« Blog Bits | Main | Chris Dodd: The Next Howard Dean? »

RedState Bans Ron Paul's 'Annoying' Fans

You might think that people who have been around the blogosphere as long as the innovators at RedState would have more sense than to ban from their blog an entire group of people based on their support of one candidate -- a Republican presidential candidate no less. But you would be wrong.

We had a summary of the story from The Politico this morning in Technology Daily:

A prominent conservative blog has placed a ban on all commentary related to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul from readers who are recent arrivals to the site. Administrators at RedState made the move because Paul's online supporters had become "annoying, time-consuming and bandwidth-wasting."

People adding to the debate are welcome, RedState Managing Editor Erick Erickson said. "But they're just coming to promote [Paul]." He said he already has received hundreds of complaints about the ban, but many of his readers are happy with it.

Who cares if a bunch of RedState's readers are happy with the move. That just goes to show that too many folks who walk in the echo chambers of the blogosphere don't know a bad decision when they see one.

John Hawkins of Right Wing News said he understands RedState's frustration with Paul's fanatical online supporters but questioned the ban. Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters, another conservative blogger, was more blunt.

Morrissey ironically noted that Leon Wolf, the RedState director who announced the ban against Paul's unpaid "shills," once worked as a paid employee of former GOP presidential candidate Sam Brownback. Morrissey then wrote:

[T]his doesn't hurt Paul's credibility as much as it does RedState's. While Paul's supporters tend toward the annoying and repetitive, they have less impact because we can easily engage them and counter their arguments. Banning them simply for their support for a candidate seems more like an admission that RedState lacks that ability.

Amen to that. If RedState's new policy is that it will ban diarists and commenters just for being "annoying, time-consuming and bandwidth-wasting," the directors might as well shut the blog down now. If you build a blog community around the idea of diaries and comments, then you shouldn't start blocking people because you don't like their personalities.

RedState predictably is sticking by its decision despite criticism from Morrissey. "The [Paul supporters] that have lasted six months already got grandfathered in, and the ones who can maintain will be added on an ad-hoc basis; the rest can write all the bitter screeds that they like -- somewhere else," RedState blogger Moe Lane wrote. "And we'll take our chances on whether this alienates enough people to matter."

Posted by Danny | 03:40 PM

Comments

RedState has a right to exclude anyone the want, for any reason.

However, as a public venue, they do have a responsibility to be honest with their visitors. At minimum, they are obliged to modify their FAQ and 'About Us' to change their description: they are no longer a "Republican" site, they are a pro-war, anti-Paul site.

Westmiller | 10.24.07 04:16 PM

RedState is officially now a communist blog. This just goes to show you that mainstream republicans do not want the public getting enthusiastic about the political process.

Charles Helbling | 10.24.07 04:29 PM

This was a bad move by redstate. A political blog banning comments by other bloggers this is funny to me. after this article in the washington post i can understand why.

The Washington D.C.-based group compiles campaign donations to campaigns from political action committees as well as employees and executives of those companies and firms. The results display plenty of similarities on the finance front between the top Republican and Democratic contenders.

Financial giants Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase & Co. are all among the top sources of campaign funds for Clinton, McCain, Obama, Giuliani and Romney.

Merrill Lynch and Credit Suisse Group are also top contributors to McCain, Clinton, Giuliani and Romney, according to CFRP.

Corporate and other law firms (and their attorneys) are also top presidential givers to McCain and Clinton campaigns.

Blank & Rome LLP -- which is powerful in Washington -- is McCain's top donation source. The firm also shows up as one Clinton's leading donors.

These are the same people that run the federal reserve system so it is easy to see why they do not support Ron Paul considering he wants to shut down the federal reserve system.

I have to say knowing these people are funding these candidates Ron Paul is starting to look more appealing to me.

Steve Ocala FL | 10.24.07 04:43 PM

Unfortunately, RedState is a microcosm of the rest of GOP. If you're not for the Iraq war (and the upcoming Iran war), then you're a liberal traitor and need to be marginalized.

Mike Parker | 10.24.07 04:56 PM

I've been hearing all of this talk about Paul supporters being "Left-wingers disguised as Republicans". I do not get it. I support Dr. Paul and have voted Republican ever since I could vote. I'm 34 and have never seen a candidate who speaks the language of truth and equality like Paul. It seems that each and everytime a Republican is being beaten in a debate, they just go into playground, "my dad can beat up your dad" mentality and just start a litany of personal insults. Never any serious banter just name calling. Well, after a while. we "Paulites" get frustrated and become overzealous. No, overzealous is too strong of a word, overzealous would be to ban all discussion of Ron Paul. But wait! It's only banned by new responder's, the one's originally posting the stuff today, were free and clear to disparage at will with no retort whatsoever. Fact is, Red State people knew every argument they have against Paul is flawed and so, instead of debating civilly they just choose to exclude. Which this is an overt admission to what the main stream media had tried to do covertly with the good doctor. I would never call this news worthy, but in the context comes the old adage, "there's no such thing as bad press". Hey Redstate, this ain'ta gonna help your ratings. You's about to fade away into obscurity agin. The only reason this made the news is because it's Ron Paul.

Duane | 10.24.07 05:43 PM

Yawn. It's just the 6 kindergarteners at redstate. It's not like they are significant, or intelligent, or open-minded, or anything like that. No big loss for us Paul-unteers, but a big loss for them: most of their traffic.

Tannim | 10.24.07 05:45 PM

Agreed Steve. Great post.

Red State is a haven for hate mongers, pro-war, racist individuals. I don't doubt that the people over there are intelligent and know their history. But to hear the rants coming from some of their members, it sends chills down your spine.

There is a cultural revolution happening in America, possibly even the world. It is a revolution that crosses all societal, ethnic, political, economic, gender or age barriers. It is a new conscience of empathy, understanding, and truth. Ron Paul is leading this revolution. Please wake up. Please vote.

ericthefool | 10.24.07 06:08 PM

Republican Veteran From Kansas, You all at RedState should just shut down this site Since most of the supporters will leave the Republican party! When we a finished chasing everyone out! Turn the lights out when you leave!

Stan | 10.24.07 06:16 PM

RedState should be kissing Dr. Ron Paul's butt, most people would have never heard of RedState if it wasn't for Ron Paul's candidacy. Unfortunately for them, banning a Republican candidate only reflects on their narrow views and shows them as the true "isolationists".

Also, RedState isn't banning discussions on Ron Paul, only positive discussions on Ron Paul. The nitwit bloggers on the site are free to bash Ron Paul all day because retort is what is being banned. My opinion.. RedState bloggers are a bunch of narrow minded irrelevant morons representing the 20% of a failed GOP party.

Bob | 10.24.07 06:22 PM

You should have noted that not all Paul comments are banned, only the pro-Paul comments.

That's the American way isn't it?

Thurston | 10.24.07 07:08 PM

What disturbs me is that RedState's decision is being widely reported as "News" RedState is a private right-wing political blog, they can censor whomever they wish. This should not be considered NEWSWORTHY. This is like reporting on Great Aunt Ethel not allowing any of those 'queers' in her Bridge Club---it is incredibly politically incorrect and intolerant, but the Club meets at her house--it is private and IT IS NOT NEWS. I agree they should also not misrepresent themselves as a Republican forum when they are a Pro-War forum.

E Philipp | 10.24.07 07:14 PM

RedState just failed the litmus test of tolerance.

TheOneLaw | 10.24.07 07:30 PM

It seems to be a sign of Paul's success. If he has so many supporters that it's annoying, he must be doing something right.

Devon | 10.24.07 08:17 PM

I see RedState's actions as indicative of an underlying and very disturbing authoritarian, stick with the party line attitude in the modern neocon movement, which has taken over the GOP. It's kind of scary.

A lot of Ron Paul's supporters are young and grew up on the internet. Unfortunately, one effect of this is that they learned how to interact with other human beings largely anonymously and without the civility that one might prefer.

I am a Ron Paul supporter. I had to laugh at the comments by the neocons that they can easily counter the libertarian positions of Ron Paul. Reality is all the counterpoint we Ron Paul supporters need. Look at the deaths, the national debt, the economy, the weakness of the dollar, the loss of liberty here at home... Seriously...

The funniest thing may be that they see such a doom and gloom difference between Clinton and their neocon GOP candidates. There isn't that much difference. They are all big government, pro-war candidates. Ron Paul offers the only genuine change of direction. So ban him!!!

Hey, RedState, why don't you burn his books, too?

Scott Frost | 10.24.07 08:27 PM

I think this just about says it all:

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?site0=ronpaul2008.com&site1=redstate.com&site2=joinrudy2008.com&y=r&z=1&h=400&w=700&range=3m&size=Large&url=ronpaul2008.com

John Campbell | 10.24.07 08:36 PM

You are partly right that the anti-Paul ban is an admission of sorts that Red State cannot counter the arguments of Paul supporters, but it is more than that. I believe the real reason is that there is a growing concern that the support for Paul may be surging and is not fully captured by traditional polling.

Philip Blumel | 10.24.07 09:05 PM

The financial backing for all candidates can be seen at opensecrets.org. Interestingly, Ron Paul's top supporters are employees of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force.

Support the troops!

Jeff | 10.24.07 09:13 PM

Who cares if a bunch of RedState's readers are happy with the move.

Who cares if a bunch of non-Red State readers are unhappy with the move?

Fixed.

Since when does any free website owner owe anyone the privilege of posting?

What about the lefty blogs, like the DU, Kos, Crooks and Liars, (etc.) who delete and ban all dissenters? The DU and Kos are quite explicit in the rules for who they allow on site--go look at their "terms." And C&L...well, just look at any thread that's been linked from a big right-wing site. There are as many deleted comments as intact ones.

I rarely ever read Red State, but really, at least they're honest about what they're doing. They could have just quietly banned the spammers as they appeared, and there would be no uproar. That is what most people do, after all.

I can almost guarantee you, Danny, that if you had the same situation on your hands, you'd do the same. Would you want this place to turn into yet another Ron Paul blog? It's RS' prerogative to determine the focus of their site. There's a definite prevailing political view there, as with any blog, and they want to keep it that way.

I think people are just jumping on the clucking bandwagon because that's what bloggers do best (read: worst)--griping about other bloggers. Not impressed.

Beth | 10.24.07 09:57 PM

Red State comes up in Google News searches, and that is obviously misleading. This move has destroyed any credibility they might have had as a "grassroots movement" either.

Ginger Partington | 10.24.07 10:29 PM

Ron Paul is in third place among Republicans...

http://www.truthalert.net/Republican%20Presidential%20Candidate%20Rankings.htm

Mike | 10.25.07 03:08 AM

This is all about censorship. After all, censorship is becoming America's favorite past-time. The US gov't (and their corporate friends), already detain protesters, ban books like "America Deceived" from Amazon and Wikipedia, shut down Ron Paul and fire 21-year tenured, BYU physics professor Steven Jones because he proved explosives, thermite in particular, took down the WTC buildings. Free Speech forever.
Last link (before Google Books caves to pressure and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)

Kent G | 10.25.07 08:17 AM

I am sending a letter out to all of the companies that advertise on RedState. Included will be the letter regarding the ban and a posting the following day "How to Spot a Ron Paul Supporter..." The posting contains liable and should not be tolerated. I urge all of you to do the same, American Express, Delta, T-mobile and laptopsforless.com.

Joy | 10.25.07 08:20 AM

A couple of responses to commenters here:

Beth: RedState doesn't owe anyone the "privilege" of posting, and it certainly doesn't have to tolerate trolls on the site. RedState can adopt whatever policies about comments, diaries, etc., that it so chooses. Free country, free speech.

But that's not the issue here. My complaint is that RedState is built on the notion of creating a community of Republican activists. It is counter to the site's mission to then ban activists who support a Republican presidential candidate that RedState's directors just don't happen to like. We're not talking about a broad change in commenting policy here; at issue is a petty, stereotyping move by RedState to ban anyone who says anything nice about Ron Paul.

The move assumes that any new reader to RedState who supports Paul is a troll and a troublemaker. That is not only disrespectful and unfair to Ron Paul supporters, but it's also bad business.

Would I do the same if I were in RedState's shoes. No ... but I don't have to. I didn't build a GOP community site, and I moderate all comments. If RedState wants to do something like that because Paul's supporters are out of control, go for it. Instead, it is profiling users and stifling speech based on their support of one candidate.

RedState complains a lot about RINOs (Republicans in name only), but I don't recall them banning people from the site for supporting such candidates in the past. Why Ron Paul? The site's directors have the right to make the decision -- but they should expect to be called on the fact that their decision is inconsistent with the history and philosophy of RedState. The same would be true of any other community-oriented blog that engaged in such behavior.

E Phillip: Of course RedState's move is newsworthy at a site like Beltway Blogroll. My mission is to cover the blogosphere. Should this be a front-page story on The New York Times? No. But the last I checked, it wasn't. Just because you think something is "private" -- it's not, BTW, seeing as RedState can be read around the world -- doesn't mean it isn't news.

Danny | 10.25.07 09:28 AM

I've voted a Republican for 24 years am I a RINO?
I guess so. I'm a "paulite" and one of the banned from Red State.

Many RP supporters are extremely versed and intelligent. When one cannot argue facts with someone they generally resort to name calling. That is all that happened here.

Ron Paul has won most of the Straw Polls (
his internet site is growing by leaps and bounds, his fund raising is growing exponentially, excitement is building and the neo-cons are on the run.

Straw Poll Results.
What the media has not been reporting.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/

Not to mention explaining away the text message debate victories even though you could only vote one time per phone number.

Now people are really waking up to the dishonest media tricks they have been manipulating the electorate with for decades.

Red State will fade away like the compost it is.
The media is scrambling to save face because of the cencurship.

dale legan | 10.26.07 01:27 AM

I've never belonged to a party, but as a conservative-leaning libertarian, I've always tended to vote for Republicans. Since I was old enough to vote, in fact, my presidential ballots have gone for Bush 41, Dole, and Bush 43. Then 9/11 happened, and almost overnight, the GOP turned into an intolerant, big-government, pro-war party that didn't give a whit about civil liberties. My vote went to Michael Badnarik in 2004. And it'll go to Paul in the primaries this time around.

RedState is showing once again just how inflexible and dogmatic the GOP has become. It's no longer a party of personal responsibility, limited government, fiscal restraint, non-interventionist foreign policy, and individual liberty. It's an intolerant, warmongering monster, and if you disagree with it, you hate America. The Dixie Chicks were told to shut up and sing; now Ron Paul supporters are told to shut up and don't say anything. This move says a lot more about RedState and the GOP than it does about Paul's backers.

Perhaps my favorite irony in all of this is that RedState thinks Paul's base is filled with liberals intent on upsetting the GOP's applecart. Meanwhile, the RedStaters are backing Giuliani, who has the most liberal stance on social issues of any GOP candidate I can recall in my lifetime. Too funny.

In 1980, the Reagan Democrats said they didn't leave the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party left them. In 2007, Ron Paul Repbulicans can say the same thing about the GOP.

Adrian | 10.26.07 09:24 AM

RedState is a prime example of groupthink.

An example of what we've had inside the Beltway in Washington for the last seven years. They are just afraid that some of groupthinkers might actually begin to think for themselves. Let the one-sided Ron Paul Bash Fest begin at RedState, which seems to be what was happening at RedState. They are simply reaping what they sow, and instead of banning the 20 or 30 problem people, banned everyone.

In Pittsburgh Tribune Review article, Tom Delay says this about Ron Paul, "I've known Ron a very, very long time -- I like to think of Ron Paul as 'The Conscience,'" DeLay said. "You've always got to have a conscience."

RedState has no conscience. Elections are a time for the people to debate foreign and domestic policy, a time for the people to decide if a change is necessary. RedState does not want to debate, just silence the opposition in favor of groupthink.

a Rocket Scientist | 10.26.07 10:02 AM

"A prominent conservative blog has placed a ban on all commentary related to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.."

Your first sentence is wrong! They didn't ban all commentary, just positive comments. The negative commentary now flourishes, only they don't have to back up what they say, a major stumbling block pre-ban.

Thurston | 10.27.07 11:39 AM

Post a Comment