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

Matt Collins said:
No, not what I was saying at all.

They don't need a go-between, they need personal hand holding with top level members of the grassroots. TLC and relationship building. I don't mean people on the Internet as much as top grassroots leaders on the ground.
Click to expand...

Who are the "top grassroots leaders on the ground." I'm seriously asking you.

Because I'm planning to get back in the ground, in my own way, and I'm going to need lists.

Are you referring to grassroots campaign supporters or something more general?
 
LibertyEagle said:
McConnell is why Rand is sitting on the cmtes that he is on.
Click to expand...

If opposing granting the State additional police powers and authorities to restrict immigration, and all of the funding and bureaucracy (to say nothing of other likely consequences) that would require, makes one a 'useful idiot' for the globalists, what does apologizing for an actual globalist make a person?
 
Feeding the Abscess said:
If opposing granting the State additional police powers and authorities to restrict immigration, and all of the funding and bureaucracy (to say nothing of other likely consequences) that would require, makes one a 'useful idiot' for the globalists, what does apologizing for an actual globalist make a person?
Click to expand...

I don't see it that way, but I understand that you do.

If Rand had endorsed him when someone else had a chance of winning, I would agree with you though.
 
There is a lot of what Rothbard calls "left sectarianism" prevalent with respect to Rand. I think a lot of it is unwarranted and certainly counterproductive. Even I'm probably guilty with respect to the movement, but I feel that a lot of what I criticized him for was related more to my Christian positions.

Anyway, worth a quick looksy.

In the progress of any movement dedicated to radical social change,
i.e., to transforming social reality toward an ideal system, there are
bound to arise, as the Marxists have discovered, two contrasting types of
"deviations" from the proper strategic line: what the Marxists have
called "right opportunism" and "left sectarianism." So fundamental
are these often superficially attractive deviations that we might call it
a theoretical rule that one or both will arise to plague a movement at
various times in its development. Which tendency will triumph in a movement
cannot, however, be determined by our theory; the outcome will
depend on the subjective strategic understanding of the people constituting
the movement. The outcome, then, is a matter of free will and
persuasion.

Right opportunism, in its pursuit of instant gains, is willing to abandon
the ultimate social goal, and to immerse itself in minor and shortrun
gains, sometimes in actual contradiction to the ultimate goal itself. In
the libertarian movement, the opportunist is willing to join the State establishment
rather than to struggle against it, and is willing to deny the ultimate
goal on behalf of short-run gains: e.g . to declaim that "while everyone
knows we must have taxation, the state of the economy requires a 2
percent tax cut." The left sectarian, on the other hand, scents "immoralityJ'
and "betrayal of principle" in every use of strategic intelligence to pursue
transitional demands on the path to liberty, even ones that uphold the ultimate
goal and do not contradict it. The sectarian discovers "moral principle"
and "libertarian principle" everywhere, even in purely strategic,
tactical, or organizational concerns. Indeed, the sectarian is likely to attack
as an abandonment of principle any attempt to go beyond mere reiteration
of the ideal social goal, and to select and analyze more specifically political
issues of the most urgent priority
Click to expand...

Now we're guilty of this a lot on RPF. All these ship-jumpers like the OP are more right opportunists, "I can WIN with this other guy."

We need to start thinking about strategy. Rand is not the problem. We are.
 
luctor-et-emergo said:
Freedom is in fact very popular, in polls.
People will remain claiming they are free and it will be popular... Well, at least until that's banned as well.
Click to expand...

Boobus does loves him some heapin' helpins' of freedom.

He knows that the military and the police manufactures his freedom for him.

Like a Hot Pocket and a Mt. Dew.
 
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.
 
First off, I understand there are people genuinely pissed at Rand for endorsing Mitt, I'm talking about other folks here who use that. The history is right here in the archives.

"Other folks" were pissed off after Santorum dropped out and it looked like Mitt was running away with the nomination. This is because they went all in for Ron 2012, when it looked like he wasn't going to be able to hold off Mitt, they expected the Ron supporters to go help them build a ground game for their LP candidate. They would come on here during the lowest lows of the campaign and use that to recruit. You can tell who they are, because when they come on, if you say you are going to write in Ron Paul, they go batshit. If they would have just given people a couple weeks to get over it, then come in here straight up, they probably could have gotten more than 1% in the general election. These are the same people in here now (with different usernames) digging in against Rand. I'm guessing they want to prop up a 3rd party candidate, but they don't know yet who that will be.
 
Matt Collins said:
Depends on your state.
Click to expand...

Well, I feel like you're not seriously responding. I'm aware of how organizations work. They are things in places with people.

Are you talking about CFL, YAL, Rand campaign, etc. What do you consider "grassroots". What do you consider the "movement". Are there actual people or are you simply speaking "in general" like everyone else?

I'm really not trying to be an ass, it comes natural, but I feel like asking people real questions is like pulling teeth. I'm not trying to put you on the spot. But I feel like any reference to real grassroots sets off alarm bells in people minds "This sounds like work. New Posts (click)".

Now surely the Collinz has some info.

As far as CFL goes their site is broke. I don't even mean figuratively, which is also true. I tried going through the volunteer sign up process and got an error page and received no response after emailing. Besides I already know who the most influential person at CFL is:

zHo3i1P.jpg
 
LibertyEagle said:
You'll have no disagreement from me on that (With exception of having better controls over C4L; he had plenty of control). Ron shouldn't have kept asking for money, when he knew he was done. I would guess that they did though because they planned on that big shindig they held, in an attempt to show Republicans attending that the liberty movement was not a bunch of crazed individuals. Not sure how well they worked out though with Walter Block's little spiel. lol
Click to expand...

Note with regard to the CFL controls I said arguably. Since neither of us actually have inside knowledge of the inner workings of the CFL neither of us know how much control Ron actually asserted throughout it's still short life. In the Michael Nystrom letter Ron did not say he made the Ken Buck decision nor did he say he was keeping tight control on the CFL or even better control than what he kept on his newsletter operation. Anyway, hopefully he and the CFL are learning from obvious mistakes.
 
ronpaulhawaii said:
RE: the endorsements. I fully expect that Rand and Ron discussed this at length beforehand and would not, at all, be surprised if it was Ron's idea in the first place...
Click to expand...

I'm sure they talked about it ahead of time. It might not have been the idea of either Paul. I don't think that matters. Ron should have made an unequivocal statement before Rand's announcement to the effect of "Just to be clear I'm no longer running for president. Feel free to endorse whoever you like. I will not be making an endorsement."
 
LibertyEagle said:
McConnell is why Rand is sitting on the cmtes that he is on.
Click to expand...

Good politics for a senator is not necessarily good politics for a presidential contender. The problem with the McConnell endorsement is that it hurt Rand with people who are not Ron Paul supporters. Take Mark Levin and his listeners for instance. Levin hates McConnell, or at least pretends to. But what hurt Rand even more was his attacking Cruz for attack McConnell. That made Rand look like an establishment hack. He's not, but that was the perception. When someone asked Rand about Cruz' comment calling McConnell a liar he should have said "I'm friends with both men and would rather not comment. I hope they work it out."
 
Then she is dumb as a box of rocks if she goes with Trump vs Rand

Trump is scum, the great pretender
 
But wait Cruz campaigned for and worked for GW Bush, far worse than McConnell yet not a peep about that and Cruz...why because talk radio is an establishment propaganda machine. Cruz is a fake, he has less time in the senate than Obama had, the only vote that Cruz' vote actually mattered (all the rest had no chance) Cruz voted with Democrats to make ObamaTrade easier to pass, then once it was safe that it would pass, he voted NO

just another scum politician

his wife is a CFR member and worked for Goldman Sachs

no thanks
 
GunnyFreedom said:
I remember the McConnell endorsement, which I said then and still say today is utterly meaningless. I do NOT remember Rand campaigning for McConnell.
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/02/mitch-mcconnell-rand-paul_n_5644166.html

MAYFIELD, Ky. -- Sen. Rand Paul arrived at the Graves County GOP breakfast here Saturday all but incognito, without an entourage, wearing jeans, cowboy boots and his usual bemused look.

He came to praise Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, not to bury him, as he had once tried to do. But Paul wasn't going to make a big deal of it.

McConnell's challenger in this year's election, Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, was utterly unacceptable, Paul told the overflow crowd in a high school cafeteria. The reason was simplicity itself: She's a Democrat and would vote to keep Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who has said coal makes people sick, as the Senate majority leader.

"I don't know how any Kentuckian could consider voting for Ms. Grimes," the Republican senator said.

The rest of the sales job was functional.

McConnell, Paul said, was a Senate GOP leader who kept his caucus unified against Obamacare and forced a vote on a constitutional amendment calling for a balanced budget. McConnell, Paul said, would be an even better leader if, as is possible, Republicans win a net of six Senate seats in November.

"I'm a really loud voice, my critics would say a loudmouth," he said. "I try to bring attention to things." McConnell was the perfect ally, he said, "because he knows how to get things done."

McConnell, for his part, expressed support, sort of, for Paul's likely run for the presidency in 2016.

"If he chose to run, he would be the most creditable candidate for president since Henry Clay," McConnell told the crowd.

That sounded nice enough, though McConnell didn't mention that Clay, the legendary Kentucky lawmaker and "Great Compromiser," never made it all the way to the White House.

The sometimes passive-aggressive bromance between Rand and Mitch just keeps getting more interesting and influential. It now operates on two levels and soon may add a third.

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.

The second level is in the Senate. The two have developed an inside-outside alliance that is mutually beneficial, guarding McConnell's right flank and giving Paul access to the inner workings of leadership that he would not otherwise have.

If McConnell becomes Senate majority leader, the home-state alliance will be even more significant as Paul gears up his presidential campaign.

Still, it's far from clear whether McConnell will go all out for Paul or use his new position -- if he obtains it -- as an excuse to stay out of the 2016 GOP fray.

On the dais here in Mayfield, they shook hands and smiled the correct smiles. But they didn't sit next to each other and didn't seem that eager to talk until the next time they really need to.

In his speech at the annual Fancy Farm political "picnic" later in the day, McConnell argued that his ascension to majority leader would lead to change in Washington, not more of the gridlocked status quo.

"Send this proud Kentuckian to lead the new Senate and we'll take the country back. ... With your help, Kentucky will lead America."

Paul clapped at that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top