Skip to comments.Redstate.com bans new Ron Paul supporters
Posted on 10/23/2007 9:41:03 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
The ubiquitous and web-savvy supporters of Ron Paul now have one less forum in which to vent their rage.
The influential conservative blog Redstate.com placed a ban last night on all Paul commentary from readers who are recent arrivals to the blog.
Paul's followers are angry that the Libertarian congressman cant seem to get traction in national polls as he bids for the Republican presidential nomination.
Paul a representative from Texas who ran for president in 1988 on the Libertarian Party ticket remains mired in the low single digits.
The post on Redstate, Attention, Ron Paul Supporters (Life is *REALLY* Not Fair), begins, 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.
Redstate founder Erick Erickson said he woke up this morning bombed with hundreds of e-mails, the overwhelming majority very angry. His own readers, though, loved the ban.
It is the most recommended user diary in Redstate history, he said.
Paul's energetic online supporters managed to help him raise more than $5 million in the third quarter of this year, roughly tying Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Theyve also ticked off an awful lot of people, including, apparently, Leon H. Wolf at Redstate, who calls them annoying, time-consuming, and bandwidth-wasting.
Wolf writes he is tired of responding to the same idiotic arguments from a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans.
Erickson said that he and the regular Redstate readers had just had enough.
Theyre terribly annoying and they dont add to the debate. If people are adding to the debate we dont have a problem with them coming here. But theyre just coming to promote Ron Paul. They talk over everyone. They yell at everyone, he said.
Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said he questioned "the judgment of the decision," but added: "They are a private entity and they are certainly within their rights to do as they see fit.
"I'm sure there are a few Ron Paul supporters who get a little shrill," Benton said . "All we can control is what comes from our campaign."
The ban against Paul-supporting is not categorical, Erickson and Wolf made clear.
Hey, were sure *some* of Ron Pauls 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 well consider lifting the restriction on your account, Wolf writes.
Wolf then shut down the comment thread for the post to avoid the deluge of irritation that was headed his way.
Erickson forwarded to Politico a number of the e-mails as examples of that irritation. You are banning FREE SPEECH. Perhaps next you can forbid discussion of Democratic candidate names. It is a sad day for America when hypocrites who think they are right try to shovel their propaganda onto the rest of us. What goes around comes around, wrote one reader with an e-mail exchange at socialheart.com.
Erickson finds this sort of complaint hypocritical itself. So much for their respect for private property, he said.
Well, you can always try RedState.
By the way, we've listed the following statement on our home page for several years. If Ron Paul supporters wish to spam attack FR, our members, our Commander-in-Chief, our war efffort, etc, please feel free to do it elsewhere. Antiwar activism is no more welcome on FR than is abortion activism, gay rights activism, gun control activism or any other leftist/socialist cause.
Therefore, we wholeheartedly support the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes on known terrorist states and organizations that are believed to present a clear threat to our freedom or national security. We support our military, our troops and our Commander-in-Chief and we oppose turning control of our government back over to the liberals and socialists who favor appeasement, weakness, and subserviency. We do not believe in surrendering to the terrorists as France, Germany, Russia and Spain have done and as Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton and the Democrats, et al, are proposing.
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.
Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.
We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.
Our God-given liberty and freedoms are not negotiable.
May God bless and protect our men and women in uniform fighting for our freedom and may God continue to bless America.
That is sound policy , as the Leftists have just recently overtaken Paul’s campaign within the last 6 months. It’s unfortunate as Paul has some very sound principles , but his followers are mainly Deaniacs and Nutters .....
Why don’t the Paulites just simply start a Ron Paul worship forum ?
His followers not all but too many to ignore have gone out of their way to harass people, and believe me they are the ones that do not believe in conversation and discourse about politics and why Ron Paul is not the man to be President.
You are intitled to your opinion and you obviously like Ron Paul. No one has stopped you and certainly not I. But at my blog I don't post about Ron Paul at all because of how his followers have behaved. I totally understand about any blogger that has had enough.
Now I have commented back to you so your theory is wrong about FR not having discussions.
Afraid of Ron Paul.....LMAO that is too funny to even answer.
I fear no one, especially a wimp like Ron Paul.
Ron Paul IS a Libertarian, who ran as a Republican.
WRT the WOT, the two don’t mix.
Kitanis, I respect your service, but you need to find a new candidate.
Paul is less sane than McCain.
And, I would never vote for McCain.
WORD, baby!!! ;)
>>>This kind of statement makes me wonder about the Republican Party sometimes. Personally.. there is not a single Candidate out there that is not a nut case. But the Hatred towards Ron Paul to me almost borders on pathological. What is it about him that scares the conservatives?<<<
I disagree with the banning of Ron Paul supporters. And personally, I think he’s an alright guy. I’m not going to lie, many of his supporters are downright pathological at times. They don’t respond to reason, they make glaringly black & white judgements (not just statements), and they have a habit of polluting the airways with their nonsense.
That said, I think Paul is a very ideological conservative. He’s impractical, in many ways, and I thoroughly disagree with his stance on what we should be doing now in Iraq. He’s a bit dogmatic in his philosophies. Frankly, that’s something I tend to avoid. Not a big fan of people who put an ideology ahead of common sense. It’s one of the reasons I dislike an unbending commitment to federalism—there are arenas in which the federal government is best equppied to deal with a problem (tort reform and marriage being but two examples).
In short, while Paul doesn’t scare me that much, his supporters are some of the most obnoxious posters I’ve encountered on the net. Doesn’t mean I agree with the outright banning of them, though.
Well I hope you don’t think I am a fan of that freak.
The Ron Paul supporter issue....
God Bless you guys, but I can’t seem to even give much serious thought to Ron Paul due to the odd and often bizarre behavior/statements of some of the Paul supporters. They must realize at some point that recruiting the village idiot as your local campaign spokesman actually drives people away from their candidate.
I probably wouldn’t support the guy anyhow based on WOT/Immigration issues, but the almost LaRouche-esque dementia of the True Believers makes it really easy for me to dismiss a Ron Paul candidacy. makes me think Ron Paul might have had a better chance without his supporters.
I was a big Buchanan supporter. I agree with your take on him. While the guy can be brilliant, his foreign policy views leave the reservation IMO, and don’t return home often enough.
It’s real shame. What it does is make folks ignore him on other important issues.
Ron Paul is a BIG L libertarian...not a libertarian.
The insane supporters followed...
They are like little out of control kids playing a game that after six months that has long lost its luster and that was after the first five minutes.
well said (your whole post). Although I think he would have a minor chance not a mojor one, but he could very well effectuate good points to be debated at times. That is always useful when people are preparing for an election and interviewing the candidates. It helps shine a light in areas otherwise ignored. I think in this light his supporters allow all of us to not take even one point of his seriously. But the way he handles himself doesn't lead me to respect a word he says. He needs much more work on his presentation and polish his delivery. He is afterall speaking to millions of people and should do well to not turn them off because he is so not well spoken.
speaking of not well spoken, it is late and my last post was not well worded, but it does the job. :).
They need to get their own party and stop annoying ours.
Ron Paul is a DNC plant. His positions are more closely associated with the disconnect from reality that the democrat party favors.
You get the most flak when you're right over the target.
What is it about him that scares the conservatives?