phrizek
02-03-2008, 07:39 PM
Hey all. Here in California the deadline to register as a Republican has long passed and so focus of our labor has been to convince registered Republicans to vote for Paul. It's not easy, but we do what we can. Anyway, I sent in a letter today that I am hoping will be published tomorrow or Tuesday in my school paper, and I'm going to be pretty restless until I find out if it has been published. The focus of the paper is to convince Republicans to vote for Paul, but I'm nervous as to how successful it may be. Anyway, I'm posting my letter below and welcoming any comments on how effective you think it may be in convincing the Republicans to change their vote.
A Time for Choosing
History is replete with accounts of times where people faced a decision whose ramifications would go on to define their generation and possibly refashion the road of history. The Republican Party is at such a watershed. Fellow Republicans, regardless of whether you defend or protest the actions of the current administration, the reality is that the majority of Americans are tired of the politics of the past seven years and are determined to making sure that a Republican won't attain victory come November. Voting in the early states has consistently demonstrated that the base of the Republican party has dramatically decreased, and polls continue to show that more than 70% of Americans are opposed to the war in Iraq. These signs and others spell trouble for the future viability of our party. If we continue to tread along this same path, the party will suffer a defeat from which it may not soon be able to recover.
This outcome is unacceptable. With so many of our peers anxious to plunge us into an era of socialism, we are confronted by one of the most significant choices we will ever face; do we cede forever the ideas that built our nation and subordinate ourselves to the heavy hand of government, or do we make a stand for the rugged individualism and freedom handed down by our founders that made us the most prosperous nation ever? Do we buckle under the pressure of the central planning of our lives and our economy by corrupt bureaucrats or do we embrace economic freedom and restore confidence that the unregulated market is the most ethical and tenable means to producing greater prosperity? Do we lay our graves under a mountain of spending, or do we reassert the ideals of fiscal conservatism and bring sanity back to Washington? Clearly, our choice is between defeat and victory. The road to victory however must emerge from our willingness to change our ideas on some issues, compromise on others, and tolerate some we may disagree with for the greater good. Thankfully, this decision need not be difficult. In Ron Paul we have a candidate that can revitalize conservatism, restore principle to the party, and unite the country under the banner of individual liberty.
Ron Paul has the most strict fiscal conservative voting record of any of the candidates running for the Republican nomination, never having voted for legislation that would increase taxes or unbalance the budget. More importantly, he is the only candidate that is unafraid of doing the essential task of cutting spending. He is the rightful heir to the Barry Goldwater style of conservatism that others try to claim as their own. And this isn't empty rhetoric; Barry Goldwater Jr. has come out with a powerful endorsement of Paul, saying that he is the only candidate he would endorse for President. Speaking of endorsements, as the other candidates clamored to explain why Ronald Reagan would support them at the last debate, Ron Paul reminded everyone that Reagan DID in fact endorse him, when he campaigned for Paul in the late 70s. Almost all Republicans can agree with his fiscal policies and admire his adamant stance on the Constitution, but many seem to have trouble getting over his foreign policy, which is seen as too soft. I would counter this with the idea that his foreign policy and national defense are in fact the strongest of any candidate.
Having our troops on our soil and adopting a policy of non-intervention would make us more safe, not less. It all boils down to whether you believe that our border guards should be defending Syria's border, or our own borders. Whether you believe that it was acceptable that Seoul was better defended by our military than New York City was on the morning of September 11, 2001. Whether you believe that our exit from Iraq should be necessitated by the cut-and-run defeatism of the other side, or the economic prudence and Constitutional principle Ron Paul espouses.
Ron Paul is the only Republican who can beat a Democrat in November. Show me your commitment to principle and victory by delivering Santa Barbara County to Ron Paul this Tuesday.
A Time for Choosing
History is replete with accounts of times where people faced a decision whose ramifications would go on to define their generation and possibly refashion the road of history. The Republican Party is at such a watershed. Fellow Republicans, regardless of whether you defend or protest the actions of the current administration, the reality is that the majority of Americans are tired of the politics of the past seven years and are determined to making sure that a Republican won't attain victory come November. Voting in the early states has consistently demonstrated that the base of the Republican party has dramatically decreased, and polls continue to show that more than 70% of Americans are opposed to the war in Iraq. These signs and others spell trouble for the future viability of our party. If we continue to tread along this same path, the party will suffer a defeat from which it may not soon be able to recover.
This outcome is unacceptable. With so many of our peers anxious to plunge us into an era of socialism, we are confronted by one of the most significant choices we will ever face; do we cede forever the ideas that built our nation and subordinate ourselves to the heavy hand of government, or do we make a stand for the rugged individualism and freedom handed down by our founders that made us the most prosperous nation ever? Do we buckle under the pressure of the central planning of our lives and our economy by corrupt bureaucrats or do we embrace economic freedom and restore confidence that the unregulated market is the most ethical and tenable means to producing greater prosperity? Do we lay our graves under a mountain of spending, or do we reassert the ideals of fiscal conservatism and bring sanity back to Washington? Clearly, our choice is between defeat and victory. The road to victory however must emerge from our willingness to change our ideas on some issues, compromise on others, and tolerate some we may disagree with for the greater good. Thankfully, this decision need not be difficult. In Ron Paul we have a candidate that can revitalize conservatism, restore principle to the party, and unite the country under the banner of individual liberty.
Ron Paul has the most strict fiscal conservative voting record of any of the candidates running for the Republican nomination, never having voted for legislation that would increase taxes or unbalance the budget. More importantly, he is the only candidate that is unafraid of doing the essential task of cutting spending. He is the rightful heir to the Barry Goldwater style of conservatism that others try to claim as their own. And this isn't empty rhetoric; Barry Goldwater Jr. has come out with a powerful endorsement of Paul, saying that he is the only candidate he would endorse for President. Speaking of endorsements, as the other candidates clamored to explain why Ronald Reagan would support them at the last debate, Ron Paul reminded everyone that Reagan DID in fact endorse him, when he campaigned for Paul in the late 70s. Almost all Republicans can agree with his fiscal policies and admire his adamant stance on the Constitution, but many seem to have trouble getting over his foreign policy, which is seen as too soft. I would counter this with the idea that his foreign policy and national defense are in fact the strongest of any candidate.
Having our troops on our soil and adopting a policy of non-intervention would make us more safe, not less. It all boils down to whether you believe that our border guards should be defending Syria's border, or our own borders. Whether you believe that it was acceptable that Seoul was better defended by our military than New York City was on the morning of September 11, 2001. Whether you believe that our exit from Iraq should be necessitated by the cut-and-run defeatism of the other side, or the economic prudence and Constitutional principle Ron Paul espouses.
Ron Paul is the only Republican who can beat a Democrat in November. Show me your commitment to principle and victory by delivering Santa Barbara County to Ron Paul this Tuesday.