Tom Woods: My Memories of Jesse Benton

[parocks]

I don't know. It looked like he started off serious and then just dug in his heels and started saying stuff that would pass for satire. I honestly can't tell.

Nope. Entirely serious.

In 1976 Ron Paul supported Reagan. That was what made Reagan Conservative. To US. Because we're Ron Paul supporters. That's just how it works.

Hey, no doubt, if someone's merely pretending to be a Ron Paul supporters, they're not going buy that rationale at all.

I hear so many people here saying "oh, Liberty Principles say ..." And no one can explain what they are. So, if people can simple accept some posters blather as fact.

Put it differently, it's shorthand. No one knows with 100% certainty that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow. But we do take it for granted. There are some things, that we do take for granted. And one of those things that we take here for granted is that Ron Paul is right. WE take that for granted HERE.

The weight of Ron Paul endorsement in 1976 and 1980 outweighs everything else. On this Ron Paul site. Somewhere else, it might not be important evidence. But here, that piece of evidence has so much value, that everything else is against it, so there's no reason to argue the point.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I'm not arguing about what happened after Reagan was elected, I was just arguing that the Conservative Candidate was Reagan in 1976 and 1980.

But he wasn't a conservative (I'm going by the paleo-con definition) in '76 or '80! Again, what did he actually DO?! I don't care what Paul thought of him in '76 or '80. According to your logic, Romney is a "conservative" because of what he says, even though his record in Massachusetts suggests otherwise. Oh and Rand Paul is campaigning for him so that must mean Romney is going to do what Rand said Romney would do if elected president.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Ron Paul supported what Reagan SAID. He didn't support a lot of what he DID. Reagan simply did not walk his talk. It's as simple as that.

However, most of the Republican voting public only remember Reagan for his talk. Very few realize that he expanded the size and scope of government, which was exactly what he said he was against. It's not really a winning move, in my opinion, to attack Reagan*. Ron Paul doesn't, unless he is called out on it. What he usually does is give examples of what Reagan did that he agreed with and uses that to further his message.

* if you are talking to a Republican, that is.

 

[erowe1]

Nope. Entirely serious.

In 1976 Ron Paul supported Reagan. That was what made Reagan Conservative. To US. Because we're Ron Paul supporters. That's just how it works.

Hey, no doubt, if someone's merely pretending to be a Ron Paul supporters, they're not going buy that rationale at all.

I hear so many people here saying "oh, Liberty Principles say ..." And no one can explain what they are. So, if people can simple accept some posters blather as fact.

Put it differently, it's shorthand. No one knows with 100% certainty that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow. But we do take it for granted. There are some things, that we do take for granted. And one of those things that we take here for granted is that Ron Paul is right. WE take that for granted HERE.

The weight of Ron Paul endorsement in 1976 and 1980 outweighs everything else. On this Ron Paul site. Somewhere else, it might not be important evidence. But here, that piece of evidence has so much value, that everything else is against it, so there's no reason to argue the point.

I'm trying to think of something I can say to highlight how strange this argument is. But I can't think of anything that would improve on just letting people read what you're saying.

 

[LibertyEagle]

But he wasn't a conservative (I'm going by the paleo-con definition) in '76 or '80! Again, what did he actually DO?! I don't care what Paul thought of him in '76 or '80. According to your logic, Romney is a "conservative" because of what he says, even though his record in Massachusetts suggests otherwise. Oh and Rand Paul is campaigning for him so that must mean Romney is going to do what Rand said Romney would do if elected president.

No, Ron Paul and Reagan were a different case. Ron really did support Reagan and went against the rest of the Party to do it. But, he was trusting Reagan's words and when Reagan did not live up to them, he spoke out.

 

[unknown]

...that debate coaching would take place as it does in all other campaigns...

If only.

...if Rand Paul intends to run in 2016...

Rand has lost a TON of support. I feel that there is still good in him, that hes making nice with the establishment to secure a long term stay but I'm extremely disappointed.

 

[parocks]

When we're arguing about Reagan, we're arguing about this:

Notice that I did NOT put 1984 Reagan.

Because by 1984, a strong case could be made that Reagan was no longer conservative.

However, 1968,1976,1980 are all Reagan = Conservative years.

The argument is about the home for Conservatives in the Republican Party, and my list shows that Conservatives run in the Republican Party over and over again.
We usually lose. Sometimes we win, and not govern right. However, the home for Conservatives for the last 72 years has been the Republican Party.

We know this. We don't need to be woken up to something we already know. We are in the process of a FIGHT. A FIGHT that we usually LOSE. This is not a secret. We know this. But our home is in the Republican Party. And we just need to win more often, fight better, fight harder, fight smarter. But there is no doubt that we are fighting against the Rockefeller Republicans, and have been for many many years. 1940, Taft vs Wilkie, 1948, Taft vs Dewey, 1952 Taft vs Eisenhower. 1964 Goldwater vs Romney and Rockefeller. 1968 Reagan vs Nixon and Romney. 1976 Reagan vs Ford. 1980 Reagan against Bush. 1992 Buchanan vs Bush 1996 Buchanan vs Dole.

We had our candidates up there, and we usually lost. The elites, international bankers, globalists, msm all are against us. And when we go to battle against the Rockefeller wing, the Rockefeller wing has the resources of the elites, international bankers, globalists, and msm. So, we usually lose. But our home is in the Republican Party.

 

[parocks]

If only.



Rand has lost a TON of support. I feel that there is still good in him, that hes making nice with the establishment to secure a long term stay but I'm extremely disappointed.

Rand probably understands that to win he needs Santorums people and Gingrichs people as well as Ron Paul's people. Santorum, with no money and no real support at all, ended up winning a bunch of states.

 

[parocks]

I'm trying to think of something I can say to highlight how strange this argument is. But I can't think of anything that would improve on just letting people read what you're saying.

I understand that it can seem odd to you.

But on a Ron Paul website, where people are assumed to favor Ron Paul, his opinion really carries a lot of weight.

 

[sailingaway]

Rand probably understands that to win he needs Santorums people and Gingrichs people as well as Ron Paul's people. Santorum, with no money and no real support at all, ended up winning a bunch of states.

Santorum won because the evangelicals finally coalesced behind him with the fake CNN poll surge. Before that he was in low single digits.

 

[specsaregood]

Rand has lost a TON of support. I feel that there is still good in him, that hes making nice with the establishment to secure a long term stay but I'm extremely disappointed.

I on the other hand am ecstatic about what Rand has been doing, and know quite a few people that would never vote for Ron that love Rand and they are all republican voters. Rand is currently marking out a space for himself in DC as the guy that goes after abuses of the executive branch. once you've done that, it helps make the case that you are right guy to clean up the executive branch as president.

 

[parocks]

But he wasn't a conservative (I'm going by the paleo-con definition) in '76 or '80! Again, what did he actually DO?! I don't care what Paul thought of him in '76 or '80. According to your logic, Romney is a "conservative" because of what he says, even though his record in Massachusetts suggests otherwise. Oh and Rand Paul is campaigning for him so that must mean Romney is going to do what Rand said Romney would do if elected president.

No, according to my logic, Romney becomes a "conservative" if Ron Paul supports him. Ron Paul supported him. That makes him a conservative. Not what Reagan said. I can't remember if RR ran on raising the national drinking age to 21 through the witholding of federal highway funds in 68, 76, 80. But Reagan was good enough for Ron Paul, and that's good enough for me. And it should be good enough for you, because this is a Ron Paul fansite.

This isn't like a Rand Paul "support the nominee" endorsement. Ron Paul was a delegate for Reagan. He was one of a handful of elected officials who picked the Conservative Reagan in 1976 over the Liberal Ford.

I would hope that you wouldn't be 2nd guessing Ron Paul on the Ron Paul fansite.

 

[LibertyEagle]

If only.

Tell it to Ron. He is the one who would not allow it. Doug Wead was right there to help him and Dr. Paul refused it.

Rand has lost a TON of support. I feel that there is still good in him, that hes making nice with the establishment to secure a long term stay but I'm extremely disappointed.

I think Rand has been kicking ass. I am very pleased.

 

[LibertyEagle]

No, according to my logic, Romney becomes a "conservative" if Ron Paul supports him. Ron Paul supported him. That makes him a conservative. Not what Reagan said. I can't remember if RR ran on raising the national drinking age to 21 through the witholding of federal highway funds in 68, 76, 80. But Reagan was good enough for Ron Paul, and that's good enough for me. And it should be good enough for you, because this is a Ron Paul fansite.

This isn't like a Rand Paul "support the nominee" endorsement. Ron Paul was a delegate for Reagan. He was one of a handful of elected officials who picked the Conservative Reagan in 1976 over the Liberal Ford.

I would hope that you wouldn't be 2nd guessing Ron Paul on the Ron Paul fansite.

Seriously, what are you talking about? Ron Paul didn't make Reagan a conservative. Reagan was deemed a conservative because of the principles that he espoused. Too bad he didn't live up to them.

 

[sailingaway]

No, according to my logic, Romney becomes a "conservative" if Ron Paul supports him. Ron Paul supported him. That makes him a conservative. Not what Reagan said. I can't remember if RR ran on raising the national drinking age to 21 through the witholding of federal highway funds in 68, 76, 80. But Reagan was good enough for Ron Paul, and that's good enough for me. And it should be good enough for you, because this is a Ron Paul fansite.

This isn't like a Rand Paul "support the nominee" endorsement. Ron Paul was a delegate for Reagan. He was one of a handful of elected officials who picked the Conservative Reagan in 1976 over the Liberal Ford.

I would hope that you wouldn't be 2nd guessing Ron Paul on the Ron Paul fansite.

Ron was convinced he was conservative and worked his butt off. Why do you want to turn this into a Rand v Ron thing? Ron always believed that Reagan would be the right guy, so he fought for his principles.

 

[parocks]

Santorum won because the evangelicals finally coalesced behind him with the fake CNN poll surge. Before that he was in low single digits.

I don't disagree with this. The random free republic conservatives who never liked Romney and thought Ron Paul was a kook, needed a place to go. You're accurately describing how a large bloc of voters can jump on a bandwagon when every other bandwagon fell apart.

Santorums number is a big one, and Rand needs those votes.

 

[sailingaway]

I don't disagree with this. The random free republic conservatives who never Romney and thought Ron Paul was a kook, needed a place to go. You're accurately describing how a large bloc of voters can jump on a bandwagon when every other bandwagon fell apart.

Santorums number is a big one, and Rand needs those votes.

The reason the evangelicals did not fall behind Ron, who is Lutheran/Baptist instead of a Catholic is because he wouldn't agree to a Constitutional Amendment to prevent gay marriage. Is it your view that Rand would give them that? Because they were very specific in the pledges they wanted signed.

 

[parocks]

Ron was convinced he was conservative and worked his butt off. Why do you want to turn this into a Rand v Ron thing? Ron always believed that Reagan would be the right guy, so he fought for his principles.

I'm not making this Rand vs Ron. I'm just pointing out that Ron Paul's endorsement in 1976 wasn't some sort of "automatic" endorsement like "I'll support the nominee". Ron Paul was in the minority in supporting Reagan in 1976.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Rand is doing that by explaining the message to them in terms they can understand. Without sacrificing principle. That is what he did at the Values Voters conference.

 

[LibertyEagle]

The reason the evangelicals did not fall behind Ron, who is Lutheran/Baptist instead of a Catholic is because he wouldn't agree to a Constitutional Amendment to prevent gay marriage. Is it your view that Rand would give them that? Because they were very specific in the pledges they wanted signed.

They have to be convinced that this isn't in their best interest.