Eagle1
02-07-2008, 01:29 PM
The truth is OTHER than raising money the grassroots was the tail wagging the head and the campaign organization NEVER took charge of Paul's campaign to direct the grassroots.
I think the libertarians directing Paul's campaign are so wedded to their libertarian beliefs that, out of principle, they would never yield those beliefs - they would rather lose - Well, they succeeded!
http://www.nolanchart.com/article2532.html
I think at this point it is fair to admit that Ron Paul cannot win this nomination.
American voters have finally signaled to the world what we as a collective value: security and equity.
Unfortunately for traditional conservatives, dangers lurk around the Republican Party and the one remaining small government candidate couldn't manage to spread his message as far as possible within the short period of time.
This should bring small government conservatives to ask important questions on the issue of organization.
Firstly, I would like to recount my experience with the Ron Paul constituency.
The Ron Paul Constituency
-Supporters were very organized online. Must I mention the dozens of emails I received after the Ron Paul with Don Black article?
-Supporters were very active in the streets, waving signs, and handing out fliers. I joined them several times in Chicago and New York City.
-Supporters gained enough political organization to acquire a headquarters for campaigning projects. A grand example of this was the NYC Ron Paul Headquarters, which had a real estate investor donate renting space for several months. Spray painting signs was a daily activity and conversing on issues of monetary policy and "Adolph Ghouliani" served everyone's interest regularly.
-The ReLOVEution certainly appeared to be a fun time for my several visits! People listened to good music, threw back a couple of shots, and spray painted all night long.
We should ask ourselves; did these grassroots efforts ever really make a difference?
The Main Question
Some say yes, these efforts produced over $20 million for Ron Paul's candidacy. "Money Bomb" days brought in tens of thousands of new donators every single event.
But we really know the obvious answer to this question: no, since he didn't do much during Super Tuesday, which essentially was his last chance to gain momentum, shine, and get votes.
Thoughts on Collective Organizing
Although the Ron Paul fans were very well articulated in the issues and extremely enthusiastic about his candidacy I always sensed a lack of true organization. Ron Paul's campaign did something very risky which allowed an invisible hand to guide the grassroots movements. Firstly, who were these people? They were individuals who never campaigned for a politician and just had their "apathy cured" by Dr No. It is much too risky to allow groups of inexperienced individuals to guide a national campaign for the presidency.
The fundamental issue that I'm trying to get at here is that these supporters held very simplistic views of organization. They only did what came to mind rather than develop solutions to problems using the power of planning. They failed to realize that garnering hundreds of thousands of votes required discipline and complex strategies rather than waving signs on street corners. These complex strategies require rigorous plans containing meticulous steps to precise goals. Why is planning such an important issue: I can go with the simple phrase "If you fail to plan, you plan to fail." As a better alternative explanation, one must have a vision as to what they want and more importantly, how they will get there.
Ron Paul's supporters didn't have that vision or an idea as to their next step to achieving their goal. While they were spray painting more signs creating an excess supply, they lost time in finding creative ways to reach and organize voters. I wrote about the diminishing marginal utility of Ron Paul articles and Neocon bashing on the internet. Another market needed attention: organizing huge events that would bring many voters or potential constituents together at one site to bombard with Ron Paul literature and voting registration. Or service the voting community by reaching out to those in search of their ideal candidate. None of this happened because people were complaining about the MSM's lack of attention to Ron Paul and Sean Hannity discrediting the libertarian-conservative.
When thinking of successful businesses, it is highly likely that they have a realistic business and marketing plan (of course with a realistic goal and idea). Businesses with no plan will never know what to do for survival and expansion in the competitive world: capital accumulation. Money is one issue but production to gain more capital, especially human capital (or activists), is another issue. Intermediate goods were worth more than the final product of this political effort. The Ron Paul campaign and its grassroots efforts failed to use its resources to expand its production possibilities frontier, or potential service (outreach) to the voting community.
It all happened because of a lack of plan. I guarantee that if you look at all of the Ron Paul headquarters across the nation, not one of them was professionally organized with a plan to achieve a precise and ultimate goal: X amount of votes to win Y precinct by Z date. That is the reason why allowing grassroots organizations to form the trajectory of a campaign is dangerous: they have no direction.
There's no need to get angry because it's true.
The Official Ron Paul Campaign
Besides the fact that the grassroots effort couldn't seriously mobilize the libertarian-conservative movement, the national campaign has a lot of fault to bear.
When running a national campaign, especially during a time when most voters have decided on a candidate, it should be the imperative of political organizations seeking votes to push voters towards a new candidate. This involves comparisons between the candidates. Why do you think that Romney and McCain spent money comparing each other's conservatism. Ron Paul failed to harshly attack his opponents by comparing his authentic conservatism to their moderate-liberal records.
Instead of exposing the real John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Tax Hike Huckabee, he put pessimistic ads of the Federal Reserve and a failing economy. He tried to get creative by putting regular everyday people on his TV ads talking about his candidacy. However, this would never convince people that he is a better candidate with better ideas. He didn't try hard enough to compare himself with others and chose to put cheesy ads that signal unimportant information about his campaign.
That is what destroyed Ron Paul's potential win. He only did okay in states that were ignored by the other candidates. However, an okay performance just wasn't good enough.
A New Republican Party
The Republican Party is in a serious need of a new constituency. The Weekly Standard won their war on traditional conservatism and the party of Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and the Founding Fathers.
Sleep my Constitution. Have a painless recovery .... for the new arbiter of law and government has won this battle!
I think the libertarians directing Paul's campaign are so wedded to their libertarian beliefs that, out of principle, they would never yield those beliefs - they would rather lose - Well, they succeeded!
http://www.nolanchart.com/article2532.html
I think at this point it is fair to admit that Ron Paul cannot win this nomination.
American voters have finally signaled to the world what we as a collective value: security and equity.
Unfortunately for traditional conservatives, dangers lurk around the Republican Party and the one remaining small government candidate couldn't manage to spread his message as far as possible within the short period of time.
This should bring small government conservatives to ask important questions on the issue of organization.
Firstly, I would like to recount my experience with the Ron Paul constituency.
The Ron Paul Constituency
-Supporters were very organized online. Must I mention the dozens of emails I received after the Ron Paul with Don Black article?
-Supporters were very active in the streets, waving signs, and handing out fliers. I joined them several times in Chicago and New York City.
-Supporters gained enough political organization to acquire a headquarters for campaigning projects. A grand example of this was the NYC Ron Paul Headquarters, which had a real estate investor donate renting space for several months. Spray painting signs was a daily activity and conversing on issues of monetary policy and "Adolph Ghouliani" served everyone's interest regularly.
-The ReLOVEution certainly appeared to be a fun time for my several visits! People listened to good music, threw back a couple of shots, and spray painted all night long.
We should ask ourselves; did these grassroots efforts ever really make a difference?
The Main Question
Some say yes, these efforts produced over $20 million for Ron Paul's candidacy. "Money Bomb" days brought in tens of thousands of new donators every single event.
But we really know the obvious answer to this question: no, since he didn't do much during Super Tuesday, which essentially was his last chance to gain momentum, shine, and get votes.
Thoughts on Collective Organizing
Although the Ron Paul fans were very well articulated in the issues and extremely enthusiastic about his candidacy I always sensed a lack of true organization. Ron Paul's campaign did something very risky which allowed an invisible hand to guide the grassroots movements. Firstly, who were these people? They were individuals who never campaigned for a politician and just had their "apathy cured" by Dr No. It is much too risky to allow groups of inexperienced individuals to guide a national campaign for the presidency.
The fundamental issue that I'm trying to get at here is that these supporters held very simplistic views of organization. They only did what came to mind rather than develop solutions to problems using the power of planning. They failed to realize that garnering hundreds of thousands of votes required discipline and complex strategies rather than waving signs on street corners. These complex strategies require rigorous plans containing meticulous steps to precise goals. Why is planning such an important issue: I can go with the simple phrase "If you fail to plan, you plan to fail." As a better alternative explanation, one must have a vision as to what they want and more importantly, how they will get there.
Ron Paul's supporters didn't have that vision or an idea as to their next step to achieving their goal. While they were spray painting more signs creating an excess supply, they lost time in finding creative ways to reach and organize voters. I wrote about the diminishing marginal utility of Ron Paul articles and Neocon bashing on the internet. Another market needed attention: organizing huge events that would bring many voters or potential constituents together at one site to bombard with Ron Paul literature and voting registration. Or service the voting community by reaching out to those in search of their ideal candidate. None of this happened because people were complaining about the MSM's lack of attention to Ron Paul and Sean Hannity discrediting the libertarian-conservative.
When thinking of successful businesses, it is highly likely that they have a realistic business and marketing plan (of course with a realistic goal and idea). Businesses with no plan will never know what to do for survival and expansion in the competitive world: capital accumulation. Money is one issue but production to gain more capital, especially human capital (or activists), is another issue. Intermediate goods were worth more than the final product of this political effort. The Ron Paul campaign and its grassroots efforts failed to use its resources to expand its production possibilities frontier, or potential service (outreach) to the voting community.
It all happened because of a lack of plan. I guarantee that if you look at all of the Ron Paul headquarters across the nation, not one of them was professionally organized with a plan to achieve a precise and ultimate goal: X amount of votes to win Y precinct by Z date. That is the reason why allowing grassroots organizations to form the trajectory of a campaign is dangerous: they have no direction.
There's no need to get angry because it's true.
The Official Ron Paul Campaign
Besides the fact that the grassroots effort couldn't seriously mobilize the libertarian-conservative movement, the national campaign has a lot of fault to bear.
When running a national campaign, especially during a time when most voters have decided on a candidate, it should be the imperative of political organizations seeking votes to push voters towards a new candidate. This involves comparisons between the candidates. Why do you think that Romney and McCain spent money comparing each other's conservatism. Ron Paul failed to harshly attack his opponents by comparing his authentic conservatism to their moderate-liberal records.
Instead of exposing the real John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Tax Hike Huckabee, he put pessimistic ads of the Federal Reserve and a failing economy. He tried to get creative by putting regular everyday people on his TV ads talking about his candidacy. However, this would never convince people that he is a better candidate with better ideas. He didn't try hard enough to compare himself with others and chose to put cheesy ads that signal unimportant information about his campaign.
That is what destroyed Ron Paul's potential win. He only did okay in states that were ignored by the other candidates. However, an okay performance just wasn't good enough.
A New Republican Party
The Republican Party is in a serious need of a new constituency. The Weekly Standard won their war on traditional conservatism and the party of Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and the Founding Fathers.
Sleep my Constitution. Have a painless recovery .... for the new arbiter of law and government has won this battle!