# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  Jesse Benton: I didn't mean it, was only trying to appease "hardcore Ron Paul supporter"

## ObiRandKenobi

Benton confirms conversations with Mitch McConnell following the leak have been totally awkward...

"He wasn't angry. He wasn't upset. But I could see the hurt in his eyes."





h/t MP

----------


## Christian Liberty

Screw Benton.  He should have owned up to telling the truth.  Mitch McConnell absolutely sucks.  Rand Paul is being stupid to support him as is Benton.  The only difference is that Rand has a valid political excuse while Benton doesn't.

How quickly Benton forgot Mitch's votes on Iraq, the Patriot Act, exc.

Steve Deace had it right.  "Ditch McConnell."

----------


## puppetmaster

What a tool

----------


## fearthereaperx

What a dufus...honestly though, what he said wasn't really that bad when put into context. I am just wondering who's this hardcore ron paul supporter that seems like he's being paid off by some opposition.

----------


## Aratus

even if one cautiously interpreted the holding the nose for two years to be a dig at
the obama administration, reporters are reporters, they can go back on their word...

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Screw Benton.  He should have owned up to telling the truth.  Mitch McConnell absolutely sucks.  Rand Paul is being stupid to support him as is Benton.  The only difference is that Rand has a valid political excuse while Benton doesn't.
> 
> How quickly Benton forgot Mitch's votes on Iraq, the Patriot Act, exc.
> 
> Steve Deace had it right.  "Ditch McConnell."


Thank goodness some around here knows about smart and successful politics. You should talk to Matt  Or maybe not

----------


## enhanced_deficit

They have patched things up.

----------


## bolil

The greed seems strong with this one though I'd need to shake his hand to be sure

----------


## brandon

Mixed feelings on this one.


But as soon as I head "Allison Lundergan Grimes" I broke out into laughter. That "what rhymes" video really has an impact on me I guess lol. Seriously though what a pretentious name.

----------


## devil21

Benton looks like he's been eatin' real good lately.  Get on the treadmill Jesse.  You're getting fat.

----------


## LibertyEagle

All I have to say is that Fusaro is a snake in the grass.

----------


## muh_roads

Interesting.  So Benton is one of us after all.  He's playing Trojan horse like Rand is now I suspect.

----------


## CPUd

> Mixed feelings on this one.
> 
> 
> But as soon as I head "Allison Lundergan Grimes" I broke out into laughter. That "what rhymes" video really has an impact on me I guess lol. Seriously though what a pretentious name.


I used to, but now all I can think of when I see her name is this:



What has been seen cannot be unseen...

----------


## jjdoyle

Again, the information he said in the video he offered up freely of his own accord, not because he was even asked about what he thought of Mitch. This is his own fault, for giving out TMI and trying to appease someone that had dirt on the campaign.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Again, the information he said in the video he offered up freely of his own accord, not because he was even asked about what he thought of Mitch. This is his own fault, for giving out TMI and trying to appease someone that had dirt on the campaign.


Yeah, it was his fault for trusting the little worm.  He should have known better and hopefully in the future he will have learned his lesson and not trust anyone in this movement.

----------


## eduardo89

> All I have to say is that Fusaro is a snake in the grass.


I agree.

----------


## liberalnurse

> Yeah, it was his fault for trusting the little worm.  He should have known better and hopefully in the future he will have learned his lesson and *not trust anyone in this movement*.


Trust us?  He doesn't even like us.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Screw Benton.  He should have owned up to telling the truth.  Mitch McConnell absolutely sucks.  Rand Paul is being stupid to support him as is Benton.  The only difference is that Rand has a valid political excuse while Benton doesn't.
> 
> How quickly Benton forgot Mitch's votes on Iraq, the Patriot Act, exc.
> 
> Steve Deace had it right.  "Ditch McConnell."


It's etc, not exc.  It's short for "etcetera".

----------


## PatriotOne

> Yeah, it was his fault for trusting the little worm.  He should have known better and hopefully in the future he will have learned his lesson and not trust anyone in this movement.


Exactly what I was thinking.  

Benton's trying to play chess with a bunch of ignorant checker players in the audience watching and commenting on his every move.  They just don't understand.  In the meantime, the professional dividers are taking advantage of the ignorant checker players to turn them into their own useful idiots to divide the liberty movement.  Luckily they are still a small minority in the Liberty Movement.  They are irritating though.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Trust us?  He doesn't even like us.


Who is "us"?   I've spoken to him a couple of times and he was very courteous and quite helpful.

Note:  That's not to say that I agree with a variety of things that he has done.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Trust us?  He doesn't even like us.


He likes me.

----------


## compromise

> Trust us?  He doesn't even like us.


I've met him too and he's a pretty cool guy IRL. Nothing like the forum conspiracies.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Trust us?  He doesn't even like us.


You are being one of the professional dividers "useful idiots" I was speaking of.  You have unwittingly become an enemy of the Liberty Movement.  Just stop it.

----------


## liberalnurse

Not true. I've been here since the beginning and have paid close attention.  I've been clear on my position where Benton is concerned.  "Useful idiot"  Your even more insulting then he is.  "Professional divider"  You just stop it.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Not true. I've been here since the beginning and have paid close attention.


Which is why you should know better than to spread useful idiot stupidity like _"Trust us? He doesn't even like us.". _ The professional dividers are pleased with you spreading that untrue meme.....I'm not.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> It's etc, not exc.  It's short for "etcetera".

----------


## presence

> *only trying to* *appease** "hardcore Ron Paul supporter"*


Did I ask for a binky?




Can someone point me to the last 5 or 6 threads where we discussed positive things Benton has done for the liberty movement?  I'm sure I could come up with a few dozen WTF?'s.

----------


## jjdoyle

> Yeah, it was his fault for trusting the little worm.  He should have known better and hopefully in the future he will have learned his lesson and not trust anyone in this movement.


It's not like the guy came to Jesse and said, "Alright, tell me why you're working for Sen. McConnell now?" The guy came to Jesse with an accusation about Ron Paul 2012 bribing somebody, and giving him a check or something. Jesse tried to calm the guy down and reassure him that Jesse was on "our side", by acting like he was only working for McConnell for other reasons and he doesn't really like McConnell.

Maybe this guy is upset because he donated to Ron Paul 2012 and saw funds being misused, and Jesse didn't do anything about it? Is there more to this than what we know, and will more be coming out?

The fact Jesse Benton trusted Mitt Romney's campaign enough to help them win the nomination, should give everyone pause before calling someone a "little worm". Ron Paul 2012 had serious issues, and if this guy donated to the campaign and is seeking answers and has them, maybe that means outing those that were the problem at the campaign, I don't know what's wrong with that.

If this perhaps keeps Jesse from working with Rand moving forward, would that be a bad thing? I don't think so, from what I know of many supporters who will not donate a dime if he is associated with it, because of the way Ron Paul 2012 was run.

----------


## Cowlesy

Any time I needed help from Jesse Benton whether a Ron or Rand Paul campaign, he's been the fastest response-time of any of the campaign people I've talked to, spare maybe one, and extremely helpful.

To state a really unpopular opinion, I'm starting to understand why he needs to be so guarded with information.  There really are tons of snakes in the grass.  This Fusaro guy isn't the only one.  Lots of people says stuff off the cuff and in private from time to time that's an embellishment or appeasement of people.  It's like laughing at someone's dumb joke.  People want you to be all buddy-buddy with them since you're an enthusiastic supporter, but with thousands of people wanting to help, the ones who are willing to bury a knife in your back always seem to find their way up the information food-chain.

You hope that private emails you send back and forth are kept private, but then some ass publishes them.  You hope your phone call with someone about a sensitive issue is private, but then some ass records and publishes it. I was going to make a joke about secretly recording a private conversation and then doing the same, but then I remembered this actually happened to Jesse/McConnell already this Spring.

I feel bad for the guy.  Trust no one, Jesse.

----------


## Smitty

Vipers latched onto the Ron Paul campaign and used Ron's popularity for their own gain. 

Ron was unprepared for the surge of popularity for his message and unprepared for the corruption that it would engender in members of his campaign staff.

Rand Paul undoubtedly now knows what transpired, yet he has kept Jesse Benton around and is now politically associated with establishment Congressman Mitch McConnell.

I'm not sure what Rand's original plan was when he threw his hat into the ring, but it seems that after a measure of political success, he has decided that he wants to stay in the game and is willing to play by its corrupt rules to do so.

There's no other possible reason for him to be connected to McConnell and Benton.

----------


## MelissaCato

Ron Paul should just run again for POTUS in 2016 !! Then all this is just noise !!!

----------


## PatriotOne

> Rand Paul undoubtedly now knows what transpired, yet he has kept Jesse Benton around and is now politically associated with establishment Congressman Mitch McConnell.
> 
> I'm not sure what Rand's original plan was when he threw his hat into the ring, but it seems that after a measure of political success, he has decided that he wants to stay in the game and is willing to play by its corrupt rules to do so.
> 
> There's no other possible reason for him to be connected to McConnell and Benton.

----------


## Smitty

PatriotOne,..

You're uninformed. The following explains why McConnell and Benton are connected to Rand.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2...paul-be-tamed/

Here's an excerpt, but please read the entire article.

_"At [Sen. Mitch] McConnells request, the National Republican Senatorial Committee sent an adviser to Kentucky to watch over Rand Pauls general-election campaign  to be the grown-up in the room, according to one Washington Republican who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly. 

"The adviser, Trygve Olson, developed a friendship with Rand Paul, and the two realized that they could teach each other a lot  to the benefit of both candidate and party. Olson showed Paul and his campaign establishment tactics: working with the news media, fine-tuning its message. And Paul showed Olson  and by extension, McConnell  how many people were drawn to the GOP by his message of fiscal responsibility. And at Rand Pauls suggestion, Olson joined his fathers presidential campaign this year, basically to do what he did for Rand: help bring the Paul constituency into the Republican coalition without threatening the party. Its probably no small coincidence that the partnership helps Rands burgeoning political career, too."_

----------


## FrankRep

Does anyone know who recorded that conversation?

----------


## PatriotOne

> PatriotOne,..
> 
> You're uninformed. The following explains why McConnell and Benton are connected to Rand.
> 
> http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2...paul-be-tamed/
> 
> Here's an excerpt, but please read the entire article.
> 
> _"At [Sen. Mitch] McConnell’s request, the National Republican Senatorial Committee sent an adviser to Kentucky to watch over Rand Paul’s general-election campaign — ‘to be the grown-up in the room,’ according to one Washington Republican who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly. 
> ...


1.  First of all I take articles that use an "unnamed source" with a grain of salt.

2.  What does any of that have to do with Rand and Jesse becoming *corrupt*?  It's called networking/wanting to have influence....not becoming corrupt.

----------


## Smitty

This guy,..Dennis Fusaro

Good read:

http://thebullelephant.com/fusaro-ron-paul/

An excerpt: (but click on the link and read it all)

_Fusaro alleges these former close allies are complicit in a bribery scheme to entice Iowa State Senator Kent Sorenson to help Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign in the Iowa caucuses.  Fusaro has provided contemporaneous emails and recordings of phone calls to buttress his claims.  Worse, to hear Fusaro tell it, the Iowa incident is merely a symptom of a larger problem within the cadre of senior managers and consultants surrounding the Paul campaign in 2012, and who appear likely to be closely involved in the Rand Paul campaign as it gears up for 2016.

“It was ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’ when they took over,” Fusaro says of the Virginia crew of Mike Rothfeld, John Tate, and Dimitri Kesari, who all took senior positions with the 2012 Paul campaign. The four of these men together go back a long way in conservative politics, at least to the early 1990s when they helped energize a revival of conservatives within the Virginia Republican Party. But, he says, things had changed, singling out Rothfeld in particular. Rothfeld, according to Fusaro, is “one of the best operatives ever,” but used the Ron Paul campaign “as a means to power and money,” while casting aside moral principles in a cutthroat approach to politics._

----------


## Smitty

> 1.  First of all I take articles that use an "unnamed source" with a grain of salt.
> 
> 2.  What does any of that have to do with Rand and Jesse becoming *corrupt*?  It's called networking/wanting to have influence....not becoming corrupt.


The liberty movement is being "networked" out of existence.

----------


## Deborah K

> You are being one of the professional dividers "useful idiots" I was speaking of.  You have unwittingly become an enemy of the Liberty Movement.  Just stop it.


Knock it off!!!  Just because someone has a differing opinion than yourself does not make them an enemy.  What a crock!!

----------


## PatriotOne

> Knock it off!!!  Just because someone has a differing opinion than yourself does not make them an enemy.  What a crock!!


This does.  Trying to remember who started that meme.  Oh yeah....now I remember.

_"Trust us? He doesn't even like us."._

----------


## Deborah K

> This does.  Trying to remember who started that meme.  Oh yeah....now I remember.
> 
> _"Trust us? He doesn't even like us."._


So now an opinion makes a person an enemy of the movement.  Talk about idiocy.

----------


## thoughtomator

OK there's one thing I can take Benton at his word for - that he's a liar.

----------


## FrankRep

Who the hell is Dennis Fusaro and why is he trying to destroy any chances of getting Ron Paul-like people into the government.

----------


## FrankRep

> OK there's one thing I can take Benton at his word for - that he's a liar.


Benton is also married to one of Ron Paul's granddaughters.

----------


## torchbearer

> Any time I needed help from Jesse Benton whether a Ron or Rand Paul campaign, he's been the fastest response-time of any of the campaign people I've talked to, spare maybe one, and extremely helpful.
> 
> To state a really unpopular opinion, I'm starting to understand why he needs to be so guarded with information.  There really are tons of snakes in the grass.  This Fusaro guy isn't the only one.  Lots of people says stuff off the cuff and in private from time to time that's an embellishment or appeasement of people.  It's like laughing at someone's dumb joke.  People want you to be all buddy-buddy with them since you're an enthusiastic supporter, but with thousands of people wanting to help, the ones who are willing to bury a knife in your back always seem to find their way up the information food-chain.
> 
> You hope that private emails you send back and forth are kept private, but then some ass publishes them.  You hope your phone call with someone about a sensitive issue is private, but then some ass records and publishes it. I was going to make a joke about secretly recording a private conversation and then doing the same, but then I remembered this actually happened to Jesse/McConnell already this Spring.
> 
> I feel bad for the guy.  Trust no one, Jesse.


Your opinion would be different if you had been walking beside me through louisiana's presidential process.
you'd see this as karma, not poor jesse.

----------


## PatriotOne

> So now an opinion makes a person an enemy of the movement.  Talk about idiocy.


An opinion that divides a movement does.  Karl Rove says thanks though.

----------


## klamath

> Vipers latched onto the Ron Paul campaign and used Ron's popularity for their own gain. 
> 
> *Ron was unprepared for the surge of popularity for his message and unprepared for the corruption that it would engender in members of his campaign staff.*
> 
> Rand Paul undoubtedly now knows what transpired, yet he has kept Jesse Benton around and is now politically associated with establishment Congressman Mitch McConnell.
> 
> I'm not sure what Rand's original plan was when he threw his hat into the ring, but it seems that after a measure of political success, he has decided that he wants to stay in the game and is willing to play by its corrupt rules to do so.
> 
> There's no other possible reason for him to be connected to McConnell and Benton.


The integrity and ethics of the organization reflect the integrity and ethics of the LEADER, which is RON Paul.

----------


## Deborah K

> An opinion that divides a movement does.  Karl Rove says thanks though.


Since when is Benton the be-all end-all to this movement??  You're putting too much importance on his involvement.  Having a negative opinion about him does not make a person a 'useful idiot' or an enemy to the movement.  It's nonsense.

----------


## angelatc

> All I have to say is that Fusaro is a snake in the grass.


 All I have to say is that Benton is the snake in the grass.

----------


## Deborah K

> Benton is also married to one of Ron Paul's granddaughters.


Yeah, which speaks to his coattail-riding-opportunistic reputation.....

----------


## FrankRep

> Yeah, which speaks to his coattail-riding-opportunistic reputation.....


Or maybe not. Benton is in the Ron Paul family now.

----------


## thoughtomator

> Benton is also married to one of Ron Paul's granddaughters.


Clearly then, being part of the Paul family is no immunization against being a corrupt, slimy snake.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Since when is Benton the be-all end-all to this movement??  You're putting too much importance on his involvement.  Having a negative opinion about him does not make a person a 'useful idiot' or an enemy to the movement.  It's nonsense.


I think it's nonsense also.  It's the professional dividers putting the emphasis on Benton to divide the Liberty Movement...not me.  See all the news reports about it?

----------


## Smitty

PatriotOne,

Karl Rove supports Rand Paul.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/karl-rove...re-rand-pauls/

_We believe in markets, Rove said, but further examination “means fewer Christine O’Donnells and more Rand Pauls.”_

----------


## PatriotOne

> Yeah, which speaks to his coattail-riding-opportunistic reputation.....


I guess one could accuse you of trying to ride the coattails of the movement also.

----------


## donnay

What this confession by Benton says to me is he speaks out of both sides of his mouth.  Really nothing new.  He shouldn't be a campaign manager he should just be a politician. The Liberty movement is a movement that wants truth and transparency not more of the same dirty politics.

----------


## PatriotOne

> PatriotOne,
> 
> Karl Rove supports Rand Paul.
> 
> http://www.mediaite.com/tv/karl-rove...re-rand-pauls/
> 
> _We believe in markets, Rove said, but further examination “means fewer Christine O’Donnells and more Rand Pauls.”_


No words.  I'm just laughing hysterically at the thought of Rove supporting Rand.

----------


## Deborah K

> I think it's nonsense also.  It's the professional dividers putting the emphasis on Benton to divide the Liberty Movement...not me.  See all the news reports about it?


Since when is Liberal Nurse is a professional divider?

We are dividing ourselves, we don't even NEED "professional dividers" - if there is such a thing.  We do it by making people with differing opinions into enemies, instead of focusing on the one thing that keeps us cohesive: our desire to be free.  We, in the grassroots, don't HAVE to agree on every strategy used in order to achieve success, but too many people don't realize that.  Too many people believe we all need to fall in lock-step on everything.  Yeah, that works.  smh.

----------


## Deborah K

> I guess one could accuse you of trying to ride the coattails of the movement also.


How so?  I've never made a dime off this movement, I have no political sway, or influence.  You're a $#@!in idiot.

----------


## angelatc

> I think it's nonsense also.  It's the professional dividers putting the emphasis on Benton to divide the Liberty Movement...not me.  See all the news reports about it?


jesse has never had good relations with the media.  if his media relations skills were as savvy as the relations he had with the grassroots, it is no wonder they are coming after him with a little smug glee. as are we.

----------


## FrankRep

> Clearly then, being part of the Paul family is no immunization against being a corrupt, slimy snake.


Jesse Benton is guilty of knowing how politics work. Sometimes you have to play the "scratch my back and i'll scratch yours."

----------


## Smitty

> No words.  I'm just laughing hysterically at the thought of Rove supporting Rand.


That's fine,...but you need to learn to laugh with your eyes open.

----------


## angelatc

> Jesse Benton is guilty of knowing how politics work. Sometimes you have to play the "scratch my back and i'll scratch yours."


you also have to know that doing illegal things makes you vulnerable to criminal charges

----------


## donnay

> Jesse Benton is guilty of knowing how politics work. Sometimes you have to play the "scratch my back and i'll scratch yours."



Then collectively, we are no different than those we rail about.  Standing the moral ground is what we need to be leaders of men.

----------


## FrankRep

> jesse has never had good relations with the media.  if his media relations skills were as savvy as the relations he had with the grassroots, it is no wonder they are coming after him with a little smug glee. as are we.


Ron Paul didn't have good relations with the media either considering the fact the media kept ignoring him.

----------


## Deborah K

> Ron Paul didn't have good relations with the media either considering the fact the media kept ignoring him.


Benton is no Ron Paul.

----------


## FrankRep

> The collectively, we are no different than those we rail about.  Standing the moral ground is what we need to be leaders of men.


I'm railing against Big Government control and the leftist, progressive politics. I know how politics work however.

----------


## angelatc

> Ron Paul didn't have good relations with the media either considering the fact the media kept ignoring him.


in the second campaign, getting media coverage was Jesses job.

in the first run, there were lots of docmented instances of journalists getting blown off by the campaign.

----------


## FrankRep

> Benton is no Ron Paul.


Jesse Benton knows how politics work and could have opened the door for Ron Paul-like people to get into positions of power. Dennis Fusaro exposed the "Liberty Conspiracy" so that's pretty much down the drain.

----------


## donnay

> Ron Paul didn't have good relations with the media either considering the fact the media kept ignoring him.



If you remember by ignoring him only made people more eager to learn about him--especially in 2008.  Ron Paul's record was all the people had to see to know he was a man of character and integrity--not the same old politician people would hold their nose and vote for.  He was and still is a breath of fresh air.

----------


## FrankRep

> in the second campaign, getting media coverage was Jesses job.
> 
> in the first run, there were lots of docmented instances of journalists getting blown off by the campaign.


You realize the media is controlled, right? There are powerful forces that don't want Ron Paul-like people in power.

----------


## angelatc

> Jesse Benton knows how politics work and could have opened the door for Ron Paul-like people to get into positions of power. Dennis Fusaro exposed the "Liberty Conspiracy" so that's pretty much down the drain.


are we seriously expected to let Bentons illegal activities slide if it means winning elections

----------


## Smitty

> You realize the media is controlled, right? There are powerful forces that don't want Ron Paul-like people in power.


,...and Jesse Benton carries water for them.

----------


## thoughtomator

> Jesse Benton is guilty of knowing how politics work. "


I'm pretty sure you couldn't get a jury to convict him of that, after his abysmal flop (sabotage?) as RP's campaign manager, and after telling people he's holding his nose to work for his own boss.

One thing I learned REALLY quickly in politics is that $#@!-talking gets around, FAST.

----------


## PatriotOne

> How so?  I've never made a dime off this movement, I have no political sway, or influence.  You're a $#@!in idiot.


Is that your proof against Benton that he rode the political coattails of Ron?  Earning a living, having political sway and influence means something negative now?  I thought that's what we were shooting for in the movement.

I'm a $#@!ing idiot?  I'm just going to let that pass this time.

----------


## Deborah K

> Jesse Benton knows how politics work and could have opened the door for Ron Paul-like people to get into positions of power. Dennis Fusaro exposed the "Liberty Conspiracy" so that's pretty much down the drain.


Frank, Benton is not our only avenue.  He's not even our best choice for opening doors, I can think of others with a lot more clout, and better reputations. He'll end up another Jack Hunter if the opposition has anything to say about it.

----------


## angelatc

> You realize the media is controlled, right? There are powerful forces that don't want Ron Paul-like people in power.


thats just a lame excuse for not doing his job.  Much like teachers saying they cannot teach kids to read because the parents are at fault.  Even if it is true, so what?  We need someone who can change that.  Jesse is not that guy.

----------


## Deborah K

> Is that your proof against Benton that he rode the political coattails of Ron?  Earning a living, having political sway and influence means something negative now?  I thought that's what we were shooting for in the movement.
> 
> I'm a $#@!ing idiot?  I'm just going to let that pass this time.


You know better than that.  You know what my beef is with Benton.  And you were trying to insult me by accusing me of riding coattails so you can forget trying to back-pedal.  If you want to tangle with me, start by being intellectually honest.

----------


## angelatc

> Is that your proof against Benton that he rode the political coattails of Ron?  Earning a living, having political sway and influence means something negative now?  I thought that's what we were shooting for in the movement.
> 
> I'm a $#@!ing idiot?  I'm just going to let that pass this time.


she is right.  You are being a $#@!ing idiot.

----------


## pcosmar

> Jesse Benton is guilty of knowing how politics work. Sometimes you have to play the "scratch my back and i'll scratch yours."


I'll put that right next to ,
"Lay down with dogs,, get up with fleas"

----------


## angelatc

> I'll put that right next to ,
> "Lay down with dogs,, get up with fleas"


I have no qualms about the check itself.  My issues are with the fact that it was illegal and Benton lied about it.  Although I suspect there was some weasel words in there.  he might have said that the campaign did not issue a check, without mentioning that the C4L did or something equally deceptive.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Just wow, guys.  This reminds me of shooting oneself in one's own foot.

----------


## pcosmar

> I have no qualms about the check itself.  My issues are with the fact that it was illegal and Benton lied about it.  Although I suspect there was some weasel words in there.  he might have said that the campaign did not issue a check, without mentioning that the C4L did or something equally deceptive.


My interest is a general dislike for Dishonesty, and back room deals  and "politics as usual".

That is why I supported Ron.. A long history of honesty and integrity.

Politics as usual disgusts me.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Frank, Benton is not our only avenue.  He's not even our best choice for opening doors, I can think of others with a lot more clout, and better reputations. He'll end up another Jack Hunter if the opposition has anything to say about it.


Who needs an opposition, Deb?  We have ourselves.

----------


## PatriotOne

> You know better than that.  You know what my beef is with Benton.  And you were trying to insult me by accusing me of riding coattails so you can forget trying to back-pedal.  If you want to tangle with me, start by being intellectually honest.


Yes.  I do know what your beef is and I also know why Benton had to distance the campaign from said beef.

----------


## Deborah K

I stated my opinion on all of this below.  And I jumped into this stupid thread because Liberal Nurse is a friend, and I defend my friends.





> Since when is Liberal Nurse is a professional divider?
> 
> We are dividing ourselves, we don't even NEED "professional dividers" - if there is such a thing.  We do it by making people with differing opinions into enemies, instead of focusing on the one thing that keeps us cohesive: our desire to be free.  We, in the grassroots, don't HAVE to agree on every strategy used in order to achieve success, but too many people don't realize that.  Too many people believe we all need to fall in lock-step on everything.  Yeah, that works.  smh.

----------


## donnay

> My interest is a general dislike for Dishonesty, and back room deals  and "politics as usual".
> 
> That is why I supported Ron.. A long history of honesty and integrity.
> 
> Politics as usual disgusts me.



Well said.  +rep

We do not need more of the same--that is why we are in the situation we are in currently.

----------


## angelatc

> Just wow, guys.  This reminds me of shooting oneself in one's own foot.


You think it is ok that Benton made an illegal payment, but not ok that we are condemning such behavior.  is that accurate?

----------


## Deborah K

> Yes.  I do know what your beef is and I also know why Benton had to distance the campaign from said beef.


So quit the pretense then.  You have your opinion about Benton, and others have theirs.  No need to accuse and insult people who don't think like you.

Edit: and for record - Dr. Paul and his family didn't feel the need to distance themselves.  Benton and Kokesh are enemies, and childish drama is at the root of ALL of it!

----------


## JK/SEA

Kent Snyder...Lew Moore....Jesse Benton......

is it just me, or does it seem the campaign mgrs. being picked are going down hill?.....wuss up with that?

----------


## angelatc

> My interest is a general dislike for Dishonesty, and back room deals  and "politics as usual".
> 
> That is why I supported Ron.. A long history of honesty and integrity.
> 
> Politics as usual disgusts me.



Paul mentioned making endorsements for the sake of political gain.  Sorenson was doing the same thing.  The money was to go into his PAC, after all.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Benton and Kokesh are enemies, and childish drama is at the root of ALL of it!


You know Kokesh is an enemy now?  This is a new revelation.

----------


## FrankRep

I'm so intrigued about how self-destructive the Ron Paul movement is. 

The enemies of liberty are like a well oiled machine taking over and the Ron Paul movement is too busy attacking each other to make any great strides to take back the government.

----------


## Deborah K

> You know Kokesh is an enemy now?  This is a new revelation.


Kokesh and Benton are enemies to each other.  It was at the root of why Benton wanted PaulFest to "go away".  If you didn't know that, then what are you referring to when you claim you know "why Benton had to distance the campaign from said beef."  Now you're starting to sound like you're full of $#@!.

----------


## angelatc

> I'm so intrigued about how self-destructive the Ron Paul movement is. 
> 
> The enemies of liberty are like a well oiled machine taking over and the Ron Paul movement is too busy attacking each other to make any great strides to take back the government.


So you also think it is ok to write illegal checks and then lie about it, but not to condemn it.

----------


## thoughtomator

I'd take one Kokesh over a million Bentons.

----------


## Deborah K

> I'm so intrigued about how self-destructive the Ron Paul movement is. 
> 
> The enemies of liberty are like a well oiled machine taking over and the Ron Paul movement is too busy attacking each other to make any great strides to take back the government.


People are going to get on each other's nerves and have it out occasionally.  That's all I see going on in this thread.  And I don't believe that, because some in the movement don't trust or like Benton, that somehow means the movement is doomed.

The enemies of liberty are ahead of the game in every way but one, they made the fatal and historic mistake of setting up a failed economic system that is doomed to collapse.  Those of us in the movement who diligently prepare for that will have a better chance of rebuilding when it's all said and done.  I think our differences will be laid to rest at some point.

----------


## orenbus



----------


## JK/SEA

> I'm so intrigued about how self-destructive the Ron Paul movement is. 
> 
> The enemies of liberty are like a well oiled machine taking over and the Ron Paul movement is too busy attacking each other to make any great strides to take back the government.


not sure the 'Ron Paul movement' is attacking 'each other'...i'm more inclined to believe that true Ron Paul supporters are beating off interventionist NEOCONS disguised as Ron Paul supporters. The REVOLUTION continues, and the bodies are starting to pile up...metaphorically of course.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I have no political sway, or influence.


You're doing it wrong then....

----------


## Matt Collins

> You realize the media is controlled, right? There are powerful forces that don't want Ron Paul-like people in power.


Some elements of some of the media are "controlled" but it's not all monolithic, or at least not as much as it used to be. And if you know how to do it, the media can be made to serve our purposes as well.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I have no qualms about the check itself.  My issues are with the fact that it was illegal and Benton lied about it.





> You think it is ok that Benton made an illegal payment, but not ok that we are condemning such behavior. is that accurate?





> So you also think it is ok to write illegal checks and then lie about it, but not to condemn it.



You keep saying that it was illegal. Are you sure about that?

----------


## PatriotOne

> Kokesh and Benton are enemies to each other.  It was at the root of why Benton wanted PaulFest to "go away".  If you didn't know that, then what are you referring to when you claim you know "why Benton had to distance the campaign from said beef."  Now you're starting to sound like you're full of $#@!.


Oh.  For a minute there I thought you finally figured out Kokesh was controlled opposition.  Disappointed.  I just read it differently than what you intended.

I know full well why the Paul campaign distanced themselves from Paulfest.  I was the person pointing it out from the beginning.  Remember?

Jesse wasn't wrong to do that.

----------


## Deborah K

> You're doing it wrong then....


Matt, I have NO interest in having political sway or influence.  I've told you that before.  NO INTEREST.  It's not, and never was my objective.  Any one who knows me, knows that.

----------


## FrankRep

> So you also think it is ok to write illegal checks and then lie about it, but not to condemn it.


I look at the bigger picture. I see a massively corrupt government that's leading the United States into total destruction and a totalitarian regime enslaving the American people. What were you saying about a check?

----------


## Matt Collins

> Matt, I have NO interest in having political sway or influence.  I've told you that before.  NO INTEREST.  It's not, and never was my objective.  Any one who knows me, knows that.


Then what are you doing here?

----------


## angelatc

> You keep saying that it was illegal. Are you sure about that?


I am aware that now that sorenson has been found out, he wants to change the historical interpretation of the rule.  But judging by their previous decisions, the ayment was illegal.   

I don't anticipate an answer, but if it wasnt, why lie about it, and why launder it through a jewelry store?   Make no mistake.  I work with folks who make different decisions that i would all day.  Its the mealy mouthed liars that are problematic.

----------


## angelatc

> I look at the bigger picture. I see a massively corrupt government that's leading the United States into total destruction and a totalitarian regime enslaving the American people. What were you saying about a check?


red herring.

but we are talking about corruption here.  you think its ok for our side to be corrupt, then?

----------


## Deborah K

> Oh.  For a minute there I thought you finally figured out Kokesh was controlled opposition.  Disappointed.  I just read it differently than what you intended.
> 
> I know full well why the Paul campaign distanced themselves from Paulfest.  I was the person pointing it out from the beginning.  Remember?
> 
> Jesse wasn't wrong to do that.


Opinions are like $#@!s, everybody's got one.  And since you were on the outside looking in, yours doesn't matter much - to me anyway.

----------


## FrankRep

> How so?  I've never made a dime off this movement, I have no political sway, or influence.  You're a $#@!in idiot.





> You're doing it wrong then....





> Matt, I have NO interest in having political sway or influence.  I've told you that before.  NO INTEREST.  It's not, and never was my objective.  Any one who knows me, knows that.


You and the enemies of liberty both agree on something... They don't want you to have any political influence either.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

This forum gets all "you're destroying the movement" every time there's a disagreement on certain persons or things said by our hopefuls on certain policies.  

We are not our own worst enemy, there are plenty of those out there, such that there is no need to point to your fellows.  When there is disagreement, it shows that we are individuals with various life experiences and knowledge of what is going on.  Are we not all seeking the truth?  Are we not all desiring honesty?

You have a disagreement?  Make you case, give facts, results, nuances, etc...  Maybe you can educate some, maybe you can be educated.

_edit: now children.... /jk_

----------


## torchbearer

> Then what are you doing here?


maybe the terms should be defined furthur.
some may only want sway over their neighbors via a campaign for liberty type grassroots lobbying, while some want sway in political parties.

----------


## FrankRep

> red herring.
> 
> but we are talking about corruption here.  you think its ok for our side to be corrupt, then?


I don't want to see the United States destroyed and the American people enslaved... The people in power are doing this right now.

----------


## Deborah K

> Then what are you doing here?


The same thing everyone else is.  Communing with like-minded people.  And doing what I can to advance the cause of liberty.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I am aware that now that sorenson has been found out, he wants to change the historical interpretation of the rule.  But judging by their previous decisions, the ayment was illegal.   
> 
> if it wasnt, why lie about it, and why launder it through a jewelry store?   Make no mistake.  I work with folks who make different decisions that i would all day.  Its the mealy mouthed liars that are problematic.


Perhaps they didn't want a media storm about it during the campaign? 

I dunno, but I am not totally sure the actions were illegal. I am not an attorney of course, but is it illegal for members of the legislature to be on the payroll of a Presidential campaign?

----------


## angelatc

> I don't want to see the United States destroyed and the American people enslaved... The people in power are doing this right now.


red herring.  You think its ok to allow unquestioned corruption in our ranks?

----------


## Matt Collins

> The same thing everyone else is.  Communing with like-minded people.  And doing what I can to advance the cause of liberty.


Advancing the cause of liberty means activism, it means getting in the fight, it means punishing politicians for taking your liberty. If you are to advance liberty you have to gain influence and political power, otherwise it doesn't work.

----------


## FrankRep

> The same thing everyone else is.  Communing with like-minded people.  And doing what I can to advance the cause of liberty.


Advancing the cause of liberty requires political influence.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Advancing the cause of liberty means activism, it means getting in the fight, it means punishing politicians for taking your liberty. If you are to advance liberty you have to gain influence and political power, otherwise it doesn't work.


As long as it is done with honesty and integrity.  Otherwise, it's heading down the same rut.

----------


## angelatc

> Advancing the cause of liberty means activism, it means getting in the fight, it means punishing politicians for taking your liberty. If you are to advance liberty you have to gain influence and political power, otherwise it doesn't work.


lol  it is uunfathomable to matt that anybody would use these forums for any reason other than to advance oneself politically

----------


## compromise

> Then what are you doing here?


Trolling.

----------


## Deborah K

> You and the enemies of liberty both agree on something... They don't want you to have any political influence either.


Frank, some people aren't equipped for political influence or sway - I'm one of them.  I do what I can in my own way to advance the cause of liberty, but have no interest in being a leader or whatever. I am flawed beyond repair.  But I do have skills in organizing events so that's what I do.

----------


## Carlybee

> Advancing the cause of liberty means activism, it means getting in the fight, it means punishing politicians for taking your liberty. If you are to advance liberty you have to gain influence and political power, otherwise it doesn't work.



There are a lot of people who have been on the sidelines yet donated plenty of money for this cause.  One doesn't have to be actively involved, running for office, or in a leadership position to support the cause.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Trolling.


"I know you are, what am I?"  really?

----------


## Deborah K

> Trolling.


Now I'm a troll?

----------


## Deborah K

> lol  it is uunfathomable to matt that anybody would use these forums for any reason other than to advance oneself politically


LOL!

----------


## donnay

Two words for those who sit in denial:  Stockholm Syndrome.

----------


## Carlybee

Back to the OP...if he "didn't mean it"...that pretty much makes him a liar to start off with and just lame for trying to pass the blame to Ron Paul supporters.

----------


## Matt Collins

> lol  it is uunfathomable to matt that anybody would use these forums for any reason other than to advance oneself politically


The only reason to go into business is to make money. The only reason to become politically involved is to gain power. Making money isn't bad, gaining political power isn't bad. But it depends on how you make it and what you do with it as to whether or not you are doing bad things with it.


If you make a lot of money for your family or for charity, is that a bad thing? No of course not.

If you earn a lot of political power and use it to advance liberty, is that a bad thing? No of course not.

----------


## angelatc

> As long as it is done with honesty and integrity.  Otherwise, it's heading down the same rut.


Sure.  This dont criticize attitude is what allowed the Reublican and Democrat corruption.  We constantly berate the liberals for not holding those like sharton, Jackson, frank and even Obama accountable for their duplicity.  i am not ever going to be an apologist for corruption in our own ranks.

----------


## FrankRep

> Frank, some people aren't equipped for political influence or sway - I'm one of them.  I do what I can in my own way to advance the cause of liberty, but have no interest in being a leader or whatever. I am flawed beyond repair.  But I do have skills in organizing events so that's what I do.


Organizing events is a priceless skill that does advance the cause of liberty and I would consider that "political influence" or at least helping someone with political influence.

----------


## angelatc

> The only reason to go into business is to make money. The only reason to become politically involved is to gain power. Making money isn't bad, gaining political power isn't bad. But it depends on how you make it and what you do with it as to whether or not you are doing bad things with it.
> 
> 
> If you make a lot of money for your family or for charity, is that a bad thing? No of course not.
> 
> If you earn a lot of political power and use it to advance liberty, is that a bad thing? No of course not.


omg  it just got even funnier.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Frank, some people aren't equipped for political influence or sway - I'm one of them.  I do what I can in my own way to advance the cause of liberty, but have no interest in being a leader or whatever. I am flawed beyond repair.  But I do have skills in organizing events so that's what I do.


no, I don't think you're flawed at all. And since you're so good at organizing events it's actually not that much different from organizing your local precinct or county, etc. I know, I do both,   I think you could be a great activist, but I certainly understand that lots of people don't feel that they are built for it. 

The unfortunate reality is that many civilians were not built to fight the British a few hundred years ago, but they didn't have a choice, because it was either that or tyranny.

----------


## Matt Collins

> There are a lot of people who have been on the sidelines yet donated plenty of money for this cause.  One doesn't have to be actively involved, running for office, or in a leadership position to support the cause.


And that is very true. Activists can only do so much without funds available to spend on their work.

----------


## Deborah K

> The only reason to go into business is to make money. The only reason to become politically involved is to gain power. Making money isn't bad, gaining political power isn't bad. But it depends on how you make it and what you do with it as to whether or not you are doing bad things with it.
> 
> 
> If you make a lot of money for your family or for charity, is that a bad thing? No of course not.
> 
> If you earn a lot of political power and use it to advance liberty, is that a bad thing? No of course not.


And your point izzzzzzzz.......????

Edit:  I see now that you added Angie's post that you were responding to her.

----------


## Deborah K

> no, I don't think you're flawed at all. And since you're so good at organizing events it's actually not that much different from organizing your local precinct or county, etc. I know, I do both,   I think you could be a great activist, but I certainly understand that lots of people don't feel that they are built for it. 
> 
> The unfortunate reality is that many civilians were not built to fight the British a few hundred years ago, but they didn't have a choice, because it was either that or tyranny.


Matt, I appreciate what you're saying I really do, but I know my own limits, and interests.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Opinions are like $#@!s, everybody's got one.  And since you were on the outside looking in, yours doesn't matter much - to me anyway.


It didn't require an insider to see the problem Deb.











*Adam Smoking DMT "My face got raped with the truth of the universe"*

----------


## angelatc

> And your point izzzzzzzz.......????


Did you get that Deb?  You could be a great activist if you just applied yourself.

----------


## CaptUSA

This is what happens when a person is serving two masters.  Is he trying to appease the liberty movement to help the GOP establishment or is he trying to appease the establishment to help the liberty movement?  Every single one of you will make up your own mind.  Many of us get pissed off by even trying to engage the establishment because we want it destroyed - others see the established system as the only way to turn things around.

I don't have all the answers, but I do feel sorry for anyone who is trying to walk this line.  If you really believe that the political process needs to be worked in our favor, these types of screw-ups are going to happen.  Frankly, I'm surprised Rand hasn't stepped in more of these.

It's easy to label someone a traitor to the cause if they're trying a different method that seems to be reaching out to the problem.  I tend to let people do what they do.  If he thinks this method is working, let him pursue it.  But he better be prepared for the consequences.

----------


## thoughtomator

> It didn't require an insider to see the problem Deb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't see the problem, unless the problem is yours and it's a trained aversion to masculinity.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> you also have to know that doing illegal things makes you vulnerable to criminal charges


For some reason this makes me think of one of AF's quotes. What was it exactly? Something like "three felonies a day"? The way the laws are written now, there's no way to always comply. Ignorance of a myriad of complex and contradictory laws is no excuse.

Unless you are a high level member of the Obama Bureaucracy. Then you are immune to all laws.

----------


## PatriotOne

> I don't see the problem, unless the problem is yours and it's a trained aversion to masculinity.


LOL.  Looking like a mentally ill person is the new masculine look now?  Times are a changing.

----------


## Deborah K

> It didn't require an insider to see the problem Deb.


PO, you're never going to 'get' Adam, I'll never get him either.  He pisses me off at times.  But I could post just as many tubes that show him verbally trouncing people in authority, who have no clue what liberty even is.  And he is an advocate of civil disobedience, even risking his own health and liberty to unmask the hypocrisy and utter dismissal of our rights. 

You may have no use for him, but you don't get to choose who fights for freedom, and who doesn't.  I know you think he is controlled opposition, but I don't because I knew Adam before anyone else in this movement did.  I brought him to the forefront by allowing him to speak at Revolution March when no one knew who he was.  So blame me!  And include me in on your conspiracy theories regarding Adam now.  

But consider this:   Many of the founders had serious problems with each other - Thomas Paine was a pariah at one point.  Jefferson and Adams, once very close, became enemies.  Jefferson and Hamilton were archenemies.  It's all human nature in the end, and those who recognize this can rise above it.

----------


## thoughtomator

> LOL.  Looking like a mentally ill person is the new masculine look now?  Times are a changing.


A mentally healthy society celebrates manhood. A mentally crippled society fears it.

The fact that you equate masculine expression with mental illness is quite damning proof that you have been thoroughly mentally emasculated.

I think you're jealous that he has the self-confidence to be manly and honest.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

It seems to me that Benton is in a no-win situation. Some supporters want him to work the system, some don't. 

When we donate money to the campaign, we want it to be spent our way. But the reality is, once we give the money, it is spent however the campaign wants to spend it. We really can't expect to have any say in the matter (other than to cease donating).

Personally, I would never want a campaign to waste money, or to use it to pay "bribes", no matter how it is spun, whether it is considered legal or illegal (or probably somewhere in between). But the idea of what is a "bribe" is difficult. Hiring a person to do actual work for a campaign, is that a "bribe"? Maybe it is if that person does nothing other than give an endorsement, or they are not capable of actually working. Is the person being paid to be a "lobbyist"? Lobbyists get paid a lot of money, but what do they do? Try to convince others? How do you know when anybody is doing something that is actually productive when you hire them? 

Working with others and engaging in some quid pro quo, especially in areas where interests intersect, seems to be an honest way to work in politics. Paying someone money to do nothing or little sounds more like a bribe.

One thing is for sure, most of the media will do anything to smear Ron or Rand. A personality conflict, difference of opinion, or even blatantly, obviously illegal or immoral activity is meaningless in the Hillary camp. The media would refuse to listen to it. On the other hand, if it's in any way related to Ron, they will seek it out, encourage it, and if they have to, create the controversy themselves. It's hard trying to be the honest, moral faction, in a dishonest and amoral world.

----------


## ObiRandKenobi

> Benton looks like he's been eatin' real good lately.  Get on the treadmill Jesse.  You're getting fat.


that was mean but i still lol'd.

----------


## Anti Federalist

What's going on here?

Oh...*this* again.

Carry on.

----------


## liberalnurse

> Which is why you should know better than to spread useful idiot stupidity like _"Trust us? He doesn't even like us.". _ The professional dividers are pleased with you spreading that untrue meme.....I'm not.


You seem to equate not keeping my mouth shut about my thoughts towards Benton with not supporting Rand or this movement.  Again, not true and you should know better. And frankly I could care less if your pleased with me or not.  I'm pleased with myself and what my role has been, in advancing liberty and this movement, and will continue to be so with or without your blessing.

----------


## PatriotOne

> I brought him to the forefront by allowing him to speak at Revolution March when no one knew who he was.  So blame me!  And include me in on your conspiracy theories regarding Adam now.


And that's why you can't be objective in understanding why the Paul Campaign had to distance itself from Paulfest.  If you think people who do things like smoke DMT and post it on youtube is someone a Presidential campaign wants to be associated with then you are either bat$#@! crazy or blind as a bat.  Either way there is a bat involved because I know you are not stupid.

----------


## pcosmar

> .
> 
> 
> If you make a lot of money for your family or for charity, is that a bad thing?


Depends on how you do it.






> .If you earn a lot of political power and use it to advance liberty, is that a bad thing?.


Again it depends?  Do the ends justify the means?

I see lining of pockets, and political positions. and I have not noticed a lot of liberty being advanced by these folks.

NORML has done some despite opposition from the GOP.
The ACLU has done some,, and some I don't agree with.. Despite both parties.

The RNC and DNC,,, nope.

----------


## Deborah K

> And that's why you can't be objective in understanding why the Paul Campaign had to distance itself from Paulfest.  If you think people who do things like smoke DMT and post it on youtube is someone a Presidential campaign wants to be associated with then you are either bat$#@! crazy or blind as a bat.  Either way there is a bat involved because I know you are not stupid.


Again I say to you - Benton hates Kokesh, and Kokesh hates Benton.  That is why Benton was actively trying to dissuade speakers, and launched a full-scale (behind the scenes) assault on us. (Don't bother asking for proof, because I am unwilling to throw people under the bus on this).   The vitriol didn't end there.  Benton also can't stand Franchi, or Woods, and vice versa - both of whom attended PaulFest.  Which is why he referred to us as a "bad people" and a "fringe element".   And it is also why Benton had flyers circulating with Kokesh's pic on them at Ron's event.  This was childish drama at its worst.  Dr. Paul did not feel the same way Benton did about it.  He was willing to do a video for us to play at our event but we couldn't pull it off in a timely way - Kathy88 is witness to a voicemail I got from Ron about it.  Ron's family bought around 25 tickets to the event - so please - stop talking like you know what's up - cuz you don't.

----------


## thoughtomator

> And that's why you can't be objective in understanding why the Paul Campaign had to distance itself from Paulfest.  If you think people who do things like smoke DMT and post it on youtube is someone a Presidential campaign wants to be associated with then you are either bat$#@! crazy or blind as a bat.  Either way there is a bat involved because I know you are not stupid.


$#@!, Obama's best buddy is one of the few genuine, actual domestic American terrorists. Kokesh isn't half as openly radical as most of Obama's staff is.

What you fear is the media. It's a healthy fear but not one that should lead you to cut off your own balls to prevent them from being kicked.

----------


## PatriotOne

> You seem to equate not keeping my mouth shut about my thoughts towards Benton with not supporting Rand or this movement.  Again, not true and you should know better. .


No.  I do believe your intentions are good.




> And frankly I could care less if your pleased with me or not.


I'm sure.  Karl is pleased with you though.

----------


## FrankRep

> Again I say to you - Benton hates Kokesh, and Kokesh hates Benton. That is why Benton was actively trying to dissuade speakers, and launched a full-scale (behind the scenes) assault on us.


Who is "us"? Kokesh is a loose cannon and the Ron Paul campaign should have distanced themselves from Kokesh from the beginning.

----------


## Deborah K

> Who is "us"?


"Us" = organizers of the event. 




> Kokesh is a loose cannon and the Ron Paul campaign should have distanced themselves from Kokesh from the beginning.


But he, (Ron) didn't.  He, (Ron) endorsed his (Adam's) campaign.  Granted Kokesh went off the rails.  But tying his 'sins' to Ron or Rand, simply because he's a defender of freedom is just stupid to me.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Granted Kokesh went off the rails.  But tying his 'sins' to Ron or Rand, simply because he's a defender of freedom is just stupid to me.


Unfortunately being rational is not a requirement in politics and the media. The opposition will use anything against you they can, fair, rational, or otherwise.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Again I say to you - Benton hates Kokesh, and Kokesh hates Benton.  That is why Benton was actively trying to dissuade speakers, and launched a full-scale (behind the scenes) assault on us. (Don't bother asking for proof, because I am unwilling to throw people under the bus on this).   The vitriol didn't end there.  Benton also can't stand Franchi, or Woods, and vice versa - both of whom attended PaulFest.  Which is why he referred to us as a "bad people" and a "fringe element".   And it is also why Benton had flyers circulating with Kokesh's pic on them at Ron's event.  This was childish drama at its worst.  Dr. Paul did not feel the same way Benton did about it.  He was willing to do a video for us to play at our event but we couldn't pull it off in a timely way - Kathy88 is witness to a voicemail I got from Ron about it.  Ron's family bought around 25 tickets to the event - so please - stop talking like you know what's up - cuz you don't.


Of course Benton doesn't like Kokesh or him being associated with the Paul family.  It's absolutely ridiculous that you don't see or refuse to see the problem with it Deb.  Thank god I have to go now because I can't have this asinine conversation anymore without my head exploding.













*Adam Smoking DMT "My face got raped with the truth of the universe"*

----------


## JK/SEA

> Unfortunately being rational is not a requirement in politics and the media. The opposition will use anything against you they can, fair, rational, or otherwise.


...and use screen names like 'Patriot one'...

----------


## FrankRep

> But he, (Ron) didn't.  He, (Ron) endorsed his (Adam's) campaign.  Granted Kokesh went off the rails.  But tying his 'sins' to Ron or Rand, simply because he's a defender of freedom is just stupid to me.


I'm glad Jesse Benton rejected Kokesh. Kokesh should have been rejected as soon as he teamed up with Code Pink.

----------


## JK/SEA

//

----------


## kathy88

Everything Deb has said in this ridiculous thread is absolutely true.

----------


## Deborah K

> Unfortunately being rational is not a requirement in politics and the media. The opposition will use anything against you they can, fair, rational, or otherwise.


Well Matt, so far, I haven't seen too many stories about Adam's recent arrest associating Rand or Ron to him.  The only association I'm aware of is the article written recently and published in Ron's online journal (which escapes my memory at the moment) and where the author defends Kokesh.  There's a thread on it in here somewhere.  Anyone?

----------


## Deborah K

> Of course Benton doesn't like Kokesh or him being associated with the Paul family.  It's absolutely ridiculous that you don't see or refuse to see the problem with it Deb.  Thank god I have to go now because I can't have this asinine conversation anymore without my head exploding.


Of course you can't, because you're incapable of co-existing with anyone who disagrees with you about anything.  Are you like this in the real world?  And re-posting unseemly vids and pics of Adam over and over only makes you come off like an annoying gnat.

Edit: and btw, Ron apparently  doesn't share your opinion, given what I told you about his involvement with us.  But then again, he's a sort of 'live and let live' kind of guy.  Unlike many here.

----------


## FrankRep

> Well Matt, so far, I haven't seen too many stories about Adam's recent arrest associating Rand or Ron to him.  The only association I'm aware of is the article written recently and published in Ron's online journal (which escapes my memory at the moment) and where the author defends Kokesh.  There's a thread on it in here somewhere.  Anyone?


Whenever the media would like to make a hit piece on Ron Paul, they could always point to Ron Paul's poor judgement of character by bringing in Kokesh.

----------


## Deborah K

> I'm glad Jesse Benton rejected Kokesh. Kokesh should have been rejected as soon as he teamed up with Code Pink.


So then, by your logic, I should be rejected for supporting Kokesh?

----------


## Deborah K

> Whenever the media would like to make a hit piece on Ron Paul, they could always point to Ron Paul's poor judgement of character by bringing in Kokesh.


And who's fault is that?

Look, the media is so far into the gov't at this point, they could make $#@! up if they wanted and get away with it.  It doesn't justify ostracizing someone in the movement.  You are wanting to do to Kokesh, what others are wanting to do to Benton.  It's all ridiculous.

----------


## Matt Collins

> So then, by your logic, I should be rejected for supporting Kokesh?


You're not running for office at present.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Well Matt, so far, I haven't seen too many stories about Adam's recent arrest associating Rand or Ron to him.


That's because they went through great pains to disassociate themselves from Kokesh.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> This stuff can bring down the Ron Paul movement, Fusaro says, before   taking pains to describe the difference between grassroots supporters of   Ron Paul, and what he describes as Ron Paul, Inc., *basically a   cottage industry of self-interested professionals with more interest in   personal gain than in advancement of the movement.*  Like Mike Rothfield  [_sic_]  has said, he [Ron Paul] can run his own campaign, while we  run ours,  meaning essentially that Ron Paul, Inc. ran a campaign in  parallel to  the candidate himself, but without the candidates adherence  to  principle.


Source: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...-paul-inc.html

The evidence is strong in this thread.

----------


## JK/SEA

i sent Kokesh one hundred bucks last week and dedicated the contribution to Patriot One and Matt Collins and FrankRep.

you're welcome.

----------


## Deborah K

> That's because they went through great pains to disassociate themselves from Kokesh.


You just willfully ignored the second half of my response.

----------


## Deborah K

> You're not running for office at present.


And neither is Kokesh.  So what's your point?

----------


## JK/SEA

Merchant:	ADAM VS THE MAN, LLC


Item	Description	Qty	Taxable	Unit Price	Item Total
AVTM3TEMP	TEMPORARY ORDER/DONATION FORM	1	N	US $100.00	US $100.00

----------


## Original_Intent

> 


For some reason as I read this I imagined I heard "I concur" in Sean Connery's voice...

----------


## cajuncocoa

I don't always agree with Patriot One (in fact, this is the first time) but when I do, it's not the way PO meant it.  There ARE professional dividers within this liberty movement, but it's not those PO thinks it is. 

Here's a clue:  if you think Sarah Palin is serious about liberty but Adam Kokesh is not, you may need to re-think why you're really here.

----------


## Carlybee

> Trolling.


Really? You who have been here less than a year are going to accuse a long time member of trolling? Piss off.

----------


## Deborah K

> I don't always agree with Patriot One (in fact, this is the first time) but when I do, it's not the way PO meant it.  There ARE professional dividers within this liberty movement, but it's not those PO thinks it is. 
> 
> Here's a clue:  if you think Sarah Palin is serious about liberty but Adam Kokesh is not, you may need to re-think why you're really here.


When you say "professional" that is equated to pay, in my pea brain.  Is that what you mean?

----------


## thoughtomator

> Really? You who have been here less than a year are going to accuse a long time member of trolling? Piss off.


From my experience here, long time members can easily troll with the best of them. I'd be disappointed if they couldn't.

Hang on a sec and let me whip this rep bar out of my pants and swing it around a little.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> When you say "professional" that is equated to pay, in my pea brain.  Is that what you mean?


I'm just using the term PO used...but to learn there are some getting paid to destroy Ron's r3volution would not be a surprise to me at all.  Can't prove it, but I highly suspect it.

----------


## Deborah K

> From my experience here, long time members can easily troll with the best of them. I'd be disappointed if they couldn't.
> 
> Hang on a sec and let me whip this rep bar out of my pants and swing it around a little.


Well I can assure you, I'm not trolling.  I jumped in this thread to defend my friend, and it went from there.  Not trying to troll.

----------


## FrankRep

> I'm just using the term PO used...but to learn there are some getting paid to destroy Ron's r3volution would not be a surprise to me at all.  Can't prove it, but I highly suspect it.


Nothing is politics happens by accident and the Ron Paul movement looks to be self-destructing.

----------


## orenbus



----------


## JK/SEA

> Nothing is politics happens by accident and the Ron Paul movement looks to be self-destructing.


bull$#@!.

----------


## New York For Paul

> Nothing is politics happens by accident and the Ron Paul movement looks to be self-destructing.


The Ron Paul Movement might be getting stronger by getting rid of certain people. Many large donors and activists were driven away from the campaign. So much lost talent has been squandered. At this point Jesse Benton would probably be more harm than good to Rand Paul.

----------


## Carlybee

> Nothing is politics happens by accident and the Ron Paul movement looks to be self-destructing.



Wishful thinking?

----------


## Deborah K

> Nothing is politics happens by accident and the Ron Paul movement looks to be self-destructing.



I disagree, I think the movement has made great inroads.

----------


## MelissaCato

Ron Paul should just run again for POTUS in 2016 !! Then all this is just noise !!!

----------


## scrosnoe

It matters how we treat one another as we go -- what we say and what we do!  Actions have consequences...

Hopefully the movement is learning from past mistakes.

----------


## FrankRep

> The Ron Paul Movement might be getting stronger by getting rid of certain people. Many large donors and activists were driven away from the campaign. So much lost talent has been squandered. At this point Jesse Benton would probably be more harm than good to Rand Paul.


He is now obviously.


*Top Iowa Evangelical: Rand Paul Cant Hire Ron Pauls Aides for 2016 If Campaign Guilty of Giving Check for Endorsement*
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ampaign-guilty


Top Iowa evangelical Bob Vander Plaats declined to comment on the emerging scandal that Iowa state senator appears to have accepted a check to switch his endorsement from Michele Bachmann to Ron Paul, saying he wanted to let the process take his course.

But he did warn that if Iowa state senator Kent Sorenson is found to have given a check, *Rand Paul needs to make sure he doesnt have any staff who were involved if he runs in 2016.*

People in Iowa and people in America will see Rand as his own man, Vander Plaats comments, unless theres some odd connections with staff and whatever that are working for both, and then it becomes an entangled mess that you dont want to be in.

----------


## Smitty

> The only reason to go into business is to make money. The only reason to become politically involved is to gain power.


Altruism is very rare in American politics, that's true.

But Dr Paul has proven that it isn't totally extinct.

If your purpose in being a political activist is to make money and gain power, you'd be much better served by abandoning the liberty movement and sell whatever you can of yourself to the neocons.

Give Mitch and Jesse a call.

They can put you on the path.

First stop, Israel.

----------


## JK/SEA

> It matters how we treat one another as we go -- what we say and what we do!  Actions have consequences...
> 
> Hopefully the movement is learning from past mistakes.


who is we?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Altruism is very rare in American politics, that's true.
> 
> But Dr Paul has proven that it isn't totally extinct.
> 
> If your purpose in being a political activist is to make money and gain power, you'd be much better served by abandoning the liberty movement and sell whatever you can of yourself to the neocons.
> 
> Give Mitch and Jesse a call.
> 
> They can put you on the path.
> ...


I owe you another rep.

----------


## FrankRep

> who is we?


I find it amusing that libertarian-types rail against "collectivism" and turn around and use terms like "we, " "us," and "the movement."

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> in the second campaign, getting media coverage was Jesses job.
> 
> in the first run, there were lots of docmented instances of journalists getting blown off by the campaign.


Jesse was the liason to the media in the first campaign as well.

----------


## Matt Collins

> If your purpose in being a political activist is to make money and gain power, you'd be much better served by abandoning the liberty movement and sell whatever you can of yourself to the neocons.


Why would I do that? It makes no sense. I want the liberty movement to have more power, not less.

----------


## JK/SEA

> I find it amusing that libertarian-types rail against "collectivism" and turn around and use terms like "we, " "us," and "the movement."


you think Scrosnoe is a libertarian?....

----------


## parocks

> You are being one of the professional dividers "useful idiots" I was speaking of.  You have unwittingly become an enemy of the Liberty Movement.  Just stop it.


Right on.  There is very little useful benefit from attacking our own people.

It's very common.  If I was a RINO, and I was worried about Ron Paul or Rand Paul, I'd try to spread the idea that the people working for Ron and Rand are awful.

And there has been a lot of that.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Why would I do that? It makes no sense. I want the liberty movement to have more power, not less.


did Lew Moore help out in that regard?

----------


## Smitty

Power is cheap in American politics.

It's no secret on how to obtain it.

You simply do what the powers that be tell you to do.

Providing liberty to the masses is much more complicated than garnering power,...and requires a large dose of self sacrifice.

So far, I haven't seen Rand express any willingness to make that sacrifice.

He won't even sacrifice Jesse Benton.

That's a huge red flag.

It's more than a bit surprising to me that more can't see it.

----------


## Deborah K

> Well Matt, so far, I haven't seen too many stories about Adam's recent arrest associating Rand or Ron to him.  The only association I'm aware of is the article written recently and published in Ron's online journal (which escapes my memory at the moment) and where the author defends Kokesh.  There's a thread on it in here somewhere.  Anyone?


I found the article that makes my point which Matt has chosen to willfully ignore:

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arch...tion-trap.aspx




> Podcast host Adam Kokesh appears to have joined the long list of victims of the US government's drugs and guns prosecution trap. After a US Park Police raid on his Virginia residence last week, media reported Monday that Kokesh was charged with possession of a Schedule I or II drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act while in possession of a gun. After his arrest, a judge ruled that Kokesh is prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm through the end of his prosecution.
> 
>  In the drugs and guns prosecution trap, when a defendant merely possesses a gun while allegedly in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, the government seeks to impose additional penalties for the gun possession. These penalties may be imposed even if the defendant did not use a gun in any violent activity or even in any activity related to drugs.
> 
>  The drugs and guns prosecution trap can be used to pressure a defendant to plead guilty in return for a reduced penalty instead of exercising his right to a trial. As explained by Eric Stern, counsel to former Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, the top US government prosecutor in Montana used gun possession charges "pervasively" as part of a strategy to intimidate Montanans who possessed marijuana in compliance with state medical marijuana laws into pleading guilty in plea-bargains.


Feel free to read on at the link.




> That's because they went through great pains to disassociate themselves from Kokesh.



So much for distancing themselves from Kokesh.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> For some reason as I read this I imagined I heard "I concur" in Sean Connery's voice...


In Capt. Marko Ramius' voice in _Hunt for Red October_.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> So much for distancing themselves from Kokesh.


I doubt that Ron would want to distance himself from Adam.  Ron Paul, Inc (i.e., those *self-interested professionals with more interest in   personal gain than in advancement of the movement*).....well, that's a different story.

----------


## Smitty

Jesse's boss comes in at #4.

http://chasvoice.blogspot.com/2012/0...ons-to-us.html

----------


## JK/SEA

> Jesse's boss comes in at #4.
> 
> http://chasvoice.blogspot.com/2012/0...ons-to-us.html



You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Smitty again.

----------


## PatriotOne

> I found the article that makes my point which Matt has chosen to willfully ignore:
> 
> http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arch...tion-trap.aspx
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to read on at the link.
> 
> 
> ...


And it's things like that that make me appreciate Benton all the more.  I hope for Benton to be mean as a two-headed rattlesnake to protect our pol...be it Rand or Ron....even if it's from themselves.  I don't want Benton to be a nice guy who feels he has to stroke everyone's ego or be their friends.  He's playing a game that has land mines, bear traps, snakes in the grass, snipers in the tree's, enemies on the outside and inside, cointel pro and useful idiots.  I hope he squashes anyone who threatens Rand like a bug.  We are at war...Rand needs a General not a summer camp leader singing kumbaya around the camp fire.

Kokesh self destructed but I would of preferred he ended up on the bottom of Benton's shoe like the cockroach he was/is.

----------


## Carlybee

> And it's things like that that make me appreciate Benton all the more.  I hope for Benton to be mean as a two-headed rattlesnake to protect our pol...be it Rand or Ron....even if it's from themselves.  I don't want Benton to be a nice guy who feels he has to stroke everyone's ego or be their friends.  He's playing a game that has land mines, bear traps, snakes in the grass, snipers in the tree's, enemies on the outside and inside, cointel pro and useful idiots.  I hope he squashes anyone who threatens Rand like a bug.  We are at war...Rand needs a General not a summer camp leader singing kumbaya around the camp fire.
> 
> Kokesh self destructed but I would of preferred he ended up on the bottom of Benton's shoe like the cockroach he was/is.


LMAO.  Seriously?  Obviously Benton has a long way to go before he knows how to dodge landmines.  He can't even dodge his own big mouth.

----------


## cjm

> Who the hell is Dennis Fusaro and why is he trying to destroy any chances of getting Ron Paul-like people into the government.


I met Dennis face to face a couple of times.  We traded some emails and spoke on the phone a few times too.  We were working on the same project at the time.  Although we did not work together directly, he was very helpful with a sub-project I was working on.  From what I saw, he gave a lot more to the overall project than he got out of it.  I don't know him well, but I think I know him well enough to say that he is an asset to the liberty movement.




> All I have to say is that Fusaro is a snake in the grass.


It might seem that way on the surface.  Who records conversations except machiavellian puppet masters, right?  But is there a case where an honorable person might record a conversation?  Have any of you had dealings with someone that mischaracterized what you said on the phone?  I have.  I haven't gone to the level of recording conversations, but sometimes I wish I had when I know that the other party is making claims that are not true about my statements.  

I'm not in a position to defend Fusaro's recording or publishing of those phone calls.  I don't know enough about the Fusaro-Benton history.  But even if this turns out to be a bad move, I would characterize it as a mistake on Fusaro's part and not say the man himself is a snake.  Until I know more, Dennis is ok in my book.

I also share his concerns about "Ron Paul, Inc."

----------


## PatriotOne

> LMAO.  Seriously?  Obviously Benton has a long way to go before he knows how to dodge landmines.  He can't even dodge his own big mouth.


Hopefully he learned not to trust anyone.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Perhaps they didn't want a media storm about it during the campaign? 
> 
> I dunno, but I am not totally sure the actions were illegal. I am not an attorney of course, but is it illegal for members of the legislature to be on the payroll of a Presidential campaign?


http://theiowarepublican.com/2013/fb...nson-payments/




> Former Bachmann chief of staff Andy Parrish swore in an affidavit that Sorenson was being paid by C&M Strategies for his work on the Bachmann presidential campaign, in an effort to help Sorenson skirt Iowa Senate ethics rules.


http://theiowarepublican.com/2013/th...with-ron-paul/




> Sorenson is currently under investigation for violating an Iowa Senate ethics rule that forbids Iowa state senators from being compensated by a presidential campaign.

----------


## liberty2897

> And it's things like that that make me appreciate Benton all the more. I hope for Benton to be mean as a two-headed rattlesnake to protect our pol...be it Rand or Ron....even if it's from themselves. I don't want Benton to be a nice guy who feels he has to stroke everyone's ego or be their friends. He's playing a game that has land mines, bear traps, snakes in the grass, snipers in the tree's, enemies on the outside and inside, cointel pro and useful idiots. I hope he squashes anyone who threatens Rand like a bug. We are at war...Rand needs a General not a summer camp leader singing kumbaya around the camp fire.
> 
> Kokesh self destructed but I would of preferred he ended up on the bottom of Benton's shoe like the cockroach he was/is.


I know what you mean.  It doesn't matter if he has to take money from MIC, give campaign donation money for bribes, kill innocent people.  All that matters is that he fights for liberty, ending corruption in politics, and the end of fascism!  /s

----------


## A Son of Liberty

God bless ya, Deb, et al.

On all other points, this thread is a $#@!ing disgrace.

You can have your "liberty movement".

----------


## JK/SEA

> God bless ya, Deb, et al.
> 
> On all other points, this thread is a $#@!ing disgrace.
> 
> You can have your "liberty movement".


is there another one out there?

----------


## Carlybee

> * I hope for Benton to be mean as a two-headed rattlesnake to protect our pol...be it Rand or Ron....even if it's from themselves*.  .



Nannyism 101

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> is there another one out there?


I'm not toeing the bull$#@! line that the likes of Collins and PO are advocating.  I'm not Kokesh, but I'm more Kokesh than Benton by miles, and if that means I'm frog-marched out of this "movement" by the likes of them, they can kiss my ass.  

This bull$#@! brow-beating of everyone who'd rather choose another foxhole to fight out of has gotten old.  And quite frankly, anyone who thinks ANY liberty is going to be gained by playing ball with the PIGS in Washington DC are so utterly deluded that we may have less in common than I once thought.

And in my astute, well-formed and historically-based opinion, Rand Paul is going to "play ball" himself right into a corner out of which the absolute best, pie-in-the-sky, rainbows and lollipops out come anyone could hope for is 4 years somewhat akin to Reagan.  Some folks around here might consider that a victory, but then they would apparently have NO IDEA where exactly we are on the road to tyranny.  

So to hell with it.  Now please, do accuse me of being a "divider".  SMFH.

----------


## Deborah K

> And it's things like that that make me appreciate Benton all the more.  I hope for Benton to be mean as a two-headed rattlesnake to protect our pol...be it Rand or Ron....even if it's from themselves.  I don't want Benton to be a nice guy who feels he has to stroke everyone's ego or be their friends.  He's playing a game that has land mines, bear traps, snakes in the grass, snipers in the tree's, enemies on the outside and inside, cointel pro and useful idiots.  I hope he squashes anyone who threatens Rand like a bug.  We are at war...Rand needs a General not a summer camp leader singing kumbaya around the camp fire.
> 
> Kokesh self destructed but I would of preferred he ended up on the bottom of Benton's shoe like the cockroach he was/is.


And it's "things like this" that make me wanna re-post my last sentence in #58.  UN - believable.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> God bless ya, Deb, et al.
> 
> On all other points, this thread is a $#@!ing disgrace.
> 
> You can have your "liberty movement".


This thread certainly has exposed those who are co-opting the liberty movement for personal gain (aka "Ron Paul, Inc.")

----------


## JK/SEA

> I'm not toeing the bull$#@! line that the likes of Collins and PO are advocating.  I'm not Kokesh, but I'm more Kokesh than Benton by miles, and if that means I'm frog-marched out of this "movement" by the likes of them, they can kiss my ass.  
> 
> This bull$#@! brow-beating of everyone who'd rather choose another foxhole to fight out of has gotten old.  And quite frankly, anyone who thinks ANY liberty is going to be gained by playing ball with the PIGS in Washington DC are so utterly deluded that we may have less in common than I once thought.
> 
> And in my astute, well-formed and historically-based opinion, Rand Paul is going to "play ball" himself right into a corner out of which the absolute best, pie-in-the-sky, rainbows and lollipops out come anyone could hope for is 4 years somewhat akin to Reagan.  Some folks around here might consider that a victory, but then they would apparently have NO IDEA where exactly we are on the road to tyranny.  
> 
> So to hell with it.  Now please, do accuse me of being a "divider".  SMFH.


nope, no accusations from this corner.

----------


## New York For Paul

I met Dennis a few times. He travels around the country and was in New Hampshire in 2008. On the one hand he is a very tough guy, who will really fight over principles. Most tenacious. He scares elected officials and is a top gun lobbyist who can really give it to liberal candidates. I have not made a judgement, but I would not want to be in big fight with him, as Jesse Benton has found out. 







> I met Dennis face to face a couple of times.  We traded some emails and spoke on the phone a few times too.  We were working on the same project at the time.  Although we did not work together directly, he was very helpful with a sub-project I was working on.  From what I saw, he gave a lot more to the overall project than he got out of it.  I don't know him well, but I think I know him well enough to say that he is an asset to the liberty movement.
> 
> 
> It might seem that way on the surface.  Who records conversations except machiavellian puppet masters, right?  But is there a case where an honorable person might record a conversation?  Have any of you had dealings with someone that mischaracterized what you said on the phone?  I have.  I haven't gone to the level of recording conversations, but sometimes I wish I had when I know that the other party is making claims that are not true about my statements.  
> 
> I'm not in a position to defend Fusaro's recording or publishing of those phone calls.  I don't know enough about the Fusaro-Benton history.  But even if this turns out to be a bad move, I would characterize it as a mistake on Fusaro's part and not say the man himself is a snake.  Until I know more, Dennis is ok in my book.
> 
> I also share his concerns about "Ron Paul, Inc."

----------


## LibertyEagle

> And it's "things like this" that make me wanna re-post my last sentence in #58.  UN - believable.


Deb, I actually totally agree with the first paragraph of what she wrote.

People have their own paths and they should take them.  But, if we are to have success politically, it's going to be a tough road, and I just hope no one professing to be a part of this movement is going to work against that success, whether unknowingly or intentionally.  Obviously, I'm not talking about you here.  You have a heart of gold.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Deb, I actually totally agree with the first paragraph of what she wrote.
> 
> People have their own paths and they should take them.  But, if we are to have success politically, it's going to be a tough road, and I just hope no one professing to be a part of this movement is going to work against that success, whether unknowingly or intentionally.  Obviously, I'm not talking about you here.  You have a heart of gold.


If the success has been built on a foundation of educating the American voters, there's not a damned thing anyone could do to tear it down; in fact it will continue to grow beyond our wildest dreams. 

If it's built on a house of cards, there's no telling how things will turn out.

That said, and despite what you may believe about me, I will always be working for the advancement of true liberty.

----------


## angelatc

> Kokesh self destructed but I would of preferred he ended up on the bottom of Benton's shoe like the cockroach he was/is.


Cockroachs scurry when the sunlight shines, which is what Benton is doing right now.  He can only wish he was half the man Adam is.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Cockroachs scurry when the sunlight shines, which is what Benton is doing right now.  He can only wish he was half the man Adam is.


Great point- When Adam was serving his country, Benton was shoving cupcakes down his throat. Now Benton's buffoonery shows itself again and people are still rushing to his defense. How many times does this blob have to show himself to be a disgrace to the liberty movement before people finally admit it? Are so many people around here really just mindless worshipers of power? The people who are making this about Fusaro's intentions rather than Benton's incompetence are pathetic as well. It really exposes people when you see them here using the same tricks that the political class and media scum use to conflate the issue.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Cockroachs scurry when the sunlight shines, which is what Benton is doing right now.  He can only wish he was half the man Adam is.


Pretty sure Benton wouldn't even wish to be a fingernail on Adam's pinky since all of the dumbass is looking at doing hard time in prison right now for what was surely nothing more than political theater with an unloaded shotgun and no trigger to rile up the useful idiots.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Pretty sure Benton wouldn't even wish to be a fingernail on Adam's pinky since all of the dumbass is looking at doing hard time in prison right now for what was surely nothing more than political theater with an unloaded shotgun and no trigger to rile up the useful idiots.


keep talking $#@!. I'm ready to send Adam more money BECAUSE of you.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Pretty sure Benton wouldn't even wish to be a fingernail on Adam's pinky since all of the dumbass is looking at doing hard time in prison right now for what was surely nothing more than political theater with an unloaded shotgun and no trigger to rile up the useful idiots.


I guess you have to resort to insults when that's the best argument you can offer.  

Consider that many great people throughout history spent time in prison for causes they believed in, and those are the people who really fought against tyranny; few political figures can say that.

----------


## FrankRep

Time to let this thread die now. 

This is not productive.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Time to let this thread die now. 
> 
> This is not productive.


yeah, thanks for your input.

----------


## Carlybee

> Time to let this thread die now. 
> 
> This is not productive.


Aka...the apologists are outnumbered.

----------


## LibertyEagle

First they took out Jack Hunter from Rand's campaign.

Next it appears that they have done massive damage to not only the relationship that Rand had with McConnell, but has also done massive damage to the entire structure that it took over 6 years to build in Iowa.   To top it off, its looking like it has also stripped from Rand the possibility of having anyone in his presidential campaign that had been in Ron's.  This has massive repercussions.  Do you realize what this means?  It would mean that he wouldn't have anyone around him that he both trusted and that also knew much of anything at all about campaigns.  And the majority of that was done by someone who purports to be part of the liberty movement ... Dennis Fusaro. 

He taped phone calls.  How on earth anyone around here could agree with that is beyond me.  He was trying to do damage and he has succeeded. Using the term, snake in the grass, is being kind.

The establishment is very happy indeed about all this and sadly, so are some on this website.

----------


## PatriotOne

> keep talking $#@!. I'm ready to send Adam more money BECAUSE of you.


Go for it.  Not like you were going to do anything useful with it anyways.  Adam wants ALL of your pot $.

----------


## PatriotOne

> I guess you have to resort to insults when that's the best argument you can offer.  
> 
> Consider that many great people throughout history spent time in prison for causes they believed in, and those are the people who really fought against tyranny; few political figures can say that.


And Adam isn't one of them.

----------


## FrankRep

> Aka...the apologists are outnumbered.


AKA: Attacking each other isn't fixing the problems of the country.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> And Adam isn't one of them.


Did he turn you down for a date or something?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Time to let this thread die now. 
> 
> This is not productive.





> Aka...the apologists are outnumbered.


LOL...sounds like it!

----------


## JK/SEA

> Go for it.  Not like you were going to do anything useful with it anyways.  Adam wants ALL of your pot $.


spoken like a true marxist.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> It might seem that way on the surface.  Who records conversations except machiavellian puppet masters, right?  But is there a case where an honorable person might record a conversation?  Have any of you had dealings with someone that mischaracterized what you said on the phone?  I have.  I haven't gone to the level of recording conversations, but sometimes I wish I had when I know that the other party is making claims that are not true about my statements.  
> 
> I'm not in a position to defend Fusaro's recording or publishing of those phone calls.  I don't know enough about the Fusaro-Benton history.  But even if this turns out to be a bad move, I would characterize it as a mistake on Fusaro's part and not say the man himself is a snake.  Until I know more, Dennis is ok in my book.


He wouldn't have released it as he did, if he was trying to do good.




> I also share his concerns about "Ron Paul, Inc."


It is something to keep abreast of, for sure.  As long as we realize that it is not just the people working for Ron Paul directly that are being paid from this movement.  Also add to it people like Rudowski and his crowd from We Are Change, Alex Jones, Thomas Woods, Adam Kokesh and countless others.

Ron chose the people who work for him.  He obviously trusts them.  The post up above when someone mentioned that the campaign would do their thing and Ron Paul would do his, is being completely overblown in my opinion.  Clearly, they had different jobs.  Ron went on interviews, did debates, etc., that the campaign scheduled and then, they did clean up on aisle 9, or tried to, when Ron didn't exactly come across like he intended.  Their job was to try their best to market Ron Paul.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> spoken like a true marxist.


WHAT???

----------


## JK/SEA

> AKA: Attacking each other isn't fixing the problems of the country.


attacking provacateurs is....well....somewhat a gray area in here.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Aka...the apologists are outnumbered.


Yeah but it's like Plants vs. Zombies.  I've gotten past 4000 levels of zombies .

----------


## PatriotOne

> Did he turn you down for a date or something?


So junior high.

----------


## PatriotOne

> WHAT???


I second that.  What???  He should stick to his usual argument of $#@! YOU!  At least that makes some moronic sense.

----------


## Lucille

> Go for it.  Not like you were going to do anything useful with it anyways.  Adam wants ALL of your pot $.


WTF is with the pot crack?  Are you one of those social Marxist drug warriors or something?  He'll be using it to pay a lawyer.

Benton pocketed more of my money than I care to think about.  What a waste.

----------


## FrankRep

Take a break from fighting to read BenSwann.com's newest article:


BenSwann.com
Aug. 11, 2013


*“Yes, Common Core is a federal takeover of education!”*
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ducation!-quot

----------


## angelatc

> First they took out Jack Hunter from Rand's campaign.
> 
> Next it appears that they have done massive damage to not only the relationship that Rand had with McConnell, but has also done massive damage to the entire structure that it took over 6 years to build in Iowa.   To top it off, its looking like it has also stripped from Rand the possibility of having anyone in his presidential campaign that had been in Ron's.  This has massive repercussions.  Do you realize what this means?  It would mean that he wouldn't have anyone around him that he both trusted and that also knew much of anything at all about campaigns.  And the majority of that was done by someone who purports to be part of the liberty movement ... Dennis Fusaro. 
> 
> He taped phone calls.  How on earth anyone around here could agree with that is beyond me.  He was trying to do damage and he has succeeded. Using the term, snake in the grass, is being kind.
> 
> The establishment is very happy indeed about all this and sadly, so are some on this website.


benton brings this on himself.

----------


## PatriotOne

> WTF is with the pot crack?  Are you one of those social Marxist drug warriors or something?  He'll be using it to pay a lawyer.


Not at all.  I just don't find pot particularly useful either.

----------


## Smitty

It's been a while since I spent any time here, but I recall the abrupt shut down of the campaign and the questions it caused.

For me,..everything is much easier to understand when it's broken down to the elements.

A: McConnell will *never* be an advocate of the liberty movement,...ain't gonna happen. He's owned by interests which run contrary to personal liberties. Rand couldn't alter that even if he wanted to.

B: Jesse Benton works for McConnell.

I'm not sure what type of reasoning gymnastics must be applied at this point in order to believe that Jesse Benton is an asset to the liberty movement,..but I'm quite sure that I'm incapable of them.

,...and that's a good thing.

*ahem*,.."wake up",...remember?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> So junior high.


Yes, your arguments certainly have been. I just thought there might be a reason Adam pushes your buttons so hard.

----------


## angelatc

> Pretty sure Benton wouldn't even wish to be a fingernail on Adam's pinky since all of the dumbass is looking at doing hard time in prison right now for what was surely nothing more than political theater with an unloaded shotgun and no trigger to rile up the useful idiots.


like i said, adam is twice the man benton will ever be.  Adam wasnt laundering camaign money.  He was out in broad daylight, on public property exercising his rights while Benton was hanging out in the shadows with the grifters.

----------


## angelatc

> Not at all.  I just don't find pot particularly useful either.


So you dont care about the second amendment, and overturning prohibition isnt on your agenda either.  Good to know!

----------


## LibertyEagle

> It's been a while since I spent any time here, but I recall the abrupt shut down of the campaign and the questions it caused.
> 
> For me,..everything is much easier to understand when it's broken down to the elements.
> 
> A: McConnell will *never* be an advocate of the liberty movement,...ain't gonna happen. He's owned by interests which run contrary to personal liberties. Rand couldn't alter that even if he wanted to.
> 
> B: Jesse Benton works for McConnell.
> 
> I'm not sure what type of reasoning gymnastics must be applied at this point in order to believe that Jesse Benton is an asset to the liberty movement,..but I'm quite sure that I'm incapable of them.
> ...


Please think beyond a sign wave.

No one here thinks McConnell is a part of the liberty movement; HOWEVER, having the minority or majority leader of the Senate backing you if you run for President certainly isn't harmful to your success.  Nor is it harmful to bringing in the donations you are going to need in order to have a chance in hell of getting nominated.  

Rand is playing chess and too many here are playing checkers.

----------


## Carlybee

Shhhhhhh.....must....squash....dissent.

----------


## New York For Paul

Guess what the Paul campaigns suck. Rand would be better off with new people. These guys are irreplaceable. The graveyards are filled with people who thought they were irreplaceable. Getting rid of high level incompetence would be the BEST thing for Rand Paul. These guys are Ron Paul and Rand Paul's worst enemy. The current staff does a huge disservice to their client.




> First they took out Jack Hunter from Rand's campaign.
> 
> Next it appears that they have done massive damage to not only the relationship that Rand had with McConnell, but has also done massive damage to the entire structure that it took over 6 years to build in Iowa.   To top it off, its looking like it has also stripped from Rand the possibility of having anyone in his presidential campaign that had been in Ron's.  This has massive repercussions.  Do you realize what this means?  It would mean that he wouldn't have anyone around him that he both trusted and that also knew much of anything at all about campaigns.  And the majority of that was done by someone who purports to be part of the liberty movement ... Dennis Fusaro. 
> 
> He taped phone calls.  How on earth anyone around here could agree with that is beyond me.  He was trying to do damage and he has succeeded. Using the term, snake in the grass, is being kind.
> 
> The establishment is very happy indeed about all this and sadly, so are some on this website.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> So you dont care about the second amendment, and overturning prohibition isnt on your agenda either.  Good to know!


If I wanted to win an election, no, I would know my audience (Republican voters) and not lead with legalizing drugs.

----------


## PatriotOne

> He was out in broad daylight, on public property exercising his rights while Benton was hanging out in the shadows with the grifters.


Exercising his rights with an unloaded gun without a trigger to impress his "fans" isn't brave...it was just stupid.

----------


## supermario21

Ron should've just had Rockwell, Woods, Dilorenzo, etc all running the campaign. Fortunately I haven't heard Doug Stafford's name thrown about here and I think he's going to be the guy to run Rand's bid.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Please think beyond a sign wave.
> 
> No one here thinks McConnell is a part of the liberty movement; HOWEVER, having the minority or majority leader of the Senate backing you if you run for President certainly isn't harmful to your success.  Nor is it harmful to bringing in the donations you are going to need in order to have a chance in hell of getting nominated.  
> 
> *Rand is playing chess and too many here are playing checkers.*


What does anything Smitty said, to which you are replying, have to do with Rand?

----------


## New York For Paul

Doug Stafford knows most of these players very well. I don't know anything about his skills.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> If I wanted to win an election, no, I would know my audience (Republican voters) and not lead with legalizing drugs.


What was it that angelatc said, to which you are replying, have to do with winning an election?

----------


## Smitty

> having the minority or majority leader of the Senate backing you if you run for President


McConnell is owned.

Having him back a Presidential candidate comes with a price.

Those who own McConnell set the price.

----------


## PatriotOne

> So you dont care about the second amendment, and overturning prohibition isnt on your agenda either.  Good to know!


How did me not caring if JK/SEA sent Kokesh his pot money become me not caring about the 2nd amendment?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Guess what the Paul campaigns suck. Rand would be better off with new people. These guys are irreplaceable. The graveyards are filled with people who thought they were irreplaceable. Getting rid of high level incompetence would be the BEST thing for Rand Paul. These guys are Ron Paul and Rand Paul's worst enemy. The current staff does a huge disservice to their client.


They certainly have plenty of room for improvement, I agree.  But, it also requires that the candidate plays his part too.  Let's also not forget the media's 24x7 smear campaign.  So while I would hope they would bring in more learned advisers, I would well imagine Rand would like to have a couple in his campaign that he knows, trusts and has worked on campaigns before.   We also shouldn't forget the meltdown in this forum over people like Bruce Fein and Dimitri whomever by the gaggle here.  If people had a meltdown over them, I can only imagine what is going to happen if he brings in a whole team of seasoned campaign people who do not pass some here's purity test.  lol,  Meltdown number 999, that's what.

----------


## jjdoyle

> First they took out Jack Hunter from Rand's campaign.
> 
> Next it appears that they have done massive damage to not only the relationship that Rand had with McConnell, but has also done massive damage to the entire structure that it took over 6 years to build in Iowa.   To top it off, its looking like it has also stripped from Rand the possibility of having anyone in his presidential campaign that had been in Ron's.  This has massive repercussions.  Do you realize what this means?


That he might be serious about winning, and not having liars on his staff? Maybe Rand is about to come out and apologize for lying in his endorsement of Mitt Romney, but I doubt it.

I already said taping phone calls, and releasing them, is low. BUT, is it lower than a campaign manager and blogger sitting around on staff for months collecting paychecks and repeatedly asking people for donations, when they weren't trying to win? If Ron Paul 2012 was dishonest with donations, in any fashion, we shouldn't take it lightly.

The fact Ron Paul 2012 made a deal with Romney's campaign not to attack him as early as January, is what I'm more concerned with. How many millions more did Ron Paul 2012 raise from January until he "dropped out"? Why didn't Ron just drop out immediately upon his campaign agreeing to not attack Mitt Romney? If Jesse Benton knew about it, Jack Hunter knew about it (likely, he used the official campaign website to defend Rand's endorsement), then why would they sit by and allow the campaign to keep on asking for more donations? To me, that is dishonest.

Why now, in 2013 does Ron Paul 2012 have more than a million cash still on hand while paying out something like $17,000 to some random consulting sometime between April and the recent filing? Are they seriously trying to sit on a million, or a little less by then, to transfer to Rand's 2016 campaign for some PAC (not sure what the exact law would allow there).

So sure, along with did Ron Paul 2012 use campaign funds to secure an endorsement (which, I do see as typical politics and what most think is probably stupid, and I agree), what about the other bigger issues, I think, that haven't been addressed?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> McConnell is owned.
> 
> Having him back a Presidential candidate comes with a price.
> 
> Those who own McConnell set the price.


I trust Rand not to sell out.  But, that doesn't mean I won't be watching.  Trust but verify, right?

It is most certainly a you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours scenario.  Rand is scratching McConnell's right now in helping him get reelected.  I don't foresee him doing more than that, besides possibly supporting him as the minority or majority leader.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Yes, your arguments certainly have been. I just thought there might be a reason Adam pushes your buttons so hard.


Because he's a fake patriot.  I hate snakes in the grass.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Because he's a fake patriot.  I hate snakes in the grass.


you must've been looking in the mirror when you typed that.

btw...i don't need to pay for weed. I live in Washington State.

oh, hey, almost forgot. I could run interference for you and i could try and patch things up between you and Adam. Maybe i could get him to give you the time of day...

----------


## cajuncocoa

> you must've been looking in the mirror when you typed that.


Damn, you keep hitting home runs...I owe you another rep!

----------


## Smitty

> I trust Rand not to sell out.


Here's how you'll know.

If McConnell backs Rand it will be because Rand has sold out.

This is what McConnell advocates. He's been paid to do so.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1322734.html

_WASHINGTON -- A top Republican senator made a strong case for military action against Iran Monday night, calling the Obama administration's policy of diplomacy and sanctions "simply not enough," and "a talking point."

Speaking at a gala dinner for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual conference, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the Senate Republican leader, proposed specific Iranian actions that would commit the United States to use force._

----------


## LibertyEagle

> That he might be serious about winning, and not having liars on his staff? Maybe Rand is about to come out and apologize for lying in his endorsement of Mitt Romney, but I doubt it.
> 
> I already said taping phone calls, and releasing them, is low. BUT, is it lower than a campaign manager and blogger sitting around on staff for months collecting paychecks and repeatedly asking people for donations, when they weren't trying to win? If Ron Paul 2012 was dishonest with donations, in any fashion, we shouldn't take it lightly.


To the extent that Ron Paul wasn't honest about not running to win in either election, IT IS HIS DOING AND RESPONSIBILITY.  Ron's!  However, I do think he was running to win, at least at the beginning, in the '12 election.




> The fact Ron Paul 2012 made a deal with Romney's campaign not to attack him as early as January, is what I'm more concerned with. How many millions more did Ron Paul 2012 raise from January until he "dropped out"? Why didn't Ron just drop out immediately upon his campaign agreeing to not attack Mitt Romney? If Jesse Benton knew about it, Jack Hunter knew about it (likely, he used the official campaign website to defend Rand's endorsement), then why would they sit by and allow the campaign to keep on asking for more donations? To me, that is dishonest.
> 
> Why now, in 2013 does Ron Paul 2012 have more than a million cash still on hand while paying out something like $17,000 to some random consulting sometime between April and the recent filing? Are they seriously trying to sit on a million, or a little less by then, to transfer to Rand's 2016 campaign for some PAC (not sure what the exact law would allow there).


You read/heard Doug Wead's explanation of that the same as I did, I would imagine.  Per Wead, Ron had already lost at that point, and if they had gone against Romney, the threat was that they would devastate Ron's name.  Ron chose not to go that way.  Surely you aren't saying that you believe that Ron wasn't a part of that decision.  It didn't set well with me, either, but then again, Ron is playing chess and trying to win the tournament; not just one game.  If his name was destroyed, it would have set back the movement a great deal.  He made the decision it was a price not worth paying for the benefit of saving the country.




> So sure, along with did Ron Paul 2012 use campaign funds to secure an endorsement (which, I do see as typical politics and what most think is probably stupid, and I agree), what about the other bigger issues, I think, that haven't been addressed?


I frankly would have told Sorenson to go straight to hell.  The Paul people got him in his little state office, from his background of obscurity and then he goes and chooses to work for Bachmann.   I wouldn't have wanted him and I can't see how his endorsement helped at all.  So, yeah, in my opinion, it was a bad decision.  People aren't perfect though; we are all human.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Damn, you keep hitting home runs...I owe you another rep!


Yeah...if he was 10 yrs old it might of been considered funny.

----------


## Badger Paul

"To top it off, its looking like it has also stripped from Rand the possibility of having anyone in his presidential campaign that had been in Ron's."

Since Ron's campaign didn't win the vote of any primary or straw poll inside a caucus, maybe that's not such a bad thing, ya think?

Maybe Rand is playing chess, finding ways of jettisoning corrupt incompetents through scandal and using it to hire the right people in 2016.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Here's how you'll know.
> 
> If McConnell backs Rand it will be because Rand has sold out.
> 
> This is what McConnell advocates. He's been paid to do so.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1322734.html
> 
> _WASHINGTON -- A top Republican senator made a strong case for military action against Iran Monday night, calling the Obama administration's policy of diplomacy and sanctions "simply not enough," and "a talking point."
> ...


You are unable to see the forest for the trees.  

Rand does not vote for that crap.  That is HIS obligation.  Spitting in the face of the Senate minority leader would not only be dumb as a box of rocks, it would devastate his chances of becoming President.  And if he doesn't do that, he won't be able to start changing those things we have been dreaming about being changed.

You can't have it both ways.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Yeah...if he was 10 yrs old it might of been considered funny.


understandable. When someone is the butt of a joke, they rarely laugh.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> "To top it off, its looking like it has also stripped from Rand the possibility of having anyone in his presidential campaign that had been in Ron's."
> 
> Since Ron's campaign didn't win the vote of any primary or straw poll inside a caucus, maybe that's not such a bad thing, ya think?
> 
> Maybe Rand is playing chess, finding ways of jettisoning corrupt incompetents through scandal and using it to hire the right people in 2016.


He could jettison anyone he chose to jettison.  He didn't need a snake in the grass tape recording what was thought to be a private phone call and having it played on Rachel Maddow.  

Seriously, you must be kidding.  This rhetoric of yours seems more than naive.

----------


## PatriotOne

> understandable. When someone is the butt of a joke, they rarely laugh.


  Or maybe someone is just over estimating their wittiness.  Then again, if you've been smoking pot I'm sure you think it was hilarious.

----------


## PatriotOne

> btw...i don't need to pay for weed. I live in Washington State.


Truce for one minute?

Are we allowed to grow pot now for recreational use in WA State....like in our backyards?  I thought it had to be done by licensed growers, sold and taxed.

----------


## Peace Piper

> Guess what the Paul campaigns suck. Rand would be better off with new people. These guys are irreplaceable. The graveyards are filled with people who thought they were irreplaceable. Getting rid of high level incompetence would be the BEST thing for Rand Paul. These guys are Ron Paul and Rand Paul's worst enemy. The current staff does a huge disservice to their client.


Exactly. Ron is great but his hiring skills are not. With all the Volunteer talent that was crawling out of the woodwork to be a part of what Ron had started he picks clowns like Benton and Hunter? And hiring from "the family" might feel good and keep the $ close but it's totally unprofessional. Hopefully Rand will be better. If he hires the likes of Benton - well, it will be a shame.

----------


## Smitty

> You are unable to see the forest for the trees.  
> 
> Rand does not vote for that crap.  That is HIS obligation.  Spitting in the face of the Senate minority leader would not only be dumb as a box of rocks, it would devastate his chances of becoming President.  And if he doesn't do that, he won't be able to start changing those things we have been dreaming about being changed.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.


Rand nor anyone else will alter the power structure in D.C. by playing political footsie with it.

Bottom line,...the American people will have to change the way our society is governed.

Dr Paul has said as much.

Paraphrasing here,..but in an interview after the campaign, Dr Paul said that he had hope for America, but that it was going to have to endure some serious troubles before the people embraced the idea of true freedom and personal liberties.

I don't truly understand why anyone would make the attempt to change the structure from within at this point.

Those who control the government won't allow any change.

After everything boils down, there's a possibility that a liberty based government will emerge, but not before then,...and quite possibly not even after.

Attempting to vote yourself free isn't going to do it.

Those people who control the world don't care what button you push.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Truce for one minute?
> 
> Are we allowed to grow pot now for recreational use in WA State....like in our backyards?  I thought it had to be done by licensed growers, sold and taxed.


you have to wait till 2014.

----------


## Peace Piper

> Are we allowed to grow pot now for recreational use in WA State....like in our backyards?  I thought it had to be done by licensed growers, sold and taxed.


Only 28 grams or less has been de criminalized. (EDIT=Most of the) All laws before the "legalize it" proposition are still on the books. Growing 1 plant (without a med card) is a felony. Pot must be bought from state licensed stores that people think Holder will allow, and that these stores will take cash for a federally prohibited substance and bank this money in FDIC insured institutions.

WA didn't legalize pot, they de-criminalized an ounce and under, for those 21 and over.

----------


## New York For Paul

Ron Paul forces played footsie with the moderates and at the RNC convention, instead of Romney trying to win over Paul supporters for 2012, Romney spent time trying to get rid of Paul delegates and rewrite RNC rules for Romney's reelection run in 2016. Romney thought he would cruise to victory in 2012 without Ron Paul supporters. Very short sided on the GOP establishment part. 




> Rand nor anyone else will alter the power structure in D.C. by playing political footsie with it.
> 
> Bottom line,...the American people will have to change the way our society is governed.
> 
> Dr Paul has said as much.
> 
> Paraphrasing here,..but in an interview after the campaign, Dr Paul said that he had hope for America, but that it was going to have to endure some serious troubles before the people embraced the idea of true freedom and personal liberties.
> 
> I don't truly understand why anyone would make the attempt to change the structure from within at this point.
> ...

----------


## PatriotOne

> you have to wait till 2014.


What's that mean?  Was another law passed that becomes active in 2014 or are you just wishful thinking?




> btw...i don't need to pay for weed. I live in Washington State.


Then how are you getting free weed?  I'm confused .

----------


## PatriotOne

> Only 28 grams or less has been de criminalized. All laws before the "legalize it" proposition are still on the books. Growing 1 plant (without a med card) is a felony. Pot must be bought from state licensed stores that people think Holder will allow, and that these stores will take cash for a federally prohibited substance and bank this money in FDIC insured institutions.
> 
> WA didn't legalize pot, they de-criminalized an ounce and under, for those 21 and over.


That's pretty much what I thought.  JK/SEA made me wonder if I missed something with his "I don't need to pay for pot...I live in WA State" post.

----------


## Deborah K

> Rand nor anyone else will alter the power structure in D.C. by playing political footsie with it.


He's not playing footsie, he's infiltrating, but not in the way you think, he's doing it by getting his foot in the door and then changing people's minds- opening people's eyes.




> Bottom line,...the American people will have to change the way our society is governed.
> 
> Dr Paul has said as much.
> 
> Paraphrasing here,..but in an interview after the campaign, Dr Paul said that he had hope for America, but that it was going to have to endure some serious troubles before the people embraced the idea of true freedom and personal liberties.
> 
> I don't truly understand why anyone would make the attempt to change the structure from within at this point.
> 
> Those who control the government won't allow any change.


I think the serious trouble that he's referring to is the economic collapse.  The reason that changing the structure from within is important is because when, not if, it all collapses, we'll have made inroads for starting over.  I recently watched a news show with people debating about how libertarians were changing the face of the GOP, and at the same time, finding common ground with the democrats.  





> After everything boils down, there's a possibility that a liberty based government will emerge, but not before then,...and quite possibly not even after.
> 
> Attempting to vote yourself free isn't going to do it.
> 
> Those people who control the world don't care what button you push


This whole freedom thing has to be a multi-pronged approach.  Rand is handling one of the necessary prongs.

----------


## Smitty

> The reason that changing the structure from within is important is because when, not if, it all collapses, we'll have made inroads for starting over.


I can't see any advantage to making inroads in an establishment that we both agree is doomed to failure.

----------


## Bman

You know I've trashed Benton in the past.  I was a $#@!ing idiot for doing it.  Little league bull$#@!.  It's time to move on or get out of the game.

----------


## Bman

> I can't see any advantage to making inroads in an establishment that we both agree is doomed to failure.


What exactly is doomed for failure?  Not everything, so you better damn well know that answer before you decide what bridges you are willing to burn.

----------


## torchbearer

> You know I've trashed Benton in the past.  I was a $#@!ing idiot for doing it.  Little league bull$#@!.  It's time to move on or get out of the game.


If a player on your team is known for intentionally throwing games for personal gain, you may not want to forget it.

----------


## Bman

> If a player on your team is known for intentionally throwing games for personal gain, you may not want to forget it.



Then first door I'm stopping at is Ron's for not running third party and really trying to make some waves.

----------


## Theocrat

> All I have to say is that Fusaro is a snake in the grass.


Explain. I'm asking out of curiosity.

----------


## JK/SEA

> What's that mean?  Was another law passed that becomes active in 2014 or are you just wishful thinking?
> 
> 
> 
> Then how are you getting free weed?  I'm confused .


you're confused?....thanks for admitting it.

btw...if you come to my house, you just might get to toke a few...free weed...get it?


geeez...

----------


## torchbearer

> Then first door I'm stopping at is Ron's for not running third party and really trying to make some waves.


you are talking about something you know nothing about.
Why should he endure more pain, just so you feel good about yourself?
Running LP would have been an unnecessary abuse to the elder Paul.
its not easy running for office, its really an incredibly taxing job to run for an office with 50 statewide elections.
Benton gave up on the only real shot we had to win the white house.
once Benton had cashed in all the chips for himself- there wasn't much left.

But, the people in my town still re-enact civil war battles and remember the burning of our town.
we don't forget.

----------


## Smitty

> What exactly is doomed for failure?  Not everything, so you better damn well know that answer before you decide what bridges you are willing to burn.


I never said anything about burning any bridges.

In fact, I have no bridge to burn.

----------


## Bman

> you are talking about something you know nothing about.
> Why should he endure more pain, just so you feel good about yourself?
> Running LP would have been an unnecessary abuse to the elder Paul.
> its not easy running for office, its really an incredibly taxing job to run for an office with 50 statewide elections.
> Benton gave up on the only real shot we had to win the white house.
> once Benton had cashed in all the chips for himself- there wasn't much left.
> 
> But, the people in my town still re-enact civil war battles and remember the burning of our town.
> we don't forget.


I don't but I guess you do, how quaint.  I'm not here for a fight but if you're going to act like your in the know and I'm some how been not paying attention you are sorely mistaken.

Ron was never in it to win it.  It was quite clear he just wanted a teaching moment.  I'm done with the B.S.

----------


## torchbearer

> I don't but I guess you do, how quaint.  I'm not here for a fight but if you're going to act like your in the know and I'm some how been not paying attention you are sorely mistaken.
> 
> Ron was never in it to win it.  It was quite clear he just wanted a teaching moment.  I'm done with the B.S.


Ron was in it to win the minds.
Until you understand that, you won't understand him.

The campaign for liberty in louisiana was centered on getting national delegates so that a liberty loving candidate like ron would get nominated.
if the guy you entrust your delegates to ends up selling their seats for political favor- you'd have a problem with it too.

----------


## JK/SEA

> I don't but I guess you do, how quaint.  I'm not here for a fight but if you're going to act like your in the know and I'm some how been not paying attention you are sorely mistaken.
> 
> Ron was never in it to win it.  It was quite clear he just wanted a teaching moment.  I'm done with the B.S.



i'm all ears...whats your strategy now?

----------


## Deborah K

> I can't see any advantage to making inroads in an establishment that we both agree is doomed to failure.


An establishment that is doomed to failure is what we want, don't we?  Let it fall apart.

----------


## Deborah K

> I don't but I guess you do, how quaint.  I'm not here for a fight but if you're going to act like your in the know and I'm some how been not paying attention you are sorely mistaken.
> 
> Ron was never in it to win it.  It was quite clear he just wanted a teaching moment.  I'm done with the B.S.


I don't believe that.  I think he was in it to win it, but I also think he knew 'they' would never let him win.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> An establishment that is doomed to failure is what we want, don't we?  Let it fall apart.


According to the Benton strategy, we need to establish deals with the rotting establishment who is hated by their own constituents and refrain from supporting competition who might actually be a champion for liberty in the Senate. That's the strategy triumphed by all the Bentonists around here. They're actually hoping that Mitch McConnell gets re-elected now! These are the people who have been corrupted by the establishment and are no better than establishment Republicans. I'm personally ecstatic that Benton's being exposed for what he is on a grand scale now, no matter what Fusari's intentions were.

----------


## JK/SEA

Look everybody, i'm not sure that focusing on a President is really the thing to do entirely.. I'm inclined to focus on Senate and House.

just thought i'd through that out there to try and temper the passions of a Presidential run.....by anyone.

----------


## Deborah K

> According to the Benton strategy, we need to establish deals with the rotting establishment who is hated by their own constituents and refrain from supporting competition who might actually be a champion for liberty in the Senate. That's the strategy triumphed by all the Bentonists around here. They're actually hoping that Mitch McConnell gets re-elected now! These are the people who have been corrupted by the establishment and are no better than establishment Republicans. I'm personally ecstatic that Benton's being exposed for what he is on a grand scale now, no matter what Fusari's intentions were.


And what happens if McConnell loses?  What's the strategy then? Is there a plan B?  Oh, but I guess the establishment won't let McConnell lose, right?  And this same establishment will then embrace Rand when he runs for President?  Let us not forget that McConnell was backing Rand's opponent.  I think this whole strategy is just shady.

----------


## ObiRandKenobi

> According to the Benton strategy, we need to establish deals with the rotting establishment who is hated by their own constituents


its propping up foreign dictators hated by their own people-esque.

----------


## Smitty

> An establishment that is doomed to failure is what we want, don't we?  Let it fall apart.


I have no problem with that.

My point was, why get politically involved with something that's on its way out?

At this point, I think the best work can be done from the outside.

There's no way to jump in the D.C. sewer without picking up its smell.

Good read here. I think you will enjoy it.

http://www.thesnc.org/Viewpoints/Liv...mperial_World/

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> And what happens if McConnell loses?  What's the strategy then? Is there a plan B?  Oh, but I guess the establishment won't let McConnell lose, right?  And this same establishment will then embrace Rand when he runs for President?  Let us not forget that McConnell was backing Rand's opponent.  I think this whole strategy is just shady.


It's shady and idiotic beyond belief. We actually have our candidate who is supposed to be this Tea Party champion doing business with one of the worst establishment Republicans of all-time to screw over another Tea Party candidate in his state that seems solid. The fact that anyone in the liberty movement supports such an arrangement is proof that politics turns people into corrupt, sycophantic imbeciles.

----------


## PatriotOne

> you're confused?....thanks for admitting it.
> 
> btw...if you come to my house, you just might get to toke a few...free weed...get it?
> 
> 
> geeez...


No.  I don't get it.  You say you live in Washington State so you get your weed for free.  How does living in WA State give you the benefit of getting free weed?  It's a simple question that you haven't answered.  So yes....I'm confused because as far as I know the only way to get free weed in WA is to grow it illegally and a person doesn't have to live in WA State to do that.  Did I miss something in the new law?

----------


## Bman

> i'm all ears...whats your strategy now?


First step, stop entering the usual forum topics where there's a bunch of pissing and moaning about how everyone is a traitor.  Then act like I did something more then that person did to advance any goal.
\
It's like a bunch of old $#@!ing woman in this site who would fall over dead if they had nothing to bitch about.

----------


## Matt Collins

> http://theiowarepublican.com/2013/fb...nson-payments/
> 
> 
> 
> http://theiowarepublican.com/2013/th...with-ron-paul/


"Under investigation" doesn't mean their actions were actually illegal. That's an old Karl Rove trick. Until a court of law finds their actions illegal, then it really isn't so.

----------


## Matt Collins

> did Lew Moore help out in that regard?


I have no idea, I met the guy once for lunch in 2008 for about 10 minutes on a swing through Nashville.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Next it appears that they have done massive damage to not only the relationship that Rand had with McConnell,


I wouldn't bet on that. Mitch is smart enough to know why Jesse is working for him. Mitch is also smart enough to know that he needs Rand if he wants to get re-elected.





> but has also done massive damage to the entire structure that it took over 6 years to build in Iowa.


yeah this part is a little more fragile. I don't have any on the ground intel, but just from what I've read from these stories, I am indeed concerned about our network, internal and external, in Iowa at this point. But the good news is that there is indeed time to rebuild between now and 2016.




> To top it off, its looking like it has also stripped from Rand the possibility of having anyone in his presidential campaign that had been in Ron's.


No, not at all. If it becomes a problem, then the individuals in question simply stay out of Iowa.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> "Under investigation" doesn't mean their actions were actually illegal. That's an old Karl Rove trick. Until a court of law finds their actions illegal, then it really isn't so.


You asked:




> but is it illegal for members of the legislature to be on the payroll of a Presidential campaign?


And the answer is yes, so I gave a source for the answer.

----------


## Matt Collins

> For me,..everything is much easier to understand when it's broken down to the elements.
> 
> A: McConnell will *never* be an advocate of the liberty movement,...ain't gonna happen. He's owned by interests which run contrary to personal liberties. Rand couldn't alter that even if he wanted to.
> 
> B: Jesse Benton works for McConnell.


Mitch's interest is getting re-elected. If that means he will have to support Rand in 2016, then that's what he'll do. Besides, he'd likely do it anyway just because it would be hard for him NOT to support the home team from KY.

The premise here being, (whether one agrees with it or not is up for debate), is that Mitch is much more valuable to the liberty movement as Sen Minority Leader supporting Rand, than he is unelected... even Jesse said that in so many words on the recorded call.

----------


## Matt Collins

> If McConnell backs Rand it will be because Rand has sold out.


Not true. Mitch will back Rand in 2016 for two reasons 1-because if Mitch gets re-elected it will be due in large part to Rand and 2- Mitch likes Rand and would like to see a KY President.

----------


## Matt Collins

> BUT, is it lower than a campaign manager and blogger sitting around on staff for months collecting paychecks and repeatedly asking people for donations, when they weren't trying to win?


You do realize the outcome of the nomination was already fixed at that point, right?






> How many millions more did Ron Paul 2012 raise from January until he "dropped out"? Why didn't Ron just drop out immediately upon his campaign agreeing to not attack Mitt Romney?


I don't know if the campaign "agreed not to attack Romney" as you have suggested. But I do know that it wouldn't have made sense to drop out until the last possible minute, which is what happened.





> Why now, in 2013 does Ron Paul 2012 have more than a million cash still on hand while paying out something like $17,000 to some random consulting sometime between April and the recent filing? Are they seriously trying to sit on a million, or a little less by then, to transfer to Rand's 2016 campaign for some PAC (not sure what the exact law would allow there).


Ask Ron that question, he is in charge of it.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Power is cheap in American politics.
> 
> It's no secret on how to obtain it.
> 
> You simply do what the powers that be tell you to do.


That's one way to get it, but that's not how most of us get it. 


Most of us attain power by mobilizing people to put pressure on the politicians. The more people we can mobilize the more pressure we can apply.


This explains it better:

----------


## orenbus



----------


## fr33

> Mitch is also smart enough to know that he needs Rand if he wants to get re-elected.


That's disgusting. If Rand holds the key to get rid of someone who led the charge in bailing out the banking system, then of course he should destroy that person. Where are the principles?

----------


## Matt Collins

> That's disgusting. If Rand holds the key to get rid of someone who led the charge in bailing out the banking system, then of course he should destroy that person. Where are the principles?


LE describes this as "chess, not checkers"

----------


## JK/SEA

> First step, stop entering the usual forum topics where there's a bunch of pissing and moaning about how everyone is a traitor.  Then act like I did something more then that person did to advance any goal.
> \
> It's like a bunch of old $#@!ing woman in this site who would fall over dead if they had nothing to bitch about.


just curious...whats the 'B' in BMAN stand for?

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> LE describes this as "chess, not checkers"


Why do you think it is a good long-term strategy to help Mitch McConnell win re-election? Is that really the way to change the Republican Party and restore it to liberty?

----------


## JK/SEA

> I have no idea, I met the guy once for lunch in 2008 for about 10 minutes on a swing through Nashville.



great. You claim to be involved in politics, and got your start through the Ron Paul run for Prez in 2007, and you don't know anything about Lew Moore.....

noted.

----------


## orenbus

> just curious...whats the 'B' in BMAN stand for?

----------


## JK/SEA

> 


hmmm..not the 'B' i was thinking of.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Why do you think it is a good long-term strategy to help Mitch McConnell win re-election? Is that really the way to change the Republican Party and restore it to liberty?


I'm not taking a stance on that, because I think there are valid arguments on both sides, but ask yourself your own question phrased this way:

"_Is it worth it for Rand Paul to become the 2016 Republican nominee, maybe even President, if it means helping Mitch win re-election?.... Will Rand Paul being the Republican nominee for President help to change the Republican Party?_"


Again, I'm not making a judgement on it, I am merely putting forth a rhetorical question.

----------


## JK/SEA

> No.  I don't get it.  You say you live in Washington State so you get your weed for free.  How does living in WA State give you the benefit of getting free weed?  It's a simple question that you haven't answered.  So yes....I'm confused because as far as I know the only way to get free weed in WA is to grow it illegally and a person doesn't have to live in WA State to do that.  Did I miss something in the new law?


ok..lets try this. I invite you over for dinner. Now, since i invited you, the food is free...

replace dinner with...PARTY...like one you get INVITED to...oh oh...someone brought WEED and is going to share it....btw...there is still a black market for weed. People grow it whether its legal or not....local cops have been told to put pot on low priority....why?...because its useless to bust people for small amounts. This stuff is grown everywhere. I would say there will be a glut soon here in Washington...but i digress.

i would like to add that i don't have a reefer in my face 24/7.

----------


## Carlybee

> Why do you think it is a good long-term strategy to help Mitch McConnell win re-election? Is that really the way to change the Republican Party and restore it to liberty?



I'm not so sure that is even the goal anymore.

----------


## Bman

> just curious...whats the 'B' in BMAN stand for?



...first initial.

----------


## fr33

> LE describes this as "chess, not checkers"


I got into this to turn the board upside-down and throw the pieces to where they can't be found. 

Anyone that bails out the banks is the enemy. Supporting him risks marking yourself as the enemy. Nobody should take a McConnell endorsement from Rand seriously anymore than they took a Bachmann endorsement seriously from Ron. It's disgraceful how some here are putting themselves on the line to support McConnell when they wouldn't do it for Bachmann, Smith, or other pols Ron endorsed.

It's like they are stupid enough to believe 8 years of Romney would be better than 4 more years of Obama.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'm not so sure that is even the goal anymore.


What, pray tell, do you think the goal is?

----------


## jjdoyle

> I'm not taking a stance on that, because I think there are valid arguments on both sides, but ask yourself your own question phrased this way:
> 
> "_Is it worth it for Rand Paul to become the 2016 Republican nominee, maybe even President, if it means helping Mitch win re-election?.... Will Rand Paul being the Republican nominee for President help to change the Republican Party?_"
> 
> 
> Again, I'm not making a judgement on it, I am merely putting forth a rhetorical question.


I would actually say it's not worth Rand selling out a Tea Party nominee, just to HOPE to get a future nomination and win support. ESPECIALLY in 2016. Does any Republican really want to win the nomination in 2016 if the Democrats have Hillary as their nominee? This last election, just by the numbers, should show Republicans how far they have fallen. Depending on what numbers you look at, either not passing or barely passing what John McCain got in 2008, despite 4 years of President Obama. We all know President Bush barely won (if it wasn't outright stolen) the 2000 election. I don't see a Republican candidate getting more votes than the potential "First WOMAN President!!!!"

Yes, for that very reason alone, her being a woman.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> BUT, is it lower than a campaign manager and blogger sitting around on staff for months collecting paychecks *and repeatedly asking people for donations*, when they weren't trying to win?





> You do realize the outcome of the nomination was already fixed at that point, right?


Then why keep asking for donations?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Why do you think it is a good long-term strategy to help Mitch McConnell win re-election? Is that really the way to change the Republican Party and restore it to liberty?





> I'm not so sure that is even the goal anymore.


Of Ron Paul, Inc.?  No, I don't think it is.  In the words of Dennis Fusaro, they are "self-interested professionals with more interest in   personal gain than in advancement of the movement".

----------


## jjdoyle

> Then why keep asking for donations?


Contributions kept on being asked for, at least all the way until May 2012.

But, here's my full reply to Matt:




> You do realize the outcome of the nomination was already fixed at that point, right?


No, I didn't realize the nomination was won in January. Before the majority of the states still had to vote, and candidates like Gingrich and Santorum were still in it. Also, a state like Virginia, where Ron Paul 2012 didn't run a single ad to even attempt to let the people in Virginia know, like Gingrich and Santorum voters, that Romney wasn't the only choice.




> I don't know if the campaign "agreed not to attack Romney" as you have suggested. But I do know that it wouldn't have made sense to drop out until the last possible minute, which is what happened.


If the campaign didn't agree to not attack Mitt Romney, they were an inept campaign, because despite attacking Gingrich heavily in Iowa and then even Santorum in certain states, Mitt Romney never received his own personal attack ad. If they did agree to not attack Mitt Romney, they were dishonest from that point on. Doug Wead said they agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, because the Romney campaign threatened to go nuclear on Ron Paul's name or legacy if they did attack him. Which, from what most of us see, is the truth based on the campaign's own actions and non-actions. Ron and Ron Paul 2012 decided to kiss Romney's ring on his hand, and "went along to get along", while continuing to ask Ron Paul supporters for donations and lying acting like they were serious about winning.

This was sent to supporters in May 2012:
"I am relying on your help to keep fighting all the way to the Republican National Convention in August.

With several state conventions coming up in just the next few weeks  not to mention my campaign needing to help the delegates who have already won fight any challenges the establishment throws their way  I cant tell you how critical it is we have your continued support.

Thousands are attending our meetings all across the country, and Im confident we can spread our message even more, further grow our ranks, and keep securing key national delegate spots - if we have the resources.

So please listen to the special message Ive recorded and *contribute whatever you are able today*."

So, the campaign wanted supporters to fight all the way to the Republican National Convention, while campaign staffers like Jesse Benton were going out of their way to sabotage and steal delegate slates out of states like Louisiana? Wasting the time of the supporters there that had been fighting...not to mention money from their potential donations.




> Ask Ron that question, he is in charge of it.


I think it is something that should be asked of him, especially considering they agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, didn't let supporters know that at the time, and kept on asking for more donations.

We shouldn't sit around and act like Ron Paul 2012 was run well, or even honestly, when Doug Wead said the campaign agreed to not attack Mitt Romney. All the evidence even points to that, and the media even reported on it early that year, about an "alliance" with the campaigns. We should expect more from liberty candidates, than helping establishment candidates win nominations because they may run attack ads against you.

But, here is a clip from February 2012 where the media was talking about a Paul/Romney alliance, because of an ad Ron Paul 2012 was running against Santorum in MICHIGAN, helping Romney win that state (also, notice the idiot woman talking about Huntsman's own ad against himself not having a clue what she's talking about, and don't forget this is the idiot media we are and will still be dealing with in 2016):

----------


## MelissaCato

*Ron Paul 2016 !!! *

----------


## cajuncocoa

> *Ron Paul 2016 !!! *


In b4 someone says he deserves his retirement, with which I agree....but I'd still go for that in a heartbeat if he is willing.  But without Jesse Benton this time, please.

----------


## Carlybee

> What, pray tell, do you think the goal is?


Politics as usual?

----------


## Carlybee

> Contributions kept on being asked for, at least all the way until May 2012.
> 
> But, here's my full reply to Matt:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't realize the nomination was won in January. Before the majority of the states still had to vote, and candidates like Gingrich and Santorum were still in it. Also, a state like Virginia, where Ron Paul 2012 didn't run a single ad to even attempt to let the people in Virginia know, like Gingrich and Santorum voters, that Romney wasn't the only choice.
> 
> 
> ...


Yes...but but...we're playing chess here ..it's all about the next move. /sarc

----------


## presence

*Jesse Benton: I didn't mean it, was only trying to appease "hardcore Ron Paul supporter"*






> To allay concerns,
> *Obama* endorsed modest oversight changes to a   program he says already has plenty of it. 
> None of them significantly   changes the programs,
>  and the president *acknowledged they were intended  to* 
> *appease*
> Americans, not to curtail the surveillance.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-will-continue



Maybe he'd make a good press secretary for Obama.  Similar speaking styles.

----------


## klamath

> Contributions kept on being asked for, at least all the way until May 2012.
> 
> But, here's my full reply to Matt:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't realize the nomination was won in January. Before the majority of the states still had to vote, and candidates like Gingrich and Santorum were still in it. Also, a state like Virginia, where Ron Paul 2012 didn't run a single ad to even attempt to let the people in Virginia know, like Gingrich and Santorum voters, that Romney wasn't the only choice.
> 
> 
> ...


There had to be some kind of agreement. People like to blame Benton for everything. It was *VERY* clear *RON* did *NOT* attack Romney in the debates.  That was Ron's doing, as NO ONE ever told Ron what to do in the debates and had him listen to them.

----------


## nobody's_hero

Those who play both sides of the fence will get impaled upon it at some point.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I got into this to turn the board upside-down and throw the pieces to where they can't be found. 
> 
> Anyone that bails out the banks is the enemy. Supporting him risks marking yourself as the enemy. Nobody should take a McConnell endorsement from Rand seriously anymore than they took a Bachmann endorsement seriously from Ron. It's disgraceful how some here are putting themselves on the line to support McConnell when they wouldn't do it for Bachmann, Smith, or other pols Ron endorsed.
> 
> It's like they are stupid enough to believe 8 years of Romney would be better than 4 more years of Obama.


This might confuse you even more:

----------


## Matt Collins

> Then why keep asking for donations?


Because there were still operations in effect, there were still conventions and caucuses to be won, and there were still operations for the RNC to be done.

On March 15th 2012 they did lay off about 85% of the staff though.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Advancing the cause of liberty means activism, it means getting in the fight, it means punishing politicians for taking your liberty. If you are to advance liberty you have to gain influence and political power, otherwise it doesn't work.





> Advancing the cause of liberty requires political influence.



I recall a massive advance in liberty that involved piling dead redcoats up on the coastline. What's all this nonsense about influence and political power? lol.

----------


## fr33

> This might confuse you even more:


I've seen it a thousand times. Ron's endorsements hardly helped those candidates. Had he endorsed their opponents he would have made almost no difference. Your telling me Rand has the ability to make or break McConnell and is squandering that power.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I've seen it a thousand times. Ron's endorsements hardly helped those candidates. Had he endorsed their opponents he would have made almost no difference. Your telling me Rand has the ability to make or break McConnell and is squandering that power.


For Rand to overturn Mitch it would take every resource Rand has to do it. That would leave his warchest empty come 2016. From a resource management perspective, does it make sense to do that when it would leave you high and dry in 2016?

----------


## angelatc

> Exercising his rights with an unloaded gun without a trigger to impress his "fans" isn't brave...it was just stupid.


You're stupid. If we lived in a British territory, you're the pansy-ass weak little wimp that be all upset about people throwing tea into a harbor instead of writing polite letters to the King. 

Someday, Adam or a figure like him is going to lead a revolution in the streets. The kind that we're seeing in the Middle East these days.  Every major political upheavel has that wing.  Hell, the left had people going out and killing people with bombs and they wouldn't condemn it.  Some of those people are invited the the White House these days.

When it happens for us, I have no dount you're going to be sitting at home watching it on TV, getting yourself  all worked up  into yet another tizzy because they aren't doing things your way.

----------


## angelatc

> I recall a massive advance in liberty that involved piling dead redcoats up on the coastline. What's all this nonsense about influence and political power? lol.


Matt's half right. [mod edit]  You have to have politicians and voters ready to support your causes, but a good look at how the left turned this country into the what it is today clearly indicates that no revolution can take place without revolutionaries.  And casting a vote that the GOP disagrees with isn't revolutionary.

----------


## Matt Collins

> No, I didn't realize the nomination was won in January. Before the majority of the states still had to vote, and candidates like Gingrich and Santorum were still in it. Also, a state like Virginia, where Ron Paul 2012 didn't run a single ad to even attempt to let the people in Virginia know, like Gingrich and Santorum voters, that Romney wasn't the only choice.


Virginia wasn't a winnable state for Ron, trust me they polled it. Going head-to-head against Romney was a guaranteed loss, so it was unwise to spend any money there.

And Republican Presidential nominations are all about early momentum which Romney had and Ron did not. 




> If the campaign didn't agree to not attack Mitt Romney, they were an inept campaign, because despite attacking Gingrich heavily in Iowa and then even Santorum in certain states, Mitt Romney never received his own personal attack ad. If they did agree to not attack Mitt Romney, they were dishonest from that point on.


Actually they did take some swipes at Mitt, but at that point it made no sense to go all-out against the eventual-nominee. Why waste the money to do so when the outcome was already determined at that point, not to mention that the counter-attacks would've been more than we could've defended because of the size of pocketbooks?







> We shouldn't sit around and act like Ron Paul 2012 was run well,


Are you kidding? Ron Paul didn't even get close to that amount of delegates in 2008. We did amazing things in 2012, overturned a lot of Republican parties across the country and replaced them with liberty Republicans. We took over entire state Parties too.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Of Ron Paul, Inc.?  No, I don't think it is.  In the words of Dennis Fusaro, they are "self-interested professionals with more interest in   personal gain than in advancement of the movement".


And you are basing that on what?

By the way, does Thomas Woods fit into this category of yours?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Actually they did take some swipes at Mitt, but at that point it made no sense to go all-out against the eventual-nominee. Why waste the money to do so when the outcome was already determined at that point, not to mention that the counter-attacks would've been more than we could've defended because of the size of pocketbooks?


I gotta say that I was pretty disappointed in this too.  I understand what Doug Wead said about it and accepted that it was the reasonable course.  That doesn't change the fact that I wanted them to attack that lying, cheating piece of dirt.

----------


## jjdoyle

> Because there were still operations in effect, there were still conventions and caucuses to be won, and there were still operations for the RNC to be done.
> 
> On March 15th 2012 they did lay off about 85% of the staff though.


Except, the campaign actively sabotaged and worked against the people in Louisiana who worked hard to become delegates for Ron Paul. Some being injured, and maybe arrested? I wonder if those people knew at the time they were wasting their efforts, because Ron Paul 2012 had already agreed to hand Romney the nomination without a fight? The only reason to keep asking for donations after agreeing to give the nomination away without even trying for it, was to keep giving people like Jesse Benton and Jack Hunter paychecks.

That's not honest, IMO. These are the type of questions that people like Fusaro and others should be asking of Ron Paul 2012 staff, and maybe they're aware of more than we know. But holding back information from donors, and outright lying to them acting like you are serious about winning, when you have already agreed to help Romney win the nomination...that's not chess or checkers. Wasting people's time and resources, isn't exactly a good way to build momentum.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> And you are basing that on what?
> 
> By the way, does Thomas Woods fit into this category of yours?


My opinions are always based on personal observations, which include things I see, read, and hear.

No, Tom Woods is one of the good guys IMO. Why do you ask?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> My opinions are always based on personal observations, which include things I see, read, and hear.
> 
> No, Tom Woods is one of the good guys IMO. Why do you ask?


You must realize that Tom's financial interests are very much tied to the liberty movement.  In other words, he has made a ton of money off of Ron Paul.  There's nothing wrong with that by itself, of course, but by your definition, he should be considered to be part of Ron Paul, Inc. too.  Not to mention Kokesh and others.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You must realize that Tom's financial interests are very much tied to the liberty movement.  In other words, he has made a ton of money off of Ron Paul.  There's nothing wrong with that by itself, of course, but by your definition, he should be considered to be part of Ron Paul, Inc. too.  Not to mention Kokesh and others.


You may have missed the part about some people * putting personal interests ahead of the movement.* That doesn't describe Woods or Kokesh. I have no problem with someone making money as a result of their work within the Liberty Movement.

----------


## Matt Collins

> The only reason to keep asking for donations after agreeing to give the nomination away without even trying for it, was to keep giving people like Jesse Benton and Jack Hunter paychecks.


That is a false statement. I have no idea what happened in Pelican territory but I can tell you that yes it was important for funds to continue being raised at that point.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You may have missed the part about some people * putting personal interests ahead of the movement.* That doesn't describe Woods or Kokesh. I have no problem with someone making money as a result of their work within the Liberty Movement.


No, I didn't miss it and like I have said before, I think Tom's ego got the best of him when he openly attacked Ron Paul's campaign at its height, on his blog.  And he did it more than once.   So yeah, I would call that putting his own personal interests ahead of the movement.  But, hey, I still like Tom, but he's only human.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> That is a false statement. I have no idea what happened in Pelican territory but I can tell you that yes it was important for funds to continue being raised at that point.


Yeah, but Matt, there are several things like this that really, really should be cleared up.  Otherwise, they will continue to fester.  The truth needs to be told, so that everyone knows what happened.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> That is a false statement. I have no idea what happened in Pelican territory but I can tell you that *yes it was important for funds to continue being raised at that point*.


Why?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> No, I didn't miss it and like I have said before, I think Tom's ego got the best of him when he openly attacked Ron Paul's campaign at its height, on his blog.  And he did it more than once.   So yeah, I would call that putting his own personal interests ahead of the movement.  But, hey, I still like Tom, but he's only human.


That's another area where you and I disagree. Read this and the other Jesse Benton threads and then tell me criticism (not *​attack*, but for some reason, you tend to see all criticism as an *attack*) of the Ron Paul campaign wasn't warranted...can you do that with a straight face? Do you not see that someone strongly committed to advancing the cause of liberty had good reason to be concerned?

----------


## Matt Collins

> Yeah, but Matt, there are several things like this that really, really should be cleared up.  Otherwise, they will continue to fester.  The truth needs to be told, so that everyone knows what happened.





> Why?



SEE THIS video for answers for the inside scoop on what happened at the end of the Campaign:

----------


## jjdoyle

> *Virginia wasn't a winnable state for Ron, trust me they polled it. Going head-to-head against Romney was a guaranteed loss, so it was unwise to spend any money there.
> 
> And Republican Presidential nominations are all about early momentum which Romney had and Ron did not.*


I didn't see any polls out of Virginia, but here are some numbers for those that might have actually been trying to win it.
In the 2008 Virginia Republican primary, there were *489,25 total votes cast. Mitt Romney placed 4th, behind Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee and John McCain.
*In 2012, there were only 2 candidates that people in Virginia COULD vote for in the Republican primary. Ron Paul, or Mitt Romney. Ron Paul 2012 didn't try to win Virginia, and instead Ron Paul 2012 ran ads in Michigan to help Mitt Romney beat Rick Santorum there.

In 2012, there were *265,57* *total votes* *cast* in the Virginia Republican primary. So, there were over 200,000 votes that vanished from 2008 to 2012 that Ron Paul 2012 didn't even try to get, but could have. Mitt Romney won the Virginia primary with 158,119 total votes. Ron Paul placed second with 107,451 total votes. So, despite over 200,000 votes vanishing from 2008 to 2012 and Ron Paul doing better in Virginia in 2008 than Mitt Romney, Ron Paul 2012 decided it wasn't smart to try and win the only one-on-one state, and instead help Mitt Romney and waste campaign funds attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan.

This is beyond ridiculous to anybody that is involved in politics and understands that when you run, you run to win. Not play a game, and definitely not ending your campaign with over a million cash on hand that you got by continuously lying to supporters acting like you were serious about winning, when you had instead agreed to not attack a candidate and instead help them win it.*






 Originally Posted by Matt Collins


Actually they did take some swipes at Mitt, but at that point it made no sense to go all-out against the eventual-nominee. Why waste the money to do so when the outcome was already determined at that point, not to mention that the counter-attacks would've been more than we could've defended because of the size of pocketbooks?




*At what point are you talking about? On Super Tuesday, before it was decided who would even be the nominee? Why waste money when the outcome was determined? If it was determined, why did the campaign waste funds on attack ads against Rick Santorum in Michigan? If the campaign knew it was over before Super Tuesday, then they really had no reason to continue, other than to collect paychecks.

If the campaign wasn't trying to lie and mislead supporters, even though Doug Wead says otherwise when they agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, and the campaign REALLY knew it was over before Super Tuesday which was in early March...*

Why on April 10th did they send out an email with this:
"And if you can, I hope you’ll pledge to make a generous contribution to my campaign’s Taxpayer Freedom Money Bomb this April 15.

Your generous contribution will help me pay to run this hard-hitting ad ahead of the critical Texas Primary."






 Originally Posted by Matt Collins


Are you kidding? Ron Paul didn't even get close to that amount of delegates in 2008. We did amazing things in 2012, overturned a lot of Republican parties across the country and replaced them with liberty Republicans. We took over entire state Parties too.




*Delegates don't matter when the campaign ensured Mitt Romney would win the nomination without a brokered convention. Perhaps you like wasting people's time and money, but I think that's a terrible way to go...if you are really concerned about building a "movement". How many of the "amazing" things that happened in 2012 were actually Ron Paul 2012 versus Ron Paul supporters?

These are the things why people have LEGITIMATE reasons for not trusting politicians. These are legitimate reasons why some will never donate a dime to a political candidate. They bring you in, ask repeatedly for help/funds, only then you learn they were leading you on and outright lying about being serious to win having already cut some backroom deal.

And how many of the "amazing" things matter a hill of beans now, especially if Rand is having to continue to "play the game" and endorse horrible candidates like Mitch McConnell?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> SEE THIS video for answers for the inside scoop on what happened at the end of the Campaign:


Could you sum up this >30-minute video? It's not convenient for me to watch that at the moment.

----------


## angelatc

Maine was winnable.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Maine was winnable.


Louisiana was *won*, and more than half of our delegates were given away.  Jesse Benton sold out my vote.


http://www.dailypaul.com/250138/trai...paul-delegates

----------


## Carlybee

> Louisiana was *won*, and more than half of our delegates were given away.  Jesse Benton sold out my vote.
> 
> 
> http://www.dailypaul.com/250138/trai...paul-delegates



Lets not forget the parking lot caucuses....those people busting their butts because they thought they still had to fight.

----------


## cajuncocoa

*Many may be holding their noses before this is done*
by Ronnie Ellis, Daily Independent (Ashland, KY)



> FRANKFORT   	The 2014 U.S. Senate election is 15 months away but a lot more people  than Jesse Benton may be holding their noses before its over.
> 
> 	Im talking about more than just the avalanche of negative advertising  well endure. By now youve heard about the recording on which Benton,  Mitch McConnells campaign manager, said he was sort of holding my nose  for two years because what were doing here will be a benefit to Rand  (Paul) in 16.
> 
> 	Benton managed Rand Pauls 2010 general election campaign; hes married  to Pauls niece. He worked for her grandfather, Ron Paul; hes a member  of the family.
> 
> 	Thats why McConnell hired him, hoping to appropriate the Paul  imprimatur to attract tea party Republicans to his cause despite a  record of Washington deal making which is anathema to most of them. It  hasnt entirely worked. Some Kentucky tea party groups actively  encouraged the primary challenge to McConnell by Matt Bevin.
> 
> 	Its not a one-sided bargain. Paul needs McConnells help to perform on  the Senates grand stage, develop national stature, to gain access to  big Republican donors and to acquire an image of acceptability with  mainstream national Republicans in preparation for a 2016 run for  president. Thats what Benton meant by saying his job with McConnell  benefits Paul in 2016.
> ...


Yes, they are, Mr. Ellis....they are.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> No, I didn't miss it and like I have said before, I think Tom's ego got the best of him when he openly attacked Ron Paul's campaign at its height, on his blog.  And he did it more than once.   So yeah, I would call that putting his own personal interests ahead of the movement.  But, hey, I still like Tom, but he's only human.


He aired his frustrations concerning Jesse Benton after the RNC convention. That was hardly the height of the campaign. The other 'attack' was a blog post in early May of 2011, giving a few suggestions to keep grassroots money at a similar level to 2008's success. He wrote countless blog entries and made tens of fairly long and detailed video responses to attacks on Ron Paul. For free.

Perhaps you could link to these attacks on his blog, to show my memory is incorrect.

----------


## jjdoyle

> Could you sum up this >30-minute video? It's not convenient for me to watch that at the moment.


This was old from last year, you might have already watched it. I'm not sure, but someone recently passed away that was a lawyer with the campaign, it may have been this guy? Basically, he doesn't explain anything on the inside, and tells you nothing that you didn't already really know if you were following the delegate situations as they happened. He talks about the "delegate strategy", and he actually made the claim in the video that Ron Paul 2012 "didn't abandon their people". LOL! He should probably have talked with the people in Louisiana like some around here (torchbearer), and the delegates from around the country that the campaign didn't give a dime to, to help them get to Florida, despite ending the campaign with more than a million on hand.

Perhaps he could explain to the Maine delegation why they fought so hard, for a campaign that worked with the RNC to make sure everything went smoothly for King Romney? People took time off of work and paid their own ways, because they had been led to believe (lied to repeatedly) that Ron Paul 2012 was serious about a brokered convention.




> Lets not forget the parking lot caucuses....those people busting their butts because they thought they still had to fight.


Exactly.

Instead, they were swept under the rug for a speaking slot for Rand I guess? Ron Paul 2012 was apparently so "in bed" with King Romney's campaign, they made sure that nobody at Ron Paul's Rally would speak ill of King Romney from the stage, while Rick Santorum was fair game...despite having dropped out of the race in April and the rally being held before the RNC?

----------


## New York For Paul

Every situation is different, but in Idaho the conservatives liberty congressman doesn't endorse the moderate GOP congressman. Here is a story about a current battle played out in a different way.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ith-95402.html

----------


## klamath

> *Many may be holding their noses before this is done*
> by Ronnie Ellis, Daily Independent (Ashland, KY)
> Yes, they are, Mr. Ellis....they are.


 Yeaw Mr Ellis and it also maybe saying something about RON PAUL. It was RON PAUL that drug Benton to Kentucky to work for Rand. The dirtiness seems to be coming from the senor Paul's organization.

----------


## nobody's_hero

Well, in perspective, we've got 3%, which was just enough to have a revolution 230+ years ago. 

I have no doubts that there are many in this movement who must look upon the establishment as a metaphorical equivalent to the ships of the line of the British navy bristling with cannon, or the regiments of redcoats identically dressed in professional uniforms, or the literal war chest we could never hope to match, and in their minds they are saying, "there's no way in hell we could ever hope to contest _that._ It is sheer madness." It sounds so eerily familiar to what I read in these threads. 

And I fully agree that it is madness, but such madness as to lead a ragtag band of misfits to take on the most powerful force in the world is what may *very well be necessary* to return greatness to this country. It is, over the course of our nation's history, the *only* strategy that has ever worked to regain lost freedoms. 

But, before someone makes a smart-aleck response about me firing the first shot—I am not even asking for a violent revolution.

 I am asking that battle lines be drawn in the halls of Congress and that we should not waste time dallying in the establishment's circles. —But we are told that people who seek this strategy are impatient, reckless, and set the movement back. We are not _'politically savvy'_ (perish the thought, I rather would take that as an insult this day and age). I say the true impatience comes from not being willing to hold our ground and let others come to us, but rather to seek them out with backroom favors that blight the integrity of the movement. Yet again we're told 'deals must be made,' we must 'think long-term,' and yet those that push us in this direction conveniently ignore that this infiltrator strategy is an outdated strategy of the past. 

There was no infiltration of British parliament. The king would not answer our pleas. 

So dig in, hold your ground, or be caught in a crossfire.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> He aired his frustrations concerning Jesse Benton after the RNC convention. That was hardly the height of the campaign. The other 'attack' was a blog post in early May of 2011, giving a few suggestions to keep grassroots money at a similar level to 2008's success. He wrote countless blog entries and made tens of fairly long and detailed video responses to attacks on Ron Paul. For free.
> 
> Perhaps you could link to these attacks on his blog, to show my memory is incorrect.


He did it WAY before that and it was discussed on this forum.  He did it more than once.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Lets not forget the parking lot caucuses....those people busting their butts because they thought they still had to fight.


Are you talking about Oklahoma?  Because I have been told by numerous Oklahomans that there were not enough of them to do that and they were in fact, told that.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> He did it WAY before that and it was discussed on this forum.  He did it more than once.


No links, then?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Yeaw Mr Ellis and it also maybe saying something about RON PAUL. It was RON PAUL that drug Benton to Kentucky to work for Rand. *The dirtiness seems to be coming from the senor Paul's organization.*


Ron Paul, Inc....yes.  Ron Paul himself:  not necessarily.  Unless he punked all of us for the sake of Rand's future campaign.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Are you talking about Oklahoma?  Because I have been told by numerous Oklahomans that there were not enough of them to do that and they were in fact, told that.


Carly has more information on this I know, but I recall there was more than one state involved.  Maybe Missouri as well?

----------


## Carlybee

> Are you talking about Oklahoma?  Because I have been told by numerous Oklahomans that there were not enough of them to do that and they were in fact, told that.


   Does it matter?  They ended up in the parking lot due to dirty tactics by the GOP.  Whether they were recognized is besides the point.  The point being that these people gave their all and then some.



> http://www.policymic.com/articles/82...-establishment
> 
> *Ron Paul Oklahoma and Arizona Delegate Wins Fly in the Face of the GOP Establishment*
> 
> 
> The Romney campaign is running scared. Establishment Republicans have resorted to tactics ranging from the breaking of convention rules, to shutting down of events, and even acts of violence.
> 
> Last weekend saw Republican conventions in Arizona and Oklahoma. These party gatherings were preceded by a string of Ron Paul victories in states such as Iowa, Nevada, Maine, Louisiana, and Massachusetts, as well as revelations that, in fact, no delegates are truly bound. Sensing this threat to establishment candidate Mitt Romney’s election, local GOP committeemen fell back on whatever tricks they could in order to keep Ron Paul supporters from influencing state conventions. 
> 
> ...


Obviously at this point there was still hope at least among the delegates and some of the media that Romney might not secure the nomination....Silly People!

----------


## jjdoyle

> Are you talking about Oklahoma?  Because I have been told by numerous Oklahomans that there were not enough of them to do that and they were in fact, told that.


They happened in several spots from what I remember seeing. Missouri had this one I remember:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpOQ6miKe_g

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Does it matter?  They ended up in the parking lot due to dirty tactics by the GOP.  Whether they were recognized is besides the point.  The point being that these people gave their all and then some.


Yes they did.  But, it most certainly wasn't the campaign's fault.

----------


## jjdoyle

> Yes they did.  But, it most certainly wasn't the campaign's fault.


When the campaign didn't respect the delegates enough for anything other than to ask them for money, and they didn't respect the supporters' time and efforts by agreeing to help Mitt Romney win the nomination, that was the campaign's fault.
Ron Paul 2012 should have closed its doors and shut down, instead of stringing supporters along just to continue asking them for money. THAT is the campaign's fault, 100%. Either support your supporters 100%, and go for a brokered convention, or drop out and stop wasting people's time and money.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Yes they did.  But, it most certainly wasn't the campaign's fault.


It was the campaign's fault that Louisiana lost most of our delegation.

----------


## Carlybee

> Yes they did.  But, it most certainly wasn't the campaign's fault.



If the campaign had already decided not to attack Romney and if in fact some sort of decision was made to not "go all the way"...then these people did all of this for nothing.  And meanwhile money was still pouring in from supporters. (not to mention all the damned pizzas ordered to the parking lots!)

----------


## cajuncocoa

> If the campaign had already decided not to attack Romney and if in fact some sort of decision was made to not "go all the way"...then these people did all of this for nothing.  And meanwhile money was still pouring in from supporters. (not to mention all the damned pizzas ordered to the parking lots!)


Yes, and don't forget the broken bones in Shreveport, early June last year.  All for nothing.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No, I didn't miss it and like I have said before, I think Tom's ego got the best of him when he openly attacked Ron Paul's campaign at its height, on his blog.  And he did it more than once.   So yeah, I would call that putting his own personal interests ahead of the movement.  But, hey, I still like Tom, but he's only human.


When did Tom Woods attack Ron Paul's campaign?  That doesn't sound like Tom...

----------


## cajuncocoa

> When did Tom Woods attack Ron Paul's campaign?  That doesn't sound like Tom...


Don't expect to see any links on this.  It's been designated a "fact" that no one wants to prove. 

You should also know that LE has a tendency to characterize even constructive criticism as an *ATTACK!*

----------


## klamath

> Ron Paul, Inc....yes.  Ron Paul himself:  not necessarily.  Unless he punked all of us for the sake of Rand's future campaign.


The buck stops at RON. Enough of bouncing all around and dancing around trying to blame everyone but the LEADER that SETS THE TONE and DIRECTION of any Organization

----------


## cajuncocoa

> That is a false statement. I have no idea what happened in Pelican territory but I can tell you that yes* it was important for funds to continue being raised at that point*.





> Why?


Matt, I am bumping this exchange because I would really like an answer from you in your own words, not a video that doesn't even answer the question.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> The buck stops at RON. Enough of bouncing all around and dancing around trying to blame everyone but the LEADER that SETS THE TONE and DIRECTION of any Organization


Perhaps it does.  That would be extremely disappointing to learn that Ron knew about all of this and sanctioned it, but you might be right.  I've considered it before.  There were a lot of things that happened starting around May of 2012 that made me think that something wasn't right.  We were led to believe Ron was still in it to win it (brokered convention, possible speaking slot at RNC, etc) but other actions belied all of that, and seemed to be using the Ron Paul campaign as a bargaining chip for Rand 2016.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Don't expect to see any links on this.  It's been designated a "fact" that no one wants to prove. 
> 
> You should also know that LE has a tendency to characterize even constructive criticism as an *ATTACK!*


I'll let LibertyEagle prove or disprove this accusation on her own.

I'm not getting into the personal fight

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'll let LibertyEagle prove or disprove this accusation on her own.
> 
> I'm not getting into the personal fight


That's cool.  I'll be watching for that link because I'd like to see it myself.

----------


## Matt Collins

> by agreeing to help Mitt Romney win the nomination,


The nomination of Romeny was already a foregone conclusion at that point. [mod edit]

----------


## jjdoyle

> The nomination of Romeny was already a foregone conclusion at that point. This has been explained dozens of times around here, please try and keep up.


At what point was it a foregone conclusion? When they ran ads in Michigan to help Mitt Romney beat Rick Santorum, but none in Virginia to help Ron win?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> The nomination of Romeny was already a foregone conclusion at that point. This has been explained dozens of times around here, please try and keep up.


At what precise point did the nomination become a foregone conclusion, Matt? Give us the date or event, please.

----------


## JK/SEA

> At what precise point did the nomination become a foregone conclusion, Matt? Give us the date or event, please.


the precise point was when Matt threw his support to Mitt.

Matt for Mitt...lol

----------


## Matt Collins

> At what point was it a foregone conclusion?





> At what precise point did the nomination become a foregone conclusion, Matt? Give us the date or event, please.


It wasn't any sort of definitive "point" in time as you're trying to imply, but it became less and less likely that Ron would win after the Iowa caucus straw poll on Jan 3rd. The further along we went the less likely it became. 


And you do realize that in the media narrative, and among all of the political world, Romney was indeed the presumptive nominee the entire time, right? Ron did as well as he did is nothing short of amazing.




> When they ran ads in Michigan to help Mitt Romney beat Rick Santorum, but none in Virginia to help Ron win?


As has already been explained, there was no point in running ads in Virginia, it would've been a waste of money.

----------


## Matt Collins

> the precise point was when Matt threw his support to Mitt.
> 
> Matt for Mitt...lol


lolz, nice try, but I never supported Mitt Romney.

----------


## Carlybee

> At what precise point did the nomination become a foregone conclusion, Matt? Give us the date or event, please.


I know Ron was still doing college events and town halls in April and early May.   The Oklahoma debacle was in May...here's that link. 
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...GOP-convention

----------


## Deborah K

> Perhaps it does.  That would be extremely disappointing to learn that Ron knew about all of this and sanctioned it, but you might be right.  I've considered it before.  There were a lot of things that happened starting around May of 2012 that made me think that something wasn't right.  We were led to believe Ron was still in it to win it (brokered convention, possible speaking slot at RNC, etc) but other actions belied all of that, and seemed to be using the Ron Paul campaign as a bargaining chip for Rand 2016.


I'll never believe that Ron knew about all of it.  He's not a micromanager.  And while it is arguable that he puts too much trust in his teams, and this, therefore, makes him a weak leader - tis still the truth of it - he trusts people to do their jobs with integrity.  Unfortunately, they don't always.  I believe there is a distinguishable difference between Ron Paul, and Ron Paul Inc. and I'm glad it's been exposed.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> When did Tom Woods attack Ron Paul's campaign?  That doesn't sound like Tom...


He did it on his blog.  More than once.  It was discussed here when it happened.  Feel free to google.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> It wasn't any sort of definitive "point" in time as you're trying to imply, but it became less and less likely that Ron would win after the Iowa caucus straw poll on Jan 3rd. The further along we went the less likely it became. 
> 
> 
> And you do realize that in the media narrative, and among all of the political world, Romney was indeed the presumptive nominee the entire time, right? Ron did as well as he did is nothing short of amazing.


And since when has anyone in the Ron Paul R3volution cared about "media narrative"? I'll take your post to mean you have no answer about this "foregone conclusion" of which you speak.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'll never believe that Ron knew about all of it.  He's not a micromanager.  And while it is arguable that he puts too much trust in his teams, and this, therefore, makes him a weak leader - tis still the truth of it - he trusts people to do their jobs with integrity.  Unfortunately, they don't always.  I believe there is a distinguishable difference between Ron Paul, and Ron Paul Inc. and I'm glad it's been exposed.


I haven't seen anything "exposed" yet, besides the fact that the dude tape recording phone calls and turning them over to the media and the Republican establishment is lower than a snake.   But, time will tell.

As far as Ron is concerned, how many times are people going to claim he didn't know what his campaign was doing?  People around here went that route when C4L was supporting Ken Buck and whoopsie, later on, Ron verified that he knew all about it and approved it.  

I'm going to wait until more facts come in, but you guys keep on doing whatever it is that you are doing.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Matt, you are one squirrely dude.  You keep saying, "It was over by that point", then when asked when that point was, you say it wasn't any one point, but an ongoing growing thing since the start?  

Tell us at what point was it definitely over, then.  Feb, was it over by then?  March, over by then? when?

----------


## jjdoyle

> As has already been explained, there was no point in running ads in Virginia, it would've been a waste of money.


A WASTE OF MONEY? To actually try and win the nomination? I guess I shouldn't have expected any different kind of answer from someone who worked for Ron Paul 2012, since it was just about collecting paychecks apparently for most of them for 6+ months in 2012.

Clearly the campaign didn't have a money problem, if it ended with more than a million dollars cash on hand. Maybe spending $100K in Virginia, could have helped in certain areas and gotten Ron a portion of the 200,000 votes that disappeared. Heck, why not spend a million in Virginia? I mean, afterall, they were "in it to win it" right? No, they were in it for paychecks after a certain point.

Which is why instead of shutting the campaign down, they hamstrung supporters along, giving them the false "delegate strategy" and outright sabotaging it to make sure King Romney's nomination went smoothly so Rand could have his victory speech at the RNC?

As I explained by showing with numbers from 2008 to 2012, trying to win Virginia made sense. MUCH more sense than wasting funds helping Mitt Romney beat Rick Santorum in Michigan, ESPECIALLY if they were trying to claim it was about a brokered convention delegate strategy. Mitt Romney placed 4th in Virginia in 2008, BEHIND Ron Paul.

And according to that video you posted, that had no insider information to those that paid attention to the delegate situation as it was actually happening, the guy in the video made the claim that Romney had the numbers to win it and everybody knew it. So, either you are completely wrong and saying there wasn't a specific time, or people like Doug Wead and the guy in the video are right and saying that AT SOME CERTAIN TIME, Romney had the numbers.

Again, at some point Ron Paul 2012 agreed to not attack Romney, and according to Doug Wead, that was before Super Tuesday. From everything we can see from the campaign, that is 100% true. There was not a single Mitt Romney only attack ad, despite the campaign continuously asking for donations from supporters in April, even after Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich dropped out, and all the way into May. Then turning around, giving away delegates, and making sure King Romney's party in Florida went well.

For what? With friends like the Ron Paul 2012 campaign, who needed enemies?

----------


## Carlybee

> I'll never believe that Ron knew about all of it.  He's not a micromanager.  And while it is arguable that he puts too much trust in his teams, and this, therefore, makes him a weak leader - tis still the truth of it - he trusts people to do their jobs with integrity.  Unfortunately, they don't always.  I believe there is a distinguishable difference between Ron Paul, and Ron Paul Inc. and I'm glad it's been exposed.



Agreed. I can't see Ron going on with those campus rallies if he knew it was all but over.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'll never believe that Ron knew about all of it.  He's not a micromanager.  And while it is arguable that he puts too much trust in his teams, and this, therefore, makes him a weak leader - tis still the truth of it - he trusts people to do their jobs with integrity.  Unfortunately, they don't always.  I believe there is a distinguishable difference between Ron Paul, and Ron Paul Inc. and I'm glad it's been exposed.


Yes, Deb...that's what I think too. It's difficult to believe that a man as honest about all else would have known about and sanctioned this deception. If I really believed that, I couldn't still support him.

----------


## LibertyEagle

jjdoyle, where are you getting that they had that much money leftover?  My understanding is that they didn't at all.  Anything they had was spent on the convention.  They virtually had 0 leftover.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> He did it on his blog.  More than once.  It was discussed here when it happened.  Feel free to google.


I *have* Googled, and I've found nothing. Matt says it was scrubbed. Convenient for both of you, isn't it? Post it, or stop _attacking_ ​Tom Woods.

----------


## Carlybee

Why did they lay off 85% of the staff on March 15th?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Agreed. I can't see Ron going on with those campus rallies if he knew it was all but over.


Sure, he would have and he would have done it for the same reason he goes out and speaks to people still today and it's also the reason why he started YAL, C4L, his new internet channel and he still writes articles.  

Come on, you know this.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I *have* Googled, and I've found nothing. Matt says it was scrubbed. Convenient for both of you, isn't it? Post it, or stop _attacking_ ​Tom Woods.


I saw it with my own eyes.  I could care less whether you like it or you don't like it.  I remember it well and I will keep bringing it up whenever your actions illicit my doing so.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I saw it with my own eyes.  I could care less whether you like it or you don't like it.  I remember it well and I will keep bringing it up whenever your actions illicit my doing so.


So post it then! What are you afraid of?

----------


## Matt Collins

> Matt, you are one squirrely dude.  You keep saying, "It was over by that point", then when asked when that point was, you say it wasn't any one point, but an ongoing growing thing since the start?  
> 
> Tell us at what point was it definitely over, then.  Feb, was it over by then?  March, over by then? when?


As I have said, it was no hard date, but it became less and less likely with time until winning the nomination became impossible. And when it became less and less likely to win the nomination, the goal shifted to picking up more and more delegates.

----------


## jjdoyle

> jjdoyle, where are you getting that they had that much money leftover?  My understanding is that they didn't at all.  Anything they had was spent on the convention.  They virtually had 0 leftover.


They still have a million cash on hand, it's in the FEC report they filed as of July (last month), I do believe. Would you like the link? I could provide it for you, but you may be busy finding those Tom Woods links some have asked you to provide.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Why did they lay off 85% of the staff on March 15th?


Because Super Tuesday on March 7th did not result in an overt and tangible statewide victory of any of the caucus straw polls.

----------


## Carlybee

> Sure, he would have and he would have done it for the same reason he goes out and speaks to people still today and it's also the reason why he started YAL, C4L, his new internet channel and he still writes articles.  
> 
> Come on, you know this.


Those rallies were campaign rallies and were happening around the same time the conventions were ramping up.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> As I have said, it was no hard date, but it became less and less likely with time until winning the nomination became impossible. And when it became less and less likely to win the nomination, the goal shifted to picking up more and more delegates.


Why were these delegates needed if not to go for a brokered convention? And if delegates were wanted, why did the campaign give more than half of Louisiana's away?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I saw it with my own eyes.  I could care less whether you like it or you don't like it.  I remember it well and I will keep bringing it up whenever your actions illicit my doing so.


Can you link it then?

----------


## Carlybee

> Because Super Tuesday on March 7th did not result in an overt and tangible statewide victory of any of the caucus straw polls.


I see...yet they were still blowing smoke up our butts after that.

----------


## Matt Collins

> A WASTE OF MONEY? To actually try and win the nomination?


Are you dense?  Virginia was not a winnable state so it made no sense to waste money there.







> Clearly the campaign didn't have a money problem, if it ended with more than a million dollars cash on hand. Maybe spending $100K in Virginia, could have helped in certain areas and gotten Ron a portion of the 200,000 votes that disappeared. Heck, why not spend a million in Virginia? I mean, afterall, they were "in it to win it" right? No, they were in it for paychecks after a certain point.


That money wouldn't have made a difference. We could've drained our warchest in VA and Romney would've easily matched it and won anyway. It's better to have money left over to do good things with it instead of throwing it away on an unwinnable state race in Virginia. 







> As I explained by showing with numbers from 2008 to 2012, trying to win Virginia made sense.


Your ignorance of elections is glaring.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I see...yet they were still blowing smoke up our butts after that.


Huh? I have no idea what you're talking about, but funds still needed to be raised.




> Why were these delegates needed if not to go for a brokered convention? And if delegates were wanted, why did the campaign give more than half of Louisiana's away?


I have no idea, I was focused solely on Minnesota at point in time (where we won 34 out of 37 delegate slots)

----------


## klamath

> I'll never believe that Ron knew about all of it.  He's not a micromanager.  And while it is arguable that he puts too much trust in his teams, and this, therefore, makes him a weak leader - tis still the truth of it - he trusts people to do their jobs with integrity.  Unfortunately, they don't always.  I believe there is a distinguishable difference between Ron Paul, and Ron Paul Inc. and I'm glad it's been exposed.


How do you explain this Deb? I noticed it and every political observer noted it. Romney was the leader yet RP did not attack. You do not attack those that are not ahead of you.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/2...tacked-romney/
I remember some of us tried to say it was because of a personal friendship but I am really starting to question it now.

----------


## phill4paul

> Huh? I have no idea what you're talking about, but funds still needed to be raised.
> 
> I have no idea, I was focused solely on Minnesota at point in time (where we won 34 out of 37 delegate slots)


  Aherm.....




> Your ignorance of elections is glaring.

----------


## jjdoyle

> Are you dense?  Virginia was not a winnable state so it made no sense to waste money there.


Actually, from pictures I have seen of you, you appear more dense than me. Anything else, Mr. Fox News contributor trying to defend dishonesty from and within a campaign?

----------


## Deborah K

> *I haven't seen anything "exposed" yet,* besides the fact that the dude tape recording phone calls and turning them over to the media and the Republican establishment is lower than a snake.   But, time will tell.
> 
> As far as Ron is concerned, how many times are people going to claim he didn't know what his campaign was doing?  People around here went that route when C4L was supporting Ken Buck and whoopsie, later on, Ron verified that he knew all about it and approved it.  
> 
> I'm going to wait until more facts come in, but you guys keep on doing whatever it is that you are doing.


In the Economic Policy Journal article by Robert Wenzel:




> I'm told by people close to Ron Paul Campaign 2012 that Rothfeld is smart, that he has mastered political email management and that he is organized, focused and was a very key player having influence on the Ron Paul Campaign 2012. However, get this, Ron Paul probably doesn't really know who he is. One insider told me : "Ron probably would recognize his face as a guy who helped out at the campaign, but wouldn't know much more about him."
> 
> One theory advanced to me, and I emphasize that this is just a theory, is that it was decided early on that Jesse Benton and John Tate would be the key contact people with Ron and that Rothfeld would remain in the background. Benton was chosen because of his being married to Ron's granddaughter and Tate because of  his pleasant demeanor. But that Rothfeld was in the background---with a foreign policy view far different than Ron's. And that this is why Ron's non-interventionist foreign policy views were not featured in the campaign.
> 
> It's really sad that this team was around Ron, but it is not unheard of in politics that there are deep behind the scenes players. Ron is truly about getting the libertarian message out and would never be involved in the behind the scenes antics of Ron Paul Inc. I'm really glad that Ron is out of politics and that his efforts have turned to homeshooling, the Ron Paul Institute and the Ron Paul Channel.


And this:




> ".... Mike Rothfield [sic] has said, he [Ron Paul] can run his own campaign, while we run ours, meaning essentially that Ron Paul, Inc. ran a campaign in parallel to the candidate himself, but without the candidates adherence to principle."


http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...-paul-inc.html

This would explain the disconnect we all notice between the man we know, and the campaign he supposedly ran.

----------


## phill4paul

SECRET DELEGATE STRATEGY. Shhh. Don't tell anyone!

  Send cash immediately! 

  Sincerely, Ron Paul Inc.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Huh? I have no idea what you're talking about, *but funds still needed to be raised.*


*CAN YOU TELL US WHY?*

----------


## Carlybee

> Huh? I have no idea what you're talking about, but funds still needed to be raised.
> 
> )


I am talking about the email Jesse Benton sent out on May 15th stating that Ron Paul was not suspending his campaign and was going all the way to Orlando but that they knew he couldn't win the nomination...so they waited 2 months to tell us....if as you say it was apparent after super Tuesday.

----------


## jjdoyle

> I am talking about the email Jesse Benton sent out on May 15th stating that Ron Paul was not suspending his campaign and was going all the way to Orlando but that they knew he couldn't win the nomination...so they waited 2 months to tell us....if as you say it was apparent after super Tuesday.


And according to Doug Wead, they made the decision to not attack Mitt Romney before Super Tuesday, and every action of the campaign shows just that. So, February, March, April, May...they had already decided they would not attack Mitt Romney, despite sending emails telling supporters why Mitt Romney was bad and they needed more funds?

----------


## cajuncocoa

What did Ron Paul _think_​ the people running his campaign were doing?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I *have* Googled, and I've found nothing. Matt says it was scrubbed. Convenient for both of you, isn't it? Post it, or stop _attacking_ ​Tom Woods.





> I saw it with my own eyes.  I could care less whether you like it or you don't like it.  I remember it well and I will keep bringing it up whenever your actions illicit my doing so.





> So post it then! What are you afraid of?





> Can you link it then?


Waiting......

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Huh? I have no idea what you're talking about,* but funds still needed to be raised.
> 
> *





> *CAN YOU TELL US WHY?*


Waiting......

----------


## Matt Collins

> In the Economic Policy Journal article by Robert Wenzel:


Wenzel doesn't know what he's talking about, as usual. Seriously, why does anyone pay this clown any attention?

----------


## Matt Collins

> *CAN YOU TELL US WHY?*


I already have numerous times. Scroll up and read my posts.

----------


## klamath

> And according to Doug Wead, they made the decision to not attack Mitt Romney before Super Tuesday, and every action of the campaign shows just that. So, February, March, April, May...they had already decided they would not attack Mitt Romney, despite sending emails telling supporters why Mitt Romney was bad and they needed more funds?


the decision to NOT attack Romney was made from the first debates in 2011. Ron didn't attack Romney but he did everyone else in the debates.

----------


## Deborah K

> How do you explain this Deb? I noticed it and every political observer noted it. Romney was the leader yet RP did not attack. You do not attack those that are not ahead of you.
> http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/2...tacked-romney/
> I remember some of us tried to say it was because of a personal friendship but I am really starting to question it now.



Here's what Doug Wead had to say about it: 15:30




You Bentonistas will like his defense of Benton, and he explains the money, sort of.

CAUTION:  It's a 'We Are Change' interview (for the haters).

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I already have numerous times. Scroll up and read my posts.


No, you didn't. You posted a video; that answered nothing. Tell me why *in your own words.*

----------


## Deborah K

> Wenzel doesn't know what he's talking about, as usual. Seriously, why does anyone pay this clown any attention?


Time will tell on this one.

Edit:  Mises Institute doesn't seem to have a problem with him - they published him as recently as April of this year.  And Rockwell publishes him fairly regularly. What's your problem with him?

----------


## JK/SEA

> No, you didn't. You posted a video; that answered nothing. Tell me why *in your own words.*


i know, but i'm pretty sure Matt will just LOLZ.


5 star Hotels and restaurants are not cheap.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Because there were still operations in effect, there were still conventions and caucuses to be won, and there were still operations for the RNC to be done.
> 
> On March 15th 2012 they did lay off about 85% of the staff though.


My apology; I'm just seeing this post now for the first time.

What was the purpose for  winning caucuses when the nomination was already a foregone conclusion?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Wenzel doesn't know what he's talking about, as usual. Seriously, why does anyone pay this clown any attention?


Because we're all burned out on Levin and Beck

----------


## klamath

> Here's what Doug Wead had to say about it: 15:30
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You Bentonistas will like his defense of Benton, and he explains the money, sort of.
> 
> CAUTION:  It's a 'We Are Change' interview (for the haters).


I am not a bentonista. I am just Starting to question everybody including Ron and Rand. I don't buy that explanation. If they believed Romney could destroy Ron's chances and his legacy then that proved they knew they couldn't win.

----------


## Deborah K

> Wenzel doesn't know what he's talking about, as usual. Seriously, why does anyone pay this clown any attention?


Really?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/06/r...ockwell-et-al/

*Ron Paul, Joe Salerno, Lew Rockwell, et al.
Bob Wenzel on the 15 qualified candidates to replace Bernanke.*

----------


## compromise

> Because we're all burned out on Levin and Beck


Beck will support Rand in 2016 and he's been very clear about that, he's almost begging for Rand to run, something he never did with Ron.

Levin is helping promote Rand as a conservative now and while he will probably turn on him in 2016, but at least he's promoting him. Levin is to Rand what Beck was to Ron in 2009 and 2010.

----------


## Deborah K

> I am not a bentonista. I am just Starting to question everybody including Ron and Rand. I don't buy that explanation. If they believed Romney could destroy Ron's chances and his legacy then that proved they knew they couldn't win.



The establishment was never going to let Ron win.

And I didn't mean to imply that you were a Bentonista.

----------


## compromise

> Really?
> 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/06/r...ockwell-et-al/
> 
> *Ron Paul, Joe Salerno, Lew Rockwell, et al.
> Bob Wenzel on the 15 qualified candidates to replace Bernanke.*


Is Wenzel even a real person, or just another internet troll & keyboard warrior?

----------


## Deborah K

> Is Wenzel even a real person, or just another internet troll & keyboard warrior?


Are you trolling?

google him

----------


## klamath

> The establishment was never going to let Ron win.
> 
> And I didn't mean to imply that you were a Bentonista.


 So why did Ron run if he knew he never could win yet was saying he was running to win?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Beck will support Rand in 2016 and he's been very clear about that, he's almost begging for Rand to run, something he never did with Ron.
> 
> Levin is helping promote Rand as a conservative now and while he will probably turn on him in 2016, but at least he's promoting him. Levin is to Rand what Beck was to Ron in 2009 and 2010.


Exactly _what_ was Beck to Ron in 2009 and 2010? I'm embarrassed to admit this now, but Glenn Beck was new in my market in 2009, and I listened to him up until he screwed over Deb Medina. I don't recall him _ever_ saying anything positive about Ron.

----------


## jjdoyle

> So why did Ron run if he knew he never could win yet was saying he was running to win?


DING! DING! DING! We have a winner! And why would you allow your campaign to continue to ask people for money, when your campaign had agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, but instead help him win the nomination?

Maybe if I buy the Ron Paul homeschool curriculum I can find out? Or, if I subscribe to his Ron Paul Channel, they'll tell me?

----------


## Barrex

> I *have* Googled, and I've found nothing. Matt says it was scrubbed. Convenient for both of you, isn't it? Post it, or stop _attacking_ ​Tom Woods.





> I saw it with my own eyes.  I could care less whether you like it or you don't like it.  I remember it well and I will keep bringing it up whenever your actions illicit my doing so.


I am pretty sure you are wrong on this. I remember video of Tom saying how Benton shut him down from Rons campaign but that video was posted when all was over and it began with:* Now that campaign is over and this will not harm Ron Pauls campaign* I just want to clear few things...

During that time i was subscribed to Tom and I am pretty sure I would remember it.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> DING! DING! DING! We have a winner! And why would you allow your campaign to continue to ask people for money, when your campaign had agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, but instead help him win the nomination?
> 
> Maybe if I buy the Ron Paul homeschool curriculum I can find out? Or, if I subscribe to his Ron Paul Channel, they'll tell me?


And why need $$ for caucuses if the nomination was a "foregone conclusion"?

----------


## JK/SEA

> So why did Ron run if he knew he never could win yet was saying he was running to win?



really?...you need an answer to this?

''let it not be said we did nothing''

oh no, we're 2 touchdowns behind, guess we better quit and go home.

----------


## Carlybee

I still have a bunch of emails from the campaign from around then..when I get a chance I'm going to look through them.

----------


## Carlybee

> And why need $$ for caucuses if the nomination was a "foregone conclusion"?


Judging from the May 15th email from Benton it looked like they wanted to have a good showing at the Nat'l Convention.....you know the one where they turned off the RP delegates mics.

----------


## Deborah K

> So why did Ron run if he knew he never could win yet was saying he was running to win?


I believe wholeheartedly that he gave it his all.  He isn't a deceptive person.  He is a man of principle and has proven that over and over with his votes in congress.  We drafted him, remember. He reluctantly agreed to run, knowing full well what he was up against, and he did it anyway because he knew we (the country - not just the grassroots) needed him to do it. His message was long overdue.  

No one will ever convince me that he intended to dupe anyone.  Never.

----------


## New York For Paul

Some of older wiser more experienced political folks believe Virginia was winnable. Paul got close to forty percent of the vote with no campaign. A little effort could have put him over the top.




> Are you dense?  Virginia was not a winnable state so it made no sense to waste money there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That money wouldn't have made a difference. We could've drained our warchest in VA and Romney would've easily matched it and won anyway. It's better to have money left over to do good things with it instead of throwing it away on an unwinnable state race in Virginia. 
> 
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## jjdoyle

> I believe wholeheartedly that he gave it his all.  He isn't a deceptive person.  He is a man of principle and has proven that over and over with his votes in congress.  We drafted him, remember. He reluctantly agreed to run, knowing full well what he was up against, and he did it anyway because he knew we (the country - not just the grassroots) needed him to do it. His message was long overdue.  
> 
> No one will ever convince me that he intended to dupe anyone.  Never.


Well, if this was about the message and not helping Mitt Romney win, they could have made better campaign ads actually addressing issues instead of attacking Rick Santorum. So, I don't buy the idea it was about the message, especially when you end a campaign with a million on hand and people donated it so that you would attempt to win the election, not sit on it.

If the campaign knew before Super Tuesday Romney had it won, then sending out emails that said:
"Like sharks smelling blood in the water, they cant wait to close in for the kill.

Theyll use any excuse to declare this race over and crown Mitt Romney the winner.

But last time I checked, Mitt Romney still had a long way to go to capture 1,144 delegates.

And the Ron Paul campaign is the one making waves at the conventions."

after Super Tuesday was a complete lie for nothing but donations.

----------


## cjm

> Some of older wiser more experienced political folks believe Virginia was winnable. Paul got close to forty percent of the vote with no campaign. A little effort could have put him over the top.


That 40% was state-wide.  Ron won one of the 11 districts.  A few others were 43-44%:  https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.g...56EC47_s.shtml

Edit:  with the one district, Ron had 3 pledged delegates from Virginia (of 49).  After district and state conventions, 25/49 (by some counts) were Ron Paul people.

----------


## Deborah K

> Well, if this was about the message and not helping Mitt Romney win, they could have made better campaign ads actually addressing issues instead of attacking Rick Santorum. So, I don't buy the idea it was about the message, especially when you end a campaign with a million on hand and people donated it so that you would attempt to win the election, not sit on it.
> 
> If the campaign knew before Super Tuesday Romney had it won, then sending out emails that said:
> "Like sharks smelling blood in the water, they can’t wait to close in for the kill.
> 
> They’ll use any excuse to declare this race over and crown Mitt Romney the winner.
> 
> But last time I checked, Mitt Romney still had a long way to go to capture 1,144 delegates.
> 
> ...


I don't agree.  I think he was willing to fight it out to the bitter end.  Especially since we got so upset last election, when he dropped out after Super Tuesday.  All of the shenanigans that were played in some of the state conventions against our delegates where not the campaign's fault.

----------


## New York For Paul

I talked to Ron Paul personally, and I can tell you he appears ignorant of the major campaign details. He does know the ideological issues very well. His main job is to keep explaining liberty. Unfortunately, he can't be campaign manager and candidate at the same time. He should be more involved in day to day issues in the future.

----------


## jjdoyle

> I don't agree.  I think he was willing to fight it out to the bitter end.  Especially since we got so upset last election, when he dropped out after Super Tuesday.  All of the shenanigans that were played in some of the state conventions against our delegates where not the campaign's fault.


Again, helping Mitt Romney win the nomination by attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan, WAS the campaign's fault. Agreeing to not attack Mitt Romney in general like they did Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum, WAS the campaign's fault. I don't think it's much of a fight, when you agree to not "fight" a guy in the race, that was considered "top tier" nearly the entire time, because he may attack you back.

The campaign was responsible last I checked, and according to torchbearer and many others in LA, for what happened WITH the Louisiana delegation.

Unfortunately for the Ron Paul supporters that did the delegate strategy, they wasted their time in the end because the campaign abandoned them for King Romney and a speaking slot at the RNC for someone?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Judging from the May 15th email from Benton it looked like they wanted to have a good showing at the Nat'l Convention.....you know the one where they turned off the RP delegates mics.


Benton wanted to amass delegates for Ron that he could sell to Romney. Can't prove it, but that's what it's starting to sound like.

----------


## Anti Federalist

So...we've progressed in this thread from "Benton is a crook" to "Ron Paul is a crook".

Ay...yi...yi...

----------


## phill4paul

> So...we've progressed in this thread from "Benton is a crook" to "Ron Paul is a crook".
> 
> Ay...yi...yi...


  That's about the way of it. I'm about done with this forum.

----------


## Carlybee

> I don't agree.  I think he was willing to fight it out to the bitter end.  Especially since we got so upset last election, when he dropped out after Super Tuesday.  All of the shenanigans that were played in some of the state conventions against our delegates where not the campaign's fault.



He may have been willing but at some point after March 7th a decision was made to not pursue the nomination..which we were informed about on May 15th after a lot of blood, sweat, tears and funds were expended and I know a lot of people donated when they couldn't really afford it. If the payroll was cut by 85% on March 15th then they knew they weren't going to go for it. Someone knew anyway. I suspect they were in a quandary but we will never know if a side deal was made or what. All I know is RP delegates were silenced at the convention and Rand endorsed Romney. And no I doubt Ron had much to do with everything that was sent out by the campaign.

----------


## New York For Paul

The consultants do not tell Ron Paul what is going on.

----------


## Carlybee

> The consultants do not tell Ron Paul what is going on.


That doesn't surprise me.

----------


## New York For Paul

Sometimes a CEO of a large corporation is last to know what is going on. Just like the president gets surrounded by a bubble of yes men and doesn't know what's going on at the grassroots.

----------


## pcosmar

> The consultants do not tell Ron Paul what is going on.


That is what I have suspected,, as well as deliberately keeping him in the dark about many things.

I was disturbed early on that the official campaign rejected the grassroots so entirely,, they did everyone a huge disservice.

----------


## Carlybee

> That is what I have suspected,, as well as deliberately keeping him in the dark about many things.
> 
> I was disturbed early on that the official campaign rejected the grassroots so entirely,, they did everyone a huge disservice.


Yeah kind of like we were just a cash cow

----------


## Deborah K

> Again, helping Mitt Romney win the nomination by attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan, WAS the campaign's fault. Agreeing to not attack Mitt Romney in general like they did Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum, WAS the campaign's fault. I don't think it's much of a fight, when you agree to not "fight" a guy in the race, that was considered "top tier" nearly the entire time, because he may attack you back.
> 
> The campaign was responsible last I checked, and according to torchbearer and many others in LA, for what happened WITH the Louisiana delegation.
> 
> Unfortunately for the Ron Paul supporters that did the delegate strategy, they wasted their time in the end because the campaign abandoned them for King Romney and a speaking slot at the RNC for someone?


Again, I separate Ron, from Ron Inc..  It sounds like your issue has more to do with decisions you may not have liked, rather than any shady goings-on.  I can't speak to that.

----------


## Matt Collins

> So why did Ron run if he knew he never could win yet was saying he was running to win?


Ron Paul _DID_ win in both 2012 and 2008, even though he never got elected President.

Winning doesn't always equate to electoral victory.

Rallying millions of liberty-minded supporters, changing state and county Republican Parties across the country, forcing a dialog that the establishment didn't want, bringing the Fed and Austrian School to the forefront, spawning dozens if not hundreds of liberty candidates in every corner of the US, building multiple organizations and activist cadres that will long outlast both him and his campaigns, is winning.


And for a while, there was actually a chance Ron Paul could've won.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Some of older wiser more experienced political folks believe Virginia was winnable.


 Who? Cite your sources  





> Paul got close to forty percent of the vote with no campaign. A little effort could have put him over the top.


Not hardly, because as I have already explained many times Romney could dump many times the size of Ron's warchest in VA to prevent Ron from winning the state. It would've been a waste of money.

----------


## Deborah K

> He may have been willing but at some point after March 7th a decision was made to not pursue the nomination..which we were informed about on May 15th after a lot of blood, sweat, tears and funds were expended and I know a lot of people donated when they couldn't really afford it. If the payroll was cut by 85% on March 15th then they knew they weren't going to go for it. Someone knew anyway. I suspect they were in a quandary but we will never know if a side deal was made or what. All I know is RP delegates were silenced at the convention and Rand endorsed Romney. And no I doubt Ron had much to do with everything that was sent out by the campaign.


I'd like Matt to produce some evidence that the payroll was cut in March by 85%.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I was disturbed early on that the official campaign rejected the grassroots so entirely,, they did everyone a huge disservice.


What are you talking about?     The Campaign did not reject the grassroots.... the campaign wouldn't have existed without the grassroots.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I'd like Matt to produce some evidence that the payroll was cut in May by 85%.


Well everyone in the MN office except for Marianne was laid off that day. And in almost every other office and HQ as well. March actually.

----------


## New York For Paul

President Reagan had to have multiple campaign managers. The good thing is at the presidential campaign level the candidate is the most important person not the campaign manager not the campaign staff.  The campaign rises and falls on his ability to communicate with the people clearly and effectively.

----------


## Matt Collins

> What was the purpose for  winning caucuses when the nomination was already a foregone conclusion?


Because the more delegates you have the more power yoo have, it's just that simple.





> Benton wanted to amass delegates for Ron that he could sell to Romney. Can't prove it, but that's what it's starting to sound like.


Not exactly, but the more delegates we had the more power we had which means that they could give us certain things.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Again, helping Mitt Romney win the nomination by attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan, WAS the campaign's fault.


The Campaign did NOT help Mitt Romney win the nomination, he won it on his own. Please quit repeating these untruths.

----------


## Deborah K

> That's about the way of it. I'm about done with this forum.


This forum has ALWAYS been a suspicious bunch.  I think it's a good thing.  It's too bad it gets personal at times, but that's human nature I guess.

----------


## Deborah K

> President Reagan had to have multiple campaign managers. The good thing is at the presidential campaign level the candidate is the most important person not the campaign manager not the campaign staff.  *The campaign rises and falls on his ability to communicate with the people clearly and effectively*.


A skill Dr. Paul is weak on, I think we can all agree.  But, God love him, he's changed things for the better, and I believe has helped change the course of history.

----------


## New York For Paul

Mit Romney was asleep at the campaign switch because he believed Ron Paul would not attacking.  The Ron Paul campaign could have sucker punched mit Romney and pulled out a surprise victory in the last week.

The congressional district that Ron Paul one was where the official state headquarters was at.  The low turnout would've helped Ron Paul win a quick primary. Nobody showed up to vote except from Paul voters because it people thought the election was over. The grassroots get out the vote effort could have increase the vote for Paul from 40% to 50% easily.

That is my reasoning Matt.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Mit Romney was asleep at the campaign switch because he believed Ron Paul would not attacking.  The Ron Paul campaign could have sucker punched mit Romney and pulled out a surprise victory in the last week.
> 
> The congressional district that Ron Paul one was where the official state headquarters was at.  The low turnout would've helped Ron Paul win a quick primary. Nobody showed up to vote except from Paul voters because it people thought the election was over. The grassroots get out the vote effort could have increase the vote for Paul from 40% to 50% easily.
> 
> That is my reasoning Matt.


I would see why you would think that, it's intuitive, but the instant Ron started ramping up operations in VA Romney would've dumped a lot of money to defend it. Ron would'nt have been able to match it, and again, it would be a waste of money for us.

----------


## donnay

> What are you talking about?     The Campaign did not reject the grassroots.... the campaign wouldn't have existed without the grassroots.


No homemade signs...we don't want to be embarrassed is what we were told.

----------


## Badger Paul

I believe the campaign was serious about winning until after Iowa. If they weren't they wouldn't be bribing state senators. But losing Iowa really hurt because it negated whatever chance they had to win New Hampshire and then with South Carolina and Florida 1-2 following, they knew at best they could stay in to ensure a brokered convention but nothing more than that. 

That effort continued until the late spring. By the middle of May this was the situation: (remember now you have two campaigns, Ron's "message" campaign and the one the inner staff was running. And I suppose three if you include grassroots efforts to win delagates):


When state conventions in Arizona and Oklahoma turned chaotic over the weekend of May 12 (you know, the whole “Romney’s son was booed” motif), the Romney campaign demanded the second Paul campaign put a stop to first campaign and that’s exactly what happened. Benton gives a conference call  to the media saying they were going to wind things down, and Rand gives his endorsement to Romney. But with more state conventions still to take place for delegates, appearances the first campaign was still operational had to be kept up for the benefit of the third campaign. So other surrogates like Jack Hunter and Doug Wead were sent out saying nothing’s changed when that was utter crap. And Ron himself never officially dropped out, never suspended, never did anything. This rather unusual status of running/not running allowed for continued fundraising appeals to be made which kept the money coming in so that they would have millions they haven’t even spent it all, a nice kitty to have for the next four years. It also made sure everyone got paid after the primaries were over in June because the convention wasn't until September. 

For all it’s clumsiness, it was actually a very skillful way of keeping the whole enterprise going until the very end when they couldn’t anymore and then they could blame the party for it. The one problem was, the deal for the Louisiana delegation came two days too early, betraying the whole thing. Louisiana was state No. 5 and everyone knew it and everyone knew the Paul campaign had a case to make before the RNC because the idiots in Louisiana state GOP violated their own rules. So a deal was made to prevent the case from being heard. No fifth state, no nomination and Roger Villere was punished for being a jack-ass.

Was it deceptive? Only if you believed Ron still had a chance to win even late in the game. Those a little wiser or a little more cynical could see the outlines of what they were doing, from Adam Kokesh to Scott Horton to Justin Raimondo. While I thought it was rather fanciful, the campaign never completely discouraged such thinking or at least never discouraged persons from trying to gain delegate slots presumably to put Paul’s name in nomination. If they did, the RP would have dropped out but if he did that, the whole enterprise would have come to a screeching halt. No more money, no more effort.

That’s why you had this rather confused and contradictory situation where one campaign was raising money, giving speeches before thousands and winning delegates and the other was working behind the scenes with the Romney forces, not attacking them directly because they knew he would be the nominee, and eventually making an endorsement for Romney after he appeared to have clinched it. Anything that needed to be done to help Rand out with the Romney campaign and the party establishment was done.

If the inner staff wants to congratulate themselves for being clever, they have the right to do so. But there’s a price to be paid down the line and we're finding it out right now. It seems some people on the national campaign staff thought this was a legitimate enterprise. Now that they realize some people weren't acting aboveboard, they're mad about it and they're taking revenge.

You want to talk politcs boys? Let's talk politics: 1). Bob VanderPlaats, the Iowa kingmaker, now says if Rand hires Jesse Benton again he can forget asking for an endorsement. He's also going to hold his own event the weekend of the Iowa Straw Poll in 2015, basically negating its influence. And in Iowa right now Ted Cruz is eating Rand's lunch, gaining support from conservative activists and regular politicos looking for a "unity candidate" put up against someone like Chris Christie or Marco Rubio.

You see guys, you're little schemes made a lot of enemies in the Hawkeye State, needless ones. And if you come around asking for support again, you think the same people who began in 2007 are going to be there for you after the crap you pulled in 2011-12? not unless there's a new bunch running things. That's the bottom line. Rand better think long an hard how he wants to run in 2016 because using the same bunch is not an option unless he wants to get creamed.

----------


## phill4paul

> This forum has ALWAYS been a suspicious bunch.  I think it's a good thing.  It's too bad it gets personal at times, but that's human nature I guess.


  At what point did we become suspicious of Dr. Ronald Earnest Paul's intent? I dunno Deb K. These forums are not what they use to be. Every political point has been argued to the point of beating dead horses. Lately, it seems as if it is just a rehash and I'm about done with it. I'm at the point of tuning out and caring nothing more than what is at the end of my drive.

----------


## Matt Collins

> No homemade signs...we don't want to be embarrassed is what we were told.


I dunno about that, but messaging control is important, especially considering some of the things the grassroots tend to push sometimes

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Because the more delegates you have the more power yoo have, it's just that simple.
> 
> 
> Not exactly, but the more delegates we had the more power we had which means that they could give us certain things.


Power for what?   Give us what?  You said Ron's campaign was over, a "foregone conclusion"....what did "we" need power to do?  Why can't you give us a complete answer instead of going through this process that's like pulling teeth?

----------


## pcosmar

> I dunno about that, but messaging control is important, especially considering some of the things the grassroots tend to push sometimes


Yeah,, they might have gone after Romney.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> So...we've progressed in this thread from "Benton is a crook" to "Ron Paul is a crook".
> 
> Ay...yi...yi...





> That's about the way of it. I'm about done with this forum.


No, I hope that didn't come from anything I asked.   I am just frustrated by the lack of answers.

----------


## Badger Paul

This has nothing to do with Ron. Ron gave his message, that what he wanted to do. Whatever happened politically happened as far as he was concerned. He gave an awful amount of responsibility to people under him to run the campaign. Maybe he should have known what they were doing but they let him down. I hope Jesse and claque are happy The Iowa Republican is basically accusing Ron of being a crook and a liar because as the candidate he bares that responsibility even if he had no idea what was going on.

----------


## torchbearer

> I talked to Ron Paul personally, and I can tell you he appears ignorant of the major campaign details. He does know the ideological issues very well. His main job is to keep explaining liberty. Unfortunately, he can't be campaign manager and candidate at the same time. He should be more involved in day to day issues in the future.


I always seen Ron as seperate from his campaign.
I never once expected Ron when calling nationals. and that is kinda how it should be.
the campaign is a committee that forms voluntarily on behalf of someone else.
Ron just showed up to talk to people. that was his part.

----------


## pcosmar

> No, I hope that didn't come from anything I asked.   I am just frustrated by the lack of answers.


You are asking the wrong people.

Some of them will come from the investigation,, others in time.

----------


## jjdoyle

> The Campaign did NOT help Mitt Romney win the nomination, he won it on his own. Please quit repeating these untruths.


Ron Paul 2012 ran attack ads against Rick Santorum in Michigan, BEFORE Super Tuesday, helping Mitt Romney win the state. Mitt Romney. That is 100% truth, if you are denying that, while calling people dense for simply pointing out the truth about the campaign and its lying staff, that's your problem. You have already shown you ignore facts and history, so you can continue to lie about intentions and try to tell people the campaign was, honest?

I didn't continue to ask people to donate to a campaign that had already agreed to help Mitt Romney win the nomination and silence delegates in states like Louisiana.

As for Virginia, here are a few articles written on it that seemed to think it could happen before the primary:
1) Ron Paul will Win Virginia and it will transform the race
2) Virginia's Super Tuesday: A Possible Win for Ron Paul?
3) Virginia could be Ron Paul's first win

But, Ron Paul 2012 and all their awesomeness decided that Ron Paul shouldn't even try and win Virginia where he got 40.46% of the vote without running a single ad? Instead Ron Paul 2012 helped Mitt Romney win Michigan by running attack ads against only Rick Santorum in the state, and what did Ron Paul finish there with? 11% of the vote?

Your trying to tell people that donated it made no sense for Ron Paul 2012 to try and win the first one-vs-one state against Mitt Romney, while the campaign helped Mitt Romney win Michigan? Seriously?

So, your logic is:
1) Waste campaign funds helping Mitt Romney win in Michigan, BEFORE Super Tuesday, where Rick Santorum could have beat him, and win no delegates in the state.
2) Not spend a dime in the first one-vs-one state WHERE Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum people were trying to help Ron Paul beat Mitt Romney, and still win 3 delegate BECAUSE OF GRASSROOTS.

AND people wonder why Ron Paul 2012 didn't succeed and win a single state's popular vote...experts at all levels apparently helping run the campaign, that didn't even want to try and win it. Then trying to justify helping Mitt Romney win the nomination.

----------


## JK/SEA

> That's about the way of it. I'm about done with this forum.

----------


## klamath

> This has nothing to do with Ron. Ron gave his message, that what he wanted to do. Whatever happened politically happened as far as he was concerned. He gave an awful amount of responsibility to people under him to run the campaign. Maybe he should have known what they were doing but they let him down. I hope Jesse and claque are happy The Iowa Republican is basically accusing Ron of being a crook and a liar because as *the candidate he bares that responsibility even if he had no idea what was going on*.


As the leader Obama bears responsibility for what Eric holder does and people hold Obama's feet to the fire without question over it. Bush never tortured anyone but HIS appointees authorized it, and he also is held accountable. Everyone from Rand on down is questioned and probed for malfeasance  yet one mention  Ron causes a deep collective draw of breath. I have been following RP probably longer than anyone on these forums but I do not hold him in cult status. If everyone is being questioned RP should not be held in revered cult status and exempted.

----------


## JK/SEA

> As the leader Obama bears responsibility for what Eric holder does and people hold Obama's feet to the fire without question over it. Bush never tortured anyone but HIS appointees authorized it, and he also is held accountable. Everyone from Rand on down is questioned and probed for malfeasance  yet one mention  Ron causes a deep collective draw of breath. I have been following RP probably longer than anyone on these forums but I do not hold him in cult status. If everyone is being questioned RP should not be held in revered cult status and exempted.


you agreed Ron would've been a bad President....compared to what?

Pretty sure you did squat to help Ron in his runs for President. No matter. Time has passed us by. There won't be another Ron Paul i'd wager, for many many decades, if ever again.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> As the leader Obama bears responsibility for what Eric holder does and people hold Obama's feet to the fire without question over it. Bush never tortured anyone but HIS appointees authorized it, and he also is held accountable. Everyone from Rand on down is questioned and probed for malfeasance  yet one mention  Ron causes a deep collective draw of breath. I have been following RP probably longer than anyone on these forums but I do not hold him in cult status. If everyone is being questioned RP should not be held in revered cult status and exempted.


Cult status? LMAO.   It's nothing of the sort.  It's called R-E-S-P-E-C-T, which Ron Paul has earned by being ideologically pure and honest throughout his career and throughout his life.  Few others can have that said about them.

----------


## Deborah K

> As the leader Obama bears responsibility for what Eric holder does and people hold Obama's feet to the fire without question over it. Bush never tortured anyone but HIS appointees authorized it, and he also is held accountable. Everyone from Rand on down is questioned and probed for malfeasance  yet one mention  Ron causes a deep collective draw of breath. I have been following RP probably longer than anyone on these forums but I do not hold him in cult status. If everyone is being questioned RP should not be held in revered cult status and exempted.


I don't hold him in cult status.  I just ask myself, why would he be so principled in every other respect, but not in the running of his campaign, it makes no sense, unless it's that he's NOT a micromanager, and relies on his teams to operate out of principle.

----------


## RickyJ

Saying something you don't mean is the same thing as lying. I think the only loyalties he has is to his own bank account. I feel bad for the people paying him, they aren't getting their money's worth.

----------


## JK/SEA

> I don't hold him in cult status.  I just ask myself, why would he be so principled in every other respect, but not in the running of his campaign, it makes no sense.



only thing i can think of is that Ron left it up to us. We failed him, not the other way around.

----------


## RickyJ

> What are you talking about?     The Campaign did not reject the grassroots.... *the campaign wouldn't have existed without the grassroots.*


The campaign most definitely would not have existed without the grassroots. So why were the grassroots told to not come to Iowa, that they had in under control. Do you think what happened in the vote counting in Iowa was under control?

----------


## Carlybee

> I don't hold him in cult status.  I just ask myself, why would he be so principled in every other respect, but not in the running of his campaign, it makes no sense.


I think he had people he trusted and thought he could count on them.

----------


## JK/SEA

> I think he had people he trusted and thought he could count on them.


exactly.

----------


## klamath

> you agreed Ron would've been a bad President....compared to what?
> 
> Pretty sure you did squat to help Ron in his runs for President. No matter. Time has passed us by. There won't be another Ron Paul i'd wager, for many many decades, if ever again.


You are pretty sure of $#@! too. Nearly maxed out in 2008 and was a national delegate candidate from CA. Was ready to do it again in 2012 until I became aware his wasn't running for an electoral win in the spring in 2011. And yes if RP cannot run, delegate and supervise a campaign staff how the hell is he going to keep an administration on the most powerful nation on earth from running amuck. People on here accuse the campaign staff as out and out crooks so why the hell won't a administration APPOINTED by RP be nothing but crooks of which RP is oblivious to?

----------


## Carlybee

This was sent out on 4/14/12




> Dear  ,
> 
> With Rick Santorum out of the race, Ron Paul and his supporters are the last remaining obstacle standing in the way of establishment darling Mitt Romney securing the Republican nomination.
> 
> So you can be sure the establishment is gearing up to pull out every dirty trick in the book to SHUT OUT Ron Paul supporters from the National Convention.
> 
> You and I can’t allow that to happen.
> 
> That’s why I hope you’ll pledge to contribute to Ron Paul’s Taxpayer Freedom Money Bomb coming up on April 15.
> ...

----------


## Deborah K

> You are pretty sure of $#@! too. Nearly maxed out in 2008 and was a national delegate candidate from CA. Was ready to do it again in 2012 until I became aware his wasn't running for an electoral win in the spring in 2011. And yes if RP cannot run, delegate and supervise a campaign staff how the hell is he going to keep an administration on the most powerful nation on earth from running amuck. People on here accuse the campaign staff as out and out crooks so why the hell won't a administration APPOINTED by RP be nothing but crooks of which RP is oblivious to?


I addressed this here:




> I'll never believe that Ron knew about all of it.  He's not a micromanager.  And while it is arguable that he puts too much trust in his teams, and this, therefore, makes him a weak leader - tis still the truth of it - that he trusts people to do their jobs with integrity.  Unfortunately, they don't always.  I believe there is a distinguishable difference between Ron Paul, and Ron Paul Inc. and I'm glad it's been exposed.

----------


## jjdoyle

> only thing i can think of is that Ron left it up to us. We failed him, not the other way around.


Except, you can't really blame the supporters for failing. It was the campaign, 100%. The supporters gave the campaign $40 MILLION to win it, and help deliver the message to help win it.

The supporters turned out in the states with/without the campaign's help trying to get Ron Paul to win it. The supporters were not aware the campaign had agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, though there were some that kept on questioning their lack of attacks during the actual campaign. When some supporters contacted campaign advisers and staffers seeking answers, none were given.

The supporters on the ground giving it their all, and then some, had no clue the campaign had agreed to not only NOT attack Mitt Romney, but apparently had agreed to help him win the nomination as evidenced by Ron Paul 2012 attacking Rick Santorum in Mitt Romney's home state before Super Tuesday with TV ads, helping Mitt Romney win that state.

----------


## klamath

> I addressed this here:


 Unfortunately he is NOT a manager at all. Kind of a requirement for CNC.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> No homemade signs...we don't want to be embarrassed is what we were told.


Because they wanted to make sure the message that was being sent was RON'S MESSAGE.  You know, as opposed to the grassroots in all their wonderful intention sending out pamphlets with coffins on them, that nearly drove a wedge between the Soldiers for Ron Paul and Ron Paul, the candidate.

Things like that...

--

As far as delegates go at the RNC, Ron knew he had no chance to win, but he wanted as many to show up as possible, as kind of a shot across the bow to the Republican Party.  That we weren't lunatics and we weren't going away.  Now, what happened in some of those latter states that sounded like a deal was made about the delegates, I have no earthly idea what went on there and I too would like to know.




> This was sent out on 4/14/12


Yeah, that was misleading.  I don't like it, either.

----------


## New York For Paul

Although he was enough of the manager to win a congressional seat and hold that for many years.

----------


## Badger Paul

You know, it just occurred to me: Michele Bachmann had to beg us to be a member of the Minnesota delegation to the convention for her own credibility. She was hurt badly in Minnesota by her campaign for President and we, by controlling the Minnesota delegation, could have delivered the _coup de grace_  to her career once and for all by denying her. But we didn't do it. Someone gave up their delegate spot for her. Why? Now the official reason, as I recall, was to prevent Romney from challenging the delegation at the convention. But perhaps our own Ken Snowden can tell us the real reason: That we agreed to buy her silence on these charges of bribery to Kent Sorenson. If she knew what was going on, enough to charge us with paying bribe, why didn't she file a complaint with FEC about something that damaged her campaign? She made a charge and it hung there, and she never said anything about it again. Hmmm, perhaps this deal was cut well before the Minnesota state convention. Perhaps nobody thought this was going to be investigated by the U.S. House or even the FBI so there was no point in going on about it. She got her delegate slot, that's all she wanted for her own future. Certainly it would seem strange to include as a member of the Minnesota delegation a person who charged the leading candidate of that delegation with committing a federal offense, a felony. Yeah, strange days indeed.

----------


## Deborah K

> Unfortunately he is NOT a manager at all. Kind of a requirement for CNC.


His Congressional staff would argue differently, I'm sure.  I hope there is a credible, journalistic investigation into Fusaro's accusations. I'd be willing to bet Ron knew nothing about what Mike Rothfeld, et.al. was up to.  Ron Paul vs. Ron Paul Inc. is really beginning to make sense.

----------


## New York For Paul

Not everyone is a Gen. George Patton who leads from the front with the soldiers. Not all of the generals in World War II were the best commanders in the field.
While Ron Paul is a great ideological expert he may not be the best campaign manager. But he did do a lot for the movement and moved it forward by leaps and bounds.



> I don't hold him in cult status.  I just ask myself, why would he be so principled in every other respect, but not in the running of his campaign, it makes no sense.

----------


## RickyJ

> I don't hold him in cult status.  I just ask myself, why would he be so principled in every other respect, but not in the running of his campaign, it makes no sense.


The death of his campaign manager Kent Snyder, at a relatively very young age, in 2008 just a couple of weeks after Ron Paul dropped out of the race has always been suspicious to me. I'm not saying there was foul play involved, but knowing the enemies Ron Paul had and the need to keep him in check, I can't say for sure that there was no foul play. Jesse Benton has had no significant problems so far from Ron Paul's enemies. I am not saying he is an agent to keep an eye on Ron Paul and his followers, but anything is possible in the current environment where the government has effectively shred the Constitution all in the name of "security."

----------


## New York For Paul

You are very right. I think both the consultants and Ron Paul would agree that he did not have total operational control because he was busy preparing for debates and giving campaign speeches every day.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Except, you can't really blame the supporters for failing. It was the campaign, 100%. The supporters gave the campaign $40 MILLION to win it, and help deliver the message to help win it.
> 
> The supporters turned out in the states with/without the campaign's help trying to get Ron Paul to win it. The supporters were not aware the campaign had agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, though there were some that kept on questioning their lack of attacks during the actual campaign. When some supporters contacted campaign advisers and staffers seeking answers, none were given.
> 
> The supporters on the ground giving it their all, and then some, had no clue the campaign had agreed to not only NOT attack Mitt Romney, but apparently had agreed to help him win the nomination as evidenced by Ron Paul 2012 attacking Rick Santorum in Mitt Romney's home state before Super Tuesday with TV ads, helping Mitt Romney win that state.



true enough...but it still was not enough. Its not Ron's fault. 

This liberty movement did get a kick start, and its now in 2nd gear, ready for 3rd gear. Meaning, we all should be proud as hell for what's happening now. Still got a ways to go. 3rd gear will be engaged for awhile. Excuse the drag racing metaphor.

----------


## Deborah K

> Not everyone is a Gen. George Patton who leads from the front with the soldiers. Not all of the generals in World War II were the best commanders in the field.
> While Ron Paul is a great ideological expert he may not be the best campaign manager. But he did do a lot for the movement and moved it forward by leaps and bounds.


Agreed, and for clarity purposes, allow me to add to my last sentence:




> I just ask myself, why would he be so principled in every other respect, but not in the running of his campaign, it makes no sense, unless you realize that he's NOT a micromanager, and relies on his teams to operate out of principle.

----------


## New York For Paul

> His Congressional staff would argue differently, I'm sure.  I hope there is a credible, journalistic investigation into Fusaro's accusations. I'd be willing to bet Ron knew nothing about what Mike Rothfeld, et.al. was up to.  Ron Paul vs. Ron Paul Inc. is really beginning to make sense.


There was a feeling amongst many Ron Paul supporters that he was doing this to build a movement and if he happened to win the nomination that would be extra.

----------


## jjdoyle

> His Congressional staff would argue differently, I'm sure.  I hope there is a credible, journalistic investigation into Fusaro's accusations. I'd be willing to bet Ron knew nothing about what Mike Rothfeld, et.al. was up to.  Ron Paul vs. Ron Paul Inc. is really beginning to make sense.


Well, I have seen one of his Congressional staff members around here commenting, that could probably answer it.

----------


## Primbs

> Agreed, and for clarity purposes, allow me to add to my last sentence:


Just remember how complicated revolution march was. We had operational committees and subcommittees and people joining committees and people quitting committees. We had groups of people traveling across country and staying in different states to attend the March we can't keep track of all of them. By definition a campaign is organized chaos.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> I believe the campaign was serious about winning until after Iowa. If they weren't they wouldn't be bribing state senators. But losing Iowa really hurt because it negated whatever chance they had to win New Hampshire and then with South Carolina and Florida 1-2 following, they knew at best they could stay in at best to ensure a brokered convention but nothing more than that. 
> 
> That effort continued until the late spring. By the middle of May this was the situation: (remember now you have two campaigns, Ron's "message" campaign and that inner staff that was running the main operation. And I suppose three if you include grassroots efforts to win deleagtes):
> 
> 
> When state conventions in Arizona and Oklahoma turned chaotic over the weekend of May 12 (you know, the whole “Romney’s son was booed” motif), the Romney campaign demanded the second Paul campaign put a stop to first campaign and that’s exactly what happened. Benton gives a conference call saying they were going to wind things down, and Rand gives his endorsement. But with more state conventions still to take place for delegates, appearances the first campaign was still operational had to be kept up for the benefit of the third campaign. So other surrogates like Jack Hunter and Doug Wead were sent out saying nothing’s changed when that was utter crap. And Ron himself never officially dropped out, never suspended, never did anything. This rather unusual status of running/not running allowed for continued fundraising appeals to be made which kept the money coming in so that they would have millions they haven’t even spent it all, a nice kitty to have for the next four years. It also made sure everyone got paid after the primaries were over in June because the convention wasn't until September...


I find this to be the most correct breakdown of the situation in late spring 2012, and why the campaign gave off such contradictory signals that you could make the case either way, depending on which part of the campaign you concentrated on at the time. Agree with Badger and Deb K that members of the campaign were doing things without Ron Paul's cognizance. And that informed, high profile observers from Kokesh to Jones to Raimondo et al were dead on in pointing out these shenanigans and compromises at the time they were happening.

----------


## PatriotOne

Call me crazy but I don't see either the 2008 or 2012 elections as a loss. I kind of see it as one long ass football game.  We have the ball and keep advancing down the field.  It's about 4th down with 10 yds to go this cycle.  TPTB thought they had tackled our quarterback in the back field but fleet-footed Ron did a lateral pass to his running back Rand.  Now Rand is running his ASS off and serpentining, jumping over, and whirly birding around the defense.  Run Rand run!

Best football game EVER .  Pardon my poor football terminology .

----------


## Primbs

> Call me crazy but I don't see either the 2008 or 2012 elections as a loss. I kind of see it as one long ass football game.  We have the ball and keep advancing down the field.  It's about 4th down with 10 yds to go this cycle.  TPTB thought they had tackled our quarterback in the back field but fleet-footed Ron did a lateral pass to his running back Rand.  Now Rand is running his ASS off and serpentining, jumping over, and whirly birding around the defense.  Run Rand run!
> 
> Best football game EVER .  Pardon my poor football terminology .


Sounds like John Elway and the Denver Broncos.

----------


## jjdoyle

> I believe the campaign was serious about winning until after Iowa. If they weren't they wouldn't be bribing state senators. But losing Iowa really hurt because it negated whatever chance they had to win New Hampshire and then with South Carolina and Florida 1-2 following, they knew at best they could stay in at best to ensure a brokered convention but nothing more than that. 
> 
> That effort continued until the late spring. By the middle of May this was the situation: (remember now you have two campaigns, Ron's "message" campaign and that inner staff that was running the main operation. And I suppose three if you include grassroots efforts to win deleagtes):
> 
> 
> When state conventions in Arizona and Oklahoma turned chaotic over the weekend of May 12 (you know, the whole “Romney’s son was booed” motif), the Romney campaign demanded the second Paul campaign put a stop to first campaign and that’s exactly what happened. Benton gives a conference call saying they were going to wind things down, and Rand gives his endorsement. But with more state conventions still to take place for delegates, appearances the first campaign was still operational had to be kept up for the benefit of the third campaign. So other surrogates like Jack Hunter and Doug Wead were sent out saying nothing’s changed when that was utter crap. And Ron himself never officially dropped out, never suspended, never did anything. This rather unusual status of running/not running allowed for continued fundraising appeals to be made which kept the money coming in so that they would have millions they haven’t even spent it all, a nice kitty to have for the next four years. It also made sure everyone got paid after the primaries were over in June because the convention wasn't until September.


I'm not sure how serious they were about winning Iowa, only because I do know they ignored and didn't address certain issues that tanked the campaign in Iowa. As somebody said, it appeared some grassroots supporters may have even been told they weren't needed in the state, and when I watched the Caucus, certain locations didn't even have Ron Paul people lined up to speak.
When it was New Year's weekend, where was Ron Paul? Back in Texas. Where was Rick Santorum? In Iowa. With I think all the other candidates as well. Maybe their internal polling at that point had shown Ron that he wasn't going to finish first in Iowa, and that's why he went home for the holiday?

As for the brokered convention idea, it doesn't hold water. Why? The campaign never attacked only Mitt Romney in any state, and agreed to not attack him. If they were serious about a brokered convention, Ron Paul 2012 would have helped Rick Santorum beat Mitt Romney in at least one state, Michigan. Why? It was before Super Tuesday, and if Romney had lost Michigan, that would have built some major momentum for Santorum. If Ron Paul 2012 had actually made a play for Virginia, and helped Santorum win Michigan, I would guess that Santorum at the very least would have encouraged his voters publicly (he may have, I can't remember which candidate did/didn't) to vote for Ron Paul in Virginia, because he would of wanted to make sure Mitt did not get the delegates. 

Ron Paul would most likely have picked up many more Santorum and Gingrich voters who apparently sat it out instead by that point. Gingrich and Santorum did have two supporters (one each that I'm aware of), trying to encourage Gingrich/Santorum voters in Virginia through some organization to vote for Ron Paul. Where was Ron Paul 2012? Not there running a single ad to let voters in Virginia know he was serious about winning.

In spite of the campaign writing off Virginia, Ron Paul supporters were able to get him a win of 3 delegates in the state. Why? Because they tried even without millions of dollars, or running a single ad.

So, the campaign can't claim they wanted a brokered convention, when they agreed to not attack Mitt Romney. The only way to a brokered convention would be making sure NONE of the candidates reached the magic number, including Mitt Romney. The "delegate strategy" was nothing more than a way to string along supporters and keep a carrot before them, while asking for more money.

----------


## Peace Piper

> In spite of the campaign writing off Virginia, Ron Paul supporters were able to get him a win of 3 delegates in the state. Why? Because they tried even without millions of dollars, or running a single ad.
> 
> So, the campaign can't claim they wanted a brokered convention, when they agreed to not attack Mitt Romney. The only way to a brokered convention would be making sure NONE of the candidates reached the magic number, including Mitt Romney.* The "delegate strategy" was nothing more than a way to string along supporters and keep a carrot before them, while asking for more money*.


Yup. I believe it could be called fraud. Who knew what when. Sitting on a million dollars, watching Benton joke around, trying to take ronpaul.com the way they did...none of this is the Ron Paul I've loved since the late '80s. It's disturbing, to say the least. Everywhere one looked in the last 7 months before the convention it was seemingly only and all about money. The truth will out.  Let the chips fall where they may. It's the message, not the person anyway. I just remembered that Kokesh video with someone called Penny Freeman, and how Kokesh was slammed mercilessly.

----------


## cjm

> In spite of the campaign writing off Virginia, Ron Paul supporters were able to get him a win of 3 delegates in the state. Why? Because they tried even without millions of dollars, or running a single ad.


The Virginia disconnection, though disappointing when it happened, may turn out to be a good thing in the long run.  Just as with Sgt. Hulka's injury, we had to learn things on our own and maybe we learned them better that way.

----------


## Deborah K

> Just remember how complicated revolution march was. We had operational committees and subcommittees and people joining committees and people quitting committees. We had groups of people traveling across country and staying in different states to attend the March we can't keep track of all of them. By definition a campaign is organized chaos.


So true.  Hi George.  How are ya?

----------


## Primbs

> So true.  Hi George.  How are ya?


Doing great. I remember we had the Fed protest, Capitol Hill visit, late night receptions, book signings, so many things going on for just one event run by volunteers. We had international visitors, we had to improvise several things on the day of the event. I went out to the Prince William forest at twelve midnight to welcome drivers from around the country who were camping outside of Washington D.C.  Running a campaign is tough and there were a few good guys on the campaign.

----------


## Deborah K

> Doing great. I remember we had the Fed protest, Capitol Hill visit, late night receptions, book signings, so many things going on for just one event run by volunteers. We had international visitors, we had to improvise several things on the day of the event. I went out to the Prince William forest at twelve midnight to welcome drivers from around the country who were camping outside of Washington D.C.  Running a campaign is tough and there were a few good guys on the campaign.


We had a great team of people for RevMarch.  You were my rock.  Wish I would have had your help with PaulFest.  LOL.

----------


## Saint Vitus

> All I have to say is that Fusaro is a snake in the grass.


If Fusaro is a snake in the grass, then I'd hate to see what you call Benton.

I'll call him an absolute clown.  Pick a $#@!ing side, you can't be everything to everybody.  Mitch McConnell = fascism, you can't reconcile his beliefs with ours. (perhaps I shouldn't say "ours", but I doubt many on here are hardcore neoconservatives like McConnell.)

Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham are two Republican senators that I would love to see have an early retirement.

----------


## Badger Paul

You may be right. Or at least they felt they would get something out supporting Romney or smoothing his path to the nomination. What that is I haven't the slightest clue. Certainly didn't benefit the grassroots or the delegates at the convention. Rand's speech? Do you remember any of it? Benton as McConnell's campaign manager? He says he's holding his nose to do so. I guess you can't make deals with a loser, that's for sure.

----------


## Matt Collins

> So why were the grassroots told to not come to Iowa, that they had in under control.


If I recall, we were telling the conspiracy theorists not to come to Iowa under the guise of the RP2012 Campaign to "observe" (harass the locals) over potential voter fraud.

----------


## Matt Collins

> There was a feeling amongst many Ron Paul supporters that he was doing this to build a movement and if he happened to win the nomination that would be extra.


This is probably the most observant post in this thread.

----------


## Matt Collins

> You know, it just occurred to me: Michele Bachmann had to beg us to be a member of the Minnesota delegation to the convention for her own credibility.


No she didn't, she wasn't even at the Convention. I was there running our war room. Marianne was on the floor. 




> She was hurt badly in Minnesota by her campaign for President and we, by controlling the Minnesota delegation, could have delivered the _coup de grace_  to her career once and for all by denying her. But we didn't do it. Someone gave up their delegate spot for her. Why? Now the official reason, as I recall, was to prevent Romney from challenging the delegation at the convention.


No, not letting her go to the Convention would'nt have mattered to her career at all, in fact it may have even made her more sympathetic. 

And although I don't know for sure the motivation of the kid who gave up his seat to her, but it went a loooooooong way to stabbing her in the back. The story could've been "Ron Paul crowd prevents Bachmann from going to RNC" when the actually story was "Ron Paul crowd allow Bachmann to attend RNC at their pleasure". 

There was NO backroom deal there to my knowledge, and I was the one running things alongside Marianne. 


Can we cut the conspiracy crap, puhlease?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> If I recall, we were telling the conspiracy theorists not to come to Iowa under the guise of the RP2012 Campaign to "observe" (harass the locals) over potential voter fraud.


Good thing they didn't do *that*, huh? Damn conspiracy theorists.  _What_ voter fraud? /sarcasm

----------


## Matt Collins

> I'm not sure how serious they were about winning Iowa, only because I do know they ignored and didn't address certain issues that tanked the campaign in Iowa.


No, what tanked the campaign is Iowa was Santorum being puffed up by the media in the final week prior to the caucuses.





> As somebody said, it appeared some grassroots supporters may have even been told they weren't needed in the state,


Only those who were going to cause problems and potentially embarrass the Campaign and Ron.





> Maybe their internal polling at that point had shown Ron that he wasn't going to finish first in Iowa, and that's why he went home for the holiday?


There may be some truth to that but honestly I don't know for sure.

----------


## Matt Collins

> But, Ron Paul 2012 and all their awesomeness decided that Ron Paul shouldn't even try and win Virginia where he got 40.46% of the vote without running a single ad?


As has been explained ad nauseaum Virginia was not winnable for Ron.  Anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes doing electoral work knows this.

----------


## LibertyEagle

jjdoyle, as I recall, Ron Paul went home to Texas because he was sick.  You do have some other good points though regarding Romney.

----------


## Carlybee

> This is probably the most observant post in this thread.


Except that's not what the campaign was saying in their emails at all.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I believe the campaign was serious about winning until after Iowa. If they weren't they wouldn't be bribing state senators. But losing Iowa really hurt because it negated whatever chance they had to win New Hampshire and then with South Carolina and Florida 1-2 following, they knew at best they could stay in at best to ensure a brokered convention but nothing more than that.


The real shock to us all was actually Nevada. We don't know what the hell happened there. 





> You want to talk politcs boys? Let's talk politics: 1). Bob VanderPlaats, the Iowa kingmaker, now says if Rand hires Jesse Benton again he can forget asking for an endorsement. He's also going to hold his own event the weekend of the Iowa Straw Poll in 2015, basically negating its influence.


No, the national media will only pay attention to the Ames Straw Poll, not a silly sideshow put on by a local talking head. He may have some influence, but he isn't the end-all, be-all of Iowa caucus-goers.





I found the rest of your post fascinatingly insightful. What do you do for a living?

----------


## Badger Paul

If she wasn't there Collins why would have been necessary to allow her to attend the national convention? Hmm? I assuming she put in a request to be a delegate and some sort of arraignment was made to seat her. I would have said to her any person who tells scandalous lies about Ron Paul doesn't deserve to be in the delegation. But you all decided to be utterly kind to her, which I could never quite understand because she didn't merit any kindness at all. Now it seems she may well have been telling the truth if you believe Dennis Fusaro and the Iowa Republican.

_"No, not letting her go to the Convention wouldn't have mattered to her career at all, in fact it may have even made her more sympathetic."
_
When not even your own party wants you anymore? Hard to say how that helps a candidate but we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

I admit I have no proof and am simply speculating. I have too much respect for Scribber to believe she would be caught up in anything like that. 

You on the other hand, to be honest, not a chance. But at least you know where I stand.

----------


## Badger Paul

_"No, the national media will only pay attention to the Ames Straw Poll, not a silly sideshow put on by a local talking head. He may have some influence, but he isn't the end-all, be-all of Iowa caucus-goers."_

And Ames is not a silly side show? All I know is Vander Plaats made a hell of a difference for Santorum.

----------


## Matt Collins

> If she wasn't there Collins why would have been necessary to allow her to attend the national convention? Hmm? I assuming she put in a request to be a delegate and some sort of arraignment was made to seat her.


She was on the ballot to be a delegate, but she did not attend the MNGOP Convention.




> I would have said to her any person who tells scandalous lies about Ron Paul doesn't deserve to be in the delegation. But you all decided to be utterly kind to her, which I could never quite understand because she didn't merit any kindness at all.


I had nothing to do with that part of it, but because her actions didn't merit any kindness yet kindness was extended anyway, even further drove the knife deeper. 

I was initially upset that the kid gave his seat away to her, but upon reflection, I realized it caused her much more pain than if it had simply been denied to her.






> I have too much respect for Scribber to believe she would be caught up in anything like that.


You have to ask her, I've honestly never thought to bring it up with her, as to why the kid gave up his seat to Bachmann.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> How do you explain this Deb? I noticed it and every political observer noted it. Romney was the leader yet RP did not attack. You do not attack those that are not ahead of you.
> http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/2...tacked-romney/
> I remember some of us tried to say it was because of a personal friendship but I am really starting to question it now.






He also attacked Mitt on the lie about the sequester gutting the military in the same debate. That said, that debate was in December, and the alleged threats from the Romney campaign could have arisen as a result of those attacks.




Wead was either lying or wasn't in the loop. And since he's gone on to say that there was, in fact, an alliance, it's obvious he was lying.

----------


## klamath

> *No, what tanked the campaign is Iowa was Santorum being puffed up by the media in the final week prior to the caucuses.*
> 
> Only those who were going to cause problems and potentially embarrass the Campaign and Ron.
> 
> 
> There may be some truth to that but honestly I don't know for sure.


Sorry matt it wasn't the media puffing Santorum up. RP blew his surge in the poll by walking out of an interview on the newletters. I proved to you full polling analysis and a timeline Paul had plateaued and was on his way down before Santorum started his surge. The massive news story was not about Santorum's surge but Ron's angry walking out of an interview when repeatedly asked about the newsletters.

----------


## klamath

> He also attacked Mitt on the lie about the sequester gutting the military in the same debate. That said, that debate was in December, and the alleged threats from the Romney campaign could have arisen as a result of those attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wead was either lying or wasn't in the loop. And since he's gone on to say that there was, in fact, an alliance, it's obvious he was lying.


the debates had been going on since june of 2011. Ron wasn't attacking Romney.

----------


## Badger Paul

_"I was initially upset that the kid gave his seat away to her, but upon reflection, I realized it caused her much more pain than if it had simply been denied to her."_

How? She got what she wanted, a seat at the flipping convention which only restored her credibility as Republican politician. Why else would she want to go?

----------


## Ender

> Sorry matt it wasn't the media puffing Santorum up. RP blew his surge in the poll by walking out of an interview on the newletters. I proved to you full polling analysis and a timeline Paul had plateaued and was on his way down before Santorum started his surge. The massive news story was not about Santorum's surge but Ron's angry walking out of an interview when repeatedly asked about the newsletters.


Uh... no.

Santorum was placed into the running- out of nowhere- and definitely puffed up by the talking heads; he became their only topic.

RP didn't walk angrily out of an interview. Did you watch this? He was asked the same crap over and over until there was nothing left to say. He left. Period. This was blown waaaay out proportion and was the only thing the bought media talked about when it came to Ron Paul. 

BUT- Santorum was placed in the public eye on purpose and was used to erase Ron Paul's popularity, in the public eye, in Iowa.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Because they wanted to make sure the message that was being sent was RON'S MESSAGE.  You know, as opposed to the grassroots in all their wonderful intention sending out pamphlets with coffins on them, that nearly drove a wedge between the Soldiers for Ron Paul and Ron Paul, the candidate.
> 
> Things like that...


No, it wasn't.

We were told that "official" lawn signs were "discouraged", that too many "make RP look bad"

So when it was asked, "well, how about homemade signs then?" they were disapproved as well.

I had a local activist, a man on these forums, show Mrs. AF a letter saying these things from the campaign.

It was never about "super brochures" or anything like that.

The "official campaign" blew it, big time, in NH.

They could have won NH, had they just picked up on the Northern Pass issue and run with it.

I am firmly convinced of this, and nothing will shake me of this.

I saw firsthand, *after running my own ads*, how effective this was.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> No, it wasn't.
> 
> We were told that "official" lawn signs were "discouraged", that too many "make RP look bad"
> 
> So when it was asked, "well, how about homemade signs then?" they were disapproved as well.
> 
> I had a local activist, a man on these forums, show Mrs. AF a letter saying these things from the campaign.
> 
> It was never about "super brochures" or anything like that.
> ...


Well, damn, AF, why didn't you raise money and run more your own damn self?   You're bitching about homemade lawn signs.  If you knew the Northern Pass issue was the thing, then why didn't you do more than one?

I remember when you were talking about this back then.  I don't know if they missed your email, or what exactly.  They shouldn't have, I agree.  But, I also know Ron Paul's campaigns had to have far more backseat drivers emailing the hell out of them than in any election perhaps ever.

----------


## klamath

> Uh... no.
> 
> Santorum was placed into the running- out of nowhere- and definitely puffed up by the talking heads; he became their only topic.
> 
> RP didn't walk angrily out of an interview. Did you watch this? He was asked the same crap over and over until there was nothing left to say. He left. Period. This to was blown waaaay out proportion and was the only thing the bought media talked about when it cam to Ron Paul. 
> 
> BUT- Santorum was placed in the public eye on purpose and was used to erase Ron Paul's popularity, in the public eye, in Iowa.


Uh No. the santorum story didn't start until After rp had stopped his surge. Sure it was blown out by the media but RP should have known better. He had just watched cain continue to surge after the sexual allegations. Cain was mercilessly asked about the allegations but he continued to surge but it was only after he got angry that he dropped. It says guilt to voters.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The real shock to us all was actually Nevada. We don't know what the hell happened there.


People were more interested in attending the rallies and getting their Ron Paul signature, than going to vote.  





> No, the national media will only pay attention to the Ames Straw Poll, not a silly sideshow put on by a local talking head. He may have some influence, but he isn't the end-all, be-all of Iowa caucus-goers.


You have got to be kidding.  The media will concentrate on anything and everything they can that they believe will hurt Rand.  

If it turns out that Benton was involved in something even remotely illegal, he shouldn't be anywhere near Rand's campaign.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Well, damn, AF, why didn't you raise money and run more your own damn self?   You're bitching about homemade lawn signs.  If you knew the Northern Pass issue was the thing, then why didn't you do more than one?
> 
> I remember when you were talking about this back then.  I don't know if they missed your email, or what exactly.  They shouldn't have, I agree.  But, I also know Ron Paul's campaigns had to have far more backseat drivers emailing the hell out of them than in any election perhaps ever.


I ran three ads, as a matter of fact.

I spoke to a NH campaign rep on the phone about it.

They just didn't want to bother. They made it clear the "experts" were in charge, and any suggestions from me or other "grassroots people" were "to be taken under advisement".

I've been around the block enough times to know when a suit is blowing me off.

And here we are.

ETA - I'm not, I *refuse*, to get wound up in this nonsense again, but I thought it was important to clarify that, at least in NH, even things as simple and unobtrusive as lawn signs were being..."discouraged" shall we say, by the "official campaign".

----------


## fr33

It would sure be nice to have some higher ups from the campaign to respond here rather than just Collins.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> And yes if RP cannot run, delegate and supervise a campaign staff how the hell is he going to keep an administration on the most powerful nation on earth from running amuck. People on here accuse the campaign staff as out and out crooks so why the hell won't a administration APPOINTED by RP be nothing but crooks of which RP is oblivious to?


It is interesting in this regard to note that the administrations of two Presidents reputed to be among the most personally honest & scrupulous men to hold that office - Ulysses Grant and Warren Harding - were also the two most corrupt and scandal-ridden administrations in American history. I would not be surprised to learn that they, too, had very "hands-off" management styles ...

----------


## Matt Collins

> Sorry matt it wasn't the media puffing Santorum up. RP blew his surge in the poll by walking out of an interview on the newletters. I proved to you full polling analysis and a timeline Paul had plateaued and was on his way down before Santorum started his surge. The massive news story was not about Santorum's surge but Ron's angry walking out of an interview when repeatedly asked about the newsletters.


This has been refuted numerous times. It wasn't Ron's negatives that increased, it was Santorum's positives.

----------


## Matt Collins

> We were told that "official" lawn signs were "discouraged", that too many "make RP look bad"


  Cite your source?






> The "official campaign" blew it, big time, in NH.
> 
> They could have won NH, had they just picked up on the Northern Pass issue and run with it.
> 
> I am firmly convinced of this, and nothing will shake me of this.
> 
> I saw firsthand, *after running my own ads*, how effective this was.


Only scientific polling data, if properly done, will show this.

----------


## Natural Citizen

I don't see why people are so concerned with this.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Cite your source?


No.

The man asked me not to.

So get it over with and call me a liar.




> Only scientific polling data, if properly done, will show this.


I don't need that.

I have the real polls, of voters, in Coos county, that showed that.

I'm sure that's not good enough for you, either.

Like I said, I'm *not* getting wrapped up in another one of these threads again.

Ya'll do what what you want.

I'm off to see if somebody had their dog shot by cops, or their home grenaded and SWATted for no reason.

----------


## jjdoyle

Here are the vote totals for candidates that had won the popular votes in states up until the Michigan and Arizona vote on February 28th (not counting Iowa since it ended in basically a tie for Romney and Santorum):
Mitt Romney had won 4 primaries/caucuses (New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, Maine).
Rick Santorum had won 3 primaries/caucuses (Colorado, Missouri, Minnesota).
Newt Gingrich had won 1 primary/caucus (South Carolina).
Ron Paul 0.

Again, this is not delegate counts, but the popular vote as reported by the media.

It should be noted here, that Ron Paul lost Maine, by 2% points. Ron Paul 2012 never ran a single attack ad against only Romney in the state, and it was Ron's first chance outside of Iowa to really upset the apple cart with the popular vote totals reported by the media. Ron Paul 2012 had already run attack ads against just Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum, but NONE for just Romney.

Then, on February 28th, Mitt Romney won both Arizona and Michigan. Barely getting a victory over Rick Santorum in Michigan, by 3%, thanks in part to Ron Paul 2012 helping attack Rick Santorum with campaign funds running a TV attack ad against him.

With Romney winning both states on February 28th, that brought his total state victories to 6:
Romney - 6 states (New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, Maine, Arizona, Michigan)
Santorum - 3 states (Colorado, Missouri, Minnesota)
Gingrich - 1 state (South Carolina)
Paul - 0 states

What was after that? 
Wyoming's might have swung to Santorum, because he lost it only by 7% to Romney. Wyoming's is a weird one though, spread over a period of time not just one day from what I'm looking at (apparently something like Maine).
Then on March 3rd there was Washington, and Romney won that one with 38% of the vote to Ron Paul's 25% and Rick Santorum's 24%.

So, before Super Tuesday happened, this was is what the state totals were:
Mitt Romney - 8 (New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, Maine, Arizona, Michigan, Wyoming, and Washington)
Rick Santorum - 3 (Colorado, Missouri, Minnesota)
Newt Gingrich - 1 (South Carolina)
Ron Paul - 0

Then after Super Tuesday, which had 10 states voting, the results were:
Romney - 14 (picked up Alaska, Idaho, Massachusetts, Ohio, Vermont, and Virginia)
Santorum - 6 (picked up North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Tennessee)
Gingrich - 2 (picking up Georgia)
Ron Paul - 0

Why did Romney win the nomination? Because Ron Paul 2012 never ran a single attack ad against only him, in any state, trying to cause a brokered convention. Ron Paul 2012 helped Mitt Romney defeat Rick Santorum in Michigan, which gave Romney momentum, and taking momentum away from Santorum.

Had Romney lost Michigan to Santorum, Super Tuesday would have been an absolute massacre between Romney and Santorum with attack ads, because of how close the race would have still been.
Romney was pretty much guaranteed only a few wins on Super Tuesday, even if he had lost Michigan:
Idaho and Massachusetts

Newt Gingrich would have probably still won Georgia, and been the only state he grabbed that day like normal.

Rick Santorum though? He picked up North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. Those were his only three. He could have probably picked up Alaska, which he lost by 4% points, if Romney had lost Michigan.
Santorum probably would have picked up Ohio as well, because he lost that one by 1% point.

The whole thing would have fallen apart and been a complete mess (brokered convention) if Ron Paul 2012 had not helped Mitt Romney win Michigan. OR, at the very least, tried to help Rick Santorum beat Mitt Romney in states like Ohio and Alaska on Super Tuesday with some attack ads.

Oh, and while Romney was having to spend money on Super Tuesday trying to destroy Rick Santorum in states, that would have given Ron Paul 2012 a chance to try and actually win Virginia. Causing more of a headache for Mitt Romney, especially if Newt and Santorum helped in any significant fashion.

Instead, the campaign helped Mitt Romney by never attacking only him in any state, like they did Perry, Newt, or Santorum. They agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, because they never did. They never released a single Mitt Romney only attack ad, and repeatedly used events to try and defend him...like they did with their Etch-A-Sketch ad making fun of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich instead.

Then again, anybody that has spent more than 5 minutes doing electoral work would have known and seen this immediately...and despite some of us calling/emailing and basically yelling and screaming for Ron Paul 2012 to attack Mitt Romney in a specific way, they didn't care or listen. They just wanted to drag supporters along, and act like they were serious, to keep on getting donations. Sadly, they apparently were more serious about helping Mitt Romney win the nomination without any waves, and getting Rand a speaking slot at the convention.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> No, it wasn't.
> 
> We were told that "official" lawn signs were "discouraged", that too many "make RP look bad"


Unfortunately a few, I'm sure well-intentioned people from the '08 campaign caused that.  Remember what was done in Arizona?  They stuck RP signs and stickers all over private property and put ugly-ass signs every 2 feet.  It didn't attract people to Ron Paul at all; just the opposite.  I'm guessing they didn't want a repeat, knowing that it drove some of the people away whose votes we needed.  Even though people mean well, it doesn't follow that their actions always end up helping.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Cite your source?
> 
> Only scientific polling data, if properly done, will show this.


They should have followed up on this, Matt, and they didn't.  I'm not sure why they didn't.  Maybe they didn't see it, were too busy, or who knows.  But, it was a mistake.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Sorry matt it wasn't the media puffing Santorum up. RP blew his surge in the poll by walking out of an interview on the newletters. I proved to you full polling analysis and a timeline Paul had plateaued and was on his way down before Santorum started his surge. The massive news story was not about Santorum's surge but Ron's angry walking out of an interview when repeatedly asked about the newsletters.


You aren't referring to Dana Bash's bull$#@! interview are you?

The man answered more times than necessary. That they kept asking him for every thirty minute propaganda [tv] show means what?

You've been taking shots at Ron Paul since I've been here. Usually they were because of someone taking shots at Rand Paul, whatever sense that made [?], but now, what the $#@! is your problem? State it.

----------


## Ender

> *You aren't referring to Dana Bash's bull$#@! interview are you?
> *
> The man answered more times than necessary. That they kept asking him for every thirty minute propaganda [tv] show means what?
> 
> You've been taking shots at Ron Paul since I've been here. Usually they were because of someone taking shots at Rand Paul, whatever sense that made [?], but now, what the $#@! is your problem? State it.


Yep- buncha crap.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You aren't referring to Dana Bash's bull$#@! interview are you?
> 
> The man answered more times than necessary. That they kept asking him for every thirty minute propaganda [tv] show means what?
> 
> You've been taking shots at Ron Paul since I've been here. Usually they were because of someone taking shots at Rand Paul, whatever sense that made [?], but now, what the $#@! is your problem? State it.


I know what he's talking about.  It doesn't matter that Dana Bash is horrible.  What matters is the clip they got out of it that they kept showing over and over and over again.  It certainly wasn't helpful.   Ron had to know they were going to bring up the newsletter issue again and he should have been ready with some decent way of handling it.  But, sadly, he wasn't.

By the way, Klamath was a huge supporter of Ron's.  I think he is frustrated at this point.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I know what he's talking about.  It doesn't matter that Dana Bash is horrible.  What matters is the clip they got out of it that they kept showing over and over and over again.  It certainly wasn't helpful.   Ron had to know they were going to bring up the newsletter issue again and he should have been ready with some decent way of handling it.  But, sadly, he wasn't.


That sounds like Maddow. I understand your views are nothing like her's but let's be honest. Ron Paul has been answering that question for over a decade. He didn't storm off and he didn't walk off. ($#@! their spin) Ron Paul answered the question. He answered it more politely than most could have after all of the badgering and politicized bull$#@! talking points he was being led into/asked. I think he answered it great, actually. Surely more patient with intentional smear-ers than I think I could be.




> By the way, Klamath was a huge supporter of Ron's.  I think he is frustrated at this point.


I haven't been around as long as many but since I've been here I can't remember a post of his that hasn't had some sly undertone of insulting Ron Paul. As I mentioned it is usually in defense of Rand Paul which I find odd. We are all upset but his constant shots over the past year or so have been getting annoying.

Everyone is frustrated.

----------


## New York For Paul

> No, what tanked the campaign is Iowa was Santorum being puffed up by the media in the final week prior to the caucuses.
> 
> 
> Only those who were going to cause problems and potentially embarrass the Campaign and Ron.
> 
> 
> There may be some truth to that but honestly I don't know for sure.


They kept away very good people in Iowa. The campaign kept away a winning campaign manager in a united states senate race in Nevada. Considering how crucial Nevada was I was dumbfounded by this Ron Paul campaign decision. The campaign was very insular with friends and family only. 

The campaigned turned away the top campaign talent in the country.

----------


## ObiRandKenobi

it's pretty clear ron paul was much harsher on rick santorum than he was on mitt romney. i attribute that to rick santorum being suber obnoxious and annoying.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> it's pretty clear ron paul was much harsher on rick santorum than he was on mitt romney. i attribute that to rick santorum being suber obnoxious and annoying.


That's what I always thought too...Rick Santorum seemed to be more inclined to attack Ron for  his foreign policy views than Romney did.  I always figured Ron was just fighting back in attacking Santorum (and he deserved it!)

----------


## angelatc

> I haven't been around as long as many but since I've been here I can't remember a post of his that hasn't had some sly undertone of insulting Ron Paul. As I mentioned it is usually in defense of Rand Paul which I find odd. We are all upset but his constant shots over the past year or so have been getting annoying.
> 
> Everyone is frustrated.


As soon as the campaign season gets back in full swing we can go back to ranting about outsiders.

----------


## compromise

> That's what I always thought too...Rick Santorum seemed to be more inclined to attack Ron for  his foreign policy views than Romney did.  I always figured Ron was just fighting back in attacking Santorum (and he deserved it!)


Santorum was probably the only candidate who never complimented Ron or stated he agreed with Ron on an issue (even on auditing the Fed!) and he also attacked Ron far more than any other candidate. He also needed to be attacked because the battle for conservative votes after Cain, Bachmann and Perry dropped out was between him and Ron, so it would make sense for Ron to attack him in order to get some of his support that may not agree with his fiscal liberalism.

----------


## orenbus

> No she didn't, she wasn't even at the Convention.


Hmm that's weird that looks like Michele Bachmann there on the right:




edit: Oh my bad thought you were talking about the national, but I do remember mention on these forums at the time of some deal being struck for her to go to the national and stand with the rest of the delegation, but maybe not?

----------


## Matt Collins

> They kept away very good people in Iowa.


The Campaign did not want hyper-sensitive conspiracy theorists who were going to "observe the vote" and harass the locals and turn people off of Ron.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> The Campaign did not want hyper-sensitive conspiracy theorists who were going to "observe the vote" and harass the locals and turn people off of Ron.


Yeah, it's not like there was any fraud or broken bones or anything.

----------


## orenbus

> Like I said, I'm not getting wrapped up in another one of these threads again.
> 
> Ya'll do what what you want.
> 
> *I'm off to see if somebody had their dog shot by cops, or their home grenaded and SWATted for no reason.*


LOL!!!

----------


## cajuncocoa

> The Campaign did not want hyper-sensitive conspiracy theorists who were going to "observe the vote" and harass the locals and turn people off of Ron.





> Good thing they didn't do *that*, huh? Damn conspiracy theorists.  _What_ voter fraud? /sarcasm


I had to repost this. ^^ I can't even believe Collins is making this comment...._twice._

----------


## Carlybee

> The Campaign did not want hyper-sensitive conspiracy theorists who were going to "observe the vote" and harass the locals and turn people off of Ron.


I bet they took their donations though

----------


## klamath

> You aren't referring to Dana Bash's bull$#@! interview are you?
> 
> The man answered more times than necessary. That they kept asking him for every thirty minute propaganda [tv] show means what?
> 
> You've been taking shots at Ron Paul since I've been here. Usually they were because of someone taking shots at Rand Paul, whatever sense that made [?], but now, what the $#@! is your problem? State it.


Yeaw since I was dumb enough to hit the show ignored poster button I guess I will reply.
It doesn't matter how many time a politicians has to answer the minute they get angry about the question they are viewed as guilty to the swing voters.   Answer it the same over and over and over. Eventially if the answer stays the same they quit. RP should have known this and He should have known he would be asked relentlessly about the newsletters if he ever started leading in the polls.
As far a your last question you can get lost. I owe NOBODY an explaination of why I have the right to question ANY politician. I especially don't owe an answer to someone that has acted like the termination of a digestive tract so much I have placed them on my ignore list.

----------


## RickyJ

> The Campaign did not want hyper-sensitive conspiracy theorists who were going to "observe the vote" and harass the locals and turn people off of Ron.


Is that the way the campaign thought of the grassroots? Seriously? Because when they said they didn't need people to come to Iowa to help observe the vote, they didn't qualify it by saying only the "hyper-sensitive conspiracy theorists" who more than likely will "harass the locals." Believe me, if they would have said that I would have remembered it.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Eventially if the answer stays the same they quit.


Apparently they don't.

You can try and spin it any way you like. I remember how it happened. 

It's kind of funny that the only thing you have to bitch about is the Dana Bash interview. I guess Ron Paul speaking on Russia in the early '80s wasn't swaying enough people, eh? Had to try and spin something more current. You could find something other than Ron Paul politely telling Bash he has been answering the question for some 15 odd years and matter of factly stating he didn't write the newsletter and he doesn't endorse the views.


[8:26] for those who do not know what he is now complaining about. He has been taking shots at Ron Paul for well over a year in threads where someone gets upset with Rand Paul's sanction vote, for example. That he has stooped to this interview is beyond telling. That people actually agree with him is kind of amazing, really.




The horror. He told a media whore in no uncertain terms that he didn't write the newsletters and disavows them. Media spinners gotta spin.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> It doesn't matter how many time a politicians has to answer the minute they get angry about the question they are viewed as guilty to the swing voters.   Answer it the same over and over and over. Eventially if the answer stays the same they quit. RP should have known this and He should have known he would be asked relentlessly about the newsletters if he ever started leading in the polls.


In similar fashion, Rand is going to be asked 50,000 times about his relationship with Confederacy-supporter Jack Hunter once he leads in the primary race at crunch time. He will need to keep his cool as much as possible. Although in reality, it doesn't matter if he gets angry or not, what matters is how the major media paints his reaction. 

Howard Dean didn't get unhinged during his famous 2004 post Iowa speech (he was shouting in a loud crowded room), _but that's how the media portrayed it_ for days on end. Rand will have to be careful to not give the MSM anything that can be 'packaged' the wrong way, although this can be extremely difficult with creative defamers, who are on a mission.

----------


## Smitty

Freedom doesn't involve political games.

Political games is what has cost Americans their freedom.

I was more than a bit perplexed about the culmination of the Ron Paul candidacy in 2012.

Rand's endorsement of Romney spelled it out for me to a point,..but there was obviously more than that at play.

I'll just say this,..

If the current incarnation of the liberty movement entails kissing Jesse Benton's ass and forming an alliance with Mitch McConnell,...it's time for me to find another path.

Rand might be fooled, but I'm not.

,...and to be quite candid about it,..I'm entirely unconvinced that Rand has been fooled.

If he's not playing the game,..he's doing a damn fine impersonation of someone who is.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> In similar fashion, Rand is going to be asked 50,000 times about his relationship with Confederacy-supporter Jack Hunter once he leads in the primary race at crunch time. He will need to keep his cool as much as possible. Although in reality, it doesn't matter if he gets angry or not, what matters is how the major media paints his reaction. 
> 
> Howard Dean didn't get unhinged during his famous 2004 post Iowa speech (he was shouting in a loud crowded room), _but that's how the media portrayed it_ for days on end. Rand will have to be careful to not give the MSM anything that can be 'packaged' the wrong way, *although this can be extremely difficult with creative defamers, who are on a mission.*


I'd say.

----------


## klamath

> In similar fashion, Rand is going to be asked 50,000 times about his relationship with Confederacy-supporter Jack Hunter once he leads in the primary race at crunch time. He will need to keep his cool as much as possible. Although in reality, it doesn't matter if he gets angry or not, what matters is how the major media paints his reaction. 
> 
> Howard Dean didn't get unhinged during his famous 2004 post Iowa speech (he was shouting in a loud crowded room), _but that's how the media portrayed it_ for days on end. Rand will have to be careful to not give the MSM anything that can be 'packaged' the wrong way, although this can be extremely difficult with creative defamers, who are on a mission.


Yes and Rand is going to be asked relentlessly about Aqubudda as well. If he loses his cool it will make it appear he is guilty to the swing voters. As I pointed out as well Cain continued strong in the polls until he got angry at the constant questions then he dropped in the polls. That is exactly what a hostile media is looking for or a change in story.
Rand will also have to answer thousands of questions on whether he supports kicking black people out of restaurants based on his maddow interview. 
Newbies to electoral politics will think that has all blown over but it hasn't, once he is running for a higher office. He better have a solid truthful answer   that he sticks with through ten of thousands of questions. If he doesn't his campaign will get derailed right at the peak of winning.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I bet they took their donations though


ha! ya think?

----------


## PatriotOne



----------


## Smitty

wake up.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> 


and yet you took the time to find a pic and respond.  OK.

----------


## PatriotOne

> and yet you took the time to find a pic and respond.  OK.


It was already holstered.

----------


## AuH2O

> Freedom doesn't involve political games.
> 
> Political games is what has cost Americans their freedom.
> 
> I was more than a bit perplexed about the culmination of the Ron Paul candidacy in 2012.
> 
> Rand's endorsement of Romney spelled it out for me to a point,..but there was obviously more than that at play.
> 
> I'll just say this,..
> ...


What does that make you?  A damn fine impersonation of someone getting played _by_ the game?

----------


## Deborah K

> The Campaign did not want hyper-sensitive conspiracy theorists who were going to "observe the vote" and harass the locals and turn people off of Ron.


Is that a fact??  Or just your opinion?  Be careful how you answer that.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Political games is what has cost Americans their freedom.


Only because those who advocate freedom and liberty have been either absent from the fight or not fighting effectively.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Is that a fact??  Or just your opinion?  Be careful how you answer that.


They did not want the conspiracy theorists who were trying to come into Iowa under the guise of the Ron Paul Campaign to "observe" votes. Even after it was made very clear and public the Campaign did not need/want their help they persisted and continued to try and pull it off anyway. That shows us that they were only interested in their own self-interest.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> The Campaign did not want hyper-sensitive conspiracy theorists who were going to "observe the vote" and harass the locals and turn people off of Ron.


Since Ron came in third by a narrow margin, it shows that turning dedicated supporters away isn't a good strategy.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Since Ron came in third by a narrow margin, it shows that turning dedicated supporters away isn't a good strategy.


You'd think so, wouldn't you?  Ah well...I guess that's why we leave these things to the experts like Matt! /sarcasm

----------


## Smitty

> Only because those who advocate freedom and liberty have been either absent from the fight or not fighting effectively.


No,..because those who advocate freedom and liberty are shut out from the fight by the parasites who latch onto a movement and play politics with it for their own gain.

----------


## phill4paul

> Only because those who advocate freedom and liberty have been either absent from the fight or not fighting effectively.


  Weren't absent. Told to $#@! off, thank you kindly, but we don't NEED you and your kind. This. 

  That is quite a bit of hubris you carry around on your shoulders. Thinking that you own the copyright on the advocacy of freedom and liberty.

----------


## Deborah K

> Only because those who advocate freedom and liberty have been either absent from the fight or not fighting effectively.


What does that mean, 'not fighting effectively'?  Do you think the campaign fought effectively?  Do you think they regarded the grassroots in a positive light?  Can you answer that honestly?

----------


## RickyJ

> I had to repost this. ^^ I can't even believe Collins is making this comment...._twice._


My bet is that those that worked for the campaign wish he would just shut up already! If what he is saying is correct however, it does give a lot of insight about what the campaign really thought of the grassroots.

----------


## Deborah K

> They did not want the conspiracy theorists who were trying to come into Iowa under the guise of the Ron Paul Campaign to "observe" votes. Even after it was made very clear and public the Campaign did not need/want their help they persisted and continued to try and pull it off anyway. That shows us that they were only interested in their own self-interest.


But this isn't what people were told, is it?  The truth comes out, yes?  

I understand the need to control a situation, but the manner in which this was controlled was deceitful and people don't like being lied to.  Someone in that hierarchy needs to learn better how to utilize a great asset like the grassroots without making them feel deceived, or like a doormat, or like we're not good enough. And I leave the Pauls completely out of that.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Since Ron came in third by a narrow margin, it shows that turning dedicated supporters away isn't a good strategy.


They weren't supporters, they were self-centered people who wanted to do their own thing and possibly damage Ron and the campaign......at worst. At best they were misguided but also unwilling to listen to reason and do what was asked. 


Assuming they had the best intentions (I seriously question this given my observation of them) their "help" would not have mattered one single iota in the outcome of Iowa. In fact the honest truth is that the Campaign maxed out everything they could in Iowa, we gave it all we had, and more volunteers or money wouldn't have made a difference. The media lost Iowa for us, not the Campaign, not the supporters, not the money. External factors beyond our control.

----------


## torchbearer

> They did not want the conspiracy theorists who were trying to come into Iowa under the guise of the Ron Paul Campaign to "observe" votes. Even after it was made very clear and public the Campaign did not need/want their help they persisted and continued to try and pull it off anyway. That shows us that they were only interested in their own self-interest.



their self-interest seemed to be a fair counting of the votes. how is that bad?

----------


## Matt Collins

> Weren't absent. Told to $#@! off, thank you kindly, but we don't NEED you and your kind. This.


Elections are won by controlling the message and doing the following:

- identify every voter in the area (phone banking)
- determine who they are going to vote for (phone banking)
- try and persuade them to vote for your guy (phone banking / door-to-door)
- remind them to go and vote on caucus/election day (phone banking)


If you're doing something else than what's listed above, then you're being unproductive and in some cases causing harm.

----------


## RickyJ

> They did not want the conspiracy theorists who were trying to come into Iowa under the guise of the Ron Paul Campaign to "observe" votes. Even after it was made very clear and public the Campaign did not need/want their help they persisted and continued to try and pull it off anyway. That shows us that they were only interested in their own self-interest.


Matt what is your personal position on 9/11? Do you think it was an inside job or do you believe the government told us the truth about what happened that day?

----------


## Deborah K

> In fact the honest truth is that the Campaign maxed out everything they could in Iowa, we gave it all we had, and more volunteers or money wouldn't have made a difference. *The media lost Iowa for us*, not the Campaign, not the supporters, not the money. External factors beyond our control.


I believe this.

----------


## Deborah K

> Elections are won by controlling the message and doing the following:
> 
> - identify every voter in the area (phone banking)
> - determine who they are going to vote for (phone banking)
> - try and persuade them to vote for your guy (phone banking / door-to-door)
> - remind them to go and vote on caucus/election day (phone banking)
> 
> 
> If you're doing something else than what's listed above, then you're being unproductive and in some cases causing harm.


You forgot the one crucial ingredient: Buy the media.

----------


## RickyJ

> their self-interest seemed to be a fair counting of the votes. how is that bad?


Well Ron Paul would have won if the vote was counted fairly, the campaign couldn't let that happen, it could have greatly affected their health.

Heck, if you just look at the campaign night video after the results came in, you will see a very ticked off looking Rand Paul standing behind his father as he gave his speech. I think Rand knew without a doubt that the election was stolen from his father.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I understand the need to control a situation, but the manner in which this was controlled was deceitful and people don't like being lied to.


Regarding the Iowa "observers" I seem to recall a post I made on the DP that was pretty clear and cut about us not wanting that particular crowd to come to Iowa.






> Someone in that hierarchy needs to learn better how to utilize a great asset like the grassroots without making them feel deceived, or like a doormat, or like we're not good enough.


I'll be the first to admit that yes we could've use an improved leadership style and more communication. I was kind of the liaison to the netroots and it was frustrating because first off the FEC prohibited me from saying certain things to certain people. Secondly I was scared to death that anything I said or wrote would end up on the front page of CNN at worst, copied around to the netroots spun and taken out of context at best. And then third, it is of course important not to reveal strategy or make it public. Those 3 factors severely limited me in what I could say and how I could communicate to the grassroots. There was so much I wanted to get out there but couldnt because of those limitations.


During the first half of the Campaign I shared an office with Jerry Shidell the nat'l coordinator, and we would constantly think up of ideas on how to utilize the awesome power of the grassroots. Jerry is brilliant at human behavior, and of course I came up through the netroots myself so I have a good understanding of how it works. We wanted to put people to work doing very productive and useful things that needed to be done. Unfortunately there were bureaucratic factors (and hurdles that I mentioned above) that made it hard to crowdsource things in the manner in which we wanted. There are a ton of other things I could share, but you'll just have to catch me in person sometime. No recording my conversation though

----------


## Matt Collins

> No,..because those who advocate freedom and  liberty are shut out from the fight by the parasites who latch onto a  movement and play politics with it for their own gain.







> What does that mean, 'not fighting effectively'?


See this:

----------


## Matt Collins

> You forgot the one crucial ingredient: Buy the media.


Well, that's kind of sort of what I meant by "control the message"

----------


## Matt Collins

> Matt what is your personal position on 9/11? Do you think it was an inside job or do you believe the government told us the truth about what happened that day?


No, I do not think the government mastermined some plan that caused 9/11. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I do however think that their official investigation had a lot of holes in it. But what the hell does any of that matter?

----------


## Matt Collins

> their self-interest seemed to be a fair counting of the votes. how is that bad?


Because these people wanted to raise hell and their actions would've been harassing of the locals and damaging to Ron and the Campaign. They were coming in under the guise of RP supporters and their actions would've reflected negatively on Ron. Assuming they actually had the best of intentions as you mentioned, it was still a bad idea because the Campaign had that covered by known people that were trustworthy and would behave in a manner that would reflect well on Dr. Paul, not act like hooligans.

----------


## Deborah K

> Because these people wanted to raise hell and their actions would've been harassing of the locals and damaging to Ron and the Campaign. They were coming in under the guise of RP supporters and their actions would've reflected negatively on Ron. Assuming they actually had the best of intentions as you mentioned, it was still a bad idea because the Campaign had that covered by known people that were trustworthy and would behave in a manner that would reflect well on Dr. Paul, not act like hooligans.


What?  Who are you talking about?  Just random, rogues?  Or organized groups?  Who??  Out them.

----------


## Carlybee

> Elections are won by controlling the message and doing the following:
> 
> - identify every voter in the area (phone banking)
> - determine who they are going to vote for (phone banking)
> - try and persuade them to vote for your guy (phone banking / door-to-door)
> - remind them to go and vote on caucus/election day (phone banking)
> 
> 
> If you're doing something else than what's listed above, then you're being unproductive and in some cases causing harm.


So no one should show up at rallies?

----------


## Deborah K

> Well, that's kind of sort of what I meant by "control the message"


But it has to imply that mucho big buckeroonies need to be spent on radio, and TV, et.al.  It needs the word "media" in it.  "Control the message" sounds more like having a P.R. team.

----------


## Carlybee

> But it has to imply that mucho big buckeroonies need to be spent on radio, and TV, et.al.  It needs the word "media" in it.  "Control the message" sounds more like having a P.R. team.



Seems to sound like "control the supporters" to me...the people out there donating money for the campaign to operate in the first place.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Elections are won by controlling the message and doing the following:
> 
> - identify every voter in the area (phone banking)
> - determine who they are going to vote for (phone banking)
> - try and persuade them to vote for your guy (phone banking / door-to-door)
> - remind them to go and vote on caucus/election day (phone banking)
> 
> 
> If you're doing something else than what's listed above, then you're being unproductive and in some cases causing harm.


sooo....for myself going to local caucus meetings and getting voted in to be a State Delegate, and then getting elected to a PCO position, and donating hundreds to Ron Paul was harmful eh?

funny $#@! right there Matt....are you really awake, or are you just sleep walking your way through the effort?

----------


## JK/SEA

> Because these people wanted to raise hell and their actions would've been harassing of the locals and damaging to Ron and the Campaign. They were coming in under the guise of RP supporters and their actions would've reflected negatively on Ron. Assuming they actually had the best of intentions as you mentioned, it was still a bad idea because the Campaign had that covered by known people that were trustworthy and would behave in a manner that would reflect well on Dr. Paul, not act like hooligans.


i'm starting to see some of the reason Ron was brought to his knees and eventually fell away in the race...

one down.

----------


## RickyJ

> No, I do not think the government mastermined some plan that caused 9/11. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I do however think that their official investigation had a lot of holes in it.* But what the hell does any of that matter?*


Because it speaks a lot of your intelligence or your lack thereof, that's why it matters. This is important to know not only when considering what you post here, but is also beneficial to know that the campaign might have even sought out people that thought 9/11 was not an inside job to keep 9/11 issues out of the campaign and thus out of the public eye.

----------


## Deborah K

> Seems to sound like "control the supporters" to me...the people out there donating money for the campaign to operate in the first place.


I don't take it that way.  But, as I stated earlier, I really wish the hierarchy would smarten up and figure out a good way to harness all the talent in the grassroots.  They have completely dropped the ball on that, completely.  Instead, they've made this valuable resource of people willing to dedicate their lives, time, and money feel - feel bewildered at best, and used and dismissed at worst.

----------


## Deborah K

> Because it speaks a lot of your intelligence or your lack thereof, that's why it matters.


Is that really your litmus test?  Cuz, I'm not a truther either.

----------


## JK/SEA

> It was already holstered.


you'd look better with a wig.

----------


## Deborah K

> sooo....for myself going to local caucus meetings and getting voted in to be a State Delegate, and then getting elected to a PCO position, and donating hundreds to Ron Paul was harmful eh?
> 
> funny $#@! right there Matt....are you really awake, or are you just sleep walking your way through the effort?





> So no one should show up at rallies?



I don't think he means in order to win, those guidelines exclusively must be followed.  I think he means whatever else you do (assuming you don't make any mistakes), your method must include those guidelines - in order to win.

I'm pretty sure its an elections 101 sort of thing.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Is that really your litmus test?  Cuz, I'm not a truther either.



uh-oh...

----------


## Deborah K

> See this:


Not gonna watch Rothfeld.

----------


## JK/SEA

> I don't think he means in order to win, those guidelines exclusively must be followed.  I think he means whatever else you do (assuming you don't make any mistakes), your method must include those guidelines - in order to win.
> 
> I'm pretty sure its an elections 101 sort of thing.


just wondering, because i didn't do any phone banking OR any door to door stuff...

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Elections are won by controlling the message and doing the following:
> 
> - identify every voter in the area (phone banking)
> - determine who they are going to vote for (phone banking)
> - try and persuade them to vote for your guy (phone banking / door-to-door)
> - remind them to go and vote on caucus/election day (phone banking)
> 
> 
> If you're doing something else than what's listed above, then you're being unproductive and in some cases causing harm.


LMAO...I did A LOT of phone banking leading up to IA, but in another thread I'm told I'm just a keyboard warrior who is not needed and NOT welcomed.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> LMAO...I did A LOT of phone banking leading up to IA, but in another thread I'm told I'm just a keyboard warrior who is not needed and NOT welcomed.


That's not exactly how it went.  Be honest for a change.

----------


## Deborah K

> uh-oh...


RFLOL!  Am I banished now? 

For clarity purposes, I don't believe bombs were planted.  I do believe 7 was pulled, I'm highly confused about the perfect hole in the pentagon.  I do believe Able Danger, which means I believe they knew about it and let it happen, for obvious reasons.

So am I a truther or not?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> That's not exactly how it went.  Be honest for a change.


Bull$#@!. It's all still there for anyone to read. Even you thought he went too far.

----------


## torchbearer

> I'm just a keyboard warrior who is not needed and NOT welcomed.


u know that's not true. every person is needed.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Not gonna watch Rothfeld.


Why?  He knows the mechanics.  Those are basics we must learn.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Bull$#@!. It's all still there for anyone to read. Even you thought he went too far.


Yes, I did, but that doesn't change the fact that you are misrepresenting what went on.

For example:  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5173251

----------


## JK/SEA

> LMAO...I did A LOT of phone banking leading up to IA, but in another thread I'm told I'm just a keyboard warrior who is not needed and NOT welcomed.



pretty much what my local GOP chair said to me at the committee election convention.  Now we are going to elect a new State chair soon, and all of a sudden now they  want UNITY and want Ron Paul supporters to join in.

un-real.

----------


## Peace Piper

> No, I do not think the government mastermined some plan that caused 9/11. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I do however think that their official investigation had a lot of *holes* in it. But what the hell does any of that matter?


The original 911 commissioners went a lot farther than "holes". 

But first, you *do* believe in "conspiracy theories"! (what is a "conspiracy theory"?)

Let's review what you apparently DO believe:




> Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah 
> 
>  Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planesAnd hangover or not, they manage to give the worlds most sophisticated air defense system the slip 
> 
>  Unphased by leaving their How to Fly a Passenger Jet guide in the car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely 
> 
>  Our masterminds even manage to overpower the odd law of physics or two and the world watches in awe as steel-framed buildings fall symmetrically  through their own mass  at free-fall speed, for the first time in history. 
> 
>  Despite all their dastardly cunning, they stupidly give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the fireball undamaged and fall to the ground only to be discovered by the incredible crime-fighting sleuths at the FBI. 
> ...



If that's not the most absurd ridiculous bunch of BS what is. And people are ridiculed as "Twoofers" if they don't believe that nonsense?

Orwell would blush.

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) *obstructed our investigation"*
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/op...ml?ref=opinion

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didnt bother to tell the American people
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...0.html?sub=new

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says I dont believe for a minute we got everything right, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only the first draft of history. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEkMnbpXKQs

With all due respect, you seem to be just another sheep herder, willing to play along with the established game. At least 60% of the people in this country don't even vote, so the typical (D) or (R) sheep herder tries each election to herd a few percentage of the wishy washy center to whatever side (and whatever agenda) they are representing at the moment.

The first person to figure out how to give even half of that 60% that don't vote a reason to go to the polls will win and win big and really change things. Ron Paul almost did that. And he did it because he stood outside the circus and called the fools fools.

----------


## JK/SEA

> RFLOL!  Am I banished now? 
> 
> For clarity purposes, I don't believe bombs were planted.  I do believe 7 was pulled, I'm highly confused about the perfect hole in the pentagon.  I do believe Able Danger, which means I believe they knew about it and let it happen, for obvious reasons.
> 
> So am I a truther or not?


well, at least your not an Eric Bolling type...

----------


## LibertyEagle

Why can't some of you get this?   It's about not attaching YOUR OWN AGENDA to a candidate's campaign!!  

No one gives a crap what you personally believe, but if the candidate is not running on it, stop riding on his coattails to push your own agenda.

It's really very simple.  If you want to help the candidate, help him.  Help him spread his own message; NOT YOURS.

----------


## JK/SEA

thread derail warning...

prepare for hot topics.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Yes, I did, but that doesn't change the fact that you are misrepresenting what went on.
> 
> For example:  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5173251


I'm glad you found the link.  I stand by my opinion in that thread...I'm not going to pretend to be someone I'm not for anybody.  That's a game I might have played as a teenager, but I've grown up now.

----------


## Deborah K

> Why can't some of you get this?   It's about not attaching YOUR OWN AGENDA to a candidate's campaign!!  
> 
> No one gives a crap what you personally believe, but if the candidate is not running on it, stop riding on his coattails to push your own agenda.
> 
> It's really very simple.  If you want to help the candidate, help him.  Help him spread his own message; NOT YOURS.


To whom are you referring missy.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Why can't some of you get this?   It's about not attaching YOUR OWN AGENDA to a candidate's campaign!!  
> 
> No one gives a crap what you personally believe, but if the candidate is not running on it, stop riding on his coattails to push your own agenda.
> 
> It's really very simple.  If you want to help the candidate, help him.  Help him spread his own message; NOT YOURS.


It's not about riding on anyone's coattails...for the record, the only agenda I have is liberty and truth.  If a candidate doesn't support that, I have no interest in attending his or her rallies, never mind trying to push an agenda there.  BUT, if I feel like standing on a street corner with a 9/11 Truth sign, I'm going to do it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'm glad you found the link.  I stand by my opinion in that thread...I'm not going to pretend to be someone I'm not for anybody.  That's a game I might have played as a teenager, but I've grown up now.


And since you have no problem with attaching your own personal agenda to the candidate's coattails, that is what brought on the comment from CaptLou.  Because if you did that, you wouldn't be in it to help the candidate at all.  In fact, you would be using them.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> To whom are you referring missy.


Me, Deb.

----------


## Deborah K

> thread derail warning...
> 
> prepare for hot topics.


that would be a shame.

----------


## torchbearer

a new show on ron paul channel featuring cajun and libertyeagle.
first topic- benton.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> To whom are you referring missy.


lol.  Not you, Deb.  You have never done that.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> And since you have no problem with attaching your own personal agenda to the candidate's coattails, that is what brought on the comment from CaptLou.  Because if you did that, you wouldn't be in it to help the candidate at all.  In fact, you would be using them.


*DEAR GOD, FOR ONCE WOULD YOU PLEASE READ WHAT I'M POSTING?  I JUST NOW SAID I DON'T RIDE ON ANYONE'S COATTAILS!!*

----------


## LibertyEagle

> a new show on ron paul channel featuring cajun and libertyeagle.
> first topic- benton.


It would be over in the green room.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> It would be over in the green room.


meaning....what?

----------


## torchbearer

> It would be over in the green room.


  separate green rooms, and Steve from jerry springer to moderate.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> *DEAR GOD, FOR ONCE WOULD YOU PLEASE READ WHAT I'M POSTING?  I JUST NOW SAID I DON'T RIDE ON ANYONE'S COATTAILS!!*


*You'd better go white out this post, then.  Because what you said you'd do IS the very definition of riding on someone's coattails.*

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5173251

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> They did not want the conspiracy theorists who were trying to come into Iowa under the guise of the Ron Paul Campaign to "observe" votes. Even after it was made very clear and public the Campaign did not need/want their help they persisted and continued to try and pull it off anyway. That shows us that they were only interested in their own self-interest.


Really?
Hmm, you have been preaching about getting power, now "in their own self-interest"?  You pompus  &*0)(%&*&%)(&

----------


## cajuncocoa

> *You'd better go white out this post, then.*
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5173251



Apparently you're taking something wrong again, or having more reading  comprehension issues.  Nothing about that post suggests that I would  ride a candidate's coattails.

----------


## torchbearer

i'm really liking this idea- may pitch it to ronpaulchannel.
The show will be called "Dog Eat Dog"
will always feature explosive divisive policy arguments.
throwing in some screaming, hair pulling, and crowd goading- and bam!
hit show.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> separate green rooms, and Steve from jerry springer to moderate.


Not necessary....I don't get violent.  It's against my nature. 

Didn't mean to get caught up in this sideshow and derail the thread.  LE can have the last word.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Apparently you're taking something wrong again, or having more reading comprehension issues.  Nothing about that post suggests that I would ride a candidate's coattails.







> THAT embarrasses you?  You're waaaay too thin-skinned.  Put on the big-girl panties, LE...you can't control everyone. *And for the record, I might be inclined to carry such a sign myself.*


Ron stated numerous times that he didn't believe our government carried out the bombing, yet you just said that you would carry a sign pushing that meme by pasting it atop a Ron Paul sign.  That is called piggybacking off of a candidate or riding their coattails to push your own personal agenda.

----------


## JK/SEA

> i'm really liking this idea- may pitch it to ronpaulchannel.
> The show will be called "Dog Eat Dog"
> will always feature explosive divisive policy arguments.
> throwing in some screaming, hair pulling, and crowd goading- and bam!
> hit show.


has potential...

Ron has experience on this sort of stuff. Morton Downey show comes to mind.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Ron stated numerous times that he didn't believe our government carried out the bombing, yet you just said that you would carry a sign pushing that meme by pasting it atop a Ron Paul sign.  That is called piggybacking off of a candidate or riding their coattails to push your own personal agenda.


c'mon LE, this isn't fair. In my county Ron Paul group, we had leadership that pushed pro-life, anti-gay stuff. Turned me off, especially since it was leadership.

----------


## torchbearer

> has potential...
> 
> Ron has experience on this sort of stuff. Morton Downey show comes to mind.


the show could be separate from Ron all together.
It would be the bait to get people in...
Jerry Springer proves people love watching other people's conflicts.
don't have to get as far out there as to have klansmen and black panthers debating, but just within the libertarian community alone, debate finer details of any subject could lead to epic showdown.

----------


## Carlybee

> Why can't some of you get this?   It's about not attaching YOUR OWN AGENDA to a candidate's campaign!!  
> 
> No one gives a crap what you personally believe, but if the candidate is not running on it, stop riding on his coattails to push your own agenda.
> 
> It's really very simple.  If you want to help the candidate, help him.  Help him spread his own message; NOT YOURS.



 Obviously you don't because you seem to spend a lot of time trying to squash any form of dissent on this forum. If I want to help a candidate, his message better be pretty damned close to MINE, otherwise why on earth would I support someone who didn't represent a reasonable amount of my own views?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Ron stated numerous times that he didn't believe our government carried out the bombing, yet you just said that you would carry a sign pushing that meme by pasting it atop a Ron Paul sign.  That is called piggybacking off of a candidate or riding their coattails to push your own personal agenda.





Simple explanation: it's no different from having a 9/11 Truth bumper  sticker on your car along with "Impeach Bush" and a Ron Paul 2012  sticker.  (I also have a Dallas Cowboys sticker on my car window;  doesn't mean I'm implying  RP should root for them. ) 

I didn't say I'd stand in the front of a Ron Paul rally with that sign, just that I'd be inclined to carry one.... somewhere.  

Please learn to read.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Obviously you don't because you seem to spend a lot of time trying to squash any form of dissent on this forum.* If I want to help a candidate, his message better be pretty damned close to MINE, otherwise why on earth would I support someone who didn't represent a reasonable amount of my own views?*


I agree with that.  That's the way it should be.  Not lobbing on and using their campaign to push something that the candidate does not agree with, nor is part of their platform.   Sounds like we agree.

----------


## Carlybee

> And since you have no problem with attaching your own personal agenda to the candidate's coattails, that is what brought on the comment from CaptLou.  Because if you did that, you wouldn't be in it to help the candidate at all.  In fact, you would be using them.



And just what is her personal agenda LE?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> c'mon LE, this isn't fair. In my county Ron Paul group, we had leadership that pushed pro-life, anti-gay stuff. Turned me off, especially since it was leadership.


Yeah, and they shouldn't have done that, either.  Well, the anti-gay stuff at least.  Ron Paul was VERY pro-life, as you know, so them talking about that was fair game.  It was part of his platform in fact.

----------


## Carlybee

> c'mon LE, this isn't fair. In my county Ron Paul group, we had leadership that pushed pro-life, anti-gay stuff. Turned me off, especially since it was leadership.



Oh but that stuff is okay when you are sucking up to the evangelical vote.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> And just what is her personal agenda LE?


A. Ron Paul did not believe 911 was an inside job
B. Attaching that to a Ron Paul campaign sign infers that RP shares that belief

So, if she did that, it would be attaching her personal agenda (9-11) to RP's campaign.

----------


## Deborah K

> Regarding the Iowa "observers" I seem to recall a post I made on the DP that was pretty clear and cut about us not wanting that particular crowd to come to Iowa.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be the first to admit that yes we could've use an improved leadership style and more communication. I was kind of the liaison to the netroots and it was frustrating because first off the FEC prohibited me from saying certain things to certain people. Secondly I was scared to death that anything I said or wrote would end up on the front page of CNN at worst, copied around to the netroots spun and taken out of context at best. And then third, it is of course important not to reveal strategy or make it public. Those 3 factors severely limited me in what I could say and how I could communicate to the grassroots. There was so much I wanted to get out there but couldnt because of those limitations.
> 
> 
> During the first half of the Campaign I shared an office with Jerry Shidell the nat'l coordinator, and we would constantly think up of ideas on how to utilize the awesome power of the grassroots. Jerry is brilliant at human behavior, and of course I came up through the netroots myself so I have a good understanding of how it works. We wanted to put people to work doing very productive and useful things that needed to be done. Unfortunately there were bureaucratic factors (and hurdles that I mentioned above) that made it hard to crowdsource things in the manner in which we wanted. There are a ton of other things I could share, but you'll just have to catch me in person sometime. No recording my conversation though


Matt, with all due respect, if the campaign was serious about harnessing the awesomeness of the grassroots, they would have created a team for it, not put just one guy on it.  It takes nothing to field calls, network people, and organize teams,  "bureaucratically" speaking, that is.  It's nothing but phone calls, no money exchange.  It could have been done with a small team, and only involved taking the best ideas, connecting them to the right person in the campaign, connecting people to people within the grassroots, and having really good communication skills.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Yeah, and they shouldn't have done that, either.  Well, the anti-gay stuff at least.  Ron Paul was VERY pro-life, as you know, so them talking about that was fair game.  It was part of his platform in fact.


true enough, and i am pro-life, but i felt pushing this issue was turning off moderates and liberals who loved Ron's anti-war position. Pro-life, not so much...

just my opinion.

----------


## Carlybee

> Oh gawd, I give up.



No you put it out there now spell it out.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Oh but that stuff is okay when you are sucking up to the evangelical vote.


Did you somehow miss that Ron Paul was very PRO-LIFE?  He's also a Christian, by the way.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> No you put it out there now spell it out.


I did.  Look up.

1+1 = 2

----------


## JK/SEA

> Did you somehow miss that Ron Paul was very PRO-LIFE?  He's also a Christian, by the way.


Ron doesn't push people away over a few disagreements.

----------


## cajuncocoa

This whole argument is insane...good luck trying to control each and every person who shows up at a political rally.

----------


## Carlybee

> Did you somehow miss that Ron Paul was very PRO-LIFE?  He's also a Christian, by the way.



Nope, I'm aware of it.  I don't think he's a holy roller Christian though.  I also understand why he is very pro-life and I don't necessarily disagree with him...I just don't agree with pushing theocratic beliefs on people.  I have never shrunk from admitting that I didn't agree with him on every single issue.  And I don't think he really did push it that much but I do think conservatives in general try to suck up to the evangelical vote.  I'm not an evangelical and don't necessarily agree with some of their dogma.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> A. Ron Paul did not believe 911 was an inside job
> B. Attaching that to a Ron Paul campaign sign infers that RP shares that belief
> 
> So, if she did that, it would be attaching her personal agenda (9-11) to RP's campaign.


FFS, I didn't say I would attach the damned thing to a Ron Paul sign (although I have no problem with someone doing that.  See: bumper sticker analogy).  Just that I would be inclined to carry a 9/11 Truth sign.  Damn, LE...you can  make such a big mountain out of a molehill.  Please, please stop.

----------


## Carlybee

> I did.  Look up.
> 
> 1+1 = 2



So you think she wanted to carry 911 truth signs to Ron Paul rallies?  LOL

----------


## Deborah K

Are the women in this thread PMSing?

----------


## JK/SEA

> FFS, I didn't say I would attach the damned thing to a Ron Paul sign (although I have no problem with someone doing that.  See: bumper sticker analogy).  Just that I would be inclined to carry a 9/11 Truth sign.  Damn, LE...you can  make such a big mountain out of a molehill.  Please, please stop.


so you admit to carrying a 9/11 sign attached to a RP sign...



j/k.....

----------


## jjdoyle

> Elections are won by controlling the message and doing the following:
> 
> - identify every voter in the area (phone banking)
> - determine who they are going to vote for (phone banking)
> - try and persuade them to vote for your guy (phone banking / door-to-door)
> - remind them to go and vote on caucus/election day (phone banking)
> 
> 
> If you're doing something else than what's listed above, then you're being unproductive and in some cases causing harm.


The fact Ron Paul 2012 was so inept it turned away potential supporters that could have done phone banking and going door-to-door, shows just another excellent example of the "experts" on Ron Paul 2012 staff. You don't turn help away, in a political campaign. You get the "crazies" in the with normal folks, and get them to work. Heck, I bet Rick Santorum might have thanked RP supporters if they had been watching the votes, considering even the media reported on those votes that went missing in the mystery vehicles.
Or, maybe prevented stuff like this:



As mentioned though, Ron went home to spend New Year's with his family instead of staying in the state. The campaign wasn't serious, because they didn't control the message in Iowa, letting the media absolutely DESTROY him over the newsletters issue for 2 weeks prior to the vote. How did the campaign control that message? Yeah, by being flattened by it.

While Rick Santorum was getting free positive press, Ron Paul 2012 was still running attack ads on Newt Gingrich who had imploded, and Ron Paul 2012 couldn't find the time to put together a Rick Santorum attack ad...until after Iowa.

The inept Rick Perry campaign, in all their faults, not only responded to emails, but liked our idea for one ad so much they put together a TV ad in less than 24 hours after receiving it from us. Why? Because Rick Perry was actually trying to stop Rick Santorum, and win, I guess? At that point, we didn't care what candidate was using the ad, we were trying to stop Santorum because Ron Paul 2012 wasn't.

If elections are won by controlling the message and doing the following, Ron Paul 2012 failed on nearly ever front.
1) They turned away potential supporters because they MIGHT want to watch the votes. (Which we know was actually an issue in Iowa.)
2) Instead of bringing in potential "crazy" supporters, and getting them on a phone or going door-to-door, they turned them away altogether. Telling even regular Ron Paul supporters the campaign had it, "under control".

Ron's negatives had gone up. Because of free positive media for Rick Santorum, and the negative media Ron Paul was getting for 2 weeks straight. If you ignore the fact that the media completely destroyed Ron Paul in Iowa without a single attack being run against him there from the other candidates (none that I'm aware of), I guess you would be right his negatives from the other campaigns hadn't gone up? But if you want to act like the newsletter issue didn't help destroy his campaign in Iowa, while Ron Paul 2012 sat by in basic silence on the issue, that's not supporter's fault, but it is the campaign's.

There were many of us telling the campaign they needed to hold a sit down interview, and/or press conference like Herman Cain did. Let Ron Paul explain it more fully, the history of the letters, how they got started. How he had ghost writers, and articles by other people in it. How he was a practicing doctor again, and allowing friends/family to look over it more. Or, simply throw the guy under the bus who wrote them.

Release some sort of ad, with Ron Paul talking about.

NOTHING from Ron Paul 2012, because "experts" like yourself were saying here on the forums and at the campaign you don't acknowledge a negative. You all sound like the captain of a ship that's sinking, ignoring it and acting like there isn't a problem. Because of course, you don't address a negative and just rearrange deck chairs while making sure you are asking passengers for every last dime. Making sure the passengers try to stay oblivious to what is really happening, despite some seeing the ship hit the iceberg or rock.

Oh, and as Deb said, you can BUY some of the media. Mike Huckabee did that very thing in 2008, when he paid for a media bus to follow him around. Instead, when the newsletter issue started snowballing, Ron Paul 2012 did the exact opposite. Pulled a hermit crab and went into its shell.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Are the women in this thread PMSing?


Nope, too old for that, Deb.  I'm sorry about what happened here...I sure didn't think my comment about phone banking would erupt into this crazy argument.  This will be my last post on that subject in this thread, no matter what.  I promise.

----------


## phill4paul

> Elections are won by controlling the message and doing the following:
> 
> - identify every voter in the area (phone banking)
> - determine who they are going to vote for (phone banking)
> - try and persuade them to vote for your guy (phone banking / door-to-door)
> - remind them to go and vote on caucus/election day (phone banking)
> 
> 
> If you're doing something else than what's listed above, then you're being unproductive and in some cases causing harm.


 And that is why your Polisci 101 is fail. Don't get me wrong. It IS a portion of the whole. However, I know for FACT that multiple individuals were turned OFF by repeated phone calls. A R3volution begins and ends with changing hearts and minds. A phone call during the dinner hour or while changing a diaper won't accomplish that.

----------


## phill4paul

> No, I do not think the government mastermined some plan that caused 9/11. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I do however think that their official investigation had a lot of holes in it. *But what the hell does any of that matter?*

----------


## nobody's_hero

> sooo....for myself going to local caucus meetings and getting voted in to be a State Delegate, and then getting elected to a PCO position, and donating hundreds to Ron Paul was harmful eh?
> 
> funny $#@! right there Matt....are you really awake, or are you just sleep walking your way through the effort?


I honestly think Matt was replaced by an alien clone some point between 2008 and 2012.

----------


## Carlybee

> Are the women in this thread PMSing?



No, just tired of LE targeting people.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Did you somehow miss that Ron Paul was very PRO-LIFE?  He's also a Christian, by the way.


You know, on the one hand, I understand where the criticism of "sucking up the evangelical  vote" comes from.  On the other hand, its not all the evangelicals (Heck, I'm the son of a baptist pastor, and I believe mostly the same things my parents do except a few political issues) and a lot of "The evangelical vote" are actually not evangelicals or even Christians to begin with.

Personally, the social conservatism in the movement doesn't matter so much to me.  I am pro-life, but disagree with some other parts of the social conservative agenda.  But it doesn't matter, because we can easily debate those issues at a  state or even city level.

Foreign policy, on the other hand, our nation is in that together, and I can't tolerate pretty much any pro-murder sentiment in the liberty movement.  I'm fine with the paleocons.  I have issue with the Israel firster/neocon-lites even if they agree with us on a lot of domestic policy issues.  I'd much rather have Chuck Baldwin in congress than Ted Cruz, if you catch my drift...

----------


## Matt Collins

> What?  Who are you talking about?  Just random, rogues?  Or organized groups?  Who??  Out them.


The group that was trying to "observe the vote count" in Iowa.

----------


## Matt Collins

> So no one should show up at rallies?


Rallies aren't part of that, but they do build excitement and media coverage. They also help identify likely voters, volunteers, donors, etc.

----------


## Matt Collins

> This is important to know not only when considering what you post here, but is also beneficial to know that the campaign might have even sought out people that thought 9/11 was not an inside job to keep 9/11 issues out of the campaign and thus out of the public eye.


Duh, open and avowed 9/11 conspiracy theorists are damaging to any campaign. Don't believe  me? Ask Deborah Medina in Texas.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Not gonna watch Rothfeld.


Then that's your problem. Stay ignorant if you want.

----------


## Matt Collins

> just wondering, because i didn't do any phone banking OR any door to door stuff...


What did you do to win votes then?

----------


## Matt Collins

> Why can't some of you get this?   It's about not attaching YOUR OWN AGENDA to a candidate's campaign!!  
> 
> No one gives a crap what you personally believe, but if the candidate is not running on it, stop riding on his coattails to push your own agenda.
> 
> It's really very simple.  If you want to help the candidate, help him.  Help him spread his own message; NOT YOURS.


It's so nice to see someone else making sense in this thread.

----------


## Matt Collins

> It takes nothing to field calls, network people, and organize teams,  "bureaucratically" speaking, that is.


Err, that's not true. it's a lot of work to organize hundreds of thousands of people. Especially if many of them are INTJs

----------


## Matt Collins

> I know for FACT that multiple individuals were turned OFF by repeated phone calls.


The people in KY were turned off by multiple phone calls, yet Rand still won.

And see this:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal





> A R3volution begins and ends with changing hearts and minds. A phone call during the dinner hour or while changing a diaper won't accomplish that.


A campaign's objective is trying to win votes, not change anyone's heart or worldview.

----------


## Matt Collins

> The fact Ron Paul 2012 was so inept it turned away potential supporters that could have done phone banking and going door-to-door, shows just another excellent example of the "experts" on Ron Paul 2012 staff. You don't turn help away, in a political campaign. You get the "crazies" in the with normal folks, and get them to work.


Uh no, if people are going to be a detriment to your campaign then you repel them. Campaign school 101.






> As mentioned though, Ron went home to spend New Year's with his family instead of staying in the state. The campaign wasn't serious, because they didn't control the message in Iowa, letting the media absolutely DESTROY him over the newsletters issue for 2 weeks prior to the vote. How did the campaign control that message? Yeah, by being flattened by it.


It was a hit, an attack, and there was nothing that could be done. Talking about it would've just kept it in the news that much longer.




> If elections are won by controlling the message and doing the following, Ron Paul 2012 failed on nearly ever front.
> 1) They turned away potential supporters because they MIGHT want to watch the votes. (Which we know was actually an issue in Iowa.)
> 2) Instead of bringing in potential "crazy" supporters, and getting them on a phone or going door-to-door, they turned them away altogether. Telling even regular Ron Paul supporters the campaign had it, "under control".


Because the "crazies" as you describe them, were unwilling to follow basic guidelines on how to behave so as not to represent the candidate in way that would turn off the locals.




> Ron's negatives had gone up.


Nope, not enough to make a difference. Santorum's positives went up, due to the media, and that was the deciding factor.





> There were many of us telling the campaign they needed to hold a sit down interview, and/or press conference like Herman Cain did. Let Ron Paul explain it more fully, the history of the letters, how they got started. How he had ghost writers, and articles by other people in it. How he was a practicing doctor again, and allowing friends/family to look over it more. Or, simply throw the guy under the bus who wrote them.


And your ignorance of campaigns is evident by this statement. You don't feed the trolls [mod edit] and give them ammo to use against you. Duh. If you know anything about elections you'd understand this.

----------


## jjdoyle

> And your ignorance of campaigns is evident by this statement. You don't feed the trolls (like I'm doing now apparently) and give them ammo to use against you. Duh. If you know anything about elections you'd understand this.


Clearly the only thing you're feeding is yourself, from pictures I have seen. I'm no troll, and I'm getting tired of your repeat insults when you are defending a campaign that flat out LIED to supporters for nothing more than donations. Donations to keep giving people like Jesse Benton and Jack Hunter paychecks.

A campaign that kept on lying to supporters, then throwing them under the Mitt Romney bus when Rand and company saw it appropriate.

Again, you don't turn away help, you bring it in. You bring them in, and put them on the phones. Keep them BUSY. Give them materials to pass out. Campaign school 101.

Clearly Ron Paul 2012 failed that school, because despite raising more money and having the most active grassroots (that it didn't know how to actually manage, other than turning them away) it received fewer votes than Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. Maybe they failed, because they had "experts" on staff like you? LOL. Calling people trolls, dense, and anything else you want, because you are defending a campaign that lied to supporters repeatedly and had agreed to help Mitt Romney win the nomination.

----------


## RickyJ

> A campaign's objective is trying to win votes, not change anyone's heart or worldview.


A vote that is not counted is worthless, which is why there needed to be more observers, not less. I had a strong feeling that some funny business was up when the campaigned asked people to stay away despite many hints in the media that they were just not going to let Ron Paul win Iowa. You are not helping Rand Paul with your campaign admissions in this thread. Do you think what you are saying is not controversial?

----------


## orenbus

> Because these people wanted to raise hell and their actions would've been harassing of the locals and damaging to Ron and the Campaign. They were coming in under the guise of RP supporters and their actions would've reflected negatively on Ron. Assuming they actually had the best of intentions as you mentioned, it was still a bad idea because the Campaign had that covered by known people that were trustworthy and would behave in a manner that would reflect well on Dr. Paul, not act like hooligans.





> What?  Who are you talking about?  Just random, rogues?  Or organized groups?  Who??  Out them.





> The group that was trying to "observe the vote count" in Iowa.



Ok so there is probably plenty to complain about regarding the capaign in 12' along with a list of things they did correct, I know for a fact there was a lot of missed opportunities and miscommunications going on in 07' including a couple of directives from the campaign that to this day I'm still mad about, but on this particular issue I'm going to have to side with the campaign and back up what Matt Collins is saying here.

One of the main driving people behind the vote fraud/vote counting effort in Iowa was a  guy named Jim Condit Jr., I first heard about this guy back in 07' when I was working as a full time grassroots/netroots and official campaign volunteer. 

Looking back now I'm not sure how exactly I got invited to a conference call he and a few others he was associated with ran back then, but I got on and I think actually at one point posted on these forums about the call mainly because it was presented to me and others as a "National Ron Paul Supporter Conference Call" or something like that, it was run weekly and I listened in and participated in some of these calls because at the time I thought this is great a place to talk with others by voice about Ron Paul related campaign activities going on around the country and how we may do things better in our neck of the woods or share ideas about events, activities, etc.

So basically what ended up happening is the first half of the call it would be Jim Condit and some guest speakers (some of them known well in the grassroots in 07) giving a presentation or one of his friends talking about vote fraud or related topics and then the second half of the call would be open mic, allowing people to take turns speaking which I thought was fine, except for one problem. Anytime we started to talk about Ron Paul related activities the moderators would try to swing the conversation back to vote fraud and what people should do to volunteer to monitor votes being cast or raise money to support that effort, in the end what was being advertised as a Ron-Paul-Supporter-Conference call, was actually a Let-Me-Advertise-This-Call-To-Ron-Paul-People-And-Have-Them-Stop-Their-Grassroots-Activities-Relating-To-The-Campaign-Wining-The-Election-And-Focus-On-Vote-Fraud-Instead-Call. Sorry that was a bit long, thought it was going to be shorter lol. Anyway you get the point, they were doing a bait and switch on what was supposed to be a Ron Paul 2007 Campaign Supporter discussion call to a Vote Fraud call. Which I guess from their stand point they are thinking why the hell not, it's probably a great way to get people to start supporting their activity, but the problem is most people that joined the call were not for that, they were legitimately interested about grassroots activities as it related to getting Ron Paul positive name recognition in order to get his poll numbers up higher. In fact at one point we had an official campaign employee join the call I believe it was Drew Ivers, because again he was under the impression it was a Ron Paul Campaign Grassroots Supporter call, but instead what ended up happening was he got into a heated interrogation and debate with Jim Condit, which I would imagine many on the call were probably a bit embarrassed with the deterioration of tone in the conversation as the minutes passed. The reaction to that call as well as Jim Condit's perception of most of official campaign employees he has had direct interaction with, from what I can tell, is he automatically assumes anyone that disagrees or has issue with his approach on vote fraud must be trying to destroy Ron Paul and must be a neo-con infiltrator, saboteurs or turn coat, basically the whole "you're either with us, or you are with the terrorists" mentality.

Now I won't get into a debate if vote fraud exists or not or to what level voting fraud corruption exists, the point was that people joined the call with their mind set on traditional and perhaps some creative approaches to campaign such as Ron Paul Revolution signs, netroots activities, fundraising, event activities, sign waves, phone banking, voter identification, etc., not spend time focusing soley on vote fraud accountability, which personally I think is fine if done in a way that is done professionally.

Anyway I could probably continue writing paragraphs about my observations back then relating to this topic, long story short, I stopped advertising Jim Condit's conference call and many that called in to participate found it not very constructive to what most of the grassroots wanted to focus on at the time, I think that was true in 2012 as well. A month or two later in 2007 Jim Condit got on the Jan Mickelson radio show a few days prior to the Iowa Straw Poll and it was a complete disaster. He got ripped to shreds by the Iowa Republican representative for the straw poll on air, and at that point especially because Jim Condit mentioned (and he did not need to) that he was a Ron Paul supporter on air in retrospect it was going to be the final straw for me as the reaction by the media and the days following reaction by supporters were pretty negative. After the follow up conference call I was convinced that regardless of what his intentions were, which a part of me believes that he is sincere and truly believes what he is doing is right, it didn't matter, in the eye of public perception he was going to cause more damage to the campaign than be helpful in the long run. That was my view in August of 2007 and fast forward 4 years later I was not surprised that he came out of the woodwork again calling out the official campaign in a way I would not have expected (but at the same time a part of me was not surprised) through posts which I'm sure I could probably dig up if I wanted to spend the time doing it, but basically splitting and causing a general distraction to the grassroots pitting grasssroots vs. the official campaign, right in the middle of the elections most critical time, it made me sick to my stomach.

Anyway long story short I think this is one of the people Matt Collins is referring to.

One of my biggest problems with Jim Condit was that he wasn't ready to go up against public figures in 07' even though he thought he was ready to jump on radio stations and what may have been a legitimate concern turned into a train wreck of epic proportions. If there is any question I'll refer you guys to the radio show back in 07' so you can hear for yourself, jump to *27 minutes* into the radio show recording here:

https://soundcloud.com/orenbus/micke...esday-august-8
Or you can listen to the whole thing to hear where he brings up being a Ron Paul supporter which opens up the campaign back in '07 and Ron Paul himself to indirect attacks.

link to the original podcast: http://www.mickelson.libsyn.com/webpage/2007/08/08

Here is a thread on forums about the call back on the 8/8/2007
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Now-vote-fraud

edit: In fact looking back on some of the old threads it looks like I gave this guy the benefit of the doubt and made a thread so that people could join his call and ask him what happened on the Radio Show the day after, needless to say I feel like a idiot now for supporting his efforts in any way back then. 
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...onference-Call


edit2: Although I guess I should forgive myself to a certain extent since I and many of us at the time were very naive, we were just looking for anyone or anything to attach to that seemed to look like some semblance of organization since '07 was a huge amount of energy with little to no focus or direction at times. 

Here is another thread I had made promoting the conference call on 7-26-07
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ursday-7-26-07

----------


## RickyJ

> Anyway long story short I think this is one of the people Matt Collins is referring to.



As if Jim Condit was the only person interested in stopping voter fraud! Please, what kind of excuse is that to tell the grassroots to not come to Iowa, that it was "under control?" How does one lose 8 precinct vote totals? There was massive voter fraud in Iowa and the campaign said it was under control. Now we have Matt, a former campaign worker for Ron Paul 2012, that is saying most of the people that support Ron Paul are crazy people because they believe 9/11 was an inside job and that these people would only harass the locals if they came to Iowa! In case you doubt that most grassroots supporters of Ron Paul are also 9/11 truthers, then all you have to do is take a poll or look at one of the many already taken.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Ricky, if you want to get rid of the voting machines, the time to do it is NOW; not to wait until right before the election and accost people who are getting ready to vote.  If people care that much about voting machines, go get them thrown out right now in your counties!!

----------


## Matt Collins

> Anyway long story short I think this is one of the people Matt Collins is referring to.


Precisely. Thank you for your post, I didn't know about his conference calls, but I did know about his Internet activities and they were just as atrocious. I am glad some of our people realized what his shenanigans actually were.

----------


## Matt Collins

> A vote that is not counted is worthless, which is why there needed to be more observers, not less. I had a strong feeling that some funny business was up when the campaigned asked people to stay away despite many hints in the media that they were just not going to let Ron Paul win Iowa.


They didn't need to use vote fraud to stop Ron from winning the Iowa caucuses straw poll, they had the media instead which worked quite nicely. And there is no evidence of widespread vote fraud.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I'm getting tired of your repeat insults when you are defending a campaign that flat out LIED to supporters for nothing more than donations. Donations to keep giving people like Jesse Benton and Jack Hunter paychecks.


You're the one lying with statements like this and untruths. 

As has been explained many times, operations were still in effect during that time frame, and they still needed funds for the Convention.

In your short amount of time that you've been here, have any of your posts been positive at all, or are you just a detractor who is trolling?




> Again, you don't turn away help, you bring it in. You bring them in, and put them on the phones. Keep them BUSY. Give them materials to pass out. Campaign school 101.


Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

When people are actively trying to use the Campaign for their own purposes, you reject those people wholesale, you don't invite them in because they will subvert and distract people who are doing the real campaign work. 


See post #695

----------


## Matt Collins

> sooo....for myself going to local caucus meetings and getting voted in to be a State Delegate, and then getting elected to a PCO position, and donating hundreds to Ron Paul was harmful eh?


Not at all, in fact that was very productive, because you had to work the population and acquire votes.

----------


## jjdoyle

> You're the one lying with statements like this and untruths. 
> 
> As has been explained many times, operations were still in effect during that time frame, and they still needed funds for the Convention.
> 
> In your short amount of time that you've been here, have any of your posts been positive at all, or are you just a detractor who is trolling?
> 
> Again, you don't know what you're talking about.


No, actually you are lying if you are saying the campaign didn't flatout lie to supporters. Which, being that YOU worked for the campaign, and it was run as dishonestly as it was, I shouldn't be surprised.

There is NOTHING in post #695 that addresses what the campaign was telling people, some around here apparently. They had it under control, no extra help was needed.
In post #695, there is NOTHING Ron Paul 2012 did to stop someone like him from calling in to radio stations and being an issue in 2012. You know what could have helped prevent that? Getting those type of people in Iowa, at an office, sitting making phone calls wasting their time.

The campaign ended with more than a million cash on hand, still had it at the end of June 2013!

When the campaign told supporters that every single dime would be used to win the election and put Ron Paul in the White House, that was a lie. When they kept the fake delegate strategy going just to keep getting donations and promote money bombs in April and May, while Ron Paul supporters were being arrested and assaulted at some of the conventions...only to then have Ron Paul 2012 actively work to destroy the delegation out of Louisiana and make sure King Romney was anointed without a problem...I would call that SICK.

The campaign ended with more than a MILLION on hand, it had no need to continue to raise funds, when it wasn't using funds to try and cause a brokered convention. Despite them lying repeatedly to supporters in emails throughout the entire campaign that they were serious about winning.




> When people are actively trying to use the Campaign for their own purposes, you reject those people wholesale, you don't invite them in because they will subvert and distract people who are doing the real campaign work.


People actively using a campaign for THEIR own purposes? You mean people like Jesse Benton. Jack Hunter. And apparently, yourself. Clearly they weren't doing REAL campaign work. Unless you count making agreements with Mitt Romney's campaign to not attack, and NOT letting supporters know that. Unless you count using the official Ron Paul 2012 website to defend Rand Paul's lying endorsement of Mitt Romney on Fox News, so that Jack Hunter could keep a job with the Pauls?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> *The campaign ended with more than a MILLION on hand*, it had no need to continue to raise funds, when it wasn't using funds to try and cause a brokered convention. Despite them lying repeatedly to supporters in emails throughout the entire campaign that they were serious about winning.


No, they did not.  They ended the campaign with virtually 0 funds after the bills were paid for the convention and rally.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Matt, I gotta say that I don't agree with you about the handling of the newsletter deal.  Surely, there was a way that RP could have been coached to respond to the matter that would have put it to rest pretty easily.  It would have been money well-spent to have hired an image consultant, or whomever it would have taken.  I honestly was shocked to see that it didn't seem like anything at all had been done to prepare for what they had to know was coming.

But, I imagine this was due to Ron Paul and not the campaign, actually.

----------


## jjdoyle

> No, they did not.  They ended the campaign with virtually 0 funds after the bills were paid for the convention and rally.


THE CAMPAIGN HAS MORE THAN A MILLION ON HAND! I can provide the link, unlike YOU, who has been asked by multiple people to provide a link to one of your claims. I don't know WHO told you the campaign ended with no funds, but they lied.

Here's the proof, I can provide, to back it up...perhaps you would do well and provide the other people links to what you said:
Filed in January 2013 - http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcd...495820/846613/
Filed in July 2013 - http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcd...495820/876623/

As for preparing, they were prepared...to keep on asking for donations. They weren't prepared for the newsletters or the foreign policy issue. The foreign policy issue being the BIGGEST issue for Ron to reach the "Republican base" he was having trouble reaching. Clearly though, the campaign had the "experts" working 24/7....asking people for donations.

----------


## LibertyEagle

JJdoyle, thanks for posting that.  It concerns me, for sure, because I was told something entirely different.  I plan to do some follow-up.

----------


## Matt Collins

> There is NOTHING in post #695 that addresses what the campaign was telling people, some around here apparently. They had it under control, no extra help was needed.
> In post #695, there is NOTHING Ron Paul 2012 did to stop someone like him from calling in to radio stations and being an issue in 2012. You know what could have helped prevent that? Getting those type of people in Iowa, at an office, sitting making phone calls wasting their time.


You fail to understand behavior of the grassroots. 




> People actively using a campaign for THEIR own purposes?


That's kind of the point of a campaign...    The people in charge of it get to decide what to do.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> That's kind of the point of a campaign...  *The people in charge of it get to decide what to do.*


Uh, no.  I think you want to restate that, Matt.

----------


## Peace Piper

> People actively using a campaign for THEIR own purposes? You mean people like Jesse Benton. Jack Hunter. And apparently, yourself. Clearly they weren't doing REAL campaign work. Unless you count making agreements with Mitt Romney's campaign to not attack, and NOT letting supporters know that. Unless you count using the official Ron Paul 2012 website to defend Rand Paul's lying endorsement of Mitt Romney on Fox News, so that Jack Hunter could keep a job with the Pauls?


Hey bribing people is hard work. I'd like to know if any of the bribe money ended up in Jesse's pockets. Mansions can be expensive to maintain.

Reposted video from earlier, this is stunning because Penny Freeman- long time RP staffer- calls it exactly. She knew what was going on. If you didn't see it upthread (only 1 view after I posted) you should check out this bit of prescience: 

Skip to 17:45
Kokesh: Do you think this is Jesse Benton selling those endorsements behind the scenes?

Penny Freeman: I absolutely think that

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX4DdfSGiFs

That interview is incredible. She explains it all. The history of Trygve and Benton especially.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Hey bribing people is hard work. I'd like to know if any of the bribe money ended up in Jesse's pockets. Mansions can be expensive to maintain.
> 
> Reposted video from earlier, this is stunning because Penny Freeman- long time RP staffer- calls it exactly. She knew what was going on. If you didn't see it upthread (only 1 view after I posted) you should check out this bit of prescience: 
> 
> Skip to 17:45
> Kokesh: Do you think this is Jesse Benton selling those endorsements behind the scenes?
> 
> Penny Freeman: I absolutely think that
> 
> ...


If you believe that, then you also believe that Ron Paul himself is a crook and a fraud.  Do you believe that?

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Uh, no.  I think you want to restate that, Matt.


That was the clone talking. The 2008 matt would never say that.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> JJdoyle, thanks for posting that.  It concerns me, for sure, because I was told something entirely different.  I plan to do some follow-up.


In the future maybe you will do your own homework rather than rely on things that somebody told you.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> In the future maybe you will do your own homework rather than rely on things that somebody told you.


In this instance, I certainly should have.  No argument there.   Still waiting for you to retract the hundreds and hundreds of posts you made attacking Rand all over this forum for the past year that you made without bothering to check any facts at all.  And no, I'm not holding my breath.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> In this instance, I certainly should have.  No argument there.   *Still waiting for you to retract the hundreds and hundreds of posts you made attacking Rand all over this forum for the past year that you made without bothering to check any facts at all*.  And no, I'm not holding my breath.


  You still haven't read this?




> I tend to agree with you on this.  *As critical  as I've been of Rand for some of the things he's said (and may be  again, if necessary), I'm coming around to the notion that he is the  last best chance for a liberty candidate getting this close to the White  House in my lifetime.  He's not my perfect candidate (that would be his  Father), but I've accepted the difference, as it is tolerable, whereas  the possibility of President Rubio, Jeb Bush, or Hillary is not. * It  will be interesting to see how the establishment reacts to the  possibility of a President Rand Paul as the time for the 2016 primaries  grow nearer.

----------


## LibertyEagle

It takes more than one post, Cajun.  Nor, do I believe one word of it, to be honest.  Time will tell though, won't it.

----------


## jjdoyle

> It takes more than one post, Cajun.  Nor, do I believe one word of it, to be honest.  Time will tell though, won't it.


You don't believe much that is posted around here. Which is why I neg repped you for basically calling me a liar in this post, not once, but at least twice. You denied the campaign ended with more than a million on hand, you told me I was incorrect. EVEN AFTER I told you I had a link to prove it.

YOU on the other hand, have I think repeatedly accused Tom Woods of something, and FAILED to deliver up one link? Did you ever provide it? Seriously? I know you have been asked multiple times for it, but I might have missed it.

Then you turn around, and NEG rep me, for providing the LINKS?
"*I'll be happy to read your proof. There's no need to neg-rep.*"

Your neg rep was deserved, for continuously denying the truth, and not even looking for it yourself.

----------


## FrankRep

While you're distracted by this drama, look what's happening behind your back:


*Trans-Pacific Partnership: A Serious Threat to Our Constitution and Independence*
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...d-Independence

President Obama attended a summit in Cambodia prodding leaders to finish TPP negotiations by the end of 2013.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> It takes more than one post, Cajun.  Nor, do I believe one word of it, to be honest.  Time will tell though, won't it.


LE, I'm not going to allow you to drag me into another long argument with you today....I don't care what you believe.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You don't believe much that is posted around here. Which is why I neg repped you for basically calling me a liar in this post, not once, but at least twice. You denied the campaign ended with more than a million on hand, you told me I was incorrect. EVEN AFTER I told you I had a link to prove it.
> 
> YOU on the other hand, have I think repeatedly accused Tom Woods of something, and FAILED to deliver up one link? Did you ever provide it? Seriously? I know you have been asked multiple times for it, but I might have missed it.
> 
> Then you turn around, and NEG rep me, for providing the LINKS?
> "*I'll be happy to read your proof. There's no need to neg-rep.*"
> 
> Your neg rep was deserved, for continuously denying the truth, and not even looking for it yourself.


Neg-repped for providing the links?  That is seriously whacked. I'll cover you again when I can; can't rep you again right now.

----------


## phill4paul

> The people in KY were turned off by multiple phone calls, yet Rand still won.


  You don't make sense. You admit that people were turned off by multiple phone calls yet you insist this is why he won? And since this is a discussion on the RON Paul campaign "yourlogicalfallacy" would apply just as much to you. 




> A campaign's objective is trying to win votes, not change anyone's heart or worldview.


  How did that work out for RP2012, Inc? The years between 2008-2012 saw a rise in the popularity of RP. Was the campaign phone banking during this time period or was it the individuals of the grassroots that spread the message? This change of hearts and minds came from going door to door to door. It came from engaging on a personal face to face level.

----------


## Matt Collins

> You don't make sense. You admit that people were turned off by multiple phone calls yet you insist this is why he won?


It makes perfect sense. The idea is to call everyone in the area multiple times. Some of them get irritated. If you phonebanked for the Campaign in New Hampshire in the last few days you'd understand this.








> How did that work out for RP2012, Inc? The years between 2008-2012 saw a rise in the popularity of RP. Was the campaign phone banking during this time period or was it the individuals of the grassroots that spread the message? This change of hearts and minds came from going door to door to door. It came from engaging on a personal face to face level.


Ron got a ton of media in-between the '08 and '12 Campaign, moreso than he got while on the actual Campaign in '08. And marketing tends to also have a delayed effect. Ron Paul is actually most popular just after a Campaign because there is momentum that builds. Even after you take your foot off the gas, after the campaign has concluded, there is still forward motion.

----------


## Aratus

duckies... its only jist A.D 2013
and is not 2015 yet so we all
have tyme aplenty to RPF find
our OVERDRIVE gear indeedy!
lets be linear & politically logical.

----------


## Deborah K

> Err, that's not true. it's a lot of work to organize hundreds of thousands of people. Especially if many of them are INTJs


Hence the need for a TEAM!!!!  NOT just a Matt Collins.

----------


## Deborah K

> Then that's your problem. Stay ignorant if you want.


How many different ways do I have to tell you that I have no interest in being a political operative?

----------


## alucard13mm

With all these doubts, benton cant really be involved even if he is innocent. Wed lose a lot of rp support.

like in 2012, cant win withour them crazt ron paulbots.

----------


## JK/SEA

> What did you do to win votes then?



ok smart guy...how many people did you turn around?

answer...you don't know.

I was in fact, a VERY big single vote on my own merit. Do you know how much clout a Delegate and PCO has?...

Thanks for marginalizing my efforts. Its so......unifying.....

----------


## JK/SEA

> Uh, no.  I think you want to restate that, Matt.



nah..let em talk. Its clear Matt Collins had a lot to do with Ron Paul losing.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> ok smart guy...how many people did you turn around?
> 
> answer...you don't know.
> 
> I was in fact, a VERY big single vote on my own merit. Do you know how much clout a Delegate and PCO has?...
> 
> Thanks for marginalizing my efforts. Its so......unifying.....


This is what I meant yesterday with my comment from certain people here who are marginalizing the efforts of those who are involved, but not in the way those people would prefer us to be involved...even as they accuse ME of driving wedges and being divisive.  I don't know, maybe I am to some (not intentionally) but I have never ridiculed anyone's desire to do whatever it is they want to do, even if it is to work within the GOP.  All I ever said on that subject is that *I'm* not interested in working withing the GOP, and certain people jumped all over it as divisive.  I never meant to speak for others; I don't try to speak for others (that's collectivism!) Whatever.  It's my life and my opinion about the GOP...their fault, too; not mine.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I was in fact, a VERY big single vote on my own merit. Do you know how much clout a Delegate and PCO has?...


No, you're right and I agree with you.

----------


## Carlybee

All I know is if we had been talked down to like Matt is doing here in the beginning there wouldn't have been a campaign. People would have been turned off from the get go. The Grassroots basically raised the capital for a business, a successful one presumedly, and now are being told that some were considered not palatable enough to be involved. Nice.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> All I know is if we had been talked down to like Matt is doing here in the beginning there wouldn't have been a campaign. People would have been turned off from the get go. The Grassroots basically raised the capital for a business, a successful one presumedly, and now are being told that some were considered not palatable enough to be involved. Nice.


Yes.  It's like they needed our money and manpower to get started and once they did, they now want to hide us in the attic.

----------


## Matt Collins

> The Grassroots basically raised the capital for a business, a successful one presumedly, and now are being told that some were considered not palatable enough to be involved. Nice.





> Yes. It's like they needed our money and manpower to get started and once they did, they now want to hide us in the attic.


No, only certain ones.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> No, only certain ones.


Which doesn't exactly negate anything that Carlybee and I said.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> This is what I meant yesterday with my comment from certain people here who are marginalizing the efforts of those who are involved, but not in the way those people would prefer us to be involved...even as they accuse ME of driving wedges and being divisive.  I don't know, maybe I am to some (not intentionally) but I have never ridiculed anyone's desire to do whatever it is they want to do, even if it is to work within the GOP.  All I ever said on that subject is that *I'm* not interested in working withing the GOP, and certain people jumped all over it as divisive.  I never meant to speak for others; I don't try to speak for others (that's collectivism!) Whatever.  It's my life and my opinion about the GOP...their fault, too; not mine.


Oh, and before LE jumps in here with a screen shot (she loves to follow me for some unknown reason) let me own up to the fact that I *have* in the past said that I thought liberty would be better served if we kicked the GOP to the curb, but that's *just my opinion* (still is).  It's not about, and never was, trying to *force* others to give up the GOP if they want to stay.  I will admit to trying to convince, but not force or divide.

----------


## Deborah K

> You fail to understand behavior of the grassroots.


Matt, you are the last person who should be making such statements.  Really.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> It's not about, and never was, trying to *force* others to give up the GOP if they want to stay.  I will admit to trying to convince, but not force or divide.


Hold the phone for a second, I'm a little unclear about the apparent difference between "trying to convince" and not trying to "divide". The whole reason many of us were all stirred up is because the relentless convincing was seen as sowing the seeds of division. I'll leave you alone on the not involving yourself in the GOP despite the numerical advantage of doing so. Also, the 2nd sentence in your sig line is what I've been saying all along and it's nice that you've finally realized it. In hindsight, there really was no need for the hysteria that took place around here for the ~6+ months after the campaign ended. Nobody will be perfect to represent you or me but I'll take the guy with the best shot that is the closest to my ideological footing since I'm playing the self defense game in their system.

----------


## pcosmar

I am not appeased.

and it seems I am not alone.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Hold the phone for a second, I'm a little unclear about the apparent difference between "trying to convince" and not trying to "divide". The whole reason many of us were all stirred up is because the relentless convincing was seen as sowing the seeds of division. I'll leave you alone on the not involving yourself in the GOP despite the numerical advantage of doing so. Also, the 2nd sentence in your sig line is what I've been saying all along and it's nice that you've finally realized it. In hindsight, there really was no need for the hysteria that took place around here for the ~6+ months after the campaign ended. Nobody will be perfect to represent you or me but I'll take the guy with the best shot that is the closest to my ideological footing since I'm playing the self defense game in their system.


So if you try to convince someone to vote for Rand, are you sowing seeds of division?  Of course not. I don't see the connection between the two...two different things IMO.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> How many different ways do I have to tell you that I have no interest in being a political operative?


That's cool, but you surely will admit that some MUST so that we have some clue as to how to win.  Everyone plays their own role though.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> All I know is if we had been talked down to like Matt is doing here in the beginning there wouldn't have been a campaign. People would have been turned off from the get go. The Grassroots basically raised the capital for a business, a successful one presumedly, and now are being told that some were considered not palatable enough to be involved. Nice.


That is NOT what has been said at all.  What has been said is that if you are going to attach your personal agenda to the candidate *and use their campaign* to further it, then that is harmful to the candidate and thus is not needed/wanted.

Stop misconstruing it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> It makes perfect sense. The idea is to call everyone in the area multiple times. Some of them get irritated. If you phonebanked for the Campaign in New Hampshire in the last few days you'd understand this.


A LOT of them get irritated, Matt.  And when I asked about it, I was told that it was unintentional.  Which means to me that more work should be done on both the lists and on the system itself.  I realize that it would cost a great deal of money to get out all the dups, etc., but sheesh, to go around acting like it is a non-issue is rather ridiculous.  At least to me.

----------


## Carlybee

> That is NOT what has been said at all.  What has been said is that if you are going to attach your personal agenda to the candidate *and use their campaign* to further it, then that is harmful to the candidate and thus is not needed/wanted.
> 
> Stop misconstruing it.


I don't believe I am misconstruing it and apparently I am not the only one.  But glad you jumped in "Mrs. Campaign Apologist", ie...I don't care what you think...I can read.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> That is NOT what has been said at all.  What has been said is that if you are going to attach your personal agenda to the candidate *and use their campaign* to further it, then that is harmful to the candidate and thus is not needed/wanted.
> 
> Stop misconstruing it.


As I told you yesterday, LE, it happens...people do that.  You can preach it to people here at RPF until you're blue in the face, but there will still be people who show up at rallies who are not members here and you can't control them!  I also told you it's no different than people driving around town with a Ron or Rand Paul bumper sticker and others that advocate for or against a pet issue.  

Everyone has pet issues...you have them and so do I.  The thing is, you're just embarrassed by a couple of them, e.g., 9/11 Truth and drug legalization.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> It makes perfect sense. The idea is to call everyone in the area multiple times. Some of them get irritated. If you phonebanked for the Campaign in New Hampshire in the last few days you'd understand this.


On the day of the Louisiana caucus last year, we got called so many times I lost count!  I never got irritated, but if someone doesn't want to answer those phone calls it's really simple:  caller ID will allow people to pick and choose which calls they want to take.  By 2013 I would assume most people have that feature.  I don't see what the big deal is.

----------


## RickyJ

> That is NOT what has been said at all.  What has been said is that if you are going to attach your personal agenda to the candidate *and use their campaign* to further it, then that is harmful to the candidate and thus is not needed/wanted.
> 
> Stop misconstruing it.


Without 9/11 truthers Paul would still be unknown by most today so give it a rest already! If anything it was Ron Paul that hitched his agenda to the 9/11 truth movement, not the 9/11 truth movement hitching theirs to his!

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I don't believe I am misconstruing it and apparently I am not the only one.  But glad you jumped in "Mrs. Campaign Apologist", ie...I don't care what you think...I can read.


HA HA!! Since I am one of the ones you are accusing.  Probably the primary one.  I think I know what I accused you of.  And it is piggybacking your personal agenda off of a candidate's campaign.  Stand on your own two feet.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Without 9/11 truthers Paul would still be unknown by most today so give it a rest already! If anything it was Ron Paul that hitched his agenda to the 9/11 truth movement, not the 9/11 truth movement hitching theirs to his!




So, let me get this straight.  Because you voted for him, you think that gives you the right to piggyback your personal agenda off of his campaign, even though he doesn't agree?  Interesting.  Did you tell Ron that you believed you owned him like that?  Because I'm thinking he believed he was running on his own damn message; NOT YOURS.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> As I told you yesterday, LE, it happens...people do that.  You can preach it to people here at RPF until you're blue in the face, but there will still be people who show up at rallies who are not members here and you can't control them!  I also told you it's no different than people driving around town with a Ron or Rand Paul bumper sticker and others that advocate for or against a pet issue.


Oh, I don't think I control piggybackers at all.  But, I will call them out for what they are doing.  




> Everyone has pet issues...you have them and so do I. The thing is, you're just embarrassed by a couple of them, e.g., 9/11 Truth and drug legalization.


EVERYONE has issues they care more about.  EVERYONE.  But, not everyone uses another's campaign to push them, when they damn well know the candidate does not agree with them.

----------


## RickyJ

> So, let me get this straight.  Because you voted for him, you think that gives you the right to piggyback your personal agenda off of his campaign, even though he doesn't agree?  Interesting.  Did you tell Ron that you believed you owned him like that?  Because I'm thinking he believed he was running on his own damn message; NOT YOURS.


Ron Paul when asked point blank why he won't come out about the truth of 9/11 said "I can't handle the controversy ... I got too many things on my plate." He knows the truth, he just won't come out with it so he can push what he has focused on his entire political life.  But this in no way stopped him from using the 9/11 community to get the support needed to make a run for the presidency even remotely possible.

----------


## pcosmar

> So, let me get this straight.  Because you voted for him, you think that gives you the right to piggyback your personal agenda off of his campaign, even though he doesn't agree?  Interesting.  Did you tell Ron that you believed you owned him like that?  Because I'm thinking he believed he was running on his own damn message; NOT YOURS.


Personal agenda?
Getting Ron Paul elected was my agenda..the whole package. 
An end to the drug war and opening the books in Washington was part of that.

Trouble is,, everything that we wanted,, is exactly what TPTB (including the GOP) oppose.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Ron Paul when asked point blank why he won't come out about the truth of 9/11 said "I can't handle the controversy ... I got too many things on my plate." He knows the truth, he just won't come out with it so he can push what he has focused on his entire political life.




Yes, yes, that is why he talked all the time about BLOWBACK and recommended the following reading list:




> Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror by Michael Scheuer
> Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism by Robert Anthony Pape
> Blowback, Second Edition: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire by Chalmers A. Johnson
> The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Authorized Edition) by Thomas H. Kean


http://www.amazon.com/Educating-Rudy.../RJML1CA9L0NCZ




> But this in no way stopped him from *using the 9/11 community to get the support needed to make a run for the presidency* even remotely possible.


He didn't "use" anyone.  Perhaps he thought you cared about the fundamental principles of liberty he was espousing.  You seem to be saying that nope, he got that wrong.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Personal agenda?
> Getting Ron Paul elected was my agenda..the whole package. 
> An end to the drug war and opening the books in Washington was part of that.
> 
> Trouble is,, everything that we wanted,, is exactly what TPTB (including the GOP) oppose.


I know it was, Pete.  Did I say otherwise to you???

----------


## jmdrake

> An opinion that divides a movement does.  Karl Rove says thanks though.


No.  This is what divided the movement.




Jesse should have manned up and apologized.  And it would be illogical for the people he attacked in that text to think anything other than "He doesn't like us."

----------


## jmdrake

> That is NOT what has been said at all.  What has been said is that if you are going to attach your personal agenda to the candidate *and use their campaign* to further it, then that is harmful to the candidate and thus is not needed/wanted.
> 
> Stop misconstruing it.


Ummmmmm....Ron isn't running for anything.  It's past time to let the truther wars die.  The 9/11 truther cause is no more damaging to the political wing of the liberty movement that is the "Lincoln was a tyrant and the civil war wasn't about slavery" movement.  Both are issues that reasonable people can disagree on and should at this point simply be rationally discussed.

But back to the topic at hand.  I never say DebK come out as a 9/11 truther or anything else "fringe."  Benton was wrong for what he did.  And apparently he didn't learn his lesson that he's never "off the record" unless he's talking to his wife, his pastor, his lawyer or Ron or Rand.  And he most certainly should know better than to say or text crap over a cell phone.  That said, I don't give a rip if he trashed Mitch McConnell or if he later apologized for it.

----------


## liberalnurse

> No.  This is what divided the movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesse should have manned up and apologized.  And it would be illogical for the people he attacked in that text to think anything other than "He doesn't like us."


Thank You.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes, yes, that is why he talked all the time about BLOWBACK and recommended the following reading list:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Educating-Rudy.../RJML1CA9L0NCZ
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't "use" anyone.  Perhaps he thought you cared about the fundamental principles of liberty he was espousing.  You seem to be saying that nope, he got that wrong.


It depends on the definition of the word "use."  It's absolutely truth that Ron used the conspiracy community.  But the word "use" has been "misused" so much that people automatically think "misuse" for the word "use."  Ron sent strong signals that he sympathized with the conspiracy cause.  Sorry but saying we are in danger of "another contrived Gulf of Tonkin style event to get us into war with Iran" fits with the conspiracy mindset.  And in the aftermath of the 2012 campaign Ron warned of a "possible false flag" at least twice.




And yes.  Most truthers do believe in fundamental principles of liberty.  Most have experienced people saying things like "I don't like the TSA grouping people, but I don't want a bomb on the plane" enough times to realize that we won't win this thing without informing people that "The government knew the underwear bomber was a potential terrorist but purposefully decided not to put him on the no fly list."

----------


## LibertyEagle

> It depends on the definition of the word "use."  It's absolutely truth that Ron used the conspiracy community.  But the word "use" has been "misused" so much that people automatically think "misuse" for the word "use."  Ron sent strong signals that he sympathized with the conspiracy cause.  Sorry but saying we are in danger of "another contrived Gulf of Tonkin style event to get us into war with Iran" fits with the conspiracy mindset.  And in the aftermath of the 2012 campaign Ron warned of a "possible false flag" at least twice.


Oh sure, he believes in plenty of conspiracies, but some he does not.  I just don't think it's fair to saddle him with ones he does not.  That's all.

Considering that he called Donald McAlvaney when he was considering running for Congress, I think it's safe to say that yes, he knows about plenty of conspiracies.  lol

----------


## jmdrake

> Oh sure, he believes in plenty of conspiracies, but some he does not.  I just don't think it's fair to saddle him with ones he does not.  That's all.


Except A) we don't know which ones he doesn't believe in since he said he didn't come out with everything because it was too controversial and B) with Ron Paul's political career over, it's time to quit bellyaching it and quit cat herding which conspiracies are "acceptable."

Ron didn't talk about false flags at all during the GOP debates.  It was a political decision.

----------


## Carlybee

Whether he believes in them or not, he absolutely believes in the First Amendment and I highly doubt he was into censoring people who supported him.

----------


## phill4paul

> It makes perfect sense. The idea is to call everyone in the area multiple times. Some of them get irritated. If you phonebanked for the Campaign in New Hampshire in the last few days you'd understand this.


http://gotv.research.yale.edu/?q=node/10

  When Donald Green and Alan Gerber put forth this generalized finding in Get Out the Vote!: A Guide for Candidates and Campaigns (2004), *they contended that door-to-door canvassing was the most consistently effective and efficient method of voter mobilization, and they suggested that the success of canvassing could be attributed to the personal, face-to-face delivery of the GOTV messages. 
*

John McNulty (2005) reports results from four phone bank mobilization experiments; while none of the experiments compares parallel partisan and nonpartisan message treatments, only the nonpartisan phone drive results in positive and significant. *McNulty, therefore, contends that partisan phone drives may not be effective in increasing turnout. Green (2004, 2005) finds no evidence that partisan phone calls made by professional phone banks are effective in increasing turnout. Emily Cardy (2005) also finds that partisan phone calls do not increase turnout in the context of her phone and direct mail experiment.* 





> Ron got a ton of media in-between the '08 and '12 Campaign, moreso than he got while on the actual Campaign in '08. And marketing tends to also have a delayed effect. Ron Paul is actually most popular just after a Campaign because there is momentum that builds. Even after you take your foot off the gas, after the campaign has concluded, there is still forward motion.



  Yep. It was media that vaulted Ron in the standings. Lol. You're deluded.

----------


## pcosmar

> Oh sure, he believes in plenty of conspiracies,


I have no idea what he believes and how much he actually knows (but can't say).

I did hear him say (with my own ears) that not only did he want to disband the CIA,, but that if elected he would open the books and a lot of things would be known.

If anything "cost him the election" it was that.  

Not Us.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I have no idea what he believes and how much he actually knows (but can't say).
> 
> I did hear him say (with my own ears) that not only did he want to disband the CIA,, but that if elected he would open the books and a lot of things would be known.
> 
> If anything "cost him the election" it was that.  
> 
> Not Us.


You are putting words in my mouth, Pete.  I didn't say anyone cost him the election.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Oh sure, he believes in plenty of conspiracies, but some he does not.  I just don't think it's fair to saddle him with ones he does not.  That's all.
> 
> Considering that he called Donald McAlvaney when he was considering running for Congress, I think it's safe to say that yes, he knows about plenty of conspiracies.  lol


There was a video posted here the other day that had Ron himself saying that building 7 was fishy or odd or something along those lines. I'll paste it when I find it.

EDIT: found it:

----------


## Badger Paul

_"It was a hit, an attack, and there was nothing that could be done. Talking about it would've just kept it in the news that much longer."_

Perhaps then it would have been best to address the issue head on with the media before the campaign began instead of crossing your fingers and hoping no one would remember it. 

In retrospect I really don't know what the point of being a delegate was at the GOP national convention in 2012.  The campaign's "claque" expected the delegates act like extras in the Mitt Romney Coronation or worse potted plants. The campaign took Louisiana off the board with their crummy deal which meant no putting RP's name in nomination and never challenged the way the new rules were railroaded into place. Instead the delegates were told to exercise "decorum" in order to benefit the movement in return supposedly. Well, what the hell did we get from Romney? A platform plank saying he might look into reforming the Fed? A prime time speech by Rand? Can you remember what all he said, other than he likes his Cambodian baker? 

I know what Jesse Benton got, a chance to front Mitch McConnell's Senate campaign. John Tate got to be named head of the CFL, which probably get some more corporate donors to keep afloat (can't do that with money bombs) and Jack Hunter got to go work for Rand, for a while. For the average delegate however, they got a nice trip to Tampa in August just in time for a hurricane. Oh and they had to pay much of it for it too. But in terms of exercising any influence on the party as a whole which in some cases they were beaten up, arrested or got their bones broken to try and do, not so much.

----------


## pcosmar

> You are putting words in my mouth, Pete.  I didn't say anyone cost him the election.


I put no words in your mouth.

You commented on what conspiracies he may or may not believe.
I commented on what I heard him say.

And yes,,several things cost him the election,, there was much arrayed against him.. The establishment (GOP) and the MSM, (blackout) and elements within his own campaign.
And yes,, I am sure there were people there with alternate motives and bad advice.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> And yes.  Most truthers do believe in fundamental principles of liberty.


Then, it doesn't pertain to you, or anyone else, regardless of conspiracy du jour, who do.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> There was a video posted here the other day that had Ron himself saying that building 7 was fishy or odd or something along those lines. I'll paste it when I find it.


Was it part of his platform? NO, it was not.  

This is not a debate about whose conspiracy theory is correct.  Not at all.  It is about letting the candidate have his own message and if we are supporting him to help him further HIS message.  Not our own.

----------


## presence

*                      	                                                   Poll:  							 							 						 					                 	Liberty Forest Sentiment:  Jesse Benton 
*

----------


## Deborah K

> That's cool, but you surely will admit that some MUST so that we have some clue as to how to win.  Everyone plays their own role though.


Of course!  I was responding to his snide remark toward me regarding my supposed ignorance because I don't want to watch an hour long clip on Rothfeld.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Oh, I don't think I control piggybackers at all.  But, I will call them out for what they are doing.  
> 
> EVERYONE has issues they care more about.  EVERYONE.  But, not everyone uses another's campaign to push them, when they damn well know the candidate does not agree with them.


Well here we are on the Ron (and Rand) Paul forums where I guess everyone knows that the Paul family are Christians.  Does your criterion for what should and should not go on in a campaign include the scrubbing of threads such as this one?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...n-Jesus-Christ

I'll wait to see if you are going to lecture the OP of that thread or if you just look for reasons to target me.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Was it part of his platform? NO, it was not.  
> 
> This is not a debate about whose conspiracy theory is correct.  Not at all.  It is about letting the candidate have his own message and if we are supporting him to help him further HIS message.  Not our own.


I didn't say it was a part of his platform. The post of yours I quoted didn't say anything about that, either.

----------


## jmdrake

> Was it part of his platform? NO, it was not.  
> 
> This is not a debate about whose conspiracy theory is correct.  Not at all.  It is about letting the candidate have his own message and if we are supporting him to help him further HIS message.  Not our own.


I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  *Ron Paul is no longer a candidate....for ANYTHING...there is no "Ron Paul political platform"*.

That said, I'm thankful this discussion is taking place.  I had not seen that particular video before.  For *years* truthers have had to suffer when some smartass posts the clip of Ron's infamous "disavowing" of people who "Believe the government allowed 9/11 to happen or covered it up."  That was a ridiculous question.  As Ron had said before (and I wish he had said then) the government is *always* covering stuff up.  And, of course, when I point that out I've always gotten then "Ron Paul doesn't believe in a cover up the way you say Drake."  That's an ignorant response.  A cover up is a cover up.  And the way the moderator asked the question I thought he was talking about "cover up of incompetence" as opposed to "cover up of government involvement."  If it were the latter than the moderator should have said "Some of your supporters believed the government allowed 9/11 to happened AND covered it up."  Having to belabor the difference between the words "and" and "or" to people who should know better has been exasperating.

Then we had the video of Ron saying that the reason that he didn't come out with the "truth" about 9/11 was because it "is too controversial for me" and "I have too much on my plate."  Oh but some would have us believe Ron was just trying to "brush off a supporter and tell her what he thought she wanted to hear."  (Really?  So Ron won't tell people who are antagonistic to his foreign policy what he thinks they might want to hear regarding 9/11 truth, but he'll lie to a supporter?  And I know you haven't said that LE, but I've seen that argument.)  Or I've heard "the truth he's keeping back isn't what you think it is."  Well...how can people know if he's been holding it back?

But now Ron's questioning WTC 7 just like anyone else who is fairly labelled a "9/11 truther".  And note, being a 9/11 truther doesn't mean "I believe with 100% certainty that everyone in the government was behind 9/11" or even "I believe Bush and/or Cheney and/or Rice and/or Rumsfeld was/were personally involved in carrying out 9/11."  Being a 9/11 truther means A) you don't believe the official story and B) you give serious consideration to the possibility that rogue elements within the government either actively participated in 9/11 or knowingly did not take actions that could have prevented a terrorist attack that they knew was coming."  Sure, it could have been a "cover up of incompetence" and Ron said in that video, but he also said "We need to know who was behind it and why."  If we can accept the official story at face value, we already know.  It was "Osama Bin Laden" and his cronies all by their lonesome.  Ron also brought up Siebol Edmonds without being prompted.

(Edit: And from the comment of "Thank you for being the one congressman to come out and talk to us" it appears this video was taken before Ron retired from politics.)

Anyhow, Ron made the tactical, political decision to go with "blowback" as his sole argument against the GWOT.  But he wasn't willing to take the next step and fully engage the "blowback king", Michael Scheuer, because Scheuer is takes the next logical step of saying "And our support for Israel is one of the major causes of blowback."  Without the backing of a cold-blooded antiterrorist killer like Scheuer, talking about "stopping blowback" as the way to fight terrorism sounds ivy league, naive and milktoast.  "Oh sure.  The terrorists hate us for our foreign policy.  But while we're fixing that, what do we *do*?"

----------


## New York For Paul

You like to insult people don't you?



> They weren't supporters, they were self-centered people who wanted to do their own thing and possibly damage Ron and the campaign......at worst. At best they were misguided but also unwilling to listen to reason and do what was asked. 
> 
> 
> Assuming they had the best intentions (I seriously question this given my observation of them) their "help" would not have mattered one single iota in the outcome of Iowa. In fact the honest truth is that the Campaign maxed out everything they could in Iowa, we gave it all we had, and more volunteers or money wouldn't have made a difference. The media lost Iowa for us, not the Campaign, not the supporters, not the money. External factors beyond our control.

----------


## Matt Collins

> You like to insult people don't you?


It's not an insult, it's a status.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  *Ron Paul is no longer a candidate....for ANYTHING...there is no "Ron Paul political platform"*.


I realize that.  It applies to ALL of our candidates.  Not just Ron Paul.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Well here we are on the Ron (and Rand) Paul forums where I guess everyone knows that the Paul family are Christians.  Does your criterion for what should and should not go on in a campaign include the scrubbing of threads such as this one?
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...n-Jesus-Christ
> 
> I'll wait to see if you are going to lecture the OP of that thread or if you just look for reasons to target me.


Why would I?  It's in the Religion subforum and he's not implying Rand feels that way.  So, I don't get your point.

----------


## Deborah K

> Anyhow, Ron made the tactical, political decision to go with "blowback" as his sole argument against the GWOT.  But he wasn't willing to take the next step and fully engage the "blowback king", Michael Scheuer, because Scheuer is takes the next logical step of saying "And our support for Israel is one of the major causes of blowback."  Without the backing of a cold-blooded antiterrorist killer like Scheuer, talking about "stopping blowback" as the way to fight terrorism sounds ivy league, naive and milktoast.  "Oh sure.  The terrorists hate us for our foreign policy.  But while we're fixing that, what do we *do*?"


Yeah, that was huge mistake, imo.

----------


## New York For Paul

Since people are probably wondering what Dennis Fussaro is like, Here is an interesting article, so that readers around here get a better idea of who is Fussaro vs. Jesse Benton.

He stands up to unjust authority as well as anybody in the Ron Paul movement. In fact, he might be the most effective member to do so. 
He will face down police, politicians, governors, senators and put them in their place with a vengeance. He did this all before Ron Paul ever ran for president in 2007.

http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.ht...&f=24&t=236031

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060902124.html

http://www.townofhaymarket.info/node/158

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Since people are probably wondering what Dennis Fussaro is like, Here is an interesting article, so that readers around here get a better idea of who is Fussaro vs. Jesse Benton.
> 
> He stands up to unjust authority as well as anybody in the Ron Paul movement. In fact, he might be the most effective member to do so. 
> He will face down police, politicians, governors, senators and put them in their place with a vengeance. He did this all before Ron Paul ever ran for president in 2007.
> 
> http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.ht...&f=24&t=236031
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060902124.html
> 
> http://www.townofhaymarket.info/node/158


Now it's clear why the usual suspects around here don't like him....he doesn't sound like a "go along to get along" kind of guy.

----------


## New York For Paul

> Now it's clear why the usual suspects around here don't like him....he doesn't sound like a "go along to get along" kind of guy.


It will be interesting to see how this plays out. New updates into investigations.http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/d...nclick_check=1

I sense that this might be causing stress for some people.

----------


## New York For Paul

> They weren't supporters, they were self-centered people who wanted to do their own thing and possibly damage Ron and the campaign......at worst. At best they were misguided but also unwilling to listen to reason and do what was asked. 
> 
> Assuming they had the best intentions (I seriously question this given my observation of them) their "help" would not have mattered one single iota in the outcome of Iowa. In fact the honest truth is that the Campaign maxed out everything they could in Iowa, we gave it all we had, and more volunteers or money wouldn't have made a difference. The media lost Iowa for us, not the Campaign, not the supporters, not the money. External factors beyond our control.


The stupid self centered people are the arrogant staffers who are too stupid to realize they are hurting the campaign and the movement.  Here is the type of professional help the professional Paul people provide to move the liberty cause "forward" or maybe "backward".http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczyn...ter-plagiarism

----------


## Matt Collins

> Here is the type of professional help the professional Paul people provide to move the liberty cause "forward" or maybe "backward".http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczyn...ter-plagiarism


See this:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division

----------


## jtstellar

> Now it's clear why the usual suspects around here don't like him....he doesn't sound like a "go along to get along" kind of guy.


disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing hardly constitutes the ron paul brand of "not going along to get along".. he does plenty of things worthy of respect but doesn't ask for any, both private and public life.  maybe some of you are just ticked off because you're doing 1% of a fraction of ron paul but wonder why you're not getting the same level of respect

----------


## New York For Paul

> They weren't supporters, they were self-centered people who wanted to do their own thing and possibly damage Ron and the campaign......at worst. At best they were misguided but also unwilling to listen to reason and do what was asked. 
> 
> 
> Assuming they had the best intentions (I seriously question this given my observation of them) their "help" would not have mattered one single iota in the outcome of Iowa. In fact the honest truth is that the Campaign maxed out everything they could in Iowa, we gave it all we had, and more volunteers or money wouldn't have made a difference. The media lost Iowa for us, not the Campaign, not the supporters, not the money. External factors beyond our control.


See This: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

----------


## Matt Collins

> See This: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem


No, not at all, and that would be obvious to anyone who read my post.

----------


## New York For Paul

Sounds like an attack to me. 

"They weren't supporters, they were self-centered people who wanted to do their own thing and possibly damage Ron and the campaign......at worst. At best they were misguided but also unwilling to listen to reason and do what was asked.


Assuming they had the best intentions (I seriously question this given my observation of them) their "help" would not have mattered one single iota in the outcome of Iowa. In fact the honest truth is that the Campaign maxed out everything they could in Iowa, we gave it all we had, and more volunteers or money wouldn't have made a difference. The media lost Iowa for us, not the Campaign, not the supporters, not the money. External factors beyond our control."

----------


## Lucille

What does Benton have on Wattle?  It's not like he's some sort of campaign genius, and the guy has zero loyalty and is a duplicitous jerk.  Any self-respecting employer would have fired him after the "hold my nose" crack.

----------


## Anti Federalist

From another thread:




> Without trying to sound pretentious, I want to say I understand *exactly* how Ron gets himself into these positions, as I have found myself in them before as well, being a "leadership" position also.
> 
> Short version: It is VERY hard to be a "leader", to bark orders and make commands and demand that things happen just as you want, when your whole personality is opposed to authoritarianism and bossing people about.

----------


## jjdoyle

> From another thread:


Curious though, what would you do if you found out someone under you was lying? And maybe even taking cash from the register for purposes not related to the purpose of your business?

----------


## New York For Paul

Being a leader is hard but you have to exercise some oversight. That 100 thousand dollar bribe could have paid for 100 field staff in Iowa for the last two weeks of the campaign.

----------


## Anti Federalist

...




> No, it wasn't.
> 
> We were told that "official" lawn signs were "discouraged", that too many "make RP look bad"
> 
> So when it was asked, "well, how about homemade signs then?" they were disapproved as well.
> 
> I had a local activist, a man on these forums, show Mrs. AF a letter saying these things from the campaign.
> 
> It was never about "super brochures" or anything like that.
> ...

----------


## jjdoyle

> ...


For those that don't know what you're talking about with the Northern Pass issue, and what you did:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=northern+pass

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Curious though, what would you do if you found out someone under you was lying? And maybe even taking cash from the register for purposes not related to the purpose of your business?


In my business, it's called "getting run off" or just simply, "ran off".

A serious dereliction of duty such as that would result in an immediate "run off".

"Pack your $#@!, get on the dock, *now*."

I have to admit, I paid little mind to this whole scandal, other than being in a general state of "high piss off" at the "official" campaign and how it was being run.

But now, in light of recent events and discoveries, it appears that you, and Cajun and DebK and liberalnurse, among others, had Benton pegged.

Good work for sticking to it and absorbing all the blows and hate.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Elections are won by controlling the message and doing the following:
> 
> - identify every voter in the area (phone banking)
> - determine who they are going to vote for (phone banking)
> - try and persuade them to vote for your guy (phone banking / door-to-door)
> - remind them to go and vote on caucus/election day (phone banking)
> 
> 
> If you're doing something else than what's listed above, then you're being unproductive and in some cases causing harm.


And when you do all that, and the response is, "who?", then what?

Sit on the phone and lecture somebody on Austrian economics and police statism?

You assumed, as you have all along, that Ron's name and ideas were household words, which they are not and still are not.

*THAT* was the grassroots' battlefield: blimps and money bombs and rallies and sign waves and whatever other clever device we could come up with to bypass the government media organs and their censors and get the ideas of peace, liberty and prosperity to the people.

And we were told that was pointless and stupid and silly, to sit in the corner and shut up, let the "officials" handle it.

----------


## cajuncocoa

AF, I owe you a lot of reps in this thread.

----------


## New York For Paul

Even national radio talks shows are talking about how far Rand Paul has fallen in the last couple of years. He could still win, but there is a head wind against him with these scandals.

----------


## New York For Paul

It is a combination of both tactics. Voter ID is good but so are grassroots activities. Remember Mitt Romney copied Ron Paul's money bomb for his campaign. Golly Gee, Mitt was smart enough to copy Ron Paul fundraising tactics. Yet the Ron Paul campaign complained that money bombs were stupid and too difficult to count so much money all in one day. It disrupts the fundraising process. It is pretty funny to listen to some of these guys. I still get laughs about the official campaign comments.Mitt Romney call-a-thon haul: $10 million   http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55083.html

----------


## liberalnurse

> AF, I owe you a lot of reps in this thread.


Ditto

----------


## Christian Liberty

You know, I'm not a hardcore anti-voting type, but some of Collins comments are making me start to wish I was.

Campaigning for Rand Paul could be good for liberty, but I strongly believe exposing someone to the concepts of anarcho-capitalism/voluntarism or the idea of the NAP is more productive.  Even if they don't agree it shifts the political center, which is in and of itself useful, IMO.

----------


## mosquitobite

> *THAT* was the grassroots' battlefield: blimps and money bombs and rallies and sign waves and whatever other clever device we could come up with to bypass the government media organs and their censors and get the ideas of peace, liberty and prosperity to the people.
> 
> And we were told that was pointless and stupid and silly, to sit in the corner and shut up, let the "officials" handle it.


Exactly - and why 2008 was way more fun than 2012.  The official campaign divided us.  Which is just what statists want, right?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Exactly - and why 2008 was way more fun than 2012.  The official campaign divided us.  Which is just what statists want, right?


Bin-go

----------


## Danke

> And when you do all that, and the response is, "who?", then what?
> 
> Sit on the phone and lecture somebody on Austrian economics and police statism?
> 
> You assumed, as you have all along, that Ron's name and ideas were household words, which they are not and still are not.
> 
> *THAT* was the grassroots' battlefield: blimps and money bombs and rallies and sign waves and whatever other clever device we could come up with to bypass the government media organs and their censors and get the ideas of peace, liberty and prosperity to the people.
> 
> And we were told that was pointless and stupid and silly, to sit in the corner and shut up, let the "officials" handle it.


You obviously don't have the same training The Collinz has vigorously been through.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You obviously don't have the same training The Collinz has vigorously been through.

----------


## pcosmar

> You obviously don't have the same training The Collinz has vigorously been through.


Nope I didn't.
The non disclosure agreement you had to sign essentially muzzled any whistle blowers.

But after that came out,, the grass roots died out.. (Here in Michigan)

I said it before and stand by it,, The Michigan Campaign was deliberately sabotaged in 2008. I saw it happen.

It was nearly non existent in 2012. (no yard signs,, no Advertizing)

----------


## sparebulb

> You obviously don't have the same training The Collinz has vigorously been through.


Special Hi-Intensity Training?

----------


## Danke

> Nope I didn't.
> The non disclosure agreement you had to sign essentially muzzled any whistle blowers.

----------


## orenbus

> And when you do all that, and the response is, "who?", then what?
> 
> Sit on the phone and lecture somebody on Austrian economics and police statism?
> 
> You assumed, as you have all along, that Ron's name and ideas were household words, which they are not and still are not.
> 
> *THAT* was the grassroots' battlefield: blimps and money bombs and rallies and sign waves and whatever other clever device we could come up with to bypass the government media organs and their censors and get the ideas of peace, liberty and prosperity to the people.
> 
> And we were told that was pointless and stupid and silly, to sit in the corner and shut up, let the "officials" handle it.




+Rep

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> You know, I'm not a hardcore anti-voting type, but some of Collins comments are making me start to wish I was.
> 
> Campaigning for Rand Paul could be good for liberty, but I strongly believe exposing someone to the concepts of anarcho-capitalism/voluntarism or the idea of the NAP is more productive.  Even if they don't agree it shifts the political center, which is in and of itself useful, IMO.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/08/l...ere-winning-3/




> The left understands this point. Recall Antonio Gramscis strategy for bringing about lasting leftist victory. He did not advocate immediate and exclusive emphasis on political activity. *If the peoples minds had not been changed in the direction that a leftist government would want to take them, all their political conniving would be in vain anyway.*
> 
> Vastly more important, Gramsci taught, was for their ideas to work their way through the universities, the arts, and all the other institutions of civil society. At that point, it wouldnt matter who won the elections. The people would already be in their hands  and in all likelihood, the two competing candidates would themselves have adopted leftist language and ideas, whether they realized it or not, to boot.


Not too difficult, really.  If libertarian ideas are not widely accepted, then all of the electoral efforts can and likely will be undone come the next election.  

Much more than a libertarian officeholder, what the country needs is a shift to a more libertarian paradigm.  Right now the social consciousness of the country is very much rooted in a hyper-statist perspective; sneaking a candidate past the gate isn't going to change that, and may well do damage to how we are perceived.  That's why I was always very frank and honest about where Ron stood on the issues.  No, he didn't win... but he sure as hell changed a LOT of minds.  That is of far greater benefit than winning on a pile of lies.  




> Thanks to Ron Paul, a new generation understands its all right to favor the free market and to oppose war. Libertarians have done more than anyone else to expose the Democrats as just another wing of the war party, and to show theres no real debate in America over foreign policy. This is considered extremely uncouth by those who wish to maintain the pretense that open discussion of important issues takes place in the land of the free.
> 
> After decades of virtually no progress at all against the war on drugs, the prohibitionist regime is beginning to crack all around us. The standard bromides in its favor elicit only cynical chuckles from a rising generation that knows better.
> 
> Ordinarily, federal bailouts would be bipartisan and all but unanimous, with self-described supporters of the market economy solemnly informing us that just this once, it had to be done. Progressives have not distinguished themselves here as they might have; Rachel Maddow once said we wouldnt have had an economy without the bailouts. Its the libertarians who have stood against the establishment tide, as usual.
> 
> In other words, we are having discussions that we did not have in the past. Libertarians have staked out positions that a lot of ordinary people share, but which they never saw articulated in public, thereby giving people the confidence and courage to express dissent.
> 
> Ten years ago, these dissident views would have been drowned out by the establishment consensus, which closes ranks whenever an issue of real importance arises.


None of this would have been possible if Ron Paul would have tried to moderate his views with an eye toward getting elected.  

Thank you, Ron!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/08/l...ere-winning-3/
> 
> 
> 
> Not too difficult, really.  If libertarian ideas are not widely accepted, then all of the electoral efforts can and likely will be undone come the next election.  
> 
> Much more than a libertarian officeholder, what the country needs is a shift to a more libertarian paradigm.  Right now the social consciousness of the country is very much rooted in a hyper-statist perspective; sneaking a candidate past the gate isn't going to change that, and may well do damage to how we are perceived.  That's why I was always very frank and honest about where Ron stood on the issues.  No, he didn't win... but he sure as hell changed a LOT of minds.  That is of far greater benefit than winning on a pile of lies.  
> 
> 
> ...


I agree with all of this.  

I do support Rand, but I'm also frank about where I think he's wrong, and I wish he would be more libertarian than he is.

At the end of the day I'll support the best candidate available so long as there is one good enough to actually support (in other words, someone who actually wants to move things in our direction, rather than the other direction).  Or, at the least, I'll vote for such a candidate.  But, my primary focus is education and debate.

----------


## cajuncocoa

@A Son of Liberty...good article, thanks for sharing it here.

Politicians vying for a victory will never lead. That's why we hear people on this site telling us that Rand has to moderate his libertarian language at times. Until the vast majority of people embrace liberty ideas, politicians are stuck pandering to a collective of voters uneducated about our cause. Thus, they must speak the language of the uneducated. 

If Matt were here, I'm sure he would chime in to tell me those votes aren't even necessary. But if Matt was right about that, Rand would be free to sound exactly like his father.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> @A Son of Liberty...good article, thanks for sharing it here.
> 
> Politicians vying for a victory will never lead. That's why we hear people on this site telling us that Rand has to moderate his libertarian language at times. Until the vast majority of people embrace liberty ideas, politicians are stuck pandering to a collective of voters uneducated about our cause. Thus, they must speak the language of the uneducated. 
> 
> _If Matt were here, I'm sure he would chime in to tell me those votes aren't even necessary._ But if Matt was right about that, Rand would be free to sound exactly like his father.


No, if Matt were here he'd tell you that the hardcore libertarian vote isn't necessary.  Which may or may not be correct, but is sad regardless.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> No, if Matt were here he'd tell you that the hardcore libertarian vote isn't necessary.  Which may or may not be correct, but is sad regardless.


Yes, you're right.  And I would tell Matt that we (libertarians) may not have the numbers to win, but we probably have enough to effect the overall outcome of an election.  It's probably not wise to brush us off at this point.

I wonder if any of Matt's many sock puppets are around to take up this argument.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes, you're right.  And I would tell Matt that we (libertarians) may not have the numbers to win, but we probably have enough to effect the overall outcome of an election.  It's probably not wise to brush us off at this point.
> 
> I wonder if any of Matt's many sock puppets are around to take up this argument.


Yep.

At this point I've seen enough inside information to think Rand MIGHT be playing political games.  And that possibility is enough to make me vote for him, regardless of what Collins does.  But still, some other people might be convinced not to vote based on how Rand supporters conduct themselves, so its still something Collins and the other shills should keep in mind.

----------


## Badger Paul

I wasn't bothered by the fact the 2012 campaign needed to be more professional. I just wish our "pros" weren't in it for themselves how they could maximize their influence and potential future earnings and employment by sucking up and selling out. Fusaro revealed these fellows within the "claque" kept RP's name from being put into nomination at convention, betraying everyone who worked, froze, sweated, starved and gave everything of themselves and their money to Ron Paul. Rand was part this because he wanted to be seen a company man and if he employs the same people 2016, especially in Iowa where many of them have bad reputations, he will lose. So it's his choice: recapture the spirit of 2008 and harness it or use the hucksters of Conservative INC. (or Ron Paul INC.) and go down in flames.

----------


## phill4paul

> Yes, you're right.  And I would tell Matt that we (libertarians) may not have the numbers to win, but we probably have enough to effect the overall outcome of an election.  It's probably not wise to brush us off at this point.
> 
> I wonder if any of Matt's many sock puppets are around to take up this argument.


  One has only to look to the Anti-Saloon League for guidance in how "middle" politics can affect the whole nation. In the case of prohibition it worked against individual liberty, but, that does not mean that the principle for success was unfounded.

----------


## Matt Collins

> And when you do all that, and the response is, "who?", then what?


Send them direct mail and run mass media in places they are likely to see.






> You assumed, as you have all along, that Ron's name and ideas were household words, which they are not and still are not.
> 
> *THAT* was the grassroots' battlefield: blimps and money bombs and rallies and sign waves and whatever other clever device we could come up with to bypass the government media organs and their censors and get the ideas of peace, liberty and prosperity to the people.
> 
> And we were told that was pointless and stupid and silly, to sit in the corner and shut up, let the "officials" handle it.


Yeah pretty much... the goal of a campaign is to get people to vote for your guy, not to change their entire worldview  (the former is much easier than the latter)

----------


## Matt Collins

> Yet the Ron Paul campaign complained that money bombs were stupid and too difficult to count so much money all in one day.


Uhh... can you cite a source on this?

----------


## Matt Collins

> Campaigning for Rand Paul could be good for liberty, but I strongly believe exposing someone to the concepts of anarcho-capitalism/voluntarism or the idea of the NAP is more productive.


So they can do what, build a bunker and wait for the apocalypse?   

Yes, more people thinking outside the box of statism is always a good thing, I agree. But if they don't actually do anything about it (such as pushing pro-liberty legislation or supporting pro-liberty candidates), then it doesn't really matter what they believe.  Education without action is useless.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Fusaro revealed these fellows within the "claque" kept RP's name from being put into nomination at convention, betraying everyone who worked, froze, sweated, starved and gave everything of themselves and their money to Ron Paul.


Did it ever cross your mind that perhaps maybe Ron didn't want to be put in to nomination given the fact that getting the nomination was impossible at the convention at that point in time?

----------


## Matt Collins

> One has only to look to the Anti-Saloon League for guidance in how "middle" politics can affect the whole nation. In the case of prohibition it worked against individual liberty, but, that does not mean that the principle for success was unfounded.


Yes... tactics are ideologically neutral.

Watch the Ken Burns series on Prohibition, it explains this very well. Almost all modern day political organizing is based around what they did during the prohibition movement.

----------


## New York For Paul

> Uhh... can you cite a source on this?


http://www.dailypaul.com/8509/cannib...he-money-bombs

----------


## orenbus

Sounds like the major contention between the idea of the Boston Tea Party 07' money bomb and Mr. Bydlak's (Fundraising Director '08) email on November 20th, 2007 was that he was saying the campaign needed the money right there and then, and there was a question as to which would make a larger impact or be more effective, and how quickly the money could be taken in and utilized even though the quarterly goals were already stated. From the email it could be read that although the official campaign provided a fundraising quarterly goal that the grassroots was trying to find creative solutions to work to achieve the concept of the moneybomb was under attack and the fundraising goal posts were being moved back. I vaguely remember this stuff happening, this was a while back and there was a lot going on during those days.

One thing I think the official campaign of 2008 admits that they were constantly trying to keep up with the grassroots so although in my mind they made lots of mistakes and some decisions which the grassroots vehemently disagreed with, looking back now they honestly were just playing a lot by ear. 

I'm not going to make excuses for them, because I think they would readily admit their faults and that the grassroots had better ideas than the official campaign at times, this was clear in a number of different ways in '08 that carried over with clear examples even in '12.




> November 20, 2007
> 
> 
> During the first few days of October, we announced our fundraising goal for the fourth quarter: $12 million raised by December 31.
> 
> But there's more: *we need to have spent it by then, too.*
> 
> If we were to raise the entire $12 million in the last week of December, we would meet our fundraising goal for the quarter. But Ron Paul would stand little chance of winning the Republican nomination, because that money would have come in too late.
> 
> ...


Edit: Added original email.

----------


## Matt Collins

> http://www.dailypaul.com/8509/cannib...he-money-bombs


no, that's not what he said

----------


## New York For Paul

"That makes absolutely no sense at all. What is media-worthy about comparing our fundraising numbers for THIS quarter with other candidates numbers for LAST quarter? See the problem? For it to have any relevance whatsoever, we would have to be making comparisons for the same quarter and we are not.

*Bydlak is the director of fundraising. As such, he is uncomfortable with money bombs. He prefers the slow trickle to a big bang.* Understandable, but what he seems to not understand is that huge fundraising events, if promoted right, will attract a substantial number of people to the cause that would not have otherwise donated. Bottom line... every email he sends out to derail The Tea Party is costing the campaign in terms of net money raised for the quarter.

If you will recall, he tried to do the very same thing before the 11/5 fundraiser. Look back and you will see."  From Liberty Eagle a few years back.

----------


## orenbus

Didn't realize Bydlak was 24 years old at the time and that this was his first fund raising position in any political election, prior to that he worked for a hedge fund is my understanding and could not have been there more than a year or two. He had come on forums at one point to answer peoples questions after he had been let go/left the campaign in spring 2008. Here is a thread where he was answering questions and specifically about the email post 11/20. Haven't gone through the entire thread yet.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post1349097

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post1352193

----------


## orenbus

Here are some of the responses from RPF to the Bydlak email on November 20, 1997

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ht=bydlak+bomb




> Looks like we've been asked to nix the tea party.





> This FROM the campaign. Cancel the Tea Party, they need it now not in 2 weeks.


Imagine if the Tea Party MB hadn't happened or wasn't covered in the media? Possibly the Tea Party group that spun off and we know of may have not come to exist years after. I wonder if this would have had an impact on Rand Paul's senate run considering the Tea Party and other groups support in Kentucky, interesting point in history to consider.




> I'm going to wait til the 16th.  
> 
> 8 Million dollars can take care of Iowa and New Hampshire.





> My advice: ignore this email.





> ++
> 
> The email doesn't even specify how much money they need for their crucial airtime.
> 
> If they need it, put up how much you need like the radio tower.
> 
> *Don't ask us to cancel our fund raiser.*
> 
> You want 12 million by December 1? Don't tell us December 31 then.






> Hate to go against the campaign, but I believe they are wrong on this one.  If we donate now instead of on the 16th, he will get no media coverage and won't have a chance to win.  He is not going to be in the news for a steady stream of donations.  We need to surprise the world on the 16th and that will be the tipping point for the campaign.  If some people want to donate now and on the 16th, that's fine but as I've said before, I think it would be better to see $0 from now until then if it means an extra $2 million on the 16th.
> 
> Personally, I hope that everybody just saves up for the 16th.





> Thank God! and thank you!  Yes, donate now, and save up for the 16th.  It would be a disaster to cancel it, as it has already been in the press. We have a HUGE ad going out tomorrow in the USA Today promoting.  We would look terrible if we cancled it.


I remember this ad, still have a copy of USA Today with the ad in it in a drawer,  it linked a number of sites includes RPF and a site I maintained back in 2007.




> I agree, they should TELL US what they want for $ short-term , this would be easy for us to manage/watch and still with-hold as much as possible for the 16th!!!


One thing that should have been learned, especially at this point, is you always want to set a goal number for fund raising, even in emergency funding type emails so that the grassroots can measure the on going effort and see what is required to meet the expectation, something that the money bombs did, although perhaps at times not realistic, but at least there was a goal number that could be measured to strive for.




> december 16th must stand. no going back now. the campaign will recieve a FREE ten million dollars in press after the bomb. ron's campaign should be set up for an absolute advertising blitzkrieg for the last week of december to spend the tea party cash.





> Got the email, and was a little upset by it. Does anyone else think that they sounded really desperate? *"With so much ground to make up, we can't afford to waste a single day." *  Well why the heck didn't they say they needed 12 mil by December, instead of 12 mil by January?? Gah.





> Bydlak is 24, and his inexperience is showing






> I'm honestly posting out of frustration. A lot of money and coordination goes into the money bomb events and I feel that the email was rather pointed against them. I don't think it's unreasonable to wish the the campaign would be clearer about what they need from us as supporters. If a money bomb isn't it, then how about a new ticker on the front page? How much do they need? 
> 
> I'm upset that they sounded desperate - not trying to troll, and apologies if it sounded that way.





> I agree.  They know we are planning the Tea Party.  Are they trying to piss us off?
> 
> It sounds like whining to me.  I mean, what is the call to action?  What do they want us to do?  Reschedule?  I think not.  Donate now?  Ok, but I am maxed.  
> Furthermore, the Founders adv. was not cheap.
> 
> They need to get their act together.  Come up with positive suggestions, not whining.





> But why assume that the official campaign knows what its doing?   The only reason why Paul is doing so well right now is because of the grassroots.  We are the ones who organize the money bombs and tape his speeches and get the word out.  I think that we should decide amongst ourselves what we do, not take direction from the official campaign.  I think its a mistake that they are now trying to control  and manipulate the grassroots effort.





> Tea party stays where it is. I think most of us will agree that it is set in stone.





> That's true, and you have good points.   I can understand people's desire to donate some money now.  Everybody will come to a different conclusion and I recognize that.  I just wish the e-mail hadn't been sent...





> I don't have any extra $$ so I am waiting until Tea Party.  The tea party will the greatest day ever.

----------


## New York For Paul

Thanks for the fantastic research. It was all a distant memory, but now it has come back.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

can he just take responsibility for his actions and stop blaming everyone else

----------


## devil21

Great posts orenbus.  It's so important to not allow history to be rewritten.

----------

