WaPo: Will Rand Paul Inherit the Energy From his Father's Campaigns? (cites RPFs)

[Deborah K]

And to the people that whine about "not being wanted" by the campaign...Here's how I see it. You want to help the campaign in the way YOU WANT, not in the way THEY NEED. That seems really selfish to me. Basically, it's not about advancing liberty, right? It's about making you feel wanted.

I'm not in this for me. I care about the end goal.

Bullshit. It's about neutering the grassroots. What the hell is the point of grassroots activism if it's going to be controlled by the 'pros'? Who do you think got Ron drafted in '08, which started this whole process? Anyway, I don't believe Ron or Rand resent the grassroots. It's certain people within their campaigns who don't like or want us.

 

[William Tell]

Rand would need to appear on Infowars to get those supporters, like Ron did.

He has in the past.

 

[mosquitobite]

I hope Rand can hold on to the pony vote. That's the main thing.

<- has this pony's vote.

 

[fisharmor]

Not even close.

The Revolution is over.
I would like it to be otherwise, but this is the way things are.
I can see you see that as a good thing.
I disagree.
We'll find out who's right.

I can see you don't understand how bringing about change in a society of millions of people works, and you don't understand how people work either. Ron Paul's tactic was only ever going to attract a small minority. The majority was never going to be attracted to his message. Those people need to be eased into libertarianism. You are never going to turn the majority into libertarians. You need to frame your message differently because not everyone cares about the same things we care about.

Ever since I heard of Ron Paul, there have been three types of people who know who he is.
The type who buy the message,
the type who willfully ignore the message or choose to believe the misrepresentation of the message cast by the media,
and die-hard Keynesians.
I still believe the first two categories make up far greater than 50% of the population.

How do you think democrats have been successful? By gradually easing people into their socialism. But your strategy is to either bring about complete change, or make no progress at all. You will never advance liberty that way. You will always be stuck with the very small minority that isn't enough to win elections.

Socialism has been around for a long, long time. And every big push for it in that time has been attached to a social movement.
We had that. And now we don't.

 

[AuH20]

If you look at just those contributors who gave at least $200 to Ron Paul, there isn’t a lot for Rand Paul to be excited about. Of the more than 21,000 people listed on Federal Election Commission filings as donors to Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign, just 305 have also given at least $200 to Rand Paul’s Senate campaign or his leadership PAC, according to an analysis by The Upshot. Those donations totaled $419,000.

 

[SilentBull]

Bullshit. It's about neutering the grassroots. What the hell is the point of grassroots activism if it's going to be controlled by the 'pros'? Who do you think got Ron drafted in '08, which started this whole process? Anyway, I don't believe Ron or Rand resent the grassroots. It's certain people within their campaigns who don't like or want us.

Well, when the grassroots does things that are counter-productive, like send brochures with tons of issues on it, of course the campaigns are not gonna like that. They work on framing and targeting their message, and someone comes along with no marketing knowledge, and bombards people with a list of stuff, guaranteeing that the recipients will be put off enough by at least one of those issues to stop listening altogether.

 

[mad cow]

If you look at just those contributors who gave at least $200 to Ron Paul, there isn’t a lot for Rand Paul to be excited about. Of the more than 21,000 people listed on Federal Election Commission filings as donors to Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign, just 305 have also given at least $200 to Rand Paul’s Senate campaign or his leadership PAC, according to an analysis by The Upshot. Those donations totaled $419,000.

Heh,I'm one of the ~300!

MOLON LABE!

 

[newbitech]

It's about proper calibration. You want to slide into that sweet spot above "knocks on doors in a New Hampshire winter" and below "pelts Fox News hosts with snowballs".

oh the image in my head. LMAO. Back then, it was really do or die for a lot of us. Sometimes you have to send a message. Hannity will never forget that moment. It's probably as close to liberty and patriotism that a guy like that will ever get.

 

[Working Poor]

Rand winning would vindicate Ron, and Ron would have the ear of the President. Rand would rely on his father's wisdom.

We would also be vindicated and of course he would have Ron on his side too.

 

[Deborah K]

Well, when the grassroots does things that are counter-productive, like send brochures with tons of issues on it, of course the campaigns are not gonna like that. They work on framing and targeting their message, and someone comes along with no marketing knowledge, and bombards people with a list of stuff, guaranteeing that the recipients will be put off enough by at least one of those issues to stop listening altogether.

And the answer to that is to throw the baby out with the bathwater, instead of engaging them and starting a dialogue so that every one is on the same page? Or, co-opting them so that they aren't the grassroots anymore, just campaign worker dolts? And as William Tell so aptly put it, Rand's campaign does not have to endorse back.

Look, we're a different breed of people in this movement - very diverse - very independent. There will always be those who act like loose cannons, but that is no reason to paint the whole movement with the same broad brush stroke, and it irritates the piss out of me when people do that. It's as though the concept of grassroots activism is purposely being re-defined.

I wrote this thread a while back on grassroots activism: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?463801-We-are-the-Grassroots!!! Take a gander if you're so inclined. I see tremendous value for a candidate to have an authentic grassroots movement backing him/her up. It is anathema to the status-quo establishment who have to buy their way into office; who can only dream of having such support.

 

[The Gold Standard]

The have Jesse Benton and Matt Collins. They have no need for grassroots activism. I'm guessing they wish they had those activists' money though. Ron didn't have a money bomb fail to hit a million until probably the very end of the 2012 primary season after his staff already sold him out to the RNC.

 

[Deborah K]

The have Jesse Benton and Matt Collins. They have no need for grassroots activism. I'm guessing they wish they had those activists' money though. Ron didn't have a money bomb fail to hit a million until probably the very end of the 2012 primary season after his staff already sold him out to the RNC.

If one thing will change the electoral process it's grassroots activism.

 

[tony m]

New York State was not on the radar for 2012 but the grassroots here made sure the Revolution was alive and well in general and especially with the Republican party.
I am sure the party is happy they don't have to deal with the Ron Paul push.

 

[philipped]

I'm going to disagree with you a little there, since I don't think "statesman" is the right word. Ron was certainly not much of a politician, but statesmen - respected figures who by their service materially change the course of a nation - are almost invariably politicians. What Ron was, and is, is a philosopher. He's more interested in ideas and the theory underpinning government and society.

+rep

 

[philipped]

Let the professionals do what they have to do, and let the rEVOLution do what the campaign needs us to do. We do that, and Rand Paul will be the 45th President of the United States...

+rep

 

[thoughtomator]

I see Rand inherited the email fundraising strategy - I've gotten five separate appeals in the last 24 hours in my email.

 

[AuH20]

Am I the only one who thinks that we don't necessarily have to win to attain our goals? IMHO Rand just needs to get close, so our enemies can expose themselves for what they are. It's kind of like playing at the water's edge, waiting to draw the alligator to shore.....