Good or bad doesn't matter it was obvious to anyone that knows anything about electoral politics he was not running to win from the beginning. If you wasted time and money you thought could have been better spent you have no one to blame but yourself.
Is Rand our man or not?
- Thread starter Dogsoldier
- Start date
This isn't about me, but about how the campaign dragged supporters along on false promises and hopes. I understood 100% the campaign wasn't serious about winning. I was saying that at the time, and during the campaign.
It's why I have said if they weren't serious, they shouldn't have stayed in like they did. They should have ended it, like all the other campaigns/candidates did.
And I didn't waste a dime on the campaign, because I saw how Ron Paul 2008 was run from the inside. I volunteered at the official campaign HQ in 2008, and saw how staffers were sitting around eating snacks, watching news programs. While volunteers were tasked with harassing people for money. Their list(s) wasn't updated properly, and the same people were being called repeatedly.
In 2012, I had one requirement. Show me you're serious about winning, by attacking Mitt Romney. It never happened.
The fact Ron Paul 2012 wasted supporters' money and time though, for months, is horrible. It's why I have said I think Ron Paul 2012 was not effective as it could have been, and SHOULD have been in helping the movement move forward and addressing issues that were holding it back.
Again, I know supporters that were passing up on car repairs, because they believed the campaign was serious about winning. Those are the same type people, many of them, that are now "done with politics", and don't want anything to do with political campaigns. Instead of running an honest campaign and respecting supporters' time and money, it was run with backroom deals with Mitt Romney's campaign. For what? A speech at the RNC?
So what. They are their own people to waste or use their money and time as they want. As I said some of us were banned for saying RP couldn't win after losing EVERY state up to CA. Do you think you could save them from themselves if they will go that far?
Whether or not the educational aspect of RP's campaigns pays off is yet to be seen. If every candidate that came in on Ron wingtips are torn down and defeated then yes RP's entire career and campaigns were a colossal failure.
Do I think I could save them? The supporters? No. Because they were listening to the campaign, all the way up until May for some (and even after, for others). When the campaign was still asking for more money. But I expect more from "our" own. Not to drag people along, just for money.
And if the educational aspect paid off, I don't know why Rand would be seeing an 8% point drop in a state like Louisiana. If anything he should be holding steady in states, moving up. Not down. It's what my point was/has been. An educational campaign, would have been a lot better than what Ron Paul 2012 ended up being. A side campaign for Mitt Romney to make sure his nomination went smoothly.
RP got hammered horribly for dropping out too early in 08 by his own supporters. I saw him hanging in as an attempt to appease those supporters.
I see you weren't around here in 2007/8. There was thread after thread after thread about how RP pulled the rug out from under people by quitting too soon. They sounded just like your bitching but hammering RP for quitting too soon.
Last edited:
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
I don't buy that. They made a good show of it in Iowa. They almost won there, and it's pretty obvious that they went all in trying to. But close didn't cut it. After that there was nothing to do but throw Hail Mary's.
ETA: Pardon all the cliches.
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
I appreciate that mentality. But whenever you receive a fund raising letter, including from a Ron Paul campaign, you need to bracket off everything it says in your mind and remind yourself that it's just a fund raising letter. If people didn't realize that earlier on than April of the 2012 campaign, then I see a lot of that mistake as being on them. Nobody who kept sending them money at that point had any reasonable excuse for thinking that they were helping to fund an effort that had any possibility of Ron Paul being the next POTUS.
I think the grass roots and lower campaign workers nearly pulled it off. RP himself did not have his heart into winning. How many times did he personally visit Iowa?
Actually, I was around in 07/8. I was on national TV at one of the debates, doing RP stuff. I volunteered at the official HQ then as well. So, clearly you have no clue what you're talking about in regards to others. And the problem from '08, continued into '12. The problem is not/was not the supporters, it was the campaign(s).
But you didn't answer the point. You weren't around HERE. The bitching about quitting to soon in 08 was huge. If you try and deny that I don't trust you were ever around the RP campaign official or grassroots.
I volunteered at the official HQ in 2007/08. I saw what happened at the official HQ then, and I saw that continue in 2012.
Oh, and you don't know if I was/wasn't around HERE in 2007/08. Being a member or not, doesn't mean you are/aren't reading stuff, HERE. Again, showing ignorance of what you're speaking of.
And no, I don't deny that some were complaining about the '08 campaign.
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
There were plenty of problems in the campaigns.
But there were plenty of problems with the supporters too. Both years there was this stubborn insistence among supporters that there was some delegate strategy that involved somehow winning the nomination while still losing all the primaries and caucuses. There was no talking sense to a lot of these people. And that's on them, not the campaign.
They were complaining about the official campaign quitting GOT IT?
You sure don't like to admit when you are flat out proven wrong. You sidestepped all over the place when Erowe1 produced the letter proving Rand endorsed Romney AFTER RP's "I cannot win letter" came out. You are proving how you really weren't all tuned into all things related to the official RP campaigns if you couldn't even find the letter saying "I cannot win" and ridiculed people that said it existed.
SOME were complaining about the official campaign quitting GOT IT? Not all. You sure don't seem to comprehend very basic things.
Two, I didn't sidestep anywhere, because had you actually been following conversations FOR MONTHS, you would see that my point of WHEN the email was sent, was exactly the point.
Not that it was sent, but WHEN IT WAS SENT. RP didn't send the email in February, March, April, or May. Those months they remained in the campaign, despite Ron Paul 2012 already agreeing to not attack only Mitt Romney, and had already helped Mitt Romney win the nomination by attacking only Rick Santorum in Michigan.
Then Ron Paul 2012 continuing to ask fore "more more more" money, when they didn't need more, because they weren't running an educational campaign, or a campaign trying to win it. It was a side campaign for Mitt Romney, to make sure he got rid of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. Two candidates that were actually serious about winning it.
But, since you can't comprehend the importance of WHEN it was sent, I'll include some of my past quotes on this very topic for you:
"And what email did Ron send that said he was throwing in the towel as you claimed?.......When did he send it? January? February? I have all the emails."
"What email are you talking about, specifically? Time frame of it?"
The WHEN is important. I was thinking I had missed one, and was searching specifically in those previous months. Had the message been sent before Michigan, and the campaign closed up shop (like Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and others before) it wouldn't be an issue. Had they not continued to ask for more money and drag supporters along for another dime, they might have some credibility with running an honest campaign. We don't have that here.
We have a campaign that agreed to not attack Mitt Romney no later than February 2012 (and didn't tell supporters), and then helped Mitt Romney win the nomination by running Rick Santorum attack ads in Michigan. Then we have a campaign using the official campaign website, to try and defend an endorsement of Mitt Romney. I just wish supporters that gave up time and money for a certain presidential candidate, were defended as much as Mitt Romney was by Ron Paul 2012 and staff.
And yes, I sure wish RP had thrown in the towel earlier and in a decent way in 2012 though, because the millions wasted on campaign staff, non-educational ads, and a private jet for stump speeches don't appear to have worked that well. There would possibly still be millions of dollar in liberty minded supporters hands, to donate to liberty minded candidates. I'm not of this idea that wasting time and money of supporters, to run Rick Santorum Sasquatch attack ads was a good thing.
And for Rand's sake, I do hope there isn't more to the Kent Sorenson issue in Iowa. But, now that the FBI is investigating it, maybe we won't have to worry with certain staffers working for Rand in 2016?
Last edited:
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
That doesn't hold water. Romney had it wrapped up fairly early. Ron Paul's staying in the race didn't affect his beating of those two. And Ron Paul still stayed in after they both quit too. I think a lot of the reason RP stayed in as long as he did was just him doing what his own supporters obviously wanted him to do and were insisting that he do. They all wanted a chance to vote for him in their primaries and to campaign in their states no matter how irrelevant it was to do so. And so many of them were so drunk with their notions about a delegate strategy that even after he suspended his campaign and his son endorsed Romney, that as late as just a couple weeks before the convention they threw hysterical fits when his campaign staffer told the delegates in a conference call that RP didn't want them to nominate him. I felt bad for RP, it was like once he decided to run for president he had checked into the Hotel California.
It wasn't their notions of a delegate strategy, as much as the campaign as well. Jesse Benton, Doug Wead, and others all talked about it during the campaign.
And it does hold water. Romney didn't have anything wrapped up early, until Ron Paul 2012 helped him win Michigan by attacking Rick Santorum in the state.
Ron Paul 2012 never ran one single Romney only ad (ever):
New Hampshire, RP placed second behind Romney. Not one single Romney attack ad.
Maine, where RP lost by only about 2%, behind Romney. Not one single Romney attack ad.
Virginia, the first one-vs-one state. RP lost by about 50,000 votes. Much less than he lost Michigan by. Not one single Ron Paul 2012 ad, or Romney attack ad.
But, Michigan, where RP placed a distant third, lost by over 500,000 combined votes to Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney. They spent at least $100K in the state attacking only Rick Santorum.
South Carolina? A state RP had NO chance of winning. ZERO. Where he placed 4th, behind Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum. Yes, Ron Paul 2012 attacked Rick Santorum in South Carolina with TV ads.
And I'm not really sure that I would blame supporters, who gave up time/money to become delegates, for being the problem. If Ron Paul 2012 was a professional campaign, not designed around just making sure Mitt Romney's nomination went smoothly and Rand got a speech, they could have had RP hold a press conference early on, say, "I'm dropping out. Don't waste any more time on the delegate strategy."
The same delegate strategy, the campaign was touting as their own for months. When you ask people to donate, become delegates, and get involved, and those people do it and aren't making a dime. Don't blame the customers, for the horribly run business. Most of the time, customers don't know of the behind-the-scenes deals with the devil that are made. And that was the exact case with Ron Paul 2012.
It's why I have said, I will not donate a dime to Rand in 2016 if he runs AND IF he has anybody from Ron Paul 2012's staff on his own. But, like I commented above, the FBI might be taking care of one/two Ron Paul 2012 staffers if there is more to the Kent Sorenson issue.
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
When Jesse Benton, Doug Wead, and anyone from the official campaign talked about it, they were talking about actually winning delegates in primaries and caucuses, not some strategy of losing the primaries and caucuses and then winning the nomination with delegates.
Also, are you talking about things that were said in fund raising emails? Because anything said in a fund raising email doesn't count.
I think that would have been better. But a million of his supporters would have thrown fits. I think he tried to give them what they wanted as much as he could and then let them down easy. They weren't willing to be let down easy.
This. Old JJ up there is so stuck on his "RP ran to help Romney theory" that he can probably see the flag on the Moon flapping in the wind. Yes Ron and carol liked Romney because he treated him and Carol decent. He didn't however run to make Romney the nominee no matter how much JJ screams hysterically about it. If he did that he would have endorsed Romney in the end. He didn't.
No, this was not fundraising emails. It was Doug Wead, Jesse Benton, and others pitching the idea to Ron Paul supporters, that if they got enough delegates and a brokered convention happened, it was possible to win it. Yes, without winning a single state primary or caucus, and just winning delegates at the conventions to the RNC.
May 2012, from Jesse Benton to members of the press talking about that strategy they had put out:
http://youtu.be/Eu9rQC03lJw?t=40s
And please notice the complete idiocy of Jesse Benton mentioning that their strategy might have paid off, had other candidates been able to maintain momentum and stayed in the race until the convention. Complete, utter, idiocy. Or, (maybe) being 100% clueless of the fact Ron Paul 2012 is one of the exact reasons that the Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich campaigns lost momentum. They were being attacked by Ron Paul 2012, when Mitt Romney never was in the same way. If a brokered convention was some magical strategy as they pitched to supporters, the campaign was completely clueless on how to get that done. ESPECIALLY when they agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, before Michigan. At that point, it was basically IMPOSSIBLE, because instead of attacking Mitt, they then ran ads HELPING Mitt Romney defeat Rick Santorum in Michigan. And never doing the opposite, helping Rick Santorum defeat Mitt Romney in any state. Much less actually trying to help Ron Paul win a state like New Hampshire, Maine, or Virginia by attacking Mitt Romney in those.
February 2012, many months prior, Doug Wead talking about the same thing:
http://youtu.be/YV_ez9Kgcbo?t=4m9s
"There very easily could be a brokered convention."
And Rachel Maddow tries and does a pretty decent job, of explaining the delegate strategy in February 2012. Using Ron Paul 2012 quotes/clips/press releases, followed up with Doug Wead basically verifying what she said.
Very few campaign supporters are happy when their candidate drops out. It's how you do it, that can make the difference. Dragging supporters along, when they were already working with Romney's campaign on things like the RNC platform, had agreed to not attack Romney (and thus, threw any chance of a brokered convention out the window), and wasting campaign funds for no apparent reason; doesn't seem like a very beneficial way to keep people active.
Oh, look, a stupid comment bringing up something else. Is the flag flapping in the wind? You tell me.
The facts are:
1) Ron Paul 2012 never attacked Mitt Romney in the way they did Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum. With his own, and ONLY, TV attack ad.
2) Ron Paul 2012 agreed to not attack Mitt Romney before Michigan.
3) Ron Paul 2012, then, instead attacks Rick Santorum in Michigan, HELPING Mitt Romney win the state over Rick Santorum.
4) Ron Paul 2012 never ran on single positive, or negative, ad in Virginia to try and beat Mitt Romney in the state.
5) Ron Paul 2012 was coordinating with Mitt Romney's campaign as far back as January 2012, on certain things.
6) Ron Paul 2012 was still coordinating and talking with Mitt Romney's campaign in May 2012, about certain planks/issues to be added at the RNC.
7) Ron Paul 2012's official campaign website, was used to try and defend an endorsement of Mitt Romney.
Sorry you don't appreciate or understand a theory that is based on facts/history, and what is/was observable.
Ron Paul didn't have to outright endorse Mitt Romney, because the actions of Ron Paul 2012 and use of campaign funds to get candidates like Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich to drop out, was more than enough for Mitt Romney. Rand going on national TV and endorsing Mitt Romney, and lying about Mitt Romney's positions "throughout the campaign", was apparently enough to get Rand a speaking slot. And Ron Paul 2012's site being used to try and defend that endorsement as well, was just more icing on King Romney's cake.
Doug Wead might have been right, when he said Ron Paul supporters/delegates wouldn't switch their votes at a brokered convention, like some others would for a box of Godiva chocolates. Unfortunately for Ron Paul supporters though, Ron Paul 2012 apparently didn't have very many of those type of supporters on staff.
Hope you can see that flag flapping, behind all the facts of a fraud campaign.
Again, either Rand was complicit in some of these things, and we will see this in who he brings in on his staff in 2016; or, he was clueless and just going along, making a poor $160K+ as a Senator, without a clue in the political world what was really happening in Ron Paul 2012.
Either scenario, is not a good one for me.
I just hope that he can respect the supporters enough that were assaulted, arrested, and wasted time on a fraud campaign, to not bring back many employees from Ron Paul 2012.
Last edited:
Bastiat's The Law
Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,439
I think they're a distraction and naive.
Similar threads
