90 votes

The Problems Oklahoma Dealt with from the Ron Paul Campaign State Coordinator

Oklahoma has been through a lot this election year. We had problems at our state convention, as many people know. But, it wasn’t just the “establishment” Republicans who we had problems with.

We also had problems with the Ron Paul National Campaign. We haven’t come out and said much about this, but I feel there is no reason to keep this under the radar anymore. This hasn’t been exactly a secret, but some of the details have not been out for all to see. We didn’t want this to cause the Campaign or us any problems back when this was all going down, but right now, I feel it would be beneficial to come out and say some more. I don’t want anyone to think the Ron Paul movement has some kind of tie or support to the person who caused us so much grief.

Back in January of this year, Al Gerhart (with the Sooner Tea Party), was appointed as the Oklahoma State Coordinator for the Ron Paul 2012 Campaign. This was a volunteer position. The end of January, I signed up as a volunteer for the campaign to be the Cherokee County Ron Paul 2012 Campaign Coordinator.

Because I was new to being very politically active, I met Al for the first time at the Ron Paul rally in Oklahoma City the end of February. What I encountered when I met Al was unique. But, it was just the beginning.

Being so new to being really active in the Party, I did not know the Ron Paul grassroots leadership who had been around since 2008, like Brady Wright, Lukus Collins, etc. I was slowly introduced to them via someone in my county, Shannon Grimes (who was also grassroots and had been around since 2008). But, this was a slow process over a month or two. When I signed up to be a county coordinator, I was told to not have contact with the grassroots supporters of Ron Paul. This made things rather difficult. I was torn between trying to coordinate both groups, yet not have contact with the one side.

We had great success in Cherokee County, Oklahoma. But, it had nothing to do with the campaign. I sent emails out to the identified RP supporters in our county and we had a great turn out at our County Convention. That night we came away with just over 50% of the delegates from my County. And it was all by God’s hand.

Anyways, what I attempted to do at first was have another friend be the contact point for the grassroots. But, this quickly showed it was not going to work. I tried to have this work as we were leading up to our District Convention. But, this is when I started to realize things were really fishy with the state coordinator that we had.

A few days before Oklahoma’s Congressional District 2 Convention, Al Gerhart sent an email out with instructions for everyone as to how to vote. The quote that got me was this,

“No doubt there are some grassroots candidates running for the same National Delegate slots but on Saturday you have a choice. Do you support Dr. Paul or do you support unofficial candidates that are unknown to the Ron Paul National Campaign.”

When he put the grassroots supporters up against Ron Paul, as if not voting for these “pre-approved delegates” was voting AGAINST Ron Paul, that was one of the first times I said, “I’m not doing what he says.” We were all in this for the same reason – to WIN delegates for Dr. Paul.

The supposed “vetting” process the delegates went through from the national campaign was simply Al Gerhart’s opinion of who he liked and who he didn’t like. I would later find out that this was not done by a committee of people (as the grassroots did leading up to the state convention to choose our delegate slate).

This email (which was very long), caused some people to not attend the District 2 Convention. People did not want to be directed by Al Gerhart or told they were doing wrong by not following his orders. This cost us delegates. The Convention in District 2 was run fairly and we lost the delegate vote by JUST TWO VOTES. Mr. Gerhart cost us a potential win in District 2. It should be noted that 3 of the 5 District Conventions in Oklahoma had a complete sweep for Ron Paul. They were all run fairly and they were all organized and coordinated by the grassroots. The one other district which we did not win was not run fairly and had a challenge at the state convention.

After the District 2 Convention, I decided to get more involved with the grassroots and forget about the fact that I was not supposed to have any tie with them as an “official volunteer campaign coordinator.” This was the best decision I made!

What I ended up doing, even though I had signed a non-disclosure agreement to be a county coordinator, was forward emails that were sent to the county coordinators to a select few of our grassroots leaders. I was watching emails come in to the county coordinators that laid out detailed plans of how to thwart and disrupt the planning and coordination of the grassroots. No, I am not kidding when I say this. I have a massive amount of emails to prove this.

I would receive emails that would tell the time, date & location of where a grassroots strategy meeting would be taking place. And Mr. Gerhart would specifically tell the county coordinators to go there, see what they are saying and try to change their plan. He would tell the county coordinators to try to tell the grassroots to work with the National campaign. Ha! What he didn’t realize is that WE (as in the grassroots) were more than willing to work with the campaign (and tried to more than once), but Mr. Gerhart was the one opposed to that. I know this sounds outrageous, and it is, but it’s what Oklahoma went through with the national campaign.

We could not take this any longer, so we sent an official request to the national campaign signed by 27 grassroots leaders in the Ron Paul/liberty movement in Oklahoma (I was one of the signatures) asking for the immediate termination of Mr. Gerhart. There were many more who would’ve signed this, but due to time constraints we had to send it with “just” 27 signatures. This was sent the beginning of April.

We made it very clear in this letter that there was nothing that Al was doing that we wanted to be a part of. We told them we didn’t have time for his distractions and wanted him gone right away. We gave examples of the problems he caused us, as well as the problems he caused the liberty movement in Oklahoma by acting inappropriately towards GOP Party leadership. This was not a light issue. We made our case very strongly and clearly. We requested a response from the Campaign within a few days.

Mr. Gerhart came back saying that the National Campaign had dismissed what we had brought forward and that he was in the clear. But, interestingly enough, he stepped down from the Campaign position just about a week or two after the letter was sent with not much of an explanation.

We were very glad to see this, because we did not want him around or trying to coordinate anything as we worked up to Oklahoma’s State Convention.

Of course, having the county coordinator position I had, I received a couple emails from Al regarding my signature on the letter. He wanted explanation before he “fired” me from the position. By that point in the game, I was well “entrenched” with the grassroots coordination and felt a response to Al would only hurt us more. So, I did not respond and ultimately things got quiet because he quickly “resigned.”

At the state committee meeting before Oklahoma’s state convention, he did more to put a bad light on Ron Paul supporters by making a big (unnecessary) scene there. There is question among the Ron Paul supporters in Oklahoma if Mr. Gerhart was even a Ron Paul supporter because of his ridiculous actions and statements. When I witnessed this at the state committee meeting, I was even more thankful that we had requested his removal, because I did not want him thinking he had some kind of role in our coordination and work at the state convention level.

Regardless, Mr. Gerhart did a lot of damage to us in Oklahoma, because many people in the “establishment” thought he represented us. He was the farthest thing from representing the liberty movement and Ron Paul supporters in Oklahoma.

I want this message to be sent to the OK GOP: The Ron Paul supporters in Oklahoma do not condone or support anything Al Gerhart does or stands for.

I also feel that Mr. Gerhart caused us a lot of hurt with regards to the National Campaign’s view of Oklahoma. It felt like we were the “red headed step child” after the state convention. We had so many issues at our state convention, yet the Campaign continually refused to help. Yes, we did reach out to them on more than one occasion (and by more than one of us) and never heard a response. Even when we were dealing with our contest to the RNC.

When I confronted John Tate about the Campaign’s lack of support for Oklahoma, it was obvious Mr. Gerhart had hurt us. John Tate acted as if Oklahoma wanted nothing to do with the campaign. If he talked to Mr. Gerhart, that is what you might get because he twisted so much.

But, if you would have talked to the grassroots, we would have accepted the Campaign’s help (and working with the grassroots) with open arms. We had leaders who would’ve stepped up to the plate – and were ready to long before Mr. Gerhart took the position.

Oklahoma continued to be shunned by the Campaign all through Tampa, but I don’t feel the need to go into all of that right now. I’ll just say it felt like being stabbed in the back – and I told John Tate that when I talked to him at 1:30am at the Marriot the week before the Convention.

Overall we learned a lot through this experience. And I hope the same mistakes won’t be repeated again. It wasn’t easy. But, what has been easy for Oklahoma this election cycle?

-Qadoshyah Fish

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

more bootlicking

from the bootlicker. been practicing your goosestep?

+1, but not out of support

I want to make sure your response does not get collapsed due to negative votes, not because I agree with you or disagree with the Op, but because, personally, I find this to be a necessary and productive debate.

There are legitimate and illegitimate beefs on boths sides, from my read of it.

If you are telling the truth about Q, I would have removed them from the national delegate RP slate as well. I just hope you are telling the full truth.

That said, you do sound a little green for a state coordinator. That's not necessarily a dig, but sometimes with experience comes more finesse. Sometimes not.

Either way this debate should be OPEN AND SEEN AND LEARNED FROM by ALL sides.

Hence, I want to keep your reply viewable by others. So, +1. Full disclosure, I also +1ed the Op.

in reading both posts

it strikes me that gerhardt is a loon that has a problem with reality. the tone seems narcisistic, his version of the facts don't seem logical, and he comes off as a "go-along-to-get-along" powermonger instead of someone truely interested in restoring the principle of our constitution.

leadership involves motivating people for a common cause. his cause seems to be him.

Q seems much more in touch with reality. her motives seem more in line with that of an honest person.

i've been wrong before, and i'll be wrong again, but that is the impression i get.

In response to Mr. Gerhart, but only writing this for others....

In reading through Mr. Gerhart’s response in full, I feel that there is no need for me to counter much of what he says, even though it is absolutely full of inaccurate information, because his whole post is written with an attempt to make Al Gerhart look good. Everyone who looks at the history we have in Oklahoma with Al Gerhart – there are numerous posts on the McCarville Report regarding him – will find that he has caused more harm than good to the Liberty Movement. In fact, we were told that we had to “sacrifice our liberties to get liberty” by Mr. Gerhart on more than one occasion. That, right there, doesn’t line up with Ron Paul.

This is what I feel is necessary to say: The reason I wrote this piece regarding what Oklahoma went through with the campaign is because I want the truth to be known. I stand for the truth and for the right things to be done. This is not because we – in the Ron Paul movement in Oklahoma – want to control anything. Nor is it because I am trying to get something out of this. Nor is it because we have a vendetta against the Ron Paul campaign.

It would’ve been a lot easier if I said nothing, because this has gone much bigger than I expected. But, I am glad for that, because I feel that there were some major mistakes done in Oklahoma and we all need to learn from those mistakes. If we repeat these mistakes that went on in Oklahoma, then we will continue to lose in the liberty movement and this will not get us anywhere.

-Qadoshyah Fish
Oklahoma Parking Lot Patriot

However, Q....

Again, only knowing this issue from what people have posted on this thread, but having read it all, I do see a couple of legitimate points raised which I will state here for the benefit of open debate which I see as constructive criticism for you.

1) Leadership. Leaders don't look to others to solve their problems. They don't look to national and they don't look to "grassroots". Leaders are problem solvers. You did some of that. But you succumbed to looking to groups for solutions. You should have been able to bridge the gap and craft a pathway that met the goals you needed to meet while bridging schisms, to the maximum extent possible.

2) "Us vs them." Someone gave feedback, which I think is correct, that there is no such thing as "grassroots". This collectivzation I see coming from "grassroots" collectivizing THEMSELVES is extremely hypocritical within our movement - and counter productive. This feedback provided here was CORRECT - that there are INDIVIDUALS who VOLUNTEER for a CAMPAIGN. And there is a CAMPAIGN. Going back to #1 above, you should have known this and behaved accordingly. Based on both your and Al's write ups, I can already tell that you didn't. You succumbed to the emotion of factionalism, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER AL WAS RIGHT OR WRONG, it does not demonstrate leadership.

Unfortunately, that positive feedback was couched in negative, arrogant and callous additional feedback where the person went on to say something like "you just do whatever the campaign says". While I LARGELY agree with that, I do NOT completely agree with it and, again here, it was said in a collectivist, callous and arrogant manner which, of course, p*sses off supporters.

But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are legitimate and illegitimate points on both sides here and it's important to examine it all to LEARN from it.

And I have to repeat. If it is true that you were the leader of a wacko church or had a police record that was public or arrest record or whatever, I'd remove you from the slate too. Why? It's not personal, it's BUSINESS, and we're here to WIN, not award people.

Not accurate....

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you here bigtime on your entire post. It's not accurate and I've explained numerous times through this thread where I stand and what we have done in Oklahoma :).

-Qadoshyah Fish
Oklahoma Parking Lot Patriot

Of course you do.

There is absolutely zero valuable feedback in my entire post, nothing of redeeming value. You certainly should not listen to it or consider it.

See the problem?

I've already addressed,

the points you bring up in this thread, numerous times. I'm not trying to dismiss it, but when I have already covered it about 5-10 other times, I don't feel the need to address it further. I'll slightly address it:

Your comments about leadership are simply not true. If you actually knew what we did in Oklahoma, I don't believe you would be saying this. I, as well as every other county coordinator I know, stepped up to the leadership position with no problem. We did exactly what we needed to. To say that we were sitting there looking for another group for solutions is inaccurate.

Your comment that there is no such as grassroots is downright insane. This has been addressed in detail in this thread.

-Qadoshyah Fish
Oklahoma Parking Lot Patriot

But apparently you have reading or reading comprehension issues

Because I wasn't speaking of "leadership" collectively or what the other county coordinators did with you together COLLECTIVELY, I was specifically addressing you as an INDIVIDUAL.

You demonstrate here that you are unable to differentiate between individuals and collectives, perhaps part of the problem? Why, yes, that was specifically one of the pieces of feedback for you.

Don't try to say I am criticizing what the great supporters of RP in Oklahoma did.

I was giving YOU SPECIFICALLY feedback about you based largely upon what YOU YOURSELF have written here about YOURSELF.

No, I knew ...

exactly what you were addressing, but we work as a unit here in Oklahoma. We are all leaders, myself included, but we are a team also. There's no need for me to justify anything I've done in Oklahoma or in Tampa when I was one of the 25 delegates from Oklahoma who was rightfully elected, yet not seated and one of the 13 who took a challenge to the RNC.

Those who know me, know this and would agree with me. My fellow Okies and delegates at the RNC, I'm so thankful to work with you all and look forward to many more years of work together for liberty :).

-Qadoshyah Fish
Oklahoma Parking Lot Patriot

I see.

One can't single you out because you were part of a group and any feedback for you is feedback for the group. And "everyone knows" that any feedback for the group must be wrong because "everyone is a leader".

It's this kind of mental fog that prevents us from winning.
And no that does not excuse Al Gerhart. But frankly, between him and you, with this kind of "everyone is a leader" nonsense, I think OK did well DESPITE both of you and not because of either of you.

So, I must repeat again, at no time did I post one word of criticism regarding the great accomplishments of the OK Ron Paul supporters, my comments were aimed at you individually and specifically.

"Everyone is a leader" means no one is a leader. It's also completely antithetical to libertarianism and objectivism because it is so OBVIOUSLY FALSE.

Libertarianism recognizes INDIVIDUALS. As such, I'm more than certain that you contributed much positive to the outcome, but it does not make you INDIVIDUALLY immune from feedback or constructive criticism.

Your attempts to try to pull political cover over yourself to deflect ANY feedback, even constructive, is obvious and apparent. Your continued assertion of the collective over the individual demonstrates a mental fog, frankly.

Agree mostly.

Disagree on grassroots.

What people may have learned from the 08 campaign, is that organization needs to start early because the campaign won't be there then. They come in to play later. This is due to expenditure and possibly so inside strategy has less time to leak out.

If what is to be learned here, used later, and since the above will still probably apply, people will have to start building as a unit earlier. That will be grassroots not any campaign because that will not have existed yet. The Liberty Movement and the C4L are not a campaign.

It makes no sense not to use the word grassroots anymore, does it?

Whatever, this organization will need to start early and it is going to have clout that it earned from hard work readying for a campaign. When a campaign does come on the scene, the campaign does need to recognize this and work with the organized folks/grassroots/whatever. If the view is that the campaign just comes in out of the blue in a dictatorial fashion, this can cause friction.

Many people won't get involved from the get go if they already know ahead of time that a campaign could come in and move the box they built. That is a blow to moral in the foot soldier ranks sometimes more than in the leadership ranks.

This needs solution.

+1 to you and don't disagree, but...

But who are the "grassroots"?

There are "grassroots" I trust and "grassroots" I don't trust.

Would I trust Kokesh's advice on how to run a campaign? Not a chance in hell.

That said, there are grassroots people like you who DO know what they are doing.

There are wild hair libertarians who come with a megaphone and their 911 was an inside job signs to Republican meetings (how do you think that goes over) and there are wild hair libertarians who got that they had to play the game to win - and DID.

There is a time and place for all things, but you have to use discernment to know the difference. Unfortunately, many of the "grassroots" don't understand that. Many do. Which is why collectivizing those who were not on campaign staff into "grassroots" necessarily creates division. That I disagree with.

I'm looking for INDIVIDUALS who EXCEL, who know WTF they are doing, and who will help CROSS THE FINISH LINE and actually win, not just hearts and minds, but the g_d damned race.

There are some grassroots individuals who can do the above and there are some who cannot. Those who cannot need to become followers on the campaign trail. Those who can are leaders in my book.

Having to come to know you a little bit here on the boards, I am pleased to count you as one of the latter. I'm afraid that Q here is somewhere in between who had the capability to take things in the right direction for everyone, but allowed a little ego, inexperience and emotion to intervene.

i'm confused

first you say there is no such thing as grassroots, then you describe your perception of the different type of grassroots.

Because people are INDIVIDUALS

Not groups.

Still confused? I know that it's hard to escape the trappings of collectivism.

Like I said, certain people attempting to collectivize THEMSELVES within the ranks of our OWN supporters is the height of hypocrisy and necessarily divisive.


these arent people theyre stooges here.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

It never ceases to amaze me what people here vote down.

So a reply stating "Because people are individuals" gets voted DOWN.


i think it got down votes

because you didn't address the question...it is tangential.

of course i understand

the difference between individuals and groups. and that libertarians judge people as individuals...although that just collectivizes libertarians into a defined group, which shows there are no absolutes.

what i'm confused about is whether you think there is such a thing as grassroots.

in one answer you make this statement, "Someone gave feedback, which I think is correct, that there is no such thing as "grassroots".

then you make this statement, "But who are the "grassroots"?

There are "grassroots" I trust and "grassroots" I don't trust."

how can there be "grassroots" you trust and don't trust if you believe there is no such thing as grassroots?

you don't have to get all in a hissy and start capitalizing on me.

Read for Comprehension, Lon.

I gave SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of what I was talking about above. Very, very specific and specifically addressing your questions here. So, I wont waste bandwidth by posting it again.

I suggest you not waste bandwidth by learning to read for comprehension rather than ask the same thing over and over.

i suggetst you

stop insulting people and thinking you are so smart.

you never once answered how you can think there is no grassroots, but then describe different types of grassroots. if there is no grassroots there cannot be two different types, or any number of different types, of grassroots.

i am very confident in my ability to comprehend and analyze what i read. maybe you should try and answer how there can be no such thing as grassroots AND two different types of grassroots.

i suggest you actually answer the question instead of wasting bandwitdth by obfuscating.

and quit being such a dick

You're funny.

While for Q I only had constructive feedback. There's not much one can say to you. You're a loon.

still can't answer the question can you

let me make it simple.

you state that grassroots does not exist.
i don't argue that. i don't care what kind of feedback you got.

then you talk about grassroots as if it exists.
i don't argue that.

the two seem mutually exclusive...something cannot exist and not exist at the same time.

instead of admitting the contradiction or explaining how something can not exist and still exist, you attack me personally.

i'm not asking about individualism, libertarianism, collectivism, or any other ism. i'm asking how you can reconcile the fact that, when it fits your argument, you believe grassroots does and does not exist.

pretty simple, yet you attack the questioner instead of answering the question.

and you think i'm the loon????

Reading is Fundamental

Maybe you need to participate in RIF

The answer is here..

when i click the link you provided

it only goes to the top of the original post...not to the comment you want me to read.

by the way, belittling does not equate to answering a question.

maybe if you provide me with the title of the post you are referring me to i might be able to find it.

i am skepticle, that it actually answers the question i asked, but am willing to look there.

the answer to "how can grassroots exist and not exist at the same time?" is not "because people are individuals." that would be your answer to how can grassroots not exist...i think.

No it doesn't if you wait for the page to load.

I'm sorry you are "skepticle".

Read back up and look for
"+1 to you and don't disagree, but... "
that's the reply the link I provided was to - which i see you downvoted. LOL.

skeptical...typos happen

and, for some reason, on this thread i could wait all day and it only goes to the top.

there is no answer to my question at "+1 to you and don't disagree, but...". maybe you should read for comprehension.

in that thread is where you desccribe different type of grassroots. the grassroots you trust and the grassroots you don't. then you give some examples of that. that does not address my confusion.

i know you say "grassroots individuals", but that still implies that grassroots exists.

in a different area, you say that you agree that there is no such thing as grassroots. and then you proudly point out later that you got positive feedback on that point, as if that makes it right or wrong.

if there is no such thing as grassroots, there can be no "grassroots individuals" or "grassroots you agree with" or "grassroots you don't agree with."

no where have you addressed this contradiction.

i think it is kind of a silly argument, but since i first brought it up, you have belittled me and my reading comprehension without ever addressing my point.

you still have not addressed my point.

probably because you cannot admit that you made contradictory statements.

the only reason we are going round and round like this is because instead of addressing the origin of my confusion (your contradictory remarks) you decide to belittle.

i have no problem being wrong. when someone proves me wrong i admit it and try to learn from it. i've even admitted to being wrong in a discussion with you a few months ago.

this time, however, you are wrong.

and i only mean you are wrong about grassroots being able to exist and not exist at the same time.

i don't care about anything else you've written here, because it is all speculation and philosophy.

nothing can exist and not exist at the same time.

LOL... and you dont see your own hypocracy...?

"no where have you addressed this contradiction."

"i don't care about anything else you've written here, because it is all speculation and philosophy."

[i.e. LonMoore does NOT care about philosophy.]

"nothing can exist and not exist at the same time."

[i.e. LonMoore DOES care about philosophy.]

LOL... I'll post again your own words:
"no where have you addressed this contradiction."

crickets chirping

hello...is this thing on???

i thought so.

"nothing can exist and not exist at the same time."

is a statement of fact. it is not philosophical.