rexsolomon
02-14-2008, 07:30 PM
http://people.ronpaul2008.com/campaign-updates/2008/02/14/georgetown-wrap-up/
http://www.georgetownvoice.com/2008-02-14/news/ron-paul-talks-money-and-voting-in-gaston-hall
“Why aren’t we getting more votes?” Paul asked. “It is a problem. I don’t have it fully explained, but there’s only one law I’m proposing … From now on we’re going to have our elections on the internet.”
Paul called the nature of his support “a two-edged sword for us. It was an independent campaign but it was laissez-faire,” he said.
William Galston, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that Paul lacked relevance to the 2008 election because of his failure to expand his base or effectively use the money he raised.
“This guy has been flying solo all his life and the idea of building an organization and actually making strategic investments in a campaign is just not the way he’s ever thought,” he said.
_________________
What's your take on the question: “Why aren’t we getting more votes?” Should it not be a priority to find a realistic, honest and truthful explanation?
_________________
For whatever it is worth now, here's mine:
The most significant problems that beset the Ron Paul Campaign:
1. The presumption that "the message has no faults" was incorrect. "The message" as a whole - was generally frightening or repugnant to voters who heard it for the first time or did not have any prior knowledge about the subject matter.
No attempt was made to refine "the message" during the campaign, so that it remained completely truthful, yet more appealing and more easily understood by the majority of the voting public.
2. Dr. Paul should have used prepared speeches - whenever it was possible, similar to those prepared speeches he gave Congress, rather than purely extemporaneous speeches - most especially if the speech exceeded 20 minutes. Dr. Paul should have had one or two speechwriters assisting him.
3. Grassroots efforts to resolve items 1 and 2 were totally ignored. Grassroots expertise was never utilized.
A presidential campaign cannot be run in a 'laissez-faire' manner or a 'Revolution run on the premise of convenience'. Even the ancient generals understood that it was their SOLE responsibility to prevent the troops from dropping their arms, dispersing and heading for home.
Grassroots leaders were never truly empowered by the official campaign as recognized lieutenants - which is not organizationally and functionally the same as precinct leaders/watchers/canvassers (exceedingly valuable though they may be).
William Galston's comments in GeorgeTownVoice about about the offical campaign's failure to build an organization is essentially correct. Sadly this was flagged very early on in the campaign but was never acted upon.
4. No attempt was made to protect the donation base. The expectation was that money bombs would continue regardless of caucus and primary results. The official website was very slow to rally 'the troops' when encouragement was most sorely needed. With regard to moneybomb donations, the principle of 'value for value' was disregarded by the official campaign.
Simply there was no agility and no nimbleness in the official campaign. No adaptation was ever attempted. This is indeed a telling reflection.
_________________
Biggest mistakes still being made today:
1. It is NOT too late to correct the above mistakes. The nominations have not been finalized. November is still several months away.
2. Marching on DC without addressing items 1 to 4 would be foolish.
3. If the movement gains massive participation in numbers and donations despite a McCain nomination, Dr. Paul should go third party.
4. Dr. Paul should publicly announce that his son, Rand Paul will be his likely successor to lead the Revolution.
http://www.georgetownvoice.com/2008-02-14/news/ron-paul-talks-money-and-voting-in-gaston-hall
“Why aren’t we getting more votes?” Paul asked. “It is a problem. I don’t have it fully explained, but there’s only one law I’m proposing … From now on we’re going to have our elections on the internet.”
Paul called the nature of his support “a two-edged sword for us. It was an independent campaign but it was laissez-faire,” he said.
William Galston, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that Paul lacked relevance to the 2008 election because of his failure to expand his base or effectively use the money he raised.
“This guy has been flying solo all his life and the idea of building an organization and actually making strategic investments in a campaign is just not the way he’s ever thought,” he said.
_________________
What's your take on the question: “Why aren’t we getting more votes?” Should it not be a priority to find a realistic, honest and truthful explanation?
_________________
For whatever it is worth now, here's mine:
The most significant problems that beset the Ron Paul Campaign:
1. The presumption that "the message has no faults" was incorrect. "The message" as a whole - was generally frightening or repugnant to voters who heard it for the first time or did not have any prior knowledge about the subject matter.
No attempt was made to refine "the message" during the campaign, so that it remained completely truthful, yet more appealing and more easily understood by the majority of the voting public.
2. Dr. Paul should have used prepared speeches - whenever it was possible, similar to those prepared speeches he gave Congress, rather than purely extemporaneous speeches - most especially if the speech exceeded 20 minutes. Dr. Paul should have had one or two speechwriters assisting him.
3. Grassroots efforts to resolve items 1 and 2 were totally ignored. Grassroots expertise was never utilized.
A presidential campaign cannot be run in a 'laissez-faire' manner or a 'Revolution run on the premise of convenience'. Even the ancient generals understood that it was their SOLE responsibility to prevent the troops from dropping their arms, dispersing and heading for home.
Grassroots leaders were never truly empowered by the official campaign as recognized lieutenants - which is not organizationally and functionally the same as precinct leaders/watchers/canvassers (exceedingly valuable though they may be).
William Galston's comments in GeorgeTownVoice about about the offical campaign's failure to build an organization is essentially correct. Sadly this was flagged very early on in the campaign but was never acted upon.
4. No attempt was made to protect the donation base. The expectation was that money bombs would continue regardless of caucus and primary results. The official website was very slow to rally 'the troops' when encouragement was most sorely needed. With regard to moneybomb donations, the principle of 'value for value' was disregarded by the official campaign.
Simply there was no agility and no nimbleness in the official campaign. No adaptation was ever attempted. This is indeed a telling reflection.
_________________
Biggest mistakes still being made today:
1. It is NOT too late to correct the above mistakes. The nominations have not been finalized. November is still several months away.
2. Marching on DC without addressing items 1 to 4 would be foolish.
3. If the movement gains massive participation in numbers and donations despite a McCain nomination, Dr. Paul should go third party.
4. Dr. Paul should publicly announce that his son, Rand Paul will be his likely successor to lead the Revolution.