Actual, growing, grassroots support for Ron Paul.
It is most interesting to note the intellectual bend of these Paul-deniers. They think they are the “real” Republicans and they accordingly deny the same status to Paul supporters, while in the same breath defining their political ideology as one of unwavering Bush-support, pro-war, and pro-Nanny State. In other words, they are interventionists. The only thing in their agenda that in the least represents some actual echo from the true conservatism of pre-neocon yore is their support for, at least nominally, lower taxes.
As I’m writing this, a new and more appropriate definition for the term “neocon” comes to mind.
I used to call neocons “no-cons” since they are not conservatives at all. Their ideological roots are deeply mired in socialism or even communism. But that only applies to the original neocons. Now, after the original provocateurs had their intended effect on the Republican voter base, I define the term as “formerly conservative voters who will support any lying, turncoat scumbag as long as they think he’ll keep the Republican Party in power.”
Point in case: Rudy McRomney, the tripartite, media-crowned, Republican “front runner.”
Each of those front-gunners is a consummate flip-flopper and sell-out of conservative principles of the highest order. The fact that self-styled “conservatives” actually line up to support these three stooges is based on a reasoning process that still eludes me, to this day.
But, back to the subject.
The GOP blogosphere is desperately trying to rationalize the Ron Paul Revolution away as nothing more than a super-organized cadre of net geeks who shamelessly try to create an appearance of numbers that do not exist.
If they GOP bloggers were right, it would present a very strange phenomenon, indeed, where an undeniable truth-teller and stalwart on-principle-stander like Ron Paul would attract nothing more than a bunch of lying, scheming scumbags who actually, for their own self-interest, would be much better off supporting other lying and scheming scumbags like ‘Rudy McRomney.’ At least, candidates like those of this unholy trinity would allow them to continue to operate with some sort of shallow legitimacy, were their favorite to win the election.
Why would such an army of shameless spammer-geeks support a candidate who has never been found within even shouting distance of a political flip-flop? Why would they support a man who has made a career of unerringly swimming against the tide of incessant government enlargement, encroachment on individual freedom, and political back door deals?
There is an alternate explanation for the mind-bending poll numbers Ron Paul has received in online polls.
That explanation has not been sufficiently considered in this “spam vs. jam” debate. (The word “jam” implies actual numbers big enough to jam online communication lines).
Apart from his physical congressional district where he constantly beats out the GOP’s big guns lined up to relieve him of his post, online is the only area where Ron Paul has been able to gain exposure, so far.
In 1997, he returned to Congress from a ten-year hiatus during which he had resumed his practice as an obstetrician after unsuccessfully running for US Senator against Phil Gramm in 1984. The GOP sent its heaviest artillery down from Washington to campaign against him in the 1996 primaries, but was unable to scare him away. He has won every succeeding congressional race since then, despite losing almost two-thirds of his former district after the 2002 Texas redistricting operation led by his party peers. Nevertheless, he won the 2002 race by a landslide - with a 67 percent majority!
I suppose GOP bloggers will claim that his 1996 supporters were nothing more than “offline spammers" as well.