Ron Paul's fundraising............................

[neverseen]

But the spending has apparently paid off in the election results. He has improved his vote total in nearly every state this year, with the exceptions being states that changed their formats from 2008.

dollar per vote amount he's doing GREAT compared to 2008...

 

[sailingaway]

is there a facebook page? i don't tweet.

I don't see one. RON had it on his facebook page but I don't see it now....

 

[sailingaway]

The facts speak for themselves...fundraising has dropped. The money bombs stopped after NH...and again, like in 2008, because the campaign seemed to have stopped so did the money...it's a chicken and an egg. IF Ron stops campaigning the money stops, if the money stops, Ron stops campaigning...solution Ron should start campaigning again even if it is more frugally. You don't need tons of money to campaign, Santorum did it in Iowa. Get Ron to the state of LA NOW and stay there until after voting stops...then maybe people will start giving money again. I've heard anything from the campaign recently, the fundraising emails stopped, no press releases, where is Ron's next event. Romney and Santorum are in IL now holding rallies...

As far as everyone else, coverage on Ron is over...no one talks about him. The delegate process is being hi-jacked, people are getting arrested...is Ron just going to give up?

I certainly want Ron out there, but that isn't a cure. Santorum was dead last in Iowa, but even then he got media coverage Ron never gets. after MO Ron should be getting a bunch, instead the headlines are about how few votes he got in Puerto Rico even though no one but ROMNEY got any delegates and Ron never so much as mentioned it, much less spent money on it. Ron has gone to MO and you saw the results. He got NO MEDIA of a major sort for 5000 people in Illinois. If he goes and they ignore him it isn't much good. He needs money for ads. And to challenge dirty tricks.

 

[JamesButabi]

Not to mention there are several Ron Paul centric PACs this time around. That did not exist in 2007.

 

[jolynna]

I'm not going to donate to the Mitt Romney campaign. Paul needs to disavow Benton and stop trying to play the VP game if he wants any more support from me.

It isn't about money in my area. All of our Ron Paul people intended to give more.

Now we are all are waiting to see what direction the campaign is going.

In my opinion.

 

[Crystallas]

Didn't he pick up more liberty billionaires and millionaires in February. Like Thiel and the such? Plus, he didn't have RevPAC. I'm not concerned.

 

[specsaregood]

For all we know Karger did direct mail or something

Far more likely is that he got some gay groups to turnout and vote for him.

 

[sailingaway]

It isn't about money in my area. All of our Ron Paul people intended to give more.

Now we are all are waiting to see what direction the campaign is going.

In my opinion.

He can't go in any direction without money and without money the only option he will have is fall backs.

I trust Ron to do his best for us.

 

[PolicyReader]

It isn't about money in my area. All of our Ron Paul people intended to give more.

Now we are all are waiting to see what direction the campaign is going.

In my opinion.

I've put this out there in more than one thread (and in more detail) but the short version is, in my studied opinion the Paul campaign is simply using political leverage to better position Ron for soft delegate support come Tampa.
Note he's also bluntly said he's not going VP, he's said there are no talks, Rand has said there are no talks, the PCC has gone on more of an offensive against Romney, Wead has pointed out that even before the new push against Romney their most played ad was "Three of a Kind" which tags everyone in the race.

All of this "alliance" nonsense is a media distraction. Just look at MO first reports out of there weren't "Santorum supporting GOP insiders hijack caucus" they were "crazy Paul supporters hijack caucus and collaborate with Romney supporters against voters" see how that works? It's like the "racist" smear from earlier, where you take something with an emotional charge that can turn people off and repeat it often enough and loudly enough that people start to doubt. At that point you've accomplished your propaganda goal even if there's not a shred of truth to what is being chanted.
The difference this time around is that the "racist" lies where targeted at possible supporters and the "Romney buddy movie" lies are targeted at current supporters.

I won't vote for a ticket headed by Romney whoever is in the VP slot, but what I also won't do is grant MSM mouthpieces (and/or certain down note posters from these forums) the legitimacy misrepresent what is going on. Ron Paul has a proven record of integrity and standing up for the constitution. What do the MSM talking heads have? When it comes down to it I'll trust Paul to mean what he says, after all if I can't trust him that far how could I have ever supported him in the first place?
Ron Paul said there's no deal that's good enough for me, and I don't care how some people dissect the phrasing of select statements.

The direction the campaign is going is the same direction it's always been going, to Tampa with as many delegates as possible the question really is "how fast" (i.e. how many delegates, how much of a direct fight can Paul put in the field) and that all comes down to what financial support he receives from the grassroots.

2c

ps ~ jolynna you've seen my other posts, you know where my motivations and drive come from, I tell you directly that if I actually thought these rumors held legitimacy or even a reasonable prospect for legitimacy, I wouldn't be posting as I have above. I hope you will come to a place where you are able to discount these misleading rumors, but I respect that such is an individual stance and understanding which must be reached in a personal way. I do not seek to pressure, but I did feel it was important to speak out on the subject.

 

[craezie]

We've been living under Obama for the last 4 years, what do they expect?

 

[Maltheus]

I've put this out there in more than one thread (and in more detail) but the short version is, in my studied opinion the Paul campaign is simply using political leverage to better position Ron for soft delegate support come Tampa.
Note he's also bluntly said he's not going VP, he's said there are no talks, Rand has said there are no talks, the PCC has gone on more of an offensive against Romney, Wead has pointed out that even before the new push against Romney their most played ad was "Three of a Kind" which tags everyone in the race.

All of this "alliance" nonsense is a media distraction. Just look at MO first reports out of there weren't "Santorum supporting GOP insiders hijack caucus" they were "crazy Paul supporters hijack caucus and collaborate with Romney supporters against voters" see how that works? It's like the "racist" smear from earlier, where you take something with an emotional charge that can turn people off and repeat it often enough and loudly enough that people start to doubt. At that point you've accomplished your propaganda goal even if there's not a shred of truth to what is being chanted.
The difference this time around is that the "racist" lies where targeted at possible supporters and the "Romney buddy movie" lies are targeted at current supporters.

I won't vote for a ticket headed by Romney whoever is in the VP slot, but what I also won't do is grant MSM mouthpieces (and/or certain down note posters from these forums) the legitimacy misrepresent what is going on. Ron Paul has a proven record of integrity and standing up for the constitution. What do the MSM talking heads have? When it comes down to it I'll trust Paul to mean what he says, after all if I can't trust him that far how could I have ever supported him in the first place?
Ron Paul said there's no deal that's good enough for me, and I don't care how some people dissect the phrasing of select statements.

The direction the campaign is going is the same direction it's always been going, to Tampa with as many delegates as possible the question really is "how fast" (i.e. how many delegates, how much of a direct fight can Paul put in the field) and that all comes down to what financial support he receives from the grassroots.

2c

ps ~ jolynna you've seen my other posts, you know where my motivations and drive come from, I tell you directly that if I actually thought these rumors held legitimacy or even a reasonable prospect for legitimacy, I wouldn't be posting as I have above. I hope you will come to a place where you are able to discount these misleading rumors, but I respect that such is an individual stance and understanding which must be reached in a personal way. I do not seek to pressure, but I did feel it was important to speak out on the subject.

Using political leverage to attain a better position? That's quite the bold game to play when hardcore supporters are dropping him over it. I will not vote for the Ron Paul slate of delegates at my upcoming convention. How's that for your better position? I just pulled my RP sign down this morning. What a clever campaign strategy! And since I'm an organizer, I'm now having to explain my position to people when they ask my help and I have to turn them down (trying to avoid it as much as possible, but it gets rude after a while).

All he's said "bluntly" is that there have been no talks. But with Benton and Fein out there saying that's what they would like, then how is that any better? So Paul hasn't sold us out, but he's looking to so as an option??? This isn't a MSM distraction. This is the campaign trying to have it both ways and failing miserably. This is worse than anything the GOP and MSM has been able to throw at us and it's all on Paul to turn it around. He has to start acting like a leader.

 

[specsaregood]

I will not vote for the Ron Paul slate of delegates at my upcoming convention. How's that for your better position? I just pulled my RP sign down this morning. What a clever campaign strategy! And since I'm an organizer, I'm now having to explain my position to people when they ask my help and I have to turn them down (trying to avoid it as much as possible, but it gets rude after a while).

Perhaps you should get lost then?

 

[Maltheus]

Perhaps you should get lost then?

So you can all put your heads in the sand over what's happening? If you all truly cared about the future of the liberty movement, you would all be lobbying them to not make this terrible mistake. You would be fighting to retain delegates, instead of telling them to get lost. Ron Paul as VP would be a disaster. I'll not have libertarianism blamed for the actions of Mitt Romney. And it's not even a possibility, since he won't be able to bargain away his delegates in that deal (they'll walk). We have a narrow window to prevent the campaign from cratering this movement. I suggest you use it.

 

[sailingaway]

So you can all put your heads in the sand over what's happening? If you all truly cared about the future of the liberty movement, you would all be lobbying them to not make this terrible mistake. You would be fighting to retain delegates, instead of telling them to get lost. Ron Paul as VP would be a disaster. I'll not have libertarianism blamed for the actions of Mitt Romney. And it's not even a possibility, since he won't be able to bargain away his delegates in that deal (they'll walk). We have a narrow window to prevent the campaign from cratering this movement. I suggest you use it.

RON PAUL has said he doesn't see that happening 'on either side'. You choose to listen to unnamed advisers (probably Fein) than to Ron.

 

[Merk]

I would like to see the campaign fighting the blatant corruption like GA and MO more because compared to what will happen at the convention, the current level of fraud is kiddie pool stuff. If they can't fight Dokes in MO and heel the corruption then what...?

 

[specsaregood]

So you can all put your heads in the sand over what's happening? If you all truly cared about the future of the liberty movement, you would all be lobbying them to not make this terrible mistake. You would be fighting to retain delegates, instead of telling them to get lost. Ron Paul as VP would be a disaster. I'll not have libertarianism blamed for the actions of Mitt Romney. And it's not even a possibility, since he won't be able to bargain away his delegates in that deal (they'll walk). We have a narrow window to prevent the campaign from cratering this movement. I suggest you use it.

If you don't support the campaign, then I fail to see why you are here.

 

[Maltheus]

RON PAUL has said he doesn't see that happening 'on either side'. You choose to listen to unnamed advisers (probably Fein) than to Ron.

I'm listening to the campaign manager. His name is Jesse Benton. Hardly unnamed. He said that if they don't get the nomination, "we're looking potentially for Ron to be the vice presidential nominee." Is that not crystal clear? No media bias there. No Santorum tricks there. Is Paul's campaign manager a liar? And if so, why wouldn't Paul fire him for saying something like that? "Doesn't see that happening" is a calculated non-answer (especially coming from a political candidate). He should have said that he doesn't have any interest in being vice-president, if true.

 

[Maltheus]

If you don't support the campaign, then I fail to see why you are here.

Well then apparently, you quoted my post, but failed to read it.

 

[sailingaway]

I'm listening to the campaign manager. His name is Jesse Benton. Hardly unnamed. He said that if they don't get the nomination, "we're looking potentially for Ron to be the vice presidential nominee." Is that not crystal clear? No media bias there. No Santorum tricks there. Is Paul's campaign manager a liar? And if so, why wouldn't Paul fire him for saying something like that? "Doesn't see that happening" is a calculated non-answer (especially coming from a political candidate). He should have said that he doesn't have any interest in being vice-president, if true.

No, actually, I don't think Ron is paying much attention to what Benton said.

RON PAUL has addressed this himself.

 

[gerryb]

And we wonder why the Republic is in the state it is in.

Remember when we had a constitutional republic, and the VP was the 2nd highest vote getter from the general election?

If you can't take 2nd place and be happy, you should have never gotten involved in the first place, since your actions are now causing more damage.