I agree that the ad would have been better with the effects applied to real video of Paul speaking, but I didn't think the CGI was that
bad, at least for a non-official ad.
Then leave the ideas out of it. It's not like the other candidates are going to run on their stances. Come on. Mitt Romney's going to be Ward Cleaver For President: morally squeaky-clean, family man, successful in business, likes to throw a stick for his dog. President Obama will just run as a new-and-improved version of the guy that won everybody's hearts in 2008. These aren't platforms built on issues and stances, are they?
All true, but I still think he needs
to be able to win on the issues. I look at it this way. If you support the libertarian view of liberty here, you would be for Paul getting elected. That much is obvious, and, at first glance, any way to get him into office would be what we want.
But if he gets elected on a emotional, but substance-free, push, nothing will change. You will have a bit of a respite from war and government interference, which would be great, but as soon as his term (or, hopefully, two) were up, we would be back to where we are now, as the people would still be cozy in their liberal or conservative indoctrination. They won't understand that many of the problems in the Middle East stem from things like Operation Ajax in 1953
, or our support of Iraq (the aggressor) in the Iraq-Iran War in the 80's, including our destruction of a civilian Iranian airliner that, according to neutral sources (the Dubai airport, for example) had identified itself and was ascending and leaving the area, while US Admirals eventually admitted the warship that shot it down was in Iranian waters. Or our support of dictators like Mubarak and Qaddafi, before we decided our interests were better served by letting them be killed (causing both supporters and rebels under these regimes to dislike us).
They won't understand how the Federal Reserve creates massive amounts of inflation and the bubbles that keep bursting every 10 years or so. They won't understand the dangerous power being given to the President to detain anyone, including US civilians, merely be declaring that evidence does exist (but it's top secret evidence, so we can release it or national security will be threatened) that the individual is a "terrorist". Etc.
And knowing that the transition to these "new" ideas, especially those involving the monetary system, will, by necessity, be rough (and slow, due to push back from the power hungry individuals that will still remain in government) - just as drug withdrawal is rough, but necessary - it will be likely that Americans will blame Paul for these hardships, and push back, attempting to (and possibly succeeding) in restoring the broken system we currently have, and that is further exacerbated if they didn't understand what they were really voting for when they elected him.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?