Ron Paul Quietly Converting GOP Believers

By John Fout

TheStreet.com Political Correspondent

8/9/2007 12:20 PM EDT

Click here for more stories by John Fout

Why haven't conservatives leaders embraced their own ideals and come out to support Ron Paul in public?

I pondered this issue in an article in June. I saw Paul as the one second-tier candidate who might have a chance of a breakout from the pack. It turns out I might have got it right. He has remained the most popular GOP candidate on the Internet. This genuine outpouring of support is rivaled only by that for Barack Obama.

Paul remains low in the polls, but his fund-raising suggests he has moved into a separate tier not shared by other small candidates. His campaign has $2.4 million on hand — more than that of Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.). I spoke with Jesse Benton, Paul's communications director, and he says funding continues to be positive for this quarter.

The other second-tier GOP candidates need to do well in the Iowa Ames Straw Poll to stay in the race. Paul does not. His money and popularity over the Internet have separated him from the others.

Paul's campaign recently scheduled several last-minute events in South Carolina with a few days notice. They drew 450 people at one and over 1,000 at another. Front-runner Rudy Giuliani would love to draw those kinds of crowds.

So Paul has gotten support. Sometimes, his supporters don't always agree. A recent New York Times Magazine piece excerpted the following from a supporter's letter to Paul headquarters:

We're in a difficult position of working on a campaign that draws supporters from laterally opposing points of view, and we have the added bonus of attracting every wacko fringe group in the country. And in a Ron Paul Meetup many people will consider each other “wackos” for their beliefs whether that is simply because they're liberal, conspiracy theorists, neo-Nazis, evangelical Christian, etc. … We absolutely must focus on Ron's message only and put aside all other agendas, which anyone can save for the next “Star Trek” convention or whatever.

The New York Times piece, nevertheless, demonstrates that Paul's support is genuine.

Then, the National Review Online jumped into the Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) debate last week. It seems that NRO feels conflicted about supporting Paul for president, as do many conservatives.

First, John Derbyshire wrote glowingly about all of the conservative credentials of Paul. Derbyshire's final conclusion, however, was that he could not embrace his own dreams and ideals:

Ain't gonna happen. It was, after all, a conservative who said that politics is the art of the possible. Ron Paul is not possible. His candidacy belongs to the realm of dreams, not practical politics. But, oh, what sweet dreams!

Then Todd Seavey came to Paul's defense a day later. He sees Paul as the perfect fusion candidate to bring together the fiscal and social conservatives:

Presto! The much-lamented divide between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives, which has seemed to be widening lately, is eliminated. As has oft been said, Republicans tend to fare best when they pursue the program (pioneered by National Review and praised last year by Ryan Sager in his book Elephant in the Room) called “fusionism,” yoking together social conservatism and the libertarian desire to shrink government.

Paul's positions are also genuine. He has a very consistent voting record, so much so that it occasionally puts him in hot water in his own district. But his ability to stay on message will get him support from an important corner of the Republican Party — the evangelicals.

The evangelicals in the GOP have experienced fatigue over the last few years. They have heard quite a few promises from Washington but have had precious few real victories to celebrate. How long can they put up with the pandering from the top tier candidates like Giuliani (pro-choice), Mitt Romney (a flip-flopper), and Fred Thompson (a lobbyist).

Paul has always been pro-life. He was also an original supporter of Ronald Reagan in 1976 against Gerald Ford. But you won't hear him discussing his views on religion in public. He's a firm believer in the Constitution and the separation between church and state.

So what is stopping conservatives from coming out and supporting Ron Paul in public? I return to Derbyshire's piece:

If Washington, D.C. were the drowsy southern town that Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge rode into, Ron Paul would have a chance. Washington's not like that nowadays, though. It is a vast megalopolis, every nook and cranny stuffed with lobbyists, lawyers, and a hundred thousand species of tax-eater.

Derbyshire basically admits to all of the foibles that have damaged the Republicans over the last seven years — the lobbyists and scandals. Conservatives have gone from a party of ideals to a party of money, power brokering and winning at all costs.

Unfortunately for the GOP, it has caught up with them. They lost soundly in 2006 and may well repeat it in 2008. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) didn't help their cause last week with another ethics scandal. He's also the senator responsible for an earmark for the “bridge to nowhere.”

So why not take a chance on Ron Paul? Even if you can't win, at least conservatives would feel good that they did the right thing by cleaning house. Besides, the last time a conservative got drubbed in a presidential election was Barry Goldwater in 1964. His loss did lead conservatives to their greatest win — Ronald Reagan.

Article taken from http://www.TheStreet.com

</br>

I'm just wondering if you would be interested in doing a piece on Ron Paul the Republican Candidate for President.

I read an article from ABC news just after the debate there in Iowa about how Iowans are dissatisfied with their choices.

My question is, have they even heard of Ron Paul?

On the ABC news website Romney is the professed leader of the debate. With scarcely a mention of Paul. Yet if you do a bit of research (go to http://abcnews.go.co… and click on “this week debate”) you will find that on their own poll Ron Paul has a staggering 42,200 votes to Romney sparce 4,600.

This following link has a collage of his remarks at the debate. Sounds like he got alot of support from the audience to me. ( http://www.youtube.c… = ) If you look at the ABC website there is hardly any coverage of Ron Paul's remarks. Here is a little better coverage of Paul's soaring online support: http://www.youtube.c…

Why the media blackout? Why so little coverage of Ron Paul? If nothing else this subject alone is newsworthy in my opinion. Especially in light of his soaring internet popularity. He is truly the ONLY grassroots TRUE ALTERNATIVE candidate in the running.

We cannot have a free and functioning Democracy if we do not have a functioning free press (see Thomas Jefferson)

Please let this Pro-Peace, Pro-Constitution, Pro-Liberty of and for We the People candidate be heard in your home town. It seems to me that Ron Paul perfectly embodies the sort of integrity and principled character that would fall on eager ears in your area.

Thank you for your time, and please let me know if come up with something!

From a very Concerned Citizen of this Great Nation,

-Nathan

PS. I am sending this email out entirely for my own reasons, and I am not directly affiliated with Ron Paul's campaign. 

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul's Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.

He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.

He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.

He has never voted to raise congressional pay.

He has never taken a government-paid junket.

He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.

He voted against regulating the Internet.

He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.

He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S . treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

Taken from the following link:

http://www.RonPaul2008.com
</p>

Here is why the FairTax MUST replace the income tax. It's:

Here is why the FairTax MUST replace the income tax. It’s:

I’m just wondering if you would be interested in doing a piece on Ron Paul the Republican Candidate for President.

I read an article from ABC news just after the debate there in Iowa about how Iowans are dissatisfied with their choices.

My question is, have they even heard of Ron Paul?

On the ABC news website Romney is the professed leader of the debate. With scarcely a mention of Paul. Yet if you do a bit of research (go to http://abcnews.go.co… and click on “this week debate”) you will find that on their own poll Ron Paul has a staggering 42,200 votes to Romney sparce 4,600.

This following link has a collage of his remarks at the debate. Sounds like he got alot of support from the audience to me. ( http://www.youtube.c… = ) If you look at the ABC website there is hardly any coverage of Ron Paul’s remarks. Here is a little better coverage of Paul’s soaring online support: http://www.youtube.c…

Why the media blackout? Why so little coverage of Ron Paul? If nothing else this subject alone is newsworthy in my opinion. Especially in light of his soaring internet popularity. He is truly the ONLY grassroots TRUE ALTERNATIVE candidate in the running.

We cannot have a free and functioning Democracy if we do not have a functioning free press (see Thomas Jefferson)

Please let this Pro-Peace, Pro-Constitution, Pro-Liberty of and for We the People candidate be heard in your home town. It seems to me that Ron Paul perfectly embodies the sort of integrity and principled character that would fall on eager ears in your area.

Thank you for your time, and please let me know if come up with something!

From a very Concerned Citizen of this Great Nation,

-Nathan

PS. I am sending this email out entirely for my own reasons, and I am not directly affiliated with Ron Paul’s campaign. 

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S . treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

Taken from the following link:

http://www.RonPaul2008.com

By John Fout
TheStreet.com Political Correspondent
8/9/2007 12:20 PM EDT
Click here for more stories by John Fout

Why haven’t conservatives leaders embraced their own ideals and come out to support Ron Paul in public?
I pondered this issue in an article in June. I saw Paul as the one second-tier candidate who might have a chance of a breakout from the pack. It turns out I might have got it right. He has remained the most popular GOP candidate on the Internet. This genuine outpouring of support is rivaled only by that for Barack Obama.
Paul remains low in the polls, but his fund-raising suggests he has moved into a separate tier not shared by other small candidates. His campaign has $2.4 million on hand — more than that of Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.). I spoke with Jesse Benton, Paul’s communications director, and he says funding continues to be positive for this quarter.
The other second-tier GOP candidates need to do well in the Iowa Ames Straw Poll to stay in the race. Paul does not. His money and popularity over the Internet have separated him from the others.
Paul’s campaign recently scheduled several last-minute events in South Carolina with a few days notice. They drew 450 people at one and over 1,000 at another. Front-runner Rudy Giuliani would love to draw those kinds of crowds.

So Paul has gotten support. Sometimes, his supporters don’t always agree. A recent New York Times Magazine piece excerpted the following from a supporter’s letter to Paul headquarters:
We’re in a difficult position of working on a campaign that draws supporters from laterally opposing points of view, and we have the added bonus of attracting every wacko fringe group in the country. And in a Ron Paul Meetup many people will consider each other “wackos” for their beliefs whether that is simply because they’re liberal, conspiracy theorists, neo-Nazis, evangelical Christian, etc. … We absolutely must focus on Ron’s message only and put aside all other agendas, which anyone can save for the next “Star Trek” convention or whatever.
The New York Times piece, nevertheless, demonstrates that Paul’s support is genuine.
Then, the National Review Online jumped into the Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) debate last week. It seems that NRO feels conflicted about supporting Paul for president, as do many conservatives.
First, John Derbyshire wrote glowingly about all of the conservative credentials of Paul. Derbyshire’s final conclusion, however, was that he could not embrace his own dreams and ideals:
Ain’t gonna happen. It was, after all, a conservative who said that politics is the art of the possible. Ron Paul is not possible. His candidacy belongs to the realm of dreams, not practical politics. But, oh, what sweet dreams!
Then Todd Seavey came to Paul’s defense a day later. He sees Paul as the perfect fusion candidate to bring together the fiscal and social conservatives:
Presto! The much-lamented divide between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives, which has seemed to be widening lately, is eliminated. As has oft been said, Republicans tend to fare best when they pursue the program (pioneered by National Review and praised last year by Ryan Sager in his book Elephant in the Room) called “fusionism,” yoking together social conservatism and the libertarian desire to shrink government.
Paul’s positions are also genuine. He has a very consistent voting record, so much so that it occasionally puts him in hot water in his own district. But his ability to stay on message will get him support from an important corner of the Republican Party — the evangelicals.
The evangelicals in the GOP have experienced fatigue over the last few years. They have heard quite a few promises from Washington but have had precious few real victories to celebrate. How long can they put up with the pandering from the top tier candidates like Giuliani (pro-choice), Mitt Romney (a flip-flopper), and Fred Thompson (a lobbyist).
Paul has always been pro-life. He was also an original supporter of Ronald Reagan in 1976 against Gerald Ford. But you won’t hear him discussing his views on religion in public. He’s a firm believer in the Constitution and the separation between church and state.
So what is stopping conservatives from coming out and supporting Ron Paul in public? I return to Derbyshire’s piece:
If Washington, D.C. were the drowsy southern town that Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge rode into, Ron Paul would have a chance. Washington’s not like that nowadays, though. It is a vast megalopolis, every nook and cranny stuffed with lobbyists, lawyers, and a hundred thousand species of tax-eater.
Derbyshire basically admits to all of the foibles that have damaged the Republicans over the last seven years — the lobbyists and scandals. Conservatives have gone from a party of ideals to a party of money, power brokering and winning at all costs.
Unfortunately for the GOP, it has caught up with them. They lost soundly in 2006 and may well repeat it in 2008. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) didn’t help their cause last week with another ethics scandal. He’s also the senator responsible for an earmark for the “bridge to nowhere.”
So why not take a chance on Ron Paul? Even if you can’t win, at least conservatives would feel good that they did the right thing by cleaning house. Besides, the last time a conservative got drubbed in a presidential election was Barry Goldwater in 1964. His loss did lead conservatives to their greatest win — Ronald Reagan.

Article taken from http://www.TheStreet.com