DOJ indicts Jesse Benton and John Tate

[angelatc]

Are Ron & Rand on your side? That's the "quality" of people I care about, not quantity.

Which totally explains why you're here, then. Not.

It's fine if you don't care what we think. But your wing of the movement is creating the drama, then insisting that we shut up and ignore it. Which means, of course, that nothing has changed.

I seem to recall that Benton resigned from the McConnell campaign so that the allegations wouldn't sully the reputation of that candidate. Why isn't he resigning now for the same reason?

Again, that's a rhetorical question. We already know the answer.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I'm not much disturbed by the indictment; it'll have zero long term impact on Rand's campaign.

I am, however, extremely disturbed by the reactions of some on this forum. Benton-phobia has never made any sense to me; I get the impression that a lot of liberty movement people scapegoated the man after their (unrealistically high) expectations weren't met in the last two cycles. I remember very clearly, in the spring of 2012, the sudden rise of Benton-phobia on the Daily Paul; and the people going after him were - almost to a man - the same ones trapped in denial about Ron's chances (by that point his chances were clearly 0%, just as a matter of delegate math). Then, naturally they started to turn on Ron "Well if Ron hired this guy he must be corrupt or stupid!" I don't care about Benton one way or the other, personally, but to see these sentiments bubbling up again, with people cheering on an obviously politically motivated federal prosecution of a liberty movement person, designed to harm the movement, in the midst of the most important campaign in the movement's history thus far, is disgusting and shameful.

r3v, no one is cheering this. No one is gleeful. It is a shame, but it is not the conduct of RPF members that is shameful. It's Benton's conduct that was shameful.

I mean, some people are just shady characters. Based on the decent, normal people who have interacted with Benton (such as Tom Woods and Deborah K) this man is a shady character. He is not an upstanding guy. It's too bad the fist of tyranny is coming down on him, sure, but I can't bring myself to cry a river over every charlatan or scam artist or dishonest snake that happens to get in trouble with the law. It's not a "phobia". Nobody has a "phobia". He's just a dishonest guy. This is not someone to defend, r3v. Don't spend your credibility points defending him. He's not worth it.

 

[Anti Federalist]

r3v, no one is cheering this. No one is gleeful. It is a shame, but it is not the conduct of RPF members that is shameful. It's Benton's conduct that was shameful.

I mean, some people are just shady characters. Based on the decent, normal people who have interacted with Benton (such as Tom Woods and Deborah K) this man is a shady character. He is not an upstanding guy. It's too bad the fist of tyranny is coming down on him, sure, but I can't bring myself to cry a river over every charlatan or scam artist or dishonest snake that happens to get in trouble with the law. It's not a "phobia". Nobody has a "phobia". He's just a dishonest guy. This is not someone to defend, r3v. Don't spend your credibility points defending him. He's not worth it.

This ^^^

 

[PRB]

Which totally explains why you're here, then. Not.

It's fine if you don't care what we think. But your wing of the movement is creating the drama, then insisting that we shut up and ignore it.

I stand with the candidates, what's "my wing"?

Which means, of course, that nothing has changed.

I seem to recall that Benton resigned from the McConnell campaign so that the allegations wouldn't sully the reputation of that candidate. Why isn't he resigning now for the same reason?

Again, that's a rhetorical question. We already know the answer.

I don't know the answer, but go ahead and tell me.

 

[angelatc]

I stand with the candidates, what's "my wing"?

Fair enough. Nixon had his supporters too.

I don't know the answer, but go ahead and tell me.

Now that I won't do, because there's no need.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I seem to recall that Benton resigned from the McConnell campaign so that the allegations wouldn't sully the reputation of that candidate. Why isn't he resigning now for the same reason?

Very interesting point.

I suppose one could try to "explain" it by suggesting that Benton was actually fired from the McConnell campaign - and that the "resignation" language was just a frame for "toning things down" for purposes of public consumption. (After all, both McConnell and Benton would have had an interest in downplaying the reasons for Benton's "departure.") The lack of any such "resignation" of Benton in the current affair could then be "explained" on the basis of familial loyalties or outright nepotism.

Of course, any such "explanation" would be erected upon speculation. But whatever the case may be, there doesn't seem to be any scenario (except decisively clear and total exoneration) in which Benton comes out not looking bad ...

 

[r3volution 3.0]

r3v, no one is cheering this. No one is gleeful.

I've read the entire thread and I beg to differ.

It is a shame, but it is not the conduct of RPF members that is shameful. It's Benton's conduct that was shameful.

Regardless of Benton's conduct, it's shameful that some are spitefully licking their chops at this news, and moreover taking the opportunity to bash Ron/Rand.

I mean, some people are just shady characters. Based on the decent, normal people who have interacted with Benton (such as Tom Woods and Deborah K) this man is a shady character.

Tom Woods has proved himself an imbecile when it comes to practical politics, so any opinion he has of Benton's value as a political operator is less than worthless: virtually a counter-indicator. I have no idea whether Deborah K is in a position to accurately judge Benton. I'm certain;y not just going to take her subjective impressions of him (sans any facts) as the gospel truth.

He is not an upstanding guy. It's too bad the fist of tyranny is coming down on him, sure, but I can't bring myself to cry a river over every charlatan or scam artist or dishonest snake that happens to get in trouble with the law. It's not a "phobia". Nobody has a "phobia". He's just a dishonest guy. This is not someone to defend, r3v. Don't spend your credibility points defending him. He's not worth it.

Not defending Benton, criticizing the Bentonphobes.

It's about more than the (quite trivial) case of Jesse Benton.

It's about a general pathology which exists in certain circles of the movement, which is - taken as a whole - far more dangerous than any number of Bentons.

i.e. politically naive and also chronically paranoid persons who think they know better than the campaign, who constantly criticize the campaign, who are always seeing treachery when the campaign fails to do as they're o-so-certain the campaign should do, always ready to quit in a huff; and who have no appreciation that this very attitude among some of its supporters is a major obstacle for the campaign, and bears a larger share of the blame for its failures than the imagined treasons and mistakes they drone on about

Electoral politics isn't a symposium, more like a military operation. It requires hierarchy, faith in one's leadership.

The notorious unherdability of libertarian cats is not cute or funny, it makes us much less likely to succeed.

...and it pisses me off more with every passing year.

 

[devil21]

I've read the entire thread and I beg to differ.



Regardless of Benton's conduct, it's shameful that some are spitefully licking their chops at this news, and moreover taking the opportunity to bash Ron/Rand.



Tom Woods has proved himself an imbecile when it comes to practical politics, so any opinion he has of Benton's value as a political operator is less than worthless: virtually a counter-indicator. I have no idea whether Deborah K is in a position to accurately judge Benton. I'm certain;y not just going to take her subjective impressions of him (sans any facts) as the gospel truth.



Not defending Benton, criticizing the Bentonphobes.

It's about more than the (quite trivial) case of Jesse Benton.

It's about a general pathology which exists in certain circles of the movement, which is - taken as a whole - far more dangerous than any number of Bentons.

i.e. politically naive and also chronically paranoid persons who think they know better than the campaign, who constantly criticize the campaign, who are always seeing treachery when the campaign fails to do as they're o-so-certain the campaign should do, always ready to quit in a huff; and who have no appreciation that this very attitude among some of its supporters is a major obstacle for the campaign, and bears a larger share of the blame for its failures than the imagined treasons and mistakes they drone on about

Electoral politics isn't a symposium, more like a military operation. It requires hierarchy, faith in one's leadership.

The notorious unherdability of libertarian cats is not cute or funny, it makes us much less likely to succeed.

...and it pisses me off more with every passing year.

I'm sure I fall into this group that you are describing and if that's how you see it, that's on you. I don't know who you are or your experience or direct involvement with this movement/campaign. Some of us have watched as the same liabilities to the movement get brought on time and again, with the same end results. Some of us have been directly involved and observed it up close. It's particularly frustrating when the outcomes are entirely predictable based on past events, yet folks like you think we are more damaging? Posters on a website are more damaging than federal indictments for fraud? People that have spent much time and money over the years supporting the message are more damaging? At some point, if one is remain intellectually honest and not be a blind cheerleader, one has to ask what's really going on here? I do agree that the inability to 'herd' the liberty movement makes electoral success more difficult but if you recall, the movement wasn't founded on borg mentality in the first place and anyone that thought they could 'herd' the people never understood the kinds of people that the movement attracted.

 

[Anti Federalist]

+rep

I'm sure I fall into this group that you are describing and if that's how you see it, that's on you. I don't know who you are or your experience or direct involvement with this movement/campaign. Some of us have watched as the same liabilities to the movement get brought on time and again, with the same end results. Some of us have been directly involved and observed it up close. It's particularly frustrating when the outcomes are entirely predictable based on past events, yet folks like you think we are more damaging? Posters on a website are more damaging than federal indictments for fraud? People that have spent much time and money over the years supporting the message are more damaging? At some point, if one is remain intellectually honest and not be a blind cheerleader, one has to ask what's really going on here? I do agree that the inability to 'herd' the liberty movement makes electoral success more difficult but if you recall, the movement wasn't founded on borg mentality in the first place and anyone that thought they could 'herd' the people never understood the kinds of people that the movement attracted.

 

[timosman]

Tom Woods has proved himself an imbecile when it comes to practical politics, so any opinion he has of Benton's value as a political operator is less than worthless: virtually a counter-indicator.

Who, out of the entire Paul's (young and old) retinue, proved himself to be trustworthy and able to withstand public scrutiny ? Maybe this is the problem, Paul's inability to attract high caliber followers. Maybe the entire organization stinks to high heaven and really does not have a plan ? How else would you explain the relative vacuum around Paul ? Do you think his goofy debate performances are helping ? Where are his allies ? Certainly not us here, based on what you say.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Posters on a website are more damaging than federal indictments for fraud?

Continual resistance from behind, in various forms - from publicly attacking the campaign to leaving the movement over some petty grievance (like Benton) - most certainly hurts the us more than a federal indictment which won't stick to Rand and won't be remembered by anyone outside the movement in a week anyway. And, this is the wrong tack anyway. Even if the indictment is very damaging, you don't help things by piling on and doing even more damage.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Tom Woods has proved himself an imbecile when it comes to practical politics, so any opinion he has of Benton's value as a political operator is less than worthless: virtually a counter-indicator.

OK, r3v, a couple things. First, I respect Tom Woods. I think he's a good man, he's my kind of man, and he's a traditional man. You and all your "neo-reactionary" and moldbug buds claim to believe in and revere traditionalism and want to bring back traditional values. Well, here I am, I'm actually traditional, as opposed to theoretically-traditional-but-riding-the-tiger or whatever the heck bizarre stuff you guys are into. And so is Woods. We're your target audience, if you have one. So maybe you shouldn't piss us off by calling us imbeciles. Just a thought. Whatever Tom Woods is, he's not an imbecile. Second thing, it's not his opinion of "practical politics" that I respect. I respect him as a person, and I respect him as a judge of character. He judged Jesse Benton's character to be bad. I have never met Benton, but I trust Tom's judgment.

I have no idea whether Deborah K is in a position to accurately judge Benton. I'm certainly not just going to take her subjective impressions of him (sans any facts) as the gospel truth.

Reasonable enough. If you knew facts, you would have a better idea. I know some of the facts, and because of that I do have a better idea. Deb was in a position to accurately judge Beton. Judge she did, and correctly as far as I can tell.

As for the rest of your post, OK, I now understand what you're railing against here. I get it.

I personally have been sympathetic to Benton in the past. I have been on his side. For instances:

This is when it all comes together! 11 days from now, if all goes well, we are all going to be loving us some Jesse Benton. Big time.

These are the contests which determine whether Jesse Benton goes down in history as the greatest and most brilliant campaign manager of all time. Win three of them, and it's a whole new ballgame, boys and girls.

His campaign staff is not seasoned and veteran. His media coordinator is just out of college. Many members of the staff are young. Revise that: virtually all of them are young. Every person I've talked to at headquarters has sounded under 30.

Jesse Benton won Rand's Senate race. So yes, he's experienced. That would be legendary, to win a long-shot (virtually impossible) Senate race and then a long-shot (virtually impossible) Presidential race back-to-back. And at such a young age! Jesse would be hailed as the greatest political genius of the century. Karl Rove and James Carville would both cower in his shadow.

Jon Downs, the guy making the commercials, is also experienced. As is Doug Wead, the most experienced of them all. So there's some experience on the team, and Wead would be considered a veteran, but other than who I've named (Wead, Downs, Benton) I think they're all pretty new faces.

Sadly, that may have been because they were all Ron could afford.

So as for me, I was not undermining him. I was a good soldier. I was not second-guessing Benton's (and ultimately Ron's) decisions.

I have no expertise to determine whether he did a great job as a campaign manager or not. I have run for office, but I've always lost! So I still pass no judgment about that. He might be a phenomenal, smart, excellent campaign manager. Virtually everyone on RPF would vehemently disagree with that, would tell you he definitely was not excellent, he was incompetent, etc., etc., and my own experience with the head office tended to confirm that, too. And maybe they will come post all the facts they have to back them up in this thread, and once you have the facts you will agree with them. But as for me, I reserve judgment. If he had won, we'd be singing his praises as a political genius.

But I don't reserve judgment on whether he's a decent, honest, respectable person. On that, I judge. He is not.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

OK, r3v, a couple things. First, I respect Tom Woods. I think he's a good man, he's my kind of man, and he's a traditional man. You and all your "neo-reactionary" and moldbug buds claim to believe in and revere traditionalism and want to bring back traditional values. Well, here I am, I'm actually traditional, as opposed to theoretically-traditional-but-riding-the-tiger or whatever the heck bizarre stuff you guys are into. And so is Woods. We're your target audience, if you have one. So maybe you shouldn't piss us off by calling us imbeciles. Just a thought. Whatever Tom Woods is, he's not an imbecile.

I said that Tom Woods is an imbecile when it comes to practical politics (as evidenced by his statements on that topic).

Otherwise, as an academic, or just as a human being, he's excellent; I've sung his praises many times on that front.

But as for me, I reserve judgment. If he had won, we'd be singing his praises as a political genius.

But since we lost, people hate him.

--->scapegoat

But I don't reserve judgment on whether he's a decent, honest, respectable person. On that, I judge. He is not.

I don't have enough information to judge Benton's competence or character, one way or the other, and neither do 99.99% of the Bentonphobics: which is my point.

 

[Carlybee]

I said that Tom Woods is an imbecile when it comes to practical politics (as evidenced by his statements on that topic).

Otherwise, as an academic, or just as a human being, he's excellent; I've sung his praises many times on that front.



But since we lost, people hate him.

--->scapegoat



I don't have enough information to judge Benton's competence or character, one way or the other, and neither do 99.99% of the Bentonphobics: which is my point.

Were you a member here in May 2012?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I said that Tom Woods is an imbecile when it comes to practical politics

Otherwise, as an academic, or just as a human being, he's excellent; I've sung his praises many times on that front.

I can see you're having a hard time here, so let me help you out. Let me give you some Secret Inside Insight into traditional culture norms. A man who you think is an excellent human being, who you think of and indeed want as an ally, you do not call that man an imbecile, no matter how qualified. You do not say to other people behind his back "Old Pete, my good friend, he sure is an imbecile on automotive matters". You could say something like "Tom is weak in this area" or "I disagree with some of Tom's ideas about politics". Now that may seem a very minor, semantic point to you. I understand that in 15-year-old Youtube-comment culture it's probably just fine to call everyone an imbecile all the time and no one should think anything of it and that's all great. That is a degenerate culture. In civilized culture, people whom you respect, you treat with respect.

(as evidenced by his statements on that topic).

"Evidenced"! Oh wow, evidenced. That sounds very official. Just short of "proven". Sounds like an open-and-shut case.

Wait, just how is a man's knowledge of practical politics evidenced/proven?

Tom Woods has a popular podcast, several best-selling books, an extensive network of important people who like and respect him, and to sum up: a large and loyal following. r3volution3.0 has.......... what, exactly? Which of these two men is more influential?

There's practical politics for you.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I can see you're having a hard time here, so let me help you out. Let me give you some Secret Inside Insight into traditional culture norms. A man who you think is an excellent human being, who you think of and indeed want as an ally, you do not call that man an imbecile, no matter how qualified. You do not say to other people behind his back "Old Pete, my good friend, he sure is an imbecile on automotive matters". You could say something like "Tom is weak in this area" or "I disagree with some of Tom's ideas about politics". Now that may seem a very minor, semantic point to you. I understand that in 15-year-old Youtube-comment culture it's probably just fine to call everyone an imbecile all the time and no one should think anything of it and that's all great. That is a degenerate culture. In civilized culture, people whom you respect, you treat with respect.

"Evidenced"! Oh wow, evidenced. That sounds very official. Just short of "proven". Sounds like an open-and-shut case.

Wait, just how is a man's knowledge of practical politics evidenced/proven?

Tom Woods has a popular podcast, several best-selling books, an extensive network of important people who like and respect him, and to sum up: a large and loyal following. r3volution3.0 has.......... what, exactly? Which of these two men is more influential?

There's practical politics for you.

How fascinating

 

[helmuth_hubener]

How fascinating

Glad I could help chase away the boredom.

No hard feelings, by the way, r3v. As I'm sure you've noticed, because you're smart, I actually think the same way as you and am pushing for the same elitist, hierarchical Hoppe-topia. I just like Tom Woods and don't appreciate you tearing him down, and I will defend him. That's all.

 

[Weston White]

So people who like the Constitution are supporting the enforcement of an unconstitutional law?

How are obstruction, fraud and conspiracy punishments unconstitutional?

 

[angelatc]

Continual resistance from behind, in various forms - from publicly attacking the campaign to leaving the movement over some petty grievance (like Benton) - most certainly hurts the us more than a federal indictment which won't stick to Rand and won't be remembered by anyone outside the movement in a week anyway. And, this is the wrong tack anyway. Even if the indictment is very damaging, you don't help things by piling on and doing even more damage.

If Jesse resigned from the McConnell campaign to protect McConnell from the blowback, why isn't he resigning from the PAC to protect Rand Paul? Nobody here cares if McConnell catches political flack - he isn't our guy. Some (and I do not include myself) would relish the chance to damage him.

But our opinions of Jesse do not matter to the McConnell crowd, so the fall out would have been minimal. Add to that the fact that McConnell's seat isn't in play this cycle.

So, why isn't Benton resigning again?

 

[angelatc]

Electoral politics isn't a symposium, more like a military operation. It requires hierarchy, faith in one's leadership.

.

I agree with that. We don't. Based on Rand's recent polling, we are justified in that sentiment.