Msg from Jonathan Bydlak -- willing to answer questions

[JonathanBydlak]

The last week of the third quarter was the impetus for the grassroots to call for a thermometer for the entire 4th quarter. Great team work, brilliant original idea, Jonathan! Documentation:

http://ronpaul.meetup.com/boards/thread/3618574

Eh, I deserve maybe 5% of the credit.

 

[JonathanBydlak]

guiliani spent 60 million... romney almost twice that... obama's money comes
from more donors than ms. hillary's and in Feb. he pulled in 50 million to her 25 million.
the record breaking moneybombs are now political folklore, yet you seem to be
saying that the campaign needed a steadily increasing cash stream to pull even
to the more aggressively funded efforts. the pump-priming aspects of the press
core increasing a recognition factor as an ongoing campaign taps traditional and
untraditional funding avenues. maybe the story now is about how close this was
to becoming a letter perfect political season, even if mccain ultimately pulls things
out from his fall slump. [admittedly with the help of that loan] so should we now
focus on what we can do so as to be even more postioned and energized in 2012?

As I mentioned in a few earlier posts, the key is too keep doing all the things that we're doing, while at the same time, keeping the future in the corner of our eyes.

 

[SteveMartin]

Jonathan,

I'd peg it at 25% myself. Congrats!

The last week of the thrid quarter is when we all in the grassroots said, "Hey, let's go ahead and make the whole darned thing public."

It worked.

One of our greatest joint successes, for sure.

 

[justinc.1089]

Wow that took a long time and a lot of effort to read through 31 pages of questions, not to mention the repeated questions lol!

Now I have a question, what was all that money spent on?! lol

joking.....


I do have a few questions though.

1. Is Ron Paul actually ready and willing to lead a revolutionary freedom movement in our country?

Because thats what we're heading towards faster and faster everyday, and Ron doesn't seem to be willing to lead it really in my opinion. Maybe he is, I don't know, he does seem to want a march to come together, but he like a lot of other people doesn't seem to want to give this revolution true leadership, and every revolution has had a leader that its followers looked to for leadership and inspiration such as Martin Luther King or George Washington. It seems like to me sometimes Ron wants everyone to just vote in libertarian minded people to the government to fix everything, and thats just not going to happen without a movement behind it with a leader to keep the movement going, or that he wants someone else to step up to fill his shoes, which would be fine if he would just make it clear to everyone that supports him as to who that could possibly be.

2. Can someone get some heart and fire back into Ron Paul lol?

For a very brief period of time he changed and really believed he could change the country after I think the tea party if I remember correctly. At least it seemed that way to me. It was around the debate when he called his campaign a revolution. It was like he doubted he could really do anything, but wanted to put his ideas out there, then really got emboldened and believed he could do it, and then went to not believing he can do it but that it can be done I guess now.

3. Why do you think the campaign wasted money running television ads in SC the last week or two weeks before our primary?

SC was generally ignored compared to some other candidates, with the exception of a great mailing effort, and SC was never a state Paul was likely to win anyway since its probably the biggest pro-war state in the country lol. Then ignoring it mostly lowered Paul's chances even more, so it seems a waste to spend that money to me. I would have thought the wisest strategy in SC would have been to either campaign hard in SC and NH from the start, but in SC mainly run an attack campaign attacking Romney and Huckabee since they did seem early on likely to win SC, and hope to split the vote and gain enough votes to win the state over them as a result of voters just not liking any candidates that much, which did actually happen here in my opinion. Or the other strategy, which I thought the campaign had taken, would have been to basically ignore SC and save the money for other places, which probably would have been the way to go in my opinion.

I don't see where mail fliers, radio, and a tiny bit but of course still expensive tv advertising was worth the cost in SC since it was a small chance to start with that was then cut even smaller by ignoring it.

I mean you know why McCain won here despite tons of people hating him here? Because he campaigned very, very hard here. All I ever heard about McCain was how he was either in New Hampshire or South Carolina. He spoke at places within an hour of me many, many times compared to Paul once. And thats why Romney lost, because he gave up in SC and started ignoring it like our campaign did.

4. Are signs and mail fliers actually effective?

I have serious, serious, serious doubts about the effectiveness of signs and mail fliers now after seeing my state's primary because Ron Paul signs were everywhere thanks to grassroots work around here, and I have to say you guys in the campaign DID do a spectacular mail flier effort compared to other campaigns. In fact, here in SC, you stomped them in the dirt while you laughed at them metaphorically speaking lol.

But I saw only literally about 4 McCain signs in my entire state during the entire campaign! And I got only 1 flier from his campaign telling me how I could get free debate tickets at his rally if I went. And yet he still won here, with no signs and no mail fliers, and I never heard about any phone calls either.

I think the campaign, and the grassroots where this stuff applies to it also, put way to much effort into signs, mail fliers, and phone calls maybe, I'm not sure there. I do know if I was running for senate or president I wouldn't spend crap on signs and fliers though after seeing McCain spend virtually nothing on it here and still win, and after seeing Paul dominate that stuff and still do poorly here.

5. Why didn't the campaign aim tv ads more on single issues?

I see other candidates aim tv ads at single issues or nearly to a single thing fairly often. I can remember Romney's ad about the economy, Giuliani's about terrorism, Clinton's attack on Obama, Thompson's pro-life ad, and then Paul's "He's catching on!" ad lol. I just think highlighting things works in tv ads, it sure does for me because those are always the only ones that stick out in my mind. Heck, the only Paul ad that sticks out is the Freedom Defender ad because it was just good, compared to the bad catching on one, and the other ones I don't even remember because they weren't anything worth paying attention to, just more I'm so and so vote for me junk really.

But I think the ads just missed the campaign's core message of liberty, peace, and prosperity, which would equate to civil right issues such as the Patriot Act for liberty for example, the war in iraq about peace obviously, and monetary policy for the economy. I just think the campaign completely missed the message on the tv ads that were ran. The ads were just too generic, almost like they were just being ran to get people to vote for a republican, not specifically Ron Paul in the republican primary. I hope you get what I mean there, its kind of hard to explain.

Finally, why didn't the campaign air any tv ads comparing Ron Paul and Ronald Reagan?

McCain did that, and the picture they showed in the ad was probably Reagan telling McCain why something McCain did was wrong lol....

A clip of Reagan talking about how there can be no peace while one American is dying before Paul talking about a humble foreign policy would be great, or perhaps a clip of Reagan mentioning something about the gold standard and then Paul, there are tons of possibilities, so I just wonder why that wasn't done, and why that catching on ad was even ran, which is my last question..

Why was that horrible "He's catching on" ad ran? It truly was the worst political ad I have ever seen. (Although the defender of freedom ad was the best I have seen)

 

[JonathanBydlak]

Steve - You recently posted that I was less valuable to the campaign then the office door (You used less flattering language, of course). Once you either apologize for this ad hominem attack or provide some basis for this observation, then I will be happy to answer your questions.

Also, my last name is spelled Rasmussen.

Less valuable than the office door? Come on.. at least as valuable as its hinges

Steve, for what it's worth.. Don was one of the most valuable people on the campaign. It's touch being a staffer at times, because you get all of the blame and little of the credit. Don's definitely one of those people who's gotten little credit for a lot of the positive things that happened in this campaign, while taking a lot of flack because everyone knows who he is.

 

[JonathanBydlak]

Identity established. OK.

Now, there are many people who have been in the campaign offices who have been saying this about you, Don. I have had no reason to doubt their word on things based on hundreds of conversations with people who I have come to know and trust in the grassroots, where most of the successes in this campaign were achieved. These people's observations have proven true, over and over and over again.

It seems that very few people with long records of established patriot activism were hired in favor of young, inside-the-beltway types---many of whom seem to have been of a certain sexual preference. Am I wrong?

Steve, (i'm reading this thread for the first time as I respond to people's questions)... the last part of your question is completely inappropriate and out of line. I meant this thread to be a reasonably intellectual examination of the questions that people have, but this is not a campaign-related question.

One other thing I want to comment on... I think this "where most of the successes in this campaign were achieved" line is nothing but veiled arrogance. As I said earlier, this campaign was a team effort, and it's snide, off-the-cuff comments like that which can only serve to alienate people. I don't think it's worth getting into a "grassroots did this, hq did that" type of argument.

I believe that this kind of "grassroots good.. staff bad" groupthink is nothing but, to quote Ron Paul, "small-minded collectivism"

 

[SteveMartin]

"Who?" ...or "What?"...Jonathan.

Look, I have nothing against anyone as long as they prove their worth. The point is, some in the grassroots felt totally spurned BECAUSE they were older, or because they were not Libertarian insiders, or even (as some have told me) because they were straight.

The effort should have reflected the entirety of the grassroots, not the proclivities (and even possible preferences) of a small subset.

 

[JonathanBydlak]

I suggested months ago that RP should have gone ahead and named a running mate to act as a surrogate at many of these functions so that he could still work as a sitting Congressman, as well, without suffering total burnout.

Heck, we are a groundbreaking bunch, why didn't we just go ahead and even name a couple of the cabinet people and send them out as well?? They would have gotten a lot more "bang for the buck" then some un-(such)-designated "spokesperson."

It's a good point, and definitely one that in hindsight we should have targeted earlier (having more surrogates, if not necessarily "cabinet members"). All that said, it's also based on the assumption that people in the media would care. In my experience, the press were fine with having Ron on, but they would rarely be willing to take surrogates, no matter what the qualifications.

 

[JonathanBydlak]

Jonathan,

I'd peg it at 25% myself. Congrats!

The last week of the thrid quarter is when we all in the grassroots said, "Hey, let's go ahead and make the whole darned thing public."

It worked.

One of our greatest joint successes, for sure.

Well, and keep in mind that it was also a lot of work to get people to focus on fundraising. Prior to all of the real-time fundraising widgets, we tried messaging very specifically over and over to get people to undertand that fundraising provides the lifeblood of the campaign. Go back and read some of those August emails. That was a big part of my first couple months on the campaign.

 

[Catatonic]

I have a couple questions...how much direct control did Dr. Paul exert over the campaign? Did he seem to have a set plan from the get-go or was it more of a fly by wire type of deal?

Lastly, did he use these forums or any other medium to keep comprised of what was going on with his supporters, and if so was there anything he saw that on our end he thought we could do better/should do differently? There used to be a lot of complaining of 9/11 truthers ruining things, and you did mention this earler, but I'm curious as to the scope you experienced this.

Please don't take the criticism of the official campaign here too personally. I've noticed a band line of people placing 99% of the blame on you guys for Ron Paul not doing as well as we had all hoped. Rather than understand the enormity of what we've tried to accomplish and how well setup the esablishment is to destroy competition, people seem to prefer to point fingers. I think everyone was so busy patting themselves on the back for the success of the money bombs and so many straw poll wins that they didn't work as hard as we might have to sway voters or motivate non voters to pull the lever for Dr. Paul. I never personally supported the money bomb idea, especially after the first one caused barely a ripple with the media. And as great as 20 million in the 4th quarter is, McCain is evidence that its just a drop in the bucket compared to being loved by the media, unfortunatly. People seem to think that should have been enough cash to flood all local and national news with 24/7 Ron Paul coverage

Okay, one more question, despite the greater-than-expected fundraising, how much more cash do you think would have been necessary to be a greater contendor despite the media blackout?

Okay, I'll stop now.

 

[SteveMartin]

the last part of our question is completely inappropriate and out of line. I meant this thread to be a reasonably intellectual examination of the questions that people have, but this is not a campaign-related question.

No offense intended, Jonathan, but many of RP's older supporters are aware of conservative movements that have been infiltrated and destroyed by members of a certain subset in the past, and the rumor is widespread that this MAY have been a contributing factor in our case.

I have no interest in your particular background, other than your ability to do the job. I think you did quite well considering your admitted youth and lack of experience. However, in order to dispell those concerns, I'd like to know if there were more homosexuals in the Arlington office than would be representative of the country as a whole.

Call me names, if you must. But, I am 100% dedicated to fairness and to Ron Paul, and hiring some people over others based on certain characteristics that have nothing to do with their ability to the job would have been deadly to our efforts to take back the country, or even to build a movement.

 

[JonathanBydlak]

"Who?" ...or "What?"...Jonathan.

Look, I have nothing against anyone as long as they prove their worth. The point is, some in the grassroots felt totally spurned BECAUSE they were older, or because they were not Libertarian insiders, or even (as some have told me) because they were straight.

The effort should have reflected the entirety of the grassroots, not the proclivities (and even possible preferences) of a small subset.

Steve, let's just agree to drop this. I don't have anything more to add.

 

[JonathanBydlak]

No offense intended, Jonathan, but many of RP's older supporters are aware of conservative movements that have been infiltrated and destroyed by members of a certain subset in the past, and the rumor is widespread that this MAY have been a contributing factor in our case.

I have no interest in your particular background, other than your ability to do the job. I think you did quite well considering your admitted youth and lack of experience. However, in order to dispell those concerns, I'd like to know if there were more homosexuals in the Arlington office than would be representative of the country as a whole.

Call me names, if you must. But, I am 100% dedicated to fairness and to Ron Paul, and hiring some people over others based on certain characteristics that have nothing to do with their ability to the job would have been deadly to our efforts to take back the country, or even to build a movement.

Well, as you said, you are speculating based on a rumor. I don't really know what else to say...

I don't mean what I'm about to say as a critique of anyone in particular, but I have found it funny sometimes how we talk about the rest of the country as "sheeple", but then we're willing to believe whatever rumor comes along, regardless of evidence. Rather than picking up the phone and finding out more, or sending an email... people air grievances on these forums. As I said before, I'm of the mindset that this just polarizes the group, takes us away from the tasks at hand, and does more harm than good.

 

[SteveMartin]

Just answer the question, or don't answer it, Jonathan.

We have a right to know.

Look, were this rumor true, it might have had the potential to impinge mightily on our ability to reach out to the "Christian Conservative" base of the Republican Party. Without taking a share of that base, you simply can not win the Republican nomination.

I was one of the people who applied to work for the campaign early on. I would like to think that my application was given a fair hearing regardless of may age (47) or sexual preference (straight). I never complained when I never heard a thing after repeated inquiries, I just continued to work my tail off for Dr. Paul, and had many successes to show for it here in Maine, as well. Many like me have reported similar experiences...many who have been in the patriot movement for decades.

Many people in the grassroots--experienced, top-notch people in their fields with glowing credentials or resumes--offered their services at little or no charge in a variety of areas, or filed applications to work for the campaign. They were all routinely (and sometimes rudely) rebuffed. Hard to feel the GR ever acheived any real respect at all from many at HQ, and this may have led to many other unfortunate results for the entire movement.

 

[JS4Pat]

It's a good point, and definitely one that in hindsight we should have targeted earlier (having more surrogates, if not necessarily "cabinet members"). All that said, it's also based on the assumption that people in the media would care. In my experience, the press were fine with having Ron on, but they would rarely be willing to take surrogates, no matter what the qualifications.

Along these same lines...

Have you read Lee Iacocca's "Where Have All the Leaders Gone"? In the first few chapters he assess what we need in a president and I swear it sounded as though he was building up for a Ron Paul endorsement. So much so, that a business leader and Ron Paul supporter in my area called and spoke with someone from Lee Iacocca's office about it. Their response - he would need to see who Ron Paul would surround himself with (his cabinet) first. Iacocca believes that a big part of assessing a person's ability to lead is assessing his team.

Sooo...
This RP supporter called HQs and recomended to the campaign that they look into doing that. Never heard anything further. I know the campaign gets a lot of suggestions (I've worked at a national presidential campaign HQs), but this was a supporter who maxed out his donations last summer and did a LOT for this campaign. You would think it would warrant a follow-up call. (nothing)

This is the type of incident that makes me question the competency of those running the campaign and unfortunately the competency of Ron Paul when it comes to the ability to surround himself with the right people.

Any thoughts?

 

[pepperpete1]

Who would I need to contact at the campaign as it regards whether the proper papers that need to be filed in those states that allow a voter to write-in the name of their choice for president, are filed or going to be filed. I would hate to think that, because there may be someone at HQ, who does not think it would be time and money well spent, that they would NOT be filed. I CAN NOT BRING MYSELF TO VOTE FOR ANYONE BUT RON PAUL. I voted for him in the last election by writing his name in even though I knew it would not be counted. Now that he is a candidate, and maybe not a nominee, I want my vote to represent me, standing up and being counted as one who wants to see our constitution followed, to see the rest of our message implemented. I refuse to NOT vote. I feel the grassroots who busted their butts to help RP win the nomination should be allowed to have their votes count. I know you said that you felt he would not win with a write-in program, but the rest of the country should be able to see just where we really stand. A big effort to push this should be implemented.
There is a way to keep our write-in votes from being miscounted, it is a pain in the buttocks, but compared to the anguish we all felt when the MSM humiliated, ignored, and misreported Ron Paul, it would be a small thing.

 

[Dave]

But as I said before, you're right that we needed more visits to Iowa. And Ron has spoken many times on his reluctance... seems reasonable to me that that affected things more than we'd like to admit.

Bingo. Here are the number of days each candidate spent in Iowa and the % of votes they got here on Jan. 3:

76 Romney 25%
75 Huckabee 34%
43 McCain 13%
31 F. Thompson 13%
25 Hunter 0%
22 Giuliani 3%
20 Paul 10%

While time spent here doesn't necessarily result in victory (ask Tommy Thompson), it's nearly impossible to win here without a significant investment of time on the ground. Iowa staff and volunteers were frustrated by this. Also, a lot of momentum was lost after the Ames Straw Poll on August 11 when there was almost no staff left in Iowa. In hindsight, I wish I had stepped up more during this time or made more noise with HQ about it.

We knew too well that no candidate has ever finished below 3rd in Iowa and gone on to win their party's nomination. Was this universally understood? We wanted 1st-3rd SO MUCH so we could give the rest of America more courage to get on board. Ron Paul got 2nd in my precinct and I went to the post-caucus party all excited. Once we finished 5th here we knew we were sailing in uncharted waters. This whole campaign sailed in uncharted waters so we held out hope for a miracle but another 5th in NH just made the odds longer.

In short, we stumbled at the gate in Iowa and couldn't catch up to the pack.

Two clear lessons from my experience here:

1. Absolutely, positively nothing happens without leadership. The things we accomplished were a result of effective leadership. Failures either happened when leadership was lacking or the idea was simply bad. I'm proud of the times I provided meaningful leadership, and sorry for the times I didn't. We can all become better leaders.
2. There's a limit to what can be accomplished with inexperienced campaign volunteers (like me). Too many people thought posting signs, forwarding emails to their meetup, or making a new youtube was good enough. Too few were willing to do the hard work and make phone calls or work their precinct, actually engaging people in a positive manner about Ron Paul and the issues.

 

[amy31416]

Well, as you said, you are speculating based on a rumor. I don't really know what else to say...

Just move along Jonathan, Steve is the major player who promoted the whole "Billionaire" scam that diverted our attention from what we should have been focusing on.

He did that by speculating based upon a rumor as well. Now he has, if you haven't read, us speculating that Ron Paul will be in Borat II, it just gets zanier and zanier! Whoopee!

 

[The Lantern]

Question for Don

Don,

I had asked this question of Jonathan, but I would like your opinion as well. Thanks.

Jonathan.

Can you enlighten us on the internal debate over accepting matching funds. I personally check the little box on my income tax return to fund this program. I would have liked to have seen the campaign take the money. As near as I can figure out from the widgets and the transparency of your fundraising Dr. Paul probably qualified for $14-$16 Million. Is this figure accurate?

I can understand why Dr. Paul might not want to accept the money, but what I cannot understand is why did the campaign not hold a press conference? It would seem to me that you could have announced a press conference several days in advance with the subject being Dr. Paul's matching $14 Million. The press would have salivated for a few days about the prospect of the campaign having access to millions. Then when the whole world was watching, Dr. Paul could explain why he was not going to accept stolen money from the treasury. I think the impact of this would have been astronomical. Especially before some of the early primaries.

Anyway, thank you for the wonderful job you did for the movement. I will be looking forward to reading about you in the future.

 

[SteveMartin]

Dave,

Vote fraud also happened at Ames. That's why we should not have dissed Jim Condit and his folks who offered to help verify the count FOR FREE.

Typical of what I have been talking about...the whole "We don't need help from anybody/We know best" attitude that characterized some at Arlington HQ.