Ron Paul's GA State Coordinator wins primary against 15 year incumbent

If that were the case we'd see all kinds of incumbents falling. Most of them get re-elected. The incumbent has a record to defend but he/she also has name recognition and for 95% of the people out there remembering a name is all that matters. Most don't take days, weeks, months or years to pick out who they support and why they support them.

The campaign has been the lynchpin in getting this going. I don't think that there were many here that honestly thought we had a shot after Iowa but we're all still trying!!

I was talking at the GOP booth at our county fair. Its social conservative country here. We're real big on no gays and no muslims, but when you actually sit down and talk through the real issues you'll find we agree on a large portion of things that other GOP'ers do.

coffeewithchess said:
Actually, running against the guy that has been in office is a lot easier now. Just say, "Look what he has done. Debt. Debt. Debt. I'm the better choice.", that has nothing to do with the official campaign.
Click to expand...
 
This is great. I'm exited beyond belief. I think we should focus all our efforts on the House for now, and then move on to the senate.
 
KingRobbStark said:
This is great. I'm exited beyond belief. I think we should focus all our efforts on the House for now, and then move on to the senate.
Click to expand...

We need both, if we get the house full of liberty candidates, the senate will just let anything they pass die there with them. Then we work on the senate while the house gets whacked out again because the media will say they couldn't get anything done.

But yes, we are winning positions, and that is very, very good :)
 
Last edited:
kathy88 said:
Chess by campaign most of us mean Ron's running for President. The rallies, the education aspect, the motivation of the grassroots. That is what got the ball rolling to excite people enough to get involved. By campaign I think you refer more to Benton and as you have taken ad nauseum every opportunity to voice your opinion about THAT campaign, you are probably right. Benton had nothing to do with this particular victory. I'm sure if Benton had just run more attack ads like you mentioned constantly.... But we will never know will we?
Click to expand...
I agree. No use crying over split milk. Time to KBO and focus on the local and Congressional races where we can still flex our muscle to victory.
 
KingRobbStark said:
This is great. I'm exited beyond belief. I think we should focus all our efforts on the House for now, and then move on to the senate.
Click to expand...

I think we need to focus on where the best candidates are -- and everywhere they are. There simply aren't that many really good ones.
 
kathy88 said:
Chess by campaign most of us mean Ron's running for President. The rallies, the education aspect, the motivation of the grassroots. That is what got the ball rolling to excite people enough to get involved. By campaign I think you refer more to Benton and as you have taken ad nauseum every opportunity to voice your opinion about THAT campaign, you are probably right. Benton had nothing to do with this particular victory. I'm sure if Benton had just run more attack ads like you mentioned constantly.... But we will never know will we?
Click to expand...

If the campaign was about a supposed "educational" aspect as we are to believe (?), and not about winning, there is the first problem. BUT if that is all it was, why not run "educational ads" about following the Constitution? Declaring war? The "Gold Standard" and/or auditing the Federal Reserve? Balancing the budget without cutting Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid etc.? At least that would have helped educate more people right? Instead, we got attack ads on Perry, Gingrich, Santorum...even after two of those had dropped out.

It's very simple for me:
1) Educational campaign - raise money running ads helping educate people and making people aware of issues
2) "In It To Win It" campaign - raise money and attack President Obama and Mitt Romney (one and the same) when every candidate had dropped out, and at the very least in Virginia which was the first one-on-one state

The campaign did neither of these.
 
FSP-Rebel said:
constant negativity
Click to expand...

Stating facts is "constant negativity". :D
I take it you disagree with something I actually wrote, or are you saying that pointing out the official campaign wasted time and money is negative?

If you can't learn from your mistakes, you're likely to repeat them. 2008 and 2012 should be very good examples to anybody trying to earn a paycheck in politics.

If the campaign was such a huge success, why did "liberty" candidates lose races/seats this last primary round? You have to look at both sides, and I would rather give credit to the candidate and his supporters as I said.
 
coffeewithchess said:
Stating facts is "constant negativity". :D
I take it you disagree with something I actually wrote, or are you saying that pointing out the official campaign wasted time and money is negative?

If you can't learn from your mistakes, you're likely to repeat them. 2008 and 2012 should be very good examples to anybody trying to earn a paycheck in politics.

If the campaign was such a huge success, why did "liberty" candidates lose races/seats this last primary round? You have to look at both sides, and I would rather give credit to the candidate and his supporters as I said.
Click to expand...

Damn. Can you please give it a rest? You have made your position clear that you hate the campaign.
 
LibertyEagle said:
Damn. Can you please give it a rest? You have made your position clear that you hate the campaign.
Click to expand...

Hate is a strong word, and I don't think I have ever said "I hate the campaign" as you said? Maybe I did? As I told someone else, I'm waiting until the RNC to hopefully see what was going on behind the scenes. I don't have to like a campaign though that was apparently lying to supporters about being "in it to win it" and not living up to that, and I believe credit should be given where credit is due. That's all.

BUT if you all missed it, Ron Paul is quoted on Charles Gregory's site under the "The Issues" tab: http://charlesgregory.com/Issues.aspx
 
Chess just because they didn't run attack ads against Mitt does not mean they were not in it to win it. That is one facet of a complex endeavor. You make ads and put them on you tube. That's your thing. Therefore your focus. It is an extremely limited opinion, certainly not a fact.
 
kathy88 said:
Chess just because they didn't run attack ads against Mitt does not mean they were not in it to win it. That is one facet of a complex endeavor. You make ads and put them on you tube. That's your thing. Therefore your focus. It is an extremely limited opinion, certainly not a fact.
Click to expand...

They didn't run ads to promote RP either in Virginia. They did basically NOTHING to let people know RP was serious about winning there. Same with North Carolina. Using RonPaul2012.com to DEFEND Rand Paul's endorsement of Mitt Romney I guess is another non-fact as well? If not attacking Mitt Romney, while having Doug Wead tell people basically it was a "one-on-one" race of Ron vs. Mitt, while continuing to attack Newt and Rick, then when those candidates dropped out you continue to attack them with an attack ad in Texas makes no sense.

Many of my "ads" if you want to call them that, were based off of ideas thrown around here and from dealing with zombies online. Nothing to do with running a professional campaign that claimed to be "in it to win it". Which if that was the case, did RP show up to the LA delegate selection where his supporters were arrested/detained and had fingers and a hip broken? What about other states where the delegates were battling, and now the campaign can't even tell us for sure if the delegates get through?
How about an official campaign ad showing the RP supporters having a swollen broken foot by Newt's "security", broken fingers/hips, being slapped in the back of the head (Texas), etc? If this was about change, it's not going to come slowly within the GOP because they have firewalls in place as well, either you cause massive structural damage that forces them to see the house as splitting down the middle, or you can cozy up to the them at the big boy table as apparently RP2012, RP, and Rand Paul think is so great with Rand Paul's endorsement. Again, I'm playing the patient card, hoping Ron Paul gets the nomination handed to him by Mitt Romney, because Mitt Romney is really just a swell guy, but if that isn't the situation I hope Ron and Rand start asking Mitt for the $30 million to refund to donors.

If people didn't feel/felt burned by the campaign, just look at the number of posters around here I think it's pretty obvious. Was more good, or harm done with what they were given? The way you end a campaign, is extremely important if it really is more about a "movement" or the "educational" aspect.

This should all be Politics 101, good Public Relations, and the fact with $50+ million RP and RP and Company couldn't learn that is pretty sad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Charles Gregory GA HD-34
Replies
17
Views
1K
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
SpreadOfLiberty
Newly Elected State Rep from Georgia was Ron Paul's State Coordinator
Replies
9
Views
941
SpreadOfLiberty
SpreadOfLiberty
TaftFan
GA State Rep. Charles Gregory is having a "Session is out Money Bomb"
Replies
0
Views
1K
TaftFan
TaftFan
J
34% of Senate Seats are Open in 2008. LETS WIN THEM ALL.
Replies
10
Views
1K
Paul4Prez
P
Back
Top