# Liberty Movement > Grassroots Central >  Msg from Jonathan Bydlak -- willing to answer questions

## JonathanBydlak

As some of you may know, I am no longer officially with the Ron Paul campaign as of March 14th.  It's been my observation that at times there has been a disconnect in communication between the campaign and grassroots supporters, and so I thought that now that I am no longer with the campaign, I can do the most good by taking some time to answer any questions that people may have regarding the campaign.  I'd like to do everything I can to unite everyone dedicated to the ideals of liberty, and to clarify any misperceptions that may have existed or still exist amongst all of us.

That said, I am not speaking in the capacity as a representative of the campaign, and nothing I say should be taken as such.  I'm not here to speak negatively of any members of official staff, grassroots supporters, or anyone else who has given a great deal of time, money, and effort helping Ron Paul earn the Republican nomination.  But I am perfectly willing to share parts of my experience working on the campaign, as well as answer any questions that people may have about campaign-related issues, past or present.  I know that at times some supporters have been critical of me personally, and I welcome any comments to that regard, so long as they are civil and substantive.

To share one comment up front... I never cease to be amazed by the effort and dedication of people both inside and outside of the campaign to Ron Paul, and all of the ideas by which we are united.  It's been a source of frustration for me at times to see us tearing at each other, because while there's a place for constructive criticism, in my opinion we'd be much better off focusing on how to defeat other candidates and further this great movement we've started.  After all, while we may have our differences or sources of discontent, we're all working for the same goal.

So that said, let me be as much of a resource to you as I can!

Jonathan

----------


## OptionsTrader

Thanks Jonathan.  I hope some agent provocateurs don't hijack this thread and start a flame war and cause trouble.

I thank you for your hard work.

----------


## Zera

Two things:

1. Why were you let go?  (You don't have to answer it if you don't feel comfortable doing so.)

2. How aware is Paul of our efforts in getting all of our supporters to become delegates?  Does he believe we have a chance?

----------


## Melissa

Hi and weclome to the forums they may be a bit fiesty here but almost all here love freedom and liberty so they are on the same page, they just all have many ways of getting there

----------


## Banana

No questions here, but wanted to say *Thank You* for the work and courage to come over here to help us sort out the hubris.

----------


## mavtek

I'd just like to say you seemed to have done a respectful job at your position. There's not much 1 man can do. To speak of hindsight is to only slight those who worked very hard. We have all learned a great deal from this campaign. 

I have learned to not wait for instruction or help, just do.

----------


## OptionsTrader

Does the campaign still have the capacity to take in money and run this ad on television?  The video is creating a lot of excitement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3MLTvYBQy0

http://www.HighTidePromo.com

----------


## IPSecure

Why the disconnect between Headquarters and GrassRoots?

I Mean: "What Is Going On Here"?

----------


## NerveShocker

Well since it appears you have plenty of questions to answer already I just want to thank you for your contribution.  It's like G. Edward Griffen said the people at the top are the ones that they always try to discredit and damage.

----------


## amy31416

Welcome and I'm very interested to hear what you have to say.

----------


## Kotin

is there a plan b?

an indie run? a Ron Paul endorsed Candidate? anything?

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Two things:
> 
> 1. Why were you let go?  (You don't have to answer it if you don't feel comfortable doing so.)
> 
> 2. How aware is Paul of our efforts in getting all of our supporters to become delegates?  Does he believe we have a chance?


I'd be happy to answer both of these questions.

First, as you know, the campaign is trying to stay lean and keep costs as low as possible.  Whether people decide to give to the campaign at this point will have little to do with any actions of a "fundraising director."  But regardless of what happens from this point forward in the campaign, I encourage everyone to continue giving.  There are great things that will come out of this campaign, and the funds that people give really do make it all possible.  Every individual will have to decide for himself or herself what the best way to spend their money is, and that may not be giving to he "official campaign."  But know that a lot of smart people are working very hard to use donations as efficiently as we know how.

As for me personally, I believe that I gave all I could to the campaign, and it was time for me to move on to other things. 

Second, Dr. Paul is very aware of the efforts going on to get as many delegates as possible.  I don't believe he would be staying the race if he did not believe that these were worthwhile goals.  I can't really speak to the degree that Dr. Paul thinks it is realistic to win the nomination, as the only commentary I've heard from him on this matter is the same thing that you all have heard in his YouTube videos.  But I'd add this comment, regardless of what Dr. Paul thinks:  Talking to people first-hand is the most effective way of influencing people possible.  Whether that takes place on the floor of the convention, or in a conversation with your neighbor over your fence, it's extremely worthwhile.  So I wouldn't place so much emphasis on what Dr. Paul or the campaign is doing... if you truly believe in this movement, then you owe it to yourself and everyone else to get the word out -- continuously -- in any way that you can.  That may be through serving as delegates to the convention, or it may be calling up your uncle who doesn't quite "get" what we're about just yet.  As Dr. Paul said, revolutions do not happen overnight.

----------


## NerveShocker

> is there a plan b?
> 
> an indie run? a Ron Paul endorsed Candidate? anything?


Ron Paul has endorsed several candidates, Murray Sabrin is one for example.  The movement moves on this presidential run is nowhere near the end, just the beginning.  Too many people have been awakened now (thanks a lot to Ron Paul) to stop now.. it can only grow.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> I'd just like to say you seemed to have done a respectful job at your position. There's not much 1 man can do. To speak of hindsight is to only slight those who worked very hard. We have all learned a great deal from this campaign. 
> 
> I have learned to not wait for instruction or help, just do.


This is a great take away... we all believe in the powers of decentralization, and it makes sense to do as much as we can before being told to do so.  That said, I think it's smart to remember that we should listen to instructions when they come.  None of us know everything, but it's important to keep an open mind and take the advice of those who are in a position to know more.

As an example, canvassing is something of critical importance, and in my opinion, trumps the benefits of things like sign waves.  I wish we had invested more into getting the word out about canvassing as soon as possible.  I consider it a great failing of me personally, and everyone else who was in a position to know, that we didn't stress to supporters the importance of winning their precinct.

That said, it's still important to use the tools of the precinct leader program as much as possible.  This is an ongoing process, and I encourage everyone to take the instructions the campaign has given, and run with them.  We all can have a massive amount of influence in our area.

https://voters.ronpaul2008.com

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Does the campaign still have the capacity to take in money and run this ad on television?  The video is creating a lot of excitement.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3MLTvYBQy0
> 
> http://www.HighTidePromo.com


The campaign definitely still has the capacity to take in money, and is definitely doing so.

As far as running a particular ad, I can't really comment about the current financial situation of the campaign... your best bet to find out that answer is to look in the latest FEC reports.

One thing I would note is to make a distinction between what looks good on YouTube and what looks good on TV.  I know that there has been a lot of commentary on the quality of the campaign's ads, and while some of it has definitely been warranted, much of it has not.  The mindset that people take when watching TV is very different than when they are actively searching for intellectual content online.  It's very difficult to make a good 30 second ad (not to mention a 1 minute ad, which often runs 3x as expensive as 30 second ads).  Keep that in mind when watcing videos like this.  How will your 65 year old father or grandfather react?  What about the 40 year old soccer mom?  And the 21 year old college student?  And how will all of these people react when they see the ad in the middle of their favorite talk show, sitcom, or the nightly news?

----------


## hillbilly123069

the campaign was trying to impede it?

----------


## NoxTwilight

I don't have any specific questions although I will pay close attention to this thread and any others you participate in for your insights and I hope some guidance and suggestions.  I think you will be an asset to us and hope that you will continue to share our work now and in the future.  

I have a feeling that we will need people like you after the convention especially.  

Welcome and thanks!

----------


## amy31416

We in the grassroots need some leadership, and regardless of your failings, we need someone who has a voice, patience, decisiveness and motivation to act. We likely won't pay you, but I'm very intrigued with what you have to offer. 




> This is a great take away... we all believe in the powers of decentralization, and it makes sense to do as much as we can before being told to do so.  That said, I think it's smart to remember that we should listen to instructions when they come.  None of us know everything, but it's important to keep an open mind and take the advice of those who are in a position to know more.
> 
> As an example, canvassing is something of critical importance, and in my opinion, trumps the benefits of things like sign waves.  I wish we had invested more into getting the word out about canvassing as soon as possible.  I consider it a great failing of me personally, and everyone else who was in a position to know, that we didn't stress to supporters the importance of winning their precinct.
> 
> That said, it's still important to use the tools of the precinct leader program as much as possible.  This is an ongoing process, and I encourage everyone to take the instructions the campaign has given, and run with them.  We all can have a massive amount of influence in our area.
> 
> https://voters.ronpaul2008.com

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Why the disconnect between Headquarters and GrassRoots?
> 
> I Mean: "What Is Going On Here"?


Well, my personal feeling is that it's a combination of things.  On HQ's side, I think there's  been so much that's gone on, that it's hard to communicate every decision perfectly to supporters.  And of course, when you do communicate something, there ends up being another 20,000 questions that it raises.

On the grassroots side, I think there have been times when HQ has communicated things very clearly, but people have let negative perceptions get in the way of objectively assessing the advice.  Everyone has their own motivations, and it's hard to trust a "distant" group of people whom many of you have never met.  I think a lot of times it comes down to a belief that individuals know better than groups in positions of leadership.

I personally prescribe to that philosophy too, but I still think it's important for both sides to listen to and try to understand the feedback that the other is providing.

----------


## silverhandorder

Wow welcome  I hope you stay around. Fun times.

----------


## OptionsTrader

> One thing I would note is to make a distinction between what looks good on YouTube and what looks good on TV.


I agree that is a good point.  I hope he at least sees the ad.  It is quite well made and I would guess hundreds of hours were spent in production.

----------


## Hook

Why no national ads like all the other candidates?  How come we didn't hire a big-name campaign director that had experience and inside knowledge of how to get the media to cover the campaign?

I think that if we saw the same level of ads as the other candidates, you would have easily seen twice the donations, because people would have thought their money was well spent.

Just my $.02

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> is there a plan b?
> 
> an indie run? a Ron Paul endorsed Candidate? anything?


Ron will not run as an independent.  Sometimes I wish he had snapped back angrily at reporters and made it 100% clear early on that he never would do so.  But he simply will not, and it's probably not the best thing for the movement.

I think of it this way.  On the one hand, I would love to see Ron run independent.  I think in an election between a warmonger (McCain) and another warmonger (Clinton) or a false-peacenik (Obama), Ron would stand out so much.  But it's terribly hard to run indy.  On top of getting on the ballot, the bigger problem is getting the press and the public to take you seriously and think you have a chance of winning.  If we couldn't do that with Ron running as a Republican, what makes us think they would if he ran as an independent?

OVer the long term, the best thing is to take back the Republican party apparatus.  And as we know, this is already going on all around the country.  Get out an take part in your local Republican party meetings.  If you're not a delegate yet, take the necessary steps to be one.  Again, like Ron said, none of this will happen overnight.  This revolution will all come down to how much dedication we all have to it, both "HQ" and grassroots supporters.  I know sometimes people have said "HQ just relies on the grassroots to do everything."  But when you don't have the party apparatus in your hip pocket, victory has to come from the bottom up.  Don't get discouraged... just work harder.

As far as endorsements of other candidates... Ron has endorsed Murray Sabrin, and I don't know about others.  My hope is that when the current phase of the campaign winds down, an organization will spring up that will recruit liberty-oriented candidates, and fund and work hard to get them elected.  Keep in mind that we have that to look forward to when this campaign ends.

----------


## JS4Pat

> Why the disconnect between Headquarters and GrassRoots?
> 
> I Mean: "What Is Going On Here"?


Same questions.

----------


## Flirple

Thanks so much for starting this thread. 

Specifically, what prevented someone in the campaign from doing this all along? I think that having an "ask HQ thread" is specifically what so many of us would have liked from the start and would have saved us so much time. Specifically, what restrictions (McCain Fiengold etc.)  prevented you from directly communicating with us on these message boards? Or was there another reason (aside from legal) that we all had to independently try to email or call HQ resulting in inefficient and ineffective redundant use of our time (as well as yours) to get info?

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> the campaign was trying to impede it?


Nope, not a chance.  Sure, there were definitely decisions along the way that I would argue were detrimental to our end goals.  And sure, there were people who worked harder and were more dedicated than others.  But a "plant" or someone along those lines?  Not as far as I could see.  There were no two people more dedicated to Ron Paul than Kent Snyder and Lew Moore.  I'd focus any criticisms on them on the decisions that were made, rather than their characters or intentions.

----------


## Hook

Oh, and why didn't HQ dedicate someone whose only job was to keep the grassroots informed?  Daily meetups on this forum would have dispelled much anger towards HQ and probably would have easily paid for the salary of the person by increased donations.

Most of the other campaigns had daily email updates and extensive grassroots coordinators.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> We in the grassroots need some leadership, and regardless of your failings, we need someone who has a voice, patience, decisiveness and motivation to act. We likely won't pay you, but I'm very intrigued with what you have to offer.


haha, well, I like to think I have something to offer.  I plan on doing all I can, regardless of whether that's in some "official" post-campaign capacity or not...

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> I agree that is a good point.  I hope he at least sees the ad.  It is quite well made and I would guess hundreds of hours were spent in production.


If I had a nickel for everytime I heard that!

----------


## Zera

> Ron will not run as an independent.  Sometimes I wish he had snapped back angrily at reporters and made it 100% clear early on that he never would do so.  But he simply will not, and it's probably not the best thing for the movement.
> 
> I think of it this way.  On the one hand, I would love to see Ron run independent.  I think in an election between a warmonger (McCain) and another warmonger (Clinton) or a false-peacenik (Obama), Ron would stand out so much.  But it's terribly hard to run indy.  On top of getting on the ballot, the bigger problem is getting the press and the public to take you seriously and think you have a chance of winning.  If we couldn't do that with Ron running as a Republican, what makes us think they would if he ran as an independent?
> 
> OVer the long term, the best thing is to take back the Republican party apparatus.  And as we know, this is already going on all around the country.  Get out an take part in your local Republican party meetings.  If you're not a delegate yet, take the necessary steps to be one.  Again, like Ron said, none of this will happen overnight.  This revolution will all come down to how much dedication we all have to it, both "HQ" and grassroots supporters.  I know sometimes people have said "HQ just relies on the grassroots to do everything."  But when you don't have the party apparatus in your hip pocket, victory has to come from the bottom up.  Don't get discouraged... just work harder.
> 
> As far as endorsements of other candidates... Ron has endorsed Murray Sabrin, and I don't know about others.  My hope is that when the current phase of the campaign winds down, an organization will spring up that will recruit liberty-oriented candidates, and fund and work hard to get them elected.  Keep in mind that we have that to look forward to when this campaign ends.


*applauds*

Someone show this to Colecrowe so he stops spamming up the board.

----------


## OptionsTrader

What do you think we can do if anything to get Ron to be taken seriously as a candidate in the television media?  $6 million in a day wasn't enough 3 months ago, and today the whole television media is infatuated with the 3 heads on the same monster.  The dollar is crashing as our candidate predicted, gold and oil are spiking as our candidate precited, I feel like I am living in a dream.  If Obama had made these predictions they would be heralding him as the second coming of Jesus.  

Besides becoming a delegate as I am, what in the hell can we do to get him to be taken seriously?  It is 235 days until the election and we are probably about to go kill a million folks in Iran and I am pissed off...

----------


## Hook

> There were no two people more dedicated to Ron Paul than Kent Snyder and Lew Moore.  I'd focus any criticisms on them on the decisions that were made, rather than their characters or intentions.


No one here has ever questioned the motivations and character of Moore and Synder.  It is just that a lot of people got the impression that they were in way over their heads once some real money started coming in.  It is like they never expected to get very far and were only planning on running an educational campaign.  This is understandable, but once you realize you are in over your head sometimes it is better to find an experienced expert and let them take over.

Probably the most frustrating thing we encountered were all the times HQ didn't respond back to media requests.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Why no national ads like all the other candidates?  How come we didn't hire a big-name campaign director that had experience and inside knowledge of how to get the media to cover the campaign?
> 
> I think that if we saw the same level of ads as the other candidates, you would have easily seen twice the donations, because people would have thought their money was well spent.
> 
> Just my $.02


Ooh, now we're getting into some red meat... haha.  This one might take awhile.

1. National campaign ads.  I think the reason this wasn't done is because it largely didn't make sense for a candidate like Ron.  While we raised $20M in Q4, keep in mind how much the other candidates had spent before that.  Mitt Romne spent MILLIONS to bring his name recognition up to snuff with the other candidates.  Everyone knew Rudy from 9/11, they knew McCain from 2000, and while Huckabee was an unknown like Ron, his seemingly genuine personality infatuated the press.  But many members of the press didn't care about Ron, and they didn't take him seriously.  I don't believe that even people like Tucker, who gave Ron above-average face-time and believed strongly in Ron's message, ever thought he had a chance of winning.  That said, with limited resources, you have to target them.  And the campaign worked hard at targeting early primary states, while still organizing supporters everywhere else.  But to throw money across the country would not have been smart (in my opinion), and I'd rather see more direct mail in New Hampshire than TV ads playing in New Mexico and Kentucky.

2.  As far as a "big-name" campaign director... In my opinion, the campaign could have used someone who had significant experience with campaigning.  But I say that not because there weren't people with that experience, but because ANY campaign could always use more.  But my personal opinion is also that the difference such a person would have made would have been largely trivial.  That's because, as I said earlier, there's no magic secret to how a staff can get the press to cover a candidate.  In the end, the press didn't cover Ron Paul because they didn't like Ron Paul... not because the staff didn't do the needed job.  If you want to understand why Ron didn't get coverage, your best starting place is to question how Ron presented his message, whether he could have done a better job, or whether the message is too opposed to the biases of the media.  Sure, additional staff would have helped.  But to focus criticisms there is to miss the broader point.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Thanks so much for starting this thread. 
> 
> Specifically, what prevented someone in the campaign from doing this all along? I think that having an "ask HQ thread" is specifically what so many of us would have liked from the start and would have saved us so much time. Specifically, what restrictions (McCain Fiengold etc.)  prevented you from directly communicating with us on these message boards? Or was there another reason (aside from legal) that we all had to independently try to email or call HQ resulting in inefficient and ineffective redundant use of our time (as well as yours) to get info?


Well, I'm not a legal expert by any means, so I don't know the degree to which this could have been done.  But I do know that there are clauses that prevent "coordination" with unpaid individuals.  If you get a good or service provided from someone, you need to compensate them fair market value.  For example, when people said "you could just take ads from the grassroots for free!", what was missed is that we could not take them for free anymore than we could take a helicopter from a donor for free.

As I said in my initial post, we definitely needed to do a better job with communication, and in my opinion (I know others disagree), we failed.  I personally didn't see us failing until too late, and it was because of others that I began to realize that.  And remember, the campaign did add the Daily Dose with this goal in mind, and I think Dan McCarthy did a great job with it.

But one other thing I would add is that in many cases, we did provide tons of guidance.  Maybe not directly from HQ, but certainly from field staff.  And not to be too critical, but there were numerous cases where people didn't want to do the things "they were told."  So the blame on communication goes all around here... it's a double edged sword, as best as I can tell.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> What do you think we can do if anything to get Ron to be taken seriously as a candidate in the television media?  $6 million in a day wasn't enough 3 months ago, and today the whole television media is infatuated with the 3 heads on the same monster.  The dollar is crashing as our candidate predicted, gold and oil are spiking as our candidate precited, I feel like I am living in a dream.  If Obama had made these predictions they would be heralding him as the second coming of Jesus.  
> 
> Besides becoming a delegate as I am, what in the hell can we do to get him to be taken seriously?  It is 235 days until the election and we are probably about to go kill a million folks in Iran and I am pissed off...


Well, if you want my honest opinion, I don't think there's much that "we" can do.  I think it comes down to two things... what the media wants to cover, and shortcomings of Ron.  The media wants news, plain and simple.  Sure, there was bias against Ron, but that was minor next to the point that Ron wasn't attacking other candidates by saying controversial things (remember the one time Ron called out Huckabee's Christmas ad?  We got news coverage everywhere because of that.  Why?  Because it was controversial.)

So, it's a sad indictment of our society when substance doesn't get you news coverage.  But my personal opinion is knowing that, you have to play the game.  And unfortuantely, Ron is too dignified to do that.

----------


## Hook

> If you want to understand why Ron didn't get coverage, your best starting place is to question how Ron presented his message, whether he could have done a better job, or whether the message is too opposed to the biases of the media.  Sure, additional staff would have helped.  But to focus criticisms there is to miss the broader point.


Yes, Dr. Paul could have made his message more understandable to the dunces in the media.  Not sure that would have made CNN more amenable to the message though.

Well, it is all water under the bridge now.

What are the chances of Dr. Paul at least speaking at the GOP convention?

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> No one here has ever questioned the motivations and character of Moore and Synder.  It is just that a lot of people got the impression that they were in way over their heads once some real money started coming in.  It is like they never expected to get very far and were only planning on running an educational campaign.  This is understandable, but once you realize you are in over your head sometimes it is better to find an experienced expert and let them take over.
> 
> Probably the most frustrating thing we encountered were all the times HQ didn't respond back to media requests.


Well, I think there may be some truth to this comment.  But I would also add that if they didn't expect things to turn out this well, neither did Ron.  In fact, I don't think ANYONE, inside or outside of the campaign did.

I can tell you that everyone on our staff wanted to win this race desperately.  And we all still do.  But adding an "expert" would not have solved anything.  Remember that Ron himself has said numerous times that he saw this campaign as an educational campaign...

As far as not responding to media requests, two points... first, you're right that the campaign was too late formulating a 5 star media team.  It should have been in place earlier, and I fault myself in retrospect, as well as others, for sort of seeing it as a problem, but not realizing its magnitude.  But, I will also say that many of the criticisms that people raise in this regard are unfounded.  By the end of November, we had a system in place to responding to important media calls.  But again, we can't respond to every local newspaper and TV station.  We were forced to pick and choose appearances that were most important, particularly because the media did not care about surrogates for Ron Paul like they did for a Hillary Clinton.  That meant that Ron had to do all of these appearances, which was just impossible.  Many of the criticisms of the media team were centered on less important media -- not that all media aren't important, but you still clearly have to get Ron in front of the biggest media audience as you can, given time constraints.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Yes, Dr. Paul could have made his message more understandable to the dunces in the media.  Not sure that would have made CNN more amenable to the message though.
> 
> Well, it is all water under the bridge now.
> 
> What are the chances of Dr. Paul at least speaking at the GOP convention?


I don't know, but I have a hard time seeing that happen, only because Ron could never endorse John McCain's big government, interventionist message.

----------


## OptionsTrader

I do not believe it is undignified to attack the other 3 vigorously.  If that is what it takes to win, I wish he would do it.  

Remaining dignified is noble in times of peace, but in times of war, not if it means the death of God knows how many brown people as *George Carlin* likes to put it, by taking the high road.

I want to see the Ron Paul that told that Morton Downey Jr audience member to go on a diet...I want to see some fire and vigor.  I know he's still got it in him, and I know he thinks the message is enough, but it isn't, sadly.

----------


## qh4dotcom

Jonathan,

Does Dr. Paul plan to run again for President in 2012?

----------


## westmich4paul

Hi Johnathan, I am glad you came on to answer some of the questions we the grassroots have had but never really seemed to get answers from the HQ. I want to thank you for all of your hard work. My question to you is probably one you have heard a thousand times over but I will ask again anyway. I realize that campaigning costs and that it costs alot of money. After the Nov 5th money-bomb success and again after the Boston Tea Party money-bombs success the campaign had ALOT more cash on hand than most of the other candidates including McCain and Huckabee by a wide margin. The media although never really friendly, after Nov 5th there seemed to be some real positives coming from the campaign media wise. We in MI had our primary on Jan 15th and McCain, Huckabee, and Romney were buzzing around this state speaking in small towns, large towns, putting on t.v. ads. Us Ron Paul supporters were getting our GOP people here going "is Ron coming to Grand Rapids? We would welcome a visit. We would be like were sure he will be here but no word from the HQ. Time past and it was is he coming? Well we do not know. Then to state directors and HQ people saying Ron will come if he sees you have enough organization and support. We did it and showed them we did. Then came the word like a week or so away from Jan 15th that nope he is not coming, leaving us with egg on our face in front of our local GOP who after his fundraising success started to actually give him a second look because at every GOP meeting we had we would double the number of Ron Paul supporters there, far surpasing any supporters from any other campaign. No Ron, No t.v. ads, little radio ads and 25 million sitting in the bank. This was not just isolated to MI as I heard this coming from several primary states. We also never recieved a campaign HQ in West Michigan although we were told to go look at them from which we could be successful precinct delegates. We did recieve much needed supplies about one week before primary day leaving us too little time to distribute it all out. Now mind you we had no money for a local HQ in Grand Rapids, but the night of the primary we had the money to hold a big party at some upscale hotel. There were alot of grassroots people that were just in shock at the way were being treated by the HQ. PLEASE, PLEASE, TELL ME what the hell we spent all that money on. Bacause watching McAIN AND ROMNEY AND hUCKABEE DO A FANTASTC JOB CAMPAIGNING HERE REALLY BLEW THE WIND OUT OF OUR SAILS.

----------


## ghemminger

John,
Thanks for comming on here...We appreciate all that you folks did at HQ

----------


## Bladestunner316

I have to ask. Was there ever a secret billionaire or millionaire??

----------


## steph3n

> I have to ask. Was there ever a secret billionaire or millionaire??


I think you know the answer to that one

----------


## ghemminger

Thanks for listening to us - were you ever on the grassroots conference calls - sorry if they got to heated - we were all just trying to help

----------


## Flirple

> As far as not responding to media requests, two points... first, you're right that the campaign was too late formulating a 5 star media team.  It should have been in place earlier, and I fault myself in retrospect, as well as others, for sort of seeing it as a problem, but not realizing its magnitude.  But, I will also say that many of the criticisms that people raise in this regard are unfounded.  By the end of November, we had a system in place to responding to important media calls.  But again, we can't respond to every local newspaper and TV station.  We were forced to pick and choose appearances that were most important, particularly because the media did not care about surrogates for Ron Paul like they did for a Hillary Clinton.  That meant that Ron had to do all of these appearances, which was just impossible.  Many of the criticisms of the media team were centered on less important media -- not that all media aren't important, but you still clearly have to get Ron in front of the biggest media audience as you can, given time constraints.


I totally understand all this and often found myself defending HQ when people would criticize the media staff for not responding to interview requests for big interview opportunities. And I know you handled fundraising and not media, but it's really hard to understand when you consider how many times Ron was available to go on shows such as Alex Jones.

----------


## honkywill

Is there any way you can describe the atmosphere/expectations around the office on November 4th? I think that would be interesting to hear.

----------


## Crickett

Me too. I would like to know why the TV ads were so horrible when so much creative stuff was out here for the taking..
Thanks, as well. I know everyone is trying to do something every day.

----------


## steph3n

> Me too. I would like to know why the TV ads were so horrible when so much creative stuff was out here for the taking..
> Thanks, as well. I know everyone is trying to do something every day.


he's already answered this, what works on youtube doesn't work on tv, time is pricey.

----------


## kaleidoscope eyes

Welcome Jonathan, hope you stick around!

----------


## jason43

I'd also like to know what was going on on the 5th of November. I have a napkin from breakfast that morning where I was writing down numbers and times trying to get a projection and was almost crapping my pants. I thought it was going to slow down but it just kept going... best day of the campaign was watching that number go up that day... 

Also, what is the reaction inside the campaign about all the conspiracy theorists? Was being constantly linked to 'extremist' groups a major concern as far as press goes? Was there any planning on how to deal with that without alienating supporters? To me, that seems like it would have been one of the harder parts to deal with... 

Do you think they were prepared enough for the reaction and fundraising success, were there plans in place before for what they would do with X amount of money, or did they just fly by the seat of their pants when it all happened?

Was the main point of this to create a movement or to seriously run for president? I (and others) have been fighting on here about spreading the message, getting behind freedom candidates for congress, putting less emphasis on the Paul campaign (especially since the primary is over in my state), discouraging a 3rd party run, and people think I'm a traitor for it... but that is what I am interpreting from the official youtube vids from Ron. Your thoughts on that? What should we be doing aside from 'everything you can'?

There needs to be some official liason between the campaign (or the PAC), and the grassroots... it was needed before, but it is really needed now because people are losing sight of the target and turning on each other. Just my thoughts and thanks for posting...

----------


## Exarel

You guys did an absolutely horrible job with the money. I maxed out, but i've always felt that if you at least gave us better ideas how the money was being spent, you would have gotten a LOT more.

----------


## New York For Paul

> Well, I think there may be some truth to this comment.  But I would also add that if they didn't expect things to turn out this well, neither did Ron.  In fact, I don't think ANYONE, inside or outside of the campaign did.
> 
> I can tell you that everyone on our staff wanted to win this race desperately.  And we all still do.  But adding an "expert" would not have solved anything.  Remember that Ron himself has said numerous times that he saw this campaign as an educational campaign...
> 
> As far as not responding to media requests, two points... first, you're right that the campaign was too late formulating a 5 star media team.  It should have been in place earlier, and I fault myself in retrospect, as well as others, for sort of seeing it as a problem, but not realizing its magnitude.  But, I will also say that many of the criticisms that people raise in this regard are unfounded.  By the end of November, we had a system in place to responding to important media calls.  But again, we can't respond to every local newspaper and TV station.  We were forced to pick and choose appearances that were most important, particularly because the media did not care about surrogates for Ron Paul like they did for a Hillary Clinton.  That meant that Ron had to do all of these appearances, which was just impossible.  Many of the criticisms of the media team were centered on less important media -- not that all media aren't important, but you still clearly have to get Ron in front of the biggest media audience as you can, given time constraints.


Thank you for answering the questions. I have to respect that.

This is gut wrenching and heart breaking. I saw in in early July when you guys had more money than McCain that you could do well.  So did the media. That is how I found out that Ron Paul was doing well. They reported the story. 

I volunteered in the HQ in early August and saw the tremendous grassroots taking place.  I could tell right then and there that this was a campaign with momentum. I judged the level of activity to be record breaking. Having been on many campaigns I had never seen a grassroots like this. Most campaigns spend their time and money begging people to help their campaign. Ron Paul's campaign was the opposite. People were begging to help him. I have never seen anything like it. Yet the campaign ignored and squandered this opportunity in the most horrible way.

I was expecting a great campaign outcome based on money and volunteer enthusiasm, yet I saw the problems of understaffing in the campaign in all areas and tried to do things about it. Yet most of the time the senior staff was on the road with Ron Paul instead of managing the HQ. I commented and lamented to various people about what was going on. I wrote a paper detailing the problems and some senior staff read it but probably reacted way too late months later if at all. 

Having the national press team in place by November is great, but the campaign is practically over at that point if you are really trying to win. 

I have to wonder if they really wanted to win race. An expert would have changed things immediately and we probably would have come in third in Iowa instead of fifth. McCain's momentum would have stalled at that point. The outcome would be very different today.

----------


## yongrel

Thanks for taking the time to talk with us, Johnathan! It's much appreciated.

My question is this: In retrospect, what could the campaign have done to be more successful than it already has been?

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Oh, and why didn't HQ dedicate someone whose only job was to keep the grassroots informed?  Daily meetups on this forum would have dispelled much anger towards HQ and probably would have easily paid for the salary of the person by increased donations.
> 
> Most of the other campaigns had daily email updates and extensive grassroots coordinators.


Yeah, I agree that we should have been e-mailing supporters more often.  Though it is a fine line between e-mailing all the time and spamming supporters.  But I personally think that we had a long way to before bumping into that limit.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> I do not believe it is undignified to attack the other 3 vigorously.  If that is what it takes to win, I wish he would do it.  
> 
> Remaining dignified is noble in times of peace, but in times of war, not if it means the death of God knows how many brown people as *George Carlin* likes to put it, by taking the high road.
> 
> I want to see the Ron Paul that told that Morton Downey Jr audience member to go on a diet...I want to see some fire and vigor.  I know he's still got it in him, and I know he thinks the message is enough, but it isn't, sadly.


Man, I wanted to see that Ron so many times, too!  I think that one of the things that Ron has trouble with is that he doesn't want to pander at all.  While that makes him so appealing to me personally, it also leads him not to tailor his message to his audience, which in my opinion is very different than pandering.  I see that as rule number 1 of giving a speech or writing a paper.

But Dr. Paul doesn't see things that way.  He believes issues like monetary policy and flawed Iraq policy are so critical that everyone needs to hear about them, regardless of whether he's speaking to a group of students, South Carolina veterans, or Silicon Valley software entrepreneurs.  While that's admirable, I've got to say, it just doesn't win elections.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Jonathan,
> 
> Does Dr. Paul plan to run again for President in 2012?


I have absolutely no idea, to be honest.  Of course, he'd be 76 at that time, so I'd find it pretty hard to believe, but then again, I don't think he ever thought that he was going to run at 72!

But regardless of what Ron decides to do, keep in mind that "the show must go on."  We have to keep working diligently towards the goals that united us in the first place, and that work needs to take place regardles of whether there's a presidential election coming up.

As I said in a previous response, use the tools the campaign has provided in the precinct leader program, and go out and canvass your neighbors.  Find other like-minded individuals, and get their support for Ron Paul, and more important -- the ideas of liberty.  Get them to come with you to a local Republican party meeting.  Have fun while doing it, and keep those meetups going strong!

----------


## dawnbt

> Hi Johnathan, I am glad you came on to answer some of the questions we the grassroots have had but never really seemed to get answers from the HQ. I want to thank you for all of your hard work. My question to you is probably one you have heard a thousand times over but I will ask again anyway. I realize that campaigning costs and that it costs alot of money. After the Nov 5th money-bomb success and again after the Boston Tea Party money-bombs success the campaign had ALOT more cash on hand than most of the other candidates including McCain and Huckabee by a wide margin. The media although never really friendly, after Nov 5th there seemed to be some real positives coming from the campaign media wise. We in MI had our primary on Jan 15th and McCain, Huckabee, and Romney were buzzing around this state speaking in small towns, large towns, putting on t.v. ads. Us Ron Paul supporters were getting our GOP people here going "is Ron coming to Grand Rapids? We would welcome a visit. We would be like were sure he will be here but no word from the HQ. Time past and it was is he coming? Well we do not know. Then to state directors and HQ people saying Ron will come if he sees you have enough organization and support. We did it and showed them we did. Then came the word like a week or so away from Jan 15th that nope he is not coming, leaving us with egg on our face in front of our local GOP who after his fundraising success started to actually give him a second look because at every GOP meeting we had we would double the number of Ron Paul supporters there, far surpasing any supporters from any other campaign. No Ron, No t.v. ads, little radio ads and 25 million sitting in the bank. This was not just isolated to MI as I heard this coming from several primary states. We also never recieved a campaign HQ in West Michigan although we were told to go look at them from which we could be successful precinct delegates. We did recieve much needed supplies about one week before primary day leaving us too little time to distribute it all out. Now mind you we had no money for a local HQ in Grand Rapids, but the night of the primary we had the money to hold a big party at some upscale hotel. There were alot of grassroots people that were just in shock at the way were being treated by the HQ. PLEASE, PLEASE, TELL ME what the hell we spent all that money on. Bacause watching McAIN AND ROMNEY AND hUCKABEE DO A FANTASTC JOB CAMPAIGNING HERE REALLY BLEW THE WIND OUT OF OUR SAILS.


+1000

----------


## dawnbt

Can you tell us why the ticker is down on the Ron Paul website?  Are we still donating to the campaign or are we supposed to donate to the Liberty PAC?

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Hi Johnathan, I am glad you came on to answer some of the questions we the grassroots have had but never really seemed to get answers from the HQ. I want to thank you for all of your hard work. My question to you is probably one you have heard a thousand times over but I will ask again anyway. I realize that campaigning costs and that it costs alot of money. After the Nov 5th money-bomb success and again after the Boston Tea Party money-bombs success the campaign had ALOT more cash on hand than most of the other candidates including McCain and Huckabee by a wide margin. The media although never really friendly, after Nov 5th there seemed to be some real positives coming from the campaign media wise. We in MI had our primary on Jan 15th and McCain, Huckabee, and Romney were buzzing around this state speaking in small towns, large towns, putting on t.v. ads. Us Ron Paul supporters were getting our GOP people here going "is Ron coming to Grand Rapids? We would welcome a visit. We would be like were sure he will be here but no word from the HQ. Time past and it was is he coming? Well we do not know. Then to state directors and HQ people saying Ron will come if he sees you have enough organization and support. We did it and showed them we did. Then came the word like a week or so away from Jan 15th that nope he is not coming, leaving us with egg on our face in front of our local GOP who after his fundraising success started to actually give him a second look because at every GOP meeting we had we would double the number of Ron Paul supporters there, far surpasing any supporters from any other campaign. No Ron, No t.v. ads, little radio ads and 25 million sitting in the bank. This was not just isolated to MI as I heard this coming from several primary states. We also never recieved a campaign HQ in West Michigan although we were told to go look at them from which we could be successful precinct delegates. We did recieve much needed supplies about one week before primary day leaving us too little time to distribute it all out. Now mind you we had no money for a local HQ in Grand Rapids, but the night of the primary we had the money to hold a big party at some upscale hotel. There were alot of grassroots people that were just in shock at the way were being treated by the HQ. PLEASE, PLEASE, TELL ME what the hell we spent all that money on. Bacause watching McAIN AND ROMNEY AND hUCKABEE DO A FANTASTC JOB CAMPAIGNING HERE REALLY BLEW THE WIND OUT OF OUR SAILS.


Wow, are you what they call a "troll" in these parts? 

Haha, just kidding.  I'll be happy to answer your questions as best I can.

First, let me dispel one myth... we never had $25 million in the bank.  In fact, I don't think the campaign ever had $15 million in the bank.  You see, unlike candidates like McCain, who should have been long-eliminated were it not for a love affair from the media, Dr. Paul had no name recognition.  That meant we had to spend as much as we possibly could, getting Dr. Paul's name out in the public sphere.  In essence, we had to create our own media, because we weren't getting much in the way of earned media.

Now, as far as the money bombs were concerned, it's true that we got a good deal of positive press from them.  But those events by themselves were not sufficient to generate the amount of press that we needed.So with resources limited more than many people in the grassroots understood, we needed to target the money that we were spending.  The decision was, as you all know, largely made to focus on the early primary states, because doing well in those states was the only way to dispel the "can he translate his online support into boots on the ground" line.  

I think I've mentioned this on a couple of occasions, and I know some people have jumped on me, but the wait that we had to go through leading up to the second money bomb did make things somewhat difficult for the campaign to accomplish that goal.  The e-mail that was sent out asking for more money before December 16th was sent because we had to go down from TV in Iowa.  Dr. Paul had been at 1% (or lower) in Iowa, prior to us being on TV, and we were seeing our poll numbers rally 5-7% during the two week period we were running ads.  But then we had to go down on TV for close to a month, because at that time, we could not afford to spend on TV in Iowa in addition to direct mail, radio, TV, phone banking, staff, etc. in other states like New Hampshire, South Carolina, etc.

So long story short on that point, people need to realize that at no point did we really have as much money as we needed to run a full-fledged campaign everywhere in the country, as much as we all wanted to.  Some people were inevitably going to be disappointed.

As far as the "how the money was spent" question, I don't really have the knowledge to document every line-item expense, nor do I think that it's appropriate.  Your best bet to answer that question is to look in the FEC reports... you'll probably figure out more by doing that than I'd be able to tell you.

With regards to Michigan specifically, I think your "snubbing" came from a couple of factors.  First, your state was winner-take-all, and with Romney's background in the state, it was a contest where our chances were not as good as, say, New Hampshire.  Second, remember that Dr. Paul was a sitting congressman, and he took his job seriously.  I certainly wish he would have run "full-time," but the fact is that he valued very highly not missing any important votes.  That constraint left the campaign with far less time with Ron that any of us would have liked, and so again, some people were bound to be disappointed.  We had to focus Ron's time in some areas at the expense of others.  So when you talk about the campaigning done by other candidates, keep in mind that they did not see themselves as being constrained in this way.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> I have to ask. Was there ever a secret billionaire or millionaire??


Umm, Mitt Romney? 

Haha, not that I know of...

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Thanks for listening to us - were you ever on the grassroots conference calls - sorry if they got to heated - we were all just trying to help


No, I wasn't ever on those.  Probably should have been.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> I totally understand all this and often found myself defending HQ when people would criticize the media staff for not responding to interview requests for big interview opportunities. And I know you handled fundraising and not media, but it's really hard to understand when you consider how many times Ron was available to go on shows such as Alex Jones.


Yeah, I understand that point.  I actually was involved in a bunch of media things along the way, so I do have some insight about this.

Remember that Dr. Paul made a promise early in the campaign to go to Alex Jones frequently.  Ron's not one to break promises, regardless of how politically expedient it may be to do so.  That's why he's got the congressional record that he does, after all, despite the pressure others may have been putting on him.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Is there any way you can describe the atmosphere/expectations around the office on November 4th? I think that would be interesting to hear.


Phew, man.  I don't remember exactly, but I know we were all very excited.  None of us really knew what to expect.  I can remember personally saying that I'd be happy with $1 mil (always good to set expectation a bit low), but I think in reality I was expecting something more along the lines of $2 mil.  So needless to say, I (and pretty much everyone else) was blown away!

I'll never forget the piece Wolf Blitzer did on November 5th or 6th.... "The Ron Paul campaign is _claiming_ to have raised over $4 mil.  We can't confirm that these are processed credit card checks."  What a riot.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Me too. I would like to know why the TV ads were so horrible when so much creative stuff was out here for the taking..
> Thanks, as well. I know everyone is trying to do something every day.


Well, to summarize what I think I said to options trader earlier... keep in mind that TV ads look different on TV than on your computer.  While I know that people weren't happy with the first NH ad, the number of phone calls and havoc that this wreaked at HQ was completely overwhelming.  To be honest, I think it made a lot of people hesitant to be as open with our grassroots supporters as possible, because we couldn't handle having people turn on us like that again.  In fact, we even had to put up our second TV ad much earlier than we wanted to, just to appease our supporters.  We played that hand when we didn't think it was wise.

And again, sure, even stuff that's on YouTube was great, but was it 30 seconds or a minute long?  How would it look on TV?  And how much would we have to pay for it, because FEC regs don't allow campaigns to just "take" things like that.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> I'd also like to know what was going on on the 5th of November. I have a napkin from breakfast that morning where I was writing down numbers and times trying to get a projection and was almost crapping my pants. I thought it was going to slow down but it just kept going... best day of the campaign was watching that number go up that day... 
> 
> Also, what is the reaction inside the campaign about all the conspiracy theorists? Was being constantly linked to 'extremist' groups a major concern as far as press goes? Was there any planning on how to deal with that without alienating supporters? To me, that seems like it would have been one of the harder parts to deal with... 
> 
> Do you think they were prepared enough for the reaction and fundraising success, were there plans in place before for what they would do with X amount of money, or did they just fly by the seat of their pants when it all happened?
> 
> Was the main point of this to create a movement or to seriously run for president? I (and others) have been fighting on here about spreading the message, getting behind freedom candidates for congress, putting less emphasis on the Paul campaign (especially since the primary is over in my state), discouraging a 3rd party run, and people think I'm a traitor for it... but that is what I am interpreting from the official youtube vids from Ron. Your thoughts on that? What should we be doing aside from 'everything you can'?
> 
> There needs to be some official liason between the campaign (or the PAC), and the grassroots... it was needed before, but it is really needed now because people are losing sight of the target and turning on each other. Just my thoughts and thanks for posting...


Man, you guys just keep the questions coming...

As far as November 5th, you weren't the only one "crapping your pants"   It was an amazing feat, and probably the most exciting day to be involved with the campaign.

As far as all th conspiracy theorists, I think our attitude was the same as Dr. Paul has stated publicly.  When people get involved with a political campaign, they are essentially endorsing the candidate's views, regardless of other disagreements they may have.  But the candidate does not have to endorse the views of any one group.  I can't really speak for Dr. Paul beyond what he's said publicly.

But I'd also add that our view was that we didn't think much could be done about supporters that the press didn't like.  Any campaign has supporters that other groups of people see as "unsavory." Just look at what Obama's now dealing with. But even if we believed some supporters were not helping us, which I personally think there's a case for, though others disagree... I don't think there's anything that really can be done from the campaign's perspective.

You're right, though.  This was a very tough thing to deal with.

As far as being prepared for the fundraising success, I think we were prepared in some ways and not prepared in others.  For one, we had no idea how much was going to come in, and so we couldn't plan to spend money that we didn't really have.  But once we had it in the bank, then I think we all believed that the ante had been raised.  We were then given the chance to do things that we never thoughts we would be able to do, and we started going after those things.  Like I said earlier, you never can have enough money, but I think expectations internally were starting to be increased after November 5th.

That said, I'll be honest, and say that I don't think we handled the press that came out of it as well as we could have.  We got Ron on tons of shows, and had more media hits than we had pretty had in the entire campaign within a few days.  But in retrospect, we really needed to also have many campaign surrogates going out in the press as well.  That way, we'd keep being able to get those people on the news even after November 5th.  Unfortuantely, we weren't equipped to do that at that point in time.

My other personal feeling is that we should have worked harder getting on nightly network news, not just shows like the Situation Room.  Fact is still, even in the internet age, that many people only get their news from watching the Tom Brokaws, etc.  And while we got tons of press from November 5th, we really needed to turn that into sustained coverage on the major networks.  That didn't happen, part because we weren't equipped to do it, and part because the press stopped caring about Ron Paul again as soon as the novelty of the money bombs wore off.

As far as what the point of the campaign was... I think the short answer is that it was both.  With Dr. Paul not really believing that he had a good chance of winning in the early going (as he repeatedly stated on the campaign trail), there needed to be another reason to go forward with the presidential run.  And while I personally wish Ron had believed a lot more strongly in the support he was getting, I see starting a movement as almost more important.

What you can do now, as I mentioned earlier, is keep doing what you're doing, but also try to do it through your local Republican party establishment.  Go to meetings, learn who the important people are, gain their trust, and sway their point of view gently but surely.  We know things like sign waves, while fun, are largely ineffective, but even handing out literature isn't as important as getting involved in the party.  Remember, it's that apparatus that gives McCain the strength he currently has.  Let me know if that's not clear, or if you have further questions on what we all can be doing.

And as an aside, I'm very hopeful that at some point, a lot of great organizations will come out of this campaign.  And there should be opportunities there to get involved recruiting and supporting congressional candidates, and in other things of that nature.

Finally, I agree that there needs to be someone in a liason role, but keep in mind as we've said multiple times, it's a fine line between communicating with grassroots supporters and "coordinating."  I don't believe that the campaign can legally have someone with that title.  That's why we put more emphasis on the Daily Dose, albeit a little late in the game.  But it's still worth all of you reading on a daily basis, and there's even some talk amongst some of us staffers of keeping up a blog of our own to keep our communication with all of you going after the campaign.

Thanks so much for your insightful questions.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> You guys did an absolutely horrible job with the money. I maxed out, but i've always felt that if you at least gave us better ideas how the money was being spent, you would have gotten a LOT more.


I understand your viewpoint, and I can't really argue for or against it either way.  It's tough really knowing how money in an organization is spent, and believe me, even in the campaign many of us were not privvy to all of the details.

But I'd also say to people who held out donating more simply because of that, you didn't help the campaign.  That's a decision that each person needs to decide for himself or herself, but how could we possibly let the public know how we were spending your all of the money?  John McCain and Mitt Romney would have been drooling nonstop if they knew.

Think of this scenario... "Concord Monitor reports that Ron Paul is dumping $3 mil into direct mail in New Hampshire... in other news, Mitt Romney wrote a $5 mil check and bought some direct mail of his own."  It was certainly on the table to be more open about expenditures, but in the end, we couldn't risk situations like this.  Because again, we did not have unlimited resources at our disposal.

----------


## jason43

Thanks man, 

One more short question...

Did you even have anyone with an ear out to the grassroots? Sometimes it seemed like Ron was suprised when he heard about things like the blimp, etc.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

I think one of the problems at the outset was the incestuous polls-media coverage relationship, where big media (who sponsor most polls) would leave out Paul's name in most of the surveys conducted through 2007, then point to Paul's low polling numbers as a rationale for not covering him. The public was not made aware that polling is not a neutral third party element, but a contracted surrogate of the press used to track or not track whom the media wants. The public tends to think when they hear a poll announced on the news, that the organization did it out of its own curiosity, instead of as a hiree.

To counter this, I asked the campaign at the time to put aside a little money to do polling with big name firms (Zogby, Rasmussen et al) that 'manufactured' a double digit result for Paul (say, just him versus the 'frontrunners') that could then become part of the news cycle. There are ways to do this depending on how the questions are asked, and in what sequence. Doing as little as 1-2 polls like this a month (at about a meager $10-15,000 each, which is nothing for a Pesidential campaign budget) would have created our own buzz for Paul, and taken away the media's alibi for not taking him seriously. I even started to put together a grassroots-sponsored Zogby poll myself (as anybody can call up the service and get a quote for a scientific phone poll), including drafting the questions, and was raising money for it.

I told Lew Moore in a phone conversation LAST June (during the Zogby Poll project) that unless there were polls published showing Paul getting into the double digits, the media would continue their 'silent blackout' of Paul (by not including him in most polls they sponsored), and this would keep Paul from being treated seriously. Moore asked me to suspend the independent survey we were commissioning anyway, saying HQ had their own polling strategy. At this point, I see no evidence of the campaign ever having pursued a polling plan to counter the poll-blackout the media conducted to bury Paul throughout 2007.  It seems to me the cheapest way to counter the media while creating news that favors the candidate, as it takes advantage of the same public ignorance about the contracted status of poll organizations. So, what exactly happened with HQ's polling strategy?

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Thank you for answering the questions. I have to respect that.
> 
> This is gut wrenching and heart breaking. I saw in in early July when you guys had more money than McCain that you could do well.  So did the media. That is how I found out that Ron Paul was doing well. They reported the story. 
> 
> I volunteered in the HQ in early August and saw the tremendous grassroots taking place.  I could tell right then and there that this was a campaign with momentum. I judged the level of activity to be record breaking. Having been on many campaigns I had never seen a grassroots like this. Most campaigns spend their time and money begging people to help their campaign. Ron Paul's campaign was the opposite. People were begging to help him. I have never seen anything like it. Yet the campaign ignored and squandered this opportunity in the most horrible way.
> 
> I was expecting a great campaign outcome based on money and volunteer enthusiasm, yet I saw the problems of understaffing in the campaign in all areas and tried to do things about it. Yet most of the time the senior staff was on the road with Ron Paul instead of managing the HQ. I commented and lamented to various people about what was going on. I wrote a paper detailing the problems and some senior staff read it but probably reacted way too late months later if at all. 
> 
> Having the national press team in place by November is great, but the campaign is practically over at that point if you are really trying to win.
> ...


Thanks for these comments.  I'll respond to them, but I would like to sort out some things that are assertions from things that are facts.

First, you say that "the campaign ignored and squandered this opportunity in the most horrible way."  Well, we did best as we knew how, and perhaps that wasn't good enough, or perhaps there are many reasons why the campaign did not result in Ron Paul being our next president.  A lot of factors influence elections, and the mere existence of grassroots support does not mean that a win should have been a lock, if not for official staff.  Grassroots support is only valuable if people are doing the right things.  And the blame for that not always being the case, in my opinion, lies both with HQ and with individual supporters.  On the one hand, we did not communicate as specifically as we could have and as frequently as we could have.  But to be honest, a lot of people were more content to do signwaves than canvass their own districts.  And I should know, because I was one of those signwavers before joining the campaign.  So, there's plenty of blame to go around, and I don't think it's fair to heap it all on one group of people.

As far as your understaffing point... I pretty much completely agree with you there.  We were very understaffed for much of the campaign.  Not that I'm asking for sympathy, but you should know that most people in our office were there until past midnight on most nights.  There was a stretch when my personal hours ran in the 10am - 2am range.  And I was hardly the exception in that regard.  So we all put in the hours to make up for that understaffing.

But, also keep in mind, again, that resources are no infinite.  If we spent more on staff, someone somewhere else would be upset that they weren't seeing TV ads in their state.  There are tradeoffs that needed to be made, and while I'm sure there are many that could have been made better, it's not fair for anyone to complain because we didn't have unlimited resources.

You say "Having the national press team in place by November is great, but the campaign is practically over at that point if you are really trying to win."  I pretty much agree with this, too.  It's hard getting everything done that needs to be done, and this was probably the biggest mistake made on the campaign.  Jesse Benton was and is very able and talented at what he does, but he couldn't do it alone.

Finally, on your point about an expert changing things... would you every say "if only we could get an expert in the government, things would be instantly better"?  Because I wouldn't.  So why should any of us believe that the same is true with a campaign.  One person in an orgnization does not make the difference that you seem to think, and it's really just a slight against the talented people who already in the campaign.  That's not to say additional people wouldn't have helped -- just that I believe it's incorrect to think finding that "right person" would have won Ron Paul the election.  In that regard, the one person who controlled our chances was Ron Paul himself.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Thanks for taking the time to talk with us, Johnathan! It's much appreciated.
> 
> My question is this: In retrospect, what could the campaign have done to be more successful than it already has been?


Ah, I've been waiting for this question, because it's probably what I've thought about more than anything else during my time on the campaign.  Here're just a few things off the top of my head, and we can delve into these more if you like:

1.  Better and more frequent communications with grassroots supporters.
2.  Better communication with field staff.
3.  Earlier and more emphasis on the precinct leader program.
4.  Having a full media team in place earlier in the campaign.

Those are the biggest things the campaign could have done in my mind.  In all honesty, though, I think a lot of the more important things needed to be done by Ron himself.  Things like traveling and campaigning more, tailoring his message better to Republicans, calling out other candidates for the ridiculous things they say, etc.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Can you tell us why the ticker is down on the Ron Paul website?  Are we still donating to the campaign or are we supposed to donate to the Liberty PAC?


You still should be donating to the campaign.  I think it was just taken down because it's clear that money is not flowing in at the same rate as it was earlier.  So it probably doesn't make sense to emphasize fundraising as much in the past.  You should also note that the precinct leader program is front and center.  That wasn't an accidental decision.

----------


## angelatc

> We in the grassroots need some leadership, and regardless of your failings, we need someone who has a voice, patience, decisiveness and motivation to act. We likely won't pay you, but I'm very intrigued with what you have to offer.


Yes, I'd like to know Jonathon's opinion about what Jonathon did. I'd like to know what he did right, and what he thinks he will do better next time.

We can all learn from each other's mistakes, but we need to be adult enough to not condemn each other for goals and opportunities that may have been missed.

Since it hasn't killed us, it should only make us stronger.

I'd also like to know of some resources for back office type stuff. Learning about PAC FEC regs, and Accounting standards for PACs.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Thanks man, 
> 
> One more short question...
> 
> Did you even have anyone with an ear out to the grassroots? Sometimes it seemed like Ron was suprised when he heard about things like the blimp, etc.


Haha... of course we did!  I read the forums multiple times a day... so much so that I had to take it out of my favorites folder so I wouldn't read it as much.

Whether you knew it or not, we were aware and listening to what you were saying.  We were kind of like Big Brother

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> I think one of the problems at the outset was the incestuous polls-media coverage relationship, where big media (who sponsor most polls) would leave out Paul's name in most of the surveys conducted through 2007, then point to Paul's low polling numbers as a rationale for not covering him. The public was not made aware that polling is not a neutral third party element, but a contracted surrogate of the press used to track or not track whom the media wants. The public tends to think when they hear a poll announced on the news, that the organization did it out of its own curiosity, instead of as a hiree.
> 
> To counter this, I asked the campaign at the time to put aside a little money to do polling with big name firms (Zogby, Rasmussen et al) that 'manufactured' a double digit result for Paul (say, just him versus the 'frontrunners') that could then become part of the news cycle. There are ways to do this depending on how the questions are asked, and in what sequence. Doing as little as 1-2 polls like this a month (at about a meager $10-15,000 each, which is nothing for a Pesidential campaign budget) would have created our own buzz for Paul, and taken away the media's alibi for not taking him seriously. I even started to put together a grassroots-sponsored Zogby poll myself (as anybody can call up the service and get a quote for a scientific phone poll), including drafting the questions, and was raising money for it.
> 
> I told Lew Moore in a phone conversation LAST June (during the Zogby Poll project) that unless there were polls published showing Paul getting into the double digits, the media would continue their 'silent blackout' of Paul (by not including him in most polls they sponsored), and this would keep Paul from being treated seriously. Moore asked me to suspend the independent survey we were commissioning anyway, saying HQ had their own polling strategy. At this point, I see no evidence of the campaign ever having pursued a polling plan to counter the poll-blackout the media conducted to bury Paul throughout 2007.  It seems to me the cheapest way to counter the media while creating news that favors the candidate, as it takes advantage of the same public ignorance about the contracted status of poll organizations. So, what exactly happened with HQ's polling strategy?


Unfortunately, I can't really shed any light on this at all.  There were internal polls going on, and I think there's some merit to your ideas, but I also think that a few polls like what you describe would not have done the trick.  What it all boils down to in this regard is that we needed more support than we had, so that we'd actually turn up with double digit support in those polls... Rather than try to fudge polls, why not just get a high level in the ones where Ron's name was listed?

You know, this just reminded me of a great book that I think it'd be worth everyone reading.  Hunter S. Thompson's *On the Campaign Trail, '72* documents how a largely unknown George McGovern polling 5% managed to take on and take over the Democratic party apparatus through a huge network of well-organized volunteer canvassers.  It's really eye-opening, and very applicable to our movement.  I strongly recommend it.

----------


## limequat

Jonathan

1)  Thanks so much for coming on the boards and answering our questions.  

2)  Thanks so much more for being a part of the official campaign.  

Many of us here gave until it hurt (time and money), and can emphathize with your effort.
I hope you stick around.  So far, your comments have been invaluable.

----------


## UnitedWeStand

> but how could we possibly let the public know how we were spending your all of the money?


By running national ads. The money didn't just come in from Nh and IA, it came from all over, even from Kentucky and New Mexico.

I think the idea is not just running ads to influence immiediate voters, but to gain supporters all across the nation- supporters who would grow the momentum, donate, and encourage others to donate and get involved.

Basically, I think "we" should have used more of the money to spread the seed across the country, rather than just on fertilizing the early primary states with direct mailings.

As others have stated, if donators saw their money being spent on ads, they would've donated more--and the many people who saw the ads would've donated more. There was a large contigency of people on this board, and without im sure, who thought HQ was squandering the donations. Granted, how many of us have ever run a campaign, few. But I think that the reason people donated was for the sole reason to see national tv ads, and to let Ron Paul know he was loved. So, the disapointment of no national ads was catastrophic to donations.

So, while the decision was made to spend the money on frugal "good return on investment" direct mailings--- I personally wish that some effort had been made to analyze donations, the people's motives and how to best encourage future donations. People were donating to see national ads. National ads would've increased donations from those who donated previously, and found and encouraged new donators.

I'd like to say that I know that you are not personally responsible. But your comments about how ineffectual national ads would've been and how smart it was to spend millions of dollars spent on direct mailings is alarming.

----------


## FreedomRings

> Ron will not run as an independent.  Sometimes I wish he had snapped back angrily at reporters and made it 100% clear early on that he never would do so.  But he simply will not, and it's probably not the best thing for the movement.
> 
> I think of it this way.  On the one hand, I would love to see Ron run independent.  I think in an election between a warmonger (McCain) and another warmonger (Clinton) or a false-peacenik (Obama), Ron would stand out so much.  But it's terribly hard to run indy.  On top of getting on the ballot, the bigger problem is getting the press and the public to take you seriously and think you have a chance of winning.  If we couldn't do that with Ron running as a Republican, what makes us think they would if he ran as an independent?


If, as Ron believes, it's all about the "message" rather than winning the Presidency, isn't that an even bigger argument for running as an Independent? 

Millions of people are clamoring for real change but will never hear about the Ron Paul message because they didn't pay much attention to the Republican primaries in the first place. They will see the economy collapsing but they won't know what's happening to them and they'll never realize there was an alternative. Their lives will be ruined, their spirits weakened, their hopes for the future smashed. They will readily agree to more wars and loss of liberty, and all that only because Ron Paul didn't run as an Independent and use that platform to tell them what's really going on.

As for winning, to really succeed as an "educational campaign", you have to run it as if you actually wanted to win. If Ron hadn't stared down Stephanopoulos and made clear that he was in it for the win, he would have never attracted the massive grassroots attention that he got. If he had said from the beginning, "Let's be realistic, the chance is close to zero, but it's all about the message anyway", I'm sure that most of us wouldn't even have bothered.

Many of us here are young (or young at heart), and though we appreciate the education, we want a courageous hero, someone we can look up to, whose memory will inspire us for the rest of our lives, who was far from perfect but who nevertheless overcame his personal shortcomings and took the battle to the enemy against all odds.

Right now, Ron Paul will be remembered as an armchair revolutionary who happened to start a movement but then didn't know what to do with it. His recent waffling leaves a bad taste, has alienated many supporters and will have the effect of practically throwing away the chance of inspiring millions more about the message of freedom.

If he runs as an Independent and doesn't win, at least the "message" will have been heard by a larger part of the population than it would have been otherwise. And I do believe that Ron could _actually_ win if he applies the lessons learned from the primaries. Here's a couple of things he could do:

1. Relentlessly attack Obama, Clinton and McCain and expose and analyze their lies and shenanigans. Instead of the "Daily Dose" it should be the "Daily Attack". Get this to the point where when Americans hear one of the "big three" make some promise or pronouncement, they will instinctively think, "I wonder what Ron Paul has to say about that?"

2. Tailor his messages to the audience he is speaking to. He must be brought to realize that this is the only way to actually _educate_ them. Right now he just throws out facts that average people simply won't understand, nor will they care much because he doesn't explain how it affects them anyway.

3. Stop justifying his actions with weak expressions like "my supporters would be disappointed if I dropped out...", or "endorsing McCain would go against what I've talked about for the past 30 years, and nobody would understand it" and so on. Be a man and say "I'm doing that because I choose to and because it's what's best for America, period".

4. Meet with foreign leaders as the inofficial representative of his voters, a small but growing part of the US population that wants "peace, commerce and honest friendship" with all. Meet with Chavez, Castro and Ahmadinejad and expose them to the wonders of free markets and gold-backed currencies. There's some free worldwide publicity for ya.

5. Apply any and all the other lessons learned from the present campaign, including interactions with the press, etc.

What are your thoughts on this, Jonathan? Based on your personal knowledge of Ron Paul, do you think he would be open to reading a _letter by supporters_ that would outline some of these points and persuade him that he should put the interests of the country first and "jump over his shadow" so he can reach new audiences rather than continuing to preach to the increasingly discouraged choir?

I believe that running as an Independent won't hamper the effort to retake the Republican party in any way. On the contrary, pursuing both paths at the same time could make things happen so much faster.

----------


## mello

Three Questions:

1) When the MSM started blitzing the airwaves with stories that Congressman Paul dropped out, why did it take so long to see a response from Dr. Paul correcting those stories?

2) Did HQ have any plans to contest the Texas vote? I read that only one fifth of his supporters that voted for him for congress also voted him for President which seems extremely unlikely. I also remember reading about other irregularities

3) Did HQ plan to take the Louisiana GOP to court over the blatant shenanigans during their caucus? I remembered seeing a video of Congressman Paul saying that they probably won Louisiana outright.

----------


## ButchHowdy

Thank you for coming on Jonathan!

What was the deal with Neal (I'm a Libertarian, but...) Boortz?

----------


## jason43

> Haha... of course we did!  I read the forums multiple times a day... so much so that I had to take it out of my favorites folder so I wouldn't read it as much.
> 
> Whether you knew it or not, we were aware and listening to what you were saying.  We were kind of like Big Brother


I thought you would be, assuming that most people working on the campaign would be at least as obsessed as the rest of us on here, but sometimes it wasn't completely clear, Ron himself seemed to be kind of suprised at some of the crazy stuff people were doing. I wonder if he knows he was almost on the side of a Nascar

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Yes, I'd like to know Jonathon's opinion about what Jonathon did. I'd like to know what he did right, and what he thinks he will do better next time.
> 
> We can all learn from each other's mistakes, but we need to be adult enough to not condemn each other for goals and opportunities that may have been missed.
> 
> Since it hasn't killed us, it should only make us stronger.
> 
> I'd also like to know of some resources for back office type stuff. Learning about PAC FEC regs, and Accounting standards for PACs.


Sure, this is a great question... probably the best yet.

Regardless of how much was a direct result of decisions made by me or others at HQ, I think it's tough to argue with how fundraising went.  It was a huge process getting to the point of knowing how powerful transparency could be.  I talked about this a bit to a group of students at George Washington.  You might want to watch the first video here for that story:  http://gwblogspot.blogspot.com/2008/...-internet.html.

Some of my failings I touched on already in other contexts, but I'll mention a few more here:

Fundraising e-mails should have been more frequent, and clearer than they were.  In a sense, I played the role of communicator with the grassroots, and I think that I needed to do a better job with that.

I also really fault myself for not seeing issues with other aspects of the campaign sooner than I did, and for not pushing them at all costs.  A failing of being young, I guess...

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Jonathan
> 
> 1)  Thanks so much for coming on the boards and answering our questions.  
> 
> 2)  Thanks so much more for being a part of the official campaign.  
> 
> Many of us here gave until it hurt (time and money), and can emphathize with your effort.
> I hope you stick around.  So far, your comments have been invaluable.


Thanks.  It's good to know I'm still doing some good

----------


## FreedomRings

Another question I've been wondering about**:

Who wrote the Ron Paul emails to supporters? Did you hire a professional copywriter for that or was it someone from the campaign staff? I noticed that the tone changed significantly from one point forward; it was after one of the debates in November or December I think.

----------


## jpa

Hi Jonathan,   
  First off, thanks for letting me into the Palo Alto event in Oct/Nov. :-)

My question is: what are your thoughts NH? Was there anything more we could have done to win that state?  Did the Ron Paul campaign know how Buchanan won in 92 & 96?

My main regret for the HQ is not winning NH. Can you imagine how this campaign would have unfolded if Paul not McCain won NH (McCain would not have gotten any early momementum).

----------


## angelatc

> Sure, this is a great question... probably the best yet.
> 
> Regardless of how much was a direct result of decisions made by me or others at HQ, I think it's tough to argue with how fundraising went.  It was a huge process getting to the point of knowing how powerful transparency could be.  I talked about this a bit to a group of students at George Washington.  You might want to watch the first video here for that story:  http://gwblogspot.blogspot.com/2008/...-internet.html.
> 
> Some of my failings I touched on already in other contexts, but I'll mention a few more here:
> 
> Fundraising e-mails should have been more frequent, and clearer than they were.  In a sense, I played the role of communicator with the grassroots, and I think that I needed to do a better job with that.
> 
> I also really fault myself for not seeing issues with other aspects of the campaign sooner than I did, and for not pushing them at all costs.  A failing of being young, I guess...


Don't fault yourself. Just recognize it and learn form it.   And as much as I hate to say it, part of that is probably Ron Paul's responsibility.

Just for the record, I loathe asking people for money, and can't possibly imagine doing what you did. I am very glad that you did it!

I have to say that I think Meet Up is not the best way to motivate people. I know I can now appreciate how hard it is to move people off of the internet and into the streets.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> By running national ads. The money didn't just come in from Nh and IA, it came from all over, even from Kentucky and New Mexico.
> 
> I think the idea is not just running ads to influence immiediate voters, but to gain supporters all across the nation- supporters who would grow the momentum, donate, and encourage others to donate and get involved.
> 
> Basically, I think "we" should have used more of the money to spread the seed across the country, rather than just on fertilizing the early primary states with direct mailings.
> 
> As others have stated, if donators saw their money being spent on ads, they would've donated more--and the many people who saw the ads would've donated more. There was a large contigency of people on this board, and without im sure, who thought HQ was squandering the donations. Granted, how many of us have ever run a campaign, few. But I think that the reason people donated was for the sole reason to see national tv ads, and to let Ron Paul know he was loved. So, the disapointment of no national ads was catastrophic to donations.
> 
> So, while the decision was made to spend the money on frugal "good return on investment" direct mailings--- I personally wish that some effort had been made to analyze donations, the people's motives and how to best encourage future donations. People were donating to see national ads. National ads would've increased donations from those who donated previously, and found and encouraged new donators.
> ...


I already talked in an earlier post about why I didn't think national ads made a lot of sense, so I'm not going to rehash those.  But I'd like to address your point about needing to reach everyone.  The fact is, in our current political system, everyone's vote is not equal.  I've found this study by some Brown economists to be pretty enlightening:  http://www.brown.edu/Administration/...08/07-073.html.

I don't think direct mail is necessarily very important, but knowing that some states are more important than others, I do believe that targetting our money wisely is very important.  The fact that money came in to the campaign from all around the country does not mean that the most efficient usage of those resources is to spend it in proportion to where it came from.  Again, with limited resources, you have to focus them where you're going to get the "biggest bang for your buck."

But even still, do you really believe that national ads were what made the difference in this campaign?  I think there's merit to what you're saying, but even if I grant you that national ads are a great idea, I don't believe they'd have had any real effect on the end results.

----------


## amonasro

Jonathan, thank you so much for taking time to do this.  Your knowledge and expertise at this point in the game is invaluable.  Forum readership has really dropped off lately, as you probably are aware.

One of the most frustrating things for grassroots was that we didn't know/couldn't control what was going on at HQ once the moneybombs started happening.  Your answers here will finally lay some of that speculation to rest, and we can get on with the campaign.

What do you think about the stories of delegates taking over their respective precinct/county conventions in states like TX, CO, and MN?  Do you think this will give us enough delegates to have an impact at the National Convention... maybe enough to change party platforms or, at the very least, to let Ron speak?  Or are we being ridiculously unrealistic by thinking this?

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> If, as Ron believes, it's all about the "message" rather than winning the Presidency, isn't that an even bigger argument for running as an Independent? 
> 
> Millions of people are clamoring for real change but will never hear about the Ron Paul message because they didn't pay much attention to the Republican primaries in the first place. They will see the economy collapsing but they won't know what's happening to them and they'll never realize there was an alternative. Their lives will be ruined, their spirits weakened, their hopes for the future smashed. They will readily agree to more wars and loss of liberty, and all that only because Ron Paul didn't run as an Independent and use that platform to tell them what's really going on.
> 
> As for winning, to really succeed as an "educational campaign", you have to run it as if you actually wanted to win. If Ron hadn't stared down Stephanopoulos and made clear that he was in it for the win, he would have never attracted the massive grassroots attention that he got. If he had said from the beginning, "Let's be realistic, the chance is close to zero, but it's all about the message anyway", I'm sure that most of us wouldn't even have bothered.
> 
> Many of us here are young (or young at heart), and though we appreciate the education, we want a courageous hero, someone we can look up to, whose memory will inspire us for the rest of our lives, who was far from perfect but who nevertheless overcame his personal shortcomings and took the battle to the enemy against all odds.
> 
> Right now, Ron Paul will be remembered as an armchair revolutionary who happened to start a movement but then didn't know what to do with it. His recent waffling leaves a bad taste, has alienated many supporters and will have the effect of practically throwing away the chance of inspiring millions more about the message of freedom.
> ...


I really sympathize with these arguments, and part of me definitely agrees with you.  But I also see running as independent as "putting all our eggs in our basket."  Because if Ron were not to win that race -- and let's be honest, the chances of winning as an independent are never very good -- then he would destroy any legitimacy within the Republican party.  And then where would our revolution go?

So in that sense, it's better to be a gracious loser, ready to work for something bigger, than be perceived as a sore loser who takes actions that undermine the party.  Like it or not, we need this apparatus to accomplish all the things that we want to do.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Three Questions:
> 
> 1) When the MSM started blitzing the airwaves with stories that Congressman Paul dropped out, why did it take so long to see a response from Dr. Paul correcting those stories?
> 
> 2) Did HQ have any plans to contest the Texas vote? I read that only one fifth of his supporters that voted for him for congress also voted him for President which seems extremely unlikely. I also remember reading about other irregularities
> 
> 3) Did HQ plan to take the Louisiana GOP to court over the blatant shenanigans during their caucus? I remembered seeing a video of Congressman Paul saying that they probably won Louisiana outright.


Sure, three answers:

1.) I'm not sure that Dr. Paul knows that is the best thing to do at this point.  I have my views, and there ae definitely many different opinions among Ron's closest advisors.  And honestly, that miscommunication got ron more press than we'd seen in months!

2.) I don't think that's an irregularity.  It's perfectly reasonable to think that people in Ron's district like him as their congressman but don't think he'd make a good president, or that they prefer someone else to be their president.  I don't personally see much irregularity there are all.

3.) I'm not sure at this point what's going on in Lousiana.  I know there clearly were things that should not have gone on there, but at some point, you hae to pick which battles you fight.  So I wouldn't be surprised if the decision ends up being to make the front lines of the revolution somewhere else.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Thank you for coming on Jonathan!
> 
> What was the deal with Neal (I'm a Libertarian, but...) Boortz?


I have no idea.  So many "libertarians" just don't have the spines that I'd like to see.  Just imagine how great it would have been in just two or three other congressman had stood up next to Ron and said "I'm a Republican, and I believe what Ron Paul does, too"...

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> I thought you would be, assuming that most people working on the campaign would be at least as obsessed as the rest of us on here, but sometimes it wasn't completely clear, Ron himself seemed to be kind of suprised at some of the crazy stuff people were doing. I wonder if he knows he was almost on the side of a Nascar


I'm not sure that Ron knows what Nascar is! 

Just kidding (I think)

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Another question I've been wondering about**:
> 
> Who wrote the Ron Paul emails to supporters? Did you hire a professional copywriter for that or was it someone from the campaign staff? I noticed that the tone changed significantly from one point forward; it was after one of the debates in November or December I think.


As far as I know, all correspondence from Ron came directly from Ron.  I'm sure he had other people giving him ideas and helping him craft his messages, but I don't really know much more than that.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Hi Jonathan,   
>   First off, thanks for letting me into the Palo Alto event in Oct/Nov. :-)
> 
> My question is: what are your thoughts NH? Was there anything more we could have done to win that state?  Did the Ron Paul campaign know how Buchanan won in 92 & 96?
> 
> My main regret for the HQ is not winning NH. Can you imagine how this campaign would have unfolded if Paul not McCain won NH (McCain would not have gotten any early momementum).


Yeah, these are great questions.  I think the problem with New Hampshire wasn't so much the result itself, but our result relative to expectations.  Unlike Iowa or South Carolina, people had expectations for Ron in New Hampshire, because of it's somewhat more libertarian bent.  But I think that perception is somewhat unfounded... As McCain showed, the base there is still pretty hawkish, and so the expectations were probably unreasonable.

If you want my truthful answer, I really believe that winning New Hampshire would have required Ron spending virtually all of his time there, and campaigning at the level that Mitt Romney and John McCain were.  But again, that wasn't realy feasible with Ron being a sitting congressman.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Jonathan, thank you so much for taking time to do this.  Your knowledge and expertise at this point in the game is invaluable.  Forum readership has really dropped off lately, as you probably are aware.
> 
> One of the most frustrating things for grassroots was that we didn't know/couldn't control what was going on at HQ once the moneybombs started happening.  Your answers here will finally lay some of that speculation to rest, and we can get on with the campaign.
> 
> What do you think about the stories of delegates taking over their respective precinct/county conventions in states like TX, CO, and MN?  Do you think this will give us enough delegates to have an impact at the National Convention... maybe enough to change party platforms or, at the very least, to let Ron speak?  Or are we being ridiculously unrealistic by thinking this?


To be honest, I have no idea.  But I wouldn't really worry about those things.  Let's do as well as we can, and then worry about trying to get the most out of the convention that we can.  I'm optimistic we can make a difference at the convention, but to start talking about the specifics that we'd be able to get is really just useless speculation.

And remember, whether Ron is at the convention or not, the influence that delegates may have can be significant.  So at this point, I'd encourage people to be focused on getting involved in their local Republican party, regardless of what happens to the cmapaign.

----------


## ButchHowdy

> I have no idea.  So many "libertarians" just don't have the spines that I'd like to see.  Just imagine how great it would have been in just two or three other congressman had stood up next to Ron and said "I'm a Republican, and I believe what Ron Paul does, too"...


I meant the booking of, then canceling of the scheduled interview on January 8th.

There seemed to be no conflict of timing as Neal reported Ron Paul was within eyeshot but then went to interview with some 'Ed' guy.

Was this to be a 'statement' against Neal's hostile interview style?

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> I meant the booking of, then canceling of the scheduled interview on January 8th.
> 
> There seemed to be no conflict of timing as Neal reported Ron Paul was within eyeshot but then went to interview with some 'Ed' guy.
> 
> Was this to be a 'statement' against Neal's hostile interview style?


No clue.

----------


## Sandra

Jonathon, is there any way you can contact whoever is handling the Louisiana caucus mess? There are hundreds of people in the LA meetups awaiting an update of what's going on with it. So far we are the closest state for winning the caucus for Dr Paul and have been in the dark for a long long time as to what's happening. Thanks!

----------


## crazyfingers

Hi Jonathan,

You’re doing a great job answering these questions; it’s very much appreciated. I’m wondering, now that the campaign is winding down, what vision does Ron Paul have for the future of the movement? I know that he is a reluctant leader, but what will become of the e-mail list of supporters?  Also, would Ron Paul be willing to officially endorse the Republican Liberty Caucus as a vehicle for taking back the GOP? I know he has been involved with it in the past but I'm not sure how active the organization currently is.  

Anyway, just some thoughts. Thanks for everything you’ve done, and continue to do!

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Jonathon, is there any way you can contact whoever is handling the Louisiana caucus mess? There are hundreds of people in the LA meetups awaiting an update of what's going on with it. So far we are the closest state for winning the caucus for Dr Paul and have been in the dark for a long long time as to what's happening. Thanks!


Well, I can try to pass along that message, but I don't know that I can really do much more than that at this point.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Hi Jonathan,
> 
> You’re doing a great job answering these questions; it’s very much appreciated. I’m wondering, now that the campaign is winding down, what vision does Ron Paul have for the future of the movement? I know that he is a reluctant leader, but what will become of the e-mail list of supporters?  Also, would Ron Paul be willing to officially endorse the Republican Liberty Caucus as a vehicle for taking back the GOP? I know he has been involved with it in the past but I'm not sure how active the organization currently is.  
> 
> Anyway, just some thoughts. Thanks for everything you’ve done, and continue to do!


I wish I knew!  I think he's really up in the air and trying hard to determine what the wisest course of action should be.  I know that there definitely are some great plans on the drawing board...

----------


## jpa

> Yeah, these are great questions. I think the problem with New Hampshire wasn't so much the result itself, but our result relative to expectations. Unlike Iowa or South Carolina, people had expectations for Ron in New Hampshire, because of it's somewhat more libertarian bent. But I think that perception is somewhat unfounded... As McCain showed, the base there is still pretty hawkish, and so the expectations were probably unreasonable.
> 
> If you want my truthful answer, I really believe that winning New Hampshire would have required Ron spending virtually all of his time there, and campaigning at the level that Mitt Romney and John McCain were. But again, that wasn't realy feasible with Ron being a sitting congressman.


 
Something to think about for our the next run with the next liberty candidate.  We need to win an early state to be considered legit by the MSM.  Even at the expense of national fund raising, a congressional seat, etc...

----------


## Todd

Thanks Jonathan for clarification on a great many things.
I'm not sure if this was addressed yet.  ( I see it was already asked above)

How do you see the future of "The Revolution"?   Ron himself has said it is bigger than just one man.  What do you think should be the major goals of the grassroots in the next 4 years?

 I think this forum should be one main focus to continue a place to network...but it has to stay viable and build on what was established.

----------


## yongrel

Another question: Considering that you are/were an avid reader of the forums, what were some memorable moments? The Billionaire thread? Revolution9's tirades?

I can only imagine what it would be like to read this forum while sitting in HQ.

Thanks again for taking the time to answer our questions.

----------


## pepperpete1

> Well, I can try to pass along that message, but I don't know that I can really do much more than that at this point.


The message you have given us here of keep trying to get our delegates to the convention, and the signing up as a precinct leader, and spreading the word that Ron Paul is still running for President, are STILL VERY IMPORTANT.

Our state campaign co-ordinators should be taking every meet-up leader by the hand at least once a week and those meet-up persons should be in contact their members at least the same, stressing the same message.

WestMI4Paul stated our situation here in MI very well. I am here to say we did one hell of a job with the limited resources and lack of help from the state HQ.
It would have been nice to have at least been told that Ron was working in congress and would not be able to appear. We would have cheered him on for being the kind of representative we want in a president.

As for the media, everyone here needs to know that a law suit against them does not have to be taken up by Ron Paul or his campaign, any citizen can do so.
They broke rules right and left as far as covering RP.

Now when it comes to Louisiana, it will take the campaign to contest the illegal, unethical, manner in which that whole debacle was handled. I posted earlier the rules that pertain to this, and if the campaign does NOT address this it will be a travesty of justice, and the LAGOP will continue to run rough shod over every election that they see fit.

The campaign has until 22 days before the convention convenes to push this, let's hope they do so.

Ron has been ridiculed, scorned, ignored, slandered, and has remained the ever quiet country doctor type. I admire him in some ways, but kripes even David picked up a stone finally. The truth of his message must appear as strong as the deliverer.

----------


## pacelli

> Haha... of course we did!  I read the forums multiple times a day... so much so that I had to take it out of my favorites folder so I wouldn't read it as much.
> 
> Whether you knew it or not, we were aware and listening to what you were saying.  We were kind of like Big Brother


In that case I think a number of highly critical forum posters owe you personally an enormous apology.  There was some serious venom being spewed in your direction.  Of course, many of those posters have been banned after being proven as moles from other campaigns.  Romney's internet bots loved to come here and deflate our campaign.

I just want to thank you for coming out from behind the curtain and starting this thread.  I hope you continue to post !

I have a couple simple questions- Was anyone giving feedback to Ron on his debate performances?  It seemed like he was getting some feedback or speech coaching-- there was an enormous difference between Ron in the first debate vs. Ron in the last Fox debate (i.e. when Carl Cameron asked him the electability question).  

Also, during each debate, what was the atmosphere like in the campaign?  Were people as upset as the rest of us when they would consistently snub him?  I can remember yelling at the TV "LET HIM SPEAK!".

----------


## yongrel

[QUOTE=pacelli;1349401]In that case I think a number of highly critical forum posters owe you personally an enormous apology.  There was some serious venom being spewed in your direction.  Of course, many of those posters have been banned after being proven as moles from other campaigns.  Romney's internet bots loved to come here and deflate our campaign.QUOTE]

Ew, I remember the anti-Bydlak days. I doubt there are many posters on here still that were critical back then (most of them were trolls from various places). However, a good number of us fell for the trolls (myself included) and had a less than rosy image of Jonathan for a while. Luckily, those days have passed.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Thanks Jonathan for clarification on a great many things.
> I'm not sure if this was addressed yet.  ( I see it was already asked above)
> 
> How do you see the future of "The Revolution"?   Ron himself has said it is bigger than just one man.  What do you think should be the major goals of the grassroots in the next 4 years?
> 
>  I think this forum should be one main focus to continue a place to network...but it has to stay viable and build on what was established.


Well, I think what's likely to happen is that a lot of people will drop off.  The real important question is how many people will remain.

I think the general goal is to promote liberty in every way possible.  As I said earlier, this could be through giving funding to congressional candidates, taking over your local Republican party, blogging... whatever.  But at the same time, we need to know that the internet won't do it for us... we have to create our own infrastructure, just as Goldwater did in 1964.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Another question: Considering that you are/were an avid reader of the forums, what were some memorable moments? The Billionaire thread? Revolution9's tirades?
> 
> I can only imagine what it would be like to read this forum while sitting in HQ.
> 
> Thanks again for taking the time to answer our questions.


Haha.. yeah, the bilionaire thread was a good one, but I think my personal favorites were the threads criticizing me... WRellim, Austin356, and others had some great venom to throw my way

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> The message you have given us here of keep trying to get our delegates to the convention, and the signing up as a precinct leader, and spreading the word that Ron Paul is still running for President, are STILL VERY IMPORTANT.
> 
> Our state campaign co-ordinators should be taking every meet-up leader by the hand at least once a week and those meet-up persons should be in contact their members at least the same, stressing the same message.
> 
> WestMI4Paul stated our situation here in MI very well. I am here to say we did one hell of a job with the limited resources and lack of help from the state HQ.
> It would have been nice to have at least been told that Ron was working in congress and would not be able to appear. We would have cheered him on for being the kind of representative we want in a president.
> 
> As for the media, everyone here needs to know that a law suit against them does not have to be taken up by Ron Paul or his campaign, any citizen can do so.
> They broke rules right and left as far as covering RP.
> ...


That last paragraph is a really perceptive one in my opinion.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I do not believe it is undignified to attack the other 3 vigorously.  If that is what it takes to win, I wish he would do it.  
> 
> Remaining dignified is noble in times of peace, but in times of war, not if it means the death of God knows how many brown people as *George Carlin* likes to put it, by taking the high road.
> 
> I want to see the Ron Paul that told that Morton Downey Jr audience member to go on a diet...I want to see some fire and vigor.  I know he's still got it in him, and I know he thinks the message is enough, but it isn't, sadly.


Hear here!

The *only* real "mistake" I see from this campaign, call it more of a tactical error, is that there was too much commitment to the 'high road' on the part of Ron Paul and the NHQ.

I believe, in retrospect, that Ron Paul got his best bumps in polling when he got ANGRY at the several status quo's on the stage beside him.

just my opinion though.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> In that case I think a number of highly critical forum posters owe you personally an enormous apology.  There was some serious venom being spewed in your direction.  Of course, many of those posters have been banned after being proven as moles from other campaigns.  Romney's internet bots loved to come here and deflate our campaign.
> 
> I just want to thank you for coming out from behind the curtain and starting this thread.  I hope you continue to post !
> 
> I have a couple simple questions- Was anyone giving feedback to Ron on his debate performances?  It seemed like he was getting some feedback or speech coaching-- there was an enormous difference between Ron in the first debate vs. Ron in the last Fox debate (i.e. when Carl Cameron asked him the electability question).  
> 
> Also, during each debate, what was the atmosphere like in the campaign?  Were people as upset as the rest of us when they would consistently snub him?  I can remember yelling at the TV "LET HIM SPEAK!".


Haha!  No hard feelings, though I will admit that it was a bitter pill to swallow at the time.  And to be honest, call me hard-headed, but from my perspective, the e-mail that brought so many people up in arms was not just a good thing to do -- it was necessary at the time.  Maybe it hurt the tea party, but I don't really think so.  People forget that there are diferent kinds of donors, and less than a fifth of our donors gave on Dec 16th.  So we need to get every donor to respond, and everyone is motivated by different things.

As far as feedback from Ron's debates... it's been funny reading people's comments in this regard, because I think everyone on staff knew the things that Ron needed to do in debates.  But for better or for worse, Ron is Ron, and he's going to say what he wants to say.  I wish there had been some way to get him to frame his message better, because as we all know, content only gets you so far unfortunately.

Regarding atmosphere in the debates... man, I've probably never been so angry in my life as I've been during some of those.  It got to the point where I couldn't really stand to watch them.  Yes, we were all just as fuming, and just as excited as all of you were...

----------


## JonathanBydlak

[QUOTE=yongrel;1349417]


> In that case I think a number of highly critical forum posters owe you personally an enormous apology.  There was some serious venom being spewed in your direction.  Of course, many of those posters have been banned after being proven as moles from other campaigns.  Romney's internet bots loved to come here and deflate our campaign.QUOTE]
> 
> Ew, I remember the anti-Bydlak days. I doubt there are many posters on here still that were critical back then (most of them were trolls from various places). However, a good number of us fell for the trolls (myself included) and had a less than rosy image of Jonathan for a while. Luckily, those days have passed.


Hahaha!  good save!

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Hear here!
> 
> The *only* real "mistake" I see from this campaign, call it more of a tactical error, is that there was too much commitment to the 'high road' on the part of Ron Paul and the NHQ.
> 
> I believe, in retrospect, that Ron Paul got his best bumps in polling when he got ANGRY at the several status quo's on the stage beside him.
> 
> just my opinion though.


That's been my opinion for quite a while as well.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> Well, I think what's likely to happen is that a lot of people will drop off. The real important question is how many people will remain.
> 
> I think the general goal is to promote liberty in every way possible. As I said earlier, this could be through giving funding to congressional candidates, taking over your local Republican party, blogging... whatever. But at the same time, we need to know that the internet won't do it for us... we have to create our own infrastructure, just as Goldwater did in 1964.


Aloha, E komo mai, (Hi and welcome )

Am enjoying watching this thread...  

About infrastucture, a previous poster mentioned the Republican Liberty Caucus

www.rlc.org

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Liberty_Caucus

ISTM, that this pre-existing organization might save quite a few steps in creating an infrastucture. Do you know much about this org? and, if so, any reasons why we should not be looking at it closely?

Mahalo (thanks)

m

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Johnathan,

I have worked as a full time volunteer for RP08 now since October.  I am from North Carolina, and I travelled to South Carolina and Alabama to canvass and phonebank and otherwise work.  I worked directly with James Trementozzi in Charleston, SC, and with Bryan Roughton, Shana Kluck, Austin Wilkes, and Scott Morris in Alabama.

I just wanted to finally be able to tell someone that in SC, we needed MORE James Trementozzi and LESS Amanda Moore, and the work in Alabama was just amazing.  The coordinated campaign we ran in Alabama worked amazingly well.  Much of what we were able to accomplish was the "prep-work' for the canvass, and I tell you the truth, the people we managed to have the manpower to canvass, were nearly DESPERATE to learn about Ron Paul.  With all the preliminary work we did in Alabama, we could have won that state if only we had the manpower to canvass there -- but two people just cannot canvass a whole state in 2 weeks.

I am still a full time volunteer for RO08 in North Carolina, a precinct delegate awaiting the Franklin county convention, and my mother is a county delegate in Vance County.

Now I'm not trying to get accolades here, I am doing two things with this post -- 1) telling you what worked and didn't, namely in SC James T worked and Amanda Moore didn't, and in AL, our strategy worked like gangbusters, but our lack of manpower didn't.  and 2) I will be running either for NC State Gen'l assembly OR NC State Senate in 2010, and would welcome some advice and contacts and maybe even a measure of support in that effort.

James Trementozzi has contacted me directly in the last month to suggest just such a run, and after thinking on it, I think it is a good idea.

And thank you for your time and effort in this campaign -- no matter what else, we need every single person we can get in this effort to restore America.

Sincerely,
Glen Bradley

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

First, thank you for all of the work you have given to this campaign and for taking the time to answer a few questions from those of us who gave everything we could and will continue to fight to the grave. Many of the previous posters have addressed questions I would have asked you but one has yet to be asked.

 I was one of the folks who stood out in the freezing cold during the annual march for life that was held in D.C. I know that those of us on the ground that day were energized by the Jane Roe endorsement which came that morning. When Dr. Paul's time to speak came I (among others) were slightly baffled as to why he made no mention of the Jane Roe endorsement. I have seen estimates that there were over 400,000 people there and throughout the day we would constantly have to remind people that he got the endorsement of Jane Roe. So why did the campaign not make a bigger deal about this when it could have swayed so many of the "right to life voters". Thanks and keep up the good fight!

----------


## LarryWhite

Do you think Kent Snyder's $48,000 salary for the month of January 2008 is excessive?

Barack Obama's campaign manager pulled in a little over $5000 and Hillary's campaign manager pulled in $11,000 for the same time period.

info is here:  http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/M...C00432914.html

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Aloha, E komo mai, (Hi and welcome )
> 
> Am enjoying watching this thread...  
> 
> About infrastucture, a previous poster mentioned the Republican Liberty Caucus
> 
> www.rlc.org
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Liberty_Caucus
> ...


I don't know much about the RLC, so if it seems like something that could do some good, then I'd recommend that you look into it further.  I personally, however, will be more inclined to give and get involved with whatever organizations come out of the campaign, just because I know the motivations of the people involved, and believe they are capable of running such organizations.

----------


## CMoore

I think the campaign did an amazing job.  Considering that you all started from ground zero when the other candidates had been building a campaign for a long time, the progress you made was great.  People who blame the lack of a win on the campaign are failing to take into consideration the things going against this candidacy.  There are many, many VERY powerful people who have a vested interest in seeing this movement fail.  This candidate starts out with a millstone around his neck.  The establishment has a great deal to lose if this movement catches on in a big way.  They are fighting for their political lives and it shows.  Dr. Paul was treated so unfairly that it is frightening.  It scares me to know that the media has so bought into the status quo.  We need to keep up, get involved, and continue the Revolution.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Johnathan,
> 
> I have worked as a full time volunteer for RP08 now since October.  I am from North Carolina, and I travelled to South Carolina and Alabama to canvass and phonebank and otherwise work.  I worked directly with James Trementozzi in Charleston, SC, and with Bryan Roughton, Shana Kluck, Austin Wilkes, and Scott Morris in Alabama.
> 
> I just wanted to finally be able to tell someone that in SC, we needed MORE James Trementozzi and LESS Amanda Moore, and the work in Alabama was just amazing.  The coordinated campaign we ran in Alabama worked amazingly well.  Much of what we were able to accomplish was the "prep-work' for the canvass, and I tell you the truth, the people we managed to have the manpower to canvass, were nearly DESPERATE to learn about Ron Paul.  With all the preliminary work we did in Alabama, we could have won that state if only we had the manpower to canvass there -- but two people just cannot canvass a whole state in 2 weeks.
> 
> I am still a full time volunteer for RO08 in North Carolina, a precinct delegate awaiting the Franklin county convention, and my mother is a county delegate in Vance County.
> 
> Now I'm not trying to get accolades here, I am doing two things with this post -- 1) telling you what worked and didn't, namely in SC James T worked and Amanda Moore didn't, and in AL, our strategy worked like gangbusters, but our lack of manpower didn't.  and 2) I will be running either for NC State Gen'l assembly OR NC State Senate in 2010, and would welcome some advice and contacts and maybe even a measure of support in that effort.
> ...


I don't really know any of those people, so I can't really have an opinion either way.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> First, thank you for all of the work you have given to this campaign and for taking the time to answer a few questions from those of us who gave everything we could and will continue to fight to the grave. Many of the previous posters have addressed questions I would have asked you but one has yet to be asked.
> 
>  I was one of the folks who stood out in the freezing cold during the annual march for life that was held in D.C. I know that those of us on the ground that day were energized by the Jane Roe endorsement which came that morning. When Dr. Paul's time to speak came I (among others) were slightly baffled as to why he made no mention of the Jane Roe endorsement. I have seen estimates that there were over 400,000 people there and throughout the day we would constantly have to remind people that he got the endorsement of Jane Roe. So why did the campaign not make a bigger deal about this when it could have swayed so many of the "right to life voters". Thanks and keep up the good fight!


Haha, well, all I can say is that I wish I had more control about what Ron chooses to talk about!  I spoke with Norma multiple times, and many of us worked hard to make that endorsement happen.  We tried to make as big a deal about it as we could, and got a lot of press on it, particularly in Christian-oriented publications.  But the mainstream media didn't care much about it, to be honest.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Do you think Kent Snyder's $48,000 salary for the month of January 2008 is excessive?
> 
> Barack Obama's campaign manager pulled in a little over $5000 and Hillary's campaign manager pulled in $11,000 for the same time period.
> 
> info is here:  http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/M...C00432914.html


Hahaha... geez... now I know how these rumors get started!

The FEC reports do not break out individuals' salaries from expense reimbursements.  So in other words, suppose we get Ron a private jet and reserve it using Kent's credit card.  Kent needs to be reimbursed that money so that he can pay back his credit card bill.  So Kent was not being paid $48,000 in a month... that includes a huge amount of reimbursements.  The same goes for Lew and many others on our staff.  Hope that helps!

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> I think the campaign did an amazing job.  Considering that you all started from ground zero when the other candidates had been building a campaign for a long time, the progress you made was great.  People who blame the lack of a win on the campaign are failing to take into consideration the things going against this candidacy.  There are many, many VERY powerful people who have a vested interest in seeing this movement fail.  This candidate starts out with a millstone around his neck.  The establishment has a great deal to lose if this movement catches on in a big way.  They are fighting for their political lives and it shows.  Dr. Paul was treated so unfairly that it is frightening.  It scares me to know that the media has so bought into the status quo.  We need to keep up, get involved, and continue the Revolution.


Yeah, I think that pretty much sums things up quite nicely.

----------


## crazyfingers

> Hahaha... geez... now I know how these rumors get started!
> 
> The FEC reports do not break out individuals' salaries from expense reimbursements.  So in other words, suppose we get Ron a private jet and reserve it using Kent's credit card.  Kent needs to be reimbursed that money so that he can pay back his credit card bill.  So Kent was not being paid $48,000 in a month... that includes a huge amount of reimbursements.  The same goes for Lew and many others on our staff.  Hope that helps!


Well, that's good to hear. Still it seems to be a very odd accounting practice. Some reimbursements are to be expected, but one would think the campaign would have a "corporate" credit card for general use, especially major expenditures such as reserving a jet. I obviously don't know how these things work, though.

----------


## gilliganscorner

> Well, that's good to hear. Still it seems to be a very odd accounting practice. Some reimbursements are to be expected, but one would think the campaign would have a "corporate" credit card for general use, especially major expenditures such as reserving a jet. I obviously don't know how these things work, though.


I can tell you first hand that the corporate credit cards issued to employees in my company operate in this manner:

All debts incurred on the card are your personal liability.  It is your responsibility to pay them off, whether or not your company reimburses you.  It is a way the card issuer gets around the limited liability aspect of a corporation.  If the debt is incurred on the corporations name, and the company goes belly up, the issuer pursues *you* for the debt.

You usually end up taking the card, as you need it to conduct business or it might even be a "condition of employment".  

My two cents.  Be careful.

----------


## stevedasbach

> Ooh, now we're getting into some red meat... haha.  This one might take awhile.
> 
> 1. National campaign ads.  I think the reason this wasn't done is because it largely didn't make sense for a candidate like Ron.  While we raised $20M in Q4, keep in mind how much the other candidates had spent before that.  Mitt Romne spent MILLIONS to bring his name recognition up to snuff with the other candidates.  Everyone knew Rudy from 9/11, they knew McCain from 2000, and while Huckabee was an unknown like Ron, his seemingly genuine personality infatuated the press.  But many members of the press didn't care about Ron, and they didn't take him seriously.  I don't believe that even people like Tucker, who gave Ron above-average face-time and believed strongly in Ron's message, ever thought he had a chance of winning.  That said, with limited resources, you have to target them.  And the campaign worked hard at targeting early primary states, while still organizing supporters everywhere else.  But to throw money across the country would not have been smart (in my opinion), and I'd rather see more direct mail in New Hampshire than TV ads playing in New Mexico and Kentucky.


This was, IMO, the major strategic error that the campaign made. The campaign invested millions of dollars in direct mail in New Hampshire, but that investment didn't show up in votes. I firmly believe this was because Ron was relatively invisible in the media, so people assumed that he didn't have a chance of winning.

That same money invested in paid TV ads, ideally on the news channels, would have forced the news channels to pay attention to Ron's campaign. Otherwise, they would have looked stupid ignoring a candidate who was running ads in every commercial break. The combination of the ads plus the resulting coverage would have helped dispel the notion that Ron didn't have a chance and that voting for him was a "wasted vote".

If Ron had launched a national ad campaign on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC after the second money bomb, he would have been the first candidate to run national advertising. That would have been a story. Plus, seeing ads running nationally would have gotten people, especially new donors, to open up their checkbooks and donate more money to keep the ads running. And, it would have pushed Ron's national poll numbers into double digits, competitive with the other candidates.

I understand why the campaign focused on direct mail, given their experiences in Ron's Texas Congressional races, but direct mail only works for a candidate who is assumed to have a chance of winning. IMO, overcoming the "wasted vote" hurdle should have been our top priority, and in the absense of MSM coverage, paid TV advertising was the only way to accomplish it.

----------


## gilliganscorner

> This was, IMO, the major strategic error that the campaign made. The campaign invested millions of dollars in direct mail in New Hampshire, but that investment didn't show up in votes. I firmly believe this was because Ron was relatively invisible in the media, so people assumed that he didn't have a chance of winning.
> 
> That same money invested in paid TV ads, ideally on the news channels, would have forced the news channels to pay attention to Ron's campaign. Otherwise, they would have looked stupid ignoring a candidate who was running ads in every commercial break. The combination of the ads plus the resulting coverage would have helped dispel the notion that Ron didn't have a chance and that voting for him was a "wasted vote".
> 
> If Ron had launched a national ad campaign on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC after the second money bomb, he would have been the first candidate to run national advertising. That would have been a story. Plus, seeing ads running nationally would have gotten people, especially new donors, to open up their checkbooks and donate more money to keep the ads running. And, it would have pushed Ron's national poll numbers into double digits, competitive with the other candidates.
> 
> I understand why the campaign focused on direct mail, given their experiences in Ron's Texas Congressional races, but direct mail only works for a candidate who is assumed to have a chance of winning. IMO, overcoming the "wasted vote" hurdle should have been our top priority, and in the absense of MSM coverage, paid TV advertising was the only way to accomplish it.


Speaking of ads,

1) Did you every try too launch an ad campaign via MSM outlets?
2) If so, did they ever refuse to run them?

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> This was, IMO, the major strategic error that the campaign made. The campaign invested millions of dollars in direct mail in New Hampshire, but that investment didn't show up in votes. I firmly believe this was because Ron was relatively invisible in the media, so people assumed that he didn't have a chance of winning.
> 
> That same money invested in paid TV ads, ideally on the news channels, would have forced the news channels to pay attention to Ron's campaign. Otherwise, they would have looked stupid ignoring a candidate who was running ads in every commercial break. The combination of the ads plus the resulting coverage would have helped dispel the notion that Ron didn't have a chance and that voting for him was a "wasted vote".
> 
> If Ron had launched a national ad campaign on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC after the second money bomb, he would have been the first candidate to run national advertising. That would have been a story. Plus, seeing ads running nationally would have gotten people, especially new donors, to open up their checkbooks and donate more money to keep the ads running. And, it would have pushed Ron's national poll numbers into double digits, competitive with the other candidates.
> 
> I understand why the campaign focused on direct mail, given their experiences in Ron's Texas Congressional races, but direct mail only works for a candidate who is assumed to have a chance of winning. IMO, overcoming the "wasted vote" hurdle should have been our top priority, and in the absense of MSM coverage, paid TV advertising was the only way to accomplish it.


Yeah, I think that's probably pretty true, and I hadn't really thought of it like that before.  One point of clarification though, remember that we spent millions in New Hampshire not just on direct mail, but also on TV.  It's not like we sacrificed TV ads in NH to do direct mail.  NH was the one place where there really were few limited on spending.

But perhaps you're right that we would have gotten a big story out of being the first candidate to run national TV ads.  I still wonder, though, which does more good -- ads targeted in NH, or national ads that some people in NH would happen to see.  Tough to say.  And of course, keep in mind the money issue.  Those national ads would have cost a fortune... were you have been willing to sacrifice competing in Iowa to run them?

----------


## Don

Hey Jonathon - I certainly don't want to steal your thunder with so much way overdue Jonathon loving going on. Those of us who have worked closely with you for these past few months know how capable and dedicated you were and are and how deserving you are of some appreciation for all of the blood, sweat and tears you have put into this effort.

I did want to address a couple of the issues that have come up in this thread however.

First - My all time favorite forum issue - Anita Andrews.  The insane postulating and conspiracy mongering that came out of her employment and subsequent separation from the campaign provided hours of laugh out loud moments.

Second - With regards to questions that have been raised about our (NHQ) desire to win.  I know from all of the time spent with staff from Lew and Kent, right down to the state staffers that we all desperately wanted to win.  

For myself, I sold my car, put everything I own in storage and moved 2500 miles across the country to spend 8 months sleeping on an air mattress in an empty room separated from family, friends and the city that I love (Seattle).  I never would have done that for an "educational" exercise.  

The notions sometime propagated on the forums that we just didn't want it bad enough has been far more offensive than any personal attacks that have been leveled.  My mantra from the first day I arrived in DC was that the only purpose of elective politics is to obtain or retain political power.  My sense is that most everyone working on this campaign feels the same way which is why we have turned our attention now to laying the groundwork for future electoral successes. It is also why I share Ron's opinion that a 3rd party or independent run would be counter-productive.

Thanks again Jonathon for your friendship and leadership and thank you to everyone on this thread for the much needed, level-headed and mature discussion of these issues.  I think this conversation is invaluable.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Speaking of ads,
> 
> 1) Did you every try too launch an ad campaign via MSM outlets?
> 2) If so, did they ever refuse to run them?


To my knowledge, we didn't do anything on a network basis.

I'd just like to add one comment here... I still believe that all this discussion of ad strategy is missing the bigger point.  Other candidates earned tons of earned media, and so they didn't need to run as many ads.  And more importantly, earned media offers another benefit that ads don't -- perceived credibility.  With Ron not going to say anything outlandish just to make news, does anyone have any ideas on things that we could have done to get more earned media?

It's the earned media, and particularly on the major nightly network news, that I think we were having the most difficulty with.  How do you crack that nut?

----------


## stevedasbach

> Speaking of ads,
> 
> 1) Did you every try too launch an ad campaign via MSM outlets?
> 2) If so, did they ever refuse to run them?


They can't reject campaign ads, unless they reject all ads for that office by all candidates. They can't dictate the content of campaign ads.

There are some limited caveats to this (which is why attack ads always include documentation backing up the attacks) but for all practical purposes, they run the ads they are given.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Hey Jonathon - I certainly don't want to steal your thunder with so much way overdue Jonathon loving going on. Those of us who have worked closely with you for these past few months know how capable and dedicated you were and are and how deserving you are of some appreciation for all of the blood, sweat and tears you have put into this effort.
> 
> I did want to address a couple of the issues that have come up in this thread however.
> 
> First - My all time favorite forum issue - Anita Andrews.  The insane postulating and conspiracy mongering that came out of her employment and subsequent separation from the campaign provided hours of laugh out loud moments.
> 
> Second - With regards to questions that have been raised about our (NHQ) desire to win.  I know from all of the time spent with staff from Lew and Kent, right down to the state staffers that we all desperately wanted to win.  
> 
> For myself, I sold my car, put everything I own in storage and moved 2500 miles across the country to spend 8 months sleeping on an air mattress in an empty room separated from family, friends and the city that I love (Seattle).  I never would have done that for an "educational" exercise.  
> ...


Aww, let's all heap some love on Don, too, OK?

----------


## stevedasbach

> To my knowledge, we didn't do anything on a network basis.
> 
> I'd just like to add one comment here... I still believe that all this discussion of ad strategy is missing the bigger point.  Other candidates earned tons of earned media, and so they didn't need to run as many ads.  And more importantly, earned media offers another benefit that ads don't -- perceived credibility.  With Ron not going to say anything outlandish just to make news, does anyone have any ideas on things that we could have done to get more earned media?
> 
> It's the earned media, and particularly on the major nightly network news, that I think we were having the most difficulty with.  How do you crack that nut?


IMO, launching a major national ad campaign in December, before any of the other candidates, initially using the funds raised in the money bombs, would have forced the MSM to take Ron seriously and generated the earned media we needed. Bottom line -- money talks, and if you are spending big bucks advertising on their networks, they are going to cover you. You may or may not like the coverage, but you'll get covered.

----------


## BUSHLIED

Jon, 

Thanks for your work at the campaign. 

I have a question.  Do you know what the campaign will do with the existing website?  Before you leave I would recommend to Kent or Lew that the website be kept online and turned into an educational tool. The campaign should be able to allocate some funds to use it after the convention.  

Also, if you don't mind telling, what is the campaign staff narrowed down to?  IS Ron going to make it to PA to speak?

Thanks.

----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

Jonathan, what's next for you?

----------


## stevedasbach

> Yeah, I think that's probably pretty true, and I hadn't really thought of it like that before.  One point of clarification though, remember that we spent millions in New Hampshire not just on direct mail, but also on TV.  It's not like we sacrificed TV ads in NH to do direct mail.  NH was the one place where there really were few limited on spending.
> 
> But perhaps you're right that we would have gotten a big story out of being the first candidate to run national TV ads.  I still wonder, though, which does more good -- ads targeted in NH, or national ads that some people in NH would happen to see.  Tough to say.  And of course, keep in mind the money issue.  Those national ads would have cost a fortune... were you have been willing to sacrifice competing in Iowa to run them?


National cable ads (Fox News, CNN, MSNBC) are a lot less expensive than you think.  And, IMO, once people started seeing them, the money to run more of them would have poured in. This assumes, of course, that they were effective, powerful ads. 

Targetted ads in NH were important, but they were competing with the ads from every other candidate. National ads would have been up against no competition, and would almost certainly have driven up Ron's national poll numbers. The MSM used those low single digit poll numbers as the justification for marginalizing his campaign. If he had been polling in the teens, it would have been much harder for them to deny him coverage. Ultimately, I think better national poll numbers and MSM coverage would have had more impact in Iowa and New Hampshire than targeted ads with low national poll numbers and little MSM coverage.

----------


## gilliganscorner

> To my knowledge, we didn't do anything on a network basis.
> 
> I'd just like to add one comment here... I still believe that all this discussion of ad strategy is missing the bigger point.  Other candidates earned tons of earned media, and so they didn't need to run as many ads.  And more importantly, earned media offers another benefit that ads don't -- perceived credibility.  With Ron not going to say anything outlandish just to make news, does anyone have any ideas on things that we could have done to get more earned media?
> 
> It's the earned media, and particularly on the major nightly network news, that I think we were having the most difficulty with.  How do you crack that nut?


That one I am sympathetic to you on.  The media tried to marginalize Dr. Paul in every way.  Even when Nader announced his run, Wolf Blitzer asked his viewers in a blog on how much time Nader should get, pretty much confessing the media decides who gets how much air time.

All I can offer is that the media's Prime directive is *to bring the audience to the advertiser*

They need stories that:

Do not require extensive investigation.Are quick to compile to meet deadlines.Easily verified to avoid lawsuits.That will be “interesting” to the viewer/reader.  This is why Britney/Lindsay/Paris stories are easy pablum as opposed to the stuff that makes people think.Not jeopardize current or potential advertising contracts that may paint their sponsors in a negative light.  Remember the White House spent 1.6 Billion of taxpayers dollars just for media relations/PR spin.Not anger their editors or corporate owner’s views.

Couple that with your average voter being dumbed down over years and years of mass disinformation and manipulation tactics, they have been reduced to this:



Bottom line, they either like you or they don't.  Remember that they have been saturated in the same pablum over the years and they actually think they are practicing quality journalism.   For example,  Ron Paul repeatedly stated that the money is printed "out of thin air".  Now, I know what he means, and we on these forums generally know what he means, but where the hell was a reporter asking Dr. Paul the question, "Dr. Paul?  Can you take a moment to explain to our [reader|viewer]ship to elaborate on that?  What do mean "printing it out of thin air"?".


I know some personalities that went into journalism, and quite frankly, I found them to be intellectual vacuums.

In case I forget to say thank you.....Thank you!

----------


## silverhandorder

It makes me glad the national campaign people are here on RPF. This helps us to put many rumors to rest and get some working order back here. I am sure many people would like to know what you have to say and 57 posts is probably more then any of us herd in a while about the state of the movement outside of our local zone.

/raise a mug to Jonathan and Don

----------


## crazyfingers

> I can tell you first hand that the corporate credit cards issued to employees in my company operate in this manner:
> 
> All debts incurred on the card are your personal liability.  It is your responsibility to pay them off, whether or not your company reimburses you.  It is a way the card issuer gets around the limited liability aspect of a corporation.  If the debt is incurred on the corporations name, and the company goes belly up, the issuer pursues *you* for the debt.
> 
> You usually end up taking the card, as you need it to conduct business or it might even be a "condition of employment".  
> 
> My two cents.  Be careful.


Thank you for the clarification on this. It does make perfect sense. I just hope donor morale wasn't hurt by the (false) perception that the people at the top were getting rich off of the campaign. Just goes to show that the publicly available FEC reports can't be relied on for much.

----------


## stevedasbach

> It makes me glad the national campaign people are here on RPF. This helps us to put many rumors to rest and get some working order back here. I am sure many people would like to know what you have to say and 57 posts is probably more then any of us herd about the state of the movement outside of our local zone.
> 
> /raise a mug to Jonathan and Don


I'll drink to that!

----------


## me3

Jonathan,

1) Thank you very much.

2) The quality and honesty of your answers are the most refreshing I have read or heard from HQ.  While I am somewhat kidding by writing this, it would have done wonders for morale if you had left the campaign after NH and come to the forums to share some insight.

3) Are you planning to get involved with other campaigns, now or in the future?

4) What did the grassroots do well (besides fund raising)

5) What could the grassroots done better?




> Man, you guys just keep the questions coming...
> 
> ....
> 
> Thanks so much for your insightful questions.


I'm also impressed by the insight (and respectfulness) of the questions, but your answers as well.

----------


## TruthAtLast

Hello Jonathan,

Thanks for your time to shed light on these subjects. It has taken awhile to read this entire thread to make sure I wouldn't be asking questions that were already asked.

It is easy to look back and see what we would do differently and point fingers, but myself and many others are looking to see where we go from here.  Here are a couple questions and comments that I may be asking on the behalf of many.

*Knowing what we know now, what would it take to win in 2012? What could we do differently that would enable us to succeed where we previously failed?*
You mention not having enough money EARLY in the campaign. It is hard to raise that kind of money quickly but what could we do with proper planning?Would $100 million in funds prior to Iowa and New Hampshire help? We can raise the money, but we need goals to shoot for and a plan of how to attain those goals.  I don't think people should underestimate what Ron's supporters would do if he would just ask them.Professional advertising agencies etc?*Ron Paul talks about the "next phase" of the Revolution but is he planning to lead it?*
Is the next phase going through his LPAC?When are they going to update the site and really turn it into a serious tool for change? If this was the next phase, as he suggests, then why isn't he prepared?Would the same people be running the LPAC as those who ran the National Campaign?*There are many liberty candidates running for Congress yet Ron Paul has only endorsed a couple. How do we know who to support?*
Is Ron Paul planning on identifying "opportunities" to get people elected in certain districts where there are real opportunities to win?Some supporters in these forums are running for Congress yet they have a hard time raising funds because some Ron Paul supporters are reluctant to donate to people Ron Paul hasn't endorsed. What would be your advice to these Ron Paul loyalists who are taking up the cause and doing exactly what Ron Paul wants them to do?*If Ron Paul doesn't run again in 2012, do we need to start grooming a potential candidate now?*
Is there anyone in mind? Sabrin? Rand?*Does Ron really realize what he has gotten himself into and the power he has in pushing this movement forward?* As much as Ron Paul has said that the Movement is bigger than one man, people still tie his name to this "Revolution" and respond to him and him alone. He sends an email asking for money and 24 hours later nearly $1 million drops into his Congressional piggy bank.  He has access to these supporters from the donations list but if his intention is to step back and let the Revolution grow without central leadership, it leaves many Grassroots organizations in a difficult position of trying to reach these supporters that really only Ron can do.*Why has there been a lack of information on how the delegate process works in each state as well as how the RNC works?* I know it is different in each state but a lot of time and energy has been wasted here in the forums by people aruging about how many "REAL" delegates we have, or who is bound or unbound, or where Huck's and Romney's delegates go, or how each state actually selects National delegates, or how we could covertly "take over" the convention with stealth votes.... it goes on and on, and this leadership and defacto information should have come from HQ.
Do you think that this knowledge is of vital importance in a future election?Was there ever a "master plan" for delegates from the very beginning?Ron Paul talks about not being able to win the nomination at this point but still suggesting that we go out and get as many delegats as possible. Some people here insist that we can still take over the convention.  Could you shed some light on just what the heck the true goal is for HQ?There are other Movements that support many of Ron Paul's beliefs and values such as Freedom Force, founded by G. Edward Griffin. They have endorsed Ron Paul and also believe in taking over the power centers in society to win back our country.  *Do you know how Ron Paul feels about some of these organizations?* If not endorsing them specifically, does he want to work with any of them?Clearly education is a major obstacle and it isn't easy for people UNBRAINWASH those that have been eating the Government's and MSM's hand for so long. *After this campaign is over, and as we prepare for Congressional races and another presidential run, is there plans for a REAL campaign strategy to "wake up" America to these issues?*  Certainly the Grassroots people can do their job but a lot of times, BECAUSE there isn't a central leadership that at least provides basic direction, even the many Grassroots supporters who are spreading the message of liberty are spouting false information or just haven't done the research themselves? Ron Paul and you have proven the ability to raise money so I believe that significant funds could be raised for something like this if promoted properly.  As you know, people need to feel like they are working towards a goal. They need to feel like they aren't just donating to donate, that it is a specific cause with measurable results. I guess my question is really.... how do we lay the ground work (other than just going to Republican meetings) so that the "message" would be better received in a few years?

----------


## Ninja Homer

Jonathan, thanks for answering so many questions in this thread.

I know that most of your answers are written with retrospective 20/20 vision, and a lot of it doesn't matter a whole lot now, except what can be learned for future campaigns in continuing the Revolution, but I still have some questions anyway.

Why oh why didn't the campaign ever make a DVD?  Why why why? WHY?

(why?)  I just don't see any downside to making a DVD.  With a simple email like, "We need $300,000 to produce the DVD everybody has been waiting for.  Please donate now." the campaign likely would have gotten the money to produce it in a couple days.  Sell it from the online store, and now you're making money on it.  Give reproduction rights, and supporters can make copies themselves and pass out as needed.  Put it on Google Video and now anybody can see it online for free.  An official DVD always seemed to be a no-brainer to me.

I don't mean to downplay the campaign's successes.  I actually remain quite optimistic about the campaign.  I think the campaign has been pretty miraculous so far, and I feel there are still some miracles to come.  However, there are some failures that need to be pointed out and examined so the same mistakes aren't made in the future.

The campaign failed as a traditional business that spreads its popularity by purchasing advertising.  Obviously, this wasn't a fair fight.  The amount of money that Ron Paul raised was a drop in an ocean compared to the free media that other candidates like McCain and Huckabee got.  I'd guess that even before Super Tuesday, McCain and Huckabee were getting $5 million a day in free media, and that's probably grossly underestimated.

It should have been recognized early on that the Ron Paul Campaign wasn't going to get any free attention from the media, and wouldn't be able to compete with the other campaigns that were getting this attention.  At that time, the campaign should have shifted from purchasing advertising to a campaign built more like a network marketing business.

Set up tools, such as DVD's, training videos, web tools, etc., and then the established supporters could use these tools to spread the message much faster and much more effectively than any direct ad buys.  Set up training sessions and conference calls to train supporters to convert people better.  This is the only way the Ron Paul campaign could have competed with the other campaigns that were getting all the free media attention.  I would guess that at least 3/4 of the current Ron Paul supporters learned of him by word of mouth.  This is where the bulk of the money that was raised should have been spent.

Personally, I wouldn't have spent a cent on media advertising, unless there was a particular media company that gave fair time to Ron Paul.  Then I'd be tempted to reward them with some advertising dollars, and put out a press release that they're getting some money from the Ron Paul campaign because they were the only ones who gave Ron Paul fair time.

Another way I think the campaign failed was shifting gears from a message campaign to an all-out presidential campaign.  It never quite made that jump, and instead was almost like a Tancredo campaign on steroids.  You've addressed this a little already in this thread, so I'll leave it at that.

The last way I feel it failed is actually Ron Paul's fault...  I don't think he ever believed in the possibility that he could be President as much as we did.  I don't want to second-guess him or put words in his mouth, but this is the feeling I get.  Don't get me wrong, Ron Paul is my hero, and is the only hero I've had that isn't a fictional character, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for him.  However, from his mannerisms and the way he spoke about some things, it was apparent to me that he didn't believe he could be President, and that's something that people can sense nonverbally.  Until he really believes it himself, it would be very hard for many people to believe in him.  I'm not sure if I'm explaining this clear enough.  At some point, Ron Paul needed to OWN this Presidency within his heart.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> IMO, launching a major national ad campaign in December, before any of the other candidates, initially using the funds raised in the money bombs, would have forced the MSM to take Ron seriously and generated the earned media we needed. Bottom line -- money talks, and if you are spending big bucks advertising on their networks, they are going to cover you. You may or may not like the coverage, but you'll get covered.


That's possible, assuming that there's enough demand from the American public to hear about Ron Paul.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Jon, 
> 
> Thanks for your work at the campaign. 
> 
> I have a question.  Do you know what the campaign will do with the existing website?  Before you leave I would recommend to Kent or Lew that the website be kept online and turned into an educational tool. The campaign should be able to allocate some funds to use it after the convention.  
> 
> Also, if you don't mind telling, what is the campaign staff narrowed down to?  IS Ron going to make it to PA to speak?
> 
> Thanks.


Yeah, I'm not sure how the website is going to be used.  I'm pretty sure though, that everyone know's it's a valuable resource that should be put to some constructive use.

The HQ office has roughly 10 employees, and as far as I know, Ron will be going to Pennsylvania.  From what I've head, he's very excited about doing campaigning in his home state!

----------


## Kludge

There have been a number of excellent grassroots DVDs already released... My personal favorite was "Ron Paul - A Man for All Seasons" which is set up very professionally and uses great clips (This was released well before the primaries).

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Jonathan, what's next for you?


Well, I'm not 100% sure if it's going to work yet, but I'm working on creating a market-based charity dedicated to education.  If anyone has any interest in finding out more, just let me know.  I could use some web development help, as well as someone with experience in non-profit law...

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> That one I am sympathetic to you on.  The media tried to marginalize Dr. Paul in every way.  Even when Nader announced his run, Wolf Blitzer asked his viewers in a blog on how much time Nader should get, pretty much confessing the media decides who gets how much air time.
> 
> All I can offer is that the media's Prime directive is *to bring the audience to the advertiser*
> 
> They need stories that:
> 
> Do not require extensive investigation.Are quick to compile to meet deadlines.Easily verified to avoid lawsuits.That will be “interesting” to the viewer/reader.  This is why Britney/Lindsay/Paris stories are easy pablum as opposed to the stuff that makes people think.Not jeopardize current or potential advertising contracts that may paint their sponsors in a negative light.  Remember the White House spent 1.6 Billion of taxpayers dollars just for media relations/PR spin.Not anger their editors or corporate owner’s views.
> 
> Couple that with your average voter being dumbed down over years and years of mass disinformation and manipulation tactics, they have been reduced to this:
> ...


Thanks... that's overall pretty insightful.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> National cable ads (Fox News, CNN, MSNBC) are a lot less expensive than you think.  And, IMO, once people started seeing them, the money to run more of them would have poured in. This assumes, of course, that they were effective, powerful ads. 
> 
> Targetted ads in NH were important, but they were competing with the ads from every other candidate. National ads would have been up against no competition, and would almost certainly have driven up Ron's national poll numbers. The MSM used those low single digit poll numbers as the justification for marginalizing his campaign. If he had been polling in the teens, it would have been much harder for them to deny him coverage. Ultimately, I think better national poll numbers and MSM coverage would have had more impact in Iowa and New Hampshire than targeted ads with low national poll numbers and little MSM coverage.


Makes sense to me.  I'll admit I didn't see it that way at the time.

----------


## Santana28

Jonathan,

Just want to say thank you while i have the chance. I think you'd done an amazing job and you know you will always have our support.

----------


## greenspj

> Well, if you want my honest opinion, I don't think there's much that "we" can do.  I think it comes down to two things... what the media wants to cover, and shortcomings of Ron.  The media wants news, plain and simple.  Sure, there was bias against Ron, but that was minor next to the point that Ron wasn't attacking other candidates by saying controversial things (remember the one time Ron called out Huckabee's Christmas ad?  We got news coverage everywhere because of that.  Why?  Because it was controversial.)
> 
> So, it's a sad indictment of our society when substance doesn't get you news coverage.  But my personal opinion is knowing that, you have to play the game.  And unfortuantely, Ron is too dignified to do that.



If I could be so bold as to add to John's response.

Politics is war by other means.  If you bring the numbers and the brute force, the media will notice.  I.e. by canvassing and becoming PCs, by getting elected to county central committees, by taking over the conventions, it doesn't matter if you're the media darling - you win.

We had a year to do it.  Some caught on and gave 110%.  Some more.  We are still doing incredible things across the west in terms of penetrating and getting elected to state delegate positions and county central committees..  That's in progress still as I type this.

Ask yourself... when was the last county central committee meeting you attended?  Are you a PC?  

Again, we had a year to do it.  A lot of people in the movement were self-styled national campaign experts, but wouldn't knock on their next door neighbor's door.  Those who focused locally and got the grassroots work done had the best results by far in terms of penetrating the party and creating wins where they were needed in the central committees, caucuses and conventions.

Best Regards,

Jeff Greenspan
(formerly) SW US Regional Campaign Coordinator, currently in Reno preparing to kick *** at the Washoe county convention tomorrow where we will get at least double the proportion of state delegates than we received votes in in the caucus and the establishment is worried (because they are under orders from the RNC to not let one RP national delegate through to the natl convention!)

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Jonathan,
> 
> 1) Thank you very much.
> 
> 2) The quality and honesty of your answers are the most refreshing I have read or heard from HQ.  While I am somewhat kidding by writing this, it would have done wonders for morale if you had left the campaign after NH and come to the forums to share some insight.
> 
> 3) Are you planning to get involved with other campaigns, now or in the future?
> 
> 4) What did the grassroots do well (besides fund raising)
> ...


Sure, let me try my best on these.  I'd love to get involved in other campaigns in the future, but it will really have to be a candidate that I believe is genuine.  I think I mentioned in one of those press conferences that in this election, the Ron Paul campaign is the only campaign for me.  We'll just have to see what happens in the future.

As I just said in another post, I'm currently trying to get a market-based non-profit of my own off the ground (unrelated to politics).  It's geared towards trying to help students who need financial aid from college get what they need.  I actually think a lot of people in these forums would find it quite interesting.  That said, it's in the very early stages.

As far as what the grassroots did well and could have done better...  Well, it's hard for me to be really specific, having been removed from the grassroots for quite some time.  On the fundraising side, the internet organization that was done was extremely awesome, and of course, I see the way that Justine and Kent decentralized our social networking apparatus as having made all that possible.  We had no idea how any of it would turn out, but man did you all make the most of it.

The general problem that I've had with many grassroots supporters is an attitudinal one.  Sometimes, I think these forums have served as a sounding board for every one person's little gripes, and that resulted in pulling others into the negativity camp, rather than taking constructive action.  It's sort of like group polarization theory in psychology, where groups discussing things often get pulled to the extremes and reach conclusions drastically different than what any individual might have decided otherwise. Reminds me of 12 Angry Men.... 40,000 Angry Forums Posters 

I think things like sign waves were largely a waste of time.  I'd be curious to know how many people spent their time going to Republican party meetings and working to get out the vote on election day.  Not to be too critical, but I do think it's unfortunate that we have 250,000+ donors, but only 20,000 precinct leaders.  And how many precinct leaders actually did canvassing?

But on the positive side, the grassroots also did something way more important that no one else talks about.. they gave Ron Paul brand recognition.  People saw signs (though one critique I have heard is that they couldn't associate a face or even the word "president" when they saw "Ron Paul Revolution" signs), and they also saw Ron all over the internet.  To people who cared, the grassroots provided lots of information online.

And let's not forget the turnout by supporters to straw polls, which got us a good amount of press... and text messaging polls... sure, these things aren't hugely important, but it was important in that it gave people a talking point about Ron Paul.

I think what needs to come next is learning what works and what doesn't work, and then going out and organizing to accomplish our mutual goals.  It'll be a strong test of everyone involved in the revolution whether we can create the organization that we need.

----------


## BUSHLIED

> If I could be so bold as to add to John's response.
> 
> Politics is war by other means.  If you bring the numbers and the brute force, the media will notice.  I.e. by canvassing and becoming PCs, by getting elected to county central committees, by taking over the conventions, it doesn't matter if you're the media darling - you win.
> 
> We had a year to do it.  Some caught on and gave 110%.  Some more.  We are still doing incredible things across the west in terms of penetrating and getting elected to state delegate positions and county central committees..  That's in progress still as I type this.
> 
> Ask yourself... when was the last county central committee meeting you attended?  Are you a PC?  
> 
> Again, we had a year to do it.  A lot of people in the movement were self-styled national campaign experts, but wouldn't knock on their next door neighbor's door.  Those who focused locally and got the grassroots work done had the best results by far in terms of penetrating the party and creating wins where they were needed in the central committees, caucuses and conventions.
> ...


Jeff, 

Is the Anti-Paul bias that flagrant?  What is like out west in terms of the RNC politics?  What is your guess on the amount of delegates Paul will seat?  

Thanks.

----------


## steph3n

> Well, I'm not 100% sure if it's going to work yet, but I'm working on creating a market-based charity dedicated to education.  If anyone has any interest in finding out more, just let me know.  I could use some web development help, as well as someone with experience in non-profit law...


Hrm this is one of my long term desires as well, I am on the web services side of the market but my goals are really to help reform education to learning again, teaching to learn not teaching a book or teaching a test.

----------


## Shink

> Right now, Ron Paul will be remembered as an armchair revolutionary who happened to start a movement but then didn't know what to do with it.


I think, among all the false stuff that occasionally has floated around on RPF, this is the falsest.  Perhaps you aren't aware that "armchair" connotes 'do nothing,' 'useless,' 'false.'  Ron embodies the opposite of all those things.  It's easy to be frustrated, but it's even easier to be dead wrong while you're frustrated.

*To Johnathan:  I absolutely thank you for standing at Ron Paul's, and thus mine and this nation's, side and fighting for this most important cause.  

1.  From what I can tell, you were screaming inside the whole time for the attack dog version of Ron to come out, huh?

2.  What exactly can or should be done about the well-known media bias?  Should there be some real coordination to attempt to come up with a TV network with a focus on fair news coverage/liberty-related themes, etc?  

3.  Just now I listened to Ron Paul on Alex Jones.  (side issue:  how many of the official campaign staff actually hold venom towards AJ and people like me and Ron Paul who oppose the New World Order openly?)  Ahem.... Ron was asked if he would be setting up an organization after the campaign.  Ron said yes but didn't go into detail.  The question:  *COULD YOU GO INTO DETAIL?*  lol

----------


## greenspj

> Something to think about for our the next run with the next liberty candidate.  We need to win an early state to be considered legit by the MSM.  Even at the expense of national fund raising, a congressional seat, etc...


Guys, there is no "we".  There is only "I".  

Did I canvass using best practices over a statistically significant sample size?
Did I train others how to do it in their precincts.
Did I recruit enough people to vote at the polls or support me at the caucus in my precinct?
Did I become a PC?
Did I get elected to the county central committe?
Did I recruit enough other like minded PCs?
Did I recruit enough other people to support me for my run at the county central committee and whom I could support in a run?
Did I go to my county central committee meetings?

If a bunch of "I"s don't do the above, it doesn't matter what "we" think with regards to the next liberty candidate.  And the list above needs to start *now* (and I mean right now)  for 2012.

Best Regards,

Jeff Greenspan

----------


## Sandra

It's wonderful that you are here answering questions. Sometimes this forum can get a bit hairy.

----------


## JS4Pat

> he's already answered this, what works on youtube doesn't work on tv, time is pricey.


There is still no excuse for those HORRIBLE ads that ran in New Hampshire. I knew we had SERIOUS problems at HQs when those were rolled out. Honestly I was thinking sabatoge.

----------


## NEPA_Revolution

I have a question. I live in NE Pennsylvania, when will Ron be here. I have never seen him in person and would really love an oppertunity to do so.

----------


## kevman657

Jonathan, 

First off, thank you for your service to the Ron Paul campaign and thank you for taking time out to answer our questions. I'm amazed at how sincere and honest your answers have been on this thread, you are doing a good thing by calming some uneasy supporters. With that being said, I have two questions regarding the campaign:

1. You mentioned earlier we should have had more precinct leaders, since we had so many donors. I feel, more money from the donors should have been spent to promote the precinct leader program. Maybe if y'all had brought the program in when we were holding massive fundraisers and were all hyped up, we would have been more willing to go. But we felt since the graph said "x amount needed to win", if we raised that money the campaign would use it to rise in the polls. All of the sudden, after a lot of disappointing losses, the greatest key to winning is by becoming a precinct leader. So finally, my question is, why didn't the campaign introduce the precinct leadership program earlier? If it was released earlier, why didn't the campaign do more to promote it?

2. Why didn't the campaign use more of it's funding towards educating the supporters about becoming a delegate? Every time I asked a question on the process of my state, someone on the forums would give me a link to pages and pages of various election rules. They kept telling us how easy it was, yet they couldn't give an easy way to find out. Besides, the only info I got about it was from the forums...not from the official campaign.


Again, thank you for taking your own time out to do this and for your help with the campaign.

----------


## devil21

Thanks for taking the time to interact with us Jonathan!

My question:  Did (does) the campaign think there was any funny business in any states with voting results (like NH)?  In other words, was there any evidence to suggest vote fraud anywhere?  Ive seen a lot of people suggest (esp. people that were there) that NH was stolen to kill any momentum before it got started.  Paul should have come in higher based on ground support, etc.  Thoughts?

----------


## yongrel

> There is still no excuse for those HORRIBLE ads that ran in New Hampshire. I knew we had SERIOUS problems at HQs when those were rolled out. Honestly I was thinking sabatoge.


Jonathan has already patiently answered the question of sabotage. The answer, as I recall, was "no, there was none."

----------


## OptionsTrader

> Man, I wanted to see that Ron so many times, too!  I think that one of the things that Ron has trouble with is that he doesn't want to pander at all.  While that makes him so appealing to me personally, it also leads him not to tailor his message to his audience, which in my opinion is very different than pandering.  I see that as rule number 1 of giving a speech or writing a paper.
> 
> But Dr. Paul doesn't see things that way.  He believes issues like monetary policy and flawed Iraq policy are so critical that everyone needs to hear about them, regardless of whether he's speaking to a group of students, South Carolina veterans, or Silicon Valley software entrepreneurs.  While that's admirable, I've got to say, it just doesn't win elections.


It's not too late.  He has 235 more days to relentlessly attack the other 3 frauds.  A family in a country floating on oil is going to have their home destroyed next year if he doesn't go on the attack.  It is not too late to get fired up Dr. Paul.

I love him either way and deeply respect him.  But man, I wish he would do a Ronald Reagan "I PAID FOR THIS MICROPHONE" moment and enter the attack phase.

*CAN NO ONE CONVINCE HIM THAT GOING ON THE ATTACK IS NECESSARY?*

----------


## greenspj

> Jeff, 
> 
> Is the Anti-Paul bias that flagrant?  What is like out west in terms of the RNC politics?  What is your guess on the amount of delegates Paul will seat?  
> 
> Thanks.



To repeat, the RNC is instructing state parties to not let one single RP national delegate through to the convention.

And to repeat, politics is war by other means (refer back to my previous post.)

Jeff

----------


## Banana

> To repeat, the RNC is instructing state parties to not let one single RP national delegate through to the convention.


That's a big assertion... and would be illegal AFAICT...

Can you back it up?

----------


## greenspj

> ... and Hi Jeff, welcome to the forum.


Thank you.  I did participate here a little in the past, but it was when the trolls and moles were ruling the board.  I was called everything incl. a mossad agent and some other unsavoury things.

It was quite unpleasant.  In some cases grassroots ire might have been merited vis-a-vis field staff.  In other cases it was not.

What the moles did was leverage the legitimate ire over to where it was not merited thereby sidetracking the campaign in localities where the campaign was extremely effective.  I can tell you at some points I had to spend 20%-30% of my time cleaning up after moles wreaked all kinds of havoc with the grassroots volunteers.

Which, of course, was the objective of the moles - to sidetrack effective campaigning and get them to spend cycles on inane things rather than the business of winning.

To me that was the most disappointing and hardest part of my job, because we built something really good out here in the SW US.

That being said, of those grassroots volunteers who never lost focus on grassroots work, I would call them heros.  I've never met people so dedicated and hardworking - it brings tears to one's eye.

----------


## xerigen

Jonathan,

What did you think of independent fundraising projects such as the blimp, letter writing projects, third party radio/tv commercials?  Did you like them or would you have preferred that the money was all centralized to the official campaign?

----------


## yongrel

> Jonathan,
> 
> What did you think of independent fundraising projects such as the blimp, letter writing projects, third party radio/tv commercials?  Did you like them or would you have preferred that the money was all centralized to the official campaign?


million dollar question

----------


## tpreitzel

> I think what needs to come next is learning what works and what doesn't work, and then going out and organizing to accomplish our mutual goals.  It'll be a strong test of everyone involved in the revolution whether we can create the organization that we need.


As a former member of Ron's staff, your battle-tested stature should help us to establish the necessary infrastructure for the fight ahead.

----------


## brooklyn

jonathan,

Our local RC in Nevada said at the county convention that they would love to have RP speak at our state convention and would invite RP.
How do we make sure that happens? What avenues do we take to make sure RP "Gets ' the invite and who do we contact to see if he will come?

----------


## torchbearer

> As a former member of Ron's staff, your battle-tested stature should help us to establish the necessary infrastructure for the fight ahead.


Our soldiers are ready and willing, Sir!

----------


## Matthew P.

> Yes, Dr. Paul could have made his message more understandable to the dunces in the media.  Not sure that would have made CNN more amenable to the message though.
> 
> Well, it is all water under the bridge now.
> 
> What are the chances of Dr. Paul at least speaking at the GOP convention?


I'm not sure how much you could have "dumbed things down" for the media.  I mean how much more blunt can you get than "the dollar is crashing and we can't afford to print any more money or borrow from China."?  Or how about "the Constitution demands a limited government that is controlled by the people, not the other way around." ?  I mean it just doesn't get any simpler.  To simplify those, and other statements made by Ron Paul would have been to dilute his point or change it altogether!!

You're right though - water under the bridge.  

I hope to see Ron Paul at the Convention but I wonder - even if he did show up, would they let him speak?  From the little experience I have in all of this I think he would find a more thoughtful audience at the convention than he would America at large.  When we participated at our local precinct, senate district and the upcoming congressional and state caucuses we have found that those in attendance are willing to listen to argumentation.

However - if you don't argue for something that should be argued for, nobody cares and a resolution or bill can be passed that is unconstitutional.  The problem is that people aren't willing to think or do work.  If you or I do it for them and can present it to them in a clear, perspicuous manner then they are willing to consider - how sad!

----------


## Matthew P.

> Jonathan,
> 
> What did you think of independent fundraising projects such as the blimp, letter writing projects, third party radio/tv commercials?  Did you like them or would you have preferred that the money was all centralized to the official campaign?


I, too, am eagerly awaiting the response to this one.  Though some of those efforts had obvious success, some seemed incredibly opulent (i.e. the blimp) and the funds, quite possibly could have been used in a more efficient manner.  I wonder what HQ thought of that one.

----------


## Banana

Was hesistant to ask this here, but didn't want to make another thread, and maybe John knows more.. 

Why didn't Ron Paul take Political Courage Test?




> Representative Ronald Ernest 'Ron' Paul repeatedly refused to provide any responses to citizens on the issues through the 2008 Political Courage Test when asked to do so by national leaders of the political parties, prominent members of the media, Project Vote Smart President Richard Kimball, and Project Vote Smart staff.


Link

Note: None of other major presidential candidates did the same, but it made me wonder why.

----------


## Matthew P.

> Thank you for answering the questions. I have to respect that.
> 
> This is gut wrenching and heart breaking. I saw in in early July when you guys had more money than McCain that you could do well.  So did the media. That is how I found out that Ron Paul was doing well. They reported the story. 
> 
> I volunteered in the HQ in early August and saw the tremendous grassroots taking place.  I could tell right then and there that this was a campaign with momentum. I judged the level of activity to be record breaking. Having been on many campaigns I had never seen a grassroots like this. Most campaigns spend their time and money begging people to help their campaign. Ron Paul's campaign was the opposite. People were begging to help him. I have never seen anything like it. Yet the campaign ignored and squandered this opportunity in the most horrible way.
> 
> I was expecting a great campaign outcome based on money and volunteer enthusiasm, yet I saw the problems of understaffing in the campaign in all areas and tried to do things about it. Yet most of the time the senior staff was on the road with Ron Paul instead of managing the HQ. I commented and lamented to various people about what was going on. I wrote a paper detailing the problems and some senior staff read it but probably reacted way too late months later if at all. 
> 
> Having the national press team in place by November is great, but the campaign is practically over at that point if you are really trying to win. 
> ...


Very insightful - thank you.

I now wonder if the media blackout on Ron Paul was 2 sided.  

1 - because of lack of serious organization and seizing opportunities from grassroots and, 

2 - because the media hates him and is afraid of him (and is paid off at top echelons by people from places like the Fed Reserve - verifiable by the way, not conspiratory).  

Anything is news if you repeat it often enough.  Our MSM has a definite agenda with the "news" they broadcast.  It is meant to help craft our thinking, subtly, towards our government and world events.  Don't kid yourself, thinking that there is no slant - there's always a slant.

----------


## brandon

Jonathon, thanks for doing this. Here is my question.

What was the deal with Don Luskin? Why did he join the campaign as an economic advisor and then leave to join the McCain campaign a week later? Furthermore, why did the campaign decide to hire two economic advisors so late in game?

----------


## furnitureguy

Jonathon,

Is there a chance of a brokered convention?

Has RP given up?

Paul
Clearwater

----------


## daviddee

...

----------


## pepperpete1

I know that for any of us to write-in Ron Paul for our vote, he would have to file a declaration of intent. Has he done that for each state that allows write-ins. And I just saw on the SOS for MO....If a candidate runs in a primary election and loses, can the person run in the general election for the same office?

No.  If a candidate files for nomination to an office and is not nominated at a primary election, that candidate cannot file a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate for the same office at the general election. (Section 115.453(4) RSMo)

Now I have to wonder how many other states besides the six listed on the forum have these convoluted rules, where they do not just ban write-ins all together, just if you filed for nomination for the office. Geez.

Do you know if the campaign has a list of those states where it is possible to write-in Ron Paul? And will he have filed the declaration of intent?

I cannot bring myself to vote for anyone but RP. I voted for him last election and he wasn't even running, let alone file a dec. of intent.

----------


## Soccrmastr

Posting in an epic thread.

----------


## kirkblitz

as epic as lord of the rings!

----------


## CurtisLow

my eyes hurt.......

----------


## phoenixrising

why did 10 pages disappear from this thread? I was reading page 14...got locked u & now it only goes to 5???

----------


## constituent

> Hrm this is one of my long term desires as well, I am on the web services side of the market but my goals are really to help reform education to learning again, teaching to learn not teaching a book or teaching a test.


have you read gargantua and pantagruel?

jonathan,

what type of non-profit work are you thinking?


glad to (sorta) meet you, welcome to the forum!

----------


## New York For Paul

> Thanks for these comments.  I'll respond to them, but I would like to sort out some things that are assertions from things that are facts.
> 
> First, you say that "the campaign ignored and squandered this opportunity in the most horrible way."  Well, we did best as we knew how, and perhaps that wasn't good enough, or perhaps there are many reasons why the campaign did not result in Ron Paul being our next president.  A lot of factors influence elections, and the mere existence of grassroots support does not mean that a win should have been a lock, if not for official staff.  Grassroots support is only valuable if people are doing the right things.  And the blame for that not always being the case, in my opinion, lies both with HQ and with individual supporters.  On the one hand, we did not communicate as specifically as we could have and as frequently as we could have.  But to be honest, a lot of people were more content to do signwaves than canvass their own districts.  And I should know, because I was one of those signwavers before joining the campaign.  So, there's plenty of blame to go around, and I don't think it's fair to heap it all on one group of people.
> 
> As far as your understaffing point... I pretty much completely agree with you there.  We were very understaffed for much of the campaign.  Not that I'm asking for sympathy, but you should know that most people in our office were there until past midnight on most nights.  There was a stretch when my personal hours ran in the 10am - 2am range.  And I was hardly the exception in that regard.  So we all put in the hours to make up for that understaffing.
> 
> But, also keep in mind, again, that resources are no infinite.  If we spent more on staff, someone somewhere else would be upset that they weren't seeing TV ads in their state.  There are tradeoffs that needed to be made, and while I'm sure there are many that could have been made better, it's not fair for anyone to complain because we didn't have unlimited resources.
> 
> You say "Having the national press team in place by November is great, but the campaign is practically over at that point if you are really trying to win."  I pretty much agree with this, too.  It's hard getting everything done that needs to be done, and this was probably the biggest mistake made on the campaign.  Jesse Benton was and is very able and talented at what he does, but he couldn't do it alone.
> ...


I am glad you trying to put this in honest perspective.  Thanks for working hard into the late night. 

Good campaign management is all about tradeoffs.


If one compares this to the Dean campaign in 2004, Ron Paul was usually behind every step of the way in terms of campaign development. 

Meaning that Dean was getting lots of press and momentum by early spring, was doing very well by summer time, Dean was moving into first place by fall and was running a very large operation by late fall going into the primaries. Ron Paul by contrast had a very slow start but picked up by the fall.

*One expert could have changed everything if the expert had control of the campaign checkbook.* An expert would have hired more people in the press area to get even better press leading to more contributions. An expert would have bolstered the fundraising department because you can't do it all yourself. An expert would have hired people to coordinate the grassroots better and purchased a larger headquarters in New Hampshire and computerized the telephone lists.

An expert would know not to try and run a national campaign right away squandering the money on states that don't have primaries for months after New Hampshire. An expert would have concentrated fire Power on Iowa and New Hampshire because if you do well in those states, your fundraising and momentum go through the roof. 


Back in 1996 Phil Gramm tried to run a national campaign and failed. Pat Buchanan concentrated on early states and won New Hampshire and almost won Iowa.

IN 2008 McCain was running a national campaign, then his fundraising dried up in late spring and he laid off over fifty staffers and expensive consultants. Ron Paul had more money in the bank than John McCain. Of course that caught the attention of the media. They were great stories.

But McCain, who had no choice concentrated on the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire and put everything he had into them. He came out with the momentum. Good campaign management does matter.


During the Iowa straw poll I was defending what the campaign was doing to various other political consultants and congressmen and many disagreed with the way the campaign was being run. They did not feel the campaign was aggressive enough when they needed to be. The campaign was trying to spin away low poll numbers and poor caucus showings and poor straw poll results.

Ron Paul needed to vault ahead somewhere in a major straw poll or caucus or primary to get more attention from the electorate.

----------


## takadi

This has probably been asked several times before but...

What exactly was done with ALL that money?

Along with that, alot of grassroots supporters are supremely pissed off by the way they were treated by the official campaign and some staff members.


Also, were you guys even PLANNING on even winning this thing?

----------


## Bergie Bergeron

Do you know who wrote the racist newsletters?

----------


## RollOn2day

Thanks for coming on the forum and talking with us Jonathan. As you can see...we deeply appreciate it.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Hello Jonathan,
> 
> Thanks for your time to shed light on these subjects. It has taken awhile to read this entire thread to make sure I wouldn't be asking questions that were already asked.
> 
> It is easy to look back and see what we would do differently and point fingers, but myself and many others are looking to see where we go from here.  Here are a couple questions and comments that I may be asking on the behalf of many.
> 
> *Knowing what we know now, what would it take to win in 2012? What could we do differently that would enable us to succeed where we previously failed?*
> You mention not having enough money EARLY in the campaign. It is hard to raise that kind of money quickly but what could we do with proper planning?Would $100 million in funds prior to Iowa and New Hampshire help? We can raise the money, but we need goals to shoot for and a plan of how to attain those goals.  I don't think people should underestimate what Ron's supporters would do if he would just ask them.Professional advertising agencies etc?*Ron Paul talks about the "next phase" of the Revolution but is he planning to lead it?*
> Is the next phase going through his LPAC?When are they going to update the site and really turn it into a serious tool for change? If this was the next phase, as he suggests, then why isn't he prepared?Would the same people be running the LPAC as those who ran the National Campaign?*There are many liberty candidates running for Congress yet Ron Paul has only endorsed a couple. How do we know who to support?*
> ...


OK, time to chug through some of your questions and comments, and so I'll start with this beast from TruthAtLast.

1.  As far as what we can do in 2012.. I've addresed this a bit already, and so has my former colleague, Jeff Greenspan, but thing #1 in my mind is getting involved in Republican politics, and working to build up the base of support for our ideas.  The money will come in 2012 if that base is significantly built up and well-organized.

2.  The next fan of the campaign:  I'm not really sure of the degree to which Ron will lead it... of course he will be involved, but I can't really speak for him in terms of the role that he will want to play.  I personally hope that it does not go through LPAC.  My feelings are such that LPAC is a thing of the past, and we need something new to demonstrate the strength of this movement.  I would like to see something centered in the DC area that is dedicated to "fighting the beast"  But I don't really get much of a say in that decision 

I don't know that I would say that Ron is not prepared... I think that really it's just not an easy decision as to what next step makes the most sense.  It's worth taking a bit of time and being reasoned about it, but like you, I hope that we will get a decision in this regard soon.  I don't know who will run it, although like I said in an earlier post, my bias is that I hope many of the people from the "official" campaign are involved in it.  I want something that will kick the butt of the Washington establishment, and I think being in this area is a prerequisite for that.

3.  Which "liberty" candidates to support.  Well, let's be honest... do I need to tell you which candidates to support?  How did you find out about Ron Paul?  Who told you to support him?  I'd recommend doing research and deciding for yourself, because no two candidates are going to be exactly alike.  Who you support and vote for is all up to you.  That said, I hope (and believe) that resources will become available in the relatively near future to aid all of us in making that decision.  Having information in one place, and having an organization assessing candidates according to objective criteria obviously would be very advantageous.  But until then, as good libertarians, we're on our own.

As far as what Ron is planning right now, I really don't know.  I know that he's been good friends with Dr. Sabrin for a long time, and so it's not surprising that he's given his support to Murray.  My advice to "Ron Paul loyalists" is to spend some time explaining your beliefs and why you believe them.  I think that people are smart enough to make these decisions, as long as they have some knowledge with which to make those decisions.  But loyalists also need to be creative and aggressive.  Ron Paul and his campaign staffers didn't have all the answers when the campaign started, and the same is likely true for people running for Congress.  To candidates, I'd recommend making connections in their local Republican parties, and courting the support of fellow revolutionaries in our movement.  Then just take things from there.

4.  I have no idea who the 2012 candidate would/could/should be.  I'd be surprised if Ron ran again, but Murray and Rand both have little experience in public office.  I think the answer to this question will reveal itself over time.  All I can say is, I'm glad the 2012 nominee is unlikely to be John McCain!

5.  To be honest, no, I don't think Ron Paul really understand the degree to which he's "let the genie out of the bottle."  But in his defense, I don't think anyone does -- I certainly am trying to make sense of all of it myself.  I'm confident that Ron is going to provide the leadership that we all need, but remember... as much power as he may have, nothing happens without a large group of grassroots supporters organizing on the ground.  Those grassroots supporters need to keep an open mind and take advice as its given, but beyond that, it's up to them to do the leg work.

6.  I don't know why you perceive a lack of information regarding the delegate process from the campaign.  I know that we've been stressing that for a long period of time, and if there are questions, state/regional coordinators, as well as HQ staff certainly were willing and interested in answering any questions that people may have.  As far as "how many real delegates Ron has" and questions of this nature... those are questions that we were trying to determine in the office as well.  Part of the reason we couldn't answer questions about this is because there's really no way to know before county and state conventions in caucus states take place.  So any info we'd have given in this regard would just have been conjecture as well, just like the same stuff that the media has spewed out in this regard.

Sure, the delegates process is important in any election, though we still should remember that a brokered convention is always a "longshot" possibility.  I don't know the degree to which there was a "master plan," but yes, all of the organization that the campaign was doing in many states was geared towards trying to earn as many delegates as possible.

As far as whether we can take over the convention... as I said in a previous response... this question is unimportant.  Let's organize and get as many delegates as we can, and THEN go to the convention and see what we can get with them.  None of us -- people in HQ or grassroots supporters -- have any idea what's going to happen at the convention.  So why keep speculating about this?  Sure, taking over the convention is relatively unlikely in this regard, but whether it's platform changes, rules changes, or whatever, we all know that the larger our numbers, the more influence we can wield.  And remember, even if we don't win this year, convincing other party people of the superiority of our ideas will go a long way towards building our movement, continuing the revolution, and bettering our chances 4, 8, or more years from now.

7.  I really know nothing about how Ron Paul feels about any of these other organizations, and I don't really know anything about them myself.  Perhaps they're good organizations, but I really have no idea.

8.  I don't know what you mean by "real campaign strategy."  Obviously, we need to help re-educate people (or educate them for the first time), but that process is huge, and certainly not one that can be controlled by any centralized campaign apparatus.  Yes, in my opinion, whatever organization comes out of the campaign should have this as one of its goals working on educating people.  But I do not believe that "the marketplace" needs to wait to start doing that. 

I must say as a final comment to you, TruthatLast, that I found a lot of your comments kind of funny.  I think many of them were applying the same concept that you hold to a lot of different situations.  And ironically, that concept is that you need centralized control, either in an individual or an organization, to keep this movement alive, kicking, and moving forward.  While I certainly agree that centralized organization helps, I for one do not believe we should be dependent on it.  We need to press forward -- with an open mind -- by determining what's effective, and then doing that grunt work.  When these organizations or endorsements or leaders spring up, it's important to consider and usually take heed their advice.  But I don't think we should confuse that with it being a necessity.  I know that it seems annoying to hear this so much (at least that's how I sometimes feel), but there really is no substitute for getting out there and changing our county one precinct -- indeed, one person -- at a time.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Jonathan, thanks for answering so many questions in this thread.
> 
> I know that most of your answers are written with retrospective 20/20 vision, and a lot of it doesn't matter a whole lot now, except what can be learned for future campaigns in continuing the Revolution, but I still have some questions anyway.
> 
> Why oh why didn't the campaign ever make a DVD?  Why why why? WHY?
> 
> (why?)  I just don't see any downside to making a DVD.  With a simple email like, "We need $300,000 to produce the DVD everybody has been waiting for.  Please donate now." the campaign likely would have gotten the money to produce it in a couple days.  Sell it from the online store, and now you're making money on it.  Give reproduction rights, and supporters can make copies themselves and pass out as needed.  Put it on Google Video and now anybody can see it online for free.  An official DVD always seemed to be a no-brainer to me.
> 
> I don't mean to downplay the campaign's successes.  I actually remain quite optimistic about the campaign.  I think the campaign has been pretty miraculous so far, and I feel there are still some miracles to come.  However, there are some failures that need to be pointed out and examined so the same mistakes aren't made in the future.
> ...


I don't really know how to answer this question other than to say that we just couldn't do everything.  Yes, obviously making a DVD made a lot of sense, though I'll admit that I didn't think about it much personally.  It does seem like a no-brainer, and my memory may serve me wrong, but I thought that it was considered at some time.  But I'd also like to point out that "the marketplace" went out and created good DVDs when we couldn't.  And to be honest, they probably did a better job than we could have, because of copyright issues with debate footage and other legal issues of that nature.  So even though one may not have come from the official campaign, I don't think a huge amount was lost in this regard.

As far as your points on McCain and Huckabee's free media, I totally agree with you.  They got a ton of earned media that Ron Paul did not.  As I alluded to in an earlier post, it's an interesting brainstorming exercise to think about why that was the case and whether there are things we could have done to rectify that.  Your ideas on running the campaign like a network marketing business are really interesting.  I had never really thought about it like that.  Though I will say that I think in a lot of respects, we were doing some of the things you're talking about.  We created the precinct leader program.  We had multiple grassroots training videos on our website.  We created YouTube videos of campaign events that could be spread online.

The shortcoming of this approach, in my opinion, is that running a campaign this way still leaves out a very significant demographic -- seniors.  If you look at the polling breakdowns, Ron's support declined substantially as a function of voters' age.  How would you have proposed targeting that age group more effectively?  That's a question that I've wrestled with personally for months, and so far, all I've come up with is a need to better get attention on network nightly news.

As far as a message campaign vs. an all-out presidential campaign... I agree with your assessment, but I can tell you that in so much as that's the case, I don't believe it had a whole lot to do with the staff.  I think most of us were very deeply committed to winning this race -- as Don said in his earlier post -- but this was something that Ron was (and still is) wrestling with.  I don't know if there's much we could have done in that regard, though I certainly can understand any doubts that Ron might have had.  I agree with your last paragraph's assessment entirely.

I hope this responds to all of your points.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> If I could be so bold as to add to John's response.
> 
> Politics is war by other means.  If you bring the numbers and the brute force, the media will notice.  I.e. by canvassing and becoming PCs, by getting elected to county central committees, by taking over the conventions, it doesn't matter if you're the media darling - you win.
> 
> We had a year to do it.  Some caught on and gave 110%.  Some more.  We are still doing incredible things across the west in terms of penetrating and getting elected to state delegate positions and county central committees..  That's in progress still as I type this.
> 
> Ask yourself... when was the last county central committee meeting you attended?  Are you a PC?  
> 
> Again, we had a year to do it.  A lot of people in the movement were self-styled national campaign experts, but wouldn't knock on their next door neighbor's door.  Those who focused locally and got the grassroots work done had the best results by far in terms of penetrating the party and creating wins where they were needed in the central committees, caucuses and conventions.
> ...


I'd just like to add to Jeff's post, and say that even if we don't win this year, we have four years to prepare to the next election, whoever that candidate ends up being.  Let's each individually, and yet together, lay the foundation for 2012 as much as we can.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Hrm this is one of my long term desires as well, I am on the web services side of the market but my goals are really to help reform education to learning again, teaching to learn not teaching a book or teaching a test.


Yeah, I personally have a big interest in the field of education.  I have a lot of thoughts on this, but that's probably for another place

----------


## TruthAtLast

thank you for your time and thoughtful response.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> I think, among all the false stuff that occasionally has floated around on RPF, this is the falsest.  Perhaps you aren't aware that "armchair" connotes 'do nothing,' 'useless,' 'false.'  Ron embodies the opposite of all those things.  It's easy to be frustrated, but it's even easier to be dead wrong while you're frustrated.
> 
> *To Johnathan:  I absolutely thank you for standing at Ron Paul's, and thus mine and this nation's, side and fighting for this most important cause.  
> 
> 1.  From what I can tell, you were screaming inside the whole time for the attack dog version of Ron to come out, huh?
> 
> 2.  What exactly can or should be done about the well-known media bias?  Should there be some real coordination to attempt to come up with a TV network with a focus on fair news coverage/liberty-related themes, etc?  
> 
> 3.  Just now I listened to Ron Paul on Alex Jones.  (side issue:  how many of the official campaign staff actually hold venom towards AJ and people like me and Ron Paul who oppose the New World Order openly?)  Ahem.... Ron was asked if he would be setting up an organization after the campaign.  Ron said yes but didn't go into detail.  The question:  *COULD YOU GO INTO DETAIL?*  lol


1.  Well, I definitely am a bit more aggresive in this regard than Ron is.  It's so admirable that Ron stays so calm despite all of the epithets and falsehoods that are thrown his way.  But my personal feeling is that he needed to respond to those better and not let them go unanswered.  Doing so would have had a mulitpier effect by also generating more mainstream news.

2.  I've talked about media bias in some earlier posts, and as I said there, I don't really have all the answers.  I will say that I'm not personally convinced by things like coming up with TV networks or proving content or whatnot.  I think it really comes down to educating as many people as we can, and utilzing all alternative means of getting the world out as we can.

3.  I don't hold any venom for Alex Jones, and I can't think of anyone I know on the official campaign staff who does.  I personally don't agree with many of Alex's views, but I respect them, and I think everyone else does, too.  Alex was always gracious to Ron and our campaign, and I know everyone was grateful for that.

I've touched on the organization in a few other posts, and the short answer is that I really don't know what is going to be formed.  I mentioned some of my personal preferences, but I have no idea what will come, or when it will come.  That said, I'm confident that whatever does is going to be a very useful resource that will add a lot to the vitality and longevity of our movement.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> It's wonderful that you are here answering questions. Sometimes this forum can get a bit hairy.


And believe me, if there's one person it's gotten hairy towards in the past, it's probably me! hahaha...

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> There is still no excuse for those HORRIBLE ads that ran in New Hampshire. I knew we had SERIOUS problems at HQs when those were rolled out. Honestly I was thinking sabatoge.


I did address this earlier, and I understand the frustrations that you and others had at the time (and still have).  I personally don't think they were as bad as you think, but I don't think anyone would claim that every decision along the way that was made was the right one.

As I said earlier, though, I do think any problems with the ads are less of a problem than they are made out to be.  Does anyone honestly think that Mike Huckabee won Iowa because he had Chuck Norris in his ads?  Did John McCain take New Hampshire because voters there like listening to white haired men with speech impediments?

And did Rudy Giuliani win.. oh wait, wait... he didn't win anywhere.  There goes that example

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> I have a question. I live in NE Pennsylvania, when will Ron be here. I have never seen him in person and would really love an oppertunity to do so.


I don't have an answer to this question.  Your best bet is to call the campaign and ask what his schedule will be in the coming weeks... 703-248-9115.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Jonathan, 
> 
> First off, thank you for your service to the Ron Paul campaign and thank you for taking time out to answer our questions. I'm amazed at how sincere and honest your answers have been on this thread, you are doing a good thing by calming some uneasy supporters. With that being said, I have two questions regarding the campaign:
> 
> 1. You mentioned earlier we should have had more precinct leaders, since we had so many donors. I feel, more money from the donors should have been spent to promote the precinct leader program. Maybe if y'all had brought the program in when we were holding massive fundraisers and were all hyped up, we would have been more willing to go. But we felt since the graph said "x amount needed to win", if we raised that money the campaign would use it to rise in the polls. All of the sudden, after a lot of disappointing losses, the greatest key to winning is by becoming a precinct leader. So finally, my question is, why didn't the campaign introduce the precinct leadership program earlier? If it was released earlier, why didn't the campaign do more to promote it?
> 
> 2. Why didn't the campaign use more of it's funding towards educating the supporters about becoming a delegate? Every time I asked a question on the process of my state, someone on the forums would give me a link to pages and pages of various election rules. They kept telling us how easy it was, yet they couldn't give an easy way to find out. Besides, the only info I got about it was from the forums...not from the official campaign.
> 
> 
> Again, thank you for taking your own time out to do this and for your help with the campaign.


1.  You're dead on with respect to this point.  The honest answer is that we really didn't think of the idea or devise it until too late.  I consider that a huge failing of myself for not thinking of / realizing such a program's importance earlier in the game.  And I think it's one of HQ's biggest mistakes -- though I think it's interesting that I don't think I've ever heard much on the forums about that being a mistake.  That said, I'll also say that the campaign has those tools now, and regardless of whether your state's primary, caucus, or convention has passed, it's worth your while to use them.

2.  I addressed this in a previous post, but I think we did a lot to educate on the delegate process in various states.  Did you ever see the state pages on our website?  And I assure you, you could always call our office or ask your state/regional coordinator for an answer.  Part of the reason I'm sure you got complex answers is because in many states, the process is very complex.  Becoming a delegate may be easy, but I don't think anyone knows every state's individual rules by heart.  But there definitely were resources for figuring that out.

Do you have a more specific question in this regard?  I'd be happy to try to answer it myself or at least put you in touch with someone who can.

Hope that answers what you were looking for!

----------


## kevman657

> 1.  You're dead on with respect to this point.  The honest answer is that we really didn't think of the idea or devise it until too late.  I consider that a huge failing of myself for not thinking of / realizing such a program's importance earlier in the game.  And I think it's one of HQ's biggest mistakes -- though I think it's interesting that I don't think I've ever heard much on the forums about that being a mistake.  That said, I'll also say that the campaign has those tools now, and regardless of whether your state's primary, caucus, or convention has passed, it's worth your while to use them.
> 
> 2.  I addressed this in a previous post, but I think we did a lot to educate on the delegate process in various states.  Did you ever see the state pages on our website?  And I assure you, you could always call our office or ask your state/regional coordinator for an answer.  Part of the reason I'm sure you got complex answers is because in many states, the process is very complex.  Becoming a delegate may be easy, but I don't think anyone knows every state's individual rules by heart.  But there definitely were resources for figuring that out.
> 
> Do you have a more specific question in this regard?  I'd be happy to try to answer it myself or at least put you in touch with someone who can.
> 
> *Hope that answers what you were looking for!*


Yes, right on. I can't blame someone for not thinking of a great idea at a certain point in time, lol, at least they came up with the idea at all...




Thanks for your time.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Thanks for taking the time to interact with us Jonathan!
> 
> My question:  Did (does) the campaign think there was any funny business in any states with voting results (like NH)?  In other words, was there any evidence to suggest vote fraud anywhere?  Ive seen a lot of people suggest (esp. people that were there) that NH was stolen to kill any momentum before it got started.  Paul should have come in higher based on ground support, etc.  Thoughts?


I don't believe there was any vote fraud in either Iowa or New Hampshire.  I know that Ron and others looked into such allegations in New Hampshire, and concluded that nothing "funny" went on there.  And I believe that the recounts that were financed confirmed that there were no significant vote discrepancies.

So while I do think interesting things happened in Louisiana, I think the real reason we didn't do well in New Hampshire is much simpler -- we just didn't have the level of support that we needed to win.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> It's not too late.  He has 235 more days to relentlessly attack the other 3 frauds.  A family in a country floating on oil is going to have their home destroyed next year if he doesn't go on the attack.  It is not too late to get fired up Dr. Paul.
> 
> I love him either way and deeply respect him.  But man, I wish he would do a Ronald Reagan "I PAID FOR THIS MICROPHONE" moment and enter the attack phase.
> 
> *CAN NO ONE CONVINCE HIM THAT GOING ON THE ATTACK IS NECESSARY?*


funny you should mention that example... you have no idea how many times I said that same thing myself around the office 

Of course, I wasn't born yet then... but still, all the same, right?

----------


## Cowlesy

*http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...08#post1351908*

*Thread above is a must-read for any of you still involved in the Ron Paul Grassroots movement.

I know, a Moderator thread-jacking is blasphemy.......but it is a must-read.

Thanks.*

----------


## j650

Why didn't the campaign distance itself from known kooks like Alex Jones and Don Black?

Why wasn't more money put into better quality advertisements?  The first tv ad put out was terrible.

Was the goal ever to win or was it just to spread an ideal?

Why did you try and stop the money bombs from ever happening?

----------


## Fields

Jonathan, thanks for shedding some light on these issues that have been bothering us for a while.

Mods, maybe we can get a disclaimer on the title of the thread that people should read through it before posting. A lot of the same questions keep coming up and I bet it's getting annoying for Jonathan to keep answering them over and over.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Jonathan,
> 
> What did you think of independent fundraising projects such as the blimp, letter writing projects, third party radio/tv commercials?  Did you like them or would you have preferred that the money was all centralized to the official campaign?


Well, as yongrel said in the next post, this is the million dollar question!  I'm surprised it took so long to get to it...

To give my honest opinion, no, I do not think the blimp was worth it or really all that successful.  That's not to say anything about the people behind it or the organization, because all seemed very hard-working and dedicated to the movement.

But from an business perspective, I did not, and still don't, see it as a smart use of resources.  To me, it was one of those ideas that sounded great in theory, and the _idea_ of which got Ron Paul some press, but in the end was more hassle than it was worth.  I say this based on a couple of things:

First, while the media covered the blimp in the beginning, it quickly lost its novelty value and the coverage -- as best as I could see -- declined.  I also think that the image that the blimp provided was not all positive.  People in power and in the press perceived the Ron Paul campaign as a sort of novelty campaign, and I think that the blimp played into that image.  That may not be the case, it's jusy my opinion.

I also think about the other ways that the money (and time could have been spent).  As someone commented earlier, we should have promoted the precinct leader program.  I think using that money, whether it was in the hands of the official campaign or not, to promote things like that would have been more valuable.  And the time that was spent organizing everything associated with the blimp probably would have been better spent canvassing or organizing grassroots supporters.  Again, that's just my opinion... I think there were other things out there that more directly would have worked to get Ron Paul elected president.

On a more technical side, I also think that the fact that it didn't mention that Ron was running for president was a problem (though I know there were legal issues to doing so).  As I mentioned in an earlier post, I also think that was an issue with the whole "Ron Paul Revolution" phraseology.

But all that said, the blimp was pretty cool!  And it was interesting following it in HQ.  But I don't think that it reached as many people or did as much to get Ron elected as other things would have.

I think that letter-writing campaigns were probably a pretty good use of grassroots time, because they reached likely voters, while also personalizing Ron Paul.  These letter-writing campaigns were also a good way for supporters who were shy to get involved and spread Ron's message to voters.  I'm not sure how many people were actually reached by these efforts, though, and again... you've got to ask whether they were more effective than, say, canvassing one's own district.  Remember, all politics is local, and if we had 180,000 precinct leaders across the country, actively canvassing in their own backyards, we'd have won this election easily.  To plug the book I references earlier, you might want to check out Hunter S. Thompson's On the Campaign Trail '72.

As far as third-party radio and TV ads... I don't think there's anything wrong with them _per se_, but I do think that they probably were pretty ineffective.  That's because even if you produce the greatest ad ever, you still need to air them to a ton of people.  And its those broacasting costs that make up the bulk of the costs.  So unless these third party organizations were able to raise a ton of money, I doubt that the ads they aired were really effective.

And as to whether I'd have rathered the money be in HQ or in other organizations... well, obviously from a personal standpoint, I personally would have rathered that they were in HQ's hands, mainly because I believe we were spending that money reasonably efficiently.  But honestly, the money should go whereever it was going to be spent most efficiently.  So if the grassroots were going to spend the money better HQ, then that's where it should be.  And the market of our donors were the ones who needed to determine that.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> jonathan,
> 
> Our local RC in Nevada said at the county convention that they would love to have RP speak at our state convention and would invite RP.
> How do we make sure that happens? What avenues do we take to make sure RP "Gets ' the invite and who do we contact to see if he will come?


Hi brooklyn,

Your best bet is to contact the campaign, and make sure that the invitation gets passed on to events coordinator Amanda Lee.

Good luck!

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> I'm not sure how much you could have "dumbed things down" for the media.  I mean how much more blunt can you get than "the dollar is crashing and we can't afford to print any more money or borrow from China."?  Or how about "the Constitution demands a limited government that is controlled by the people, not the other way around." ?  I mean it just doesn't get any simpler.  To simplify those, and other statements made by Ron Paul would have been to dilute his point or change it altogether!!
> 
> You're right though - water under the bridge.  
> 
> I hope to see Ron Paul at the Convention but I wonder - even if he did show up, would they let him speak?  From the little experience I have in all of this I think he would find a more thoughtful audience at the convention than he would America at large.  When we participated at our local precinct, senate district and the upcoming congressional and state caucuses we have found that those in attendance are willing to listen to argumentation.
> 
> However - if you don't argue for something that should be argued for, nobody cares and a resolution or bill can be passed that is unconstitutional.  The problem is that people aren't willing to think or do work.  If you or I do it for them and can present it to them in a clear, perspicuous manner then they are willing to consider - how sad!


I think you're right that you can't dumb the message down much more, but what you can do is change the way you present it, and tailor your message better to the audience that you are speaking to.

You've hit on why it's important for Ron Paul delegates to go to the convention... to discuss our ideas with the people who control the party infrastructure.  I agree with you that I have a hard time assuming that Ron will be able to speak without endorsing John McCain, but that doesn't mean that delegates can't have a huge amount of influence.  In my opinion, if there are enough there, it's possible to have more influence than even Ron would be able to have.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> I, too, am eagerly awaiting the response to this one.  Though some of those efforts had obvious success, some seemed incredibly opulent (i.e. the blimp) and the funds, quite possibly could have been used in a more efficient manner.  I wonder what HQ thought of that one.


Well, I answered it just a bit ago, and your comments very succinctly summarize my personal views.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Was hesistant to ask this here, but didn't want to make another thread, and maybe John knows more.. 
> 
> Why didn't Ron Paul take Political Courage Test?
> 
> Link
> 
> Note: None of other major presidential candidates did the same, but it made me wonder why.


I don't really know for sure, but I think there were a few reasons (some good, and some bad, in my opinion).

For one, they had answers from Ron in 1996, and as you know, Ron's views haven't changed a whole lot since then.

More important though is that the questions were very leading, and it was believed that any answers that we could have given would not have portrayed Ron's views very fairly.  I may be wrong, but I think there also was some fear that this fact could have adversely affected the congressional campaign.

That's all what I remember (or think I remember at this point), so I wouldn't take that all that as sure facts... I was a little less involved on policy issues.

----------


## Cowlesy

> Well, as yongrel said in the next post, this is the million dollar question!  I'm surprised it took so long to get to it...
> 
> To give my honest opinion, no, I do not think the blimp was worth it or really all that successful.  That's not to say anything about the people behind it or the organization, because all seemed very hard-working and dedicated to the movement.
> 
> But from an business perspective, I did not, and still don't, see it as a smart use of resources.  To me, it was one of those ideas that sounded great in theory, and the _idea_ of which got Ron Paul some press, but in the end was more hassle than it was worth.  I say this based on a couple of things:
> 
> First, while the media covered the blimp in the beginning, it quickly lost its novelty value and the coverage -- as best as I could see -- declined.  I also think that the image that the blimp provided was not all positive.  People in power and in the press perceived the Ron Paul campaign as a sort of novelty campaign, and I think that the blimp played into that image.  That may not be the case, it's jusy my opinion.
> 
> I also think about the other ways that the money (and time could have been spent).  As someone commented earlier, we should have promoted the precinct leader program.  I think using that money, whether it was in the hands of the official campaign or not, to promote things like that would have been more valuable.  And the time that was spent organizing everything associated with the blimp probably would have been better spent canvassing or organizing grassroots supporters.  Again, that's just my opinion... I think there were other things out there that more directly would have worked to get Ron Paul elected president.
> ...


I think the blimp was a waste of resources, but at the same time, I don't think those resources would have ever been diverted to the PCC in the first place.  The $300-$400k spent on the blimp I am sure Ron still has in the bank in funds not-spent, so I don't think saying it would have been diverted to the Precinct program makes much sense. I am not saying blimp resources came from $2300 people, but my hunch is a decent chunk did.

Who knows if PCC had enough money to really do anything effectively.  I don't blame JB or any of the staff.  Who is to say if we had veteran campaign-experienced professionals from Campaign Manager to Fundraising Director to IT-guy those millions would have made a difference.  My honest opinion is "who knows".  We tried.

But the thing is, we hear tons and tons of people say "well the campaign's over, go home and suck your thumb".  But just tonight, we are seeing convention victories all over the place and have been doing so for the past month I'd posit.

So we may not get the trophy, but look how many people have been brought into the political process, and due to their emotional connection to Ron Paul and the Founders' principles, they're highly unlikely to stop fighting.  We are placing people in serious state conventions and in party positions of influence.  This campaign is far from over.

No matter what any of you think of Ron's staff, my heart tells me they are true believers and did all they could do to promote his campaign.  Look...were they amateurs in this game? Yeah, they were.  But so are we. But are we making progress now at getting people into the party where they will have a chance to make a difference?  Heck yes we are, and we should ask the RP Staff to join us with open arms. They are believers, and I hope they'll be part of the movement here.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Jonathon, thanks for doing this. Here is my question.
> 
> What was the deal with Don Luskin? Why did he join the campaign as an economic advisor and then leave to join the McCain campaign a week later? Furthermore, why did the campaign decide to hire two economic advisors so late in game?


Haha... if I told you what I really thought about that situation, I'd probably be banned from the forums for using foul language.

I courted and worked closely with many of the Ron Paul advisors and surrogates (Don, Peter Schiff, Glen Jacobs, Donna D'Errico, etc.), and honestly, all of them-- Don included -- were wonderful representatives of the campaign.

However, while Peter Schiff is more strongly in Dr. Paul's economic camp as an Austrian, Don Luskin was not.  I think Don Luskin began to preceive that John McCain had a better chance of winning the nomination, and even though he personally told me that he would be voting for Ron come November, whether he's on the ballot or not, he felt that personally and professionally he needed to accept the offer from the McCain camp to be an economic advisor.

Obviously this was pretty irritating, especially because he had represented the campaign well, but I have no choice but to grudgingly accept and respect that decision.  I wish it had worked out differently, because Don is actually a great guy and someone who I believe fits better in our camp.  Then again, God knows John McCain needs the economic advice!

An aside on this point... I know it had been rumored that Don was responsible for the spending of campaign money, television ads, and other things of the like... these rumors were catagorically false.  Mr Luskin worked in an unpaid advisory and surrogate role, and had no such power whatsoever.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Jonathon,
> 
> Is there a chance of a brokered convention?
> 
> Has RP given up?
> 
> Paul
> Clearwater


Haha... I've addressed these about 80 times already, and being that this is your first post, does this mean I get to have the pleasure of being the first person to call you a troll?

I'm fitting in so well here! 

Just kidding... but I have answered these already... in short... of course Ron has not given up, or else he would not stilll be in the race.  The chance of a brokered convention is small, but regardless, there is still a big impact that delegates can have.

Let me know if you want me to elaborate further... my typing fingers are getting tired at this point

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Jonathan -  Thank you for coming onto the forum.   
> 
> I have more of a comment than a question.
> 
> Looking back over this whole experience...  I think most of us were amazed to find a presidential candidate that matched our beliefs.   When I heard Ron speak for the first time  I dropped what I was holding and ran to the TV.   Then when I went to a fundraiser in Orlando and met Dr Paul and all of the other people it was a revelation that there are more people that truly understand what freedom is.
> 
> Words can not express my appreciation to you, the campaign, and Dr Paul.
> 
> Few things in this world bring me tears....  hearing Dr Paul is one of them...  It is not necessarily Dr Paul...  It is hearing the truth and knowing what the original intent of our founding documents was/is.
> ...


Thank you for that, David.  I feel pretty much the same way.  If you have any interest in reading a bit more about my experience, I wrote an article about it for my college paper:  http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/02/07/19983/

----------


## OptionsTrader

Ditto what Cowlsey said.

The great thing about our fervent minority is that WE WILL NEVER GO TO SLEEP AGAIN.

We will all be involved in the process now and fight for and run as Ron Paul-like candidates that believe in the power of freedom, prosperity, and peace.

Obama-maniacs are not voting for PRINCIPLE, they are voting for a man for a man (history tell us that is DANGEROUS).  There is no telling what kind of candidate they will support in their future.  But we know what kinds of candidate we will support, and that is the growing power of this movement.  As G. Edward Griffin puts it, this movement is holographic in structure with every person containing the sufficient knowledge of the principles such that even if our numbers dwindle due to oppression and the plate is shattered, light can be shown through the small piece of holographic plate and the original image will be 100% intact.  Or like in genetics, every cell of this freedom organism has all of the DNA necessary to provide a blueprint to create an entire new population with the same principles.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> I know that for any of us to write-in Ron Paul for our vote, he would have to file a declaration of intent. Has he done that for each state that allows write-ins. And I just saw on the SOS for MO....If a candidate runs in a primary election and loses, can the person run in the general election for the same office?
> 
> No.  If a candidate files for nomination to an office and is not nominated at a primary election, that candidate cannot file a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate for the same office at the general election. (Section 115.453(4) RSMo)
> 
> Now I have to wonder how many other states besides the six listed on the forum have these convoluted rules, where they do not just ban write-ins all together, just if you filed for nomination for the office. Geez.
> 
> Do you know if the campaign has a list of those states where it is possible to write-in Ron Paul? And will he have filed the declaration of intent?
> 
> I cannot bring myself to vote for anyone but RP. I voted for him last election and he wasn't even running, let alone file a dec. of intent.


Yeah, I don't know anything about what may or may not have been done on a write-in campaign... While I think it's really admirable, and encourage people to do so, I don't think that it's really that feasible... it's obviously even more difficult to be elected as a write-in candidate than it is as an independent or third party candidate.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> have you read gargantua and pantagruel?
> 
> jonathan,
> 
> what type of non-profit work are you thinking?
> 
> 
> glad to (sorta) meet you, welcome to the forum!


Well, I'm interested in starting up a non-profit dealing with educational funding for students.  The organization will not have any political involvement, though.

I'm not quite ready to unveil much more about it, and this probably isn't the best forum for it, but because it is very much a free-market oriented solution to a problem that is traditionally dealt with by the government, perhaps if the moderators allow, I will post on the forums about it in the coming weeks.

I believe that it's something that a lot of people on here would take an interest in, and as a shameless plug, if you have any experience in either web design or non-profit law, I'd be very interested in speaking with you.  Just send me a private IM.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> I am glad you trying to put this in honest perspective.  Thanks for working hard into the late night. 
> 
> Good campaign management is all about tradeoffs.
> 
> 
> If one compares this to the Dean campaign in 2004, Ron Paul was usually behind every step of the way in terms of campaign development. 
> 
> Meaning that Dean was getting lots of press and momentum by early spring, was doing very well by summer time, Dean was moving into first place by fall and was running a very large operation by late fall going into the primaries. Ron Paul by contrast had a very slow start but picked up by the fall.
> 
> ...


Well, I think you're sort of right about the expert, but not really.  I mean, don't get me wrong, we WERE hiring -- and did hire -- some wonderful press people.  There were other issues in that regard, but it's not like people in the campaign needed some expert to say "you need to have a better press department."

And as far as concentrating on Iowa and NH... well, that already had been the strategy.  But with regards to fundraising, I disagree.  Yes, there are more people we could have hired, and there were certainly more things we could have done and I would have liked to have done, the real fundraising problem was that we didn't raise enough EARLY ON.  But that wasn't because we didn't have the right "expert".. it was simply because we didn't have enough people at that point who supported Ron Paul.  Fundraising, like anything else in a campaign, does not occue in a vacuum.

With respect to McCain.. keep in mind, he may have laid off staffers, but he also took out a huge loan (humorously enough -- and disgustingly IMO -- by using taxpayer matching funds as collateral, before then backing out).

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> This has probably been asked several times before but...
> 
> What exactly was done with ALL that money?
> 
> Along with that, alot of grassroots supporters are supremely pissed off by the way they were treated by the official campaign and some staff members.
> 
> 
> Also, were you guys even PLANNING on even winning this thing?


Regarding how the money was spent:  We dumped it in our press room, and swam around in it from time to time when we needed some exercise.

And no, I regret to say, we didn't plan on winning at all.  We really didn't care.  I know I didn't...
---
Come on!  I'm just kidding.  As I said earlier, I can't really answer how money was spent, and your best bet is to look in the FEC reports.  If you have more specific questions on that, I'd be more than willing to try to answer them, or put you in touch with someone who can.

With regards to grassroots supporters being treated poorly by staffers... I don't know what particularly happened, and while I'm no longer with the campaign, I think I still can speak on their behalf to say that we're sorry for anything like that which may have happened.  Do you have more details?  Again, we all -- both staffers and grassroots combined -- need to remember that we're on the same team.  Why fight with each other when we're up against so much more?

And as far as planning on winning this thing... of course we wanted to.  That shouldn't even be up for debate, and honestly, it amazes me that people think this way.  Though as I said earlier, it's true that I don't think everyone -- Ron included (or even in particular) -- thought our chances were great.  But that's very different from saying people didn't develop a plan on how to win, and did not want to see a victory more than anything else in the world.

If you have anything more specific that you'd like me to answer, don't hesitate to ask.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Do you know who wrote the racist newsletters?


No, I don't really know anything about the newsletters at all.  All I'm really familiar with is how the situation was discussed in the press, but I can't shed any light on who wrote them.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> thank you for your time and thoughtful response.


Thank you for your thoughtful questions

----------


## kevman657

> To give my honest opinion, no, I do not think the blimp was worth it or really all that successful.


And people were against me for not wanting to do this! I have said many many times (including recently in a thread where someone suggested we bring it back) that the Blimp was a huge waste. Instead of using the campaign's employees, we had to donate tons of money to pay off salaries of new employees, only to run a freakin Blimp! Oh how much money we could have used toward better events.


Oh well. I'm just really passionate about this issue, especially since some people still think we should bring it back.

----------


## qh4dotcom

Jonathan,

Will you continue to hang around these forums for a long time? We're pleased to have you around.

----------


## Zera

The blimp was a disaster.  The campaign was ridiculed for it by the MSM, because as Jonathan mentioned, it seemed like a novelty act.  So much better things could have been done with the money...

And also, what about a Ron Paul ad during the Super Bowl?  That was have been huge!

----------


## aknappjr

Thank you for all your work.  See you at the RNC convention.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Why didn't the campaign distance itself from known kooks like Alex Jones and Don Black?
> 
> Why wasn't more money put into better quality advertisements?  The first tv ad put out was terrible.
> 
> Was the goal ever to win or was it just to spread an ideal?
> 
> Why did you try and stop the money bombs from ever happening?


Well, I've addressed two of those topics already, so you might want to read some of the previous posts to ge more of a response.  But to summarize, a lot of money was put into ads, and the goal of staff certainly was to win.

I also talked about Alex Jones, but regarding Don Black... as Ron said at the time, and I believe I also said in one of those press conferences, it didn't make sense to return Don Black's donation.  No campaign has an obligation to look into every individual's background and determine if it's "OK" to accept their donations.  When someone donates to a campaign, it's because they are endorsing the political views of tha candidate -- not because Ron Paul was endorsing everything that Don Black believes.  Now, all of that being said, in hindsight, I admit that it probably would have been wiser from a political perspective just to refund the donation so that the press wouldn't bother talking about it.  But I stand by my belief that anyone who finds Mr. Black's beliefs unsavory -- myself included -- should rather have the money in the hands of Dr. Paul.

To address the money bombs point... You got me!  As fundraising director of the campaign, you can bet that I hated seeing over $6 million coming into the campaign on one day.  That's the last thing the campaign needed... more funding to pay for all of its many expenses.  hah!

Seriously though, as I said in an earlier post, the reason for the messaging that we sent out was a very practical one.  Knowing that Dr. Paul was not going to go into debt, we could not spend money that we did not have.  And that fact is, at the end of November, the money that was in the bank was all earmarked for specific purposes.  That meant that we could not continue to spend it on TV ads in Iowa, where were were seeing our poll numbers rally as a result.  There's really nothing you can say that would convince me that raising more money earlier is better than raising it all later on.  I tried hard to convey that in my message, and to be honest, while I could have done a better job, I also think that many people were so excited about the Tea Party, that they just didn't want to listen to what I was saying.  I wish I had done a better job, and maybe you're right that we would have raised more on Dec 16th without the email.  But while that might have gotten us more press if the amount raised had been bigger, I know *for a fact* that we paid a cost in Iowa by having to wait for funds.  And all that said, I don't really believe that the Tea Party was hurt, because I think that the message that was sent was received well by many donors who otherwise would not have donating on December 16th.  So in essence, I don't think email messages and grassroots-organized mass donation days were mutually exclusive; in the end, I think we brought in more money as a result.

That all may be incorrect, but that was, and at this point still continues to be, my rationale.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> I think the blimp was a waste of resources, but at the same time, I don't think those resources would have ever been diverted to the PCC in the first place.  The $300-$400k spent on the blimp I am sure Ron still has in the bank in funds not-spent, so I don't think saying it would have been diverted to the Precinct program makes much sense. I am not saying blimp resources came from $2300 people, but my hunch is a decent chunk did.
> 
> Who knows if PCC had enough money to really do anything effectively.  I don't blame JB or any of the staff.  Who is to say if we had veteran campaign-experienced professionals from Campaign Manager to Fundraising Director to IT-guy those millions would have made a difference.  My honest opinion is "who knows".  We tried.
> 
> But the thing is, we hear tons and tons of people say "well the campaign's over, go home and suck your thumb".  But just tonight, we are seeing convention victories all over the place and have been doing so for the past month I'd posit.
> 
> So we may not get the trophy, but look how many people have been brought into the political process, and due to their emotional connection to Ron Paul and the Founders' principles, they're highly unlikely to stop fighting.  We are placing people in serious state conventions and in party positions of influence.  This campaign is far from over.
> 
> No matter what any of you think of Ron's staff, my heart tells me they are true believers and did all they could do to promote his campaign.  Look...were they amateurs in this game? Yeah, they were.  But so are we. But are we making progress now at getting people into the party where they will have a chance to make a difference?  Heck yes we are, and we should ask the RP Staff to join us with open arms. They are believers, and I hope they'll be part of the movement here.


Thank you so much for that post.  That is one of the best written and most insightful commentaries about this campaign I've seen yet.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Ditto what Cowlsey said.
> 
> The great thing about our fervent minority is that WE WILL NEVER GO TO SLEEP AGAIN.
> 
> We will all be involved in the process now and fight for and run as Ron Paul-like candidates that believe in the power of freedom, prosperity, and peace.
> 
> Obama-maniacs are not voting for PRINCIPLE, they are voting for a man for a man (history tell us that is DANGEROUS).  There is no telling what kind of candidate they will support in their future.  But we know what kinds of candidate we will support, and that is the growing power of this movement.  As G. Edward Griffin puts it, this movement is holographic in structure with every person containing the sufficient knowledge of the principles such that even if our numbers dwindle due to oppression and the plate is shattered, light can be shown through the small piece of holographic plate and the original image will be 100% intact.  Or like in genetics, every cell of this freedom organism has all of the DNA necessary to provide a blueprint to create an entire new population with the same principles.


I think that's all right, but I would just add not to take our movement for granted.  I HOPE that people will continue to fight for these ideals.  But I think that many will drop off.  We need to do everything we can to prevent that.  We need to continue doing the work necessary to win the next battle that comes along...

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> And people were against me for not wanting to do this! I have said many many times (including recently in a thread where someone suggested we bring it back) that the Blimp was a huge waste. Instead of using the campaign's employees, we had to donate tons of money to pay off salaries of new employees, only to run a freakin Blimp! Oh how much money we could have used toward better events.
> 
> 
> Oh well. I'm just really passionate about this issue, especially since some people still think we should bring it back.


I can understand all that, but remember that we're in a learning position ourselves.  I don't think the blimp was a big deal either way.  We'll learn from what was effective about it, and then apply those lessons to the next blimp.

Like the Ron Paul [black] chopper.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Jonathan,
> 
> Will you continue to hang around these forums for a long time? We're pleased to have you around.


I'll certainly do my best!  I'm glad you've found what I've had to say helpful.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> The blimp was a disaster.  The campaign was ridiculed for it by the MSM, because as Jonathan mentioned, it seemed like a novelty act.  So much better things could have been done with the money...
> 
> And also, what about a Ron Paul ad during the Super Bowl?  That was have been huge!


Well, maybe, though I'm still not sold on that.  And FYI, Fox did not allow the seling of SB ads anyway, so it probably would have to have been done on an affiliate-by-affiliate basis.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Thank you for all your work.  See you at the RNC convention.


Thank you, too, Avery.  You've put in so much hard work, and it was good times hanging with you back in October in NYC.

Everyone in here should know that Avery was a great help to the campaign, and I applaud everything he did (not that I don't applaud everyone else, too... it's just that I've worked a bit with Avery first-hand).

And if any of you need a recommendation for a radiologist, this would be the guy to speak to

----------


## Zera

> Well, maybe, though I'm still not sold on that.  And FYI, Fox did not allow the seling of SB ads anyway, so it probably would have to have been done on an affiliate-by-affiliate basis.


What do you mean?  I recall an Obama ad.

----------


## Suzu

Hi Jonathan. Thanks so much for being here. I just have a few comments.

1.)  You mentioned the monies paid to staff over and above salaries due to expenses they paid, but in the detailed expenditures breakdowns there are separate entries for salaries and expense reimbursements, and the huge amounts are described as _salaries_. That's where those questions came from.

2. In defense of whoever wrote that direct mail was a waste of resources, I'd just like to add that I did not receive nor do I know of anyone who received ANY mail from ANY other campaign. 

3.)  The cheapest form of communication is email. I signed up for updates with most of the other campaigns on both sides of the ticket, and I can tell you that I got 10x more email from each of those campaigns than I ever got from RP's. Updates almost daily in some cases. Even Mike Gravel sent out more emails than RP did. I believe it was a major mistake not using email to keep in constant contact with supporters.

4.) I was one of a few early members of this forum who railed against discussing campaign strategies in a public forum, after being urged by some of those early supporters to set up a private (i.e. not readable by the public) grassroots forum where each and every member was informally "vetted" to prevent infiltration by moles, trolls and other riff-raff. I still think it's a very bad idea to openly discuss strategies in a public forum. What's your take on this?

5.)  One question: Do you know of anyone Dr. Paul might have been considering for a VP? This forum has been filled with endless speculation about a potential VP, and I think it would give a lot of us a great deal of satisfaction to know who, if anyone, might have been under consideration.

Thanks again!

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> What do you mean?  I recall an Obama ad.


I may be wrong, but I think Obama had to run them on each individual affiliate.

----------


## OptionsTrader

Jonathan,

How much money was raised in the PCC's fundraisers?  I've read a few times in this thread that the grassroots wasn't ponying up the cash fast enough to meet deadlines, so why didn't the PCC go out and raise large sums of money offline like other campaigns?  I'm a little annoyed by you casting blame on the grassroots money bombs not hitting their targets fast enough, but to be honest that was not your business, your business was to raise money in other ways.  How well did you perform that job?

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Hi Jonathan. Thanks so much for being here. I just have a few comments.
> 
> 1.)  You mentioned the monies paid to staff over and above salaries due to expenses they paid, but in the detailed expenditures breakdowns there are separate entries for salaries and expense reimbursements, and the huge amounts are described as _salaries_. That's where those questions came from.
> 
> 2. In defense of whoever wrote that direct mail was a waste of resources, I'd just like to add that I did not receive nor do I know of anyone who received ANY mail from ANY other campaign. 
> 
> 3.)  The cheapest form of communication is email. I signed up for updates with most of the other campaigns on both sides of the ticket, and I can tell you that I got 10x more email from each of those campaigns than I ever got from RP's. Updates almost daily in some cases. Even Mike Gravel sent out more emails than RP did. I believe it was a major mistake not using email to keep in constant contact with supporters.
> 
> 4.) I was one of a few early members of this forum who railed against discussing campaign strategies in a public forum, after being urged by some of those early supporters to set up a private (i.e. not readable by the public) grassroots forum where each and every member was informally "vetted" to prevent infiltration by moles, trolls and other riff-raff. I still think it's a very bad idea to openly discuss strategies in a public forum. What's your take on this?
> ...


1.) Really?  If that's the case, that's news to me.  That said, I'm pretty much 100% sure that some of the numbers being kicked around are inaccurate.

3.) I completely agree with you in this respect.  For what it's worth, I fought for that for pretty much the whole time I was on the campaign.  In my opinion, there was little reason not to send out more emails, so long as they were substantive and did not turn into spam.  While I don't think it's necessary to email as frequently as other campaigns (just because they do it doesn't mean it's right), I definitely fall on the side of emailing more rather than less.

4.) I don't know if I really have an opinion about this.  Sure, you don't want you campaign strategies totally out in the open, but then again, all it takes is one person to stop something from remaining a secret.

One point I would like to add... I think that often times many supporters felt that because they didn't know HQ's strategy, there necessarily was not one.  And while I certainly did not know many aspects of our strategy, I also think that the reason many aspects were not made public was because of exactly what you described.

5.) I really don't, unfortunately (trust me, we speculated, too!).  I'm sure there were some discussions of an informal nature behind the scenes, but I don't know if there were serious discussions of anyone in particular.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Jonathan,
> 
> How much money was raised in the PCC's fundraisers?  I've read a few times in this thread that the grassroots wasn't ponying up the cash fast enough to meet deadlines, so why didn't the PCC go out and raise large sums of money offline like other campaigns?  I'm a little annoyed by you casting blame on the grassroots money bombs not hitting their targets fast enough, but to be honest that was not your business, your business was to raise money in other ways.  How well did you perform that job?


This is an excellent question, OptionsTrader, and something I had pretty much totally forgotten myself.  Lemme tell you the story as best I remember it.

When I joined the campaign in August, organizing traditional fundraisers was just starting to become a significant part of our fundraising stratgy.  We had the very successful west coast trip towards the end of August (if my memory serves me correct), where Ron was in Pasadena, San Fran, Seattle, and Salt Lake City.  We also did significant funders in Florida, Philly, Michigan, Chicago, NYC among many other places.  I spent a good chunk of my time in the 3rd quarter helping to plan and organize these fundraisers.  I don't know how much in total was brought in by all of them, but my guess is that they'd represent about 1/5 of our 3rd quarter total.

We continued doing fundraisers in October as well, but we started running into an issue:  Ron's time.  As I mentioned earlier, because of congressional and other obligations, the amount of Ron's time that we had available was becoming more limited.  If Ron was running around to "places where the money was" like California, Florida, etc., how would he do the necessary campaigning in Iowa, New Hampshire, and the early primary states?  The problem is that the places where it was easier to raise funds were not necessarily the same as the places where Ron needed to spend his time campaigning and doing media events.

Plus, trips like that to California take a lot of energy.  Those trips are exhausting for anyone, let alone a 72-year old man, and spending all his time raising money at these events not only meant Ron had less time for media and campaigning, but also that it made it difficult to "be at the top of his game" for all these events.  So as Ron's time got limited, we realized we had to focus all of our efforts on raising money by other means.  And of course, let's not forget how time intensive the planning of these events was not just on me, but also on our field staff and MANY volunteers.  Not that anyone really minded, but it's not good when our field staff have to organize fundraisers, rather than organizing grassroots supporters to find new supporters and work towards getting out the vote on Election Day.

As we started seeing the success that we had raising money online using fundraisig widgets, emails, etc, Kent and I made the conscious decision to focus our efforts on utilizing our online base as much as possible, and we crafted our subsequent fundraising strategy around that.  As a result, we phased out most fundraisers by the end of November.  So it wasn't that we didn't have an interest in doing more fundraisers, it was just that the time wasn't there to do them.

Do you think that this was the right thing to do?  I believe pretty strongly that it was, and know that it was very necessary at the time.

One other comment... the fact is that "raising money on time" actually was my business... my main job was to raise as much funding for the campaign, as soon as possible -- not only to raise it by some means and not worry about others.  I think it would have been a mistake for me to just say "the grassroots have got this one; I shouldn't think/worry about it."  Obviously the help was huge, but a good part of my job still involved communicating with all of our supporters, trying to manage group psychology, and motivating them to donate as much as possible, and as soon as possible, to the campaign.

Whatdya think?

----------


## Knightskye

Was this your first time being involved in a political campaign?

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Was this your first time being involved in a political campaign?


Yes.  I had done a little volunteer work here and there when I was in high school and in college (even saw John McCain pocket a $20 bill from a guy standing in front of me at a fundraiser -- how's that for an interesting first real experience with politics?). -- To clarify that point, no, I am not a supporter of John McCain.  Back in 2000 I had a friend whose mom did some organizing in local Republican politics.  Just figured I'd clarify that before anyone thinks I'm a mole.  I'll leave that to Don Luskin 

I've always been very interested in politics (it's a running joke in my family, because I've had a picture of Ronald Reagan on my bedroom dresser given to me by my grandparents -- two lifelong Democrats -- since 1st grade), but prior to joining the campaign, I had worked for two years in finance.  Heh, and for what it's worth... my first ever book purchase was Reagan's collection of speeches, _Speaking My Mind_ back around when I was 7, too.

----------


## The Lantern

Jonathan.

Can you enlighten us on the internal debate over accepting matching funds.  I personally check the little box on my income tax return to fund this program.  I would have liked to have seen the campaign take the money.  As near as I can figure out from the widgets and the transparency of your fundraising Dr. Paul probably qualified for $14-$16 Million.  Is this figure accurate?

I can understand why Dr. Paul might not want to accept the money, but what I cannot understand is why did the campaign not hold a press conference?  It would seem to me that you could have announced a press conference several days in advance with the subject being Dr. Paul's matching $14 Million.  The press would have salivated for a few days about the prospect of the campaign having access to millions.  Then when the whole world was watching, Dr. Paul could explain why he was not going to accept stolen money from the treasury.  I think the impact of this would have been astronomical.  Especially before some of the early primaries.  

Anyway, thank you for the wonderful job you did for the movement.  I will be looking forward to reading about you in the future.

----------


## haigh

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for taking all the questions.
Jason Sorens, founder of the Free State Project did a very interesting analysis of the NH outcome. Would you comment, particularly on his comments about income, ignorance, and turnout ?

http://www.freestateproject.org/comm...primary_impact

NH was a huge disappointment and I suspect more discussion of this expectation failure would be constructive.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Jonathan.
> 
> Can you enlighten us on the internal debate over accepting matching funds.  I personally check the little box on my income tax return to fund this program.  I would have liked to have seen the campaign take the money.  As near as I can figure out from the widgets and the transparency of your fundraising Dr. Paul probably qualified for $14-$16 Million.  Is this figure accurate?
> 
> I can understand why Dr. Paul might not want to accept the money, but what I cannot understand is why did the campaign not hold a press conference?  It would seem to me that you could have announced a press conference several days in advance with the subject being Dr. Paul's matching $14 Million.  The press would have salivated for a few days about the prospect of the campaign having access to millions.  Then when the whole world was watching, Dr. Paul could explain why he was not going to accept stolen money from the treasury.  I think the impact of this would have been astronomical.  Especially before some of the early primaries.  
> 
> Anyway, thank you for the wonderful job you did for the movement.  I will be looking forward to reading about you in the future.


Well, I can't really tell you much on the "internal debate" because I was only tangentially involved in those discussions.  So really all I know is what Dr. Paul has said publicly, which is that he does not believe in taking the taxpayers' money.  Though I would imagine that another factor to consider is that while it would have increased the money that the campaign would have had in our coffers, it also would have placed severe restrictions on how much money we could have spent in the individual states.  Remember that if we were to buy TV ads on a Boston station that reaches into New Hampshire, part of that expense would count towards our New Hampshire spending as well as Massachusetts.  So it's not clear that it would have been politically advantageous, even though the expected total was around the range of your estimate.  It was my advice, because of that reasoning, not to accept the funding.

I do agree entirely with your press conference idea, and I know that myself and a couple of other people in the campaign suggested this idea.  But again, because I wasn't in those discussions, I can't tell you why a pres conference of that nature never occured.  But I certainly wish it had.

I noticed you didn't state _where_ you're looking forward to reading about me... did you mean the local police log?

----------


## The Lantern

> I noticed you didn't state _where_ you're looking forward to reading about me... did you mean the local police log?


I simply meant that I would be reading about you in the future.  You will probably be involved in other campaigns or maybe even running for Congress yourself.  After all, you are a graduate of the University of Ron Paul, Class of 2008.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Hi Jonathan,
> 
> Thanks for taking all the questions.
> Jason Sorens, founder of the Free State Project did a very interesting analysis of the NH outcome. Would you comment, particularly on his comments about income, ignorance, and turnout ?
> 
> http://www.freestateproject.org/comm...primary_impact
> 
> NH was a huge disappointment and I suspect more discussion of this expectation failure would be constructive.


Yeah, this is an interesting article, though I must admit that my background in statistics/economics makes me hesitant to apply statistical models in this case.  Not that the mathematical analysis itself is incorrect, but some of the conclusions are inaccurate.  As an example, it really is not fair to say "What that means that we *definitely* know that Free Staters influenced the election beyond their own votes."  We don't definitely know that, and in fact, the footnote says that statistical significant was lost when the pioneers variable was added in.  When Mr. Sorens gives the examples in Grafton and Richmond, I'd like to know whether there are counter-examples in other cities.  I find it hard to believe those conclusions really can be reached either.  Anyway, all that said, I'll reserve judgement on the statistical analysis because I haven't seen the underlying coefficients and data.

But to comment on some of the conclusions, it seems to make sense to me that Dr. Paul appealed more to individuals who were having economic difficulty for the reasons that Mr. Sorens gave.  Generally speaking, you'd expect people who are better off to be more hesitant to see fundamental changes to the system that they presumably see as having been fair to them personally.  I personally also feel as though Ron oftentimes didn't stress his support of free trade enough to appeal to Republicans.

My gut tells me that the biggest factors are those which Sorens offers no statistical analysis for:  tactical voting and voter turnout.  I think that one of the biggest issues that our campaign had to deal with was this perception of Ron's unelectability.  How many times did we hear the line "I like Ron Paul, but he can't win"?  I don't really know how you get around that problem, really other than having Ron make drastic changes in the way he presents ideas (which would not have been good in many other respects)... do you have any thoughts on this question?

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> I simply meant that I would be reading about you in the future.  You will probably be involved in other campaigns or maybe even running for Congress yourself.  After all, you are a graduate of the University of Ron Paul, Class of 2008.


Haha, thanks.  I was just kidding around...

----------


## nelsonwinters

Thanks for your candor in answering all the questions.  Just curious:

1. Any idea if Rand has any interest in entering politics?

2. What's your perspective on McCain's problems with the FEC?

----------


## Bro.Butch

I've read 110 of these posts and I'm tired of reading so if you've already answered my questions I apologize.

*1. Who was in charge of campaign strategy in 2007 and pre tsunami tues and now (all person's names please) ?*


You say work within a Party controlled by neo-cons who attempted to block Ron at every turn. A party which Ron barely received 5% of the vote in most states (and a large percentage of the 5% were Independents, Democrats, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, NOTA  and yes even anarchists ). A Party who tortures human beings, who is now planning to spread war anywhere and everywhere they so choose. A Party run by people who don't care about our liberty, our borders, or quite frankly any of us or our children or our grandchildren's future. 

*2. Roughly, how many years do you think it will take to change this Party you support ?  

3. Do you honestly think we have enough time to change this Party (with the possibility of the collapse of the EMPIRE or us dying of old age) ?


4. Why was campaign materials not sent out to states until about a week before election day not giving enough time to fully utilize them ?!? 


5. Did you ever feel the campaign was about three months behind ?  THX for your answers*

As good and honest a man as Dr. Paul is I think it is quite a sad state when in a year with so many possible dangers in front of us, economic and politicly, he  leaves us with the choice of McCain -vs-Clinton/Obama. In a year that BEGS for a credible fiscal conservative-sane foreign policy alternative campaign against these most unsatisfactory candidates, he declines to compete. 

Sadly Dr. Paul's campaign has sucked almost all the funds out of the Libertarian and Constitutional Parties base. Effectively he has destroyed any hope for any opposition to the socialists put forth by the corporant Party, other than himself and you say he won't continue to run as an alternative just two more months after the Republican convention (Sept.4-Nov.4) against them. 

In 1987 Ron was coming off the worse defeat in his political career, a forgetable humbling U.S. Senate race loss to Gramm. He was at a low point in his political life, yet he sought the Libertarian POTUS nomination. He was given the nomination by the Libertarians giving him a national platform in which to make his political comeback. He was able to make many new contacts and gained much future financial support nationally through that Presidential campaign. Support he relied on to help him make it back to the House in the 90s. Support which helped him to re-election bi-annually. With his annoucement of intentions in '07, the Libertarians again came forth with their wholehearted support, both financially and physically. Ron Paul is an over twenty year (lifetime) member of the Libertarian Party in good standing. In Decemder of '07 the Libertarian Executive Committee unamously passed an order requesting Dr. Paul to seek the Libertarian POTUS nomination (IF in Feb. he was rejected by the Republican voters). Well, friends he was REJECTED. The Libertarian Party is now at a low tide in their political life due to slow fundraising. Their campaign contributions in effect are already "ALL IN". All in behind Ron Paul and this campaign. 

The gentleman Ron Paul needs to accept that Libertarian nomination and ANY nomination from any pro-Constitution Party and continue this campaign until Nov. 4. He needs to return that favor that was extended to him over twenty years ago. He can remain in the Republican primary race, retain his house seat (he has no Dem opposition), and run as U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). All efforts to "change" the Republican Party can continue by you who choose to continue. However the rest of us would like to contest this election until Nov. 4 with Ron Paul on the ballot! 

He has stated McCain is opposed to what he has stood for for 30 years. He will not endorse him under any circumstances. Why not carry on until Nov. 4?  I submit to all of you Ron will attract more votes from Dem leaning people than he will from McCain leaning voters. Ron is ANTI-Empire ! Didn't the FOX news people tell all of you Ron was in the wrong Party's race ? If his effort will hurt the Dems WHY would any true Republican be against him harming the Democratic Party?
PEACE

----------


## libertarian4321

> .
> 
> [B][SIZE="4"]
> Sadly Dr. Paul's campaign has sucked almost all the funds out of the Libertarian and Constitutional Parties base. Effectively he has destroyed any hope for any opposition to the socialists put forth by the corporant Party, other than himself and you say he won't continue to run as an alternative just two more months after the Republican convention (Sept.4-Nov.4) against them. 
> 
> In 1987 Ron was coming off the worse defeat in his political career, a forgetable humbling U.S. Senate race loss to Gramm. He was at a low point in his political life, yet he sought the Libertarian POTUS nomination. He was given the nomination by the Libertarians giving him a national platform in which to make his political comeback. He was able to make many new contacts and gained much future financial support nationally through that Presidential campaign. Support he relied on to help him make it back to the House in the 90s.


I'm a Libertarian who came back to the GOP to help Dr. Paul, and I think you VASTLY overstate the importance of the Libertarian Party Presidential nomination.   I pay attention to politics, and frankly, I had NO IDEA Ron Paul was running for President in 1988 (nor, I suspect, did 99% of the populace).  Its not like he got any coverage of note.  

Lets face it, Ron got more coverage for the libertarian movement running in the Republican primary than all the Libertarians running for President, combined, have received in 36 years.  Hell, lets be honest, he got more coverage running the in the GOP primary than all the Libertarians, running for any office, combined, have received in 36 years.

So I'm not sure Ron owes the LP anything- he introduced more Americans to libertarian principles than all the Libertarian candidates who have ever run for any office have done.  While he may have drained money from the LP in the short run, in the long run his GOP campaign may prove a boon to the LP- some of these new libertarians will stay in the RP, but others will drift to the LP.

Frankly, if Ron ran as a Libertarian, he'd be utterly ignored (as all Libertarian candidates are).  What good would it be to run as a Libertarian for a couple of months, get ignored, then pull maybe 2% in the general election?  If he ran as a Libertarian, he'd accomplish nothing, and he'd destroy any chance he might have of influencing the RP.

----------


## Flirple

This thread is great.  Thanks again. Here's 2 more:
1) Was this immigration campaign mailer from HQ or is it a fake?: 

2) Can you give us a sense of what the interactions were like between you guys and the staffs of the other candidates behind the scenes at the debates? I'm thinking more here about rank and file staffers not so much the campaign managers or candidates themselves. I mean, was there open hostility? Were you guys sneered at when passing in the halls or rubbing elbows in the spin room? Or did you ever sense any envy from the staffs of other campaigns or that they maybe secretly respected Ron Paul and our movement? Did you ever get any sense that they had any clue whatsoever what we, you, and Ron are all about or more specifically that what Ron was saying on stage in the debates was true even if they (and their candidate) couldn't admit it? I guess I assume that all the rival campaign staffs sort of hate each other but I'm just curious if you guys were treated differently?

Thanks again for serving with the campaign as well as doing this thread.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> One other comment... the fact is that "raising money on time" actually was my business... my main job was to raise as much funding for the campaign, as soon as possible -- not only to raise it by some means and not worry about others.  I think it would have been a mistake for me to just say "the grassroots have got this one; I shouldn't think/worry about it."  Obviously the help was huge, but a good part of my job still involved communicating with all of our supporters, trying to manage group psychology, and motivating them to donate as much as possible, and as soon as possible, to the campaign. 
> 
> Whatdya think?


I don't think much of it, to tell you the truth.  It was great that you listened to the *numerous requests* to put a real time fundraising widget on the campaign web site.  That was very motivating, which was why it was requested for so long.  

But, to be honest with you Jonathan, the emails you sent out right before our planned money bombs, cost the campaign a lot of money.  Luckily, the one before the November 5th money bomb was largely ignored.  But, the one you sent out before the Tea Party, went a long way towards completely derailing that effort.  You were told that, but still persisted.  There is no telling how many millions of dollars that action by you, cost the campaign.   It was extremely disheartening and costly.

That is my comment.  These are my questions.

Why on earth did the campaign not:
1.  Hold a press conference (not an ignored press release) about Barry Goldwater, Jr.'s endorsement of Ron Paul?
2.  Why was there absolutely ZERO airing of a radio ad or a TV ad, in at least Arizona, of this endorsement?

Barry Goldwater's name is well known in Arizona and with traditional conservatives.  The fact that his son endorsed him, in my opinion, would have gone a long way towards making it clear that Dr. Paul was the true conservative in the race.  I know from personal experience that when I told people of this endorsement, it took the wind out of their propagandized sails.

3.  Why weren't ads run in New Hampshire establishing Ron as the candidate who would end the war and bring our troops home?
From what was reported, the anti-war voters voted for McCain, thinking HE was the anti-war candidate.

----------


## Bro.Butch

> I'm a Libertarian who came back to the GOP to help Dr. Paul, and I think you VASTLY overstate the importance of the Libertarian Party Presidential nomination.   I pay attention to politics, and frankly, I had NO IDEA Ron Paul was running for President in 1988 (nor, I suspect, did 99% of the populace).  Its not like he got any coverage of note.  
> 
> Lets face it, Ron got more coverage for the libertarian movement running in the Republican primary than all the Libertarians running for President, combined, have received in 36 years.  Hell, lets be honest, he got more coverage running the in the GOP primary than all the Libertarians, running for any office, combined, have received in 36 years.
> 
> So I'm not sure Ron owes the LP anything- he introduced more Americans to libertarian principles than all the Libertarian candidates who have ever run for any office have done.  While he may have drained money from the LP in the short run, in the long run his GOP campaign may prove a boon to the LP- some of these new libertarians will stay in the RP, but others will drift to the LP.
> 
> Frankly, if Ron ran as a Libertarian, he'd be utterly ignored (as all Libertarian candidates are).  What good would it be to run as a Libertarian for a couple of months, get ignored, then pull maybe 2% in the general election?  If he ran as a Libertarian, he'd accomplish nothing, and he'd destroy any chance he might have of influencing the RP.



Clark receiveed more votes in 1980 than Paul has received so far this year ! If the LP had nominated Russell Means in "87 Ron Paul would be a semi-retired OB-GYN keeping his pool clean in east Texas and NO one would be involved in this campaign or have heard of him. How do you think he started his pac and FREE, how does he campaign every two years for congress ? He receives money and help from Libertarian from all over the country IS HOW ! I agree he promoted the term libertarian, if he doesn't carry on to take advantage of the money already spent it will be a hugh waste. There may not be a LP to gain any advantage from this campaign without Ron as the nominee. Hawks are attempting to take over the LP and it could damage the Party beyond repair. 

As for media coverage, I wish ALL these people here that still don't get it,would PLEaSE explain to me why should news agencies that are owned by companies that also profits billions of dollar from military weapon sales, cover an anti-war candidate or anti-war political Party ?!? *You have to bypass the MSM and go to* *the voters with paid ads, positive local media and grassroots activism to defeat them*. If anyone is paying attention to this guys posts he is laying everything out to see why this campaign failed. The campaign doesn't "GET IT", they were NEVER going to have longterm coverage by the controlled msm. Why should they give free coverage to a candidate that would cut their profits (as part of the Miltary Industrial Complex) and eliminate their money supplier (Fed. Res.) ? He explains that they were polling 1% in Iowa but raised it to 5 - 7 % with TELEVISION ADS !!! But then they stop and spend upteen thousands on mailers. They sent me a mailer here in Alabama !!! WHY ?!!?!!? A waste of money. TV ads increase vote totals ! TV ads increase vote totals !TV ads increase vote totals ! Does anyone understand that ??? Door to Door canvassing also works! Mailers may or MAY NOT be read. Most people get ALL their info from TV!!! I could go on for two hours...How do you know Ron would poll 2% ? wITH SIX MORE MONTHS TO GET THE MESSAGE OUT BY DOOR TO DOOR CANVASSING it could make a difference ! John Anderson, a sitting Rep.Congessman recevied over 5.7 million votes against Carter, Reagan and Ed Clark. 2 % would break a 28 year old record in the LP if he did. If Ron ran LP a lot of these young people could make a major impact in the LP. As is they will be swallowed up or rejected by the Republicans and either conform or quit. Where exactly do you think Ron is going to influence the RP. You think McCain plans to consult Ron on anything ?
I hope you are young because you will be OLD (if you're lucky, but I doubt it) before you ever see the corporant Party changed. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw6zhIiGCvg
Ed Griffin @ Ron Paul Rally in Mountain View, CA

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

A previous poster mentioned the rudeness of HQ, I have personal experiance with that, but choose not to go into details in public; suffice it to say that KS completely lost my respect and I realized that the complaints I heard while pedeling had some validity. I was quite frankly shocked at the behavior I witnessed. Lame excuses attempting to shift blame and provide plausible deniability for friggin wimps in over their heads... 




> ... "I like Ron Paul, but he can't win"? I don't really know how you get around that problem, really other than having Ron make drastic changes in the way he presents ideas (which would not have been good in many other respects)... do you have any thoughts on this question?


The way I found to answer that was to look the person right in the eye and say, "Lemme ask you a question, how much do you trust the media?" They would usually answer with a laugh, "not at all". Then I would immediately ask, "Where are you getting this info that he can't win?" At that point a light would go on in their head and they became much more receptive to entertaining the idea of supporting RP.

Finally, a note to Bro.Butch, it is interactions with people like you, in this campaign, that has convinced me to consider others for my throwaway votes which had, previous to this campaign, always gone to the LP. IMHO, the LP needs a serious attitude adjustment... Blaming RP for failings in the LP is exactly the same kind of problem I allude to in my first paragragh about the rudeness of HQ...

----------


## schvenzlerman

> I don't have an answer to this question.  Your best bet is to call the campaign and ask what his schedule will be in the coming weeks... 703-248-9115.


Ron's PA organization asked him just recently to visit PA. They scheduled a series of speeches and dinners, some of them geared toward fundraising for purchase of sample ballots for the delegate and alternate delegate candidates. Lew Moore declined all but a nostalgia visit to Ron's uber-liberal alma mater, Gettysburg College, and possibly Penn State. These will be small affairs and they'll do nothing whatsoever to help elect delegates.

Lew gave up right after NH, didn't he?

Why did Lew and Kent not step down in Aug. or Sept. and replace themselves with more competent persons? They were way over their heads, having had no experience whatsoever running anything remotely this large.

----------


## SteveMartin

Jonathan,

Thanks for making yourself available to help all of us in the grassroots to understand better what was going on in Arlington, where our money went, etc.

I'd like to add a couple of questions:

1. You were quite emphatic in your belief that RP would not seek an independent run under any circumstance.  Do you have any inside knowledge in that regard, or were your assumptions all guided from RP's public statements on that matter.

2. Did you let anyone still with the paid staff know that you would be blogging with us?  If so, were you encouraged to do so, or was it all of your own volition?

3. Whatever happened with the whole endorsement thing with regard to the Minuteman Project?

Thanks, and good luck in your future endeavors.

----------


## Bro.Butch

RPHI
I just want him to carry on until the final vote Nov. 4. He can run for the Constitution Party if he refers, the LP just has better ballot access. I'm not a member. I just hate to see all this effort slip off into history, with a Democrat claiming a MANDATE to push through their socialist agenda. Dr. Paul would deny that mandate by holding them under 50 %.

If he agreed to the run some of that "early campaign majic" would rekindle. I'm too old to every see a Republican return to their traditional roots. McCain would continue the neo-con policies. Hope you are young enough to see it and it happens. 

I apologize if I offended anyone...

----------


## synapz

Two questions:

1. Who came up with the idea to give live donation feedback to donors?

2. Did the company in charge of Ron's webpage become strong Ron Paul supporters?

----------


## spacehabitats

Sorry I'm late to this thread and I haven't read all of your answers.

As an Iowan who has seen a number of presidential campaigns in our state I have a couple of observations. (***20/20 hindsight alert***)

1) The campaign underestimated the importance of the early primary states. (Yes, I know that Iowa got more than its "share" of money and personal appearances from Dr. Paul, but that is a fact of life in presidential politics.) Concentrating  his efforts on two relatively small states could have reaped huge PR benefits early on. In the Iowa caucuses Ron Paul came within *3%* of beating not only Guliani, but John McCain and Fred Thompson as well! Our supporters may have realized that as some type of moral victory, but it allowed the media to virtually ignore him going into New Hampshire.

2) The national media blackout (and, yes, there WAS one) meant that Ron Paul was going to need to punch through to the local media here in Iowa and New Hampshire and, whenever possible, actually meet the voters.
Again, those not familiar with Iowa caucus politics don't realize how spoiled Iowa voters are. They don't just read about candidates or see them on television; they expect to see and hear them in person and often get to shake their hands.
Fair? Of course not! But the fact is that our little town of 5,000 people had visits from Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Romney, McCain, and others. McCain walked in a Labor Day parade in a little town five miles from here. Fred Thonmpson got in a big bus that traveled the whole state visiting every little whistle stop. He would get out walk down the main street, make a little speech, and shake hands. Sure this approach is corny and old fashioned. But that is the way candidates get support in Iowa. 
In contrast, the closest Ron Paul came to us was fifty miles away during the ice storm of the century. 
If Iowa seemed to ignore Ron Paul the feeling was mutual.

3) The poor showings in Iowa and New Hampshire mortally wounded the campaign. The mainstream media was able to justify their snubbing of his candidacy and continued to ignore him up to and through Super Tuesday. 
End of story.

Actually, not all of this came as hindsight. I was watching this unfold with great misgivings and would have advised the campaign to change their strategy as soon as I realized how little time Ron Paul had spent in Iowa.

My question is this, does Ron Paul, or anyone in the national campaign recognize this as a strategic blunder? Even in retrospect?

I would really appreciate some feedback about this, especially since it seems that they continue to underestimate the importance of personal appearances to his campaign and, ultimately, this movement.

----------


## New York For Paul

I visited New Hampshire and thought not enough was being done there. I visited the  Obama office, Clinton office, Romney office and Edwards office in New Hampshire.

I compared their offices to the Ron Paul office in Concord New Hampshire. 

The other campaigns had much bigger organizations. Romney and Clinton had two large offices in Manchester. Romney had very sophisticated computerized phone lists and walk lists with lots of volunteers. 

While you can spend money on TV in Iowa or New Hampshire but the ground game is where it is at for the most part. You had better have your ground game in order and then worry about TV or debate performances etc. 

The Ron Paul HQ stopped calling voters a half hour before the polls closed. They had called "everyone" on their lists. 

Running TV ads in states where most voters don't go to the polls such as an Iowa caucus is a problem. 

The youth campaign was underfunded and not big enough. Considering youth was a strength, it was a resource that needed to be used more.

There are many ways to run a campaign. Having been inside the national HQ in Arlington from early august when they moved out of their one room HQ to being at the New Hampshire HQ, I could tell things were not going as well as they should.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> RPHI
> I just want him to carry on until the final vote Nov. 4. He can run for the Constitution Party if he refers, the LP just has better ballot access. I'm not a member. I just hate to see all this effort slip off into history, with a Democrat claiming a MANDATE to push through their socialist agenda. Dr. Paul would deny that mandate by holding them under 50 %.
> 
> If he agreed to the run some of that "early campaign majic" would rekindle. I'm too old to every see a Republican return to their traditional roots. McCain would continue the neo-con policies. Hope you are young enough to see it and it happens. 
> 
> I apologize if I offended anyone...


Fair enough, I, too, should apologize for allowing latent anger to color my previous post... Rest assured that I will continue to work hard, to bring the kind of change we are all looking for, as soon as possible. I hope you are still around to join in the celebration...

----------


## LEK

> Ron is too dignified to do that.


I can live with that...character and integrity still matter. That's what makes a good leader. Otherwise you get phoney fluff. If that's what sells, well, I guess I can see why Ron Paul wasn't "popular".

But, gosh, I don't remember Nixon being warm and fuzzy...

----------


## LEK

> 2.) I don't think that's an irregularity.  It's perfectly reasonable to think that people in Ron's district like him as their congressman but don't think he'd make a good president, or that they prefer someone else to be their president.  I don't personally see much irregularity there are all.


I have been mulling this over in my mind and I just don't (respectfully) agree only because of precedent. I have a hard time imagining people really using the kind of logic you imply. The mentality is more like a high school football game - let our team win!

Huckabbe won Arkansas
McCain won Arizona
Romney won Massahusetts and Michigan (because he was born there).

People are *still* voting for these people who have dropped out so we can't blame it on the "dropping out" message.

Ron Paul should have swept Texas and should take Pennsylvania. 

*That's* how people think - BUT - that's not how the powers-to be think. 

Ron Paul's results just doesn't follow precedent - it just doesn't add up.

Let me end with - Ron Paul is up against some sinsiter stuff - I admire him for standing up to the establishment - I pray he is kept safe.

----------


## takadi

I'm surprised nobody has asked more about "the newsletters" yet, since that was an unfortunate objection many of us had to deal with while spreading the word about Ron Paul. (Sometimes when people "googled Ron Paul" they found some pretty embarrassing stuff...!)

1. What impact, if any, do you think the newsletter story had on results in NH and beyond? Do you think we lost a significant number of supporters due to this issue, especially among youth voters?

2. Was the campaign prepared for this story to come out? Was a response ready or were you taken by surprise?

3. What would you have done differently -- pre-empt the story by coming clean about the issue before the TNR article hit? Provide more detailed information about who actually WAS responsible for the content and oversight of the newsletters in question?

Thanks

----------


## slamhead

> The mindset that people take when watching TV is very different than when they are actively searching for intellectual content online.  It's very difficult to make a good 30 second ad (not to mention a 1 minute ad, which often runs 3x as expensive as 30 second ads).  Keep that in mind when watcing videos like this.  How will your 65 year old father or grandfather react?  What about the 40 year old soccer mom?  And the 21 year old college student?  And how will all of these people react when they see the ad in the middle of their favorite talk show, sitcom, or the nightly news?


This is the exact mindset that doomed the ad campaigns. Trying to cater to all groups was engaging in collectivism. The ad campaigns should have been designed to educate a populace that is starving for the truth.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> he's already answered this, what works on youtube doesn't work on tv, time is pricey.


Sure.  Unfortunately, we never really found out what worked on TV, since the ads that ran didn't work.  This is/was a unique campaign, with a unique candidate, that had the ability to reach new voters, or those disaffected with politics in general.  Instead, the campaign seemed to target "likely primary voters" instead of emulating an extremely successful grassroots movement.  "Likely primary voters" follow big media, and the media had it in for Dr. Paul from the start.  I'm not sure how much more effective a different course would have been, but it's tough to argue something else would have been less successful.

Anyway...

Thanks for coming on and answering questions, Mr. Bydlak.  I wholeheartedly appreciate it.

----------


## Bro.Butch

> You still around, JB?


LOL- he skipped out on us didn't he ??? LOL

----------


## Flirple

> LOL- he skipped out on us didn't he ??? LOL


Maybe. But hey, it's hard work fielding questions from an entire message board. Give him time.

----------


## Bro.Butch

> Maybe. But hey, it's hard work fielding questions from an entire message board. Give him time.


Yeah, I understand friend, the bad thing is if he doesn't hurry back it'll take him 24 hours to catch up !!!

----------


## spacehabitats

> While you can spend money on TV in Iowa or New Hampshire but the ground game is where it is at for the most part. You had better have your ground game in order and then worry about TV or debate performances etc. 
> 
> .....
> Running TV ads in states where most voters don't go to the polls such as an Iowa caucus is a problem.


All good points. I have a theory that Dr. Paul saw this campaign as an educational project rather than a winnable election from the beginning. When the campaign picked up steam he wasn't prepared to grab the tiger by the tail.

If he had made more personal appearances in Iowa, his supporters could have followed him into the little towns where a couple of hundred people demonstrating enthusiastically for a candidate would have made a BIG splash. (I know, because I saw the kind of rallies the "frontrunners" got. We could have kicked their butts.) Contrast that with the fact that several thousand people at a rally in Philadelphia was virtually ignored by the national press. Impact in Iowa? Zero.

His campaign went all over the country in the months leading up to Iowa as if he hoped to scatter the seeds of his message before the excitement died down.
Again a good strategy for disseminating information, but not a very good strategy for winning a nomination. I will always believe that he was fighting an impossible battle to become a household name by traveling around the country.

His only hope was to finish high enough in the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire to force the MSM to acknowledge him as a contender. It also would have forced them to do what they wanted to avoid at all costs; talk about the issues that were appealing to his supporters.

I feel that I can speak with great authority about this based on one simple fact; I was probably an ideal voter to have been reached by the Ron Paul campaign. I live in Iowa, I already believed in 99% of what he was preaching, I frequent the Internet, I had the time and money to donate to his campaign. But I had not even heard of him until my brother emailed me about his candidacy just before the Nov. 5th money bomb!

Something obviously wasn't working.

----------


## Creampuff

Well I got up nerve to post this much, maybe the next time I will write something of importance. I'm new here and read all the posts and Jonathan"s answers. He did a great job of informing us and I for one really appreciate it. We seldom get news and this helps to squelch some unanswered questions. 

Thank you Jonathan and good luck in your new endeavor.

----------


## Primbs

If the other campaign staffers are really serious about the movement and not just in it for the short term thrill and money, they should come here and post their thoughts on where we should go from here.

----------


## RollOn2day

> TROLL !!!


There! Now you've been initiated into the forum.

What? You didn't think stopping in to say "Thanks" was going to be controversial?

Glad to see new blood still arriving. and if you don't read between the lines....

WELCOME TO THE RABBIT  HOLE!

Now where the heck did JB go? This was the most informative thread we've had on here in a long while.

----------


## SteveMartin

JB???  Did we ask stuff we shouldn't have???

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Thanks for your candor in answering all the questions.  Just curious:
> 
> 1. Any idea if Rand has any interest in entering politics?
> 
> 2. What's your perspective on McCain's problems with the FEC?


OK, looks like there's a bunch more questions to answer.  I'll do my best.

1.  My guess is yes, but that's really just my speculation.  I have no real idea of the degree of his interest or when it would be if he decides to run.

2.  I think the running of McCain's campaign has been a mess, and he is very lucky that there are positions on the FEC that are currently unfilled.  He's having trouble raising money because, let's face it, he's not really a conservative, and so I think many of the traditional Republican voters are very hesitant to come out and support him.  Plus, my personal hunch is that many of the donors recognize that a candidate who is as strongly pro-war as McCain - even if they themselves support(ed) the war - is probably not very viable come November.

As far as the loans that he's taken out.. I think that it's a disgrace.  The fact that he used the potential to get matching funds - ie, public monies - as collateral to get the loans is unbelievable.  While it's not illegal, I believe it's certainly unethical.  And I am certainly in the camp that McCain is running his campaign like he'd run the entire country.  He's essentially applying Keynesian debt financing to his own campaign.

Based on what I know, my feeling is that since he applied for matching funds, he should be forced to accept matching funds.  However, because he hasn't raised much money -- and because the money he has raised has been from big-wigs writing $2300 checks -- he really wouldn't be eligible for much public financing.  And beyond that, matching funds impose limits on how much he could spend in each state.  I've heard some estimates say that if McCain is forced to take matching funds, he'd only have $15 million to spend between now and November.  Imagine trying to run a 50-state campaign on $15 mil.

One other thing that no one has really talked about is the fact that McCain also got on the ballot in many states by claiming that he was going to get matching funds.  In many states, to get on the ballot, a candidate either needs to collect lots of signatures (like the RP campaign did), or state that you are eligible for matching funds.  In those states (like Ohio, for example), McCain didn't submit signatures because he stated that he met the matching funds requirement.  But now that he's supposedly not taking matching funds, why should his name be on the ballot.  It's my opinion that votes for McCain in such states should be null and void, because he did not officialy meet either of the ballot access requirements... but of course, I'm not any states's secretary of state...

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> I've read 110 of these posts and I'm tired of reading so if you've already answered my questions I apologize.
> 
> *1. Who was in charge of campaign strategy in 2007 and pre tsunami tues and now (all person's names please) ?*
> 
> 
> You say work within a Party controlled by neo-cons who attempted to block Ron at every turn. A party which Ron barely received 5% of the vote in most states (and a large percentage of the 5% were Independents, Democrats, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, NOTA  and yes even anarchists ). A Party who tortures human beings, who is now planning to spread war anywhere and everywhere they so choose. A Party run by people who don't care about our liberty, our borders, or quite frankly any of us or our children or our grandchildren's future. 
> 
> *2. Roughly, how many years do you think it will take to change this Party you support ?  
> 
> ...


Some of these questions I've adressed already, but I'll tackle the ones I haven't.

As far as who was in charge... just look on the campaign website... obviously, the highest ranking campaign officials and Ron Paul and his personal advisors were involved in strategy.  I don't believe it's really appropriate for me to comment beyond that.

As far as taking back the party... you're right to think that it's going to take a long time... if you want my opinion, barring some sort of economic collapse (which may not be as unreasonable as we think), I think it will take at least three election cycles.  Just as the social conservatives and now the newconservatives took over the party, we shall have to do the same.  Remember that neither of those "insurgencies" within the party occured overnight.  They took years of planning and organization, and in the case of the neoconservatives, took 9/11 to win the idealogical battle within the party.  But the fact that it will take a long time doesn't mean that it's not the right course of action.

I don't remember if I made this analogy before, so sorry if I'm repeating myself:  I think of Ron running as an independent as the "putting all of our eggs in one basket" strategy.  While I would love to see it, and while I think Ron would have a better chance of winning this election as an independent than as a Republican, I don't believe it's likely to be smart for the long-term.  To be honest, I haven't always felt this way, but overtime I've come to ask the question "what would happen if Ron ran as an independent and lost?"  We'd be left with no infrastructure for future elections, because we'd have lost the graces of Republican party loyalists.  That's what makes me think we need to work within the Republican party -- traditionally the party of limited government -- to take back the country with our ideas.

I don't know why you didn't get campaign materials when you needed them... Just keep in mind that there's a huge amount of logistical difficulty associated with distributing such a large amount of materials... your best bet is to ask Mark Elam and the other people charged with distribution down in Texas... while not having been directly involved in that until the very end, I think it's possible that they couldn't handle the amount of distribution needed after November 5th.

Sure, I felt that at times the campaign was "3 months behind."  But so what?  There were many times when I felt that grassroots supporters were not doing what they should have been doing.  And in retrospect, I realize that there were times when I was not doing what I should have been doing.  All those types of questions are irrelevant now... we need to learn from them, which is what I'm trying to do, and be stronger as we move forward.   I don't have much else to say regarding running as a libertarian/constitution party candidate... Those options have the same difficulties as running as an independent, IMO.

Hope this addressed your questions...

----------


## Creampuff

> TROLL !!!


A positive post makes me a troll? I am new here so that makes me a troll? 

I am a Ron Paul supporter and have been for many years. 

I don't think it's fair to judge someone before getting to know them. 

I can find other places that appreciate my posts, some are on the Daily Dose. 

This is just a short one and my last I think. http://people.ronpaul2008.com/campai...#comment-43135

Now I may just either think you are a troll or maybe I will take my leave from here with this kind of reception.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> I'm a Libertarian who came back to the GOP to help Dr. Paul, and I think you VASTLY overstate the importance of the Libertarian Party Presidential nomination.   I pay attention to politics, and frankly, I had NO IDEA Ron Paul was running for President in 1988 (nor, I suspect, did 99% of the populace).  Its not like he got any coverage of note.  
> 
> Lets face it, Ron got more coverage for the libertarian movement running in the Republican primary than all the Libertarians running for President, combined, have received in 36 years.  Hell, lets be honest, he got more coverage running the in the GOP primary than all the Libertarians, running for any office, combined, have received in 36 years.
> 
> So I'm not sure Ron owes the LP anything- he introduced more Americans to libertarian principles than all the Libertarian candidates who have ever run for any office have done.  While he may have drained money from the LP in the short run, in the long run his GOP campaign may prove a boon to the LP- some of these new libertarians will stay in the RP, but others will drift to the LP.
> 
> Frankly, if Ron ran as a Libertarian, he'd be utterly ignored (as all Libertarian candidates are).  What good would it be to run as a Libertarian for a couple of months, get ignored, then pull maybe 2% in the general election?  If he ran as a Libertarian, he'd accomplish nothing, and he'd destroy any chance he might have of influencing the RP.


I think you're very right about this... you see, we all need to keep in mind... for all the faults of Ron Paul, for all the faults of HQ, for all the faults of the grassroots... what we accomplished is still mind-boggling.  We pulled more people into the true conservative movement that we've seen in years.  And for that we should all be proud, even if there's obviously much more work to be done.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> This thread is great.  Thanks again. Here's 2 more:
> 1) Was this immigration campaign mailer from HQ or is it a fake?: 
> 
> 2) Can you give us a sense of what the interactions were like between you guys and the staffs of the other candidates behind the scenes at the debates? I'm thinking more here about rank and file staffers not so much the campaign managers or candidates themselves. I mean, was there open hostility? Were you guys sneered at when passing in the halls or rubbing elbows in the spin room? Or did you ever sense any envy from the staffs of other campaigns or that they maybe secretly respected Ron Paul and our movement? Did you ever get any sense that they had any clue whatsoever what we, you, and Ron are all about or more specifically that what Ron was saying on stage in the debates was true even if they (and their candidate) couldn't admit it? I guess I assume that all the rival campaign staffs sort of hate each other but I'm just curious if you guys were treated differently?
> 
> Thanks again for serving with the campaign as well as doing this thread.


1.  Yes, it was put out by HQ.  But let me clarify a little bit.  For starters, this piece was directed very specifically to a small subsection of voters who were strongly anti-immigration.  My personal feeling is that it was pretty tasteless, but I don't have a huge problem with it beyond that.  You all need to remember that this is the name of the game in direct mail, and if you think this is bad, you should check out some of the stuff that Rudy and the other campaigns put out.  Honestly, how is this piece of direct mail more offensive than that YouTube video created by the McCain campaign using fear to scare people into believing another terrorist attack is imminent?  How is it worse than Tancredo's TV ad?  Yes, I probably wouldn't have done it (mainly because I actually don't agree with some of Ron's immigration views)... but it's no worse than a lot of other stuff I'm sure you guys haven't seen (yes, I know, that doesn't justify it though... such is politics).  And for what it's worth... the guy in that photo is actually an RP supporter 

2.  As far as experiences at other debates... I actually (by request) didn't travel much, because after being on two trips, I realized that it was impossible for me to get all my other work done on the road.  The two times I traveled, I just ended up sitting in the hotel room working like mad to keep all the stuff I needed to do humming.  The best person to ask this question to is Don.  I've heard some anecdotes here and there about a little hostility, but I don't really think it was at all as prevelant as many people think.

----------


## SteveMartin

> While I would love to see it, and while I think Ron would have a better chance of winning this election as an independent than as a Republican, I don't believe it's likely to be smart for the long-term. To be honest, I haven't always felt this way, but overtime I've come to ask the question "what would happen if Ron ran as an independent and lost?" We'd be left with no infrastructure for future elections, because we'd have lost the graces of Republican party loyalists.


When you have had a chance to read some more, Jonathan, you will find out that the original takeover of the Republican Party was done by the Rockefeller family.  They own the lion's share of Federal Reserve stock, 90% of the nation's refining capacity, and some analysts estimate more than $20 trillion in liquid assets.  That's not something we can take on even in 3 election cycles without them also putting into effect their control of the military, and FEMA, and DHS, etc.

I used to believe in movements.  I've been involved in several conservative movements.  They are always infiltrated and defeated.  

IMO, we have one last chance.  And this cycle is it.  If RP runs as an Independent who could "unite the clans" (all the 3rd parties) and give us something we've never had before--A country of our own!  *ARE YOU READY FOR A (real) REVOLUTION!!!*  (In the current police- state, election-fraud environment, everything else is just playing into their hands.)

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

> When you have had a chance to read some more, Jonathan, you will find out that the original takeover of the Republican Party was done by the Rockefeller family.  They own the lion's share of Federal Reserve stock, 90% of the nation's refining capacity, and some analysts estimate more than $20 trillion in liquid assets.  That's not something we can take on even in 3 election cycles without them also putting into effect their control of the military, and FEMA, and DHS, etc.
> 
> I used to believe in movements.  I've been involved in several conservative movements.  They are always infiltrated and defeated.  
> 
> IMO, we have one last chance.  And this cycle is it.  If RP runs as an Independent who could "unite the clans" (all the 3rd parties) and give us something we've never had before--A country of our own!  *ARE YOU READY FOR A (real) REVOLUTION!!!*  (In the current police- state, election-fraud environment, everything else is just playing into their hands.)


Unfortunately, BILLION$ are needed for that movement, not 10's of MILLION$.  The Republic is controlled by massive wealth... pulling the strings of the puppets in Washington DC.  Democracy? WHERE?

----------


## SteveMartin

An Independent run would also be marked by massive voter fraud.  Hopefully, measures we would have in place would *PROVE*, however, to any honest observer that it had occured and that the "democracy" is over.

Ultimately, yes, we would probably be sparking a violent "restoration."

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> I don't think much of it, to tell you the truth.  It was great that you listened to the *numerous requests* to put a real time fundraising widget on the campaign web site.  That was very motivating, which was why it was requested for so long.  
> 
> But, to be honest with you Jonathan, the emails you sent out right before our planned money bombs, cost the campaign a lot of money.  Luckily, the one before the November 5th money bomb was largely ignored.  But, the one you sent out before the Tea Party, went a long way towards completely derailing that effort.  You were told that, but still persisted.  There is no telling how many millions of dollars that action by you, cost the campaign.   It was extremely disheartening and costly.
> 
> That is my comment.  These are my questions.
> 
> Why on earth did the campaign not:
> 1.  Hold a press conference (not an ignored press release) about Barry Goldwater, Jr.'s endorsement of Ron Paul?
> 2.  Why was there absolutely ZERO airing of a radio ad or a TV ad, in at least Arizona, of this endorsement?
> ...


Well, LibertyEagle... I'll have to disagree with you on this one.  But I do have a few additional comments.

For starters, the belief that the idea for fundraising widgets came from the grassroots is pretty crazy.  I don't really care much about who gets credit for things I've done, or whatnot.. but I can tell you that that idea was kicked around for a LONG time, even before anyone in the grassroots was thinking about fundraising.  In my opinion, most grassroots supporters were not thinking about fundraising, or really didn't understand just how vital it is to the campaign until towards the end of the third quarter (I believe looking back at posts in these forums will confirm that).  So yes, people in the grassroots made the suggestion, but that had been on the table for quite a while before that.  And in my opinion, Kent Snyder deserves a lot of credit for having the guts to go forward with being totally transparent at the start of the 4th quarter.  Obviously there were arguments on both sides of it, but to actually go ahead and do it... well, sometimes we forget just how momentous of a decision that was.

There was an article on Lew Rockwell a little while back that someone interviewed me for that explained the history a bit more (though it got a couple crucial details wrong).  Here's the link: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/malone3.html.

As far as your criticisms of the emails... I understand your point, and god knows I've heard them a million times... but I don't believe they're correct.  My reasoning is this:  different donors respond to different stimuli.  While you clearly care about the moneybombs, many people do not.  In fact, _most_ of our donors did not.  We need to touch those donors in other ways to convince them to continue donating.  One way to do that is through emails, another is throgh phone calls, yet another is direct mail.  In my opinion, those emails had little, if no, effect on December 16th.  That's people we knew that you guys were going to do whatever you wanted, regardless of what we said.  As a matter of fact, I think you forget how many calls there were for HQ to take the lead in these events.  We didn't for two reasons... first, it's questionable whether it would have been legal, but secondly (and more importantly), we didn't believe they would have been as successful.  It was the ownership that you were empowered with that lef to the success of those events.  And that's why I think there was much hostility to the emails, because you saw us as taking away a bit of that ownership.

But the fact is still that we needed money at that time.  And so even if you're right that we "hurt the moneybomb"... well, to be honest, I don't really care.  Because the goal of a campaign is not to raise as much money as you can ona particular date.  It is to raise money so that you can do things with it.  And at that time, we didn't have the money to do the things we needed to do to boost our poll numbers.  Sometimes, I think some of our supporters saw the campaign so much as a game, that they were fine with losing, so long as they did things that were 'cool'.  Well, I'm not OK right now saying "well, McCain may have most of the contests.. but remember how much money we raised?"  I'd have rather raised less money and won more contests.  So in the end, I just don't think you're right that "millions of money was lost."  Whether it was or not is irrelevant.  I believe that many people chose to bump up their donations, which is great, because we needed that to happen.

To give one last comment on the moneybombs... I think what's lost on a lot of people is that the amount that was raised on those days was not what was important.  I believe we had the means in place to get most donors who had already contributed before to do so again before the end of the quarter.  But what you guys were able to do far more than we at HQ could was reach out and find new donors.  The moneybombs created a sense of excitement that drew in new donors to the campaign who otherwise wouldn't have done so.  I know, because I was one, and so were many of my friends.  But don't let the headline numbers fool you.  It didn't matter whether we brought in 6 or 7... what I was personally most interested in on December 15th was how much money was going to be raised from NEW donors the next day.

As to your questions...

1.  I dont know where there wasn't a better press conference done.  I remember a few people making similar comments at the time, and I wish more had been done with it.  It's a fair criticism in my book, and I wish I had a better answer for you.

2.  I'd imagine that the reason there was not as much advertising in Arizona was because, generally, Arizona was less important early on than Iowa, New Hampshire, etc.  I agree that there should have been more done with the endorsements, though admittedly, we had more trouble getting endorsements that you might know.  Many people were hesitant to endorse, again, because they didn't see Ron as electable.  Spineless... it drove me bonkers.

3.  As far as anti-war ads... I know many people have mentioned this for a long time.  My personal feeling is that to have done this would have been a huge mistake.  In the end, Ron was running in a Republican primary where many voters were still in favor of the war.  And those who told pollsters that they were not, still probably were in favor of the war in the past.  It takes a lot to vote for a candidate who is telling you that you were wrong from the beginning.  People don't like having egg on their faces.  I understand the feeling... I initially, back in my naive youth  supported the war in Iraq.  I think most people understand now that it was a terrible decision, but even still, costantly bringing up the war would not have been a good strategy.  Plus, remember that everyone already knew where Ron stood on the war... god knows he was bringing it up multiple times every debate (in my opinion, much more than was politically wise).  So we needed to establish Ron's other conservative credentials to voters... but in the end, I believe they went to McCain because he was perceived as more "moderate" and "electable" than anyone else on the Republican side.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> A previous poster mentioned the rudeness of HQ, I have personal experiance with that, but choose not to go into details in public; suffice it to say that KS completely lost my respect and I realized that the complaints I heard while pedeling had some validity. I was quite frankly shocked at the behavior I witnessed. Lame excuses attempting to shift blame and provide plausible deniability for friggin wimps in over their heads... 
> 
> 
> 
> The way I found to answer that was to look the person right in the eye and say, "Lemme ask you a question, how much do you trust the media?" They would usually answer with a laugh, "not at all". Then I would immediately ask, "Where are you getting this info that he can't win?" At that point a light would go on in their head and they became much more receptive to entertaining the idea of supporting RP.
> 
> Finally, a note to Bro.Butch, it is interactions with people like you, in this campaign, that has convinced me to consider others for my throwaway votes which had, previous to this campaign, always gone to the LP. IMHO, the LP needs a serious attitude adjustment... Blaming RP for failings in the LP is exactly the same kind of problem I allude to in my first paragragh about the rudeness of HQ...


I can't really comment on the perceived "rudeness" of HQ, having been there myself   But I will say that I think a lot of it is exaggerated (though not knowing the details of your particular grievance, I can't comment).  Many times we would get phone calls from people who were upset, we would listen, tell them our thinking, and then they would be upset because we weren't going to change what we were doing because of their phone call.  A lot of people, in my opinion, don't like hearing particular answers that disagree with their views... and then they interpret that as "rudeness" or "HQ not caring about the grassroots."  And I'll say that I'm very much guilty of this too... we all have pride, and we all have to try hard to check it at the door.  That doesn't mean that we're not entitled to our beliefs, but I don't think it's fair to characterize it as rudeness.  I say all this because some of the stories that I've heard (like that guy in NJ from the press who complained about the Philly rally) were really offbase.  I can share more regarding that particular tale if anyone is so inclined.

On your other point... I think your way of doing it is good, the problem of course is that you have to be able to do this on a massive scale.  How do you convince members of the press of Ron's electability.  How do you reach the people who might vote for Ron, but haven't been "touched" by a grassroots supporter in the way that you describe?  It's very difficult to do something like this on a large scale.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Ron's PA organization asked him just recently to visit PA. They scheduled a series of speeches and dinners, some of them geared toward fundraising for purchase of sample ballots for the delegate and alternate delegate candidates. Lew Moore declined all but a nostalgia visit to Ron's uber-liberal alma mater, Gettysburg College, and possibly Penn State. These will be small affairs and they'll do nothing whatsoever to help elect delegates.
> 
> Lew gave up right after NH, didn't he?
> 
> Why did Lew and Kent not step down in Aug. or Sept. and replace themselves with more competent persons? They were way over their heads, having had no experience whatsoever running anything remotely this large.


Ahh... where do I even begin here?  For starters, all events are approved by Ron, so rather than criticizing Lew for what events are on the schedule, are you also willing to tell Ron that he should not want to speak at his alma mater or Penn State or wherever else is on the schedule?

There was no giving up.  Period.

But you know, I would like to address the criticism of inexperience... You know, in my opinion, *experience is only valuable insomuch as it serves as an adequate proxy for ability and talent.*  There are many people in this world who have years and years of experience and yet they are incompetent at what they do.  And on the flip side, I believe there are people with less experience who are able to raise issues and bring new ideas to the table that others with more experience cannot.  So yes, experience can and often is valuable, but I believe what's more important is how good the people are at the jobs they are doing.  You may believe certain people in the campaign (myself included) were not good at what they did.  But this idea that because the campaign was "inexperienced" that it automatically would fail is absurd.  And of course, what you're overlooking beyond that is that many people within the campaign had HUGE amounts of experience.  So I don't even believe that this "inexperience" line is anything more than a canard.

Suppose Richard Viguerie had been brought in because he had lots of "experience".  Suppose we had paid a fortune for his "services," no matter how expensive.  I firmly do not believe the campaign would have been better off.

And you know, just think about all the "experienced" people that Rudy's campaign had.  Those "experienced" people ran his campaign into the ground.  And then think about Fred Thompson.  And Romney.  And Edwards.  And Dodd.  That list is endless.

So I guess my point is... criticize the campaign for its failings, but drop this "inexperience" nonsense.

----------


## angelatc

Glad you're back Jonathon.  Just FYI, in case you're involved with future fundraising on a national level...

I really wish we could have obtained a lot more of the prepaid donation envelopes.  I helped staff the IL campaign office, and I can't tell you how many people wanted to come in and make a donation, even after the 10 envelopes we got from HQ were gone.  

When we had the envelopes, I could help them fill out the form and then drop the envelope in the mail that day.  After we ran out, I tried to get people to donate online from the office PC, but the older Conservatives aren't really "into" sending money over the internet.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

FYI for all of you... as far as specific good news and things that you can continue to do, I think that this post from Matt Hawes today on the Daily Dose actually gives a lot of the guidance for which many of you are asking:  http://people.ronpaul2008.com/campai...8/first-steps/

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Jonathan,
> 
> Thanks for making yourself available to help all of us in the grassroots to understand better what was going on in Arlington, where our money went, etc.
> 
> I'd like to add a couple of questions:
> 
> 1. You were quite emphatic in your belief that RP would not seek an independent run under any circumstance.  Do you have any inside knowledge in that regard, or were your assumptions all guided from RP's public statements on that matter.
> 
> 2. Did you let anyone still with the paid staff know that you would be blogging with us?  If so, were you encouraged to do so, or was it all of your own volition?
> ...


Hi Steve,

1.  I'm basing it largely on what has been said publicly, but I don't have any "insider knowledge" that leads me to believe otherwise.

2.  People on the staff know now that I've been blogging, but I didn't ask for permission or anything like that, if that's what you mean.  As I said, these are all my thoughts, and do not necessary represent the views of anyone else in the campaign.  I'm here answering your questions because I think it's helpful to everyone, and because it's something I wanted to do.

3.  What do you mean regarding the endorsement of the Minuteman project?  The immigration groups that endorsed Dr. Paul were put up on the website. As far as the "official" Minuteman group... I spoke with them a bit... and again, it's clear that there were political issues driving that decision.  They did not see Ron, again, as being electable, and I think that's what led them to Romney.  It's funny now, of course, seeing Romney sell out to McCain and because some of those groups were unprincipled, they're now stuck with a nominee who they don't support whatsoever.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Two questions:
> 
> 1. Who came up with the idea to give live donation feedback to donors?
> 
> 2. Did the company in charge of Ron's webpage become strong Ron Paul supporters?


1.  Depends on what feedback you mean. The idea for posting the names of recent donors actually came from Ron's security director.  The idea to go public really was a host of people's ideas, and parts of it came from Kent, me, Justine... our web team, Ron's scheduler... press people... you name it, many people were involved at different points in time.  If you're asking for my main contribution, I believe it to be the idea of having a live $ widget for the final week of the 3rd quarter.

But again, in my opinion, the biggest amount of credit should go to Kent, for having the gaul to make our 4th Q numbers totally transparent.  You see, a lot of being a good manager, I believe, is not just coming up with the ideas, but sorting through all the ideas and prioritizing based on what brings you the biggest benefit at the lowest cost.  Obviously, on any given decision made in the campaign, there were different degrees to which this was done well.  But I believe that this was one important decision which the campaign got very, very right.

One final thing... I think there's a tendency to see one person as "responsible" for any given idea.  But I personally believe that the creation of ideas themselves is a process that is driven by different forms of feedback.  As an example, while I may have been mostly responsible for the idea of having the $500,000 graphic in the last week of September, would I have been as adament if our web team had not taken the initiative to create the Constitution Week "Fill the Quill" graphic?  Probably not.  So how is it fair for any one person to take the credit here?  I see everyone... many members of HQ staff, and obviously many grassroots supporters, as all having contributed to the eventual success that was $20 million raised in the 4th Quarter.

2.  Yes, Terra Eclipse were largely supporters, as far as I recall, from early on.  They supported the cause, as best I know.

----------


## SteveMartin

> I see everyone... many members of HQ staff, and obviously many grassroots supporters, as all having contributed to the eventual success that was $20 million raised in the 4th Quarter.


The last week of the third quarter was the impetus for the grassroots to call for a thermometer for the entire 4th quarter.  Great team work, brilliant original idea, Jonathan!  Documentation:

http://ronpaul.meetup.com/boards/thread/3618574

----------


## Aratus

i'm a hunter thompson fan. i noticed your reference to his 1972 book on how
a small number of people around george mcgovern got him the nomination,
as they built up a classic grassroots organization!  clearly uncle duke could
never have sensed the full potential of the internet, nor why the siren call of
media blitzing can vaporize campaign chests. i only wish he was here to cover
much of this, the unexpected ups and downs, or even the decision by mitt romney
to over-spend and then honor 42 million dollars worth of debts. was part of this
an inate frugality at work? huckabee has yet to break past 15 million as a ceiling
for his expendatures, yet his delegate count is equal to my former governor's!!!
right now we have two dems with almost equal money and equal delegates. as
they battle, karl rove just took his narrowcasting "yes man" brain to john mccain...
is the ultimate success story of the Ron Paul Revolution anything people can do in 2012?

----------


## Aratus

is the lesson we should learn from both mcGovern's run in 72
and Ron Paul's run now, is the basic institutional apathy that is
at the core of a major political party with all its time honored habits 
and rituals? i've noticed quite a few of the people here who were 
surprised when few people showed up at the local level, and due to
this lack of attendance, the grassroots people could go onto the next level...

----------


## Aratus

guiliani spent 60 million... romney almost twice that... obama's money comes 
from more donors than ms. hillary's and in Feb. he pulled in 50 million to her 25 million.
the record breaking moneybombs are now political folklore, yet you seem to be
saying that the campaign needed a steadily increasing cash stream to pull even
to the more aggressively funded efforts. the pump-priming aspects of the press 
core increasing a recognition factor as an ongoing campaign taps traditional and
untraditional funding avenues. maybe the story now is about how close this was
to becoming a letter perfect political season, even if mccain ultimately pulls things
out from his fall slump. [admittedly with the help of that loan] so should we now 
focus on what we can do so as to be even more postioned and energized in 2012?

----------


## Don

> 2.  As far as experiences at other debates... I actually (by request) didn't travel much, because after being on two trips, I realized that it was impossible for me to get all my other work done on the road.  The two times I traveled, I just ended up sitting in the hotel room working like mad to keep all the stuff I needed to do humming.  The best person to ask this question to is Don.  I've heard some anecdotes here and there about a little hostility, but I don't really think it was at all as prevelant as many people think.


I get a lot of grief from other staff b/c I got to spend so much time on the road doing the debate advance.  While there were certainly times that I was happy to be in south Florida in the middle of winter, this job was far more stressful and challenging than you can imagine.

I could write pages about Ron, the debates, and some of the great stories I picked up along the way, but the specific question is about the treatment from people outside of the campaign and other candidate's staffs specifically.

For the most part, candidate staff went about their business as if the other staffs didn't exist.  Occasionally, there would be an issue of shared concern and we would form temporary alliances to push through our shared preference, but I tried to take a go along, get along approach as much as possible.  I knew I represented Ron and the entire campaign so I wanted my actions and attitudes to positively reflect on both.

I had the best relations with the Romney people, who were all rich, plastic and glass-eyed, but not particularly hostile.   We found common cause in our exasperation with Guiliani and Thompson's advance teams who were insufferable. They would often hold up conference calls for half an hour at a time while they argued about the wattage of the lights above the podium, how many staff would be allowed green room access, or what type of microphones the candidates would utilize.

As far as the candidates go, McCain was always friendly and took time to say hello. He is surprisingly short, Napoleon complex?   I hate myself for liking Huckabee so much, but he's a neat guy, funny and warm. His wife is just as sweet.  One of my favorite tasks was walking Carol Paul and her guests to their seats before each debate.  All of the spouses would gather and we would proceed down together.  As soon as Carol saw Janet Huckabee, they were off and chatting like old friends.  Guiliani, Thompson, and Romney were aloof and arrogant, Duncan Hunter is a very nice guy, so is Tom Tancredo. Alan Keyes is batsh** crazy.

Before debates I mostly hung out with reporters. I think a lot of them saw us as a strange and inexplicable riddle.  None of them ever thought we would win. After debates, I would go to the rallies and, once I got Ron out and back to the hotel, I would return and hang out with supporters. If you have any other questions relating to this stuff, I am following this thread with rapt attention.

----------


## SteveMartin

Did you ever hear any reactions from the other campaigns about us winning all those post-debate polls, Don?

(P.S. I assume you are Don Rassmussen.  Am I right?)

----------


## Don

> Did you ever hear any reactions from the other campaigns about us winning all those post-debate polls, Don?
> 
> (P.S. I assume you are Don Rassmussen.  Am I right?)


Steve - You recently posted that I was less valuable to the campaign then the office door (You used less flattering language, of course).  Once you either apologize for this ad hominem attack or provide some basis for this observation, then I will be happy to answer your questions. 

Also, my last name is spelled Rasmussen.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Sorry I'm late to this thread and I haven't read all of your answers.
> 
> As an Iowan who has seen a number of presidential campaigns in our state I have a couple of observations. (***20/20 hindsight alert***)
> 
> 1) The campaign underestimated the importance of the early primary states. (Yes, I know that Iowa got more than its "share" of money and personal appearances from Dr. Paul, but that is a fact of life in presidential politics.) Concentrating  his efforts on two relatively small states could have reaped huge PR benefits early on. In the Iowa caucuses Ron Paul came within *3%* of beating not only Guliani, but John McCain and Fred Thompson as well! Our supporters may have realized that as some type of moral victory, but it allowed the media to virtually ignore him going into New Hampshire.
> 
> 2) The national media blackout (and, yes, there WAS one) meant that Ron Paul was going to need to punch through to the local media here in Iowa and New Hampshire and, whenever possible, actually meet the voters.
> Again, those not familiar with Iowa caucus politics don't realize how spoiled Iowa voters are. They don't just read about candidates or see them on television; they expect to see and hear them in person and often get to shake their hands.
> Fair? Of course not! But the fact is that our little town of 5,000 people had visits from Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Romney, McCain, and others. McCain walked in a Labor Day parade in a little town five miles from here. Fred Thonmpson got in a big bus that traveled the whole state visiting every little whistle stop. He would get out walk down the main street, make a little speech, and shake hands. Sure this approach is corny and old fashioned. But that is the way candidates get support in Iowa. 
> ...


This post is a really interesting one, and comes close to nailing my view on the head.  I'll probably never forget the disappointment I felt -- the disappointment that we all felt -- the night of the Iowa results.  We were so close to all those guys, as you mention, and yet still so far away.

I agree that Ron Paul did not spend as much time in Iowa as would have been optimal.  But it's a mistake to think that this was a strategic mistake.  As I mentioned earlier, we had limitations as to how much time of Ron's we had -- unlike a Barack Obama, Clinton or McCain, Ron was not just letting his congressional obligations fall by the wayside.  So while these other candidates were missing vote after vote, Ron was not.  This is why you got to see all the other candidates but Ron did not get closer than 50 miles.

I believe the same thing happened in New Hampshire.  As you point out, both of these states require retail politics to win the election, and having limited time already, and then having Ron make trips to both of these states made it impossible to spend as much time in either of them as did, say, Mitt Romney.  I mean, geez, Mike Huckabee was living in Iowa!

Your third point is spot on in my opinion... once we didn't meet the MSM's "expectations" in New Hampshire, the battle became massively uphill at that point.

But again, rest asured that you're not the only one was was acutely aware of what happened in Iowa.

----------


## The Lantern

Don,

Are you still with the campaign?

----------


## yongrel

> Alan Keyes is batsh** crazy.


Tell me something I don't know

----------


## Don

> Don,
> 
> Are you still with the campaign?


I am. I put in my two-week notice and will be leaving the campaign at the end of the month to return to Seattle.  I have a resume in with the Dino Rossi campaign for Washington governor and I hope to work for Dino until the fall when I am expatriating to Costa Rica to work in real estate development.  I will continue to blog at http://freemansburden.blogspot.com/ and work within the freedom movement here and in C.R. in the coming years.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> I visited New Hampshire and thought not enough was being done there. I visited the  Obama office, Clinton office, Romney office and Edwards office in New Hampshire.
> 
> I compared their offices to the Ron Paul office in Concord New Hampshire. 
> 
> The other campaigns had much bigger organizations. Romney and Clinton had two large offices in Manchester. Romney had very sophisticated computerized phone lists and walk lists with lots of volunteers. 
> 
> While you can spend money on TV in Iowa or New Hampshire but the ground game is where it is at for the most part. You had better have your ground game in order and then worry about TV or debate performances etc. 
> 
> The Ron Paul HQ stopped calling voters a half hour before the polls closed. They had called "everyone" on their lists. 
> ...


I think you have a couple of good points, but some things, from my perspective anyway, are just incorrect.

For starters, I don't think much more could have been done in NH.  We had a great state coordinator and a great team in place, and if they couldn't win the state, I don't believe anyone else could have either.  While you sight "more offices" for the other campaigns, you neglect to remember all of the volunteer support that has been the backbone of this campaign everywhere.  And you talk about "sophisticated walk lists"... well, again, it was a bit late in coming, but have you looked at the precinct leader tools?  https://voters.grassroots.com  In all honesty, I know that our people in NH (and in most states) worked very hard to "have the ground game in order."  I think that if you believe more needed to be done, then that is more of a criticism of the grassroots than it is of official campaign staff.  And I can tell you that, at least in New Hampshire, the grassroots supporters were EXTREMELY well organized.  I really think we just didn't have the votes (for reasons I've touched on in other posts).

I agree with your assessment of TV ads in caucus states, and there definitely is a line of political thinking that says what you say.  But at the same time, we also saw our poll numbers rally in Iowa as a result of the ads we were running.  So who knows.

As far as the youth campaign, I think you're dead wrong.  There was a good deal of funding to the youth, and certainly more than most other campaigns.  And remember, while I like to think that the youth can make a huge difference, as we know, the fact is simply that they don't vote in as large numbers as older age groups.  So knowing all the other things that needed funding, I don't believe the youth was one that needed significantly more.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Fair enough, I, too, should apologize for allowing latent anger to color my previous post... Rest assured that I will continue to work hard, to bring the kind of change we are all looking for, as soon as possible. I hope you are still around to join in the celebration...


You'll bring us change?  Will you bring us hope, too? 

Change and hope and hope and change and... ugh.  Makes me sick to my stomach at this point.  I know some of you didn't like my blog post on this, but whenever I hear the word "change" I automatically think "more government programs."  Because I really think that's what everyone else in the race means.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> I can live with that...character and integrity still matter. That's what makes a good leader. Otherwise you get phoney fluff. If that's what sells, well, I guess I can see why Ron Paul wasn't "popular".
> 
> But, gosh, I don't remember Nixon being warm and fuzzy...


Well, remember, people don't necessarily want warm and fuzzy either.  Scaring the bejesus out of people works extremely effectively, as GWB and Karl Rove have shown us for a long time now.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> I have been mulling this over in my mind and I just don't (respectfully) agree only because of precedent. I have a hard time imagining people really using the kind of logic you imply. The mentality is more like a high school football game - let our team win!
> 
> Huckabbe won Arkansas
> McCain won Arizona
> Romney won Massahusetts and Michigan (because he was born there).
> 
> People are *still* voting for these people who have dropped out so we can't blame it on the "dropping out" message.
> 
> Ron Paul should have swept Texas and should take Pennsylvania. 
> ...


Yeah, I just don't agree.  I think it comes down to the fact that many people do see elections as a "game" that they want to "win."  That bandwagon effect is a really powerful tool for those who have it... and we were always battling to convince people that Ron _could_ win.

----------


## SteveMartin

> Steve - You recently posted that I was less valuable to the campaign then the office door (You used less flattering language, of course).  Once you either apologize for this ad hominem attack or provide some basis for this observation, then I will be happy to answer your questions. 
> 
> Also, my last name is spelled Rasmussen.


Identity established.  OK.

Now, there are many people who have been in the campaign offices who have been saying this about you, Don.  I have had no reason to doubt their word on things based on hundreds of conversations with people who I have come to know and trust in the grassroots, *where most of the successes in this campaign were achieved.*  These people's observations have proven true, over and over and over again.

It seems that very few people with long records of established patriot activism were hired in favor of young, inside-the-beltway types---many of whom seem to have been of a certain sexual preference.  Am I wrong?

----------


## Don

> Identity established.  OK.
> 
> Now, there are many people who have been in the campaign offices who have been saying this about you, Don.  I have had no reason to doubt their word on things based on hundreds of conversations with people who I have come to know and trust in the grassroots, *where most of the successes in this campaign were achieved.*  These people's observations have proven true, over and over and over again.
> 
> It seems that very few people with long records of established patriot activism were hired in favor of young, inside-the-beltway types---many of whom seem to have been of a certain sexual preference.  Am I wrong?


I simply can't take you seriously. If there are any grown ups with questions, I will be happy to answer them.

----------


## SteveMartin

You better take me seriously, pal.

Answer the questions.

Thousands are listening.

It was our campaign too.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> I'm surprised nobody has asked more about "the newsletters" yet, since that was an unfortunate objection many of us had to deal with while spreading the word about Ron Paul. (Sometimes when people "googled Ron Paul" they found some pretty embarrassing stuff...!)
> 
> 1. What impact, if any, do you think the newsletter story had on results in NH and beyond? Do you think we lost a significant number of supporters due to this issue, especially among youth voters?
> 
> 2. Was the campaign prepared for this story to come out? Was a response ready or were you taken by surprise?
> 
> 3. What would you have done differently -- pre-empt the story by coming clean about the issue before the TNR article hit? Provide more detailed information about who actually WAS responsible for the content and oversight of the newsletters in question?
> 
> Thanks


Well, the newletters came out on the day of the NH primary, so I don't believe that many people in that state heard about them.  I think the effect there was minimal.  But there's no question in my mind that it hurt us in other areas... granted the press wasn't as huge as we all think... but I'm sure it spread, and for people who knew nothing else about the name Ron Paul, I'm sure that's all they wanted to hear.

I can't really comment on internal debate on the matter... I have my opinions on how it should have been handled, but I don't know a whole lot about the discussions that were had.  In my personal opinion, any knowledge regarding the newsletters should have come out immediately... maybe I'm just a little too honest for my own good, but I think what Ron said on Wolf Blitzer needed to come from Ron immediately, rather than a day or two later.  But that's just my personal opinion.

One thing I will add is how disgusting this whole episode was.  Regardless of how it was handled, it was clear that people with malicious intentions were out to get Ron -- and many of those same people are those who also call themselves libertarians.  I don't mean that ina political sense, but I can tell you that there is no way that Ron believes the crap in those letters.  And I firmly believe that many of those who were attacking him for it know that as well, but chose to attack anyway.  Such is politics, but it blows my mind that we're more willing to eat our own kind (whether it's libertarians attacking Ron or supporters attacking HQ) than go after the bigger beasts.  It's part of that mentality that's brought us one step closer to 100 years of the war in Iraq.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> This is the exact mindset that doomed the ad campaigns. Trying to cater to all groups was engaging in collectivism. The ad campaigns should have been designed to educate a populace that is starving for the truth.


Haha, see, I would argue that your mindset is what helped to make this movement less effective.  While many of US may be "starved for truth," I don't think much of the American populace is.  And so the question then becomes, "how are you going to reach those people, too?"  To win an election, you need a coalition of people, not just a group of core supporters... and for whatever reasons, we as a group (hq and gr) all failed to put together that coalition.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Sure.  Unfortunately, we never really found out what worked on TV, since the ads that ran didn't work.  This is/was a unique campaign, with a unique candidate, that had the ability to reach new voters, or those disaffected with politics in general.  Instead, the campaign seemed to target "likely primary voters" instead of emulating an extremely successful grassroots movement.  "Likely primary voters" follow big media, and the media had it in for Dr. Paul from the start.  I'm not sure how much more effective a different course would have been, but it's tough to argue something else would have been less successful.
> 
> Anyway...
> 
> Thanks for coming on and answering questions, Mr. Bydlak.  I wholeheartedly appreciate it.


haha, well, thing is.. of course you target likely primary voters.  Because those are the people who will be voting!  You can't make ads that just appeal to core supporters, and I actually believe that a lot of the upsetedness from many people comes from that very fact... not understanding that the ads that appeal to many of us -- the minority -- simply won't appeal to others.

I think the bigger point you're raising, though, is that it's hard to know how effective any taken action is.  Without spending a ton of money on focus groups, how do you know one TV ad is more effective than another?  And is radio a better medium for political advertising than TV, or newspapers?  These are all questions that I personally struggled with a lot.  And I'm not so sure there are many people out there, except for some advertising execs, who really have good answers.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> All good points. I have a theory that Dr. Paul saw this campaign as an educational project rather than a winnable election from the beginning. When the campaign picked up steam he wasn't prepared to grab the tiger by the tail.
> 
> If he had made more personal appearances in Iowa, his supporters could have followed him into the little towns where a couple of hundred people demonstrating enthusiastically for a candidate would have made a BIG splash. (I know, because I saw the kind of rallies the "frontrunners" got. We could have kicked their butts.) Contrast that with the fact that several thousand people at a rally in Philadelphia was virtually ignored by the national press. Impact in Iowa? Zero.
> 
> His campaign went all over the country in the months leading up to Iowa as if he hoped to scatter the seeds of his message before the excitement died down.
> Again a good strategy for disseminating information, but not a very good strategy for winning a nomination. I will always believe that he was fighting an impossible battle to become a household name by traveling around the country.
> 
> His only hope was to finish high enough in the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire to force the MSM to acknowledge him as a contender. It also would have forced them to do what they wanted to avoid at all costs; talk about the issues that were appealing to his supporters.
> 
> ...


Haha... I think it's funny that you're talking about us going all over the country, when another poster wanted Ron everywhere doing fundraisers!  It was a lose-lose battle we were facing with all of you guys.

But as I said before, you're right that we needed more visits to Iowa.  And Ron has spoken many times on his reluctance... seems reasonable to me that that affected things more than we'd like to admit.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Well I got up nerve to post this much, maybe the next time I will write something of importance. I'm new here and read all the posts and Jonathan"s answers. He did a great job of informing us and I for one really appreciate it. We seldom get news and this helps to squelch some unanswered questions. 
> 
> Thank you Jonathan and good luck in your new endeavor.


Thanks for the kind words!

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> If the other campaign staffers are really serious about the movement and not just in it for the short term thrill and money, they should come here and post their thoughts on where we should go from here.


Well, not really Primbs.  I'm here under my own volition, but I don't think that I, or anyone else, am obligated to be here.  To think anyone was in this for the money... my salary was cut in half by working on the campaign!  And imagine if I had known I'd be called an "idiot" on the front page of the LA Times by a supporter... that had to be the highlight of the campaign for me!

And as I said earlier... you can rest assured that more word will come out with time as to what is coming next.  I have little doubt about that.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> TROLL !!!


If he's a troll, then I want more like him...

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> JB???  Did we ask stuff we shouldn't have???


You're free to ask whatever you wish, Steve.  Of course, doesn't mean I'll answer

----------


## SteveMartin

I suggested months ago that RP should have gone ahead and named a running mate to act as a surrogate at many of these functions so that he could still work as a sitting Congressman, as well, without suffering total burnout.

Heck, we are a groundbreaking bunch, why didn't we just go ahead and even name a couple of the cabinet people and send them out as well??  They would have gotten a lot more "bang for the buck" then some un-(such)-designated "spokesperson."

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> When you have had a chance to read some more, Jonathan, you will find out that the original takeover of the Republican Party was done by the Rockefeller family.  They own the lion's share of Federal Reserve stock, 90% of the nation's refining capacity, and some analysts estimate more than $20 trillion in liquid assets.  That's not something we can take on even in 3 election cycles without them also putting into effect their control of the military, and FEMA, and DHS, etc.
> 
> I used to believe in movements.  I've been involved in several conservative movements.  They are always infiltrated and defeated.  
> 
> IMO, we have one last chance.  And this cycle is it.  If RP runs as an Independent who could "unite the clans" (all the 3rd parties) and give us something we've never had before--A country of our own!  *ARE YOU READY FOR A (real) REVOLUTION!!!*  (In the current police- state, election-fraud environment, everything else is just playing into their hands.)


Eh, and what happens if you don't win this time as an independent, Steve?  What then?

Think about the past movements in the party... we can have some conspiratorial reason for them... or we can realize that they came from hard core organization.  That's just my op.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Unfortunately, BILLION$ are needed for that movement, not 10's of MILLION$.  The Republic is controlled by massive wealth... pulling the strings of the puppets in Washington DC.  Democracy? WHERE?


Billions are needed, but to be trite, "the journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step"

Wow... _that_ was cheesy

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> An Independent run would also be marked by massive voter fraud.  Hopefully, measures we would have in place would *PROVE*, however, to any honest observer that it had occured and that the "democracy" is over.
> 
> Ultimately, yes, we would probably be sparking a violent "restoration."


Eh, if there's violence, then count me out.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Glad you're back Jonathon.  Just FYI, in case you're involved with future fundraising on a national level...
> 
> I really wish we could have obtained a lot more of the prepaid donation envelopes.  I helped staff the IL campaign office, and I can't tell you how many people wanted to come in and make a donation, even after the 10 envelopes we got from HQ were gone.  
> 
> When we had the envelopes, I could help them fill out the form and then drop the envelope in the mail that day.  After we ran out, I tried to get people to donate online from the office PC, but the older Conservatives aren't really "into" sending money over the internet.


That's a good suggestion, but you also knew about the ability to print off forms on the internet to have them fill out, right?

----------


## amy31416

> I suggested months ago that RP should have gone ahead and named a running mate to act as a surrogate at many of these functions so that he could still work as a sitting Congressman, as well, without suffering total burnout.
> 
> Heck, we are a groundbreaking bunch, why didn't we just go ahead and even name a couple of the cabinet people and send them out as well??  They would have gotten a lot more "bang for the buck" then some un-(such)-designated "spokesperson."


I am completely smitten with that idea. If we're going to be unconventional, we should take it all the way, without being stupid.

It's too bad that it's too late for RP though, but it's not too late for a lot of other people running for various offices.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> The last week of the third quarter was the impetus for the grassroots to call for a thermometer for the entire 4th quarter.  Great team work, brilliant original idea, Jonathan!  Documentation:
> 
> http://ronpaul.meetup.com/boards/thread/3618574


Eh, I deserve maybe 5% of the credit.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> guiliani spent 60 million... romney almost twice that... obama's money comes 
> from more donors than ms. hillary's and in Feb. he pulled in 50 million to her 25 million.
> the record breaking moneybombs are now political folklore, yet you seem to be
> saying that the campaign needed a steadily increasing cash stream to pull even
> to the more aggressively funded efforts. the pump-priming aspects of the press 
> core increasing a recognition factor as an ongoing campaign taps traditional and
> untraditional funding avenues. maybe the story now is about how close this was
> to becoming a letter perfect political season, even if mccain ultimately pulls things
> out from his fall slump. [admittedly with the help of that loan] so should we now 
> focus on what we can do so as to be even more postioned and energized in 2012?


As I mentioned in a few earlier posts, the key is too keep doing all the things that we're doing, while at the same time, keeping the future in the corner of our eyes.

----------


## SteveMartin

Jonathan,  

I'd peg it at 25% myself.  Congrats!

The last week of the thrid quarter is when we all in the grassroots said, "Hey, let's go ahead and make the whole darned thing public."

It worked.

One of our greatest joint successes, for sure.

----------


## justinc.1089

Wow that took a long time and a lot of effort to read through 31 pages of questions, not to mention the repeated questions lol!

Now I have a question, what was all that money spent on?!  lol

joking.....


I do have a few questions though.

1. Is Ron Paul actually ready and willing to lead a revolutionary freedom movement in our country?

Because thats what we're heading towards faster and faster everyday, and Ron doesn't seem to be willing to lead it really in my opinion. Maybe he is, I don't know, he does seem to want a march to come together, but he like a lot of other people doesn't seem to want to give this revolution true leadership, and every revolution has had a leader that its followers looked to for leadership and inspiration such as Martin Luther King or George Washington. It seems like to me sometimes Ron wants everyone to just vote in libertarian minded people to the government to fix everything, and thats just not going to happen without a movement behind it with a leader to keep the movement going, or that he wants someone else to step up to fill his shoes, which would be fine if he would just make it clear to everyone that supports him as to who that could possibly be.

2. Can someone get some heart and fire back into Ron Paul lol? 

For a very brief period of time he changed and really believed he could change the country after I think the tea party if I remember correctly. At least it seemed that way to me. It was around the debate when he called his campaign a revolution. It was like he doubted he could really do anything, but wanted to put his ideas out there, then really got emboldened and believed he could do it, and then went to not believing he can do it but that it can be done I guess now.

3. Why do you think the campaign wasted money running television ads in SC the last week or two weeks before our primary?

SC was generally ignored compared to some other candidates, with the exception of a great mailing effort, and SC was never a state Paul was likely to win anyway since its probably the biggest pro-war state in the country lol. Then ignoring it mostly lowered Paul's chances even more, so it seems a waste to spend that money to me. I would have thought the wisest strategy in SC would have been to either campaign hard in SC and NH from the start, but in SC mainly run an attack campaign attacking Romney and Huckabee since they did seem early on likely to win SC, and hope to split the vote and gain enough votes to win the state over them as a result of voters just not liking any candidates that much, which did actually happen here in my opinion. Or the other strategy, which I thought the campaign had taken, would have been to basically ignore SC and save the money for other places, which probably would have been the way to go in my opinion.

I don't see where mail fliers, radio, and a tiny bit but of course still expensive tv advertising was worth the cost in SC since it was a small chance to start with that was then cut even smaller by ignoring it.

I mean you know why McCain won here despite tons of people hating him here? Because he campaigned very, very hard here. All I ever heard about McCain was how he was either in New Hampshire or South Carolina. He spoke at places within an hour of me many, many times compared to Paul once. And thats why Romney lost, because he gave up in SC and started ignoring it like our campaign did.

4. Are signs and mail fliers actually effective?

I have serious, serious, serious doubts about the effectiveness of signs and mail fliers now after seeing my state's primary because Ron Paul signs were everywhere thanks to grassroots work around here, and I have to say you guys in the campaign DID do a spectacular mail flier effort compared to other campaigns. In fact, here in SC, you stomped them in the dirt while you laughed at them metaphorically speaking lol.

But I saw only literally about 4 McCain signs in my entire state during the entire campaign! And I got only 1 flier from his campaign telling me how I could get free debate tickets at his rally if I went. And yet he still won here, with no signs and no mail fliers, and I never heard about any phone calls either.

I think the campaign, and the grassroots where this stuff applies to it also, put way to much effort into signs, mail fliers, and phone calls maybe, I'm not sure there. I do know if I was running for senate or president I wouldn't spend crap on signs and fliers though after seeing McCain spend virtually nothing on it here and still win, and after seeing Paul dominate that stuff and still do poorly here.

5. Why didn't the campaign aim tv ads more on single issues?

I see other candidates aim tv ads at single issues or nearly to a single thing fairly often. I can remember Romney's ad about the economy, Giuliani's about terrorism, Clinton's attack on Obama, Thompson's pro-life ad, and then Paul's "He's catching on!" ad lol. I just think highlighting things works in tv ads, it sure does for me because those are always the only ones that stick out in my mind. Heck, the only Paul ad that sticks out is the Freedom Defender ad because it was just good, compared to the bad catching on one, and the other ones I don't even remember because they weren't anything worth paying attention to, just more I'm so and so vote for me junk really.

But I think the ads just missed the campaign's core message of liberty, peace, and prosperity, which would equate to civil right issues such as the Patriot Act for liberty for example, the war in iraq about peace obviously, and monetary policy for the economy. I just think the campaign completely missed the message on the tv ads that were ran. The ads were just too generic, almost like they were just being ran to get people to vote for a republican, not specifically Ron Paul in the republican primary. I hope you get what I mean there, its kind of hard to explain.

Finally, why didn't the campaign air any tv ads comparing Ron Paul and Ronald Reagan?

McCain did that, and the picture they showed in the ad was probably Reagan telling McCain why something McCain did was wrong lol....

A clip of Reagan talking about how there can be no peace while one American is dying before Paul talking about a humble foreign policy would be great, or perhaps a clip of Reagan mentioning something about the gold standard and then Paul, there are tons of possibilities, so I just wonder why that wasn't done, and why that catching on ad was even ran, which is my last question..

Why was that horrible "He's catching on" ad ran? It truly was the worst political ad I have ever seen. (Although the defender of freedom ad was the best I have seen)

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Steve - You recently posted that I was less valuable to the campaign then the office door (You used less flattering language, of course).  Once you either apologize for this ad hominem attack or provide some basis for this observation, then I will be happy to answer your questions. 
> 
> Also, my last name is spelled Rasmussen.


Less valuable than the office door?  Come on.. at least as valuable as its hinges 

Steve, for what it's worth.. Don was one of the most valuable people on the campaign.  It's touch being a staffer at times, because you get all of the blame and little of the credit.  Don's definitely one of those people who's gotten little credit for a lot of the positive things that happened in this campaign, while taking a lot of flack because everyone knows who he is.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Identity established.  OK.
> 
> Now, there are many people who have been in the campaign offices who have been saying this about you, Don.  I have had no reason to doubt their word on things based on hundreds of conversations with people who I have come to know and trust in the grassroots, *where most of the successes in this campaign were achieved.*  These people's observations have proven true, over and over and over again.
> 
> It seems that very few people with long records of established patriot activism were hired in favor of young, inside-the-beltway types---many of whom seem to have been of a certain sexual preference.  Am I wrong?


Steve, (i'm reading this thread for the first time as I respond to people's questions)... the last part of your question is completely inappropriate and out of line.  I meant this thread to be a reasonably intellectual examination of the questions that people have, but this is not a campaign-related question.

One other thing I want to comment on... I think this "where most of the successes in this campaign were achieved" line is nothing but veiled arrogance.  As I said earlier, this campaign was a team effort, and it's snide, off-the-cuff comments like that which can only serve to alienate people.  I don't think it's worth getting into a "grassroots did this, hq did that" type of argument.

I believe that this kind of "grassroots good.. staff bad" groupthink is nothing but, to quote Ron Paul, "small-minded collectivism"

----------


## SteveMartin

"Who?" ...or "What?"...Jonathan.

Look, I have nothing against anyone as long as they prove their worth.  The point is, some in the grassroots felt totally spurned BECAUSE they were older, or because they were not Libertarian insiders, or even (as some have told me) because they were straight.

The effort should have reflected the entirety of the grassroots, not the proclivities (and even possible preferences) of a small subset.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> I suggested months ago that RP should have gone ahead and named a running mate to act as a surrogate at many of these functions so that he could still work as a sitting Congressman, as well, without suffering total burnout.
> 
> Heck, we are a groundbreaking bunch, why didn't we just go ahead and even name a couple of the cabinet people and send them out as well??  They would have gotten a lot more "bang for the buck" then some un-(such)-designated "spokesperson."


It's a good point, and definitely one that in hindsight we should have targeted earlier (having more surrogates, if not necessarily "cabinet members").  All that said, it's also based on the assumption that people in the media would care.  In my experience, the press were fine with having Ron on, but they would rarely be willing to take surrogates, no matter what the qualifications.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Jonathan,  
> 
> I'd peg it at 25% myself.  Congrats!
> 
> The last week of the thrid quarter is when we all in the grassroots said, "Hey, let's go ahead and make the whole darned thing public."
> 
> It worked.
> 
> One of our greatest joint successes, for sure.


Well, and keep in mind that it was also a lot of work to get people to focus on fundraising.  Prior to all of the real-time fundraising widgets, we tried messaging very specifically over and over to get people to undertand that fundraising provides the lifeblood of the campaign.  Go back and read some of those August emails.  That was a big part of my first couple months on the campaign.

----------


## Catatonic

I have a couple questions...how much direct control did Dr. Paul exert over the campaign?  Did he seem to have a set plan from the get-go or was it more of a fly by wire type of deal?

Lastly, did he use these forums or any other medium to keep comprised of what was going on with his supporters, and if so was there anything he saw that on our end he thought we could do better/should do differently?  There used to be a lot of complaining of 9/11 truthers ruining things, and you did mention this earler, but I'm curious as to the scope you experienced this.

Please don't take the criticism of the official campaign here too personally.  I've noticed a band line of people placing 99% of the blame on you guys for Ron Paul not doing as well as we had all hoped.  Rather than understand the enormity of what we've tried to accomplish and how well setup the esablishment is to destroy competition, people seem to prefer to point fingers.  I think everyone was so busy patting themselves on the back for the success of the money bombs and so many straw poll wins that they didn't work as hard as we might have to sway voters or motivate non voters to pull the lever for Dr. Paul.  I never personally supported the money bomb idea, especially after the first one caused barely a ripple with the media.  And as great as 20 million in the 4th quarter is, McCain is evidence that its just a drop in the bucket compared to being loved by the media, unfortunatly.  People seem to think that should have been enough cash to flood all local and national news with 24/7 Ron Paul coverage 

Okay, one more question, despite the greater-than-expected fundraising, how much more cash do you think would have been necessary to be a greater contendor despite the media blackout?

Okay, I'll stop now.

----------


## SteveMartin

> the last part of our question is completely inappropriate and out of line. I meant this thread to be a reasonably intellectual examination of the questions that people have, but this is not a campaign-related question.


No offense intended, Jonathan, but many of RP's older supporters are aware of conservative movements that have been infiltrated and destroyed by members of a certain subset in the past, and the rumor is widespread that this *MAY* have been a contributing factor in our case.

I have no interest in your particular background, other than your ability to do the job.  I think you did quite well considering your admitted youth and lack of experience.  However, in order to dispell those concerns, I'd like to know if there were more homosexuals in the Arlington office than would be representative of the country as a whole.

Call me names, if you must.  But, I am 100% dedicated to fairness and to Ron Paul, and hiring some people over others based on certain characteristics that have nothing to do with their ability to the job would have been deadly to our efforts to take back the country, or even to build a movement.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> "Who?" ...or "What?"...Jonathan.
> 
> Look, I have nothing against anyone as long as they prove their worth.  The point is, some in the grassroots felt totally spurned BECAUSE they were older, or because they were not Libertarian insiders, or even (as some have told me) because they were straight.
> 
> The effort should have reflected the entirety of the grassroots, not the proclivities (and even possible preferences) of a small subset.


Steve, let's just agree to drop this.  I don't have anything more to add.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> No offense intended, Jonathan, but many of RP's older supporters are aware of conservative movements that have been infiltrated and destroyed by members of a certain subset in the past, and the rumor is widespread that this *MAY* have been a contributing factor in our case.
> 
> I have no interest in your particular background, other than your ability to do the job.  I think you did quite well considering your admitted youth and lack of experience.  However, in order to dispell those concerns, I'd like to know if there were more homosexuals in the Arlington office than would be representative of the country as a whole.
> 
> Call me names, if you must.  But, I am 100% dedicated to fairness and to Ron Paul, and hiring some people over others based on certain characteristics that have nothing to do with their ability to the job would have been deadly to our efforts to take back the country, or even to build a movement.


Well, as you said, you are speculating based on a rumor.   I don't really know what else to say... 

I don't mean what I'm about to say as a critique of anyone in particular, but I have found it funny sometimes how we talk about the rest of the country as "sheeple", but then we're willing to believe whatever rumor comes along, regardless of evidence.  Rather than picking up the phone and finding out more, or sending an email... people air grievances on these forums.  As I said before, I'm of the mindset that this just polarizes the group, takes us away from the tasks at hand, and does more harm than good.

----------


## SteveMartin

Just answer the question, or don't answer it, Jonathan.

We have a right to know.

Look, were this rumor true, it might have had the potential to impinge mightily on our ability to reach out to the "Christian Conservative" base of the Republican Party.  Without taking a share of that base, you simply can not win the Republican nomination.  

I was one of the people who applied to work for the campaign early on.  I would like to think that my application was given a fair hearing regardless of may age (47) or sexual preference (straight).  I never complained when I never heard a thing after repeated inquiries, I just continued to work my tail off for Dr. Paul, and had many successes to show for it here in Maine, as well.  Many like me have reported similar experiences...many who have been in the patriot movement for decades.

Many people in the grassroots--experienced, top-notch people in their fields with glowing credentials or resumes--offered their services at little or no charge in a variety of areas, or filed applications to work for the campaign.  They were all routinely (and sometimes rudely) rebuffed.  Hard to feel the GR ever acheived any real respect at all from many at HQ, and this may have led to many other unfortunate results for the entire movement.

----------


## JS4Pat

> It's a good point, and definitely one that in hindsight we should have targeted earlier (having more surrogates, if not necessarily "cabinet members").  All that said, it's also based on the assumption that people in the media would care.  In my experience, the press were fine with having Ron on, but they would rarely be willing to take surrogates, no matter what the qualifications.


Along these same lines...

Have you read Lee Iacocca's "_Where Have All the Leaders Gone_"? In the first few chapters he assess what we need in a president and I swear it sounded as though he was building up for a Ron Paul endorsement. So much so, that a business leader and Ron Paul supporter in my area called and spoke with someone from Lee Iacocca's office about it. Their response - he would need to see who Ron Paul would surround himself with (his cabinet) first. Iacocca believes that a big part of assessing a person's ability to lead is assessing his team. 

Sooo...
This RP supporter called HQs and recomended to the campaign that they look into doing that. Never heard anything further. I know the campaign gets a lot of suggestions (I've worked at a national presidential campaign HQs), but this was a supporter who maxed out his donations last summer and did a LOT for this campaign. You would think it would warrant a follow-up call. (nothing) 

This is the type of incident that makes me question the competency of those running the campaign and unfortunately the competency of Ron Paul when it comes to the ability to surround himself with the right people.       

Any thoughts?

----------


## pepperpete1

Who would I need to contact at the campaign as it regards whether the proper papers that need to be filed in those states that allow a voter to write-in the name of their choice for president, are filed or going to be filed. I would hate to think that, because there may be someone at HQ, who does not think it would be time and money well spent, that they would NOT be filed. I CAN NOT BRING MYSELF TO VOTE FOR ANYONE BUT RON PAUL. I voted for him in the last election by writing his name in even though I knew it would not be counted. Now that he is a candidate, and maybe not a nominee, I want my vote to represent me, standing up and being counted as one who wants to see our constitution followed, to see the rest of our message implemented. I refuse to NOT vote. I feel the grassroots who busted their butts to help RP win the nomination should be allowed to have their votes count. I know you said that you felt he would not win with a write-in program, but the rest of the country should be able to see just where we really stand. A big effort to push this should be implemented.
There is a way to keep our write-in votes from being miscounted, it is a pain in the buttocks, but compared to the anguish we all felt when the MSM humiliated, ignored, and misreported Ron Paul, it would be a small thing.

----------


## Dave

> But as I said before, you're right that we needed more visits to Iowa. And Ron has spoken many times on his reluctance... seems reasonable to me that that affected things more than we'd like to admit.


Bingo.  Here are the number of days each candidate spent in Iowa and the % of votes they got here on Jan. 3:

76 Romney 25%
75 Huckabee 34%
43 McCain 13%
31 F. Thompson 13%
25 Hunter 0%
22 Giuliani 3%
20 Paul 10%

While time spent here doesn't necessarily result in victory (ask Tommy Thompson), it's nearly impossible to win here without a significant investment of time on the ground.  Iowa staff and volunteers were frustrated by this.  Also, a lot of momentum was lost after the Ames Straw Poll on August 11 when there was almost no staff left in Iowa.  In hindsight, I wish I had stepped up more during this time or made more noise with HQ about it.

We knew too well that no candidate has ever finished below 3rd in Iowa and gone on to win their party's nomination.  Was this universally understood?  We wanted 1st-3rd SO MUCH so we could give the rest of America more courage to get on board.  Ron Paul got 2nd in my precinct and I went to the post-caucus party all excited.  Once we finished 5th here we knew we were sailing in uncharted waters.  This whole campaign sailed in uncharted waters so we held out hope for a miracle but another 5th in NH just made the odds longer.

In short, we stumbled at the gate in Iowa and couldn't catch up to the pack.

Two clear lessons from my experience here:
Absolutely, positively nothing happens without leadership.  The things we accomplished were a result of effective leadership.  Failures either happened when leadership was lacking or the idea was simply bad.  I'm proud of the times I provided meaningful leadership, and sorry for the times I didn't.  We can all become better leaders.There's a limit to what can be accomplished with inexperienced campaign volunteers (like me).  Too many people thought posting signs, forwarding emails to their meetup, or making a new youtube was good enough.  Too few were willing to do the hard work and make phone calls or work their precinct, actually engaging people in a positive manner about Ron Paul and the issues.

----------


## amy31416

> Well, as you said, you are speculating based on a rumor.   I don't really know what else to say...


Just move along Jonathan, Steve is the major player who promoted the whole "Billionaire" scam that diverted our attention from what we should have been focusing on. 

He did that by speculating based upon a rumor as well. Now he has, if you haven't read, us speculating that Ron Paul will be in Borat II, it just gets zanier and zanier! Whoopee!

----------


## The Lantern

Don,

I had asked this question of Jonathan, but I would like your opinion as well. Thanks.  






> Jonathan.
> 
> Can you enlighten us on the internal debate over accepting matching funds.  I personally check the little box on my income tax return to fund this program.  I would have liked to have seen the campaign take the money.  As near as I can figure out from the widgets and the transparency of your fundraising Dr. Paul probably qualified for $14-$16 Million.  Is this figure accurate?
> 
> I can understand why Dr. Paul might not want to accept the money, but what I cannot understand is why did the campaign not hold a press conference?  It would seem to me that you could have announced a press conference several days in advance with the subject being Dr. Paul's matching $14 Million.  The press would have salivated for a few days about the prospect of the campaign having access to millions.  Then when the whole world was watching, Dr. Paul could explain why he was not going to accept stolen money from the treasury.  I think the impact of this would have been astronomical.  Especially before some of the early primaries.  
> 
> Anyway, thank you for the wonderful job you did for the movement.  I will be looking forward to reading about you in the future.

----------


## SteveMartin

Dave,

Vote fraud also happened at Ames.  That's why we should not have dissed Jim Condit and his folks who offered to help verify the count FOR FREE.

Typical of what I have been talking about...the whole "We don't need help from anybody/We know best" attitude that characterized some at Arlington HQ.

----------


## SteveMartin

> Just move along Jonathan, Steve is the major player who promoted the whole "Billionaire" scam that diverted our attention from what we should have been focusing on. 
> 
> He did that by speculating based upon a rumor as well. Now he has, if you haven't read, us speculating that Ron Paul will be in Borat II, it just gets zanier and zanier! Whoopee!


Amy,

You are wrong.  Call Dick Mills, his number is available publicly on his website at: www.RonPaulFriendsUSA.com, or call John Stadtmiller whose number is also publicly available with regard to his radio show.

All I did was *go to the source of these rumors* and flesh them out.  My conclusion is that both Dick and John were credible.

I am used to being the "beatup messenger," but don't expect me to be unfairly criticized without proving YOU wrong.

----------


## constituent

> Just answer the question, or don't answer it, Jonathan.
> 
> We have a right to know.
> 
> Look, were this rumor true, it might have had the potential to impinge mightily on our ability to reach out to the "Christian Conservative" base of the Republican Party.  Without taking a share of that base, you simply can not win the Republican nomination.  
> 
> I was one of the people who applied to work for the campaign early on.  I would like to think that my application was given a fair hearing regardless of may age (47) or sexual preference (straight).  I never complained when I never heard a thing after repeated inquiries, I just continued to work my tail off for Dr. Paul, and had many successes to show for it here in Maine, as well.  Many like me have reported similar experiences...many who have been in the patriot movement for decades.
> 
> Many people in the grassroots--experienced, top-notch people in their fields with glowing credentials or resumes--offered their services at little or no charge in a variety of areas, or filed applications to work for the campaign.  They were all routinely (and sometimes rudely) rebuffed.  Hard to feel the GR ever acheived any real respect at all from many at HQ, and this may have led to many other unfortunate results for the entire movement.


please take it to hot topics.  a "gay" conspiracy sounds ridiculous, even the accusation getting out these tubes might get ugly.   just a thought.

----------


## TruthAtLast

> Just answer the question, or don't answer it, Jonathan.
> 
> We have a right to know.
> 
> Look, were this rumor true, it might have had the potential to impinge mightily on our ability to reach out to the "Christian Conservative" base of the Republican Party.  Without taking a share of that base, you simply can not win the Republican nomination.  
> 
> I was one of the people who applied to work for the campaign early on.  I would like to think that my application was given a fair hearing regardless of may age (47) or sexual preference (straight).  I never complained when I never heard a thing after repeated inquiries, I just continued to work my tail off for Dr. Paul, and had many successes to show for it here in Maine, as well.  Many like me have reported similar experiences...many who have been in the patriot movement for decades.
> 
> Many people in the grassroots--experienced, top-notch people in their fields with glowing credentials or resumes--offered their services at little or no charge in a variety of areas, or filed applications to work for the campaign.  They were all routinely (and sometimes rudely) rebuffed.  Hard to feel the GR ever acheived any real respect at all from many at HQ, and this may have led to many other unfortunate results for the entire movement.


Though I see your frustration and concern, I think JB has said his piece on the subject.  When talking about a long-term strategy for the Movement (not just this particular campaign) this topic might not be particularly relevant.  Though it is important to see where mistakes were made, they are only important for the reason of fixing those mistakes for the future.

From reading these responses, I think a lot of the issues stem from the limited time Ron Paul had. Being an active Congressman, he didn't have time to campaign more, or do more fundraisers, or respond to every news reporter, etc.  There may have been other issues with HQ but there were also several errors by the grassroots as well.

The question really is, what now?  Of course there are things we can do immediately but also in terms of long term planning, I'm not sure how much thought has gone into this.  We seem to be pretty good on a 6 month plan (even though many people aren't moving in the same direction).  But what about a 2-year plan when hundreds of other Congressional seats are up for re-election? What about a 4-year plan for the next presidential race?  Yes, it is important to be flexible but none of my businesses would have succeeded if I didn't have some kind of long-term strategy which could be broken down into achievable and measureable steps.  I don't subscribe to the "take it as it comes" philosophy.

Those are the things I, and I know many others are very interested in and love to get JB's input because of his involvement with HQ.

----------


## amy31416

> Amy,
> 
> You are wrong.  Call Dick Mills, his number is available publicly on his website at: www.RonPaulFriendsUSA.com, or call John Stadtmiller whose number is also publicly available with regard to his radio show.
> 
> All I did was *go to the source of these rumors* and flesh them out.  My conclusion is that both Dick and John were credible.
> 
> I am used to being the "beatup messenger," but don't expect me to be unfairly criticized without proving YOU wrong.


The proof is in the pudding, as they say. There was no billionaire making a documentary. You supposedly got this info from the Granny Warriors, who got it from, I don't know, Santa Claus?

Now you got it from Dick and John?

Not sure how you proved me wrong, when you were the one who came onto this message board, distracted everyone, and nothing came to fruition. I, personally, will not forgive you for doing that based on a supposed rumor.

With that said, I'm done commenting on it because it's contrary to the purpose of this thread. You did a disservice to this movement and you do a disservice to comedy by calling yourself SteveMartin. He was actually funny. You are simply tragic. You owe us all an apology.

----------


## SteveMartin

Amy,

Again, your facts are off.  I never said I got the "billionaire rumor" from the granny warriors.  That original billionaire rumor thread was posted for a couple of days (if I remember) before I even posted there, and put up by "first-time-only-time" newbie, whose IP was traced to (I think) Ohio State University.  I live in northern Maine.

I will apologize for *you* as you are the one who needs it.

Folks, I am sorry you have to read the inaccurate musings of someone who is trying to paste things to me that can not stick because they simply are not true.

----------


## Don

> Don,
> 
> I had asked this question of Jonathan, but I would like your opinion as well. Thanks.


I will never forget the exact moment I had this conversation with Ron.  It was the day before the Value Voter's Debacle, err...I mean debate, in Florida. Karl (Ron's security director) and I picked Ron and Carol up at the airport and were driving back to the hotel.  Karl was driving, Ron was riding shotgun with Carol behind Karl and me behind Ron.  Carol mentioned in passing that Tancredo had just announced that he was accepting matching funds.  She then asked Ron if he was considering it. Ron spun in his seat, nostrils flaring, and declared, "I DON'T TAKE STOLEN MONEY!"

After that, although some pined about how much we were giving up, I knew that this was one decision that would never be changed.

My respect for Ron, which I thought couldn't get any higher, went up that day.

----------


## libertarian4321

> Just answer the question, or don't answer it, Jonathan.
> 
> We have a right to know.
> 
> Look, were this rumor true, it might have had the potential to impinge mightily on our ability to reach out to the "Christian Conservative" base of the Republican Party.  Without taking a share of that base, you simply can not win the Republican nomination.  
> 
> I was one of the people who applied to work for the campaign early on.  I would like to think that my application was given a fair hearing regardless of may age (47) or sexual preference (straight).


My BS detector is going off big time.  Are you suggesting that you applied to the campaign and the application asked what your sexual preference was?  C'mon, give me a break.

If you didn't get called back, maybe you just weren't good enough (shocking?).  Stop looking for excuses.

Steve, I have a question for you.  What is with your obsession about homosexuality and how is it really relevant to the campaign?

One of the most hard core libertarian guys I know is openly gay, and he's also a huge Ron Paul supporter.  His $2,300 was as good as anyone else's.  His sign waving was just as good as anyone else's.

----------


## Creampuff

> There! Now you've been initiated into the forum.
> 
> What? You didn't think stopping in to say "Thanks" was going to be controversial?
> 
> Glad to see new blood still arriving. and if you don't read between the lines....
> 
> WELCOME TO THE RABBIT  HOLE!
> 
> Now where the heck did JB go? This was the most informative thread we've had on here in a long while.



I feel well initiated thanks. A creampuff is a pretty sweet thing. I guess I'd better name my gender, I am a her not  a him. But don't hold that against me, I am probably more loyal than most men are to Ron Paul. I've had a lot in common with this dear man for years. This fight for Liberty must continue.

----------


## The Lantern

> I will never forget the exact moment I had this conversation with Ron.  It was the day before the Value Voter's Debacle, err...I mean debate, in Florida. Karl (Ron's security director) and I picked Ron and Carol up at the airport and were driving back to the hotel.  Karl was driving, Ron was riding shotgun with Carol behind Karl and me behind Ron.  Carol mentioned in passing that Tancredo had just announced that he was accepting matching funds.  She then asked Ron if he was considering it. Ron spun in his seat, nostrils flaring, and declared, "I DON'T TAKE STOLEN MONEY!"
> 
> After that, although some pined about how much we were giving up, I knew that this was one decision that would never be changed.
> 
> My respect for Ron, which I thought couldn't get any higher, went up that day.


I can understand not taking the money, but was there any reason there could not have been a press conference to announce the fact?

----------


## Aratus

You go, girl!



"Aratus" is an anti-federalist nom de plume
i borrowed from our late great jamie monroe
and curiously, i'm 50something and female...

----------


## Fields

I just want to take a moment and give a shout out to my mom on this historic and epic thread.

Hey mom, I love you!!

----------


## Don

> I can understand not taking the money, but was there any reason there could not have been a press conference to announce the fact?


I don't think I can add to what Johnathan has already said on this except to agree.

----------


## Matthew P.

> When you have had a chance to read some more, Jonathan, you will find out that the original takeover of the Republican Party was done by the Rockefeller family.  They own the lion's share of Federal Reserve stock, 90% of the nation's refining capacity, and some analysts estimate more than $20 trillion in liquid assets.  That's not something we can take on even in 3 election cycles without them also putting into effect their control of the military, and FEMA, and DHS, etc.
> 
> I used to believe in movements.  I've been involved in several conservative movements.  They are always infiltrated and defeated.  
> 
> IMO, we have one last chance.  And this cycle is it.  If RP runs as an Independent who could "unite the clans" (all the 3rd parties) and give us something we've never had before--A country of our own!  *ARE YOU READY FOR A (real) REVOLUTION!!!*  (In the current police- state, election-fraud environment, everything else is just playing into their hands.)


Steve, thank you for saying that.  I am starting to get frustrated at the number of people out there who cry "conspiracy theorist" whenever someone talks about who really runs the FED.  It is simple, verifiable history - no bones about it.  What's the big deal here?  If we want a free country that is once again based upon the Constitution, then we're going to have to figure out how to wean ourselves off the FED and ultimately abolish it, as well as the 16th amendment.

I am reticent to jump on the independent bandwagon, though.  I honestly don't know if there is enough support for Ron Paul at large.  We see the support here and with some of our friends, and quite likely, those with whom we work and see on a daily basis, but let's face it - there are millions more.  I live in Minneapolis and see thousands of people - obviously oblivious - everyday.  I do what I can, but Dr. Paul is just not the household name we'd like to think he is.  Add in to the mixture the comment from Jonathan several pages back that really backs this up - many people spent a lot of time and effort pushing the R3VOLution or "Hope for America" without saying that he was running for president.  Someone put a piece of paper on one of our "RonPaulmobiles" the other day that said "who the hell is Ron Paul?" - it just goes to show. . .

----------


## Matthew P.

> Wow that took a long time and a lot of effort to read through 31 pages of questions, not to mention the repeated questions lol!
> 
> Now I have a question, what was all that money spent on?!  lol
> 
> joking.....
> 
> 
> I do have a few questions though.
> 
> ...


Justin - this was a great post - thank you for taking the time to craft it!  

I was thinking about your fourth point (and that's why I cut the quote off there) and, honestly, don't you think that McCain's victories had little to do with any of his strategies or campaigning and more to do with who the media liked?  As I watched all of this unfold (and am still watching) I find myself sick with disgust at the MSM.  I for one don't watch television, but I know that most people who do get brainwashed and just soak in what the MSM want them to have.  Even if Ron Paul ran his ads 24/7 on all the major networks, it wouldn't have mattered - the media worked hard to shut him out.  McCain didn't have to work hard and he probably knew it - this whole thing has been handed to him on a platter.  McCain is nothing but a puppet.  I honestly don't think that the man is capable of independent thought.

Just venting . . .

----------


## Matthew P.

I just slugged through all 38 pages of that - whew!  That was a doozy!  I don't know if there are a whole lot more legitimate questions to be had on this topic.  LOL    Just kidding.

----------


## nodope0695

Thanks for joining the forums.  The question that keeps nagging at me is:  What happened to all the money?  A follow up question would be:  Why weren't ads run in Super Tuesday states on national networks like CNN, Fox, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, etc?  I saw ads from all other candidates except Ron Paul.

A simple question for Super Tuesday is:  What the hell happened?

Also, why were opportunities for interviews on radio stations ignored when giving such interviews would have reached huge markets of listeners.  This occured in Seattle where a large number of Ron Paul supporters could have used the support of the campaign, and many undecided voters might have heard Ron Paul's message.  

One more question:  Why were thousands of dollars spent to send mailers to people who already support Ron Paul?  I recieved three of them, yet I didn't neet to be convinced.  Wouldn't that money have been better spent reaching undecided/uniformed voters?

Thanks again for joining the forums.

----------


## me3

> If you didn't get called back, maybe you just weren't good enough (shocking?).  Stop looking for excuses.
> 
> Steve, I have a question for you.  What is with your obsession about homosexuality and how is it really relevant to the campaign?


No, this campaign is all about conspiracies MAN!  The HQ is out to get the straight people!  The MSM is screwing us over!  The Illuminati stole my bicycle!




> For the record, the filming of RP with a lesbian that he threw out of the office has been done, according to sources much more reliable.


Was she engaging in lesbian relations in the office, or did your digital lesbian detector expose her?




> Thanks for joining the forums.  The question that keeps nagging at me is:
> 
> ...
> 
> Thanks again for joining the forums.


Man, read the thread.   JB has answered these questions several times already.  Until Steve starts getting paranoid, the thread is very informative and interesting.

----------


## yongrel

> Until Steve starts getting paranoid, the thread is very informative and interesting.


Tale of a thousand threads.

----------


## Leroy_Jenkems

> My other personal feeling is that we should have worked harder getting on nightly network news, not just shows like the Situation Room.  Fact is still, even in the internet age, that many people only get their news from watching the Tom Brokaws, etc.  And while we got tons of press from November 5th, we really needed to turn that into sustained coverage on the major networks.  That didn't happen, part because we weren't equipped to do it, and part because the press stopped caring about Ron Paul again as soon as the novelty of the money bombs wore off.



+1000000^2 about the nightly network news - the VAST majority of folks 40ish and over grew up with the nightly 5- or 6-ish news in their routine. Creatures of habit.

Speaking of media: there have been, currently are, and will be various venues to spring up as platforms for Dr. Paul's message - some certainly better than others. You've probably seen Trevor Lyman's next brainchild, Break The Matrix. Now Dr. Paul has launched Liberty PAC. Various pre-existing organizations are already out there, including but not limited to:

 - Downsize DC
 - Citizens Against Government Waste
 - National Taxpayers Union
 - The Constitutional Party
 - We the People Foundation

Without incriminating yourself i.e. bringing criticism to yourself by showing bias toward one particular organization, can you give some general guidelines of which forms of activism may inherently have more leverage than others?

----------


## JustBcuz

> I will never forget the exact moment I had this conversation with Ron.  It was the day before the Value Voter's Debacle, err...I mean debate, in Florida. Karl (Ron's security director) and I picked Ron and Carol up at the airport and were driving back to the hotel.  Karl was driving, Ron was riding shotgun with Carol behind Karl and me behind Ron.  Carol mentioned in passing that Tancredo had just announced that he was accepting matching funds.  She then asked Ron if he was considering it. Ron spun in his seat, nostrils flaring, and declared, "I DON'T TAKE STOLEN MONEY!"
> 
> After that, although some pined about how much we were giving up, I knew that this was one decision that would never be changed.
> 
> My respect for Ron, which I thought couldn't get any higher, went up that day.


Thanks for posting that....made my day

----------


## Fields

I think Steves' points are fine if he gives "us" hard evidence and a concrete source. If the source is so sure then it's a fact and not rumor which won't come back to haunt the them.

----------


## joemiller

> When you have had a chance to read some more, Jonathan, you will find out that the original takeover of the Republican Party was done by the Rockefeller family.  They own the lion's share of Federal Reserve stock, 90% of the nation's refining capacity, and some analysts estimate more than $20 trillion in liquid assets.  That's not something we can take on even in 3 election cycles without them also putting into effect their control of the military, and FEMA, and DHS, etc.
> 
> I used to believe in movements.  I've been involved in several conservative movements.  They are always infiltrated and defeated.  
> 
> IMO, we have one last chance.  And this cycle is it.  If RP runs as an Independent who could "unite the clans" (all the 3rd parties) and give us something we've never had before--A country of our own!  *ARE YOU READY FOR A (real) REVOLUTION!!!*  (In the current police- state, election-fraud environment, everything else is just playing into their hands.)


As a fifteen-year Republican Party committeeman, I agree with your assessment of the present status of the Republican Party...it was taken over long ago by the moneyed interests.  But there are a few points of contention I would like to point out in your otherwise remarkable astute assessment. 

The first one is that while it is true, the leadership of the party is completely and utterly controlled by the moneyed interests and the political elite of the party, by and large, the rank and file of the party is not. That is to say,  most local committee members are honest, down to earth,  hard-working, true Republicans who would support Dr. Paul, apart from the war issue, if given half a chance. 

Secondly, I don't share your view that liberating the party from the moneyed interests and the political elite is hopeless...far from it. All we need is a little grassroots leadership and the Internet and the Republican Party can be retaken in short order, in very short order.  In fact, I can easily see how this can be accomplished by the next general election. Which brings me to your last point...I think we have time to act.  We are a strong nation, a strong Republic. We will survive long enough to fight another day.

Hopefully, Dr. Paul's efforts was but the first shot fired in this R3volution, and, God willing, it won't be the last.  This is why it is so vitally important that every Ron Paul supporter should see to it their names are placed on the ballot as their precinct committee men and women, to carry this fight first into the Republican Party and then to the rest of the nation. If we can all do this much, those efforts and those of Ron Paul's will live on in our nation's history books as the defining moment in American politics for generations to come. We are clearly reaching a crossroads here. We have the ability to make changes, but only if we can act together.  

joemiller

----------


## Ricochet

Thank you Jonathan and Don too. This is the best thread I've ever read here.

It makes me so happy to read and understand better, and then that makes me think what a shame that this kind of liaison to HQ wasn't setup and planned for from the beginning. I know you've mentioned legal problems with that, but I think future campaigns should try to have as much contact as they legally can. Especially a campaign that is centered so much around the internet.

I share the frustration you have mentioned about a lack of controversy or aggressiveness from Dr. Paul. I totally understand that the news needs a "story" and stories come from conflict.

Towards that end, what do you think about Dr. Paul challenging McCain to a one on one televised debate? Seems like that might just be interesting enough to get some media attention, even from the challenge alone, regardless of whether McCain accepts or not.

----------


## Fields

> Everybody always wants to cry for "sources," and usually it is really a cry for "who do we go and crucify next?"  Ain't playing that game.  Suffice it to say that the sources are numerous.


Steve, your comment is obviously aimed towards me. In all seriousness, no one on here knows the goals of some of your comments. For instance, your homosexual comment, I'm not gay nor do I really care about them, but, I won't disparage them for no reason.  All I, and the members of this board ask, is for some form of proof to validate your points.

----------


## Fields

> Everybody always wants to cry for "sources," and usually it is really a cry for "who do we go and crucify next?"  Ain't playing that game.  Suffice it to say that the sources are numerous.


By the way, your quote, "who do we go and crucify next" is correct. That is how we keep those, who deem themselves a higher authority, accountable.  Tell a lie and get caught; be prepared to get an earful.

----------


## devil21

> Ron Paul, the one that I, and others know on this forum. The one who couldn't be enticed in getting the least bit angry when he was diminished and called out as a kook, loonatic and crazy.  Yet, you want me, and all others on this forum, to believe that he nearly scolded his WIFE about matching funds and cursed a "lesbian prostitute" out of his office?
> 
> Either that was true which is fine but this gives new light on his possible "racist newsletters" that he had "no idea who wrote."
> 
> Read my post correctly. If you were in my position, which most on this forum are, would you believe that?


You clearly have no clue about the Borat show, or the movie, if you really think that it's so impossible.  Borat (Sasha Cohen) has duped MANY high profile figures during interviews over the last few years.  I absolutely believe that Dr. Paul would emphatically state that he would not accept taxpayer matching funds.  Are you new to the good Dr.?

----------


## SteveMartin

> I won't disparage them for no reason.


Neither will I.  The point would be one of essential fairness, not whatever it is some of you seem to be trying to suggest I am saying, which I haven't said.

----------


## New York For Paul

> I think you have a couple of good points, but some things, from my perspective anyway, are just incorrect.
> 
> For starters, I don't think much more could have been done in NH.  We had a great state coordinator and a great team in place, and if they couldn't win the state, I don't believe anyone else could have either.  While you sight "more offices" for the other campaigns, you neglect to remember all of the volunteer support that has been the backbone of this campaign everywhere.  And you talk about "sophisticated walk lists"... well, again, it was a bit late in coming, but have you looked at the precinct leader tools?  https://voters.grassroots.com  In all honesty, I know that our people in NH (and in most states) worked very hard to "have the ground game in order."  I think that if you believe more needed to be done, then that is more of a criticism of the grassroots than it is of official campaign staff.  And I can tell you that, at least in New Hampshire, the grassroots supporters were EXTREMELY well organized.  I really think we just didn't have the votes (for reasons I've touched on in other posts).
> 
> I agree with your assessment of TV ads in caucus states, and there definitely is a line of political thinking that says what you say.  But at the same time, we also saw our poll numbers rally in Iowa as a result of the ads we were running.  So who knows.
> 
> As far as the youth campaign, I think you're dead wrong.  There was a good deal of funding to the youth, and certainly more than most other campaigns.  And remember, while I like to think that the youth can make a huge difference, as we know, the fact is simply that they don't vote in as large numbers as older age groups.  So knowing all the other things that needed funding, I don't believe the youth was one that needed significantly more.


I won't hold your youth and inexperience against you. The youth campaign was underfunded. Jeff was one over worked youth coordinator who needed more help.
The 250 students marching across Iowa was inadequate. 250 students might be adequate for one congressional district in Iowa. The campaign needed thousands of young people.

Many past presidential campaigns including Dole in 96 and Reagan in 1980 had large youth campaigns. The winning Reagan campaign had two or three thousand youth for Reagan show up to the convention. The Reagan campaign conducted live training schools around the country to hundreds of potential youth coordinators. The Reagan campaign hired thirty to fifty paid staff youth coordinators. 

Did the Ron Paul campaign hire that many youth coordinators? Further, did the Ron Paul campaign have dedicated youth coordinators for each state, with Ron Paul clubs in each college?  Each High School?  Each Junior High School? 

Did these Ron Paul student clubs in New Hampshire have events, a coordinated strategy with the senior campaign, precinct walks, mock elections, press releases voter registration tables and other activities?

While the student don't tend to vote, they are the drivers for older voters, the canvassers, sign holders, assistant fundraisers, crowd builders, phone banks etc. 

I did see many college age kids from out of state who showed up and were out of control mobs in Manchester that may have hurt the campaign, not a well disciplined youth group. While I think Sean Hannity can be an idiot, Sean used the footage of himself being chased by Ron Paul supporters to his advantage by making the Ron Paul supporters look out of control. 

Where are these Ron Paul student clubs during spring break and will they help in Pennsylvania? 

Back to New Hampshire HQ. The HQ has to direct the grassroots. Many volunteers are new to the campaign. Romney and Clinton had HQs that were ten times the size of the Ron Paul campaign. 

*They also had free available parking*. 

Ron Paul's HQ had limited parking and limited space.

Obama had eight to ten headquarters around the state. Each headquarters was similar in size to the single Ron Paul HQ.

Instead of the campaign just making phone calls to voters, they should have made phone calls to voters asking them to sign a pledge card in support of Ron Paul. Towards the end of the campaign, the Get out the vote people would have had signed pledged cards from individual voters. This would have been a verifiable stack of cards from voters. Instead all we had were indications of support and promises to vote for Ron Paul that we couldn't really trust or rely upon.

Ron Paul could have spent another million dollars in New Hampshire on an extra headquarters with better parking lots, a pledge card program with a dedicated coordinator, more dedicated youth coordinators, paid staff to answer email and phone calls, paid staff to help coordinate out of state volunteers to come in help, paid staff to canvass and find unregistered Ron Paul supporters and paid staff dedicated to more house parties to introduce Ron Paul to the voters.

Many people in New Hampshire did not know who Ron Paul was on election day and they were anti tax, anti big government types.

I disagree with the official campaign with how they spent the money and on what items.

----------


## Aratus

> As a fifteen-year Republican Party committeeman, I agree with your assessment of the present status of the Republican Party...it was taken over long ago by the moneyed interests.  But there are a few points of contention I would like to point out in your otherwise remarkable astute assessment. 
> 
> The first one is that while it is true, the leadership of the party is completely and utterly controlled by the moneyed interests and the political elite of the party, by and large, the rank and file of the party is not. That is to say,  most local committee members are honest, down to earth,  hard-working, true Republicans who would support Dr. Paul, apart from the war issue, if given half a chance. 
> 
> Secondly, I don't share your view that liberating the party from the moneyed interests and the political elite is hopeless...far from it. All we need is a little grassroots leadership and the Internet and the Republican Party can be retaken in short order, in very short order.  In fact, I can easily see how this can be accomplished by the next general election. Which brings me to your last point...I think we have time to act.  We are a strong nation, a strong Republic. We will survive long enough to fight another day.
> 
> Hopefully, Dr. Paul's efforts was but the first shot fired in this R3volution, and, God willing, it won't be the last.  This is why it is so vitally important that every Ron Paul supporter should see to it their names are placed on the ballot as their precinct committee men and women, to carry this fight first into the Republican Party and then to the rest of the nation. If we can all do this much, those efforts and those of Ron Paul's will live on in our nation's history books as the defining moment in American politics for generations to come. We are clearly reaching a crossroads here. We have the ability to make changes, but only if we can act together.  
> 
> joemiller



http://www.backwash.com/previewnewsa...hp?newsid=1408
mckinley's campaign kitty in 1896 was roughly 15 to 16 million dollars if i
go by the upper figures in the history books and the bios. the lower figure
is 3 million dollars. this is why there is tons of surviving campaign items
even to this very day for the money went into quality items.

----------


## New York For Paul

> I think the bigger point you're raising, though, is that it's hard to know how effective any taken action is.  Without spending a ton of money on focus groups, how do you know one TV ad is more effective than another?  And is radio a better medium for political advertising than TV, or newspapers?  These are all questions that I personally struggled with a lot.  And I'm not so sure there are many people out there, except for some advertising execs, who really have good answers.


I am sorry you personally struggled with these questions. An experienced political operative would know how to take care of this. You know which TV ad is more effective by doing focus groups and polling. They go hand in hand. Otherwise you are flying blind. Merely guessing at what is working and what is not. 

Even the best political consultant cannot know what will work all the time. So you have to test. You spent a ton of money on TV and radio, you had better spend some money to measure how well they work. If your ads are not working, then you need to make new ads and test them. You can't do one without the other if you want to be effective. 

Did the campaign have a good polling firm helping them?

----------


## Aratus

here is a good news story about what the grassroots are doing...
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=129159
New York For Ron Paul, are you asking him for current narrowcasting data?

----------


## Aratus

remember the rather trashy ad that is narrowcasted to be alarmist to 
a given segment of the greater population that Hq knows is not their 
proudest hour and its a pipsqueak by comparison to the PAC money attack
ads of recent yesteryear? the dude with a "cig' and these tattoos and a 
"clint eastwood" workingclass squint? like someone who is hyper~uber
upper!middleclass could be set of by a dude like that? the ad is narrowcasting.
http://www.scala.com/definition/narrowcasting.html  by definition the x-mas
card that more than implies poligamy is insted a dirty trick and did not originate
from a religious organization in my homestate. this campaign got rugged in S.C...

----------


## New York For Paul

> Bingo.  Here are the number of days each candidate spent in Iowa and the % of votes they got here on Jan. 3:
> 
> 76 Romney 25%
> 75 Huckabee 34%
> 43 McCain 13%
> 31 F. Thompson 13%
> 25 Hunter 0%
> 22 Giuliani 3%
> 20 Paul 10%
> ...


That is a shame. The campaign had 2.5 million in the bank by July 15. Iowa caucuses were only a few months after the straw poll. They really pulled people out just as they should have been ramping up to organize for the caucus?

Why did the campaign not view Iowa as a top priority?

----------


## Aratus

New York For Ron Paul...

if the top HQ people are now doing a scenario gameplan for 2012 and 
a viable presidential run, what you just asked is a very apt analysis!
RP needs 70 to 100 days in iowa as in EARLY! rather than brief whistlestops.

if ron paul's monies for his november house seat run now suffice to give him a victory,
does it behoove HQ to keep a rainy day fund unspent so as to have TWICE the cash
when iowa and supertuesday are gameplanned for the grand run in 2012?

----------


## New York For Paul

> Well, as you said, you are speculating based on a rumor.   I don't really know what else to say... 
> 
> I don't mean what I'm about to say as a critique of anyone in particular, but I have found it funny sometimes how we talk about the rest of the country as "sheeple", but then we're willing to believe whatever rumor comes along, regardless of evidence.  Rather than picking up the phone and finding out more, or sending an email... people air grievances on these forums.  As I said before, I'm of the mindset that this just polarizes the group, takes us away from the tasks at hand, and does more harm than good.


The problem was that the campaign never staffed up to adequately answer the phone or respond to the email. But it is a good idea on your part. I just wished the campaign had adopted it. 

Several of us were busy forwarding you great fundraising emails inside the arlington HQ for you to answer, but a great many emails were ignored and never made it to your desk.  So for many months the campaign operated on the model below because the campaign was very late in hiring a correspondence manager.

----------


## rodo1776

Hey JB and Don don’t go away

First of all,  as most have said to reiterate thanks to Jonathan and now Don as well for spending time they really are not getting compensated for to help us all out.

I read all the pages and unfortunately like so many times on this forum what starts out great ends up being ego centric and degenerating to the point that anything positive vanishes and once again we (I say we cause I also have sent a few messages I now regret and apologise for that) force people to leave who have good input and are positive but just end up getting fed up.

Let’s all grow up and keep this professional. 
I think General Washington would have summarily shot a few of us if this happened back in the original revolution.

Ok anyway side point to Don. I live in Costa Rica and have so for years. 
Glad to hear that you are thinking of coming down. PM me and I would be happy to offer any help and a free hotel room in Monteverde. 
(P.S. we actually elected 6 Libertarian congress people here in Costa Rica out of 58 and they have been great at blocking new tax increases and influencing government) 

Ok my question if either of you are not so disgusted that you will never return.

Since I live in Costa Rica and therefore could only send money, the only other thing I could do was try to help people with caucus strategy since I was very active years ago in a caucus state and therefore felt my best participation was for that.

I posted before the Iowa caucus a long diatribe on what things to do in advance of the caucus and what to do at the caucus.

Since I knew that we as RPers would be facing lots of opposition from long time GOP party hacks one of the things I advocated was going stealth and organizing slates that were not openly RP at the caucus in order to confuse the hacks and steal votes and have a better chance to get delegates elected. (along with other strategies and procedures etc) 

At that time this idea was not understood well due to people mostly being first timers and I sensed that there was a real lack of support from HQ state paid staff on the issue of caucus training and strategy.  I understand this since we were all focused on other things.
And keep in mind I understand that in primary states this issue is somewhat moot depending on the State. 

So my questions are:

1)	What level of importance and experienced staffers did the campaign allocate for caucus training? 

2)	Was this an issue that was considered important vis a vis other important things that any campaign must do?

3)	Was the ‘stealth” strategy considered early on by HQ?

4)	I finally saw in Washington State that people there were saying that they were told by staffers to go “stealth” as the best way to get more precinct delegates elected. Was this true that HQ was promoting it at that time? 

5)	Since we have so many more conventions and still some caucus states to come up is HQ allocating any resources to caucus training and strategy. 

6)	Finally I know of at least one state still in the process that went stealth in at least part of the state and has a good chance in my opinion of possibly even taking a majority of National delegates if they had HQ support and money. 

7)	This state is still in stealth mode so I can’t mention it but if they had some support and money to help pay convention fees etc then this would be a possibility for a strong showing. However emails to HQ staffers from this state have gone unanswered and there seems to be no interest.

8)	How would this state go about getting some help from HQ (or at least the courtesy of an answer?) 

9)	Or at this point do you see the HQ position being one of holding all cash they may have and using it for funding some sort of foundation or for a grass roots revolution?  It is not clear to me if there is the willingness of HQ to spend money they may have to help ensure that we get as many delegates as possible even though we won’t get the nomination. Ron Paul says that he wants us to continue but without support it makes it difficult. 

As I think we can see now that stealth does work and where implemented we walked away with delegate’s way out of proportion to our straw votes or in the case of Missouri the primary vote. Missouri, Alaska, Washington, Nevada  and I’m hopefull in Maine as well were prime examples (as well as others I’m sure). I encourage all people still in the process to strongly consider the stealth tactic for all upcoming conventions or caucuses that you may have. 

Sorry to bother and hope you are still at least reading the posts and may consider that not all of us want to be negative. What you both have done is to shed light in a very professional and thoughtful manner. 

Thanks

----------


## BKom

Interesting thread.

----------


## spacehabitats

> Bingo.  Here are the number of days each candidate spent in Iowa and the % of votes they got here on Jan. 3:
> 
> 76 Romney 25%
> 75 Huckabee 34%
> 43 McCain 13%
> 31 F. Thompson 13%
> 25 Hunter 0%
> 22 Giuliani 3%
> 20 Paul 10%
> ...


Excellent post. I am not trying to beat a dead horse. JB has already conceded that Dr. Paul needed to visit Iowa more. 
But I think it bears repeating how overwhelming the evidence is that this mortally wounded the campaign.

All of the talk about where the money should have been spent and who should have been fired misses the point that you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Your statistics actually show that RP had an amazing response, given his lack of time in the state. But after Iowa, only a 1st or 2nd finish in New Hampshire could have revived the campaign. 

Every candidate is different and brings different strengths and weaknesses to his campaign. Dr. Paul is a very erudite and thoughtful candidate who appeals to voters with the time and diligence to understand the issues in depth. He is not charismatic. Because his platform challenges many powerful and influential forces in America he can not count on receiving any breaks from the media or party officials. Also, unfortunately, in this age of information overload, the public relies even more on the media to filter the noise and tell them what is relevant. Controversial stances on issues like the war in Iraq can't be communicated effectively in a radio or TV ad; let alone a campaign slogan or yard sign.

Any candidate like Ron Paul is going to have to bypass the media more and rely on retail politics. This is the good, old-fashioned, face-to-face, public appearances, speeches, parades, and baby kissing that is supposed to be obsolete in the Internet Age. How can he do this nationally? He can't. No one can. But he could have done these things in Iowa. 

Every national candidate does these things, but relies on the national media to broadcast him doing these things. That is why candidates like Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and John Edwards could afford to spend so much time in Iowa and still run a "national" campaign. Rudy thought he could bypass Iowa and he paid the price as we know. (Ironically, even HE spent more days in Iowa than RP.)

Ron Paul could not rely on the national media to spread his message until he could *force* them to recognize him as a contender. So he needed to camp out in Iowa (and New Hampshire) plugging away in relative obscurity until he had punched through to THE PEOPLE, risen in the polls, and made converts in large percentages.

The strength of Ron Paul's campaign is that once the voters became convinced of the truth of his message, they did more than just vote. They became evangelists for his message! They donated and actively campaigned. This was the secret sauce that so frightened his opponents and energized his supporters.  But he needed to reach the tipping point, point of combustion, that point of no return that would have propelled his message into the national spotlightand ignited a grassroots that could not be contained. Iowa/New Hampshire was his first and, apparently, only chance to do that.

Or was it?
The reason all of this isn't just academic at this point is that:
1) any future RP presidential candidate is going to need to commit himself to time-consuming retail politics in the early primary states.
2) I think Ron Paul needs to give one last shot at making a splash with THIS campaign.

In my post http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=127868
("How about winning a primary?") I tried to make the case for concentrating the efforts of Ron Paul's campaign on a relatively small state and pulling out all the stops. I used Nebraska as an example and tried to show how he could break through the media blackout with personal appearances and take advantage of the fact that his only remaining opponent is hugely unpopular with a large number of voters in that state. His ads and people canvassing for him could focus on convincing voters that they need to vote for Ron Paul to *send a message to the RNC that conservative Republicans are NOT happy*. The significant number of votes that Mike Huckabee has gotten since he dropped out are frustration votes. It is our campaign's fault that those votes have not gone to Ron Paul. 

At least we now have the advantage that ALL of the votes in remaining primaries are "wasted". It would be an incredible upset and it is extremely unlikely that he could actually win, but that is the *only* type of primary result that would make any kind of impact on this election year.

Unfortunately it appears that Dr. Paul is still committed to diluting his message. He will be spending what little campaign time he has in a state (Pennsylvania) in which he will be lucky to break into the double digits. A guaranteed media non-event and another demoralizing result for his supporters.

----------


## joemiller

> http://www.backwash.com/previewnewsa...hp?newsid=1408
> mckinley's campaign kitty in 1896 was roughly 15 to 16 million dollars if i
> go by the upper figures in the history books and the bios. the lower figure
> is 3 million dollars. this is why there is tons of surviving campaign items
> even to this very day for the money went into quality items.


Very interesting URL, but let's look at the future and why anybody should expect it to be any different than our past. 

I would offer that the political parties of today are uniquely vulnerable now because of one very important communicative innovation: The Internet.

Now I know most people don't understand why the established major political parties will never take full advantage of the communicative power of the Internet, but such is the case.  Both the DNC and the RNC fear the Internet's ability to easily allow communication for the first time between large numbers of fellow party members because it means the old days of divide and conquer are over. The political elite of both parties know this and fear the Internet for that reason. So the opportunity is there, all we have to do is be smart enough, organized enough and determined enough to pick up this tool and utilize it to make a difference.

We need to move into the GOP as committee men and women on the local level; get our supporters to run and succeed in their "State" representative elections -- take over the State GOP parties and then appoint the RNC leadership.

joemiller

----------


## Kade

> ms. hillary in her narrowcasting is latently tapping an "eleanor roosevelt"
> brain neuron connectivity. i can remember when the late president's widow
> was at the U.N and upon reading that the democrat cigar chompers wanted
> to run her in 1948 and had to suffice with straight talk express harry s. truman, 
> can i opinion how an FDR + Eleanor would resonate amoungst and to all older female
> democrats with a bit of a woman's lib bias? ...the added "chaser" is any queen victoria
> metaphoric subliminal image... as opposed to this being younger, gloria steinem and activist.


You are either the greatest poster in the history of these forums, or you are automated...

----------


## Aratus

clearly i am a very unique prose-poem stylist a la hunter thompson...
 i take your commentary to be a backhanded compliament!!!!

----------


## justinc.1089

> Justin - this was a great post - thank you for taking the time to craft it!  
> 
> I was thinking about your fourth point (and that's why I cut the quote off there) and, honestly, don't you think that McCain's victories had little to do with any of his strategies or campaigning and more to do with who the media liked?  As I watched all of this unfold (and am still watching) I find myself sick with disgust at the MSM.  I for one don't watch television, but I know that most people who do get brainwashed and just soak in what the MSM want them to have.  Even if Ron Paul ran his ads 24/7 on all the major networks, it wouldn't have mattered - the media worked hard to shut him out.  McCain didn't have to work hard and he probably knew it - this whole thing has been handed to him on a platter.  McCain is nothing but a puppet.  I honestly don't think that the man is capable of independent thought.
> 
> Just venting . . .


The media certainly had a lot to do with McCain winning New Hampshire and South Carolina without a doubt. But McCain's campaign was excellent in SC considering McCain's situation. He could have used a little more tv ads but I don't think he had the money for that. And I have to say McCain did work hard, it seemed like he was constantly in SC somehow somewhere speaking to people. I mean like I said he was within an hour of me many times and I'm in a county he won back in 2000 so it wasn't even going to be a tough county for him really.

But his win probably was due mostly to the media overall, however his win in SC in particular I would say would give more credit to a smart, corrupt campaign more than anything. Although I honestly wonder about his win in SC because it really was strange how voting machines died, and how there were NO McCain supporters at the last debate in SC before the primary, and how only McCain's campaign was prepared for voting hours to be extended due to lots of machines dying. So I just wonder if the diebold conspiracists might really be on to something idk lol.

I think I probably asked too many questions regarding tv ads though lol.....

----------


## JS4Pat

> I disagree with the official campaign with how they spent the money and on what items.


I totally agree with your opnion. 

I really don't think it can emphasized enough as to just how poorly the official campaign was run. 

When I saw that first NH commercial - I knew we were doomed. 

Pat Buchanan won New Hampshire in 1996 - against the establishment. Ron Paul had far less negatives than Pat and he had much more money.

The New Hampshire results should have resulted in the campaign "cleaning house". It was just inexcusable!

----------


## jonsmallberries

> As far as not responding to media requests, two points... first, you're right that the campaign was too late formulating a 5 star media team.  It should have been in place earlier, and I fault myself in retrospect, as well as others, for sort of seeing it as a problem, but not realizing its magnitude.  But, I will also say that many of the criticisms that people raise in this regard are unfounded.  By the end of November, we had a system in place to responding to important media calls.  But again, we can't respond to every local newspaper and TV station.  We were forced to pick and choose appearances that were most important, particularly because the media did not care about surrogates for Ron Paul like they did for a Hillary Clinton.  That meant that Ron had to do all of these appearances, which was just impossible.  Many of the criticisms of the media team were centered on less important media -- not that all media aren't important, but you still clearly have to get Ron in front of the biggest media audience as you can, given time constraints.


Hmm.  I talked to the executive producer of a large AM talk radio show in Los Angeles and she said they asked for an interview no less than twelve times.  They would have been fine with a refusal, but they got no response, or 12 non-responses I should say.   I'm asking you this because I've no emailed HQ several times regarding this subject and _I_ got no response either.  I donated and I'm not asking to talk to Dr. Paul himself, but I can't even get a response from the team.  My question is, what's up with that?

----------


## New York For Paul

> The media certainly had a lot to do with McCain winning New Hampshire and South Carolina without a doubt. But McCain's campaign was excellent in SC considering McCain's situation. He could have used a little more tv ads but I don't think he had the money for that. And I have to say McCain did work hard, it seemed like he was constantly in SC somehow somewhere speaking to people. I mean like I said he was within an hour of me many times and I'm in a county he won back in 2000 so it wasn't even going to be a tough county for him really.
> 
> But his win probably was due mostly to the media overall, however his win in SC in particular I would say would give more credit to a smart, corrupt campaign more than anything. Although I honestly wonder about his win in SC because it really was strange how voting machines died, and how there were NO McCain supporters at the last debate in SC before the primary, and how only McCain's campaign was prepared for voting hours to be extended due to lots of machines dying. So I just wonder if the diebold conspiracists might really be on to something idk lol.
> 
> I think I probably asked too many questions regarding tv ads though lol.....



The Ron Paul campaign was hiring coordinators for South Carolina in early August. I thought it was a targeted state. Are there things we can learn from this?
What went right, what went wrong.

Nevada went well despite the fact that no state coordinator was listed on the website for months. I am not sure who was in charge there.

----------


## V4Vendetta

> As some of you may know, I am no longer officially with the Ron Paul campaign as of March 14th.


Hello Jonathan....
The money that was paid to you by the Ron Paul Campaign was wasted... you had absolutely no effect on fund raising.
In fact... you hurt the fundraising we all planned on either Nov. 5th or was it Dec. 16th?? when you sent out a message saying that the campaign needed money right away 2 days before the planned money bomb.

Then after the Nov. 5th money bomb, at the press conference, you were asked if you would consider going to another campaign to help them out.
You said something to the effect of " No, I was hired by Ron Paul, I will stay with with Ron Paul"

You didn't say anything about the other guys being neo-cons, war mongers, big government traitors to the republican party.

The fact that you even were asked the question shows the ignorance of the reporter that asked the question.

Anyone that paid attention to Ron Paul would know that the other candidates didn't even come close to what Ron Paul was talking about.

You also led the press to think the Nov 5th Money Bomb was a object of your intellect , when in fact you had nothing to do with it.

It's people like you, that are so vain, I can't stand to even be in the same room with.

Either your in this to win, or you're in it for future ambitions.

You left a bad taste in my mouth with your vanity and so have a few others.

so long, have a nice life.

----------


## SteveMartin

Some people enjoy solving crimes.

Some people enjoy complicated medical mysteries.

I enjoy determining exactly how patriotic-sounding campaigns die.  Perot, Buchanan--I've been there.  I've seen.

We don't have the answers here yet, but I definitely think we are on the right track.

Help me people.

----------


## rodo1776

Steve I don’t understand. A few days ago you were pleading to have Jonathan back answering questions.

Then he came back and along with Don as well they continued answering questions. 

Now after totally blowing these guys away and bad mouthing them you come back again. 

Why not leave this thread or at least be positive and let us continue this? 

You want to have a dialogue or want to just have a forum for your BS? 

Come on guys and gals let’s be positive. Io that a good idea Steve?

----------


## SteveMartin

I am positive.  I am absolutely positive our money was wasted.  Some put it down to incompetence.  Some fear worse.

Trying to sort which is which.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Hello Jonathan....
> The money that was paid to you by the Ron Paul Campaign was wasted... you had absolutely no effect on fund raising.
> In fact... you hurt the fundraising we all planned on either Nov. 5th or was it Dec. 16th?? when you sent out a message saying that the campaign needed money right away 2 days before the planned money bomb.
> 
> Then after the Nov. 5th money bomb, at the press conference, you were asked if you would consider going to another campaign to help them out.
> You said something to the effect of " No, I was hired by Ron Paul, I will stay with with Ron Paul"
> 
> You didn't say anything about the other guys being neo-cons, war mongers, big government traitors to the republican party.
> 
> ...


I just got back to reading some more of all of your questions, and I came across this comment to which I couldn't resist responding.

I'm sorry, V4Vendetta, that I didn't live up to your expectations.  I tried my best, and I guess that can't be good enough for everyone.

I do want to clear up a couple of inaccuracies... 

I don't think I've tried to take massive amounts of credit for the campaign's fundraising success.  Sure, I believe I deserve a little bit, but as I mentioned in an earlier post, I see it all as a process that so many people contributed to.  The way I like to put it is that we all deserve credit, and yet, none of us deserve the credit at the same time.

As far as the press conference, when I said that "this is the only campaign for me" -- which if I remember correctly, those were my exact words -- I meant that I could not possibly work on any other campaign because I did not believe in the messages of their campaigns.

I did not throw epithets as you suggested, because I believe that oftentimes, what someone _doesn't_ say can be more powerful that what someone _does_ say.  I think that when people are so adverserial, it just turns people off and does far more harm than good.  In my opinion, I believe that this movement would have benefited from more people presenting the message in a dignified manner than in the immature way that you proposed in your post.

And just because no one's used the joke yet.... I've gotta say it:  you're right... I am vain.  I probably think this thread is about me...

----------


## V4Vendetta

> I just got back to reading some more of all of your questions, and I came across this comment to which I couldn't resist responding.
> 
> I'm sorry, V4Vendetta, that I didn't live up to your expectations.  I tried my best, and I guess that can't be good enough for everyone.
> 
> I do want to clear up a couple of inaccuracies... 
> 
> I don't think I've tried to take massive amounts of credit for the campaign's fundraising success.  Sure, I believe I deserve a little bit, but as I mentioned in an earlier post, I see it all as a process that so many people contributed to.  The way I like to put it is that we all deserve credit, and yet, none of us deserve the credit at the same time.
> 
> As far as the press conference, when I said that "this is the only campaign for me" -- which if I remember correctly, those were my exact words -- I meant that I could not possibly work on any other campaign because I did not believe in the messages of their campaigns.
> ...


--------------------------------------
The Admin here :Spirit of 76 is a freaking [gratuitous insults removed...  by the way, it's spelled "d*o*uche"]

 he decided to edit out all of my message and give me an infraction!well here it is... in its entirety!:
-----------------------------------------------------------
[gratuitous insults once again edited out]

----------


## Penncil

.....

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The report also says he used quite a bit of profanity, and that he is worried what impact the piece might have.  HE was worried, not ME.


Steve, please stop posting this unsubstantiated rumor BS in Grassroots Central.  If you feel you must continue, please take it to Hot Topics or The Vent.

Thank you.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> To give one last comment on the moneybombs... I think what's lost on a lot of people is that the amount that was raised on those days was not what was important.  I believe we had the means in place to get most donors who had already contributed before to do so again before the end of the quarter.  But what you guys were able to do far more than we at HQ could was reach out and find new donors.  The moneybombs created a sense of excitement that drew in new donors to the campaign who otherwise wouldn't have done so.


Well Jonathan, if you were looking here, you weren't looking often or closely enough, because there was a huge loss of momentum after your email before the Tea Party.  All forward movement was stopped.  The excitement was largely gone.  As you mentioned, people donate in these things that don't typically donate.  In fact others who aren't even necessarily totally sold on Ron Paul get caught up in the excitement.  Yes, you did damage, Jonathan.  A lot.



As to your questions...



> 1.  I dont know where there wasn't a better press conference done.  I remember a few people making similar comments at the time, and I wish more had been done with it.  It's a fair criticism in my book, and I wish I had a better answer for you.


I personally asked and emailed about 4 people in the campaign.  There was even an effort to get the footage, so that WE could air something, since it seemed like the campaign wasn't going to do anything.  All I can say is.... BRICK WALL!




> 2.  I'd imagine that the reason there was not as much advertising in Arizona was because, generally, Arizona was less important early on than Iowa, New Hampshire, etc.  I agree that there should have been more done with the endorsements, though admittedly, we had more trouble getting endorsements that you might know.  Many people were hesitant to endorse, again, because they didn't see Ron as electable.  Spineless... it drove me bonkers.


Done more?  How about -- do ANYTHING?  Nothing was done.  Unless you were a serious Paul supporter, you didn't even know Goldwater, Jr. endorsed Paul.  I frankly could not believe the apathy from the campaign on this endorsement.  




> I agree that there should have been more done with the endorsements, though admittedly, we had more trouble getting endorsements that you might know.  Many people were hesitant to endorse, again, because they didn't see Ron as electable.  Spineless... it drove me bonkers.


Perhaps that had something to do with firing the person who was working on getting the endorsements.  

====

Here's one more question, Jonathan.  Do you know why Ron wasn't scheduled to do more townhalls and answer people's questions.  The other candidates did these in spades, but Ron only did one that I know of.  I found it very sad that he didn't.  So many people would have voted for him, if they'd only had the opportunity to hear him speak to them and answer their questions.  I remember when he spoke early on.  I believe it was Greenville.  You could see the Republicans in attendance who weren't paying him one bit of attention until about 1/2 way through.  But slowly, they had turned their chairs around and were listening to him and even clapping. 

In my opinion, way too much preaching to the choir at rallies and way too little speaking to Republicans and others and answering their questions.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I don't know why you didn't get campaign materials when you needed them... Just keep in mind that there's a huge amount of logistical difficulty associated with distributing such a large amount of materials... your best bet is to ask Mark Elam and the other people charged with distribution down in Texas... while not having been directly involved in that until the very end, I think it's possible that they couldn't handle the amount of distribution needed after November 5th.


I'm sorry, Jonathan, but this one kinda ticks me off.  You see, I've run Production for a Fortune 500 company, so I know how this thing works.  Yes, I agree that Elam was unable to handle the volume and perhaps that was not known until 11/5.  But, after that point in time, one, deals should have been immediately made with a couple of larger printers in different regions of the country, and two, the deals themselves should have been such that the campaign actually made a profit off of the materials, rather than making the printer a millionaire by giving him all of the profits. That is the kind of deal one makes perhaps to run a small Congressional race, but certainly isn't what one should do with a Presidential campaign.  Deals can be made such that the printer still does all the warehousing and shipping, but materials are printed in large quantities, so that volume discounts are available to the supporters for even small orders.  In fact, the materials would have been so cheap that the campaign might have offered them again for free to at least Meetup groups and made sure they were in plentiful supply at the various campaign offices.

This sounds like all hindsight, but you need to know that I raised this on more than one occasion with the campaign.   At the time, I thought someone might want to know there was an easier, cheaper and much more efficient way.  But, I was wrong.  BRICK WALL again.

Oh, and hiring someone to work in the store that actually knows how to run such an enterprise would have been a smart move too.  Neither person who did this job had one clue about running this type of thing.  Orders were lost.  Orders were delayed for months.  Orders were not even shipped to more than one huge event that I am personally aware of and it wasn't like the person wasn't repeatedly reminded.  Last time I checked, the entirety of the order never did arrive.  The part that didn't arrive was unfortunately the Slim Jims.  Inexcusable.

----------


## Fields

> Well Jonathan, if you were looking here, you weren't looking often or closely enough, because there was a huge loss of momentum after your email before the Tea Party.  All forward movement was stopped.  The excitement was largely gone.  As you mentioned, people donate in these things that don't typically donate.  In fact others who aren't even necessarily totally sold on Ron Paul get caught up in the excitement.  Yes, you did damage, Jonathan.  A lot.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one more question, Jonathan.  Do you know why Ron wasn't scheduled to do more townhalls and answer people's questions.  The other candidates did these in spades, but Ron only did one that I know of.  I found it very sad that he didn't.  So many people would have voted for him, if they'd only had the opportunity to hear him speak to them and answer their questions.  I remember when he spoke early on.  I believe it was Greenville.  You could see the Republicans in attendance who weren't paying him one bit of attention until about 1/2 way through.  But slowly, they had turned their chairs around and were listening to him and even clapping. 
> 
> In my opinion, way too much preaching to the choir at rallies and way too little speaking to Republicans and others and answering their questions.


I can already tell you his answer. "He was busy doing his job as congressman." It's a weak answer at best.

I have no issue with Jonathan. He was hired by the campaign and he did the best he could. I thank him for his services. Now, why the campaign hired a person fresh out of college, with relatively no experience, to run a PRESIDENTIAL fundraising campaign... That's what is mind boggling.

----------


## qh4dotcom

Why was this 5-star thread with over 400+ posts moved?

Jonathan is our honored guest here...I don't think he deserves to be in "The Vent"

----------


## devil21

Ironic that a mod would move a positive thread (other than SteveMartin's bull$#@! that could have easily been split off or deleted altogther) that largerly furthered the Revolution while also allowing blatent trolls to post with impunity on other topics.

Im about to quit this forum.  I absolutely hate to say it but this type of $#@! is getting to be ridiculous.  HEY LIBERTYEAGLE GET YOUR $#@!ING PANTIES OUT OF YOUR CRACK!

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Why was this 5-star thread with over 400+ posts moved?
> 
> Jonathan is our honored guest here...I don't think he deserves to be in "The Vent"


The Vent is viewable only by registered members.  Considering some of the topics raised within this thread, which by the way were not Jonathan, it seemed prudent to move the thread.  Everyone can still follow it.  Is it really an issue?

----------


## yongrel

> Why was this 5-star thread with over 400+ posts moved?
> 
> Jonathan is our honored guest here...I don't think he deserves to be in "The Vent"


Because some people are schmucks. Multiple people have tried to derail this thread with attacks and paranoia.

----------


## Aratus

also alternatively were JB to precisely answer a narrowcasting question, it would
impact the 2012 campaign in a big way. much of the legit topics are a round robin
monday morning quarterbacking on why all our "Hail Mary" passes came to naught.
much of what he's said has alternatively had to have been said on the inside by HQ.
were Rom Paul to run again as a indepedendent for our november election, this would
go thru funds that are now in a legitimate bank account, it places him again outside
the republican party. upon sensing that ron paul WANTs specific party planks everlasting
to be part of this years platform, and he wants this as proof positive of everyone's efforts,
then i respect his wish not to go thru the motions of an elongating ghettoized LP run!!!
we insted could ask BARRY GOLDWATER jr. to run in lieu of Ron Paul and this would and could 
keep the Revolution message up front and part of the debates with the two major candidates!!!

----------


## Aratus

i was toying with the idea of Rand Paul running, and again, Bob Barr
has been tossed into this, however if Barry Goldwater Jr. runs, could
this pull together the older generation who remembers 1964 with the
younger internet actualized generation who now are questioning politics
as usual and the institutionalized apathy that allows an elite who presumes
they are an oligarchy to narrow down the participation in the political proccess...

----------


## Aratus

SteveMartin, monies spent now rather foolishly puts in peril
a big and major run by someone VERY close to Ron Paul in 2012
if he at 76 chooses not go go thru what he done just did over 
this maddening year and a half. this is a BIG question for HQ!!!
its not a minor one or a petty one. it also is like a four or five
year plan question. how a campaign prioritizes and achieves
its objectives. i did notice on the previous 40 or so pages we
all were getting closer into the nitty~gritty questions that drive
the proccess. each time we all got a qualifier in full honesty, this
is like a binary level on Pascal's triangle being explained. JB has
the ENTIRE campaign's time-sphere etched on his neurons and
synapses. he KNOWs why many of the decisions were made, and 
this all legitimately a 120 page book were he so inclined. he also
told us about McGovern in 1972, yet this all has Au-H2O echoes...

----------


## Aratus

someone going a tad homophobic also couldahhh got this here thread moved... yah think?

----------


## Spirit of '76

> --------------------------------------
> The Admin here :Spirit of 76 is a freaking [gratuitous insults removed...  by the way, it's spelled "d*o*uche"]
> 
>  he decided to edit out all of my message and give me an infraction!well here it is... in its entirety!:
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> [gratuitous insults once again edited out]



You've have already received multiple infractions for pointlessly insulting other members.  You quietly received an infraction for that over-the-top post, but you chose to ignore it and repost your childish rant and then take things even further by insulting me for trying to talk sense into you.

Take a few days off and try to act like an adult when you come back.

----------


## Aratus

deputy dawg, yes!!! admin here ain't often caught sleepin'...

----------


## Spirit of '76

> deputy dawg, yes!!! admin here ain't often caught sleepin'...


Well, it was his response to my polite reminder to try to avoid pointlessly insulting other members, telling my to go kill myself, that indicated I should probably check back in on this thread.

----------


## Aratus

many websites have to censor or edit postings, for there is nothing to say
to admin that ALL posters are actually above the age of 13 who lurk in here
and read the postings. i know in avante guard terms this causes prose to
be bland and proper english, if not conventional, yet we should not assume
vulgar prose is only read by people above the age of 15. this all was in a 
public forum and obviously is part of an ongoing national politics level campaign...
any stupidities or vulgarities do indirectly reflect on the candidate if tolerated!!!

----------


## SteveMartin

Methinks thou dost most pressingly needeth a refresher course in proper prose for thyself  wouldst thou be understood by others than thine own.

----------


## amy31416

> kynge jamie, who think roger bacon should not have written out this formula
> also thinks gunpowder is from the mind of the devil and the works of the devil...


Please contemplate not spamming this thread. Thanks in advance.

Far too many people seem to have gone off their meds, what the hell is up here?

----------


## RollOn2day

> The Vent is viewable only by registered members.  Considering some of the topics raised within this thread, which by the way were not Jonathan, it seemed prudent to move the thread.  Everyone can still follow it.  Is it really an issue?


Yes it is really an issue. At this point in the game, what difference does it make who sees what? You know as well as anybody that anything that gets moved off of the Grassroots Central (now with a mere 54 viewing...sheesh!) and to any other forum like the Vent (now with 4 viewing....I mean come on!) is destined to end quickly.

That may not be your intention but thats going to be the result.

----------


## Aratus

the gay remarks are politically incorrect and a mudslinging excursion!
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...ax.whitehouse/
did you all know that Reverend Wright had a brief capacity not unlike
billy graham at the clinton whitehouse? this tid-bit of yesteryears factoids!
current campaign observations are a political maven's delight and informative.
these two things, because 35 pages of this thread are politics proper
and extremely polite and mature. unlike the more recent gossipy postings...

----------


## RollOn2day

Jonathan 

I wrote a diatribe outlining my outright anger at HQ on this thread a couple of days ago...but pulled it after only being on for a few minutes.  It did not feel right to direct this anger to you, someone who was willing to come voluntarily to this forum and shed some light on this....the mother of all political melt downs. For your courage to be here, I thank and applaud you.

But I am angry, Pissed, Seething, Jumping up and down and curseing mad.

This campaign had:

The best candidate
The best message
The best grassroots

This country has ever had in the last century.

I mean really!!! What does a campaign want that is any different from what HQ had?? You want a better candidate? There isnt any! You want a better message? There isn't any! You want a better, more involved, more passionate grassroots? THERE ISN'T ANY!!!

The failings of this effort has to be laid at the feet of HQ because.....There is no candidate, message or supporter base that will be any better that what HQ had.

I, like most of the supporters I have come in contact with, came across Ron Paul through the grassroots efforts...period. 

Practically everything that came out of HQ was met with " What the F@#*???!! Are they trying to kill this thing?"

Thank you for the information that the immigration direct mailer was indeed from HQ. 

The thinking that would put this out...and no I don't have to remember who it was targeting...is the same thinking that put out all of the TV ads generated from HQ.

Cheap, cheesy, not at all reflective of Ron Pauls base, destructive and created more hurdles for us to have to jump through when trying to talk to someone about Ron Pauls message which, of course, was no where to be seen in these marketing faux pas.

Not defendable unless the defense is " We had no idea what we were doing."

Does a campaign management team really need a marketing expert or "test group" to tell you that something that looks like it was made by the local cable company for the local furniture store, has no place in a presidential election? Really? Does it need an expert to tell you that something is tasteless, offensive and will downright disgust people? The marketing from HQ could not have been any worse and was heart breaking and demotivating for us on the front lines.

I mean there was actually someone in HQ that looked at the direct mailers and the TV ads and said, "Yes this is our best effort and this ought to get us a groundswell of new voters???"

Whoever pulled the trigger on any of this is a disaster to any political candidate. They should never work for any candidate that they actually want to see get elected at a federal level.

As for the accusations of which sexual preference anyone was in the campaign, I could care less. 

Incompetance is what sunk this ship ( and by the way, it is sunk)....not lifestyle preference.

Thank you for doing the best that you could with the experience that you had. 

But I've got to tell you, I've been in my industry for over 20 years and am extremely competant in what I do...to a degree. And while my company designs and installs custom electronic systems in Casino's, conference rooms etc If my company were offered a national contract to design and install a NASA electronics facility I would have to have the self knowledge to decline the offer as it would be over my head and an entire nation would be dependent on my success.

As an entire nation was dependent on your success, didn't you think that this was over your head considering that you had no experience at it?

Question: Why would a serious presidential campaign managment team hire someone fresh out of college with no previous experience to handle the most important life blood (fund raising) of the effort? 

I mean this JB. How did you get the position? Would you have hired you considering the expertice that would be required for the success of that position?

----------


## acptulsa

Mr. Bydlak, if you're still with us, I have a question.  I have been advocating gaining Dr. Paul ballot access over the summer with an eye to giving us and other liberty minded conservatives a non-"lesser of evils" choice in fall no matter what happens--and more.  The more is that it would give Dr. Paul a Sword of Damocles to dangle over the neocons' heads in September.  I feel that if Dr. Paul were to ask for such a thing, it would irritate the neocon faction into intransigence, but if _we_ were to do it without encouragement or permission then Dr. Paul could use it to advantage.

I believe it would illustrate in stark relief how exclusionary their policies have been (unless, of course, you are one of the richest five percent of the population, in which case they're very _in_clusionary).  And I think it would demonstrate to the old-line faithful that the future of the party rests with _us_, and only by taking a cue from Dr. Paul and his ilk will they assure the G.O.P. a future.  And, of course, if the economy got bad enough, it might even work without the G.O.P.  In any case, it _will_ split their vote if they prove too inflexible.

As noted, Dr. Paul could not possibly say yea without poisoning the waters in which he hopes to swim.  As you have no official capacity at this point, may I ask your thoughts on this matter?

And thank you for the considerable time you've invested in this thread!

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> Please contemplate not spamming this thread. Thanks in advance.
> 
> Far too many people seem to have gone off their meds, what the hell is up here?


 
I am going to cleanup this thread by soft-deleting anything  that seems off-topic, incoherant, etc.. If anyone has a problem with that, PM me with reasoning why the post was on-topic and I will look at the particular post again.

Note to Aratus; please learn to contain yourself, the multi-quote function works fine. If you don't include references, to who you are responding to, your posts become incoherant

Thanks

----------


## acptulsa

RollOn2day, I respectfully disagree, unless you mean in this century (as in, the one that started eight years ago).  Ronald Reagan had movie star looks (even if they had become wrinkled and goitered, he still had charisma), basically the same message (even if he never kept his promises) and arguably a better organization at all levels (he'd run for president two or three times prior and Ron Paul was part of his grass roots).  I think your rose colored glasses are making you see red.

----------


## WRellim

> Question: Why would a serious presidential campaign managment team hire someone fresh out of college with no previous experience to handle the most important life blood (fund raising) of the effort? 
> 
> I mean this JB. How did you get the position? Would you have hired you considering the expertice that would be required for the success of that position?


In Jon's defense, I know I read an article he wrote (Princeton journal of some type? Found it: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/02/07/19983/) where when they offered him the job, he states that he protested that he did NOT have any experience... _(Note: On reading it again, I'm not certain he verbalized it... the article is ambiguous as to whether this was a question in his mind or something he stated, I'm inclined to *think* the latter and give him the benefit of the doubt.)_

If so, then the onus would probably be on the ID10T5 who told him that experience did NOT matter. (And even if he DIDN'T protest that fact, the onus would STILL be on the management, as rather obviously, a 24 year old fresh out of college has NO PRIOR EXPERIENCE as the "Fundraising Director" of a major national campaign.)


But regardless of what portion of the credit he deserves for the fund-raising success, rather obviously MONEY was NOT the problem with this campaign... the problem was failure to use it properly.

The hiring of JB as the permanent and SOLE "Fundraising Director" is simply an indicator of the failure of the management to use anything even vaguely resembling "business-like" standards in their practices.

----------


## Aratus

obama's net HQ had people under the age of 30...
obama's people are not older, they are YOUNG!!!
there was a short campaign piece i recently saw
where the major news network anchor person
describes the obama people as being younger, and
being more like the quiet you find in an insurance
company. the Hq looked tres as in very "dilbert" 
and cubicle and younger, all people like one half
or 1/3rd my age!!! very bright, articulate and young....

----------


## yongrel

Jeezus Tapdancing Christ on Crutches! This thread has become a cesspool of lunacy!

Jonathan, don't let the recent moonbattery and downright rudeness scare you away. The overwhelming majority of us appreciate your efforts, as well as that you've taken the time to answer our questions.

----------


## amy31416

> I am going to cleanup this thread by soft-deleting anything  that seems off-topic, incoherant, etc.. If anyone has a problem with that, PM me with reasoning why the post was on-topic and I will look at the particular post again.


Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

----------


## ~P~

Jonathan~ Thank you SO much for taking the time to clarify so many things for us. Your posts have helped a lot of people, myself included, understand the campaign's inner dynamics a little better. 

It's funny how 'everyone's the expert' on this despite the fact that so few have any actual experience running a national campaign. 

I have been in this *industry* (I own a company that specializes in political campaign mail and voter data in Washington State) for almost 10 years and I still find that most people are completely in the dark about HOW to run a campaign office. It's VERY HARD (when you aren't the media's darling) to get elected even if people know you! You might as well take up *bee wrangling* if you are looking for an easier job to do. 

I just wanted you to know that there is at least one person out here that understands the very late nights, the sacrifices, and the over-all actual ridiculousness of running a national campaign and still thinks you guys did one hell of a job! My hat - off. Here's to you- sorry to see you go. Best of luck in the future! 

Don~ Hope you hear from the Rossi camp soon. Washington needs him. Bad. It would be great to know that a like minded individual, such as yourself, was a staffer at the future governor's campaign office. Thank you for all your efforts. Thank you for caring about the freedoms of others enough to actually DO something about it. Good luck to you as well.

----------


## charjan64

> the gay remarks are politically incorrect and a mudslinging excursion.
> the campaign observations are a politcal maven's delight and informative.
> these two things, because 35 pages of this thread are politics proper
> and extremely polite and mature. unlike the more recent postings...


I thought Ron Paul's whole campaign and philosophy were based on the importance of freedom of speech and not allowing ourselves or other Americans to be sucked into "politically correct" behavior or speech.   Who knows if such remarks are appropriate or not?  There was a time when the U.S. Department of State excluded gays from employment due to the fact that they could be very easily compromised and  become security risks.   Then came SecState Henry Kissinger who removed that restriction. 

Getting to the heart of what happened to Ron Paul's campaign is vital.  No questions should be "off limits".

----------


## Banana

> No questions should be "off limits".


To demonstrate the absurdity of such premise:

Have you stopped beating your significant other? Answer yes or no, please.





The issue was that question was entirely unwarranted.

----------


## acptulsa

> Viva political incorrectness!!


Yes, we do have two camps, the politically incorrect camp and the theologically irreverant camp.

I don't think either is helpful in enlarging our tent.  Can't we all just get along--and stay off each other's toes?

----------


## amy31416

> Jeezus Tapdancing Christ on Crutches! This thread has become a cesspool of lunacy!
> 
> Jonathan, don't let the recent moonbattery and downright rudeness scare you away. The overwhelming majority of us appreciate your efforts, as well as that you've taken the time to answer our questions.


I'll second that. And thanks for the laugh. And the interjection of some semblance of sanity.

Somebody at Wonkette or another place is getting a good chuckle over this thread decay. Can you mods tell where it's coming from?

----------


## yongrel

> snipped bigoted diatribe


You need to think before you post. You've taken the thread that was once arguably the best thread on this board ever, and turned it into a quagmire of paranoia, finger-pointing, paranoid finger-pointing, bigotry, and general asshat behavior.

So just calm down a little.

----------


## spacehabitats

Its too bad that this thread had to devolve into another preschool brawl. There were some excellent questions and observations made. But Jonathan, if you ever get back this way again, thanks for the time, your thoughtful answers, your patience with this forum, and for your contribution to the campaign.

----------


## Aratus

folks he just might be back if we all are polite and cyber-space behave
otherwise we all sorta look like the opening scenes of "blackboard jungle"!!!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * !!!* I*!!!* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/mcc...t_obama_video/
meanwhile, in the mcCain campaign universe, this story just broke...
you sorta feel sorry for the staffer as mccain does a damage control on his
own media image. GOTO Anti-Federalist's posting on the next page or two...

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

OK, the title/topic of this thread is:




> Msg from Jonathan Bydlak -- willing to answer questions


If JB explains that he is not going to answer a question and other people want to have a conversation in that vein, then START ANOTHER THREAD. I am disgusted with people who choose to use a popular thread as a soapbox for their particular pet-peeve. Especially people who are normally ignored/ridiculed due to a reputation of rumour-mongering 

Posts on this thread should be confined to questions/comments for JB/HQ and responses by JB/HQ. 

Thanks

----------


## New York For Paul

> RollOn2day, I respectfully disagree, unless you mean in this century (as in, the one that started eight years ago).  Ronald Reagan had movie star looks (even if they had become wrinkled and goitered, he still had charisma), basically the same message (even if he never kept his promises) and arguably a better organization at all levels (he'd run for president two or three times prior and Ron Paul was part of his grass roots).  I think your rose colored glasses are making you see red.


I was there to see the Reagan 80 campaign take place. While I was young, I was observant. 

Reagan had many talented people, some who had started helping him in 1968 with that short presidential run. By 1980 Reagan was hated and liked by many and had much to prove.

Some of his campaign workers may have been the best of the century. Other campaign directors were some the worst of the century and almost cost him his campaign victory. 

While I was in the Reagan grassroots, there were doubts among his supporters fueled by the media about his age, his issues etc. 

I think the Ron Paul grassroots were much more fervent as a whole, although there were hardcore dedicated Reaganites, there were not as many as the hardcore Ron Paulites. 

Reagan had a top down campaign structure, with Reagan being the number one spokesperson for himself. 

Ron Paul was bottom up and had very creative talented people who made Ron Paul look great. 

But Reagan's organization came apart during the period of the Iowa and New Hampshire primary. Problems had been happening months before, but now they had to be confronted.

After the Iowa loss, literally Reagan had to ignore his own campaign manager and bring in a second replacement campaign team without alerting the first team that they were going to be fired. 

Reagan had spent 18 million dollars by around Jan 1 before Iowa had even started and was allowed to spend 24 million under campaign finance laws. Meanwhile George Bush was on the upswing winning Iowa. 

So Reagan was broke, lost Iowa, had to fire top level staffers and bring back old staffers who had lost out to infighting, engage in town hall and street level campaigning in New Hampshire at age 69 to stage a comeback. 

The stories of sneaking certain campaign operatives into the Reagan HQ to check the campaign books with out letting the campaign manager know what was going on were interesting.

Reagan had to hold other secret meetings with the California old guard as they prepared to come back into the campaign while the East coast people were going to be let go. 

And Reagan had to present a friendly demeanor to the voters while all this was going on. Maybe all this stress contributed to Reagan getting mad at the debate which propelled him up in the polls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHve9...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTX27...eature=related

Campaigns are always difficult, but you sure want to have experienced people with you when you do run for president.

----------


## RollOn2day

Mods please reconsider your decision to move this thread to the Vent and return it to Grassroots Central where it belongs as it is practically the only thread worth reading anymore on the RPF. Grassroots Central has about all the worthwhile information as the tabloids at the local check out.

THE VENT
8:00am CST     4 viewing
3:00pm CST     2 viewing

But since we are here....all alone in The Vent...I'll take the time to go off topic for a bit to keep this thread alive if for no other reason.





> RollOn2day, I respectfully disagree, unless you mean in this century (as in, the one that started eight years ago).  Ronald Reagan had movie star looks (even if they had become wrinkled and goitered, he still had charisma), basically the same message (even if he never kept his promises) and arguably a better organization at all levels (he'd run for president two or three times prior and Ron Paul was part of his grass roots).  I think your rose colored glasses are making you see red.



No I mean last century and this one too.

Ronald Reagan having good looks and charisma is about the same as what Barack is running on now. It doesn't make them a good candidate....in the largest sense of the word (i.e. good for the country)

Same message?? I must have missed the Reagan speeches calling for the:

End of the Drug War
End of the CIA
End of FEMA
End of the Federal Reserve
End of the Military Complex
End of the Big Pharma Complex
End of the National Debt

I must have also missed the rally's where the Conservative Republicans were joining forces with the:

Hippies
Tree Huggers
Gold Bugs
Gun Nuts
White Militants
Black Militants
Democrats
etc

Ronald Reagan's message was not Ron Paul's message...not by a very long shot. 

Ronald Reagan's grassroots support was not as strong as Ron Paul's grassroots support either.

Like you said, Reagan had 3 election cycles to generate his support. (Can you imagine where Ron Paul would be with that kind of time!!)

But in a fair comparison you would have to ask: What kind of grassroots did Reagan have within the first few months of his FIRST try at the nomination? 

What we did was unprecedented. (Unless of course you know of other campaigns that had grandmothers and teenagers spray painting hand made signs from one end of this country to the other)

Are you sure I'm the one wearing the rose colored glasses?

And now back to the topic: JB and Don please hang with this thread !!!

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Mods please reconsider your decision to move this thread to the Vent and return it to Grassroots Central where it belongs as it is practically the only thread worth reading anymore on the RPF. Grassroots Central has about all the worthwhile information as the tabloids at the local check out.


Ok.  The thread has been cleaned up now, so I'll move it back to Grassroots Central.

----------


## SteveMartin

It's been "cleaned up" alright...lol...

----------


## RollOn2day

> Ok.  The thread has been cleaned up now, so I'll move it back to Grassroots Central.


Thanks LibertyEagle for cleaning this thread up and returning it to it's rightful place in the sun! 

I know you walk a fine line doing your job and appreciate your efforts.

----------


## KevinInMI

Thanks to ronpaulhawaii!  

Hopefully, Jonathon & Don will continue to post.

I very much appreciated their perspective.  Not much appreciation on the recent trash IMO.

----------


## yongrel

> Ok.  The thread has been cleaned up now, so I'll move it back to Grassroots Central.


Thank you, Mods! You performed CPR on a great thread!

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Thanks LibertyEagle for cleaning this thread up and returning it to it's rightful place in the sun! 
> 
> I know you walk a fine line doing your job and appreciate your efforts.


Thank you, but the thanks belong with RonPaulHawaii.  He spent a great deal of time cleaning up the thread and did a great job in doing so.

----------


## RollOn2day

> Thank you, but the thanks belong with RonPaulHawaii.  He spent a great deal of time cleaning up the thread and did a great job in doing so.


Kudos RonPaulHawaii !!

----------


## The Lantern

In trying to keep this thread on track, I have a couple of questions for Don and/or Jonathan.

Don,  I guess since you went to most of the debates, this question is for you.

What usually happened before the debates?  Did you get to prep Ron and suggest questions and answers?  Or was there any preparation done at all?  I guess with that many debates there was probably a lot of OJT.

Jonathan,

As far as the fundraising and FEC reports went, did you and the campaign use any specialized software to keep track and communicate with donors and to file FEC reports?

I was also curious when you organized the competition among meetups for donations how much money was raised?

----------


## Andrew76

> If, as Ron believes, it's all about the "message" rather than winning the Presidency, isn't that an even bigger argument for running as an Independent? 
> 
> Millions of people are clamoring for real change but will never hear about the Ron Paul message because they didn't pay much attention to the Republican primaries in the first place. They will see the economy collapsing but they won't know what's happening to them and they'll never realize there was an alternative. Their lives will be ruined, their spirits weakened, their hopes for the future smashed. They will readily agree to more wars and loss of liberty, and all that only because Ron Paul didn't run as an Independent and use that platform to tell them what's really going on.
> 
> As for winning, to really succeed as an "educational campaign", you have to run it as if you actually wanted to win. If Ron hadn't stared down Stephanopoulos and made clear that he was in it for the win, he would have never attracted the massive grassroots attention that he got. If he had said from the beginning, "Let's be realistic, the chance is close to zero, but it's all about the message anyway", I'm sure that most of us wouldn't even have bothered.
> 
> Many of us here are young (or young at heart), and though we appreciate the education, we want a courageous hero, someone we can look up to, whose memory will inspire us for the rest of our lives, who was far from perfect but who nevertheless overcame his personal shortcomings and took the battle to the enemy against all odds.
> 
> Right now, Ron Paul will be remembered as an armchair revolutionary who happened to start a movement but then didn't know what to do with it. His recent waffling leaves a bad taste, has alienated many supporters and will have the effect of practically throwing away the chance of inspiring millions more about the message of freedom.
> ...


+1,000,000,000,000,000,000

Couldn't have said it better:  If this is about the message, then there is NOTHING to lose with an independent run.  New audiences will be reached, and this *CRITICALLY* important message will find fresh ears.  For the love of Zeus, what is taking so long for this to come about?  
   And again, the point about whether he'll win or not as an indy, or how hard it would be is officially *MOOT* in light of the fact that this was apparently an "educational" campaign anyway.  People, wake up, there is nothing to lose, and everything to gain.  Ron Paul must run as an independent.  What?  He might lose?  It'll be HARD?  Are you kidding me?  These are the reasons against him running independent?  Unbelievable.

----------


## RollOn2day

> +1,000,000,000,000,000,000
> 
> Couldn't have said it better:  If this is about the message, then there is NOTHING to lose with an independent run.  New audiences will be reached, and this *CRITICALLY* important message will find fresh ears.  For the love of Zeus, what is taking so long for this to come about?  
>    And again, the point about whether he'll win or not as an indy, or how hard it would be is officially *MOOT* in light of the fact that this was apparently an "educational" campaign anyway.  People, wake up, there is nothing to lose, and everything to gain.  Ron Paul must run as an independent.  What?  He might lose?  It'll be HARD?  Are you kidding me?  These are the reasons against him running independent?  Unbelievable.



For the love of Zues....!!!

----------


## SteveMartin

Ron Paul will endorse Bob Barr.

----------


## parke

> 2.  As far as a "big-name" campaign director... In my opinion, the campaign could have used someone who had significant experience with campaigning.  But I say that not because there weren't people with that experience, but because ANY campaign could always use more.  But my personal opinion is also that the difference such a person would have made would have been largely trivial.  That's because, as I said earlier, there's no magic secret to how a staff can get the press to cover a candidate.  In the end, the press didn't cover Ron Paul because they didn't like Ron Paul... not because the staff didn't do the needed job.  If you want to understand why Ron didn't get coverage, your best starting place is to question how Ron presented his message, whether he could have done a better job, or whether the message is too opposed to the biases of the media.  Sure, additional staff would have helped.  But to focus criticisms there is to miss the broader point.


I agree 100%.

The only irritations I had with Paul was him not luring those idiots into talking themselves into a corner. Asking his opponents questions after being attacked. I dont know Ron Paul, but Ive been alive long enough to know to use your enemies to your advantage. In my opinion he dropped the ball at a few debates. I believe the people in the debates screwed with his equipment to make him look old. Turned down his mic or made his voice echo. Regardless, just as an observer, I recognized some dirty tricks. Rudy laughing everytime Paul spoke.. etc.

The media sure as HELL didnt like Paul. No mention of him after NH. NONE. Zilch. zero. It was as if somebody turned off a switch. I canceled my cable and now only use the internet for my entertainment (pandora.com or youtube.com) and news material. 

I wanted to thank you too. You coming on these boards will help explain alot of my own questions. I wish this wasnt a learning curve for so many people. The good thing is Ron Paul is going to bring America her liberty whether it happens now or in ten years. He sparked a flame that will continue to grow. 

'Freedom is popular.'

----------


## Suzu

> I am going to cleanup this thread by soft-deleting anything  that seems off-topic, incoherant, etc.


You seem to have left in most of the stuff I would have deleted if I had the means. Thank goodness for the Ignore List!

----------


## Anti Federalist

Phew, so I read through the whole thread.

And, sorry to say it, _everybody_ is missing the point.

There has been an excruciating amount of "self criticism" laid out here, some clearing of the air, some enlightenment on issues that had all of us concerned. Jonathan, thank you for your time. 

But to what end?

Here is what is being missed: *The American electorate is a motley mob of feeble minded mush-heads who neither want nor understand peace and liberty.*

Two examples:

Exit polling in NH indicated that among voters of both parties, ending the Iraq war was a priority. Who did Republicans vote for? McQueeq.

A recent CNN/Ipsos poll asked, "What is your primary economic worry?" 91% responded: "Inflation". But yet these same people, presumably worried about inflation, rejected the only candidate who clearly, concisely and with a voting record to back his rhetoric, explained how inflation is caused, why it is caused and what to do to stop it.

No amount of money, ads, media attention, slick campaigns, spin doctors, canvassing or what have you, can overcome such shallow minded, fickle, feeble doublethink.

Overcoming this is going to require much more radical action and unorthodox thinking than many here are willing to contemplate.

----------


## SteveMartin

William Wallace,

I am ready to contemplate. 

*UNITE THE CLANS*!  Run Indy, Dr. Paul, and we will follow you...all of the third parties will follow you, along with the *real conservatives* in the Republican Party, along with most of the Dems and Independents who hate this war.  And, we can have something we have never had before...*a country of our own!*

Do it, so we don't have to fight a war here.

----------


## Leroy_Jenkems

> And just because no one's used the joke yet.... I've gotta say it:  you're right... I am vain.  I probably think this thread is about me...



Oh, snap!  For you young'uns (heck, I'm only 23), that last part is a line from a Carly Simon song, or Nine Inch Nails if you grew up in the '90s...

----------


## Anti Federalist

Steve Martin wrote:




> And, we can have something we have never had before...a country of our own!


And there is the central, core truth in all this.

That is the only solution, the only recourse, the only option left.

How to achieve that remains to be seen.

----------


## SteveMartin

The Indy run is the answer.   Sadly, I am not at all sure anymore that Dr. Paul ever wanted to be President.

----------


## Proemio

> The Indy run is the answer.   Sadly, I am not at all sure anymore that Dr. Paul ever wanted to be President.


Why be sad? I would never support anyone who WANTED to become president.

A lot of people asked Ron to run. He did so more because "_someone_ has to fix the mess" rather than anything else. That's about the only acceptable (and intelligent) motivation I can think of for anyone to do so. And always remember, Ron responded to requests before, so...

This is far from over - cheer up - the world needs people like you to stay positive...

----------


## Andrew76

Thank goodness there are people here who are still thinking rationally.  For a while there I though the only people left on the forums were trolls who were determined to remind us all that "RON PAUL HAS LOST!!  WAKE UP FROM DREAMLAND, YOU WEIRDOS!"    Never in my life have I met so many jerks, determined to hang around a forum for a politician whom they believe has utterly failed.  If he's failed, then take a hike already.  What in god's name is the point of hanging around if you're not trying to move things forward?  Just watch, I'd bet my mother's life that someone will quote this very message and say, "You just don't get it!  It's OVER.  Quit drinking the special kool aid, moron!"   I've said it a million times, and I'll continue to say it: if you think Ron Paul is finished, and the campaign failed utterly and there's nothing left to do - whatsoever, then please, explain to us all..... what are you still doing here?  It's a simple, and very important question.  
I refuse to continue to APOLOGIZE for supporting Ron Paul - no matter what - to freaking Ron Paul supporters no less!   What is going on?  I'm having to defend my continued support for Ron Paul, on a Ron Paul forums page.  Am I taking crazy pills?  Are you in, or are you out?  Those are your two choices, otherwise, go support Obama, sellouts.  Yes, I'm implying that if you've given up on Ron Paul, you are in fact a sellout.  Why?  Because you are.  

An independent run.  Why?  Simple: it will allow Ron Paul to continue to hammer away at his message.  There is *no* single, valid, politician who could touch the level of success that Ron Paul could muster as an independent.  He'd say, "I never thought I'd have to do this again, but my supporters demand it, I demand it, and I truly believe that the American people need to hear the truth and they need a true alternative to the false candidates they've been offered.  The republican party is nominating a neocon, and as an American who still believes in America, I cannot in good conscience, sit on the sidelines and do nothing.  I hereby cast my hat in the ring as an independent candidate for President of the United States." ...[massive cheering follows]...    Spare me the "Hello idiot! He's said he'd never run as an independent."  Actually, no, he said "never say never."  Period.  That is a fact.

Bob Barr?  The guy who wants the ten commandments carved in stone on state property?  I don't think so.

----------


## JS4Pat

> An independent run.  Why?  Simple: it will allow Ron Paul to continue to hammer away at his message.  There is *no* single, valid, politician who could touch the level of success that Ron Paul could muster as an independent.  He'd say, "I never thought I'd have to do this again, but my supporters demand it, I demand it, and I truly believe that the American people need to hear the truth and they need a true alternative to the false candidates they've been offered.  The republican party is nominating a neocon, and as an American who still believes in America, I cannot in good conscience, sit on the sidelines and do nothing.  I hereby cast my hat in the ring as an independent candidate for President of the United States." ...[massive cheering follows]...    Spare me the "Hello idiot! He's said he'd never run as an independent."  Actually, no, he said "never say never."  Period.  That is a fact.


I agree - but Ron Paul has to want to do it and he needs to be committed to doing it right. 

Not sure he is. 

His videos and interviews sound like he is just "hanging around" out of an obligation to us. We need real leadership!

----------


## RollOn2day

> Here is what is being missed: *The American electorate is a motley mob of feeble minded mush-heads who neither want nor understand peace and liberty.*


Oh yeah! I forgot about that!!!

And here is the latest "fastest rising video" to prove it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zsr0UpVjoE
OMG Watch these short interviews with mostly college age kids on spring break on the beach in sunny florida for the real america we are up against. This video would be funny if it were not so sad but I got a real eye opener from it. Wow.

The Anti-Federalist is right! We have seen the enemy...and it is us!

JB....Don...are you still with us?

----------


## joemiller

> Oh yeah! I forgot about that!!!
> 
> And here is the latest "fastest rising video" to prove it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zsr0UpVjoE
> OMG Watch these short interviews with mostly college age kids on spring break on the beach in sunny florida for the real america we are up against. This video would be funny if it were not so sad but I got a real eye opener from it. Wow.
> 
> The Anti-Federalist is right! We have seen the enemy...and it is us!
> 
> JB....Don...are you still with us?





> Oh yeah! I forgot about that!!!
> 
> JB....Don...are you still with us?


I do not share your opinion of the electorate. Above all, I respect the electorate and I hope someday you would all learn to do likewise. It is the process that is at the heart of the problem, starting with a totally unreliable voting system. 

You would think in a country that represents the greatest democracy the world has ever known, it would be important above all else to insure the Peoples' voice be accurately heard. There is no such assurance and that is not an accident.

Whether Dr. Paul succeeds in the upcoming election or not is really not important. As it stands right now, even if somehow he wins the presidential nomination and goes on to win the presidency, he would only be a lone voice in the wilderness. True, it would help the cause immeasurably, but without Congressional support, he would be torn to shreds. 

Nevertheless, his, and your, efforts have not been in vain. The R3volution has been started. The message has been heard. Our most important task beyond the election is to lay a solid foundation to carry the R3volution beyond to the next election, and the next, and the next, to always respect the electorate and to help insure their voices be heard.  

joe

----------


## RollOn2day

> I do not share your opinion of the electorate. Above all, I respect the electorate and I hope someday you would all learn to do likewise.


Fair enough, Joe. I can't argue that the bias against fair and honest distribution of the candidates positions and views is the ultimate insult to fair elections.

But did you watch the video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zsr0UpVjoEThese are the same answers I get locally when I question people about there presidential choice.

Even if people are presented information, (which of course is a monumental problem ) their decision making process would still have to evolve past :

"I'm voting for him because he's black...and that's cool "
or
"I can't voter for her. She's a B%@ch!"
or
"I don't know his policies...I just like him cause he's a Republican."

Today's electorate has an "American Idol" mindset. I do not respect this and it may be closer to the heart of our problems than even the MSM disinformation machine.  

Knowing exactly what Ron Paul's (as well as other candidates) policy positions are, is a distinquishing feature of the typical Ron Paul supporter. We don't fall for the MSM lies and misinformation.

Why does the rest of America?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I do not share your opinion of the electorate. Above all, I respect the electorate and I hope someday you would all learn to do likewise. It is the process that is at the heart of the problem, starting with a totally unreliable voting system. 
> 
> You would think in a country that represents the greatest democracy the world has ever known, it would be important above all else to insure the Peoples' voice be accurately heard. There is no such assurance and that is not an accident.
> 
> Whether Dr. Paul succeeds in the upcoming election or not is really not important. As it stands right now, even if somehow he wins the presidential nomination and goes on to win the presidency, he would only be a lone voice in the wilderness. True, it would help the cause immeasurably, but without Congressional support, he would be torn to shreds. 
> 
> Nevertheless, his, and your, efforts have not been in vain. The R3volution has been started. The message has been heard. Our most important task beyond the election is to lay a solid foundation to carry the R3volution beyond to the next election, and the next, and the next, to always respect the electorate and to help insure their voices be heard.  
> 
> joe


Since when did we become a "democracy"?

And electorate _was_ heard from, and they rejected peace and freedom and instead voted overwhelmingly for welfare and warfare.

----------


## amy31416

Dammit. It seems we've scared off Jonathan and Don with all this message board insanity.

----------


## Ricochet

Nothing like a few personal attacks from jackass little kids to ruin the best thread we ever had here. 

Sorry about them JB and Don. If you look at all the posts grateful for your input, you can see they are a tiny minority. But I suppose it's like turds in a punchbowl, doesn't matter how small they are...

Nor does it help when the moderators themselves are part of the problem. This place sucks, I'm gonna find a better forum for my Ron Paul info.

----------


## Debbie Hopper

I haven't talked to Jonathan for a few days, but he may just be taking a few well-deserved days off from thinking about the campaign....and I would imagie that he's got to focus on finding a job and/or getting his non-profit off the ground.

Jonathan is a real "believer" in RP and the revolution.  He'll be back.

Don is wrestling GOP alligators and getting ready to move back to Seattle.  I'm sure he'll be around again soon too.

----------


## amy31416

> I haven't talked to Jonathan for a few days, but he may just be taking a few well-deserved days off from thinking about the campaign....and I would imagine that he's got to focus on finding a job and/or getting his non-profit off the ground.
> 
> Jonathan is a real "believer" in RP and the revolution.  He'll be back.
> 
> Don is wrestling GOP alligators and getting ready to move back to Seattle.  I'm sure he'll be around again soon too.


Good to hear. Thanks Debbie.

----------


## joemiller

> Since when did we become a "democracy"?
> 
> And electorate _was_ heard from, and they rejected peace and freedom and instead voted overwhelmingly for welfare and warfare.





> Fair enough, Joe. I can't argue that the bias against fair and honest distribution of the candidates positions and views is the ultimate insult to fair elections.
> 
> But did you watch the video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zsr0UpVjoEThese are the same answers I get locally when I question people about there presidential choice.
> 
> Even if people are presented information, (which of course is a monumental problem ) their decision making process would still have to evolve past :
> 
> "I'm voting for him because he's black...and that's cool "
> or
> "I can't voter for her. She's a B%@ch!"
> ...


There's no doubt about it, there are lots of uninformed and narrow-minded voters in a large democracy, but given the truth, the wisdom of the crowd will unerringly find that truth eventually. The inherent strength of a democracy lies not in its successes, but in its failures.

It is our job to work as hard as we can to keep our truth before the electorate until it eventually sees our truth.  Nobody is saying this is going to be easy, or that once the electorate hears our truth, they will respond appropriately, an mass.  But the essence of Dr. Paul's message is, if the electorate continues to ignore his truth, dire consequences will happen.  Does anyone doubt that as those consequences grow, Dr. Paul's support will also grow?  This is why we, as Dr. Paul's supporters, must insure the political foundation for the R3volution is laid to handle Dr. Paul's growing political support. 

joe

----------


## Flirple

Can we please try to keep back and forth dialog between us (both positive and negative ones) down to a minimum and keep this thread for asking specific questions to Jonathan, Debbie, and Don?

The more back-and-forth chit-chat there is means that it takes longer for folks to sift through this long thread to read Jonathan's answers. And then we get more of the same redundant questions because people are too lazy to read through all the pages first before asking their questions. We have the rest of the message board to talk with each other on, lets keep this one thread as simply a back and forth between us and former staff.

I don't have the time to do it but does anyone feel like going through and cutting and pasting  only Jonathan, Don, and Debbie's posts onto a PDF file or something so people can more easily read through all the questions and answers faster? This thread is a great resource and we should try to keep it that way by avoiding unnecessary posts. 

Oops, I guess I just broke my own rule with this post didn't I ?

----------


## qh4dotcom

Bump

----------


## SteveMartin

A denial would work...so far, all we are getting is name calling and questions as to where the info came from....

----------


## Elm

> Finally, on your point about an expert changing things... would you every say "if only we could get an expert in the government, things would be instantly better"?  Because I wouldn't.  So why should any of us believe that the same is true with a campaign.  One person in an orgnization does not make the difference that you seem to think, and it's really just a slight against the talented people who already in the campaign.  That's not to say additional people wouldn't have helped -- just that I believe it's incorrect to think finding that "right person" would have won Ron Paul the election.  In that regard, the one person who controlled our chances was Ron Paul himself.


This isn't government, this is a private group of like minded individuals trying to accomplish a goal.  In that regard it is much closer to a business model than government.  Predicting needs and filling them before crisis period is paramount in a business.  The media is the channel through which the campaign or business gets the product to be known.  Not having a media team before day 1 was near suicidal.

Having been on the receiving end of horrible and insulting treatment by Kent Snyder I can say that I wouldn't trust that man to manage a lemon aid stand despite his alleged "best intentions"  we value results not intentions otherwise we would be socialists.

If I have the time later tonight I'd like to address specific issues and get your take on why things were handled as the were.

Thank you for doing this though because of my experiences with the campaign I can't help but feel there is more than a sense of personal responsibility as a motive here.

----------


## Scribbler de Stebbing

> You better take me seriously, pal.
> 
> Answer the questions.
> 
> Thousands are listening.
> 
> It was our campaign too.


Steve,

This is just bizarre.  Don was a big help to us in various ways in Minnesota.  He was always a guy I could call up if we needed something.  I've never heard anyone say anything negative about him.

Marianne
MN Coordinator

----------


## SteveMartin

Marriane,

That's good to hear.  Others have said exactly the opposite, however.  Don's name came up often as a person who was very uncooperative and insulting to others in the grassroots.  

I am sure he was on better behavior with people like you.  Is he a married family man?

Were you on the paid staff?  You've got to realize that if so, that this would carry less weight.
Also, I have another paid staff person telling me now that it is quite possible there were indeed homosexuals on the campaign staff.

I am not saying Don is one of them, but I do have confirmation that a very highly-placed campaign official is both a homosexual and a Buddhist, and then that same paid staff person is trying to tell me that it is hard to understand how this would affect our ability to go after the largest segment of the Republican Party--the so-called "Christian conservatives."

Doesn't add up....

----------


## brandon

> Also, I have another paid staff person telling me now that it is quite possible there were indeed homosexuals on the campaign staff.


Whenever I read stuff like this, or other nutcase relegious rhetoric, it makes me feel extremely dirty for associating with some of the people in this campaign.

Can't we just keep the topic of conversation to freedom?

----------


## SteveMartin

[mod-edit- user has recieved infraction for violating signature rules]:




> The forum guidelines have a sliding scale of tolerance based on the long established *credibility* of the user. *Repeated offenses of guidelines can lead to further moderation actions including banning*.
> 
> The forum guidelines are as follows:
> 
> ...
> + *Off-topic posts* - Posts that do not relate to the threads intent are subject to being deleted.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


Whenever I read big L nonsense about how it's OK to be an unrepentent homosexual I know exactly why this campaign never really got off the ground within the Republican Party.

----------


## DeadtoSin

> Marriane,
> 
> That's good to hear.  Others have said exactly the opposite, however.  Don's name came up often as a person who was very uncooperative and insulting to others in the grassroots.  
> 
> I am sure he was on better behavior with people like you.  Is he a married family man?
> 
> Were you on the paid staff?  You've got to realize that if so, that this would carry less weight.
> Also, I have another paid staff person telling me now that it is quite possible there were indeed homosexuals on the campaign staff.
> 
> ...


Steve, you shouldn't be hating on homosexuals and Buddhists. As Christians it is our calling to reach out in love to people, not berate them for doing what they do. L2read the Bible.

_And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will._  - 2 Timothy 2:24-26

Also, I wouldn't think that Jonathan would be hating on the grassroots while working for the campaign and then come over here to the grassroots central and start taking questions. It doesn't make sense, or to quote you "Doesn't add up...."

----------


## acptulsa

Jonathan, fly this thread to Cuba!

----------


## SteveMartin

DeadtoSin,

Show me where calling it what it is is "hating?"  It is a plain fact that RP was urged by very important people to his Congressional races and even his Congressional office to pick somebody else *precisely because he was a huge potential liability with the Christian right.*  You all tell me it is "hateful" to talk about the truth??  The truth is we need a real run for the Presidency now, one that is OUT TO WIN and not to make some minor points or pad an email list.  (P.S. I am not a member of the Christian right--but the fact is you can not win the republican nomination without your share of their support...PERIOD.)

Go draft another hate crime bill.  You Libertarians are really off base.  We can criticize anything, but things that really matter?  Free speech extends only as far as your warped understanding allows it to?  Who will speak for all those who gave up so much in terms of material goods and time to support a campaign that was apparently *never a serious campaign?!?*

Someone has to....

----------


## DeadtoSin

I AM a Christian conservative, and I see it as hateful the way you placed "homosexual" and "Buddhist" in there. I am about as hardcore a Christian conservative as you can get, and I would like to assure you that the fact that Ron Paul might have had a Buddhist or homosexual on staff does not bother me. To insinuate that Christians are anti-homosexual is a pretty bigoted charge in and of itself. Of course there are some Christians who are bigots, but that also applies to every single group of people on the planet. I don't think Ron Paul would want to appeal to that lowest common denominator. *Edit* It's unfortunate that the only Christians the media puts in the spotlight are the ignorant ones, because otherwise you might have a different outlook on us.

You have fun with your troll-thread now Steve.

----------


## brandon

> DeadtoSin,
> 
> Show me where calling it what it is is "hating?"  It is a plain fact that RP was urged by very important people to his Congressional races and even his Congressional office to pick somebody else *precisely because he was a huge potential liability with the Christian right.*  You all tell me it is "hateful" to talk about the truth??  The truth is we need a real run for the Presidency now, one that is OUT TO WIN and not to make some minor points or pad an email list.  (P.S. I am not a member of the Christian right--but the fact is you can not win the republican nomination without your share of their support...PERIOD.)
> 
> Go draft another hate crime bill.  You Libertarians are really off base.  We can criticize anything, but things that really matter?  Free speech extends only as far as your warped understanding allows it to?  Who will speak for all those who gave up so much in terms of material goods and time to support a campaign that was apparently *never a serious campaign?!?*
> 
> Someone has to....


If you wanted to be part of a campaign who focused on pandering to the christian right, you could have picked huckabee, tancredo, hunter, romney, thompson, or mccain. Why the hell would you support Paul if pandering to the christian right is so important to you?

Also, I think the fact that Paul was against the war, for allowing civil unions (and the right for gays to call it marriage if they so wish), legalizing drugs and prostitution, etc were just a tiny little bit more detrimental  to our relationship with the christian right then one guy who nobody except you has heard about being gay.

Besides that, your thoughts on sexuality disturb me. Close minded people like you are the cancer that is destroying humanity.

----------


## SteveMartin

DeadtoSin,

I have worked with homosexuals, and I have helped some who wanted desperately to do so to escape the life style.  I have done so with love and compassion, and never sought out those who didn't want to change.  I have nothing against homosexuals as people at all, regardless of whatever epithets you may decide to throw around.

The fact is, a campaign run by a gay Buddhist is NEVER going to win the Republican nomination.  The fact also is that if there were people given hiring preference because of their sexual orientation at the Arlington HQ, that this would run totally contrary to everything this campaign was supposed to be about.

Word is that Dr. Paul didn't even know the situation until it was too late to do anything effective about it (app. 2-3 months ago.)...Dr. Paul is not the problem here.  He never was.

----------


## SteveMartin

> Close minded people like you are the cancer that is destroying humanity.


"Open minded" people are the reason this campaign is so needed.  So many are open to everything that is destroying the Republic.

----------


## SteveMartin

Ah...Looks like we aren't allowed to discuss certain topics here.  

See you all later....



Private Message: Re: You have received an infraction at Ron Paul Forums

Today, 10:45 AM
ronpaulhawaii's Avatar 	
ronpaulhawaii ronpaulhawaii is online now
Moderator

About**:
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: The Road  (Kauai ex pat)
Posts: 1,508
Send a message via MSN to ronpaulhawaii
Default You have received an infraction at Ron Paul Forums
Dear SteveMartin,

You have received an infraction at Ron Paul Forums.

Reason: Signature Rule Violation
-------
Steve, I am getting sick of dealing with complaints of your rumour mongering. Please stay on-topic and avoid excessive negativity

Thank You
-------

This infraction is worth 1 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1368513
Quote:
Whenever I read big L nonsense about how it's OK to be an unrepentent homosexual I know exactly why this campaign never really got off the ground within the Republican Party.
All the best,
Ron Paul Forums

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

Steve, the topic is JB answering questions, please stop hijacking the thread with excessive negativity/etc

----------


## Proemio

> Steve, the topic is JB answering questions, please stop hijacking the thread with excessive negativity/etc


I suggest that you are dead wrong on this - Steve is simply _starting_ to ask the right questions. 

It has bugger all  to do with lifestyle per se - who cares - but with the impact on performance, IF that lifestyle does not stay at home while on the job; and I suspect that most complainants must know this as well. The hijacking is done by those arguing lifestyle out of context.

Another germain question would be concerning the neocon association of some of the principals. When I first heard about that one (on the day of their hiring), I suggested to wait and see, since people working in the selection racket don't have much of a choice if they want to be employed, but...

Personally, I have stopped having questions some months ago. For clarity, just look at the actions when the MSM went on their "Paul quit" operation. Several staffers and ex-staffers reinforced that misinformation, when they could have stopped the falsehood right in the first minute; be it in interviews or personal blogs.

As to negativity - what negativity? Critique and a search for comprehending is not negative. For negativity, I would (did) look between the lines of several tens of 'professional' supporters and campaign staffers.

Being 'popular' or among the many is no measure of worth, often quit to the contrary - especially in politics...

----------


## Matthew P.

> In my opinion, way too much preaching to the choir at rallies and way too little speaking to Republicans and others and answering their questions.


Bingo!  We have had more success in winning people over to the side of Ron Paul by going where republicans are and talking to them about the issues.  We began to question their said desires of "limited government" by showing them that the resolutions they were passing and candidates that they were supporting didn't really agree with their purpose.  

You know what happened after that?  They started to come around!  Imagine that. . . .

----------


## Matthew P.

> I'm sorry, Jonathan, but this one kinda ticks me off.  You see, I've run Production for a Fortune 500 company, so I know how this thing works.  Yes, I agree that Elam was unable to handle the volume and perhaps that was not known until 11/5.  But, after that point in time, one, deals should have been immediately made with a couple of larger printers in different regions of the country, and two, the deals themselves should have been such that the campaign actually made a profit off of the materials, rather than making the printer a millionaire by giving him all of the profits. That is the kind of deal one makes perhaps to run a small Congressional race, but certainly isn't what one should do with a Presidential campaign.  Deals can be made such that the printer still does all the warehousing and shipping, but materials are printed in large quantities, so that volume discounts are available to the supporters for even small orders.  In fact, the materials would have been so cheap that the campaign might have offered them again for free to at least Meetup groups and made sure they were in plentiful supply at the various campaign offices.
> 
> This sounds like all hindsight, but you need to know that I raised this on more than one occasion with the campaign.   At the time, I thought someone might want to know there was an easier, cheaper and much more efficient way.  But, I was wrong.  BRICK WALL again.
> 
> Oh, and hiring someone to work in the store that actually knows how to run such an enterprise would have been a smart move too.  Neither person who did this job had one clue about running this type of thing.  Orders were lost.  Orders were delayed for months.  Orders were not even shipped to more than one huge event that I am personally aware of and it wasn't like the person wasn't repeatedly reminded.  Last time I checked, the entirety of the order never did arrive.  The part that didn't arrive was unfortunately the Slim Jims.  Inexcusable.


Liberty Eagle, your comments are informative and made with a good deal of experience backing them.  It's too bad you weren't able to be on the official campaign staff - things could have turned out a lot differently.  As I read through this and see this, rather unfortunate side of the campaign I can see how the Revolution could have been exponentially more effective.  The message is still popular and that is very, very good.  The question is - does it have enough momentum behind it to do this again in the future?  From the sounds of it, from Ron Paul himself, even though he is not out, he's certainly not "in" - but "scaled down" - whatever that means.

I'll tell you what that means.  It means that we, the supporters of Ron Paul have to try and do this all on our own as a scattered, large, unorganized group.  What chances do we stand with that kind of strategy against these other fascist campaigns that have the organization and strategy?  If Ron Paul gets to the National Convention and there is buzz about him and even press coverage, it won't be because he did it, or headquarters, it will be due to the blood, sweat, and tears of his faithful supporters.  Oh that he would have tapped into the vast wealth of knowledge that was available to him!!!

----------


## Matthew P.

> Steve,
> 
> This is just bizarre.  Don was a big help to us in various ways in Minnesota.  He was always a guy I could call up if we needed something.  I've never heard anyone say anything negative about him.
> 
> Marianne
> MN Coordinator


Marianne,

I appreciate all your hard work that you have put (and are continuing to put) into the state of Minnesota for Ron Paul!  You have helped me personally as well as many others and I am looking forward to the upcoming Congressional Ron Paul meeting.  

I sincerely hope that people aren't giving up now - there is so much work to be done.  I have expressed my disappointment as I have grown to understand some of the foibles of HQ but that matters not - we must press on.  See you in a few. . .

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> I suggest that you are dead wrong on this - Steve is simply _starting_ to ask the right questions.


BS, Steve asking questions that the OP declines to expound upon is not a reason to hijack the thread from the rest of the people who are STILL CAMPAIGNING!!! 

Now I am certainly not the sharpest knife in this drawer, but where I come from you save yer bitchin for after the whistle so as not to bum-out the guys on the field. There are other threads to discuss any issue your heart desires, this one is for HQ-types to answer whatever questions they choose. 




> It has bugger all to do with lifestyle per se - who cares - but with the impact on performance, IF that lifestyle does not stay at home while on the job; and I suspect that most complainants must know this as well. The hijacking is done by those arguing lifestyle out of context.


Off-topic BS Please find the Gay Buddist Conspiracy thread , thanks




> Another germain question would be concerning the neocon association of some of the principals. When I first heard about that one (on the day of their hiring), I suggested to wait and see, since people working in the selection racket don't have much of a choice if they want to be employed, but...
> 
> Personally, I have stopped having questions some months ago. For clarity, just look at the actions when the MSM went on their "Paul quit" operation. Several staffers and ex-staffers reinforced that misinformation, when they could have stopped the falsehood right in the first minute; be it in interviews or personal blogs.


What? You don't have the capacity to ask a direct question? sheesh... 




> As to negativity - what negativity? Critique and a search for comprehending is not negative. For negativity, I would (did) look between the lines of several tens of 'professional' supporters and campaign staffers.
> 
> Being 'popular' or among the many is no measure of worth, often quit to the contrary - especially in politics...


If you cannot see what is meant by excessive negativity... I don't think I could ever answer to your satisfaction. 

Sorry

----------


## Proemio

> ..., this one is for HQ-types to answer whatever questions they choose.


Nice. Then what's the point of the exercise? Grandstanding? Gatekeeping?
Would you show the same cute deference to White House-types or FED-types. etc.?
When analizing what was an improbable keystone operation, everything related becomes germane by default.




> What? You don't have the capacity to ask a direct question? sheesh...


Anything particularly unclear about _"Personally, I have stopped having questions some months ago."_? 
Or, does being flippant taste better in the morning or late at night?




> Sorry


Forget it...

----------


## SteveMartin

Proemio,

Welcome to the Sh*t list, friend!

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Such is politics, but it blows my mind that we're more willing to eat our own kind (whether it's libertarians attacking Ron or supporters attacking HQ) than go after the bigger beasts.  It's part of that mentality that's brought us one step closer to 100 years of the war in Iraq.


Jonathan, what about HQ attacking supporters?

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Jonathan, what about HQ attacking supporters?


Can you please elaborate on your question?

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Can you please elaborate on your question?


Sure, start with me.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Sure, start with me.


Well, I don't know who on our campaign staff attacked you.  But then again, perhaps you might want to start by explaining your involvement with DC ballot access.

Have you told people on these forums that you asked the campaign for $10,000 to obtain just 600 signatures?

Have you explained how you left the campaign high and dry when your request was declined?

Are you aware of the fact that some of the few signatures you did acquire single-handedly almost resulted in Ron Paul's name not being on the ballot in DC?

Do you know how much official staff time was needed to rectify that situation, rather than working on other things?

While I do not believe publicly attacking anyone (either HQ --> grassroots or grassroots --> HQ) really is appropriate, you may not be the best example here, because this seems to me like behavior that is far more inappropriate than many of the things you have criticized other people for.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Well, I don't know who on our campaign staff attacked you.  But then again, perhaps you might want to start by explaining your involvement with DC ballot access.
> 
> Have you told people on these forums that you asked the campaign for $10,000 to obtain just 600 signatures?
> 
> Have you explained how you left the campaign high and dry when your request was declined?
> 
> Are you aware of the fact that some of the few signatures you did acquire single-handedly almost resulted in Ron Paul's name not being on the ballot in DC?
> 
> Do you know how much official staff time was needed to rectify that situation, rather than working on other things?
> ...


Since you bring it up, you do know of what HQ was saying about me (eg., being fired from the Congressional office despite the Congressional office repeatedly refuting the lies that HQ would then continue to repeat knowing they're lies), etc.

Go back and read my posts about my exchange with McHugh and HQ sabotaging the DC grassroots effort.  

I was a VOLUNTEER DC ballot access coordinator.  I was doing the job for free without asking for any money but would not take the blame for HQ's incompetence and hostility to the DC grassroots activists if we didn't get on the ballot for pennies.

And yes, if I were going to be treated the way McHugh was treating me (and for which Becker apologized on behalf on the campaign) as a volunteer, it would have taken a lot of money for me to put up with that to work for him--and the money requested was to do a GOTV project to _win_ DC that HQ refused to discuss (or do, for that matter).  

Did I explain leaving HQ high and dry?  I believe I used "F*ck you" to explain it repeatedly here (what? six weeks before the deadline after HQ wouldn't let us contact the DC supporters in their database for more weeks than that AFTER the ballot petitioning started!).

Please explain this as it makes no sense at all to me:

"Are you aware of the fact that some of the few signatures you did acquire single-handedly almost resulted in Ron Paul's name not being on the ballot in DC?"

After it became crystal clear McHugh and HQ have no clue about the delegate process (the RP website still gets wrong nearly all of the states since they don't even understand the RNC summary file) and incorporating GOTV into it, I've done all I could to publicly warn other grassroots activists not to delay deferring to HQ and do the job themselves (for which I've been thanked by grassroots supporters in Ohio and other places).  For that, I make no apologies.  I'm in this to support Dr. Paul.

----------


## RonPaulFever



----------


## Akus

> It's been my observation that at times there has been a disconnect in communication between the campaign and grassroots supporters...


talk about an understatement of the century.....

----------


## Mckarnin

Welcome! For now that's all but I may have some questions as time goes by. 

Katharine

----------


## RonPaulFever

Why would a person need 10,000 dollars to collect a few hundred signatures?  Me and a handful of others collected 1,200 for free, lol.  I've always suspected something was fishy with this Bradley character.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Why would a person need 10,000 dollars to collect a few hundred signatures?  Me and a handful of others collected 1,200 for free, lol.  I've always suspected something was fishy with this Bradley character.


Ah, and the apologists for HQ incompetence are out.  

First off, you have no idea what you're talking about (not that that stops HQ staffers).  And you would not have been able to collect those signatures from eligible Rs in DC (apples and oranges).  

Two, I said I wanted a commitment of money and available resources not only for ballot petitioning but as part of a professional GOTV effort to* win* the primary (explicitly access to the RP supporters in the district so we could turn them out to vote).  McHugh's response had nothing to do with money but a clear statement they would not do GOTV here--not even an option to discuss (and therefore that they had no intention of actually trying to win).  At that point, I walked away.  What would be the point?

I sent this email to Joe Becker a month before the deadline (after I had told HQ) to which he apologized to me on behalf of the campaign (and explained how problematic McHugh was for him too):

Mike called unexpectedly on Saturday.  I told him I had tenants moving in and out and couldn't deal with him that day.  Instead of just respecting that, he called and emailed incessantly, threatened me, lied to me, harassed me, insulted me, kept saying I said things I never said (even during the same conversations saying I was saying things I wasn't but that he wanted to hear).  He gave me an ultimatum requiring an answer "in an hour" so, in effect, I told him to $#@! off.  Great way to treat the volunteers busting their tails off for the campaign.  I will no longer be involved with the DC ballot access project.  I made this clear to Mike, Debbie and Lew.  Sorry, I guess I should have copied you as well.
So, in short, I asked Bydlack about HQ's attacks on me and gave a factual example of them lying that I had been fired from the Congressional office despite that office repeatedly telling them there is no truth to it.

His response is to then repeat OTHER baseless and untrue attacks on me.  When that fails, their apologists come out.

----------


## The Lantern

> I've always suspected something was fishy with this Bradley character.


Anyone who has over 8,000 posts has to be committed to the cause.  If Bradley wasn't committed he would have quit after the first 5,000.

----------


## yongrel

> Why would a person need 10,000 dollars to collect a few hundred signatures?  Me and a handful of others collected 1,200 for free, lol.  I've always suspected something was fishy with this Bradley character.


Don't be so quick to pass judgment. All we have to go on is the word of Bradley and the word of Jonathan. As they conflict and we have no evidence to support one or the other, it would be a mistake to arrive at a conclusion right now.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Don't be so quick to pass judgment. All we have to go on is the word of Bradley and the word of Jonathan. As they conflict and we have no evidence to support one or the other, it would be a mistake to arrive at a conclusion right now.


Right now, it's better that everyone focus on important questions that continue to elude HQ (I have directed people--including several on this forum--to the Congressional office to debunk HQ's lie campaign but don't want to overwhelm them now with Congress back in session):
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=128018

and everyone work on their own state's GOTV (and ask for help here if you need it):
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=72640

----------


## 0zzy

Bradley worked for the congressional staff, knows a lot of them pretty well.
He did a speech at the Mises Institute about the gold standard. 
He has a company that is dedicated to individual liberty and education of it.
He has 8,000 posts.
He and I talk a lot online, he wants young people to get involved and start joining programs to learn more about Dr. Paul's message. 

And yet, people doubt it. They'd rather believe a campaign that has proven itself incompetent. Even the Congressional Chief-of-Staff called them out. 

Just because you are loyal to Paul doesn't mean you have to be loyal to his staff. Anyone remember Eric Dondero?

----------


## amy31416

> Just because you are loyal to Paul doesn't mean you have to be loyal to his staff. Anyone remember Eric Dondero?


Good point Ozzy. Dondero did a lot of damage.

----------


## goldstandard

Thanks for answering questions here.
Three simple questions:
1) What the $%&$ is the campaign doing right now?
2) Ron Paul for the long haul - Are there any plans to broaden the support for the message in the long run? 
3) Which is Dr. Paul's pseudonym in these forums?

----------


## angelatc

> Don't be so quick to pass judgment. All we have to go on is the word of Bradley and the word of Jonathan. As they conflict and we have no evidence to support one or the other, it would be a mistake to arrive at a conclusion right now.


I heard a lot of stories about the campaign's level of "help" with the ballot access  / signature efforts, especially here in Illinois (because that's where I am). A lot of them were similar to what Bradley is reporting.

I'm sorry, but by the time the DC campaign came around, it should have been clear that they needed to try something different.  I wish Bradley had received a $10,000 budget for a GOTV effort.

----------


## liberteebell

Jonathan Bydlak says:




> Well, I don't know who on our campaign staff attacked you.  But then again, perhaps you might want to start by explaining your involvement with DC ballot access.
> 
> Have you told people on these forums that you asked the campaign for $10,000 to obtain just 600 signatures?
> 
> Have you explained how you left the campaign high and dry when your request was declined?
> 
> Are you aware of the fact that some of the few signatures you did acquire single-handedly almost resulted in Ron Paul's name not being on the ballot in DC?
> 
> Do you know how much official staff time was needed to rectify that situation, rather than working on other things?
> ...



Bradley in DC replies:




> Since you bring it up, you do know of what HQ was saying about me (eg., being fired from the Congressional office despite the Congressional office repeatedly refuting the lies that HQ would then continue to repeat knowing they're lies), etc.
> 
> Go back and read my posts about my exchange with McHugh and HQ sabotaging the DC grassroots effort. 
> 
> I was a VOLUNTEER DC ballot access coordinator. I was doing the job for free without asking for any money but would not take the blame for HQ's incompetence and hostility to the DC grassroots activists if we didn't get on the ballot for pennies.
> 
> And yes, if I were going to be treated the way McHugh was treating me (and for which Becker apologized on behalf on the campaign) as a volunteer, it would have taken a lot of money for me to put up with that to work for him--and the money requested was to do a GOTV project to win DC that HQ refused to discuss (or do, for that matter). 
> 
> Did I explain leaving HQ high and dry? I believe I used "F*ck you" to explain it repeatedly here (what? six weeks before the deadline after HQ wouldn't let us contact the DC supporters in their database for more weeks than that AFTER the ballot petitioning started!).
> ...



Welcome Jonathan.

I really didn't want to publicly "go here" but since it was brought up, I can't keep my mouth shut any longer.

Bradley's experience with ballot access and signature gathering mirrors my own experience in Virginia.  IMO, HQ, specifically the paid Ballot Access Coordinator, Mike McHugh, did everything he could to destroy the volunteer effort to collect signatures for Ron Paul in Virginia.  I will omit some details but basically:

Virginia requires 10,000 signatures statewide and 400 signatures per district.  We were asked to collect roughly double that to insure there were plenty of valid signatures.  Beginning in July, we had no instructions and no information.  Finally, the volunteer state coordinator (who, by the way, sold his home and everything he had to volunteer for RP) and several others took the bull by the horns and figured out what we needed to do.  The deadline for signatures was Dec. 14th.

We were going along just fine when Mike hired someone to gather signatures because "the grassroots wasn't producing" which was total BS.  He didn't even bother to find out what we had gathered at that point.  This destroyed our momentum and many people just stopped collecting, figuring the paid person or persons were going to take care of it.  

Next, we find out that the paid guy wasn't getting enough signatures, surprise, surprise!!!!  It isn't easy to gather signatures, in fact, it was downright difficult.  So we had to try to ramp it up again.  We'd then hear panic here and there about how we had to have them before the deadline and so on.  Seemed it was about a controversy a week and always conflicting information.

Several of us from the Tidewater area went to the Republican Advance and Straw Poll in Arlington in early December, clipboards in hand.  That was my first encounter with McHugh and several other staffers.

We, the grassroots were treated as though we'd just fallen off the turnip truck, most especially by McHugh.  None of them introduced themselves, none of them were collecting signatures (but they ordered us around as though we didn't know what we were doing) and they lurked in the background while we grassroots people manned our gorgeous booth, set up and paid for by the state coordinator and a few others.  

I was totally appalled by McHugh's behavior.  He was boorish and rude, arrogant and downright hateful to some of us.  He walked up and sprayed one gal who was handing out slim jims in the mouth with breath spray, without warning because, according to him, "people were complaining about her breath".  She spent the rest of the evening in her hotel room crying.  He was lucky her boyfriend didn't kick his a$$.

The behaviour of the staffers really turned some of the grassroots people off and many of them stated then and there, "I will never send another dime to the campaign if this is what they hire to run it".

We managed to collect 20K+ signatures by the deadline.  The night before they were to be turned in to repub HQ, we got an emergency call that McHugh couldn't be there to witness the counting and that the petitions had to be sorted by district and could we PLEASE come to Richmond.  So 13 of us showed up to help.  

When the door was opened, we were told that only two of us could go in.  We decided on the state coordinator and an attorney.  A full 45 minutes late, McHugh shows up, young lady in tow (turns out to be his daughter) barrels through the door without speaking to any of us and begins threatening the receptionist because he wouldn't let McHugh in.  Finally, McHugh got his way and the other two came out.  

I was appalled that this is what was representing Ron Paul in an official capacity and I just shook my head in disgust and said out loud, "they're going to kill this". (for saying this out loud, I was told that McHugh said that I threatened _him_).  

And by the way, the petitions were not organized in any way, shape or form and I think the people at republican HQ finally just gave up and decided that we had enough signatures.

We were promised prizes for those who collected the most signatures.  We received nothing.  

I was promised reimbursement for obtaining my notary commission and for gas for the trip to Richmond.  Nothing.

The state coordinator asked for a small stipend to cover his expenses, I also asked on his behalf, and not only did he receive nothing but HQ refused to let him continue with his position right after the signature collection and when we were entering the GOTV phase.  Instead, the grassroots were fractured statewide at a very critical time.

We BEGGED for lists so we could contact known supporters and by the time we finally did get them, it was waaaaay too late to make effective use of them.  Keep in mind, most all of us have jobs and family aside from devoting every spare moment of our lives (and then some!) to The Cause.

Finally, I read repeatedly where other states, such as Rhode Island and Ohio were in danger of not getting Ron Paul's name on the ballot and there was all kinds of last-minute angst on the 'net about getting it done.  One would think that the Ballot Access Coordinator would spend his time educating himself on each state's ballot access rules, prioritizing the dates, educating the grassroots and following through on the process.  He had plenty of people more than eager to help in Virginia.  But maybe it's just me for making the mistaken assumption that the people in HQ knew what they were doing.

----------


## goldstandard

> I was totally appalled by McHugh's behavior. He was boorish and rude, arrogant and downright hateful to some of us. He walked up and sprayed one gal who was handing out slim jims in the mouth with breath spray, without warning because, according to him, "people were complaining about her breath". She spent the rest of the evening in her hotel room crying. He was lucky her boyfriend didn't kick his a$$.


What a $%&%§&!
And this guy didn't lose his job ... pronto?

----------


## New York For Paul

From what I could tell, Debbie Hooper was in charge of hiring ballot access people. I know that the campaign was in disarray and probably were not able to give the names of supporters. 

They should have hired people to be in charge of making sure the database was in order.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> I know that the campaign was in disarray and probably were not able to give the names of supporters. 
> 
> They should have hired people to be in charge of making sure the database was in order.


That's an understatement--and, given the luxury of geographical proximity we have here, I offered, repeatedly, over many weeks, to several different staffers, to go into HQ and make calls from there on their system.  DC's rules for Republicans are really difficult.  Had HQ put out a solicitation to the known DC RP supporters early (as requested), we could have registered OUR people as Republicans before the deadline and had our slate of delegate candidates together at the get go to circulate petitions.  Unfortunately, we were left to visiting shut ins, hobos on the street....

No.  The would not start DC until they finished California I was told.  The couldn't do more than one thing at a time it seemed despite overlapping deadlines.  Since they were always rushed in another state, they were then constantly in a state of being rushed against deadlines in the next, and the next, even when there were lots of energized grassroots supporters chomping at the bit to help.  So it seemed to me at least.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Thanks for answering questions here.
> Three simple questions:
> 1) What the $%&$ is the campaign doing right now?
> 2) Ron Paul for the long haul - Are there any plans to broaden the support for the message in the long run? 
> 3) Which is Dr. Paul's pseudonym in these forums?


1) same old, same old
2) how long haul do you want from a septuagenarian?
3) "Revolution9", calls himself "Randy"

----------


## Sandra

Sounds like a few from HQ got on a high horse and were bloated with self importance. Every campaign has people like these. In past campaigns I worked with some people would start off nice then morph into monsters.

----------


## driller80545

It seems to me that the organizers of the smear campaign conducted by the Republican Party were much more competent than the RP campaign people. They surely were more successful in silencing RP, even though his message should have inspired the whole country.

----------


## SteveMartin

Mike McHugh x 30....that's what I am hearing the entire Arlington staff was like.

Coincidence, or *intentional sabotage* by TPTB...

I bet you can guess which way I am leaning...

----------


## Anti Federalist

_No organization: the campaign he ran was a completely disorganized mess, a shambolic $#@!-up of such monumental proportions I'm frankly astounded you Libertarians haven't lynched his campaign staff for treason. I've seen better efforts by my city councilmen. The only real traction ever made in the campaign was by the grass-roots element. Fundraising? Grassroots. Internet viral message? Grassroots. Precinct level organization? Grassroots. Certainly, the grassroots deserves a commendation for one of the best efforts in history ... but the grassroots cannot get your canidate ACCESS. That's the campaign's job, and they failed_

www.nolanchart.com

----------


## SteveMartin

AF,

That brings us to the "incompetence" versus "intentional sabotage" debate.  I wish I could still believe only the former occurred.

----------


## nodope0695

Face it, sir:  YOU FAILED THE GRASSROOTS, AND HENCE, YOUR COUNTRY.  You, and your cohorts at the campaign office took OUR money as your surely inflated salary, and squandered every oportunity for make something great of this vital campaign.    Suck it up, and move on.  Hopefully you've learned a lesson from your's and your fellow staffers' ineptness and total lack of creativity and political knowledge..

----------


## nodope0695

> AF,
> 
> That brings us to the "incompetence" versus "intentional sabotage" debate.  I wish I could still believe only the former occurred.


I'm voting the latter, 100%.  Only a smart person could $#@! up something so completely.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> AF,
> 
> That brings us to the "incompetence" versus "intentional sabotage" debate.  I wish I could still believe only the former occurred.


We're both still snowed in, so I suspect we have some time.

Break down the points that indicate "intentional sabotage".

I'd been leaning toward "incompetence", but now am having my doubts.

Make your case.

----------


## Suzu

> "Revolution9", calls himself "Randy"


Are you serious?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Are you serious?


He's pulling legs.

Randy's from Atlanta.

----------


## SteveMartin

1. Hiring a gay Buddhist to run the campaign, when you are running (purportedly) for the Republican nomination which still has a huge Christian conservative base that would never vote for a campaign so led.  Allowing several more gays to work out of the Arlington offices and giving the overall impression of a "cliquish" atmosphere.
2. Promoting Joe Seehusen after he messed up the Ames Straw poll and after his "consulting firm" donated $10,000 to the RP campaign.  Dissing the "Vote Scam" people totally and doing nothing to insure the Ames results were correct.
3. Having no back up for the computerized supporter lists and no hard copy of the supporter lists so that a "disgruntled employee" could walk out with that crucial info the morning of the crucial IA caucus and totally ruin our chances at a respectable 3rd place finish in Iowa.  Firing nobody after this happened.
4. Hiring a former housewife who had never even voted before to take over the State of MI headquarters after Paul Garfield was dumped (for no stated reason) and then hiring a 24-year old college student from Skull & Bones U. who worked on the Bush campaign in 2004 to be her "right hand" gal.
5. Not running *a single national TV ad, EVER*, thus confirming the MSM-pumped impressions that we were not running a serious campaign.
6. Multiple financial irregularities (that have cited many times here before) that *at a bare minimum* have a very real "appearance of evil."
7. Dissing national media figures repeatedly, including canceling pre-arranged interviews a few minutes beforehand.
8. Totally shutting out multiple offers from the grassroots of free or reduced-cost assistance for services in a number of professional areas with which the campaign obviously needed help (ex: ad production, delegate training, etc., etc., etc.)
9. Failing to hire a single person with long and proven credentials in the patriot movement either at the national, regional or state levels.
10. Shutting out a billionaire's offer of $100,000,000 because he asked that certain people at national HQ be replaced with competent and truly devoted patriots.

Heck...I could go on all night...but it's bed time...

----------


## Akus

I didn't read all 52 pages of this drama, but from what I did read, all I see is childish finger pointing. And what I do not see is anyone blaming Ron Paul for not doing absolutely anythign about this. How are we supposed to generate excitement about some one who is clearly not that interested in winning this?

----------


## Akus

> Ooh, now we're getting into some red meat... haha.  This one might take awhile.
> 
> 1. National campaign ads.  I think the reason this wasn't done is because it largely didn't make sense for a candidate like Ron.  While we raised $20M in Q4, keep in mind how much the other candidates had spent before that.  Mitt Romne spent MILLIONS to bring his name recognition up to snuff with the other candidates.  Everyone knew Rudy from 9/11, they knew McCain from 2000, and while Huckabee was an unknown like Ron, his seemingly genuine personality infatuated the press.  But many members of the press didn't care about Ron, and they didn't take him seriously.  I don't believe that even people like Tucker, who gave Ron above-average face-time and believed strongly in Ron's message, ever thought he had a chance of winning.  That said, with limited resources, you have to target them.  And the campaign worked hard at targeting early primary states, while still organizing supporters everywhere else.  But to throw money across the country would not have been smart (in my opinion), and I'd rather see more direct mail in New Hampshire than TV ads playing in New Mexico and Kentucky.


Bull $#@!ing $#@!. If Ron Paul's campaign threw its resources to win IA and have won it, it would get tens of millions of dollars worth of publicity. When Mike Huckabee and Barack's faces were foot tall and foot wide on our city's major newspaper (Dallas, TX), this could easily have been us. And the pundits as well as the audience would take us more seriuosly. Do you know how many times I've heard I-like-him-but-he-can't-win crap? Ron Paul's picture on the front page would have shut these kinds of people up. *AND*, even if the campaign was completely dry of money, because of the mass name recognition, he would have gotten that money right back.....

Sorry, I don't believe this "we didn't have enough money" nonsense. If you used money like a tool, you would have had enormous returns.

----------


## Akus

> As far as not responding to media requests, two points... first, you're right that the campaign was too late formulating a 5 star media team.  It should have been in place earlier, and I fault myself in retrospect, as well as others, for sort of seeing it as a problem, but not realizing its magnitude.  But, I will also say that many of the criticisms that people raise in this regard are unfounded.  By the end of November, we had a system in place to responding to important media calls.  But again, we can't respond to every local newspaper and TV station.  We were forced to pick and choose appearances that were most important, particularly because the media did not care about surrogates for Ron Paul like they did for a Hillary Clinton.  That meant that Ron had to do all of these appearances, which was just impossible.  Many of the criticisms of the media team were centered on less important media -- not that all media aren't important, but you still clearly have to get Ron in front of the biggest media audience as you can, given time constraints.


I heard that the campaign decline Howard Stern's invitation, a visit to whom would expose Ron Paul's name to untold tens of millions of listeners. It was done because Howard Stern was a shock-jock that was too out of the mainstream. But that didn't stop them from sending him to Alex Jones. 

Twice.

Sorry, another bull$#@! excuse. I'd buy it if Ron Paul was a no show on some local talk radio, because he had Larry King or Oprah to go to, but apparently, the way campaign's head was positioned (up its ass), even if Oprah and Larry King personally knocked on the door and begged on their knees for Ron Paul to come, the campaign would still not send him.

----------


## Akus

> Man, I wanted to see that Ron so many times, too!  I think that one of the things that Ron has trouble with is that he doesn't want to pander at all.  While that makes him so appealing to me personally, it also leads him not to tailor his message to his audience, which in my opinion is very different than pandering.  I see that as rule number 1 of giving a speech or writing a paper.
> 
> But Dr. Paul doesn't see things that way.  He believes issues like monetary policy and flawed Iraq policy are so critical that everyone needs to hear about them, regardless of whether he's speaking to a group of students, South Carolina veterans, or Silicon Valley software entrepreneurs.  While that's admirable, I've got to say, it just doesn't win elections.


If he feels we are headed straight to hell with worthless papers that used to be money and with a war over manufactured reasons fueled by now deflated patriotism, and he actually wants something to happen, he should act that way. If he feels that American lives are important, then he should scream from the roof top, literally if he has to, about this. You can be a $#@! sturrer and still not pander to anyone. You can tell that we will be poorer and poorer in an alarmist tone, you can tell me to wake up and even use some strong language and not be some liar....



But I see instead of a walking human DANGER sign only a guy who is mildly interested in getting anything done. I don't need an education campaign, I knew we were $#@!ed before Ron Paul decided to run. I just want him to win. I just want him to fight for himself, just like me and untold thousands all over US fought for him......

----------


## constituent

> Bradley worked for the congressional staff, knows a lot of them pretty well.
> He did a speech at the Mises Institute about the gold standard. 
> He has a company that is dedicated to individual liberty and education of it.
> He has 8,000 posts.
> He and I talk a lot online, he wants young people to get involved and start joining programs to learn more about Dr. Paul's message. 
> 
> And yet, people doubt it. They'd rather believe a campaign that has proven itself incompetent. Even the Congressional Chief-of-Staff called them out. 
> 
> Just because you are loyal to Paul doesn't mean you have to be loyal to his staff. Anyone remember Eric Dondero?


well good god damn.

we agree on something!

----------


## BigFatRock

> even if Oprah and Larry King personally knocked on the door and begged on their knees for Ron Paul to come, the campaign would still not send him.


Uh.... He was on King, remember?  They decided not to air it.  Going on Stern would've been a lose-lose.  Sure, Jones is not a good outlet, but, hey, Americans don't know who he is.  Ron going on Stern would've been treated like a joke, and it would have left a bad taste in many, many mouths.

And you heard that they got the request?  My sources say they did not.  Do you know for sure?  Unless you know for sure, don't blame them for anything.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> 1. Hiring a gay Buddhist to run the campaign, when you are running (purportedly) for the Republican nomination which still has a huge Christian conservative base that would never vote for a campaign so led.  Allowing several more gays to work out of the Arlington offices and giving the overall impression of a "cliquish" atmosphere.
> 2. Promoting Joe Seehusen after he messed up the Ames Straw poll and after his "consulting firm" donated $10,000 to the RP campaign.  Dissing the "Vote Scam" people totally and doing nothing to insure the Ames results were correct.
> 3. Having no back up for the computerized supporter lists and no hard copy of the supporter lists so that a "disgruntled employee" could walk out with that crucial info the morning of the crucial IA caucus and totally ruin our chances at a respectable 3rd place finish in Iowa.  Firing nobody after this happened.
> 4. Hiring a former housewife who had never even voted before to take over the State of MI headquarters after Paul Garfield was dumped (for no stated reason) and then hiring a 24-year old college student from Skull & Bones U. who worked on the Bush campaign in 2004 to be her "right hand" gal.
> 5. Not running *a single national TV ad, EVER*, thus confirming the MSM-pumped impressions that we were not running a serious campaign.
> 6. Multiple financial irregularities (that have cited many times here before) that *at a bare minimum* have a very real "appearance of evil."
> 7. Dissing national media figures repeatedly, including canceling pre-arranged interviews a few minutes beforehand.
> 8. Totally shutting out multiple offers from the grassroots of free or reduced-cost assistance for services in a number of professional areas with which the campaign obviously needed help (ex: ad production, delegate training, etc., etc., etc.)
> 9. Failing to hire a single person with long and proven credentials in the patriot movement either at the national, regional or state levels.
> ...


Steve,

Um, wow.

You know I don't doubt you're in this for Dr. Paul, nor do I think you question my motives.  You also know that I've not been afraid to criticize when I thought it would be constructive (and yes, I certainly am human there too).

But, wow.  Not to go all Madison on your Patrick Henry ass, but...

On the first question, I don't see it.  I'm ignorant of many things, but to the best of my knowledge, Kent hired the first few people then turned all hiring over to others.  The more common complaint I heard (third hand, anecdotal) was the hiring of "born agains" or "Evangelicals" or something (sometimes with speculation to compete with Huckabee or something).  I, personally, didn't see (and don't believe) any hiring conspiracy with any motivation at all (unless there is some grand gay Buddhist, Jewish, Evangelical, Cato/Koch, neocon conspiracy of which I'm unaware, but I tend to stay out of Hot Topics ).  I know lots of people hired people they already knew, which is understandable, and can be good or bad.

As critical as I've been of the official campaign staffers where I thought it would be better for the movement, I do think most of them would have been good at something else.  Heck, McHugh is working for me now on the Vern McKinley for Congress campaign!  Yup.  Wouldn't trust him with responsibilities for getting delegates for a Republican presidential primary campaign, but he's got lots of other skills that could have greatly helped Dr. Paul get to the White House.  

My point here is that the campaign management took great potential--not only all of the things we know of in the grassroots but among the official campaign staff itself--and squandered it.  That is the tragedy.  Official campaign staffers who could have been kick ass in one capacity (#2, possibly Seehusen? I have no idea) were then tasked to do something for which they were completely unqualified by experience, temperment, education, knowledge or whatever with no guidance or assistance.  Then they floundered.  It's a pity, but not a conspiracy.  There's a leadership vacuum at the top that created a black hole sucking up all of the skills and potential of the rest of the staff, grassroots ...

3. huge, unquestionable failure--unpardonable that systemic changes still haven't been made for redundancies: look at all of the complaints of the Precinct Leader system losing updated information.

4. Bad premise.  Lots of people with no previous experience did great things.  I thought Trevor was amazing!  Go back to my point about mismatching potentials.

On the rest, I might have ideas but am too ignorant to really speculate publicly.  

So, at the risk of returning to the topic of the thread...

Jonathan, do you think there was a (major!) problem of mismatching people to responsibilities at HQ?

----------


## New York For Paul

How does Iowa get messed up twice?

Straw poll and then the caucus. 

Either incompetence or someone didn't want Ron Paul to win. I know there was a lot of incompetence at the national level. There was also an odd atmosphere at the campaign HQ.

I noticed that many of the paid staff were somewhat fearful for their jobs and sometimes dreaded the situation they were in. I didn't sense the positive atmosphere of a spirited underdog dark horse campaign.

There were a few exceptions of positive people but not many.

So very few staffers were willing to speak up or create waves inside the campaign HQ. 

They felt lucky to just have a job, let alone to presume to tell senior campaign staff how things might be improved on the campaign. 

There were many reasons to be positive in the summer and fall, because you could tell that there was not a runaway frontrunner in the GOP and Ron Paul could get victories if if could get 20 percent of the vote because the field was so divided.

There were counties around the country where he got fifteen percent or more.

----------


## yongrel

> 1. Hiring a gay Buddhist to run the campaign, when you are running (purportedly) for the Republican nomination which still has a huge Christian conservative base that would never vote for a campaign so led.  Allowing several more gays to work out of the Arlington offices and giving the overall impression of a "cliquish" atmosphere.
> 2. Promoting Joe Seehusen after he messed up the Ames Straw poll and after his "consulting firm" donated $10,000 to the RP campaign.  Dissing the "Vote Scam" people totally and doing nothing to insure the Ames results were correct.
> 3. Having no back up for the computerized supporter lists and no hard copy of the supporter lists so that a "disgruntled employee" could walk out with that crucial info the morning of the crucial IA caucus and totally ruin our chances at a respectable 3rd place finish in Iowa.  Firing nobody after this happened.
> 4. Hiring a former housewife who had never even voted before to take over the State of MI headquarters after Paul Garfield was dumped (for no stated reason) and then hiring a 24-year old college student from Skull & Bones U. who worked on the Bush campaign in 2004 to be her "right hand" gal.
> 5. Not running *a single national TV ad, EVER*, thus confirming the MSM-pumped impressions that we were not running a serious campaign.
> 6. Multiple financial irregularities (that have cited many times here before) that *at a bare minimum* have a very real "appearance of evil."
> 7. Dissing national media figures repeatedly, including canceling pre-arranged interviews a few minutes beforehand.
> 8. Totally shutting out multiple offers from the grassroots of free or reduced-cost assistance for services in a number of professional areas with which the campaign obviously needed help (ex: ad production, delegate training, etc., etc., etc.)
> 9. Failing to hire a single person with long and proven credentials in the patriot movement either at the national, regional or state levels.
> ...


Steve, you've gone off the deep end.

----------


## SteveMartin

Yongrel,

Your credibility is shot.  You are now readily identifiable with the elements who allowed the hard-earned money of people desperate to save their country if they could to be totally squandered.

----------


## amy31416

> Yongrel,
> 
> Your credibility is shot.  You are now readily identifiable with the elements who allowed the hard-earned money of people desperate to save their country if they could to be totally squandered.


I heard that he's a pencil-pushing homosexual Hare Krishna too, from sources inside the official campaign.

----------


## boomcreek

> well good god damn.
> 
> we agree on something!



You, sir, should be on your knees begging your Creator for forgiveness for being so vane in your speech.

----------


## SteveMartin

Yongrel and Amy, Amy and Yongrel...

Don't you two need a room?

Why are you the only two who troll all my posts in such a consistent and punctual manner??

----------


## Ninja Homer

> Yongrel,
> 
> Your credibility is shot.  You are now readily identifiable with the elements who allowed the hard-earned money of people desperate to save their country if they could to be totally squandered.


I agree with Yongrel, however, we need a few people in the deep end.  Feel free to keep the theories coming, but I'll remain neutral on whether or not I believe them until I see some proof.

Keep in mind that sometimes there is such a high level of incompetence that it seems there must be some kind of conspiracy responsible for the events that took place.  Many times, it turns out to just be incompetence.  It's hard to say which is worse.  If it really was conspiracy, it seems to me that many worse things could have been done that would have stopped the campaign dead in its tracks.  The successes of the campaign can't be ignored any more than the failures can.

----------


## amy31416

> Yongrel and Amy, Amy and Yongrel...
> 
> Don't you two need a room?
> 
> Why are you the only two who troll all my posts in such a consistent and punctual manner??


Not trolling you toots, I tore my ACL and this forum is one of the ways I keep myself occupado with the movement until I'm all better.

The fact that I happen to call you out on a frequency that is perhaps on par with yongrel is completely a coincidence, and the only similar factor between he and I is that the outrageous stuff you say. I personally can't help but respond, can't speak for him though. It doesn't matter who it is, I have no personal vendetta against you. I would respond that way to anyone who sounded as bigoted and nutty as you sometimes do.

----------


## acptulsa

> You, sir, should be on your knees begging your Creator for forgiveness for being so vane in your speech.


Welcome.  You must be a disenfranchised Huckabee supporter.  The word is "vain", by the way.

We really _are_ happy to have Huckabee supporters here.  However, I fear you're going to have to learn the patience and tolerance The Teacher tried to teach us if you're to do conservatism any good in team with this crowd.  Sorry.

It does take all kinds, and that's why He in His infinite wisdom created all kinds of us.  We don't really mean to stomp on your finer sensibilities, but I fear some in this crowd will, and will every time.  Nonetheless, they aren't as devilish as they seem.  Sometimes good has rough edges all over just as evil can be smooth as silk.  Please remember the truth of that.

Thanks for joining us, boomcreek.

----------


## yongrel

> You, sir, should be on your knees begging your Creator for forgiveness for being so vane in your speech.


oh lawdy, I love gems like this!

----------


## constituent

> You, sir, should be on your knees begging your Creator for forgiveness for being so vane in your speech.


ozzy and i have a hx of disagreement.  but that's really private message material.

so is that ^.

glad to have gotten your attention though.

it's tough in black and white (errr.... pink).  i'll take your comments as a compliment.

----------


## Banana

Are we trying to kill this thread again?

----------


## ghemminger

Damn this thread is long...what's up ya'll...everything is really hangin out now that this thing is over....

I guess we'll all believe George next time...oh wait....

----------


## constituent

> Damn this thread is long...what's up ya'll...everything is really hangin out now that this thing is over....
> 
> ...


over?

guess i didn't get the memo.

----------


## SteveMartin

What will happen if all the remaining money goes into the Liberty PAC controlled by our #1 nincompoop--Kent Snyder?

At some point the supporters are going to rise up and DEMAND to know why all of there hard-earned nickels and dimes were totally frittered away, and when that happens....

----------


## Akus

> As far as what the point of the campaign was... I think the short answer is that it was both.  With Dr. Paul not really believing that he had a good chance of winning in the early going (as he repeatedly stated on the campaign trail), there needed to be another reason to go forward with the presidential run.  And while I personally wish Ron had believed a lot more strongly in the support he was getting, I see starting a movement as almost more important.


Jonathan, do you understand that our "movement" is worthless, if no one in power wants to make our agenda come to life and the only person who can get power to do so, doesn't seem to care one way or another? Do you understand that the anti-war movement, the protests, the "hey ho, we won't go", hand clapping, feet stomping, George Bush's photos burning has been there almost the next day after the war?

What point is it to campaign for some one whose indifference becomes more and more apparent? Does anyone in this campaign understand that our obstacle is not people disagreeing, but people simply not believing Ron would win, and Ron himself richly providing more ammo for this arguement?




> What you can do now, as I mentioned earlier, is keep doing what you're doing, but also try to do it through your local Republican party establishment.  Go to meetings, learn who the important people are, gain their trust, and sway their point of view gently but surely.


Jonathan, do you understand that the "important people" in the party believe that George Bush is Jesus Christ himself, the war in Iraq is a smashing success, and McCain stands a chance against Barak Obama, who is obviously an Al-Quaeda mole because his middle name is Hussein?

Do you understand that reasoning with insane people who honest to God believe these things is pointless? Do you understand that I am a state convention delegate only because I've told "the Gods" in my committee that McCain is a war hero who is an awesome choice for the presidency? 

Am I the only one who thinks that there is no need for another "movement" as there are movements as many as there are causes to "move"? Am I the only one who understands that the Jesus party will let us have our day just to make us think we are making a difference, but will never allow us to the key positions, would they know that we support Ron Paul?

Do you understand that even if the movement idea is legit, we need to score points to make people see us as a serious relevant force to reckon with, and so far our biggest point to score, Ron Paul as a President, is not very achievable? And thus, the pundits and the populace will label us as the fringe movement and we will have absolutely no ammo to fire back at them with?

I wish people would understand the point I am making.

----------


## constituent

> Jonathan, do you understand that our "movement" is worthless, if no one in power wants to make our agenda come to life and the only person who can get power to do so, doesn't seem to care one way or another? Do you understand that the anti-war movement, the protests, the "hey ho, we won't go", hand clapping, feet stomping, George Bush's photos burning has been there almost the next day after the war?
> 
> What point is it to campaign for some one whose indifference becomes more and more apparent? Does anyone in this campaign understand that our obstacle is not people disagreeing, but people simply not believing Ron would win, and Ron himself richly providing more ammo for this arguement?
> 
> 
> 
> Jonathan, do you understand that the "important people" in the party believe that George Bush is Jesus Christ himself, the war in Iraq is a smashing success, and McCain stands a chance against Barak Obama, who is obviously an Al-Quaeda mole because his middle name is Hussein?
> 
> Do you understand that reasoning with insane people who honest to God believe these things is pointless? Do you understand that I am a state convention delegate only because I've told "the Gods" in my committee that McCain is a war hero who is an awesome choice for the presidency? 
> ...



+1000

excellent post akus

----------


## crazyfingers

Akus, 

I definitely see what you're saying but if we're willing to stick around and build up the necessary infrastructure,  future victories can come out of this defeat. Maybe not the best example because he betrayed many of his principles, but look at Ronald Regan. He would never have been in that position without Barry Goldwater's candidacy clearing the path for his limited government message. 

Ron Paul is simply too "extreme", and vocal, in his libertarianism to take us all of the way. Obviously I wish his campaign was more successful, but IMO victory was never attainable even if everything had been run perfectly (it wasn't).  I'm hoping in four years we can pass the torch someone we can trust, like Gov. Sarah Palin or Cong. Jeff Flake or another individual with a much more "mainstream" image.

----------


## amy31416

> Akus, 
> 
> I definitely see what you're saying but if we're willing to stick around and build up the necessary infrastructure,  future victories can come out of this defeat. Maybe not the best example because he betrayed many of his principles, but look at Ronald Regan. He would never have been in that position without Barry Goldwater's candidacy clearing the path for his limited government message. 
> 
> Ron Paul is simply too "extreme", and vocal, in his libertarianism to take us all of the way. Obviously I wish his campaign was more successful, but IMO victory was never attainable even if everything had been run perfectly (it wasn't).  I'm hoping in four years we can pass the torch someone we can trust, like Gov. Sarah Palin or Cong. Jeff Flake or another individual with a much more "mainstream" image.


Just curious--was Goldwater considered extreme when he ran? Obviously I know he lost, but he was before my time and I have no idea what the "air" was about him, though I know he's respected by real conservatives to this day.

----------


## Akus

> Akus, 
> 
> I definitely see what you're saying but if we're willing to stick around and build up the necessary infrastructure,  future victories can come out of this defeat. Maybe not the best example because he betrayed many of his principles, but look at Ronald Regan. He would never have been in that position without Barry Goldwater's candidacy clearing the path for his limited government message. 
> 
> Ron Paul is simply too "extreme", and vocal, in his libertarianism to take us all of the way. Obviously I wish his campaign was more successful, but IMO victory was never attainable even if everything had been run perfectly (it wasn't).  I'm hoping in four years we can pass the torch someone we can trust, like Gov. Sarah Palin or Cong. Jeff Flake or another individual with a much more "mainstream" image.


I disagree. This was and is very winnable even now if this campaign was a war machine and not a couple of bored folks who just wanted to play politics. I wonder how many of these people actually ran a campaign. People are $#@!ing dying dammit and to say "oh well may be in 2012" is extremely cinyc (sp?) in my opinion. That's not a shot at you, that's a shot at this kind of thinking. We don't need Ron Paul or Ron Paul-like person in 2012, we needed him in $#@!ing 1996!!!

There is nothing extreme about Ron Paul. Most people voted for someone else because they didn't believe he'd win, while agreeing 100% with him on the issues. And if the vicotry wasn't seen as attainable now, what makes you think it'll be attainable in the future?

As far as Sarah and Jeff, I just don't see what I like in them. Sarah may have a chance for the same reason Barak has a chance (looks and sex appeal), but I have no idea who she is and why I should believe anything she says even if she talks just like Ron Paul.

----------


## crazyfingers

> Just curious--was Goldwater considered extreme when he ran? Obviously I know he lost, but he was before my time and I have no idea what the "air" was about him, though I know he's respected by real conservatives to this day.


It was (about 20 years) before my time as well, so I don't know too much about it, but I wouldn't doubt that he was vilified by the liberal press. I do know he lost by a wide margin in the general, so obviously most of the electorate did not feel comfortable voting for him (or rather felt more comfortable pulling the lever for Johnson). Who knows, maybe the "hangover" from the JFK assassination had something to do with it; perhaps people thought that by voting for his VP they could keep Kennedy's legacy/agenda alive.

What is readily apparent though is that in the 44 years since Goldwater won the nomination, freedom in all its forms has been steadily in decline - both in the public consciousness and government policy.

----------


## FreeTraveler

The reason Goldwater lost:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKs-bTL-pRg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisy_(...ion_commercial)

Fear of nuclear war was at its peak. The media convinced the sheeple that Goldwater was a warmonger. This commercial buried him.

----------


## eOs

> Jonathan, do you understand that our "movement" is worthless, if no one in power wants to make our agenda come to life and the only person who can get power to do so, doesn't seem to care one way or another? Do you understand that the anti-war movement, the protests, the "hey ho, we won't go", hand clapping, feet stomping, George Bush's photos burning has been there almost the next day after the war?
> 
> What point is it to campaign for some one whose indifference becomes more and more apparent? Does anyone in this campaign understand that our obstacle is not people disagreeing, but people simply not believing Ron would win, and Ron himself richly providing more ammo for this arguement?
> 
> 
> 
> Jonathan, do you understand that the "important people" in the party believe that George Bush is Jesus Christ himself, the war in Iraq is a smashing success, and McCain stands a chance against Barak Obama, who is obviously an Al-Quaeda mole because his middle name is Hussein?
> 
> Do you understand that reasoning with insane people who honest to God believe these things is pointless? Do you understand that I am a state convention delegate only because I've told "the Gods" in my committee that McCain is a war hero who is an awesome choice for the presidency? 
> ...



+1776

----------


## crazyfingers

> I disagree. This was and is very winnable even now if this campaign was a war machine and not a couple of bored folks who just wanted to play politics. I wonder how many of these people actually ran a campaign. People are $#@!ing dying dammit and to say "oh well may be in 2012" is extremely cinyc (sp?) in my opinion. That's not a shot at you, that's a shot at this kind of thinking. We don't need Ron Paul or Ron Paul-like person in 2012, we needed him in $#@!ing 1996!!!
> 
> There is nothing extreme about Ron Paul. Most people voted for someone else because they didn't believe he'd win, while agreeing 100% with him on the issues. And if the vicotry wasn't seen as attainable now, what makes you think it'll be attainable in the future?
> 
> As far as Sarah and Jeff, I just don't see what I like in them. Sarah may have a chance for the same reason Barak has a chance (looks and sex appeal), but I have no idea who she is and why I should believe anything she says even if she talks just like Ron Paul.



It's not so much the message - which is quintessentially American - but rather the way it was presented by Ron (incompletely and sporadically) and the way it was spun by those whose agendas run counter to it (namely the corporate media and globalist bankers). 

I agree that they weren't playing to win. Hell that was obvious to me from the beginning, which is why I limited the amount of time and money I put into the campaign. I did what I could but I wasn't about to go into debt for an amateur operation. That's not meant as an insult -- I believe most people at HQ tried as hard as they could, and sacrificed a lot. But this is the "major leagues" and most (all?) of them had never been there before.

But with a "serious" run in the future, we can take back the country. We might not be able to reverse all of the terrible infringements on our liberty, but at least we can stop the bleeding. We can still save the Constitution and the last vestiges of the Republic! It's too important not to try.

----------


## SteveMartin

CF,

Very good post!

----------


## joemiller

I think it is time for us to get real here. Unless the economy actually tanks, big time, there will simply be no public support for significant change in our political system, period. Until this time comes, our best course is to start moving into positions of political power now so we can best steer the public debate when the people do start asking the right questions and seeking the right answers. 

The truth is, and as we all know it, Ron Paul's solutions are correct and are needed, but the people will inevitably pay a heavy price for the necessary conversion. Before that price is paid by the people, they will have to be convinced their suffering will be worth the end result.    

joe

----------


## SteveMartin

Joe,

Very prescient comments.  Thanks.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> It's not so much the message - which is quintessentially American - but rather the way it was presented by Ron (incompletely and sporadically) and the way it was spun by those whose agendas run counter to it (namely the corporate media and globalist bankers). 
> 
> I agree that they weren't playing to win. Hell that was obvious to me from the beginning, which is why I limited the amount of time and money I put into the campaign. I did what I could but I wasn't about to go into debt for an amateur operation. That's not meant as an insult -- I believe most people at HQ tried as hard as they could, and sacrificed a lot. But this is the "major leagues" and most (all?) of them had never been there before.
> 
> But with a "serious" run in the future, we can take back the country. We might not be able to reverse all of the terrible infringements on our liberty, but at least we can stop the bleeding. We can still save the Constitution and the last vestiges of the Republic! It's too important not to try.


I just don't have the energy to respond to everyone's posts, but I want to take the time to make one comment.  And please don't just have a knee-jerk reaction to it... just think about it for a bit, and consider the source that it's coming from.

**How could HQ play to win with a candidate who wasn't playing to win?  Do you really think that people in the campaign didn't want to do everything possible to win, or is it possible -- just perhaps -- that all of the things that you people are complaining about weren't issues with the campaign staff, but with the candidate himself?*

I don't know anyone on staff who didn't want this more than anything, and I'm tired of accusations to the contrary.  And beyond that, it's not just that people were "working hard but weren't experienced enough to 'play with the big boys'."  This is a complete canard.  People on the campaign were some of the most talented I've ever been exposed to... all good at what they do, and all wanting to do more if given the chance.  What is it going to take for people on these forums to understand that?  Why do so many of you play this collectivist game of grouping people into HQ and "grassroots" and then assuming everyone in the former group are incompetent/undedicated/etc.?  I believe, as Ron Paul does, that people should be judged as individuals, so can we please stop this game of "HQ is incompetent!!!!!"

Sorry, but half of the crap that some people spew out here, particularly by those who are so opinionated about the campaign despite having no inside knowledge whatsoever just really makes my blood boil sometimes.

----------


## acptulsa

> How could HQ play to win with a candidate who wasn't playing to win?


Douglas Adams postulated that the best person to lead is the person who least wants to.  That's no small part of why we drafted Dr. Paul, and no small part of the reason we push to this day.  What else is to be done?

If he really wanted the headache, he'd have an ulterior motive and probably wouldn't be the right man for the job.

----------


## wgadget

A trusted friend of mine told me once that he saw RP on an interview actually saying he didn't want to win.  I didn't believe him.  Tell me it isn't true.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> A trusted friend of mine told me once that he saw RP on an interview actually saying he didn't want to win.  I didn't believe him.  Tell me it isn't true.


No, it's not.  My only point is that there are differing levels of commitment.  You can want to win and still not do everything you can to do so, right?

I'll give an example, just to make this conversation a little more concrete.  So often people on these forums and elsewhere would be screaming things like "Why isn't RP in [insert state here]?!?!  Why is the campaign not sending him here?  Lew Moore should be fired!!!!!"

Well, did people ever stop to think that Dr. Paul has a say over where and when he travels?  So when you criticize staff for things like that, you're also criticizing Dr. Paul.  That's not to say that he didn't want to win, but is this point so easily overlooked by so many people?

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Akus, 
> 
> I definitely see what you're saying but if we're willing to stick around and build up the necessary infrastructure,  future victories can come out of this defeat. Maybe not the best example because he betrayed many of his principles, but look at Ronald Regan. He would never have been in that position without Barry Goldwater's candidacy clearing the path for his limited government message. 
> 
> Ron Paul is simply too "extreme", and vocal, in his libertarianism to take us all of the way. Obviously I wish his campaign was more successful, but IMO victory was never attainable even if everything had been run perfectly (it wasn't).  I'm hoping in four years we can pass the torch someone we can trust, like Gov. Sarah Palin or Cong. Jeff Flake or another individual with a much more "mainstream" image.


This comment is a very wise one, in my opinion.

----------


## wgadget

Thanks for the quick answer, Jonathan.  

Yes, I do understand.  I think people often question me the same way about my commitment to things.  It's a matter of balance.  I would bet that someone with as much integrity as Ron Paul wants do his best to commitments he already has, such as being a Congressman.  I would imagine he struggles with trying to be all things to all people, and although he's a hero in our eyes, he's still human.  LOL.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Bull $#@!ing $#@!. If Ron Paul's campaign threw its resources to win IA and have won it, it would get tens of millions of dollars worth of publicity. When Mike Huckabee and Barack's faces were foot tall and foot wide on our city's major newspaper (Dallas, TX), this could easily have been us. And the pundits as well as the audience would take us more seriuosly. Do you know how many times I've heard I-like-him-but-he-can't-win crap? Ron Paul's picture on the front page would have shut these kinds of people up. *AND*, even if the campaign was completely dry of money, because of the mass name recognition, he would have gotten that money right back.....
> 
> Sorry, I don't believe this "we didn't have enough money" nonsense. If you used money like a tool, you would have had enormous returns.


Akus, with all due respect, this is patently naive.  Do you think it would have been possible to win Iowa if we had thrown all of our resources there?  Because I don't.  The cards were stacked against Dr. Paul in Iowa, with people of influence hating him, particularly for the rally that was held simultaneous to the debate from which Ron was excluded.  I will say, though, that I do believe that more visits to Iowa might have helped.  But then again, if Ron were going to spend more time somewhere, New Hampshire was probably the place where you wanted to do it.

I love to think that Ron's message, as he was presenting it, should have attractive to most Americans.  But I think it's foolish to take that on its face, rather than thinking hard about why the message did not resonate, and then learning what can be done differently in the future.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Thanks for the quick answer, Jonathan.  
> 
> Yes, I do understand.  I think people often question me the same way about my commitment to things.  It's a matter of balance.  I would bet that someone with as much integrity as Ron Paul wants do his best to commitments he already has, such as being a Congressman.  I would imagine he struggles with trying to be all things to all people, and although he's a hero in our eyes, he's still human.  LOL.


That's exactly correct IMO.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Jonathan, do you understand that our "movement" is worthless, if no one in power wants to make our agenda come to life and the only person who can get power to do so, doesn't seem to care one way or another?


Yes, Akus, actually everyone in the campaign pretty much understood that.  You weren't alone.  But I don't know why that matters.  That's why you need to work to elect other people who have views similar to Ron.  And that's why you should start by taking responsibility and reclaim your local party apparatus, so in the future, people at the next level, and then the next level, etc. will be able to be elected with good beliefs.




> Do you understand that the anti-war movement, the protests, the "hey ho, we won't go", hand clapping, feet stomping, George Bush's photos burning has been there almost the next day after the war?


Yup.  I do.




> What point is it to campaign for some one whose indifference becomes more and more apparent?


The point, Akus, is that you are not just campaigning for Ron Paul, _per se._  You are campaigning for the ideas that Ron Paul stands for.  You are campaigning to lay the groundwork for future candidates.




> Does anyone in this campaign understand that our obstacle is not people disagreeing, but people simply not believing Ron would win, and Ron himself richly providing more ammo for this arguement?


Again, yes, I think we pretty much did.  At least, I certainly did.  But again, what do you propose to do about it?  The campaign doesn't control the words that come out of Ron's mouth, and that seems to be what you're objecting to.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> I heard that the campaign decline Howard Stern's invitation, a visit to whom would expose Ron Paul's name to untold tens of millions of listeners. It was done because Howard Stern was a shock-jock that was too out of the mainstream. But that didn't stop them from sending him to Alex Jones. 
> 
> Twice.
> 
> Sorry, another bull$#@! excuse. I'd buy it if Ron Paul was a no show on some local talk radio, because he had Larry King or Oprah to go to, but apparently, the way campaign's head was positioned (up its ass), even if Oprah and Larry King personally knocked on the door and begged on their knees for Ron Paul to come, the campaign would still not send him.


Sorry, Akus.  Let me say that personally though there was merit to Ron going on Stern.  But you should also think about who you're exposing Ron to, and how well his ideas would come off in that situation.  You talk in another post about needed to make Ron palatable to other factions within the Republican party... tell me, how many other Republican candidates were going on Howard Stern?  They stayed away because it would damage them in the eyes of the same people that you said we should have been working harder to court.

And the reason for Ron going on Alex Jones, FYI, is because he made a promise early in the campaign to frequently go on the show.  Ron saw fit to honor that promise.  You can fault him for that if you wish, but don't think people in HQ didn't echo your sentiments.  Again, can you see that the arguments you were making were going on "inside" too?

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> That's an understatement--and, given the luxury of geographical proximity we have here, I offered, repeatedly, over many weeks, to several different staffers, to go into HQ and make calls from there on their system.  DC's rules for Republicans are really difficult.  Had HQ put out a solicitation to the known DC RP supporters early (as requested), we could have registered OUR people as Republicans before the deadline and had our slate of delegate candidates together at the get go to circulate petitions.  Unfortunately, we were left to visiting shut ins, hobos on the street....
> 
> No.  The would not start DC until they finished California I was told.  The couldn't do more than one thing at a time it seemed despite overlapping deadlines.  Since they were always rushed in another state, they were then constantly in a state of being rushed against deadlines in the next, and the next, even when there were lots of energized grassroots supporters chomping at the bit to help.  So it seemed to me at least.


Oh Bradley, I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you, but the idea that you wanted $10,000 for a GOTV drive, rather than to line your own pockets is laughable.  You can peddle this story, but I've seen your e-mail correspondence.  Sure, this will just be a game of your word against mine, but don't think that your motivations aren't known by others who have seen them first hand.

It's too bad that so many people on here trust what you have to say.

And I think that it's funny that your vanity leads you think there's some sort of official "campaign of lies against you."  Trust me Bradley, you aren't that important -- no one really cared.  Our main goal was to protect Dr. Paul and our donors from people who desired to harm or take advantage of him, either intentionally or unwittingly.  Perhaps someday people will come to realize that you damaged Ron Paul more than you helped him.  And no number of forums posts will ever change that.

----------


## SteveMartin

> How could HQ play to win with a candidate who wasn't playing to win?


Is that your current position, or just a supposition?  That certainly fits with what I have been hearing.

My understanding in talking to many folks close to Dr. Paul was that he was arm-twisted by KS to even doing this in the first place, and that it was always about advancing a message, increasing support for efforts such as the Liberty PAC, etc.  Unfortunately, the result has been that many, many people have had their hearts and bank accounts and livelihoods broken as a result of supporting something that they were not told they were supporting.

Look, Jonathan, I know I have been as frustrated by this whole 15-month odyssey as anyone.  Many of us out here gave EVERYTHING for that period of time.  Naturally, people will look for reasons (or even "scapegoats").  I am as guilty as anyone for that, and stand guilty as charged--though I will never quit looking until we have all the answers.  I have nothing but respect for people who are honest, and your comments above strike me as pure honesty.

Perhaps I am guilty of looking for answers in the wrong places, but when a 25-year old tells me that these people were "the most talented I've ever been exposed to..." and also admits no prior experience, it simply doesn't engender much confidence, frankly.

When someone with as fine a reputation as a true patriot as Debbie Hopper comes out initially and denies things and then comes back a few weeks after and admits them to me, it makes me wonder what the heck really was going on down there.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Is that your current position, or just a supposition?  That certainly fits with what I have been hearing.
> 
> My understanding in talking to many folks close to Dr. Paul was that he was arm-twisted by KS to even doing this in the first place, and that it was always about advancing a message, increasing support for efforts such as the Liberty PAC, etc.  Unfortunately, the result has been that many, many people have had their hearts and bank accounts and livelihoods broken as a result of supporting something that they were not told they were supporting.
> 
> Look, Jonathan, I know I have been as frustrated by this whole 15-month odyssey as anyone.  Many of us out here gave EVERYTHING for that period of time.  Naturally, people will look for reasons (or even "scapegoats").  I am as guilty as anyone for that, and stand guilty as charged--though I will never quit looking until we have all the answers.  I have nothing but respect for people who are honest, and your comments above strike me as pure honesty.
> 
> Perhaps I am guilty of looking for answers in the wrong places, but when a 25-year old tells me that these people were "the most talented I've ever been exposed to..." and also admits no prior experience, it simply doesn't engender much confidence, frankly.
> 
> When someone with as fine a reputation as a true patriot as Debbie Hopper comes out initially and denies things and then comes back a few weeks after and admits them to me, it makes me wonder what the heck really was going on down there.


Steve, I've already addressed the issue of experience vs. talent.  You don't have to have tons of experience to be talented at a job.  Not to mention, you're ignoring the many people who did have significant experience in the campaign.  But I applaud you for your willingness to look for answers.

I didn't say everyone had tons of experience, but I did say that these were smart, talented people, who I believe would be as good as many other "more experienced" staffers on other campaigns.  What did Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani's "experienced staff" get them?  They had candidates with far more name recognition, and yet they both far underperformed expectations.  I'm not saying that Ron Paul's staff deseres credit for his success relative to initial expectations for his candidacy, but it is worth putting it in a little perspective with other campaigns (campaigns that had more media than we could ever have hoped for).

And for the record, I'm 24

----------


## pepperpete1

I was appalled to see the black out of Ron Paul by the media. It is scary to think that they have that much power. Then when the campaign did not confront them by filing complaints with the FCC, I figured that they thought the complaints would just be considered "sour grapes".  OK. But it hurt the campaign. It depressed the followers who were out there doing the footwork in the trenches. It became one huge bunker that they had to overcome. Hey we were already catagorized as a bunch of Paultards anyway.  Still it continued, leaving us defenseless as to how to get Ron Paul, the real candidate, elected.

Then when I saw the troops continue in blind faith, in the message and in the man, take a few battles here and a few there, hope rose again. Bless their courage. All of this going on at the front and under the radar.

I thought maybe this was the plan all along. That the campaign knew that Ron Paul would not get the right kind of reception and media backing we needed so we would quietly sneak in the back and ambush them for the ultimate battle at the national convention and in victory take the nomination. We would outwait the enemy, and let him defeat himself by breaking his own rules and his campaign getting caught breaking the law, thus handing the nomination up to Ron Paul on a silver platter because he had the tenacity to hang in there til the end.

A few days ago I listened to a radio interview with Ron Paul. The commentator so much as said that the campaign was over and yet RP was still spreading the message. Ron Paul did not refute that! He did not just down play that he was still running, but let the comment slide.

Now,I do not know what to believe other than I agree with Akus. We need that leader NOW! Not in 2010 or whenever. For someone who has believed as Ron Paul has and for as long as he has, he should be taking advantage of the people who are trying to move heaven and earth to get him elected and do whatever (short of going against his principles) it takes to win. He should let the troops know that he is in the battle too.

It is not too late. Anything can happen before September.
I say we rally the troops and keep on keepin' on.  Come on Ron, can you say,"Charge."?

Jon, do think he will do it?

----------


## SteveMartin

I probably don't deserve it, but could you give me your impression of just this part of my prior post:




> Is that your current position, or just a supposition? That certainly fits with what I have been hearing.
> 
> My understanding in talking to many folks close to Dr. Paul was that he was arm-twisted by KS to even doing this in the first place, and that it was always about advancing a message, increasing support for efforts such as the Liberty PAC, etc. Unfortunately, the result has been that many, many people have had their hearts and bank accounts and livelihoods broken as a result of supporting something that they were not told they were supporting.


TIA...

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> I was appalled to see the black out of Ron Paul by the media. It is scary to think that they have that much power. Then when the campaign did not confront them by filing complaints with the FCC, I figured that they thought the complaints would just be considered "sour grapes".  OK. But it hurt the campaign. It depressed the followers who were out there doing the footwork in the trenches. It became one huge bunker that they had to overcome. Hey we were already catagorized as a bunch of Paultards anyway.  Still it continued, leaving us defenseless as to how to get Ron Paul, the real candidate, elected.
> 
> Then when I saw the troops continue in blind faith, in the message and in the man, take a few battles here and a few there, hope rose again. Bless their courage. All of this going on at the front and under the radar.
> 
> I thought maybe this was the plan all along. That the campaign knew that Ron Paul would not get the right kind of reception and media backing we needed so we would quietly sneak in the back and ambush them for the ultimate battle at the national convention and in victory take the nomination. We would outwait the enemy, and let him defeat himself by breaking his own rules and his campaign getting caught breaking the law, thus handing the nomination up to Ron Paul on a silver platter because he had the tenacity to hang in there til the end.
> 
> A few days ago I listened to a radio interview with Ron Paul. The commentator so much as said that the campaign was over and yet RP was still spreading the message. Ron Paul did not refute that! He did not just down play that he was still running, but let the comment slide.
> 
> Now,I do not know what to believe other than I agree with Akus. We need that leader NOW! Not in 2010 or whenever. For someone who has believed as Ron Paul has and for as long as he has, he should be taking advantage of the people who are trying to move heaven and earth to get him elected and do whatever (short of going against his principles) it takes to win. He should let the troops know that he is in the battle too.
> ...


I don't know.  Ron Paul is a great man in so many ways, but I do not believe that he is going to change who he is.

What I would say, though, is that we all shouldn't just be looking for a "leader" to do things for us.  You see, while Ron spreading the message on the news is hugely valuable, you should also work to spread the word in every way that YOU can.  Are you getting involved in your local Republican party?  Have you identified the people who are "important" and gained their trust?

Our movement is all about individual responsibility, and I urge everyone to remember that when you think about where we're headed.  I know that I'll be going to my local meeting on May 17th.  And I wouldn't have done that if I hadn't gotten involved with the Ron Paul campaign.  I think we all need to start there.

As I've stated before, all politics is local, and if we take over the country one precinct at a time, then getting the vote out for liberty-minded candidates in the future will be far easier, and we will see someone president who better subscribes to our views.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> I probably don't deserve it, but could you give me your impression of just this part of my prior post:
> 
> 
> 
> TIA...


I don't know what TIA means...

I don't know much about the original decision to run, as that was far before my time on the campaign.  I believe very strongly that Ron wanted to win, but the fact that he chose to honor his congressional obligations -- for better or for worse -- severely handicapped his chances.

But again, at this point, we need to keep pushing forward in our own ways.  In a sense, all of these discussions are water under the bridge.  We need to focus on what we can do next... I just talked a bit about that in my post directly above this one.

Hope that answers what you were looking for.

----------


## New York For Paul

> **How could HQ play to win with a candidate who wasn't playing to win?  Do you really think that people in the campaign didn't want to do everything possible to win, or is it possible -- just perhaps -- that all of the things that you people are complaining about weren't issues with the campaign staff, but with the candidate himself?*
> 
> I don't know anyone on staff who didn't want this more than anything, and I'm tired of accusations to the contrary.  And beyond that, it's not just that people were "working hard but weren't experienced enough to 'play with the big boys'."  This is a complete canard.  People on the campaign were some of the most talented I've ever been exposed to... all good at what they do, and all wanting to do more if given the chance.  What is it going to take for people on these forums to understand that?  Why do so many of you play this collectivist game of grouping people into HQ and "grassroots" and then assuming everyone in the former group are incompetent/undedicated/etc.?  I believe, as Ron Paul does, that people should be judged as individuals, so can we please stop this game of "HQ is incompetent!!!!!"
> 
> Sorry, but half of the crap that some people spew out here, particularly by those who are so opinionated about the campaign despite having no inside knowledge whatsoever just really makes my blood boil sometimes.


Having been around national HQ starting in August and ending up in New Hampshire, I would agree that most paid staffers seemed to want to win. However, I detected a sense dread from members who were confronted with the question, How do we win against such long odds?

I am sure many wanted to do more if given a chance. Why didn't the senior campaign give them a chance. 

I can get very specific about where some deficiencies were with the campaign because I was there on the inside for many months. Further, I have worked on many presidential campaigns, been to four national RNC conventions where I worked behind the scenes on several of them. 

I have worked on local, state and national campaigns since 1978. I could go on but I won't.

Let's just say the campaign could have used some top level help.

----------


## Sandra

What appeal could the message have on our military should they be ordered to act unconstitutionally? Something tells me most of them are not aware of, or are given a perverted interpretation of what the Constitutiom means.

----------


## SteveMartin

> I don't know what TIA means...
> 
> I don't know much about the original decision to run, as that was far before my time on the campaign.  I believe very strongly that Ron wanted to win, but the fact that he chose to honor his congressional obligations -- for better or for worse -- severely handicapped his chances.
> 
> But again, at this point, we need to keep pushing forward in our own ways.  In a sense, all of these discussions are water under the bridge.  We need to focus on what we can do next... I just talked a bit about that in my post directly above this one.
> 
> Hope that answers what you were looking for.



TIA="Thanks in Advance"

Yes, your answer is what I was looking for, however, I must add that I believe RP has an obligation to do whatever he can now--on the behalf of all who were misled--to run (or at least vigorously advance) a REAL campaign.  He doesn't necessarily have to be on the ticket, but people deserve to get what they thought they were paying for at some point before October-November.

----------


## spacehabitats

> Sorry I'm late to this thread and I haven't read all of your answers.
> 
> As an Iowan who has seen a number of presidential campaigns in our state I have a couple of observations. (***20/20 hindsight alert***)
> 
> 1) The campaign underestimated the importance of the early primary states. (Yes, I know that Iowa got more than its "share" of money and personal appearances from Dr. Paul, but that is a fact of life in presidential politics.) Concentrating  his efforts on two relatively small states could have reaped huge PR benefits early on. In the Iowa caucuses Ron Paul came within *3%* of beating not only Guliani, but John McCain and Fred Thompson as well! Our supporters may have realized that as some type of moral victory, but it allowed the media to virtually ignore him going into New Hampshire.
> 
> 2) The national media blackout (and, yes, there WAS one) meant that Ron Paul was going to need to punch through to the local media here in Iowa and New Hampshire and, whenever possible, actually meet the voters.
> Again, those not familiar with Iowa caucus politics don't realize how spoiled Iowa voters are. They don't just read about candidates or see them on television; they expect to see and hear them in person and often get to shake their hands.
> Fair? Of course not! But the fact is that our little town of 5,000 people had visits from Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Romney, McCain, and others. McCain walked in a Labor Day parade in a little town five miles from here. Fred Thonmpson got in a big bus that traveled the whole state visiting every little whistle stop. He would get out walk down the main street, make a little speech, and shake hands. Sure this approach is corny and old fashioned. But that is the way candidates get support in Iowa. 
> ...


In your original response to my question you did hint at what you now have made more explicit. You are absolutely right that some people are making blanket allegations about campaign staffers little or no personal knowledge.
I am sorry if I seemed to fall in that category.

I had assumed (erroneously) that Ron Paul's speaking schedule had come out of some type of "strategy" devised by campaign staffers. Obviously Dr. Paul would have had the final say, and just as obviously he either:

1. Underestimated the importance of Iowa/New Hampshire.

2. Did not realize what it took to win there (frequent personal appearances). 

3. Did not feel that he could compromise his responsibilities as a Congressman (i.e. miss votes in Congress for campaign events).

4. Did not feel that he could make the necessary personal sacrifices (physically exhausting campaign schedule, lack of family time, etc.).

5. Felt that a vigorous presidential campaign (that he did not think he could actually win) might jeopardize  his congressional seat (especially if he were missing congressional votes). 

6. Or any combination of the above.

I understand your reticence at criticizing  Dr. Paul  for any of these things. I also believe that some of these stem from some of the very character qualities that make him such a great man. 

He has a great sense of duty. 
He does not lust for power.
He is a man of substance, not style.
He IS a great statesman.
He is NOT a great politician.

My question is this.
Even in retrospect, does Ron Paul recognize the price that his campaign paid for  "ignoring" Iowa/New Hampshire?
Could he, even now, be convinced to make a significant run at a *small state* primary (like Nebraska) where a concentrated effort with frequent campaign visits and media ads *might actually make a difference*?

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> TIA="Thanks in Advance"
> 
> Yes, your answer is what I was looking for, however, I must add that I believe RP has an obligation to do whatever he can now--on the behalf of all who were misled--to run (or at least vigorously advance) a REAL campaign.  He doesn't necessarily have to be on the ticket, but people deserve to get what they thought they were paying for at some point before October-November.


I don't think anyone was misled.  From the very beginning, it was known that Ron was honoring his congressional obligations, as well as running for re-election to Congress.  There should be no issue with that on anyone's part.  People got involved, myself included, with all that information being publicly available.

So while I might have wanted Ron to do things differently, saying people were misled is a mischaracterization, IMO.

----------


## SteveMartin

Spacehabits,

Wow!  What a post.  Kudos to everything you just said.

----------


## SteveMartin

> I don't think anyone was misled.  From the very beginning, it was known that Ron was honoring his congressional obligations, as well as running for re-election to Congress.  There should be no issue with that on anyone's part.  People got involved, myself included, with all that information being publicly available.
> 
> So while I might have wanted Ron to do things differently, saying people were misled is a mischaracterization, IMO.


OK, let me rephrase..."those who allowed themselves to be misled to believe--by the indications given--(such as forming a PC)--that this was a real presidential campaign."

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> In your original response to my question you did hint at what you now have made more explicit. You are absolutely right that some people are making blanket allegations about campaign staffers little or no personal knowledge.
> I am sorry if I seemed to fall in that category.
> 
> I had assumed (erroneously) that Ron Paul's speaking schedule had come out of some type of "strategy" devised by campaign staffers. Obviously Dr. Paul would have had the final say, and just as obviously he either:
> 
> 1. Underestimated the importance of Iowa/New Hampshire.
> 
> 2. Did not realize what it took to win there (frequent personal appearances). 
> 
> ...


Thank you for that post.  It's one of the most insightful in this thread.

I don't really know what his feelings are regarding NH/Iowa at this point.  I also don't really know anything about the upcoming schedule or plans for the other primary/caucus states.  I know that he's making some campaign visits, but I don't know how aggressive they are.

But again, I would say that we need to take this upon ourselves to enact the changes that we desire.  Look at the changes to platforms occuring around the country.  Look at candidates like Jim Forsythe who are running for Congress now.  Look at people who are getting involved in their local Republican party.  Sorry to carp on this too much, but I feel that it's important to emphasize all of these things, because they are -- in my opinion -- what will determine the longevity and vitality of this movement.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> OK, let me rephrase..."those who allowed themselves to be misled to believe--by the indications given--(such as forming a PC)--that this was a real presidential campaign."


hehe, OK.  better.

----------


## pepperpete1

I am a precinct captain for the Ron Paul campaign and am running for precinct delegate in my township. I have started attending the GOP meetings for the county and will be attending their functions from here on in. I will and am continuing to spread the message. 
Our local meet-up group is trying to incorporate more area into one larger meet-up. We plan on holding fundraisers and rallys. This will be done without the national campaign and the state headquarters of the campaign here in Michigan. They were of little help to us in the beginning and we did fairly well considering the lack of knowledge and materials.
I need to know who to contact at the campaign to ask if Ron Paul will be filing the necessary forms so as to be able to write-in his name on the ballot provided he does not get the nomination.
I cannot and will not vote for anyone else.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> I am a precinct captain for the Ron Paul campaign and am running for precinct delegate in my township. I have started attending the GOP meetings for the county and will be attending their functions from here on in. I will and am continuing to spread the message. 
> Our local meet-up group is trying to incorporate more area into one larger meet-up. We plan on holding fundraisers and rallys. This will be done without the national campaign and the state headquarters of the campaign here in Michigan. They were of little help to us in the beginning and we did fairly well considering the lack of knowledge and materials.
> I need to know who to contact at the campaign to ask if Ron Paul will be filing the necessary forms so as to be able to write-in his name on the ballot provided he does not get the nomination.
> I cannot and will not vote for anyone else.


That's awesome, Pepper!

I would just try to the main number 703.248.9115.  I have no idea about any write-in campaign.

----------


## yongrel

Once again, thank you for your answers Jonathan.

----------


## Banana

> Once again, thank you for your answers Jonathan.


+1, especially after that dip on last page! Nice to see someone coming back even after getting punched around.

----------


## FreeTraveler

> What appeal could the message have on our military should they be ordered to act unconstitutionally? Something tells me most of them are not aware of, or are given a perverted interpretation of what the Constitutiom means.


They are already acting unconstitutionally, and that's never even mentioned. They are participating in an unconstitional war in Iraq. They seem to have no trouble killing civilians in an undeclared action; I have no doubt there would be little difference if the civilians were in this country.

----------


## Akus

> Yes, Akus, actually everyone in the campaign pretty much understood that.  You weren't alone.  But I don't know why that matters.  That's why you need to work to elect other people who have views similar to Ron.  And that's why you should start by taking responsibility and reclaim your local party apparatus, so in the future, people at the next level, and then the next level, etc. will be able to be elected with good beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> The point, Akus, is that you are not just campaigning for Ron Paul, _per se._  You are campaigning for the ideas that Ron Paul stands for.  You are campaigning to lay the groundwork for future candidates.
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah it's for the kids....[Whitney Houston]I believe the children are our fuuuttuuuuuureee[/Whitney Houston]


John, you are clueless about what I was saying and if everyone else in this campaign staff agrees with the above remark then they're clueless as well. Hell, even Ron Paul is apparently clueless if he thinks that. Take offense to this or don't. I am clearly talking to the wall here so I wash my hands....

----------


## Tarzan

> But again, I would say that we need to take this upon ourselves to enact the changes that we desire.  Look at the changes to platforms occurring around the country.  Look at candidates like Jim Forsythe who are running for Congress now.  Look at people who are getting involved in their local Republican party.  Sorry to carp on this too much, but I feel that it's important to emphasize all of these things, because they are -- in my opinion -- what will determine the longevity and vitality of this movement.


My frustration with the *official campaign* has been largely due to the numerous lost opportunities. And those lost opportunities continue even now because of poor leadership. The Pennsylvania primary is coming up on April 22nd and the campaign has called for RP supporters to become delegates… but, the *official campaign* will not be paying for sample ballots… sample ballots that they think are critical to this process.

I think there are numerous reasons for the poor performance of the *official campaign* and there appears to be an overriding concept responsible for many of the problems. It is the notion that this *movement" should be a grassroots effort without centralized control or direction.

The problem is that that notion has no place in reality or history. History is replete with lessons on taking and achieving power. To my knowledge no *grassroots* effort has ever achieved such a goal. While some grassroots efforts have started such an effort, it has always morphed into a hierarchical system with good leadership to achieve their ends. If you believe that the McGovern campaign was such an example you need to check the historic facts. He lost "big time" (to Nixon, I might add) and it was a grassroots looking for a leader, not the converse, and their chosen leadership failed them. If you review the actual history of the time you will find this is not a shining example of a grassroots success. Instead, it is a good reverse lesson.

The problem is the concept and we will not be successful until we realize that we must change this concept to be successful. That such a movement (to take political power) does require leadership and a degree of centralization. History and human nature have shown this to be true time and time again. This is where the *official campaign* has failed miserably.

At this critical juncture we need a leader or at least a figure head to serve as our rallying point. Ron Paul is not providing what this movement needs. He has all but left the field at a critical juncture. With proper guidance and support congressional campaigns would be much easier to support and win during this election cycle. Instead, a large number of Ron Paul supporters have followed him and left the field. If RP were to step forward and explain the reasons for continuing this effort to obtain delegates I believe the number of supporters would continue to grow and financial contributions would continue. Instead, we get vague generalities with little or no (mostly no) support from the official campaign.

If RP were to let people know the plan... such as,



> continue the effort and get delegates... and, while you are doing so, take over your local and state GOP to help us with the next election in two years... support candidates for congress during this election who will support the Constitution (here is a list)... we need the grassroots to achieve these goals and here is how you become a delegate in your state (to verbose links)... sign up on the official website so we can send you ongoing information… and, I personally will be creating a leadership core to help nurture grassroots leaders so this movement will continue into the future


Well... we never got any such thing... just a bunch of generalities with no specific plans or support for carrying out the needed actions.

I will stop now so this does not become too long. The real issue to me is the basic concept and mind set which you appear to continue to share... that centralization is bad and this must be achieved through the grassroots. There is no polite way to say this... you are just wrong. Until this false premise can be overcome neither the official campaign nor you personally will achieve success in this type of endeavor.

There is no question from me... the point of this post is that the *official campaign* has, and continues, to fail on many levels. Your adherance to a failed concept is the real point of this thread. Instead of "trying to explain things" in this thread you should be doing some serious self examination to understand why this campaign has failed... instead of doing circle explanations and justifications of the professional and personal failures.

----------


## Tarzan

...

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> My frustration with the *official campaign* has been largely due to the numerous lost opportunities. And those lost opportunities continue even now because of poor leadership. The Pennsylvania primary is coming up on April 22nd and the campaign has called for RP supporters to become delegates… but, the *official campaign* will not be paying for sample ballots… sample ballots that they think are critical to this process.
> 
> I think there are numerous reasons for the poor performance of the *official campaign* and there appears to be an overriding concept responsible for many of the problems. It is the notion that this *movement" should be a grassroots effort without centralized control or direction.
> 
> The problem is that that notion has no place in reality or history. History is replete with lessons on taking and achieving power. To my knowledge no *grassroots* effort has ever achieved such a goal. While some grassroots efforts have started such an effort, it has always morphed into a hierarchical system with good leadership to achieve their ends. If you believe that the McGovern campaign was such an example you need to check the historic facts. He lost "big time" (to Nixon, I might add) and it was a grassroots looking for a leader, not the converse, and their chosen leadership failed them. If you review the actual history of the time you will find this is not a shining example of a grassroots success. Instead, it is a good reverse lesson.
> 
> The problem is the concept and we will not be successful until we realize that we must change this concept to be successful. That such a movement (to take political power) does require leadership and a degree of centralization. History and human nature have shown this to be true time and time again. This is where the *official campaign* has failed miserably.
> 
> At this critical juncture we need a leader or at least a figure head to serve as our rallying point. Ron Paul is not providing what this movement needs. He has all but left the field at a critical juncture. With proper guidance and support congressional campaigns would be much easier to support and win during this election cycle. Instead, a large number of Ron Paul supporters have followed him and left the field. If RP were to step forward and explain the reasons for continuing this effort to obtain delegates I believe the number of supporters would continue to grow and financial contributions would continue. Instead, we get vague generalities with little or no (mostly no) support from the official campaign.
> ...


Tarzan, I get your frustration... you want centralization, but good luck getting it.  Ron Paul is the wrong candidate for you if this is what you want.

I'm not telling you to get involved locally because I believe that is the ONLY way this movement can happen, or because I even believe it is sufficient by itself.  I'm telling you that because within the set of options currently available, that is the best way to advance our movement.

----------


## pepperpete1

> At this critical juncture we need a leader or at least a figure head to serve as our rallying point. Ron Paul is not providing what this movement needs. He has all but left the field at a critical juncture. With proper guidance and support congressional campaigns would be much easier to support and win during this election cycle.


Amen and hallalujah!

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> John, you are clueless about what I was saying and if everyone else in this campaign staff agrees with the above remark then they're clueless as well. Hell, even Ron Paul is apparently clueless if he thinks that. Take offense to this or don't. I am clearly talking to the wall here so I wash my hands....


Akus, I'm not taking offense.  And I'm not saying that I disagree with anything you're saying.  But what I am telling you is that if you don't do what I've described, then you're going to find your options limited in the near to medium term. As I just said in another post, grassroots organization is not sufficient, but to accomplish what we wish, it is necessary.

If you choose not to be involved in the field, then it's your loss, really.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> ...


And by the way, you're crazy if you don't think those within the campaign don't know these things that you're saying.

People do, but that doesn't mean that it will occur.

----------


## Banana

I kind of have to side with Jonathan here- POTUS is supposed to be an administrator, not the kind of state, and ideally (at least in my little world) POTUS election should be more mechanical, not the high point, because everything is done at local level, not at federal level. 

But unfortunately, it's built in human nature to want a leader to rally around even if our ultimate message is to have no leader at all. Sometime I wished we had the luxury of crown only to disperse all the needs of figurehead and leave the details to politics as British people does (though I have my doubts now and then).

----------


## squandertime

i think we need a part 2 thread ........

----------


## Tarzan

> And by the way, you're crazy if you don't think those within the campaign don't know these things that you're saying.
> 
> People do, but that doesn't mean that it will occur.


OK... then some blunt questions.

If you guys know this stuff why were you not doing anything about it?Is Ron Paul the problem?Who is the problem?Why is there no new information on Ron Paul's PAC sites?Why has their been no planning for the "next step" in this movement?Why did you have a "training" session with Justine telling the participants that a "top down" campaign does not work if you think otherwise?

----------


## JS4Pat

> People on the campaign were some of the most talented I've ever been exposed to... all good at what they do, and all wanting to do more if given the chance.  What is it going to take for people on these forums to understand that?  Why do so many of you play this collectivist game of grouping people into HQ and "grassroots" and then assuming everyone in the former group are incompetent/undedicated/etc.?


Why? 

RESULTS!

Look at the results of the Grassroots efforts and look at the results of the HQs effort!

Given those results it is perfectly reasonable to place the "FAILURE" label on HQs and the "SUCCESS" label on The Grassroots. 

We "The Grassroots" gave you "HQs" the money to do more. 

You as "HQs" did less with more while we as "The Grassroots" did more with less.

You should be explaining and aplogizing on this thread - not requesting praise!

----------


## Aratus

What if the grassroots efforts from the caucus level on up is soon to have 1/5 to 1/3 the delegates
at the convention placing planks in front of the viewer audiance that are compatable with nearly all
Ron Paul's ideals. Is this 11th hour "save" by HQ & grassroots now possibly redemptive? If 2008 is 
a dress rehearsal for 2012, then none of this was a total abysmal failure! Insted i think its almost
the total opposite. McCain's focus right now is the NOVEMBER election, rather than delegate selection!

----------


## acptulsa

If I understood Mr. Bydlak correctly, Dr. Paul is a man who is comfortable with his place and comfortable with his place in history, and was _drafted by us_ both _because_ and _in spite of_ the fact that he already has a job and takes it very, very seriously.  This movement is far bigger than Dr. Paul and I am not belittling the man I waited twenty years to vote for a second time, but merely talking about how big and important the purpose of this movement truly is.

No doubt it would be nice to have someone--preferably Dr. Paul--stand up like Moses with the voice of God in his mouth and lead us to the Promised Land, but I fear that this motley collection of grassroots will have to continue to continue.

Now that we've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that we can, I really, really don't know why we wouldn't.

----------


## wgadget

> My frustration with the *official campaign* has been largely due to the numerous lost opportunities. And those lost opportunities continue even now because of poor leadership. The Pennsylvania primary is coming up on April 22nd and the campaign has called for RP supporters to become delegates… but, the *official campaign* will not be paying for sample ballots… sample ballots that they think are critical to this process.
> 
> I think there are numerous reasons for the poor performance of the *official campaign* and there appears to be an overriding concept responsible for many of the problems. It is the notion that this *movement" should be a grassroots effort without centralized control or direction.
> 
> The problem is that that notion has no place in reality or history. History is replete with lessons on taking and achieving power. To my knowledge no *grassroots* effort has ever achieved such a goal. While some grassroots efforts have started such an effort, it has always morphed into a hierarchical system with good leadership to achieve their ends. If you believe that the McGovern campaign was such an example you need to check the historic facts. He lost "big time" (to Nixon, I might add) and it was a grassroots looking for a leader, not the converse, and their chosen leadership failed them. If you review the actual history of the time you will find this is not a shining example of a grassroots success. Instead, it is a good reverse lesson.
> 
> The problem is the concept and we will not be successful until we realize that we must change this concept to be successful. That such a movement (to take political power) does require leadership and a degree of centralization. History and human nature have shown this to be true time and time again. This is where the *official campaign* has failed miserably.
> 
> At this critical juncture we need a leader or at least a figure head to serve as our rallying point. Ron Paul is not providing what this movement needs. He has all but left the field at a critical juncture. With proper guidance and support congressional campaigns would be much easier to support and win during this election cycle. Instead, a large number of Ron Paul supporters have followed him and left the field. If RP were to step forward and explain the reasons for continuing this effort to obtain delegates I believe the number of supporters would continue to grow and financial contributions would continue. Instead, we get vague generalities with little or no (mostly no) support from the official campaign.
> ...


Today, while reading the newspaper, I ran across a Dr. Joyce Brothers column about what a real LEADER is.  It was in the form of a true or false quiz, but I'll just skip down to the answers.  

*I believe Ron Paul is the ultimate leader possible.  He is Leader Supreme, especially if you compare him to these traits outlined by Dr. Brothers.
*
 It used to be thought that a leader and a manager were one in the same; in other words, all a "leader" had to do was make sure the group met some stated goals related to productivity or sales, or other corporate measurements of success. The terms were interchangeable. Now people are more aware that *leadership is a force that can inspire, motivate and focus the energy of a number of voluntary followers.*

 Each group is different, and one-size-fits-all leadership traits no longer are sufficient. *Understanding what the group is all about seems to be a newly recognized key* to success in being accepted as a leader, whether it be in politics or business. The would-be leader needs to know what is important to the group, what characteristics it holds dear, and then try to mold himself to reflect the same values his followers exhibit.

 Crises not only inspire people to leadership, they also inspire followers to look for and put their faith in certain leaders. The uncertainties and fears of a nation in crisis cause people to turn to others for security, direction and hope. *This is where leaders with the characteristics of self-confidence, calmness and decisiveness emerge to be a focus of the people's needs for guidance.*
*
 Actually, a rebellious nature is a good basis for leadership.* One of the best ways to inspire followers is to advocate for change, and that usually is something that requires one to think outside the box and to be brave enough to challenge authority. Those who are afraid to challenge the rules, or who won't behave in a way that will risk rejection, are generally not thought of as great leaders.

 It is actually possible to exhibit leadership qualities if you work or operate by yourself, with no responsibility for being in charge and with no employees to manage under you. *In other words, you can develop your abilities, attitudes and knowledge without bossing anyone around.*

 There sometimes is little correlation between the length of time the senior executive or official has been on the job and the leadership he or she exerts on an organization. When a person touts his experience as a way of becoming known as a leader, he can count on a certain number of people to follow him who believe that enough practice at something makes one an expert. However, it won't convince those who are looking for courage, flexibility and change as important aspects of leadership.

 Leaders come in all personality types, and being loud isn't a prerequisite, although it might serve to get you noticed. Mahatma Gandhi was not loud and aggressive; neither was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., but their widespread influence is beyond question. *Traits that matter more seem to be honesty, sincerity and unwavering dedication to a set of goals or principles. Passion comes in all kinds of packages.*

If you were able to answer five of the seven questions correctly, you will recognize a leader when you see one -- or perhaps even be inspired to lead others yourself.

----------


## sunny

jonathan,
   can you get this information to dr. paul. i know it is off topic but it requires immediate attention.
   Please! when you read it, you will understand!

                           EVERYONE ELSE - JUMP IN AND HELP SHERRY PEEL JACKSON!

                         ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This came to from: "AFTF Maine" <aftfmaine@gmail.com>

http://www.sherrypeeljackson.com - dr. paul knows this lady!

IRS/DOJ Railroad/Kidnap Victim "Sherry Jackson" is SICK in an Atlanta Prison

Dear Friend of Sherry Jackson,

    Sherry is an inmate in the Atlanta detention center. She has become ill because of the conditions in the jail. She has been placed on antibiotics because of a high fever and severe chest congestion.

The problem is two fold.

First, the building temperature is generally 50 degrees and the air conditioner is used constantly, causing freezing temperatures. Inmates are not allowed to have more than 2 paper- thin blankets.

Secondly, due to greed, the inmates are being fed food with zero nutritional value, which
violates national health standards. The inmates are served bologna that is more colorful than the paint section at Home Depot. The juice served should be 100%, instead, the juice is served without the ingredients listed from bags which look like plasma bags. The trays often have dead roaches on them.

Please bombard Chief Frank Seizer @ 404-885-8000 or the person in charge when he is absent, in order to plead with him to turn off the air conditioner when the temperature outside is 50 degrees of below and to serve food according to the guidelines of the national health institute.

Sherry mentioned that while listening to a radio broadcast it was indicated that the temperature outside was 43 degrees, she witness a bone chilling breeze from the jails air conditioning system.

Sherry is located on the 4th floor in downtown Atlanta.

The wind chill factors make it extremely cold. Sherry had begged the officers to turn off the air conditioner, but no one seems to care. She realizes the low temperature reduce the incidents of air borne diseases such as tuberculosis, however this is extreme cold.

She also realizes that her body can't fight disease without proper nutrition.

Additionally, if you write Sherry, put a return address on your letter or it will be thrown in the trash.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Oh Bradley, I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you, but the idea that you wanted $10,000 for a GOTV drive, rather than to line your own pockets is laughable.  You can peddle this story, but I've seen your e-mail correspondence.  Sure, this will just be a game of your word against mine, but don't think that your motivations aren't known by others who have seen them first hand.
> 
> It's too bad that so many people on here trust what you have to say.
> 
> And I think that it's funny that your vanity leads you think there's some sort of official "campaign of lies against you."  Trust me Bradley, you aren't that important -- no one really cared.  Our main goal was to protect Dr. Paul and our donors from people who desired to harm or take advantage of him, either intentionally or unwittingly.  Perhaps someday people will come to realize that you damaged Ron Paul more than you helped him.  And no number of forums posts will ever change that.


Hi Jonathan,

You started a thread saying you'd take questions.

I asked, and repeat, did you ever hear official campaign staff say I was fired from the Congressional office?

You ignore that question of the official campaign staff lying about me and repeat other lies (eg, I didn't collect a single signature for ballot petitioning so how did the "few" I collect almost cost Dr. Paul his place on the ballot?)

After organizing the DC grassroots for Dr. Paul from long before these forums or you came on board, yes, I asked for $10,000--and that was for GOTV: I was NOT interested in taking responsibility, ie getting paid, for just ballot access when the campaign wouldn't share supporter info with us.  You were not party to about a dozen phone conversations that day between me and McHugh.  

Funny, my damage to Dr. Paul: had lunch today with the Congressional staff and you know I stayed close to Dr. Paul's long-time political machine in Lake Jackson.  The consensus among us (and many long-time donors and supporters) is the Arlington staff were the ones who did the damage.  Congressional staff, RP Texas associates, grassroots, et al., yeah, we're all wrong...I think you're confusing harm to staffers who squandered $35 million v. harm to Dr. Paul and those with long-time and continuing ties to him (unlike Arlington).

----------


## amy31416

> If I understood Mr. Bydlak correctly, Dr. Paul is a man who is comfortable with his place and comfortable with his place in history, and was _drafted by us_ both _because_ and _in spite of_ the fact that he already has a job and takes it very, very seriously.  This movement is far bigger than Dr. Paul and I am not belittling the man I waited twenty years to vote for a second time, but merely talking about how big and important the purpose of this movement truly is.
> 
> No doubt it would be nice to have someone--preferably Dr. Paul--stand up like Moses with the voice of God in his mouth and lead us to the Promised Land, but I fear that this motley collection of grassroots will have to continue to continue.
> 
> Now that we've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that we can, I really, really don't know why we wouldn't.


Very well put. While there will never be another Ron Paul, when you think about it from the perspective that he is not a power-hungry individual-he's a statesman. I think that the established and informed grassroots was success beyond his wildest dreams.

So, I think it's great that Jonathan is here to answer questions so we can learn about the mistakes and the successes from their point of view, rather than just ours. So then in four years, we'll be much better positioned to get some real change, which seems like forever in this day of instant gratification.

Remember the story, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: "A republic, if you can keep it."

This is our opportunity to keep it.

----------


## Aratus

a republic, if you can keep it...yes!!! noble ben franklin!

a republic, and we may have already lost part of this battle...

a republic, if we can keep it and pass it on to the next few generations...

a republic, for a time fleetingly against eternity! are we to be more than ancient rome?

----------


## constituent

> i think we need a part 2 thread ........


hot topics?

----------


## Aratus

lets now hear more about the nitty gritty about a noble campaign run!

----------


## WRellim

> My understanding in talking to many folks close to Dr. Paul was that he was arm-twisted by KS to even doing this in the first place, *and that it was always about advancing a message, increasing support for efforts such as the Liberty PAC, etc. *



Or to put it plainly and simply: the "presidential campaign" was an outright *FRAUD* all along, designed to raise funds for _other_ uses.


In business this is called "bait and switch" -- but I guess in politics just about everything (including fraud that results in nice paychecks for yourself and multiple friends) is perfectly "fine" -- as long as the fraudulent "hidden" goal is some "noble" thing, right?

And everyone is just supposed to be _happy_ that they got "bilked" out of hundreds or a few thousand dollars and a lot of time and effort.


*Not likely.*


End result is that the "message" was shown to have no appeal (and will be "blamed" for the RP loss).  Also end result is that my opinion of Ron Paul is that he (and those associated with him in creating and propounding the fraud) belong on my "S" list, forever; because fraud and deception are immoral and criminal, and "lies" just like everything else -- no matter what the purported "goal."

Sickening.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Or to put it plainly and simply: the "presidential campaign" was an outright *FRAUD* all along, designed to raise funds for _other_ uses.
> 
> 
> In business this is called "bait and switch" -- but I guess in politics just about everything (including fraud that results in nice paychecks for yourself and multiple friends) is perfectly "fine" -- as long as the fraudulent "hidden" goal is some "noble" thing, right?
> 
> And everyone is just supposed to be _happy_ that they got "bilked" out of hundreds or a few thousand dollars and a lot of time and effort.
> 
> 
> *Not likely.*
> ...


Man, they'll just let anyone come on here in an attempt to get people riled up, won't they?

----------


## SteveMartin

WRellim,

I wouldn't be quite so harsh, but I agree with some of that.  This is why I have been saying for months that RP owes the supporters a *real campaign* at some point in the very near future.

----------


## menoname

I thought the campaign did the best that it could.  The one thing i wish that was done was for Ron Paul to explain his ideas more.  Maybe be more detailed on the issues.  An idea without a plan is nothing more than a slogan.

----------


## Tarzan

> Man, they'll just let anyone come on here in an attempt to get people riled up, won't they?


Are you going to answer any of the tough questions YOU have been asked?
You said you came here to answer questions... when it gets pointed you make some statement you think is cute and end it with a smiley face.

Or, maybe you are right... they will "just let anyone come on here"... Jonathan!

----------


## The Lantern

> Man, they'll just let anyone come on here in an attempt to get people riled up, won't they?


I guess they will let anyone get riled up.  I met you at the Ft Lauderdale fundraiser for the Value Voters debate.  I donated some money and I still believe that it was the best money I ever spent!

----------


## wgadget

> WRellim,
> 
> I wouldn't be quite so harsh, but I agree with some of that.  This is why I have been saying for months that RP owes the supporters a *real campaign* at some point in the very near future.


Looking back, I think the one thing that still makes me cringe  is where on the donation widget it said such things as "$5 Million to Win," and the like.

I'm a proud member of the $2300 club.

----------


## WRellim

> Man, they'll just let anyone come on here in an attempt to get people riled up, won't they?



You were one of the few people on the campaign I had any residual respect for (albeit significantly less after your facetious/derogatory remarks on the GW session vids).


But the point stands regardless of your playing "troll"...

If the campaign was started and run with some purpose OTHER than to make a valid run for the presidency, _and especially if there was some "goal" of raising and holding a certain dollar amount of cash (say the $5 Million the campaign was careful to never fall below)_... then what else is that ...but outright fraud and deception?



Call 'em as I see 'em.

----------


## therealjjj77

Hello Jonathan,

Just a couple of thoughts on the whole campaign:

1st I believe a very effective approach for Iowa(and everywhere else for that matter) would have been to put out an enticing commercial addressing the issues everyone is concerned about, and then at the very end put the place and time that Ron Paul will be in their vicinity.  Then at the rallies, let Ron Paul talk and have tables to sign people up for campaigning and giving them instructions for caucusing and delegating for Ron Paul.  This would have turned out results much faster, I believe.(as opposed to just advertising the rallies on the website only)

2nd Encouraging meet up groups to encourage meetup members to do presentations for Ron Paul at retirement and nursing homes.  That older segment is typically the largest voting block and the media just wasn't seeming to connect them with Ron Paul.  

3rd (not too late for this one) Acknowledging that this isn't over and explaining to those who have become delegates the necessity of getting on the platform and rules committees at the national convention and adding a definition for majority as "66% or more of the vote" when used in rule # 40.  This way the floor will open for a second round of voting at the Republican National Convention.  Also coordinating votes so all Ron Paul supporters will be voting for the same persons at their district and state conventions(there's nothing like running against your county meetup leader for county platform committee and winning =P).

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Are you going to answer any of the tough questions YOU have been asked?
> You said you came here to answer questions... when it gets pointed you make some statement you think is cute and end it with a smiley face.
> 
> Or, maybe you are right... they will "just let anyone come on here"... Jonathan!


Oh, Tarzan... come on!  I was just trying to lighten things up in here by making a joke.  I'm not being serious... I've read many of WRellim's posts on here and on Daily Paul (and have spoken with him before), so I know of his views - even though I view much of what he's said as wrong.  I think we can have a discussion about serious things and still have a little fun...

On your other point, I've written over 140 posts in this thread... I don't think that it's fair to say that I didn't answer people's questions... I'm doing what I can... you have no idea how difficult it is to sit down for hours on end and respond coherently to the wide array of questions that people have asked.  Ive enjoyed it a lot, but please realize that it's not easy... particularly when I have other things I'm working on as well.

I'll respond to your questions in my next post.

----------


## amy31416

> End result is that the "message" was shown to have no appeal (and will be "blamed" for the RP loss).  Also end result is that my opinion of Ron Paul is that he (and those associated with him in creating and propounding the fraud) belong on my "S" list, forever; because fraud and deception are immoral and criminal, and "lies" just like everything else -- no matter what the purported "goal."
> 
> Sickening.


Or...you could realize that this is a beginning, rather than a crash and burn end. I have this feeling that even if we couldn't find a damned thing to criticize the HQ on--we still wouldn't be winning this. 

The neocons are too dug in, they are too much for the status quo, not willing to think outside the box or even pay any recognition to the Constitution. 

This was a bigger success than RP ever thought. But, most of the work had to come from the grassroots--why is that? What's the message in that?

Ground-up. This is supposed to be a ground-up organization.

Yeah, I did a forehead slap when I saw the first campaign video--accch. What were they thinking? Who did they hire for that crap? The grassroots videos were better--hmmm, you mean _we're_ better at things than the HQ that we assumed would perform miracles once we dumped money on them? The power is in our hands, they are our employees, essentially, and exist because of us, not despite us--like the current government.

There's lots of lessons to be learned here, it's hard to change around thinking to ground-up from top-down. But I really view this as the beginning, we're solidifying the movement and going in the right direction now with increased awareness and candidates like Amit Singh, Jim Forsythe, Sabrin, etc. And that's the way we really change this country, not via miraculous acts.

The worst part I saw from HQ was a lack of communication with us. I got a bit of a feel of a snubbing, and that was the worst part about HQ for me.

----------


## 0zzy

> ozzy and i have a hx of disagreement.  but that's really private message material.
> 
> so is that ^.
> 
> glad to have gotten your attention though.
> 
> it's tough in black and white (errr.... pink).  i'll take your comments as a compliment.


I don't know who you are :[.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> OK... then some blunt questions.
> 
> If you guys know this stuff why were you not doing anything about it?Is Ron Paul the problem?Who is the problem?Why is there no new information on Ron Paul's PAC sites?Why has their been no planning for the "next step" in this movement?Why did you have a "training" session with Justine telling the participants that a "top down" campaign does not work if you think otherwise?


For what it's worth, Tarzan... I like the blunt questions.  I like confronting the tough and thorny issues, as long as they're reasonably respectful.  But I hate to tell you that I'm just not comfortable discussing these, because fact is, you're starting to hit sensitive issues.

1-3.) I don't know what you mean by "the problem," but I'm assuming that you mean that you want to know why plans have not been unveiled for what should come next.  To be honest, I'm really not comfortable discussing this topic in any more detail than I have.  I know that sounds like a cop-out, but I don't believe that it would be appropriate or professional for me to do so.  I guess I'm just asking you to take me on my word that this is not a mistake made by Ron's staff, but you're free to believe whatever you wish.
4.) I have no idea.  Those are not run by the campaign... you might want to ask those people responsible for them.  Probably the same reason ronpaul.org hasn't been updated either.
5.) Actually, there has been tons of planning for the next step in the movement.  If you'd like, I can certainly tell you what I think is most important, and what I believe is necessary for the future of the movement.  But it is not a good assumption to believe that there aren't very detailed plans for what should come next.
6.) I believe very strongly the things that I said in those interviews.  I do not believe that this is a black or white issue... centralization vs. decentralization.  I think that decentralization is extremely effective, so long as people are being provided with explicit directions and the best information available.  In other words, I believe that it's effectiveness is all dependent on those people who have information -- namely HQ -- giving out as much information as possible.

As I've stated earlier, I believe one of the biggest failings of the campaign was its inability to provide tons of directed information to supporters -- and in a timely manner.  I will add, though, that there also were many reasons why information was not put out on time, and many of those reasons, again, have nothing to do with the staff.  Sorry, I'm also not comfortable going into more detail here.

I also would like to add that I also believe that the times when we did put out information and direction, many people in the grassroots just did not want to hear or carry out those instructions.  Such is the nature of libertarianism, I guess.  But communication works both ways, and that's something that should be thrown out here as well.

----------


## spacehabitats

> My frustration with the *official campaign* has been largely due to the numerous lost opportunities. And those lost opportunities continue even now because of poor leadership. The Pennsylvania primary is coming up on April 22nd and the campaign has called for RP supporters to become delegates but, the *official campaign* will not be paying for sample ballots sample ballots that they think are critical to this process.
> 
> I think there are numerous reasons for the poor performance of the *official campaign* and there appears to be an overriding concept responsible for many of the problems. It is the notion that this *movement" should be a grassroots effort without centralized control or direction.
> 
> The problem is that that notion has no place in reality or history. History is replete with lessons on taking and achieving power. To my knowledge no *grassroots* effort has ever achieved such a goal. While some grassroots efforts have started such an effort, it has always morphed into a hierarchical system with good leadership to achieve their ends. If you believe that the McGovern campaign was such an example you need to check the historic facts. He lost "big time" (to Nixon, I might add) and it was a grassroots looking for a leader, not the converse, and their chosen leadership failed them. If you review the actual history of the time you will find this is not a shining example of a grassroots success. Instead, it is a good reverse lesson.
> 
> The problem is the concept and we will not be successful until we realize that we must change this concept to be successful. That such a movement (to take political power) does require leadership and a degree of centralization. History and human nature have shown this to be true time and time again. This is where the *official campaign* has failed miserably.
> 
> At this critical juncture we need a leader or at least a figure head to serve as our rallying point. Ron Paul is not providing what this movement needs. He has all but left the field at a critical juncture. With proper guidance and support congressional campaigns would be much easier to support and win during this election cycle. Instead, a large number of Ron Paul supporters have followed him and left the field. If RP were to step forward and explain the reasons for continuing this effort to obtain delegates I believe the number of supporters would continue to grow and financial contributions would continue. Instead, we get vague generalities with little or no (mostly no) support from the official campaign.
> ...



I also feel your pain.
Unlike some on this thread, I don't need or even want apologies.
I *did* want to hear the perspective of someone who was involved more closely with Ron Paul, so that I could understand what went wrong.
I think I see now.


I do not want "centralization", but like you I recognize the value of leadership and the terrible inefficiencies that result from a lack of direction.
Not only that, it is a simple fact that what brought us together was a *campaign*, like it or not. It seems clear that many of us in the grassroots did not need to be convinced or converted. We simply needed to find one another and find a focus for our beliefs.
Ron Paul was our seed crystal. That doesn't mean he has to like it.

"Some have greatness thrust upon them..."

Maybe its a generation thing.

My father-in-law has been involved for decades with the John Birch Society.  Actually, he was part of the staff at their national headquarters. He is something of a constitutional scholar, has written many articles, given talks around the country, and almost single-handedly averted a constitutional crisis by lobbying state legislatures against calling a constitutional convention. He has known and respected Ron Paul for years. He agrees with Ron Paul's platform to a tee.

But he didn't bother voting for him. He has decided that the presidential elections are rigged. He thinks that we are wasting our time. He thinks that Barry Goldwater's failed campaign has proven once and for all that presidential politics can't work.  He thinks that only through the congressional elections do we have any hope of effecting meaningful change to our government.

He isn't rude or abrasive about it. He is in his eighties and concedes that maybe the Internet has changed the political landscape. But even though he remains very interested and involved in his work to defend the constitution, he just smiles and tells *me* to go for it whenever I try to get *him* involved with RP.

So what does this have to do with Ron Paul?
Maybe nothing.
But I sure get some of the same vibes from him that I get from Dr. Paul.

I think maybe we are going to have to find our own leader.  Somebody who doesn't  want to be president but will pay the price to get elected anyway because he knows how important it is.

----------


## Tarzan

> I also feel your pain.
> Unlike some on this thread, I don't need or even want apologies.
> I *did* want to hear the perspective of someone who was involved more closely with Ron Paul, so that I could understand what went wrong.
> I think I see now.


Thanks space... I hope I did not come off as if I was looking for an apology because that was not my intent. I was hoping for a real evaluation as to where we have failed and how we could have done better. Not the blame game, but a realistic, business type assessment so we could address those issues to achieve more positive results from this point.

Like you, there are some questions to which I would really like answers... to help recognize the issues, address them, and proceed from here. Instead it seems we are getting the same circular non-answers and promises of secret plans yet to be unveiled.

*Jonathan*; I appreciate that some of the tough questions are difficult for you to answer. But, I hope there is not a home version of this game... if there is, please do not send me one as a parting gift for playing. I am dealing with enough frustration already.

So, good luck to us all, but enough of this thread for me.

ps... space, your dad-in-law sounds like an interesting fellow... and I agree that the presidency is not the "be all end all"... our real chance or restoring the constitution to government is through congressional representatives and I have been doing what I can to help in that regards... (too bad we are not getting any logistical support from... oh, say a national campaign)

----------


## SteveMartin

Am I the only one who gets the strong feeling from Jonathan's last post that he was trying to tell us an awful lot by saying repeatedly that he couldn't tell us anything?

----------


## SteveMartin

Am I the only one who gets the strong feeling from Jonathan's last post that he was trying to tell us an awful lot by saying repeatedly that he couldn't tell us anything?

----------


## constituent

> Or to put it plainly and simply: the "presidential campaign" was an outright *FRAUD* all along, designed to raise funds for _other_ uses.
> 
> 
> Sickening.


hmmmm.... so let's remove "outright fraud" and say

"the presidential campaign was designed (primarily) to raise funds for other uses."

jonathan,

would that modified statement be way off-base?

----------


## acptulsa

> 6.) I believe very strongly the things that I said in those interviews.  I do not believe that this is a black or white issue... centralization vs. decentralization.  Such is the nature of libertarianism, I guess.


Quoted totally out of context, but works for me...

Neocons are a tight-lipped tight ship full of team players.  Libertarians are a herd of cats.  But cats are smart and, as is the nature of a cat, very motivated to act because they don't act at all unless in self-interest.

_If_ we can get cats to act at all like a team, the world is ours.  But to achieve that, a "central power" would have to follow the advice of the rock song and "hold on loosely".  This not only keeps the cats from getting upset but gives them room to work their magic.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Thanks space... I hope I did not come off as if I was looking for an apology because that was not my intent. I was hoping for a real evaluation as to where we have failed and how we could have done better. Not the blame game, but a realistic, business type assessment so we could address those issues to achieve more positive results from this point.
> 
> Like you, there are some questions to which I would really like answers... to help recognize the issues, address them, and proceed from here. Instead it seems we are getting the same circular non-answers and promises of secret plans yet to be unveiled.
> 
> *Jonathan*; I appreciate that some of the tough questions are difficult for you to answer. But, I hope there is not a home version of this game... if there is, please do not send me one as a parting gift for playing. I am dealing with enough frustration already.
> 
> So, good luck to us all, but enough of this thread for me.
> 
> ps... space, your dad-in-law sounds like an interesting fellow... and I agree that the presidency is not the "be all end all"... our real chance or restoring the constitution to government is through congressional representatives and I have been doing what I can to help in that regards... (too bad we are not getting any logistical support from... oh, say a national campaign)


Tarzan, I do not want to give "circular non-answers."  Believe me, if I didn't want people to better understand things, I would not be here.  But as I said in my initial post, I am not here to speak ill of individuals either on staff or in the grassroots.  That was not the point of this thread, and I will hold myself to that.

You're welcome to ask me more specific questions, and I'll do the best that I can.

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> hmmmm.... so let's remove "outright fraud" and say
> 
> "the presidential campaign was designed (primarily) to raise funds for other uses."
> 
> jonathan,
> 
> would that modified statement be way off-base?


Yes, to my knowledge, that statement would be way off base.  The PCC was not formed to raise money for "other purposes."  You form a presidential campaign to win a presidential election.

Remember that virtually no one thought the campaign could or would raise as money for the presidential campaign as it did.  So this idea that it was a fraud is pretty ridiculous to me... any fraud requires intent to mislead, but it you don't think you can raise much money in the first place, then it can't really be fraud.

I know for a fact that there was a huge desire to win this race, and a belief that this election provided a unique opportunity for Ron's message to shine.  I very much felt that way myself.

Of course, as I said earlier, there are differing shades of "wanting to win," and I don't fault anyone for being frustrated for feeling that that will was not 100%.  Hah, I feel that way myself.

----------


## Banana

Jon-

Do you have any opinion on Dr. Steve Parent? Do you feel he has helped or hurt the delegate process in general?

----------


## JonathanBydlak

> Jon-
> 
> Do you have any opinion on Dr. Steve Parent? Do you feel he has helped or hurt the delegate process in general?


Heard the name, but don't know anything about him.

----------


## constituent

> Yes, to my knowledge, that statement would be way off base.  The PCC was not formed to raise money for "other purposes."  You form a presidential campaign to win a presidential election.


agreed.

in your opinion, was dr. paul (100%) in it to win?

perhaps some days more than others?

or was it more, as some have suggested, an issue of tilting against windmills (in the good dr.'s mind, that is)?

and i'm just asking for your opinion as a person, not as a campaign rep.  feel free to pm.

----------


## SteveMartin

Jonathan,

Why, exactly, did the campaign object so vehemently to grassroots people working with various independent groups that were trying to verify the vote count at the Ames Straw Poll, the Iowa Caucuses, and in NH?  I mean, to the point of even putting out memos and letters saying RP supporters should stay away from these groups, stop calling for recounts, etc.

Some of the folks in these voter verification-focused groups are some of the best and most educated patriots in the country.

Do you think RP was advised of the fact that such negative stances towards these groups  were being assumed by his campaign?  Is it possible he even ordered the staff to ignore them and to have the grassroots ignore them?

----------


## WRellim

> Yes, to my knowledge, that statement would be way off base.  The PCC was not formed to raise money for "other purposes."  You form a presidential campaign to win a presidential election.


But as you have stated in a previous post, "you could not speak to that as you weren't present when the PCC was formed" (my paraphrase because I'm too lazy to find the post to quote... but essentially that).

Yet here you are "speaking to that" AS IF you were present.  

I state my proposition that it was "inherently fraudulent" as my OPINION and a SUPPOSITION; yours is really just an alternate supposition. Mine is based on decades in working with people in business and witnessing people with "multiple mixed motivations" as well as watching people be suckered in by con-artists, consultants, pyramid schemes and MLM lingo (which the RP campaign features _in spades_ -- especially since January).  Yours is... well, trusting, loyal, etc... which I suppose is to be expected of someone who is just 24 and still borderline at the idealistic, "hero-worshiping" stage of life.


End Result: What the campaign DOES with the remaining cash will prove the final piece of evidence as to which speculative opinion is true (the squandering, the poorly run campaign, and the latter complete INACTION and the "UN-CAMPAIGN" (tm)... are IMHO, sufficient evidence already to weigh towards the "other purposes" aspect.)




> Remember that virtually no one thought the campaign could or would raise as money for the presidential campaign as it did.


If you mean no one "on staff" thought that -- well, then it is fairly obvious that there was NO plan in place for effectively campaigning and to properly utilize such an amount of cash.  The maintaining of a virtual constant balance of $5 Million points towards a desire to "hold on" to that amount for later other purposes once it was raised. And the _de facto_ suspension of the campaign once the balance reached down to that level is also indicatory.

BTW, you are quite wrong to state that "NO ONE" that believed the campaign could raise that kind of cash -- again you are forgetting the phone discussion we had concerning "fundraising, goals, and feedback" that we had in mid-September (and for which I am now chastising myself severely ...more for the advice than the $1K donation I made).

But indeed, *had the campaign been PROPERLY RUN... the total raised COULD have been much, MUCH higher*... even a 2nd or 3rd place in New Hampshire, and some REAL ADVERTISING in later states would have led to a significant INCREASE of donations.  A good showing in post NH and the campaign probably could have reached the "magical" $100 Million you all think was necessary precursor to win (but, sadly, even with $100 M this campaign staff would have still ended up in nowhere-land, just as they did with $32 M -- BTW, McCain won with far less, and Huckabee far outpaced with only a fraction... why?)

As to where that additional money could have come from?  Well, _I personally had 3, probably 4, and possibly 6 ...all additional potential 2300 club people on the line ...all "really liking Ron Paul" and even leaning towards donating, but anxiously waiting ...to see if the campaign was COMPETENT and could achieve any results from the 4Q $20M ...if the campaign had achieved even a 2nd or 3rd and NOT "fizzled-out" in NH, then they would have donated, and each of them could have likely brought several MORE donors as well...  and as my personal household (go lookup Zip 53121) already contains TWO 2300 club members, I'm NOT just blowing smoke._




> So this idea that it was a fraud is pretty ridiculous to me... any fraud requires intent to mislead, but it you don't think you can raise much money in the first place, then it can't really be fraud.


BAH.  If your "trial balloon" goal was, for "other purposes", to raise a few million -- if possible (say $5 Million or so?) -- and then to your "surprise" you raised $20 Million, blew $15 M (keeping up the pretense) and ended up with the original goal of a cool $5 M... then that would still be problematic.

The fraud is in continuing to raise money for a purpose when you have NO effective plans to spend the money FOR that purpose. Of THAT, the campaign is UTTERLY GUILTY since the day after the New Hampshire primary (as of the end of Feb, essentially every dollar raised in 2008 has NOT been spent on ANY actual "campaigning"). The "winding down" and the "scaling back" of the campaign instead of going ALL OUT in a particular state is significant proof of another agenda, an "other purpose" than the one for which the funds were raised.




> I know for a fact that there was a huge desire to win this race, and a belief that this election provided a unique opportunity for Ron's message to shine.  I very much felt that way myself.


Certainly, but again as you have stated in previous posts, despite your "title" you were really not privy to a LOT of information (for example "strategy sessions"; expenses; what, how, when advertising was purchased, etc. -- again, I'm too lazy to go dig the quotes up). So really, even though you were at HQ, you were as much a "hired hand" and an "outsider" there as everyone out here is just a "clueless volunteer," and your statements are as much supposition as those of anyone else (with yours being based mainly on the warm "fuzzies" and loyalties to coworkers and friends).




> Of course, as I said earlier, there are differing shades of "wanting to win," and I don't fault anyone for being frustrated for feeling that that will was not 100%.  Hah, I feel that way myself.



And to paraphrase Clinton, it depends on what your definition of "win" is...


If the REAL "differing shade" goal of the campaign leadership was to raise a cool $5 M or thereabouts to finance some "entity" well, then I guess *the whole campaign WAS a resounding success*... "Mission Accomplished" and "Heckuva Job Brownie!"

----------


## Aratus

simple question...

did john mccain's bass~ackwards campaign of media blitzing like a drunken sailor
all over the summer months and then glad handing in an "aw shucks' mode get him 
the votes he needed in new hampshire? had he spent the monies in reverse, would
he have looked so honest? as it is, my local airwaves were over-saturated with mitt
romney's matinee idol good looks. people keep on saying that they think he is
fortysomething or 50 years of age, and he's actually sixty. same age as ms. hillary...

----------


## New York For Paul

I don't know how a finance director could do his job without being privy to the strategy session. One way to raise money from large donors is too provide insider type information to the donors. People want to know what is going on before they donate.

Being privy to some plans could help you draft better arguments for donors as to why they should give money to the campaign. 

Finance and the health of the campaign are intricately linked.

----------


## Aratus

mccain is from arizona. mitt was our governor, i'm a baystater.
ron paul and john mccain aren't next door neighbors to the N.H
voters, and they tend to TRADITIONALLY detest new taxes...
ron paul's message about the federal income tax has receptive ears!!!
so how did mccain pull a win off after his fall slump? gladhanding???

----------


## WRellim

> RE: Steve G Parent (aka SGP)
> 
> Heard the name, but don't know anything about him.


Former Democrat who thinks the GOP delegate process is identical to the Dems, is _apparently_ pretty knowledgeable about Missouri politics (don't know as I'm not from there) and that's states caucus processes... and utterly clueless about the rest of the country (because I *DO* know the processes in several other states, and his info is alternatively worthless or counterproductive to efforts in those states).

Also, IMHO, SGP is the person (mole?) who is single-handedly providing the wedge that is being used to divide, factionalize, and disperse the movement.  Kool-Aid drinkers are using it to maintain their delusion of a "Ron Paul WIN" and as an unfortunate side effect, are driving off the remaining "sane" supporters, making RP supporters anathema to local GOP parties, and causing splits and factions in meetup groups around the nation (end result, squandering the "movement" as well, so much for the long term... oh well, inevitable result of taking "decentralization" too far).




*On that last, "decentralization" I have one (quite serious) question for you Jon:

If you are so AGAINST "centralization" then WHY on earth work so hard to centralize the DONATIONS to the campaign itself?*  (Why not  instead help promote fundraising to various decentralized "grassroots" efforts?)


Can't have your cake and eat it at the same time.




.

----------


## spacehabitats

> Hello Jonathan,
> 
> Just a couple of thoughts on the whole campaign:
> 
> 1st I believe a very effective approach for Iowa(and everywhere else for that matter) would have been to put out an enticing commercial addressing the issues everyone is concerned about, and then at the very end put the place and time that Ron Paul will be in their vicinity.  *Then at the rallies*, let Ron Paul talk and have tables to sign people up for campaigning and giving them instructions for caucusing and delegating for Ron Paul.  This would have turned out results much faster, I believe.(as opposed to just advertising the rallies on the website only)
> 
> 2nd Encouraging meet up groups to encourage meetup members to do presentations for Ron Paul at retirement and nursing homes.  That older segment is typically the largest voting block and the media just wasn't seeming to connect them with Ron Paul.  
> 
> 3rd (not too late for this one) Acknowledging that this isn't over and explaining to those who have become delegates the necessity of getting on the platform and rules committees at the national convention and adding a definition for majority as "66% or more of the vote" when used in rule # 40.  This way the floor will open for a second round of voting at the Republican National Convention.  Also *coordinating votes* so all Ron Paul supporters *will be voting for the same persons at their district and state conventions*(there's nothing like running against your county meetup leader for county platform committee and winning =P).


(emphasis above was mine)

It looks like we Iowans think alike.
I hope JB answers your questions.
I would like to point out that the "rally" idea depended on there being rallies, of which there were woefully few in Iowa. (See my previous posts.) I think a similar strategy would STILL work in Nebraska prior to the primary in May.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=127868

But your point about the coordination of delegates is crucial. Even if Dr. Paul has given up on the idea of making a credible showing in the remaining primaries, it really is irrational not to support the delegates with some leadership.

My wife is a delegate to the Iowa 5th District GOP convention on the 19th (I'm an alternate). Right now our challenge is finding out who are the Ron Paul supporters so that we know who to vote for. 
Not all of the RP supporters were part of meetup groups.
We are amateurs at this and we could use some guidance. (BTW, my wife made a deal with one of the party regulars who is campaigning for the state central committee to canvass for him so that she could get a hold of the district delegate list. She hopes to find out if any of them are RP supporters along the way.)

It is all well and good to ask for delegates to sign up, but it would really help for some people with experience to designate some type of leadership among the delegates and give them the resources to optimize our chances of becoming *national* delegates. (This isn't the no-brainer process that some of the self-appointed grassroot delegate "experts" would have you believe.) As far as I know, the national HQ hasn't even bothered to ask any of us to sign in to report our status as potential delegates.
Is this really the way it is supposed to work.

 So Jon, now that victory "in a conventional sense" is out of reach, is the National HQ still excited about helping as many of us as possible get to the RNC?
Would it be a betrayal of some type of libertarian principle for them to help us navigate through this delegate maze? 
(Oh, and the training video on the RP2008 site is fine but just scratches the surface, is too generic, and doesn't address the ongoing need for coordinated action within each district/state.)

----------


## SteveMartin

bump

----------


## therealjjj77

> (emphasis above was mine)
> 
> It looks like we Iowans think alike.
> I hope JB answers your questions.
> I would like to point out that the "rally" idea depended on there being rallies, of which there were woefully few in Iowa. (See my previous posts.) I think a similar strategy would STILL work in Nebraska prior to the primary in May.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=127868
> 
> But your point about the coordination of delegates is crucial. Even if Dr. Paul has given up on the idea of making a credible showing in the remaining primaries, it really is irrational not to support the delegates with some leadership.
> ...


One thing that I am doing is I made a brochure that tells what I believe addressing the major republican issues within the republican mind frame.  It also introduces me to the other delegates and asks them to vote for me at the district convention for one of the national delegate spots.  Here's the issues part of it:




> *Life* 
> 
> One of the most basic and primary roles of government is to protect the innocent.  This includes the life of an unborn child.  I believe the right to life is one of the most basic inalienable rights and one of the most foundational elements a government is instituted among men to protect.  I believe that life begins at conception and continues until death.
> 
> *Defense and National Security*
> 
> I believe that one of the other most basic roles that a government is instituted for is securing the innumerable rights of the governed from foreign and domestic attacks.  I believe this requires having a well regulated militia in our own country and on our own borders as well as a well regulated navy and air force.  Likewise, I believe that our government is not to take it’s directives from foreign organizations to protect those organizations’ interests.  
> 
> *Debt, Taxes, and the Economy*
> ...


Anyone can use this as an outline or general idea as long as they don't put theirs in the same order or use the same words.  

In the brochure it also has a picture of me and talks about where I'm from, what I do, that I'm married and have a kid, etc.

----------


## libertarian4321

> Or to put it plainly and simply: the "presidential campaign" was an outright *FRAUD* all along, designed to raise funds for _other_ uses.


I think some of you folks just can't go a day without a new conspiracy theory- even if you have to make one up on the fly.

So, whats your conspiracy theory- Ron Paul "took our money" to:

1) Buy more black helicopters, you know the ones I'm talking about.

or 

2)  Drain our funds so we didn't have the power to get to the bottom of the 9-11 cover up (it had to be a government plot, right)?

or

3)  Funnel the money directly to the CFR/Illuminati/International Bankers/Bilderbergs/(insert name of group of super-secret evil-doers who control the world here).

or 

4) Spend it on hookers, crack, and a fleet of pimped-out Escalades.

----------


## SteveMartin

Whenever I read an asinine comment like that, I really thank my lucky stars I never became one of those STUPID LIBERTARIANS who really think that unmarked black helicopters don't exist (even though one was photographed hovering over my house and I saw it with my own eyes and it was reported in our local paper) or that 911 was done by a bunch of scrawny little Arabs with boxcutters, or that these groups that meet behind locked and barred doors guarded by machine-gun toting storm troopers are there to sip tea and eat crumpets, I want to puke.

(#4 on your list is stuff only promoted by godless Libertarians, so you get that one wrong too.)

----------


## constituent

> Whenever I read an asinine comment like that, I really thank my lucky stars I never became one of those STUPID LIBERTARIANS ...


just thank your stars you're not from san antonio (it's the water i think... or maybe the radioactive military dirt everyone's built their neighborhoods on top of.

i'm not a big fan of the libertarian party, but it's not his libertarianism that's spouting off.

----------


## SteveMartin

There is definitely a "stupid (i.e. Cato) wing" of the Libertarian Party.  No wonder Ron Paul could only stand to hang out with these people for that one year...

----------


## spacehabitats

> One thing that I am doing is I made a brochure that tells what I believe addressing the major republican issues within the republican mind frame.  It also introduces me to the other delegates and asks them to vote for me at the district convention for one of the national delegate spots.  Here's the issues part of it:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can use this as an outline or general idea as long as they don't put theirs in the same order or use the same words.  
> 
> In the brochure it also has a picture of me and talks about where I'm from, what I do, that I'm married and have a kid, etc.


Nice idea.

----------


## Aratus

> There is definitely a "stupid (i.e. Cato) wing" of 
> the Libertarian Party.  No wonder Ron Paul could only stand to 
> hang out with these people for that one year...


Is the Cato Institute named after Cato the Younger or Cato the Elder?
Does this dictomy gloriously date their approach to politics as usual?
Lyndon LaRouche is now saying these things about Bretton Woods...

----------


## Aratus

a poll ------------- http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n3992628.shtml
as we speak, people are upset about the economic direction we are taking to a 80 percentile!
there is a discontent brewing as people again wonder about the emperor's new clothes....

----------


## Flirple

> On your other point, I've written over 140 posts in this thread... I don't think that it's fair to say that I didn't answer people's questions... I'm doing what I can... you have no idea how difficult it is to sit down for hours on end and respond coherently to the wide array of questions that people have asked.  Ive enjoyed it a lot, but please realize that it's not easy... particularly when I have other things I'm working on as well.


Well for what it's worth your efforts on this thread are all I need to know about your commitment level. People, it takes a ridiculous amount of time to just read this whole thread (as evidenced by the fact that people keep asking questions that Jon has already answered earlier) let alone be responsible for writing a significant portion of it's contents.

If anyone ever doubts that what we have is special, just ask yourself this question: How many other  loosing campaigns have former staffers that seek out punishment from a grassroots message board after they are off the payroll???

----------


## AuH2O

Haha, Jonathan and Don, I found this thread too damn late.

As another former staffer, this has been a good read, and I echo many of Jonathan's sentiments. One thing remains, however. I am left to wonder if I am being singled out by SteveMartin's cries foul regarding "young, inside-the-beltway types---many of whom seem to have been of a certain sexual preference..." To think that, even as a conservative libertarian 22 year old male of straight orientation, my pomade-slicked coiff, Gucci ties, and native Washingtonian roots could lend creedence to fantasies of a homosexual political operative conspiracy - well it boggles the mind. I wonder if this guy came into the office for a bumper sticker, caught one glimpse of my loafers, and constructed a ludicrous theory of 9-11 Truth proportions.

Too bad I'm so late on this thread, I really would like to have participated.

----------


## amy31416

> Haha, Jonathan and Don, I found this thread too damn late.
> 
> As another former staffer, this has been a good read, and I echo many of Jonathan's sentiments. One thing remains, however. I am left to wonder if I am being singled out by SteveMartin's cries foul regarding "young, inside-the-beltway types---many of whom seem to have been of a certain sexual preference..." To think that, even as a conservative libertarian 22 year old male of straight orientation, my pomade-slicked coiff, Gucci ties, and native Washingtonian roots could lend creedence to fantasies of a homosexual political operative conspiracy - well it boggles the mind. I wonder if this guy came into the office for a bumper sticker, caught one glimpse of my loafers, and constructed a ludicrous theory of 9-11 Truth proportions.
> 
> Too bad I'm so late on this thread, I really would like to have participated.


Metrosexuals are confusing to most all of us, much less SteveMartin.  

Better late than never, I'll be glad to hear what you have to say.

----------


## tod evans

> I am left to wonder if I am being singled out by SteveMartin's cries foul regarding "young, inside-the-beltway types---many of whom seem to have been of a certain sexual preference..." To think that, even as a conservative libertarian 22 year old male of straight orientation, my pomade-slicked coiff, Gucci ties, and native Washingtonian roots could lend creedence to fantasies of a homosexual political operative conspiracy - well it boggles the mind. .


 geeze bud......i`m an ol` fart who`s never put foo-foo juice in my hair, never much cared who made another fellows shoes and never did attribute somebodies sexual orrientation to their geographical location....
 so did you chime in to brag about how pretty you think you are, or maybe you have something positive to offer the forum?

----------


## SteveMartin

Are you going to tell me there weren't any gays (beyond the obvious--Kent Snyder) working for the campaign?

Go ahead...tell me what *you* think on the subject of an inordinate number of gays working out of the Arlington office.  That OK by you??

And, for the rest of those stumbling across this thread.  Exactly how much political experience would a 22-year old have?  Does that seem like the best use of our campaign donations?

----------


## The Lantern

> Haha, Jonathan and Don, I found this thread too damn late.
> 
> As another former staffer, this has been a good read, and I echo many of Jonathan's sentiments. One thing remains, however. I am left to wonder if I am being singled out by SteveMartin's cries foul regarding "young, inside-the-beltway types---many of whom seem to have been of a certain sexual preference..." To think that, even as a conservative libertarian 22 year old male of straight orientation, my pomade-slicked coiff, Gucci ties, and native Washingtonian roots could lend creedence to fantasies of a homosexual political operative conspiracy - well it boggles the mind. I wonder if this guy came into the office for a bumper sticker, caught one glimpse of my loafers, and constructed a ludicrous theory of 9-11 Truth proportions.
> 
> Too bad I'm so late on this thread, I really would like to have participated.


Who are you?

----------


## spacehabitats

> Haha, Jonathan and Don, I found this thread too damn late.
> 
> As another former staffer, this has been a good read, and I echo many of Jonathan's sentiments. One thing remains, however. I am left to wonder if I am being singled out by SteveMartin's cries foul regarding "young, inside-the-beltway types---many of whom seem to have been of a certain sexual preference..." To think that, even as a conservative libertarian 22 year old male of straight orientation, my pomade-slicked coiff, Gucci ties, and native Washingtonian roots could lend creedence to fantasies of a homosexual political operative conspiracy - well it boggles the mind. I wonder if this guy came into the office for a bumper sticker, caught one glimpse of my loafers, and constructed a ludicrous theory of 9-11 Truth proportions.
> 
> Too bad I'm so late on this thread, I really would like to have participated.


Hope you enjoy the thread.
I guess I'm too tired to care who is metrosexual or 22 years old or what.
Seems to me the only thing that counts is, is your heart in the right place, do you have brains and do you use them?

I'm not sure how important experience is or was during this campaign.
I have zero campaign experience (at least as a campaign worker) but there were some pretty glaring errors made that I could have seen coming from a mile away.

To quote Bob Dylan, "You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowin'".

----------


## constituent

> 1)  my pomade-slicked coiff, Gucci ties, and native Washingtonian roots could lend creedence to fantasies of a homosexual political operative conspiracy - well it boggles the mind. 
> 
> 
> 2)  I wonder if this guy came into the office for a bumper sticker, caught one glimpse of my loafers, and constructed a ludicrous theory of 9-11 Truth proportions.
> 
> T


1)  Well shucks Jennifer, I just can't stop laughing after reading that.

2)  What does this have to do w/ "9-11 truth?"  -oh, you were just being facetious...  you're so silly (not really).

:: i think i see the problem now ::

we were doomed from the start.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Is the Cato Institute named after Cato the Younger or Cato the Elder?
> Does this dictomy gloriously date their approach to politics as usual?
> Lyndon LaRouche is now saying these things about Bretton Woods...


_Cato's Letters_, precursor to the American Revolution.  

LaRouche has been urging a new BW since the last one disintegrated.  They've been calling Dr. Paul's office about it for decades--I was warned about them from the banking staffer from the 1970s when I started in 1997!

----------


## Aratus

i had connected Monroe's anti-federalist identities and prose style to JUNIUS, 
the Public Advisor letter writer who seemed to have appeared out of the blue, 
and wrote between January of 1769 to January of 1772. The way he crafted
each foray into our early nation's press caused me to pause and focus on this
percursor to the heated debate that swirls around John Adams and the Alien
and Sedition Acts. John Jay's treaty is one of the later focal points. this has a
pertinence to the current hour. Our domestic and foreign policy in a unity... called
into question. the deeper "why" of gov't! any "blank checks" voided and cancelled.

----------


## therealjjj77

> i had connected Monroe's anti-federalist identities and prose style to JUNIUS, 
> the Public Advisor letter writer who seemed to have appeared out of the blue, 
> and wrote between January of 1769 to January of 1772. The way he crafted
> each foray into our early nation's press caused me to pause and focus on this
> percursor to the heated debate that swirls around John Adams and the Alien
> and Sedition Acts. John Jay's treaty is one of the later focal points. this has a
> pertinence to the current hour. Our domestic and foreign policy in a unity... called
> into question. the deeper "why" of gov't! any "blank checks" voided and cancelled.


Can someone translate for me?  I didn't do so good in Code Language 101...

----------


## Aratus

here's JUNIUS  http://frontlineonnet.com/fl2204/sto...5000608000.htm

here's madison's  & hamilton's FEDERALIST no. 18 http://history-resources.com/fd/f/f18.htm

Monroe writes under the nom de plume "ARATUS" after the published "Publius" essays!

here's the CATO's LETTERs that are earlier  http://classicliberal.tripod.com/cato/

blank checks are "carte blanches" in french! the translation is near to literal!!!  my opinioning

on Jamie Monroe's nom de plume also assumes he was aware of what St. Paul said about Aratus the poet!

----------


## Aratus

au~h20 is the insight! you see Ron Paul harkens back to an older political discourse!
surely as Jamie Monroe surmises, Constantine the Great got the metaphoric sons of Zeus
to pull down the roman temples dedicated to JOVE! due to Jefferson's intellectual excellence
a young jamie monroe is exposed to Newton's essay on the Book of Daniel and the Book
of Revelations, as well as the two science books he is known for, OPTICKs and THE PRINCIPIA!
the historic debate, freedom or tyranny!!! it extends over the centuries, over the millennia!!!

----------


## Aratus

john taylor of the caroline is almost as expansive as is Aratus's stance, 
however jamie monroe goes a tad more "federalist" as he helps jefferson 
purchase a sizable property that napoleon claims is his... ergo, to wit...
when should we limit the perogatives of a potus? when it suits us? 
when do we NOT presume to double our real estate? or as a matter of 
principle? how big should our gov't be at the federal level? as i ponder this,
what is the role of the seemingly lesser and more immediately close at hand 
levels of gov't? until our electronic era, most digital, we cannot be a nation-state 
democracy. its too cumbersome. the flaw of a nullifier is the cumbersome 
apparatus john c. calhoun liked. the sad tragedy that is our civil war is driven
by human dignity. the essense of our declaration of independence...

----------


## yongrel

> Are you going to tell me there weren't any gays (beyond the obvious--Kent Snyder) working for the campaign?
> 
> Go ahead...tell me what *you* think on the subject of an inordinate number of gays working out of the Arlington office.  That OK by you??
> 
> And, for the rest of those stumbling across this thread.  Exactly how much political experience would a 22-year old have?  Does that seem like the best use of our campaign donations?


Always with the gay-bashing, huh Steve? Your homophobia is beginning to dominate your posts here.

And I can't speak for anyone else, but I am perfectly fine with HQ having gay staffers. A person's sexuality shouldn't be the main way you identify them

Dr. King dreamt that his children would be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Perhaps that should be ammended to "by the color of their fabulous loafers."

----------


## Aratus

if Ron Paul gets anti-tax planks at the St. Paul convention, will Senator
John McCain take a vow of "no new taxes" if the Ron Paul rEVOLUTIOn
is very successful and cohesive? if Ron Paul is elected president either
now and/or in 2012, does he actually reduce the size of the federal gov't
by 1/10th as year one turns into year two? or some other larger fraction?

----------


## Aratus

this link is its own radicalism. not that i am into defending a slaveocracy,
http://www.econlib.org/Library/LFBoo...or/tylTU0.html methinks
however as a theorist, this political dude had his influence and his sway!!!

----------


## Aratus

john taylor of the caroline was not into high tariffs...

----------


## Aratus

if at the federal level we negate the income tax, let us not think 
high tariffs in a recession are a speedy means to aquire coins!
ron paul has yet to articulate out exactly how the rEVOLUTIOn shall 
red pencil our upcoming budgets, if...!!! --- curiously  i am reading up on 
the political  dialogues of the 1800s because they do have a pertinence!!!!

----------


## ForLiberty-RonPaul

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=132780&page=5

What do you think???

June 6th, 2008 D-Day Money Bomb

----------


## therealjjj77

> i had connected Monroe's anti-federalist identities and prose style to JUNIUS, 
> the Public Advisor letter writer who seemed to have appeared out of the blue, 
> and wrote between January of 1769 to January of 1772. The way he crafted
> each foray into our early nation's press caused me to pause and focus on this
> percursor to the heated debate that swirls around John Adams and the Alien
> and Sedition Acts. John Jay's treaty is one of the later focal points. this has a
> pertinence to the current hour. Our domestic and foreign policy in a unity... called
> into question. the deeper "why" of gov't! any "blank checks" voided and cancelled.


The only purpose of government, the only gap it fills in any society that cannot be filled by any other entity(at this time), is to secure the inalienable rights of the governed.  

That includes the right of a Citizen to contract an exchange of his labor for pay and earn the fruits thereof.  

And when a government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and replace it.  With every right comes a responsibility.  So it is the duty of each of us to alter or abolish this government if it has become destructive of the ends of securing our inalienable rights.  

Taxing the fruits of one's labor is "destructive of these ends".  It is no less of a right than the right to life.  If the government purported that it was going to protect the lives of it's citizens by taking their lives halfway through, then everyone would agree that this government has become "destructive of" the purpose it was established for.  Likewise, if our government is claiming to protect our inalienable rights yet claiming it must infringe upon one of them to do so, it is not only dishonest but is also a rogue government.  

Therefore, we have a duty to get involved in this political war for our country.  It is not just a matter of preference but a matter of responsibility.

----------


## V4Vendetta

> Well, it was his response to my polite reminder to try to avoid pointlessly insulting other members, telling my to go kill myself, that indicated I should probably check back in on this thread.


Are you deceased yet? DAMN

----------


## V4Vendetta

I guess thats a yes!!!!!!!!! YAY.................... THE WITCH IS DEAD!!!!!!!!!!! THE WITCH IS DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## flames2dust77

> Dr. King dreamt that his children would be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Perhaps that should be ammended to "by the color of their fabulous loafers."


LOL! I was having a crappy morning, but this made me laugh hysterically. Love it.


And wow...how did this thread turn into gay and metrosexual talk? Totally irrelevant. Homophobes....shaaaddduuup.

----------


## scotto2008

I don't have anything to add, I just want to get rid of "666" in the number of replies. Superstitious I guess.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> I don't have anything to add, I just want to get rid of "666" in the number of replies. Superstitious I guess.


LOL - yes, but now you have recorded it for posterity...

----------


## constituent

> LOL - yes, but now you have recorded it for posterity...


seems like an opportune time to say,


ALL HAIL SATIN (and misspell it for kicks, hahahah)

----------


## Tarzan

> I guess thats a yes!!!!!!!!! YAY.................... THE WITCH IS DEAD!!!!!!!!!!! THE WITCH IS DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Looks like he is not the only one who bailed... Bydlak seems to be gone as well. Too many tough questions I guess. Its a shame he still seems to think he was right about everything... too bad he did not have a mentor to actually teach him how the process works and how to win.

Learning how to justify losing and poor performance is not a good lesson for him to take into his future.

oh well

----------


## mdh

> Oh Bradley, I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you, but the idea that you wanted $10,000 for a GOTV drive, rather than to line your own pockets is laughable.  You can peddle this story, but I've seen your e-mail correspondence.  Sure, this will just be a game of your word against mine, but don't think that your motivations aren't known by others who have seen them first hand.


I doubt Bradley wanted to line his own pockets.  If he wanted to receive some payment that would go to him personally, it was likely fair by the going rate.  The campaign had and still has millions of dollars.  $10k less wouldn't be that big a deal considering the huge sum they are sitting on today and not using in states that have still not voted, and I'm sure it would've done a lot of good.  

The fact is that the "rushed" nature of the campaign and their unwillingness to help states which were fast coming when they were focused nationally on others was something I witnessed myself.  It hurt us in a lot of states, and no one who was on the ground doing the grunt work the way I was would disagree with that fact.  




> It's too bad that so many people on here trust what you have to say.


Hmmm.  Bradley has been a valuable advisor and friend to me, even at his own expense at times.  So I'd say it's actually quite fortunate that the majority of intelligent people recognize that in him.  




> And I think that it's funny that your vanity leads you think there's some sort of official "campaign of lies against you."  Trust me Bradley, you aren't that important -- no one really cared.  Our main goal was to protect Dr. Paul and our donors from people who desired to harm or take advantage of him, either intentionally or unwittingly.  Perhaps someday people will come to realize that you damaged Ron Paul more than you helped him.  And no number of forums posts will ever change that.


This seems like a pretty heavy charge to level against someone, so I'd challenge you to post proof rather than just slinging mud.  Seriously, I'm not sure why you have something against Bradley, but it comes across pretty clearly here, and that's unfortunate.  


The simple fact here is that I only decided to respond here because you impugned someone I think is a very good person and whom has always been genuinely motivated to do all that he could for this campaign.  I've generally been pretty quiet in my criticisms of the national campaign staff, because I don't see any real benefit to being vocal about it, but the fact is that while most of the criticism I'd have towards the campaign is based on my own experiences dealing with it, plenty is also based on what former staffers have said in confidence about what went on.  
*
The fact that the national campaign did a poor job is no secret, either - just look at how many states Dr. Paul came in first.  
*

----------


## Ninja Homer

bump from the past

----------

