A. Havnes
02-03-2012, 11:28 AM
I've been awfully negative on these forums lately. I'm feeling the pangs of exhaustion from a constant battle with media blackout and misconceptions regarding Dr. Paul. However, I just returned from getting my grandfather's breakfast for him, and I have an excellent story to tell that has lifted my spirits today.
I went up to the local cafe where a group of older guys (all retired) sit around all morning talking politics and news. I walked to the counter and ordered my grandfather's usual breakfast, and as I waited, I overheard two of them arguing.
"I'll only vote for a man if I feel that I could invite him into my home and have dinner with my family," said Person A.
"That's all well and good, but policy is more important. I'll only vote for a man who can beat Obama and get things in order," said Person B.
The two went on and on, and I wasn't sure which candidate they were discussing until Person A chimed in with, "I wouldn't let your man near my wife if he was the only guy running. How can you rail against Clinton for what he did and embrace a man who's far worse?" Yep, it was Gingrich, and Person B was vehemently defending him in his laid back, Minnesota way.
I've built up a bit of a reputation with these guys from spending my mornings with them, and I'm now kind of the token young "thinker", as they call me. So, I decided to trot over to their long table and waited patiently for an opportunity to chime in and promote Ron Paul a bit, and noticed that Person C was sitting there as well, not saying anything and just observing.
"I try not to look at a man's personal issues," Person B replied. "I look at a man's policy, and I think Gingrich can beat Obama, most definitely."
At this moment, Person C noticed me and asked, "Who are you voting for?"
"Ron Paul," I said, and then added, "I don't think Gingrich can beat Obama. There's only two candidates who have consistently polled well against him, and Gingrich and Santorum are not them."
At this, Person A said, "And Ron Paul is the only man I'd let near my family." I had to smile at this, because I'd been working on this man for quite a while. He's very pragmatic individual, and when I handed him Ron Paul's budget proposal, I knew I'd have him in with us in time.
So, Person B was curious to hear about why I supported Ron Paul and began drilling me with question like, "Ron Paul's support comes mostly from young people aged 18-30. Why do you think that is?" and, "What about Ron Paul makes you think he can do what the other candidates can't?" He also added a few phrases like, "He has a problem with his foreign policy."
At the end of my discussion with him, as well as the other people in the cafe who had overheard us talking and began to question me, I had this man considering Ron Paul a bit more. He's still voting for Newt, and Santorum is still his second choice, but the seeds have been planted. There were a few big eye-openers for him and here they are, if anybody wants to know:
1. He had no idea that Ron Paul's money came largely from grassroots. I was talking about how Ron Paul is easier to relate to than the other candidates because he worked a normal job, wasn't born into wealth, etc. and Person B asked, "But how is he so stinkin' rich, then? He funds his campaign all by himself!" When I explained moneybombs and the passion of his grassroots supporters to him, he had a real eye-opener. Person A also noted the passion of Paul supporters.
2. I didn't have time to go into foreign policy with him, but I did have time to pump the whole, "Congress should declare war, set goals, and only then we should go to war. We've been invading other countries and China largely the one supporting our troops over there!" He felt a bit better after I explained to him that our overseas interventions are bankrupting us and that our actions aren't authorized by Congress. He figured that, "Once Ron Paul get into office and gets the facts, he'll change his foreign policy." So, while I didn't convert him, I did get him thinking a bit on that issue.
Here's what I avoided.
1. I really wanted to mention that Ron Paul's support comes largely from younger people because we have the Internet, and it takes more than a soundbyte to understand all of Dr. Paul's positions, but I didn't. I was afraid of insulting the man inadverdently. If we attack the media and gain some credibility, that would be one thing to bring this point up, but otherwise it could come off as, "We're smart and use alternative means to learn about the candidates, whereas you just sit like a sheep in front of Fox News!"
2. I actually didn't use the, "No one but Paul!" threat. I won't vote for anyone but Ron Paul, but I didn't feel it was appropriate to threaten any of the people at the cafe with that rhetoric.
I was very surprised that electability wasn't coming up as often as it had in the past. Person A did an excellent job of defending Ron Paul's electability, though, at least in his attempts to make Gingrich look like the slime that he is.
So, that's my story. Congrats to anyone who reads the whole thing. All I can say is, despite the fact that we've done very poorly lately, and yes Ron Paul's trailing poll numbers did come up, the seeds of liberty can still be planted. I'm only sad that it took this long, just days before the caucus, to actually get this guy thinking of Ron Paul. I've tried in the past and he normally won't listen. This time he did, and now he's thinking.
Also, don't write off the old folk. All of these guys are retired, yet they can be very open. They like getting input from the young crowd, wanting to know how Obama fares with them, etc.
I went up to the local cafe where a group of older guys (all retired) sit around all morning talking politics and news. I walked to the counter and ordered my grandfather's usual breakfast, and as I waited, I overheard two of them arguing.
"I'll only vote for a man if I feel that I could invite him into my home and have dinner with my family," said Person A.
"That's all well and good, but policy is more important. I'll only vote for a man who can beat Obama and get things in order," said Person B.
The two went on and on, and I wasn't sure which candidate they were discussing until Person A chimed in with, "I wouldn't let your man near my wife if he was the only guy running. How can you rail against Clinton for what he did and embrace a man who's far worse?" Yep, it was Gingrich, and Person B was vehemently defending him in his laid back, Minnesota way.
I've built up a bit of a reputation with these guys from spending my mornings with them, and I'm now kind of the token young "thinker", as they call me. So, I decided to trot over to their long table and waited patiently for an opportunity to chime in and promote Ron Paul a bit, and noticed that Person C was sitting there as well, not saying anything and just observing.
"I try not to look at a man's personal issues," Person B replied. "I look at a man's policy, and I think Gingrich can beat Obama, most definitely."
At this moment, Person C noticed me and asked, "Who are you voting for?"
"Ron Paul," I said, and then added, "I don't think Gingrich can beat Obama. There's only two candidates who have consistently polled well against him, and Gingrich and Santorum are not them."
At this, Person A said, "And Ron Paul is the only man I'd let near my family." I had to smile at this, because I'd been working on this man for quite a while. He's very pragmatic individual, and when I handed him Ron Paul's budget proposal, I knew I'd have him in with us in time.
So, Person B was curious to hear about why I supported Ron Paul and began drilling me with question like, "Ron Paul's support comes mostly from young people aged 18-30. Why do you think that is?" and, "What about Ron Paul makes you think he can do what the other candidates can't?" He also added a few phrases like, "He has a problem with his foreign policy."
At the end of my discussion with him, as well as the other people in the cafe who had overheard us talking and began to question me, I had this man considering Ron Paul a bit more. He's still voting for Newt, and Santorum is still his second choice, but the seeds have been planted. There were a few big eye-openers for him and here they are, if anybody wants to know:
1. He had no idea that Ron Paul's money came largely from grassroots. I was talking about how Ron Paul is easier to relate to than the other candidates because he worked a normal job, wasn't born into wealth, etc. and Person B asked, "But how is he so stinkin' rich, then? He funds his campaign all by himself!" When I explained moneybombs and the passion of his grassroots supporters to him, he had a real eye-opener. Person A also noted the passion of Paul supporters.
2. I didn't have time to go into foreign policy with him, but I did have time to pump the whole, "Congress should declare war, set goals, and only then we should go to war. We've been invading other countries and China largely the one supporting our troops over there!" He felt a bit better after I explained to him that our overseas interventions are bankrupting us and that our actions aren't authorized by Congress. He figured that, "Once Ron Paul get into office and gets the facts, he'll change his foreign policy." So, while I didn't convert him, I did get him thinking a bit on that issue.
Here's what I avoided.
1. I really wanted to mention that Ron Paul's support comes largely from younger people because we have the Internet, and it takes more than a soundbyte to understand all of Dr. Paul's positions, but I didn't. I was afraid of insulting the man inadverdently. If we attack the media and gain some credibility, that would be one thing to bring this point up, but otherwise it could come off as, "We're smart and use alternative means to learn about the candidates, whereas you just sit like a sheep in front of Fox News!"
2. I actually didn't use the, "No one but Paul!" threat. I won't vote for anyone but Ron Paul, but I didn't feel it was appropriate to threaten any of the people at the cafe with that rhetoric.
I was very surprised that electability wasn't coming up as often as it had in the past. Person A did an excellent job of defending Ron Paul's electability, though, at least in his attempts to make Gingrich look like the slime that he is.
So, that's my story. Congrats to anyone who reads the whole thing. All I can say is, despite the fact that we've done very poorly lately, and yes Ron Paul's trailing poll numbers did come up, the seeds of liberty can still be planted. I'm only sad that it took this long, just days before the caucus, to actually get this guy thinking of Ron Paul. I've tried in the past and he normally won't listen. This time he did, and now he's thinking.
Also, don't write off the old folk. All of these guys are retired, yet they can be very open. They like getting input from the young crowd, wanting to know how Obama fares with them, etc.