I won't take the time for a lengthy reply because you cannot even refute my short replies about how Virginia's winner take all status being a state that was within a 10 day range of 10 caucus states made it strategically undesirable or how getting Santorum out was a part of the campaign strategy that, if you were there, was obviously being carried out; that strategy being to coalesce the conservative vote. After Nevada ended we still wanted to coalesce the conservative vote as best we could because we wanted maximum representation at the RNC and at the state level parties, and we still had a better chance of drawing from Gingrich and Santorum then Romney. We still had several goals to accomplish with caucus states, and we did. Michigan was a part of the strategy to coalesce conservatives behind Ron Paul.
The fact that Kathy brings up a rant I posted angrily the day that we essentially dropped out, literally the single hardest day of the campaign, and some of you act as if that is at all a fair representation of my opinion on the man makes it perfectly clear to me that either your logical processes are flawed, or you do not understand basic human nature.
The fact that Kathy brings up a rant I posted angrily the day that we essentially dropped out, literally the single hardest day of the campaign, and some of you act as if that is at all a fair representation of my opinion on the man makes it perfectly clear to me that either your logical processes are flawed, or you do not understand basic human nature.
I'm sorry you cannot comprehend what you read, or take the time to actually read a serious reply. The fact that you are trying and failing to defend a dishonest campaign now (thanks kathy88 for really showing me what I'm dealing with, and I'm still not even sure), and you simply can't comprehend truth, doesn't mean the posts are half truths. You failed to address my points, in any fashion that makes sense to the supporters that donated money and time in January, February, March, April, and May when asked to do so.
FULL TRUTH - Ron Paul 2012 agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, before the Michigan primary. But spent money attacking Rick Santorum there, helping Mitt Romney win that state, and the nomination. It also continued to send emails "attacking" Mitt Romney in the emails to supporters, but never doing so publicly in an ad. Why? They were dragging supporters along, trying to tell them what they needed to hear, so they would part with more money.
I didn't say attack Mitt Romney at every step, or in every single state. I said where it mattered. Michigan mattered for causing a brokered convention. Maine mattered. New Hampshire mattered. Virginia mattered. Virginia mattered specifically for the supposed delegate fight, because a candidate could win delegates, without winning the state outright. They didn't try.
It's why I sent Ron Paul 2012 a draft campaign ad attacking Rick Santorum in IOWA. And they didn't use it. 2 weeks later, I sent it to Rick Perry's campaign (my enemey's enemy is my friend), and they had it up within 24 hours.
So, if the campaign was lost after Iowa, it should have closed shop. Not wasted months of time, and certainly not wasted months of supporters' money. If it was about some other two man strategy they tried to float like Doug Wead did, that falls to pieces with Virginia. And even in Maine, where it was a two main race in the polls. Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.
Ron Paul 2012 agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, and from their own actions we saw and know, helped him win the nomination without any waves at the RNC.
I'm sorry that you can't comprehend my full posts with truth containing facts/history/actions/non-actions of the campaign, but it seems like it's just you, Liberty Eagle, and Matt Collins that can't. So, I take that as a compliment.I wouldn't expect people repeatedly defending a lying, corrupt, deceptive campaign, to understand the truth. One has already shown today that the truth is toxic to them. When you respond to truth, with lies. It says a lot.
It may take a few times of seeing it, to wake some up. Like when speaking with neocons, I may need to change my tactic and wording for you to better understand what was the waste/fraud/lie of Ron Paul 2012.
And your Nevada point, MIGHT make sense. If they had attacked Romney after Nevada. They didn't.
Again, Nevada was on February 4th.
Michigan on February 28th.
Virginia on March 6th.
So, if after Nevada it was over, the campaign thought it was smart to attack Rick Santorum in Michigan where RP had no chance of winning, wasting at least $100K doing so, but not spend one time in Virginia to try and pick up delegates?
Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich were in race until April. And according to Jesse Benton in May 2012, their supposed brokered convention strategy, fell apart when Rick Santorum dropped out. Imagine that. Rick Santorum dropped out. Who Ron Paul 2012 was helping Mitt Romney beat in states like Michigan. It's why their brokered convention strategy doesn't hold any water either.
