RedState.com, a prominent conservative blog, dropped the hammer last month against the Ron Paul campaign and its supporters. Complaining about liberal provocateurs, Leon H. Wolf wrote:

Effective immediately, new users may *not* shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada. If your account is less than 6 months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul. Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal.

(Wolf (http://redstate.com/blogs/leon_h_wolf/2007/oct/22/attention_ron_paul_supporters_life_is_really_not_f air))

In a maneuver I consider absolutely classic, Wolf demands that Paul supporters earn his respect by promoting other candidates and issues:

Hey, we're sure *some* of Ron Paul's supporters really are Republicans. They can post at any one of a zillion Ron Paul online forums. Those who have *earned* our respect by contributing usefully for a substantial period of time will be listened to with appropriate respect. Those who have not will have to *earn* that respect by contributing usefully in the other threads... and not mentioning Ron Paul. Given a month of solid contributing, send one of us an email and we'll consider lifting the restriction on your account.

(ibid (http://redstate.com/blogs/leon_h_wolf/2007/oct/22/attention_ron_paul_supporters_life_is_really_not_f air))

It is a difficult conundrum, admittedly, and not helped by the fact that , as Kate Phillips notes for The Caucus:

Early this year, RedState, which features several bloggers, was bought by Eagle Publishing, a company that also owns Regnery Publishing and Human Events, among other ventures that cater to conservative Republicans.

(Phillips (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/a-ban-on-ron-paul-supporters/))

RedState suffers the appearance of a conflict of interest. Blaming liberal provocateurs is an interesting tactic, but it may well be that Ron Paul and his supporters just aren't the candidate of choice for RedState's masters.
___________________

Notes:

Wolf, Leon H. "Attention, Ron Paul Supporters (Life is *REALLY* Not Fair)". RedState.com. October 22, 2007. See http://redstate.com/blogs/leon_h_wolf/2007/oct/22/attention_ron_paul_supporters_life_is_really_not_f air

Phillips, Kate. "A Ban on Ron Paul Supporters". The Caucus. October 24, 2007. See http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/a-ban-on-ron-paul-supporters/

Hannity's forums temporarily adopted a similar policy a little while ago. I believe it's been dropped.

To address the liberal provocateur bit mentioned in your post, from the NYTimes blog you linked to:

Over at Captain’s Quarters, Ed Morrissey (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/015298.php) disagreed with RedState’s decision, saying it would more likely hurt the site than Mr. Paul and his supporters. Here’s part of what he had to say yesterday:

"I disagree with Leon’s assumption that these Paul supporters are all or mostly cryptoliberals. Plenty of libertarian-leaning Republicans exist in the party, along with the former Buchananites and isolationists of the GOP. Instead of cutting these people off, it might be better for Redstate to keep engaging them. After all, Paul will not be in the race all that much longer, and we need those voters to stay in the GOP when Paul disappears. There are worse impulses than libertarianism."

Good eye, Ashura. Thank you. I suppose we should also include RedState's response to Ed Morrissey (http://www.redstate.com/blogs/moe_lane/2007/oct/23/nothing_personal_ed_morrissey):

.... RedState is a community blog, and our collective opinion is that we don't actually want the typical online Ron Paul supporter in either our community, or for that matter, the GOP.

(Lane (http://www.redstate.com/blogs/moe_lane/2007/oct/23/nothing_personal_ed_morrissey))

Ron Paul's supporters are warned: conservative Republicans do not want your vote. Don't get me wrong, I know the Democrats aren't going to impress you with plans for health care and such, but there are some liberals who would be more than happy to drink with you and plot the end of the drug war, the reinforcement of free speech, and plans for a society in which people are not compelled to look to government for solutions. And, yes, we'll probably cuss each other out a bit as we do, but we'll all feel better (hangovers aside) in the morning knowing that we can have different opinions while working toward the same goal. Your votes and thoughts are both welcome and wanted; we cannot stop the moderate advance (which brings the worst of both Democrats and Republicans) without you. You'll find us by looking to the left of the Communists.

That pisses me off. Except for foreign policy, I like Ron Paul. I'm going to jump on over to Red State and see what's up.

Oh please Tiassa, I'm sure you're aware that RedState does not represent all conservative Republicans.

Here are a number of endorsements for Paul's run from his wiki:

Elected officials

* Michael J. Doherty [219] - New Jersey State Legislator
* Paul Findley[220] - Former Member of Congress (R-IL)
* Barry Goldwater, Jr.[221] - Former Member of Congress (R-CA)
* Jim Guest[222] - Missouri State Representative
* Barbara Hagan[223] - right-to-life activist and former New Hampshire state representative.
* Paul Ingbretson [224] - New Hampshire State Representative
* Karen Johnson [225] - Arizona State Senator
* Tom Langlais [226] - former New Hampshire State Representative
* Jerry O'Neill[220] - Montana state representative
* Dick Randolph [227] - former Alaskan State Representative
* Steve Vaillancourt[220] - New Hampshire state representative

You'll find that like madant, Ron Paul's views are shared by many Republicans. It's really foreign policy that's the big speed bump, and even that's getting some traction.

Then they'd better get on RedState's ass and remind them that the GOP is going to need those votes come November, 2008.

Or maybe Red State better get on Ron Paul's bandwagon and realize that he's the best candidate for president.

(ah, one can only hope :p)

Unfortunately, RedState isn't interested in the best candidate or the benefit of the nation at large.

Of course, I'm still puzzled at the idea that the conservatives are the reds. The old conservative saying was, "Better dead than Red."

Of course, I'm still puzzled at the idea that the conservatives are the reds. The old conservative saying was, "Better dead than Red."
You share that concern with Rush Limbaugh. He was bitching about that during the last election. So there you go, you and Rush on the same side of an issue.

You share that concern with Rush Limbaugh. He was bitching about that during the last election. So there you go, you and Rush on the same side of an issue.

Hell just froze over...

You share that concern with Rush Limbaugh. He was bitching about that during the last election. So there you go, you and Rush on the same side of an issue.

Yeah, it's strange what the Bush administration has done to people. I found myself agreeing with Pat Buchanan one day, and stopped, and thought, "What the hell?"

Some of us were proud to be called Reds.

this reminds me of a strategy attempted by the most extreme rightwing leader in Israel trying to become the prime minister by getting his supporters to join the Likud party and voting him as the party leader.

Likud's response was to interview suspected "members" about their politics. those who exposed themselves as the extremists that they were were ... if i remember correctly... kicked out of the party.

Tiassa - re: Red State's actions, i think it proves what everyone in the world already knows - that Paul is more of an extreme Left guy and that he has nothing to do with today's GOP.

Obviously Republicans are no longer real conservatives.

Obviously Republicans are no longer real conservatives.

but Paul is... lol

the term 'conservative' changes over time, and for today's time he is no conservative. in fact, his ideas are the most radical out of all the Democrat, Republican and Independent candidates out there.

Bill Maher said of Paul "compared to you, I'm chairman Mao".

Oh please. Just because the current generation of Republicans likes to pretend they're conservatives doesn't mean they really are.

I've already mentioned in another thread a number of issues where Paul is aligned with main stream Republican voters such as gun rights; lower taxes; smaller government; decreasing the national debt. Foreign policy is really the biggest difference.

the man wants to completely dismantle the CIA (and several other federal agencies) => sure, smaller government, but is crazy (and dangerous)

gun control => conservative (OK)

lower taxes => same point as the one re: CIA

he is a revolutionary in a Republican's clothes. Paul: stop pretending - you're not a Republican. start your own friggen party.

Libertarian?

He wants to dismantle the CIA to stop their foreign interventionism, not to stop their intelligence gathering.

Lowering taxes by bring our massive military home sounds like a great idea to me.

He's a Republican, deal with it. The best you can say is that he's not a neocon, which I'll agree with completely.

On February 20, 2007, prior to Paul formally announcing his candidacy, Radley Balko of Foxnews.com wrote an article[246] titled "Ron Paul, the Real Republican?" Balko concludes the piece with: "Of all the candidates so far declared, only Paul can credibly lay claim to the legacy of the Reagan-Goldwater revolution. How well he does, how long he lasts, and who ends up defeating him will reveal whether there's any limited government allegiance at all still stirring the Republican Party."

After the May 3, 2007, debate at Reagan Library, Pat Buchanan told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann that Ron Paul came the closest of all the candidates to classic conservatism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_2008

Oh, but then I guess I have to remember who I'm talking to. Someone who thinks a neoconservative is a liberal who became a conservative because of 9/11. :rolleyes:

He wants to dismantle the CIA to stop their foreign interventionism, not to stop their intelligence gathering.
no. to completely dismantle it, "brick by brick". his logic is that 1) it is a government agency, less government = good, and 2) to remove US foreign intervention.

Lowering taxes by bring our massive military home sounds like a great idea to me.
...
Of all the candidates so far declared, only Paul can credibly lay claim to the legacy of the Reagan-Goldwater revolution

that's funny. comparing Paul to Reagan is probably the most ridiculous thing i've heard yet in this election season.

Reagan is about projecting military might.
Reagan's biggest legacy is creating a HUGE buildup of military -- which was what won the cold war by the way.
Paul wants to project no military might, which is in line with his non interventionist policies, and defund it. you say it yourself.

from the quote above it is also clear that he is the black sheep of the Republican race. to me he sounds like a fundamentalist... a "classic Christian" for example, is a fundie who lives in the 18th century, which is where Paul's ideas come from. not 21st century conservatism, but "classic" 18th century.

You still haven't addressed the fact that Paul has clearly stated he wants to keep their intelligence gathering function.

And projecting military might? You mean we can't do that while keeping our military at home? While better developing our weapons? While still retaliating when necessary? Remember that Paul isn't anti-war, and that he did vote for the US to go and catch Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan after 9/11.

The cold war was a different war and the huge buildup of military won it not because our opponents were afraid of us, but because they were trying to match us in military might and couldn't afford it. Soviet Russia's twisted form of communism wasn't economically sustainable. It's as simple as that.

To you he may sound crazy. But to Pat Buchanan, whom I consider to be much more informed than you on these matters, Paul is someone who's correct on a number of issues.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55763

And so the smear campaign begins!!!!
It was just a matter of time.
Haha, and here's Tiassa at the fore front doing her best...well done Tissa.
Guess RP can no longer be ignored, once you can no longer ignore someone, the next step is to smear him.
Good for you T.
I'd be shocked if it was any other way.

You still haven't addressed the fact that Paul has clearly stated he wants to keep their intelligence gathering function.

And projecting military might? You mean we can't do that while keeping our military at home? While better developing our weapons?

u wanna be stuck in the lab working on R&D, and bring the army back home NOW?
yea. i totally see Reagan in him.

Well, let's not overreact. If you think Tiassa's wrong, don't just accuse him/her of intentionally starting a smear campaign. It could just be that he/she saw the recent buzz Paul's been getting, looked for some info, and found what he/she recently posted.

Go after the arguments and correct the smears instead.

u wanna be stuck in the lab working on R&D, and bring the army back home NOW?
yea. i totally see Reagan in him.

You seem to think military is the only component in conservatism. And you totally ignored the point I made about how military build up had a very specific purpose against a very specific enemy in Reagan's era. That was to outspend the USSR. That's it. Against an huge arsenal of nukes, what good would the biggest army in the world have done?

Another quote from the same article: "Ronald Reagan once said that libertarianism is "the very heart and soul of conservatism" (Reagan was great at communicating the principles of limited government, if less great at actually implementing them)."

You seem to think military is the only component in conservatism. And you totally ignored the point I made about how military build up had a very specific purpose against a very specific enemy in Reagan's era. That was to outspend the USSR. That's it. Against an huge arsenal of nukes, what good would the biggest army in the world have done?

Another quote from the same article: "Ronald Reagan once said that libertarianism is "the very heart and soul of conservatism" (Reagan was great at communicating the principles of limited government, if less great at actually implementing them)."

go back and read my previous posts. i've already wrote the response to who is the "true conservative" and what it means to be one today.

anyhow, if you really believe that RP's popularity comes from Republicans or people who have traditionally voted Republicans then you are wrong. his support is steady at 6% showing him as the incompatible "Republican" that he really is.

And I've already called BS on your revisionism. A true conservative then is still a true conservative now. Would you call Buchanan a fake conservative? A lot of his views are in line with Ron Paul's.

And I believe that RP's popularity is extremely diverse, and that those who believe in real conservative values will end up supporting him. Part of the reason why he doesn't have much support is when you mention Ron Paul, most people will go "Who?". He simply hasn't gotten as media coverage as the Republican front runners, or Huckabee. Once the grassroots campaign managed to force publicity out of the media via the November 5th moneybomb, his numbers starting climbing. Along with endorsements, money, etc. And other facts have to be taken into consideration when talking about the polls you mention such as their being conducted entirely on land lines or sometimes Paul's name not even being mentioned as an option.

your angry rants, together with this: those who believe in real conservative values... make you sound like a religious fundy.

"TRUE conservatives are this this and that"

go back and read man. go see... or maybe get your head unstuck from under that big rock, what it means to be a conservative today. what it means to be a Republican today.

Hah, do you not see the irony in that? This is coming from the person who's also trying to limit the definition of conservatism to not include Ron Paul.

But you're right in that I shouldn't have used the word true. You still haven't addressed anything I've said though.

like what? he's got some conservative principles. but he goes too far. so far, in fact, that he sounds like a revolutionary.
i brought some concrete examples in the previous posts.

like what? he's got some conservative principles. but he goes too far. so far, in fact, that he sounds like a revolutionary.
i brought some concrete examples in the previous posts.

Revolutionary? Like his non-interventionism? That's a traditional paleoconservative view. His want reduce or remove government agencies that he feels are unnecessary or ineffective? That's also a traditional Republican view except Paul actually puts his money where his mouth is. Reagan himself wanted to do away with the DoE.

It's not that he's got some conservative values. He's as conservative as it gets. Just because you disagree with some of his plans doesn't make the plans any less conservative.

Note that you can disagree with him just fine. There are different branches of conservatism, how conservatism ideals should be implemented, etc. But again, that doesn't mean Paul's not a conservative.

Well, let's not overreact. If you think Tiassa's wrong, don't just accuse him/her of intentionally starting a smear campaign. It could just be that he/she saw the recent buzz Paul's been getting, looked for some info, and found what he/she recently posted.

Go after the arguments and correct the smears instead.

No, I think she knows what shes doing.
She's a smart girl.
The fact that she put the title "For a "Whiter" America" in her title says enough to me that she is putting her own personal slant on the issue, or at least purposely trying to blow it out of proportion.
If she was asking questions, rather than making assumptions I would counter more in line with that.
That's how I see it anyway.

I am in no way apposed to how you are responding however.
Keep at er mate:)

It's a he.

Moementum7

While I still denounce RedState's decision, I'm starting to understand a little bit about their motives. Look, Ron Paul's supporters need to realize he's running for president. Just because he's your favorite candidate does not mean he gets immunity from the grand circus we call American electoral politics.

I understand the argument: It's okay to profit off injustice as long as your only contribution to the injustice is giving it a newsletter.

Fine. I believe you all. Ron Paul isn't a racist. Yet he took political profit from racism and only got around to denouncing it once he could no longer play it for profit. If you think that maneuver should be ignored in American electoral politics, have fun stormin' the castle.

Moementum7

While I still denounce RedState's decision, I'm starting to understand a little bit about their motives. Look, Ron Paul's supporters need to realize he's running for president. Just because he's your favorite candidate does not mean he gets immunity from the grand circus we call American electoral politics.

I understand the argument: It's okay to profit off injustice as long as your only contribution to the injustice is giving it a newsletter.

Fine. I believe you all. Ron Paul isn't a racist. Yet he took political profit from racism and only got around to denouncing it once he could no longer play it for profit. If you think that maneuver should be ignored in American electoral politics, have fun stormin' the castle.

Thank you Tiassa, that's the most balanced statement I have seen from you and have garnered respect from me for it, not that it probly matters to you;)
I just feel like the issue is being a little overblown.

Anyways, peace.

And I've already called BS on your revisionism. A true conservative then is still a true conservative now. Would you call Buchanan a fake conservative? A lot of his views are in line with Ron Paul's.
Obviously Republicans are no longer real conservatives.
It's pretty funny seeing all the liberals telling us what a true conservative is.

It's pretty funny seeing all the liberals telling us what a true conservative is.

I suppose a liberal's definition is as good as any other, seeing as how we're supposed to believe that Thompson (pro-choice lobbyist, adviser to terror) and Giuliani (pro-choice, pro-homosexual, business associate of al Qaeda supporter) are true conservatives.

I think that when this election is done—I haven't much hope for this progress during the cycle—the people might come to realize that old definitions no longer work. Bill Clinton found success by conceding the value of the Reagan economy and exploiting it. Republicans recognize they have to play ball on issues like abortion and health care. If they get trounced badly in '08, they might even come around on issues like gay marriage. Once they realize that the religious-fanatic element of true conservatism is a liability not only to the party, but also to American society at large, they'll adjust.

Once they realize that the religious-fanatic element of true conservatism is a liability not only to the party, but also to American society at large, they'll adjust.

I think once they realize that it's a liability to their re-election campaigns they'll adjust.

It's pretty funny seeing all the liberals telling us what a true conservative is.

Oh? I'm a liberal? How nice. :)

A Note to Ron Paul supporters:

Sometimes, something loses status or value in other people's eyes because of its supporters. I made this mistake for a long time with Metallica. I didn't like Metallica fans when I was a kid because at my school, they were all violent racists. I discovered too late how good Metallica was. By the time I figured it out, they sucked. (I only grant the quality of ... And Justice for All in retrospect, especially when compared to the black album, for instance. And since I can't actually get through St. Anger without wanting to find Lars Ulrich and punch him in the teeth ....)

Anyway ....

Or think of televangelists. Seriously, when you see some of these guys, how could anyone want to be like them? (If being a Christian means I have to act like that?) They don't exactly help the overall cause.

Now then ... I was just looking through my blog when I noticed a link about the Ron Paul currency thing in my dashboard. It was from CNN (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/16/illegal-ron-paul-currency-seized/). Whoo-hoo.

But here's the thing. Read the comments. It's hard for any Paul supporters to object without slinging arrows at the government. Like one guy, who challenges the Federal Reserve. It's too bad he included that note because he actually raised a question I haven't seen answered yet—How are these coins illegal?

But then there's this comment from a guy named Matt. Now, Matt is from Kansas, and jokes about Kansas suggest the obvious answer to the question of what the hell is wrong with Matt. See, it actually reads like he's an anti-Paul provocateur trying to smear the Paul campaign by acting like a complete moron. But ... well, here:

Typical CNN mainstream media putting its touches on what it deems ILLEGAL! Once again here we are, having the FEDS RAID a LEGAL OPERATION! There was nothing WRONG or ILLEGAL with the liberty dollar ( it had to be approved by the MINT BEFORE being made ) and ALL THIS IS is again, the GOVT putting FREEDOM another step down!
I HOPE IT BACKFIRES on them! I hope it brings more attention to RON PAUL! BARRY GOLDWATER, KANE from WWE, Barry Manilow, ETC ETC have found RON PAUL, HAVE YOU?

DOWN W/ BIG GOVT
UP WITH FREEDOM

(CNN Political Ticker (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/16/illegal-ron-paul-currency-seized/))

Seriously, what are we supposed to think of that? Barry Manilow? Good, fine. Not exactly persuasive. Kane from WWE? Oh, right. That just settles it, eh? Once Kane is on-board with you, everyone else might as well quit.

(chortle!)

Oh, I'm not going to deny Tiassa. Supporting Ron Paul also means being bedfellows with conspiracy theorists/9-11 truthers. It's a little frustrating every time Ron Paul is mentioned in the news and the first thing being spouted out by a RP supporter is about how our gov't wants to secretly undermine him. Every. Single. Time.

Paul breaks 5% national polls! (IT'S REALLY 25%, THEY'RE JUST HIDING THE TRUTH!)

etc. Ugh. :crazy:

I can sympathize to a degree. One of the big reasons I'm not a card-carrying Communist is, largely, fellow Communists.

A Note to Ron Paul supporters:

Sometimes, something loses status or value in other people's eyes because of its supporters. I made this mistake for a long time with Metallica. I didn't like Metallica fans when I was a kid because at my school, they were all violent racists. I discovered too late how good Metallica was. By the time I figured it out, they sucked. (I only grant the quality of ... And Justice for All in retrospect, especially when compared to the black album, for instance. And since I can't actually get through St. Anger without wanting to find Lars Ulrich and punch him in the teeth ....)

Anyway ....

Or think of televangelists. Seriously, when you see some of these guys, how could anyone want to be like them? (If being a Christian means I have to act like that?) They don't exactly help the overall cause.

Now then ... I was just looking through my blog when I noticed a link about the Ron Paul currency thing in my dashboard. It was from CNN (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/16/illegal-ron-paul-currency-seized/). Whoo-hoo.

But here's the thing. Read the comments. It's hard for any Paul supporters to object without slinging arrows at the government. Like one guy, who challenges the Federal Reserve. It's too bad he included that note because he actually raised a question I haven't seen answered yet—How are these coins illegal?

But then there's this comment from a guy named Matt. Now, Matt is from Kansas, and jokes about Kansas suggest the obvious answer to the question of what the hell is wrong with Matt. See, it actually reads like he's an anti-Paul provocateur trying to smear the Paul campaign by acting like a complete moron. But ... well, here:



Seriously, what are we supposed to think of that? Barry Manilow? Good, fine. Not exactly persuasive. Kane from WWE? Oh, right. That just settles it, eh? Once Kane is on-board with you, everyone else might as well quit.

(chortle!)

Haha, good post and completely understand.