I've been more than a little disappointed with the "backwash" that's occurred after the Ron Paul Meet the Press interview on Sunday. I'll admit that while it wasn't the good doctor's greatest interview ever, it also wasn't the worst. Congressman Paul, it seems to me, is better suited for more relaxed, extended interviews—rather than the rapid fire questions that he gets in most of the television interviews. By temperament, he seems more like a college professor—whose lecture builds on itself and whose answers to questions attempt to build on things that the questioner should already know and understand—as opposed to a media "star", whose responses to questions are practiced and designed to maximize the impact of individual words, rather than to foster an understanding of underlying principles and philosophy. Unfortunately for democracy, most campaigns today seem to be designed for the "sound bite" (probably as the result of a lazy press), rather than around the ideas.
Therein lies the difference between Ron Paul supporters and the supporters of just about everyone else, on either side of the political spectrum: Ron Paul supporters love the man because of his ideas, and because they understand the depth of his ideas, and the ramifications of his ideas; I dare say that the supporters of most other campaigns are supporters because of sound bite ideas, rather than the potential ramifications of those ideas. Think for example of Hillary Clinton's Christmas ad: Gosh, doesn't universal health care, and universal Pre-Kindergarten sound wonderful? Of course it sounds good (after all, who could be against health and little kids?), but what are the ramifications of "universal" anything: reduced freedom, reduced choice, increased government involvement, increased taxation. It seems that many Americans don't choose to think to the next level—but the good news is that a growing number of Americans are learning to do that, through the Ron Paul Revolution. And what do they get for that—what do WE get for that? We get insulted.
This morning as I was checking out what I'd missed yesterday, I ran across this piece over at Captain's Quarters. First, let me note that I subscribe to the CQ feed. I follow what's being said over there, and oftentimes agree with much of it, and when I don't agree, I still find it worthy of reading, because Ed Morrissey is typically a pretty reasonable writer. Yesterday, though, Captain Ed appears to have been apoplectic over Paul saying on Meet the Press that Iran was not a threat to the United States and didn't have an army, navy, or air force (The accuracy of what he said is debatable, I think—obviously there is some sort of military in Iran; just as obviously, it poses no real threat to the United States as it is currently configured. Paul's use of "no military" may have been unintentional hyperbole—it probably could have been more accurately stated). Here's what the "Captain" says with regard to Ron Paul supporters:
If Paul's commenter army can't abide criticism of their candidate, that tells the rest of us quite a bit about the maturity of this movement. I don't get anywhere near the level of abuse from those who support Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John Edwards when I criticize them. If the Paul commenters don't think people notice this, they are very much mistaken. If Paul's supporters want him to be taken seriously, then they should consider how their behavior reflects on their candidate.
So, Ron Paul's supporters are immature and abusive. Like with all movements, and all campaigns, I suspect, there is some level of that. The difference this time is that Ron Paul's campaign is essentially an anti-establishment campaign, being abused and marginalized by the "establishment"—both the Party and the Press. It seems a bit disingenuous of people like Ed Morrissey to suggest that Ron Paul supporters shouldn't be enthusiastic and that they should always play by the rules of polite political warfare, when if they try to do it, the Establishment folks just look the other way and pretend they don't exist. And speaking of disingenuous, take a look at a sampling of the comments ABOUT Ron Paul supporters that stayed up on CQ:
I would agree Captain, if only the Ron Paul supporters seemed to have any gag reflex whatsoever. They are prepared to follow their candidate to hell and stay there with him. As far as needing to gather ammo to discredit him, gosh I don't know how much more room there is in the armory
Then it gets really good. Folks who are apparently too pure to know that Paul has been running an "open source campaign" that flashes the names of donors on his website as they come in, and who has no record via FEC filings of accepting large interest group donations, and whose average donor gives something like $100, is now in the same league with the Clintons—and I guess, so are those of us who have given money.
What i think is even more important is finding out just WHO was sending him that kind of money. The Clintons are in hot water for getting multiple donations from Hsu, who laundered them through various others to escape detection. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to see the same sort of thing at play in this case.
And then there's the "pot calling the kettle black" syndrome (which was also demonstrated at RedState a couple of weeks ago), when comments for Paul people are disabled or deleted, but everyone else can criticize Paul supporters—and Dr. Paul--without a "fight." Real fair. (NOTE, I have not changed spelling or punctuation on any of these comments) Some of this would be funny if it weren't so sad.
I gotta tell you, those RP followers are like dogs on a pork chop. All you have to do is post something even marginally disagreeable with him, and they are all over you in attack mode.
There were a couple of letters posted to the Herald Journal, a newspaper in Logan Utah. You should visit there and see the comments that followed those letters on the online edition. I swear, it's to the point that I actually think that there are really on a handful of actual supporters, but they have hundreds of online names and post like the sock puppet zombie army.
{highlights mine, LLE}
Seriously, some of them even attack you for refering to him as DOCTOR Ron Paul. Sheeeesh. Interesting, though, how he picked up an endorsement from the Bunny Ranch, a Neveada brothel, what with him being an OG/GYN and all..... Maybe it was a professional courtesy?
We're not "grown-ups" because we are passionate:
I like how the Ron Paul supporters feel passionate about their candidate. But like anybody else, they have to discover that your passion does not convince me... your maturity and ability to lead and inspire does. Ron Paul does not inspire me, and his followers offend me. What's to like?
This next one is one of those ad hominem attacks that make no sense. I'd challenge this person to name one instance where Ron Paul has used the Constitution only when it suits him—or make it easier, when he's voted for anything which is not authorized by the Constitution. And WE'RE nutso…
Doctor Paul only seems to use the Constitution when it suits him - a typical politician! However, when you point that out to his supporters they do tend to get all nutso on you.
And then this one probably makes me personally as mad as any of them (great spelling, Bucko)! The comment fails to understand that those of us donating are NOT making PLEDGES—we are actually coughing up the money, on the spot, via either PayPal or a credit card. And just for your general information, while I believe that the "war on drugs" has been a monumental waste of money, and that imprisoning folks for drug use (or drug sale) when they have done no harm to anyone save themselves or legally competent adults is a waste of public funds, I am not a "dope user"—never have been (even experimentally), never will be. I do admit to something of a caffeine addiction, though (but have never tried tobacco in any form), and will have an occasional Sam Adams Beer. And by the way, talk about "fog"—typically if you're making donations via the internet, you're not "calling in."
I was watching c-span this morning and a Ron Paul campaign worker was on and was takeing calls.... a lot of the calls were promoting permissive drug benefits, he advocates.....I would bet you a few million of those donations via the internet are dope users calling in in a fog, and pledgeing with no intension of honoring it...yet the donations showing up in the liberal press as protests against the military. to depress conservatives no doubt....
Maybe it's because we're at "crunch time" and I'm starting feel a little stressed. Maybe it's because I've sloughed off these criticisms for the last 6 months, believing that the Establishment folks would at least be polite. Maybe, it's just becoming personal. Anyone else feel that way?
There are more examples from other sites—but I'll save those for a Part 2.
LLE
