One of Ron Paul's men in the field is worried about the nice group of followers the candidate has attracted:
Caldwell notes that the head of the Pasadena Meetup Group, Bill Dumas, sent a desperate letter to Paul headquarters: "We're in a difficult position of working on a campaign that draws supporters from laterally opposing points of view, and we have the added bonus of attracting every wacko fringe group in the country....We absolutely must focus on Ron's message only and put aside all other agendas, which anyone can save for the next 'Star Trek' convention or whatever."
Paul also said that he sees no problem with the John Birch society -- a group of conspiracy theorists who see bogeymen every where.
The Paul campaign has been interesting to watch. He has amassed a strong core of zealous supporters who act within seconds to engage anyone who they perceive as wronging their man. The problem is that -- just as described above -- the people he is attracting are fringe lefties and righties who have no where else to turn. A substantial portion of the groups believe that 9/11 was an inside job and rabid Israel haters.
I know this is a hit piece by the Times and they would never attack an John Edwards, Hillary Clinton or Baracl Obama. But what they are saying is pretty damning. The facts are the facts and it paints a picture of a campaign that has been somewhat successful in organizing, but not in appealing to mainstream America. Paul's positions are not the norm and as such he has attracted a following that is dedicated, vigilant and small.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 2)
1.
This is a very strange statement since Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate IN SUPPORT of Our United States Consitution while the other candidates are for shreadding it in one form or the other. It may be that some perceive some of Ron Paul supports as "fringe" but the rest of us are United States Citizens sick of seeing our great country being controlled by the corporations that give very large lump sums of money to campaign runners in return for favors if elected. Ron Paul supporters have raised the money for him to run as a presidential candidate. He has not accepted any "bribe money" whatsoever. The reason so many want to "knock him" is because he is the ONLY upstanding, trustworthy opponent actually running in the campaign! They cannot attack his voting record, nor his personal life, so now they choose to attack his supporters? I would say to anyone reading this post, "WAKE UP AMERICA" before we are abolished as a country.
Theresa Elliott at 4:33PM on Jul 21st 2007
2. Yet another article trying to discredit Ron Paul. My meetup group has 72 people in it and I have never heard a single thing about any conspiracy theories about 9/11 and Ron Paul has never himself said anything about 9/11 being an "inside job". You sir sound like the wacko to me. Trying to push Ron Paul as "fringe" will not work. If fringe is defending the U.S. Constitution would you consider George Washington and Thomas Jefferson fringe? We haven't always had a huge socialistic government, look at history prior to the great depression or in other words the year the non elected Federal Reserve was created. And what has brought the country back? Not big government. Capitalism and free market economics have brought this country back. Why not make it even better and end what causes the rest of the world to hate us. RON PAUL 2008!!!
Luke Hopper at 5:10PM on Jul 21st 2007
3. Don't the MSM people have anything better to do than annoint Rudy McRomney and John Barak Clinton as the Only Candidates Who Matter?
Knight_of_BAAWA at 7:24PM on Jul 21st 2007
4. A backer is a backer. Ron Paul doesn't have so many supporters that he can afford to chase the most vociferous away. He needs to channel their energies to better match his goals and messages.
Steve Bonomo at 11:15PM on Jul 21st 2007
5. Its not that its only the so called fringes that support Ron Paul, its just that alot of the more passionate supporters people who are considered to be so.
I will admit to be a slight conspiracy theorist. I dont think there is really much going on in that regards, but i see a slippery slope that could lead to a horribly corrupt and evil government. Our country is nowhere near that, but we are headed in the wrong direction.
For those who think 9/11 was an inside job, its not wrong for them to support Ron Paul, because while he does not agree with them, they need someone to support. Im glad its Ron Paul that they chose. I personally dont agree with their belief, and dont think that Bush or and of the current candidates are evil enough to do such a thing.
Anyway, I want to warn you against discounting Ron Paul. He has potential to pull at least 30% of Republicans, a few Dems, a pretty good bit of Independents, most of the Libertarians, and almost all of the Constitution Party.
James Fetner at 12:04AM on Jul 22nd 2007
6. I didn't say you all are wacko's (at least in this piece), a campaign worker did.
As for Ron Paul drawing 30% of Republicans, Mr. Fetner, that's most definitely not going to happen. He is polling at
Scott at 8:24AM on Jul 22nd 2007
7. Okay, it seems that part of your answer got cut off. Anyway, the word I used was potential. If you havent noticed the polls, 30% of Republicans are against the war in Iraq. Add in Independents, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and those few Democrats, and he could come out with a pretty good standing in the polls that really matters, actual votes. What Ron Paul is polling at right now is 3%. This only includes those whove voted Republican before. New voters, including young people (such as myself) and formally apathetic people, plus crossovers from other parties that support him added into that mix could mean his numbers are at least double that. Also, alot of people who would support him either havent yet heard of him or think he has no chance. As his poll numbers and his media exposure rise, his chance of winning will increase greatly.
All that being said, our chances arent that great (but a whole lot better than you think). This election will be alot different from any other weve had in years. Remember, the American people still can vote for the President, so anyone has a chance of winning, even you. Its really for the people to decide who will win, not the media (of all types, be it bloggers, print media, or broadcast media).
James Fetner at 1:23AM on Jul 23rd 2007
8. Hard to believe that Scott is trying to smear Dr. Paul. But, does he ever have anything positive to write...about anyone? Guy must be the life of the party.
Jay T at 6:24PM on Jul 23rd 2007
9. The way to victory for any Republican candidate is not wandering off in the middle of nowhere but instead stay within the Party principles and boundries.Anyone can disagree with the way the war is conducted in Iraq but not all the eggs are in one basket.
Image at 11:18AM on Jul 24th 2007
10. Ron Paul is staying with the principles. The original ones, like small government. The Republicans have increased the size and scope of the government greatly. I mean, if we are gonna have big government, at least have people who are good at it. But, if we are gonna have small government, vote Ron Paul.
James Fetner at 12:41PM on Jul 24th 2007
11. I have no problem with the John Birch Society myself. I've been a member for several years and have heard pretty much all the usual stuff they accuse us of (racist, xenophobic, paranoid, hateful, anarchist, fascist, etc.) It's just a buch of garbage. If you advocate controlling our borders, you're called racist and xenophobic. If you support constitutional, limited government, you're labeled "anti-government," if you point out that there have actually been people in the US government who are acting against everything America stands for, you're labeled hateful or paranoid. The same folks that throw around these labels are the ones who ignore when the JBS calls the mass media on the carpet for their own hysteria (Y2K doomsday stuff, for example). The JBS is about freedom, and so, sure, we're anti-Communist and for limited government. We don't want to provide a forum for terrorists to criticize us in front of the world (at the UN) and we don't want to participate in an organization that brings nations together so they can plan how to plunder our wealth. That's not isolationist, it's just common sense to me.
The article by the New York Times about Ron Paul just tries to play on this ignorance and decades of misinformation about the JBS in order to paint him as some kind of kook. Look, it's not hard to go to www.jbs.org and find out what the John Birch Society is about and what it does, where it stands, etc. Most folks haven't done that and either never heard of the JBS, or they've heard about it from the mass media and have been trained by the mass media to associate the JBS with everything that is horrible in mankind, and anyone who associates with the JBS to be suspect. They reason that, after all, some respected network news person mentioned the JBS in the same sentence with the KKK, and so, that's all they need to know. Their minds are closed, and it will take a lot to bring them back to somewhere closer to reality on what the JBS is and does. But there are a few who will do their own investigation and find out for themselves.
Ron Paul has been in Congress for the past 30 years, off and on. If he were associated with some kind of hate-filled, vigilante, racist (insert terrible label here) group, do you think, maybe, his constituents might not have elected him 10 times or have given him the win 3 times over an incumbent? You would think he would be in and out of court and jail several times by now if all that were true. Time to return to Earth and back to reality.
Liber at 1:44PM on Jul 25th 2007
12. Before we react poorly to the word "wacko," perhaps we should remember what it means. It means, "eccentric," one who has an odd or unusual personality. So the criticism is basically saying that the people who support Ron Paul aren't "cool."
How high-schoolish such critics are!
A related word is "idiot." Most people think of idiots as simpletons. But the Greek and Latin origins of the word, according to Wikipedia, suggest that the real meaning is, "a person lacking professional skill, a private citizen, individual" in Greek and "ordinary person, layman" in early Latin.
To quote from the Wikipedia article, "'Idiot' was originally created to refer to people who were overly concerned with their own self-interest and ignored the needs of the community. Declining to take part in public life, such as (semi-)democratic government of the polis (city state), such as the Athenian democracy, was considered dishonorable."
In other words, "idiots" are individualists, people who are normally apathetic during elections, people who don't go along with the crowd. Going along with the crowd is exactly what these critics prefer. They don't want boat-rockers who will energize and activate people who haven't participated in elections for years. Because if that ever happened, it could permanently change the political landscape.
"Wacko" is merely the modern equivalent of the older term "idiot." So when Ron Paul supporters are accused of being wackos, when certain organizers despair that the response is coming from wackos, what they're really saying is that the support is not coming from those who are "cool" or "normal" or "professional." They don't realize that such support is actually a blessing...because it is a sign of activation among the majority of Americans who are apathetic each election cycle.
Remember, even in elections with high levels of voter participation, there are still 30-40% who simply don't vote. Imagine what would happen if they changed their tune and voted because they were inspired by Ron Paul.
Walt Thiessen at 8:21AM on Jul 26th 2007
13. Scott ill be waiting hopefully for the iowa straw poll .When you might have to eat your words.You sound like a stooge for hillary or the bushes one in the same big goverment lovers. Colorado Ron Paul 2008 former democrat.
ps You can hide behind others but there are far more positive stories going on in the ron paul campaign.i guess thats the best dirt you had,attack the supporter instead of ron paul good try ,but doesnt cut it
kenny griffin at 5:38PM on Aug 6th 2007
14. To answer one of the early posts, no: the MSM doesn't have anything better to do than anoint one of the moneyed darling "frontrunners". Those are the people who are going to purchase tens of millions of dollars of advertising from them, so those are the people who are going to be called "viable" candidates.
Matt C at 11:31AM on Aug 8th 2007
15. Ron Paul is our Hope For AMERICA!!!! Vote to bring our loved ones home and protect us here in our own country NOT to take our father's, brother's, sister's, mother's and lovers away from us!
Mel at 12:28AM on Sep 6th 2007