Tom Woods: My Memories of Jesse Benton

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

We're talking about Ron Paul's opinion of Reagan at 3 different times.

My original list didn't have Reagan 1984 on it.

Ron Paul opinion of Reagan in 3 different years.

1976 - Reagan is Conservative
1980 - Reagan is Conservative
1988 - Reagan is NOT Conservative

Facts caused Ron Paul to change his opinion.

But Ron Paul's opinion of Reagan in 1976 is clear, and in 1980, it's clear.
 
Ron was supporting a bunch of Reagan's programs the 'other guy' would never have run, like the gold commission etc. Ron seems to have grown increasingly disenchanted, but it was Bush Sr who was the bridge too far.
 
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.

seems like a reasonable analysis to me.
 
We're talking about Ron Paul's opinion of Reagan at 3 different times.

My original list didn't have Reagan 1984 on it.

Ron Paul opinion of Reagan in 3 different years.

1976 - Reagan is Conservative
1980 - Reagan is Conservative
1988 - Reagan is NOT Conservative

Facts caused Ron Paul to change his opinion.

But Ron Paul's opinion of Reagan in 1976 is clear, and in 1980, it's clear.

What people are responding to is your insistence on calling Reagan a conservative all those years. In hindsight, I don't know that he was. He talked so good, it made us want to believe that he was. It was hard to let go of it. Really hard. We wanted so badly for someone to actually mean what he was espousing.
 
What people are responding to is your insistence on calling Reagan a conservative all those years. In hindsight, I don't know that he was. He talked so good, it made us want to believe that he was. It was hard to let go of it. Really hard. We wanted so badly for someone to actually mean what he was espousing.

Oh, well, I wasn't trying to say that. I didn't put Reagan 1984 on my list of Conservatives, in my original list, and I left off for a reason. I'm not arguing that Reagan governed as a Conservative. I'm saying that in 68, he ran as a Conservative against Nixon and Romney, in 76 he ran as Conservative against Ford, and in 1980, he ran as a Conservative against Bush. But by 1984, it could definitely be argued that he was no longer a Conservative.

The point of this argument from my point of view is not to discuss whether Reagan's Presidency was Conservative, but just to point out that in the Republican Party, more often than not, a Conservative runs for President, within the greater context of the "home for Conservatives" argument.
 
What people are responding to is your insistence on calling Reagan a conservative all those years. In hindsight, I don't know that he was. He talked so good, it made us want to believe that he was. It was hard to let go of it. Really hard. We wanted so badly for someone to actually mean what he was espousing.

I should add that you're older than I am, and my memories of Reagan are fuzzy. I certainly didn't have an idea at that time what was, and was not a true conservative.
 
I think Ron Paul deserves some blame here. He did a poor job managing who his campaign manager would be. I think it's fair to say his managing skills are poor. I think I'm going to get a lot of criticism/ When it comes down to the newsletters and the campaign manager, he did an awful job.

I think Ron's strongest supporters will say his hands off, anti-central-management style goes too far when it comes to making sure organizations run under his own persona actually reflect that persona.

It is just that we want him even with that flaw, over all the 'excellent managers' who aren't Ron Paul.

I do think Ron, an honest man, is overwilling to trust.
 
Last edited:
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.

That's not the only reason. I don't even think it's the primary reason. The main reason is Ron didn't believe in mass murdering Muslim kids, something the evangelicals generally regard as a duty on par with tithing to the church.
 
That's not the only reason. I don't even think it's the primary reason. The main reason is Ron didn't believe in mass murdering Muslim kids, something the evangelicals generally regard as a duty on par with tithing to the church.

You could be right about some thinking his foreign policy was wrong, but the ones I'm thinking about ONLY seemed to care about gay marriage. It was the oddest thing.
 
There isn't any arguing facts there about whether Reagan was in fact Conservative.

Ron Paul supported him.

That makes him Conservative through the 1976 election, through the 1980 election. The candidate was Conservative.

This assessment is based entirely on Ron Pauls support of him in 1976 and 1980.

This is Ron Paul forums.

If this was Rick Santorum forums, we wouldn't be able to say that Reagan was Conservative because Ron Paul supported him. But this is Ron Paul forums, and because of that, we CAN say thatRon Paul's support MAKES Reagan Conservative.
I would argue that being conservative makes someone conservative. I would argue that one should base his assessment of reality off of the facts one has at hand.

This is why I asked CaptLou, and will now ask you, what did Reagan do that furthered what you see as conservative values?

CaptLou came up with nothing. Can you come up with anything? If Reagan never did anything conservative, then clearly he was not conservative. Nothing that I, nor you, nor Ron Paul, nor God Himself could say would change that. A is A. If Reagan did not act conservatively -- and I believe it's clear he didn't -- then he cannot be considered to be a conservative.

If you can refute me with facts, then I will be happy to hear it. If you're just going to pull out an isolated verse from the Ron Paul bible -- totally ignoring the rest of the bible and any context or verse which may contradict your interpretation, by the way -- to use as a proof-text to try to prove your point by saying "God said so" then you're not operating in the realm of rationality wherein it would be possible to communicate with you. So we'll just leave it there. The facts say one thing. Parock's God says another. Well and good.
 
wasn't the reason RP left the Repulican party was because of what Reagan did or did not do. Reagan grew the gov't amonst other things and RP didn't like that and prob felf betrayed by the party, so he left. That was my understanding.
 
wasn't the reason RP left the Repulican party was because of what Reagan did or did not do. Reagan grew the gov't amonst other things and RP didn't like that and prob felf betrayed by the party, so he left. That was my understanding.

This is the letter he wrote when he left team red the first time.

Congressman Paul’s Letter

As a lifelong Republican, it saddens me to have to write this letter. My parents believed in the Republican Party and its free enterprise philosophy, and that’s the way I was brought up. At age 21, in 1956, I cast my first vote for Ike and the entire Republican slate.

Because of frustration with the direction in which the country was going, I became a political activist and ran for the U.S. Congress in 1974. Even with Watergate, my loyalty, optimism, and hope for the future were tied to the Republican Party and its message of free enterprise, limited government, and balanced budgets.

Eventually I was elected to the U.S. Congress four times as a Republican. This permitted me a first-hand look at the interworkings of the U.S. Congress, seeing both the benefits and partisan frustrations that guide its shaky proceedings. I found that although representative government still exists, special interest control of the legislative process clearly presents a danger to our constitutional system of government.

In 1976 I was impressed with Ronald Reagan’s program and was one of the four members of Congress who endorsed his candidacy. In 1980, unlike other Republican office holders in Texas, I again supported our President in his efforts.

Since 1981, however, I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the Republican Party’s efforts to reduce the size of the federal government. Since then Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together? Tip O’Neill, although part of the problem, cannot alone be blamed.

Tax revenues are up 59 percent since 1980. Because of our economic growth? No. During Carter’s four years, we had growth of 37.2 percent; Reagan’s five years have given us 30.7 percent. The new revenues are due to four giant Republican tax increases since 1981.

All republicans rightly chastised Carter for his $38 billion deficit. But they ignore or even defend deficits of $220 billion, as government spending has grown 10.4 percent per year since Reagan took office, while the federal payroll has zoomed by a quarter of a million bureaucrats.

Despite the Supply-Sider-Keynesian claim that “deficits don’t matter,” the debt presents a grave threat to our country. Thanks to the President and Republican Party, we have lost the chance to reduce the deficit and the spending in a non-crisis fashion. Even worse, big government has been legitimized in a way the Democrats never could have accomplished. It was tragic to listen to Ronald Reagan on the 1986 campaign trail bragging about his high spending on farm subsidies, welfare, warfare, etc., in his futile effort to hold on to control of the Senate.

Instead of cutting some of the immeasurable waste in the Department of Defense, it has gotten worse, with the inevitable result that we are less secure today. Reagan’s foreign aid expenditures exceed Eisenhower’s, Kennedy’s, Johnson’s, Nixon’s, Ford’s, and Carter’s put together. Foreign intervention has exploded since 1980. Only an end to military welfare for foreign governments plus a curtailment of our unconstitutional commitments abroad will enable us really to defend ourselves and solve our financial problems.

Amidst the failure of the Gramm-Rudman gimmick, we hear the President and the Republican Party call for a balanced-budget amendment and a line-item veto. This is only a smokescreen. President Reagan, as governor of California, had a line-item veto and virtually never used it. As President he has failed to exercise his constitutional responsibility to veto spending. Instead, he has encouraged it.

Monetary policy has been disastrous as well. The five Reagan appointees to the Federal Reserve Board have advocated even faster monetary inflation than Chairman Volcker, and this is the fourth straight year of double-digit increases. The chickens have yet to come home to roost, but they will, and America will suffer from a Reaganomics that is nothing but warmed-over Keynesianism.

Candidate Reagan in 1980 correctly opposed draft registration. Yet when he had the chance to abolish it, he reneged, as he did on his pledge to abolish the Departments of Education and Energy, or to work against abortion.

Under the guise of attacking drug use and money laundering, the Republican Administration has systematically attacked personal and financial privacy. The effect has been to victimize innocent Americans who wish to conduct their private lives without government snooping. (Should people really be put on a suspected drug dealer list because they transfer $3,000 at one time?) Reagan’s urine testing of Americans without probable cause is a clear violation of our civil liberties, as are his proposals for extensive “lie detector” tests.

Under Reagan, the IRS has grown bigger, richer, more powerful, and more arrogant. In the words of the founders of our country, our government has “sent hither swarms” of tax gatherers “to harass our people and eat out their substance.” His officers jailed the innocent George Hansen, with the President refusing to pardon a great American whose only crime was to defend the Constitution. Reagan’s new tax “reform” gives even more power to the IRS. Far from making taxes fairer or simpler, it deceitfully raises more revenue for the government to waste.

Knowing this administration’s record, I wasn’t surprised by its Libyan disinformation campaign, Israeli-Iranian arms-for-hostages swap, or illegal funding of the Contras. All this has contributed to my disenchantment with the Republican Party, and helped me make up my mind.

I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that have given us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy.

After years of trying to work through the Republican Party both in and out of government, I have reluctantly concluded that my efforts must be carried on outside the Republican Party. Republicans know that the Democratic agenda is dangerous to our political and economic health. Yet, in the past six years Republicans have expanded its worst aspects and called them our own. The Republican Party has not reduced the size of government. It has become big government’s best friend.

If Ronald Reagan couldn’t or wouldn’t balance the budget, which Republican leader on the horizon can we possibly expect to do so? There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government. That is the message of the Reagan years.

I conclude that one must look to other avenues if a successful effort is ever to be achieved in reversing America’s direction.

I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card.
 
I would argue that being conservative makes someone conservative. I would argue that one should base his assessment of reality off of the facts one has at hand.

This is why I asked CaptLou, and will now ask you, what did Reagan do that furthered what you see as conservative values?

CaptLou came up with nothing. Can you come up with anything? If Reagan never did anything conservative, then clearly he was not conservative. Nothing that I, nor you, nor Ron Paul, nor God Himself could say would change that. A is A. If Reagan did not act conservatively -- and I believe it's clear he didn't -- then he cannot be considered to be a conservative.

If you can refute me with facts, then I will be happy to hear it. If you're just going to pull out an isolated verse from the Ron Paul bible -- totally ignoring the rest of the bible and any context or verse which may contradict your interpretation, by the way -- to use as a proof-text to try to prove your point by saying "God said so" then you're not operating in the realm of rationality wherein it would be possible to communicate with you. So we'll just leave it there. The facts say one thing. Parock's God says another. Well and good.

The argument is simply that Reagan ran as a conservative, and seen as a conservative in 68, 76, 80. We aren't talking about 84. We aren't talking about how he governed. We're talking about how he was seen. And he was supported by Ron Paul in 76 and 80. I'm not debating whether Reagan did conservative things as President.

I'm talking about the fact that the home for Conservatives has been the Republican Party for at least 72 years.
 
The argument is simply that Reagan ran as a conservative, and seen as a conservative in 68, 76, 80. We aren't talking about 84. We aren't talking about how he governed. We're talking about how he was seen. And he was supported by Ron Paul in 76 and 80. I'm not debating whether Reagan did conservative things as President.

I'm talking about the fact that the home for Conservatives has been the Republican Party for at least 72 years.

Most Republicans think Paul Ryan is conservative. Marco Rubio. Herman Cain.

You have to understand, there are people who are conservative and then there are people who are "conservative."

Most likely Dr. Paul made just a simple mistake in thinking Reagan was conservative rather than "conservative" (Reagan was an actor, don't forget)
 
Here's one issue I have with this. It's coming out NOW? Excellent way to look out for donors/supporters. I mean, you saw issues inside and didn't want to warn others to protecting RP, it's the same with the decision not to attack Romney and instead help him win the nomination.
 
Here's one issue I have with this. It's coming out NOW? Excellent way to look out for donors/supporters. I mean, you saw issues inside and didn't want to warn others to protecting RP, it's the same with the decision not to attack Romney and instead help him win the nomination.

What are you getting at specifically? You think Woods should have put out videos telling people not to donate to the campaign?
 
Back
Top