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?
The better question: Why does Ron Paul have followers??
Pot causes paranoia...
Pot causes paranoia...
Pot causes paranoia...
Why are they so touchy? It’s the drugs.
Because they don't meet the IQ requirements to be Insane Clown Posse fans?
It's the crack.
I think the biggest attraction is that he has been saying the same things for 20yrs as he’s saying today, consistently, right or wrong.
The worst that is said about the other candidates is that they are flip-floppers or hypocrites or merely idiots.
Not a Ron Paul supporter...but I know I’d be a bit touchy if my candidate (if I had one) was off handedly dismissed as a nut w/o explanation.
I think conservatives should hold themselves to a higher standard than liberals. Simply stating “Ron Paul is a nutter” without any evidence to support that statement is no more valid than yelling “Bush lied, people died” when discussing the war
I’ve noticed this too, even from friends who support him. I think the reason for the defensiveness is simple. They realize he is a glass cannon - powerful in some respects, impractically fragile in others.. He makes some very cogent, valid points about liberty and limited government. He also makes some indefensible Lyndon LaRouche type magical mystery tours. Don’t kick the wheels on the glass cannon. They want it to shoot before it breaks.
‘even on FR their candidate is dismissed as a “loon” and a “racist anti-semite”’
Please explain.
My 1/8 of a cent... He is a Constitutional Purist, that means sovereign nations are sovereign regardless of their danger or our opinion of their danger to others. Every day I log on to FR and see many rabid anti- RP posts calling his supporters and the man himself a host of names. I look at The Constitution and find he is much closer to having true Constitutional ideas than most. Makes you see just how far we have strayed from the Original Intent by transferring wealth to whatever the cause de jour is. I have run into candidate pimpers on the board lately that support people I cannot imagine supporting. I think fear is driving people into some state of irrational behavior, hence the name calling. Romney & Huntsman supporters make me scratch my head. Obviously, FR has become infected with Libs. I call them FRINOS. Maybe after this cycle, sanity and debate will return. I never knew about the Federal Reserve Scam until a RP supporter discussed it with me. Now I could have just labeled him crazy and trusted the establishment on that one. I chose to listen find the truth for myself. This debate goes on in my house because my DH thinks only we can save Israel, while I trust God.
Lyndon LaRouche also has maniacally faithful supporters.
“The impression I get is that the GOP establishment is more afraid of Ron Paul than he’s afraid of them. If they continue to talk conservative while delivering Obama-lite, they should be afraid, very afraid.”
I agree.
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.