PDA

View Full Version : My Iowa caucus speech




hazek
12-18-2011, 10:21 AM
Good evening friends,


There is no doubt in my mind about what the main goal of each and everyone of us here tonight is. We all have an unique way of how we think we're going to arrive at that goal but the goal is nevertheless the same: We all want to elect a candidate that will lead us out of all these problems that our nation faces and who will defeat the current president.

I'm sure each one of us already has in place a method of how to discover who the best candidate for the job would be, but allow me for a moment to share with you mine.

When I look at the candidates I first and foremost care not about their appearance, their presence in the media or what they are saying right now in the middle of an election. No, what I like to do is look at their personal life and their political record. Why? Because I strongly believe that in order to truly know a candidate we have to know their past and their record.

While researching all of them I ran across one particular gentleman with an especially exemplary life and record that convinced me I could not vote for anyone else, in fact he convinced me voting for him is a once in a lifetime opportunity!

This gentleman is a strongly prolife OBGYN doctor by trade who delivered more than 4000 babies and who refused to accept the government sponsored medicare and would offer his services for free to those in need who couldn't afford to pay, he is a virtues family man of faith married to his highschool sweetheart for 54 years, he is an air force veteran drafted during the Cuban missile crisis and he is an astute Austrian economics scholar with a profound understanding of monetary policy and the free market.

It took one of the most significant economic events of the past century for him to abandon his calling in medicine and enter the political arena. It was in 1971 when Nixon severed the last link of gold to dollar and put the entire world on a fiat money standard. He got so afraid of this event for his country knowing that the aftermath would eventually lead to huge deficit spending, bigger and bigger government, endless needless wars, huge national debt and a weaker and weaker currency, so afraid that he thought it was his duty to speak up. I think there's no doubt what so ever that his fears have now come true.

In 1976 he won his first seat as a republican representative in congress and while campaigning he made one significant promise: To always obey and defend the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution. And that is exactly what he did in his entire 30 years or so of service often voting by himself on bills earning them nickname dr. No.

Among others he never voted:
- for increasing taxes,
- for an unbalanced budget
- for a federal restriction on gun ownership
- to raise congressional pay
- to increase the power of the executive branch

He voted against the patriot act and while he voted for the authority to go after those who committed 9/11 he voted against nation building in Afghanistan and the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program and he returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

During his service he made what I believe are three major predictions:
1.
Quote: "Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges of Fannie, Freddie, and HLBB have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.

However, despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policies of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing."

Yes, you heard that right. And he said this in 2002 on the house floor where as you heard he accurately predicted why we would have a housing bubble, the same bubble that every other politician will tell you it was unforeseeable

2.
Quote: "We are placed in greater danger because of our arrogant policy of bombing nations that do not submit to our wishes,” he said referring to the bombing in Iraq and Serbia. Continuing he says: “This generates the hatred directed toward America, even if at times it seems suppressed, and exposes us to a greater threat of terrorism, since this is the only vehicle our victims can use to retaliate against a powerful military state. The cost in terms of liberties lost and the unnecessary exposure to terrorism are difficult to determine, but in time it will become apparent to all of us that foreign interventionism is of no benefit to American citizens.”

He said this in year 2000, 17 months before 9/11 happened.


3.
Quote: "Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. The wisdom of the war is one issue, but the process and the philosophy behind our foreign policy are important issues as well. I have come to the conclusion that I see no threat to our national security. There is no convincing evidence that Iraq is capable of threatening the security of this country, and, therefore, very little reason, if any, to pursue a war." also in the same speech: "But a very practical reason why I have a great deal of reservations has to do with the issue of no-win wars that we have been involved in for so long."

He was right, there were not weapons of mass destruction and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and it turned out to be a very big unwinnable mess.


These are just some of the more important parts of his record and foresight, not to mention the countless bills he introduced among most important the audit the FED bill which we have to thank for that we now know the FED lent $16 trillion in emergency loans in 2008, a 3rd of it to foreigners and corporations.


It is this record of his that leads me to believe that if we elect dr. Ron Paul as our candidate, he as president will end all these costly and needless wars abroad, I believe he will keep this nation secure by bringing our soldier home and securing our borders and properly address any potential threat by going to the congress and ask them to declare war if war was warranted which he would then fight and get it over with quick, I believe he would veto any new regulations, any new tax increases and any unbalanced budget, I believe him when he says he would cut $1 trillion dollars in his first year, balance the budget in 3 and pay down the entire debt in 5, I believe he would work to reform our monetary policy to ensure we have a strong dollar that our elderly can count on in their retirement, I believe he would repeal suffocating regulations chief among them Obamacare and I believe he would always work towards lower taxes to ensure the best economic environment possible desperately needed for a recovery.

Most of all I strongly believe given his personal life and political record he would ensure we enjoy the maximum amount of freedom and self reliance and we'll once again be able to proudly say we are the land of the free and home of the brave.

Last but not least because he is a strict constitutional conservative with common sense ideas he attracts the most independent and democrat votes and I believe is our best shot at beating Obama.


Now please think about this account of his record and compare it to the rest of the candidates and please be honest with yourself. Pay no attention the the extremely negative portrayal by the corporate media and vote with your conscience, because if you do that you have to agree, voting for dr. Ron Paul is a once in a life time opportunity.

Thank you very much.



(I timed it reading it at a normal speed at 11min, don't know if this is too long or not.. but yeah, let me know what you think)

vechorik
12-18-2011, 10:26 AM
I'd leave this part out -- at the end

"Pay no attention the the extremely negative portrayal by the corporate media and "

+1 Love your effort -- THANKS!

CaptUSA
12-18-2011, 10:28 AM
Isn't there a 2 minute time limit?

MomsBasement
12-18-2011, 10:28 AM
I've never been to a caucus as I've never lived in a caucus state, but that seems super long. It seems like you would better keep peoples' attention if you kept it to 1-2 minutes. And as much as WE care about the monetary policy issues, I don't think many others who may be convinced to join at the last minute would be swayed by that particular issue. I would hit hard on his fiscally conservative record with examples, and then maybe a couple examples of where the others have failed (definitely would mention that both newt and mitt supported tarp, it's astounding how many people don't know that). Just my 2 cents

Paulitics 2011
12-18-2011, 10:29 AM
Very good speech.

However, I thought that the speeches are two minutes long. Or are the stump speeches a different thing than what you're doing here?

Also, mention that he was one of 4 Congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan at the time, mention that he gets more donations from the troops than all the other candidates put together, mention that he voted against all the bailouts, mention that as President he will take a salary of 40k (equal to median wage of American worker). Also, really emphasize the fact that he's the only one with an economic plan that balances the budget within his term, and mention that he promises to eliminate 5 executive departments as the President.

hazek
12-18-2011, 10:33 AM
I thought the 2min limit was only for that contest and hoped at the caucuses you'd have at least 10min..

EDIT: I'm also not going to make this into a video as it is too late to enter the contest and was never really my intention, heck I'm not even an American.. I just wanted to contribute with my idea of how to approach the stump speech so maybe others can get inspired by it or copy it..

Paulitics 2011
12-18-2011, 10:39 AM
I can help you shorten it if you need to.

Also, during the foreign policy part, you could include the part where Reagan says: "Peace is not the absence of conflict. It is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means."

Also, we need to mention why he is the most electable against Obama. Just like Reagan inspired "Reagan Democrats" to vote Republican for the first time, Ron Paul can appeal to Democrats by allowing liberal states to make their own laws on social issues, and he can steal the anti-war left from Obama. Among independents he polls higher than any other candidate, D or R. And conservatives should love him because he is the most consistent and conservative candidate since Reagan - he has a no-nonsense approach to cutting taxes and spending, he will stand up to our enemies, and through his devotion to the Constitution, will uphold the tenth amendment and protect state control of social issues, not allowing federal judges to interfere.

I'm thinking of writing a speech myself now...Hmm.

LeJimster
12-18-2011, 10:46 AM
It's a nice speech, but it's too broad and unfocused. For example, there is no need to quote Ron Paul to the extent you have. It would be better to say what and when he predicted things that came to pass. If any quotes are needed, just use partial quotes.

My personal opinion is you need to focus the speech on what matters most to the audience. So if you are in an area that is suffering economically, focus on Ron Paul's economic stuff. If you are in an extremely evangelical area, focus on Ron Paul's devotion to Jesus in his everyday life and bring up his pro-life stance that extends from conception to old age (and thus includes sending people into war).

Also focus heavily on that he votes based on whats authorized in the Constitution. He is a strict constitutionalist.

You get the point..