# Start Here > Ron Paul Forum >  Tom Woods: My Memories of Jesse Benton

## green73

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/my-memo...f-jesse-bento/

----------


## CaptUSA

Come on, Tom, tell us how you really feel!

----------


## kathy88

Ha. I feel better. Tom always knew the deal. I can't believe it took me so long to figure that little weasel Benton out. Oh well. Better late than never.

----------


## TonySutton

Not surprising, I am glad he let people know the truth.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Ha. I feel better. Tom always knew the deal. I can't believe it took me so long to figure that little weasel Benton out. Oh well. Better late than never.


I'm still not ready to throw Benton completely under the bus.  I'm glad he's no longer working within the movement, but I hope some of our ideas, and Ron's ideas, rubbed off on him.  Maybe he can sabotage McConnell's campaign?!

----------


## kathy88

> I'm still not ready to throw Benton completely under the bus.  I'm glad he's no longer working within the movement, but I hope some of our ideas, and Ron's ideas, rubbed off on him.  Maybe he can sabotage McConnell's campaign?!


Don't hold your breathe. Wonder when Adam is going to come out with a video regarding all this? I may actually watch it.

----------


## cajuncocoa

Great article. He nails it.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Don't hold your breathe. Wonder when Adam is going to come out with a video regarding all this? I may actually watch it.


Ugh... I think I'll pass on that!  Something about him just grates me.  I really have no interest in personal feuds, but I am curious about Benton.  Do you think he gets the liberty movement and just wants to work his own (misguided) strategy that ends up hurting us, or do you think he hates us because we believe too deeply and we have been standing in his way?  It seems to me to be the former and not the latter, but I don't really know him.  I like to think Ron Paul would know better.

----------


## Bruno

Wow.  A lot to consider there.  I respect Tom Woods and his side of the story is believable.

----------


## AGRP

> Naively, I assumed another top person, whom I will not name, would be as appalled at Jesse’s behavior toward a longtime supporter as I was. So I (gleefully) forwarded the correspondence to him, only to be told that Jesse’s conduct was not unprofessional at all [!]. But I would not technically be banned from C4L, I was told.


Anyone else thinking it was Ron Paul?

----------


## CaptUSA

> Anyone else thinking it was Ron Paul?


I was guessing Wead.

----------


## Origanalist

Jesse Benton, may your name live forever.

----------


## ninepointfive

Tom Woods is an upstanding guy - I really can't come to grips why Ron had enemies of Liberty like Benton in his campaign - which is the ONLY thing I would ever fault him for.

----------


## Bruno

> Tom Woods is an upstanding guy - I really can't come to grips why Ron had enemies of Liberty like Benton in his campaign - which is the ONLY thing I would ever fault him for.


Marriage and trust?

----------


## ninepointfive

> Marriage and trust?


yep. 


I wonder if Ron still supports Benton or not. ohh well, doesn't exactly matter

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Tom Woods is an upstanding guy - I really can't come to grips why Ron had enemies of Liberty like Benton in his campaign - which is the ONLY thing I would ever fault him for.





> Marriage and trust?


Yes, at times Ron is almost *TOO* trusting for his own good.

----------


## matt0611

If Rand chooses Benton to run his campaign in 2016 I will not be donating a single cent, that I know for sure.

----------


## kathy88

> If Rand chooses Benton to run his campaign in 2016 I will not be donating a single cent, that I know for sure.


Me neither.

----------


## CableNewsJunkie

How depressing...

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

I think some owe Mr. Kokesh some apologies.

----------


## Shane Harris

$$$

----------


## kathy88

> I think some owe Mr. Kokesh some apologies.


No wonder Jesse was so paranoid of him.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Anyone else thinking it was Ron Paul?


Tate, he was the other top person who has dealt with Tom from the last campaign/C4L. Or Debbie Hopper. But Tate makes more sense.

----------


## Shane Harris

> Tate, he was the other top person who has dealt with Tom from the last campaign/C4L. Or Debbie Hopper. But Tate makes more sense.


This is comforting because I like Weed. err Wead haha

----------


## libertyjam

> I'm still not ready to throw Benton completely under the bus.  I'm glad he's no longer working within the movement, but I hope some of our ideas, and Ron's ideas, rubbed off on him.  Maybe he can sabotage McConnell's campaign?!


Reminds me of that saying in the military about polishing a turd.

----------


## libertyjam

> Tate, he was the other top person who has dealt with Tom from the last campaign/C4L. Or Debbie Hopper. But Tate makes more sense.


Yes that would have to be the one.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I think some owe Mr. Kokesh some apologies.


Too many people here think exactly as Benton does...unfortunately.  Don't hold your breath waiting for that apology.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

Ugh, it makes me sick how that piece of trash Benton let his personal vendettas get in the way of running an effective campaign. I wish nothing but the worst for him moving forward.

----------


## Romulus

> If Rand chooses Benton to run his campaign in 2016 I will not be donating a single cent, that I know for sure.





> I think some owe Mr. Kokesh some apologies.





> $$$





> Tate, he was the other top person who has dealt with Tom from the last campaign/C4L. Or Debbie Hopper. But Tate makes more sense.


this.

----------


## donnay

> I think some owe Mr. Kokesh some apologies.


I certainly agree.  The way that Adam Kokesh was maligned and sullied is unbelievable, all the while Benton was doing what he did.   I never liked Jesse Benton--it wasn't because of any one thing, it was a gut instinct from day one.  All the hard work Dr. Paul and the grassroots had put forth then to be taken down by Benton truly makes me sick.

----------


## jllundqu

Benton = God damn viper

----------


## Suzu

> Benton = God damn viper


Off-topic, but may I ask how you got that handle? With one less letter, it would look like a rack of Scrabble tiles that you'd want to swap for new ones if possible.

----------


## puppetmaster

I do know that the next person that runs a liberty campaign has a great list of pro liberty folks to use on a quality real grassroots Gorilla style campaign!! Hire these guys and we will pay them for you!!

Woods
Wead

etc......

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

Ron's greatest strength AND weakness is family.

----------


## Romulus

> Ron's greatest strength AND weakness is family.


Yes. You know he is smart enough too to recognize a opportunist snake too.

----------


## anaconda

Sooooooo, is Rand going to hire Mr. Benton in 2015-2016?

----------


## Romulus

> Sooooooo, is Rand going to hire Mr. Benton in 2015-2016?


Rand is in the party now. He can win without us.

----------


## S.Shorland

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/my-memo...f-jesse-bento/

----------


## McChronagle

Ive been erring on the side of caution with rgds to benton and usually gave him the benefit of the doubt. when i first saw woods rip benton in his video i was really dissapointed in tom mostly because of the timing of it. hearing about bentons email to schiff and now this, i really cant be a supporter of benton any longer. i still wouldnt say he was compromised or consciously destructive to the RP campaign, but i believe he has his own idea of how things should go and cant handle other opinions professionally.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

I have great respect for Mr. Woods.  I really know nothing about Mr. Benton, not being interested in such things.  But, needless to say, after reading this I now have little-to-no respect for Mr. Benton.  Tom Woods is not one to air dirty laundry in public, nor to blow minor personal quarrels out of proportion.  To get Tom to write this, Benton had to have behaved really badly.  I conclude this Benton character is not one I would want to associate with nor have around.

----------


## ctiger2

I quickly read the thread title as -  Tom Woods: In Memory of Jesse Benton   lol!

----------


## musicmax

> Anyone else thinking it was Ron Paul?


Woods would have been more measured in his support of RP if Ron had stuck up for doofus Benton.

It had to be Tate - Wead isn't connected to C4L.

----------


## rp08orbust

> Anyone else thinking it was Ron Paul?


John Tate, obviously, who is the only one who would have had the authority to "ban" or not ban people from C4L.

----------


## ChrisDixon

> Anyone else thinking it was Ron Paul?


Not a chance in hell.

John Tate. It makes sense, because he was the top dog in C4L.

----------


## anaconda

> Rand is in the party now. He can win without us.


I'm pretty sure the powers that be will fight tooth and nail to keep Rand out of the White House.

----------


## purplechoe

The problem with this movement are the likes of LibertyEagle and MrRoCkEt (or however you spell it). Their problem is that they are not as intelligent as they think they are. People like that will never get it. The true way to wisdom is to "know thyself". Those two and others like them have no clue... Part of the reason I stopped posting here is because those people were actually moderators here. For shame...

Edited to add that their hatred of Kokesh should tell you everything about them... Adam is a true patriot!!!

----------


## ninepointfive

> The problem with this movement are the likes of LibertyEagle and MrRoCkEt (or however you spell it). Their problem is that they are not as intelligent as they think they are. People like that will never get it. The true way to wisdom is to "know thyself". Those two and others like them have no clue... Part of the reason I stopped posting here is because those people were actually moderators here. For shame...


There's a badge they aught to wear - The Liberty Police

----------


## ChrisDixon

> I'm pretty sure the powers that be will fight tooth and nail to keep Rand out of the White House.


They will. But we need to start questioning who's side Benton is on. I've really avoided Benton bashing, but he really did sell a lot of our efforts short when it mattered most during the stretch. We all made this the fight of our lives, only to have the campaign return the favor with a defeatist attitude.

I guess we have a lot of things to reassess in time for Rand Paul 2016.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I have great respect for Mr. Woods.  I really know nothing about Mr. Benton, not being interested in such things.  But, needless to say, after reading this I now have little-to-no respect for Mr. Benton.  Tom Woods is not one to air dirty laundry in public, nor to blow minor personal quarrels out of proportion.  To get Tom to write this, Benton had to have behaved really badly.  I conclude this Benton character is not one I would want to associate with nor have around.


Same here. Besides being a fantastic speaker (his speech at the Rally for the  Repubic in '08 is a classic), Tom seems like a great guy who would've  walked barefoot over broken glass for Ron Paul & the campaign. (His keeping mum about his problems with Benton & Co. is a perfect example of this.)

I was a total Benton agnostic until Woods was excluded from the official Ron Paul rally in Tampa. There is just no rational justification for kicking him to the curb like that. Excluding him for petty personal reasons does not speak well at all of the people responsible for that decision.

----------


## jmdrake

> The problem with this movement are the likes of LibertyEagle and MrRoCkEt (or however you spell it). Their problem is that they are not as intelligent as they think they are. People like that will never get it. The true way to wisdom is to "know thyself". Those two and others like them have no clue... Part of the reason I stopped posting here is because those people were actually moderators here. For shame...
> 
> Edited to add that their hatred of Kokesh should tell you everything about them... Adam is a true patriot!!!


I've had my share of disagreements with LibertyEagle, but is it really necessary to call her out like that in a thread that she's not even participated in?  For the record I think what happened to Deb K WRT PaulFest soured LE at least a little on Jesse Benton.  And Adam has made his share of mistakes.

----------


## BuddyRey

I really hope we've learned our lesson after this debacle.  Ideological compromise and bending over backward to seek Republican respectability is a road to ruin for us.  The libertarian movement should be run by libertarians, dammit!

----------


## donnay

> The problem with this movement are the likes of LibertyEagle and MrRoCkEt (or however you spell it). Their problem is that they are not as intelligent as they think they are. People like that will never get it. The true way to wisdom is to "know thyself". Those two and others like them have no clue... Part of the reason I stopped posting here is because those people were actually moderators here. For shame...
> 
> Edited to add that their hatred of Kokesh should tell you everything about them... Adam is a true patriot!!!


Why was purplechoe banned?

----------


## kathy88

> Same here. Besides being a fantastic speaker (his speech at the Rally for the  Repubic in '08 is a classic), Tom seems like a great guy who would've  walked barefoot over broken glass for Ron Paul & the campaign. (His keeping mum about his problems with Benton & Co. is a perfect example of this.)
> 
> I was a total Benton agnostic until Woods was excluded from the official Ron Paul rally in Tampa. There is just no rational justification for kicking him to the curb like that. Excluding him for petty personal reasons does not speak well at all of the people responsible for that decision.


First Tom, then Adam. It would appear that Mr. Benton ensures that people who could damage his reputation are dealt with swiftly and sternly. What is he hiding?

----------


## Romulus

> First Tom, then Adam. It would appear that Mr. Benton ensures that people who could damage his reputation are dealt with swiftly and sternly. *What is he hiding?*


A bullet proof vest apparently.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> I really hope we've learned our lesson after this debacle.  Ideological compromise and bending over backward to seek Republican respectability is a road to ruin for us.  The libertarian movement should be run by libertarians, dammit!


Best bet is joining up with the Republican Party and not budging an inch. Be like Ron Paul instead of Rand Paul. We'll make gains as the Republican Party establishment makes asses of themselves on a national scale and can work with grassroots conservatives on many key issues.

----------


## DeadheadForPaul

Tom Woods' word is as good as gold

As much as I love Rand, I don't know if I could support him if Benson was involved

----------


## Romulus

> Same here. Besides being a fantastic speaker (his speech at the Rally for the  Repubic in '08 is a classic), Tom seems like a great guy who would've  walked barefoot over broken glass for Ron Paul & the campaign. (His keeping mum about his problems with Benton & Co. is a perfect example of this.)
> 
> I was a total Benton agnostic until Woods was excluded from the official Ron Paul rally in Tampa. There is just no rational justification for kicking him to the curb like that. Excluding him for petty personal reasons does not speak well at all of the people responsible for that decision.


Here's my problem... at what point does Ron Paul say he wants Tom there? When does Ron stand up for this stuff?

It's like he gave the Jesse the keys to drive this whole ordeal. I really don't condone how he let Jessie and whoever else run the show.

----------


## Brett85

I'll support Rand financially in 2016 regardless of who his campaign manager is.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Why was purplechoe banned?


 Somebody cry-babied to the mods?  Just a guess.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Here's my problem... at what point does Ron Paul say he wants Tom there? When does Ron stand up for this stuff?
> 
> It's like he gave the Jesse the keys to drive this whole ordeal. I really don't condone how he let Jessie and whoever else run the show.


Can't say I disagree ... 'coz I don't.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I'll support Rand financially in 2016 regardless of who his campaign manager is.


I'll support *Ron* Paul in 2016, and I hope that he has a better campaign staff.  May we multiply by 4 yet again.  And maybe we can finally win Iowa.

----------


## Romulus

If Jessie has anything to do with Rand, he's on his own as far as I'm concerned.

----------


## RickyJ

> A bullet proof vest apparently.


Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if that becomes a normal part of his attire. I don't think any real Ron Paul supporter would do a thing to him, but I suspect he has pissed off many people in his life, much more than just Ron Paul supporters. I feel bad for Ron's granddaughter. She fell for the wrong man.

----------


## mac_hine

> Why was purplechoe banned?


Just noticed that. I've never been a big fan of LE myself. Months ago, in a thread I started called, Adam Kokesh unloads on Benton, Wead, Official Campaign. He/she respponded,  


> I really like Tom Woods, but for him to blame Benton/Tate for not involving him more is ridiculous and Tom even admits why he couldn't be more involved.  It was because he was in the PAC.  
> .....Duh. No, but maybe there should be a ban mac_hine moneybomb.


This was after I posted a video entitled, Tom Woods Slams Jesse Benton, with the caption, Should there be a "Fire Jesse Benton" grassroots moneybomb?

Ever since that uncalled for provocation I've kept a close eye on LE's posts. Aside for being a Rand/Official Campaign apologist, It seems his/her role here has been a kind of thought policing Nurse Ratched type.

I respect Tom Woods almost as much as Ron Paul. I've taken a couple of classes with him through mises.org and met him briefly at an event here in NH. To me, he seems like a truly awesome guy, incredibly smart,and dedicated to spreading the message of liberty. 

I've posted this video a couple of times already, but  in case anyone's missed it here it is again:


Aside from Ron's speech, this was the best from both events, IMO.

----------


## Romulus

> Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if that becomes a normal part of his attire. I don't think any real Ron Paul supporter would do a thing to him, but I suspect he has pissed off many people in his life, much more than just Ron Paul supporters. I feel bad for Ron's granddaughter. She fell for the wrong man.


It's more about why he feels the need to wear it, that he feels he might be in danger. It tells me his actions are not as honest as they're supposed to be.

----------


## VictorB

That pretty much tells you all you need to know about Benton.

----------


## sailingaway

> Anyone else thinking it was Ron Paul?


Not me, that's for sure.  I'm thinking maybe Tate or Wead but I obviously don't know.  Ron is not 'a top person' in the campaign, he was the candidate.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> Tom Woods' word is as good as gold
> 
> As much as I love Rand, I don't know if I could support him if Benson was involved


Won't have my support.

----------


## sailingaway

> I've had my share of disagreements with LibertyEagle, but is it really necessary to call her out like that in a thread that she's not even participated in?  For the record I think what happened to Deb K WRT PaulFest soured LE at least a little on Jesse Benton.  And Adam has made his share of mistakes.



I agree with this.

----------


## sailingaway

> Here's my problem... at what point does Ron Paul say he wants Tom there? When does Ron stand up for this stuff?
> 
> It's like he gave the Jesse the keys to drive this whole ordeal. I really don't condone how he let Jessie and whoever else run the show.


I'm pretty sure the deal to get Ron to run was that he'd educate and give interviews and hold rallies and the campaign 'would take care of everything else'.  He really doesn't like politics, he likes education and ideas and solutions.  And he had his subcommittee and family.

----------


## dannno



----------


## sailingaway

> Just noticed that. I've never been a big fan of LE myself. Months ago, in a thread I started called, Adam Kokesh unloads on Benton, Wead, Official Campaign. He/she respponded,  
> 
> This was after I posted a video entitled, Tom Woods Slams Jesse Benton, with the caption, Should there be a "Fire Jesse Benton" grassroots moneybomb?
> 
> Ever since that uncalled for provocation I've kept a close eye on LE's posts. Aside for being a Rand/Official Campaign apologist, It seems his/her role here has been a kind of thought policing Nurse Ratched type.
> 
> I respect Tom Woods almost as much as Ron Paul. I've taken a couple of classes with him through mises.org and met him briefly at an event here in NH. To me, he seems like a truly awesome guy, incredibly smart,and dedicated to spreading the message of liberty. 
> 
> I've posted this video a couple of times already, but  in case anyone's missed it here it is again:
> ...


I haven't checked, but I'd be willing to bet LE didn't report that. It is not her style.

there was another thread started that was deleted, not by me, and I suspect the banning had something to do with it.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'm pretty sure the deal to get Ron to run was that he'd educate and give interviews and hold rallies and the campaign 'would take care of everything else'.  He really doesn't like politics, he likes education and ideas and solutions.


It's been my experience that this is the way it works.  The candidate usually goes where someone has scheduled him/her to be and gives speeches...other people are hired to do the mundane stuff like scheduling surrogate speakers.  Ron probably didn't even know what was going on behind the scenes; it's unlikely he was involved with minute details.   That's not a knock on him, BTW...that's just the way it works.

----------


## KingRobbStark

Benton is not even a good campaign manager. The success was thanks to the grassroots. All he did was ride the wave.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> If Jessie has anything to do with Rand, he's on his own as far as I'm concerned.


If Jesse has anything to do with his campaign and/or it's packed with CFR globalists, I will vehemently oppose him. No way he gets my support just because of his last name.

----------


## XTreat

> I was guessing Wead.


Tate, Wead would not be able to confirm his still being able to associate with C4L.

----------


## RickyJ

> Anyone else thinking it was Ron Paul?


Not for a second would I think that.

----------


## RickyJ

> Benton is not even a good campaign manager. The success was thanks to the grassroots. All he did was ride the wave.


And that wave has now crashed for him. He has nowhere to go but down from here. Soon McConnell will see his error, if not then he might very well get defeated, which in a unintended way on Jesse's part would actually help the liberty movement.

----------


## Tod

> If Rand chooses Benton to run his campaign in 2016 I will not be donating a single cent, that I know for sure.


We should be letting Rand know now.

----------


## Original_Intent

So can we throw snowballs at Benton at the next GOP event (that has snow available)?

Great money bomb idea there - I'll never contribute to a campaign that POS has anything to do with. Hear that, Rand?

----------


## RickyJ

> We should be letting Rand know now.


If Rand doesn't already know then he will never be president.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Look guys, for the record, I haven't "liked" Benton since the first campaign when it appeared that he spent more of his time trying to woo Ron's granddaughter instead of doing his job.  As evidenced by all the media requests that were not being responded to.  But, I did hope that over the years he had improved and it seemed that maybe he had since he seemed to do a decent job on Rand's campaign there at the end.  But, that may have had more to do with Trygvie.  

But, that still doesn't mean I agreed with him being blamed for everything that people were upset with in the campaign, or frankly in Ron's placement in the race.  Not all of that was Benton's fault.  That however doesn't mean that I ever thought he was that good at what he did.  I just don't bitch about it on the forums.  Which is airing our dirty laundry both to the press and to other campaigns.  It never seemed intelligent.  What I do is contact people in the campaign about my concerns.

I am glad Benton is gone.  He needed to go.  But, that still doesn't mean I am going to jump on board a bash bandwagon.  That is just not my way.

As far as Dr. Woods is concerned, it appears I was wrong about the PAC being the reason he wasn't asked to be on the campaign.  But, again, I'm still not willing to just automatically agree that Woods has named _the_ reason.  It's only one side of this thing and I haven't heard the campaign's.  And at this point, I don't really care.  

What I do know for sure is that there are a whole lot of massive egos in this movement and also some who make their living off of it.  Sometimes, I wish we could go back to the days that we had in the first campaign, when everyone was in this for one reason and one reason only.  To get Dr. Paul elected.  Do some of you remember those days?  We never wondered about ulterior motives.  Maybe people hadn't figured out at that time that there was money to be made off of it, I don't know.  But, there didn't seem to be nearly as much backstabbing; at least until the end.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Just noticed that. I've never been a big fan of LE myself. Months ago, in a thread I started called, Adam Kokesh unloads on Benton, Wead, Official Campaign. He/she respponded,  
> 
> This was after I posted a video entitled, Tom Woods Slams Jesse Benton, with the caption, Should there be a "Fire Jesse Benton" grassroots moneybomb?


Because starting a thread such as that about a member of the campaign was not only immature, it was ignorant!   Other campaigns were all over this forum, in addition to the media.

As far as your comment about Rand goes, yes, I still support him at this time.  But, just like anyone, including Ron, I will watch his votes.  At this point, I think he's doing pretty great.  He's certainly the best Senator we have had in decades.  If you call that being an "apologist", okey dokey.

----------


## donnay

> Because starting a thread such as that about a member of the campaign was not only immature, it was ignorant!   Other campaigns were all over this forum, in addition to the media.



Maybe you should had been the Campaign Manager?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Maybe you should had been the Campaign Manager?


Where is that coming from?

----------


## presence

> *Bentonism :*
> 
> *is the playing down of Ron Paul’s most popular and important  ideas, 
> the impatience with and purging of people who champion those  ideas, 
> and an obsessive eye to GOP respectability.* 
> 
> Is that what the  “liberty movement” is? Then count me out.


Count me out too.  I give less than half a $#@! about GOP respectability.  *I want intellectual converts not lulled sheep.*  Sheep go astray. 




> I want to urge people not even to consider donating to anything with his name on it. []
> Incidentally, if Rand Paul intends to run in 2016, the single most  effective way he could convey to the public that he is not really  serious, and that people should withhold their donations, would be to  hire Jesse Benton.


hear! hear!

for liberty,

presence

----------


## Matthew Zak

We really need to regroup, '08 style.

----------


## donnay

> Where is that coming from?


It comes from you hovering over independent individuals who have a first amendment unalienable right to speak their minds.  If anyone has an opposing opinion that you do not agree with, we get the Forum Nanny first degree on how we are hurting the campaign or not toeing the party line.  You have spoken several times in this forum of your disdain for Adam Kokesh, Alex Jones, Jesse Ventura, and others in the liberty movement.  Sounds much like the things Jesse Benton did in this campaign, as campaign manager.

I dunno...just an independent observation?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> It comes from you hovering over independent individuals who have a first amendment unalienable right to speak their minds.  If anyone has an opposing opinion that you do not agree with, we get the Forum Nanny first degree on how we are hurting the campaign or not toeing the party line.  You have spoken several times in this forum of your disdain for Adam Kokesh, Alex Jones, Jesse Ventura, and others in the liberty movement.  Sounds much like the things Jesse Benton did in this campaign, as campaign manager.


Let me get this straight.  If you libel Rand Paul, or other people's chosen path in getting liberty candidates elected, you would prefer if I just sat there and shut up.  Sorry, but that isn't going to happen.  However, if you wish to stop it, it is in your hands.  Stop bashing.




> I dunno...just an independent observation?


Nine times out of ten, Donnay, I have only done that if they have attacked someone in the liberty movement itself.  But, I am far from perfect and I have admitted it when I have been wrong.

But, fair warning, don't push me or I will give you my independent observation about _you_.

----------


## presence

> What I do know for sure is that there are a whole lot of massive egos in this movement and also some who make their living off of it.  Sometimes, I wish we could go back to the days that we had in the first campaign, *when everyone was in this for one reason and one reason only.  To get Dr. Paul elected.*  Do some of you remember those days?  We never wondered about ulterior motives.  Maybe people hadn't figured out at that time that there was money to be made off of it, I don't know.  But, there didn't seem to be nearly as much backstabbing; at least until the end.


In 2004/5 I wanted the liberty message spread and that's all I want to this day.  Pointing ppl towards RP back then as now was an effective method to spread the word.  Though I've chanted for it all along, done a few phone from homes, blogged endlessly, email fwd's of 1000's of youtube flicks, joined countless forums to chant RP... I never expected him to be elected president.  I wanted people to understand libertarianism and become aware of their God given and constitutional rights; and becoming aware of the raping they're getting from their government.  Helping RP into the limelight to chant that message was all I was ever after.    The college tour this past year was pure gold.  The changes in fox news over the past 4 years have been gold.

Even with Jesse in the way, I feel like both the 2008 and 2012 campaigns were big wins.  

That said, I also think the US is a few decades, a few constitutional amendments, several score high level indictments, and a major crash away from the social revolution necessary to return to a constitutional republic.  The establishment smashed RP in 2012 and off the back of momma spider came hundreds of babies.  We'll see how they mature.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Let me get this straight.  If you *libel* Rand Paul, or other people's chosen path in getting liberty candidates elected, you would prefer if I just sat there and shut up.  Sorry, but that isn't going to happen.  However, if you wish to stop it, it is in your hands.  Stop bashing.


LMAO...now it's *libel*?  LOL!!

Can you possibly come to grips with the idea that some here do not like Rand's endorsement of Romney?  

It's not bashing.
It doesn't mean anyone HATES him.
It's not an attack on you.
It's not an attack on those who wish to work within the GOP.
And it most certainly is NOT libel.

Hyperbole much?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> LMAO...now it's *libel*?  LOL!!
> 
> Can you possibly come to grips with the idea that some here do not like Rand's endorsement of Romney?


Oh, I got it somewhere between the 1st time you and your buds said it and the 500th time.   




> It's not bashing.


Well, I'm thinking those who called him a TRAITOR, were kinda bashing him.  




> It doesn't mean anyone HATES him.
> It's not an attack on you.
> It's not an attack on those who wish to work within the GOP.
> And it most certainly is NOT libel.
> Hyperbole much?


Surely, you jest.  How many times have you and your crew talked about how stupid it was for anyone to keep working inside the GOP, or ridiculed those who refused to throw Rand under the bus because he endorsed Romney?  

Honesty much?

----------


## donnay

> We really need to regroup, '08 style.


Yes, Jesse Ventura 2016!

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...e-Ventura-2016

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Incidentally, if Rand Paul intends to run in 2016, the single most effective way he could convey to the public that he is not really serious, and that people should withhold their donations, would be to hire Jesse Benton.
> 
> 
> 
> Comments are closed.



Ouch.

----------


## phill4paul

I just got home and found out...snicker..snicker...

* Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!*

----------


## donnay

> Oh, I got it somewhere between the 1st time you and your buds said it and the 500th time.   
> 
> 
> Well, I'm thinking those who called him a TRAITOR, were kinda bashing him.  
> 
> 
> 
> Surely, you jest.  How many times have you and your crew talked about how stupid it was for anyone to keep working inside the GOP?



You know Einstein said it best:  "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

The two parties are corrupt!  To work within the party to think you are going to make a difference is the equivalent to infiltrating the Mafia to make them go legit.  It isn't going to happen and is quite delusional to think it is possible.

----------


## eleganz

lol...and even more truth comes out.  

anybody still want to keep their heads in the sand about this?

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> lol...and even more truth comes out.  
> 
> anybody still want to keep their heads in the sand about this?


See the McConnell thread.

----------


## specialkornflake

With glee I read Tom Wood's post. I've not liked Jesse Benton since I saw him in 2007 smacking his gum next to Ron Paul in almost every speech. Sadly Ron Paul has a weakness towards family and campaign management.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Oh, I got it somewhere between the 1st time you and your buds said it and the 500th time.


Obviously, you don't.




> Well, I'm thinking those who called him a TRAITOR, were kinda bashing him.


Yeah, I saw that in the first few days after the endorsement. Emotions were running high, and some of us were stung by this...very badly.  I still disagree with his decision, and I'm not sure I'm ready to fully trust him right now, but I'm not calling him a TRAITOR.  I may even end up supporting him if he runs in 2016...but we have to wait and see what happens between now and then.




> Surely, you jest. How many times have you and your crew talked about how stupid it was for anyone to keep working inside the GOP,


*sigh*  Calling an action "stupid" (working within the GOP) is not the same as calling YOU stupid.  I'm not even sure I've used the word "stupid"...I would be more likely to use "ill-advised" or something to that effect.  




> or ridiculed those who refused to throw Rand under the bus because he endorsed Romney?


LE, I'm at a loss as to why you persist in making stuff up about people who disagree with you.  I haven't _"ridiculed those who refuse to throw Rand under the bus because he endorsed Romney"_.  If you want to support Rand from now until forever, that's  your decision and you're welcomed to it. (I'm a libertarian; I don't force my opinions on others). But YOU, on the other hand, cannot stand that ANYONE ELSE ON THIS SITE may have a different opinion of Rand.  You follow people around and DEMAND that they STFU if they say something negative about him...yes, I said it reminds me of someone with a schoolgirl crush on him.  That may be ridiculing but it's not because you refuse to throw him under the bus...it's because you act like a momma bear whose cub has been insulted whenever someone sees him differently than you do.  




> Honesty much?


It would be nice if we could see some from you once in awhile.

----------


## presence

> You know Einstein said it best:  "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
> 
> The two parties are corrupt!  To work within the party to think you are going to make a difference is the equivalent to infiltrating the Mafia to make them go legit.  It isn't going to happen and is quite delusional to think it is possible.


meh.  Cognitive dissonance is a powerful force for most to overcome.

----------


## sailingaway

> You know Einstein said it best:  "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
> 
> The two parties are corrupt!  To work within the party to think you are going to make a difference is the equivalent to infiltrating the Mafia to make them go legit.  It isn't going to happen and is quite delusional to think it is possible.


I thought we'd agreed we were going to quit calling people who want to pursue liberty differently than we care to, delusional?  On both sides?

And, to others, to respect that others have a different view point?

----------


## phill4paul

*  BWAHAHAAA! HAAAA-HA HaHa!* 

  For such an adept political campaign manager he sure is a dumb ass. 

*  BWAAAHAHA! HA-HAHAHA!*

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I thought we'd agreed we were going to quit calling people who want to pursue liberty differently than we care to, delusional?  On both sides?
> 
> And, to others, to respect that others have a different view point?


sailing, I'm just tired of having my different point of view characterized as "quitting" or "troll behavior" or "libel", "bashing", "hating", etc.

Nothing would make me happier than to agree to disagree with some here, specifically LE.  But if I continue to be misrepresented, I will respond!

----------


## presence

All our differences and bickering aside, I'd have any RPF member over for dinner any night of the week.

----------


## Koz

> If Rand chooses Benton to run his campaign in 2016 I will not be donating a single cent, that I know for sure.


I totally agree with this.

----------


## Carlybee

All joking and snarkiness aside, I can't believe that someone who headed up the campaign of the most liberty minded man in Congress, is now on the team of one of the biggest warmongering neocons out there.  I will give McConnell credit for some of his conservative votes but he is about as far from liberty on most issues as one can get.
That being said Jesse is welcome to go to work for whomever he pleases.  He will have to deal with the credibility fallout....not that he didn't already have that problem. If it looks like this is just a segue into a Rand 2016 run then I would have to say very bad move.  Although it is starting to look more and more like Rand will not be depending on the liberty vote but the Tea Party vote so I don't think at this point that anything we say or do will have much bearing one way or the other.

----------


## donnay

> I thought we'd agreed we were going to quit calling people who want to pursue liberty differently than we care to, delusional?  On both sides?
> 
> And, to others, to respect that others have a different view point?


My statement was with regards to LE's reply to her interpretation of Cajuncocoa's stance:  "How many times have you and your crew talked about how stupid it was for anyone to keep working inside the GOP?"

Now I do not know who Cajuncocoa's crew is?   So I replied because I have said, on numerous occasions, that working within a system that is corrupt is a futile attempt--those in power are not going to readily give it up without a fight.

I was just making my case by using the word 'delusional', in a general context to make my point, not to disparage anyone per se.

----------


## presence

*RONPAULFLIX: Tom Woods unloads on Jesse Benton and John Tate – Sep 13 2012*


*The secret plan:  Milk the Ron Paul World for all its worth.* *Neuter and water down to pick up the "sarah palin vote" ?!?*

Green73 can we get this link moved to the op?  thx.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> My statement was with regards to LE's reply to her interpretation of Cajuncocoa's stance:  "How many times have you and your crew talked about how stupid it was for anyone to keep working inside the GOP?"
> 
> Now I do not know who Cajuncocoa's crew is?   So I replied because I have said, on numerous occasions, that working within a system that is corrupt is a futile attempt--those in power are not going to readily give it up without a fight.
> 
> I was just making my case by using the word 'delusional', in a general context to make my point, not to disparage anyone per se.


Case.
in.
point.

----------


## phill4paul

R.I.P. Jesse Benton. 




  Memries,
Like the corners of my mind
Misty water-colored memories
Of the way we were
Scattered pictures,
Of the smiles we left behind
Smiles we gave to one another
For the way we were
Can it be that it was all so simple then? 
Or has time re-written every line? 
If we had the chance to do it all again
Tell me, would we? could we? 
Memries, may be beautiful and yet
What's too painful to remember
We simply choose to forget
So it's the laughter
We will remember
Whenever we remember...
The way we were...
The way we were...

----------


## papitosabe

> Anyone else thinking it was Ron Paul?


 Puppet master Trygve Olson maybe?

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

Think someone's statement about how Benton treated the OKC delegagation -wouldn't give them seats at the rally, or invite them into the after hours party.  
That's the one that really hit me.

I saw someone post that over at Daily Paul, but it needs to be copied more.

Complete treason was going on.

----------


## donnay

> Case.
> in.
> point.


Working within the GOP--Knock yourself out.

----------


## K466

Much kudos to Tom for posting this. I wish we had found out about this sooner. Perhaps we should letter-bomb Rand to make it clear that Benton must never be involved in future campaigns? Then again, with Rand supporting Romney and McConnell, maybe he's not worth it, sad to say. We need another Ron Paul who doesn't have the last name of Paul to run in 2016/2020. Napolitano, Schiff, Woods, etc.

----------


## kill the banks

the love in rEVOLution is 'respect' ... we need to think things out like a family or a couple in wedlock ... if you want any relationship to work then you quickly learn that limbic name calling and flying off the handle ( incl panic ) only kills the bonds & communication you are truly seeking ... this ain't rocket science ~ it's intelligence !

----------


## phill4paul

> the love in rEVOLution is 'respect' ... we need to think things out like a family or a couple in wedlock ... if you want any relationship to work then you quickly learn that limbic name calling and flying off the handle ( incl panic ) only kills the bonds & communication you are truly seeking ... this ain't rocket science ~ it's intelligence !


 I'm divorced and have disassociated myself from family members. I still have familial and other personal relations. I don't want some relationships to work. Because sometimes they can't. It ain't rocket science. It is what it is. And that, there, _is_ what it is.

----------


## kill the banks

> I'm divorced and have disassociated myself from family members. I still have familial and other personal relations. I don't want some relationships to work. Because sometimes they can't. It ain't rocket science. It is what it is. And that, there, _is_ what it is.


well do u want the revolution to work ... ? that's all that matters here or are u divorcing us too ? take care I hear you

----------


## radiofriendly

> Look guys, for the record, I haven't "liked" Benton since the first campaign when it appeared that he spent more of his time trying to woo Ron's granddaughter instead of doing his job.  As evidenced by all the media requests that were not being responded to.  But, I did hope that over the years he had improved and it seemed that maybe he had since he seemed to do a decent job on Rand's campaign there at the end.  But, that may have had more to do with Trygvie.  
> 
> But, that still doesn't mean I agreed with him being blamed for everything that people were upset with in the campaign, or frankly in Ron's placement in the race.  Not all of that was Benton's fault.  That however doesn't mean that I ever thought he was that good at what he did.  I just don't bitch about it on the forums.  Which is airing our dirty laundry both to the press and to other campaigns.  It never seemed intelligent.  What I do is contact people in the campaign about my concerns.
> 
> I am glad Benton is gone.  He needed to go.  But, that still doesn't mean I am going to jump on board a bash bandwagon.  That is just not my way.
> 
> As far as Dr. Woods is concerned, it appears I was wrong about the PAC being the reason he wasn't asked to be on the campaign.  But, again, I'm still not willing to just automatically agree that Woods has named _the_ reason.  It's only one side of this thing and I haven't heard the campaign's.  And at this point, I don't really care.  
> 
> What I do know for sure is that there are a whole lot of massive egos in this movement and also some who make their living off of it.  Sometimes, I wish we could go back to the days that we had in the first campaign, when everyone was in this for one reason and one reason only.  To get Dr. Paul elected.  Do some of you remember those days?  We never wondered about ulterior motives.  Maybe people hadn't figured out at that time that there was money to be made off of it, I don't know.  But, there didn't seem to be nearly as much backstabbing; at least until the end.


Thanks for that thoughtful post--it's awfully easy to join the vultures circling for the kill.

Here are my thoughts:


I'm a huge fan of Tom Woods, but I have to question throwing the gauntlet down on donations to Ron Paul in the future and even C4L, warts and all.

I, for one, had no illusions that my donated money was causing Ron Paul to physically win an election. Most of all, I gave money because Ron Paul having money was a news story in and of itself--the money-bomb media stories were worth more money than the actual fiat dollars!

It's not exactly a news flash that Jesse Benton is an A$$. If you work in any large organization--you kinda need to get used to working with people like that. Campaigns are like governments, aren't they? They are huge bureaucracies and they even have touches of nepotism. I applaud Tom Woods' work and I believe he was better served in the long run by staying outside of the campaign.

Ending the Fed and auditing the Fed is now a concept known by the average news watching human being--world wide. Ending foreign aid is now ripe for snowballing as an issue with recent developments in the Middle East. These are huge changes in the political landscape, not to mention a few more liberty oriented candidates. What do you think the budget was for marketing the latest Hollywood blockbuster? (it can be around $100 million)--it was much more than the campaign raised!

Giving money to any organization involves an analysis of cost and benefits. I still say the benefits far exceed the costs involved in donating to Ron Paul's campaign--failures and all.

----------


## Bman

+rep for you Tom.  

I agree with your ending.  I did not donate this round to Ron because of his staff and lack of considerations you made early in this article.  If Benton is on Rand's staff in any capacity more meaningful than shoe shiner I will certainly not donate to him either, if he runs in 2016.

----------


## phill4paul

> well do u want the revolution to work ... ? that's all that matters here or are u divorcing us too ? take care I hear you


  Ain't nobody on these forums on 'ignore.'

----------


## BestVirginia

> +rep for you Tom.  
> 
> I agree with your ending.  I did not donate this round to Ron because of his staff and lack of considerations you made early in this article.  If Benton is on Rand's staff in any capacity more meaningful than shoe shiner I will certainly not donate to him either, if he runs in 2016.


Are you saying you wouldn't donate to a Rand senatorial campaign, or a presidential campaign, or both? I also would have donated more if I'd felt the campaign was addressing concerns of the grassroots.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Are you saying you wouldn't donate to a Rand senatorial campaign, or a presidential campaign, or both? I also would have donated more if I'd felt the campaign was addressing concerns of the grassroots.


If Benton has anything to do with Rand's campaign then I won't even vote for him, let alone donate to him.

----------


## whippoorwill

"This particular lie I made no special effort to refute. I joked with people that if the grassroots heard that I had called Jesse that name, Id be a hero."

Hellzz yea!

----------


## dr.y.squirrel

Noone's backstabbing anyone.  Tom Woods got backstabbed by Benton all over the place and now he's just clearing his name, now that the campaign is over.  If someone spreads rumors about you, you have every right to respond, and so does Woods.

----------


## sluggo

Benton is toxic.

I hope Rand will wake up to that fact before 2016.

----------


## low preference guy

> Benton is toxic.
> 
> I hope Rand will wake up to that fact before 2016.


Rand is smart, he knows. If Benton works for him, Rand will give him a role where he can do no damage, or watch him closely.

----------


## libertariantexas

> I'm still not ready to throw Benton completely under the bus.  I'm glad he's no longer working within the movement, but I hope some of our ideas, and Ron's ideas, rubbed off on him.  Maybe he can sabotage McConnell's campaign?!


I stood up for Benton longer than most, but at this point, it's pretty clear that Benton is just selling out to whoever waves the most money in his face.

----------


## anaconda

> We should be letting Rand know now.



I'm guessing that Rand is optimistic about being able to gain wide support throughout the main stream "Tea Party" faction of the GOP voter base, that is so apparently luke warm to the recent GOP nominees. I think he can, and I hope he does. I don't think that the entirety of his talking points over the next 4 years will be entirely satisfying to the purists among Ron Paul devotees. I happen to have faith in Rand's devotion to a libertarian ideology.

----------


## kathy88

> I stood up for Benton longer than most, but at this point, it's pretty clear that Benton is just selling out to whoever waves the most money in his face.


I did too. Pretty ashamed I didn't see it/listen to others sooner. But he's at least out of Ron's affairs at least publicly. Maybe Ron will get some truth bombs with him out of the way about how we were treated.

----------


## Cody1

> I did too. Pretty ashamed I didn't see it/listen to others sooner. But he's at least out of Ron's affairs at least publicly. Maybe Ron will get some truth bombs with him out of the way about how we were treated.


Hey Kathy, did you see what's up on libertychat? 

http://libertychat.com/

Could be just gossip, you know how these things are. I sure hope Ron isn't upset

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

Was this posted here? Good lord, Woods would have been a tour de force as Ron's mouthpiece in the media.

----------


## angelatc

> As far as Dr. Woods is concerned, it appears I was wrong about the PAC being the reason he wasn't asked to be on the campaign.  But, again, I'm still not willing to just automatically agree that Woods has named _the_ reason.  It's only one side of this thing and I haven't heard the campaign's.


The campaign lied about the reason.  That pretty much negates anything that they may have to say about it in the future.

----------


## angelatc

> [/video]
> 
> Was this posted here? Good lord, Woods would have been a tour de force as Ron's mouthpiece in the media.


I have said all along that the campaign was lying about the Woods / PAC association, because it isn't illegal for Super PAC staffers to have contact with the campaign.  The only thing they can't do is coordinate on expenditures and messaging, and they can even do that if the press is an intermediary.

Case in point: Mitt Romney routinely addresses and raises money for his Super PAC.  But when the Super PAC started running a controversial ad that the campaign didn't like, Romney made sure a reporter asked him about the ad, and said that he couldn't direct their messaging, but he would prefer it not to run.  Whoosh - it disappeared.

That's not illegal.  The FEC says that's allowable.

If the campaign could have cooperated and let Tom use Ron to raise money for the Super PAC, and let Tom and Chris Rye go nuts making timely and sharp ads, the campaign would have been stronger for it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Nevermind.

----------


## William R

Tom Woods is angry because he wasn't asked to help the campaign.  But truth be told he would have been a huge  liability.  Ron already had a problem with the newsletters and the last thing the campaign needed was someone who used to belong to the League of the South. 

http://dixienet.org/rights/index.shtml

The Neocons and the media would have gone crazy.   

h xxp://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/06/08/beck-hosts-author-who-has-been-member-of-hate-g/165935

Tom, Jesse Benton was right to turn away your offers to help.

----------


## angelatc

> Tom Woods is angry because he wasn't asked to help the campaign.  But truth be told he would have been a huge  liability.  Ron already had a problem with the newsletters and the last thing the campaign needed was someone who used to belong to the League of the South. 
> 
> h xxp://dixienet.org/rights/index.shtml
> 
> The Neocons and the media would have gone crazy.   
> 
> h xxp://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/06/08/beck-hosts-author-who-has-been-member-of-hate-g/165935
> 
> Tom, Jesse Benton was right to turn away your offers to help.


So we have to care what Media Matters says? Letting the liberals and neocons decide who we should allow to speak is probably not the best way to win elections, and besides - that's not what the campaign said.

----------


## sailingaway

> Tom Woods is angry because he wasn't asked to help the campaign.  But truth be told he would have been a huge  liability.  Ron already had a problem with the newsletters and the last thing the campaign needed was someone who used to belong to the League of the South. 
> 
> h xxp://dixienet.org/rights/index.shtml
> 
> The Neocons and the media would have gone crazy.   
> 
> h xxp://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/06/08/beck-hosts-author-who-has-been-member-of-hate-g/165935
> 
> Tom, Jesse Benton was right to turn away your offers to help.


Oh, please.  Give me the League of the South any day over the emails we got this spring, in terms of campaign impact. _PARTICULARLY_ in a GOP primary, where groups like League of the South aren't demonized simply because SPLC says you must. And the campaign should have simply ADDRESSED the newsletters which Ron never wrote -- 20 years ago when he wasn't in office and they were written.

----------


## donnay

> Tom Woods is angry because he wasn't asked to help the campaign.  But truth be told he would have been a huge  liability.  Ron already had a problem with the newsletters and the last thing the campaign needed was someone who used to belong to the League of the South. 
> 
> h xxp://dixienet.org/rights/index.shtml
> 
> The Neocons and the media would have gone crazy.   
> 
> h xxp://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/06/08/beck-hosts-author-who-has-been-member-of-hate-g/165935
> 
> Tom, Jesse Benton was right to turn away your offers to help.



You only give credence to the Southern Poverty Law Center when you post tripe like this.  *SIGH*

In all honesty it is a badge of honor that the SPLC attacks you--but I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

----------


## William R

> So we have to care what Media Matters says? Letting the liberals and neocons decide who we should allow to speak is probably not the best way to win elections, and besides - that's not what the campaign said.


Excuse me, but the mainstream media for the most part reads talking points from Media Matters.  Throw in the Neocons and Woods would have been a HUGE Liability.   

Prominent Neocon blogger David Frum  on Ron Paul 

frumforum.com/ron-pauls-base/

I'm beginning to think some of those associated with the Mises Institute are more concerned about themselves than they are about expanding the liberty message into the mainstream of political thought.

----------


## sailingaway

> Excuse me, but the mainstream media for the most part reads talking points from Media Matters.  Throw in the Neocons and Woods would have been a HUGE Liability.   
> 
> Prominent Neocon blogger David Frum  on Ron Paul 
> 
> *[took out the trash]*
> 
> I'm beginning to think some of those associated with the Mises Institute are more concerned about themselves than they are about expanding the liberty message into the mainstream of political thought.


So now it is media matters and neocons we listen to?

Neoconservative internationalists HATE Ron and always will.  Letting them dictate our agenda is like letting the Fed dictate it.

----------


## William R

> Oh, please.  Give me the League of the South any day over the emails we got this spring, in terms of campaign impact. _PARTICULARLY_ in a GOP primary, where groups like League of the South aren't demonized simply because SPLC says you must. And the campaign should have simply ADDRESSED the newsletters which Ron never wrote -- 20 years ago when he wasn't in office and they were written.


I don't have anything against the League of the South, I'm just saying the mainstream media would have gone crazy over it.   Right when Ron was taking the lead in Iowa in late December the Newsletter story pops up again and the Paul campaign spent the next week explaining it all over again. Throw Tom Woods in and it would have been a fiasco.

----------


## William R

> So now it is media matters and neocons we listen to?
> 
> Neoconservative internationalists HATE Ron and always will.  Letting them dictate our agenda is like letting the Fed dictate it.


You're not sharpest knife in the drawer that's for sure Ms Moderator. And please stop moderating my posts.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Tom Woods is angry because he wasn't asked to help the campaign.  But truth be told he would have been a huge  liability.  Ron already had a problem with the newsletters and the last thing the campaign needed was someone who used to belong to the League of the South. 
> 
> http://dixienet.org/rights/index.shtml
> 
> The Neocons and the media would have gone crazy.


Oooh, cool.  Thanks.  I found a book I want to order on that site. 



http://dixienet.org/rights/forgotten_conservatives.php

----------


## William R

> Oooh, cool.  Thanks.  I found a book I want to order on that site. 
> 
> 
> 
> http://dixienet.org/rights/forgotten_conservatives.php


So what.  It's how the media would have used the League of the South against Ron Paul.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Oh, please.  Give me the League of the South any day over the emails we got this spring, in terms of campaign impact. _PARTICULARLY_ in a GOP primary, where groups like League of the South aren't demonized simply because SPLC says you must. *And the campaign should have simply ADDRESSED the newsletters* which Ron never wrote -- 20 years ago when he wasn't in office and they were written.


Did it dawn on you that perhaps Ron would not allow it?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> So what.  It's how the media would have used the League of the South against Ron Paul.


I wasn't arguing your point; I was just pointing out a good book.  Although, I seriously doubt that is why Tom wasn't used on the campaign.

----------


## sailingaway

> I don't have anything against the League of the South, I'm just saying the mainstream media would have gone crazy over it.   Right when Ron was taking the lead in Iowa in late December the Newsletter story pops up again and the Paul campaign spent the next week explaining it all over again. Throw Tom Woods in and it would have been a fiasco.


Less so than certain 'mainstream focused' campaign decisions.  And the campaign should have taken care of the newsletter issue. WE all know the truth, they should have had that one in the can, ready to roll out.  THAT really IS politics 101.

----------


## William R

> I wasn't arguing your point; I was just pointing out a good book.  Although, I seriously doubt that is why Tom wasn't used on the campaign.


I don't have any inside info, but I guarantee that's why he was excluded.  After Ron Paul held his first meeting as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy he was smeared in the media for having Tom DiLorenzo on as a witness.  

http://www.redstate.com/thejoyofreas...e-assignments/

And this is before he kicked off his campaign for 2012

----------


## sailingaway

> Did it dawn on you that perhaps Ron would not allow it?


On the newsletters, I can see a possibility that Ron was just done with the issue, feeling it had been disproved. But THERE, rather than in pushing the meme that we were contentious, is where the campaign advisors should have tried to influence him.  And maybe they couldn't.  I'm not blaming them for the newsletters, just saying that bringing them up is just another example of where the campaign didn't shine, not a reason Tom Woods was worse than Benton.  

I frankly could see -- never BANNING Woods -- but not making him the primary spokesman, in the beginning.  I did watch his congressional testimony and while I thought he was dead on, I also thought the free wheeling delivery didn't perfectly suit that particular forum.  He did pretty well on the Steve Deace show though, don't you think?  

I didn't read all this thread so I don't know where people started weighing Benton against Woods, but all I can say is at least Woods would present Ron, not someone he seemed to think would be better than Ron if only Ron would 'shape up'.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> On the newsletters, I can see a possibility that Ron was just done with the issue, feeling it had been disproved. But THERE, rather than in pushing the meme that we were contentious, is where the campaign advisors should have tried to influence him.  And maybe they couldn't.  I'm not blaming them for the newsletters, just saying that bringing them up is just another example of where the campaign didn't shine, not a reason Tom Woods was worse than Benton.


And perhaps, he had no intention of saying who wrote the newsletters.  Ron was the boss of his campaign; something you refuse to accept.




> I frankly could see -- never BANNING Woods -- but not making him the primary spokesman, in the beginning.  I did watch his congressional testimony and while I thought he was dead on, I also thought the free wheeling delivery didn't perfectly suit that particular forum.  He did pretty well on the Steve Deace show though, don't you think?


If Ron wanted Tom on his campaign, he would have been there.  




> I didn't read all this thread so I don't know where people started weighing Benton against Woods, but all I can say is at least Woods would present Ron, not someone he seemed to think would be better than Ron if only Ron would 'shape up'.


It's not a comparison.  Ron chose who he wanted, whether wisely or not.

----------


## sailingaway

> You're not sharpest knife in the drawer that's for sure Ms Moderator. *And please stop moderating my posts*.


I broke bad links, but I am supposed to moderate. That is where the 'moderator' part comes in.

----------


## sailingaway

> And perhaps, he had no intention of saying who wrote the newsletters.  Ron was the boss of his campaign; something you refuse to accept.
> 
> 
> If Ron wanted Tom on his campaign, he would have been there.  
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a comparison.  Ron chose who he wanted, whether wisely or not.


You accuse me of a assumptions but you are displaying your own.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> I'm beginning to think some of those associated with the Mises Institute are more concerned about themselves than they are about expanding the liberty message into the mainstream of political thought.


That's because you get your panties in a knot reading absolute trash.

----------


## angelatc

> Excuse me, but the mainstream media for the most part reads talking points from Media Matters.  Throw in the Neocons and Woods would have been a HUGE Liability.   
> 
> Prominent Neocon blogger David Frum  on Ron Paul 
> 
> _{sailingaway doesn't get all the link removing fun!}_
> 
> I'm beginning to think some of those associated with the Mises Institute are more concerned about themselves than they are about expanding the liberty message into the mainstream of political thought.


Yeah, ok.    You just added AIPAC to the list. ROTFL!

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I broke bad links, but I am supposed to moderate. That is where the 'moderator' part comes in.


Not if you are participating in the thread, you're not.

----------


## sailingaway

> Not if you are participating in the thread, you're not.


I haven't been informed of that.  I am not changing arguments.  Breaking bad links is standard practice.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You accuse me of a assumptions but you are displaying your own.


Not quite.  Ron knows Tom.  If he wanted him for his campaign, don't you think he would have asked him?

----------


## sailingaway

> Not quite.  Ron knows Tom.  If he wanted him for his campaign, don't you think he would have asked him?


If Benton was playing gatekeeper and Ron was trusting him and trying not to get in the way of his running the campaign 'business' might he have gone along with something he wouldn't have chosen on his own?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> If Benton was playing gatekeeper and Ron was trusting him and trying not to get in the way of his running the campaign 'business' might he have gone along with something he wouldn't have chosen on his own?


Anything is possible, but I seriously doubt it in this case, because Ron knows Tom Woods.  If he wanted him on his campaign, he would have been on his campaign from the outset.

----------


## angelatc

> Not quite.  Ron knows Tom.  If he wanted him for his campaign, don't you think he would have asked him?


Not necessarily. I think that Ron hired a campaign manager, and let that person make those decisions.    I also think that Benton is a master at whisper campaigns. Too bad he's using them for evil instead of good.

Seriously, I am just a little sad that Trygve Whatshisname passed muster, but Woods didn't?  Something is sadly wrong there.

----------


## sailingaway

> Anything is possible, but I seriously doubt it in this case, because Ron knows Tom Woods.  If he thought he would be beneficial, he would have been on his campaign from the outset.


I doubt Ron was compiling the campaign team. I strongly suspect he was talked into the campaign by those who said they could take care of all that stuff, then was deferring and not getting in their way, out of respect.  If he had felt strongly he NEEDED Tom he would have taken a stand, otherwise I don't think he would have necessarily gotten involved in staffing.

We each have our own opinions based on what we saw and believe.

----------


## sailingaway

> Not necessarily. I think that Ron hired a campaign manager, and let that person make those decisions.    I also think that Benton is a master at whisper campaigns. Too bad he's using them for evil instead of good.
> 
> Seriously, I am just a little sad that Trygve Whatshisname passed muster, but Woods didn't?  Something is sadly wrong there.


I sincerely doubt Ron vetted staff.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Not necessarily. I think that Ron hired a campaign manager, and let that person make those decisions.    I also think that Benton is a master at whisper campaigns. Too bad he's using them for evil instead of good.
> 
> Seriously, I am just a little sad that Trygve Whatshisname passed muster, but Woods didn't?  Something is sadly wrong there.


He was a consultant apparently engaged for his political knowledge.   That is a different area than is Tom's expertise.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I doubt Ron was compiling the campaign team. I strongly suspect he was talked into the campaign by those who said they could take care of all that stuff, then was deferring and not getting in their way, out of respect.  If he had felt strongly he NEEDED Tom he would have taken a stand, otherwise I don't think he would have necessarily gotten involved in staffing.
> 
> We each have our own opinions based on what we saw and believe.


I may have a few more facts in mine, however.

----------


## angelatc

> I sincerely doubt Ron vetted staff.


Does he ever? LOL!

But the fact that he has about zero time to devote to that type of stuff combined with the fact that he's certainly not known for being, or advocating, micromanagement I think you're right.

----------


## angelatc

> He was a consultant apparently engaged for his political knowledge.   That is a different area than is Tom's expertise.


I had no real issues with him. I'm not opposed to hired guns. In fact, I wanted the campaign leadership replaced with someone who had more experience, remember?  But in context, to say that Woods brought unacceptable baggage to the liberty movement while ignoring the baggage that a neocon hire brought makes me sad.  THat's all.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You're not sharpest knife in the drawer that's for sure Ms Moderator. And please stop moderating my posts.


Top 10 ways to tell you might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer #2:  Insult the moderator.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I had no real issues with him. I'm not opposed to hired guns. In fact, I wanted the campaign leadership replaced with someone who had more experience, remember?  But in context, to say that Woods brought unacceptable baggage to the liberty movement while ignoring the baggage that a neocon hire brought makes me sad.  THat's all.


I don't consider Tom Woods as baggage.  No way; no how.  I also wish that we had been able to get a seasoned campaign manager.  I don't know who they would have been able to get though and then, others would have taken issue, because they most assuredly wouldn't have been "pure".   Bachmann tried it and look how he ended up acting.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Top 10 ways to tell you might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer #2:  Insult the moderator.


Apparently you're only a 'sharp knife' if you take your queues from SPLC, ADL and war-loving former Bush officials.

----------


## donnay

> Not quite.  Ron knows Tom.  If he wanted him for his campaign, don't you think he would have asked him?


Since Dr. Paul is not omnipresent, and maybe he was too busy to really notice much of what was going on in the background, while he was campaigning.  It is also one of the reason why Dr. Paul hired people to do all the PR work for him, because he was so busy.  Tom Woods decided not to make noise until after the dust settled.  Now we are getting the skinny from Tom Woods--which in my mind, helps put the pieces of the puzzles together for many of us, who suspected these type antics from Jesse Benton for a while.

----------


## sailingaway

> I don't have any inside info, but I guarantee that's why he was excluded.  After Ron Paul held his first meeting as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy he was smeared in the media for having Tom DiLorenzo on as a witness.  
> 
> http://www.redstate.com/thejoyofreas...e-assignments/
> 
> And this is before he kicked off his campaign for 2012


That wouldn't have been Ron making that decision. Ron was asked about DiLorenzo's ties and said that was classic distraction from the issues.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Since Dr. Paul is not omnipresent, and maybe he was too busy to really notice much of what was going on in the background, while he was campaigning.  It is also one of the reason why Dr. Paul hired people to do all the PR work for him, because he was so busy.  Tom Woods decided not to make noise until after the dust settled.  Now we are getting the skinny from Tom Woods--which in my mind, helps put the pieces of the puzzles together for many of us, who suspected these type antics from Jesse Benton for a while.


I really like Tom, but what he offered was one side of the story.  There are two.

----------


## angelatc

> I really like Tom, but what he offered was one side of the story.  There are two.


But one is a lie.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> But one is a lie.


I think there is more to it, Angela.  But, you certainly may be right in your overall assessment.   I think it is sad that any of this happened.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> But one is a lie.


Or at the very least one side of the story has a great deal more integrity and intelligence than the other. A brilliant mind vs. *[someone else - mod edit]*. 'Who do you believe?' because an incredibly easy question to answer in this case.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Tom Woods is angry because he wasn't asked to  help the campaign.  But truth be told he would have been a huge   liability.  Ron already had a problem with the newsletters and the last  thing the campaign needed was someone who used to belong to the League  of the South.


Tom Woods has never "belonged" to the League of the South. He was invited to speak to them (once, AFAIK), and he did so.




> I don't have any inside info, but I guarantee that's why he was excluded.


Translation: "I have no evidence whatsoever, so I'm just going to stamp my feet and insist that I'm right."




> After Ron Paul held his first meeting as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy he was smeared in the media for having Tom DiLorenzo on as a witness.


More lies. DiLorenzo gave a few talks to the group. He was never a member. Most of the criticism directed at DiLo was because he's not such a big Lincoln fan.

If *that's* enough to declare someone _persona non grata_, then the liberty movement is well & truly screwed.




> I'm beginning to think some of those associated with the Mises Institute are more concerned about themselves than they are about expanding the liberty message into the mainstream of political thought.


Oh, puh-leeeze!  Given your willingness to uncritically swallow neo-con & SPLC talking points (read: outright lies) - and to run away from them crying like a little girl who's just had her pigtails yanked - I seriously doubt your ability understand what is necessary for "expanding the liberty message into the mainstream."  (My apologies to little girls with pig tails.)

And I'm not even gonna touch your asinine accusation of "some of those associated with Mises Institute." Witch-hunt, much?

----------


## DylanWaco

The idea that Woods wasn't more closely involved with the campaign because of his League of the South past doesn't even pass the laugh test.  The campaign's official blogger is a former LotS'er, who spent the bulk of his career as a radio commentator wearing a Confederate Flag wrestling mask and penning commentaries with titles like "No Apologies For Slavery."

----------


## William R

> That wouldn't have been Ron making that decision. Ron was asked about DiLorenzo's ties and said that was classic distraction from the issues.


And it was , but he learned that the association with the League of the South is toxic and the media would have made a big deal out of it if Woods joined the campaign.

----------


## William R

> The idea that Woods wasn't more closely involved with the campaign because of his League of the South past doesn't even pass the laugh test.  The campaign's official blogger is a former LotS'er, who spent the bulk of his career as a radio commentator wearing a Confederate Flag wrestling mask and penning commentaries with titles like "No Apologies For Slavery."


Hunter is a blogger and not someone front and center.   And what people like you refuse to admit is that if Ron Paul wanted Woods on the campaign he would have been there.  Sour grapes from the Mises people.

----------


## SilentBull

I like Tom Woods and respect him, but he and RevPAC had no clue how to convince regular Republicans to vote for Ron. The campaign did a great job where they could. Iowa was a good example. If it weren't for the Santorum push, Ron would have won there.

----------


## DylanWaco

I'm not a Mises person and I think Woods wasn't on the official campaign because he didn't want to be on the official campaign as much as anything else.  

Having said that you are grasping at straws here if you are pretending that Hunter's role was peripheral.  He was the official blogger for a campaign that was heavily driven by the internet.  Curiously his past associations (much more egregious than Tom's) didn't keep him from being brought on.  Why was that? Perhaps because he wrote Rand's first book and was with the Randians on the ground for a big portion of the Kentucky race.  Nah that is surely just a coincidence....

----------


## angelatc

> I like Tom Woods and respect him, but he and RevPAC had no clue how to convince regular Republicans to vote for Ron. The campaign did a great job where they could. Iowa was a good example. If it weren't for the Santorum push, Ron would have won there.


Yeah, right, ok.  (Paul came in 3rd, btw.)

----------


## DanielBein

William you don't have a leg to stand on.

----------


## DanielBein

Sorry William, but that number doesn't work. As Dylan points out, Jack was the official blogger for a campaign that is KNOWN for being heavily supported by the internet. The official blogger once dressed like this, but yeah, Woods was cast out for his past associations. Total nonsense.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I like Tom Woods and respect him, but he and RevPAC had no clue how to convince regular Republicans to vote for Ron.


Tom Woods used to *be* a staunch national security conservative Republican. The idea that he has no clue how to talk to them is absurd.

----------


## sailingaway

> And it was , but he learned that the association with the League of the South is toxic and the media would have made a big deal out of it if Woods joined the campaign.


LOL!

This was hardly the first time Ron went through that merry go round. He thought individuals can and should make their own choices and bear their own responsibility, and distraction from the issues is distraction from the issues.

He wouldn't court it intentionally and specifically, but with someone of Woods' caliber, where he gave a couple of speeches on a paid speaking tour would hardly influence this sort of decision.

----------


## affa

"Bentonism is the playing down of Ron Pauls most popular and important ideas, the impatience with and purging of people who champion those ideas, *and an obsessive eye to GOP respectability*. "

We have far, far too many Bentonites posting on these boards.

----------


## pacelli

I think Benton is the same guy who told the Maine delegates outside the RNC to "don't look like crybabies" or something along that line.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I think Benton is the same guy who told the Maine delegates outside the RNC to "don't look like crybabies" or something along that line.


Yeah.  He doesn't have a way with words, but I understood what he meant.  Because we were getting a lot of people on our side because of what the RNC had done.

----------


## sailingaway

> I think Benton is the same guy who told the Maine delegates outside the RNC to "don't look like crybabies" or something along that line.


Someone posted at DP that he was a delegate trying to join the Maine walkout backed by a number of states and someone from the campaign said that they shouldn't, initially that Ron didn't want them to (then backed down when challenged admitting he had no reason to think Ron had addressed this point) and that the states such as Texas following and supporting Maine's walkout were 'rogue states'.

Definitely a divergence on the point of Maine, at RNC, it seems.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I like Tom Woods and respect him, but *he* and RevPAC *had no clue how to convince regular Republicans to vote for Ron*. The campaign did a great job where they could. Iowa was a good example. If it weren't for the Santorum push, Ron would have won there.


Oh, I think he did.

----------


## affa

> I am glad Benton is gone.  He needed to go.  But, that still doesn't mean I am going to jump on board a bash bandwagon.  That is just not my way.


Are you sure it isn't?  Because while I'm agnostic on the Adam Kokesh drama - unless I'm confusing you with someone else (and I'm pretty sure I'm not) I've seen you post more anti-Kokesh bash-wagon rhetoric than anyone else...while completely ignoring documented corrections to your vitriol.

My point is that, despite your assertion to the opposite, I'd say joining bash bandwagons is very much your way.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Are you sure it isn't?  Because while I'm agnostic on the Adam Kokesh drama - unless I'm confusing you with someone else (and I'm pretty sure I'm not) I've seen you post more anti-Kokesh bash-wagon rhetoric than anyone else...while completely ignoring documented corrections to your vitriol.
> 
> My point is that, despite your assertion to the opposite, I'd say joining bash bandwagons is very much your way.


I didn't join a bandwagon against Kokesh.  I actually took the time to watch his disgusting videos and made an independent decision.  Do you understand the difference?  You will also notice that I don't go from thread-to-thread bashing the hell out of him, as is common with bandwagon joiners.

----------


## kylejack

> I'm not a Mises person and I think Woods wasn't on the official campaign because he didn't want to be on the official campaign as much as anything else.  
> 
> Having said that you are grasping at straws here if you are pretending that Hunter's role was peripheral.  He was the official blogger for a campaign that was heavily driven by the internet.  Curiously his past associations (much more egregious than Tom's) didn't keep him from being brought on.  Why was that? Perhaps because he wrote Rand's first book and was with the Randians on the ground for a big portion of the Kentucky race.  Nah that is surely just a coincidence....


Because there was a personality conflict with Benton, clearly, and because Benton ordered that he not be allowed on the campaign. Tom Woods wrote Revolution: A Manifesto for Ron. He's contributed plenty.

----------


## DylanWaco

I understand the difference.  I took the time to watch Rand's disgusting speeches and media appearances but then was told "it only matters how he votes" or "trust him, he's a huge liar."  So the real difference is that many people hold Kokesh to a higher standard than they hold a guy who's last name is Paul

----------


## DylanWaco

> Because there was a personality conflict with Benton, clearly, and because Benton ordered that he not be allowed on the campaign. Tom Woods wrote Revolution: A Manifesto for Ron. He's contributed plenty.


Woods was also asked to write Rand's book.  He passed it off to Hunter.

----------


## sailingaway

> Because there was a personality conflict with Benton, clearly, and because Benton ordered that he not be allowed on the campaign. Tom Woods wrote Revolution: A Manifesto for Ron. He's contributed plenty.


My understanding is that Woods worked from Ron's speech notes, not to downplay the work, or Woods's style, which I really like, but only to assert idea authorship if not drafting.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I understand the difference.  I took the time to watch Rand's disgusting speeches and media appearances but then was told "it only matters how he votes" or "trust him, he's a huge liar."  So the real difference is that many people hold Kokesh to a higher standard than they hold a guy who's last name is Paul


Hardly.  I didn't completely give up on Kokesh after he danced with the head Commie of Code Pink; nor will I give up on Rand because he is cozying up to McConnell.  As far as Rand's speeches go, they're pretty damn good, in my opinion.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Woods was also asked to write Rand's book.  He passed it off to Hunter.


As I recall, he was busy writing another.

----------


## affa

> I didn't join a bandwagon against Kokesh.  I actually took the time to watch his disgusting videos and made an independent decision.  Do you understand the difference?  You will also notice that I don't go from thread-to-thread bashing the hell out of him, as is common with bandwagon joiners.


Yes, I see the difference.  It's bashing when it's against someone you like.  It's responsible research and information dispersal when it's against someone you don't like.  Got it.

And yes, I've seen you post your anti-AK stuff in several threads.    I don't really give a hoot about that whole drama, but I can't help remembering it derailing many threads, with you on one side and others posting videos correcting your mis-assertions about exactly who said what.

----------


## sailingaway

speaking of derailing threads....

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Yes, I see the difference.  It's bashing when it's against someone you like.  It's responsible research and information dispersal when it's against someone you don't like.  Got it.
> 
> And yes, I've seen you post your anti-AK stuff in several threads.    I don't really give a hoot about that whole drama, but I can't help remembering it derailing many threads, with you on one side and others posting videos correcting your mis-assertions about exactly who said what.


I do not jump on bash bandwagons.  I don't really care whether you like it or not.  I do realize it is the popular thing to do, however.

----------


## kylejack

> My understanding is that Woods worked from Ron's speech notes, not to downplay the work, or Woods's style, which I really like, but only to assert idea authorship if not drafting.


Yes, I have no real problem with ghost writers. They can help someone organize their thoughts and present them even better than they themselves can present them.

----------


## Matt Collins

Has  it ever crossed anyone's mind that perhaps Jesse is setting up a  2016  Presidential run for Rand and is using Mitch to do it? Having the  Senate  Majority Leader backing your candidate is very powerful... just a   thought..

----------


## sailingaway

> Has  it ever crossed anyone's mind that perhaps Jesse is setting up a  2016  Presidential run for Rand and is using Mitch to do it? Having the  Senate  Majority Leader backing your candidate is very powerful... just a   thought..


I know you have been posting this on every thread, so maybe I've confused threads, but haven't you already posted it in this very one?

----------


## Matt Collins

> I know you have been posting this on every thread, so maybe I've confused threads, but haven't you already posted it in this very one?


I don't believe so. If the threads were merged into singular subjects it wouldn't be a problem. But yes I try and avoid posting identical things in the same thread for sure.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> So Benton is gone, but is Bentonism alive and well? Bentonism is the playing down of Ron Pauls most popular and important ideas, the impatience with and purging of people who champion those ideas, and an obsessive eye to GOP respectability. Is that what the liberty movement is? *Then count me out.*


You and me both, Tom, you and me both.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You and me both, Tom, you and me both.


No one is trying to purge you, AF.  But, some have made it pretty clear that they don't plan to engage any longer.  Which is fine, of course.

----------


## affa

Woods comes close to cementing my opinion on Benton;  but regardless of my opinion, Benton's been such a distraction to the grassroots and campaign coming together that he should have hit the road ages ago.   His presence, regardless of his actions, divided us almost from the get go, and for that alone, he should have been let go.   Wead, for example, seems to be a unifier -- I always like his interviews and he seems to truly accept and embrace the grassroots. 

And beyond that, someone is at fault for a lot of those terribly timed, and worded, emails.  Benton is the most likely culprit, given his position, and once again, that should have been reason enough to replace him.     It shouldn't have ever become the grassroots vs. the campaign, which it did.   And if that meant replacing Benton, regardless of whether he was truly culpable, then he should have been replaced.    




> I do not jump on bash bandwagons.  I don't really care whether you like it or not.  I do realize it is the popular thing to do, however.


You just call your bashing someone something different.   Just like you play victim and claim others are calling you 'stupid', yet gladly insult others who hold different views from your own (such as assuming others here are just 'bandwagon jumpers', instead of individuals capable of reaching different conclusions from your own).   Don't get me wrong, there are 'bandwagons'... but certainly, Benton is a divisive enough figure that people complaining about him aren't necessarily just 'joining a bandwagon'.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You and me both, Tom, you and me both.


I'm going to borrow that quote.

----------


## affa

> Has  it ever crossed anyone's mind that perhaps Jesse is setting up a  2016  Presidential run for Rand and is using Mitch to do it? Having the  Senate  Majority Leader backing your candidate is very powerful... just a   thought..


Twisting everything clearly wrongheaded into some marvelous work of genius super-strategy is getting quite old.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Twisting everything clearly wrongheaded into some marvelous work of genius super-strategy is getting quite old.


Cognitive dissonance.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> No one is trying to purge you, AF.  But, some have made it pretty clear that they don't plan to engage any longer.  Which is fine, of course.


Bold texting failure on my part:

*and an obsessive eye to GOP respectability*

You and me, both, Tom, you and me both.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Cognitive dissonance.


Payroll.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Bold texting failure on my part:
> 
> *and an obsessive eye to GOP respectability*
> 
> You and me, both, Tom, you and me both.


I agree that there shouldn't be an "obsessive eye", but as long as we are using that party to get liberty candidates elected, it's not logical to go out of our way to poke them in the eye, either.  That doesn't mean sell out, though.  Not at all.

----------


## liberty2897

> Twisting everything clearly wrongheaded into some marvelous work of genius super-strategy is getting quite old.


Yes, I am ashamed of falling for this many times already.  It's kinda like getting tag teamed by people you thought *for sure* were on your side.  Not everyone who tells you "It's okay, there is a plan!" has our best interests in mind.  Sometimes it is just politics.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I agree that there shouldn't be an "obsessive eye", but as long as we are using that party to get liberty candidates elected, it's not logical to go out of our way to poke them in the eye, either.  That doesn't mean sell out, though.  Not at all.


And all this ruckus really just hinges on how one defines "selling out", doesn't it?

----------


## Matt Collins

> if Ron Paul wanted Woods on the campaign he would have been there.  Sour grapes from the Mises people.


Exactly.

I like Tom and think he does a lot of great work. I love reading his books and listening to his speeches.

However one can't openly critisize a potential employer, and then get upset when they don't get hired by that employer.




> I like Tom Woods and respect him, but he and  RevPAC had no clue how to convince regular Republicans to vote for Ron.  The campaign did a great job where they could. Iowa was a good example.  If it weren't for the Santorum push, Ron would have won there.


And then there is that too.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Woods was also asked to write Rand's book.  He passed it off to Hunter.


Source for that?

----------


## Matt Collins

> Twisting everything clearly wrongheaded into some marvelous work of genius super-strategy is getting quite old.


This isn't about Ron, and this isn't a short term project. This is going to take many decades if liberty is to be advanced. Ron just got the liberty movement kicked off.

----------


## sailingaway

> This isn't about Ron, and this isn't a short term project. This is going to take many decades if liberty is to be advanced. Ron just got the liberty movement kicked off.


shall I post my response about this being Ron Paul's campaign, not the movement, in every thread where you post that comment?

----------


## kylejack

> However one can't openly critisize a potential employer, and then get upset when they don't get hired by that employer.


These were suggestions, not criticism. http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-ron-paul-moneybomb/

----------


## liberty2897

> shall I post my response about this being *Ron Paul's campaign*, not the movement, in every thread where you post that comment?


Yes!  Please do that SA!  THIS is what they DON'T get.  The Ron Paul Revolution without Ron Paul seems to be something along the lines of "Republicans With A Few Libertarian Ideas Who Want To Change Politics Over The Next Few Decades Campaign"

----------


## DylanWaco

> Source for that?


Jack Hunter

It's not exactly a controversial point either as it's been discussed here before.

----------


## Carlybee

> Yes!  Please do that SA!  THIS is what they DON'T get.  The Ron Paul Revolution without Ron Paul seems to be something along the lines of "Republicans With A Few Libertarian Ideas Who Want To Change Politics Over The Next Few Decades Campaign"


"Republicans hitching their wagon to a star then ditching the star for a bagful of stardust."

----------


## Smitty

Benton used the campaign to further his own career.

He doesn't give a rat's ass for the liberty movement.

At this point, anyone who tries to rationalize the situation beyond that clear, concise pair of facts is thinking too much about something which doesn't require it.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> This isn't about Ron, and this isn't a short term project. This is going to take many decades if liberty is to be advanced. Ron just got the liberty movement kicked off.


This is what followers of Goldwater said, 50 years ago.

And where are we now?

Broke, bankrupt, in a hundred wars and skirmishes abroad and living under one of the world's most advanced police/prison/surveillance states.

Genius.

----------


## DylanWaco

> This isn't about Ron, and this isn't a short term project. This is going to take many decades if liberty is to be advanced. Ron just got the liberty movement kicked off.


The problem is that now that the liberty movement has been kicked off there are many who think the best tactic going forward is to retreat.  I am not a fan of the idea that you start with a radical like Ron and then fold yourself into respectability and compromise after you build a rather large base in such a (relatively) short period of time.  

If the ideas matter the revolution should flow the opposite direction.  Instead the plan of many is to alienate the base and try and cozy up to those who are nominally "with us" on some issues, rather than expand the base by refusing to water down the ideas.  Even worse the people who's hands we are supposed to hold tend to be outright opponents of Ron Paul's view on the issue that he is most identified with and for which he has the most appeal with his base - opposition to the American imperial project.  

Now instead of Rand being an ally in the Senate he's being propped up as a paradigm to refer to and a standard bearer that he's never going to be.  And the base are called names and denigrated for daring to expect principles out of a politician who wishes to cash in on a movement that has always been about principles.

----------


## erowe1

> This isn't about Ron, and this isn't a short term project. This is going to take many decades if liberty is to be advanced. Ron just got the liberty movement kicked off.


Benton working for McConnell has nothing whatsoever to do with a decades-long project of advancing some liberty movement.

----------


## Carlybee

> Benton working for McConnell has nothing whatsoever to do with a decades-long project of advancing some liberty movement.


It has everything to do with trying to morph the liberty movement into the establishment...looks like it's working too.

----------


## DylanWaco

Benton to brainwash McConnell and turn him into a zombie for our interests?

That actually sounds like a "fringe" conspiracy theory type of position to me.  Maybe I'll text Schiff for his thoughts on the matter.

----------


## erowe1

> It has everything to do with trying to morph the liberty movement into the establishment...looks like it's working too.


I doubt that. Benton doesn't have influence over Ron Paul's supporters.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It has everything to do with trying to morph the liberty movement into the establishment...looks like it's working too.


I don't think so.  I think it was mostly opportunism on McConnell's part and opportunism on Benton's part.  It just happened that McConnell's opportunism intersected with Benton's opportunism right at the perfect timing for both of them.

----------


## Matt Collins

> These were suggestions, not criticism. http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-ron-paul-moneybomb/


And that's not the way to do it. Again, you don't give prospective employers public advice or open constructive critisicm if you want to get hried by them in most cases. 

And that's Tom's blind spot - he doesn't understand the social reaction by other people to some of the things he says or posts. I can understand that because I used to have the same blind spot when I was younger but it is widespread among the liberty movement because lt's face it, most of us are thinkers and not socialites; that's why we are attacted to a liberty position.

----------


## Matt Collins

> This is what followers of Goldwater said, 50 years ago.
> 
> And where are we now?
> 
> Broke, bankrupt, in a hundred wars and skirmishes abroad and living under one of the world's most advanced police/prison/surveillance states.
> 
> Genius.


Goldwater didn't have the Internet, nor did they have the numbers.  They were eventually able to get Reagan elected, but obviously that wasn't good enough. This time we will do better, again we have the Internet.

----------


## Carlybee

> I doubt that. Benton doesn't have influence over Ron Paul's supporters.



The jury is out though on how much influence a Benton/McConnell baby making machine will have over Ron Paul turned Rand Paul supporters. Veee shall see!

----------


## Matt Collins

> Benton used the campaign to further his own career.


LOLz.... that's an ignorant statement. Benton didn't need to take this job, duh.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Benton working for McConnell has nothing whatsoever to do with a decades-long project of advancing some liberty movement.


Uhh... that's a very short sighted statement.

----------


## erowe1

The complaints about Benton Woods has in the OP do not include anything about not hiring him to work for the campaign.

Nor does it appear the slightest bit likely that his public advice was given in hopes that he would be given a job for the campaign subsequent to that. It makes Benton look incredibly thin-skinned that he would react so negatively to someone publishing their ideas about what the campaign could have done better. If a presidential campaign is at all serious, it has to be taken for granted that it will attract attention and have things like that written about it. Btw, Doug Wead did the same thing in 2008, and then in 2012 he did work for the campaign.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Jack Hunter
> 
> It's not exactly a controversial point either as it's been discussed here before.


Source?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I am not a fan of the idea that you start with a radical like Ron and then fold yourself into respectability and compromise after you build a rather large base in such a (relatively) short period of time.


The base is not "rather large." Far from it. It is significantly larger than it was, to be sure - but in absolute terms it is still actually quite small. Without some significant degree of "respectability" (or what I would call "social credibility"), it will never get much larger - large enough (maybe) to tip an occasional election to one group of Statists or another, but no more than that. That will not do. It will not do at all. Perilous gambits must be ventured if we are ever to be anything but occasional spoilers (if even that).

----------


## erowe1

> Uhh... that's a very short sighted statement.


No it isn't. It's positively ridiculous to pretend that Benton is working for McConnell for the sake of a decades-long strategy for a liberty movement. I can't fathom what your mindset might be to think it's worth taking seriously.

----------


## Smitty

> LOLz.... that's an ignorant statement. Benton didn't need to take this job, duh.


But he did,...and then when it took off, he used it to further his career.

,...kind of like you're attempting to do.

----------


## Smitty

In fact,..a good screen name for you would be "Mini "B".

----------


## DylanWaco

> Source?


I already answered you.

----------


## DylanWaco

> The base is not "rather large." Far from it. It is significantly larger than it was, to be sure - but in absolute terms it is still actually quite small. Without some significant degree of "respectability" (or what I would call "social credibility"), it will never get much larger - large enough (maybe) to tip an occasional election to one group of Statists or another, but no more than that. That will not do. It will not do at all. Perilous gambits must be ventured if we are ever to be anything but occasional spoilers (if even that).


The base was small prior to 08.  After 08 it was larger, but not very well organized.  After 2012 the base is relatively large.  Larger than those who think slaughtering Muslim children is a moral imperative?  No, but no longer insignificant.  And the key is that it has grown every cycle.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I already answered you.


Link to the source.

----------


## Matt Collins

> But he did,...and then when it took off, he used it to further his career.


He didn't need to work for McConnell to further his career. He could've done a lot of other things, he is very valuable now. Think about _WHY_ he would work for McConnell over anyone else? Again don't have an emotional knee-jerk reaction.

----------


## Matt Collins

> No it isn't. It's positively ridiculous to pretend that Benton is working for McConnell for the sake of a decades-long strategy for a liberty movement.


No, it makes perfect sense if you think about it.

----------


## Carlybee

> No, it makes perfect sense if you think about it.


That would be a HUGE leap of faith.

----------


## erowe1

> No, it makes perfect sense if you think about it.


You insult our intelligence.

----------


## erowe1

> He didn't need to work for McConnell to further his career. He could've done a lot of other things, he is very valuable now. Think about _WHY_ he would work for McConnell over anyone else? Again don't have an emotional knee-jerk reaction.


McConnell is arguably the single most powerful elected Republican in America now, and will certainly be if the GOP takes the senate. What career move could Benton have made that would have been better than this?

----------


## liberty2897

> No, it makes perfect sense if you think about it.


Is that a Jedi mind trick?

----------


## Matt Collins

> The problem is that now that the liberty movement has been kicked off there are many who think the best tactic going forward is to retreat.  I am not a fan of the idea that you start with a radical like Ron and then fold yourself into respectability and compromise after you build a rather large base in such a (relatively) short period of time.


You may very well be right about this.




> If the ideas matter the revolution should flow the opposite direction.  Instead the plan of many is to alienate the base and try and cozy up to those who are nominally "with us" on some issues, rather than expand the base by refusing to water down the ideas.  Even worse the people who's hands we are supposed to hold tend to be outright opponents of Ron Paul's view on the issue that he is most identified with and for which he has the most appeal with his base - opposition to the American imperial project.


No, the liberty movement itself is not big enough to win most federal elections on our own. Thus we are forced to build strategic coalitions at times.




> Now instead of Rand being an ally in the Senate he's being propped up as a paradigm to refer to and a standard bearer that he's never going to be.  And the base are called names and denigrated for daring to expect principles out of a politician who wishes to cash in on a movement that has always been about principles.


LOL Rand probably took a pay cut to get into the Senate. In fact I know it cost him money personally during his race.  And his voting record is almost identical to Ron's with minor and insignifigant differences.

----------


## DylanWaco

> Link to the source.


http://www.southernavenger.com/

----------


## Smitty

> He didn't need to work for McConnell to further his career. He could've done a lot of other things, he is very valuable now. Think about _WHY_ he would work for McConnell over anyone else? .


It's more proper to ask why McConnell wanted Benton.

It's not rocket science.

I'm betting that even *you* can figure it out.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> I like Tom Woods and respect him, but he and RevPAC had no clue how to convince regular Republicans to vote for Ron. The campaign did a great job where they could. Iowa was a good example. If it weren't for the Santorum push, Ron would have won there.


We know how to get regular republicans to vote for Ron Paul. All we have to do is be something we're not, and they'll vote for us. Problem with that strategy is, you'll end up losing a lot of us who didn't join the movement to be something we're not, just to win votes. I have to sleep at night, look at myself in a mirror, etc. etc., and it gets a bit harder to do that after I've crossed lines I promised myself I wouldn't cross when I jumped down into this $#@!ty world of politics.

I think this movement has split into two groups, somehow. The different strategies are as follows:

1) _If you can't beat them, join them._ 

2) _If you can't beat them, convince them to join you._

The first strategy gets us right back where we started, ultimately becoming what we fight against. 

The second strategy grows the movement.

----------


## DylanWaco

I don't oppose strategic coalitions.  

I do oppose shunting aside/pushing to the margins the issue I care the most about and the issue that I think is most connected to everything else.

I believe Rand has done this in a variety of ways.

----------


## DylanWaco

> He didn't need to work for McConnell to further his career. He could've done a lot of other things, he is very valuable now. Think about _WHY_ he would work for McConnell over anyone else? Again don't have an emotional knee-jerk reaction.


Because the grassroots RP supporters are heavily split on him and it won't be easy to live off them or build his profile much more under their banner?  Because McConnell is powerful on the hill and he will have (hell he DOES have) plenty of money for Benton to live off of and build his profile with.

I find it very curious that the motivations of people with low post counts, Adam Kokesh (who I am totally indifferent to), Alex Jones listeners, et are to be questioned at every turn, but someone who describes himself as a "budding politico" must be viewed as a paragon of virtue, with messianic qualities that are not to be questioned by mere plebes.

----------


## Matt Collins

> McConnell is arguably the single most powerful elected Republican in America now, and will certainly be if the GOP takes the senate. What career move could Benton have made that would have been better than this?


The establishment wants to have the untapped numbers of the liberty movement because they know they are a swing vote. Benton could've gone many other places. Why did he goto Mitch? My guess, it would have something to do with Rand and maybe even 2016. I could be wrong, but it seems to be a rational logical explanation that fits the facts.

----------


## erowe1

> The establishment wants to have the untapped numbers of the liberty movement because they know they are a swing vote. Benton could've gone many other places. Why did he goto Mitch? My guess, it would have something to do with Rand and maybe even 2016. I could be wrong, but it seems to be a rational logical explanation that fits the facts.


Who could he have worked for that would be better career-wise than McConnell?

And, from the establishment's point of view, how does hiring Benton get them the support of the untapped numbers of the liberty movement?

----------


## Matt Collins

> http://www.southernavenger.com/


Where on his site does it say that Tom was offered the book before Jack was?

----------


## DylanWaco

> The establishment wants to have the untapped numbers of the liberty movement because they know they are a swing vote. Benton could've gone many other places. Why did he goto Mitch? My guess, it would have something to do with Rand and maybe even 2016. I could be wrong, but it seems to be a rational logical explanation that fits the facts.


You do know that is possible that Benton went over to Mitch to advance his career/make that establishment paper AND further set up the connections for a Rand 2016 bid?  It's hardly an either/or

----------


## Matt Collins

> I don't oppose strategic coalitions.  
> 
> I do oppose shunting aside/pushing to the margins the issue I care the most about and the issue that I think is most connected to everything else.
> 
> I believe Rand has done this in a variety of ways.


You can't talk about all the issues all of the time.

----------


## Matt Collins

> You do know that is possible that Benton went over to Mitch to advance his career/make that establishment paper AND further set up the connections for a Rand 2016 bid?  It's hardly an either/or


Very valid statement. But realize that Benton didn't need to go to McConnell to enrich his career.

----------


## DylanWaco

> Where on his site does it say that Tom was offered the book before Jack was?


You asked for a link to the source.  I gave you the link to my source on the matter Jack Hunter.  This has been mentioned elsewhere on the forum before and is hardly controversial, which is why I see no problem "revealing" it.  Jack himself told me at the time, though I don't tape my private phone calls for the purpose of future interweb debates.  I don't exactly think it's a big secret that Jack or Tom were holding onto since I heard it parroted back to me by other mutual friends in the weeks after Jack got the gig.  

If you doubt that I know Jack - who I consider a friend even though we disagree on many things - there is a pretty extensive public record available that I could point to.  I just don't see why it would be necessary given the subject at hand.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> I doubt that. Benton doesn't have influence over Ron Paul's supporters.


Agreed. If anything, Benton's pathetic obvious sell-out has united the grassroots around radicalism. Only the dopes and lackeys could possibly support the blunderous official campaign at this point

----------


## liberty2897

> You can't talk about all the issues all of the time.


Otherwise, your name might be Ron Paul and you might be Rock Star hero to freedom lovers everywhere around the globe.... and you might not get elected.

----------


## DylanWaco

> You can't talk about all the issues all of the time.


This is true.  

But when he talks about the big issues I care about he rarely does so in a way that inspires confidence.  Nor does he always vote in a way that inspires confidence (I know, I know, insert "he made sure it would not lead to further act of war!" or "CENTRAL BANK" talking point here).  Nor do I agree with the way he crafts his foreign aid position both on tv, on the Senate floor, in his amendments to bills, or in his book.  And then we have folks like you who insists he's not a liar, which means he believes in Mitt Romney has a "mature foreign policy."  

The fact is that when Rand talks about the big one, the elephant in the room that effects everything else, the issue that really got this whole ball rolling, he isn't really in my universe.  And I'm hardly the only person in the liberty movement that feels this way.  And that is an issue of note that goes far behind nitpicking or demanding perfection (hell Ron wasn't perfect - I still think he was wrong to vote in favor of the Afghan War).

----------


## parocks

> I certainly agree.  The way that Adam Kokesh was maligned and sullied is unbelievable, all the while Benton was doing what he did.   I never liked Jesse Benton--it wasn't because of any one thing, it was a gut instinct from day one.  All the hard work Dr. Paul and the grassroots had put forth then to be taken down by Benton truly makes me sick.


No, Kokesh is still awful.  

Tom Woods saying what he just was saying, well, it makes it clear that Tom Woods is no Jesse Benton fan.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> I find it very curious that the motivations of people with low post counts, Adam Kokesh (who I am totally indifferent to), Alex Jones listeners, et are to be questioned at every turn, but someone who describes himself as a "budding politico" must be viewed as a paragon of virtue, with messianic qualities that are not to be questioned by mere plebes.


We're not members of the power elite, and kissing our asses won't secure a potential position of power in the future. Also, they feel that our operations jeopardize the power they so desperately want to wield on others so we're shunned.

----------


## liberty2897

> No, Kokesh is still awful.


Yes, because he did such outlandish things such as organize Veterans for Ron Paul on multiple occasions.... oh and I think he might have smoked pot and bad-mouthed Benton once or twice..

----------


## parocks

> They will. But we need to start questioning who's side Benton is on. I've really avoided Benton bashing, but he really did sell a lot of our efforts short when it mattered most during the stretch. We all made this the fight of our lives, only to have the campaign return the favor with a defeatist attitude.
> 
> I guess we have a lot of things to reassess in time for Rand Paul 2016.


They made the decision in February, before the Michigan primary not to attack Romney.  They wanted to, but Romney scared them.  

Whether Doug Wead was making that up or not, I don't know, but if you're not going to air attacks on Romney because of counter-attacks on you, well, at that point, February 2012, you aren't in it to win it.  Preserving Ron Paul's name, and Rand Paul's future, was the name of the game from Feb 2012 on.

All the delegate stuff, after Feb 2012, that was stuff that we wanted to do, and they didn't put a stop to it.  But bailing out of fear in February, that was it, we were done.  They might've wanted the omelet but they didn't want to risk breaking any eggs to get it.  Basically, a big ol circle jerk for 6 months.  Which is not to say that doing all that didn't have value.  Ashley and Mark wouldn't be RNC, we wouldn't have so many state committee, so there were the tangential benefits from the pursuit of the goal.  Might've have been nice for those who didn't really care that much about those tangential benefits to know that they through in the towel in Feb.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Agreed. If anything, Benton's pathetic obvious sell-out has united the grassroots around radicalism. Only the dopes and lackeys could possibly support the blunderous official campaign at this point


You're still blaming Benton for Ron Paul not winning and that is ridiculous.  What's more, there were more people in the campaign than just Benton.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> You're still blaming Benton for Ron Paul not winning and that is ridiculous.  What's more, there were more people in the campaign than just Benton.


I'm not blaming Benton for anything other than being a incompetent, sell-out boob whose blunderous actions have been a tremendous detriment to liberty. Paul's campaign was snakebitten due to the whole system being completely rigged. Running off a brilliant mind because you are too concerned with your own petty squabbles was what alerted me to Benton being such a scumbag. The PaulFest disgrace and going to work with McConnell just prove what people like Kokesh have been saying for a long time now. I am very pleased that this development is a victory for the radicals and makes the milquetoast Republican establishment appeasers with their asskissing of the official campaign look like fools.

----------


## DylanWaco

They threw in the towel on Ron the night of the SC debate.  It is arguable how interested or serious some of the staff were in getting him elected all along.  It's very probable that many of them believed he couldn't be nominated in the GOP.  I know I felt that way and supported him anyhow for a variety of reasons.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> They made the decision in February, before the Michigan primary not to attack Romney.  They wanted to, but Romney scared them.  
> 
> Whether Doug Wead was making that up or not, I don't know, but if you're not going to air attacks on Romney because of counter-attacks on you, well, at that point, February 2012, you aren't in it to win it.


Did you just skip over the part when Doug said that Ron had already lost at that point?  





> Preserving Ron Paul's name, and Rand Paul's future, was the name of the game from Feb 2012 on.


I think a better way to say it might be to do what they believed would further the liberty movement the greatest, given Dr. Paul had already lost at that point.  




> All the delegate stuff, after Feb 2012, that was stuff that we wanted to do, and they didn't put a stop to it.


What are you talking about?  This is what they went around the country training us to do for the last several years.




> But bailing out of fear in February, that was it, we were done.  They might've wanted the omelet but they didn't want to risk breaking any eggs to get it.


Barring a miracle, Ron Paul stood no chance at that point.  You talk about what Wead said in other regards, but you skip over that part.




> Basically, a big ol circle jerk for 6 months.  Which is not to say that doing all that didn't have value.  Ashley and Mark wouldn't be RNC, we wouldn't have so many state committee, so there were the tangential benefits from the pursuit of the goal.  Might've have been nice for those who didn't really care that much about those tangential benefits to know that they through in the towel in Feb.


Yeah, I wish they would have told us too.  Although, it would have been out in the media if they had.  Plus, they wanted a good delegate showing in Tampa to show our strength, and maybe they were worried that people would completely give up.

----------


## parocks

> Yes, because he did such outlandish things such as organize Veterans for Ron Paul on multiple occasions.... oh and I think he might have smoked pot and bad-mouthed Benton once or twice..


Everything he did was pretty much silly and fringe.  He attacked the campaign.  Tom Woods is doing something similar, but he waited until the campaign is over.  Before, it hurt the campaign, now it's useful information.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'm not blaming Benton for anything other than being a incompetent, sell-out boob whose blunderous actions have been a tremendous detriment to liberty. Paul's campaign was snakebitten due to the whole system being completely rigged. Running off a brilliant mind because you are too concerned with your own petty squabbles was what alerted me to Benton being such a scumbag. The PaulFest disgrace and going to work with McConnell just prove what people like Kokesh have been saying for a long time now. I am very pleased that this development is *a victory for the radicals and makes the milquetoast Republican establishment appeasers with their asskissing of the official campaign look like fools.*


It seems that you are trying to further split the movement and I wonder why that is.

Tell me, do you consider the RP delegates "milquetoast Republican establishment appeasers" too?  You know, the ones who actually took action and did something constructive.  How about people like Marianne Stebbins who organized the supporters in Minnesota to pwn the leadership slots in the GOP and win all the delegate positions, with exception of the one they gave to Bachmann?  And what about the RP supporters in Iowa who have busted their butts for the last 4 years to get in position and win over people?  They also now pwn the GOP leadership positions.  What about the supporters in Maine who went through holy crap and have not stopped yet?  Instead of giving up, they have decided to win positions in their own state.

Are these people "fools" in your book, SARGE?

----------


## parocks

> I really hope we've learned our lesson after this debacle.  Ideological compromise and bending over backward to seek Republican respectability is a road to ruin for us.  The libertarian movement should be run by libertarians, dammit!


I can't really argue with that.  You wouldn't have been supporting Ron Paul though.  Because Ron Paul is a Republican.  He was seeking the Republican Nomination.  

I don't care what the libertarians do, but I support the True Conservative in the mold of Robert Taft, Goldwater, Reagan, etc.

----------


## parocks

> He didn't need to work for McConnell to further his career. He could've done a lot of other things, he is very valuable now. Think about _WHY_ he would work for McConnell over anyone else? Again don't have an emotional knee-jerk reaction.


Your argument is the rational one.

Completely off topic, ran into a random Ron Paul supporter in a bar last night.  Complete Loony.  So, I had a bit of a flash of insight last night.  Oh, a lot of people I'm arguing with here on RPF are just like this guy.  I get it now.

----------


## kathy88

> They made the decision in February, before the Michigan primary not to attack Romney.  They wanted to, but Romney scared them.  
> 
> Whether Doug Wead was making that up or not, I don't know, but if you're not going to air attacks on Romney because of counter-attacks on you, well, at that point, February 2012, you aren't in it to win it.  Preserving Ron Paul's name, and Rand Paul's future, was the name of the game from Feb 2012 on.
> 
> All the delegate stuff, after Feb 2012, that was stuff that we wanted to do, and they didn't put a stop to it.  But bailing out of fear in February, that was it, we were done.  They might've wanted the omelet but they didn't want to risk breaking any eggs to get it.  Basically, a big ol circle jerk for 6 months.  Which is not to say that doing all that didn't have value.  Ashley and Mark wouldn't be RNC, we wouldn't have so many state committee, so there were the tangential benefits from the pursuit of the goal.  Might've have been nice for those who didn't really care that much about those tangential benefits to know that they through in the towel in Feb.


This was all accomplished DESPITE Benton's lack of help/encouragement/support. Just think where we could have ended up had he actually been on our side? Holy $#@!.

----------


## DylanWaco

This isn't the best thread for it, but I would like to see parocks outline the overlap between Taft, Goldwater and Reagan.  Then I would like to see what about them he feels defines true conservatism.  I say this without a hint of irony or condescension implied.

----------


## parocks

> Twisting everything clearly wrongheaded into some marvelous work of genius super-strategy is getting quite old.


I'm with The Collins on this one.  It's a reasonable strategy.  Make nice to Mitch, help Mitch, and he'll at least not Primary Rand in 2016.  It's not guaranteed to work, but it's a solid, reasonable strategy.  I assume Benton worked for Rand in KY in 2010, that he knows his way around KY already?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Goldwater didn't have the Internet, nor did they have the numbers.  They were eventually able to get Reagan elected, but obviously that wasn't good enough. This time we will do better, again we have the Internet.


It's unlikely that either one of us will be alive 50 years from now to call out whomever was wrong.

But I'll bet any amount of money, that's what people will be saying in 2062, "we'll do better this time".

Assuming they have not perfected a "freedom" vaccine by then.

That'll solve the problem once and for all, mandatory, at birth, mind altering "freedom vaccines": so these notions of liberty, privacy and freedom won't even enter your head anymore.

----------


## parocks

> This isn't the best thread for it, but I would like to see parocks outline the overlap between Taft, Goldwater and Reagan.  Then I would like to see what about them he feels defines true conservatism.  I say this without a hint of irony or condescension implied.


Smaller Federal Government.

----------


## liberty2897

> Everything he did was pretty much silly and fringe.  He attacked the campaign.  Tom Woods is doing something similar, but he waited until the campaign is over.  Before, it hurt the campaign, now it's useful information.


I strongly disagree.  It was people like you who attacked the faithful supporters like Adam Kokesh that made me (many of us?) start to question the campaign.  I am ashamed to say that I really tried to keep my mouth shut during the "critical campaign time" when this sort of bashing was going on because I thought that "they" must know politics much better than a mundane like myself.  Plus I hate being ridiculed by people that have max reputation by their names.  Stupid, vain me...

I also didn't want to hurt Ron Paul's chances.  I guess I'm like Tom Woods in that way.  I wonder if Mr. Woods, being a respected member of the movement, wishes he had said more of what was on his mind earlier?  Guess it couldn't have made things much worse.

I really have no idea why I'm still here.  Probably just to be annoying I guess.  Thanks for being one of the few to respond.

----------


## erowe1

> Your argument is the rational one.


Maybe you see something I don't.

When I read Collins' argument, it looks like this:
1) Benton works for McConnell.
2) ?
3) The liberty movement and/or Rand Paul benefits in the long-term.

What goes where that question mark is? I seriously don't get it. But to you it's the rational position.

----------


## kathy88



----------


## parocks

What value did questioning the campaign do?

People are saying they won't have anything to do with anything having to do with Benton.

I'll say that I won't have anything to do with anything having to do with Kokesh.

Kokesh would be the fringe that kept Ron Paul away from Paulfest.

You don't seem to understand how hated Kokesh is by Republicans.

On FR, a good number of people used Kokesh as a reason not to support Ron Paul.  He doesn't help, he only hurts.




> I strongly disagree.  It was people like you who attacked the faithful supporters like Adam Kokesh that made me (many of us?) start to question the campaign.  I am ashamed to say that I really tried to keep my mouth shut during the "critical campaign time" when this sort of bashing was going on because I thought that "they" must know politics much better than a mundane like myself.  Plus I hate being ridiculed by people that have max reputation by their names.  Stupid, vain me...
> 
> I also didn't want to hurt Ron Paul's chances.  I guess I'm like Tom Woods in that way.  I wonder if Mr. Woods, being a respected member of the movement, wishes he had said more of what was on his mind earlier?  Guess it couldn't have made things much worse.
> 
> I really have no idea why I'm still here.  Probably just to be annoying I guess.  Thanks for being one of the few to respond.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> 


And we're all going to stay here until we fix it dammit!!

----------


## parocks

> Maybe you see something I don't.
> 
> When I read Collins' argument, it looks like this:
> 1) Benton works for McConnell.
> 2) ?
> 3) The liberty movement and/or Rand Paul benefits in the long-term.
> 
> What goes where that question mark is? I seriously don't get it. But to you it's the rational position.


Here's what goes into 2)

Mitch doesn't primary Rand in the 2016 Kentucky US Senate Primary.  Or, Mitch actively supports Rand in the Kentucky US Senate Primary.  Or, if Rand runs for President, Mitch doesn't hinder Rand.  Or, Mitch actively helps Rand in his Presidential bid.

All of those things fit easily into 2)

----------


## parocks

> I strongly disagree.  It was people like you who attacked the faithful supporters like Adam Kokesh that made me (many of us?) start to question the campaign.  I am ashamed to say that I really tried to keep my mouth shut during the "critical campaign time" when this sort of bashing was going on because I thought that "they" must know politics much better than a mundane like myself.  Plus I hate being ridiculed by people that have max reputation by their names.  Stupid, vain me...
> 
> I also didn't want to hurt Ron Paul's chances.  I guess I'm like Tom Woods in that way.  I wonder if Mr. Woods, being a respected member of the movement, wishes he had said more of what was on his mind earlier?  Guess it couldn't have made things much worse.
> 
> I really have no idea why I'm still here.  Probably just to be annoying I guess.  Thanks for being one of the few to respond.


Remember how everyone was so mad at Benton for pointing out that we lost?  How they said it would "hurt momentum".  Well, attacking Ron Paul's campaign also hurts momentum.  But the people criticizing Benton for hurting momentum, did not criticize Kokesh for hurting momentum.

----------


## kathy88

> What value did questioning the campaign do?
> 
> People are saying they won't have anything to do with anything having to do with Benton.
> 
> I'll say that I won't have anything to do with anything having to do with Kokesh.
> 
> Kokesh would be the fringe that kept Ron Paul away from Paulfest.
> 
> You don't seem to understand how hated Kokesh is by Republicans.
> ...


Kokesh didn't keep anyone away from Paulfest. That was all Benton. Adam called out Benton. Banished. Woods also knew the deal. Banished. He didn't let anyone near Ron who might drop a truth bomb or two.

----------


## kathy88

> Remember how everyone was so mad at Benton for pointing out that we lost?  How they said it would "hurt momentum".  Well, attacking Ron Paul's campaign also hurts momentum.  But the people criticizing Benton for hurting momentum, did not criticize Kokesh for hurting momentum.


A bit late for momentum now, isn't it? That was calculated. If he'd only been honest. Hey guys, I know you wasted your blood, sweat, tears and FRNs on this campaign, and we really do appreciate it, but I'm here for Rand's future, not Ron's present, so just climb aboard, keep it coming and TRUST ME. Enter McConnell. Seriously?

----------


## liberty2897

> What value did questioning the campaign do?
> 
> People are saying they won't have anything to do with anything having to do with Benton.
> 
> I'll say that I won't have anything to do with anything having to do with Kokesh.
> 
> Kokesh would be the fringe that kept Ron Paul away from Paulfest.
> 
> You don't seem to understand how hated Kokesh is by Republicans.
> ...


That is your answer right there in front of your face in your own words.  Republicans will never accept Libertarians into their precious little club of war-mongering and holier-than-thou attitudes.  I thought the idea of infiltration was a good idea.  They are on to us now.  Time to move on.  Otherwise we will just end up with a bunch of pussy-whipped Republican-Libertarians that are indiscernible from the neo-cons.  It is a battle that WILL NOT BE WON.  It is time to create a new party or something.. anything that can keep the *Ron Paul movement* moving forward.  *The Republican Party is NOT IT.*

----------


## parocks

> This was all accomplished DESPITE Benton's lack of help/encouragement/support. Just think where we could have ended up had he actually been on our side? Holy $#@!.


What are you talking about?  Ron Paul is in charge of his campaign.  Benton was a functionary who would be fired if Ron Paul wasn't happy with him.

The decision was made, in February, to pull the punches.  Onc can argue, I suppose, that it was Benton's fault,  but it's ultimately Ron Paul's decision.  And the decisions were likely made to protect Rand, mostly, because "spreading the message of liberty" isn't really that big a deal.  Conservatives are 40%.  What is rare are Conservative politicians, and when we have one we like, who could run in 4,8,12,16 years, it might be better not to go all scorched earth. Although I do like scorched earth.  And so does Romney, and Ron Paul doesn't, and Romney won and we lost.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Kokesh didn't keep anyone away from Paulfest. That was all Benton. Adam called out Benton. Banished. Woods also knew the deal. Banished. He didn't let anyone near Ron who might drop a truth bomb or two.


Dr. Paul read The Daily Paul.  I'm sure he saw more than plenty.

----------


## kathy88

> What are you talking about?  Ron Paul is in charge of his campaign.  Benton was a functionary who would be fired if Ron Paul wasn't happy with him.
> 
> The decision was made, in February, to pull the punches.  Onc can argue, I suppose, that it was Benton's fault,  but it's ultimately Ron Paul's decision.  And the decisions were likely made to protect Rand, mostly, because "spreading the message of liberty" isn't really that big a deal.  Conservatives are 40%.  What is rare are Conservative politicians, and when we have one we like, who could run in 4,8,12,16 years, it might be better not to go all scorched earth. Although I do like scorched earth.  And so does Romney, and Ron Paul doesn't, and Romney won and we lost.


I'm quite sure Benton wasn't being completely honest with Ron. Not after what's come out since. Especially after the RNC and all the dirty crap they pulled on us you are going to argue with people that this is how it's supposed to be? Not only that, but that we should all hop aboard the crazy train with them? Good luck with that. I've got other plans, and they don't involve any Senators in KY or their campaign managers.

----------


## kathy88

> Dr. Paul read The Daily Paul.  I'm sure he saw more than plenty.


I love you like a sister but I am not aboard the Rand Paul crazy train at this juncture. I'm not saying never, but at this point, nope. I truly believe Jesse did something underhanded without Ron's knowledge. Just haven't figured out what yet.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'm quite sure Benton wasn't being completely honest with Ron. Not after what's come out since. Especially after the RNC and all the dirty crap they pulled on us you are going to argue with people that this is how it's supposed to be? Not only that, but that we should all hop aboard the crazy train with them? Good luck with that. I've got other plans, and they don't involve any Senators in KY or their campaign managers.


I don't trust the McConnell thing, either, but what does that have to do with Rand?  Why not judge him by his votes at that point in time?

----------


## parocks

> That is your answer right there in front of your face in your own words.  Republicans will never accept Libertarians into their precious little club of war-mongering and holier-than-thou attitudes.  I thought the idea of infiltration was a good idea.  They are on to us now.  Time to move on.  Otherwise we will just end up with a bunch of pussy-whipped Republican-Libertarians that are indiscernible from the neo-cons.  It is a battle that WILL NOT BE WON.  It is time to create a new party or something.. anything that can keep the *Ron Paul movement* moving forward.  *The Republican Party is NOT IT.*


No.

Kokesh is an $#@!, pure and simple.

The home for Conservatives has been the Republican Party.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I love you like a sister but I am not aboard the Rand Paul crazy train at this juncture. I'm not saying never, but at this point, nope. I truly believe Jesse did something underhanded without Ron's knowledge. Just haven't figured out what yet.


I don't trust Benton, either, Kathy.  But, thus far, Rand has earned my support.  If he continues to do so when the next election comes around, I will do whatever I can to help.  But, I respect your decision.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> That is your answer right there in front of your face in your own words.  Republicans will never accept Libertarians into their precious little club of war-mongering and holier-than-thou attitudes.  I thought the idea of infiltration was a good idea.  They are on to us now.  Time to move on.  Otherwise we will just end up with a bunch of pussy-whipped Republican-Libertarians that are indiscernible from the neo-cons.  It is a battle that WILL NOT BE WON.  It is time to create a new party or something.. anything that can keep the *Ron Paul movement* moving forward.  *The Republican Party is NOT IT.*


*^^THIS.*

----------


## liberty2897

> No.
> 
> Kokesh is an $#@!, pure and simple.
> 
> The home for Conservatives has been the Republican Party.


Call me a liberal who want to get rid of government then.  I have no problem with that, but I am not a Republican or Democrat.  Never have accepted those labels in my life.  I guess at at the very least, I'm free in that sense.

----------


## parocks

> I'm quite sure Benton wasn't being completely honest with Ron. Not after what's come out since. Especially after the RNC and all the dirty crap they pulled on us you are going to argue with people that this is how it's supposed to be? Not only that, but that we should all hop aboard the crazy train with them? Good luck with that. I've got other plans, and they don't involve any Senators in KY or their campaign managers.


What?  I don't get how you're pulling the RNC into this?  The Republican National Convention was the Romney show, pure and simple.  That was 100% Romney.  

I don't follow what you're saying.  We're talking about Benton and Mitch and Ron and Rand.  The RNC was Romney and only Romney.  All that nasty cheating - 100% Romney.  The effort was spearheaded by Ben Ginsberg, who was on the floor of the Maine Convention, causing all types of trouble.  You might want to focus on the worst as opposed to painting everyone who isn't Ron Paul with the same brush.  The specifics of what is happening are important.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Call me a liberal who want to get rid of government then.  I have no problem with that, but I am not a Republican or Democrat.  Never have accepted those labels in my life.  I guess at at the very least, I'm free in that sense.


I used to be a conservative republican.

But then, I recovered.

----------


## parocks

> Call me a liberal who want to get rid of government then.  I have no problem with that, but I am not a Republican or Democrat.  Never have accepted those labels in my life.  I guess at at the very least, I'm free in that sense.


It's not really a "label" as more a party registration status.  If you're registered as a Republican, you're a Republican, same with Democrat.

The politicians who have argued in favor of a Smaller Federal Government have been Republicans.  Not all Republicans argue for a Smaller Federal Government (Romney doesn't), but those who do, are Republicans.  Sometimes you get a guy who is lying about it, and sometimes, like with Ron Paul, you get a guy who honestly does want a Smaller Federal Government.  But you never have that choice on the Democrat side.

----------


## Carlybee

> I used to be a conservative republican.
> 
> But then, I recovered.


I'm a libertarian...fiscally conservative and classically liberal...maybe that's why I don't fit in with this uber conservatism crap that the liberty movement has turned into.

----------


## jeremiahj13

Any chance he was speaking of Trevor Lyman? or whatever his name is.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> The base was small prior to 08.  After 08 it was larger, but not very well organized.  After 2012 the base is relatively large.  Larger than those who think slaughtering Muslim children is a moral imperative?  No, but no longer insignificant.


Which is essentially exactly what I said before. It is larger relative to its previous size.

But in absolute terms, it *still* isn't anywhere near large enough to wield any significant influence on its own.




> And the key is that it has grown every cycle.


Three data points are too few to establish a trendline with any degree of confidence - especially given that there *will* be a levelling-off at some point.

Enthusiasm & passion are simply not a sufficient substitute for numbers. And we do not have the numbers (yet). Unless & until we do, a lot of unsavory politics are going to be played.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> No.
> 
> Kokesh is an $#@!, pure and simple.
> 
> The home for Conservatives has been the Republican Party.


Um, no.  And it certainly hasn't always been the home for libertarians and libertarian-leaning conservatives.  

You must have to go back a long time to find consistent conservatism in the GOP.  Has there ever been?

They rejected Goldwater.
They accepted Reagan (but he didn't govern as he campaigned.... and there was that assassination attempt 70 days after his inauguration).  

They GOP has accepted no other conservative in all that time...a span of almost *50 years!!* 

parocks,  please wake up.

----------


## parocks

> A bit late for momentum now, isn't it? That was calculated. If he'd only been honest. Hey guys, I know you wasted your blood, sweat, tears and FRNs on this campaign, and we really do appreciate it, but I'm here for Rand's future, not Ron's present, so just climb aboard, keep it coming and TRUST ME. Enter McConnell. Seriously?


What?  Kokesh was attacking the campaign in April, May, June.  Kokesh was attacking the campaign before any "we lost, but keep fighting" emails came out, or Rand endorsed based on those emails.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Call me a liberal who want to get rid of government then.  I have no problem with that, but I am not a Republican or Democrat.  Never have accepted those labels in my life.  I guess at at the very least, I'm free in that sense.


I've been all over the place.  Hard to categorize; I guess I'm a work-in-progress.  The only way I will ever wear the label of "Dem" or "Rep" again would be to vote for a liberty-minded candidate in either of those parties...if there will ever be another.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> What?  I don't get how you're pulling the RNC into this?  The Republican National Convention was the Romney show, pure and simple.  That was 100% Romney.  
> 
> I don't follow what you're saying.  We're talking about Benton and Mitch and Ron and Rand.  The RNC was Romney and only Romney.  All that nasty cheating - 100% Romney.  The effort was spearheaded by Ben Ginsberg, who was on the floor of the Maine Convention, causing all types of trouble.  You might want to focus on the worst as opposed to painting everyone who isn't Ron Paul with the same brush.  The specifics of what is happening are important.


Are you forgetting all the lying, cheating, and assaults on Ron Paul supporters at state conventions leading up to the RNC?

----------


## parocks

The Conservatives are a part of the Party.  Robert Taft, Goldwater, Reagan.

This does not mean that Conservatives are in control of the Republican Party.

It just means that what we've doing the last 2 election cycles is in the tradition of those prior conservatives.  We just don't win that often, in large part because the global elites, the msm are fully against us.

I'm not deluded about the fact that the Country Clubbers who have control of the GOP do not like us one bit, but our place is not with the Democrat party, but with the Republican Party.

And yes, the son of a large Bush contributor and Bush family friend shot Reagan less than 3 months after he took office.







> Um, no.  And it certainly hasn't always been the home for libertarians and libertarian-leaning conservatives.  
> 
> You must have to go back a long time to find consistent conservatism in the GOP.  Has there ever been?
> 
> They rejected Goldwater.
> They accepted Reagan (but he didn't govern as he campaigned.... and there was that assassination attempt 70 days after his inauguration).  
> 
> They GOP has accepted no other conservative in all that time...a span of almost *50 years!!* 
> 
> parocks,  please wake up.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Um, no.  And it certainly hasn't always been the home for libertarians and libertarian-leaning conservatives.  
> 
> You must have to go back a long time to find consistent conservatism in the GOP.  Has there ever been?
> 
> They rejected Goldwater.


Who is "they"?  There have always been multiple factions in the GOP.  Libertarian-conservatives were one of those factions.




> They accepted Reagan (but he didn't govern as he campaigned.... and there was that assassination attempt 70 days after his inauguration).  
> 
> They GOP has accepted no other conservative in all that time...a span of almost *50 years!!*


Reagan ran on Goldwater's platform and that is what people across the political spectrum voted for.




> parocks,  please wake up.


It sounds like it is you who needs to wake up.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> It's not really a "label" as more a party registration status.  If you're registered as a Republican, you're a Republican, same with Democrat.
> 
> The politicians who have argued in favor of a Smaller Federal Government have been Republicans.  Not all Republicans argue for a Smaller Federal Government (Romney doesn't), but those who do, are Republicans.  Sometimes you get a guy who is lying about it, and sometimes, like with Ron Paul, you get a guy who honestly does want a Smaller Federal Government.  But you never have that choice on the Democrat side.


Never? Bob Conley, and the guy in TN this year. Hell, Kucinich is probably a smaller Government advocate than 90% of the GOP. You know why? Because he would probably cut 80% of the DoD budget, and add at least equal - so, at best, we get a net status quo, but on the other end, you have people wanting to spend even more on wars, DoD, MIC, and then needle around the edges with a few billion at the domestic budget, meaning they would increase the spending of the US Government more than a Kucinich type. 

The politicians that would actually make the Potomac a net decrease in our lives can be counted on one hand up there. Both parties are equally atrocious. In fact, I find myself more in disgust with the GOP for the fact that they even dare claim 'freedom or liberty'. It's despicable. I at least know that 99% of the Demo's are honest. If it's one thing I hate it is liars above all else, especially ones that turn off the general populace to libertarian ideals because they falsely believe the lies that spew forth from the GOP. If you go back through history you'll see the GOP spends way more than Democrats, and they do so under the mantle of 'smaller government' so when the obvious $#@! doesn't pan out, they blame 'small government' or 'liberty' when the problem is GOP is vastly increasing the size and scope of Government, not the other way around.

Boobus doesn't make this distinction - they only see GOP = small Government, $#@!ed up country and Government = need bigger Government. If anything the GOP is much much more harmful than the Democrats.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Are you forgetting all the lying, cheating, and assaults on Ron Paul supporters at state conventions leading up to the RNC?


No and that is one of the reasons why some are getting elected to the leadership positions, so that such stuff won't happen.

I hate that we have to, too.  But, the fact still remains that at the present time, a candidate has to be in either the R or D parties to get in debates and get media.  I would love it if there was no such thing as political parties, but we have to deal with what IS.

----------


## parocks

> Are you forgetting all the lying, cheating, and assaults on Ron Paul supporters at state conventions leading up to the RNC?


No, but what's the point exactly that you're trying to make?  That was all Romney.  Why would you accuse me of "forgetting" that?  I mentioned Maine and Ben Ginsberg.  If you want to direct your fire more accurately, you fire it at Romney and Ben Ginsberg.  Benton, Mitch, Rand, Ron weren't the ones cheating us in state conventions.  That was Romney and Ben Ginsberg.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> *^^THIS.*


Then by all means, move your happy ass on.  But, perhaps you can leave those of us who have not given up, the hell alone.

----------


## parocks

Well, you know, a quick way to win an argument is to find words like all and never.  I'm not trying to make the Republican = good Democrat = bad argument.

Just that the Conservatives have been a part of the Republican Party.  Not in charge, and we're fighting against bad guys who do do those bad things you were talking about.  

I personally enjoy the fighting. I understand the benefits of working with those who it's not entirely clear are Conservatives.




> Never? Bob Conley, and the guy in TN this year. Hell, Kucinich is probably a smaller Government advocate than 90% of the GOP. You know why? Because he would probably cut 80% of the DoD budget, and add at least equal - so, at best, we get a net status quo, but on the other end, you have people wanting to spend even more on wars, DoD, MIC, and then needle around the edges with a few billion at the domestic budget, meaning they would increase the spending of the US Government more than a Kucinich type. 
> 
> The politicians that would actually make the Potomac a net decrease in our lives can be counted on one hand up there. Both parties are equally atrocious. In fact, I find myself more in disgust with the GOP for the fact that they even dare claim 'freedom or liberty'. It's despicable. I at least know that 99% of the Demo's are honest. If it's one thing I hate it is liars above all else, especially ones that turn off the general populace to libertarian ideals because they falsely believe the lies that spew forth from the GOP. If you go back through history you'll see the GOP spends way more than Democrats, and they do so under the mantle of 'smaller government' so when the obvious $#@! doesn't pan out, they blame 'small government' or 'liberty' when the problem is GOP is vastly increasing the size and scope of Government, not the other way around.
> 
> Boobus doesn't make this distinction - they only see GOP = small Government, $#@!ed up country and Government = need bigger Government. If anything the GOP is much much more harmful than the Democrats.

----------


## donnay

> What?  *I don't get how you're pulling the RNC into this?  The Republican National Convention was the Romney show, pure and simple.  That was 100% Romney. * 
> 
> *I don't follow what you're saying.  We're talking about Benton and Mitch and Ron and Rand.  The RNC was Romney and only Romney.  All that nasty cheating - 100% Romney.*  The effort was spearheaded by Ben Ginsberg, who was on the floor of the Maine Convention, causing all types of trouble.  You might want to focus on the worst as opposed to painting everyone who isn't Ron Paul with the same brush.  The specifics of what is happening are important.


You think Romney has that much power?  I'll let you in on a little secret--Romney is a puppet, plain and simple.  He doesn't pull strings, because he is on strings.  The two party system is corrupted to the teeth.  You cannot work within a corrupt system. It doesn't work that way--there is no way the power brokers are going to relinquish that power without a fight.  You and anyone else that thinks this can be done without a fight are simply delusional.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Then by all means, move your happy ass on.  But, perhaps you can leave those of us who have not given up, the hell alone.


Since you get your granny panties in a bunch over perceived insults all the time, perhaps you could refrain from throwing them around yourself?  

Not to mention your authoritarian "get out of my house" attitude.  It's not your house.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Who is "they"?  There have always been multiple factions in the GOP.  Libertarian-conservatives were one of those factions.
> 
> 
> Reagan ran on Goldwater's platform and that is what people across the political spectrum voted for.
> 
> 
> It sounds like it is you who needs to wake up.


They:  the GOP establishment.
Yes, I know there are multiple factions whose votes they are happy to have...but they will never accept a libertarian-leaning conservative *leading* the party.
I already acknowledged that Reagan ran on Goldwater's platform, and that is what people (including me) voted for...but that's not how he governed. (Please read what I post rather than making knee-jerk replies).
No, it really is you and parocks (and a few others) who need to wake up.

----------


## parocks

Well, I'm not arguing that Romney is or is not a puppet.

Romney has been a close friend of Benjamin Netanyahu for 36 years.   36 years is a long long time.  And Romney's resume is really really thin.

If we're look at puppets, look there.  Don't look at the RNC.  The RNC itself is a bunch of elected people.  We have 2 Ron Paul RNC in Maine right now.
And Preibus is not the puppetmaster here.

For all practical purposes, it's 100% Romney.  Unless you want to talk about Benjamin Netanyahu and whoever thought that those 2 buddies would be a great team in 36 years.  

And I want to add that yes, a fight is assumed.




> You think Romney has that much power?  I'll let you in on a little secret--Romney is a puppet, plain and simple.  He doesn't pull strings, because he is on strings.  The two party system is corrupted to the teeth.  You cannot work within a corrupt system. It doesn't work that way--there is no way the power brokers are going to relinquish that power without a fight.  You and anyone else that thinks this can be done without a fight are simply delusional.

----------


## donnay

> They:  the GOP establishment.
> Yes, I know there are multiple factions whose votes they are happy to have...but they will never accept a libertarian-leaning conservative *leading* the party.
> I already acknowledged that Reagan ran on Goldwater's platform, and that is what people (including me) voted for...but that's not how he governed. (Please read what I post rather than making knee-jerk replies).
> No, it really is you and parocks (and a few others) who need to wake up.



And when Reagan tried to do what is right, he got shot.  After he got shot is when he did not govern as he promised.  This was my turning point--the red pill.  It was the catalyst that started my journey down the rabbit hole.

----------


## liberty2897

> Well, I'm not arguing that Romney is or is not a puppet.
> 
> Romney has been a close friend of Benjamin Netanyahu for 36 years.   36 years is a long long time.  And Romney's resume is really really thin.
> 
> If we're look at puppets, look there.  Don't look at the RNC.  The RNC itself is a bunch of elected people.  We have 2 Ron Paul RNC in Maine right now.
> And Preibus is not the puppetmaster here.
> 
> For all practical purposes, it's 100% Romney.  Unless you want to talk about Benjamin Netanyahu and whoever thought that those 2 buddies would be a great team in 36 years.


parocks, why all the top-posting?  It is confusing.

----------


## sailingaway

> What are you talking about?  Ron Paul is in charge of his campaign.  Benton was a functionary who would be fired if Ron Paul wasn't happy with him.
> 
> The decision was made, in February, to pull the punches.  Onc can argue, I suppose, that it was Benton's fault,  but it's ultimately Ron Paul's decision.  And the decisions were likely made to protect Rand, mostly, because "spreading the message of liberty" isn't really that big a deal.  Conservatives are 40%.  What is rare are Conservative politicians, and when we have one we like, who could run in 4,8,12,16 years, it might be better not to go all scorched earth. Although I do like scorched earth.  And so does Romney, and Ron Paul doesn't, and Romney won and we lost.


Oh please. Give one sign, ever, that Ron was a hands on manager.  I can point to NUMEROUS statements in interviews that he left the campaign to the campaign and just 'did what he did'.

----------


## parocks

> They:  the GOP establishment.
> Yes, I know there are multiple factions whose votes they are happy to have...but they will never accept a libertarian-leaning conservative *leading* the party.
> I already acknowledged that Reagan ran on Goldwater's platform, and that is what people (including me) voted for...but that's not how he governed. (Please read what I post rather than making knee-jerk replies).
> No, it really is you and parocks (and a few others) who need to wake up.


We know this.  We don't need to be woken up to something we already know.  We are in the process of a FIGHT.  A FIGHT that we usually LOSE.  This is not a secret.  We know this.  But our home is in the Republican Party.  And we just need to win more often, fight better, fight harder, fight smarter.  But there is no doubt that we are fighting against the Rockefeller Republicans, and have been for many many years. 1940, Taft vs Wilkie, 1948, Taft vs Dewey, 1952 Taft vs Eisenhower. 1964 Goldwater vs Romney and Rockefeller.  1968 Reagan vs Nixon and Romney.  1976 Reagan vs Ford.  1980 Reagan against Bush. 1992 Buchanan vs Bush 1996 Buchanan vs Dole.

We had our candidates up there, and we usually lost.  The elites, international bankers, globalists, msm all are against us.  And when we go to battle against the Rockefeller wing, the Rockefeller wing has the resources of the elites, international bankers, globalists, and msm.  So, we usually lose.  But our home is in the Republican Party.

----------


## donnay

> Well, I'm not arguing that Romney is or is not a puppet.
> 
> Romney has been a close friend of Benjamin Netanyahu for 36 years.   36 years is a long long time.  And Romney's resume is really really thin.
> 
> If we're look at puppets, look there.  Don't look at the RNC.  The RNC itself is a bunch of elected people.  We have 2 Ron Paul RNC in Maine right now.
> And Preibus is not the puppetmaster here.
> 
> For all practical purposes, it's 100% Romney.  Unless you want to talk about Benjamin Netanyahu and whoever thought that those 2 buddies would be a great team in 36 years.


The RNC is part of the system!  The system is corrupt.  It's rigged!  It makes no difference if it's Romney or Obama.  It's whomever the PTB want it to be.

----------


## parocks

> Oh please. Give one sign, ever, that Ron was a hands on manager.  I can point to NUMEROUS statements in interviews that he left the campaign to the campaign and just 'did what he did'.


I'm not going to argue this point.  I have very little information about what actually did happen on the campaign level.  I guess I just thought that Ron Paul was aware of his surroundings, and had a general clue what was going on.  You're arguing that he was basically clueless.  I supported the guy for President, we all did (presumably), I guess I just assumed that he was paying attention, and the spin to the contrary was just spin.

----------


## parocks

> The RNC is part of the system!  The system is corrupt.  It's rigged!  It makes no difference if it's Romney or Obama.  It's whomever the PTB want it to be.


Why this level of argumentation?  Certainly we could all type thousands of words about how and in what ways the system is rigged.

The point is - this was done by Team Romney to benefit Romney.  Ben Ginsberg was telling those people what to do.  That's where you should be pointing fingers.

Romney, Ben Ginsberg, Benjamin Netanyahu.  Those are 3 names to chew on.

----------


## parocks

> parocks, why all the top-posting?  It is confusing.


yeah, well.

----------


## parocks

> And when Reagan tried to do what is right, he got shot.  After he got shot is when he did not govern as he promised.  This was my turning point--the red pill.  It was the catalyst that started my journey down the rabbit hole.


You're older than me.

You do know that John Hinckley Sr was a major contributor to Bush in 1980, and that Neil Bush had to cancel dinner plans with the Hinckleys because of the shooting.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> And when Reagan tried to do what is right, he got shot.  After he got shot is when he did not govern as he promised.  This was my turning point--the red pill.  It was the catalyst that started my journey down the rabbit hole.


This is crucial.

Does anybody *really* think that Reagan was shot by a lone nut who wanted to impress Jodie Foster?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You're older than me.
> 
> You do know that John Hinckley Sr was a major contributor to Bush in 1980, and that Neil Bush had to cancel dinner plans with the Hinckleys because of the shooting.


There you go.

----------


## parocks

> There you go.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hi...ily_connection

----------


## liberty2897

> You're older than me.
> 
> You do know that John Hinckley Sr was a major contributor to Bush in 1980, and that Neil Bush had to cancel dinner plans with the Hinckleys because of the shooting.


I was young at that point in time (the shooting), so I don't remember too much of the details.  Thanks for the info.  Sounds like some interesting reading.

Sorry about the jab on top-posting.  I've done it myself before.  It really is hard to read from the bottom up though.

----------


## donnay

> You're older than me.
> 
> You do know that John Hinckley Sr was a major contributor to Bush in 1980, and that Neil Bush had to cancel dinner plans with the Hinckleys because of the shooting.



I am well aware that John Hickley Jr.'s father was partners with Bush Sr. too.  I also know that George Herbert Walker Bush's father (Prescott Bush) also contributed and funneled a great deal of money to Hitler.  

My whole point is that this system is corrupt-- it was a conspiracy that started in 1911, cinched in 1913 and we have been dealing with this hijacked bunch ever since.  Do you honestly think we can work within this corrupt system?  We do, however, have the power to take back what is rightfully ours, but it isn't in the form of voting.

----------


## liberty2897

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hi...ily_connection


Oh that is even more interesting than I thought it would be:




> BushHinckley family connection
> 
> Hinckley's father was a financial supporter of George H.W. Bush's 1980 presidential primary campaign, where Bush was Reagan's closest rival for the Republican nomination prior to becoming his Vice President. Hinckley's older brother, Scott, had a dinner date scheduled at the home of Neil Bush the day after the Reagan assassination attempt.[20][21] Neil's wife Sharon indicated in a newspaper interview the day after the shooting that Scott was coming to their house as a date of a girlfriend of hers, and that she didn't "know the brother [John]" but understood "that he was the renegade brother in the family." Sharon described the Hinckleys as "a very nice family" and that they had "given a lot of money to the Bush campaign."[22] This also led to various conspiracy theorists speculating that the Bush family had something to do with the assassination attempt.


<sarcasm>
Guess John must have been one of those crazy Libertarian types
</sarcasm>

----------


## kathy88

> What?  I don't get how you're pulling the RNC into this?  The Republican National Convention was the Romney show, pure and simple.  That was 100% Romney.  
> 
> I don't follow what you're saying.  We're talking about Benton and Mitch and Ron and Rand.  The RNC was Romney and only Romney.  All that nasty cheating - 100% Romney.  The effort was spearheaded by Ben Ginsberg, who was on the floor of the Maine Convention, causing all types of trouble.  You might want to focus on the worst as opposed to painting everyone who isn't Ron Paul with the same brush.  The specifics of what is happening are important.


Romney AND the establishment GOP. Of which Mitch McConnell is a part. A HUGE part. Who Rand is playing footsie with. Who Benton defected to. Here Liberty movement, take this up the wazoo. Okay GOP, thanks. Oh, and can we come and play tomorrow?

----------


## LBennett76

So... what do I tell my friends who are huge Ron Paul supporters that were never Republicans? That their home is there? I know about 50 Ron Paul supporters personally. Only 10 would identify themselves as being or has been Republican. A lot of them left the Dems. They joined us because of RP being anti-war and pro individual liberty. I think they started leaning towards being more libertarian but were willing to vote for a Republican if it was Ron Paul. now that it's Romne, every single one of them is swinging on back to Obama because they loathe Romney and Ryan so much. A lot of these people are pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. They were okay with Ron's views on those topics. They aren't okay with the GOP's platform on them.
But their home is in the Republican Party? Nope. Mine isn't even there anymore. We need a new party.

----------


## Carlybee

> So... what do I tell my friends who are huge Ron Paul supporters that were never Republicans? That their home is there? I know about 50 Ron Paul supporters personally. Only 10 would identify themselves as being or has been Republican. A lot of them left the Dems. They joined us because of RP being anti-war and pro individual liberty. I think they started leaning towards being more libertarian but were willing to vote for a Republican if it was Ron Paul. now that it's Romne, every single one of them is swinging on back to Obama because they loathe Romney and Ryan so much. A lot of these people are pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. They were okay with Ron's views on those topics. They aren't okay with the GOP's platform on them.
> But their home is in the Republican Party? Nope. Mine isn't even there anymore. We need a new party.


Same situation a lot of us are in. Except I would never vote for Obama.  Even I had some disagreements with Ron but I so believe in him and most of his other stances, I could swallow my pride on the things I disagreed with.  I don't know honestly what is ahead.  I don't think it is going to be the Republican party for me but I don't want to give up this hard fought fight either.

----------


## parocks

> I am well aware that John Hickley Jr.'s father was partners with Bush Sr. too.  I also know that George Herbert Walker Bush's father (Prescott Bush) also contributed and funneled a great deal of money to Hitler.  
> 
> My whole point is that this system is corrupt-- it was a conspiracy that started in 1911, cinched in 1913 and we have been dealing with this hijacked bunch ever since.  Do you honestly think we can work within this corrupt system?  We do, however, have the power to take back what is rightfully ours, but it isn't in the form of voting.


We can do a better job of $#@!ing with the corrupt system.  Watching what happened this year did not give me the impression, at all, that the top people were in charge.  I think that they really don't know what they're doing.

However, saying something like "the global elites find Ron Paul completely unacceptable" really means something like  "They would shoot Ron Paul before he became President".

So, we have the system we have, at this point in time, I don't see any inkling of anything other than traditional political means to change anything.

They can't do whatever they want, and they don't win every battle.  And they don't know what everything that happens means.  And they aren't fast on their feet.  And they don't have the support of the people.  And their tools (msm) are getting rusty.  So, yes, they've the ball, they're running their plays.  But in one state we have canals instead of roads.  There's an awful lot of creative $#@! that can be done (not will, but could) that would stave them off until conditions could change.

I made a post in another thread.  Said it was far-fetched, said it was unlikely to happen, said it wasn't even a Ron Paul idea necessarily, but the idea was basically this:

Have rockstars run for office.  In a coordinated way.  

A simple concept such as that, could really really throw a monkeywrench into things.

Again, not arguing that that particular simple concept is the best way to accomplish that,  or that's the only way to accomplish that.

Arguing that if that could accomplish it, so could any number of other things.  They have control, but that control is fragile.

This is not a new topic here, what to do about the global elites not liking Ron Paul one bit.  It's been discussed here since 2007.

I recognized that in order for us to win, we would have to have an extraordinary excellent grassroots.  It was necessary.  The Ron Paul campaign was playing by the book, in 2007, they played by the book, they didn't have much in the way of planning going in. They were not planning for $6 Million moneybombs.  In 2011, they factored those in.  They had plans, but they were mostly by the book plans.

We had to have been extraordinary, doing elaborately organized and yet completely novel things.  They don't respond quickly to things they've never seen before.
Grassroots was not that this time around.

----------


## Danan

> Oh please. Give one sign, ever, that Ron was a hands on manager.  I can point to NUMEROUS statements in interviews that he left the campaign to the campaign and just 'did what he did'.


When asked in interviews (whilst still actively campaigning) he didn't even know where he was going to speak the following days, much to the surprise of the interviewers.

I'd bet that Ron's deal has always been, "Alright, I'm running one more time if, and only if, all I have to do is giving interviews, doing rallys and participating in the debates."

There is no way, imho, that Ron personally put Tom Woods on the campaign's blacklist. That's absolutely not his style.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> The only way I will ever wear the label of "Rep" again would be to vote for a liberty-minded candidate if there will ever be another.


The more influence libertarian-conservatives have on their local and statewide parties, the more liberty-minded candidates that will be allowed to be fielded. It would've prevented guys like Kerry Bentivolio from getting primaried by a write-in inside job and would create major problems for incumbent Senators or Reps that strayed from the platform (which would also become more liberty-minded over time). Plus, the news reports on lingo coming from state party officials not those in the nose-bleeders. 

That said, all this talk about TPTB and what they wouldn't allow to happen as far as allowing a liberty person be the focus of the party is moot because they've never had to really put up with a strengthened liberty base that became actively involved in the party, ever. The Patterson evangelicals were assimilated because there was no financial/currency/debt crisis equivalent to what we have now (plus they were always thrown their anti-abortion/anti-gay bone) nor a burgeoning liberty block that is savvy enough to lay the dire issues out on the table amongst fellow delegates and keep them from straying back to the establishment. The insiders' tricks are becoming old and won't work as more of us and our coalitions move up the ranks. Quite frankly, this is unchartered territory that no one can know what can happen for sure either way. Evil triumphs when too many people have defeatist attitudes or find excuses to deactivate themselves. The rabbit hole goes so deep that many get lost and can never find their way out.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> We can do a better job of $#@!ing with the corrupt system.  Watching what happened this year did not give me the impression, at all, that the top people were in charge.  I think that they really don't know what they're doing.


..



> "[...] They don't tell us all they know, do they? Not by half. But they can make mistakes, even the Top Ones can."
> 
> "Sh, Gorbag!" Shagrat's voice was lowered, [...] "[T]here's no doubt about it, they're troubled about something. The Nazgul down below are, by your account; and Lugburz is too. Something nearly slipped."
> 
> "Nearly, you say!" said Gorbag. [...] "As I said, the Big Bosses, ay," his voice sank almost to a whisper, "ay, even the Biggest, can make mistakes. Something nearly slipped you say? I say, something *has* slipped." [...]

----------


## Danan

> ..


Only an outstanding figure with a pure and honest heart, who despises the urge to use the power of the ring and who loathes the sole idea of wearing it, is able to throw it into Mt. Doom, right?



(@ 4:30)

I have the feeling that some folks here fear that certain people in the liberty movement don't have Gandalf's wisdom, who knew he couldn't resist the urge to do good with the ring and therefor refused to carry it. Whether that's true or not, I don't know. But that seems to be a concern to people.

Only people who don't want to wield power are fit to have it, without bad unknown consequences, that's for sure.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> They:  the GOP establishment.
> Yes, I know there are multiple factions whose votes they are happy to have...but they will never accept a libertarian-leaning conservative *leading* the party.
> I already acknowledged that Reagan ran on Goldwater's platform, and that is what people (including me) voted for...but that's not how he governed. (Please read what I post rather than making knee-jerk replies).


The point is that people voted for what he SAID and they would again.  That means they wanted libertarian-conservatism.




> No, it really is you and parocks (and a few others) who need to wake up.


Then go do something else.  No one is stopping you.  But, must you continue to trash what others are working on?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> The point is that people voted for what he SAID and they would again.  That means they wanted libertarian-conservatism.
> 
> 
> 
> Then go do something else.  No one is stopping you.  But, must you continue to trash what others are working on?


*sigh* there you go again!

Not trashing...expressing my own opinion of the situation as I see it. If you disagree with me, and you most certainly do, can't you just ignore me and stay strong enough in your own confidence that you're doing the right thing, even if I don't? 

Must you always try to kick people you disagree with off this site?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Since you get your granny panties in a bunch over perceived insults all the time, perhaps you could refrain from throwing them around yourself?


I didn't tell you to leave.  I suggested you move on to whatever it is constructive that you think is preferable to working in the GOP to get liberty candidates elected.  Thus far, all you are doing is criticizing the path that others of us have chosen to take.  

As a reminder, you had just finished giving a high-five to this post.  In fact, you enlarged and bolded various parts of it for impact.




> That is your answer right there in front of your face in your own words.  Republicans will never accept Libertarians into their precious little club of war-mongering and holier-than-thou attitudes.  I thought the idea of infiltration was a good idea.  They are on to us now.  Time to move on.  Otherwise we will just end up with a bunch of pussy-whipped Republican-Libertarians that are indiscernible from the neo-cons.  It is a battle that WILL NOT BE WON.  It is time to create a new party or something.. anything that can keep the *Ron Paul movement* moving forward.  *The Republican Party is NOT IT.*





> Not to mention your authoritarian "get out of my house" attitude.  It's not your house.


See above.

----------


## Indy Vidual

> If Rand chooses Benton to run his campaign in 2016 I will not be donating a single cent, that I know for sure.





> Me neither.


How can we get this message to Rand?
_Pre-nup_ or no money bombs.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> *sigh* there you go again!
> 
> Not trashing...expressing my own opinion of the situation as I see it. If you disagree with me, and you most certainly do, can't you just ignore me and stay strong enough in your own confidence that you're doing the right thing, even if I don't? 
> 
> Must you always try to kick people you disagree with off this site?


I did NOT try to "kick" you off the site.  Do you have reading comprehension problems?  I suggested that you go work on whatever project you want to work on HERE, while others work on the project that THEY want to work on.  Thus far, all you are doing is trolling others chosen project.

----------


## TheTexan

> Then go do something else.  No one is stopping you.  But, must you continue to trash what others are working on?


Free speech is not trashing.  Constructive criticism is always good.  You will make the claim that it's not "constructive", but that's not for you to decide.  I personally feel cajuncocoa's criticism is very constructive.

So, please, just give it a rest with always trying to silence opposing opinions.  Let the free market of ideas operate.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Free speech is not trashing.  Constructive criticism is always good.  You will make the claim that it's not "constructive", but that's not for you to decide.  I personally feel cajuncocoa's criticism is very constructive.
> 
> So, please, just give it a rest with always trying to silence opposing opinions.  Let the free market of ideas operate.


She has repeated the same mantra about 100 times.  She clearly doesn't like what some of us have chosen to do and is doing everything in her power to trash it.  It is called TROLLING.

----------


## TheTexan

> She has repeated the same mantra about 100 times.  She clearly doesn't like what some of us have chosen to do and is doing everything in her power to trash it.  It is called TROLLING.


Trolling is an accurate description of what you're doing now

----------


## low preference guy

why is LE even more hysterical and trollish than usual?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Trolling is an accurate description of what you're doing now


Hardly.  You just agree with what she is doing.

----------


## sailingaway

> I didn't tell you to leave.  I suggested you move on to whatever it is constructive that you think is preferable to working in the GOP to get liberty candidates elected.  Thus far, all you are doing is criticizing the path that others of us have chosen to take.  
> 
> As a reminder, you had just finished giving a high-five to this post.  In fact, you enlarged and bolded various parts of it for impact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See above.


this isn't a thread about activism or a project, it is a thread about Tom Woods and Benton.  Discussions inside aren't the same as trying to derail activist projects as I see it.  Everyone can work as they wish, but if people are just discussing whether and to what extent and how closely working with non liberty types is a good idea, in their personal opinion, I'd expect to hear both sides.  But saying 'see, it never works to work with the party' is equally global and exclusive of other opinions as saying 'we have to work this way or be fringe'.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> It seems that you are trying to further split the movement and I wonder why that is.


They're the ones who have drawn the lines within the movement and do everything they can to work as the thought police for those in the movement who they feel are unbecoming. We are just fighting back, and Benton's recent behavior has proven us to be absolutely 100 percent correct. I'm just pointing out the obvious.




> Tell me, do you consider the RP delegates "milquetoast Republican establishment appeasers" too?  You know, the ones who actually took action and did something constructive.  How about people like Marianne Stebbins who organized the supporters in Minnesota to pwn the leadership slots in the GOP and win all the delegate positions, with exception of the one they gave to Bachmann?  And what about the RP supporters in Iowa who have busted their butts for the last 4 years to get in position and win over people?  They also now pwn the GOP leadership positions.  What about the supporters in Maine who went through holy crap and have not stopped yet?  Instead of giving up, they have decided to win positions in their own state.
> 
> Are these people "fools" in your book, SARGE?


I am a delegate within the Republican Party, and I urge every Ron Paul supporter to join up to try and overwhelm the party at every level in order to take it over. But this isn't achieved by kissing the ass of known pieces of $#@! like Romney and McConnell. We should be working to oust people like McConnell, not playing footsy with them because they are in positions of power. Using a local example, how well would we have done in Michigan if Kerry Bentivolio decided to join the McCotter campaign instead of running against him?

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Romney AND the establishment GOP. Of which Mitch McConnell is a part. A HUGE part. Who Rand is playing footsie with. Who Benton defected to. Here Liberty movement, take this up the wazoo. Okay GOP, thanks. Oh, and can we come and play tomorrow?


No, you're not being 'rational.' It's apart of a master plan hatched by Jesse Benton. Since he's proven himself so competent and pro-liberty before, that's how you know he's workin' for us!

----------


## kylejack

> And that's not the way to do it. Again, you don't give prospective employers public advice or open constructive critisicm if you want to get hried by them in most cases. 
> 
> And that's Tom's blind spot - he doesn't understand the social reaction by other people to some of the things he says or posts. I can understand that because I used to have the same blind spot when I was younger but it is widespread among the liberty movement because lt's face it, most of us are thinkers and not socialites; that's why we are attacted to a liberty position.


Were you critical of Benton? Yeah, you called him a liar. Did you get a job with the campaign? It sure seemed like it.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> They made the decision in February, before the Michigan primary not to attack Romney.  They wanted to, but Romney scared them.  
> 
> Whether Doug Wead was making that up or not, I don't know, but if you're not going to air attacks on Romney because of counter-attacks on you, well, at that point, February 2012, you aren't in it to win it.  Preserving Ron Paul's name, and Rand Paul's future, was the name of the game from Feb 2012 on.
> 
> All the delegate stuff, after Feb 2012, that was stuff that we wanted to do, and they didn't put a stop to it.  But bailing out of fear in February, that was it, we were done.  They might've wanted the omelet but they didn't want to risk breaking any eggs to get it.  Basically, a big ol circle jerk for 6 months.  Which is not to say that doing all that didn't have value.  Ashley and Mark wouldn't be RNC, we wouldn't have so many state committee, so there were the tangential benefits from the pursuit of the goal.  Might've have been nice for those who didn't really care that much about those tangential benefits to know that they through in the towel in Feb.


Jon Huntsman put up a pretty brutal ad against Ron in New Hampshire, that made the rounds in all the big media circles.

Romney seriously couldn't have done any worse than that, unless Ron has some really ugly skeleton somewhere that literally nobody in the movement knows about.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

Frankly, Woods sounds like sour grapes.  I will stay with Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Jesse Benton, they are the champions of liberty.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> And when Reagan tried to do what is right, he got shot.  After he got shot is when he did not govern as he promised.  This was my turning point--the red pill.  It was the catalyst that started my journey down the rabbit hole.


Reagan sucked as governor of California, and he put forward retarded budgetary policies before he was shot.

He was a goon before he was shot, he was a goon after he was shot. The shooter wasn't a tool of the elite trying to rein in a rogue freedom fighter.

----------


## kylejack

> Frankly, Woods sounds like sour grapes.  I will stay with Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Jesse Benton, they are the champions of liberty.


If you're going to stay with Benton, you'll need to stay with liberty enemy McConnell, because that's where Benton went.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> This is crucial.
> 
> Does anybody *really* think that Reagan was shot by a lone nut who wanted to impress Jodie Foster?


It's more likely than the power elite attempting to take out a guy who had already gleefully done their bidding as governor of California, and during his short time as president showed exactly bupkis in the way of opposing in any meaningful way the growth of government.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> If you're going to stay with Benton, you'll need to stay with liberty enemy McConnell, because that's where Benton went.


McConnell just endorsed Ron Paul three weeks a go and cut a video for him.  McConnell also endorsed Rand Paul's tea party movement in Kentucky and appeared at a tea party rally.  And now, McConnell looks like he has caved and turned into a real champion of liberty; he just hired Jesse Benton to be his campaign manager!

Next year, McConnell will be the most powerful republican in the US, he will be the Senate majority leader.  That means Rand Paul and Jesse Benton will be among the most powerful as well.  This is a serious pro-liberty takeover of the NWO folks.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> If you're going to stay with Benton, you'll need to stay with liberty enemy McConnell, because that's where Benton went.


The idea of liberty is powerful, and now it has overwhelmed McConnell.  Never doubt the power of liberty my son.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> If you're going to stay with Benton, you'll need to stay with liberty enemy McConnell, because that's where Benton went.


Mitch McConnell is a champion of limited government:




> The job of leader by definition does not accommodate ideological purity, but Senator McConnell’s conservative record is very clear. When the history books are written, it will be said that few Americans have ever done more to protect the First Amendment than Mitch McConnell. He has stood up to presidents of both parties who have sought to curb free speech when it became politically inconvenient for them. Efforts to eliminate our freedoms like so-called “campaign finance reform” are never presented for what they are, and to defend our freedoms is seldom popular. But Mitch McConnell has shown that regardless of the political party or the public sentiment, he will be an unwavering defender of our constitutional rights.


Stop opposing Freedom.

----------


## donnay

> Reagan sucked as governor of California, and he put forward retarded budgetary policies before he was shot.
> 
> He was a goon before he was shot, he was a goon after he was shot. The shooter wasn't a tool of the elite trying to rein in a rogue freedom fighter.


Really?  Oh I suppose John Hinkley Jr. wasn't related to the Hinkley's that did business with the Bushes eh?  Reagan wasn't in office long before he got shot.  President Reagan has only been in office for 69 days at that point.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Really?  Oh I suppose John Hinkley Jr. wasn't related to the Hinkley's that did business with the Bushes eh?  Reagan wasn't in office long before he got shot.  President Reagan has only been in office for 69 days at that point.


Hinckley's ties to a connected family or not, Reagan wasn't a rogue actor, and the power elite didn't send anyone after him.

----------


## parocks

> ..


Hard to respond to this one.  However, I read at least one of those books a long time ago.  And I don't really remember them.  And I saw at least part of one of those movies and I really didn't remember the book from the movie.

But, to elaborate, they've become very accustomed to not having to fight, not having to react to anything.  It seems like a lot of their work surrounds shocking skit type work, where they implement little real life skits little plays, and those are shocking.  But it just feels fragile.  That tremendous blows to it could have quite an effect.
At one point they probably had to work hard to gain control but they really haven't been put on the defensive for a while.

----------


## parocks

> It's more likely than the power elite attempting to take out a guy who had already gleefully done their bidding as governor of California, and during his short time as president showed exactly bupkis in the way of opposing in any meaningful way the growth of government.


Ron Paul supported Reagan for President in 1976 and 1980

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Ron Paul supported Reagan for President in 1976 and 1980


Ron Paul can make mistakes, too.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> The idea of liberty is powerful, *and now it has overwhelmed McConnell.*  Never doubt the power of liberty my son.

----------


## Barrex

> this isn't a thread about activism or a project....................... derail.............. is a good idea......


Can someone post links to threads about activism or projects? Active ones (not dead ones).... It seems I have a problem finding them.


Why are we here?
Answers:
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3 (1:32)

----------


## acptulsa

> Hinckley's ties to a connected family or not, Reagan wasn't a rogue actor, and the power elite didn't send anyone after him.


Are you saying that Hinckley had nothing to do with the Bushes or that the Bushes are not the 'power elite'?  And what makes you think that the 'if yer not with us yer with the terrists!' family has the same definition of 'rogue actor' that you do?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Hard to respond to this one.  However, I read at least one of those books a long time ago.  And I don't really remember them.  And I saw at least part of one of those movies and I really didn't remember the book from the movie.
> 
> But, to elaborate, they've become very accustomed to not having to fight, not having to react to anything.  It seems like a lot of their work surrounds shocking skit type work, where they implement little real life skits little plays, and those are shocking.  But it just feels fragile.  That tremendous blows to it could have quite an effect.
> At one point they probably had to work hard to gain control but they really haven't been put on the defensive for a while.


I agree. I also agree with the particular point you were making in your prior post - the one to which I replied with the dialog from Tolkien. Your point that people in charge didn't quite seem to be in complete mastery of things - and your use of the phrase "top people" - reminded me of that passage from The Two Towers, in which two orcs discuss the "Top Ones" and "Big Bosses" and how something has "slipped." (Lugburz, of course, correpsonds to the Washington establishment, and the Nazgul to its most powerful players).

----------


## Peace Piper

> Ron Paul supported Reagan for President in 1976 and 1980


Then Reagan let him (and other believers) down.

Ron Paul is not happy with Reagan in this 1987 resignation letter.
Compare Benton's adolescent cheer leader type scribbling with the following:

Ron Paul's 1987 letter to the RNC 
"*As a lifelong Republican, it saddens me to have to write this letter.* My parents believed in the Republican Party and its free enterprise philosophy, and thats the way I was brought up.  At age 21, in 1956, I cast my first vote for Ike and the entire Republican slate.

Because of frustration with the direction in which the country was going, I became a political activist and ran for the U.S. Congress in 1974. *Even with Watergate, my loyalty, optimism, and hope for the future were tied to the Republican Party and its message of free enterprise, limited government, and balanced budgets.*

Eventually I was elected to the U.S. Congress four times as a Republican.  This permitted me a first-hand look at the interworkings of the U.S. Congress, seeing both the benefits and partisan frustrations that guide its shaky proceedings.  I found that although representative government still exists, special interest control of the legislative process clearly presents a danger to our constitutional system of government.

*In 1976 I was impressed with Ronald Reagans program and was one of the four members of Congress who endorsed his candidacy.  In 1980, unlike other Republican office holders in Texas, I again supported our President in his efforts.*

Since 1981, however, *I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the Republican Partys efforts to reduce the size of the federal government. Since then Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt.*  How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together?  Tip ONeill, although part of the problem, cannot alone be blamed.

Tax revenues are up 59 percent since 1980. Because of our economic growth?  No.  During Carters four years, we had growth of 37.2 percent;* Reagans five years have given us 30.7 percent.  The new revenues are due to four giant Republican tax increases since 1981.*

All republicans rightly chastised Carter for his $38 billion deficit. But they ignore or even defend deficits of $220 billion, *as government spending has grown 10.4 percent per year since Reagan took office*, while the federal payroll has zoomed by a quarter of a million bureaucrats.

Despite the Supply-Sider-Keynesian claim that deficits dont matter, the debt presents a grave threat to our country.  *Thanks to the President and Republican Party, we have lost the chance to reduce the deficit and the spending in a non-crisis fashion.  Even worse, big government has been legitimized in a way the Democrats never could have accomplished.  It was tragic to listen to Ronald Reagan on the 1986 campaign trail bragging about his high spending on farm subsidies, welfare, warfare, etc., in his futile effort to hold on to control of the Senate.*

Instead of cutting some of the immeasurable waste in the Department of Defense, it has gotten worse, with the inevitable result that we are less secure today.  *Reagans foreign aid expenditures exceed Eisenhowers, Kennedys, Johnsons, Nixons, Fords, and Carters put together.  Foreign intervention has exploded since 1980.*  Only an end to military welfare for foreign governments plus a curtailment of our unconstitutional commitments abroad will enable us really to defend ourselves and solve our financial problems.

Amidst the failure of the Gramm-Rudman gimmick, we hear the President and the Republican Party call for a balanced-budget amendment and a line-item veto.  This is only a smokescreen.  *President Reagan, as governor of California, had a line-item veto and virtually never used it.  As President he has failed to exercise his constitutional responsibility to veto spending. Instead, he has encouraged it.*

Monetary policy has been disastrous as well.  *The five Reagan appointees to the Federal Reserve Board have advocated even faster monetary inflation than Chairman Volcker, and this is the fourth straight year of double-digit increases.*  The chickens have yet to come home to roost, but they will, and America will suffer from a Reaganomics that is nothing but warmed-over Keynesianism.

*Candidate Reagan in 1980 correctly opposed draft registration.  Yet when he had the chance to abolish it, he reneged, as he did on his pledge to abolish the Departments of Education and Energy, or to work against abortion.*

Under the guise of attacking drug use and money laundering, *the Republican Administration has systematically attacked personal and financial privacy.  The effect has been to victimize innocent Americans who wish to conduct their private lives without government snooping.*  (Should people really be put on a suspected drug dealer list because they transfer $3,000 at one time?) * Reagans urine testing of Americans without probable cause is a clear violation of our civil liberties*, as are his proposals for extensive lie detector tests.

*Under Reagan, the IRS has grown bigger, richer, more powerful, and more arrogant.*  In the words of the founders of our country, our government has sent hither swarms of tax gatherers to harass our people and eat out their substance.  His officers jailed the innocent George Hansen, with the President refusing to pardon a great American whose only crime was to defend the Constitution. *Reagans new tax reform gives even more power to the IRS.*  Far from making taxes fairer or simpler, it deceitfully raises more revenue for the government to waste.

Knowing this administrations record, I wasnt surprised by its Libyan disinformation campaign, Israeli-Iranian arms-for-hostages swap, or illegal funding of the Contras.  All this has contributed to my disenchantment with the Republican Party, and helped me make up my mind.

*I want to totally disassociate myself* from the policies that have given us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy.

After years of trying to work through the Republican Party both in and out of government, I have reluctantly concluded that my efforts must be carried on outside the Republican Party. Republicans know that the Democratic agenda is dangerous to our political and economic health.  *Yet, in the past six years Republicans have expanded its worst aspects and called them our own.  The Republican Party has not reduced the size of government. It has become big governments best friend.*

*If Ronald Reagan couldnt or wouldnt balance the budget, which Republican leader on the horizon can we possibly expect to do so?* There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government.  That is the message of the Reagan years.

I conclude that one must look to other avenues if a successful effort is ever to be achieved in reversing Americas direction.

I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card.

*************

What a contrast between this man and his confused  young grandson in law.

----------


## Meatwasp

If we all say it about Reagan, it must be true, says the monkeys in the trees. Kipling's Banderlog.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Then Reagan let him (and other believers) down.
> 
> Ron Paul is not happy with Reagan in this 1987 resignation letter.
> Compare Benton's adolescent cheer leader type scribbling with the following:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> What a contrast between this man and his confused  young grandson in law.



I agree, and Dr. Paul's letter (above) expresses my specific point about Reagan letting conservatives down.  But Reagan was the closest the GOP has come to electing a conservative in well over 50 years.  That's why I don't understand why everyone, including Dr. Paul,  believes conservatives "belong" in the GOP.




> I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card.


I wonder why he came back, and I wonder why....rejection after rejection...he continues to believe it's the path his supporters should take.

Not trying to piss you off, LE, but I seriously can't wrap my brain around this.

----------


## acptulsa

> I wonder why he came back, and I wonder why....rejection after rejection...he continues to believe it's the path his supporters should take.
> 
> Not trying to piss you off, LE, but I seriously can't wrap my brain around this.


Reminds me of the rich Australian mining woman thread.

Because taking over a bankrupt organization tends to be quicker and easier than creating one from the ground up--especially when it has a 'brand' and 'name recognition value'.  Even if it's merely _morally_ bankrupt.

Not saying he's right, though at the time I think he was (and he'll be the first to tell you things have changed in the last four years).  Just sayin'.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I wonder why he came back, and I wonder why....rejection after rejection...he continues to believe it's the path his supporters should take.
> 
> Not trying to piss you off, LE, but I seriously can't wrap my brain around this.


It's really quite simple.  There are more libertarians and traditional conservatives in the GOP than in any other political party.  Add to that, there are more people who can be persuaded to our side within the GOP than in any other political party.  And add to that, unaffiliated voters (aka Independents) who tend to be conservative are far more likely to vote for a candidate who is a Republican than they are to vote for any other candidate.

Additionally you also need to look at reality.  Libertarians and traditional conservatives that run as a Republican win elections.  Libertarians and traditional conservatives that run as a third party candidate do not win elections.

----------


## angelatc

> Here's what goes into 2)
> 
> Mitch doesn't primary Rand in the 2016 Kentucky US Senate Primary.  Or, Mitch actively supports Rand in the Kentucky US Senate Primary.  Or, if Rand runs for President, Mitch doesn't hinder Rand.  Or, Mitch actively helps Rand in his Presidential bid.
> 
> All of those things fit easily into 2)


What happens when Mitch decides to run for President in 2016, without needing to give up his Senate seat to do so?

----------


## angelatc

> It's really quite simple.  There are more libertarians and traditional conservatives in the GOP than in any other political party.  Add to that, there are more people who can be persuaded to our side within the GOP than in any other political party.  And add to that, unaffiliated voters (aka Independents) who tend to be conservative are far more likely to vote for a candidate who is a Republican than they are to vote for any other candidate.
> 
> Additionally you also need to look at reality.  Libertarians and traditional conservatives that run as a Republican win elections.  Libertarians and traditional conservatives that run as a third party candidate do not win elections.


Exactly. Paul told us over and over again why he stayed in the GOP after the libertarian experiment failed, because he was trying to spare us the need to replicate his mistakes.  I don't get why that's hard for some people to wrap their little heads around.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> It's really quite simple.  There are more libertarians and traditional conservatives in the GOP than in any other political party.  Add to that, there are more people who can be persuaded to our side within the GOP than in any other political party.  And add to that, unaffiliated voters (aka Independents) who tend to be conservative are far more likely to vote for a candidate who is a Republican than they are to vote for any other candidate.
> 
> Additionally you also need to look at reality.  *Libertarians and traditional conservatives that run as a Republican win elections.*  Libertarians and traditional conservatives that run as a third party candidate do not win elections.





> Exactly. Paul told us over and over again why he stayed in the GOP after the libertarian experiment failed, because he was trying to spare us the need to replicate his mistakes.  I don't get why that's hard for some people to wrap their little heads around.


I get that candidates lose going 3rd party, but it seems like we (libertarians and conservatives) lose even when we don't.  

We may win elections as members of the GOP, but then the establishment goes on to marginalize us...what gains do we make at the end of the day?  We try to play nice with them, make deals with them, and they don't uphold their end of the bargain.  

I think the fact that the Dems and GOP have a monopoly on the political process is a main part of the problem.  Those of us who are motivated to do so should work to stop this.  Until this changes, things will continue as they are now.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I get that candidates lose going 3rd party, but it seems like we (libertarians and conservatives) lose even when we don't.  
> 
> We may win elections as members of the GOP, but then the establishment goes on to marginalize us...what gains do we make at the end of the day?  We try to play nice with them, make deals with them, and they don't uphold their end of the bargain.  
> 
> I think the fact that the Dems and GOP have a monopoly on the political process is a main part of the problem.  Those of us who are motivated to do so should work to stop this.  Until this changes, things will continue as they are now.


Easy.  I don't think we make deals that sacrifice our principles.

----------


## sailingaway

> I get that candidates lose going 3rd party, but it seems like we (libertarians and conservatives) lose even when we don't.  
> 
> We may win elections as members of the GOP, but then the establishment goes on to marginalize us...what gains do we make at the end of the day?  We try to play nice with them, make deals with them, and they don't uphold their end of the bargain.  
> 
> I think the fact that the Dems and GOP have a monopoly on the political process is a main part of the problem.  Those of us who are motivated to do so should work to stop this.  Until this changes, things will continue as they are now.


It seems to me there are avenues in the party and outside of the party. People who work outside of the party, as we have seen, often support those working within the party at key junctures, with signatures, donations, spreading information, etc, and votes.  Since you are one of the ones who would prefer, at least for now, to work outside of the party, what do you think might be good projects?

What do you think the primary needs are, outside the party?  Education?  Or what?

I'm not saying you need to have the answer on the tip of your tongue.  I've been thinking this needs some brainstorming, though, and thought we might get it started.

----------


## specsaregood

> What happens when Mitch decides to run for President in 2016, without needing to give up his Senate seat to do so?


He'll be 74 or so. I don't see that happening.  Ron got enough flack over his age and he is a health nut.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> It seems to me there are avenues in the party and outside of the party. People who work outside of the party, as we have seen, often support those working within the party at key junctures, with signatures, donations, spreading information, etc, and votes.  Since you are one of the ones who would prefer, at least for now, to work outside of the party, what do you think might be good projects?
> 
> What do you think the primary needs are, outside the party?  Education?  Or what?


Definitely education.  

I'm only one person and I do what I can to educate the GOP voters around me...unfortunately, their heads are buried so deep in the Limbaugh/Hannity sand it's an uphill battle. 

We really need a voice in the mainstream media to teach them ... in an entertaining way, as Limbaugh does with his audience.

----------


## sailingaway

> Definitely education.  
> 
> I'm only one person and I do what I can to educate the GOP voters around me...unfortunately, their heads are buried so deep in the Limbaugh/Hannity sand it's an uphill battle. 
> 
> We really need a voice in the mainstream media to teach them ... in an entertaining way, as Limbaugh does with his audience.


I think we need to brainstorm other things outside of the GOP we can get behind.  Ben Swann seems like one, maybe?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Are you saying that Hinckley had nothing to do with the Bushes or that the Bushes are not the 'power elite'?  And what makes you think that the 'if yer not with us yer with the terrists!' family has the same definition of 'rogue actor' that you do?


I'm saying it's irrelevant what Hinckley's family's affiliations are; Reagan was part of the power elite. His "private" career outside of acting was as a spokesperson for the MIC, he was an FBI informant during the red scare, and he was a goon while in elected office.

----------


## acptulsa

As long as we're already flying this thread to Cuba...

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I think we need to brainstorm other things outside of the GOP we can get behind.  Ben Swann seems like one, maybe?


I would LOVE to see him sign on for this.  Judge Nap, too.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I get that candidates lose going 3rd party, but it seems like we (libertarians and conservatives) lose even when we don't.  
> 
> We may win elections as members of the GOP, but then the establishment goes on to marginalize us...what gains do we make at the end of the day?  We try to play nice with them, make deals with them, and they don't uphold their end of the bargain.  
> 
> I think the fact that the Dems and GOP have a monopoly on the political process is a main part of the problem.  Those of us who are motivated to do so should work to stop this.  Until this changes, things will continue as they are now.


It's a numbers game.  At the present time we simply do not have the numbers.  After November, our numbers will increase.  If people continue to stay involved and run for local committee seats then our numbers will increase again.

----------


## angelatc

> It's a numbers game.  At the present time we simply do not have the numbers.  After November, our numbers will increase.  If people continue to stay involved and run for local committee seats then our numbers will increase again.


Exactly.  I know that at least 2 of the members of the RNC committee are Ron Paul supporters.  That's two more than we had 4 years ago.  I really have no patience with people who apparently expected that the RNC would hand over the reins and adopt our platform if we just educated them.  Never going to happen.

We have to win a lot of battles to gain control, and accept that the war will never end.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Exactly.  I know that at least 2 of the members of the RNC committee are Ron Paul supporters.  That's two more than we had 4 years ago.  I really have no patience with people who apparently expected that the RNC would hand over the reins and adopt our platform if we just educated them.  Never going to happen.
> 
> We have to win a lot of battles to gain control, and accept that the war will never end.


Someone else will have to run the numbers, but I know there are somewhere around 3000 counties in the country, the majority of them vote GOP.  Multiply that by the number of committee seats in each county and that's the target.  I saw it somewhere at one time, and I forget the exact figure, but it is somewhere in the neighborhood of around 50,000 seats and any one faction can take majority control of the party.  Again, someone would have to do the legwork and check on the math, but for each individual the big number doesn't matter, since all we can personally do is run in our own precinct if we are able.

----------


## parocks

> Romney AND the establishment GOP. Of which Mitch McConnell is a part. A HUGE part. Who Rand is playing footsie with. Who Benton defected to. Here Liberty movement, take this up the wazoo. Okay GOP, thanks. Oh, and can we come and play tomorrow?


I'd say Romney and Ben Ginsberg.  The Establishment GOP did what Romney wanted.  But if Santorum had been the nominee, and the Santorum plan for dealing with the Ron Paul delegates was "just let them be", the Establishment GOP would've just let them be.

The Republican National Convention was the Romney show.  The GOP did what the nominee wanted.  The nominee scripted this convention.

Its an error, also, to not draw any distinctions between the Conservatives and the RINOs.

The Liberty Republicans are a subset of the Conservative Wing.  And the Conservative Wing does battle with the Country Club Wing, and has done so since Robert Taft or longer.

It's pretty pointless and unhelpful to lump everybody together who doesn't fully support Ron Paul.  It's like throwing away useful information.

----------


## parocks

> So... what do I tell my friends who are huge Ron Paul supporters that were never Republicans? That their home is there? I know about 50 Ron Paul supporters personally. Only 10 would identify themselves as being or has been Republican. A lot of them left the Dems. They joined us because of RP being anti-war and pro individual liberty. I think they started leaning towards being more libertarian but were willing to vote for a Republican if it was Ron Paul. now that it's Romne, every single one of them is swinging on back to Obama because they loathe Romney and Ryan so much. A lot of these people are pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. They were okay with Ron's views on those topics. They aren't okay with the GOP's platform on them.
> But their home is in the Republican Party? Nope. Mine isn't even there anymore. We need a new party.


Your friends aren't Conservative.  They sound like Antiwar Democrats.  I really don't know what you'd tell your friends.  Ron Paul is all about a much much smaller federal government.  And people who want a much much smaller Federal Government are likely to be Republicans.  It happens to be that Ron Paul pushed antiwar so far to the front of his message that he was able to attract antiwar Democrats.  So, they're with Ron Paul, but they have traditions as Democrats.  I recommended not talking so much about the things that antiwar Democrats liked, because keeping them on board would not be easy.  Rand is well liked by the Conservatives.  And if he can hold on to as many of the antiwar Democrats as possible, he's in better shape than someone like Santorum, who would not have any of those antiwar Dem votes.  Ron Pauls foreign policy turned off a lot of the Conservative Republicans, the bedrock you need, if you're a Conservative Republican, to win the nomination.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Your friends aren't Conservative.  They sound like Antiwar Democrats.  I really don't know what you'd tell your friends.  Ron Paul is all about a much much smaller federal government.  And people who want a much much smaller Federal Government are likely to be Republicans.  It happens to be that Ron Paul pushed antiwar so far to the front of his message that he was able to attract antiwar Democrats.  So, they're with Ron Paul, but they have traditions as Democrats.  I recommended not talking so much about the things that antiwar Democrats liked, because keeping them on board would not be easy.  Rand is well liked by the Conservatives.  And if he can hold on to as many of the antiwar Democrats as possible, he's in better shape than someone like Santorum, who would not have any of those antiwar Dem votes.  Ron Pauls foreign policy turned off a lot of the Conservative Republicans, the bedrock you need, if you're a Conservative Republican, to win the nomination.


And if you saw the Value Voters speech by Rand from Friday, you can see how Rand can stand in front of a group of social conservatives, speak their language, engage them personally & emotionally and still put forth a anti-war message.  He is able to capture the interest of the average conservative who are pleased with what he says about their issues, which makes them more likely to pay attention to what he says when he speaks on his issues.

----------


## parocks

> Jon Huntsman put up a pretty brutal ad against Ron in New Hampshire, that made the rounds in all the big media circles.
> 
> Romney seriously couldn't have done any worse than that, unless Ron has some really ugly skeleton somewhere that literally nobody in the movement knows about.


It is believed that Romney was going to be painting a picture of Ron based upon the newsletters, the whole "return to Jim Crow" type of thing, the whole "if they think that things are screwed up now, it means they want to return to the worst features of the past.".  And they backed down.  As if they thought they could win without being attacked at all.

----------


## parocks

> Ron Paul can make mistakes, too.


But that's not how Ron Paul sees it.  

I prefer to think that Ron Paul is right, and "Feeding the Abscess" is wrong.

----------


## parocks

Reagan / Paul timeline:

1968 - Reagan is California Governor, runs for President against Romney, Nixon
1976 - Ron Paul is a Republican, becomes a Republican Congressman
1976 - Reagan runs for President, Ron Paul supports him.
1980 - Reagan runs for President, Ron Paul supports him.
1981 (Jan) - Reagan takes office, the Reagan Administration is not bad.
1981 (Apr) - Reagan is shot by Bush contributor Hinckley's son.  At this time, the Reagan admistration becomes worse.
1988 - Ron Paul leaves Republican Party, runs for President on the Libertarian ticket.  Ron Paul expresses dissatisfaction with Reagan Administration.
1990s - Ron Paul rejoins Republican Party, becomes a Republican Congressman again.

Someone argued that Reagan sucked as governor, I mentioned that if Reagan sucked as governor, Ron Paul wouldn't have supported him in 1976 and 1980.

After Reagan was shot, he got the message, which was, no more of that Conservative stuff.  After that point, and not before that point, Ron Paul got unhappy with Reagan.  If Reagan wasn't shot, and was able to push Conservativism for 8 years, Ron Paul would've been happy.

----------


## parocks

> I agree. I also agree with the particular point you were making in your prior post - the one to which I replied with the dialog from Tolkien. Your point that people in charge didn't quite seem to be in complete mastery of things - and your use of the phrase "top people" - reminded me of that passage from The Two Towers, in which two orcs discuss the "Top Ones" and "Big Bosses" and how something has "slipped." (Lugburz, of course, correpsonds to the Washington establishment, and the Nazgul to its most powerful players).


Oh, yeah, I know what you meant.  I just thought it was kinda odd that what you posted, which was completely on point, was something I had read such a long time ago.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Additionally you also need to look at reality.  Libertarians and traditional conservatives that run as a Republican win elections.  Libertarians and traditional conservatives that run as a third party candidate do not win elections.


It all comes down to social credibility. Republicans have it. Libertarians do not. It's a damn shame (and I devoutly wish it was otherwise) - but it is what it is.




> I get that candidates lose going 3rd party, but it seems like we (libertarians and conservatives) lose even when we don't.  
> 
> We may win elections as members of the GOP, but then the establishment goes on to marginalize us...what gains do we make at the end of the day?  We try to play nice with them, make deals with them, and they don't uphold their end of the bargain.


As far as "playing nice," "making deals" and "bargain[ing]" go, these sorts of things are going to happen. Such tactical coalitions are unavoidable.  That is the inescapable nature of politics. Sometimes we will be on the winning end, sometimes not. The real problem is with substantive or "strategic" compromises. This is analogous to Ron Paul's approach to "coalition vs. compromise."

For example, to the extent that Rand Paul's involvement with McConnell (as unsavory & despicable as he is) is of a tactical "coalition" nature, this can work greatly to our advantage. But if that relationship becomes a strategic "compromise" (if, for example, Rand starts voting & acting in the Senate in a manner contrary to his principles - as opposed to engaging in mere rhetorical flourishes such as empty endorsements, praise or flattery), then it will be time to declare that Rand is a failure (or even a "traitor") and that nothing has been gained (in the particular case of Rand Paul). But not until then. The same goes for any "deals" or "bargains" made by other personages in the movement.

Also, there is no "end of the day" to any of this. It's a continuous and never-ending process. At this stage in the process, our power & influence are waxing. This is a very recent development (beginning, as it did, with Ron Paul's 2008 POTUS run) and it is still just getting started. It remains to be seen whether or how far it will continue. In any case, it has yet to run its course, so the conclusion that nothing has been gained (or can be gained) is extremely premature.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> It all comes down to social credibility. Republicans have it. Libertarians do not. It's a damn shame (and I devoutly wish it was otherwise) - but it is what it is.


Well from my personal observation, the members of the LP (at least in the areas I have lived) never took the time to connect with the communities they wish to govern.  I mentioned this one time before but in all the years where I saw LP guys on the ballot for a variety of state and federal offices in my area, I never heard of any of them.  On the contrary, I knew or knew off all the folks that were running for either the Dem or GOP slot.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Reagan / Paul timeline:
> 
> 1968 - Reagan is California Governor, runs for President against Romney, Nixon
> 1976 - Ron Paul is a Republican, becomes a Republican Congressman
> 1976 - Reagan runs for President, Ron Paul supports him.
> 1980 - Reagan runs for President, Ron Paul supports him.
> 1981 (Jan) - Reagan takes office, the Reagan Administration is not bad.
> 1981 (Apr) - Reagan is shot by Bush contributor Hinckley's son.  At this time, the Reagan admistration becomes worse.
> 1988 - Ron Paul leaves Republican Party, runs for President on the Libertarian ticket.  Ron Paul expresses dissatisfaction with Reagan Administration.
> ...


I agree with this.

----------


## parocks

> I agree, and Dr. Paul's letter (above) expresses my specific point about Reagan letting conservatives down.  But Reagan was the closest the GOP has come to electing a conservative in well over 50 years.  That's why I don't understand why everyone, including Dr. Paul,  believes conservatives "belong" in the GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder why he came back, and I wonder why....rejection after rejection...he continues to believe it's the path his supporters should take.
> 
> Not trying to piss you off, LE, but I seriously can't wrap my brain around this.



Reagan was a Conservative.  And then he was shot.

Democrats don't have Conservatives.  

I've listed the Republican Primaries with Conservatives.

Democrats don't have Democrat Primaries with Conservatives.

The Conservative usually loses, because people from outside the Republican Party (global elites, msm) do what they can to neutralize the Conservatives.  If it was just Republicans choosing between RINOs and Conservatives, the Conservative candidate would win more often than not.

But the msm and the global elites are against Conservatives.  And that is true whether or not the Conservative is in the Republican Party or the Libertarian Party.

Yes, it is very easy to get a pointless nomination (the Libertarian one).  But the msm would attack the Libertarian as hard as a Conservative Republican if there was any chance the Libertarian would get elected to the Presidency.

The problem the Conservative Republicans have isn't the RINOs, it's the global elites and the msm.

----------


## parocks

> McConnell just endorsed Ron Paul three weeks a go and cut a video for him.  McConnell also endorsed Rand Paul's tea party movement in Kentucky and appeared at a tea party rally.  And now, McConnell looks like he has caved and turned into a real champion of liberty; he just hired Jesse Benton to be his campaign manager!
> 
> Next year, McConnell will be the most powerful republican in the US, he will be the Senate majority leader.  That means Rand Paul and Jesse Benton will be among the most powerful as well.  This is a serious pro-liberty takeover of the NWO folks.


I like this version of the story.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Oh, yeah, I know what you meant.  I just thought it was kinda odd that what you posted, which was completely on point, was something I had read such a long time ago.


Ah, OK. Gotcha.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Reagan was a Conservative.  And then he was shot.
> 
> Democrats don't have Conservatives.  
> 
> I've listed the Republican Primaries with Conservatives.
> 
> Democrats don't have Democrat Primaries with Conservatives.
> 
> The Conservative usually loses, because people from outside the Republican Party (global elites, msm) do what they can to neutralize the Conservatives.  If it was just Republicans choosing between RINOs and Conservatives, the Conservative candidate would win more often than not.
> ...


I don't know why you're bringing up Democrats with me. I'm in no way arguing anything in favor of Democrats!

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Well from my personal observation, the members of the LP (at least in the areas I have lived) never took the time to connect with the communities they wish to govern.  I mentioned this one time before but in all the years where I saw LP guys on the ballot for a variety of state and federal offices in my area, I never heard of any of them.  On the contrary, I knew or knew off all the folks that were running for either the Dem or GOP slot.


I agree. This is one of the bases of my claim that Libertarians (as opposed to Republicans or Democrats) don't have "social credibility."

To John Q. Voter, Libertarians seem to come "out of nowhere" without any context or connection to anything familar to and accepted by John. Thus Libertarian positions & policies (to the extent that John ever becomes aware of them) are much more likely to be rejected as "strange" or "extreme."

ETA: This is a good part of the reason why Ron & Rand Paul have had (& are having) much greater success then they could ever have had had they not been Repulicans.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Well from my personal observation, the members of the LP (at least in the areas I have lived) never took the time to connect with the communities they wish to govern.  I mentioned this one time before but in all the years where I saw LP guys on the ballot for a variety of state and federal offices in my area, I never heard of any of them.  On the contrary, I knew or knew off all the folks that were running for either the Dem or GOP slot.


Um....ever consider that's because the media refuses to cover anything that's not Dem or GOP?  The monopoly those two parties have on our political system is a very big problem.  I'd prefer to correct that rather than encourage it.

----------


## parocks

> What happens when Mitch decides to run for President in 2016, without needing to give up his Senate seat to do so?


Well I don't know.  He doesn't get much in the way of Ron Paul support.  If it's me, I look at the whole list of candidates and pick the one I like.
I don't know enough about Mitch to say if he's worse than the average Republican or better than the average Republican.

I know enough about Romney to say that Romney is absolutely terrible, the worst nominee we've had in a really long time.

I don't know enough about Mitch.  Kentucky Republicans are typically more conservative than Massachusetts Republican.

In 2016, I'd assume that I'd support the best Republican in the primaries, and my level of support would be dependent on how much I liked that candidate.

Many Ron Paul supporters wouldn't supporters wouldn't support the Republican unless he was perfect.  Other Ron Paul supporters think basically the same way as I do.

----------


## parocks

> It seems to me there are avenues in the party and outside of the party. People who work outside of the party, as we have seen, often support those working within the party at key junctures, with signatures, donations, spreading information, etc, and votes.  Since you are one of the ones who would prefer, at least for now, to work outside of the party, what do you think might be good projects?
> 
> What do you think the primary needs are, outside the party?  Education?  Or what?
> 
> I'm not saying you need to have the answer on the tip of your tongue.  I've been thinking this needs some brainstorming, though, and thought we might get it started.


Marches?  Standing on street corners waving signs? Just Kidding.

A good point, though, brainstorming - usually a good idea.

----------


## specsaregood

> I'd say Romney and Ben Ginsberg.  *The Establishment GOP did what Romney wanted.*  But if Santorum had been the nominee, and the Santorum plan for dealing with the Ron Paul delegates was "just let them be", the Establishment GOP would've just let them be.
> 
> The Republican National Convention was the Romney show.  The GOP did what the nominee wanted.  *The nominee scripted this convention.*


Did they?  And did he?  Perhaps Romney did what they wanted and I'd wager the convention was scripted by advisors, pollsters and media people.  Did Romney plan it or let others drive.    In a way, what happened hurt Romney.  I can't see how trying to crush us possibly helps him; it more likely helps the established politicos in the GOP by trying to push us out.  Romney gains nothing for it, which leads me to think that some others wanted it done.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Um....ever consider that's because the media refuses to cover anything that's not Dem or GOP?  The monopoly those two parties have on our political system is a very big problem.  I'd prefer to correct that rather than encourage it.


The only way it can be corrected is if the system is changed from "winner take all" plurality representation to proportional representation. So long as the composition of legislatures is determined by plural voting, there will only ever be two major parties at any given time. Things like ballot access restrictions, MSM bias, etc. (as bad as they are) have nothing to do with it.

----------


## parocks

> I think we need to brainstorm other things outside of the GOP we can get behind.  Ben Swann seems like one, maybe?


I'm pretty surprised that Ben Swann has been able to get all of his reports on the airwaves.  I would assume that would stop at some point.  He does have bosses in the msm, although not every single tv station in the country is global elite msm.

----------


## febo

I haven't read all of this thread but one question lurks in the shadows - if Benton is as bad as it seems, how come RP didn't do something about it?

----------


## parocks

> And if you saw the Value Voters speech by Rand from Friday, you can see how Rand can stand in front of a group of social conservatives, speak their language, engage them personally & emotionally and still put forth a anti-war message.  He is able to capture the interest of the average conservative who are pleased with what he says about their issues, which makes them more likely to pay attention to what he says when he speaks on his issues.


Oh, well I'm in favor of Rand.  I didn't bitch when he endorsed Romney.  Rand most certainly does not want to do whatever he can to bring in dissatisfied antiwar Dems.  Rand knows the path to the nomination requires the support of Conservatives, first and foremost.

----------


## parocks

> It all comes down to social credibility. Republicans have it. Libertarians do not. It's a damn shame (and I devoutly wish it was otherwise) - but it is what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> As far as "playing nice," "making deals" and "bargain[ing]" go, these sorts of things are going to happen. Such tactical coalitions are unavoidable.  That is the inescapable nature of politics. Sometimes we will be on the winning end, sometimes not. The real problem is with substantive or "strategic" compromises. This is analogous to Ron Paul's approach to "coalition vs. compromise."
> 
> For example, to the extent that Rand Paul's involvement with McConnell (as unsavory & despicable as he is) is of a tactical "coalition" nature, this can work greatly to our advantage. But if that relationship becomes a strategic "compromise" (if, for example, Rand starts voting & acting in the Senate in a manner contrary to his principles - as opposed to engaging in mere rhetorical flourishes such as empty endorsements, praise or flattery), then it will be time to declare that Rand is a failure (or even a "traitor") and that nothing has been gained (in the particular case of Rand Paul). But not until then. The same goes for any "deals" or "bargains" made by other personages in the movement.
> 
> Also, there is no "end of the day" to any of this. It's a continuous and never-ending process. At this stage in the process, our power & influence are waxing. This is a very recent development (beginning, as it did, with Ron Paul's 2008 POTUS run) and it is still just getting started. It remains to be seen whether or how far it will continue. In any case, it has yet to run its course, so the conclusion that nothing has been gained (or can be gained) is extremely premature.


This is good, right here.

There's a difference between votes and endorsements.  I'll be disappointed if Rand starts voting wrong.

----------


## specsaregood

> Oh, well I'm in favor of Rand.  I didn't bitch when he endorsed Romney.  Rand most certainly does not want to do whatever he can to bring in dissatisfied antiwar Dems.  Rand knows the path to the nomination requires the support of Conservatives, first and foremost.


In his new book, he pretty much marks out his territory and what he is going to make a name for himself doing in the Senate.  Its very populist, its very specific and bipartisan.

edit: it seems he wants to be the guy that regulates government agencies.  he wants to force congress to write the laws that the departments operate under.  he may argue to abolish them, but in the absence of that he wants to force them into the control of the people elected representatives.

----------


## parocks

> I don't know why you're bringing up Democrats with me. I'm in no way arguing anything in favor of Democrats!


I'm discussing the political parties which win elections.

----------


## parocks

> In his new book, he pretty much marks out his territory and what he is going to make a name for himself doing in the Senate.  Its very populist, its very specific and bipartisan.


Well, I'm not much of a book reader, but it sounds like you've read it.

I know what the overall Paul boilerplate is on the issues.

I wonder though if Rand has addressed the Monsanto issue in any specific way.  There's an area of opportunity with Monsanto.  Democrats really don't like Monsanto, and the Democrats often argue that Republicans are bad because they allow big companies to do bad things.  I think that Rand or Liberty Republicans should have an explicit answer how Liberty solutions can solve the Monsanto problem.  It is clear to Democrats that Monsanto is a problem, and that Obama isn't solving that problem.
It's not clear to those Democrats how "much less federal government" is going to solve the Monsanto problem, and it would be good to hear a nice, detailed answer about how Liberty solves the Monsanto problem.

----------


## specsaregood

> Well, I'm not much of a book reader, but it sounds like you've read it.
> 
> I know what the overall Paul boilerplate is on the issues.
> 
> I wonder though if Rand has addressed the Monsanto issue in any specific way.  There's an area of opportunity with Monsanto.  Democrats really don't like Monsanto, and the Democrats often argue that Republicans are bad because they allow big companies to do bad things.  I think that Rand or Liberty Republicans should have an explicit answer how Liberty solutions can solve the Monsanto problem.  It is clear to Democrats that Monsanto is a problem, and that Obama isn't solving that problem.
> It's not clear to those Democrats how "much less federal government" is going to solve the Monsanto problem, and it would be good to hear a nice, detailed answer about how Liberty solves the Monsanto problem.


Yeah, that doesn't appear to be his goal at least in the short term.   He wants to go after the branches of government making up their own laws, violating peoples rights and leash them with congressional control.

----------


## parocks

> Did they?  And did he?  Perhaps Romney did what they wanted and I'd wager the convention was scripted by advisors, pollsters and media people.  Did Romney plan it or let others drive.    In a way, what happened hurt Romney.  I can't see how trying to crush us possibly helps him; it more likely helps the established politicos in the GOP by trying to push us out.  Romney gains nothing for it, which leads me to think that some others wanted it done.


No, I would argue that it was Romney leading the RNC.  Reince Priebus is not a puppet master.  These RNC people are not puppet masters.

Here are the names.

Benjamin Netanyahu.  Been a close friend of Mitt Romney's for 36 years.

If you want to start to guess how Mitt Romney got there, think Benjamin Netanyahu.  Think AIPAC.  Think Ben Ginsberg.  Think Dov Zakheim.

Romney is a classic Country Clubber anti Conservative, his dad, who ran against Goldwater in 1964 and 1968 was a Country Clubber anti Conservative.

It's not a random bunch of elected RNC people who are pulling strings.  

It's easy enough to get answers if you look at the facts.

By focusing on the committees, we can win those elections, and whatever trouble we get from the committees will be gone.

Traditionally (since Bush), the Democrats are more Socialism, and the Republicans are more Israel.  And each party seems to be content to preserve the others gains.

I suspect that the people at the RNC are not all that happy with team Romney.

Remember, Ben Ginsberg himself was at the Maine Convention causing whole bunches of trouble.  So, it isn't some mysterious inscrutable monolith, especially when the actual actors are so easy to identify.

----------


## parocks

> Yeah, that doesn't appear to be his goal at least in the short term.   He wants to go after the branches of government making up their own laws, violating peoples rights and leash them with congressional control.


Well, that's exactly what I'd expect.  It's what Ron Paul wanted.  Ron Paul didn't talk nearly enough about that.  That's just basic Conservativism.  And basic Conservatism does certainly appeal to the many rank and file Conservatives in the GOP.

----------


## kylejack

> Mitch McConnell is a champion of limited government:
> 
> Stop opposing Freedom.


No he isn't. Does the PATRIOT Act limit government? Does NDAA? Does warrantless wiretapping? Do bailouts? McConnell voted for all of those.

Edit: Sarcasm detector malfunctioning. I'm going to get it looked at.

----------


## kylejack

nt

----------


## kylejack

> McConnell just endorsed Ron Paul three weeks a go


He did not.

----------


## kylejack

nt

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> He did not.


He did, McConnell gave Ron Paul a ringing endorsement in the video tribute to Ron Paul at the GOP convention.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> No he isn't. Does the PATRIOT Act limit government? Does NDAA? Does warrantless wiretapping? Do bailouts? McConnell voted for all of those.


I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.  

Abscess, that is.

----------


## kylejack

> He did, McConnell gave Ron Paul a ringing endorsement in the video tribute to Ron Paul at the GOP convention.


Endorsement for what position? Nothing gambled and nothing gained from praising a man who is retiring _after_ he didn't get the nomination.

----------


## erowe1

> Endorsement for what position? Nothing gambled and nothing gained from praising a man who is retiring _after_ he didn't get the nomination.


That whirring sound you hear is some of the comments in this thread going over your head.

----------


## kylejack

> That whirring sound you hear is some of the comments in this thread going over your head.





> Edit: Sarcasm detector malfunctioning. I'm going to get it looked at.


This

----------


## qh4dotcom

> Someone argued that Reagan sucked as governor, I mentioned that if Reagan sucked as governor, Ron Paul wouldn't have supported him in 1976 and 1980.


Ron Paul supported SOPA author Rep. Lamar Smith too who voted for wars, bailouts, NDAA, Patriot Act, etc.

----------


## erowe1

> Ron Paul supported SOPA author Rep. Lamar Smith too who voted for wars, bailouts, NDAA, Patriot Act, etc.


One difference is that he supported Reagan in those primaries, not just the general.

----------


## LBennett76

> Someone else will have to run the numbers, but I know there are somewhere around 3000 counties in the country, the majority of them vote GOP.  Multiply that by the number of committee seats in each county and that's the target.  I saw it somewhere at one time, and I forget the exact figure, but it is somewhere in the neighborhood of around 50,000 seats and any one faction can take majority control of the party.  Again, someone would have to do the legwork and check on the math, but for each individual the big number doesn't matter, since all we can personally do is run in our own precinct if we are able.


My county has only ever voted once for a Republican for president since 1960 (Nixon's 2nd term). I never get to vote for county commissioner and a bunch of other positions in the primaries because no Republicans even run. Entirely Democrats. The R Party doesn't bother running anyone against them because they can't win. I'd love to take over the party, but I'm a poor single mom and they're country club folks many of whom held state government positions (for which they weren't qualified). My only option is to run 3rd party/independent.

----------


## erowe1

> My county has only ever voted once for a Republican for president since 1960 (Nixon's 2nd term). I never get to vote for county commissioner and a bunch of other positions in the primaries because no Republicans even run. Entirely Democrats. The R Party doesn't bother running anyone against them because they can't win. I'd love to take over the party, but I'm a poor single mom and they're country club folks many of whom held state government positions (for which they weren't qualified). My only option is to run 3rd party/independent.


Isn't a county like yours precisely where the GOP is the most ripe for the picking?

You may not be able to get elected into public office there. But I bet they don't have many of their precinct chair positions filled. And if you and a bunch of allies take those positions, then you can determine who your county chair will be, and influence leadership on up the party. Even in Dem strongholds, the local county Republican party still has its say in the leadership of the state party.

Also, all those spots on the ballot where the Republicans don't even run anyone, those are opportunities that you and your friends could take to run as Republicans. I bet the party would love to run as many candidates for as many positions as they could. And even if you run for something you're guaranteed to lose, and devote very little time to campaigning, just by making yourself available to the party in that way you gain credibility and influence.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Endorsement for what position? Nothing gambled and nothing gained from praising a man who is retiring _after_ he didn't get the nomination.


You have changed the subject.  When good things happen, you are unable to handle it.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Ron Paul supported SOPA author Rep. Lamar Smith too who voted for wars, bailouts, NDAA, Patriot Act, etc.


There is nothing in the US Constitution that says Ron Paul cannot endorse Lamar Smith.

----------


## sailingaway

> Ron Paul supported SOPA author Rep. Lamar Smith too who voted for wars, bailouts, NDAA, Patriot Act, etc.


Not while someone he had already endorsed was still running, about to lose or not.  And not against a liberty candidate.  Ron also didn't campaign for him.  He let people know how strong his endorsements were, and that was not one he went the extra mile for in any sense.  He cut deals and SAID what they were, so people knew what he was getting for liberty.  And I wonder how much of that was his decision and how much staff? I do know he didn't personally get involved in every instance.  Did you ever see him on TV endorsing the guy with his own mouth?

----------


## sailingaway

> He did, McConnell gave Ron Paul a ringing endorsement in the video tribute to Ron Paul at the GOP convention.


no he didn't he said 'we disagree on many things but' and said a couple of nice things.  Watch it again.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> no he didn't he said 'we disagree on many things but' and said a couple of nice things.  Watch it again.


An endorsement never means you agree on every issue.  The video is a personal endorsement of Mitch McConnell, the man, to Ron Paul, the man.  That is how it was construed by those who saw it, and that is how it was meant to be taken.  

Now we have have pro-liberty forces, Jesse Benton and Rand Paul surrounding Mitch McConnell, and that is a good thing.  The NWO certainly ain't happy about it.

----------


## kylejack

> That is how it was construed by those who saw it


So says you. I saw it and didn't construe it that way. I saw it as him saying a few nice things about a guy who was retiring.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> So says you. I saw it and didn't construe it that way. I saw it as him saying a few nice things about a guy who was retiring.


OK, so does not that make McConnell a neocon traitor?  Ron Paul is the neocon's enemy?  Now on top of this, Jesse Benton is now McConnell's campaign manager.  That makes McConnell a double-traitor to the neocons.  Thirdly, McConnell has been closely associating with Rand Paul, making McConnell a triple-traitor to the neocons.  And 4thly, McConnell appeared at a tea party rally with Rand Paul.

The point is, the idea of liberty is powerful, and McConnell has succumbed.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> OK, so does not that make McConnell a neocon traitor?  Ron Paul is the neocon's enemy?  Now on top of this, Jesse Benton is now McConnell's campaign manager.  That makes McConnell a double-traitor to the neocons.  Thirdly, McConnell has been closely associating with Rand Paul, making McConnell a triple-traitor to the neocons.  And 4thly, McConnell appeared at a tea party rally with Rand Paul.
> 
> The point is, the idea of liberty is powerful, and McConnell has succumbed.


Your 'point' is absolute nonsense. McConnell is trying to pander to liberty-minded and tea party conservatives, and Jesse Benton is selling out to the establishment. You are being deceived by two major league $#@!s who don't give a good god damn about freedom in this country.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Your 'point' is absolute nonsense. McConnell is trying to pander to liberty-minded and tea party conservatives, and Jesse Benton is selling out to the establishment. You are being deceived by two major league $#@!s who don't give a good god damn about freedom in this country.


You underestimate the power of liberty.  Ron Paul has repeatedly told us about the power of liberty.  If McConnell is pandering, that is just one more example of liberty's power.  You do not pander to the weak.

----------


## jcannon98188

> You underestimate the power of liberty.  Ron Paul has repeatedly told us about the power of liberty.  If McConnell is pandering, that is just one more example of liberty's power.  You do not pander to the weak.


And you overestimate the politicians.

----------


## LBennett76

> Isn't a county like yours precisely where the GOP is the most ripe for the picking?
> 
> You may not be able to get elected into public office there. But I bet they don't have many of their precinct chair positions filled. And if you and a bunch of allies take those positions, then you can determine who your county chair will be, and influence leadership on up the party. Even in Dem strongholds, the local county Republican party still has its say in the leadership of the state party.
> 
> Also, all those spots on the ballot where the Republicans don't even run anyone, those are opportunities that you and your friends could take to run as Republicans. I bet the party would love to run as many candidates for as many positions as they could. And even if you run for something you're guaranteed to lose, and devote very little time to campaigning, just by making yourself available to the party in that way you gain credibility and influence.


The party is very powerful. They're lawyers and former state senators. They're people who started out in the Teenage Republicans and Young Republicans. They run a Ronald Reagan Club. They're hardcore evangelical neocons. They voted for Santorum. I doubt me and my pizza delivery buddies would be allowed to even set foot in the door without signing some oath to worship the Republican Party and declare all war is good war. The wife of one of the former state senators is the head of the board of elections. That family (Carnes) has several people in play and their nephew is a popular powerful local pastor (was valedictorian of his class and first went to college to study political science). The rest are lawyers and their wives. 
They would never give one cent to someone like me or my ragtag band of RP supporters to run a campaign. And write-ins in Ohio have to file. And if they knew we liked Ron Paul (which they know I do because I went to the above mentioned church with the one family) they wouldn't even let us park our cars there. 
It's sad. 

I was just looking. The committee members for my town are the brother-in-law of the former state senator (brother of the head of the board of elections and father of the pastor) and a town councilman.


Edited to add: Plus I'm a poor never married single mom. Not exactly their paragon of virtue to run under their snooty evangelical noses.

----------


## erowe1

> I doubt me and my pizza delivery buddies would be allowed to even set foot in the door without signing some oath to worship the Republican Party and declare all war is good war.


I bet you're wrong about that. It wouldn't hurt to ask.

----------


## LBennett76

Well, I'll find out soon enough. I'm trying to find out how to join. Their website offers absolutely zero information on how to do so. The calendar of events is completely empty. There's a volunteer form... 
My friends won't go. They've disassociated themselves completely from the party and they're not the most social of creatures. They're all single men in their early 30s. Then there's the Quakers who only like Ron Paul and are now lost on what to do. The other friends I have around the county are former Dems who are now voting Obama. You couldn't pay them to join the Rs. As soon as the one girl rode up on her motorcycle in her head to toe tattoos and started hula hooping and fire dancing... Actually that could probably cause a few heart attacks, opening a few spots on the committee. LOL

----------


## TCE

Question: If a neocon offers you a job to represent their campaign and as long as you, in good faith, do a good job, you will be paid a sum of several hundred thousand dollars. Would you decline? I'm pretty sure I'd accept and use that to springboard myself to something else where I could ultimately do something for liberty. A nice portion of my income would go toward liberty candidates and I could eventually use my influence to help liberty candidates. Benton is being selfish. I thought we liked that aspect of economic theory. Thoughts?

----------


## specsaregood

> Question: If a neocon offers you a job to represent their campaign and as long as you, in good faith, do a good job, you will be paid a sum of several hundred thousand dollars. Would you decline? I'm pretty sure I'd accept and use that to springboard myself to something else where I could ultimately do something for liberty. A nice portion of my income would go toward liberty candidates and I could eventually use my influence to help liberty candidates. Benton is being selfish. I thought we liked that aspect of economic theory. Thoughts?


I agree, it would pretty freaking stupid for Benton to pass up this type of opportunity.  I'm happy for him, I hope he uses it as best he can to promote liberty.

----------


## erowe1

> Question: If a neocon offers you a job to represent their campaign and as long as you, in good faith, do a good job, you will be paid a sum of several hundred thousand dollars. Would you decline? I'm pretty sure I'd accept and use that to springboard myself to something else where I could ultimately do something for liberty. A nice portion of my income would go toward liberty candidates and I could eventually use my influence to help liberty candidates. Benton is being selfish. I thought we liked that aspect of economic theory. Thoughts?


I can respect a decision like that for what it is. I'd like to think I would decline, but I can't deny it would be tempting. Just don't pretend it's part of a strategy to advance some liberty movement.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I agree, it would pretty freaking stupid for Benton to pass up this type of opportunity.  I'm happy for him, I hope he uses it as best he can to promote liberty.


I agree with you as well.  I think some want our people to live in a little world where they only talk to our people, only work for our people and only congregate with our people.  I stated this a few days ago, but its a third party mentality that many have.  And add to that they automatically assume that if one of our guys stands on the same stage with someone that isn't "one of us" that our guy has sold out.

People have the right to think that way, but it is that way of thinking that has made the LP the failure that it is today.

----------


## LBennett76

I wouldn't. I don't care how much they'd pay me. I wouldn't even walk in a local parade passing out flyers for the likes of Bill Johnson (my representative) or Robert Portman (my senator) for any amount of money. That's one of my concerns with joining the local party. They do these kinds of things. They brought Sarah Palin to the area when she was up for VP and raved about her awesomeness. I steered way clear of that and she was only 20 minutes away from me.
And like I've said 40 of my 50 Ron Paul friends aren't Republicans. So I'd be on my own dealing with them. No back-up.

----------


## Smitty

> People have the right to think that way, but it is that way of thinking that has made the LP the failure that it is today.


If the LP is a failure, it's because people have been distracted from the message by politics.

Some of the distractions have come from within the campaign and were intentional.

Politics, as they exist in America today, can't co-exist with personal liberties.

Of course, understanding that doesn't mean that I have the solution.

More than anything, I think, if a change does indeed come, it will be generational.

My generation (boomers) will never accept a truly constitutional government.

I've seen enough to know that.

----------


## low preference guy

> I agree, it would pretty freaking stupid for Benton to pass up this type of opportunity.  I'm happy for him, I hope he uses it as best he can to promote liberty.


why should he be expected to promote liberty? i think being a campaign manager is a technical job, like being a webmaster. just because someone designed a website for say, justin amash, i don't think he should be expected to promote liberty at every opportunity.

----------


## Smitty

What would be a good reason for a "politico" *not* to promote liberty?

----------


## Smitty

Basically,... some people are saying is that it's okay to promote tyranny if the pay is good.

----------


## specsaregood

> why should he be expected to promote liberty? i think being a campaign manager is a technical job, like being a webmaster. just because someone designed a website for say, justin amash, i don't think he should be expected to promote liberty at every opportunity.


I put no expectation on him, I said I hope.  That could be as simple as donating some of his income to liberty candidates (as TCE suggested).   One might suggest that he does owe it personally to the liberty "movement" since that is where he got his start, but I wouldn't call it an expectation but rather a suggestion.

----------


## TCE

From Benton's perspective, he would be a total fool not to accept this. Talk about a nice payday for a campaign that is a strong favorite to win anyway. I have a hard time believing that a bunch of us would turn that down. Benton is looking out for Benton. Fine. We need to look out for ourselves.

It would be a very nice gesture as a sort of olive branch of Benton would donate some of his income to various liberty candidates. I'm not holding my breath, but hey, dare to dream.

----------


## specsaregood

> Basically,... some people are saying is that it's okay to promote tyranny if the pay is good.


What do you do for a living Smitty?

----------


## low preference guy

> I put no expectation on him, I said I hope.  That could be as simple as donating some of his income to liberty candidates (as TCE suggested).   One might suggest that he does owe it personally to the liberty "movement" since that is where he got his start, but I wouldn't call it an expectation but rather a suggestion.


i see. i guess for me that's not very different from hoping that the random person i just a saw on the street would promote liberty.

----------


## Smitty

I make stuff.

As far as I can determine, none of it is used in the promotion of tyranny.

----------


## low preference guy

> Basically,... some people are saying is that it's okay to promote tyranny if the pay is good.


if you were a painter, would you not paint the campaign office of senator mitch mcconnell?

----------


## TCE

> Basically,... some people are saying is that it's okay to promote tyranny if the pay is good.


Are you better for liberty poorer and without influence or richer while working for McConnell for two years running a campaign he was likely to win anyway? Don't discount the networks, tricks, and tactics Benton is going to learn working for one of the most cunning politicos of our time. That is worth something as well.

----------


## Smitty

> if you were a painter, would you not paint the campaign office of senator mitch mcconnell?


If all Benton is going to do for McConnell is paint his office,..I'm good with it.

----------


## Smitty

> working for one of the most cunning politicos of our time. .



I have nothing to add.

----------


## low preference guy

> If all Benton is going to do for McConnell is paint his office,..I'm good with it.


he is going to do a mediocre job at helping with the campaign because he is an incompetent. the best he can do is discourage some confused tea party members from challenging mcconnell, but i hope that project backfires.

----------


## kylejack

> if you were a painter, would you not paint the campaign office of senator mitch mcconnell?


Hahahahaha

How are you going to react when Benton is saying things to the media that are anti-liberty to promote his candidate? Not exactly painting an office, is it?

----------


## TCE

> he is going to do a mediocre job at helping with the campaign because he is an incompetent. the best he can do is discourage some confused tea party members from challenging mcconnell, but i hope that project backfires.


Exactly my point. It's not like Benton is this political mastermind who is going to make McConnell's re-election this bulletproof proposition. Benton is no Karl Rove or James Carville. If I'm him, I know I have nothing to add, and thus, I am taking the money in five seconds.

----------


## specsaregood

> i see. i guess for me that's not very different from hoping that the random person i just a saw on the street would promote liberty.


That's all we really can do.    I can only say what I would hope I would do in a similar situation.  I'd take the job and I'd try to use it as best I could to promote liberty (personally), even if that was as simple as steering donors or media to liberty candidates or donating some of my own salary.  I'd be surprised disappointed if Benton doesn't do similar.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Don't discount the networks, tricks, and tactics Benton is going to learn working for one of the most cunning politicos of our time. That is worth something as well.


He will use any tricks he learns to put the knife into the back of the grassroots activists and make the liberty movement into Republican Party lite. It's weird to see so many people on here making excuses for this obvious betrayal. Talk about power worship.

----------


## low preference guy

> That's all we really can do.    I can only say what I would hope I would do in a similar situation.  I'd take the job and I'd try to use it as best I could to promote liberty (personally), even if that was as simple as steering donors or media to liberty candidates or donating some of my own salary.  I'd be surprised disappointed if Benton doesn't do similar.


i think he would do pretty much what rand asks him to do, so he might do what you're expecting.

----------


## low preference guy

> He will use any tricks he learns to put the knife into the back of the grassroots activists and make the liberty movement into Republican Party lite. It's weird to see so many people on here making excuses for this obvious betrayal. Talk about power worship.


it's not betrayal, he never promised you anything. the job of the campaign manager is not to decide what the message would be, it's to present whatever message his boss tells him to.

the fact that he was hired by ron paul doesn't mean anything. he got paid, he wasn't a volunteer, so he was just working for the guy who hired him.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> it's not betrayal, he never promised you anything. the job of the campaign manager is not to decide what the message would be, it's to present whatever message his boss tells him to.
> 
> the fact that he was hired by ron paul doesn't mean anything. he got paid, he wasn't a volunteer, so he was just working for the guy who hired him.


Nah- When you run a campaign and do everything you can to alienate the most loyal followers, that is indeed a betrayal. And now the people who were on here defending him so much are engaging in mental gymnastics. It's quite sad.

----------


## TCE

> Nah- When you run a campaign and do everything you can to alienate the most loyal followers, that is indeed a betrayal. And now the people who were on here defending him so much are engaging in mental gymnastics. It's quite sad.


I never defended him at any point. I never cared for him and I don't now. He is an incompetent campaign manager who could not be fired because of the double-edged sword of nepotism but everything has worked out really well for him. All I'm saying is, put me in his shoes, and I am doing the exact same thing.

----------


## low preference guy

> Nah- When you run a campaign and do everything you can to alienate the most loyal followers, that is indeed a betrayal. And now the people who were on here defending him so much are engaging in mental gymnastics. It's quite sad.


sure, but that's because ron is a hands off manager and pretty much told his campaign do whatever you want. if you do that, it's obviously that the low-lives or unprofessional people you hire like benton and hunter are going to mess things up, but i don't get why so much focus should be on benton. there was never any reason to believe benton had the slightest intention to promote liberty, unless he was going to get paid for it.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> sure, but that's because ron is a hands off manager and pretty much told his campaign do whatever you want. if you do that, it's obviously that the low-lives and unprofessional people you hire like benton and hunter are going to mess things up, but i don't get why so much focus should be on benton. there was never any reason to believe benton had the slightest intention to promote liberty, unless he was going to get paid for it.


I like to focus on Benton because he's a prime example of what those in the liberty movement should strive not to be. This is a teachable moment, as far as I'm concerned. This incident should teach the liberty movement that anyone who wants to water down the message of liberty whether it is because they think it'll appeal to bloodthirsty Republicans or for their own selfish powergrab should not be emulated or defended in anyway.

----------


## low preference guy

> I like to focus on Benton because he's a prime example of what those in the liberty movement should strive not to be. This is a teachable moment, as far as I'm concerned. This incident should teach the liberty movement that anyone who wants to water down the message of liberty whether it is because they think it'll appeal to bloodthirsty Republicans or for their own selfish powergrab should not be emulated or defended in anyway.


it's not an important lesson. it wouldn't happen to any campaign where the candidate is not as hands-off as Ron is.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> it's not an important lesson. it wouldn't happen to any campaign where the candidate is not as hands-off as Ron is.


Why it happened is not important. What is important is that it did happen and what it shows us all. It shows everyone that there is an element in the movement that is out to gain political power, and that sees liberty only as a means to that particular end. This was incredibly easy to see before Benton signed on to the McConnell campaign, but it should now be obvious to even the most obtuse Ron Paul supporters.

----------


## low preference guy

> Why it happened is not important. What is important is that it did happen and what it shows us all. It shows everyone that there is an element in the movement that is out to gain political power, and that sees liberty only as a means to that particular end. This was incredibly easy to see before Benton signed on to the McConnell campaign, but it should now be obvious to even the most obtuse Ron Paul supporters.


jesse benton is not on the movement and was never part of the movement. he was someone hired to do a job. just like if you hired someone to paint ron's office, it wouldn't mean that the painter is part of the movement. if benton was a volunteer there might be a reason to believe he was part of the movement, but he was just paid to practice his profession.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> jesse benton is not on the movement and was never part of the movement. he was someone hired to do a job. just like if you hired someone to paint ron's office, it wouldn't mean that the painter is part of the movement. if benton was a volunteer there might be a reason to believe he was part of the movement, but he was just paid to practice his profession.


A wall painter doesn't actually coordinate an important liberty campaign though. If Benton's fat ass was screwing up a paint job in the Paul campaign headquarters, he wouldn't be worthy of discussion. But since he's a figure within politics who embodies everything that anyone in the liberty movement with goals other than gaining money and power for yourself should hate, he should be focused on extensively. He should be known as the bane of this movement, and he should be held up as a big (literally and figuratively) example of what not to be if cherish liberty and wish to promote it.

----------


## low preference guy

so that? a webmaster coordinates important things, it doesn't mean they're personally part of the movement if they work for Ron. do you actually think that there was ever a reason to consider Benton part of the liberty movement?

in my opinion, if someone does a technical job for a liberty candidate and gets paid for it, that's no reason at all to consider him part of the liberty movement.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> so that? a webmaster coordinates important things, it doesn't mean they're personally part of the movement if they work for Ron. do you actually think that there was ever a reason to consider Benton part of the liberty movement?


Managing the whole political campaign was a much better role than webmaster would be especially the way he was always opening his mouth to kiss Republican establishment ass and $#@! on the grassroots which have made the liberty movement possible.




> in my opinion, if someone does a technical job for a liberty candidate and gets paid for it, that's no reason at all to consider him part of the liberty movement.


He certainly portrays himself as a part of the liberty movement.

----------


## low preference guy

> He certainly portrays himself as a part of the liberty movement.


sure, but one shouldn't believe everything one hears when there's no reason to do that. that's like believing tim geithner when he says that the U.S. has a strong dollar policy.

----------


## TCE

> A wall painter doesn't actually coordinate an important liberty campaign though. If Benton's fat ass was screwing up a paint job in the Paul campaign headquarters, he wouldn't be worthy of discussion. But since he's a figure within politics who embodies everything that anyone in the liberty movement with goals other than gaining money and power for yourself should hate, he should be focused on extensively. He should be known as the bane of this movement, and he should be held up as a big (literally and figuratively) example of what not to be if cherish liberty and wish to promote it.


How does Benton have so much power? I really don't believe he influenced all of the voters who voted for Ron. If you want to make him a symbol about everything that's wrong with the liberty movement, alright, but it's something of a stretch. Benton is one person who will go wherever the money is. He is/was a hired gun. Nothing more, nothing less.

----------


## TCE

> He certainly portrays himself as a part of the liberty movement.


And he apparently marketed himself so well as this "great grassroots organizer" with his "ear to the TEA Party" that he netted himself another job. McConnell clearly fell for the rhetoric.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> sure, but one shouldn't believe everything one hears when there's no reason to do that. that's like believing tim geithner when he says that the U.S. has a strong dollar policy.


The fact that he says he is a member of the liberty movement is all the more reason to make him the pariah that he deserves to be.

----------


## low preference guy

> The fact that he says he is a member of the liberty movement is all the more reason to make him the pariah that he deserves to be.


ok. good luck.

----------


## specsaregood

> And he apparently marketed himself so well as this "great grassroots organizer" with his "ear to the TEA Party" that he netted himself another job. McConnell clearly fell for the rhetoric.


Well, you gotta believe that the way that Rand wallopped Mitch's hand-picked candidate for that seat must have been quite reality check for one that has been called _"the godfather of kentucky politics"_.  Even though jesse was not the manager at the time, I'm sure it left Mitch wondering what he could do to get some of that mojo on his team.

----------


## TCE

> Well, you gotta believe that the way that Rand wallopped Mitch's hand-picked candidate for that seat must have been quite reality check for one that has been called _"the godfather of kentucky politics"_.  Even though jesse was not the manager at the time, I'm sure it left Mitch wondering what he could do to get some of that mojo on his team.


Most of that was David Adams, though, as you note. Benton, if memory serves, only jumped on after the primary. As Bluegrass Bulletin tells it, Mitch was only in it for Trey as long as Trey stood a chance. When it was obvious Trey didn't, McConnell shoved Trey Grayson off the wall. Yours is an interesting theory. Perhaps Mitch still has open wounds from that fight?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Reagan / Paul timeline:
> 
> 1968 - Reagan is California Governor, runs for President against Romney, Nixon
> 1976 - Ron Paul is a Republican, becomes a Republican Congressman
> 1976 - Reagan runs for President, Ron Paul supports him.
> 1980 - Reagan runs for President, Ron Paul supports him.
> 1981 (Jan) - Reagan takes office, the Reagan Administration is not bad.
> 1981 (Apr) - Reagan is shot by Bush contributor Hinckley's son.  At this time, the Reagan admistration becomes worse.
> 1988 - Ron Paul leaves Republican Party, runs for President on the Libertarian ticket.  Ron Paul expresses dissatisfaction with Reagan Administration.
> ...


Or, you know, you could actually investigate Reagan's record:

http://mises.org/daily/5009/The-Reagan-Fraud-and-After

The theory of Reagan switching alliances after being shot is a denial of reality.

----------


## low preference guy

lol. trey grayson. what a $#@!ing idiot.

----------


## specsaregood

> Most of that was David Adams, though, as you note. Benton, if memory serves, only jumped on after the primary. As Bluegrass Bulletin tells it, Mitch was only in it for Trey as long as Trey stood a chance. When it was obvious Trey didn't, McConnell shoved Trey Grayson off the wall. Yours is an interesting theory. Perhaps Mitch still has open wounds from that fight?


I'm sure he must be licking those wounds still, it had to have embarressed him and no doubt his GOP establishment I'm sure tasked him with making sure to keep a Paul out of the senate.  He failed, failed big and on his home turf.     Also, IIRC Benton was involved with the campaign even during the primary, it just wasn't the lead role.

----------


## TCE

> lol. trey grayson. what a $#@!ing idiot.


He's laughing all the way to the bank, unfortunately since he's the Director at the Institute of Politics at Harvard: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/about/fac...y/trey-grayson

----------


## low preference guy

> He's laughing all the way to the bank, unfortunately since he's the Director at the Institute of Politics at Harvard: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/about/fac...y/trey-grayson


sometimes all the money in the world can't save you from being a big loser, i think.

----------


## specsaregood

> sometimes all the money in the world can't save you from being a big loser, i think.


sounds like we are both out of luck pal.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Not while someone he had already endorsed was still running, about to lose or not.  And not against a liberty candidate.  Ron also didn't campaign for him.  He let people know how strong his endorsements were, and that was not one he went the extra mile for in any sense.  He cut deals and SAID what they were, so people knew what he was getting for liberty.  And I wonder how much of that was his decision and how much staff? I do know he didn't personally get involved in every instance.  Did you ever see him on TV endorsing the guy with his own mouth?


And in that specific endorsement, he didn't lie about Smith's foreign policy. He basically said "hey he's read my book and he's against Obamacare." He didn't make up stuff about Smith being just like Ron on the Fed and having a "mature" foreign policy, and understanding only Congress can declare war.

Ron endorsing Lamar Smith, while a stain on his record, is nowhere near comparable to Rand's endorsement of Romney.

----------


## Texan4Life

I haven't really kept up with all the details of what Benton has done, other than some of the comments made on the forum. So I was on the Benton fence simply because I didn't have the whole story. Then the Mich McConnell thing come out which had made really wondering... more like a giant WTF?

I have nothing but the utmost respect for Tom Woods and believe this to be the truth. 

Risky on his part, but with Benton's latest move it is a story worth telling IMO.

Not to mention, I bet Tom feels better about getting that off of his chest, I know I would.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> Or, you know, you could actually investigate Reagan's record:
> 
> http://mises.org/daily/5009/The-Reagan-Fraud-and-After
> 
> The theory of Reagan switching alliances after being shot is a denial of reality.


That is one of the greatest critiques of Reagan I've ever read.  How Paul didn't wise up to Reagan's false rhetoric in the 1970s is beyond me.

----------


## TCE

> I have nothing but the utmost respect for Tom Woods and believe this to be the truth. 
> 
> Risky on his part, but with Benton's latest move it is a story worth telling IMO.
> 
> Not to mention, I bet Tom feels better about getting that off of his chest, I know I would.


Tom and his wife both seem like good people. I don't see any reason to lie and I definitely believe what he says.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> That is one of the greatest critiques of Reagan I've ever read.  How Paul didn't wise up to Reagan's false rhetoric in the 1970s is beyond me.


Here's Murray's evisceration:

http://mises.org/daily/1544

The internet wasn't around in the 70s, Reagan would be obliterated by actual liberty movement types if he were to have come about today. He'd be viewed as a Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum.

Judging by the behavior of GOP apologists in the movement, however, he'd probably get support anyway.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> Here's Murray's evisceration:
> 
> http://mises.org/daily/1544
> 
> The internet wasn't around in the 70s, Reagan would be obliterated by actual liberty movement types if he were to have come about today. He'd be viewed as a Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum.
> 
> Judging by the behavior of GOP apologists in the movement, however, he'd probably get support anyway.


Awesome stuff.  With the failures of Regan and how he tarnished the words "free markets", I cannot understand why Republicans who supposedly backed Paul are admittedly voting for Romney.

----------


## Ivash

> I'm sure he must be licking those wounds still, it had to have embarressed him and no doubt his GOP establishment I'm sure tasked him with making sure to keep a Paul out of the senate.  He failed, failed big and on his home turf.     Also, IIRC Benton was involved with the campaign even during the primary, it just wasn't the lead role.


Conspiracies like that only occur in the movies. Benton's future is best served by winning campaigns. Had he lost for Rand he would never be taken seriously again.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Judging by the behavior of GOP apologists in the movement, however, he'd probably get support anyway.


Is this really necessary?  Because all it does is make people angry and then lead to them finding fault with your own self.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Or, you know, you could actually investigate Reagan's record:
> 
> http://mises.org/daily/5009/The-Reagan-Fraud-and-After
> 
> The theory of Reagan switching alliances after being shot is a denial of reality.


I scanned it, but I will admit that the author pissed me off in the very first paragraph.  The author is another pompous jackass "libertarian" who insults conservatives, without apparently even realizing that the Libertarian party itself was started by disgruntled libertarian-conservatives.  Authors like this should remember that such rhetoric drives people away from his work, instead of welcoming them in.    

Paleocons and libertarians should be able to work together, as there is a lot of crossover in their philosophy.  But, too often "libertarians" like this author seem to desire to do whatever they can to ensure that never occurs and I wonder why.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> I scanned it, but I will admit that the author pissed me off in the very first paragraph.


And what he said was inaccurate because...

----------


## specsaregood

> And what he said was inaccurate because...


Kindly point out where LE said it was inaccurate.   It seems her post went over your head.

----------


## specsaregood

> Conspiracies like that only occur in the movies.


Yeah, because the GOP bigwigs never conspired to keep his father out of office.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> Kindly point out where LE said it was inaccurate.   It seems her post went over your head.


The author was merely stating the truth.  What was so "pompous" (quoting LE) about what he said?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> And what he said was inaccurate because...


It is not inaccurate, it is biased.  The author sets out to criticize Reagan, and does so.  For example, he mentions that "[Reagan] started off with a bang by increasing state taxes nearly $1 billion in his first year in office — the biggest tax increase in California history." However, the author fails to mention two key components to that tax hike.  One was that Reagan was a Republican governor, with (if I recall) a Democratic state legislature.  If memory serves me correct, the tax hike was a compromise package (Dems wanted to increase taxes even higher) and at the same time Reagan froze government hiring.  

Reagan wasn't a magician.  He couldn't come into the governorship, wave a magic wand and implement every policy that he wished to implement.  He had a state legislature to contend with.

----------


## specsaregood

> The author was merely stating the truth.  What was so "pompous" (quoting LE) about what he said?


I don't see where she disagreed with the content.  If you still dont understand what she is saying, then it I guess that solves what she was pondering at the end.

----------


## low preference guy

> The author was merely stating the truth.  What was so "pompous" (quoting LE) about what he said?


it's seldom productive to try to understand what LE wants to say.

----------


## The Gold Standard

Now we are going to have the pro-GOP crowd sticking up for Reagan and attacking Rothbard. Fantastic. Maybe after that we can defend George Bush saying that if he didn't have a Democrat Congress his last 2 years he would have prevented the recession.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Now we are going to have the pro-GOP crowd sticking up for Reagan and attacking Rothbard. Fantastic. Maybe after that we can defend George Bush saying that if he didn't have a Democrat Congress his last 2 years he would have prevented the recession.


Do you believe that Ron Paul was in error then for supporting Reagan in 76 and 80?

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Do you believe that Ron Paul was in error then for supporting Reagan in 76 and 80?


Ron Paul was free to do whatever he wanted. He was much younger and more naive at that point in time. Do you believe he was in error for regretting and retracting that support in 88?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> it's seldom productive to try to understand what LE wants to say.


I guess this means that my post was over your head too.  In the future, I will try to make sure I simplify any responses to you, so that you can grasp them.

----------


## angelatc

> Conspiracies like that only occur in the movies. Benton's future is best served by winning campaigns. Had he lost for Rand he would never be taken seriously again.


When he took over the Rand Paul campaign, the only thing he had to do was NOT $#@! it up.  It was on autopilot in the general.  (Which he did manage to do, thankfully.)

This isn't as much about Benton's future as it is McConnell's.  If you guys don't think that the establishment will run Mitch in 2016 to fend off a Rand run, I don't know what to tell you.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Ron Paul was free to do whatever he wanted. He was much younger and more naive at that point in time. Do you believe he was in error for regretting and retracting that support in 88?


Not at all.  Reagan's presidency was a failure in that he did not champion conservative principles throughout his presidency.  Nonetheless, this last campaign we saw Paul reminding people of how he supported Reagan (the anti-Perry ad) and not how he condemned him.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> This isn't as much about Benton's future as it is McConnell's.  If you guys don't think that the establishment will run Mitch in 2016 to fend off a Rand run, I don't know what to tell you.


I would imagine they will.  McConnell doesn't have any stage presence though.  I doubt he can make it past Ames.  Stranger things have happened, but McConnell is not a captivating speaker by any stretch of the imagination.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> It is not inaccurate, it is biased.  The author sets out to criticize Reagan, and does so.  For example, he mentions that "[Reagan] started off with a bang by increasing state taxes nearly $1 billion in his first year in office — the biggest tax increase in California history." However, the author fails to mention two key components to that tax hike.  One was that Reagan was a Republican governor, with (if I recall) a Democratic state legislature.  If memory serves me correct, the tax hike was a compromise package (Dems wanted to increase taxes even higher) and at the same time Reagan froze government hiring.  
> 
> Reagan wasn't a magician.  He couldn't come into the governorship, wave a magic wand and implement every policy that he wished to implement.  He had a state legislature to contend with.


  But yet, he signed the budget.  He signed into law the massive tax increase.

I hear this same pathetic apologizing from Gary Johnson supporters.  Look, the fact is all these people's voting record is terrible.  All these governors, Reagan, Johnson, Romney, etc., took their big feathered pen out of their big pen-holder and signed -- did *not* veto, rather *signed* -- measures tremendously increasing the size and scope of their states' tyrannical hordes.

It's really very simple why I have a problem with these politicians: they support increasing the amount of tyranny rather than decreasing it.  They support abridging people's freedoms rather than respecting them.  They support using aggressive violence to get what they want.  They do all this with their actions, even though their mouths may be making different noises.  I really do not know why people give the noises coming from their mouths a second thought, since they bear no relationship whatsoever with reality.  They're just noise.

The above is completely (and obviously) true of the mass-murdering piece of garbage Reagan <spit>.  It is less true of Gary Johnson, who did use his veto pen relatively a lot, though only relative vs. all the other governors at the time, not relative to what any true lover of liberty would have done.  Still, in a band of criminals, Johnson was at least quantifiably less criminal than the rest, while Reagan was at least as criminal as the worst of them, just as Romney was.  Romney and Reagan are essentially the same, the noises coming from their mouths are just slightly different, but that's just a factor of keeping up with the times (wouldn't want to sound dated), and no one should care what these noises are in the least.  They're just noise.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> When he took over the Rand Paul campaign, the only thing he had to do was NOT $#@! it up.  It was on autopilot in the general.  (Which he did manage to do, thankfully.)
> 
> This isn't as much about Benton's future as it is McConnell's.  *If you guys don't think that the establishment will run Mitch in 2016 to fend off a Rand run, I don't know what to tell you.*


You and I haven't always seen eye-to-eye, but I'm in complete agreement with you on this.

----------


## low preference guy

> I guess this means that my post was over your head too.  In the future, I will try to make sure I simplify any responses to you, so that you can grasp them.


nah, i didn't read it, waste of time, but those i did read could hardly be more stupid.

----------


## angelatc

> I would imagine they will.  McConnell doesn't have any stage presence though.  I doubt he can make it past Ames.  Stranger things have happened, but McConnell is not a captivating speaker by any stretch of the imagination.


No he isn't.  And I don't think he's going to win it.  But will he threaten to run, since he won't need to resign his seat?  Sure.  His resume is far more impressive to mainstream voters than Rand's.   He's had years of practice in manipulating both the population and the politicians.  

Meh - nobody said it would be easy.  But I think Benton is a fool if he thinks this move by McConnell is a win for Rand's future.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> But yet, he signed the budget.  He signed into aw the massive tax increase.


And the alternative?  Veto it, and then have the veto overridden, or have the legislature pass through another bill with higher taxes and without the hiring freeze.  If you want a king, then fight for a monarchy, but we have a balance of power in all of our state and federal governments.  

You do realize that if Paul won the White House, he would have had the very same issues.  Just vetoing everything doesn't make it go away.  Eventually the legislature will produce a bill that is veto proof.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> No he isn't.  And I don't think he's going to win it.  But will he threaten to run, since he won't need to resign his seat?  Sure.  His resume is far more impressive to mainstream voters than Rand's.   He's had years of practice in manipulating both the population and the politicians.  
> 
> Meh - nobody said it would be easy.  But I think Benton is a fool if he thinks this move by McConnell is a win for Rand's future.


Well we are making our assumptions based on Rand running in 2016.  He may not.  Even if Romney loses, he may wait for a future time.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> nah, i didn't read it, waste of time, but those i did read could hardly be more stupid.


You apparently have not read your posts.  lol

----------


## angelatc

> Well we are making our assumptions based on Rand running in 2016.  He may not.  Even if Romney loses, he may wait for a future time.


I'm not sure how old he is.  Personally, I'd like to see him do a stint as governor first.  Voters seem to like former governors.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I'm not sure how old he is.  Personally, I'd like to see him do a stint as governor first.  Voters seem to like former governors.


Rand is 49.  Steve Beshear is term limited, so the next KY governor race is an open seat - it's in 2015.

----------


## Mini-Me

Like others, I am in no way shocked by this turn of events...but I'm not angry.  Actually, I'm kind of relieved:  Hopefully this means Benton is out of our hair for good.  I have no idea what his motives are, but I don't really care anymore either, because we always knew he wasn't the greatest help regardless.  As long as he he won't be managing any more campaigns that actually matter to us, I can't complain.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> And the alternative?


  Supporting liberty!  _Not_ supporting increased levels of plundering!  I support that alternative.




> Veto it, and then have the veto overridden, or have the legislature pass through another bill with higher taxes and without the hiring freeze.  If you want a king, then fight for a monarchy, but we have a balance of power in all of our state and federal governments.


 Oh, did the Democrats in the California legislature have a 2/3 majority in both houses?  

You don't know.  You can't answer me, because you have no idea.  No idea whatsoever.  You are just wantonly making excuses  -- any excuses! -- with no consideration for facts.  You don't know any facts.  You're just pulling out whatever excuses pop to mind, because you are totally 100% committed to continuing to love Reagan.  Nothing will change that.

A second fact you do not know: the California Legislature never overrides vetoes.  Never.   I challenge you to find the most recent veto override in California.  You will not find one in this century, and I do not think you will be able to find one from the previous century either.  Technically there was at least one minor override in the 20th century, but I do not think you will be able to find it.  Of course, I also don't think you care.




> You do realize that if Paul won the White House, he would have had the very same issues.  Just vetoing everything doesn't make it go away.  Eventually the legislature will produce a bill that is veto proof.


 Congress has overridden a Presidential veto only 107 times since George Washington.  That's it.  A good President's job would be: veto absolutely everything.  Just veto it.  Veto all the stupid stuff Congress passes.  That's it.  If they want to override 1,000 vetoes a year, that's on them.  They can go for it.  But as President, I just keep vetoing.  As Governor, I just keep vetoing.  And as Congressman, I just keep voting No.  If there were ever anyone who behaved in this way, I would respect and honor them.  Oh wait, wasn't there once a Congressman called Dr. No?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Congress has overridden a Presidential veto only 107 times since George Washington.  That's it.  A good President's job would be: veto absolutely everything.  Just veto it.  Veto all the stupid stuff Congress passes.  That's it.  If they want to override 1,000 vetoes a year, that's on them.  They can go for it.  But as President, I just keep vetoing.  As Governor, I just keep vetoing.  And as Congressman, I just keep voting No.  If there were ever anyone who behaved in this way, I would respect and honor them.  Oh wait, wasn't there once a Congressman called Dr. No?


helmuth_hubener, with all due respect you live in a world that simply does not exist.  You are supporting an alternative that is not practical in today's world where we in the liberty wing are not only facing opposition from the moderates within our own party, but from the left in the Democratic party as well.

The reality of the situation is that we have some real quality people in office currently who can work to undo the 100 years of government growth that we have experienced at the federal level.  The person you are looking for who will act as you wish, simply does not exist - or if they do, they will never be elected to office.  

The liberty wing of the GOP is a minority.  We need to increase our numbers substantially, before we can make headway.  Maybe one day there will be a congress filled with Ron Pauls and a Ron Paul in the white house, and your realization can come to fruition.  But we simply do not have that, nor will we in any time in the near future.

----------


## low preference guy

> sounds like we are both out of luck pal.


i regard myself as a happy man, pretty much, believe it or not.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> i regard myself as a happy man, pretty much, believe it or not.


Except for the fact that you are a woman.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> helmuth_hubener, with all due respect you live in a world that simply does not exist.


 This is just a misunderstanding on your part.  I actually agree with what you're saying in this post.  I do _not_ think that my policy recommendations are actually going to be enacted!  I do not think that politicians are going to save us.  Nor even be decent human beings.  I do not think that would be a realistic expectation.  Look at their history.




> You are supporting an alternative that is not practical in today's world where we in the liberty wing are not only facing opposition from the moderates within our own party, but from the left in the Democratic party as well.


 Again, I agree it's not going to happen.  Rather, plundering will continue to increase and increase and increase in every state in every year in every way for the foreseeable future.  That is fairly obvious.




> The reality of the situation is that we have some real quality people in office currently who can work to undo the 100 years of government growth that we have experienced at the federal level.  The person you are looking for who will act as you wish, simply does not exist - or if they do, they will never be elected to office.


 Ron Paul got elected.  He is, however, the exception to the rule.  So I essentially agree with you: sociopaths have a competitive advantage in our mass social democracy.  Bad people have an advantage.  Virtually all elected officials, especially on a national level, are always going to be bad people.  That cannot change.  That is built in to the logic of the system.




> The liberty wing of the GOP is a minority.  We need to increase our numbers substantially, before we can make headway.  Maybe one day there will be a congress filled with Ron Pauls and a Ron Paul in the white house, and your realization can come to fruition.  But we simply do not have that, nor will we in any time in the near future.


 I completely agree.

None of this seems to challenge my basic assertions.  These assertions are:

1) There are various bad things the gov't does which are contrary to liberty.  I am guessing you *agree* with this.
2) Reagan supported, defended, and increased these bad things during his entire career.  Since you agree with 1), if you persist in loving Reagan you must *disagree* with this.

So, to convince you (and mostly others) that loving Reagan is an error, I mention fact about Reagan having supported ever-larger budgets as California governor.  This is indisputably true.  He signed them all.  None were passed overriding his veto.  Under Reagan, taxes went up, spending went up, and debt went up.  This is bad.

Presumably you agree that taxes, spending, and debt are bad.  Do you?  If so, now you have a choice: admit that Reagan was bad, or do not admit Reagan was bad.  

The choice should really be pretty easy.

----------


## low preference guy

> Except for the fact that you are a woman.


shut up, missy.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Presumably you agree that taxes, spending, and debt are bad.  Do you?  If so, now you have a choice: admit that Reagan was bad, or do not admit Reagan was bad.  
> 
> The choice should really be pretty easy.


I believe that Reagan was a good man in a bad system, and did the best he could do in his time as governor despite the opposition against him.  I think Paul believed that as well, which is why he supported him in 76 and 80.   I believe that he was compromised during his first term as President, in large part because he made so many concessions within his cabinet to get support from the moderate wing of the party.  I also believe that he felt that he was just the beginning of a fundamental return to conservatism in the party and in the nation as a whole, and that Bush brought that to a screeching halt.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Now we are going to have the pro-GOP crowd sticking up for Reagan and attacking Rothbard. Fantastic. Maybe after that we can defend George Bush saying that if he didn't have a Democrat Congress his last 2 years he would have prevented the recession.


How are you defining "the pro-GOP crowd"?  Is this anyone who plans to continue trying to get liberty candidates elected through the Republican Party?  I hope not.

I think the important thing to remember about Reagan is that people voted for him because they liked what he SAID.  Most, even today, don't realize that he didn't actually do many of the things he talked about.  That's important, because his talk was very good and was actually quite aligned with what many of us are fighting for today.  We just need someone that not only has the talk, but has the walk too.  The voters unfortunately didn't realize that Dr. Paul was exactly that, but I firmly believe that if they heard the message as Reagan espoused, they would overwhelmingly vote for it again.

----------


## specsaregood

> i regard myself as a happy man, pretty much, believe it or not.


but low preference gal, you said nothing about being happy. Or is it that you consider being happy or being a loser as mutually exclusive?
I've met a fair number of losers that are pretty content and even happy.

----------


## low preference guy

> Or is it that you consider being happy or being a loser as mutually exclusive?


of course.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> shut up, missy.

----------


## specsaregood

> of course.


but, since there is almost always somebody that is better at something than you; does that not make happiness unattainable as one is always a loser in some way?  eg: I can't beat usain bolt in a race.  Thus i am a loser and thus there is no way I can be happy.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I believe that Reagan was a good man in a bad system, and did the best he could do in his time as governor despite the opposition against him.


 But why do you believe that?  Is it because of good things he did?  Let me venture a guess: *No*.  

Feel free to prove me wrong.  Tell me how Reagan in fact decreased taxes, spending, and debt.  Tell me how he did something -- anything -- to further conservative principles as you see them.

No, I think there are no such actions.  There just aren't.  He didn't do them.  He never reduced the government.

*Never*.

So that raises the question: why do you think he was a good person doing the best he could, when in fact he never did anything good?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> But why do you believe that?  Is it because of good things he did?  Let me venture a guess: *No*.  
> 
> Feel free to prove me wrong.  Tell me how Reagan in fact decreased taxes, spending, and debt.  Tell me how he did something -- anything -- to further conservative principles as you see them.
> 
> No, I think there are no such actions.  There just aren't.  He didn't do them.  He never reduced the government.
> 
> *Never*.
> 
> So that raises the question: why do you think he was a good person doing the best he could, when in fact he never did anything good?


Let's not forget Reagan's time as an FBI informant during the red scare and his time as a spokesman for MIC giant GE, either.

----------


## low preference guy

> but, since there is almost always somebody that is better at something than you; does that not make happiness unattainable as one is always a loser in some way?  eg: I can't beat usain bolt in a race.  Thus i am a loser and thus there is no way I can be happy.


i'm referring to the objectivist notion of happiness, which is a moral virtue (and lack of accidents or tragedies or bad health, which can ruin anything), which means than in the scenario you're painting, having someone be better than you at something doesn't make you unhappy, because that's often beyond your choice, and thus, outside of morality.

----------


## TheTexan

> The liberty wing of the GOP is a minority.  We need to increase our numbers substantially, before we can make headway.  Maybe one day there will be a congress filled with Ron Pauls and a Ron Paul in the white house, and your realization can come to fruition.  But we simply do not have that, nor will we in any time in the near future.


One day's not good enough.  Not for me.  Considering the _massive_ tyranny we face today, that our founders would be $#@!ing disgusted that they gave their lives for the country we have today... it's unacceptable to not call this country what it is, a tyranny, and treat it as such.

Tyranny isn't something you are supposed to put up with "until eventually in the future you can start to gradually remove it."  When faced with abject tyranny, you say this $#@! stops.  Now.  Not later.  Now.

So, no... I don't like your plan of supporting half-assed "liberty" candidates so that maybe decades in the future we can have a substantial amount of liberty candidates that can argue and bicker endlessly with the other half of congress which is no doubt going to be highly principled statist communists, and we'll still get nothing done.

Your plan sucks.  There are actions, peaceful actions, that we can take in the here and now to increase our freedom significantly.  Free State Project is one such example.

----------


## specsaregood

> i'm referring to the objectivist notion of happiness, which is a moral virtue (and lack of accidents or tragedies or bad health, which can ruin anything), which means than in the scenario you're painting, having someone be better than you at something doesn't make you unhappy, because that's often beyond your choice, and thus, outside of morality.


which notion of "loser" are you using?

----------


## low preference guy

> which notion of "loser" are you using?


losing at life.

----------


## Deborah K

> Except for the fact that you are a woman.


+rep (from one "dimwit" to another)  LOL!

----------


## specsaregood

> losing at life.


I maintain that i've met happy losers.  they aren't usually all that bright though.

----------


## low preference guy

> I maintain that i've met happy losers.  they aren't usually all that bright though.


didn't you feel like punching them in the face?

----------


## low preference guy

> +rep (from one "dimwit" to another)  LOL!


i can't help but be charming even when i say insults.

----------


## specsaregood

> didn't you feel like punching them in the face?


jealousy tends to have that type reaction, perhaps you just need more time to free your inner retard.  or perhaps thats why you have rpf.

----------


## low preference guy

> jealousy tends to have that type reaction, perhaps you just need more time to free your inner retard.  or perhaps thats why you have rpf.


yeah, my comment was tongue-in-cheek.

----------


## low preference guy

> free your tongue and let the retard out


*confused*

retard=happy?

----------


## specsaregood

> retard=happy?


My retarded cousin is the best dancer around, he can do michael jackson dance moves better than the king himself.

----------


## low preference guy

> My retarded cousin is the best dancer around, he can do michael jackson dance moves better than the king himself.


alright, gonna let it out then, the part that is not there already.

----------


## kathy88

Holy $#@!ing thread derailment batman.

----------


## specsaregood

> Holy $#@!ing thread derailment batman.


Are you of the opinion that there is much more about the original topic that has not been discussed?

----------


## low preference guy

> Holy $#@!ing thread derailment batman.


election is over. the whole forum should be a free-for-all for a while.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> One day's not good enough.  Not for me.  Considering the _massive_ tyranny we face today, that our founders would be $#@!ing disgusted that they gave their lives for the country we have today... it's unacceptable to not call this country what it is, a tyranny, and treat it as such.
> 
> Tyranny isn't something you are supposed to put up with "until eventually in the future you can start to gradually remove it."  When faced with abject tyranny, you say this $#@! stops.  Now.  Not later.  Now.
> 
> So, no... I don't like your plan of supporting half-assed "liberty" candidates so that maybe decades in the future we can have a substantial amount of liberty candidates that can argue and bicker endlessly with the other half of congress which is no doubt going to be highly principled statist communists, and we'll still get nothing done.
> 
> Your plan sucks.  There are actions, peaceful actions, that we can take in the here and now to increase our freedom significantly.  Free State Project is one such example.


Not my plan, all I can do from where I am is run for office, and support candidates that I feel express the values and principles that I support.  As far as the Free State Project, that is a nice idea for some, but at 74 years old the last thing I plan on doing is moving back up north.

----------


## Barrex

> Holy $#@!ing thread derailment batman.


Why are you waking me up?*!=(/$)=?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> election is over. the whole forum should be a free-for-all for a while.


You mean it's not already? LOL

----------


## sailingaway

> Not at all.  Reagan's presidency was a failure in that he did not champion conservative principles throughout his presidency.  Nonetheless, this last campaign we saw Paul reminding people of how he supported Reagan (the anti-Perry ad) *and not how he condemned him*.


I take it you didn't watch the Reagan library debate, this go round?




(I believe it is between about the 5 minute and 7 minute mark)

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I take it you didn't watch the Reagan library debate, this go round?



Sure.  It was brought up because Perry called him out on it.  I didn't see the campaign running an ad touting that letter, instead the ad they ran invoked images of Reagan and talked about how Paul supported him.  The campaign highlighted Paul's support of Reagan not his criticism of him in their appeal to voters.

How many GOP voters do you think he won over in that debate exchange?

----------


## parocks

> Sure.  It was brought up because Perry called him out on it.  I didn't see the campaign running an ad touting that letter, instead the ad they ran invoked images of Reagan and talked about how Paul supported him.  The campaign highlighted Paul's support of Reagan not his criticism of him in their appeal to voters.
> 
> How many GOP voters do you think he won over in that debate exchange?


right on

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Tom Woods is an upstanding guy - I really can't come to grips why Ron had enemies of Liberty like Benton in his campaign - which is the ONLY thing I would ever fault him for.


Benton, Dondero, the newsletter author...

Ron Paul has made some poor decisions about who he willingly and knowingly surrounds himself with.  It seems to be his biggest weakness.  Benton was, no-doubt, a nepotism hire this go around.

----------


## parocks

> Or, you know, you could actually investigate Reagan's record:
> 
> http://mises.org/daily/5009/The-Reagan-Fraud-and-After
> 
> The theory of Reagan switching alliances after being shot is a denial of reality.


I was simply arguing the timeline.

Ron Paul supported Reagan strongly in 1976 and 1980.

You gonna question that?

Reagan was governor BEFORE that. 

You gonna question that?

Things that happened after Reagan got shot aren't relevant to Reagan as Governor, and Ron Paul supporting him after he was Governor.

----------


## parocks

> Well we are making our assumptions based on Rand running in 2016.  He may not.  Even if Romney loses, he may wait for a future time.


Am I the only person here who recognizes that Rand is up for reelection to the US Senate in 2016?

Being up for reelection to the US Senate makes it LESS likely that Rand will run for President?

I'm not saying it's not doable, but it's a real factor that has to be considered.

----------


## parocks

> Benton, Dondero, the newsletter author...
> 
> Ron Paul has made some poor decisions about who he willingly and knowingly surrounds himself with.  It seems to be his biggest weakness.  Benton was, no-doubt, a nepotism hire this go around.


Ron Paul does not have a lot of competent people who he can trust to choose from.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Am I the only person here who recognizes that Rand is up for reelection to the US Senate in 2016?
> 
> Being up for reelection to the US Senate makes it LESS likely that Rand will run for President?
> 
> I'm not saying it's not doable, but it's a real factor that has to be considered.


Agreed.  First we won't know if there will be a GOP nomination battle in 2016 until after November.  But if there is, Rand could very well decide that the Senate is the best place for him at the current time.  We also do not know who else may choose to run for the nomination (assuming there is one in 2016).  Hypothetically, if DeMint were to run for the nomination, I would expect to see Rand back him since they are such close allies in the Senate.

----------


## DylanWaco

People in the campaign were telling me the entire Ron Paul 2012 operation was about paving the way for a Rand nomination in 2016, particularly after SC.  I heard this from multiple people at the national level, including two that were at the absolute top of the inner circle.  The only way Rand doesn't run is if scandal hits.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> I was simply arguing the timeline.
> 
> Ron Paul supported Reagan strongly in 1976 and 1980.
> 
> You gonna question that?
> 
> Reagan was governor BEFORE that. 
> 
> You gonna question that?
> ...


You:




> Reagan / Paul timeline:
> 
> 1968 - Reagan is California Governor, runs for President against Romney, Nixon
> 1976 - Ron Paul is a Republican, becomes a Republican Congressman
> 1976 - Reagan runs for President, Ron Paul supports him.
> 1980 - Reagan runs for President, Ron Paul supports him.
> 1981 (Jan) - Reagan takes office, the Reagan Administration is not bad.
> 1981 (Apr) - Reagan is shot by Bush contributor Hinckley's son. At this time, the Reagan admistration becomes worse.
> 1988 - Ron Paul leaves Republican Party, runs for President on the Libertarian ticket. Ron Paul expresses dissatisfaction with Reagan Administration.
> ...


I posted Reagan's history to show that he wasn't for limited government while governor, and that he didn't make some ideological turn after being shot. Deflect away.

----------


## parocks

> You:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted Reagan's history to show that he wasn't for limited government while governor, and that he didn't make some ideological turn after being shot. Deflect away.


My point - Ron Paul supported Reagan after he was governor.  Therefore, you are disagreeing with Ron Paul.  I'm talking 1976 and 1980. 

Ron Paul liked Reagan after he was Governor.

Not after he was President.

Since we were talking about candidates, and not Presidents, it is entirely true that Reagan was a Conservative in 1976 and 1980.  Ron Paul saw him as a Conservative in 1980.  That makes this assessment, here on RPF, definitive.

----------


## parocks

> Ron Paul can make mistakes, too.


Is this feedingtheabscessforums.com?

Or is it ronpaulforums.com?

It's ronpaulforums.com.

This is a place where Ron Paul is right.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Is this feedingtheabscessforums.com?
> 
> Or is it ronpaulforums.com?
> 
> It's ronpaulforums.com.
> 
> This is a place where Ron Paul is right.


Are you serious? How the $#@! are you any different from the sheep that bleat Romney or Obama talking points then? It is a Ron Paul website, so he is infallible?

----------


## erowe1

Well, there was that one time that Ron Paul thought he was wrong about something, but then it turned out he was right after all.

----------


## sailingaway

> Is this feedingtheabscessforums.com?
> 
> Or is it ronpaulforums.com?
> 
> It's ronpaulforums.com.
> 
> This is a place where Ron Paul is right.


Ron is SINCERE, but he himself, in the video I posted and in the letter he wrote in 1988, said Reagan didn't live up to his message.  He loved the message and it was the best message out there in 1976.  He wanted to make it happen.  The alternatives were a LOT worse, and weren't interested in even discussing a gold commission.  So Ron threw himself behind Reagan, to try to make rhetoric reality.  That isn't cupidity, it is hope.

----------


## sailingaway

> Are you serious? How the $#@! are you any different from the sheep that bleat Romney or Obama talking points then? It is a Ron Paul website, so he is infallible?


No, he is pretending that is an enforced standard. You well know if that is true, without their input.

----------


## presence

> Ron Paul does not have a lot of competent people who he can trust to choose from.


None of those 100k college kids he spoke to would have fit the bill?  Surely some of the Cornell grad students could be trusted.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> Since we were talking about candidates, and not Presidents, it is entirely true that Reagan was a Conservative in 1976 and 1980.  Ron Paul saw him as a Conservative in 1980.  That makes this assessment, here on RPF, definitive.


How is it true?  What did Reagan actually DO that made him a proponent of limited government leading up to '76?  Paul learned that Reagan was all talk and no walk but at least he eventually admitted that Reagan was a failure and refused to back off from his criticisms (even with Rick Perry trying to smear him for it).  The same thing happened when he took Bachmann under his wings a few years ago.  She claimed to embrace the free market but fast forward to Paul's appearance on Leno in December and he called her an anti-Muslim.

----------


## Ivash

> When he took over the Rand Paul campaign, the only thing he had to do was NOT $#@! it up.  It was on autopilot in the general.  (Which he did manage to do, thankfully.)
> 
> This isn't as much about Benton's future as it is McConnell's.  If you guys don't think that the establishment will run Mitch in 2016 to fend off a Rand run, I don't know what to tell you.


Which is exactly my point. He could have messed things up, but he didn't. Had he done so no one in politics would have ever looked at him again.

For campaign managers winning is always the best employment strategy.

----------


## Deborah K

> People in the campaign were telling me the entire Ron Paul 2012 operation was about paving the way for a Rand nomination in 2016, particularly after SC.  I heard this from multiple people at the national level, including two that were at the absolute top of the inner circle.  The only way Rand doesn't run is if scandal hits.


Ding ding ding!!!  I no longer believe they were EVER in it to win it.

Can anyone relay a scenario on how Rand stands a chance in 2016 if Romney wins in 2012?   What are the odds?

----------


## parocks

> How is it true?  What did Reagan actually DO that made him a proponent of limited government leading up to '76?  Paul learned that Reagan was all talk and no walk but at least he eventually admitted that Reagan was a failure and refused to back off from his criticisms (even with Rick Perry trying to smear him for it).  The same thing happened when he took Bachmann under his wings a few years ago.  She claimed to embrace the free market but fast forward to Paul's appearance on Leno in December and he called her an anti-Muslim.


There isn't any arguing facts there about whether Reagan was in fact Conservative.

Ron Paul supported him.

That makes him Conservative through the 1976 election, through the 1980 election.  The candidate was Conservative.

This assessment is based entirely on Ron Pauls support of him in 1976 and 1980.  

This is Ron Paul forums.  

If this was Rick Santorum forums, we wouldn't be able to say that Reagan was Conservative because Ron Paul supported him.  But this is Ron Paul forums, and because of that, we CAN say thatRon Paul's support MAKES Reagan Conservative.

----------


## parocks

> None of those 100k college kids he spoke to would have fit the bill?  Surely some of the Cornell grad students could be trusted.


They aren't competent enough.

We're talking about a high level job here.  Those 100K college students, some of them, did get jobs with RP.

----------


## erowe1

> There isn't any arguing facts there about whether Reagan was in fact Conservative.
> 
> Ron Paul supported him.
> 
> That makes him Conservative through the 1976 election, through the 1980 election.  The candidate was Conservative.
> 
> This assessment is based entirely on Ron Pauls support of him in 1976 and 1980.  
> 
> This is Ron Paul forums.  
> ...


So the truthfulness of the claim that Reagan was a conservative depends on what website you're on when you make the claim?

----------


## sailingaway

> There isn't any arguing facts there about whether Reagan was in fact Conservative.
> 
> Ron Paul supported him.
> 
> That makes him Conservative through the 1976 election, through the 1980 election.  The candidate was Conservative.
> 
> This assessment is based entirely on Ron Pauls support of him in 1976 and 1980.  
> 
> This is Ron Paul forums.  
> ...


parocks, this is getting old, and is attack on modding which you are supposed to raise by appeal to Josh and Bryan jointly.

if someone thinks the moon is made of pink elephants, you can say 'I disagree and have this basis to believe otherwise' or can say, 'you're a 'f-ing loon!  how delusional!' and mimic and mock them.

The second will get you in trouble with mods regardless of what the moon may be made of.  And while disagreement with Ron is always permitted, tag teaming to drive his supporters discussing him in his forum to some other avenue isn't. That is agression.  Similarly, if people go to Rand's forum and start to drive people away saying how bad they might think he is, past a comment or two, (or not even that if it is an outright slur) we won't let it continue if it is brought to our attention.  that is because the subforums are primarily for support of those candidates.  That does not mean you can't disagree with them, just not trash them.  And I'm pretty sure you know it. You just want to push an agenda freely whether it involves ridicule of forum members or not.

----------


## parocks

> Are you serious? How the $#@! are you any different from the sheep that bleat Romney or Obama talking points then? It is a Ron Paul website, so he is infallible?


Basically, yes.  Ron Paul is right on a Ron Paul website.

----------


## sailingaway

> So the truthfulness of the claim that Reagan was a conservative depends on what website you're on when you make the claim?


I'm not sure if *your* sarcasm meter is off or if mine is

----------


## parocks

> Ron is SINCERE, but he himself, in the video I posted and in the letter he wrote in 1988, said Reagan didn't live up to his message.  He loved the message and it was the best message out there in 1976.  He wanted to make it happen.  The alternatives were a LOT worse, and weren't interested in even discussing a gold commission.  So Ron threw himself behind Reagan, to try to make rhetoric reality.  That isn't cupidity, it is hope.


We're in agreement.  

Reagan = Conservative in 1976 (Ron Paul supported him)
Reagan = Conservative in 1980 (Ron Paul supported him)
Reagan /= Conservative in 1988 (Ron Paul repudiated him)

This is the official Ron Paul story.  You're a moderator.

The reason we're having this argument about Reagan is we were trying to determine whether or not the home of Conservatives is in the Republican Party.

And I went through, from 1940, noting the Conservatives who ran for President.

And 1976 was Reagan (the Conservative, who was supported by Ron Paul) vs Ford
And 1980 was Reagan (the Conservative, who was supported by Ron Paul) vs Bush

I'm not arguing about what happened after Reagan was elected, I was just arguing that the Conservative Candidate was Reagan in 1976 and 1980.

----------


## erowe1

> I'm not sure if *your* sarcasm meter is off or if mine is


I don't know. It looked like he started off serious and then just dug in his heels and started saying stuff that would pass for satire. I honestly can't tell.

----------


## parocks

> I'm not sure if *your* sarcasm meter is off or if mine is


No, that's entirely true.  Because we're opinions here, and Ron Paul's opinion wins here.  It won't win somewhere else maybe, but it does here.

----------


## sailingaway

parocks, I'll wait until you catch up in the thread.  But stop it.

If your argument is that the public CONSIDER the GOP to be the conservative party based on candidate rhetoric and what they have to say to get elected in that party, that fits. Sorta.

----------


## parocks

> I don't know. It looked like he started off serious and then just dug in his heels and started saying stuff that would pass for satire. I honestly can't tell.


Nope.  Entirely serious.

In 1976 Ron Paul supported Reagan.  That was what made Reagan Conservative.  To US.  Because we're Ron Paul supporters.  That's just how it works.

Hey, no doubt, if someone's merely pretending to be a Ron Paul supporters, they're not going buy that rationale at all.

I hear so many people here saying "oh, Liberty Principles say ..."  And no one can explain what they are.  So, if people can simple accept some posters blather as fact.

Put it differently, it's shorthand.  No one knows with 100% certainty that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow.  But we do take it for granted.  There are some things, that we do take for granted.  And one of those things that we take here for granted is that Ron Paul is right.  WE take that for granted HERE.

The weight of Ron Paul endorsement in 1976 and 1980 outweighs everything else.  On this Ron Paul site.  Somewhere else, it might not be important evidence.  But here, that piece of evidence has so much value, that everything else is against it, so there's no reason to argue the point.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> I'm not arguing about what happened after Reagan was elected, I was just arguing that the Conservative Candidate was Reagan in 1976 and 1980.


But he wasn't a conservative (I'm going by the paleo-con definition) in '76 or '80!  Again, what did he actually DO?!  I don't care what Paul thought of him in '76 or '80.  According to your logic, Romney is a "conservative" because of what he says, even though his record in Massachusetts suggests otherwise.  Oh and Rand Paul is campaigning for him so that must mean Romney is going to do what Rand said Romney would do if elected president.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Ron Paul supported what Reagan SAID.  He didn't support a lot of what he DID.  Reagan simply did not walk his talk.  It's as simple as that.

However, most of the Republican voting public only remember Reagan for his talk.  Very few realize that he expanded the size and scope of government, which was exactly what he said he was against.  It's not really a winning move, in my opinion, to attack Reagan*.  Ron Paul doesn't, unless he is called out on it.  What he usually does is give examples of what Reagan did that he agreed with and uses that to further his message.

* if you are talking to a Republican, that is.

----------


## erowe1

> Nope.  Entirely serious.
> 
> In 1976 Ron Paul supported Reagan.  That was what made Reagan Conservative.  To US.  Because we're Ron Paul supporters.  That's just how it works.
> 
> Hey, no doubt, if someone's merely pretending to be a Ron Paul supporters, they're not going buy that rationale at all.
> 
> I hear so many people here saying "oh, Liberty Principles say ..."  And no one can explain what they are.  So, if people can simple accept some posters blather as fact.
> 
> Put it differently, it's shorthand.  No one knows with 100% certainty that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow.  But we do take it for granted.  There are some things, that we do take for granted.  And one of those things that we take here for granted is that Ron Paul is right.  WE take that for granted HERE.
> ...


I'm trying to think of something I can say to highlight how strange this argument is. But I can't think of anything that would improve on just letting people read what you're saying.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> But he wasn't a conservative (I'm going by the paleo-con definition) in '76 or '80!  Again, what did he actually DO?!  I don't care what Paul thought of him in '76 or '80.  According to your logic, Romney is a "conservative" because of what he says, even though his record in Massachusetts suggests otherwise.  Oh and Rand Paul is campaigning for him so that must mean Romney is going to do what Rand said Romney would do if elected president.


No, Ron Paul and Reagan were a different case.  Ron really did support Reagan and went against the rest of the Party to do it.  But, he was trusting Reagan's words and when Reagan did not live up to them, he spoke out.

----------


## unknown

> ...that debate coaching would take place as it does in all other campaigns...


If only.  




> ...if Rand Paul intends to run in 2016...


Rand has lost a TON of support.  I feel that there is still good in him, that hes making nice with the establishment to secure a long term stay but I'm extremely disappointed.

----------


## parocks

When we're arguing about Reagan, we're arguing about this:

Notice that I did NOT put 1984 Reagan.

Because by 1984, a strong case could be made that Reagan was no longer conservative.

However, 1968,1976,1980 are all Reagan = Conservative years.

The argument is about the home for Conservatives in the Republican Party, and my list shows that Conservatives run in the Republican Party over and over again.
We usually lose.  Sometimes we win, and not govern right.  However, the home for Conservatives for the last 72 years has been the Republican Party.





> We know this.  We don't need to be woken up to something we already know.  We are in the process of a FIGHT.  A FIGHT that we usually LOSE.  This is not a secret.  We know this.  But our home is in the Republican Party.  And we just need to win more often, fight better, fight harder, fight smarter.  But there is no doubt that we are fighting against the Rockefeller Republicans, and have been for many many years. 1940, Taft vs Wilkie, 1948, Taft vs Dewey, 1952 Taft vs Eisenhower. 1964 Goldwater vs Romney and Rockefeller.  1968 Reagan vs Nixon and Romney.  1976 Reagan vs Ford.  1980 Reagan against Bush. 1992 Buchanan vs Bush 1996 Buchanan vs Dole.
> 
> We had our candidates up there, and we usually lost.  The elites, international bankers, globalists, msm all are against us.  And when we go to battle against the Rockefeller wing, the Rockefeller wing has the resources of the elites, international bankers, globalists, and msm.  So, we usually lose.  But our home is in the Republican Party.

----------


## parocks

> If only.  
> 
> 
> 
> Rand has lost a TON of support.  I feel that there is still good in him, that hes making nice with the establishment to secure a long term stay but I'm extremely disappointed.


Rand probably understands that to win he needs Santorums people and Gingrichs people as well as Ron Paul's people.  Santorum, with no money and no real support at all, ended up winning a bunch of states.

----------


## parocks

> I'm trying to think of something I can say to highlight how strange this argument is. But I can't think of anything that would improve on just letting people read what you're saying.


I understand that it can seem odd to you.

But on a Ron Paul website, where people are assumed to favor Ron Paul, his opinion really carries a lot of weight.

----------


## sailingaway

> Rand probably understands that to win he needs Santorums people and Gingrichs people as well as Ron Paul's people.  Santorum, with no money and no real support at all, ended up winning a bunch of states.


Santorum won because the evangelicals finally coalesced behind him with the fake CNN poll surge.  Before that he was in low single digits.

----------


## specsaregood

> Rand has lost a TON of support.  I feel that there is still good in him, that hes making nice with the establishment to secure a long term stay but I'm extremely disappointed.


I on the other hand am ecstatic about what Rand has been doing, and know quite a few people that would never vote for Ron that love Rand and they are all republican voters.    Rand is currently marking out a space for himself in DC as the guy that goes after abuses of the executive branch.  once you've done that, it helps make the case that you are right guy to clean up the executive branch as president.

----------


## parocks

> But he wasn't a conservative (I'm going by the paleo-con definition) in '76 or '80!  Again, what did he actually DO?!  I don't care what Paul thought of him in '76 or '80.  According to your logic, Romney is a "conservative" because of what he says, even though his record in Massachusetts suggests otherwise.  Oh and Rand Paul is campaigning for him so that must mean Romney is going to do what Rand said Romney would do if elected president.


No, according to my logic, Romney becomes a "conservative" if Ron Paul supports him.  Ron Paul supported him.  That makes him a conservative.  Not what Reagan said.  I can't remember if RR ran on raising the national drinking age to 21 through the witholding of federal highway funds in 68, 76, 80.  But Reagan was good enough for Ron Paul, and that's good enough for me.  And it should be good enough for you, because this is a Ron Paul fansite.

This isn't like a Rand Paul "support the nominee" endorsement.  Ron Paul was a delegate for Reagan.  He was one of a handful of elected officials who picked the Conservative Reagan in 1976 over the Liberal Ford.

I would hope that you wouldn't be 2nd guessing Ron Paul on the Ron Paul fansite.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> If only.


Tell it to Ron.  He is the one who would not allow it.  Doug Wead was right there to help him and Dr. Paul refused it.




> Rand has lost a TON of support.  I feel that there is still good in him, that hes making nice with the establishment to secure a long term stay but I'm extremely disappointed.


I think Rand has been kicking ass.  I am very pleased.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> No, according to my logic, Romney becomes a "conservative" if Ron Paul supports him.  Ron Paul supported him.  That makes him a conservative.  Not what Reagan said.  I can't remember if RR ran on raising the national drinking age to 21 through the witholding of federal highway funds in 68, 76, 80.  But Reagan was good enough for Ron Paul, and that's good enough for me.  And it should be good enough for you, because this is a Ron Paul fansite.
> 
> This isn't like a Rand Paul "support the nominee" endorsement.  Ron Paul was a delegate for Reagan.  He was one of a handful of elected officials who picked the Conservative Reagan in 1976 over the Liberal Ford.
> 
> I would hope that you wouldn't be 2nd guessing Ron Paul on the Ron Paul fansite.


Seriously, what are you talking about?  Ron Paul didn't make Reagan a conservative.  Reagan was deemed a conservative because of the principles that he espoused.  Too bad he didn't live up to them.

----------


## sailingaway

> No, according to my logic, Romney becomes a "conservative" if Ron Paul supports him.  Ron Paul supported him.  That makes him a conservative.  Not what Reagan said.  I can't remember if RR ran on raising the national drinking age to 21 through the witholding of federal highway funds in 68, 76, 80.  But Reagan was good enough for Ron Paul, and that's good enough for me.  And it should be good enough for you, because this is a Ron Paul fansite.
> 
> This isn't like a Rand Paul "support the nominee" endorsement.  Ron Paul was a delegate for Reagan.  He was one of a handful of elected officials who picked the Conservative Reagan in 1976 over the Liberal Ford.
> 
> I would hope that you wouldn't be 2nd guessing Ron Paul on the Ron Paul fansite.


Ron was convinced he was conservative and worked his butt off.  Why do you want to turn this into a Rand v Ron thing?    Ron always believed that Reagan would be the right guy, so he fought for his principles.

----------


## parocks

> Santorum won because the evangelicals finally coalesced behind him with the fake CNN poll surge.  Before that he was in low single digits.


I don't disagree with this.  The random free republic conservatives who never liked Romney and thought Ron Paul was a kook, needed a place to go.  You're accurately describing how a large bloc of voters can jump on a bandwagon when every other bandwagon fell apart.

Santorums number is a big one, and Rand needs those votes.

----------


## sailingaway

> I don't disagree with this.  The random free republic conservatives who never Romney and thought Ron Paul was a kook, needed a place to go.  You're accurately describing how a large bloc of voters can jump on a bandwagon when every other bandwagon fell apart.
> 
> Santorums number is a big one, and Rand needs those votes.


The reason the evangelicals did not fall behind Ron, who is Lutheran/Baptist instead of a Catholic is because he wouldn't agree to a Constitutional Amendment to prevent gay marriage.  Is it your view that Rand would give them that?  Because they were very specific in the pledges they wanted signed.

----------


## parocks

> Ron was convinced he was conservative and worked his butt off.  Why do you want to turn this into a Rand v Ron thing?    Ron always believed that Reagan would be the right guy, so he fought for his principles.


I'm not making this Rand vs Ron.  I'm just pointing out that Ron Paul's endorsement in 1976 wasn't some sort of "automatic" endorsement like "I'll support the nominee".  Ron Paul was in the minority in supporting Reagan in 1976.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Rand is doing that by explaining the message to them in terms they can understand.  Without sacrificing principle.  That is what he did at the Values Voters conference.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The reason the evangelicals did not fall behind Ron, who is Lutheran/Baptist instead of a Catholic is because he wouldn't agree to a Constitutional Amendment to prevent gay marriage.  Is it your view that Rand would give them that?  Because they were very specific in the pledges they wanted signed.


They have to be convinced that this isn't in their best interest.

----------


## parocks

> The reason the evangelicals did not fall behind Ron, who is Lutheran/Baptist instead of a Catholic is because he wouldn't agree to a Constitutional Amendment to prevent gay marriage.  Is it your view that Rand would give them that?  Because they were very specific in the pledges they wanted signed.


I have no idea what Rand would do regarding that.  I'm saying that he needs those votes.  Santorum won a lot of states.  We won none.  Santorums votes did not come entirely from people who required a pledge to sign an Amendment.

----------


## sailingaway

> I'm not making this Rand vs Ron.  I'm just pointing out that Ron Paul's endorsement in 1976 wasn't some sort of "automatic" endorsement like "I'll support the nominee".  Ron Paul was in the minority in supporting Reagan in 1976.


But it was a sincere declaration in favor of someone he thought and hoped was sincerely conservative.  He even refused to support Ford when Ford beat Reagan at RNC.

----------


## sailingaway

> Rand is doing that by explaining the message to them in terms they can understand.  Without sacrificing principle.  That is what he did at the Values Voters conference.


So did Ron.  When he isn't running against one of 'their own' it is very different than when he is head to head against someone preaching banning gay marriage.

----------


## parocks

> Seriously, what are you talking about?  Ron Paul didn't make Reagan a conservative.  Reagan was deemed a conservative because of the principles that he espoused.  Too bad he didn't live up to them.


Right, in real life.

But on Ron Paul Forums, what Ron Paul opinion was settles any arguments.  Ron Paul's clear opinion as to whether Reagan was a conservative in 1976 determines the answer, here.  

Oh, so, LibertyEagle thinks one thing, and Sailingaway thinks another, and parocks thinks another.  Oh, I guess we'll never know.  Well, this is ronpaulforums, and Ron Paul himself makes it clear what HIS opinion is.  So, there's no need for further arguing about this matter.  And yes, technically, Ron Paul doesn't "make" Reagan Conservative.  But Ron Paul made the offical ruling on whether or not Reagan was a Conservative in 1976, in 1980.  But not in 1984.  And Ron Paul's ruling on this is official, because this is ronpaulforums.com, a Ron Paul fan site.

----------


## specsaregood

> Rand is doing that by explaining the message to them in terms they can understand.  Without sacrificing principle.  That is what he did at the Values Voters conference.


Doing that just shows that Rand has a deep understanding of the issues and has thought them through.  But you dont' have to win elections by doing it that way.  if he is gonna win it will be from his fiery commentary and showy exchanges.  You know why people across the us like gov. christie?  Because of his showman aspect, especially confronting political opposites/enemies.  Rand's following that path some, its popular, its the dramalama that people like to see on their "news".

----------


## parocks

> But it was a sincere declaration in favor of someone he thought and hoped was sincerely conservative.  He even refused to support Ford when Ford beat Reagan at RNC.


Agree. This is sorta the point I was trying to make.  Ron Paul doesn't make a lot of "automatic" endorsements.

----------


## sailingaway

> I have no idea what Rand would do regarding that.  I'm saying that he needs those votes.  Santorum won a lot of states.  We won none. * Santorums votes did not come entirely from people who required a pledge to sign an Amendment*.


Santorum had 2-5% on his own.  Then the evangelicals coalesced and were considering ONLY Gingrich (HA!) Bachmann, Perry and Santorum because a group of opinion leaders got together and didn't want to split concensus over gay marriage. They wouldn't endorse Ron because of that.  Once one of those annointed ones got a fake surge, he started to also look like the winner, bringing in the others who would have voted for any winning candidate over Romney.  Media built then popped those surges -- except when it was Ron, then they just popped them and ran against it, when he started his surges twice, once before Iowa and once in February.

Santorum needed the initial banding of evangelicals to get the other fair weather voters behind him.

----------


## sailingaway

> Agree. This is sorta the point I was trying to make.  Ron Paul doesn't make a lot of "automatic" endorsements.


He didn't then. About 2007 his endorsements started being much more sought after and a bunch were turned over to staff. I remember one in CA being withdrawn when the grassroots candidate guy was found to have an iffy past.  I am now, after seeing the hands off managment style of the campaign, wondering how many of the post 2007 endorsements we never saw Ron personally utter himself, just a written statement on, he really internally came up with for himself?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Doing that just shows that Rand has a deep understanding of the issues and has thought them through.  But you dont' have to win elections by doing it that way.  if he is gonna win it will be from his fiery commentary and showy exchanges.  You know why people across the us like gov. christie?  Because of his showman aspect, especially confronting political opposites/enemies.  Rand's following that path some, its popular, its the dramalama that people like to see on their "news".


Yes, and he shows strength.  Americans do not like wimpy-sounding Presidents.

----------


## kathy88

> Right, in real life.
> 
> But on Ron Paul Forums, what Ron Paul opinion was settles any arguments.  Ron Paul's clear opinion as to whether Reagan was a conservative in 1976 determines the answer, here.  
> 
> Oh, so, LibertyEagle thinks one thing, and Sailingaway thinks another, and parocks thinks another.  Oh, I guess we'll never know.  Well, this is ronpaulforums, and Ron Paul himself makes it clear what HIS opinion is.  So, there's no need for further arguing about this matter.  And yes, technically, Ron Paul doesn't "make" Reagan Conservative.  But Ron Paul made the offical ruling on whether or not Reagan was a Conservative in 1976, in 1980.  But not in 1984.  And Ron Paul's ruling on this is official, because this is ronpaulforums.com, a Ron Paul fan site.


Your disdain for the forums is palpable. If the fan club mentality (as you see it, not my opinion) is getting to you so much that you have to post your opinion about it every 45 seconds, perhaps another forum would be better suited to your tastes? Maybe a break is in order.

----------


## parocks

> Santorum had 2-5% on his own.  Then the evangelicals coalesced and were considering ONLY Gingrich (HA!) Bachmann, Perry and Santorum because a group of opinion leaders got together and didn't want to split concensus over gay marriage. They wouldn't endorse Ron because of that.  Once one of those annointed ones got a fake surge, he started to also look like the winner, bringing in the others who would have voted for any winning candidate over Romney.  Media built then popped those surges -- except when it was Ron, then they just popped them and ran against it, when he started his surges twice, once before Iowa and once in February.
> 
> Santorum needed the initial banding of evangelicals to get the other fair weather voters behind him.


Sounds about right.  But "the others who would have..." is a bigger number than "evangelicals who need a pledge"  Yes, the evangelicals, and the support of that specific evangelical, I can't remember his name, were key for Santorum, but we're probably talking about 7-10% in Iowa.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> He didn't then. About 2007 his endorsements started being much more sought after and a bunch were turned over to staff. I remember one in CA being withdrawn when the grassroots candidate guy was found to have an iffy past.  I am now, after seeing the hands off managment style of the campaign, wondering how many of the post 2007 endorsements we never saw Ron personally utter himself, just a written statement on, he really internally came up with for himself?


He makes his own endorsements.  He also knew what was going on in his campaign much more than you care to admit.

----------


## parocks

> Your disdain for the forums is palpable. If the fan club mentality (as you see it, not my opinion) is getting to you so much that you have to post your opinion about it every 45 seconds, perhaps another forum would be better suited to your tastes? Maybe a break is in order.


I'm responding to posts to me.  I'm pointing out that people should be respecting Ron Pauls opinion here and should consider his opinion definitive here.  That arguing against Ron Paul's opinion is not the way to go.  I'm taking Ron Paul's side against others who disagree with him.

----------


## sailingaway

> He makes his own endorsements.  He also knew what was going on in his campaign much more than you care to admit.


quit attacking me. You are the only one on the attack, do you notice? People respond when they are attacked.

As a point of information, how do you know he chooses every single one of the endorsements?  who proposes and argues for them?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Right, in real life.
> 
> But on Ron Paul Forums, what Ron Paul opinion was settles any arguments.  Ron Paul's clear opinion as to whether Reagan was a conservative in 1976 determines the answer, here.  
> 
> Oh, so, LibertyEagle thinks one thing, and Sailingaway thinks another, and parocks thinks another.  Oh, I guess we'll never know.  Well, this is ronpaulforums, and Ron Paul himself makes it clear what HIS opinion is.  So, there's no need for further arguing about this matter.  And yes, technically, Ron Paul doesn't "make" Reagan Conservative.  But Ron Paul made the offical ruling on whether or not Reagan was a Conservative in 1976, in 1980.  But not in 1984.  And Ron Paul's ruling on this is official, because this is ronpaulforums.com, a Ron Paul fan site.


Parocks, I think maybe the way to think about it is, that Ron Paul, along with a lot of other conservatives THOUGHT Reagan was conservative.  He certainly talked that way and some of the things he did were conservative.  But, we should have known from the day he chose Bush as his running mate.  Because he had promised us that he would not choose an Insider and then went ahead and did just that.

----------


## parocks

> He didn't then. About 2007 his endorsements started being much more sought after and a bunch were turned over to staff. I remember one in CA being withdrawn when the grassroots candidate guy was found to have an iffy past.  I am now, after seeing the hands off managment style of the campaign, wondering how many of the post 2007 endorsements we never saw Ron personally utter himself, just a written statement on, he really internally came up with for himself?


Well, ok.  I'd say that I never thought that Ron Paul issued wrong endorsements, or ill considered endorsements.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> quit attacking me. You are the only one on the attack, do you notice? People respond when they are attacked.


I'm not attacking you.  You keep implying that Ron was totally hands off in his campaign and I am contesting that.  

That said, I am rather surprised at your response, given that I did nothing that you don't do. 




> As a point of information, how do you know he chooses every single one of the endorsements?  who proposes and argues for them?


Ron makes the decision.  Everything else is superfluous.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'm responding to posts to me.  I'm pointing out that people should be respecting Ron Pauls opinion here and should consider his opinion definitive here.  That arguing against Ron Paul's opinion is not the way to go.  I'm taking Ron Paul's side against others who disagree with him.


How are you?  Ron Paul changed his mind.  He gave Reagan the benefit of the doubt for as long as he could..

----------


## parocks

> Parocks, I think maybe the way to think about it is, that Ron Paul, along with a lot of other conservatives THOUGHT Reagan was conservative.  He certainly talked that way and some of the things he did were conservative.  But, we should have known from the day he chose Bush as his running mate.  Because he had promised us that he would not choose an Insider and then went ahead and did just that.


Sounds reasonable.  Also there's that distinction between candidate and actual politician.  I'm not trying to argue about Reagan's record as President at all.  I'm really just defending my List of Conservative Presidential Candidates in the Republican Party.

----------


## sailingaway

> Well, ok.  I'd say that I never thought that Ron Paul issued wrong endorsements, or ill considered endorsements.


Parocks, he may have.  I am noticing something about the time period of his 'bad' endorsements and his having a much bigger organization and specific staff.  I don't know but am wondering if the 'mainstreaming' of Ron's message wasn't being pushed in endorsements by some of his staff as well. I don't know, but I do wonder.  I do specifically remember the one in California where he endorsed a guy who was a grass roots candidate and had been a supporter during the primary and had been a judge, and it turned out he had historic ties that were not ones Ron would want to endorse, and he pulled the endorsement back.  But then I heard they were moving to a procedure for staff to vett endorsements, and I don't remember the details.  I am sure at some level he would have been asked, but if people had led others to expect them, I dunno.  Wondering, since the bad endorsements never had TV or video clips, just an official announcement.

----------


## parocks

> How are you?  Ron Paul changed his mind.  He gave Reagan the benefit of the doubt for as long as he could..


We're talking about Ron Paul's opinion of Reagan at 3 different times.

My original list didn't have Reagan 1984 on it.

Ron Paul opinion of Reagan in 3 different years.

1976 - Reagan is Conservative
1980 - Reagan is Conservative
1988 - Reagan is NOT Conservative

Facts caused Ron Paul to change his opinion.

But Ron Paul's opinion of Reagan in 1976 is clear, and in 1980, it's clear.

----------


## sailingaway

Ron was supporting a bunch of Reagan's programs the 'other guy' would never have run, like the gold commission etc.  Ron seems to have grown increasingly disenchanted, but it was Bush Sr who was the bridge too far.

----------


## parocks

> Parocks, he may have.  I am noticing something about the time period of his 'bad' endorsements and his having a much bigger organization and specific staff.  I don't know but am wondering if the 'mainstreaming' of Ron's message wasn't being pushed in endorsements by some of his staff as well. I don't know, but I do wonder.  I do specifically remember the one in California where he endorsed a guy who was a grass roots candidate and had been a supporter during the primary and had been a judge, and it turned out he had historic ties that were not ones Ron would want to endorse, and he pulled the endorsement back.  But then I heard they were moving to a procedure for staff to vett endorsements, and I don't remember the details.  I am sure at some level he would have been asked, but if people had led others to expect them, I dunno.  Wondering, since the bad endorsements never had TV or video clips, just an official announcement.


seems like a reasonable analysis to me.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> We're talking about Ron Paul's opinion of Reagan at 3 different times.
> 
> My original list didn't have Reagan 1984 on it.
> 
> Ron Paul opinion of Reagan in 3 different years.
> 
> 1976 - Reagan is Conservative
> 1980 - Reagan is Conservative
> 1988 - Reagan is NOT Conservative
> ...


What people are responding to is your insistence on calling Reagan a conservative all those years.  In hindsight, I don't know that he was.  He talked so good, it made us want to believe that he was.  It was hard to let go of it.  Really hard.  We wanted so badly for someone to actually mean what he was espousing.

----------


## parocks

> What people are responding to is your insistence on calling Reagan a conservative all those years.  In hindsight, I don't know that he was.  He talked so good, it made us want to believe that he was.  It was hard to let go of it.  Really hard.  We wanted so badly for someone to actually mean what he was espousing.


Oh, well, I wasn't trying to say that.  I didn't put Reagan 1984 on my list of Conservatives, in my original list, and I left off for a reason.  I'm not arguing that Reagan governed as a Conservative.  I'm saying that in 68, he ran as a Conservative against Nixon and Romney, in 76 he ran as Conservative against Ford, and in 1980, he ran as a Conservative against Bush.  But by 1984, it could definitely be argued that he was no longer a Conservative.

The point of this argument from my point of view is not to discuss whether Reagan's Presidency was Conservative, but just to point out that in the Republican Party, more often than not, a Conservative runs for President, within the greater context of the "home for Conservatives" argument.

----------


## parocks

> What people are responding to is your insistence on calling Reagan a conservative all those years.  In hindsight, I don't know that he was.  He talked so good, it made us want to believe that he was.  It was hard to let go of it.  Really hard.  We wanted so badly for someone to actually mean what he was espousing.


I should add that you're older than I am, and my memories of Reagan are fuzzy.  I certainly didn't have an idea at that time what was, and was not a true conservative.

----------


## aaroche26

dasfdasfdasfdasf

----------


## sailingaway

> I think Ron Paul deserves some blame here. He did a poor job managing who his campaign manager would be. I think it's fair to say his managing skills are poor. I think I'm going to get a lot of criticism/ When it comes down to the newsletters and the campaign manager, he did an awful job.


I think Ron's strongest supporters will say his hands off, anti-central-management style goes too far when it comes to making sure organizations run under his own persona actually reflect that persona.

It is just that we want him even with that flaw, over all the 'excellent managers' who aren't Ron Paul.

I do think Ron, an honest man, is overwilling to trust.

----------


## DylanWaco

> The reason the evangelicals did not fall behind Ron, who is Lutheran/Baptist instead of a Catholic is because he wouldn't agree to a Constitutional Amendment to prevent gay marriage.  Is it your view that Rand would give them that?  Because they were very specific in the pledges they wanted signed.


That's not the only reason.  I don't even think it's the primary reason.  The main reason is Ron didn't believe in mass murdering Muslim kids, something the evangelicals generally regard as a duty on par with tithing to the church.

----------


## sailingaway

> That's not the only reason.  I don't even think it's the primary reason.  The main reason is Ron didn't believe in mass murdering Muslim kids, something the evangelicals generally regard as a duty on par with tithing to the church.


You could be right about some thinking his foreign policy was wrong, but the ones I'm thinking about ONLY seemed to care about gay marriage. It was the oddest thing.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> There isn't any arguing facts there about whether Reagan was in fact Conservative.
> 
> Ron Paul supported him.
> 
> That makes him Conservative through the 1976 election, through the 1980 election.  The candidate was Conservative.
> 
> This assessment is based entirely on Ron Pauls support of him in 1976 and 1980.  
> 
> This is Ron Paul forums.  
> ...


 I would argue that being conservative makes someone conservative.  I would argue that one should base his assessment of reality off of the facts one has at hand.

This is why I asked CaptLou, and will now ask you, what did Reagan do that furthered what you see as conservative values?

CaptLou came up with nothing.  Can you come up with anything?  If Reagan never did anything conservative, then clearly he was not conservative.  Nothing that I, nor you, nor Ron Paul, nor God Himself could say would change that.  A is A.  If Reagan did not act conservatively -- and I believe it's clear he didn't -- then he cannot be considered to be a conservative.  

If you can refute me with facts, then I will be happy to hear it.  If you're just going to pull out an isolated verse from the Ron Paul bible -- totally ignoring the rest of the bible and any context or verse which may contradict your interpretation, by the way -- to use as a proof-text to try to prove your point by saying "God said so" then you're not operating in the realm of rationality wherein it would be possible to communicate with you.  So we'll just leave it there.  The facts say one thing.  Parock's God says another.  Well and good.

----------


## papitosabe

wasn't the reason RP left the Repulican party was because of what Reagan did or did not do.  Reagan grew the gov't amonst other things and RP didn't like that and prob felf betrayed by the party, so he left.  That was my understanding.

----------


## twomp

> wasn't the reason RP left the Repulican party was because of what Reagan did or did not do.  Reagan grew the gov't amonst other things and RP didn't like that and prob felf betrayed by the party, so he left.  That was my understanding.


This is the letter he wrote when he left team red the first time.




> Congressman Paul’s Letter
> 
>     As a lifelong Republican, it saddens me to have to write this letter. My parents believed in the Republican Party and its free enterprise philosophy, and that’s the way I was brought up. At age 21, in 1956, I cast my first vote for Ike and the entire Republican slate.
> 
>     Because of frustration with the direction in which the country was going, I became a political activist and ran for the U.S. Congress in 1974. Even with Watergate, my loyalty, optimism, and hope for the future were tied to the Republican Party and its message of free enterprise, limited government, and balanced budgets.
> 
>     Eventually I was elected to the U.S. Congress four times as a Republican. This permitted me a first-hand look at the interworkings of the U.S. Congress, seeing both the benefits and partisan frustrations that guide its shaky proceedings. I found that although representative government still exists, special interest control of the legislative process clearly presents a danger to our constitutional system of government.
> 
>     In 1976 I was impressed with Ronald Reagan’s program and was one of the four members of Congress who endorsed his candidacy. In 1980, unlike other Republican office holders in Texas, I again supported our President in his efforts.
> ...

----------


## parocks

> I would argue that being conservative makes someone conservative.  I would argue that one should base his assessment of reality off of the facts one has at hand.
> 
> This is why I asked CaptLou, and will now ask you, what did Reagan do that furthered what you see as conservative values?
> 
> CaptLou came up with nothing.  Can you come up with anything?  If Reagan never did anything conservative, then clearly he was not conservative.  Nothing that I, nor you, nor Ron Paul, nor God Himself could say would change that.  A is A.  If Reagan did not act conservatively -- and I believe it's clear he didn't -- then he cannot be considered to be a conservative.  
> 
> If you can refute me with facts, then I will be happy to hear it.  If you're just going to pull out an isolated verse from the Ron Paul bible -- totally ignoring the rest of the bible and any context or verse which may contradict your interpretation, by the way -- to use as a proof-text to try to prove your point by saying "God said so" then you're not operating in the realm of rationality wherein it would be possible to communicate with you.  So we'll just leave it there.  The facts say one thing.  Parock's God says another.  Well and good.


The argument is simply that Reagan ran as a conservative, and seen as a conservative in 68, 76, 80.  We aren't talking about 84.  We aren't talking about how he governed.  We're talking about how he was seen.  And he was supported by Ron Paul in 76 and 80.  I'm not debating whether Reagan did conservative things as President.

I'm talking about the fact that the home for Conservatives has been the Republican Party for at least 72 years.

----------


## TheTexan

> The argument is simply that Reagan ran as a conservative, and seen as a conservative in 68, 76, 80.  We aren't talking about 84.  We aren't talking about how he governed.  We're talking about how he was seen.  And he was supported by Ron Paul in 76 and 80.  I'm not debating whether Reagan did conservative things as President.
> 
> I'm talking about the fact that the home for Conservatives has been the Republican Party for at least 72 years.


Most Republicans think Paul Ryan is conservative.  Marco Rubio.  Herman Cain.

You have to understand, there are people who are _conservative_ and then there are people who are "conservative."

Most likely Dr. Paul made just a simple mistake in thinking Reagan was _conservative_ rather than "conservative" (Reagan was an actor, don't forget)

----------


## coffeewithgames

Here's one issue I have with this. It's coming out NOW? Excellent way to look out for donors/supporters. I mean, you saw issues inside and didn't want to warn others to protecting RP, it's the same with the decision not to attack Romney and instead help him win the nomination.

----------


## erowe1

> Here's one issue I have with this. It's coming out NOW? Excellent way to look out for donors/supporters. I mean, you saw issues inside and didn't want to warn others to protecting RP, it's the same with the decision not to attack Romney and instead help him win the nomination.


What are you getting at specifically? You think Woods should have put out videos telling people not to donate to the campaign?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> What are you getting at specifically? You think Woods should have put out videos telling people not to donate to the campaign?


Maybe could have warned about some problems with a bit of "tact"?

----------


## erowe1

> Maybe could have warned about some problems with a bit of "tact"?


Isn't that what he did?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Isn't that what he did?


I remember one video late in the game.  Perhaps there was more that I didn't read/see?

----------


## erowe1

> I remember one video late in the game.  Perhaps there was more that I didn't read/see?


Isn't the note he talks about in the OP from way back in the summer of 2011?

----------


## parocks

> Here's one issue I have with this. It's coming out NOW? Excellent way to look out for donors/supporters. I mean, you saw issues inside and didn't want to warn others to protecting RP, it's the same with the decision not to attack Romney and instead help him win the nomination.


Well, it would've been nice to know about the decision not to attack Romney.

----------


## parocks

> Most Republicans think Paul Ryan is conservative.  Marco Rubio.  Herman Cain.
> 
> You have to understand, there are people who are _conservative_ and then there are people who are "conservative."
> 
> Most likely Dr. Paul made just a simple mistake in thinking Reagan was _conservative_ rather than "conservative" (Reagan was an actor, don't forget)


Yeah and Dan Quayle, too was conservative.  Many of the candidates this year might've fallen in that category.

Point is, we're talking about 76 candidate Reagan and 80 candidate Reagan and not President Reagan.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I'm not debating whether Reagan did conservative things as President.


 Nor as Governor.  Nor ever.  One would think that to be a conservative one would have to do conservative things.  That was my point.  It's a pretty basic point.  If you live for 80-some years, and you never once do a conservative act, then you are not a conservative.  It's simple math.




> We're talking about how he was seen.


 So in other words you're talking about something completely other than reality -- what lies the people are happy to believe.  Well _you're_ talking about that, but I'm not.  I'm more interested in reality.




> And he was supported by Ron Paul in 76 and 80.


 And is Ron Paul your God?  Do his pronouncements change the nature of reality?  He speaks and his word becomes so?

Even if Ron is your God, I would suggest that you are wresting His scriptures, twisting His message, and leaving out of consideration other passages from the corpus of his life, actions, writings, and sayings which would contradict or mitigate your assertion that Ron Paul saith "Behold, in the years 1976 and 1980 the man called Ronald of Reagan was a Conservative."

Anyway, your new and very tenuous attempt to make there be a point to your Reagan-love seems to be that the the GOP is the right place for Conservatives to be.  Presumably you want conservative Ron Paul supporters to remain active in the GOP.  Reagan being a conservative (or, as seems indisputable: _not_) obviously doesn't bear any link nor connection to this advice of yours.  So your point is a big stretch.  And frankly isn't very good.  And doesn't make very much sense.  But perhaps it makes sense to someone else.

----------


## coffeewithgames

> Well, it would've been nice to know about the decision not to attack Romney.


That was the ONE thing that kept me from donating. I said if they were serious about winning, they would be attacking Romney. If they had released a single Romney only attack ad like they did against the others, I would have donated...

You can ask some (some haven't been here in a while, one is) that I was on a conference call in March/April, and even though I expressed my dismay with the official campaign, I thought they were serious and wouldn't simply be lying to supporters and promoting the moneybomb in April, I made a video because of the conference call to help promote that one moneybomb...then it came and went, and not one single new ad. But they did run the Gingrich/Romney/Santorum ad in Texas after Santorum (and Gingrich) had already dropped out.
Again, if somebody on the inside knew of the waste of time/money from the official campaign (Jack Hunter and Doug Wead), they should have spoken up then. Not waited until they burnt many supporters along the way.

You don't keep a "movement" together the way they did (they didn't), and it makes no sense at all. Even this isn't anything of an explanation really, and just trying to get Jesse to take some blame?

----------


## anaconda

> If they had released a single Romney only attack ad like they did against the others, I would have donated...


I was apparently in a parallel universe...

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I was apparently in a parallel universe...


That was a RevPac ad, not a campaign ad.

----------


## coffeewithgames

> I was apparently in a parallel universe...


That's actually not the parallel universe, but the PAC universe. Big difference. Ron Paul's campaign helped Mitt Romney win the nomination, by attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan with tv ads. Doug Wead claims that Romney had it sealed up before Michigan took place, so I guess the campaign wanted to waste funds on attack ads against Santorum then? Nobody can give clear answers to anything, because they are getting paychecks from it still.

The same time that Michigan was happening, Virginia was right around the corner and you know how many ads the official campaign ran in Virginia for Ron Paul, to help spread his message there? Zero. Do you know how many tv attack ads the campaign ran in Virginia against Romney, the first One-on-One state where it was only Paul and Romney on the ballet? Zero. Why? The official campaign never released a single tv attack ad against only Romney.

PAC universe, is not parallel campaign universe.

----------


## anaconda

This seems definitely anti-Romney...

----------


## Aratus

if rick santorum won, would we actually be better off?
as it is, gentleman mitt is trying hard to stay within
range of potus in the opinion polls and has his work
cut out for him. we have to focus on 2014 & 2016!!!
the tight nature of this election helps us impact the GOP.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> This seems definitely anti-Romney...


Yeah but it contained only a subtle mention of Romney (his face).  Like the Gingrich ad they aired in December that destroyed his character, the campaign should have created an ad that solely attacked Romney on his support for TARP, thus destroying his "business experience" credibility that few voters could relate to.

----------


## parocks

> That was the ONE thing that kept me from donating. I said if they were serious about winning, they would be attacking Romney. If they had released a single Romney only attack ad like they did against the others, I would have donated...
> 
> You can ask some (some haven't been here in a while, one is) that I was on a conference call in March/April, and even though I expressed my dismay with the official campaign, I thought they were serious and wouldn't simply be lying to supporters and promoting the moneybomb in April, I made a video because of the conference call to help promote that one moneybomb...then it came and went, and not one single new ad. But they did run the Gingrich/Romney/Santorum ad in Texas after Santorum (and Gingrich) had already dropped out.
> Again, if somebody on the inside knew of the waste of time/money from the official campaign (Jack Hunter and Doug Wead), they should have spoken up then. Not waited until they burnt many supporters along the way.
> 
> You don't keep a "movement" together the way they did (they didn't), and it makes no sense at all. Even this isn't anything of an explanation really, and just trying to get Jesse to take some blame?


Well, the Doug Wead interview had Doug Wead saying that Romney threated to attack Ron Paul if Ron Paul attacked Romney, and the ads that were ready to go in Michigan were never aired.

----------


## parocks

Stop dumping on Ron Paul.

Ron Paul was one of the few delegates who were Congressmen in 1976 to support Reagan.  He also supported Reagan in 1980.

Because Reagan was seen, by Ron Paul, as a Conservative.

I'm not arguing that you have to change your beliefs or anything.

Again, we're talking about opinions here.  And I was simply arguing that Ron Paul's opinion, on ronpaulforums, should be definitive.

It's clear you think you know better than Ron Paul.  I got that.

And if this was freerepublic.com, if someone said, when they were proving that the home for Conservatives is the Republican Party, that Ron Paul supported Reagan in 76 and 80,
they would say that doesn't mean anything,  because Ron Paul's words and opinions are not given deference over there.  But they are given deference here.

That's just something I guess you don't get.

Other people think that I'm implying that Reagan was a Conservative President.  I'm not saying that.  I'm saying that he Campaigned as a Conservative in 76 and 80.  
My list of Conservatives who ran for President did not include Reagan in 1984.




> Nor as Governor.  Nor ever.  One would think that to be a conservative one would have to do conservative things.  That was my point.  It's a pretty basic point.  If you live for 80-some years, and you never once do a conservative act, then you are not a conservative.  It's simple math.
> 
>  So in other words you're talking about something completely other than reality -- what lies the people are happy to believe.  Well _you're_ talking about that, but I'm not.  I'm more interested in reality.
> 
>  And is Ron Paul your God?  Do his pronouncements change the nature of reality?  He speaks and his word becomes so?
> 
> Even if Ron is your God, I would suggest that you are wresting His scriptures, twisting His message, and leaving out of consideration other passages from the corpus of his life, actions, writings, and sayings which would contradict or mitigate your assertion that Ron Paul saith "Behold, in the years 1976 and 1980 the man called Ronald of Reagan was a Conservative."
> 
> Anyway, your new and very tenuous attempt to make there be a point to your Reagan-love seems to be that the the GOP is the right place for Conservatives to be.  Presumably you want conservative Ron Paul supporters to remain active in the GOP.  Reagan being a conservative (or, as seems indisputable: _not_) obviously doesn't bear any link nor connection to this advice of yours.  So your point is a big stretch.  And frankly isn't very good.  And doesn't make very much sense.  But perhaps it makes sense to someone else.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Stop dumping on Ron Paul.


Could you explain your demand?

----------


## parocks

> Could you explain your demand?


see edited post above for that.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

What do you mean: "definitive"?

Is reality definitive?

----------


## parocks

> What do you mean: "definitive"?
> 
> Is reality definitive?


Ok, I know that we both clearly have nothing better to do than to fight back and forth here.

This is simply a case where I'm making a statement, and you disagree with my statement.

And that's OK!

----------


## coffeewithgames

> Well, the Doug Wead interview had Doug Wead saying that Romney threated to attack Ron Paul if Ron Paul attacked Romney, and the ads that were ready to go in Michigan were never aired.


Doug Wead never confirmed Romney attack ads were ready for Michigan in the interview I saw (sorry, I don't think linking to it is allowed, or this may get moved), just that if Ron Paul attacked Romney in Michigan (and/or before Michigan), Romney would drop an A-Bomb; the campaign tucked tail and ran, kissing Romney's hand and helping him win the nomination by attacking Rick Santorum instead.
From January through April, all the moneybombs were a complete waste. They were not needed, and accomplished what? Ending a campaign with nearly $3 million on hand. Perhaps Tom Woods should have been speaking out since December/January on why the campaign was refusing to address legitimate issues.

Again, I don't like Jesse Benton, but then again I don't like many (any) associated with the official Ron Paul 2012 campaign. You don't squander what they had though. It seems the RP 2012 campaign was run a lot like the federal government on many levels, tons of failure and campaign waste, and not one single person fired? Doug Wead speaking out at/after the convention, Tom Woods, who's next? Jack Hunter?

----------


## coffeewithgames

> This seems definitely anti-Romney...


No, let me provide you some Ron Paul 2012 campaign ads, on one candidate only:











Notice the difference? Now, if somebody can show me where the Romney tv attack ad is, or even internet ad from the official campaign. I mean, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum...but no Mitt Romney. LOL.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Tax revenues are up 59 percent since 1980. Because of our economic growth? No. During Carter’s four years, we had growth of 37.2 percent; Reagan’s five years have given us 30.7 percent. The new revenues are due to four giant Republican tax increases since 1981.


Wow...I did not realize that...damn.

Learn something new every day, and usually it's disillusionment.

The Carter years are still to this day regarded as negative growth slump.

The whole inflation mess in the 1970s was due to Nixon dropping the Bretton Woods accords.

That in turn handed the entire US manufacturing base to the Chinese on a silver platter.

As Kissinger had promised to Mao.

And the Rust Belt followed in the 80s.

And here we are now, broke, unfree, living in a police state and embroiled in multiple wars.

Ron was right, *again*.

Jesus...SMH.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Wow...I did not realize that...damn.
> 
> Learn something new every day, and usually it's disillusionment.
> 
> The Carter years are still to this day regarded as negative growth slump.
> 
> The whole inflation mess in the 1970s was due to Nixon dropping the Bretton Woods accords.
> 
> That in turn handed the entire US manufacturing base to the Chinese on a silver platter.
> ...


Carter created the Gold Commission, too.

----------


## parocks

> Doug Wead never confirmed Romney attack ads were ready for Michigan in the interview I saw (sorry, I don't think linking to it is allowed, or this may get moved), just that if Ron Paul attacked Romney in Michigan (and/or before Michigan), Romney would drop an A-Bomb; the campaign tucked tail and ran, kissing Romney's hand and helping him win the nomination by attacking Rick Santorum instead.
> From January through April, all the moneybombs were a complete waste. They were not needed, and accomplished what? Ending a campaign with nearly $3 million on hand. Perhaps Tom Woods should have been speaking out since December/January on why the campaign was refusing to address legitimate issues.
> 
> Again, I don't like Jesse Benton, but then again I don't like many (any) associated with the official Ron Paul 2012 campaign. You don't squander what they had though. It seems the RP 2012 campaign was run a lot like the federal government on many levels, tons of failure and campaign waste, and not one single person fired? Doug Wead speaking out at/after the convention, Tom Woods, who's next? Jack Hunter?


How is it that linking to that video isn't allowed?  What was the rationale for that?  Too relevant?  Too much wheat, not enough chaff?

I dunno.  It doesn't bother me that we didn't win (losing was expected).  It doesn't bother me that we turned tail and ran (that too would be expected, under certain circumstances).  But it does kinda bother me that the reason why we turned tail and ran was the possibility of negative attack ads.  Shouldn't they have understood that negative attack ads were part of the process, that you don't win unless you get attacked, and are able to withstand those attacks?  

Attacking Romney before Michigan would've made a difference.  He only beat Santorum by 3 there.

I don't have problems with most (or any) of the campaign staff.  I'm not quick to blame campaign staff and let Ron Paul off the hook.  And there's clearly a Rand Paul plan, and this Ron Paul run was about Rand Paul.   We, here, tried to do what we could to get votes for Ron Paul.  But Ron Paul wasn't trying to hard to get votes for Ron Paul.  And that's what bugs me now.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> And that's OK!


 All right, as long as I'm "OK" now, and not "dumping on Ron Paul".

----------


## Travlyr

> I would argue that being conservative makes someone conservative.  I would argue that one should base his assessment of reality off of the facts one has at hand.
> 
> This is why I asked CaptLou, and will now ask you, *what did Reagan do that furthered what you see as conservative values*?
> 
> CaptLou came up with nothing.  Can you come up with anything?  If Reagan never did anything conservative, then clearly he was not conservative.  Nothing that I, nor you, nor Ron Paul, nor God Himself could say would change that.  A is A.  If Reagan did not act conservatively -- and I believe it's clear he didn't -- then he cannot be considered to be a conservative.  
> 
> *If you can refute me with facts, then I will be happy to hear it.*  If you're just going to pull out an isolated verse from the Ron Paul bible -- totally ignoring the rest of the bible and any context or verse which may contradict your interpretation, by the way -- to use as a proof-text to try to prove your point by saying "God said so" then you're not operating in the realm of rationality wherein it would be possible to communicate with you.  So we'll just leave it there.  The facts say one thing.  Parock's God says another.  Well and good.


Does taking a bullet for liberty count?

Ron Paul supported Ronald Reagan because of Reagan's message. Do you consider this to be a conservative message? 



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBsw...layer_embedded

That message is what we were hearing at the time.

----------


## sailingaway

RICHARD VIGUERIE: BIG GOVERNMENT MITCH MCCONNELL, FEARING CONSERVATIVES, HIRES A CHARACTER WITNESS

http://www.melodika.net/index.php?op...5950&Itemid=54

----------


## LibertyEagle

Most people don't know who in the hell Jesse Benton is.

----------


## Travlyr

> Most people don't know who in the hell Jesse Benton is.


True enough. That is one thing that really surprised me about Tom Woods and Adam Kokesh. Why is it important to direct our hate at Jesse? The status-quo machine is much more powerful than Jesse Benton. Jesse Benton was not standing in the way of our liberty.

I suspect Jesse Benton to be a self-interested individual just like all the rest of us. We all make mistakes from time to time. I certainly don't understand the mass hatred for him as Ron Paul actually became quite popular under his watch. Ron Paul won 6 states at least and there would have been a whole lot more wins simply if the media would have given Ron Paul the same coverage as they gave his opponents. Remember the 89 second debate. Remember the Black-Out Money Bomb. He had virtually zero coverage on radio. In 2008, when the grass roots were in charge, did Ron even win one county? Jesse did pretty good, imo.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> RICHARD VIGUERIE: BIG GOVERNMENT MITCH MCCONNELL, FEARING CONSERVATIVES, HIRES A CHARACTER WITNESS
> 
> http://www.melodika.net/index.php?op...5950&Itemid=54


JB has his work cut out for him on this. Tho, w/ Rand on good terms w/ McCo, a challenger doesn't have a lot in the way of endorsements going for them.

----------


## AuH2O

Challenging Mitch McConnell in the primary is ridiculous. Even without this effort to shore up his right flank (which will have little effect, I expect), the man is unbeatable in a Republican primary.  He *built* the KY GOP, for crying out loud.  The only political pain you could inflict on him is running third party in the general and trying to hand the seat to the Democrat.

----------


## nemt4paul

I just read all 69 pages of this thread.....I had a lot going on today.

----------


## itshappening

Alex Jones mentions him here, says he cleverly married himself into the family:

http://www.infowars.com/obamanoids-c...jones-round-2/

He also takes calls from some Obama voters, including someone claiming to be a TSA agent near the end, it's crazy.

----------


## kathy88

> I just read all 69 pages of this thread.....I had a lot going on today.


If you change your settings it's a mere 18 pages.

----------


## nemt4paul

> If you change your settings it's a mere 18 pages.


lol....thanks Kath.

----------


## dinosaur

> True enough. That is one thing that really surprised me about Tom Woods and Adam Kokesh. Why is it important to direct our hate at Jesse? The status-quo machine is much more powerful than Jesse Benton. Jesse Benton was not standing in the way of our liberty.
> 
> I suspect Jesse Benton to be a self-interested individual just like all the rest of us. We all make mistakes from time to time. I certainly don't understand the mass hatred for him as Ron Paul actually became quite popular under his watch. Ron Paul won 6 states at least and there would have been a whole lot more wins simply if the media would have given Ron Paul the same coverage as they gave his opponents. Remember the 89 second debate. Remember the Black-Out Money Bomb. He had virtually zero coverage on radio. In 2008, when the grass roots were in charge, did Ron even win one county? Jesse did pretty good, imo.


I agree with this.  I don't doubt Tom's story, but all he is saying is that Jesse seemed to have something against Tom, and that Jesse acted unprofessionally towards Tom.  It all seems like a whole lot of personal drama to me.  Benton probabaly is self-interested.  I wouldn't have taken the job for McConnell (and I don't particularly respect Jesse for doing it) but it doesn't make me think that Jesse is some sort of infiltrator with a secret plan to destroy the campaign.  The campaign did amazingly well for what they were up against.  And, as much as I am a huge fan of Tom's work, I think his blog entry is a little boorish itself, especially the part about not supporting Rand if Jesse is involved.  I'd support Rand even if I did believe that Jesse was either incompetent or an infiltrator.

----------


## New York For Paul

Tom Woods and Jesse Benton have had their moments.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

How is it boorish to fail to support a project?  What would be less boorish: supporting the project despite believing it will be utterly worthless?  Sorry, dinosaur, but we all only live once.  Tom Woods believes, based on his first-hand experience, that Jesse Benton is worthless and will poison any project he's involved in.  What could be more civilized than refraining to participate with someone who has behaved towards you (and others) as Mr. Benton has behaved?

We should not support, help, and associate with uncivilized people.  They should be shunned.

----------


## JohnM

> I don't doubt Tom's story, . . . 
> 
>  And, as much as I am a huge fan of Tom's work, I think his blog entry is a little boorish itself,  . . . .


I agree.  

I am a huge fan of Tom.  And I am sure that what he said was completely true.  But some things should just be left unsaid.  

When I read that blog post, I felt that he should never have posted it.  It reflected poorly on Benton, but who is Jesse Benton, anyway?    Unfortunately, it reflected poorly on Tom, which, in my opinion, is of more long term significance.

----------


## Seth

> I agree.  
> 
> I am a huge fan of Tom.  And I am sure that what he said was completely true.  But some things should just be left unsaid.  
> 
> When I read that blog post, I felt that he should never have posted it.  It reflected poorly on Benton, but who is Jesse Benton, anyway?    Unfortunately, it reflected poorly on Tom, which, in my opinion, is of more long term significance.


It's important to know because Benton will likely be Rand's campaign manager.

----------


## NoOneButPaul

^I've grown to really like Rand but if he's involved at all $#@! that. I'll be done with him and whatever candidacy he puts forth.

He cannot in his right mind stick with someone so utterly toxic.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> If you change your settings it's a mere 18 pages.


i finally did this. lol

----------


## Occam's Banana

> It's important to know because Benton will likely be Rand's campaign manager.


I've got no use for Benton, but I could not really care any less whether he manages Rand's campaign or not.

I don't give a damn if Karl Rove & James Carville teamed up to run Rand's campaign - just as long as Rand keeps doing what he's doing in the Senate.

----------


## Sayzak

> Ha. I feel better. Tom always knew the deal. I can't believe it took me so long to figure that little weasel Benton out. Oh well. Better late than never.


Same here. I was even angry at Adam Kokesh for blasting Benton, long before his true colors had been exposed to the rest of us. I feel bad for reacting the way I did then and now have more respect for Adam Kokesh than ever before.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Annnd bump

----------


## Anti Federalist

> http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/my-memo...f-jesse-bento/


So it does not go down the memory hole:

*
My Memories of Jesse Benton*

13th September 2012      by: Tom Woods     

Ron Paul campaign chairman Jesse Benton is going to head up the campaign of Mitch McConnell. Gee, now why did those incorrigible naysayers have so many unkind words for him?

People who said Benton was positioning himself all along for bigger things in the GOP were scoffed at. Why, Jesse has a secret plan to get Ron Paul the nomination at the last minute!

Well, now we know the real secret plan.

Ask yourself this: how much money would you have to be paid to work for an enemy of the things you’re supposed to stand for? 

*Maybe now people will understand why Jesse would fly into a tirade after some of Ron’s most heroic moments, when the rest of us were cheering.*

I could go through a lengthy catalogue of problems with Benton. The grassroots folks already know a lot of them, so there’s probably no need. What’s done is done.

Not that the world revolves around me, but just a word about how I was treated. Early on in the campaign I posted a note that under the circumstances I thought was astonishingly restrained. I said that if the fundraising success of 2008 was to be surpassed, the grassroots would have to be persuaded that professionals would be brought on this time, that debate coaching would take place as it does in all other campaigns, etc. Nothing could have been more obvious than that. And this was obviously the note of a friend, not an enemy.

Now here’s how a professional would have handled a situation like this, in which a longtime supporter is unhappy but obviously still on the team in the broad sense. “X, we understand your sentiments, which are shared by practically everyone, and we’ll be ensuring that these changes are made. Your input is always welcome,” etc.

Jesse, on the other hand, denounced me in a series of emails, and made perfectly clear that I was to be cut off from everything — the campaign, Campaign for Liberty, etc. He referred to my “boorish behavior” (you know me — always the boor), and told me from now on to leave him and his family alone. Nice touch, that last part, implying that I was likely to stalk his wife.

Naively, I assumed another top person, whom I will not name, would be as appalled at Jesse’s behavior toward a longtime supporter as I was. So I (gleefully) forwarded the correspondence to him, only to be told that Jesse’s conduct was not unprofessional at all [!]. But I would not technically be banned from C4L, I was told.

So I just went ahead and made a whole bunch of videos, viewed by hundreds of thousands of people, and wrote a whole bunch of articles (here’s my favorite), on my own during the campaign in defense of Ron against his critics. I was not earning a five-figure monthly salary for this.

I then went ahead and signed on with Revolution PAC. (I resigned from it in March of this year, because I had said from the beginning that I would be on board only through Super Tuesday. Also, it was a very busy time in my life, and I felt I couldn’t contribute enough.) The excuse for my absolute exclusion from everything, put forth by the official yes-men, is that my involvement in the PAC erected a legal obstacle to any involvement in the campaign.

This particular lie has the sequence of events reversed. I joined the PAC only after I had been blacklisted. But I kept my mouth shut during the campaign every time I saw people say, “Woods isn’t allowed to work with the campaign because of the PAC.” I never corrected anyone. I kept the real story a secret for Ron’s sake. No one on earth can fail to understand why I might want to tell it now, to set the record straight.

And no, I wasn’t looking to be hired so I could get that five-figure monthly salary. I was prepared to work for free.

Another potential excuse would be that as a radical libertarian, I wouldn’t know how to pitch Ron to a GOP audience. This is as wrong as wrong can be, and I have the converts to prove it. As a former mainstream GOPer myself, I know exactly how to frame the argument to win them over.

*For months and months, the top two people spun everything I did in the most negative light possible, in order to poison my reputation with people I respect. They don’t know I know this. But I’m happy to say I have friends everywhere, and they are loyal.*

Again, I kept my mouth shut. And again, no one on earth can seriously expect me to continue doing so.

Of the various lies Jesse told about me, the least damaging was the claim that I had called him a — well, it’s a word I would never say. The actual story was this: in 2010 I was having drinks with Iowa Ron Paul GOP people, and Jesse was there. I mentioned the name of an old college friend of mine I thought Jesse might know, and Jesse shouted out, with an important Christian Right Ron Paul guy right there, “X [my college friend] is a —-sucker!” Classy. I reminded Jesse of this incident when he complained of my allegedly boorish behavior. At that moment, the story began to spread that I had called Jesse a you-know-what.

This particular lie I made no special effort to refute. I joked with people that if the grassroots heard that I had called Jesse that name, I’d be a hero.

*So Benton is gone, but is Bentonism alive and well? Bentonism is the playing down of Ron Paul’s most popular and important ideas, the impatience with and purging of people who champion those ideas, and an obsessive eye to GOP respectability. Is that what the “liberty movement” is? Then count me out.*

Finally, please note that I stand to gain nothing by clearing the air like this. Nothing but grief and more burned bridges. But sometimes you have to do what you have to do, regardless of the consequences for yourself. It’s quite possible that this person will make his way back into our circles at some point, and I want to urge people not even to consider donating to anything with his name on it.
*
Incidentally, if Rand Paul intends to run in 2016, the single most effective way he could convey to the public that he is not really serious, and that people should withhold their donations, would be to hire Jesse Benton.*

----------


## muzzled dogg

Lol I had forgotten about this.  Good bump

----------


## Working Poor

Something that I have never seen addressed in this forum is that Ron would have probably been killed if he won the election. I think he knew that even if the rest of you don't. TPTB would have never let Ron do what he wanted he knew that. He was just spreading ideas folks...

----------


## Danke

Having briefly dealt with Benton in 2008, all I can say is... he is a dick.

----------


## torchbearer

Former delegates of Louisiana are not surprised.

----------


## Badger Paul

He sold you all out. He sold the whole campaign out with that "deal" to basically take Paul's name out of nomination.

----------


## jjdoyle

> He sold you all out. He sold the whole campaign out with that "deal" to basically take Paul's name out of nomination.


Because Rand was getting the speech at the RNC. It had to all go smoothly for King Romney.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Ron had the long view.  He knew he had lost the battle, but planned on winning the war.  To do that, he wanted to further the movement he fostered and he did just that.  It was never about Ron Paul and he told us that from the very beginning.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

No charges will be filed against Jesse Benton.  Sorry, I know the haters will be disappointed.

----------


## kylejack

> No charges will be filed against Jesse Benton.  Sorry, I know the haters will be disappointed.


We'll see about that. Sorenson is recorded saying that Benton knew about the payment. There are two sealed documents that we haven't read.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Ron had the long view.  He knew he had lost the battle, but planned on winning the war.  To do that, he wanted to further the movement he fostered and he did just that.  It was never about Ron Paul and he told us that from the very beginning.


I agree, that was probably Ron Paul's perspective on it. He knew it wasn't going to happen, so they used their political capital the best they could. That is one issue. There are several separate issues being brought up now that confuse matters.

Another issue is the fund raising letters and e-mails. Of course those are going to be positive until the end. That is how marketing and fund-raising works. Take it with a grain of salt, always. It's up to each individual if and when they are going to donate. Yes, people raised warning flags, and supposedly those people were the first to stop donating. Good for them.

Another issue is that Benton may not be the most pleasant or honest person in the world. Many people have attested to that. Seems pretty likely at this point.

And the most relevant issue now is the bribery investigation pending. It remains to be seen how this will all fall out. Sorenson certainly has been found guilty at this point. Hopefully it doesn't go much further than the person who paid him. We'll have to wait and see. And not to defend illegal payoffs, but this is common in politics. Standard quid pro quo and the massive lobbying industry are evidence enough of that. Finally, there is little doubt that this is selective enforcement, meant to damage Rand's presidential aspirations. That doesn't excuse anything, but any political campaign could be targeted by the state, especially campaigns that seek to shrink the state. "Three felonies a day"...

----------


## phill4paul

> No charges will be filed against Jesse Benton.  Sorry, I know the haters will be disappointed.


 Don't care if he is charged. Hater? I just won't support a campaign that has him on a pay roll. Team Rand, whoever it will be, can take _that_ to the bank.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> We'll see about that. Sorenson is recorded saying that Benton knew about the payment. There are two sealed documents that we haven't read.


Sorenson already plead guilty to a charge of causing someone else to file an incorrect FEC report.  That takes Benton off the hook.  And the payment itself was not illegal, it is not illegal to hire people for your campaign.

----------


## mosquitobite

> No charges will be filed against Jesse Benton. Sorry, I know the haters will be disappointed.





> Don't care if he is charged. Hater? I just won't support a campaign that has him on a pay roll. Team Rand, whoever it will be, can take _that_ to the bank.


I agree.  Charges or not - I will not donate to Rand Paul 2016 if Benton is on board.  I've already made THAT promise to my husband who wasn't always happy with my donations to Ron.  So, I have accountability when I say - any campaign with Benton attached will.not.get.a.penny from this house.

----------


## jjdoyle

> Sorenson already plead guilty to a charge of causing someone else to file an incorrect FEC report.  That takes Benton off the hook.  And the payment itself was not illegal, it is not illegal to hire people for your campaign.


The payment was illegal in Iowa, which is why both campaigns (Bachmann and Paul) are being investigated. The campaign never technically hired Sorenson that I'm aware of, because he never got payments from the campaign. Though campaign funds were used to pay him, through the shell company.

----------


## kylejack

> Sorenson already plead guilty to a charge of causing someone else to file an incorrect FEC report.  That takes Benton off the hook.  And the payment itself was not illegal, it is not illegal to hire people for your campaign.


No, it doesn't take Benton off the hook. Just because he pleaded guilty to something doesn't mean he is solely responsible. They don't pass out immunity to all other charges for free. It seems clear that he's going to be used against someone else. That could be just Kesari or it could be others as well, such as treasurer Lori Pyeatt or chairman Jesse Benton (who seems to think things have gotten serious enough for him that he needed to resign McConnell's campaign).

They weren't merely hiring someone for the campaign. They laundered money through an intermediary to buy an endorsement. If they just wanted to hire him they should have put him on the payroll, and under his own name, not ITC whatever.

Also, you keep claiming the payment itself was not illegal. According to several media sources, it _is_ illegal under Iowa law. The last time I pointed this out you said yeah, but this is a federal investigation (which is a deflection, not a refutation). Now you come back again with this false statement that the payment was not illegal.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> The payment was illegal in Iowa, which is why both campaigns (Bachmann and Paul) are being investigated. The campaign never technically hired Sorenson that I'm aware of, because he never got payments from the campaign. Though campaign funds were used to pay him, through the shell company.


This is a federal investigation and the Iowa law you cite is unconstitutional.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> No, it doesn't take Benton off the hook. Just because he pleaded guilty to something doesn't mean he is solely responsible. They don't pass out immunity to all other charges for free. It seems clear that he's going to be used against someone else. That could be just Kesari or it could be others as well, such as treasurer Lori Pyeatt or chairman Jesse Benton (who seems to think things have gotten serious enough for him that he needed to resign McConnell's campaign).
> 
> They weren't merely hiring someone for the campaign. They laundered money through an intermediary to buy an endorsement. If they just wanted to hire him they should have put him on the payroll, and under his own name, not ITC whatever.
> 
> Also, you keep claiming the payment itself was not illegal. According to several media sources, it _is_ illegal under Iowa law. The last time I pointed this out you said yeah, but this is a federal investigation (which is a deflection, not a refutation). Now you come back again with this false statement that the payment was not illegal.


Kesari is the next target, not Benton.

----------


## kylejack

> Kesari is the next target, not Benton.


So I guess you've read the sealed documents nobody else can read, then.

----------


## jjdoyle

> Kesari is the next target, not Benton.


How do you know it's just one, and not multiple?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Kesari is the next target, not Benton.


Is this a Matt Collins sock puppet?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> So I guess you've read the sealed documents nobody else can read, then.


no, I have not read them, but it is pretty obvious what is in there.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> How do you know it's just one, and not multiple?


OK, they might nab Kesari's wife, too.

----------


## Carlybee

> Is this a Matt Collins sock puppet?


My thoughts as well

----------


## Carlybee

> no, I have not read them, but it is pretty obvious what is in there.



How is it obvious?

----------


## New York For Paul

It could be many people in the campaign. We just don't know at this point.

----------


## cajuncocoa

h/t Carlybee:




_Memorandum_


To: Supporters, Interested Parties

From: Jesse Benton, Chief Strategist

Date: May 15, 2012 

Re: Paul Campaign Convention Strategy 

Every day, I see firsthand how humbled and encouraged Dr. Paul is to have the enthusiastic support of so many who are committed to revitalizing our country.

Let me be very clear. Dr. Paul is NOT dropping out or suspending his campaign.

As Dr. Paul has previously stated, he is in this race all the way to the Republican National Convention in Tampa this August.

And he is deeply grateful for every resource he has been entrusted with to run an historic campaign that continues to defy all expectations.

Looking ahead, our campaign must honor that trust by maximizing our resources to ensure the greatest possible impact at the National Convention.

So while our campaign is no longer investing in the remaining primary states, we will continue to run strong programs at District and State Conventions to win more delegates and alternate delegates to the National Convention.

To this end, our campaign has several positive and realistic goals:1) Having recently WON Maine, we believe we can win several more states.
2) We will win party leadership positions at both the state and national levels.
3) We will continue to grow our already substantial total of delegates.We will head to Tampa with a solid group of delegates. Several hundred will be bound to Dr. Paul, and several hundred more, although bound to Governor Romney or other candidates, will be Ron Paul supporters.

Unfortunately, barring something very unforeseen, our delegate total will not be strong enough to win the nomination. Governor Romney is now within 200 delegates of securing the party’s nod. However, our delegates can still make a major impact at the National Convention and beyond. 

All delegates will be able to vote on party rules and allow us to shape the process for future liberty candidates.

We are in an excellent position to make sure the Republican Party adds solid liberty issues to the GOP Platform, which our delegates will be directly positioned to approve. Our campaign is presently working to get several items up for consideration, including monetary policy reform, prohibitions on indefinite detention, and Internet freedom.

Finally, by sending a large, respectful, and professional delegation to Tampa, we will show the party and the country that not only is our movement growing and here to stay, but that the future belongs to us.

Dr. Paul will begin this new phase of the campaign this Friday by speaking and holding several events at the Minnesota State Convention. He has also recently accepted an invitation to speak at the Texas Convention, and we are busy scheduling appearances around other State Conventions later this month and into June.

As Dr. Paul stated in his message yesterday, this fight is NOT over. We will continue fighting and expanding, and “we will not stop until we have restored what once made America the greatest country in human history.”

But for Dr. Paul’s efforts in the remaining State Conventions to be successful, and to ensure we get as many Ron Paul delegates to Tampa as we can, he needs you to continue standing with him. 

Along those lines, as you probably already know, the grassroots are holding a Money Bomb onThursday, May 17. Any money raised from that Money Bomb will go toward winning delegates and finalizing our plans for Tampa. 

As those plans for the National Convention come together, we will make sure all of our delegates, whether bound or unbound, get the information and aid they need.

Your support on May 17 will also help us reach more Americans with the solutions we know can restore our nation. Each person we add to our cause strengthens our movement for the critical work that awaits us beyond Tampa.

Dr. Paul, John Tate, myself, and the entire campaign staff know what incredible sacrifices have been made by each of our supporters.

Thank you for all of your hard work and your dedication to liberty. Together, we will champion Ron Paul and his message in Tampa, and we will lay the groundwork for future victories.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> How is it obvious?


It is obvious to me because I have been studying federal prosecutors for 25 years and know how they operate.  Federal prosecutors are the most dangerous threat to America at this time and our way of life.  I apologize, it may not be obvious to you.

----------


## Carlybee

> It is obvious to me because I have been studying federal prosecutors for 25 years and know how they operate.  Federal prosecutors are the most dangerous threat to America at this time and our way of life.  I apologize, it may not be obvious to you.



Well I can't say I am a federal prosecutor expert as you claim to be, so no..it's not obvious to me.

----------


## jjdoyle

> It is obvious to me because I have been studying federal prosecutors for 25 years and know how they operate.  Federal prosecutors are the most dangerous threat to America at this time and our way of life.  I apologize, it may not be obvious to you.


So, you have a reference to a case you're talking about that you have studied over the last 25 years, with these same type allegations going around you can share with us? You haven't read the sealed documents, ignored the definition of bribery repeatedly, and have ignored known facts about the issue at hand while repeating the same thing for days with no facts or references. So, it's not obvious, because nobody knows what is in the sealed documents other than those directly involved.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> So, you have a reference to a case you're talking about that you have studied over the last 25 years, with these same type allegations going around you can share with us? You haven't read the sealed documents, ignored the definition of bribery repeatedly, and have ignored known facts about the issue at hand while repeating the same thing for days with no facts or references. So, it's not obvious, because nobody knows what is in the sealed documents other than those directly involved.


There isn't any bribery.  The Feds are focusing on the cover-up, as usual.  Sort of like the Martha Stewart case.

----------


## jjdoyle

> There isn't any bribery.  The Feds are focusing on the cover-up, as usual.  Sort of like the Martha Stewart case.


The bribery charge would be from the state of Iowa.
Iowa law, Class "D" felony. Up to 5 years in prison, and a fine ranging from $750 to $7,500.
I have no clue what the FEC charges are going to be, and why the FBI raided his house to get his computers.

State law. Federal law. Three felonies a day. Should have taken one more C4L course or political action class before starting the campaign apparently.

----------


## phill4paul

> There isn't any bribery.  The Feds are focusing on the cover-up, as usual.  Sort of like the Martha Stewart case.


  Why should one "cover-up" unless one knew what the were doing was, if not illegal, simply immoral?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> The bribery charge would be from the state of Iowa.
> Iowa law, Class "D" felony. Up to 5 years in prison, and a fine ranging from $750 to $7,500.
> I have no clue what the FEC charges are going to be, and why the FBI raided his house to get his computers.
> 
> State law. Federal law. Three felonies a day. Should have taken one more C4L course or political action class before starting the campaign apparently.


This is a federal investigation, not an Iowa investigation.  There is no legal basis for a bribery charge.  You have misunderstood the statute.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Why should one "cover-up" unless one knew what the were doing was, if not illegal, simply immoral?


That's the argument the government makes.  Good one, maybe you should sign up.  There are a few possible reasons to cover up a non-crime:

1) the person who did the initial transaction was a mole inside the campaign.

2) the person who covered it up was an idiot.

3) it was covered up because the large payment looked ridiculous.

4) it appeared to be a case of buying am endorsement.

----------


## kylejack

> This is a federal investigation, not an Iowa investigation.  There is no legal basis for a bribery charge.  You have misunderstood the statute.


Feds can use evidence uncovered by state officials and vice versa.

----------


## kylejack

> 1) the person who did the initial transaction was a mole inside the campaign.


That may be something you believe, but we have yet to see the facts.

Kesari was a respected political operative that Benton later hired to do work for McConnell. So again, the Kesari as loose cannon tale you're trying to spin strains credulity.

----------


## erowe1

> Why should one "cover-up" unless one knew what the were doing was, if not illegal, simply immoral?


I'm lost from what Galileo is saying. But if they did something illegal according to Iowa law and covered it up because of that, then it could be that the cover up would get them in trouble with the feds while the initial crime wouldn't have.

----------


## jjdoyle

> This is a federal investigation, not an Iowa investigation.  There is no legal basis for a bribery charge.  You have misunderstood the statute.


Nope. There is 100% legal basis for the bribery charge in Iowa. We just don't know if it would extend to more than one staffer with Ron Paul 2012.
"*722.1  BRIBERY.*
         A person who offers, promises, or gives anything of value or any      benefit to a person who is serving or has been elected, selected,      appointed, employed, or otherwise engaged to serve in a public      capacity, including a public officer or employee, a referee, juror,      or jury panel member, or a witness in a judicial or arbitration      hearing or any official inquiry, or a member of a board of      arbitration, pursuant to an agreement or arrangement or with the      understanding that the promise or thing of value or benefit will      influence the act, vote, opinion, judgment, decision, or exercise of      discretion of the person with respect to the person's services in      that capacity commits a class "D" felony.  In addition, a person      convicted under this section is disqualified from holding public       office under the laws of this state."

http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/Cool-I...nput=722#722.1

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Feds can use evidence uncovered by state officials and vice versa.


The last thing the Feds want is a state to steal their glory.  LOL Iowa.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Nope. There is 100% legal basis for the bribery charge in Iowa. We just don't know if it would extend to more than one staffer with Ron Paul 2012.
> "*722.1  BRIBERY.*
>          A person who offers, promises, or gives anything of value or any      benefit to a person who is serving or has been elected, selected,      appointed, employed, or otherwise engaged to serve in a public      capacity, including a public officer or employee, a referee, juror,      or jury panel member, or a witness in a judicial or arbitration      hearing or any official inquiry, or a member of a board of      arbitration, pursuant to an agreement or arrangement or with the      understanding that the promise or thing of value or benefit will      influence the act, vote, opinion, judgment, decision, or exercise of      discretion of the person with respect to the person's services in      that capacity commits a class "D" felony.  In addition, a person      convicted under this section is disqualified from holding public       office under the laws of this state."
> 
> http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/Cool-I...nput=722#722.1


This law does not apply to Sorenson, that's why the statute was not used against him.  This statute refers to actions of a public official acting in his capacity as a public official.  

See key line:  ".... of the person with respect to the person's services in that capacity...."

----------


## jjdoyle

> This law does not apply to Sorenson, that's why the statute was not used against him. This statute refers to actions of a public official acting in his capacity as a public official. 
> 
> See key line: ".... of the person with respect to the person's services in that capacity...."


Three felonies a day:
"In a 566-page report filed with the Iowa Senate on Wednesday, Mark E. Weinhardt, a specially appointed independent counsel to the Iowa Senate Ethics Committee, reports that Sorenson received money from Bachmann-controlled political action committees by filtering the funds through two separate consulting firms."

"Senate ethics rules prohibit legislators from receiving payment – either directly or indirectly – from political action committees."

"A senator shall not accept employment, either directly or indirectly, from a political action committee or from an organization exempt from taxation 
under section 501(c)(4), 501(c)(6), or 527 of the Internal Revenue Code that engages in 
activities related to the nomination, election, or defeat of a candidate for public office."

and upon lying about it:

"Such false statements would constitute felonious misconduct in office, which is a class D felony."

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Three felonies a day:
> "In a 566-page report filed with the Iowa Senate on Wednesday, Mark E. Weinhardt, a specially appointed independent counsel to the Iowa Senate Ethics Committee, reports that Sorenson received money from Bachmann-controlled political action committees by filtering the funds through two separate consulting firms."
> 
> "Senate ethics rules prohibit legislators from receiving payment – either directly or indirectly – from political action committees."
> 
> "A senator shall not accept employment, either directly or indirectly, from a political action committee or from an organization exempt from taxation 
> under section 501(c)(4), 501(c)(6), or 527 of the Internal Revenue Code that engages in 
> activities related to the nomination, election, or defeat of a candidate for public office."
> 
> ...


The Ron Paul campaign is not a PAC, its is a campaign.  Lying to the government is not bribery.  I am arguing that Sorenson is not guilty of taking bribes, and you are making NO SENSE.

----------


## kylejack

> The last thing the Feds want is a state to steal their glory.  LOL Iowa.


That could be, but the Feds also can't prevent a state from enforcing its own laws. Once those documents unseal the state can use them.

----------


## jjdoyle

> The Ron Paul campaign is not a PAC, its is a campaign.  Lying to the government is not bribery.  I am arguing that Sorenson is not guilty of taking bribes, and you are making NO SENSE.


I didn't say the Ron Paul campaign was a PAC, did I? That's not the issue.

If Kent Sorenson had taken payment directly from the Ron Paul campaign, you might be correct. Kent Sorenson didn't though. It was a shell company payment, to a shell company he setup on his own I believe, and paid himself from that company. So, it was a redirect through two other shell companies, with funds from Ron Paul 2012. Not directly to him (other than the check, but I don't think that was cashed), but directly to him.

----------


## Deborah K

> I didn't say the Ron Paul campaign was a PAC, did I? That's not the issue.
> 
> If Kent Sorenson had taken payment directly from the Ron Paul campaign, you might be correct. Kent Sorenson didn't though. It was a shell company payment, to a shell company he setup on his own I believe, and paid himself from that company. So, it was a redirect through two other shell companies, with funds from Ron Paul 2012. Not directly to him (other than the check, but I don't think that was cashed), but directly to him.


And the check may not have been cashed, but it was written out to him from the campaign just the same - for what?

----------


## phill4paul

> And the check may not have been cashed, but it was written out to him from the campaign just the same - for what?


  Don't ask these questions or you will be accused by Galileo of using the same tactics the government does.

----------


## Carlybee

> And the check may not have been cashed, but it was written out to him from the campaign just the same - for what?


Read this link....I can't copy and paste at the moment. This was from last year when it all came up. Scroll down and read the alleged emails. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013...sed-of-trying/.  Open secrets is supposed to be non partisan but I have my doubts so use your own due diligence.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Read this link....I *can't copy and paste at the moment.* This was from last year when it all came up. Scroll down and read the alleged emails. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013...sed-of-trying/.  Open secrets is supposed to be non partisan but I have my doubts so use your own due diligence.


Got it for ya:




> The Ron Paul presidential campaign may have been involved with negotiations to offer financial compensation to an Iowa state senator in exchange for his endorsement and support in the 2012 Iowa caucuses, according to emails obtained by OpenSecrets.org
> 
> The negotiations appear to have involved several top Ron Paul 2012 officials, including Jesse Benton, pictured with Ron Paul at right, who was the campaigns political director. Benton is married to Ron Pauls granddaughter and is currently managing Senate Minority LeaderMitch McConnells 2014 campaign.
> 
> In an Oct. 29, 2011 email, a representative of Iowa state Sen. Kent Sorenson, a Republican, asks the Paul campaign to provide Sorenson with $8,000 per month in salary for him, $5,000 per month in salary for a Sorenson ally, as well as $100,000 in contributions for a newly created PAC that Sorenson planned to use to support conservative candidates for Iowa state office.
> 
> In exchange, the email, which was allegedly written by Aaron Dorr, executive director of Iowa Gun Owners, says Sorenson would abandon his support for Rep. Michele Bachmanns campaign, endorse Paul, campaign for him and provide access to an email list of Iowans who support homeschooling.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> I didn't say the Ron Paul campaign was a PAC, did I? That's not the issue.


you cited a statute about illegal PAC donations.

Also, a PAC payment to Sorenson is not a bribe, it would be in violation of a campaign finance regulations.  Not quite as sensational as a bribe.  None of this will affect Rand Paul in 2016.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> That could be, but the Feds also can't prevent a state from enforcing its own laws. Once those documents unseal the state can use them.


State officials will almost always defer to the Feds when they show up.

----------


## jjdoyle

> you cited a statute about illegal PAC donations.
> 
> Also, a PAC payment to Sorenson is not a bribe, it would be in violation of a campaign finance regulations.  Not quite as sensational as a bribe.  None of this will affect Rand Paul in 2016.


If I was Sorenson, I would have HOPED for a bribe charge only. It's apparent this is much more based on his plea deal (obstruction of justice). As the bribe only, as already mentioned before, would have been only up to 5 years in prison and up to a $7,500 fine. Instead, he's getting up to 5 years for one, and up to $250,000, and up to 20/25 years and up to another $250,000 for the second.

How far up will this go? There are multiple staffers listed in the complaint by name that we do know.
And in 2016 this could very easily be used by a PAC to attack Rand in Iowa. I don't think it would do much outside of Iowa, but it's already being used against Mitch McConnell in Kentucky now by a PAC.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> If I was Sorenson, I would have HOPED for a bribe charge only. It's apparent this is much more based on his plea deal (obstruction of justice). As the bribe only, as already mentioned before, would have been only up to 5 years in prison and up to a $7,500 fine. Instead, he's getting up to 5 years for one, and up to $250,000, and up to 20/25 years and up to another $250,000 for the second.
> 
> How far up will this go? There are multiple staffers listed in the complaint by name that we do know.
> And in 2016 this could very easily be used by a PAC to attack Rand in Iowa. I don't think it would do much outside of Iowa, but it's already being used against Mitch McConnell in Kentucky now by a PAC.


It won't go very far, I know you are hoping for it though.  The plea deal is just for a shorter sentence, not for dropped charges.

----------


## jjdoyle

> It won't go very far, I know you are hoping for it though.  The plea deal is just for a shorter sentence, not for dropped charges.


No, my issue isn't even really with this, though it does show incompetence and dishonesty with the campaign. My real issue is with Ron Paul 2012 lying to supporters for months. And no, you don't know how far it will/won't go. You have no clue what is in the sealed documents, which were part of the plea deal. You already stated you didn't read them, and I know you aren't a mind reader based on the post you just did. You have no clue what I'm hoping for.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> No, my issue isn't even really with this, though it does show incompetence and dishonesty with the campaign. My real issue is with Ron Paul 2012 lying to supporters for months. And no, you don't know how far it will/won't go. You have no clue what is in the sealed documents, which were part of the plea deal. You already stated you didn't read them, and I know you aren't a mind reader based on the post you just did. You have no clue what I'm hoping for.


I doubt if there is much in the sealed documents.  Sounds like a snow-job.

----------


## Badger Paul

_"it is not illegal to hire people for your campaign."_

Then why launder the money then?

Sorenson pleaded guilty to a lesser charge so the Feds can see what he knows. That's the deal. Otherwise they would have brought more serious charges against him and he would be doing serious time in the can.

What are you, his brother?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> _"it is not illegal to hire people for your campaign."_
> 
> Then why launder the money then?


For a mole, a good way to discredit Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell.  Word has it, the NWO is getting perturbed with McConnell, he has been too cozy with the Pauls, the Tea Party, & the pro-liberty crowd in recent months.

----------


## kylejack

> For a mole, a good way to discredit Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell.  Word has it, the NWO is getting perturbed with McConnell, he has been too cozy with the Pauls, the Tea Party, & the pro-liberty crowd in recent months.


Considering Tate was in on the initial negotiations to acquire Sorenson's support, I think we're dealing with a core campaign strategy here, NOT an errant mole.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Considering Tate was in on the initial negotiations to acquire Sorenson's support, I think we're dealing with a core campaign strategy here, NOT an errant mole.


Another explanation is outright stupidity.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Another explanation is outright stupidity.


But you agree with what they did, let's just be clear.  You applaud the campaign's pay-for-love behavior, let's just be clear.  You have no problem whatsoever with dishonesty, rather, you endorse it.  Let's just be clear.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> But you agree with what they did, let's just be clear.  You applaud the campaign's pay-for-love behavior, let's just be clear.  You have no problem whatsoever with dishonesty, rather, you endorse it.  Let's just be clear.


No, the campaign should have just hired Sorenson as a consultant/advisor and issued a press release.

----------


## kylejack

> No, the campaign should have just hired Sorenson as a consultant/advisor and issued a press release.


Why bother? There's no PR value to a paid endorsement that is open and obvious. Well of course he's endorsing you, you paid him.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Why bother? There's no PR value to a paid endorsement that is open and obvious. Well of course he's endorsing you, you paid him.


If the first payment of his salary was not until January 1 2012, it need not be reported until April 15, 1012.

----------


## kylejack

> If the first payment of his salary was not until January 1 2012, it need not be reported until April 15, 1012.


Except in the meanwhile they were being asked if he had been paid and lying about it. Sorenson denied receiving any money or promises of money, and Ron Paul 2012 campaign published a statement on their letterhead from a different Bachmann employee saying Sorenson hadn't been paid or motivated by any financial reasons.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Except in the meanwhile they were being asked if he had been paid and lying about it. Sorenson denied receiving any money or promises of money, and Ron Paul 2012 campaign published a statement on their letterhead from a different Bachmann employee saying Sorenson hadn't been paid or motivated by any financial reasons.


Sorenson should have said it was none of your business what his salary was.

----------

