Wednesday, March 25, 2009

I am not a Ron Paul hater…really

I was teaching a candidate school recently in Minnesota and wandered into some dangerous territory. Our firm is often hired to do political education and one of our bigger clients is American Majority We teach several sessions that focus on Communications, Campaign Plans, Fundraising, Social Media and Grassroots Organizing (all ppts are available to download and steal here SlideShare )

The last session of the day focuses on Grassroots Organizing Online and Offline. One of the themes I present is how most grassroots movements are viral and require a "host". I then go on to say that Ron Paul was too weak of a "host" to carry his "movement". Full disclosure – I was a mail vendor for Fred Thompson's campaign (that is a whole other discussion) and I did not support Ron Paul. Having said that, I was constantly intrigued by his supporters and his "movement". I work in the business of political campaigns and like to think I am a student of how they work on a logistics and business end. So for the purposes of this post lets skip by issues and just talk nuts and bolts.

First I have to take a dig at my strident Libertarian friends who loved Dr. Paul – learn a lesson from him

  1. Run as a Libertarian for Congress and lose
  2. Run as a Republican for Congress and win
  3. Run as a Republican for President and get to take the stage, be in the debates and air your issues

(**CORRECTION** thanks to my observant friend Steve from Minnesota I stand corrected. Dr. Paul was Republican Member of Congress from 1976 to '85. He then ran for President in 1988 as a Libertarian. He then returned to Congress in 1996 as a Republican. I was wrong and I repent. However I think it would be fair to say that he ran for Congress in 1996 as Republican because he knew he would not win if he ran as a Libertarian.)

Pretty safe to say no one is accusing Dr. Paul of "selling out" even though he ran as a Republican. I can already feel the hate that point is going to draw…

Moving on, Dr. Paul raised over $34 million dollars of which over 99% came from individual small donors. This is a supremely impressive feat for a guy who, candidly, has below average public speaking ability, no message discipline, fairly inexperienced campaign organization and barely eked into double digits in most public polling. So his campaign was obviously not as much about the "product" of the candidate. He benefited from a couple powerful motivators;

  1. A disgruntled and angry free-market fiscal conservative base
  2. A weak field of Republican options for President
  3. A core Libertarian group that was already online

$34 million, unfortunately, is still not enough to get serious traction in a modern Presidential Primary. That is compounded by the fact that his campaign spent almost 50% of their cash on "Administrative" expenses. That is just unacceptable. Barely a third of the dollars spent went towards actual voter contact. Ok, now all my grassroots friends can holler and say "of course that is what an evil money grubbing political consultant would say!" But folks let's get real, modern campaigns are not small mom and pop businesses any more…especially ones for President. They can start that way but at some point you have to bring in experienced folks to run the ship…having said that the grassroots are still vital and important to success, but they have to have experienced leadership.

Looking back at Howard Dean circa 2003…the guy almost became the democratic nominee and was much more viable than Paul. Both had strong grassroots movements but Dean had some adults in charge at HQ. Ultimately, I think both Dean and Paul were not strong enough vessels for their movements. So what happened to many of those early Deaniacs? They became the base of Barack Obama's underdog campaign in early 2007. So why was Barack successful where Dean was not?

  1. Obama is a FAR superior candidate "product" than Howard Dean
  2. Obama's team of very experienced political folks had a whole list of lessons learned from the Dean Campaign
  3. The online left-roots had only grown larger and stronger since 2003

In short I would propose that Barack Obama would NEVER have gotten off the ground had it not been for Howard Dean.

So if you were a Ron Paulie in 2007 what should you be preparing for? Look for the well spoken Liberty candidate. Can you imagine if Dr. Paul had the TV appeal or speaking skills of a Mike Pence or Jeff Flake? There will be a Republican candidate running in 2012 (in all seriousness they have probably already started) that will carry many of Dr. Paul's limited government issues, learned from his mistakes and have a more experienced team around them. Don't know who that "Candidate X" is yet but if you find them let me know.

Candidate X is looking for your passion, your love of liberty and yes your dollars too. That candidate will finally be worth the absolutely incredible effort that so many Paul supporters poured into the 2008 primary.

Be looking for that candidate because they are probably already looking for you.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Great post, Chris. I always enjoy your commentary.

chrisfaulkner said...

Thanks. I have been wanting to write this one for awhile.

Corey J. Sax said...

Ok maybe, but Ron Paul was right about the economy. Is this a game that we're playing, or is it about something more important, like the future of the United States of America?

chrisfaulkner said...

Corey - I am not aruguing with Ron Paul on the issues in his campaign. I don't know if anyone else in the GOP field was as spot on as him in the assessment of the coming economic collapse. My post is about campaign mechanics not policy.

Eric Rowe said...

No apology is needed. I think most Ron Paul supporters drew the same conclusion.

chrisfaulkner said...

Eric you would be surprised. I had some folks who really thought I was trashing Ron Paul and his people. To be sure I was critical of Paul's skills as a candidate but I thought I was complimentary of his grassroots.

Oh well.

Anonymous said...

I think what Ron Paul was trying to convey was that it was "the message" that was more important than any one person. Unlike Obama he did not have "cult of personality" intentions although his campaign did grow in that direction. I had never thought of politicians representing themselves as a product I think ron was the anti-product more principle based than oratory

DaveW said...

Good points mostly. But I don't believe you aren't a Ron Paul hater - "the gentleman protesteth too much!" So what is it that bugs you about Ron Paul - 'fess up. Those of us who supported him see much of what you say above and agree, but love Dr. Paul anyway because none of that is what really matters - ideas really matter, and we believe he has the right ideas about government. So is it his ideas that you "hate"?

chrisfaulkner said...

Dave that is a pretty fair point. I guess in my defense I would have to say that some RP supporters have earned a reputation for strident defenese of their guy to the point that any criticism is met with a lot of push back.

I don't "hate" Dr. Paul or his positions on issues. The point of the post was to discuss the "mechanics and business side" of a campaign. In doing so I had to give my opinion on some of his failings as a candidate.

If anything bugs me it would be that the passion and idealism that so many of you showed was ill served by the candidate's campaign (non-volunteer part. I have nothing but admiration for people who pick up a cause and are willing to fight for it (right or left) but hate to see that potential fizzle when a candidate or their campaign structure can't harness the energy.

Anonymous said...

When you say you are not a Ron Paul hater. Why then did you smear his contributors calling them "pornographers, child molesters, white supremacists and neo nazis. "

I was there at the training, there was no need to say that. It was said to diminish and denigrate a candidate and his supporters.

In my media training, the term, "Ron Paul wing nut." was used by your helper.

You may not hate Ron Paul, but I think there is some serious dislike. Why smear him and his supporters?

chrisfaulkner said...

Kris I am not sure which training you are referring to. I certainly meant no blanket remark to all of RPs supporters. There was some high profile press that RP got because he refused to return some $ he got from some white power folks. I also recall him getting money from some people in the adult entertainment industry. Not sure about any child molestors and I am pretty sure I would not have said that. At the end of the day I am sure that the vast majority of RPs donors are good honest people and I would not want to characterize them any other way.
If someone that worked for me made a comment like that I will look into it and I apologize.
Again, the point of this post was not to denegrate RP or his people it was making a tactical observation about the mechanics of the campaign.

daltonsbriefs said...

Thanks for writing this Chris. I have watched with dismay this week as the Paulies and Fair-Tax crowd all clawed each others eyes out in Indy. It's really frustrating to me that they can't collaborate and work together with other conservatives.

Anonymous said...

I was at the one in Minneapolis.

My point is not that Ron Paul got the donations, but it was extraneous to the training so I question your motif in saying it.

In the media training. I am not to worried about the comment. He missed my point in the training. I was trying to avoid being classified as a Republican in a non-partisan race. He thought was trying to distance myself from Ron Paul.

Ron Paul in Minneapolis is a positive association, being a republican is very negative.

No big deal on the wing nut comment, he was trying to help, but I think it goes to show a little bit the attitude in the training that some had a problem with.

No big deal on any of this, but since you blogged about it I thought I would give you some feedback from someone who was there.

Anonymous said...

To the other comment about why the fair tax people won't collaborate with the "Paulies". I am not sure.

chrisfaulkner said...

Kris - Fair Tax comments were not mine so I can't comment on that.

I do appreciate your feedback and welcome your perspective.

Unknown said...

Nice assessment. I mostly agree with all that you said, and I am a Paul supporter.

I feel his speaking style was good and bad, depending on how you look at it. There were those, like me, who saw his frankness as him just being 100% real with his listeners, holding nothing back and definitely not sugar-coating anything - which is obviously a rare thing in politicians these days. However, many equated his raw unpolished style to nonviability and extreme idealism.

Overall, given the touchy nature of political debate, I feel that had he diluted his message with a bit of "gusto", he may have been able to draw more mainstream support. And I don't mean he should have "sold-out" or changed his message or ideals, just inserted a little something extra to prime his audience and encourage a more receptive state of mind. It is almost mandatory to do so in order to engage a mass audience, as people seem to want to find more of a personal connection rather than, or before, considering another's political ideas for what they are.

Though, as I said before, his undiluted style was a refreshing change in my view, but I believe it is what many people couldn't see past.

chrisfaulkner said...

Evilod - I would tend to agree with you about RPs speaking style. I don't think the problem was as much about content as it was delivery.

Unknown said...

As far as spending is concerned, realistically speaking, I'm not sure RP ever expected to draw the amount of support he did. Prior to his run in '08, RP was considered a gadfly, even in some Libertarian circles.

I'm not sure he completely shed that label in his presidential run, but his campaign did gain legitimacy, if not some degree of viability.

Again, I'm not sure that even he was prepared for the amount of support he received. Obama, Clinton, McCain (to some extent), Romney, etc. all had the infrastructure in place and a plan to implement it if and when the funds came in. The outside perception of the RP campaign was that it surprised in the amount of money it was pulling in. So having so many administrative costs make sense. Seriously, if someone handed you 5 million dollars today, I'm sure most of us would be unprepared exactly what to do with it, wasting some of it in the process.

The 2008 GOP field amazed me in that each candidate embodied one or two elements that you would want in a President, but their weaknesses were far more glaring than their strengths. Imagine a candidate that possessed:

* Fred's committment to federalism.
* Romney's business sense.
* Huck's charisma.
* Paul's policy breadth.
* McCain's story (and, perhaps, independence).
* Giuliani's star power.
* Etc.

If we can find a candidate in 2012 that possesses three or maybe four of these elements, I think we'll be in good shape.

((Aside: Every blogger/writer in 2008 learned that to raise their profile, all they had to do was drop Ron Paul's name into their writing. Could this be Chris' motive? ;) ))

chrisfaulkner said...

Doug - I did not know that tactic about dropping RP's name before but certainly understand it now.

I could not agree with you more about the 08 field. If you could have spliced them all together you would have had an excellent candidate.

Anonymous said...

maybe if ron paul had a catchy slogan like 'yes we can!' he would've won, God Americans ( I am One) can be dumb sometimes.