You make a very good point, or rather points. I think there are a couple of things going on, one is that on average as a group we have a higher level of participation in the process than we do experience when compared with other groups. On balance I think this is a great thing for us but it does run us into some brambles for example the supporters who (with full good intentions) try to debate the legitimacy of talking points being used at another candidates speaking engagement.
I can't fault those people for their passion, or even for their logic as far as the issues are concerned, and I certainly like seeing two-faced public figures called out... but sadly that's usually not the most effective way to deal with a two-faced public figure.
I say the above because I think some of the point you are trying to make is getting lost in translation for a number of folks on these boards. I'll be the first to own up to forgetting sometimes (and specifically when it comes to NOBP) that this forum is/could be viewed by fence-sitters. GRC especially I treat a bit as a HQ for ideas and coordination of grassroots efforts and as such I often overlook that it is in fact a public forum.
You are correct, as much as I feel support for NOBP it's is not a tactically, or diplomatically sound statement to make in conversation with undecided voters or when collaborating with supporters outside our camp. Upon reflection I believe I will alter my phrasing henceforth --> Ron Paul 2012!
That at least for me serves all the same purposes emotionally an functionally as NOPB without as much potential for being misrepresented to our detriment.
Tactics isn't just about content (elaborating more than explaining, I'm confident you already know this) it's also about presentation. I think the friction you're getting has been largely a misunderstanding of your advocacy. You are (and correct me if I'm wrong here) saying the presentation needs refinement for our best advantage. And what I see happening is that it's being taken as a critique of the content being expressed.
Here's an example of how this might play out. I'm not going to vote for Romney, I couldn't do it because no matter what policy he said he'd support his record makes it so I can't trust him. <-- That's the content. However if I'm talking to a Romney supporter I'm not going to say "you're a sell out" or "how could you support Mitt what's wrong with you?" or "only banksters and crony-capitalists want Mitt". Speaking like that would be a waste, first off it's uncivil and reduces the likelihood that they'll consider any middle ground (for example in a caucus where Paul and Romney are outnumbered by Santorum). Secondly, and more importantly (IMO), aggressive statements like that usually overlook nuance for example someone who doesn't know about Romneys past record, or who has false information about Paul, who if they knew the facts would be happy to support Paul will likely never bother to listen to those facts if their first contact with a Paul supporter is abrasive at that level.
That's a loss for us, and those voters are most certainly out there. I've talked to a few (usually older) in this cycle and I've read about more.
I think we can win this nomination, but I also think it likely we'll need to gather soft support when we do it. And that means being able to reach out a hand to these misinformed voters and remind them we're aiming for many of the same things, to look at a Gingrich supporter and say "help us win this, we can take Obama out of the white house" not "line up behind us because Grinch doesn't have a chance".
Part of why Romney is so successful is that voters (including some insiders and delegates) believe he's the best shot to beat Obama. Honestly their wrong, Ron Paul has a stronger hand against Obama but we'll persuade more people of that by appealing to what they want, the aspects we have in common, rather than saying "it's our way or the highway". Paul elected is our way, so let's not focus on saying that let's focus what we say on how Paul Elected gets them what they want.
(Note: there are people, especially holding positions within the GOP that are flat out corrupt and need to go for them I say no quarter, but think of how we've heard stories about Santorum or Romney or Gingrich delegates who were outraged by being disenfranchised by those same corrupt party insiders. We're organized, we've got clout, and know how and will. How are those people going to see us? As a group of thugs who fought it out with the current thugs in power? Or as the ones who stood up for a fair process? Honestly some of them will view us both ways regardless of what we do, but we have the ability to effect how many see us in which light, is it not to our benefit to be seen as by the book as much as possible? When in doubt ask "what would Ron Paul do?" he's wouldn't back down, but he'd stand up in a classy way, and that I think is our mark to aim for. Even folks like me who have tempers to wrestle :o )
parocks, would you say I've accurately represented/understood the point you're making?
