On Monday, the conservative blog, Redstate, issued a blanket ban on all Ron Paul supporters' comments and diary entries.

Captain Ed of Captain's Quarters has the full story and weighs in calling the ban of Paul's supporters to question regardless of ideological differences:

It's their community, of course, and they set the rules. However, this doesn't hurt Paul's credibility as much as it does Redstate's. While Paul's supporters tend towards the annoying and repetitive, they have less impact because we can easily engage them and counter their arguments. Banning them simply for their support for a candidate seems more like an admission that Redstate lacks that ability.

I'm no Paul supporter by any means. However, Paul's statements can be addressed and rebutted fairly easily, at least those with which I strongly disagree. I don't fear the commenters nor the debate, even if it does grow tiresome at times. It certainly can't be any more tiresome than the S-CHIP debate, or the Iraq War debate, or the FISA debate -- and I'd have less sympathy for opponents on those issues than the people who support Ron Paul.

I agree with Captain Ed. Generally, Republicans need to welcome Ron Paul (and all others willing to wear a Republican banner) to the debate and the discussion. If Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination, we need him to actively endorse and support the winner so that his supporters will use their energy to defeat Hillary.

Personally, I recognize that Paul's support is very, very real, especially in the politics + tech sphere. He is the people-powered Howard Dean candidate of 2008 which I've been saying we need to "prove" the importance of an effective Internet strategy. He is that Revolution.

UPDATE 12:34 PM: Others covering this story:

* Kate Phillips of the New York Times' Caucus Blog.
* Josh Levy notes it in his Daily Digest at TechPresident.
* Jose Antonio Vargas of the Washington Post.
* Sarah Lai Stirland of Wired.

UPDATE 1:34 PM: Mike Krempasky, one of the co-founders of Redstate, points out in the comments of this thread that the ban was not a "blanket ban" as Captain Ed and I read it to be.

Semantics and interpretation are important, so here's the text of the entire Redstate post for you to decide for yourself:

Effective immediately, new users may *not* shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada. If your account is less than 6 months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul. Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal.

Now, I could offer a long-winded explanation for *why* this new policy is being instituted, but I'm guessing that most of you can probably guess. Unless you lack the self-awareness to understand just how annoying, time-consuming, and bandwidth-wasting responding to the same idiotic arguments from a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans can be. Which, judging by your comment history, you really don't understand, so allow me to offer an alternate explanation: we are a bunch of fascists and we're upset that you've discovered where we keep the black helicopters, so we're silencing you in an attempt to keep you from warning the rest of your brethren so we can round you all up and send you to re-education camps all at once.

Hey, we're sure *some* of Ron Paul's supporters really are Republicans. They can post at any one of a zillion Ron Paul online forums. Those who have *earned* our respect by contributing usefully for a substantial period of time will be listened to with appropriate respect. Those who have not will have to *earn* that respect by contributing usefully in the other threads... and not mentioning Ron Paul. Given a month of solid contributing, send one of us an email and we'll consider lifting the restriction on your account.

You may now resume your regularly scheduled RedState activities. Everyone but the Ron Paul spammers, that is. You can resume your regularly scheduled activities somewhere else.

P.S. Comments to this post are closed. Complaints may be directed to the contact form.

UPDATE 8:11 PM: OK, I'll respond. Redstate's Erick Erickson has drafted a 1,600 word argument against me, personally and professionally, on the premise that I'm a tech and PR guy, not an ideologue. Therefore, I should keep the blogging to the rest of the field.

This sums it up:

I think David is using our story to get himself some attention as a professional tech consultant on the right. David can ride our news into media punditry if he wants, he's good at it, but I think he needs to get a better grasp on the issues and ideology coming before the technology before going to Wired, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. The tech is just a tool in the strategic battle ground. Losing focus on the cause because of being enamored by the technology, is going to put David in bed with the holders of the coolest tech toy, whether that's Vis Numar on the left or the Ron Paul Stormfront advertisers on the fringe right, not the best ideas.

Sheesh. That's a lot of finger pointing.

I shouldn't have to, but let me explain why Redstate's actions were newsworthy on their own merits: Redstate has become iconic in many ways, especially on Capitol Hill. For many, including Democrats and PR professionals, it represents the "conservative blogosphere." Accurate or not, the brand has strength among influential people.

Erick understands and perpetuates the influence Redstate wields among politicos. In fact, as Erick told the National Journal for a cover story on blogs, “When [Democratic Senator Dick Durbin] wanted to reach out to the Right online, he came to RedState to do it.”

Reporters read blogs. Reporters that cover the tech + politics beat read TechRepublican. They also read TechPresident where my post was picked up this morning. All of the reporters I spoke with today also told me that dozens of Ron Paul supporters had personally emailed them yesterday to urge them to write about Redstate's comments policy. I didn't ask, but they probably read the Politico's story on Redstate's comments policy yesterday.

In short, news is news. And this was news, my friend.

And please read my post again from this morning. I never called to question Redstate's authority to set its own comment parameters to better regulate its community. (In fact, after reading some of the comments left on the blog, I understand why they needed to enforce some sort of policy to keep it above water.)

I simply blogged about Captain Ed's response to the comment ban and then agreed with Ed that this could dig in to the credibility of Redstate rather than that of Paul and that Redstate should have found a better balance to establish an appropriate comments policy.

I consider a few of the contributors to Redstate friends, and others colleagues. We've disagreed before. We disagree today. We probably will again another day. That's just the way it goes in the arena of ideas.

UPDATE 9 PM: Last update on this thread, on Ron Paul being a Republican, I asked him that question specifically during an episode of DomeNation. Agree with him or not, you can view his response at the three-minute mark:

UPDATE 11:12 PM: Liz Mair weighs in on this discussion.

UPDATE Oct. 25, 10:37 PM: I've posted a thorough response to some of the recent criticism I've taken with regard to this issue. Sarah Lai Stirland is still following the issue. Andrew Sullivan weighs in.