Ron Paul, a Republican candidate for President, is making news in the mainstream media. He's not making news because of his ideas, although his ideas do get mentioned. No, he's making news because he's this year's Internet phenomenon. Paul is running a shoestring-budget campaign using the power of the Internet and the blogosphere to spread his ideas. He's garnered a devoted following that is vocal, active, and growing. Will this make any difference in the election?

In a post by Katharine Q. Seelye and Leslie Wayne in The New York Times, the Paul campaign was described like this.

If his campaign had taken place in the pre-Internet era, it might have gone the way of his 1988 Libertarian campaign for president, as a footnote to history. But because of the Internet’s low-cost ability to connect grass-roots supporters with one another — in this case, largely iconoclastic white men — Mr. Paul’s once-solo quest has taken on a life of its own. It is evolving from a figment of cyberspace into a traditional campaign, with yard signs, direct mail and old-fashioned rallies.

The article's characterization of Paul's supporters as largely iconoclastic white men irritated some male bloggers. But I think Seelye knows from experience that more men support Paul than women. Just read through the comments in Seelye's blog post Ron Paul Wins Straw Poll in New York.

Women do speak out about Ron Paul, but they don't necessarily support him. Katy, at Katy's Conservative Corner released this information.

In an email obtained by Katy's Conservative Corner, written by a North Carolina supporter of Ron Paul, like-minded followers are instructed to change the language they use when referring to Paul and his opponents in the Presidential race.

For example, when referring to opposing candidates, the email states:
Never use this language again: "Front Runners"
Use this language instead: "Corporate Candidates"

Katy included the full text of the email on her site.

LIbby, at The Impolitic pointed to an organized summary of Paul's voting record. She concluded,

I've been glad to see Ron Paul's candidacy thrive mainly because it's enlarged the public debate to include discussion on the folly of problem solving at the point of a gun and the basic idea that nanny government is an anathema to democracy. But I haven't been able to clearly articulate my discomfort with the bulk of his agenda mainly because I didn't have easy access to his voting record. Thanks to Dave Neiwert, that's no longer a problem as he's compiled a long list of Ron Paul's record of votes and proposed bills. A quick scan should obviate the need for further explanation why, as a progressive, I want him in the race but don't really want him to become president.

A male commenter on the voting record piece was not thrilled with it, but on Sharon Cobb's blog, Sharon said,

Southern Beale did her research, and looking at the way Ron Paul has voted, one gets a totally different perspective on this guy, and it ain't one of a libertarian saving us all from big, bad government.

BlogHer Contributing Editor Laura Scott talked about Paul on her blog rare pattern recently. She looked at him in the context of whether or not he's a potential spoiler in the Republican primary. Laura makes the point that Paul is a "disruptive" force.

For those of us paying attention, Clayton Christensen introduced the idea of the "disruptive" technology. Transistor radios, for example, hit the market by storm in 1965. Nobody saw it coming, except the Japanese. They were "competing against non-competition." Nobody was selling radios to teenagers -- or portable radios to anybody. Suddenly the Japanese were market players in consumer technology.

Disruptively financed Ron Paul is certainly starting to disrupt the political dialogue . . .

She points out one of Paul's statements and asks,

This guy is running for president? Nobody else anywhere in the presidential race is "selling" this. He's competing against non-competition. That makes his increasing numbers ... disruptive ... to the status quo.

Laura gives us some historical background on other candidates who competed against non-competition.

In the 1990s, Ross Perot competed against non-competition, and totally disrupted the presidential election. Call him a spoiler, but I don't think it's an accident that Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress took up his message and balanced the budget. Four years ago, Howard Dean was the disruptive candidate with online power.

In the end, Perot and Dean couldn't hold it together in the context of mainstream media message making. A lot has changed since then. The web is not on the margins anymore -- it's the new reality that all the mainstream media are focusing on.

At Bear Creek Ledger, a military themed blog that seems to be headed by a female blogger, the interest in Paul was in the source of his fund raising money. In the report Left Wing Libertarians biggest financial supporters of Ron Paul, The Bear Creek Ledger felt that Paul's numbers were not growing among Republicans, because his donations were coming from the left. The article didn't draw any conclusions about the meaning of the report.

Do you think Ron Paul's largely Internet run campaign is going to make a difference in this election?