Ron Paul.. You Crazy

Keeping up with his unconventional style, Ron Paul is about to get some more advertising… a blimp that is set to fly from North Carolina up the east coast to New Hampshire.

Although not directly affiliated with Paul’s campaign, it should gain him some media coverage, favorable and unfavorable.

The way the financing of the blimp is set up, the backers are challenging the limits of existing campaign finance laws. Instead of creating a PAC or a non-profit group to fund the project, Jerry Collette, a California Libertarian, has created a for-profit group, Liberal Political Advertising.

Because they haven’t created a PAC, the money raised by this group will not effect Paul’s fund raising efforts. For example, if Liberal Political Advertising was a PAC supporting Paul, and someone donated $100 to it, by law, they could only donate $2,200 to the Paul campaign. With this innovative design, these limits are no longer in place.

To raise money, they are selling advertising on the blimp, $10 for one minute. This also raises more concerns, because negative ads can be played without knowing who is behind them.

The blimp is also planned to launch on the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, and the blimp’s crew has said they will dump tea into the harbor from the blimp.

This could be a brave new world for political advertising. For better or worse, Paul and his supporters could be changing the political landscape for years to come.


4 Responses

  1. Why not vote for RP?

    1 – He is against war reparations for the Iraqis and casually dismisses that as a “mistake”. What mistakes did the Iraqis commit? I guess it was their mistake that they asked US to invade them. But they did not.

    2 – Global warming/Environment – His positions are almost similar to Bush. Scary.

    3 – He voted against the Net Neutrality act. He is against govt control in any sphere. So who will control the NET without any oversight from the govt? The corporations and so the biased news coverage will continue and now amazingly it will extend even to the Internet.

    4 – He is for life and liberty and against govt intervention. How about abortion. Why intervene there? But no, he will intervene there, not directly of course, but he will intervene there. What about a woman’s choice?

    5- He will move out of United Nations. It is a noble organisations and its credibility is in tatters and that is all thanks to the US but he will completely move out and never intervene anywhere except if the security of the US is threatened. That means he won’t intervene in cases such as Rwanda and Darfur. That is morally reprehensible.

    Give it a thought.

  2. Well, I highly doubt that Ron Paul has a snow flake’s chance in hell, but it is very ironic that he is against net neutrality considering how much of his support has been generated through the internet.

  3. From what I’ve gathered, Ron Paul’s main problem with “net neutrality” is the whole government interference.

    Isn’t saying something along the lines of “I highly doubt that R.P. has a snow flake’s chance in hell” somewhat similar to the whole “I’m not going to vote because I’m only one person” idea? It looks like he won’t get the republican nomination, but if he were to run as an independent and every person that supported his ideas voted for him, I think that it could put a dent in the only having two choices system (if you want to call it two).

    Aside from that.. I’m interested to hear how you guys feel about Ron Paul? I’m by no means trying to make him out to be lyke t3h best evar!1! but I’ve always liked the idea of a more libertarian candidate. Listening to him speak is a gross reminder of what the republican party has become. I think that at his “core” he is a true republican (see: foreign policy, etc. etc.).

    Personally, he holds some positions I’m against. But what about you? What do you like and dislike about him?

  4. I also personally disagree with some (most) of Paul’s political positions. He believes we should pull out of the International Criminal Court and the UN. He believes our policy towards the Darfur should be a “moral statement” instead of humanitarian intervention. He is an advocate of absolute free trade which i absolutely disagree with. I also disagree with him on almost all of his economic positions, but i buy into a different school of thought i guess. He also thinks the 2nd amendment gives citizens the rights to own automatic weapons.

    However he has done some things which are fantastic, including opposing the PATRIOT Act and the invasion of Iraq. He also is an advocate of freedom of speech, he voted against the flag burning amendment.

    I also believe Paul is honest and sincere in all of his positions and will not change his ways or views to please anybody. I find that extremely admirable. Especially with politics today. So if I had to caucus for the Republicans, and to do that I think a gun would have to be to my head, I would caucus for Paul.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: