Msg from Jonathan Bydlak -- willing to answer questions

[constituent]

Or to put it plainly and simply: the "presidential campaign" was an outright FRAUD all along, designed to raise funds for other uses.


Sickening.

hmmmm.... so let's remove "outright fraud" and say

"the presidential campaign was designed (primarily) to raise funds for other uses."

jonathan,

would that modified statement be way off-base?

 

[acptulsa]

6.) I believe very strongly the things that I said in those interviews. I do not believe that this is a black or white issue... centralization vs. decentralization. Such is the nature of libertarianism, I guess.

Quoted totally out of context, but works for me...

Neocons are a tight-lipped tight ship full of team players. Libertarians are a herd of cats. But cats are smart and, as is the nature of a cat, very motivated to act because they don't act at all unless in self-interest.

If we can get cats to act at all like a team, the world is ours. But to achieve that, a "central power" would have to follow the advice of the rock song and "hold on loosely". This not only keeps the cats from getting upset but gives them room to work their magic.

 

[JonathanBydlak]

Thanks space... I hope I did not come off as if I was looking for an apology because that was not my intent. I was hoping for a real evaluation as to where we have failed and how we could have done better. Not the blame game, but a realistic, business type assessment so we could address those issues to achieve more positive results from this point.

Like you, there are some questions to which I would really like answers... to help recognize the issues, address them, and proceed from here. Instead it seems we are getting the same circular non-answers and promises of secret plans yet to be unveiled.

Jonathan; I appreciate that some of the tough questions are difficult for you to answer. But, I hope there is not a home version of this game... if there is, please do not send me one as a parting gift for playing. I am dealing with enough frustration already.

So, good luck to us all, but enough of this thread for me.

ps... space, your dad-in-law sounds like an interesting fellow... and I agree that the presidency is not the "be all end all"... our real chance or restoring the constitution to government is through congressional representatives and I have been doing what I can to help in that regards... (too bad we are not getting any logistical support from... oh, say a national campaign)

Tarzan, I do not want to give "circular non-answers." Believe me, if I didn't want people to better understand things, I would not be here. But as I said in my initial post, I am not here to speak ill of individuals either on staff or in the grassroots. That was not the point of this thread, and I will hold myself to that.

You're welcome to ask me more specific questions, and I'll do the best that I can.

 

[JonathanBydlak]

hmmmm.... so let's remove "outright fraud" and say

"the presidential campaign was designed (primarily) to raise funds for other uses."

jonathan,

would that modified statement be way off-base?

Yes, to my knowledge, that statement would be way off base. The PCC was not formed to raise money for "other purposes." You form a presidential campaign to win a presidential election.

Remember that virtually no one thought the campaign could or would raise as money for the presidential campaign as it did. So this idea that it was a fraud is pretty ridiculous to me... any fraud requires intent to mislead, but it you don't think you can raise much money in the first place, then it can't really be fraud.

I know for a fact that there was a huge desire to win this race, and a belief that this election provided a unique opportunity for Ron's message to shine. I very much felt that way myself.

Of course, as I said earlier, there are differing shades of "wanting to win," and I don't fault anyone for being frustrated for feeling that that will was not 100%. Hah, I feel that way myself.

 

[Banana]

Jon-

Do you have any opinion on Dr. Steve Parent? Do you feel he has helped or hurt the delegate process in general?

 

[JonathanBydlak]

Jon-

Do you have any opinion on Dr. Steve Parent? Do you feel he has helped or hurt the delegate process in general?

Heard the name, but don't know anything about him.

 

[constituent]

Yes, to my knowledge, that statement would be way off base. The PCC was not formed to raise money for "other purposes." You form a presidential campaign to win a presidential election.

agreed.

in your opinion, was dr. paul (100%) in it to win?

perhaps some days more than others?

or was it more, as some have suggested, an issue of tilting against windmills (in the good dr.'s mind, that is)?

and i'm just asking for your opinion as a person, not as a campaign rep. feel free to pm.

 

[SteveMartin]

Jonathan,

Why, exactly, did the campaign object so vehemently to grassroots people working with various independent groups that were trying to verify the vote count at the Ames Straw Poll, the Iowa Caucuses, and in NH? I mean, to the point of even putting out memos and letters saying RP supporters should stay away from these groups, stop calling for recounts, etc.

Some of the folks in these voter verification-focused groups are some of the best and most educated patriots in the country.

Do you think RP was advised of the fact that such negative stances towards these groups were being assumed by his campaign? Is it possible he even ordered the staff to ignore them and to have the grassroots ignore them?

 

[WRellim]

Yes, to my knowledge, that statement would be way off base. The PCC was not formed to raise money for "other purposes." You form a presidential campaign to win a presidential election.

But as you have stated in a previous post, "you could not speak to that as you weren't present when the PCC was formed" (my paraphrase because I'm too lazy to find the post to quote... but essentially that).

Yet here you are "speaking to that" AS IF you were present.

I state my proposition that it was "inherently fraudulent" as my OPINION and a SUPPOSITION; yours is really just an alternate supposition. Mine is based on decades in working with people in business and witnessing people with "multiple mixed motivations" as well as watching people be suckered in by con-artists, consultants, pyramid schemes and MLM lingo (which the RP campaign features in spades -- especially since January). Yours is... well, trusting, loyal, etc... which I suppose is to be expected of someone who is just 24 and still borderline at the idealistic, "hero-worshiping" stage of life.


End Result: What the campaign DOES with the remaining cash will prove the final piece of evidence as to which speculative opinion is true (the squandering, the poorly run campaign, and the latter complete INACTION and the "UN-CAMPAIGN" (tm)... are IMHO, sufficient evidence already to weigh towards the "other purposes" aspect.)

Remember that virtually no one thought the campaign could or would raise as money for the presidential campaign as it did.

If you mean no one "on staff" thought that -- well, then it is fairly obvious that there was NO plan in place for effectively campaigning and to properly utilize such an amount of cash. The maintaining of a virtual constant balance of $5 Million points towards a desire to "hold on" to that amount for later other purposes once it was raised. And the de facto suspension of the campaign once the balance reached down to that level is also indicatory.

BTW, you are quite wrong to state that "NO ONE" that believed the campaign could raise that kind of cash -- again you are forgetting the phone discussion we had concerning "fundraising, goals, and feedback" that we had in mid-September (and for which I am now chastising myself severely ...more for the advice than the $1K donation I made).

But indeed, had the campaign been PROPERLY RUN... the total raised COULD have been much, MUCH higher... even a 2nd or 3rd place in New Hampshire, and some REAL ADVERTISING in later states would have led to a significant INCREASE of donations. A good showing in post NH and the campaign probably could have reached the "magical" $100 Million you all think was necessary precursor to win (but, sadly, even with $100 M this campaign staff would have still ended up in nowhere-land, just as they did with $32 M -- BTW, McCain won with far less, and Huckabee far outpaced with only a fraction... why?)

As to where that additional money could have come from? Well, I personally had 3, probably 4, and possibly 6 ...all additional potential 2300 club people on the line ...all "really liking Ron Paul" and even leaning towards donating, but anxiously waiting ...to see if the campaign was COMPETENT and could achieve any results from the 4Q $20M ...if the campaign had achieved even a 2nd or 3rd and NOT "fizzled-out" in NH, then they would have donated, and each of them could have likely brought several MORE donors as well... and as my personal household (go lookup Zip 53121) already contains TWO 2300 club members, I'm NOT just blowing smoke.

So this idea that it was a fraud is pretty ridiculous to me... any fraud requires intent to mislead, but it you don't think you can raise much money in the first place, then it can't really be fraud.

BAH. If your "trial balloon" goal was, for "other purposes", to raise a few million -- if possible (say $5 Million or so?) -- and then to your "surprise" you raised $20 Million, blew $15 M (keeping up the pretense) and ended up with the original goal of a cool $5 M... then that would still be problematic.

The fraud is in continuing to raise money for a purpose when you have NO effective plans to spend the money FOR that purpose. Of THAT, the campaign is UTTERLY GUILTY since the day after the New Hampshire primary (as of the end of Feb, essentially every dollar raised in 2008 has NOT been spent on ANY actual "campaigning"). The "winding down" and the "scaling back" of the campaign instead of going ALL OUT in a particular state is significant proof of another agenda, an "other purpose" than the one for which the funds were raised.

I know for a fact that there was a huge desire to win this race, and a belief that this election provided a unique opportunity for Ron's message to shine. I very much felt that way myself.

Certainly, but again as you have stated in previous posts, despite your "title" you were really not privy to a LOT of information (for example "strategy sessions"; expenses; what, how, when advertising was purchased, etc. -- again, I'm too lazy to go dig the quotes up). So really, even though you were at HQ, you were as much a "hired hand" and an "outsider" there as everyone out here is just a "clueless volunteer," and your statements are as much supposition as those of anyone else (with yours being based mainly on the warm "fuzzies" and loyalties to coworkers and friends).

Of course, as I said earlier, there are differing shades of "wanting to win," and I don't fault anyone for being frustrated for feeling that that will was not 100%. Hah, I feel that way myself.

And to paraphrase Clinton, it depends on what your definition of "win" is...


If the REAL "differing shade" goal of the campaign leadership was to raise a cool $5 M or thereabouts to finance some "entity" well, then I guess the whole campaign WAS a resounding success... "Mission Accomplished" and "Heckuva Job Brownie!"

 

[Aratus]

simple question...

did john mccain's bass~ackwards campaign of media blitzing like a drunken sailor
all over the summer months and then glad handing in an "aw shucks' mode get him
the votes he needed in new hampshire? had he spent the monies in reverse, would
he have looked so honest? as it is, my local airwaves were over-saturated with mitt
romney's matinee idol good looks. people keep on saying that they think he is
fortysomething or 50 years of age, and he's actually sixty. same age as ms. hillary...

 

[New York For Paul]

I don't know how a finance director could do his job without being privy to the strategy session. One way to raise money from large donors is too provide insider type information to the donors. People want to know what is going on before they donate.

Being privy to some plans could help you draft better arguments for donors as to why they should give money to the campaign.

Finance and the health of the campaign are intricately linked.

 

[Aratus]

mccain is from arizona. mitt was our governor, i'm a baystater.
ron paul and john mccain aren't next door neighbors to the N.H
voters, and they tend to TRADITIONALLY detest new taxes...
ron paul's message about the federal income tax has receptive ears!!!
so how did mccain pull a win off after his fall slump? gladhanding???

 

[WRellim]

RE: Steve G Parent (aka SGP)

Heard the name, but don't know anything about him.

Former Democrat who thinks the GOP delegate process is identical to the Dems, is apparently pretty knowledgeable about Missouri politics (don't know as I'm not from there) and that's states caucus processes... and utterly clueless about the rest of the country (because I *DO* know the processes in several other states, and his info is alternatively worthless or counterproductive to efforts in those states).

Also, IMHO, SGP is the person (mole?) who is single-handedly providing the wedge that is being used to divide, factionalize, and disperse the movement. Kool-Aid drinkers are using it to maintain their delusion of a "Ron Paul WIN" and as an unfortunate side effect, are driving off the remaining "sane" supporters, making RP supporters anathema to local GOP parties, and causing splits and factions in meetup groups around the nation (end result, squandering the "movement" as well, so much for the long term... oh well, inevitable result of taking "decentralization" too far).




On that last, "decentralization" I have one (quite serious) question for you Jon:

If you are so AGAINST "centralization" then WHY on earth work so hard to centralize the DONATIONS to the campaign itself? (Why not instead help promote fundraising to various decentralized "grassroots" efforts?)


Can't have your cake and eat it at the same time.




.

 

[spacehabitats]

Hello Jonathan,

Just a couple of thoughts on the whole campaign:

1st I believe a very effective approach for Iowa(and everywhere else for that matter) would have been to put out an enticing commercial addressing the issues everyone is concerned about, and then at the very end put the place and time that Ron Paul will be in their vicinity. Then at the rallies, let Ron Paul talk and have tables to sign people up for campaigning and giving them instructions for caucusing and delegating for Ron Paul. This would have turned out results much faster, I believe.(as opposed to just advertising the rallies on the website only)

2nd Encouraging meet up groups to encourage meetup members to do presentations for Ron Paul at retirement and nursing homes. That older segment is typically the largest voting block and the media just wasn't seeming to connect them with Ron Paul.

3rd (not too late for this one) Acknowledging that this isn't over and explaining to those who have become delegates the necessity of getting on the platform and rules committees at the national convention and adding a definition for majority as "66% or more of the vote" when used in rule # 40. This way the floor will open for a second round of voting at the Republican National Convention. Also coordinating votes so all Ron Paul supporters will be voting for the same persons at their district and state conventions(there's nothing like running against your county meetup leader for county platform committee and winning =P).

(emphasis above was mine)

It looks like we Iowans think alike.
I hope JB answers your questions.
I would like to point out that the "rally" idea depended on there being rallies, of which there were woefully few in Iowa. (See my previous posts.) I think a similar strategy would STILL work in Nebraska prior to the primary in May.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=127868

But your point about the coordination of delegates is crucial. Even if Dr. Paul has given up on the idea of making a credible showing in the remaining primaries, it really is irrational not to support the delegates with some leadership.

My wife is a delegate to the Iowa 5th District GOP convention on the 19th (I'm an alternate). Right now our challenge is finding out who are the Ron Paul supporters so that we know who to vote for.
Not all of the RP supporters were part of meetup groups.
We are amateurs at this and we could use some guidance. (BTW, my wife made a deal with one of the party regulars who is campaigning for the state central committee to canvass for him so that she could get a hold of the district delegate list. She hopes to find out if any of them are RP supporters along the way.)

It is all well and good to ask for delegates to sign up, but it would really help for some people with experience to designate some type of leadership among the delegates and give them the resources to optimize our chances of becoming national delegates. (This isn't the no-brainer process that some of the self-appointed grassroot delegate "experts" would have you believe.) As far as I know, the national HQ hasn't even bothered to ask any of us to sign in to report our status as potential delegates.
Is this really the way it is supposed to work.

So Jon, now that victory "in a conventional sense" is out of reach, is the National HQ still excited about helping as many of us as possible get to the RNC?
Would it be a betrayal of some type of libertarian principle for them to help us navigate through this delegate maze?
(Oh, and the training video on the RP2008 site is fine but just scratches the surface, is too generic, and doesn't address the ongoing need for coordinated action within each district/state.)

 

[SteveMartin]

bump

 

[therealjjj77]

(emphasis above was mine)

It looks like we Iowans think alike.
I hope JB answers your questions.
I would like to point out that the "rally" idea depended on there being rallies, of which there were woefully few in Iowa. (See my previous posts.) I think a similar strategy would STILL work in Nebraska prior to the primary in May.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=127868

But your point about the coordination of delegates is crucial. Even if Dr. Paul has given up on the idea of making a credible showing in the remaining primaries, it really is irrational not to support the delegates with some leadership.

My wife is a delegate to the Iowa 5th District GOP convention on the 19th (I'm an alternate). Right now our challenge is finding out who are the Ron Paul supporters so that we know who to vote for.
Not all of the RP supporters were part of meetup groups.
We are amateurs at this and we could use some guidance. (BTW, my wife made a deal with one of the party regulars who is campaigning for the state central committee to canvass for him so that she could get a hold of the district delegate list. She hopes to find out if any of them are RP supporters along the way.)

It is all well and good to ask for delegates to sign up, but it would really help for some people with experience to designate some type of leadership among the delegates and give them the resources to optimize our chances of becoming national delegates. (This isn't the no-brainer process that some of the self-appointed grassroot delegate "experts" would have you believe.) As far as I know, the national HQ hasn't even bothered to ask any of us to sign in to report our status as potential delegates.
Is this really the way it is supposed to work.

So Jon, now that victory "in a conventional sense" is out of reach, is the National HQ still excited about helping as many of us as possible get to the RNC?
Would it be a betrayal of some type of libertarian principle for them to help us navigate through this delegate maze?
(Oh, and the training video on the RP2008 site is fine but just scratches the surface, is too generic, and doesn't address the ongoing need for coordinated action within each district/state.)

One thing that I am doing is I made a brochure that tells what I believe addressing the major republican issues within the republican mind frame. It also introduces me to the other delegates and asks them to vote for me at the district convention for one of the national delegate spots. Here's the issues part of it:

Life

One of the most basic and primary roles of government is to protect the innocent. This includes the life of an unborn child. I believe the right to life is one of the most basic inalienable rights and one of the most foundational elements a government is instituted among men to protect. I believe that life begins at conception and continues until death.

Defense and National Security

I believe that one of the other most basic roles that a government is instituted for is securing the innumerable rights of the governed from foreign and domestic attacks. I believe this requires having a well regulated militia in our own country and on our own borders as well as a well regulated navy and air force. Likewise, I believe that our government is not to take it’s directives from foreign organizations to protect those organizations’ interests.

Debt, Taxes, and the Economy

I believe that when our federal government engages in activities outside of the demands of the Constitution, then it will fail to maintain a balanced budget. I believe that providing for
the general Welfare is clearly defined and limited by the Constitution as to how Congress is to obtain this objective. I believe that charitable welfare is best left in the private sector where contributors and volunteers can regulate both the recipients and the administrators. I believe that “the government that governs least, is the government that governs best”(quote from Thomas Jefferson).

Firearms

I believe that the right of trained citizens to bear firearms secures a more safe society. I believe that any regulations placed on firearms or the acquiring of only limits law-abiding citizens from protecting their property and their family and does not prevent criminals, lunatics, and terrorists from acquiring and using firearms for illegal activities.

Marriage and Family(a big one for Iowans this election cycle)

I believe that holy matrimony was instituted by the Divine Creator and is defined as one male and one female being united as one(Mark 10). I believe that as “the Supreme Judge of the world”(as he is titled in the Declaration of Independence), his definition is a ruling that cannot be overturned or misconstrued by any judge of this land. I believe that good family values are the foundation for a functional society. I believe these values are best taught in the home.

Anyone can use this as an outline or general idea as long as they don't put theirs in the same order or use the same words.

In the brochure it also has a picture of me and talks about where I'm from, what I do, that I'm married and have a kid, etc.

 

[libertarian4321]

Or to put it plainly and simply: the "presidential campaign" was an outright FRAUD all along, designed to raise funds for other uses.

I think some of you folks just can't go a day without a new conspiracy theory- even if you have to make one up on the fly.

So, whats your conspiracy theory- Ron Paul "took our money" to:

1) Buy more black helicopters, you know the ones I'm talking about.

or

2) Drain our funds so we didn't have the power to get to the bottom of the 9-11 cover up (it had to be a government plot, right)?

or

3) Funnel the money directly to the CFR/Illuminati/International Bankers/Bilderbergs/(insert name of group of super-secret evil-doers who control the world here).

or

4) Spend it on hookers, crack, and a fleet of pimped-out Escalades.

 

[SteveMartin]

Whenever I read an asinine comment like that, I really thank my lucky stars I never became one of those STUPID LIBERTARIANS who really think that unmarked black helicopters don't exist (even though one was photographed hovering over my house and I saw it with my own eyes and it was reported in our local paper) or that 911 was done by a bunch of scrawny little Arabs with boxcutters, or that these groups that meet behind locked and barred doors guarded by machine-gun toting storm troopers are there to sip tea and eat crumpets, I want to puke.

(#4 on your list is stuff only promoted by godless Libertarians, so you get that one wrong too.)

 

[constituent]

Whenever I read an asinine comment like that, I really thank my lucky stars I never became one of those STUPID LIBERTARIANS ...

just thank your stars you're not from san antonio (it's the water i think... or maybe the radioactive military dirt everyone's built their neighborhoods on top of.

i'm not a big fan of the libertarian party, but it's not his libertarianism that's spouting off.

 

[SteveMartin]

There is definitely a "stupid (i.e. Cato) wing" of the Libertarian Party. No wonder Ron Paul could only stand to hang out with these people for that one year...