The whole “PR A-Bomb” threat seems a little strange to me. Isn’t it very likely that it was just a bluff? The RP campaign taking it seriously indicates one of two things: 1) there actually is something that could ruin the reputation of Dr. Paul, or 2) the Romney campaign was capable of producing negative campaign a la Richelieu.

The latter seems more likely.

That’s how Mitt Romney dealt with all of his opponents this primary season. He threw money at them until he was the only one left. It’s naive to think Romney wouldn’t have done the same to Paul. Even if it wasn’t an explicit warning from Romney to Paul, it was pretty clear that was Romney’s M.O.
The newsletters definitely derailed the campaign to a certain extent. If they were more highly publicized by adds from Romney, it’s likely Paul would have been embarassed.

1) His answer satisfied me.

2) I don’t know enough about Benton, but people who know him better make me wonder, and Wead isn’t exactly his champion here. Wead basically says, “Politics is a dirty business, and we need a few politicians to play hardball with the other politicians.” It’s like saying of a tyrant in some unholy, international alliance, “He’s a bastard, but he’s our bastard.” “Genius” can mean many things. I suppose a Machiavellian prince is a genius at something.

3 & 4) Did you take that personally? I’ve heard that Benton made over half a million from the campaign. What’s your tally?

For the record, I don’t regret a dime given to Revolution PAC, and I gave a few dimes. I don’t regret a dime paid for your books either. Thanks to my Kindle, you don’t get many dimes out of me that way anymore. LU will suck me in eventually though.

Like Wead said, it’s not about up vs. down. It’s about inside vs. outside. As far as I’m concerned, any bucks made on the outside jeering in are more honest than bucks made on the outside trying to get in. Ron Paul made me forget this attitude for a while … but only for a while.

5) So I guess we can expect a massive anti-Gary campaign if Johnson approaches double digits in the polls. Since Johnson is unlikely to win, should he just bow out now?

Also, I can tell you that Revolution PAC was extremely frugal. I did what I did for free, except I was paid $500 for one thing (absolute peanuts compared to what politicos get every month) and reimbursed for some books and shipping we did for a promotion. Just FYI.

1) I think Doug disagreed with Benton’s characterization of the P.A.U.L. fest people as “fringe.” He avoided using Benton’s name, and he skillfully guided his answer to focus on the RNC, but I think it was clear that he did not share Benton’s view.
2) The delegate strategy was Benton’s idea. That strategy was genius. Although it didn’t work as well as it could have, it was far superior to the results we would have had with a Santorum/Cain/Gingrich et al strategy of simply trying to winning the beauty contests. Of course, whatever points Benton gets for the delegate strategy, I think he loses for collusion with the Romney campaign, and conceding to the RNC’s request to combine forces with Romney. I will grant Benton’s one idea the title of genius, as for Benton himself, I have more suitable titles.
3 & 4) I think Doug was weighing in on the “Ends Justify the Means” vs “Extremism in Defense of Liberty is No Vice” OR “compromise” vs “consistency” OR “Ron method” vs “Rand method” debate within the liberty movement. I don’t think he was necessarily denigrating those who are selling books and making money, he said we need them too. I think he was saying we need people in both camps. He thinks we that just as we need writers and speakers to influence and educate citizens, we also need people who can influence and educate the crooks in politics. (until they inevitably become crooks themselves)
5) I don’t really care when the campaign decided not to attack Romney, I think it was a bad decision regardless. Paul’s consistency was his strength and Romney’s inconsistency was his weaknesses. What a perfect comparison to highlight! My suspicion is that if Paul effectively attacked Romney, the Romney camp would have focused on the newsletters. The newsletters were definitely Paul’s weakness, and Romney could have kept going back to that well as often as needed. Racism is such an emotional issue that even the most skilled politician would have immense trouble fighting public perception. Still, I think Paul should have gone after Romney hard from the beginning, and met the newsletter issue head-on, rather than blowing it off.

BTW, if anyone missed it, I thought Connor Friedersdorf had the best commentary on the newsletter issue. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/grappling-with-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250206/

Also, why would Romney “punch down” and launch an all-out attack on Ron, knowing that he’d lose millions of supporters in the long run?

I like Wead and his jolly laugh, but like Rand Paul, he has his career to consider and will articulately duck and weave if that means not being direct. You on the other hand take no prisoners. I like that about you but I gather it doesn’t help furnish your career.

I like your optimism but ideologically entrenched conservatives aren’t exactly rational people. When political persuasion coalesces with one’s identity, facts bounce off like bullets on superman. Think climate change advocacy and tortured statistics -same deal.

Johnson is already a target

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/28/libertarian-johnson-aims-to-get-on-ballot-in-all-s/

“Proof of the danger Mr. Johnson poses came this week in Iowa, where he said Mr. Romney’s campaign is making a concerted effort to keep him off the ballot in a state Mr. Obama carried in 2008 but where the GOP is bullish this year.“It’s my understanding that in Iowa, there has never been a third-party challenge, ever, in the history of the state,” Mr. Johnson said Tuesday. “This is unprecedented, and it is absolutely driven by Romney. What’s there to fear? Our view of it at this point is great. In Iowa, I think we’re getting attention that we otherwise wouldn’t have gotten. So, thanks very much to the Romney campaign.”

i think this is a good idea. heck, why not invite Jesse Benton to talk also? and talk as long as you want and post it up. make the interview 2-3 hours if you want so everyone can talk at length and to get to the bottom of all this.

I don’t think calling someone reprehensible is wrong. Presumably there are people in history and in the present you consider reprehensible. When does it become wrong to say so? Someone who writes a book about about never apologizing for the U.S. government’s awesome foreign policy is not someone with whom I have a mere disagreement.

Never apologizing for a state is a reprehensible idea and a reprehensible policy, but describing the person expressing the idea, or even enacting the policy, this way is an ad hominem attack. A general rule against ad hominem attacks is customary, and the custom makes sense to me. The truth of the description is irrelevant. Debating a personality is a dead end. Distinguishing the idea from the person avoids a person’s natural tendency to defend his person. It’s like “hate the sin, love the sinner”.

In my way of thinking, you should love the sinner, but that’s not the point of the rule. A personal characteristic is not relevant to the idea, and the idea is always the subject of the debate.

I don’t know if you remember the video where Ron was asked by a CNN reporter why he had left a NH restaurant without talking to the people and that because of it some person decided not to vote for him. Jesse Benton then basically yelled at her and moved Ron on to the next reporter. Of course, it was a stupid question, as it was the press’ fault he had to leave, but who was in charge of this stupid strategy to bully reporters? You have to ask Wead this also. Why didn’t the campaign hire an ‘acting’ coach and why didn’t they fully address the newsletter thing?

I like the references to Virtue Ethics. Courage, Fortitude, Justice, Temperance, Faith, Hope, and Charity. This is why I love you.

Who are the unnamed members of the liberty movement who are in it just for the (alleged) money and to sell books?

Heh, what is Liberty Chat then lol. (jk)

You asked. I responded to (3) which had some underlying assumptions.

I have heard of the acrimony between you and Benton from sources (the Daily Paul). That is why I said Benton is a jerk for lack of a better word to describe him. It might very well be that Benton is at fault for the falling out of your relationship with him, but how does that affect your feelings with Wead? Is Wead a bad guy because he likes Benton?

I am saying that you have more in common with Wead then you do not have. You have taken opaque swipes at him at times. I am saying give Wead a chance (this is the Ron Paul movement after all hahahaha, bad pun). You are our number one BS sniffer, a weapon against the BS we are given everyday. If you think that Wead is lying or spinning facts, invite him on and clear the air with him about your misgivings (many of which are legit).

He he.
I liked your optimism, now you’re just being naive! Simple dialectic doesn’t work. You’re talking about a massive case of cognitive dissonance. If these people were faced with the following prospects:
Economic collapse, vote for Ron Paul, they’d take their chances with the former. This borders on religious fundamentalism.

The delegate strategy was never Benton’s (although he seems to take credit for it)! It was genius though. It came up through the grassroots. And it was first discussed and executed in 2008. I first read about it then, along with efforts to firm it up and be ready to really run with it in 2012.

Tom,
Ron would have been better off in taking advantage of this tremendous grassroots that he had & all their talent, especially in this 2011 presidential run. He could have run it like a business and asked for resumes for help in advertising, campaigning, writing, communications, legal, etc., etc., as we had SO MANY TALENTED PEOPLE not-related to typical politics. This way the campaign may have had a real chance of staying focused like a bull.
Noone to this day cares for Jesse in the least & EVERYONE still wonders why Ron didn’t replace Jesse with someone else. It would be very difficult for me to believe that Ron nefariously planned to indirectly support Romney, but it would be easy for me to believe that Jesse Benton, in cahoots with that other many Torje (sp?), influenced Dr. Paul to do certain things, using FEARMONGERING tactics. Now, that’s something I could get my teeth around.
Whatever, the campaign had an utmost responsibility to the donors to put a stop to all donations and probably just drop out of the race at that point. That would have been the ethical thing to do. But, we may never know what really happened. But, I don’t believe Dr. Paul did anything immoral. I choose to believe he was massively threatened with the lives of loved ones. That’s it.
Lastly, my husband & I would love to see YOU run for office as President some day, or to lead the efforts of this movement in “nullification” of the states, probably a much more important position to assume. I would love to help, if it comes to that. I am one of your liberty classroom ‘kids’. Anyway, that’s my 2 cents. I don’t necessarily trust anyone who would support Jesse Benton. For one thing, Jesse Benton didn’t originate the delegate phenomenon. Grassroots did. I know, as I was part of it in 2007.

Ad hominem’s are used to discredit an opponent’s argument. If there is no argument, there is no logical fallacy associated with calling someone reprehensible.

It’s funny how even though Gary Johnson isn’t as principled a libertarian as Ron Paul philosophically, personally he seems to have more integrity in my view. He sees Romney for the scumbag that he is and doesn’t ‘like him on a personal level’ like Ron did. I’ve been gaining a lot of respect for Gary Johnson lately. “He’s got guts and guts is enough” as the expression goes.

I was one of the Congressional District Coordinators for the Paul Campaign in 2008 and 2012 in MN. In 2008 we captured 8 National Delegates, and in 2012 we captured 33/40 delegates to the RNC from MN. If Jesse Benton would not have been repeatedly rebuffed by our State Coordinator Marianne Stebbins, who deserves all the credit in the world for standing her ground, we would have dealt away half of the delegates in the state as an attempt to make inroads with the party naybobs.
In my opinion, Wead’s defense of cozying up with Romney was weak and specious. What PR campaign did he wish to run? Do they want to drag the newsletters out of moth balls again? Benton and his ilk that ran the campaign got paid handsomely and seemingly used it as a tool to make themselves amateur kingmakers. It’s too bad they really have no idea whose game they are playing, because when people close to the situation like Tom loose the canons, he will be abandoned by the party and the liberty crowd and have no one to grovel to anymore. That would delight me to no end.