Ron Paul Realism: Question 5 of 7
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Ron PaulContinuing the series which started with this post, and then continued on in 1, 2, 3 & 4.
Now we have question 5: Have you studied the campaign of Howard Dean? How are you not going to repeat those mistakes?
- Dary: By not making them.
- Michael: Howard Dean did make a few mistakes. I don’t think Ron Paul is the kind of guy to “Scream” as he rambles on in a speech. The key difference is so many people are passionate about Dr. Paul’s message of simplicity and honesty, they are literally taking to the streets in masses. Most people that I speak with always love his message, but are afraid to vote for him because they think it will put the person they ‘dislike’ into office. It’s a sad day in America when people vote for someone for the simple reason as to help prevent a Republican or Democrat into office.
- Tony Lambiris: I have not, I wasn’t interested in politics back then, not until Ron Paul made it abundantly clear that there was still hope in restoring America back to what made it so great to begin with.
- coainley: No. I don’t know. Howard Dean was full of crap. Ron Paul is not.
- Tim: I have not, but thanks for the suggestion. (btw, try not to use the word “crazy” when describing Paul’s campaign in ANY context. I hope I speak for all Ron Paul supporters when I say I’m TIRED of seeing this word linked to Paul.)
- Ward Ciac: Ron is a doctor he is dignified.
- Lex: Howard Dean? I thought the Dems should have nominated him. He might have been able to beat Bush. After he screamed “We’re going to (Your state here)!!!!”, he should have really done it, instead of meekly dropping out.
- Iconoclast421: Howard Dean really didn’t make any huge mistakes. Except counting on liberals and democrats to break out of the mold the mainstream media has set them in! The media simply decided to destroy him. Because of the Dean scream? Gimme a break. That’s not it at all. I thought that was funny. Considering the turkey we have in the oval office right now…
- PC: Yes, we intend to get more votes than Howard Dean. In the Dean campaign he was the loose cannon, in the Paul campaign it is his supporters, besides Dr. Paul’s record speaks for itself, Dean was nowhere as distinguished. We just need to not buy the media hype and run our own campaign. Dean appeared to rely too much on the media hype.
- Scott: Yes, I have, and I do by putting faith in the voters, and simply spreading awareness about him as best I can.
- Corky: Despite superficial similarities, the Paul campaign is not at all like Dean’s.
- Doofus: For one thing, Ron Paul doesn’t scream “HAAAA!!!” like a madman.
- John Campbell: No, I haven’t, but it’s a good idea. My general sense is that Howard Dean wasn’t that much different from all the other Democrats. That’s probably why he now heads the DNC. He fits right in. In contrast, Ron Paul is clearly an outsider. I think that’s important this time. Mainstream Republicans are doomed in 08. Only a total outsider can possibly win.
- Aaron: Dean lost because the Democrats wanted to defeat Bush so bad that they heartlessly dismissed doing the right thing, they were simply afraid, and so they unintelligently voted for Kerry who lost anyway. They were the tin man, lion, and scarecrow all at once unable to find Oz because they were put off by Dorothy’s screech.
- Jonathan Bennett: I don’t study socialism, well I’ve studied enough to know that it doesn’t work. So, I wouldn’t put much time or effort into studying someone that wants to further implement socialist ideas into our government. Ron Paul’s message is polar opposite of Dean’s, so the campaign is quite different.
- Buckwheat: Dean and Paul’s campaigns are only superficially similar (antiwar, physicians, both harnessed the internet) and will have different outcomes (I predict). They are substantively different in that there was no there there to propel the Dean antiwar excitement forward; he was just a REALLY big government lefty. Will Paul there is a big there there: making the U.S. a constitutional republic again. Exactly what we need.
- Dan Warner: The internet is far different than when Dean ran. There are more tools and things like meetup.com bring people out in real life to become ‘boots on the ground’. Also having YouTube where you can go and really get a feel for the man and what he says is helping bigtime. You can watch him give a speech and his honesty and integrity really comes thru. For me it’s the best way to get my friends introduced to Dr. Paul. Once they watch a few videos they are hooked and want more information. This is probably going to mean alot to campaigns in the future, but the candidate has to be genuine. If a picture is worth a thousand words, a video must be worth a million. I also don’t think Dr. Paul is prone to whacky screaming and making a fool of himself on stage. Dean tanked because he made a bufoon of himself. Ron Paul is a far more serious person and won’t let that happen. Besides if Dean can become head of the democratic party after all of that, I would be happy if Ron Paul took the same position in the republican party. He would bring it back to it’s roots where it ought to be.
- Corey Cagle: I was in Iraq during the 2004 election, so I didn’t really have time to follow Dean’s candidacy. From what I’ve heard, though, he was another big-government liberal who thought our Nanny State should provide us with “free” medical care, a chicken in every pot, and all the other Utopian promises of modern socialist planners. Thus, his wasn’t a campaign I would have been interested in watching, even if I hadn’t been deployed.
- Jeanette Doney: Howard Dean’s mistake was attacking Nader and then bowing out to Kerry. Ron Paul is not attacking or bowing to anyone. He’s making a point, “We’ve got to get back to our constitutional foundation”.
- meinaz: Two words “Dean Scream”. The media destroyed Dean. Some claim his loss to be due to a poor performance at a straw poll. I don’t buy it. Ask the average person about Dean and they’ll talk about his scream. His policies and candidacy were ruined in a constantly-looped unflattering soundbite. We’re going to get around these “mistakes” by putting the focus on the media when they resort to smearing. The media needs to be held accountable. If old-media decides to take the low road, we’ll take them with us.
- Edward Keithly: The Dean campaign spent money like a drunken sailor, and appealed to the farthest left-wing of his party. Ron Paul’s campaign is thrifty, to say the least, and has appeal that runs across the ideological spectrum. And Ron Paul is not the type to bay at the moon on national TV.
- Vicky: I remember it like it was yesterday. I also remember how the Clinton DLC machine destroyed his chances simply to get Kerry the nomination. I assure you, it wasn’t because that wanted Kerry to beat Bush. If Bush had lost in 2004, Hillary would NEVER of had a chance to become president. The problem for Dean was he is no Ron Paul. Dean had dems and some indies, but Ron Paul has support across the board. Ron Paul is also one of the most disciplined speakers I have ever seen. He will not be tripped up by any “Paul Scream”. Look at how he turned Giuliani’s rant in the second debate into political gold. The other mistake in Dean’s run was Trippi’s spending. Again Ron Paul is too fiscally conservative to fall into that trap. Apples and oranges, Justin.
- Matt C: I don’t know much about the Dean campaign. But I estimate the opposition to the Iraq war at about twice what it was then.
- Patrick: Be less socialist? Don’t scream like a crazed cowboy? Ron’s got that covered already.
- meatwad: Sorry, I haven’t studied the campaign of Howard Dean. I guess I’d just tell RP not to get overly excited and beware of the big corporate media.
- James Aragon: Howard Dean took for granted that he was the source of his popularity and not his message. Ron Paul is more centered and has already indicated his candidacy as one for ideas and not selfish reasons.
- Ellis_Wyatt: Dean != Paul. Totally different, and not least because the web’s come a long way in the years between. However, this is REALLY about the absurd policies of the elites. This is a populist revolution against an entire mode of thought, ie: the neocon (Clinton, Obama…) agenda. Dean’s core supporters are now Obama supporters, not Paul supporters, e.g.: they’re in it for schoolgirl crushes and fabian socialist pipe dreams, not rational libertarian principles. Check your premises if you think otherwise.
- Jordan: Uh, I’m not campaigning for anything… why would I be at risk for repeating Howard Dean’s mistakes?
- bbartlog: No, I haven’t. If I were Ron Paul’s campaign manager, this would be a crushing indictment. Are there mistakes that a plain old supporter should be avoiding as well?
- chad: howard dean again, who (that is not involved with politics) has even heard of him? i really dont get how you can compare him with ron paul, technology is light years ahead of where it was then and social networking sites are substantially more popular, so he won a online poll, big wow. ron paul wins every online poll but people just say that us ron paul supporters have somehow hacked into the server and manipulated the results , or better yet, hit the ron paul button 50 times, lol.
- Tannim: Yes, and no screaming allowed.
- Spirit of ‘76: I haven’t really studied Dean’s campaign in detail, so I don’t know what to tell you here. My impression from a distance was always that the media killed Dean.
- James Maynard: Yes I have - fortunantly, I don’t think Ron can scream that loudly. LOL.
- Jim: Ron Paul has a stronger message. He will pull through, regardless of media smear.
- mike: personally i have not, this is the first time i’ve been excited about politics or even voting. i have been in my internet tube more often and longer than most, yet back then i had no idea what was going on with howard dean. thus i would propose ron paul is MUCH bigger. in an age now of video and youtube i think we are talking about a different internet. btw i am 28.
The answers I’m reading contain a lot of “no”s or “yes, but Paul is different.”
So yes, there are some superficial similarities between Dean and Paul, but the most striking similarities are what you all need to focus on: outsider candidate with lots of internet support who is polling low, but is starting to make some noise. And sure, Paul is different, but let me share a couple things I learned in 2003-2004.
First, the reason Dean got big was ALL about his message. And don’t be naive Paul supporters, just because you don’t like Dean’s message doesn’t mean that Dems and indies weren’t attracted to him because of it. He was one of the first to come out very strongly anti-war on the Dem side. He was also the first to talk openly about our health care crisis. And you can call his ideas socialist, but he had an A rating from the NRA and was, for all intents and purposes, a moderate Dem.
Another similarity between Dean and Paul is that Dean also brought a lot of people into the political process who had never been part of it before. And it really has yet to be proven that Paul is pulling THAT many people in that have never been involved before. The internet has a tendency to make things seem bigger than they are. Take heed of that last sentence, because it was part of Dean’s downfall. Sure, he had a lot of people come to Iowa for him, but he didn’t have Iowans come to the polls for him…or folks from New Hampshire, South Carolina…you get the picture.
And Iowans don’t take kindly to rabid political supporters. Kerry’s people knew this and they were on the ground well ahead of the game, recruiting the most trusted Dems in loyal neighborhoods to gather support before the caucuses started. That’s how Kerry won, and that’s most likely how a GOPer will win there too.
Also, I hear a lot in this comments section about the “media” and how corrupt they are. I’d drop this immediately if I were you. The media simply reports and echoes. Drudge was the one who broke the scream story, and because it was funny and really weird the rest of the media picked up on it. You can call them corrupt all you want, but you need the media to get elected. You may not think so, but you do, and you’d do well to figure out ways to make it work for you instead of saying, “It’s the media’s fault!”
And to that point, the scream didn’t do Dean in. Coming in 3rd in Iowa did. Overpromising and underdelivering. We can talk all day about how the Clintons anointed Kerry, but I was on the ground in Iowa in 2004 and Dean lost because his campaign was disorganized and relied too heavily on “people power.”
So then what’s the biggest difference between Dean and Paul? Dean could never have run as an independent. Paul still could.
In any event, thanks again for all of your answers and comments. Stay on the lookout for the answers to questions 6 and 7, as well as a recap of what I think are the best answers for each question.
This entry was posted on Friday, August 24th, 2007 and is filed under 2008 Election, Ron Paul. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
I think folks give the Dean Scream too much credit for ruining his campaign. It was simply not in the stars for Mr. Dean. He had some energy going, but if he were meant to be president then he would’ve outlasted the scream. His message was being heard and well-recepted by many, but it did not have the legs like the message purveyed upon us by RP.
August 24th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
I just want to say thanks for at least writing about Dr. Paul. THANKS. I might not agree with what you say about him and you might not agree with what we say about him, but at least you are talking about him. THANKS AGAIN
August 24th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Perhaps I should have elaborated. I didn’t see the “Dean Scream” as a mistake. I saw it as an excuse to recuse himself, as Perot used his FEAR of attack to/at his daughter’s wedding as an excuse to recuse himself. It is my hope that Dr. Paul does not find a way to recuse himself. Neither Perot or Dean called their campaign a “Revolution”. Thus, I see the “revolution” has begun and even if Dr. Paul recuses himself from the election, THE REVOLUTION HAS OFFICIALLY BEGUN.
The media LOVED Dean and Perot, neither who were starved for headlines. Had either of those candidates the majority of support from troops campaign contributions as the Federal Election Commission quarterly reported on Dr. Paul, that would have been headlines for them, buried for Dr. Paul.
I brought up Nader in my response because Nader had an anti-war platform, as Dean claimed he had, yet when Dean did not try to work with Nader, but bashed Nader, it proved then (As Dean is now chair of the Democrat Party and gets fewer headlines than Terry McAufflie, the DP chair the last election), Dean was a fake who was what we call a “gatekeeper” his job being to keep voters in the DP, and time bore this out to be the whole truth.
YOU BET there are suspicions that Ron Paul is merely a gatekeeper for the GOP, whose job is to keep GOP voters from switching and converting anti-war votes to GOP. Dr. Paul would not be the first man of integrity to go down in flames, as Nader did. But like Dean, Nader did not have a REVOLUTION on his hands.
Several respondees to your question #5 pointed out, Dr. Paul is not a Democrat or claimed by the DP (as Nader was) and this is an important difference, especially where “revolution” is concerned. “Revolution” is a liberal term, that has been adopted by the rightwing of the campaign and sweeping the internet, which is shaking the main stream media up, exposing them on their lies, their Orwellian propeganda, and they are losing subscriptions while the internet is now booming. I’m new to YouTube and Myspace and what have you, and I believe many of us are, and we spend far more time watching home spun tapes and TV is background noise (that is getting worse with every repeated commercial). Newsprint is becoming hostile, I have had my Letters to the Editor about Ron Paul, to the Press Democrat, a major paper here in NoCAL, refused so many times, in trying to break in, I was told by a person at their office when I enquired about my letters, “THIS IS HILLARY COUNTRY!”. They might as well have told me “THIS IS WAR”, and their mistake is thinking they are on top, because the bigger they are, the harder the fall, and they will FALL, not by Dr. Paul, but THE REVOLUTION which has begun. Dr Dean did not have a revolution, he had a scream, a recuse, and now a job working for the Wizards of OZ. Ron Paul supporters have HAD ENOUGH. Dean supporters didn’t have a clue.
August 24th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
First off, Thanks for all your posts and your reporting.
I think you are really helping the Revolution with your blogs and the fact that you are imploring us to think outside the box and try to imagine worse case scenarios.
I believe you are trying to get us more organized, disciplined and dedicated to winning the nomination first.
I applaud you Mr Gardner…
Keep asking us tough questions and being a realist. We need to be grounded and focused on the task at hand.
Register as a republican, Try to become a delegate in your state’s GOP and join a meet up in order that we nominate Ron Paul this winter.
DONATE $$$ and time - Cash is still king here in America.
America needs us, even though many Americans only care about Lindsey Lohan or Football.
God Bless,
Brettrix,
Phoenix AZ
August 24th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Rent seeking is _the_ issue whether it is public choice rent seeking or private choice rent seeking via things like network externalities or other forms of economic rent.
Dean didn’t have anything to say about rent seeking.
Paul doesn’t have anything to say about private choice rent seeking via network externalities but he _does_ have much to say about rent seeking via public choice. The only other person out there with nearly as much mind share saying anything about public choice rent seeking is Charles Murray of the AEI with what he calls “The Plan”.
So, no, Dean didn’t really have a message.
Of course no one, not democrat or republican, has anything to say about private choice economic rent seeking and history shows us that as soon as they do, they’re either assassinated, as was Huey Long with his wealth tax, or coopted, as was Norm Thomas whose socialist platform was adopted except the one plank that mattered — the wealth tax — which FDR proceeded to “adopt” by titling his highly progressive income tax system a “wealth tax”. I’m not going to say that Henry George was assassinated but it sure is a coincidence that he died just as he was about to be elected to public office.
I’m pretty well convinced that the only solution to this kind of hyper-corrupt rent seeking is destruction of civilization as we know it. Civilization seems to be something of a public health menace.
August 24th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Howard Dean was credited with intentionally using the internet to advantage, then trashed by the MSM for shouting with a horse voice.
Ron Paul is benefiting passively from the internet - he and his staff do not claim credit for the nternet firestorm surrounding him.
I await the MSM’s attacks to rid themselves of his presense. So far, they are still trying to pretend he does not exist. When they can’t do that anymore, they will trash him for something as inane as Dean’s innocent shout.
The government-licensed and corporate-funded MSM isn’t about to have honest elections or honest information. The MSM and the government will have to be brought down together. Viva la internet! Viva Ron Paul.
August 24th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
“The media simply reports and echoes”
That is pretty naive thinking. The media does not simply report or echo. They generally follow trends *after* they become trends. They only report what sells papers, gets clicks, or brings in viewers. Very few media outlets conduct investigative journalism.
And most of the TV media is biased towards establishment candidates because the owners of the TV networks have an invested interest in keeping the status quo.
August 24th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Justin, Take it from someone who has been on alot of campaigns. Ron Paul’s is different. There hasn’t been this kind of enthusiasm since Reagan’s, and I know I was there and helped. The big difference is that we are a year ahead of everything. There has never been such a long campaign for the President. Another thing, I have heard people like you say in the past was that Pat Buchanan couldn’t win either - even less of a chance than Ron Paul, but in 1996 Buchanan who never had been elected before almost pulled it off, and if it wasn’t for his cowboy fun on a wagon train in Arizona he probably would have won. I was a state coordinator for Pat Buchanan in Missouri at the time. A state Buchanan won. I can tell you right now, Ron Paul has 1000 times more support than Pat Buchanan did. If I remember right they showed
Pat Buchanan with 2-5% in the national polls behind Dole and Forbes, yet the guy pulled off New Hampshire and few other states.
I have no doubt Ron Paul will win New Hampshire, from there it will get tricky because he will have the whole Republican establishment coming down on him. But just maybe, if everything falls in place just right, we actually may have someone that is honest become President.
August 24th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
“I hear a lot in this comments section about the “media” and how corrupt they are. I’d drop this immediately if I were you.”
I disagree with this statement in the STRONGEST way. I have seen the marginalization of a presidential campaign with my own eyes. I have seen poll votes rolled back, switched to another candidate, and erased.
I will never trust any corporate owned media outlet again.
“The media simply reports and echoes.”
GOOGLE +”Ron Paul” +”Censorship”, and learn for yourself how impartial our media is.
GO TO YOUTUBE AND WATCH THE CENSORSHIP IN ACTION.
August 24th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Justin Gardner:
“Also, I hear a lot in this comments section about the “media” and how corrupt they are. I’d drop this immediately if I were you. The media simply reports and echoes. Drudge was the one who broke the scream story, and because it was funny and really weird the rest of the media picked up on it. You can call them corrupt all you want, but you need the media to get elected. You may not think so, but you do, and you’d do well to figure out ways to make it work for you instead of saying, “It’s the media’s fault!””
It is not the medias right to dictate who is/isn’t elected. This is a matter that agrivates many, because the media is doing exactly that. Rather than accept it, why not fix the situation? The power of voting was meant to reside with the people, not with groups, be they special interest or corporate. Personally, I have lost much of my former trust (not that Fox hasn’t been killing it slowly anyway with propoganda programming.) of MSM.
Should the discontent spread enough, media outlets will loose sponsors once enough people turn to the net for their news needs. I have seen much blatant manipulation of facts, through omission and other means. Let us not forget how news coverage of Iowa’s stroll poll omited Ron Paul in fifth place, while listing all the other canidates. Or how major news agencys have denounced their own online polls when the results didn’t support the supposed top tier canidates.
August 24th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Howard Dean is just another lying politician Ron Pauls an American Hero and a simple uncomplicated Visionary!
He seems incapable of lying- I love him- He can save us from the Corporate Slave State!
August 24th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Well it appear Justin is only superfically knowledgable about the Dean loss. Dean would have won Iowa and the nomination. The Clinton run DLC had Dick Gephardt use murder-suicide tactics on Dean in the last month before the Iowa caucus with the understanding Gephardt would become Kerry’s VP choice. However they never intended for Kerry to beat Bush. It was so Hillary could run now, which she couldn’t if Bush lost.
From Wikipedia:
“(Dick Gephardt) announced his second run for President on January 5, 2003, dropping out a year later after his fourth-place finish in the Iowa caucus. Gephardt was seen by many as too old fashioned and unelectable, and his support of the Iraq War resolution hurt him among liberal activists. Gephardt promoted a form of universal health care, and was supported by a dozen labor unions, but did not have enough support to receive the endorsement of the AFL-CIO. Although Gephardt was ahead in Iowa throughout early 2003, Vermont Governor Howard Dean pulled ahead in the polls by August, his campaign fueled by anti-war activists. The Gephardt campaign was embarrassed by an early August St Louis Post-Dispatch article that revealed that 11 of 33 “Gephardt team leaders” listed on his Iowa campaign’s web site were actually supporting other candidates or neutral. The race between Gephardt and Dean became negative, and took an ugly turn in October when a Gephardt staffer reportedley pushed a Dean staffer out of a meeting while calling him a “faggot”. Dean chairman Joe Trippi (who worked for Gephardt in 1988) and Gephardt chairman Steve Murphy became involved in a war of words over that incident. In the final days of the campaign, both Dean and Gephardt faded and finished third and fourth, respectively.
Although he dropped out of the Presidential race, Gephardt was mentioned as a possible running mate for John Kerry. On March 7, 2004, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, seen as a strong possibility for the position himself, endorsed Gephardt for the Vice Presidency. “I think he’s the best candidate,” Richardson said of Gephardt in an interview with the Associated Press. “There’s a good regional balance with Kerry and Gephardt.” Nevertheless, Kerry announced that he had chosen John Edwards as his running mate on July 6, 2004. (Interestingly, on that same day, the New York Post published an incorrect headline stating that Gephardt had become Kerry’s running mate.) Shortly after this false story broke, the headline was compared to the 1948 “Dewey defeats Truman” front page of the Chicago Tribune, which falsely reported the presidential election results of that year.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Gephardt
That is why Justin talks about “polls” and such. He really has no clue what is going on behind the scene. That’s also why he says dumb things like:
“Also, I hear a lot in this comments section about the “media” and how corrupt they are. I’d drop this immediately if I were you. The media simply reports and echoes. Drudge was the one who broke the scream story, and because it was funny and really weird the rest of the media picked up on it. You can call them corrupt all you want, but you need the media to get elected. You may not think so, but you do, and you’d do well to figure out ways to make it work for you instead of saying, “It’s the media’s fault!””
The media isn’t reporting or echoing ANYTHING. They go out of their way not to report on Ron Paul or echo what their own audience is YELLING at them. Don’t cha think at least one of them would recognize the popularity Ron Paul has generated and talk about him more? Nahhhhh…. That would be jounalism, and journalism isn’t profitable. They get paid to spread propaganda. You don’t pay their bills. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and the rest of them do.
August 24th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
[...] has been running a well written series of posts addressing the Ron Paul campaign and it’s supporters. Earlier this month, they asked 7 [...]
August 24th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Uhm.. just one simple observation. Did this Dean guy have the internet??? I mean, what really makes someone like Ron Paul have a chance is the information Age. Google, Myspace, Meetup, Youtube, etc etc etc
August 24th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
You are right about some of the similarities. Online support and enthusiasm from traditionally nonvoting independents is a long way from manifesting votes in a primary. However, I think there are some key differences.
First, Dean was a one trick pony, anti-war with a little appreciation for his political courage and independence sprinkled on top. Paul’s positions are touching different folks. He has a comprehensive philosophical approach that has been missing for decades…its absence has isolated many citizens if not the majority of Americans from the political process.
Second, Dean was built up by the media and overplayed because his message was refreshing and from the left. This produced some initial enthusiasm to the reporters on the beat and show producers. The echo chamber amplified and he was hyped too far too fast.
Then, the media like the proverbial scorpion who stings his rescuer…they just couldn’t help themselves and they tore him down. This build up and tear down cycle gets played out all of the time. (Its not conspiracy theory– this is just an institutional characteristic.)
To that end, Paul supporters should be somewhat grateful that he is continuing to enjoy an underestimated status. Although the treatment is jaw dropping at times, it is probably helping the long term campaign.
Primaries are about activism and motivation. His pro-life stance gives refuge for the base after the remaining right wingers drop off and they are left with J. Edgar Hoover and a Mormon John Kerry. (No offense to Mormons of course). If Paul is a credible contender by December, he has a shot to score a victory or two in some early primaries.
But the activists must deliver feet to the booth.
August 24th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
“The media simply reports and echoes.”
Wow! What a trusting soul. Hey, I got this bridge you might be interested in…
August 25th, 2007 at 5:07 am
While I do agree that both the web and anti-war sentiment has come a long way in just a few short years, I think a lot of you are doing a disservice to yourselves and to our hero, Ron Paul. What Justin is trying to say is very important. If you listen to the wording, he seems to be a very simpathetic writer (obviosuly giving RP a lot of ink) and he wants to share some experience from his side of the aisle. Just as Ron Paul bases his actions and wins his debates by using historical record and precident, we too need to study some history. It behooves us to know all we can about the pitfalls of the “first internet sensation,” whether completely similar or not, simply to make more educated dicisions. To say “Ron Paul has a message and Dean didn’t” is completely missing the point.
He spoke to them. Whether you like his message or not, they did. Just as RP chastised Rudy for not reading about what motivates people that think differently and for not studying history, we cannot be just as stuborn. For months I have joined you in telling the world to google Ron Paul, now I ask that my fellow supporters google Howard Dean. You don’t have to like his politics to learn about his campaign and the way he lost it.
August 25th, 2007 at 7:30 am
This is, by about fifteen miles, your best piece in this series. It echoes concerns I’ve had as the Paul campaign goes from populist groundswell toward a real crashing through the GOP gatekeepers.
RP supporters: go to your county’s next GOP meeting. You will probably be surprised and a little alarmed at how “staunch” most of the regulars are. But be polite. The important thing is not to win, them over, or turn them into signwaving revolutionaries. Just get Dr. Paul into the conversation.
When they realize that the party’s numbers will grow dramatically if they just keep an open mind, they’ll start to look at Paul’s actual positions and philosophy. It’s all downhill from there.
August 25th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
In addition to all the things Ron Paul has going for him (integrity, honesty, his message, his record, etc.) there is one more thing people are overlooking. He is an extremely astute politician. He seems to have an instinctive sense of timing.
His supporters have been urging him to run for many years. He has always said that the time wasn’t right. This year, he reluctantly agreed to run. Could it be that his sense of timing told him that the people were finally ready to hear his message? I think so.
With little funding and even less mainstream media coverage he has placed in the top 3 in 17 out of 18 straw polls. If you look around the streets of your town you will likely see some Ron Paul signs. Ask yourself if you’ve seen signs for any other candidate, of either party. I know I haven’t. Here in Florida, Ron Paul bumper stickers are everywhere. There are no Rudy stickers, or Romney, or McCain. I’ve seen ONE Hillary sticker. Otherwise, Ron Paul is the only campaign with “boots on the ground.”
There simply isn’t another candidate that has inspired the kind of loyal, active support Ron Paul has. And it grows every day. On an average day 359 new people sign up for their local Ron Paul MeetUp group. By early next week there will be over 800 Meetup groups for Ron Paul, more than 10 times his nearest competitor. There are now over 37,000 activists campaigning for Dr. Paul. This is a 100% volunteer effort. No other candidate can match that. It will have an effect. The revolution is on.
And make no mistake, it IS a revolution. We intend to through out the oligarchs who have been running the country since 1913. We will restore the Constitution. We will take our country back.
Ron Paul - Hope for America - be a part of it.
August 25th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Come on, Justin. Ron Paul IS a conservative. He is currently serving as a Republican. He needs the GOP nomination to make it in the big leagues. Sure, there’s Unity ‘08, but all the e-mails I’ve gotten from them since I signed up as a delegate have been about Mike Bloomberg. I agree with Matt C, we just need to tell people about Ron Paul, because most people haven’t even heard of him. He will appeal, and already does appeal to many I know in the GOP.
August 26th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
First off Vicky, that’s a really nice conspriacy theory you’ve got going there, but I was in Iowa. I was at the scream speech. I know what went down, and it wasn’t the Clintons. Dean imploded under the weight of his own popularity promising a revolution and then not being able to deliver the shrewd organization and marketing that his campaign needed to keep that revolution going. Joe Trippi ran a hell of an online organization, but an amateurish ground ops. And so Dean lost.
To everybody else, thanks for the comments.
August 27th, 2007 at 12:14 am
Dr. paul is great. I like what he has to say, he is real and that is hard to find these days. The only thing I have to say that I have noticed from reading all these blogs is that people who attack ron paul dont tell us who they support. Its like a big secret or something, because almost every other person is in it for big money. This is my first blog but I know hundreds of people who would like to vote for ron paul. The real american hero. GO ron paul 08
August 27th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
[...] It started with this post, and then continued on in posts 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5. [...]