[Speed Gibson,
Thursday November 29, 2007 at 6:07pm]
Back to the 80's
About half the audience at the Patriot's debate event Wednesday night were Ron Paul supporters. You have to admire their energy and dedication, setting up a booth and winning the straw poll with 48 percent I believe. They were everywhere, noisy and proud, but also civil and polite.
I found myself going back in time, to the 1980 election when I was working for the Libertarian candidate Ed Clark. I was a lot like the Ron Paul people of today, convinced I had all the answers in my more youthful exuberance having read a few books. Actually, I did have much of it right, one of those books being Milton and Rose Friedman's Free to Choose. What I didn't understand then is the race is not always to the swift, and that evolution usually works better than revolution.
Ron Paul has a history with the Libertarian Party also, their endorsed candidate in 1988 I believe, but still a Republican, somewhat like our own Sue Jeffors. I therefore agree with him on many, probably most of his positions. Positions are not enough. I offer a little fatherly advice.
First, I hope you understood what Minnesota GOP chair Ron Carey said. By all means, campaign long and hard for your candidate, but once the nominee emerges, that's where your duty lies. If you're perceived as a "take it or leave it" person, others will take their leave of you. Hard work in support of any of the other seven candidates will be noticed and appreciated, and make our own candidate more attractive in the next cycle. There are exceptions, of course, Prime Minister Pawlenty being my own personal example. But that's the only exception I've made.
Second, you have to listen to others if you expect others to listen to you. In reading the literature I picked up at the debate, I see nothing that shows how Ron Paul is not an isolationist. Senator McCain really damaged Paul, asking how his non-interventionism is any different than isolationism, certainly ineffective in the 1930's and a dangerous game in post 9/11 America. With nukes, you only have to get close. Maybe I have it wrong. Maybe you can convince me, but you won't be able to do it with slogans and platitudes. Do your homework, then explain it to me.
Third, keep your perspective. The 2008 election could be as significant to America as was 1980, my own "Ron Paul" year. The Democratic party candidate will almost certainly be the most left-leaning since George McGovern. Don't do their work for them by needlessly tearing into other Republicans. If you use "Patriot Act" like the Democrats use "Halliburton" you're hurting, not helping.
What I understand now is that you will seldom get a great candidate and never get a saint. That doesn't mean you stop trying, like when public outcry sunk the latest amnesty bill. In fact, some candidates heard us on this and other issues and changed their position.
So keep'em flying and let's work together to get the best result possible, not the best possible result.
I found myself going back in time, to the 1980 election when I was working for the Libertarian candidate Ed Clark. I was a lot like the Ron Paul people of today, convinced I had all the answers in my more youthful exuberance having read a few books. Actually, I did have much of it right, one of those books being Milton and Rose Friedman's Free to Choose. What I didn't understand then is the race is not always to the swift, and that evolution usually works better than revolution.
Ron Paul has a history with the Libertarian Party also, their endorsed candidate in 1988 I believe, but still a Republican, somewhat like our own Sue Jeffors. I therefore agree with him on many, probably most of his positions. Positions are not enough. I offer a little fatherly advice.
First, I hope you understood what Minnesota GOP chair Ron Carey said. By all means, campaign long and hard for your candidate, but once the nominee emerges, that's where your duty lies. If you're perceived as a "take it or leave it" person, others will take their leave of you. Hard work in support of any of the other seven candidates will be noticed and appreciated, and make our own candidate more attractive in the next cycle. There are exceptions, of course, Prime Minister Pawlenty being my own personal example. But that's the only exception I've made.
Second, you have to listen to others if you expect others to listen to you. In reading the literature I picked up at the debate, I see nothing that shows how Ron Paul is not an isolationist. Senator McCain really damaged Paul, asking how his non-interventionism is any different than isolationism, certainly ineffective in the 1930's and a dangerous game in post 9/11 America. With nukes, you only have to get close. Maybe I have it wrong. Maybe you can convince me, but you won't be able to do it with slogans and platitudes. Do your homework, then explain it to me.
Third, keep your perspective. The 2008 election could be as significant to America as was 1980, my own "Ron Paul" year. The Democratic party candidate will almost certainly be the most left-leaning since George McGovern. Don't do their work for them by needlessly tearing into other Republicans. If you use "Patriot Act" like the Democrats use "Halliburton" you're hurting, not helping.
What I understand now is that you will seldom get a great candidate and never get a saint. That doesn't mean you stop trying, like when public outcry sunk the latest amnesty bill. In fact, some candidates heard us on this and other issues and changed their position.
So keep'em flying and let's work together to get the best result possible, not the best possible result.