21 votes

G.O.P. Strategy Ala Smudge Pot: Antiwar Is The Wedge!

We're the fringe. No campaign owns us, we have total mobility at all times.

The next elections main issue and central theme? "It's the economy stupid redux". It's gonna be a crowded field, everybody is gonna have a "solution", we know most of what we say goes over a large percentage of heads to begin with and we can predict a fairly partisan handling of the situation in MSM. Predictable.

We of course start winning from the second Rand declares. We're doing pretty good on INTEREST in Rand alone. But our first real battle this time and always, since we became who/what we are (collectively sorry to say), is to penetrate the GOP. As fringe we're in a better position than ever locally. But we have some nuances to address and some real powerful tools to use. And some hella good precedent.

So far we have managed to factionalize the GOP with the "tea party vote". As manufactured, co-opted and bogus as this is in many ways, it's a direct effects of our efforts. It is our CONCEPTUAL PRESENCE IN CONGRESS. And as we see this Johnny-come-lately-ism, as more and more of these clowns attempt to hop on the band wagon (hi Ted Cruz and all the "teaparty" lobbyist groups with your fat hands out), the more we see a fight for the heart and soul of this concept.


Make no mistake, we know that Cruz didn't wake up in the middle of the night with a sudden passion to throw himself before the wheels of the machine, this was a scripted event, the result of backroom deals and CRUZ JUST GOT MARKET TESTED.

That's right, they are market testing an Rand-ternative. They want somebody to split the what?

The "tea party vote". And the vote of liberty-hungry Americans. If we torpedo Ted now they'll just come up with another one.

See, what we have and what they are feeling is we've isolated the old guard and the neocons. The big power interests. We've got 'em in the crosshairs and they know it. And we just pulled apart their old hegemonic echo chamber they spend decades perfecting. And we just screwed up their perfect control of media and message. And we're calling them out from the best possible position: The conservative position.

OK now I got the stage basically set for you. First order of business: fight for heart and sole of "tea party" at the conceptual level. Now how do we do that? How do we do that as fringe?

Maybe pick a defining issue? A litmus test, our own line in the sand? What agenda do we push to further our own interests? What issue binds us to more people across lines than any other?

One word. Antiwar. We call it "non-interventionist foreign policy" which makes perfect sense but the marketer in me is required to inform you that it totally BONES as a tagline. Let's just stick with "anti-war".

"Antiwar" is the new position and wedge. It's how we instantly reach across lines and articulate for a massive and growing consensus in America. It rings from the right, from the left, it's part of our core ideology and now it RESONATES through the military from the bottom up. It's how we define or redefine or restore "conservativism". It's how we win. It's how we define tea party, it's how we chase the pretenders out (their vote history will do the work once we establish the issue) and it ties everything in with it. The military-industrial complex, corporate personhood and "unhealthy foreign alliances" get exposed.

And this is how we coalition-build and help our counterparts on the left spread the message. Previous coalitions with Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich & etc. were each productive. We demonstrated it's possible even though these people each took flack from their own entrenched idiot ranks for dealing with us. In this way we helped start redefining the democrats. And just as we did with OWC, Occupy Wall Street, by directly engaging with them AT THE STREET LEVEL and on the boards, we both influenced their trajectory while winning many young minds and we exposed the corrupt nature of that "spontaneous movement's" organization. We profoundly effect people with direct contact. We are kind of lovable when you get to know us. Breaking down false barriers is always an objective for us and "antiwar" is our ticket to rooms we would normally be excluded from.

Given the alternatives are "legalize weed, man" and "I want my guns and wood stove", wells, since when do we pick the less ambitious choice?

Bring it down to tactics now?

Glad you asked. Normally a lot of us would be half way to sinking Ted Cruz's swiftboat but I wanna kick back and see who comes out to support him. That's gonna tell us more about who's behind this feint. And it might indicate who they are gonna pick next for a Rand-splitter or co-opted tea party leader. But I'm not too worried. Whoever it is, I hope they eat their Wheaties in the morning and I dearly hope they have lots of support from wife and kids at home because we are gonna beat that person with every blunt media instrument at our disposal.

Cruz is polling well where we've seen him in them. This shows them and us they still have the power to drive a new brand.

Zooming back out to long, I know some old heavy money is testing Jeb Bush for a massive showdown against Hillary. They are more scared of Hillary than they are of us any day. Hillary in office means THEIR BUSINESS INTERESTS GET ATTACKED BY ONE OF THE MOST UNFORGIVING COUPLES IN AMERICAN POLITICAL HISTORY and Billary has steadily been preserving and expanding it's power internationally as well as domestically.

That's right, there's another war going on above our heads. We might ponder on how we exploit that. But don't go too long on that one. We have our battle and we know where our war begins and ends.

Antiwar. Start thinking about how we inject that into every message. Economy and war. Banker bailouts and war. That combination of issues has us right where we want to be and right where we want the fight to be. It's our lever. It's our wedge. And ironically the left doesn't own that space ATM, far from it. Once again we control the moral high ground. We rise above "it's the economy stupid" and "libertarians just wanna keep their money".

Keep thinking thoughts like "with these two messages I can talk to anyone". Yeah I know I make it sound easy but let's hear some ideas.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The same people that are grooming Ted are grooming Rand

I wish some of you would get a clue.

I know liberty activists that are filling the staff of Ted's office. If you don't realize that he has surrounded himself with our own then I don't know what else to say.

Why don't some of you do some REAL investigative work instead of going about what you believe via hearsay?

I also agree that I call myself a peace activist, not antiwar. You have to be for something in marketing your values.

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
www.yaliberty.org - Young Americans for Liberty
www.ivaw.org/operation-recovery - Stop Deploying Traumatized Troops

Peace is an uncharted frontier

For a peace activist, where does one start?

Here is a question for you, BaneMaler. If we could agree that this AK47 cartridge in my hand is one small unit of war, what could you show me, in return, that is one small unit of peace?

How do we get from here to a quantifiable culture of peace?

It is a long way to go before our civilization can boast about its thriving peace/industrial complex.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Smudge Pot! I just realized what it was

What it was that bothered me about this.

Mother Theresa.

Mother Theresa.

What did she say about going to an anti-war rally?

I will never attend an anti-war rally; if you have a peace rally, invite me.

Now - is that a real quote or not? I have no idea - I found it on the internet. I lean towards yes, but ultimately whether she ever said it not, she's right!

Antiwar is a good wedge. I agree. But what are you for?

And how do you sell what you're for?

It is all a big marketing campaign. Beauty pageant. Product launch. It is the Selling of the President.

(I wish I could say I've read that book, but I haven't and I hope the opportunity arises that I can read it.)

I have to think about how I'd feel about selling a negative. A double negative. Anti-War. Why not just a positive?

Why not shower them with Love instead.

If for no other reason than no one has ever, or will ever attempt it - if not for the Merry Pranksters of the Daily Paul.

Unite behind the issue of Love, then turn the love hose on, spigot wide open. I mean tap into the universal source of love, and see if we can direct it, and use it to put out those raging fires of hatred in most people's hearts?

Peace vs. Anti-War

Peace is for the most part conceptual.

War is very real. Anti-war, as the opposition to war, is conjoined to war. So to speak, it is the other side of the coin.

As a political tactic for 2016, anti-war (or non-intervention) may be more pragmatic choices than peace, semantically. Since we all, unfortunately, know too well what is war, anti-war has no identity problem.

But, peace is a much more powerful forte by far. Mother Teresa's quote points to its great mystery and untapped energy, far beyond that of anti-war.

If the liberty movement would seek a prime position at the cutting edge of the launch of civilization's first global model of peace, presidential politics would pale in comparison to such a crowning achievement.

Good marketing certainly and more inline

with what we might expect from Rand. I could hear Ron saying the same thing. We're not antiwar, we're pro-peace! But inasfar as we might hope to coalition-build we have to find language that basically says "we are with you on this, we can come together on this".

Half the nation being scared to death of us but this might resonate.

Most of those who think so actually don't and most of those who think sew actually rip.

Pro-peace could be problematic for Rand

Unless humanity experiences a major global paradigm shift soon, the phrase "pro-peace" may be too vague and too little understood to be an asset in a political campaign at this time.

Don't take my comment the wrong way. I have been working on the challenge of building a model of worldwide peace for 30 years. I would be enthralled to learn that a presidential candidate runs on a platform of peace.

Here is one political (and ideological) problem with the term as it stands today:

"You say you are pro-peace, Senator Paul. What is your definition of peace?"

How would you answer this question? Would the answer get out the vote?

Thank You Michael

I have considered Smudge's post often the past couple of days & I feel you have nailed it. I wasn't sure as to what to respond but you have captured it for me :)

Yes, the enjoyable "anti-war" candidate usually wins it.


I dream to live in the world where a candidate with a pro-peace campaign bolsters more prominence amongst our society.

Given the current climate, I believe there are many whom thrive for a message to be spoken pure.

Peace & Love... Gold if you cant afford it ;)

Michael Nystrom's picture

Gold if you can't afford it...

Now you're talking.

Samantha told me of a man she met in Taiwan recently... She said he was so poor, the only thing he had was money. A very poor, sad man, with money coming out of the wazoo.



Sadly, that was a typo..

3 beers can do that to me hehe

I have to compliment it.

You have a rare talent in your wording. It flows in a way that I actually hear a distinct voice that narrates your posts in my head as I read. I appreciate the good work Smudge. Keep it up.

Michael Nystrom's picture

I'll tell you what I like, and what I don't about this.

I like your opening two paragraphs, but then this:

We of course start winning from the second Rand declares kind of harshes my high.

I just don't have it in me to put on the tights and the pom-poms again.

But I'm sticking with you. So then there is this:

Make no mistake, we know that Cruz didn't wake up in the middle of the night with a sudden passion to throw himself before the wheels of the machine, this was a scripted event, the result of backroom deals and CRUZ JUST GOT MARKET TESTED.

That's right, they are market testing an Rand-ternative. They want somebody to split the what?

Sure, Cruz got market tested. So? Rand got his test before. Next they'll audition some others.

- - - -

I'm in full agreement on the antiwar thing WITH CAVEATS. Those caveats are that the term "Anti-war" is already owned. It has a long ownership history, but it has kind of been claimed mostly by beard-wearing, granola eating hippies. (And I say that lovingly).

I actually like something like "non-interventionist foreign policy" - it rolls off the tongue really well for such a long phrase. And it throws people off guard. "What the hell are you talking about?" Whereas, you say anti war and you immediately have this image of beard-wearing, granola eating, semi-clueless flower children.

But maybe that is just me.

However, I think another very strong faction to tap into is the marijuana crowd. It is growing and now includes:

- Medical marijuana advocates, who are growing by the day. This is a fashionable growth area of opinion.

- Hemp farmers and any one who wants domestic hemp products. Why are all of our help products coming in the form of imports? I want domestic hemp seeds. Damn sure they'd be cheaper, that is for sure.

- The average pot smoker. Don't underestimate him. He's the one staying up late, watching The Daily Show, helping to set the tone of the nation. Plus potsmokers are generally antiwar, anyway.

- - - -

But yeah, overall I see the point.

I don't mind being in the fringe, personally. In fact, I prefer it here. It is where all the interesting stuff happens.

And the problem with the tights and the pom-poms, well, you lose a little bit of objectivity, don't you?

But "non-interventionist foreign policy" is already owned

by Ron Paul. This is the issue that lost him the election, made him "unelectable." That particular phrase still carries the baggage of "the guy who lost."

As much as we love Dr Paul, reusing his exact phrases invites receiving the same treatment and ridicule, rehashed for 2016.

The antiwar concept is valid however, since the idea of undeclared wars is even more repugnant than last time; it resonates due to recent events.

"No undeclared wars" is also lifted from Dr Paul's campaign, but is perhaps a bit less worn out. I like antiwar. Short and sweet.

I wouldn't want to campaign on marijuana reform. Yes, you'd have loads of supporters, but Ron had that too. It would just be too easy a target for the jokes. That's better as a voter initiative IMO.

But antiwar? Who can ridicule that these days? Not easily.

Great post, Smudge. Read it twice. Very thought provoking and thanks for writing it.

Help build the world's best encyclopedia of Liberty - the RonPaulWikiProject
“The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men the conviction and will to carry on.”
-- Walter Lippmann

Good job! good writing.

Good job! good writing.

The only candidates you will see or hear of will be

Those of the sold out puppet parties who will give you more of the same. Fixed polls, Propaganda liar MSM, Crooked party primary elections, and never last or least the electronic vote counter that can tell you in advance who your next representitive leaders will be, you can trust that count because computers dont lie, wink wink.

Yah I see the minute men political Ron Paul voters taking over!


Exactly right. This is the #1

Exactly right. This is the #1 issue to measure Republicans by.

Ventura 2012

Have you checked your

Have you checked your horoscope today? Cause I'm pretty sure your stars are aligned.

You're spot on.

Anti-war changes the poles, from left vs right to peace vs war. The other issues are important too (so that the poles fully change to libertarian vs authoritarian), but anti-war is the game changer. Hillary can't run to the peace side of us on this issue, and that should be her demise.

Ron was brilliant in putting this issue first. He was just a little early. The only question is whether Rand will follow suit.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

Think For A Second

Think for a second about this statement:

"'Antiwar' is the new position and wedge. It's how we instantly reach across lines and articulate for a massive and growing consensus in America."

That is not a wedge at all. It is a topic which unites. Wedges are used to divide.

I can tell you from experience (in online debates) that drones, NSA, Syria, and the IRS were all topics which were uniting Americans against the neo-con/neo-lib establishment. However, since Cruz started his filibuster, all of the common ground I shared with the left has disappeared. Obamacare is the wedge which will divide Americans across the old party-lines, and deliver the presidency to progressives. If Cruz knows this, then he is attempting to divide the populace at the expense of conservative victory.

Semantic point to you

It unites the populace while it's a wedge for warhawks in both parties. It binds the good and divides the evil.

Most of those who think so actually don't and most of those who think sew actually rip.

Michael Nystrom's picture

There are so many subtexts being played out

(btw - I think he meant it is the wedge for the GOP.)

Cruz stole the idea (the filibuster) and shifted the debate. He talked for 22 hours. That makes him more "manly."

This whole race is being played on so many levels.

If 'Rand Paul Becomes a Liberal Hero' - that actually hurts him in his own party. He's got a bunch of anti-war pansises clinging to him whereever he goes.

Cruz is pandering to the very base of the party. But there's not enough there there to close the deal.

But - Cruz becomes the new hero of the GOP.

And isn't it fitting? They love losers in the GOP.

Smudge...Way to go!

You remind me of the guy from that book by the guy who wrote starship troopers except it's the one where the guy is an old man who has like a heiram of babes to write books and cook for him....Jeb Hershaw?~!? And the guy from MARS is the main character... Do you Grok?

Lets give them all WEDGIES!

NO MORE LIES. Ron Paul 2012.

If not Cruz, it will be Rubio, for the splitter vote.

If not Cruz, it will be Rubio, for the splitter vote. Why? Neither are natural born. I would include Jindal, but I think he's pretty unpopular now. If the GOP nominates someone who is not a natural born citizen, then they will forever be unable to challenge Obama's citizenship.

Good post.

They tried Rubio

He bombed miserably already.

NO MORE LIES. Ron Paul 2012.

You are putting faith in

You are putting faith in Rand? Silly republican...