If the only mechanic you can go to only seems to have experience damaging engines you'd rather try to (figure out how to) fix the car on your own. PaulConventionWV, I've seen you defend the campaign a few times (including here) but not their action/inaction. If people are truly speaking out of ignorance, you should be able to show them/us that.
This assumes that you would know what constitutes damage. Trying to tell a mechanic that he's doing something bad for an engine when he knows exactly what he's doing is not a good way to solve the problem. Of course, every analogy has its problems, but from a philosophical viewpoint, I think people are simply trying to take a stance on this issue of central planning vs. grassroots. All it takes it some rumors and some people will say "how horrible!" without really knowing why what they were hearing was bad.
I also don't understand why ignorance should be so obvious to point out. Whenever I tell someone they're being ignorant, they think they are being wise and that is that. No amount of logic will convince them. I'm not saying these people are inherently illogical, but sometimes they let knee-jerk reactions replace patience and proactiveness. I'm not so much defending the campaign as I am promoting proactiveness. Even if there are a few slip-ups, that is no reason to freak out and assume that the grassroots should just charge blindly in all directions. Your libertarian grassroots dream is not going to work in practice. It will in government, but not applied to everything. One example I can use is that a family does not need to follow libertarian principles. If they choose to deprive their children of something they think is not necessary or not good for them to have, that is their right, and the government should recognize that. The family is under no obligation to treat the child as a sovereign individual. That was not really an analogy so much as an example of a situation where libertarianism rightfully does not apply.
Steve posting here has been a big improvement and just having an Iowa office and all the visits by RP to Iowa this early in the cycle are again big improvements (but these weren't possible with the fundraising last time). I hope when important issues come up here, the appropriate campaign person can be addressed to quickly comment (without being email bombed). I say trust, stop being antagonistic towards the campaign (it lowers morale), but nonetheless don't depend on the campaign staff. If Ron wins, it'll either primarily due to the grassroots or the media (doubt it, they've always been the enemy); it won't be because of the campaign staff.
I agree with everything up to the last sentence. I don't see why you jump to the conclusion that the campaign will not have a major hand in winning this election. They can and should be trusted, and they can't operate well unless people do trust them. Otherwise, their difficulty dealing with unbridled opposition from the grassroots is seen as the fault of the campaign. They can only operate effectively if people are willing to cooperate, but so many jump the gun and assume a few problems mean we should run the show and only make things more difficult for the campaign. I like cooperation, both ways, but I don't support those who would blindly charge ahead and run away from the campaign will insisting they should take the lead.
At any rate, my post was not to criticize anyone for their stupidity. I do appreciate the input of everyone here, despite those who STILL insist on attacking me because of my position (if that's not a knee-jerk reaction, I don't know what is), but my main point is that people should seek to be proactive and remain positive, not cast a negative light on the campaign and break away from it. That can only make things worse. However, some people seem insistent on "doing their own thing" despite the campaigns attempts to "lead." Really, I just wish people would stop fighting over it and appreciate the campaign because they ARE ON OUR SIDE. This unfounded suspicion is what hurts us.
