Ron Paul big on 'Net, but media don't notice

I know why it's probably the netroots that support the libertarianism of Ron Paul. Or at the very least from what I've heard about him Rep. Ron Paul a Texas Republican is a man who believes in using our constitution. If the DailyKos is powerful especially if they help bring an obscure liberal/leftist candidate to the fore, then so might the netroots support an obscure conservative/libertarian candidate.

That's the focus of a Clarence Page column from the Tribune...

Of all the interesting little fish swimming beneath the currents of the major candidates in this presidential campaign season, none is making 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."

Indeed, you might think the mainstream media would pay more respect to a guy who ended up the recent fundraising quarter with more cash on hand than Sen. John McCain, the leading maverick of the 2000 race. At the end of June, Paul reported raising almost $2.4 million and virtually zero debt in his frugal campaign, according to a report filed with the Federal Election Commission. McCain's faltering campaign was left with about $1.4 million if you subtract his reported $1.8 million in debt from the cash he reported having on hand.

In fact, according to news reports, Paul showed more cash on hand than five other second-tier Republican candidates and one Democrat, former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska.

So why, I am often asked, doesn't Paul get more coverage? The short answer is the Catch-22 trap of win-ability. As news media allocate precious time and space, our attention gravitates toward those who have a prayer of winning. And, of course, without coverage, one's chances of winning are even worse.

Yet, like other mavericks as varied as John Anderson, Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader, Paul appears to be turning on a segment of the electorate that usually seems to lie dormant. In his case, a lot of them live online.

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.

Is Paul the candidate for you? I'll let you decide that.