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

[mit26chell]

The campaign should have a website where supporters can submit original campaign ads that they themselves create, and all of the acceptable submissions should be voted on, by the grassroots, in a competition, and the creators of the winning ads should be paid what the campaign would've paid some random company to produce the shitty, official ads fwd last cycle. I say this because the competition among supporters submitting homemade ads would provide for ample creative energy; thus, we would get to see amazing campaign ads representing Paul over the next year on TV.

 

[libertarian4321]

The campaign should have a website where supporters can submit original campaign ads that they themselves create, and all of the acceptable submissions should be voted on, by the grassroots, in a competition, and the creators of the winning ads should be paid what the campaign would've paid some random company to produce the shitty, official ads fwd last cycle. I say this because the competition among supporters submitting homemade ads would provide for ample creative energy; thus, we would get to see amazing campaign ads representing Paul over the next year on TV.

I'm not an expert on FEC rules, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were some bizarre rule against doing something like that.

I seem to recall someone suggesting something similar last time (minus the payment part) and I think it got shot down. Maybe someone else here remembers the thread.

 

[libertarian4321]

Worse: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...arning-Will-Robinson!!!&p=1774312#post1774312

It worked perfectly- shut the guy up and I never again saw him openly shill for McCain on the RON PAUL forums.

Money well spent.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

Hay lib4321

next time at least write in micky mouse or zippy the pin head.

 

[Slutter McGee]

It worked perfectly- shut the guy up and I never again saw him openly shill for McCain on the RON PAUL forums.

Money well spent.

Yeah. I read that thread. All he was arguing was that McCain wouldn't send things downhill as fast, and would give our movement time to grow. HE WAS RIGHT. And you donated money to Obama, justifying it with some self righteous BS.

Slutter McGee

 

[devil21]

Yeah. I read that thread. All he was arguing was that McCain wouldn't send things downhill as fast, and would give our movement time to grow. HE WAS RIGHT. And you donated money to Obama, justifying it with some self righteous BS.

Slutter McGee

You're seriously still thinking that there was any appreciable difference between a McCain and Obama presidency???

The only difference would have been how they sell the same agenda in different terms. McCain would have pushed health care reform but would have called it "Patriotic Duty" or some such nonsense. We would already be bombing Iran if McCain won, instead of Libya. Im amazed that some still think McCain would have been one iota better than Obama. Heck, I believe a McCain presidency would have pushed things even farther. Do remember that he supported amnesty but would have had the political capital to push it through with the support of Dems. In the big picture it's a good thing that another RINO wasn't elected. At least the election of the liberal woke up some in the GOP. If not for that the same people that supported Bush would have supported McCain in more RINO adventures.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Beyond that, the idea is simply labor intensive and inefficient. This isn't a design contest...resources could be allocated in a much more optimized fashion to get Ron elected.

PS. You're still a scrub for giving money to Obama, and voting for him. Inexcusable. You're now partly responsible for pushing us into Libya.

I'm not an expert on FEC rules, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were some bizarre rule against doing something like that.

I seem to recall someone suggesting something similar last time (minus the payment part) and I think it got shot down. Maybe someone else here remembers the thread.

 

[parocks]

Obama most certainly was a Muslim. According to the Muslim religion, when your dad is a Muslim, you're a Muslim, and Obama's dad was a Muslim.

The records at his Indonesian school also indicate that he was a Muslim. And he admits to being a Muslim until sometime in his 20s.

It was a tough decision. Never have I gone to the voting booth with such a wretched set of options. Normally, even when both major parties offer dismal candidates (which is pretty common lately), I could at least vote for a decent, but obscure, Libertarian (thank God for Harry Browne and Badnarik!).

I considered not voting at all- but I really have a hard time leaving a ballot blank (maybe I'm obsessive-compulsive on this?), but I think that what really drove me over the edge was all the crap the Republicans (with Palin leading the way) were spreading about Obama being a "terrorist" or "secret Muslim" or not being American. That was so vile that I actually considered the Dems the "lesser evil."

Anyway, lets hope that doesn't happen again. Lets get Ron Paul on the ballot!

Going to spend this morning putting out some signs (still got some "Hope for America" signs and bumper stickers from last time- since they don't say "Ron Paul for President 2008", I'm recycling them!)

<note to the Libertarian Party: Please don't nominate a pair of neocon warmongering d-bags this time- I need a back up plan, just in case >

 

[Exponent]

PS. You're still a scrub for giving money to Obama, and voting for him. Inexcusable. You're now partly responsible for pushing us into Libya.

Are you trying to alienate people? I voted for Obama too, and I gladly admit it, as I don't regret it. Should I consider myself unwelcome in this community because of it? I certainly hope not. Fortunately, I do not take you to be anything close to representative of most people within this community, so I will continue to feel welcome despite your silly signature that warns of "Obama supporters".

Aside from trolls, we are all supporters of Ron Paul here, or are at least interested outsiders. For all supporters, we need to work together, working out ideas and putting them into action collaboratively, not combatively. For interested outsiders, we should communicate with them patiently, show them not only that Ron Paul's ideals are worthy, but also that this community is one that they would actually like to be a part of. And we should remain aware that Ron Paul draws people in for a wide variety of reasons; that's not only acceptable, it's great. We should be excited to have such a diverse crowd of people all working to get Ron Paul elected.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

You misconstrue my distaste for those who jumped ship for Obama and my personal belief you're partially responsible for the horrendous policies brought about under his administration as not welcoming support for Ron Paul.

I can think someone's a questionable person and still welcome their support for getting Ron's platform to a position of power.

Kind of like how I think Rollins and Rove are questionable people but I wouldn't have objected to recruiting either if it meant winning.

Common misconception on this board; the belief one's personal beliefs and personality is somehow tied to whether or not our man can win. Don't confuse them.

Support Ron all you want; I still think if you voted for Obama you're a scrub who shouldn't be preaching. After that, I think your opinion and suggestions should be taken with a grain of salt for having a vote so easily swayed. That's my personal opinion, though. Rooted in the premise, "See the fault in your own actions before you recognize the faults of others."

Are you trying to alienate people? I voted for Obama too, and I gladly admit it, as I don't regret it. Should I consider myself unwelcome in this community because of it? I certainly hope not. Fortunately, I do not take you to be anything close to representative of most people within this community, so I will continue to feel welcome despite your silly signature that warns of "Obama supporters".

Aside from trolls, we are all supporters of Ron Paul here, or are at least interested outsiders. For all supporters, we need to work together, working out ideas and putting them into action collaboratively, not combatively. For interested outsiders, we should communicate with them patiently, show them not only that Ron Paul's ideals are worthy, but also that this community is one that they would actually like to be a part of. And we should remain aware that Ron Paul draws people in for a wide variety of reasons; that's not only acceptable, it's great. We should be excited to have such a diverse crowd of people all working to get Ron Paul elected.

 

[DeadheadForPaul]

My main question is why Ron is not working with debate coaches.

Either he is stubborn or the campaign staff are too scared to bring it up to him.

I love Ron but he lacks the tailored approach that Rand has.

We will never win an election by advocating heroin legalization. Most celebrated that comment - I cringed

I'll wait to see where this campaign goes over the next few months, but I will not waste my $ on another 2008 campaign if that is what this one becomes

 

[devil21]

^^^
Have you been paying attention? Ron has been coached. His approach to interviews and even the first debate has been different than last time around.

Btw, you do realize the moderator asked the question, right? Do you expect Ron to lie? I don't. If he starts lying and playing it safe then he would be just another politician and he would lose a lot more support than just you.

 

[parocks]

Did it ever occur to you to not vote therefore depriving Obama of "the big electoral mandate" that was used extensively to ram his agenda down our throat? Not voting for the a hole republican is a big enough "F you" to get the point across too the republicans. Giving Obama a larger electoral mandate was a big "F you" to all of us.

I'll add that someone who voted for Obama should not be giving advice to Ron Paul or the Ron Paul Campaign. Also should not be doing any message that reaches any Republicans. We've got to make sure that our message is one that is appealing to Conservatives. And someone who voted for Obama does not understand Conservatives.

 

[parocks]

You're basically saying something like "Welcome Bad Ideas!"

A problem with Obama supporters is that they aren't Conservative (no Conservative would vote for Obama). What seems like a good idea to an Obama supporter is not a good idea to a Conservative. We have our base locked in. There isn't a hidden vote of people who want to End The Fed that we haven't reached. We don't have to remind people of Ron Paul's deviations from Republican orthodoxy. The people who love on Paul are onboard. That's what 2008 was. We are well known enough
and well liked enough. We now need to convince as many Conservative Tea Partiers that Ron Paul is a Conservative Tea Partier. Obama supporters don't communicate very well with Conservative Tea Partiers.

Are you trying to alienate people? I voted for Obama too, and I gladly admit it, as I don't regret it. Should I consider myself unwelcome in this community because of it? I certainly hope not. Fortunately, I do not take you to be anything close to representative of most people within this community, so I will continue to feel welcome despite your silly signature that warns of "Obama supporters".

Aside from trolls, we are all supporters of Ron Paul here, or are at least interested outsiders. For all supporters, we need to work together, working out ideas and putting them into action collaboratively, not combatively. For interested outsiders, we should communicate with them patiently, show them not only that Ron Paul's ideals are worthy, but also that this community is one that they would actually like to be a part of. And we should remain aware that Ron Paul draws people in for a wide variety of reasons; that's not only acceptable, it's great. We should be excited to have such a diverse crowd of people all working to get Ron Paul elected.

 

[Maltheus]

The fact that the OP even felt it necessary to start this thread is evidence that RP make a bad decision in (re)picking his team. There are many people who felt their donations were wasted the first time around, and by promoting Jesse Benton (direct cause of so many problems), Paul has made the statement that he doesn't know or doesn't care.

I expect to donate at least $1500 less this season and in looking around, I seem to be the most excited Ron Pauler left in my town. The most dedicated people from the first time around (including former paid staff) just don't seem that enthused about it this time, so I don't expect them to cough up much more (money or time). If I "donate" money, it'll be to support local campaign efforts, as needed. If RP had chosen different people, it would have gone to the official campaign. After seeing what happened the first time, I won't throw good money after bad. And I know I'm not alone in this. It's a real problem, whether you want to admit it or not.

 

[devil21]

How much time did you spend in KY for Rand's campaign?

What does that have to do with anything? Judging by join dates, you don't have much room to talk. I saw Benton cause tons of problems in Ron's 2008 campaign. Did you?

And you do realize that Jesse was an integral part of the winning Rand Paul 2010 campaign, right? There have been day and night improvements since 2008 both at the top and from the grassroots.

That completely remains to be seen. Rand was the right guy at the right time in the right place. I shall consider Benton a liability until I see progress otherwise. So far Im not impressed with Benton, even with Rand's victory under his belt. He needs to prove himself and atone for his terrible 2008 performance that many of us remember well. I say again, the best thing Rand's official campaign did was to get out of his way.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

The fact that the OP even felt it necessary to start this thread is evidence that RP make a bad decision in (re)picking his team. There are many people who felt their donations were wasted the first time around, and by promoting Jesse Benton (direct cause of so many problems), Paul has made the statement that he doesn't know or doesn't care.

I expect to donate at least $1500 less this season and in looking around, I seem to be the most excited Ron Pauler left in my town. The most dedicated people from the first time around (including former paid staff) just don't seem that enthused about it this time, so I don't expect them to cough up much more (money or time). If I "donate" money, it'll be to support local campaign efforts, as needed. If RP had chosen different people, it would have gone to the official campaign. After seeing what happened the first time, I won't throw good money after bad. And I know I'm not alone in this. It's a real problem, whether you want to admit it or not.

I respect your evaluation, but I don't understand how my OP is evidence that RP did anything wrong. People can get the wrong idea of the campaign regardless of how good Ron's decisions actually were. Please explain. Also, I don't think it is wise to withhold money from the campaign no matter how bad it is. The current campaign is the only one we have and it's probably not going to change. If you decide not to donate, then you are basically giving up on our chances. Any campaign is better than a completely broke campaign. In my opinion, if you can donate and choose not to, you are doing more harm to Ron's chances than good.

 

[Maltheus]

I respect your evaluation, but I don't understand how my OP is evidence that RP did anything wrong. People can get the wrong idea of the campaign regardless of how good Ron's decisions actually were. Please explain. Also, I don't think it is wise to withhold money from the campaign no matter how bad it is. The current campaign is the only one we have and it's probably not going to change. If you decide not to donate, then you are basically giving up on our chances. Any campaign is better than a completely broke campaign. In my opinion, if you can donate and choose not to, you are doing more harm to Ron's chances than good.

It's evidence because people shouldn't have to waste time defending his staff. This thread has 16 pages to it that prove that people at least understand this to be an issue, even if they don't personally have a problem with the official campaign. If he had chosen different people, it would have done much to re-motivated the rank and file and we wouldn't be having discussions like this (at least not this early).

As for the money, I wasn't saying that I wasn't going to contribute, just not (as much) to the official campaign. There were many expenses that popped up the last time around. I'd rather target those efforts (websites, signs, literature, etc). I forget the exact figures, but I believe RP had several million in the bank at the end of the campaign that he just rolled over into the CFL. Quite frankly, I felt cheated. I wanted the thousands I donated to go to campaign ads, PR people and phone banks. We all know that we are capable of spending our dollars more wisely than the government or large corporations. Well, the same principle applies here.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Ron can use much more coaching and he doesn't have to lie. I'll state it plain and simple, if you've ever been in contact with typical GOP voters, they are morons. They don't understand the federal reserve, let alone how they cause business cycles. They can't comprehend the concept of blowback...there's only one way to address it. Short, concise answers. It's not lying, but you must understand you don't have to lecture people to win votes.

Question: "Ron, you are the only candidate at odds with your party on foreign policy. Can you explain why they should vote for you?"
Answer: "I am the strongest candidate on foreign policy on this stage. I am the only candidate to have served in the military. I would bring our troops home from nations that are not a threat, such as Japan, so we are better prepared to combat all foreign threats and terrorism. Furthermore, I predicted where Osama bin Laden was in 2003 and outlined a plan to lawfully seize and prosecute him. A Paul administration would have won the war years ago and saved the US millions of dollars in war expenses."

Question: "Ron, how would you fix our nation's economy?"
Answer: "I was the only candidate to predict the financial collapse of 2008, and I am the only candidate actively taking on the issue of our economy. I believe in free market economics and private businesses."

Question: "Do you support the legalization of drugs?"
Answer: "I am a great grandfather of a family xxx large. I do not endorse the use of drugs, I have not done them, and neither has any of my family. Furthermore, I am the only doctor on this stage. The federal government is overstepping it's boundaries on this issue. The states are constitutionally permitted to rule and handle this matter by their individual choosing."

^^^
Have you been paying attention? Ron has been coached. His approach to interviews and even the first debate has been different than last time around.

Btw, you do realize the moderator asked the question, right? Do you expect Ron to lie? I don't. If he starts lying and playing it safe then he would be just another politician and he would lose a lot more support than just you.

 

[devil21]

^^^^^
A couple football references are in order.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/armchair+quarterback

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monday+morning+quarterback

He's not going to say things like that. He's not the slick speaker and he's not going to go off notes or anything else. His coaching is about delivery, particularly slowing his speech down as to not sound shrill, and to be more loose and funny during his delivery. I wish some would accept that he's 75 years old and he's not going to change his responses to questions as you suggest. Are your suggestions "better"? Probably, but it's a moot point because it's not going to happen. Let's focus on the things that can change instead.