A blimp is a BAD IDEA - here is why

[mosquitobite]

Thankfully, Rand is reaching out to minorities and democrats with his moves.

I'm sure "they" are telling him it will cost him the primary.

So how do we create the news we need? When? The good thing about facebook is that we can all share stories and stroke things to go viral. So how do we harness that in 2015 in a way that people can't ignore - even if it wasn't on CNN or FAUX?

[Deborah K]

The fire, intensity and authenticity of the 2008 campaign were so real and invigorating. I've never felt more alive than in the period of about May 2007 to January 2008 or so.

It still chokes me up looking back on all we accomplished. Look at them! United, not by professional campaign staffers and feelgood cookie cutter platitudes, but by our common love of liberty, each group expressing it in its own unique way, tailored to the local community. It was the ultimate "f**k you!" to the establishment.

I respect what Collins is trying to do--that fire and intensity are enormous weapons at Ron/Rand's disposal, but he and his ilk need to realize that by their very nature any attempt to harness, channel or control these weapons will backfire and ultimately serve to extinguish that very fire. Rand 2016 is going to have to come to grips with this if it is to succeed.

'08 was special. We'll never get it back. RevMarch is still my favorite project.



This was all grassroots, Matt. You now just seem like someone who wants to kill grassroots enthusiasm. Good luck making a REAL difference without us.

[jmdrake]

I agree with you about 2008 and disagree with jmdrake that 2012 had the same fire. I was just as involved then (have pictures of me dressed as Lady Liberty in Ron Paul gear) but the intensity and the connectedness just wasn't there. By now, "they" had tailored the message so that it was Republicans only. In 2008, many of the people in the meet-up had been liberal, apathetic, anarchist, libertarian, and republican. That's what made it so unique and appealing, imo. It was the idea that PRINCIPLED leadership could unite us that made it such a fire to the grassroots.

Then came along the marketers and in 2012 made him "Republican". I do think we could have won Iowa & NH, and might actually have.

Our enemy is still the media. If we can't figure out a way to breach that for 2016, TPTB will never let it happen. Think if we had an unbiased media that reported on the 11/5 and 12/16 moneybombs. Think about had they made it headline news that some outside candidate has TONS of support and people should check him out. Alas, we know that's not how the story was written.

What's different now? In '07/'08 we had meet up. By 2012 Facebook was the major connector, but FB seems to encourage couch activism versus really getting together and uniting a movement.

What we need to be discussing NOW and getting going is our alternatives. Thinking outside the box, how do we recreate the passion of '07/'08 - "grassroots liaisons" aside...

Okay. I didn't say, and certainly didn't mean to imply, that 2012 had the same fire as 2008. It clearly didn't. What I said was that 2012 was different than 2008 and it was. In 2008 we were fighting a real battle for simple name recognition. In 2012 that battle had already been won. So the homemade "sign bombs" and "sign waves" weren't that important. People didn't simply need to know who Ron Paul was. They didn't to know what he stood for in total and how that could better their lives. And I agree that focusing only on "likely republican voters" was a mistake when you had a candidate that had cross party appeal and limited "likely republican voter" appeal. Really it was taking a dual threat quarterback like a Michael Vick or a Colin Kaepernick and forcing him to play "in the pocket" offense because that's how Payton Manning does it. In fact that's probably why Vince Young and Jeff Fisher effectively destroyed each other's careers.

The problem in 2012, as I see it, was the failure to somehow translate the wild energy that was used in 2008 to gain name recognition into something that was useful in 2012 when name recognition was no longer needed. That failure needs to be fixed before 2016.

[acptulsa]

The problem in 2012, as I see it, was the failure to somehow translate the wild energy that was used in 2008 to gain name recognition into something that was useful in 2012 when name recognition was no longer needed. That failure needs to be fixed before 2016.

I think we should give ourselves some credit.

The battle in 2008 was to introduce He Who Must Not Be Named to the public and convince them he was not merely mythical like Bigfoot. The battle in 2012 was to convince the world that just because the media said he was a kooky unelectable quixotic isolationist fruitcake don't make it so.

Those were two separate and equally important battles, which have led us here. Now the important question is, what next? Do they have any strategies left?

[Deborah K]

I think we should give ourselves some credit.

The battle in 2008 was to introduce He Who Must Not Be Named to the public and convince them he was not merely mythical like Bigfoot. The battle in 2012 was to convince the world that just because the media said he was a kooky unelectable quixotic isolationist fruitcake don't make it so.

Those were two separate and equally important battles, which have led us here. Now the important question is, what next? Do they have any strategies left?

Now is when the grassroots and our organic movement is the most crucial. No other candidate will have a movement behind him/her that organizes its own events on the candidate's behalf, simply because of its dedication to the candidate's principles and philosophy. We did that before and it put Dr. Paul where he is, which laid the groundwork for Rand. Rand has the attention and the respect of the media in a way that Ron could never achieve. The media will not be able to dismiss a groundswell of enthusiasm that is organic, the way they did with Ron. This is what will distinguish Rand from all other candidates.

Edit: And the thought of this probably scares the piss out of people like Matt.

[jmdrake]

Well, the only issue I have with that, is the target audience.

"Mainstream" GOPers hate and do not want freedom any more than Marxist democrats do.

We're trying to sell freedom candidates to people who emphatically and repeatedly made it clear they "do not want".

So I still say that the unconventional means of getting new blood into the system, people who DO want freedom, is the only way this is ever going to work politically.

Which is, needless to say, next to impossible, even if you win, you lose (Ronald Reagan anybody?).

So I hold almost zero hope that anything will ever be accomplished politically.

The system has "the system" pretty well locked down.

You're preaching to the choir. One of the arguments Matt and I had often during the 2012 cycle was over my insistence that we needed more than "likely Republican voters" to win. And I put my money where my mouth was by reaching out to Democrats with the simple message that "Obama is running unopposed. You might as well vote for the antiwar republican in the primary." I had moderate success winning over at least 8 voters. Granted they were all family members but they were voters Ron wouldn't have had otherwise. In 2016 the Democratic primary will be contested so I'm not sure what strategy to use.

[jmdrake]

I think we should give ourselves some credit.

The battle in 2008 was to introduce He Who Must Not Be Named to the public and convince them he was not merely mythical like Bigfoot. The battle in 2012 was to convince the world that just because the media said he was a kooky unelectable quixotic isolationist fruitcake don't make it so.

Those were two separate and equally important battles, which have led us here. Now the important question is, what next? Do they have any strategies left?

I agree with our analysis of 2008. And I agree with your understanding of the problem in 2012. But I don't think we were able to solve it. As for new strategies, I think we already see that in what Rand's dong. It's called "repackaging the message" and be all over all sides of an issue if you need to for electoral viability. It's like Rand saying to Bill Maher "The science is settled that there is more carbon in the air than in recorded history." When Rand said that he neither endorsed nor rejecting AGW.

[Deborah K]

In 2016 the Democratic primary will be contested so I'm not sure what strategy to use.

The grassroots needs to organize big events that will attract media attention and show the voting public that Rand has a diverse base of supporters. Nothing will prove the diversity more than the speakers who are invited to the event. Of course, it won't work if there are people like Benton/Collins who insist on controlling the grassroots message because of their fears of a fringe influence - cuz there's nothing like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[cajuncocoa]

Okay. I didn't say, and certainly didn't mean to imply, that 2012 had the same fire as 2008. It clearly didn't. What I said was that 2012 was different than 2008 and it was. In 2008 we were fighting a real battle for simple name recognition. In 2012 that battle had already been won. So the homemade "sign bombs" and "sign waves" weren't that important. People didn't simply need to know who Ron Paul was. They didn't to know what he stood for in total and how that could better their lives. And I agree that focusing only on "likely republican voters" was a mistake when you had a candidate that had cross party appeal and limited "likely republican voter" appeal. Really it was taking a dual threat quarterback like a Michael Vick or a Colin Kaepernick and forcing him to play "in the pocket" offense because that's how Payton Manning does it. In fact that's probably why Vince Young and Jeff Fisher effectively destroyed each other's careers.

The problem in 2012, as I see it, was the failure to somehow translate the wild energy that was used in 2008 to gain name recognition into something that was useful in 2012 when name recognition was no longer needed. That failure needs to be fixed before 2016.

I think 2012 was about one thing and only one thing. To keep the momentum alive for Rand 2016. When you say it's like taking a QB like Michael Vick and forcing him to play in the pocket because that's how Peyton Manning does it...when I hear things like that, it always makes me realize what was really going on. They were making sure Ron played it safe....don't rock the boat so those of us in RonPaul, Inc. can have our cushy D.C. jobs in 2016. Keep those moneybombs going, even though we know Ron has no chance (heck, we're making sure he has no chance!) because we'll need it for legal fees....lots of legal fees.

[cajuncocoa]

The grassroots needs to organize big events that will attract media attention and show the voting public that Rand has a diverse base of supporters. Nothing will prove the diversity more than the speakers who are invited to the event. Of course, it won't work if there are people like Benton/Collins who insist on controlling the grassroots message because of their fears of a fringe influence - cuz there's nothing like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

They don't want us to do this, Deb. They want us as far away from Rand as it's possible to be. It's like spitting in the face of those who brought you to the dance though.

[Deborah K]

They don't want us to do this, Deb. They want us as far away from Rand as it's possible to be. It's like spitting in the face of those who brought you to the dance though.

Who is "they"?

Do you accept that? Cuz I don't. Rand was elected because of us, the grassroots supporters of Ron. No one knew who he was, he came out of nowhere. I doubt he can win even the nomination without us, unless he sells his soul to the establishment. Many in the grassroots believe he already has. He hasn't proven that to me - yet.

[Occam's Banana]

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull$#@!." - W.C. Fields

No, it means you shape your message so that the audience doesn't boo you.

to-may-to: "shape the message so that the audience doesn't boo you"
to-mah-to: "kiss the asses of people who despise what you really think"

[cajuncocoa]

Who is "they"?

Do you accept that? Cuz I don't. Rand was elected because of us, the grassroots supporters of Ron. No one knew who he was, he came out of nowhere. I doubt he can win even the nomination without us, unless he sells his soul to the establishment. Many in the grassroots believe he already has. He hasn't proven that to me - yet.

By "they" I meant Matt, Benson, et al.

No, I don't accept that. It was sarcasm.

I think it would be wise to show Rand what a force we are. Because -- yes -- without us, he wouldn't be running for POTUS right now. He wouldn't even have been elected to the Senate. He needs to remember how he got where he is.

I'm with ya on this.

[Deborah K]

By "they" I meant Matt, Benson, et al.

No, I don't accept that. It was sarcasm.

I think it would be wise to show Rand what a force we are. Because -- yes -- without us, he wouldn't be running for POTUS right now. He wouldn't even have been elected to the Senate. He needs to remember how he got where he is.

I'm with ya on this.

The likes of Benton/Collins involvement in the campaign is my litmus test. If they are involved, it will be clear enough to me that the grassroots is not considered a friend, and is not needed. Already been there - done that. Not going there ever again.

[Anti Federalist]

Bunch of kooks.

Probably flew a blimp too.

Nutters.

'08 was special. We'll never get it back. RevMarch is still my favorite project.



This was all grassroots, Matt. You now just seem like someone who wants to kill grassroots enthusiasm. Good luck making a REAL difference without us.

[jjdoyle]

Bunch of kooks.

Probably flew a blimp too.

Nutters.

Exactly this. Non professionals, not leeching off the system to earn their paychecks. These amateurs cost Ron Paul the 2008 and 2012 presidential election. If they had instead spent their time watching videos on how to win elections and make a dime doing so, Ron Paul would have waltzed into the White House without even needing an official campaign. (I have learned from my past volunteered efforts though, and have tried to Photoshop myself out of all photos from the 2008 and 2012 election cycles, and reported every single video on YouTube I may have appeared in and the ones I made, so that I can have a clean slate with Rand in 2016!).

[jllundqu]

In my estimation, it will be very difficult to muster the sort of groundswell of activist support that Ron had in 08'/12'. Rand does not "cure my apathy" as it were. He is not a lightning rod of liberty and does not truly inspire the masses. He has great policy positions and he plays the game well. He is moving the needle in liberty's direction, but he is not, nor will he ever be, a Ron Paul circa 2008. Ron Paul was the champion of the constitution and a statesman. Rand Paul is a Republican and a politician. He may win the nomination and, yes, he may well win the presidency. I will work tirelessly to achieve those ends... but I don't see myself driving thousands of miles or enduring freezing snows or donating thousands of dollars or having sign bombs/money bomb parties any time soon. Call me cynical but that's just the way it is.

Hillary Clinton told Ron Paul during a hearing once that she was amazed at the dedication of his supporters and that even in the freezing snow, people were out screaming and holding signs for him. I don't see anyone telling that to Rand Paul in the future.

[Deborah K]

This was us:



At 36:00 you get the Blimp.

[Deborah K]

In my estimation, it will be very difficult to muster the sort of groundswell of activist support that Ron had in 08'/12'. Rand does not "cure my apathy" as it were. He is not a lightning rod of liberty and does not truly inspire the masses. He has great policy positions and he plays the game well. He is moving the needle in liberty's direction, but he is not, nor will he ever be, a Ron Paul circa 2008. Ron Paul was the champion of the constitution and a statesman. Rand Paul is a Republican and a politician. He may win the nomination and, yes, he may well win the presidency. I will work tirelessly to achieve those ends... but I don't see myself driving thousands of miles or enduring freezing snows or donating thousands of dollars or having sign bombs/money bomb parties any time soon. Call me cynical but that's just the way it is.

Hillary Clinton told Ron Paul during a hearing once that she was amazed at the dedication of his supporters and that even in the freezing snow, people were out screaming and holding signs for him. I don't see anyone telling that to Rand Paul in the future.

This lack of feeling of yours could change. It will never be like it was, though, we made history back then. We can make history again. Rand has gained ground doing it the way he is doing it, probably by learning from his Father's mistakes. He may not be the Statesman that his Father is, but he is his Father's son, lest we forget that.

[Anti Federalist]

In my estimation, it will be very difficult to muster the sort of groundswell of activist support that Ron had in 08'/12'. Rand does not "cure my apathy" as it were. He is not a lightning rod of liberty and does not truly inspire the masses. He has great policy positions and he plays the game well. He is moving the needle in liberty's direction, but he is not, nor will he ever be, a Ron Paul circa 2008. Ron Paul was the champion of the constitution and a statesman. Rand Paul is a Republican and a politician. He may win the nomination and, yes, he may well win the presidency. I will work tirelessly to achieve those ends... but I don't see myself driving thousands of miles or enduring freezing snows or donating thousands of dollars or having sign bombs/money bomb parties any time soon. Call me cynical but that's just the way it is.

Hillary Clinton told Ron Paul during a hearing once that she was amazed at the dedication of his supporters and that even in the freezing snow, people were out screaming and holding signs for him. I don't see anyone telling that to Rand Paul in the future.

This is an honest assessment.

[cajuncocoa]

In my estimation, it will be very difficult to muster the sort of groundswell of activist support that Ron had in 08'/12'. Rand does not "cure my apathy" as it were. He is not a lightning rod of liberty and does not truly inspire the masses. He has great policy positions and he plays the game well. He is moving the needle in liberty's direction, but he is not, nor will he ever be, a Ron Paul circa 2008. Ron Paul was the champion of the constitution and a statesman. Rand Paul is a Republican and a politician. He may win the nomination and, yes, he may well win the presidency. I will work tirelessly to achieve those ends... but I don't see myself driving thousands of miles or enduring freezing snows or donating thousands of dollars or having sign bombs/money bomb parties any time soon. Call me cynical but that's just the way it is.

Hillary Clinton told Ron Paul during a hearing once that she was amazed at the dedication of his supporters and that even in the freezing snow, people were out screaming and holding signs for him. I don't see anyone telling that to Rand Paul in the future.

I agree with this, and it's precisely for the reason that Matt dismisses Ron as "unelectable". Ron didn't care what the establishment, caviar-n-champagne country club Republicans thought of him....he didn't care what the hypocritical holier-than-thou evangelicals who hold up pro-life signs while salivating to send another 10,000 troops somewhere to kill Mooslim babies thought of him. He didn't alter his words for their comfort. Ron spoke TRUTH to power and didn't care what people thought about it. If you liked him, you'd vote for him.....but he wouldn't "tailor his message so the audience wouldn't boo him" just because. Oh, no. He wouldn't have earned my undying respect had he been that kind of man.

[jjdoyle]

This is an honest assessment.

Nu uh, because Rand's campaign and PACs will simply pay some people to stand in the streets in the snow and bus them from city to city, like very single other Republican candidate has done running professional campaigns. Romney did it for sure in 2008 and 2012.

Think about how many staffers they will pay to wave signs that are 100% campaign approved, and how awesome that will be! I mean, we can promote moneybombs to pay for sign waves outside of debates! "Sign BOMB MONEYBOMB! $10 Million NEEDED for 1,000 WAVERS!"
Instead of raising $40 million for nothing, we should go for $80 million and just make sure to bill the campaign for the "expenses" of time, travel, food, etc., for "volunteering" to do these things.

We can demonstrate how awesome central planning really is and how Rand will do it well as President, by donating money to a campaign to pay staffers, who in return will then hire/pay people to wave signs at rallies and debates. Not only will this help show effective central planning, it will also help reduce the unemployment numbers!

[jllundqu]

There is a difference between speaking truth to power and 'just trying to get elected'

[Deborah K]

There is a difference between speaking truth to power and 'just trying to get elected'

Is that what you think Rand is doing? Or is that what you think his campaign staff will do?

[Natural Citizen]

There is a difference between speaking truth to power and 'just trying to get elected'

Yep. This is true. An excellent assessment. Reminds me of the time when the statesman said that it wasn't like he was just trying to win and get elected. The man said he wanted to change the course of history. Seems like we've flip-flopped since then and now we're all about getting elected and keeping it the same as it ever was as long as we get something out of it.

Here...you can hear him say it if'n you don't believe me, jman. Have to wait until the end, though.




There can and will be no revolution until a renaissance is able to run it's course. And therein lies the problem if I were to read what you've mentioned here again. It's as if we're being trained to forget what a renaissance was all about. No?

Hey, here's a great song that explains the phenomen well. It's called Revolution. And it's a brilliant piece of writing.

[devil21]

Nu uh, because Rand's campaign and PACs will simply pay some people to stand in the streets in the snow and bus them from city to city, like very single other Republican candidate has done running professional campaigns. Romney did it for sure in 2008 and 2012.

Think about how many staffers they will pay to wave signs that are 100% campaign approved, and how awesome that will be! I mean, we can promote moneybombs to pay for sign waves outside of debates! "Sign BOMB MONEYBOMB! $10 Million NEEDED for 1,000 WAVERS!"
Instead of raising $40 million for nothing, we should go for $80 million and just make sure to bill the campaign for the "expenses" of time, travel, food, etc., for "volunteering" to do these things.

We can demonstrate how awesome central planning really is and how Rand will do it well as President, by donating money to a campaign to pay staffers, who in return will then hire/pay people to wave signs at rallies and debates. Not only will this help show effective central planning, it will also help reduce the unemployment numbers!

Just don't forget to make your checks payable to "Saber Communications". They'll make certain it is spent wisely.....

[Deborah K]

[/COLOR]

Nice!

Here are a couple of my favorite songs from the '08 era: CRANK IT!!

[Anti Federalist]

This one still boils my blood and brings tears to my eyes.

[amy31416]

In my estimation, it will be very difficult to muster the sort of groundswell of activist support that Ron had in 08'/12'. Rand does not "cure my apathy" as it were. He is not a lightning rod of liberty and does not truly inspire the masses. He has great policy positions and he plays the game well. He is moving the needle in liberty's direction, but he is not, nor will he ever be, a Ron Paul circa 2008. Ron Paul was the champion of the constitution and a statesman. Rand Paul is a Republican and a politician. He may win the nomination and, yes, he may well win the presidency. I will work tirelessly to achieve those ends... but I don't see myself driving thousands of miles or enduring freezing snows or donating thousands of dollars or having sign bombs/money bomb parties any time soon. Call me cynical but that's just the way it is.

Hillary Clinton told Ron Paul during a hearing once that she was amazed at the dedication of his supporters and that even in the freezing snow, people were out screaming and holding signs for him. I don't see anyone telling that to Rand Paul in the future.

I'm hoping that with Rand, it's a slow, steady build. Ron pounced, Rand is stealth. Just my opinion.

[amy31416]

If this thing with Rand doesn't work out (elected or unelected), we all (with some exceptions) have the responsibility and knowledge to be the leaders--I think many of us are already doing that via local office. We have to be creative because "our" media attempts aren't really working well.

I have a lot more to say about this particular topic, but I'll have to sleep on it until after Thanksgiving and the aftermath of exhaustion.