Nolan Chart
Home Be a Columnist Logon Columns Survey FAQ Newsletter Contact Print Advertise Other

The Source
columnist: Chris Johns

Like This Article?
Thumb It!
71 thumbs so far

Topic: Ron Paul
Ron Paul, His Campaign, His Appeal, and His People

Ron Paul has distinguished himself from other Presidential candidates in many ways this year . Like it or not, the verdict still isn't in on what effect his campaign will have going forward.
by Chris Johns
(Libertarian)
Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Paul appeals to people in ways that no other politician does; he's honest, consistent, and fiscally responsible. He is also unique in that he has very compassionate stances on controversial issues like medical marijuana, the War in Iraq, and abortion. These are qualities the remaining candidates don't have... at least not all at once.

A young Tennessee man once told me, "Some argue that Paul's campaign was a wasted effort. I don't think it was wasted. If you set the wayback machine to 12 months ago, you'll find me sitting here not giving a shit. Now, I'm acquainted with the issues, and I have a position. Because of his quirky 5-10%-of-the-vote getting campaign, I am now interested. There are many more just like me, and personally, I've learned a lot."

Apparently, even though Paul supporters can't fathom why everybody doesn't agree with them, things are clearer to them. The agenda being sold by Fox News is now evident to more people. Before Paul's campaign, to some Fox was just another news channel. While the bias on shows like "Hannity and Combs" is always evident, many were willing to dismiss it thinking that there would be a left-leaning show on at some other time slot. More people now recognize that everything that Fox does pushes the neoconservative agenda, no matter what it is.

Paul's campaign could've been better, but it could've been worse. Ever heard of Thompson? Giulluiani? Romney? Remember, he beat every candidate at least once... including McCain. He lasted longer than other candidates, and let's not forget, as of this writing, he is still in the race. Who knows? If anything is certain, it is that things will change. We have a few more months of fun left, and I'm keenly interested in what his supporters' planned march on DC turns out like.

Paul supporters like to complain about the mass media's negative impact on his campaign. One of the harshest blows the media dealt was to ban him from the debate before the early primaries. There were folks in New Hampshire and across the nation that made their decision based on that debate. Folks who vote along the red team vs. blue team divide learned that night that Paul was not an insider... that True Republicans did not like him. After that, it was easy to marginalize him. Would his appearance in that debate have created a different outcome? Yes, but would it have been significant enough to matter? We don't know, but at this point we can say, "Probably not" and feel justified in saying so. For my part, I have to wonder.

He said things, and people listened... right or wrong, his statements have substance that other candidates talk circles around. He stirred the debate. It roused an American spirit in folks that they didn't know they had, and it just felt right. The military donations were pretty significant. Military people take oaths to support and defend the constitution. Their donations sent a message. It was perhaps the only message they could send without breaking rank. I don't think a lot folks were listening, but let it not be said that they didn't try.

The most interesting thing about his campaign is that despite its limitations, an impressive amount of spontaneous grassroots support developed. The money bombs, the videos, the meet up groups, the newbie politicians spouting his platform... I didn't see that type of support for the other candidates, except maybe Obama, but his supporters are more like groupies than they are supporters of his platform. The Obama supporter that can tell you what he stands for without using the word, "change" is a rare bird. Paul on the other hand has a real grass roots support for his legislation in Congress. I wonder if ANY member of Congress has such widespread support for their platform. Again, I can say "probably not" and get the sense that I'm right.

As far as Dr. Paul goes, he's just a guy, you know? He has done his best, and considering what he was up against, he has done well. We can go back and pick it apart and say this or that could have been done better, but it's all hindsight. Now that it's seemingly hopeless... how does he respond? He's not giving up. There's something to be said about people that don't give up. Those kinds of folks have a habit of succeeding every now and then.

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
71 thumbs so far

2008 Chris Johns, all rights reserved.
Published: Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Last modified: Wednesday, April 9, 2008

The views expressed in this article are those of Chris Johns only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Chris Johns is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.

Report violation by Chris Johns of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.


More Articles By Chris Johns

Be A Columnist
Tell A Friend About This Article

Reader Comments:

Posted By: lloyd Kempson
Date: 2008-04-09 16:11:02

As Reason Magazine said: Right Message, Wrong Messanger.

When are we going to have an electable candidate who plays the Centrist in order to get elected and then turns into a libertarian when in office? 

Report violation


Posted By: 1440 minutes
Date: 2008-04-09 16:33:08

lloyd Kempson,

Are you kidding me?  No one is going to be a Libertarian after running as a centrist.  If a candidate is not willing to put himself or herself out there as a Libertarian during the campaign, there is no way that he or she is going to resist the financial incentives and overwhelming pressure to play the political game.  Libertarians must educate the public.

Report violation


Posted By: Maria
Date: 2008-04-09 17:02:46

The general ignorance is disgusting! Most people do not even know that the founders were Libertarians. They do not understand that you can be both, a Libertarian and a Republican. Why not? I guess this happens because they do not teach much Civic any more kids who later become uneducated adults in this so important matter.

Report violation


Posted By: lloyd kempson
Date: 2008-04-09 17:36:33

Not all of the founding fathers were libertarians. Some supported Racist laws, laws against certain sexual practices, and Slavery.

Libertarianism is a term for a true progressive. I would sure hope that we don't try to emulate ALL of the founding father's beliefs.

Report violation


Posted By: wayne fazio
Date: 2008-04-09 18:59:45

We must give up on the idea of government.  If you have to steal the money, not much good happens after. 

Report violation


Posted By: tim, minnesota
Date: 2008-04-10 15:28:58

 

This article is thoughtful, and I liked the acknowledgment the McCain nomination is not over yet. McCain has little grassroots support, the donations support this assumption. Ron Paul continues eating away McCain national delegates in caucus states like Minnesota. Last weekend 6 of the 9 delegates voted to national are Ron Paul and headed to Saint Paul Republican Convention. The party is not over until “the fat lady sings”

 

Report violation


Posted By: Marie
Date: 2008-04-10 17:19:30

The key for the future is control of the media.

Report violation


Posted By: Llloyd Kempson
Date: 2008-04-11 10:31:15

The key for the future is control of the media.

 I now appoint you as Captain Obvious. Religion and Socialism have taken over schools and media. We can't really teach reason, it has to be discovered on your own. That and the libertarian party has a kook magnet that no body can seem to find and remove. What is the appeal of the libertarian party that causes kooks to flock to us?

Report violation


Posted By: George Dance
Date: 2008-04-11 11:14:50

"As Reason said, Right Message, Wrong Messenger."

Oh, bullshit. Michael Badnarik had almost the same message four years ago. How well did he do?

A large part of this message's resonance came from the fact that its messenger was (1) a highly successful pol (a veteran of 10 (now 11) winning campagns) (2) with an amazing speaking style (the complete anti-politician - half Mr. Smith, half Berzelius Windrup) and most importantly (3) a solid reputation for consistency (so consistent that he votes against his own earmarks) and integrity. 

No one else trying the same thing would have had the same impact.

 

Report violation


Want to comment on this article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is required to track your comment. However, we will neither publish your email address nor distribute it to other organizations or persons. The only reason we might use it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All comments are subject to our terms of use policy.

Leave A Comment

Your Name:  

Your Email Address*:  

Your Comment: