Ron Paul hinting that he won't receive the nomination is like hinting that the Hiroshima atomic bomb ruined a perfectly good and sunny day for a lot of people.

Ron Paul was sort of like that computer character Max Headroom, the talking pixilated head created back when people were just learning to become agog at the fairly new cyber technology. In fact, has anyone ever actually seen Ron Paul on anything but the internet or television? Has anyone actually ever shaken his hand?

In fact, was Howard Dean a real person?

And so it goes with virtual reality politics. If we don't have real live heroes, we can graphically create one. Thus, America, the land of movie stars, Oscars, special effects and occasional writer's strikes has gone one more step into the Twilight Zone of fabricating reality.

So, what is the point of the Howard Deans and Ron Pauls of the political landscape? One might argue that Ron Paul was created to appease a certain portion of the disgruntled. If not to help steal votes from the other side.

Unfortunately for Ron Paul, he never became a celebrity of the caliber of Ralph Nader or Ross Perot. Ron Paul simply did not have the zing. He lacked the personality and talent to genuinely wake up a very large segment of American voting society. Far as charisma went, Ron Paul got as far as being a minor muppet character on Sesame Street. Ron Paul never even came close to delivering a speech with near the magnitude of Barack Obama's ability.

But, give Ron Paul his due. He does have a taint of Texas hucksterism about himself. He conned a lot of money on the internet while using outsourced spammers to spread his political message.

Ron Paul will not be remembered as a big time Texas huckster. All the same, far as Texas size and veracity goes, even the smallest of Texas coyotes have a way of mesmerizing the other 48 states, while waiting for Alaska to melt down to real size.

Where do the Ron Paul enthusiasts go from here, all two dozen of them who spammed furiously away 24/7, making Ron Paul look almost like flesh and blood?

The truth is, the Paulettes and Paultards won't say. They never had a clue or a plan as to where they'd go after the money began to dry out and there were not enough cutout cardboard figures left to hold up cutout cardboard placards praising the genius of the virtually real Ron Paul.

Fear not, intrepid voters. The Howard Dean and Ron Paul virtual real political phenomenon is here to stay. There will be a new and maybe improved version of Ron Paul appearing four years from now, in the next elections. There will be a whole new cadre of Ron Paullike outsourced spammers ready to spread their cyber political message of redemption and salvation.

There will always be a Second Coming.

Always.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 5:55 AM ET | 02-10-2008

Dear fred camorra call,

1. Where did you get your data?
2. What has Ron Paul done, said, or accomplished that you hate so much?
3. Why do you feel entitled to lambaste a movement about which you know so woefully little?

I respect Ron Paul as a person of integrity, a true statesman, and a consistent example of the political views I hold. For him to be viewed a "messiah" of sorts implies the complete opposite of the views in which we (the supporters of his message) believe.

While his supporters believe that there is not a single person from either party running who is more experienced or more knowledgeable about economics and the history of U.S. foreign relations, ultimately it's his philosophy of government that we support, not his ethos. If another candidate popped up down the line who embraced that philosophy as wholeheartedly as Paul has, we would support them.

As the GOP's game plan grows more and more restrictive of liberty in the name of security, and the Democratic party does the same for the sake of their ever-expanding taxpayer supported programs, who are we that support limited government to choose? We are voting on principle when we vote for Dr. Paul, which (as I'm quickly learning) apparently went out of style a long time ago.

I've been noticing is how much fun people have lampooning the campaigns such as Paul's. Is the act of supporting a political candidate based upon a desire for the future well-being of a country, or is it merely about supporting a winner? The current consensus would suggest the latter.

Hence the feverish tone of the Paul campaign. We want people to care. We want people to vote on principle. The more we mock each other throughout this process, the less we actually live within reality.

And yeah, we know we're losing. But I think I speak for all of us when I say we'd rather lose over and over again than win once for the wrong reasons.

Sent by Matthew | 3:54 PM ET | 02-11-2008

Fred, I would think that someone who post on an NPR comment site would be just a little smarter.

On December 16 Ron Paul supporters raised over $5mil with the average donation somewhere in the neighborhood of $103.00 Do the math.

There are those of us who still believe the Constitution should be followed, that the Government should get out of our lives and that the US ecomony is a house of cards built on policy that is ultimately destructive to our nation.

You wouldn't last 5 minutes in a debate with Dr. Paul. And one on one, John McCain wouldn't last three minutes with the man.

As Matthew said, this isn't about a Ron Paul Cult, its about principle. Forgive us for believing in principle. Yes Matthew, you DO speak for me regarding Dr. Paul.

Sent by Jeanne | 4:41 PM ET | 02-11-2008

amen to matt

Sent by adam schaeffer | 5:06 PM ET | 02-11-2008

While I agree with Jeanne and Matt above regarding Paul being the most principled candidate off all running, fred is correct in taking him down a peg for lack of charisma, an inkling of which I think I saw for the first time at CPAC. Nevertheless, principled doesn't always make you right, as much as charisma never guarantees you won't be wrong.

See below:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/wrong_paul.html

Sent by platonicform | 7:20 PM ET | 02-11-2008

To platonicform:
Somehow I've never seen that site before. It's the first site I've seen that raises intelligent questions regarding the Doctor's claims. It's a kind of refreshing and pure form of journalism going on there... quoting people and then merely outlining how they mispoke (or avoided fact), as opposed to deciding who "won". Not so much political as factual. Which is always nice.

And yes, I agree with you about the "principled" thing. It's another issue entirely when you don't agree with a principled person's principles. I'd be happy to help you agree, though, if you ever feel like it. :)

Sent by Matthew | 8:53 PM ET | 02-11-2008

Congressman Dr. Ron Paul for President received 0% of our American Corporate Sponsored Media before the primaries.

Since most of the nation watches American Idol... why would anyone be surprised he is not doing well in the primaries. Most Americans couldn't even tell you who the actual vice president is, or who the secretary of state is.... you think they would know who Dr. Ron Paul is, or have any idea about what he stands for? Likely they will remember some version of Guiliani and other laughing during a debate (which in my opinion was enough to know the laughing people were the wrong ones to elect) or the smirks on the faces of McCain and Romney while Dr. Paul explained the concept of actually being able to have money that represents the gold standard or silver standard. No I am not surprised by the media not covering him or the people not voting for him in the primaries. We live in a corporate controlled reality (in real life and on the internet) and people are like sheep... easily misled and misfed... that is why the Religious right exists, that is why the far left liberals exist... lack of knowledge and what little they do know is twisted and wrong. That is why I will write in my vote for the constitution... and that is why I researched Dr. Ron Paul for myself... he cured my apathy, I finally have a choice I could live with making for a change (a real change and not some spin-talk). And NPR's total lack of good coverage of Dr. Paul and his views of the issues (which are refreshing ones) is why I will not donate to this inflated ego of a station.

Sent by Thomas Paine | 9:38 PM ET | 02-11-2008

for all his supporters complaining about him not being in the news, he sure doesn't do much when he's in the debates. just kind of mutters a bit about how he's right and everyone else is wrong. and Yes, he does get a chance to speak. as Platonicform said, just because you're principled doesn't mean you're right, and just because you tell the people what they want to hear doesn't mean you'd make a good president. hell, if that were the case, I'd be running for president too

Sent by Nate | 10:07 PM ET | 02-11-2008