Suzie
12-12-2007, 03:29 PM
Paul Devotees Spark Online Backlash
<udrdocument documentid="2630668"> </udrdocument>By Shawn Zeller, CQ Staff
He may be the Republican version of Howard Dean in this election cycle, creating an impressive online fundraising base made up of Net-savvy activists. But Ron Paul (http://cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=profile-000000000471) is having a hard time keeping his cyber-supporters in civil debate mode.
Indeed, things have gotten so bad that a growing number of political blogs and discussion boards — not exactly prime outlets of delicacy in public-spirited discourse — have taken the drastic step of barring especially vocal backers of the Texas congressman from their ranks. Two high-profile conservative blogs, redstate.com and littlegreenfootballs.com, have issued selective bans on the more disruptive Paul supporters trolling the sites. And this month, Bobby Eberle, who runs the site GOPUSA.com, addressed an open letter to Paul backers urging civility.
Eberle’s letter took pains to note that he wasn’t singling out Paul supporters per se but rather “the aggressive network of online fans who bombard discussion boards, spam Web sites, flood online polls, and behave in a manner that puts their candidate in an extremely bad light.”
Eberle says that in seven years of running GOPUSA.com, he’s never come across users as routinely abusive as Paul backers can be. “The typical e-mail from a Ron Paul (http://cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=profile-000000000471) supporter often contains profanity and is filled with name-calling and attacks on the other candidates,” he says. “They throw out slurs such as ‘neo-con’ or ‘fake Republican’ or ‘sheeple’ or ‘jerks’ or worse. They say people are ‘stupid,’ ‘idiots,’ ‘traitors,’ and worse for not supporting Ron Paul (http://cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=profile-000000000471) .”
In addition, Paul’s backers have spoiled the fun when the site has sponsored unscientific polls to gauge the popularity of the Republican field. In September, when Eberle sponsored one such poll, Paul’s backers bombarded the site. Paul ended up with 66 percent of the vote. Fred Thompson (http://cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=profile-000000000456) finished second, with 12 percent. By contrast, in the scientific polls sponsored by major news organizations, Eberle noted, Paul routinely finishes with less than 5 percent of the tally.
Meanwhile, last month, redstate.com barred newly registered users from writing any pro-Paul commentary on the site. “Effective immediately, new users may not shill for Ron Paul (http://cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=profile-000000000471) in any way shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada,” wrote Leon Wolf, a senior editor for the Web site.
Wolf added that the reason for the change was his view that backers of the libertarian Paul — who, unlike most Republicans, has always opposed the Iraq War and opposes federal laws criminalizing drugs — are “a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans.”
Likewise, littlegreenfootballs.com dropped Paul’s name from its online polls in May after Paul backers racked up another win by alerting colleagues to vote on the site. Site operator Charles Johnson acknowledged that they hadn’t cheated by voting more than one time but said they had clearly skewed the results through their get-out-the-vote campaign. “ Ron Paul (http://cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=profile-000000000471) ’s supporters are becoming notorious for sleazy, essentially stupid tactics like this,” he wrote.
MORE HERE (http://cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=weeklyreport-000002630668)
<udrdocument documentid="2630668"> </udrdocument>By Shawn Zeller, CQ Staff
He may be the Republican version of Howard Dean in this election cycle, creating an impressive online fundraising base made up of Net-savvy activists. But Ron Paul (http://cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=profile-000000000471) is having a hard time keeping his cyber-supporters in civil debate mode.
Indeed, things have gotten so bad that a growing number of political blogs and discussion boards — not exactly prime outlets of delicacy in public-spirited discourse — have taken the drastic step of barring especially vocal backers of the Texas congressman from their ranks. Two high-profile conservative blogs, redstate.com and littlegreenfootballs.com, have issued selective bans on the more disruptive Paul supporters trolling the sites. And this month, Bobby Eberle, who runs the site GOPUSA.com, addressed an open letter to Paul backers urging civility.
Eberle’s letter took pains to note that he wasn’t singling out Paul supporters per se but rather “the aggressive network of online fans who bombard discussion boards, spam Web sites, flood online polls, and behave in a manner that puts their candidate in an extremely bad light.”
Eberle says that in seven years of running GOPUSA.com, he’s never come across users as routinely abusive as Paul backers can be. “The typical e-mail from a Ron Paul (http://cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=profile-000000000471) supporter often contains profanity and is filled with name-calling and attacks on the other candidates,” he says. “They throw out slurs such as ‘neo-con’ or ‘fake Republican’ or ‘sheeple’ or ‘jerks’ or worse. They say people are ‘stupid,’ ‘idiots,’ ‘traitors,’ and worse for not supporting Ron Paul (http://cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=profile-000000000471) .”
In addition, Paul’s backers have spoiled the fun when the site has sponsored unscientific polls to gauge the popularity of the Republican field. In September, when Eberle sponsored one such poll, Paul’s backers bombarded the site. Paul ended up with 66 percent of the vote. Fred Thompson (http://cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=profile-000000000456) finished second, with 12 percent. By contrast, in the scientific polls sponsored by major news organizations, Eberle noted, Paul routinely finishes with less than 5 percent of the tally.
Meanwhile, last month, redstate.com barred newly registered users from writing any pro-Paul commentary on the site. “Effective immediately, new users may not shill for Ron Paul (http://cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=profile-000000000471) in any way shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada,” wrote Leon Wolf, a senior editor for the Web site.
Wolf added that the reason for the change was his view that backers of the libertarian Paul — who, unlike most Republicans, has always opposed the Iraq War and opposes federal laws criminalizing drugs — are “a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans.”
Likewise, littlegreenfootballs.com dropped Paul’s name from its online polls in May after Paul backers racked up another win by alerting colleagues to vote on the site. Site operator Charles Johnson acknowledged that they hadn’t cheated by voting more than one time but said they had clearly skewed the results through their get-out-the-vote campaign. “ Ron Paul (http://cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=profile-000000000471) ’s supporters are becoming notorious for sleazy, essentially stupid tactics like this,” he wrote.
MORE HERE (http://cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=weeklyreport-000002630668)