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

[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.





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.

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.