(This diary fleshes out several comments I've written in the past couple days in more detail.)
I've said before that I'm not as worried about the GOP co-opting the Occupy movement, as I am worried about the Ron Paul crowd co-opting it with their stupid "end the Fed" message.  That's been happening at the protests.

First, understand that Ron Paul has a solid group of committed followers, almost to the point of being cult-like, if you've ever tried arguing with them on ANY issue Ron Paul has ever taken.  They've been pounding their "end the Fed" message at the Occupy protests, and they've managed to be welcomed there.


I've seen many comments here that the GOP establishment will prevent him from winning.  The GOP establishment?  Really?  If he wins both IA and NH, they can't stop him.  2010 showed us that the GOP establishment created the Tea Party via astroturfing, but like Frankenstein's monster, it turned on them and forced them even more rightward than they had already been, knocking out several of them in primaries.  Some worked to our advantage (Christine O'Donnell).  Many did not (Mike Lee knocking off Bob Bennett in UT-Sen, Trey Gowdy knocking off Bob Inglis in SC-04).  If the Republican base starts thinking Ron Paul can beat Obama, and after NH that's all the mainstream media will be talking about, they'll flock to him faster than Chuck Schumer to a TV camera.


We need to start focusing on the polls from PPP that show Paul BEATING Obama among independents.  PPP's polling shows in state after state, Paul is winning independents over from Obama, while both Romney and Gingrich lose the independent vote to Obama.  Doesn't matter if it's a red, blue, or swing state.  See for yourself


Even on the electability question, even before Gingrich's collapse in the polls, Paul had already shown himself to be polling at basically the same with Newt when matched against Obama in just about every state PPP did a poll in.
In fact, in New Mexico, Paul now is MORE electable than Romney OR Gingrich (not that he'd actually win New Mexico, but that he'd come the closest).
Again, you cannot just chalk this up to independents being dissatisfied with Obama as the incumbent, and so they go for the challenger, because at the same time, as I said, Romney and Gingrich LOSE the independent vote to Obama, sometimes by wide margins.  ONLY Ron Paul is winning independents from Obama.
If Ron Paul becomes the GOP nominee, you'd better pray like heck the Democratic base turns out, otherwise the independent vote may actually swing the election in several key states over to him.  Unless..........

The message we need to start sending out now to Americans all over is that Ron Paul would almost certainly destroy the fabric of our country with his domestic policies on civil rights, gay rights, women's rights, the gold standard, and how any poor person would fare in his worldview.  He's basically gotten a pass from our pathetic media.  They ignore him, so his racism and other insane beliefs never get reported on, and he gets to seem like your quirky but lovable uncle.  He's not.  This would be a good place to start educating people about who he really is.
Yet a subsequent report by Reason found that Ron Paul & Associates, the defunct company that published the newsletters and which counted Paul and his wife as officers, reported an income of nearly $1 million in 1993 alone. If this figure is reliable, Paul must have earned multiple millions of dollars over the two decades plus of the newsletters’ existence. It is incredible that he had less than an active interest in what was being printed as part of a subscription newsletter enterprise that earned him and his family millions of dollars. Ed Crane, the president of the Cato Institute, said Paul told him that “his best source of congressional campaign donations was the mailing list for the Spotlight, the conspiracy-mongering, anti-Semitic tabloid run by the Holocaust denier Willis Carto.”
Or this, which also drew out the Ron Paul fans from the woodwork in a full frontal assault on the author.
See, right now, he looks good on the surface.  But then if you go scratching a bit deeper, you'll find he's not what you think he is.  He's not against these wars because he's a dove or a pacifist.  He does it because he's an isolationist.  He probably wouldn't even have entered WWII!  And he certainly would've (like FDR did, pathetically) also denied entry of those ships carrying Jewish refugees, and turned them back to face their deaths.  The Holocaust?  Pfft, not our problem.  Darfur?  Let 'em die.
Oh, but he loves the Constitution!  Really?  LOL, this guy wants to GUT the Constitution, and get rid of the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments!  (Birthright citizenship, income tax, and direct election of Senators, FYI.)  I love how people claim to "love" the Constitution, but then simultaneously want to get rid of multiple Amendments to it.  Uh, no.

Update: Ooh, the New York Times has a story up now about his racist newsletters!  More, please.