Posted on 10/09/2007 7:07:34 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
This weekend, I attended and spoke at the Second Amendment Foundation’s annual Gun Rights Policy Conference, which was held at a convention center in northern Kentucky, a few miles away from Cincinnati. What I saw and heard there changed my mind about the viability of Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy; Paul is going to far outperform the expectations laid out for him.
First, for some background: twenty years ago, the Second Amendment Foundation (the second-largest pro-Second Amendment group in the U.S.) began sponsoring an annual Gun Rights Policy Conference, in conjunction with other pro-gun groups, including the NRA. For a full working day on Saturday, and half a day on Sunday, the conference features 10-15 minute speeches by writers, radio hosts, group leaders, and other pro-2d Amendment activists.’’
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
Only if he shut up and went away.
No
"Ron Paul and his flaming antiwar spam monkeys can Kiss my Ass!!"
- Jim Robinson, Sept, 30, 2007
Oh, goody! Time for our Daily Moonbat Thread!
Moonbat ping.
From the article:
"(at the time, I was a congressional intern for Pat Schroeder)."
" I did a lot of work in the Gary Hart campaign in 1983-84, while I was at the University of Michigan’s Law School."
This guy has a long history of being a nutbag.
What on earth has happened to the National Review? It strikes me as a strange, and not particularly conservative, group of writers and editors now.
He is my congressman, and he has been to some of my Christmas parties, but I am no longer voting at all until Ramos & Campean are FREE.
I removed them from my link list a long time ago, about the time I removed World Nut Daily too.
How about NO!!!!
Sad little Wally Cox looking dude.
Surprise us? No. Few of us will be surprised when he announces his third (or fourth) party candidacy and tries to Perot the election to those who will make us into their own little wussified, coddled, Europe-lyte.
Nod. I got a “do you want to subscribe” tickler yesterday from the National Review. Was thinking of doing it, as much to help pay the salaries of some conservative journalists as anything else . . . but I’m just not sure about them anymore. They publish a lot of stuff like this article now, wishy-washy, out of left field, and sort of leaning left as well.
Why do you post Paul threads?
Or, perhaps he does...he seems to be hearing what RP says as well as reading between the lines, and thus his enthusiasm.
The writer’s voting history fits right in with his current well-reasoned political deductions and decision making./s
No.
Heck, let’s read it all:
First, for some background: twenty years ago, the Second Amendment Foundation (the second-largest pro-Second Amendment group in the U.S.) began sponsoring an annual Gun Rights Policy Conference, in conjunction with other pro-gun groups, including the NRA. For a full working day on Saturday, and half a day on Sunday, the conference features 10-15 minute speeches by writers, radio hosts, group leaders, and other pro-2d Amendment activists.’’
This year, the audience was the biggest ever. At the first conference I attended, in Dallas in 1988, Ron Paul gave a speech on behalf of his Libertarian Party presidential candidacy. I had liked Paul ever since I had met him in 1981, when Paul gave a thoughtful speech to a group of several dozen interns at which I was present (at the time, I was a congressional intern for Pat Schroeder). I voted for Paul in 1988, and in light of the performance of President George H. W. Bush, I’m glad I did.
Last Saturday night, at the buffet dinner and reception, the speaker was Ron Paul. The difference between Paul as a speaker in 1988 and in 2007 was startling. In 1988, he was perfectly competent. This time he was electrifying. In 1988, his campaign could do little more than leave some literature on a table. This time, he had volunteers to hand out literature, including (for the recipient audience) devastating material on Romney and Thompson. (Included among the materials distributed were Romney’s gubernatorial signing statement of the Massachusetts ban on so-called ““assault weapons,”“ and a copy of Sen. Russ Feingold’s letter to Senator Thompson after the passage of McCain-Feingold, with Feingold’s handwritten thanks, claiming that the bill never could have passed without Thompson’s help.)
Most impressive, however, was the large crowd of young people who showed up to hear Paul’s speech. They were enthused and energized, many of them sporting Ron Paul Revolution t-shirts. (The shirts are very clever, since they use “Revolution” to also say ““LOVE”,” which makes revolution seem a lot nicer.)
I did a lot of work in the Gary Hart campaign in 1983-84, while I was at the University of Michigan’s Law School. In terms of support from young volunteers, Paul is miles ahead of where Hart was before the Iowa caucus. After Hart finished second in Iowa, and then won New Hampshire, his campaign attracted a huge number of students, but not before. Paul, on the other hand, has what appears to be a staunch contingent of young supporters already.
The volunteers loved Paul’s speech, of course, and so did the large majority of the rest of the GRPC crowd. The GRPC activists are very wary of politicians whose pro-gun positions are a matter of convenience or calculation, rather than sincere dedication to the Constitution. The top tier of the Republican field obviously has a problem with candidates whose 2007 positions on guns or other issues are inconsistent with some of their past actions. You have to get down to Mike Huckabee before you can find a candidate who doesn’t have a consistency problem. (Huckabee’s record on the Second Amendment is perfect, and his statements clearly prove that he understands and believes in the issue, and isn’t just reciting platitudes and talking points.)
The people who have been looking for “the Constitution-in-exile movement” can stop searching for the non-existent secret headquarters in The Federalist Society’s offices. Instead, they can just drop in on a Ron Paul rally. Paul’s goal is to restore the Constitution to full strength. Ronald Reagan aimed to undo or temper some of aspects of the Great Society and the New Deal. Paul aims for much more, to demolish the corporate state that was built in the early 20th century and was entrenched by Woodrow Wilson during World War One.
His message contains nothing that is different from that which he’s been saying since he was first elected to Congress in 1976, or that which you can hear every four years from the Libertarian presidential candidate. However, this time the message comes with a serious national field operation. (Run by Dennis Fusaro, who formerly was state legislative director of Gun Owners of America, and knows a lot about how to leverage a group of dedicated and highly ideological activists.) With five million dollars raised in 3Q 2007, it appears that Paul’s message is catching on.
In the handful of campaigns that raised more money in the third quarter, some of the donors were engaging in “pay to play”—raising money from their business contacts in order to buy “access” and influence in case the candidate wins. One can be assured, however, that nobody is giving money to Ron Paul in order to buy 2009 “access” to the Executive Branch. They’re giving money because they want to eliminate about 90-percent of the federal government’s cash and regulatory boodle for rent-seekers.
Undoubtedly Paul is being helped by the Iraq issue, since he is the only Republican candidate who advocates withdrawal. But it would be a mistake to characterize his campaign as single-issue in the sense of George McGovern’s in 1972 or Tom Tancredo’s today. Some of Paul’s fans disagree with him on the Iraq question, but like him enough on other issues to support him overall. His supporters span a broad ideological spectrum, because they can find common ground in our Constitution’s rights and freedoms. How many other Republican candidates are getting Democrats to re-register as Republicans so they can participate in the Republican primaries?
The Republican Revolution of 1994 promised substantial shrinkage of a bloated federal government. The Republicans who were swept into Congress in 1946 had promised the same thing, and they delivered a great deal. The 1994 Republicans delivered much less, were out-maneuvered by President Clinton, and eventually became part of the problem.
But deep down there’s still a hunger among much of the Republican base for someone who will shrink the Leviathan, rather than merely attempt to use it for conservative ends.
Like the Ronald Reagan message (and unlike the Pat Buchanan message), the Ron Paul message is fundamentally positive. There may be some anger about the depredations of huge and aggressive government, but the campaign’s theme is “Hope for America” and its premise is that the American people are good people who can achieve the best for themselves, their families, their community, and their nation when the federal government gets out of the way and stops behaving like a helicopter mother.
As with Bill Richardson (my favorite Democratic candidate), I strongly disagree with Paul’s approach to the Iraq War. But I’m thrilled that a candidate with such a strong pro-constitution vision is doing so well.
Is Paul still a longshot? Yes, but so were George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, and Gary Hart. It is true that Republicans have, for over half a century, nominated whoever was leading in the first Gallup poll after Labor Day. But the past doesn’t control the future. Until 2000, for instance, no-one who had lost the New Hampshire primary had ever won the general election.
Polls show that about quarter of Americans are libertarians, in a general sense, so Paul has lots of room for growth. If he can keep raising enough money to get his message out, then with some strong finishes in the early states, he will start getting earned media. And beyond that, Ronald Reagan is among the many candidates who have proven that many voters will support someone even if they disagree with him on many issues, if they respect his integrity and find hope in his optimistic vision.
* * *
OK we all know Fred voted for it and he has offered his explanation. This "note" is meant to imply that Fred was leading the charge -- but it's a really lame attempt. These thank you notes are SOP in legislative bodies and the "we couldn't have passed it with out you" is a throw away cliché that is always used in every little note. Give it up boys, your Mom is calling you. You forgot to make your bed before leaving this morning.
Lets dissect this article, shall we?
‘I had liked Paul ever since I had met him in 1981, when Paul gave a thoughtful speech to a group of several dozen interns at which I was present (at the time, I was a congressional intern for Pat Schroeder). I voted for Paul in 1988, and in light of the performance of President George H. W. Bush, I’m glad I did.’
Uh huh, intern for Patsy ‘I’ll take your guns, and you’ll like it’ Schroeder? And to then suggest Ron Paul was the better candidate in 1988? Wow.
‘I did a lot of work in the Gary Hart campaign in 1983-84...’
Lots of Ron Paul supporters have supported democrats previously, as this reminds us.
‘As with Bill Richardson (my favorite Democratic candidate),’
Insert your own laugh line with this one, folks.
‘Is Paul still a longshot? Yes, but so were George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, and Gary Hart.’
Huh, and how’d they turn out, especially Jimmy Carter? But consider the implication of the author regarding McGovern, and of course Gary Hart’s stunningly poor judgement ala the ‘monkey business’ affair. Its pretty funny seeing this ‘broke out’ in light of the comment about Bush the Elder previously stated....(chuckle)
‘And beyond that, Ronald Reagan is among the many candidates who have proven that many voters will support someone even if they disagree with him on many issues, if they respect his integrity and find hope in his optimistic vision.’
The reality is an overwhelming majority of people agreed with Reagan on MOST OF THE ISSUES concerning the 1980 Presidential election cycle. Except for those like George McGovern, Gary Hart, Jimmy Carter, Bill Richardson just to name a few.
Exactly.
..and Paul voted against that.. happy joy..
http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2007&rollnumber=744#N
I’m listening to Glenn Beck, who’s taken his third Ron Paul call in a row. The first guy admitted he switched his registration to the GOP (from what he did not say) just so that he could vote for RP in the primaries. What a surprise.
A lifelong Dem supporting Ron Paul in the Republican primary? I’m shocked.
Can't stay to have fun with the RPers and burritos.
We just had a great wedding celebration over the weekend with our soldier son who had a year deployment in Iraq, probably near you. It was a wonderful wedding, you would have been proud, we sure were.
Much better news than this stoopid non starter of an article about a hopelessly naive candidate , yes?
:-)
Cheese to go with the daily whine.
(chuckle)
The ‘spin’ will be interesting on this thread.
Every time you post that place it's entertaining. They're a step ahead of the game. Fake callers, who would ever have thought of that?
There Is Only One Way To Get Back At Glen Beck!________________________________________
And its classic.
All we have to do is call up as SUPER NEO-CONS... AND IT WILL SHOW THE LUNACY OF THEIR LOGIC TO ALL THEIR VIEWERS AND LISTENERS!
example
GB:" Jim from Smithville, youre on the line"
JIM: "Glen, I just wanted to say I love your show and Im a long time listener and I just wanted to say that, that guy Ron Paul is crazy. We need to kill those Islamofascists and NUKE Iran and turn it into glass."
This is just an example but we know how this works.. cough. fred thompson fourm.. cough.
I have dont this on neo-connish message boards and it really does make them shut up and think.. People will make the jump from RUDY to FRED..... and once they jump to Fred there is only one issue at a difference - the war.
Fred supporters will jump to Ron Paul if they believe like we do that Ron Paul is the only guy to beat HIllary.
what do you think?
----------------------------
Ron Paul is the only guy who can BEAT HILLARY.
He is the Thomas Jefferson of OUR DAY.
My college senior son (aerospace, physics, math major, looking forward to helping our Country build weapons of mass destruction) told me last weekend he’s a Ron Paul supporter. My son says he believes in the Constitution and that only Ron Paul stands up for it.
I tried to tell him that the world has changed and that the Constitution was good back in the past but it’s out of date and that we don’t need to use it anymore.
My son doesn’t believe me. He’s smart but so naive about how the real world works.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=23713
The comment you see about the cough fredthompsonforum cough is, if you didn’t know, Paul’s little minions made fake forums for several other candidates to mock the candidates. They make the forums look official but then act like idiots to make the candidate look bad.
Why do I smell ozone? Your comment is complete BS, the Constitution isn't 'outdated', the problem is Paul's knowledge of the Constitution is found in the Idiots Guide to the Constitution.. he picks and chooses what he wants to support his theories and ignores what he doesn't like. He is like a snake handler quoting the Bible telling him to hold snakes. Ron Paul is to the Constitution as Fred Phelps is to Christianity.
..another one that you’ll find funny.. according to this poll, over 60% of those who answered have/were pot users.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=23640
Many, if not most, of our 'conservitive' institutions have been hijacked. A favorite of NRO is Richard Nadler, open border advocate. You should hear the radio ad he and his "America's Majority' (sounds conservative, doesn't it?)group are playing.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1908339/posts
By a margin of two-to-one, the American public prefers amnesty -NOT!
I’ll give a listen. I didn’t notice the problems at the NR until this year; I hadn’t subscribed for a while.
Absolutely not - - unless there is a sudden surge of mass hysteria.
“Your comment is complete BS, the Constitution isn’t ‘outdated’”
Oh really, tell me about our States Rights today?
Tell me how agriculture department rules controlling the price of milk fit into the Constitution.
Tell me where foreign aid fits into the Constitution.
Tell me where the Federal Education Department fits into the Constitution.
Tell me why the Federal Government can tell a farmer how much wheat he can grow?
Tell me how the City of Chicago can outlaw handgun ownership?
We don’t follow the Constitution. We use the parts that are convenient to us. We ignore those parts that are inconvenient.
And yes everything in my original post was stated in a conversation with my son last Saturday.
Absolutely not - - unless there is a sudden attack of mass hysteria.
Paul just voted against the bill that contained an amendment that would cut funding off to keep these agents jailed that Poe, Tancredo and Hunter put forth.
http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2007&rollnumber=744
That the Constitution is not obeyed doesn’t mean it is outdated.
Good point. Thank you.
Well, there you go!
“”My son doesn’t believe me. He’s smart..”
Well, there you go!”
LOL!
Actually, paleoPaulie like paleoanyone is the Benedict Arnold of our day without the military skill.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.