Ron Paul, Politics and the Internet in the '08 Campaign

Colin · 12-05-2007, 03:24 PM

November 27, 2007

Ron Paul, Politics and the Internet in the '08 Campaign

By Stuart Rothenberg

Thank goodness for Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and his campaign for president.
Single-handedly, the quirky libertarian Republican from Texas has unintentionally exposed the over-hype that accompanies much of the talk about politics and the Internet.

Paul has been doing well in post-debate call-ins and Internet "polls" for months, and his Web site has been scoring more hits than a bong at a Grateful Dead concert.

Recently, he received a wave of publicity because of a single day of fundraising, when some 35,000 contributors gave more than $4 million to the Congressman's presidential bid.

But big-sounding numbers can be deceiving, and politics is more about breadth of support than depth. Ultimately, elections are about winning votes, not Web visitors or even campaign dollars.

Yes, $4 million is a lot of money to raise in a single day.
But it pales in comparison to the overall fundraising of Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who didn't need a one-day fundraising event to get media attention. Still, let's give the Texan credit for his fundraising.

But what does that mean if he also has no chance of becoming the GOP presidential nominee, or even of winning a single primary contest?

Yes, I know. This statement alone is enough to generate far too many e-mails and telephone calls from Paul supporters accusing me of being anti-democratic and of violating the Constitution. When I wrote months ago in this space that it was time for Paul and other third-tier candidates to be excluded from televised debates, more than a couple of reporters made it clear that although they agreed with my view, they didn't want to be swamped by angry e-mails and phone calls.

The result is that many in the national media have treated Paul casually. Some media types surely find him interesting, especially given his views on Iraq. And people who cover "new technologies," including the Internet, have a self-interest to hype Paul's Web hits and Internet fundraising. But you hear very little about his kooky votes.

Hardly anyone is bothering to talk about his votes against resolutions calling on the government of Vietnam to release political prisoners and on the Arab League to help stop the killing in Darfur. Nor do they note that he said during his 1988 Libertarian bid for president that he would do away with the FBI and CIA, abolish the public schools, eliminate Social Security and all farm subsidies, and withdraw from NATO.
Reporters don't talk about his views and philosophy because they know he isn't a credible contender, but at the same time they refer to his fundraising and Web presence as if he's relevant.

Recently, a reporter for a major national newspaper wrote a piece about former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's movement in the Republican presidential race by comparing him to Paul. (Huckabee's momentum in Iowa is real, though it is still unclear if he'll develop into a top-tier hopeful.)

The reporter wrote the following: "[Huckabee's] campaign saw Web site traffic jump to levels second among Republicans only to that of Mr. Paul, who has a strong base of Internet supporters, forcing it to upgrade its server three times."

The comparison was interesting but totally meaningless. Yes, Paul gets lots of Web site traffic. And yet, has zero chance of being nominated. Given that, who cares about Paul's Web traffic (or Huckabee's, for that matter), unless you are a technology reporter who is personally invested in your beat?

Anyway, I'll offer a guess as to why Paul is raising all that cash and generating those Web hits. He received 423,000 votes when he ran as the Libertarian Party's nominee for president in 1988, raising a little more than $2 million. Anyone who knows libertarians knows that they are a committed bunch, certain that the country has lost its way and in need of immediate repair.

I'll bet that many who voted for and contributed to Paul in the past (he raised more than $2 million for his House races in 1998 and 2000) are investing in his presidential campaign this time, and he almost certainly is drawing support from liberals who connect with his views on the war in Iraq, from frustrated Americans who simply don't like "the system," and from some Republicans who are at the libertarian extreme of their party.

Check out Paul's Web site. He is openly appealing to voters who aren't registered Republicans by including, on the lower left hand corner of his Web site, a box listing "party affiliation change deadlines." "You must be registered with the correct party to vote for Ron Paul in closed primaries," says the site.

Sorry, but you can't win a Republican presidential nomination by relying on the support of non-Republicans. Nor can you win if you finish fifth in the Iowa straw poll (in which three credible candidates didn't participate) and third in your home state's straw poll behind Rep. Duncan Hunter (Calif.).

How can we explain Ron Paul? This is a big country with hundreds of millions of people, some of whom are attracted to quirky, anti-establishment candidates. And some of those people are angry, looking for an outspoken leader and searching for an easy answer to the nation's problems.

But there simply are not all that many of them.

The Internet undoubtedly has made it easier for Paul supporters to connect with the campaign and with each other, and it's become a terrific way to raise cash for a candidate with emotional followers. But Web chatter, declarations of undying support on Facebook and even surprising fundraising totals don't make a serious contender out of a candidate from the political fringe.

Ultimately, it's about votes.

Stuart Rothenberg is the editor of the The Rothenberg Political Report, and a regular columnist for Roll Call Newspaper.

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...gn_wont_g.html at December 05, 2007 - 11:44:08 AM CST

Colin · 12-05-2007, 03:36 PM

Kind of like Snakes on a Plane.

Hahahahah

Sparta · 12-05-2007, 03:36 PM

Nice post Colin, clearly a man with a blog making perfect sense. Lets eliminate canidates that aren't media supported, that way you don't have to deal with the issues they raise and you can avoid intillectual debate. Brilliant really. Hey, with this plan we don't need to worry about gaining Republican support, we can rely on crusty, decaying base that's been in place for years, and has the distinction of electing GW and his massive government. Good show.

Colin · 12-05-2007, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparta

Nice post Colin, clearly a man with a blog making perfect sense. Lets eliminate canidates that aren't media supported, that way you don't have to deal with the issues they raise and you can avoid intillectual debate. Brilliant really. Hey, with this plan we don't need to worry about gaining Republican support, we can rely on crusty, decaying base that's been in place for years, and has the distinction of electing GW and his massive government. Good show.

Yeah it is pretty brilliant!

The GOP debates would probably be better without Ron Paul and other fringe candidates there, with their useless and irrelevant quip remarks that prevent relevant issues from being examined by the leading candidates. They do provide some amusement, do in the end do little but annoy me.

But the United States is a democracy, and even the most kooky voices must be heard!

I think you missed the actual point of the article though.

mjollnir · 12-05-2007, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin

Yeah it is pretty brilliant!

The GOP debates would probably be better without Ron Paul and other fringe candidates there, with their useless and irrelevant quip remarks that prevent relevant issues from being examined by the leading candidates. They do provide some amusement, do in the end do little but annoy me.

But the United States is a democracy, and even the most kooky voices must be heard!

We are not a democracy. We are a federal republic.

So Ron Paul is of the fringe just because he wants to take us back to true constitutional governing. He is fringe because he sees that printing dollars willy nilly is destroying the dollar. he is fringe because he is against this bullshit called the War On Terror and this illegal invasion of Iraq and he advocates doing business with other countries but not intervening in their affairs. he is fringe because he believes in personal responsibility and not the nanny, welfare, orwellian state. Hey Colin...why don't you worry about the politics of your own country? You seem to have this hard on for Ron Paul and you don't even live here!! Give it a fucking REST!

Colin · 12-05-2007, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjollnir

We are not a democracy. We are a federal republic.

So Ron Paul is of the fringe just because he wants to take us back to true constitutional governing. He is fringe because he sees that printing dollars willy nilly is destroying the dollar. he is fringe because he is against this bullshit called the War On Terror and this illegal invasion of Iraq and he advocates doing business with other countries but not intervening in their affairs. he is fringe because he believes in personal responsibility and not the nanny, welfare, orwellian state. Hey Colin...why don't you worry about the politics of your own country? You seem to have this hard on for Ron Paul and you don't even live here!! Give it a fucking REST!

Thanks for that: The United States is a "federal republic" that is governed partially though democratic institutions. Needless corrections aside; it's real good of you to pull the evil foreigner card and avoid the actual point of the article. Shitty debate tactic but whatever.

Sparta · 12-05-2007, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin

Yeah it is pretty brilliant!

The GOP debates would probably be better without Ron Paul and other fringe candidates there, with their useless and irrelevant quip remarks that prevent relevant issues from being examined by the leading candidates. They do provide some amusement, do in the end do little but annoy me.

But the United States is a democracy, and even the most kooky voices must be heard!

That's hillarious, you out do yourself with every post. Really, did you suggest that "leading" canidates are being prevented from answering openly and honestly? I don't know if you've actually convinced yourself of this nonsense at this point, but youve got to have some clue that the so called leading canidates make a living out of avoiding the issues, and if Paul is so crazy, why wouldn't they let his ideas destroy themselves rather than locking horns with him and looking like idiots every time they do, the answer of course is that Paul is offering sound logic on complex issues, he's leading youth toward the Republican party which is dangerous for the old guard because it threatens their grip on the future of the party.

The real question here is why do I bother trying to exchange with you, a person who's not only overestimated his political knowledge time and again, but who's also shown his trollish colors on countless threads?

Zarathustra · 12-05-2007, 03:53 PM

LOL, that article had nothing of substance. The guy obviously disagrees with RP and that's his right, but he didn't give a single instance as to why I shouldn't vote for him.

michaelr · 12-05-2007, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin

November 27, 2007

Ron Paul, Politics and the Internet in the '08 Campaign

By Stuart Rothenberg

Thank goodness for Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and his campaign for president.
Single-handedly, the quirky libertarian Republican from Texas has unintentionally exposed the over-hype that accompanies much of the talk about politics and the Internet.

Thats just funny.

Quote:

Paul has been doing well in post-debate call-ins and Internet "polls" for months, and his Web site has been scoring more hits than a bong at a Grateful Dead concert.

Won every one!

Quote:

Recently, he received a wave of publicity because of a single day of fundraising, when some 35,000 contributors gave more than $4 million to the Congressman's presidential bid.

And yet he has no support.

Quote:

But big-sounding numbers can be deceiving, and politics is more about breadth of support than depth. Ultimately, elections are about winning votes, not Web visitors or even campaign dollars.

Since the money came from the people instead of the GOP or special interest, the big numbers mean support from actual people, Oh My God!!!!

Quote:

Yes, $4 million is a lot of money to raise in a single day.
But it pales in comparison to the overall fundraising of Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who didn't need a one-day fundraising event to get media attention. Still, let's give the Texan credit for his fundraising.

You bet, AIPAC and special intrest groups have a lot of money to buy their candidates with!

Quote:

But what does that mean if he also has no chance of becoming the GOP presidential nominee, or even of winning a single primary contest?

Not according to Zoggby, I heard one of their senior representitives claim that if Paul continues with his gains he will most probably win the primary elections.

Quote:

Yes, I know. This statement alone is enough to generate far too many e-mails and telephone calls from Paul supporters accusing me of being anti-democratic and of violating the Constitution. When I wrote months ago in this space that it was time for Paul and other third-tier candidates to be excluded from televised debates, more than a couple of reporters made it clear that although they agreed with my view, they didn't want to be swamped by angry e-mails and phone calls.

Or an opposing point of view.

Quote:

The result is that many in the national media have treated Paul casually. Some media types surely find him interesting, especially given his views on Iraq. And people who cover "new technologies," including the Internet, have a self-interest to hype Paul's Web hits and Internet fundraising. But you hear very little about his kooky votes.

That would explain the fact that his campaign site gets more hits then any of the other candidates, a claim made by this very article. This is getting better by the second.

Quote:

Hardly anyone is bothering to talk about his votes against resolutions calling on the government of Vietnam to release political prisoners and on the Arab League to help stop the killing in Darfur. Nor do they note that he said during his 1988 Libertarian bid for president that he would do away with the FBI and CIA, abolish the public schools, eliminate Social Security and all farm subsidies, and withdraw from NATO.

No he said that he would reduce the size of the FBI, and who needs NATO to suck us dry?

Quote:

Reporters don't talk about his views and philosophy because they know he isn't a credible contender, but at the same time they refer to his fundraising and Web presence as if he's relevant.

He is relevant, that why they are afraid. If all goes right maybe we can have some sanity back in our government.

Quote:

Recently, a reporter for a major national newspaper wrote a piece about former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's movement in the Republican presidential race by comparing him to Paul. (Huckabee's momentum in Iowa is real, though it is still unclear if he'll develop into a top-tier hopeful.)

Comparing the illegal alien loving Huckleberry to Paul is like comparing apples to oranges. Huckleberry wants to give illegals unfair advantages in education and in the workplace!

Quote:

The reporter wrote the following: "[Huckabee's] campaign saw Web site traffic jump to levels second among Republicans only to that of Mr. Paul, who has a strong base of Internet supporters, forcing it to upgrade its server three times."

I wonder if thats because in the last debate Huckleberry claimed that he would like to shut down the IRS, you know the same thing Paul has been saying since day one.

Quote:

The comparison was interesting but totally meaningless. Yes, Paul gets lots of Web site traffic. And yet, has zero chance of being nominated. Given that, who cares about Paul's Web traffic (or Huckabee's, for that matter), unless you are a technology reporter who is personally invested in your beat?

I would agree the comparison is utterly meaningless.

Quote:

Anyway, I'll offer a guess as to why Paul is raising all that cash and generating those Web hits. He received 423,000 votes when he ran as the Libertarian Party's nominee for president in 1988, raising a little more than $2 million. Anyone who knows libertarians knows that they are a committed bunch, certain that the country has lost its way and in need of immediate repair.

Yes these are different times, don't worry Colin he will be our next president I hope, but he will leave Canada alone!

I'll bet that many who voted for and contributed to Paul in the past (he raised more than $2 million for his House races in 1998 and 2000) are investing in his presidential campaign this time, and he almost certainly is drawing support from liberals who connect with his views on the war in Iraq, from frustrated Americans who simply don't like "the system," and from some Republicans who are at the libertarian extreme of their party.

Quote:

Check out Paul's Web site. He is openly appealing to voters who aren't registered Republicans by including, on the lower left hand corner of his Web site, a box listing "party affiliation change deadlines." "You must be registered with the correct party to vote for Ron Paul in closed primaries," says the site.

That Bastard, he is trying to alert the voters in other parties that they must register as a Republican, that dirty SOB.

Quote:

Sorry, but you can't win a Republican presidential nomination by relying on the support of non-Republicans. Nor can you win if you finish fifth in the Iowa straw poll (in which three credible candidates didn't participate) and third in your home state's straw poll behind Rep. Duncan Hunter (Calif.).

In a perfect world maybe, but his support has no party boundaries.

Quote:

How can we explain Ron Paul? This is a big country with hundreds of millions of people, some of whom are attracted to quirky, anti-establishment candidates. And some of those people are angry, looking for an outspoken leader and searching for an easy answer to the nation's problems.

Or that there are still people who love their freedoms and are looking for a candidate that will insure those freedoms. BTW it ain't the easy way out!

Quote:

But there simply are not all that many of them.

That explains the smear!

Quote:

The Internet undoubtedly has made it easier for Paul supporters to connect with the campaign and with each other, and it's become a terrific way to raise cash for a candidate with emotional followers. But Web chatter, declarations of undying support on Facebook and even surprising fundraising totals don't make a serious contender out of a candidate from the political fringe.

Then why worry, be happy.

Quote:

Ultimately, it's about votes.

Could not agree more!

Quote:

Stuart Rothenberg is the editor of the The Rothenberg Political Report, and a regular columnist for Roll Call Newspaper.

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...gn_wont_g.html at December 05, 2007 - 11:44:08 AM CST

AKA the RAG!

Zarathustra · 12-05-2007, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin

Yeah it is pretty brilliant!

The GOP debates would probably be better without Ron Paul and other fringe candidates there, with their useless and irrelevant quip remarks that prevent relevant issues from being examined by the leading candidates. They do provide some amusement, do in the end do little but annoy me.

But the United States is a democracy, and even the most kooky voices must be heard!

I think you missed the actual point of the article though.

LOL, all the other candidates in the debates say dumbass remarks like "I wanna double GITMO" and "All the Founding Fathers were clergymen".