Rand got less than half the votes than Ron got

free.alive said:
Who do you think I'm talking about?

Regardless, I think I will make this it's own thread, because my larger point is one I feel is important and I don't think anyone will see what I wrote here.
Click to expand...

I assumed you meant Lew Rockwell. But regardless, whoever you mean, it's not Kent Snyder, unless you knew him as Lew.
 
erowe1:

"I assumed you meant Lew Rockwell. But regardless, whoever you mean, it's not Kent Snyder, unless you knew him as Lew. "

He was chairman, though some reporters did refer to him as the campaign manager. Regardless, not him. Anyway...
 
I suspect that was Lew Moore, staff aide to a former Washington Congressman. The SOB was working for McCain at the convention in St. Paul as "outreach" to the Paul delegates. I would have responded by outreaching my foot to shove it up his ass.

This is a very good post and I thank you for taking the time to write it. This talk of a rift between father/son sort of explains how the Rand 2016 campaign was organized. Not that it's personal but the sense that Rand was determined to win this on his own and his own people, not his fathers. It's not just that he separated himself from the Rockwells of the world but also Rothfields as well. Basically it was a brand new team and it was one staffed by pros per say but not ones who had more invested in the campaign than just a paycheck.

I agree the 2012 campaign was the best in terms of having grassroots energy and competent, trained staff. I had no problem with the way it was being run until the very end when it became obvious the upper staff was more interested in getting jobs in the party establishment than and kissing up to Romney than to honor the efforts the grassroots by having Ron's name put in nomination from the convention floor. Would it have killed Romney to let that happen? Hmmm? They could have had that all wrapped up the first night, let it be Ron's swan song and then would have been three nights of Romney-fest. Instead they rip away our delegates and change the rules and much of it facilitated by the upper echelon campaign itself, (remember the Louisiana "compromise"?) including one Sen. Rand Paul. He was the one who endorsed Romney way back in May, the one whose mess of pottage was a meaningless convention speech and then to top it all off an endorsement of epitome of what Republicans hate about their own party's leadership: Mitch McConnell. And then we find out in the heat of the Iowa campaign Tate and Kesari and crew tried to payoff a nobody state senator (who was already on the take from Michele Bachmann) with laundered money. I understand politics being a blood sport and all, I'm not naive. It just wasn't a smart move and it got a lot of people in trouble. Those people, experienced though they may have been with the Paul movement, were the ones kept away from Rand's campaign in 2016 for that very reason, because they were tainted and tainted by a very dumb decision.

I agree with you completely that libertarians not only need competent political professionals, but ones willing to be in politics and wanting to win instead of sending a message. As I said, if Rand's going to stay in he's got to be there for the right reasons, not because it's the family business, because it isn't.
 
Last edited:
Badger Paul said:
it became obvious the upper staff was more interested in getting jobs in the party establishment than and kissing up to Romney . . . Instead they rip away our delegates and change the rules and much of it facilitated by the upper echelon campaign itself, (remember the Louisiana "compromise"?) including one Sen. Rand Paul. He was the one who endorsed Romney way back in May, the one whose mess of pottage was a meaningless convention speech and then to top it all off an endorsement of epitome of what Republicans hate about their own party's leadership: Mitch McConnell. And then we find out in the heat of the Iowa campaign Tate and Kesari and crew tried to payoff a nobody state senator (who was already on the take from Michele Bachmann) with laundered money. I understand politics being a blood sport and all, I'm not naive. It just wasn't a smart move and it got a lot of people in trouble. Those people, experienced though they may have been with the Paul movement, were the ones kept away from Rand's campaign in 2016 for that very reason, because they were tainted and tainted by a very dumb decision.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that.

I agree with a lot of your perspective, but I think what was done at the convention was a look to the future. The Romney endorsement, the McConnell endorsement - these things make sense if you look at the leeway Rand's gotten in the senate he wouldn't otherwise have. A degree of spotlight that he wouldn't have had he not done those things. Think about it, the Audit bill almost passed the Senate! Remember in '09 when we felt lucky and excited to just get co-sponsors in the House. We have definitely moved the ball forward, and Rand, Ron, and all the guys we've talked about deserve a lot of credit for that.

Sorenson probably seemed worth it and made sense at the time. Almost worked, if you think of how Ron was being discussed in the media the week before Iowa in 2012, how he was polling and how close to first place we got. A couple more percentage points and RON PAUL of all people wins the Iowa Caucus. He got second in New Hampshire. What if he won Iowa? Whatever it took was worth it then. If Ron wins Iowa, the Sorenson story probably never even comes out, either.

Damn!
 
wizardwatson said:
We're all deluding ourselves?
Click to expand...

If you have unrealistic expectations of, and misplaced faith in a political system and environment, with an ecosystem of special interests and dependents that is diametrically opposed to what you claim to seek (i.e. liberty), then yes, I'm afraid you are.
 
Kotin said:
Matt came on here as he does most of the time these days to instigate. This had nothing to do with constructive criticism of the campaign or Rand Paul which I have no problem with whatsoever.

He was trolling in the clearest sense of the word. At a time when it really is just not okay to do.. Criticism is always okay and welcomed and needed frankly at this point but that is NOT what he was doing and he has not done for Quite a while. He was gloating, but why I cannot understand but will not let him do that to the people who have worked so tirelessly for this campaign

It is a temp ban and he deserved it.

I am so proud of the work we have put in and I of course am disappointed but I am used to that by now lol. Further I am so proud of Rand even if there is a lot to learn from this campaign already and to improve upon.

But Rand represents me and I love the guy for soldiering through this campaign even though it's been this way from the start almost. He truly is the greatest candidate we have had in a long time and I stand with him regardless of the outcome of this election

He is the best senator in god knows how long and I feel so much better that he is there and would absolutely love him in the Oval Office. I support whatever he does and he is continuing on and so will I

I stand with Rand
Click to expand...

Kotin did cool down & then explained his reasons.
Matt Collins knows how to push people's buttons.
He has a temp ban, he will be back in good time.
 
cajuncocoa said:
He wasn't merely "speaking the truth." He appeared to be gloating over it.
Click to expand...

Yes. It was his joy over Rand's poor results and his claiming that only the great Collins knew why it was happening (he didn't) that is the reason I hope he stays banned. I actually met him during the 2012 campaign and he seemed to be a pretty decent guy. Too bad he joined the dark side...
 
jmdrake said:
Uhhh....no. You don't get it. Ron would have done better this year Trump would have muted any criticism against Ron for being against the Iraq war. Hell, Trump was against the Afghanistan war until he was for it. Trump was have muted any criticism against Ron being tied to 9/11 truthers since Trump grabbed the "twofer" mantle and ran with it, both attacking dubya for "not protecting us" prior to 9/11 (undermining the official story that there was no actionable intelligence) and being proud to go on the Alex Jones show, something Rand has not been willing to do after Alex went temporarily insane following Rand's endorsement of Romney. And Ron most likely wouldn't have played the fool and gone after Trump to try to get him to "pledge not to run third party" and "pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee" the way Rand did. Seriously, Rand has made some actual mistakes (I know that's hard for some people to admit) and that's part of the reason why he didn't do as well.




Yeah...you don't get it either.




You get it. Add to this in this crazy year an endorsement by the GOP senate majority leader Mitch McConnell is a "kiss of death" and there you have it. Rand makes friends with McConnell. Cruz calls McConnell a liar. Rand chides Cruz for being rude to McConnell. Rand drops in the polls.



You get it as well. Only....Rand had not choice to run against the establishment in 2010 as the establishment actively ran after him! It wasn't Rand's fault that Mitch McConnell decided to fund raise for Trey Grayson. Then somebody (*cough* Jesse Benton *cough*) thought it would be a good idea after beating the establishment to make friends with the establishment. That wouldn't have been so bad if that same somebody hadn't decided to treat certain parts of the Ron Paul movement as "undesirable." That would be okay if the teocons had been enough to replace the "undesirables." But Cruz soaked up most of the tea party. And Trump soaked up the stupids.




:rolleyes: If all else false blame the voters? Newsflash. Cruz beat Trump today. So...does it really matter if people who didn't vote for Rand voted for Cruz? Here is what you are missing. What made Ron so awesome is that he could get people to trust him long enough to learn about liberty. You don't do that by going on a rant after the BP oil spill saying that this foreign corporation that poisoned the Gulf is somehow being "bullied." You don't do that by signing the Tom Cotton letter that said "Screw you Iran! We don't want peace!" I understand why Rand has run the campaign the way he has. He's been trying to build a broader coalition to include more teocons. But in the process he lost people that otherwise might have voted for him. It's not their fault. Blaming them will not help Rand rise in the polls. Learning how to reach more teocons while still reaching the people Ron reached is the key.
Click to expand...

Great post. I will say that's a long row to hoe to educate those people (teocons). Of course people like Collins will start foaming at the mouth when you start speaking of educating voters, but Rand's campaign tried it his way and lost miserably. Ron continually gained converts by taking the long way by educating the public.
 
K466 said:
So much for mainstreaming and moderating and flip-flopping towards the middle. Gee, if I recall correctly that's what Matt Collins advocated in the beginning... amirite?
Click to expand...

That's exactly what he advocated. Called everyone clueless if they didn't agree with his insights.
 
As a foreigner that got captured by Ron Paul back in 2008, it was easy to notice the difference. Ron really got me excited and made me search youtube every day for new clips of him. I imagine this applied to many of you as well. Rand never managed to get me sucked in the same way. It might have been cause I already had my awakening, but I really wonder if ppl that were to young for Ron got that excitement feeling from Rand. If you look at my posts I wasnt even sold on Rand back in 2010 when he ran for senate. (I was a Schiff4Senate guy. He would have been AWESOME in the senate). I think it was the way he embraced ppl in the establishment early on and not being as principald on foreign policy that got me ticked of. After that I only liked certain specific things he would say, but not him as a whole. I also never saw him being able to inspire ppl. He falls through the cracks. Its a shame though.
 
Corto_Maltese said:
As a foreigner that got captured by Ron Paul back in 2008, it was easy to notice the difference. Ron really got me excited and made me search youtube every day for new clips of him. I imagine this applied to many of you as well. Rand never managed to get me sucked in the same way. It might have been cause I already had my awakening, but I really wonder if ppl that were to young for Ron got that excitement feeling from Rand. If you look at my posts I wasnt even sold on Rand back in 2010 when he ran for senate. (I was a Schiff4Senate guy. He would have been AWESOME in the senate). I think it was the way he embraced ppl in the establishment early on and not being as principald on foreign policy that got me ticked of. After that I only liked certain specific things he would say, but not him as a whole. I also never saw him being able to inspire ppl. He falls through the cracks. Its a shame though.
Click to expand...

I had that same excitement. I couldn't wait to get home from work and fire up the internet to see what mainstream fallacy Ron was smashing that day! :D With Rand I very rarely reached that level of enthusiasm. I checked these forums maybe once a week. With Ron I had this place bookmarked and was on here constantly.
 
" had that same excitement. I couldn't wait to get home from work and fire up the internet to see what mainstream fallacy Ron was smashing that day! With Rand I very rarely reached that level of enthusiasm. I checked these forums maybe once a week. With Ron I had this place bookmarked and was on here constantly."

Me too. First time I ever saw Rand on video was after his primary win in 2010 and I said to myself. "Boy, for someone who became the first Paul to win a statewide election, he sure doesn't look happy. That impression never left me. I don't think he finds a joy in the process by spreading the message the way Ron did.
 
Badger Paul said:
" had that same excitement. I couldn't wait to get home from work and fire up the internet to see what mainstream fallacy Ron was smashing that day! With Rand I very rarely reached that level of enthusiasm. I checked these forums maybe once a week. With Ron I had this place bookmarked and was on here constantly."

Me too. First time I ever saw Rand on video was after his primary win in 2010 and I said to myself. "Boy, for someone who became the first Paul to win a statewide election, he sure doesn't look happy. That impression never left me. I don't think he finds a joy in the process by spreading the message the way Ron did.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid the problem is with us folks, not the campaign. I drove the Rand Paul Corvette up there to Iowa and followed the campaign. All the rallies in the little towns with the stodgy old folks (like me) were boring affairs. When we got to the university where Ron came to support Rand it was like old times!! The crowd was electric and engaged. The kids were there in great numbers and they were excited by the ideas of liberty. They supported Rand and some of them didn't even know much about Ron. They absolutely LOVED the corvette and these kids really got what liberty was all about. When I asked some if they ever go to ronpaulforums they were in the dark. They had never heard of "us". Face it guys, we are old school. We missed the bus. It's all social media now (as much as I hate it). If you're not on facebook or twitter then they don't know what you are up to.

We had a major disconnect this time around because the "old school" was here and the youth were elsewhere. If we could have connected, maybe things would have been better but without the media giving us a fair shake it was doomed when Trump entered and the media could talk of no one else...

I'm very depressed (again) but in a way maybe it's better to have it end this way. At least we don't have to put ourselves through so much false hope. Without the media you can't get elected...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top