"After this sign I might still have time to pick up more cell phones and visit my friends over at the Daily Kos, Moveon.org and the DU"
Posted on 10/23/2007 9:41:03 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
The ubiquitous and web-savvy supporters of Ron Paul now have one less forum in which to vent their rage.
The influential conservative blog Redstate.com placed a ban last night on all Paul commentary from readers who are recent arrivals to the blog.
Paul's followers are angry that the Libertarian congressman can’t seem to get traction in national polls as he bids for the Republican presidential nomination.
Paul — a representative from Texas who ran for president in 1988 on the Libertarian Party ticket — remains mired in the low single digits.
The post on Redstate, “Attention, Ron Paul Supporters (Life is *REALLY* Not Fair),” begins, “Effective immediately, new users may *not* shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada. If your account is less than 6 months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul. Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal.”
Redstate founder Erick Erickson said he woke up this morning bombed with hundreds of e-mails, “the overwhelming majority very angry.” His own readers, though, loved the ban.
“It is the most recommended user diary in Redstate history,” he said.
Paul's energetic online supporters managed to help him raise more than $5 million in the third quarter of this year, roughly tying Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
They’ve also ticked off an awful lot of people, including, apparently, Leon H. Wolf at Redstate, who calls them “annoying, time-consuming, and bandwidth-wasting.”
Wolf writes he is tired of “responding to the same idiotic arguments from a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans.”
Erickson said that he and the regular Redstate readers had just had enough.
“They’re terribly annoying and they don’t add to the debate. If people are adding to the debate we don’t have a problem with them coming here. But they’re just coming to promote Ron Paul. They talk over everyone. They yell at everyone,” he said.
Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said he questioned "the judgment of the decision," but added: "They are a private entity and they are certainly within their rights to do as they see fit.
"I'm sure there are a few Ron Paul supporters who get a little shrill," Benton said . "All we can control is what comes from our campaign."
The ban against Paul-supporting is not categorical, Erickson and Wolf made clear.
“Hey, we’re sure *some* of Ron Paul’s supporters really are Republicans. They can post at any one of a zillion Ron Paul online forums. Those who have *earned* our respect by contributing usefully for a substantial period of time will be listened to with appropriate respect. Those who have not will have to *earn* that respect by contributing usefully in the other threads ... and not mentioning Ron Paul. Given a month of solid contributing, send one of us an email and we’ll consider lifting the restriction on your account,” Wolf writes.
Wolf then shut down the comment thread for the post to avoid the deluge of irritation that was headed his way.
Erickson forwarded to Politico a number of the e-mails as examples of that irritation. “You are banning FREE SPEECH. Perhaps next you can forbid discussion of Democratic candidate names. It is a sad day for America when hypocrites who think they are right try to shovel their propaganda onto the rest of us. What goes around comes around,” wrote one reader with an e-mail exchange at socialheart.com.
Erickson finds this sort of complaint hypocritical itself. “So much for their respect for private property,” he said.
Buzz killer...
More like a Clinton War Room organization.
Pray for W and Our Victorious Troops
"After this sign I might still have time to pick up more cell phones and visit my friends over at the Daily Kos, Moveon.org and the DU"
You are right. The position of un-official FR Spam Monkey is being capably filled by me. Although I am pro-war, I think I am doing a good enough job in defending some of Paul's better qualities....pro borders, pro life, great record on taxes....
http://muslimsvoteronpaul.com/
Why should YOU vote for Ron Paul?
Assalaamu Alaikum Brothers and Sisters,
(snip)
Brothers and Sisters, please vote for Ron Paul in the Republican Primaries. It’s our obligation to come together and try to stand up for not only our best interests, but the best interests of the entire Ummah. Living here in the West, we are obligated to do so. Otherwise, we are partly to blame for all the actions our government takes in our name.
American Muslims must RISE and UNITE. Let your voice be heard. InshAllah (God-willing), we can spread the word and make a difference.
Problem for Ron Paul supporters is they are going to have to make a choice.
I respect the man for his service, and his time as a POW.
But, that’s about it.
You have competition. There are a few on here who regularly post obsessive Paul-worship threads and spew repetitive garbage about how wonderful he is.
Ron Paul is more appealing to the DU/Daily KOS/CodePink crowd than he is to the average FReeper.
One at a time...one at a time.
Eric, here ist he problem, because Paul is so vocal about his anti-war, quasi-isolationist, pre-Wilsonian views, it caused a lot of us to look closely at how he stands (specifically votes) on other issues. We found that on, for example, borders, if he had any name other than Ron Paul, we would label him in the same league as Brownback. Paul has voted over and over against putting the military on the border and said the border fence 'wasn't that important'.
It is not just us. The American Conservative Union rated Paul 76% last year and the highest rating he has received from them is about 82%. If it wasn't for his speeches and wearing the Constitution as a hat, there would be no hesitation labeling him a RINO.
I wasn’t spamming for Ron Paul - my post was from over two years ago.
Please do me a favor: actually *READ* my posts before responding cause I made two (not including this one).
The guy votes against everything. He says he is against illegal immigration. The concept of the USA as a soveriegn nation is explicitly written into the Constitution.
You’ll have to tell me more about his border record.
Like you, I admire some of Pat’s ideas. I think he is very smart and persuasive on certain issues.
There's some backlash lately, though... a young lady told me that she looked into Ron Paul because all she heard were these ad hominem attacks against him, without any substance, and she thought, "there must be something to this guy if he scares them and they just throw insults like 'nutcase'."
The hypocrisy of hating Ron Paul for a single issue while embracing other imperfect candidates is astounding. I'd rather see people try to convince me of why their candidate's flaws are insignificant than to have them attack a fellow GOP candidate.
I'm not sure who I will support, but it's nice to have a conservative like Ron Paul as a choice, rather than having to go with a "big-government world-before-America I-love-the-Constitution-so-much-I'll-put-it-in-a-lockbox" type.
I don't know about that. From his website at http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/:
Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.
The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:
I think one problem is that the way bills are packaged these days, it's difficult to get a very high "conservative" rating from the ACU and actually be a Constitutional conservative.
Those Paul supporters who ramble on about "war-profiteering", "neo-con," and "war for oil" are banned here, as they should.
Paul is caught between a rock and hard place here. If the liberal anti war moonbats who support him ever knew about his conservative limited government positions they would all flee like rats off a sinking ship.
PS: That anchor baby birthright citizenship has to stop tomorrow if possible.
Sorry, I've seen clips of Paul's rallies, and his supporters are just as indistinguishable as supporters of Bush during the 2004 election.
I think RedState is making a horrible decision here. They should just delete the posts like FR does, and handle it on an individual basis. A blanket ban accomplishes nothing, except alienates people whom votes we'll need in the general election.
Post #21 PING
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.