The Problems Oklahoma Dealt With from the Ron Paul Campaign State Coordinator

[sailingaway]

posted at DP. And I do understand Benton wouldn't let the OK delegates into the delegates section at the rally etc, from previous posts I saw there. I don't know if the coordinator was simply rogue and managed to poison the well or what, but I pass this on:

http://www.dailypaul.com/256389/the...-from-the-ron-paul-campaign-state-coordinator

 

[MozoVote]

I think there was some stuff on here that Nebraska also had problems with the official campaign butting heads with grassroots organizers. The offical campaign was hands-off for a long time, then started getting more muscular about what it wanted at the end. People were suspicious that the official campaign wanted to keep some of the rowdier newcomers from going to Tampa.

 

[sailingaway]

But it sounds like this guy was possibly playing both sides for his own position. I don't know. But yeah, the campaign clearly bought into the media lies that WE caused the roughness when in fact in OK Romney supporters are the ones who slugged our guys and neither the man nor the woman hit, hit back.

 

[parocks]

What happened in Oklahoma is that a whole of people ignored the official campaign and did whatever they felt like.

That's not a good idea.

 

[sailingaway]

What happened in Oklahoma is that a whole of people ignored the official campaign and did whatever they felt like.

That's not a good idea.

where do you get your insight on this?

 

[parocks]

where do you get your insight on this?

I'll go back there and copy and paste here.

Boils down to this.

"People did not want to be directed by Al Gerhart or told they were doing wrong by not following his orders."

Hmm. Well "people" were wrong.

People should've just done what Al Gerhart, the official campaign, told them to do.

 

[sailingaway]

I'll go back there and copy and paste here.

Boils down to this.

"People did not want to be directed by Al Gerhart or told they were doing wrong by not following his orders."

Hmm. Well "people" were wrong.

People should've just done what Al Gerhart, the official campaign, told them to do.

It sounds like he was a real problem. Think about what people say the 'official campaign' person did in Colorado.

 

[angelatc]

It sounds like he was a real problem. Think about what people say the 'official campaign' person did in Colorado.

Careful! PArocks says that criticizing the campaign shouldn't be allowed.

 

[eleganz]

I'll go back there and copy and paste here.

Boils down to this.

"People did not want to be directed by Al Gerhart or told they were doing wrong by not following his orders."

Hmm. Well "people" were wrong.

People should've just done what Al Gerhart, the official campaign, told them to do.

Yea guys, we should've just done what the RNC told us to do.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I don't think we know the whole story on Oklahoma. So, it might be prudent not to rip someone else up over hearsay.

 

[sailingaway]

I don't think we know the whole story on Oklahoma. So, it might be prudent not to rip someone else up over hearsay.

Well, to us it is hearsay, but to the person who wrote this it is direct testimony including their own identity etc. I am open to hearing other sides, but it isn't many times removed as we often receive information.

 

[acptulsa]

I don't think we know the whole story on Oklahoma. So, it might be prudent not to rip someone else up over hearsay.

I'm not in District 2, but it looks like I'll get a chance to meet Fish on the 2nd.

 

[parocks]

It sounds like he was a real problem. Think about what people say the 'official campaign' person did in Colorado.

It doesn't matter if he's a real problem.

It doesn't work if you don't listen to the official campaign. period.
That doesn't mean it does work if you do, but the only way it works is if you listen to the official campaign.

You do what the official campaign says, even if the official campaign person is flawed in many ways. That's just the only way it works.

 

[sailingaway]

It doesn't matter if he's a real problem.

It doesn't work if you don't listen to the official campaign. period.
That doesn't mean it does work if you do, but the only way it works is if you listen to the official campaign.

You do what the official campaign says, even if the official campaign person is flawed in many ways. That's just the only way it works.

I disagree. It would depend on what your goals and fall backs are. The goals and fall backs of the campaign seemed to be very off kilter.

For example, that campaign person pretending Ron had said he wouldn't accept being nominated from the floor even if he could be. What would have 'worked' by going along with that lie? Instead they had to recant and Ron's name WAS put into nomination by 6 states. And I think that WAS a victory, and it was noted by media and whenever idiots tell us to vote for Romney, we bring it up, that he broke the rules and pretended they were changed by voice vote to kill Ron's chance to be on the floor nominated for the ballot vote. And we have video evidence that the Chair of the RNC lied that it hadn't happened an hour before Roll Call.

I think that is the fall back we wanted, although if the campaign hadn't squelched grass roots enthusiasm, I think we had a very real chance of nominating Ron from the floor by having too many states to cheat Ron out of, so it would be evident even to the idiots in the Romney campaign that they'd have no chance if they cheated so much to keep Ron from being nominated on the floor.

'The campaign's' goals sucked, if you ask me.

 

[parocks]

Yea guys, we should've just done what the RNC told us to do.

The official Ron Paul Campaign. Not the RNC.

The key takeaway from the DP thread is that a whole people, calling themselves "grassroots" decided to do something completely in opposition to what the Official Ron Paul Campaign wanted.

I expect that not following orders is plenty common. In Maine, we followed orders and won. There was "grassroots" to screw things up. There was the official campaign. And in order for things to work, all of that "grassroots" needs to get folded into the official campaign.

There shouldn't be "grassroots" delegate selections. That's insane, but that's exactly what happened in OK.

The official campaign came up with a list, told everyone to vote for the list. (BTW, that's exactly how it worked in Maine). But, somehow the "grassroots" had their own list. I have no idea why that was, and who thought that would be a good idea, but it happened. And apparently, some Ron Paul supporters said "I want to vote for the unofficial list, that we picked." And that's insane. But it's what happened in OK.

 

[parocks]

I disagree. It would depend on what your goals and fall backs are. The goals and fall backs of the campaign seemed to be very off kilter.

When the official campaign has a list, you use that list. You don't come up with your own list. You don't bitch about the official campaign not asking for input.

It doesn't work unless you do what the official campaign says.

 

[sailingaway]

When the official campaign has a list, you use that list. You don't come up with your own list. You don't bitch about the official campaign not asking for input.

It doesn't work unless you do what the official campaign says.

That is your opinion. With a different campaign, that might have been true. But if what Tom Woods said about the goals of the campaign after SC is true, their list would have been people supporting their goals, hence not people we should want, even if the coordinator wasn't merely rogue NOT acting for the campaign, which is actually what is suggested by the post in the OP.

 

[parocks]

That is your opinion. With a different campaign, that might have been true.

I should note that my "doesn't work unless" had to do with state level coordination.

I thought that Ron Paul delegates could've gone off the reservation at the convention. However, we had lost by then.

 

[parocks]

Careful! PArocks says that criticizing the campaign shouldn't be allowed.

No, now's a good time to talk about these things.

I was saying that you don't ignore the campaign and do what you feel like doing.

Refusing to do what the campaign wants is not the same thing at all as being critical.

 

[sailingaway]

I should note that my "doesn't work unless" had to do with state level coordination.

I thought that Ron Paul delegates could've gone off the reservation at the convention. However, we had lost by then.

Because, for example, the state coordinator in Louisiana agreed to not challenge losing control of the state, as a 'compromise'. Not all the Louisiana people were thrilled with that.

In Colorado someone posted that the official coordinator asked them to vote for known Santorum supporters instead of Paulites, with the idea that he himself would be voted as delegation chair, that backfired and they chose a Santorum delegation chair who broke the deal from the time and did not cast the state votes for Ron, but split them, handing Romney that state as well.

On the other hand, the guys in Maine and Minnesota were fantastic, but it depended on the caliber of the particular people involved, from what I have read here, not their status as part of the campaign.