ABC News:The Ron Paul Effect - Boomlet or Savvy Supporters ?

ABC News ^ | May 7, 2007 | By RICK KLEIN

[11th_VA]

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who barely registers in public opinion polls of the Republican presidential field, won last Thursday night's debate.

That was the unmistakable conclusion of the online poll posted by debate sponsor MSNBC, which registered Paul with higher positive ratings and lower negative numbers than any of the other nine candidates on the stage.

In ABC's post-debate Internet survey showed an even clearer victory for Paul, with the congressman taking more than 9,400 of 11,000 votes as of 12:30 p.m. Monday. (Rudy Giuliani is the next ranked candidate, with barely 150 votes.)

So are the polls missing a Paul boomlet? Is the famously contrarian ob-gyn -- a libertarian nicknamed "Dr. No" because of his propensity to vote against anything he believes contradicts the Constitution's original intent -- poised to surge into contention in the GOP field?

Not likely. What's more likely, based on Web traffic over the past week, is that Paul supporters have mastered the art of "viral marketing," using Internet savvy and blog postings to create at least the perception of momentum for his long-shot presidential bid.

The Ron Paul Effect

Since online polls aren't scientific -- people choose to take them, and many people vote multiple times -- doing well in them doesn't necessarily mean a campaign is on the move.

But Internet buzz can have a carry-over effect, said Peter Greenberger, an online strategist at New Media Strategies and a former Democratic political operative.

"It's evidence of something -- either passionate supporters, active supporters, or just one very savvy supporter who's able to vote several thousand times," Greenberger said. "If it leads to one or two stories in the mainstream media, that could lead to a bounce online, and could lead to some fundraising successes."

With strong support among libertarians who are unhappy with the top-tier Republican contenders, Paul has a robust online presence.

His MySpace profile boasts nearly 12,000 "friends." Today, his name ranks in the Top 10 among blog search terms at Technorati.com, behind Paris Hilton but ahead of Mario Lopez.

After Thursday night's debate, the comment sections of several major news organizations -- including ABC's -- were inundated with pro-Paul messages.

Viewers raved about Paul's commitment to abolishing the IRS, his steadfast opposition to a national ID card, and a forthright tone that bloggers said set him apart from the other candidates onstage.

In The Paul campaign did not immediately respond to a phone call and e-mail message seeking comment.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

OK, I'll ignore your insults and ask you one question:

Real big of you, after diving into this column with all the grace and charm of a prolonged,loud belch and then a resounding fart during the pastoral prayer in church, including, but not limited to:
calling Ron Paul's supporters "stupid"
"He spouts leftist talking points that he must know are lies.'
"anyone who puts their stock in this liar over a conservative candidate is as crazy as an outhouse rat"

If I and others here are so stupid to challenge Paul's principles,

I don't mind if you challenge them. It is politics, and so if you DON'T challenge them, something is seriously wrong with your credulity. Every politician should be looked at askance. First of all, though, there is a BIG difference in saying "I don't like what you are drinking" and standing up on the bar and taking a whizz in my beer. I am more than happy to discuss McCain, Romney, Guiliani, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul or Fred Thompson (probably the next nominee, truth be told). I intensely dislike the hateful incendiary and uncalled for comments about Ron Paul. I feel the same way about Guiliani, and I would, literally, sit out the election rather than vote for him. Free Republic has a vitriolic hateful, bitter crowd of bilious posters, and sometimes I just feel like slapping them. Sorry you got in the way.

could you explain to me why he engages in ANSWER-style rhetorical sleight of hand? For example, why does he bring up the ethnicity of the 9/11 hijackers when he knows that the administration was not claiming Iraq was part of 9/11, and that Saudi Arabia was not connected to 9/11?

Because you know and I know that 9/11 is CONSTANTLY pointed to as the proof that "things have changed" when asked to justify the war in Iraq.

Just to let you know my own position, I believe we should have gone into Iraq (I disagree with Ron Paul there). Not on the basis of 9/11, but on the basis of the USS Cole and the attempted assassination of GHWB. I believe we should have killed Hussein and the entire ruling party....., and LEFT. We are no more and no less than a colonial power in Iraq at this point in time. However, to point out that Iraq was not involved in 9/11 (although they may well have been involved with Timothy McVeigh and crowd's attack in OKC), is not to "adopt the tactics of ANSWER" but simply to try and bring clarity to why we ARE there.

Unfortunately, that answer is still not clear. The purported answer is that we are trying to build a pro-western Jeffersonian style democracy in Iraq. I do not believe this can be done, but I am SURE it cannot be done by installing and openly supporting known terrorists in the Iraqi parliament. The other answer to why we are in Iraq is often the response that we are sucking in the terrorist elements of Islam and killing them in Iraq, vs killing them here. I find that answer both incorrect and insufficient. If we stick our army ANYWHERE they are hated, we will attract people to try and kill them. In other words, we claim to be bleeding the terrorists, and I believe we are breeding them, not bleeding them.

We can discuss the pros and cons of Ron Paul's position on the war in Iraq, his (relative) isolationism, and any number of other ideas. I can be as friendly and civil as you would wish a poster to be in doing so, and would love to interact with you.

However, if you start discussions by scooping turds out of the toilet and madly flinging them into the crowd, then please don't act affronted when you find some tf the fecal matter clinging to your own shirt.

[malibu2008]

But I predict Ron Paul will finish no better than 5th in Iowa or New Hampshire... Iowa lost two more last weekend -- 52nd Iowan KIA in Iraq. Iowa Congressman Leach was one of six GOP Congressman to vote against the Iraqi War resolution of 2002. Prolly you never have even talked to anyone from Iowa or New Hampshire. The RLC - Republican Liberty Caucus - disagrees with you.

[malibu2008]

Everything he does is because of "federalism". He's a Libertarian, that's one step up from a anarchist. He wants no laws that aren't in the Constitution. How do you suppose that would affect abortion? No laws preventing it, so... So... Dr. Paul again this February continues to fight for life by re-introducing the Santity of Life Act of 2007 . . . which : "`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; `(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates-- `(A) the performance of abortions; `(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.'." BTW, the United States Constitution is a libertarian document - Paul also opposes the North American Union proposition and its integration of Mexico, the United States of America, and Canada. . . . Paul voted "yes" on the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorizes the construction of an additional 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S and Mexico. Paul opposes illegal immigration as well as amnesty for illegal immigrants.

[takenoprisoner]

“This is one of the reasons that Paul will never be taken seriously. He spouts leftist talking points that he must know are lies.”

It’s a lie that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from SA? It’s a lie that no declaration of war was made against Iraq?
Surely you jest?

Those are truth talking points...no lefty had to point it out to me. It’s a fact according to our intelligence that most were from SA. It’s also a fact that no declaration of war was made against Iraq as required by our Constitution before we send our sons and daughters off to die.

In the build up of the war with Iraq we were bombarded with echoes of 911, Saddam gassed his own people, Saddam was harboring terrorists, Saddam was developing WMDs, Saddam threw the UN inspectors out, Saddam violated the no fly zones etc etc.

The last two on the list are mostly undisputed. The rest are disputed by some experts who claim a lack of evidence.
I don’t claim to know one way or another. I just read some of their reports. That’s what I do...I always seek the truth. I consider all sides and all evidence or lack thereof. I don’t think that’s a sin, nor do I believe it leftist to do so. It’s just common sense.

Obviously there is no obligation for you to believe anything anyone says. ie Ron Paul. But if you are going to continue to repeat the mantra that he is a liar, then you are indeed obligated to provide some evidence.

[Deb]

Funny how things changed when he decided to run for prez again.

How can people support a man who is a declared Libertarian, but sells out his party to run as a Republican...so he can get elected? And stands with Democrats when attacking the President over the war while soldiers are fighting. Talk about a traitor.

[Artemis Webb]

RE: #182

I don’t need to have political conversations with anybody from any given state to have a pretty good idea of how that state is going to vote. For instance I haven’t had conversations with anybody from Hawaii, but I know they don’t vote for Republicans on a national level.

As for as what the Republican Liberty Caucus thinks, I could not care less since they have no influence.

[The_Eaglet]

Thanks for the flag.

[mr_griz]

I’m not real thrilled about his anti-war stance, but I sure am attracted to his GENUINE conservative views.

Sadly, many run as conservatives, and vote as globalists. Things like small government, sovereignty, the value of life, etc get lip service, but nothing more substantial.

He may be a wacko, or maybe we’ve just allowed ourselves to believe that traditional conservative values are impractical and anyone who espouses them must be a bit nutty.

I don’t know if Paul stands a snowballs chance in hell of garnering support, but I wish SOMEONE with real conservative values would.

griz

[malibu2008]

Huh ? what do ya’ mean ?

[malibu2008]

but anyone who puts their stock in this liar over a conservative candidate is as crazy as an outhouse rat .................................. Ron Paul is the champion of the National Taxpayers Union and the most fiscal conservative of all candidates. Dr. Paul's foreign policy is far and away the most fiscally conservative - he recognizes the economic and human cost of refereeing the Sunni-Shiite Civil War. Transparent wafflers like Willard Romney and Julie-Annie just say what they think people want to hear - and they don't get re-elected because people can see right through them.

[Mr. Silverback]

Huh ? what do ya’ mean ?

A few weeks ago (around the time of the "Saturday Night Massacre," if you're familiar with that event) I and a couple of other FReepers identified a troll named Writeblock. He was pretty obnoxious, but the main piece of evidence against him was that his In Forum pages (nine of them) were nothing but posts related to Rudy Giuliani being the greatest politician ever, and Fred Thompson being Hillary with a deep voice. He had spent six months at FR, and never discussed any other subject.

I'm looking at your In forum page and it looks just like Writeblock's, only with Ron Paul and Mitt Romney in the Giulianin and Thompson slots.

I've been here seven years and I've seen a lot of trolls. If you aren't one, you're doing a pretty good imitation.

[Mr. Silverback]

Dr. Paul's foreign policy is far and away the most fiscally conservative - he recognizes the economic and human cost of refereeing the Sunni-Shiite Civil War.

Dr. Paul, like you and the Democrats, is trying to sell us this story:

Nope, no human cost there, eh?

Transparent wafflers like Willard Romney and Julie-Annie just say what they think people want to hear - and they don't get re-elected because people can see right through them.

Though I don't support either of those candidates, let's check your facts, shall we? Giuliani was reelected, and in fact, left his position as mayor because he was term limited. Romney did not seek reelection because he was planning to run for President. True, I wouldn't want his approval ratings, but we are talking about Massachusetts voters here, and I can tell you from personal experience that they're nuts. Also...how hard would it have been for you to get this information right?

Hmmmm...

[trisham]

True, I wouldn't want his approval ratings, but we are talking about Massachusetts voters here, and I can tell you from personal experience that they're nuts.

************

Not all of us, Mr. Silverback. :)

[Mr. Silverback]

Well, present company is excepted, of course...:-) But you’d have to agree that most of your fellow citizens are a taco short of a combo platter when it comes to politics.

[trisham]

But you’d have to agree that most of your fellow citizens are a taco short of a combo platter when it comes to politics

**********

I'm sorry to say you are quite right. The election of Deval Patrick is a perfect example of that.

[Mr. Silverback]

Actually ABC, like a lot of people on here, are, without any evidence, claiming that one or two Ron Paul supports "must have" voted thousands of times. ABC, the MSM, the left and, unfortunately, a lot of big-government, internationalist, nation-building so-called "conservatives" on here...all hate Ron Paul

1. Somebody trying to sell us this story...

...is not selling conservativism.

2. No offense, but the fact that you think thousands of people thought Ron Paul won the debate AND thought the place to express that was MSNBC, that really tells us something about the critical thinking skills you're using here. The fact that you think an Internet pol counts for anything reflects further on your critical thinking skills, and the reflection ain't good.

[Mr. Silverback]

Well then you just sit there and entertain yourself, and imagine you've actually done something.

Oh, I did do something. I proved beyond any reasonable doubt that there are several people in this race whose behavior can give me full confidence that they respect the Constitution.

Thanks for trying, though. Refuting bogus arguments keeps the little grey cells in shape.

[The_Eaglet]

Ron Paul is the champion of the National Taxpayers Union and the most fiscal conservative of all candidates. Dr. Paul's foreign policy is far and away the most fiscally conservative - he recognizes the economic and human cost of refereeing the Sunni-Shiite Civil War.

Thanks for pointing out Ron Paul's consistent record of fiscal conservativism. He is an advocate of personal financial freedom.

[Mr. Silverback]

Because you know and I know that 9/11 is CONSTANTLY pointed to as the proof that "things have changed" when asked to justify the war in Iraq.

I'll deal with the rhetorical specifics in a moment, but please give this due consideration: A country with a $3.65 billion dollar GNP cost us 3,000 lives and put our economy in the tank with a group of men two small to be a decent baseball team. The "Weapons of Mass Destruction" they used were boxcutters.

Now, what kind of person looks at that and thinks things haven't changed, that there's not a different way of warfighting required to respond to it?

As to the rhetorical side, Dr. Paul is asking "Why are we invading a country that didn't participate in 9/11" while citing another country that didn't participate in 9/11.

Really, if we follow your rules and Dr. Paul's, he should be calling for an invasion of Germany. If the place these guys lived at some time before the boarded the planes is important, then the fact that they lived in Hamburg means Germany goes on the list with Saudi Arabia. If saying "We can't afford another 9/11" means we must worry about Saudi Arabia, then comparing Saddam to Hitler means we should be asking why we're invading Iraq instead of Germany. Maybe Dr. Paul should ask why we haven't invaded Marin County, home of Johnny Walker Lindh.

The citizenship of the 9/11 hijackers is a leftist talking point meant to appeal to people with no critical thinking skills. I think Dr. Paul knew exactly what he was doing when he said it--just one more half-truth in the service of a guy who'd rather lie than admit he can't figure out an enemy that doesn't play by the rules of his worldview.

[Mr. Silverback]

I don’t have any room to talk...I’m in Illinois, with a governor who is pretty much Mussolini with hair.