Please forgive me for starting yet another thread on this subject, but this comment has grown long enough that I don't want my effort to be buried in another thread and forgotten as swiftly as most seem to be. I hope it may provoke some thought in those who take time to read it.
I haven't followed all the various discussion threads since the infamous HQ email arrived in our inboxes, but I have a few observations I'd like to share.
I received the HQ email, and I will say it didn't leave me with a positive impression. Of course, I really don't much like (read: hate) being constantly dunned for money, but I'm willing to set aside my annoyance in this case; I understand the campaign has to keep pushing, so I just figure such messages (this was not the first) are meant for those who haven't donated yet, or could donate more and need a little push.
However, I think this email was a mistake. Coming so soon after November 5, it left a feeling that the Campaign already considers that tremendous success "old news" and already wonders why everyone isn't giving more. I felt a little like the horse in Animal Farm, who after putting in 18 hour days and doing more than any three other horses, is simply taken for granted and given an even higher quota.
It hasn't yet been made clear to me how the goal of $12 million in the fourth quarter, which we're ahead of schedule in raising, somehow became insufficient. I will confess I was among those who initially thought that target over-confident, and likely to lead to embarrassment. But it now seems like it will be exceeded, which is certainly great. But apparently, going by the email, that target was not only too small, but, judging from the flavor of desperation in the message, almost fatally so. If so, perhaps the email should have commenced with some kind of acknowledgement of the campaign's previous error, e.g.:
"On October 1 we set a target of $12 million in the fourth quarter, feeling that amount would allow us to do the publicity Ron Paul needs to be heard in the early primary states. Unfortunately, it has now become clear that amount will not be nearly enough to do what needs to be done. Therefore, we find we must reluctantly turn to you, our faithful supporters, with yet another appeal for financial help."
Or something like that. If, as some on this forum counsel, we are simply to "trust HQ", I guess I'd feel a little better if they were up to admitting their mistakes.
On the other hand, $12 million is quite a bit of money -- certainly more than will have passed through my hands in my entire life. If it's really not enough, I guess I'd like to hear at least a little explanation of why. If it is enough, then the panicky HQ email was clearly a mistake. Again, if we're supposed to "trust HQ", and they made such a huge mistake budgeting only $12 million, how can I have confidence they know what they're doing now?
And when will enough be enough? I'm beginning to get the feeling that there will never be enough money in the Campaign's coffers, no matter what we do.
(Note: Nothing I say should be construed that I'd like to see HQ "acknowledge" the grassroots' efforts; they should continue to maintain a scrupulous separation and distance. But they need to treat us with respect, which can be done without any direct connection or even mention.)
None of us is perfect, of course. And in the excitement and frenzy of a political campaign that has more or less suddenly, unexpectedly turned into something far different (far bigger) than it was ever expected to be, it's not surprising that mistakes have been and will be made.
I don't really know anything about Jonathan Bydlak. I believe I read here somewhere that he is 24 years old; if so, I have been donating money to Ron Paul since before he was born. Along with enthusiasm and energy, youth also has a tendency to easy excitement, and lack of the big-picture view.
I am 64 years old, more-or-less involuntarily "retired", chronically ill and living at what I'm sure most people would consider a poverty level. I don't have a lot of money to spare, but have been sending a little to Ron Paul now and then since 1981. The last time I bothered to vote was in 1988; I knew he was running again this year, but didn't pay much attention until the explosion of interest after the first debate. Then I got involved, in my own small way, and have donated what I felt I could.
I didn't sign up to donate on November 5, as I wasn't sure I would have the resources to participate. However, when the day came I was swept up in the wave, and sent in my $100. And I'm happy I did (I even got a screen shot when my name appeared, which goes in my scrapbook with the Ames, Iowa ad where I was in the mosaic). And that felt so good that I pretty well decided I could stretch again on December 16 and be part of history again.
But my enthusiasm is now dampening, as I read all the confusion that has ensued because of this ill-considered HQ email, and the ill-considered responses here. Much though I admire and applaud the initiative of Trevor Lyman and other frontline activists, I think another publically-announced, publically-promoted "money bomb" on November 30 is a very bad idea.
If people on this forum, the core activists of the rEVOLution, want to promote a private push among themselves to donate a little more by the end of November to respond to the email (similar to the private push I gather was aimed at the Huckabee "bomb"), that's fine. But trying to squeeze more blood out of the public at large on November 30, with the message (explicit or implicit) that, well, it's okay, you can give everything you've got now, and then you can still give what you were planning on December 16, is ... well, the word that comes to mind is "disrespectful". Like you think you've somehow got us all by the whatevers, and you can just keep squeezing.
One "money bomb" was great, and got Ron Paul publicity worth at least ten times the dollar amount collected. The second money bomb on December 16, if successful, will be even greater. However, success in this case must mean: (1) at least double the total on November 5, and (2) an unquestionable record for any political candidate in American history, no contest. If it doesn't meet those two goals, it will be lukewarm at best, in publicity terms possibly even a dud. Remember, the real value of a money bomb is the publicity, far beyond the dollar amount collected.
To stretch the metaphor a little -- I don't think too far -- a money bomb is a kind of explosion. An explosion is a sudden release of pressure. In most cases, a certain amount of pressure has to build up before an impressive release can occur. That's why Old Faithful spouts on a schedule, and not all day long. (Any man past the age of 40 understands this.) Trying to spark an explosion before the necessary pressure has built up will result in, well, nothing very impressive. Look up "anticlimax".
December 16, nearly six weeks after November 5, is just about right: Those who gave on the first date will have had enough time to build up enough resources to give again, and enough new people will have come to the campaign to add up, together, to another big explosion, probably much bigger than the first one (if it isn't, then I'll begin to have real doubts about the whole campaign).
But trying to spark another public explosion, at the last minute, halfway between the two, will result in (a) a November 30 that will generate negative publicity (unless it's at least $10 million, which somehow I doubt), and (b) a December 16 that will fall flat, both because of deflation due to November 30 and because by then it'll be "Oh, yeah, those Ron Paul folks with their 'money bombs'."
Again, one money bomb was great; two -- if done right -- can be fantastic; but three ... I think three money bombs might be the maximum before the idea becomes old news, and the third one should wait for another turning point, like before (or even after) Super Tuesday. It's a great idea: Don't overuse it.
Another thing about November 30: What's the hook? Anniversary of what? I think it may be my saint's name day, but that's hardly enough to rally the nation. The Tea Party anniversary is a great hook -- and, as a real American holiday, will make up for the little problem we had with "Guy Fawkes" on November 5. But November 30 is apparently just a date picked out of the air because we hear the campaign is desperate for money. The flavor is desperate and mercenary = no fun at all, just "money, money, money".
Finally: One of the biggest things for me (and, I think, for many) that has set Ron Paul apart from all the other candidates has been his cheerful demeanor, and his repeated admonitions that whatever we do, we shouldn't forget to have fun while we're doing it. Ironically, the more it begins to look like something good might actually come of all this effort, I get the feeling that this spirit of fun is being lost. As we get closer to the first big electoral test, a sense of desperation is creeping in.
Maybe this is because we all understand, in our hearts, that the truth is, and always has been, that Ron Paul will not win the presidency except by a miracle. Even if he had unlimited money, a miracle would still be required. Actually, that, for me, is a miracle that already in great part seems to have happened. But it's not a financial miracle, it's a miracle of consciousness.
Before this summer, it had simply never occurred in my wildest dreams that any significant number of Americans would be interested in libertarian ideas. After all, it has never happened before, anywhere, in the history of civilization; since Egypt, the vast majority of people in all large-scale organized societies have been slaves or the equivalent, and apparently more-or-less content to remain so. Just look at modern Europe.
But it seems that somehow, this fact of human history may be changing, right now, right here, in the U.S.A.: Suddenly a whole lot of people are getting interested in liberty -- even if few of them really understand very much about it yet. (I'm amused by all the "I don't agree with Ron Paul about everything" threads; I hope these people will stay with it long enough to understand that if you live by principle, as Ron Paul does, you can't pick-and-choose your stances on various issues: You must be consistent, as Ron Paul is, even when it might take a little effort.) And that, to me, is a miracle.
As I said, I've been "out sick" for a long time -- about a quarter of my life now. By all the logic of the cold, hard world, I should be dead now, as I'm really in no condition to deal with any beyond the relatively minor difficulties I've been given. Yet somehow, against all odds, I've not been given more to deal with than I can handle. And somehow I just keep going, for which I'm profoundly grateful. This has taught me that there is more going on than what we usually believe; that, in fact, what we call "miracles" are actually how the world works. The truth is, every one of us is only seconds (if that) from death, at any moment.
This summer a friend died in the midst of her evening meal -- a sudden brain aneurysm. When she died, she (a Buddhist, as I am) had just formed the intention to go on pilgrimage to one of the primary Sacred Sites of Buddhism: Mt. Kailash in Tibet. Her face fell on the photograph of Mt. Kailash that she was looking at, and she died. I cannot believe this scenario was simply an outcome of pure, random chance. Nor, I'm sure, does my friend, wherever she may now be (well launched into her next life, if the Tibetans are correct).
The truth is, nothing that happens in this world is other than a miracle. Thus, the best we can do, rather than constantly scrambling to figure all the angles and "get ahead", is to be true to ourselves and to the truth, and just let Whoever's Running This Show see to the outcome. I think Dr. Paul, as a sincerely religious man, understands this, which is why he can continue to have fun, even when the stakes appear to be high. And, because he is true to himself, he cannot really lose.
The truth is, the stakes are always high, and can get no higher. Once you understand that, you can simply let go and do your best. No need for desperation, which is a symptom of lack of faith.
Tea Party '07 is a great idea, just right, whose time will be on December 16. Don't dilute it by trying to milk the idea again and again. Stay the course, have faith, do your best, and leave the outcome to the Creator of Your Choice. And please, don't stop having fun. Otherwise, what's the point? If you let "the world" get to you that much, pretty soon you'll start compromising ... and pretty soon after that, you'll wake up one morning, look in the mirror and see Rudy. Who is, after all, simply another human being like you and I, just one who has sold his soul because he's lost his faith.
I haven't followed all the various discussion threads since the infamous HQ email arrived in our inboxes, but I have a few observations I'd like to share.
I received the HQ email, and I will say it didn't leave me with a positive impression. Of course, I really don't much like (read: hate) being constantly dunned for money, but I'm willing to set aside my annoyance in this case; I understand the campaign has to keep pushing, so I just figure such messages (this was not the first) are meant for those who haven't donated yet, or could donate more and need a little push.
However, I think this email was a mistake. Coming so soon after November 5, it left a feeling that the Campaign already considers that tremendous success "old news" and already wonders why everyone isn't giving more. I felt a little like the horse in Animal Farm, who after putting in 18 hour days and doing more than any three other horses, is simply taken for granted and given an even higher quota.
It hasn't yet been made clear to me how the goal of $12 million in the fourth quarter, which we're ahead of schedule in raising, somehow became insufficient. I will confess I was among those who initially thought that target over-confident, and likely to lead to embarrassment. But it now seems like it will be exceeded, which is certainly great. But apparently, going by the email, that target was not only too small, but, judging from the flavor of desperation in the message, almost fatally so. If so, perhaps the email should have commenced with some kind of acknowledgement of the campaign's previous error, e.g.:
"On October 1 we set a target of $12 million in the fourth quarter, feeling that amount would allow us to do the publicity Ron Paul needs to be heard in the early primary states. Unfortunately, it has now become clear that amount will not be nearly enough to do what needs to be done. Therefore, we find we must reluctantly turn to you, our faithful supporters, with yet another appeal for financial help."
Or something like that. If, as some on this forum counsel, we are simply to "trust HQ", I guess I'd feel a little better if they were up to admitting their mistakes.
On the other hand, $12 million is quite a bit of money -- certainly more than will have passed through my hands in my entire life. If it's really not enough, I guess I'd like to hear at least a little explanation of why. If it is enough, then the panicky HQ email was clearly a mistake. Again, if we're supposed to "trust HQ", and they made such a huge mistake budgeting only $12 million, how can I have confidence they know what they're doing now?
And when will enough be enough? I'm beginning to get the feeling that there will never be enough money in the Campaign's coffers, no matter what we do.
(Note: Nothing I say should be construed that I'd like to see HQ "acknowledge" the grassroots' efforts; they should continue to maintain a scrupulous separation and distance. But they need to treat us with respect, which can be done without any direct connection or even mention.)
None of us is perfect, of course. And in the excitement and frenzy of a political campaign that has more or less suddenly, unexpectedly turned into something far different (far bigger) than it was ever expected to be, it's not surprising that mistakes have been and will be made.
I don't really know anything about Jonathan Bydlak. I believe I read here somewhere that he is 24 years old; if so, I have been donating money to Ron Paul since before he was born. Along with enthusiasm and energy, youth also has a tendency to easy excitement, and lack of the big-picture view.
I am 64 years old, more-or-less involuntarily "retired", chronically ill and living at what I'm sure most people would consider a poverty level. I don't have a lot of money to spare, but have been sending a little to Ron Paul now and then since 1981. The last time I bothered to vote was in 1988; I knew he was running again this year, but didn't pay much attention until the explosion of interest after the first debate. Then I got involved, in my own small way, and have donated what I felt I could.
I didn't sign up to donate on November 5, as I wasn't sure I would have the resources to participate. However, when the day came I was swept up in the wave, and sent in my $100. And I'm happy I did (I even got a screen shot when my name appeared, which goes in my scrapbook with the Ames, Iowa ad where I was in the mosaic). And that felt so good that I pretty well decided I could stretch again on December 16 and be part of history again.
But my enthusiasm is now dampening, as I read all the confusion that has ensued because of this ill-considered HQ email, and the ill-considered responses here. Much though I admire and applaud the initiative of Trevor Lyman and other frontline activists, I think another publically-announced, publically-promoted "money bomb" on November 30 is a very bad idea.
If people on this forum, the core activists of the rEVOLution, want to promote a private push among themselves to donate a little more by the end of November to respond to the email (similar to the private push I gather was aimed at the Huckabee "bomb"), that's fine. But trying to squeeze more blood out of the public at large on November 30, with the message (explicit or implicit) that, well, it's okay, you can give everything you've got now, and then you can still give what you were planning on December 16, is ... well, the word that comes to mind is "disrespectful". Like you think you've somehow got us all by the whatevers, and you can just keep squeezing.
One "money bomb" was great, and got Ron Paul publicity worth at least ten times the dollar amount collected. The second money bomb on December 16, if successful, will be even greater. However, success in this case must mean: (1) at least double the total on November 5, and (2) an unquestionable record for any political candidate in American history, no contest. If it doesn't meet those two goals, it will be lukewarm at best, in publicity terms possibly even a dud. Remember, the real value of a money bomb is the publicity, far beyond the dollar amount collected.
To stretch the metaphor a little -- I don't think too far -- a money bomb is a kind of explosion. An explosion is a sudden release of pressure. In most cases, a certain amount of pressure has to build up before an impressive release can occur. That's why Old Faithful spouts on a schedule, and not all day long. (Any man past the age of 40 understands this.) Trying to spark an explosion before the necessary pressure has built up will result in, well, nothing very impressive. Look up "anticlimax".
December 16, nearly six weeks after November 5, is just about right: Those who gave on the first date will have had enough time to build up enough resources to give again, and enough new people will have come to the campaign to add up, together, to another big explosion, probably much bigger than the first one (if it isn't, then I'll begin to have real doubts about the whole campaign).
But trying to spark another public explosion, at the last minute, halfway between the two, will result in (a) a November 30 that will generate negative publicity (unless it's at least $10 million, which somehow I doubt), and (b) a December 16 that will fall flat, both because of deflation due to November 30 and because by then it'll be "Oh, yeah, those Ron Paul folks with their 'money bombs'."
Again, one money bomb was great; two -- if done right -- can be fantastic; but three ... I think three money bombs might be the maximum before the idea becomes old news, and the third one should wait for another turning point, like before (or even after) Super Tuesday. It's a great idea: Don't overuse it.
Another thing about November 30: What's the hook? Anniversary of what? I think it may be my saint's name day, but that's hardly enough to rally the nation. The Tea Party anniversary is a great hook -- and, as a real American holiday, will make up for the little problem we had with "Guy Fawkes" on November 5. But November 30 is apparently just a date picked out of the air because we hear the campaign is desperate for money. The flavor is desperate and mercenary = no fun at all, just "money, money, money".
Finally: One of the biggest things for me (and, I think, for many) that has set Ron Paul apart from all the other candidates has been his cheerful demeanor, and his repeated admonitions that whatever we do, we shouldn't forget to have fun while we're doing it. Ironically, the more it begins to look like something good might actually come of all this effort, I get the feeling that this spirit of fun is being lost. As we get closer to the first big electoral test, a sense of desperation is creeping in.
Maybe this is because we all understand, in our hearts, that the truth is, and always has been, that Ron Paul will not win the presidency except by a miracle. Even if he had unlimited money, a miracle would still be required. Actually, that, for me, is a miracle that already in great part seems to have happened. But it's not a financial miracle, it's a miracle of consciousness.
Before this summer, it had simply never occurred in my wildest dreams that any significant number of Americans would be interested in libertarian ideas. After all, it has never happened before, anywhere, in the history of civilization; since Egypt, the vast majority of people in all large-scale organized societies have been slaves or the equivalent, and apparently more-or-less content to remain so. Just look at modern Europe.
But it seems that somehow, this fact of human history may be changing, right now, right here, in the U.S.A.: Suddenly a whole lot of people are getting interested in liberty -- even if few of them really understand very much about it yet. (I'm amused by all the "I don't agree with Ron Paul about everything" threads; I hope these people will stay with it long enough to understand that if you live by principle, as Ron Paul does, you can't pick-and-choose your stances on various issues: You must be consistent, as Ron Paul is, even when it might take a little effort.) And that, to me, is a miracle.
As I said, I've been "out sick" for a long time -- about a quarter of my life now. By all the logic of the cold, hard world, I should be dead now, as I'm really in no condition to deal with any beyond the relatively minor difficulties I've been given. Yet somehow, against all odds, I've not been given more to deal with than I can handle. And somehow I just keep going, for which I'm profoundly grateful. This has taught me that there is more going on than what we usually believe; that, in fact, what we call "miracles" are actually how the world works. The truth is, every one of us is only seconds (if that) from death, at any moment.
This summer a friend died in the midst of her evening meal -- a sudden brain aneurysm. When she died, she (a Buddhist, as I am) had just formed the intention to go on pilgrimage to one of the primary Sacred Sites of Buddhism: Mt. Kailash in Tibet. Her face fell on the photograph of Mt. Kailash that she was looking at, and she died. I cannot believe this scenario was simply an outcome of pure, random chance. Nor, I'm sure, does my friend, wherever she may now be (well launched into her next life, if the Tibetans are correct).
The truth is, nothing that happens in this world is other than a miracle. Thus, the best we can do, rather than constantly scrambling to figure all the angles and "get ahead", is to be true to ourselves and to the truth, and just let Whoever's Running This Show see to the outcome. I think Dr. Paul, as a sincerely religious man, understands this, which is why he can continue to have fun, even when the stakes appear to be high. And, because he is true to himself, he cannot really lose.
The truth is, the stakes are always high, and can get no higher. Once you understand that, you can simply let go and do your best. No need for desperation, which is a symptom of lack of faith.
Tea Party '07 is a great idea, just right, whose time will be on December 16. Don't dilute it by trying to milk the idea again and again. Stay the course, have faith, do your best, and leave the outcome to the Creator of Your Choice. And please, don't stop having fun. Otherwise, what's the point? If you let "the world" get to you that much, pretty soon you'll start compromising ... and pretty soon after that, you'll wake up one morning, look in the mirror and see Rudy. Who is, after all, simply another human being like you and I, just one who has sold his soul because he's lost his faith.
