Msg from Jonathan Bydlak -- willing to answer questions

[yongrel]

Once again, thank you for your answers Jonathan.

 

[Banana]

Once again, thank you for your answers Jonathan.

+1, especially after that dip on last page! Nice to see someone coming back even after getting punched around.

 

[FreeTraveler]

What appeal could the message have on our military should they be ordered to act unconstitutionally? Something tells me most of them are not aware of, or are given a perverted interpretation of what the Constitutiom means.

They are already acting unconstitutionally, and that's never even mentioned. They are participating in an unconstitional war in Iraq. They seem to have no trouble killing civilians in an undeclared action; I have no doubt there would be little difference if the civilians were in this country.

 

[Akus]

Yes, Akus, actually everyone in the campaign pretty much understood that. You weren't alone. But I don't know why that matters. That's why you need to work to elect other people who have views similar to Ron. And that's why you should start by taking responsibility and reclaim your local party apparatus, so in the future, people at the next level, and then the next level, etc. will be able to be elected with good beliefs.



The point, Akus, is that you are not just campaigning for Ron Paul, per se. You are campaigning for the ideas that Ron Paul stands for. You are campaigning to lay the groundwork for future candidates.


Blah blah blah it's for the kids....[Whitney Houston]I believe the children are our fuuuttuuuuuureee[/Whitney Houston]

John, you are clueless about what I was saying and if everyone else in this campaign staff agrees with the above remark then they're clueless as well. Hell, even Ron Paul is apparently clueless if he thinks that. Take offense to this or don't. I am clearly talking to the wall here so I wash my hands....

 

[Tarzan]

But again, I would say that we need to take this upon ourselves to enact the changes that we desire. Look at the changes to platforms occurring around the country. Look at candidates like Jim Forsythe who are running for Congress now. Look at people who are getting involved in their local Republican party. Sorry to carp on this too much, but I feel that it's important to emphasize all of these things, because they are -- in my opinion -- what will determine the longevity and vitality of this movement.

My frustration with the *official campaign* has been largely due to the numerous lost opportunities. And those lost opportunities continue even now because of poor leadership. The Pennsylvania primary is coming up on April 22nd and the campaign has called for RP supporters to become delegates… but, the *official campaign* will not be paying for sample ballots… sample ballots that they think are critical to this process.

I think there are numerous reasons for the poor performance of the *official campaign* and there appears to be an overriding concept responsible for many of the problems. It is the notion that this *movement" should be a grassroots effort without centralized control or direction.

The problem is that that notion has no place in reality or history. History is replete with lessons on taking and achieving power. To my knowledge no *grassroots* effort has ever achieved such a goal. While some grassroots efforts have started such an effort, it has always morphed into a hierarchical system with good leadership to achieve their ends. If you believe that the McGovern campaign was such an example you need to check the historic facts. He lost "big time" (to Nixon, I might add) and it was a grassroots looking for a leader, not the converse, and their chosen leadership failed them. If you review the actual history of the time you will find this is not a shining example of a grassroots success. Instead, it is a good reverse lesson.

The problem is the concept and we will not be successful until we realize that we must change this concept to be successful. That such a movement (to take political power) does require leadership and a degree of centralization. History and human nature have shown this to be true time and time again. This is where the *official campaign* has failed miserably.

At this critical juncture we need a leader or at least a figure head to serve as our rallying point. Ron Paul is not providing what this movement needs. He has all but left the field at a critical juncture. With proper guidance and support congressional campaigns would be much easier to support and win during this election cycle. Instead, a large number of Ron Paul supporters have followed him and left the field. If RP were to step forward and explain the reasons for continuing this effort to obtain delegates I believe the number of supporters would continue to grow and financial contributions would continue. Instead, we get vague generalities with little or no (mostly no) support from the official campaign.

If RP were to let people know the plan... such as,

continue the effort and get delegates... and, while you are doing so, take over your local and state GOP to help us with the next election in two years... support candidates for congress during this election who will support the Constitution (here is a list)... we need the grassroots to achieve these goals and here is how you become a delegate in your state (to verbose links)... sign up on the official website so we can send you ongoing information… and, I personally will be creating a leadership core to help nurture grassroots leaders so this movement will continue into the future

Well... we never got any such thing... just a bunch of generalities with no specific plans or support for carrying out the needed actions.

I will stop now so this does not become too long. The real issue to me is the basic concept and mind set which you appear to continue to share... that centralization is bad and this must be achieved through the grassroots. There is no polite way to say this... you are just wrong. Until this false premise can be overcome neither the official campaign nor you personally will achieve success in this type of endeavor.

There is no question from me... the point of this post is that the *official campaign* has, and continues, to fail on many levels. Your adherance to a failed concept is the real point of this thread. Instead of "trying to explain things" in this thread you should be doing some serious self examination to understand why this campaign has failed... instead of doing circle explanations and justifications of the professional and personal failures.

 

[Tarzan]

...

 

[JonathanBydlak]

My frustration with the *official campaign* has been largely due to the numerous lost opportunities. And those lost opportunities continue even now because of poor leadership. The Pennsylvania primary is coming up on April 22nd and the campaign has called for RP supporters to become delegates… but, the *official campaign* will not be paying for sample ballots… sample ballots that they think are critical to this process.

I think there are numerous reasons for the poor performance of the *official campaign* and there appears to be an overriding concept responsible for many of the problems. It is the notion that this *movement" should be a grassroots effort without centralized control or direction.

The problem is that that notion has no place in reality or history. History is replete with lessons on taking and achieving power. To my knowledge no *grassroots* effort has ever achieved such a goal. While some grassroots efforts have started such an effort, it has always morphed into a hierarchical system with good leadership to achieve their ends. If you believe that the McGovern campaign was such an example you need to check the historic facts. He lost "big time" (to Nixon, I might add) and it was a grassroots looking for a leader, not the converse, and their chosen leadership failed them. If you review the actual history of the time you will find this is not a shining example of a grassroots success. Instead, it is a good reverse lesson.

The problem is the concept and we will not be successful until we realize that we must change this concept to be successful. That such a movement (to take political power) does require leadership and a degree of centralization. History and human nature have shown this to be true time and time again. This is where the *official campaign* has failed miserably.

At this critical juncture we need a leader or at least a figure head to serve as our rallying point. Ron Paul is not providing what this movement needs. He has all but left the field at a critical juncture. With proper guidance and support congressional campaigns would be much easier to support and win during this election cycle. Instead, a large number of Ron Paul supporters have followed him and left the field. If RP were to step forward and explain the reasons for continuing this effort to obtain delegates I believe the number of supporters would continue to grow and financial contributions would continue. Instead, we get vague generalities with little or no (mostly no) support from the official campaign.

If RP were to let people know the plan... such as,


Well... we never got any such thing... just a bunch of generalities with no specific plans or support for carrying out the needed actions.

I will stop now so this does not become too long. The real issue to me is the basic concept and mind set which you appear to continue to share... that centralization is bad and this must be achieved through the grassroots. There is no polite way to say this... you are just wrong. Until this false premise can be overcome neither the official campaign nor you personally will achieve success in this type of endeavor.

Tarzan, I get your frustration... you want centralization, but good luck getting it. Ron Paul is the wrong candidate for you if this is what you want.

I'm not telling you to get involved locally because I believe that is the ONLY way this movement can happen, or because I even believe it is sufficient by itself. I'm telling you that because within the set of options currently available, that is the best way to advance our movement.

 

[pepperpete1]

At this critical juncture we need a leader or at least a figure head to serve as our rallying point. Ron Paul is not providing what this movement needs. He has all but left the field at a critical juncture. With proper guidance and support congressional campaigns would be much easier to support and win during this election cycle.

Amen and hallalujah!

 

[JonathanBydlak]

John, you are clueless about what I was saying and if everyone else in this campaign staff agrees with the above remark then they're clueless as well. Hell, even Ron Paul is apparently clueless if he thinks that. Take offense to this or don't. I am clearly talking to the wall here so I wash my hands....

Akus, I'm not taking offense. And I'm not saying that I disagree with anything you're saying. But what I am telling you is that if you don't do what I've described, then you're going to find your options limited in the near to medium term. As I just said in another post, grassroots organization is not sufficient, but to accomplish what we wish, it is necessary.

If you choose not to be involved in the field, then it's your loss, really.

 

[JonathanBydlak]

...

And by the way, you're crazy if you don't think those within the campaign don't know these things that you're saying.

People do, but that doesn't mean that it will occur.

 

[Banana]

I kind of have to side with Jonathan here- POTUS is supposed to be an administrator, not the kind of state, and ideally (at least in my little world) POTUS election should be more mechanical, not the high point, because everything is done at local level, not at federal level.

But unfortunately, it's built in human nature to want a leader to rally around even if our ultimate message is to have no leader at all. Sometime I wished we had the luxury of crown only to disperse all the needs of figurehead and leave the details to politics as British people does (though I have my doubts now and then).

 

[squandertime]

i think we need a part 2 thread ........

 

[Tarzan]

And by the way, you're crazy if you don't think those within the campaign don't know these things that you're saying.

People do, but that doesn't mean that it will occur.

OK... then some blunt questions.

1. If you guys know this stuff why were you not doing anything about it?
2. Is Ron Paul the problem?
3. Who is the problem?
4. Why is there no new information on Ron Paul's PAC sites?
5. Why has their been no planning for the "next step" in this movement?
6. Why did you have a "training" session with Justine telling the participants that a "top down" campaign does not work if you think otherwise?

 

[JS4Pat]

People on the campaign were some of the most talented I've ever been exposed to... all good at what they do, and all wanting to do more if given the chance. What is it going to take for people on these forums to understand that? Why do so many of you play this collectivist game of grouping people into HQ and "grassroots" and then assuming everyone in the former group are incompetent/undedicated/etc.?

Why?

RESULTS!

Look at the results of the Grassroots efforts and look at the results of the HQs effort!

Given those results it is perfectly reasonable to place the "FAILURE" label on HQs and the "SUCCESS" label on The Grassroots.

We "The Grassroots" gave you "HQs" the money to do more.

You as "HQs" did less with more while we as "The Grassroots" did more with less.

You should be explaining and aplogizing on this thread - not requesting praise!

 

[Aratus]

What if the grassroots efforts from the caucus level on up is soon to have 1/5 to 1/3 the delegates
at the convention placing planks in front of the viewer audiance that are compatable with nearly all
Ron Paul's ideals. Is this 11th hour "save" by HQ & grassroots now possibly redemptive? If 2008 is
a dress rehearsal for 2012, then none of this was a total abysmal failure! Insted i think its almost
the total opposite. McCain's focus right now is the NOVEMBER election, rather than delegate selection!

 

[acptulsa]

If I understood Mr. Bydlak correctly, Dr. Paul is a man who is comfortable with his place and comfortable with his place in history, and was drafted by us both because and in spite of the fact that he already has a job and takes it very, very seriously. This movement is far bigger than Dr. Paul and I am not belittling the man I waited twenty years to vote for a second time, but merely talking about how big and important the purpose of this movement truly is.

No doubt it would be nice to have someone--preferably Dr. Paul--stand up like Moses with the voice of God in his mouth and lead us to the Promised Land, but I fear that this motley collection of grassroots will have to continue to continue.

Now that we've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that we can, I really, really don't know why we wouldn't.

 

[wgadget]

My frustration with the *official campaign* has been largely due to the numerous lost opportunities. And those lost opportunities continue even now because of poor leadership. The Pennsylvania primary is coming up on April 22nd and the campaign has called for RP supporters to become delegates… but, the *official campaign* will not be paying for sample ballots… sample ballots that they think are critical to this process.

I think there are numerous reasons for the poor performance of the *official campaign* and there appears to be an overriding concept responsible for many of the problems. It is the notion that this *movement" should be a grassroots effort without centralized control or direction.

The problem is that that notion has no place in reality or history. History is replete with lessons on taking and achieving power. To my knowledge no *grassroots* effort has ever achieved such a goal. While some grassroots efforts have started such an effort, it has always morphed into a hierarchical system with good leadership to achieve their ends. If you believe that the McGovern campaign was such an example you need to check the historic facts. He lost "big time" (to Nixon, I might add) and it was a grassroots looking for a leader, not the converse, and their chosen leadership failed them. If you review the actual history of the time you will find this is not a shining example of a grassroots success. Instead, it is a good reverse lesson.

The problem is the concept and we will not be successful until we realize that we must change this concept to be successful. That such a movement (to take political power) does require leadership and a degree of centralization. History and human nature have shown this to be true time and time again. This is where the *official campaign* has failed miserably.

At this critical juncture we need a leader or at least a figure head to serve as our rallying point. Ron Paul is not providing what this movement needs. He has all but left the field at a critical juncture. With proper guidance and support congressional campaigns would be much easier to support and win during this election cycle. Instead, a large number of Ron Paul supporters have followed him and left the field. If RP were to step forward and explain the reasons for continuing this effort to obtain delegates I believe the number of supporters would continue to grow and financial contributions would continue. Instead, we get vague generalities with little or no (mostly no) support from the official campaign.

If RP were to let people know the plan... such as,


Well... we never got any such thing... just a bunch of generalities with no specific plans or support for carrying out the needed actions.

I will stop now so this does not become too long. The real issue to me is the basic concept and mind set which you appear to continue to share... that centralization is bad and this must be achieved through the grassroots. There is no polite way to say this... you are just wrong. Until this false premise can be overcome neither the official campaign nor you personally will achieve success in this type of endeavor.

There is no question from me... the point of this post is that the *official campaign* has, and continues, to fail on many levels. Your adherance to a failed concept is the real point of this thread. Instead of "trying to explain things" in this thread you should be doing some serious self examination to understand why this campaign has failed... instead of doing circle explanations and justifications of the professional and personal failures.

Today, while reading the newspaper, I ran across a Dr. Joyce Brothers column about what a real LEADER is. It was in the form of a true or false quiz, but I'll just skip down to the answers.

I believe Ron Paul is the ultimate leader possible. He is Leader Supreme, especially if you compare him to these traits outlined by Dr. Brothers.

It used to be thought that a leader and a manager were one in the same; in other words, all a "leader" had to do was make sure the group met some stated goals related to productivity or sales, or other corporate measurements of success. The terms were interchangeable. Now people are more aware that leadership is a force that can inspire, motivate and focus the energy of a number of voluntary followers.

Each group is different, and one-size-fits-all leadership traits no longer are sufficient. Understanding what the group is all about seems to be a newly recognized key to success in being accepted as a leader, whether it be in politics or business. The would-be leader needs to know what is important to the group, what characteristics it holds dear, and then try to mold himself to reflect the same values his followers exhibit.

Crises not only inspire people to leadership, they also inspire followers to look for and put their faith in certain leaders. The uncertainties and fears of a nation in crisis cause people to turn to others for security, direction and hope. This is where leaders with the characteristics of self-confidence, calmness and decisiveness emerge to be a focus of the people's needs for guidance.

Actually, a rebellious nature is a good basis for leadership. One of the best ways to inspire followers is to advocate for change, and that usually is something that requires one to think outside the box and to be brave enough to challenge authority. Those who are afraid to challenge the rules, or who won't behave in a way that will risk rejection, are generally not thought of as great leaders.

It is actually possible to exhibit leadership qualities if you work or operate by yourself, with no responsibility for being in charge and with no employees to manage under you. In other words, you can develop your abilities, attitudes and knowledge without bossing anyone around.

There sometimes is little correlation between the length of time the senior executive or official has been on the job and the leadership he or she exerts on an organization. When a person touts his experience as a way of becoming known as a leader, he can count on a certain number of people to follow him who believe that enough practice at something makes one an expert. However, it won't convince those who are looking for courage, flexibility and change as important aspects of leadership.

Leaders come in all personality types, and being loud isn't a prerequisite, although it might serve to get you noticed. Mahatma Gandhi was not loud and aggressive; neither was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., but their widespread influence is beyond question. Traits that matter more seem to be honesty, sincerity and unwavering dedication to a set of goals or principles. Passion comes in all kinds of packages.

If you were able to answer five of the seven questions correctly, you will recognize a leader when you see one -- or perhaps even be inspired to lead others yourself.

 

[sunny]

help please jonathan...

jonathan,
can you get this information to dr. paul. i know it is off topic but it requires immediate attention.
Please! when you read it, you will understand!

EVERYONE ELSE - JUMP IN AND HELP SHERRY PEEL JACKSON!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This came to from: "AFTF Maine" <[email protected]>

http://www.sherrypeeljackson.com - dr. paul knows this lady!

IRS/DOJ Railroad/Kidnap Victim "Sherry Jackson" is SICK in an Atlanta Prison

Dear Friend of Sherry Jackson,

Sherry is an inmate in the Atlanta detention center. She has become ill because of the conditions in the jail. She has been placed on antibiotics because of a high fever and severe chest congestion.

The problem is two fold.

First, the building temperature is generally 50 degrees and the air conditioner is used constantly, causing freezing temperatures. Inmates are not allowed to have more than 2 paper- thin blankets.

Secondly, due to greed, the inmates are being fed food with zero nutritional value, which
violates national health standards. The inmates are served bologna that is more colorful than the paint section at Home Depot. The juice served should be 100%, instead, the juice is served without the ingredients listed from bags which look like plasma bags. The trays often have dead roaches on them.

Please bombard Chief Frank Seizer @ 404-885-8000 or the person in charge when he is absent, in order to plead with him to turn off the air conditioner when the temperature outside is 50 degrees of below and to serve food according to the guidelines of the national health institute.

Sherry mentioned that while listening to a radio broadcast it was indicated that the temperature outside was 43 degrees, she witness a bone chilling breeze from the jails air conditioning system.

Sherry is located on the 4th floor in downtown Atlanta.

The wind chill factors make it extremely cold. Sherry had begged the officers to turn off the air conditioner, but no one seems to care. She realizes the low temperature reduce the incidents of air borne diseases such as tuberculosis, however this is extreme cold.

She also realizes that her body can't fight disease without proper nutrition.

Additionally, if you write Sherry, put a return address on your letter or it will be thrown in the trash.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Oh Bradley, I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you, but the idea that you wanted $10,000 for a GOTV drive, rather than to line your own pockets is laughable. You can peddle this story, but I've seen your e-mail correspondence. Sure, this will just be a game of your word against mine, but don't think that your motivations aren't known by others who have seen them first hand.

It's too bad that so many people on here trust what you have to say.

And I think that it's funny that your vanity leads you think there's some sort of official "campaign of lies against you." Trust me Bradley, you aren't that important -- no one really cared. Our main goal was to protect Dr. Paul and our donors from people who desired to harm or take advantage of him, either intentionally or unwittingly. Perhaps someday people will come to realize that you damaged Ron Paul more than you helped him. And no number of forums posts will ever change that.

Hi Jonathan,

You started a thread saying you'd take questions.

I asked, and repeat, did you ever hear official campaign staff say I was fired from the Congressional office?

You ignore that question of the official campaign staff lying about me and repeat other lies (eg, I didn't collect a single signature for ballot petitioning so how did the "few" I collect almost cost Dr. Paul his place on the ballot?)

After organizing the DC grassroots for Dr. Paul from long before these forums or you came on board, yes, I asked for $10,000--and that was for GOTV: I was NOT interested in taking responsibility, ie getting paid, for just ballot access when the campaign wouldn't share supporter info with us. You were not party to about a dozen phone conversations that day between me and McHugh.

Funny, my damage to Dr. Paul: had lunch today with the Congressional staff and you know I stayed close to Dr. Paul's long-time political machine in Lake Jackson. The consensus among us (and many long-time donors and supporters) is the Arlington staff were the ones who did the damage. Congressional staff, RP Texas associates, grassroots, et al., yeah, we're all wrong...I think you're confusing harm to staffers who squandered $35 million v. harm to Dr. Paul and those with long-time and continuing ties to him (unlike Arlington).

 

[amy31416]

If I understood Mr. Bydlak correctly, Dr. Paul is a man who is comfortable with his place and comfortable with his place in history, and was drafted by us both because and in spite of the fact that he already has a job and takes it very, very seriously. This movement is far bigger than Dr. Paul and I am not belittling the man I waited twenty years to vote for a second time, but merely talking about how big and important the purpose of this movement truly is.

No doubt it would be nice to have someone--preferably Dr. Paul--stand up like Moses with the voice of God in his mouth and lead us to the Promised Land, but I fear that this motley collection of grassroots will have to continue to continue.

Now that we've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that we can, I really, really don't know why we wouldn't.

Very well put. While there will never be another Ron Paul, when you think about it from the perspective that he is not a power-hungry individual-he's a statesman. I think that the established and informed grassroots was success beyond his wildest dreams.

So, I think it's great that Jonathan is here to answer questions so we can learn about the mistakes and the successes from their point of view, rather than just ours. So then in four years, we'll be much better positioned to get some real change, which seems like forever in this day of instant gratification.

Remember the story, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: "A republic, if you can keep it."

This is our opportunity to keep it.