Posted on 01/02/2012 12:19:23 PM PST by Kaslin
I know that every candidate has passionate supporters, but it’s obvious that Ron Paul’s followers are especially passionate to the point of being downright touchy whenever he is strongly criticized. Or am I being unfair in my assessment?
Last week, I received an email via Townhall from an apparent Ron Paul supporter. He wrote, “You want war with Iran send your own [expletive] kids, not mine. Stop sucking up to Isreal [sic]. What a piece of [expletive] this Townhall spews. One can clearly see your [sic] for the Tea Party of Hate. I know becuase [sic] of your hate for Ron Paul.”
Now, the funny thing is that, in several dozen Townhall articles written in 2011, I mentioned Iran a total of twice (in passing, at that), I mentioned the Tea Party twice (in the space of one article, without criticism or endorsement), and most importantly, I never once mentioned the name of Ron Paul. Not once! Yet somehow I am fashioned a Ron Paul hater.
Obviously, this is just one email from an anti-Israel, anti-Tea Party, profanity-using, spelling-challenged reader, and in no way do I judge Ron Paul or the rest of his supporters by one foolish email. Of course not. And yet, there’s something all too familiar about this pro-Paul email, specifically, its unusually rabid tone.
It is an open secret that no one has supporters who are more devoted, loyal, or committed than Ron Paul, and if other candidates had followers as dedicated as his, the current political landscape would look very different.
So is that the answer to my question? Is it simply that Paul’s followers are more passionate than others, implying that they will also be more defensive and even touchy?
Or is this overly simplistic? Perhaps the real issue is that, for years, the media has seemingly failed to give Paul his due, giving other candidates more coverage and attention and even time to respond in public debates. And so Paul’s followers have simply had it with being slighted, becoming especially sensitive to criticism.
Or maybe Paul’s supporters have emulated some of his own style, being more didactic than dynamic and more cantankerous than charismatic? Maybe this is one the reasons they are attracted to him?
Or could it be that as a libertarian, he gives voice to causes and stands up for values that few other candidates believe in or espouse? Although he is a long-time politician, he is also outside the main stream on many key issues, and so, he is not only embraced as a political candidate but also as a champion of the people, an anti-establishment hero to be defended and backed with tenacity and zeal. It’s not every candidate who writes a book on “Revolution” and really means it. (Hey, when he talks about the need for revolutionary change, he’s speaking my language too.)
Or is it something else? Could it be that his positions are so extreme that it leaves his followers vulnerable and defensive? After all, when your candidate downplays the threat of radical Islam (even though its adherents probably surpass the adult population of America in number), when he chooses not to recognize the very real danger of a nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran (despite all the blood currently on Iran’s hands), when one of his former senior aides, Eric Dondero, claims that Paul is anti-Israel, how can his supporters not be hyper-sensitive to criticism? (According to Dondero, while Paul is neither a racist nor an anti-Semite, he is “most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. . . . He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.”)
I actually have no axe to grind when it comes to Ron Paul, nor do I have a dog in this fight. Is he really anti-Israel, or is there a solid answer to the charges against him? Are his foreign policies naïve, or does he really understand the nature of anti-American “blowback”? Are some of his radical monetary proposals the very thing we need, or is he arguing for changes that can never occur? Has he been wishy-washy on important social issues like homosexual activism, or does he really espouse conservative morality? And is he a man of trustworthy character, or is he being dishonest when he disavows knowledge of many of his past newsletters?
These are questions for others to answer, and despite the hostile comments that can be expected in response to this article, I am not hostile to Ron Paul. My question has to do with his followers.
Why are they so touchy? Or am I being unfair?
Really? Is this your first Ron Paul thread, people explain all the time, yet the supporters dismiss the evidence.
Mommy didn’t love them and daddy was never home? They’re tired of living in Mom’s basement? Obama hasn’t legalized pot and same-sex marriage yet?
“Don’t kick the wheels on the glass cannon.”
I think it’s more basic than this. I’ve seen the same sensitivity with single-issue activists, who are so personally invested in their cause-du-jour that they lose their personal identities.
You don’t dare point out to an Earth First! activist the harm they’re doing in pursuit of utopia. You don’t dare point out the racism and sexism inherent in “affirmative action”. You don’t dare point out their intolerance of heterosexuals to gay activists.
When people lose their identities from fusing themselves into a cause or candidate, that’s all they have left. And shaking their foundation may bring unpredictable results.
Because they are defending the indefensible. It always makes people touchy.
Ron Paul IS NOT a conservative - period.
The GOP, sane America are afraid of Paul because he has delusional foreign policy ideas.
How could anyone with a brain not fear him over these issues?
He has nothing to contribute to the conservative debate because he is not a conservative, all Paul does is muddy the waters of sanity.
Without explanation? Just click the Ron Paul keywords here and you'll see hundreds of explanations. From Ron Paul claiming that Israel created Hamas and is secretly behind Islamic terrorism, to his saying the border fence is secretly meant to 'keep Americans in', to saying that your money contains secret tracking devices, to praising David Duke, to saying that there is no fundamental right to life in the Constitution (that it is a State thing), to calling Reagan a 'failure..','..who makes Carter look Conservative', to saying that Iran has every right to block international shipping lanes and if they do, it is our fault, to saying the Mossad may be behind the 93 WTC bombing, etc....
A book could be written on the explanations given.
“They realize he is a glass cannon ...”
New imagery for me. I like it.
Yes, I remember the LaRouchies from my college days. The Fusion Energy Foundation was a group that made regular appearances at New Jersey Institute of Technology. They were about as “out there” as the Moonies. The same FEF people have been seen at Newark Airport hawkind Lyndon LaRouche books on how the Royal Family were running a heroin distribution network. Major cult-like mannerism.
He's been fingered by the mob?
Paul followers are either deliberately ignorant or actually agree with him. Neither speaks well for them.
Exile him and his supporters! Preferably to Pluto.
I don't think a Repub or a conservative wrote that.
So, maybe there's your answer.
Oh please, that is one of those 'lies told often enough..'. He bastardizes the Constitution the way Fred Phelps bastardizes the Bible. He picks and chooses and twists the Constitution to fit whatever the whim is of the day. In many cases, he overtly rejects parts of the Constitution. Just because he uses the word over and over, doesn't mean he has a clue about it. He reminds me of college kids wearing Che shirts talking about all they think Che stood for.
Borrowing 43 cents for every federal dollar spent makes some people upset. 16 trillion in debt with unfunded liabilities for another 75 trillion makes some people upset. No knock laws, hate speech laws, property seizures and now warrentless searches makes some people upset, go figure.
Throughout my Bible, He has never enlisted another government to come to their aid. He claims to be their only hope. I could be wrong on that one, of course. Throughout their history it has been suffer and cry out to God, not to the US government.
Perhaps. I only know one truly avid supporter. A very intelligent, educated, professional whose thinking is complex and sophisticated. Impractically and unrealistically so, in many cases. He is anything but a mindless zealot, but he can be very defensive about his candidates (fatal) flaws. He only wants to look at Paul’s (legitimate) strengths regarding limited and open government.
I have heard some Paul supporters on radio though, who really do fit the template of single issue obsessives such as you describe.
A more credible candidate who would really get hold of limiting the size, scope and malevolence of the federal government would pull Paul’s fuse, but so far none have emerged, or cannot get their point out effectively.
quit following me
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.