Why Go to CPAC?

Hubert Collins, American Renaissance, March 2, 2015

For the parties, not the speakers.

We dissidents seem to enjoy analyzing and critiquing the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Jared Taylor had an excellent piece on last year’s conference, and VDARE’s James Kirkpatrick always covers it thoroughly. The details vary from year to year, but the conclusions are always the same: CPAC is far from having any kind of explicit racial consciousness, and it costs so much to attend that it keeps out working-class people and real grassroots organizations.

But every year there is something to pique the interests of people like us: In 2014 it was Ann Coulter’s comments on immigration and her mentioning Steve Sailer; in 2013 it was Matt Heimbach and his cadre; in 2012 it was a panel that featured Peter Brimelow, John Derbyshire, and a few other dissidents.

2015 followed the same formula. The highlights were Senator Jeff Sessions being cheered when he cut Jeb Bush’s amnesty proposals to shreds, the boos and walk-outs that greeted Mr. Bush himself and his meager 8 percent in the straw poll that put him in fifth place (Rand Paul won, with Scott Walker a close second), and the whoops that greeted Nigel Farage’s attack on multiculturalism.

Some race-minded protesters did arrive, but stayed outside the hotel with their signs–and as someone who was at CPAC all week I can tell you no one talked about them. As always, there were plenty of different groups who appealed for outreach to this or that minority, with a big focus on Hispanics.

Naturally, the percentage of non-white speakers was much higher than their percentage in the audience, with people like Governor Bobby Jindal and Congresswoman Mia Love featured prominently. The most noteworthy token was Ben Carson, whose claim to fame is being a black doctor who does not like President Obama. His supporters wore tacky “Run, Ben, Run” T-shirts the whole conference, and aggressively handed out literature. Although the T-shirts stood out at suit-and-tie events, Dr. Carson managed to get only fourth place in the straw poll, with 11.4 percent of the vote.

As you can see, CPAC does not go through drastic changes every 12 months. I could feign outrage over the advertisement for the Hispanic-outreach book Brown People that was in every gift bag this year, but it is no more surprising than the fact that Sarah Palin asked the author to autograph her copy. There was much talk about ISIS, Common Core, and “Obamacare”–and little talk about immigration, affirmative action, or crime.

What I will say is this: CPAC, like almost any political conference, is not really about the speeches, panels, and training; it’s about socializing. Are some people genuinely excited to see Rand Paul speak? Sure. Are others completely focused on selling copies of their books? Yes. But for the most part, people are looking to have a good time with like-minded folks, and the hunt for the best happy hour is foremost on everyone’s mind when five or six o’clock rolls around. People are much more interested in staying at the bar until two in the morning with friends from old campaigns than they are in waking up early for a panel about patent law.

There are opportunities to drink beer with congressmen, meet beautiful women who head College Republican groups, and sometimes even get drunk with someone who happens to be hiring for a political campaign or think tank. The thing about CPAC is that everyone in conservative politics is there, so no one wants to miss it.

Here’s a vignette that captures the dynamic: Senator Mike Lee of Utah is an eloquent and intelligent man, many people were in the audience when he spoke, and he spoke well. But when word got out later that day about a hospitality suite on the 5th floor where a Republican group from Maryland was giving out free beer and pizza, so many people showed up that it felt hard to breathe inside the suite. The party spilled out into the hallway, someone complained about the noise, and hotel security showed up. I was at both events, and enjoyed both, but which do you think was better attended, and which one will be remembered?

When people talk over CPAC, not many will ask, “Did you hear that great talk by so-and-so?” Instead, everyone will be asking each other what parties they managed to get into. After all, the panels and talks are public, and can be watched online later, but Breitbart parties are invitation-only, and legendary. Congressman Steve Stockman had a great hot-tub party last year and this year. The happy hours hosted by the Leadership Institute are always enjoyable, and members of Young Americans for Liberty have great hotel-room parties, etc.

My point is that CPAC is not nearly as interesting as a lot of people think–or at least it is interesting for different reasons. Since everyone who matters in that world attends, it can be valuable to take a look at what they are and aren’t talking about, but CPAC is a reflection of the Republican Party, not a leader or vanguard. Everyone there already agrees with the program, and they want to have their convictions reaffirmed in a nice hotel and then party at night. Protesting the event in any way is likely to be about as influential as Occupy Wall Street, but if you attend a talk and ask enough outrageous questions to get media coverage you may score some points. Attempting to insert a dissident speaker has some value, but why not just have our own conferences? Consider that three years ago, Peter Brimelow spoke at CPAC, and this year he is speaking for the first time at American Renaissance. The reasons for this are obvious.

Given all of this, if I were to name one worthy strategy for dissidents to gain influence at CPAC (or similar events), I would say go to the parties. The protests don’t work, and the speeches are not the point. At the same time, one of the biggest problems we have is public relations: Everyone seems to think we are anti-social, whiny, overweight, unattractive, keyboard-warriors. CPAC is a chance to correct that.

You will meet scores of people. Draw them out. Open a few mental doors and see if they walk through. Alcohol is the universal medium of exchange, so go to the bar often, offer to buy the first round, and invite people to your room for more drinks. Opening minds one at a time may seem like slow work, but CPAC is fertile territory.

Or, you may want to get a job in Conservatism Inc. and hide out for a while. This need not be selling out. You could learn a lot about fund-raising, activism, lobbying, and how power is exercised in Washington, all of which are good to know if you ever come out as a full-time dissident. And if you stay on the inside, good impressions could save your career. Every dissident I have met who has managed to hold down a job in Washington, DC, has been personable and friendly–and this is not a coincidence. When people know you and like you, it is easier to laugh off the Southern Poverty Law Center when it calls you a Nazi. And since CPAC is the Republican event of the year, there is no better place to establish a good reputation for yourself among people whose opinions matter.

In my view, CPAC really is interesting only for these two purposes: nudging a few more people toward sanity and getting or holding onto a job. Whatever your purpose, though, be prepared to drink a lot.

Topics:

Share This

Hubert Collins

Mr. Collins was born in Taulkinham, but doesn’t live there anymore.

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • JohnEngelman

    Ever since the Republican Party was formed in 1854 it has been dominated by the business community. The Republican Party exists in order to advance the economic interests of the richest ten percent of the American population. Since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 the Republican Party has been very sucessful.

    Keep that in mind, and you will never be surprised by anything the Republican Party achieves.

    • WR_the_realist

      Since about 1980 or so the Democratic Party has served two interests: The richest 0.1%, and everybody who isn’t white. Keep that in mind and you will never be surprised by anything the Democratic Party achieves.

      • JohnEngelman

        The Democrats have always been in favor of raising taxes on the rich. So am I.

        • Old Soldier

          By “Rich” you mean anyone who doesn’t have enough money to buy a tax break from their congresscritter.

        • WR_the_realist

          The Democrats say they want to “tax the rich”. And everybody who hears that imagines Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, or LLoyd Blankfein getting socked with a huge tax bill. But that never happens. Democrats don’t tax the billionaire Democrats. Their taxes always hit the upper middle class, people who make $100,000 – $150,000 a year. In many parts of the country that level of income just pays for a moderate middle class lifestyle. Or their taxes hit even further down. What was the biggest tax increase of the Obama Administration? The Affordable Care Act (which was only deemed constitutional because it’s a tax). That tax hit the middle class right in the gut.

          • JohnEngelman

            President Roosevelt eventually raised the top tax rate to 94 percent. President Clinton raised it to 39.6 percent. Both times most Americans benefitted.

          • WR_the_realist

            There you go again, bringing up Roosevelt. That’s like me defending George W. Bush by bringing up Calvin Coolidge. (I actually rather like Calvin Coolidge — he didn’t do a damn thing as president.)

            And nobody ever paid that 94% rate. All sorts of tax loopholes and deferrals were created to avoid that rate, and a lot of effort went into structuring income to take advantage of those loopholes.

            Telling even the super rich that you’re going to take 94 cents of every dollar they earn isn’t the obvious way to get them to make productive investments. Democrat John Kennedy created an economic boom when he slashed that 94% rate.

          • JohnEngelman

            In 1963 the top tax rate was 91 percent. In 1964 that was reduced to 77 percent. In 1965 that was reduced to 70 percent.

            During this time there was a steady decline in the unemployment rate, but that had already been declining. The per capita gross domestic product in 1996 dollars grew, but that had already been growing.

            In 1963 the national deficit was $31.6 billion in 2009 dollars. This grew to $53.0 billion in 1967, and $148.7 billion in 1968. Deficits remained high in the 1970’s. This contributed to the stagflation of the 1970’s. Cutting taxes while escalating the War in Vietnam was fiscally responsible.

          • WR_the_realist

            If you want to argue for a top 70% rate on the truly rich, fine, that’s a lot more sensible than the 94% top rate that your favorite president, FDR, gave us. But in any case, what does it profit a man to tax others at 70%, if in so doing he loses the soul of his country — the white majority that founded it? Making whites an ever smaller minority is the top priority of the Democrats. It is unfortunate that there is no other party that seriously opposes this policy.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            If the National Debt troubles you, it has DOUBLED since your fellow “Democrat” took office in 2009: In fact, he has increased the national Debt more than the sum-total of ALL Presidents prior to himself…

          • JohnEngelman

            The national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product declined after World War II under Republican and Democratic presidents. It declined during the wars in Korea and Vietnam.

            The national debt only became a problem when Ronald Reagan instituted the scam of “Supply Side Economics.” George H.W. Bush was right when he labeled that “Voodoo Economics.”

          • Harry Savannah

            The exercise of reciting boom-and-bust periods and sleight-of-hand tax rates in a monetized fiscal universe is one is one of futility and obfuscation. It is damned boring as well.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            That “scam” you referred to doubled revenues to the Federal Treasury in eight years at lower rates: We could use more “scams” like that, as I have demonstrated to you numerous times, to no avail…

          • JohnEngelman

            According to the Office of Management and Budget, total tax receipts in 2009 dollars during Ronald Reagan’s eight years in office increased $194.0 billion. This represented an increase of 14.22 percent.

            Total tax receipts in 2009 dollars during Jimmy Carter’s four years in office increased $160.9 billion. This represented an increase of 14.02 percent.

            Because President Carter was in office half as long as President Reagan, the increase in tax receipts per year were far greater during his presidency.

            There was no doubling of revenue during the Reagan Administration. There was a tripling of the national debt.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            I trust the Economic Report of the President, prior to 2009 when the communist party of the United Stets took over the Executive Branch. These figures were vetted by a multiplicity of graduate business schools throughout the U.S., and are recognized as authoritative. They demonstrate a 92% increase in Federal Tax Revenues over the eight years of Reagan’s tenure, despite lower base and marginal tax rates.

            I am disinterested in anything disseminated by the same tribe of people who claim the unemployment rate is currently under six percent, and who promised that “ObamaCare” would save the average family of four $5,000 per year, and we could keep our doctor and our current health insurance..

            You seem unable to recognize what a lying snake-pit your party has created in Washington…

          • JohnEngelman

            This passage, “2009 when the communist party of the United States took over the Executive Branch” strips you of any right to be taken seriously.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Like I told you before, I don’t give a rip what YOU think about me or anything else, because you have discredited yourself too many times, in too many ways.

            I’m not even going to waste my time trying to enlighten your willfully blind self how almost every major player in the Obama Administration has direct ties to some communist or other, starting with the Bolshevik-in-Chief, whose BIOLOGICAL father — Frank Marshall Davis — was a Soviet spy. I only fire shots across your bow when I have the time, and I am bored.

          • Fighting_Northern_Spirit

            (I actually rather like Calvin Coolidge — he didn’t do a damn thing as president.)
            .
            Huh? He signed the 1924 Immigration Act. True, he didn’t have much of a role in crafting it or guiding it thru Congress (it passed overwhelmingly in those sensible times), but he had the good sense to recognize a good thing.

          • Speedy Steve

            He increased the efficiency of the US Post Office — one of the legitimate roles of the Feds, reduced other useless bureaucracies, and paid off Wilson’s WW1 debt. That’s not too shabby.

          • Brady

            Calvin Coolidge signed the Immigration Act of 1924 into law – that was sure something.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Unless you can navigate through incredibly thick ink, you are wasting your time chasing this squid. It is as hopeless a task as convincing Obama that nationalizing the health care industry is a poor idea…

          • listenupbub

            This is a weird place to advocate redistribution of wealth, JohnEngelman… You do realize that that will cause a massive boom in the fecundity of blacks and Hispanics, and a drop in the fecundity of whites and Asians?

          • Earl P. Holt III

            He’s an Idiot Savant: He gets it re “Africanus Criminalis,” but is a moron regarding most public issues…

          • listenupbub

            I think you are right, Earl. He is getting off on being the “sane and thoughtful” racist among us…Tsk, tsk, tsk.

            He does not realize that the desire to look smart or “one-up” everyone actually clouds one’s ability to really think critically about issues.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            I think it’s a consequence of being in the “Tech Industry” for so many years: Those people are almost always politically naive and liberal, but evidence a grotesque ignorance about economics, history and ideologies other than Marxism. He attempted to correct me about communist infiltration of the Federal Government by Soviet spies, but had never heard of Walter Duranty or VENONA, because these items get “spiked” in the New York Times…

          • listenupbub

            Yeah, and he, of course, gave no response for my crushing critique of his idiotic policy suggestions.

            Tech guys are notorious for this kind of thing. There was some google seminar about it, something like the “myth of the genius coder.”

          • Sick of it

            I don’t make that much, but half of my income goes to various taxes. Including the youth tax (FICA). I will never see a penny of it.

          • BillMiller66

            Roosevelt’s policies needlessly extended the the Great Depression.

          • JohnEngelman

            Republicans said that during the Roosevelt administration. Few people listened. The voters re elected FDR three times. This is because life for most Americans began to improve almost as soon as he was inaugurated in 1933.

            There was nearly as much growth in the per capita gross domestic product in 1996 dollars during Roosevelt’s first term as suring the terms of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolrige. There was more job creation.

            By contrast, when Herbert Hoover was president, things kept getting worse. Even during the Roaring Twenties, when the Republican Party dominated the United States, most of the economic growth went to the rich.

          • WR_the_realist

            Actually for most Americans life didn’t improve until World War II created a labor shortage.

          • JohnEngelman

            Have you talked to people who remembered the New Deal? I have. They told me that Roosevelt’s programs helped them much sooner than the beginning of the Second World War. They or their fathers were more likely to have jobs. They had more money in their pockets.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Is your understanding of economic history based upon anecdotal evidence from your fellow “Democrats?”

          • JohnEngelman

            I have posted facts drawn from credible sources to document my assertion that things got better for most Americans after FDR was elected in 1932.

          • listenupbub

            They probably didn’t know jack squat. Their average IQ’s were like 10-20 points lower than ours. They have no idea how to tell if things would have been better otherwise.

            They probably just liked the way FDR sounded on the radio as he was encouraging America.

          • JohnEngelman

            A person with an IQ of 80 would probably not have read books by John Maynard Keynes. He would be able to notice if life was getting better for him and people he knew.

          • listenupbub

            But such a person would not be able to predict other possible scenarios based on abstract principles, which is the point here. And neither can I, it seems.

            He might have felt better because Roosevelt had an optimistic radio program. I do think he was a good guy. At least he did not open the borders!

            I am partial to your arguments, by the way, I just am not sure I buy it yet, as the unemployment rates were still awful for a long time. I also do not buy the idea that a hands-off government would have helped.

          • JohnEngelman

            Economists cannot prove their theories the way chemists and physicists can with controlled, repeatable experiments. We cannot go back in time, choose a different policy, and measure different results.

            Nevertheless, if good results follow certain policies we are justified in suspecting that the policies were responsible.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Too bad you don’t apply that same logic to the Reagan Economy, which created 22 million jobs, while dramatically reducing unemployment and inflation, simultaneously.

            Most academic economists said this could not be done, based on the so-called “Phillips Curve”…

          • JohnEngelman

            According to an article posted on The Wall Street Journal Blog January 9, 2009, during Jimmy Carter’s presidency an average of 2,600,000 jobs were created every year. During Ronald Reagan’s Presidency this declined to 2,000,000 jobs created per year. During Bill Clinton’s presidency this rose to 2,900,000 jobs created per year.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Those jobs “created” during the Carter Administration were enormous increases in Federal employees to staff the new Department of Education and the new Energy Department, in addition to many other federal agencies.

            The problem is that the tax revenues to finance much of the staffing of those agencies came straight out of the productive economy, which is why the “Misery Index” increased so dramatically under Carter.

            I don’t consider articles posted on the Wall Street Journal’s blog as serious reference sources…

          • JohnEngelman

            Do you have data about the number of private sector jobs and public sector jobs created during the Carter and the Reagan administration?

            Many of the jobs created during the Reagan administration were public sector jobs in the military and in military industries. The military buildup during the Reagan administration was unnecessary, and dangerously provocative. The Soviet Union was collapsing.

            The article I linked to from The Wall Street Journal was written by The Wall Street Journal Staff. If you refuse to accept The Wall Street Journal as a source of credible information, there is little point in trying to have a rational discussion with you. You believe whatever you want to believe.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            I LIKE jobs created in the “Military Industries”: Not only do they make us safer, but they are very high-paying jobs for highly educated individuals, and there are phenomenal technology spin-offs from their research.

            For example, most of the weapons systems that permitted the U.S. to achieve a 1000,000 to 1 kill-ratio in Desert Storm were weapon systems that Reagan ordered built after they were cancelled by the communist party that controlled the House, Senate and White House in the late 1970s.

            As to the rest of your questions and comments, I don’t live in front of my computer all day — as you must — and so I find your constant interrogatives to be tedious…

          • JohnEngelman

            During the Gulf War Coalition forces lost 147 killed. Iraqi deaths were 20,000 to 35,000. That was impressive, but it falls short of a 1,000,000 kill ratio.

            The U.S. spends more on defense than the next eight countries combined.

            Of those eight countries, four are allies of the United States.

            The War in Vietnam did not make me safer. The War in the Gulf did not prevent 9/11. After 9/11 Osama bin Laden said, “We did not attack the United States because we thought the United States was weak. If we wanted to attack a weak country we would have attacked Iceland.”

            The invasion of Iraq created a power vacuum that ISIS is filling.

            I would rather the U.S. government provide “very high paying jobs” for people who improve lives, rather than people who destroy lives.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            (Yawn)

          • Earl P. Holt III

            NO ONE read books by John Maynard Keynes, except pointy-headed academics. Keynes attributed the Great Depression to people “hoarding” cash — rather than being caused by a massive monetary contraction — which gave the Federal Government the excuse to tax and spend without limits, something most are quite predisposed to do.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Anecdotal evidence — half a century lter, no less! — is about as reliable as the police reports of black teenagers claiming to have witnessed the police shooting of the “Gentle Giant” in Ferguson, MO…

          • Earl P. Holt III

            The Great Depression ended when it became necessary to engage in large amounts of deficit spending to finance the build-up to W.W. II, thus “re-flating” the U.S. economy, which had been experiencing a profound DEFLATION of 33 percent. (See Milton Friedman. “A Monetary History of the United States.”)

          • Speedy Steve

            And that gave us women in the workforce, rationing and black markets.

          • John Smith
          • JohnEngelman

            Anyone can find something on the internet they agree with.

          • John Smith

            Not all of it is the same quality. I’d give an analysis by UCLA economists more weight than many.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            I’m with YOU, at least you could take their pronouncements to the bank back in the 1970s and 1980s. Hope the department hasn’t changed…

          • BillMiller66

            From 1929 onward,
            Herbert Hoover and then Franklin Roosevelt tried to fight an economic depression by making labor costlier to hire. Any wonder why unemployment increased under Roosevelt? The country didn’t recover until 1946. See America’s Great Depression by Murray N. Rothbard.

          • JohnEngelman

            Whenever someone tells me to read a book I know I have won the argument. I read a lot too, but I assimilate what I read, and express it in my own words.

            The Great Depression lasted as long as it did because demand stabilized at a permanently low level. Cutting wages cuts the ability of wage earners to buy very much. When they buy less, businessmen are able to sell less, so they lay off employees, or cut their wages even more, continuing the spiral downward.

            Raising wages with minimum wage laws and strong labor unions creates more affluent consumers. As these bought more, businessmen hired more wage earners to produce and sell what was consumed.

            Roosevelt’s reforms nurtured a growing middle class. This continued until the Reagan administration, when the minimum wage lost ground to inflation, and the percentage of the work force in labor unions declined.

            Contrary to what you claim, there was a steady decline in unemployment during the Roosevelt administration, except for a year after 1937, when Roosevelt made the mistake of reducing government spending and employment.

          • BillMiller66

            “Raising wages with minimum wage laws and strong labor unions creates more affluent consumers.” Perhaps we should raise the minimum wage to $1000 per hour? What could possibly go wrong? In John’s world, there are no unintended consequences of government intervention in the market. It’s as if big daddy government can step in and freeze and/or alter the laws of supply and demand.
            Remember the Great Depression of 1920? Neither do I. It lasted from January 1920 through June 1921. Fortunately Coolidge kept the state out of the way and let it runs it course. Malinvestment was liquidated, markets adjusted, and the economy recovered quickly enough. Had Roosevelt been in charge, it might have lasted 17 years like the Great Depression.
            During WWII the Keynesians actually fretted that the end of the war would usher in an even worse depression. Is that what happened? No. The government “stimulus” of war spending came to an end, millions of men were let go from the public sector, and the economy quickly recovered.
            So you really think that recommending books means the speaker has lost the argument? Weird…

          • Earl P. Holt III

            In your delusional mind you think you have won an argument: To those who are unfortunate enough to read your opinions, you demonstrate enormous hubris and arrogance, and a profound ignorance of some of the topics in which you choose to engage in debate with others.

          • JohnEngelman

            Your arrogance is revealed by your intemperate language. Your ignorance is revealed by your inability to substantiate your arguments with facts that you can document.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            The NADIR of the Great Depression was 1936-1937. Do you just make it up as you go along…???

          • JohnEngelman

            In 1932 the unemployment rate was 23.6 percent. It declined to 16.9 percent in 1936. It rose to 19.0 percent in 1938.

            In 1933 the per capita gross domestic product in 1996 dollars was $4,804.In 1938 it was $6,436.

            The nadir of the Great Depression was Franklin Roosevelt’s first year in office. Things for most Americans got getter after then.

          • MikeofAges

            Franklin Roosevelt was the first to master the mantra of contemporary presidential politics and practice. Make what is necessary, fun. The depression was necessary in the sense that no one knew what to do about it, including Roosevelt. But he made it fun. He made it into an adventure, and his initiatives did help the economy get moving and did help many people individually overcome their individual despair. Whether some other economic policy would have worked better is unknown, and must always remain so.

            Roosevelt then made the World War fun. What’s fun about about going off somewhere, experiencing fear and hardship and sometimes setting the stage for future psychological distress, and perhaps dying? Nothing. But he made it fun.

            Every subsequent president has been judged by that standard. Does he, or did he, make what was necessary, fun. All candidates are judged by that standard too. Will he or she make what is necessary, or what he or she sees as necessary anyway, fun. A candidate who fails to clear that bar always is at a serious disadvantage and is probably unelectable.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Taxing the few successful businesses, and redistributing these tax receipts to “make-work” jobs, eventually lead to the precipitous declines of 1936-1937, four and five years after Roosevelt took office in 1933.

          • JohnEngelman

            The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was a public work relief programthat operated from 1933 to 1942 in the United States for unemployed, unmarried men from relief families as part of the New Deal…

            During the time of the CCC, enrollees planted nearly 3 billion trees to help reforest America, constructed more than 800 parks nationwide and upgraded most state parks, updated forest fire fighting methods, and built a network of service buildings and public roadways in remote areas…

            A Gallup poll of 18 April 1936 asked “Are you in favor of the CCC camps?”; 82% of respondents said yes, including 92% of Democrats and 67% of Republicans.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Had those Tax Revenues been left in the PRODUCTIVE Economy, we might well have prevented the Great Depression from being so prolonged. In fact, had the true cause of the Great Depression been recognized by the Roosevelt (or Hoover) Administration — an enormous monetary contraction caused by Hoover’s fear of inflation — there would never have been a Great Depression.

            I believe there WERE honorable monetary economists — like Fisher — who recognized its cause, but politicians in Washington were positively salivating at the opportunity to “tax and spend for the common good.” The truly honorable economists — the “Classical” School — were ignored.

          • John Smith

            Funny, but I recall Reagan say that once he reached $100K/year, he rarely worked since he’d be hit with the 94% tax and why work to keep just six cents on every additional dollar?

          • JohnEngelman

            If Reagan stopped working entirely at that point, the country would be better off.

          • John Smith

            You didn’t like “Bedtime for Bonzo”?

          • Usually Much Calmer

            When Michigan congressman David Stockman broke his cherry in Washington as Reagan’s budget director, he cried at night to Bill Greider that it wasn’t weak claims that were denied, it was weak claimants.

            Power matters.

            Marc Rich, for example, has a weak claim for a pardon, but he gets one. The middle class has, perhaps, the strongest claim for tax relief, from a systems point of view. But they are poached. Power matters.

            Things will not change until the Saxon gets angry. The Saxon may get angry within the system or without it, but he has to seize what he wants. The granting of favors and the reasonable and all only goes in one direction.

          • dukem1

            My definition of a rich guy who should pay more taxes?

            Anyone who makes a dollar more than me.
            Not really, but, kinda sorta…..

          • John Smith

            The very wealthy often make their money through investments and pay lower effective tax rates due to more of wealth being capital gains. A large number are also invested in tax-exempt investments like municipal and govt. bonds. it’s mostly the middle-sized businessman who pays the most taxes based on income.

        • Jason Lewis

          Fine raise taxes on the rich. It won’t do a thing if we don’t cut spending.

          • Sick of it

            But that would require dismantling his beloved welfare state.

        • Mike Lane

          If you earn it, it’s yours. Nuff said.

          • JohnEngelman

            Real after tax income for most Americans is declining, as the rich get richer.

          • John Smith

            Key word is “earn.” I have no problem with those taking big risks with their own money and sweat reaping big rewards when they pay off, but I despise those who make their money through parasitism and betting against the success of the domestic economy.

        • IstvanIN

          I never understood why people resent the rich.

          • JohnEngelman

            Tax cuts for the rich do not benefit anyone who is not rich. Americans should have learned that during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

          • Sick of it

            Why not just reduce taxes on everyone and cut spending? And stop going to war all over the world? And get rid of most of Leviathan?

          • JohnEngelman

            Cutting spending sounds like a good idea as long as Republican politicians do not get specific. As soon as the do Republican voters begin to complain. Every item in the Federal budget has a powerful constituency to protect it. The largest and most expensive programs are the most popular.

            The government grew to its present size in response to popular demand. This is why Republican talk about “less government” has always been fraudulent.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            It is rarely Republicans who complain: It is the Corrupt Leftist Media — the PR firms of the left — and the constituents of the “Democrat” Party who complain, and who receive over $1 Trillion per year in “Urban Welfare Spending.”

          • JohnEngelman

            Pew Research FEBRUARY 22, 2013

            As the March 1 deadline for a possible budget sequester approaches, a new national survey finds limited public support for reducing spending for a range of specific programs, including defense, entitlements, education and health care.

            For 18 of 19 programs tested, majorities want either to increase spending or maintain it at current levels. The only exception is assistance for needy people around the world. Nonetheless, as many say that funding for aid to the needy overseas should either be increased (21%), or kept the same (28%), as decreased (48%).

          • Earl P. Holt III

            The Pew people would get a VERY different response if they simply asked if the public supported reducing URBAN WELFARE PROGRAMS. When you cloud an issue by throwing everything in the mix — particularly Defense Spending — you get a ridiculous response to your survey.

          • JohnEngelman

            Urban welfare programs are a small percentage of the federal budget.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            They are $1 TRILLION per year: Of course, the way you leftists spend, a trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon we’re not talking about much money…

          • JohnEngelman

            Where do you get that figure, and how do you define “urban welfare programs?”

            Document your assertions.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Syndicated columns of Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell, both economists rather than fraudulent politicians. They have reiterated the fact numerous times, although I doubtful the stat has ever been bandied about on the editorial or reportorial pages of the NEW YORK TIMES, so it is understandable how you managed to miss it.

            They reference the 88 Federal Welfare Programs aimed at the “urban poor,” including SNAP, Section 8 + Public Housing, Medicaid, EITC, WIC, TANF, Child Nutrition Programs, and about 80 more…

          • JohnEngelman

            According to the Quinnipiac poll, 65% of registered voters support higher taxes on incomes over $250,000 per year.

          • Weisheit77

            And how many were black?

          • JohnEngelman

            Probably enough to represent the percentage of blacks who are American citizens.

            The Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments grant citizenship rights including the right to vote for everyone who is born or naturalized in the United States, regardless of race.

            I assume that the Quinnipiac poll I referenced reflected this fact.

          • IstvanIN

            But why do you feel the government has the right to expropriate someone’s wealth just because? We have to have taxes, of course, to pay for the things that we all use and need, but I never got class warfare. By the way I came from a working class background and am worth more dead because of life insurance than I ever will be alive.

          • Sick of it

            Having been dirt poor in the past, I’m willing to go down a harder road without taxes at all and leaving us to our own devices. Anything would be better than this gigantic scam.

          • MikeofAges

            For me, as someone from a poverty stricken background but with some ambition, my experience of class warfare has been up close and personal. The upper, upper middle and middle classes do make gratuitous war on everyone else too. They have trouble understanding that there can be opposition to them, especially understanding that there can be availing opposition based on establishing principle rather than dispossessing them of their stuff. When they get beaten mentally, they have a lot of trouble with it. But they do ruefully accept it eventually.

          • John Smith

            That depends. Govt. should cut taxes on the wealthy if they invest in domestic job-creation for citizens and continue to do so to maintain the cuts. In no case should the top tax rate ever exceed 49.9%.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            That’s a lie: Where there are wealthy people, there are usually people who have created wealth, and upon whom we are all dependent. If one does not create wealth oneself, one should be very grateful to those who do create wealth. You do not understand this phenomenon, like many weirdos from the tech industry…

          • BillMiller66

            IKR. No poor man ever gave me a job.

          • John Smith

            No for being wealthy, but so many seem to become more wealthy by shorting on our country and our citizens. I don’t want to reward globalists who make their money betting against America, such as Soros.

          • jayvbellis

            Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Sheldon Adelson, George Soros – filthy rich $&@&$ that do everything possible to flood the White Western world with non White, low wage slaves.

            In Japan and Switzerland and Israel, there are patriotic $ billionaires, in theuSA, what remains of the White West most filthy rich elitist so work to destroy the lives of poor and working class Whites.

          • LHathaway

            No. They are doing everything possible to flood the US with Highly paid non-white slaves. At least, ones who are male.

          • Usually Much Calmer

            Envy?

        • Germanicus

          And the Democrats have long been in favor of surpressing White, non-marxist, heterosexual, men that genuinely are Christian.

          • JohnEngelman

            You have an expansive definition of “suppressing.”

            I am a white, non Marxist, heterosexual man who genuinely is a Christian. I do not recall the Democrats suppressing me for those reasons.

            The Democrats do believe that non white, homosexual atheists deserve the same rights I do. That does not suppress me.

          • listenupbub

            “rights” are a fantasy. There is no such thing.

          • Germanicus

            Mr. Engelman, I have no doubt that there are men who find themselves in enviable situations whereby they are able to remain relatively uninfluenced by economic and cultural waves and tides. I have such friends.

            I do not know your situation, nor is it my business. Perhaps you to are liberated from the vicissitudes common to most men. You seem like a bright fellow and I would have no difficulty imagining this to be so. In that case, “Bravo for you!”

            If so, I hope that your obliviousness is due to this limitation of experience–which is not a great sin–if a sin at all. Less admirable would be if your blindness were willful. But most regretful would be if your contrariness is born of a conceit or a desire to bicker for bickering sake. I will presently trust that this latter case does not hold. In short, that you do not see the asymmetric burdens placed on the average White male, heterosexuals and Christians in our society and its workplaces is difficult for me to grasp unless I invoke one of the above mechanisms.

            Although you may not perceive White suppression by the Democrats, and frankly the Republicans also–though in different ways, this does not means that it is not so and that others are not capable of seeing the pattern. Though sociological and economic methods may provide some measures, some realities are so complex that they require narratives that can only be tested in time and by non-empirical means. Given the choice, I would prefer the empirical, bench-top evidence, but this is just not always possible for big-picture concepts.

            It is true that it is an error to see things in absolute zero-sum terms (as many lefties argue it). But it is equally erroneous to suppose that people and markets are as free (as some conservatives imagine it). real life is a mixture. Some ‘gits’ a bad deal more than others.

            Generosity could have a beneficial effect on you analyses. Were this a different forum than it is, I would be interested in an exposition of your Christianity: its eschatology and moral theology. But, again, here is certainly not the place.

          • JohnEngelman

            If the Democratic Party has suppressed me it has done so in such a subtle way I was unaware of it. How has the Democratic Party suppressed me?

          • Germanicus

            I do not know your situation.
            Only you can discern the ways and degree of suppression by the Democrats.

            (Consciousness-raising.) Before I took ornithology in college, I hardly ever noticed birds.

            Again, maybe you have been (till now at least) able to ride above the turbulence. Lots of careers do provide that resiliency. I had to give up Republican (Reagan) worship. Maybe you have to give up Democrat (FDR) worship. (?)

      • Ernest

        Let’s face it, this matter of degrees BS between the DEM’s and GOP is not helpful to us. Neither current political party is a friend to us.

        • WR_the_realist

          Yes, but I can at least find a few Republicans who are decent on the all crucial issue of immigration. I can’t find any Democrats who are.

    • Earl P. Holt III

      “Dominated by the business community” = hostile to the Marxism of the so-called “Democrat” Party, which is about as “democratic” as Bill Ayers and his buddies who dominate it…

      • JohnEngelman

        The Democratic Party, of which I am a registered voter, is neither Marxist, nor is it dominated by “Bill Ayers and his buddies.”

        • Earl P. Holt III

          You are as blind as a human being can possibly be…

          • JohnEngelman

            I do not see your delusions, because they are not there.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Since you had never heard of Walter Duranty, Herbert Matthews, or VENONA, perhaps you are not the authority on Marxism and communism in the U.S. that you fancy yourself…

          • JohnEngelman

            During the Cold War Communist espionage was a legitimate concern. Communist subversion was not. The Communist Party of the United States had and has as much right to propagate its beliefs as the Council of Conservative Citizens.

            If Communist Party members and Communist sympathizers had really worked for the State Department, the United States would probably have avoided the War in Vietnam and the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            The Council of Conservative Citizens NEVER worked as ESPIONAGE AGENTS for a foreign and hostile enemy of the U.S.: DO try to stay on subject, and not jettison large amounts of ink as you usually do…

        • Earl P. Holt III

          Bill Ayers’ BEST FRIEND is the Bolshevik-in-Chief, in case you hadn’t noticed…

        • listenupbub

          It will be more and more that way when America goes brown.

    • MikeofAges

      John E.:The Democratic Party definitively abandoned its Jacksonian roots c. 1970.

    • Harry Savannah

      The cognitive dissonance with you is as great as I’ve yet seen. You appear constantly on a unabashedly pro-white site and yet defend (and I presume vote for) a rabidly, slaveringly anti-white organization. My guess is you will now irrationally defend this as rational. Btw, the R Party is also anti-white but laughably tries to hide it.

  • the boos and walk-outs that greeted Mr. Bush himself

    Bush’s sycophants are already starting to spin that into a positive, that he bravely went into the lion’s den and told all the knuckledragging troglodytes what-for.

    What I will say is this: CPAC, like almost any political conference, is not really about the speeches, panels, and training; it’s about socializing.

    The networking.

    Or, you may want to get a job in Conservatism Inc. and hide out for a while. This need not be selling out. You could learn a lot about fund-raising, activism, lobbying

    Already there.

    • Sick of it

      It’s better not to give out information like that, QD. They’ll start looking for you to out you.

    • jayvbellis

      Question Diversity is probably our best, most successful lower level, working in the Conservative Inc. system. If you have any questions about what to do, ask him.

      But understand, you will have to work very hard to stay out of the radar, not get outed by the likes of the SPLC as an evil racist. If you are outed, even for something extremely minor like saying “Islamic terrorists can be violent” those higher up in Conservative Inc will gladly, gladly throw you under the bus.

  • Usually Much Calmer

    Why do so many people assume race realism naturally allies with conservatism?

    Your revivalist protestant faiths do as much to obfuscate race differences as the campus know it alls.

    I am a liberal. I wouldn’t go to CPAC and I don’t care who has fun there. The past is the past, the future will be different, let’s get to work changing what we can.

    • In a way, I feel sorry for people who approached race realism or ethnonationalism or immigration patriotism from the left, or are still on the left on other issues. The lamer right gives us mere crumbs, but on the left, nothing, a big vast desert with nary an oasis. However, that doesn’t mean that you don’t feel stuck in a no-man’s land or some kind of purgatory.

      • Usually Much Calmer

        Thank you, QD. We may find personal improvement in no man’s land.

        Perhaps we are better off than those realists on the right. We have quit the tyranny of the opinions of others cold turkey and thinking that race realist and conservativism go hand in hand if only. . . is a sort of methadone?

        • First off, it’s not “we,” because I didn’t approach this worldview from the left.

          I do wish, honestly, that there was a viable credible RR-left political space.

          • Usually Much Calmer

            I beg your grace. ‘We’ means me and my kind. An exclusive not inclusive. I know you are not liberal. I do not know what RR means.

          • John Smith

            I’d assume “race realist.”

          • Usually Much Calmer

            Thanks. (Duh!)

      • IstvanIN

        I am not a “leftist” but I am a classic liberal and I am a race realist and a WN. Not only do I want my people to survive and prosper, I want to see liberal society survive, and that is only possible in a White, western society. I don’t want to live in Mexico or Guatemala, nor do I want to live in Russia or China. In fact I don’t want to live in Singapore, despite it being a clean and safe society, because those positives are due to a repressive government. We White people are pretty good at behaving ourselves without excessive government intervention and that is something I want to preserve.

        • bv

          It feels like the non whites are gate crashing an event they weren’t invited to. No matter how well they behave (polite Singaporeans) and act, they still weren’t supposed to attend.

          Visiting aliens is one thing but when they start taking measurements for closet space well another thing all together.

    • blah1130am

      I don’t necessarily call myself anything, but I lean center/center-left on a lot of things. It’d be nice if the race realism sites were a little more politically agnostic, since most of the right wingers are already convinced and most of their plans could be implemented even with a large black population.

      It’s the left wing and liberal ideals that can’t exist with too many black people. Free education doesn’t work when the standards have to be lowered to pass low IQ black people. Public assistance can’t work when they’re are too many blacks living on it for their entire lives. Free healthcare doesn’t work when blacks will chug entire bottles of nyquil and shoot each other for fun. Mixed income neighborhoods don’t work with black people, as violent as they are. Just look at the Scandinavian countries that are being devastated by black muslims.

      Sometimes it feels like all of the race realists just want to remain a niche movement when they need to expand greatly.

      • Weisheit77

        So you would like Northern European style socialism without diversity?

        I lean more free market myself, but diversity is my main concern, and the place you describe sounds nice.

        Debates on the proper role of government are pointless when we have to run a nanny/police state to keep diversity from destroying the place.

        • blah1130am

          I think some sort of mixed economy with a regulated, but mostly free market and a social safety net is probably the best government for the most people with fewest people being truly unhappy. Really, with the right people you can have almost any sort of government result in a prosperous, safe and happy country, barring the far, far right or left.

          • jayvbellis

            Singapore is a very good model. Singapore ain’t anything goes.

            Because….

            When anything goes, everything goes.

      • jayvbellis

        Well said. Read the best Amren article “Don’t Write Off the Liberals”.

        Also, why not try to start some race realist Liberal, Left groups in your local area? Try to model thighs after successful Dutch Liberal Left race realist leaders, parties:

        Geert Wilders, Pym Fortyn.

    • Sick of it

      Because the old conservative South knew where blacks belonged. No other part of the country has ever shown an understanding of how to deal with the Negro on par with us.

      • LackawannaErie

        But the old South was not conservative in the modern sense. These people voted for FDR at almost 100%.

        • Weisheit77

          Very true, I was thinking that the other day when some people claim that the modern Republicans are yesterdays Southern Democrats. It’s just a fancy way of smearing Republicans with racism. Sure, maybe both are a little less than PC on their views regarding race, but their politics are very different.

        • Sick of it

          #1 They would never vote for the party of Lincoln for obvious reasons.

          #2 He lied and said he would keep us out of the war in Europe.

          I don’t hear many folks around hear saying good things about FDR.

      • Usually Much Calmer

        Southerners are the reason africans live on this continent, however.

        • bv

          They or their elite wanted the defective farm equipment. Also their sperm created the surplus militant mulattos that have bee especially egregious.

        • Weisheit77

          That’s a rather simplistic view regarding the history of the slave trade. It’s about as simplistic as blaming Yankees for killing to free them.

          It’s one thing to regret the whole sordid affair, but to blame southerners exclusively for the outcome is ignorance. For starters, slavery existed outside of the south.

          • jayvbellis

            There is much blame to go around. But, note that Agribusiness owners like Donny Smith CEO of Tyson Foods is today, flooding the South with the worst, low wage slave non White workers.

            All of our enemies are not liberals or Black criminals.

        • Ernest

          Really? – Remind me how they got here again?

          • Usually Much Calmer

            The onus for the trade rests with demand.

        • Sick of it

          Not “Dutch” traders or English noblemen?

          • Usually Much Calmer

            Without demand there is no trade. You know this.

          • Sick of it

            Southern identity did not exist when the trans-Atlantic slave trade started. Demand for tobacco was created by the crown when they well knew its horrible side effects. They knew they could make a profit off of both ventures, everyone else be damned.

            When people first landed over here, they did not think “Huh, we need some blacks to slave for us, as we’re too lazy to grow our own crops.” The South was settled by white farmers.

      • Weisheit77

        Due to demographics, southerners have the longest history of living with large numbers of blacks. It’s easy to believe in lofty ideals like human equality when you aren’t swimming in a sea of diversity.

        • Sick of it

          Our Caribbean cousins were in a worse position and were that much harder on the blacks in their charge. Until England became liberal.

    • LackawannaErie

      These are older people who do that.

    • Weisheit77

      Define liberal, because unless you define it differently, I think that liberal would imply that you believe in the social theory of race and would find race realism abhorrent.

    • TCA

      If one is honest enough to be a realist, why is he still a liberal?

      • Usually Much Calmer

        Because history is not cyclical, although it may appear to be.
        Because the now that we live in is profoundly different from the past we came through to get here, despite the fact that you can read Homer and relate to both the individuals and the drama.
        Collectively, we learn and progress. Quantum physics is not just a tired old trope in a new package. God is dead, and that matters.

        Conservativism is always reaction. For that reason, it is futile. History only moves in one direction. The future belongs to those who believe in it, whether they make mistakes (and they are making many grievous mistakes all over the place right now) or act perfectly. Destiny, in the main, belongs to liberals. I remain a liberal because I have the will to power. White nationalism will only succeed if it allies with non-conservatives.

        • TCA

          “I remain a liberal because I have the will to power.”
          No, you remain a liberal because you’re a screwball.

          Or were you being sarcastic? In which case, I up-vote you.

    • jayvbellis

      It’s because for many, many years liberalism was closely associated with being anti White, letting Black criminals get away with rape, murder, rioting, destroying White civilization in southern Africa, destroying the White South, destroying Reagan Democrats in US cities, turning over US cities to most corrupt Black rule, Coleman Young, Harold Washington, Marion Barry etc.

      Liberalism was associate with Ted Kennedy, forced busing, Michael Dukakis letting Willie Horton loose on an unsupervised weekend furlough.

      Richard Nixon, the Southern Strategy, law and order – this was Conservatism packaged in ways to appeal to Whites.

      What you support can work in theory, and it once did work in many places, Socialist National Socialist Germany.

      • Usually Much Calmer

        Thanks, Jay.

        I’m not too keen on state welfare actually. It is dysgenic and therefore cruel.

  • Luca

    I was happy to see Scott Walker do well but disappointed that Ann Coulter was not there.

    • Jason Lewis

      I have no idea why they didnt have Ann.

      • IstvanIN

        She is too honest???? Blunt???? Not a “team” player (aka not a sell-out)????

        • dukem1

          I think they didn’t want non-players getting all the ink,
          Which makes sense, in a way,

          • AndrewInterrupted

            A CPAC spokesperson admitted that Ann was voted the most popular speaker at CPAC several years in a row.

            That tells you how badly Cardenas has corrupted that group.
            .

      • AndrewInterrupted

        AL Cardenas, the La Raza sleeper cell installed at the top of CPAC, prohibited Ann form speaking ill of amnesty at CPAC 2014, then banned her outright from CPAC 2015. She should have taken the initiative and boycotted CPAC last year. Now that shill, Cardenas, has the political high ground. Ann needs to ratchet it up a couple notches.
        .

    • AndrewInterrupted

      Did you notice Walker’s hard right turn on amnesty?? You could hear the wheels screeching.

      • Ernest

        Ask him to specifically define what ‘amnesty’ means.

        • DJRicin

          Path to citizenship, drivers licenses, in-state tuition…all of which he now opposes. Good enough for me.

          • Ernest

            A little song and dance works everytime.

            Where do you think that leads? Do you think he is pro white in any form or fashion? Do you think he will change his mind again?

      • Luca

        He has been sincere on other issues, he means what he says and does what he says. I will believe him when he says he has changed and taken a different view after talking to border state governors. Perhaps he should have done that before formulating an opinion but in 2013 he probably wasn’t planning on running in 2016.

        Since King Obama has ‘evolved’ on gay marriage, I guess that opens the door for anyone else.

        • DJRicin

          At least Walke was honest. He didn’t say, “I have always supported closed borders and a path to citizenship, you just misinterpreted.”

          No…he said, “I had a different position before. I was wrong, and I no longer support any amnesty.” I respect that type of honesty.

          • AndrewInterrupted

            If Ted Cruz wasn’t also a La Raza sleeper cell like Al Cardenas, he’d reverse his H-1B stance as well. He doesn’t have the cojones or an American heart to do it.

  • WR_the_realist

    The problem for most of us is that race realism is a point of view that is largely orthogonal to all the usual left/right divisions. Today conservatives seem to think that conservatism means endless war and beating up any country that doesn’t do what we want it to do. I abhor that sort of “conservatism”. Most conservatives think that paving the planet is a conservative act, and can’t use the word “environmentalist” without following it immediately with “extremist”. I’m more pro-environment (for real) than most Democrats. Now where I can agree with mainstream conservatives is that the growth of the state is harmful to individual liberties. But most of those guys are happy to grow the military and the associated police state apparatus here at home, so they’re hypocrites.

    I really am an asocial teetotaler (I don’t just play one on the internet) so I’m not the one to be networking at a CPAC conference.

    • listenupbub

      I think you are describing the old fight of paleo-conservative vs. neo-conservative.

      I’m absolutely on your side. +1

      • Speedy Steve

        The paleoconservatives enjoy a hearty tipple — Kentucky whiskey is preferable to beer!

      • ShermanTMcCoy

        Don’t forget that good old tariff-supporter, Teddy Roosevelt, also a big one for conservation and consumption of alcohol.

        Likewise don’t forget how much prosperity those tariffs brought to the US.

    • Sick of it

      I’m also a teetotaler. Nice to meet one of the few others out there, so to speak.

      • IstvanIN

        Me, too. I am terribly uncomfortable around drinkers.

      • ShermanTMcCoy

        Fair enough, but the health benefits of moderate consumption of ethanol are well documented. However, if someone has a problem with overconsumption, or drinking and then driving, they should avoid it like black neighborhoods.

        • Sick of it

          It’s a good way of life to encourage, considering that most folks will not admit when they cannot handle something like substance abuse. Quite a few today venerate it no less.

    • Weisheit77

      Minus the partying bit, I agree totally.

      One Pat Buchanan’s newest columns explains just that. I see war as the source of most of our problems.

    • Alden

      Good post. I am a White nationalist. I am against affirmative action as it affects all of us. Conservatism whatever it is has not and will not help us.

  • superlloyd

    America is finished if Ben Carson becomes a Republican president. Another 4 years of black rule however benignly disguised, at this juncture, would wreak all sorts of irreparable damage.

    • WR_the_realist

      I fail to see how Ben Carson would be any worse than Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush.

      • Usually Much Calmer

        You are both right?

      • bv

        Wouldn’t be worse then Bush III

    • Jason Lewis

      I have no idea what the Carson infatuation is all about other than color. If he were a white surgeon running for President he wouldnt get a bit of notice. Absolutely no experience is what everyone would say. I don’t think he really has a chance. Paul or Walker are the best bet. If Bush gets the nomination he’ll lose.

      • NoMosqueHere

        Paul is poison. What are his key ideas anyway? Ok, he wants open borders and drug legalization. Also, he recently lamented that black drug criminals are incarcerated unfairly and disproportionately to their numbers. Then what does he propose? Releasing tens of the thousands of black criminals onto american streets? A Rand Paul nomination will wreck the republican party completely.

        • dukem1

          I think the young youth feel Paul, who self-identifies as some sort of libertarian, will legalize weed,,Without that, they wouldn’t even know who he is.

          • Sick of it

            You’ll find that the most staunch supporters of Ron Paul were not potheads. And very few of us give a damn about his sellout son.

          • Weisheit77

            The canard about libertarian potheads is about as old as everyone who posts on Amren is an angry Nazi typing in their parent’s basement.

          • Alden

            Engleman is a tired old FDR commie typing in his grandpa’s WPA basement

          • Sick of it

            I’m still called a Nazi for speaking the truth about a particular tribe (what other group in history has ever been so reviled and so completely innocent?) and despite making my own feelings re: Hitler crystal clear.

          • jayvbellis

            Nah, Rand Paul sell out that he is is virtually identical to the father Ron Paul – it’s the same race denying Libertarian Constitutionalist cult.

            Ron Paul sold out exactly the same as Rand Paul when Ron was smeared for his racist , politically incorrect articles that appeared in his Ron Paul,newsletter in the early 1990s.

            This smear was first led my homosexual, Leftists, Zionist publisher of the New Republic Marty Peretz. Why does a Supposedly Conservative Republican Pro American Congressman Ron Paul care what a homosexual, hard core Lib Dem, Israeli Firster calls him a “racist”?

            Instead of standing up for our people, Ron Paul caved in, made the pathetic excuse that he didn’t write his own newsletter, nor did he even read his newsletter as he agreed these were terrible Racist, anti Israel comments.

            Pathetic.

            Ron Paul, Rand Paul and their cult followers live to be on TV . They will do anything, say anything to be on TV with the likes of Rachel Maddow, Wolf Blitzer (former AIPAC lobbyist) and John Stuart (not his original last name).

          • jayvbellis

            There are many reasons “youth” gravitate to Rand Paul and the Libertarian cult. With college campuses in the tight control of the Left, Libertarianism is often the only “Conservative” position allowed on campus. Plus youth always likes to be told they can do whatever they want without parental restrictions.

        • Luca

          A Walker-Paul ticket might work well. Being a VP you don’t get to do much except for the case of Joe Biden whereby you get to to put your foot in your mouth every fifteen minutes. The press had a field day with Dan Quayle; Biden is 10 times worse and he gets a free pass.

          • NoMosqueHere

            We won’t know until these guys run a few laps around the track. Most likely, the last man standing will win the nomination.

          • John Smith

            Funny, but I’d still vote for Paul over Christie or Jeb. As long as he is committed to getting govt. out of the way of ordinary people living their lives, it has to be an improvement.

          • jayvbellis

            What a typical, dumb arse comment. Like the problem with Soros funded Black mobs rioting and looting in Ferguson Mo was really all about getting government out of the way, police standing down and letting “the people” do what they want (riot, looting). Yeah, your boy Rand Paul was featured again on Time Magazine saying just that – that Ferguson was all about racism, too much government, blah, blah, blah.

            Here’s hoping you and Rand Paul get to discuss your know it all Libertarian free market gospel truths sharing a jail cell with a bi sexual rapist from Somalia!

          • John Smith

            Sorry, but the dumbassed comment is yours. There’s no reason govt. shouldn’t step in to keep civil order, but do you really need govt. telling people what they can do with their bodies or how to run their businesses? Or govt. giving tax dollars to those who won’t work or telling you who you must sell your house to?

          • jayvbellis

            Very well said.

            And watch out for that Ron Paul, Rand Paul Libertarian Constitutionalist cult. Don’t let any of these cult members in your home or…

            They will never leave .

          • bv

            The Democrats have a stacked fourth estate in their favor, what do you expect partiality? Ha!

          • jayvbellis

            It will do about as well as the a Bob Dole Jack Kemp ticket did.

            Libertarianism, economic Conservatism is a sure fire loser in Presidential politics – poor and working class voters reject this like Superman rejects Kriptonite.

            We have to go populist, nationalists, use resentment of wealthy elites, do what Lee Atwater did to Mike Dukakis – soft on crime, letting Black rapists out for unsupervised weekend furloughs.

        • jayvbellis

          The race pandering, race denying Libertarian talk, talk, talk of Rand Paul is simply a continuation of Jack Kemp. It isn’t designed to actually win anything, instead it is presented as the only PC form of Conservatism allowed and thus the anti White , cultural Marxist media will put Rand Paul on the cover of Time magazine and say that he, along with the new Liberation theology Pope are interesting leaders with refreshing new ideas, anyone to the Right of Rand Paul is an evil racist Nazi.

          The MSM always likes to move the post, to shut us out.

    • Alden

      His sole position seems to be anti abortion.

  • Frank_DeScushin

    I went to CPAC a few years ago and was never informed about the after hours boozin’ and available young tail. I feel like I should get a retroactive discount or something.

    • Jason Lewis

      Sounds like a great time.

      • Frank_DeScushin

        CPAC actually was a good time. I went about five years ago. There were interesting and entertaining speakers, as well as appearances from notable Conservatives in politics and the media. And, yes, as the article suggests, there were a suprising amount of college-aged hotties in attendance. I just didn’t know that after hours drunken escapades with said hotties was part of the admission price.

    • bv

      I’m not even an American and I’m gonna go. Beer & Tail sounds great.

  • Jaggers

    The bit about the perceptions of race realists is interesting. I don’t find “us” to resemble any of those supposed caricatures. The comment section here is much more intelligent, and actually less rabid, then you’ll find at your generic conservative website. And the articles are also better–this one included.

  • TruthBeTold

    where a Republican group from Maryland was giving out free beer and pizza

    How many future pieces of legislation are decided by who had the best beer and pizza event?

    • Speedy Steve

      A lot more than you’d think!

  • Reverend Bacon

    A nice piece, and pretty much confirms what I thought. I may turn up next year, just for the parties. Thanks.

  • Speedy Steve

    I attended Thursday, but had to work until 3 on Friday. I gave away my credentials to a penniless activist so she could enjoy Saturday. The Poker Players Alliance had an open bar event which was fun. The Conservative Book Club had a terrific event on Friday. I’d go again. But I should have enough to attend AmRen in April even though it’s right after tax day and I’ll be cash-strapped.
    But about the minorities. The conservative ones can complain as much as any gibsmedat welfare moocher. A Kira Ayn Davis pissed and moaned that the GOP didn’t do enough to reach out to voters of color. Oh really? Like The Emancipation Proclamation, Reconstruction, The Snivel Rights Act, etc. Ungrateful buggers!

    • ShermanTMcCoy

      Ungrateful ni–, er, um, oh, right, BUGGers!

  • John Smith

    IOW, this is another self-serving opportunity for gladhanding each other by the well-connected to ensure they stay cozy and exclusive. As long as these people have comfortable jobs and positions, actually achieving any real goals is secondary to that aim and of most use insofar as it furthers the primary intent.

  • jayvbellis

    “Every dissident I have met who has managed to hold down a job in Washington, DC, has been personable and friendly–and this is not a coincidence. When people know you and like you, it is easier to laugh off the Southern Poverty Law Center when it calls you a Nazi. And since CPAC is the Republican event of the year, there is no better place to establish a good reputation for yourself among people whose opinions matter.”

    Well said.

    I note that Pat Buchanan last in the media all those years and had lots of mainstream Conservative Inc. access, influence. Even his worst enemies slandering him as an evil WACIST Nazi conceded Pat was nice, charming on the personal level.

    I would also add one other point. Work to bring in, associate with attractive, charming young women. They don’t have to be great conservative intellectuals, probably better if they are not. Learn some appropriate form of partner dancing.

    We do not want to exhibit the negative traits the cultural Marxists smear us:

    Angry white men, loners, losers.

  • bv

    oh yeah

  • Earl P. Holt III

    CPAC has also been traditionally hostile to the Council of Conservative Citizens, essentially proving that “Establishment” Republicans are never, never going to “get it”…