Msg from Jonathan Bydlak -- willing to answer questions
- Thread starter JonathanBydlak
- Start date
The take over of the Republican Party
As a fifteen-year Republican Party committeeman, I agree with your assessment of the present status of the Republican Party...it was taken over long ago by the moneyed interests. But there are a few points of contention I would like to point out in your otherwise remarkable astute assessment.
The first one is that while it is true, the leadership of the party is completely and utterly controlled by the moneyed interests and the political elite of the party, by and large, the rank and file of the party is not. That is to say, most local committee members are honest, down to earth, hard-working, true Republicans who would support Dr. Paul, apart from the war issue, if given half a chance.
Secondly, I don't share your view that liberating the party from the moneyed interests and the political elite is hopeless...far from it. All we need is a little grassroots leadership and the Internet and the Republican Party can be retaken in short order, in very short order. In fact, I can easily see how this can be accomplished by the next general election. Which brings me to your last point...I think we have time to act. We are a strong nation, a strong Republic. We will survive long enough to fight another day.
Hopefully, Dr. Paul's efforts was but the first shot fired in this R3volution, and, God willing, it won't be the last. This is why it is so vitally important that every Ron Paul supporter should see to it their names are placed on the ballot as their precinct committee men and women, to carry this fight first into the Republican Party and then to the rest of the nation. If we can all do this much, those efforts and those of Ron Paul's will live on in our nation's history books as the defining moment in American politics for generations to come. We are clearly reaching a crossroads here. We have the ability to make changes, but only if we can act together.
joemiller
As a fifteen-year Republican Party committeeman, I agree with your assessment of the present status of the Republican Party...it was taken over long ago by the moneyed interests. But there are a few points of contention I would like to point out in your otherwise remarkable astute assessment.
The first one is that while it is true, the leadership of the party is completely and utterly controlled by the moneyed interests and the political elite of the party, by and large, the rank and file of the party is not. That is to say, most local committee members are honest, down to earth, hard-working, true Republicans who would support Dr. Paul, apart from the war issue, if given half a chance.
Secondly, I don't share your view that liberating the party from the moneyed interests and the political elite is hopeless...far from it. All we need is a little grassroots leadership and the Internet and the Republican Party can be retaken in short order, in very short order. In fact, I can easily see how this can be accomplished by the next general election. Which brings me to your last point...I think we have time to act. We are a strong nation, a strong Republic. We will survive long enough to fight another day.
Hopefully, Dr. Paul's efforts was but the first shot fired in this R3volution, and, God willing, it won't be the last. This is why it is so vitally important that every Ron Paul supporter should see to it their names are placed on the ballot as their precinct committee men and women, to carry this fight first into the Republican Party and then to the rest of the nation. If we can all do this much, those efforts and those of Ron Paul's will live on in our nation's history books as the defining moment in American politics for generations to come. We are clearly reaching a crossroads here. We have the ability to make changes, but only if we can act together.
joemiller
Last edited:
Thank you Jonathan and Don too. This is the best thread I've ever read here.
It makes me so happy to read and understand better, and then that makes me think what a shame that this kind of liaison to HQ wasn't setup and planned for from the beginning. I know you've mentioned legal problems with that, but I think future campaigns should try to have as much contact as they legally can. Especially a campaign that is centered so much around the internet.
I share the frustration you have mentioned about a lack of controversy or aggressiveness from Dr. Paul. I totally understand that the news needs a "story" and stories come from conflict.
Towards that end, what do you think about Dr. Paul challenging McCain to a one on one televised debate? Seems like that might just be interesting enough to get some media attention, even from the challenge alone, regardless of whether McCain accepts or not.
It makes me so happy to read and understand better, and then that makes me think what a shame that this kind of liaison to HQ wasn't setup and planned for from the beginning. I know you've mentioned legal problems with that, but I think future campaigns should try to have as much contact as they legally can. Especially a campaign that is centered so much around the internet.
I share the frustration you have mentioned about a lack of controversy or aggressiveness from Dr. Paul. I totally understand that the news needs a "story" and stories come from conflict.
Towards that end, what do you think about Dr. Paul challenging McCain to a one on one televised debate? Seems like that might just be interesting enough to get some media attention, even from the challenge alone, regardless of whether McCain accepts or not.
Fields
Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 2,007
Steve, your comment is obviously aimed towards me. In all seriousness, no one on here knows the goals of some of your comments. For instance, your homosexual comment, I'm not gay nor do I really care about them, but, I won't disparage them for no reason. All I, and the members of this board ask, is for some form of proof to validate your points.
Fields
Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 2,007
By the way, your quote, "who do we go and crucify next" is correct. That is how we keep those, who deem themselves a higher authority, accountable. Tell a lie and get caught; be prepared to get an earful.
You clearly have no clue about the Borat show, or the movie, if you really think that it's so impossible. Borat (Sasha Cohen) has duped MANY high profile figures during interviews over the last few years. I absolutely believe that Dr. Paul would emphatically state that he would not accept taxpayer matching funds. Are you new to the good Dr.?
SteveMartin
Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2007
- Messages
- 2,184
Neither will I. The point would be one of essential fairness, not whatever it is some of you seem to be trying to suggest I am saying, which I haven't said.
Last edited:
New York For Paul
Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,082
I won't hold your youth and inexperience against you. The youth campaign was underfunded. Jeff was one over worked youth coordinator who needed more help.
The 250 students marching across Iowa was inadequate. 250 students might be adequate for one congressional district in Iowa. The campaign needed thousands of young people.
Many past presidential campaigns including Dole in 96 and Reagan in 1980 had large youth campaigns. The winning Reagan campaign had two or three thousand youth for Reagan show up to the convention. The Reagan campaign conducted live training schools around the country to hundreds of potential youth coordinators. The Reagan campaign hired thirty to fifty paid staff youth coordinators.
Did the Ron Paul campaign hire that many youth coordinators? Further, did the Ron Paul campaign have dedicated youth coordinators for each state, with Ron Paul clubs in each college? Each High School? Each Junior High School?
Did these Ron Paul student clubs in New Hampshire have events, a coordinated strategy with the senior campaign, precinct walks, mock elections, press releases voter registration tables and other activities?
While the student don't tend to vote, they are the drivers for older voters, the canvassers, sign holders, assistant fundraisers, crowd builders, phone banks etc.
I did see many college age kids from out of state who showed up and were out of control mobs in Manchester that may have hurt the campaign, not a well disciplined youth group. While I think Sean Hannity can be an idiot, Sean used the footage of himself being chased by Ron Paul supporters to his advantage by making the Ron Paul supporters look out of control.
Where are these Ron Paul student clubs during spring break and will they help in Pennsylvania?
Back to New Hampshire HQ. The HQ has to direct the grassroots. Many volunteers are new to the campaign. Romney and Clinton had HQs that were ten times the size of the Ron Paul campaign.
They also had free available parking.
Ron Paul's HQ had limited parking and limited space.
Obama had eight to ten headquarters around the state. Each headquarters was similar in size to the single Ron Paul HQ.
Instead of the campaign just making phone calls to voters, they should have made phone calls to voters asking them to sign a pledge card in support of Ron Paul. Towards the end of the campaign, the Get out the vote people would have had signed pledged cards from individual voters. This would have been a verifiable stack of cards from voters. Instead all we had were indications of support and promises to vote for Ron Paul that we couldn't really trust or rely upon.
Ron Paul could have spent another million dollars in New Hampshire on an extra headquarters with better parking lots, a pledge card program with a dedicated coordinator, more dedicated youth coordinators, paid staff to answer email and phone calls, paid staff to help coordinate out of state volunteers to come in help, paid staff to canvass and find unregistered Ron Paul supporters and paid staff dedicated to more house parties to introduce Ron Paul to the voters.
Many people in New Hampshire did not know who Ron Paul was on election day and they were anti tax, anti big government types.
I disagree with the official campaign with how they spent the money and on what items.
Last edited:
like what joemiller just said...
http://www.backwash.com/previewnewsarchive.php?newsid=1408
mckinley's campaign kitty in 1896 was roughly 15 to 16 million dollars if i
go by the upper figures in the history books and the bios. the lower figure
is 3 million dollars. this is why there is tons of surviving campaign items
even to this very day for the money went into quality items.
http://www.backwash.com/previewnewsarchive.php?newsid=1408
mckinley's campaign kitty in 1896 was roughly 15 to 16 million dollars if i
go by the upper figures in the history books and the bios. the lower figure
is 3 million dollars. this is why there is tons of surviving campaign items
even to this very day for the money went into quality items.
New York For Paul
Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,082
I am sorry you personally struggled with these questions. An experienced political operative would know how to take care of this. You know which TV ad is more effective by doing focus groups and polling. They go hand in hand. Otherwise you are flying blind. Merely guessing at what is working and what is not.
Even the best political consultant cannot know what will work all the time. So you have to test. You spent a ton of money on TV and radio, you had better spend some money to measure how well they work. If your ads are not working, then you need to make new ads and test them. You can't do one without the other if you want to be effective.
Did the campaign have a good polling firm helping them?
here is a good news story about what the grassroots are doing...
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=129159
New York For Ron Paul, are you asking him for current narrowcasting data?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=129159
New York For Ron Paul, are you asking him for current narrowcasting data?
remember the rather trashy ad that is narrowcasted to be alarmist to
a given segment of the greater population that Hq knows is not their
proudest hour and its a pipsqueak by comparison to the PAC money attack
ads of recent yesteryear? the dude with a "cig' and these tattoos and a
"clint eastwood" workingclass squint? like someone who is hyper~uber
upper!middleclass could be set of by a dude like that? the ad is narrowcasting.
http://www.scala.com/definition/narrowcasting.html by definition the x-mas
card that more than implies poligamy is insted a dirty trick and did not originate
from a religious organization in my homestate. this campaign got rugged in S.C...
a given segment of the greater population that Hq knows is not their
proudest hour and its a pipsqueak by comparison to the PAC money attack
ads of recent yesteryear? the dude with a "cig' and these tattoos and a
"clint eastwood" workingclass squint? like someone who is hyper~uber
upper!middleclass could be set of by a dude like that? the ad is narrowcasting.
http://www.scala.com/definition/narrowcasting.html by definition the x-mas
card that more than implies poligamy is insted a dirty trick and did not originate
from a religious organization in my homestate. this campaign got rugged in S.C...
New York For Paul
Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,082
That is a shame. The campaign had 2.5 million in the bank by July 15. Iowa caucuses were only a few months after the straw poll. They really pulled people out just as they should have been ramping up to organize for the caucus?
Why did the campaign not view Iowa as a top priority?
New York For Ron Paul...
if the top HQ people are now doing a scenario gameplan for 2012 and
a viable presidential run, what you just asked is a very apt analysis!
RP needs 70 to 100 days in iowa as in EARLY! rather than brief whistlestops.
if ron paul's monies for his november house seat run now suffice to give him a victory,
does it behoove HQ to keep a rainy day fund unspent so as to have TWICE the cash
when iowa and supertuesday are gameplanned for the grand run in 2012?
if the top HQ people are now doing a scenario gameplan for 2012 and
a viable presidential run, what you just asked is a very apt analysis!
RP needs 70 to 100 days in iowa as in EARLY! rather than brief whistlestops.
if ron paul's monies for his november house seat run now suffice to give him a victory,
does it behoove HQ to keep a rainy day fund unspent so as to have TWICE the cash
when iowa and supertuesday are gameplanned for the grand run in 2012?
Last edited:
New York For Paul
Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,082
The problem was that the campaign never staffed up to adequately answer the phone or respond to the email. But it is a good idea on your part. I just wished the campaign had adopted it.
Several of us were busy forwarding you great fundraising emails inside the arlington HQ for you to answer, but a great many emails were ignored and never made it to your desk. So for many months the campaign operated on the model below because the campaign was very late in hiring a correspondence manager.
Hey JB and Don don’t go away
First of all, as most have said to reiterate thanks to Jonathan and now Don as well for spending time they really are not getting compensated for to help us all out.
I read all the pages and unfortunately like so many times on this forum what starts out great ends up being ego centric and degenerating to the point that anything positive vanishes and once again we (I say we cause I also have sent a few messages I now regret and apologise for that) force people to leave who have good input and are positive but just end up getting fed up.
Let’s all grow up and keep this professional.
I think General Washington would have summarily shot a few of us if this happened back in the original revolution.
Ok anyway side point to Don. I live in Costa Rica and have so for years.
Glad to hear that you are thinking of coming down. PM me and I would be happy to offer any help and a free hotel room in Monteverde.
(P.S. we actually elected 6 Libertarian congress people here in Costa Rica out of 58 and they have been great at blocking new tax increases and influencing government)
Ok my question if either of you are not so disgusted that you will never return.
Since I live in Costa Rica and therefore could only send money, the only other thing I could do was try to help people with caucus strategy since I was very active years ago in a caucus state and therefore felt my best participation was for that.
I posted before the Iowa caucus a long diatribe on what things to do in advance of the caucus and what to do at the caucus.
Since I knew that we as RPers would be facing lots of opposition from long time GOP party hacks one of the things I advocated was going stealth and organizing slates that were not openly RP at the caucus in order to confuse the hacks and steal votes and have a better chance to get delegates elected. (along with other strategies and procedures etc)
At that time this idea was not understood well due to people mostly being first timers and I sensed that there was a real lack of support from HQ state paid staff on the issue of caucus training and strategy. I understand this since we were all focused on other things.
And keep in mind I understand that in primary states this issue is somewhat moot depending on the State.
So my questions are:
1) What level of importance and experienced staffers did the campaign allocate for caucus training?
2) Was this an issue that was considered important vis a vis other important things that any campaign must do?
3) Was the ‘stealth” strategy considered early on by HQ?
4) I finally saw in Washington State that people there were saying that they were told by staffers to go “stealth” as the best way to get more precinct delegates elected. Was this true that HQ was promoting it at that time?
5) Since we have so many more conventions and still some caucus states to come up is HQ allocating any resources to caucus training and strategy.
6) Finally I know of at least one state still in the process that went stealth in at least part of the state and has a good chance in my opinion of possibly even taking a majority of National delegates if they had HQ support and money.
7) This state is still in stealth mode so I can’t mention it but if they had some support and money to help pay convention fees etc then this would be a possibility for a strong showing. However emails to HQ staffers from this state have gone unanswered and there seems to be no interest.
8) How would this state go about getting some help from HQ (or at least the courtesy of an answer?)
9) Or at this point do you see the HQ position being one of holding all cash they may have and using it for funding some sort of foundation or for a grass roots revolution? It is not clear to me if there is the willingness of HQ to spend money they may have to help ensure that we get as many delegates as possible even though we won’t get the nomination. Ron Paul says that he wants us to continue but without support it makes it difficult.
As I think we can see now that stealth does work and where implemented we walked away with delegate’s way out of proportion to our straw votes or in the case of Missouri the primary vote. Missouri, Alaska, Washington, Nevada and I’m hopefull in Maine as well were prime examples (as well as others I’m sure). I encourage all people still in the process to strongly consider the stealth tactic for all upcoming conventions or caucuses that you may have.
Sorry to bother and hope you are still at least reading the posts and may consider that not all of us want to be negative. What you both have done is to shed light in a very professional and thoughtful manner.
Thanks
First of all, as most have said to reiterate thanks to Jonathan and now Don as well for spending time they really are not getting compensated for to help us all out.
I read all the pages and unfortunately like so many times on this forum what starts out great ends up being ego centric and degenerating to the point that anything positive vanishes and once again we (I say we cause I also have sent a few messages I now regret and apologise for that) force people to leave who have good input and are positive but just end up getting fed up.
Let’s all grow up and keep this professional.
I think General Washington would have summarily shot a few of us if this happened back in the original revolution.
Ok anyway side point to Don. I live in Costa Rica and have so for years.
Glad to hear that you are thinking of coming down. PM me and I would be happy to offer any help and a free hotel room in Monteverde.
(P.S. we actually elected 6 Libertarian congress people here in Costa Rica out of 58 and they have been great at blocking new tax increases and influencing government)
Ok my question if either of you are not so disgusted that you will never return.
Since I live in Costa Rica and therefore could only send money, the only other thing I could do was try to help people with caucus strategy since I was very active years ago in a caucus state and therefore felt my best participation was for that.
I posted before the Iowa caucus a long diatribe on what things to do in advance of the caucus and what to do at the caucus.
Since I knew that we as RPers would be facing lots of opposition from long time GOP party hacks one of the things I advocated was going stealth and organizing slates that were not openly RP at the caucus in order to confuse the hacks and steal votes and have a better chance to get delegates elected. (along with other strategies and procedures etc)
At that time this idea was not understood well due to people mostly being first timers and I sensed that there was a real lack of support from HQ state paid staff on the issue of caucus training and strategy. I understand this since we were all focused on other things.
And keep in mind I understand that in primary states this issue is somewhat moot depending on the State.
So my questions are:
1) What level of importance and experienced staffers did the campaign allocate for caucus training?
2) Was this an issue that was considered important vis a vis other important things that any campaign must do?
3) Was the ‘stealth” strategy considered early on by HQ?
4) I finally saw in Washington State that people there were saying that they were told by staffers to go “stealth” as the best way to get more precinct delegates elected. Was this true that HQ was promoting it at that time?
5) Since we have so many more conventions and still some caucus states to come up is HQ allocating any resources to caucus training and strategy.
6) Finally I know of at least one state still in the process that went stealth in at least part of the state and has a good chance in my opinion of possibly even taking a majority of National delegates if they had HQ support and money.
7) This state is still in stealth mode so I can’t mention it but if they had some support and money to help pay convention fees etc then this would be a possibility for a strong showing. However emails to HQ staffers from this state have gone unanswered and there seems to be no interest.
8) How would this state go about getting some help from HQ (or at least the courtesy of an answer?)
9) Or at this point do you see the HQ position being one of holding all cash they may have and using it for funding some sort of foundation or for a grass roots revolution? It is not clear to me if there is the willingness of HQ to spend money they may have to help ensure that we get as many delegates as possible even though we won’t get the nomination. Ron Paul says that he wants us to continue but without support it makes it difficult.
As I think we can see now that stealth does work and where implemented we walked away with delegate’s way out of proportion to our straw votes or in the case of Missouri the primary vote. Missouri, Alaska, Washington, Nevada and I’m hopefull in Maine as well were prime examples (as well as others I’m sure). I encourage all people still in the process to strongly consider the stealth tactic for all upcoming conventions or caucuses that you may have.
Sorry to bother and hope you are still at least reading the posts and may consider that not all of us want to be negative. What you both have done is to shed light in a very professional and thoughtful manner.
Thanks
spacehabitats
Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 549
Excellent post. I am not trying to beat a dead horse. JB has already conceded that Dr. Paul needed to visit Iowa more.
But I think it bears repeating how overwhelming the evidence is that this mortally wounded the campaign.
All of the talk about where the money should have been spent and who should have been fired misses the point that you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Your statistics actually show that RP had an amazing response, given his lack of time in the state. But after Iowa, only a 1st or 2nd finish in New Hampshire could have revived the campaign.
Every candidate is different and brings different strengths and weaknesses to his campaign. Dr. Paul is a very erudite and thoughtful candidate who appeals to voters with the time and diligence to understand the issues in depth. He is not charismatic. Because his platform challenges many powerful and influential forces in America he can not count on receiving any breaks from the media or party officials. Also, unfortunately, in this age of information overload, the public relies even more on the media to filter the noise and tell them what is relevant. Controversial stances on issues like the war in Iraq can't be communicated effectively in a radio or TV ad; let alone a campaign slogan or yard sign.
Any candidate like Ron Paul is going to have to bypass the media more and rely on retail politics. This is the good, old-fashioned, face-to-face, public appearances, speeches, parades, and baby kissing that is supposed to be obsolete in the Internet Age. How can he do this nationally? He can't. No one can. But he could have done these things in Iowa.
Every national candidate does these things, but relies on the national media to broadcast him doing these things. That is why candidates like Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and John Edwards could afford to spend so much time in Iowa and still run a "national" campaign. Rudy thought he could bypass Iowa and he paid the price as we know. (Ironically, even HE spent more days in Iowa than RP.)
Ron Paul could not rely on the national media to spread his message until he could force them to recognize him as a contender. So he needed to camp out in Iowa (and New Hampshire) plugging away in relative obscurity until he had punched through to THE PEOPLE, risen in the polls, and made converts in large percentages.
The strength of Ron Paul's campaign is that once the voters became convinced of the truth of his message, they did more than just vote. They became evangelists for his message! They donated and actively campaigned. This was the secret sauce that so frightened his opponents and energized his supporters. But he needed to reach the tipping point, point of combustion, that point of no return that would have propelled his message into the national spotlightand ignited a grassroots that could not be contained. Iowa/New Hampshire was his first and, apparently, only chance to do that.
Or was it?
The reason all of this isn't just academic at this point is that:
1) any future RP presidential candidate is going to need to commit himself to time-consuming retail politics in the early primary states.
2) I think Ron Paul needs to give one last shot at making a splash with THIS campaign.
In my post http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=127868
("How about winning a primary?") I tried to make the case for concentrating the efforts of Ron Paul's campaign on a relatively small state and pulling out all the stops. I used Nebraska as an example and tried to show how he could break through the media blackout with personal appearances and take advantage of the fact that his only remaining opponent is hugely unpopular with a large number of voters in that state. His ads and people canvassing for him could focus on convincing voters that they need to vote for Ron Paul to send a message to the RNC that conservative Republicans are NOT happy. The significant number of votes that Mike Huckabee has gotten since he dropped out are frustration votes. It is our campaign's fault that those votes have not gone to Ron Paul.
At least we now have the advantage that ALL of the votes in remaining primaries are "wasted". It would be an incredible upset and it is extremely unlikely that he could actually win, but that is the only type of primary result that would make any kind of impact on this election year.
Unfortunately it appears that Dr. Paul is still committed to diluting his message. He will be spending what little campaign time he has in a state (Pennsylvania) in which he will be lucky to break into the double digits. A guaranteed media non-event and another demoralizing result for his supporters.
Things can be different
Very interesting URL, but let's look at the future and why anybody should expect it to be any different than our past.
I would offer that the political parties of today are uniquely vulnerable now because of one very important communicative innovation: The Internet.
Now I know most people don't understand why the established major political parties will never take full advantage of the communicative power of the Internet, but such is the case. Both the DNC and the RNC fear the Internet's ability to easily allow communication for the first time between large numbers of fellow party members because it means the old days of divide and conquer are over. The political elite of both parties know this and fear the Internet for that reason. So the opportunity is there, all we have to do is be smart enough, organized enough and determined enough to pick up this tool and utilize it to make a difference.
We need to move into the GOP as committee men and women on the local level; get our supporters to run and succeed in their "State" representative elections -- take over the State GOP parties and then appoint the RNC leadership.
joemiller
Very interesting URL, but let's look at the future and why anybody should expect it to be any different than our past.
I would offer that the political parties of today are uniquely vulnerable now because of one very important communicative innovation: The Internet.
Now I know most people don't understand why the established major political parties will never take full advantage of the communicative power of the Internet, but such is the case. Both the DNC and the RNC fear the Internet's ability to easily allow communication for the first time between large numbers of fellow party members because it means the old days of divide and conquer are over. The political elite of both parties know this and fear the Internet for that reason. So the opportunity is there, all we have to do is be smart enough, organized enough and determined enough to pick up this tool and utilize it to make a difference.
We need to move into the GOP as committee men and women on the local level; get our supporters to run and succeed in their "State" representative elections -- take over the State GOP parties and then appoint the RNC leadership.
joemiller
Kade
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2007
- Messages
- 5,953
You are either the greatest poster in the history of these forums, or you are automated...
Similar threads
