spacehabitats
05-15-2008, 04:16 PM
OK, I realize this will probably end up in the "Rant" section, but I think this is a very appropriate post for Grassroots Central. I know that many of you will consider this to be a "negative" post, but if you will bear with me (and read to the end) I think I can show that it is not.
When it comes to the Ron Paul campaign, there is an elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge and rarely talks about.
Ron Paul has never even tried to be a serious presidential candidate.
I'm not talking about his original reluctance to run for president or even his lack of faith in his ability to actually win. This is well documented in The Revolution: A Manifesto and apparently was an open "secret" among most of his original supporters.
What I am talking about is his lack of effort and indifference to the presidential campaign despite the ardent support fund-raising success of the grassroots movement.
We have all complained (justifiably) about the MSM blackout and establishment prejudice against his candidacy. There is no question that Dr Paul and his supporters were ignored and ridiculed from the beginning. And it also would appear that his campaign may have been mismanaged and was (at least initially) underfunded.
But in the end, it has become obvious to me that one of candidate Ron Paul's biggest enemies was... RonPaul.
The proof is there for anyone to see.
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/schedules/pastevents.html#candidate15
There is a website that shows where and how often each of the presidential candidates made campaign appearances dating back to April 2007 and continuing until the present.
If campaign visits to a state are a measure of the seriousness or sincerity of a campaign, Ron Paul's was as much of a joke as the MSM was telling us all along.
Even Tom Tancredo made Paul's efforts in Iowa look anemic. And even after the campaign was flush with money his personal appearances were scarcer than hen's teeth. If you look at his campaign activity between the November money bombs and Super Tuesday, his efforts pale in comparison to all but the most trivial candidates.
Of course, since the "winding down" announcement, it has become even worse.
The campaign in Pennsylvania received a "blitz" of four whole campaign appearances, and resulted in his best showing to date. But he has not even approached that kind of activity for any other state recently, and poll result reflect it. Idaho only received one visit, Nebraska and West Virginia, none. Is it any wonder that most of the people that I canvassed in Nebraska thought he had dropped out?
I realize that campaigning is physically and mentally taxing. (Even though McCain is almost as old and his map lights up like a Christmas tree.) And its not that I begrudge a cent of the money that I donated or a second of time that spent working on the campaign. I wouldn't even care if he took the left over campaign funds and retired to the Bahamas after November; he has more than earned it for the service he has rendered to our Republic already.
But I also think it is disingenuous and ultimately self-destructive to the movement to pretend that we have ever had a candidate that was truly committed to being a contender.
Why do I consider this to be a positive post?
Because it is obvious to me that despite this and all of the other liabilities and obstacles placed in our way, OUR campaign was a tremendous success!
Because it was, and is, OUR campaign. Any help that we received from the national headquarters or Ron Paul himself has been too little, too late. We never had a chance to mount a serious run for the nomination, especially with the media blackout. We all deserve to be very proud of the results of our efforts in 2008 and hopeful for much better results in the future.
If we can accomplish this without a candidate, just think what we will be able to do now that we have some experience, have some time to prepare, and, most importantly, have candidates that really want to win?
Bring on 2010 and 2012!:)
When it comes to the Ron Paul campaign, there is an elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge and rarely talks about.
Ron Paul has never even tried to be a serious presidential candidate.
I'm not talking about his original reluctance to run for president or even his lack of faith in his ability to actually win. This is well documented in The Revolution: A Manifesto and apparently was an open "secret" among most of his original supporters.
What I am talking about is his lack of effort and indifference to the presidential campaign despite the ardent support fund-raising success of the grassroots movement.
We have all complained (justifiably) about the MSM blackout and establishment prejudice against his candidacy. There is no question that Dr Paul and his supporters were ignored and ridiculed from the beginning. And it also would appear that his campaign may have been mismanaged and was (at least initially) underfunded.
But in the end, it has become obvious to me that one of candidate Ron Paul's biggest enemies was... RonPaul.
The proof is there for anyone to see.
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/schedules/pastevents.html#candidate15
There is a website that shows where and how often each of the presidential candidates made campaign appearances dating back to April 2007 and continuing until the present.
If campaign visits to a state are a measure of the seriousness or sincerity of a campaign, Ron Paul's was as much of a joke as the MSM was telling us all along.
Even Tom Tancredo made Paul's efforts in Iowa look anemic. And even after the campaign was flush with money his personal appearances were scarcer than hen's teeth. If you look at his campaign activity between the November money bombs and Super Tuesday, his efforts pale in comparison to all but the most trivial candidates.
Of course, since the "winding down" announcement, it has become even worse.
The campaign in Pennsylvania received a "blitz" of four whole campaign appearances, and resulted in his best showing to date. But he has not even approached that kind of activity for any other state recently, and poll result reflect it. Idaho only received one visit, Nebraska and West Virginia, none. Is it any wonder that most of the people that I canvassed in Nebraska thought he had dropped out?
I realize that campaigning is physically and mentally taxing. (Even though McCain is almost as old and his map lights up like a Christmas tree.) And its not that I begrudge a cent of the money that I donated or a second of time that spent working on the campaign. I wouldn't even care if he took the left over campaign funds and retired to the Bahamas after November; he has more than earned it for the service he has rendered to our Republic already.
But I also think it is disingenuous and ultimately self-destructive to the movement to pretend that we have ever had a candidate that was truly committed to being a contender.
Why do I consider this to be a positive post?
Because it is obvious to me that despite this and all of the other liabilities and obstacles placed in our way, OUR campaign was a tremendous success!
Because it was, and is, OUR campaign. Any help that we received from the national headquarters or Ron Paul himself has been too little, too late. We never had a chance to mount a serious run for the nomination, especially with the media blackout. We all deserve to be very proud of the results of our efforts in 2008 and hopeful for much better results in the future.
If we can accomplish this without a candidate, just think what we will be able to do now that we have some experience, have some time to prepare, and, most importantly, have candidates that really want to win?
Bring on 2010 and 2012!:)