Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Ron Paul Movement
reason ^ | July 16, 2007 | Jesse Walker

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.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: elections; fantasy; grppl; moonbats; paulbearers; paulestinians; paulistas; paulnuts; ronpaul
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260261-263 next last
To: Jim Robinson
Got news for all, I’m NOT fair and balanced.

Nobody is JR!

YOU are just one of a few who is willing to state it based upon a pragmatic mindset augmented by honesty.

Keep up the great work my FRiend!

221 posted on 08/08/2007 5:37:19 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: CFC__VRWC; trussell
I suggest you now quickly don your flame suit and look for some cover.,p>WooHoo, don it for ME, baby!!!

ROTF!

222 posted on 08/08/2007 5:39:56 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
Anything for you doll!
223 posted on 08/08/2007 5:46:43 PM PDT by trussell (Prayer is good for the soul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: trussell; Jim Robinson

God bless you, trussell. You’re a good Christian and unlike some folks, you appear to be “walking the walk” not just “talking the talk”.


224 posted on 08/08/2007 6:26:21 PM PDT by Chena (If you're not fair and balanced it's highly possible that you're unbalanced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS

It’s too bad that people like this are allowed to cause so much animosity among the other posters that a whole group that had been here since the beginning have been banned.

Also, interesting that the new group don’t help get the freepathons complete as fast as the ones who were banned did.

I miss the debate that use to happen here...now if you debate, you are reported to the mods for not walking in lockstep. Sad to see it. I was sure FR was big enough for several views. I support Fred...but I don’t harshly judge those who don’t.


225 posted on 08/08/2007 6:38:05 PM PDT by trussell (Prayer is good for the soul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: trussell
I was sure FR was big enough for several views.

You thought properly, however it is big enough to enjoy as an augmentation to the piles of trials in life without making FR another one to contend with.

Enjoy the information outlet that FR is so well known for and the courteous conveyance via conversation and ignore the rest.

It makes for an information filled fun time that way. : D

226 posted on 08/08/2007 6:49:41 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: All

I do appreciate the forum, and I enjoy the chance to post here. I just wish it could be like it was before so many newbies decided they couldn’t debate...they have to complain “daddy...he’s being mean to me, make him go away!!”

I DO understand that there are some who deserve to be banned.


227 posted on 08/08/2007 7:15:13 PM PDT by trussell (Prayer is good for the soul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
You know its also a Coltrane album

I didn't know that.

228 posted on 08/09/2007 9:27:53 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government, Benito Guilinni a short man in search of a balcony)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
Do you really see yourself as a Phrisee in the role of trying to trick Jesus...

I think you are just a tad bit "off" in your comment.

See posts to follow for more details.

229 posted on 08/09/2007 6:53:54 PM PDT by NewLand (Always remember September 11, 2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: CFC__VRWC
Actually I think he sees himself as Jesus, and thinks the verse gives him the right to try and trap people, as long as they're only "Darwinists."

Nice try. First of all, you should read every single one of my exchanges on this thread with 'from occupied ga' and tell me who was being polite, respectful, and presenting facts.

Second, if you read the verse, it showed that Jesus knew the true intent of the Pharisees was for them to try and trap him. He relied on truth and provided a straight forward answer that they could not refute.

I along with many others here watched those people lay traps, hurl insults, disparage Christians, and much more. Thankfully, most have been rightly banned for their poor behavior, and still don't 'get it' that this site belongs to JimRob and he makes the rules.

I'm also tired of people 'questioning others Christian faith' when they haven't bothered to do the most simple anaysis of what actually happened.

Just like here on this thread.

Christians can debate, stand up for their beliefs, and fight when necessary. Those with 'agendas' will always look for something that allows them to say 'what kind of Christian are you'? Many times, not always, but many times they are vocal Christ deniers themselves and have little credibility to be a judge or analyst of Christian beliefs or values.

I along with many others, including the owner of this house, have had enough and are now calling these people out. Jim can ban, I can only debate and stand for my principals. I do so with respect, humor, and without profanity. Those 'Pharisees' who no longer reside here cannot make the same claim.

Next time, I suggest you do a little more background before making such statements.

230 posted on 08/09/2007 7:21:03 PM PDT by NewLand (Always remember September 11, 2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: trussell
NewLand...I'm would not be proud to call myself a Christian, if that is what you think being a Christian is all about.

trussell, you are severely misinformed on this issue along with several other issues to follow on separate replies. I will simply ask you to read every single post of mine on this thread, including Post #200 where the odeous quote was cleverly clipped by a previously banned DC'er, back under a different screen name (how forthcoming of them). Look at this and then tell me the context of my comment was not a joke, after I had reminded the poster how respectful I had been with him, as I am with virtually ALL FReepers and all people in general.

Those 'Pharisees' who enjoyed taunting people and laying traps and hurling insults and mocking Christ and Christians are the ones you are defending here. Please tell me that you just didn't realize that, or do we have to go back into the archives?

Or, you can visit their obscure site and see the current version of it for yourself.

231 posted on 08/09/2007 7:35:34 PM PDT by NewLand (Always remember September 11, 2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Thanks Jim. I’m with you.


232 posted on 08/09/2007 7:37:13 PM PDT by NewLand (Always remember September 11, 2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: NewLand

I’m not so insecure in my faith that I have to mock and bait others to get them banned for the sake of not having to see them post here.

I don’t have to talk to people who only believe the way I do. I can actually have friends who are mormons, catholics, baptists, athiests, or have no belief at all. I often talk to others where faith/church/God never enter the conversation.

The post I saw was quoted word for word. No “clipping” or changing in any way. It didn’t look like a joke to me there, or at the link you provided.


233 posted on 08/09/2007 7:55:35 PM PDT by trussell (Prayer is good for the soul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: trussell
It’s too bad that people like this are allowed to cause so much animosity among the other posters that a whole group that had been here since the beginning have been banned.

What an incredibly revealing statement on your behalf.

Who are the "people like this" you refer to?

"Cause so much anomosity among other posters"...would you care to elaborate with some specific quotes that caused the anomosity from "people like that" (I'm sure you are refering to me).

"A whole group that had been here since the beginning"...uh, please double check your records on that, including when I joined.

FYI, they were banned for crude behavior directly in the face of the owner. They taunted, they insulted, they challenged, and they got called on it. They openly spoke of their disdain for FR, and FReepers in general. Why should they have been here at all? They mock this site, they mock Christians, all from the comfort of their obscure site.

"Also, interesting that the new group don’t help get the freepathons complete as fast as the ones who were banned did."

Hello? That is factually incorrect. A list of the banned DC'ers was checked on a FReepathon thread and conclusively, not one was a monthly or dollar-a-day donor.

NewLand, on the other hand, one of those "people like that", is a dollar-a-day(PLUS) donor and has been for years.

"I miss the debate that use to happen here...now if you debate, you are reported to the mods for not walking in lockstep. Sad to see it. I was sure FR was big enough for several views."

Very revealing as well. FR is still all about debate. I'm debating you right now. I love debate, and I'm not afraid to stand up to anyone who I see as factually incorrect. There are many, many, many other 'old timers' like me who have been here since the early days (several years before you) and the debate is still very healthy.

You, on the other hand, come across as a tattletale, running to Jim Rob about an exchange that you were not even a part of and clearly misinformed on. Jim's reply to you was perfect.

234 posted on 08/09/2007 7:57:13 PM PDT by NewLand (Always remember September 11, 2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: trussell
You clearly have an agenda, and are ill informed. You only have an opinion with absolutely nothing to back up any of my replies. You spoke rudely of me to others without 'saying my name'.

Check the mirror before intentionally causing dissent amongst believers, as you are doing.

235 posted on 08/09/2007 8:00:09 PM PDT by NewLand (Always remember September 11, 2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: trussell
I don’t have to talk to people who only believe the way I do. I can actually have friends who are mormons, catholics, baptists, athiests, or have no belief at all. I often talk to others where faith/church/God never enter the conversation.

Me too.

236 posted on 08/09/2007 8:01:25 PM PDT by NewLand (Always remember September 11, 2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: trussell
absolutely nothing to back up any of my your replies
237 posted on 08/09/2007 8:03:01 PM PDT by NewLand (Always remember September 11, 2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: NewLand
Look at this and then tell me the context of my comment was not a joke, after I had reminded the poster how respectful I had been with him, as I am with virtually ALL FReepers and all people in general.


238 posted on 08/09/2007 8:11:17 PM PDT by ok_now (A fundamentalist is someone who can't grasp the irony that Biblical literalists killed Christ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: ok_now

Your tagline demonstrates your extreme level of ignorance and lack of knowledge on that issue. How embarrasing. Would you care to defend that statement?


239 posted on 08/09/2007 8:17:16 PM PDT by NewLand (Always remember September 11, 2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: NewLand
Would you care to defend that statement?

No. It speaks for itself.

240 posted on 08/09/2007 8:25:06 PM PDT by ok_now (A fundamentalist is someone who can't grasp the irony that Biblical literalists killed Christ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260261-263 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson