Msg from Jonathan Bydlak -- willing to answer questions

[OptionsTrader]

One thing I would note is to make a distinction between what looks good on YouTube and what looks good on TV.

I agree that is a good point. I hope he at least sees the ad. It is quite well made and I would guess hundreds of hours were spent in production.

 

[Hook]

Why no national ads like all the other candidates? How come we didn't hire a big-name campaign director that had experience and inside knowledge of how to get the media to cover the campaign?

I think that if we saw the same level of ads as the other candidates, you would have easily seen twice the donations, because people would have thought their money was well spent.

Just my $.02

 

[JonathanBydlak]

is there a plan b?

an indie run? a Ron Paul endorsed Candidate? anything?

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?

OVer the long term, the best thing is to take back the Republican party apparatus. And as we know, this is already going on all around the country. Get out an take part in your local Republican party meetings. If you're not a delegate yet, take the necessary steps to be one. Again, like Ron said, none of this will happen overnight. This revolution will all come down to how much dedication we all have to it, both "HQ" and grassroots supporters. I know sometimes people have said "HQ just relies on the grassroots to do everything." But when you don't have the party apparatus in your hip pocket, victory has to come from the bottom up. Don't get discouraged... just work harder.

As far as endorsements of other candidates... Ron has endorsed Murray Sabrin, and I don't know about others. My hope is that when the current phase of the campaign winds down, an organization will spring up that will recruit liberty-oriented candidates, and fund and work hard to get them elected. Keep in mind that we have that to look forward to when this campaign ends.

 

[JS4Pat]

Why the disconnect between Headquarters and GrassRoots?

I Mean: "What Is Going On Here"?

Same questions.

 

[Flirple]

Thanks so much for starting this thread.

Specifically, what prevented someone in the campaign from doing this all along? I think that having an "ask HQ thread" is specifically what so many of us would have liked from the start and would have saved us so much time. Specifically, what restrictions (McCain Fiengold etc.) prevented you from directly communicating with us on these message boards? Or was there another reason (aside from legal) that we all had to independently try to email or call HQ resulting in inefficient and ineffective redundant use of our time (as well as yours) to get info?

 

[JonathanBydlak]

the campaign was trying to impede it?

Nope, not a chance. Sure, there were definitely decisions along the way that I would argue were detrimental to our end goals. And sure, there were people who worked harder and were more dedicated than others. But a "plant" or someone along those lines? Not as far as I could see. There were no two people more dedicated to Ron Paul than Kent Snyder and Lew Moore. I'd focus any criticisms on them on the decisions that were made, rather than their characters or intentions.

 

[Hook]

Oh, and why didn't HQ dedicate someone whose only job was to keep the grassroots informed? Daily meetups on this forum would have dispelled much anger towards HQ and probably would have easily paid for the salary of the person by increased donations.

Most of the other campaigns had daily email updates and extensive grassroots coordinators.

 

[JonathanBydlak]

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.

haha, well, I like to think I have something to offer. I plan on doing all I can, regardless of whether that's in some "official" post-campaign capacity or not...

 

[JonathanBydlak]

I agree that is a good point. I hope he at least sees the ad. It is quite well made and I would guess hundreds of hours were spent in production.

If I had a nickel for everytime I heard that!

 

[Zera]

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?

OVer the long term, the best thing is to take back the Republican party apparatus. And as we know, this is already going on all around the country. Get out an take part in your local Republican party meetings. If you're not a delegate yet, take the necessary steps to be one. Again, like Ron said, none of this will happen overnight. This revolution will all come down to how much dedication we all have to it, both "HQ" and grassroots supporters. I know sometimes people have said "HQ just relies on the grassroots to do everything." But when you don't have the party apparatus in your hip pocket, victory has to come from the bottom up. Don't get discouraged... just work harder.

As far as endorsements of other candidates... Ron has endorsed Murray Sabrin, and I don't know about others. My hope is that when the current phase of the campaign winds down, an organization will spring up that will recruit liberty-oriented candidates, and fund and work hard to get them elected. Keep in mind that we have that to look forward to when this campaign ends.

*applauds*

Someone show this to Colecrowe so he stops spamming up the board.

 

[OptionsTrader]

What do you think we can do if anything to get Ron to be taken seriously as a candidate in the television media? $6 million in a day wasn't enough 3 months ago, and today the whole television media is infatuated with the 3 heads on the same monster. The dollar is crashing as our candidate predicted, gold and oil are spiking as our candidate precited, I feel like I am living in a dream. If Obama had made these predictions they would be heralding him as the second coming of Jesus.

Besides becoming a delegate as I am, what in the hell can we do to get him to be taken seriously? It is 235 days until the election and we are probably about to go kill a million folks in Iran and I am pissed off...

 

[Hook]

There were no two people more dedicated to Ron Paul than Kent Snyder and Lew Moore. I'd focus any criticisms on them on the decisions that were made, rather than their characters or intentions.

No one here has ever questioned the motivations and character of Moore and Synder. It is just that a lot of people got the impression that they were in way over their heads once some real money started coming in. It is like they never expected to get very far and were only planning on running an educational campaign. This is understandable, but once you realize you are in over your head sometimes it is better to find an experienced expert and let them take over.

Probably the most frustrating thing we encountered were all the times HQ didn't respond back to media requests.

 

[JonathanBydlak]

Why no national ads like all the other candidates? How come we didn't hire a big-name campaign director that had experience and inside knowledge of how to get the media to cover the campaign?

I think that if we saw the same level of ads as the other candidates, you would have easily seen twice the donations, because people would have thought their money was well spent.

Just my $.02

Ooh, now we're getting into some red meat... haha. This one might take awhile.

1. National campaign ads. I think the reason this wasn't done is because it largely didn't make sense for a candidate like Ron. While we raised $20M in Q4, keep in mind how much the other candidates had spent before that. Mitt Romne spent MILLIONS to bring his name recognition up to snuff with the other candidates. Everyone knew Rudy from 9/11, they knew McCain from 2000, and while Huckabee was an unknown like Ron, his seemingly genuine personality infatuated the press. But many members of the press didn't care about Ron, and they didn't take him seriously. I don't believe that even people like Tucker, who gave Ron above-average face-time and believed strongly in Ron's message, ever thought he had a chance of winning. That said, with limited resources, you have to target them. And the campaign worked hard at targeting early primary states, while still organizing supporters everywhere else. But to throw money across the country would not have been smart (in my opinion), and I'd rather see more direct mail in New Hampshire than TV ads playing in New Mexico and Kentucky.

2. As far as a "big-name" campaign director... In my opinion, the campaign could have used someone who had significant experience with campaigning. But I say that not because there weren't people with that experience, but because ANY campaign could always use more. But my personal opinion is also that the difference such a person would have made would have been largely trivial. That's because, as I said earlier, there's no magic secret to how a staff can get the press to cover a candidate. In the end, the press didn't cover Ron Paul because they didn't like Ron Paul... not because the staff didn't do the needed job. If you want to understand why Ron didn't get coverage, your best starting place is to question how Ron presented his message, whether he could have done a better job, or whether the message is too opposed to the biases of the media. Sure, additional staff would have helped. But to focus criticisms there is to miss the broader point.

 

[JonathanBydlak]

Thanks so much for starting this thread.

Specifically, what prevented someone in the campaign from doing this all along? I think that having an "ask HQ thread" is specifically what so many of us would have liked from the start and would have saved us so much time. Specifically, what restrictions (McCain Fiengold etc.) prevented you from directly communicating with us on these message boards? Or was there another reason (aside from legal) that we all had to independently try to email or call HQ resulting in inefficient and ineffective redundant use of our time (as well as yours) to get info?

Well, I'm not a legal expert by any means, so I don't know the degree to which this could have been done. But I do know that there are clauses that prevent "coordination" with unpaid individuals. If you get a good or service provided from someone, you need to compensate them fair market value. For example, when people said "you could just take ads from the grassroots for free!", what was missed is that we could not take them for free anymore than we could take a helicopter from a donor for free.

As I said in my initial post, we definitely needed to do a better job with communication, and in my opinion (I know others disagree), we failed. I personally didn't see us failing until too late, and it was because of others that I began to realize that. And remember, the campaign did add the Daily Dose with this goal in mind, and I think Dan McCarthy did a great job with it.

But one other thing I would add is that in many cases, we did provide tons of guidance. Maybe not directly from HQ, but certainly from field staff. And not to be too critical, but there were numerous cases where people didn't want to do the things "they were told." So the blame on communication goes all around here... it's a double edged sword, as best as I can tell.

 

[JonathanBydlak]

What do you think we can do if anything to get Ron to be taken seriously as a candidate in the television media? $6 million in a day wasn't enough 3 months ago, and today the whole television media is infatuated with the 3 heads on the same monster. The dollar is crashing as our candidate predicted, gold and oil are spiking as our candidate precited, I feel like I am living in a dream. If Obama had made these predictions they would be heralding him as the second coming of Jesus.

Besides becoming a delegate as I am, what in the hell can we do to get him to be taken seriously? It is 235 days until the election and we are probably about to go kill a million folks in Iran and I am pissed off...

Well, if you want my honest opinion, I don't think there's much that "we" can do. I think it comes down to two things... what the media wants to cover, and shortcomings of Ron. The media wants news, plain and simple. Sure, there was bias against Ron, but that was minor next to the point that Ron wasn't attacking other candidates by saying controversial things (remember the one time Ron called out Huckabee's Christmas ad? We got news coverage everywhere because of that. Why? Because it was controversial.)

So, it's a sad indictment of our society when substance doesn't get you news coverage. But my personal opinion is knowing that, you have to play the game. And unfortuantely, Ron is too dignified to do that.

 

[Hook]

If you want to understand why Ron didn't get coverage, your best starting place is to question how Ron presented his message, whether he could have done a better job, or whether the message is too opposed to the biases of the media. Sure, additional staff would have helped. But to focus criticisms there is to miss the broader point.

Yes, Dr. Paul could have made his message more understandable to the dunces in the media. Not sure that would have made CNN more amenable to the message though.

Well, it is all water under the bridge now.

What are the chances of Dr. Paul at least speaking at the GOP convention?

 

[JonathanBydlak]

No one here has ever questioned the motivations and character of Moore and Synder. It is just that a lot of people got the impression that they were in way over their heads once some real money started coming in. It is like they never expected to get very far and were only planning on running an educational campaign. This is understandable, but once you realize you are in over your head sometimes it is better to find an experienced expert and let them take over.

Probably the most frustrating thing we encountered were all the times HQ didn't respond back to media requests.

Well, I think there may be some truth to this comment. But I would also add that if they didn't expect things to turn out this well, neither did Ron. In fact, I don't think ANYONE, inside or outside of the campaign did.

I can tell you that everyone on our staff wanted to win this race desperately. And we all still do. But adding an "expert" would not have solved anything. Remember that Ron himself has said numerous times that he saw this campaign as an educational campaign...

As far as not responding to media requests, two points... first, you're right that the campaign was too late formulating a 5 star media team. It should have been in place earlier, and I fault myself in retrospect, as well as others, for sort of seeing it as a problem, but not realizing its magnitude. But, I will also say that many of the criticisms that people raise in this regard are unfounded. By the end of November, we had a system in place to responding to important media calls. But again, we can't respond to every local newspaper and TV station. We were forced to pick and choose appearances that were most important, particularly because the media did not care about surrogates for Ron Paul like they did for a Hillary Clinton. That meant that Ron had to do all of these appearances, which was just impossible. Many of the criticisms of the media team were centered on less important media -- not that all media aren't important, but you still clearly have to get Ron in front of the biggest media audience as you can, given time constraints.

 

[JonathanBydlak]

Yes, Dr. Paul could have made his message more understandable to the dunces in the media. Not sure that would have made CNN more amenable to the message though.

Well, it is all water under the bridge now.

What are the chances of Dr. Paul at least speaking at the GOP convention?

I don't know, but I have a hard time seeing that happen, only because Ron could never endorse John McCain's big government, interventionist message.

 

[OptionsTrader]

I do not believe it is undignified to attack the other 3 vigorously. If that is what it takes to win, I wish he would do it.

Remaining dignified is noble in times of peace, but in times of war, not if it means the death of God knows how many brown people as George Carlin likes to put it, by taking the high road.

I want to see the Ron Paul that told that Morton Downey Jr audience member to go on a diet...I want to see some fire and vigor. I know he's still got it in him, and I know he thinks the message is enough, but it isn't, sadly.

 

[qh4dotcom]

Jonathan,

Does Dr. Paul plan to run again for President in 2012?