I love it when those who cry the most about a lack of "substance" appear to be hard-pressed to produce any of their own. ;-)
Keep up the great work!
Posted on 07/16/2007 8:31:51 PM PDT by JTN
Among the other firsts of his campaign, Ron Paul is probably the only presidential contender to be compared to a Samuel L. Jackson movie. The Texas congressman, a dark horse candidate for the Republican nomination, was being lightly grilled by Kevin Pereira, a host on the videogame-oriented cable channel G4. "Young people online, they were really psyched about Snakes on a Plane, but that didn't translate into big ticket sales for Sam Jackson," Pereira said. "Are you worried that page views on a MySpace page might not translate to primary votes?"
The reference was to the Internet sensation of 2006, an action movie whose cheesy title and premise had sparked a burst of online creativity: mash-ups, mock trailers, parody films, blogger in-jokes. Hollywood interpreted this activity as "buzz," and New Line Cinema inflated its hopes for the movie's box office take. When the film instead did about as well as you'd expect from a picture called Snakes on a Plane, the keepers of the conventional wisdom declared that this was proof of the great gulf between what's popular on the Internet and what sells in the material world.
Ron Paul is popular on the Internet, too, with more YouTube subscribers than any other candidate, the fastest-growing political presence in MySpace, a constant perch atop the Technorati rankings, and a near-Olympian record at winning unscientific Web polls. Like Snakes, he is the subject of scads of homemade videos and passionate blog posts. When Pereira mentioned the movie, he was making a clear comparison: Yes, your online fans are noisy, but will their enthusiasm actually translate into electoral success?
It's an interesting analogy, because the conventional wisdom about Snakes on a Plane is backwards. The reason the online anticipation for Snakes didn't translate into big ticket sales is because there actually wasn't much online anticipation for the movie. Yes, some of those parodists were interested in seeing the finished film, whose notoriety has given it minor cult status. But the others couldn't care less about the studio's product. Their online activity was an end in itself, a great big belly laugh at the expense of goofy high-concept movies. Their riffs and spoofs were far more entertaining than any actual feature about airborne reptiles was likely to be. Those fans weren't waiting for a show. They were the show.
That's one difference between Snakes and Paul: The congressman's fans really do want him to do as well as possible in the polls. But victory isn't the only thing on their minds. For many of them it isn't even the topmost thing on their minds. Like those Snakes on a Plane spoofs, the grassroots activity around Paul's campaign is interesting and valuable in itself. Here are three reasons why:
It's transpartisan. Paul's fan base stretches all the way from Howard Phillips to Alexander Cockburn. His libertarian message has resonance, as you'd expect, among free-marketeers dismayed by the GOP's love affair with federal spending. It is also attractive, as you'd expect, to lefties who like his opposition to the Iraq war and the post-9/11 incursions on our civil liberties. But the race has no shortage of anti-spending conservatives and antiwar liberals. Paul is especially appealing to people who don't fit the narrow stereotypes of Blue and Red: to decentralist Democrats, anti-imperialist Republicans, and a rainbow of independents.
The Internet makes it easier for such dispersed minorities to find each other, and the congressman's candidacy has given them a new reason to seek each other out. When Pittsburgh's Paul backers gathered via the MeetUp site, which arranges get-togethers for users who share a common interest, the blogger Mike Tennant attended. He found at least one Democrat, at least one anarchist, several disillusioned Bush supporters, a member of the Libertarian Party, a member of the right-wing Constitution Party, "and a whole roomful of folks disillusioned with the two-party duopoly... The one thing that unites us all is a desire to have a president who actually believes in liberty and has a record to match his rhetoric." Paul fans have been arguing forcefully for their candidate at both the conservative Web hub FreeRepublic and its liberal counterpart, Daily Kos—where, to be sure, they are met by angry opposition from more conventional Republicans and Democrats.
It's idea-driven. Were you wondering how Paul answered that question about Snakes on a Plane? He said, "I don't worry much about that at all. I worry about understanding the issues and presenting the case and seeing if I can get people to support these views." Some politicians are in this race because they really want to run the country. Some are in it because they want to be vice president, or be secretary of state, or extract some other prize from the eventual nominee. Paul is in it to inject ideas into the campaign. He wants to get votes, of course, but like Henry Clay he'd rather be right than be president. (Unlike Clay, he really is right most of the time.)
For Paul, it's a victory just to be on stage with Rudolph Giuliani arguing for a non-interventionist foreign policy, because it serves as a reminder that it's possible to be a fiscal conservative with bourgeois cultural instincts and yet oppose the occupation of Iraq and the effort to extend that war into Iran. That novelty, coupled with his fans' online activity, has earned Paul a rash of TV interviews: In the last two months, he has appeared on This Week, The Daily Show, Tucker, Lou Dobbs Tonight, and The Colbert Report, among other venues, raising his profile far above the other second-tier candidates. Each appearance is an opportunity not just to ask for votes but to express his anti-statist ideas, spreading a message rarely heard in the context of a presidential campaign.
It has a life of its own. After Jesse Jackson's populist campaign did unexpectedly well in 1988, many of his supporters hoped the Rainbow Coalition would become an independent grassroots force. But Jackson was more interested in his own political career, and he opted to make it a smaller group he could control. Similarly, Ross Perot resisted every effort to make the Reform Party something more than a vehicle for his presidential ambitions. When it slipped out of his control anyway, and in 2000 gave the world two competing presidential nominees, he stiffed both and endorsed George Bush instead.
A different fate befell the left-wing "netroots" that embraced Howard Dean in 2004 and Ned Lamont (among others) in 2006. They've maintained their decentralized character, and they're obviously larger than any particular pol. But unlike the Perot movement or even the Rainbow Coalition, which included left-wing independents as well as Democrats, the netroots aren't larger than one particular party. They may hate the Democratic establishment, but they're still devoted Democrats.
The Paul movement is different. Unlike the Jackson and Perot campaigns, it is open, decentralized, and largely driven by activists operating without any direction from the candidate or his staff. Unlike the netroots, it has no particular attachment to the party whose nomination its candidate is seeking. Paul himself left the Republican fold in the '80s to run for president as a Libertarian, and he still has friendly ties to that party. When he returned to the GOP and to Congress in the election of '96, the national party establishment threw its weight behind his opponent in the primaries, an incumbent who had originally been elected as a Democrat. Paul turned to independent sources to fill his campaign coffers, raising substantial sums from the libertarian, constitutionalist, and hard-money movements. Those have always been his chief base of support.
Barring a complete meltdown of the party gatekeeping apparatus, Ron Paul will not be the Republican nominee next year. And he says he has no plans to run as an independent. But you can't erase all the traces of a self-directed, transpartisan, idea-driven movement. Long after Snakes on a Plane was relegated to the cult-movie shelf, the people who spoofed it online are still writing blogs and editing mini-movies, applying the skills they honed mocking an action flick. Howard Dean is just a party functionary today, but the troops who assembled themselves behind him are still active in the trenches, their original leader nearly forgotten. I suspect that Paul will have a longer shelf life than Dean or Snakes. But whatever becomes of him after this election, his fans will still be there, organizing rallies, editing their YouTube videos, launching their own political campaigns, and spreading ideas.
Well, let me know what you think of my post #118.
Seriously, I went back and re read what I posted and I’m not sure where you get the tough and arrogant thing from. It seems to me that in our short discourse you have already insulted me and acted tough and arrogant with the come over hear and say that to me comment.
I would say that to your face if we were having this discussion in person, I doubt your response would be what it was as you would have been able to read my body language, gauge the tone of my voice and realize there was nothing threatening about it.
I think I know where you are coming from now - anyone who thinks RP has a bit of a point is such and such. When I was a kid I used to hear stuff like that about black people too. It’s called prejudice, and may I say it doesn’t sit to well on your head.
Oh, I think it's great and I couldn't agree more. But there are some here who seem to be deluded by the notion that if Ron Paul were president {snicker!}, all of the terrorism would just magically go away.
Paul has had some good ideas in the past, but some of his recent statements have me quetioning his ability to rationalize properly. And his foreign policy ideas are so far out in left field, they're just about incomprehensible in today's world.
This is your issue, not mine, if you really believe that the implied message from RP is not that we deserved this, all I can suggest to you is to not be so Clintonian or Pharisee-like in your definitions.
RP has stated that the USA has committed a long list of aggressions, beginning with the Shah/Iran in 1953, thru Vietnam, Beirut, Iraq Desert Storm and Iraq 2002. He has clearly stated that because of these actions, we have been attacked.
If putting those two statements together doesn't mean "we got what we deserved", then I don't know what does. He, and you, are merely parsing words.
In closing, I'm just thankful that the RP's of the political world have never been granted the power of CIC over the course of our history, and most certainly not at critical times like now. The USA has remained great AND safe because we have dealt with threats to our security, and, we have protected others. This approach has been the primary reason why.
Other countries that have focused on being 'friends to all' and trade partners, such as The Netherlands and Denmark and Belgium to name a few, have had their share of war and tyranny and domination on their homeland.
No thanks. Freedom is not free. Thank God for our military and the (mostly) great leadership they have received.
Yes, and demoncrats once had great ideas too. But, in the world in which we now find our selves those ideas have gone by the wayside and been replaced by lunacy.
I think I know where you are coming from now - anyone who thinks RP has a bit of a point is such and such. When I was a kid I used to hear stuff like that about black people too. It’s called prejudice, and may I say it doesn’t sit to well on your head.
Since you have already decided for yourself that I am all of these things, then there really isn't any point continuing this, is there?
You do realize you come off as talking down to people, do you not?
Anyway...ma sa'alama.
The two sad things are first that people are so focused on this issue that the many more important issues are getting ignored, like the Mexican invasion (more people killed by lillegal immigrants than terrorists), the out of control spending, the loss of personal freedom, etc. and the second is that RP isn't going to win. Even his staunchest supporters will admit it, but what he does is bring a viewpoint that isn't acknowledged by the media, the democrats or the republicans, namely a return to smaller constitutional and less intrusive government.
Hi SD, I appreciate the response! It’s actually something I think we started to discuss the other evening.
I concur completely! Al-Qaeda is most certainly NOT “based” out of any one country. And this isn’t really a war we can “win” outside of the following circumstances: 1) the jihadists follow through with their goals of spreading theocratic fascism across the globe; 2) moderate Islam takes over and they don’t want to spread theocratic fascism across the globe. Did I leave anything out?
That leave us with, “well, now what?” Are we going to go to war, preemptively and Constitutionally undeclared, with every country that wants to spread global theocratic fascism? Or are we going to respond with swift, just force against those rouge groups who would commit horrible, criminal acts against us?
Also, can you please not ping me to posts with Allegra? Thank you and regards,
let me correct (in bold)
And this isn’t really a war that will "end" outside of the following circumstances: 1) the jihadists follow through with their goals of spreading theocratic fascism across the globe; 2) moderate Islam takes over and they don’t want to spread theocratic fascism across the globe. Did I leave anything out?
Sorry sir, but I don't think this is an appropriate analogy. We have not accidentally or unintentionally 'bumped into' Japan, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. We have purposefully executed on a strategy that intends to defend the best interest of our nation and our allies. Thus, if there are consequences to our actions, we 'deserve' them, good or bad.
Unlike RP, I believe our consequences have been mostly good.
I will admit that RP has some good ideas about the limited size and scope of the federal government, particularly around domestic issues. I agree with many of those positions. My question to RP supporters is, 'why has he been so ineffective in Washington?' Or, has he been effective?
Beyond that, I'm not on this thread to discuss illegal immigration etc, that's changing the subject for the moment. I am here to defend our country against unwarranted and ill-informed isolationism and those who would support that.
Then we will just have to disagree
Sure. Let's just turn this war over to the cops. This is, after all, just a criminal enterprise perpetrated by these Al Qaeda criminals. Apprehension, Grand Jury indictments, criminal trials, and adjudication are all that is needed to take care of the problem. Oh, we can also just sit down with the hierarchy of the Al Qaeda criminals and hammer out a cease fire agreement and peace accords too! After all, as Rosie O'Donut stated, the Islamo-facists are just like us. I am witness to more delusional inanity coming from someone who thinks the U.S. can just sit back and not get involved in this war. The type of thinking that goes into believing that "moderate" Islam will rise up and put down these facists is less than amusing. It's extremely dangerous thinking. The type of thinking that was prevalent prior to Pearl Harbor (which we've already experienced in this war).
Oh, and I've been told that when I post to someone comments that are about someone else, it is impolite to not include that person in my ping. Thus, if I post something to anyone in which I'm commenting about you, rest assured you will be pinged as well (as that is only being polite). I'm including Allegra into my pings because much has been commented on which involves her (plus the fact that she has boots on the ground and knows much more about what is going on in Iraq than either you or I).
I said their actions were criminal, not that we should prosecute them in our criminal justice system.
I am trying to have a discussion with you. Do you want to offer anything of substance or are you not interested?
Yes, let's discuss how well those santions worked, shall we? How much money came into Iraq during those 10 years (12 actually) of so called sanctions. Where did all that money come from in the Oil-For-Food scandal? Let's see, France, Germany, Russia, China? How much money was Saddam spending to provide himself and his followers with creature comforts while the average Iraqi lived in squaller? How much money did he spend on acquiring weapons? Did you not pay any attention to media reports of weapon caches found after the invasion with French markings? Russian Markings? German Markings? Chinese Markings? Yeah, sanctions worked real well during 12 years in which Saddam thumbed his nose at the rest of the world and while the United Nations were complicit in the scandals which allowed billions to be poured into Iraq.
While you keep prattling away with your fluff, I’ve been trying to provide you with substance. Your ignoring of the substance of my posts does not detract from it. I find it interesting that you bring up the “criminal” nature of their actions and then argue that you are not bringing up the “criminal” nature of their actions (when one discusses an action as being criminal then the insinuation is that the “criminal” action should be addressed in like manner - i.e., Law Enforcement).
That's obvious, but respectfully, so is the difference between the substance presented of my positions versus yours.
My other objective is to help prevent a third party run by RP that could help elect HRC. Defeating her is something that everyone here should be in unanimous agreement about.
Thanks for the civil exchange.
I love it when those who cry the most about a lack of "substance" appear to be hard-pressed to produce any of their own. ;-)
Keep up the great work!
ROFLOL. You’re too funny. Enjoy the popcorn!
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.