« Crashing The Gate To The Democratic Congress | Main | Congress Is Afraid Of Big, Bad Blogs -- Or Not »

Will RedState's Ron Paul Hysteria Spread?

We already know that the directors of RedState hate Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul with a passion deep enough to ban his supporters from the blog. But after Paul's supporters yesterday raised more than $4.2 million online, setting a single-day record, the question is how quickly the GOP fear-mongering about Paul will spread.

In the short term, Paul is likely to benefit from another burst of positive press and commentary about his remarkable online base and what it all means. Like this bit from the Baltimore Sun's blog The Swamp, for example:

That so many people have invested so much in someone who stands such little apparent chance of winning his party’s presidential nomination, let alone the White House, speaks volumes about alienation in modern American politics.

It is the same alienation that once handed H. Ross Perot close to 20 percent of the presidential vote. It is the same alienation that handed Ralph Nader just enough of the vote to deny Democrat Al Gore an Electoral College victory to accompany his popular-vote majority.

It is people voting for someone other than the establishment, odds be damned.

But the more money Paul raises and the more media coverage he earns, the more likely he is to be subjected to the RedState ridicule treatment.

If you doubt that, recall what happened to Perot in 1992. The entry about him at Wikipedia will help you remember:

Perot's candidacy received increasing media attention when the competitive phase of the primary season ended for the two major parties. ... With several months to go until the Democratic and Republican conventions, Perot filled the vacuum of election news, as his supporters began petition drives to get him on the ballot in all 50 states. ...

Accompanying the surge in support for Perot was increased scrutiny of his background. Reports surfaced of Perot hiring private investigators to obtain personal information about business and political adversaries. His temperament was brought into question by some who claimed that he exhibited irritability and an authoritarian management style. Around the same time, Perot was criticized for a remark made during a speech at the NAACP convention. ...

These developments had an adverse impact on Perot's campaign and his approval rating in opinion polls was no longer rising. On July 16, 1992, Perot reconsidered running for the presidency, even if he was not placed on all 50 state ballots.

Perot eventually decided to run and his impressive finish on Election Day arguably helped elect Democrat Bill Clinton. Paul's candidacy is still far from achieving that kind of status -- $4.2 miilion in a day is nothing compared with the personal fortune that Perot poured into his independent bid. But as more people take Paul's candidacy seriously, even if only as the preferred longshot, anti-establishment candidate, odds are great that he will be cut both ways by the double-edged media sword.

UPDATE: Like me, Micah Sifry at techPresident sees some analogies to Perot in Paul's presidential bid.

Plus here are more blog reactions to the online fundraising boost Paul received Monday:
-- Ron Paul And The Crazy Uncle Theory Of Politics (Open Left)
-- Ron Paul ... Keep[s] Saying Things I Agree With -- Does That Make Me A Bad Person? (Americablog)
-- The Ron Paul Phenomenon (Salon.com)
-- Ron Paulmania (Eschaton)

-- Ron Paul's Very Big Day (Captain's Quarters)
-- Ron Paul: Ralph Nader, Bill Buckley Or Howard Dean? (Outside The Beltway)
-- Paul's Haul (Ankle Biting Pundits)
-- The Significance Of The Ron Paul Fundraising Haul (Real Clear Politics)

-- The Most Impressive Online Campaign This Cycle (Daily Kos)
-- Schooled (MyDD)
-- What Ron Paul's $4.3 Million Means (techRepublican)
-- Learning From The Ron Paul Online Fundraising Frenzy (e.politics)
-- Ron Paul's 'Gimmick' (techPresident)

-- Understanding Paul's Haul (The Fix)
-- Paul's Money-Bomb Throwers (The Trail)
-- Ron-ulans (Swampland)
-- National Public Radio Political Editor Ken Rudin: "[I]f this support from the blogosphere doesn't translate into strong showings in the primaries and caucuses, I'm not sure I know what the point is."

Posted by Danny | 11:14 AM

Comments

Yes, the slander machine is sure to fire up and why wouldn't they? Dr. Paul's message represents something they will stop at all costs; Honest government and the Constitutional rule of law. The stakes are high on both sides, yet it is his side that is of the people and for the people. May he win the day on Nov 7, 2008.

Dan | 11.06.07 11:35 AM

Redstate is a disgusting pack of liar neocons. Ron Paul is not extremist, outlandish, a moonbat or anything else but a highly intelligent man who is the only one who believes in the rule of law in the this pack. This government is extremist. How can you even justify a government that starts wars and interventions perpetually, builds Iraq while New Orleans is in shambles and burns coal for power and keeps increasing foreign oil dependence. This government has failed, and this is a time to vote for Ron Paul to flush this terrorist government down the toilet.

The only extremists here is the maniacs that cling to the government of the military industrial complex.

Depose this terrorist government, RON PAUL, 2008.

Mick Russom | 11.06.07 12:21 PM

The very idea of "electability" is an interesting one, in that, WE THE PEOPLE determine someone's "electability."

It’s not the polls, or MSM or…whatever. It’s US!

The object of an election is to put into practice, at the governmental level, the ideals, that are consistent with the U.S. Constitution, I as a voter/taxpayer/American citizen deem beneficial to me personally and me corporately (being a legal citizen who cares deeply about my country).

It’s really quite simple: if enough of US decide that we want our government operating under such-and-such ideals, and we vote based on that desire (not the “lesser of two evils”), it can and does happen.

History, recent and not-so-recent, is replete with examples of “underdogs” triumphing: “Navy Beats Notre Dame, Ending 44-Year Losing Streak” (Nov. 3, 2007); “Appalachian State 34, No. 5 Michigan 32” in “one of the greatest upsets in college football history….” (Sept. 1, 2007); in early-2003, Joe Lieberman was leading the field for the Democratic Presidential nomination yet failed to win any primary; in early-1991 Bill Clinton was at 2% and went on to win the Presidency; in early-1975 Jimmy Carter was polling at 1% and went on to win the Presidency.

Would to God that we as citizens would approach the election process with the fervor, intensity and no-holds-barred approach that we can see in life’s other activities. I can assure you that, although some members of the Navy and Appalachian State teams had their doubts, they were encouraged to believe in themselves and to make the best possible effort they could, being unwilling to settle for anything less than that best effort.

No, no, NO, folks! Our job as U.S. citizens and patriots is not to "pick a winner," which seems to me to be a view which trivializes our opportunity and responsibility as citizens. We’re to carefully consider all our options and then vote based on what is best for our COUNTRY!

One by one, as each of us decides that our vote IS important and that we are modern stewards of this great country, for which so many have given so much, THEN we begin to realize what we must do.

For me, that means expending whatever resources I can to make right what so many have worked so hard to destroy: my country...the United States of America. This great land deserves nothing less than the best I have to give. Can I truly call myself a "patriot" having done less than I could for this great country? What kind of American am I to see an opportunity to install into the White House a man with demonstrable and impeccable credentials and then do little to nothing to forward that effort?

No! I will have no part whatsoever in sitting idly by as others who, in the name of God or Money or “Compassionate Conservatism” or “Honor” or whatever do their utmost to denigrate and dissolve this great country…MY country! RON PAUL for President! Viva la Revolución!

P.S. If someone doesn’t like the way the U.S. was designed to operate and opposes a return to that way of thinking and governance, I politely suggest they find another country that DOES provide all the services and care they desire from their government. (“Paging a Mr. Robert Altman and Mr. Alec Baldwin…Final boarding call for any and all flights departing America….”) But that is NOT the way the U.S. was designed and I, and millions of others, intend on returning the U.S. to it’s roots…it’s Constitutional roots.

Fortnighte | 11.06.07 12:33 PM

It's pretty stupid to compare Ron Paul to Perot. Perot was self financed and Paul is financed by individuals. You might want to compare Romney to Perot. Man, although I respect these writers opionons, I just don't know why they can't think a little more before they write. Did perot have 60,000 meet-up members? Was perot the number one googled candidate? Did Perot have videos on youtube? Did Perot leverage the internet vs the soon-non-existent mainstream media?

The list goes on and on! You can doubt Ron Paul all you want! Every day his support grows! And the money we just raised will allow him to target the offline Americans. All Ron Paul needs is name recognition, and name recognition can be bought!

Robert Johnson | 11.06.07 12:51 PM

"$4.2 miilion in a day is nothing compared with the personal fortune that Perot poured into his independent bid"

On the contrary, Paul's $4.2 million is huge by comparison. Perot and Nader were both fighting a huge uphill battle because they weren't running in either of the two major parties. Our system is setup so that no third party can succeed. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is doing exactly what he needs to do to win.

Scott | 11.06.07 01:02 PM

Ross Perot might very well have won the presidency had he chosen a VP that was not blatantly verging on senility, and had not announced he was pulling out of the race, only to jump back in a few months later. He apparently didn't really want the presidency.

Please remember how beatable Clinton (Bill) and Bush (George Herbert Walker) were at the time. Clinton came off as a cheating, lying redneck, and GHW Bush had made the most famous broken promise in modern politics - "read my lips..."

These Bush clones in the Republican party and left wing loonies in the Democratic party would be no match for a candidate like Ron Paul if he were just given equal respect and airtime as the annointed frontrunners.

anne | 11.06.07 01:16 PM

". . . odds are great that he will be cut both ways by the double-edged media sword."

But only because, I believe, big media is becoming irrelevant; in their death throes they may lash out: who's listening?

Klutometis | 11.06.07 01:33 PM

Ron paul can no longer be called a "long shot" candidate. He has clearly surpassed John McCain and is now a "top tier" candidate.

Ron Paul dominates in Straw Polls, Debate Polls, Fundraising, Web Traffic and Grass Roots Networking. I have created a website to support this statement.

Please visit www.thecaseforronpaul.com and judge for yourself.

Cleaner44 | 11.06.07 04:43 PM

Ugh. Nader *did not* cost Gore the election. There were more Republican votes for Gore than there were Democrat votes for Nader. When will this dead horse be put to rest?

phoobaar | 11.07.07 02:30 PM

Its not hysteria, its FREEEEEDOM! Yellow Journalism is dying!

We are going to be free! Ron Paul is likely going to sweep the 2008 elections! Id say the probability he is the next POTUS is 90-95% now.

People are screaming FREEEDOM! like William Wallace right now. They are going to have to kill Ron Paul like they did JFK or RK to stop him now, and I fully expect the MSM, military industrial complex and the CFR types to go after his life because the smear tactics are backfiring!

VOTE RON PAUL FOR FREEDOM, its your **LAST CHANCE** We will never see a man as good, honest and consistent as Ron again.

Mick Russom | 11.08.07 02:12 PM

Post a Comment