Who Is Ron Paul Trying To Fool?

You have to wonder about Ron Paul’s ethics.

He is apparently perfectly all right with letting his acolytes run rigged poll after rigged poll to make him look good, and that is not exactly pristinely honest. It is transparently obvious that his supporters are putting up polls on Websites, then emailing the Ron Paul Fan Club so they can all come vote, at least once, for their hero. It is pretty easy to tell what is going on, since he gets 80% or so in these rigged polls and closer to 1% in actual scientific polls.

What that tells me is that Mr. Paul is perfectly capable of the same sort of deceit and spin that has become the absolute norm for the current administration. Someone should mention to him that the American people seem to be tired, at long last, of being lied to by their President. Those same people are very unlikely to vote for a candidate whose lack of ethics would allow him to claim victory in rigged and meaningless polls.

Mr. Paul himself seems like a decent enough fellow. Hell, George W. Bush did not look as awful as he turned out to be, either. Mr. Paul has a group of positions on issues that guarantee that the Republican Party doesn’t want to let him into their tent. One would think that would be a good thing, given the current political climate. But those same positions are all over the board, with no real consistency on the issues in evidence.

Mr. Paul is not a victim of the media, nor of the American political process. He is simply a marginal candidate with marginal ideas. I understand that he has impressed a small percentage of the American populace, and that most of that small percentage has access to a computer and are willing to salivate on command. The problem is that it takes more than a marginal candidate with a small, plugged-in following to make a serious run at President. Or Dogcatcher, for that matter.

Nobody is buying the phony polls, folks. All they are doing is making your candidate look bad, making people question the ethics that allow him to allow these cheesy things to happen. The fact is that if you took all of the Hitler fans in America, put them in one room, and took a poll, Hitler would win. Who cares? All that is does is give the room and the poll-fakers a bad name. In Mr. Paul’s case, it also gives the poll-winner a bad name.

The only way that you can turn a 1% candidate into an 80% candidate is by chicanery, by stacking the deck. Americans have had enough of that crap over the last seven years. All that you are doing is hurting your candidate. Soon he won’t even be a 1% candidate. He won’t be a candidate at all.


Comments

Who Is Ron Paul Trying To Fool? — 8 Comments

  1. The other way a candidate can overperform in internet polls is if his constituency is paying attention to the process, and his opponents’ are not.

    Paul draws supporters from libertarians, Objectivists, and antiwar activists, all of whom are politically obsessed and overrepresented online. They would be paying attention and voting in online polls if this was 2005.

    The average Giuliani supporter, on the other hand, is some old guy with an oxygen tank who pays attention to politics for the 3 days before the primary and not before, but who will answer “Giuliani” if someone gets him on the phone for a poll. Those types of supporters will never register in an internet poll. Ever.

    And it’s quite a news scoop that Paul supporters managed to hack MSNBC’s website to put up a poll, and managed to somehow commandeer the entire Fox Network to arrange their text message poll. Where exactly are you getting the ” his supporters are putting up polls on Websites [sic]” bit, anyway?

  2. Speaking of Ron Paul acolytes, there’s one now! Sorry, Fluffy, but your dog won’t hunt. According to the REAL polls, like the Pew (1%), the Gallup (2%), the CNN (2%), Time (<1%), CBS (<1%), ABC (3%), your candidate is indeed marginal. And the thing that prompted me to write this post at all is two polls that I was taken to by StumbleUpon last night, on sites put up just for that single purpose, Mr. Paul scored in the eighties. I saw a couple just like them in the last week or so. They mean nothing, just as I said and you are trying to use them to your advantage just as I said.

    I don’t much care who Paul draws his support from if he rates a 1-3% response from properly run polls. You may be paying attention, but there aren’t enough of you to make much of a difference. Citing the MSNBC poll, by the way, has no connection to a poll respected by anyone, except apparently you. Real polls call you, you don’t call them

    Don’t talk to me about Web glitz or write off everybody but your buds, either. If you stay where you are, you’ll be backing a 1% performer in 2009. That is certainly your right. It is a part of the process, even for people that like to make fun of anyone over thirty. You, son, will eventually be over 30. If you wish to waste your time on a 1% candidate, by all means, have at it. You’re well organized and may be able to hold that line.

    Ron Paul fans communicate well. You are able to flood the polls of your choice when you can call them, or just go to a website and click. Congratulations. You are doing exactly what I said you were doing. But when the scientific polls are taken, and they poll a real cross-section of the voters, you don’t have the mojo to be real. If you think that kind of crap is good for your candidate, you may want to ask the old guy for a hit off his oxygen tank; you clearly are not thinking, well, clearly. I'm afraid that you also might find it harder to organize and communicate with 51% of the voters than it is with 1% of the voters.

    Have a nice election. But don’t expect win any. No offense, honestly. You are apparently doing what you think is right. Go for it. It’s just that we don’t need any more spin, and that’s apparently all you have to bring to the table right now. Lay the groundwork and get ready for 2012. I like what you are trying to do, Fluff, I really do. I am no longer a fan of the two-party system. I just don't like the shenanigans that are being pulled. We already have a big enough problem with that.

    PS - here's one of those annoying sites : http://uselectionatlas.org/MOCK/PRESIDENT/2008R/mock.php

  3. Hi,

    I enjoy your articles and your viewpoint but I think you’ve missed the mark with this article about Ron Paul. You imply deceipt and spin on his part but quote no evidence other than the polls themselves.

    In light of his current fundraising successes I wonder if you’ve reconsidered your position and are now asking “what’s wrong with these ‘scientific’ polls?”

    Larry

  4. Larry –

    Sorry, no, I sill feel the same way. Mr. Paul is very much like most other politicians, which is not very attractive in any case. I cannot attest to his honesty one way or the other, except to say that he has chosen a questionable line of work, ;o)

    You say that his fund raising success should change my mind. It does not. He seems to have a firm grip on his acolytes when he’s raising money, but not when they are building those ridiculous polls. You will note, by the way, that those polls have largely gone away. I was apparently not the only one who noticed. He stopped it only when he got caught.

    I cannot see for the life of me why people see him as a breath of fresh air. He is just warmed-over political cheese, saying whatever he feels might get him elected, just like the rest of the pack.

    All of that said, I don’t have much more against Ron Paul than I have against Mitt Romney or Hillary Clinton. They all strike me as typical American politicians, which is to say a group of unprincipled people that have been bought and paid for by interests that are not mine, or in the favor of the average American. That Mr. Paul is doing this with a new and well-defined group of internet-savvy people just says he’s found a new wrinkle in an old and stale suit.

  5. Kermit, you really are missing the point. The Polls don’t mean a damn thing…as you say. What DOES matter is that RP stands for the aspirations of a large number of people in the USA and the world. He will get the troops out of other countries, pare down government, restore Constitutional law, eliminate many of the useless Federal departments that are really only there to subdue the people, and he will restore respect for the country.

    I am not an American, so I have no direct interest in the election. But sitting on the sidelines as I am, I can clearly see what is wrong with America today and who would be best suited to fix the problems.

    Would Obama make a good President? I doubt it. He doesn’t offer anything new. He toes the party line and he is a good Uncle Tom.

    Hilary? No balls, no clear vision, she’s a woman. She probably doesn’t even give good hea….sorry, I won’t go there.

    Guilliani and the rest? Losers. Anyway, Guilliani may not be in the race much longer. His health is a problem. McCain is too gung-ho and has never proved his ability to lead anyone.

    The US has tried policing the world. I used to think you guys wore white hats. I don’t any longer. Your feet of clay are mired in the mud. Time to pull your collective heads in and tend to your own country. RP would work with other leaders to build a better world. I don’t support him on every issue, but his platform is a heck of a lot better than any of the others. I just hope that a majority of your people realize this when it is time to vote. Good luck.

  6. My point was and is that Mr. Paul failed to stop the stupid polling practices I described until he was called on it. That does not speak highly of his ethics. I have had enough spin, enough candidate bullshit, enough pandering to voters. Paul is a candidate. < shrug > If he ever becomes a meaningful candidate, I’ll pay more attention to him.

    I don’t think that we have a good candidate, period. If we had a good candidate, that candidate would be working within the system to impeach, arrest, or institutionalize George Bush. Instead, they are all hoping to become the next King of America, taking advantage of Bush’s treasonable activities and decisions. That includes Mr. Paul, whether he has internet-savvy fanboys or not. He has nor more balls than Hillary, no more winning ways than Guilliani, no more fresh ideas that Obama. He has picked a demographic and he is preaching to it. I am unimpressed.

  7. I agree with much that you say. I, too, am disappointed that no politician has had the guts to impeach Bushit/Cheyney. Pelosi is a disgrace. The rest of the candidates are pathetic. And as I said, even RP fails on a few points with me. But who else is there? If RP is the best you have, then why not support him?

    Here’s an idea. Why don’t YOU run? I suspect you would make a very good President. You have strong opinions and valid ideas. That’s more than most of that bunch running now has. Go for it!

  8. LOL! If we were to have a Kermit in the White House, it should be the one that started in Canada. I have a feeling that he would do a better job than I. And if I think Ron Paul is a marginal candidate, I would have to invent new terminology to describe my own lack of a chance.

    I’m almost at the point where I wish Gore would leap in.

    Desperation, Huntin’ Dog, pure desperation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>