Right Wing Nut House

Fred Thompson’s campaign is in trouble.

Not that the former Tennessee Senator has made any killer gaffes or tragic mistakes. He hasn’t. Thompson is suffering from that inside the beltway syndrome that pushes a potential candidate to enter the race and then mercilessly tries to tear him down once he’s in. Beltway insiders like Dick Morris have positively skewered Thompson for everything from his “trophy wife” trying to run the campaign to his curious habit of constantly clearing his throat

Fred is also suffering from comparisons to Reagan which were inevitable but unfair. And his laid back style on the stump seems to be eliciting a laid back reaction from voters - they like him but are perplexed by his seeming lack of passion.

And slowly, like a leaking boat, Thompson’s once climbing poll numbers have started to go south. And not just in the national polls but state by state, Thompson has seen his percentages slipping.

He is currently behind Huckabee in New Hampshire with 5% of the vote. And he’s currently 4th in South Carolina, a state he led less than a month ago.

Face it Fred Heads; Thompson needs a boost, a spark - something - or he’s going to be out of the race early. Part of it is certainly the fact that the major punditry has already dismissed him as “dumb,” or lackadaisical,” or just plain “lazy.” But part of it is Thompson’s doing as well. He has been too cerebral, too remote. His campaign has failed to give off any heat, relying instead on the candidate’s folksiness and star quality. That worked for a while. But once people really began to take a look at him, what they saw didn’t impress as much as it raised questions about whether he really wanted the job or not.

I happen to think of all the major candidates in both parties, Thompson is running the most thoughtful campaign. His positions are fleshed out with some real meat on them - unlike the sugar coated cereal burgers offered up as ideas by his counterparts and adversaries. If you listen closely, there is coherence and logic to his arguments about federalism and limited government. And I like his realism on foreign policy in that he seems not to be beholden to either the neocon or the more traditional Republican camps. There is some nuance in his formulations about the greater Middle East and what our policy should be.

All of this would play very well if Thompson were running for Chief Policy Wonk. But he’s not. He’s running for the Presidency of the United States. And American voters not only like to see a candidate’s mind on display, they want to know what is in his soul as well. So far, Fred has proved unwilling or incapable of reaching out and connecting with people on an emotional level. And time is growing short for him to do so.

One area he could connect with part of the base would be on social issues. But here again, Thompson prefers to frame the issues in the much broader context of his case for increased federalism. On abortion:

Questioned about his views on domestic issues, Thompson repeatedly cited or alluded to his belief in federalism, at times with skill. Of course, on abortion and gay marriage such deference to states and localities may cause problems. On the former, especially, Thompson offered a stark reminder that he would prefer not to see abortion banned but rather to revert to the pre-Roe v. Wade model, when states decided their abortion laws. “No,” Thompson flatly replied, shaking his head when asked if he could run on the GOP platform that calls for a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would place unborn children under the protection of the 14th Amendment. Of course, Thompson’s less than orthodox views on the abortion issue are mitigated given his opponents’ views (past and present) on the topic.

This is almost a libertarian view of the abortion issue and the way Thompson has chosen to frame the issue does not sit well with those who see abortion as a defining matter for Republicans. His similar views on gay marriage are a little closer to the mainstream of GOP thought in that there is a sizable minority of the GOP who would like to see the issue decided by state legislatures. But his arms length relationship with the Christian right is not helping him catch fire even in the south where he is still running fairly well in most polls. For Thompson to break out of his regional candidacy, he must find a way to engage people’s emotions. And so far, he has been a disappointment.

I speculated a while back that the candidate may not be in the best of health although he is looking better of late. His energy level seemed better in the second debate as well. But with less than 2 months to go before the real contests begin in Iowa and New Hampshire, it may be too late for him to generate the kind of momentum that would allow him to challenge Romney in Iowa or New Hampshire and Giuliani just about everywhere else.

But stranger things have happened in presidential politics. And Thompson is known as something of a closer judging by his past races for the Senate. In order to have a chance, however, Thompson is simply going to have to change the tone of his campaign, bringing more enthusiasm and drive to his effort.

Otherwise, he may very well end up fading into background before the voting even starts.

It’s the Night of the Long Knives in Pakistan as President Pervez Musharraf has declared a State of Emergency in Pakistan.

In so doing, Musharraf has scrapped the constitution and is ruling by military fiat. He has arrested the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, as well as 6 other justices who issued a ruling before being escorted by the army from the judicial building that Musharraf’s power grab was illegal. The four remaining justices have meekly submitted to Musharraf’s will by signing new oaths of loyalty.

The lawyer who led street protests on behalf of the Chief Justice when Musharraf had him tossed off the court last summer (only to have the court reinstate him later), Aitzaz Ahsan, has also been arrested and it is expected that many regime opponents are in danger of being swept up in a massive crackdown.

Ex-Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was in Dubai visiting her mother when the crackdown began. She has reportedly returned to Pakistan but is sitting in a plane on the tarmac in Karachi awaiting to see if she will be arrested or deported if she steps on Pakistani soil. My prediction is that Musharraf is going for the gold here and she best skedaddle.

Independent television stations are off the air and wireless communications including cell phones have been cut off. A massive amount of force is in the streets with both police and army units out in full force.

No matter what Musharraf says about al-Qaeda and the terrorists getting out of control - despite it being true - the real reason for this crackdown is that the Supreme Court was ready to rule in favor of challenges to his re-election as president. Although Musharraf has named his own successor to the post of Chief of Staff, he never formally resigned.

Now we know why.

Elections scheduled for next January are probably now out of the question. And any deals with the opposition will also probably be impossible. Musharraf has demonstrated - and not for the first time - that he simply can’t be trusted to keep his word.

According to the New York Times, there have been a couple of times over the last few months that US officials have urged Musharraf not to declare the State of Emergency. As recently as 2 days ago, Condi Rice evidently warned him against it. The American Commander in the Middle East William Fallon told Musharraf bluntly that if he declared the State of Emergency, it would put our military aid package to Pakistan in jeopardy.

We currently give Pakistan around $1.5 billion a year in military aid and another billion in economic assistance. With the absolutely pivotal role that Musharraf plays with regard to our Afghanistan mission as well as being on the front line in the war against al-Qaeda, we have to ask ourselves how much of our nose do we want to cut off to spite our face?

The morally satisfying posture to take would be to play the self-abnegation game and strike a dramatic pose by grandiosely declaring Pakistan no longer worthy of our support and cutting Musharraf off from any American aid whatsoever.

Morally satisfying but towering idiocy. Pakistan is on the brink and even if it would satisfy some to withhold aid, now is not the time to weaken the only man standing between chaos and a possible victory by Islamic extremists and a chance to find a road back to sanity.

The left is already blaming Bush (and speculating that the Administration is jealous of Musharraf and will declare their own State of Emergency to hang on to power next year) - despite the fact that the Administration had actually been orchestrating this return to democracy from behind the scenes by backing Bhutto’s return and helping to broker the deal between her and Musharraf.

But this is to be expected. If a mosquito sneezes in Madagascar and a typhoon hits India, it’s Bush’s fault according to these folks.

The opposition parties - both secular democrats and extreme Islamic - will not take this lying down. Expect general strikes, massive demonstrations in the streets, and a probable crackdown.

Meanwhile, Pakistans 70 nuclear weapons are secure - for the moment.

UPDATE: MUSHARRAF SPEAKS

From Dawn:

Chief of Army Staff, General Pervez Musharraf addressed the nation (Saturday) about 1845GMT. President General Pervez Musharraf said in his address that Pakistan was at a dangerous juncture. Extremists, he said had challenged the writ of the government. The country’s unity is in danger without emergency rule, he added. He said terrorism and extremism had reached their limit and his country’s sovereignty was at stake. “Pakistan has reached a dangerous point, and is undergoing an internal crisis. Whatever is happening is because of internal disturbances,” he said in a pre-recorded televised address wearing a Sherwani. “I fear that if timely action is not taken, then God forbid there is a threat to Pakistan’s sovereignty.” He said some media channels had added to uncertainty in the country, but did not specify which. He also accused the courts of setting free 61 men who he said had committed terrorist acts. He said there will be no change in government during the state of emergency; parliament will continue to function. He said that he remained committed to holding parliamentary elections.

A worker at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating plant outside of Phoenix was being questioned by police after what appeared to be a pipe bomb was found in his truck:

The worker was stopped and detained at the entrance of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, said U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Victor Dricks. Security officials then put the nuclear station on lockdown, prohibiting anyone from entering or leaving the facility.

Authorities described the device as a small capped pipe that contained suspicious residue.

Capt. Paul Chagolla with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office said sheriff’s officials have rendered the device safe and that investigators were interviewing the worker.

The plant was operating normally and there was no threat to the public, Palo Verde spokesman Jim McDonald said.

Palo Verde is the largest nuclear plant in the US. Prior to the US invasion of Iraq, the plant was considered such a strategic target that National Guard troops were deployed to protect it.

What kind of damage could a small pipe bomb do? No direct threat to the reactor can be imagined. However, damage to specific control systems by someone who knew precisely where to set off a device could conceivably cause some problems. Probably not a meltdown or any release of radiation. But the very act of setting off a device inside a nuclear plant would be statement enough.

The point is, that’s the kind of information that a terrorist would know if an actual attack were planned. Such vulnerabilities would not be easily deduced but could be inferred by knowledgeable confederates.

This may be nothing more than some one with a weird hobby who accidentally happened to leave one of his creations in his truck. Or the guy could be a member of an al-Qaeda sleeper cell, in the US for years, employed at the plant by design, and has now been activated to kill us all.

My thinking tends toward the former. But that should in no way lessen the significance of the event. Our nuke and chemical plants are soft targets and the terrorists know it. They’ve been hardened since 9/11 but has it been enough? Maybe the best thing to come out of this is a re-examination of security at these plants in order to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to protect ourselves.

UPDATE

Malkin is reporting that nearby schools were also in lockdown. Must have been a tense few minutes there after they found the device.

Might do an update if the situation warrants it.

Step outside your door and smell the air. Go ahead, take a whiff. What do you smell?

The stink of war is in the air.

Whether this is an atmosphere deliberately fostered by those in the Administration who wish to insure that Iran does not develop the capability to construct a nuclear weapons or whether there truly are signs that the world is preparing for the worst if we attempt to take out Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is impossible to tell. That’s because the consequences of such an attack simply cannot be foreseen. As hard as we try to game out all the scenarios of the attack, there is a real and palpable sense that the dominoes are all set up and ready to topple if we were to go ahead and do what many believe needs to be done to protect our friends and keep The Bomb out of the hands of those seen as irresponsible, messianic fanatics.

It was different with Iraq. Many of those who gave lip service to condemning our attack were privately cheering us on, seeing the toppling of Saddam as a desirable end. But the confrontation with Iran is much more complex and problematic undertaking. There is the real possibility that the Iranians would unleash their proxy armies in Lebanon and Iraq not to mention goading Syria into attacking. If that were to happen - and it is difficult to imagine a reason Iran would forgo the opportunity - the very real possibility of a general Middle East war with the rest of the world choosing sides is not beyond imagining.

A worst case scenario? Pie in the sky fear mongering? Idiotic speculation? Ask the Pentagon. Even the best case scenario involves risks for our troops in Iraq not to mention Israeli civilians. The point is simple; war with Iran involves tremendous risks. And the startling realization is that the best we can do is set back the Iranian nuclear program a few years.

Is it worth risking so much for a gain of so little?

Proponents of bombing Iran point to the possibility of regime change, whether as a result of our attacks or due to encouraging those already fighting the Islamic regime. I reject the liberal argument being made that this would be as bad as bombing. Their reasoning (or lack thereof) is that fomenting revolution is an act of war in and of itself.

Let me know when the left is through wringing its hands that nothing can be done about the possibility of Iranian nukes. Then the grown ups can allow them back into the conversation. After all, they refuse to acknowledge that Iran considers itself already at war with America, having demonstrated that fact time and time again since 1979. Anything short of endless, fruitless negotiations (”As long as we’re talking, we’re not shooting at each other.”) is neocon warmongering in their view.

But an exception to that liberal futility is surprisingly coming from Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama. In an interview with the New York Times, Obama outlines a very interesting diplomatic scenario that includes some pretty strong incentives for the Iranians as well as the outline of a “Grand Bargain” on Iraq:

In an hourlong interview on Wednesday, Mr. Obama made clear that forging a new relationship with Iran would be a major element of what he pledged would be a broad effort to stabilize Iraq as he executed a speedy timetable for the withdrawal of American combat troops.

Mr. Obama said that Iran had been “acting irresponsibly” by supporting Shiite militant groups in Iraq. He also emphasized that Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program and its support for “terrorist activities” were serious concerns.

But he asserted that Iran’s support for militant groups in Iraq reflected its anxiety over the Bush administration’s policies in the region, including talk of a possible American military strike on Iranian nuclear installations.

Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees.

“We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith,” he said in the interview at his campaign headquarters here. “I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior. And there are both carrots and there are sticks available to them for those changes in behavior.”

Obama is not the first to propose such a quid pro quo; guaranteeing Iranian sovereignty in return for constructive engagement by the mullahs in Iraq. I wrote about it many months ago, drawing a parallel with the resolution of the Cuban missile crisis and Kennedy’s pledge to respect Cuban sovereignty:

Kruschev wrote in his memoirs that the reasons he placed missiles in Cuba in the first place was to redress what the Russians saw as a strategic imbalance between the two countries and to protect his client from a Bay of Pigs repeat. The missiles were removed only after Kennedy promised privately to retire the obsolete Jupiter missiles based in Turkey (which were as provocative from the Soviet point of view as missiles in Cuba were to the United States) and a further guarantee that the Americans would not invade or use a proxy army to overthrow Castro. Later, Bobby Kennedy reasoned that such a promise did not include attempts to assassinate Castro, which continued until at least 1965.

Would such a Quid Pro Quo work with the Iranians? Could we guarantee the sovereignty of the Iranian state in exchange for intrusive inspections by the IAEA and a promise by the mullahs not to enrich uranium?

All would depend on whether or not the leaders of Iran are indeed rational and fear war with the United States and the destruction of their regime. And much would also depend on the IAEA, an organization that would have to prove itself to be more than the nuclear enabler it has been in the past.

There are other carrots we can hold out to the Iranians including unlimited access to enriched uranium for their power plants as well as joint enrichment projects on Iranian soil with other nuclear powers. These are similar deals we’re making with the North Koreans and hold out the promise to end the threat of nuclear weapons from that country.

I realize my conservative brethren are rolling their eyes and shaking their heads at this point. The IAEA? ElBaradei’s nuclear enablers? Obviously, such a deal would depend on full disclosure of the Iranian nuclear program and unconditional cooperation by the mullahs in the kind of monitoring and inspection regimes that would be effective. It would take time to negotiate and set up and in the end, may not even be 100% satisfactory to the United States and our allies.

But as an alternative to war, it’s a good start.

I don’t believe an Obama Administration should be the entity to negotiate such a deal. I prefer a little more steel in the backbone of our negotiators. Perhaps a Clinton or Giuliani Administration would be able to accomplish more given both candidates statements on their willingness to confront the Iranians militarily if negotiations fail.

The point is that negotiations are going to occur one way or another prior to the outbreak of hostilities. What are we prepared to offer in order to get what we want? A package of incentives that include a promise not to invade Iran or support groups that wish to overthrow the mullahs may - just may - be enough of temptation to the Iranians for them to talk about their nuclear enrichment program in the past tense.

We may very well one day be forced to prevent the unthinkable reality of Iranian nuclear weapons by bombing them. But war should only be considered after all diplomatic options have been exhausted. And this is one option I think we can’t afford not to try.

A twofer for you since I neglected to post last week’s results as well.

Results from October 19

Council

1. Carrolling by Done With Mirrors

2. Texas Gang Rape and Murder Case Puts America’s Sovereignty In Jeopardy by Joshuapundit

3. NY Times, Al Gore and the “Stolen” 2000 Election by The Colossus of Rhodey

Non Council

1. The Problems and Course of Rebuilding in Iraq by Dumb Looks Still Free

2. MSM Bias and Pallywood: Incompetence or Malice? by ShrinkWrapped

3. When Heidi Met Mehmet in the Meadow by The Brussels Journal

4. Timeline of the Amazing Disappearing Blog Posts and Comments at the L.A. Times by
Patterico’s Pontifications

Results from 10/26

Council

1. The MSM’s Rush Limbaugh Horror Story by Bookworm Room

2. (tie) An Inconvenient Demographic Truth by Big Lizards and
2. Walking Back the Cat x 2 by Soccer Dad

Non Council

1. Resistance Is Futile by Michael Yon

If you’d like to participate in the weekly Watchers vote, go here and follow instructions.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

What is it about the candidacy of Ron Paul that has attracted the paranoid fringe of American politics?

Clearly, there are Ron Paul supporters who are rational and grounded, not given to spouting conspiracies or blaming “neocons” for everything bad that happens in the world (neocons being a blind for anti-Semitism). For all we know, they may be the majority of his voters.

But just as clearly, there is a dark underbelly to the Paul campaign - a ruthless, mob of internet ruffians who seek to intimidate those who would dare criticize them, the Paul candidacy, or most especially, one of their pet conspiracy theories about 9/11, the “New World Order” (an amorphous term that generally means the imposition of a one world government), or something as mundane and silly as planting a computer chip in every new born in America.

The question isn’t whether Ron Paul believes in any of these conspiracy theories, although he has said on at least two occassions that he believes the investigation into 9/11 must be reopened to explore “unanswered questions” about the tragedy. It is his apparent pandering to this lunatic fringe that must be explored and reasons for it demanded from the campaign.

I say “apparent” pandering because there is the possibility that Paul is completely clueless that his anti-government rants (a subjective word but apt if you listen to his speeches or watch him in the debates) full of dark hints of conspiracy and wrongdoing by the highest officials in the land, actually ring a Pavlovian bell for the paranoid conspiracy freaks causing them to flock to his banner.

For example:

A lot of times they think subsidies and welfare goes to poor people. Now there’s some welfare that goes to poor people, but sometimes I think they’re crumbs. The real big welfare in the system that we have goes to the military-industrial complex and the big banks, that’s where it goes. [applause]

Speak to a crowd of conspiracists and mention the “military-industrial complex” and visions of sinister men meeting at Bretton Woods and the Council on Foreign Relations are immediately conjured up. And the inclusion of banks as a beneficiary of government “welfare” may be true but is a curious choice nonetheless. Banks get nowhere near the federal dollars that defense contractors get. Why include them?

Every anti-Semite worth his salt knows exactly what Paul is talking about when he mentions banks in the same breath as the military-industrial complex conspiracy - Jewish control of the financial destiny of this country.

Paul is no anti-Semite. But is he pandering to the fringe by speaking like this? When he talks about “neocons” - which for some in this country is a codeword for the Jewish conspiracy and Jewish power in Washington - is he aware of the effect on his more bigoted supporters?

In fact, Paul’s rants against “neocons” have been so vicious and full of deceitful half truths that National Review columnist Michael Ledeen thought of suing Paul for libel:

On July 10, Ron Paul, a congressman from Texas, delivered a tirade against his version of neoconservatism. He called it “Neo-Conned!” and he posted it on his website and had it distributed as best he could. A considerable part of it is devoted to his version of my writings, and is so inaccurate, so distorted, and so nasty, as to make me wish once again that this country had a decent libel law so that I could at least get some money from him and give him a healthy dose of the public humiliation he deserves.

[snip]

A final point: Paul’s accusations are not simply political disagreements, and his language is not merely critical. He is trying to demonize an entire group of people. He says we are not only wrong, but morally evil and an active danger to American society and the peace of the world. His attack, like those coming from the likes of Pat Buchanan and extremists on the other end of the political spectrum (look at David Frum’s recent encounter with some of my leftist attackers), are incitements to personal violence.

It once again begs the question; are Paul’s speeches against neocons designed to attract that segment of the population that believes neoconservatives have an agenda created in Tel Aviv and are nothing more than tools of Israel? Or is he just a crank who is oblivious to the impact his words have on the fringes of American politics? I am not one who believes that everyone who criticizes neoconservatives is an anti-Semite. But in Ron Paul’s case, he has attracted the support of white supremacists largely because they believe that his attacks on neocons validate their view (link goes to hate site) that the neoconservatives are agents of Israel and part of the worldwide Jewish conspiracy to destroy America and the white race.

At the risk of repeating myself, I do not believe the majority of Ron Paul supporters are haters. But reading my emails over the last 72 hours following my postings about some of the supporters of Ron Paul’s candidacy as well as my experiences on my own personal blog and the experiences I’ve read about from numerous bloggers, writers, pundits, and media outlets, I have no doubt that the haters, the paranoid conspiracists, and even some anti-globalist anarchists are the most committed and most visible of his campaign volunteers.

The blog RedState recently felt it necessary to ban the “Paulbots” as they’re called because of their personal attacks on commenters as well as their continuous spouting of outlandish conspiracy theories:

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.

Now, I could offer a long-winded explanation for *why* this new policy is being instituted, but I’m guessing that most of you can probably guess. Unless you lack the self-awareness to understand just how annoying, time-consuming, and bandwidth-wasting responding to the same idiotic arguments from a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans can be.

For those not familiar with Paulbot tactics, the attacks are usually well coordinated with similar arguments used by most emailers. Hence, the euphemism “Paulbots” since it is almost like an attack by spam bots.

They have driven on line polls sponsored by bloggers out of existence thanks to their gaming the system. Apparently, some kind of sophisticated email campaign is at work because no sooner would a poll on a blog go up than the Paulbots would swarm to the site and vote for their man. Following the Fox News debate in Orlando, Paulbots inundated the online poll measuring the winner of the debate and Paul got 34% of that vote. Unfortunately for Paul, the focus group disagreed:

After the debate 34% of Fox News viewers said that Ron Paul won the debate with 27% saying that Mike Huckabee won the debate. That was in stark contrast to the Fox News focus group who when asked if Ron Paul won nobody raised their hands.

The focus group was chosen by pollster Frank Lunz and done according to accepted scientific methods. Tell that to the Paulbots and they’ll talk about a conspiracy to deny their candidate his debate “victory:”

Constant attention is paid to Technorati and other blog search engines so that the most minute negative mention of Paul will bring several commenters rushing to his defense. Some are indeed polite and accommodating. Most are not. Personal attacks are common as are charges that the blogger is part of a conspiracy against the candidate.

Most bloggers are sick of the attacks. And the fact that the Paulbots seem come out of nowhere is disconcerting. Most of us who blog know who our commenters are and are familiar with their positions. The Paul supporters are what are known as “Drive bys” - commenters who drop by specifically to comment on one topic only and have no desire to read anything else or visit the site again. It is obvious from many of their comments that they don’t even bother to read what is written about their candidate.

This was brought home last summer when Digg, the hugely popular social networking site, banned Ron Paul articles from being promoted to the front page of the website because of an organized “Digg” campaign to favorite any post mentioning Paul thus moving the article to prominence. Such gaming of the system was explained here:

When I say “Ron Paul supporters,” I mean that these people ONLY digg stories about Ron Paul, and many of them don’t read the actual content of submissions. My “history” post had Ron Paul’s name in the title (Digg Dirt: From the Digg Army to Ron Paul) but had only the minutest mention of him in the article – I referenced how a push from Digg may have resulted in him getting on the Daily show. The piece itself had NOTHING to do with Ron Paul!

So why the Diggs? Who are these people? The “Ron Paul Army” has a very strong and unified presence on Digg, but no one calls them out on it – at least not on the individual level. Ron Paulers are organized and networked. They are “friends” on Digg. Their mission: Digg every story with even a slight mention of Ron Paul in order to keep his name in the public eye. How can I say that? RyanUnderdown.com has done a pretty good job of cataloging memos related to the planned Digg manipulation. Check them out here.

(Note the comments in this post from the blog on which I found the link to the above story for a good example of Paulbots in action.)

The link above goes to a site that lists 12 separate email lists that urge Ron Paul supporters to game Digg. Here’s an example:

I previously explained about Digg.com and how their recent addition of non-technology topics (e.g. Politics, Business & Finance) has opened an opportunity for pro-market/pro-liberty articles to get an airing at this very popular news site.

Stories are “promoted” to the Digg.com front page by “digging” (voting) for a story. To coordinate efforts to promote free market and libertarian articles I have started a list of libertarian diggers. As I write this I already have 45 people on it. We have once again this morning been successful in promoting an article. In this case, today’s Mises.org Daily Article on inflation and the Fed. Head over to Digg and join the heated discussion about the article, (you will need to set up a free account).

If you want to join our merry band of libertarian diggers, here are the details…

E-mail me and send me your Digg Username (you login to Digg with this). I will add you to my list of Friends which is serving as our list of libertarian diggers.

No doubt there are Technorati email lists as well as others begun by Paul supporters. And then there’s this curious notion of below the radar email lists illuminated in this piece by The Nation that points to far right network that is fairly nebulous but effective. The spread of stories and rumors mimics uncannily the speed of response to postings by Ron Paul supporters. A legitimate question could be asked about whether or not this email network is also part of the Paul unofficial communications apparatus.

Finally, there is this email campaign we reported on earlier where Ron Paul spam from several different countries from around the world ends up in thousands and thousands of mailboxes.

No doubt Paul adherents will point to this networking with pride and boast how organized they are. And they would be correct. But with Ron Paul a blip in all the polls, garnering less than 2% from likely Republican voters nationally according to the latest Fox Poll, one wonders how they can make their grandiose claims of winning on line polls and having legions of supporters. Are Republican primary voters lying to pollsters? If not, Paul supporters must accept the fact that their candidate is a fringe candidate and has zero impact on the race for the nomination.

And if he is a fringe candidate, it is almost certainly partially a result of his curious relationship with perhaps the strangest radio host in the country.

Alex Jones has been positing conspiracies for more than a decade. Prior to 9/11, most of those conspiracy theories involved secret societies who had gotten control of the government and were plotting to rob us of our freedoms and sovereignty, folding us into a one world government run by rich, powerful men.

It’s “The New World Order” on steroids and there are literally dozens of conspiracies associated with it. For example, a perusal of Jones’ website reveals the following:

Hurricane Katrina: Katrina served as a testing ground and precedent setting case for the coming Police State, with forced gun confiscations and deliberate withholding of aid by FEMA.

The Tsunami: Was the high death toll a result of incompetence, greed, deliberate weather warfare, a combination of all three or none?

Bohemian Grove: From Nixon to Clinton, Arnold to George W, all have been initiated into and are regular visitors to the Satanic hideout known as Bohemian Grove.

Bilderberg: Hundreds of high powered world figures, politicians to film directors meet every year to direct world events and formulate plans for the takeover.

Ron Paul has appeared on the Alex Jones show several times. He has accepted money from Jones and even appears in Jones new film “Endgame.” What’s it about?

Estulin explains that the Bilderberg Group control the world by means of a process called systemic methodology, where they carve up the globe into numerous different pieces and then place their designated frontmen in charge of the major institutions that govern each part of the world.

By this method, Bilderberg were able to merge the nations of Europe into the EU under the guise of trade deals, and the same process is now unfolding with Canada, the U.S. and Mexico being conglomerated to form the North American Union - but not without committed resistance on behalf of the American people.

That resistance is being countered by the beefing of a brutal police state nationwide and the increasing use of U.S. troops in domestic law enforcement. Endgame exposes how the elite are trying to overcome opposition to their agenda by instituting the framework of martial law with executive orders that are designed to combat “domestic insurrection,” as President George Bush officially announces a fiat dictatorship.

Needless to say, Paul’s appearance in such a film calls into question his judgement, if not his sanity. And being interviewed on The Alex Jones Show several times raises a serious question I asked at the beginning of this piece.

Is Paul pandering to the conspiracy nuts in America, knowing their enthusiastic support for him will assist his campaign or is he unaware that by appealing to the basest emotions brought to the surface by his dark hints involving dark forces carrying out a campaign to take away our freedoms, he is giving the paranoid, the fearful, the ignorant haters a standard to rally around?

He is a foolish man if he believes he can control these forces. In the end, they can only destroy him.

UPDATE

Wired latches on to the UAB study of “criminal botnets” spamming Americans from overseas that AT had earlier in the week.

If Texas congressman Ron Paul is elected president in 2008, he may be the first leader of the free world put into power with the help of a global network of hacked PCs spewing spam, according to computer-security researchers who’ve analyzed a recent flurry of e-mail supporting the long-shot Republican candidate….

One e-mail was designed to look as if it came from within a major Silicon Valley corporation, he notes. But when the researchers looked up the IP address, the computer from which the note was sent was actually in South Korea. Another e-mail that was designed to look as if it came from Houston was sent from Italy.

That pattern led Warner to conclude that the messages had been laundered through a botnet — also a standard spammer practice, though a decidedly illegal one.

The body of a message examined by Wired News covered familiar Paul campaign themes, such as ending the war and eliminating the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Reserve. It also read:

Ron Paul is for the people, unless you want your children to have human implant RFID chips, a National ID card and create a North American Union and see an economic collapse far worse than the great depression. Vote for Ron Paul he speaks the truth and the media and government is afraid of him.