Not only did this presidential campaign start awfully early, but it seems to be chock full of debates and town halls and candidate forums way out of proportion to any previous election that I can recall. In past elections, it often seemed like the candidates had to be dragged to debates and did everything they could to control their exposure to actual questions and potential confrontations. Every word they uttered was scripted and every situation they got into was handled to make sure that not one controversial word slipped out.
In this election it seems like the wheels are off and things are getting wilder by the minute. The candidates are hammering each other with unprecedented enthusiasm and the media is conspiring to create a circus atmosphere and involve the public in new and creative ways. They're getting debate questions from YouTube and interviews with people on the street and they're giving more coverage to the also-rans than I've ever seen before.
A lot of this seems to be the democratizing effect of the internet. People have more access, candidates want to use the new medium to their advantage and bloggers and partisan websites are driving the media to put on more of a show and often follow their lead in order to compete for attention. Some of the candidates are using the internet very effectively as a vehicle for building grass roots support, and that's making it difficult for the front runners to just sit back and let their bigger advertising budgets speak for them. It also helps that there are some potentially controversial and unconventional candidates in top spots in the polls.
This carnival atmosphere has started to infect the major televised debates, which are getting more contentious and more confrontational and in many ways more substantive than is traditional. Certainly this week's Republican debate in New Hampshire was a lot more raucous and a lot more entertaining than I would have expected. There were some heated exchanges, some pointed questions were asked and we got to see some substantive answers on important issues. There was still some dodging and misdirection, mostly from the top-tier candidates, but even they seem to be realizing that the campaign is a lot more wide-open than they expected and that they can't get away with offering nothing more than a bright smile and some platitudes. The people are demanding more and the candidates are starting to oblige.
New Hampshire is a state which leaned Republican in most elections until fairly recently, with a strong libertarian element in the population. It's the target state of the Free State Project and thousands of libertarians have moved there in recent years to exercise political influence in a receptive environment. It's a very politically active state with a lot of free-thinking Republicans. As one of the early primaries a lot of attention gets focused on it, events there get coverage and it helps set the tone for the rest of the primary season.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - DenisL
Dave,
Nicely done.
I also thought Huckabee did the best job as a prowar candidate and that Ron Paul did the best job as the anti-war candidate.
I am always curious why ALL candidates do not ask their supporters, or better said, why the other candidates' supporters do not spontaneously organize and ask for people to vote for their preferred candidates in online or text message polls. It sure provides a LOT of free advertising the next day.
Almost all are arranged so that one can not vote more than once, so it does give a real idea of how many people feel STRONGLY about their current favorite candidate. I like how some of the online polls allow one to do a rank order voting for 1, 2, 3..... This gives an idea of the depth of the feeling for all the candidates.
In any case, I gave the nod in the NH debate to 1. Paul, 2. Huckabee, 3. McCain,
4. the rest.
2 - Dan Warner
Yep I am a Ron Paul supporter. I do NOT paste the same thing over and over again for every Ron Paul article on the internet, I comment on each article that I feel I have something to say about.
Personaly I think Ron Paul won the debate but that probably won't surprise you. I feel that way becasue I feel he is the only person speaking for the real America. You know, the one they call fly over country.
I did watch the entire debate and I listen with an open mind to each of the candidates, afterall I am a voting republican and it is my obligation to know their positions so I can make an intelligent choice at the voting booth.
When I heard the others laughing and snickering at the suggestion that we follow the constitution, my mind was made up.
Ron Paul wins my vote and I will laugh all the way to the bank as I go to pick up some money to send to Dr. Paul.
3 - jwerner
That is ROnBots not spamers thank you. Get it Right.
I think you are off on what you said about Ron Paul upset or "pissed off" about Thompson. He welcomed another warmonger to as he said "further dilute the pro war vote" Also if Ron Paul's online blow back is that he raises more money and people know who he is and the he has strong support group from all walks of life and political philosophies including the fringe than I can not see this a negative for Paul.
Ron Paul got almost 2x the text votes of any other after the fox debate and you could not vote twice. In my book that is a huge victory for the guy Fox tried to make look like a kook and disrespected so much. FREEDOM HAS 2 FIRST NAMES!!!!! vote Ron Paul for truth.
4 - Clavos
I felt the Fox NH debate was by far, the most substantive one from either party, thus far.
The difference. I think, in this debate is that the lower tier candidates were given much more exposure than in previous events.
The lower tier candidates in both parties seem to be having much more of an influence on the races this time than in previous elections; this is a very good thing: I hope it continues, but I think Dave's right; once the fields are narrowed, the substance will go out the window, and we'll be back to pablum as both party's candidates move back to the center.
5 - Chris Rhoades
As a Christian who holds to Just War Theory I'm supporting Paul and I would place Huckabee second. But after this debate, he is showing me that he is more in line with the Pottery Barn Theory than JWT. Aside from the theatrics, Huckabee is just plain wrong on the matter.
Please read Michael Scheuer - the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit what he says about Ron Paul's foreign policy.
Or watch him in a press conference after the "Rudy Giuliani dust up".
Thanks for listening. Good article.
6 - gonzo marx
gotta agree that this was the best debate i've seen in quite the while..chalk it up to Paul and Huckabee being REAL candidates willing to talk about their positions on real issues and not just play to script
we will see how it all plays out
Excelsior?
7 - Dave Nalle
I also thought Huckabee did the best job as a prowar candidate and that Ron Paul did the best job as the anti-war candidate.
Paul did a good job on his issues, but he just doesn't radiate the kind of calmness you want in a national leader. I had to give it to Huckabee because Paul seems so shrill and angry. It's just not appealing. Last night I thought about what would happen if Paul were elected president and I couldn't even imagine him appointing a cabinet. Who would ally themselves with him? Even relatively libertarian leaders like Thompson and Sunnunu would be leery of being in his administration.
I am always curious why ALL candidates do not ask their supporters, or better said, why the other candidates' supporters do not spontaneously organize and ask for people to vote for their preferred candidates in online or text message polls. It sure provides a LOT of free advertising the next day.
I actually cut the article in half. I had an entire separate section on this issue, but I'm writing it up as a second article. The other candidates DO have online campaigns going, but most of them are just not very good at it or not really sure what they're doing, or in Huckabee's case doing the right thing the wrong way, with great enthusiasm and not much skill.
Dave
8 - Dave Nalle
When I heard the others laughing and snickering at the suggestion that we follow the constitution, my mind was made up.
Yeah, that was very strange and disconcerting. I don't think they were actually laughing at the Constitutional suggestion, and I'm not convinced it was even the other candidates laughing. It sounded almost like someone with a very loud laugh getting picked up from the audience. Some have even suggested that Fox dubbed in a laugh track to discredit Paul, but that's heavy handed even for them.
I think you are off on what you said about Ron Paul upset or "pissed off" about Thompson.
Well, Paul does sound pissed off about just about everything, true.
He welcomed another warmonger to as he said "further dilute the pro war vote"
If I didn't make it clear, I think he took that aggreessive tack on Thompson to deflect attention from the fact that Thompson is almost as libertarian as he is on many issues. Thompson's ratings from the RLC are almost as good as Paul's are.
Also if Ron Paul's online blow back is that he raises more money and people know who he is and the he has strong support group from all walks of life and political philosophies including the fringe than I can not see this a negative for Paul.
Well, so far his blowback has been that people are now going around harassing his 'ronbots' as you call them and pointing out that Paul is very UN libertarian and anti-constitution on a number of issues like gay marriage and school prayer.
As a Christian who holds to Just War Theory I'm supporting Paul and I would place Huckabee second
You know, I almost brought up the Just War Theory in the article, but since he didn't mention it in the debate I held off. I think it's another example of why Paul is unsuited for the presidency, but that's probably a discussion for another time.
Dave
9 - joshuabrucel
I am a Ron Paul supporter who is definately as normal and unfringe as they come. I work hard and pay over $600 a week in income tax. I find your comments about Ron Paul very short sighted. Its funny how you accuse RP supporters of writing the same thing on every post yet you repeat the same things that others are trying to make into talking points ie: "They are perceived as fanatics from Paul's conspiracy-freak fringe contingent and many have started referring to them as 'Ron Paul Spammers'."
10 - Arch Conservative
When I heard the others laughing and snickering at the suggestion that we follow the constitution, my mind was made up."
They weren't laughing and snickering at the constitution. They were laughing at Ron Paul's bizarre notion that we can just walk away from the middle east entirely, come home, stick our heads in the sand and everything will by honky dory.
While Paul may have some good ideas he too often comes dangerously close to sounding like a left wing moonbat when discussing the threat posed by Islamic terrorism, blaming American foreign policy . Paul stated that the islamic terrorists stated that the US having troops in Saudi Arabia was one of the reasons they attacked us on 911 and then stated that we should bring our troops home because of this. I don't know what everyone else took away from that but I took it to mean that Paul thinks American foreign policy should be dictated by the wants of Islamic terrorists.
Guiliani may very well be overpoliticizing his role in 911 but that is pretty much all he has to run on. He will never get my vote in the NH primary but of course I will vote for whomever the gop candidate turns out ot be in light of the dems running the antichrist herself.
Mccain is still mccain.
Romney has faltered several times but still remains my choice unless Fred Thompson can make me change my midn in the next couple of months.
11 - Larry
All in all, this was a pretty good description of the debate with the exceptions of (1)"The debate moderators actually gave him (Ron Paul) a lot of time and let him get his points out pretty completely". It was over 30 minutes into the debate before he was asked a question! He was only asked 3 questions all night. Giuliani, Romney and McCain all got 3 questions before Ron Paul got his first. And it was very obvious that the moderators were biased in each question they asked. (On a side note, if I was a Guiliana supporter, I would be ashamed of the childish snickering when Paul was asked a question, how unprofessional and definitedly not presidential material.)
and (2)"People have begun to become annoyed at the small group of Ron Paul supporters who show up to post". Who are these "people" who are annoyed? Maybe they're mad because people are not as passionate about their candidate? Did you say "small group of supporters?" I beg to differ. I attended a Ron Paul rally in Greenville SC in July and the convention hall was packed. You couldn't get in the place or even find a parking spot. The same situation occurred at another rally 30 miles away earlier in the day. I see the same thing happening all across the country. Small Group? I think not!
(3) I'm not a spammer. This is only the fourth time I have made a comment on the Internet but I'm sick about the comments that Paul supporters are "fringe", "kooks" or "nutcases". I live in SC and I am 52 years old and have been a staunch Republican my whole life. I am neither a fringe, kook or a nutcase. I am fed up with the fact that the party I have supported all these years has destroyed our country and I want it back.
There's not a dime's bit of difference in either of the two parties today with the exception of Ron Paul. You may think LIBERTY is just a catch-word, but it speaks volumes to me. I have two grandchildren and I want freedom to ring again for them! Thank you for letting me comment.
12 - Dave Nalle
Joshua, I'm just reporting the facts. It's nice that not all of Paul's supporters are nuts. Do you honestly claim that the conspiracy fringe contingent is not playing a large role in pushing his candidacy online?
Dave
13 - Mark
We keep hearing so many members of the media complain about the passion and dedication of the ever-present Ron Paul supporters.
Real journalists would do their job: investigate this unique phenomenon and report on it. However, they prefer to take the lazy path -- print press releases from the big names and write off the Ron Paul camp as a bunch of nuts. What a shame!
Imagine if the same had been done to those vociferous folk who contributed to the Federalist Papers, Common Sense and all those other shrill publications. Maybe we could have just kept King George.
14 - Dr Dreadful
Do you honestly claim that the conspiracy fringe contingent is not playing a large role in pushing his candidacy online?
Dave, isn't that in itself a conspiracy theory?
15 - everlasticity
Thank you for writing a genuine article.
When Mike Huckabee carelessly admitted that honor was more important than the elections, he served as a reminder that the government is not acting on behalf of the people, and that the current top-tier candidates are more committed to the Neo-Conservative agenda than to the wishes of the people. This disregard for public sentiment lost the republicans both the house and the senate in 2006, a practice that has manifested itself across party lines.
As a Ron Paul supporter, I believe that all view points need to be shared inorder for the constiuency to make the best and most informed choices. Whether or not Ron Paul wins the nomination, to me, takes a back seat to the process of democracy. If all arguments are presented, relative in frequency to their base of support, then democracy has succeeded, and we can trust that the people will vote out of their best interests. In our current political climate, however, especially as governed by a concrete two party system, the media does not provide a fair and balanced representation of the constituency. This is apparent to me, as an unofficial volunteer to the Ron Paul campaign, who meets regularly with other Ron Paul supporters to create signs, hand out pamplets, and even has purchased a web cam to participate on Youtube, because I am very much aware of the real ground support that exists for Ron Paul. I am on the internet regularly searching for articles on Ron Paul, and I am amazed that not more online news sources print Ron Paul material, especially the major news sources, despite the overwhelming interest in the Ron Paul campaign on the part of internet users. Internet advertising has exploded in the last decade, and it would seem in the best interests of news sources and advertising companies to publicize Ron Paul because there is apparent demand for his message. One can only speculate as to why this is so, and it may be that the Ron Paul hype is overblown, and does not actually translate into successful internet marketing. Which brings me to the purpose of my response to your article.
The criticism of Ron Paul supporters as being fanatics who spam the internet is unjust. In a society where millions of individuals have personal email accounts, with large corporations bombarding those email accounts with spam about pharmeceuticals, stock quotes and the like, we cannot fault the attempt of Ron Paul supporters to utilize those same tactics to its advantage. If spam was not a successful marketing technique, the costs would outweigh the benefits, and spam would be deemed ineffective. Instead of shunning these tactics, we have chosen to embrace them as part of our modern communicative arsenal. In contrast to the current administration's use of the mantra "The surge is working" or Giuliani's repeated use of the word "terrorism" in everyone of his political speeches, the tactics of Ron Paul constituents is benign at worst. The intent is to get the public aware of who Ron Paul is, and we cannot be faulted for resorting to alternative strategies when we perceive we are being under represented by the media and our representatives.
In my experience, Ron Paul supporters are not fanatics, and his message isn't even that radical. I helped run a booth at a local county fair in a predominantly republican county, and our presence was acceptable if not welcomed. We were even mentioned on one of the major radio stations in the area as being well informed and polite. If we are successful in making Ron Paul a household name and the contituency does not grant him the nomination, we cannot be blamed for putting forth our best effort to promote our principles. Neither can the Ron Paul campaign fault the collective interests of our country.
This is a democracy, and it is our right to promote our views, in the name of freedom, even if we run the risk of alienating ourselves from the majority. If we believed that the system better served us, our attitudes might be tempered, and we would not feel as compelled to promote Ron Paul's message so vigorously. The Ron Paul movement gathers momentum daily because the average constituent feels disillusioned, disenfranchised, and just downright dissed by the lack of respect for democracy on the part of the main stream media and our representatives. This is a movement of the people, and we intend to carry Ron Paul all that way to November 2008.
Again, thank you for your penetrating criticism. It is the thoughtfulness of voters like yourself that will retore integrity to the democratic system of the United States of America.
16 - Chris Rhoades
Of course there are some conspiracy fringe people pushing his campaign online. I've bumped into a few of them. There are also democrats crossing over and registering Republican, libertarians, constitution party, independents, etc. He's really drawing from everywhere. You get the good with the bad.
Paul has brought up Just War Theory in other interviews. Maybe a different time.
Here is a fair article on Paul's supporters. I actually got to talk with Ms. Calmes for an hour while at the Iowa Straw Poll. I would be the reference from Nashville, TN. Yes, I flew to Iowa from Nashville to support the guy. It was a blast.
17 - Clavos
Dave you're right about them....
18 - Jason
I agree that this was the best debate so far. But your comment that Ron Paul brings his supporters with him is off base. You back handed insults towards them are unwarranted. They come of their own free will and as a group are probably better informed that any other candidates supporters. And further, trying to paint them all with the same broad brush as conspiracy theorists is just more political dirty pool. You don't like the message so you attack the messengers. Get over it. No other candidate is a savvy when it comes to foreign policy, economics, and the constitution.
He will make a great president who will hold congress accountable for their irresponsible actions. So laugh a his supporters all you want. But at least know who you are laughing at.
19 - Dave Nalle
You don't get it, Jason. I actually DO like the message, but I don't like the messenger or the people he associates with.
And he does bring his own contingent to these events, even if they come 'of their own free will' - like other candidates brainwash their supporters or something.
I'm not laughing at Paul's supporters, I'm concerned that they are hurting his campaign.
Dave
20 - Nathan
This article is silly at best.
There was no way that the "Ron Paul spammers" could have altered the fox text message vote. NO ONE could text in twice, it was prohibited.
Why is it so hard for you peolple to realize that Paul has more support than any other candidate? We're not lunatics, we're just very passionate about this country's founding princibles. It's a sad day in the US when people wanting to adhear to the constitution are considered fanatics. Wake up.
First they ignore you
Then they laugh at you
Then they attack you
Then you win
I guess this article shows that we're at step three...guess what comes next?
21 - Lumpy
The paul supporters seem to have missed that this article is about the whole debate not just ron paul. That they have to turn everything to be about paul is a sign of their fanaticism.
Also note that none of them are regular posters here. They're scanning google news for any mention of Ron Paul and then dropping by to cram their message down our throats. Spammers indeed.
22 - kyle
It was the best debate thus far. Dave, you can't like all candidates supporters but they are in no way hurting his campaign. That is just another conspiracy theory. His supporters are loyal to the message of freedom. I am in a Meetup group here in Oregon and we pass out info on the streets everyday. We have had no negative responses. Honestly, I believe can't support any other cadidate after reading the constitution and understanding what principles this country was founded upon. Is that so crazy?
23 - Ellis_Wyatt
"Not surprisingly, Ron Paul came in first in all the internet polls, bolstered by his strong contingent of online advocates. Paul has a very effective online campaign, but it is possible that it is doing more harm than good. People have begun to become annoyed at the small group of Ron Paul supporters who show up to post the identical plug for their candidate on every Yahoo group, YouTube comments space and blog they can find. They are perceived as fanatics from Paul's conspiracy-freak fringe contingent and many have started referring to them as 'Ron Paul Spammers'. Their behavior may be creating a growing backlash. The YouTube video to the right offers a simple but effective response to the Ron Paul Spammers."
I disagree with everything you said. You do not see it clearly, yet.
24 - brian
Dave, please do not take offense to what I write here because none is intended. It is clear you are not a supporter of Ron Paul, in fact it is clear you are quite opposed to the prospect of Ron Paul becoming our next POTUS. So far, no problem, fair enough, that is your right, that is the way our system works.
You have written your analysis of the
campaign/candidates so far as you see it at this point in time, again, fair enough, no problem. However, do not fool yourself that your perspective is non-partisan nor that your partisanship is not obvious to those that have read your analysis.
If you wrote your piece intending for it to be seen by your readers as a completely objective statement of reality rather than what it is: your view colored by your personal opinion/partisan wishes that would be lacking somewhat in the journalist integrity department.
Your stating (mimicking) the oft-used logical fallacy "tactic" that Ron Paul's support comes from a kook fringe, etc. immediately destroys the impression you have attempted to convey of an objective analysis. If I state that your views are "nuts" or you belong to a "kook fringe" element of society does that make it true? Who decides what is "kook", you? Are the "kook fringe" people that disagree with your views? Again, most importantly, use of such terms regarding supporters of a candidate you oppose completely discredits your piece as a mere partisan attack.
As I stated above, I support your right to have your own opinion even though we are in complete disagreement regarding the desirability for the USA of a Ron Paul Presidency. May I suggest in the future when you express your opinion you take the straightforward approach, state your position and support that position with facts rather than resorting to unsupported assertions/logical fallacies. Please consider reasoning with your readers to gain their freewill acceptance of your preferred position rather than using the shortcuts and deceptive tactics employed by those for whom engineering consent to a predetermined conclusion is their only guiding principle.
25 - jeff
You wrote: "Paul has a very effective online campaign, but it is possible that it is doing more harm than good."
If it wasn't for this online campaign Paul would have made far far less progress. Isn't that obvious? Are you suggesting if he didn't have the online campaign he'd be doing better?
Also: "People have begun to become annoyed at the small group of Ron Paul supporters who show up to post the identical plug for their candidate on every Yahoo group..."
Personally, I've been surprised at how the vast vast majority of comments in posts about RP articles are well thought out and on topic... The only thing I've occassionally seen repeated is the stock "He never voted to increase taxes, guns, yadaya" bullet-point thing. What's wrong with that? We're talking about a guy who gets near ZERO positive press from the old media.
Also the idea that Thompson is going to cut into RP's numbers is a bit silly. Nearly everyone supporting RP also supports his foreign policy which is far from Thompson's policy. Thompson is just Nixon back from the grave... ;)