Washington Times: 'Rand's camp ignoring Ron's supporters'

[GunnyFreedom]

Ummm....Gunny...nobody is upset about anything Rand did to help Mitch McConnell after he secured the nomination. This is the issue.

The first is in Kentucky. As he faces a tough race for re-election, McConnell needs all the help he can get, and Paul has been helpful. Recent polls show that, after having to defeat a tea party challenger in the GOP primary, McConnell has solidified his Republican base. Paul not only endorsed McConnell over the challenger, but has since worked to heal whatever party wounds there were.

And let's be clear. That issue isn't merely a problem for Ron Paul supporters. It's also a problem for tea partiers who didn't like Ron but were willing to take a chance on Rand. Yes the endorsement made Rand a more effective senator. But it also hurt his credibility. And it's not the fault of the voter when a politician does something that causes the voter to no longer support him anymore than it is the fault of the customer when a business loses his support. But Rand's defense of McConnell went beyond the election. In response to a question about Ted Cruz calling Mitch McConnell a liar....

“Ted has chosen to make this really personal and chosen to call people dishonest in leadership and call them names which really goes against the decorum and also against the rules of the senate, and as a consequence he can’t get anything done legislatively,” Paul said.
“He is pretty much done for and stifled and it’s really because of personal relationships, or lack of personal relationships, and it is a problem.”

Paul explained that he’s just as “hardcore” but has a different approach than Cruz.

“I just chose not to call people liars on the senate floor and it’s just a matter of different perspectives on how best to get to the end result,” Paul said.

Rand didn't have to do that. I can see the temptation. Cruz is a rival for the GOP nomination for president. And here was a good opportunity to take him down a notch. Only problem is.....a lot of tea party types actually think Mitch McConnell is a liar. They hear that on talk radio every time McConnell doesn't go along with defunding Obamacare and ever time McConnell goes along with funding the entire federal government rather than facing a government shut down. The tea party wants a government shut down as long as Obama is in power. The tea party would rather the government be shut down than funds go to Planned Parenthood who's minions were caught on video bargaining over baby parts. They tea party wants people it supports to be in your face not just with Obama but with the milktoast republicans that, to their mind, let Obama get just about anything he wants. And there's a rather large overlap of agreement with Ron Paul supporters and the tea party on this issue.

So here's the real problem. For a variety of reasons Ron Paul supporters of various stripes felt "unwelcome" especially after the infamous "Don't go to Paulfest" because "bad people are organizing it" Jesse Benton texts. (See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ15Y8p0akc) But most tried to stick with Rand anyway. Rand showed some promise. Then he did some things that ticked off tea partiers as well. Maybe the Ron Paul movement itself is "too small" to matter. Maybe the hard core tea partiers don't matter. Of course it was decided long ago that 9/11 truthers don't matter. But once you discard everyone that doesn't matter, who's left?

Except that's just a lie. Bevin himself said the endorsement was made before he got into the race, and Rand didn't actively help McConnell.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

“I think the world of Rand. I voted for Rand in the primary. I voted for him in the general. I personally maxed out to him. I was there when his dad and Jim DeMint came to the state to support him. I was there when Sarah Palin came to support him. I was with him every step of the way on his journey, and I’m glad for the opportunity to have supported him. I think he’s doing a terrific job,” Bevin said.

“He endorsed McConnell before I got in this race. He’s sticking with that, but he’s one vote, Glenn. And he’ll go into the voting booth on May 20. He’ll vote one time, and the people of Kentucky who ultimately coalesced behind him, they’re all supporting me already. And they’ll go in and vote their respective number of times, and I’m feeling good about how that will play out.”

Source: http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/02/07/how-does-matt-bevin-feel-about-rand-paul-endorsing-opponent-mitch-mcconnell/?utm_source=glennbeck&utm_medium=contentcopy_link

 

[jmdrake]

Except that's just a lie. Bevin himself said the endorsement was made before he got into the race, and Rand didn't actively help McConnell.

And Rand defending McConnell against charges by Ted Cruz that McConnell lied?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

And Rand defending McConnell against charges by Ted Cruz that McConnell lied?

That's just Texas vs Kentucky BS. I was disappointed in that too, but I've been eyeball deep in State GOP politics since 2008, so I get it. That one thing should have gone better absolutely, but this thing is getting blown all way crazy out of proportion. It's like someone on the Houston Rockets accuses someone on the Charlotte Hornets of cheating, and a Hornets teammate says NUH UH. Everybody knows it's BS but nobody really cares because it's just some guy standing up for their team. None of this has ANY effect on policy. All of this is just the BS political gamesmanship that plays in the background.

 

[jmdrake]

That's just Texas vs Kentucky BS. I was disappointed in that too, but I've been eyeball deep in State GOP politics since 2008, so I get it. That one thing should have gone better absolutely, but this thing is getting blown all way crazy out of proportion. It's like someone on the Houston Rockets accuses someone on the Charlotte Hornets of cheating, and a Hornets teammate says NUH UH. Everybody knows it's BS but nobody really cares because it's just some guy standing up for their team. None of this has ANY effect on policy. All of this is just the BS political gamesmanship that plays in the background.

I didn't say it had an effect on policy. But it has had a measurable effect on politics. From a political standpoint it was a stupid gamble. "Do I hurt my rival Ted Cruz with this comment more than I hurt myself?" In and increasingly anti-DC climate, defending someone for attacking the establishment simply isn't smart politics. Really I facepalmed so hard when I read about this that I got blisters. The only silver lining is Donald Trump attacking Ted Cruz for calling McConnell a liar and trying to say Cruz is unstable. (How is it that the most unstable public figure in recent memory gets away with calling Ben Carson, Ted Cruz and others unstable?) The Trump attack will either hurt himself (seems to be) or Cruz. Either is good for us. And it gives Rand "I'm not the only one saying it" political cover.

 

[Todd]

Every time someone mentions doing something, it gets shut down. I think that these forums aren't good for organizing grassroots things any more. Maybe they never were, and we were just so busy locally we didn't notice that the real energy was coming from the MeetUp groups and not here?

what many of us hoped for was some coordination and best practices that all local efforts could concentrate on here. That happened IMO minimally.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

Why did he refuse to, since he was part of the decision to do it in the first place?

Yeah, I'd like to hear the answer to that as well.

My assumption is that Ron's strategy was always about political education. At that point, his goal would have been to get as many people as possible to go through the entire process, including the National Convention, for the experience. To come out and state any such cold hard truth, he may have known, would have severely hurt that effort.

My2¢

 

[LibertyEagle]

My assumption is that Ron's strategy was always about political education. At that point, his goal would have been to get as many people as possible to go through the entire process, including the National Convention, for the experience. To come out and state any such cold hard truth, he may have known, would have severely hurt that effort.

My2¢

Hey, great to see you. Yeah, you're probably right. Although, that would mean what was said in the fundraising was not exactly honest. Although, they were in Catch 22 on that too, I suppose.

 

[angelatc]

what many of us hoped for was some coordination and best practices that all local efforts could concentrate on here. That happened IMO minimally.

Leadership 101: It's hard to get people to stay motivated, and that's especially when the people at the top don't support the people on the bottom.

This is just a random thought, but I think that if we look at the way that the GOP dethroned the Whigs....they didn't take decades to build a ground game and slowly change hearts and minds. They had strong leaders who seized a moment and steamrolled their way into the future. I think maybe that while we certainly should contribute to the Massie/Amash breed of politicians, at this point we can only wait to see which spark is going to ignite the next brushfire and be ready to fan the flames.

MeetUps went away because people stopped attending the meetings. Same thing happened to the local Tea Party too.

 

[Deborah K]

Yeah some of his messaging has been murky at best causing confusion among the grassroots about where he stands leading to my next point...



Simply keep open relations/communications with the top level grassroots. Making sure that the top leaders were kept in the loop on most things would've gone a long way to keeping people in the fold and preventing the malcontent from running wild which it has. A lot of it is about managing emotions because at the end of the day even the most logical rational intelligent INTJ RonPaul supporters are still humans.

Taking a page out of my book I see: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...nd-Paul-2016&p=5479105&viewfull=1#post5479105

Had they made contact with prominent players in the various groups, they would have inspired an unbelievable amount of cooperation. "Controlling the message" would have been much more effective. Instead, what they got was backlash. If you think that "controlling the message" by alienating a substantial part of your support base is wise, then you're not as smart as you think you are. The goal should be inclusivity and cooperation - unity. Instead, we now have warring factions within the movement. And you think I'm the one who is ignorant.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

Hey, great to see you. Yeah, you're probably right. Although, that would mean what was said in the fundraising was not exactly honest. Although, they were in Catch 22 on that too, I suppose.

My experience taught me that politics is an art of compromise and a minefield of Catch-22s. I can deal with that aspect ok (it was the professional political operative class that convinced me to go back to my previous work rather than pursue political career choices - while there are many decent people involved, too many were conscienceless cretins.)

I saw the educational/experience benefits of Ron's runs as more valuable than the potential benefits of any cold hard truths. I realized in 11/07, the day Paul joined me for a section of the ride, that Ron was a very reluctant candidate and he seemed to be trying to figure out how to make the best of the (Catch-22) situation he found himself in. How far do you think we would have gotten if he had stated that he didn't really want to be president, and only agreed to join the race to be in a couple of debates for the chance to say things one would never say if they actually wanted to win? Considering that, how much better off are we now with Liberty Officeholders in positions from local dog-catcher to the US Congress? How much more of a chance does Rand have in this or subsequent races? Will Massie et al. someday run for POTUS? Etc.?

All because Ron ran. All because he took the hit for being less than brutally honest...

I, for one, appreciate his sacrifices, and remain loyal to his overall goal, moving the ball down the field toward more liberty.

#DamnTheTorpedoes #StandWithRand

 

[LibertyEagle]

My experience taught me that politics is an art of compromise and a minefield of Catch-22s. I can deal with that aspect ok (it was the professional political operative class that convinced me to go back to my previous work rather than pursue political career choices - while there are many decent people involved, too many were conscienceless cretins.)

I saw the educational/experience benefits of Ron's runs as more valuable than the potential benefits of any cold hard truths. I realized in 11/07, the day Paul joined me for a section of the ride, that Ron was a very reluctant candidate and he seemed to be trying to figure out how to make the best of the (Catch-22) situation he found himself in. How far do you think we would have gotten if he had stated that he didn't really want to be president, and only agreed to join the race to be in a couple of debates for the chance to say things one would never say if they actually wanted to win? Considering that, how much better off are we now with Liberty Officeholders in positions from local dog-catcher to the US Congress? How much more of a chance does Rand have in this or subsequent races? Will Massie et al. someday run for POTUS? Etc.?

All because Ron ran. All because he took the hit for being less than brutally honest...

I, for one, appreciate his sacrifices, and remain loyal to his overall goal, moving the ball down the field toward more liberty.

#DamnTheTorpedoes #StandWithRand

Well, I would have thousands of dollars still in the bank, that I sure could use now. What's done is done, but if he never had any interest in winning, I don't think he should have pushed the fundraising so hard. Because we all know of people who sold their possessions just to donate more to Ron Paul. That doesn't sit well with me. But, that's spilled milk.

 

[DamianTV]

I have a lot of love for Rand, but his campaign is his responsibility and he must own the results. He lost the base of the Ron Paul R3VOLUTION and that hurt him.

And he lost a lot of those people because he endorsed Romney in the last election cycle. Other than that, he is still fairly spot on, but he still isnt his father.

 

[LibertyEagle]

And he lost a lot of those people because he endorsed Romney in the last election cycle. Other than that, he is still fairly spot on, but he still isnt his father.

His father had no chance of reaching most conservatives. He wasn't talking in their language. Rand has shown that he can. But, honestly, I rather think he blew it early on. I hope I'm wrong and he can recover. But, that's my honest feeling.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

Well, I would have thousands of dollars still in the bank, that I sure could use now. What's done is done, but if he never had any interest in winning, I don't think he should have pushed the fundraising so hard. Because we all know of people who sold their possessions just to donate more to Ron Paul. That doesn't sit well with me. But, that's spilled milk.

I think people should recall the timeline. IIRC most of the people who sold possessions/etc did so during the early grassroots-led phase.

Myself? I gave up ~$quarter million in income, spent ~$30k of savings, and put myself in a difficult, "get back to work" situation, far from home...

#WellWorthItIMO

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Except that's just a lie. Bevin himself said the endorsement was made before he got into the race, and Rand didn't actively help McConnell.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/27/rand-paul-helps-squash-tea-party-challenge-to-mcconnell/

The Daily Caller has learned that Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul is endorsing Sen. Mitch McConnell for re-election in 2014, ending speculation that Paul would back a tea party challenge to the Senate minority leader.

The move quashes a determined effort by Kentucky Republican Liberty Caucus chairman David Adams, who launched Paul’s Senate bid and served as Paul’s campaign manager through the 2010 primaries, and other tea party leaders to mount a primary challenge against McConnell.

To say that there wasn't opposition to McConnell when Rand endorsed him is akin to putting your fingers in your ears and saying 'I can't hear you la-la-la-la-la-la'.

 

[cajuncocoa]

His father had no chance of reaching most conservatives. He wasn't talking in their language. Rand has shown that he can. But, honestly, I rather think he blew it early on. I hope I'm wrong and he can recover. But, that's my honest feeling.

Know why? You keep saying Ron is a conservative, and I know he's used that label himself. But Ron is more of a libertarian, whether he chose to use the label or not. It's why more libertarians gravitated toward him and walked away from Rand. It's why Ron ran under the Libertarian Party banner for POTUS in 1988. The evidence is there, even if you try to turn a blind eye to it. Ron made a valiant effort of trying to bring libertarianism to the GOP, but he wasn't talking the GOP's language (nationalism, war, more war! bomb brown people!) Rand skirted around talking their language and mostly lost the libertarians in his father's base without having impressed the Sean Hannity audience more than Ted Cruz did. I'm still here supporting Rand (to your discomfort, thanks to some other people who did a better job at convincing me than your nastiness did) but other libertarians didn't even stick around to voice their opposition like I did. Those libertarians walked away, but they weren't replaced by the conservatives that Rand hoped to gain.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Know why? You keep saying Ron is a conservative, and I know he's used that label himself. But Ron is more of a libertarian, whether he chose to use the label or not. It's why more libertarians gravitated toward him and walked away from Rand. It's why Ron ran under the Libertarian Party banner for POTUS in 1988. The evidence is there, even if you try to turn a blind eye to it. Ron made a valiant effort of trying to bring libertarianism to the GOP, but he wasn't talking the GOP's language (nationalism, war, more war! bomb brown people!) Rand skirted around talking their language and mostly lost the libertarians in his father's base without having impressed the Sean Hannity audience more than Ted Cruz did. I'm still here supporting Rand (to your discomfort, thanks to some other people who did a better job at convincing me than your nastiness did) but other libertarians didn't even stick around to voice their opposition like I did. Those libertarians walked away, but they weren't replaced by the conservatives that Rand hoped to gain.

You really haven't a clue, have you.

Actually, the people who have been funding Ron Paul since he first went into office were largely the gold guys and the Birchers. In fact, Ron called his good friend Congressman Larry McDonald when he was thinking of running for Congress. McDonald was not only a congressman but the President of the JBS; a conservative organization. Unfortunately, McDonald was killed when his plane, KAL007, was shot down by the Soviet Union. Ron has been the poster boy for the JBS since he first went to Congress and Ron has been very supportive of them. Unfortunately though, I think when McDonald died, Ron's ears were being filled by the Mises Institute, without a countering balance from a conservative viewpoint. This is when I think Ron started to lose his ability to talk in language that the conservatives could hear.

Ron wasn't who brought libertarianism to the GOP; it was Barry Goldwater; and before that, Thomas Jefferson. Reagan revived it; even though his talk was way better than his walk. Ron tried to revive it for real. And as Ron said himself, he was the "most conservative member of Congress".

One of the many places you seem to be confused is that you seem to believe that the Republican Party is homogenous and it isn't. There have always been different factions. To insult the conservatives that Ron was trying to bring out of their slumber, is to insult a part of the remnant that RP so often talked about.

NOTE: "(nationalism, war, more war! bomb brown people!)". Yeah, you're a lefty, alright. lol. No, conservatives don't use terms like the NAP, Anti-war (as it makes them think of lefty flower people who have been useful idiots of the environmental movement, disarmament, etc.), and chickenshits who wouldn't defend their country even if we were attacked.

No, to reach conservatives, you talk about a strong national defense (I didn't say, offense), states' rights (ie. making decisions locally), rugged individualism, getting the government out of your business, privacy, national sovereignty (i.e. no international ruling bodies over our own Congress), etc. Someone else likely could describe this better, but it's 5 in the morning where I'm at. So, this will have to do.

 

[cjm]

...Let's build the ORGANIZATION first....We need to have the mindset of creating an organization of 50,000 people that doesn't fall apart when it loses an election it based itself around.

Organizations have their places, but what you really want is a network. Your network. Your own roll-a-deck with contact information of people you've met in campaigns, C4L, Tea Party, etc. Trying to keep a grassroots volunteer organization together to address all of your projects isn't realistic -- at least not in the liberty movement where you're herding the proverbial cats. Participating in organizations and campaigns is a good idea. You certainly get a chance to meet like-minded individuals. But don't depend on any one organization to provide a wide-spectrum platform for the advancement of liberty over the long term.

Before volunteering for Rand's campaign, I reached out to veteran petition circulators that I've known since 2012 to ask them what their view of Rand Paul 2016 was. Just like this forum, some were all-in, some had mixed feelings but were in, and some wanted to sit this one out (to put it mildly). Those that were in got the ballot-access business started and picked up some new contacts for our network in the process. Those that sat it out are still part of the network and may participate in our Lobby Day coming up. Instead of people quitting an organization that decided to support Rand, I still have friends and colleagues in my network that would be willing to help in future efforts. It's a system that seems to be working for me.

 

[Badger Paul]

Remember that line in the Batman movie that Michael Cain said "Some people just like to burn down the forest." Well, that's the attraction of voting for Trump (which even I admit to). Here's the rub, nobody thinks Trump will ever be President. In fact I don't believe he believes it either. But it doesn't matter if he wins the nomination. If that happens and the establishment wing of the party basically runs to Hilary or runs some dope as an independent, then it will bring about the destabilizing if not the destruction of Republican Party and most important the "Conservative Movement" that is needed to advance the ideas the Pauls have promoted. This has nothing to do with ideology or "the message" because Trump clearly has no ideology and is far away from "the message" as you can get. It's all about taking down the establishment

If it is true Rand's campaign had deliberately left people out who had worked on the other two Paul campaigns in various places, one suspects they had a list of people they thought were "undesireable" for whatever reason, to keep away from the campaign. Well, you reap what you sow when stories like this get out.

The damage that the Romney endorsement did to the movement was considerable looking at it with some perspective three years later. First of all he got nothing out of it, other than a convention speech barely remembered if at all in the annals in the history of convention speeches. It came way too early with his father still out there running for President, it made Rand look like someone jumping on the train as it was leaving the station rather than being a good competitor and endorsing the winner of the campaign when Romney finally won the nomination. Rand had leverage to use against Romney (convention decorum for example, his lists of supporters for example) and instead of using that leverage he gave it away in a craven attempt to curry favor with Romney. In the end the endorsement meant nothing and gained neither man very little in return, except that it damaged considerably Rand and the Paul family brand. Instead of looking like anti-establishment outsider running against the Washington "machine" Rand appeared to voters to be playing an insider's game. And when you add the Romney endorsement to the one of McConnell, the ultimate Washington insider of them all, you can see how running that same "machine" looks pretty phony to a lot of people.

Given the fact Matt Bevin was recently elected governor of Kentucky, one wonders if Rand had decided to go all out to take down McConnell in 2014, using his lists and grassroots support with Bevin's money, whether it might have worked. It would have been risky and divided the party to be sure but a Bevin win certainly would have established Rand in a much stronger position than he is now. How is that McConnell endorsement paying off right now, hmmm? Four percent in the polls at best? What's he doing for the campaign? Hmmm? If David Brat could take down Eric Cantor, why was McConnell so invulnerable? Again it was a move playing against the reputation Rand had and his family had established for himself and a cardinal rule in politics is that you don't do that.