One thing you are missing .. (0.00 / 0)

I read elsewhere today .. that he raised as much money this quarter as Saint McCain ... is that true? ... If that is true .. that says alot ... whether it is about Paul or McCain .. I am not sure

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 16:22:22 PM CDT

Look, the only thing Ron Paul does (4.00 / 1)

is go on televised debates and say things that Aren't Supposed To Be Said.  Like saying 9/11 was blowback, which in the rush to affirm our own national innocence, purity, and victimhood, just isn't allowed to be said ever by anyone.

If he can raise 5 million just by saying Things That Shouldn't Be Said, maybe that will be incentive for someone in the future to run a really dangerous campaign along those lines.  A real campaign with events and staff and such.  Not like whatever Ron Paul is doing.

Anyway though, there is reason to be pleased by all this.  If telling the truth on TV is worth 5 million, maybe somebody will actually try it someday.  It's a faint hope I know, but there it is.

---

by: texas dem @ Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 16:38:45 PM CDT

def. Gadfly, from Wikipedia (4.00 / 1)

Gadfly (social)

"Gadfly" is a term for people who upset the status quo by posing upsetting or novel questions, or attempt to stimulate innovation by proving an irritant.

The term "gadfly" was used by Plato to describe Socrates' relationship of uncomfortable goad to the Athenian political scene, which he compared to a slow and dimwitted horse. It was used earlier by the prophet Jeremiah in chapter 46 of his book. The term has been used to describe many politicians and social commentators.

During his defense when on trial for his life, Socrates, according to Plato's writings, pointed out that dissent, like the tiny (relative to the size of a horse) gadfly, was easy to swat, but the cost to society of silencing individuals who were irritating could be very high. "If you kill a man like me, you will injure yourselves more than you will injure me," because his role was that of a gadfly, "to sting people and whip them into a fury, all in the service of truth."

It is important to note that in modern politics, gadfly is a demeaning term that is used to refer to folks who constantly complain about the political system just to hear themselves complain.

In local politics it is commonly used to describe the people who believe that they have to talk about every issue on an agenda. It is often used to describe those folks who constantly support the losing candidate.

---

by: astrodem @ Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 16:47:31 PM CDT

Um . . . (4.00 / 2)

"how many people share his ideals of not funding Katrina reconstruction, abolishing Social Security, legalizing drugs, ending government spending on health care, and ending reproductive freedom in the name of "civil liberties."

Do you think you can keep your list of issues where Ron Paul is out of step with the Democratic Party down to the issues where your typical progressive agrees?  It seems to me that Ron Paul should be praised for pushing for ending the War on Drugs.

Further . . "Because I guess there is a real shortage of Democrats who say they oppose the war, I guess."

Don't we have a shortage of Democrats who will do something to actually end the war?

---

by: FreedomDemocrat @ Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 17:18:12 PM CDT

All I meant was (0.00 / 0)

I don't think you will find many people who hold all of those positions, or even many people who hold some of them, but find the others abhorrent. Pretty much everyone is going to find multiple abhorrent things about Ron Paul, once they look closer.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 21:01:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ron paul (0.00 / 0)

Interestingly enough Obama seems to be able to get a large amount of supporters of Ron Paul once they are exposed to Ron Paul's virulent racism.

---

by: Astera @ Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 17:19:36 PM CDT

Ron Paul is not a racist (0.00 / 0)

According to Wikipedia, the racism allegations stem only from an article in a newsletter that he published in 1992. Apparently, this article, which was published under his name, was actually written by someone else. In 2001, Paul acknowledged "moral responsibility" for allowing those things to be published in his name, but has denied that they represent his true thoughts and feelings. He has indicated that the comments in the letter about Barbara Jordan are particularly unfortunate, as he apparently worked with her and counted her as one of his friends.

---

by: Aaron Bonn @ Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 19:09:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

With all of Ron Paul's success... (0.00 / 0)

I am shocked that Sen. Hagel opted not to run. With all of the Republican presidential candidates fighting for the 9% of America who think Dick Cheney is doing a good job, there is a huge opening for an anti war, pro life conservative, and Ron Paul seems to be capitalizing on it, despite himself, his extreme policies and lackluster campaign.

But I think Ron Paul's success, and the MSM's disbelief, is a great indicator of how detached Beltway centric pundits are from what is actually happening in this race and in this country.

---

by: BeenJammin @ Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 17:44:49 PM CDT

A Serious Question (4.00 / 2)

Short version: So how do candidate-centric events work into the framework of a progressive movement focused on ideas, not just the candidate?

How I arrive at this question/Long version:

As outlined extensively at this blog, we have three top tier candidates all drawing on the same elite "consensus" in forming their policies.  While there are some differences, you've shown a strong degree of similarity between Edwards, Obama, and Clinton on Iraq, health care, and global warming.

You've focused on alternative, candidate-centric, reasons why people seem to be flocking to the big three: cultural/identity politics, perception of experience and leadership, electability,  connection to "netroots," gut feeling, etc.

The fervor of Ron Paul's supporters and their e-mails and so forth aside, all of their arguments seem to focus far more on "policy" than on "candidate."  Ron Paul is just a vessel for their ideas, as voiced primarily at debates--not campaign events.

And yet his supporters, absent campaign events, show a remarkable ability to self-organize.  Just a few weeks ago I went to a political debate and saw Ron Paul supporters outside handing out information and talking to people.  Certainly the Ron Paul campaign had nothing to do with organizing these volunteers.

So you have the desire (which I certainly share) for a policy based approach to the primaries that would allow progressive to break the stranglehold the elites have on creating the platform of the leading Democratic candidates.

And the desire to see genuine progressive movements that are not dominated by a top-down campaign, like what Obama tried to impose.

But this blog entry shows a clear dislike of a candidate who seems to campaigning less than Fred Thompson.

So how do candidate-centric events work into the framework of a progressive movement focused on ideas, not just the candidate?

---

by: FreedomDemocrat @ Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 17:46:00 PM CDT

Very (4.00 / 1)

well said.  He has a lot of passionate supporters.  I'm surprised he is not doing better in the polls

---

by: docd @ Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 18:00:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

He is an Internet candidate, or so they say (0.00 / 0)

Don't underestimate Ron Paul as an internet candidate - he ranks high (if not first) on a lot of web indicators. Perhaps he is augmenting his lack of appearances with his massive web presence? Then again, one would think he would be doing both.
What strikes me most is that the people who like Ron Paul REALLY like him. I didn't know we had so many libertarians in our midst. His strange mix of lassiez faire economic policies and twisted libertarian social views (libertarians oppose abortion?) makes me ill, but apparently a lot of people like this. Or at least they like it now, until they are old, sick, poor, laid off or find themselves trapped in a hurricane.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 17:49:34 PM CDT

Mini-Perot (4.00 / 1)

I think what we are seeing, to a far smaller degree, is similar to the factors going into Perot. 

Perot did very well among votes who didn't really care about the "traditional" left-right issues.  They tended to rank issues like abortion low down on the list in importance.  As you pointed out, Ron Paul has a strange mixture of social views, generally kicking them down to the states. 

Perot voters cared about a number of issues, like campaign finance reform, economic nationalism/protectionism, and balancing the budget that were not seen as traditional left-right issues.  Core Democratic and Republican activists didn't rank these issues high on their list, they focused on the traditional issues.  Perot voters felt like neither party was properly addressing their issues.

The Iraq War and the general unsatisfaction with  neo-conservative foreign policy is a major issue for Ron Paul.  So of course he's not only going to win over anti-war conservatives, but a large number of anti-establishment independents who feel no strong attachment to either party.  There are progressives unhappy with Obama, Edwards, and Clinton for not focusing on pulling out all troops without residual forces, but these progressives have strong attachments to the Democratic Party because of other issues.  Take away that and it's easy to see why Ron Paul's bound to pick up some anti-war support among moderates and independents.

Chris Bowers observed a segment of the voting population that was non-ideological and reformist in outlook back at MyDD.  It's no surprise that this group is unhappy; not just over the War but other issues.  The fact that the top tier candidates aren't focusing on balancing the budget as much as a Perot-type candidate would may also play into Ron Paul's support.

---

by: FreedomDemocrat @ Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 18:04:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

paul voters (4.00 / 1)

You really don't get much more right-wing than laissez-faire economics.

Really I don't see many people liking Ron Paul except white male college students who have never had to worry about money or health care a day in their life (and tend to look down on those who do) but do occasionally worry about getting busted for dealing pot and so would like that problem taken care of.

---

by: adamterando @ Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 21:45:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Adressing the Issues (0.00 / 0)

You, as a progressive activist (I'm guessing, sorry if I'm off), look at Ron Paul and see someone who is the polar opposite of you on health care.  On education.  On abortion.  Etc.

But look at him from the perspective of an anti-establishment "moderate" or "independent."  Someone who's politically engaged but has a number of counter-balancing views.  Anti-government AND anti-business.  Wants to expand health coverage AND doesn't trust the government to do it.

From that context, I think Ron Paul's debate performances partially addresses concerns of balancing the budget and disengaging from Iraq and the Middle East.

Voters go with the candidate that hits the right notes on their top issues.  I think that Ron Paul's fund raising shows he's able to hit the right notes with some voters.  Given that so much of his message is anti-Iraq War, Democrats would be stupid not to at least give some thought on ways to go into 2008 and exploit the issue of the Iraq War for our benefit.

---

by: FreedomDemocrat @ Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 21:53:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

He makes a good half president (0.00 / 0)

Sounds like he'd be a lot like Bush: often vacationing instead of working and letting his underlings do the heavy lifting. He's right on the war and the drug war, which is two more than Bush has ever been right on.

But as Jim Henley notes, Obama's right on those two issues, too. And as your numbers show, he's only slightly behind the two hardest working campaigners in campaign appearances.

Per usual, Libertarians offer sound arguments on some issues but on most, they sound too committed to ideology instead of the pragmatism that cuts across narrow ideological definitions. I'll take Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel over Ron Paul.

---

by: Kevin Hayden @ Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 21:52:28 PM CDT

link? (0.00 / 0)

Kevin, do you have a link to that Henley post?  I missed it.

Also, I'm a bit surprised to hear Obama described as good on the drug war, since Jeralyn Meritt is less than impressed with him on this issue.

---

by: Tex MacRae @ Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 08:45:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

There's a large Ron Paul poster here in Seattle (0.00 / 0)

of all places, near the University of Washington, on the side of a fairly new apartment complex (facing the Burke-Gillman trail, for locals, just west of TI Cycles). Seems kind of out of place, but I guess that there are diehard Libertarians everywhere, even in ultra-liberal Seattle. So I guess, um, he is--or his people are--doing something besides email.

God I hope he makes an independant run and becomes the Repub version of Nader in '00, and sucks off as many votes from whoever gets the GOP nomination. And perhaps a Tancredo or Hunter makes an independant run as well, representing the nativist wing of the party. And maybe there can even be room for a Christianist bid. Centrifugal force can be out friend in '08.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

---

by: kovie @ Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 22:26:54 PM CDT

Ron Paul could easily siphon off Democratic voters as well (4.00 / 1)

Ron Paul is articulating some realities that none of the leading candidates are willing to admit.  And that's powerful.  The fact that Democratic candidates won't do this is a pretty clear indication of the sad shape of our democracy.

Things Ron Paul says that everyone knows but political insiders won't say:
  - iraq is a disaster and they support immediate withdraw of all troops
  - the war on drugs is pointless
  - etc.

The etc is because I don't really like the guy and don't listen to him.  But we shouldn't underestimate the power of one person stating the impolite but obvious truth.

The Democratic base is pretty upset and ready for alternatives, the independents are seeing that the Congressional Democrats won't live up to their promises to end the war, and the anti-war Republicans aren't likely to vote pro-war Democrat.

So in my opinion, the DC insider strategy being used by the Democratic leadership makes it very likely that any 3rd party candidate (no matter how goofy) will make 2008 presidential race a coin toss with the GOP.

Didn't have to be that way.  But we need to recognize that it is that way.  And it's that way because of the Democratic leadership - not because of whatever goofy 3rd party candidate shows up.  In other words, don't blame Nader for a loss by our own uninspiring candidates.

---

by: jello5929 @ Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 00:00:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Myspace (0.00 / 0)

Over the last week I've gove to over 1,000 Wisconsin Myspace pages in the course of promoting our Hempfest scheduled for this weekend. Seems to be a lot of support for Cong. Paul among non-college rural 18-20 year olds, mostly driven by his opposition to the Drugwar + Iraq.



This is a Test of the Emergency Free Speech System. This is only a Test. In an actual Free Speech Emergency, I'll be locked up.

---

by: Ben Masel @ Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 09:50:12 AM CDT

Ron Paul, 2007=Dean, 2003 (4.00 / 1)

Many supporters are tech-driven online internet Libertarians, younger Republican-bred young people discovering the Neocon problem for the first time via popular libertarian aggregate websites like antiwar.com and lewrockwell.com. 

While those sites generally support Paul, they link to many sources, including sometimes progressive-associated ones like Tom Englehardt, Dahr Jamail, or Juan Cole.  Therefore you might find less dismissiveness among the progressive-sympathetic than you might think, especially as the Clinton/Rahm people turn their back on their anti-war constituency and support more LieberWar.

But the Paul movement seems to be in the process of discovering itself and its value within the Republican party, much as the Dean 'People' found each other in early campaign season of 2003. It is a period of deep enthusiasm and relief from alienation, and is only now discovering the pragmatic brick/mortar requirements of an actual campaign.  Perhaps their own grassroots-driven '50 state strategy' would come next.

---

by: negropontedeathsquads @ Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 10:04:51 AM CDT