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?
I haven’t missed them ...at all. I’ve said he’s as dangerous a candidate I’ve seen on this forum. I’m simply saying that the Paulies get touchy because so many people call the man a nut and leave it at that. Perhaps...just perhaps...if more people took the time to say, “I think he’s a nut because he believes Iran has the right to close the Strait of Hormuz in response to economic sanctions.” Or
“I think he’s a racist because he published a newsletter stating all young black males are fast” It might make the Paulites less reactionary and force them to do somehting other than saying “You’re a nut because you support the Reblocrats...”
maybe I’m just tired of this site...
And I wasn’t calling you specificaly an asshole...thatg was intemperate of me. sorry...
Simply stating “Ron Paul is a nutter” without any evidence to support that statement
Surely, you jest. No evidence? The whole reason Freepers think he's nuts is because of the mountains of evidence that he is loopy.
I'm not angry, but I have to tell you (as one of the most ardent Ron Paul critics on this forum) that it's rather bizarre to have a bunch of Ronulans tell me that I don't care about the Constitution I swore an oath to, and their sole piece of evidence for that is that I'm not enamored with their naive, Ahmadinejad loving, DC game-playing, pork-delivering Code Pink darling. Really? Time to get a grip, folks.
Good, let's nominate a candidate who can beat Obama and fix those problems. Ron Paul, game-playing space cadet, is not that candidate.
Not to pile on (especially since I already responded to jpsbonce) but I don’t think someone is a Constitutional purist or even in the same solar system as fiscal conservatism if they put in federal earmarks for theater renovations and shrimp marketing campaigns. How much money was borrowed from China for the wild shrimp marketing campaign?
Agree 100%, though the other Rick is my first choice. Glad Santorum is doing so well in Iowa, and glad Perry will probably do very well in SC.
Funny how many Paulestinians are quick to quote Reagan’s 1984 endorsement of Paul for Congress, but never his own later comments on Reagan. Reminds me of the Reagan administration officials (like Stockman) who pop up on NPR now and then to tell us how Reagan would be fully behind Obama’s economic plans.
I'm sorry, but this is moronic.
The "young man" in question was a sworn enemy of the United States who said that it was the duty of all Muslims (yes, all 1 billion or so of them) to destroy our nation, and published a magazine designed to help Muslims in America and other Western countries to mount attacks inside our borders. Al-Arabiya called him the bin Laden of the Internet. Would you be weeping for bin Laden if his mama had birthed him here in the USA?
The fact that there are members of the Mumia wing ofthe GOP treating this like Lincoln had Robert E. Lee lynched right after Appomatox shows that you don't understand what's going on and probably don't want to. And it certainly makes people tune out when you make broader arguments about government power. It's like talking about Miranda procedures and DUI checkpoints after freaking out because a cop shot a serial killer. At that point, credibility is lost.
Tagline change.
Where do the federally funded theater renovations and shrimp marketing campaigns paid for with borrowed Chinese money fit into this "smaller government" idea? Please educate me.
OK, quick qiz. First question:
Considering Bradley Manning to be a patriotic person: Nutty, or not nutty?
You seem to be smacking some strawmen around nicely. Serious question: If a person with Ron Paul's (supposed) position on smaller government came out to the podium at one of the debates in a Batman costume and insisted the moderator address him as "The Dark Knight" or "Mr. Wayne," would you vote for him?
No, right?
Well, when Ron Paul comes out and acts like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a sane and logical person who can be deterred by MAD policy like some Politburo official drinking vodka in his dacha on the weekend, that's as crazy to me as coming out to the podium in a Batman suit. Now, if you want to call that reaction a fear of smaller government, feel free, but you're just making more crazy to go with your candidate's crazy if you do.
Good thing that hasn't happened to Ron Paul. He's been dismissed as a nut only after providing a montain of evidence to support that contention.
I deny you the right to quiz me.
It is irrelevant anyway. The question of the thread is why are Paul supporters touchy. The answer is obvious to anyone not possessed by the ugly spirit of hatred.
The good news is, whether you refuse to answer the question and remind everyone why your candidate is a knob is completely in your wheelhouse.
Fester’s getting kinda touchy, eh??
Side effect of following a candidate with whacked-out poo-brain.
Sorry, it takes two to quiz. Don’t go crying to the Supreme Court or JimRob if I refuse to play your silly gamne.
Your assertion that I support Paul is a foolish assumpton.
Are you 6 years old?
And there you have it Silver - the good ol’ “hatred” card....
Someone (don’t remember who) said they were irritated by the tin foil rubbing on their scalps that is making them touchy, I am beginning to think that isn’t actually where they wear it.
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.