Ron Paul is an internet phenomenon. On any given day, stories about Ron Paul represent roughly half to two-thirds of the most popular links on any of a dozen or more link-aggregation sites. Ron Paul has the most YouTube subscribers. Ron Paul is the top search engine candidate. Ron Paul set a single-day fund-raising record. Given how often Ron Paul's name comes up, one might think that Ron Paul was a shoe-in for President in 2008, or at least for the Republican presidential candidate for 2008. Instead, Ron Paul is dead last, where he belongs.
Ron Paul isn't the first example of online fever failing to translate into real-life success. We can call him the Snakes on a Plane candidate, or go with my label: the one-trick pony candidate. Ah, but what a trick!
The appeal of Ron Paul is as simple as his message. He wants to take the United States back to the "good old days," before we started essentially unprovoked wars against foreign powers that were no imminent threat to us, before we spent money on things like social security, welfare, or public schools. Who among us hasn't felt the tug from that siren call of simplicity? Who hasn't recognized problems in the federal government? Paul is clearly no friend of big government. In fact, Paul has earned the sobriquet "Dr. No" as a result of his consistent "No" votes in Congress. He votes "No" on everything, except when he votes "Yes." Come to think of it, why did he vote for $70 million on Section 8 housing vouchers? Or on federal funding for health providers who don't perform abortions? Or on an expensive fence separating the U.S. from Mexico? Agree or disagree with each of those positions, each involves a vote for increasing federal spending, something I keep hearing he's never done. Oops!
I'm not out to "get" Ron Paul. Let American Thinker raise questions about Ron Paul, racism, and 9/11 conspiracies. I'm concerned less about those possibilities than about the obvious: Ron Paul is simple-minded, supplying sound bites to complex problems. He's not a credible candidate, and shouldn't be. No amount of attempting to redefine "credible" will change that.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Phillip Winn
I think the thing that bugs me most about Paul is that his supporters seem to think he's the first candidate in 200 years worth voting for. Um, there's one of these guys nearly every election. Grow up and move on.
2 - gonzo marx
well well, Phillip...fun Article
now we'll see how fast and furious the Paul supporters react to your little *tantrum*
heh
Excelsior?
3 - Brian Middleton
Oh boy, this will be funny when your comments gets overloaded with corrections from Paul's supporters. Oh yeah, by the way, you really need to do your homework before posting something about someone you really don't seem to know anything about. More importantly get your facts straight. First, Ron Paul is NOT dead last. His numbers are growing and his is polling at about 5-7% nationwide, ahead of Fred Thompson.
Also see this morning's associated press on Ron Paul.
When you post garbage like this you are going to expect you be eating up by REAL Facts. I will let most others get involved. Enjoy...
4 - John-Ross Cromer
Ron Paul internet supporters are so zealous because this is their first time to participate in the Presidential election process and they see their efforts paying off. I'd wager most supporters did not participate in the Howard Dean internet movement due to ideology differences.
However, I disagree that Ron Paul supporters are of the crazy mindset that he'll be able to push through his agenda the first week of his term. Instead, they are fed up with the current direction the government is taking and view Dr. Paul as a the leader best suited to reverse the trend. For as many "Ron Paul wants to disband the IRS" posts out there, I have yet to read a "Vote for Ron Paul so you won't have to pay income tax in 2010" thread.
5 - Uniblogger
Blasphemy! You'll smoke a terd in hell for that, non-believer! Vote Ron PAUL 08!
6 - Brian Middleton
Phillip,
I mean, if you are going to write an opinion, let it at least your conclusions be based on facts, rather than erroneous assumptions. Also, I am not so sure that raising 4.2 million in ONE day is so delusional. You write Phillip, that Paul is a“ man who seems to believe that the U.S. President has the power to set the federal budget all by himself,” Where are you getting this from? Do you always make it up as you go along?
You also write that Paul “wants to take the United States back to the "good old days," before we started essentially unprovoked wars against foreign powers that were no imminent threat to us, before we spent money on things like social security, welfare, or public schools.” You mean the days where the US Constitution was ratified? Or you mean the days when we began implementing communist principles? Which one do you like the most Phillip? The Bill of Rights or the Communist Manifesto’s 10 planks? I’m not sure about you Phillip, but I will take the former, you can take the latter.
Since when it is okay for someone like yourself, Phillip, to decide who should and should not run? Who made you the election king? You say you are “not out to get Ron Paul” but your article is infested with some pretty vile opinions that would make any reasonable person believe you are out to get Ron Paul. But hey Phillip, what do I know, huh?
Oh yeah, and then we have the regular smear tactic about Paul’s “racist friends and beliefs.” That one should get your readers to really hate Paul, but wait; did you really do your homework Phillip? I would say it is safe to assume you didn’t. None of those accusations have any merit whatsoever, but let’s stick our head in the sand and use the ostrich argument.
I’m done for now. Enjoy
7 - Phillip Winn
Gosh, Brian, if only I'd linked the words "Ron Paul is dead last" to a chart of some kind, showing that he's dead last, behind everyone else. Of course, things change, and the last poll on that chart is currently 11/11, so who knows? Maybe in the last four days he's tripled his support to pull ahead of Huckabee, putting him into fifth place out of six. That would be impressive, wouldn't it?
I don't expect anybody to care, but I'm not looking for "corrections." What a beautiful euphemism! I'm making very few factual assertions, and supplied links for most of those. What I've done a lot of is express my opinion, which is why this article is classed as "opinion" rather than, say, "news." In my opinion, most Paul supports are stuck at about high school level when it comes to political discourse, and what's most unfortunate about it is that they haven't learned that nobody else cares.
If you are interested in "corrections," here's one for you: That link you provided on polling data (a press release from the Ron Paul campaign, incidentally) is talking about New Hampshire only, while the poll results to which I linked are national. Thompson is doing especially poorly in New Hampshire, and Paul is doing well there.
Given the libertarian leanings of New Hampshire, I would expect Paul to be polling near 70%, so 7% is just another indicator of how niche is his appeal.
8 - Brian Middleton
I'm sorry, I forgot to add this one for you too Phillip.
Paul seems to be gaining momentum. But that can't be Phillip. You just wrote the opposite? Who should we believe? A sophomore or the real Press? I'm sorry, are you even a sophomore?
Enjoy
9 - Phillip Winn
John-Ross, you hit the nail on the head so early, I guess I can quit responding to comments already! It is, indeed, the first time involved in the political process for many, maybe even most, of Paul's supporters. The interesting thing about first-timer is that they lack the perspective that sitting through a few decades of elections brings.
Also, first-timers don't tend to vote. It's weird, but Bush won in 2004 despite a huge projected turnout from first-time Democratic voters. Apparently that turnout, like many other projections of large turnouts by first-timers, failed to materialize. It certainly failed to make a difference.
Everybody's a first-timer once. Election night always hurts, and you rarely get quite as excited about politics again, but there you go.
10 - James
Phil, I have to say your bias is showing. I dont adore Ron Paul either, but your writing makes it sound like you have a personal vendetta against him. I follow a lot of candidates because the issues are important to me. I can think of two off the top of my head that you twisted around.
1- His economic stance, even Steve Forbes voices support for Ron Paul on fiscal issues. Alan Greenspan wrote articles backing the Gold Standard. It just sounds radical because we are indoctrinated to think the market cant exist without the FED's heavy hand.
2- Rewriting history? I find it interesting that you think our actions can inspire no reactions, but if someone crosses us, then our own reactions are directly caused by others transgressions against us. Any student of history will tell you that nations dont exist in a vacuum.
I like some of what Ron Paul says because it makes sense. I also liked it when McCain said dont commit torture in my name, because it made sense. Or when Bush said, lets get Bin Laden in Afghanistan, because it made sense. It sounds like this is just a hate article, perhaps you have good intentions, but we need real journalism and not media obfuscation of where our candidates stand. There are people who look to you for real information on the issues. You have such power to help your fellow Americans, please employ that power justly.
11 - Phillip Winn
James, did you read what I wrote? The only thing I said about Paul's economic policies was supported by a link demonstrating that even after accounting for inflation, Paul's statement about income tax being unnecessary is off by about $600 billion. That's it. How did I twist Paul's economic stance around?
Your point about our actions not existing in a vacuum is a great one. It also happens to be exactly the point I was making, so I'm glad we agree!
12 - Larry L
Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like "America Deceived' from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great nation.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov't Will and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)
13 - Phillip Winn
Uniblogger, it's spelled "turd." Thanks for the comment.
14 - joey
wow. another moron cashing in on ron paul related hits. man you should be able to line your lame blog with even more shitty ads. congrats fuckface
15 - Phillip Winn
Brian, even with my long comments, I suspect you'll exceed the number of words I've written on this page before long!
Did I say Paul was losing momentum? Can you show me that in my article? Somehow I missed it. In fact, I led the article with a short list of ways in which Paul is gaining momentum, not losing it.
Thanks for the comment, though. Do you want my corrections? I suspect not.
16 - Casey
All Hail the Election King!
17 - Phillip Winn
thanks joey i appreciate your comments. i hope the punctuation and capitalization within the article wasnt too confusing. ill look into the more ads things some other time. im trying to set a one day ad revenue record on thanksgiving day. wanna help.
18 - Brian Middleton
Gosh Phillip,
You write “I'm making very few factual assertions, and supplied links for most of those. What I've done a lot of is express my opinion, which is why this article is classed as "opinion" rather than, say, "news."
Well, you said it Phillip. Very “few” factual findings.” You have an absolute right to write your opinion, BUT it has to be based on something. Can you imagine we had news organizations just give opinions with no basis in fact or supporting evidence? Oh wait, we do have those. Hannity and O’Reilly so I apologize.
You do realize that you do yourself and your readers a disservice when you write just you make up as you go along. A court renders an “opinion” (conclusion) BUT it is based on the facts and evidence. Do yourself a favor and stick to that principal.
Then your assumption that Ron Paul voters that never voted before and that they lack perspective. Let me get my Barney Dinosaur doll and pacifier cause I’m about to cry.
19 - TORMENTORRR
There is no way you could not have a crush on that secksi 72-year-old piece of hot untamed ass!
haha are you serious Philly? What kind of lame ass title is that?
"I don't have a crush on Ron Paul"
Closet Homo. hehe.
20 - Phillip Winn
Brian, I agree with you! That's why I provided links supporting my factual statements. Do you have any examples of facts I got wrong? Does Paul not plan to shut down the departments I listed? Was the War of 1812 provoked? (That's actually more opinion than fact, but I'm trying to be generous.)
By the way, speaking of facts and getting things right, it was John-Ross Cromer who first suggested that Ron Paul supporters to be getting involved for the first time. I know a guy in his sixties who has been a Republican elector for decades who supports Ron Paul, so I'm well aware that John-Ross Cromer's assertion isn't universal. I don't think he suggested it was.
21 - Jared
Phil, thanks for actually answering reader comments in your blog, even if I believe what you write is rubbish and probably done to get some hits and traffic, but I am interested in what horse you have in the race?
Also I believe Paul is the furthest thing from a sound bite candidate...
22 - Alex Hammer
See Also: By Rep. Ron Paul - Entangling Alliances - November 15, 2007. Ron Paul as Vice President For Barack Obama.
23 - Phillip Winn
TORMENTORRR, I'm confused. Are you saying that you have a crush on Ron Paul sexually? But I'm the one harboring but denying homosexual leanings?
I don't think the average young girl with a crush on her favorite celebrity is actually seriously contemplating said celebrity's hot untamed anything, but I've never actually been a young girl, so I could be mistaken on that point.
Thanks for the comment.
24 - Brian Middleton
Waz up Phillip my man,
You write: “[d]id I say Paul was losing momentum? Can you show me that in my article? Somehow I missed it”
When did I say you said Paul was NOT gaining momentum? Show me where? I was simply making a point to counter your erroneous conclusion that is implied from your article that Ron Paul is dead last, thus has no chance in hell. Well, we are still one year away, and let me tell you this Phillip my man. Bill Clinton was doing poorly around this time, now he is a second term President.
Oh yeah my man Phillip, what can we do to change your mind about Dr. Paul? Is there any particular issue that would change your mind, and if so, what would you need?
Your new buddy Brian
PS> aren't we having fun? You love the attention don't you. I know you probably wrote this article because you were bored and tired of watching free 10 sec porn on the Internet. =)
25 - Vegan
When things are in such dire straits here in the US, then why shouldn't a radical change be warranted? Things may be going great for you, but those of us living paycheck to paycheck, with no health insurance or savings, NEED a radical change. Right now, Ron Paul is the one that is not only proposing that radical change, but doing so in a straight-talking way. I don't like being BSed, and that is what Giuliani and Hillary, Edwards and Obama, Romney and Thompson are all doing. They want to win, and they will do and say what they need to in order to do it.
Frankly, I went into this election season under the impression that I would rather abstain than vote for someone that I don't trust. Two weeks ago I found out about Ron Paul, and now I'll gladly give my vote to him, and him alone. I don't even have a bed to sleep on, but I gave his campaign a donation - the first one I've ever given to a politician.
If he's not on the ballot, and no other real 'maverick' emerges, then I'm staying home on election day.