# Start Here > Ron Paul Forum >  Mitch McConnell hires Jesse Benton to run his 2014 re-election bid

## jct74

> *McConnell hires campaign aide to Ron and Rand Paul*
> 
> By MANU RAJU | 9/13/12 7:40 AM EDT
> 
> Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has hired a loyal aide to Rep. Ron Paul and fellow Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul to run his 2014 reelection bid -- the latest sign of how the wily leader is already preparing to head off any tea party insurgency and Democratic challenge.
> 
> McConnell announced Thursday that he's hired Jesse Benton, who led both Ron Paul's 2012 presidential campaign and Rand Paul's 2010 Senate campaign, to run his reelection bid for a sixth term.
> 
> "We're committed to running a presidential-level campaign in Kentucky and that starts with a presidential campaign manager," McConnell said. "Jesse is literally the best in the business at building and organizing conservative grassroots movements and I'm thrilled he's chosen to return to Kentucky to lead my campaign."
> ...


read more:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-con...ul-135422.html

----------


## georgiaboy

this is a startling development indeed.

----------


## acptulsa

McConnell said, "Jesse is literally the best in the business at building and organizing conservative grassroots movements and I'm thrilled he's chosen to return to Kentucky to lead my campaign."

Ah, but will McConnell draw any grassroots to organize?

----------


## LibertyEagle

I'm sorry, but ROFLMAO.

----------


## newbitech

> McConnell said, "Jesse is literally the best in the business at building and organizing conservative grassroots movements and I'm thrilled he's chosen to return to Kentucky to lead my campaign."
> 
> Ah, but will McConnell draw any grassroots to organize?


I guess McConnel didn't get Benton's memo.  Benton is done with grassroots.

----------


## orenbus

> McConnell said, "Jesse is literally the best in the business at building and organizing conservative grassroots movements and I'm thrilled he's chosen to return to Kentucky to lead my campaign."


For Real? HHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

----------


## angelatc

Well, this certainly gives us a great opportunity to primary McConnell.

I swear to God - I checked to be sure that wasn't satire.




> McConnell said, "Jesse is literally the best in the business at building and organizing conservative grassroots movements and I'm thrilled he's chosen to return to Kentucky to lead my campaign."


Yeah, and the guy who was in charge of the 2008 fundraising effort was an expert in money bombs, too.   ROTFL!

2014, then over to Rand's campaign.  I'm going to take a shower, because I feel icky.

----------


## mnewcomb

W-T-F...

----------


## newbitech

> W-T-F...



$-$-$...

----------


## Sola_Fide

Wow....  Speechless...

----------


## asurfaholic

Who is McCconnell, and what does he stand for?

----------


## The Magic Hoof

> Who is McCconnell, and what does he stand for?


+1

----------


## orenbus

*OMG SOMEONE SERIOUSLY RUN AGAINST MITCH MCCONNELL FOR HIS SEAT IN 2014 I WILL WORK FOR FREE TO MAKE SURE A LIBERTY CANDIDATE WINS HIS SEAT AND BEATS BENTON AT THE SAME TIME SERIOUSLY.*

----------


## jct74

here's a longer article from AP:
http://www.therepublic.com/view/stor...mpaign-Manager

----------


## acptulsa

> Who is McCconnell, and what does he stand for?


The Senior Senator from Kentucky, in the Senate Minority heirarchy, and as lockstep a Globalist First, Republican Second vote as you can find in Washington.

Well, our friend Jesse has set himself up as the campaign manager who can tie in the tea party, and even the tea party's parents, the libertarians.  And this should last just about long enough for McConnell to prove it's the candidate, not the manager, who draws in grass roots support.  And that will be that for Jesse.

The big news here is that McConnell is planning a presidential primary run.

----------


## July

Interesting.

----------


## TonySutton

Thomas Massie where are you?  We have a new job for you

----------


## Carlybee

> Who is McCconnell, and what does he stand for?


Senior senator from kentucky...sponsored the Protect America act for warrantless wiretaps..opposed to closing Guantanimo....top campaign donors all big banks.

----------


## crhoades

Hmmm. Didn't McConnell endorse trey Grayson against rand?

----------


## rockandrollsouls

I wonder how Ron feels about one of his family members that he trusted running campaigns for guys that want to destroy the movement he's built. Such a shame.

----------


## orenbus

> McConnell expects to be targeted by Democrats, though no challenger has stepped forward yet. Neither has a tea party Republican hinted at mounting a primary challenge. *The hiring of Benton sends a clear signal to any potential tea party opponents to stand down.*


$#@! that it sends a clear signal to proudly STAND UP! LOLOLOLOL

----------


## July

> I wonder how Ron feels about one of his family members that he trusted running campaigns for guys that want to destroy the movement he's built. Such a shame.


I wonder how Mitch feels having to surround himself with the likes of Rand Paul, following Rand around to Tea Party events, appearing in a Ron Paul tribute video, and now hiring Jesse Benton? I get Rand's newsletter updates, and he's been a busy bee there in Kentucky. Mitch must be feeling some heat, I guess.

----------


## DavidK

I knew it, I $#@!ing knew it. Jesse Benton was a insider agent from the very beginning.

----------


## Bruno

Politics does indeed make for strange bedfellows.  




> Hmmm. Didn't McConnell endorse trey Grayson against rand?


Yes, and didn't he host an unprecedented dinner with senators and congressmen to raise money for Treyson and we raised money for Rand in opposition, and Pancakes was spotted trying to take secret video?

----------


## specsaregood

> I wonder how Mitch feels having to surround himself with the likes of Rand Paul, following Rand around to Tea Party events, appearing in a Ron Paul tribute video, and now hiring Jesse Benton? I get Rand's newsletter updates, and he's been a busy bee there in Kentucky. Mitch must be feeling some heat, I guess.


Yes, it certainly does seem like mitch is trying his best to get on the Paul's good side.  This could turn out to be a very good thing for us if the GOP gets a senate majority this coming election.

----------


## orenbus

Ok seriously mods please do not move this to hot topics. I know he's the grandson in law and whatever, but this move to burn bridges is one that Jesse Benton made for himself by not just compromising an issue here or there but directly challenging the liberty movement by deliberately and literally working for the opposition. No one except for Jesse can be blamed for the choice he's made, this is ridiculous.

----------


## kathy88

What a tool. I expected a slap in the face, but dude $#@!ed up BIG TIME.

----------


## georgiaboy

Confirmed - Mitch supported the $700Billion Bailout in 2008.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...senate+bailout

----------


## specsaregood

> Ok seriously mods please do not move this to hot topics. I know he's the grandson in law and whatever, but this move to burn bridges is one that Jesse Benton made for himself by not just compromising an an issue here or there but directly challenging the liberty movement by deliberately and literally working for the opposition. No one except for Jesse can be blamed for the choice he's made, this is ridiculous.


Really?  How is he directly challenging the "liberty movement"?   I didn't know McConnell was running against the liberty movement in his 2014 campaign.

----------


## Sola_Fide

This is bad.  In a lot of ways....

The first reason is, I think Jesse can actually help McConnell to stave off any Tea Party challenge...which completely sucks.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I knew it, I $#@!ing knew it. Jesse Benton was a insider agent from the very beginning.


Oh, come on.  

I'm not shocked at him doing this with McConnell at all.  If he wanted to stay in electoral politics, how better to get experience than to go work on a campaign like this?  Personally, I'd much rather he do this than to be working for a liberty candidate.

----------


## orenbus

> Really?  How is he directly challenging the "liberty movement"?   I didn't know McConnell was running against the liberty movement in his 2014 campaign.


You don't see McConnell as an opposition element to the liberty movement? Really? Did I walk into Bizarro world or something?

----------


## acptulsa

> I wonder how Mitch feels having to surround himself with the likes of Rand Paul, following Rand around to Tea Party events, appearing in a Ron Paul tribute video, and now hiring Jesse Benton?


He feels like what he is--just another human chameleon changing his color to survive.

----------


## angelatc

Sending cosmic messaging: :Hire Collins. Hire Collins. Hire Collins.

----------


## TruckinMike

> McConnell said. "Jesse is literally the best in the business at building and organizing conservative grassroots movements and I'm thrilled he's chosen to return to Kentucky to lead my campaign."


Do those folks actually believe it was Benton that created the Ron Paul sensation? If so, I'm the one that has been duped. After all, I pride myself in countering the notion that politicians are dumb. I typically would say that "they are not dumb, instead they are highly intelligent traitors". If Mc Connell actually beleives that Benton was responsible for Ron Pauls overflowing grassroots crowds, etc... Then I take back everything that I've ever said about intelligence and politicians. LoL!

Signed,

Doubly Duped

----------


## K466

Well, its not much of a surprise, is it? After what Jesse has done to this movement, I think this calls for our special attention. We need a Rand Paul II to knock out Mitch the B!@#$.

That was fast Jesse, anyone still like him now?

$$$$

----------


## nobody's_hero

I supported Ron Paul _in spite_ of Jesse Benton, not _because_ of Jesse Benton.

McConnell the teleprompter-vote-reader had better lose his seat in 2014.

----------


## orenbus

> Sending cosmic messaging: :Hire Collins. Hire Collins. Hire Collins.


LOL

----------


## acptulsa

> Do those folks actually believe it was Benton that created the Ron Paul sensation?


Doesn't matter if he created it.  He's tapped into it.  So, he can deliver it, right?  It's all about the network, not the principle.  Coundn't be about the principle, right?  That's just silly.

That's the way McConnell's thinking.

----------


## BamaFanNKy

> Sending cosmic messaging: :Hire Collins. Hire Collins. Hire Collins.


THIS x1,000,000

----------


## July

> Yes, it certainly does seem like mitch is trying his best to get on the Paul's good side.  This could turn out to be a very good thing for us if the GOP gets a senate majority this coming election.


That's what I'm thinking too. What is Rand's biggest obstacle right now? Harry Reid....

----------


## specsaregood

> You don't see McConnell as an opposition element to the liberty movement? Really? Did I walk into Bizarro world or something?


Well that's not what you claimed.    No, I don't think MccConnell is directly challenging the liberty movement.  I don't think Benton is doing that by working for McConnell.  I think McConnell is a spineless political bitch who knows which way the winds are shifting, especially in his home state.    If this brings him further to our side then so be it, even if it is only for political reasons.    I don't care their motivations, I care they make the right votes.

----------


## orenbus

> Well that's not what you claimed.    No, I don't think MccConnell is directly challenging the liberty movement.  I don't think Benton is doing that by working for McConnell.  I think McConnell is a spineless political bitch who knows which way the winds are shifting, especially in his home state.    If this brings him further to our side then so be it, even if it is only for political reasons.    I don't care their motivations, I care they make the right votes.


So in that case would you be a against running a liberty minded candidate against McConnell with positions that more closely resembles those of Ron Paul?

----------


## crhoades

At least it wasn't Lindsey Grahm!

----------


## specsaregood

> So in that case would you be a against running a liberty minded candidate against McConnell?


I'm not gonna tell anybody what to do.  But you wont find him with any serious challenger.  The KY GOP is not gonna let somebody in the party unseat the highest ranking republican, not to mention one who might be the senate majority leader at the time.   It would be a waste of time to even try.  I find the chances of pulling him closer to our side as having better political prospects for the liberty movement.   Imagine if Jesse or Rand got McConnell to endorse some of our liberty candidates?  how much would that help them inside the GOP? for fundraising?

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Really?  How is he directly challenging the "liberty movement"?   I didn't know McConnell was running against the liberty movement in his 2014 campaign.






McConnell understands what he has to do to win, but he has no understanding of liberty.

----------


## BamaFanNKy

You guys from out of state do not see what is going on in Kentucky. The liberty movement is getting stronger, not weaker. I see this as a good move.

----------


## specsaregood

> McConnell understands what he has to do to win, but he has no understanding of liberty.


I'm pretty sure thats exactly what I said a couple posts ago.  That's what it is always going to be about for 90% of the politicians.  I'd rather them helping our cause in order to win, versus the opposite.

----------


## georgiaboy

> You guys from out of state do not see what is going on in Kentucky. The liberty movement is getting stronger, not weaker. I see this as a good move.


Do tell.

----------


## SilentBull

Is this for real???

----------


## Bruno

> You guys from out of state do not see what is going on in Kentucky. The liberty movement is getting stronger, not weaker. I see this as a good move.


Your enlightenment would certainly be helpful.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well that's not what you claimed.    No, I don't think MccConnell is directly challenging the liberty movement.  I don't think Benton is doing that by working for McConnell.  I think McConnell is a spineless political bitch who knows which way the winds are shifting, especially in his home state.    If this brings him further to our side then so be it, even if it is only for political reasons.    I don't care their motivations, I care they make the right votes.


Hmmmm.  I see where you're coming from now.

----------


## Tinnuhana

So Mitch thinks he's co-opting, when in fact, he's being co-opted? Hmmm. Maybe   
Or maybe Trey should primary him lol

----------


## SilentBull

> Well that's not what you claimed.    No, I don't think MccConnell is directly challenging the liberty movement.  I don't think Benton is doing that by working for McConnell.  I think McConnell is a spineless political bitch who knows which way the winds are shifting, especially in his home state.    If this brings him further to our side then so be it, even if it is only for political reasons.    I don't care their motivations, I care they make the right votes.


I agree. And most importantly, other congressmen will follow. All we needed was to make our ideas "acceptable" and to have McConnel do this...I think it's a very good thing. I don't care if he's genuine or not. Most people that do the right thing don't even do it for the right reasons. We just need him to get others to accept our ideas.

----------


## georgiaboy

> I'm pretty sure thats exactly what I said a couple posts ago.  That's what it is always going to be about for 90% of the politicians.  I'd rather them helping our cause in order to win, versus the opposite.


Sorry, how is hiring Jesse Benton helping our cause?  My view at the moment is that this is a direct play to co-opt our cause.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Yes, it certainly does seem like mitch is trying his best to get on the Paul's good side.  This could turn out to be a very good thing for us if the GOP gets a senate majority this coming election.


You ever get the feeling some people in this movement are like dogs chasing cars and they don't know what to do once they catch up with it?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I'm not gonna tell anybody what to do.  But you wont find him with any serious challenger.  The KY GOP is not gonna let somebody in the party unseat the highest ranking republican, not to mention one who might be the senate majority leader at the time.   It would be a waste of time to even try.  I find the chances of pulling him closer to our side as having better political prospects for the liberty movement.   Imagine if Jesse or Rand got McConnell to endorse some of our liberty candidates?  how much would that help them inside the GOP? for fundraising?


You hit the nail right on the head here.  Incumbents are very difficult to defeat, particularly a high ranking one like McConnell.  If he did have a primary challenge, it would be like throwing money down the toilet because the chances of defeating him in a primary are next to nil.  I think that some folks here don't understand political strategy.

----------


## BamaFanNKy

> Sorry, how is hiring Jesse Benton helping our cause?  My view at the moment is that this is a direct play to co-opt our cause.


Good point. When I want to co-opt a movement I hire someone from their cause to my senior most position. Always smartest to neutralize them. You know, this would be a great plan if our movement wasn't like herding cats.

----------


## georgiaboy

> Well that's not what you claimed.    No, I don't think MccConnell is directly challenging the liberty movement.  I don't think Benton is doing that by working for McConnell.  I think McConnell is a spineless political bitch who knows which way the winds are shifting, especially in his home state.    If this brings him further to our side then so be it, even if it is only for political reasons.    I don't care their motivations,* I care they make the right votes.*



What about this situation leads you to believe that Mitch McConnell will suddenly start making the right votes, bringing the right legislation to the floor, etc.?

Where in Mitch's glorious recent history points to his positions on issues changing?  His appearance in the RP GOP 4 minute video?

----------


## brushfire

LOL sellout...

----------


## No1butPaul

I haven't had time to read the thread ... did anyone else throw up, or am I the first?

----------


## crhoades

After the GOP loses in nov. they are going to reinvent themselves as the liberty party. Maybe neocons are out and are switching back to the dems.

----------


## orenbus

I don't know my gut feeling is this is wrong. I understand the logic, but if the reasons some are making here are the correct ones, in the minds of some it's a dangerous game. If the liberty movement is growing in Kentucky we could be missing out on another opportunity to have a second liberty minded senator from Kentucky, instead of possibly in the end gaining nothing from this.




> "There's a story I heard as a child, a parable, and I never forgot it. 
> 
> A scorpion was walking along the bank of a river, wondering how to get to the other side. Suddenly, he saw a fox. He asked the fox to take him on his back across the river. The fox said 'No. If I do that, you'll sting me and I'll drown.' The scorpion assured him, 'If I did that, we'd both drown.' 
> 
> So, the fox thought about it, and finally agreed. So, the scorpion climbed up on his back, and the fox began to swim, but halfway across the river, the scorpion stung him. 
> 
> As the poison filled his veins, the fox turned to the scorpion and said, 'Why did you do that? Now you'll drown too.' 'I couldn't help it,' said the scorpion, 'it's my nature'."

----------


## georgiaboy

Anyone know off-hand which budget plan Mitch co-sponsored?  Paul Ryan's or Rand Paul's?  Has Mitch co-sponsored or signed on to any of Rand's legislation?

Where does Mitch stand w/regard to Rand's calls regarding defunding Libya or Pakistan?

----------


## BamaFanNKy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...again/?print=1

----------


## CableNewsJunkie

I see a lot of knee-jerk reactionary statements here.

The political reality is that we must pick our battles.  Furthermore, we don't have a printing press to fund our campaigns.  

A move like this helps to legitimize our movement in the minds of people who were on the sidelines or who think we're all a bunch of nuts.  It's the type of move that makes it harder to label us 'domestic extremists' or whathaveyou.  

Dr. Paul made us aware that people in D.C. can be very 'political' if they sense the winds shifting - this is a prime example.

But all that being said, we still need to make Mitch work for the win.  Even insincere rhetoric from a prominent figure can help to wake up more people.  *Our goal should be to force Mitch to embrace our rhetoric.*

----------


## TomtheTinker

To bad Rand willl endorse McConnell....doesnt make Jesse evil..just means hes a camp manager.

I nvr liked Benton much and really never saw what he  Brought to the table except a stick of chewing gum...hope Rand doesnt use hime in16 cause I wont donate money or time to anything run by him.

even if Jesse was good at organizing grass roots(hes not) McConnell has no grassroots to organize...mind boggling

----------


## specsaregood

> You ever get the feeling some people in this movement are like dogs chasing cars and they don't know what to do once they catch up with it?


What I don't understand is all the people that hate Jesse, that want him out of our "movement" then getting upset when Jesse moves out of the center of so called movement.   Shouldn't they be happy about this?

----------


## orenbus

> After the GOP loses in nov. they are going to reinvent themselves as the liberty party. Maybe neocons are out and are switching back to the dems.


*L*ibertarians
*I*n
*N*ame
*O*nly

----------


## cajuncocoa

Maybe ol' Mitch really is a liberty candidate in disguise. Maybe he was just playing the game all those years.  He was probably just telling the establishment what they wanted to hear.  Now we've got 'em right where we want 'em.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> You don't see McConnell as an opposition element to the liberty movement? Really? Did I walk into Bizarro world or something?


No, he has an R next to his name.

----------


## orenbus

> No, he has an R next to his name.


So does Romney, doesn't mean I'm going to vote for him, support him or work with his campaign.

edit: nvm I'm assuming you were being sarcastic.

----------


## newbitech

Jesse Benton, "I have decided to focus on electoral politics instead of grassroots organizing, so I am going to join the McConnell re-election campaign where the electoral part is all but sewn up and help him with his unsavory grassroots appeal instead."

I think i know where the mixed messages were coming from in Dr. Paul's campaign now.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Sorry, how is hiring Jesse Benton helping our cause?  My view at the moment is that this is a direct play to co-opt our cause.


Benton has been in their back pocket all along. He wasn't incompetent running Ron's campaign, he was deliberately destroying it.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> So does Romney, doesn't mean I'm going to vote for him, support him or work with his campaign.


I'm just explaining to you why some are voicing their support for McConnell and Benton here. They obey their party first.

----------


## angelatc

> You guys from out of state do not see what is going on in Kentucky. The liberty movement is getting stronger, not weaker. I see this as a good move.


Yes, I think it's pre-emptive.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> What I don't understand is all the people that hate Jesse, that want him out of our "movement" then getting upset when Jesse moves out of the center of so called movement.   Shouldn't they be happy about this?


I think for some it is the "third party" mindset that they bring to all this.  If one has never been actively involved in partisan politics they do not understand what it takes to build coalitions and make small and steady gains.  That is why every news story on here is filled with knee-jerk reactions.

Rand endorsed Romney = Rand has sold out
Audit the Fed is in the platform = the establishment has co-opted the issue
A gold commission is in the platform = the establishment wants to control the gold
Benton leaves C4L = he was fired 
Benton gets a job with McConnell = Benton has sold out
DeMint & Lee speak at LPAC = LPAC is being co-opted

The list goes on and on.  But I think the point was made.  Honestly, and this is not meant to offend anyone, but I think some are better off in the LP or CP where they can surround themselves entirely with people that agree with them 100%.

----------


## belian78

> *OMG SOMEONE SERIOUSLY RUN AGAINST MITCH MCCONNELL FOR HIS SEAT IN 2014 I WILL WORK FOR FREE TO MAKE SURE A LIBERTY CANDIDATE WINS HIS SEAT AND BEATS BENTON AT THE SAME TIME SERIOUSLY.*


Didn't I call it, just yesterday?  LOL  Better wisk this off to HT, Sailing.

----------


## angelatc

> *Our goal should be to force Mitch to embrace our rhetoric.*


I don't care about rhetoric.  Our goal should be to force Mitch to retire, and get somebody in there who will vote with us.

----------


## orenbus

> You hit the nail right on the head here.  Incumbents are very difficult to defeat, particularly a high ranking one like McConnell. * If he did have a primary challenge, it would be like throwing money down the toilet because the chances of defeating him in a primary are next to nil.*  I think that some folks here don't understand political strategy.


If that's true and McConnell has nothing to worry about then why even pretend to extend interest in the tea party or seem to want to win favorability points as some here suggest by hiring Benton?

----------


## georgiaboy

> I see a lot of knee-jerk reactionary statements here.
> 
> The political reality is that we must pick our battles.  Furthermore, we don't have a printing press to fund our campaigns.  
> 
> A move like this helps to legitimize our movement in the minds of people who were on the sidelines or who think we're all a bunch of nuts.  It's the type of move that makes it harder to label us 'domestic extremists' or whathaveyou.  
> 
> Dr. Paul made us aware that people in D.C. can be very 'political' if they sense the winds shifting - this is a prime example.
> 
> But all that being said, we still need to make Mitch work for the win.  Even insincere rhetoric from a prominent figure can help to wake up more people.  *Our goal should be to force Mitch to embrace our rhetoric.*


Agreed, if there's a way to use Mitch to our advantage, then so be it.

I just don't see how Mitch hiring one of our movement's campaign managers gives any reason for us to believe that Mitch has any plan to support this movement.  All of his other legislative activity points otherwise.  If anything, this move points only toward trying to get email lists and insight into how to pander for votes.

Show me some votes, show me some co-sponsored legislation, Mitch.  Otherwise, color me suspicious.

----------


## orenbus

> I'm just explaining to you why some are voicing their support for McConnell and Benton here. They obey their party first.


I feel like we are going backwards here in a way, party over principles? This isn't what I signed up for.

----------


## belian78

> You guys from out of state do not see what is going on in Kentucky. The liberty movement is getting stronger, not weaker. I see this as a good move.


Haven't really seen  you around since the beginning of the campaign when you were shilling for Johnson.  Now you're back, almost makes me want to be a coincidence theorist.

----------


## VBRonPaulFan

wow, Benton left the Liberty circles to get into electoral politics where the big money is. color me *shocked*.

/sarcasm.

that dude is a money hungry fool. three cheers to watching him run McConnell's campaign into the ground in 2014!

----------


## crhoades

Maybe this will swing a lot of backing for Rand in 2016.

----------


## orenbus

> I don't care about rhetoric.  Our goal should be to force Mitch to retire, and get somebody in there who will vote with us.


This ^

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> If that's true and McConnell has nothing to worry about then why even pretend to extend interest in the tea party or seem to want to win favorability points as some here suggest by hiring Benton?


Because by being the Senate Leader he is a national figure.  It is very possible that the GOP can take the Senate this year, and McConnell could be using this to reach out to the Tea Party crowd as a demonstration of their size and viability as a win within the party.

But if you can find someone that is willing to run a state wide campaign against a sitting Senate leader, then go for it.  You are of course free to spend your money and time however you wish.  Just know that the odds of defeating him are extremely slim.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'm just explaining to you why some are voicing their support for McConnell and Benton here. They obey their party first.


That's pretty obvious.

----------


## Carlybee

> Well that's not what you claimed.    No, I don't think MccConnell is directly challenging the liberty movement.  I don't think Benton is doing that by working for McConnell.  I think McConnell is a spineless political bitch who knows which way the winds are shifting, especially in his home state.    If this brings him further to our side then so be it, even if it is only for political reasons.    I don't care their motivations, I care they make the right votes.


Yeah...perception and principles be damned

----------


## belian78

> That's pretty obvious.


Pretty sickening too if you ask me.

----------


## kathy88

They co-opted our tea party, and now they want to co-opt what's left of the grassroots. Anyone who thinks this is a good thing has NOT been paying attention.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Because by being the Senate Leader he is a national figure.  It is very possible that the GOP can take the Senate this year, and McConnell could be using this to reach out to the Tea Party crowd as a demonstration of their size and viability as a win within the party.
> 
> But if you can find someone that is willing to run a state wide campaign against a sitting Senate leader, then go for it.  You are of course free to spend your money and time however you wish.  Just know that the odds of defeating him are extremely slim.


Are you $#@!ing people out of your mind? Mitch McConnell is the scum of the earth. He is reaching out to voters. He isn't reaching out to any tea party or liberty positions. He would never vote for a Fed audit or bringing the troops home or even cutting any domestic spending. He is a true piece of $#@!. I don't care if Ron himself went to go work for him, it would be worth it to try to get him out of office.

----------


## Brett85

People should keep in mind that McConnell was just one of about eight Senators to vote in favor of Rand's budget that balanced in five years.

----------


## Carlybee

> I see a lot of knee-jerk reactionary statements here.
> 
> The political reality is that we must pick our battles.  Furthermore, we don't have a printing press to fund our campaigns.  
> 
> A move like this helps to legitimize our movement in the minds of people who were on the sidelines or who think we're all a bunch of nuts.  It's the type of move that makes it harder to label us 'domestic extremists' or whathaveyou.  
> 
> Dr. Paul made us aware that people in D.C. can be very 'political' if they sense the winds shifting - this is a prime example.
> 
> But all that being said, we still need to make Mitch work for the win.  Even insincere rhetoric from a prominent figure can help to wake up more people.  *Our goal should be to force Mitch to embrace our rhetoric.*


Sez who?  Stop speaking for those of us who dont wish to be co-opted by the neocons or the co-opted tea partiers. How much are we willing to dilute the message of true liberty? Until it morphs into the Beck and Limbaugh version?  McConnell is aa warmonger and an enemy to liberty.

----------


## Brett85

> Are you $#@!ing people out of your mind? Mitch McConnell is the scum of the earth. He is reaching out to voters. He isn't reaching out to any tea party or liberty positions. He would never vote for a Fed audit or bringing the troops home *or even cutting any domestic spending.* He is a true piece of $#@!. I don't care if Ron himself went to go work for him, it would be worth it to try to get him out of office.


Not true.  Rand's budget, which McConnell voted for, cuts about $500 billion in spending.

----------


## newbitech

> If that's true and McConnell has nothing to worry about then why even pretend to extend interest in the tea party or seem to want to win favorability points as some here suggest by hiring Benton?


Maybe McConnell had a Doug Wead moment?  Maybe Ron Paul's message is sinking in after 30-40 years?  I have a hard time ruling that out as a possibility.  At the same time, the mixed messages are just killing any kind of momentum or chance for regular on the ground folks to form up and rally around... anything.

----------


## georgiaboy

> People should keep in mind that McConnell was just one of about eight Senators to vote in favor of Rand's budget that balanced in five years.


Thanks for this data point.  Mitch will have to do more and bigger of this to get the tea party votes he needs to keep his seat in '14.

----------


## Tim724

> I nvr liked Benton much and really never saw what he  Brought to the table except a stick of chewing gum...hope Rand doesnt use hime in16 cause I wont donate money or time to anything run by him.
> 
> even if Jesse was good at organizing grass roots(hes not) McConnell has no grassroots to organize...mind boggling


^^ good post, pretty much my same thoughts. 

After giving alot of money to the RP campaing, it really grinds my gears in how they just quit in the spring when we were heating up and how Benton took over a half-million for his sh!tty work. 

McConnel is among the worst of the establishment republicans who stand for nothing liberty-oriented whatsoever and are really just into cronyism. It seems Jesse is generally of the same mindset so I guess it makes sense.

Hope to see Jesse fail and hope to see liberty movement/candidates prosper without him. I truly feel RP2012 was our big shot to make a big splash (even if not winning) and it is a crying shame we had to have Benton onboard to derail everything. We could have done so much more.

I won't give a dime to another campaign run by him, even a Rand 2016 campaign ...and I generally like Rand.

----------


## Libertytree

Lets see how many campaign errors, mis-communications, poorly timed announcements, damaging emails etc.. occur while he's running MM's campaign.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Are you $#@!ing people out of your mind? Mitch McConnell is the scum of the earth. He is reaching out to voters. He isn't reaching out to any tea party or liberty positions. He would never vote for a Fed audit or bringing the troops home or even cutting any domestic spending. He is a true piece of $#@!. I don't care if Ron himself went to go work for him, it would be worth it to try to get him out of office.


Then my guess is you are going to be really pissed if and when Rand campaigns for him.  Chances of that occurring are pretty strong.  

Like I mentioned earlier, I don't think some folks are cut out for partisan politics, and what it takes to build a coalition and grow a movement within the party.  Pretty much everything that has occurred outside of the Ron Paul campaign has pissed off most of the people on this site.  Whether it is this Benton story, or Rand's endorsement, Bill's endorsement, Rand speaking at FreePac, Rand going on Hannity, Ted Cruz backing Romney, the platform inclusions, etc, etc, etc -- every one of these stories gets a similar response from the majority of folks on here.

----------


## specsaregood

> After giving alot of money to the RP campaing, it really grinds my gears in how they just quit in the spring when we were heating up and how Benton took over a half-million for his sh!tty work.


If you want people to take you seriously then you shouldn't repeat debunked smears.  Benton did not take over half a million dollars.   When you have to rely on untruths to make your point then your point isn't one worth making.

----------


## orenbus

> Lets see how many campaign errors, mis-communications, poorly timed announcements, damaging emails etc.. occur while he's running MM's campaign.


At the very least it will be fun to watch.

----------


## Carlybee

> They co-opted our tea party, and now they want to co-opt what's left of the grassroots. Anyone who thinks this is a good thing has NOT been paying attention.



This is exactly what is happening and we need to say not on our watch.

----------


## ScotTFO

I wouldn't support Ron Paul himself should he run for any kind of office and include Benton in his campaign.

Also as mentioned above, no I am not cut out for partisan politics, I won't argue that.  I've had enough with trying to fit in or change any of the parties.  Ron Paul made a career of not playing partisan politics and it's something that I strongly admire and believe in.

----------


## georgiaboy

Here's a question:  Does Mitch think that in order to keep his seat in 2014, he has to have the votes of the tea party crowd?  That if he doesn't, the Dem challenger might just beat him?  That a Libertarian might enter the race and siphon off his margin?

If that's the case, and Mitch isn't able to garner enough tea party votes (if I were in KY and the election were today, he wouldn't get mine), why wouldn't the KY GOP be considering primarying Mitch from the right?

If the GOP gets a majority in the Senate, even with Mitch out of the picture, there will be another majority leader to come along behind him.

Does the increasingly tea party KY GOP really want to risk a Senate seat to one as non-tea party as Mitch?

----------


## brandon

Unfortunately this does mean that it's very very unlikely Massie will challenge him.  I'd love someone credible to challenge and beat both of them though.

----------


## jbauer

> I don't care about rhetoric.  Our goal should be to force Mitch to retire, and get somebody in there who will vote with us.


mehhh...I think if we're to become mainstream we need to start knocking out lower end anti-liberty people.  1st its easier, 2nd it costs less, 3rd it makes us look like legitimate Republicans so when Rand runs in 16 WE are the mainstream.

----------


## libertyjam

What is completely ironic is the apparent impression by an establishment DC insider that anyone in the Tea Party would give any care to anything that Benton says or does.  The whole thing is just pathetically hilarious.

----------


## angelatc

> At the very least it will be fun to watch.


After thinking about it, I suspect this is as much about Rand as it is Benton.  In that position, Benton will be making political contacts that he can bring back to Rand's 2016 campaign.  I wonder when he's going to visit Israel?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I wouldn't support Ron Paul himself should he run for any kind of office and include Benton in his campaign.
> 
> Also as mentioned above, no I am not cut out for partisan politics, I won't argue that.  I've had enough with trying to fit in or change any of the parties.  Ron Paul made a career of not playing partisan politics and it's something that I strongly admire and believe in.


He did, and it took him his entire career before getting any major notoriety and bringing change to the system.  Do we want to wait around another 20+ years or do we wish to keep gaining ground and getting more like-minded men and women elected to public office?  

Libertarians are a minority within the GOP, so we can either stand alone in our little corner or we can work alongside people that we may not agree with on every issue.  Ron Paul chose the former, spending the majority of his career alone and accomplishing little by way of advancing his agenda.  Rand and the others we have in Congress are taking a different approach.

----------


## angelatc

> mehhh...I think if we're to become mainstream we need to start knocking out lower end anti-liberty people.  1st its easier, 2nd it costs less, 3rd it makes us look like legitimate Republicans so when Rand runs in 16 WE are the mainstream.


Oh sure.  But You can bet that McConnell saw how close Reid came to losing his seat, and is moving to divide the TEA Party now, before they've drafted a candidate.  Can't wait to see the LPAC sending McConnell cash!

ETA: There will be a backlash when Romney loses.  McConnell is pulling up anchor to weather the storm.

----------


## jbauer

> Are you $#@!ing people out of your mind? Mitch McConnell is the scum of the earth. He is reaching out to voters. He isn't reaching out to any tea party or liberty positions. He would never vote for a Fed audit or bringing the troops home or even cutting any domestic spending. He is a true piece of $#@!. I don't care if Ron himself went to go work for him, it would be worth it to try to get him out of office.


Really?  Exactly how many of Ron's 2M supporters even know the name of the guy who ran the campaign?  Very few.

How many are going to know that Benton ran Ron's and Mitches campaign?  Even fewer

How many out there that aren't living and breathing politics can name one campaign manager from ANY race over the past 50 years?  Even fewer

The only people that even give a rats arse about this is the diehards and those absorbed in politics.

----------


## RonRules

From Wiki:
"During his entire political career, the top three industries donating to McConnell have been: Lawyers ($1.5 million), Securities and Investments ($1.5 million), and Health Professionals ($1.4 million)."

----------


## libertyjam

> Lets see how many campaign errors, mis-communications, poorly timed announcements, damaging emails etc.. occur while he's running MM's campaign.


My bet is on a lot fewer, and then it will be spun as it was part of JB's 'learning curve'.

----------


## jbauer

> Oh sure.  But You can bet that McConnell saw how close Reid came to losing his seat, and is moving to divide the TEA Party now, before they've drafted a candidate.  Can't wait to see the LPAC sending McConnell cash!


If LPAC sends Mitch money I'm done sending them money.  Thats for darn sure.   

The writing was on the wall that Benton's days with the Liberty movment were over.  He's ducking and running to the nearest thing he can find to a job.  The only thing that sucks is he probably took the emails with so we're all going to get spamed by Mitch.  

I see this move as addtion by subtraction.  I'm all for it.

----------


## orenbus

> Really?  Exactly how many of Ron's 2M supporters even know the name of the guy who ran the campaign?  Very few.
> 
> How many are going to know that Benton ran Ron's and Mitches campaign?  Even fewer
> 
> How many out there that aren't living and breathing politics can name one campaign manager from ANY race over the past 50 years?  Even fewer
> 
> The only people that even give a rats arse about this is the diehards and those absorbed in politics.


The activists and the volunteers care, you can't win an election without someone out there working for free for you, those are the people that help reach out to others to get the funding needed to reach the millions you mention and get out the vote on election day.

----------


## Carlybee

> He did, and it took him his entire career before getting any major notoriety and bringing change to the system.  Do we want to wait around another 20+ years or do we wish to keep gaining ground and getting more like-minded men and women elected to public office?  
> 
> Libertarians are a minority within the GOP, so we can either stand alone in our little corner or we can work alongside people that we may not agree with on every issue.  Ron Paul chose the former, spending the majority of his career alone and accomplishing little by way of advancing his agenda.  Rand and the others we have in Congress are taking a different approach.


You may find yourself standing without Ron Paul's base if your goal is to become the mainstream. However the agendas here are becoming blatently apparent. We will fight this one way or another.

----------


## ScotTFO

> He did, and it took him his entire career before getting any major notoriety and bringing change to the system.  Do we want to wait around another 20+ years or do we wish to keep gaining ground and getting more like-minded men and women elected to public office?  
> 
> Libertarians are a minority within the GOP, so we can either stand alone in our little corner or we can work alongside people that we may not agree with on every issue.  Ron Paul chose the former, spending the majority of his career alone and accomplishing little by way of advancing his agenda.  Rand and the others we have in Congress are taking a different approach.


I absolutely understand your stance on this and am not by any means trying to say that my method is any better.  In fact a combination of both could also be helpful.

With that being said though, yes it took 20 years for Ron Paul message to gain steam, but look at it now.  More people are opening their eyes to it than every and even still while he is not in the running anymore.  At this point I think by playing nice with any establishment party we'd only be taking steps backwards.  I think now my focus will be more on trying to make sure there's relavant 3rd parties and educating people on who they are and why they should be voting for them.  If there's someone running within the Republican party that I think can make some real change, then I will support them.  Though when you start seeing who is in bed with who, and there's someone who left a bad taste in your mouth, for someone like me it makes it impossible for me to take them seriously.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Then my guess is you are going to be really pissed if and when Rand campaigns for him.  Chances of that occurring are pretty strong.  
> 
> Like I mentioned earlier, I don't think some folks are cut out for partisan politics, and what it takes to build a coalition and grow a movement within the party.  Pretty much everything that has occurred outside of the Ron Paul campaign has pissed off most of the people on this site.  Whether it is this Benton story, or Rand's endorsement, Bill's endorsement, Rand speaking at FreePac, Rand going on Hannity, Ted Cruz backing Romney, the platform inclusions, etc, etc, etc -- every one of these stories gets a similar response from the majority of folks on here.


I don't care what Rand does. That is up to him and he can deal with the consequences.

As far as coalitions go, it seems many of you want to parrot what Ron says about them, but you have no idea what he meant. Building coalitions means working with others on issues YOU AGREE ON. Like working with Kucinich on bringing the troops home. Or working with Kucinich on a Fed audit even though they have totally different ideas about monetary policy. You work with those people to gain support for actual legislation that would do some good. 

Ron never went out and campaigned for Kucinich, because much of what he believes in is disgusting to us. Hiding your liberty positions to blend in the Republican party is not a coalition. Is warmonger McConnell going to suddenly vote to end these wars because Rand campaigns for him? Of course not. He voted for Rand's budget because he knew it had no chance to pass, but now he can hold that over the heads of the gullible. 

Again, a coalition, as Ron uses the term, is working with different people on issues YOU AGREE ON. A coalition is not hiding what you believe in to make friends with people you don't agree with.

----------


## orenbus

> The only thing that sucks is he probably took the emails with so we're all going to get spamed by Mitch.


I wonder if you can sue or at least report some violation like can-spam laws.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You may find yourself standing without Ron Paul's base if your goal is to become the mainstream. However the agendas here are becoming blatently apparent. We will fight this one way or another.


And I guess this is where we get accused of being divisive to the movement again.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Really?  Exactly how many of Ron's 2M supporters even know the name of the guy who ran the campaign?  Very few.
> 
> How many are going to know that Benton ran Ron's and Mitches campaign?  Even fewer
> 
> How many out there that aren't living and breathing politics can name one campaign manager from ANY race over the past 50 years?  Even fewer
> 
> The only people that even give a rats arse about this is the diehards and those absorbed in politics.


How did any of that address anything I said? Mitch McConnell is a piece of $#@!. You can't even refute that without making a fool of yourself.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I don't care what Rand does. That is up to him and he can deal with the consequences.
> 
> As far as coalitions go, it seems many of you want to parrot what Ron says about them, but you have no idea what he meant. Building coalitions means working with others on issues YOU AGREE ON. Like working with Kucinich on bringing the troops home. Or working with Kucinich on a Fed audit even though they have totally different ideas about monetary policy. You work with those people to gain support for actual legislation that would do some good. 
> 
> Ron never went out and campaigned for Kucinich, because much of what he believes in is disgusting to us. *Hiding your liberty positions to blend in the Republican party is not a coalition.* Is warmonger McConnell going to suddenly vote to end these wars because Rand campaigns for him? Of course not. He voted for Rand's budget because he knew it had no chance to pass, but now he can hold that over the heads of the gullible. 
> 
> Again, a coalition, as Ron uses the term, is working with different people on issues YOU AGREE ON. A coalition is not hiding behind what you believe in to make friends with people you don't agree with.


QFT

----------


## tod evans

McConnell, the epitome of wasteful government spending...

Buying worn out depleted goods for well above market value and trumpeting their value to his constituency..

----------


## RonRules

McConnell was never that strong of a candidate:

1984	McConnell 49.9%	Walter Huddleston  Democratic	49.5%
1990	McConnell 52.2%	Harvey I. Sloane	   Democratic	47.8%
1996	McConnell 55.5%	Steve Beshear	   Democratic	42.8%
2002	McConnell 64.7%	Lois Combs Weinberg	Democratic	35.3%
2008	McConnell 53.0%	Bruce Lunsford	   Democratic	47.0%

He can be beat.

----------


## orenbus

> As far as coalitions go, it seems many of you want to parrot what Ron says about them, but you have no idea what he meant. Building coalitions means working with others on issues *YOU AGREE ON*. Like working with Kucinich on bringing the troops home. Or working with Kucinich on a Fed audit even though they have totally different ideas about monetary policy. You work with those people to gain support for actual legislation that would do some good.


This ^

+Rep

----------


## newbitech

> Then my guess is you are going to be really pissed if and when Rand campaigns for him.  Chances of that occurring are pretty strong.  
> 
> Like I mentioned earlier, I don't think some folks are cut out for partisan politics, and what it takes to build a coalition and grow a movement within the party.  Pretty much everything that has occurred outside of the Ron Paul campaign has pissed off most of the people on this site.  Whether it is this Benton story, or Rand's endorsement, Bill's endorsement, Rand speaking at FreePac, Rand going on Hannity, Ted Cruz backing Romney, the platform inclusions, etc, etc, etc -- every one of these stories gets a similar response from the majority of folks on here.


I am pretty sure the potential voters on the sidelines that came out of the woodwork to drive Ron Paul's success in the last 5-6 years give 2 $#@!s less about partisan politics.  

One huge success of Ron Paul's campaigning since I have been interested is the evisceration of so called partisan politics.  

If I had to pick one thing going extremely well politically in the US it would be the disembowelment of the left-right paradigm.  

I don't see how hanging on to that paradigm serves any purpose at all.  True, it may be useful to have insurgent politician "take over" those parties, but ultimately the radical changes we are looking for will come without the old status quo.  These hangers on like McConnell are working on borrowed time IMO.  Delaying the inevitable has worked for the establishment so far, but it cannot be sustained.  

Why is Benton on the trajectory he is on?  Why are we seeing what appears to be the caving of what many of us hoped would be staunch and unrelenting pressure on the status quo from a viable and grassroots supported challenge?  

Is it smoke and mirrors?  My guess is, yes.  

I for one can do without all the posturing and crony type BS coming from people who were raised up by the grassroots.  I'd much rather follow a policy of no entangling alliances.  Sure establish friendships, trade ideas etc.  But where is the need or desire to forge alliances with a party and people who have time and again proven themselves to be worthless and disastrous to the ideas of freedom and liberty? 

Good luck with partisan politics.   It's proven to be a shell game at best.  At worst, it has duped many honest Americans into believing they have some choice or say in the affairs of the state.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> You may find yourself standing without Ron Paul's base if your goal is to become the mainstream. However the agendas here are becoming blatently apparent. We will fight this one way or another.


Well as I see it from reading this site and others, there are two divergent paths that are taking place.  We see Rand and the rest building bridges with others within the GOP, and then we see folks who prefer to take an absolutist position and only want to work with those whom they agree with 100%.  As time goes on, and with each new news story that comes out I think you will see that Rand and company are moving further away from the strategy that is promoted here by most.  As I mentioned earlier, it seems that every thing that has taken place outside of the Ron Paul campaign this year has been harshly criticized by folks on here.  Which I why I concluded that maybe a place like the LP or CP might be better suited for some people, so that you can take a more dogmatic approach to things.

----------


## kathy88

> McConnell was never that strong of a candidate:
> 
> 1984	McConnell 49.9%	Walter Huddleston  Democratic	49.5%
> 1990	McConnell 52.2%	Harvey I. Sloane	   Democratic	47.8%
> 1996	McConnell 55.5%	Steve Beshear	   Democratic	42.8%
> 2002	McConnell 64.7%	Lois Combs Weinberg	Democratic	35.3%
> 2008	McConnell 53.0%	Bruce Lunsford	   Democratic	47.0%
> 
> He can be beat.


Ma-ssie, Ma-ssie, Ma-ssie  I'll max if he runs, who's with me?

----------


## specsaregood

> McConnell was never that strong of a candidate:
> 
> 1984	McConnell 49.9%	Walter Huddleston  Democratic	49.5%
> 1990	McConnell 52.2%	Harvey I. Sloane	   Democratic	47.8%
> 1996	McConnell 55.5%	Steve Beshear	   Democratic	42.8%
> 2002	McConnell 64.7%	Lois Combs Weinberg	Democratic	35.3%
> 2008	McConnell 53.0%	Bruce Lunsford	   Democratic	47.0%
> 
> He can be beat.


Considering that Dems outnumber republicans in KY by a wide margin?  Republicans are up to 36% now (an all time high) and dems are now at 56% (an all time low).
When you consider that, it makes McConnell appear to be a remarkably successful candidate winning statewide office on the minority party ticket.

----------


## ninepointfive

> I wonder if you can sue or at least report some violation like can-spam laws.


If that happens, then make a post about it - and all those with the same email spam can press "spam" in their email client.

----------


## orenbus

Why do I feel like I'm being brainwashed, just a few years ago we saw MM as the worst of them, now we are going to be asked to support him?

This is straight out of 1984, lol, "We've always been at war with Eastasia".

----------


## erowe1

> Really?  Exactly how many of Ron's 2M supporters even know the name of the guy who ran the campaign?  Very few.
> 
> How many are going to know that Benton ran Ron's and Mitches campaign?  Even fewer
> 
> How many out there that aren't living and breathing politics can name one campaign manager from ANY race over the past 50 years?  Even fewer
> 
> The only people that even give a rats arse about this is the diehards and those absorbed in politics.


You're saying that the number of people who can name one campaign manager from the past 50 years is fewer than the number of people who can name Ron Paul's most recent campaign manager?

Logically, how does that work?

----------


## ninepointfive

> Why do I feel like I'm being brainwashed, just a few years ago we saw MM as the worst of them, now we are going to be asked to support him?
> 
> This is straight out of 1984, lol, "We've always been at war with Eastasia".


You're right. I'd say that letting this come to pass is the best option - there's really not much to do if we are going to allow Jesse and MM to fail while putting efforts into a positive outcome elsewhere.

----------


## Carlybee

> Well as I see it from reading this site and others, there are two divergent paths that are taking place.  We see Rand and the rest building bridges with others within the GOP, and then we see folks who prefer to take an absolutist position and only want to work with those whom they agree with 100%.  As time goes on, and with each new news story that comes out I think you will see that Rand and company are moving further away from the strategy that is promoted here by most.  As I mentioned earlier, it seems that every thing that has taken place outside of the Ron Paul campaign this year has been harshly criticized by folks on here.  Which I why I concluded that maybe a place like the LP or CP might be better suited for some people, so that you can take a more dogmatic approach to things.


The principles of liberty are not negotiable. Neither are the tenets of the Constitution and if you think compromising either of those is a good political move then yes a schizm will form.  Supporting someone who has repeatedly voted against those things we hold dear is not acceptable. How dare you tell people who have been part of the Ron Paul movement for years which party they should belong to? That is not your call. What is our call though is to reject these Borgian maneuvers and thinly disguised propaganda meant to try and co_opt the RON Paul supporters into mainstreaming.

----------


## Brett85

> How did any of that address anything I said? Mitch McConnell is a piece of $#@!. You can't even refute that without making a fool of yourself.


I don't see why you have to personally attack people just because you disagree with how they vote.

----------


## angelatc

> My bet is on a lot fewer, and then it will be spun as it was part of JB's 'learning curve'.


NO, the mistakes were all the fault of the fringe grassroots!

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Well as I see it from reading this site and others, there are two divergent paths that are taking place.  We see Rand and the rest building bridges with others within the GOP, and then we see folks who prefer to take an absolutist position and only want to work with those whom they agree with 100%.  As time goes on, and with each new news story that comes out I think you will see that Rand and company are moving further away from the strategy that is promoted here by most.  As I mentioned earlier, it seems that every thing that has taken place outside of the Ron Paul campaign this year has been harshly criticized by folks on here.  Which I why I concluded that maybe a place like the LP or CP might be better suited for some people, so that you can take a more dogmatic approach to things.


The strategy promoted here by most is what got us involved in the first place. Do you think Ron Paul could have ever inspired young, apathetic people to join up if he had adopted the 'strategy' of, "let's just go along to get along and see what happens"? What if Ron Paul had just 'blended in' with the 5 or 6 neocons surrounding him on stage in 2007-08? I wouldn't have noticed him, for certain. We didn't get a $15 trillion debt because of people who refused to compromise, or were stubborn, or simply "dogmatic." We got a $15 trillion debt because people were "pragmatic" and mistakenly believed that by 'going with the flow', they could somehow reverse the direction of the river. 

We need a dam. Stop the river. Some people will get swept away by the current, it will happen. So, we'd better be ready to find more to replace them. 

That river's got McConnell. Who wants to plug the gap?

----------


## specsaregood

Also,  Congratulations Jesse!   I look forward to you showing us how this advances the cause of liberty.

----------


## angelatc

> I wonder if you can sue or at least report some violation like can-spam laws.


I don't know about email, but the politicians wrote themselves an exemption from the phone solicitation rules.  I expect phone and mail contacts to be coming from McConnell now.

----------


## orenbus

> Well as I see it from reading this site and others, there are two divergent paths that are taking place.  We see Rand and the rest building bridges with others within the GOP, and then we see folks who prefer to take an absolutist position and only want to work with those whom they agree with 100%.  As time goes on, and with each new news story that comes out I think you will see that Rand and company are moving further away from the strategy that is promoted here by most.  As I mentioned earlier, it seems that every thing that has taken place outside of the Ron Paul campaign this year has been harshly criticized by folks on here.  Which I why I concluded that maybe a place like the LP or CP might be better suited for some people, so that you can take a more dogmatic approach to things.


Not sure why you are suggesting those that have a different opinion splinter off into third party groups, some of us are going to stay in the Republican party, but have a different opinion and perspective of what is happening vs. what your perspective may be. You need to at least consider the possibility that your suggestion of fitting neatly into two separate groups is not necessarily correct, usually real life is not as black and white and there are shades of gray. I would suggest trying not to be upset if there are those around you in the liberty movement that have a differing opinion, this has been and will continue to be the reality.

----------


## thoughtomator

This pretty much confirms to me that Benton was a saboteur all along. McConnell is about as non-Ron Paul a candidate as you can get.

Hope Benton enjoys the taste of his 30 pieces of silver.

----------


## green73



----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> The principles of liberty are not negotiable. Neither are the tenets of the Constitution and if you think compromising either of those is a good political move then yes a schizm will form.  Supporting someone who has repeatedly voted against those things we hold dear is not acceptable. How dare you tell people who have been part of the Ron Paul movement for years which party they should belong to? That is not your call. What is our call though is to reject these Borgian maneuvers and thinly disguised propaganda meant to try and co_opt the RON Paul supporters into mainstreaming.


And you are free to choose the course of action that you wish to pursue.  My point being though that this stuff will continue to happen, and folks like yourself will continue to cry foul.  Rand is working to build bridges with the rest of the GOP.  The moves he takes to do that are going to piss a lot off in here, as is evidenced by the comments I have seen on this site.

I'm not telling people what party they should belong to, my suggestion was simply that if folks are looking for a more dogmatic approach then the LP and CP are more suited to that.  You can maintain principles and still work within the GOP, but in order to do so elected officials will need to stand alongside of people that they do not agree with all the time like McConnell.  

I have spent the better part of my life in elected office at the local level, and I can tell you from experience taking a hard and fast dogmatic approach does not result in gaining any ground.  You have to bend here and there to get what you want in the long run.  We will continue to see that from folks within the liberty movement, and as I stated that is not going to be pleasant for those who wish to see a more dogmatic approach.

----------


## orenbus

> You're right. I'd say that letting this come to pass is the best option - there's really not much to do if we are going to allow Jesse and MM to fail while putting efforts into a positive outcome elsewhere.


WHAT?!? LOL

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> The strategy promoted here by most is what got us involved in the first place. Do you think Ron Paul could have ever inspired young, apathetic people to join up if he had adopted the 'strategy' of, "let's just go along to get along and see what happens"? What if Ron Paul had just 'blended in' with the 5 or 6 neocons surrounding him on stage in 2007-08? I wouldn't have noticed him, for certain. We didn't get a $15 trillion debt because of people who refused to compromise, or were stubborn, or simply "dogmatic." We got a $15 trillion debt because people were "pragmatic" and mistakenly believed that by 'going with the flow', they could somehow reverse the direction of the river. 
> 
> We need a dam. Stop the river. Some people will get swept away by the current, it will happen. So, we'd better be ready to find more to replace them. 
> 
> That river's got McConnell. Who wants to plug the gap?


But we are in a much different position than we were over the last decade or two.  We actually have people elected into office that are promoting libertarian positions.  We did not have that in years past with the exception of a few obscure Congressmen here and there.  It has really been since Goldwater that we have had a strong, nationally recognized libertarian voice in the Senate.  So the landscape is a lot different today.

----------


## orenbus

> The strategy promoted here by most is what got us involved in the first place. Do you think Ron Paul could have ever inspired young, apathetic people to join up if he had adopted the 'strategy' of, "let's just go along to get along and see what happens"? What if Ron Paul had just 'blended in' with the 5 or 6 neocons surrounding him on stage in 2007-08? I wouldn't have noticed him, for certain. We didn't get a $15 trillion debt because of people who refused to compromise, or were stubborn, or simply "dogmatic." We got a $15 trillion debt because people were "pragmatic" and mistakenly believed that by 'going with the flow', they could somehow reverse the direction of the river. 
> 
> We need a dam. Stop the river. Some people will get swept away by the current, it will happen. So, we'd better be ready to find more to replace them. 
> 
> That river's got McConnell. Who wants to plug the gap?


+Rep

----------


## kylejack

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Newsflash: Benton is about his own career at any cost, not about liberty. Few should be shocked.

----------


## angelatc

> Well as I see it from reading this site and others, there are two divergent paths that are taking place.  We see Rand and the rest building bridges with others within the GOP, and then we see folks who prefer to take an absolutist position and only want to work with those whom they agree with 100%.  As time goes on, and with each new news story that comes out I think you will see that Rand and company are moving further away from the strategy that is promoted here by most.  As I mentioned earlier, it seems that every thing that has taken place outside of the Ron Paul campaign this year has been harshly criticized by folks on here.  Which I why I concluded that maybe a place like the LP or CP might be better suited for some people, so that you can take a more dogmatic approach to things.


I'd be in agreement here if Benton had joined DeMint's staff, or Mike Lee, or maybe even Ted Cruz.  But McConnell has no interest in anything liberty related - this is a move to protect himself from the likes of us.

----------


## kylejack

> Well as I see it from reading this site and others, there are two divergent paths that are taking place.  We see Rand and the rest building bridges with others within the GOP, and then we see folks who prefer to take an absolutist position and only want to work with those whom they agree with 100%.


This is so bogus. I don't even agree with Ron Paul 100%, but I support him. People like McConnell are basically anathema.

----------


## wrestlingwes_8

Alright, who wants to be the first to eat their crow??




If ANYONE is still defending Benton, they have no brain at all.  You should have seen this coming a loooong time ago; but nooo you morons were too busy playing Ron Paul groupie to see what was happening right in front of your $#@!ing face.  Shame, shame, shame on all of you; you make me sick..

----------


## thesnake742

This is what happens when you give up.

----------


## July

//

----------


## nobody's_hero

> But we are in a much different position than we were over the last decade or two.  We actually have people elected into office that are promoting libertarian positions.  We did not have that in years past with the exception of a few obscure Congressmen here and there.  It has really been since Goldwater that we have had a strong, nationally recognized libertarian voice in the Senate.  So the landscape is a lot different today.


Sure. The message is ripe for the times, or the times are ripe for the message. All the more reason why I see no need to back-pedal and try to win over a dwindling neoconservative base, which is what I think some folks are advocating. 

Makes no sense to me. 'No-compromise' is what tripled the size of the liberty movement since 2008, and might triple it again in 2016* (edit). Why start compromising now?

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## realtonygoodwin

This a great thing no matter what your perspective.

If you hate Jesse Benton and blame him for the failure of Ron's campaign, then you can have hope that he will torpedo McConnell's campaign as well.

If you find value to working within the GOP, a Senate Majority Leader McConnel who is friendly with Rand Paul and has a family connection through Jesse Benton can give you hope that Rand's issues will come up for votes in the Senate easier.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I'd be in agreement here if Benton had joined DeMint's staff, or Mike Lee, or maybe even Ted Cruz.  But McConnell has no interest in anything liberty related - this is a move to protect himself from the likes of us.


McConnell is the type of politician who will bend whichever way the wind is blowing.  If liberals we suddenly gaining ground in the party he would do that way, if it was social-cons he'd be talking about abortion and prayer in schools non stop.  As I see it, he sees which way the wind is blowing nationally and particularly in his home state and wants to do whatever he can to reach out to that wing.

----------


## ninepointfive

> Also,  Congratulations Jesse!   I look forward to you showing us how this advances the cause of liberty.


It advances the cause of the liberty movement just as a bowel movement provides relief to the host.

----------


## ScotTFO

> McConnell is the type of politician who will bend whichever way the wind is blowing.  If liberals we suddenly gaining ground in the party he would do that way, if it was social-cons he'd be talking about abortion and prayer in schools non stop.  As I see it, he sees which way the wind is blowing nationally and particularly in his home state and wants to do whatever he can to reach out to that wing.


Sounds like....dare I say it?  Romney?

----------


## wrestlingwes_8

> I don't get why some here are pretending to be upset by this.  You all wanted to kick Benton off the liberty island.  Ok, he's out.  Shouldn't you guys all be celebrating now?


Ohhh yeah, we are sooo excited!  Ron's campaign was completely ran into the ground and now after the nomination process is over with, the fox leaves the hen house.  Ohh joy, what a victory for liberty

----------


## orenbus

> This a great thing no matter what your perspective.
> 
> If you hate Jesse Benton and blame him for the failure of Ron's campaign, then you can have hope that he will torpedo McConnell's campaign as well.
> 
> If you find value to working within the GOP, a Senate Majority Leader McConnel who is friendly with Rand Paul and has a family connection through Jesse Benton can give you hope that Rand's issues will come up for votes in the Senate easier.


Yes except some of us now are going to want to additionally see someone run against MM in 2014.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Sure. The message is ripe for the times, or the times are ripe for the message. All the more reason why I see no need to back-pedal and try to win over a dwindling neoconservative base, which is what I think some folks are advocating. 
> 
> Makes no sense to me. 'No-compromise' is what tripled the size of the liberty movement since 2008, and might triple it again in 2016* (edit). Why start compromising now?


I think you are confusing compromising with building bridges.  You can hold strongly to your principles and not bend on them, while at the same time playing nice with people you don't agree with on all issues.  I have seen some folks in here call McConnell some pretty foul names, and I think they want Rand and others to echo those sentiments.  That just won't happen, but just because Rand stands on the same stage as McConnell, or Rand endorses and campaigns for him in 2014 does not mean that he in compromising.

----------


## Carlybee

> And you are free to choose the course of action that you wish to pursue.  My point being though that this stuff will continue to happen, and folks like yourself will continue to cry foul.  Rand is working to build bridges with the rest of the GOP.  The moves he takes to do that are going to piss a lot off in here, as is evidenced by the comments I have seen on this site.
> 
> I'm not telling people what party they should belong to, my suggestion was simply that if folks are looking for a more dogmatic approach then the LP and CP are more suited to that.  You can maintain principles and still work within the GOP, but in order to do so elected officials will need to stand alongside of people that they do not agree with all the time like McConnell.  
> 
> I have spent the better part of my life in elected office at the local level, and I can tell you from experience taking a hard and fast dogmatic approach does not result in gaining any ground.  You have to bend here and there to get what you want in the long run.  We will continue to see that from folks within the liberty movement, and as I stated that is not going to be pleasant for those who wish to see a more dogmatic approach.


And you are welcome to keep doing what you are doing but those of us from the original non co-opted liberty movement are the only reason liberty candidates have been elected...through money and support...inspired by Ron Paul. Not inspired by Wars R Us people in the GOP.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Sounds like....dare I say it?  Romney?


Pretty much so.  I think as time goes on you'll see more and more politicians like McConnell vote for and even introduce bills that are more libertarian in principle.  Guys like that are mold-able.  I personally don't like it, but if he is going to try and remake himself in a more libertarian mindset because he senses that is the direction the party and the country are taking, then more power to us.

----------


## georgiaboy

Who Mitch McConnell, or anyone for that matter, has as his campaign manager, has zero to do with the legislator's political philosophy or legislative agenda.

It has everything to do with what said legislator thinks he needs to do to get elected.

----------


## SilentBull

> I see a lot of knee-jerk reactionary statements here.
> 
> The political reality is that we must pick our battles.  Furthermore, we don't have a printing press to fund our campaigns.  
> 
> A move like this helps to legitimize our movement in the minds of people who were on the sidelines or who think we're all a bunch of nuts.  It's the type of move that makes it harder to label us 'domestic extremists' or whathaveyou.  
> 
> Dr. Paul made us aware that people in D.C. can be very 'political' if they sense the winds shifting - this is a prime example.
> 
> But all that being said, we still need to make Mitch work for the win.  Even insincere rhetoric from a prominent figure can help to wake up more people.  *Our goal should be to force Mitch to embrace our rhetoric.*


Yes.

----------


## Tiso0770

Hmmmm, Jesse needs another house?!, Piggy bank dried up?!...I donate a few of my chickens, but he can't have my hog.

----------


## orenbus

> Who Mitch McConnell, or anyone for that matter, has as his campaign manager, has zero to do with the legislator's political philosophy or legislative agenda.
> 
> It has everything to do with what said legislator thinks he needs to do to get elected.


Exactly, and I think it's safe to say that we smell blood in the water, I still don't understand how we don't take advantage of this.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> And you are welcome to keep doing what you are doing but those of us from the original non co-opted liberty movement are the only reason liberty candidates have been elected...through money and support...inspired by Ron Paul. Not inspired by Wars R Us people in the GOP.


You are taking far too much credit for yourself.  One of the main reasons a lot of the folks that have been elected over the last 4 years got into Congress is because there were people involved at the local level for many years.  You think Tom Davis is going to win a Senate seat because of some folks that came on board in the last few years, or maybe it is because Davis has worked his ass off in local, county and state politics for the past decade and then some.

For ever person that has come into this in the last 4 years there were 10 people that had already been laying the groundwork at the local, county and state level.  Who the hell do you think encouraged Paul to run in the first place?  It sure as heck wasn't the people who found out about after he started his candidacy.

----------


## specsaregood

> And you are welcome to keep doing what you are doing but those of us *from the original non co-opted liberty movement are the only reason liberty candidates have been elected*...through money and support...inspired by Ron Paul.


Funny, I could swear its those who vote that are the only reason and true believers represent what 5% max of that vote?  how many liberty candidates that have been elected have you personally voted for?

----------


## acptulsa

> I think you are confusing compromising with building bridges.


For decades in Washington you've had to play ball to get any cooperation at all.  Of course, money has run rampant and the public has spent decades swallowing anything they're fed.

Canny politicians will smell in the air the fact that people have finally had enough of this crap.  This happens periodically, even if it takes about a century for the pendulum to swing.  And some politicians turn honest and start representing the people as soon as a good voting record becomes a better route to reelection than buying up massive amounts of name-recognition advertising/publicity/whatever works.  This will happen.  McConnell is just ahead of the curve--assuming, of course, that his 'libertarian conversion' is more than tea party window dressing.

Thanks to the 'net, we have a chance to hold their feet to the fire and keep everyone apprised as to the quality of their voting records.  This is an important task for us.  Very important.  This may become as important a task for this very site--comparing politicians to the standard Ron Paul has set--as any it has had.  I can't think of a site that could be more authorative than one where many informed voices can offer perspectives.

----------


## ninepointfive

> This a great thing no matter what your perspective.
> 
> If you hate Jesse Benton and blame him for the failure of Ron's campaign, then you can have hope that he will torpedo McConnell's campaign as well.
> 
> If you find value to working within the GOP, a Senate Majority Leader McConnel who is friendly with Rand Paul and has a family connection through Jesse Benton can give you hope that Rand's issues will come up for votes in the Senate easier.


This post is the thread winner

----------


## nobody's_hero

> I don't get why some here are pretending to be upset by this.  You all wanted to kick Benton off the liberty island.  Ok, he's out.  Shouldn't you guys all be celebrating now?


I'm not pretending. I* AM* upset by this. I see the liberty movement going the way of the Goldwater movement. Back into obscurity. Back into this belief that we can change things by working within the system, instead of openly defying it.

Screw it. I'm going back to sleep. I didn't sign up for this. This does not inspire me. Wake me up in 50 years when the next Goldwater or Ron Paul candidate comes along. Let's see if people are not willing to repeat history once again, when or if that time comes.

----------


## wrestlingwes_8

> Funny, I could swear its those who vote that are the only reason and true believers represent what 5% max of that vote?  how many liberty candidates that have been elected have you personally voted for?


Yeah, because campaign donations, advertising, canvassing, and just basically getting the word out plays no role whatsoever in the outcome of an election...do you even hear yourself??

----------


## Okie RP fan

Will the real Benton defenders please stand up?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> McConnell is the type of politician who will bend whichever way the wind is blowing.  If liberals we suddenly gaining ground in the party he would do that way, if it was social-cons he'd be talking about abortion and prayer in schools non stop.  As I see it, he sees which way the wind is blowing nationally and particularly in his home state and wants to do whatever he can to reach out to that wing.


And he will sell us off to the next coalition that waves shiny objects in front of his face...assuming he would *pretend* to play house with liberty candidates in the first place. Why do some of you support flip-flopping? That's antithetical to our mission...in *my* opinion.

----------


## kylejack

> I don't get why some here are pretending to be upset by this.  You all wanted to kick Benton off the liberty island.  Ok, he's out.  Shouldn't you guys all be celebrating now?


Oh, I'm elated. Now we can fight him tooth and nail without all the naysayers trying to stop us.

----------


## orenbus

> For ever person that has come into this in the last 4 years there were 10 people that had already been laying the groundwork at the local, county and state level.


Hmm I would say Ron Paul got a lot more supporters as a total number than supporters he had existing prior May of 2007 vs. May 2007 to today, not sure how this can be proved either way, but I think it would make sense if you talked with those that experienced the before and after.

----------


## acptulsa

> Will the real Benton defenders please stand up?


Oh, come on.  This deathly silence doesn't mean anything.  _Someone_ has to be on Jesse's side--but it's just hard to type standing up!

----------


## specsaregood

> Yeah, because campaign donations, advertising, canvassing, and just basically getting the word out plays no role whatsoever in the outcome of an election...do you even hear yourself??


Those things help  persuade the voters and get them out; but voters are the ONLY reason one is elected.   Are you actually agreeing with the person I replied to that claims those donors and supporters are the ONLY reason?

----------


## kylejack

Can't wait to hear Benton at a press conference speaking in favor of extrajudicial drone strike assassinations.

----------


## cajuncocoa

This thread may be the most disgusting (but revealing) one on RPF ever.

----------


## specsaregood

> Oh, I'm elated. Now we can fight him tooth and nail without all the naysayers trying to stop us.


I have absolutely no problem with that.

----------


## William R

Good for Jessie.  Ron Paul went further this year  and helped change the debate.  Rand Paul is a United States Senator and is beginning to change the debate on foreign policy inside the caucus.

----------


## jbauer

> You're saying that the number of people who can name one campaign manager from the past 50 years is fewer than the number of people who can name Ron Paul's most recent campaign manager?
> 
> Logically, how does that work?


Alright you got me on a typo on the last one.  Its still near none.

----------


## wrestlingwes_8

> Those things help  persuade the voters and get them out; but voters are the ONLY reason one is elected.   Are you actually agreeing with the person I replied to that claims those donors and supporters are the ONLY reason?


What are you attributing the success of other liberty candidates to then?  Certainly wasn't the MSM, certainly wasn't the mainline GOP.  Sure they aren't strictly the ONLY reason but their actions played an enormous role

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Hmm I would say Ron Paul got a lot more supporters as a total number than supporters he had existing prior May of 2007 vs. May 2007 to today, not sure how this can be proved either way, but I think it would make sense if you talked with those that experienced the before and after.


Ron Paul did bring new supporters into the process there is no denying that.  Some of them are going to be in it for the long haul and some of them were only here for Ron Paul's nomination race.  But my point was that there are a lot of people who have been at this long before Paul ran in 08.  In fact most of the candidates that are supported here in one way or another have been active in politics long before 08.  So when I speak of the 10 to 1 number I threw out there, I was speaking of activists versus voters.  Our county GOP is strongly libertarian leaning, and all of the folks sitting on the committee have been there and/or been involved for far more than 4 years.

----------


## kathy88

> This post is the thread winner


For you maybe. He wanted in the McConnell type camp AS he torpedoed Ron. McConnel will only vote our way if there is a real threat to his seat. Expect him to toe the line until midterms, then back to the neocon he is. I guess we know why he was in the RP tribute video at the convention, now don't we? Thanks, Benton.

----------


## orenbus

> Will the real Benton defenders please stand up?


We're going to have a problem here...

----------


## ninepointfive

It's very understandable to want to try and sink Jesse and MM - but that's not going to be a positive endeavour. Put efforts into a productive outcome for desirable results. 

Like realtonygoodwin said, this is the best solution for anyone's grievances: 

either Jesse goes and sinks MM's campaign based on his results and past performance with RP, or he's the one who will work in the pit of vipers with the rest of the egotistical political types and help Rand's chances and issues in the future (since they're kinda allies). Not that Jesse could give a crap about Liberty, whatever that means to him.

It's a win win!

----------


## specsaregood

> What are you attributing the success of other liberty candidates to then?  Certainly wasn't the MSM, certainly wasn't the mainline GOP.  Sure they aren't strictly the ONLY reason but their actions played an enormous role


Well I'd give the actual candidates some credit and let's not forget their message.  But in the end, the ONLY thing that gets you elected are the voters.

----------


## orenbus

> Can't wait to hear Benton at a press conference speaking in favor of extrajudicial drone strike assassinations.


Wow.... I LOL'd IRL.

....

----------


## jbauer

> Why do I feel like I'm being brainwashed, just a few years ago we saw MM as the worst of them, now we are going to be asked to support him?
> 
> This is straight out of 1984, lol, "We've always been at war with Eastasia".


No one said we had to go with Jesse, heck I doubt he's ballsy enough to even ask us to come with.  His days with C4L were numbered.

----------


## wrestlingwes_8

> Can't wait to hear Benton at a press conference speaking in favor of extrajudicial drone strike assassinations.


But..but...but we need to have extrajudicial drone strike assassinations so we can work with the GOP and make them our friends...c'mon man, just play along; extrajudicial drone strike assassinations aren't all that bad, I'm sure McCain supports them and we all know he is an excellent American

----------


## ctiger2

It's a perfect example of establishment not being in touch with the grassroots. Benton is essentially loathed by the liberty (grassroots) movement now and Mitch picks him up believing Benton will help him with the grassroots. lol! Over and over the politician reveal themselves as the morons they truly are.

----------


## ninepointfive

> It's a perfect example of establishment not being in touch with the grassroots. Benton is essentially loathed by the liberty (grassroots) movement now and Mitch picks him up believing Benton will help him with the grassroots. lol! Over and over the politician reveal themselves as the morons they truly are.


If only someone would take a moment and research Jesse's reputation, they would understand. very out of touch, aren't they?

----------


## kathy88

Anyone consider the possibility that RP had the $#@!s of Benton's treatment of the grassroots and asked him to resign and this is a big FU right back to Ron? Stranger things have happened. Can't wait for Doug Wead and Tom Woods' take on this...

----------


## brandon

> Well I'd give the actual candidates some credit and let's not forget their message.  But in the end, the ONLY thing that gets you elected are the voters.


I had a dream last night that I was cooking you a porkchop on a grill. That's it.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Well I'd give the actual candidates some credit and let's not forget their message.  But in the end, the ONLY thing that gets you elected are the voters.


I disagree. Donations, canvassing, phone banking, advertising, etc., all factor into GOTV efforts. Every candidate must reach more voters with these efforts than his/her opposition to be effective.

----------


## orenbus

> Ron Paul did bring new supporters into the process there is no denying that.  Some of them are going to be in it for the long haul and some of them were only here for Ron Paul's nomination race.  But my point was that there are a lot of people who have been at this long before Paul ran in 08.  In fact most of the candidates that are supported here in one way or another have been active in politics long before 08.  So when I speak of the 10 to 1 number I threw out there, I was speaking of activists versus voters.  Our county GOP is strongly libertarian leaning, and all of the folks sitting on the committee have been there and/or been involved for far more than 4 years.


Hmmm those numbers still don't make any sense IMO, I would bet money that the liberty movement got a lot more than a 1to10 ratio of existing activists vs. 2007 activists that are going to stick around for the rest of their lives just in 2007 alone.

----------


## Brett85

> This is so bogus. I don't even agree with Ron Paul 100%, but I support him. People like McConnell are basically anathema.


Then I guess McConnell gets no credit at all for voting in favor of Rand's budget.

----------


## ninepointfive

> Anyone consider the possibility that RP had the $#@!s of Benton's treatment of the grassroots and asked him to resign and this is a big FU right back to Ron? Stranger things have happened. Can't wait for Doug Wead and Tom Woods' take on this...


The writing was on the wall and I think everyone knew that C4L would go nowhere with its base with Jesse working there.

----------


## specsaregood

> I disagree. Donations, canvassing, phone banking, advertising, etc., all factor into GOTV efforts. Every candidate must reach more voters with these efforts than his/her opposition to be effective.


And why is all that effort put into GOTV and reaching the voters?   Because voters are the ONLY reason one is elected. You can argue with that all you want, but its a fact.

----------


## ninepointfive

One question for all of you - why even argue about this? 
Is it a question of what happens next?

----------


## kathy88

> And why is all that effort put into GOTV and reaching the voters?   Because voters are the ONLY reason one is elected. You can argue with that all you want, but its a fact.


Yes, this election season has shown us that every vote matters. Especially in the GOP. Are you serious?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Hmmm those numbers still don't make any sense IMO, I would bet money that the liberty movement got a lot more than a 1to10 ratio of existing activists vs. 2007 activists that are going to stick around for the rest of their lives just in 2007 alone.


I am not seeing that here in my county, my son seeing it in his and from others I have talked to I am getting the same feedback.  There are some new people coming out and getting involved, but the numbers are not all that large.  Granted all it takes is a few new people getting elected to committee and linking up with the existing libertarians to make a majority - but we need a lot more people getting out from behind the computers and out to meetings.  So far from my observations, it seems like a lot were on board for the Paul campaign primarily, if not exclusively.  We had committee elections here this year and I think only one or two people that ran were newcomers - and honestly I am not sure if they were RP people or not.

----------


## orenbus

> No one said we had to go with Jesse, heck I doubt he's ballsy enough to even ask us to come with.  His days with C4L were numbered.


Yea it's already apparent though that some here seem to think that we should not even consider running a liberty candidate against MM, basically giving him a pass because he hired Jesse or has been seen around town taking photo ops with Rand.

----------


## Carlybee

> You are taking far too much credit for yourself.  One of the main reasons a lot of the folks that have been elected over the last 4 years got into Congress is because there were people involved at the local level for many years.  You think Tom Davis is going to win a Senate seat because of some folks that came on board in the last few years, or maybe it is because Davis has worked his ass off in local, county and state politics for the past decade and then some.
> 
> For ever person that has come into this in the last 4 years there were 10 people that had already been laying the groundwork at the local, county and state level.  Who the hell do you think encouraged Paul to run in the first place?  It sure as heck wasn't the people who found out about after he started his candidacy.


Yes and I was an original petitioner to try and get him to run as well as a county delegate in 08 as well as on our platform committee in 08 so I didn't just come into this in the last 4 years. I became aware of Ron Paul a decade ago so stop with the assumptions.

----------


## kylejack

You lie down with dogs and you get up with fleas. Benton's not one of us anymore and it is time to bid him farewell. McConnell should be primaried, but the cost would probably be astronomical.

----------


## orenbus

> But..but...but we need to have extrajudicial drone strike assassinations so we can work with the GOP and make them our friends...c'mon man, just play along; extrajudicial drone strike assassinations aren't all that bad, I'm sure McCain supports them and we all know he is an excellent American


LOL

----------


## specsaregood

> Yea it's already apparent though that some here seem to think that we should not even consider running a liberty candidate against MM, basically giving him a pass because he hired Jesse or has been seen around town taking photo ops with Rand.


Oh yeah?  Which posts said we shouldn't challenge MM because he hired jesse and is taking photo ops with Rand.  Thanks in advance.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> either Jesse goes and sinks MM's campaign based on his results and past performance with RP, or he's the one who will work in the pit of vipers with the rest of the egotistical political types and help Rand's chances and issues in the future (since they're kinda allies). Not that Jesse could give a crap about Liberty, whatever that means to him.


Or Benton deliberately sabotaged Ron's campaign, but does good work for McConnell and even corrupts some of the Liberty Movement's less principled and/or intelligent members.

----------


## specsaregood

> Yes, this election season has shown us that every vote matters. Especially in the GOP. Are you serious?


Fact is Ron didn't win enough votes.  What happened to our delegates sucked but if we had won the majority of votes they wouldn't have been able to pull it off.  So yes, I'm serious.

----------


## JK/SEA

its all part of the plan.

----------


## July

//

----------


## twomp

Benton proved his loyalty to the "establishment", it's time to get paid now. ALL ABOARD THE Mitch McConnell Revolution???

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Yes and I was an original petitioner to try and get him to run as well as a county delegate in 08 as well as on our platform committee in 08 so I didn't just come into this in the last 4 years. I became aware of Ron Paul a decade ago so stop with the assumptions.


But if I recall, weren't you one of the folks who said they were done working within the GOP?

----------


## orenbus

> One question for all of you - why even argue about this? 
> Is it a question of what happens next?


Yes I want to know who is going to stand up to this rubbish and run against MM in 2014.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Then I guess McConnell gets no credit at all for voting in favor of Rand's budget.


No. First, Rand's budget wasn't all that great, even if it was the best we are going to get. Second, McConnell knew it had no chance of passing. He voted for it for leverage with people like you. Looking at his record no one really believes he would support real spending cuts anywhere, especially overseas.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Yes I want to know who is going to stand up to this rubbish and run against MM in 2014.


Typically, it will need to be a sitting House member, State Senator or someone that has been elected (or come close to being elected) at the state level.  Senate races are tough ones as they require a ton of votes to win, even in a primary.  I do not know KY all that well to know who would potentially be a viable candidate, but as I said before it is an extremely difficult thing to do (unseat a high ranking incumbent) so I doubt many would even step forward to do so, unless it was solely for them to start getting state wide name recognition for a future race.

----------


## specsaregood

> I had a dream last night that I was cooking you a porkchop on a grill. That's it.


Well at least it wasn't HB having that dream; as then I'd be creeped out.  Instead I'm wondering if you dreamed of me as a hot blond with big knockers or a fat guy with a santa claus beard.

----------


## brandon

> Well at least it wasn't HB having that dream; as then I'd be creeped out.  Instead I'm wondering if you dreamed of me as a hot blond with big knockers or a fat guy with a santa claus beard.


No I just pictured you as your name. You weren't there yet. We were going to meet at the community college later to eat porkchops.  That's all I remember.

----------


## orenbus

> Benton proved his loyalty to the "establishment", it's time to get paid now. ALL ABOARD THE Mitch McConnell Revolution???

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Or Benton deliberately sabotaged Ron's campaign, but does good work for McConnell and even corrupts some of the Liberty Movement's less principled and/or intelligent members.


^^This

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

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




> Ron Paul campaign chairman Jesse Benton is going to head up the campaign of Mitch McConnell. Gee, now why did those incorrigible naysayers have so many unkind words for him?
> 
> People who said Benton was positioning himself all along for bigger things in the GOP were scoffed at. Why, Jesse has a secret plan to get Ron Paul the nomination at the last minute!
> 
> Well, now we know the real secret plan.
> 
> Ask yourself this: how much money would you have to be paid to work for an enemy of the things youre supposed to stand for? Maybe now people will understand why Jesse would fly into a tirade after some of Rons most heroic moments, when the rest of us were cheering.
> 
> I could go through a lengthy catalogue of problems with Benton. The grassroots folks already know a lot of them, so theres probably no need. Whats done is done.
> ...

----------


## Shane Harris

Tea Party is as Tea Party does. Mitch won't change. The only story here is Jesse selling out, that is if he was ever on board to begin with or if it's been all about the money from day one.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> But if I recall, weren't you one of the folks who said they were done working within the GOP?


what does being done going forward have to do with what was done to advance Ron's R3volution over the *past* 7 years? I've known Carlybee since 2004, and I can vouch for her support of Ron Paul going back to at least 2005.  Must we always question the loyalty of some of Ron's longtime supporters, even if they supported him at times as other-than-registered-GOP?

----------


## kathy88

> Tea Party is as Tea Party does. Mitch won't change. The only story here is Jesse selling out, that is if he was ever on board to begin with or if it's been all about the money from day one.


Money, yes... Ego more. He's a round short little man with a syndrome.

----------


## kylejack

In retrospect, I wish even moreso that we had Tom Woods on the official campaign and *not* Benton.

----------


## wrestlingwes_8

> Money, yes... Ego more. He's a round short little man with a syndrome.


Ahahaha

----------


## jmdrake

LOL.  Two possibilities (at least).  1) Jesse Benton is a sellout.  2) Ron and Rand have cleverly led Mitch McConnell into a trap where he is guaranteed to lose his seat to a liberty candidate thanks to our new "inside man" Jesse Benton.  Which conspiracy is it?

----------


## kathy88

> LOL.  Two possibilities (at least).  1) Jesse Benton is a sellout.  2) Ron and Rand have cleverly led Mitch McConnell into a trap where he is guaranteed to lose his seat to a liberty candidate thanks to our new "inside man" Jesse Benton.  Which conspiracy is it?


or 3) Ron got tired of Benton's crap and $#@!canned him and now he's defected.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> LOL.  Two possibilities (at least).  1) Jesse Benton is a sellout.  2) Ron and Rand have cleverly led Mitch McConnell into a trap where he is guaranteed to lose his seat to a liberty candidate thanks to our new "inside man" Jesse Benton.  Which conspiracy is it?


Reading what Tom Woods wrote this morning, I'm going with Jesse Benton is a douchebag. It's not 2, because Rand has already attended at least one fundraiser for McConnell's reelection.

----------


## parocks

> Yes, it certainly does seem like mitch is trying his best to get on the Paul's good side.  This could turn out to be a very good thing for us if the GOP gets a senate majority this coming election.


A rational response.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> LOL.  Two possibilities (at least).  1) Jesse Benton is a sellout.  2) Ron and Rand have cleverly led Mitch McConnell into a trap where he is guaranteed to lose his seat to a liberty candidate thanks to our new "inside man" Jesse Benton.  Which conspiracy is it?


I'll take what's behind door #1, please.

----------


## kathy88

> A rational response.


Another apologist chimes in.

----------


## Shane Harris

> In retrospect, I wish even moreso that we had Tom Woods on the official campaign and *not* Benton.


This x 1000. I only hope that this is not representative of others like Doug Wead, who has stood up for Jesse. I think that Wead was great in the campaign and he and Woods would be outstanding. Like I said I hope Wead is more principled than Jesse.

----------


## newbitech



----------


## jmdrake

> or 3) Ron got tired of Benton's crap and $#@!canned him and now he's defected.


Well wouldn't that make him a sellout?  (possibility #1)  Of course your 3rd option includes the possibility that he wasn't always a sellout so I guess that's a difference.

----------


## dbill27

This isn't even worth caring about. Everybody hated benton in the grassroots and rpf anyway, now he's gone and the debate about him is over. If he's as worthless a campaign manager as most people thought then going to mcconnell is a god send.

----------


## parocks

> Well, its not much of a surprise, is it? After what Jesse has done to this movement, I think this calls for our special attention. We need a Rand Paul II to knock out Mitch the B!@#$.
> 
> That was fast Jesse, anyone still like him now?
> 
> $$$$


Sure, why not?  Everyone was saying yesterday he'd be working for Romney.  Well, he isn't.

He's working on a US Senate campaign in Kentucky.  This would likely help Rand as well in Kentucky.  It certainly makes sense for Mitch to do this.  He wouldn't want the Rand people working against him.  And presumably Benton knows the people in Kentucky to Mitch's right who would oppose him.

----------


## kathy88

> This x 1000. I only hope that this is not representative of others like Doug Wead, who has stood up for Jesse. I think that Wead was great in the campaign and he and Woods would be outstanding. Like I said I hope Wead is more principled than Jesse.


I assumed that Wead was the other person Tom was talking about in the article.

----------


## jmdrake

> Reading what Tom Woods wrote this morning, I'm going with Jesse Benton is a douchebag. It's not 2, because Rand has already attended at least one fundraiser for McConnell's reelection.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Another apologist chimes in.


It's all about the team. Team Republican. The Ron Paul message is being lost. I could picture guys like John McCain and Bill Kristol laughing about how they have the Ron Paul folks defending Mitch McConnell on their own websites now.

----------


## kathy88

> This isn't even worth caring about. Everybody hated benton in the grassroots and rpf anyway, now he's gone and the debate about him is over. If he's as worthless a campaign manager as most people thought then going to mcconnell is a god send.


The irony of it, though... He wanted to concentrate on electoral politics was the reason he gave for steeping down from C4L. Now McConnell's touting his "grasroots" experience. He's talking out of both sides of his mouth. And he can in the future be very dangerous for us. Am I the only one who sees the danger?

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Hmmm. Didn't McConnell endorse trey Grayson against rand?


Yes he did. McConnell didn't like that Rand Paul stood for freedom and conservative values. Trey Grayson is all about big government and that's exactly what McConnell stands for.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/trey-...n/385608307477



> U.S. Senate Republican Leader Senator Mitch McConnell Endorses Trey Grayson
> by Trey Grayson on Tuesday, May 4, 2010 at 11:39am ·
> 
> Florence, Kentucky  Senator Mitch McConnell announced today that he is taking the rare step of endorsing a GOP candidate in a contested primary.  Sen. McConnell threw his support behind Secretary of State Trey Grayson for U.S. Senate in the May 18th Republican primary.  The Grayson campaign also launched a television commercial that features McConnell.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> I assumed that Wead was the other person Tom was talking about in the article.


I'm guessing Tate, as Tom mentioned the 2 leaders of the campaign, and Tom had previous dealings with Tate from the last campaign and C4L.

----------


## dbill27

> The irony of it, though... He wanted to concentrate on electoral politics was the reason he gave for steeping down from C4L. Now McConnell's touting his "grasroots" experience. He's talking out of both sides of his mouth. And he can in the future be very dangerous for us. Am I the only one who sees the danger?


Yeah, he's touting his grassroots experience but we all know it's a complete $#@!ing joke. I think this is nothing but a great day to laugh for us. Mcconnell actually thinks he's going to cash in on something that doesn't exist.

----------


## kathy88

> I'm guessing Tate, as Tom mentioned the 2 leaders of the campaign, and Tom had previous dealings with Tate from the last campaign and C4L.


I hope so.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> It's all about the team. Team Republican. The Ron Paul message is being lost. I could picture guys like John McCain and Bill Kristol laughing about how they have the Ron Paul folks defending Mitch McConnell on their own websites now.


Sickening thought, no?

----------


## Carlybee

> But if I recall, weren't you one of the folks who said they were done working within the GOP?


Yes I did. However I never said I wouldn't continue to support the liberty movement and that means I will still have to vote GOP in some instances. Nobody gave you permission to co-opt the movement and try to morph it into the mainstream...so I may not register with an R after my name but if I am donating time or money to individuals within the GOP I will lend my efforts to holding their feet to the fire and to promoting the original ideology. Newsflash Lou..it's still a free country...barely but so far.

----------


## parocks

> If that's true and McConnell has nothing to worry about then why even pretend to extend interest in the tea party or seem to want to win favorability points as some here suggest by hiring Benton?


Hiring Benton makes a small chance of a challenge from the right even smaller.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> I hope so.


I wouldn't be totally surprised by Wead, though, either. You have to be a slimeball on some level to have worked with both Bushes. And he burned his bridges with the Bush family.

----------


## BestVirginia

> The irony of it, though... He wanted to concentrate on electoral politics was the reason he gave for steeping down from C4L. Now McConnell's touting his "grasroots" experience. He's talking out of both sides of his mouth. And he can in the future be very dangerous for us. Am I the only one who sees the danger?


Nope. Benton is scummy.

----------


## orenbus



----------


## parocks

> Maybe this will swing a lot of backing for Rand in 2016.


I would think so.

Mitch gets a free pass in 2014.

Rand gets support in 2016.  If nothing else, Rand would have an easier time running for Re-election in 2016, because it's less likely that Mitch will put up someone against Rand in the primary.

----------


## July

//

----------


## ninepointfive

> Yes I want to know who is going to stand up to this rubbish and run against MM in 2014.


The frustration is definitely warranted - but it is an effort which will provide no benefit. If the effort is to tear people down, rather than lift them up then the effort will probably fail.

Are you not a fan of Rand? I no longer call myself a fan of his, but he's still the best Senator around.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Ted Cruz?  Perfect fit.





> Good guess. How about the Orin Hatch campaign?


I am not surprised in the slightest. It only made sense that he would get hired by a politician who is trying to attract the "libertarian" vote. It was a toss-up whether my guess was Hatch or McConnell. Hatch has tried hard to kiss-up, but McConnell makes more sense, as he is closer to home, and if the GOP takes the Senate, he will most likely be the Majority leader.

----------


## kathy88

I say Massie hires Tom Woods to take them on.

----------


## newbitech

No one has said it, but maybe McConnell being the senate minority leader and possible majority leader in less than a year is just delivering the goods to Benton for having worked on the inside of an insurgent campaign.

Back scratching anyone?

----------


## parocks

> Thanks for this data point.  Mitch will have to do more and bigger of this to get the tea party votes he needs to keep his seat in '14.


The only people who would be able to put up any strong challenge to Mitch in 2014 would be Rand and Benton, and Mitch just hired Benton.  Mitch hired the biggest potential threat.

----------


## parocks

> I say Massie hires Tom Woods to take them on.


Bet on this?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> I say Massie hires Tom Woods to take them on.


Massie will be backing McConnell in 2014.

It'd be nice if he ran him down, though, even if I disagree with his tactics.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Yes I did. However I never said I wouldn't continue to support the liberty movement and that means I will still have to vote GOP in some instances. Nobody gave you permission to co-opt the movement and try to morph it into the mainstream...so I may not register with an R after my name but if I am donating time or money to individuals within the GOP I will lend my efforts to holding their feet to the fire and to promoting the original ideology. Newsflash Lou..it's still a free country...barely but so far.


Believe it or not there are many within the Liberty Movement that feel it has been co-opted by the left-libertarians, anarcho-capitalists and conspiracy crowd.

----------


## Henry Rogue

I get so many letters from the Romney campaign, one day I got 5 letters in the mail box. My Wife was laughing. Should I now expect to be flooded with McConnel campaign junk mail?

----------


## Carlybee

Double post

----------


## Carlybee

> Believe it or not there are many within the Liberty Movement that feel it has been co-opted by the left-libertarians, anarcho-capitalists and conspiracy crowd.


Oh you mean the ones who were some of the very first Ron Paul supporters? Before the GOP sycophants decided to hitch up to the wagon?  Many of those people were original Tea Partiers before it was co-opted and greatly contributed time and money to the liberty movement. So much for the big tent.

----------


## ninepointfive

> Oh you mean the ones who were some of the very first Ron Paul supporters? Before the GOP sycophants decided to hitch up to the wagon?  Many of those people were original Tea Partiers before it was co-opted and greatly contributed time and money to the liberty movement. So much for the big tent.


Yep

----------


## kathy88

> Bet on this?


It wasn't a prediction. It was an "aloud" musing. Don't talk to me. You piss me off.

----------


## georgiaboy

> The only people who would be able to put up any strong challenge to Mitch in 2014 would be Rand and Benton, and Mitch just hired Benton.  Mitch hired the biggest potential threat.


So no Democrat?  My early view is that without strong tea party support, Mitch can be defeated in the 2014 general from the left.  Because in essence, Mitch is baby left already.

Throw a Libertarian into the race, and Mitch loses.

Bottom line, Mitch needs the tea party for a win, and based on his most recent voting records, he should not get it.

----------


## parocks

> Yeah, he's touting his grassroots experience but we all know it's a complete $#@!ing joke. I think this is nothing but a great day to laugh for us. Mcconnell actually thinks he's going to cash in on something that doesn't exist.


Mitch is no longer worried about a challenge.  That's what Mitch is getting.

This makes it easier for Rand.  This is what we're getting.

----------


## QFish

> "Jesse is literally the best in the business at building and organizing conservative grassroots movements and I'm thrilled he's chosen to return to Kentucky to lead my campaign."


Seriously have to just laugh at this. After all Jesse has done to squash the grassroots...just wow. It doesn't come as a big surprise though....

----------


## sailingaway

I think McConnell did it to pull Jesse onto the party team, personally.  It is basically the same as Romney, imho.  I get the feeling that whether they 'impacted' Jesse or not, there were a lot of 'you have a bright future in the party' signals flying last spring and early summer.  But maybe I'm wrong.

Why else would McConnell hire him though?  His relationship with grass roots has even been in mainstream media, and not favorably.  And McConnell already has a huge team in Kentucky, it isn't like he doesn't have that in place.  Maybe he thinks this will stop a primary, because Jesse is Ron's grandson in law.

I don't see why it would factor in if we primaried McConnell.

Moving on.

----------


## parocks

> So no Democrat?  My early view is that without strong tea party support, Mitch can be defeated in the 2014 general from the left.  Because in essence, Mitch is baby left already.
> 
> Throw a Libertarian into the race, and Mitch loses.
> 
> Bottom line, Mitch needs the tea party for a win, and based on his most recent voting records, he should not get it.


Well, I was talking about a primary challenge.   I don't think the Republican loses to the Democrat in Kentucky in 2014.

----------


## parocks

> Lets see how many campaign errors, mis-communications, poorly timed announcements, damaging emails etc.. occur while he's running MM's campaign.


Well, I don't think that Jesse will have to say "we don't have enough delegates to win".  

I guess yall never heard of "don't kill the messenger".

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Believe it or not there are many within the Liberty Movement that feel it has been co-opted by the left-libertarians, anarcho-capitalists and conspiracy crowd.


WTF do you believe the Liberty movement *IS*?  The people you described are who I think of when I think of "liberty"....do you think of Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, and Glenn Beck??

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I think McConnell did it to pull Jesse onto the party team, personally.


Oh, its a shrewd political move for sure.  And McConnell hasn't got where he is today without being as shrewd as he could be.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Oh you mean the ones who were some of the very first Ron Paul supporters? Before the GOP sycophants decided to hitch up to the wagon?  Many of those people were original Tea Partiers before it was co-opted and greatly contributed time and money to the liberty movement. So much for the big tent.


Un-frickin'-believable, isn't it?

----------


## parocks

> What is completely ironic is the apparent impression by an establishment DC insider that anyone in the Tea Party would give any care to anything that Benton says or does.  The whole thing is just pathetically hilarious.


Well WE care what Benton says and does.  Thread after thread after thread all about Benton.

----------


## parocks

A lot of people know the name Karl Rove.

A lot of people know the name James Carville.

A lot of people know the name Lee Atwater.




> Really?  Exactly how many of Ron's 2M supporters even know the name of the guy who ran the campaign?  Very few.
> 
> How many are going to know that Benton ran Ron's and Mitches campaign?  Even fewer
> 
> How many out there that aren't living and breathing politics can name one campaign manager from ANY race over the past 50 years?  Even fewer
> 
> The only people that even give a rats arse about this is the diehards and those absorbed in politics.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> The only people who would be able to put up any strong challenge to Mitch in 2014 would be Rand and Benton, and Mitch just hired Benton.  Mitch hired the biggest potential threat.


Rand already has a Senate seat. How would Rand be a threat to Mitch?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Rand already has a Senate seat. How would Rand be a threat to Mitch?


By endorsing a potential challenger.

He wasn't going to, anyway, since he's already been fundraising for Mitch.

----------


## sailingaway

> Doesn't matter if he created it.  He's tapped into it.  So, he can deliver it, right?  It's all about the network, not the principle.  Coundn't be about the principle, right?  That's just silly.
> 
> That's the way McConnell's thinking.


I think he's thinking Ron won't endorse against his grandson in law's campaign regardless of how good the other candidate is, particularly if Rand is backing McConnell every step of the way.  Ron will just decide to stay out of that race.

Fortunately, Ron taught us well, and we are self starters.

However, I am only speaking with regards to my impression of the national movement.  I don't know if folks in KY who are tied into RAND more than RON would support a challenge with Rand working with and endorsing McConnell.  It actually could have impact in that sense.  

Forget what McConnell SAID was the reason, he knows Benton's relationship with grass roots, but he has also carefully cultivated his connections with Rand whom I expect to see on better committees soon, and knows the Pauls are a close family.  McConnell's POLITICAL instincts are really exceptional.

----------


## parocks

> Well as I see it from reading this site and others, there are two divergent paths that are taking place.  We see Rand and the rest building bridges with others within the GOP, and then we see folks who prefer to take an absolutist position and only want to work with those whom they agree with 100%.  As time goes on, and with each new news story that comes out I think you will see that Rand and company are moving further away from the strategy that is promoted here by most.  As I mentioned earlier, it seems that every thing that has taken place outside of the Ron Paul campaign this year has been harshly criticized by folks on here.  Which I why I concluded that maybe a place like the LP or CP might be better suited for some people, so that you can take a more dogmatic approach to things.


accurate analysis.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Believe it or not there are many within the Liberty Movement that feel it has been co-opted by the left-libertarians, anarcho-capitalists and conspiracy crowd.


LOL. Yeah, we need to keep the Liberty Movement free of the scum that actually want liberty. This is about defeating Barack Obama and making the world safe for democracy.

----------


## TCE

McConnell definitely knows what he's doing. This kills our already slim chances of taking down McConnell. Our record primarying incumbents is absolutely terrible anyway. We have gotten in Kerry and Mike Lee, but both had some major things break their way. With Benton in tow, we can't do it. For anyone saying Massie should primary him, well, they aren't seeing the bigger picture. Massie would have to give up his U.S. House seat to do it and McConnell would probably destroy any freshman Congressman. Let it go. In 2020, if the country still exists, Massie can move into McConnell's seat since McConnell will retire.

----------


## BenIsForRon

This is shocking. I don't know what good can come of this.

----------


## parocks

> Why do I feel like I'm being brainwashed, just a few years ago we saw MM as the worst of them, now we are going to be asked to support him?
> 
> This is straight out of 1984, lol, "We've always been at war with Eastasia".


Do you live in Kentucky?

----------


## Q11Q

Is this a thread about Jane Fonda?

----------


## parocks

> NO, the mistakes were all the fault of the fringe grassroots!


Mostly, yes.  I can't find too much fault with what Benton did, but the grassroots sucked this time.  2007 was different, but the grassroots really sucked this year.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> WTF do you believe the Liberty movement *IS*?  The people you described are who I think of when I think of "liberty"....do you think of Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, and Glenn Beck??


Jim DeMint is my Senator and I think he is a good guy.  I don't always agree with him, but then again I don't always agree with Rand, Ron or anyone else all the time.  Palin and Beck and more on the fiscal/social conservative side of things.  There are areas of agreement and others of major disagreement.  

My point was that the liberty movement in the GOP for many years, dating all the way back to the Goldwater era, was a mixture of libertarian thought and conservative principles (aka paleo-libertarianism or paleo-conservatism).  Ron Paul is sort of a mix between paleolibertarian and paleoconservative.  There is a viewpoint that feels that many of the newcomers hold to a left libertarian and/or anarcho-capitalist view.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Mostly, yes.  I can't find too much fault with what Benton did, but the grassroots sucked this time.  2007 was different, but the grassroots really sucked this year.


In what way?  Be specific, please.

----------


## sailingaway

> accurate analysis.


actually, it is laden with judgmental terms showing bias to which is the right path.

At what point do you think we are coopted?  Because our ability to mount insurgent primary attacks is a big weapon in our arsenal.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> What is completely ironic is the apparent impression by an establishment DC insider that anyone in the Tea Party would give any care to anything that Benton says or does.  The whole thing is just pathetically hilarious.


Not entirely. Ron Paul supporters who read forums about Ron Paul religiously are in the minority. There are many Ron Paul supporters that would hear that a former Ron Paul person was Mitch's campaign manager, and think "wow, Mitch is really coming over to our side". The establishment is well aware of the level of knowledge (or ignorance) in the voting public. I know several Ron Paul supporters (and donors) who would not know the name Jesse Benton, but if a MSM report said that McConnell had hired a Ron Paul person, they would take it as a good thing.




> If LPAC sends Mitch money I'm done sending them money.  Thats for darn sure.   
> 
> The writing was on the wall that Benton's days with the Liberty movment were over.  He's ducking and running to the nearest thing he can find to a job. 
> ...


Yep, Jesse's job with Ron Paul (and C4L) was over. He found a new job that pays more, and with room for advancement. He will be a wealthy guy.

----------


## sailingaway

> In what way?  Be specific, please.


He wanted people carrying bullhorns into convention and pretending to be Romney racists and things, as I recall.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Jim DeMint is my Senator and I think he is a good guy.  I don't always agree with him, but then again I don't always agree with Rand, Ron or anyone else all the time.  Palin and Beck and more on the fiscal/social conservative side of things.  There are areas of agreement and others of major disagreement.  
> 
> *My point was that the liberty movement in the GOP for many years, dating all the way back to the Goldwater era,* was a mixture of libertarian thought and conservative principles (aka paleo-libertarianism or paleo-conservatism).  Ron Paul is sort of a mix between paleolibertarian and paleoconservative.  There is a viewpoint that feels that many of the newcomers hold to a left libertarian and/or anarcho-capitalist view.


Yeah, I fell for that too....but then I woke up.  How long is it going to take YOU?

----------


## parocks

> This pretty much confirms to me that Benton was a saboteur all along. McConnell is about as non-Ron Paul a candidate as you can get.
> 
> Hope Benton enjoys the taste of his 30 pieces of silver.


Benton has been attacked by our side so harshly that it became difficult for him to work with us.  So, he's using a different method to achieve goals.  This all helps Rand.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> He wanted people carrying bullhorns into convention and pretending to be Romney racists and things, as I recall.


Jesse Benton?  Or the grassroots?  

My question was, how did the _grassroots_ suck?

----------


## sailingaway

> Do you live in Kentucky?


We have donated, many of us, to Kentucky races.  But in McConnell's case I agree no one will expect us to donate nor will we need to. Few are more tapped into wall street money than he.

----------


## cajuncocoa

Maybe some here need to listen to this again:

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Jim DeMint is my Senator and I think he is a good guy.  I don't always agree with him, but then again I don't always agree with Rand, Ron or anyone else all the time.  Palin and Beck and more on the fiscal/social conservative side of things.  There are areas of agreement and others of major disagreement.  
> 
> My point was that the liberty movement in the GOP for many years, dating all the way back to the Goldwater era, was a mixture of libertarian thought and conservative principles (aka paleo-libertarianism or paleo-conservatism).  Ron Paul is sort of a mix between paleolibertarian and paleoconservative.  *There is a viewpoint that feels that many of the newcomers hold to a left libertarian and/or anarcho-capitalist view.*


Gee, I wonder why, since Ron's been reading books from that viewpoint since the 60s, uses the arguments those thinkers put forward (occasionally even mentioning names like Lysander Spooner on national TV), and recommends their books in his writings.

----------


## sailingaway

> Jesse Benton?  Or the grassroots?  
> 
> My question was, how did the _grassroots_ suck?


parocks wanted the grass roots delegates to potentially trash their positions by acting out in ways he thought wouldn't blow back on Ron because they would be pretending to be Romney folks.  He also thought Paul fest should have been different and we should have done other projects he wanted done.  On a couple of those projects I agree they might have been a good idea, but people all had their own ideas.  I believe that is why he thinks grass roots sucked but maybe I have that wrong.

I WILL say, I think a lot of grass roots from 2007 didn't want to work with the campaign.  This was a really sad development from my point of view since I had just lurked near the end of that, and hoped with all the new people who woke up during that campaign added in, it would be even stronger than it was.  It did have better results, but I think a lot of the old activists didn't really show up, this time.  At least that is what a bunch of people said during the campaign who said 'good luck' at some point but that they weren't going to get involved after the way it was handled before.

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## TCE

McConnell doesn't need our money, he needs us to stay out of his race. He's already got over $6 million on hand. http://www.opensecrets.org/politicia...389&cycle=2012

----------


## cajuncocoa

> *parocks wanted the grass roots delegates to potentially trash their positions by acting out in ways he thought wouldn't blow back on Ron because they would be pretending to be Romney folks.*  He also thought Paul fest should have been different and we should have done other projects he wanted done.  On a couple of those projects I agree they might have been a good idea, but people all had their own ideas.  I believe that is why he thinks grass roots sucked but maybe I have that wrong.
> 
> I WILL say, I think a lot of grass roots from 2007 didn't want to work with the campaign.  This was a really sad development from my point of view since I had just lurked near the end of that, and hoped with all the new people who woke up during that campaign added in, it would be even stronger than it was.  It did have better results, but I think a lot of the old activists didn't really show up, this time.  At least that is what a bunch of people said during the campaign who said 'good luck' at some point but that they weren't going to get involved after the way it was handled before.


Sorry, I had forgotten about that suggestion...but now I remember.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

While I don't have a glowing impression of Mitch, he doesn't top my list of Senators that need to go. Graham-SC, Collins-ME, Snowe-ME, McCain-AZ, Hatch-UT are my top 5. I think with Rand as the hot shot coming from KY, Mitch isn't going to become an outright enemy of ours because of Benton and because DeMint is also prime for the Majority Leader position. Not to mention the direction the country is taking, it will be hard for Mitch to backstab his conservative base while Obama is still in office.

----------


## georgiaboy

Rand can endorse & fundraise for Mitch all he wants, just like he can endorse Romney all he wants.

Does not mean that awake conservatives will vote for Mitch.

Pulling Benton in this early tells me that Mitch fears for his job.

If, as has been stated earlier, tea party is growing in KY, then I hope they send Mitch packing, or get him to change his legislative agenda in a big way.  Leverage is only leverage if it's used to get results.

----------


## tsai3904

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ade-in-heaven/




> “That’s exactly what he’s doing this time — hire the best guy for the job,” [Trey] Grayson told The Fix. “In Kentucky, a divided Republican Party usually results in a losing candidate.”
> 
> Benton isn’t the first operative to bridge the gap between Paul World and the establishment. Before him, there was Trygve Olson, an establishment-connected former National Republican Senatorial Committee aide who joined up with Rand Paul after the primary in 2010 and then worked for Ron Paul’s presidential campaign this year.
> 
> Olson said Benton’s hire is big.
> 
> “*This is like LeBron to the Heat*,” Olson said. “The best player is now on the best team, and there is no limit to how good the McConnell campaign can be.”

----------


## sailingaway

> Believe it or not there are many within the Liberty Movement that feel it has been co-opted by the left-libertarians, anarcho-capitalists and conspiracy crowd.


Believe it or not, May 2012 join date, this movement was built on principles and in taking the GOP back to those principles not washing out the principles for political advancement. That is the OLD game.  Those of us who believe otherwise do not 'belong in a different party' we need to merely continue our path as Ron set it out and keep our eyes on the principles, not the personalities.

And my comment on the join date isn't that new members aren't good, many are spectacular. But coming here AFTER the campaign said it wasn't going to have delegates to win and after the campaign, if never the delegates, changed focus and trying to speak for the movement is kind of rich.  Your at that late date appearing and trying to suggest you have the better pulse of where people are,  telling everyone to work in the party the 'endorse McConnell way' and for everyone else to leave the party and immolate themselves in a third party seems contrary to many of our goals.  Ron wanted us in the party to show what adherence to principles and requirement of character in politicians could do.

----------


## cavalier973

Must be because Benton did such a good job getting Ron Paul nominated.


:6

----------


## thehungarian

I assumed it would be a gig with Romney, but this is... wow. McConnell is one of the worst, man.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Rand can endorse & fundraise for Mitch all he wants, just like he can endorse Romney all he wants.
> 
> Does not mean that awake conservatives will vote for Mitch.
> 
> If, as has been stated earlier, tea party is growing in KY, then I hope they send Mitch packing, or get him to change his legislative agenda in a big way.  Leverage is only leverage if it's used to get results.


It's going to be difficult now....really difficult.  If the Rand machine is backing McConnell, you can take it to the bank.  The Rand machine is unstoppable in Kentucky now.

----------


## Romulus

This is a slap in our face. No wonder he felt the need to wear a bullet proof vest.... you dont see Ron needed to wear a vest.

We've all been scammed.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> It's going to be difficult now....really difficult.  If the Rand machine is backing McConnell, you can take it to the bank.  The Rand machine is unstoppable in Kentucky now.


Should make you wonder, "why even bother being a part of that machine, if it's going to be protecting the establishment of the establishment?"

----------


## georgiaboy

> It's going to be difficult now....really difficult.  If the Rand machine is backing McConnell, you can take it to the bank.  *The Rand machine is unstoppable in Kentucky now.*


Then this better result in a real change in Mitch's legislative agenda.  Otherwise, Rand is being played.

----------


## libertyjam

> Well WE care what Benton says and does.  Thread after thread after thread all about Benton.


Exactly, and WE haven't been the Tea Party for quite some time, now WE can stop caring about the traitor inside.  And yes I agree it was pretty smart of weasel McConnell to be the one to give the cronyism payback position.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> This is shocking. I don't know what good can come of this.


Time for the "glass is half-full" side? Benton gets a job with McConnell. He makes a lot of friends and contacts, especially if Mitch becomes the Majority Leader. He is then in a position to help a liberty candidate for President in the future.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Then this better result in a real change in Mitch's legislative agenda.  Otherwise, Rand is being played.


I agree.

----------


## ninepointfive

> McConnell definitely knows what he's doing. This kills our already slim chances of taking down McConnell. Our record primarying incumbents is absolutely terrible anyway. We have gotten in Kerry and Mike Lee, but both had some major things break their way. With Benton in tow, we can't do it. For anyone saying Massie should primary him, well, they aren't seeing the bigger picture. Massie would have to give up his U.S. House seat to do it and McConnell would probably destroy any freshman Congressman. Let it go. In 2020, if the country still exists, Massie can move into McConnell's seat since McConnell will retire.


How is Benton the pivot point here? The email list? 
The grassroots has done all the heavy lifting. Please explain why you think Benton prevents anyone from primarying McConnel?

----------


## sailingaway

> It's going to be difficult now....really difficult.  If the Rand machine is backing McConnell, you can take it to the bank.  The Rand machine is unstoppable in Kentucky now.


We may decide that it isn't worth it, to go after Mitch, with this, in fact.  Because our resources are powerful when targeted but this plus Rand working for McConnell would truly immobilize a lot of people.  

I can have opinions on both of those factors, but my opinions won't change the impact. 

Massie won't run against Rand's endorsement anyhow.  And I unless we can deliver KY grassroots, I don't know if anyone we'd really want to throw much behind would want to take McConnell on.

----------


## TCE

> How is Benton the pivot point here? The email list? 
> The grassroots has done all the heavy lifting. Please explain why you think Benton prevents anyone from primarying McConnel?


It was already a serious, serious long shot anyway. Massie can't do it since what kind of an advantage does a Freshman have? People don't come out of the woodwork and beat Senate Minority Leaders as connected as McConnell. With Benton, McConnell has every single play Ron or Rand has ever made at his disposal. Benton knows where to look if something is brewing to primary McConnell. This is unnecessary paranoia by McConnell, if anything. Combine that with the fact that Rand will help him and well, there goes any chance. 

We should be focusing on Lindsey Graham, anyway.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Should make you wonder, "why even bother being a part of that machine, if it's going to be protecting the establishment of the establishment?"


Yes, I know.  Unless it results in some position-changing, which admittedly I'm not too optimistic about...

----------


## sailingaway

> How is Benton the pivot point here? The email list? 
> The grassroots has done all the heavy lifting. Please explain why you think Benton prevents anyone from primarying McConnel?


I feel fairly sure Rand already is leasing his and Ron's list to McConnell, if he is endorsing him.  That list USED to be of newcomers to politics and a huge asset to our candidates because no one else had it.  At this point I can only hope that it only works for our kind of candidate, but Ron no longer has the financial benefit of it to withhold, as I see it, for the best of the candidates.

The only way to go after McConnell now would be if we discover a candidate there who galvanizes the grass roots over the impact of Rand's endorsement.  Forsythe would do it maybe, but I am hoping he will run in NH if they have a Senator up that year.  Do they? (NH I mean. Never mind. Not trying to derail the thread.)

----------


## ninepointfive

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ade-in-heaven/
> 
> Thats exactly what hes doing this time  hire the best guy for the job, [Trey] Grayson told The Fix. In Kentucky, a divided Republican Party usually results in a losing candidate.
> 
> Benton isnt the first operative to bridge the gap between Paul World and the establishment. Before him, there was Trygve Olson, an establishment-connected former National Republican Senatorial Committee aide who joined up with Rand Paul after the primary in 2010 and then worked for Ron Pauls presidential campaign this year.
> 
> Olson said Bentons hire is big.
> 
> This is like LeBron to the Heat, Olson said. The best player is now on the best team, and there is no limit to how good the McConnell campaign can be.


Ohh wow - these people are so delusional. Once again, no credit to the grassroots volunteers from the bottom up - just the guy at the top down who was paid. 

This shouldn't end well - and I completely understand any effort to go against McConnell in the primary which brings down Jesse - But I would encourage another effort first which is productive rather than destructive.

----------


## parocks

> WHAT?!? LOL


What happened to http://ronpaulcountry.com  ?  It just disappeared months and months ago, after you and DAS spent so much time hyping it and hyping it and hyping it here on RPF?

----------


## tsai3904

> We may decide that it isn't worth it, to go after Mitch, with this, in fact.  Because our resources are powerful when targeted but this plus Rand working for McConnell would truly immobilize a lot of people.


Yea, I think 2014, we need everyone to focus on Tom Davis primarying Lindsey Graham.  McConnell has $6 million+ and Graham has $4 million+.  It would take significant amounts of money to go after both.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> *I feel fairly sure Rand already is leasing his and Ron's list to McConnell*, if he is endorsing him.  That list USED to be of newcomers to politics and a huge asset to our candidates because no one else had it.  At this point I can only hope that it only works for our kind of candidate, but Ron no longer has the financial benefit of it to withhold, as I see it, for the best of the candidates.
> 
> The only way to go after McConnell now would be if we discover a candidate there who galvanizes the grass roots over the impact of Rand's endorsement.  Forsythe would do it maybe, but I am hoping he will run in NH if they have a Senator up that year.  Do they?


Please cite your source for this.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Believe it or not, May 2012 join date, this movement was built on principles and in taking the GOP back to those principles not washing out the principles for political advancement. That is the OLD game.  Those of us who believe otherwise do not 'belong in a different party' we need to merely continue our path as Ron set it out and keep our eyes on the principles, not the personalities.
> 
> And my comment on the join date isn't that new members aren't good, many are spectacular. But coming here AFTER the campaign said it wasn't going to have delegates to win and after the campaign, if never the delegates, changed focus and trying to speak for the movement is kind of rich.  Your at that late date appearing and trying to suggest you have the better pulse of where people are,  telling everyone to work in the party the 'endorse McConnell way' and for everyone else to leave the party and immolate themselves in a third party seems contrary to many of our goals.  Ron wanted us in the party to show what adherence to principles and requirement of character in politicians could do.


Well maybe you can change my join date to July 1960 when I sat at the RNC in Chicago and was inspired by Goldwater's speech which called on Conservatives to take back the party.  

My point about people maybe being better off in an LP or CP is that it seems that every move that has taken place by someone other than Ron Paul over the last few months has been met with staunch criticism from the majority of people on this site.  The LP and CP take a far more dogmatic approach to things, which seems to be the preference of a lot of the folks here on this site.  Everything from Rand's endorsement, to Bill's endorsement, to Cruz's endorsement, to Rand appearing at FreePac and a litany of other events have all been met with disapproval from the majority of folks on here.  Rand will more than likely endorse and campaign for McConnell in 14, and I am sure that most of the folks here won't be in favor of that at all.

----------


## sailingaway

> Ohh wow - these people are so delusional. Once again, no credit to the grassroots volunteers from the bottom up - just the guy at the top down who was paid. 
> 
> This shouldn't end well - and I completely understand any effort to go against McConnell in the primary which brings down Jesse - But I would encourage another effort first which is productive rather than destructive.


When those particular people start gushing, it is a 'party' move.

----------


## libertyjam

> Not entirely. Ron Paul supporters who read forums about Ron Paul religiously are in the minority. There are many Ron Paul supporters that would hear that a former Ron Paul person was Mitch's campaign manager, and think "wow, Mitch is really coming over to our side". The establishment is well aware of the level of knowledge (or ignorance) in the voting public. I know several Ron Paul supporters (and donors) who would not know the name Jesse Benton, but if a MSM report said that McConnell had hired a Ron Paul person, they would take it as a good thing.


You miss the point, the percentage of Ron Paul supporters that are left in the Tea Party can be numbered by the use of one hand.

----------


## sailingaway

> We should be focusing on Lindsey Graham, anyway.


We will be focusing on Graham but it was going to be Graham and McConnell, and he knew it.

----------


## parocks

> Believe it or not there are many within the Liberty Movement that feel it has been co-opted by the left-libertarians, anarcho-capitalists and conspiracy crowd.


Right about this.

How is it that Kokesh can have any support after directly attacking Ron Paul is beyond me.

Ron Paul is simply a Robert Taft style, old school, true conservative.

----------


## supermario21

Graham will be easier to primary than McConnell. Graham is more of a moderate in the eyes of most people (Even though to us, they both suck) and South Carolina is a good breeding ground of limited government. I know this thread has been going on awhile lol but I can't understand how you would jump ship like this, especially after McConnell campaigned against Rand essentially in 2010...On the flip side, I think this is a sign that unless you seek to embrace the limited government crusaders, YOU WILL LOSE! Really looks like Ron was right when he said we are the future.

----------


## sailingaway

> Please cite your source for this.


See the 'feel'.  I can give you my reasoned thoughts for why I feel that way if you like, but I suspect you'd be upset.

----------


## AuH2O

Anyone talking seriously about primarying Mitch McConnell is an idiot.  It would be an pointless exercise.  *Maybe* a strong third party candidate in the general could siphon off enough votes to hand it to the Democrat, but beating Mitch outright is a pipe dream.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Right about this.
> 
> How is it that Kokesh can have any support after directly attacking Ron Paul is beyond me.
> 
> *Ron Paul is simply a Robert Taft style, old school, true conservative*.


Very much so.  I was young when Taft was in office, but I remember my father spoke very highly of him.

----------


## parocks

> You miss the point, the percentage of Ron Paul supporters that are left in the Tea Party can be numbered by the use of one hand.


Wrong in Maine - see Pete the Carpenter - founder of the Maine Tea Party and Ron Paul delegate, who was just ousted from leadership of the Auburn GOP.

----------


## sailingaway

> Yea, I think 2014, we need everyone to focus on Tom Davis primarying Lindsey Graham.  McConnell has $6 million+ and Graham has $4 million+.  It would take significant amounts of money to go after both.


That isn't remotely the reason we'd not go after McConnell.  That wouldn't stop us.

----------


## jllundqu

> Hmmm. Didn't McConnell endorse trey Grayson against rand?


-THIS

----------


## Sola_Fide

I dont know.  I genuinely think that this may be part of Rand's power play.  Rand has McConnell right where he wants him.  McConnell is going to have to capitulate to the Tea Party now.  And now, the Senate leadership could be a conduit for Rand's political power.  It sounds conceivable to me.

----------


## supermario21

> Right about this.
> 
> How is it that Kokesh can have any support after directly attacking Ron Paul is beyond me.
> 
> Ron Paul is simply a Robert Taft style, old school, true conservative.


I also agree with this. We are conservatives. I always like it when Ron gets labeled as a libertarian and usually tries to correct people by correctly identifying himself instead as a traditional conservative. Our task is just to stay as united as possible. When you start getting lofted into the mainstream (as we slowly but surely are) its important to keep our organizational strength. That is what will separate us from the libertarian party which continues to flounder in irrelevancy, because of its lack of organizational strength and will power.

----------


## parocks

> Graham will be easier to primary than McConnell. Graham is more of a moderate in the eyes of most people (Even though to us, they both suck) and South Carolina is a good breeding ground of limited government. I know this thread has been going on awhile lol but I can't understand how you would jump ship like this, especially after McConnell campaigned against Rand essentially in 2010...On the flip side, I think this is a sign that unless you seek to embrace the limited government crusaders, YOU WILL LOSE! Really looks like Ron was right when he said we are the future.


Yes, to "us", every Republican who isn't Ron Paul is exactly the same.  Completely untrue, but "we" believe it.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Well maybe you can change my join date to July 1960 when I sat at the RNC in Chicago and was inspired by Goldwater's speech which called on Conservatives to take back the party.  
> 
> My point about people maybe being better off in an LP or CP is that it seems that every move that has taken place by someone other than Ron Paul over the last few months has been met with staunch criticism from the majority of people on this site.  The LP and CP take a far more dogmatic approach to things, which seems to be the preference of a lot of the folks here on this site.  Everything from Rand's endorsement, to Bill's endorsement, to Cruz's endorsement, to Rand appearing at FreePac and a litany of other events have all been met with disapproval from the majority of folks on here.  Rand will more than likely endorse and campaign for McConnell in 14, and I am sure that most of the folks here won't be in favor of that at all.


The LP has run a drug warrior former GOPer and a wishy washy CATO-libertarian the last two cycles; I'd hardly say the party is full of Rothbardians anymore.

----------


## sailingaway

> Well maybe you can change my join date to July 1960 when I sat at the RNC in Chicago and was inspired by Goldwater's speech which called on Conservatives to take back the party.  
> 
> My point about people maybe being better off in an LP or CP is that it seems that every move that has taken place by someone other than Ron Paul over the last few months has been met with staunch criticism from the majority of people on this site.  The LP and CP take a far more dogmatic approach to things, which seems to be the preference of a lot of the folks here on this site.  Everything from Rand's endorsement, to Bill's endorsement, to Cruz's endorsement, to Rand appearing at FreePac and a litany of other events have all been met with disapproval from the majority of folks on here.  Rand will more than likely endorse and campaign for McConnell in 14, and I am sure that most of the folks here won't be in favor of that at all.


If you sat it out through Ron, I wonder how lasting your impression from Goldwater was, but that is a personal bias, on my part.  But do note this forum was inspired by RON, who doesn't seem to have gotten you here.

A lot of the problem was the timing of Rand's endorsement, and then people were generally angry with him, period.  That also created a sore spot with endorsements.  The problem with McConnell's is that it might actually have impact. This is why McConnell wants it, of course.  But is also why it is damaging, or 'uses political capital' for Rand to do it.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

Score one for the pure libertarians around here. Minus one for the establishment wannabes who defended this chubby putz for so long. But I'm sure he's going on the McConnell campaign to subvert it for liberty, LMFAO!

----------


## tsai3904

> That isn't remotely the reason we'd not go after McConnell.  That wouldn't stop us.


I know it wouldn't stop us from supporting someone trying to primary McConnell but I think it should stop us.  Like you said "our resources are powerful when targeted".  If we spread our resources too thin, we risk not winning anything.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> If you sat it out through Ron, I wonder how lasting your impression from Goldwater was, but that is a personal bias, on my part.  But do note this forum was inspired by RON, who doesn't seem to have gotten you here.


Didn't sit it out at all.  A join date on a web forum is no indication of what one has done in the real world.  I have held elected office for most of my adult life.   I'm currently laid up from some surgery and this is an interesting way to spend some time.  You can only watch so much TV.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Then this better result in a real change in Mitch's legislative agenda.  Otherwise, Rand is being played.


You don't understand. If Rand doesn't back McConnell, then his machine is not unstoppable anymore. So, all we have to do for an unstoppable national machine is to back to the establishment, big government, warmongers of the GOP. Then we will all be on the winning team.

----------


## sailingaway

> I know it wouldn't stop us from supporting someone trying to primary McConnell but I think it should stop us.  Like you said "our resources are powerful when targeted".  If we spread our resources too thin, we risk not winning anything.


We could easily manage TWO, and with that profile, those two would be our top two.

----------


## parocks

> Rand already has a Senate seat. How would Rand be a threat to Mitch?


Rand and Benton could've possibly worked hard to help Tea Party candidate X against Mitch.  That team is the team that could do damage to Mitch, and it doesn't appear at all like that's going to happen.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> I know it wouldn't stop us from supporting someone trying to primary McConnell but I think it should stop us.  Like you said "our resources are powerful when targeted".  If we spread our resources too thin, we risk not winning anything.


If Rand and co are going to back the establishment of the establishment, it's time to withdraw resources from anything to do with Rand Paul and focus it on candidates who are actually running against the status quo.

----------


## georgiaboy

> Yes, I know.  Unless it results in some position-changing, which admittedly I'm not too optimistic about...


If Rand can't negotiate some substantive legislative rationale for supporting Mitch,  it'd be better if Mitch lost to a D in 2014, giving actual conservatives a chance in 2020.

Getting a Republican majority can't be the only reply, either.  An R majority can even be more damaging with a bad agenda.

For all its promise, I'd sure hate for the Rand Machine to end up being ultimately ineffectual.

----------


## DjLoTi

Jesse lost his chance to make a real difference in the nation. The Ron Paul campaign is over. He was a big problem in the bigger problem of the official Ron Paul campaign. I think Tom Woods says it best. http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/my-memo...f-jesse-bento/

----------


## brandon

I wonder what his wife thinks about all this?  Is she just happy that the money is rolling in?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> I dont know.  I genuinely think that this may be part of Rand's power play.  Rand has McConnell right where he wants him.  McConnell is going to have to capitulate to the Tea Party now.  And now, the Senate leadership could be a conduit for Rand's political power.  It sounds conceivable to me.


Too many maybes for support. If Rand is going full blown Leninist, it's time to withdraw support and channel it elsewhere.

----------


## parocks

> It wasn't a prediction. It was an "aloud" musing. Don't talk to me. You piss me off.


Yeah, feel free to go elsewhere if you like.

----------


## tsai3904

> If Rand and co are going to back the establishment of the establishment, it's time to withdraw resources from anything to do with Rand Paul and focus it on candidates who are actually running against the status quo.


Who are those candidates?

----------


## rideurlightning

And NOBODY wanted to believe Kokesh. And now you all must feel very stupid.

----------


## orenbus

> What happened to http://ronpaulcountry.com  ?  It just disappeared months and months ago, after you and DAS spent so much time hyping it and hyping it and hyping it here on RPF?


We never had any plan to run it forever, initially the idea was to keep it running for the first number of state contests and then based on those results see where we were. Since it was strictly a voluntary effort it took a lot of time on many different peoples parts to keep things going, but was never considered something that would be permanent. A couple of months ago I got sick and ended up in a hospital bed for close to a month spending some time in the cardiac telemetry wing, ambulanced to another area hospital, and had to have a number of surgical procedures done associated with my pancreas and gallbladder, during that time the site went down.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Who are those candidates?


John Dennis would be one. Gunny would be another. As would BJ Lawson, were he to run again.

----------


## libertyjam

> Wrong in Maine - see Pete the Carpenter - founder of the Maine Tea Party and Ron Paul delegate, who was just ousted from leadership of the Auburn GOP.


Like I said, single digits.

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## sailingaway

So, it is one more data point, or one more cluster of data points, as we move on.

----------


## specsaregood

> John Dennis would be one. Gunny would be another. As would BJ Lawson, were he to run again.


Are you seriously suggesting we spend resources on the Dennis race?

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> And NOBODY wanted to believe Kokesh. And now you all must feel very stupid.


Kokesh is a 'crack head' who doesn't know what he's talking about  He's not a big (pun intended) high profile campaign official like Benton.

----------


## TCE

> We could easily manage TWO, and with that profile, those two would be our top two.


How, in a non-Presidential election year, are we going to manage knocking off two incumbents as entrenched and connected as McConnell and Graham? Talk about a gigantic money suck that may not bare any fruit. Our best chances have always been open seat races, and 2014 will have some of those. We had enough to win it for Rand and Amash last time, but both were open seats.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Are you seriously suggesting we spend resources on the Dennis race?


It'd be more beneficial than backing Rand backing McConnell.

----------


## TCE

> Are you seriously suggesting we spend resources on the Dennis race?


If we keep running the same race over and over again, we have to win it eventually...right? Dennis should have either moved or run for a State House/Senate seat.

----------


## sailingaway

> I wonder what his wife thinks about all this?  Is she just happy that the money is rolling in?


I don't see any reason at all to bash Ron's granddaughter.

----------


## parocks

> WTF do you believe the Liberty movement *IS*?  The people you described are who I think of when I think of "liberty"....do you think of Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, and Glenn Beck??


Who are the Democrat Liberty people?

Ron Paul ran for the Republican Nomination.  He's the most pure of the Liberty Wing of the Republican Party.  

Other parties never win.

----------


## sailingaway

> How, in a non-Presidential election year, are we going to manage knocking off two incumbents as entrenched and connected as McConnell and Graham? Talk about a gigantic money suck that may not bare any fruit. Our best chances have always been open seat races, and 2014 will have some of those. We had enough to win it for Rand and Amash last time, but both were open seats.


Mike Lee wasn't.  

Regardless, the issue is whether people are galvanized, and with a good candidate against two arch enemies of liberty such as Graham and McConnell, people would be galvanized. That is what gets the money and effort in.  That was in Rand's race, and in a few others. Purity of candidates and perceived purity of candidates played a big role in who grass roots got behind, as you probably recall.  

We might have ended up winning Davis's race and merely taking McConnell out for a Dem to get in and for us to have the opportunity to get someone NOT establishment controlled in the next time -- our ultimate weapon.  But we certainly aren't going to win them all.  This is just one people had been looking forward to.

It is what it is, and unless a galvanizing figure willing to go AGAINST Rand shows up -- which I consider unlikely -- McConnell seems to have done good work for himself.

----------


## TCE

> It is what it is, and unless a galvanizing figure willing to go AGAINST Rand shows up -- which I consider unlikely -- McConnell seems to have done good work for himself.


One has to respect the intelligence of an electoral genius, even when he is the opponent.

----------


## sailingaway

> Didn't sit it out at all.  A join date on a web forum is no indication of what one has done in the real world.  I have held elected office for most of my adult life.   I'm currently laid up from some surgery and this is an interesting way to spend some time.  You can only watch so much TV.


I meant sitting out pushing Ron and his principles, not 'being in politics'.

----------


## sailingaway

> One has to respect the intelligence of an electoral genius, even when he is the opponent.


I'd say I give him credit for it. 'Respect' and 'McConnell' are difficult for me to hold together in my head at the same time.

----------


## Aratus

for a moment i had thought this was a joke or prank thread and then i realized it was totally for real.
would jesse benton hire a few of us here, too... assuming we are okay with mitt going the distance?
today i was watching the DJIA and saw it leap about 100 points after our potus laid out a new stimulus
package. i am going to try to resist the urge to tell the Liberty Hobbit that poor jesse needs a few of
us to watch his back and remain loyal to him. he had worked for bob barr. he has a unique job, i think.

----------


## brandon

> I don't see any reason at all to bash Ron's granddaughter.


Huh? No one was bashing her.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I meant sitting out pushing Ron and his principles, not 'being in politics'.


Again you have no idea what I have done before joining a web forum.  Prior to my surgery, I spent maybe an hour or so a week on the computer.  Normally, I lead a very active life and a part of that is working on political campaigns.  I am elected here in my community, so I am well known, and I knocked on every single door here prior to our primary with literature for Paul.  He did not do as well as I would have hoped though, in large part because he did not campaign down here at all.

----------


## sailingaway

> John Dennis would be one. Gunny would be another. As would BJ Lawson, were he to run again.


Also, I really want Jim Forsythe in the Senate. US Senate, not NH Senate.  I'll take US House only if I have to....

----------


## parocks

> In what way?  Be specific, please.


Well, in 2007-8, we had 

1) the invention/popularization of the money bomb
2) the invention of the tea party
3) a nice, open collaborative effort on a nice USA Today full page ad.

In 2011, we had

1) Superbrochures.

and, what else?

Our delegate victories came from Offical Campaign work.
In Maine, where I am, Brakey was sent in from out of state, and was paid for months, and we got the victory.  Other states are like that.

Apparently the worst thing that Benton did was tell us when we lost.  We didn't like to hear that we lost, and some people thought that if we just ignored the FACT that we lost, it could be ignored.  But FACTS are FACTS, and not winning a single primary means that Ron Paul doesn't get to be President, even though it makes us unhappy.

It's not like Benton made any gaffes, which the media used against Ron Paul.  No, Benton is being attacked for things like approving emails that said "we don't have enough delegates to win".  And Paulfest contained Kokesh, who most certainly IS fringe.

----------


## doctor jones

Thank god for Jesse Benton. We have a bunch of Tom Woods in our movement... and not nearly enough people willing to get their hands deep into politics. Getting the leader of your party in your corner for a Presidential run would be priceless.

----------


## Aratus

> A lot of people know the name Karl Rove.
> 
> A lot of people know the name James Carville.
> 
> A lot of people know the name Lee Atwater.


i can even namedrop mark hanna

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Believe it or not there are many within the Liberty Movement that feel it has been co-opted by the left-libertarians, anarcho-capitalists and conspiracy crowd.


The more I think about this comment, the more it pisses me off.

You DO know, don't you, that Dr. Paul first ran for President under the banner of the Libertarian Party in 1988...right?  Who do you think it was supporting him then?  Yep, left-libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, and the conspiracy crowd.  

So almost 20 years later he decides to make another run as a Republican and those of us who consider ourselves small-l libertarians are suddenly _personae non gratae_ among a bunch of  GOP opportunists?  I've got some choice words for that:  *$#@! all of you who seek to discredit those of us who knew Ron Paul "when".*

 I wonder who it was that gave him the advice to run GOP and to try to reform the Republican Party?  It wasn't very good advice as far as I can see, and I've felt that way all along.  These "advances" that some here speak of in the liberty movement...I wonder how that will play out 1, 2, 3 years down the road when these candidates also sell themselves out to the highest GOP bidder. 

Dr. Paul has one major fault that I can see:  he's too damned trusting of those advising him.

----------


## parocks

> He wanted people carrying bullhorns into convention and pretending to be Romney racists and things, as I recall.


Oh, I wanted 100 different options. Whatever could wreck the convention (until the Wead interview that revealed that the official campaign were basically afraid
to attack Romney, at which time simply lying down was the best approach)  At the convention we got exactly Ron Paul boilerplate - marching and chanting, and
minor disurbances.

But it doesn't matter, because what did happen, did suck and was ineffective.   The official campaign got the things done that were done.  Maine, Minnesota, Iowa, all had official campaign people there.

----------


## orenbus

> *$#@! all of you who seek to discredit those of us who knew Ron Paul "when".*

----------


## parocks

> Yeah, I fell for that too....but then I woke up.  How long is it going to take YOU?


The Liberty Wing of the Republican Party is either stronger or weaker at any given time.  You can trace it to Goldwater, you can trace it to Robert Taft.  You can probably trace it back even further.  But that's what Ron Paul is, the leader of the Liberty Wing of the Republican Party.

----------


## Brett85

> No. First, Rand's budget wasn't all that great, even if it was the best we are going to get. Second, McConnell knew it had no chance of passing. He voted for it for leverage with people like you. Looking at his record no one really believes he would support real spending cuts anywhere, especially overseas.


Then I guess he would've been better off just voting against it.  He should probably realize that he can't please people like you no matter what he does.

----------


## puppetmaster

If this doesn't piss on Ron Paul I don't know what would. This is disgusting....but expected by many.

----------


## sailingaway

> The more I think about this comment, the more it pisses me off.
> 
> You DO know, don't you, that Dr. Paul first ran for President under the banner of the Libertarian Party in 1988...right?  Who do you think it was supporting him then?  Yep, left-libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, and the conspiracy crowd.  
> 
> So almost 20 years later he decides to make another run as a Republican and those of us who consider ourselves small-l libertarians are suddenly _personae non gratae_ among a bunch of  GOP opportunists?  I've got some choice words for that:  *$#@! all of you who seek to discredit those of us who knew Ron Paul "when".*
> 
>  I wonder who it was that gave him the advice to run GOP and to try to reform the Republican Party?  It wasn't very good advice as far as I can see, and I've felt that way all along.  These "advances" that some here speak of in the liberty movement...I wonder how that will play out 1, 2, 3 years down the road when these candidates also sell themselves out to the highest GOP bidder. 
> 
> Dr. Paul has one major fault that I can see:  he's too damned trusting of those advising him.


I do not believe CaptLouAlbano entirely approves of Ron.

----------


## parocks

> Jesse Benton?  Or the grassroots?  
> 
> My question was, how did the _grassroots_ suck?


I wanted Romney hurt at the convention until I heard the offical Ron Paul campaign was afraid of Romney.

I answered "why did the grassroots suck" on another post.

----------


## sailingaway

> The Liberty Wing of the Republican Party is either stronger or weaker at any given time.  You can trace it to Goldwater, you can trace it to Robert Taft.  You can probably trace it back even further.  But that's what Ron Paul is, the leader of the Liberty Wing of the Republican Party.


I agree with that, personally.

But he is supported by people inside and OUTSIDE the GOP. That is Ron's huge value, independents and crossovers who don't feel represented by either of the main parties feel represented by Ron.  Some will become GOP and work within it, some won't, but will be there in general elections, for volunteer work and funding, or will support his legislative proposals such as end the fed, or some of those.  

No one else has a tie to these people. This is Ron's UNIQUE VALUE beyond organization.  We sure don't want to throw it away.

----------


## parocks

> Maybe some here need to listen to this again:


Right, this is the Fringe Kokesh trashing Ron Paul for no good reason at all.  If Kokesh didn't do this, and other Fringe things, Benton wouldn't have told Schiff to stay away from Paulfest.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> The Liberty Wing of the Republican Party is either stronger or weaker at any given time.  You can trace it to Goldwater, you can trace it to Robert Taft.  You can probably trace it back even further.  But that's what Ron Paul is, *the leader of the Liberty Wing of the Republican Party*.


That's not how I first heard of him:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4643059

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I do not believe CaptLouAlbano entirely approves of Ron.


Depends on what you mean by "entirely approves"?  Do I think every word Paul speaks is infallible gospel?  No.  But I respect him as a principled leader, and felt he was by far the most conservative candidate in the race and is continuing the legacy of the Old Right.

----------


## orenbus

> But he is supported by people inside and OUTSIDE the GOP. That is Ron's huge value, independents and crossovers who don't feel represented by either of the main parties feel represented by Ron.


Truth

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Then I guess he would've been better off just voting against it.  He should probably realize that he can't please people like you no matter what he does.


He knows he can't please people like me. He didn't vote for it to get me. He voted for it to get you. And he did.

----------


## Aratus

> LOL.  Two possibilities (at least).  1) Jesse Benton is a sellout.  2) Ron and Rand have cleverly led Mitch McConnell into a trap where he is guaranteed to lose his seat to a liberty candidate thanks to our new "inside man" Jesse Benton.  Which conspiracy is it?


good one! seriously though, its too difficult to get more lucidly paranoid.
odds are mitch mcconnell's people screen people and poor jesse won't 
make the same mistake about sacha baron cohen he did when around
bob barr and ron paul. mitch mcconnell is a sly one, even though it looks
like he's hired a campaign guy who had five I.Q points less than trey but
is 5 degrees more to the right than he. i wish jesse the best of luck. i am
frugal when i reuse my teabags in real life. this has been highly memorable.
even if there is a third character sorta like borat or bruno who tries to do
an interview with majority leader mitch down the road, i only presume new
footage will only bobble senator mcconnell a half a point in the KY pollings.
i think if we all try to sorta help jesse spot that sacha character even if we
back someone like our own thomas massie in the primary, we can sorta help
along jesse's career. i'm wishing him the best of luck, and feel he has a big
learning curve. if i wait a year and a half, i think i will be able  to lay a very
done deal bet at InTrade on the re-election chances of the minority leader.
i also think any bet on mcconnell in 2014 at Intrade would be a  total winner.

----------


## sailingaway

> Right, this is the Fringe Kokesh trashing Ron Paul for no good reason at all.  If Kokesh didn't do this, and other Fringe things, Benton wouldn't have told Schiff to stay away from Paulfest.


Kokesh went about things in what I consider to be a terribly destructive and self destructive way.  However, people know where his feelings are coming from and many identify with that, over concern about his methods.  Calling someone people identify with fringe is not a persuasive tactic, imho.

----------


## Brett85

> He knows he can't please people like me. He didn't vote for it to get me. He voted for it to get you. And he did.


Well, he didn't "get" me.  It's not like I'm going to send money to his re-election campaign or anything.  But I don't really see a problem with Jesse Benton working for McConnell and effectively stepping up the ladder in his career.

----------


## orenbus



----------


## FSP-Rebel

> *I wonder how that will play out 1, 2, 3 years down the road when these candidates also sell themselves out to the highest GOP bidder.* 
> 
> Dr. Paul has one major fault that I can see:  he's too damned trusting of those advising him.


I wouldn't bet the farm on that.

And, I doubt Ron was advised on pushing the GOP restoration plan. He ran last time to connect the remnant with any noobs that he could educate and then realized there was more people than he thought and decided that building the liberty wing of the GOP was to be his legacy. Fast forward to now and all the people he got into state party delegate positions. The plan easily doubled or tripled our influence in the GOP since last time and I'm sure Ron is happy about that enough so that he labeled his recent speech, "We are the Future of the GOP" and "RepubliCANs." Adding to our gains and coalition building amongst said delegates will set up for great success in the near future. Then add in our newly elected in the big leagues and on the farm team and things look even brighter.

----------


## Aratus

> Alright, who wants to be the first to eat their crow??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If ANYONE is still defending Benton, they have no brain at all.  You should have seen this coming a loooong time ago; but nooo you morons were too busy playing Ron Paul groupie to see what was happening right in front of your $#@!ing face.  Shame, shame, shame on all of you; you make me sick..


i swear i was feeling guilty about ribbing jesse benton over the borat interview so i have been defending him because i thought
he deserved a second or third chance but i am not ready to eat rEVOLUTIOn crow because i have defended jesse benton. i had
said he had been an essential party of the team who helped rand get to the senate. i admit i am sorta almost pleasantly surprised.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I wouldn't bet the farm on that.
> 
> And, I doubt Ron was advised on pushing the GOP restoration plan. He ran last time to connect the remnant with any noobs that he could educate and then realized there was more people than he thought and decided that building the liberty wing of the GOP was to be his legacy. Fast forward to now and all the people he got into state party delegate positions. The plan easily doubled or tripled our influence in the GOP since last time and I'm sure Ron is happy about that enough so that he labeled his recent speech, "We are the Future of the GOP" and "RepubliCANs." Adding to our gains and coalition building amongst said delegates will set up for great success in the near future. Then add in our newly elected in the big leagues and on the farm team and things look even brighter.


I've worked in campaigns before...those banners you speak of are rarely the result of an idea directly from the candidate...it's usually the work of someone paid to come up with snappy slogans designed to get a message across.  

And as to doubling and tripling influence in the GOP....I learned in grammar school math that 2x or 3x zero is still zero.

----------


## Aratus

If i was going to propose a bet on InTrade in terms of jesse benton and the good senator...  i now expect to a hundred percentile
mitch mcconnell is to be re-elected to the senate if he survives the 2016 primary. i expect to a 50 percentile that sacha baron cohen
may end up with five minutes of usable footage with mitch mcconnell in interview format if sacha baron cohen uses classic 1970s cia latex.
i think that maybe if mitt romney beats barack obama by one percentage point, this will further solidify mitch mcconnell's further flirtation
with the tea party and a possible cabinet position for sarah palin. i am also assuming trey grayson likes his harvard job and did not want
the position jesse benton just got hired for. this is like connie rice turning down mitt as paul ryan is hired on, even as marco rubio isn't.

----------


## parocks

> parocks wanted the grass roots delegates to potentially trash their positions by acting out in ways he thought wouldn't blow back on Ron because they would be pretending to be Romney folks.  He also thought Paul fest should have been different and we should have done other projects he wanted done.  On a couple of those projects I agree they might have been a good idea, but people all had their own ideas.  I believe that is why he thinks grass roots sucked but maybe I have that wrong.
> 
> I WILL say, I think a lot of grass roots from 2007 didn't want to work with the campaign.  This was a really sad development from my point of view since I had just lurked near the end of that, and hoped with all the new people who woke up during that campaign added in, it would be even stronger than it was.  It did have better results, but I think a lot of the old activists didn't really show up, this time.  At least that is what a bunch of people said during the campaign who said 'good luck' at some point but that they weren't going to get involved after the way it was handled before.


If you're going to try to guess, based only on your memory, you're not going to get the truth.  You remember the most recent stuff.  About the convention, I really wouldn't call the delegates "grassroots" exactly.  About the convention, I wanted preparations to do something extremely effective and extremely damaging to Romney.
And I had a lot of different ideas on how that could be accomplished, and no expectations that anything that I was suggesting was going to happen.  As it turns out,
our delegates did do a bunch of stuff, marching and chanting, walking out, etc., and the convention did not give much of a bounce to Romney at all.  But by the convention, we had lost, so, I'm not talking about the convention in the "grassroots sucked this year" analysis.  

Paulfest I said more good things about than bad, but again, this was after we lost.  My take on that was that nobody was going to show up unless there was $77 worth of bands, and then moneywherethemouthis argued persuasively that we didn't want a lot of people there, only those who really really loved Ron Paul.  And I bought that argument.  And that's what happened.  Not a lot of people showed up.  People not showing up had nothing to do with Benton or GJ, but the fact that people weren't getting $77 worth.  (Well, the people that did show up, did have a good time, and it was a worthwhile experience for them, it's just that that number of people was not enough for Paulfest to break even).  You did not see me talking about how the LP and GJ influences on Paulfest were a bad thing.  Others did that.  I liked the Ronvoy, I liked the camping and the RV, I thought that if the grassroots actually wanted to do something, Paulfest and the Tampa parking lot would be a sufficient place to do it.
But, again, this was after we lost.

My problem is that the grassroots didn't really do much worthwhile, didn't kick ass at all.  Superbrochures sucked.  Revpac sucked.  There was a lot of sucked, and not much kick ass achievement.  

People point to our delegate successes, and call them grassroots successes, but they weren't, they were official campaign successes.

I'm not saying that people didn't do good work, there was a good bit of that.  I'd give a gold star to RP08orbust and his robocalls which were almost always, if not always, quite effective, and were very poorly funded.  If all the money that went to superbrochures went to phone calls to cell phones, we might've had a different story.  But, nope, RP08orbust always had to scramble for money to get those calls made.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> I've worked in campaigns before...those banners you speak of are rarely the result of an idea directly from the candidate...it's usually the work of someone paid to come up with snappy slogans designed to get a message across.  
> 
> And as to doubling and tripling influence in the GOP....I learned in grammar school math that 2x or 3x zero is still zero.


Obviously, Ron approved the message and the concept. 2ndly, I'm basing my comments on influence in regards to elected candidates, endorsements and precinct delegates from back then til now and I'm seeing a continuing trend. Only an ostrich can't see this.

----------


## Aratus

> Sending cosmic messaging: :Hire Collins. Hire Collins. Hire Collins.


i am fighting the impulse to check out Jake's PageOne site... or the comments there...

----------


## sailingaway

> *Obviously, Ron approved the message and the concept.* 2ndly, I'm basing my comments on influence in regards to elected candidates, endorsements and precinct delegates from back then til now and I'm seeing a continuing trend. Only an ostrich can't see this.


source?

Ron has flaws, and hands off management to the point of totally turning it over is one, although it is also a feature in his dislike of centralized control.

Ron is the best, imho, even with that flaw, but the results of that flaw are not the same as his approval.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Obviously, Ron approved the message and the concept. 2ndly, I'm basing my comments on influence in regards to elected candidates, endorsements and precinct delegates from back then til now and I'm seeing a continuing trend. Only an ostrich can't see this.


It's a continuing trend alright, but _of what?_ 

As I said, let's revisit this 1 or 2 years down the road...it's too early to judge these so-called liberty candidates that you consider a boost to the Real Liberty Movement.

As to Ron directly approving those banners...I hope you're not serious.  The candidate is usually too busy to micro-manage his/her own campaign.  That's why they hire people.

----------


## parocks

> Like I said, single digits.


No, a substantial part of the tea party in Maine supports Ron Paul.  He was the founder of the tea party in Maine, and other tea party people went along with Pete to Ron Paul.  Not because of Pete necessarily, but a lot of tea party in Maine are Ron Paul supporters.  not a handful of people in the country.

----------


## Aratus

> So Mitch thinks he's co-opting, when in fact, he's being co-opted? Hmmm. Maybe   
> Or maybe Trey should primary him lol


long ago i was expecting sec' trey grayson to run for mitch's seat when mitch retires even though the seat
is one of the two that once belonged to henry clay. i think i am not wrong on how trey gets to the senate.

----------


## parocks

> How, in a non-Presidential election year, are we going to manage knocking off two incumbents as entrenched and connected as McConnell and Graham? Talk about a gigantic money suck that may not bare any fruit. Our best chances have always been open seat races, and 2014 will have some of those. We had enough to win it for Rand and Amash last time, but both were open seats.


Conservatives want Lindsey Graham gone.  They don't feel the same way about Mitch.

----------


## sailingaway

> Conservatives want Lindsey Graham gone.  They don't feel the same way about Mitch.


Tea Party does, or would imho, they sure spoke that way during Rand's campaign, but now they will be split.

----------


## Aratus

mitch mcconnell wants a GOP POTUS and a Republican Senate + House and if he gets re-elected he might be the next magority leader.

----------


## parocks

> The more I think about this comment, the more it pisses me off.
> 
> You DO know, don't you, that Dr. Paul first ran for President under the banner of the Libertarian Party in 1988...right?  Who do you think it was supporting him then?  Yep, left-libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, and the conspiracy crowd.  
> 
> So almost 20 years later he decides to make another run as a Republican and those of us who consider ourselves small-l libertarians are suddenly _personae non gratae_ among a bunch of  GOP opportunists?  I've got some choice words for that:  *$#@! all of you who seek to discredit those of us who knew Ron Paul "when".*
> 
>  I wonder who it was that gave him the advice to run GOP and to try to reform the Republican Party?  It wasn't very good advice as far as I can see, and I've felt that way all along.  These "advances" that some here speak of in the liberty movement...I wonder how that will play out 1, 2, 3 years down the road when these candidates also sell themselves out to the highest GOP bidder. 
> 
> Dr. Paul has one major fault that I can see:  he's too damned trusting of those advising him.


Ron Paul was a Republican Congressman in the 70s and 80s.  Left very briefly in 1988.  And then got back again and became a Republican Congressman in the 90s and 00s.

----------


## Aratus

> People should keep in mind that McConnell was just one of about eight Senators to vote in favor of Rand's budget that balanced in five years.


if only mitch mcconnell can come around to the idea of a rather extensive pentagon audit, i might drop my jaw again over the curious turns in KY politics.

----------


## orenbus

> Tea Party does, or would imho, they sure spoke that way during Rand's campaign, but now they will be split.

----------


## sailingaway

> People should keep in mind that McConnell was just one of about eight Senators to vote in favor of Rand's budget that balanced in five years.


The problem with votes so far on the losing side as that is it is a way of pandering.  The way you know the sincere ones are the ones who turn down advancement, or take on party establishment, to stick to principles.  And I admit there is some play there about 'trivial' stuff, like saying you 'support the nominee' or something. But there is a place where advancement for deals impacting principle makes what you are voting, on the far losing side, just look like pandering.

----------


## 69360

Good for Jesse. 

Wether people here like it or not this probably means that McConnell will endorse Rand for 2016.

We're going mainstream next time.

----------


## libertyjam

> No, a substantial part of the tea party in Maine supports Ron Paul.  He was the founder of the tea party in Maine, and other tea party people went along with Pete to Ron Paul.  Not because of Pete necessarily, but a lot of tea party in Maine are Ron Paul supporters.  not a handful of people in the country.


Can you read? I said percentage. single. digit. percentage.  Jesse is that you?
Like Maine is representative of the rest of the country.  How many electoral votes do you have?  
Was I talking about Maine alone? No, why would I?
Now it may be the same way in KY, I don't know, but the majority of the country that considers themselves Tea Party would have nothing to do with Paul, and most continuously trashed him and backed a Santorum or Gingrich this this election cycle. Many of them downright hate Ron. Yet in my home state at both CD and State conventions, there were three factions, establishment, Tea Party, and Ron Paul liberty people.  None of them had a majority, but we were able to get the Tea party folks who blatantly said would never vote for RP and would support Romney, to vote with us in a coalition to get people in positions that we both wanted, because the establishment types have been screwing both grassroots factions over for so long.  This happened across the state, the state with the second largest electoral vote in the nation and the largest GOP convention in the world, and is largely representative of what the reality is in the majority of rest of the nation is as far as I can discern.

----------


## AJ Antimony

Ok well, he can hire Jesse Benton... and his primary challenger can hire David Adams.

----------


## sailingaway

> Good for Jesse. 
> 
> Like it or not this probably means that McConnell will endorse Rand for 2016.


For what consideration?

That is the concern.

----------


## parocks

> I agree with that, personally.
> 
> But he is supported by people inside and OUTSIDE the GOP. That is Ron's huge value, independents and crossovers who don't feel represented by either of the main parties feel represented by Ron.  Some will become GOP and work within it, some won't, but will be there in general elections, for volunteer work and funding, or will support his legislative proposals such as end the fed, or some of those.  
> 
> No one else has a tie to these people. This is Ron's UNIQUE VALUE beyond organization.  We sure don't want to throw it away.


Those Is and Ds did not make Conservative Republicans happy.  Those Is and Ds are not particularly effective at communicating with Conservative Republicans.  The fight that we had to win in the primaries, and didn't, at all, was to make it absolutely clear that Ron Paul was a Conservative.  The word Libertarian is used as an insult, meant to divide Ron Paul from Conservative Republicans.  We shouldn't be embracing that label.  

I'm not suggesting the interesting coalition of people (who often do not like each other) is not useful.  But when the Conservative Republicans you have to have to win a primary associate Ron Paul with the antiwar protesting left, you have a real problem which leads to winning no primaries.

----------


## sailingaway

> Those Is and Ds did not make Conservative Republicans happy.  Those Is and Ds are not particularly effective at communicating with Conservative Republicans.  The fight that we had to win in the primaries, and didn't, at all, was to make it absolutely clear that Ron Paul was a Conservative.  The word Libertarian is used as an insult, meant to divide Ron Paul from Conservative Republicans.  We shouldn't be embracing that label.  
> 
> I'm not suggesting the interesting coalition of people (who often do not like each other) is not useful.  But when the Conservative Republicans you have to have to win a primary associate Ron Paul with the antiwar protesting left, you have a real problem which leads to winning no primaries.


But they sure want him on their side when it comes to the general election, don't they? 

I'm remembering something Amash said about how maybe not many endorse Ron from the House but his is the ONE endorsement everyone wants to get.

----------


## parocks

Ok, we're talking about math.  Are we talking about the percentage of the tea party that supports Ron Paul?  I'd say a minority.  And I'd say double digits.  So, somewhere between 10 and 50 % but closer to 10%.  The grassroots dropped this ball in December 2011 by not reminding people of the invention of the Tea Party in 2007.  We apparently want no allies, do not want to join together with anybody we don't agree with 100% in order to achieve objectives.  This strategy seems to lead to not achieving objectives very often.




> Can you read? I said percentage. single. digit. percentage.  Jesse is that you?
> Like Maine is representative of the rest of the country.  How many electoral votes do you have?  
> Was I talking about Maine alone? No, why would I?
> Now it may be the same way in KY, I don't know, but the majority of the country that considers themselves Tea Party would have nothing to do with Paul, and most continuously trashed him and backed a Santorum or Gingrich this this election cycle. Many of them downright hate Ron. Yet in my home state at both CD and State conventions, there were three factions, establishment, Tea Party, and Ron Paul liberty people.  None of them had a majority, but we were able to get the Tea party folks who blatantly said would never vote for RP and would support Romney, to vote with us in a coalition to get people in positions that we both wanted, because the establishment types have been screwing both grassroots factions over for so long.  This happened across the state, the state with the second largest electoral vote in the nation and the largest GOP convention in the world, and is largely representative of what the reality is in the majority of rest of the nation is as far as I can discern.

----------


## sailingaway

> Ok, we're talking about math.  Are we talking about the percentage of the tea party that supports Ron Paul?  I'd say a minority.  And I'd say double digits.  So, somewhere between 10 and 50 % but closer to 10%.  The grassroots dropped this ball in December 2011 by not reminding people of the invention of the Tea Party in 2007.  We apparently want no allies, do not want to join together with anybody we don't agree with 100% in order to achieve objectives.  This strategy seems to lead to not achieving objectives very often.


Real life doesn't work like statistics.  Ron is electric, and the tea party name has been adopted by non RP people, as well as there having been disagreements in the beginning.  But look outside.  A third of the country, more of the country than are GOP, are independents. You don't think that worries the establishment?

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

So money and social gains is all that is needed for little Benton to work for someone who is not a friend of the movement. LOL. I guess Benton doesn't care or believe in anything his Grandfather-in-Law says about these politician types. 

If he is selling out now, I'd imagine he sold us out during the campaign.

----------


## parocks

> But they sure want him on their side when it comes to the general election, don't they? 
> 
> I'm remembering something Amash said about how maybe not many endorse Ron from the House but his is the ONE endorsement everyone wants to get.


I don't know if they do or not.  We assume they do.  Of course, they're used to not having our vote, and they're used to not doing anything to try to get it.  We're unreliable voters, and they don't pander to us.  We assume they want our vote though, for some reason.  There's a Libertarian Party for us to vote for.  There's a Constitutional Party for us to vote for.  It seems like the general attitude has been "look, over there, go over there and leave us alone."  

But they have to want our vote in some cases, it seems apparent.

----------


## Carlybee

> My problem is that the grassroots didn't really do much worthwhile, didn't kick ass at all.  Superbrochures sucked.  Revpac sucked.  There was a lot of sucked, and not much kick ass achievement.



I guess you don't call raising millions of dollars or GOTV efforts an achievement?

----------


## sailingaway

> So money and social gains is all that is needed for little Benton to work for someone who is not a friend of the movement. LOL. I guess Benton doesn't care or believe in anything his Grandfather-in-Law says about these politician types. 
> 
> If he is selling out now, I'd imagine he sold us out during the campaign.


Or, with similar result, if he is the right guy for McConnell, maybe his go along to get along approach reflected in the campaign means his decisions were the antipathy of what we stand for, even if it wasn't about 'selling out'.  He may or may not have been influenced much by that, I don't even have to go there. But I don't know much that could say he was the wrong person for Ron's campaign as much as his going to McConnell's, personally.

----------


## parocks

> So money and social gains is all that is needed for little Benton to work for someone who is not a friend of the movement. LOL. I guess Benton doesn't care or believe in anything his Grandfather-in-Law says about these politician types. 
> 
> If he is selling out now, I'd imagine he sold us out during the campaign.


This helps Rand. 

Am I the only person who realizes that Rand is up for Reelection to US Senate at the same time that he'd be running for President in 2016?

You, know if Rand goes out of his way to challenge Mitch in 2014, Mitch might want to challenge Rand for US Senate in 2016.  It's very very difficult to run for US Senate and President at the same time.  Having Mitch attacking you makes it so much harder to do.  So, Benton helping Mitch might make it less likely that Mitch hinders Rand in 2016.

----------


## sailingaway

> I guess you don't call raising millions of dollars or GOTV efforts an achievement?


We were funneled to phones and the campaign was throwing cold water and people were trying to defer to Ron's campaign, as well.  And the superbrochures were damaging possibly in the beginning in Iowa and SC where Ron was running and we were talking very conservative GOP primary voters.  In the end when the campaign wasn't doing anything, it was all we had.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Ron Paul was a Republican Congressman in the 70s and 80s.  Left very briefly in 1988.  And then got back again and became a Republican Congressman in the 90s and 00s.


Of course I know that.  But it was as a Libertarian that he first ran for POTUS.  Point being, he didn't always feel that the GOP represented him.  It didn't...and it still doesn't.

----------


## specsaregood

Does anybody have Mr. Benton's email or mailing address?  I'd like to send him a thank you note for all his hard work.  

PM me with info, thanks in advance.

----------


## steph3n

Maybe he can be a chairman for Lindsey Graham's campaign as well! that would just be epic in its stature to support the worse.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Does anybody have Mr. Benton's email or mailing address?  I'd like to send him a thank you note for all his hard work.  
> 
> PM me with info, thanks in advance.


I'll bet you would.  Interesting how this thread has revealed those who really were about supporting Ron's values and those who just wanted to play party politics.

----------


## parocks

> I guess you don't call raising millions of dollars or GOTV efforts an achievement?


The biggest moneybomb in 2007 was bigger than the biggest moneybomb in 2011.

You can't just proclaim that raising money was what "grassroots" did.  I could easily just say that was the official campaign.

What effective "grassroots" GOTV was there?  GOTV is typically an official campaign function.  Phone from Home, the major GOTV effort, was done by the official campaign, with support from "campaign volunteers", which aren't the same as grassroots.

----------


## BamaFanNKy

> I'll bet you would.  Interesting how this thread has revealed those who really were about supporting Ron's values and those who just wanted to play party politics.


Ron Thanked him. Guess Ron was playing party politics.

----------


## parocks

> Of course I know that.  But it was as a Libertarian that he first ran for POTUS.  Point being, he didn't always feel that the GOP represented him.  It didn't...and it still doesn't.


But he ran as a Republican over and over and over again, and as a Libertarian 1 (one) time.  He's more a Republican than a Libertarian.

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## sailingaway

> Maybe he can be a chairman for Lindsey Graham's campaign as well! that would just be epic in its stature to support the worse.


Rand doesn't have a machine to fight and split in South Carolina.  De Mint does, though, hope he doesn't go that route.  But we'll back Davis, regardless.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Ron Thanked him. Guess Ron was playing party politics.


I could be wrong, but I believe that happened before the events of this morning.  

And as your mother would probably have told you, "If Ron Paul jumps off a bridge, are you going to jump, too?"

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You sound a little upset.  What's wrong?  Are you not excited about Jesse moving on and leaving liberty island?


Of course I am...but at the same time I'm pissed knowing that he was playing us all along.  Good to know that you are not.

----------


## BamaFanNKy

> I could be wrong, but I believe that happened before the events of this morning.  
> 
> And as your mother would probably have told you, "If Ron Paul jumps off a bridge, are you going to jump, too?"


You think that Benton and Ron didn't talk about this. You guys are not thinking straight.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

wow.  lol.  Yeah, let's make an effort to beat both of them.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> But he ran as a Republican over and over and over again, and as a Libertarian 1 (one) time.  He's more a Republican than a Libertarian.


As we are frequently told on this site, Republican is just a party.  It doesn't become who *you* are unless you embrace who *they* are.  Think about it.

----------


## sailingaway

> Ron Thanked him. Guess Ron was playing party politics.


Ron thanked him for his tireless efforts and mentioned his granddaughter.  Not a glowing epistle.

However, I think many are hoping grass roots will decide the problems leave with Benton, sort of like the Chinese executions if industrial leaders if their corporation has, say, a lead poisoning quality control issue that hits the international news. 

But regardless, gone is gone, re: Benton.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You think that Benton and Ron didn't talk about this. You guys are not thinking straight.


You and I are talking about it now. Doesn't mean I agree with you.

----------


## Carlybee

This thread has been very enlightening to say the least.  Anyone who wants anything to do with Mitch McConnell's brand of politics needs their head examined...that is if they want to pretend to be for liberty.  The fact that Benton is going to work for him tells me all I need to know about him.


Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. 
Voted YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps.
Voted NO on requiring FISA court warrant to monitor US-to-foreign calls.
Voted NO on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods
Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act.
Voted NO on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. 
Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007

----------


## specsaregood

> Of course I am...but at the same time I'm pissed knowing that he was playing us all along.  Good to know that you are not.


I dont think you know that at all.   He hasn't ever stolen from me, voted for laws that harmed me or done anything wrong to me.   I appreciate all the hardwork he put in on the behalf of all of us and Ron.  I'll send him a thank you note when i get the info.

----------


## sailingaway

> As we are frequently told on this site, Republican is just a party.  It doesn't become who *you* are unless you embrace who *they* are.  Think about it.


I, personally, support you in your desire to work outside of the party.  Each thinks their path is best, that is why they chose that path, but no paths are exclusive, imho.  I'm not thinking of leaving the party. But I'm not thinking of leaving my principles, either.  I want those principles embedded in the party, or what is the point?

----------


## steph3n

> Rand doesn't have a machine to fight and split in South Carolina.  De Mint does, though, hope he doesn't go that route.  But we'll back Davis, regardless.


 I'd vote for the the tortoise from children's books before I voted for McConnnnnell or Graham.

----------


## sailingaway

> I'll bet you would.  Interesting how this thread has revealed those who really were about supporting Ron's values and those who just wanted to play party politics.


I think you can't divide people that neatly.

----------


## parocks

> We were funneled to phones and the campaign was throwing cold water and people were trying to defer to Ron's campaign, as well.  And the superbrochures were damaging possibly in the beginning in Iowa and SC where Ron was running and we were talking very conservative GOP primary voters.  In the end when the campaign wasn't doing anything, it was all we had.


Yeah, after we lost, the official campaign stopped doing anything.  But the grassroots just apparently kept on going.  Instead of reading the email that said we lost, followed up by Rand's endorsement, we didn't want to hear "we lost", so we attacked Benton and Rand.  That's when it was over.  Over.  Romney clinched.  

And that's when I started saying things like "black swan" and "eaten by sharks".  But it was over then.  For all of those months.  And for months before that, it was just not going to happen.  When Santorum dropped out, whenever that was, that was also bad.  When money stopped coming in.  All of those things.  

We act like crazy people.  That's our thing.  

If Rand runs and loses, hopefully he makes it 100% clear that it's time to stop campaigning.  You can put the signs down now, crazy people.  I'm out of the race.

But the psyches of Ron Paul (and presumably Rand Paul) supporters are extremely fragile, and just cannot accept that we just did not win.  Or, really, come at all close to winning.  We won 0 primaries.  None.  Romney won most, Santorum won some, Gingrich won at least 1.  In terms of the number of victories, we came in 4th.  Not close to winning.  

And people still whine about this "momentum" that was lost after Romney fully clinched the nomination.  Uh huh.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> The hiring of Benton sends a clear signal to any potential tea party opponents to stand down.
> 			
> 		
> 
> Forget that: it sends a clear signal to proudly STAND UP! LOLOLOLOL


*AMEN!!!!!*

----------


## parocks

> For what consideration?
> 
> That is the concern.


Well, it seem that it's basically a truce.  The Paul people don't attack and do help Mitch in 2014, and the Mitch people don't attack and do help Paul in 2016.

Do people expect Rand Paul to run for US Senate and the Presidency simultaneously?

----------


## sailingaway

> Well, it seem that it's basically a truce.  The Paul people don't attack and do help Mitch in 2014, and the Mitch people don't attack and do help Paul in 2016.
> 
> Do people expect Rand Paul to run for US Senate and the Presidency simultaneously?


AT this point I am waiting to see what happens.

----------


## eleganz

> The Senior Senator from Kentucky, in the Senate Minority heirarchy, and as lockstep a Globalist First, Republican Second vote as you can find in Washington.
> 
> Well, our friend Jesse has set himself up as the campaign manager who can tie in the tea party, and even the tea party's parents, the libertarians.  And this should last just about long enough for McConnell to prove it's the candidate, not the manager, who draws in grass roots support.  And that will be that for Jesse.
> 
> The big news here is that McConnell is planning a presidential primary run.


yup, if McConnel is indeed thinking of running for president, it may mean Benton is officially out of the family business and now he is looking to crawl into someone's rat hole.

It probably was in the books a while ago that Benton would leave after the nomination.  

If this was just an opportunity to make money in the middle before running Rand 16', which he himself told me would happen, I just assume Jesse will be running the campaign.  We must make this this does not happen.

----------


## sailingaway

> Yeah, after we lost, the official campaign stopped doing anything.  But the grassroots just apparently kept on going.  Instead of reading the email that said we lost, followed up by Rand's endorsement, we didn't want to hear "we lost", so we attacked Benton and Rand.  That's when it was over.  Over.  Romney clinched.  
> 
> And that's when I started saying things like "black swan" and "eaten by sharks".  But it was over then.  For all of those months.  And for months before that, it was just not going to happen.  When Santorum dropped out, whenever that was, that was also bad.  When money stopped coming in.  All of those things.  
> 
> We act like crazy people.  That's our thing.  
> 
> If Rand runs and loses, hopefully he makes it 100% clear that it's time to stop campaigning.  You can put the signs down now, crazy people.  I'm out of the race.
> 
> But the psyches of Ron Paul (and presumably Rand Paul) supporters are extremely fragile, and just cannot accept that we just did not win.  Or, really, come at all close to winning.  We won 0 primaries.  None.  Romney won most, Santorum won some, Gingrich won at least 1.  In terms of the number of victories, we came in 4th.  Not close to winning.  
> ...


If you were only in it for the win, then your feelings are understandable. If you were for getting enough states to force Ron into a speech on the floor, and thought Ron's campaign and Ron's donations should be about setting RON up to be a power from Congressional retirement, then peddle to the metal was the way to go. I fell into the latter camp.

----------


## parocks

> This thread has been very enlightening to say the least.  Anyone who wants anything to do with Mitch McConnell's brand of politics needs their head examined...that is if they want to pretend to be for liberty.  The fact that Benton is going to work for him tells me all I need to know about him.


There are 2 parties that matter.  Republican and Democrat.

It's better for Rand if the 2 Republican Wings in Kentucky, the Rand and the Mitch wing, aren't fighting, but are working together.  

To accomplish something.  Does this help Rand get elected?  I think so.  So, then, good.

----------


## Carlybee

> There are 2 parties that matter.  Republican and Democrat.
> 
> It's better for Rand if the 2 Republican Wings in Kentucky, the Rand and the Mitch wing, aren't fighting, but are working together.  
> 
> To accomplish something.  Does this help Rand get elected?  I think so.  So, then, good.


If it means compromising key liberty principles...not good...BAD.   But the wheels on the bus go round and round.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> People point to our delegate successes, and call them grassroots successes, but they weren't, they were official campaign successes.


We are supposed to be rowing together.  This time the campaign asked for our help in a number of things, from Phone-from-Home, passing out campaign literature door-to-door, and becoming delegates.

----------


## parocks

> If you were only in it for the win, then your feelings are understandable. If you were for getting enough states to force Ron into a speech on the floor, and thought Ron's campaign and Ron's donations should be about setting RON up to be a power from Congressional retirement, then peddle to the metal was the way to go. I fell into the latter camp.


Well, not really.  It's not either / or.  Earlier on this thread you noted that "wreck the convention" was my attitude.  However, it was still OVER.  Playing out the string, seeing what happens.

You shouldn't be attacking Benton and Rand for acting rationally.  And that what they were doing.  It is RATIONAL to stop fighting when you lost.

Hey, our irrationality is an asset in some cases.  But don't attack our people for acting rational.

----------


## sailingaway

You are defining lost as the GOP nomination, though. If the goal was getting Ron the most power and influence possible, as it was to me, the fight was not 'lost' but continuing.

----------


## parocks

> We are supposed to be rowing together.  This time the campaign asked for our help in a number of things, from Phone-from-Home, passing out campaign literature door-to-door, and becoming delegates.


Well, there really shouldn't be any "rowing together".  There should be "official campaign"  and "official campaign volunteers".  In Maine, that's pretty much what was up.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Well, he didn't "get" me.  It's not like I'm going to send money to his re-election campaign or anything.  But I don't really see a problem with Jesse Benton working for McConnell and effectively stepping up the ladder in his career.


 Is stepping from Ron Paul to Mitch McConnell a step *up*?

----------


## CableNewsJunkie

Marcus Carey weighs in...

http://www.bluegrassbulletin.com/201...our-mitch.html

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You DO know, don't you, that Dr. Paul first ran for President under the banner of the Libertarian Party in 1988...right?  Who do you think it was supporting him then?  Yep, left-libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, and the conspiracy crowd.


Don't flatter yourself too much.  Also supporting him were the precious metal crowd and the Birchers.




> So almost 20 years later he decides to make another run as a Republican and those of us who consider ourselves small-l libertarians are suddenly _personae non gratae_ among a bunch of  GOP opportunists?  I've got some choice words for that:  *$#@! all of you who seek to discredit those of us who knew Ron Paul "when".*


How quaint.  Do you eat with that mouth?

Those who became RON PAUL delegates and who worked their asses off to get in leadership positions in the GOP, so as to enable liberty candidates to get elected, are not "GOP opportunists".




> I wonder who it was that gave him the advice to run GOP and to try to reform the Republican Party?  It wasn't very good advice as far as I can see, and I've felt that way all along.  These "advances" that some here speak of in the liberty movement...I wonder how that will play out 1, 2, 3 years down the road when these candidates also sell themselves out to the highest GOP bidder.


If you really believe that Dr. Paul can be led around by the nose, then why in hell did you want him to be President?  




> Dr. Paul has one major fault that I can see:  he's too damned trusting of those advising him.


If you knew him so well, you would know that Dr. Paul doesn't take hardly any advice, if any at all.

----------


## parocks

> You are defining lost as the GOP nomination, though. If the goal was getting Ron the most power and influence possible, as it was to me, the fight was not 'lost' but continuing.


Yes, well, that's the rational way to look at it.  Lose, to mean, not win.  Everyone outside of Ron Paul land agrees with that definition of "lost".  In Ron Paul land, of the people who still stuck around after we lost, there was a different view of objective reality.  

And Benton and Rand were attacked for being rational.  The people who were left here after the not winning did not want to accept that all that Rand and Benton were doing was being rational.  They wanted Benton and Rand to jump off the cliff.  But they're rational, and they didn't.

----------


## ninepointfive

> People point to our delegate successes, and call them grassroots successes, but they weren't, they were official campaign successes.


That's laughable - because by nature becoming a delegate is a bottom up decision. From the top it can be encouraged, but the grassroots must execute that decision and follow through.

The campaign also sabotaged and compromised duly elected national delegates in a few states with compromises throwing out half the DULY ELECTED DELEGATES in compromises that never needed to be made in the first place! Do you also call that an official campaign success?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Well, there really shouldn't be any "rowing together".  There should be "official campaign"  and "official campaign volunteers".  In Maine, that's pretty much what was up.


That's what I meant by rowing together.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> *Rand doesn't have a machine to fight and split in South Carolina.*  De Mint does, though, hope he doesn't go that route.  But we'll back Davis, regardless.


What are you talking about?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> How quaint.  Do you eat with that mouth?


There's a time to be "quaint"...today was not that day.  Thanks for playing, that's all I wish to say to you right now.

----------


## sailingaway

> What are you talking about?


I was talking about the earlier comments that Rand endorsing McConnell and Benton going there so the two seem so intertwined might paralyze the tea party in KY against primarying McConnell even if we had a decent candidate.  It was part of the discussion of how McConnell may have gotten exactly what he wants out of this.

----------


## sailingaway

> Yes, well, that's the rational way to look at it.  Lose, to mean, not win.  Everyone outside of Ron Paul land agrees with that definition of "lost".  In Ron Paul land, of the people who still stuck around after we lost, there was a different view of objective reality.  
> 
> And Benton and Rand were attacked for being rational.  The people who were left here after the not winning did not want to accept that all that Rand and Benton were doing was being rational.  They wanted Benton and Rand to jump off the cliff.  But they're rational, and they didn't.


No, *your* way of looking at it is not the objective definition of 'the' rational way to look at it.

Remember the video from early in the campaign 'I always win'?  That secondary goal was inherent in every Ron Paul campaign. It is a huge reason why people fought so hard for him regardless of odds at any time.  It is also a big reason for why RON PAUL voters didn't drift, the hard core ones.  They were not just trying to get him to be nominee but ALSO trying to push the message by pushing the man to the highest possible influence.

----------


## specsaregood

> Marcus Carey weighs in...
> 
> http://www.bluegrassbulletin.com/201...our-mitch.html


Interesting thoughts

----------


## orenbus

> The biggest moneybomb in 2007 was bigger than the biggest moneybomb in 2011.
> 
> You can't just proclaim that raising money was what "grassroots" did.  I could easily just say that was the official campaign.


The money bombs driven by the grassroots were more effective then those driven by the official campaign in 2011/2012 cycle, with the exception of Tea Pary 11 but we all knew that was coming so although you could say it's driven by the official campaign you could also say the grassroots had a huge part of organizing or at least influencing that one as well. The official campaign money bomb in January and in March as well as the ones prior to Black-This-Out were subpar by all measurements, those moneybombs that had more passionate messaging driven from grassroots discussions and planning seemed to have better returns as opposed to those that had traditional birthday or related neutral messaging such as a holidays, in 2007 11/5 and Tea Party dates were clear examples as opposed to other fundraising dates. Also we have to remember that the economy was much better in 2007 than 2011/2012, which most likely had an impact on fundraising as well.

Although I agree there was more spontaneous energy in 2007 we have to remember that the official campaign was trying to catch up to the grassroots the entire time, giving volunteers little direction putting more emphasis on us to be creative. This time around at least in the early states the official campaign did make an effort to coordinate activities and the grassroots seeing this worked to follow their lead, although some may argue that it could have been done more effectively.

----------


## parocks

> If it means compromising key liberty principles...not good...BAD.   But the wheels on the bus go round and round.


What exactly does "compromising key liberty principles" mean?

People usually use "principles" wrong, so sentences with "principles" in them often are meaningless jargon.

The principle here - help Rand, who is a key liberty person.

Benton helps Mitch, Mitch is happy, Mitch doesn't try to hurt Rand in 2016.  Mitch might actively work to prevent any primary opposition to Rand in the US Senate race.
If Rand is running unopposed for the US Senate, it will be easier for him to run for President.

Getting a good President is a key liberty principle.

----------


## low preference guy

> Lets see how many campaign errors, mis-communications, poorly timed announcements, damaging emails etc.. occur while he's running MM's campaign.


i wonder whether this was done with the intention of appeasing the misinformed tea party voters, while having someone else be the real campaign manager behind the scenes.

----------


## puppetmaster

> Well, not really.  It's not either / or.  Earlier on this thread you noted that "wreck the convention" was my attitude.  However, it was still OVER.  Playing out the string, seeing what happens.
> 
> You shouldn't be attacking Benton and Rand for acting rationally.  And that what they were doing.  It is RATIONAL to stop fighting when you lost.
> 
> Hey, our irrationality is an asset in some cases.  But don't attack *our people* for acting rational.



benton is not "our people".... at least to me. Anyone who lacks principles is no friend of liberty.

----------


## sailingaway

Again, parocks, you have your definitions but those are not the objectively right definitions, people vary in their definitions of those terms.

----------


## parocks

> The money bombs driven by the grassroots were more effective then those driven by the official campaign in 2011/2012 cycle, with the exception of Tea Pary 11 but we all knew that was coming so although you could say it's driven by the official campaign you could also say the grassroots had a huge part of organizing or at least influencing that one as well. The official campaign money bomb in January and in March as well as the ones prior to Black-This-Out were subpar by all measurements, those moneybombs that had more passionate messaging driven from grassroots discussions and planning seemed to have better returns as opposed to those that had traditional birthday or related neutral messaging, in 2007 11/5 and Tea Party dates were clear examples. Also we have to remember that the economy was much better in 2007 than 2011/2012, which most likely had an impact on fundraising as well.
> 
> Although I agree there was more spontaneous energy in 2007 we have to remember that the official campaign was trying to catch up to the grassroots the entire time, giving volunteers little direction. This time around at least in the early states the official campaign did make an effort to coordinate activities and the grassroots seeing this worked to follow their lead, although some may argue that it could have been done more effectively.


I don't have the numbers, Black this out was a good moneybomb, but not stellar.  Tea Party 07 was the best of either year.

Yes, the official campaign was able to corral the directionless volunteers this time more than last.

But, grassroots should've been smarter, better after 4 years.

----------


## parocks

> Again, parocks, you have your definitions but those are not the objectively right definitions, people vary in their definitions of those terms.


Winning is fairly clear.  Getting or not getting the nomination.  Clear enough.  

That's what almost everyone else agrees upon.  

There is objective reality.

----------


## sailingaway

> Winning is fairly clear.  Getting or not getting the nomination.  Clear enough.  
> 
> That's what almost everyone else agrees upon.  
> 
> There is objective reality.


\

I disagree, and I explained why.

----------


## parocks

> benton is not "our people".... at least to me. Anyone who lacks principles is no friend of liberty.


Yeah I assume we're talking about Ron Paul.  Ron Paul's campaign manager, campaign staff, that who "our people" are.  People who put up videos attacking the campaign staff, those aren't "our people".  

Again, this is something objective, not subject to opinion.

----------


## sailingaway

> Yeah I assume we're talking about Ron Paul.  Ron Paul's campaign manager, campaign staff, that who "our people" are.  People who put up videos attacking the campaign staff, those aren't "our people".  
> 
> Again, this is something objective, not subject to opinion.


I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

----------


## parocks

> \
> 
> I disagree, and I explained why.


Yeah, you think, and not wrongly, that value could be obtained even if Ron Paul didn't win.  I was in agreement.  But rational people, people who used the accepted meaning of the words "getting the nomination" disagreed.

Attacking people for being rational, and that's what Benton and Rand were doing, is not rational, or crazy.  And almost everyone here (still) is firmly embracing the crazy.

----------


## cstarace

It's incredible how many people make excuses for this clown. Uncle Toms, all of you.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Yeah I assume we're talking about Ron Paul.  Ron Paul's campaign manager, campaign staff, that who "our people" are.  People who put up videos attacking the campaign staff, those aren't "our people".  
> 
> Again, this is something objective, not subject to opinion.


 parocks, I don't know anything about these people.  However, I know about Tom Woods.  Have you seen Tom Woods' piece today:

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

It suggests to me that Jesse Benton is not a good person, and not someone I would want to associate with nor have around in any of my endeavors.  Do you disagree?  If so why?  Do you respect Tom Woods?

----------


## specsaregood

> It's incredible how many people make excuses for this clown. Uncle Toms, all of you.


So you are disappointed with jesse going to work for McConnell?  You'd prefer he go back to C4L?

----------


## sailingaway

> Yeah, you think, and not wrongly, that value could be obtained even if Ron Paul didn't win.  I was in agreement.  But rational people, people who used the accepted meaning of the words "getting the nomination" disagreed.
> 
> Attacking people for being rational, and that's what Benton and Rand were doing, is not rational, or crazy.  And almost everyone here (still) is firmly embracing the crazy.


You throw 'rational' around in a way I disagree with.  Now if you put it in quotation marks, I'd agree.  However in a campaign where Ron from DAY ONE called that the secondary goal of his campaign, the campaign should not have been confused about what is 'rational' and what is bringing in the donations.  And crazy is also a definition I disagree with.

----------


## kathy88

> I don't have the numbers, Black this out was a good moneybomb, but not stellar.  Tea Party 07 was the best of either year.
> 
> Yes, the official campaign was able to corral the directionless volunteers this time more than last.
> 
> But, grassroots should've been smarter, better after 4 years.


Why do you continually fell compelled to come into Grassroots Central and.... bash the grassroots? The campaign cut off grassroots supporters at the knees in MANY instances. Yet you continue to defend that, claiming it was all campaign in Maine and Iowa. I call bull$#@!.

----------


## parocks

> I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.


Well, I don't know many people here in real life.  If "our" goal is to do stupid crazy $#@! to hurt Ron Paul, while pretending to like Ron Paul, pretending to help Ron Paul, 
and Jesse Benton doesn't agree with the stupid crazy $#@! we like, well, he isn't "our people".  

So, yes, when I say "our people", I mean Ron Paul people, and not people who are pretending to like Ron Paul, or crazy people who think that jump off the cliff is the way to help Ron Paul.

The official campaign is "our people" if we're at all normal, at all what we're supposed to be.

----------


## sailingaway

You pigeonhole things into definitions to support your viewpoint, and I disagree.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> That also created a sore spot with endorsements.  The problem with McConnell's is that it might actually have impact. This is why McConnell wants it, of course.  But is also why it is damaging, or 'uses political capital' for Rand to do it.


I hate to break it to you, but Ron Paul also endorsed sitting Republicans.  He did it all day long and if you remember, he said he had to.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

The main thing parocks wanted the grassroots to do was to organize small free music concerts around campuses.  He did not organize any, though, and neither did anyone else.  So, perhaps he's bitter no one took his good advice.  

Including himself.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You pigeonhole things into definitions to support your viewpoint, and I disagree.


Unbelievable.

----------


## ninepointfive

> It's incredible how many people make excuses for this clown. Uncle Toms, all of you.





> So you are disappointed with jesse going to work for McConnell?  You'd prefer he go back to C4L?


I believe that's called a non-sequitor

----------


## sailingaway

> I hate to break it to you, but Ron Paul also endorsed sitting Republicans.  He did it all day long and if you remember, he said he had to.


Do you really want to start this fight again?

McConnell was a target of grass roots and this impacts that.  Do you disagree it has impact?

----------


## low preference guy

> If this doesn't piss on Ron Paul I don't know what would. This is disgusting....but expected by many.


this makes no sense. being a campaign manager is a technical job, it doesn't require you to believe in the candidate's message. i think it would be similar to ron being pissed off because his web designer went to work for some statist.

----------


## parocks

> Why do you continually fell compelled to come into Grassroots Central and.... bash the grassroots? The campaign cut off grassroots supporters at the knees in MANY instances. Yet you continue to defend that, claiming it was all campaign in Maine and Iowa. I call bull$#@!.


I was in Maine.  It WAS all campaign.  Brakey was sent to Maine from NYC.  He was in NYC for Black This Out.  Brakey is still doing things (not officially) in Maine.

What are the grassroots successes.

I'm on a thread, where the official Ron Paul Campaign staff is being attacked, and I'm defending the official campaign.  That is appropriate.  Attacking the official campaign is NOT appropriate.

----------


## specsaregood

> I believe that's called a non-sequitor


I prefer to call it having a positive outlook.

----------


## ninepointfive

> What are the grassroots successes.


Becoming a Delegate and becoming the majority in a number of states is by definition a grassroots success. You may not see it that way, but Delegates are a bottom up grassroots effort.

----------


## parocks

> benton is not "our people".... at least to me. Anyone who lacks principles is no friend of liberty.


Define "principles"

Often "principles" is used interchangeably with "ideological purity". They don't mean the same thing.

----------


## sailingaway

> I was in Maine.  It WAS all campaign.  Brakey was sent to Maine from NYC.  He was in NYC for Black This Out.  Brakey is still doing things (not officially) in Maine.
> 
> What are the grassroots successes.
> 
> I'm on a thread, where the official Ron Paul Campaign staff is being attacked, and I'm defending the official campaign.  That is appropriate.  Attacking the official campaign is NOT appropriate.


attacking the grass roots who folded into the campaign structure often as requested and might have gone further in some states had campaign structure been there, is not appropriate, however.

----------


## ninepointfive

> I prefer to call it having a positive outlook.


I agreed with the point you made in that post. yes, it's better Jesse goes and works for Mitch and leaves C4L.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> So you are disappointed with jesse going to work for McConnell?  You'd prefer he go back to C4L?


Reading comp issue...he didn't say he was "disappointed"...try reading it again.

----------


## kathy88

> Define "principles"
> 
> Often "principles" is used interchangeably with "ideological purity". They don't mean the same thing.


Just admit you're establishment GOP and I'll stop.

----------


## parocks

> Becoming a Delegate and becoming the majority in a number of states is by definition a grassroots success. You may not see it that way, but Delegates are a bottom up grassroots effort.


No.  Eric picked the delegates in Maine.  Eric was official campaign.  There was a procedure.  People applied, filled out a form, and Eric picked who he wanted.  There might or might not have been input from HQ, but it was top down.  The slate was presented to us, and I, and others, voted for exactly who the official campaign wanted.  An organized effort run by paid staffers, and we won 21/21 delegates and got both the National Committee seats.

----------


## parocks

> Just admit you're establishment GOP and I'll stop.


Stop what?  That was to puppetmaster.

Define principles.

----------


## specsaregood

> I agreed with the point you made in that post. yes, it's better Jesse goes and works for Mitch and leaves C4L.


That's all I'm saying, those in agreement should try to turn this into a positive event and not something to fight about.  

Non Sequitur was my favorite comic in my young adulthood.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> The principle here - help Rand, who is a key liberty person.


If you spend all of your time kissing the asses of the likes of Mitt Romney and Mitch McConnell instead of spreading the message of liberty, then you are not a key liberty person, no matter what you might truly believe deep down.




> Benton helps Mitch, Mitch is happy, Mitch doesn't try to hurt Rand in 2016.  Mitch might actively work to prevent any primary opposition to Rand in the US Senate race.
> If Rand is running unopposed for the US Senate, it will be easier for him to run for President.


I'm sure you believe that would happen too. I guess you take a scumbag like McConnell at his word. After 2014 McConnell will have no more use for Rand Paul, but he will be getting immense pressure from special interests like the Fed and the bankers and the MIC to take him out, and those special interests pay even better than being a U.S. senator does.

----------


## Carlybee

> parocks, I don't know anything about these people.  However, I know about Tom Woods.  Have you seen Tom Woods' piece today:
> 
> http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/my-memo...f-jesse-bento/
> 
> It suggests to me that Jesse Benton is not a good person, and not someone I would want to associate with nor have around in any of my endeavors.  Do you disagree?  If so why?  Do you respect Tom Woods?


I trust Tom Woods

----------


## jonathanzx10

To everyone saying to stop being mad about this and to be happy that Benton is leaving c4l, let me remind you that when you see a rapist get caught you can be both glad that he got caught and furious at him at the same time.

----------


## parocks

> attacking the grass roots who folded into the campaign structure often as requested and might have gone further in some states had campaign structure been there, is not appropriate, however.


Attacking the official campaign is less appropriate, and more common on this thread.

----------


## CableNewsJunkie

This isn't directly related to the events of today, but I just wanted to remind everyone that *Mitch McConnell's name is still conspicuously absent from the list of co-sponsors for the Audit the Fed bill (last I checked).*

----------


## sailingaway

> Attacking the official campaign is less appropriate, and more common on this thread.


why less appropriate on a grass roots forum?

I don't think people should take careless pot shots, but there were differences of opinion on the goals of the campaign and people have strong feelings about it. Why should they not be able to discuss this? Is there a primary right around the corner we need to worry about?

And why in your view is attacking the grass roots as fringe and crazy and irrational perfectly ok?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> What exactly does "compromising key liberty principles" mean?
> 
> People usually use "principles" wrong, so sentences with "principles" in them often are meaningless jargon.
> 
> The principle here - help Rand, who is a key liberty person.
> 
> *Benton helps Mitch, Mitch is happy, Mitch doesn't try to hurt Rand in 2016.  Mitch might actively work to prevent any primary opposition to Rand in the US Senate race.  If Rand is running unopposed for the US Senate, it will be easier for him to run for President.*
> 
> Getting a good President is a key liberty principle.


Sounds like you have it alllll figured out.  Gosh, this reminds me of something, but I just can't figure out _why_.

----------


## parocks

Can you define principles, or just cut out that part?

Spreading the message of liberty - not getting a good president?  That's what you're about?

I want concrete legislative victories, and I just don't care all that much about spreading some message.

I want the LIBERTY, not the MESSAGE OF LIBERTY.

The Good President gets you the LIBERTY. 

I want the concrete Liberty result, and it it means that Rand and Mitch work together, I don't care, if it gets me the Liberty result.

No I don't take Mitch at his word.  I don't know that he's made that announcement at all.  It is reasonable to think that would be the result.  We'll have to see.

It's very possible that Benton would've preferred to stay C4L, but the crazy Ron Paul supporters who got all mad when Benton told you we did not win the nomination
continuously bitched at Benton, making it difficult for Benton to continue in that position.











> If you spend all of your time kissing the asses of the likes of Mitt Romney and Mitch McConnell instead of spreading the message of liberty, then you are not a key liberty person, no matter what you might truly believe deep down.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you believe that would happen too. I guess you take a scumbag like McConnell at his word. After 2014 McConnell will have no more use for Rand Paul, but he will be getting immense pressure from special interests like the Fed and the bankers and the MIC to take him out, and those special interests pay even better than being a U.S. senator does.

----------


## AuH2O

I don't think I've ever seen so much collective butt-hurt at one time in one place.

----------


## orenbus

> The main thing parocks wanted the grassroots to do was to organize small free music concerts around campuses.  He did not organize any, though, and neither did anyone else.  So, perhaps he's bitter no one took his good advice.  
> 
> Including himself.


The better question is what did he actually do other than sit on forums and complain about grassroots?

----------


## parocks

> Sounds like you have it alllll figured out.  Gosh, this reminds me of something, but I just can't figure out _why_.


I'm not guaranteeing that Mitch won't try to $#@! over Rand in 2016.  I'm just saying that it's rational to think that.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'm not guaranteeing that Mitch won't try to $#@! over Rand in 2016.  I'm just saying that it's rational to think that.


What is it called when one does the same thing over and over and over, expecting different results?  Is that the definition of "rational"?

----------


## orenbus

> I'm on a thread, where the official Ron Paul Campaign staff is being attacked, and I'm defending the official campaign.  That is appropriate.  Attacking the official campaign is NOT appropriate.


The campaign is over, this thread is about Benton working for MM.

----------


## Voluntary Man

Jesse's the $#@!!

----------


## eleganz

If anybody here still thinks that benton is a good little liberty boy then I feel really sorry for you. Here is the truth he will most likely run the 16 rand campaign if you don't want thAt then don't wait Til the last moment to let them all knOw

----------


## sailingaway

Ron's on bloomberg after ads: http://www.bloomberg.com/tv/

----------


## sailingaway

> The better question is what did he actually do other than sit on forums and complain about grassroots?


he did a bunch of stuff in Maine including some killer facebook ads.  We all had the regions we had.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Can you define principles, or just cut out that part?
> 
> Spreading the message of liberty - not getting a good president?  That's what you're about?
> 
> I want concrete legislative victories, and I just don't care all that much about spreading some message.
> 
> I want the LIBERTY, not the MESSAGE OF LIBERTY.
> 
> The Good President gets you the LIBERTY. 
> ...


The only way you will ever get liberty is to spread the message. Otherwise the "good president" that you want will either forever have to hide their liberty positions or they will never get elected. If a person wholeheartedly understands and agrees with the principles of liberty, but has to govern otherwise to satisfy the ignorant, warmongering masses, then he or she still isn't a "good president". 

If you don't care about the message of liberty, then you don't care about liberty at all. You care about being on the winning team.

----------


## eleganz

> The better question is what did he actually do other than sit on forums and complain about grassroots?




Preach it sista!

----------


## ninepointfive

> No.  Eric picked the delegates in Maine.  Eric was official campaign.  There was a procedure.  People applied, filled out a form, and Eric picked who he wanted.  There might or might not have been input from HQ, but it was top down.  The slate was presented to us, and I, and others, voted for exactly who the official campaign wanted.  An organized effort run by paid staffers, and we won 21/21 delegates and got both the National Committee seats.


That's not how it works in all caucus states - Colorado is just one example where the Delegates to State vote for National delegates. Just even having that voting priveledge as a delegate is not something the campaign can take credit for, because it's up to the individual. The campaign can take credit for encouraging delegates to run and train them - but it's a bottom up effort in the end.  

The campaign did interfere in this as well, and instead of voting on a Ron Paul slate were duped into voting for people who hated Ron Paul in a compromise that didn't actually work out.

----------


## parocks

> The better question is what did he actually do other than sit on forums and complain about grassroots?


Well, Orenbus, I was working with DAS on ronpaulcountry until you came in.  But you should've known that already.  Because you were busy badmouthing joomla because you're more proficient with drupal.  And you took on too many projects and you needed to be bailed out by a chip in.

We won in Maine.  I went to the caucus and voted for Ron Paul.  I went to meetings where we were trained by official staff.  I spent 2 days at the Maine Convention, voted for our delegates.  Also contributed money to the official campaign.  Also contributed money to RP08orbust and Shemdogg.  Spent money on Facebook ads.

----------


## ninepointfive

> That's all I'm saying, those in agreement should try to turn this into a positive event and not something to fight about.  
> 
> Non Sequitur was my favorite comic in my young adulthood.


that point was made many many posts ago as well. =)

----------


## orenbus

> I'm not guaranteeing that Mitch won't try to $#@! over Rand in 2016.  I'm just saying that it's rational to think that.


I'm wondering if we should start a petition or something, makes calls to Rand's office as a preemptive measure?

----------


## cstarace

> So you are disappointed with jesse going to work for McConnell?  You'd prefer he go back to C4L?


Nope, just shocked at the level of gullibility and eagerness to side with the establishment around these forums after the events at the RNC.

----------


## parocks

> he did a bunch of stuff in Maine including some killer facebook ads.  We all had the regions we had.


Yeah, especially for the Washington County push, I brought RP08orbust in, and he did some robocalling, and that was effective, and I really tried to get money from all over into the hands of grassroots people who would spend it on GOTV,  that wasn't effective.

----------


## parocks

> That's not how it works in all caucus states - Colorado is just one example where the Delegates to State vote for National. 
> 
> The campaign did interfere in this as well, and instead of voting on a Ron Paul slate were duped into voting for people who hated Ron Paul in a compromise that didn't actually work out.


Well, Maine is a caucus state, and that's how it worked in Maine.

----------


## georgiaboy

this is the only thread i've followed today; it lasted the whole workday and shows no sign of letting up.

good times. ; )

----------


## nobody's_hero

> I don't think I've ever seen so much collective butt-hurt at one time in one place.


Heh. Maybe. 

But if I'd have wanted to surround myself with people who don't have opinions, I'd have joined Mitt Romney's army. Talk about a group of folks who don't believe in anything at all.

----------


## parocks

No, I don't really care about speeches.  I want less government.  And we need to have the politicians who will vote for less government.  






> The only way you will ever get liberty is to spread the message. Otherwise the "good president" that you want will either forever have to hide their liberty positions or they will never get elected. If a person wholeheartedly understands and agrees with the principles of liberty, but have to govern otherwise to satisfy the ignorant, warmongering masses, then he or she still isn't a "good president". 
> 
> If you don't care about the message of liberty, then you don't care about liberty at all. You care about being on the winning team.

----------


## sailingaway

> That's not how it works in all caucus states - Colorado is just one example where the Delegates to State vote for National delegates. Just even having that voting priveledge as a delegate is not something the campaign can take credit for, because it's up to the individual. The campaign can take credit for encouraging delegates to run and train them - but it's a bottom up effort in the end.  
> 
> The campaign did interfere in this as well, and instead of voting on a Ron Paul slate were duped into voting for people who hated Ron Paul in a compromise that didn't actually work out.


My understanding is that the guy in Maine was just a great guy.  So it was likely spotty based on the people involved, as well.

----------


## parocks

> this is the only thread i've followed today; it lasted the whole workday and shows no sign of letting up.
> 
> good times. ; )


Like the olden days

----------


## sailingaway

> No, I don't really care about speeches.  I want less government.  And we need to have the politicians who will vote for less government.


I think you get more of them if people who vote know what they want and why they want it. And to get there, someone has to say something.  Because it isn't what they are hearing on Fox news.

----------


## Carlybee

> Attacking the official campaign is less appropriate, and more common on this thread.


If not for the grassroots there never would have been a campaign

----------


## parocks

> What is it called when one does the same thing over and over and over, expecting different results?  Is that the definition of "rational"?


This isn't doing the same thing over and over.  People don't have the same hostility to Rand as they do to Ron.

----------


## sailingaway

> This isn't doing the same thing over and over.  People don't have the same hostility to Rand as they do to Ron.


why do only a certain group of 'people' count as people with you?

Because they have different audiences.

----------


## Carlybee

> Can you define principles, or just cut out that part?
> 
> Spreading the message of liberty - not getting a good president?  That's what you're about?
> 
> I want concrete legislative victories, and I just don't care all that much about spreading some message.
> 
> I want the LIBERTY, not the MESSAGE OF LIBERTY.
> 
> The Good President gets you the LIBERTY. 
> ...


Response deleted for lack of clarity and over the top snarkitude

----------


## parocks

> why less appropriate on a grass roots forum?
> 
> I don't think people should take careless pot shots, but there were differences of opinion on the goals of the campaign and people have strong feelings about it. Why should they not be able to discuss this? Is there a primary right around the corner we need to worry about?
> 
> And why in your view is attacking the grass roots as fringe and crazy and irrational perfectly ok?


more vs less appropriate.  gradiations.  if this is a grassroots forum, then correcting errors of the grassroots is something that should be done.

----------


## sailingaway

> Boo hoo...poor wittle Jessie....we bitched him out LOL


OK, that wasn't your most erudite post.

----------


## parocks

> Boo hoo...poor wittle Jessie....we bitched him out LOL


By doing that, that's the result you get.

----------


## sailingaway

> more vs less appropriate.  gradiations.  if this is a grassroots forum, then correcting errors of the grassroots is something that should be done.


But you set yourself up as the all knowing one to 'correct' them to the 'true' path.  There are varying opinions.

----------


## ninepointfive

> My understanding is that the guy in Maine was just a great guy.  So it was likely spotty based on the people involved, as well.


yep

----------


## georgiaboy

After all of this, I really do hope this means the r3volution has just gotten a seat at the head of the big boy table.

Just gotta keep watching closely to see if it's really true, or if the food is cardboard, the table is in the alley, and the seat gets pulled right out from under us as soon as we try to sit down.

Gotta see some real action to replace all the indigestion, poisoning, and scraps tossed our way.

Otherwise, I ain't showing up to eat.

----------


## orenbus

> Well, Orenbus, I was working with DAS on ronpaulcountry until you came in.


That's funny considering the ronpaulcountry concept was one that Dave and I had in 2007 but we didn't have time to implement along with the other sites we were working on back then. DAS was pushing the concept of putting ads in college newspapers and was looking for someone with technical and design skills to work with, but that is something completely different and that's how we got together.




> But you should've known that already.  Because you were busy badmouthing joomla because you're more proficient with drupal.  And you took on too many projects and you needed to be bailed out by a chip in.


I do remember him mentioning that you had a joomla site and were looking for a designer to help you work on it with (I'm not a designer by the way), and I don't know anything about joomla, Dave and I felt if we were going to work on a volunteer project we would want to handle both the development and the design. As far as chipin goes as you know they are very common in grassroots projects. But really if you felt you had something to contribute you should have just been positive and done it, or asked if you could help, instead of being negative about someone working on something they felt they can contribute to on a Ron Paul project.

----------


## Carlybee

> OK, that wasn't your most erudite post.


It was sarcasm in reponse to Parock's assertion that we bitched about Jessie so much that it drove him out...which is asinine.  Jessie is responsible for what happens to his own career.

----------


## Havax

The notion that Benton would get ANY credit for Ron Paul's grassroots movement is insane.

----------


## parocks

> The main thing parocks wanted the grassroots to do was to organize small free music concerts around campuses.  He did not organize any, though, and neither did anyone else.  So, perhaps he's bitter no one took his good advice.  
> 
> Including himself.


No, that's just what I put in my signature.  It was an option.  You probably didn't see me pushing that.  I was simply providing an option for others to choose from.  The structure as I saw it relied on people WITH MONEY who were willing to spend that money on bands.  I wasn't going to do much of anything (except putting it in my sig) to get these shows to happen.  And they didn't happen, and there were no embarrasing failures.  No broken down vans.  No lying about KRS-One.  No emergency chip-ins because the people in charge don't know what they're doing, and are taking on more than they could accomplish.  It was just a thing that people didn't want to do, which was not harmful in the least, and not embarrassing to Ron Paul.  0% facepalm.  More than half of the grassroots efforts this time around, the publicized ones, had a healthy amount of facepalm.  I was not interested in the slightest in pushing pushing pushing to make something happen that was not feasible.  If someone wanted what I could put together, I'd be able to put it together.  But if that wasn't what happened, no harm no foul.

My sig did not specify colleges.  It could be anywhere where there were people that could be voter IDd, or GOTVd.  But I will say that we didn't do anywhere near enough of the Voter ID, voter registration, brute force GOTV around colleges.  But the colleges idea that I talked about had more to do with actually having bodies on college campuses on election day, getting random people out to the polls.

There were 100 things that I thought that people should be doing.  The free show in my sig was just one.

I was in Maine.  Maine was a clean sweep 21/21.  So, I'm sure that the results could have been any better at all.  22/21. Not possible.  So, clean sweep in my state.

But helmuth - yes, things would've been better if people just did what I told them to do.  If I was to have done a show, it would've been in Maine, and Maine is the one and only state where it couldn't have gone better.  21/21.  And in Maine, freelance grassroots crazyness was frowned upon, and discipline, structure, training and order were the words of the day.  There was actually a "stealth" strategy in Maine.  It was believed that not jumping up and down on street corners reminding people about the caucuses would be the best way to go.  And those people turned out to be right.

But yes, we can look back at all the posts I made and all the predictions I made, and all the warnings I made,  pointing out the likely failures beforehand, and watching the failures take place exactly as I predicted, and yes, I do believe that people should've avoided the failures by implementing the detailed remedies that I often typed out in great detail.  

My state was the only perfect state though - all the delegates.

----------


## Allan Bartlett

The better angels of my nature say he did this to infiltrate more into the establishment, but my gut tells me that he did this just to further his own career and get paid.  It is Ron Paul's ideas that got Jesse to where he is today. Not the other way around.

----------


## RickyJ

> I wonder how Ron feels about one of his family members that he trusted running campaigns for guys that want to destroy the movement he's built. Such a shame.


Yeah, where are Jesse's defenders now? I wonder how many still think he wasn't trying to sabotage the campaign.

Enjoy your money that you took from the grassroots Jesse, it will lead to your total destruction. Money can't buy you happiness.

----------


## parocks

Well, the 2007 thing might explain why he switched over to you so quickly when you got on board.

He wanted a designer.  I can design, but he really seemed to want something pixel perfect, especially with the initial sign up,  And when you put up yours, it took weeks to get the signup working right.  DAS should've just embraced all the functionality that was right there (and there was, and is, a lot of functionality there), instead of his vision of a sign-up screen just the way he wanted it.

But that doesn't matter.  The point is, you're the one who said that I didn't do anything, and you were the person who stopped me from working on that project.  (not saying any of that mattered though, just that I was working on a project that you took over, and knew that you were doing that, so you shouldn't have accused me of not doing anything because you knew that I was doing something.)





> That's funny considering the ronpaulcountry concept was one that Dave and I had in 2007 but we didn't have time to implement along with the other sites we were working on back then. DAS was pushing the concept of putting ads in college newspapers and was looking for someone with technical and design skills to work with, but that is something completely different and that's how we got together.
> 
> 
> 
> I do remember him mentioning that you had a joomla site and were looking for a designer to help you work on it with (I'm not a designer by the way), and I don't know anything about joomla, Dave and I felt if we were going to work on a volunteer project we would want to handle both the development and the design. As far as chipin goes as you know they are very common in grassroots projects. But really if you felt you had something to contribute you should have just been positive and done it, or asked if you could help, instead of being negative about someone working on something they felt they can contribute to on a Ron Paul project.

----------


## kathy88

Oh FFS can we take the geeky girl fight about pixels and ubergeek $#@! to another thread? This is about Jesse Benton - The Benedict Arnold of the Liberty movement.

----------


## steph3n

guys can we take the personal fight to PM? This is childish.

----------


## CableNewsJunkie

Marcus Carey apparently likes our thread and links to it for his readers.

http://www.bluegrassbulletin.com/201...rest-fire.html

----------


## Carlybee

Yes let's get back to the nuts and bolts. Anyone else see an analogy to a corporation hiring a competitors key staff in order to initiate a hostile takeover?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> This isn't doing the same thing over and over.  People don't have the same hostility to Rand as they do to Ron.


Because RON DARES TO SPEAK THE TRUTH!!  Those who have "hostility" toward him can't face the truth and need to be educated, not pandered to!!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Marcus Carey apparently likes our thread and links to it for his readers.
> 
> http://www.bluegrassbulletin.com/201...rest-fire.html


You knew that was coming...

Marcus will do anything he can to sow dischord when it comes to Ron or Rand.

----------


## orenbus

> Oh FFS can we take the geeky girl fight about pixels and ubergeek $#@! to another thread? This is about Jesse Benton - The Benedict Arnold of the Liberty movement.


LOL

----------


## sailingaway

> You knew that was coming...
> 
> Marcus will do anything he can to sow dischord when it comes to Ron or Rand.


??

I know he ran against Thomas, but honestly, if Thomas hadn't run, I'd have wanted us behind Marcus.

----------


## parocks

> Yeah, where are Jesse's defenders now? I wonder how many still think he wasn't trying to sabotage the campaign.
> 
> Enjoy your money that you took from the grassroots Jesse, it will lead to your total destruction. Money can't buy you happiness.


I'm a Jesse defender.  I wouldn't argue that he's a political genius, but I don't think he's guilty of the things he's accused of.

----------


## parocks

> Because RON DARES TO SPEAK THE TRUTH!!  Those who have "hostility" toward him can't face the truth and need to be educated, not pandered to!!


Maybe, at other times that consistency that we like so much causes people to dislike him.  Symbolic gestures like endorsements that Rand'll do and Ron won't.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> No, I don't really care about speeches.  I want less government.  And we need to have the politicians who will vote for less government.


 parocks, in my estimation: it is a lot earlier than you think.  Most people are not libertarians.  They are thus not going to support the implementation of libertarianism.  Because that's just not what they support.

You can drive yourself crazy trying to twist yourself in knots, invent brilliant sneaky strategies, fool people into electing libertarians, etc., but I do not think that is a lasting long-term strategy for success.  The numbers just aren't there.  It wouldn't make any sense for Ron Paul to get elected -- nor for Rand -- because most people just don't support what they support.

Most people aren't like us.  We are a small minority.  We aren't going to get success wearing ourselves out seeking political success from a populace which does not share our political views.

We succeed through self-improvement and education.  Especially self-improvement.  We have to be patient.  Crazed impatience will drive you crazy, and eventually drive you to try things like lying and compromising your principles, and then of course you still won't succeed and so you'll go even crazier.  I've seen it happen to people in the liberty movement.

Anyway, I personally wish that someone had done your free concerts and college-kids-GOTV idea.  I think it was a great idea.

Did you read the Tom Woods "memories" piece?

----------


## parocks

> But you set yourself up as the all knowing one to 'correct' them to the 'true' path.  There are varying opinions.


Yes I do this.  And there are varying opinions.  And mine are right.  

Not often an effective strategy though.

----------


## orenbus



----------


## Carlybee

> Maybe, at other times that consistency that we like so much causes people to dislike him.  Symbolic gestures like endorsements that Rand'll do and Ron won't.


Speak for yourself. Anyone who dislikes Ron Paul for any reason doesn't need to be making assumptions in the Ron Paul forum. There's a Rand sandpit you can go play in.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> ??
> 
> I know he ran against Thomas, but honestly, if Thomas hadn't run, I'd have wanted us behind Marcus.


He showed some promise on the issue of sound money, but when the primary started, he went after Ron with a vengeance and he went after "the extreme elements of the Tea Party" with a vengeance as well.   IMO, his true establishment colors came out.

----------


## Pisces

> He showed some promise on the issue of sound money, but when the primary started, he went after Ron with a vengeance and he went after "the extreme elements of the Tea Party" with a vengeance as well.   IMO, his true establishment colors came out.


He also came out in favor of intervening militarily in Syria. I think he was getting paid in some way for some of his blog posts. He's supposedly all about the Kentucky grassroots. I don't think Kentucky grassroots cared all that much about overthrowing Assad.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Maybe, *at other times that consistency that we like so much causes people to dislike him.*  Symbolic gestures like endorsements that Rand'll do and Ron won't.


I think you may have stopped reading my post after the first sentence...let me repeat (paraphrase) the 2nd:  Those who need symbolic gestures need to be EDUCATED, not PANDERED TO with inappropriate endorsements.

----------


## kylejack

Have no doubt that to get on board with McConnell that Benton had to say something like, "You know, I really don't believe all that stuff about auditing the Fed, ending the wars, etc."

Benton might be our next Eric Donderooooo.

----------


## sailingaway

> I think you may have stopped reading my post after the first sentence...let me repeat (paraphrase) the 2nd:  Those who need symbolic gestures need to be EDUCATED, not PANDERED TO with inappropriate endorsements.


To elaborate on this point of view, sometimes failing to do what is expected creates a teachable moment.

But I'm speaking in general terms in terms of Ron's consistency.  I don't need to make this him v Rand.  Ron is Ron.

----------


## 1stAmendguy

This is a final confirmation to mine and many others' here suspicions about this sellout.

Go have a nice lucrative career in politics and suckering more people's money.

$#@! you Jesse Benton. There's only a minority of posters left here I believe that would not agree with that sentiment.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> He also came out in favor of intervening militarily in Syria. I think he was getting paid in some way for some of his blog posts. He's supposedly all about the Kentucky grassroots. I don't think Kentucky grassroots cared all that much about overthrowing Assad.


Yes.  Let's also not forget the smears he was peddling against Thomas too.  He knew he wasn't registering in the polls, he did it just to spite Thomas.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> To elaborate on this point of view, sometimes failing to do what is expected creates a teachable moment.
> 
> But I'm speaking in general terms in terms of Ron's consistency.  I don't need to make this him v Rand.  Ron is Ron.


Well said.  I owe you a rep.

----------


## trey4sports

WHAT THE $#@! JESSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## parocks

> Speak for yourself. Anyone who dislikes Ron Paul for any reason doesn't need to be making assumptions in the Ron Paul forum. There's a Rand sandpit you can go play in.


No, I'm saying that other people don't like Ron Paul because sometimes he refuses to endorse Republican nominees, and that rubs some Republicans the wrong way.  I'm not saying that's me.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> No, that's just what I put in my signature.  It was an option.  You probably didn't see me pushing that.


 I did.  I plus-repped you multiple times and pushed it along with you multiple times, as I recall.  It was a good idea.  It kind of went along with the GOTV-on-campus idea in my mind (have the concert the night before, or the day of, the caucus and get contact info, and then go around knocking on dorm rooms rounding people up).  Anyway, no one did it.  And that's too bad.






> But the colleges idea that I talked about had more to do with actually having bodies on college campuses on election day, getting random people out to the polls.


 Right.




> I was in Maine.  Maine was a clean sweep 21/21.  So, I'm sure that the results could have been any better at all.  22/21. Not possible.  So, clean sweep in my state.


 The straw poll could have been won.  That would have been a lot better.  That would have been a huge deal.  All the delegates in Nevada were won, too.  But the straw poll was lost.  These straw polls matter.  The media reports them.  We all knew this from the very beginning.  That's why right at the start, even though we all knew that Ron Paul would probably end up getting most of the delegates from Iowa, we knew Iowa was a great defeat.  The media creates the lemmings' reality.  So in a very real sense, Ron Paul did not "win"-win either Maine or Nevada, even though he got 100% of the available delegates in both cases.

Even that 100% is only in a sense -- you are subtracting the 3 committee stooges.  Ron Paul could have got the 3 committee stooges to support him too.  That's theoretically possible -- after all, Romney did it.  Instead, Romney got them to support _him_.  So actually, Maine got 21 out of 24.




> But helmuth - yes, things would've been better if people just did what I told them to do.


 That's always the case!   But to actually make things happen, one must just get up and make things happen.  We all know that.  So I wish and you wish, but in the end that's all just wishing and wishing ain't doing.



> My state was the only perfect state though - all the delegates.


 Perfect except for 3.  And except for you lost the straw poll.  Which was the main thing that counted.  And your state was not the only one.  Nevada gave RP all but 3.  So did Oklahoma, actually, but they were cheated.  Of course, Maine was cheated, too.  So if you want to count Maine as a victory, you should count all the other states where we would have won except for cheating.

----------


## sailingaway

> I did.  I plus-repped you multiple times and pushed it along with you multiple times, as I recall.  It was a good idea.  It kind of went along with the GOTV-on-campus idea in my mind (have the concert the night before, or the day of, the caucus and get contact info, and then go around knocking on dorm rooms rounding people up).  Anyway, no one did it.  And that's too bad.
> 
> 
> 
>  Right.
> 
>  The straw poll could have been won.  That would have been a lot better.  That would have been a huge deal.  All the delegates in Nevada were won, too.  But the straw poll was lost.  These straw polls matter.  The media reports them.  We all knew this from the very beginning.  That's why right at the start, even though we all knew that Ron Paul would probably end up getting most of the delegates from Iowa, we knew Iowa was a great defeat.  The media creates the lemmings' reality.  So in a very real sense, Ron Paul did not "win"-win either Maine or Nevada, even though he got 100% of the available delegates in both cases.
> 
> Even that 100% is only in a sense -- you are subtracting the 3 committee stooges.  Ron Paul could have got the 3 committee stooges to support him too.  That's theoretically possible -- after all, Romney did it.  Instead, Romney got them to support _him_.  So actually, Maine got 21 out of 24.
> ...


You trust that vote count?  The one where the 'little slips of paper where the votes were written were all thrown away'?

The count CHARLIE WEBSTER organized?

I never pegged you for being such a trusting soul.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Do you really want to start this fight again?


Why do you consider it a "fight" for me to highlight how you are applying a different measure to Rand, than you are to Ron?  As long as you keep employing it as a way to throw Rand under the bus, I will keep reminding you.




> McConnell was a target of grass roots and this impacts that.  Do you disagree it has impact?


We have a million targets, Sailing.  That doesn't change the fact that Ron also endorsed sitting Republicans and told us he had to.  

I think you are doing your best to blow this whole thing  way out of proportion.  That's what I think and I wonder why.

----------


## sailingaway

> You mean my showing you how you apply a different measure to Rand, than Ron?  That one?


No, I know you like that side of it. The side you don't like is when I counter with facts underlining my belief that they are not the same actions at all, in response to your allegation. That is the part you don't like. You want me to just stop after you throw stuff at Ron, apparently.

--
edit in response to your edit, I wasn't throwing Rand under the bus.  Go back and reread my statement.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

Hopefully a lot of people are eating crow tonight.


Dear Rand, Having Benton as ANY part of your campaign in 2016 will eliminate the slight possibility that I still would vote for you.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You trust that vote count?  The one where the 'little slips of paper where the votes were written were all thrown away'?
> 
> The count CHARLIE WEBSTER organized?
> 
> I never pegged you for being such a trusting soul.


No, no, probably not. 

For that matter, Lew Rockwell appears to have some sort of inside information that Ron actually won the Ames Iowa Straw Poll, too.

But if we're taking into account vote fraud, then we really don't know which states did better than others and where we won and where we lost, because the whole thing was full of fraud from beginning to end.  *Always is.*  Maybe we really won in any number of states.  We'll never know.

Anyway, I respect parock's pride in his state.  But there are other states that did just as well also.  Or perhaps you could say even better, since I didn't exactly see 21 votes for Ron Paul from Maine down on the Tampa floor, but I did see the majority of Nevada vote for him.  But anyway, it doesn't matter.  We all did great, they cheated us all -- no shock there! -- and now we move on and keep having fun fighting for liberty!

----------


## BamaFanNKy

> ??
> 
> I know he ran against Thomas, but honestly, if Thomas hadn't run, I'd have wanted us behind Marcus.


So, you would back a KNOWN Murderer? Marcus Carey Murdered a woman in a drunk driving accident and served no time.

----------


## Carlybee

> No, I'm saying that other people don't like Ron Paul because sometimes he refuses to endorse Republican nominees, and that rubs some Republicans the wrong way.  I'm not saying that's me.


Oh okay sorry.  Misread that.   As to the not endorsing Republican nominees...of course they get mad if he doesn't play the game...which is one of the reasons he is who he is and one of the main reasons he has support from those of us who want to end that status quo.

----------


## sailingaway

> So, you would back a KNOWN Murderer? Marcus Carey Murdered a woman in a drunk driving accident and served no time.


Wow. That must have been some campaign.

I'm kind of assuming if he did no time, it wasn't considered murder. Not knowing more, I can't respond.

----------


## parocks

> parocks, in my estimation: it is a lot earlier than you think.  Most people are not libertarians.  They are thus not going to support the implementation of libertarianism.  Because that's just not what they support.
> 
> You can drive yourself crazy trying to twist yourself in knots, invent brilliant sneaky strategies, fool people into electing libertarians, etc., but I do not think that is a lasting long-term strategy for success.  The numbers just aren't there.  It wouldn't make any sense for Ron Paul to get elected -- nor for Rand -- because most people just don't support what they support.
> 
> Most people aren't like us.  We are a small minority.  We aren't going to get success wearing ourselves out seeking political success from a populace which does not share our political views.
> 
> We succeed through self-improvement and education.  Especially self-improvement.  We have to be patient.  Crazed impatience will drive you crazy, and eventually drive you to try things like lying and compromising your principles, and then of course you still won't succeed and so you'll go even crazier.  I've seen it happen to people in the liberty movement.
> 
> Anyway, I personally wish that someone had done your free concerts and college-kids-GOTV idea.  I think it was a great idea.
> ...


There's been a Liberty Wing of the Republican Party since Robert Taft.  What Ron Paul says isn't all that different from what Taft / Goldwater / Reagan said.  Or what the Tea Party says they want.  It's not a particularly new battle.

Those ideas - concerts / GOTV - require money.

One of the problems I had with superbrochures was that most of that money went to the USPS.  Hundreds of thousands of dollars was spent, in total, by individuals, buying specific precincts, mailing these things to the targeted audience.  What I thought should happen at the time was people on the ground would agree to deliver the superbrochure, door to door, and keeping that money, and using that money for projects like college/shows/GOTV.

My "free show" idea was really a time kill, a keep busy for meetup groups or any type of local organization.   That idea was from last summer, when meetup groups or other local organizations didn't really have much to do except hold signs at an inappropriately early time.  They could book a couple bands, pay them $100 a piece, decent local bands or decent touring bands, drawing a bit of people.  and have people sign up, get some more names more organization, no big deal, not really difficult, and not really something that required any real expert skill to get done.  And there might've been shows of that scale somewhere that I didn't know about.  These wouldn't be the kind of thing that would be publicized here or anywhere outside a local area.  This theme could work for almost anything.  The problem with Ron Paul supporters, though, is they seem to be hard wired into certain ways of thinking about bands.  1) Free is best.  2) Songs about Ron Paul are best 3) Songs about Liberty are best. 4) The bands don't have to be good. 5) The bands don't have to be popular.  And since my theory involved good, normal popular bands and not marginal bands singing Liberty songs for free, it didn't jump out at anybody as being a particularly good idea.  Bands are seen as background music or as entertainment for Ron Paul supporters, but not a method to get normal people who like normal bands to start to like Ron Paul.  Bands are for the converted, and not to convert.  And the typical Ron Paul supporter does not see things the same way as I do at all in any case.  Key point about "free show" is that it really was a meetup/local group building idea, for early, not really a GOTV thing.  

The other GOTV/college/bands thing was different.  That was something that should be organized and focused on, and could cost a decent amount of money.  The core of that idea was getting people to the polls, and it included things like concerts at the polling place on election day on campuses.  And something like that would include a conscious effort to try to get a great turnout, great results, in certain precincts, at certain caucuses.  Big State Colleges.  People in dorms.  People in dorms telling people that a concert is taking place at the polling place right now. The point there wasn't to build meetup groups, keep meetup groups busy, it was to get votes.  That would've been something that the official campaign could've put money into and set a reasonable target for votes, and tried to get those votes.  Bands weren't the core to that idea, free beer at the bar next door to the polling place could've done the same thing.  I was unable to find any evidence anywhere that we were able to reall kick ass at any college campus.  We know that there are dorms with hundreds of people, or even thousands, and with money applied to those points, votes should've been generated.  And it never happened.

I spent more time here talking about the college GOTV project, because I thought that it could really mean votes.  The "free show" thing was really just about building meetups, and the merit and value of that is a little bit more amorphous, intangible, not directly related to getting votes.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> No, I know you like that side of it. The side you don't like is when I counter with facts underlining my belief that they are not the same actions at all, in response to your allegation. That is the part you don't like.


I know you think you do, but you fail.




> You want me to just stop after you throw stuff at Ron, apparently.


Back up there, missy.  Don't you dare accuse me of dissing Ron Paul.  I have supported that man for over 20 years.  

What I see is you continuing to throw stuff at Rand.

So, what now, Sailing?  You've done your best to help stir everyone up.  What's the plan?

----------


## parocks

> Oh okay sorry.  Misread that.   As to the not endorsing Republican nominees...of course they get mad if he doesn't play the game...which is one of the reasons he is who he is and one of the main reasons he has support from those of us who want to end that status quo.


Right.  He always votes right.  We like that.  Others don't.

----------


## ninepointfive

> So, you would back a KNOWN Murderer? Marcus Carey Murdered a woman in a drunk driving accident and served no time.


Not to stray off topic here - you are referring to manslaughter not murder.

----------


## sailingaway

> I know you think you do, but you fail.
> 
> 
> Back up there, missy.  Don't you dare accuse me of dissing Ron Paul.  I have supported that man for over 20 years.  
> 
> What I see is you continuing to throw stuff at Rand.


Go back and read what I said. I don't even think I mentioned him in that particular exchange.

Whereas in fact you DID say Ron did that, and mention him.

----------


## BamaFanNKy

> Wow. That must have been some campaign.
> 
> I'm kind of assuming if he did no time, it wasn't considered murder. Not knowing more, I can't respond.


No he was a rich brat who went to law school after it. Now he advocates locking up people through the drug war. SCUMBAG he is.

----------


## low preference guy

> Back up there, missy.


lol. didn't your mom teach you good manners?

----------


## specsaregood

*ATTENTION!*

If you have posted in this thread, and you havent completely given up on getting good people elected and you have 10 bucks to spare and you haven't already donated to the guy that really helped Rand's campaign get started and on the track to victory.  Then you are a douchebag who is only here to argue.

Stop being a douchebag and go here:
http://hightowerforkentucky.com/
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-000-(you-in-)

----------


## BamaFanNKy

> Not to stray off topic here - you are referring to manslaughter not murder.


http://www.kentuckylawblog.com/headline_law_news/

Actually Negligent Homicide when he was18.

----------


## parocks

> No, no, probably not. 
> 
> For that matter, Lew Rockwell appears to have some sort of inside information that Ron actually won the Ames Iowa Straw Poll, too.
> 
> But if we're taking into account vote fraud, then we really don't know which states did better than others and where we won and where we lost, because the whole thing was full of fraud from beginning to end.  *Always is.*  Maybe we really won in any number of states.  We'll never know.
> 
> Anyway, I respect parock's pride in his state.  But there are other states that did just as well also.  Or perhaps you could say even better, since I didn't exactly see 21 votes for Ron Paul from Maine down on the Tampa floor, but I did see the majority of Nevada vote for him.  But anyway, it doesn't matter.  We all did great, they cheated us all -- no shock there! -- and now we move on and keep having fun fighting for liberty!


Well, we were ripped off in Maine.  We did have those 21/21 until they decided they didn't like that outcome and just replaced half of our people.

----------


## BamaFanNKy

> *ATTENTION!*
> 
> If you have posted in this thread, and you havent completely given up on getting good people elected and you have 10 bucks to spare and you haven't already donated to the guy that really helped Rand's campaign get started and on the track to victory.  Then you are a douchebag who is only here to argue.
> 
> Stop being a douchebag and go here:
> http://hightowerforkentucky.com/
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-000-(you-in-)


THIS x1,000,000

----------


## CableNewsJunkie

> So, you would back a KNOWN Murderer? Marcus Carey Murdered a woman in a drunk driving accident and served no time.





> Wow. That must have been some campaign.
> 
> I'm kind of assuming if he did no time, it wasn't considered murder. Not knowing more, I can't respond.


Yea, some context would help here.

----------


## orenbus

> What I see is you continuing to throw stuff at Rand.


Do we have to have the same arguments every day?

----------


## Carlybee

> *ATTENTION!*
> 
> If you have posted in this thread, and you havent completely given up on getting good people elected and you have 10 bucks to spare and you haven't already donated to the guy that really helped Rand's campaign get started and on the track to victory.  Then you are a douchebag who is only here to argue.
> 
> Stop being a douchebag and go here:
> http://hightowerforkentucky.com/
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-000-(you-in-)



Way to rally the troops Sparky.  Call everyone a douchebag.  How about go post it in the appropriate thread.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Do we have to have the same arguments every day?


As long as it is still happening, yes.

----------


## BamaFanNKy

> Way to rally the troops Sparky.  Call everyone a douchebag.  How about go post it in the appropriate thread.


The appropriate thing is to donate to a candidate who stood up to Mitch McConnell. It was Chris Hightower who did it in 2009 For Rand. Even called him out for TARP votes t Major Chamber event.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Well, we were ripped off in Maine.  We did have those 21/21 until they decided they didn't like that outcome and just replaced half of our people.


 I know.  Same thing with Oklahoma.  Oklahoma had a RP majority at their state convention.  Same thing with any number of states.  Who knows what those Diebold machine boys are doing in their back rooms?  We'll never know.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> *ATTENTION!*
> 
> If you have posted in this thread, and you havent completely given up on getting good people elected and you have 10 bucks to spare and you haven't already donated to the guy that really helped Rand's campaign get started and on the track to victory.  Then you are a douchebag who is only here to argue.
> 
> Stop being a douchebag and go here:
> http://hightowerforkentucky.com/
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-000-(you-in-)


Good idea.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Do we have to have the same arguments every day?


Do we have to? Not really.

Are we going to? Very probably.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> I'm sorry, but ROFLMAO.


 Yeah, It is what it is both sad and pathetic. I know there are people who disagree and think that playing "the game" is going to get them a golden ticket to changing Washington DC, but that is not how it ever worked and that is not how it ever will work . Making deals , or compromising at all is still compromising ...and over time that compromise becomes what is known as "flip flopping".

----------


## CableNewsJunkie

> *ATTENTION!*
> 
> If you have posted in this thread, and you havent completely given up on getting good people elected and you have 10 bucks to spare and you haven't already donated to the guy that really helped Rand's campaign get started and on the track to victory.  Then you are a douchebag who is only here to argue.
> 
> Stop being a douchebag and go here:
> http://hightowerforkentucky.com/
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-000-(you-in-)


Well I just sent some money his way - apparently I sent $1000...but I only wanted to send $50 (I clicked the radio button for $50) - what's up with that?!

I sent $100 up to Kurt Bills the other day too.

State and Local guys - that's where the focus needs to be.

(But for the meantime, I'm focusing on getting my $950 back.)

----------


## ninepointfive

> Yeah, It is what it is both sad and pathetic. I know there are people who disagree and think that playing "the game" is going to get them a golden ticket to changing Washington DC, but that is not how it ever worked and that is not how it ever will work . Making deals , or compromising at all is still compromising ...and over time that compromise becomes flip flop.


I agree

What's happening here is some forum members want to force the r3volution into supporting the GOP at all costs, and calling those who disagree defeatists or quitters and other nasty things. _It's the Libertarian Authoritarian coming out - the Liberty Police._ Then when people disagree with the Libertarian Authoritarian, the typical fallacious response is that those who disagree are dividing the movement or being divisive. It's the source of all these forum arguments. 

What's needed is for people to do their own thing, because individuals are most effective that way anyways.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I agree
> 
> What's happening here is some forum members want to force the r3volution into supporting the GOP at all costs, and calling those who disagree defeatists or quitters and other nasty things. _It's the Libertarian Authoritarian coming out - the Liberty Police._ Then when people disagree with the Libertarian Authoritarian, the typical fallacious response is that those who disagree are dividing the movement or being divisive. It's the source of all these forum arguments.


Not at all.  I agree with what you posted below.  Now, if everyone would stop bashing those who have chosen a different path, we would be all set.  And that includes stopping the bashing of those continuing to work within the GOP.




> What's needed is for people to do their own thing, because individuals are most effective that way anyways.

----------


## ninepointfive

> Now, if everyone would stop bashing those who have chosen a different path, we would be all set.  And that includes stopping the bashing of those continuing to work within the GOP.


Yep - its going to take all kinds

----------


## Carlybee

> The appropriate thing is to donate to a candidate who stood up to Mitch McConnell. It was Chris Hightower who did it in 2009 For Rand. Even called him out for TARP votes t Major Chamber event.


I wouldn't necessarily disagree and perhaps I will however for someone to come into this thread calling everybody douchebags doesn't really motivate one to do so.  Perhaps the marketing style needs some work.

----------


## BamaFanNKy

> I wouldn't necessarily disagree and perhaps I will however for someone to come into this thread calling everybody douchebags doesn't really motivate one to do so.  Perhaps the marketing style needs some work.


We're all passionate. If you can't call your own people douchebags.... who can you? hehe

----------


## orenbus

> Yeah, It is what it is both sad and pathetic. I know there are people who disagree and think that playing "the game" is going to get them a *golden ticket* to changing Washington DC, but that is not how it ever worked and that is not how it ever will work . Making deals , or compromising at all is still compromising ...and over time that compromise becomes what is known as "flip flopping".

----------


## parocks

> I did.  I plus-repped you multiple times and pushed it along with you multiple times, as I recall.  It was a good idea.  It kind of went along with the GOTV-on-campus idea in my mind (have the concert the night before, or the day of, the caucus and get contact info, and then go around knocking on dorm rooms rounding people up).  Anyway, no one did it.  And that's too bad.
> 
> 
> 
>  Right.
> 
>  The straw poll could have been won.  That would have been a lot better.  That would have been a huge deal.  All the delegates in Nevada were won, too.  But the straw poll was lost.  These straw polls matter.  The media reports them.  We all knew this from the very beginning.  That's why right at the start, even though we all knew that Ron Paul would probably end up getting most of the delegates from Iowa, we knew Iowa was a great defeat.  The media creates the lemmings' reality.  So in a very real sense, Ron Paul did not "win"-win either Maine or Nevada, even though he got 100% of the available delegates in both cases.
> 
> Even that 100% is only in a sense -- you are subtracting the 3 committee stooges.  Ron Paul could have got the 3 committee stooges to support him too.  That's theoretically possible -- after all, Romney did it.  Instead, Romney got them to support _him_.  So actually, Maine got 21 out of 24.
> ...


There's a lot here.  

1) We lost the straw poll everywhere, and we won every statewide vote at the convention in Maine.  3 were holdovers from before. And technically LePage was added to our list without any committment that he would vote for us.  But we won everything, and we should've gotten the 20or21/24.  And unless they just take national committeewoman/man from Ashley and Mark, we start out with 2 in 2016.

2) Things were organized in Maine, and getting votes meant phone calls mainly to our id'd people - phone from home, phone from the hq.  The goal was not for high turnout, really, more to get our people, who we already identified, to the polls.  That was the overall attitude, and this was a official campaign run state, so there wasn't really much in the way of arguing, discussion of "what we should do" it was more of an implementation of a plan.  Freelance stuff was not encouraged.  Even at the Washington County stage, when we knew we had to really really kick ass, there was no sense that we had to step it up to extraordinary levels.  The extra for me in Maine would've been more of the stuff they wanted to do.  Even though I did a decent amount of facebook.

3) about the doing and wishing.  Well, there were plenty of people doing things, but doing them wrong.  So, really, if they all just modified what they did, easy enough, there wouldn't be extra doing necessary.  Just correcting.  Are we of the belief now that there wasn't ENOUGH grassroots activity?  I'm not.  Just that it wasn't tight, productive, useful, etc.  Did Romney have any grassroots?  

4) I discussed the concert thing on another thread.  You're talking the college brute force GOTV, not the "free show".  College brute force GOTV requires money and organization and is something that you should do when polls show you have 60% of men 18-29 and they rarely vote.

----------


## parocks

> I know.  Same thing with Oklahoma.  Oklahoma had a RP majority at their state convention.  Same thing with any number of states.  Who knows what those Diebold machine boys are doing in their back rooms?  We'll never know.


Oklahoma was a parking lot one?  Rump Convention?  Similar to Arizona, but different in some way? We had our delegates taken away in August.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> 4) I discussed the concert thing on another thread.  You're talking the college brute force GOTV, not the "free show".  College brute force GOTV requires money and organization and is something that you should do when polls show you have 60% of men 18-29 and they rarely vote.


 They both were good ideas.  Maybe next time someone will do them, or things like them.

----------


## Indy Vidual

_ Mitch McConnell hires Jesse Benton to run his 2014 re-election bid_

I knew there might be a reason to drop in here today.
LOL!!!!!    

Will Jesse be buying another house?
LOL?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Oklahoma was a parking lot one?  Rump Convention?  Similar to Arizona, but different in some way? We had our delegates taken away in August.


  Right.  For them, the cheating started earlier.  One state was cheated one way, one another, let's just agree we were all cheated, the politicians all stink, the GOP leaders all stink.

----------


## parocks

> Right.  For them, the cheating started earlier.  One state was cheated one way, one another, let's just agree we were all cheated, the politicians all stink, the GOP leaders all stink.


I can agree with this statement.

----------


## king_nothing_

> Not at all.  I agree with what you posted below.  Now, if everyone would stop bashing those who have chosen a different path, we would be all set.  And that includes stopping the bashing of those continuing to work within the GOP.


What you seem to not get though is that someone expressing a negative opinion they hold regarding politician X or campaign manager Y, or even their personal disdain for politics in general, is *not* a case of them "bashing you". You seem to like to conflate anything someone says which pisses you off as them "bashing you". It's not.

----------


## RickyJ

> I guess McConnel didn't get Benton's memo.  Benton is done with grassroots.


Either McConnell doesn't have a clue what is going on, or this is RNC payback to Benton for sabotaging the Ron Paul campaign.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Not at all.  I agree with what you posted below.  Now, if everyone would stop bashing those who have chosen a different path, we would be all set.  And that includes stopping the bashing of those continuing to work within the GOP.


Once again, you misrepresent some of us. I'm not bashing anyone, except maybe the GOP itself. You still cannot comprehend the difference between bashing and disagreement.

----------


## specsaregood

> I wouldn't necessarily disagree and perhaps I will however for someone to come into this thread calling *everybody* douchebags doesn't really motivate one to do so.  Perhaps the marketing style needs some work.


I am saddened that you would think I called *everybody* douchebags.  I thought I really narrowed down the criteria.  
Let's see:

1.If you have posted in this thread
--Ok, this already takes out the entire population that hasn't posted in this thread.  That leaves a minority of rpf members even.

2. and you havent completely given up on getting good people elected 
--fair enough position to take, I won't argue that makes you a douchebag, still this takes even more posters out of the criteria to be a douchebag.

3. and you have 10 bucks to spare 
--times are tough, I get it.  if you really don't have $10 bucks to spare then you clearly aren't a douchebag.

4. and you haven't already donated to the guy that really helped Rand's campaign get started and on the track to victory. 
--limits the field even more, a lot of long time posters have donated to his campaign.

If you fail all those filters, only then are you a douchebag and only here to argue.   I thought that was a pretty fair filter, you disagree?   If you are a douchebag, redemption is only a couple clicks away:   http://hightowerforkentucky.com/

----------


## Carlybee

> I am saddened that you would think I called *everybody* douchebags.  I thought I really narrowed down the criteria.  
> Let's see:
> 
> 1.If you have posted in this thread
> --Ok, this already takes out the entire population that hasn't posted in this thread.  That leaves a minority of rpf members even.
> 
> 2. and you havent completely given up on getting good people elected 
> --fair enough position to take, I won't argue that makes you a douchebag, still this takes even more posters out of the criteria to be a douchebag.
> 
> ...


Actually it's a form of emotional blackmail by way of trying to lay a guilt trip on people. It's also off topic. If I decide to donate I'll go to the donation thread. If that makes me a douchebag then I guess that makes you a douche nozzle. Using Rand doesn't work with me because the jury is still out on him as far as I am concerned. I dislike strongarm tactics but am happy to reciprocate.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Once again, you misrepresent some of us. I'm not bashing anyone, except maybe the GOP itself. You still cannot comprehend the difference between bashing and disagreement.


Cajun, in my opinion, it becomes bashing when someone goes from thread-to-thread disparaging a candidate and others' chosen strategy.  

Can't you just leave people alone and let them support Rand if they want to?  We got it that you don't like him; I think the whole world knows.  And also leave people alone if they want to continue working in the GOP?  We got it that you do not want to.  That's fine.  Are you simply unable to return the courtesy?

----------


## fr33

Good riddance to him, and I will not contribute any time or money to any campaign he manages in the future. Whether its a Paul or whoever.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> What you seem to not get though is that someone expressing a negative opinion they hold regarding politician X or campaign manager Y, or even their personal disdain for politics in general, is *not* a case of them "bashing you". You seem to like to conflate anything someone says which pisses you off as them "bashing you". It's not.


I never said they were bashing me.

But, I also think we need to respect each other's decisions of our chosen path going forward and not bash it all over the forum.  What good does that do?  It just causes fights.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Using Rand doesn't work with me because the jury is still out on him as far as I am concerned. I dislike strongarm tactics but am happy to reciprocate.


Don't take it out on Hightower as a liberty candidate just because you got beef with Rand.

----------


## phill4paul

I'm in late on this development and I'm not about to read through #600 plus posts. Christ! I'm sure his C4L step down has already been covered. All I can say is...

  BWAHAHAHA!  AhAhaaaa, Hahaa. Ha.

----------


## Carlybee

> Don't take it out on Hightower as a liberty candidate just because you got beef with Rand.


First of all...the only beef I have with Rand at this point is his endorsing Romney and hanging out with mainstream Republitards.  Other than that I like most of his views that champion freedom. (The jury is still out with me simply because I want to see how much he plans to suck up to the aforementioned Republitards). I'm not taking anything out on Hightower...I just don't believe this is the thread to come into trying to shame people into donating. Matter of fact if I did that I would be accused of trying to derail the thread. So don't put words in my mouth.  Some of y'all are a pushy bunch.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I'm in late on this development and I'm not about to read through #600 plus posts. Christ! I'm sure his C4L step down has already been covered. All I can say is...
> 
>   BWAHAHAHA!  AhAhaaaa, Hahaa. Ha.


That's pretty much where I am at.

In fact, I don't think I've had more fun reading a thread in *months*.

Take a bow, RPF, well done!

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Cajun, in my opinion, *it becomes bashing when someone goes from thread-to-thread disparaging a candidate and others' chosen strategy.  
> *
> Can't you just leave people alone and let them support Rand if they want to?  We got it that you don't like him; I think the whole world knows.  And also leave people alone if they want to continue working in the GOP?  We got it that you do not want to.  That's fine.  Are you simply unable to return the courtesy?


Ah yes, so this is what the last 30 pages have looked like since I chimed out. Thought this had been nipped in the bud when certain individuals agreed the other day to Sailing that this sort of crap would cease. Not only do they not keep their word, they continue their destructive mentalities in Ron's own GRC. It's official, willful and hopeful intent for the demise of the legacy that Ron has spelled out for us. And, no show of public support for candidates that are Ron supporters nor to current politicians that had endorsed him. Bitch, bitch, bitch yet useless and hell bent on killing morale whilst also showing lurkers no form of positivity nor direction of successful venture.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I never said they were bashing me.
> 
> But, I also think we need to respect each other's decisions of our chosen path going forward and not bash it all over the forum.  What good does that do?  It just causes fights.


It might help if you stop misrepresenting your fellow forum members and accusing them of doing and saying things they did not.  

Just sayin'.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> That's pretty much where I am at.
> 
> In fact, I don't think I've had more fun reading a thread in *months*.
> 
> Take a bow, RPF, well done!


It's pretty entertaining...and revealing, too.  I originally said it was one of the most disgusting threads, but that was about 400 posts ago!! LOL

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Oh FFS can we take the geeky girl fight about pixels and ubergeek $#@! to another thread? This is about Jesse Benton - The Benedict Arnold of the Liberty movement.

----------


## phill4paul

> 


  Depends. I bet he get's serious contributions on a corporate level. Won't be any money coming from grassroots. But, with the deals he has made I think he will do 'generally' well in this next business venture.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> It might help if you stop misrepresenting your fellow forum members and accusing them of doing and saying things they did not.  
> 
> Just sayin'.


I don't think I have.  Also, I think there are forum members here and there are also some with ulterior motives.

Just sayin'.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> *I don't think I have.*  Also, I think there are forum members here and there are also some with ulterior motives.
> 
> Just sayin'.


Trust me; you have.

Anytime you're ready to stop doing what you don't think you're doing, you'll see a lot less of me.

----------


## Vessol

Comparing Jesse Benton to Benedict Arnold is an insult to 'ole Benedit.

Oh and hey AF.

----------


## phill4paul

> Comparing Jesse Benton to Benedict Arnold is an insult to 'ole Benedit.
> 
> Oh and hey AF.


 * Bwahahahaha!*

  Timing equals = perfect.

----------


## sailingaway

> * Bwahahahaha!*
> 
>   Timing equals = perfect.


So instead of reading 600+ posts, you intend to post that once each page, here on out?

----------


## phill4paul

> So instead of reading 600+ posts, you intend to post that once each page, here on out?


  How many times can I do it before being banned for low value posts?

----------


## sailingaway

> How many times can I do it before being banned for low value posts?


I'm thinking about it....

It gets boring.

----------


## phill4paul

> I'm thinking about it....
> 
> It gets boring.


  OK. Try this and see if it doesn't elicit the same response...

http://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/publ...?p=WarOnTerror

----------


## sailingaway

> OK. Try this and see if it doesn't elicit the same response...
> 
> http://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/publ...?p=WarOnTerror


well, there you are. He needs a communications director.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Comparing Jesse Benton to Benedict Arnold is an insult to 'ole Benedit.
> 
> Oh and hey AF.


Hey there brother, how have ya been?

----------


## phill4paul

> well, there you are. He needs a communications director.


    I've bit my tongue over Benton for FAR too long. The worst I have said....




> Originally Posted by phill4paul  
> Anything Benton is a part of, moving forward, gets no support from me. Not money and damn sure not time. That includes anything Paul.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...nton-Quits-C4L

 Bwahahahahaha! 

  Vindication.

----------


## orenbus

"There's a story I heard as a child, a parable, and I never forgot it.

A scorpion was walking along the bank of a river, wondering how to get to the other side. Suddenly, he saw a fox. He asked the fox to take him on his back across the river. The fox said 'No. If I do that, you'll sting me and I'll drown.' The scorpion assured him, 'If I did that, we'd both drown.'

So, the fox thought about it, and finally agreed. So, the scorpion climbed up on his back, and the fox began to swim, but halfway across the river, the scorpion stung him.

As the poison filled his veins, the fox turned to the scorpion and said, 'Why did you do that? Now you'll drown too.' 'I couldn't help it,' said the scorpion, 'it's my nature'."

----------


## VBRonPaulFan

i hope McConnell plans on buying a DeLorean, because he's gonna have to travel back in $#@!ing time and redo a $#@!ton of votes to get support from RP people.

this guy is the epitome of an 'out of touch politician'. he hires the guy that helped run a grassroots campaign into the ground, and expects to get support from the grassroots because of it. if it wasn't so damn sad, it'd actually be really funny.

----------


## phill4paul



----------


## Aratus

> Either McConnell doesn't have a clue what is going on, or this is RNC payback to Benton for sabotaging the Ron Paul campaign.


good one! i'd hand out rep but i am sitting back until i reread this thread from start to finish.

----------


## Aratus

> Have no doubt that to get on board with McConnell that Benton had to say something like, "You know, I really don't believe all that stuff about auditing the Fed, ending the wars, etc."
> 
> Benton might be our next Eric Donderooooo.


he had worked for bob barr but lets hold back on this judgement call a while...

----------


## Aratus

> Marcus Carey apparently likes our thread and links to it for his readers.
> 
> http://www.bluegrassbulletin.com/201...rest-fire.html


   cooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

----------


## iamse7en

Liberty bridges burned. Like he cares. He's where he wants to be: making money off a corrupt political system, for his own gain.

----------


## Aratus

"LIBERTY FOREST FIRE"   ...BY MARCUS CAREY

i am running out of my wry, witty & aptly dry quips.

he indeed coined that as a header for a post of his.

RevBox and PageOne have been very quiet about it.

----------


## phill4paul

WTF... Honestly, word is out. I have a freind busting my balls. Thanks Jesse. $#@!!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

We really need to make sure that Mitch McConnell loses.  Badly!  We need to start right now doing opposition research.  

Listen to every radio interview this bum ever gave.And TV interview.Search the newspaper and magazine database at the library for every reference to his name.Find everything he ever said and ever wrote.Find everyone that gave him money.Look up every vote he's made.Look up the names of all his former employees and staffers and see if anyone has some beans they want to spill.Entrap him into doing or saying something explosively awful while wearing a micro-videorecorder.


Any other ideas?  Pour it on!

We've been needing a new productive avenue to direct our grassroots energies.  THIS IS IT!  

*OPERATION: 
DESTROY MITCH MCCONNELL*
Someone's got to be able to come up with a better name than that.  Come one, come all!  Let's get the creative juices flowing.

----------


## sailingaway

I think a name like "Operation Save Kentucky" or "Save the Senate" would be warmer and fuzzier.

Need to know more about what we'd plan to do, to opine, however.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> [SIZE=5]We really need to make sure that Mitch McConnell loses.


I live in Kentucky.  I said last time I would seek to have McConnell unseated because of his vote in the bank bailouts - the largest theft in history.   We organized that call in campaign against the bank bailouts here.  McConnell totally wouldn't listen to his constituants.

----------


## AlexAmore

It would be funny if we as a "grassroots" constantly battled against every candidate that hired Benton. So they would hire Benton because he magically created an amazing grassroots effort for Ron Paul ....but actually they're just setting themselves up to get blasted by us.

And if word gets out about this, then he's out of a job.

----------


## fr33

I'm willing to donate to a liberty candidate that opposes Mitch McConnell.

It would be best if that candidate ran in the Libertarian or other 3rd party. That way at the very least he could draw away from the rethugs and help the democraps.

----------


## sailingaway

> I'm willing to donate to a liberty candidate that opposes Mitch McConnell.


You know, no R might do it, but an LP might.

----------


## fr33

> You know, no R might do it, but an LP might.


check my post edit :P

----------


## parocks

> It would be funny if we as a "grassroots" constantly battled against every candidate that hired Benton. So they would hire Benton because he magically created an amazing grassroots effort for Ron Paul ....but actually they're just setting themselves up to get blasted by us.'
> And if word gets out about this, then he's out of a job.


You know, you might consider doing this with someone else.  The idea that Ron Paul's granddaughter's husband is unemployable because of the intentional actions of Ron Paul supporters does not seem to be the way to go.  I mean, for the pro Ron Paul portion of the RPFs as opposed to the pretend Ron Paul portion of the RPF.

Something like that is what you do with Karl Roves candidates.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> I'm willing to donate to a liberty candidate that opposes Mitch McConnell.
> 
> It would be best if that candidate ran in the Libertarian or other 3rd party. That way at the very least he could draw away from the rethugs and help the democraps.


We would want to defeat McConnell in the primary.

----------


## sailingaway

We didn't like McConnell long before Benton was going there.  I agree I wouldn't target his campaigns on purpose.

----------


## Aratus

keep in mind wily jack conway took on rand
but beshear's lt. governor might have been
a better senator had he won the primary!!!

----------


## fr33

> We would want to defeat McConnell in the primary.


Not likely or even possible I'd say. I do not trust McConnell at all. His record is absolutely horrible. I'd much rather run a good liberty candidate and cause him to lose his office. A message must be sent. If he wins with what the media will call "our guy Benton" we get screwed on all fronts. Teach them a lesson or get co-opted. We have nothing to lose. The 2 parties are actually 1 party.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> Not likely or even possible I'd say. I do not trust McConnell at all. His record is absolutely horrible. I'd much rather run a good liberty candidate and cause him to lose his office. A message must be sent. If he wins with what the media will call "our guy Benton" we get screwed on all fronts. Teach them a lesson or get co-opted. We have nothing to lose. The 2 parties are actually 1 party.


We've defeated plenty of establishment candidates in the primaries this year, and they are hardly mutually exclusive ideas.  They only conflict if we win the primary.  If we win the primary, problem solved.

----------


## phill4paul

> We didn't like McConnell long before Benton was going there.  I agree I wouldn't target his campaigns on purpose.


brouhaha 

  Why? 

  Maybe that is the "Benton Mind Bender."

  He's brilliant. He masterfully implemented a delegate strategy. The big bosses had to change the rules to counter it. Then he resigns C4L. Then he works for McConnell. 

  This is a liberty Trojan horse approach to politics. 

  He's brilliant!

----------


## fr33

> We've defeated plenty of establishment candidates in the primaries this year, and they are hardly mutually exclusive ideas.  They only conflict if we win the primary.  If we win the primary, problem solved.


How does a Mitch McConnell victory in 2014 do anything for liberty?

A 70 year old man with a horrible neocon voting record is going to have some epiphany? I don't buy it. Our choice is to lose with ties to Ron Paul or to win and send a message.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You know, you might consider doing this with someone else.  The idea that Ron Paul's granddaughter's husband is unemployable because of the intentional actions of Ron Paul supporters does not seem to be the way to go.  I mean, for the pro Ron Paul portion of the RPFs as opposed to the pretend Ron Paul portion of the RPF.


 Parocks, come on!  Tell me what you disagree with in the following:

1- Mr. Mitch McConnell is a horrible and evil individual.
2- Ron Paul supporters all hate Mr. Mitch McConnell.
3- Mr. Mitch McConnell has hired one Jesse Benton, for reasons unknown, but perhaps for various complex and brilliant reasons you have invented for him.  And perhaps because he thinks Jesse can bring along the grassroots somehow.
4- Even if you don't think that #3 gives us all the _more_ reason and would make it all the more sweet to defeat this lump of gunk, #3 at least does not change nor modify 1 and 2 in any way.  And so, given that,
5- Mr. Mitch McConnell must be destroyed.

Have I gone wrong anywhere?  Or are you an board with this project?  Come on: climb on the freedom train!

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> How does a Mitch McConnell victory in 2014 do anything for liberty?
> 
> A 70 year old man with a horrible neocon voting record is going to have some epiphany? I don't buy it. Our choice is to lose with ties to Ron Paul or to win and send a message.


Defeating McConnell in the primary isn't helping him

----------


## fr33

> Defeating McConnell in the primary isn't helping him


Are you in Kentucky? What possibility is there of doing this?

----------


## parocks

No, I've never bought into any of the passionate anti Benton hate.  I can't believe that this move met with Ron Paul's disappoval.  I think it's part of the strategy to help Rand.  

The accepted wisdom here is that nothing you can do can stop you from being screwed by the establishment GOP.

That is not necessarily true.  It may be true.  I'm not arguing against the truthfulness of that.

But from a practical standpoint, there isn't anything productive that can be done if it is believed to be true.

I mean, what exactly is the strategy if everybody is going to screw you over always?  Rand Paul can't exactly run for President while
living off the grid.

They may just be choosing to go the method of taking whatever strategy is available.

If A) then do the strategy.  If B) no strategy is available.  So Jesse is doing the strategy that is available.

The GOP is not unchangeable.  I don't know how the national committeemen and women are picked, but in Maine, they're both Ron Paul supporters.  If we could just conquer those states, we could get our people on the Republican National Committee, get a majority, and have control.  Then we'd get our chair in there, and all should go well.  

The msm is never going to support Ron Paul or Rand Paul - that's not changeable, but the attitude and behavior of the GOP certainly is.






> Parocks, come on!  Tell me what you disagree with in the following:
> 
> 1- Mr. Mitch McConnell is a horrible and evil individual.
> 2- Ron Paul supporters all hate Mr. Mitch McConnell.
> 3- Mr. Mitch McConnell has hired one Jesse Benton, for reasons unknown, but perhaps for various complex and brilliant reasons you have invented for him.  And perhaps because he thinks Jesse can bring along the grassroots somehow.
> 4- Even if you don't think that #3 gives us all the _more_ reason and would make it all the more sweet to defeat this lump of gunk, #3 at least does not change nor modify 1 and 2 in any way.  And so, given that,
> 5- Mr. Mitch McConnell must be destroyed.
> 
> Have I gone wrong anywhere?  Or are you an board with this project?  Come on: climb on the freedom train!

----------


## sailingaway

You keep assuming Ron approves everything. Ron thinks people need to act, and take responsibility for acting, according to their own choices.

----------


## fr33

> No, I've never bought into any of the passionate anti Benton hate.  I can't believe that this move met with Ron Paul's disappoval.  I think it's part of the strategy to help Rand.  
> 
> The accepted wisdom here is that nothing you can do can stop you from being screwed by the establishment GOP.
> 
> That is not necessarily true.  It may be true.  I'm not arguing against the truthfulness of that.
> 
> But from a practical standpoint, there isn't anything productive that can be done if it is believed to be true.
> 
> I mean, what exactly is the strategy if everybody is going to screw you over always?  Rand Paul can't exactly run for President while
> ...


You are just describing how we are fighting a loser's battle and why we should assimilate. The only reason I'm here is because of Ron Paul's principles in his voting record and when he speaks. Mitch McConnell is someone that drives me to either want to defeat him or just abstain from the whole process and become apathetic. The liberty movement has no business being tied to him. Rand has gone too far with this if this is his deal. If this is Rand's deal then the people posting here from Kentucky are lying. Is Rand in so much danger that he must kiss the ass of one of the worst enemies of liberty?

----------


## phill4paul

BWAHAHA-HAHAAAAA-ha-ha-haahahahahahahhahhahahahhahhahahah-ha-ha-haahahahahahahhahhahahahhahhahahah-ha-ha-haahahahahahahhahhahahahhahhahahah-ha-ha-haahahahahahahhahhahahahhahhahahah-ha-ha-haahahahahahahhahhahahahhahhahahah-ha-ha-haahahahahahahhahhahahahhahhahahah-ha-ha-haahahahahahahhahhahahahhahhahahah-ha-ha-haahahahahahahhahhahahahhahhahahah-

----------


## parocks

Well, about 1, I really don't know, haven't given it too much thought.  I suspect that "horrible and evil individual" would apply to almost any politician to most people here.
We have enough trouble accomplishing one thing at a time, we can't get every single Republican many there think horrible and evil.

About 2, well, you're not going to find agreement with everybody here.

Basically, I'd want to see what Rand says, I'm really not with the people here who were attacking Rand and Benton after WE LOST but we didn't want to hear it.  Yes, Romney could've been eaten by sharks or some other black swan event that would've made Romney just cease to exist.  In real life though, the sun will rise in the East, unless the sun ceased to exist.  But we somehow never say that the sun could just vanish, we take it for granted that the current condiditions will hold.  But Ron Paul supporters did not want to hear that we lost, if current condiditions held, and current conditions are always assumed to hold. So, in short, we lost.  "we will no have enough delegates to win"  were the magic words from the email.  




> Parocks, come on!  Tell me what you disagree with in the following:
> 
> 1- Mr. Mitch McConnell is a horrible and evil individual.
> 2- Ron Paul supporters all hate Mr. Mitch McConnell.
> 3- Mr. Mitch McConnell has hired one Jesse Benton, for reasons unknown, but perhaps for various complex and brilliant reasons you have invented for him.  And perhaps because he thinks Jesse can bring along the grassroots somehow.
> 4- Even if you don't think that #3 gives us all the _more_ reason and would make it all the more sweet to defeat this lump of gunk, #3 at least does not change nor modify 1 and 2 in any way.  And so, given that,
> 5- Mr. Mitch McConnell must be destroyed.
> 
> Have I gone wrong anywhere?  Or are you an board with this project?  Come on: climb on the freedom train!

----------


## orenbus

> We would want to defeat McConnell in the primary.


I'm for that

----------


## phill4paul

> I'm for that


  And here I said I was opposed to ever giving another chit for a campaign. Heh. Someone needs to set up a chip in.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> No, I've never bought into any of the passionate anti Benton hate.  I can't believe that this move met with Ron Paul's disappoval.  I think it's part of the strategy to help Rand.  
> 
> The accepted wisdom here is that nothing you can do can stop you from being screwed by the establishment GOP.
> 
> That is not necessarily true.  It may be true.  I'm not arguing against the truthfulness of that.
> 
> But from a practical standpoint, there isn't anything productive that can be done if it is believed to be true.
> 
> I mean, what exactly is the strategy if everybody is going to screw you over always?  Rand Paul can't exactly run for President while
> ...


You trash conspiracy theorists, then weave a beautiful conspiracy that has Ron Paul acting like a complete buffoon, incapable of handling anything properly when it comes to campaigns and messaging, in order to secretly infiltrate the GOP elite and trick everyone into freedom.

Yeah okay.

----------


## orenbus

> And here I said I was opposed to ever giving another chit for a campaign. Heh. Someone needs to set up a chip in.


I think the first step is we need to identify a candidate to run against him.

----------


## phill4paul

> I think the first step is we need to identify a candidate to run against him.


  Who can we run. What are the qualifications. Can we get GunnyBradley to move and challenge? I dunno. Either Benton is an idiot or he's brilliant. If he is brilliant than he is counting on us to destroy McConnell.

----------


## fj45lvr

You don't have to be a politician to be a paid whore it seems....

----------


## parocks

> You are just describing how we are fighting a loser's battle and why we should assimilate. The only reason I'm here is because of Ron Paul's principles in his voting record and when he speaks. Mitch McConnell is someone that drives me to either want to defeat him or just abstain from the whole process and become apathetic. The liberty movement has no business being tied to him. Rand has gone too far with this if this is his deal. If this is Rand's deal then the people posting here from Kentucky are lying. Is Rand in so much danger that he must kiss the ass of one of the worst enemies of liberty?


I'm talking about what Jesse Benton should do.  What strategies are available to Jesse Benton.  Jesse Benton is not grassroots, grassroots doesn't have the tools at its disposal.  You seem to think that Jesse Benton should act like a grassroots person, like the average Ron Paul Supporter here on RPF.  And he's not that and he shouldn't be that.  Collectively, I would not give "Ron Paul Supporters" a campaign job at any Benton type level.  That doesn't mean there aren't many good ones here, but the collective wisdom here is wrong.  

I was all about "wreck the convention" until that Thursday, when I heard in the Doug Wead interview that the Ron Paul campaign decided not to attack Romney in Michigan because Romney would've attacked Ron Paul hard and the decision was made to protect Rons name and Rands future and not run the ads against Romney.
Do we think Doug Wead was lying about that?  If true, it was over then.  And it show ed a complete lack of willingness to fight a risky fight.  So at that point it became clear that he really didn't want any type of distruption or negativity that could blowback on Ron or Rand. 

So, that then was a pretty prime opportunity to do a lot of damage exactly where and exactly why.  So, the opportunity to do damage was right there and we didn't take it.

This get Mitch thing doesn't seem to have any clear upside, of course I'd be watching Rand to see what he would like to have happen.

HOWEVER.
This is an idea I have.  You said you liked one of my ideas, so, here's this one, a bit farfetched and it really isn't exactly a Ron Paul idea specifically.

Do a thing with a website, get rock stars to run for a whole bunch of offices.  It could be a "thing"  that people from across the country could get behind.
Would increase turnout tremendously with 18-29 at least.

The standard RP response might be "are these rock stars in Liberty Bands?".  And that would be the wrong way to think.

You start with a message, a core set of beliefs, and you see what rock stars you can get to sign on with that core message.
Maybe you have contests.  Online voting.  But there are hundreds of house seats up for grabs every 2 years.  It's possible to fill them all but
not certain by any means.

We together could formulate this set of principles, so we should be all happy with our candidates.  And since these people are political novices they're not
likely to have any hidden allegiances, they'll owe the seat to us, and they'll listen to instruction.  And if they don't, oh well, we will have achieved an awful lot
in getting them in there.

Rockstars, perhaps especially local rockstars, are very well suited for this.  Rockstars are good in front of people, charismatic, lead singers talk to crowds and 
interact with audiences, know how work audiences, like being in the spotlight, they have big email lists, lots of facebook friends, big numbers of people are used to giving them money,  they sing other people's words without blinking, they listen to instruction from their labels, they have a producer produce their records.

We would be the label, the producer, the songwriter.  They're just the talent performing the speech, and they're trained at it.  

There could be a Democrat version and a Republican version.  The Democrat version is "must have less war" and the Republican version is "must have less government"
I know that we want our candidates to be 100% on both, but I suggest that we could consider a message that is more likely to win.  These will be our people, they'll
vote right.  But we don't necessarily have to make each candidate be 100% pure in message.  That's heresy to some, I know, but, again, winning.

It really is doable, actually.  Not that it will happen, not that if it's tried, it'll succeed, but I don't see anything that clearly prevents it from being successful.  

I've had a version of this kicking around for a while.  I've already talked, about a year ago, to one band that I though would be a good challenger to Olympia Snowe in
Maine, and they told me the next time I saw them that they thought about the idea.  They'd be good for Maine against Susan Collins.  That's something that could go forward with or without a national organization, website, what have you.

----------


## Article V

Nearly 700 posts since this thread began and one thing is clear...

*Jesse Benton broke the first and most cardinal rule of campaign management: 
NEVER SWITCH POLITICAL PARTIES OR NO ONE WILL EVER BE ABLE TO TRUST YOU FULLY AGAIN!*
I didn't make that rule up.  It was shared to me via James Carville; and it's clearly true regarding Benton's decision to represent McConnell.  True, Mitch McConnell is technically in the same political party as Ron Paul... but modern politics have evolved so that third parties are now factional wings within the big two political parties.  Jesse Benton's switch from the Tea Party Republican wing to the Establishment Republican wing has put him in the precarious position where the tea party grassroots will never fully trust him again while the establishment Republicans will only have him for as long as he's useful (because they won't ever fully trust him either because of his history).

What this proves is Jesse Benton either: never was a true believer in the tea party Republican liberty movement of Ron Paul... ornever fully understood the tea party liberty grassroots enough to realize the blowback that would be result if he swapped sides to represent the establishment Republican wing in future elections. 
 Regardless of which of these two possibilities is true (the latter, in my opinion, may be worse than the former), their implications hammer home the reality that Jesse Benton was NOT the man to be campaign managing Ron Paul's Presidential bid.  Sadly, Ron's family loyalty may have misguided his judgement (and ours) until we discovered this all too late.

----------


## Carlybee

Rock stars as candidates?  Tea Party Liberty Republicans?  Beam me up Scotty..the aliens have landed.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> We didn't like McConnell long before Benton was going there.  I agree I wouldn't target his campaigns on purpose.


I'd say we stay true to at least the watered down Rand approach of running against bailouts and the politicians who supported them.

If the official movement can't even hold such a milquetoast line as that, or worse, decides to encircle the TARP supporting establishment we ran against... we're done, and there's absolutely no point in doing anything moving forward under the movement banner.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I think the first step is we need to identify a candidate to run against him.


Have any of you here ran a campaign for elected office before?  Probably your first place to start would be to find someone with experience in state legislature, congressional, or state wide campaigns.

----------


## pacelli

I saw the headline and thought it was an onion article.  The fact that it is NOT a joke is even funnier.  

Benton needs to keep working, but that doesn't mean any of us are going to start following his orders.  I'll tell ya what, if I start getting mail from Mitch McConnell now, I'm going to blow a gasket.  The Romney mail has been more than enough spam.

Maybe this will be the campaign where Benton stops chewing gum while he's on camera.

----------


## angelatc

> McConnell is the type of politician who will bend whichever way the wind is blowing.  If liberals we suddenly gaining ground in the party he would do that way, if it was social-cons he'd be talking about abortion and prayer in schools non stop.  As I see it, he sees which way the wind is blowing nationally and particularly in his home state and wants to do whatever he can to reach out to that wing.


Time will tell.  I think he's in the pocket of the military industrial complex, and will sell Rand Paul down the river in a New York second when the time comes.  I stand by my opinion that this isn't about reaching out to a new base - this is about political preparation in the form of self preservation.  McConnell may well start pandering to the small government conservatives, but I predict his voting record will never pass the litmus test.

----------


## angelatc

> HOWEVER.
> This is an idea I have.  You said you liked one of my ideas, so, here's this one, a bit farfetched and it really isn't exactly a Ron Paul idea specifically.
> 
> Do a thing with a website, get rock stars to run for a whole bunch of offices.  It could be a "thing"  that people from across the country could get behind.
> Would increase turnout tremendously with 18-29 at least.
> 
> The standard RP response might be "are these rock stars in Liberty Bands?".  And that would be the wrong way to think.
> 
> You start with a message, a core set of beliefs, and you see what rock stars you can get to sign on with that core message.
> ...


Really?  You relentlessly did everything you could to make sure everybody knew you thought the idea of a simple music festival simply to honor Ron Paul was a stupid idea.  Then you come up with......this?   

Speechless.

----------


## acptulsa

> Really?  You relentlessly did everything you could to make sure everybody knew you thought the idea of a simple music festival simply to honor Ron Paul was a stupid idea.  Then you come up with......this?   
> 
> Speechless.


Yeah.  Everybody knows you follow Collins' advice and only do what has worked before.

Not rock stars.  That'll only get you elected mayor of some California suburb.  Washed up B movie actors who are most famous for co-starring with chimpanzees, now that's the ticket.

I still say Clint Eastwood would work fine.  Even though he's still not washed up, wasn't limited to B movies, and the monkey was bigger than any chimp...

----------


## AdamT

So is Benton trolling Mitch's campaign lol? Exactly which "grassroots" is Benton supposedly going to organize with his superman-like campaign powers. #fail

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Time will tell.  I think he's in the pocket of the military industrial complex, and will sell Rand Paul down the river in a New York second when the time comes.  I stand by my opinion that this isn't about reaching out to a new base - this is about political preparation in the form of self preservation.  McConnell may well start pandering to the small government conservatives, but I predict his voting record will never pass the litmus test.


Time will tell for sure.  As Leader though, his job is to get GOP legislation passed though (technically that is the Whip's job, but I have never seen a Whip and Leader's votes differ).  Since we have Rand and his current allies (DeMint, Lee and to a lesser extent Coburn) and this year will potentially see Cruz, Flake, Mack & Mourdock (not necessarily liberty candidates, but definitely Tea Party aligned) and maybe a few long shots like Bills & Hinckley in the Senate, alot of the legislation that is going to be coming forward in the Senate is certainly going to me more libertarian/Tea Party oriented than in year's past.  So we will see what happens, but with Paul leading a charge on a lot of issues, I think we could see a lot of the bills we like move through the Senate, particularly if the GOP takes control of it.  At the end of the day, it is far better to have the Leader pandering to you and somewhat on your side, then standing in direct opposition.

----------


## Sine Die



----------


## orenbus

Reporter: "Would you want to someone else to run against Mitch McConnell in the Primary two years from now?"

Kentucky Tea Party Activist: "Absolutely" (smiling)

----------


## orenbus

> 





> "How long ago did those conversations start?"
> 
> "Several months ago"


And people think there is absolutely no way he may have been influenced in any way while he ran Ron Paul's campaign while these "conversations" were taking place?

----------


## JK/SEA

I'm sure Benton will run McConnell's campaign like he did Ron's.....personally, i hope so.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Highlights from Jesse Benton interview above:

"forge a cohesive alliance"
"Senator McConnell stood on principle"
Referring to us: "First of all, I just respect those people so much....I hope they know from the bottom of my heart that I really respect and appreciate what they do."
"become part of a governing coalition that can actually get things done"
"Senator McConnell is a friend, an ally, that he respects them, that he listens to their voices, and that he's leading on key important issues to them"
"I'm going to speak to all willing Kentuckians who want to be part of the solution"
Referring to Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell: "that they're genuine and that they care and they're working hard and they're going to stand on their principles."

So there you have it!

----------


## The Dude

Cya Benton. You ran an incompetent campaign in 2012 from beginning to end, which looks deliberate now, and you're a traitor to this movement. I wish you nothing but failure in your future political endeavors and I certainly won't be supporting any campaigns that you're involved in.

----------


## brandon

So I guess shutting down the Ron Paul delegates and ensuring a smooth RNC was the test put forward to Benton.  He passed, and now he's in the establishment.  Nice.

----------


## low preference guy

Benton at 7:35: "McConnell has always been concerned about an unrestrained Fed, creating money and credit out of thin air".

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Benton at 7:35: "McConnell has always been concerned about an unrestrained Fed, creating money and credit out of thin air".


Well, that is sickening, isn't it.

----------


## low preference guy

> Well, that is sickening, isn't it.


nothing out of the ordinary for Benton and the backstabbing crowd.

----------


## ninepointfive

> We really need to make sure that Mitch McConnell loses.  Badly!  We need to start right now doing opposition research.  
> 
> Listen to every radio interview this bum ever gave.And TV interview.Search the newspaper and magazine database at the library for every reference to his name.Find everything he ever said and ever wrote.Find everyone that gave him money.Look up every vote he's made.Look up the names of all his former employees and staffers and see if anyone has some beans they want to spill.Entrap him into doing or saying something explosively awful while wearing a micro-videorecorder.
> 
> 
> Any other ideas?  Pour it on!
> 
> We've been needing a new productive avenue to direct our grassroots energies.  THIS IS IT!  
> 
> ...


Do you not like Rand? I happen to think he's our best Senator - and although Mitch is disgusting - destroying him isn't going to help Rand in any way.

----------


## erowe1

> although Mitch is disgusting - destroying him isn't going to help Rand in any way.


Why do you think this?

----------


## DylanWaco

Benton was no longer able to rip off Paul supporters with impunity, so now he's going to cash in somewhere else.  That's what political whores do and from a purely materalistic perspective it is smart business.  

My view is that I will do everything in my power to make sure any Jesse Benton affiliated candidate going forward is not elected.

----------


## Romulus

> Benton at 7:35: "McConnell has always been concerned about an unrestrained Fed, creating money and credit out of thin air".


Oh good lets shake out fist at the Fed in public while they shake hands with them in private.

$#@! you Benton.

----------


## ninepointfive

> Why do you think this?


Efforts aught to be positive in nature - not for the sake of destruction of a candidate. just my opinion.

----------


## Romulus

> Efforts aught to be positive in nature - not for the sake of destruction of a candidate. just my opinion.


Agreed.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Of course, as a budding young politico... - Jesse Benton


In the USSR he would have been called an apparatchik. ( аппара́тчик )

James Billington describes one as "a man not of grand plans, but of a hundred carefully executed details." It often is considered a derogatory term, with negative connotations in terms of the quality, competence, and attitude of a person thus described.

That's all he wants out of this, a career and paycheck.

For him, this *never* was about ideas, or saving the republic, or energizing a whole swath of pissed off and disillusioned American people (that's us).

No, that was, in fact, a hindrance, an embarrassment, a drag to explain on the DC coke hunting, hooker chasing, wife swapping circuit.

What a joke.

*Throw him in the woods*.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> *Throw him in the woods*.


That's insulting to this man:

----------


## parocks

> You trash conspiracy theorists, then weave a beautiful conspiracy that has Ron Paul acting like a complete buffoon, incapable of handling anything properly when it comes to campaigns and messaging, in order to secretly infiltrate the GOP elite and trick everyone into freedom.
> 
> Yeah okay.


I'm not sure where you got that from my post.

Where am I trashing conspiracy theorists?  Where am I saying that Ron Paul is acting like a buffoon?  Where am I talking about secretly infiltrating?  I have no idea where you are coming up with these things.

I was just saying that Jesse Benton is taking a job that could help Rand in 2016.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Do you not like Rand?


 Like?  Like?  What does this mean, "like"?

----------


## parocks

Well, if you're talking about Paulfest, I didn't do what you said I did.

I did relentlessly talk about Paulfest, that is true, but I talked about the pros and the cons of Paulfest.

And for the 2 - 2.5 months from mid June to the fest itself, I was largely in favor of Paulfest.  I typically argued in favor of it.

Prior to mid June, I was most concerned that there didn't seem to be any point in having it.  When there seems to be no point to a major major production,
I typically ask the question "why is this being done".  I also expressed a lot of concern, at that time, about the bands that were appearing, and seriously doubted
that anyone who wasn't already a hard core Ron Paul supporter would be enticed to spend $77 to attend.  That was my opinion from the announcement and until about mid June.

In mid June, it became clear to me that Paulfest would be offering useful services - like a place for Ron Paul supporters to stay and camp or RV before and importantly during the Convention, and also the Ronvoy which would take people to and from Tampa.  Those 2 things, the Ronvoy and the Camping/RV/Ron Paul town I thought were very useful, and I was in favor of Paulfest as long as those 2 things were in place, and they stayed in place throughout.

I was still concerned that Paulfest wasn't providing $77 worth of musical entertainment.  But then I had a fairly long discussion on a thread here with Moneywherethemouthis .  He explained that the purpose of Paulfest was not to draw a large number of people who didn't care too much about Ron Paul, but was simply to provide some music for the hard core Ron Paul supporters who would be there, mostly for the opportunity to hang out with other Ron Paul supporters.  Although I did have my doubts that there would be enough hard core Ron Paul supporters to make this event break even, I was assured that this was simply not something to worry about.  And so I pretty much stopped talking about how there was nowhere near $77 worth of music at Paulfest.   I spend time arguing that Red Jumpsuit Apparatus was in fact "big".  I took the RJA IS big position, and others argued that they were not in fact big.

Point being, I was defending Paulfest once I saw the merit of the idea - mid June until the event.

About my idea, I did say "a bit farfetched" and "Not that it will happen, not that if it's tried, it'll succeed".

If you want to attack my idea, or praise it, or some combination of the 2, any of that is all good.

I'm not sure the value of what you have to say, specifically, beyond you "don't like". I'm of the belief that this open discussion, way way before anything happens, is very helpful.  Like in 2007-8, when people collaborated on things right here, as opposed to 2011-12, where this board was only used to sell plans, ideas, that were developed elsewhere.  

I'm very much in favor of an open discussion of my ideas.  I think that if any of these various ideas were openly discussed in great detail, with any of the flaws pointed out, it would decrease the failure rate, and decreasing the failure rate is the goal here.

So, fire away, with as much detail as you can come up with.




> Really?  You relentlessly did everything you could to make sure everybody knew you thought the idea of a simple music festival simply to honor Ron Paul was a stupid idea.  Then you come up with......this?   
> 
> Speechless.

----------


## parocks

Switching Political Parties.

Not switching WINGS of Political Parties.

Not the same thing.




> Nearly 700 posts since this thread began and one thing is clear...
> 
> *Jesse Benton broke the first and most cardinal rule of campaign management: 
> NEVER SWITCH POLITICAL PARTIES OR NO ONE WILL EVER BE ABLE TO TRUST YOU FULLY AGAIN!*
> I didn't make that rule up.  It was shared to me via James Carville; and it's clearly true regarding Benton's decision to represent McConnell.  True, Mitch McConnell is technically in the same political party as Ron Paul... but modern politics have evolved so that third parties are now factional wings within the big two political parties.  Jesse Benton's switch from the Tea Party Republican wing to the Establishment Republican wing has put him in the precarious position where the tea party grassroots will never fully trust him again while the establishment Republicans will only have him for as long as he's useful (because they won't ever fully trust him either because of his history).
> 
> What this proves is Jesse Benton either: never was a true believer in the tea party Republican liberty movement of Ron Paul... ornever fully understood the tea party liberty grassroots enough to realize the blowback that would be result if he swapped sides to represent the establishment Republican wing in future elections. 
>  Regardless of which of these two possibilities is true (the latter, in my opinion, may be worse than the former), their implications hammer home the reality that Jesse Benton was NOT the man to be campaign managing Ron Paul's Presidential bid.  Sadly, Ron's family loyalty may have misguided his judgement (and ours) until we discovered this all too late.

----------


## acptulsa

> Switching Political Parties.
> 
> Not switching WINGS of Political Parties.
> 
> Not the same thing.


Oh, it applies.  Neocon and libertarian are just about as hard at each other's throats as ever in the history of the Nixonian/Goldwater split in the party.  It applies.

----------


## parocks

> Rock stars as candidates?  Tea Party Liberty Republicans?  Beam me up Scotty..the aliens have landed.


There is no doubt that a rock star as a candidate is far fetched.  Impossible. No way there could be a Senator Al Franken.  It's outside of the box thinking.  No doubt.

The Running Man (1987) - with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093894/

Tea Party Liberty Republicans is Rand Paul.  So, that's not outside of the box thinking at all.  Tea Party agrees with Ron on most everything outside of foreign policy.  

But no doubt this proposed project is outside of the box thinking.  So's Ron Paul of course, but not in anywhere near the same way.  And it of course runs against our orthodox beliefs, which have a lot of hero worship and hero trashing built into them, and very little of the "just get our people in there" pragmatism that this is about.

----------


## parocks

> I think the first step is we need to identify a candidate to run against him.


Jim James

----------


## libertariantexas

Up until now, I've defended Benton when people would come out here and bitch and moan about every decision he made.

But this is too much.

I know the money is good, but how can Benton look himself in the mirror while supporting a snake like McConnell?  Benton is clearly a political whore who will sell out to the highest bidder.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> There is no doubt that a rock star as a candidate is far fetched.  Impossible. No way there could be a Senator Al Franken.  It's outside of the box thinking.  No doubt.
> 
> *Tea Party Liberty Republicans is Rand Paul.  So, that's not outside of the box thinking at all.  Tea Party agrees with Ron on most everything outside of foreign policy.*  
> 
> But no doubt this proposed project is outside of the box thinking.  So's Ron Paul of course, but not in anywhere near the same way.  And it of course runs against our orthodox beliefs, which have a lot of hero worship and hero trashing built into them, and very little of the "just get our people in there" pragmatism that this is about.


Question (taking the paragraph I highlighted at face value):  if the "Tea Party agrees with Ron on most everything outside of foreign policy", and if the "Tea Party Liberty Republicans is Rand Paul"...does that mean Rand agrees with Ron on most everything outside of foreign policy???

----------


## parocks

> Oh, it applies.  Neocon and libertarian are just about as hard at each other's throats as ever in the history of the Nixonian/Goldwater split in the party.  It applies.


Disagree.  The rule that was discussed applies to switching parties.  That is a rule, no doubt.  Apparently it didn't apply to Dick Morris, but it applied to everyone else.

You're making up a new rule.  It's a different rule.  That rule you're talking about might or might not be valid, but it's not the same rule.  

It's easy to determine R's from D's.  It's hard to determine various types of candidates.  Lines are blurry.  Not the same rule.

----------


## parocks

> Yeah.  Everybody knows you follow Collins' advice and only do what has worked before.
> 
> Not rock stars.  That'll only get you elected mayor of some California suburb.  Washed up B movie actors who are most famous for co-starring with chimpanzees, now that's the ticket.
> 
> I still say Clint Eastwood would work fine.  Even though he's still not washed up, wasn't limited to B movies, and the monkey was bigger than any chimp...


The Running Man and Predator had 2 Governors - Arnold in CA and Jesse in MN.

People don't like politicians, and a lot of people don't vote.

----------


## anaconda

> OMG SOMEONE SERIOUSLY RUN AGAINST MITCH MCCONNELL FOR HIS SEAT IN 2014


This is what I was thinking. Is there a good liberty candidate that we could fund and support? Maybe Rand could endorse since McConnell endorsed Trey Grayson. This would be epic.

(Ron Paul for U.S. Senate in Kentucky? He would probably need to move residences fairly soon..)

----------


## parocks

> Efforts aught to be positive in nature - not for the sake of destruction of a candidate. just my opinion.


Destruction for destructions sake can be fun.  But attacking people who are better than average while ignoring those who are worse than average doesn't really seem to be the way to go.

I'd want to hear what Rand has to say about Jesse joining Mitch.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

//

----------


## parocks

> Question (taking the paragraph I highlighted at face value):  if the "Tea Party agrees with Ron on most everything outside of foreign policy", and if the "Tea Party Liberty Republicans is Rand Paul"...does that mean Rand agrees with Ron on most everything outside of foreign policy???


Well, I'll say this - "Tea Party" and "Tea Party Liberty Republicans" are similar, but not identical.

There could 1000 words on this or 5000 words on this.  

Much of it is emphasis.  Republicans who want to get elected in 2012 don't really want to talk much about antiwar foreign policy.  I'm an expert on the differences between Rand Pauls foreign policy and Ron Paul's foreign policy.  It seems that Rand Paul will go to war sooner than Ron Paul would.  Rand did say in his RNC speech that Republican should consider that some military spending isn't necessary.  But he didn't dwell on it, because he knew that most Republicans aren't antiwar protesters.  

The basic split in the GOP is between Tea Party, who wants "limited Constitutional Government" and Country Clubbers like Romney who are basically lying all the time, and are basically Liberals, who will do absolutely nothing to shrink FedGov in any way.  Many people, rank and file Republicans, associate themselves with the Tea Party, but were, prior to the Tea Party, and still remain, supportive of growth in defense spending and aren't antiwar.  The Tea Party itself never explicitly mentioned that foreign policy, but most Republicans were in favor of more defense spending.

Tea Party Republicans can be in favor of more or less defense spending, but, because they're Republicans, it's more likely that they'll be for more spending.

A Liberty Republican could be seen as a subset of Republican, a wing, which feels more strongly about antiwar and defense cuts, but, not necessarily.

"Tea Party" doesn't indicate anything about defense spending.
"Liberty" indicates a greater likelihood of cuts in defense spending, but that's not assured.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Well, I'll say this - "Tea Party" and "Tea Party Liberty Republicans" are similar, but not identical.
> 
> There could 1000 words on this or 5000 words on this.  
> 
> Much of it is emphasis.  Republicans who want to get elected in 2012 don't really want to talk much about antiwar foreign policy.  I'm an expert on the differences between Rand Pauls foreign policy and Ron Paul's foreign policy.  It seems that Rand Paul will go to war sooner than Ron Paul would.  Rand did say in his RNC speech that Republican should consider that some military spending isn't necessary.  But he didn't dwell on it, because he knew that most Republicans aren't antiwar protesters.  
> 
> The basic split in the GOP is between Tea Party, who wants "limited Constitutional Government" and Country Clubbers like Romney who are basically lying all the time, and are basically Liberals, who will do absolutely nothing to shrink FedGov in any way.  Many people, rank and file Republicans, associate themselves with the Tea Party, but were, prior to the Tea Party, and still remain, supportive of growth in defense spending and aren't antiwar.  The Tea Party itself never explicitly mentioned that foreign policy, but most Republicans were in favor of more defense spending.
> 
> Tea Party Republicans can be in favor of more or less defense spending, but, because they're Republicans, it's more likely that they'll be for more spending.
> ...


Thank you for pointing out why:

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Well, I'll say this - "Tea Party" and "Tea Party Liberty Republicans" are similar, but not identical.
> 
> There could 1000 words on this or 5000 words on this.  
> 
> Much of it is emphasis.  Republicans who want to get elected in 2012 don't really want to talk much about antiwar foreign policy.  I'm an expert on the differences between Rand Pauls foreign policy and Ron Paul's foreign policy.  It seems that Rand Paul will go to war sooner than Ron Paul would.  Rand did say in his RNC speech that Republican should consider that some military spending isn't necessary.  But he didn't dwell on it, because he knew that most Republicans aren't antiwar protesters.  
> 
> The basic split in the GOP is between Tea Party, who wants "limited Constitutional Government" and Country Clubbers like Romney who are basically lying all the time, and are basically Liberals, who will do absolutely nothing to shrink FedGov in any way.  Many people, rank and file Republicans, associate themselves with the Tea Party, but were, prior to the Tea Party, and still remain, supportive of growth in defense spending and aren't antiwar.  The Tea Party itself never explicitly mentioned that foreign policy, but most Republicans were in favor of more defense spending.
> 
> Tea Party Republicans can be in favor of more or less defense spending, but, because they're Republicans, it's more likely that they'll be for more spending.
> ...


You pretty much nailed it there.

There is also a difference between those who would go to war (particularly in the Middle East).  Most average GOP voters and elected officials support war for the cause of defense, security, etc.  They believe that there is a threat by radical Islam and that threat needs to be dealt with, since unlike the Communists, radical Islamists are willing to commit far more extreme acts, some even suicidal to see their mission accomplished.  

Neocons are a much different breed.  And personally, I do not see those types in the real world.  I think they exist primarily in think tanks, and elected offices.  Those folks want to go to war for the advancement of a global order under the guise of "spreading democracy".  They see American and its military allies as the policemen of the world, and we need to intervene in other countries affairs because we are superior.  It is the continuation of Wilsonian policies, and I see it as far more sinister.  I really do not run into average, everyday folks that hold this view (other than Democrats, though they express with more of a humanitarian intention).  

I think a Tea Party type that may be defense oriented, can be swayed.  Heck we had them on our side pre-911.  The goal of non-interventionists should be to bring people over to our side, without sounding like Anti-American Code Pink types, or without insulting them by saying that they have nothing to fear and if we just leave Iran alone they will play nice, or without sounding like anti-Semites.  We need to be firm and bold in our desire to defend the nation from attack, that we will support our allies (no need to define how), and that we can do all this without sticking our nose in the affairs of every single nation on the planet.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You pretty much nailed it there.
> 
> There is also a difference between those who would go to war (particularly in the Middle East).  Most average GOP voters and elected officials support war for the cause of defense, security, etc.  *They believe that there is a threat by radical Islam and that threat needs to be dealt with,* since unlike the Communists, radical Islamists are willing to commit far more extreme acts, some even suicidal to see their mission accomplished.  
> 
> Neocons are a much different breed.  And personally, I do not see those types in the real world.  I think they exist primarily in think tanks, and elected offices.  Those folks want to go to war for the advancement of a global order under the guise of "spreading democracy".  They see American and its military allies as the policemen of the world, and we need to intervene in other countries affairs because we are superior.  It is the continuation of Wilsonian policies, and I see it as far more sinister.  I really do not run into average, everyday folks that hold this view (other than Democrats, though they express with more of a humanitarian intention).  
> 
> I think a Tea Party type that may be defense oriented, can be swayed.  Heck we had them on our side pre-911.  The goal of non-interventionists should be to bring people over to our side, without sounding like Anti-American Code Pink types, or *without insulting them by saying that they have nothing to fear and if we just leave Iran alone they will play nice,* or without sounding like anti-Semites.  We need to be firm and bold in our desire to defend the nation from attack, that we will support our allies (no need to define how), and that we can do all this without sticking our nose in the affairs of every single nation on the planet.


So, basically, you reject the foreign policy stance of RON Paul?




> I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving us peace and preserving the American way of life is freedom, limited government, *and minding our own business overseas.*



Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...KBCzkwiRBIq.99

----------


## parocks

There is no doubt that it's rare to find a candidate that wants major cuts in defense spending.  And for many Ron Paul supporters, defense spending cuts, a non-interventionist foreign policy is the top priority.




> Thank you for pointing out why:

----------


## sailingaway

> You pretty much nailed it there.
> 
> There is also a difference between those who would go to war (particularly in the Middle East).  Most average GOP voters and elected officials support war for the cause of defense, security, etc.  They believe that there is a threat by radical Islam and that threat needs to be dealt with, since unlike the Communists, radical Islamists are willing to commit far more extreme acts, some even suicidal to see their mission accomplished.  
> 
> Neocons are a much different breed.  And personally, I do not see those types in the real world.  I think they exist primarily in think tanks, and elected offices.  Those folks want to go to war for the advancement of a global order under the guise of "spreading democracy".  They see American and its military allies as the policemen of the world, and we need to intervene in other countries affairs because we are superior.  It is the continuation of Wilsonian policies, and I see it as far more sinister.  I really do not run into average, everyday folks that hold this view (other than Democrats, though they express with more of a humanitarian intention).  
> 
> I think a Tea Party type that may be defense oriented, can be swayed.  Heck we had them on our side pre-911.  *The goal of non-interventionists should be to bring people over to our side, without sounding like Anti-American Code Pink types, or without insulting them by saying that they have nothing to fear and if we just leave Iran alone they will play nice, or without sounding like anti-Semites.*  We need to be firm and bold in our desire to defend the nation from attack, that we will support our allies (no need to define how), and that we can do all this without sticking our nose in the affairs of every single nation on the planet.


We don't sound like anti Semites. We aren't antiSemites.  We are pro minding our own business.

RLC may feel differently, in some areas.

----------


## parocks

It is very hard to find a Republican (other than Ron Paul Republicans, and even there ...) who likes Code Pink.

I'm not entirely in agreement with you, though.  The neocons are using "Islam is scary" to get the security Republicans supporting whatever it is they do.  I'm in agreement that these are 2 separate groups, but one is clearly leading the other.  And I wouldn't be so afraid of sounding anti-semitic.  There was just a bill passed that basically said that we had to pay for Israels defense.  Is that just something we can't be against for fear of seeming anti-semitic?  Many think so.  I'm not so sure.




> You pretty much nailed it there.
> 
> There is also a difference between those who would go to war (particularly in the Middle East).  Most average GOP voters and elected officials support war for the cause of defense, security, etc.  They believe that there is a threat by radical Islam and that threat needs to be dealt with, since unlike the Communists, radical Islamists are willing to commit far more extreme acts, some even suicidal to see their mission accomplished.  
> 
> Neocons are a much different breed.  And personally, I do not see those types in the real world.  I think they exist primarily in think tanks, and elected offices.  Those folks want to go to war for the advancement of a global order under the guise of "spreading democracy".  They see American and its military allies as the policemen of the world, and we need to intervene in other countries affairs because we are superior.  It is the continuation of Wilsonian policies, and I see it as far more sinister.  I really do not run into average, everyday folks that hold this view (other than Democrats, though they express with more of a humanitarian intention).  
> 
> I think a Tea Party type that may be defense oriented, can be swayed.  Heck we had them on our side pre-911.  The goal of non-interventionists should be to bring people over to our side, without sounding like Anti-American Code Pink types, or without insulting them by saying that they have nothing to fear and if we just leave Iran alone they will play nice, or without sounding like anti-Semites.  We need to be firm and bold in our desire to defend the nation from attack, that we will support our allies (no need to define how), and that we can do all this without sticking our nose in the affairs of every single nation on the planet.

----------


## sailingaway

> It is very hard to find a Republican (other than Ron Paul Republicans, and even there ...) who likes Code Pink.


My impression is he is trying to say we come off like Code Pink and mock us into giving up activism and pushing changes on that front, but I'm not into hiding principles, but highlighting them, so his and my approaches would be different.

----------


## Article V

> Disagree.  The rule that was discussed applies to switching parties.  That is a rule, no doubt.  Apparently it didn't apply to Dick Morris, but it applied to everyone else.
> 
> You're making up a new rule.  It's a different rule.  That rule you're talking about might or might not be valid, but it's not the same rule.  
> 
> It's easy to determine R's from D's.  It's hard to determine various types of candidates.  Lines are blurry.  Not the same rule.


Since the rule was told to me, I can assure you that you're making a distinction without a difference.

The rule is you can't change political parties or you won't be trusted as a campaign manager.  This rule was told to me by James Carville who went on to elaborate that in modern politics third parties are now hidden within the larger two parties.  So, in the old days of the Republic, where Tea Party social conservatives, Tea Party libertarians, and neoconservatives would have all been different parties on the right end of the political spectrum, today they are all housed within the Republican party.  

Moreover, modern politics have evolved with gerrymandering and redistricting so that very few races are actually contested Republican vs Democrat elections.  Instead, the real political race is in the primaries (and this is where most campaign managers have jobs since there's more opportunity, especially for up-and-coming campaign managers which is why Carville was telling me the advice to begin with).  And the real threat to the establishment since 2008 has been the surge of the Tea Party wing (social conservatives and libertarian alike) vs the establishment and neoconservative Republicans.  

Parocks, you are pretending that the letter R or D needs to be changed in order for the rule to apply; but that is not at all true, nor is it what the writer of the rule James Carville told me, nor is it what I wrote when I shared the rule within this thread.  You are pretending you are smart and understand how party bosses and candidates go about picking campaign managers, but your distinction without a difference proves you have NO understanding of this subject matter.

Jesse Benton switching to represent the NeoConservative Establishment Republican wing in a primary race versus would-be Tea Party challengers puts Benton in a position where future Tea Party candidates and bosses will not trust Jesse Benton (you need only read through the 700+ messages of this thread to see that the grassroots already don't trust Benton for his ideology switching).  You pretending that the Tea Party libertarians will trust Benton after he uses McConnell to destroy Tea Party challengers is simply unfounded guesswork.

You don't know what you're talking about.  You nearly never do.  Stop trying to rewrite the rule, as it was told to me by the author of the rule: James Carville.  You're not as smart as him and you're not smarter than the general consensus of the entire RPF who overwhelming now don't trust Benton and never will again (even when Benton later returns to Rand).

EDIT: Also, just so we're clear, although James Carville told it to me as the first rule to know when beginning a career as a political campaign manager... obviously it's more a formula for the foundation of a successful career than a true "rule."

----------


## Smitty

Anyone who believes that Jessie Benton will be able to manipulate Mitch McConnell is delusional.

It's now clear who derailed the momentum of the liberty movement and why it was done.

McConnell will throw a few scraps to Benton in exchange for Benton working to deliver as many Ron Paul votes to the GOP as possible.

After the election,...Benton will be shown the door.

More than anything,..I feel bad for Dr Paul. Not just because he had an interloper inside his campaign,....but also because he has an interloper within his family.

The Paul family deserves better than Jessie Benton.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Anyone who believes that Jessie Benton will be able to manipulate Mitch McConnell is delusional.
> 
> It's now clear who derailed the momentum of the liberty movement and why it was done.
> 
> McConnell will throw a few scraps to Benton in exchange for Benton working to deliver as many Ron Paul votes to the GOP as possible.
> 
> After the election,...Benton will be shown the door.
> 
> More than anything,..I feel bad for Dr Paul. Not just because he had an interloper inside his campaign,....but also because he has an interloper within his family.
> ...


Oh my goodness, someone please give Smitty a tissue.

I'll bet you a couple grams of pure gold that Ron Paul gave his grandson-in-law a big pat on the back and a hearty "Go get 'em!" handshake.

This campaign was NEVER about winning the White House - not ever from day one.  It was about education, and furthering the IDEAS that Ron Paul has been talking about for 30 years.  College campuses from coast-to-coast talking to kids that can't even vote!? 'nuf said.

Everybody have a good cry, then know that just like RP says... *"Oh, I always win."*

And start preparing for the next round.  War, not battles. Forest, not trees.

----------


## Smitty

> I'll bet you a couple grams of pure gold that Ron Paul gave his grandson-in-law a big pat on the back and a hearty "Go get 'em!" handshake.
> 
> .


For teaming up with McConnell?

I have to believe that Dr Paul is more ethical than that.

If I didn't, I couldn't be a part of the liberty movement.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> For teaming up with McConnell?
> 
> I have to believe that Dr Paul is more ethical than that.
> 
> If I didn't, I couldn't be a part of the liberty movement.


naaaah.... you're just not yet seeing past your disappointment, imo.

I was the same way.  When they started unseating delegates I was like "What the fug!!????  We're all doomed"

I got so depressed I had to take a break from the forums.

It's all good.  Keep an eye on this Rand/Benton/McDonnell alliance. I think it's going to be interesting.

----------


## Smitty

> naaaah.... you're just young at heart and not yet seeing past your disappointment, imo.
> 
> I was the same way.  When they started unseating delegates I was like "What the fug!!????  We're all doomed"
> 
> I got so depressed I had to take a break from the forums.
> 
> It's all good.  Keep an eye on this Rand/Benton/McDonnell alliance. I think it's going to be interesting.


I'm not young at heart or body.

I'm probably almost old enough to be your grandfather.

McConnell is influenced by people who are much more powerful than Benton can ever hope to be.

McConnell will never be a true advocate of the liberty movement. He's owned by others,...and now they own Benton,....and you.

----------


## Jamesiv1

you, sir are no lover of liberty.

----------


## Smitty

Yeah,...that must be it.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> you, sir are no lover of liberty.


...and YOU get to decide this, because.........???

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'm not young at heart or body.
> 
> I'm probably almost old enough to be your grandfather.
> 
> McConnell is influenced by people who are much more powerful than Benton can ever hope to be.
> 
> McConnell will never be a true advocate of the liberty movement. He's owned by others,...and now they own Benton,....and you.


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

----------


## Jamesiv1

> ...and YOU get to decide this, because.........???


Because I am the undisputed intergalactic Anointment of Liberty Lovers Cream.

why do I have to explain this???

----------


## JK/SEA

> Because I am the undisputed intergalactic Anointment of Liberty Lovers Cream.
> 
> why do I have to explain this???


i have this friend who is arrogant, but saying anymore about it would be off topic and might be mis-understood by a mod to be against TOS rules....

btw, my friend is still my friend, but i digress...

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> This is what I was thinking. Is there a good liberty candidate that we could fund and support? Maybe Rand could endorse since McConnell endorsed Trey Grayson. This would be epic.
> 
> (Ron Paul for U.S. Senate in Kentucky? He would probably need to move residences fairly soon..)


Rand is supporting McConnell, and has already held at least one fundraiser for him.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> McConnell is influenced by people who are much more powerful than Benton can ever hope to be.
> 
> McConnell will never be a true advocate of the liberty movement. He's owned by others,...and now they own Benton,....and you.


I agree with you on most of this, with the exception of your last point.  McConnell most certainly does not own us.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> I agree with you on most of this, with the exception of your last point.  McConnell most certainly does not own us.


That person is defending McConnell and the decision to back him. That's what Smitty said. With this move, there won't be an actual limited government individual challenging McConnell. Like it or not, Ron Paul Inc (or perhaps it's Rand Paul Inc all along) is now doing McConnell's bidding.

----------


## kylejack

> 


Jesse lies at 6:55. Ron Paul did not concede before Rand endorsed Romney.

----------


## parocks

No, what I'm saying is that you are changing the rule.  I know that Carville rule.  That particular rule is explicit.  Switching parties from D to R, especially immediately without any break, is going to result in the outcome you're describing.  I don't doubt that.  It's a variant of dance with the one who brung ya.

I'm only saying that what you're describing is something different than that.

I agree that some would find Jesse Benton's switch from "tea party" or "liberty" candidate campaign manager to "establishment" R campaign manager might seem suspect to many.  However, Rand Paul is likely the only candidate that really matters.  Jesse Benton is likely wrapped up for the next 4 years.  He just signed on with Mitch for 2 and most likely Rand after that.  And Rand'll hire him or not hire him based probably on whether he thought that Jesse working for Mitch was a good idea or a bad idea.  I suspect that Rand thinks that it's a good idea.  I really can't imagine a scenario where Jesse joins Mitch against the wishes of Rand.

If Jesse was trying to find work with some random tea party candidate or liberty candidate after working for Mitch, or while working for Mitch, I do agree that some random tea party candidate might question that move.  However, Rand is the priority.  What Rand thinks is

But yes, the principle is the same, that deviations from orthodoxy are questioned, but it isn't a hard and fast rule the way D and R are.




> Since the rule was told to me, I can assure you that you're making a distinction without a difference.
> 
> The rule is you can't change political parties or you won't be trusted as a campaign manager.  This rule was told to me by James Carville who went on to elaborate that in modern politics third parties are now hidden within the larger two parties.  So, in the old days of the Republic, where Tea Party social conservatives, Tea Party libertarians, and neoconservatives would have all been different parties on the right end of the political spectrum, today they are all housed within the Republican party.  
> 
> Moreover, modern politics have evolved with gerrymandering and redistricting so that very few races are actually contested Republican vs Democrat elections.  Instead, the real political race is in the primaries (and this is where most campaign managers have jobs since there's more opportunity, especially for up-and-coming campaign managers which is why Carville was telling me the advice to begin with).  And the real threat to the establishment since 2008 has been the surge of the Tea Party wing (social conservatives and libertarian alike) vs the establishment and neoconservative Republicans.  
> 
> Parocks, you are pretending that the letter R or D needs to be changed in order for the rule to apply; but that is not at all true, nor is it what the writer of the rule James Carville told me, nor is it what I wrote when I shared the rule within this thread.  You are pretending you are smart and understand how party bosses and candidates go about picking campaign managers, but your distinction without a difference proves you have NO understanding of this subject matter.
> 
> Jesse Benton switching to represent the NeoConservative Establishment Republican wing in a primary race versus would-be Tea Party challengers puts Benton in a position where future Tea Party candidates and bosses will not trust Jesse Benton (you need only read through the 700+ messages of this thread to see that the grassroots already don't trust Benton for his ideology switching).  You pretending that the Tea Party libertarians will trust Benton after he uses McConnell to destroy Tea Party challengers is simply unfounded guesswork.
> ...

----------


## parocks

> Jesse lies at 6:55. Ron Paul did not concede before Rand endorsed Romney.


The day before Rand endorsed Romney, the Ron Paul campaign sent out an email where is said that Ron Paul would not have enough delegates to win.  That sentence was the concession.  Or, was treated was such by everyone.  We all completely ignored it, because we just didn't want to hear it.  It was the Ron Paul campaign conceding, and us complaining that Jesse Benton was writing negative emails and "destroying the momentum".  The Ron Paul campaign were not the people talking about making delegates unbound.  That was, we wanted that.

----------


## Paulistinian

We need to primary him.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

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


I don't even.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> The day before Rand endorsed Romney, the Ron Paul campaign sent out an email where is said that Ron Paul would not have enough delegates to win.  That sentence was the concession.  Or, was treated was such by everyone.  We all completely ignored it, because we just didn't want to hear it.  It was the Ron Paul campaign conceding, and us complaining that Jesse Benton was writing negative emails and "destroying the momentum".  The Ron Paul campaign were not the people talking about making delegates unbound.  That was, we wanted that.


We certainly did not ignore that email (I remember endless threads about it here on RPF) but wondered whether it represented _Ron Paul_ conceding, or a careless wording by the staffer writing the update. Since there had been awkward "winding down the campaign" type phrases released in the past, it was a legitimate issue as to what the campaign was conceding, or whether it was under-reporting the Paul delegate count on purpose.

----------


## sailingaway

> The day before Rand endorsed Romney, the Ron Paul campaign sent out an email where is said that Ron Paul would not have enough delegates to win.  That sentence was the concession.  Or, was treated was such by everyone.  We all completely ignored it, because we just didn't want to hear it.  It was the Ron Paul campaign conceding, and us complaining that Jesse Benton was writing negative emails and "destroying the momentum".  The Ron Paul campaign were not the people talking about making delegates unbound.  That was, we wanted that.


That wasn't a concession because it still made it clear we were fighting for delegates, and Ron's speech the next day at the Texas State GOP convention when his assigned topic was 'Republicans uniting' where he had every opportunity to make nice, made it clear he was fighting for all we could get and relished the idea of a floor fight, specifically. He referred to his time leading the Texas delegation for Reagan in 1976 (only he didn't take credit for leading it) and said that was the last time the people had a say in their nominee and he thought all conventions should be like that.

Saying we don't expect to win the one goal does not mean giving up on the many other goals which were ALWAYS part of what was being worked for. The goal of the RON Paul campaign was to win the nomination or get RON the highest profile to set him up as a leader of the faction from retirement from Congress. In fact, Ron DID have six states put him into nomination at RNC and they had to change the rules to raise the number of states needed, and then PRETEND on national television that a vote for that change which clearly did NOT pass on voice vote had passed, despite objections.

The fight was very much still on.







And the failure of the 'official campaign' to continue to put all its weight behind the CANDIDATE and the grass roots, combined with that endorsement led to immediate and huge changes in support.

Looking back, if they had it to do again, do you seriously think it was the right thing to do from the standpoint of growing Ron's influence and support? And isn't RON what the RON Paul campaign should be about? And even just through the Rand prism, the jury is still very much out whether Rand will be able to get enough loyal national support from this to make up for what he lost, imho.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> And the failure of the 'official campaign' to continue to put all its weight behind the CANDIDATE and the grass roots, combined with that endorsement led to immediate and huge changes in support.


Actually, as I recall it was the emails, some of which Ron wrote himself and others which he approved.  They were poorly worded and ill-timed, in my opinion.  Rand's endorsement was just another blow.




> Looking back, if they had it to do again, do you seriously think it was the right thing to do from the standpoint of growing Ron's influence and support? And isn't RON what the RON Paul campaign should be about?


You are assuming that Ron played no part in the decisions made in the campaign.  I think you are sorely incorrect.




> And even just through the Rand prism, the jury is still very much out whether Rand will be able to get enough loyal national support from this to make up for what he lost, imho.


And you are doing your damnedest to make sure that is the case.

----------


## sailingaway

> Actually, as I recall it was the emails, some of which Ron wrote himself and others which he approved.  They were poorly worded and ill-timed, in my opinion.  Rand's endorsement was just another blow.
> 
> 
> You are assuming that Ron played no part in the decisions made in the campaign.  I think you are sorely incorrect.
> 
> 
> And you are doing your damnedest to make sure that is the case.


The emails weren't good either, but they sure didn't sound like Ron's language and DID say we were still fighting for delegates at that point. The Texas GOP speech hours before the endorsement was also clear Ron was still fighting even if he wasn't expecting the GOP nomination at that point.

As for your last point, you and I disagree on whether I should be able to state my opinion just as you state yours.  Characterizing my having an opinion and stating it when OTHERS argue the opposite first, as a vendetta, is a smear.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The emails weren't good either, but they sure didn't sound like Ron's language and DID say we were still fighting for delegates at that point. The Texas GOP speech hours before the endorsement was also clear Ron was still fighting even if he wasn't expecting the GOP nomination at that point.
> 
> As for your last point, you and I disagree on whether I should be able to state my opinion just as you state yours.  Characterizing my having an opinion and stating it when OTHERS argue the opposite first, as a vendetta, is a smear.


Interesting, when I see it as a logical statement based off of your plethora of posts on the subject.   It's also interesting that you characterize that as a "smear" when you participate in and allow all manner of actual smears all over this forum.

I have no issue with you stating your opinions, but don't get your back up if I call you on what you are fomenting.

----------


## sailingaway

> Interesting, when I see it as a logical statement based off of your plethora of posts on the subject.  It's also interesting that you characterize that as a "smear" when you participate in and allow all manner of actual smears all over this forum.


wow.

You are voluble about your opinions, but no one else is allowed to be about theirs? When others raise the opposite side first?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> wow.
> 
> You are voluble about your opinions, but no one else is allowed to be about theirs? When others raise the opposite side first?


Ha ha.  What?

----------


## Matt Collins

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

----------


## parocks

> That wasn't a concession because it still made it clear we were fighting for delegates, and Ron's speech the next day at the Texas State GOP convention when his assigned topic was 'Republicans uniting' where he had every opportunity to make nice, made it clear he was fighting for all we could get and relished the idea of a floor fight, specifically. He referred to his time leading the Texas delegation for Reagan in 1976 (only he didn't take credit for leading it) and said that was the last time the people had a say in their nominee and he thought all conventions should be like that.
> 
> Saying we don't expect to win the one goal does not mean giving up on the many other goals which were ALWAYS part of what was being worked for. The goal of the RON Paul campaign was to win the nomination or get RON the highest profile to set him up as a leader of the faction from retirement from Congress. In fact, Ron DID have six states put him into nomination at RNC and they had to change the rules to raise the number of states needed, and then PRETEND on national television that a vote for that change which clearly did NOT pass on voice vote had passed, despite objections.
> 
> The fight was very much still on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We're talking about different things here.  We both were here on RPF, you I think every day probably, and me pretty much every day.  So we know all the various permutations of meaning and whatnot - having the goals change, etc, admitting defeat, but still moving forward.  And when you both admit defeat, and still move forward, it leads to a lot of confusion, which is what we're seeing here.  Benton isn't wrong to say that that email was the concession.  But at the same time that concession left a lot for Ron Paul supporters to sink their teeth into, to allow them to keep moving forward.

That attempt to strike a middle ground, the whole "it's over, now keep working" did apparently cause that confusion.  Collectively, we were unable to intellectually process that information.

In some respects it might've been better if Ron Paul just said "it's over, we lost, go home now.  Thanks for all your hard work."  But Ron Paul knew that would make his hard core supporters so very unhappy. And he didn't want to make his hard core supporters unhappy.  And he didn't drop out in 2008, when he didn't have all of those delegates, so there was no reason to really expect Ron Paul to drop out in 2012.

It's fairly clear that the email was seen in the campaign, and by Ron Paul, as a concession.  And what Rand Paul was acting upon was that email, that concession.

We could argue about what the precise meaning and the practical ramifications of concession, or conceding. I really don't want to dwell on that.

The most reasonable thing to assume is that the campaign is doing what the candidate wants.

And we decided to believe that the campaign was somehow sabotaging the candidate.  And it wasn't.  Those emails were official emails, he didn't retract those emails.  

And really, we had our people there at the convention, and even after getting ripped off, we didn't do anything to fk st up.

The most interesting, and disappointing thing was revealed by Doug Wead in a 15 minute interview sometime around the convention.  We talked about it here.  Ron Paul (or the campaign) decided that it was better not to attack Romney in Michigan.  They tell us that then.  They didn't say "we're gonna kinda try to win, but we won't do anything that might hurt Ron or Rand in the future.  Like negative attack ads.  Now, if you're going to run for President, and you're trying to convince someone that you want to win, you really have to expect that part of the process of winning is going to include withstanding really negative attack ads.  That, apparently, the threat of negative ads by Romney, was enough to basically give up all hope of winning.  But they didn't tell us that.  We would've had to throw those punches to win.  We had to have known that those punches had to be thrown to win, and the decision was made not to throw those punches.  So, we were in jack ourselves off territory with that decision prior to Michigan.  But they didn't tell us that we were just jerking ourselves off at that point.  You can be behind by 3 touchdowns in the 4th corner and still have hope to win.  However, if you make the decision not to throw passes and only run (and not tell the fans that) you aren't going to win.  It's called the "hail mary" pass, and we didn't throw one.  The Ron Paul campaign seemed to go into "we need a black swan" much earlier than any of the grassroots thought.

And no one really talks about that Wead interview that much.  But that's really it right there.

----------


## parocks

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


Well, I did.  I posted something like that.  Your scenario is the likely one.  But I'm one of the few who really didn't have much bad to say about Jesse or Rand at any time.

However, did you see the video with Doug Wead where he talked about attacking Romney in Michigan, and being afraid of counter-attacks and deciding not to do that.
I woulda liked to have known that then, that they weren't interested in doing what was necessary to win, and feasible at that time.  

We were able to extract as much value as we could from this fact pattern.

----------


## sailingaway

parocks, it appears to me that some in the official campaign wanted to move in a different direction, other than pushing Ron Paul.  That is my take on it, and my statements were to say why I find that behavior egregious.

Also, the Wead video was after the fact and he is valuable BECAUSE he knows spin.  Although that might have been the articulated excuse by some, at the time, and Wead may just not have been in a position to challenge it.  I don't doubt it is always a consideration that when you hit someone with deeper pockets than yours they can run a scorched earth campaign, but that is true in any campaign.

----------


## Libertytree

Things derailed right after RP's breakfast with Bernake, I wonder who he had lunch and dinner with? Benton maybe? Threats were directed, ultimatums were given and deals were made. JMO.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The most interesting, and disappointing thing was revealed by Doug Wead in a 15 minute interview sometime around the convention.  We talked about it here.  Ron Paul (or the campaign) decided that it was better not to attack Romney in Michigan.  They tell us that then.  They didn't say "we're gonna kinda try to win, but we won't do anything that might hurt Ron or Rand in the future.  Like negative attack ads.  Now, if you're going to run for President, and you're trying to convince someone that you want to win, you really have to expect that part of the process of winning is going to include withstanding really negative attack ads.  That, apparently, the threat of negative ads by Romney, was enough to basically give up all hope of winning.  But they didn't tell us that.  We would've had to throw those punches to win.  We had to have known that those punches had to be thrown to win, and the decision was made not to throw those punches.  So, we were in jack ourselves off territory with that decision prior to Michigan.  But they didn't tell us that we were just jerking ourselves off at that point.  You can be behind by 3 touchdowns in the 4th corner and still have hope to win.  However, if you make the decision not to throw passes and only run (and not tell the fans that) you aren't going to win.  It's called the "hail mary" pass, and we didn't throw one.  The Ron Paul campaign seemed to go into "we need a black swan" much earlier than any of the grassroots thought.
> 
> And no one really talks about that Wead interview that much.  But that's really it right there.


You seem to be overlooking the part about him saying that at that point Ron had no chance to win.  Romney already had it wrapped up.   For some time, we were working to get Ron his 15 minute speaking slot.  Some, were hoping for a miracle, but that is what it would have taken.

I too wish they would have told us.  Maybe they thought if they did, people would stop trying.  I don't know.  I don't particularly like the way it was handled, either.

----------


## donnay

> The day before Rand endorsed Romney, the Ron Paul campaign sent out an email where is said that Ron Paul would not have enough delegates to win.  That sentence was the concession.  Or, was treated was such by everyone.  We all completely ignored it, because we just didn't want to hear it.  It was the Ron Paul campaign conceding, and us complaining that Jesse Benton was writing negative emails and "destroying the momentum".  The Ron Paul campaign were not the people talking about making delegates unbound.  That was, we wanted that.



There was still more voting to be done in some states. The supporters were truly let down by Rand's announcement.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> There was still more voting to be done in some states. The supporters were truly let down by Rand's announcement.


Yeah, the timing sucked.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Yeah, the timing sucked.


Good.. You finally get it

----------


## parocks

> There was still more voting to be done in some states. The supporters were truly let down by Rand's announcement.


Gingrich dropped out when there was still voting to be done.
Santorum dropped out when there was still voting to be done.

But when your opponent clinches the nomination, it's not wrong to mention that.

Hey, it's over, but if you want to get beaten up in state conventions, go right ahead.  

Is it Rand's fault, really, that the supporters are kinda delusional?

This isn't about the supporters.  This is about the candidate.

And it's true that Ron Paul is in a unique spot, with a son who has a higher ranking job in the same field.

----------


## parocks

> You seem to be overlooking the part about him saying that at that point Ron had no chance to win.  Romney already had it wrapped up.   For some time, we were working to get Ron his 15 minute speaking slot.  Some, were hoping for a miracle, but that is what it would have taken.
> 
> I too wish they would have told us.  Maybe they thought if they did, people would stop trying.  I don't know.  I don't particularly like the way it was handled, either.


I'm talking about Michigan.  Michigan was really early. February 28.  Nothing was over at that point.  There were 9 primaries/caucuses already - Romney won 4, Santorum won 4, Gingrich won 1.  We didn't attack Romney in Michigan because we were afraid of counter attacks.  Romney won Michigan by 3 points.  It's not unreasonable to think that Romney would've lost Michigan if we did attack him there.

----------


## Aratus

if part of this is a money quarrel ultimately and unless dr. ron paul moneybombs 
again, if he had to reduce staff & staff saleries as things sorta wound down, did he 
actually cling to the ropes a while longer so the people around him could start to 
plan for their future? some of the people who donated were very very maxxed out.

----------


## Matt Collins

> parocks, it appears to me that some in the official campaign wanted to move in a different direction, other than pushing Ron Paul..


This has always been about more than just Ron Paul. We are building a movement and mainstreaming a philsophy that to most is considered "fringe" because they are too ignorant to know any better. That doesn't take a few years or an election cycle; this takes decades. It's called foresight.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> This has always been about more than just Ron Paul. We are building a movement and mainstreaming a philsophy that to most is considered "fringe" because they are too ignorant to know any better. That doesn't take a few years or an election cycle; this takes decades. It's called foresight.


Thus said the Golderwater-ites 50 years ago.

And where are we today?

More, or less, free?

----------


## Matt Collins

> Thus said the Golderwater-ites 50 years ago.
> 
> And where are we today?
> 
> More, or less, free?


They didn't have the Internet. We do.

----------


## sailingaway

> This has always been about more than just Ron Paul. We are building a movement and mainstreaming a philsophy that to most is considered "fringe" because they are too ignorant to know any better. That doesn't take a few years or an election cycle; this takes decades. It's called foresight.


The movement is one thing, the RON PAUL CAMPAIGN was funded and driven by those who wanted Ron Paul's profile and influence as high as possible, hence the name 'Ron Paul Campaign.'

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> This has always been about more than just Ron Paul. We are building a movement and mainstreaming a philsophy that to most is considered "fringe" because they are too ignorant to know any better. That doesn't take a few years or an election cycle; *this takes decades*. It's called foresight.


In 1960, Goldwater at the RNC called on conservatives to take back the party.  While he did win the nomination four years later, in reality conservatives did not at that point take back the party, we just won the nomination.  It wasn't until the mid 70's that we started to see a fundamental shift in the party with the leadership at the county, state and national level.  We had far more conservatives elected into state and federal offices, and it culminated with the election of Reagan in 80.  Now say what you will about the Reagan presidency and what occurred in the years that followed, but the point is that it took between 1960 and roughly 1978 before we had completely taken back the party.  So as we work to take back the party again, it will take time.  The good news is that this work did not begin in 2012 or even 2008, but has been brewing since the early to mid 90's.  The successes we are witnessing this year and in recent years have been because of that work.

But we still have a long way to go, and it takes people who are dedicated to doing the hard work to see it through.  Just voting isn't enough. Just donating isn't enough.  It takes people who are willing to work at this year round: to attend meetings, to network with other like-minded people, to build coalitions with other factions of the party, to run for elected office, to win county committee seats, to knock on doors, to make phone calls, to do tabling events, to host community forums, etc, etc, etc.  All of the above works, because it has worked before - it will work again.  And the good thing is that when we succeed, we can lead as we will likely not be facing an overwhelming majority of Democrats in the House and Senate as we did in the 70's and 80's.

If you don't have the stomach for it, then please, with all due respect, don't stand in the way and/or discourage those who are doing yeoman's work.  As Matt said, this is a long process.  What I see Benton doing, is simply positioning himself in a place where he can learn and/or have influence with a high ranking elected official.  It is far better that McConnell hire one of Ron Paul's staff than hiring one of Romney's.  This move could very well benefit the liberty movement as we all continue moving forward.  And if for some reason it does not, then that does not change the goal, it does not change the message, and it does not change in any way shape or form the work each and every one of us needs to do.

----------

