Mitch McConnell hires Jesse Benton to run his 2014 re-election bid

[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... or
• never 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.

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.

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.

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.

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/authors/r/ron_paul.html#xEMZsKBCzkwiRBIq.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: