According to Rick Moran in his article on American Thinker: "Is Ron Paul Pandering to the Paranoid", this group of Ron Paul devotees is definitely a potpourri of kooks, and not just your patchwork quilt of easily swayed youngsters. Though not all of them are crackpots, he assures us, there are plenty who are. Like the white supremacist loonies who are jumping on the Ron Paul bandwagon:
and the 9/11 Truthers:"..he has attracted the support of white supremacists largely because they believe that his attacks on neocons validate their view (warning: link goes to hate site) that the neoconservatives are agents of Israel and part of the worldwide Jewish conspiracy to destroy America and the white race."
".. a ruthless, mob of internet ruffians who seek to intimidate those who would dare criticize them, the Paul candidacy, or most especially, one of their pet conspiracy theories about 9/11, the "New World Order" (an amorphous term that generally means the imposition of a one world government), or something as mundane and silly as planting a computer chip in every new born in America."Though Moran doesn't believe that all Paul's supporters are what he terms "haters" he (and others who have negatively posted about Dr. Paul) have received a barrage of negative emails and comments from Ron Paulites:
"...But reading my emails over the last 72 hours following my AT postings about some of the supporters of Ron Paul's candidacy, as well as my experiences on my own personal blog and the experiences I've read about from numerous bloggers, writers, pundits, and media outlets, I have no doubt that the haters, the paranoid conspiracists, and even some anti-globalist anarchists are among the most committed and most visible of his campaign volunteers."
Sounds a little like stalking to me. But ya gotta love "google alerts". You get enough volunteers to man their computers and register for "google alerts" you can hit all the anti-Ron Paul blog posts within seconds. Moran calls them "Paulbots" as they're similar to Spambots. He goes on to say that because of this spamming tactic, of sorts,
"They have driven online polls sponsored by bloggers out of existence thanks to their gaming the system. Apparently, some kind of sophisticated email campaign is at work, [it's called "google alerts" Rick] because no sooner would a poll on a blog go up than the Paulbots would swarm to the site and vote for their man."Moran's article is worth a read, because if Ron Paul is gaining in popularity, we have much to fear. Though, in all honesty, he has as much a chance of winning the Republican nomination as Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich do the Democratic nom. Paul supporters are deluded enough to think he does, though. RonPaulGrassroots Hq.com claims Paul is "King of the Internet" with the largest group of grassroots supporters of all the 2008 candidates, and "the leader in winning straw polls". He seems to be accomplishing that. This same website likens Ron Paul's run for Prez to Pat Buchanan's 1996 Presidential Race, in the hopes of garnering the far right's vote. Buchanan placed second in the Iowa Caucus, and actually won the New Hampshire primary!
And we're not the only ones who question Paul's cult status. Google "Cult of Ron Paul "and see how many entries there are..... 121,000!
Though Ron Paul winning the nomination is not a problem, in itself, what is problematic is his potential to steal votes from the Republican nominee. His supporters are already claiming that they will either not vote or add him as a "write in". Then factor in Dobson's call to the evangelical far right to vote for a third party candidate, and we've handed the 2008 Presidency over to the Democratic Party.
Be scared. Be very scared!
H/T Chatterbox Chronicles
15 comments:
a cult?..sheesh!..I am scared girl..LOL
It is so ironic that you bring this up today. I was just thinking some of the very same things and plan on putting it in my post for tomorrow.
I took my kids on a field trip today to a Lewis and Clark fort that is out in the middle of nowhere. We had to go through this itty bitty town to get there and there were 3 Ron Paul signs. After seeing this and the insane amount of money he is raising on the internet I am starting to get a little concerned.
Before I just dismissed him as so fringe like that he wouldn't take any decent people away from the Republicans if he ran 3rd party. But now I am more convinced than ever that even though he won't win the nomination he will in all probability run on a 3rd party ticket and because he's pro-life he could well take votes away from the Republican nominee especially if its Rudy. It doesn't seem to matter that he is a COMPLETE NUT JOB!!!!!!!! I wish people would wake up and use their brains.
i can't figure out why people like this guy. but then, i can't figure out why people ever liked slick willy or hillary, either.
i don't believe he'll get the nomination, but it is frightening that he's building up speed...
thanks for the post!
Why don't debate his stances instead of attacking his supporters as way to discredit Ron Paul.
It's like me saying you're Gay, because you have Gay friends - which doesn't make sense.
WOMAN: We should be darlin, if he takes away votes from the legit nominee. which is a very big possibility.
DEE: Well your little blurb inspired me. :-) I'll look forward to your take tomorrow.
I think we should be extremely concerned... Though I quoted "be very scared" half in jest, I *do* think we should be worried, for the reasons mentioned in my last paragraph. What concerns me most is even if he doesn't run third party.. with all his grassroot supporters... they'll write him in.. effectively taking away votes from whomever we nominate. And no it doesn't matter.. but he is obviously appealing to the religious right who happen to be anti-war. I wish they would wake up too!
HEIDIANNE: I haven't a clue either. On both cases. He won't get the nom, but he could help Hillary get the white house, by taking away votes.
SCOTT CLAYTON: Heh..just as predicted. No blog of your own, Scott?
If I debated his stances it would make him look as nutty as some of his supporters. And the fact he's not dis-associating himself from his lunatic fringe supporters is like not denying your gay when your accused of being gay- if you're indeed not.
I wouldn't want white supremacists endorsing me, even if I was salivating for more votes. Or the Truthers, then again, he kind of is a Truther himself.
Why would debating his issues make you seem nutty? You should be confident enough on your positions that you don't look like a nut.
There's a screwloosechange blog that debates the truthers, and I don't think those guys are nutty for debating them.
Sure, I agree that it would help Paul if he increases his distance from the fringe. He has stated several times (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v60TWZNVgtk&NR=1) he doesn't believe the 911 conspiracy.
But, even if he doesn't distance himself, it wouldn't change the way he would run the country. White supremacists wouldn't conduct linchings
and Bush wouldn't be in jail for 9-11.
Also, what's wrong with not having a blog? Do I have to have a blog to post here?
FYI: You made an error stating "1. Buchanan has just officially endorsed Rudy G." It was Pat Robertson who endored him.
boy incog your last two post have riled some people. it only means they are the truth. good stuff here. who knew we had whackos on the right. i thought they were confined to the left....
Hi Incog,
I see some familiar people coming back!!
Its a little scary,is' nt it ?I would hate for anyone to take away votes from the right Republican for the job
My son has a bumper sticker on his car that says' "Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup". I think this is his form of protest. He just likes things that are new and different and the young crowd are easily moved into action when they have nothing else going on in their lives. I hope they just drift to another cause by the time the election comes. I think there needs to be more calls to action even if they are wrong. MUD
colbert gravel kucinich paul nader [conyers?] united for truth elicit fear smear blacklist.
honesty compassion intelligence guts...
SCOTT C: Not *me* look nutty.. it would make "him" look nutty. You misread the sentence. By the way thank you for that error check, re. Pat..(they're 2 peas in a pod and I mix them up all the time)..I made the change..
But back to Dr. Paul..granted there are a few things (emphasis on few) that I probably agree with him on, but the greatest problem I have with him is his isolationist/nonintervionist bent and first and foremost his stance on the Iaq War. Because of that I think he's dangerous. I know he likes to claim he's not an isolationist, but non-intervention is part and parcel of isolationism. Had we intervened sooner during during WWII there would have been many lives saved. Same goes for various other conflicts. That is why I would NEVER vote for Paul.
And nothing wrong with not having a blog. I thank you for not posting anonymously.
PATJ: Would would have thunk?! Touchy subjects I guess.. I did too, but looks like that 'aint so. Actually, not true, we have our fair share.
FRASY: Actually, Troika (and all his other akas) hasn't been here for a while.. except for a comment a few posts ago. Unfortunately, Poo, that might well be the case.
MUD: I hope so, MUD, cos we're in deep trouble if not.
Rep Paul is from SE Texas, as you know and I am amazed he has gotten re-elected so many times. I don't get it either. His isolationism is totally out of line with the party but he's too fiscally conservative for the Dems so who knows. He sounds like a loon, though.
KAREN: I wonder that about Gravel, as well.. how do these people get elected!??! Gravel, Kucinich and Paul... peas in a pod.
which brings me to
RYANSHAUNKELLEY: "colbert gravel kucinich paul nader [conyers?] united for truth elicit fear smear blacklist.
honesty compassion intelligence guts" Huh?
That's an interesting grab bag of kooky politicians you admire, there.
Post a Comment