Then the American people are, too!
4000 Ron Paul Supporters At Philadelphia Rally
"The quirky candidate" by Scot Lehigh/Boston Globe November 14, 2007
DURHAM, N.H. -- Ron Paul has just reached the peak of geek chic.
Having delivered a passionate paean to libertarianism at Oyster River High School, Paul has been presented with a pair of sporty two-tone sunglasses.
"Put them on!" the students yell. The 72-year-old Republican presidential candidate obligingly dons the youthful shades - then stands there beaming as the assembly hall erupts in delight.
Moments later, the kids flock around him, seeking autographs. Later that afternoon, Paul earns another enthusiastic reception from a capacity crowd at the University of New Hampshire.
So what explains Paul's appeal?
For starters, the rumpled septuagenarian is light-years distant from your typical pol, and young people are drawn to someone who is different, notes Tess Milliken, a senior at Oyster River High.
And authentic. Or, as Nick Mennelle, a junior, puts it: "He's straight up."
Plus, "He doesn't use big, complicated words," says Louis Maude, a junior.
Like Stacy's Mom (of Fountains of Wayne fame), Paul has got it going on, and not just with the young.
A new Boston Globe poll shows him at 7 percent in New Hampshire, putting him fourth in the Republican field. On Nov. 5, Paul's fans shattered the single-day Republican fund-raising record by pulling in more than $4 million over the Internet, a sum that seems as stunning to the candidate as it has proved to others.
Umm, Scotty: Zogby Predicts Ron Paul Could Get 15 to 18 Percent in New Hampshire
Some of his attraction also lies in the areas where Paul's libertarianism overlaps liberalism. While the other Republicans all back the Bush administration's approach in Iraq, Paul argues for a speedy withdrawal. His opposition to both the Patriot Act and President Bush's electronic eavesdropping program also exists in that political penumbra.
And at a time when the Iraq war has made an interventionist foreign policy deeply suspect, he is pushing a hands-off approach - trade and talk, but no dictating or meddling - as a return to what the founders favored.
The Texas congressman is also sounding generational themes. The way things are going with deficit spending and the future funding gap for Social Security, there won't be anything left for their generation, warns Paul. He earns a tumultuous UNH hand by vowing, "I would absolutely never use the federal government to enforce a law against anybody using marijuana." The federal government has no legal authority for its war on drugs, he declares.
But in other areas, his emphasis on self-reliance - he wants to cut government spending enough to eliminate the income tax - may put him at odds with the idealistic, activist ethic often important to the young.
He speaks disapprovingly of any federal response to national disasters, saying that should be left to the states. He'd let young people opt out of Social Security, but stresses that they couldn't come looking for help from the government if they found themselves in need later.
On Darfur, his noninterventionism takes on hues of hard-hearted realism. He is unwilling to spend tax dollars "on the pretense that we are going to help people in Darfur," he says at UNH, adding that he doubts humanitarian aid would even find its way to intended recipients.
Asked what he'd do if a bloodbath occurs when we leave Iraq, Paul notes that there was "a surge upward in violence" when we left Vietnam, "yet they sorted it out." He continues: "I can't further tax you in order to rebuild these countries. . . They have to sort out that mess that we created."
Queried on global warming, Paul makes it clear that he is agnostic on the issue. Afterward, Erin Thesing, a UNH sophomore, presses him on the matter, telling him she lies awake at night worrying about climate change.
"If you want to lay awake at night worrying about something, worry about the value of the dollar," replies Paul.
"I don't understand how someone can not care about the future of the world," she tells me later.
Further, in a stand that's counterintuitive for a libertarian, Paul opposes abortion rights, though he says abortion legislation should be left to the states.
Paul now appears to be entering a classic arc in presidential politics: that of the quirky candidate who suddenly catches fire, but often fades when his unorthodox ideology comes into sharper focus.
Still, right now he is clearly on the ascending leg of that arc. And that means the likable Lone Star State libertarian is poised to become a wild card in New Hampshire.
Scot Lehigh's-email address is lehigh@globe.com."
Why don't you send him a note, readers? I did!
Polite and respectful, yes sir!
Dear Sir,
I simply must register how disappointed I was in your op piece in today's Boston Globe, and the disrespect you showed to the presidential candidacy and supporters of Dr. Ron Paul.
Unfortunately, this type of coverage has become commonplace in the "mainstream" media -- becoming increasingly irrelevant because of coverage like yours -- and needs to be answered.
You begin by calling the good man "quirky and geek chic." You then go further to imply that all the young people who are exhorted to participate in the process are slammed as stupid because Ron "doesn't use big complicated words," duh!
Although you did admit that it is not just the young -- hello! -- you downplay his support and fund-raising achievements. You then try to equate Dr. Paul's positions as liberal, while in the back-end of the piece you point out the alleged discrepancies in his positions as anathema to liberals. So which is it?
It's the same when you state that his support falls among the young when they find out about his aversion to the fascist nanny-state our youth have been brainwashed -- with the help of the MSM -- into believing somehow this criminal and corrupt government will somehow take care of them.
Unfortunately for the MSM and the elites in control of the government, the youth are understanding that their very futures are at stake due to this unending state of warfare based upon unholy lies.
You then try to imply that Dr. Ron doesn't have a heart because he is non-interventionist on Sudan. Unfortunately, as we have seen in Iraq, Dr. Paul is correct. The aid seldom reaches those it's intended for, and is often looted or stolen (as we have seen on a massive scale in Iraq).
You go even further by implying the same thing around the environmental "crises" that allegedly are inflicting our world.
Yes, Dr. Paul doesn't care about the future, even though he is the only hope for the future of this country. I, personally, sir, am tired of the really terrible coverage that your paper and all of America's MSM direct toward this candidate. That must have been another stupid kid I guess.
Question: Was she a Clinton plant, sir?
You then go whole hog by saying Dr. Paul opposes abortion rights (yes, he does, and that's a good thing sir, because there is enough killing going on. And Dr. Paul makes a good point. A girl who self-aborts and tosses the kid away gets a murder charge, while a doctor reaching in is a medical procedure.)
Whatever happened to state's rights, sir?
Then you again call him quirky, and that he "suddenly catches fire" but will flame out. Ha-ha-ha! I don't think so, sir. We are the people who are motivated, vote and care, sir!
And you say he will fade after "his unorthodox ideology comes into sharper focus." WHEN?!???!! You and the rest of the MSM have done nothing but ignore and rip Dr. Ron Paul!! When his "unorthodox ideology" is heard, THE PEOPLE LOVE HIM!!
So what gives, sir? You admit he is on the ascending path, but will only be a wild-card.
Yes, sir, and if the vote is fair, he will be a WILD CARD WINNER!!!!
For the record, I have been a life-long supporter of our Democratic senators, I voted for Mr. Kerry in 2004. I've voted Democrat in most local races except for Weld as governor I believe.
Occasionally I have registered as a Republican to vote in their primaries; however, after the last six years, I will never do that. I will maintain the unenrolled category for the rest of my life.
This is how I came to reject the dogma of the "one-party, two-wing" faction of America's false political choices.
Please allow us, sir, the voters to decide the qualifications and and capabilities of the next president for ourselves, and stop promoting an agenda and pushing a world view on us.
Your paper constantly runs front-page puff pieces on the likes of Romney, Giuliani, Clinton, Obama.
Why don't you like Congressman Paul, and by extension, why do you MSM and government types hate the American people so much? We want our country back, sir.
The Bush's and the Clinton's have stolen it!
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. I will look forward to more even-handed coverage in the future.
Sincerely yours,
(Name and address withheld from the blog. Make the pukes work for it)
P.S. How come the Rudy/Fox/Judith Regan story didn't make the paper?"
And about that Zogby poll:
Zogby: Ron Paul has a good chance of winning New Hampshire
The latest CBS poll out has Ron Paul at 8% among registered Republicans who are likely to vote in the primaries. Given that a large number of Paul supporters are always excluded from the polling data, it is possible that Ron Paul could win New Hampshire when their primary is held."
