The most interesting part about my colleague’s obervations below is not so much the content, but rather how that content has shifted from as recently as July. Ever since Giuliani’s opportunism at the Carolina debate, totally awesome and totally credible pundits such as the intrepid correspondents at RealClearPolitics were predicting: Paul is done. My own estimable colleague would reply to a post of mine with a short quip meant to dismiss the guy altogether. After the below, we see how that’s changed. Apparently, there’s now a need to address actual issues.
My guess? There are more changes coming.
Addressing the post specifically, I’d like to point out that you can go to basically any political rally in America and cherry-pick the craziest attendees, claiming that this particular fruitcake or another represents the “soul of the party”. This video on Huffington Post by Max Blumenthal is a great example. Most Americans, however, don’t attend political rallies. The ones that do? Yes, they’re more passionate than most. Some are a bit crazy. But it doesn’t mean that the candidate does not or cannot have broad appeal.
I particularly love this:
Of course in this style of ad-lib stump speech, there is a dangerous chance for rhetorical mistakes. Rookies in their first presidential primary can sink their candidacies with one ill-chosen phrase. But Paul, who barely registers in the polls, is pleasantly free of speaking
carefully.
So in essence, style trumps substance, and statements that fall outside the parameters of pundit-accepted speech codes are “dangerous”. Even if such statements increase that politician's appeal to potential voters, they should be avoided if not rubber-stamped by a “blogger” at RealClearPolitics (my colleague gives no names). Such a statement might be made by another widely read pundit, say, Hugo Chavez.
I checked in to the RealClearPolitics site, and saw this:
RealClearPolitics has become a trusted filter for anyone interested in politics.
Um, I’ll filter the news myself, thanks. Opinion? Fine. But a filter? I'd prefer all the facts, please.
The point about Howard Dean has been made before, but there are clear differences. Ron Paul has been building a paleo-conservative/libertarian network for the last 30 years and started with a committed, although relatively small, nationwide base of support. Additionally, his platform has elements that appeal to Americans across the political spectrum and now Paul is raising serious money. My understanding of Howard Dean was that his boomlet was a creation of the media, comprised of basically a bunch of twenty-somethings looking to get laid. That demographic has turned to Obama. Ron Paul can barely get the media to pay attention at all. When they do, it's usually a smear.
As Paul continues to make his presence felt, we’ll keep seeing these smears. But they'll continue to only help his campaign. Of course, RealClearPolitics has been doing this for awhile.
Well, maybe not all the time…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Excellent stuff, sir. I commend you on the research. My bad for not even putting a link to the original article. The cherry picking comment holds a bit of water but he does describe the whole crowd (families, etc). My intention was not to say the whole audience was filled with these kooks but that they some seem to be gravitating towards Paul. Why is that Matt? I just don't see what there is to gain with being in the least bit affiliated with a group claiming 9/11 was a possible inside job.
Abolish the IRS, the FED, and get out of Iraq yesterday are Paul's primary talking points.
I'm just asking how in the world, if elected, is he going to even THINK about pulling those first two things off? I mean you are kidding right? Iraq's bed is made and we have to lay in it or else face an even greater disaster now but to claim that our foreign policy is the SOLE reason that we were attacked on 9/11 is absurd.
I commend Paul for some visionary ideas but unfortunately it won't sway enough people to vote for him.
Come next year if Paul wins the nomination, I'll concede that I was very wrong about the man and his followers.
There are all sorts of nutty groups out there who support all sorts of candidates. How much nuttier are truthers than, say, fundamentalist Christians who believe we are now living in the end times? Or, for that matter, folks who believe the earth is 6,000 years old? Which of these groups are more powerful and represent more votes? Uh oh...
Either the IRS and the FED are beneficial to society, or they are not. If one believes that they are not, then it stands to reason that they should work to bring about change. It seems impossible because these organizations have been around all our lives, but we have to remember the US existed for 137 years without either institution.
Electing Ron Paul might not change things overnight, but suddenly the conversation will be shifted dramatically. Instead of talking about whether the top rate should be 35 or 36%, the discussion will be whether or not to have an income tax at all. And that alone would be worth the price of admission.
As far as foriegn policy goes, I remain unconvinced that groups of ragtag terrorists and third world hellholes with no modern military technologies represent Hilter-esqe threats to the US. The dirty nuke point is a valid one to me, so that means locking down the border, beefing up domestic defense, agressively monitoring madrassas and mosques, and encouraging those who want Sharia law to leave the country - as John Howard has done in Australia. We'd also have a pricetag on Bin Laden's head far in excess of today's $50 million. The fact that NONE of this is happening right now means that this "War on Terror" is really about something quite different, and Ron Paul is the only candidate willing to say so.
Post a Comment