Comments on: Deafening Silence From the Right Wing Noise Machine on Ron’s Haul

By: Adam

Adam — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:36:46 +0000

I agree that they would, given that their purpose is to realise their aims. It’s not a matter of picking the party whose ideology best suits them (which you were discussing), though, is my point; whilst I would agree with you that such behaviour is admirable, Edd is making a different accusation, that they are whoring their ideological convictions about to get close to power. I agree with you that the behaviour is, nevertheless, entirely understandable.

By: Rojas

Rojas — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:59:08 +0000

And why wouldn’t they?

If I could create a group of pro-liberty ideologues who could influence administrations of either party, and which could change administration policy as thoroughly as Bush’s changed between 2000 and 2002, I’d do so in a heartbeat.

By: Adam

Adam — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:46:20 +0000

It comes back to feeling that the ideology itself is noxious, I suppose, the judgement of behaviour that you are describing. However, in any case, Edd is probably saying that they’re not skipping party for ideological reasons but just to be close to the power.

By: Rojas

Rojas — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:16:14 +0000

Interesting observation, Edd.

Frankly, if that’s the case, I find the Neocons’ behavior to be out-and-out admirable. A voter SHOULD support candidates of his or her ideology, rather than adhering to a party label.

By: Adam

Adam — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:56:10 +0000

‘Neocon’ is basically an insult now, which is unfortunate, because it’s not an entirely vacuous intellectual position (although it’s one with which I disagree, in general). Not unlike the way that many Americans use ‘liberal’, in that regard.

By: Edd

Edd — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:05:32 +0000

As to the observation on:”the seeming lack of notice from the very republican political hacks who should care. “, I have a theory. As a member of Free Republic, (screen name Twodees) I watched the takeover of the site by neocon laptop bombardiers after the 2000 election. I commented more than once that they looked exactly like Clinton supporters to me, both in their agressive and mindless attack tactics and their liberal socialist positions on issues.

These cyber warriors aren’t really diehard GOP activists. They are diehard neocons who jump from party to party with each change in regime. That’s how they manage to be comfortable with disregarding Ron Paul’s successes and popularity.

I don’t think the main issue with them is success of republicans in elections, it’s more an issue of the success of their favored neocon candidates. They couldn’t possibly care less that their influence on the party has been destroying support for the GOP, and leading the party off a cliff.

The neocons will jump ship and change parties, if necessary, when a new president gains the white house, just as they did when Reagan won his first term, and just as they did when Clinton won his. FR is dominated by this bunch of online propagandists. I watched it happen during 2001 as conservative members were banned or quit the site in disgust. I’m one who quit in disgust.

The neocons will simply go back the the democrats once a democrat gains the presidency.

By: Cameron

Cameron — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 04:40:58 +0000

Yeah the story isn’t the amount of total media attention, it’s the seeming lack of notice from the very republican political hacks who should care. This should be big news to Republican party die-hards, but they are the ones who aren’t paying it a whiff of attention.

You’d think that they would seize upon the fact that a Republican presidential nominee has had an $18 million 4th quarter as a sign…of some sort. But alas, no. Too them it’s not even worthy of consideration, Paul is just some fringe kook and doesn’t represent the party as a whole.

I really see Paul as the last gasp of libertarianism in the Republican party, and if the mainstream Republican commentators dismiss Paul so readily, to hell with them.

By: Rojas

Rojas — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 04:26:40 +0000

Look, there’s a lot of people making claims about the MSM here that just flat-out aren’t true.

The story HAS in fact played, and played prominently, on several of the media outlets BYC mentions above. I watched it myself on CNN.

I think Brad’s initial discussion in this thread about the Republican blogosphere is a lot more interesting than the whole MSM meme. Above all else, we shouldn’t be making factually incorrect claims. They cause our legitimate complaints to lose credibility with those who matter.

By: BreakYourChains

BreakYourChains — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 04:19:44 +0000

The Ron Paul Revolution is spreading. After watching CNN, Fox, MSNBC and other networks all day today, I would venture a guess here – it is entirely on purpose that the MSM is not covering this event. They have figured out that ANY coverage helps to spread the message of freedom and the Ron Paul Revolution. Stop watching their news (oops, not news anymore, just entertainment) shows, and lower their ratings. They will understand this, as ratings effects their paychecks and people who don’t watch the advertisers consequently can’t spend money on their products. Money is what most of these people care about, and what rules them. Only money. Use the knowledge for good purpose….

By: Randolphus Maximus

Randolphus Maximus — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 01:52:05 +0000

I get a sense that the right wing blogosphere have dug a hole for themselves on where to go with this story. Let’s face it, Malkin, Ace, Morrissey, and others the OP listed have been the defacto “deciders/opinionshapers” on the right for a number of years. And their opinion on Dr. Paul has been consistently off the mark. He’s a crank, he’s a tinfoil hat wearer, he’s a racist (by association of course) or whatever slur that they’ve been fed or created hasn’t stuck.

That Dr. Paul continues to gain traction and attention despite those attacks is like a giant “FU” to the deciders. So what do they do? They ignore him and hope he goes away.