Marty Duren
01-11-2008, 12:38 PM
An Open Letter to Ron Paul supporters and the Ron Paul Campaign
I write as a 44 year old pastor in GA who plans to vote for Ron Paul on Super Tuesday and as one who has observed the meteoric rise of the Ron Paul Revolution via the msm, blogs and forums. For what it’s worth to anyone, here are a few thoughts from a distance (please forgive if I’m repeated things already written here, I can’t read every single comment):
1. Ron Paul is running as a Republican so he is first running against George W. Bush. Don’t underestimate the power of the lack of coattails in a campaign. With a job approval rating of less that 40% Bush is helping no Republican candidate. One NH exit poll recorded 90% of Democrats who disapprove of GWB. Very few of them are defecting to RP; most are going for Obama and Clinton. Howard Dean calls the Republican candidates, “George W. Bush’s third term.” How will this be overcome?
2. Ron Paul does not speak in “sound bites,” so it is much harder for his message to immediately grab unfamiliar voters. If a person isn’t willing to spend some time doing research or cannot see the big picture, then they are less likely to vote for RP. Americans have been conditioned for slogans and catch phrases and Dr. Paul defies those traditions. “Hope for America” is too generic and, frankly, not believable to the person who is trying to choose between 11 different candidates.
For instance, when asked last night in SC about immigration, the home run answer would have been:
“First, I would secure the borders by bringing home border guards from Iraq and then 1, 2 and 3…
Next, I would take away the incentive that people have for coming here illegally: No free hospitals, no free education…It is wrong for a taxpayer in South Carolina to have to subsidize a person who entered illegally across the border in Texas, lives in Oklahoma and works in Nebraska and it’s wrong for Oklahomans to pick up the hospital tab.
Then, I would meet with the governors of the border states and help each of them develop workable plans to secure a secondary line of defense in their states, sharing all resources necessary to make it happen.
Last, I would work to streamline and improve the citizenship process by [whatever].
In short, I would work to make it clear and easy to become a citizen while making it unproductive to come here illegally.”
Every answer does not have to entail an explanation of Austrian economic theory; not that it isn’t relevant, but because it simply is not accessible to most voters watching a debate of this type.
3. 70% of Americans being against the war does not translated to 70% of Americans wanting to bring the troops home now so supporters should not count on getting all those voters. At this point many people feel a moral obligation to help clean up the mess we’ve helped make and simply leaving the new Iraqi government high and dry does not seem like the right thing to do. A general time frame and what troop withdrawals likely mean on the ground would be helpful. (IOW, there is not enough understanding as to why our presence in the Middle East is problematic and therefore not enough understanding as to reason why bringing the troops home immediately is a good idea. The fact that the other candidates are shown on screen laughing at this does not help obviously.)
The emphasis must be place on empire building with specifics, not generalities--700 bases in 130 countries, how much it costs annually to maintain them, how much could be reasonably saved over time. Specifics on how much we are paying Halliburton, etc. That kind of knowledge projects authority. Then those figures can be construed into the plan to balance the budget and erase the deficit.
4. Supporters should not tie in their personal agenda with a RP sign unless it is a specific part of Dr. Paul’s platform. In a recent shot from NH, the main sign in view had two parts: The bottom was an “RP for Pres” sign; the top was a 9/11 truther sign. That’s no good, since Dr. Paul does not hold that view. To promote ones own views is to promote self, not the candidate and to tie in a presidential candidate to any conspiracy theory takes him/her from the realm of viable. Sorry, but it does.
5. Why Dr. Paul is not getting the votes supporters think he should be getting can be partially explained by this from a personal experience. For two years, I ran an influential blog on ministry and b’cracy in the Southern Baptist Convention. I spent hours a week reading, evaluating, getting interviews and comments, moderating the comment section and trying to influence the conversation in the SBC. After months and months of this I was continually astounded to find that there were many, many pastors who knew nothing of the issues being raised in the blogosphere. Because I was immersed in the online community, it did not dawn on me how little the average person was aware.
I think the same thing is happening with Dr. Paul’s campaign. The online presence is so strong that it just seems as if it is more massive than it is. Example: I live in a growing town in an Atlanta suburb. I’ve seen exactly ONE Ron Paul sign in my town and it is in my yard. There are none on the streets, none in yards, and precious few bumper stickers. There has been no mailing. There are two or three billboards several miles away on main interstates, but those were all paid for by the grassroots efforts. The most common response that we get here when asking, “Are you going to vote for Ron Paul?” is “Who?” The internet presence is not translating into votes because it is not translating off of the web.
6. There is a business and organizational saying which, paraphrased, goes something like this, “Every organization or department within will rise to the level of the incompetence of its leader(s).” Simply stated this means that any organization that depends on leadership cannot go beyond where the leadership is qualified to take it. Unfortunately, the national campaign has reached its level of incompetence. My suspicion is that no one had the wildest idea that Dr. Paul would strike such a chord and that the grassroots effort would take on a life of its own. What is obvious is that the size of the grassroots and money on hand are more than they bargained for and more than they can handle.
There is too little official organization in the states. The state of GA coordinator has only been on the “job” for a matter of weeks and there has been no time to build a structure. As has been documented on multiple forum posts, communication problems abound between the campaign and the grassroots and this is solely the responsibility and failure of the campaign.
Here’s a scenario that would have been a heckuva lot better:
A. The campaign should have assumed that the old newsletters were going to surface and spent whatever was necessary to hire an articulate, very well educated African American lady to be the campaign spokesperson from the very beginning, or at least after Nov 5th. She should have been the face of the campaign second only to Dr. Paul himself.
When the newsletters surfaced, she should have responded with, “Well, since I’ve been hired by the campaign, any charges of racism ring rather hollow. There has been nothing in any interaction with Dr. Paul that would give me pause. Nothing from the leadership within the campaign that would give me pause. Nothing in the platform that would give me pause. So, when Dr. Paul says he did not write them, I have absolutely no reason not to believe him. Next question.”
Bald white guys do not make good campaign spokesmen; Kent Snyder should never be in front of the camera again. No offense intended, but his is not a telegenic presence.
B. After the November 5 money bomb, a staffer should have spent two-three weeks traveling to every Super Tuesday state to meet with Meet Up leaders. A state coordinator and/or steering team should have been set in place. Clear boundaries and guidelines and boundaries should have been established in those meetings.
C. From November 5-December 16, budgets should have been worked out for each state with the authority given to the state campaign to spend as much as necessary to raise voter awareness in each state. After December 16, when the campaign had more than $20M on hand, money should have been deposited in each state campaign bank account and the states should have been off and running. Each state should know better what will work best for its own people so plenty of leeway should have been given. IOW, very few directives from HQ and lots of freedom on the ground. Instead, the campaign is being run like the federal government--too much b’cracy and too little flexibility
$20M could have placed $250,000 in each state account and left $15M with HQ to do mass media advertising. Can you imagine the creative things that could have been done had the state organizations had that kind of cash to work with?
D. Regular feedback should have been requested, secured and acted upon. Suggestions from forums that were accepted and implemented should have been promoted on the forums to prove that making suggestions is a worthwhile endeavor, rather than leaving people to wonder if the suggestion box is a “springboard or a graveyard.”
E. Dr. Paul should have been willing to make a Level 5 decision (Jim Collins, Good to Great) and replace any and all campaign leadership that were unqualified or unwilling to take the campaign to the next level. A sad truth must be stated here: If Dr. Paul is either unable or unwilling to replace campaign workers who cannot get the job done, where is the evidence that he could or would with say, cabinet members, as POTUS? I personally am not optimistic in this regard.
7. This is a given, but the campaign should have used some of the amazing, high quality ads that were place on You Tube rather than some of the incomprehensibly cheesy “professional ads” that were produced. Egads.
8. All RP supporters need to determine for themselves whether they are in for a Ron Paul revolution or an actual revolution. If this is all about a presidential election, then it requires a few months of commitment. If it is about a revolution that changes the way Americans view our government and our role in the world, then it will take much longer. Jamestown was colonized in 1607, the Mayflower arrived in 1621, the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, the Revolutionary War ended five years later and the US Constitution was signed in 1787. It took a long time to get us organized in the beginning, it will take a long time to reorganize now. Unless you are willing to commit 10 or more years of your life to effecting change, then all the talk of “revolution” amounts to little more than a slogan.
9. It is almost a given that the RNC is going to be brokered. RP does not have to win a state to have a voice, but he must win delegates. Having some of his positions put into the official RNC platform would be huge. The longer he is able to stay in the race, the better chance he has at winning delegates.
10. Longshot: Dr. Paul should have broken with tradition in November and asked Walter E. Williams to be his running mate.
Sorry to be so long and sorry if I come across as negative; it isn’t intended that way.
I write as a 44 year old pastor in GA who plans to vote for Ron Paul on Super Tuesday and as one who has observed the meteoric rise of the Ron Paul Revolution via the msm, blogs and forums. For what it’s worth to anyone, here are a few thoughts from a distance (please forgive if I’m repeated things already written here, I can’t read every single comment):
1. Ron Paul is running as a Republican so he is first running against George W. Bush. Don’t underestimate the power of the lack of coattails in a campaign. With a job approval rating of less that 40% Bush is helping no Republican candidate. One NH exit poll recorded 90% of Democrats who disapprove of GWB. Very few of them are defecting to RP; most are going for Obama and Clinton. Howard Dean calls the Republican candidates, “George W. Bush’s third term.” How will this be overcome?
2. Ron Paul does not speak in “sound bites,” so it is much harder for his message to immediately grab unfamiliar voters. If a person isn’t willing to spend some time doing research or cannot see the big picture, then they are less likely to vote for RP. Americans have been conditioned for slogans and catch phrases and Dr. Paul defies those traditions. “Hope for America” is too generic and, frankly, not believable to the person who is trying to choose between 11 different candidates.
For instance, when asked last night in SC about immigration, the home run answer would have been:
“First, I would secure the borders by bringing home border guards from Iraq and then 1, 2 and 3…
Next, I would take away the incentive that people have for coming here illegally: No free hospitals, no free education…It is wrong for a taxpayer in South Carolina to have to subsidize a person who entered illegally across the border in Texas, lives in Oklahoma and works in Nebraska and it’s wrong for Oklahomans to pick up the hospital tab.
Then, I would meet with the governors of the border states and help each of them develop workable plans to secure a secondary line of defense in their states, sharing all resources necessary to make it happen.
Last, I would work to streamline and improve the citizenship process by [whatever].
In short, I would work to make it clear and easy to become a citizen while making it unproductive to come here illegally.”
Every answer does not have to entail an explanation of Austrian economic theory; not that it isn’t relevant, but because it simply is not accessible to most voters watching a debate of this type.
3. 70% of Americans being against the war does not translated to 70% of Americans wanting to bring the troops home now so supporters should not count on getting all those voters. At this point many people feel a moral obligation to help clean up the mess we’ve helped make and simply leaving the new Iraqi government high and dry does not seem like the right thing to do. A general time frame and what troop withdrawals likely mean on the ground would be helpful. (IOW, there is not enough understanding as to why our presence in the Middle East is problematic and therefore not enough understanding as to reason why bringing the troops home immediately is a good idea. The fact that the other candidates are shown on screen laughing at this does not help obviously.)
The emphasis must be place on empire building with specifics, not generalities--700 bases in 130 countries, how much it costs annually to maintain them, how much could be reasonably saved over time. Specifics on how much we are paying Halliburton, etc. That kind of knowledge projects authority. Then those figures can be construed into the plan to balance the budget and erase the deficit.
4. Supporters should not tie in their personal agenda with a RP sign unless it is a specific part of Dr. Paul’s platform. In a recent shot from NH, the main sign in view had two parts: The bottom was an “RP for Pres” sign; the top was a 9/11 truther sign. That’s no good, since Dr. Paul does not hold that view. To promote ones own views is to promote self, not the candidate and to tie in a presidential candidate to any conspiracy theory takes him/her from the realm of viable. Sorry, but it does.
5. Why Dr. Paul is not getting the votes supporters think he should be getting can be partially explained by this from a personal experience. For two years, I ran an influential blog on ministry and b’cracy in the Southern Baptist Convention. I spent hours a week reading, evaluating, getting interviews and comments, moderating the comment section and trying to influence the conversation in the SBC. After months and months of this I was continually astounded to find that there were many, many pastors who knew nothing of the issues being raised in the blogosphere. Because I was immersed in the online community, it did not dawn on me how little the average person was aware.
I think the same thing is happening with Dr. Paul’s campaign. The online presence is so strong that it just seems as if it is more massive than it is. Example: I live in a growing town in an Atlanta suburb. I’ve seen exactly ONE Ron Paul sign in my town and it is in my yard. There are none on the streets, none in yards, and precious few bumper stickers. There has been no mailing. There are two or three billboards several miles away on main interstates, but those were all paid for by the grassroots efforts. The most common response that we get here when asking, “Are you going to vote for Ron Paul?” is “Who?” The internet presence is not translating into votes because it is not translating off of the web.
6. There is a business and organizational saying which, paraphrased, goes something like this, “Every organization or department within will rise to the level of the incompetence of its leader(s).” Simply stated this means that any organization that depends on leadership cannot go beyond where the leadership is qualified to take it. Unfortunately, the national campaign has reached its level of incompetence. My suspicion is that no one had the wildest idea that Dr. Paul would strike such a chord and that the grassroots effort would take on a life of its own. What is obvious is that the size of the grassroots and money on hand are more than they bargained for and more than they can handle.
There is too little official organization in the states. The state of GA coordinator has only been on the “job” for a matter of weeks and there has been no time to build a structure. As has been documented on multiple forum posts, communication problems abound between the campaign and the grassroots and this is solely the responsibility and failure of the campaign.
Here’s a scenario that would have been a heckuva lot better:
A. The campaign should have assumed that the old newsletters were going to surface and spent whatever was necessary to hire an articulate, very well educated African American lady to be the campaign spokesperson from the very beginning, or at least after Nov 5th. She should have been the face of the campaign second only to Dr. Paul himself.
When the newsletters surfaced, she should have responded with, “Well, since I’ve been hired by the campaign, any charges of racism ring rather hollow. There has been nothing in any interaction with Dr. Paul that would give me pause. Nothing from the leadership within the campaign that would give me pause. Nothing in the platform that would give me pause. So, when Dr. Paul says he did not write them, I have absolutely no reason not to believe him. Next question.”
Bald white guys do not make good campaign spokesmen; Kent Snyder should never be in front of the camera again. No offense intended, but his is not a telegenic presence.
B. After the November 5 money bomb, a staffer should have spent two-three weeks traveling to every Super Tuesday state to meet with Meet Up leaders. A state coordinator and/or steering team should have been set in place. Clear boundaries and guidelines and boundaries should have been established in those meetings.
C. From November 5-December 16, budgets should have been worked out for each state with the authority given to the state campaign to spend as much as necessary to raise voter awareness in each state. After December 16, when the campaign had more than $20M on hand, money should have been deposited in each state campaign bank account and the states should have been off and running. Each state should know better what will work best for its own people so plenty of leeway should have been given. IOW, very few directives from HQ and lots of freedom on the ground. Instead, the campaign is being run like the federal government--too much b’cracy and too little flexibility
$20M could have placed $250,000 in each state account and left $15M with HQ to do mass media advertising. Can you imagine the creative things that could have been done had the state organizations had that kind of cash to work with?
D. Regular feedback should have been requested, secured and acted upon. Suggestions from forums that were accepted and implemented should have been promoted on the forums to prove that making suggestions is a worthwhile endeavor, rather than leaving people to wonder if the suggestion box is a “springboard or a graveyard.”
E. Dr. Paul should have been willing to make a Level 5 decision (Jim Collins, Good to Great) and replace any and all campaign leadership that were unqualified or unwilling to take the campaign to the next level. A sad truth must be stated here: If Dr. Paul is either unable or unwilling to replace campaign workers who cannot get the job done, where is the evidence that he could or would with say, cabinet members, as POTUS? I personally am not optimistic in this regard.
7. This is a given, but the campaign should have used some of the amazing, high quality ads that were place on You Tube rather than some of the incomprehensibly cheesy “professional ads” that were produced. Egads.
8. All RP supporters need to determine for themselves whether they are in for a Ron Paul revolution or an actual revolution. If this is all about a presidential election, then it requires a few months of commitment. If it is about a revolution that changes the way Americans view our government and our role in the world, then it will take much longer. Jamestown was colonized in 1607, the Mayflower arrived in 1621, the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, the Revolutionary War ended five years later and the US Constitution was signed in 1787. It took a long time to get us organized in the beginning, it will take a long time to reorganize now. Unless you are willing to commit 10 or more years of your life to effecting change, then all the talk of “revolution” amounts to little more than a slogan.
9. It is almost a given that the RNC is going to be brokered. RP does not have to win a state to have a voice, but he must win delegates. Having some of his positions put into the official RNC platform would be huge. The longer he is able to stay in the race, the better chance he has at winning delegates.
10. Longshot: Dr. Paul should have broken with tradition in November and asked Walter E. Williams to be his running mate.
Sorry to be so long and sorry if I come across as negative; it isn’t intended that way.