Re: Is Rand the Best We Can Do?

As the Rand Paul 2016 campaign gathers momentum, I can’t help but dream wistfully of the hopes shared by many fellow Paleocons- that of a more ideologically pure “message” candidate.

The 2012 POTUS election cycle gave us quite a few “message” candidates (of all different stripes) to examine.

Fred Karger, a “log cabin” Republican with a D.C. background, spent nearly $600K, but was not able to participate in any debates, nor did he participate in the Ames Straw Poll. He was, however, on the primary or caucus ballot in six states, plus Puerto Rico (where he came in fourth!).

Former Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, at the time a sitting congressman, was virtually unknown outside his district. He spent a little over $500K, was invited to no debates, but did participate in the Ames straw poll, and did receive a fair amount of media attention via interviews.

Former Governor Buddy Roemer, a former US Rep and a former governor of Louisiana, garnered a bit more attention. While he didn’t participate in the Ames Straw Poll, he did appear on many more ballots than did Rep. McCotter, spending $672K for the privilege.

I think the most instructive example for us is not found in the last election cycle, however, but in the 2008 campaign.

In 2006, Republican businessman John Cox launched a very implausible campaign for President. He spent significant time in Iowa and New Hampshire, he did participate in the Ames straw poll, and he was invited to one debate. His campaign reported total expenses of about $1M. Moreover, according to Wikipedia, the Cox campaign had committee chairmen in 33 states, including Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

If we can duplicate the success of John Cox…that is, swooping in, creating a small electoral network, forcing a hearing of our ideas in at least one debate, acquainting Iowa voters with a Paleo message this Summer in Ames, conditioning a generation of younger Paleocons with national electoral experience, and then getting out before we hamper Rand Paul, the effort will be well worth it.

So who has the $1M?

22 thoughts on “Re: Is Rand the Best We Can Do?

  1. redphillips

    What issues distinct niche were McCotter, Roemer and Cox targeting? I don’t recall. Was Roemer a moderate? Cox a Perot type? McCotter’s candidacy struck me as the most odd. He was mostly a mainstream con IIRC, although I vaguely recall that he might have been union friendly since he is from Michigan. The main thing I seem to recall is that he sang and played the guitar.


  2. redphillips

    I think our model initially should be Ron Paul in 2008. Paul had a huge internet presence before he had many feet on the ground. That way he was able to swamp online polls, call out the troops to win straw polls, fill up comment sections, etc. In the long run this doesn’t necessarily translate to a lot of primary votes, but it magnifies your presence early on, and the virtue is that it is very cheap.


  3. hawthornecht

    I am sticking with my assessment in the months after 2012, when Rand did his filibuster about drones. He’s the best we are going to get, which is a reflection on us. However, the strategy is all wrong. Rather than waste precious resources on “hoping to get into a debate” or a “straw poll” you need to find a few good men to monkey wrench conventions on an “anybody but Bush” program. Trump is one of the actors who might get it…but I am sure there are others we can think of. I can practically write the stump speech…


    1. devalettecht Post author

      “He’s the best we are going to get, which is a reflection on us.”

      I quite agree. One strategy to amend this poor reflection is to build an organization around a “message” candidate in the early phase of the primary.

      I concede your point that this strategy is a financial risk.


    2. redphillips


      “you need to find a few good men to monkey wrench conventions on an “anybody but Bush” program. Trump is one of the actors who might get it…”

      When you say “a few good men” do you mean activists or candidates? When I first read it I thought you meant activists so the mention of Trump threw me. I suppose you mean activist who could get behind Trump or some other anybody but Bush candidate.


      1. hawthornecht

        I mean activists, in one form of my meaning…keep in mind, I encouraged Sav to be an “activist” in the RP machinery in the Spring of 2007, and I do love my gonzo. This is a separate discussion on the purpose of elections and so forth, but same theme.

        The point is that a goofball like Trump will have a hard time finding talent to work conventions–Ron Paul had a similar problem in 07-08. You need to find people who can keep their heads above it all, and do some damage. As I mock people who post about how they are “going to vote”, I mock people who “get behind a candidate.” That is really secondary information. It’s about attaching yourself to a popular phenomenon, faking your numbers, and doing some real politics.

        One has to understand that Ron Paul stopped President Guiliani/at least Guiliani getting the nomination. That was how weak the party was at the time. Romney, the Idiot, never figured this out in two elections. Palin was never that stupid. Let that sink in.

        I am off on a tangent…ignore all words, past votes, positions, whatever and all other things–consider it music in the background. One has to ride a popular wave of anxiety.

        From a GOP insurgent perspective, one needs Cruz and Rubio to announce, and unleash the birthers and anti-Zionist forces (unconnected to Rand.) Rand, if he had any sense, would introduce a bill to end birthright citizenship (Rubio) and do battle right now–work in Cruz’s wife at the Vampire Squid. Then we would be wedded to him. Rand had a counter-punch quote this week that went right after Rubio-Obama as being the same on immigration.

        It should also be noted that Rand is likely not to name Benton as a campaign manager which was/is a major stipulation at the grassroots levels that he is likely going to agree with.

        Other than that, think gonzo, and then gonzo again. I still get Trump.

        And that means a whisper campaign of anybody but Bush–is Trump interested? If nothingelse, puts a little pressure on Rand to cover his Right flank.


  4. hawthornecht

    Mr. D; for the record, I am, for the moment, in support of those who engage in ‘gonzo’ politics, like that comedian in Italy who founded a party. One has to mix media (to remind, that word means technology, communication technology) savvy with againstist rhetoric, coupled with a version of patriotism (classical liberalism, nationalism–whatever). In the GOP, “we are running against old people” is the best way to think about it, and Santorum is looking like he will be a Stalking Horse again.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. roho

    Hillary VS Jeb Bush…………………Both sides will have their blockers, controlled opposition, decoys, etc, etc, But when the staged theatrics end, it will be Illuminati Bush vs Illuminati Clinton.


  6. weavercht

    de Valette,

    A potential vehicle for US populism would be:

    *protectionist trade
    *reduced immigration
    *an end to war and foreign aid
    *dramatically reduced defence spending
    *increased social spending. Yes, *increased*.
    *nominal environmentalism though most popular environmental positions are wasteful at this stage (e.g. Keystone pipeline vs. oil by railcar, rail is much worse environmentally)
    *protection of gun rights
    *removal of Department of Education (if possible) and protect Homeschooling
    *an audit of the Federal Reserve (without conspiracy theories: just argue that an audit is normal procedure and should be done at all levels)
    *no bailouts for Wall Street ever again

    When a crash comes, only then can social spending be cut.

    I do not believe reduced spending will sell until there is a crash. Socialism is preferred over Libertarianism at the current point. Americans, both nonwhites and the elderly, want their benefits. And the middle class has been crushed. It is difficult to call for restoring the middle class while also calling for reduced social spending. There is plenty of spending to cut right now by opposing Defence spending. A 70% cut in Defence spending, 100% cut in foreign aid spending, and bringing US troops home would free up a great deal of money.

    It is a winning platform to promise butter not guns. Side with Main Street against Wall Street.

    If a Defence spending cut is ever achieved, only then can social spending cuts can be attempted (assuming a crash hasn’t happened yet).

    A major battle front in the future will be between who gets funds: Elderly whites or young nonwhites. We know who wins this battle (the nonwhites).

    Most important is the Culture War. Our failures have been due to wasted spending on hopeless elections while the Left educates our children. WASP American culture is deeply flawed: It tends to neglect the arena of culture, to allow “individuals” to decide culture for themselves and to view cultural pursuits as beneath individual economic achievement through hard work. The WASP, as well as the recent immigrant, is inclined to ignore wider societal duties, and this is his great flaw.

    If bothering with elections however, the most dangerous strategy would be Hawthorne’s: to divide the old from the young. What’s needed is ethnic solidarity. The elderly have money and votes, and they should be won over. The young ultimately matter most in a Culture War, yes; but the elderly are a great source of funding and votes. Currently it seems the elderly and middle-aged female housewife cannot be pulled away from their televisions and radios. As they grow senile, the grip FOX News takes on their minds grows stronger. But the elderly are nevertheless the only positive source of white power in the US. And we need women who are in a similar trap.

    Mass immigration does not fund the elderly as is popularly said. Overall, immigrants cost more than they pay in. The US could support its social programs for nearly as long without immigration. Obviously the system fails eventually, but it is this system crash which is a necessary thing. The US spending cannot be reformed. The populace will never allow this. So, it must crash. The US spending and trade deficits are already too high. Trade however can be reformed somewhat now. Once the dollar devalues, trade will be forcibly reformed by economics.

    Anyway, mass immigration benefits investors. The problem is once again the WASP tendency to focus on profit, as well as the “nation of immigrants” view of the US as a “Land of Opportunity” rather than as a home. Short-term profits are pursued with no thought beyond the next quarter or next five years. If the US bubble bursts, these profit vultures will flee elsewhere. So individualism is repeatedly the great enemy.

    And yes, government socialists also want to create societal problems so they can wield more power to offer solutions. But we cannot win every battle. Social programs are too powerful to oppose right now.

    In summation: If attempting politics I argue cutting the Libertarians and allying with Main Street instead. The Libertarians might follow if such a movement became popular. They followed Buchanan. Many of their goals would overlap.

    What the Libertarians have to offer is a simple ideology that can convert the young regardless of ethnicity or faith, and a fun, rich amount of writing on their ideas. A comparable populist ideology could be a powerful force. A negative of a populist ideology that crosses ethnicity and faith is: I want a more ethnic orientation. While Jews can resist intermarrying somewhat, I fear Gentile whites cannot. So our attempts at influencing society have greater risk of society absorbing us.


  7. weavercht

    I think Dr. Fleming once said politics is largely entertainment. And I think he’s correct. At least these elections are little different from football and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

    A positive impact can be made on society, but I just wish to highlight that elections are often probably not a means to making that impact.

    I believe websites like, economyincrisis, numbersusa, and vdare do have a positive impact. And of course The Political Cesspool, TOQ, Chronicles, etc. have a positive impact.


  8. weavercht

    The point of increased social spending though is to make clear “we care” about restoring the Middle Class.

    The issue today is student debt. The federal government could supplement popular tests to show businesses a person is competent in a particular area. Testing centres are far less expensive than complete schooling.

    The US is going bust regardless. Reform is impossible. So, we might as well play the game to win, if we’re going to play. And again the war expenditures are massive.


  9. redphillips

    Weaver, I would have a very hard time endorsing increased social spending. What I would argue is to not rail against popular welfare programs that apply to all like unemployment, SS and Medicare, and don’t let the other party trap you into being the one who cuts it. SS and Medicare are insolvent and unsustainable for demographic reasons, but changes are going to have to be bipartisan.

    I have always felt that the main problem with enacting non-interventionism and the very significant downsizing of the military that should occur, is the massive economic impact it would have. The military has become essentially a huge government jobs program. Not just active duty but civil service personnel, contractors, defense industry workers, etc. Certain towns and regions would be decimated. I have thought that to make up for this you would have to implement a grand public works and infrastructure program as well as some transitional programs in communities hard hit. Maybe artificially farm some industries into areas where bases have closed. Of course this is all very non-free market, but I don’t know how you overcome the financial displacement. So you wouldn’t see the financial savings of cutting the defense budget by 70% for awhile.


  10. weavercht

    Reg. defence: that’s an excellent comment. With economics, gradual changes are said to be most efficient, but I fear the window of opportunity would be small. Infrastructure spending is something we could all get behind, if temporary. Better to spend on infrastructure than needless wars. Ideally you want a free market, but we’ve got a free pass until the dollar collapses. So, we could work towards restoring the free market by bringing jobs back and rebuilding infrastructure. When the dollar collapses, if we don’t have an economy in place here by then, we’re going to be in trouble.

    Reg. insustainability of SS and Medicare: I don’t believe we can win this. We need to sell out here. A collapse will reset the problem. At the least as you say, “not rail against popular welfare programs”.

    I’ve argued with many Democrats. They take the mantel of “working man party”. And the GOP too often defends Wall Street. This society is headed for collapse, and I don’t believe we can change that course. We could however lessen the collapse or try to come to power on the collapse. And we could thwart attempts at redistributing money from whites to nonwhites.

    As the BNP likes to argue: “We’re the Labour Party of your fathers”. Our side is free market where electorially possible, but we also legitimately care for the working man.


  11. weavercht

    A major risk to avoid is to be blamed for the coming crash. It cannot be “white conservatives” who cause this crash in the public’s eyes. I’m not saying a crash is coming today. I think this year we’ll have something of a crash, but it won’t be The Great Reset. That comes hopefully 10yrs+ from now.


  12. weavercht

    Hawthorne’s proposal for ending SS and Medicare is ideal and workable: Payback what has been paid in, and close the system.

    This would cost a great deal of money, but it’s better that Americans receive their money now before the collapse. We would need to word it that we’re standing for Americans, that we would only end the system with a payout.

    Americans might get behind this proposal. It would give the needed inflation the US Federal Reserve wants today. Currently the dollar is too high in their eyes. Sadly, most Americans would just spend or malinvest what they’re paid out.

    Obamacare scares me. It needs to be opposed, but it’s divisive to do so. Obamacare is much worse than Social Security etc. in my eyes. It will ruin our healthcare system.


    1. hawthornecht

      It would cost nothing (save paper and ink), money for nothing, just print it. New York City Banksters get it, or you? I know my American neighbors…part of thinking is the American Far Right with their Greenback angles might go for it and offer important suggestions. I made the suggestion during the “Housing Crisis” a few years back, on both sides of the fence–either let banks re-negotiate their notes with the the debtors (as they did in the ’80s; an example is that for every $1 you send in over your contract, we’ll credit $2 on the principal) or have the Fed print a bunch of money and send it to the people. W. did an absurdly small version of this in the early Oughts with his $300 (I recall that was the amount) “surplus” check. That suggests the system has a decent understanding already of what I am talking about, it’s just that the Banksters have way more power.


  13. weavercht


    I like your openmindedness. I just fear the situation we’re in now requires hardball. Aristotle said democracies endure until the poor realise they can vote in wealth redistribution. And I dread what’ll happen when the economy tanks and we’re forced to actually pay for what we consume. There’s so much fat in the system that’ll have to be cut by basic economic forces, which I assume means many will live in poverty.

    If in power, we’d want to limit the damage: protect gun rights, protect homeschooling, oppose “attempts to divide America” ie. oppose wealth redistribution from whites to nonwhites, oppose immigration, bring industry back while we still can. PCR once wrote it’d take 10 yrs to rebuild US manufacturing, but I think he was being optimistic.

    Politics is about compromise, and we’re flooded with low-skilled, low-quality Americans who have the power to vote. Our defences consist of elderly who can vote and women who can vote. All of these groups are easily manipulated, and the poor will blame “the rich” though likely not the correct “rich”. They’ll end up targeting the hardworking savers.

    Brazil is our future if we can’t find a way out of this.

    And yes, conservative males, mostly white, do exist. But the pertinent male advantage over women is our ability to fight. We’re only dominant if society collapses in a full reset. I am not arguing for bringing a reset sooner than later. I’m just saying, men aren’t going to reaffirm their political rights without a collapse. And indeed a collapse could well make things worse for everyone.


  14. weavercht

    In a crisis we might get:

    *federal property tax
    *high federal death tax
    *increased support for “minority owned businesses” and perhaps an update to how that’s defined. Currently many “minority owned businesses” consist of white men, one partner having a little Amerindian ancestry.

    Anything could be confiscated, and even gold purchases are monitored except for small amounts.

    In South Africa, they have white ghettos because of the extreme discrimination against whites.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s