Ron Paul Campaign Flaws - Justifiable, Debatable, or Hyperbole?

In our local Meetup group discussion board an active member shared a link to a supporter who felt there were many flaws in the Ron Paul campaign which would doom his and all other supporters in the cause of electing Dr. Paul.  In carefully analyzing many of the flaws this supporter discussed I found most were not flaws at all, merely an unwillingness to fully embrace the Constitutional courage to press for the changes.  However, there was one statement I read which had me saying, “Yes, that is a flaw that could end this campaign, literally derail the train!

 

Keep in mind; it was due to this discussion forum I moved from a sideline admirer of the campaign to an active supporter.  Research performed as a result of many posts found within these forums led me to place a sign in my yard, open my wallet, and dedicate many hours this weekend to working a gun show booth this weekend in an effort to better educate others on the message of ‘Hope for America’ found only in the Ron Paul campaign.  However, the comment directly spoke to the one weakness I have seen in every debate and a flaw that continues to leave Ron Paul open to Soundbite attacks against him which the uninformed will accept as fact, that being he is an extremist with radical ideas.  Here is the quote that had my head nodding in the affirmative:

 

"If you are not as extreme as you appear to be on these issues and you do have good plans for transitioning with minimum suffering, you have to communicate this information much better than you are now."

 

You can trace my comments and find my one major concern is the ineffective articulation of his stances and plans.  Ron Paul supporters are not some band of blind mice following a mesmerizing flute.  We understand it will take more than one man, more than one term, and more than mere lip service to force the changes necessary to turn us away from socialism and restore us as a prosperous Federalist Republic founded in democracy and capitalism We study the Constitution, embrace the principles that made this country so very strong early on, and will make us strong again.  We understand and have no fear or false impression!  However, as long as clearly articulated plans are not communicated to the public there are risks and flaws, IMHO.

 

The fact there is a lack of clear, transitional plans being communicated needs to be addressed and corrected. I have heard him say we cannot merely pull the plug on many of these Federal abuses overnight, nor could he as President. We know it will take more than even two terms to turn this boat around. However, it would be nice to have him and his campaign outline clear and easy to grasp transitional plans as many of our fellow voters do have a fear (false evidence appearing real) that he will be some radical, extremist ripping apart everything they the socialized cling to. As long as there are no clear transitional plans his attackers have an easy, Soundbite begging, target they will continue to hit dead center to play on this fear.  You play on their fear enough and he may get past the primaries yet will not survive in the general election.

 

Ron Paul supporters, am I way off base here or is this something we need to elevate to the campaign headquarters?  We need him to be the Republican candidate but, even more, we need him to win!

Link to article prompting this.

---

Stephen Hawkings has a real difficult time in verbalizing , he sounds very mechanical . I do not  think however this shortcoming detracts from his immense intellect whatsoever as everyone gathers around waiting breathlessly on his next message . When there is good to be gotten the good will be heard . Yes , Ron Paul is no PT Barnum , but then this was not meant to be a cricus with the best barker winning all the marbles ,and the marbles need to stay with the people .

The most effective speaker is the one who gets the point out to those listening , and perhaps Dr Ron needs to make sure he is talking to the people , not the politicians .If he is effective with the people , then he begins with the politicians . If he is as ruthless with the politicians as GWB has been with the people then the people and the country win , Respectfully opining .

PS

It is also a well known fact that the masses are not real good at listening .

---

RP is opposed to further military action in Iraq.  He needs to inform people what he will do with the military and whatever resources he has to try to prevent another 9-11 and thwart Islamo-fascist aggression.  As noted in another thread, if he believes that we can simply negotiate and appease them, then he has no business being president.  If he has a plan or a concept for military draw down, redeployment, or whatever and a strategy or concept for defending this country against terrorism, then he needs to clarify.  If he can't do that, he won't have a snowball's chance in he!!, but if he can give voters confidence that he has a pair and won't back down from anybody, then the rest of his positions and message is a slam dunk.

The fact is, whether what the government did was right or wrong in the past is irrelevant.  The next president is going to have a situation to deal with and he better have an idea how to deal with it.  And if he can't convince most voters that his is the best way, he will not reside at 1600 Pennsylvania in 2009.

---

I am having trouble answering questions like, "What is Ron Paul's stand on gays in the military?"  "How will Ron Paul deal with Muslims in America who are assaulting our culture?" and finally, "How will Ron Paul deal with terrorists?"  I was able to answer the latter one with the article on Letters of Remarqe, but am far from certain that it is adequate.  No candidate is going to hit 100% with anyone and I strongly support Dr. Paul and believe that he could us far and away more good than anyone else, especially in his willingless to put his life on the line to take down the Federal Reserve.

---

CasaWood said: 

The fact there is a lack of clear, transitional plans being communicated needs to be addressed and corrected. I have heard him say we cannot merely pull the plug on many of these Federal abuses overnight, nor could he as President. We know it will take more than even two terms to turn this boat around. However, it would be nice to have him and his campaign outline clear and easy to grasp transitional plans as many of our fellow voters do have a fear (false evidence appearing real) that he will be some radical, extremist ripping apart everything they the socialized cling to. As long as there are no clear transitional plans his attackers have an easy, Soundbite begging, target they will continue to hit dead center to play on this fear.  You play on their fear enough and he may get past the primaries yet will not survive in the general election.

 

Ron Paul supporters, am I way off base here or is this something we need to elevate to the campaign headquarters?  We need him to be the Republican candidate but, even more, we need him to win!

Link to article prompting this.

 

I understand what you are saying and I do see this as a major flaw.  However, it is less a flaw with Ron Paul and more a flaw of the soundbite media we have to deal with currently.  If we were to have something akin to the Lincoln Douglas debates then Dr. Paul could really elaborate on these issues.  Honestly, I do not know the answers either on some fine details and I think that is OK.  

Another major flaw that makes this such an uphill battle is that Ron Paul is not running for dictator, just president.  What I mean is, he is sure of the broad strokes and that means honoring the Constitution, but it is not for the President to dictate to the finest detail exactly how we will live.  

If you are sold on the principle that we are headed in the wrong direction than any movement in the other direction is progress.  

He has broadly alluded to using the savings from our interventionism to pay for getting rid of the IRS, and SS payments, while keeping entitlements... for some period of time.  I do not know how long or for whom or how fast... I do know that any speed, level and timing is great news.

He has been very specific on the return to sound money.  He wants to not return to a gold standard but allow Gold and Silver to be an alternate currency.  That merely means that no tax would be due if the price of gold increased in relation to the fiat dollar, as it has recently.   That is encouraging, he is saying that you could choose what you want to use, much like you can now on the currency exchanges.

Bottomline, you are not offbase for this critism, it is very valid.  No one should blindly trust anyone to perform their intellectual heavy lifting, by co-signing anything they say.  You should have areas of disagreement with Dr. Paul as well.  I do.  We will still have a Congress that must be a partner in this effort to reduce government.  Ron Paul will have plenty of opportunity to get specific when he wins the nomination, with your help.  Glad to have you as a fellow supporter.

---

My second biggest critisism of Ron Paul is that he seems to think that our nations problems can simply be erased as if they were written on a chalkboard. How often have we heard him or one of his supporters say "we need to get back to the Constitution." Yes, we all know that. Saying it is one thing, finding a way to do it is another.

---

MrT said: My second biggest critisism of Ron Paul is that he seems to think that our nations problems can simply be erased as if they were written on a chalkboard. How often have we heard him or one of his supporters say "we need to get back to the Constitution." Yes, we all know that. Saying it is one thing, finding a way to do it is another.

 

---

nwind said: I am having trouble answering questions like, "What is Ron Paul's stand on gays in the military?"  "How will Ron Paul deal with Muslims in America who are assaulting our culture?" and finally, "How will Ron Paul deal with terrorists?"  I was able to answer the latter one with the article on Letters of Remarqe, but am far from certain that it is adequate.  No candidate is going to hit 100% with anyone and I strongly support Dr. Paul and believe that he could us far and away more good than anyone else, especially in his willingless to put his life on the line to take down the Federal Reserve.

 

nwind!

Thanks for the posting these.  Ron Paul has also addressed these in debates and these questions are pretty easily answered:

1.) "What is Ron Paul's stand on gays in the military?"

He answered this specifically in a debate question and Duncan Hunter followed and echoed the exact same thing (even stated specifically he agreed with what Ron Paul said).  The question had to do with the "Don't ask don't tell" policy and Ron Paul said he doesn't think it needs to be changed.  He said something to the effect that it is the behavior of the individual in the military, regardless of orientation, that if the behavior becomes a problem than this needs to be dealt with.  He then went on to explain the excellent point that the socialist left need to understand is that RIGHTS do not belong to groups, RIGHTS only belong to the individual.

2.) "How will Ron Paul deal with Muslims in America who are assaulting our culture?"

I've never heard this one myself, well maybe they would say the jihadists who are already in American and "want to kill us".  Though I'm certain an answer can be attained over at www.RonPaulLibrary.org, my personal thoughts are that you don't have to increase the size of government and create new bureacracy to deal with criminals.  This actually has the opposite effect.  As Ron Paul has stated, the information existed before the 9/11 attacks that the threat was imminent but due to layers of bureacracy the information went nowhere.  What was the solution by Bush?  Create MORE bureacracy via DHS.  You would also do much more to crime of any nature in general in the United States by respecting the 2nd amendment by allowing the American populace to keep and bear arms.  Also if you take the focus of our polices forces OFF of non-violent offense and let them focus on real hardened criminals that DO want to kill us than these guys can actually be caught.

3.) "How will Ron Paul deal with terrorists?"

This is simple, he's going to secure our borders and keep them out of the United States.  Not to mention that he would stop subsidizing them on one hand while strong-arming them on the other like we've done the last 50 years.  1953 we sent the CIA over to Iran to assasinate their elected leader Mosaddeq and installed the radical islamist the Shah of Iran.  This was all to protect the oil interests of British Petroleum.  In the 1980's we back our friends Saddam Hussein in their conflicts with Iran, yet a few years later we end up hating Saddam Hussein and now he's the next Adolf Hitler and we go and take him out too.  We're surrounding Iran on all sides and we pretend to be surprised when they speak out aggressively against us.

Look at Ron Paul's articles on foreign policy over at www.RonPaulLibrary.org. I don't want to speak for Ron Paul but with my own personal foreign policy of non-intervention I would pull out ALL of our troops from around the world and bring them home to SECURE our homeland and be a defense.  I would respect the Jeffersonian axiom of "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all - Entangling alliances with none" and stop selling our sovereignty away to the UN, the IMF, the WTO, etc.  

-------------------------- 

I've been attending Young Republicans meetings in my county as part of my campaigning for Ron Paul and almost ALL of these people are essentially neoconservative in this respect though they generally always say they love everything else about Ron Paul but his foreign policy position (that's because they've been breed on this foreign policy of imperialism from the neoconservatives that's hijacked the party in the recent decades) though when I engage with them on discussions they usually end up agreeing or have not much else to say in response.  In person you will find that most people do NOT resort to ad hominem unlike the trolls on the internet who can hide behind a computer screen.  I have fun and get along great with a lot of these neoconservatives, just have to show them that a foreign policy of non-intervention is the original conservative foreign policy and it's NOT one that the left subscribe to.

In the end you get them away from the propped up terrorism argument and show them the other issues, the Constitution (New Dealers essentially shredded this by disobeying it, we don't want the GOP to do the same to what's left right?), and the other issues and they start eating up Ron Paul.

Heck initially I looked past foreign policy myself.  I really didn't care that he was a non-interventionist as it was ALL of his other positions that really got me into him.  It was amazing that there was one person that REALLY talked about the free market and capitalism and getting the government OUT of our pockets.  Nobody else really talks like this, they only say what they have to to placate the masses but if they meaned it they would sound like Ron Paul.  After hearing him talk about foreign policy for a while I believed it simply made sense and become a non-interventionist.

---

bcmiller said:

Liberty is still Liberty and it should still be protected even at the expense of safety.  

 

bcmiller,

Let me just rephrase this slightly as I believe it makes a bit more sense the way that Benjamin Franklin articulated it being that If you trade liberty for security, you end up with neither.  

Liberty shouldn't have to be protected at the expense of anything else, liberty is an unalienable right given to us by God.  If we respect liberty we HAVE safety.  

Suspending habeas corpus has not made me safer, it actually has made me less safe because I can be labeled an enemy combatant now and cannot petition for the writ of habeas corpus, be brought in front of a judge to review my detainment, and be released if it is not a legal imprisonment.  

Habeas corpus truely is the lynchpin of a free society.  This is why it has always been respected by common law nations since the Magna Carta was ratified in the 13th century.  Who the hell does Bush think he is to suspend this basic privilege of a free society?! 

---

RonPaul08 said:

nwind said: I am having trouble answering questions like, "What is Ron Paul's stand on gays in the military?"  "How will Ron Paul deal with Muslims in America who are assaulting our culture?" and finally, "How will Ron Paul deal with terrorists?"  I was able to answer the latter one with the article on Letters of Remarqe, but am far from certain that it is adequate.  No candidate is going to hit 100% with anyone and I strongly support Dr. Paul and believe that he could us far and away more good than anyone else, especially in his willingless to put his life on the line to take down the Federal Reserve.

 

 "How will Ron Paul deal with Muslims in America who are assaulting our culture?"

I've never heard this one myself, well maybe they would say the jihadists who are already in American and "want to kill us".  Though I'm certain an answer can be attained over at www.RonPaulLibrary.org, my personal thoughts are that you don't have to increase the size of government and create new bureacracy to deal with criminals.  This actually has the opposite effect.  As Ron Paul has stated, the information existed before the 9/11 attacks that the threat was imminent but due to layers of bureacracy the information went nowhere.  What was the solution by Bush?  Create MORE bureacracy via DHS.  You would also do much more to crime of any nature in general in the United States by respecting the 2nd amendment by allowing the American populace to keep and bear arms.  Also if you take the focus of our polices forces OFF of non-violent offense and let them focus on real hardened criminals that DO want to kill us than these guys can actually be caught.

I have been doing a fair amount of digging in the library.  This one eludes me and perhaps he has not written on it yet.  My concern here is concessions to muslims that impact our culture, such as the blasting of "calls to prayer" in the middle of the night.  They have colonized places in Europe to the point that the natives are living in fear of them.  A woman in Belguim was beaten up by a muslim in the street because he was offended that she was wearing slacks.  She reported the assault to the police but they are so cowed by the Islamists that they refused to investigate or even make a written report on the incident.  I can see that Christian women there may be forced to start wearing burkas in public out of fear for their safety.  It is this kind of encroachment on our culture that worries me as "moderate" muslims attempt to overwhelm us with sheer numbers.  Even the most peaceful of these people has a religious obligation to spread Islam across the entire world and bring the world under Sharia law.  I don't know as it is yet appropriate to develop a plan to deal with this sort of thing or even to discuss it, but it is a major threat to our culture.

---

nwind said:

RonPaul08 said: 

 "How will Ron Paul deal with Muslims in America who are assaulting our culture?"

I've never heard this one myself, well maybe they would say the jihadists who are already in American and "want to kill us".  Though I'm certain an answer can be attained over at www.RonPaulLibrary.org, my personal thoughts are that you don't have to increase the size of government and create new bureacracy to deal with criminals.  This actually has the opposite effect.  As Ron Paul has stated, the information existed before the 9/11 attacks that the threat was imminent but due to layers of bureacracy the information went nowhere.  What was the solution by Bush?  Create MORE bureacracy via DHS.  You would also do much more to crime of any nature in general in the United States by respecting the 2nd amendment by allowing the American populace to keep and bear arms.  Also if you take the focus of our polices forces OFF of non-violent offense and let them focus on real hardened criminals that DO want to kill us than these guys can actually be caught.

I have been doing a fair amount of digging in the library.  This one eludes me and perhaps he has not written on it yet.  My concern here is concessions to muslims that impact our culture, such as the blasting of "calls to prayer" in the middle of the night.  They have colonized places in Europe to the point that the natives are living in fear of them.  A woman in Belguim was beaten up by a muslim in the street because he was offended that she was wearing slacks.  She reported the assault to the police but they are so cowed by the Islamists that they refused to investigate or even make a written report on the incident.  I can see that Christian women there may be forced to start wearing burkas in public out of fear for their safety.  It is this kind of encroachment on our culture that worries me as "moderate" muslims attempt to overwhelm us with sheer numbers.  Even the most peaceful of these people has a religious obligation to spread Islam across the entire world and bring the world under Sharia law.  I don't know as it is yet appropriate to develop a plan to deal with this sort of thing or even to discuss it, but it is a major threat to our culture.

I thought Ron Paul has already dealt with this one appropriately?  The situations you outline above are solved with the 2nd amendment is respected.  When somebody tries to use aggression against you than you have the right to defend yourself.  Once again, this transcends race/religion/creed. 

I do not fear muslims, I fear government.  As Thomas Jefferson said "When government fears the people you have liberty; When people fear the government there is tyranny".  

 

---

MrT said: My second biggest critisism of Ron Paul is that he seems to think that our nations problems can simply be erased as if they were written on a chalkboard. How often have we heard him or one of his supporters say "we need to get back to the Constitution." Yes, we all know that. Saying it is one thing, finding a way to do it is another.

Mr T , I have yet to see where restore the constitution has ever been put forth by Dr Paul as the panacea to correct all ills this nation has . However restoring the constitution will make it easier to set about the necessary cures .

It is good you only had two areas of concern , now what is the next before you get aboard ?

---

Wow...I've been away most of the day and just now got a chance to read through some of these excellent insights!  I appreciate all the responses and in-depth considerations. 

The link to the Ron Paul Library was excellent, I did not know about it and will share it with many. 

The idea of Lincoln/Douglas style debates I applaud.  FT said that's what he want and Huckabee wrote him a letter challenging him any place, any time.  I think Ron Paul would do extremely well in this format, much better than the joke of what has come to be called debating.  (I never would have been on the high school debate team if that were the format!)  How do we get L/D styles sponsored and going?

Mr. T made a comment which directly spoke to my original concern.   BCMiller did an excellent job answering it but let me quote it here and show you where it stands out;

    MrT said: My second biggest critisism of Ron Paul is that he seems to think that our nations         problems can simply be erased as if they were written on a chalkboard. How often have we heard him or one of his supporters say "we need to get back to the Constitution." Yes, we all know that. Saying it is one thing, finding a way to do it is another.

He states this is a criticism he has of Ron Paul, he (meaning RP) seems to think...problems simply erased...  This is the MSM and RP detractors at work.  Those of us supporting Dr. Paul know he is fully aware of the challenges to get things turned around.  But, there are no transition plans (again, for the bigger issues not all the minor ones...also bullet points not exhaustive detail) so the MSM and detractors say 'he' thinks it's simple...I forget who, but someone said he'll just wave his magic Constitution and poof, all will be better.  Without digging in and being involved it is easy to get the impression, especially with the MSM and detractors constantly harping.  He states - finding a way to do it is another - and that is the key I'm looking at.  It would be nice to be able to tell Mr. T here is the way to do it and show him the plan or to hear RP speak of the plan for Iraq, ending the IRS, removing the DOE, and more.  Most of the information is out there but no clear 'plan' or approach.

BTW ~ Mr. T, if you come on board the Ron Paul express you will know there is a way and it has been found.   You will also fully understand it is not simple and it will take a lot more than erasing the board.  It is going to hurt, worse than a trip to the dentist, but the smile will be worth it!

  bob graham las vegas - ...Yes , Ron Paul is no PT Barnum , but then this was not meant to be a cricus with the best barker winning all the marbles ,and the marbles need to stay with the people ...

He's actually a fairly good orator when he is not in the debate style situation but that is not at all what I was referring to and I apologize for not articulating well enough myself.  The best barker is not necessary but easily understood plans sure help those that wonder how he would do these many things.  If they ask the wrong person they are likely to get a Hannity response of "He's a whako' and buy into it.  I agree, we don't need the best orator just the answer to how.  Again, listening to him in forums like talk shows or interactive q & a or, as we were lucky enough to do last week, his stump speech, he's really quite good.  That is why I think he would really shine in a Lincoln Douglas format.

     FeedFwd - ...The fact is, whether what the government did was right or wrong in the past is irrelevant.  The next president is going to have a situation to deal with and he better have an idea how to deal with it.  And if he can't convince most voters that his is the best way, he will not reside at 1600 Pennsylvania in 2009.

Very good point and one that I really try and bring home in talking with people about RP and the campaign in general.  To a large degree the past rights and wrongs are irrelevant compared to the important of the future steps.  I find getting them to see the big picture forward rather than driving from the rearview mirror the conversations tend to go smoother and with less emotion. 

Now, the past is relevent when it comes to the records of those running...for example, Hillary's Health Care Choice Plan is very similar to the plan signed into law by Romney (which he is now running from) so what would he likely give us if he were entrusted with the White House, etc.  But the country cannot change the rediculous foreign policy we've had for most of the past century we can only elect someone bold enough to establish the correct direction, etc. 

RP08 - love what you've been doing with the Young Republican groups.  How fun is that!  You know, the personal interaction with these kids is such a key.  To have someone like you just sit with them and discuss reality, history, and more will make all the difference in their level of understanding.  Chances are they aren't getting that level of education from their classes.  Well done and a great idea.  I wonder how the Young Democrats would react?  Hmmm...

There are a few things I don't agree with Ron Paul on, very few and as someone mentioned, that's OK.  I've never found 'my' perfect candidate and if I do there just may be a chance, may be, that she won't be your perfect candidate...then what?  

The main ingredients for this wonderful revolution is the message and the passion.  I love what it is doing for young families and students.  At the rally in SLC there were a lot of families with their little kids and the little kids were waving signs and cheering, how great is that!  Another thing I like is the spirit makes me feel young and energized again...he needs to win.  Yet, after reading all this I am still convinced we need some clear talking point plans for major issues sooner rather than later because later will be too late.  

Wow ~ thanks again!  I hope the forums at our new web community at Hear My Thunder.org will one day reflect the quality of interaction I had the privilege of reading through this evening here. 

 

---

CasaWood,

I'm just curious, but what exactly are the big ideas that RP has which there is no a transition plan for?  Even abolishing the Federal Reserve and backing our dollar 100% (as opposed to fractional reserve banking where the current dollar is only backed about 1% by actual notes) is much easier than one would think.  The old media (the one Rush calls "mainstream" but are anything BUT mainstream) are owned by these international bankers so why would they say otherwise?  

Young Republicans is anybody < 40 years old.  So I'm actually the "kid" there as it seems!  

We're also attending the county GOP Executive Committee meetings as well and these are the important ones.  It's amazing how a little bit of discussion with individuals can have a LOT of influence.  The main thing is getting people to just LISTEN about Ron Paul's message.  The funny thing is that the biggest Ron Paul hater says that if he wins the nomination they will back him 100%. 

---

RonPaul08 said:

CasaWood,

I'm just curious, but what exactly are the big ideas that RP has which there is no a transition plan for?  Even abolishing the Federal Reserve and backing our dollar 100% (as opposed to fractional reserve banking where the current dollar is only backed about 1% by actual notes) is much easier than one would think.  The old media (the one Rush calls "mainstream" but are anything BUT mainstream) are owned by these international bankers so why would they say otherwise?  

Young Republicans is anybody < 40 years old.  So I'm actually the "kid" there as it seems!  

We're also attending the county GOP Executive Committee meetings as well and these are the important ones.  It's amazing how a little bit of discussion with individuals can have a LOT of influence.  The main thing is getting people to just LISTEN about Ron Paul's message.  The funny thing is that the biggest Ron Paul hater says that if he wins the nomination they will back him 100%. 

 

I don't believe there are any Ron Paul does not have a transition plan for in theory or perhaps even in written form somewhere.  However, there is nothing to easily address as his transition plan on many things. 

Example: RP Questioner "I heard Ron Paul just wants to bring our troops home, you can't JUST do that!"  RP Supporter "Well, let me show the steps Ron Paul would undertake in initiating the withdrawl of our troops from Iraq, as well as other areas...{shows visual plan while discussing steps-person leaves with plan in hand now knowing he wouldn't JUST do it.}  

RP Questioner "They say your guy wants to shut down the DOE, how radical, you can't JUST shut down public education!"  RP Supporter "Let me show you how Ron Paul plans to restore the oversight of public education where it belongs, how he''ll propose ending the bureaucracy of the DOE and transitioning schools control back to the where the Constitution intended it to be...{shows visual plan while discussing steps-person leaves with plan in hand knowing it doesn't shut down public education and there is a plan that will work}

etc.  Again, nothing elaborate but key steps in the transition from where we are to where we can go under the march toward returning to the U.S. Constitution.   Federal Reserve is another good one, not difficult to understand but to have a simple transition plan to show people helps reduce the fear factor the MSM and detractors are slamming constantly about and confusing the sheeple.

Dag~nab, if I try and visit the young Republicans they'd probably say sorry gramps!  I remember when I was the young Republican as I worked in my first political campaign when I was 12.  That was the year I received a thank you card from then Governor Reagan and I still have that silly card today.

You are so right, the county meetings are critical.  What I am finding here so far is the Utah Caucus system is run by a well established base of folks and it is going to be a bit of a challenge cracking in but we are going to give it a try. 

---

Ah I see what you're saying now.  Though it is even sillier to question some of these things.

How do you bring home the troops?  You just bring them home!!  How simple is that?!  You bring them home the same way we got there.  Obviously it's not all going to be in one day but you simply get them on the airplanes and FLY THEM HOME.  

The greatest violence occuring in Iraq is actually in Baghdad where we have the greatest presence.  We simply have to stop being their police force.  The people saying there will be bloodbaths in the streets are the ones saying they'd welcome us with open arms so why should we believe them at our expense?

The DOE never existed until 1980!  How do people think our kids were educated before this time?  It's amazing how people think that Washington D.C. actually PROVIDE any education for our children.

I would go one step further, as outlined by www.schoolandstate.org, and preferrably ELIMINATE the government from education but that would be a state issue.  There is no need for a DOE except to siphon off more money from the working American.  Same thing with half off the other executive branch departments.

If you read some of the articles at the www.RonPaulLibrary.org you will find more of this information that you seek.  Not to mention the general writings from www.lewrockwell.com and the ones from the Mises Institute at www.mises.org. www.antiwar.com is actually a website that has its foundations in our constitution too whereas I actually thought they were a democratic group.

---

RonPaul08 said:

Ah I see what you're saying now.  Though it is even sillier to question some of these things.

How do you bring home the troops?  You just bring them home!!  How simple is that?!  You bring them home the same way we got there.  Obviously it's not all going to be in one day but you simply get them on the airplanes and FLY THEM HOME.  

The greatest violence occuring in Iraq is actually in Baghdad where we have the greatest presence.  We simply have to stop being their police force.  The people saying there will be bloodbaths in the streets are the ones saying they'd welcome us with open arms so why should we believe them at our expense?

The DOE never existed until 1980!  How do people think our kids were educated before this time?  It's amazing how people think that Washington D.C. actually PROVIDE any education for our children.

I would go one step further, as outlined by www.schoolandstate.org, and preferrably ELIMINATE the government from education but that would be a state issue.  There is no need for a DOE except to siphon off more money from the working American.  Same thing with half off the other executive branch departments.

If you read some of the articles at the www.RonPaulLibrary.org you will find more of this information that you seek.  Not to mention the general writings from www.lewrockwell.com and the ones from the Mises Institute at www.mises.org. www.antiwar.com is actually a website that has its foundations in our constitution too whereas I actually thought they were a democratic group.

 

Again, it is not information that I seek, it is a tool to use for the campaign to help chill the fear the press so easily makes of things.  Sheeple are skitish wee creatures and these types of transition plans calm their nerves without too much taxation on  their brain.  They don't want to have to dig too deep themselves, they want it simple, they want it quick, and they want to go on down the road. Most are not going to want to delve into in-depth discussions or wander through a bunch of websites to try and find the answer to the all important 'how' question.  We love that kind of thing, most sheeple don't and if we cannot answer the 'how' we are not going to garner their votes, they'll listen to someone who feeds them poorer quality food but makes it easier to eat.

As far as it being silly to question some of these things remember these sheeple think some of these things are actually good for them or that it is the way it has always been so it is important to be able to discuss the fact these things aren't good, can be changed rather easily and show them how we all reach our goals of restoring the Constitution and the country.

---

CasaWood said:

Again, it is not information that I seek, it is a tool to use for the campaign to help chill the fear the press so easily makes of things.  Sheeple are skitish wee creatures and these types of transition plans calm their nerves without too much taxation on  their brain.  They don't want to have to dig too deep themselves, they want it simple, they want it quick, and they want to go on down the road. Most are not going to want to delve into in-depth discussions or wander through a bunch of websites to try and find the answer to the all important 'how' question.  We love that kind of thing, most sheeple don't and if we cannot answer the 'how' we are not going to garner their votes, they'll listen to someone who feeds them poorer quality food but makes it easier to eat.

Likewise.  I have a tendency to walk into places like gun forums with old retired military.  You can tell what I get thrown at me by the questions I asked. I just plow in and let them beat me up and keep coming back at them with logical replies.  The attackers are not likely to change but I get emails from lurkers all the time saying that what I say makes sense.  I am going after one convert at a time, just trying to get people stop mindlessly repeating dogma and to think.

It will definitely take more than waving the Constitution to fix the problems in our society.  We have millions of people who can't blow their noses without running to the government and millions more who are completely dependent upon the state for their existence.  Millions more who have been brainwashed by radical environmentalism.  They don't realize that when it comes to things like education the feds don't do it.  They collect the money that should be going directly to the schools, filter it through a bunch of bureaucrats who misuse at least half of it to maintain their burearcracies then give the remainder back to the states with strings attached all over it.

It took time to get into this mess and it will take time to get out of it and to restore freedom and responsibility to the people. Still, if you buy and old house to fix up, what do you do first, retile the floors or restore the foundation to a sound condition?  The Constitution is our foundation and we cannot repair our house until our foundation is fixed.  Continuing to build more stories onto to the top of the house with the foundation crumbling is foolhardy at best. 

---