More than just a game

Jack Hunter’s latest Southern Avenger article was critical of those who weren’t exactly enamored of Rand Paul’s recent statement concerning Israel and U.S. protection thereof if said nation was ever attacked.

Jack was critical of libertarians who tend to focus in one area of disagreement of the 20 areas of agreement. Well, if was just one thing I would agree. It is not I can assure you. It is multiple “things” that go all the way back to the campaign and beyond.

1). Holding secret meetings with neocons like Kristol and Senor and Scheunemann after he won the GOP Senate nomination in 2010 and continues to do so. There is no need to “meet” with vermin like them anymore than Rand plans to “meet” with the head Kentucky teacher’s union or anyone to his Left. These people represent no one but their little faction and need to be opposed, not appeased.

2). Endorsing Mitt Romney long well before his father officially ended his Presidential run. Yes, Rand was going to have to endorse Romney at some point, preferably during the convention. That’s not the issue for many. The issue was the opportunistic way in which he did so all the way back in May while his father’s supporters were getting their bones broken trying to do exactly what the campaign wanted in getting delegates for the convention. And no, Rand’s speech at the convention didn’t make much of an impression on me other his love of his Cambodian baker. Again what was the point of this little exercise, let alone using the official campaign’s website to defend said endorsement of a rival candidate for the nomination? Not to mention the fact it was the campaign of his father’s rival the son was now endorsing!

3). That the official Ron Paul 2012 campaign didn’t officially declare itself “over” when most of the staff and Rand as well knew it was over as far as their efforts were concerned and continued on throughout the summer collecting money from supporters when it was more about building a nice little fund for Rand’s future political use than it was running Ron for President.

4). Palling around the Middle East with a bunch of religious heretics whose commitment to Dispensationalism has wrecked the Republican Party, came in between Ron winning over many GOP voters in primaries and then give apparent blanket security guarantees to a foreign nation that U.S. does not have treaty guarantees with which is completely above his pay grade.

5). Defending a foreign company whose business is subsidized by the taxpayer and whose willful safety violations polluted U.S. waters and ruined the livelihood of thousands. Ron never believed the free market give a business the right to wreck another man’s way of life or his property.

6). Permitting senior campaign staff to either attack or marginalize grass roots supporters either for their “lack of decorum” or because they want “smash the state”. They used the most foul stereotypes and generalizations to belittle the campaign’s most die-hard supporters and split such supporters away from the campaign and in some cases away from Ron himself.

There are other things of my own accord which bother me about Rand but which I won’t waste time listing them here. What I will say is this: neither I nor very many other people joined with Ron these past five years because we thought this was a “game”. We did so because we believed in Ron and what he had to say and felt it worth joining a cause (not a “team) to advance those ideas for the greater good of the country and felt they would resonate with a broader electorate. We tried, we didn’t succeed, but we don’t believe what we did was in vain. Which why when Rand does what he does “playing the game” it dismays us (or least myself anyways) because we earnestly hope either he or many more can advance those ideas further along. But this will not be possible if the ideas we fought for are watered down, not fully understood or articulated or said grassroots supporters are continually attacked because weren’t not going to put all of our eggs in the Rand Paul basket the way others have. If you don’t want to argue with libertarians I would recommend you not starts fights with them.

It would also be nice if one of you fellows who have happened to cash in on the movement many people sweated and froze, starved for and gave their pennies to and were beat up for their trouble at least acknowledge that if wasn’t for us you either would be unemployed, working at a gas station, living in your parent’s basement in your case Jack still holed up at your little low-powered AM station somewhere near a Carolina swamp. Not all of us could marry the boss’s daughter or find some way into the “family”. But a little appreciation for the sacrifices made by others which helped to build the movement to where it is today and which got you to where you are today would be not just be a nice thought, but also a wise move to keep the loyalty of Ron’s supporters. I have my suspicions the claque would rather be rid of all of us so you all could run Rand 2016 by yourselves and you could certainly do so. But in so doing the grassroots will find other candidates and causes to support in the meantime. That’s not indictment of Rand, just acknowledgement (which has been true since Tampa) that we’ve decided to go our separate ways. In so doing, even Rand is not immune to criticism. Contrary to media impressions, this is not a cult. Nor will many follow simply because someone who shares the same last name says “I lead”. This is not Camelot and Pauls are not the Kennedys. Trust and support and loyalty are all things earned and there better ways Rand and his supporters can go about getting them from those involved right from very start of the movement than they are doing right now.

Jack, you and the rest of the claque can play the game all you like. More power to you. For myself and I believe many others, I’ll stick to “Risk” or something else if I want to play “games”. I’d like to believe politics is a little more serious than that.

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

20 thoughts on “More than just a game

  1. RedPhillips

    When I first heard about Rand’s security guarantee, one of my first thoughts was “I wonder what Jack Hunter thinks about this?”

    I like Jack. I think Jack is sincere. I also think that like so many people who have been exposed to real campaigns he came away believing that compromise is necessary and purity is impossible unless you are just a protest or message candidate. That’s fine. The world needs people who are willing to “play the game,” (I don’t mean that in the derogatory sense that angered Patroon.) and it needs its idealists. I would not be as harsh as Patroon. I thought the early endorsement of Romney was poor form. I don’t begrudge him meeting with neocons. I don’t begrudge him meeting with anyone. But the meetings should be open and not “secret” so as to avoid the appearance of behind the scenes deal making. I don’t begrudge him going to Israel per se, but I do begrudge him going in what is so obviously an attempt to placate the pro-Israel bullies. Such public gestures (caves) only empowers them. Similarly, while I thought his campaign statement regarding Israel was cleverly parsed, I was unhappy with it because it didn’t “avoid the appearance of pandering.” Also, his back tracking on foreign aid to Israel is unacceptable. Ending all foreign aid should be the most knee jerk of conservative opinions. It is the most low hanging of all budget cutting fruit. But the security guarantee is the whopper that really does it for me. There is simply no way to spin it. It is so devastating because, as I say in my post on the issue, it gives away the whole store.

    Here is what needs to be said. “Israel is a friendly nation like all others. No less special. No more special. We should give no nation foreign aid. We should give no nation a security guarantee. We should be neutral when it comes to the Israel/Palestine conflict and with regard to the internal affairs of Israel. (This means, contra some of our anti-war allies, we should not denounce the settlements, push for a two state solution, denounce Israel as a “racist apartheid state,” etc.)” There. How complicated is that? If it means you have no chance of winning the GOP primary, so be it. Someone has to change the dynamic.

  2. Patroon

    It’s not just Jack Hunter but a coterie of Rand’s die-hard fans and others who held high or fairly-high positions in the campaign who spend their time on Paul-centric internet forums attacking those they believe are more “puritan” then they are whenever Rand says or does something some may question him for. Really, they don’t need to worry and shouldn’t waste their time. Even I agree there really is no one else out even among elected officials aligned with the Paul movement who can supplant Rand at this point, given the Senatorial office he holds and plus he is his father’s son. As I’ve said in the past, Rand can run in 2016 and certainly I or many others may vote for him in comparison to the other candidates (in which he’ll inevitably look better) but that doesn’t mean the kind of deep support Ron had. But they’re really not looking for that in 2016 and maybe they don’t need it. Fine then. But it would behoove them to worry more about Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal than Adam Kokesh or Tom Woods.

  3. RedPhillips

    If there is a “Ron Paul candidate” other than Rand Paul, then I suspect that person will likely come from the pundit/activist world and not be an elected official. As such, he will be a protest or message candidate. The name I hear most often is Judge Napolitano, but he is horrible on immigration.

    I hope Tom Woods runs for the LP nomination. I would vote for him in a heart beat.

  4. savrola

    My God, you are all worse the ancience Israelites demanding that the Prophet Samuel give them a king to rule over them.


    Else we perish.

    That’s serious politics?

  5. C Bowen


    Would you agree that the best message that can be sent is a hard right challenger against McConnell/Benton?

    I like it better when we are on the offense rather than just complain’.

  6. RedPhillips


    Protest/message candidates serve a very useful rhetorical purpose and are in essence free advertising for your cause.

  7. SoCalPatriot

    Kris Kobach/Ann Coulter 2016 !?!?

    The both of them can articulate their views clearly and persuasively.And they are both very strong on the issue that matters the most-mass immigration.

  8. Savrola

    “Protest/message candidates serve a very useful rhetorical purpose and are in essence free advertising for your cause.”

    Mouthpieces for whining and posturing, the favorite devices of all conservatives.

  9. Savrola

    Amspec neo-commentaters go through life with boxes on their heads. Anything outside that box they’re going to to scorn

    Not everyone has the ability to monkeywrench the box.

    I’m not averse to the idea of simply wrecking the box, but most would be.

    Point is, if you’re not monkeywrenching, you’re wasting your time.

  10. C Bowen

    Kris Kobach had one shot–Romney VP, and that is over now. Nobody has ever heard of him, and the System didn’t want another Palin to deal with, let alone a smart version.

    Ann Coulter once dated the son of a famous porngrapher, and has been warm to the Log Cabin sorts.

    I’ll have to agree–VP potential.

  11. Savrola

    I have a better idea. We can exhume Mel Bradford and John C. Calhoun and run their remains on the Constitution Party ticket.
    That way, there won’t be any idealogical deviation or compromising.

  12. C Bowen


    Forward thinking folks should find a conservative Democrat personality to challenge Biden v. Hillary. Might be a chance to gain a concession. Edwards figured it out; former NFL bust Heath Shuler was on the right path, but has decided he doesn’t want to be in politics anymore.

    Tancredo made so many idiotic neocon statements in his 07 Presidential run, and then went after Paul, he blew his chance to take Colorado’s governorship. He could have made some nice statements about legalization (very popular in Colorado), but instead he went on about bombing Mecca to some Florida hippie Republican group. He is too stupid to trust.

    If you want a decent Republican combo, rehab Mark Sanford in South Carolina and match him up with some Mountain State sort, or Judge Moore in Alabama.

  13. SoCalPatriot


    As a registered independent,I’m not exactly pining for a’decent Republican combo’ to ride to the rescue of our dying country.I am only trying to figure out which potential candidates,be they independent,Republican,or,as you suggest,conservative Democrat,possess the courage and intellectual fortitude to put an end to the mass immigration that is destroying our once great Republic.

  14. C Bowen


    I am a registered Republican and was a delegate to state convention this past go round in the interest of Ron Paul. If Rand were to run, I would likely bother to be a delegate again and lose a weekend of my life–that doesn’t mean I would necesarily support him, but not supporting him will go on the Permanent Record, and I will make that calculus at that time. It’s more about state/local politics, then national for me.

    That said, I think I understood where you were coming from, though a bit clearer now.

    I would argue that a conservative Democrat is the place to look. In Massachusetts, anti-abortion, anti-Obamacare, pro-mariage, pro-union (yeah, all talk I get that) Steve Lynch is running for Senate–keep an eye on that–as a Democrat. The Republicans are screwed–so Brown elected not to run (to the left of Lynch!). See how it works?

    Lynch isn’t going to win (you never know though) but the same calculus has to be applied. A Democrat that goes after the “Republican” populist base.

    The best we can do is monkey wrench the system–hence I think Sanford remains potentially interesting for Republican monkey wrenchers (Rand is too–plenty of time to demonstrate monkey wrench capabilities which he has been better then any Senator in decades at), Third Party is pointless unless it’s Trump-Ventura (neither care about immigration), and the Democrat primary protest vote seems clearly the most interesting place to look.

  15. SoCalPatriot


    Ron Paul is a man of honor,decency,and above all,consistency.Whether one disagreed with his positions or not (and on the immigration issue I certainly did not),Dr.Paul is a man who deserves respect.It should be forever considered a crime the way in which the GOP establishment treated this man.

    As for Sanford,I can only hope that you are joking.Personally,I could never vote for a ‘man’ who cheats on his wife.After all,any ‘man’ who cheats on his wife is no man at all.

    In any event,I think I have found the ‘kind’ of politician I would be eager to cast my vote for:

  16. C Bowen

    Sorry, SoCal, but this whole–this is how I feel angle–misses the point completely.

    Our handlers get that, so we are easily neutered with honeypot traps.

    Start trying to think like the Beast and it becomes more simple.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>