PDA

View Full Version : Paul said he needed the money sooner!




dc74rp
01-04-2008, 04:51 AM
I'm reading complaints of the official campaign because they got $20 million the last quarter but didn't spend it in Iowa.

I don't know about you all, but I got an email from the campaign saying they couldn'y wait til the 16th to reach 12 million because the ads in the early states needed to be payed for much further in advance. If they didn't have the money earlier, they wouldn't be able to get the airtime.

Add to that, the media hasn't been friendly to Paul. People comparing the rise in numbers between Paul and other candidates are comparing apples and oranges. Listen in on most conservative radio, or on network tv, and your not likely to hear much about Paul, and when you do, it's as likely to be negative. It's not like Paul was getting all the free advertising Huckabee was (or any other candidate). I hadn't heard of Huckabee before this election, but the whole country heard about him in the news well before tonight, and it had little to do with how many ads he bought. Paul's only been getting attention from media pretty late in the game.

I hear about how Paul needs to fire most of his staff and hire top quality mercenaries. I'm sure we have infiltrators on this board. Do you think the campaign doesn't have to worry about infiltrators too? For him to fire trusted staff in order to hire mercenaries whose loyalty is uncertain may not be the easy choice it's made out to be by some. I'm sure there are plenty of mistakes made by the campaign. But hell, if we want to go back and look at General Washington's performance, I'm sure we could complain about all his mistakes and how inept he was too. Many did when he lose battles. And it's not like the grassroots have been free from mistakes and manipulation.

Take into consideration of what we're up against. We are not on a level playing field. Paul's been hammered by the neo-con establishment almost any time they couldn't ignore him. The voters have been constantly told "he can't win anyway" since the beginning, and it's only right before the caucus that they up his numbers to 9%? I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but almost sounds like the poll numbers have been waved around to discredit him, while all the straw poll numbers, which normally get attention, have been ignored, or in at least a couple cases even sabotaged. Paul is not just competing against other candidates, but against an established and powerful system that doesn't want him to win.

So again, the campaign might have made some mistakes. And they might need to make some changes. I can think of a change I'd like to see, but I don't know that simply sticking to spreading the philosophy of Natural Rights as understood by the Founding Fathers would win him anymore votes. I say screw winning votes if that means not spreading the message.

But I'm not condemning Paul or the campaign for not doing things how I want. Hell, how often have we watched Paul being attacked, face to face, on the tv? And seen news reports distorting his positions or actions? Add that to likely countless battles we know nothing about. But now PAUL and his campaign are the ones to blame? Maybe instead of directing all the anger and blame at people fighting for our freedom, we should be angry at and fighting harder against those that oppose it

OptionsTrader
01-04-2008, 04:54 AM
I echo your sentiment.

Anyone that has not personally knocked on the door of everyone in their precinct has zero room for complaining about the campaign. If you want results, unplug, get outside, and talk to everyone in your precinct about what the man wants to do and hoe he plans to do it.

Joe3113
01-04-2008, 04:56 AM
I echo your sentiment.

Anyone that has not personally knocked on the door of everyone in their precinct has zero room for complaining about the campaign. If you want results, unplug, get outside, and talk to everyone in your precinct about what the man wants to do and hoe he plans to do it.

+1

GunnyFreedom
01-04-2008, 05:24 AM
I echo your sentiment.

Anyone that has not personally knocked on the door of everyone in their precinct has zero room for complaining about the campaign. If you want results, unplug, get outside, and talk to everyone in your precinct about what the man wants to do and hoe he plans to do it.

I couldn't agree more -- we literally have 1000% the effect, yes ten TIMES the effect on winning voters by going out into the 'real world' shaking hands and making the case for Ron Paul.

jrich4rpaul
01-04-2008, 05:41 AM
Waiting for money bombs is going to lose us ads for Super Tuesday as well. The stubborness of the grassroots to only donate during moneybombs will cost us millions in ads.

Then the same people will go on to bitch that the money isn't being spent.

thuja
01-04-2008, 05:49 AM
i have not said to fire anyone, nor to hire what you call mercenaries, but i have said to do stylish ads and place them effectively. those old people still watch tv!

123tim
01-04-2008, 06:14 AM
I echo your sentiment.

Anyone that has not personally knocked on the door of everyone in their precinct has zero room for complaining about the campaign. If you want results, unplug, get outside, and talk to everyone in your precinct about what the man wants to do and hoe he plans to do it.

Agreed.

all J's in IL for RP
01-04-2008, 06:39 AM
OP, make no mistake. Huckabee won Iowa not because of the free press, but because he spent 6 months organizing the state. A couple "good" debate performances freed up that Iowa support to come out for him in a public way, which spurred his national rise. The presses involvement in this was only to give him a few uncritical days (remember, he answered the WWJD question twice).

6 months ago, our guy was a message candidate. It could be argued that he only really began running 3 months ago. Some criticisms being thrown at the campaign are quite undeserved. I just think some people are thinking the learning curve for these guys is too long when perhaps it's just right (or maybe better than expected). Fortunately, it may prove to be an open race for as long as it takes for the campaign to "get it together" in some people's eyes.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
01-04-2008, 06:46 AM
Add to that, the media hasn't been friendly to Paul.

And don't expect it to start. CNN had a huge chunk missing in their pie chart, just so they wouldn't have to show Paul's name.

All things considered, we're doing very well. Besides, this is a marathon.

I don't think the finish was that bad. The whining all over the board, though... that's bad. It would be fine if it were critical analysis, but it's mostly plain old whining. I hope the workers among us don't waste too much time on the whiners in the near future. There's a lot to do.

walt
01-04-2008, 07:52 AM
5 million by September 30 = stop making excuses for our pathetic campaign leadership

Melissa
01-04-2008, 08:02 AM
I echo your sentiment.

Anyone that has not personally knocked on the door of everyone in their precinct has zero room for complaining about the campaign. If you want results, unplug, get outside, and talk to everyone in your precinct about what the man wants to do and hoe he plans to do it.


+10000000000000000000

Thats why anyone close to an early state needs to get there ass in gear I am in Indiana and mine is not till May 8th so what am I doing the next 2 weekend and anytime in between my group will be hitting Michigan --come on guys the Revolution will not be easy remember the battles that Washington fought and he should have lost ----but and here is the kicker -----YOU HAVE TO GET OFF THE COMPUTER TO DO THIS--SO LETS GO HIT THE STREETS

dc74rp
01-04-2008, 04:25 PM
5 million by September 30 = stop making excuses for our pathetic campaign leadership

So how much of the $5 million should've been spent in Iowa? When Paul said he needed 12 m before the end of the year everyone complained it was an impossible goal. Now he charged with not spending enough money? If he'd spent 2.5 mil in Iowa, that would've been almost half of his Q3 take. There are 50 other States in this country and a long fight ahead of us.

One of the greatest this country has faces is the result of the government spending money it doesn't have. A candidate who talks about fixing the economy and monetary policy loses a little credibility spending everything or taking on debt based on expectations of incredible fundraising expectations for the future.

Again, almost everyone thought 12 million was too high a goal. If he'd spent a good percentage of his funds in Iowa, how well would he have to have done to make it worth it if he'd only raised 10 mil in Q4? 10%? 15%?

Take a long view. Would twice as much spending in Iowa gotten us twice as mant voters? Would we respect Paul's claims to fiscal and montary restraint if he already spend a large percentage of his funds before the first week of the year was out, without knowing what future funds he could count on?

It's understandable to be frustrated we aren't doing better. But that doesn't mean spending millions more in Iowa would've been the answer. We are positioned to move steadily onward and upward if we'll take it upon ourselves to keep fighting and keep supporting Paul.

TwiLeXia
01-04-2008, 04:33 PM
No one's blaming Paul himself...

thoughtbombing
01-04-2008, 04:36 PM
I echo your sentiment.

Anyone that has not personally knocked on the door of everyone in their precinct has zero room for complaining about the campaign. If you want results, unplug, get outside, and talk to everyone in your precinct about what the man wants to do and hoe he plans to do it.


I've personally knocked on every door in the small town I live in outside of Philly. TWICE.

A few of them 3 times... and our Primary isn't until April. I've gone through 23 boxes of pens for Voter registration forms.

Paulitician
01-04-2008, 04:47 PM
The goal was 12 million for the whole quarter. Not our fault the campaign didn't communicate to us that they need that 12 million by December (or earlier).

Mesogen
01-04-2008, 04:54 PM
I'm glad they didn't spend too much in Iowa. It would have been a waste. Especially if they are airing crappy commercials like the first one.

josh24601
01-04-2008, 04:55 PM
I thought about this too and almost pointed out to the crazies that they insisted on having their money bomb without giving hardly any time to the campaign, but in my brief time on this forum, I am really beginning to understand where the stereotypes of Paul internet supporters has come from, which sucks because then I get tagged with it too.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=74560

Yom
01-04-2008, 04:59 PM
HQ needs to be less frugal with the money they do have. You have some $25 million in your coffers - spend some of it! We have a money bomb on the 17th that should be big, and if we do well on the dates before then, the donation rate will increase anyway. I know he's very frugal, but you can't be afraid to spend money. It's not as if he has to borrow money and get in the hole to fund these ads, dip a little into the funds you have now with the expectation that it will be partly, if not fully restored on the moneybomb days.

Note that I'm not saying we should just start pumping money everywhere without any restraint.

Mesogen
01-04-2008, 05:03 PM
They have spent a good bit of it.

Rhys
01-04-2008, 05:05 PM
It woke my eyes up for the need to get even more active as a "boots on the ground" person. However... Iowa was NEVER ours for the taking. Not even in our wildest Go Ron Paul dreams. Rudy had a better chance... remember that!

josh24601
01-04-2008, 05:11 PM
I think RP joined the CFR and is going to take our money with him and thats where it is.

Paulitician
01-04-2008, 05:12 PM
It woke my eyes up for the need to get even more active as a "boots on the ground" person. However... Iowa was NEVER ours for the taking. Not even in our wildest Go Ron Paul dreams. Rudy had a better chance... remember that!
Actually, no Giuliani didn't. But Ron Paul could have done so much better Iowa. 48% of the Republican caucus goers want us out of Iraq in 6 months. They're against illegal immigration/amnesty, they're for gun rights, pro-life etc. etc. Sure, some would have a problem that he doesn't support farm subsidies, but Ron Paul already represents a farming district and they keep voting to re-elect him. I don't think we could have every gotten 1st, but a solid third was not out of the question. 3rd place would have gotten us way more media attention BTW. It would have been reported all over the country by local news stations and even cable news. 5th place = lame. Thankfully we're able to live with it.

nc4rp
01-04-2008, 05:24 PM
there is still more caucuses in Iowa, this was just the local one. there is county. district, and state next.\

Paul could end up alot better with delegates than 5th, but by teh same token, if our people dont show up to the next caucuses, then Rudy could take more delegates than Paul. Please pass this on.

IOWA IS NOT OVER YET!!!

danberkeley
01-04-2008, 05:41 PM
i have not said to fire anyone, nor to hire what you call mercenaries, but i have said to do stylish ads and place them effectively. those old people still watch tv!

you're assuming that the campaign had the money to do this by the time of the Iowa caucus. they need the money now, not a week before the primaries. and btw, im almost maxed out in comtributions ($2100 or so).

danberkeley
01-04-2008, 05:46 PM
OP, make no mistake. Huckabee won Iowa not because of the free press, but because he spent 6 months organizing the state. A couple "good" debate performances freed up that Iowa support to come out for him in a public way, which spurred his national rise. The presses involvement in this was only to give him a few uncritical days (remember, he answered the WWJD question twice).


where's RP's news coverage compared to huckabee, mccain, and romney? no one knew who huckabee was until the the news services started saying he had a chance to win. how about larry king interviewing giuliani and not ron paul although ron paul placed higher than giuliani in the caucus? btw, ron paul won more debates than huckabee.

danberkeley
01-04-2008, 05:48 PM
And don't expect it to start. CNN had a huge chunk missing in their pie chart, just so they wouldn't have to show Paul's name.

All things considered, we're doing very well. Besides, this is a marathon.

I don't think the finish was that bad. The whining all over the board, though... that's bad. It would be fine if it were critical analysis, but it's mostly plain old whining. I hope the workers among us don't waste too much time on the whiners in the near future. There's a lot to do.

the whinning is coming from non-ron paul supporters. true supporters dont give that easily.

danberkeley
01-04-2008, 05:49 PM
I think RP joined the CFR and is going to take our money with him and thats where it is.

boooo!!!!!!!!!1

Jon4Ron
01-04-2008, 06:07 PM
Look I'm not in the mix of the Iowa campaign and I don't live there but if this blog post is accurate http://ronpaulforpresident2008.com/blog/node/29 it tells me that the campaign had plenty of money to implement easily 4 or 5 times this many adds all over the state. There are many good commercials already made. It could have conveyed more depth on Ron's stance. Let's face it, as big as the internet is, TV is still king in many many households.

Bradley in DC
01-04-2008, 06:13 PM
Look at George's post. The official campaign spent far more for far less than Huckabee did. It's quality as much as quantity.

Did you see the coverage of the voting? CSPAN, CNN, all of them, there were no speakers at precincts for Ron Paul unlike the winners. Many of the caucus organizers had NO IDEA who Ron Paul was. We outspent Huckabee and lost big.

Throwing money at problems is not a satisfactory substitute for a good strategy.

Truth Warrior
01-04-2008, 06:40 PM
The goal was 12 million for the whole quarter. Not our fault the campaign didn't communicate to us that they need that 12 million by December (or earlier).

Yep, those are pretty much my thoughts too. :)

danberkeley
01-04-2008, 06:40 PM
Look at George's post. The official campaign spent far more for far less than Huckabee did. It's quality as much as quantity.

Did you see the coverage of the voting? CSPAN, CNN, all of them, there were no speakers at precincts for Ron Paul unlike the winners. Many of the caucus organizers had NO IDEA who Ron Paul was. We outspent Huckabee and lost big.

Throwing money at problems is not a satisfactory substitute for a good strategy.

i saw that too. i was shitting bricks when no one stood up to make the case for Ron Paul and the McCain guy sounded like a dumb ass. also many people hadnt decided who to vote for, which is really rediculous