Ron Paul Update

So in our first update, we talked about the other guys in the campaign. Ron Paul’s had a ton of stories in the news.

I’ve often suggested that Ron Paul’s biggest asset and his biggest detriment is his supporters. Well, I was right about assets, but as for his detriment, it may be his campaign staff. Paul Mulshine got grief from Paul Supporters for the lack of Paul coverage of his Philadelphia speech:

In this case, however, about 5,000 people were on Independence Mall, and they were screaming and yelling as well as clapping.

Unprecedented as the event was, it was barely mentioned in the newspapers the next day. Predictably, I got an e-mail from an irate Ron Paul supporter blasting The Star-Ledger’s bias in overlooking the candidate.

Members of the public, whether right-wing or left-wing, tend to believe that the members of the press are conspiring to suppress their views. In some instances this may be true, but this case provides a textbook study in how politicians, through their own incompetence, can bungle media coverage.

The long and short of it was that Paul’s staff told him of a press conference and no press conference occurred and they were rudely shewed away by the campaign chairman.

Mulshine concludes:

Eichel’s irate reader, like mine, no doubt believed that journalists were conspiring to keep the campaign out of the press. Actually it’s Paul’s own staff that is conspiring to do so. The conspiracy seems to be succeeding. Despite unparalleled grass-roots support, Paul’s poll numbers are failing to match his very impressive fund-raising totals.

As I’ve noted in prior columns, Paul’s message of individual liberty could be a winning one if he ever gets it out to the masses. But the best way to reach the masses is through the mass media. No matter how hip and cool the Internet may seem, the news sites mainly link to newspaper stories.

Other candidates are finding other ways to screw up their press coverage as well, but because I’ve been following the Paul campaign I found this example to be most instructive.

This is the second case of media mismanagement I’ve heard about on the Paul Campaign. When Andrea and I were heading down to Reno last month, we got to hear Glenn Beck complain about Paul standing him up in order to be interviewed by Wolf Blitzer and not even being willing to return the calls from Beck’s staff. This, of course is conduct by the campaign staff, not by Paul. This is catching the ire of many of Paul’s supporters.

To compound this, Paul’s campaign leadership sent down an emergency call for donations that seemed to 1) state the need for a large amount of money by the end of the month, 2) not give a whole lot of notice that money was needed, and 3) poor cold water on a grassroots effort to 1-up the November 5th effort at Tea Party 07. They wrote that they needed the $12 million they’d set as a goal for the whole quarter by the end of the month.

The bizarre thing about this is that Paul’s people contradicted their own statements in October when they said, “His campaign says it is just the beginning: it has set fund-raising goals of $3 million in October, $4 million in November and $5 million in December, marks campaign managers say are within reach.” Indeed, that would equate to $7 million by the end of November, Paul has nearly $9 million raised right now. What this suggests is that either: they were unaware of the requirement of media buying rules, they underestimated costs, or they expanded their goals, and would just really like some more money. Either way, it doesn’t look good.

Of course, this comes right before a supporter-funded ad runs in USA Today urging people to give money on December 16th as part of the Tea Party effort and is seen as a splash of cold water in the face to those backing it. The announcement turned most of the day on the Daily Paul into a melee of confusion and angst. Of course, many Paul supporters have come through and have pledged to go ahead with a donation now and another on December 16th, but there is visible friction between the official campaign and many folks in the grassroots.

A New York Times report indicated the Paul campaign was spending lightly. This line from the article stood out:

“They call us and say, ‘Can you send me 20,000 handouts,’ ” said Kent Snyder, campaign chairman. “I tell them we can’t afford it and to do whatever they want.”

Heretofore, it’s worked (mostly) as Paul supporters have ran a “do it yourself” campaign with many positive and a few “not so positive” results. However, to flatly refuse to send out 20,000 handouts (which I’m assuming would go to 20,000 voters) would seem bad judgment, as would sending 20,000 out to anyone who asks. One has to wonder if in 21st Century America, volunteers can take a campaign to victory despite the senior campaign leadership. This is ultimately the task of the grassroots Paul supporters, and it’s a tall order.

In another Paul-related note, you have to hand it to those University of Nevada-Reno libertarians for chalking out the whole Constitution in preparation for Paul’s arrival.