I'm really, really bad at pop culture analogies, but would this be Monday morning quarterbacking?
The campaign is over, Dr. Paul lost (despite all of our best efforts--and for a wide variety of reasons).
Now
IS the time for examining what we did right--and what didn't go well. Some (including two moderators here) still cling to the "dissent is unpatriotic" view and have been personally attacking and banning those who don't put blind faith in select human beings (we all have faults, we all fail at times).
That attitude is destroying the forum (and, me thinks, why Josh suggested one not let the door hit her on the way out)--and the movement. When a moderator puts in her signature personal attacks against another forum member, you know they're not here for the forum or the movement. Dr. Paul himself never makes personal attacks.
You're a "divider" if you don't agree that it's a delusional claim that there simultaneously
had to be a brokered convention
and that Dr. Paul had support from a majority of the delegates (the definition of a brokered convention is that no one candidate has majority support).
More broadly, if our movement is to succeed (and what we got from this official campaign was failure, plain and simple), we need to ask hard questions and make honest and open analyzes.
Doing the same thing and expecting different results is insanity. If anything, learning to copy what the official Ron Paul presidential campaign--emphatically not the successful congressional ones--is a recipe for more of what we got. We deserve better.
Connect With Us