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

[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.

The Paul family deserves better than Jessie Benton.

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.

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."