Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Ron Paul squanders campaign money on pointless ads

One definition of insanity is to repeat the same action over and over again, while expecting a different result. And we all already knew that Ron Paul is insane. So perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that Ron Paul would prove his fiscal conservatism and financial wisdom by pumping even more money into a long deceased campaign. In the above radio ad, Ron Paul goes over his usual list of talking points. You know, the exact same talking points that haven't gotten him very far in the past, where he recites his list of non-accomplishments, talks about his military donations, proclaims himself as the "Champion of the Constitution," in much the same way that Michael Scott proclaims himself as the world's greatest boss. Of course, I suppose that even the radio ad isn't as bad as the "sloppy seconds" posters that his supporters have been using.

Do you notice how often the radio ad mentions Ron Paul by name? As Seth Stevenson at Slate wrote, "I suspect most advertisers avoid the broken-record technique out of fear that it will annoy people. Which it does. But so what? Maybe a small percentage of us will snootily refrain from buying HeadOn—as an act of protest against an ad we find irritating—but this is a small price to pay when millions of other folks are now familiar with HeadOn, curious about it, and unlikely ever to forget its name. The repetition method serves no purpose for a well-established brand ("Coca-Cola: Pour it down your esophagus. Coca-Cola: Pour it down your esophagus"), but for a new product fighting to get noticed, it makes a lot of sense."

I suspect that the Paultards had a similar strategy in mind throughout the campaign. What they neglected to consider, of course, is that there is a huge world of difference between getting people to acknowledge a product, and getting people to buy a product. Conversely, they believe that if the American public doesn't buy Ron Paul, then it must be because they haven't acknowledged him, which is why they're quick to blame media conspiracy. Unfortunately for them, it's going too take a lot more than "Ron Paul, apply directly to DC" to win the office of Presidency.


Anonymous said...

So you apparently like to put a campaign in a place where it either can't spend campaign money on the campaign, nor can you spend it (as you falsely put in your latter posting, on book publishing).

Ron Paul is not out, and so should continue to spend the campaign money. He didn't quit, he'll make some sort of appearance at the conventions, though I can't say what. What exactly is your point here? So you either like McCain or Clinton I guess? Why not take a hard look at the inconsistencies of either of them.

Every single bad thing I've heard mislabeling Ron Paul has been refuted, such as the comments on race. But you have to remember that even if he didn't write it, it's true that our laws make a hell of a lot more black people criminals. The silly federal drug war is costing you a ton of money. If you realized that economists across the country are calling for the end of the drug war, you might find that the reason we have so many problems with drug trade is because it's illegal. Cut out the need for the underground economy and you have a huge drop in the crime surrounding it. Or is it that he doesn't support abortion. Being a medical doctor, I think he knows more than you about the subject and the effects of abortion. Even so, he wants to leave it up to the states, considering that they should be able to decide based on what their citizens prefer.

I might take 10 minutes and read all your postings, I bet I'll find that 98% of them are based on your personal complaints, half-truths or false logic.

Ron Lawl said...

"Every single bad thing I've heard mislabeling Ron Paul has been refuted, such as the comments on race."

The fact that Ron Paul refuses to explain any of the inconsistencies nor answer any of the probing questions with more than "I said I didn't do it, and that's that'" is hardly a refutation. Especially when it completely contradicts the fact that Ron Paul took full credit for the articles when the controversy first came to light from 1996-2001, which means that he was either lying then, or he was lying now.

Oh, and Ron Paul's original argument wasn't that "the law" make black people criminals. It was that 95% of black people are criminals, and the police are ridiculous ly incompetent for not arresting more of them. You're attempting to white wash his words (pun intended) when his actual statements are pretty cut and dry.

Oh, and Ron Paul doesn't except the theory of evolution. Just because he's a doctor doesn't make him an expert.