John Tate Email: Clarification - Staffer misspoke on 'will not accept'

[Lightweis]

Dear Liberty Activist,

I’m very sorry I wasn’t able to make the conference call last night.

As you know, we’re embroiled in a crucial credentials committee fight over some of our delegations, and I had an important meeting yesterday evening I had to attend.

Today and tomorrow are big days for these fights, as we are in the last step of the process. And while we are likely to lose, we are doing everything we can to fight these challenges.

The good news is, in two states, we were able to work with in-state leaders to get more Ron Paul delegates seated for the convention.

Regarding last night’s call, it’s been brought to my attention one of our staffers misspoke regarding the nomination last night on the call saying Ron Paul “would not accept the nomination.”

Of course, if handed the nomination, Dr. Paul would gladly accept.

But unfortunately, we will not have the five states necessary to put Ron Paul’s name into nomination. Nor do we have the numbers necessary for Dr. Paul to win a convention floor fight if nominated.

As far as the Vice Presidential nomination is concerned, Dr. Paul has indicated to us that he does not wish to serve in this position.

I hope this clears up any confusion regarding last night’s call or our campaign’s strategy heading into next week.

I hope to talk to you this evening!

For Liberty,

John Tate
Campaign Manager

[sailingaway]

Fairly damned important clarification.

[wgadget]

John Tate, author of many emails begging for money to help the delegates and to continue the fight.

LOL

[wgadget]

Dang...We won't have the five states necessary...dang.

How did that ever happen?

Dang.

[phill4paul]

I was just about to call the campaign for 'clarification' regarding this issue.

[low preference guy]

The Ron Paul movement in Maine won the delegates fair and square, they didn't like the result, so they declared their victory invalid.

[LibertyEagle]

Fairly damned important clarification.

No kidding.

Another misunderstanding that didn't need to happen.

[sailingaway]

The Ron Paul movement in Maine won the delegates fair and square, they didn't like the result, so they declared their victory invalid.

Louisiana also, our folks had 700+ votes, theirs, the ones who were even there and not appointed later, had 200+ votes.

[low preference guy]

Louisiana also, our folks had 700+ votes, theirs, the ones who were even there and not appointed later, had 200+ votes.

Ron Paul should say something like: even though they had enough votes to win, they couldn't change their corrupt practices and invalidated our fairly won victories in X, X, and X, just because they didn't like the result.

I think the reason the Romney camp is committing these abuses is that they expect Ron not to denounce them. If our camp kept quiet and didn't have any "negotiations", it would've been much more likely for RP to have a nomination speech.

[LibertyEagle]

^^^ That would be good.

[wongster41]

That staffer should be fired, what a way to take the wind out of the sail.

[Barrex]

I am sorry to say it but this "deal" only hurt our side. We didnt get anything from it and they got everything they wanted. They took states from Ron and they took his delegates making it impossible for him to have 5 states to nominate him.... What is more by accepting this "deal" (ass-raped in worst possible way) our side just gave them credibility and our side "ratified" that theft....

It is like thief beats you, steals money from you, breaks your bones and then he tells you: "I will give you back 10 dollars of those 10000 that I took from you and you will say to everyone that "It is all good and we are best friends"...

What is worse I dont blame them. I blame you/us/our side.
"the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
Our side decided to be weak. Not to act in Iowa when votes were not counted; not to act in Maine when votes werent counted; not to act in Nevada when there was "secret" count; etc. Even now vast majority of people only talks and moans and bitches around and doesnt do anything.... and yes there are things to do!.! For example this thread that is dead:
(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?385414-Compilation-and-vetting-of-VERIFIABLE-facts-of-fraud-abuse-shenanigans-in-GOP-conventions)Compilation and vetting of VERIFIABLE facts of fraud abuse shenanigans in GOP conventions
(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?385414-Compilation-and-vetting-of-VERIFIABLE-facts-of-fraud-abuse-shenanigans-in-GOP-conventions)and more.


Even worse than the things I mentioned is what will happen in the future: They will get away with it. People will just quit. If Richard Gilbert fails in his lawsuit no new lawsuit is going to be brought to court regarding GOP/RNC crimes....

rant rant rant....

[erowe1]

What in the world is going on inside the campaign?

That staffer didn't misspeak. There's no way they weren't specifically instructed to say that.

[erowe1]

That staffer should be fired, what a way to take the wind out of the sail.

They might be fired, just to make it look like they're sticking by the story that they misspoke. But I'm pretty sure that the person responsible is higher up.

[Natural Citizen]

Fairly damned important clarification.

Was a given anyhow. How would he not? What's he going to say? "Uh, no. I don't want the nomination."... Come on.

[The Gold Standard]

What in the world is going on inside the campaign?

That staffer didn't misspeak. There's no way they weren't specifically instructed to say that.

Two different campaigns. Rand 2016 wanted it out there. Ron 2012 did not.

[erowe1]

Two different campaigns. Rand 2016 wanted it out there. Ron 2012 did not.

That's possible. I can think of other possibilities too. But the staffer actually misspeaking is less likely than a lot of things.

[aclove]

What in the world is going on inside the campaign?

At a guess, this: the same people than ran this campaign will return to Campaign for Liberty and work to lobby Congress on Audit the Fed and other legislation for the next 3 years or so, after which they will decamp again to run Rand Paul 2016. Pursuant to those efforts, they do not want to develop a reputation as being wild-eyed, fanatical loose cannons who cannot be reasoned/negotiated with, as they fear that reputation would damage those efforts.

They already consider Ron Paul 2012 a lost cause (which, to be fair, it is), and are unwilling to expend whatever political capital, real or imagined, they now have as a result of this campaign.

They are behaving like political consultants with something to lose, which one could argue is exactly what they are.

In short, they are on our side with regards to our issues, but have goals and objectives beyond Ron Paul 2012 which they consider more important than making this campaign and this convention their hill to die on.

Many in the grassroots do not agree with these priorities, but they're not in charge. And therein lies the conflict.

[erowe1]

At a guess, this: the same people than ran this campaign will return to Campaign for Liberty and work to lobby Congress on Audit the Fed and other legislation for the next 3 years or so, after which they will decamp again to run Rand Paul 2016. Pursuant to those efforts, they do not want to develop a reputation as being wild-eyed, fanatical loose cannons who cannot be reasoned/negotiated with, as they fear that reputation would damage those efforts.

They already consider Ron Paul 2012 a lost cause (which, to be fair, it is), and are unwilling to expend whatever political capital, real or imagined, they now have as a result of this campaign.

They are behaving like political consultants with something to lose, which one could argue is exactly what they are.

In short, they are on our side with regards to our issues, but have goals and objectives beyond Ron Paul 2012 which they consider more important than making this campaign and this convention their hill to die on.

Many in the grassroots do not agree with these priorities, but they're not in charge. And therein lies the conflict.

But John Tate is one of those people, and he sent this email.

[LibertyEagle]

Two different campaigns. Rand 2016 wanted it out there. Ron 2012 did not.

You don't know that.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I should have known that Tate's previous email (about fighting the RNC over the delegates) was just a front for the campaign staffers to play good cop/bad cop.

[KerriAnn]

WOW. I was so upset last night, over nothing??? I don't understand how someone can misconstrue what Paul may have said, and turn it into something as huge as "Paul will not accept the nominination"... sounds fishy to me.

All these shenanigans, the whole mess of the campaign has taught me a very important lesson. I am not sure exactly what the lesson is, but it's something along the lines of 'you can never trust anyone with anything, EVER'. And maybe also that you can't win anything important by playing fair, and if you play unfair and you win, then it doesn't count anyway because your not on the right side anymore.

I guess we will see what happens over the next few days. I still have some hope that something good will come out of all the hard work that everyone has put into this, but I've seen enough corruption to last a lifetime, thank you very much.

[low preference guy]

WOW. I was so upset last night, over nothing??? I don't understand how someone can misconstrue what Paul may have said, and turn it into something as huge as "Paul will not accept the nominination"... sounds fishy to me.

Yes, it sounds fishy. One possibility is that they didn't like the reaction and changed their minds. Another possibility is that a higher-up, maybe even Paul himself, overruled it. Another possibility is that they figured out that Ron Paul would find out about the lie.

[erowe1]

Yes, it sounds fishy. One possibility is that they didn't like the reaction and changed their minds. Another possibility is that a higher-up, maybe even Paul himself, overruled it. Another possibility is that they figured out that Ron Paul would find out about the lie.

The third possibility doesn't make sense. If it was a lie, then of course Ron Paul would have eventually found out. Nobody could have ever thought otherwise.

The first possibility has the most verisimilitude to me. Perhaps they were getting word from delegates that they weren't going to bother going any more.

It's also interesting that, while the hopes of a majority delegation from Maine were alive, Ron Paul supposedly wouldn't accept the nomination, but then the day those hopes die, and a nomination becomes an impossible hypothetical, he says he would have accepted it.

[low preference guy]

It's also interesting that, while the hopes of a majority delegation from Maine were alive, Ron Paul supposedly wouldn't accept the nomination, but then the day those hopes die, and a nomination becomes an impossible hypothetical, he says he would have accepted it.

Well put.

[July]

This suggests to me Ron probably doesn't want to accept the nomination if it means a fight that would ostracize the GOP base against him, but he would accept it gladly if given voluntarily. Which means he doesn't intend to take it by force. Which would make sense given what he teaches. John Tate probably felt the need to clarify because people are spreading rumors that he never cared or wanted the nomination in the first place.

[Natural Citizen]

You don't know that.

Perhaps not but that's only an outlier considering the spew referencing that very point from some delegates pushing their chests out around the forum. You know? Can't say some have not. What are the general support base supposed to think? Is relevant to consider that many of the delegates are young too so in effect it could remotely be considered excusable but...well... when you start to read the for us or against us fodder then many will default to their wisdom naturally.Which matters when they're among folks who have been around a while and know a thing or three about the last time they heard it.

[wgadget]

Well, things would be so much easier to decipher if Ron would just come out from hiding and talk to us.

Just my opinion.

[muzzled dogg]

Insanity

[sailingaway]

WOW. I was so upset last night, over nothing??? I don't understand how someone can misconstrue what Paul may have said, and turn it into something as huge as "Paul will not accept the nominination"... sounds fishy to me.

All these shenanigans, the whole mess of the campaign has taught me a very important lesson. I am not sure exactly what the lesson is, but it's something along the lines of 'you can never trust anyone with anything, EVER'. And maybe also that you can't win anything important by playing fair, and if you play unfair and you win, then it doesn't count anyway because your not on the right side anymore.

I guess we will see what happens over the next few days. I still have some hope that something good will come out of all the hard work that everyone has put into this, but I've seen enough corruption to last a lifetime, thank you very much.

that is why I wouldn't accept it without more, although I accepted that a staffer SAID it. People who have low persuasion skills do that all the time, 'strengthening' facts to something with a key distinction, where 'doesn't think he'll have the numbers and doesn't want to create a fuss just for the sake of a fuss' becomes 'helping Ron get through to these dense people' by saying instead that Ron up and down and multiple times said he wouldn't accept it if offered. People do it here, too, but it is unfortunate when staff does it to try to 'manage' grass roots in a grass roots campaign driven by devotion to the INTEGRITY of the candidate.

But don't go away KerriAnn, we are us and we share a vision, and we will find and support the candidates that do too.

One thing I learned is that hiring staff because they have run campaigns and not because they are on the same wavelength as the message and the man, leads to a tone deaf and ineffective campaign. If that needs to occur, true beleivers need to be in control and run information between us and Ron. None of US would have thought that a trivial misstatement.

[July]

//

[sailingaway]

The third possibility doesn't make sense. If it was a lie, then of course Ron Paul would have eventually found out. Nobody could have ever thought otherwise.

The first possibility has the most verisimilitude to me. Perhaps they were getting word from delegates that they weren't going to bother going any more.

It's also interesting that, while the hopes of a majority delegation from Maine were alive, Ron Paul supposedly wouldn't accept the nomination, but then the day those hopes die, and a nomination becomes an impossible hypothetical, he says he would have accepted it.

Someone like those here who insisted Ron said it was 'impossible to win' at a time when he had said he didn't expect to have enough delegates but was still fighting for more, and 'didn't want to be nominated' when he went on TV saying he did, for the unedited speech, are the kind of people who would make that statement to delegates sure they were 'doing the right thing' by getting people to 'get over it.'

[Original_Intent]

* This spot reserved for pcosmar to do his "I told you so" victory dance. *

[affa]

Obviously, some are trying to turn the 'liberty movement' into a money faucet every four years. No need to win, just keep the $ coming. Not everyone, of course... there are many very dedicated to the cause of liberty. But liberty requires immediacy, not an ever changing 4 year out plan.

[TheGrinch]

Yes, it sounds fishy. One possibility is that they didn't like the reaction and changed their minds. Another possibility is that a higher-up, maybe even Paul himself, overruled it. Another possibility is that they figured out that Ron Paul would find out about the lie.

Another possibility is that the staffer knows what Ron does, that they aren't going to let him have his 5 states and we only have half of the delegates we need for a nomination anyway, barring the unexpected (that hasn't happened) to change the minds of at least 500 non-Paul delegates

Then you add in the likelihood (based on what he and the campaign have said in recent months) that Dr. Paul doesn't want people causing a ruckus for battles we can't win, and it makes sense why a staffer would misspeak about them planning for Dr. Paul not to be nominated, as him not wanting to be nominated.

But good lord this campaign needs to communicate more effectively, cuz I'm getting really tired of having to rationalize their rhetoric with every new drama every time they open their mouths.

[ClydeCoulter]

Another possibility is that the staffer knows what Ron does, that they aren't going to let him have his 5 states and we only have half of the delegates we need for a nomination anyway, barring the unexpected (that hasn't happened) to change the minds of at least 500 non-Paul delegates

Then you add in the likelihood (based on what he and the campaign have said in recent months) that Dr. Paul doesn't want people causing a ruckus for battles we can't win, and it makes sense why a staffer would misspeak about them planning for Dr. Paul not to be nominated, as him not wanting to be nominated.

But good lord this campaign needs to communicate more effectively, cuz I'm getting really tired of having to rationalize their rhetoric with every new drama every time they open their mouths.

Then don't.

That's why some of us on here keep saying, "Not until we hear it from the horse's mouth".

We are upset that the campaign keeps putting out negative stuff each time something big is getting ready to happen (conventions, etc). It has happened over and over this campaign season. And, although not all of us believed the negative crap, we knew that it would take the air out of a lot of us, and it did, each time.

But, some of us kept listening to what "Ron himself" had said, and how he acted during interviews and speaches. Did the Texas State Convention speech sound like he gave up, even while his son was on Hani[y?

[TheGrinch]

Then don't.

I wouldn't, if people would attempt to read between the lines, rather than give a knee-jerk emotional response about everything the campaign says.

I'm not even saying that I'm right in my assumptions, but there are explanations that don't involve people being traitors like so many want to immediately assume before getting all the facts and putting it into perspective.

Yes, the campaign could have handled things differently, but Ron has said himself that he doesn't want some big ruckus made, since we only have about half the numbers we need. I don't even necessarily agree with that, as I think our delegates should give them all the hell we can, but Ron appears to have good reason for why he doesn't want people to make a ruckus over battles we're unlikely to win, namely trying to nominate him in what could be a potentially damaging and futile action that they'll use against us later.

Again, I'm not against them trying, but it seems that Ron is moving on and preparing for our future after him. Even if you still have hope that he can be nominated, I suggest people control their expectations (which I think is what the campaign is doing. It's better for them to be the enemy with us, than us making ourselves the enemy of the republican party, IMO).

[Tiso0770]

Never trust 'he said, she said' crap.

[sailingaway]

I wouldn't, if people would attempt to read between the lines, rather than give a knee-jerk emotional response about everything the campaign says.

I'm not even saying that I'm right in my assumptions, but there are explanations that don't involve people being traitors like so many want to immediately assume before getting all the facts and putting it into perspective.

Yes, the campaign could have handled things differently, but Ron has said himself that he doesn't want some big ruckus made, since we only have about half the numbers we need. I don't even necessarily agree with that, as I think our delegates should give them all the hell we can, but Ron appears to have good reason for why he doesn't want people to make a ruckus over battles we're unlikely to win, namely trying to nominate him in what could be a potentially damaging and futile action that they'll use against us later.

Again, I'm not against them trying, but it seems that Ron is moving on and preparing for our future after him. Even if you still have hope that he can be nominated, I suggest people control their expectations (which I think is what the campaign is doing. It's better for them to be the enemy with us, than us making ourselves the enemy of the republican party, IMO).

reading between those lines would have caused a lot to leave the movement. Waiting to see if it was true was the right thing to do. We don't want utilitarian campaign dogma, we want to know what RON, the ANTI - DC politician, is actually thinking.

[pcosmar]

* This spot reserved for pcosmar to do his "I told you so" victory dance. *

No Dance..
I ain't nobody,, and sometimes I'm wrong.

Usually,, I'm glad about it.

[sailingaway]

Ron Paul should say something like: even though they had enough votes to win, they couldn't change their corrupt practices and invalidated our fairly won victories in X, X, and X, just because they didn't like the result.

I think the reason the Romney camp is committing these abuses is that they expect Ron not to denounce them. If our camp kept quiet and didn't have any "negotiations", it would've been much more likely for RP to have a nomination speech.

I like that idea. Sunday in front of 93 national and international media outlets at the Sundome would be a good time.

[ClydeCoulter]

I like that idea. Sunday in front of 93 national and international media outlets at the Sundome would be a good time.

I'm looking forward to that speech. Only 2 more days...only 2 more days.

[JK/SEA]

i don't suppose we could get that staffers name?....1st name Jesse... something?

[TheGrinch]

reading between those lines would have caused a lot to leave the movement. Waiting to see if it was true was the right thing to do. We don't want utilitarian campaign dogma, we want to know what RON, the ANTI - DC politician, is actually thinking.

Would it not cause more to leave the movement if they filled them with false expectations, just to be let down hard after the convention?

Anyways, those who would leave just because we couldn't overcome extremely long odds, well, I think they were setting themselves up for disappointment if they were just in this because they thought it was likely that we could overcome a corrupt system that's been in place for over a century in just one election cycle... Sorry, but if you're going to just give up because of one race, then there's really nothing the campaign could have done differently to keep you involved, because you would have given up regardless. I'd like to hope most are here to fight for our ideals, not because they thought it would be easy...

Their messages are for the rest of us to hopefully realize that this movement does not just begin and end with Dr. Paul, and that's regardless of his nomination. There's much more work to be done, and I worry greatly about how they will spin the convention, and how that will relate to the future credibility of our candidates. Dr Paul and his campaign have been in this game long enough to see how perceptions can hurt you, and so I have to assume they also don't want to see us throw away our progress for a battle we're unlikely to win.

[KerriAnn]

I like that idea. Sunday in front of 93 national and international media outlets at the Sundome would be a good time.
and then he can say "eff you, eff you, eff you, you're cool, eff you, I'M OUT!"

[sailingaway]

Would it not cause more to leave the movement if they filled them with false expectations, just to be let down hard after the convention?

.

No, that is the utilitarian campaign mindset that doesn't take into account that we are different. Much more the 'today is a good day to die' sort. We may be beaten, but giving up is morally wrong.

[pacelli]

we will not have the five states necessary to put Ron Paul’s name into nomination. Nor do we have the numbers necessary for Dr. Paul to win a convention floor fight if nominated.

As far as the Vice Presidential nomination is concerned, Dr. Paul has indicated to us that he does not wish to serve in this position.

I hope this clears up any confusion regarding last night’s call or our campaign’s strategy heading into next week.

Wow, thanks John Tate. I'm still going to refrain from expressing my thoughts on all of this until after the convention, just so I don't get banned.

[TheGrinch]

No, that is the utilitarian campaign mindset that doesn't take into account that we are different. Much more the 'today is a good day to die' sort. We may be beaten, but giving up is morally wrong.

So it would be better for them, after seeing that the numbers aren't there, to let people go into Tampa to cause a damaging ruckus on the assumption that it was at all likely?

Are you denying that we don't have the numbers? Because that's the only way I could see it being out of line for them to let people know that we likely don't.

It is obviously noteworthy information for them to let everyone know that, before people march into Tampa making demands that they can't back up, so I don't think it has anything to do with placating people. If they were jsut trying to placate people, then they'd let them think there was still a chance. They would obviuosly collect more money that way, but it would be dishonest.

[sailingaway]

So it would be better for them, after seeing that the numbers aren't there, to let people go into Tampa to cause a damaging ruckus on the assumption that it was at all likely?

Are you denying that we don't have the numbers? Because that's the only way I could see it being out of line for them to let people know that we likely don't.

It is obviously noteworthy information for them to let everyone know that, before people march into Tampa making demands that they can't back up, so I don't think it has anything to do with placating people. If they were jsut trying to placate people, then they'd let them think there was still a chance. They would obviuosly collect more money that way, but it would be dishonest.

Straw argument. you can come out against 'causing a damaging ruckus' and delegates will be persuaded not to. It could be 'the chance of being allowed on the floor is miniscule given the ability of the RNC to cheat against our delegates. We will fight to the very last possible motion. But if it happens that on the day of the convention you DON'T see that we have [name the five states] delegates credentialed, we don't have the numbers. In that case causing a ruckus becomes counterproductive to our deeper goal of assuring a place in the GOP from which to grow our base. IF that happens, and we have to accept that that very well might happen, I urge you to......'

It is about communicating the truth. Our delegates aren't babies to be sheltered from reality and fed spin to make them do what some staffer wants.

[TheGrinch]

Straw argument. you can come out against 'causing a damaging ruckus' and delegates will be persuaded not to. It could be 'the chance of being allowed on the floor is miniscule given the ability of the RNC to cheat against our delegates. We will fight to the very last possible motion. But if it happens that on the day of the convention you DON'T see that we have [name the five states] delegates credentialed, we don't have the numbers. In that case causing a ruckus becomes counterproductive to our deeper goal of assuring a place in the GOP from which to grow our base. IF that happens, and we have to accept that that very well might happen, I urge you to......'

It is about communicating the truth. Our delegates aren't babies to be sheltered from reality and fed spin to make them do what some staffer wants.
What are they spoon-feeding? What is untrue? Again, unless they're misrepresenting the fact that we only have 1/2 of the delegates needed, then I'd say they've been brutally honest, even if that truth is unpopular.

Could they have fought the fraud more? Absolutely. Should they have better framed their emails, so people focused more on the "fighting battles we can win" than letting them down about the battles that are unlikely to win? Sure.

But no, our delegates are not babies, and I'd like to hope that they can accept that they probably won't have the numbers to get everything we want, but will still fight for everything they can. It'd be spoon-feeding them to let them assume that they should go in guns blazing making demands that they can't back up.

Isn't it spoon-feeding them to lead them on, as they collect more donations from us?

[sailingaway]

What are they spoon-feeding? What is untrue? Again, unless they're misrepresenting the fact that we only have 1/2 of the delegates needed, then I'd say they've been brutally honest, even if that truth is unpopular.

Could they have fought the fraud more? Absolutely. Should they have better framed their emails, so people focused more on the "fighting battles we can win" than letting them down about the battles that are unlikely to win? Sure.

But no, our delegates are not babies, and I'd like to hope that they can accept that they probably won't have the numbers to get everything we want, but will still fight for everything they can. It'd be spoon-feeding them to let them assume that they should go in guns blazing making demands that they can't back up.

Isn't it spoon-feeding them to lead them on, as they collect more donations from us?

You seem to have missed the controversy. The REASON this email in the OP was necessary is that some staffer insisted in a conference call with delegates last night that Ron Paul PERSONALLY had been asked multiple times and said, multiple times, that even if we HAD the five states, he wouldn't accept the nomination on the floor for the 15 minute speech everyone was fighting for.

That was simply a manipulative LIE.

And half the people on the thread seemed on the point of just checking out if RON let them down like that.

[alucard13mmfmj]

So Ron Paul may or may not have 5 states under his belt, so nomination for POTUS may not happen. Ron Paul does not want to be VP...
Seems more likely they will just play clips or recordings of Ron Paul and may not let him speak in prime time.
Party platform changes are "meh".

I am kinda puzzled on what RP and our hardworking delegates/supporters will get >.>

It is good news RP would accept nomination, but the staffer kinda killed morale for a bit and some of the more important people might not get the email for clarification.

[XTreat]

Who was the staffer?

[WesSeid]

That statement was a BIG deal around here and on other Paul forums. IF it was a misspoken statement, then this is further proof the campaign can't even be bothered to keep up on what is happening on the main Paul forums. Good luck the next time they ask for donations.

[TheGrinch]

You seem to have missed the controversy. The REASON this email in the OP was necessary is that some staffer insisted in a conference call with delegates last night that Ron Paul PERSONALLY had been asked multiple times and said, multiple times, that even if we HAD the five states, he wouldn't accept the nomination on the floor for the 15 minute speech everyone was fighting for.

That was simply a manipulative LIE.

And half the people on the thread seemed on the point of just checking out if RON let them down like that.
Seems to me like a white lie sort of misspeech (and no, I'm not condoning lying), but again, just like has been known for some time, even if they have the 5 states, they very likely don't have anywhere near the numbers.

So what you are calling a "manipulative" lie sounds to me like the campaign wanted to communicate that this should not be a priority for the delegates (since it would be likely to be more damaging than worthwhile), and so someone in their haste misspoke/lied/whatever that Ron wouldn't accept it. The less-than-truthful means don't change the ends that they've been preaching for quite some time, that this is not something Ron wants them to do.

They've been telling us for months that they don't have the numbers, for weeks that Ron wasn't going to seek a nomination (that again don't have the numbers for), so unless you think those were all lies too, this was nothing more than a half-truth that backs up what the campaign has been telling us for some time: to fight for battles we can win, and not get caught up in false hope that a minority of delegates is going to convince ~500 delegates to suddenly switch their vote.

[coffeewithchess]

Seems to me like a white lie sort of misspeech (and no, I'm not condoning lying), but again, just like has been known for some time, even if they have the 5 states, they very likely don't have anywhere near the numbers.

So what you are calling a "manipulative" lie sounds to me like the campaign wanted to communicate that this should not be a priority for the delegates (since it would be likely to be more damaging than worthwhile), and so someone in their haste misspoke/lied/whatever that Ron wouldn't accept it. The less-than-truthful means don't change the ends that they've been preaching for quite some time, that this is not something Ron wants them to do.

They've been telling us for months that they don't have the numbers, for weeks that Ron wasn't going to seek a nomination (that again don't have the numbers for), so unless you think those were all lies too, this was nothing more than a half-truth that backs up what the campaign has been telling us for some time: to fight for battles we can win, and not get caught up in false hope that a minority of delegates is going to convince ~500 delegates to suddenly switch their vote.

I actually believe the conference call was probably 100% correct, this is just the official campaign trying to save face. Why? Because of what you already listed. Let's not forget Rand Paul's endorsement of Mitt Romney being defended on the official campaign site. How anybody could actually believe RP wants, would accept the nomination, at this point....really is beyond me. I don't see what they are looking at from actual results and actions, to show a candidate that is still hoping for a nomination.

[TheGrinch]

I actually believe the conference call was probably 100% correct, this is just the official campaign trying to save face. Why? Because of what you already listed. Let's not forget Rand Paul's endorsement of Mitt Romney being defended on the official campaign site. How anybody could actually believe RP wants, would accept the nomination, at this point....really is beyond me. I don't see what they are looking at from actual results and actions, to show a candidate that is still hoping for a nomination.
True, it really doesn't even have to be a white lie, but was still sort of a misspeech, since of course Ron would accept if nominated... It's jsut that it doesn't appear to be something that they want to hang their hat on in the least bit, nor do they want the delegates to.

Of course I could be completely wrong here, but hasn't Ron himself (and not just staffers) said that he doesn't want a fuss made over him at the convention? If so, then obviously this isn't just staffers telling us what Ron "wants" or doesn't want.

[Feeding the Abscess]

no one should believe the disinfo agent who, when asked if Ron would endorse Rom, replied, "Good question." That's also the answer to: "Why are you on the paid staff?" If Ron were willing to endorse Romney, which he is not, he would have a big speech at the convention.

lol

[sailingaway]

Seems to me like a white lie sort of misspeech (and no, I'm not condoning lying), but again, just like has been known for some time, even if they have the 5 states, they very likely don't have anywhere near the numbers.

So what you are calling a "manipulative" lie sounds to me like the campaign wanted to communicate that this should not be a priority for the delegates (since it would be likely to be more damaging than worthwhile), and so someone in their haste misspoke/lied/whatever that Ron wouldn't accept it. The less-than-truthful means don't change the ends that they've been preaching for quite some time, that this is not something Ron wants them to do.

They've been telling us for months that they don't have the numbers, for weeks that Ron wasn't going to seek a nomination (that again don't have the numbers for), so unless you think those were all lies too, this was nothing more than a half-truth that backs up what the campaign has been telling us for some time: to fight for battles we can win, and not get caught up in false hope that a minority of delegates is going to convince ~500 delegates to suddenly switch their vote.

I rarely so disagree with you on a point of ethics, not to mention stupidity. People who had been supporting Ron for twenty years were ready to give up because the one person they had faith in to fight to the end was throwing in the towel and not the man they thought he was. IF that comment had been true. Having just heard Ron sarcastically referring to the gold standard pablum in the GOP platform as 'appeasement', I am absolutely certain he has never changed, he just has according to his (dammit!!) hands off style, been leaving it to the campaign.

[sailingaway]

lol

LOL! I may have to start reading Rockwell more.

That was precisely my first thought, though. He'd be giving a keynote speech about liberty and how Romney fit the bill in that case. But that case isn't reality.

[TheGrinch]

I rarely so disagree with you on a point of ethics, not to mention stupidity. People who had been supporting Ron for twenty years were ready to give up because the one person they had faith in to fight to the end was throwing in the towel and not the man they thought he was. IF that comment had been true. Having just heard Ron sarcastically referring to the gold standard pablum in the GOP platform as 'appeasement', I am absolutely certain he has never changed, he just has according to his (dammit!!) hands off style, been leaving it to the campaign.
Look, I'm really sorry, but I don't think anyone can make the claim that we will have the numbers needed to not "give up" on the idea of nominating Ron. He still told them to go down to Tampa and fight for our ideals, but just as he's always been honest, I have no reason to believe they're not being honest about a nomination being out of reach.

It's rather ironic for you to call that a lie, but seem to condone him misleading people with false hope. It only makes us look foolish if we ignore the writing on the wall, and go in making demands we can't back up.

It's not giving up to concede the reality of the situation, and wouldn't have been right for them to continue to accept donations and direct delegates under false pretenses.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Look, I'm really sorry, but I don't think anyone can make the claim that we will have the numbers needed to not "give up" on the idea of nominating Ron. He still told them to go down to Tampa and fight for our ideals, but just as he's always been honest, I have no reason to believe they're not being honest about a nomination being out of reach.

It's rather ironic for you to call that a lie, but seem to condone him misleading people with false hope. It only makes us look foolish if we ignore the writing on the wall, and go in making demands we can't back up.

It's not giving up to concede the reality of the situation, and wouldn't have been right for them to continue to accept donations and direct delegates under false pretenses.

The platform fight is already over, and we got nothing out of it. Unless you call a fake audit on a worthless platform progress.

[sailingaway]

Look, I'm really sorry, but I don't think anyone can make the claim that we will have the numbers needed to not "give up" on the idea of nominating Ron. He still told them to go down to Tampa and fight for our ideals, but just as he's always been honest, I have no reason to believe they're not being honest about a nomination being out of reach.

It's rather ironic for you to call that a lie, but seem to condone him misleading people with false hope. It only makes us look foolish if we ignore the writing on the wall, and go in making demands we can't back up.

It's not giving up to concede the reality of the situation, and wouldn't have been right for them to continue to accept donations and direct delegates under false pretenses.

I never said he should mislead them with false hope. I spelled out a specific script that COULD have been used and it used terms like 'miniscule chance' and 'we will fight to the end but we have to be honest and know we are likely to be sitting here without the states we need and if so we don't want to cause a fuss for fuss sake'. To this moment we still have people challenging the cheating in credentials committee. Fighting is not the same as expecting to win. You fight for what is right because it is the right thing to do -- win OR LOSE.

And if you lose, you can hold your head high for having done your best.

[TheGrinch]

I never said he should mislead them with false hope. I spelled out a specific script that COULD have been used and it used terms like 'miniscule chance' and 'we will fight to the end but we have to be honest and know we are likely to be sitting here without the states we need and if so we don't want to cause a fuss for fuss sake'. To this moment we still have people challenging the cheating in credentials committee. Fighting is not the same as expecting to win. You fight for what is right because it is the right thing to do -- win OR LOSE.

And if you lose, you can hold your head high for having done your best.
Again, they could have communicated it better, but it's not giving up to realize that in politics, sometimes you just have to live to fight another day. This movement doesn't begin and end with Dr. Paul, regardless of nomination, and I don't think they want to see it end before we ever get close to a majority by causing a futile ruckus at the convention, which would have likely (and still might) happen without them laying it out that we don't have the numbers to do that.

Not giving up is not synonymous with hanging on to delusions of grandeur. If something isn't working, you don't just stick with it, you re-evaluate what your next steps are. I think it's clear that they'd rather continue to build on what's been started than go all-in and potentially throw away all of that progress by painting all of our delegates and candidates as fake republicans who jsut want to create a ruckus.

You know that they're just waiting to use things like this against us. Ron has seen it his entire career, and Rand's already gotten a taste of what they do to "fake republicans" who refuse to play ball. We're going to need more than jsut a minority on our side to be able to take on the corrupt majority. It is what it is...

[sailingaway]

Again, they could have communicated it better, but it's not giving up to realize that in politics, sometimes you just have to live to fight another day. THis movement doesn't begin and end with Dr. Paul, and I don't think they want to see it end before we ever get close to a majority by causing a futile ruckus at the convention, which would have likely (and still might) happen without them laying it out that we don't have the numbers to do that.

Not giving up is not synonomus with hanging on to delusions of granduer. If something isn't working, you don't just stick with it, you re-evaluate what you're next steps are. I think it's clear that they'd rather continue to build on what's been started than go all-in and potentially throw away all of that progress by painting all of our delegates and candidates as fake republicans who jsut wnat to create a ruckus.

You know that they're just waiting to use things like this against us. Ron has seen it his entire career, and Rand's already gotten a taste of what they do to "fake republicans" who refuse to play ball. We're going to need more than jsut a minority on our side to be able to take on the corrupt majority. It is what it is...

We are talking past eachother. I am objecting to lying to delegates and supporters to manipulate them because you think they might disagree with you on the best action to take. It is morally wrong.

[TheGrinch]

We are talking past eachother. I am objecting to lying to delegates and supporters to manipulate them because you think they might disagree with you on the best action to take. It is morally wrong.

No disrespect intended, but you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Dr. Paul has no plans, doesn't want, isn't seeking, doesn't have the numbers for, etc., are all different ways of saying the exact same thing. Unless the campaign is blatantly misrepresenting him or our delegate numbers, it is in no way disingenuous for them to say that Dr. Paul doesn't want them to take this course of action.

Again, I think we can agree they could have phrased this all better, but I'm just not seeing where what they're saying is out of line with reality.

[TheGrinch]

The platform fight is already over, and we got nothing out of it. Unless you call a fake audit on a worthless platform progress.
Progress, by definition, doesn't happen overnight, but we are indeed making progress in our numbers and influence, which should have been the realistic goal of everyone involved here.

[sailingaway]

No disrespect intended, but you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Dr. Paul has no plans, doesn't want, isn't seeking, doesn't have the numbers for, etc., are all different ways of saying the exact same thing. Unless the campaign is blatantly misrepresenting him, it is in no way disingenuous for them to say that Dr. Paul doesn't want them to take this course of action.

Again, I think we can agree they could have phrased this all better, but I'm just not seeing where what they're saying is out of line with reality.

You don't value the ethics I do. I think lying about it to manipulate us is betrayal, and it is a molehill I am particular about. From a staffer I despise it, but from Ron it would shake my view of the world, and that is a fact. BECAUSE he values that ethic as well, and that is one of the reasons i support him. He thinks the people need to know the truth and then THEY choose what to do.

[TheGrinch]

You don't value the ethics I do.
Perhaps I don't. Words are just words, and perceptions are still perceptions.

Is it more ethical to remain pure, or to enact change that improves the quality of people's lives? Is it more important that a staffer is completely truthful about Dr. Paul's feelings, when it doesn't change the situation, or is it more important that peopel understnad the situation they're getting into?

This is where I think you're so caught up in the means, that you're neglecting what our ends are... And to me, that's ethics, to fight for what you beleive in, but be smart about the realities and obstacles you face to achieve it.

[sailingaway]

Perhaps I don't. Words are just words, and perceptions are still perceptions.

Is it more ethical to remain pure, or to enact change that improves the quality of people's lives? Is it more important that a staffer is completely truthful about Dr. Paul's feelings, when it doesn't change the situation, or is it more important that peopel understnad the situation they're getting into?

.

You are saying the end justifies the means, and I consider that immoral. And to say lying is a better way to 'make them understand the situation' is straight out of Orwell.

[TheGrinch]

You are saying the end justifies the means, and I consider that immoral.
When you're talking about something so inconsequential as whether Ron would accept a hypothetical nomination he's not going to get, then yes. How exactly they frame the issue to the delegates is on par with semantics , when the issue is that they don't have the numbers. How they choose to communicate that doesn't make the heart of the matter any less true or relevant that this is not a battle worth fighting for in their opinion.

So no, I'm all against flat-out lies, but if some staffer has to misspeak to make people realize that this is not something Ron wants them to fight for in Tampa, then BFD if the latter part is true.

(Further, when compared to the immorality of the ones we're going up against, I find it very tough to be outraged about the campaign being smart about when is the best time to take on the beast, and when it isn't).

[coffeewithchess]

Progress, by definition, doesn't happen overnight, but we are indeed making progress in our numbers and influence, which should have been the realistic goal of everyone involved here.

Except one thing. Just as in 2008, while that campaign ended slightly better with the way RP went about doing things and not endorsing John McCain and not allowing his website to be used to defend endorsements of one of his Republican opponents; the big thing I think the campaign had done, is damage. They brought in new people, people that could look at Ron Paul's record and liked what they saw, people that possibly thought they were different than the others...but by sitting by in complete silence this time, having your son go on national television endorsing your last opponent, not saying anything for over a week about the email and/or endorsement, allowing your campaign website to be used not just once, but at least three times to try and defend your son's endorsement of your opponent, and seeing how many of the "new" posters on RPF have basically vanished (like in 2008), I would say the results are pretty much the same, but only worse. Now, instead of ending the campaign and attempting to "preserve" the movement, and make it educational, they kept asking for money. They always needed more donations. They refused to answer legitimate questions. They spread false stories about Dr. Paul during the campaign, to puff him up on an issue, and when asked about it....no response.

When you have campaign staffers repeatedly lying/giving false information/bad arguments, you must ask yourself if this is really about "the movement" or "preserving" anything they started, or simply about keeping a job that is paying them. The way they have ended the campaign, is worse than Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich did. They don't even understand basic decency of communicating with your supporters/donors.

I said it last night, but Ron Paul's 2012 campaign has effectively done more to "splinter" the movement the way it has/hasn't handled itself, than the mainstream media could have ever hoped to do so on their own.

[sailingaway]

When you're talking about something so inconsequential as whether Ron would accept a hypothetical nomination he's not going to get, then yes. How exactly they frame the issue to the delegates is on par with semantics , when the issue is that they don't have the numbers. How they choose to communicate that doesn't make the heart of the matter any less true or relevant that this is not a battle worth fighting for in their opinion.

So no, I'm all against flat-out lies, but if some staffer has to misspeak to make people realize that this is not something Ron wants them to fight for in Tampa, then BFD if the latter part is true.

(Further, when compared to the immorality of the ones we're going up against, I find it very tough to be outraged about the campaign being smart about when is the best time to take on the beast, and when it isn't).

they were talking about the five state nomination into contention on the floor for a 15 minute speech, not the GOP nomination. Ron had, or was contesting in credentials committee to have SEVEN states.

[TheGrinch]

they were talking about the five state nomination into contention on the floor for a 15 minute speech, not the GOP nomination. Ron had, or was contesting in credentials committee to have SEVEN states.
Ah gotcha, I did forget about the 15 minute speech, and I guess it was a mistake to be this opinionated when I didn't hear the context of the call.

I just get tired of people immediately assuming the worst, when it may just be as simple as Ron wanting us to move on toward the future and win battles we can win than to fixate at him at future candidates/delegates expense, just so he can have his 15 minutes. It also became clear by last night that they weren't going to let him have the 5 states anyway, even more reason to move on and leave it up to the legal system to try to fight it. Not much else you can do...

I know you're the last person that wants to hear this, but maybe just maybe Ron would rather see his son give his speech to show that we are the future, than to have the delegates make Romney's party about him, after he'd clearly fallen short (even if by fraud, he has to leave that up to the justice system too. As far as the public is concerned, Romney has won the nomination, and it would seem petty of him to not acknowledge that).

But this is all just speculation that makes enough sense for me to give the campaign the benefit of the doubt, when other than this mispeech here, what they've told us doesn't seem far off from the reality that the fight for the nomination is essentially over as far as they're concerned.

Anyways, I'm through playing apologist, since I doubt we'll see eye to eye, but I do hope our delegates give them hell for the terrible ways that they've treated them and Dr. Paul...

[asurfaholic]

I'm already sick of this "politics" shit. I have no patience for putting up with abuse. I can handle loosing fair and square, but I don't believe that is what happened. Starting at Ames- "we have a new top tier" then Iowa and on and on. It has been sickening, but I felt if the fraud was blatant and obvious enough for me to catch it, then certainly someone would be able to bring those tyrants to justice.

As we can see, it's not the case. I will view any govt worker as a mortal enemy and keep my distance, otherwise I'm not paying attention to this shit anymore. The last year of watching Ron Paul get abused has taken at least 5 years from my life.

[sailingaway]

I absolutely reject the idea that it is petty to be nominated from the floor to actually have the Republican form of government. If you mean AFTER he knew he was cheated out of 5 states (although they are still on appeal) he wouldn't want to make a fuss for fuss sake, my comment took that into account and said just be honest, don't pretend Ron said he wouldn't accept the 15 minute speech IF we had the numbers. That idea that he wouldn't accept it IF he had it after he said he wanted it and people were still fighting for it, is what caused a crises here last night.

REgarding the endorsement if you were talking about that at that stage, I don't think anyone who watched Ron's speech to the Tx State GOP convention just a few hours before Rand endorsed would think Ron was on board with that in advance.

[sailingaway]

I'm already sick of this "politics" shit. I have no patience for putting up with abuse. I can handle loosing fair and square, but I don't believe that is what happened. Starting at Ames- "we have a new top tier" then Iowa and on and on. It has been sickening, but I felt if the fraud was blatant and obvious enough for me to catch it, then certainly someone would be able to bring those tyrants to justice.

As we can see, it's not the case. I will view any govt worker as a mortal enemy and keep my distance, otherwise I'm not paying attention to this shit anymore. The last year of watching Ron Paul get abused has taken at least 5 years from my life.

stick around a while longer and see if we come up with any brilliant ideas. We might.

[TruckinMike]

I am sorry to say it but this "deal" only hurt our side. We didnt get anything from it and they got everything they wanted. They took states from Ron and they took his delegates making it impossible for him to have 5 states to nominate him.... What is more by accepting this "deal" (ass-raped in worst possible way) our side just gave them credibility and our side "ratified" that theft....


...Even worse than the things I mentioned is what will happen in the future: They will get away with it. People will just quit. If Richard Gilbert fails in his lawsuit no new lawsuit is going to be brought to court regarding GOP/RNC crimes....

rant rant rant....

Exactly -- What good are a few delegates if we lose the 5 states min? We would have been much better off losing ALL delegates due to corruption instead of dealing with the devil. How do claim we were robbed? You can't prove it anymore. You can't even say it anymore. We would have had the moral high ground, but even that argument is gone. You are right --- Now we don't have $#&%!

Who in the hell are these negotiators; retired NRA lawyers? LoL:)

[rockandrollsouls]

Because the campaign cut a deal. This is just damage control now.


Dang...We won't have the five states necessary...dang.

How did that ever happen?

Dang.

[rockandrollsouls]

Yup. Whenever your masters offer you a deal, you should probably know there's nothing in it for you.


Exactly -- What good are a few delegates if we lose the 5 states min? We would have been much better off losing ALL delegates due to corruption instead of dealing with the devil. How do claim we were robbed? You can't prove it anymore. You can't even say it anymore. We would have had the moral high ground, but even that argument is gone. You are right --- Now we don't have $#&%!

Who in the hell are these negotiators; retired NRA lawyers? LoL:)