As I pointed out in my earlier posts under: Ron Paul beats Giuliani, like most Republicans who support Dr. Paul, we find ourselves doing so in spite of his "other" supporters.  Most of whom show every sign of being little more than crazed anarchists who believe Ron Paul is their ticket to political Nirvana.  

As evidence of this, I give you one, Nathan Young.  He writes for a publication called: "The Triangle", at http://media.www.thetriangle.org, a "Website of the Independent Student Newspaper at Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.    The article itself is hoisted at: http://media.www.thetriangle.org/media/storage/paper689/news/2008/01/25/EdOp/Ron- Paul.Is.The.True.Patriot.Among.The.Candidates-3168199-page2.shtml.

The article is entitled -- now get this: "Ron Paul is the true patriot among the candidates".

According to Mr. Young, Ron Paul isn't "a" true patriot, but "the" true patriot among the candidates. I won't bore you here with the details of the article, suffice it to say, Mr. Young failed to make his case.

The question that kept coming up in my mind while I struggled to find anything in Dr. Paul's already distingished career that came close to Sen. McCain's: Who would even suggest such a thing?  Who would even bring this issue up in the first place?

Writers may be many things,  but most write to their perceived audiences.  So here we have a pretty good snapshot of your typical, young  Ron Paul zealot, writing to an audience of other schizoid-Ron Paul anarchists about the "True" patriot in this race.  

I call these people anarchists because these are the same young Democrats who felt themselves betrayed by their party because they didn't pull us out of the war.  As I have mentioned before, none of these people would ever consider actually supporting the Republican Presidential nominee if it wasn't Ron Paul, so they are not Republicans. They are quite simply anarchaists aiming to tear down our governmental structure by supporting a candidate within whom they believe represents no government at all to them.  Now tell me if that isn't schizoid?

I have probably said this in another post around here but every few years one of the "cult figure" candidates arises.  Ru Paul is this year's flavor of kook.  People around here tend think Hillary is endowed with supernatural evil.  Ru Paul supporters tend to think he is the Messiah.  But, in a few years most of them will be back to worshiping Gerry Garcia, Mumia, or a rock underneath the overpass at mile marker 245 on I 10 in Louisiana.  

One of the more interesting things about democracy is its ability to breed true crackpots.  Of course, HUGO CHAVEZ is quite a crackpot too and he has nothing to do with democracy...

paleocon wrote:I have probably said this in another post around here but every few years one of the "cult figure" candidates arises.  Ru Paul is this year's flavor of kook.  People around here tend think Hillary is endowed with supernatural evil.  Ru Paul supporters tend to think he is the Messiah.  But, in a few years most of them will be back to worshiping Gerry Garcia, Mumia, or a rock underneath the overpass at mile marker 245 on I 10 in Louisiana.  

One of the more interesting things about democracy is its ability to breed true crackpots.  Of course, HUGO CHAVEZ is quite a crackpot too and he has nothing to do with democracy...

You are right, of course. But it's more than that. This is a whole sector of our society, young, educated who identified with the left and the Democratic Party during the last election. Actually, they belong to no political party and no particular ideology except what tune the Pied Piper is playing at the time.  They are anarchists. They see themselves as powerless victims of our political system and are out to steal some for themselves, metaphorically speaking.

davidmfarrar wrote:
You are right, of course. But it's more than that. This is a whole sector of our society, young, educated who identified with the left and the Democratic Party during the last election. Actually, they belong to no political party and no particular ideology except what tune the Pied Piper is playing at the time.  They are anarchists. They see themselves as powerless victims of our political system and are out to steal some for themselves, metaphorically speaking.

There is certainly a group of anarchists in his camp.  Liberterians are often just a short push away from being anarchists.  But there is a truly odd collection of different groups supporting and surrounding Ru Paul.  In fact, I suspect many of them support him for no particular reason other than they didn't support him last time.  If it wasn't Ru Paul it would be Charles Manson or some other cultic personality.

You can probably bet you wouldn't see many of his "diverse" supporters socializing in normal circumstances.

paleocon wrote:

davidmfarrar wrote:
You are right, of course. But it's more than that. This is a whole sector of our society, young, educated who identified with the left and the Democratic Party during the last election. Actually, they belong to no political party and no particular ideology except what tune the Pied Piper is playing at the time.  They are anarchists. They see themselves as powerless victims of our political system and are out to steal some for themselves, metaphorically speaking.

There is certainly a group of anarchists in his camp.  Liberterians are often just a short push away from being anarchists.  But there is a truly odd collection of different groups supporting and surrounding Ru Paul.  In fact, I suspect many of them support him for no particular reason other than they didn't support him last time.  If it wasn't Ru Paul it would be Charles Manson or some other cultic personality.

You can probably bet you wouldn't see many of his "diverse" supporters socializing in normal circumstances.

You are right. The joke of the whole thing is, I can't decide iwe are better off with them staying on the outside of the partisian political process or inside.

By the way, I have just checked out your web space.

I have been updating my own "entertainment" site at Yuwie. If you get confronted by some ads, just click on the extreme upper right-hand URL that will get you through. It's SNS site like these I hope to fund the National Online Party with...some day.  

I also have another site that I am still working on. It's a virtual video tour of Jerusalem, that's at: Virtual Christian Video Tours .

The site below is my "political" site.

davidmfarrar wrote:
You are right. The joke of the whole thing is, I can't decide iwe are better off with them staying on the outside of the partisian political process or inside.

One of the things I noticed is that the "disassociated" or "disaffected" group seems to be getting larger.  I don't know what that bodes for the future but people like Nader and LaRouche could usually draw 1 to 3% of the electorate.  Perot made a big splash one year to 19%.  But, Ru Paul is way whackier than Perot (who I think is pretty whacky) and he seems to draw in a 5 to 10% share of the voters.  

I guess we just have a lot of neurotics on meds and they have to end up somewhere.

paleocon wrote:

davidmfarrar wrote:
You are right. The joke of the whole thing is, I can't decide iwe are better off with them staying on the outside of the partisian political process or inside.

One of the things I noticed is that the "disassociated" or "disaffected" group seems to be getting larger.  I don't know what that bodes for the future but people like Nader and LaRouche could usually draw 1 to 3% of the electorate.  Perot made a big splash one year to 19%.  But, Ru Paul is way whackier than Perot (who I think is pretty whacky) and he seems to draw in a 5 to 10% share of the voters.  

I guess we just have a lot of neurotics on meds and they have to end up somewhere.

I am not sure if that is the only reason.  I think what we see here is a technological line-of-demarcation between the effective use of the Internet by one sector of our society and its inefficient use by political parties in general.

As I mention on my National Online Party website, the Internet can also play a major role in improving partisan participation. As it stands right now, party leaders are actually frightened to death of the Internet and placing better communicative tools in the hands of their members. If the Internet is going to be used effectively to strengthen peoples' voices within the political parties of this country,  it will have to be done by the people themselves, as Dr. Paul's anarchists have this far so ably proven.

davidmfarrar wrote:I am not sure if that is the only reason.  I think what we see here is a technological line-of-demarcation between the effective use of the Internet by one sector of our society and its inefficient use by political parties in general.

As I mention on my National Online Party website, the Internet can also play a major role in improving partisan participation. As it stands right now, party leaders are actually frightened to death of the Internet and placing better communicative tools in the hands of their members. If the Internet is going to be used effectively to strengthen peoples' voices within the political parties of this country,  it will have to be done by the people themselves, as Dr. Paul's anarchists have this far so ably proven.

I do see your point.  Dean and Paul (sounds like a 60's musical group) have made outstanding use of the internet for fund raising.  Paul's supporters are waging a viral campaign and are getting the word out to lots of people.  The problem is the more they explain themselves the fewer people want to support Paul.

The two main parties are not using the internet effectively for outreach to their members.  During my last local election, I got a few emails from campaigns asking for help but that was it.  There was more much email traffic after the GOP lost congratulating the candidates for a well run campaign.  That hardly counts as effective use.

On the other hand, the status quo is good for the people in charge and maybe they don't want a bunch of plebians coming in and upsetting the apple cart.  The internet has a high potential for creating such a situation.  It seems the folks running my local party want more people like themselves in the party and fewer "conservatives."  The internet would allow them to find "their kind of people" if they use it right.  Or it might just bring in the "wrong kind of people" if they use it at all.

paleocon wrote:

davidmfarrar wrote:I am not sure if that is the only reason.  I think what we see here is a technological line-of-demarcation between the effective use of the Internet by one sector of our society and its inefficient use by political parties in general.

As I mention on my National Online Party website, the Internet can also play a major role in improving partisan participation. As it stands right now, party leaders are actually frightened to death of the Internet and placing better communicative tools in the hands of their members. If the Internet is going to be used effectively to strengthen peoples' voices within the political parties of this country,  it will have to be done by the people themselves, as Dr. Paul's anarchists have this far so ably proven.

I do see your point.  Dean and Paul (sounds like a 60's musical group) have made outstanding use of the Internet for fund raising.  Paul's supporters are waging a viral campaign and are getting the word out to lots of people.  The problem is the more they explain themselves the fewer people want to support Paul.

The two main parties are not using the internet effectively for outreach to their members.  During my last local election, I got a few emails from campaigns asking for help but that was it.  There was more much email traffic after the GOP lost congratulating the candidates for a well run campaign.  That hardly counts as effective use.

On the other hand, the status quo is good for the people in charge and maybe they don't want a bunch of plebians coming in and upsetting the apple cart.  The internet has a high potential for creating such a situation.  It seems the folks running my local party want more people like themselves in the party and fewer "conservatives."  The internet would allow them to find "their kind of people" if they use it right.  Or it might just bring in the "wrong kind of people" if they use it at all.

I tnink it is important to point out here, there is a structural difference between "members" and registered members.

"Members" refer to a small group of "elected" party officials (Executuve Committee members) within the party structure.

"Registered" members refer to the vast majority of party members who do not have any official party position.

This subject is really too long to discuss here -- and besides, I get paid for this type of consultation -- but suffice it to say, we now can see why our political party structure must move into a post-Internet structure as quickly as possible.

One of the most important aspects of this new paradigm, one that, as I see it, has been largely overlooked by party officials, is the fact that "efficient" communication isn't a one-way street.  Under the right structure,  elected public officeholders and party officials will also be able to communicate with their base virtually free of cost by a simple touch of a button. So using the Internet to its fullest within the party structure represents a true win-win situation for both members and registered members alike in the democratic process.

As we have seen, if we fail as a responsible political structure to bring cyberly empowered registered members into the party structure itself for the first time -- this is the first time in histroy we have been technically able achieve this -- other far, far less politically mature groups will only begin to exploit this fact to our peril .

davidmfarrar wrote:This subject is really too long to discuss here -- and besides, I get paid for this type of consultation -- but suffice it to say, we now can see why our political party structure must move into a post-Internet structure as quickly as possible.

One of the most important aspects of this new paradigm, one that, as I see it, has been largely overlooked by party officials, is the fact that "efficient" communication isn't a one-way street.  Under the right structure,  elected public officeholders and party officials will also be able to communicate with their base virtually free of cost by a simple touch of a button. So using the Internet to its fullest within the party structure represents a true win-win situation for both members and registered members alike in the democratic process.

Well, now you are venturing into the area where I get paid for consultation.  Everyone thinks the internet is "free."  It is relatively less expensive than other information systems but building the kind of systems to provide the "efficient" two-way communications you speak of is not free.  People make millions of dollars building those kinds of systems.  "Free" gets you a forum or wiki chat not much different from this one.