The case for and against Jesse Benton's professional campaign involvement

[Demigod]

Why start this thread?

No one here has a say in the matter, and given some of the rampant immaturity and lack of understanding of how to actually run a serious campaign, it's a good thing.

Finally able to dig your hands deep enough in the government jar so who cares what the people who were the main support from the beginning think, how unprecedented from political parasites.

 

[CaptUSA]

And I can tell you from first hand experience that when Tom started publicly attacking Ron's campaign in 2011, Jesse called me and asked me what was going on. He had the utmost respect for Tom at the time (as did I) and was trying to figure out any way we could get Tom to act like a mature adult. Unfortunately Tom insisted on airing his personal laundry out in public and bashing the campaign like a spoiled bratty child.

That, to me, sounds like typical political infighting BS. I know you think it's a good thing to drive a wedge between certain factions of the liberty movement, but I'm telling you, it doesn't need to be like that. It only weakens us.

My problems with Benton aren't personal. They are strategic. Whether or not you think he does a good job doesn't really matter if he's tainted. And he's tainted.

There's a sentiment among many in this movement and many in the establishment that believe that the Pauls, and those around them, are not really interested in righting the ship of this nation and correcting the disaster. There is the belief that there is a good way to make money and power off of the chaos.

I really hope that isn't true, but Benton is the poster child for that belief. He sends all the wrong signals, not only to the base, but also to the potential moneymen. hiring the guy who was caught on tape blasting his boss, who was caught in a bribing scandal, and who has repeatedly shunned the most devout believers in the cause, sends the message that this is not about a serious campaign.

 

[erowe1]

Jesse called me and asked me what was going on.

/thread

 

[acptulsa]

/thread

Not exactly confidence inspiring...

 

[Bryan]

Why start this thread?

As I explained in the opening post:

The objective of this discussion is to:
* Bring important issues to light in a responsible manner. We are a discussion board and people will discuss things of importance.
* Prevent having to constantly rehash this issue over and over in different threads, if the topic comes up again people can be redirected here. Bookmark this thread if the topic is important to you.

----

No one here has a say in the matter

As I wrote above:

I certainly understand that's a debatable point, to which we don't know the answer. Still, I reference to "We are a discussion board and people will discuss things of importance."

Thank you.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Another verification of Tom Woods' opinion and experience: "I wouldn't have hired this guy and he wouldn't be a million miles close to anything I was involved in."

Source:

 

[Carlybee]

And I can tell you from first hand experience that when Tom started publicly attacking Ron's campaign in 2011, Jesse called me and asked me what was going on. He had the utmost respect for Tom at the time (as did I) and was trying to figure out any way we could get Tom to act like a mature adult. Unfortunately Tom insisted on airing his personal laundry out in public and bashing the campaign like a spoiled bratty child.

And why would he assume you knew what was going on?

 

[Natural Citizen]

...political infighting...

This is worthy of a topic itself and something that we don't particularly give much attention. We should. A great deal of goings on of late are a product of this. We're seeing the phenomenon geo-politically, in domestic politics here at home and from within major industry. There are times when "infighting" is not typical and the phenomenon most often reveals itself at the moment in time when things must get worse before they get better. Perhaps I'm off topic depending upon individual perception of the root issue but I just wanted to mention that. There is a tremendous amount of infighting among neoconservatives who reside in both major political parties. The results of this are coming to fruition (ill thought out/knee jerk policy/strategy that increasingly leaves us red faced) both domestically as well as geopolitically. I'd imagine a trickle down isn't out of the question but I doubt in a way that is relevant to the issues.

 

[jjdoyle]

Why start this thread?

No one here has a say in the matter, and given some of the rampant immaturity and lack of understanding of how to actually run a serious campaign, it's a good thing.

No one here might have a say as Bryan said, but some of us are contacting certain individuals with information regarding this topic. I mean the immaturity and lack of understanding in regards to running a serious campaign that I have seen and cared about, was from Ron Paul 2008 and Ron Paul 2012.

Under Jesse Benton's leadership, Ron Paul got fewer votes than Rick Santorum, despite being the race longer than Rick Santorum and raising more money than him.

 

[mosquitobite]

And I can tell you from first hand experience that when Tom started publicly attacking Ron's campaign in 2011, Jesse called me and asked me what was going on. He had the utmost respect for Tom at the time (as did I) and was trying to figure out any way we could get Tom to act like a mature adult. Unfortunately Tom insisted on airing his personal laundry out in public and bashing the campaign like a spoiled bratty child.

I hope you realize that this is typical divide and conquer type politics? My establishment GOP chair does this ALL.THE.TIME.

So what if Tom Woods didn't like Jesse Benton and was talking about him? If Benton wishes to be in politics he needs to learn how to get the hell over it. Does he realize how many people hated Ron Paul and talked bad about him?

waaaah

The mature response would have been to not give it attention, or even more mature would have been to do some self introspection to see if there was any validity in Woods' claims. The even more mature response than that would have been to offer to buy him coffee and have a conversation about how they could reconcile whatever differences they were having.

But I'm sure calling Matt Collins was the most mature response. < /sarc >

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I hope you realize that this is typical divide and conquer type politics? My establishment GOP chair does this ALL.THE.TIME.

So what if Tom Woods didn't like Jesse Benton and was talking about him? If Benton wishes to be in politics he needs to learn how to get the hell over it. Does he realize how many people hated Ron Paul and talked bad about him?

waaaah

The mature response would have been to not give it attention, or even more mature would have been to do some self introspection to see if there was any validity in Woods' claims. The even more mature response than that would have been to offer to buy him coffee and have a conversation about how they could reconcile whatever differences they were having.

But I'm sure calling Matt Collins was the most mature response. < /sarc >

I'm not much of a Benton fan, but somehow I don't believe Jesse's nose is even remotely as out of joint as Collins implies.

 

[Matt Collins]

And why would he assume you knew what was going on?

Because I monitored social networks and was the netroots guy.

 

[Matt Collins]

I hope you realize that this is typical divide and conquer type politics? My establishment GOP chair does this ALL.THE.TIME.

So what if Tom Woods didn't like Jesse Benton and was talking about him?

Because Tom is the one being divisive by publicly attacking Jesse.

If Benton wishes to be in politics he needs to learn how to get the hell over it. Does he realize how many people hated Ron Paul and talked bad about him?

That's not the issue. The issue is that someone who is supposedly on our side actively hurting the campaign by publicly undermining it.

The mature response would have been to not give it attention, or even more mature would have been to do some self introspection to see if there was any validity in Woods' claims. The even more mature response than that would have been to offer to buy him coffee and have a conversation about how they could reconcile whatever differences they were having.

No, the mature thing would've been for Tom Woods not to have aired his grievances publicly, valid or invalid.

 

[jjdoyle]

Because Tom is the one being divisive by publicly attacking Jesse.

That's not the issue. The issue is that someone who is supposedly on our side actively hurting the campaign by publicly undermining it.

No, the mature thing would've been for Tom Woods not to have aired his grievances publicly, valid or invalid.

Prove your claim of it happening in 2011, and not 2012.

 

[CPUd]

I didn't know what OT means so sorry no more posts on political dynasties.

But I would say that you would not need to wait to see that Rand 2016 is nepotic because he sure as hell did not became mcconnell`s campaign manager anyway else than by Rand including him in whatever deal he has with mcconnell.

Not necessarily. McConnell could have brought onboard the guy who won the state's other Senate seat to help defend his own.

 

[Crashland]

Because Tom is the one being divisive by publicly attacking Jesse.


That's not the issue. The issue is that someone who is supposedly on our side actively hurting the campaign by publicly undermining it.

No, the mature thing would've been for Tom Woods not to have aired his grievances publicly, valid or invalid.

Prove your claim of it happening in 2011, and not 2012.

I, too, would like Matt to either substantiate or withdraw the claim that Woods did this in 2011 and not 2012. If it can't be substantiated, then I will assume that whatever he did in 2011 was not "public" enough to have any public damaging effect, if it left absolutely no traces behind.

But all in all, we aren't talking about what Tom Woods should have done. Tom Woods is not the subject of this discussion. We are talking about what Jesse Benton did and what that tells us about his professionalism, regardless of whether Tom Woods was right or wrong in what he did.

 

[erowe1]

I, too, would like Matt to either substantiate or withdraw the claim that Woods did this in 2011 and not 2012. If it can't be substantiated, then I will assume that whatever he did in 2011 was not "public" enough to have any public damaging effect, if it left absolutely no traces behind.

But all in all, we aren't talking about what Tom Woods should have done. Tom Woods is not the subject of this discussion. We are talking about what Jesse Benton did and what that tells us about his professionalism, regardless of whether Tom Woods was right or wrong in what he did.

I'm pretty sure Matt is talking about things like this, and other similar things, where Woods offered constructive criticisms.

 

[Crashland]

I'm pretty sure Matt is talking about things like this, and other similar things, where Woods offered constructive criticisms.

Reading through that, it seems to me like a really big stretch to call that kind of thing "undermining the campaign". The points he made were, in my opinion, fairly obvious, and I highly doubt the necessity of keeping those ideas secret as if no one else outside the campaign had thought of them. Not sure if something like that is actually what Matt is talking about, but if it isn't, then Matt is free to add the source that he feels is the most egregious offense.

Even if Woods did damage the campaign, mosquitobite's point in this post still stands. Matt attempted to dodge the question by attacking Woods, but the subject of this post is what Benton did. Did Benton's handling of the situation demonstrate professionalism and help the campaign? Matt, please re-read and respond again:

I hope you realize that this is typical divide and conquer type politics? My establishment GOP chair does this ALL.THE.TIME.

So what if Tom Woods didn't like Jesse Benton and was talking about him? If Benton wishes to be in politics he needs to learn how to get the hell over it. Does he realize how many people hated Ron Paul and talked bad about him?

waaaah

The mature response would have been to not give it attention, or even more mature would have been to do some self introspection to see if there was any validity in Woods' claims. The even more mature response than that would have been to offer to buy him coffee and have a conversation about how they could reconcile whatever differences they were having.

But I'm sure calling Matt Collins was the most mature response. < /sarc >

 

[invisible]

Bryan, thanks for this thread, and the opportunity to actually have this much-needed discussion.

I personally am neutral on benton. I've met him in passing a couple times, and he certainly seemed like a nice enough guy. The benton-bashers' case and positions are well known. We all know about the bad things he has done, and the good things he hasn't done. Those against benton have made a good argument. He has proved to be a controversial figure who has caused a large division among Ron and Rand's supporters.

However, what I'm interested in hearing is the counter argument. Yes, he's family for Ron and Rand. He is apparently trusted by them. This is why I am still neutral. But being a trusted family member is obviously not enough to qualify him for his position. There is some other reason why Ron and Rand feel he is essential to their campaign staff. My question is, what is it? What does benton bring to the table, that makes his inclusion worth the controversy and division among supporters? What is he able to do, that someone else without the controversy attached to them is not able to do?

No one seems to be able to actually answer this.

 

[Matt Collins]

I, too, would like Matt to either substantiate or withdraw the claim that Woods did this in 2011 and not 2012. If it can't be substantiated, then I will assume that whatever he did in 2011 was not "public" enough to have any public damaging effect, if it left absolutely no traces behind.

I'm pretty sure Matt is talking about things like this, and other similar things, where Woods offered constructive criticisms.

That is part of it yes, but Tom posted some pretty inflammatory and insulting Facebook posts. I have screenshots, but I am not going to post them because it does no good to do so.