sailingaway
01-20-2013, 06:56 PM
The disconnection between the Internet world and the outside world has never been so plainly demonstrated than in the political candidacy of Rep. Ron Paul of Texas - he's a Pennsylvania native, by the way. No candidate of either major party has come close to accomplishing what Paul and his faithful have managed in the online world. They have set records for fund-raising, swung opinion polls in Paul's favor and shown him to be anything but a marginal candidate, which is how traditional media has treated him.
Paul is far more Libertarian than Republican. There's a lot to like about him, if you put any stock in libertarian causes. If you don't, pick from column A or column B from the other candidates available in the race, if you feel you must. Safe is safe. Status quo is status quo.
Paul is a politician who targets government. His nickname is "Dr. No," and he earned it both because he is a medical doctor and because it's been his modus operandi, for the most part, to vote against any legislation that does not have precise, coherent grounding in the U.S. Constitution.
We're bent under the weight of so much government gibberish, so much regulation and rulership that has absolutely nothing to do with the whys and wherefores of this country's birth that it is refreshing to find one rare voice that recognizes the fact and has the will to say he'd actually try to do something about it, were he in a position to do so.
Paul is unmistakably the Internet's darling. Do your own research. See what he and his backers have done.
Paul's writings, his opinions, his political motif, is based primarily on the idea that individuals - not governments, not aggregations of entities (women, men, seniors, blacks, Hispanics, Catholics, Baptists) - are the most important thing in this country, and they are to be protected.
Abolition of the Internal Revenue Service; abolition of the Federal Reserve; abolition of a whole host of federal-government agencies, like the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency; strict enforcement of private-property laws; and a host of other individual-centric ideas are the campaign themes that Paul puts forward.
Does he have a chance? The Chicago Tribune once famously stated "Dewey beats Truman" in a massive page-one headline, as a victorious, grinning Truman held up a copy of perhaps the most famous early bad call in election history - except maybe Florida 2000 - but the reality is that the Internet is not reality.
Yes, the money Paul has raised is real. The support that he has garnered is real. He deserves far more real-world and mainstream attention than he's gotten, if we're ever going to get to the point of bringing government back under control of the people rather than continually expanding government to control us. We've let it happen for decades; complacency, which politicians and those in power rely upon to assure their continued ability to retain that power, is the gravest threat to freedom there is.
Is there hope? Yes. The Internet is still very new in the world. It's only been in general use for about a decade. Its power grows every day. Its ability to extend its sway beyond computer screens and into the world grows every day. Ron Paul has demonstrated, better than any politician who has come before, how a candidate of little means and pushing ideas that will scare the bejabbers out of most people can get his message out and find support for that message by turning to the wild online frontier.
It's likely that Paul won't be able to carry his message fully into the world. It's likely that the voting public is not the same as the Internet public, but that's going to change. Here's hoping that someone in a future election will express Paul's platform of a limited government strictly of, by and for the people (that's us as individuals, not as a madding horde) and will be able to translate a driven Internet support system into a driven voting public.
That's when politics will finally get interesting again.
it says it is dated last week, but the 'can he win' comment sounds like it was from the campaign. didn't see it then, though.
http://www.ldnews.com/ci_22367110/candidate-ron-paul-lost-internet-translation?source=most_emailed
Paul is far more Libertarian than Republican. There's a lot to like about him, if you put any stock in libertarian causes. If you don't, pick from column A or column B from the other candidates available in the race, if you feel you must. Safe is safe. Status quo is status quo.
Paul is a politician who targets government. His nickname is "Dr. No," and he earned it both because he is a medical doctor and because it's been his modus operandi, for the most part, to vote against any legislation that does not have precise, coherent grounding in the U.S. Constitution.
We're bent under the weight of so much government gibberish, so much regulation and rulership that has absolutely nothing to do with the whys and wherefores of this country's birth that it is refreshing to find one rare voice that recognizes the fact and has the will to say he'd actually try to do something about it, were he in a position to do so.
Paul is unmistakably the Internet's darling. Do your own research. See what he and his backers have done.
Paul's writings, his opinions, his political motif, is based primarily on the idea that individuals - not governments, not aggregations of entities (women, men, seniors, blacks, Hispanics, Catholics, Baptists) - are the most important thing in this country, and they are to be protected.
Abolition of the Internal Revenue Service; abolition of the Federal Reserve; abolition of a whole host of federal-government agencies, like the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency; strict enforcement of private-property laws; and a host of other individual-centric ideas are the campaign themes that Paul puts forward.
Does he have a chance? The Chicago Tribune once famously stated "Dewey beats Truman" in a massive page-one headline, as a victorious, grinning Truman held up a copy of perhaps the most famous early bad call in election history - except maybe Florida 2000 - but the reality is that the Internet is not reality.
Yes, the money Paul has raised is real. The support that he has garnered is real. He deserves far more real-world and mainstream attention than he's gotten, if we're ever going to get to the point of bringing government back under control of the people rather than continually expanding government to control us. We've let it happen for decades; complacency, which politicians and those in power rely upon to assure their continued ability to retain that power, is the gravest threat to freedom there is.
Is there hope? Yes. The Internet is still very new in the world. It's only been in general use for about a decade. Its power grows every day. Its ability to extend its sway beyond computer screens and into the world grows every day. Ron Paul has demonstrated, better than any politician who has come before, how a candidate of little means and pushing ideas that will scare the bejabbers out of most people can get his message out and find support for that message by turning to the wild online frontier.
It's likely that Paul won't be able to carry his message fully into the world. It's likely that the voting public is not the same as the Internet public, but that's going to change. Here's hoping that someone in a future election will express Paul's platform of a limited government strictly of, by and for the people (that's us as individuals, not as a madding horde) and will be able to translate a driven Internet support system into a driven voting public.
That's when politics will finally get interesting again.
it says it is dated last week, but the 'can he win' comment sounds like it was from the campaign. didn't see it then, though.
http://www.ldnews.com/ci_22367110/candidate-ron-paul-lost-internet-translation?source=most_emailed