bobbyw24
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 14,097
Ron Paul, His Campaign, His Appeal, and His People http://www.nolanchart.com/article3414.html
Ron Paul has distinguished himself from other Presidential candidates in many ways this year . Like it or not, the verdict still isn't in on what effect his campaign will have going forward.by Chris Johns
(Libertarian)
Paul appeals to people in ways that no other politician does; he's honest, consistent, and fiscally responsible. He is also unique in that he has very compassionate stances on controversial issues like medical marijuana, the War in Iraq, and abortion. These are qualities the remaining candidates don't have... at least not all at once.
A young Tennessee man once told me, "Some argue that Paul's campaign was a wasted effort. I don't think it was wasted. If you set the wayback machine to 12 months ago, you'll find me sitting here not giving a shit. Now, I'm acquainted with the issues, and I have a position. Because of his quirky 5-10%-of-the-vote getting campaign, I am now interested. There are many more just like me, and personally, I've learned a lot."
Apparently, even though Paul supporters can't fathom why everybody doesn't agree with them, things are clearer to them. The agenda being sold by Fox News is now evident to more people. Before Paul's campaign, to some Fox was just another news channel. While the bias on shows like "Hannity and Combs" is always evident, many were willing to dismiss it thinking that there would be a left-leaning show on at some other time slot. More people now recognize that everything that Fox does pushes the neoconservative agenda, no matter what it is.
Paul's campaign could've been better, but it could've been worse. Ever heard of Thompson? Giulluiani? Romney? Remember, he beat every candidate at least once... including McCain. He lasted longer than other candidates, and let's not forget, as of this writing, he is still in the race. Who knows? If anything is certain, it is that things will change. We have a few more months of fun left, and I'm keenly interested in what his supporters' planned march on DC turns out like.
Paul supporters like to complain about the mass media's negative impact on his campaign. One of the harshest blows the media dealt was to ban him from the debate before the early primaries. There were folks in New Hampshire and across the nation that made their decision based on that debate. Folks who vote along the red team vs. blue team divide learned that night that Paul was not an insider... that True Republicans did not like him. After that, it was easy to marginalize him. Would his appearance in that debate have created a different outcome? Yes, but would it have been significant enough to matter? We don't know, but at this point we can say, "Probably not" and feel justified in saying so. For my part, I have to wonder.
He said things, and people listened... right or wrong, his statements have substance that other candidates talk circles around. He stirred the debate. It roused an American spirit in folks that they didn't know they had, and it just felt right. The military donations were pretty significant. Military people take oaths to support and defend the constitution. Their donations sent a message. It was perhaps the only message they could send without breaking rank. I don't think a lot folks were listening, but let it not be said that they didn't try.
The most interesting thing about his campaign is that despite its limitations, an impressive amount of spontaneous grassroots support developed. The money bombs, the videos, the meet up groups, the newbie politicians spouting his platform... I didn't see that type of support for the other candidates, except maybe Obama, but his supporters are more like groupies than they are supporters of his platform. The Obama supporter that can tell you what he stands for without using the word, "change" is a rare bird. Paul on the other hand has a real grass roots support for his legislation in Congress. I wonder if ANY member of Congress has such widespread support for their platform. Again, I can say "probably not" and get the sense that I'm right.
As far as Dr. Paul goes, he's just a guy, you know? He has done his best, and considering what he was up against, he has done well. We can go back and pick it apart and say this or that could have been done better, but it's all hindsight. Now that it's seemingly hopeless... how does he respond? He's not giving up. There's something to be said about people that don't give up. Those kinds of folks have a habit of succeeding every now and then.
Ron Paul has distinguished himself from other Presidential candidates in many ways this year . Like it or not, the verdict still isn't in on what effect his campaign will have going forward.by Chris Johns
(Libertarian)
Paul appeals to people in ways that no other politician does; he's honest, consistent, and fiscally responsible. He is also unique in that he has very compassionate stances on controversial issues like medical marijuana, the War in Iraq, and abortion. These are qualities the remaining candidates don't have... at least not all at once.
A young Tennessee man once told me, "Some argue that Paul's campaign was a wasted effort. I don't think it was wasted. If you set the wayback machine to 12 months ago, you'll find me sitting here not giving a shit. Now, I'm acquainted with the issues, and I have a position. Because of his quirky 5-10%-of-the-vote getting campaign, I am now interested. There are many more just like me, and personally, I've learned a lot."
Apparently, even though Paul supporters can't fathom why everybody doesn't agree with them, things are clearer to them. The agenda being sold by Fox News is now evident to more people. Before Paul's campaign, to some Fox was just another news channel. While the bias on shows like "Hannity and Combs" is always evident, many were willing to dismiss it thinking that there would be a left-leaning show on at some other time slot. More people now recognize that everything that Fox does pushes the neoconservative agenda, no matter what it is.
Paul's campaign could've been better, but it could've been worse. Ever heard of Thompson? Giulluiani? Romney? Remember, he beat every candidate at least once... including McCain. He lasted longer than other candidates, and let's not forget, as of this writing, he is still in the race. Who knows? If anything is certain, it is that things will change. We have a few more months of fun left, and I'm keenly interested in what his supporters' planned march on DC turns out like.
Paul supporters like to complain about the mass media's negative impact on his campaign. One of the harshest blows the media dealt was to ban him from the debate before the early primaries. There were folks in New Hampshire and across the nation that made their decision based on that debate. Folks who vote along the red team vs. blue team divide learned that night that Paul was not an insider... that True Republicans did not like him. After that, it was easy to marginalize him. Would his appearance in that debate have created a different outcome? Yes, but would it have been significant enough to matter? We don't know, but at this point we can say, "Probably not" and feel justified in saying so. For my part, I have to wonder.
He said things, and people listened... right or wrong, his statements have substance that other candidates talk circles around. He stirred the debate. It roused an American spirit in folks that they didn't know they had, and it just felt right. The military donations were pretty significant. Military people take oaths to support and defend the constitution. Their donations sent a message. It was perhaps the only message they could send without breaking rank. I don't think a lot folks were listening, but let it not be said that they didn't try.
The most interesting thing about his campaign is that despite its limitations, an impressive amount of spontaneous grassroots support developed. The money bombs, the videos, the meet up groups, the newbie politicians spouting his platform... I didn't see that type of support for the other candidates, except maybe Obama, but his supporters are more like groupies than they are supporters of his platform. The Obama supporter that can tell you what he stands for without using the word, "change" is a rare bird. Paul on the other hand has a real grass roots support for his legislation in Congress. I wonder if ANY member of Congress has such widespread support for their platform. Again, I can say "probably not" and get the sense that I'm right.
As far as Dr. Paul goes, he's just a guy, you know? He has done his best, and considering what he was up against, he has done well. We can go back and pick it apart and say this or that could have been done better, but it's all hindsight. Now that it's seemingly hopeless... how does he respond? He's not giving up. There's something to be said about people that don't give up. Those kinds of folks have a habit of succeeding every now and then.
