In an editorial on Jan. 12, a New Hampshire newspaper said Ron Paul was “recklessly naïve” and that his supporters were essentially young and ignorant.
The Union Leader editorial begins:
Ron Paul finished second in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, and in his speech he thanked this newspaper for not endorsing him. Endorse a candidate who said “the CIA controls everything,” blamed American policy for the 9/11 attacks, asserted that the U.S. Civil War was “fought primarily over tariffs,” and said it’s fine if terrorist-arming Iran gets a nuclear weapon? No need to thank us for that, Dr. Paul. Not endorsing political quacks is our business.
The authors of the piece then go on to compare the candidate to President Barack Obama and attack the character of his supporters:
Paul’s base of support reminds us of President Obama’s. Both have many young, inexperienced, idealistic supporters who fail to see through the vague, simplistic platitudes. The candidates are similar, too. They portray themselves as paragons of virtue and purity, when in reality both are recklessly naive.
Despite the paper’s fallacious attacks against Paul and his supporters leading into the New Hampshire primary, he took a strong second place to Mitt Romney in the State on Tuesday. The Paul campaign has set its sights on South Carolina, hoping to re-create a similar outcome in that State’s Jan. 21 primary.
According to the Los Angeles Times, Paul said during a speech at the Columbia Metropolitan Airport that his support is starting to expand beyond “a tireless irate minority.”
“We’re marching on. The numbers are growing. They grew exponentially in New Hampshire, and they’re going to grow contagiously here in South Carolina,” he said.