Analyst Predicts One Million Ron Paul Supporters Online by 2008

PRWeb ^ | 6/10/2007 | staff

[Allegra]

Not obviously so judging by the results of the 2006 election.

Thanks to the liberal-slanted media's successful distortion and outright lying campaign.

You guys got to get out of denial over this. I'm not saying it's completely unimportant but people who run around acting as though it is the single factor in the GOP choosing a candidate are just wrong.

Never said it was the single factor. I said it is vital, and it is.

I am not in denial. I simply have a different vantage point from those who must rely on the media. (Not criticizing that...more sympathizing on it.)

No candidate who advocates cut and run will ever get my support or my vote, regardless of which party he runs under.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

LOL, you are a good sport ;-)

[Allegra]

Star light, star bright; first star I see tonight
I wish I may; I wish I might...

I wish I could go just 24 hours (without having to shut off all forms of media) and not hear or read these two names:

Paris Hilton
Ron Paul

[Jim Noble]

Getting elected requires SIXTY MILLION votes, not one.

And if Ron Paul can produce 100 000 real supporters, never mind a million, I'll buy you lunch in Concord the day after the NH Primary.

[johnny7]

Did you happen to notice that half of your ping list has been banned?

LMFAO!

[Publius]

I'll accept your answer. However, to get you to that level of scholarship, I'll pass on a few books that would be helpful. Who knows? If you gain a position in a Paul cabinet, the information you glean from these books will help you be more effective.

• Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787 by Christopher Collier and James Lincoln Collier. The Colliers are a father-and-son team of historians, and they cover the Convention by thread, not by chronology. On any given day, different threads were discussed, and by following the threads and doubling back on chronology, it become clearer why certain decisions were made.
• The "Federalist Papers" and "Anti-Federalist Papers". Read them in order! My edition of the "Anti-Federalist Papers" displays the order of publication. You can see how "Brutus" answers Madison in one Federalist Paper but gets a stinging rebuke from Hamilton in the next. You can watch the point and counterpoint of the debate over the Constitution.
• Alexander Hamilton: A Biography by Forrest McDonald. This biography views Hamilton from the perspective of America's great lawmaker.
• The Young Hamilton: A Biography, by James Thomas Flexner. Here we view Hamilton as the young entrepreneur and the man who became our first serious banker.
• Washington: The Indespensable Man by James Thomas Flexner. The most critical chapters concern Washington's role as president.
• Founding Brothers, by Joseph Ellis. Read the chapters about Washington's first term and the problems between Hamilton and Jefferson.
• American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson, by Joseph Ellis. Read about the guiding philosophy of Jefferson and the problem of executing that philosophy at the detail level.
• The Great Triumvirate: Webster, Clay and Calhoun, by Merrill Peterson. Between the War of 1812 and the Civil War, presidents came and went and made little impact -- except for Andrew Jackson. Three men in Congress ran the country in the absence of that leadership.
• The Life of Andrew Jackson, by Robert Remini. Read about the man who ran rings around Webstey, Clay and Calhoun.
• Henry Clay: Statesman for the Union, by Robert Remini. The author, who was Jackson's greatest biographer, started out by regarding Clay as what Jackson said he was -- a scoundrel who should have been shot. But he came to realize that Jackson was wrong. Clay, like Hamilton, was critical in creating the America that exists today. (And he debunks a number of myths held dearly by certain FReepers.)
• States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876, by Forrest McDonald. If you ever decide to get involved in FR threads involving states' rights, nullification and secession, this book is required reading. You'll see that once Jackson's definition of federalism was accepted, disunion was inevitable -- either over slavery or something else. This is the critical book. If you don't want to read the others, just read this one.

Take the time to pick up some scholarship. I believe that Dr. Paul has, and his supporters should too.

[George W. Bush]

You gotta grow a thick hide around here if you’re gonna be a Friend Of Ron! LOL.

[ElkGroveDan]

Can't you Dreary Dans tolerate a single moment of fun?

You don't know me very well.

[George W. Bush]

And if Ron Paul can produce 100 000 real supporters, never mind a million, I'll buy you lunch in Concord the day after the NH Primary.

I'll point out that that's exactly what they said about Buchanan winning NH. Right up until the day he won it handily.

New Hampshire doesn't just thumb its nose at the two parties. It administers a proctology exam with sadistic intent.

A long shot. But, yes, Ron Paul actually could win New Hampshire just like Buchanan did. And we'd have to start a lot of prayer threads here for all of you who would be hauled away in ambulances complaining of chest pains. Heh-heh.

[gas0linealley]

” But this large surge we’re seeing now is in the under-thirties who think RP’s utter squareness is almost hip.”

At a time when so many of us are gone grey, it might not hurt to have a President, in his 70’s, that the
youngsters feel comfortable with.

As it is, they must think about the entitlements situation with great foreboding.

[George W. Bush]

I agree the Federalist papers are excellent. And Forrest McDonald is the finest American historian in generations. You can probably guess that I don’t hold Clay in any regard.

[LibertarianInExile]

"The problem we face is that the changes sought by Hamilton and wrought by Webster, Clay and Lincoln are irreversible."

"You cheer my heart, who build as if Rome would be eternal." "There will always be an England." "L’État, c’est moi." Nothing is irreversible as long as humans change. That is the immutable in America, not the power of the state.

"Corporations were strictly regulated by the states before the Civil War. Afterward, we were pretty much governed by Big Business in general and the railroads in particular. With the states' rights position discredited by the Civil War, Jeffersonians turned to using Lincoln’s powerful federal government for the people, i.e. using Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends. This was what the Progressive agenda was all about. Franklin Roosevelt built on that to define a whole new paradigm of democratic socialism -- using government as the tool of the people's will to control the forces of the market. This raises the question of a power vacuum. Should the federal government retreat to only those powers granted by the Constitution, then who gains control? In a global marketplace, the states are going to find themselves powerless in regulating corporations. One would probably end up with some form of corporate fascism, sometimes referred to humorously as "Proctor and Gamble with the death penalty". This would indicate that even under a Paul administration, it would be necessary to utilize a loose construction of the Interstate Commerce Clause to prevent the undermining of democratic rule."

C'mon. Do you equate the current government by lobbyist as somehow less likely to lead us down that road in the long run? ADM sets our ag policy, and globalist companies set our foreign policy, and about all we are left with as debate topics are abortions and flag burning. I for one would rather worry about defending democracy at my home state level now, than trying to overcome a federal monster that is on its way to running my kids' or their kids' lives. I don't worry about corporate domination of Florida as long as in a free America I can move to Texas. If interstate commerce is so restricted that I can't do that, or as it stands now, interstate differences are so limited that it matters not at all, the same effect applies. It'd be better if we allowed the federal government to shrink away from its current impositional mode with the gamble that in some of the states we'd have corporate fascism, instead of the current gamble that we will not empower such at a federal level in the near future.

"With the American people believing that only Big Government can protect them from Big Capitalism and that Big Government is the proper means by which the American people take care of each other, how does one convince the American people to go back to the days of Alexis de Toqueville and his classic tome Democracy in America? We have lost the ancient American trait of self-reliance, as Hurricane Katrina proved. How do you convince the American people to give up the protections they have relied upon from their federal government? Most people have based their retirement on those government checks."

If Paul was elected, what convincing would be necessary? Four years would be enough to see the immediate effects of freedom. Those alone would convince a significant number of Americans our country has been led astray too long. And who says they wouldn't get their checks? They'd probably get them in a lump-sum buyout! Would that not be far more convincing than any monthly payout?

"You would need a worldwide financial crash and the involuntary imposition of a worldwide gold standard to get people to rethink the role of the modern state in their lives. How do you return to a hard money standard without inflicting massive pain?"

See my answer above. Do you think that the current fiat system is going to make transition between a strong and weak dollar a fun one? It's obvious that is the plan for the current administration, and the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans are all desperately fighting that. Wouldn't a sound dollar make us recognizably more sound economically, without causing strife between our allies and promoting (at the least) Pacific regional instability? But I don't think you need those things to get a rethinking of the modern state--I think you need only the threat of those things, which every senior recognizes would cut off Social Security in a way that Dubya can only dream about, and every person my age knows is likely in our lifetimes. Explaining why restructuring is necessary, instead of giving the thirty-second version, would be a luxury that a President would have--if we had Ron Paul as President, that bully pulpit would be a valuable one that would certainly put the outcome of any strain and strife in sight. The 'vision thing' would be visible from the start!

"After the War of 1812, even President Madison, father of the Constitution, believed we needed a standing army."

I don't think anyone alive knows what a world with American resources NOT dedicated to armed interventionism would be like. But I do think that Americans would reap the benefits of that productivity and labor that is now drained into the nation-building and 'peace-keeping' missions that our department of war must manage. If that's not the case, why were both parties not in an uproar over our military shrinking after the Cold War ended? I don't think this is an area that Americans will lose as much sleep over as you think--so long as our immediate territory is defended, which Paul has strongly asserted is a top priority for his administration, and may indeed require a standing army for a time.

"Power, like nature, abhors a vacuum. If America comes home and minds its own business, who steps into our shoes to run the planet? Macchiavelli says someone is going to try. The European Union? Russia? China? Iran? The United Nations (after relocation to Geneva)? It's a question that has to be answered."

There will always be an attempt to dominate the global stage by some country. Why is American domination better? Why would another country trying to dominate on the world state not serve the interests of freedom far better? Seriously--if we are using that domination to further American interests and in the process giving a bad name to democratic republicanism, freedom of religion, and free markets, is this any worse than having a serious opposition that champions totalitarianism, leftism, or theocracy? Our worst enemy right now, and the worst enemy of much of the world, is us. If we withdrew from funding the rest of the world's military necessities, it is possible that another ruler would rise up. But it's just as possible that the states who rely on us to prop them up militarily and economically would be forced to spend their own money on self-defense, and forced to either defend their governmental economic tinkering or end it altogether (as the Russians and Chinese have had to).

[gondramB]

>>Despite languishing near the bottom of the presidential polls with 1%, Ron Paul has become an Internet phenom. As a favorite of the youthful 18-29 year olds, he has become a household name for those that frequent the popular Web 2.0 websites such as YouTube, MySpace, and Digg.<<

You know with 116,000,000 people voting in the last election 1,000,000 for Paul would be less than one percent. He is certainly not close to Dean territory yet online.

[John D]

Ron Paul is NO Pat Buchanan. There was a time when Pat was a Republican, Paul has never been one.

[George W. Bush]

At a time when so many of us are gone grey, it might not hurt to have a President, in his 70’s, that the youngsters feel comfortable with.

This ties in with the repeated polls in the last five years that the under-thirties don't share their parents' values but really like and respect what their grandparents think. It's one of the real causes for hope in a more conservative future (if only those sandal-wearing old hippies would die off).

RP seems to connect with those kids in much the same way as their own grandparents do. Of course, liking RP and doing cellphone polls is one thing, shutting off the Xbox/PC/cellphone/TV to get off your butt and go vote is another thing entirely. But with so much early voting and with open primaries, it opens the door to a candidate like Paul who could never have penetrated the system in earlier elections.

[George W. Bush]

Oh, yeah? We'll see. Next February.

Honestly, you guys are really overheated. Kick on the A/C.

[LibertarianInExile]

“A long shot. But, yes, Ron Paul actually could win New Hampshire just like Buchanan did. And we’d have to start a lot of prayer threads here for all of you who would be hauled away in ambulances complaining of chest pains. Heh-heh.”

Of course, Buchanan was attacked viciously by the time he made it to the Arizona primary, and Paul would likely face similar hit pieces, but I would be surprised to find Paul as easy a target as Pat...especially since Pat’s candidacies have never been about anything but making a buck for him and his buddies, leeching the right’s wallets via direct mail and snaking matching funds from the feds for his cronies’ and family members’ various salaries. Meanwhile, Paul has never had any indication of being in it for the dough—the man ran as a Libertarian, for pete’s sake!

[Publius]

Read Remini’s book on Clay. He turned my opinion around. Clay and Hamilton had a lot more to say about who we are than Jefferson and Jackson.

[gondramB]

Over heated? Its just math. A million supporters by next year is still less than 2% of the votes a president needs. My point is a viable candidate needs to set a much higher goal than that.

Paul is doing well at raising some issues I care about. I can’t vote for him because of his stands on finance and monetary policy and defense - but I’m glad he’s in the race.

[Dog Gone]

Ron Paul is entering the top tier of GOP candidates.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em.