Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
RON PAUL'S LACK OF AN IMPACT.
Sure, the Ron Paul campaign was a media spectacle (remember the blimp?), but I've long been skeptical of arguments that Paul's, er, impassioned, group of young supporters could be considered some kind of libertarian generation, or taken as proof that the marriage of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism somehow dominates in Generation Y. After all, when I chatted with young Ron Paul supporters in Iowa, they were skeptical of their candidate's free market health care reform plan and his anti-abortion stance, ignorant of his disturbing record of race-baiting, and sympathetic toward Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. What they adored about Paul was his ability, in every televised debate, to humiliate his Republican opponents when it came to the Iraq war. In this disgruntled, outsider, antiwar old man, young people found a mirror image of their own disgruntlement and outsider status -- and most importantly, their opposition to the war.
Now Tim Fernholz comes along at Campus Progress and really crystallizes my thoughts on Paul's candidacy:
Once it became apparent that Paul wasn’t going to gain the support of the traditional GOP constituencies, and early primaries demonstrated that he lacked tangible support, people lost interest. And, despite the spin of his supporters, this wasn’t even a moral victory; unlike former Democratic candidates John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich, Paul did not impact the tone of his party’s primary. While Edwards and Kucinich pulled the front-runners to the left on issues of poverty, Iraq, and trade, the Republican leaders continued to remain in favor of the war and to ignore Paul’s more abstract concerns about the federal reserve, the gold standard, and federalism.
--Dana Goldstein
COMMENTS (6)
Needless to say, Dana Goldstein doesn't exactly have a firm grasp on matters.
1. "his disturbing record of race-baiting" is not entirely accurate; there were certainly some questionable statements made in a publication bearing his name, but he doesn't have a record of making that type of statement himself.
2. There were many other things RP found support over; DG is projecting regarding Iraq. For instance:
youtube.com/results?search_query=%22ron+paul%22+nau
3. The hacks at Reason, Cato, and other Beltway-dependents turning on RP was the major turning point: tinyurl.com/2jhahz
4. The catalyst for the turning point is an extraordinary suck-up, even going as far as suggesting that BohemianGrove is just a social club. I certainly have no proof that his hit piece was ordered by those to whom he sucks up, but it would certainly seem to benefit them in that had RP's ideas gained more currency it would have affected their bottom line.
5. Finally, there's even a shiny new word for the hacks in #3; can DG find out what it is?
Posted by: TLB | March 18, 2008 4:19 PM
Actually, this post should tell us something. If Paul made a difference and his supporters still cared, we should see the thread fill up rather quickly. I don't count TLB, of course, since he's simply a whackjob with no grip on reality, not a Paulite.
Posted by: PaulB | March 18, 2008 5:07 PM
can't agree. I just don't buy the narrative that Edwards moved Obama and Clinton 'to the left' on the issues named. all of them have to try to out-left one another during a Dem primary. Edwards' candid apology over Iraq did not move Hillary to the left. Obama was already well to his left on that one. trade positions simply varied from region to region depending on whether trade was working in that particular place. Paul didn't impact the Republican race at all either, probably a bit less so, but only because his views are so far out of the Republican mainstream that he served more as comic relief than anything.
Posted by: onceler | March 18, 2008 5:22 PM
If Paul made a difference and his supporters still cared, we should see the thread fill up rather quickly.
I'll bet I could do make that happen if I Dugg this post, perhaps with a sexay pic and a provocative headline. But, as it is, this site - in fact their whole little magazine - is like a hidden grotto that only a few know about.
I don't count TLB, of course, since he's simply a whackjob with no grip on reality, not a Paulite.
Zing! Now, without using the word "honey", can you provide anything similar to an actual counterargument?
Posted by: TLB | March 18, 2008 11:06 PM
I think Ron Paul was running a scam. He suckered the Paultards for millions and then disappeared. Gotta admire that, I guess.
Posted by: merlallen | March 19, 2008 9:05 AM
"Zing! Now, without using the word honey, can you provide anything similar to an actual counterargument?"
Sure, but you first have to provide an actual argument to counter, something that continues to elude you.
Posted by: PaulB | March 19, 2008 4:12 PM