Ron Paul's Blimp Ruse

"The Ron Paul blimp" will launch Monday from Elizabeth City, North Carolina — on a trek up the east coast — with a destination of New Hampshire — site of the January 8 first-in-the-nation primaries:

The blimp will feature banners asking "Who is Ron Paul?" and urging people to "Google Ron Paul." The other side will feature a logo promoting what's called the "Ron Paul love revolution."

CNN covers the story in this video report:

The Paul campaign is not sponsoring the blimp, a fact which raise interesting legal issues. Supporters have formed a non-profit company in order to avoid many of the restrictive campaign finance rules. Under this scheme people pay for advertising on the blimp — instead of making a contribution to the candidate.

According to Kenneth P. Vogel, the Ron Paul Blimp Ruse, "tests the reach of campaign finance rules by employing an innovative funding structure that could expose a new way to pour largely unregulated money into politics:

If the model is successful, hypothetically it could allow a media consultant to produce slick attack ads and — without ever disclosing how much was raised or spent — solicit millions from “sponsors” to air the ads in key states.

Comments

[Blimp Master]

RE: Alexia ... 100% correct! We should change the course soon. While New Hampshire may be thee place to be, the blimp should go a different route. I should discuss this out loud:

South: Not a very good destination. During the greatest money-bomb ever set forth to date, very few donated from the South. A microscopic amount in Mississippi. They really should not stick around, there.

Northeast: Hmmm... According to the Ron Paul money bomb donations chart, Virginia came up very light green. Perhaps they should spend some more time there, versus some other states in the region. If they do try Northeastern states, I am guessing the large states (New York, and Pennsylvania) are the must-go type places for the Ron Paul blimp. They are the places where ground troops would be the most strenuous to cover. Do them.

Great Lakes: This would not be an objective for the Ron Paul blimp to be. If it deflates, there would be very little ease in salvaging the wreckage and bringing it back up again from the water. Not that this would be possible to do so on the land, but especially the water.

Great Plains: This would also be the worst place to take the Ron Paul blimp. Too much land means both a lack of people and no places to galvanize near towns by ratio. You also must not have a tornado attack on the blimp --- that would be unfathomable. Sad indeed.

The West: That would be an objective at least a few times for Ron Paul's blimp. The Ron Paul supporters are strongest there. We also may want to try Texas in time for Ron Paul's Representative incumbency bid. It would be a dream come true to pull it off.

Alaska: Only if we are in the neighborhood. I also wonder whether the Canadians would take to the Ron Paul blimp. They aren't very Conservative, not even in Ron Paul's definition, unfortunately.

Hawaii: That would be a tester. It takes six hours by plane to get there --- how could a blimp do it at all? There is no way around for our blimp: no Hawaii possible. Should of invested in something faster.

[Craig]

"Too bad they aren't employing those creative talents helping an actual electable conservative federalist candidate, such as Fred Thompson."

When Fred Thompson has 80,000 volunteers signed up in over 1200 local groups, I might start considering him more electable than Ron Paul.

[Demitrius Ward]

Will the Mothership come and pick up the Paulestinians if Doctor Know doesn't garner the GOP nomination? I have to give the Rontards credit for creative cheating, spamming and fundraising, though. Too bad they aren't employing those creative talents helping an actual electable conservative federalist candidate, such as Fred Thompson.

[Jim Rose]

Is it going to Lakehurst, N.J.? "Oh, the humanity!"

[Alexia]

I'm not really sure it is a ruse, but I question the wisdom of trying to fly a blimp in the northeast winter.

[MJW]

No, they have actually formed a "for-profit" company.

It is explained here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7245.html