Is Ron Paul Basically Just Herding Cats ?
That’s what Clarence Page seems to be saying in his latest column in the Chicago Tribune:
Of all the interesting little fish swimming beneath the currents of the major candidates in this presidential campaign season, none ismaking waves as surprising as those kicked up by Rep. Ron Paul.
The Texas Republican, who embraces a libertarian point of view, has been riding an unimpressive 2 percent in the polls, but if the presidential election were held in cyberspace, Paul would probably win hands down.
Paul’s supporters flood online polls, such as the unscientific survey ABC News invited viewers to join after the Republican debate last Sunday. Yet, you could barely find the Texas doctor in the network’s after-debate coverage, despite the vigorous applause he ignited with his call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
In endless e-mailings or phone calls to talk shows, Paul’s fans blame an insidious conspiracy to muzzle the “truth.”
So, why, Page asks, isn’t Ron Paul attracting more support, and, more importantly, more media coverage. His argument boils down to two points. First, at this point, based on the polls, there isn’t any realistic possibility that Ron Paul could win the nomination; therefore, his media coverage is minimal.
But then, Page makes this point:
Judging by my contacts with Paul promoters—in person and through e-mails—they seem to be largely young, male, independent-minded, leave-us-alone libertarians who like Paul’s tiny-government agenda.
Which leads to another reason why I think Paul faces trouble in moving his campaign to the next level of public attention: organization. You can’t win political campaigns without it, but organizing libertarians is about as easy as herding cats. Angry cats.
Well, notwithstanding my own well-expressed assessment of the likelihood of success, I can still say as a not-so-young, married, yet sill pretty independent minded voter that I support most of Congressman Paul’s campaign platform.
And, I don’t particularly like cats.