The "official" campaign, sadly, gave up way too early

[Badger Paul]

http://conservativetimes.org/?p=11711

The fecklessness of the Romney campaign is really starting to irritate and concern conservatives and Tea Partiers. This would be a grand opportunity to score points on Romney and broaden our support with those concerned Romney is just another McCain/Bush/Dole.

But the “officials” of the Ron Paul campaign for President capitulated because they thought Romney Victory Special Train was leaving the station and wanted to get on board. Now what? Do they want to jump off? Not with Rand and Trgvye (no need to mention Olson’s sock puppet) still riding the caboose.

That’s why Ron isn’t doing any more big rallies or really, not much of anything for pretty much two months until the RNC in Tampa despite sitting on a three million plus war chest. It’s too bad really because there were many areas to highlight differences with Romney which may have made at least some conservatives see Paul’s delegates as a potential use of leverage against Romney, perhaps reopen the whole nomination process instead preparing to go down with the ship again. Even if they didn’t like him he was there to shake up the process if needed.

Now it seems like everyone is off marching to a certain doom, perhaps wanting to do something else but not brave enough or wise enough to do it all in the name of “party unity”. Hopefully RP’s delegates and supporters in Tampa won’t be quite as sheep-like as Jesse Benton would like them to be.

[sirgonzo420]

shades of 2008...

[tbone717]

What would be the point of doing a rally? All 50 states have voted, the bound delegates have all been awarded and the nomination contest is over. Paul took a decent run at it, and did far better than many expected. Now is the time to focus on other races so that we can have a greater presence in the House, Senate and at the state & local level. I say save the war chest for C4L, so that the organization can be well funded for issue oriented activism following this election cycle.

[The Goat]

If the campaign didn't back out the news on Romney would still be all positive. IMO this gives plenty of time for the Republicans to regret Romney and start considering another option.

[cajuncocoa]

I wish Ron would run 3rd party. He has nothing to lose since he's retiring from Congress.

[TruthisTreason]

The logical shot of winning was over after South Carolina. Imo, the campaign went on knowing they had no chance, thereby wasting millions, after that point.

[kuckfeynes]

It was over before it even started. That epic Jack Hunter is a... thread didn't get deleted overnight for nothing.

[Feeding the Abscess]

It was over before it even started. That epic Jack Hunter is a... thread didn't get deleted overnight for nothing.

What was the gist of that thread?

[Margo37]

So depressing looking at his totally blank calendar and then seeing stuff like this:

Peter Schiff ‏@schiffradio

Today's guest is @GovGaryJohnson, liberatarian candidate for U.S. president, on the state of his candidacy following Ron Paul bowing out.
(Twitter)

[Matt Collins]

The logical shot of winning was over after South Carolina. Iowa actually.


Imo, the campaign went on knowing they had no chance, thereby wasting millions, after that point.It wasn't a waste, we have built a MASSIVE national organization that rivals anyone else. We control SEVERAL state parties, and have significant influence in many others. We have spawned hundreds if not thousands of liberty candidates running for office across all which have a much better chance at victory becaus of the organization that we built. And the organization will outlast the Campaign of 2012 just as it did in 2008. In fact it will be used to change the GOP forever, influence policy, and maybe even run another liberty candidate for President in the future who might have a better chance of winning.



And remember though, "winning" isn't always defined as electoral victory. Ron Paul "won" in 2008 and he also "won" in 2012 even though he didn't get elected.

[TruthisTreason]

Iowa actually.

It wasn't a waste, we have built a MASSIVE national organization that rivals anyone else. We control SEVERAL state parties, and have significant influence in many others. We have spawned hundreds if not thousands of liberty candidates running for office across all which have a much better chance at victory becaus of the organization that we built. And the organization will outlast the Campaign of 2012 just as it did in 2008. In fact it will be used to change the GOP forever, influence policy, and maybe even run another liberty candidate for President in the future who might have a better chance of winning.



And remember though, "winning" isn't always defined as electoral victory. Ron Paul "won" in 2008 and he also "won" in 2012 even though he didn't get elected.

Good points.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Right, they "gave up way too early" by being the last opponent of Romney to call it quits, despite being in fourth place in delegates and popular votes. Looking at states won, votes, delegates, etc.: who should have dropped out first between Santorum and Paul? Now who did?

It was more egregious in 2008 though. Paul kept going until June, after every other non-McCain GOP candidate exited the race and McCain himself locked up the nomination with his win of the Texas primary in March.

Paul has been pretty clingy to continuing to run even after it's over.

[jbauer]

What would you ask him to do? Most republicans are so scared of Obama that they wanted this race done early. I'm still not sure that they ever really thought there was a chance after Iowa and Maine. Since then they've been running to change the future not the present. Just think how many people this campaign has touched. (not in a penn state kinda way). How many here were activists before Paul? How many will be or are now activists? I think this world is a better place for having people like Ron Paul in it.

[Unknown.User]

..

[FSP-Rebel]

Paul has been pretty clingy to continuing to run even after it's over.
He does this to hopefully keep as many people still involved in restoring the GOP as possible. Just check the patronage around here, it's nosedived ever since the campaign wrote their Jon Deere letter. Some people think the movement begins and ends with a prez victory but electing a libertarian to the prez is nearly impossible w/o having some major influence in the GOP across the board. I'm partly to blame because I didn't become a precinct delegate last time around like I was told to, tho I had moved to different spots in the interim. Basically, if people allow themselves to get emotionally burned out and then bow out for whatever reason, we'll keep struggling to restore liberty and the country will keep going to hell. Tyranny thrives when good folk do nothing, so we always have to keep going until we achieve our goals and then never rest on our laurels afterwards.

[LibertyEagle]

I do not like that people affiliated with the official campaign are asking that we redefine success...

Why is there always such an effort to make it an us vs. them? We are all Ron Paul and we are all "his campaign".

[FSP-Rebel]

I do not like that people affiliated with the official campaign are asking that we redefine success...
He's right, it cost a lot of money to get ahold of all those people in the early states and after to become active in the caucuses, become delegates for the county and state conventions and now bare some fruit as national delegates. If Ron dropped out after Iowa and stopped raising money from us, can anyone tell me that would've helped the movement? And no, Ron was never again going to run third party nor can any of us expect that out of him.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Ron Paul "won" in 2008 and he also "won" in 2012 even though he didn't get elected.

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Losing is Winning

[Unknown.User]

..

[Unknown.User]

..

[LibertyEagle]

There is a big difference between the "Official Campaign" and us. What members of the Official campaign say is probably the general consensus among them, whereas our opinions and views are varied. I happen to think Dr. Paul could easily convince 300-600 people not vote for Romney using his 3 million dollars. Therefore it seems that my viewpoint is in conflict with that of the official campaign and therefore not likely to happen.

Are you talking about delegates?

[Matt Collins]

I do not like that people affiliated with the official campaign are asking that we redefine success...I would say that more than doubling the amount of votes that Ron gets equates to success. I would say that growing the movement equates to success. I would say that more than doubling the amount of delegates to the RNC equates to success. I would say that building a movement that outlasts both the PCC and Ron Paul himself is success. I would say that getting Thomas Massie elected to Congress (and others) equals success. I would say that changing the direction of the Republican Party and national dialog is success. I would say that changing US policy, or at least forcing them to fight us before they involved themselves in another undeclared war is success.

Just sayin'...

[Matt Collins]

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Losing is WinningWhy so narrow-minded? Ron has always said he wants to educate and change the dialog, grow a movement, etc. "Winning" doesn't always mean electoral victory, it never has. Maybe you are just now coming to this realization? :rolleyes:

[Unknown.User]

..

[Badger Paul]

"I do not like that people affiliated with the official campaign are asking that we redefine success..."

We're not trying to redefine success. I agree with everything "The Collins" said.

What we're upset about is that there was no reason to pull the plug in May. Why not go on until the convention fighting for what you believe in, call for an open convention, give speeches and rallies promoting the cause? Have it out in Tampa and if we lose, we lose. We endorse Romney and that's the end of it. There was no reason to do anything else except the Romney people wanted us to end it. And so we did. And you wonder why people talk about a conspiracy between the Paul and Romney staffs? People gave money expecting an actual campaign and once again millions are locked away in bank somewhere earning nothing and doing nothing. Now there's talk Paul won't try to put his name in for nomination. Is that true? Is this all a part of the "respect" bullsh*t Benton keeps talking about (eight times in the last conference call with reporters)? Because if it is you'll have even more upset people who've spent a lot of money, a lot of time and some cases blood and arrest to do exactly what the "official" campaign wanted us to do, grab delegates spots for the convention. They've earned the opportunity to vote for Paul on the convention floor. To take that away from them thinking that it shows the party brass and Romney campaign we're behaving ourselves is a betrayal of everything they fought for and I guarantee you will tear our movement apart even more than Rand's endorsement did. They didn't come all that way just to vote for a Rules proposal even though that's part of it.

I'm tired of the "officials" throwing the campaign's own supporters under a bus and treating them like third graders who need chaparones for a field trip. This is not school, this is American politics. It's rough, it's tough, fists sometimes fly and words get spoken, sometimes harshly. If that's too much for the "officials" to deal with, then they need not show up at Tampa at all. Save yourself the trouble. Join the Romney campaign if that's what you are really itching to do. But leave the rest of us who made it possible for the man you're working for to actually run for President to begin with to decide our own fate instead of trying to decide it for us.

[erowe1]

This would be a grand opportunity to score points on Romney and broaden our support with those concerned Romney is just another McCain/Bush/Dole.

Another McCain/Bush/Dole is exactly what the GOP wants, which is why Romney won so many primaries and caucuses, and which is why the last few people they nominated before him were McCain, Bush, and Dole.

And how would this be an opportunity for Ron Paul even if the GOP didn't want another McCain/Bush/Dole anyway? There aren't any more primaries and caucuses.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Why so narrow-minded? Ron has always said he wants to educate and change the dialog, grow a movement, etc. "Winning" doesn't always mean electoral victory, it never has. Maybe you are just now coming to this realization? :rolleyes:

"Winning" to me would mean that, come 2013, we wouldn't be looking at four years of Obama or Romney in the White House.

[jay_dub]

Why so narrow-minded? Ron has always said he wants to educate and change the dialog, grow a movement, etc. "Winning" doesn't always mean electoral victory, it never has. Maybe you are just now coming to this realization? :rolleyes:

I think Ron Paul is smart enough to realize we are nearer to the tipping point than most will acknowledge. He has been using the 'educational' tack but realizes we don't have time for a generational shift. What will be left to be restored in 2028 or beyond? You do realize that, at the rate we're going, it will be at least that long before the shift occurs? Care to visualize an America with 200% debt to GDP ratio or worse, one that stumbles into WW3 in a vain attempt to prop up the USD to continue our spendthrift ways?

[Badger Paul]

"Most republicans are so scared of Obama that they wanted this race done early."

And will be stuck with a candidate the least equipped to beat him and then will complain about throughout 2013 just like they did with McCain. I have no sympathy for those cowards. They get what they deserve.

[Matt Collins]

What we're upset about is that there was no reason to pull the plug in May. Why did Santorum drop before Pennsylvania? Answer that question and it may lead you to other answers.



Why not go on until the convention fighting for what you believe in, call for an open convention, give speeches and rallies promoting the cause? Have it out in Tampa and if we lose, we lose. We endorse Romney and that's the end of it. There was no reason to do anything else except the Romney people wanted us to end it. And so we did. And you wonder why people talk about a conspiracy between the Paul and Romney staffs? People gave money expecting an actual campaign and once again millions are locked away in bank somewhere earning nothing and doing nothing. Now there's talk Paul won't try to put his name in for nomination. Is that true? Is this all a part of the "respect" bullsh*t Benton keeps talking about (eight times in the last conference call with reporters)? Because if it is you'll have even more upset people who've spent a lot of money, a lot of time and some cases blood and arrest to do exactly what the "official" campaign wanted us to do, grab delegates spots for the convention. They've earned the opportunity to vote for Paul on the convention floor. To take that away from them thinking that it shows the party brass and Romney campaign we're behaving ourselves is a betrayal of everything they fought for and I guarantee you will tear our movement apart even more than Rand's endorsement did. They didn't come all that way just to vote for a Rules proposal even though that's part of it.
Not everything is a conspiracy, and Ron is the one making the major decisions. Have you considered the possibility that maybe Ron just doesn't feel it is productive? Or maybe that he can spend his time and energy doing other activities? Ron is not a non-politician, he understand politics better than most people thing, just look at the races he has run in his home district. There are political factors involved in these decisions too that may not be apparent to the observer.

[Unknown.User]

..

[Badger Paul]

"Have you considered the possibility that maybe Ron just doesn't feel it is productive? Or maybe that he can spend his time and energy doing other activities?"

If that's true then why did he feel it productive and not a waste of his time to continue to campaign and solicit for donations well after it was agreed internally that there was no chance at winning the nomination after losing Iowa, which was way back in January?"

I have no idea why Santorum dropped out before Pennsylvania other than speculation Foster Friess stopping paying his campaign bills and perhaps the notion Romney would destroy him there, ending his credibility as a candidate. What this says about the Paul's campaign's effort I have no idea either.

[V3n]

gave up too early?? He's having a rally the DAY BEFORE THE CONVENTION!

He literally couldn't be campaigning longer.

[Matt Collins]

If that's true then why did he feel it productive and not a waste of his time to continue to campaign and solicit for donations well after it was agreed internally that there was no chance at winning the nomination after losing Iowa, which was way back in January?"Because there was still value in it up until a certain point, it was still a worthy cause.



perhaps the notion Romney would destroy him there, ending his credibility as a candidate. Bingo!


What this says about the Paul's campaign's effort I have no idea either.Ponder on it for a few days.

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

All speculation, none of which has any credible grounds to be considered "fact." However, the plan has always been to take back the States. You want a revolution? You gotta' start from the bottom and go up. Not from the top, and go down.

[cheapseats]

The logical shot of winning was over after South Carolina. Imo, the campaign went on knowing they had no chance, thereby wasting millions, after that point.



Iowa actually.

It wasn't a waste, we ...


... continued to solicit funds with the IN IT TO WIN IT heartstring-tugger.

[CPUd]

Ponder on it for a few days.

I don't like it, but I understand it. Once it was clear they couldn't keep romney from hitting 1144, you can't have the Pauls, Jesse Benton, Doug Wead going on these interviews saying 'we're in it for the nomination'. This would marginalize him even more than MSM already have been. But getting delegates so they could have a say in the platform, it's still a viable strategy in the MSM.

The timing of the campaign statements makes sense, too. The email from Ron Paul, and the statement from Rand about Mitt, those were around the time of the TX primary, where it would be proclaimed that Mitt has the delegates to win.

[Badger Paul]

"because there was still value in it up until a certain point, it was still a worthy cause."

Well there's the rub, because some of us still feel this way. And perhaps maybe if the campaign had bothered to attack Romney and draw contrasts between Paul and Romney instead of giving him the kid-glove treatment just as Santorum and Gingrich had pretty much dropped out, maybe fighting it out for Kentucky and Texas would have had a value to it as well. I know you'll disagree so we'll just leave it at that.

[Matt Collins]

... continued to solicit funds with the IN IT TO WIN IT heartstring-tugger.The Iowa comment was my opinion. It was still mathematically possible to win after Iowa, although it got increasingly unlikely by the day. It depended on others staying in or getting out of the race.

[Matt Collins]

I don't like it, but I understand it. Once it was clear they couldn't keep romney from hitting 1144, you can't have the Pauls, Jesse Benton, Doug Wead going on these interviews saying 'we're in it for the nomination'. This would marginalize him even more than MSM already have been. But getting delegates so they could have a say in the platform, it's still a viable strategy in the MSM.

The timing of the campaign statements makes sense, too. The email from Ron Paul, and the statement from Rand about Mitt, those were around the time of the TX primary, where it would be proclaimed that Mitt has the delegates to win.Yep, you are pretty much hitting the nail on the head here.

[Badger Paul]

"The timing of the campaign statements makes sense, too. The email from Ron Paul, and the statement from Rand about Mitt, those were around the time of the TX primary, where it would be proclaimed that Mitt has the delegates to win."

The first Jesse Benton press conference about the status of the campaign came days after the "parking lot" conventions of Arizona and Oklahoma. Needless to say when Mitt heard his son got booed from the media I doubt he was happy about it and probably made his feelings know through back channels between the campaign staffs or whathaveyou that the Paul campaign needed to come to a conclusion.

[Matt Collins]

maybe fighting it out for Kentucky and Texas would have had a value to it as well. I know you'll disagree so we'll just leave it at that.Getting the highest amount of votes of other candidates in KY and TX was a mathematical impossibility. TX is just simply too big (like FL and CA) and KY is to neoconish like SC.

[parocks]

The logical shot of winning was over after South Carolina. Imo, the campaign went on knowing they had no chance, thereby wasting millions, after that point.

And they're still in now, because WE WANT THEM TO. Don't blame the campaign too much for going on too long. It's US that's driving that.

[parocks]

I don't like it, but I understand it. Once it was clear they couldn't keep romney from hitting 1144, you can't have the Pauls, Jesse Benton, Doug Wead going on these interviews saying 'we're in it for the nomination'. This would marginalize him even more than MSM already have been. But getting delegates so they could have a say in the platform, it's still a viable strategy in the MSM.

The timing of the campaign statements makes sense, too. The email from Ron Paul, and the statement from Rand about Mitt, those were around the time of the TX primary, where it would be proclaimed that Mitt has the delegates to win.

The behavior of the official campaign regarding the timing of announcements has been fine.

Everyone now seems to think that Ron Paul is either campaigning too long, or not long enough.

I'd go with - pretty much right.

On another thread, or threads, Bilderberg is discussed. Global Elites are discussed. And in this thread, the question of "when we knew Ron Paul wasn't going to win"
was asked. When we knew - when he announced. See: Bilderberg / Global Elites. Ron Paul is completely 100% unacceptable to the global elites. They would not let him win. That's why discussion of Bilderberg is important. So people don't get all mad at Ron Paul for running and not winning. We're slamming our heads against a brick wall, and doing a surprisingly good job of it. But our heads haven't yet knocked down a brick wall. Putting the people who are stopping us on the defensive seems like it could be useful, effective. Back in the day, there was a party called "anti-masonic". They were unafraid to put what they don't like right up front.

[NoOneButPaul]

I would say that more than doubling the amount of votes that Ron gets equates to success. I would say that growing the movement equates to success. I would say that more than doubling the amount of delegates to the RNC equates to success. I would say that building a movement that outlasts both the PCC and Ron Paul himself is success. I would say that getting Thomas Massie elected to Congress (and others) equals success. I would say that changing the direction of the Republican Party and national dialog is success. I would say that changing US policy, or at least forcing them to fight us before they involved themselves in another undeclared war is success.

Just sayin'...

#win

[NoOneButPaul]

Though it does appear to be a scam for money. If the official campaign had decided to make this about education rather than becoming the nominee immediately following Iowa but continued to fundraise under false pretenses that sets a very dangerous precident within the Liberty movement.

It doesn't set a dangerous precedent.

I think anyone who thought there was still a chance after Iowa was fooling themselves, the fact is the campaign can't say "oh we're not in this to win anymore" after 1 state but the writing had been on the wall since the start this was always about educating the masses, taking over localities, sending a message, and laying a foundation.

That's what you paid for, not any real shot at the nomination. That shot ended after Iowa, and the people who refused to believe that and donated under the belief he could still win were only fooling themselves.

The fact they are coming to this realization now instead of 6 months ago doesn't mean the campaign did anything wrong.

Our money has been well spent, it was not any type of scam. The problem is the people here with the POTUS blinders on have never seen the big picture and where their money was actually going.

[jointhefightforfreedom]

I wish Ron would run 3rd party. He has nothing to lose since he's retiring from Congress.

Agreed!

[parocks]

It doesn't set a dangerous precedent.

I think anyone who thought there was still a chance after Iowa was fooling themselves, the fact is the campaign can't say "oh we're not in this to win anymore" after 1 state but the writing had been on the wall since the start this was always about educating the masses, taking over localities, sending a message, and laying a foundation.

That's what you paid for, not any real shot at the nomination. That shot ended after Iowa, and the people who refused to believe that and donated under the belief he could still win were only fooling themselves.

The fact they are coming to this realization now instead of 6 months ago doesn't mean the campaign did anything wrong.

Our money has been well spent, it was not any type of scam. The problem is the people here with the POTUS blinders on have never seen the big picture and where their money was actually going.

I don't think Iowa was the magic point. I think that the chances just got smaller and smaller. Super Tuesday was big as well. 10 states, 0 victories.

[July]

//

[PaulConventionWV]

http://conservativetimes.org/?p=11711

The fecklessness of the Romney campaign is really starting to irritate and concern conservatives and Tea Partiers. This would be a grand opportunity to score points on Romney and broaden our support with those concerned Romney is just another McCain/Bush/Dole.

But the “officials” of the Ron Paul campaign for President capitulated because they thought Romney Victory Special Train was leaving the station and wanted to get on board. Now what? Do they want to jump off? Not with Rand and Trgvye (no need to mention Olson’s sock puppet) still riding the caboose.

That’s why Ron isn’t doing any more big rallies or really, not much of anything for pretty much two months until the RNC in Tampa despite sitting on a three million plus war chest. It’s too bad really because there were many areas to highlight differences with Romney which may have made at least some conservatives see Paul’s delegates as a potential use of leverage against Romney, perhaps reopen the whole nomination process instead preparing to go down with the ship again. Even if they didn’t like him he was there to shake up the process if needed.

Now it seems like everyone is off marching to a certain doom, perhaps wanting to do something else but not brave enough or wise enough to do it all in the name of “party unity”. Hopefully RP’s delegates and supporters in Tampa won’t be quite as sheep-like as Jesse Benton would like them to be.

Wow, this is the kind of speculative crap that people criticize the campaign for?

"We could have used all that money to magically make the nomination race wide open again."

In your dreams, pal. When are people going to start being realistic and down-to-earth about this? The nomination process is over and it's not going to change.

[PaulConventionWV]

The logical shot of winning was over after South Carolina. Imo, the campaign went on knowing they had no chance, thereby wasting millions, after that point.

And if they had given up then, the grassroots would also be in uproar. They can't please everyone. Also, keep in mind that they would have wasted a lot of money whether they stopped or kept going, but at least keeping going does provide some way of keeping the message out there. I think it's a good use for the money as opposed to just locking it away and ending the campaign early like that.

[PaulConventionWV]

Why is there always such an effort to make it an us vs. them? We are all Ron Paul and we are all "his campaign".

Actually, only Ron Paul can be Ron Paul. I am not Ron Paul, and I don't think you are, either.

[Yieu]

Why so narrow-minded? Ron has always said he wants to educate and change the dialog, grow a movement, etc. "Winning" doesn't always mean electoral victory, it never has. Maybe you are just now coming to this realization? :rolleyes:

If winning in this case never meant an electoral victory to put Ron Paul in the White House, then it seems this all was just to make us awake and aware enough to see just how bad it's going to get when tyranny comes full swing due to losing. If it was never about winning electorally, then I'm not sure how we would affect change. Sure, we might get an amount of people into congress you can count on one hand's fingers'... maybe even both hands, but otherwise we're left with an individualistic philosophy for individuals who will be individually controlled by the government.

[row333au]

Its really up to the people and not to a private political party who you're public servant is..... all you see in the number one Ron Paul forums that is suppose to be dedicated for Ron Paul are the propaganda of demoralizing and discouraging using none concrete of evidential results from yet nomination of the people's choice. In this case we are being divided or stop from rallying together and be establish as a one undeniable massive and very powerful force regardless of bureaucratic deceptions or dictations who they choose to be the President of America by the corporations and the global governance by the ultra-mega rich. We all should stand as a people's power of consensus of the republic that counts the average person and the marginalize public to stand for truth, humanity, liberty and justice. Not to be complacent.

[Yieu]

Not everything is a conspiracy, and Ron is the one making the major decisions. Have you considered the possibility that maybe Ron just doesn't feel it is productive? Or maybe that he can spend his time and energy doing other activities?

So Ron doesn't want to win for us, and doesn't feel it would be productive for himself to win? Well, I guess I've had the wrong outlook all this time. All this time, I kind of wanted to win. I should have known better. Well, at least Ron running helped show me a neat philosophy, the ride was fun while it lasted.


Because there was still value in it up until a certain point, it was still a worthy cause.

Some of us still thought liberty was a worthy cause.

[coffeewithchess]

The logical shot of winning was over after South Carolina. Imo, the campaign went on knowing they had no chance, thereby wasting millions, after that point.

Not only this, but they did so by continuously lying to grassroots, asking them for money repeatedly...claiming it was a "Paul vs. Romney" race, and yet when they had their first "Paul vs. Romney" state. NOTHING.
When they had their first "Paul vs. Romney" state literally after every single other Republican candidate had dropped out, see North Carolina.
NOTHING.

It's one thing to claim and try to win by destroying your opponents as Rick Santorum and even Newt Gingrich attempted to do to Romney, but the ONLY thing I ever saw from this campaign, was a helping hand to the Romney campaign.

Dishonest campaigning is dishonest. Going around saying, "I'm more of a glass half full type of person" must be really great to be able to say, on $30+ million of other people's money. Not to mention, Dr. Paul and Rand Paul are making a nice $150K+ salary "spreading the message" while grassroots supporters were sacrificing time/money/jobs/school to help a man/campaign that never wanted to win.

[Yieu]

grassroots supporters were sacrificing time/money/jobs/school to help a man/campaign that never wanted to win.

If what is quoted in bold is true, then it certainly makes one think twice before supporting any politician ever again.

[romancito]

It certainly makes one think twice before supporting any politician ever again.

Right. The people here just don't want to put the responsibility where it lies. It lies with Ron Paul. He decided to run and he said the things he said and he made promises and he provided and promoted a philosophy of government and a vision of restoration with good plans. True I knew it from the beginning he was not in it to win. I knew it when in speech after speech he did not use the word "jobs" which was the ticket for success. So even in Sept 2011 I already feared he was not in it to win. Yet later on I donated because I believed him. And I believe his policies and conceptions are correct. But suddenly he decided to quit. To renege on his previous courageous positions as soon as the specter of Rand loosing support with the Republican party became evident that as a son he had to make a tough choice. He exchange priorities. His love for his country took a backward place for his love for his son. Now all we have left is a ghost of a future that doesn't make any sense.

Romney is proving every day he is nothing, just empty talk of so called a 'better manager' for our country. Baloney. He is just a redder Santa Claus than Obama. Nothing absolutely nothing will get any better anymore. Just more government surveillance and mandates from city hall to federal departments. Now the question is how soon will we get to where China has been.

Well is just almost 1 a.m. and I'm getting ready for Coast to Coast.

I agree with Ron Paul that winning is not everything but I disagree that democracy is a limited process. I think democracy is all about choices and Ron Paul decided not to give us a choice to vote for him. Now lets see if he can redeem himself and get back where he belongs and after the Convention start a new campaign to oppose both Romney and Obama.

[PaulConventionWV]

... continued to solicit funds with the IN IT TO WIN IT heartstring-tugger.

Are you people really this thick? Really? Do you NOT realize that people would be upset if Ron Paul had quit the day after Iowa? Probably more than those that are upset that he didn't. Do you not see any value in continuing to spread the message for liberty well after a perceived loss? If there's one thing Ron has stressed time and time again, it's to not count him out or give up too early. There's still value in campaigning, even without electoral victory. You people are just so narrow-minded you can't see past the election and what money could possibly do to benefit the cause, EVEN THOUGH ELECTORAL VICTORY WAS UNLIKELY IN THE FIRST PLACE. You imbeciles really need to get a life.

[NoOneButPaul]

I don't think Iowa was the magic point. I think that the chances just got smaller and smaller. Super Tuesday was big as well. 10 states, 0 victories.

There's a couple of magic points... I like to think it was Iowa because that was always Ron's best chance outside of Maine.

Iowa was 1
Nevada was 2 (We knew the South would kill us but we all expected Nevada to get us back in it... losing to Grinch and getting 3rd was a huge slap in the face)
Super Tuesday was 3 (We should have won at least 2 states that night, couldn't even get 1)

If after all that you were still convinced they could win, and we could win, and you were donating money ONLY FOR THAT REASON (Which btw, is that really all that matters? No.. and you shouldn't have believed winning was all that mattered) you deserve to be disappointed now for buying into that idea and not seeing the bigger picture.

At the end of the day Ron is still a politician and no politician can be that honest about his chances while still trying to get money for sending a message and building a foundation- something most people STILL don't see the significance of and wouldn't have donated for- which is the true shame of all of this.

Finally... when Ron started mentioning more and more in the spring that his chances were "slim" and that even though he was going to stay in until the end he knew the odds were almost impossible.

Whenever he tried to say this type of stuff... warn the grassroots what was coming... he'd get destroyed here and abroad for not sticking with the message he can win. He tried over and over to let us down easy and the people just wouldn't have it...

It seemed to me he had Jesse do his dirty work completely on 5-14 and let the cat totally out. Everything after that certainly seemed cordinatted with the GOP and Romney...

People want to say Benton did it all behind his back... I don't buy that at all... Ron took his run at it, lost the battle, but is now winning the war. He knows it, we know it, the GOP is waking up to it.

If what we've accomplished, and will still accomplish at the convention, isn't enough for you people who donated then the fact is you never would have been satisfied with anything outside of Ron winning... which, sorry, was never going to happen because even when he won Iowa the elites took it away.

Ron went the route that he has, and I think we should trust that not only does he know where he's going but that he's leading us to the right place.

[NewFederalist]

I agree with Ron Paul that winning is not everything but I disagree that democracy is a limited process. I think democracy is all about choices and Ron Paul decided not to give us a choice to vote for him. Now lets see if he can redeem himself and get back where he belongs and after the Convention start a new campaign to oppose both Romney and Obama.


It is far too late for any sort of independent campaign if that is what you are suggesting. The deadlines have already passed in 4 states to get on the ballot and many more will pass before the GOP convention.

[PaulConventionWV]

So Ron doesn't want to win for us, and doesn't feel it would be productive for himself to win? Well, I guess I've had the wrong outlook all this time. All this time, I kind of wanted to win. I should have known better. Well, at least Ron running helped show me a neat philosophy, the ride was fun while it lasted.

If you think that's all it's worth, then yeah, you're spot on. However, if you think this is a marathon and not a sprint, then you would probably have a much more realistic outlook than you do. Some people just can't see the big picture.


Some of us still thought liberty was a worthy cause.

Yeah, I think that's exactly what Matt was saying.

[PaulConventionWV]

It certainly makes one think twice before supporting any politician ever again.

You butthurt little crybabies can leave for all I care. We could use for less sky-is-falling critics who jump on everything the campaign does even when they realize the campaign can't possibly do the right thing because half the grassroots is going to get upset no matter what decision they make.

[KingNothing]

The logical shot of winning was over after South Carolina. Imo, the campaign went on knowing they had no chance, thereby wasting millions, after that point.

Nah, it was over in Iowa. When the party was able to get folks to rally around Santorum to stop Paul, our chances were doomed. Had they not been able to do that, we WOULD have won Iowa and New Hampshire, Maine, Minnesota, Washington and possibly South Carolina, Nevada, etc. with our momentum. I don't think people understand just how close we came to pulling it off. If Iowa had voted a week earlier, there's a very real possibility that Paul would have been the nominee.

[KingNothing]

It certainly makes one think twice before supporting any politician ever again.

No, it doesn't. If you aren't happy to support Paul in our fight for Liberty, when will you ever be?

It's not about winning and losing, it's about dedicating your life to the things that matter. If you do that for an entire lifetime, in the long run your causes will do much more good than one election. THAT is the example that Paul set --- be a good person. Care for others. Always be honest. Love your family and your neighbors. Push the philosophy of Liberty. Learn more. Take responsibility for your actions. Work hard. Those are the things that we need to embrace, regardless of the short-term results, because in the long run those will be the things that change the world.

[Unknown.User]

..

[July]

It's a cold splash of reality, but what happened in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, the media blackout....had to be seen. Absolutely had to be seen, by as many as possible. Just anyone can't run and win the presidency. It doesn't work like that, and was never going to be that easy. I learned SO MUCH from this campaign. I didn't know anything about the process or what we were up against. I knew it was a long shot from the start, that was obvious...and I donated purely to help Ron travel around the country and put his ideas out...but I had a sliver of hope until Maine. It angered me so much to see Nevada, as the results were delayed, meanwhile the media focused on the Super Bowl. My eyes are open now to the very idea of Democracy, which I always just took for granted before....I can't think of any other public figure in my lifetime so far that has managed to show me so many ugly things, but inspire at the same time. If he had packed up after Iowa, I wouldn't have seen the half of it. It was worth every cent I donated, in my opinion.

[Yieu]

No, it doesn't. If you aren't happy to support Paul in our fight for Liberty, when will you ever be?

I did not say I was not happy with Ron Paul. Only that I am upset that it appears he is not trying to win.


It's not about winning and losing, it's about dedicating your life to the things that matter.

I am learning that. I am learning that it's not so much about winning in politics, it's about focusing more on what's important in life, such as religion. Politics are only temporal, they are not eternal. But I already knew that, I just kind of had a hope that it could work though all along I was aware that freedom only exists outside of the material world, according to my religious beliefs.

[July]

I think he was really trying to win, at least up until when he still had a shot in Iowa/NH. Probably knew all along it was either very slim or impossible, though. But why use politics as a teaching tool, if it wasn't a real campaign? The education aspect wouldn't have worked if it wasn't a real campaign, going through all the real motions. He didn't have to run a campaign to do education. Lew Rockwell does education...but Ron demonstrated his ideas in action, and proved them. A simple speech or an educational website alone can't do that.

I don't know, maybe the critics are right and it was all a scam (I don't believe that, personally, but admit I don't know). Still had the effect of changing the way I look at the world though, in a positive way.

[Carlybee]

It WAS about winning.....because now we are screwed. Our rights have eroded to the point that one more Obama marxist term or a Romney neocon term can tip the balance and we may never get those rights back. How many unmanned surveillance drones need to fly over our back yards before we get it? Winning was or should have been paramount.

[romancito]

Please reread the donation request emails. Had the campaign made good on its promise and attacked Romney as one should do in a 2-person race, he could have completely knocked down his momentum.

Here is some of the things he could have attacked him on but choose not to:
1. Not Opposed To Raising Federal Gas Tax To Force Auto Markets Hand Towards Hybrids.
2. Massively Expanded Biometric Databases While Governor and Supports A National ID Card
3. Supports The Bombing of Iran and Drone Strikes WHILE Acknowledging That The Prospect of War HURTS THE ECONOMY
4. Supports The Use of Waterboarding and Other Questionable Interrogation Techniques That John McCain said were Inhumane
5. Supported Massive Hikes on Gun Fees While Governor Viewing It As An Acceptable Way To Balance The Budget

Good luck becoming the GOP nominee with those views.

Would I have donated to the education effort? No, there was too much wasted resources if education was the only purpose. Dr. Paul did not need to pay people like Benton and Collins with our money if he was only in it to educate.

Ron Paul wanted our money, I hate to burst your bubble but the campaign lied to get our money. If it was about spreading the message we would have gotten more bang for buck by investing in local candidates. It was not about message, it was about funding the Paul family endeavors. Even now, the campaign has 3 million dollars. They could launch localized ads, perhaps on the very issues I cited, to destroy Romney's credibility and possibly open up the convention.

The campaign did an excellent job going after Santorum and Newt both in rhetoric and ads. They choose not to do that for Romney. The reason does not matter, what matters is they decided to not take on Romney yet still tricked us into supporting a "2-man race".

If people want to continue letting lying politicans milk your bank accounts, feel free.

BTW, Collins is the good cause of our donations that you speak of simply the fact that you were paid? Notice how you got paid by the official campaign, so you see no problem with us donating to it even if the reasons stated were fabricated. Whereas we being the ones actually donating money would have preferred the campaign actually try to initiate the strategy they called for us to fund.

I am through with this board, as it only reminds me of how once again a politican managed to cheat ordinary citizens into bank rolling their private ambitions. Benton, Collins, Wead, Dr. Paul himself, and many others profitted very nicely from this educational run at our expense.

I have to agree. The responsibility has to be laid down at the feet of those who are responsible. Principally, Dr. Paul. He chose Rand over us. Now either Santa Claus will bring us more plastic toys to fill every corner of our country. Plastic toys that in a few years become brittle and cracks and more surveillance, mandates and warnings and demonstration of force and charging demonstrators by the dozens if not hundreds to suppress them and intimidate them. Egypt, China, North Korea lite.

[romancito]

I think he was really trying to win, at least up until ....

Up until Rand started to show a negative effect on him. Like the time he was held up by TSA at the airport and given a reprimand/threat/warning by FBI/CIA/DHS. From there on the campaign started to scale back. Then Rand started to get in trouble w the GOP. Then Dr. Paul started to shut down big time and become very silent.

[FSP-Rebel]

It WAS about winning.....because now we are screwed. Our rights have eroded to the point that one more Obama marxist term or a Romney neocon term can tip the balance and we may never get those rights back. How many unmanned surveillance drones need to fly over our back yards before we get it? Winning was or should have been paramount.
Sure, I wanted to win the prez too but the cards were stacked against the campaign at every turn. Despite the money we raised and our enormous amount of volunteers, the effort to prevail hasn't worked yet. I have no idea what to expect at the National convention but have a feeling something decent will come of it and it will solidify that our wing of the party is growing. Not gonna restate my earlier points as you seem to disregard them but there is need to have a defeatist attitude and vent your frustrations in an attempt to draw more minds to your pity party. If you feel like your outlook is dim and that restoring the GOP is a waste or not your thing, best of luck. Paul never gave up nor shall I and the bulk of others around here. My advice is to take some time off of work for a mini-vacation and do some soul searching and then if you still feel the same, invest your free time in a hobby or two as it is clear that you won't be lending much toward the cause. I might be more susceptible to your line of thinking if things weren't looking up for the cause but I'm more excited than ever.

[FSP-Rebel]

I have to agree. The responsibility has to be laid down at the feet of those who are responsible. Principally, Dr. Paul. He chose Rand over us. Now either Santa Claus will bring us more plastic toys to fill every corner of our country. Plastic toys that in a few years become brittle and cracks and more surveillance, mandates and warnings and demonstration of force and charging demonstrators by the dozens if not hundreds to suppress them and intimidate them. Egypt, China, North Korea lite.
I don't. R-money's people in the media already had his negatives out front and center so it's not like conservatives didn't know what's up. Said media slammed then blacklisted Ron and then manufactured Santorum to pinch us in IA and held him and Grinch in there long enough to stave off any momentum we had in the grassroots. All the while in the media they were saying it was a 3 person race (Rick, Newt, Mitt) until the last 2 bailed and then it was Mitt the presumptive nominee ad nauseum. An attack ad against Mitt with the others in it would only expand their support minimally as conservatives already knew Mitt's shortcomings yet the media had them thinking electability. Instead of spending money in big markets on attacks later in the game when it became clear that things didn't go our way, Ron correctly continued to hold his college tour while using the campaign structure and money to maximize delegate showings like he said from the very beginning of this season. For God's sake, we've been through this attack ads, third party runs and who the hell knows what else many times in the past yet they continue rearing they're ugly heads.

[July]

If Ron really did factor Rand's future into his actions, I'm not upset by that. Not simply because I like Rand, but for those who believe in working inside the party and influencing politics that way, then Rand's future in the party is tied to ours...like it or not. Not just Rand, but Amash, Massie...all the Republicans who stuck their neck out and supported Ron, joined the GOP, ran for leadership positions, etc.

[romancito]

If Ron really did factor Rand's future into his actions, I'm not upset by that. Not simply because I like Rand, but for those who believe in working inside the party and influencing politics that way, then Rand's future in the party is tied to ours...like it or not. Not just Rand, but Amash, Massie...all the Republicans who stuck their neck out and supported Ron, joined the GOP, ran for leadership positions, etc.

I don't blame you for accepting that as a reality and I myself considered what you just said as valid. Since we don't know how effective Rand and the other liberty platform candidates will be, then lets hope they will do well and take our causes to heart and to victory. But one thing you must not do, buy their books explaining what happened in this campaign.

[cajuncocoa]

I have to agree. The responsibility has to be laid down at the feet of those who are responsible. Principally, Dr. Paul. He chose Rand over us. Now either Santa Claus will bring us more plastic toys to fill every corner of our country. Plastic toys that in a few years become brittle and cracks and more surveillance, mandates and warnings and demonstration of force and charging demonstrators by the dozens if not hundreds to suppress them and intimidate them. Egypt, China, North Korea lite.of course he chose Rand over us! Rand is his son. That doesn't mean I have to stick by Rand, however.

[July]

I don't blame you for accepting that as a reality and I myself considered what you just said as valid. Since we don't know how effective Rand and the other liberty platform candidates will be, then lets hope they will do well and take our causes to heart and to victory. But one thing you must not do, buy their books explaining what happened in this campaign.

It remains to be seen, not everyone wants to go that path...but people have that choice open to them.

[Carlybee]

Sure, I wanted to win the prez too but the cards were stacked against the campaign at every turn. Despite the money we raised and our enormous amount of volunteers, the effort to prevail hasn't worked yet. I have no idea what to expect at the National convention but have a feeling something decent will come of it and it will solidify that our wing of the party is growing. Not gonna restate my earlier points as you seem to disregard them but there is need to have a defeatist attitude and vent your frustrations in an attempt to draw more minds to your pity party. If you feel like your outlook is dim and that restoring the GOP is a waste or not your thing, best of luck. Paul never gave up nor shall I and the bulk of others around here. My advice is to take some time off of work for a mini-vacation and do some soul searching and then if you still feel the same, invest your free time in a hobby or two as it is clear that you won't be lending much toward the cause. I might be more susceptible to your line of thinking if things weren't looking up for the cause but I'm more excited than ever.

Thank you for trying to tell me what I need to do. Perhaps the Democrat Party might suit your nannyism needs better. Stating facts does not equal a pity party. I remain optimistic about the convention too but I'm not hiding my head in the sand or being an apologist nor am I suggesting anyone adopt my opinions.

[FSP-Rebel]

but I'm not hiding my head in the sand or being an apologist nor am I suggesting anyone adopt my opinions.
We all get that and you've made your point time and time again in different threads. This forum is dedicated to Ron and the future of the movement which he's laid out for us. Compared to 4 years ago, we've been making successes hand over fist notwithstanding the nomination yet. You poohpooh any mention of the longer term strategy of continually reclaiming the GOP to liberty. It's one thing to have your opinion but you don't have spam your partial negativity all over the place like it's your job. Onlookers here are naturally curious as to what we're up to and this forum is to steer them in the direction of Ron's strategy, especially here in GRC. I have nothing against you personally other than your relentless pursuit of questioning the goal that Ron has laid out, which is succeeding, and many here are actively involved in that endeavor.

[clint4liberty]

Do not blame the campaign for GOP voters coming out to vote for someone other than Ron Paul. You may run all the ads you wish, but if people want a liberal/moderate
nominee such as Mitt Romney it is concluded. Hash or rehashing the second Republican Presidential run should be left to historians.

[cajuncocoa]

Sure, I wanted to win the prez too but the cards were stacked against the campaign at every turn. Despite the money we raised and our enormous amount of volunteers, the effort to prevail hasn't worked yet. I have no idea what to expect at the National convention but have a feeling something decent will come of it and it will solidify that our wing of the party is growing. Not gonna restate my earlier points as you seem to disregard them but there is need to have a defeatist attitude and vent your frustrations in an attempt to draw more minds to your pity party. If you feel like your outlook is dim and that restoring the GOP is a waste or not your thing, best of luck. Paul never gave up nor shall I and the bulk of others around here. My advice is to take some time off of work for a mini-vacation and do some soul searching and then if you still feel the same, invest your free time in a hobby or two as it is clear that you won't be lending much toward the cause. I might be more susceptible to your line of thinking if things weren't looking up for the cause but I'm more excited than ever.http://www.rockpapercynic.com/store/products/images/doodads-condescending-prick-mug-02-thumb.jpg

[Carlybee]

We all get that and you've made your point time and time again in different threads. This forum is dedicated to Ron and the future of the movement which he's laid out for us. Compared to 4 years ago, we've been making successes hand over fist notwithstanding the nomination yet. You poohpooh any mention of the longer term strategy of continually reclaiming the GOP to liberty. It's one thing to have your opinion but you don't have spam your partial negativity all over the place like it's your job. Onlookers here are naturally curious as to what we're up to and this forum is to steer them in the direction of Ron's strategy, especially here in GRC. I have nothing against you personally other than your relentless pursuit of questioning the goal that Ron has laid out, which is succeeding, and many here are actively involved in that endeavor.

Sorry I haven't heard a word from Ron lately how to proceed...maybe he calls you personally. Are you a mod here? If not kindly keep your admonitions to yourself...I will continue to observe and respect free speech.

[LibertyEagle]

Actually, only Ron Paul can be Ron Paul. I am not Ron Paul, and I don't think you are, either.

:rolleyes:

Let me translate for you. Many of us had the beliefs and principles that we have before Ron Paul decided to run for office. He is representing us. He has said much the same since the very beginning. Sorry if you missed it.

[LibertyEagle]

Sorry I haven't heard a word from Ron lately how to proceed...maybe he calls you personally. Are you a mod here? If not kindly keep your admonitions to yourself...I will continue to observe and respect free speech.

How often does he need to say it? He has talked about it many times.

[romancito]

This forum is dedicated to Ron and the future of the movement .... and many here are actively involved in that endeavor.

If the forum and those who manage it and are involved in keeping it cannot give RP supporters freedom and liberty to express their misgivings then I believe it will perform with bias to the objectives peril. And besides since the forum has been engaged in soliciting campaign contributions, then it behooves those in charge to allow personal concerns and criticism to be subject matters. Otherwise there would be a risk that the forum would have a complete credibility collapse. If the campaign was performing as expected then people wouldn't be complaining on issues such as these in the OP. I think everyone is just waiting for something positive to happen either with the whole of the RP campaign or maybe with OWS or with a new unpredicted group of people who will unite to seek changes to our economic mirage.

What's important is that those who purport to be liberty candidates, delegates, officers and elected representatives stay true to freedom and liberty for those that are listening to them. If liberty and freedom are disallowed even where it is proclaimed to be the whole objective then there is no hope for the Republican party.

[TruthisTreason]

Yes, I guess we are as much to blame as the campaign (for carrying on), as I was still donating after SC.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I did not say I was not happy with Ron Paul. Only that I am upset that it appears he is not trying to win.

What should Ron Paul be trying to win as of right now?

[Carlybee]

How often does he need to say it? He has talked about it many times.

I've been a Ron Paul supporter for a long time. I'm well aware of what he has said. I am also well aware that the GOP has an agenda to lie, cheat and steal any gains made by liberty candidates and Rp delegates. How many fingers and hips need to be snapped before some realize that compromise is acquiescence? Right now it seems like the main goal is to insure Rand's future with the least amount of defiance. I get that...what I don't get is people thinking they are going to change much within the party. With all due respect it took Ron Paul years just to get aa modicum of cooperation and that was on end the fed....they still think he's wrong on foreign affairs and the gold standard. There are no more Ron Pauls and if there was how many years will he have to be marginalized and have his philosophy slung back in his face? 20 yrs? 30 yrs? There must be a paradigm change.

[cajuncocoa]

If the forum and those who manage it and are involved in keeping it cannot give RP supporters freedom and liberty to express their misgivings then I believe it will perform with bias to the objectives peril. And besides since the forum has been engaged in soliciting campaign contributions, then it behooves those in charge to allow personal concerns and criticism to be subject matters. Otherwise there would be a risk that the forum would have a complete credibility collapse. If the campaign was performing as expected then people wouldn't be complaining on issues such as these in the OP. I think everyone is just waiting for something positive to happen either with the whole of the RP campaign or maybe with OWS or with a new unpredicted group of people who will unite to seek changes to our economic mirage.

What's important is that those who purport to be liberty candidates, delegates, officers and elected representatives stay true to freedom and liberty for those that are listening to them. If liberty and freedom are disallowed even where it is proclaimed to be the whole objective then there is no hope for the Republican party.+rep

[cajuncocoa]

:rolleyes:

Let me translate for you. Many of us had the beliefs and principles that we have before Ron Paul decided to run for office. He is representing us. He has said much the same since the very beginning. Sorry if you missed it. I am curious to know if you voted for him in 1988.

[romancito]

What should Ron Paul be trying to win as of right now?

For one he should be trying to win the support of Sarah Palin and many other Republican leaders. He should also be trying to win Romney bound delegates. He also should be condemning Romney for being so disingenuous in thinking that his great head of hair will be sufficient to change the bankruptcy the country is facing. He should also be trying to win Romney to his policies and prescription for a healthy economy. He should also be trying to win the approval of the RNC since the Romney who ran in the primaries is but a ghost of the Romney running today against Obama. He should be trying to win public Republican approval for substituting Romney for him on an ASAP basis. Romney has proven in the last few weeks he is nothing - not even a CEO. He is just a rich peon that only knows how to show up behind a podium to accuse Obama of being a President committed to the people of this country and him being committed to the rich elite class of warmongers dreamers and magicians.

[romancito]

I think Ron Paul has made a terrible terrible mistake and he is the only one to blame. He mistook continuing to work in Congress as a virtue and he mistook pushing his legislative agenda and other things of the kind as a virtue. They are not. Once he took to the streets to proclaim his goals and policies for our nation's governance, his responsibility had to be with us. And not with his stupid legislative agenda that someone else can carry if it is so important and crucial. We are who Dr. Paul should be concerned with.

[cajuncocoa]

For one he should be trying to win the support of Sarah Palin and many other Republican leaders. He should also be trying to win Romney bound delegates. He also should be condemning Romney for being so disingenuous in thinking that his great head of hair will be sufficient to change the bankruptcy the country is facing. He should also be trying to win Romney to his policies and prescription for a healthy economy. He should also be trying to win the approval of the RNC since the Romney who ran in the primaries is but a ghost of the Romney running today against Obama. He should be trying to win public Republican approval for substituting Romney for him on an ASAP basis. Romney has proven in the last few weeks he is nothing - not even a CEO. He is just a rich peon that only knows how to show up behind a podium to accuse Obama of being a President committed to the people of this country and him being committed to the rich elite class of warmongers dreamers and magicians.I doubt that Dr. Paul could win Sarah Palin's support, and it could even hurt him if he did. Ms. Palin is just another neocon. I'm curious as to why you think her support would be of value.

[angelatc]

#win

He worked for the campaign. He defines success differently than the rest of us who think that actually winning a fucking election is important.

The best thing about being a Ron Paul employee is never needing to admit you failed.

[angelatc]

We all get that and you've made your point time and time again in different threads. This forum is dedicated to Ron and the future of the movement which he's laid out for us. Compared to 4 years ago, we've been making successes hand over fist notwithstanding the nomination yet. You poohpooh any mention of the longer term strategy of continually reclaiming the GOP to liberty. It's one thing to have your opinion but you don't have spam your partial negativity all over the place like it's your job. Onlookers here are naturally curious as to what we're up to and this forum is to steer them in the direction of Ron's strategy, especially here in GRC. I have nothing against you personally other than your relentless pursuit of questioning the goal that Ron has laid out, which is succeeding, and many here are actively involved in that endeavor.

Yes, we know. It's easier to work in an echo chamber than actually address reality.

[Maltheus]

It makes me a little sick when I realize that the $3 million is just gonna end up in the hands of the CFL. The same people who pretty much destroyed the Paul legacy.

Dr. Paul cured people's apathy like an incomplete round of anti-biotics, only for it to return with a vengeance. I don't see us having even half the people we had after 2008, stick with the party now, so putting all of our eggs in that basket was a bust IMO.

[LibertyEagle]

It makes me a little sick when I realize that the $3 million is just gonna end up in the hands of the CFL. The same people who pretty much destroyed the Paul legacy.

What are you talking about?


Dr. Paul cured people's apathy like an incomplete round of anti-biotics, only for it to return with a vengeance. I don't see us having even half the people we had after 2008, stick with the party now, so putting all of our eggs in that basket was a bust IMO.

That of course if your choice, but it makes 0 sense to me.

We have made unbelievable progress. When we started this off, most Americans didn't even know what the Federal Reserve was. Now, 80% of them want it audited. We are no longer considered, "those libertarians", now we are the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. We ar changing the conversation and winning hearts and minds, whether you believe it or not. Before Ron Paul and yes, his C4L and YAL, there was no visible alternative out there to the big government statism that was being spewed by FOX News and other false conservative organizations. Our guys are now winning elections. Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, Rand Paul, Chris Hightower, etc. and if we keep implementing Dr. Paul's strategy we will be in leadership positions in the GOP all across the country. What that means is that we will have a means to get liberty candidates elected in a way that we have not been able to for many, many years.

We may not have won this particular battle of the 2012 presidential election, but we can still win the war.

Why give up now, when we have come so far?

[PaulConventionWV]

Thank you for trying to tell me what I need to do. Perhaps the Democrat Party might suit your nannyism needs better. Stating facts does not equal a pity party. I remain optimistic about the convention too but I'm not hiding my head in the sand or being an apologist nor am I suggesting anyone adopt my opinions.

Since when is advice "nannyism"? When did liberty become about scorning people for trying to give sound advice and saying they are for the "nanny state" or whatever because they like to tell people their opinion?

[PaulConventionWV]

:rolleyes:

Let me translate for you. Many of us had the beliefs and principles that we have before Ron Paul decided to run for office. He is representing us. He has said much the same since the very beginning. Sorry if you missed it.

Reminds me of a joke I heard.

A hindu monk walks into a pizza parlor. The guy at the counter says "Can I help you?" The monk says, "Yes, make me one with everything."

I wasn't trying to shoot you down, just didn't like the spiritual implications of being one and the same with Ron Paul. I see him and myself as two separate individuals.

[Agorism]

They gave up early because Rand announced that they had no chance, and he was supporting Romney right?

[PaulConventionWV]

Yes, I guess we are as much to blame as the campaign (for carrying on), as I was still donating after SC.

This is the key. How many of us are willing to stop playing the blame game and look at what we did, as individuals? You can't help the actions of others, but can you at least see past the whole "campaign is evil" thing (not you, personally, TruthisTreason), and just see each person who contributed as an individual? I donated after I thought it was over and I do not regret it. I did it because I believe in the message and what the campaign is doing, not because I am some kind of control freak who has to monitor every action to make sure it is being done my way and scream foul when things don't quite live up to my over-hyped expectations. As long as some of you people keep doing this, you will never be satisfied. Nothing can go right if you are a stickler to the degree of some of the campaign bashers here. First they gave up to soon, then they didn't give up soon enough. Which is it, people? Are you going to keep being a negative nancy, or are you ready to stop being a control freak?

[cheapseats]

This is the key. How many of us are willing to stop playing the blame game and look at what we did, as individuals? You can't help the actions of others, but can you at least see past the whole "campaign is evil" thing (not you, personally, TruthisTreason), and just see each person who contributed as an individual? I donated after I thought it was over and I do not regret it.

That's YOU. You may also not mind if you order a bacon-cheeseburger and they bring you a sauteed onion & mushroom burger, 'cuz you think they're both fine or, now that the other is in front of you, you maybe even like it better. Others would SEND IT BACK.

IN IT TO WIN IT was not an occasional outburst, but a friggin' TAG LINE.




I did it because I believe in the message and what the campaign is doing, not because I am some kind of control freak who has to monitor every action to make sure it is being done my way and scream foul when things don't quite live up to my over-hyped expectations.

Insisting that people do what they SAY they are going to do with DONATIONS does NOT fall under the Control Freak umbrella.

For that matter, not caring whether the money one donates is used for activities that logically coincide with mission statements does not fall under the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY umbrella.




As long as some of you people keep doing this, you will never be satisfied. Nothing can go right if you are a stickler to the degree of some of the campaign bashers here. First they gave up to soon, then they didn't give up soon enough.

As long as people MINDLESSLY follow mortals and UNTHINKINGLY accept "official" explanations from mortals, we might just as well not bother with ANY of this. Just throw politicians into mud pits...last man standing WINS.




Which is it, people? Are you going to keep being a negative nancy, or are you ready to stop being a control freak?

Yet ANOTHER false dichotomy.

[affa]

win = Ron Paul 2012

lose = War. Debt. Tyranny.

we did not "win" in 2008. and if we don't get Ron Paul into the White House in 2012, we did not "win" either. As long as we're bombing other countries, going into debt, and losing liberty at home, we are losing. Period.

[parocks]

They gave up early because Rand announced that they had no chance, and he was supporting Romney right?

They haven't "given up". They just recognize that they won't have enough delegates to win. They're still fighting on. But they're pointing out that they're not crazy, and that they understand the rules of the game require an admission that the other candidate has the delegates when the media declares it so, whether it's true or not. That's just how it works. When Rand says "I'll support the nominee" and Ron says "not enough to win", that causes Rand to endorse Romney. But there's nothing legally binding about any of this. Ron and Rand are doing what they have to do. That doesn't mean that we have to do what they're doing. They don't want to come across as total assholes. We are experts at acting like total assholes. We are expected to act like total assholes. Maybe this time we'll be smart and effective total assholes, as opposed to random screaming, chanting, snowball total assholes.

[Carlybee]

Since when is advice "nannyism"? When did liberty become about scorning people for trying to give sound advice and saying they are for the "nanny state" or whatever because they like to tell people their opinion?

When someone tells me maybe I need to take a vacation and chill out, I say I don't need a nanny. I don't know wtf you call it but it was unsolicited and unnecessary. I have a grown son and I don't need some punk on a message forum telling me I need a break. Capiche?

[FSP-Rebel]

As long as we're bombing other countries, going into debt, and losing liberty at home, we are losing. Period.
If we're basing things on the all or nothing approach, then I'd have to agree. Making inroads in crucial areas in the pursuit to stop or lessen the above scenarios in the future means success is in the making. We're closer to making those things not happen than we were four years ago. Sometimes shit has get real bad before the regular conservatives catch up with the constitutional team. If we don't stick together with that approach, we won't succeed in achieving our goals as fast. Some will bitch about this campaign until their last breath, others will adapt, innovate and overcome to be more fine-tuned in the future. The grassroots wasn't as numerous and active as they/we were in '07/'08. If all of us from that era became precinct delegates and attended the respective conventions in our areas, we'd have pulled this thing off for sure. We all know people who are Paul supporters that weren't as active as last time for whatever reason. Too many people have to pull more weight than they should have to to replace those that dropped out. This is what will continue to happen if those who want to sabotage the GOP restoration project have their way. The up side is that the active remnant is fully engaged in RP's plan, so even if we lose some folks along the way we'll make up for it as we continue to win conservatives over to our constitutional side.

[FSP-Rebel]

When someone tells me maybe I need to take a vacation and chill out, I say I don't need a nanny. I don't know wtf you call it but it was unsolicited and unnecessary. I have a grown son and I don't need some punk on a message forum telling me I need a break. Capiche?
I should seek a ban for that but I'll just let the classiness rear its face. Those of whom you describe steer clear of a guy like me irl. You clearly need a vacay from your J O B of actively using this RP board relentlessly to detract from the mission at hand. I could go on but you aren't worth it.

[coffeewithchess]

[

I have no idea why Santorum dropped out before Pennsylvania other than speculation Foster Friess stopping paying his campaign bills and perhaps the notion Romney would destroy him there, ending his credibility as a candidate. What this says about the Paul's campaign's effort I have no idea either.

Actually, I have thought about why Santorum dropped out before Pennsylvania, and I think he saw the writing on the wall for 2016.
I think Santorum knew he might very likely lose his home state of Pennsylvania to Romney, and that would have caused him to lose credibility moving forward...and the "he lost as an incumbent by a huge margin" would have stuck with him.

By dropping out before Pennsylvania, he stopped the onslaught of more Romney and RP ads (since we know RP's campaign was only worried with helping Romney apparently) and saved face by not losing to Romney in his home state.
Between now and 2016, he has time to make a decision to either stay in Pennsylvania, or even perhaps up and move his family to another state for political reasons...so a loss in Pennsylvania in 2016 wouldn't mean as much.

So yea, I think Santorum was looking FORWARD to 2016, and trying to save face...

[coffeewithchess]

I should seek a ban for that but I'll just let the classiness rear its face. Those of whom you describe steer clear of a guy like me irl. You clearly need a vacay from your J O B of actively using this RP board relentlessly to detract from the mission at hand. I could go on but you aren't worth it.

Why would you seek a ban, if he wasn't talking to you?? Or was he reply about you, but to PaulConventionWV?

[coffeewithchess]

Getting the highest amount of votes of other candidates in KY and TX was a mathematical impossibility. TX is just simply too big (like FL and CA) and KY is to neoconish like SC.

If Texas is too big, can you explain how a third party candidate for governor got 18% (somewhere around there) in the primary with only $800,000? Ron Paul who has lived in Texas and been a Congressman there for how many years, couldn't beat Mitt ROMNEY in Texas? And the campaign wasted valuable donations by running an ad in Texas not "educating" the masses on supposed "important" issues or even making this campaign about education, but they ran an ad attack Rick Santorum (had dropped out), Newt Gingrich (had dropped out) and calling Romney a "moderate". WOOOOO BOY! Great use of funds.

[cajuncocoa]

I should seek a ban for that but I'll just let the classiness rear its face. Those of whom you describe steer clear of a guy like me irl. You clearly need a vacay from your J O B of actively using this RP board relentlessly to detract from the mission at hand. I could go on but you aren't worth it.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-yGMLAhDpdG4/TWtmVexj5tI/AAAAAAAABOA/ND0pWagvjWI/s400/crying_baby.jpg

[Carlybee]

I should seek a ban for that but I'll just let the classiness rear its face. Those of whom you describe steer clear of a guy like me irl. You clearly need a vacay from your J O B of actively using this RP board relentlessly to detract from the mission at hand. I could go on but you aren't worth it.

Knock yourself out. Apparently you are also the thought police. And if it's my J O B to detract from the mission at hand, it sure doesn't pay very well. How about your J O B to follow people around threads and insult them as you see fit if they don't tow the line?

And while we're at it could you please cite the mission statement of this board and how it relates to the topic which I have been discussing in context?

Oh wait here it is:


Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this forum is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.




I am a member of the grassroots, I am inspired by Ron Paul, and I seek the same goals as laid out in the mission statment, just not necessarily using the GOP vehicle. This thread is aimed at discussing disappointment that the campaign pulled out too soon. I have been discussing what I feel are possible ramifications of following the GOP path. I don't see how that is detracting from any mission, but rather trying to engage in reality.

[romancito]

I doubt that Dr. Paul could win Sarah Palin's support, and it could even hurt him if he did. Ms. Palin is just another neocon. I'm curious as to why you think her support would be of value.

I know Dr. Paul can win Sarah Palin's support. She is human and can change towards sensible government policies quite easily, I think. She is a terrific person, talented and forceful and talented and motivational. She could not hurt Ron Paul in the least. On the contrary a Ron Paul / Sarah Palin ticket would leave Barack Obama wondering what happened. Yes, Sarah Palin may be looked at as a neocon but I think deep inside that is an act she needs to put on to be able to continue to be attractive.

Two mistakes Ron Paul has made that were crucial to his undoing. One, not using he word "jobs" in the Summer and Fall of 2011. That marginalize him badly. The second was not seeking closeness and connections with Sarah Palin and others like her. He should have publicly court her by inviting her to some of his rallies.

[Agorism]

They haven't "given up". They just recognize that they won't have enough delegates to win. They're still fighting on. But they're pointing out that they're not crazy, and that they understand the rules of the game require an admission that the other candidate has the delegates when the media declares it so, whether it's true or not. That's just how it works. When Rand says "I'll support the nominee" and Ron says "not enough to win", that causes Rand to endorse Romney. But there's nothing legally binding about any of this. Ron and Rand are doing what they have to do. That doesn't mean that we have to do what they're doing. They don't want to come across as total assholes. We are experts at acting like total assholes. We are expected to act like total assholes. Maybe this time we'll be smart and effective total assholes, as opposed to random screaming, chanting, snowball total assholes.


Did they give up when the noticed Rand flying around on a week long tour in the Romney blimp?

[cajuncocoa]

Knock yourself out. Apparently you are also the thought police. And if it's my J O B to detract from the mission at hand, it sure doesn't pay very well. How about your J O B to follow people around threads and insult them as you see fit if they don't tow the line?

And while we're at it could you please cite the mission statement of this board and how it relates to the topic which I have been discussing in context?

Oh wait here it is:




I am a member of the grassroots, I am inspired by Ron Paul, and I seek the same goals as laid out in the mission statment, just not necessarily using the GOP vehicle. This thread is aimed at discussing disappointment that the campaign pulled out too soon. I have been discussing what I feel are possible ramifications of following the GOP path. I don't see how that is detracting from any mission, but rather trying to engage in reality.You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Carlybee again.

[Carlybee]

I know Dr. Paul can win Sarah Palin's support. She is human and can change towards sensible government policies quite easily, I think. She is a terrific person, talented and forceful and talented and motivational. She could not hurt Ron Paul in the least. On the contrary a Ron Paul / Sarah Palin ticket would leave Barack Obama wondering what happened. Yes, Sarah Palin may be looked at as a neocon but I think deep inside that is an act she needs to put on to be able to continue to be attractive.

Two mistakes Ron Paul has made that were crucial to his undoing. One, not using he word "jobs" in the Summer and Fall of 2011. That marginalize him badly. The second was not seeking closeness and connections with Sarah Palin and others like her. He should have publicly court her by inviting her to some of his rallies.

Sarah Palin is a neocon wrapped in tea party rhetoric. I don't see how anyone could possibly make the connection that she has anything to do with the liberty message or even with respecting the Constitution. Frankly any association with her would be an embarassment. Some of the lamebrained comments she has made come to mind.

[cheapseats]

Sarah Palin is a neocon wrapped in tea party rhetoric. I don't see how anyone could possibly make the connection that she has anything to do with the liberty message or even with respecting the Constitution. Frankly any association with her would be an embarassment. Some of the lamebrained comments she has made come to mind.

"They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska." - Sarah Palin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXL86v8NoGk


More Palin on Russia:

"Well, it certainly does because our -- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia ... We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state." --Sarah Palin, asked by Katie Couric how Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, CBS News interview, Sept. 24, 2008 (Watch video clip)

"Perhaps so." --Sarah Palin, when asked if we may need to go to war with Russia because of the Georgia crisis, ABC News interview, Sept. 11, 2008


"But ultimately what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy." --Sarah Palin, explaining the $700 billion government bailout of Wall Street to Karie Couric, CBS News interview, Sept. 24, 2008

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sarahpalin/a/palinisms_3.htm

[parocks]

"They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska." - Sarah Palin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXL86v8NoGk


More Palin on Russia:

"Well, it certainly does because our -- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia ... We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state." --Sarah Palin, asked by Katie Couric how Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, CBS News interview, Sept. 24, 2008 (Watch video clip)

"Perhaps so." --Sarah Palin, when asked if we may need to go to war with Russia because of the Georgia crisis, ABC News interview, Sept. 11, 2008


"But ultimately what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy." --Sarah Palin, explaining the $700 billion government bailout of Wall Street to Karie Couric, CBS News interview, Sept. 24, 2008

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sarahpalin/a/palinisms_3.htm

"They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska." - Sarah Palin

This is actually true.

http://proudgeek.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/20110321-045443.jpg?w=480

http://proudgeek.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/20110321-045518.jpg?w=480

http://proudgeek.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/20110321-045600.jpg?w=480

[febo]

What would be the point of doing a rally?

The message dear boy, the message.

[cheapseats]

"They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska." - Sarah Palin

This is actually true.


Please.

It is also true that you and I can see THE MOON from land right in our own states. That does NOT qualify us to be second-in-line if an Astronaut croaks.


"Absolutely. Yup, yup." --Sarah Palin after being asked by People magazine if she was ready to be a heartbeat away from the presidency


And before anyone trots out her governorship of Alaska, I'd remind people that she QUIT. She didn't "just" up and quit without notice, she quit CITING INABILITY TO BE EFFECTIVE UNDER SO MUCH SCRUTINY.

[cheapseats]

The "official" campaign, sadly, gave up way too early


Which came first: Ron Paul pulling the plug on remaining primaries AS INFORMAL CONCESSION OF HIS VIRTUALLY CERTAIN LOSS OF THE NOMINATION, or Rand Paul endorsing Mitt Romney? The former, right? Otherwise, Rand Paul would be an Ingrate and a Back-Stabber, eww.

Why ELSE would Ron Paul tacitly concede loss of the nomination EXCEPT to pave the way for Rand Paul's TEAM PLAYER endorsement of Mitt Romney? I can think of no other reason, but I'm willing to learn. Only don't say it's a head-fake, to keep TPTB from noticing Ron Paul overtaking Mitt Romney.

If Ron Paul tacitly conceded the race in order to enhance Rand Paul's ability/position to continue the fight by "getting in good" with Republican Machine Deciders, it explains talk about NOT talking about conspiracy theories and talk about distancing "The Pauls" from the likes o' Alex Jones. And PAUL FEST, for that matter.

"Getting ahead" that requires the jettisoning of old friends who are deemed objectionable by coveted "better" friends is kinduva classic theme, which often turns out worse for the Ditchers than the Ditched.

[parocks]

There are other people complaining that Ron Paul waited too long before "giving up" which he still hasn't done btw. They say that if they knew they weren't going to win, they shouldn't have asked for money.

I thought that the campaign handled the timing well.

Some people only wanted to hear happy news. They're the majority here. When someone (Benton) suggests that not winning any primaries at all was going to mean that we wouldn't get enough delgates to win, many, possibly most, said Benton was a traitor, Ron Paul couldn't agree with that, and that Benton saying that destroyed
momentum. Entirely untrue, we did well in Conventions before and after these terrible truth telling announcements.

The minority now feels tricked by not hearing the brutal honest truth as soon as it became likely. The truth is, though, Ron Paul is pretty close to winning. Now, close only matters in what horseshoes and hand grenades, but this is quite an interesting scenario, having all these delegates. I suspect, given that the smart money was saying in Spring 2007 "no way the global elites will let Ron Paul win, but that's not going to stop me from getting onboard", that the outcomes would've been different if Ron Paul starting winning primaries, and not in the good way you would think. The msm never really attacked Ron Paul, mostly because they didn't want to talk about him. But if he had to be mentioned (by winning primaries), they were going to attack him, and not necessarily with truthful stuff. They'd start with truthful stuff, but they'd go on to untruthful stuff if they had to. Had that happened, he wouldn't be looking good going into Tampa with 500 delegates, he'd be competely covered with toxic mud. If a whole bunch of weird stuff happens that we can't foresee, there's a chance.

I suspect that Ron Paul would prefer to not appear to be a threat to get the nomination right up to the point he gets the nomination, or the VP slot, maybe to someone like Palin. Since people are talking about Palin. But "not a threat" - very short time - nominee seems like the way to go when the global elites don't like you.


The "official" campaign, sadly, gave up way too early


Which came first: Ron Paul pulling the plug on remaining primaries AS INFORMAL CONCESSION OF HIS VIRTUALLY CERTAIN LOSS OF THE NOMINATION, or Rand Paul endorsing Mitt Romney? The former, right? Otherwise, Rand Paul would be an Ingrate and a Back-Stabber, eww.

Why ELSE would Ron Paul tacitly concede loss of the nomination EXCEPT to pave the way for Rand Paul's TEAM PLAYER endorsement of Mitt Romney? I can think of no other reason, but I'm willing to learn. Only don't say it's a head-fake, to keep TPTB from noticing Ron Paul overtaking Mitt Romney.

If Ron Paul tacitly conceded the race in order to enhance Rand Paul's ability/position to continue the fight by "getting in good" with Republican Machine Deciders, it explains talk about NOT talking about conspiracy theories and talk about distancing "The Pauls" from the likes o' Alex Jones. And PAUL FEST, for that matter.

"Getting ahead" that requires the jettisoning of old friends who are deemed objectionable by coveted "better" friends is kinduva classic theme, which often turns out worse for the Ditchers than the Ditched.

[Yieu]

What should Ron Paul be trying to win as of right now?

The Republican nomination, even if it appears hopeless, fighting as hard as he can until the convention is over.

[Mattsa]

I think you need to adopt a longer term outlook and look forwards rather than backwards

Bear in mind, it has taken nearly 100 years to wreck everything that America stands for

It's going to be a long long haul to repair the damage.

If the Ron Paul revolution had never started, America would be in an even worse situation.

As Matt Collins correctly points out, things have come a long way since 2008.

I don't see any reason to be pessimistic or defeatist.

[romancito]

The "official" campaign, sadly, gave up way too early


Which came first: Ron Paul pulling the plug on remaining primaries AS INFORMAL CONCESSION OF HIS VIRTUALLY CERTAIN LOSS OF THE NOMINATION, or Rand Paul endorsing Mitt Romney? The former, right? Otherwise, Rand Paul would be an Ingrate and a Back-Stabber, eww.

Why ELSE would Ron Paul tacitly concede loss of the nomination EXCEPT to pave the way for Rand Paul's TEAM PLAYER endorsement of Mitt Romney? I can think of no other reason, but I'm willing to learn. Only don't say it's a head-fake, to keep TPTB from noticing Ron Paul overtaking Mitt Romney.

If Ron Paul tacitly conceded the race in order to enhance Rand Paul's ability/position to continue the fight by "getting in good" with Republican Machine Deciders, it explains talk about NOT talking about conspiracy theories and talk about distancing "The Pauls" from the likes o' Alex Jones. And PAUL FEST, for that matter.

"Getting ahead" that requires the jettisoning of old friends who are deemed objectionable by coveted "better" friends is kinduva classic theme, which often turns out worse for the Ditchers than the Ditched.

Dr. Paul may be a terrific spot on economist and a restorer of political sanity but a poor sense of timing and a lay back attitude about charisma.

[romancito]

I don't see any reason to be pessimistic or defeatist.

While Dr. Paul remains in hiding and in his comfort zone of doing what feels good we have a lot of reasons to be pessimistic and defeatist. Now I have to do what I must even when it won't feel good to do it.

[PaulConventionWV]

That's YOU. You may also not mind if you order a bacon-cheeseburger and they bring you a sauteed onion & mushroom burger, 'cuz you think they're both fine or, now that the other is in front of you, you maybe even like it better. Others would SEND IT BACK.

IN IT TO WIN IT was not an occasional outburst, but a friggin' TAG LINE.





Insisting that people do what they SAY they are going to do with DONATIONS does NOT fall under the Control Freak umbrella.

For that matter, not caring whether the money one donates is used for activities that logically coincide with mission statements does not fall under the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY umbrella.





As long as people MINDLESSLY follow mortals and UNTHINKINGLY accept "official" explanations from mortals, we might just as well not bother with ANY of this. Just throw politicians into mud pits...last man standing WINS.





Yet ANOTHER false dichotomy.

You totally missed the point. This is about taking responsibility for whether or not you partake in something you see as illegitimate. If you do, it's your own fault. Don't blame the campaign. I was telling you what I did because it was an example of doing something I WANTED TO DO without complaining about the outcome. If you want to partake in something, you should know what you're doing, or else don't do it. If you feel like you got shortchanged, think about it in terms of what YOU did as an individual, not what the campaign "authority" did. They're not responsible for you.

[PaulConventionWV]

When someone tells me maybe I need to take a vacation and chill out, I say I don't need a nanny. I don't know wtf you call it but it was unsolicited and unnecessary. I have a grown son and I don't need some punk on a message forum telling me I need a break. Capiche?

Whatever you say. I would just take or leave the advice, myself, but if you think that advice is tantamount to nannyism, so be it. Someone says, "I think you should eat fruits and vegetables to make you more energized", I guess you could call that nannyism, too, and call them a statist. In the end, though, you are wrong. It is not nannyism. It is just plain advice.

I see where you just called him the "though police", too.

I mean, come on, do you even understand the difference between telling someone that it would be good for them to do something, and MAKING them do it? He is violating no libertarian principles by telling people what he thinks is best for them. When he thinks they should be FORCED to do so, that is different. So stop being an over-sensitive jerk that defines anybody giving a word of advice as a freaking nanny.

[LibertyEagle]

While Dr. Paul remains in hiding and in his comfort zone of doing what feels good we have a lot of reasons to be pessimistic and defeatist. Now I have to do what I must even when it won't feel good to do it.

What are you talking about?

[LibertyEagle]

I've been a Ron Paul supporter for a long time. I'm well aware of what he has said.
Ok, then I am confused. You seemed to imply that you didn't know what RP wanted us to do from here.


I am also well aware that the GOP has an agenda to lie, cheat and steal any gains made by liberty candidates and Rp delegates. How many fingers and hips need to be snapped before some realize that compromise is acquiescence? Right now it seems like the main goal is to insure Rand's future with the least amount of defiance. I get that...what I don't get is people thinking they are going to change much within the party. With all due respect it took Ron Paul years just to get aa modicum of cooperation and that was on end the fed....they still think he's wrong on foreign affairs and the gold standard. There are no more Ron Pauls and if there was how many years will he have to be marginalized and have his philosophy slung back in his face? 20 yrs? 30 yrs? There must be a paradigm change.

I hear you. I really do. But, it's not so much that those in Congress all of a sudden started listening to Paul on the FED. It is that WE made it abundantly clear to our own Congressmen that they damn better get behind it. Politicians don't change their positions from good of heart. They change positions because they are afraid of not getting re-elected.

I know it's a downer that we didn't win the Presidency and to be honest with you, I agree with Gunny that it would make more sense for us to focus on state elections; and maybe U.S. Senate and U.S House elections. We will have a much better chance of getting people in at those levels and for a much better return on the donation dollar.

But, I also wish that people wouldn't lose so much hope, just because Ron Paul didn't win. We really have come so far and what we've done will make it much easier to get liberty candidates elected. I really hope we keep going with this strategy, because it is working. What I really wish though, is that we would figure out how to get someone like Peter Thiel or even the Koch Bros. to start a new TV network where we could have a few shows to keep explaining the message. It needs to be out in front of people's faces as much as we possibly can get it. At least I think it does. :)

[Carlybee]

Whatever you say. I would just take or leave the advice, myself, but if you think that advice is tantamount to nannyism, so be it. Someone says, "I think you should eat fruits and vegetables to make you more energized", I guess you could call that nannyism, too, and call them a statist. In the end, though, you are wrong. It is not nannyism. It is just plain advice.

I see where you just called him the "though police", too.

I mean, come on, do you even understand the difference between telling someone that it would be good for them to do something, and MAKING them do it? He is violating no libertarian principles by telling people what he thinks is best for them. When he thinks they should be FORCED to do so, that is different. So stop being an over-sensitive jerk that defines anybody giving a word of advice as a freaking nanny.

When someone I don't know from Adam gives me advice about what I should do in my personal life for my well being I call it as I see it. I expect it from liberals and progressives. I personally don't go around telling people they need a vacation because they aren't following my political agenda. Do you?

[Carlybee]

Ok, then I am confused. You seemed to imply that you didn't know what RP wanted us to do from here.

I know...but a lot of things have happened that have been game changing. Mainly the campaign being in it to win it and then not being in it to win it when RP was still amassing delegates at the state conventions. A lot of mixed messages and very little communication from RP following that. While we were still donating to the campaign as well.

I hear you. I really do. But, it's not so much that those in Congress all of a sudden started listening to Paul on the FED. It is that WE made it abundantly clear to our own Congressmen that they damn better get behind it. Politicians don't change their positions from good of heart. They change positions because they are afraid of not getting re-elected.

I know it's a downer that we didn't win the Presidency and to be honest with you, I agree with Gunny that it would make more sense for us to focus on state elections; and maybe U.S. Senate and U.S House elections. We will have a much better chance of getting people in at those levels and for a much better return on the donation dollar.

But, I also wish that people wouldn't lose so much hope, just because Ron Paul didn't win. We really have come so far and what we've done will make it much easier to get liberty candidates elected. I really hope we keep going with this strategy, because it is working. What I really wish though, is that we would figure out how to get someone like Peter Thiel or even the Koch Bros. to start a new TV network where we could have a few shows to keep explaining the message. It needs to be out in front of people's faces as much as we possibly can get it. At least I think it does. :)

It's not just that he didn't win. It's just that he for all intents and purposes conceded when he said they would not have the delegates to overtake Romney and that was said prior to the Texas state convention. Then Rand endorsed Romney right when state conventions were still going on. It's been a number of things. I agree about Thiel...not so much the Koch Brothers. The Koch Brothers have funded the Heritage Foundation which was a big proponent of Operation Desert Storm. I am also suspect of FreedomWorks and I know they are involved with that. Actually I have questions about Thiel now too given that he attended Bilderberg. But yes as long as the powers that be own the media, we have little or no voice to reach the unenlightened masses.

[Badger Paul]

All you "realists" had better take caution in your tone. You may think yourself wise and clever by saying "We knew after Iowa..." but did you really? Or did you believe, like many of us, if Ron Paul could just get one clean cut victory in a popular vote (at least before Maine) it would change the whole equation of the campaign? Like it or not Ron Paul brought out the dreamer in a lot of people over the past five years and they gave a lot of their time, sweat, talent and some cases blood and arrest to Ron Paul's campaign. What progress we've made (and I agree it has been considerable) was largely due to their hard work. It's not easy attending every convention or weekend straw poll and doing the other work of the campaign as unpaid volunteers regardless whether these people listen to Alex Jones, like Adam Kokesh, talk about the Bildbergers or what have you, its their efforts which have given Paul a lot of credibility he would not have had otherwise. I'm confident RP understands and appreciates this (and Doug Wead too). I wish the "officials" or Rand or Jesse Benton and Jack Hunter would do so as well instead belittling them or make them out to be responsible for every "incident" which happens at some Republican gathering.

There are no refunds when it comes to campaign donations. I'm sure there are a lot of Herman Cain campaign donors who want their money back as well. But no one likes to have the word "FOOL!" branded on them either or be lied to, especially when said campaign begged them for funds to keep going. Only such funds allowed the campaign to accomplish whatever it could and they did so without saying "for educational purposes only." I and I'm sure many others have no desire to stuff Jesse Benton more so than he already is. We gave to keep the campaign going because we thought it a worthy cause to keep for as long as possible. Some may pat themselves on the pack for running such a tight ship the campaign finished in the black by three million. But a campaign is not a business. Ideally you should have a zero balance not a surplus.

There were many on RPF who warned about the campaign's failings. I admonished them too but they ultimately turned out to be right, which I sadly regret. The three biggest ones were 1). Not dealing with the newsletter issue first and foremost; 2). Not organizing South Carolina to the same extent as Iowa and New Hampshire (along with RP's lack of campaigning in the state) 3). Not directly attacking Romney which led to now believable charges of collusion between the campaign staffs for the benefit of said staffers in the future. I say this not trying to be an armchair campaign strategist but in warning that the third failing and what may come of it may well split us apart irrevocably. As I said before, no one would have begrudged Rand's endorsement of Romney after the convention. In doing so beforehand along with shutting down the campaign makes this look like an attempt to shoehorn us into the Romney coronation ceremony they have planned for themselves in Tampa. The people fighting for delegate slots aren't doing so to make Mitt look good. The campaign will certainly run its course but there was and still is a great potential for more to be done between the end of the primary season and the convention had the "officials" had the wisdom and vision to do so. Instead they look they just want their piece of the action and expect us to fall into line just like every other jellyfish in the GOP who know full-well Romney is a cooked goose but can only hang their hands (and other body parts) in limp about it. They ended too early and they will regret doing so only after its too late.

My fear is the "officials" will put the muzzle on our delegates and try to control them the way McCain did in St. Paul, ultimately not put Paul's name in nomination which would do unbelievable harm to the movement. I hope for their sake they're smarter than that. It has been said cynically there's always a lie behind every movement and it's that lie which leads the movement into dogmatism, then into a racket and then into a scam. I hope that's not true but I'll reserve judgement until Tampa.

P.S. If, as "The Collins" says Kentucky was too neoconish for Ron Paul? Why wouldn't the same be true for Rand? Hmm? Rand can't convince the Republican voters who supported him to trust his own father with their votes? What does that say about Rand? It's not a good sign in my opinion.

[Matt Collins]

P.S. If, as "The Collins" says Kentucky was too neoconish for Ron Paul? Why wouldn't the same be true for Rand? Hmm? Rand can't convince the Republican voters who supported him to trust his own father with their votes? What does that say about Rand? It's not a good sign in my opinion.Presidential electoral politics are VERY different from other state races. That and Rand modified his message to not turn people off although his philosophy is essentially the same as his dad's. If you have spent more than 5 minutes with any of the standard conservative / tea partier types you'll know that they like Rand but can't stand Ron. There is a reason for that, the way the message is presented.


If Texas is too big, can you explain how a third party candidate for governor got 18% (somewhere around there) in the primary with only $800,000? Ron Paul who has lived in Texas and been a Congressman there for how many years, couldn't beat Mitt ROMNEY in Texas? 18% is a LONG way from 51%.... extrapolate it out to see how much money it would've taken. Then realize whatever Ron can raise, Romney can quadrupedal. So it didn't make sense to flush money away in TX when whatever was spent was going to be more than matched by Romney and the outcome would be the same regardless. It's called being frugal and good stewards of donors' contributions.

[Matt Collins]

So Ron doesn't want to win for us, and doesn't feel it would be productive for himself to win? Well, I guess I've had the wrong outlook all this time. All this time, I kind of wanted to win. I should have known better. Well, at least Ron running helped show me a neat hilosophy, the ride was fun while it lasted.That is not what I wrote, you are being intellectually dishonest.

[LibertyEagle]

If Texas is too big, can you explain how a third party candidate for governor got 18% (somewhere around there) in the primary with only $800,000? Ron Paul who has lived in Texas and been a Congressman there for how many years, couldn't beat Mitt ROMNEY in Texas? And the campaign wasted valuable donations by running an ad in Texas not "educating" the masses on supposed "important" issues or even making this campaign about education, but they ran an ad attack Rick Santorum (had dropped out), Newt Gingrich (had dropped out) and calling Romney a "moderate". WOOOOO BOY! Great use of funds.

Debra Medina knew she didn't have enough money to run ads, so she spent more than a year traveling all over Texas and meeting and talking with people. As a presidential candidate, Ron Paul clearly couldn't spend every day for a year in Texas campaigning.

Compare that to David Dewhurst who is running for U.S. Senate in Texas. He is a crony-capitalist, so he gets a lot of money from special interests, but even that wasn't enough. So, he loaned his campaign 10 MILLION of his own dollars to run ads. Remember, this is just for a Texas race and everyone actually knows who he is because he has been in state government forever.

I know you must think that everyone in Texas has known about Ron Paul for a long time, since he has been in Congress for so long, but that simply is not the truth. Texas is huge and I would venture to say that the only thing most Texans know about Ron Paul is what they get from the national media.

So, when you consider all that, there really was no way that Ron Paul was going to win Texas. The grassroots could have helped out a lot, but that would have required us getting out of our comfort zone and going door-to-door handing out campaign literature and the like. That didn't happen much in '08 and I doubt it happened much this time, either.

[LibertyEagle]

It's not just that he didn't win. It's just that he for all intents and purposes conceded when he said they would not have the delegates to overtake Romney and that was said prior to the Texas state convention. Then Rand endorsed Romney right when state conventions were still going on. It's been a number of things. I agree about Thiel...not so much the Koch Brothers. The Koch Brothers have funded the Heritage Foundation which was a big proponent of Operation Desert Storm. I am also suspect of FreedomWorks and I know they are involved with that. Actually I have questions about Thiel now too given that he attended Bilderberg. But yes as long as the powers that be own the media, we have little or no voice to reach the unenlightened masses.

The money all spends the same. I just care about have a show or two.

[tbone717]

Presidential electoral politics are VERY different from other state races. That and Rand modified his message to not turn people off although his philosophy is essentially the same as his dad's. If you have spent more than 5 minutes with any of the standard conservative / tea partier types you'll know that they like Rand but can't stand Ron. There is a reason for that, the way the message is presented.

This is why I am very optimistic about our future. I've been in Ron Paul's camp long before he decided to run in 08, but my one complaint about him was the way he presented the message. That is why I am pleased with what I see in Rand, as the message is essentially the same but the delivery is far more palatable to the average GOP voter.

[tbone717]

The money all spends the same. I just care about have a show or two.

So you are lobbying for a TV gig now? :)

[Carlybee]

The money all spends the same. I just care about have a show or two.

The money spends all the same? True but there is honorable money and there is the money where you have to be a whore. I'll take the former.

[July]

All you "realists" had better take caution in your tone. You may think yourself wise and clever by saying "We knew after Iowa..." but did you really? Or did you believe, like many of us, if Ron Paul could just get one clean cut victory in a popular vote (at least before Maine) it would change the whole equation of the campaign?

Yeah, of course, I thought if he were to win a popular vote, it could have opened up the race, and it would have been interesting to see what might have happened then--momentum could have picked up and/or the media could have backlashed in response, crushing the existing momentum that we did have, and possibly ending the campaign much earlier. After Iowa, and by Maine, I understood that the GOP was simply going to reject any popular victory, or even if by chance we won one, the media would not grant him the usual "surge" publicity that candidates normally get.


I'm confident RP understands and appreciates this (and Doug Wead too). I wish the "officials" or Rand or Jesse Benton and Jack Hunter would do so as well instead belittling them or make them out to be responsible for every "incident" which happens at some Republican gathering.

I think that all this talk from the official campaign about "being polite" is to help get the GOP off of our backs, not so much the other way around. Unfortunately there is kind of a double standard here, because we are not favored by the party leadership. Everything we do is held under a microscope, and any infraction would be unfairly blown up. I don't like it either, but there it is.


If, as "The Collins" says Kentucky was too neoconish for Ron Paul? Why wouldn't the same be true for Rand? Hmm? Rand can't convince the Republican voters who supported him to trust his own father with their votes? What does that say about Rand? It's not a good sign in my opinion.

I don't really have any idea how neoconish Kentucky is, but hypothetically even if Rand could convince many to vote for Ron, it still wouldn't have been enough, in my opinion. Remember that the media had been referring to Romney as the "presumptive nominee" for a long time by this point. So actively campaigning, only to get steamrolled by Romney in Kentucky and Texas wouldn't have been a good outcome. Think about that too, when you consider the timing of some of the announcements.

[Badger Paul]

"It's called being frugal and good stewards of donors' contributions."

Yeah, why spend money on a campaign when you can spend it on yourselves!

A campaign is not a business it's also not a government either. While one would not want to see us reach the Red Sea of campaign finance like the Gingrich campaign, having a surplus isn't exactly impressive either. Nor can one cut "taxes" or give the donors to the campaign "rebate" as a reward for good service. The campaign has three million locked away, what will it do with it? Give it to the CFL? Create a PAC for Liberty Candidates? It would be nice to know since the campaign has decided not to do with the money what it was given for in the first place.

As "message presentation" I understand Rand will probably have more success at that given he has better political skills. But in my judgement (again this is my judgement) he did not do a very good job putting those skills to work for his father, at least after Iowa. Another campaign failure was the inability to rally Tea Partiers to Paul's side even though Paul was intellectual spark for the Tea Parties themselves, the dissent from the Potemkin Village the GOP wanted to present of itself by Bush II and McCain. They agreed with Paul's diagnosis but they could not agree on a cure, even among themselves. Sadly, no one in campaign could make the argument to them that they can't get the smaller government you want just by cutting food stamps. The reason they hated Ron because he told them the truth and they couldn't handle it, so they ran off to liars like Bachmann, Gingrich, Santorum and Cain. Maybe Rand will be more successful and the win the nomination in 2016. but Ron's telling-it-like-it-is approach won him an army, one that could survive and get stronger even after losing every battle. Rand better hopes he wins Iowa in 2016 or his campaign will be a lot shorter than Ron's because by then it will be a losing campaign for President and not a cause, and not one I or many others will give to next time around.

[PaulConventionWV]

When someone I don't know from Adam gives me advice about what I should do in my personal life for my well being I call it as I see it. I expect it from liberals and progressives. I personally don't go around telling people they need a vacation because they aren't following my political agenda. Do you?

I give people advice all the time as a personal expression of concern. It has nothing to do with my political agenda or anyone else's. I never call someone a liberal just because they try to offer their advice. There's a big difference between offering advice as just a part of the way you are, and tying it into your political life. Just because someone likes to give advice, that doesn't mean they are a liberal or progressive. As long as they don't support government force to enforce good behavior, then they can just be a libertarian and also just be the type of person that likes to give advice. There's no obligation to listen to them, and there's probably no expectation, either. I just don't like it when libertarians try to treat everyone who offers their word as a statist and someone who's looking to control others. I don't judge people that way unless they actually support the use of force to achieve those objectives.

[RickyJ]

I wish Ron would run 3rd party. He has nothing to lose since he's retiring from Congress.

He and America has nothing to lose by him running third party.

[parocks]

Please.

It is also true that you and I can see THE MOON from land right in our own states. That does NOT qualify us to be second-in-line if an Astronaut croaks.


"Absolutely. Yup, yup." --Sarah Palin after being asked by People magazine if she was ready to be a heartbeat away from the presidency


And before anyone trots out her governorship of Alaska, I'd remind people that she QUIT. She didn't "just" up and quit without notice, she quit CITING INABILITY TO BE EFFECTIVE UNDER SO MUCH SCRUTINY.

My argument was that YOU WERE WRONG. I wasn't arguing anything else. YOU WERE WRONG.

[cajuncocoa]

I give people advice all the time as a personal expression of concern. It has nothing to do with my political agenda or anyone else's. I never call someone a liberal just because they try to offer their advice. There's a big difference between offering advice as just a part of the way you are, and tying it into your political life. Just because someone likes to give advice, that doesn't mean they are a liberal or progressive. As long as they don't support government force to enforce good behavior, then they can just be a libertarian and also just be the type of person that likes to give advice. There's no obligation to listen to them, and there's probably no expectation, either. I just don't like it when libertarians try to treat everyone who offers their word as a statist and someone who's looking to control others. I don't judge people that way unless they actually support the use of force to achieve those objectives.The advice that was given sounded rather condescending and arrogant to me. I would never tell someone that they sound like they're in need of a vacation (suggesting that they sound overwrought or stressed-out just because we are having a disagreement!)

[cajuncocoa]

He and America has nothing to lose by him running third party.There is a lot to gain. I wish he would reconsider; it's not too late.

[row333au]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/523994_3853593770803_67165057_n.jpg

[JK/SEA]

wow..i didn't know Ron has said he wouldn't accept the nomination.....

is there a link?

[sailingaway]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/523994_3853593770803_67165057_n.jpg

Oh, I love that. I wish I had seen it six months ago, but I will tweet it today.

here, in case anyone wants to retweet it: https://twitter.com/usernamenuse/status/221814082834137088

[sailingaway]

wow..i didn't know Ron has said he wouldn't accept the nomination.....

is there a link?

Of course he never said that.

[JK/SEA]

Of course he never said that.

i know....just sick of some of the posts in this thread.

[coffeewithchess]

Then realize whatever Ron can raise, Romney can quadrupedal. So it didn't make sense to flush money away in TX when whatever was spent was going to be more than matched by Romney and the outcome would be the same regardless. It's called being frugal and good stewards of donors' contributions.

So, according to your thoughts, then Ron Paul's entire campaign was a waste of $30+ million and he should have never run (probably correct, actually). He would have saved people time, money, sacrifices, and his entire campaign (including the "Paul" family name) wouldn't look like a joke, for wasting the grassroots time and turning their backs on them by not only discussing Rand's Romney endorsement beforehand, but by allowing the official campaign website to be used to defend Rand's lying endorsement of Romney.

"It's called being frugal and good stewards...", no, that would have meant Jesse Benton was fired, and whatever other incompetent jokes were in the campaign staff. Being frugal doesn't mean wasting grassroots' donations on an ad in Texas attacking Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum when they aren't in the race. Being "good stewards" doesn't mean keeping millions on hand, and never attack Mitt Romney like they did Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum...and being "good stewards" certainly doesn't mean the campaign wastes money helping Mitt Romney win Michigan, but not spend one dime in states like Virginia or North Carolina, and "ending" it with a few million on hand (is the $3 million on hand correct?).

[LibertyEagle]

The money spends all the same? True but there is honorable money and there is the money where you have to be a whore. I'll take the former.

That's fine, if you have so many people offering millions of dollars that you can pick and choose. But, regardless, the source of the money doesn't mean you have to "whore", as you so eloquently put it.

Ron Paul has taken donations from less than desirable people, but he didn't "whore" himself, he used it to further his own message.

[LibertyEagle]

The money spends all the same? True but there is honorable money and there is the money where you have to be a whore. I'll take the former.

That's fine, if you have so many people offering millions of dollars that you can pick and choose. But, regardless, the source of the money doesn't mean you have to "whore", as you so eloquently put it.

Ron Paul has taken donations from less than desirable people, but he didn't "whore" himself, he used it to further his own message.

[coffeewithchess]

Debra Medina knew she didn't have enough money to run ads, so she spent more than a year traveling all over Texas and meeting and talking with people. As a presidential candidate, Ron Paul clearly couldn't spend every day for a year in Texas campaigning.

You're right. Rick Santorum could do it in Iowa, but apparently the Ron Paul campaign liked visiting college campuses a few days a month, instead of concentrating on the older voters...and learning to target message properly at the audience has an actual history of voting. If you waste $50+ million in two campaigns, and can't win the popular vote in one single state with that amount of money...I mean dear goodness, we hate some Federal Government waste, but doing the same crap over and over again is insanity, and this campaign like 2008's refused to address legitimate issues in meaningful ways. There is no excuse for that at all, and using the official campaign's site to defend Rand Paul's lying endorsement of Mitt Romney...

[sailingaway]

Santorum had low single digits in Iowa until the fake CNN poll surge.

However, I am not defending the campaign actions since April. certainly not TX or CA etc. I KNOW people's attitudes changed in CA because of those campaign emails, even before the, imho, unsupportable (at minimum while Ron was in the race and delegates still were needed to attend conventions) endorsement

[newbitech]

Santorum had low single digits in Iowa until the fake CNN poll surge.

However, I am not defending the campaign actions since April. certainly not TX or CA etc. I KNOW people's attitudes changed in CA because of those campaign emails, even before the, imho, unsupportable (at minimum while Ron was in the race and delegates still were needed to attend conventions) endorsement

i wouldn't discount the evangelical surge, and the huckabee effect. RP I think shy's away from this group because of his stance on drugs, and sex choices, and israel. But IMO, he could have reached out to people who follow guys like Perry Stone and built bridges there. Maybe he did. I don't know. But I can't really blame Iowa on the media surge too much. For whatever reason, Santorum was seen as the guy representing the moral religious choice. And not to belittle anyone, but that doesn't surprise me that a hypocrite like Santorum would get that vote. I believe the "Christian" wing of the R's has lost its way just as much as the R's as a whole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTc7Kz0bXXA

[coffeewithchess]

Santorum had low single digits in Iowa until the fake CNN poll surge.

However, I am not defending the campaign actions since April. certainly not TX or CA etc. I KNOW people's attitudes changed in CA because of those campaign emails, even before the, imho, unsupportable (at minimum while Ron was in the race and delegates still were needed to attend conventions) endorsement

The fact is Santorum camped/lived in Iowa, and sure did get a free media boost...the problem is, the Ron Paul campaign had 4+ weeks to know/see this in December, and DID NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING.

When I put together a video attacking Santorum, and emailed it to the Ron Paul campaign in Iowa...before the Caucus...NOTHING.
When I emailed the same video to two other campaigns, one of them responded within 24 hours and put up a slightly "updated" version of my video attacking Santorum...unfortunately, because the RP campaign was playing the, "Let's lose Iowa and help Romney win this thing outright" card apparently, they didn't use my video and the other candidate had already imploded and was grasping for straws...the fact is, the other candidate had less of a chance to win Iowa than RP did, and did SOMETHING.

[Feeding the Abscess]

i wouldn't discount the evangelical surge, and the huckabee effect. RP I think shy's away from this group because of his stance on drugs, and sex choices, and israel. But IMO, he could have reached out to people who follow guys like Perry Stone and built bridges there. Maybe he did. I don't know. But I can't really blame Iowa on the media surge too much. For whatever reason, Santorum was seen as the guy representing the moral religious choice. And not to belittle anyone, but that doesn't surprise me that a hypocrite like Santorum would get that vote. I believe the "Christian" wing of the R's has lost its way just as much as the R's as a whole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTc7Kz0bXXA

Most of the official campaign was geared toward evangelicals in Iowa.

[Feeding the Abscess]

The fact is Santorum camped/lived in Iowa, and sure did get a free media boost...the problem is, the Ron Paul campaign had 4+ weeks to know/see this in December, and DID NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING.

When I put together a video attacking Santorum, and emailed it to the Ron Paul campaign in Iowa...before the Caucus...NOTHING.
When I emailed the same video to two other campaigns, one of them responded within 24 hours and put up a slightly "updated" version of my video attacking Santorum...unfortunately, because the RP campaign was playing the, "Let's lose Iowa and help Romney win this thing outright" card apparently, they didn't use my video and the other candidate had already imploded and was grasping for straws...the fact is, the other candidate had less of a chance to win Iowa than RP did, and did SOMETHING.

Which candidate used it?

[coffeewithchess]

Which candidate used it?

Haha, one that had no chance of winning Iowa at all, but at least realized Rick Santorum needed to be stopped if they stood a chance moving out of Iowa.

[parocks]

Oh, I love that. I wish I had seen it six months ago, but I will tweet it today.

here, in case anyone wants to retweet it: https://twitter.com/usernamenuse/status/221814082834137088

I think this was Justinpagewood

[KenInMontiMN]

Iowa, 23 of 28 delegates = winning.
Primary states = losing.
Straw polls in caucus states = cotton candy

If you want a real nominating process that isn't controlled by the mass media, then the job at hand is to return your state to the unbound caucus system if it isn't already one of those states. Without that, no candidate like Paul can ever prevail.

[coffeewithchess]

If you want a real nominating process that isn't controlled by the mass media, then the job at hand is to return your state to the unbound caucus system if it isn't already one of those states. Without that, no candidate like Paul can ever prevail.

The question remains to be seen if the Ron Paul delegates will be muffled at the convention, and if any of the work by them, has been worth the hours...which, with Rand Paul's endorsement of Romney and the Ron Paul campaign backing that endorsement up, I'm not really seeing much.

The "no candidate like Paul can ever prevail.", was probably only true of Ron Paul and his campaign unfortunately. Show me a candidate and campaign that actually wanted to win with the grassroots that was behind Ron Paul and his campaign, and raising the 2nd most amount of money behind Romney that lost as badly as Ron Paul and his campaign did?

Heck, John McCain was done in 2008, and came back to win it. Newt Gingrich? Tanked his campaign early, but rebounded in South Carolina by attacking Romney viciously.

The mass media is a two way street. The Ron Paul campaign ignored requests to go on the largest "news" show at night several times, and instead was attacked and belittled and didn't get his message out to that audience. If this was about getting out the message, and you can go on the largest "news" show for free...and you turn that down because you don't like the format, and having to learn to actually debate and answer stupid questions...that's not a media problem, that's a candidate/campaign problem.

[Ivash]

There is a big difference between the "Official Campaign" and us. What members of the Official campaign say is probably the general consensus among them, whereas our opinions and views are varied. I happen to think Dr. Paul could easily convince 300-600 people not vote for Romney using his 3 million dollars. Therefore it seems that my viewpoint is in conflict with that of the official campaign and therefore not likely to happen.

300-600 random people, sure, but delegates are usually picked would probably be picked out by the Romney's campaign in advance as loyal supporters who have already given time and money to his campaign. To defect now would be to blow away the time/money spent, as well as any chance of advancement in the Republican party.

Also quite a few probably agree with Romney's ideological viewpoint, which makes it even more difficult to convert them.

[Ivash]

All you "realists" had better take caution in your tone. You may think yourself wise and clever by saying "We knew after Iowa..." but did you really? Or did you believe, like many of us, if Ron Paul could just get one clean cut victory in a popular vote (at least before Maine) it would change the whole equation of the campaign?

I was on this site before Maine (if I recall correctly), but even then there were those saying that Ron Paul could not win after Iowa (admittedly I was among them, and I still believe that Iowa was his best and last chance of winning the nomination- but I'm not a Paul supporter so my viewpoint isn't as relevant in this conversation).

Edit: Sorry for the double post.

[Matt Collins]

The mass media is a two way street. The Ron Paul campaign ignored requests to go on the largest "news" show at night several times, and instead was attacked and belittled and didn't get his message out to that audience. If this was about getting out the message, and you can go on the largest "news" show for free...and you turn that down because you don't like the format, and having to learn to actually debate and answer stupid questions...that's not a media problem, that's a candidate/campaign problem.Very valid points, but again, when you KNOW the media isn't going to be fair and is actively trying to paint you in a negative light, why give them the opportunity to do so? I mean why hand them ammo to have them turn around and shoot it back at us?

[LibertyEagle]

The mass media is a two way street. The Ron Paul campaign ignored requests to go on the largest "news" show at night several times, and instead was attacked and belittled and didn't get his message out to that audience. If this was about getting out the message, and you can go on the largest "news" show for free...and you turn that down because you don't like the format, and having to learn to actually debate and answer stupid questions...that's not a media problem, that's a candidate/campaign problem.

I 100% agree.

[Matt Collins]

So, according to your thoughts, then Ron Paul's entire campaign was a waste of $30+ million and he should have never run (probably correct, actually).Quit putting words in my mouth that I didn't say, it's dishonest.

Ron has transformed Republican politics in the US for the foreseeable future. That means that he has effectively changed the world. Of course it was worth it. Compare the metrics of '08 to '12 and you'll see that we're trending UPWARD



He would have saved people time, money, sacrifices, and his entire campaign (including the "Paul" family name) wouldn't look like a joke, for wasting the grassroots time and turning their backs on them by not only discussing Rand's Romney endorsement beforehand, but by allowing the official campaign website to be used to defend Rand's lying endorsement of Romney.This is a movement that is being built that will outlast the Campaign. The Campaign is the vehicle to get there. This is not a 1-cycle solution, this is a multi-decade effort. There is no quick and easy silver bullet; even if Ron had gotten elected he would not be very effective in reversing federal leviathan because he wouldn't have enough support in Congress and within the Party.





but not spend one dime in states like Virginia or North Carolina, and "ending" it with a few million on hand (is the $3 million on hand correct?).VA and NC were unwinnable so it would've been a waste to dump money there. And having a few million on hand at the end is a GOOD thing because it means it can be used to further the movement as we go forward.

[Matt Collins]

If you waste $50+ million in two campaigns, and can't win the popular vote in one single state with that amount of money...I mean dear goodness, we hate some Federal Government waste, but doing the same crap over and over again is insanity, and this campaign like 2008's refused to address legitimate issues in meaningful ways. There is no excuse for that at all, and using the official campaign's site to defend Rand Paul's lying endorsement of Mitt Romney...Compare the metrics of 08 and 2012 and you'll see we are trending upwards.

The best chance of Ron receiving the nomination was a victory in the straw poll in Iowa. Unfortunately the media inflated Santorum at the last minute when they realized Ron was on track to win. It's not just about winning "the popular vote" but it has to be done in a certain sequence so as to allow momentum to build very strategically; Iowa was the best shot at that.

[Matt Collins]

The fact is Santorum camped/lived in Iowa, and sure did get a free media boost...the problem is, the Ron Paul campaign had 4+ weeks to know/see this in December, and DID NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING.The media inflation of Santorum happened a week out, no one saw it coming. CNN said Santorum was up 1/4 of 1% (well within the margin of error) and then proclaimed "Santorum surging" which became a self-fulfilling prophecy once the rest of the media jumped on.


When I put together a video attacking Santorum, and emailed it to the Ron Paul campaign in Iowa...before the Caucus...NOTHING.
When I emailed the same video to two other campaigns, one of them responded within 24 hours and put up a slightly "updated" version of my video attacking Santorum... You do realize that none of the other campaigns have THOUSANDS of grassroots supporters e-mail them with ideas, suggestions, hints, video, pictures, art, etc, right? The deluge of e-mails was nearly impossible to sift through.


That being said, let me see your video about Santorum, I'm interested.

[newbitech]

It's not like a surging Santorum caught anyone by surprise. Everything leading up to Iowa was one surging person after another NOT named Ron Paul. There was only 2 people in the race that could have surged one week out that had not already surged.


However, his lead over the Republican field was precarious, owing to the entry of new candidates who drew considerable media attention. First congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota started her campaign in June and surged in the polls after winning the Ames Straw Poll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ames_Straw_Poll) in August, but she lost some of the momentum when Texas Governor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Texas) Rick Perry shortly after was drafted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_(politics)) by strong national Republican support. He performed strongly in polls, immediately becoming a serious contender.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012#cite _note-18) But he lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_debates,_2012#Septem ber_12.2C_2011_.E2.80.93_Tampa.2C_Florida). As the third opponent to Romney's lead Herman Cain surged after the sixth debate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_debates,_2012#Septem ber_22.2C_2011_.E2.80.93_Orlando.2C_Florida) on September 22. In November Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media, and he suspended his campaign on December 3, 2011, despite his unyielding denials of any misconduct.
In November as Herman Cain's campaign was stumbling former Speaker of the House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representati ves) Newt Gingrich asserted himself as the fourth leading opponent to Romney.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012#cite _note-19) It was a comeback for Gingrich after his campaign had suffered under serious staff problems just weeks after he had entered the race in May.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012#cite _note-foxnews2-20) But in the few weeks before the Iowa caucus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_Republican_caucuses,_2012), Gingrich's lead quickly began to evaporate as super PACs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_PAC) sympathetic to Mitt Romney and others spent over $4.4 million in negative advertising on Gingrich.[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012#cite _note-21)[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012#cite _note-22) So on the eve of the Iowa Caucus, the first contest, there was no clear and strong frontrunner.

All of these were media driven surges. These were all well discussed prior to Iowa. You could maybe say that Ron Paul was surging, and he surged a week early coming in to Iowa, but to think that the media somehow side-swiped this and it was unpredictable, well you and I were both here at the same time in 2007. We know what the media does to Ron Paul.

Iowa didn't have to be a loss. And if fact it wasn't. IMVHO, the campaign was never going to compete in primary states. The money was spent in caucus states where the campaign DOWNPLAYED the popular (aka beauty pageantry *momentum* votes).

It all seemed very counter intuitive at the time, especially considering how the race was touted as a 2 man race after Iowa. That being the case, the money should have been focused on states where momentum and popularity were the definition of winning. Let's face it, the campaign focused on the strong suit, grassroots organization, and spent that money buttressing the strengths, rather than spending the money on gaining and maintaining momentum. In effect completely ignoring the weaknesses. This is the major complaint I think. It's mine. At the same time, this effort was amplified late in the race when it truly was a two man race, and the campaign sort of just rolled over.

It was the same 2008 strategy. If the goal was to get more delegates and start the GOP transformation process, kudos, it worked. But if the goal was to win the nomination and validate that freedom is popular, the fruits of the effort just do not bear that out.

I can't blame the media any more than I can blame the RP campaign for not taking advantage of and or creating new opportunities to make this happen. Clearly, the grassroots did their part. Look at the results from places where the campaign didn't spend a dime. Pretty much the same results as places where he went all in.

What does that tell you? It tells me that he could have hoarded all that cash and nothing would have changed. Or he could have spent the money more wisely and maybe actually won a state or *gasp* a popular vote! Ron Paul never made a stronghold or firewall as it is called. He was content to be mediocre everywhere instead of finding one great place to get a slam dunk.

So the question, is freedom popular? Not if you look at the results of the primaries. Is freedom GAINING popularity because of Ron Paul's efforts? A resounding HELL YEAH!

What about momentum? It's there, but it may have reached it's crescendo. Especially when a significant portion of the core is being lopped off.

[coffeewithchess]

Quit putting words in my mouth that I didn't say, it's dishonest.

No, what's dishonest is a candidate/campaign lying to supporters saying "In It to Win It", and asking supporters for money. Having a campaign adviser (see Doug Wead) telling the us/the media there is no Romney alliance, yet the RP campaign only helped Romney...REPEATEDLY.
Your point is that this is supposedly about a "movement" or "message", well that doesn't take $30+ million wasted on attack ads and wasting grassroots time/efforts/donations to the campaign...because they wanted Ron Paul to actually, you know, win it.
If this was about a "movement" as some around here want to claim, it's a pretty big failure with $50+ million raised/spent between two campaigns, and not counting Campaign for Spending Other's Money (See C4L).

You basically said Ron should not have run ads in Texas because Romney would outraise/outspend him, SO WHY EVEN RUN?! If that is seriously your way of defending a lying from a campaign, Ron Paul would have been better off sitting in Washington DC, doing absolutely nothing (see Congressman) still making his paycheck. BUT, when you run for PRESIDENT, you had better be running to win...if you are not running to win, but your campaign says you are, and your campaign says/show that it's you against Romney...and you help Romney...THAT IS DISHONEST!

Even though that is exactly what the campaign did, and wasted money on that very ad. You didn't address that, and repeatedly defending a campaign that lied to supporters, and defended Rand Paul's lying endorsement is either dishonest...or something, I'm not even sure what.


Ron has transformed Republican politics in the US for the foreseeable future. That means that he has effectively changed the world. Of course it was worth it. Compare the metrics of '08 to '12 and you'll see that we're trending UPWARD
Yea, Sarah Palin was trending "upward" after 2008, and look how great that is...FOR HER. Yea, doing a bus tour, "writing" books, making money...for HER and HER family.


This is a movement that is being built that will outlast the Campaign. The Campaign is the vehicle to get there. This is not a 1-cycle solution, this is a multi-decade effort. There is no quick and easy silver bullet; even if Ron had gotten elected he would not be very effective in reversing federal leviathan because he wouldn't have enough support in Congress and within the Party.
Sorry, but the campaign was no vehicle at all, unless you count helping Mitt Romney win the nomination as getting "there", wherever there is. If this is about a "movement" and not winning the race to the White House, you don't repeatedly lie to your supporters about that, and then quietly sit by as your entire campaign implodes and release a "glass half full of $170K" kind of guy video. It's pointless.
If this was about a "movement" and not simply looking semi-professional to keep getting paychecks, why not one single Romney only attack ad, when Rick Santorum dropped out in April? Oh that's right, because there was an alliance with Romney...which is obvious to anybody observing politics. You don't run ads helping Mitt Romney win a state, you don't release an Etch-A-Sketch ad helping DEFEND Romney, you don't have your son endorse Mitt Romney then have your own PAID staffer use the OFFICIAL campaign website to defend Rand's lying actions.

This movement will move forward, but I'm sorry, it will be without Rand Paul and Ron Paul at this point. They are focused on one thing, $$$$$$$$$$$. That much is obvious.

As for, "There is no quick and easy silver bullet; even if Ron had gotten elected he would not be very effective in reversing federal leviathan because he wouldn't have enough support in Congress and within the Party."
REALLY!? You can't be serious? I think most of us around here thought it would be awesome, and the Constitution would be restored immediately like it was when written! (SarcMark) Please, most aren't delusional in thinking it would change overnight, I just wanted RP to have the world record for most presidential vetoes. I thought that could happen, and be very likely.


VA and NC were unwinnable so it would've been a waste to dump money there. And having a few million on hand at the end is a GOOD thing because it means it can be used to further the movement as we go forward.
Those words in your own mouth again, "unwinnable" "waste" "dump money". If this was about a movement, then don't close C4L over the last year of the campaign and "hire" the staffers from there as campaign staff. This wasn't about a movement at all, this was politics as usual with Ron Paul getting a paycheck and his friends/family getting paychecks as well. If this was about a movement, people would donate to C4L, and not to RONPAUL2012.

Again, if this was "unwinnable" "waste" "dump money" explain the Texas ad they ran...WASTING MONEY! No you can't, but that's okay, you'll sit around defending the most incompetent campaign in the history of politics claiming $30+ million wasted and never attacking Romney, is "a movement" but when Rand Paul (who got elected because of his dad's name) endorses Mitt Romney, Ron Paul's campaign defends those very actions...

[sailingaway]

Quit putting words in my mouth that I didn't say, it's dishonest.

Ron has transformed Republican politics in the US for the foreseeable future. That means that he has effectively changed the world. Of course it was worth it. Compare the metrics of '08 to '12 and you'll see that we're trending UPWARD


This is a movement that is being built that will outlast the Campaign. The Campaign is the vehicle to get there. This is not a 1-cycle solution, this is a multi-decade effort. There is no quick and easy silver bullet; even if Ron had gotten elected he would not be very effective in reversing federal leviathan because he wouldn't have enough support in Congress and within the Party.




VA and NC were unwinnable so it would've been a waste to dump money there. And having a few million on hand at the end is a GOOD thing because it means it can be used to further the movement as we go forward.

what would be really fascinating would be if your movement moved in its 'new and improved' direction and found that no one followed.

Interesting from a sociological perspective.

[sailingaway]

No, what's dishonest is a candidate/campaign lying to supporters saying "In It to Win It", and asking supporters for money. Having a campaign adviser (see Doug Wead) telling the us/the media there is no Romney alliance, yet the RP campaign only helped Romney...REPEATEDLY.
Your point is that this is supposedly about a "movement" or "message", well that doesn't take $30+ million wasted on attack ads and wasting grassroots time/efforts/donations to the campaign...because they wanted Ron Paul to actually, you know, win it.
If this was about a "movement" as some around here want to claim, it's a pretty big failure with $50+ million raised/spent between two campaigns, and not counting Campaign for Spending Other's Money (See C4L).

You basically said Ron should not have run ads in Texas because Romney would outraise/outspend him, SO WHY EVEN RUN?! If that is seriously your way of defending a lying from a campaign, Ron Paul would have been better off sitting in Washington DC, doing absolutely nothing (see Congressman) still making his paycheck. BUT, when you run for PRESIDENT, you had better be running to win...if you are not running to win, but your campaign says you are, and your campaign says/show that it's you against Romney...and you help Romney...THAT IS DISHONEST!

Even though that is exactly what the campaign did, and wasted money on that very ad. You didn't address that, and repeatedly defending a campaign that lied to supporters, and defended Rand Paul's lying endorsement is either dishonest...or something, I'm not even sure what.


Yea, Sarah Palin was trending "upward" after 2008, and look how great that is...FOR HER. Yea, doing a bus tour, "writing" books, making money...for HER and HER family.


Sorry, but the campaign was no vehicle at all, unless you count helping Mitt Romney win the nomination as getting "there", wherever there is. If this is about a "movement" and not winning the race to the White House, you don't repeatedly lie to your supporters about that, and then quietly sit by as your entire campaign implodes and release a "glass half full of $170K" kind of guy video. It's pointless.
If this was about a "movement" and not simply looking semi-professional to keep getting paychecks, why not one single Romney only attack ad, when Rick Santorum dropped out in April? Oh that's right, because there was an alliance with Romney...which is obvious to anybody observing politics. You don't run ads helping Mitt Romney win a state, you don't release an Etch-A-Sketch ad helping DEFEND Romney, you don't have your son endorse Mitt Romney then have your own PAID staffer use the OFFICIAL campaign website to defend Rand's lying actions.

This movement will move forward, but I'm sorry, it will be without Rand Paul and Ron Paul at this point. They are focused on one thing, $$$$$$$$$$$. That much is obvious.

As for, "There is no quick and easy silver bullet; even if Ron had gotten elected he would not be very effective in reversing federal leviathan because he wouldn't have enough support in Congress and within the Party."
REALLY!? You can't be serious? I think most of us around here thought it would be awesome, and the Constitution would be restored immediately like it was when written! (SarcMark) Please, most aren't delusional in thinking it would change overnight, I just wanted RP to have the world record for most presidential vetoes. I thought that could happen, and be very likely.


Those words in your own mouth again, "unwinnable" "waste" "dump money". If this was about a movement, then don't close C4L over the last year of the campaign and "hire" the staffers from there as campaign staff. This wasn't about a movement at all, this was politics as usual with Ron Paul getting a paycheck and his friends/family getting paychecks as well. If this was about a movement, people would donate to C4L, and not to RONPAUL2012.

Again, if this was "unwinnable" "waste" "dump money" explain the Texas ad they ran...WASTING MONEY! No you can't, but that's okay, you'll sit around defending the most incompetent campaign in the history of politics claiming $30+ million wasted and never attacking Romney, is "a movement" but when Rand Paul (who got elected because of his dad's name) endorses Mitt Romney, Ron Paul's campaign defends those very actions...

don't trash Ron in Ron's forum. Ron is about educating people and motivating people and is the PIED PIPER to the apathetic. He is willing to take the downside of being in office if he has to, and is elected, in order to educate people and help facilitate us to move the country in the direction we want it to go. His deal has always been that he doesn't do the campaign work. His hands off management style causes issues. No question. But EVERYONE would rather have family they trust around them. I am sure others he trusted who are not related also made mistakes.

It is just that without Ron as bait, I don't see this campaign model going very far.

[coffeewithchess]

don't trash Ron in Ron's forum. Ron is about educating people and motivating people and is the PIED PIPER to the apathetic. He is willing to take the downside of being in office if he has to, and is elected, in order to educate people and help facilitate us to move the country in the direction we want it to go. His deal has always been that he doesn't do the campaign work. His hands off management style causes issues. No question. But EVERYONE would rather have family they trust around him. I am sure others he trusted who are not related also made mistakes.

It is just that without Ron as bait, I don't see this campaign model going very far.

I didn't realize stating that Ron Paul gets a paycheck from this, and his family (see Jesse Benton) and friends have gotten paychecks from this as well, is "trashing" anything. That is stating the obvious and truth.

What did I state that is incorrect? Again, educating people by wasting $30+ million is a little odd to me, considering the only education was on Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich being horrible political figures.

[Matt Collins]

No, what's dishonest is a candidate/campaign lying to supporters saying "In It to Win It", and asking supporters for money. Having a campaign adviser (see Doug Wead) telling the us/the media there is no Romney alliance, yet the RP campaign only helped Romney...REPEATEDLY.There wasn't an alliance, but there was help on certain things. And on other things we fought Romney. And we were "in it to win it", anyone who thinks otherwise isn't paying attention or has no critical thinking skills.




If this was about a "movement" as some around here want to claim, it's a pretty big failure with $50+ million raised/spent between two campaigns, and not counting Campaign for Spending Other's Money (See C4L). More than doubling our support from '08 is not "a failure" :rolleyes:





You basically said Ron should not have run ads in Texas because Romney would outraise/outspend him, SO WHY EVEN RUN?! If that is seriously your way of defending a lying from a campaign, Ron Paul would have been better off sitting in Washington DC, doing absolutely nothing (see Congressman) still making his paycheck. BUT, when you run for PRESIDENT, you had better be running to win...if you are not running to win, but your campaign says you are, and your campaign says/show that it's you against Romney...and you help Romney...THAT IS DISHONEST!Not at all, unless you are myopic or a political novice.


"Winning" is not always defined as electoral victory. Obviously that is the ultimate goal, but there are other ways to "win" an election without actually getting elected -

- building a movement
- causing pain to the establishment
- forcing others to talk about issues they don't want to
- acting as a spoiler
- changing the direction of the GOP
- preparing for a future election
- etc




This movement will move forward, but I'm sorry, it will be without Rand Paul and Ron Paul at this point. They are focused on one thing, $$$$$$$$$$$. That much is obvious.LOLz, that's laughable. I've been in Rand's house several times, I assure you, he isn't "rich" and if you've ever seen Ron's condo in DC you'd feel the same way. Ron is frugal and not apt to spending money.

Operationally it does indeed take money to get your message out in politics. You have to have infrastructure which costs money which means you must raise money to be effective.





If this was about a movement, then don't close C4L over the last year of the campaign and "hire" the staffers from there as campaign staff. This wasn't about a movement at all, this was politics as usual with Ron Paul getting a paycheck and his friends/family getting paychecks as well. If this was about a movement, people would donate to C4L, and not to RONPAUL2012.You fail to understand "synergy" and the concept of "scarcity of resources" specifically time, talent, and treasure.


Again, if this was "unwinnable" "waste" "dump money" explain the Texas ad they ran...I dont know anything about it to be honest.

[coffeewithchess]

There wasn't an alliance, but there was help on certain things. And on other things we fought Romney. And we were "in it to win it", anyone who thinks otherwise isn't paying attention or has no critical thinking skills.



More than doubling our support from '08 is not "a failure" :rolleyes:




Not at all, unless you are myopic or a political novice.


"Winning" is not always defined as electoral victory. Obviously that is the ultimate goal, but there are other ways to "win" an election without actually getting elected -

- building a movement
- causing pain to the establishment
- forcing others to talk about issues they don't want to
- acting as a spoiler
- changing the direction of the GOP
- preparing for a future election
- etc



LOLz, that's laughable. I've been in Rand's house several times, I assure you, he isn't "rich" and if you've ever seen Ron's condo in DC you'd feel the same way. Ron is frugal and not apt to spending money.

Operationally it does indeed take money to get your message out in politics. You have to have infrastructure which costs money which means you must raise money to be effective.




You fail to understand "synergy" and the concept of "scarcity of resources" specifically time, talent, and treasure.

I dont know anything about it to be honest.

You really are all over the place. First you say the campaign was "in it to win it", but fail to show how they attacked Romney in the first one-on-one state, Virginia...which has a large evangelical base that would be skeptical to vote for a Mormon (sorry, that's a fact) if the RP campaign had brought up Mitt Romney's abortion ties, and past on it...which is all a fact and all VERY VERY VERY recent politically. This isn't drudging up something from 20+ years ago.

Please show me where the campaign launched an attack ad against Romney, in the same way they did Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum? Any? No. "There wasn't an alliance..." LOL. The proof is in the pudding, and Rand Paul jumped in that pudding along with the official campaign after Rand's endorsement.
If you can honestly tell yourself that the campaign was "in it to win it" by not attacking Mitt Romney once, perhaps you haven't been paying attention or have no critical thinking skills? You don't even address legitimate points, you continue spewing talking points. So much for "critical thinking". :rolleyes:

If you can't double your support with $50+ million, NOT COUNTING C4L between 2008 and 2012, then that would be pretty terrible...what's even more terrible? Not winning one state by popular vote in 2008, and not winning one state by popular vote in 2012...but heck, that sure didn't stop the campaign from helping Romney win popular votes in states by running ads against Santorum. That's what I call success. Using other people's money, that donated to YOU to help YOU win...to help ANOTHER candidate win. That's success and honesty.

"Winning" when running for office is about one thing...GETTING THE NOMINATION. Not lying to supporters saying, "In It to Win It" then running ads to help and defend Romney from the other candidates. You don't need to waste $30+ million attack Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and paying friends/family to sit around if you aren't really serious about winning, to "build a movement" "cause pain" whatever bullcrap excuse you want to use. If that was all he wanted, a Super PAC with $30+ million could be used to "cause pain" to the establishment.

"I've been in Rand's house several times, I assure you, he isn't 'rich'..."
I guess based on houses, you would say the same thing about Warren Buffett (wow, critical thinker here...)

"You fail to understand "synergy" and the concept of "scarcity of resources" specifically time, talent, and treasure. "

Wait, are you telling me the campaign with the most passionate, dedicated, and giving it their all...grassroots supporters lacked "synergy" and had "scarcity of resources"? The campaign had more money than Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and all the other Republican candidates...EXCEPT Mitt Romney. "Scarcity of resources"...bullcrap.

Then, you admit to not knowing about something your supposedly defending. LOLZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CRITICAL THINKING FAIL! hahahahahahahaha

[LibertyEagle]

Coffee, the other candidates didn't have the media running a non-stop smear campaign going on against them, either.

[coffeewithchess]

Coffee, the other candidates didn't have the media running a non-stop smear campaign going on against them, either.

Again, the media is trash, I know this...perhaps you missed all of my videos I put together over the last 8-ish months, before YouTube deleted every single video and banned the account...for no legitimate reason at all.

That being said, the Ron Paul campaign sat by for at least 2 weeks before the Iowa vote, allowing themselves to get STEAMROLLED on the newsletters issue, and did not do one "press event" or release one ad to try and counter that. No, the wonderful competent campaign sat back, and allowed the complete implosion of Ron Paul in Iowa BECAUSE of that issue.

You don't blame the media only, because it's a two way street.

[Matt Collins]

You really are all over the place. First you say the campaign was "in it to win it", but fail to show how they attacked Romney in the first one-on-one state, Virginia...which has a large evangelical base that would be skeptical to vote for a Mormon (sorry, that's a fact) if the RP campaign had brought up Mitt Romney's abortion ties, and past on it...which is all a fact and all VERY VERY VERY recent politically. This isn't drudging up something from 20+ years ago.Virginia was not a winnable state for us, that's obvious to anyone who understands electoral math / politics.




If you can honestly tell yourself that the campaign was "in it to win it" by not attacking Mitt Romney once, The campaign took jabs at Romney multiple times.



Not winning one state by popular vote in 2008, and not winning one state by popular vote in 2012Ron's only chance to win the beauty contest was Iowa and the media killed it, which was completely beyond our control. But we got nearly quadrupedal the amount of delegates this time than in '08. As I said, we are winning more and more states and we are trending upwards.



Wait, are you telling me the campaign with the most passionate, dedicated, and giving it their all...grassroots supporters lacked "synergy" and had "scarcity of resources"? The campaign had more money than Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and all the other Republican candidates...EXCEPT Mitt Romney. "Scarcity of resources"...bullcrap.Resources are always finite. And yes, we did better than than the others.

But you are obviously here to fight, or complain, or just to stir up trouble, so I won't be wasting any more of my time on discussing this with you. But please tell me, how old are you, and what is your education level? I am interested to know.

[LibertyEagle]

Again, the media is trash, I know this...perhaps you missed all of my videos I put together over the last 8-ish months, before YouTube deleted every single video and banned the account...for no legitimate reason at all.
Yeah, sorry, I guess I missed them. But, then again, I could have seen some of them and don't recall who did them. Don't know.


That being said, the Ron Paul campaign sat by for at least 2 weeks before the Iowa vote, allowing themselves to get STEAMROLLED on the newsletters issue, and did not do one "press event" or release one ad to try and counter that. No, the wonderful competent campaign sat back, and allowed the complete implosion of Ron Paul in Iowa BECAUSE of that issue.

You don't blame the media only, because it's a two way street.

Yeah, I didn't like the response to the newsletters, either. But, then again, I'm not sure what the best thing would have been. Remember that Christine O'Donnell (was that her name?) who was accused of being a witch? She tried to speak against the slurs and boy, did it ever backfire.

Personally, I would have thought hiring a big dollar image consultant right at the beginning of the campaign would have possibly been a good step. Because we all knew the newsletter thing was going to come up again, if Ron Paul started doing well.

But, then again, I am not aware of any anarchist political image consultants. So, even if they had taken this step, others would have griped that the campaign had been infijltrated by someone who was not pure.

[LibertyEagle]

But please tell me, how old are you, and what is your education level? I am interested to know.

You lose everything you might have gained when you do this. :rolleyes:

But, I'm interested, Matt. What is the age and education level, that in your opinion, warrants someone of having a worthy opinion?

[newbitech]

Hey Matt,

Not trying to dogpile or be coy. One thing I have never really understood since the Iowa failure (in terms of momentum and popularity) is why the campaign started labeling the popular votes as beauty pageant contests. I understand the focus on the delegates, but in some states the popularity contest determines delegates. But it seemed that meme gained traction and imo totally and completely undermined the theme of "Freedom is popular".

To me it feels like the campaign said, screw popularity, we are going all in on the idea of forcing change upon the party through a delegate strategy. This effectively narrowed the scope of the message and cut off a HUGE chunk of supporters in non caucus states including funds from those states. It seems like the campaign overplayed that hand severely, and I think that is at the core of the disaffection bubbling up out of the grassroots.

I just don't know why the campaign laid off the theme of "freedom is popular"? Does the campaign appreciate the fact that even though it may be impossible to "win" in terms of states like Virginia in your example, or states and even counties like in Florida, that winning to those people means tripling or quadrupling support?

It seems on the one hand, it is a victory to win with delegates which in effect means actually winning the nomination in the scope of that particular state, like Iowa. But on the other hand, victory is unattainable in states like Florida where it would be impossible (according to the calculus you are alluding to) to win the popular vote.

I just don't understand the mixed message here. I appreciate that the campaign was successful in achieving real political nomination victory in a hand full of states, but they also left victory hanging out to dry in a lot more states. 3 million in the bank. Ron Paul could have set up a campaign office in the major cities in every single state 1 week before that state's primary, with that kind of money, hired local grassroots leaders to man those offices and make appearances and rallies at those offices. AT THE LEAST, and I guarantee the grassroots would have used that to probably DOUBLE the results they saw WITHOUT a RP presence.

In it to win in (in caucus states only) seemed to be taking a back seat to, cut your losses and take whatever you can get( again, in caucus states only).

It just seems the vision and the scope of the campaign actually narrowed from 2008 -2012. And again, the touting of a 2 man race after Iowa followed up by incessant attack adds on everyone else EXCEPT that other man? Really?

I wish I could find a way to justify that in my mind. So I ask you to comment, Matt. You and I have met, I respect your perspective.

[LibertyEagle]

I wondered about that too, newbi, but I figured it was because unless they stressed the delegate strategy, a lot of supporters would have given up and not tried so hard to become delegates. It wouldn't have been a problem if we had had and early win, but we didn't and it seemed to me that a lot of people started throwing in the towel. It was then that I noticed the campaign going on MSNBC, etc. talking about the delegates.

[coffeewithchess]

Virginia was not a winnable state for us, that's obvious to anyone who understands electoral math / politics.
Didn't seem to stop RP from spending money in Michigan to help Romney beat Santorum though, did it...


The campaign took jabs at Romney multiple times.
Multiple times? Like the Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum ads? Please, give me one Romney only attack ad from the Ron Paul campaign. You can't.
If you think calling Romney a "moderate" is a jab, heck, that could be looked at as a positive by Romney and his campaign, and they probably wrote the script for Jesse Benton on it...because "moderate" in the General Election is A-okay.

Here are examples of Ron Paul's campaign using funds/videos to help Mitt Romney:
1) Running a Rick Santorum attack ad in Michigan, helping Romney win the state
2) Releasing an "Etch-A-Sketch" video nearly a week after the whole ordeal, making fun of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich on it instead of using it to contract Ron Paul directly with Mitt Romney


Ron's only chance to win the beauty contest was Iowa and the media killed it, which was completely beyond our control. But we got nearly quadrupedal the amount of delegates this time than in '08. As I said, we are winning more and more states and we are trending upwards.
See, you seem to only want to blame the media for the Iowa loss. It's a two way street really. You know there is this thing called a campaign, and press conferences, and tv ads...some campaigns (see Herman Cain) tried to address issues head-on, even when it was all apparently true charges against him.
When Ron Paul's entire campaign is being torpedoed for 2+ weeks, and the campaign is invited on shows to explain it, and come up with a legitimate explanation...what happened? Nothing. The "I didn't write it" didn't sell to people, sorry. Ron Paul and his campaign is directly responsible for the LACK of response on the only issue the media had on him...from 20 years ago!
What did Ron Paul's campaign release? NOTHING. Nope, it was a Super PAC that did their job for them, unfortunately it was a little late at the point...because of not just the media, but because of an incompetent CAMPAIGN.


Resources are always finite. And yes, we did better than than the others.

But you are obviously here to fight, or complain, or just to stir up trouble, so I won't be wasting any more of my time on discussing this with you. But please tell me, how old are you, and what is your education level? I am interested to know.

You're not discussing anything. You haven't showed one way, or explained one failure away I brought up yet. You aren't here for "critical thinking", and yet you wanted to say I was myopic? LOLz. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, I'll stick with the coffee.

I was here months ago, trying to warn supporters to NOT donate to the campaign...because the writing was on the wall. I was the one trying to prevent a fallout as has now happened with the movement...BECAUSE of the campaign.

So in short, you didn't answer:
1) Rand's lying endorsement of Mitt Romney
2) The official campaign site being used to defend that endorsement
3) Never attacking Romney only
4) Let's not forget the campaign wasting grassroots donations on an outdated ad in Texas, attacking Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich after they had already dropped out

That's just a short list...

[LibertyEagle]

I didn't see that ad in Texas and I live in Texas. Which one did they run?

Coffee, there was going to be a fallout, no matter what. If Dr. Paul would have thrown in the towel after Iowa or S. Carolina, a lot of people would have been mad. Don't you remember people wanting Dr. Paul's promise that he wouldn't quit this time? He promised, so he didn't quit. I do believe 100 percent, that the campaign was in it to win it. But, after Iowa, I have to admit, that I lost most of my hope. Still, there was a chance with a brokered convention. But, when that hope was gone, it really was all over.

I do agree that the campaign made mistakes. But, they did a lot of things right too. At least they got Paul on all the ballots, as opposed to Gingrich and Santorum's campaigns, etc.

I understand the desire to blame, but even if they had been perfect, I don't think the conditions are bad enough in our country yet for the masses to look past believing that Ron Paul was going to get rid of Social Security immediately, not defend our country and all the other things they somehow gleaned from his words. Add that to non-stop smearing by the mass media.

We still made a lot of gains and I wish people could see those and want to keep building on them. I know a lot of people do, but it's sad that some don't.

[rp08orbust]

Matt, since you appear to be speaking for the campaign, perhaps you can answer a few questions I've never seen answered:

1. Well over a million dollars was raised with the Ready, Ames, Fire moneybomb, which was promoted by the campaign as a way to ensure victory in the critical Ames straw poll. For many of us here (as well as in the media and punditry), this straw poll was a litmus test for whether the campaign was serious about Ron Paul winning the presidency. It was indisputably the easiest contest he would face during the entire process. There were early signs that the campaign was serious about winning it, such as the hiring of Doug Wead, who was a well-known advocate of going all-in on winning Ames the way Pawlenty and Bachmann were. However, while I wasn't at Ames myself, I've heard from multiple people who were there that Jesse Benton's spin on their loss was that at least the half a million they spent on Ames got them more votes per dollar than any of the other candidates. My question is, why wasn't all the money that was raised for winning Ames spent on winning Ames?

2. Why was money spent on TV ads in Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina in the summer of 2011 when an Ames straw poll win was not sewn up? You say above that it should be obvious to anyone who understands politics that Virginia was never winnable by popular vote, but no political experts ever thought the Mormon stronghold of Nevada, or Romney's adopted home state of New Hampshire, or the military industrial complex Southern state of South Carolina, were ever winnable by popular vote either. If Ron Paul was partly running to motivate his supporters to take over state parties for future benefit, then TV ads are the least cost-effective political tool I can think of for doing so. TV ads are for mainstream candidates who have a shot at winning the popular vote in a typical primary. Those ad buys made no sense to me at the time unless the campaign thought they had Iowa completely in the bag and couldn't think of anything else to do with the money, and now that we know they didn't, I am dumbfounded as to what the their purpose was.

I had some more questions, but I have to go...

[jolynna]

I just don't know why the campaign laid off the theme of "freedom is popular"?

The theme "freedom is popular" no LONGER applied when Rand decided he was going to endorse Romney. Freedom is not synonymous with spy-centers & taking-over-the-world warmongering.

In my opinion.

[cheapseats]

Ron has transformed Republican politics in the US for the foreseeable future. That means that he has effectively changed the world.

got grandiosity?



Of course it was worth it.

As dollars and cents are concerned, it has been more "worth it" for some than for others.




Compare the metrics of '08 to '12 and you'll see that we're trending UPWARD

Compare economic metrics and civil liberty metrics over the same period, and you can FEEL if you are too blind to see that the trend is DOWNWARD.



This is a movement that is being built that will outlast the Campaign.

Correct.



The Campaign is the vehicle to get there.

For the sake of argument, let us say that RON Paul clinging strategically/fearfully to Party WAS the vehicle. Those days are coming to a rapid close...November, at the outside, more likely August.



This is not a 1-cycle solution, this is a multi-decade effort.

Transforming "more worth it" to DOWNRIGHT LUCRATIVE for the Liberty Lovers that experience "liberty gains" chiefly by MAKING MONEY at "fighting" for Liberty.




There is no quick and easy silver bullet; even if Ron had gotten elected he would not be very effective in reversing federal leviathan because he wouldn't have enough support in Congress and within the Party.

No shit, Sherlock. That is one of several OBVIOUS reality-based "truisms" that Dissenting Opinion has been expressing for months-unto-years, only to be relegated to Hot Topics or BANNED.




VA and NC were unwinnable so it would've been a waste to dump money there.

Outside of Monarchies and Dictatorships, a presidency is un-winnable without bona fide popularity. By your REVISED EXPECTATION two-stepping, Ron Paul's campaign HAS been a waste of scarce resources since South Carolina, if not sooner.



And having a few million on hand at the end is a GOOD thing because it means it can be used to further the movement as we go forward.

As ever, better for some than for others.

[coffeewithchess]

But you are obviously here to fight, or complain, or just to stir up trouble, so I won't be wasting any more of my time on discussing this with you. But please tell me, how old are you, and what is your education level? I am interested to know.

Haha, the irony of this statement deserves its own. "I won't be wasting any more of time on discussing this with you..." since you failed to discuss anything actually, and wanted basically to insist things like the earth is flat, when the facts prove different. How old are you, are you married, with children, and college educated?

I didn't realize you had disproven anything I have said about the official campaign, based on my age and education level. *goes off to critically think that one

[coffeewithchess]

I didn't see that ad in Texas and I live in Texas. Which one did they run?

Coffee, there was going to be a fallout, no matter what. If Dr. Paul would have thrown in the towel after Iowa or S. Carolina, a lot of people would have been mad. Don't you remember people wanting Dr. Paul's promise that he wouldn't quit this time? He promised, so he didn't quit. I do believe 100 percent, that the campaign was in it to win it. But, after Iowa, I have to admit, that I lost most of my hope. Still, there was a chance with a brokered convention. But, when that hope was gone, it really was all over.

I do agree that the campaign made mistakes. But, they did a lot of things right too. At least they got Paul on all the ballots, as opposed to Gingrich and Santorum's campaigns, etc.

I understand the desire to blame, but even if they had been perfect, I don't think the conditions are bad enough in our country yet for the masses to look past believing that Ron Paul was going to get rid of Social Security immediately, not defend our country and all the other things they somehow gleaned from his words. Add that to non-stop smearing by the mass media.

We still made a lot of gains and I wish people could see those and want to keep building on them. I know a lot of people do, but it's sad that some don't.

Here's the ad they wasted money on running:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUO84t1H9Tg

That ad was effective for about 2 hours the day they released it, April 10th. It was the same day Rick Santorum dropped out of the race.

You can limit fallout, and keep an organization together though. They were never concerned with this, and THAT is very apparent. How long did it take for RP to get a message out after his "withdrawal" email and Rand's endorsement? The same candidate that could make videos asking for donations during the campaign season, couldn't give a video message to his supporters at the end...and BEFORE Rand's lying endorsement followed by Jack Hunter's terrible "defense" of Rand's lying endorsement?

That's the whole point. If they REALLY cared about this as a "movement" or "educational" purpose, you don't sit by and watch as the entire campaign goes up in flames at the end...what were they doing? Fiddling with Romney?

Sorry, but if there is this thing called "Audit the Fed", perhaps Ron should start with "Audit RP2012" and release all emails, phone records and messages from within the campaign...

[cheapseats]

Compare the metrics of 08 and 2012 and you'll see we are trending upwards.

By other metrics, Ron Paul had BY FAR the highest cost per vote of ANYONE in the "fiscally conservative" Republican field.

B-b-b-but the media was blacking him oooouuuut!!!! And Ron Paul Campaign used money HOW, to countermand that?

Jesse Benton is top dog at a "firm" that pimps other candidates too, yes?




The best chance of Ron receiving the nomination was a victory in the straw poll in Iowa. Unfortunately the media inflated Santorum at the last minute when they realized Ron was on track to win.

There was also theatrical bungling of the Newsletters . . . which, like media bias, the Campaign should have anticipated.

There was Ron Paul scooting home to Lake Jackson right before the Caucuses . . . simply foregoing (without explanation) down-to-the-wire retail politics.

There was a mysterious eleventh-hour directive to NOT "Watch The Vote" . . . with count irregularity being de rigueur ever since.




It's not just about winning "the popular vote"...

Yes, it is. Unless you are another SCHEMER/CONTROLLER, yes, it IS about the popular vote.

[Matt Collins]

By other metrics, Ron Paul had BY FAR the highest cost per vote of ANYONE in the "fiscally conservative" Republican field.

B-b-b-but the media was blacking him oooouuuut!!!! And Ron Paul Campaign used money HOW, to countermand that?Direct mail, ads, etc. But If you look at the long-lasting effects of the RP '08 and '12 Campaigns you will see that it by far has the most payoff per dollar.




Jesse Benton is top dog at a "firm" that pimps other candidates too, yes?I have no idea what else Jesse does.






There was also theatrical bungling of the Newsletters . . . which, like media bias, the Campaign should have anticipated.It was anticipated and there was nothing that could be done about it. It was one of those things we just had to weather.


There was Ron Paul scooting home to Lake Jackson right before the Caucuses . . . simply foregoing (without explanation) down-to-the-wire retail politics.I think he usually spends Sundays at home.


There was a mysterious eleventh-hour directive to NOT "Watch The Vote" . . . Because the Campaign had it under control and didn't need inexperienced and untrained people (many of whom were openly avowed conspiracy theorists) showing up at the local caucuses and attempting to represent the Campaign likely hurting more than helping.

[Matt Collins]

Matt, since you appear to be speaking for the campaign, perhaps you can answer a few questions I've never seen answered:I am NOT speaking for the Campaign, see my signature.


My question is, why wasn't all the money that was raised for winning Ames spent on winning Ames?I have no idea what money was spent where, you are free to comb through the FEC reports though.

However, there becomes something called marginal returns. At a certain point, it wouldn't matter how much money was spent, it wouldn't have bought more votes. We were probably at that threshold.

I was there, in fact I was production manager for the stage, and I was intimately involved in the process in the weeks prior. Deb H and Steve Bierfeldt did an awesome job and did everything within their power to win. The Campaign put out full effort to win the straw poll.



no political experts ever thought the Mormon stronghold of Nevada, or Romney's adopted home state of New Hampshire, or the military industrial complex Southern state of South Carolina, were ever winnable by popular vote either. Nevada we had sewn up, at least with the delegate count. We knew we'd get #2 in NH no matter what, and SC had to have a respectable showing otherwise we wouldn't be taken seriously afterwards.

One reason for early commercials is to force the hand of the opponents. When ads get put out there it forces the opposition to make a move, defend themselves, spend money, etc. So there was a lot of strategic aspects for that.

[coffeewithchess]

It was anticipated and there was nothing that could be done about it. It was one of those things we just had to weather.

Ben Swann did more than the stupid campaign on the issue, and he's not paid to try and win an election.
The Rev PAC?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4&list=UUVGhHkD-nvsMb-ETobRaBKw&index=109&feature=plcp

That's right, a PAC, trying to address legitimate issues holding voters BACK from voting for Ron Paul...because the campaign apparently thought that a big hole taking on gallons of salt water in the engine room, wouldn't have any effect even though they knew about the hole and could have prevented further damage MONTHS before hand?
LOLz. *critically thinking here, perhaps just the wrong way apparently...because if you think critically, it's supposed to be about how the campaign didn't waste $30+ million

*still hoping Mitt Romney is a swell guy, and hands Ron Paul the nomination at the convention and/or drops out of the race before the convention happens and this was all a big play...because Mitt Romney is really awesome!

[Matt Collins]

why the campaign started labeling the popular votes as beauty pageant contests. Because that's what they were.


I understand the focus on the delegates, but in some states the popularity contest determines delegates.Not in the states we were targeting.




To me it feels like the campaign said, screw popularity, we are going all in on the idea of forcing change upon the party through a delegate strategy. If we didn't win the Iowa Straw Poll, then that was the only avenue left available.


This effectively narrowed the scope of the message and cut off a HUGE chunk of supporters in non caucus states including funds from those states. It seems like the campaign overplayed that hand severely, and I think that is at the core of the disaffection bubbling up out of the grassroots. No, it didn't make sense to put resources in places that were guaranteed to bear no fruit.


3 million in the bank. Ron Paul could have set up a campaign office in the major cities in every single state 1 week before that state's primary, with that kind of money, hired local grassroots leaders to man those offices and make appearances and rallies at those offices. AT THE LEAST, and I guarantee the grassroots would have used that to probably DOUBLE the results they saw WITHOUT a RP presence. No it wouldn't have doubled it, but more importantly, it wouldn't have earned Ron any delegates. Or not at least enough to be worth blowing that much money.



It just seems the vision and the scope of the campaign actually narrowed from 2008 -2012. Yes it did, the goal was to win delegates. And that means focusing and putting resources in very specific and strategic places like a laser instead of a shotgun.

[LibertyEagle]

Nevada we had sewn up, at least with the delegate count. We knew we'd get #2 in NH no matter what, and SC had to have a respectable showing otherwise we wouldn't be taken seriously afterwards.

One reason for early commercials is to force the hand of the opponents. When ads get put out there it forces the opposition to make a move, defend themselves, spend money, etc. So there was a lot of strategic aspects for that.

That doesn't jive with what was being said around that time. From what I remember, the campaign never thought we would do that well in S. Carolina and only ran ads there at the last minute after seeing how well we did in NH. So, if they KNEW they had to do well in S. Carolina, why wasn't there more of an effort to succeed there?

[Matt Collins]

Outside of Monarchies and Dictatorships, a presidency is un-winnable without bona fide popularity.That's actually not true. There have been several US Presidents who were barely known just before they were elected.

[Matt Collins]

That doesn't jive with what was being said around that time. From what I remember, the campaign never thought we would do that well in S. Carolina and only ran ads there at the last minute after seeing how well we did in NH. So, if they KNEW they had to do well in S. Carolina, why wasn't there more of an effort to succeed there?I didn't say we had to do well there, I said we had to have a respectable showing. There is a difference.

[LibertyEagle]

Here's the ad they wasted money on running:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUO84t1H9Tg

That ad was effective for about 2 hours the day they released it, April 10th. It was the same day Rick Santorum dropped out of the race.
Ugh. I don't know, coffee, maybe they were shocked about Santorum, because it pretty much meant that any hopes of a brokered convention was gone and with that, any hopes of Ron Paul becoming President. Perhaps they didn't have any ads ready to replace that one with that didn't have Santorum in it and it takes time to create a new ad. I also would imagine that the money had already been paid to the network and it wasn't going to be returned.

So, while it was a bummer, I can see how it would happen.


You can limit fallout, and keep an organization together though. They were never concerned with this, and THAT is very apparent. How long did it take for RP to get a message out after his "withdrawal" email and Rand's endorsement?
As I recall, they did come out rather quickly trying to clarify, or pull the foot out of their mouth, whichever.


The same candidate that could make videos asking for donations during the campaign season, couldn't give a video message to his supporters at the end...and BEFORE Rand's lying endorsement followed by Jack Hunter's terrible "defense" of Rand's lying endorsement?
What are you talking about? He has made a couple of videos since then. If you're asking why he didn't immediately come out with a video denouncing what Rand did, I suggest you think about it for a minute.


That's the whole point. If they REALLY cared about this as a "movement" or "educational" purpose, you don't sit by and watch as the entire campaign goes up in flames at the end...what were they doing? Fiddling with Romney?
Some feel that way, I know. A lot of people don't, though. And I think you are completely off-target with your Romney comment.


Sorry, but if there is this thing called "Audit the Fed", perhaps Ron should start with "Audit RP2012" and release all emails, phone records and messages from within the campaign...
Wow. You honestly believe Ron Paul is a sellout. There is really nothing anyone can say to you at this point, I don't believe.

[Ivash]

Now that is interesting: why do you think that the Iowa Straw Poll was so important, particularly as we know in hindsight that Rick Perry stole pretty much all of the winner's thunder anyways? I would have thought that the Iowa Caucus was your best (and pretty much only) chance of winning the nomination (I never believed the delegate strategy was going to be successful).

I'm curious because I was pretty heavily involved with Tim Pawlenty's campaign, and I know that there were major arguments between Pawlenty's supporters and Nick Ayers (his campaign manager) on this subject- Ayers was convinced that the Straw Poll was the only way that Pawlenty could win, while many of Tim's high end supporters believed that Pawlenty couldn't win, would waste a serious amount of cash, that a loss would pretty much kill his chances of running, and that the Iowa Straw Poll was fast becoming irrelevant anyways. This argument became so fierce (Ayers is, or at least was, a control freak who hated when people disagreed with him) that people began defecting out of disgust.

[FSP-Rebel]

Sorry, but if there is this thing called "Audit the Fed", perhaps Ron should start with "Audit RP2012" and release all emails, phone records and messages from within the campaign...
Epic :rolleyes:, pure gem.

[LibertyEagle]

Remember who won the caucus

... and then tanked hard.

[Ivash]

Remember who won the caucus

... and then tanked hard.

...Santorum? Romney? Paul (through the Virgin Island)? Which caucus are you talking about here?

[newbitech]

Because that's what they were.
I will disagree with you here. That was a label placed to downplay the significance of caucus state votes in the first round. The popular vote in most states, including some caucus states actually did determine who those delegates are bound to, if not outright winner take all. So while it was important and successful to use this language after Iowa, I think it overplayed in other areas. It was an early indication, regardless of the electoral success of Iowa that came later, that the campaign was on the ropes after losing the popular vote. Again, why put out the resource to win these only to turn sour grapes and point out their insignificance when you lose? Is that not the exact same ploy we were fed by the establishment when it looked like he was going to win?

I get that he was trying to win the popular vote for momentum, regardless of success in the later caucus. I don't get how we here in non caucus states are supposed to believe that freedom is only popular in states where the popular vote doesn't matter (sic), and much less how we are expected to drive the cause of liberty when the cause of liberty see no fruit to be born from supporting people in the extremely entrenched establishment strongholds, like Florida where delegates are bound through 5 rounds of voting.

I just had someone here tell me today, in regards to Ron Paul, that she knows if she is dealing with people who support Ron Paul then she is dealing with hard working, honest people. I mean you are talking a dyed in the wool liberal here. That integrity is extremely important, and people need to have some kind of fair evaluation why a serious contender for President would leave those kinds of chips on the table. You don't win over people by telling them that their states process for electing their president is a beauty contest. It made it THAT much harder to get people on board with even showing up to vote for the man.

As you have said, this is a movement that will outlast the campaign. Well, not if the movement kicks half the states to the curb due to "inconvenient" electoral rules. I expect Ron Paul to walk in to the Lions den politically this time around, with all his popular support behind him. Instead, it feels more like the popular Ron Paul support went in to the Lions den to make it safe for him, and he said, ah you got this, I am busy over here with something else.


Not in the states we were targeting.
Targeting? If this is the case that the campaign was avoiding the popular vote, they could have saved a lot of people a lot of time and money in the non-targeted states by letting us know up front that this was not a serious bid for the nomination. The fact is, it is mathematically impossible to win a nomination without getting at least winning one state primary. Even if Ron Paul somehow managed to get every single caucus delegate, he would still need to rewrite the party rules to win, in states that he didn't target!

I can't really believe it is a case of the campaign having the strategy from the beginning to win without getting a popular vote! And by win, I mean continuing the campaign past the summer. I also can't believe that freedom is popular if the campaign acts like it isn't. Freedom is popular, unless you are Ron Paul's campaign trying to have an impact on the nominating process, and in that case, what is popular is to overrun the system at it's weakest links. I mean really? Why not put that to the test? Why shy away from that theme and that mantra? Oh, cause we might lose? Really?



If we didn't win the Iowa Straw Poll, then that was the only avenue left available.

WHY! WHY! WHY! This makes NO sense at all! The vote spread on Iowa caucus "straw poll" day gave every indication that freedom was indeed popular! Instead of touting the very narrow margin of loss, that 1/3 of Iowans are buying freedom and capitalizing on the momentum, the campaign decided to split and start talking out both sides of their mouths! On one side it was sorry we lost the popular vote but hey who cares! It's JUST some silly beauty pageant. On the other side it was stealth delegate strategy all the way baby! And that little sliver of hope, we call it the kerf, that got cut out between the two sides? Yeah, that was the popularity of the message getting sacrificed. It's easy to see that in hindsight now, but damn if many forward looking people didn't recognize that really really early on.

It wasn't the only avenue left Matt. Instead of sticking to the guns of winning on the popularity of the message, which by all accounts was at it's peak even coming out in 3rd place, the momentum was clearly on his side. But basically everything got put on hold until Nevada. There were some token efforts in N.H., less in S.C. and non existent in FL, but by then any chance to recover from the premature abandonment of the idea of popularity was all but gone. Fits and starts is how I would describe, indicating to me that there was really no clear cut professional strategy to win. Played it by ear, and basically let a whole ton of people down by passing up a chance to engage at every opportunity.




No, it didn't make sense to put resources in places that were guaranteed to bear no fruit.
I just completely disagree with that. There are seeds all over the place in Florida, I know that for fact. If by fruit you are talking about delegates, yeah, maybe not. But again, there was the challenge to Florida's rules. That was a great chance right there to get involved with the inner politics. Here you have an entire States delegates at odds with party as a whole. Perfect opportunity to show leadership within the GOP. A weakness that still needs to be exploited in which I know the grassroots down here is in wont of . Crickets.

You have a powerful grassroots in Florida and if nothing else, show up for a rally or two and say I'll definitely be back in Tampa come August to claim my seat at the table! Nerp, can't afford to set out place mats for my fruit. That is the way I took it. And yet, this went on everywhere that depends on popularity of the message to have an impact. Which happens to be the most populous states in the country that are hurt the most by the anti-freedom that Ron Paul has been fighting. The places that send the most money etc etc. It would be very easy for me to say the same thing about putting resources into something that was guaranteed to bear no fruit, Matt.


No it wouldn't have doubled it, but more importantly, it wouldn't have earned Ron any delegates. Or not at least enough to be worth blowing that much money.

I think it would have. For starters, showing up before the deadline to register would have had a tremendous impact. Running a campaign to rally people to change their registration would have been absolutely huge. I am willing to bet that Ron Paul has delegates from Florida. I'll put money on it that when he does finally show up in Tampa in August, that those stealth delegates he is looking for several come from Florida. Just like his highly touted Nevada delegates. Does Ron Paul have delegates from Nevada, Matt? Will they be voting for Ron Paul or are they bound? More importantly, will they be supporting the GOP platform or will they be working to get Ron Paul's planks put in? How would Ron Paul delegates from Florida be any different? You don't need to run TV ads to bear delegate fruit, so I don't buy that excuse if the idea was not to win the nom, but to win a plank. I know you see what I am saying.



Yes it did, the goal was to win delegates. And that means focusing and putting resources in very specific and strategic places like a laser instead of a shotgun.

You validate my point with this. How is running attack ads against other candidates getting delegates? Honestly. I don't see people who become delegates doing so because of a tv ad, do you? If that was the goal, then every single state had delegates up for grabs and by branching out and making a presence and organized effort in ALL states, instead of a select few where the system could be gamed, then you would have that laser effect. Instead, we aren't send a laser or a shotgun to the convention. We are send water pistols.

[Badger Paul]

I think all campaigns operate with the hope their message will catch fire with the voters. Some have more resources than others but the basic premise is still the same: You go and speak your piece to the voters and either they like what have to say or they don't. In that, RP had the same chance of success as everyone else so he was "in it to win it" if what he said resonated with voters.

"It was anticipated and there was nothing that could be done about it. It was one of those things we just had to weather.

Unfortunately the only way to "weather" this controversy was to keep losing. A simple press conference or gathering with reporters on the topic right at the beginning in 2011 could have answered whatever questions they had and if satisfied, diffuse the story. Instead it reared it's ugly head every time Ron seemed successful. That's not good work.

[coffeewithchess]

Ugh. I don't know, coffee, maybe they were shocked about Santorum, because it pretty much meant that any hopes of a brokered convention was gone and with that, any hopes of Ron Paul becoming President. Perhaps they didn't have any ads ready to replace that one with that didn't have Santorum in it and it takes time to create a new ad. I also would imagine that the money had already been paid to the network and it wasn't going to be returned.

Well, that sure didn't stop them from sending out emails asking for more donations after Santorum dropped out. And ads are very easily made these days, VERY EASILY. If I could throw together lots of 30 - 1 minute ads with NO MONEY, an ad company that is being paid could do so a lot faster.
It does not take a month and a half to create an ad...it doesn't take a week to make an ad. You can throw together small ads for NOTHING these days, only time. Look at Chainspells awesome ads, that he made out of his own time/money. Where was the campaign? WHERE!? Fiddling with Romney apparently, making the backroom deal.



So, while it was a bummer, I can see how it would happen.
The only way THIS could happen, is if you aren't serious about winning and don't care about wasting donations...which apparently they didn't mind the time/efforts/sacrifices of the grassroots over the last year, and that's why it was A-okay to use the official campaign website to defend Rand Paul's endorsement of Mitt Romney?



As I recall, they did come out rather quickly trying to clarify, or pull the foot out of their mouth, whichever.
Rand Paul endorsed Romney on June 7. When was the next time we heard from Ron Paul in video form? About anything? June 15. An entire week of implosion and abandonment with not a single word from Ron Paul. Yet, his official campaign website was sure used during that very same week of silence allowing Jack Hunter to post multiple stories/videos trying to defend a lying endorsement: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/06/10/on-rands-endorsement/, that one was from June 9. There were at least two others as well.



What are you talking about? He has made a couple of videos since then. If you're asking why he didn't immediately come out with a video denouncing what Rand did, I suggest you think about it for a minute.
Again, see above. Ron Paul took a week before addressing supporters with an official campaign video after the "email" and after Rand Paul's lying endorsement in which he brought up his dad and his dad's supporters...more than once.


Some feel that way, I know. A lot of people don't, though. And I think you are completely off-target with your Romney comment.
There is more evidence that suggests/shows a Paul/Romney alliance, than there is evidence to deny that:
1) Running an ad against Santorum to help Romney win Michigan (see this from FEBRUARY 1 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-paul-and-romney-a-strategic-alliance-between-outsider-and-establishment/2012/01/20/gIQAf8foiQ_story.html)
2) Never attacking Romney with a Romney only attack ad like they did Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich

If they weren't fiddling, you think they were playing poker for different cabinet positions maybe?


Wow. You honestly believe Ron Paul is a sellout. There is really nothing anyone can say to you at this point, I don't believe.
Until we hear the final details of the alliance with Romney, and why Ron Paul's campaign continued to lie to supporters about things like it being a two man race, and "In It to Win It", and then allowing RonPaul2012.com to be used to defend Rand Paul's endorsement of Romney...then yes, there are some serious problems that need to be addressed. Especially before anybody donates a dime to any organization associated with Ron Paul, Rand Paul, John Tate, Jesse Benton, and certainly don't buy another book from Jack Hunter, or any other staffer that would turn their backs on honesty, and try and defend an endorsement based on lies.

I have already provided written examples here on RPF of how Rand Paul could have endorsed Romney without lying, and dragging his dad and RP supporters into it. The fact these people can't even seem to get an endorsement right, is pretty stupid.

[LibertyEagle]

Well, that sure didn't stop them from sending out emails asking for more donations after Santorum dropped out. And ads are very easily made these days, VERY EASILY. If I could throw together lots of 30 - 1 minute ads with NO MONEY, an ad company that is being paid could do so a lot faster.
It does not take a month and a half to create an ad...it doesn't take a week to make an ad. You can throw together small ads for NOTHING these days, only time.
Wait a minute. You said earlier that Santorum dropped out the day the ad started running. How many days did it run?

And I realize people can create "ads" very quickly and with no money. But, that doesn't mean they are effective ads. And sorry, but a number of the so-called ads that I saw the grassroots create in the last election, that people around here actually LOVED, would not have done squat with most Republicans. We are not the intended audience.


Look at Chainspells awesome ads, that he made out of his own time/money. Where was the campaign? WHERE!? Fiddling with Romney apparently, making the backroom deal.
Do you have any proof of any "fiddling" and perhaps you should define what you mean by that.


The only way THIS could happen, is if you aren't serious about winning and don't care about wasting donations...which apparently they didn't mind the time/efforts/sacrifices of the grassroots over the last year, and that's why it was A-okay to use the official campaign website to defend Rand Paul's endorsement of Mitt Romney?
Again, how long did the ad run?
As far as Hunter trying to explain Rand's position, it shouldn't come as any shock that Dr. Paul sees his son as continuing his work. Does it? I think Dr. Paul thinks of what we are doing as more like waging a war and that this will not end until we win back our liberty. So yeah, can see why Hunter would address it, considering the meltdown of some in RP's grassroots.



Rand Paul endorsed Romney on June 7. When was the next time we heard from Ron Paul in video form? About anything? June 15. An entire week of implosion and abandonment with not a single word from Ron Paul. Yet, his official campaign website was sure used during that very same week of silence allowing Jack Hunter to post multiple stories/videos trying to defend a lying endorsement: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/06/10/on-rands-endorsement/, that one was from June 9. There were at least two others as well.
What was he supposed to say? Damn, I wish my son had waited? That might have made us feel better, but it would have hurt Rand. And remember Ron Paul is in this for the long haul. Not just this one election.


Again, see above. Ron Paul took a week before addressing supporters with an official campaign video after the "email" and after Rand Paul's lying endorsement in which he brought up his dad and his dad's supporters...more than once.



There is more evidence that suggests/shows a Paul/Romney alliance, than there is evidence to deny that:
1) Running an ad against Santorum to help Romney win Michigan (see this from FEBRUARY 1 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-paul-and-romney-a-strategic-alliance-between-outsider-and-establishment/2012/01/20/gIQAf8foiQ_story.html)
2) Never attacking Romney with a Romney only attack ad like they did Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich
My understanding is that they attacked the others more, because the hope was to be the last non-Romney candidate left standing and then, they would go after Romney. But, there were ads against Romney. Just not as intense as we may have wanted.


If they weren't fiddling, you think they were playing poker for different cabinet positions maybe?
I don't think so. But, maybe I am being naive. I don't know.


Until we hear the final details of the alliance with Romney, and why Ron Paul's campaign continued to lie to supporters about things like it being a two man race, and "In It to Win It",
But, coffee, I do think that was the plan. That it would be a 2 man race in the end between Romney and Paul. Unfortunately, the plans didn't pan out.


and then allowing RonPaul2012.com to be used to defend Rand Paul's endorsement of Romney...then yes, there are some serious problems that need to be addressed. Especially before anybody donates a dime to any organization associated with Ron Paul, Rand Paul, John Tate, Jesse Benton, and certainly don't buy another book from Jack Hunter, or any other staffer that would turn their backs on honesty, and try and defend an endorsement based on lies.

I do have some questions, but not the ones that you raise.


I have already provided written examples here on RPF of how Rand Paul could have endorsed Romney without lying, and dragging his dad and RP supporters into it. The fact these people can't even seem to get an endorsement right, is pretty stupid.
Yes, I agree. The way Rand worded it was HORRIBLE and I hated every second of it.

That still doesn't add up to throwing under the bus fodder. At least for me.

[KenInMontiMN]

The question remains to be seen if the Ron Paul delegates will be muffled at the convention, and if any of the work by them, has been worth the hours...which, with Rand Paul's endorsement of Romney and the Ron Paul campaign backing that endorsement up, I'm not really seeing much.

The "no candidate like Paul can ever prevail.", was probably only true of Ron Paul and his campaign unfortunately. Show me a candidate and campaign that actually wanted to win with the grassroots that was behind Ron Paul and his campaign, and raising the 2nd most amount of money behind Romney that lost as badly as Ron Paul and his campaign did?

Heck, John McCain was done in 2008, and came back to win it. Newt Gingrich? Tanked his campaign early, but rebounded in South Carolina by attacking Romney viciously.

The mass media is a two way street. The Ron Paul campaign ignored requests to go on the largest "news" show at night several times, and instead was attacked and belittled and didn't get his message out to that audience. If this was about getting out the message, and you can go on the largest "news" show for free...and you turn that down because you don't like the format, and having to learn to actually debate and answer stupid questions...that's not a media problem, that's a candidate/campaign problem.

A "candidate like Ron Paul" means a candidate mass media refuses to present seriously, a candidate that refuses to march to the wall street drum. If the media consistently played down those you mentioned and declared them unelectable, while putting Paul forward consistently as the candidate with real solutions and real electability, then it would be so despite any weaknesses.

[A_Silent_Majority_Member]

allow me to illustrate at least part of the big probem within the campaign....

Paraphrasing here but....
"There was no way we would ever win this or that state so no need to bother spending time there" OR..."There was no way the media was going to give Dr Paul a fair shake so no reason to go on their programs to explain things"

now to shine the light on the big folly in this "know it all" additude.. lets apply this logic to something else shall we...

"there is no way we will ever get an audit of the Fed much less could we ever hope to eleminate it so why bother fighting in for it in congress"

and... BOOM! goes the dynamite. savy? do all you realists get it now? (campaign or not)

obviously the camaign is/was packed in key places with so called "Realists" who lack the vision to even try past the statistics.
but go ahead.. blame the media in toto... tout your statistics... whatever. guess we will never really know now will we? oh thats right.. those in the campaign know because their all knowing statistics told them so.:rolleyes:

funny tidbit... im sure a lil over a couple hundred years ago there were those who said the same realist "its impossible so why even bother" type things about a few colonists who had a gripe.

bottom line... if you think youre gonna go down you can at least reasolve to go down fighting and who knows? you just might win statistics and odds be damned. perhaps a slight inch gained in one place helps to spark momentum down the line elsewhere?? but you never know unless you try. the campaign didnt by their own admission numorous times even in this very thread so yes without a doubt the campaign gave up too soon and h-e-double hockey sticks very well didnt even try in certain cases.

finally.. here is the rub some have mentioned but put to comedy... we the people put our faith in Ron Paul... the campaign took the spoils of our faith and gave us the finger and continue to break wind in the face of anyone who expresses their displeasure while fanning the fumes away from their own noses to the sniff of the wad of cash they made along the way.

[romancito]

Kind of sad I would say. That's the way I feel. Is not that I was fooled. I wasn't. I knew that when in the Summer and Fall of 2011 Dr. Paul omitted the word "jobs" at every venue and news conference he was dooming his campaign. But since sometimes the hottest topic would change to Herman Cain's 999 and Dr. Paul was able to talk about tax policies then it seemed he could get away with it. But Romney wouldn't have anything to do with that. He just stayed the course with "jobs." Now even Romney doesn't use the word "jobs" anymore dooming his campaign against Obama. All that Dr. Paul cares now is Rand.

[Karsten]

I don't think Iowa was the magic point. I think that the chances just got smaller and smaller. Super Tuesday was big as well. 10 states, 0 victories.

No, Iowa was THE election. We must remember things accurately. We HAD A VERY GOOD CHANCE of winning Iowa, and were leading in the PPP poll solidly 3 week and 2 weeks before the election. 1 week before the election, CNN released that Republican only poll that showed Santorum surging, and all the media was then about Santorum. The CNN poll, as PPP pointed out, was likely wrong, as no other poll showed Santorum surging before that point. However, the media ran with it, specifically to stop Ron. Santorum ate up some of our soft support, and we lost Iowa...

HAD we won Iowa, the momentum would have been unstoppable. Many people like RP, but would not vote for him because he "couldn't win." Had RP won the very first contest, the illusion would have been shattered. We would have then got a closer 2nd or even 1st place with the bump in NH, furthering the momentum.

[coffeewithchess]

Wait a minute. You said earlier that Santorum dropped out the day the ad started running. How many days did it run?

And I realize people can create "ads" very quickly and with no money. But, that doesn't mean they are effective ads. And sorry, but a number of the so-called ads that I saw the grassroots create in the last election, that people around here actually LOVED, would not have done squat with most Republicans. We are not the intended audience.

No, the Ron Paul campaign debuted/announced, released, the ad on April 10, meaning they showed it off and made it public. They didn't announce until LATER, they had purchased additional airtime for it in Texas.
Example, times not exact, but close:
April 10th, 2012 at 10:00AM Ron Paul 2012 releases new ad attacking Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney
April 10th, 2012 at 3:00PM Rick Santorum officially withdraws from presidential race.

The ad was not run in Texas, from the timeline I'm aware of, until May...for the primary. That means, the Ron Paul campaign not only was asking supporters for more money in April after that ad was released, but they raised more money and didn't produce one single other ad while telling supporters they needed funds for ads in Texas and California.

As for creating ads and knowing your TARGET audience, the Ron Paul campaign missed that target audience repeatedly all around the country...I think the popular vote totals show you that. I was born/raised in a Republican household. I grew up listening to Rush, and I used to listen to Hannity. I understand the zombie Republican mindset very well.
I EVEN re-edited an "official" campaign video for them with on simple new line, to provide them an example of the problem with the original...NOTHING.

Here's just one of my videos, it was an early rough draft I was working on of a new idea from a fellow RPFer, showing the similarities/contrast of Romney/Obama and Ron Paul. It was the final video I uploaded to my YouTube account, and within 5 minutes of it being uploaded...YouTube deleted all the other videos, banned the account, and of course won't/can't say what policy the video broke...but that's okay, I'm always happy to know I wasted 8 months creating videos trying to wake up Americans to vote for a candidate that didn't even want to win:

https://vimeo.com/41533482

Oh, and heck, let's throw in the Romney Etch-A-Sketch ad while we're at it:

https://vimeo.com/41538830

[Lightweis]

Virginia was very winnable. We received 41 percent of the vote without even trying.

[coffeewithchess]

Virginia was very winnable. We received 41 percent of the vote without even trying.

Please don't bring that up. The campaign knew what they were doing, you clearly don't know what you're talking about, afterall you are just a grassroots person right? What's your age, and education level for you to have this opinion?
This was just an educational campaign, or about a "movement", I guess by "movement" Jack Hunter and others are talking about the movement of money from the grassroots wallets to the official campaign? I'm still not sure really. I didn't realize people donated to a PRESIDENTIAL campaign, for a "movement", I'm still working on my critical thinking though, and I'm going to check with my eye doctor because I heard I might be myopic. :rolleyes:

Let's not forget what ONE Ron Paul supporter did in his Virginia county, with his own time/effort either. I can't find the link, but it was the one county Ron Paul won in Virginia...Floyd County I believe.

[LibertyEagle]

Coffee, ok, I am impressed. I realize those were rough drafts, but wow, really, really, great.

And I agree that if money was raised for a purpose and then not used for that thing, there dang sure should have been an explanation forthcoming. Absolutely.

[coffeewithchess]

Coffee, ok, I am impressed. I realize those were rough drafts, but wow, really, really, great.

Haha, the Etch-A-Sketch was a "final" version...made that just for fun and as a challenge to myself to try something new with a video, and did it within 48 hours of the whole thing happening...while the RP official campaign took a bit longer, because they apparently were getting a script from the Romney campaign, of how they could spin it to make Santorum and Gingrich look stupid instead:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5pLrwINs1o&list=UU8EtvIxtcgOdfKpOber0JLw&index=0&feature=plcp

Notice the difference? The official Ron Paul 2012 "ad" was designed making fun of Santorum and Gingrich, instead of focusing on Romney. Why?

The first video was a "rough draft" though, based on feedback in a thread here on RPF about new videos to compare/contrast RP to the only other candidate left, Obamney.

[LibertyEagle]

Haha, the Etch-A-Sketch was a "final" version...made that just for fun and as a challenge to myself to try something new with a video, and did it within 48 hours of the whole thing happening...while the RP official campaign took a bit longer, because they apparently were getting a script from the Romney campaign, of how they could spin it to make Santorum and Gingrich look stupid instead:

Notice the difference? The official Ron Paul 2012 "ad" was designed making fun of Santorum and Gingrich, instead of focusing on Romney. Why?

The first video was a "rough draft" though, based on feedback in a thread here on RPF about new videos to compare/contrast RP to the only other candidate left, Obamney.

Yeah, I remember that ad. I didn't like it at all.

[affa]

deep breath guys.

here's the thing -- no matter what the campaign did, we can find fault with it... especially if we don't get the nomination. that's how it works. 20/20 hindsight vision. heck, it doesn't even require hindsight -- with so many important choices being made, someone is always going to be disagreeing with the choices made as they happen. We all have our own opinions, and so we can all play the 'if only' game.

coffeewithchess- i think you're terribly overreacting. Seriously, your posts seem to repeatedly suggest Ron Paul sold himself and us out. Really? For Romney? I don't even know what to say to that... there is zero evidence, and it goes against pretty much everything Ron Paul stands for. Do you really think he sold out a lifetime of integrity for... what? To accuse him of this without proof is just... well, low, in my opinion.

Ron Paul and the campaign have been incredibly successful. To accomplish everything they've accomplished despite the best efforts of TPTB and a media that worked at every turn to halt his progress was amazing. And no, the media would not and will not ever support Ron Paul (well, in 15 years they'll talk of him reverently and act as if they were staunch supporters, but not while he's still a threat to them).

[Matt Collins]

Virginia was very winnable. We received 41 percent of the vote without even trying.Incorrect. There is a point of diminishing returns which few people around here seem to understand. If the Campaign had dumped every dollar it had into winning Virginia, we still would not have won, because Romney would've outspent us 5:1 to ensure that we didn't win. Then the Campaign couldn't have done anything else anywhere else because all the money would've been wasted in VA; trust me, there was polling done to determine what it would take to win in VA, and it was not mathematically possible.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qASJDr55Gcg/TpI095PiUeI/AAAAAAAAArY/lCmUsoF5wR8/s1600/law-of-diminishing-returns.jpg

[Matt Collins]

why put out the resource to win these only to turn sour grapes and point out their insignificance when you lose? I think the answer to that is kind of obvious, eh? ;)


I don't get how we here in non caucus states are supposed to believe that freedom is only popular in states where the popular vote doesn't matter (sic), and much less how we are expected to drive the cause of liberty when the cause of liberty see no fruit to be born from supporting people in the extremely entrenched establishment strongholds, like Florida where delegates are bound through 5 rounds of voting. No one ever said that "Freedom is only popular in states where the popular vote doesn't matter".

That's the way the nomination process works, we can't change it for the time being, so we have to work in it. A few states end up deciding who the nominee will be while most of the rest don't really get a choice. And the same goes for the Presidential election. Only a handful of swing states matter, everyone else will be ignored. That is the result of the electoral college system.




Targeting? If this is the case that the campaign was avoiding the popular vote, they could have saved a lot of people a lot of time and money in the non-targeted states by letting us know up front that this was not a serious bid for the nomination. The fact is, it is mathematically impossible to win a nomination without getting at least winning one state primary. Even if Ron Paul somehow managed to get every single caucus delegate, he would still need to rewrite the party rules to win, in states that he didn't target! Huh? You aren't making sense here man. The objective was to only focus on the caucus states because that is the only resources we could afford. A 57-state strategy would be foolish because it was spend too much money in states that didn't matter and would not affect the outcome. If Ron had won the Iowa straw poll then things would've been very different and he would've had momentum making it more possible for him to later win the popular vote in other states. However since the media puffed Santorum up at the last minute Ron was denied Iowa thus he could not claim an early victory giving him no momentum. Essentially Iowa was our best shot.



I can't really believe it is a case of the campaign having the strategy from the beginning to win without getting a popular vote! The only place we could've won the popular vote was Iowa and trust me a full effort was put out to do that. If we had won Iowa, others may have followed. But since we were denied Iowa by the media, there was no chance to win the popular vote elsewhere. It's logic and sequencing creating momentum.





WHY! WHY! WHY! This makes NO sense at all! The vote spread on Iowa caucus "straw poll" day gave every indication that freedom was indeed popular! Instead of touting the very narrow margin of loss, that 1/3 of Iowans are buying freedom and capitalizing on the momentum, the campaign decided to split and start talking out both sides of their mouths! On one side it was sorry we lost the popular vote but hey who cares! It's JUST some silly beauty pageant. On the other side it was stealth delegate strategy all the way baby!Those two messages are not mutually exclusive. But think about it, once we were denied a loss in Iowa, the media would never consider us a serious contender for the nomination after that point. So, for the later states to keep going in order to accrue delegates, the messaging had to be that we are seeking delegates. No one ever lied or misled anyone. We tried to win both the Iowa popular vote, and we were trying to accrue delegates. When one plan failed, we hilighted the other plan.



It wasn't the only avenue left Matt. Instead of sticking to the guns of winning on the popularity of the message, which by all accounts was at it's peak even coming out in 3rd place, the momentum was clearly on his side. But basically everything got put on hold until Nevada. There were some token efforts in N.H., less in S.C. and non existent in FL, but by then any chance to recover from the premature abandonment of the idea of popularity was all but gone. Fits and starts is how I would describe, indicating to me that there was really no clear cut professional strategy to win. Played it by ear, and basically let a whole ton of people down by passing up a chance to engage at every opportunity. You fail to take into account that the only way to win a popular vote was for the media to treat us as a valid candidate. They did up until Iowa, and once they denied us a loss, they no longer treated us as a valid candidate. Again, once Iowa was over, the only thing left to do was gain delegates because winning the popular vote was essentially impossible due to the media ignoring us, invalidating us, etc.




I just completely disagree with that. There are seeds all over the place in Florida, I know that for fact. If by fruit you are talking about delegates, yeah, maybe not. But again, there was the challenge to Florida's rules. That was a great chance right there to get involved with the inner politics. Here you have an entire States delegates at odds with party as a whole. Perfect opportunity to show leadership within the GOP. A weakness that still needs to be exploited in which I know the grassroots down here is in wont of . Crickets. FL has a good solid liberty organization down there, no one was seriously expecting the Campaign to spend resources in Florida. Surely you self-organized in FL instead of waiting on the Campaign, right?

Remember the only thing that mattered after Iowa was winning delegates because it was the only thing we could do. So it would've been a waste of donors money to spend it in places that had no chance to win delegates. Florida was one of those places.





How is running attack ads against other candidates getting delegates?Think of it as "air-support" for the ground troops. It turns people off to other candidates thus making it easier for us to win. It also puts the other candidates on the defensive and makes them talk about things they don't want to talk about.

[coffeewithchess]

deep breath guys.

here's the thing -- no matter what the campaign did, we can find fault with it... especially if we don't get the nomination. that's how it works. 20/20 hindsight vision. heck, it doesn't even require hindsight -- with so many important choices being made, someone is always going to be disagreeing with the choices made as they happen. We all have our own opinions, and so we can all play the 'if only' game.

coffeewithchess- i think you're terribly overreacting. Seriously, your posts seem to repeatedly suggest Ron Paul sold himself and us out. Really? For Romney? I don't even know what to say to that... there is zero evidence, and it goes against pretty much everything Ron Paul stands for. Do you really think he sold out a lifetime of integrity for... what? To accuse him of this without proof is just... well, low, in my opinion.

Ron Paul and the campaign have been incredibly successful. To accomplish everything they've accomplished despite the best efforts of TPTB and a media that worked at every turn to halt his progress was amazing. And no, the media would not and will not ever support Ron Paul (well, in 15 years they'll talk of him reverently and act as if they were staunch supporters, but not while he's still a threat to them).

Sorry, but hindsight may be 20/20 for some, but you can check forum post around here from LAST YEAR and 2008 as well, about the campaign.

Saying hindsight is 20/20 may be true in some instances, but ignoring repeated requests to address issues that would HOLD VOTERS back, is not hindsight...it's called ignoring advice from boots on the ground.

I'm sorry, but there is more than "zero evidence", dating back to at least February 1st. Perhaps you missed the link to that story?

"For Romney? I don't even know what to say to that... there is zero evidence, and it goes against pretty much everything Ron Paul stands for. Do you really think he sold out a lifetime of integrity for... what? To accuse him of this without proof is just... well, low, in my opinion.", yes, apparently for Romney and/or Rand....but it was not for himself to get elected which is why most people donated to RON PAUL 2012.
Perhaps you missed RonPaul2012.com being used to defend Rand Paul's endorsement of Mitt Romney? With at least three posts I believe? RonPaul2012.com the OFFICIAL campaign website allowing posts to go up DEFENDING Rand Paul's endorsement of Mitt Romney. Where was RP?

I mean, if you call a press conference to START your campaign and have cameras there and the press, how about to end it?

[coffeewithchess]

Incorrect. There is a point of diminishing returns which few people around here seem to understand. If the Campaign had dumped every dollar it had into winning Virginia, we still would not have won, because Romney would've outspent us 5:1 to ensure that we didn't win. Then the Campaign couldn't have done anything else anywhere else because all the money would've been wasted in VA; trust me, there was polling done to determine what it would take to win in VA, and it was not mathematically possible.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qASJDr55Gcg/TpI095PiUeI/AAAAAAAAArY/lCmUsoF5wR8/s1600/law-of-diminishing-returns.jpg

So wait, your claiming the diminishing returns garbage, when RP won one entire county...with basically ZERO dollars and because of a grassroots supporters? Again, perhaps running ads would mean Romney and/or his PAC would spend money, but the fact is...running ads is why the campaign has money, and why people donate, and believed the campaign advisers (see Doug Wead) who touted things like a "two man race".

Again, you keep using garbage like, "not mathematically possible", yet that didn't stop the campaign from using its own funds to HELP Romney win in Michigan now did it? Run an ad in a state where you can't win, but help your opponent. Critical thinking skills? Are you being paid by the campaign and/or Rand in anyway?

[Bastiat's The Law]

I wish Ron would run 3rd party. He has nothing to lose since he's retiring from Congress.
He'd be unfairly credited with bringing about Romney's demise to Obama in the general election. We all know Romney can do that on his own without any perceived help by us. This is all going to plan, Obama will crush Romney and republicans more than ever will give the Pauls and their liberty ideals another look come 2016. Chin up Paulites!

[Ivash]

So wait, your claiming the diminishing returns garbage, when RP won one entire county...with basically ZERO dollars and because of a grassroots supporters? Again, perhaps running ads would mean Romney and/or his PAC would spend money, but the fact is...running ads is why the campaign has money, and why people donate, and believed the campaign advisers (see Doug Wead) who touted things like a "two man race".

Again, you keep using garbage like, "not mathematically possible", yet that didn't stop the campaign from using its own funds to HELP Romney win in Michigan now did it? Run an ad in a state where you can't win, but help your opponent. Critical thinking skills? Are you being paid by the campaign and/or Rand in anyway?

Dr. Paul probably did not do well in Virginia due to the grass-roots; he did well because Santorum and Gingrich supporters were voting for him in an effort to block Romney winning the state. Protest votes, particularly strategic protest votes, are nearly impossible to plan for, so it is no wonder that the campaign didn't do that much to try and win Virginia.

Now, Mr. Collins, I didn't quote my whole post (which was mostly about how I had this sort of debate with Nick Ayers when I was working relatively high up in Pawlenty's campaign), but if you'd be so kind:


Now that is interesting: why do you think that the Iowa Straw Poll was so important, particularly as we know in hindsight that Rick Perry stole pretty much all of the winner's thunder anyways?

[Bastiat's The Law]

The logical shot of winning was over after South Carolina. Imo, the campaign went on knowing they had no chance, thereby wasting millions, after that point.
It was over after we lost Iowa. We desperately needed an early win to claim some measure of creditability and to fight off media smears that we couldn't garner enough support to win.

The campaign should've prepared a response to the "Racist Newsletters" smear job. They had to know it was going to come and we'd get clobbered over the head with it repeatedly prior to the Iowa Caucus. The campaign's response was to send Dr. Paul into hiding in Texas and cease campaigning in the waning hours in Iowa. They also had zero campaign commercial response to the accusation. The Revolution Super PAC had to step in and set the record straight and did so beautifully, albeit too late for Iowa. The damage had been done.

[Bastiat's The Law]

The Iowa comment was my opinion. It was still mathematically possible to win after Iowa, although it got increasingly unlikely by the day. It depended on others staying in or getting out of the race.
I'm with you on this. I don't think the majority of supporters understand how crucial it was for Ron Paul to win Iowa. Hindsight being 20/20, if I was managing the campaign I would've parked Ron Paul in Iowa and visited every place possible, ala Santorum, but also kept up campaign commercial bombardment and resource assault on the state. More campaign offices, more door-to-door and more courtship of independent voters in the Eastern part of the state and evangelicals in the north west corner.

[musicmax]

Remember who won the caucus

... and then tanked hard.

Are you confusing the straw poll with the caucus? Because I think you're talking about straw poll winner Randy Travis Michele Bachmann. Caucus winner Santorum certainly didn't "tank hard" after Iowa - Iowa was what propped him up for several more weeks.

[musicmax]

It was over after we lost Iowa. We desperately needed an early win to claim some measure of creditability and to fight off media smears that we couldn't garner enough support to win.

The campaign should've prepared a response to the "Racist Newsletters" smear job. They had to know it was going to come and we'd get clobbered over the head with it repeatedly prior to the Iowa Caucus. The campaign's response was to send Dr. Paul into hiding in Texas and cease campaigning in the waning hours in Iowa. They also had zero campaign commercial response to the accusation. The Revolution Super PAC had to step in and set the record straight and did so beautifully, albeit too late for Iowa. The damage had been done.

Yup.

1. No preemptive strike on newsletters.
2. No attack ad on Romney.
3. No national defense ad or focused debate response on NatSec.
4. Spent runup to Iowa in TX.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Think of it as "air-support" for the ground troops. It turns people off to other candidates thus making it easier for us to win. It also puts the other candidates on the defensive and makes them talk about things they don't want to talk about.
Our campaign commercials absolutely filleted Newt in Iowa and elsewhere. I only wish we had the war chest to attack Santorum with the level of moxy and truthfulness to prevent him from pulling a Huckabee in Iowa. Again 20/20. Anyone at the Ames Straw Poll saw that Santorum was going to be a player though, he had energetic grassroots evangelicals coming out for him in droves.

Remember this?

http://i335.photobucket.com/albums/m456/beelzebush/drudge1.png

[coffeewithchess]

Dr. Paul probably did not do well in Virginia due to the grass-roots; he did well because Santorum and Gingrich supporters were voting for him in an effort to block Romney winning the state.

I looked last night for the story, on the ONE grassroots supporter that went all out for RP in his county, and it was the ONE county that RP won. Sure, probably because Santorum and Gingrich supporters were voting for him, but that would be the point of running ads in Virginia AGAINST Mitt Romney.

[cajuncocoa]

He'd be unfairly credited with bringing about Romney's demise to Obama in the general election. We all know Romney can do that on his own without any perceived help by us. This is all going to plan, Obama will crush Romney and republicans more than ever will give the Pauls and their liberty ideals another look come 2016. Chin up Paulites!You DO realize that will happen anyway, right? So many of us have stated we will vote for NO ONE BUT PAUL, while others are planning to vote for Gary Johnson...I give it 2 hours after Obama is declared the winner on election night before some Fox pundit blames Ron Paul supporters for refusing to support Mittens.

[Carlybee]

You DO realize that will happen anyway, right? So many of us have stated we will vote for NO ONE BUT PAUL, while others are planning to vote for Gary Johnson...I give it 2 hours after Obama is declared the winner on election night before some Fox pundit blames Ron Paul supporters for refusing to support Mittens.

Agreed.

[JK/SEA]

I posted this in a new thread in General, but feel this link to a blog post is relevant in this thread. Please read.

https://thereaganwing.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/train-wreck-1-the-r3volution-at-cindys/#more-20284

[JK/SEA]

Agreed.

and it will be irrelevant, and a lame excuse.

[Ivash]

I looked last night for the story, on the ONE grassroots supporter that went all out for RP in his county, and it was the ONE county that RP won. Sure, probably because Santorum and Gingrich supporters were voting for him, but that would be the point of running ads in Virginia AGAINST Mitt Romney.

I'm not criticizing Paul's grassroots- just saying that planning for a protest vote is a fool's game. Paul could have thrown all his money into Virginia, but if a very unusual and unpredictable element didn't show up it would be wasted money.

[Bastiat's The Law]

You DO realize that will happen anyway, right? So many of us have stated we will vote for NO ONE BUT PAUL, while others are planning to vote for Gary Johnson...I give it 2 hours after Obama is declared the winner on election night before some Fox pundit blames Ron Paul supporters for refusing to support Mittens.
They'd have a lot more ammo if Paul was running as an independent.

[coffeewithchess]

I'm not criticizing Paul's grassroots- just saying that planning for a protest vote is a fool's game. Paul could have thrown all his money into Virginia, but if a very unusual and unpredictable element didn't show up it would be wasted money.

No. Wasted money is running an outdated ad criticizing two candidates not even in the race. Running an ad in Virginia, the first one-on-one state, possibly forcing Romney's hand and/or his Super PAC's to acknowledge RP was in the race, and swing DOWN...would have been a smart move.

Sitting by and allowing Romney to win the state = a waste of time and money from grassroots donors supporting a campaign staff that is supposedly being paid to win the thing, or at least look like it.

[Carlybee]

and it will be irrelevant, and a lame excuse.

Lame yes but it will also serve to taint any candidate trying to run for office under the liberty banner.

[FSP-Rebel]

You DO realize that will happen anyway, right? So many of us have stated we will vote for NO ONE BUT PAUL, while others are planning to vote for Gary Johnson...I give it 2 hours after Obama is declared the winner on election night before some Fox pundit blames Ron Paul supporters for refusing to support Mittens.
That's where Rand's endorsement covers our asses. However, all eyes on Nebraska this weekend for forward momentum into the RNC. Games still on!

[FSP-Rebel]

Lame yes but it will also serve to taint any candidate trying to run for office under the liberty banner.
If it goes the way you think it may then it may be a blessing down the road as it will be obvious to republicans that they need us whether they like it or not. But by then, we'll have many more state and local parties under our wings so we'll be the shot callers. We'll have the control over Senate candidates in our respective areas so the media won't be able to affect our primaries that much plus we can hone in on and support specific House seats and it's not very often the national media gets in on House primaries. We be good

[Carlybee]

If it goes the way you think it may then it may be a blessing down the road as it will be obvious to republicans that they need us whether they like it or not. But by then, we'll have many more state and local parties under our wings so we'll be the shot callers. We'll have the control over Senate candidates in our respective areas so the media won't be able to affect our primaries that much plus we can hone in on and support specific House seats and it's not very often the national media gets in on House primaries. We be good

I'll reserve judgment on that until after the convention. That should be a good barometer for how the mainstream Republicans feel about it.

[cajuncocoa]

That's where Rand's endorsement covers our asses. However, all eyes on Nebraska this weekend for forward momentum into the RNC. Games still on!Don't need Rand to cover MY ass that way...thanks, but no thanks.

[Ivash]

No. Wasted money is running an outdated ad criticizing two candidates not even in the race. Running an ad in Virginia, the first one-on-one state, possibly forcing Romney's hand and/or his Super PAC's to acknowledge RP was in the race, and swing DOWN...would have been a smart move.

Sitting by and allowing Romney to win the state = a waste of time and money from grassroots donors supporting a campaign staff that is supposedly being paid to win the thing, or at least look like it.

We're not in complete disagreement here- had I been running the campaign I would not have run any advertisements against Santorum (outside of Iowa) and Gingrich except in rare situations since Romney was always the front runner and becoming the anti-Romney was always the position other candidates coveted. I would have also spent some money in Virginia out-rightly saying that a vote for Ron Paul was a vote against Romney.

[unknown]

Can someone provide me with the official statement or link showing when the campaign "gave up"?

I really dont know.

[Peace&Freedom]

That's where Rand's endorsement covers our asses. However, all eyes on Nebraska this weekend for forward momentum into the RNC. Games still on!

Yes, as much as most of us despise the endorsement, it has its practical uses. The rest of the Republican universe has to be won over, or at least dialogued with, by those choosing to work within it. Rands gambit gives them an answer to come back with once Mitt loses, and the blame game starts. And somebody sufficiently "respectable" within the party has to fill the void that is going to open after Romney is no longer the main national face of the GOP (just like four years ago, with McCain). With Ron Paul out of Congress, it might as well be Rand.