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

[Crashland]

He said he had screenshots, but he won't post them publicly.

I wouldn't be particularly interested in screenshots. He should be able to point to something still online now that shows it. If the only evidence is his own personal screenshots, then it wasn't really public. This is the internet - you can't just erase all traces of something like that, especially if it supposedly had a significant effect. There should still be the source material, if not piles of secondary material referring to it, some of which would be bound to be right here on RPF.

 

[jjdoyle]

He said he had screenshots, but he won't post them publicly.

Ah, so he's able to make false (lying) claims, with no actual evidence provided, like:

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 moderators allow that to exist with no evidence provided to back it up, despite Tom Woods saying the opposite? I mean, if it was done publicly as was stated, I would imagine it would have been posted on these very forums in 2011 when it happened, with how quickly things were spread. No?

I even searched a few times, giving Matt Collins the benefit of the doubt, and couldn't find any 2011 public attack. I then contacted Tom Woods directly, and he said:

"I still have Jesse's correspondence with me from that time, so I can prove that this version of events is a fantasy. Benton wanted me to act like a mature adult? Benton the potty mouth wants Woods to act like an adult? That sounds plausible.

Moreover, everything I said about certain individuals in the campaign is available at my blog at TomWoods.com. None of it is vitriolic or in any way unreasonable. So there's no need to take the word of this Benton apologist -- or my word, for that matter. See what I wrote for yourself.

There is no one on earth, apart from five people in the Benton circle, who has ever accused me of a lack of maturity.

Furthermore, if I were really "attacking Ron's campaign," as opposed to criticizing certain people who obviously did not have Ron's best interests at heart, why am I so close to Ron today? Why did he write the foreword to my most recent book? Why do I appear on his show, and he on mine? Why was I asked to design courses for his homeschool curriculum? Why does his whole family read my books and pose for pictures with me?"

And then in a follow-up email:

"I just realized: to the contrary, I kept everything to myself for Ron's sake. I never said a word about what I knew about Benton's incompetence and overall sleaziness. Not a word. I did that for Ron, not for Benton. Even though Benton was bad-mouthing me to Ron every single day, I kept quiet. And for Collins, a Benton acolyte, who was elevated to whatever stature he had by Benton, to attack me now is beyond laughable."

In the follow-up, Mr. Woods was talking about not saying anything in 2011, not 2012.

 

[CPUd]

I wouldn't be particularly interested in screenshots. He should be able to point to something still online now that shows it. If the only evidence is his own personal screenshots, then it wasn't really public. This is the internet - you can't just erase all traces of something like that, especially if it supposedly had a significant effect. There should still be the source material, if not piles of secondary material referring to it, some of which would be bound to be right here on RPF.

He said it was Facebook, so it may not have been completely public:

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.

 

[jjdoyle]

He said it was Facebook, so it may not have been completely public:

FWIW, I searched Tom's Facebook page, didn't find any in 2011.

 

[ghengis86]

FWIW, I searched Tom's Facebook page, didn't find any in 2011.

That's because he took them down. But I have the screenshots. Believe me. I make extraordinary claims, but I withhold my extraordinary evidence.

 

[Badger Paul]

"And for Collins, a Benton acolyte, who was elevated to whatever stature he had by Benton, to attack me now is beyond laughable."

Well now we can take The Collins for what he is: a grain of salt. Literally and figuratively.

Aside from the whole Woods dispute, lets look at this logically. Why would Rand bring into his campaign, someone who could well be indicted, who resigned under an ethical cloud, whose very hire would sow division amongst his own supporters, whose very presence in Iowa would very much turn grassroots powerbrokers against Rand and who would become a weapon to use against Rand in a huge candidate field?

Your guess is a good as mine.

You're right Collins, the grassroots has no say in this matter. I've been saying for a long time the "claque" has no use for the grassroots and we're all going to find this out here shortly. But given aforementioned reasons I put forth, it would not make any kind of political sense at all to employ Benton in any kind of offical capacity with the 2016 camapaign. At best, he could run a PAC or something not connected with the official campaign that would keep him out of the spotlight. At worse, well, maybe can he get a job in the real world and make an honest living for once instead of being a parasite whose very presence make sure government never gets smaller. The good Lord willing.

As for the McConell endorsement, certainly it doesn't hurt. One wishes to have the whole state behind one's Presidential bid. Maybe it will open some financial doors for Rand too. But if you think McConnell is going to be busting his arse for Rand, think again. He's got a Senate to run, and not going to waste his time running around church basements in Iowa pumping the flesh for Rand. In other words, don't make too much of it. It certainly won't be scaring off other prospective candidates.

 

[jjdoyle]

From another thread...

And honestly, how cost effective was it to hire a guy to sit around arguing on an internet forum all day, really?

Only Matt Collins and those involved with Ron Paul 2012 would know, and maybe even Josh and Bryan if Matt Collins was getting or trying to get certain campaigns to advertise on Ron Paul Forums.
How many liberty activist members did Matt Collins have banned and run off from the forums though, because the moderating team and admin team were apparently at Matt Collins' barking orders for years?

Why was he here? Apparently to try and direct grassroots' funds to the official campaign.

It has been 100% proven that Matt Collins has had members banned for doing no more than what he has done and was doing, and even worse some were banned based on 100% lies. And he remains. And yet, Bryan denied having knowledge of one incident, despite the fact that he was emailed information on that incident when it actually happened.

I can only hope that Bryan has seen the dishonesty and corruption that was within Ron Paul 2012 and Ron Paul Inc., and is struggling with it himself, and that is why there has been some changes. But when there are current moderators and even Bryan still deleting posts and lying about situations, I think we know why Matt Collins has been allowed to stay here protected for years.

$$$$$$$$$

If Jesse Benton is involved with Rand in 2016, in any fashion, and those like Matt Collins, I can only imagine any threads of legitimate advice and questions will continue to be buried, locked, and deleted out of site.

Now it makes some sense, why the admin and moderating team were at Collins' barking orders for years, and burying, locking, deleting threads with legitimate questions and criticisms of Ron Paul 2012 and Ron Paul Inc.

Either they were 100% dishonest, and ignorant of their guidelines, and/or they were possibly concerned with promises from Matt Collins of trying and getting ads for the site and trying to protect Ron Paul Inc., because that might be where some of the revenue was said to be coming from. If it was the second, they were also the first, as they banned users for no reason and broke their own guidelines in the process.

So, if Jesse Benton and Matt Collins are looking for good campaign workers, I think Matt Collins already has some he may be asking from the admin and moderating team around here, and that makes a lot of sense.

But, based on the guidelines and what I would imagine is important to many in the movement and what some might expect at the very least from campaigns and candidates:
"1) Operate with ethically sound principles.
• Be honest and truthful."

I don't see any reason that Jesse Benton, Matt Collins, or those like them should be involved with Rand in 2016.

 

[jjdoyle]

...

 

[acptulsa]

I can only hope that Bryan has seen the dishonesty and corruption that was within Ron Paul 2012 and Ron Paul Inc., and is struggling with it himself, and that is why there has been some changes. But when there are current moderators and even Bryan still deleting posts and lying about situations, I think we know why Matt Collins has been allowed to stay here protected for years.

$$$$$$$$$

Is that really the only reasonable hypothesis you can come up with?

You forget that some of the people you're preaching to were actually here at the time. Since you weren't, we can all understand that you might not have much in the way of clues to go on in solving this 'mystery'. But you don't eve seem to be trying to put on Josh's or Bryan's shoes and walk a distance in them.

It isn't just a matter of running a very unofficial campaign site is tricky. It isn't just a matter of the bizarre labyrinth of modern campaign laws that leave the owners of sites liable for any obscure and unpublicized campaign finance laws that site members may violate. It's also a matter of this site's mission could be compromised in an instant by a well-meaning but uninformed person, or a hired (as the Nixon campaign called them) 'ratfucker' (sort of a hatchet man) doing something illegal here which torpedoes that campaign.

Matt Collins was with the campaign, no matter how peripherally or in what unimportant role, and having him here stood some chance of being beneficial to Ron Paul. Matt, however, was something of a loose cannon. So, we have Matt telling them the things he does with his sock puppets are important and having sock puppets was important because it allowed him to do things without seeming to be an employee of the campaign. And you had zealous troll hunters trying to expose all sock puppets. And you had some of us trying to help the mods ensure Matt did nothing to endanger either the site or the official campaign. And all of it was unprecedented--there were no classes Josh or Bryan could take to learn from people who had dealt with such situations before.

As for your perception of Collins' sway over the mods, all I can say is I'm just as certain as I can be without actually discussing the thing with mods past and present that he has tried to get me banned at least once. I've not only never been banned, however, I've never gotten an infraction.

I think both of these horses--Collins and Benton--are dead already. Even so, feel free to beat them as much as you wish. But don't talk out of your ass, please, as this thread is long enough and Benton has already gotten a whole lot more attention than he ever deserved.

 

[acptulsa]

A mite redundant...

 

[jjdoyle]

Is that really the only reasonable hypothesis you can come up with?

You forget that some of the people you're preaching to were actually here at the time. Since you weren't, we can all understand that you might not have much in the way of clues to go on in solving this 'mystery'. But you don't eve seem to be trying to put on Josh's or Bryan's shoes and walk a distance in them.

It isn't just a matter of running a very unofficial campaign site is tricky. It isn't just a matter of the bizarre labyrinth of modern campaign laws that leave the owners of sites liable for any obscure and unpublicized campaign finance laws that site members may violate. It's also a matter of this site's mission could be compromised in an instant by a well-meaning but uninformed person, or a hired (as the Nixon campaign called them) 'ratfucker' (sort of a hatchet man) doing something illegal here which torpedoes that campaign.

Matt Collins was with the campaign, no matter how peripherally or in what unimportant role, and having him here stood some chance of being beneficial to Ron Paul. Matt, however, was something of a loose cannon. So, we have Matt telling them the things he does with his sock puppets are important and having sock puppets was important because it allowed him to do things without seeming to be an employee of the campaign. And you had zealous troll hunters trying to expose all sock puppets. And you had some of us trying to help the mods ensure Matt did nothing to endanger either the site or the official campaign. And all of it was unprecedented--there were no classes Josh or Bryan could take to learn from people who had dealt with such situations before.

As for your perception of Collins' sway over the mods, all I can say is I'm just as certain as I can be without actually discussing the thing with mods past and present that he has tried to get me banned at least once. I've not only never been banned, however, I've never gotten an infraction.

I think both of these horses--Collins and Benton--are dead already. Even so, feel free to beat them as much as you wish. But don't talk out of your ass, please, as this thread is long enough and Benton has already gotten a whole lot more attention than he ever deserved.

Well since you apparently don't know that I was here, and/or in what capacity, Bryan does though. As do other members, and FWIW, I was here before your join date.

I have seen first-hand the moderating and admin team banning people with no reasons given, and lying about it. Repeatedly.
While certain members, like Matt Collins, have repeatedly gotten passes for actually breaking the guidelines, for years.

I have emailed Bryan and PMed him on the issues, and I get police department PR responses. "We're trying our best."
When I publicly posted the exchange with Bryan regarding one of the lying moderators, it was deleted by Bryan because it showed the moderator was still actively lying about the situation. And it was excused.

Then I see Bryan come into threads referencing the guidelines, and even saying he wasn't aware of members being banned for going back and forth, despite the fact I emailed him about that very issue and thread when it was happening, and Matt Collins was saying in the thread he would have people banned and they were being banned, but not Matt Collins. The more things change, the more they stay the same?

I have been a moderator on a site in the past and know what it's like, but I never banned a single actual member, and only banned the "BUY THESE SHOEZ" and "BUY THESE PRESCRIPTION DRUGZ" first time spam-poster accounts.
I also know other guys that run sites much larger than Ron Paul Forums, and they will actually respond to emails and PMs about concerns with the sites, and not with PR type responses.

So, I have put on Josh's and Bryan's type shoes, and walked in them. It's probably why I expect more, than I have seen around here with the burying threads, locking threads, deleting posts, and banning members that Matt Collins' can lie about and the moderators can lie about, and be protected.

 

[William Tell]

In 2012 Benton did the dirty work that Ron needed to be kept clean from. If Rand hires him, it will be to do the same for him.

Although I do not like Benton, it is true that ultimately the responsibility for a campaign belongs to the candidate. Ron and Rand both surely know and knew how disliked Benton was. They do think he has value.

 

[William Tell]

Originally Posted by jjdoyle
Since Matt Collins made a false claim about Tom Woods attacking the campaign in 2011 on the first page, and the moderating team around here has allowed that to stay unverified, I decided to reach out to Mr. Woods directly, and he just said this:
"I still have Jesse's correspondence with me from that time, so I can prove that this version of events is a fantasy. Benton wanted me to act like a mature adult? Benton the potty mouth wants Woods to act like an adult? That sounds plausible.

Moreover, everything I said about certain individuals in the campaign is available at my blog at TomWoods.com. None of it is vitriolic or in any way unreasonable. So there's no need to take the word of this Benton apologist -- or my word, for that matter. See what I wrote for yourself.


There is no one on earth, apart from five people in the Benton circle, who has ever accused me of a lack of maturity.


Furthermore, if I were really "attacking Ron's campaign," as opposed to criticizing certain people who obviously did not have Ron's best interests at heart, why am I so close to Ron today? Why did he write the foreword to my most recent book? Why do I appear on his show, and he on mine? Why was I asked to design courses for his homeschool curriculum? Why does his whole family read my books and pose for pictures with me?"

Followed up with:
"I just realized: to the contrary, I kept everything to myself for Ron's sake. I never said a word about what I knew about Benton's incompetence and overall sleaziness. Not a word. I did that for Ron, not for Benton. Even though Benton was bad-mouthing me to Ron every single day, I kept quiet. And for Collins, a Benton acolyte, who was elevated to whatever stature he had by Benton, to attack me now is beyond laughable."

Thanks for contacting Tom.

 

[Jamesiv1]

Aside from the whole Woods dispute, lets look at this logically. Why would Rand bring into his campaign, someone who could well be indicted, who resigned under an ethical cloud, whose very hire would sow division amongst his own supporters, whose very presence in Iowa would very much turn grassroots powerbrokers against Rand and who would become a weapon to use against Rand in a huge candidate field?

Because politics is dirty business, and good guys don't win - they finish last.

"The story of dirty tricks in American politics begins with the first campaign for President of the United States, in the 1790s. Thomas Jefferson hired journalist and pamphleteer James Thomas Callender to slander his opponent, Alexander Hamilton."

A guy that will perform dirty tricks is high value, and every campaign serious about winning must have at least one such guy on it's payroll. Why? Because that's politics.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Because politics is dirty business, and good guys don't win - they finish last.

"The story of dirty tricks in American politics begins with the first campaign for President of the United States, in the 1790s. Thomas Jefferson hired journalist and pamphleteer James Thomas Callender to slander his opponent, Alexander Hamilton."

A guy that will perform dirty tricks is high value, and every campaign serious about winning must have at least one such guy on it's payroll. Why? Because that's politics.

Yeah, but even then, you still want someone whose dirty tricks haven't blown up in his face. And Benton doesn't seem to have passed that test ...

 

[phill4paul]

Yeah, but even then, you still want someone whose dirty tricks haven't blown up in his face. And Benton doesn't seem to have passed that test ...

Kinda like hiring a known hit-man to do a hit for ya. Makes no sense. Yet, those that do a hit and don't rat get a cushy job and pension. We'll see if that's the case.

 

[jjdoyle]

Tom Woods jokingly (?? maybe jokingly??) says his theory as to why Rand Paul might hire Jesse Benton:

 

[Matt Collins]

Tom Woods jokingly (?? maybe jokingly??) says his theory as to why Rand Paul might hire Jesse Benton:

With baseless accusations like that (not to mention intellectually irresponsible) Tom might one day find himself on the wrong end of a slander lawsuit.

 

[jjdoyle]

With baseless accusations like that (not to mention intellectually irresponsible) Tom might one day find himself on the wrong end of a slander lawsuit.

Coming from the known liar on these very forums in regards to Tom Woods and a certain situation, that's fresh! Should I contact Tom Woods again, David?
Why would Rand hire Jesse Benton (or, John Tate, or any other Ron Paul 2012 staffer) when under his/their leadership Ron Paul got fewer votes than Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, but was in the race longer than both of them and raised more money than both of them?

Perhaps Jesse Benton and Rand were BOTH involved in the Kent Sorenson issue, and Jesse has emails on it connecting Rand to it? I mean, Ron Paul 2012 did what they did to help Rand anyway in 2016, so it's not really a far stretch that Rand might have been more involved than we know behind-the-scenes to make sure his speaking slot at the RNC was all nice and setup.

 

[idiom]

For:
Rand is now a Senator who is inexplicably best buds with the MAJORITY LEADER. Jesse Benton was involved in getting there.

Against:
Benton has a track record of poor character so far, I want a PRESIDENT who surrounds himself with reliable trustworthy people. Ron couldn't do this and it was his biggest red flag against being President. Poor selection of staff was the proximate cause of the newsletter scandal. If this tragic flaw has passed down to Rand then pray to God that Rand is limited to Congress.

Question: What WHITEHOUSE position do you think Benton deserves? Would you trust him to advise your PRESIDENT?