Home office is not hyphenated.

So will Ron Paul actually be flying in it?

It'd be fun to see the blimp land at Ron Paul rallies, with Ron Paul walking out of it in his flight suit, all George Bush like, etc....

Hmmm...

Does Ron Paul actually have rallies? Do his supporters ever leave their basements?

Ron Paul, the new Ross Perot.

oh, the libertarian humanity. the question is: whose votes will he take, the dems or the repugs? it's not been clear to me so far.

Hey, if Hillary can have the Hill-o-Copter, I suppose Paul can have a blimp. BTW, all the Paul supporters I know are Repubs.

@2 He would have to according to Ayn Rand the rich are superior in every way including flying ability

I think the election not being funny anymore has more to do with the Writers' Strike keeping Stewart and Colbert off the air than a crazy blimp.

It's funny that a GOP candidate against the Patriot Act, torture, and the war in Iraq gets so little respect around here.

@8 Yeah seriously; he's obviously the best GOP candidate. I would certainly prefer him to any republican alternative. If nothing else I'm sure he'd end the budget deficit, and there's no way he'll actually be able to do anything crazy like eliminate the income tax.

@8

It's not so much that Paul doesn't get any respect but rather his nutjob people don't get any respect. I mean c'mon. A BLIMP!?!?

I'm still waiting for it to fly over the Shire.

I've tried a few political quizes/selectors online and Ron Paul is the only republican candidate that doesn't score negative points in my results, probably because of his foreign policy.

dkos has a front-page link that is topical: the libertarian liberal. just for all those out there that think libertarians are exclusively republicans.

Isn't he kind of the anti-Huckabee? I mean, Huckabee can't raise money for shit. I think this is more money that Huckabee has raised throughout his entire campaign, but despite that, has become a front runner.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, is raising money hand over fist, but still isn't out of single digits anywhere.

Autogyros, baby!

Huckabee needs an autogyro!

Much as I'm glad there are a few Republicans who remember what it was like being the party of small government, fiscal discipline, and not getting involved in foreign civil wars, the reality is that that mantle has already been taken over by the Democrats.

So, in the interests of sanity, would you stop putting up all those frickin Ron Paul signs everywhere?

Forty years in the wilderness. That's the GOP lot ...

He's got the non-religious retarded vote all sewn up!

I'm a lifelong progressive Democrat supporting Ron Paul.

The Democrats are a ship of fools and the rest of the Republicans are neo-conservative scum. It's pretty simple -- I'm for the Constitution, so I'm for Ron Paul.

@2 - Yup, and I've been to a couple get-togethers/rallies. They're real people, apparently.

@14 - He's 11% in SC and was 8% in the last NH poll, showing upward trends in both states. But I wouldn't put much stock in those poll numbers; they tend to focus on established Republican voters.

The Paul campaign is attracting people from all over the map, many of which are Democrats, are independents, or who may have given up on politics long ago. Their voices are NOT reflected in any of the traditional polls the mainstream media are using to handicap the candidates (which is bullshit, anyway).

@16 - Democrats are for small government? Yeah, for some value of small, where it actually means "fucking huge."

Even more ominous than the blimp?

Ron Paul Campaign Pit-Bulls....

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/pit%20bull%20for%20Paul.jpg

I'll vote for the candidate who arrives at rallies in a jet pack and runs on a platform of Jet Packs for All.

The Paul Blimp just makes me think Hindenburg...

@18 - yeah, but the Stranger will never endorse you ... you have to be a recovering dry drunk (GWB) cause they don't like Ron Paulites for endorsements.

@18 You're a progressive Democrat voting for an anti-choice Republican who would dismantle the EPA and the Department of Education? Are you sure you know what the word "progressive" means?

@22

Way to piss in my cereal. wah!

@23

I'm of the opinion that consolidating power in the federal government weakens state sovereignty and concentrates corruption in the District (rather than distributing it throughout state capitals).

And I have not yet been convinced that the federal government has constitutional authority to take responsibility for environmental protection and education. In fact, the department of education is a very bad idea. Better to let states and local governments handle education.

Look at other examples like FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security -- plenty of evidence there that our precious tax money is going to waste.

Ron Paul is for the issue of abortion being decided by the states, as it was intended by the 10th amendment. Why shouldn't citizens be allowed to decide what's right for their state? The notion that the federal government knows best does not fly with me, and is completely incompatible with the principles of our government that have stood the test of time.

None of the Democrats feel like progress to me, unless it's progress in the direction of a continuing American empire and domestic socialism. Obama pays lip-service to change and has minimal experience; Paul would bring real change and has a proven track record. Oh, right, Obama spent some time in foreign countries as a child. That should count for something!

It's not me who forgot what it means to be a progressive -- it's the Democrats.

Hey Ron Paul folks:
have you thought about getting him filed to run outside the Republican party if he does not get the nomination?

Our national crisis is only one that you, the netroots, can solve. It would be alot of grass roots work to figure out the crazy filing rules in every state for a third party campaign. I wonder if you are up to it?

Those Republicans hate you and will diss him at the Convention anyway.
Go look at Sound Politics. They haaaaaate you guys!!

Bring back the way American was in the early days with no IRS, no EPA, a small federal government and no foreign entaglements -- and lots of people running for President! Remember Jefferson, Hamilton, Burr and that other dude?

You didn't only have two people running.
Have the courage of your beliefs -- he could win that way --
Signed,

@25

I'm sure some have, but the folks I know are concentrating all of their efforts on winning the Republican nomination. And our efforts appear to be getting more and more effective, if you judge by straw poll results, fundraising, and (slowly) growing media attention.

Not to toot our own horn, but all of Congressman Paul's successes can be attributed to two things: 1) his unique message of liberty, and 2) the passionate grassroots organization that has sprung up around him. That is to say, his success is owed almost entirely to us rather than his official campaign staff.

So we are intimately acquainted with all sorts of crazy filing rules -- we have to be, otherwise Dr. Paul wouldn't have made it onto the ballot in states like Virginia (where the campaign totally punted on the effort, and where we were the ones pounding the pavement and pestering people at train stations and malls).

We know the establishment hates us, but there's room for them too. Ron Paul's a Big Tent politician, if you couldn't tell by the eclectic nature of his supporters. Old-school Republicans (Goldwater types), disenfranchised voters, disgruntled Democrats, Libertarians who want to win, independents who are tired of politics as usual -- all are welcome.

Neo-conservatism is bad for America and bad for the world. The GOP, the party of Lincoln, the savior of our union, should be ashamed of itself for allowing these charlatans and religious fanatics to infiltrate their party and subvert it. Well, here we are, and we're turning things back.

Thank you for the encouragement, Shaheen. It is well appreciated. Here's hoping that more and more Americans get wind of Ron Paul's message of liberty.

I have yet to have a "progressive" explain to my satisfaction why we "need" a Federal D of E. Way back during Clintonia, it had lost, mislaid, couldnt account for 6 BILLION dollars. That in no way includes the billions it blew on office furniture, junkets, & "studies".
If you cant getyour town or state D of E to perform, by what idiot delusion do you think a Federal department will help?
Far better those $ lost in Washington stay in State ed budgets.
And why should an insurance company profit if I need to see a doctor?
Only two people running who will actually shake things up: RP or DK.....RP would lend support to states decidin on abortion. Im against that. DK is an anti gun nut- Im seriously against anti gun nuts. everyone else is your basic shit sandwich with different cheese....