The Republican Revolution of 1994 promised substantial shrinkage of a bloated federal government. The Republicans who were swept into Congress in 1946 had promised the same thing, and they delivered a great deal. The 1994 Republicans delivered much less, were out-maneuvered by President Clinton, and eventually became part of the problem.That is the kicker right there. The Republican politicians see their support as freedom to spend on their pet projects. But the conservatives are looking for someone to stop the spending. It isn't about "getting mine", but about freedom and keeping the government in check.
But deep down there’s still a hunger among much of the Republican base for someone who will shrink the Leviathan, rather than merely attempt to use it for conservative ends.
Like the Ronald Reagan message (and unlike the Pat Buchanan message), the Ron Paul message is fundamentally positive. There may be some anger about the depredations of huge and aggressive government, but the campaign’s theme is “Hope for America” and its premise is that the American people are good people who can achieve the best for themselves, their families, their community, and their nation when the federal government gets out of the way and stops behaving like a helicopter mother.[emphasis mine]
The media loves to play the Republican versus Democrat, right versus left.... That angle excites the passions and makes for good copy, and good copy makes for good business in the media world. But the Republicans better recognize the media doesn't portray the base the way the base sees issues. Sound bites aren't as effective in the bits and bytes world. We don't have to rely on Jennings or Couric or the anchor of the month, nor is the information limited to the 5 seconds of edited jargon.
Real opinions on real issues may cause some discomfort to the politician, but perhaps that is why Dr. Paul is doing so well when no one gave him a chance.