I am convinced that people who hate the official campaign do so out of ignorance of it.

[rockandrollsouls]

What are you talking about? In a very basic nutshell, the entire notion of being cast as presidential is tailoring your delivery and appearance for the job in addition to addressing the issues you are viewed as being weak on. The campaign haven't helped any of this.

If he was cast as being more presidential we should be finding minimal faults in the way he addresses people. To be frank, he shouldn't be making statements the media or a potential voter could misconstrue. When was the last time you just heard Ron say, without a long winded explanation, "I believe in a strong national defense and my voting record concurs with this. I predicted where Bin Laden was in 2003 and I had the plan to get him." or "I believe in free market economics and I was the only candidate in 2008 to predict the financial mess."
That's all we need; be clear, be concise, and let people know you were right. That's all. Why isn't anyone getting this? It's not his job to go off justifying an underlying nuance no one asked about. Why do you think Herman Cain performed so well? He gives short, concise, and strong answers. You might find it interesting to hear about all the little details in a a 30 second response, but the average voter doesn't.


Same old s***, same old results. And then you're surprised we poll poorly. It's the same package with the same wrapping with a different label on it. You need to change the wrapping.

Ok, here's a question: if they were to cast him as more presidential, would you be able to tell, or would always find faults no matter his stature or the way he addressed people?

Also, what does "presidential" look like?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Positive energy would be the campaign doing what it's paid to do Your disagreement doesn't mean you need to quote a blanket and arbitrary forum rule in an attempt to thwart it.

So, there's a press secretary, though I've seen nothing regarding any damage control regarding the statement's Ron has made that have been misconstrued. Furthermore, I didn't hear a thing about the latest endorsement...I had to dig on the forum to find anything about it!

So, moving the grassroots supporters from the field to a central campaign is going to address the issues encountered in the past? I don't see how this fixes anything. The grassroots was effective because it organized things the campaign never did. Now it seems they are "officially" letting some grassroots supporters do what the campaign SHOULD have done in 08 and still isn't doing now. The campaign should have already known how to how to do what they are enlisting the grassroots supporters for. It's Basics 101....

And sure seems like they are listening to the forum (Sarcasm.) I am told of many (though I don't consider it so...more like minor) proclaimed changes, but I don't see the effect of any of it.

Perhaps the campaign can start at square one and actually hammer home that Ron is a conservative. Funny how it's four years later and they still haven't done that.

They have been doing a lot of the things you are saying.

Beside, don't you see that every criticism you make is assuming you know what should be done? Maybe the campaign is miles ahead of you. Why do you insist on looking only at the bad things? A lot of good news has come up, lately, and the campaign has taken a lot of positive steps. That's what I meant about being proactive. You are certainly not doing that. Negativity and criticism and suspicion is not going to help the movement or the grassroots or the campaign one bit.

I have also noticed some very positive changes in the way Ron argues and presents himself on TV. Why do you not notice these things? Could it be that we have different paradigms and you are simply favoring the negative side?

 

[AuH2O]

Rockandrollsouls, you are looking at outcomes you would like and saying, "Look, we haven't achieved these! Ergo, the campaign is a abject failure."

Instead of pointing out the absence of certain outcomes you'd like (which I suspect you'd have little idea about how to actually accomplish), how about pointing out certain actions you disagree with?

It's like saying "Ron Paul isn't President now, therefore the 2008 campaign was one filled entirely with failures and absent any successes." Much more constructive would be to say "I disagree with X, Y, and Z that the 2008 campaign did." Let's see if we can try that with the 2012 campaign, why don't we?

 

[rockandrollsouls]

As an avid Ron Paul supporter I have to dig in the forum to find any positive news. If I'm having difficulty as a Ron Paul supporter, what makes you think the average person is hearing anything more?

They aren't doing anything I've mentioned. The latest poll has Ron losing over 2%, the campaign never addressed the smear campaign regarding his positions on drugs and the Osama Bin Laden issue...I could go on and on.

What is it that you're seeing because clearly we have two separate sets of eyes.

They have been doing a lot of the things you are saying.

Beside, don't you see that every criticism you make is assuming you know what should be done? Maybe the campaign is miles ahead of you. Why do you insist on looking only at the bad things? A lot of good news has come up, lately, and the campaign has taken a lot of positive steps. That's what I meant about being proactive. You are certainly not doing that. Negativity and criticism and suspicion is not going to help the movement or the grassroots or the campaign one bit.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

You should read my post I've listed a number of things the campaign is not doing it should be doing. Not to be rude, but I'm not even going to address your post as I've addressed it all before.

Rockandrollsouls, you are looking at outcomes you would like and saying, "Look, we haven't achieved these! Ergo, the campaign is a abject failure."

Instead of pointing out the absence of certain outcomes you'd like (which I suspect you'd have little idea about how to actually accomplish), how about pointing out certain actions you disagree with?

It's like saying "Ron Paul isn't President now, therefore the 2008 campaign was one filled entirely with failures and absent any successes." Much more constructive would be to say "I disagree with X, Y, and Z that the 2008 campaign did." Let's see if we can try that with the 2012 campaign, why don't we?

 

[Original_Intent]

Just give me something better than "he's catchin on! I'm tellin' ya!" I'd like to see one political ad this time that was half as good as the stuff Aravoth was posting on YouTube. And I realize it's not going to be won by an ad campaign, and there is going to be door knocking and lots of trench fighting - but one well done ad, that looked professional, would go a long way towards convincing Joe six pack that RP should be taken seriously.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Yup. 4 years later and we don't even have one. Does this not speak volumes?

Just give me something better than "he's catchin on! I'm tellin' ya!" I'd like to see one political ad this time that was half as good as the stuff Aravoth was posting on YouTube. And I realize it's not going to be won by an ad campaign, and there is going to be door knocking and lots of trench fighting - but one well done ad, that looked professional, would go a long way towards convincing Joe six pack that RP should be taken seriously.

 

[civusamericanus]

A few off the top of my head: hiring good teams, drawing quiet, hardworking, activists from the grassroots; There is a new "National Press Secretary"; There is ongoing communication and updates being posted by HQ here, including unprecedented levels of detail; it is kinda obvious to many of us that they are keeping an eye on the grassroots and incorporating ideas/initiatives/etc...

More to come...

I get frustrated with people circulating years old water under a bridge the majority neither know, nor care about, and more importantly, is counter productive to inspiring positive responsiveness to concerns on either side...

Choose your battles,

and please review the guidelines, notably:

+rep if I could.
I'm watching what ronpaulhawaii writes closely, since I feel he has the most sound advice, for us Grassroots folks not currently involved in the official campaign.

2008 gave us the past 3 years to prove Ron Paul was right, the Liberty movement has set the tone of the 2012 election. I believe we all need to quit running our mouths and start "TightropeWalking". If everyone stands behind the official campaign and the grassroots leaders focus on filling in the gaps, we might have a chance at actually winning this thing!

 

[PaulConventionWV]

As an avid Ron Paul supporter I have to dig in the forum to find any positive news. If I'm having difficulty as a Ron Paul supporter, what makes you think the average person is hearing anything more?

They aren't doing anything I've mentioned. The latest poll has Ron losing over 2%, the campaign never addressed the smear campaign regarding his positions on drugs and the Osama Bin Laden issue...I could go on and on.

What is it that you're seeing because clearly we have two separate sets of eyes.

I'm seeing new staff, new endorsements, new strategies, a new way of donating so that people know specifically what they're donating to, and I see Ron being much more assertive on TV.

But forget that, let's focus on everything negative. The reason you can't find anything positive is because you are so stuck in your negative mindset that only the negative sticks out to you. You group the positives in with "more of the same" without even looking at their value.

On second thought, I just realized that you are so full of negativity that you will never be convinced to stop bashing the campaign and be a little proactive for once. You can go ahead and do what you like. My message was for everyone else who may actually see what I'm talking about. Go your merry bashing way and leave us to be positive without you.

 

[AuH2O]

Yup. 4 years later and we don't even have one. Does this not speak volumes?

Who exactly was supposed to be running campaign ads for Ron Paul over the last 3 years?

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

I'm going to repeat:

+ Positive energy should be used with content relating towards the achievement of our Mission Statement. Negative content should be approached with the goal of finding constructive solutions to existing problems.

and will note that your sarcasm neither impresses me, nor, in this case, makes me inclined to give your opinion much weight

Positive energy would be the campaign doing what it's paid to do Your disagreement doesn't mean you need to quote a blanket and arbitrary forum rule in an attempt to thwart it.

I was at the top of 2 campaigns in 2010, one we lost, the other we won. How many campaigns have you ever looked at from that perspective? This is a valid question, IMO, until people've walked in other's shoes they should be REALLY careful of judging.

Questioning/Discussing strategy and developments, both good and bad, is one of the things we do here (I wish there were more actual online activists knocking off projects, but whatever....), but doing so insultingly is never good, and using diplomacy/discretion is what actually works when trying to effect change. This seems like it should be common sense.

So, there's a press secretary, though I've seen nothing regarding any damage control regarding the statement's Ron has made that have been misconstrued. Furthermore, I didn't hear a thing about the latest endorsement...I had to dig on the forum to find anything about it!

^^^ Hyper-critical nit picking offering no constructive solutions which is against what you consider a blanket and arbitrary forum guideline previously quoted. You do realize you voluntarily agreed to abide by the forum rules right?

So, moving the grassroots supporters from the field to a central campaign is going to address the issues encountered in the past? I don't see how this fixes anything. The grassroots was effective because it organized things the campaign never did. Now it seems they are "officially" letting some grassroots supporters do what the campaign SHOULD have done in 08 and still isn't doing now. The campaign should have already known how to how to do what they are enlisting the grassroots supporters for. It's Basics 101....

^^^ See above about hyper critical nit-picking. I will add that you are also adding a level of negative prognostication to your narrative. It seems though, you are a "know it all" and sadly, that is just a negative trait...

And sure seems like they are listening to the forum (Sarcasm.) I am told of many (though I don't consider it so...more like minor) proclaimed changes, but I don't see the effect of any of it.

Maybe you've got too much grudge in your eye to see it. Sad. I certainly can.

What I see here is you minimizing the fact that all of these changes address top issues of contention from 08. What I see is a grudge holding naysayer who will never be happy. I am really curious how many campaigns you have worked from the top, that may give weight to your criticisms...

I don't have time for people that can't learn how to, nor even try to, be diplomatic/discrete. The fact is that the guideline you voluntarily agreed to is real, valid, and enforceable. I intend on winning and will be working with much less tolerance of hypercritical negativity than previously.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Give me the connection to get me in a campaign and I'll gladly do it. Unfortunately, I'm not a moderator of the main forum with connections like you have. It also seems any attempt to provide the official campaign with suggestions is ignored, as I've attempted to reach them numerous times. Regardless, doesn't make your techniques any more viable than mine. I'm not disparaging you with this statement, but there were plenty of people at the top of campaigns that were either lucky and had no idea what they were doing or really didn't do the greatest job they could. Simply because you were part of two campaigns doesn't mean much.

And in a political environment where the Tea Party was "The Thing" in 2010, and democrats were being cleared out, I wouldn't weigh to heavily on the campaign tactics being the primary motivator. If I recall correctly there were a few candidates that were being considered until they revealed their truly loony side.


Like I said, I want to win. When gauging the average voter, they are responding the same way they did in 2008. Same lack of information regarding our candidate, some not knowing who he is. I've not had one person inform me they chose to support Ron as a result of any type of advertising or campaign related material. They've all been conversions with battle-tested techniques I've been honing since early 2007 with regard to Ron, and other candidates prior.

I keep hearing about all of these changes (again, I don't consider them true changes,) but I'm not seeing any of it take effect. Like I said, the campaign should have at least addressed the two smear campaigns.

I might not be running campaigns but I own and run two businesses and I consult, for whatever that's worth. I'm pretty familiar with "making the sale," and not using traditional techniques, either. You can present the same concept to someone 100 different ways, and some of those are going to pay off far more handsomely than others. It's time the campaign starts realizing this and takes advantage of the psychology behind it. Absolutely not tooting my own horn here, but these are very valid observations and considerations and should be applied.

Long story short, I'm seeing more of the same and my viewpoint is supported by poll numbers and the criticisms I've gathered from the average voter.
I'll believe there's "more brewing" when we aren't slipping in the polls after 4 years of name recognition, sitting behind a relatively obscure Pizza CEO that announced and Tim Pawlenty.

Please, tell me, how is it not on the campaign that people are still telling me Ron isn't a conservative? This is a primary issue that should have been addressed at the start of the campaign. I'm in complete disbelief I'm still getting these questions and reactions; these are things that should not be popping up for someone who's running for president from the Republican party. I can't stress this enough.

I'm going to repeat:



and will note that your sarcasm neither impresses me, nor, in this case, makes me inclined to give your opinion much weight



I was at the top of 2 campaigns in 2010, one we lost, the other we won. How many campaigns have you ever looked at from that perspective? This is a valid question, IMO, until people've walked in other's shoes they should be REALLY careful of judging.

Questioning/Discussing strategy and developments, both good and bad, is one of the things we do here (I wish there were more actual online activists knocking off projects, but whatever....), but doing so insultingly is never good, and using diplomacy/discretion is what actually works when trying to effect change. This seems like it should be common sense.



^^^ Hyper-critical nit picking offering no constructive solutions which is against what you consider a blanket and arbitrary forum guideline previously quoted. You do realize you voluntarily agreed to abide by the forum rules right?



^^^ See above about hyper critical nit-picking. I will add that you are also adding a level of negative prognostication to your narrative. It seems though, you are a "know it all" and sadly, that is just a negative trait...



Maybe you've got too much grudge in your eye to see it. Sad. I certainly can.

What I see here is you minimizing the fact that all of these changes address top issues of contention from 08. What I see is a grudge holding naysayer who will never be happy. I am really curious how many campaigns you have worked from the top, that may give weight to your criticisms...

I don't have time for people that can't learn how to, nor even try to, be diplomatic/discrete. The fact is that the guideline you voluntarily agreed to is real, valid, and enforceable. I intend on winning and will be working with much less tolerance of hypercritical negativity than previously.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

You honestly don't think the campaign should have addressed the spin put on Ron's Bin Laden position, or the drug statements? You really don't feel he should be courting high profile republican organizations instead of speaking at Tea Party rallies filled with people from this forum? You really don't think he should be wearing a tailored suit? You don't think his endorsements should be known beyond this forum?

As far as I'm concerned, these are only a few of the issues the campaign ha already misstepped on.

That's damage control. Any normal candidate does these things so they don't LOSE support. The campaign isn't even keeping tabs on that, let alone doing the things required to win support.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Like I said, max out your contribution and tell me how you feel when you don't see any tailored TV ads, any debate improvements, or any increased support when the campaign is receiving more money than any other candidate.

I maxed out my contribution to the campaign last go round and that was only the tip of the iceberg. I hear what you are saying, but we have to give them a chance. This is a new campaign.

 

[LibertyEagle]

You honestly don't think the campaign should have addressed the spin put on Ron's Bin Laden position, or the drug statements? You really don't feel he should be courting high profile republican organizations instead of speaking at Tea Party rallies filled with people from this forum? You really don't think he should be wearing a tailored suit? You don't think his endorsements should be known beyond this forum?

As far as I'm concerned, these are only a few of the issues the campaign ha already misstepped on.

That's damage control. Any normal candidate does these things so they don't LOSE support. The campaign isn't even keeping tabs on that, let alone doing the things required to win support.

I would absolutely love to see them hire a spin doctor. Even if they were willing, and I do not know that they are, it requires money. We should be able to tell a lot more after a successful June 5 moneybomb.

 

[BUSHLIED]

You honestly don't think the campaign should have addressed the spin put on Ron's Bin Laden position, or the drug statements? You really don't feel he should be courting high profile republican organizations instead of speaking at Tea Party rallies filled with people from this forum? You really don't think he should be wearing a tailored suit? You don't think his endorsements should be known beyond this forum?

As far as I'm concerned, these are only a few of the issues the campaign ha already misstepped on.That's damage control. Any normal candidate does these things so they don't LOSE support. The campaign isn't even keeping tabs on that, let alone doing the things required to win support.

Rock,

I do agree with you. You have valid concerns and considering how much our country has to lose over the next several years, this campaign is extremely important!! So I understand your sense of urgency about campaign mis-steps, look what happened to Newt, he got glitter dumped on him and the GOP establishment laughed rather than expressing outrage against gay activist extremists...he misspoke about Ryan's plan and he was HIT hard all over the place...for a savvy politician like NEWT, that is inexcusable BUT nevertheless it did flat-line his campaign. So I got you!

That being said, I think what others are trying to point is out is HOW you go about translating your concerns into positive improvements for the campaign. IF posting on here is therapeutic for you, giving you some form of relief, it comes at the cost of causing others stress, so you have to weigh the trade-off. As I have said before, I agree with you, in fact, I am privately much more critical of the campaign than you would know because I keep much of it private, and instead of bitching, I offer productive suggestions that I hope find there way to the right people.

I am sure many on here are working professionals with tons of experience and talent and it was hard to sit back in 07/08 and watch the campaign botch up. To be fair, they didn't seem to have hired any real professionals, I think the average age of the campaign was 25 with (viewing them in the most favorable light) had moderate experience with politics. It is one thing to be intellectual and behind the message BUT it is another thing to be effective in Washington D.C. with all the maneuvering and most important ORGANIZING that must take place. Much of this was don't spontaneously by the grassroots despite any attempts by the campaign.

Anyway, this time around there are appears to be mix between old people and some new people, so there is cause for hope.

My suggestion would be to write THE RESPONSE you would have wanted to see from the campaign exercising damage control and float it out here, maybe send it to the campaign or personally to someone here that can get it to THEM...let them read and see HOW you crafted the letter, they may be inspired by in or at least be exposed to how you do this sort of thing. It appears that historically, the campaign, is passive and just reacts..perhaps they need to be instructed how to do it differently...

what do you think? I'll help you if you want. Peace.

 

[BUSHLIED]

I would absolutely love to see them hire a spin doctor. Even if they were willing, and I do not know that they are, it requires money. We should be able to tell a lot more after a successful June 5 moneybomb.

I think the idea is good BUT I think you also need media access to have your "spin doctor" on the show...I don't know if it would be possible to accomplish this because the media is against Paul. You need media access. I am sure if Ronmey wanted to go on FOX, he could easily get 10 minutes...but Ron, not sure? anyone know?

 

[amonasro]

I would absolutely love to see them hire a spin doctor. Even if they were willing, and I do not know that they are, it requires money. We should be able to tell a lot more after a successful June 5 moneybomb.

If the moneybomb does well (and I think it will) I'd like to see Ron hire more (or better) media/PR consultants. If he doesn't, and the campaign keeps chugging along at the same pace (albeit with more $$$) with no significant changes in Ron's (and the campaign's) image, I'll be reluctant to donate again to a campaign that isn't willing to make a professional PR effort.

For example, even though Cain gets free media coverage, whoever is calling the shots behind the scenes knows what they're doing. For example, his new campaign song features vocals by the winner of American Idol. It's obvious it was a professional effort done by professional musicians in a studio. And he's a Christian, and he sings primarily country music. This is brilliant PR. I heard it all over talk radio yesterday. I know, I know, Cain is establishment, has connections to powerful people, etc., but Ron needs to at least try and compete with this or we have no chance to connect with the average voter.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Rock,

I do agree with you. You have valid concerns and considering how much our country has to lose over the next several years, this campaign is extremely important!! So I understand your sense of urgency about campaign mis-steps, look what happened to Newt, he got glitter dumped on him and the GOP establishment laughed rather than expressing outrage against gay activist extremists...he misspoke about Ryan's plan and he was HIT hard all over the place...for a savvy politician like NEWT, that is inexcusable BUT nevertheless it did flat-line his campaign. So I got you!

That being said, I think what others are trying to point is out is HOW you go about translating your concerns into positive improvements for the campaign. IF posting on here is therapeutic for you, giving you some form of relief, it comes at the cost of causing others stress, so you have to weigh the trade-off. As I have said before, I agree with you, in fact, I am privately much more critical of the campaign than you would know because I keep much of it private, and instead of bitching, I offer productive suggestions that I hope find there way to the right people.

I am sure many on here are working professionals with tons of experience and talent and it was hard to sit back in 07/08 and watch the campaign botch up. To be fair, they didn't seem to have hired any real professionals, I think the average age of the campaign was 25 with (viewing them in the most favorable light) had moderate experience with politics. It is one thing to be intellectual and behind the message BUT it is another thing to be effective in Washington D.C. with all the maneuvering and most important ORGANIZING that must take place. Much of this was don't spontaneously by the grassroots despite any attempts by the campaign.

Anyway, this time around there are appears to be mix between old people and some new people, so there is cause for hope.

My suggestion would be to write THE RESPONSE you would have wanted to see from the campaign exercising damage control and float it out here, maybe send it to the campaign or personally to someone here that can get it to THEM...let them read and see HOW you crafted the letter, they may be inspired by in or at least be exposed to how you do this sort of thing. It appears that historically, the campaign, is passive and just reacts..perhaps they need to be instructed how to do it differently...

what do you think? I'll help you if you want. Peace.

This is what I'm talking about. It's a constructive response! Rock, do you honestly think that your complaining is going to help anything? Do you really think treating the campaign as an enemy is going to solve anything, and what do you hope to achieve by that? Remember that unity is better than division.

Furthermore, I really wanted you to understand my point, but it seems you are incapable of comprehending what I am trying to say. Rock, your nit-picking is non-specific and does not offer any constructive comments. You are simply bringing down the campaign. I might ask what your real objective is for being here.

You talk about things that YOU perceive that others might not as being wrong. I think Ron addressed these concerns quite well. He may not have talked about exactly what I wanted him to talk about, but that doesn't mean I should fault him for it. The thing is, you act as if everyone should follow YOUR directions and YOUR script. You never stop to think that maybe they are doing it differently from what you would do for a reason, or maybe they just don't think like you. Everything is an absolute blunder when it doesn't meet YOUR standards.

You talked about not having connections or not being hired before. I can see why you are not a moderator or a campaign director. Nobody would hire such a selfish person and expect them to have understanding and compassion and be proactive. I've got news, buddy. The world doesn't revolve around your expectations. You can't see the good in the campaign because you don't look for it. We have posted numerous examples of good things that have happened in the last few weeks, and yet you have said nothing about this! Why don't you acknowledge these things and stop promoting this meme that the campaign has done nothing?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

If the moneybomb does well (and I think it will) I'd like to see Ron hire more (or better) media/PR consultants. If he doesn't, and the campaign keeps chugging along at the same pace (albeit with more $$$) with no significant changes in Ron's (and the campaign's) image, I'll be reluctant to donate again to a campaign that isn't willing to make a professional PR effort.

For example, even though Cain gets free media coverage, whoever is calling the shots behind the scenes knows what they're doing. For example, his new campaign song features vocals by the winner of American Idol. It's obvious it was a professional effort done by professional musicians in a studio. And he's a Christian, and he sings primarily country music. This is brilliant PR. I heard it all over talk radio yesterday. I know, I know, Cain is establishment, has connections to powerful people, etc., but Ron needs to at least try and compete with this or we have no chance to connect with the average voter.

He does. I saw an article on him yesterday where he was talking about the fact that he believes our rights come from God, not government. As much as he wants to perpetuate that message, though, he can't do it too much or else he loses the ability to connect with what he's REALLY trying to get across. Thus, he does talk about all this fundamentalist stuff sometimes, but that's not the main thing. I think this is a fine strategy. Now, mind you, I'm no suck-up for the campaign, but all I've seen on this board is unfounded nit-picking when people really are either just failing to see the good that's happening, or they simply don't know what should happen, so they assume anything that doesn't happen is a major flaw of the campaign. All I'm asking is to be a little more proactive and positive. Is that too much to ask for?