You obviously haven't googled him.

-----

One liners aside, the Perot voters are still out there, and if we don't bring some of them into our tent, we're going to have a smaller tent than we need to accomplish what we need to accomplish.

A quick anecdote (which will give away my age): at Christmas 1973, while Watergate was in full flower, I was home from college and had dinner with a friend -- a NY, Bella Abzug-loving liberal. He mused, Gee, if only we could get Sam Ervin to run for president. I wasn't a full-on political sophisticate at the time, but, after almost gagging on my dinner, I enlightened my friend about Ervin's rather unappealing, stone-segregationist past.

What I'm saying is, don't underestimate how much of Paul's appeal is helped by complete ignorance of his assorted positions by young/low-information voters. Ervin was taking down Nixon; Paul is loudly against the war. Some people never get further than that.

You could have fixed my typo...

Likewise, demtom, I was amused by the lefty enthusiasm for John Murtha in the '05 - '07 period.

As Dana says, it's a bit hard to square the immense affection Ron Paul receives from putative civil libertarians with his intensely restrictive attitude towards such issues as whether a woman will be forced to use her body as a vessel for childbearing.

The default libertarian position on abortion has typically been the pro-choice stance, but pro-life libertarianism is nothing new.
It all depends on how one regards the fetus. If it's a being with personhood, then obviously at least some of the time it arguably has a right not to be killed.

I don't know if it "tone" is the right word.

The success of the P.R. propaganda tactics of both Right and Left leave many people sick of the idiocracy of politicians and commentators talking and "thinking" aloud in highly stilted and unrealistic ways.

People, who do not want to spend hours a day with politics and political news, cannot figure out who to trust. The falsity of the claims of politicians is generally apparent on style alone, but truth remains elusive.

I doubt that most people know just how absurdly false the claims of the general run of Republican Presidential candidates are, but they sense it. Paul is very good at responding to that sense with matter of fact acknowledgements of reality, which don't touch on his essential nuttiness on policy.

He doesn't say pious things about bi-partisanship, but I saw someone ask him a question about the Fed, which was clearly aimed at provoking some of the nuttiness, and the response from Paul was praise for House Banking chairman, Barney Frank!

It is hard not to be charmed by that.

As Dana says, it's a bit hard to square the immense affection Ron Paul receives from putative civil libertarians with his intensely restrictive attitude towards such issues as whether a woman will be forced to use her body as a vessel for childbearing.

The default libertarian position on abortion has typically been the pro-choice stance, but pro-life libertarianism is nothing new.

So Ezra is now arguing that Ron Paul is popular NOT because of his Iraq war stance, which he plugs dramatically more loudly than his anti-abortion stance, but because of his general tone?

I'm not buying that one.

Ron Paul's popularity is mostly from anti-war morons who can't bring themselves to vote for a Democrat because, y'know, Dems are pinkos.

A lot of his supporters are just, you know, crazy.

Your last paragraph is exactly right. These are angry, disaffected people rabidly fed up with the system. And they are far angrier than the Perotists of '92 because of the war. I sympathize; I won't vote for any candidate from any party who authorized this war. If you did, you have no right being president.

But I am a lot less sanguine about writing them off as Howard Beale crazies. Specifically, think about a 3rd-party Paul run. (Didn't he run on the Libertarian ticket 20 years ago?) Let's say he gets 5% in that run. Not a big deal, I admit. But when that number starts getting up to 30%, look out. The anger these people feel about the war and the decadence of the elected officials in Washington is the stuff that starts revolutions.

Ezra is now arguing that Ron Paul is popular NOT because of his Iraq war stance, which he plugs dramatically more loudly than his anti-abortion stance, but because of his general tone? I'm not buying that one.

But his anti-war stance is shared by other candidates. There's a reason Ron Paul is more successful than Nader or Kucinich, who have inveighed against the Bush administration's foreign policy just as strongly.

I have no idea what that reason is. I doubt it's his approach to domestic issues; support for his policies doesn't even register. On policy, he has basically no constituency. And he's not particularly charismatic or clever.

If I had to guess, I'd say that Paul just gets more press due to the man-bites-dog nature of his candidacy. It's possible that a strong anti-war candidate with less insane all-around views would be drawing as much or more support than Paul is.

I didn't finish my sentence:

It's possible that a strong anti-war candidate with less insane all-around views would be drawing as much or more support than Paul is, if that candidate got the same amount of press that Paul does.

But that's just a guess. It's something of a mystery. For every opponent of the war who finds Ron Paul so appealing, I want to ask them: what about Kucinich? I understand the realities of why Kucinich doesn't get much support - foremost among them being the fact that he bears a striking resemblance to an Astrosnik.

But is Ron Paul any better in this regard? He too is small, squeaky-voiced, and generally comes off as kind of a weirdo. What gives?

I think you underestimate the extent to which the intense affection for Ron Paul leads libertarian to convince themselves that his views are libertarian, regardless of their actual content. I've had many libertarians, after a dip in the Ron Paul machine, surface to tell me that anti-choice positions are, in fact, the proper libertarian ideal.

And I just want to say libertarian again, because I haven't done that enough yet. Libertarian.

A lot of people find Paul's no-nonsense libertarianism to be attractive. It has a smooth logic to it that appeals to people who are smart but not necessarily well-learned. They know the system is thoroughly broken, but the only models they know for fixing it are those broadcast from Libertaria.

Nick's right; Paul's "popularity" is all about his embrace of the "libertarian" mantle, regardless of the fact that his policy views aren't even particularly economically libertarian, much less at all civilly libertarian. Paulbots are just enamored of the fact that Paul calls himself libertarian and so routinely casts votes against federal spending. The facts that Paul's rhetoric routinely supports big government at the state level; that he thinks that civil liberties are for sissies; that he has utterly bizarre and antilibertarian ideas about the money supply and the Federal Reserve--he seems to think that the way to regulate our money supply and solve our economic problems is to intensely regulate the market for gold, i.e. go back on the gold standard; and that these facts are totally incompatible with Paul's falsely self-professed libertarianism never make their way into a Paulbot's warped and fragile little mind, except occasionally to be rationalized away as somehow compatible

. . . with libertarianism.

Get a better comments interface, Ezra!

gopod!!
电加热器

I don't think Paul wants to "force" woman to have kids.

Rather, he wants to leave it up to the states because in his view of the constitution, the federal government has no power to regulate in that area.

Come on Ezra, if you're going to drop bombs and then act like you didn't at least drop accurate bombs . . .

I think Ron Paul's popularity has two related underpinnings. One, that he has "the virtue of almost always being willing to speak his wind [sic]," and two, that he is against the war that [i]the vast majority of Americans hate[/i].

My take on Paul is that he has a niche appeal-- a niche that exists in every election cycle, just waiting to be taken advantage of by someone.

However, it's a small niche. If a Democrat said the same thing about Huckabee, his or her poll numbers would plumett to, well, Ron Paul-like levels. Obama could switch to a "out of Iraq now/close our international military bases" platform, and he'd lose support for not being "serious" about foreign policy.

Capturing Ron Paul's supporters is a negative-sum game-- the support you gain by appealing to them becomes more than off-set by the support you lose.

I don't think Paul wants to "force" woman to have kids.

Rather, he wants to leave it up to the states because in his view of the constitution, the federal government has no power to regulate in that area.

Nice try. Lie better next time.

I would be willing to bet large amounts of money that if you polled RoPaul supporters, you would find that a wildly disproportionate number of them believe in

- the "North American Union" (google it if you don't know what I'm talking about - it's hilarious)

- alien abductions

- the New World Order (not the band - that's New Order)

- the moon landing was a hoax

and assorted other nutball theories.

There is always a group of (lazy, low-information) dissatisfied voters who find candidates like Ron Paul appealing. The candidate may not have an otherwise consistent policy platform, but as long as they are perceived to be criticizing their own side, the lazy voter assumes honesty. Barry Goldwater, Sam Ervin, Ralph Nader, Zell Miller, and Joe Lieberman all appeal to a certain, small segment of the opposite party.

A lot of Ron Paul supporters I have come into contact with were long time supporters of his willingness to ask tough questions of our very dishonest Fed. Note: you don't have to be a goldbug to hate the Fed after the bubble blowing bonanza of the last decade. A lot of the support seems less ideological than turning to the only consistent critic of the Fed in either party

I never see this component of his assorted disgruntled followers get any mention. they are fairly smart, very angry, have a well above average understanding of economics and finance, and if you haven't noticed, also have a good amount of disposable income that can be donated to their "issue" guy via the internet.

Not that they are by any means a majority of supporters, but they are sizable enough to mention in the rogues gallery I think.

I never see this component of his assorted disgruntled followers get any mention. they are fairly smart, very angry, have a well above average understanding of economics and finance

You have got to be kidding. They think they have an above average understanding of economics and finance, in much the same way a young earth creationist thinks he has an above average understanding of the origins of the universe.

Paul is the crank of all cranks on economic matters, and his followers have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of economics; it's pretty much their defining characteristic. Their desperate, pathetic desire to believe that they understand economics no more makes them understanding than does the desire of Uri Geller to bend spoons with his mind make that happen.

Greg, if they had an above-average understanding of economics and finance, they wouldn't be supporting a man who wants to abolish the Fed (!) and return the US to the gold standard (!!!11!!)

Yup. Supporting a guy who wants to go back on the gold standard means they don't even understand what money is in a modern economy, much less have an above average understanding of economics.

The problem of Kucinich is that he lacks charisma, he doesn´t seems interested on running.

In fact, the problem for many antiwar libertarians is that Democrats aren´t antiwar. Of the main candidates only Obama, that didn´t had a major position at that time opposed Iraq War - and he has hawkish positions regarding Iran.

And, bizarre enough, THE WHOLE Democratic Party began to criticize Bill Richardson because he said he would withdraw troops from Iraq.

Another point is that there are lots of people out there that thinks that should be limits to spending - or that it should be rationalized. And there is no option to them on both sides.

And, at last, if the Democrats wants to win elections, they should forget abortion. Anyone is asking to lose votes when one puts abortion on the center of the public debate, because no one agrees with the positions of pro-lifers and pro-choice people.

If the democrats wants the votes of these "infantile" Ron Paul voters, they should find better candidates than flip-flopping and pro-corporate and pro-big government liberals.

From article:
"It's a movement united behind Howard Beale"
Hardly. More like Willis Carto, Francis Parker Yockey and the John Birch Society. He has a deep history with the American far right. I wish folks with the time and treasure would look into this. He's bad news.

As Dana says, it's a bit hard to square the immense affection Ron Paul receives from putative civil libertarians with his intensely restrictive attitude towards such issues as whether a woman will be forced to use her body as a vessel for childbearing.

This is both boring and stupid. No one wants to force women to have children, but some of us don't see any value in letting people completely ignore the consequences of their actions. "Reproductive rights" means being able to say no. Grow up, Ezra.

I'm curious to see what will happen to his most passionate supporters if and when he walks away from the Republican primaries after February 5th, as he seems to imply he will.

Perhaps they will hold their powder for a Paul third-party campaign in November. But I think there may be some very disappointed folks when that $18 million keeps translating into 3% votes in primaries. It will be interesting to see what happens after that.

Maybe I'm wrong, but he strikes me as someone who -- after decades of toiling in political obscurity -- never expected to light the political brushfire he has lit. I wonder if he even knows what he wants to do with it.

I think we've drifted a bit here from the question of "Why is Ron Paul popular" to a discussion of "Why Ron Paul shouldn't be popular." And I think it's not really fair to try and paint a picture of Mr. Paul's supporter's as a monolithic group (including my own foolish submission that they're all just anti-war); if anything the most fascinating aspect of his campaign is how varied his sources of support really are. The one general statement I can agree with that's been made is that most of his neophyte supporters seem much more enamored of their idea of who Ron Paul is than they are of the man himself.

@bcamarda: I get the impression that his opinion of his fans is somewhat the same as Maynard Keenan's opinion of Tool fans.

Also, I have a new favorite image of Ron Paul:

http://www.leahtiscione.com/ronpaul.html

It's a beatific vision of the man in surgical garb carrying a newborn swathed in the American flag, subtitled "Hope for America." In another life I think he could've succeeded as a cult leader.

I think we've drifted a bit here from the question of "Why is Ron Paul popular" to a discussion of "Why Ron Paul shouldn't be popular." . . . The one general statement I can agree with that's been made is that most of his neophyte supporters seem much more enamored of their idea of who Ron Paul is than they are of the man himself.

I don't think that's it at all. The Paul followers strike me very much as people of slightly above average intelligence; good but not great jobs generally providing a little but not a lot of disposable income; no math, logic, analytic, or econ skills whatsoever; with massive senses of entitlement; and, particularly, who want to believe that they're economic geniuses who, if simply freed from the shackles of government, would quickly become phenomenally rich and wouldn't have to work at their dreary, good jobs any longer.

Paulbots are marks, willing and eager to buy into a get-rich-quick scheme, and Paul's a con man telling them what they want to hear. He might or might not be a con man who believes his own shtick to be true--my guess is he does believe, but so too do many if not most psychics, chiropractors, Amway salesmen, etc.--but that doesn't really matter for a determination of who the Paulbots are. They're victims of a con, and if they weren't so obnoxious about it we should pity them, sorta like scientologists.

Re: Abortion and Ron Paul

The fundamental question is: does abortion end a human life? It surely ends the life of the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby. Is the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby human? Yes, what else would it be?

Given that abortion ends a human life, it is very much in accord with libertarian principles to staunchly defend the rights and liberties of human beings to live their lives free from unwelcome interference. The zygote/embryo/fetus/baby does not consent to die, and in some cases, does what little it can to resist being murdered in the womb. Libertarians believe in freedom and liberty for all, and the preborn deserve freedom and liberty too.

Ron Paul, as an OB/GYN who's delivered over 4,000 babies, doubtless understands that abortion is murder. As far as I know, we don't have any federal law against murder -- we've left that decision up to the states. The states are unanimous in making most murder illegal (exceptions being abortion and in some states euthanasia).

The crux of the matter is that many Americans are scientifically uninformed with regard to the fact that abortion kills another human being. Many still hold outdated beliefs that the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby is non-human or "just a clump of cells." A few acknowledge its humanity but license its killing nonetheless, claiming that the mother (or doctor) has the right to murder her children if she judges it in her interest.

Abortion won't end until more Americans realize and condemn it for what it is: a grisly murder of an innocent. Restoring it to state control would make it akin to murder, which already has laws against it in all fifty states. Advocating for a federal ban, however, is not out of place, since there is a strong libertarian interest in defending the rights, liberty and freedom of those who cannot defend themselves.

Since 1973, over 40 million members of my generation have been murdered. This is one of the largest genocides in history, and is predominantly concentrated against the poor and racial minorities, particularly African-Americans. Ron Paul would work to end it, and that's one of many reasons he'll have my vote.

I completely agree that no woman should be forced into pregnancy. Rape is a horrible crime that our society unfortunately still often turns a blind eye to, though we have made huge strides from where we were 100 years ago. There is much more we still need to do in affording respect and rights, including in the perception of women in the media and culture. However, once pregnancy has occurred, the question is no longer solely the woman's, because another human being is in the picture: the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby. Libertarian principles demand that person's liberty and freedom is respected as well.

Ultimately the question is one for the moral consciousness of the American people and the process of democracy to determine, much as most other moral questions are for the people to determine. Unelected federal judges were never intended to legislate. Abortion will continue as an issue until Americans realize intellectually and emotionally what exactly is involved and vote with both their hearts and minds. Ron Paul understands this and is working to bring liberty and freedom to all Americans, both born and preborn.

I find it bizarre that Paul's economic views are often labeled "crazy" and "nuts" as if they had been cooked up in some dank, dark basement.
In fact his views are based on a fairly respectable economic school of thought, namely Austrian Economics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School

Now, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek are not everyone's cup of tea but they are hardly cranks or extremists. Sometimes it seems that Paul's critics have never even heard of Austrian Economics.

Keep it up with the ad hominems and blanket smears. Just betrays how clueless and baffled you actually are. We're laughing it up. why don't you look at his actual donor statistics? Lots of silicon valley, tech and military money. Oh, those Kooks! You know, there is a large contingent of folks out there--smart people--who reject socialism and statism in all its forms, left and right. hiya.

Of course Milton Friedman advocated abolishing the Fed for a long time and Jack Kemp was as much a Gold Bug as Dr. Paul but I guess today's critics don't really know their history.

From Friedman's obit on the Wall Street Journal:
"One of the paradoxes of Mr. Friedman's immense influence on policy was his low regard for policy making. He often advocated abolition of the Fed for its failures during the Great Depression and the 1970s, though he later relented and admitted Mr. Greenspan had done a remarkable job from 1987-2006."
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116369744597625238-foIWt7vDyt4ralPtdifXt5Ux3Lo_20061216.html

"whether a woman will be forced to use her body as a vessel for childbearing."

That my friend is the kind of isolationism that led to world war II.

The major and obvious fatal flaw in your argument is the fact that it is only Ron Paul's proven record of sticking to what he believes in that makes him the popular anti establishment choice.

Hillary can say she isn't part of the establishment and so can Edwards and Obama. Ron Paul takes positions when they are not popular and that shows that he is honest. His record also shows that he is honest. His popularity is an indictment of the system, but the system is the way it is because there are no honest people administrating it. That is why his popularity is about who is best to administer it. All it takes is someone who is honest, because the president isn't supposed to run the country. Not constitutionally.

Talk about being a straight shooter. How many politicians of either party would be willing to stand up in a debate in Miami, in front of numerous Cuban-Americans, and denounce the embargo against Cuba for the debacle that it is?

This is both boring and stupid. No one wants to force women to have children, but some of us don't see any value in letting people completely ignore the consequences of their actions.

It's funny how the 'consequences' of sex fall mostly on the historically oppressed sex. What are the odds?

I support Ron Paul not as a protest against any other candidates, but simply because he has the best views on the issues and the best ideas to move America forward. Out of 300 people in my Meetup group, a grand total of one is a former Perot supporter, none for Nader.

There are conservative Republicans, Democrats, independents, new voters, young and old, and Libertarians. But saying Perot/Nader/Libertarians make up the whole of it is being quite disingenuous.

Ron Paul is what people who like Obama think Obama is-- exciting, not a product of the system, intelligent, willing to take new approaches. (I myself like Obama and I used to support him until I found out Ron Paul was running.) Obama's economic policies would bankrupt us and he's not going to get us out of Iraq in a timely fashion.

R Johnston - I think you have to distinguish between Ron Paul the libertarian and Ron Paul the federalist.

As a federalist, he believes that a broad swath of power has been left to the states by our federalist system. As a libertarian, he personally would not support some exercises of that power, even when he acknowledges that the states have it. For example, as a libertarian he personally opposes all drug laws; as a federalist, he believes that the federal government has no power to regulate drugs, but that the states probably do. This can be a maddeningly nuanced view, but it's a perfectly legitimate and logically consistent one.

And while I do not agree with his currency stance, I think it's somewhat silly to call it uneducated or crankish. It's a minority view in economics currently, sure. But commodity currencies did have a two millenia long history, and fiat currency [in the US, anyway] has a 30 year history. Are we that confident in our 30 year data set that we can label anyone who isn't convinced a crank?

And as far as the education or knowledge level of supporters go, when Paul speaks he freely talks about Hayek, Spooner, Gallatin, French physiocrats, the history of the late Roman Republic, etc. While many of these are obscure interests, he always assumes that everyone knows what he's talking about. Can Huckabee safely quote anyone but Jesus? Between Paul supporters and Huckabee supporters, who do you think was more likely to need Paul's Sinclair Lewis reference for the other day explained to them?

You may not like it, but I've never met any group of people who are wider-read, on average, than libertarians. They just interpret everything they read through a highly belligerent prism, and most of their intellectual heroes don't appear on no stamps.

"A lot of Ron Paul supporters I have come into contact with were long time supporters of his willingness to ask tough questions of our very dishonest Fed. Note: you don't have to be a goldbug to hate the Fed after the bubble blowing bonanza of the last decade."

Yeh, I don't think that the RON PAUL supporters are particularly uninformed or young. I think they tend to more informed than the typical voter in certain areas, and are clearly not penniless given the sums of money they are able to raise on the drop of a dime.

There is a lot of dissatisfaction with financial markets these days even amongst people who work in them. These are "libertarians" who see that our economy is not working for average citizens, but who are not necessarily progressives, the typical progressive being relatively *uninformed* in financial matters. These "libertarians" might see eye to eye with progressives on certain issues on the state of the contenporary finance, but certainly would see today's "progressives" as being pro-government in a perhaps too knee-jerk a fashion.

Is this a good government, liberals and progressives want people to support? I think it's increasingly possible to answer "no," and not just because of the Bush Admin. So, what do you do with that? You don't certainly don't give the government 100% support if you think it's crooked.

Yeah, he may draw out the nuts, but I think he also draws a lot of support from places you wouldn't necessarily expect. And, I wouldn't automatically dismiss them, their criticisms, or their money.

I also think they rather doubt it's possible to return to the "gold standard" but would think "sound money" policies beneficial. If you are a libertarian with no use for government, then you just ignore criticisms of government and get ready to jump in the next bubble.

Boy Ezra, you really belong on the short bus when it comes to Paul.

His weakness is not in his seemingly non-libertarian ideas regarding abortion, etc.

His weakness is

1. Does he think Osama hit us on 9/11?

2. Why are the white power websites all putting Ron Paul banners up, and why is he taking their money?

Democrats should be hounding Paul for answers to those questions. You know why? Because 9/11 "truthers" and white power nazis make up two of his biggest constituencies.

No joke. Go check their websites, I guarantee you will find Paul Banners all over the place.

The guilt by association argument against Paul has to be the dumbest one of all. What is so hard to understand? Paul is anti-government, passionately so especially with regards to the Federal Govt based on his libertarian and constitutionalist views. The the white power types hate the Govt. because they think it helps blacks and other minorities while ensuring that whites get the short end of the stick with regards to affirmative action, quotas and set-asides, and therefore they think they see indirect benefits from Paul's policies. Taken to its logical conclusion vigorous anti Govt. views are now beyond the pale because they help the racists?!

Sorry but this is insane. My barber hates the Govt. because it won't let him smoke pot, my cousin hates the Govt. because gun control laws won't let him own fully automatic weapons, I hate the Govt. (sometimes) because it engages in unprovoked wars and Don Black and David Duke appear to hate the Govt. because it isn't favoring white folks the way it did prior to Brown in 1954. Try again if you are all set on smearing Ron Paul.

Ezra, it IS about the issues. Ron Paul's character and integrity are just nice window dressing. We are fed up with the fascist nanny state we have been given and want to follow the Constitution.

FBI Rothstein Option ........ the Broward County Ponzi accomplices include michael hamaway of MOMBACH BOYLE HARDIN , Jay Spechler and Rhonda Hollander , Barry Seltzer and Gene Moss of TREDD INVESTORS and BERNSTEIN CHACKMAN LISS .

OPERATION COURTBROOM missed the links between Scott Rothstein , bernard madoff , art nadel , larry seidman , jack abramoff , anthony horky , julia luyster , STANLEY MARCUS , Jay Spechler, thomas lynch , harvey shenberg , gerald garson , KEN MARRA and john harkness ........... GENE MOSS and ed nekritz bought marra and seltzer .