techPresident - It's the Internet, Stupid - Comments

FOR or AGAINST? It's all in how you phrase it.

littlebier8 — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:18:28 -0500

Ron Paul isn't anti-everything, just anti-control. So, basically, all of the NEGATIVES (anti-Fed, anti-war, etc.) that people love to mention can be converted into POSITIVES. He's FOR individual freedom; he's FOR civil liberties; he's FOR humantitarian treatment of all people; he's FOR sound money; he's FOR a balanced budget; he's FOR leaving other countries alone if they leave us alone; and so on. It is only because people have come to expect government to DO things for them that they focus on the fact that Paul does NOT want government to be DOING anything other than protecting your rights to life, liberty, and property.
It's all in how you phrase it. Do you want him to be AGAINST something (that is, stopping the gov't from doing something), or do you want him to be FOR something (that is, letting you help yourself and others)? No one has a higher opinion of the writing talents of Mr. Levy, but sometimes I think our inbred biases about the role of government lead us to frame our words in a way that reflects them, myself included.

Article is way off target

Freedomfighter — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:58:36 -0500

This article is so far off base I have no idea where to begin.

First, Ron Paul carries the Libertarian vote and has previously run as a Libertarian.

Secondly, the Republicans and Democrats have a lousy record on civil liberties. He appeals to conservatives and liberals who are concerned about basic rights. Most in the media tend to think Democrats are pro-civil liberties but as the Waco disaster proved, they are not.

Third, anger at the Republican establishment. Taxpayers, who may not mention it specifically, think the Republicans through principle away, and Rudy who has done drag does not help matters. One fine example of how the Republican establishment operates is mentioned in the book Primary Mistake by Steve Laffey who was a Republican candidate for Senate.

Fourth, neo-isolationists. It is not just Iraq, it is the United Nations and every military engagement the US ever had. There is good reason to have critical instead of triumphant view of US history but Ron Paul supporters would have the United States destroyed by xenophobes opposed to any military engagement whatsoever. They can quote Thomas Jefferson all they like but Jefferson created the US Navy to fight Barbarian pirates and Saddam was just another form of such pirates.

Fifth, gold, gold gold. I understand and even favor a gold standard but let’s be honest here. The panic about the Euro, about oil prices and the US/Canadian exchange rate are feeding this panic for gold. Ron Paul is known to support the gold standard and hence benefits from the illusion of economic “crisis”.

It's the Internet, Stupid

Joshua Levy — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 11:52:40 -0500

Katherine Seelye of the New York Times has a good article today dissecting the Ron Paul fundraising phenomenon. The question at the center of the piece: can Paul effectively translate his online support into offline votes?