Msg from Jonathan Bydlak -- willing to answer questions

[JonathanBydlak]

I have to ask. Was there ever a secret billionaire or millionaire??

Umm, Mitt Romney?

Haha, not that I know of...

 

[JonathanBydlak]

Thanks for listening to us - were you ever on the grassroots conference calls - sorry if they got to heated - we were all just trying to help

No, I wasn't ever on those. Probably should have been.

 

[JonathanBydlak]

I totally understand all this and often found myself defending HQ when people would criticize the media staff for not responding to interview requests for big interview opportunities. And I know you handled fundraising and not media, but it's really hard to understand when you consider how many times Ron was available to go on shows such as Alex Jones.

Yeah, I understand that point. I actually was involved in a bunch of media things along the way, so I do have some insight about this.

Remember that Dr. Paul made a promise early in the campaign to go to Alex Jones frequently. Ron's not one to break promises, regardless of how politically expedient it may be to do so. That's why he's got the congressional record that he does, after all, despite the pressure others may have been putting on him.

 

[JonathanBydlak]

Is there any way you can describe the atmosphere/expectations around the office on November 4th? I think that would be interesting to hear.

Phew, man. I don't remember exactly, but I know we were all very excited. None of us really knew what to expect. I can remember personally saying that I'd be happy with $1 mil (always good to set expectation a bit low), but I think in reality I was expecting something more along the lines of $2 mil. So needless to say, I (and pretty much everyone else) was blown away!

I'll never forget the piece Wolf Blitzer did on November 5th or 6th.... "The Ron Paul campaign is claiming to have raised over $4 mil. We can't confirm that these are processed credit card checks." What a riot.

 

[JonathanBydlak]

Me too. I would like to know why the TV ads were so horrible when so much creative stuff was out here for the taking..
Thanks, as well. I know everyone is trying to do something every day.

Well, to summarize what I think I said to options trader earlier... keep in mind that TV ads look different on TV than on your computer. While I know that people weren't happy with the first NH ad, the number of phone calls and havoc that this wreaked at HQ was completely overwhelming. To be honest, I think it made a lot of people hesitant to be as open with our grassroots supporters as possible, because we couldn't handle having people turn on us like that again. In fact, we even had to put up our second TV ad much earlier than we wanted to, just to appease our supporters. We played that hand when we didn't think it was wise.

And again, sure, even stuff that's on YouTube was great, but was it 30 seconds or a minute long? How would it look on TV? And how much would we have to pay for it, because FEC regs don't allow campaigns to just "take" things like that.

 

[JonathanBydlak]

I'd also like to know what was going on on the 5th of November. I have a napkin from breakfast that morning where I was writing down numbers and times trying to get a projection and was almost crapping my pants. I thought it was going to slow down but it just kept going... best day of the campaign was watching that number go up that day...

Also, what is the reaction inside the campaign about all the conspiracy theorists? Was being constantly linked to 'extremist' groups a major concern as far as press goes? Was there any planning on how to deal with that without alienating supporters? To me, that seems like it would have been one of the harder parts to deal with...

Do you think they were prepared enough for the reaction and fundraising success, were there plans in place before for what they would do with X amount of money, or did they just fly by the seat of their pants when it all happened?

Was the main point of this to create a movement or to seriously run for president? I (and others) have been fighting on here about spreading the message, getting behind freedom candidates for congress, putting less emphasis on the Paul campaign (especially since the primary is over in my state), discouraging a 3rd party run, and people think I'm a traitor for it... but that is what I am interpreting from the official youtube vids from Ron. Your thoughts on that? What should we be doing aside from 'everything you can'?

There needs to be some official liason between the campaign (or the PAC), and the grassroots... it was needed before, but it is really needed now because people are losing sight of the target and turning on each other. Just my thoughts and thanks for posting...

Man, you guys just keep the questions coming...

As far as November 5th, you weren't the only one "crapping your pants" It was an amazing feat, and probably the most exciting day to be involved with the campaign.

As far as all th conspiracy theorists, I think our attitude was the same as Dr. Paul has stated publicly. When people get involved with a political campaign, they are essentially endorsing the candidate's views, regardless of other disagreements they may have. But the candidate does not have to endorse the views of any one group. I can't really speak for Dr. Paul beyond what he's said publicly.

But I'd also add that our view was that we didn't think much could be done about supporters that the press didn't like. Any campaign has supporters that other groups of people see as "unsavory." Just look at what Obama's now dealing with. But even if we believed some supporters were not helping us, which I personally think there's a case for, though others disagree... I don't think there's anything that really can be done from the campaign's perspective.

You're right, though. This was a very tough thing to deal with.

As far as being prepared for the fundraising success, I think we were prepared in some ways and not prepared in others. For one, we had no idea how much was going to come in, and so we couldn't plan to spend money that we didn't really have. But once we had it in the bank, then I think we all believed that the ante had been raised. We were then given the chance to do things that we never thoughts we would be able to do, and we started going after those things. Like I said earlier, you never can have enough money, but I think expectations internally were starting to be increased after November 5th.

That said, I'll be honest, and say that I don't think we handled the press that came out of it as well as we could have. We got Ron on tons of shows, and had more media hits than we had pretty had in the entire campaign within a few days. But in retrospect, we really needed to also have many campaign surrogates going out in the press as well. That way, we'd keep being able to get those people on the news even after November 5th. Unfortuantely, we weren't equipped to do that at that point in time.

My other personal feeling is that we should have worked harder getting on nightly network news, not just shows like the Situation Room. Fact is still, even in the internet age, that many people only get their news from watching the Tom Brokaws, etc. And while we got tons of press from November 5th, we really needed to turn that into sustained coverage on the major networks. That didn't happen, part because we weren't equipped to do it, and part because the press stopped caring about Ron Paul again as soon as the novelty of the money bombs wore off.

As far as what the point of the campaign was... I think the short answer is that it was both. With Dr. Paul not really believing that he had a good chance of winning in the early going (as he repeatedly stated on the campaign trail), there needed to be another reason to go forward with the presidential run. And while I personally wish Ron had believed a lot more strongly in the support he was getting, I see starting a movement as almost more important.

What you can do now, as I mentioned earlier, is keep doing what you're doing, but also try to do it through your local Republican party establishment. Go to meetings, learn who the important people are, gain their trust, and sway their point of view gently but surely. We know things like sign waves, while fun, are largely ineffective, but even handing out literature isn't as important as getting involved in the party. Remember, it's that apparatus that gives McCain the strength he currently has. Let me know if that's not clear, or if you have further questions on what we all can be doing.

And as an aside, I'm very hopeful that at some point, a lot of great organizations will come out of this campaign. And there should be opportunities there to get involved recruiting and supporting congressional candidates, and in other things of that nature.

Finally, I agree that there needs to be someone in a liason role, but keep in mind as we've said multiple times, it's a fine line between communicating with grassroots supporters and "coordinating." I don't believe that the campaign can legally have someone with that title. That's why we put more emphasis on the Daily Dose, albeit a little late in the game. But it's still worth all of you reading on a daily basis, and there's even some talk amongst some of us staffers of keeping up a blog of our own to keep our communication with all of you going after the campaign.

Thanks so much for your insightful questions.

 

[JonathanBydlak]

You guys did an absolutely horrible job with the money. I maxed out, but i've always felt that if you at least gave us better ideas how the money was being spent, you would have gotten a LOT more.

I understand your viewpoint, and I can't really argue for or against it either way. It's tough really knowing how money in an organization is spent, and believe me, even in the campaign many of us were not privvy to all of the details.

But I'd also say to people who held out donating more simply because of that, you didn't help the campaign. That's a decision that each person needs to decide for himself or herself, but how could we possibly let the public know how we were spending your all of the money? John McCain and Mitt Romney would have been drooling nonstop if they knew.

Think of this scenario... "Concord Monitor reports that Ron Paul is dumping $3 mil into direct mail in New Hampshire... in other news, Mitt Romney wrote a $5 mil check and bought some direct mail of his own." It was certainly on the table to be more open about expenditures, but in the end, we couldn't risk situations like this. Because again, we did not have unlimited resources at our disposal.

 

[jason43]

Thanks man,

One more short question...

Did you even have anyone with an ear out to the grassroots? Sometimes it seemed like Ron was suprised when he heard about things like the blimp, etc.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

I think one of the problems at the outset was the incestuous polls-media coverage relationship, where big media (who sponsor most polls) would leave out Paul's name in most of the surveys conducted through 2007, then point to Paul's low polling numbers as a rationale for not covering him. The public was not made aware that polling is not a neutral third party element, but a contracted surrogate of the press used to track or not track whom the media wants. The public tends to think when they hear a poll announced on the news, that the organization did it out of its own curiosity, instead of as a hiree.

To counter this, I asked the campaign at the time to put aside a little money to do polling with big name firms (Zogby, Rasmussen et al) that 'manufactured' a double digit result for Paul (say, just him versus the 'frontrunners') that could then become part of the news cycle. There are ways to do this depending on how the questions are asked, and in what sequence. Doing as little as 1-2 polls like this a month (at about a meager $10-15,000 each, which is nothing for a Pesidential campaign budget) would have created our own buzz for Paul, and taken away the media's alibi for not taking him seriously. I even started to put together a grassroots-sponsored Zogby poll myself (as anybody can call up the service and get a quote for a scientific phone poll), including drafting the questions, and was raising money for it.

I told Lew Moore in a phone conversation LAST June (during the Zogby Poll project) that unless there were polls published showing Paul getting into the double digits, the media would continue their 'silent blackout' of Paul (by not including him in most polls they sponsored), and this would keep Paul from being treated seriously. Moore asked me to suspend the independent survey we were commissioning anyway, saying HQ had their own polling strategy. At this point, I see no evidence of the campaign ever having pursued a polling plan to counter the poll-blackout the media conducted to bury Paul throughout 2007. It seems to me the cheapest way to counter the media while creating news that favors the candidate, as it takes advantage of the same public ignorance about the contracted status of poll organizations. So, what exactly happened with HQ's polling strategy?

 

[JonathanBydlak]

Thank you for answering the questions. I have to respect that.

This is gut wrenching and heart breaking. I saw in in early July when you guys had more money than McCain that you could do well. So did the media. That is how I found out that Ron Paul was doing well. They reported the story.

I volunteered in the HQ in early August and saw the tremendous grassroots taking place. I could tell right then and there that this was a campaign with momentum. I judged the level of activity to be record breaking. Having been on many campaigns I had never seen a grassroots like this. Most campaigns spend their time and money begging people to help their campaign. Ron Paul's campaign was the opposite. People were begging to help him. I have never seen anything like it. Yet the campaign ignored and squandered this opportunity in the most horrible way.

I was expecting a great campaign outcome based on money and volunteer enthusiasm, yet I saw the problems of understaffing in the campaign in all areas and tried to do things about it. Yet most of the time the senior staff was on the road with Ron Paul instead of managing the HQ. I commented and lamented to various people about what was going on. I wrote a paper detailing the problems and some senior staff read it but probably reacted way too late months later if at all.

Having the national press team in place by November is great, but the campaign is practically over at that point if you are really trying to win.

I have to wonder if they really wanted to win race. An expert would have changed things immediately and we probably would have come in third in Iowa instead of fifth. McCain's momentum would have stalled at that point. The outcome would be very different today.

Thanks for these comments. I'll respond to them, but I would like to sort out some things that are assertions from things that are facts.

First, you say that "the campaign ignored and squandered this opportunity in the most horrible way." Well, we did best as we knew how, and perhaps that wasn't good enough, or perhaps there are many reasons why the campaign did not result in Ron Paul being our next president. A lot of factors influence elections, and the mere existence of grassroots support does not mean that a win should have been a lock, if not for official staff. Grassroots support is only valuable if people are doing the right things. And the blame for that not always being the case, in my opinion, lies both with HQ and with individual supporters. On the one hand, we did not communicate as specifically as we could have and as frequently as we could have. But to be honest, a lot of people were more content to do signwaves than canvass their own districts. And I should know, because I was one of those signwavers before joining the campaign. So, there's plenty of blame to go around, and I don't think it's fair to heap it all on one group of people.

As far as your understaffing point... I pretty much completely agree with you there. We were very understaffed for much of the campaign. Not that I'm asking for sympathy, but you should know that most people in our office were there until past midnight on most nights. There was a stretch when my personal hours ran in the 10am - 2am range. And I was hardly the exception in that regard. So we all put in the hours to make up for that understaffing.

But, also keep in mind, again, that resources are no infinite. If we spent more on staff, someone somewhere else would be upset that they weren't seeing TV ads in their state. There are tradeoffs that needed to be made, and while I'm sure there are many that could have been made better, it's not fair for anyone to complain because we didn't have unlimited resources.

You say "Having the national press team in place by November is great, but the campaign is practically over at that point if you are really trying to win." I pretty much agree with this, too. It's hard getting everything done that needs to be done, and this was probably the biggest mistake made on the campaign. Jesse Benton was and is very able and talented at what he does, but he couldn't do it alone.

Finally, on your point about an expert changing things... would you every say "if only we could get an expert in the government, things would be instantly better"? Because I wouldn't. So why should any of us believe that the same is true with a campaign. One person in an orgnization does not make the difference that you seem to think, and it's really just a slight against the talented people who already in the campaign. That's not to say additional people wouldn't have helped -- just that I believe it's incorrect to think finding that "right person" would have won Ron Paul the election. In that regard, the one person who controlled our chances was Ron Paul himself.

 

[JonathanBydlak]

Thanks for taking the time to talk with us, Johnathan! It's much appreciated.

My question is this: In retrospect, what could the campaign have done to be more successful than it already has been?

Ah, I've been waiting for this question, because it's probably what I've thought about more than anything else during my time on the campaign. Here're just a few things off the top of my head, and we can delve into these more if you like:

1. Better and more frequent communications with grassroots supporters.
2. Better communication with field staff.
3. Earlier and more emphasis on the precinct leader program.
4. Having a full media team in place earlier in the campaign.

Those are the biggest things the campaign could have done in my mind. In all honesty, though, I think a lot of the more important things needed to be done by Ron himself. Things like traveling and campaigning more, tailoring his message better to Republicans, calling out other candidates for the ridiculous things they say, etc.

 

[JonathanBydlak]

Can you tell us why the ticker is down on the Ron Paul website? Are we still donating to the campaign or are we supposed to donate to the Liberty PAC?

You still should be donating to the campaign. I think it was just taken down because it's clear that money is not flowing in at the same rate as it was earlier. So it probably doesn't make sense to emphasize fundraising as much in the past. You should also note that the precinct leader program is front and center. That wasn't an accidental decision.

 

[angelatc]

We in the grassroots need some leadership, and regardless of your failings, we need someone who has a voice, patience, decisiveness and motivation to act. We likely won't pay you, but I'm very intrigued with what you have to offer.

Yes, I'd like to know Jonathon's opinion about what Jonathon did. I'd like to know what he did right, and what he thinks he will do better next time.

We can all learn from each other's mistakes, but we need to be adult enough to not condemn each other for goals and opportunities that may have been missed.

Since it hasn't killed us, it should only make us stronger.

I'd also like to know of some resources for back office type stuff. Learning about PAC FEC regs, and Accounting standards for PACs.

 

[JonathanBydlak]

Thanks man,

One more short question...

Did you even have anyone with an ear out to the grassroots? Sometimes it seemed like Ron was suprised when he heard about things like the blimp, etc.

Haha... of course we did! I read the forums multiple times a day... so much so that I had to take it out of my favorites folder so I wouldn't read it as much.

Whether you knew it or not, we were aware and listening to what you were saying. We were kind of like Big Brother

 

[JonathanBydlak]

I think one of the problems at the outset was the incestuous polls-media coverage relationship, where big media (who sponsor most polls) would leave out Paul's name in most of the surveys conducted through 2007, then point to Paul's low polling numbers as a rationale for not covering him. The public was not made aware that polling is not a neutral third party element, but a contracted surrogate of the press used to track or not track whom the media wants. The public tends to think when they hear a poll announced on the news, that the organization did it out of its own curiosity, instead of as a hiree.

To counter this, I asked the campaign at the time to put aside a little money to do polling with big name firms (Zogby, Rasmussen et al) that 'manufactured' a double digit result for Paul (say, just him versus the 'frontrunners') that could then become part of the news cycle. There are ways to do this depending on how the questions are asked, and in what sequence. Doing as little as 1-2 polls like this a month (at about a meager $10-15,000 each, which is nothing for a Pesidential campaign budget) would have created our own buzz for Paul, and taken away the media's alibi for not taking him seriously. I even started to put together a grassroots-sponsored Zogby poll myself (as anybody can call up the service and get a quote for a scientific phone poll), including drafting the questions, and was raising money for it.

I told Lew Moore in a phone conversation LAST June (during the Zogby Poll project) that unless there were polls published showing Paul getting into the double digits, the media would continue their 'silent blackout' of Paul (by not including him in most polls they sponsored), and this would keep Paul from being treated seriously. Moore asked me to suspend the independent survey we were commissioning anyway, saying HQ had their own polling strategy. At this point, I see no evidence of the campaign ever having pursued a polling plan to counter the poll-blackout the media conducted to bury Paul throughout 2007. It seems to me the cheapest way to counter the media while creating news that favors the candidate, as it takes advantage of the same public ignorance about the contracted status of poll organizations. So, what exactly happened with HQ's polling strategy?

Unfortunately, I can't really shed any light on this at all. There were internal polls going on, and I think there's some merit to your ideas, but I also think that a few polls like what you describe would not have done the trick. What it all boils down to in this regard is that we needed more support than we had, so that we'd actually turn up with double digit support in those polls... Rather than try to fudge polls, why not just get a high level in the ones where Ron's name was listed?

You know, this just reminded me of a great book that I think it'd be worth everyone reading. Hunter S. Thompson's On the Campaign Trail, '72 documents how a largely unknown George McGovern polling 5% managed to take on and take over the Democratic party apparatus through a huge network of well-organized volunteer canvassers. It's really eye-opening, and very applicable to our movement. I strongly recommend it.

 

[limequat]

Jonathan

1) Thanks so much for coming on the boards and answering our questions.

2) Thanks so much more for being a part of the official campaign.

Many of us here gave until it hurt (time and money), and can emphathize with your effort.
I hope you stick around. So far, your comments have been invaluable.

 

[UnitedWeStand]

but how could we possibly let the public know how we were spending your all of the money?

By running national ads. The money didn't just come in from Nh and IA, it came from all over, even from Kentucky and New Mexico.

I think the idea is not just running ads to influence immiediate voters, but to gain supporters all across the nation- supporters who would grow the momentum, donate, and encourage others to donate and get involved.

Basically, I think "we" should have used more of the money to spread the seed across the country, rather than just on fertilizing the early primary states with direct mailings.

As others have stated, if donators saw their money being spent on ads, they would've donated more--and the many people who saw the ads would've donated more. There was a large contigency of people on this board, and without im sure, who thought HQ was squandering the donations. Granted, how many of us have ever run a campaign, few. But I think that the reason people donated was for the sole reason to see national tv ads, and to let Ron Paul know he was loved. So, the disapointment of no national ads was catastrophic to donations.

So, while the decision was made to spend the money on frugal "good return on investment" direct mailings--- I personally wish that some effort had been made to analyze donations, the people's motives and how to best encourage future donations. People were donating to see national ads. National ads would've increased donations from those who donated previously, and found and encouraged new donators.

I'd like to say that I know that you are not personally responsible. But your comments about how ineffectual national ads would've been and how smart it was to spend millions of dollars spent on direct mailings is alarming.

 

[FreedomRings]

Ron will not run as an independent. Sometimes I wish he had snapped back angrily at reporters and made it 100% clear early on that he never would do so. But he simply will not, and it's probably not the best thing for the movement.

I think of it this way. On the one hand, I would love to see Ron run independent. I think in an election between a warmonger (McCain) and another warmonger (Clinton) or a false-peacenik (Obama), Ron would stand out so much. But it's terribly hard to run indy. On top of getting on the ballot, the bigger problem is getting the press and the public to take you seriously and think you have a chance of winning. If we couldn't do that with Ron running as a Republican, what makes us think they would if he ran as an independent?

If, as Ron believes, it's all about the "message" rather than winning the Presidency, isn't that an even bigger argument for running as an Independent?

Millions of people are clamoring for real change but will never hear about the Ron Paul message because they didn't pay much attention to the Republican primaries in the first place. They will see the economy collapsing but they won't know what's happening to them and they'll never realize there was an alternative. Their lives will be ruined, their spirits weakened, their hopes for the future smashed. They will readily agree to more wars and loss of liberty, and all that only because Ron Paul didn't run as an Independent and use that platform to tell them what's really going on.

As for winning, to really succeed as an "educational campaign", you have to run it as if you actually wanted to win. If Ron hadn't stared down Stephanopoulos and made clear that he was in it for the win, he would have never attracted the massive grassroots attention that he got. If he had said from the beginning, "Let's be realistic, the chance is close to zero, but it's all about the message anyway", I'm sure that most of us wouldn't even have bothered.

Many of us here are young (or young at heart), and though we appreciate the education, we want a courageous hero, someone we can look up to, whose memory will inspire us for the rest of our lives, who was far from perfect but who nevertheless overcame his personal shortcomings and took the battle to the enemy against all odds.

Right now, Ron Paul will be remembered as an armchair revolutionary who happened to start a movement but then didn't know what to do with it. His recent waffling leaves a bad taste, has alienated many supporters and will have the effect of practically throwing away the chance of inspiring millions more about the message of freedom.

If he runs as an Independent and doesn't win, at least the "message" will have been heard by a larger part of the population than it would have been otherwise. And I do believe that Ron could actually win if he applies the lessons learned from the primaries. Here's a couple of things he could do:

1. Relentlessly attack Obama, Clinton and McCain and expose and analyze their lies and shenanigans. Instead of the "Daily Dose" it should be the "Daily Attack". Get this to the point where when Americans hear one of the "big three" make some promise or pronouncement, they will instinctively think, "I wonder what Ron Paul has to say about that?"

2. Tailor his messages to the audience he is speaking to. He must be brought to realize that this is the only way to actually educate them. Right now he just throws out facts that average people simply won't understand, nor will they care much because he doesn't explain how it affects them anyway.

3. Stop justifying his actions with weak expressions like "my supporters would be disappointed if I dropped out...", or "endorsing McCain would go against what I've talked about for the past 30 years, and nobody would understand it" and so on. Be a man and say "I'm doing that because I choose to and because it's what's best for America, period".

4. Meet with foreign leaders as the inofficial representative of his voters, a small but growing part of the US population that wants "peace, commerce and honest friendship" with all. Meet with Chavez, Castro and Ahmadinejad and expose them to the wonders of free markets and gold-backed currencies. There's some free worldwide publicity for ya.

5. Apply any and all the other lessons learned from the present campaign, including interactions with the press, etc.

What are your thoughts on this, Jonathan? Based on your personal knowledge of Ron Paul, do you think he would be open to reading a letter by supporters that would outline some of these points and persuade him that he should put the interests of the country first and "jump over his shadow" so he can reach new audiences rather than continuing to preach to the increasingly discouraged choir?

I believe that running as an Independent won't hamper the effort to retake the Republican party in any way. On the contrary, pursuing both paths at the same time could make things happen so much faster.

 

[mello]

Three Questions:

1) When the MSM started blitzing the airwaves with stories that Congressman Paul dropped out, why did it take so long to see a response from Dr. Paul correcting those stories?

2) Did HQ have any plans to contest the Texas vote? I read that only one fifth of his supporters that voted for him for congress also voted him for President which seems extremely unlikely. I also remember reading about other irregularities

3) Did HQ plan to take the Louisiana GOP to court over the blatant shenanigans during their caucus? I remembered seeing a video of Congressman Paul saying that they probably won Louisiana outright.

 

[ButchHowdy]

Thank you for coming on Jonathan!

What was the deal with Neal (I'm a Libertarian, but...) Boortz?