Will the evil lure of raising big money ruin this campaign?
Submitted by MDKidd on Mon, 10/01/2007 - 12:48It would be a monumental understatement to say that this past week was extremely exhilarating for most Ron Paul supporters. It was hard not to get caught up in the intoxicating frenzy of watching the “donation thermometer” rise to heights previously thought unattainable. I freely admit to being caught up in the very same hullabaloo. I sat and watched this spectacle all week long. With tearful elation, I began to realize that I was witnessing the rebirth of the passion for liberty – a passion I had long thought dead in this country. Indeed, it had only been dormant, awakened in the masses by a humble and intensely principled man whose own passion for liberty, kindled over 30 years ago, has never been extinguished, all the while fighting the good battle for those many years seemingly alone.
At age 72, Ron Paul puts most of us to shame what with his boundless energy devoted solely to bringing us back the freedoms most of us had all but given up on. It would be extremely easy to excuse him if our sudden outpouring of adoration for him would have him all sucked up into his own mind, but incredibly the man seems more humble than ever. His oft-repeated pre-speech statement, thanking us for inviting him to the revolution, is all the evidence needed for proof of that.
So why the dire headline, you ask. Why am I intent on spoiling the joy of this great moment? My answer is that despite witnessing all the good news of the past week, somehow, something was gnawing at me – something just didn’t seem right. The problem suddenly crystallized for me after reading numerous Paul supporter comments in the forum topic about matching funds. In short, there are unmistakable and disturbing indicators from the Paul campaign and it’s followers that they are being seduced by the lure of money and by the mistaken (in my opinion) notion that the more of it, the better. It’s at least a little bit ironic, don’t you think, that so many of us small government minded Paul supporters are gleefully sending our money into a centralized organization to run the very campaign that we’ve been doing just fine at up to now.
The problem in a nutshell, it seems to me, is that it has become universally accepted amongst Paul supporters that he has no chance in the election unless he were to raise huge sums of money, at least comparable to the “top tier” candidates. I totally reject this notion. Have we forgotten how we’ve gotten to where we are? The campaign has spent hardly anything, yet most honest observers (ie ... non-MSM observers) would put Dr. Paul, at worst, a strong 4th in the true polls, and even higher in the all important early primary states. Just check out wagering sites whose members put their money where their mouth is, for proof of that.
Well how did he achieve that? The short answer - grassroots campaigning and his unwavering message - integrity, honesty, and a steadfast conviction to follow the law of the land – the Constitution. Almost the entire campaign success to date has been due to these two things. Practically no campaign funds have been spent to date on advertising, yet here he stands on the verge of bursting onto the mainstream stage.
So why are we now poised to abandon what got us here? It is disturbing to me that so many are ready to sacrifice principle to obtain the ill-gotten booty of federal matching funds. The shameless rationalizing of some in this group is beyond words. Others are salivating about getting Dr. Paul on the MSM news channels. Still more have talked breathlessly about getting campaign commercials broadcast. These are bad ideas, people. They are all rooted in the idea that money will carry us to victory. These are the tactics used by those who are funded with far more dollars than we’ll ever have, and more importantly, they’ve got friends in the mainstream that will use every trick in the book to make Dr. Paul look silly or unelectable. Going down this road is the road to ruin.
On the bright side, we’ve got things that none of the other candidates have and money simply can’t buy - integrity, a winning message, passionate supporters, and a candidate you just can’t help but like. What’s more, we have all these things in spades. Ironically money only obscures this. The campaign needs only enough money to serve notice to the MSM that Dr. Paul is a serious candidate. Too much money sows the seeds of complacency – “Ahhh ...Dr. Paul is running commercials now ... I don’t have to knock on doors anymore to get his message out.”
If you get nothing else from all my venting here, at least get this. No revolution ever occurred from the top down. And they certainly have never been purchased - not at any price. They have always occurred from the bottom up. Make no mistake, the Ron Paul Revolution is a revolution in every sense of the word. Let’s keep it that way.
Money a Cruel Mistress
Nobody said this would be easy, we have to pound the internet, pound the donations, pound the door to door, pound the ads (hopefully using a smart and non money wasting strategy)...
It's going to be hard, but things are really starting to cook for Ron Paul...
campaign money
Trust Ron Paul. I can understand your sentiment about the money but Dr. Paul will need the money. As hard as we are working to get the word out he really needs to get some radio, tv, bill boards, etc. out. Most meet up groups can't come up with the money to buy bill boards, radio, tv air time. By pooling the money Dr. Paul will have the funds to get it done. We are working against the clock and since the main stream media has blocked out Dr. Paul his campaign will have to buy the time and that takes lots of money.
Take heart, I have never worked for a candidate before either, much less donate money and I plan to keep sending in as long as I can. There are still so many people we have to reach let's stay in the game and not get lazy.
Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.
Either you trust the man or you do not
Ron has been at this a loooooooooooooooong time, folks. You don't think he has received pressure to compromise his principles on a regular basis?!
For me it boils down to either you trust the man or you do not, despite whoever might now be whispering in his ear.
OUR ROLE is to simply continue doing what we're doing so that he does NOT have to spend the "big bucks" because "WE" are spreading the message door-to-door, street-by-street, sign-by-sign and email-by-email.
Leave the armchair quarterbacking for Monday Night Football. We know we can trust our guy :-)
Money makes the world go around
So this is your 1st presidential campaign! Great, I hope you have a lot of fun! There are a couple of things you're going to learn. The 1st is that money is the mother's milk of politics. Its great to have a candidate with an important message like we've got (Ron Paul) but without money no one will pay attention to that message. Many people won't take a candidate seriously unless they see TV commercials about him. (Yes, I know that sounds weird but its true.) Also, many people still get their news from TV. This is true especially of older voters. Older voters are the ones that vote more often than any other demographic, so we can't overlook them! The more money this campaign has to reach voters and to spread the good news of smaller government and a humble foreign policy the better! 2nd, scientific opinion polls are usually right. Yes, I remember President Dewey, but that was the exception that proved the rule. The polls I'm seeing say we aren't doing all that well. Generally, they have Ron Paul fighting for 5th with Huckabee. Again money would be a big help. With money Ron could solve his name recognition problem and spread his message. Is the grass roots effort important YES! but so is money!
Still missing my point
Money, in itself, isn't evil. It's what some will do to get money - sacrificing principle, for example - that brings out the worst in them. If we're ok with a candidate that will sacrifice principle to win, then why run in the first place? Plenty of candidates already satisfy that requirement.
And I don't deny the need for money to win. I question, however, why we need to send it to a central authority to have a chance. Why isn't that very same money, when used locally, at least as effective in bringing in more supporters? Old people watch local commercials and read local newspapers, don't they?
Let's see - thousands of small ideas competing in the marketplace free from the burden of federal scrutiny vs. a single very large idea or two from a central authority which is hamstrung by federal laws in what they can or cannot do - which is better? As a libertarian, there's no question in my mind which tactic will provide more bang for the buck.
The great thing is that I don't even have to guess at the answer. These ideas are already proving to be far more valuable than all the millions of the top tier candidates. Who has done better, collectively, in all the straw polls to date? Why focus on the straw polls? Because these polls are extremely significant in that they are the only tangible proof of anyone's support as of today. But what do I know? I'm just some some rookie still wet behind the ears.
I take my marching orders from the Constitution!
In a political campaign the
In a political campaign the HQ likes to keep control of its message. If control were given to the local Meetups it could turn into a mess. I've heard of some local Meetups that are dominated by 9/11 truthers, I've even heard of some that are dominated by neo-nazis. All we need is a Meetup putting on a commercial that compares Paul to Hitler. Also, the HQ gets to set spending priorities. I have no doubt that some big states will lead the way in fund raising. However, the Paul campaign is setting its sights on small states, especially ones that allow non-Republicans to vote.
Don't put to much faith in straw polls, partially what they're measuring is passion. The scientific polls are a much more accurate measure of what the rank and file are thinking.
Had a dream last night ...
Scene 1.
Janna: Hey you guys! Wasup?
Airborne373: Nuttin, sup wid u?
FlyingComic: How goes it?
Plop: Yo
Janna: Check it out, heard about this new candidate for president last night. He …
FlyingComic: Ughh … Can’t deal with those jokers now. They’re all crooks.
Janna: Hold on a sec. Hear me out. This guy’s different.
Airborne373: Oh yeah. Why’s that?
Janna: Came right out and said that he’s not gonna steal or cheat anywhere near as much as any other candidate. Then he said that …
FlyingComic: Hold on. He said what??
Janna: Not gonna steal or cheat as much as anyone else. And he also said that he’s gonna stick to principles most of the time.
FlyingComic: Wow. Really? That’s pretty cool.
Plop: Wait. What did he mean by “most of the time”?
Janna: Well, you know that stupid principle that those loony nut jobs are always screamin’ about? You know - the one about not stealing taxpayer’s money to fund their campaign. Well, this guy is only gonna ignore that dumb little principle. Ain’t stealing anyway far as I’m concerned.
Airborne373: Sweeeet! This guy sounds like the real McCoy. Let’s quickly move on to the next scene so we can tell all the rest of our friends about him.
Scene 2.
Plop: Hey! You guys! Come over here … got some great news for y’all. Janna told me and the guys about this great new candidate that’s promising not to steal nearly as much money as the other guys. And he’s promising to start following principles just as soon as he’s elected.
Scanner313: Oh yeah – I’ve heard of that guy. His name is Giuliani.
Plop: No. No. This guy is gonna steal even less than Rudy. And he’s only gonna ignore principles that keep him from winning.
Scanner313: Even less than Rudy? Well how’s he gonna win then? He ain’t got enough money and he ain’t got enough time!
Plop: Don’t worry. He plans to steal just enough to win, then he’s gonna stop, ‘cause he’s all about principles.
FLfreedom: Outstanding. Sounds to me like someone who understands that winning is everything. I’m gonna have to seriously consider switching from Rudy to support this guy.
Supporter: Yikes. You’re a Rudy supporter?
FLfreedom: Well sure. I mean, does any one else understand better than Rudy that winning is everything? Ain’t no principle gonna stop him from winning.
Supporter: Yeah … uhh … I guess. Anyway, we gotta get this guy some name recognition. Doesn’t matter if it’s positive or negative. Write it on bathroom walls. Accuse him of rape. Catch him going into a strip joint. Just get his name out there for all to hear.
BlindD: I hope he steals enough to pay for some really expensive national ads, ‘cause that’s his only chance.
Plop: Nah … he won’t need to steal all of it. He’s got quite a few supporters that he can bleed dry for the rest.
FLfreedom Hang on. Won't those supporters need to use their money for buying signs and T-shirts and video cameras and all that other goofy paraphenalia that grassroots campaigners use?
Plop:
FLfreedom:
Plop: Ha, ha - you almost had me going there FL. I almost thought you were serious for a sec.
FLfreedom: Ha, ha. You’re a wise man, Plop. Let’s run like the wind to get to the next scene where we’ll find even more of our friends who are principled most of the time like us. Then we’ll tell them the good news, too.
Scene 3.
Janna: Hey dudes. How we doin' in our attempts at raising obscene amounts of money?
Airborne373: Not sure. All I know is I LOVE it and I can’t get enough of it’s wonderful evilness.
BlindD: Man, I hate those guys in the MSM. Never ever trust them and never ever deal with them. They are evil to the third power. They hate everything that is good – puppies, grandmothers, crisp cool autumn sunsets, 57 Chevy’s, butterflies, and most of all they hate us ‘cause we’re mostly almost always principled.
steve orrange: Yo, calm down Blind, we get the point. Besides we’re running outa time ranting and stuff. We gotta do something fast if we’re gonna find 50 million voters. How you propose we reach 50 million voters? Huh, huh!!!??
BlindD: Commercials, my man. Commercials. Big expensive commercials broadcast all over the US day and night. God, I hate the MSM! They hate baseball, hotdogs, ...
bedr: Wait a sec, Blind – if you wanna purchase national air time, don’t you have to deal with the ... aahhhh, nevermind.
BlindD: ... cotton candy, teddy bears, lady bugs, freckles, ...
FlyingComic: Ssshhhh … you guys. Here comes those goody goody principled guys. Think they’re all high and mighty ‘cause they always stick to principles. Makes me sick.
jfree: Any of you guys beating the pavement drummin up support for your campaign?
Airborne373: Yeah right. Grassroots campaigning is for losers. Money will lead us to the promised land.
Xntry1: You better wash your hands after handling that money Air, you're getting blood all over ya.
Airborne373: Whatever.
Insatiable free dog: Hey, you guys ever heard about this dude named Perot? Had a bazillion bucks and ran for Pres.
Janna: Sounds like a winner to me.
Insatiable free dog: Uhhh … no. Not quite. Seems he had no grassroots support. Made a big splash, then disappeared almost as quick. Kinda like this other dude named Forbes, and this other one named Huffington, and this other one…
FlyingComic: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Whatever. Go back to your dream world.
Xntry1: Oh, you mean the dream world where principled guys with little or no money can step up and have monumental impact on society?
FlyingComic: Yeah dude. That one.
Xntry1: Well I guess you must mean this world then. Lets see … we got Ghandi, Frederick Douglas, Oscar Schindler, Nelson Mandela, Jesus Christ, …
FlyingComic: Yeah, well sometimes people get lucky.
Xntry1: Yeah, Fly, that’s probably it ... Oy Vey.
steve orrange: ... do they really hate butterflies???
Curtain falls…
MDKidd: Huh … wha … where the heck … Oh jeez. Thank God. It was just a dream. What a nightmare. I’m glad that wasn’t real. Sheesh … Imagine – a world where even Ron Paul supporters couldn’t be convinced that principles matter. I’m not even gonna tell anybody ‘bout that one. Nobody’d even believe it. Aww … what the heck. It’ll be good for a big ole laugh.
I take my marching orders from the Constitution!
helluva
dream, Kidd.
"Freedom Is A Road Seldom Traveled By The Multitude." - Frederick Douglass
A Libertarian's view on taking the money
Here is an interesting article on why Ron Pauls should take the money, from a Lib candidate that was in the same position.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/sabrin7.html
Thanks.
and a counterpoint, also from Rockwell's site
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block86.html
BTW... to any rockwell fans out there... are you guys planning on going to the Mises Institute anniversary dinner the 13th in NYC?
If so, NYC is having a Ron Paul fund raiser the night before:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/events/new-york-city-evening/
Let the leader........lead
Forget about all this bickering about money and where we get it and how we use it.......let Rep. Paul make the call. I'm sure he's seen politics from about every angle possible, and if says he needs the matching funds, let's take it, and if says we don't, then let's get on without it. I see Ron Paul's chance of winning growing, and it has nothing to do with money. I think that it will be little more "news worthy" when he starts turning in positive primary results - without the help of big government's hand out money and the controlled media. That alone, will make a lot of folks take notice. Remember, we're asking for a leader that makes wise decisions, not one that follows the crowd.
alan laney
...and still more responses
bedr1 - You say you agree with me 100%, and I thank you for backing me up through most of your post. However, you state at one point that “we need plenty of money (the more the better)”. This has me scratching my head, because the MAIN point of my whole original post is that we DON’T need plenty of money, or at least the official campaign doesn’t need it. All they need is enough to demonstrate to the MSM that Dr. Paul has significant support and that he is a serious candidate because of it.
steve orrange - You apparently are another one who doubts we have the time to raise Dr. Paul’s support using grassroots campaigning. I’ve addressed this issue in responses to several others, but here is another reason to reconsider your doubts. 50 million votes may be needed to win the general election, but that isn’t for another 13 months. The primaries, on the other hand, won’t be nearly as difficult a hill to climb because the percentage of eligible voters that vote in the primaries will be significantly less. During the primaries for the last presidential election only 10% of eligible voters bothered to vote. And if I was a betting man I’d say the percentage will be ever lower this year because of widespread disgust for all the candidates (that is disgust for all except “one”). So maybe only 5 million will vote in the primaries. And with 8 other Neo-Cons splitting the pro-war vote, Dr. Paul could win with as little as 20% support – that equates to 1 million voters. With national polls showing Dr. Paul with 3% support or so, I’d say he’s already got well over a million potential voters already (3% of 50 million is 1.5 million). And we still got 3 months to add to this total!
deaconblues911 - Thanks for the link to matching funds. By the way, it IS tax money.
goodwinm - Super Tuesday is not til February, which is after several other small state primaries. The best advertisement, by far, for this huge event is to have done well in the earlier primaries. And doing well in the early primaries is something that will not take huge sums of money, as I’ve tried to demonstrate in all my other responses. Everyone wants to vote for a winner, especially if he was perceived as the underdog, previously. This angle will work perfectly for Dr. Paul.
BobW - I feel like I keep answering the same question over and over. No, you’re right, most people don’t get their news from the net, but why is the only other option to flood the national networks with ridiculously expensive Ron Paul ads. Isn’t it just as effective to put up Ron Paul signs throughout you’re town? Or to organize a free “get to know Ron Paul” car wash? Or to paint an old car or van with Ron Paul Revolution ads? Or wear a Ron Paul t-shirt? Or organize a walk for freedom and Ron Paul? Or about a thousand other things that cost little or nothing, but require you to get up off you’re a... This is how we got this far. And his support is growing EXPONENTIALLY. I keep saying this, but no one seems to get it.
insatiable free dog - Nice post. I like how you compare RP to Willie Nelson. I think the comparison works. And your analysis of what’s happening to Fred is spot on. Someone without tremendous grassroots support will fall flat on their face no matter how much free money they’re given by their friends in the military/industrial complex.
deedles - Raising big money for the national campaign severely hampers the grassroots because that’s where the money is coming from! It’s not being picked off the money tree, and it isn’t being printed because I’m certain that no supporters for RP work for the Federal Reserve. So the more money that is sent to the national campaign, the less that is available for the local campaigns. This isn’t rocket science here. What I’m advocating is Libertarianism 101. Why send money to a centralized authority, when it can be used far more efficiently by just spending it yourself?
romesa - I just can’t answer this again. You’ll have to look through all my other responses to the others for clues as to why I believe this is erroneous thinking. All I can say is why does EVERYONE think that the “professionals” at the national campaign are the only ones capable of putting out effective ads? The best ads, by far, have been supporter made You-Tube ads in this campaign. It’s not even debatable.
Saving the last 3 - Scanner313, Plop,andairborne373 for my last post. After reading their posts, I’ve started to become extremely depressed. Seems like winning is more important than principle with the majority of you. Ask yourself this, after you’ve tossed your principles in the trash to win, what exactly have you won? Think I’m gonna need a cold one to rejuvenate before I go on.
I take my marching orders from the Constitution!
What we would win by winning
"""Ask yourself this, after you’ve tossed your principles in the trash to win, what exactly have you won?"""
We would have won the freedom to act according to principles instead of according to rules ordered from above (which indeed steals our money to finance our enemies campaigns)! That's why WINNING IS EVERYTHING in this campaign!
Ron Paul will not become corrupt and change his agenda by accepting matching funds.How can you believe that?
Burdened with EVIL Money?
If so please mail to me. lol Evil Money! Get real money is an inanimate object, lets not start giving human traits to paper. Then the anti-Ron Paul crowd (as small as it is) will have something to say.
Join PyraBang the peoples search engine.
Why isn't the libertarian
Why isn't the libertarian movement more influencial? Well, I think this debate illustrates why. You cannot have the same standards for campaigning as for holding office. Just like it's the job of any CEO to maximize corporate profits, even if that includes enjoying federal subsidies, so is it the responsibility of the Ron Paul campaign to maximize the probability of winnig this election!
In making that call, they should consider among many other things, that matching funds could boost grasroot donations as well! If each donation up to $250 would result in $500 to the campaign: Ron gets $2 för each dollar you give; then 10,000s of non-wealthy supporters would likely increase their donations to $250 because of that.
I think that many overly optimistic supporters here will be bit disappointed to see that Ron hasn't gathered $10 million or any other such fantastic amount of money during Q3. And that for example that pledge for $100,000,000 will halt after a 10,000 or so supporters have joined, about 99% off target... Then it might be more evident what a boost matching funds would be!
If Ron Paul will be "accused" in MSM for having used matching funds, then that might even be better than remaining ignored by MSM! The dominating challenge for this campaign is the silence about Ron Paul. We need to spread the word that he is the only true anti-war candidate in this game, which is the single issue which will make him president. Almost no voter knows that there exists a thing called "matching funds", much less what it is and who gets it. It is not a scandalizing issue.
Why isn't the libertarian movement more influential?
Government Schools
The money is necessary
Yes, Ron has achieved his level of popularity so far based on the grassroots movement we've all been contributing to. But that alone will not win him the Presidency, let alone the Republican nomination.
The money he's raised is going to be crucial for advertising closer to the primaries so that people will have heard of him. With all of our grassroots efforts, the majority of the public still has no idea who Ron Paul is. We simply cannot get his name out fast enough to inform the masses he'll need the way we've been doing it, so providing him the money he needs to compete is in no way a bad thing.
The money will make the MSM take notice of him. It's a great story when an underdog has a good showing in comparison to the big boys. All the free press he can get from the MSM is a positive.
Ron Paul raising money
All I see happening is that in the final push before all the primaries Dr. Paul has to run ads to reach those who don't know about him. Many people who would benefit from having him elected don't have computers or access to the internet and thus are in the dark as to his policies. The sums involved are dwarfed by the establishment candidates. $1,000,000 has to compete with 10s or even 100s of millions that will be used against him, not to mention the corrupt media that is trying so hard to ignore him and other candidates like Kucinich and Gravel. Dr. Paul's campaign will never come close to raising the money the big boys (and Hillary) are raising. He's our hope for a freer and more peaceful future. All the campaign is doing is to give a fighting chance.
why does one necessarily preclude the other?
I don't see why raising big money for the national campaign means the grassroots will stop. The opposite is true for my meetup. We are more fired up after this great fund-raiser last week! I agree that the MSM will up the overt attacks, we've seen that already. I'm confident that Dr. Paul can hold his own and he knows we're behind him.
Onward!
More responses
FLfreedom - I want Dr. Paul to win, too. Where we differ, though, is that I believe throwing large gobs of money at him, just like throwing money at any other problem in government, is a tactic doomed to fail. Libertarians, why haven’t any of you addressed this argument? It is absolutely essential that we continue with the grassroots campaigning. This is the only way we're going to continue to arouse the passions of those that have left the political arena in disgust. And these are the ones that we absolutely need to turn out in droves for us to win. They're not gonna show up to vote for the first time in 25 years because they saw a national campaign ad showing Dr. Paul driving his tractor and hugging his grandkids.
I also disagree that if he loses, then we gain nothing. This campaign isn’t about Ron Paul. Dr. Paul is a messenger - a bloody good one - but still only a messenger. The campaign is about restoring freedom and constitutional government. Even Dr. Paul says this. You can already see the other candidates adopting Dr. Paul’s issues and rhetoric. In a Congressional election about 2 months ago in some southern state, some nobody just beat out the establishment candidate by emphasizing Ron Paul issues. Come on people - we’ve already started winning! Most importantly, though, the people that have heard the message aren’t going away. An entire generation is hearing the message of freedom for the first time. That’s something that will last beyond the next TEN New Hampshire Primary’s.
xntryk1 - Another Bingo. One more that “gets” it. If someone mugs you, then says you can give him the money or give it to his buddy Bruno, does it become a voluntary donation if you give it to Bruno??
BlindD - You make a passionate statement condemning the MSM, which I agree with, then you present as a solution massive advertising using ... the MSM??? Advertising is the solution, I agree, but not with national ads – LOCAL ads. No dealing with the MSM, far cheaper, and directed to specific voters. A national ad promoting the right to bear arms, or border security isn’t gonna play as well in Mass as it will in Texas. For more reasons, see my response to Flying Comic below.
Janna - A 30 second commercial can reach millions of people, this is true. But if that commercial is reaching millions of people then it’s costing thousands and thousands of dollars. One live person teaching one live person cost NOTHING. That’s nice, because by simple math it follows that 1000 people teaching 1000 live people still costs NOTHING. And this process continues without stop, increasing EXPONENTIALLY, not linearly. See my responses to BlindD above and Flying Comic in my other post below for more reasons why one to one beats 30 seconds to a million.
My response to your comment that we all lose if RP loses is similar to FLfreedom above, and my response to your contention that matching funds are a voluntary donation can be found in my response to xntryk1, also above.
The remainder of my responses will come in another post. I do need to get SOME work in today.
I take my marching orders from the Constitution!
While it's great that
While it's great that discourse between live people costs nothing, there is not enough time for this type of conversion. It's completely naive to think so. Yes, it costs thousands and thousands of dollars to run ads; that's WHY we need the money! If you really believe this "go tell it on the mountain" style of spreading Dr. Paul's message will get him elected by the U.S. populace, then you're living in a dreamland. I don't believe that giving him the same advantage as every other candidate is even remotely comparable to "throwing large gobs of money at any other problem in government". While I feel that the income tax is an illegal tax, the reality is that I am going to continue to file my taxes until it is repealed, and I would venture to guess that you and most everyone else here will as well. Extortion, maybe, but a mugging or robbery it is not. No one is holding a gun to your head when you walk into H&R Block. While it is not much of one, it is still a small condolence that you can choose to direct where $3 of your tax money will go, in the form of a donation to campaign matching funds. I personally would like to think that my $3 went toward MY candidate's campaign.
As far as the "winning isn't everything" sentiment, and the "Dr. Paul is just a messenger" statement, if that's the way you feel, why bother donating to the campaign at all? After all, live discourse costs nothing. To me, Ron Paul is not a "messenger". He is my choice for the President of the United States in 2008. Winning IS EVERYTHING, because if he doesn't win, that message of which you speak will be quashed. Believe it.
*secret weapon*
Hey MDKidd....I've got an idea.....you could be our secret weapon. All we have to do is sneak you into the Giuliani campaign. You could start in with your "winning isn't everything" diatribe. It's so persuasive....I'm sure the neocons won't mind delaying there plans for a few years.
Thomas Jefferson:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until t
You Don't Have Time to **ONLY** Use Grassroots Support
Point 1) I am in no way saying grassroots support isn't important, but you have 3 months, and that's not enough time to ONLY use grassroots support.
Point 2) I'm not saying exactly what the professional marketing looks like. Hopefully, they've hired good professionals to help with that. My guess is it would not be national commercials, because I agree that would probably be wasteful. My guess is it would be flood-marketing (including broadcast commercials on TV and radio) of NH & Iowa (possibly a couple of other states) in an attempt to get that initial boost. The idea would be for the initial boost to attract enough money to go national before Super Tuesday. Unfortunately, with all the game playing the states have done with their primary dates, it's tough to have any time to build momentum between the first primaries and that big day.
My response to all posters here...
GeorgeC - Thanks, I know you're right about Dr. Paul always holding his own in combative interviews. Not sure that these interviews serve the purpose of putting him in a positive light with Joe Sixpack, however.
Casey Marquis - Yes, I agree, we do need to get to the attack phase. But, first we need to understand how to survive that phase. Grassroots education is the perfect antidote - perhaps the ONLY antidote.
Flying Comic - You make two main points. Let me address them in order. First, you say that we don't have time to campaign through the grassroots. I disagree. As most of us agree, Dr. Paul's numbers are understated. What's more important than actual numbers, though, is the intensity of support. A Dr. Paul supporter is FAR more likely to vote than a supporter of any other candidate. This has been proven over and over in about 50 straw polls. In addition, support for Dr. Paul has been increasing exponentially, not linearly. This is typical of grassroots campaigning - every person that hears about Dr Paul will tell 4 or 5 more and faster than Rudy can say "9/11", you've got massive support. We are right on the brink of this happening today.
Next, you state that you’d like to see more “professional” commercials done. By this, I assume you mean national commercials created by the official Paul campaign staff. Nationally broadcast commercials are an extremely inefficient way of advertising, especially in the primary season. They are extremely expensive and rarely convert anyone, at least initially. They must be broadcast over and over until anyone even remembers them, driving the cost up to astronomic levels. Targeted local commercials are fine, but why do they need to be done by the official campaign. Grassroots supporters in Iowa came up with a local newspaper ad and TV commercial for pennies on the dollar, for the Ames Straw Poll.
jfree – Bingo. It’s nice to see someone who “gets” it. Get off your butt and campaign. It’s the only road out of Hades.
freedom360 – Already addressed you in post below.
supporter – Name recognition, even if negative, is key, you say. Let’s see ... Barry Bonds, Michael Vick, Larry Craig, Tom Cruise, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears – all people whose name’s have been dragged through the mud recently. They all might even be decent people, on a personal level, for all we know. What kind of Herculean effort would it take to get ANY of them elected, though? Thanks, but I think I’ll stick to building Dr. Paul a positive name from the start.
To limit the length of this post, my responses to FLfreedom, xntryk1, BlindD, Janna, bedr1, steve orrange, deaconblues911, goodwinm, BobW, and insatiable free dog will be in another post.
I take my marching orders from the Constitution!
You are comparing Ron Paul to Larry Craig
I'm not sure its the same thing. People did look deeper into those people and decided they didn't like what they saw. If the smear campaign is true, there isn't much to debate.
Anecdote
When I worked in a record store, I sold alot of mainstream garbage.
Most of this garbage had big adverts and they did payola schemes to get their artists on the charts in order to get the recognition to actually begin selling. The trend was that the more hype that was built around an artist, the better they sold, and the harder they fell when it was time for their career to end.
Ron Paul is like that artist who has been the king of the underground for years before he ever hits the main stage (ie Willie Nelson). When that artist hits the main stage he is supported by his label, but not in such a plastic manner as to make him some overnight superstar, but to publicize his releases. The product quality is what enabled the artist to survive without the hype, and it is what will sell the artist.
The campaign has to publicize enough that when we come to the door a knockin, and telling people face to face about Ron Paul, they will have prior recognition due to publicity campaigns through the average media. We will then relay and stand by his message, just as a good salesperson in a record store would a quality artist that is finally getting his due. This type of phenomenon works in reverse as well. You might encounter someone while you are taking part in the revolution that will later see an advert. The ad might solidify the choice.
Those who bank on bright lights to garner sucess don't last long. Hence the reason for Fred Thompson to enter so late, the bright lights will fade him, he didn't want to be faded to soon. The crunch time is now and we need support from the headquarters while we are out doing the face to face selling.
Matching funds? Ron will tell us why he did what he did either way he chooses, and, hopefully, no one will miss a beat. This is real.
"Freedom Is A Road Seldom Traveled By The Multitude." - Frederick Douglass
Filthy lucre
I am neutral on the issue of whether Paul should accept matching funds. I will say this though -- if Paul hopes to win the presidency, he will need money, and lots of it. No, not 100 million like Hillary or Rudy, but probably at least 20 million. The hard truth is this -- most people are not politically aware and are not getting their news from the internet. They come home, plop down on the couch in front of the idiot box, and watch the 30 minutes of network "news" that their corporate masters choose to serve them. That's it. If the MSM doesn'[t carry stories about Paul (and they try hard not to) the only way the great mass of people will hear about him is by seeing paid advertisements. The MSM likes it this way, of course, because they make a lot of money off those paid advertisements.
Sure, the "scientific" polls undoubtedly understate Paul's level of support. But they are also probably closer to the truth than anybody here would want to admit. Most people still get their news from the old media, and all they ever hear about is Obama, Hillary, Rudy, Romney, and McCain, so when a pollster calls those are the names that get spit back. If they heard about Paul at all, it was some airhead blowing him off as a "nut job" or an "extremist". Sure, tell your friends about Ron Paul, but he's still going to need expensive advertisements to reach most of the electorate.
Money is always nice
Think about it... the biggest TV advertising day of the year is right before Super Tuesday...
Not clear where the money comes from...
This link explains who qualifies for the money "Matching Funds." I cannot tell if It is "tax money."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/americas/2000/us_electio...
Until the Election is Won!
Until the Election is Won!
Chaplain Steve
Ron Paul - Lion of the Constitution
matching funds - I'm still a YES
ive read all the comments...they are well written from both sides and demonstrate how well informed RP supporters are. ...unfortunately the itching question remains what level of support does RP really have?
So we raised $1.2million in less than a week...GREAT! but that was from 14,000 supporters....not very many...remember in the end, RP needs over 50 Million VOTES to win the WAR!. But before that time RP needs to win the nomination. That might be decided as early as february 2008..many states have moved their primaries up just when the RP campaign is beginning to snowball..(.i almost smell a rat here by the local RINOs....the less time RP has to get his message out the better for the NEOs.).....we need MORE TIME....and there is NO MORE TIME....however, there may be MONEY and TIME IS MONEY.....
Now if there is a libertarian purist out there who can guarantee me there are tens of millions of RP supporters already, locked and loaded and ready to VOTE, that is a different matter..... Unfortunatley, there is no way to know for sure, and that is a risk we can not afford to take.
So that is my view....but listen real close here.....IF RP refuses to accept matching funds, i will still respect him in the morning....I will not take my ball and go home...I will remain an ardent and loyal RP supporter. ....do we all get this point???? WE ALL NEED TO SUPPORT RP regardless. ...there are too many grey areas.....in the meanwhile let's continue to " Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof " (the liberty bell: Lev. 25:10)
Steven Orrange