Rabid Paul supporters undermining campaign

[Orat]

As in any group, you will find emotionally unbalanced people (according to your defenition) . My defenition of unbalanced may be a Rudy Guilliani supporter... "Generalizations" are not constructive, no matter your "life experience".

Yes, I know you'll find them in any group. But it isn't a generalization. I've been around enough people who literally required medication to control themselves, and I know the behavior when I see it. I'm talking about a couple of cases in particular I've seen where they went so off that they started jumping in the air and twirling around. It took someone grabbing them by the collar and physically yanking them away. At which point it was obvious on their faces they knew they couldn't control themselves and needed help.

Other than people who fit this description, I've seen very few Ron Paul supporters who really make us look bad. For the most part, it's just people who need to know how to cater their message to their audience. Such as, don't tout Ronald Reagan's endorsements of Ron Paul to hippie-types, or don't lead in with his opposition to the war with hawkish Republicans.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Bradley in DC, I agree with with your analysis of the current situation regarding the influx of new supporters... In my opinion, new supporters, who are deemed "unconventional" are marginalized by others and chastised or treated dismissively... The repercussions of this alienation are now becoming evident... A "guiding light" is required.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=244558#poststop

We need converts, lots of converts. Alienating posts are counterproductive.

 

[Ozwest]

Well said rockwell, The thoughts of yourself and others of similar ilk need to be acknowledged.

 

[Bradley in DC]

"This was in no way a hit piece on Paul. It was simply the observation of the reporter."

Yes, of course, the media can always be trusted to be fair and impartial and report just the facts, isn't that right?

*climbs down off soap box*

*helps Rockwell down off soap box*

The question is not one of the media but of how to win as many converts to our cause as possible. Attacking or making an enemy of the media is the worst way to go.

 

[partypooper]

So if someone at an Obama-fest fan shout-out caused the "reporter" distress because of his "rabidity" I guess we are striking a nerve. This is the coverage of a power structure on high alert, fearful of what they can see out in the countryside, a population that has had it with the criminality and duplicity and who want their country back in the hands of responsible and honorable stewards of public trust.

"striking the nerve" is not the way to win - at all. scaring people is not the way to win either. if people are scared of dr paul' supporters, that is the problem for those supporters, not for those people. we need them to come to our side, they don't need us, they can vote whomever they please into the office.

 

[TexMac]

This was in no way a hit piece on Paul. It was simply the observation of the reporter.

It was hardly just a "reporter."

Libby Hughes has just written a biography about Obama for young adults. It is called "Barack Obama: Voice of Unity, Hope, and Change" and will be out before Christmas.
​

http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/BostonBureau/2007/10/24/mobs_turn_out_for_obama_rally_1

 

[Ozwest]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=244558#poststop

We need converts, lots of converts. Alienating posts are counterproductive.

With all due respect, my post was not meant to be counterproductive. I was attempting to discuss a problem that is obviously a concern... To describe my post as "Alienating" is hardly constructive.

 

[rockwell]

"striking the nerve" is not the way to win - at all. scaring people is not the way to win either. if people are scared of dr paul' supporters, that is the problem of those supporters, not of those people. we need them go come to our side, they don't need us, they can vote whomever they please into the office.

Okay, I've already collected more than a hundred signatures on the petition to place Dr Paul on the ballot in my state- I am one guy who has three kids and runs a business and commutes 500 miles a week. I have had signage on my own property for going on six months, I've brought close to a dozen- mauybe more registered democrats over to the republican party JUST for the primary and easily convinced another 40-50 existing republicans to cast a vote for Paul, family, VFW guys, neighbors, employees. I didn't do it by being blase' and I have no idea what you encounter out there in the world, but in my neck of the woods, people are irate and I am being circumspect. If I told you some of the things I hear your head would spin.

I was addressing the media specifically. The MSM is NOT- I'll repeat that- NOT going to give Dr Paul even ho-hum coverage. It will intensify in it's rancor and opprobrium as he gathers momentum, it will not come around, wake up or any other description because it's very lifeblood is the paradigm that opposes Dr Paul- war, degeneracy, dependency, illiteracy, ignorance, vapidity.

If every one of you who read this single thread stopped worrying about them- simply tuned them out so to speak and went out and talked to people about why this election is crucial to America and their future, we wouldn't be having any issues with media coverage because they would be irrelevant.

I'm in business and anyone who's successful in business will tell you that you cannot make people buy what they do not want. You can try, but the result will be what see with the Obama/Clinton/Giuliani/Thompson campaigns- lots of top down corporate style support, as well as the so-called base (which has shrunk exponentially over the past several election cycles), but absolutely zero enthusiasm from the disaffected, the disenfranchised and the youth of this country, the very people that will carry this election if you can get them even a drop of hope about their future if Ron Paul is elected.

The media has painted itself into a corner, they have made themselves irrelevant and the more we demonstrate that we know that and simply shrug off their panicked (sp) attacks, the more confident you will become in reaching the very people who will make the change and elect the last, best hope for America.

Ron Paul.

 

[smtwngrl]

Perhaps I am being a bit uncharitable (then again, perhaps I am being cheritable, depending on how you look at it), but I think a lot of this sort of behaviour simply stems from some of these individuals being emotionally off-balance. And I mean that in the best way possible.

...... But there are undeniably a good handful of them who are somewhat disturbed and volatile. I'm not sure there is anything we can do to help that. I honestly think it is the sort of thing that may only be helped by medication. Yes, there are maybe a couple of people I've met who just needed to be talked to. But almost without exception, the ones who were really being loud and obnoxious

That may be true, but the guy mentioned above doesn't seem to come in that category.

The man who collared them was Russian. He said, "You Americans don't realize that big government leads to tyranny. I've been through socialism and communism, I know. That's where you're going, too.

I'm thinking of Bradley's comment about supporters sometimes doing things that are unwise because of the need we feel to "wake people up". This guy is an obvious example of that. Put yourself in his place for a minute.

I think in this guy's case, he needs to do more than support Ron Paul. Maybe he needs to write a book or something. I'm sure that what he has to say is valuable, in the right context. And if he's able to get it out in a more appropriate contest, it might be easier to get him to calm down when doing grassroots activities for RP.

Even 10+ years ago, we listened to talk radio and heard an interview of a couple who had previously lived in Germany, before WWII. They left and came here because of the things they saw going on there. Eventually, they saw our country starting to go that same direction. They had written a book about their experiences. They were perfectly rational, not emotionally disturbed. We can learn from people who have experienced these kinds of things firsthand. In fact, sometimes what they have do say might be more powerful than anything we can say.

 

[stevedasbach]

I was there at the Obama rally last night.
Overall, it went pretty well. We had at least 20 from our meetup group there with a few big banners and our signs. We handed out a lot of literature and spoke with some people who were receptive, some who were not, obviously.

The Russian guy mentioned in the article is in our group. Unfortunately he can be a little over the top at times. Oh well. You can't control everybody.

We also had a projector set up at the edge of the commons with the "A New Hope" video playing. A lot of people stopped to watch and talk with us.

My hope is just that we would try to encourage everyone who goes out to support Ron to stay positive. You never know when there is a reporter watching whose article will reach a lot of potential supporters.

To the other poster who asked -- that's why I started the thread.

 

[Ozwest]

Okay, I've already collected more than a hundred signatures on the petition to place Dr Paul on the ballot in my state- I am one guy who has three kids and runs a business and commutes 500 miles a week. I have had signage on my own property for going on six months, I've brought close to a dozen- mauybe more registered democrats over to the republican party JUST for the primary and easily convinced another 40-50 existing republicans to cast a vote for Paul, family, VFW guys, neighbors, employees. I didn't do it by being blase' and I have no idea what you encounter out there in the world, but in my neck of the woods, people are irate and I am being circumspect. If I told you some of the things I hear your head would spin.

I was addressing the media specifically. The MSM is NOT- I'll repeat that- NOT going to give Dr Paul even ho-hum coverage. It will intensify in it's rancor and opprobrium as he gathers momentum, it will not come around, wake up or any other description because it's very lifeblood is the paradigm that opposes Dr Paul- war, degeneracy, dependency, illiteracy, ignorance, vapidity.

If every one of you who read this single thread stopped worrying about them- simply tuned them out so to speak and went out and talked to people about why this election is crucial to America and their future, we wouldn't be having any issues with media coverage because they would be irrelevant.

I'm in business and anyone who's successful in business will tell you that you cannot make people buy what they do not want. You can try, but the result will be what see with the Obama/Clinton/Giuliani/Thompson campaigns- lots of top down corporate style support, as well as the so-called base (which has shrunk exponentially over the past several election cycles), but absolutely zero enthusiasm from the disaffected, the disenfranchised and the youth of this country, the very people that will carry this election if you can get them even a drop of hope about their future if Ron Paul is elected.

The media has painted itself into a corner, they have made themselves irrelevant and the more we demonstrate that we know that and simply shrug off their panicked (sp) attacks, the more confident you will become in reaching the very people who will make the change and elect the last, best hope for America.

Ron Paul.

Your post illustrates the uselesness of preaching to the converted. The hard core Republicans,religious right and MSM will never endorse Ron Paul. If he is to be elected, our efforts should be directed towards a receptive audience. Seek and ye shall find.

 

[smtwngrl]

Your post illustrates the uselesness of preaching to the converted. The hard core Republicans,religious right and MSM will never endorse Ron Paul. If he is to be elected, our efforts should be directed towards a receptive audience. Seek and ye shall find.

Maybe as a group they won't. But there are individuals in those groups who will. It pays not to write anyone off.

 

[stevedasbach]

It was hardly just a "reporter."

Libby Hughes has just written a biography about Obama for young adults. It is called "Barack Obama: Voice of Unity, Hope, and Change" and will be out before Christmas.
​

http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/BostonBureau/2007/10/24/mobs_turn_out_for_obama_rally_1

My point was simply that this was an observation in the article on Obama. The article wasn't targeted at Paul. Another poster who knows the RP supporter in question has stated that he tends to go over the top, so I think the reporter's observation is probably accurate. We need to learn from the feedback we get so that we can more effectively promote Dr. Paul.

 

[Ozwest]

Maybe as a group they won't. But there are individuals in those groups who will. It pays not to write anyone off.

I agree, never write off anybody, but search for the person who is "open" to Ron Pauls message, rather than the person who is "closed to your message... You will have a higher success rate and conserve your energy if you target the right people.

 

[partypooper]

I didn't do it by being blase' and I have no idea what you encounter out there in the world, but in my neck of the woods, people are irate and I am being circumspect. If I told you some of the things I hear your head would spin.

i encounter a lot of people who don't care about politics and who are very easily turned off with the terms such as 'revolution', 'degeneracy', 'radical change' and the like.

I was addressing the media specifically. The MSM is NOT- I'll repeat that- NOT going to give Dr Paul even ho-hum coverage. It will intensify in it's rancor and opprobrium as he gathers momentum, it will not come around, wake up or any other description because it's very lifeblood is the paradigm that opposes Dr Paul- war, degeneracy, dependency, illiteracy, ignorance, vapidity.

the media doesn't need to "wake-up". it just needs to give more opportunities to dr paul to explain his ideas to the broader public. they are probably never going to embrace him in a way they embrace other candidates, but he doesn't need that. he just needs an outlet for his ideas and i think they will give that outlet to him if he does well in the early primaries.

I'm in business and anyone who's successful in business will tell you that you cannot make people buy what they do not want.

i am a psychologist and i absolutely agree with you. the problem is that most people don't want radical change. they might feel that the situation in the US is worse than it used to be, that there are soldiers being killed, and that the dollar is falling, but overall they do not have the sense of urgency nor it is necessary to create that sense in them for them to vote for dr paul.

but absolutely zero enthusiasm from the disaffected, the disenfranchised and the youth of this country, the very people that will carry this election if you can get them even a drop of hope about their future if Ron Paul is elected.

actually, i completely disagree with you on who is actually going to carry this election. this election, like every election, will be carried by ordinary people who watch cable tv, have a mediocre understanding of politics and world affairs and go to the elections out of habit and not out of passion. in fact i think that the campaign is making a mistake with playing on the 'youth card'. not everybody is thrilled to listen to what 18-year olds have to say about politics.

 

[Meatwasp]

My mother fled the communist as the Russian did. They lived through it and are scared it will happen again. Maybe that is the passion. I don't condon yelling in your face but I understand his point. Someone should have gently urged him to stop.

 

[rockwell]

My point was simply that this was an observation in the article on Obama. The article wasn't targeted at Paul. Another poster who knows the RP supporter in question has stated that he tends to go over the top, so I think the reporter's observation is probably accurate. We need to learn from the feedback we get so that we can more effectively promote Dr. Paul.

I can't speak for anyone else, but the woman who wrote the piece was pretty fast and loose with her descriptions of the event. Look at the words used to describe the Paul supporter- "rabid" and "tirade" and then the descriptions of the signs held up by the abortion opponents- then look at the pictures. Deliberate misquotes? Or were there even more opponents we couldn't see with other signs?

Then her fawning adulation over Obama-

"The man everyone waited to see and hear, moved in his Henry Fonda style gait to the podium. The reception was deafening--really deafening."

"Senator Obama was impeccably dressed"

"He flashed his winning smile and the crowd went ballistic."

There's more, but you get the point. It's what they call a "puff piece" and you read it- and comment on it- as if it were reportage, which it clearly isn't.

That's all.

 

[rockwell]

i encounter a lot of people who don't care about politics and who are very easily turned off with the terms such as 'revolution', 'degeneracy', 'radical change' and the like.



the media doesn't need to "wake-up". it just needs to give more opportunities to dr paul to explain his ideas to the broader public. they are probably never going to embrace him in a way they embrace other candidates, but he doesn't need that. he just needs an outlet for his ideas and i think they will give that outlet to him if he does well in the early primaries.



i am a psychologist and i absolutely agree with you. the problem is that most people don't want radical change. they might feel that the situation in the US is worse than it used to be, that there are soldiers being killed, and that the dollar is falling, but overall they do not have the sense of urgency nor it is necessary to create that sense in them for them to vote for dr paul.



actually, i completely disagree with you on who is actually going to carry this election. this election, like every election, will be carried by ordinary people who watch cable tv, have a mediocre understanding of politics and world affairs and go to the elections out of habit and not out of passion. in fact i think that the campaign is making a mistake with playing on the 'youth card'. not everybody is thrilled to listen to what 18-year olds have to say about politics.

Okay, fair enough.

Do you have the data to back that up? A link perhaps?

Let's look at actual voting between 1960 and 2004-

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

the important numbers here are the percentage of registered, versus turnout, a number that has faced a steady decline since 1960- the very people you claim are the ones who vote.

In 1960 more people turned out than there were registered voters- don't ask me to explain that one, maybe it had to do with the pre-civil rights act but by 2004 the percentage of those who could vote against those who did was down to a little over half. That leaves close to 100 million plus who are eligable voters who don't because they either don't care or realize that their vote doesn't matter. I would stack that number up against the people you refer to as the reliable voters who do so out of habit.

Edit to add:

You also wrote-

"i encounter a lot of people who don't care about politics and who are very easily turned off with the terms such as 'revolution', 'degeneracy', 'radical change' and the like."

I know a lot of people who think Saddam Hussein carried out 9/11, but I don't really worry about the left hand side of the bell curve, they will follow anyone who's in the lead. I care about people who are passionate who think critically and who contribute to the betterment of their families and communities and the nation because those are the ones who steer the course of history, not those who "don't care about politics" or are "turned off" with words that accurately describe our situation. I respect your opinion, but I think you've focused your energies and concerns on the very people who- as you said- don't care.

 

[jon_perez]

Reading many of the posts here on ronpaulforums.com, I found myself wondering whether Paul was really as out-of-whack as some of his fans were, and started having doubts. It is really quite dismaying how it is FAR TOO EASY for even open-minded people to start thinking that maybe Ron Paul himself is a nutcase after encountering some overzealous lunatics preaching about how "apocalypse is imminent" if Ron Paul does not get elected.

One way to combat the serious black eye being given to RP by his foaming-in-the-mouth supporters is to show that there are far more normal, calm and rational people who support him than there are loonies (we have to admit that for some reason, Paul really attracts far more than his fair share of rabid fans compared to other candidates). After i saw his interview at Google, and listened to other recent interviews, I realized that Paul's support among the mainstream (e.g. people who do not require medication ) is quite strong. The VAST majority of Paul's supporters are normal, sane people, no matter how the crazed minority might try to make it look otherwise. I guess that's one important message we have to let out.

 

[Ozwest]

Whenever I find myself distressed by Ron Paul zealots into thinking that maybe their candidate is as much of a nutcase as they are (it is quite dismaying how it is FAR TOO EASY for even open-minded people to conclude the former when they encounter some raving lunatic preaching about Ron Paul), I reassure myself by listening to Ron Paul himself speak and of course he comes off as being completely cool and rational.

One way to combat the serious black eye being given to RP by his foaming-in-the-mouth supporters is to show that there are far more normal, calm and rational people who support him than there are loonies (we have to admit that for some reason, Paul really attracts far more than his fair share of rabid fans compared to other candidates).

Reading many of the posts here on ronpaulforums.com, I found myself wondering whether Paul was really as out-of-whack as some of his fans were, and started having doubts. After i saw his interview at Google, and listened to other recent interviews, I realized that Paul's support among the mainstream (e.g. people who do not require medication ) is quite strong. The VAST majority of Paul's supporters are normal, sane people, no matter how the crazed minority might try to make it look otherwise. I guess that's the message we have to concentrate on.

Go to the Nannity (Hannity) forum, and that will definitely focus your concentration!