PDA

View Full Version : How would you respond? (Question from relative whom I've been informing about RP)




ToxicFrog
09-08-2007, 07:12 PM
Many in my extended family are Christian republicans. Ignorance and blind party loyalty aside, they are sincere and good people who truly believe that Republicans are typically the 'good guys' while the Democrats are the 'bad guys'.

I'd sent out our hero's statement of faith, and my latest email was Chuck Baldwin's essay (email quoted below).

My aunt seems to be the most genuinely attracted to Ron Paul. After reading Chuck's writings, she replied:

This man could win if only had the money behind him - any chance???


Give me a good response, people!! I'd also like some good evidence of the intentional marginalization that the media is pouring on Dr. Paul.

My last email to her:

By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

August 28, 2007

Let's cut to the chase: conservative Republicans have only one choice for President in 2008: Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Unlike the GOP frontrunners, Paul is the real deal.

No real conservative could support Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson, or Newt Gingrich. When it comes to historic conservative principles, each of these men is as phony as a three dollar bill. That they are now attempting to cast themselves as conservatives is more than laughable: it is downright hilarious.

For an ongoing review of the major presidential aspirants, I invite readers to visit this web page often.

The more that conservatives (and the rest of America) learn about the GOP's "top tier" candidates, the more they will dislike them. This fact does not bode well for the GOP in the 2008 general election should one of these five men obtain the nomination. Plus, G.W. Bush has forever wasted the antiquated "lesser of two evils" philosophy. As they say here in the south, "That dog won't hunt." Not anymore.

On the whole, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are head and shoulders above the aforementioned "top tier" candidates, especially on the very important illegal immigration issue. They are also opposed to so-called "free trade" agreements, and they are both pro-Second Amendment. This is a plus. Hunter supports preemptive war, however, and he voted for both the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act, which disqualifies him for President, in my judgment. I confess to liking Tom Tancredo. He strikes me as an honest man and was a bulldog in fighting Bush's amnesty for illegal aliens proposal. However, he also voted for the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act. Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback are strong on the life issue, but they are dismal on immigration and Big Brother issues. All that said, it is Ron Paul alone who contains the "whole package."

He has a twenty-year record as a conservative congressman that is virtually unblemished. Unlike the vast majority of congressmen and senators in Washington, D.C., Paul consistently honors his oath of office to support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That, all by itself, should be worth a conservative's support.

In fact, Ron Paul has voted against so many unconstitutional bills offered by both Democrats and Republicans that he is known on Capitol Hill as "Dr. No." This moniker comes from both his "no" votes and the fact that Paul is a former medical doctor, an OB/GYN physician who has delivered more than four thousand babies.

If one wants a true photograph of how a congressman or senator votes on conservative, constitutional issues, the best place to look is the Freedom Index in the New American Magazine. Ron Paul almost always ranks as the most conservative congressman from either chamber or either party. His current ranking is 100%, which is a score that few congressmen or senators, except Ron Paul, ever achieve. And Paul does it routinely.

See the Freedom Index here.

Ron Paul's commitment to the sanctity of human life goes beyond rhetoric. He is the man who sponsored H.R. 776, entitled the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2005." Had it passed, H.R. 776 would have recognized the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." The bill also recognized the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, H.R. 776 would have removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v. Wade decision, and would have denied funding for abortion providers. In plain language, H.R. 776 would have ended abortion on demand. (It is more than interesting to me that none of the Religious Right's pet politicians, including George W. Bush, even bothered to support Paul's pro-life bill.)

In addition to being willing to stop the illegal alien invasion, Ron Paul is one of only a handful of congressmen that dares speak out against the emerging North American Union, NAFTA superhighway, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement, all of which are being promoted by the White House in concert with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Another critical issue in next year's election is the gun issue (it is always a critical issue where freedom is concerned). On this issue, Ron Paul stands atop the field. Because Paul truly supports the Constitution, he truly supports "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Period. Should Ron Paul become President, gun owners would have the best friend they ever had.

For a comprehensive review of the presidential contenders' records on the Second Amendment, click here.

Regarding the war in Iraq and other foreign policy issues, Paul is a traditional conservative of the order of George Washington and Robert Taft. Not ignorant of military matters (he is an Air Force veteran), Paul subscribes to a historical American approach of no entanglements with foreign nations. In fact, in the area of foreign policy, Ron Paul stands alone as a traditional, constitutional, American statesman.

Unlike his neocon counterparts, Ron Paul believes in an independent America. He believes that it is not America's responsibility to police the world. He believes America's political leaders are duty-bound to protect the interests of the United States, not the interests of internationalists. Accordingly, he opposed the unprovoked and preemptive invasion of Iraq. Time has certainly vindicated Dr. Paul's principled position.

In fact, those conservatives who have followed President Bush's preemptive war doctrine are the ones who have abandoned historical conservative principles. Before G.W. Bush changed the landscape, conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, mostly subscribed to Augustine's "just war" theory regarding accepted protocols for the conduct of war. Today, however, many professing conservatives have foolishly followed Bush's "preemptive war" theory, which, before now, was practiced mostly by pagan emperors. Not so with Ron Paul. As a Christian, he still subscribes to "just war."

Of course, Ron Paul believes in protecting America from terrorists. He authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. According to Paul, "A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage war against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation."

If the United States government had listened to Ron Paul, we would not have lost nearly 3,500 American soldiers and Marines, spent over $1 trillion, and gotten bogged down in an endless civil war from which there is no equitable extraction. Furthermore, had we listened to Dr. Paul, Osama bin Laden would no doubt be dead, as would most of his al-Qaeda operatives, and we would be less vulnerable to future terrorist attacks, instead of being more vulnerable, which is the case today.

And speaking of Christianity, Ron Paul's testimony is clear. He has publicly acknowledged Jesus Christ as his personal Savior. And for Paul, this is not political posturing, it is a genuine personal commitment. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that he does not wear his Christianity on his sleeve, as do so many politicians (of both parties).

Just recently, Ron Paul said these words, "I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator."

Could conservative Christians ask for a testimony that is any clearer?

Should Ron Paul win the Republican nomination, he would almost certainly win the general election. His constitutional, common-sense ideals would be attractive to such a broad range of voters, I dare say that he would win a landslide victory, no matter who the Democrats nominated. Conservatives, independents, libertarians, union members, and even some liberals (mostly those who oppose the war in Iraq and Bush's Big Brother schemes) would support Ron Paul. The challenge is winning the Republican nomination.

Face it: the big money interests, the Chamber of Commerce crowd, the international bankers and GOP hierarchy will never support Dr. Paul. He is too honest, too ethical, too constitutional, and too independent for their liking. Therefore, the only chance Ron Paul has of winning the Republican nomination is for every Christian, every conservative, and every constitutionalist within the GOP to get behind him.

Conservative Republicans have only one choice for President in 2008: Ron Paul.

© 2007 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. In 1985 the church was recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and influence.

Dr. Baldwin is the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show on the Genesis Communications Network called, "Chuck Baldwin Live" This is a daily, one hour long call-in show in which Dr. Baldwin addresses current event topics from a conservative Christian point of view. Pastor Baldwin writes weekly articles on the internet http://www.ChuckBaldwinLive.com and newspapers.

catwoman
09-08-2007, 07:14 PM
So tell her if she believes in him to donate to his campaign and encourage all her friends to do so as well. Remind her that is how candidates get money UNLESS they are bought like so many of the other candidates.

kylebrotherton
09-08-2007, 07:16 PM
This man could win if only had the money behind him - any chance???

Then give him your money.

Bison
09-08-2007, 07:22 PM
Tell them his star is rising and that its not too late to jump on Freedoms bandwagon. You could tell her also that he raised more money than John McCain and that his campaign is debt free. He spends the campaign money very wisely, unlike others who use like they are on vacation.

bbachtung
09-08-2007, 07:22 PM
She's a good Christian, right? Ask her if Jesus' initial followers should have waited until He'd built up a big enough following before joining and founding Christianity. Somebody has to start the ball rolling for any good cause to succeed.

quickmike
09-08-2007, 07:23 PM
tell her in whatever wording you want "be a leader, not a follower"

if she really feels good about a candidate, always support that person. Thats the only way we will ever get honest people in office.

The biggest problem in this country is that so many people treat the presidency as a horse race, they want to vote for who they think will end up winning instead of voting for the person they really like.

Shink
09-08-2007, 07:24 PM
Okay, first you need to dig up an article showing how as the Second Quarter figures show, he has more money on hand than McCain and nearly as much as Romney (since Romney has to constantly loan himself money, because he runs a sloppy expensive campaign and buys his 'volunteers').

Then you need an article showing how Ron Paul raised more money than the entire Texas GOP did at the straw poll (which was not open to the public and he still bagged a lot of 'mainline' votes).

Let her know that his fundraising is going through the roof with 250, 500, 1000, and 2300 per-plate fundraisers.

Let her know that the meetup groups had a heavily-contested donation competition to get Ron to visit their city and that at very minimum it raised 300,000 dollars.

Let her know he leads ALL candidates on both sides in military and veteran donations.

Most importantly, show her that as he runs the most frugal campaign of anyone, he is fundraising a lot, getting airtime on major shows and features in print everywhere, and that we, his loyal grassroots supporters, are independently creating slogans and banners and professionally-made televised advertisements and that those numbers will not be measured by the FEC.

By the way, some googling with some of the things I mentioned will turn up those articles.

kylebrotherton
09-08-2007, 07:25 PM
This man could win if only had the money behind him - any chance???

But seriously, there are some good answers.

I'm pretty sarcastic, so my response might be:
"Yeah, so maybe if the bankers and liberal media decide that he should win, then you'll consider supporting him?

or:
"Yeah if only 'the money' would read up on the Constitution and limited government. I wish 'the money' would get behind him, that darned money always picks the wrong guy."

or:
"Yeah I wish someone who cared about this country would volunteer and help him win. Oh well, I gotta go- American Idol is on."

People who give responses like that are lazy. You can try to talk them into giving a rip, but don't spend too much of your time. You can have a much bigger impact by targeting strangers. For example, Operation: Spread The Word (http://ronpaul.wikia.com/wiki/Washington/Snohomish_County/Spread_The_Word) in Seattle.

bdmarti
09-08-2007, 07:27 PM
How about pointing out that he had more cash on hand at the end of q2 than Mcain.

Or that if you took away the 9 million dollars Romney loaned to his campaign, Ron had nearly as much cash on hand as Romney.

Or that Ron had more cash on hand at the end of q2 than any of the other "2nd tier" candidates; sometimes he had 10 times more money than them.

Or that Ron recently held a fundraiser in Texas that pulled in over 100K and that he has a dozen more similar, big money fundraisers planned during his west coast trip.

Or mention that his grassroots support is massive and has a dollar value that can't be estimated but that likely results in millions of dollars being spent in private efforts outside the campaign.

And then mention that he could use even more money to compete with the corrupt jokers like Guiliani so she should donate...

kylebrotherton
09-08-2007, 07:27 PM
Here's an email I recently sent to our meetup group:


"Ron Paul can't win." We've all heard that from someone. Why do they say it? Because it's easier to explain how hard something will be than it is to roll up your sleeves and get it done. They're just being lazy.

So, without further ado, here are some great responses to lazy statements like "Ron Paul can't win" and "what chance does he have?":

- If we see how hard it will be and just give up, then you're right - he can't win.

- Without your help, he has little chance. With our help, he has every chance.

- Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who can win FOR AMERICA.

- Would you rather vote for a LOSER who may win, or a WINNER who may lose?

- He can't win? Thirteen hundred Iowa straw poll voters disagree.

- Forty thousand organized grassroots supporters think he CAN win.

and my favorite response:
- Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican who can win the GENERAL election. He'll bring out the Conservative Pro-Life base. He'll win most of the Independent and Libertarian vote. And he'll literally steal democratic votes from Hillary, who supported the war and the 'PATRIOT ACT'.

So be encouraged. We are on the path to victory.

apropos
09-08-2007, 07:29 PM
Use a little humor. You can tell her that George Washington achieved his first political office (1757) by rolling out 144 gallons of liquor to the voters. He won by 307 votes, so he got a return on his investment of better than two votes per gallon. I guess you could say that giving the voters what they want is more important than boatloads of campaign money. :)

hatefalseweight
09-08-2007, 07:51 PM
Give her all the straw poll results

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/014853.html

http://ok4ronpaul.ashlux.com/wiki/index.php?title=2008_Presidential_GOP_straw_poll_r esults

BW4Paul
09-08-2007, 08:30 PM
She's a good Christian, right? Ask her if Jesus' initial followers should have waited until He'd built up a big enough following before joining and founding Christianity. Somebody has to start the ball rolling for any good cause to succeed.

I really like this one!

Naturally, you'll want to clarify that- much as you like RP- you know he's not the Second Coming. :D

SeanEdwards
09-08-2007, 09:19 PM
Tell her the truth doesn't need corporate sponsorship.

Nash
09-08-2007, 09:33 PM
Complaint: "He has no money"

Reply: He has the 4th most money in the bank on the GOP side, 3rd if you don't count Romney and the 9 million dollars he loaned himself. He has more cash on hand than John McCain.

Complaint: "He's only 3% in the polls so he can't win"

Reply: The polls only gauge the average registered voter who usually votes in general elections but rarely in primaries. Primary elections are all about the activist vote and are only attended by a small fraction of the electorate. 10%-20% is a more realistic gauge of his support considering his finishes in the major straw polls.