Tom Woods: My Memories of Jesse Benton

[parocks]

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.

I have no idea what Rand would do regarding that. I'm saying that he needs those votes. Santorum won a lot of states. We won none. Santorums votes did not come entirely from people who required a pledge to sign an Amendment.

 

[sailingaway]

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.

But it was a sincere declaration in favor of someone he thought and hoped was sincerely conservative. He even refused to support Ford when Ford beat Reagan at RNC.

 

[sailingaway]

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.

So did Ron. When he isn't running against one of 'their own' it is very different than when he is head to head against someone preaching banning gay marriage.

 

[parocks]

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.

Right, in real life.

But on Ron Paul Forums, what Ron Paul opinion was settles any arguments. Ron Paul's clear opinion as to whether Reagan was a conservative in 1976 determines the answer, here.

Oh, so, LibertyEagle thinks one thing, and Sailingaway thinks another, and parocks thinks another. Oh, I guess we'll never know. Well, this is ronpaulforums, and Ron Paul himself makes it clear what HIS opinion is. So, there's no need for further arguing about this matter. And yes, technically, Ron Paul doesn't "make" Reagan Conservative. But Ron Paul made the offical ruling on whether or not Reagan was a Conservative in 1976, in 1980. But not in 1984. And Ron Paul's ruling on this is official, because this is ronpaulforums.com, a Ron Paul fan site.

 

[specsaregood]

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.

Doing that just shows that Rand has a deep understanding of the issues and has thought them through. But you dont' have to win elections by doing it that way. if he is gonna win it will be from his fiery commentary and showy exchanges. You know why people across the us like gov. christie? Because of his showman aspect, especially confronting political opposites/enemies. Rand's following that path some, its popular, its the dramalama that people like to see on their "news".

 

[parocks]

But it was a sincere declaration in favor of someone he thought and hoped was sincerely conservative. He even refused to support Ford when Ford beat Reagan at RNC.

Agree. This is sorta the point I was trying to make. Ron Paul doesn't make a lot of "automatic" endorsements.

 

[sailingaway]

I have no idea what Rand would do regarding that. I'm saying that he needs those votes. Santorum won a lot of states. We won none. Santorums votes did not come entirely from people who required a pledge to sign an Amendment.

Santorum had 2-5% on his own. Then the evangelicals coalesced and were considering ONLY Gingrich (HA!) Bachmann, Perry and Santorum because a group of opinion leaders got together and didn't want to split concensus over gay marriage. They wouldn't endorse Ron because of that. Once one of those annointed ones got a fake surge, he started to also look like the winner, bringing in the others who would have voted for any winning candidate over Romney. Media built then popped those surges -- except when it was Ron, then they just popped them and ran against it, when he started his surges twice, once before Iowa and once in February.

Santorum needed the initial banding of evangelicals to get the other fair weather voters behind him.

 

[sailingaway]

Agree. This is sorta the point I was trying to make. Ron Paul doesn't make a lot of "automatic" endorsements.

He didn't then. About 2007 his endorsements started being much more sought after and a bunch were turned over to staff. I remember one in CA being withdrawn when the grassroots candidate guy was found to have an iffy past. I am now, after seeing the hands off managment style of the campaign, wondering how many of the post 2007 endorsements we never saw Ron personally utter himself, just a written statement on, he really internally came up with for himself?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Doing that just shows that Rand has a deep understanding of the issues and has thought them through. But you dont' have to win elections by doing it that way. if he is gonna win it will be from his fiery commentary and showy exchanges. You know why people across the us like gov. christie? Because of his showman aspect, especially confronting political opposites/enemies. Rand's following that path some, its popular, its the dramalama that people like to see on their "news".

Yes, and he shows strength. Americans do not like wimpy-sounding Presidents.

 

[kathy88]

Right, in real life.

But on Ron Paul Forums, what Ron Paul opinion was settles any arguments. Ron Paul's clear opinion as to whether Reagan was a conservative in 1976 determines the answer, here.

Oh, so, LibertyEagle thinks one thing, and Sailingaway thinks another, and parocks thinks another. Oh, I guess we'll never know. Well, this is ronpaulforums, and Ron Paul himself makes it clear what HIS opinion is. So, there's no need for further arguing about this matter. And yes, technically, Ron Paul doesn't "make" Reagan Conservative. But Ron Paul made the offical ruling on whether or not Reagan was a Conservative in 1976, in 1980. But not in 1984. And Ron Paul's ruling on this is official, because this is ronpaulforums.com, a Ron Paul fan site.

Your disdain for the forums is palpable. If the fan club mentality (as you see it, not my opinion) is getting to you so much that you have to post your opinion about it every 45 seconds, perhaps another forum would be better suited to your tastes? Maybe a break is in order.

 

[parocks]

Santorum had 2-5% on his own. Then the evangelicals coalesced and were considering ONLY Gingrich (HA!) Bachmann, Perry and Santorum because a group of opinion leaders got together and didn't want to split concensus over gay marriage. They wouldn't endorse Ron because of that. Once one of those annointed ones got a fake surge, he started to also look like the winner, bringing in the others who would have voted for any winning candidate over Romney. Media built then popped those surges -- except when it was Ron, then they just popped them and ran against it, when he started his surges twice, once before Iowa and once in February.

Santorum needed the initial banding of evangelicals to get the other fair weather voters behind him.

Sounds about right. But "the others who would have..." is a bigger number than "evangelicals who need a pledge" Yes, the evangelicals, and the support of that specific evangelical, I can't remember his name, were key for Santorum, but we're probably talking about 7-10% in Iowa.

 

[LibertyEagle]

He didn't then. About 2007 his endorsements started being much more sought after and a bunch were turned over to staff. I remember one in CA being withdrawn when the grassroots candidate guy was found to have an iffy past. I am now, after seeing the hands off managment style of the campaign, wondering how many of the post 2007 endorsements we never saw Ron personally utter himself, just a written statement on, he really internally came up with for himself?

He makes his own endorsements. He also knew what was going on in his campaign much more than you care to admit.

 

[parocks]

Your disdain for the forums is palpable. If the fan club mentality (as you see it, not my opinion) is getting to you so much that you have to post your opinion about it every 45 seconds, perhaps another forum would be better suited to your tastes? Maybe a break is in order.

I'm responding to posts to me. I'm pointing out that people should be respecting Ron Pauls opinion here and should consider his opinion definitive here. That arguing against Ron Paul's opinion is not the way to go. I'm taking Ron Paul's side against others who disagree with him.

 

[sailingaway]

He makes his own endorsements. He also knew what was going on in his campaign much more than you care to admit.

quit attacking me. You are the only one on the attack, do you notice? People respond when they are attacked.

As a point of information, how do you know he chooses every single one of the endorsements? who proposes and argues for them?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Right, in real life.

But on Ron Paul Forums, what Ron Paul opinion was settles any arguments. Ron Paul's clear opinion as to whether Reagan was a conservative in 1976 determines the answer, here.

Oh, so, LibertyEagle thinks one thing, and Sailingaway thinks another, and parocks thinks another. Oh, I guess we'll never know. Well, this is ronpaulforums, and Ron Paul himself makes it clear what HIS opinion is. So, there's no need for further arguing about this matter. And yes, technically, Ron Paul doesn't "make" Reagan Conservative. But Ron Paul made the offical ruling on whether or not Reagan was a Conservative in 1976, in 1980. But not in 1984. And Ron Paul's ruling on this is official, because this is ronpaulforums.com, a Ron Paul fan site.

Parocks, I think maybe the way to think about it is, that Ron Paul, along with a lot of other conservatives THOUGHT Reagan was conservative. He certainly talked that way and some of the things he did were conservative. But, we should have known from the day he chose Bush as his running mate. Because he had promised us that he would not choose an Insider and then went ahead and did just that.

 

[parocks]

He didn't then. About 2007 his endorsements started being much more sought after and a bunch were turned over to staff. I remember one in CA being withdrawn when the grassroots candidate guy was found to have an iffy past. I am now, after seeing the hands off managment style of the campaign, wondering how many of the post 2007 endorsements we never saw Ron personally utter himself, just a written statement on, he really internally came up with for himself?

Well, ok. I'd say that I never thought that Ron Paul issued wrong endorsements, or ill considered endorsements.

 

[LibertyEagle]

quit attacking me. You are the only one on the attack, do you notice? People respond when they are attacked.

I'm not attacking you. You keep implying that Ron was totally hands off in his campaign and I am contesting that.

That said, I am rather surprised at your response, given that I did nothing that you don't do.

As a point of information, how do you know he chooses every single one of the endorsements? who proposes and argues for them?

Ron makes the decision. Everything else is superfluous.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'm responding to posts to me. I'm pointing out that people should be respecting Ron Pauls opinion here and should consider his opinion definitive here. That arguing against Ron Paul's opinion is not the way to go. I'm taking Ron Paul's side against others who disagree with him.

How are you? Ron Paul changed his mind. He gave Reagan the benefit of the doubt for as long as he could..

 

[parocks]

Parocks, I think maybe the way to think about it is, that Ron Paul, along with a lot of other conservatives THOUGHT Reagan was conservative. He certainly talked that way and some of the things he did were conservative. But, we should have known from the day he chose Bush as his running mate. Because he had promised us that he would not choose an Insider and then went ahead and did just that.

Sounds reasonable. Also there's that distinction between candidate and actual politician. I'm not trying to argue about Reagan's record as President at all. I'm really just defending my List of Conservative Presidential Candidates in the Republican Party.

 

[sailingaway]

Well, ok. I'd say that I never thought that Ron Paul issued wrong endorsements, or ill considered endorsements.

Parocks, he may have. I am noticing something about the time period of his 'bad' endorsements and his having a much bigger organization and specific staff. I don't know but am wondering if the 'mainstreaming' of Ron's message wasn't being pushed in endorsements by some of his staff as well. I don't know, but I do wonder. I do specifically remember the one in California where he endorsed a guy who was a grass roots candidate and had been a supporter during the primary and had been a judge, and it turned out he had historic ties that were not ones Ron would want to endorse, and he pulled the endorsement back. But then I heard they were moving to a procedure for staff to vett endorsements, and I don't remember the details. I am sure at some level he would have been asked, but if people had led others to expect them, I dunno. Wondering, since the bad endorsements never had TV or video clips, just an official announcement.