Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

It's a Bird, It's a Plane...It's a Ron Paul Ad


Paul supporters, taking a page from Goodyear, will soon translate this image into a reality.

If folks in New Hampshire have not had enough political advertising on their televisions, on the radios in their cars, or in their mailboxes, soon will be able to simply tilt their heads back and look up.

That's because supporters of Ron Paul's campaign for president are leasing space on a blimp that will quietly float across the White Mountains beginning Dec. 15. Whether the unorthodox advertising technique proves worthwhile for Paul's campaign efforts during the frigid (and cloudy) winter days in New Hampshire remains to be seen. But the blimp has certainly caught the eye of campaign finance experts, who have questions about the legality of its financial arrangements.

The blimp is being run by Liberty Political Advertising, a for-profit company formed just for this purpose. The company is offering Paul supporters the chance to sponsor portions of the blimp's journey, ranging from $10 for one minute of "air time" to $1 million for 10 weeks. On the Ron Paul blimp's Web site, the organizers describe this arrangement "the best of both worlds, no limits and virtually no regulations."

"The ad is on a blimp, but you can also think of it as a floating billboard," the group's website says. "It will fly for six hours per day generating advertising and publicity while on the ground as well as in the air. Blimp sponsors, the local media and nearby residents will be able to gather at landing sites to tour the blimp. Those with tickets will board for rides. Informal blimp parties will be organized at scheduled stops around the country as the blimp makes its way to key destinations for maximum public exposure."

Bradley Smith, a former FEC chairman, is representing the group and says the for-profit arrangement is no different than if a company formed to sell t-shirts or coffee mugs with a candidate's name on it. Each contributor to the effort would be making his or her own independent expenditure. If that contribution is greater than $250, the donor will have to report it to the FEC. But there are no limits under this plan.

That is not sitting well with some campaign finance experts. Fred Wertheimer, who runs the campaign finance advocacy group Democracy 21, said if the point of the enterprise is to influence the presidential race, it should be set up as a political action committee. That would not only mean disclosing the names of the donors, but limiting individuals to no more than $5,000 in contributions in one year.

"Is this a legitimate advertising company operating in the normal course of business. or is it a sham operation created to evade the campaign finance laws by posing as an advertising company?" Wertheimer asked. "That's the issue here."

Campaign finance expert Rick Hasen, who teaches at Loyola Law School in California. said he agrees, and expects the Federal Election Commission will look into just that question. But probably not before the blimp gets aloft.

According to the Ron Paul Blimp Web site, a flight plan has been drafted that will send the airship over Washington, D.C. Monday, and New York next Wednesday, before heading north to get within view of critical primary voters.

--Matthew Mosk

By Washington Post editors  |  December 7, 2007; 3:35 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Will GOP Candidates Get Lost in Translation?
Next: Romney Proposes Increased Military Budget

Comments

Up, up & away! Love the analogy of the wild geese and the sheeple. Thank you! RP08!

Posted by: katie839 | January 9, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Concerning Ron Paul's intention to abolish the Department of Education altogether, as a specialist in the field of human learning, I do see merit in his proposal. At the same time, realizing that much of the very thorough academic research done over the past few decades on *human* learning, motivation, creativity, and memory does not make it into the hands of the average parent (or politician), I wonder how receptive to the idea voters less informed on the topic will be.

Ron Paul makes the proposal from a constitutional standpoint. Mine is from a purely academic standpoint. The moves made by the Department of Education, especially efforts to set national "learning standards" via emphasis on multiple choice testing and more standardized curricula have very obviously (to me) been made without any attempt to "do the homework" on relevant areas of available academic research (on intrinsic motivation, creativity, and memory-retention in human learners, for starters). The department has a history of making decisions that made an education system already falling ill-equipped to adapt to the changing needs of a diversifying culture (that includes positions other than piecework-paid factory workers) increasingly worse.

I absolutely share Ron Paul's opinion, that "the work" of the Department of Education since it's inception has been a complete joke (at best), as is, I am drawn to add, their idea that classrooms preoccupied with performance on nationally standardized tests translate into "smarter kids" (which is so unfounded and ridiculous that it doesn't even hold humor for me). If the Department of Education had done *any* research whatsoever on the nature of human learning itself, it would have immediately discovered that the very premises upon which the No Child Left Behind Act, for example, are based had already time and time again been demonstrated to be false (in human subjects).

For the interested reader, the relevant, replicated research within the academic fields involving learning and memory in our own species has shown (within every variety of age-categories, settings - experimental and natural, and varying numerous other factors) that the two single greatest factors in real, lasting human learning are (1) the intrinsic motivation on the part of the learner (which by definition cannot be externally generated by a department across the country) and (2) the relationship between the learner and his/her model. Requiring emphasis on national standardized test performance (and then tying the results to federal funding!) severely undermines BOTH!! Within just a very short time, for the vast majority of public school students, the *motivation* to learn pretty much anything in school becomes either *extrinsic* (which, according to available academic research, steadily replaces intrinsic interest) or generally *absent*, and the nature of the relationships between the students and the teachers undergo a very unfortunate shift from one that might have included at least the *possibility* of a nurturing of naturally inherent homo sapien sapien curiosity and creativity and individual talents to one burried by the means-to-an-end, black-and-white "teaching to the test" which is what we have all over the country today. The end-result is an emerging institutionalized, numbed populace more and more convinced that it doesn't really like to *think*, much less actively seek out knowledge. Thanks, Department of Education.

"Since we can't know what knowledge will be most needed in the future, it is senseless to try to teach it in advance. Instead, we should try to turn out people who love learning so much and learn so well that they will be able to learn whatever needs to be learned." - John Holt, one of the previous century's most prolific attempted education reformers.

Either the Department of Education be abolished, as favors Ron Paul, or be radically reformed to include the real academic research experts on HUMAN LEARNING, who would suggest that such a national department NEVER assume the role of an authoritarian overseer handing out specific, rigid curricular dictates and standardized performance mandates for the states. Instead, the nature of the public education systems in this country might be better off with a shift in focus to actually supporting students in developing the general *skills* needed to adapt to a rapidly changing society... a society that already includes a wide variety of positions other than factory workers who obey without question, ignore their own ideas, and get accustomed to mindless, monotonous busy work and hopping-to-it at the sound of a bell.

Posted by: angelak_johnson | December 10, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse

First, in reference to the remark that if pollution from one state passed into another state, there would be no punishment- that's where property laws come into play. In a Ron Paul interpretation of private and public property protection law, polluters would be responsible for damage caused to your land, water or the air you breathe. Thus there would be a far greater legal problem for polluters than the token fines the Feds levy on them today. You may not be aware that many companies buy the right to pollute virtually without limit, as in New Jersey. This would not be possible under Ron Paul's interpretation.

Secondly, Department of Education is a joke, created by Carter and which Reagan wanted to do away with. What, did we not have any public education before 1980? You are misinformed if you believe that somehow the American system of education would collapse if this useless bureaucracy was eliminated. Americans have gotten dumber since its inception and the institution of "national (read: low) standards". You think "No Child Left Behind" is a success?

Third, the personal Federal income tax was found by Reagan's Grace Commission to not provide any revenue toward infrastructure, Federal programs or anything involving daily operations. In fact, they found that all revenue from the personal income tax is spent on paying the national debt before it even reaches current government spending needs. Therefore, if our entire operating budget is paid for without the personal Federal Income Tax and if we elminate bloated bureaucracy and overseas warmongering military spending, what need is there for the Unconstitutional IRS?

You don't seem to realize that the personal Federal income tax was created to fund the excesses of spending and money-as-debt enacted in the Federal Reserve Act. That's where the "pseudoscience" of economics comes into play. This is why your argument against economists is the best argument for Ron Paul. He doesn't want to manipulate the system as the Fed does. He wants free market systems with as few restrictions as possible, based on sound commodity-backed currency which restricts debt-as-money spending because the government can't just print money to cover the shortfall. Anyone who prefers their money being worth something should agree with him.

Posted by: njsucks | December 8, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

I first thought Ron Paul was an interesting candidate, fresh, and different from the rest of the field. I thought that i could vote for him. Then, i took a closer look at his proposals, and found out that the man wants to eliminate the IRS and the Department of Education. Well, I think no one should be taken seriously or even considered as a viable candidate when s/he advocates such a position. Ron Paul is a joke really and it shows how our republican field is so weak. Well, i am staying home or voting for the democrats this time around.

Posted by: tevste | December 8, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul's supporters are responding to the lack of coverage by main stream media, by finding innovating exciting,alternatives. These are not Ron Paul's campaign donated dollars.The dollars for this project are sent directly to it. American enterprise for the best of causes.This principled man of character, is worth efforts like this to get him to the presidency.or what ever we can do to help people know who and what this man and his ideas are about.


Posted by: kberry58 | December 8, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Innovative idea. I will donate to Ron Paul on his next internet rally day, December 16th, the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.

Posted by: notabeliever | December 8, 2007 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Not surprising that the FEC wants to weigh in on a candidate they, along with the more mainstream candidates, seek to keep out of the awareness of the American people. We have here a candidate who appeals to all blocks of voters -- civil liberties for the ACLU crowd -- pro-free-market policies for the large and small businesses, anti-war rhetoric for those disenchanted with the preemptive war in Iraq, and pro-life and family values for those on the conservative side. Paul is a no-lose proposition. And I wish I could quote accurately what someone who ended up in Bartlett's Familiar Quotations said about an American president -- that no individual candidate could do too much damage to the American political system in the short span of four years. I think this man has my vote already, even if it has to be a write-in vote. It's about time for a more independent thinker in the White House.

Posted by: j_maibie | December 8, 2007 6:42 AM | Report abuse

"Since cutting taxes increases revenue, contrary to bot intuition and naive calculations based on antiquated "logic," why, cutting taxes to zero should have such a stimulus on the economy that the government will be AWASH in revenue!"

christfox: The aim of abolishing IRS is NOT making government happier. The government does quite well in such states as Iran, Pakistan etc. The goal is to make PEOPLE better. And you may see bastiat's text as to why people get better when government receives less taxes.

Posted by: ondrap | December 8, 2007 5:39 AM | Report abuse

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Hillary.

He steals votes from Republicans and disaffected Democrats (Obama voters). Slice & dice your arguments however you want; invoke Ben Franklin and Ayn Rand and the Constitution and all your high-flying words, but at the end of the day, you are putting Hillary in the White House. You don't have numbers to get over the top, and you never will.

Posted by: sw7104 | December 8, 2007 1:34 AM | Report abuse

This is simply a brilliant marketing strategy!

Posted by: dwis | December 8, 2007 1:14 AM | Report abuse

I don't know if abolishing the IRS is going to attract or repell voters, but I do know it's going to attract millions and million of dollars in donations. If just 1% of the taxpayers decide to bet just 1% of their tax bill that Dr. Paul can get elected and reduce it to zero....That's one hella chunk of change.

He's already pulled in more money this quarter than all the other Republicans combined.

Posted by: aminor3x | December 8, 2007 1:10 AM | Report abuse

chrisfox8 repeatedly claims that Ron Paul holds that women having abortions should be jailed. This is a blatant falsehood, and a smear. It establishes that chrisfox8 is either irresponsible or lying. The result is slander. Ron Paul was an ob/gyn. He has never seen a medically necessary abortion, and holds that anyone who kills a human should be held accountable by law, meaning the abortionist, and not the mother. This is a summary of Dr. Paul's literal words, using my own paraphrase.

Posted by: aminor3x | December 8, 2007 1:03 AM | Report abuse

Back in America we had a 6th Amendment which required that accused parties be accused of a specific crime. It derived from Common Law precedent in which priests tried to silence heretics- which Ron Paul and supporters like me most certainly are- and excite the mob to approve of punishment for accused parties in the absence of any crime.

"Violation of campaign laws" is not a specific crime. It is incumbent on the accuser to name the specific statute that is alleged to be violated and if no statutes exists or if a cited statute turns out not to be violated then the accuser is liable for any tort damages done to the accused party by the accusation. And you know what? Ron Paul supporters are smart and dedicated enough to do it. It's time that blow hards like Mr. Bradley Smith were held accountable for baseless slander.

Posted by: Editor | December 8, 2007 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Why sure, Scrooge. After all, just follow the reasoning.

Since cutting taxes increases revenue, contrary to bot intuition and naive calculations based on antiquated "logic," why, cutting taxes to zero should have such a stimulus on the economy that the government will be AWASH in revenue!

Vote Ron Paul!

/sarcasm

Posted by: chrisfox8 | December 7, 2007 11:45 PM | Report abuse

Chrisfox, thanks for ""Therefore any laws which the government passes predicated on the quasireligion "economics" are unconstitutional establishments of a quasireligion."

You make a better argument for Ron Paul's abolition of the IRS than I did.

Posted by: Scrooge | December 7, 2007 11:04 PM | Report abuse

Scrooge thought he was arguing with me when he wrote:
"If economics is a pseudoscience as you maintain then it is equivalent to call it a quasireligion. Therefore any laws affecting the economy which the government passes are unconstitutional establishments of a quasireligion."
==

Dude we are so perilously close to being on the same page here. I would only slightly rephrase to:

"Therefore any laws which the government passes predicated on the quasireligion "economics" are unconstitutional establishments of a quasireligion."

Thanks!!

Posted by: chrisfox8 | December 7, 2007 10:29 PM | Report abuse

There is no Nobel for Economics either, it's a Swedish banking prize. Alfred Nobel didn't consider economics to be a legitimate field of study, and he was right.

You can keep providing me with evidence to back him up, thanks, but I have enough already.

There was indeed a time when the US got enough revenue from customs duties .. but however rugged and self-reliant you like to regard yourself, our government cannot be run on pittances anymore. It's 2007, not 1913.

Not too long ago a religious cult managed to buy a town in Oregon and set up shop their way .. what's to stop you libertarian types from doing something similar and trying out your own ideas? No taxes, no welfare, automatic weapons in airport vending machines ... go ahead and do it, so we can all see how well your ideas work.

Just please, do it downwind.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | December 7, 2007 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Guys, guys, and gals, listen up please.
Don't waste your time on people like
Chrisfoxwhatever, some people do not have the same values and do not understand ecomonics. We Ron Paul supporters do have our Country, our Freedom, and it's citizens in mind when we go to the voting booth and place our votes for Ron Paul. Just think about how great this advertising Blimp will be for Ron Paul and his supporters. Once again, I would like to thank the Washington Post for reporting this story on Ron Paul, and I hope that Ron Paul's supporters will also be glad that he is breaking the so called glass ceiling, and will continue to do so in his run for presidency.

Posted by: tess101 | December 7, 2007 10:17 PM | Report abuse

Chrisfox8 wrote "you go right ahead and consider me half-educated ... my degree's in mathematics"

Then you must know mathmetician John Nash won the Nobel Prize in Economics as there is no Nobel prize in pure mathematics.

If economics is a pseudoscience as you maintain then it is equivalent to call it a quasireligion. Therefore any laws affecting the economy which the government passes are unconstitutional establishments of a quasireligion.

Ron Paul is 100% correct by your logic to call for the elimination of the IRS.

Posted by: Scrooge | December 7, 2007 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, correction, the income tax was started in 1913. The IRS was created later.

Posted by: alexpasch | December 7, 2007 9:42 PM | Report abuse

Chrisfox:

A degree in mathematics from some community college is no big feat. FYI, I got a 780 on the math section of the SAT. I don't know if you're aware, but Wharton is the business school of the University of Pennsylvania (Ivy League) and is widely regarded as the best business school in the world.

Thus, I learned one thing more than any other during my college years, how to make obscene amounts of money. Yes, it does suck to have studied a "popular fad". And I studied FINANCE, not ECONOMICS (again, you don't know the difference, it's ok).

The IRS did not exist until 1913. It must seem like a miracle to you that we were able to fund government prior to that. The amount collected in income tax is roughly equal to the interest payment on the Federal debt. Wow, think of it, if we cut back spending and had a balanced budget we could do away with the income tax!

It seems like someone with a degree in mathematics should be able to understand the severity of our fiscal problems, but I guess you never worked with numbers as high as 9 trillion, 2+2 was as advanced as you got.

Posted by: alexpasch | December 7, 2007 9:40 PM | Report abuse

wow mdabfab23, sounds like Pauleviks are almost as persecuted in the US as Christians.

I gotta hand it to you for keeping chin up in the face of such organized and determined opposition.

(pause)

Posted by: chrisfox8 | December 7, 2007 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Oh I see. First we were 12 guy's in our underwear spamming the on line straw polls all day long. Then we were just a few guys' who drove from town to town, city to city, to attend Paul events. Then we spamed 4 million dollars plus into the campaign in one day and drew 5 thousand plus in Philly. Then the main stream turds feel threatened so they literally reinvent Mike Huckabee overnight! And now the little blimp project is about to be challenged by campaign finance law "experts"! Keep loading up on your fake polls that disconnect Ron Paul supporters when they get called to poll the candidates. Keep the smear "hooker" crap coming? Keep saying he's a Libertarian when he's a 10 term GOP congressman. Keep saying he can't win. I guess were about to go into the "then they fight you" mode! Keep it up main steam turds! The people see through your b.s. this time and get ready for the shock of your lives! RON PAUL 2008!

Posted by: mdabfab23 | December 7, 2007 9:20 PM | Report abuse

you go right ahead and consider me half-educated ... my degree's in mathematics while you wasted years of your adult life studying a popular fad.

I suppose your alleged education told you that cutting taxes increases revenue, or that profound social change can be achieved by calibrating the "incentives" of the tax code.

As for RP, he has such clearly-thought-out positions as "abolish the IRS." Yeah, that should get him some votes.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | December 7, 2007 9:05 PM | Report abuse

crisfox8 "Economics is a pseudoscience"

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. - A. Lincoln

Posted by: MDLaxer | December 7, 2007 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Chrisfox:

Great, thanks for another post with no substance.

Economics is not a pseudoscience (I work in finance btw, not economics...but you probably don't even know what the difference is). I use mathematical formulas in my work every day, that doesn't sound anything like phrenology. Is geology a pseudo-science because they don't find oil every time? What about meteorology, because they don't always predict the weather properly?

Personally, until you prove otherwise, I consider you one of the "half-educated". You said RPs position on economics was ridiculous and have yet to provide a shred of evidence to substantiate your claim. Rather, you'd rather attempt to discredit the entire field of economics, because you're a simpleton who doesn't understand it.

Posted by: alexpasch | December 7, 2007 8:52 PM | Report abuse

alexpasch: you're all over the road. You scarcely have two successive sentences that don't change topic.

First of all, I regard boasting about knowing economics about like I would regard a similar boast about phrenology. Economics is a pseudoscience with less value than sociology and fewer achievements. Moreover its popularity among the half-educated has poisoned our political discourse so we can't even discuss our self-interest without lapsing into hollow-eyed cultspeak about "the global marketplace."

And so the law has some shady areas around pregnancy ... recent work by conservatives trying to chip away at reproductive rights. BFD.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | December 7, 2007 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Chrisfox:

I like how you have decided to avoid discussing economics, since it is clear I would put you to shame.

Abortion is a States issue, not a Federal one.

The problem with abortion is the legal implications of it. There ARE instances where a fetus is legally human.

For example, a drunk driver who kills a woman with a late stage pregnancy gets a double homicide, whereas a doctor performing a late stage abortion gets no penalty. That is an inherent contradiction, and laws break down when you have such contradictions. Some type of legal resolution needs to be found (either the fetus has no rights or it does).

Even the most ardent pro-choice supporters think there is something wrong with aborting, say a 7 month old fetus.

Abortion is as much a legal issue as it is a moral one; Ron Paul is as concerned about the legal aspects as he is the moral ones.

He won't abolish abortion because he believes it's not an issue that should be resolved at the Federal level (and he's correct).

Overturning Roe v. Wade is not synonymous with abolishing abortion.

Posted by: alexpasch | December 7, 2007 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Chrisfox said:
"So we should let the states decide the legality of infanticide .. yeah that's an electable position."

Actually, Chris, I hate to inform you but that is the CURRENT policy in the United States!
==

Abortion is not murder; murder is the taking of a human life. A fetus is not yet legally human.

If a fetus is human then so is a hangnail, since with a little lab work it too could be human.

If a fetus enjoys legal protection then so should a cat or a dog, since either is more sel-aware than a fetus.

Since you can't make a point without distorting both law and language, it is safe to say you don't have one to make.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | December 7, 2007 7:52 PM | Report abuse

I read Atlas Shrugged when I was 14 and I thought it was a great book that made profound points.

So at 19 I decided to read it again .. didn't get to page 50. "Unreadable" pretty well describes it .. the writing it awful.

But the reason I used it to light the fireplace wasn't the tedious wording, it was the ghastliness of the ideas presented.

Ayn Rand was a deeply disturbed woman.

And Objectivism is flypaper for kooks.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | December 7, 2007 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Thank you once again Washington Post for writing another article on Ron Paul.

He has my vote and support.

Posted by: tess101 | December 7, 2007 7:26 PM | Report abuse

If Ron Paul is supposedly the candidate of the corporate executives, why are those executives donating to Giuliani, Romney, and Clinton instead?

Ron Paul has raised $18 million the hard way, with an average donation of around $100 -- not in the $2300 chunks the other top candidates receive it.

On Open Secrets, they list campaign contributions to each candidate per industry. Ron Paul received $0 from lobbyists. That should tell you everything you need to know about his integrity.

Posted by: drd6000 | December 7, 2007 7:14 PM | Report abuse

The media tends to focus on his least common positions, but Ron Paul is gaining widespread support because he is the only candidate taking the majority position on ending the war, cutting government spending, balancing the budget, protecting our Constitutional liberties, and ending illegal immigration. What other candidate is on the majority side of ALL of those issues? No one.

Ron Paul's supporters are more enthusiastic, because they are supporting a candidate they can believe in, who has a long record of personal integrity and principled consistency.

Posted by: drd6000 | December 7, 2007 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Atlas Shrugged was unreadable? Huh?

Poorly written perhaps, but unreadable certainly not.

Perhaps that explains why you don't understand Paul.

Posted by: sales | December 7, 2007 7:01 PM | Report abuse

You have to love it, oh the jealousy, I'm cracking up.

Er err that can't be legal, why a company created just to make a blimp and then people just giving their money for a product? Whoever heard of anything so insane? Where do they think they are? America?

Posted by: warlock965 | December 7, 2007 7:00 PM | Report abuse

I'm in ur blimps showin yuz Ron Paul.

They hatin, tryin to catch me ride dirtay.

Posted by: warlock965 | December 7, 2007 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Chrisfox:

To say that Ron Paul's economic policies are irresponsible is misinformed and incorrect. I know much more about economics/finance than you, and can assure you that the US is facing a terrible financial problem. I graduated magna cum laude from the Wharton School of Business (think Warren Buffett and Donald Trump) and I can tell you that Ron Paul has the most sound economic policy out of all the candidates.

The US economy is going to face some very tough times in the next few years and most of the candidates' policies will simply compound the problem. Right now I'm making a killing off the current (and worsening) financial crisis. If Ron Paul loses and the economy collapses, I will still be very well off; can you say the same?

If you wish to discuss this issue further, feel free to PM me at alejandro.paschalides@alumni.upenn.edu - no requests for stock tips though, I have no desire to make Ron Paul haters any money ;)

Posted by: alexpasch | December 7, 2007 6:48 PM | Report abuse

An additional detail for my wild geese vs. sheep comparison.

The wild geese will be flying in a V for victory formation with the Ron Paul blimp!

Posted by: Scrooge | December 7, 2007 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Chrisfox08 said "... the LP is only about one freedom: the freedom to enslave others."

Dear God son! The serfs only gave up 30% of their salaries to their masters. I'm paying close to 50% of my meager income in taxes, and personally... I think *that* is slavery.

Posted by: gaaaaaah | December 7, 2007 6:10 PM | Report abuse

This article can be summed up as follows:

"Daddy is not going to like this when he finds out what you guys are doing!"

"I am the one who is going to tell him"

- (i.e. 'this is not sitting well with some campaign finance experts')

Paternal Government!

Tattle Tale Nation!

Ask Permission!

Welcome to America

Posted by: resono1 | December 7, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Chrisfox said:
"So we should let the states decide the legality of infanticide .. yeah that's an electable position."

Actually, Chris, I hate to inform you but that is the CURRENT policy in the United States! Murder is legislated on a state by state basis RIGHT NOW. It is not usually a federal issue (except in particular circumstances).

If you don't even understand how our legal system works now, how can you judge how it should work?

Posted by: patimen | December 7, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Both sheep and wild geese like to dine on green grass.

Sheep need a shepherd to guide them to green pastures. The shepherd controls his sheep so that he can either fleece them or make mutton stew.

Wild geese can find the next green pasture on their own. The wild geese poop on the shepherd's head as they take flight to fly in formation with the Ron Paul blimp.

Those who support Ron Paul will appreciate this metaphor. Those who don't are sheeple who like to be chased around by the shepherd's border collies.

Posted by: Scrooge | December 7, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8 says,

"And then there are his beliefs about money and public policy ... extraordinarily irresponsible, the stuff of college dorm bull sessions."

Please educate us uniformed supporters on Dr. Paul on which of his money and public policy are 'extraordinarily irresponsible'.

It seem like you really don't know much about Dr. Paul, so your answer should be interesting.

Posted by: ajtdonahue | December 7, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Hi chrisfox8:

Even though I may not agree with everything you have said, it is encouraging to see people like yourself engage others with differing viewpoints in an intelligent debate.

I am considering Dr. Paul, but you brought up a couple of points I haven't considered before.

>"his beliefs about money and public policy ... extraordinarily irresponsible, the stuff of college dorm bull sessions"

What is irresponsible about his proposals? Dr. Paul spoke to Bernanke about inflation, Rick Santelli on CNBC said that the traders on the floor cheered Dr. Paul on as he talked about the mistakes the fed was making.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8GtXKP6bmQ&feature=related

To me his proposal of spending no money for the military to build nations and instead using that money for U.S. civilians at home sounds fiscally sound. Your thoughts?

RE: abortion, Dr. Paul said in the CNN debate that abortion should be left up to the States. When pressed into the question, "If the state outlaws abortion, should a woman be jailed?" Dr. Paul responded that no, but the Dr. performing a procedure that was against the law should suffer penalties.

Do you have additional info showing that he says women should go to jail? I would find that interesting.

Thank you.

Posted by: maxbish | December 7, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

jchief, I don't care what the LP's positions are on women or immigration because too many of their other positions are COMPLETELY IRRESPONSIBLE.

In factm it's been so long since I read any libertarian position on "freedom" that didn't have "economic" before the F-word that I really don't care; as far as I'm concerned, the LP is only about one freedom: the freedom to enslave others.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | December 7, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox just like you wouldn't want the government spying in your home and telling you what to do in your own home. But you cannot kill your child in your home. I think it should be left up to the states.
==

So we should let the states decide the legality of infanticide .. yeah that's an electable position.

OK, I know that isn't what you meant, but I don't buy the virtue of "states' rights" in the first place so it doesn't really matter.

I happen to live upwind from most other states but if I lived in a downwind state that had strict pollution controls and awoke to coal smoke coming in my bedroom window because some upwind state has lax laws for polluters ... well.

But I am writing to the rest of the readers since your deliberate confusion of abortion with infanticide tells me that you're one of those tiresome fanatics.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | December 7, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox just like you wouldn't want the government spying in your home and telling you what to do in your own home. But you cannot kill your child in your home. I think it should be left up to the states. And abortion isn't really the most important issue facing this country (as Thompson suggests). It's the monetary and foreign policy of our country. Partial birth abortions and dropping babies into buckets I just can't see as protected under the Constitution. Heck if you are THAT concerned about a woman's right in that regard then I'd say you are the biggest libertarian on this board lol! Check out the LP's position on the matter (or on immigration).

Posted by: jchief4040 | December 7, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox again talks crazy stuff. Paul said the DOCTORS should go to jail for actually comitting the crime. But the again he said this should be left up to the states, no him personally dictating from the top down at the federal level.

Posted by: jchief4040 | December 7, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Instead of the media reporting at how remarkable the support has been for this candidate ..
==
Ron Paul's support is enthusiastic but only among a very small number.

Fact of the matter is that Ron Paul has a lot of distinctly unpalatable beliefs, and outside a few libertarians who have built a fetish around a mock Constitution, Ron Paul does not have a lot of appeal.

His position on abortion -- that women who have abortions should be jailed -- is extreme enough in itself to disqualify him.

And then there are his beliefs about money and public policy ... extraordinarily irresponsible, the stuff of college dorm bull sessions.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | December 7, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

"There is no security on this earth, there is only opportunity." - Douglas MacArthur

"No one can build his security upon the nobleness of another person." - Willa Cather

"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. Security does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the
long run than exposure." - Helen Keller


And in contrast to these ideas, Franklin Roosevelt, proclaimed in his Annual Message to Congress in January, 1944:

"The one supreme objective for the future, which we discussed for each nation individually, and for all the United Nations, can be summed up in one word: Security. And that means not only physical security which provides safety from attacks by aggressors. It means also economic security, social security, moral security...

We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all..."

Roosevelt listed these new rights as, "The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries, or shops or farms or mines of the Nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education."

Roosevelt's now obese nanny state that promised to establish security and prosperity by fulfilling these "second" rights is failing on all counts because it has trampled on the individual Liberties defined in America's first Bill of Rights defined by We the People.

The current campaign finance law is a prime example of trashing the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech in order to provide job security for incumbent politicians. There should be no question about the legality of this blimp's use in a political campaign.

Benjamin Franklin was right, and Franklin Roosevelt was wrong.

Choose Liberty over security. Support and vote for a true Champion of the Constitution, Ron Paul.

Posted by: Scrooge | December 7, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

hey chrisfox.. here's some facts for ya.

GOP'ers (except Paul) think "I don't understand how people can say it was a mistake to take out a leader who used biological weapons against his own people, tortured his own people, and would not even let U.N inspectors inspect the plants to make sure that he was not trying to produce a nuclear weapon (even though the inspections were part of the treaty ending the Gulf War.)"

ANSWER: There is no question that Saddam was a ruthless dictator; the first world leader in modern times to have brutally used chemical weapons against his own people. This reference you make was back in 1987-88 when he lauched attacks against 40 Kurdish villages and used them as testing ground. Saddam was ruthless, no doubt. He used mustard gas and nerve agents such as sarin, tabun, and VX.

What is to be debated here is what constitutes an act of war against the United States. I do not want to hear about the concern for lost human lives and the ends to your argument do not justify the means. If the concern was over Saddam's behavior and the solution to his ouster is to kill the very people whom you were concerned about via war and and occupation of the country which has led to at the very least (as there is no agency dedicated to counting the amount of Iraqi deaths) 77,945-84,919 Iraqi deaths and 28,582 wounded soldiers, while all the while removing from power the one man whom Osama bin Laden labeled an "infidel" and a "bararian" and was a necessary distraction to the balance of power in the Middle East and thanks to our intervention have now encouraged, albeit unintentionally, terrorist infiltration into the country and have aided, by our occupation, recruitment for our hated enemies - Islamic extremists aka Al-Qaeda (which is a small segment to an otherwise peaceful Muslim population in the world - and hardly any of us can even begin to form an opinion about this without knowing the religion through and through). The bottom line here is the Middle East sees our expansion of American values and culture as fundamentally threatening to their designs and very existence. Both Saddam and bin Laden felt threatened by continued political and military presense in the Persian Gulf region which they regard (not unreasonably) as directed against their interests. Both had different ideas as to how to accomplish this, though.

The soundbites that we hear in the media of Ahmadinejad , and Saddam for that matter, with their sharp anti-U.S. rhetric is typical of what I call poltical small-man syndrome and borne out of survival instincts of their respective nations against an undesputed global superpower in the United States. Those in the intelligence community and military are well aware of this. Let me address one comment you made about this "Death to the American Satan" quote in regard to Iran. There is a PBS documentary that would strongly support my arguments (which has been forgotten by the "short-term memory" of the media who have no interest in reporting on history as it relates to the present) but I will get to that. More recently on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer in February of 2005 in the midst of the Iranian governments urgence to its people that it stand up in support of the countries nuclear program amid U.S. and international pressure.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: It's been snowing for four days. That's the first thing to say. It snowed all through the rally. We walked to the rally with thousands of people through snow drifts. People were bundled up.
There were families, soldiers, individuals, young friends, a lot of chanting, and especially when they saw us because there aren't that many Americans here, very few American, including in the foreign press corps today.
So we were sounded by people chanting, "Death to America, death to America." One man said, "Look at all the people coming. This is their revolution. Our fathers started and our children will follow with this revolution."
And another person said, "Twenty-six years have passed and you"-- meaning Americans-- "don't learn your lesson," referring to the recent statements by the president and the secretary of state against Iran.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: It's a little disconcerting sometimes. I was here two years ago, and I didn't feel that the chants or the threats were any different than two years ago because of the current pressures and the current back and forth of these strong statements.
People surrounded us at one point, maybe twenty or thirty people as we were walking in, and chanted and yelled. And, you know, there were effigies of Uncle Sam and there was a lot of passion. But when that was all over, several people would sort of smile and say, "welcome" and "hello" and "where are you from?"
And one man said, "You know, we're saying death to America, but we're not really against Americans," he said, "we're really just against the CIA" and he was smiling at us as he said this.

MARGARET WARNER: Elizabeth, thanks so much, and take care.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: You're welcome. Bye-bye.


So why would the CIA be mentioned, you might wonder? Let's do some homework shall we? Iran 1953: the CIA mounted its first major covert operation to overthrow a foreign government. The target was Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammed Mosddeq. He held power legitimately, through his country's parlimentary process and he was popular. Washington had once looked to him as the man to prevent a Communist takeover. But that was before Mosaddeq decided that the Iranian state, not British companies, ought to own and control the oil within Iran's borders. When he nationalized the British run oil fields, Washington saw red. The Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles and his brother Alan, Director of the CIA, decided with Eisenhower's approval, to overthrow Mosaddeq and reinstate the Shah of Iran. The mobs paid by the CIA, and the police and soldiers bribed by the CIA, drove Mosaddeq from office. So the King of Kings was back in control and more pliable than Mosaddeq. American oil companies took over almost half of Iran's production. U.S. arms merchants moved in with $18 billion of weapons sales over the next 20 years. But there were losers. Kenneth Love (former New York Times reporter) said "Nearly everybody in Iran of any importance has had a brother, or a mother, or a sister, or a son, or a father, tortured, jailed, deprived of property with no due process. I mean an absolutely buccaneering dictatorship in our name that we supported. SAVAK was created by the CIA!" SAVAK, the Shah's Secret Police, tortured and murdered thousands of his opponents. General Richard Secord and Albert Hakim were among those who helped supply the Shah's insatiable appetite for the technology of control. But the weapons and flattery heaped by America on the Shah blinded us to the growing opposition of his own people. They rose up in 1979 against him. "Death to the Shah!" they shouted. "Death to the American Satan."

I can go on and on but fast forward to today - we see that Ron Paul has a supporter (media didn't tell you that did they?) in Michael Scheuer who was the former CIA Bin Laden Unit CHIEF! for God sakes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFbOtPSiHJE

Michael wrote a book (which is on Paul's reading list for Rudy lol) called Imperial Hubris which discusses the factually sound a logical explanation for Middle Eastern agresssion towards the United States. A sobering reality will begin to set in for those that still have half a brain and good grasp of history. Michael said in his press conference "I though Mr. Paul captured it the other night exactly correctly. This war is dangerious to America because it's based, not on gender equality, as Mr. Giuliani suggested, or any other kind of freedom, but simply becasue of what we do in the Islamic World - because 'we're over there,' basically, as Mr. Paul said in the debate."

Scheuer also agreed with Dr. Paul's statement in the debate that the war in Iraq was a diversion from capturing Osama bin Laden and that bin Laden was "delighted" that the U.S. is occupying Iraq as it has decome a training ground and recruiting tool for new jihadists joining the movement. He is a 22-year veteran of the CIA and also author of 'Through our Enemies Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Isam, and the Future of America.

I am out of time.

Posted by: jchief4040 | December 7, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Instead of the media reporting at how remarkable the support has been for this candidate they instead insist from all media accounts that this should be looked into as possibly illegal. How said that we even believe that this freedom of expression should be somehow regulated? People are sick and tired of the FRAUDULENT media, FOX News, CNN, NY Times (especially the propaganda POST), Associated Press, etc.. it's just laughable. Just like the YouTube GOP debate was so biased in the time they gave to Giuliani and Romney and McCain and Thompson. It's just laughable. The INTERNET lifts the veil of ignorance!

Posted by: jchief4040 | December 7, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Hey PainfullyAware: Ron Paul exists to be flypaper for people like you. Your own post weaves all over the road and makes no points.

You go right ahead and write in Ron Paul; that's a vote that Guiliiai or Romney or Huckabee won't get, which is A-OK with me.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | December 7, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

How does using a blimp differ from my "Ron Paul for President" bumper sticker on my car? To imply that it is somehow illegal is ignorant and foolish.

Posted by: jagnew | December 7, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

"Is this a legitimate advertising company operating in the normal course of business. or is it a sham operation created to evade the campaign finance laws by posing as an advertising company?" Wertheimer asked.

Wertheimer is not a Paul supporter obviously. Did he even read what the blimp said? It's rather creative. And I love how people think that simply stating to Google a particular person (not Ron Paul '08 but simply Ron Paul) could be a campaign finance problem. LOL - NOT!! HAHAHAhahahahaha!!!!!!! The media is so lame too for even posting that stupid and baseless quote.

Posted by: jchief4040 | December 7, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Legal arguments? LOL it doesn't say anything about the campaign. What? There will be absolutely nothing they can do about it you bunch of morons. Are they going to fly blimps that say 'Google Mitt Romney' lol .. GET A LIFE - don't get all jealous because Ron gets this kind of support from the grassroots.

Posted by: jchief4040 | December 7, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

This argument shows how screwed up and unfair the campaign finance laws are in this country. It's now illegal for a private citizen to use his own money to express his opinion, but a 'bundler' like Norman Hsu can raise $850,000.00 for Hillary, and it's just unseemly, but not illegal, so she just gives it back and we (meaning the media and the prosecutors) just forget about it?

PAC's are leading to the death of democracy and the republic, as they only invite Big Money donors into the process at the exclusion of the individual. Yeah, McCain Feingold sure solved the campaign finance problems in this country!

xtrabiggg
++++++++++++++++++++

Posted by: xtrabiggg | December 7, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Hey Chrisfox8,

You have come to a superficial and hasty generalization about the positions of Ron Paul.

None of your points have any substance.

Contrary to what you apparently believe => The Government Does Nothing Well. To assume benevolence is foolish.

You could use an education in where America comes from and how far we are away from our roots.

Socialism Sucks !!!

I want to stop giving my money to people who spend it foolishly.

I Will do my part to stop this lunacy; I Will Vote For Ron Paul.

Posted by: PainfullyAware | December 7, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

There is no other campaign that could have pulled this off with only supporter backing.

The Message is more important than the man.

The Message is why Ron Paul supporters are so empowered.

I vote for Virtue, I vote for Ron Paul.

Posted by: PainfullyAware | December 7, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

I hope people do look into Ron Paul .. they'll find a guy who believes that money can think, that women should be put in prison for having abortions, and that corporate executives are the Master Race.

In short, a nutbar.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | December 7, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Sorry about the slight mis-post. Not the title, but the best line in the whole book. "Who is John Gault?"

Posted by: ceflynline | December 7, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

I like the ad. Why, with just one or two letters changed you have the title of an almost totally unreadable book by Ayn Rand. It made just about as much sense as Ron Paul

Posted by: ceflynline | December 7, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Why don't the blimpiteers just say they're selling raffle tickets for rides on a blimp? It's true, regardless of what is written on the blimp.

Posted by: phojes74 | December 7, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Caveat that with the presumption the business model allows for the rational expectation of generating a profit to the owners.

That said, I'm no expert in campaign finance law and will wait for Mr Mosk's report on the venture's legality in that respect. Coming soon, I hope.

Posted by: zukermand | December 7, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

I hope someone challenges this in relation to campaign finance laws. This is clearly political speech protected by the First Amendment, including how that expression is financed. Since campaign finance laws are unconstitutional anyway, this will finally break those stupid laws from being applied. Good riddance.

Posted by: bones13 | December 7, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

I can see the rationale for this being a legitimate business purpose with respect to the Liberty... entity. How does this differ from selling T-shirts?

Posted by: zukermand | December 7, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

LOL! Why do I fear I know where this is leading?

Political Shots is about to get a second meaning!

Posted by: rat-the | December 7, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company