Rebel Resource
Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2007
- Messages
- 666
Something to consider: Seems to me Paul believes this is our movement, not just his. He's giving us the freedom to make our own choices, which would be his goal as President.
But in addition, it might also be possible that legally grassroots has more legal freedom and options when we act independently of the campaign. If Paul's directing our actions, we might fall under more restrictive regulations from the FEC. I'm not a lawyer, so don't take my word for it. I could be wrong. But I believe this to be the case.
I'd guess often Paul would want us to do something but won't say so the grassroots mantains a status of legal independence from the official campaign.
On the other hand, there are likely a whole bunch of grassroots ideas Paul doesn't like but doesn't interfere with too.
I guess it's a double edged sword for him.
Yeah, good points. I can imagine the idea is to allow the grassroots to get up to whatever mischief they like, knowing that if they are considering something that unknown to them would be harmful to the wider campaign, there are at least influential 'generals' of the grassroots that can be contacted to prevent it.
Of course, this excludes the possibility of a loose cannon like Alex Jones going right ahead and doing it anyway. I'll be very interested to hear the show today.
If HQ was to direct the grassroots in a very specific and important area, they could easily do so through the aforementioned 'generals' without detection. I agree that the grassroots must have maximum autonomy and HQ doesnt have time to direct two campaigns anyway. But this recount issue could fall into a special category.