Jesse Benton: I didn't mean it, was only trying to appease "hardcore Ron Paul supporter"

[New York For Paul]

They weren't supporters, they were self-centered people who wanted to do their own thing and possibly damage Ron and the campaign......at worst. At best they were misguided but also unwilling to listen to reason and do what was asked.

Assuming they had the best intentions (I seriously question this given my observation of them) their "help" would not have mattered one single iota in the outcome of Iowa. In fact the honest truth is that the Campaign maxed out everything they could in Iowa, we gave it all we had, and more volunteers or money wouldn't have made a difference. The media lost Iowa for us, not the Campaign, not the supporters, not the money. External factors beyond our control.

The stupid self centered people are the arrogant staffers who are too stupid to realize they are hurting the campaign and the movement. Here is the type of professional help the professional Paul people provide to move the liberty cause "forward" or maybe "backward".http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczyn...ter-plagiarism

[Matt Collins]

Here is the type of professional help the professional Paul people provide to move the liberty cause "forward" or maybe "backward".http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczyn...ter-plagiarism

See this:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division

[jtstellar]

Now it's clear why the usual suspects around here don't like him....he doesn't sound like a "go along to get along" kind of guy.

disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing hardly constitutes the ron paul brand of "not going along to get along".. he does plenty of things worthy of respect but doesn't ask for any, both private and public life. maybe some of you are just ticked off because you're doing 1% of a fraction of ron paul but wonder why you're not getting the same level of respect

[New York For Paul]

They weren't supporters, they were self-centered people who wanted to do their own thing and possibly damage Ron and the campaign......at worst. At best they were misguided but also unwilling to listen to reason and do what was asked.


Assuming they had the best intentions (I seriously question this given my observation of them) their "help" would not have mattered one single iota in the outcome of Iowa. In fact the honest truth is that the Campaign maxed out everything they could in Iowa, we gave it all we had, and more volunteers or money wouldn't have made a difference. The media lost Iowa for us, not the Campaign, not the supporters, not the money. External factors beyond our control.

See This: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

[Matt Collins]

See This: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

No, not at all, and that would be obvious to anyone who read my post.

[New York For Paul]

Sounds like an attack to me.

"They weren't supporters, they were self-centered people who wanted to do their own thing and possibly damage Ron and the campaign......at worst. At best they were misguided but also unwilling to listen to reason and do what was asked.


Assuming they had the best intentions (I seriously question this given my observation of them) their "help" would not have mattered one single iota in the outcome of Iowa. In fact the honest truth is that the Campaign maxed out everything they could in Iowa, we gave it all we had, and more volunteers or money wouldn't have made a difference. The media lost Iowa for us, not the Campaign, not the supporters, not the money. External factors beyond our control."

[Lucille]

What does Benton have on Wattle? It's not like he's some sort of campaign genius, and the guy has zero loyalty and is a duplicitous jerk. Any self-respecting employer would have fired him after the "hold my nose" crack.

[Anti Federalist]

From another thread:

Without trying to sound pretentious, I want to say I understand exactly how Ron gets himself into these positions, as I have found myself in them before as well, being a "leadership" position also.

Short version: It is VERY hard to be a "leader", to bark orders and make commands and demand that things happen just as you want, when your whole personality is opposed to authoritarianism and bossing people about.

[jjdoyle]

From another thread:

Curious though, what would you do if you found out someone under you was lying? And maybe even taking cash from the register for purposes not related to the purpose of your business?

[New York For Paul]

Being a leader is hard but you have to exercise some oversight. That 100 thousand dollar bribe could have paid for 100 field staff in Iowa for the last two weeks of the campaign.

[Anti Federalist]

...

No, it wasn't.

We were told that "official" lawn signs were "discouraged", that too many "make RP look bad"

So when it was asked, "well, how about homemade signs then?" they were disapproved as well.

I had a local activist, a man on these forums, show Mrs. AF a letter saying these things from the campaign.

It was never about "super brochures" or anything like that.

The "official campaign" blew it, big time, in NH.

They could have won NH, had they just picked up on the Northern Pass issue and run with it.

I am firmly convinced of this, and nothing will shake me of this.

I saw firsthand, after running my own ads, how effective this was.

[jjdoyle]

...

For those that don't know what you're talking about with the Northern Pass issue, and what you did:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=northern+pass

[Anti Federalist]

Curious though, what would you do if you found out someone under you was lying? And maybe even taking cash from the register for purposes not related to the purpose of your business?

In my business, it's called "getting run off" or just simply, "ran off".

A serious dereliction of duty such as that would result in an immediate "run off".

"Pack your $#@!, get on the dock, now."

I have to admit, I paid little mind to this whole scandal, other than being in a general state of "high piss off" at the "official" campaign and how it was being run.

But now, in light of recent events and discoveries, it appears that you, and Cajun and DebK and liberalnurse, among others, had Benton pegged.

Good work for sticking to it and absorbing all the blows and hate.

[Anti Federalist]

Elections are won by controlling the message and doing the following:

- identify every voter in the area (phone banking)
- determine who they are going to vote for (phone banking)
- try and persuade them to vote for your guy (phone banking / door-to-door)
- remind them to go and vote on caucus/election day (phone banking)


If you're doing something else than what's listed above, then you're being unproductive and in some cases causing harm.

And when you do all that, and the response is, "who?", then what?

Sit on the phone and lecture somebody on Austrian economics and police statism?

You assumed, as you have all along, that Ron's name and ideas were household words, which they are not and still are not.

THAT was the grassroots' battlefield: blimps and money bombs and rallies and sign waves and whatever other clever device we could come up with to bypass the government media organs and their censors and get the ideas of peace, liberty and prosperity to the people.

And we were told that was pointless and stupid and silly, to sit in the corner and shut up, let the "officials" handle it.

[cajuncocoa]

AF, I owe you a lot of reps in this thread.

[New York For Paul]

Even national radio talks shows are talking about how far Rand Paul has fallen in the last couple of years. He could still win, but there is a head wind against him with these scandals.

[New York For Paul]

It is a combination of both tactics. Voter ID is good but so are grassroots activities. Remember Mitt Romney copied Ron Paul's money bomb for his campaign. Golly Gee, Mitt was smart enough to copy Ron Paul fundraising tactics. Yet the Ron Paul campaign complained that money bombs were stupid and too difficult to count so much money all in one day. It disrupts the fundraising process. It is pretty funny to listen to some of these guys. I still get laughs about the official campaign comments.Mitt Romney call-a-thon haul: $10 million http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55083.html

[liberalnurse]

AF, I owe you a lot of reps in this thread.

Ditto

[Christian Liberty]

You know, I'm not a hardcore anti-voting type, but some of Collins comments are making me start to wish I was.

Campaigning for Rand Paul could be good for liberty, but I strongly believe exposing someone to the concepts of anarcho-capitalism/voluntarism or the idea of the NAP is more productive. Even if they don't agree it shifts the political center, which is in and of itself useful, IMO.

[mosquitobite]

THAT was the grassroots' battlefield: blimps and money bombs and rallies and sign waves and whatever other clever device we could come up with to bypass the government media organs and their censors and get the ideas of peace, liberty and prosperity to the people.

And we were told that was pointless and stupid and silly, to sit in the corner and shut up, let the "officials" handle it.

Exactly - and why 2008 was way more fun than 2012. The official campaign divided us. Which is just what statists want, right?

[Anti Federalist]

Exactly - and why 2008 was way more fun than 2012. The official campaign divided us. Which is just what statists want, right?

Bin-go

[Danke]

And when you do all that, and the response is, "who?", then what?

Sit on the phone and lecture somebody on Austrian economics and police statism?

You assumed, as you have all along, that Ron's name and ideas were household words, which they are not and still are not.

THAT was the grassroots' battlefield: blimps and money bombs and rallies and sign waves and whatever other clever device we could come up with to bypass the government media organs and their censors and get the ideas of peace, liberty and prosperity to the people.

And we were told that was pointless and stupid and silly, to sit in the corner and shut up, let the "officials" handle it.

You obviously don't have the same training The Collinz has vigorously been through.

[Anti Federalist]

You obviously don't have the same training The Collinz has vigorously been through.

[pcosmar]

You obviously don't have the same training The Collinz has vigorously been through.

Nope I didn't.
The non disclosure agreement you had to sign essentially muzzled any whistle blowers.

But after that came out,, the grass roots died out.. (Here in Michigan)

I said it before and stand by it,, The Michigan Campaign was deliberately sabotaged in 2008. I saw it happen.

It was nearly non existent in 2012. (no yard signs,, no Advertizing)

[sparebulb]

You obviously don't have the same training The Collinz has vigorously been through.

Special Hi-Intensity Training?

[Danke]

Nope I didn't.
The non disclosure agreement you had to sign essentially muzzled any whistle blowers.

[orenbus]

And when you do all that, and the response is, "who?", then what?

Sit on the phone and lecture somebody on Austrian economics and police statism?

You assumed, as you have all along, that Ron's name and ideas were household words, which they are not and still are not.

THAT was the grassroots' battlefield: blimps and money bombs and rallies and sign waves and whatever other clever device we could come up with to bypass the government media organs and their censors and get the ideas of peace, liberty and prosperity to the people.

And we were told that was pointless and stupid and silly, to sit in the corner and shut up, let the "officials" handle it.

+Rep

[A Son of Liberty]

You know, I'm not a hardcore anti-voting type, but some of Collins comments are making me start to wish I was.

Campaigning for Rand Paul could be good for liberty, but I strongly believe exposing someone to the concepts of anarcho-capitalism/voluntarism or the idea of the NAP is more productive. Even if they don't agree it shifts the political center, which is in and of itself useful, IMO.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/08/l...ere-winning-3/

The left understands this point. Recall Antonio Gramsci’s strategy for bringing about lasting leftist victory. He did not advocate immediate and exclusive emphasis on political activity. If the people’s minds had not been changed in the direction that a leftist government would want to take them, all their political conniving would be in vain anyway.

Vastly more important, Gramsci taught, was for their ideas to work their way through the universities, the arts, and all the other institutions of civil society. At that point, it wouldn’t matter who won the elections. The people would already be in their hands – and in all likelihood, the two competing candidates would themselves have adopted leftist language and ideas, whether they realized it or not, to boot.

Not too difficult, really. If libertarian ideas are not widely accepted, then all of the electoral efforts can and likely will be undone come the next election.

Much more than a libertarian officeholder, what the country needs is a shift to a more libertarian paradigm. Right now the social consciousness of the country is very much rooted in a hyper-statist perspective; sneaking a candidate past the gate isn't going to change that, and may well do damage to how we are perceived. That's why I was always very frank and honest about where Ron stood on the issues. No, he didn't win... but he sure as hell changed a LOT of minds. That is of far greater benefit than winning on a pile of lies.

Thanks to Ron Paul, a new generation understands it’s all right to favor the free market and to oppose war. Libertarians have done more than anyone else to expose the Democrats as just another wing of the war party, and to show there’s no real debate in America over foreign policy. This is considered extremely uncouth by those who wish to maintain the pretense that open discussion of important issues takes place in the land of the free.

After decades of virtually no progress at all against the war on drugs, the prohibitionist regime is beginning to crack all around us. The standard bromides in its favor elicit only cynical chuckles from a rising generation that knows better.

Ordinarily, federal bailouts would be bipartisan and all but unanimous, with self-described supporters of the market economy solemnly informing us that just this once, it had to be done. Progressives have not distinguished themselves here as they might have; Rachel Maddow once said we wouldn’t have had an economy without the bailouts. It’s the libertarians who have stood against the establishment tide, as usual.

In other words, we are having discussions that we did not have in the past. Libertarians have staked out positions that a lot of ordinary people share, but which they never saw articulated in public, thereby giving people the confidence and courage to express dissent.

Ten years ago, these dissident views would have been drowned out by the establishment consensus, which closes ranks whenever an issue of real importance arises.

None of this would have been possible if Ron Paul would have tried to moderate his views with an eye toward getting elected.

Thank you, Ron!

[Christian Liberty]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/08/l...ere-winning-3/



Not too difficult, really. If libertarian ideas are not widely accepted, then all of the electoral efforts can and likely will be undone come the next election.

Much more than a libertarian officeholder, what the country needs is a shift to a more libertarian paradigm. Right now the social consciousness of the country is very much rooted in a hyper-statist perspective; sneaking a candidate past the gate isn't going to change that, and may well do damage to how we are perceived. That's why I was always very frank and honest about where Ron stood on the issues. No, he didn't win... but he sure as hell changed a LOT of minds. That is of far greater benefit than winning on a pile of lies.



None of this would have been possible if Ron Paul would have tried to moderate his views with an eye toward getting elected.

Thank you, Ron!

I agree with all of this.

I do support Rand, but I'm also frank about where I think he's wrong, and I wish he would be more libertarian than he is.

At the end of the day I'll support the best candidate available so long as there is one good enough to actually support (in other words, someone who actually wants to move things in our direction, rather than the other direction). Or, at the least, I'll vote for such a candidate. But, my primary focus is education and debate.

[cajuncocoa]

@A Son of Liberty...good article, thanks for sharing it here.

Politicians vying for a victory will never lead. That's why we hear people on this site telling us that Rand has to moderate his libertarian language at times. Until the vast majority of people embrace liberty ideas, politicians are stuck pandering to a collective of voters uneducated about our cause. Thus, they must speak the language of the uneducated.

If Matt were here, I'm sure he would chime in to tell me those votes aren't even necessary. But if Matt was right about that, Rand would be free to sound exactly like his father.