Jesse Benton resigns as Mitch McConnell's campaign manager

[cajuncocoa]

As the Ron Paul Inc. scandal unfolds for all to see, the question must be asked, how did all this come to pass?

I remain in the camp, until shown otherwise by cold hard facts, that Ron Paul very likely knew nothing about the lunatic shenanigans of Ron Paul Inc. But is there any culpability on Dr. Paul's part?

As an outsider, it always looked to me that RP was more interested in getting the liberty message out than political machinations. And there were certain steps he took which could be viewed as attempting to keep the political operation from getting out of control.

More: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...did-wrong.html

[phill4paul]

From here on out: $#@! people who 'know how to run a campaign.' $#@! Jesse Benton. We don't need spineless 'professionals' when we have do-or-die dedicated amateurs.

<insert applause gif> +rep.

[Natural Citizen]

We don't need spineless 'professionals' when we have do-or-die dedicated amateurs.

There you go. That's the one.

[New York For Paul]

The FEC always goes after the campaign treasurer. So if there is a problem, that is the fall guy or fall gal. Being treasurer is a very prestigious position fraught with much peril. I hope things go well for her.

[klamath]

And always that great looming elephant in the room, who were we trying to get elected? It is F this person F that person yet people drop their heads and look away who that person was. They pat themselves on the back on how they could spot the crooks long ago and how they were so courageous for taking the hits for pointing out all the crooks appointed to run the campaign. So people need to ask themselves this question since the campaign staff put together by "that" person can bring frothing rage, what would an administration run by people "that" person appointed, bring? AG Jesse Benton anyone? Press secretary Collin's, anyone? An administration of egotistical, self enriching, pocket lining crooks that the person in the oval office forever has no clue what they are doing because he is so far out in la la land of a libertarian dream world.
God forbid what if the grassroots were successful!

[amy31416]

And apparently, it's OUR responsibility to win it. THE SUPPORTERS. The ones that gave Ron Paul 2008 nearly $20 million, and Ron Paul 2012 about $40 million.
All she does is repeatedly belittle, lie, curse at, name-call, and make false claims against supporters and their posts that are critical of what is/was a lying, corrupt, dishonest, garbage of a campaign in 2012.

She has lied about me three times in this very thread, and lied about what an article said. Bryan and corrupt, lying, moderators have allowed her and Matt Collins to stay around for years with THIS EXACT BEHAVIOR.

The guidelines are a waste. She is stupid (dumb on purpose), and a repeat liar. Both facts, proven in this very thread. She is no more concerned with truth, than the Devil IMO.

Listen, just for a moment. LE and Collins are not in the same category. Collins would likely sell out in a second for $2, LE would not. She's been here since the beginning, and we've had our differences, but I don't doubt her sincerity for a moment when it comes to this cause. Is her traditional way better than a non-traditional way? I don't know, but please, she's definitely on our/your side.

We can all get rather grouchy over politics, it's maddening, but we should try to keep things civil and take the high ground.

P.S. I haven't always taken the "high ground," and I do regret that.

[LibertyEagle]

So, basically, I say:

From here on out: $#@! people who 'know how to run a campaign.' $#@! Jesse Benton. We don't need spineless 'professionals' when we have do-or-die dedicated amateurs.

Well, that would be dandy if there were enough of us. But, there aren't. Not even close. You can't just circle the wagons, you know. So yeah, you have to understand the mechanics; Robert's Rules of Order, getting involved and elected in your local party, etc. That's not selling out. It's making sure you have the tools to win. Again, no one is suggesting that you or anyone else sell out.

[klamath]

Listen, just for a moment. LE and Collins are not in the same category. Collins would likely sell out in a second for $2, LE would not. She's been here since the beginning, and we've had our differences, but I don't doubt her sincerity for a moment when it comes to this cause. Is her traditional way better than a non-traditional way? I don't know, but please, she's definitely on our/your side.

We can all get rather grouchy over politics, it's maddening, but we should try to keep things civil and take the high ground.

P.S. I haven't always taken the "high ground," and I do regret that.

LE is about as loyal as a person can get. She put her loyalty behind Ron Paul and I believe she would die defending him. She is the kind of friend a person would most certainly love to have when their back is against the wall.

[amy31416]

LE is about as loyal as a person can get. She put her loyalty behind Ron Paul and I believe she would die defending him. She is the kind of friend a person would most certainly love to have when their back is against the wall.

No doubt. There is and upside and downside to that, but I am happy to call her my e-friend. I can't imagine someone putting her into another category with the likes of "he whose name should not be spoken", I would be offended.

[Anti Federalist]

And always that great looming elephant in the room, who were we trying to get elected? It is F this person F that person yet people drop their heads and look away who that person was. They pat themselves on the back on how they could spot the crooks long ago and how they were so courageous for taking the hits for pointing out all the crooks appointed to run the campaign. So people need to ask themselves this question since the campaign staff put together by "that" person can bring frothing rage, what would an administration run by people "that" person appointed, bring? AG Jesse Benton anyone? Press secretary Collin's, anyone? An administration of egotistical, self enriching, pocket lining crooks that the person in the oval office forever has no clue what they are doing because he is so far out in la la land of a libertarian dream world.
God forbid what if the grassroots were successful!

I addressed this previously...

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.

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.

Ron would need a "hard man" at his right hand, to prevent these things from happening.

[amy31416]

I addressed this previously...



Ron would need a "hard man" at his right hand, to prevent these things from happening.

You're right. I've been griping about his terrible ability to put together a good team for years, and I'd just add that he needs a "hard, ethical man" at his right hand. Someone who knows when the line has been crossed and won't drag him into it, like some of these jokers have done.

[jjdoyle]

So people need to ask themselves this question since the campaign staff put together by "that" person can bring frothing rage, what would an administration run by people "that" person appointed, bring?

I've already said I never expected Ron to be a very successful President. The only thing I did expect was that he might set a world record for the number of vetoes signed. My expectations were pretty low.

[klamath]

You're right. I've been griping about his terrible ability to put together a good team for years, and I'd just add that he needs a "hard, ethical man" at his right hand. Someone who knows when the line has been crossed and won't drag him into it, like some of these jokers have done.

Unfortunately Ron has NEVER picked a good team. He keeps dragging the same losers with him over and over. As president you can be the greatest philosophic person in the world but if you cannot pick a staff with integrity you could very well be the worst president ever. A man run over by his own staff trying to serve their own interests doesn't bode well for his agenda.

[Anti Federalist]

Unfortunately Ron has NEVER picked a good team. He keeps dragging the same losers with him over and over. As president you can be the greatest philosophic person in the world but if you cannot pick a staff with integrity you could very well be the worst president ever. A man run over by his own staff trying to serve their own interests doesn't bode well for his agenda.

Well, we're not going to have to worry about it now.

[jjdoyle]

No doubt. There is and upside and downside to that, but I am happy to call her my e-friend. I can't imagine someone putting her into another category with the likes of "he whose name should not be spoken", I would be offended.

It's because both her and Matt Collins have repeatedly defended a lying, corrupt, dishonest campaign. And given out multiple negative reps, for people stating that very thing and providing evidence that counters what they think they know.

For example, last year when I made a post stating the campaign ended with more than a million cash-on-hand, she told me I was wrong and the campaign had ended with virtually no cash-on-hand. I then went and found, and provided a link to the FEC report showing the campaign still had more than a million cash-on-hand, and she negative repped me for it.

There are only a few that I know repeatedly defend the lying campaign, while repeatedly blaming supporters. LibertyEagle and Matt Collins are two of those RPF members.

[Peace&Freedom]

You know, you're starting to sound a lot like the Collinz. Please keep in mind that it doesn't do a darn bit of good if you 'know how to win an election' and won't see things through to the end.

I've never supported the truther antics, but I'll readily take 1 truther who would go down fighting to the bitter end, than 1,000,000 people who 'know how to win', yet get within a stone's throw of the finish line and quit trying. How exactly is the latter supposedly any more desirable than the former?

If there was any benefit to 2012, it was that we learned about the convention process. But that's pretty moot now, with all the rules changes the GOP enacted to essentially prevent newcomers from having any shot at becoming future delegates.

The campaign had its shortfalls, the grassroots its internal divisions, but they were the minor key reason why Paul didn't win. The major reason was always the establishment media and Republican leadership, greasing the skids and putting their thumb on the scale, start to finish, to ensure the elite anointed milquetoast moderate won the nomination, while we got marginalized and victimized by blackout coverage, election fraud and dirty tricks, so as to never be in a position to win.

Note how quickly all that "convention delegate" tactical knowledge has become moot, since the leadership simply pulled an etch-a-sketch and changed those rules. Meaning in hindsight, there was no benefit to learning those rules in 2012, since those rules are now dust, and we now know the campaign wasn't trying to win by that strategy anyway.

And good grief, can we cut it with scapegoating "truther antics" when that had nothing to do with the losses, yet it gets blamed for the 2008 and 2012 outcomes? The anti-truth squeaky wheel side got their way, and separated Paul from the issue in 2008---result, Paul didn't win a single primary, followed by the anti-truth folks blaming 9-11 truth for Paul's defeat anyway. The anti-truth side got their way again, and separated Paul from the issue in 2012---result, Paul didn't win a single primary, followed by the anti-truth folks blaming 9-11 truth for Paul's defeat anyway. We tried it their way, twice, so it appears it is the anti-truth side that needs to be held accountable for 'not knowing how to win,' not the truthers.

[LibertyEagle]

And good grief, can we cut it with scapegoating "truther antics" when that had nothing to do with the losses, yet it gets blamed for the 2008 and 2012 outcomes? The anti-truth squeaky wheel side got their way, and separated Paul from the issue in 2008---result, Paul didn't win a single primary, followed by the anti-truth folks blaming 9-11 truth for Paul's defeat anyway. The anti-truth side got their way again, and separated Paul from the issue in 2012---result, Paul didn't win a single primary, followed by the anti-truth folks blaming 9-11 truth for Paul's defeat anyway. We tried it their way, twice, so it appears it is the anti-truth side that needs to be held accountable for 'not knowing how to win,' not the truthers.

The problem with what you are suggesting is that Ron Paul clearly stated that he did not agree with those who believed the government was involved in the attacks. Or, are you suggesting that just by virtue of you being his supporter, that you have the right to piggyback on his campaign to promote your own agenda? Surely not.

[LibertyEagle]

It's because both her and Matt Collins have repeatedly defended a lying, corrupt, dishonest campaign. And given out multiple negative reps, for people stating that very thing and providing evidence that counters what they think they know.

I wouldn't be talking, jj. You have given out quite a few neg reps your own self.

For example, last year when I made a post stating the campaign ended with more than a million cash-on-hand, she told me I was wrong and the campaign had ended with virtually no cash-on-hand. I then went and found, and provided a link to the FEC report showing the campaign still had more than a million cash-on-hand, and she negative repped me for it.

We have been over this a million times already, yet you bring it back up over and over again. As I told you many times before, after you proved your point with facts, rather than the usual innuendo, I ceded the point. I also told you that it was someone high up in the campaign that I have known for awhile who told me, when I asked, that they were still paying bills and were going to have nothing left. Again, when you provided proof, I wasn't happy at all for being misled and told the person that. I don't think it was intentional, because people handle different aspects of the campaign. But, maybe I am being naive on that. Time will tell. But, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, when they have been absolutely straight up with me in the past.

There are only a few that I know repeatedly defend the lying campaign, w

You group everyone together into one big lump. There were in fact decent, hard-working people in the campaign. I'm sure some were not.

While repeatedly blaming supporters. LibertyEagle and Matt Collins are two of those RPF members.

Only collectivists see everyone as being the same. Actually, both the movement and RP's campaign are made up of individuals. Each one is responsible for their own actions.

Some "supporters" were harmful to Ron Paul's chances of getting elected. Some were quite wonderful. Others were probably benign.

Logical, really.

[orenbus]

[bolil]

NOBP. My affections, and loyalties, have always been towards the man, not the organization so I do not feel betrayed. Then again I am supremely naive and can't understand why campaigns are even necessary. I mean, the best choice should be pretty $#@!ing clear.

[orenbus]

[jjdoyle]

I wouldn't be talking, jj. You have given out quite a few neg reps your own self.

I don't believe I have ever negative repped someone that provided a link, video, or email quotes to show me something I was falsely, repeatedly, claiming. You did just that.
And I also usually explain my negative reps, something you don't do, other than usually just cursing in them in a rage.

We have been over this a million times already, yet you bring it back up over and over again. As I told you many times before, after you proved your point with facts, rather than the usual innuendo, I ceded the point. I also told you that it was someone high up in the campaign that I have known for awhile who told me, when I asked, that they were still paying bills and were going to have nothing left. Again, when you provided proof, I wasn't happy at all for being misled and told the person that. I don't think it was intentional, because people handle different aspects of the campaign. But, maybe I am being naive on that. Time will tell. But, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, when they have been absolutely straight up with me in the past.

Can you name that person that told you that information? I know Doug Wead was also apparently misinformed about the funds at the RNC, but that was what he had heard from the other staffers and before the FEC report at the end of the campaign.

You group everyone together into one big lump. There were in fact decent, hard-working people in the campaign. I'm sure some were not.

This is a lie. I am very specific with my points and criticisms, and I don't blame the volunteers and staffers that probably worked for short amounts of time with no knowledge of the campaign's dishonesty. It's the ones listed in the FEC investigation complaint, and Jack Hunter for using RonPaul2012.com to try and defend a horrid endorsement of Mitt Romney, and ones that want to repeatedly tell supporters we are simply stupid, slow, don't understand politics, and the campaign wasn't lying to us.

I even place some blame on Ron, yes, Dr. Paul. Why? It was his campaign, under his name. Dennis Fusaro sent Dr. Paul the information last year about the current issue, and apparently never received a response. Dr. Paul's campaign still had over $800K on hand last month, and while it was turning down a few supporter refund requests, it was also lying to supporters about how much cash-on-hand they had when it ended. At some point, Dr. Paul needs to SPEAK UP about the ENTIRE situation. I'm guessing right now, he can't, because of the investigation. But, I'm not holding my breath for an explanation later either, because of how the campaign ended.

Only collectivists see everyone as being the same. Actually, both the movement and RP's campaign are made up of individuals. Each one is responsible for their own actions.

Some "supporters" were harmful to Ron Paul's chances of getting elected. Some were quite wonderful. Others were probably benign.

Logical, really.

Yeah, well you are the one that continuously lumps us together. For example you said just yesterday you said I was apparently blind and:

"(Mod edit). But, that's not the point. Most Paul supporters in '08 didn't know the first thing about how to win campaigns. It's not enough to want someone to win, you have to know the steps necessary to help them win. And no, going to rallies and waving signs aren't enough."

After I had said:

I don't know any local Ron Paul supporters that were passing out 9/11 truth material at events, and one even rented a booth at our state fair that I helped bring Ron Paul DVDs to pass out to people. For FREE. I agree 100% with tailoring your message to your audience. Some of us during both the 2008 and 2012 campaigns were saying a speech coach should be brought in to help in some areas for that very reason.

Again, it's not the supporters jobs to win the election. Ron Paul supporters went above and beyond when called, and even when not. The supporters gave Ron Paul 2012 the 2nd most amount of cash, behind only Mitt Romney. When Ron Paul 2012 agreed to not attack Mitt Romney in February 2012, they should have closed shop.

[Peace&Freedom]

The problem with what you are suggesting is that Ron Paul clearly stated that he did not agree with those who believed the government was involved in the attacks. Or, are you suggesting that just by virtue of you being his supporter, that you have the right to piggyback on his campaign to promote your own agenda? Surely not.

Paul has clearly supported an independent investigation to settle the matter as to government involvement, and merely "hadn't studied the issue" enough to conclude the government was involved. That's a position that is clearly open to 9-11 truth, instead of hostile to being associated with it, which is how you keep spinning it. What I am suggesting is you have it completely backwards. Certain Paul supporters here despise or hate 9-11 truth, and have been using the 'protect the Paul campaign' canard to marginalize the subject, and to project their hostility to the subject onto the whole liberty movement. THEY'RE the ones who have used Paul as a vehicle for projecting their views onto him, not the truth side.

[LibertyEagle]

I don't believe I have ever negative repped someone that provided a link, video, or email quotes to show me something I was falsely, repeatedly, claiming. You did just that.
And I also usually explain my negative reps, something you don't do, other than usually just cursing in them in a rage.

Actually, I usually just am laughing at you.

Can you name that person that told you that information? I know Doug Wead was also apparently misinformed about the funds at the RNC, but that was what he had heard from the other staffers and before the FEC report at the end of the campaign.

Sure I can. But, I won't.

This is a lie.

No, it's quite true. You show it every time you use a broad brush to paint RP's entire campaign as ...

a lying, corrupt, dishonest campaign

I am very specific with my points and criticisms, and I don't blame the volunteers and staffers that probably worked for short amounts of time with no knowledge of the campaign's dishonesty.

No, you're not specific, or you wouldn't need to be saying this. Because what you usually do is paint with a broad brush and insult anyone and everyone.

a lying, corrupt, dishonest campaign

It's the ones listed in the FEC investigation complaint, and Jack Hunter for using RonPaul2012.com to try and defend a horrid endorsement of Mitt Romney

I understood why Hunter did that. It made perfect sense to me why he did. He was trying to calm down those more vociferous folks who were having a meltdown.

and ones that want to repeatedly tell supporters we are simply stupid, slow, don't understand politics,

There you go again with your collectivism. All supporters aren't anything. Each person is an individual with their own thoughts and actions.

and the campaign wasn't lying to us.

Oh, I think someone wasn't straight up with us on a variety of things. Some of those are understandable, given that no one in their right mind is going to blather out their strategy in a public venue. Others are not so understandable and I too take issue with them.

In the end, the buck has to stop with Ron Paul.

I even place some blame on Ron, yes, Dr. Paul. Why? It was his campaign, under his name. Dennis Fusaro sent Dr. Paul the information last year about the current issue, and apparently never received a response.

How did he send it? Any proof that Dr. Paul even received it?

Dr. Paul's campaign still had over $800K on hand last month, and while it was turning down a few supporter refund requests,

They're not going to give refunds. When you donate money, it no longer belongs to you.

Hey, I'd like to get some of my money back. But, that's just the facts of the matter.

it was also lying to supporters about how much cash-on-hand they had when it ended. At some point, Dr. Paul needs to SPEAK UP about the ENTIRE situation. I'm guessing right now, he can't, because of the investigation. But, I'm not holding my breath for an explanation later either, because of how the campaign ended.

Why should he? You've already judged everyone and have the hangman's noose ready.

Yeah, well you are the one that continuously lumps us together. For example you said just yesterday you said I was apparently blind and:

I most certainly don't lump you in with a single soul on these forums.

Again, it's not the supporters jobs to win the election.

Actually, it is. That is if you want the person you are supporting, to win. But, instead of working against the campaign, it's usually helpful to HELP THEM do the things that they have asked you to do. You know, like phone-banking, etc. If you don't trust the candidate's campaign staff that he hired to direct his campaign, then you probably shouldn't be supporting the candidate. Why would you?

Ron Paul supporters went above and beyond when called, and even when not. The supporters gave Ron Paul 2012 the 2nd most amount of cash, behind only Mitt Romney.

Absolutely. And some even worked very hard sending out pamphlets about RP with coffins on the front. As I recall, there was a lot of scrambling not to lose some of the ex-military in Iowa who had so famously supported Dr. Paul. I'm sure the pamphlets were well-intentioned, however. But, likely not too beneficial in getting Paul elected.

When Ron Paul 2012 agreed to not attack Mitt Romney in February 2012, they should have closed shop.

That's your opinion. Others cried in their Post Toasties when he did close shop. Even after he did, some were counting on that colorful attorney to revive it from the dead. If it hadn't been so sad, it would have been rather humorous. Maybe they should have gotten a blimp. Where's Trevor when ya need him?

[NewRightLibertarian]

Dr.Woods chimes in. Here are his tweets:

"In retrospect, it's a good thing I was purged by these people. They destroy everything they touch"

"@libertyisdead1 McConnell so clueless, thinks he's reaching out to the Tea Party by hiring most loathed operator of all. #DeservesIt"

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...oping-ron.html


Every true libertarian deserves to take a victory lap or two after this one.

[LibertyEagle]

Paul has clearly supported an independent investigation to settle the matter as to government involvement, and merely "hadn't studied the issue" enough to conclude the government was involved. That's a position that is clearly open to 9-11 truth, instead of hostile to being associated with it, which is how you keep spinning it. What I am suggesting is you have it completely backwards. Certain Paul supporters here despise or hate 9-11 truth, and have been using the 'protect the Paul campaign' canard to marginalize the subject, and to project their hostility to the subject onto the whole liberty movement. THEY'RE the ones who have used Paul as a vehicle for projecting their views onto him, not the truth side.

[LibertyEagle]

Dr.Woods chimes in. Here are his tweets:

There are a number of people who have profited greatly from Ron's campaigns and Woods is right in there with them.

[NewRightLibertarian]

There are a number of people who have profited greatly from Ron's campaigns and Woods is right in there with them.

But Woods isn't going down in a ball of flames on corruption charges. That's the key difference.

[Lord Xar]

Sounds like some in this thread are already setting in motion the idea that supporting Rand will lead down the same path..... Such feigned angst, such emotion.... Relax a little, you are letting your agenda spill out too much, too soon. When it is time for this site to get behind a candidate, your intent will avail you not.

[jjdoyle]

Actually, I usually just am laughing at you.

Actually no, you're not:


That's about your typical negative rep, with cursing. I tried to find one without it actually spelling out a curse word. I would guess others can provide more examples like that one as well.

Sure I can. But, I won't.

Well, make sure that person that was spreading false information, isn't near Rand in 2016 if you can.

No, it's quite true. You show it every time you use a broad brush to paint RP's entire campaign as ...

No, you're not specific, or you wouldn't need to be saying this. Because what you usually do is paint with a broad brush and insult anyone and everyone.

Nope. I have talked about specific issues with the campaign. You know that, and have negative repped me on my posts containing specific complaints against the campaign. I can copy/paste my old posts with some of those specifics, that you negative repped me for if you would like? Like Ron Paul 2012 ignoring Rick Santorum in Iowa, and not attacking him until after it in South Carolina. Like Ron Paul 2012 agreeing to not attack Mitt Romney, and helping him win the nomination smoothly instead. Lying to supporters for months after agreeing to not attack Mitt Romney. Not telling supporters that information. I wouldn't expect everybody in the campaign to know these things. So it doesn't apply to them, when I say "Ron Paul 2012" or "the campaign". I have also stated that nobody at the top of Ron Paul 2012 should be near Rand in 2016. I can find you those posts as well, not that you would care.

I understood why Hunter did that. It made perfect sense to me why he did. He was trying to calm down those more vociferous folks who were having a meltdown.

Not the supporters fault the campaign had been lying to them for months about a false strategy, and some saw it end with Rand's national TV endorsement of Mitt Romney and then Jack Hunter tried to defend an endorsement of Mitt Romney on RonPaul2012.com. The same site many had made donations to the campaign through.

There you go again with your collectivism. All supporters aren't anything. Each person is an individual with their own thoughts and actions.

Then stop placing blame on individual supporters that are simply seeking truth, and giving the campaign repeated passes, and instead blaming supporters for the campaign's repeated mistakes. Even now.

Oh, I think someone wasn't straight up with us on a variety of things. Some of those are understandable, given that no one in their right mind is going to blather out their strategy in a public venue. Others are not so understandable and I too take issue with them.

The campaign was lying to supporters in emails about the fake delegate strategy. John Tate, Rand Paul, and Ron Paul sent emails pushing that idea to supporters. Jesse Benton was mentioned by Doug Wead in an interview about it.

In the end, the buck has to stop with Ron Paul.

I agree, and I hope he speaks about it. But I don't think he can/will right now with the investigation ongoing.

How did he send it? Any proof that Dr. Paul even received it?

Why don't you ask Dennis Fusaro. I am not him. But it is already apparent from your posts over the last year, you don't like him. "Snake in the grass." and worse, is how you have repeatedly described him.

They're not going to give refunds. When you donate money, it no longer belongs to you.

They can 100% give refunds. I know for a fact one past presidential campaign did that very thing. It's not like every single donor was asking Ron Paul 2012 for a refund. But when a few did, they were not only denied a refund, but they were lied to. One fellow RPF member provided their email correspondence with the campaign they had received upon asking for a refund a few months back.

Why should he? You've already judged everyone and have the hangman's noose ready.

Why? Because his campaign is still sitting on several hundred thousand dollars, and it could help clear the air for Rand into 2016.

I most certainly don't lump you in with a single soul on these forums.

GOOD. I certainly wouldn't want to be lumped with the likes of Matt Collins or yourself.

Absolutely. And some even worked very hard sending out pamphlets about RP with coffins on the front. As I recall, there was a lot of scrambling not to lose some of the ex-military in Iowa who had so famously supported Dr. Paul. I'm sure the pamphlets were well-intentioned, however. But, likely not too beneficial in getting Paul elected.

The Super Brochure? Technicalities I know, but was the coffin on the front, or the inside (I did a google search, and it looked like the inside, was there another)? Either way, that was a grassroots deal, and I don't trust your recollection. Sorry. You have proven repeatedly the last 2 days you don't even read articles linked when posted. So, I'm not sure without a link from you, if there is proof the brochure did/didn't help Ron Paul.

That's your opinion. Others cried in their Post Toasties when he did close shop. Even after he did, some were counting on that colorful attorney to revive it from the dead. If it hadn't been so sad, it would have been rather humorous. Maybe they should have gotten a blimp. Where's Trevor when ya need him?

The reason some of those might have cried, is because they had been repeatedly lied to for months in fundraising emails from the campaign. Not their fault they were lied to for months. The campaign could have handled it much better than it did. So you having issues with some supporters being upset with the way it ended, isn't their fault. That is on the campaign.

And the blimp? You have a problem with the blimp?! I would take the blimp, over Rick Santorum Sasquatch attack ads that were apparently designed for nothing more than to help Mitt Romney win the nomination.