May 10, 2007 at 2:16 PM
My ashtray called, and wanted my to give you a big “F you” for such an unprovoked attack on it’s intelligence.
Hollowpoint on May 10, 2007 at 2:25 PM
I haven’t made that decision yet. But my litmus test is whoever polls best against the traitorous dems.
Heres the problem with isolationism. The Iraqi parliment, right now is debating to kick the US out of their country. When things start going to #ell and the Iraqis need help, it wont be us, but it will be somebody. The Chinese? Oh yeah, wouldn’t that be nice. They would go into Iraq and kill every sunni just to appease the shiites and then reap the rewards in oil. They could manipulate the oil market to the point that this free market that Paul thinks is the cure all, would be seriously hamstrung by rising energy costs. So, you just think about that. The US isn’t the only country that has interests in the ME and if that crazy old coot Ron Paul had his way, we’d be sucking hind teet when it comes to oil. Just look at Iraq toady. A power vacuum will need to be filled when we leave and no other country on the face of this planet has the USA’s interests at heart.
That is disengenuous. It was very obvious what the context of my comment was.
You try to use “freedom” as the absolute moral authority trump card. It is not and that is what I meant.
csdeven on May 10, 2007 at 4:18 PM
Well, right now he trails Hillary in several key states.
csdeven on May 10, 2007 at 4:19 PM
Well, right now he hasn’t even announced, hasn’t participated in a debate, hasn’t really campaigned and has come to the table much later than the others. These early X vs Y poll numbers mean very little, and won’t for at least another 6 months. Until the American public gets a better chance to see him speak and address his views, it’s absurd to quote Fred vs Hillary polls this early. The only real use these early polls have are to identify who the top tier candidates are- and with Thompson showing up 3rd in recent polls, he’s already a top tier candidate.
This election cycle has started VERY early- and remember that most voters aren’t reading blogs daily, and many know nothing about Fred outside his acting career.
It also bears noting that during his first run for Senate in Tennessee, he was far behind early in the race, only to end up trouncing his opponent once the election was held.
I’m pretty confident that in a head-to-head race against the wooden, phony Hillary his down to earth style would do very well.
Hollowpoint on May 10, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Yeah. I know fred? hasn’t announced. But you don’t get to point to his leading in the polls against reps as credible and not accept the poll that says he is behind Hillary. The fact that peole haven’t been exposed to his hypocricies could be the very reason he polls well against reps. Once he actually has to debate without a prepared speech and must go on less than friendly interviews we will have a better idea of what freds? skills are. Besides all that, he doesn’t have the experience in an executive roll to be considered a qualified candidate for POTUS.
csdeven on May 10, 2007 at 4:59 PM
Umm, that’s why I didn’t make a big deal about it aside from pointing out his being a “top tier” candidate.
Oh, since you’re a Mitt “flipper” Romney supporter, I’d be careful about throwing about the “hypocrisy” charge. I’d also not want to put too much stock in the Hillary vs. X polls either, because they’ve consistantly shown Hillary trouncing Romney.
Hollowpoint on May 10, 2007 at 5:20 PM
My point was that Mitt! has been confronted on his different stances on issues and fred? has not.
I am less of a Mitt! supporter than I am a fred? critic. These last two weeks have been an adventure in comic relief reading all the fredmainia? talk about a guy who wont announce. It’s like he’s trying to crate an image that has nothing to do with what he really is. He is a washington insider and I even heard a story about how he travels to rallys etc in a beat up red pickup. But afterward, he drives off a block or two, his staffer drives the truck and he gets in a limo.
Ouchie.
csdeven on May 10, 2007 at 7:12 PM
Your point is that he hasn’t announced with almost 9 months before Super Tuesday? That he didn’t take place in the meaningless MSNBC debate that no one watched?
Romney was considered a candidate before he announced too; he just announced earlier- and very, very early in the election cycle- and where has that gotten him? Fourth place so far.
Maybe Fred will completely fall apart when interviewed or debated… but that’s very highly unlikely- he’s campaigned for office twice before with a 100% success rate (unlike Romney, who’s 50/50 thus far).
Go to the National Review archives, or the ABC blog- there’s plenty already there about his positions. That’s the reason for the buzz; we have a pretty good idea where he stands and like it- unlike Romney, Rudy or McCain.
He was known for driving around the state in a red pickup during his first Senate campaign to great effect, and it stuck. Had he been some poser who couldn’t identify with people, it would’ve flopped as badly as the infamous Dukakis tank photo. Call it a gimmick if you like, but if it’s stupid and it works, it ain’t stupid.
Hollowpoint on May 10, 2007 at 7:55 PM
I know nothing about Ron Paul. However, I think it is a mistake to say he is unelectable. With things going as they are in Iraq and people tired of the Middle East and South America and Bosnia and Africa and Vietnam….suddenly someone advocating Isolationism could suddenly find themselves surging ahead in the polls. I’m not sure if that is a smart policy but it definately could gain popularity quickly.
Resolute on May 10, 2007 at 9:47 PM
No. My first point is that fred? wants to act like a candidate but take none of the risk. My second point, and it comes from the comedic value alone, is this fred?manina over a guy who isn’t even a candidate. He is included in polls with real candidates and the fred? groupies delute the poll by voting for a guy who is not a candidate. It’s hilarious! And my little cause to put fred? into some context has been going on for almost two weeks and I still have people going bat$hit crazy that someone challenges freds? viability, when he is not viable because he is not a candidate.
I noticed we have ANOTHER fred? thread up top, and I expect to find more of the same rhetoric from a non-candidate and the continued renting of hair over his non-candidacy. You just can’t make this stuff up.
csdeven on May 10, 2007 at 11:39 PM
Comment pages: