ignorant delegate... convertible?? or not convertible??

[Dave39168]

Ok someone on here a few days ago posted an email to Mike Leahy who is apparently a delegate to the national convention... He was chosen to vote for Romney??? but is now wondering who he should vote for with Romney out.. Apparently came on the radio soliciting advice. Anyway i emailed him, and to my suprise he replied. I need help making a SHORT, CONCISE respone to get this guy thinking in the right direction. We don't need to school him totally in one email (would probably overwhelm), just something to get him started questioning the policy. Tell me what you think.

My first email to Mr. Leahy:

Mike,
> I hear that you are soliciting advice for who to
cast your vote for at the RNC. First I salute you for being a delegate, it
takes time and committment to serve your party. I checked out your website
you seem like a very intelligent man, so I challenge you to take
some time and investigate Ron Paul. I think you will find him to
be the most honest man running. He is a true conservative and will fight to
restore our constitution. Don't just read what his supporters say, go
and do a little research, i think you will be very suprised. If you can't
find any good sources or would like to debate the merits of the three
remaining GOP candidates just email me back.
> Sincerely,
> David Dees

The response:

David,

Thanks for your response, but under no circumstances would I consider
supporting Ron Paul.

I believe the central issue facing our country is the threat of Islamic
jihadistic terrorism, and that battle is being fought today in Iraq. We must
win there, or fight the battle here in a defensive and disadvantaged
posture.

Ron Paul simply wants us to pull out of Iraq, and that simply would not
work. It is unrealistic, and would lead to a blood bath of interests, and
the diminution of American security.

On this important issue, I agree with Senator McCain completely.

I will keep you posted on what the Romney delegates decide.

Thanks again.

Mike Leahy

If i understand correctly, this guy is going to national convention... We need to convert him. Maybe something like " I agree I am completely concerned with terrorist, that is why i think our current foreign policy is a mistake. We got attacked by a bunch of Saudi's on 9-11, and now we're in Iraq?...." also our policy is one that helps incite terrorism. Also, we used to be best friends with Osama. Also, we are bankrupting our nation. Also we have a REAL invasion going on in the Southwest as i type. Also, ron paul is honest!!!! I just don't know where to start with this. He also needs to see the importance of National Sovereignty and monetary policy in all this too. And if he could really see McCain and huck for what they are that would help too.

Give me an outline of what i should say to Mr. Leahy in my next email.
(I am going to sleep. I will check this after class tomorrow and hopefully email him back then.)

 

[cheese]

take all our fucking troops and hunt osama bin laden. wtf is iraq worth? worst investment in recent history

 

[Dave39168]

na just take about half of them to hunt Osama, bring the rest home

 

[Dave39168]

I don't think they really want Osama though i think it just sounds good for Bush to say. Cause didn't we almost have him already and let him slip off into pakistan or something?

 

[cheese]

does he want to war against islamo fascists or iraqi insurgents? it's important because they are very different...

 

[Sarah]

No mention from him as to why he isn't going with McCain?

He seems very adamant about his stance on the war...many you could stay away from that and get him talking on economics and the constitution. Just a thought.

 

[Maxwell TX]

Maybe ask what he thinks about our national defense we don't have anymore for our country. How this nation is a wide open invitation to those that intend harm. Half of our border guards in Iraq of all places. Plus the others that have already been mentioned.

 

[mexicanpizza]

More troops here leads to less security how, again? I guarantee his arguments are puddle-deep.

 

[cheese]

This looks like a mantra-based thinker... without a web of influence, I think the best you can do is confront him with the economic argument. Is fighting islamo fascists worth destroying our economic prosperity and freedom? To fund the war and our debts we would need a 70%+ tax rate. Is this the optimum strategy for defending the US?

 

[virgil47]

If only RP was for a measured and well thought out removal of our troops it would be a whole lot easier to convince the Romney delegate to move our way. If he is an older person there is very likely nothing that you can say to persuade him to come over to RP as long as RP is for instant withdrawal. I say this because if like me he was an adult during the Viet Nam war he remembers only to well what the results of an instant withdrawal are. If he is a younger person you may be able to convince him that removing our troops from Iraq would allow them to focus more completely on the fight against terrorism as well as allowing the U.S. to replace and/or repair our equipement and give the troops a much needed rest. You could point out that our pupose for going into Iraq has been fulfilled by the capture of Saddam and that the search for WMD's has ended. Also you could mention that we are not fighting terrorists per se but we are in the middle of tribal warfare and not concentrating on the terrorist element in the middle east. I hope some of these ideas help you to convert him to our cause as we definitely need every delegate we can get.

 

[AdamT]

How sad.

 

[Akus]

Give me an outline of what i should say to Mr. Leahy in my next email.
(I am going to sleep. I will check this after class tomorrow and hopefully email him back then.)

Tell him that Ron Paul and Ron Paul alone will win the Presidential election. McCain will be destroyed by Obama, Huckabee stands zero chance, too. The party is fractured and is a shadow of it's former self. The other two may win the nomination, but they will not win the Presidency with the rhetoric they promote. You cannot beat the war drum for eight years with a pile of failures of Bush and then expect the populace to elect another Republican with the very same "stay the course" talk.

Tell him that Osama bin Laden's movement consists of many tribes and religious sects of Islam and they hate one another and what unites them is the US presense in the Middle East. There will be no blood bath once we leave because we will cut ALL of the foreign aid to the Middle East and Osama will have neither people (because once the Satan is gone, they will go back to hating each other), nor funds (because we stopped aiding) to orchestrate one.

If he is so concerned about free Iraqi children and all that gooey mushy stuff, tell him why we support military dictatorship in other places. Why we're building a "democracy" in Iraq when WE are not a democracy? (Constitutional Repulbic) Why are we building a "democracy" in Iraq when we help other bloodthirsty regimes in Middle East and the rest of the world?

Tell him to really read up on www.ronpaullibrary.com. The man himself needs to turn him around, you are merely just another supporter. Ron Paul and Ron Paul alone can provide the logic for us leaving Middle East.

 

[sratiug]

If only RP was for a measured and well thought out removal of our troops it would be a whole lot easier to convince the Romney delegate to move our way. If he is an older person there is very likely nothing that you can say to persuade him to come over to RP as long as RP is for instant withdrawal. I say this because if like me he was an adult during the Viet Nam war he remembers only to well what the results of an instant withdrawal are. If he is a younger person you may be able to convince him that removing our troops from Iraq would allow them to focus more completely on the fight against terrorism as well as allowing the U.S. to replace and/or repair our equipement and give the troops a much needed rest. You could point out that our pupose for going into Iraq has been fulfilled by the capture of Saddam and that the search for WMD's has ended. Also you could mention that we are not fighting terrorists per se but we are in the middle of tribal warfare and not concentrating on the terrorist element in the middle east. I hope some of these ideas help you to convert him to our cause as we definitely need every delegate we can get.

Vietnam was "instant" withdrawal? We were being overrun in Vietnam by a formidable fighting force. Politicians said we had to stay to prevent the spread of communism. But when we left Vietnam and China went into a bloody war. The communists hated each other at least as much as they hated us. The Islamic fundamentalists do the same. After we lost the Crusades the Muslim Shia and Sunnis sects did the same thing. They fear each other more than they fear us.

Building permanent bases in Iraq and taking over their economy is just setting us up as a target.

 

[IDefendThePlatform]

My advice is to stick to this simple message: Our foreign policy makes us LESS safe:

Michael Scheuer, former head of CIA's bin Laden counterterrorism unit, agrees with Dr. Paul 100% on the cause of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism in U.S.: From wikipedia:

"In the Republican Presidential Debate on May 15, 2007, presidential candidate Ron Paul stated that American foreign policy was a "contributing factor" in anti-Americanism in the Middle East. Rudy Giuliani denounced this as "absurd" and that he'd never heard such a thing before. In an interview on May 18, Michael Scheuer defended Paul, stating: "I thought Mr. Paul captured it the other night exactly correctly. This war is dangerous to America because it's based, not on gender equality, as Mr. Giuliani suggested, or any other kind of freedom, but simply because of what we do in the Islamic World – because "we're over there," basically, as Mr. Paul said in the debate."[8]

On May 24, 2007, Ron Paul and Scheuer held a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. about the causes that led up to 9/11, American foreign policy and its implications on terrorism, security and Iraq.[9] Paul and Scheuer argued that Rudy Giuliani is wrong on security and foreign policy and provided documentation about the unintended consequences of interventionism - known to many in the intelligence world as blowback - and assigned Giuliani a reading list of foreign policy books, including Dying to Win, Blowback, Imperial Hubris and the 9/11 Commission Report.[10]

On Larry King Live, September 7, 2007, Scheuer alluded to the Fox News Republican Debate of Sept 5, 2007, where a Fox News moderator accused Ron Paul of taking "marching orders" from Al Qaeda. Scheuer said, "The truth of the matter is that it is all of the Democrats and the Republicans, except perhaps for Mr. Paul and Mr. Kucinich, who are marching to Osama Bin Laden's drum." Larry King Live"


Who knows better than the head of bin Laden counter-terrorism at the CIA?

 

[Cleaner44]

This guy is the perfect example of why Ron Paul has not made more progress within the Republican party. These people look at Ron as weak on national security and lump him in with the "cut and run" crowd. Undoing this brainwashing that "we have to fight them over there..." is the big challege.

I wrote this guy and brought up our wide open southern border. How anyone can believe we are fighting terrorists in Iraq while leaving our border wide open is beyond me.

Maybe you should bring up that Ron Paul gets more military support for a good reason.

 

[WilliamC]

Don't know if it will help or even be read, but here is the email I sent him.


Greetings Mr. Leahy,

I have recently read on ronpaulforums.com (please see the thread
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=122426) that you are a Romney
delegate who, because of Romney's decision to drop out of the race for the
Republican nomination and throw his support to John McCain, now finds himself at
a loss as to who to support.

Specifically, I have read your email responses to several of the posters in this
thread in which you express concern with Congressman Ron Paul's foreign policy
and how it would impact the national security of the United States.

It is a common criticism of many Republicans that Ron Paul is somehow weak on
terrorism and national defense because he does not support the position that the
United States should or can indefinitely maintain a global military presence and
perpetually serve as the defender of democracy for the entire world. Even though
this idea of "making the world safe for democracy" was initially proposed by the
Democrat Woodrow Wilson as part of his rational for bringing the United States
into World War One it has now become a bedrock of foreign policy for both the
Democratic and Republican Parties.

I suppose my questions to you, if you choose to respond to this email, are: how
do you define national security; and do you think that a foreign policy which
uses our military to pro-actively impose our Nations will on other countries is
conducive to enhancing our national security?

Personally I wish, as I believe that Congressman Paul does, for the United
States to maintain the strongest military in the world but to only use that
military only to fight and win wars and battles against those countries and
groups that actively seek to do us harm and actually have the means to do so. To
this end the Constitution provides that Congress, not the President, has the
authority to either declare War (on other Countries) or to issue Letters of
Marque and Reprisal (against groups such as terrorists which are not directly
tied to a specific Country).

Without this Constitutionally mandated legal framework of committing our armed
forces to battle our Nation finds itself, as it did during the Vietnam War and
as it does today with our War in Iraq, deeply divided over the legitimacy of the
War itself. This inexorably leads to a loss of confidence in both the Congress
and the President as we see today with their public approval ratings below 20%.
What is worse is that it also can lead to a loss of respect for our men and
women who are risking their lives in the execution of our foreign policy.

I would hope you will take some time to actually read what Congressman Ron Paul
himself has written on the issue of foreign policy and how it relates to both
our military and our economic security. I won't try and convince you that he has
all the answers, but he at least is willing to point out the obvious fact that
our national security is more than military might, it must also rest on a
fundamental economic strength as well.

As I am sure you are aware, we are quite simply bankrupting our economy to
maintain our occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention the expense of
the hundreds of other military bases around the world that we maintain) yet the
very politicians who support this foreign policy keep telling us we will have to
be at war for many more years to come. I fail to comprehend their strategy for
ending the threat of Islamic terrorism when the policies they pursue seem to
create more hatred of America and to breed more radicals willing to fight us. A
foreign policy that truly enhanced our national security would instead
specifically target only those Countries, groups and individuals which actually
were behind the September 11th, 2001 attacks or which are actually planning
future attacks. The idea that we must somehow convert the entire Middle East to
democracy in order to be safe seems to me to be counterproductive at the very
least.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email and for your willingness to be
involved in our political process. Do not hesitate to respond to this email or
call me if you wish to discuss these issues further, but I understand that you
may be very busy and so do not feel obligated to do so either.


Yours In Liberty,

William C Colley

 

[mudburn]

David,

Thanks for your response, but under no circumstances would I consider
supporting Ron Paul.

I believe the central issue facing our country is the threat of Islamic
jihadistic terrorism, and that battle is being fought today in Iraq. We must
win there, or fight the battle here in a defensive and disadvantaged
posture.

Ron Paul simply wants us to pull out of Iraq, and that simply would not
work. It is unrealistic, and would lead to a blood bath of interests, and
the diminution of American security.

On this important issue, I agree with Senator McCain completely.

I will keep you posted on what the Romney delegates decide.

Thanks again.

Mike Leahy

The simple issue is the threat of fanatic Islam. The only way to convert this individual or another one with a Romney-like view of the issue is upon that point. You don't convert the individual by telling them how stupid their argument/position is. Find a way to agree with and support their concerns while directing the solution (who to vote for) in a more profitable manner.

For instance, a reply might be like the following:

===========

Mike,

Thank you for your reply. Your concern about the threat of Islamic jihadistic terrorism is a valid concern in the minds of many Americans today. It is not a point that any of us should ignore. Such a threat certainly poses risks to our way of life and our country. You feel that you can't vote for Ron Paul because he wants to bring the troops home from Iraq. This is true, but it doesn't mean that Ron Paul has discounted the threat you identify; in fact, he does not.

One of the ways that our American values and way of life are threatened in this situation is in the form of our civil liberties, the very rights the constitution is supposed to protect. His call to bring the troops home is not because the threat is not a real concern, but, primarily, it is because the US's response to the threat violates our constitution and, therefore, is in itself a threat to our way of life and security. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't do anything to deal with Islamic fanaticism and terrorism; we should. But, we need to be careful that in so doing we don't violate the very foundation of our nation. This is, fundamentally, Ron's point.

Ron Paul is not advocating a "bring them home and do nothing" approach. He is advocating a abide by the constitution, which gives the US plenty of leeway to address and deal with threats of terrorism. He is also advocating the strengthening of our security at home. We are in a position now in which our security forces are spread thin and many of our resources are not on our own soil. Our borders are open. We are not safe at home because of these things. The other candidates have not talked about dealing with these vital issues, instead focusing on continuing the pursuit of the war in Iraq and on other fronts. But, their calls are not accompanied by an intent to make sure that these actions are constitutional. If the threat is real and imminent, then there is no problem getting a declaration of war or letters of marque or reprisal from Congress. This is what the constitution allows and is what Ron Paul supports. If it needs to be done, it should be done right.

I think it is upon this point that many have misunderstood Ron Paul's position. He is not weak on defense. He is not ignoring the threat and reality of terrorism. He is defending the constitution and properly advocating that our government must abide by this foundational document, the real basis of our nation.

With this in mind, you should have substantive reason to vote for Ron Paul. He is the only one who can or will protect us not only from the threat of Islamic
jihadistic terrorism, but he will also protect the very real political threats to our constitutionally protected freedoms that can all too easily be eroded in a rush to protect ourselves from terrorism.


========

Respectfully submitted,

dp

 

[UnitedWeStand]

The simple issue is the threat of fanatic Islam. The only way to convert this individual or another one with a Romney-like view of the issue is upon that point. You don't convert the individual by telling them how stupid their argument/position is. Find a way to agree with and support their concerns while directing the solution (who to vote for) in a more profitable manner.

For instance, a reply might be like the following:

===========

Mike,

Thank you for your reply. Your concern about the threat of Islamic jihadistic terrorism is a valid concern in the minds of many Americans today. It is not a point that any of us should ignore. Such a threat certainly poses risks to our way of life and our country. You feel that you can't vote for Ron Paul because he wants to bring the troops home from Iraq. This is true, but it doesn't mean that Ron Paul has discounted the threat you identify; in fact, he does not.

One of the ways that our American values and way of life are threatened in this situation is in the form of our civil liberties, the very rights the constitution is supposed to protect. His call to bring the troops home is not because the threat is not a real concern, but, primarily, it is because the US's response to the threat violates our constitution and, therefore, is in itself a threat to our way of life and security. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't do anything to deal with Islamic fanaticism and terrorism; we should. But, we need to be careful that in so doing we don't violate the very foundation of our nation. This is, fundamentally, Ron's point.

Ron Paul is not advocating a "bring them home and do nothing" approach. He is advocating a abide by the constitution, which gives the US plenty of leeway to address and deal with threats of terrorism. He is also advocating the strengthening of our security at home. We are in a position now in which our security forces are spread thin and many of our resources are not on our own soil. Our borders are open. We are not safe at home because of these things. The other candidates have not talked about dealing with these vital issues, instead focusing on continuing the pursuit of the war in Iraq and on other fronts. But, their calls are not accompanied by an intent to make sure that these actions are constitutional. If the threat is real and imminent, then there is no problem getting a declaration of war or letters of marque or reprisal from Congress. This is what the constitution allows and is what Ron Paul supports. If it needs to be done, it should be done right.

I think it is upon this point that many have misunderstood Ron Paul's position. He is not weak on defense. He is not ignoring the threat and reality of terrorism. He is defending the constitution and properly advocating that our government must abide by this foundational document, the real basis of our nation.

With this in mind, you should have substantive reason to vote for Ron Paul. He is the only one who can or will protect us not only from the threat of Islamic
jihadistic terrorism, but he will also protect the very real political threats to our constitutionally protected freedoms that can all too easily be eroded in a rush to protect ourselves from terrorism.


========

Respectfully submitted,

dp

That was beautiful. Some other excellent points I've heard Ron Paul mention are=

1. If the mob kills someone in America we don't bomb Italy.
2. Reinstating the Letters of Marque to basically hire bounty hunters who would target the individuals who attacked us, and encourage the people around them to turn against them for the bounty money.

Also there is a new "for a strong national defense" slimjim that you might link him to, just so that he can see some "official" evidence.

 

[UnitedWeStand]

Don't know if it will help or even be read, but here is the email I sent him.


Greetings Mr. Leahy,

I have recently read on ronpaulforums.com (please see the thread
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=122426) that you are a Romney
delegate who, because of Romney's decision to drop out of the race for the
Republican nomination and throw his support to John McCain, now finds himself at
a loss as to who to support.

Specifically, I have read your email responses to several of the posters in this
thread in which you express concern with Congressman Ron Paul's foreign policy
and how it would impact the national security of the United States.

It is a common criticism of many Republicans that Ron Paul is somehow weak on
terrorism and national defense because he does not support the position that the
United States should or can indefinitely maintain a global military presence and
perpetually serve as the defender of democracy for the entire world. Even though
this idea of "making the world safe for democracy" was initially proposed by the
Democrat Woodrow Wilson as part of his rational for bringing the United States
into World War One it has now become a bedrock of foreign policy for both the
Democratic and Republican Parties.

I suppose my questions to you, if you choose to respond to this email, are: how
do you define national security; and do you think that a foreign policy which
uses our military to pro-actively impose our Nations will on other countries is
conducive to enhancing our national security?

Personally I wish, as I believe that Congressman Paul does, for the United
States to maintain the strongest military in the world but to only use that
military only to fight and win wars and battles against those countries and
groups that actively seek to do us harm and actually have the means to do so. To
this end the Constitution provides that Congress, not the President, has the
authority to either declare War (on other Countries) or to issue Letters of
Marque and Reprisal (against groups such as terrorists which are not directly
tied to a specific Country).

Without this Constitutionally mandated legal framework of committing our armed
forces to battle our Nation finds itself, as it did during the Vietnam War and
as it does today with our War in Iraq, deeply divided over the legitimacy of the
War itself. This inexorably leads to a loss of confidence in both the Congress
and the President as we see today with their public approval ratings below 20%.
What is worse is that it also can lead to a loss of respect for our men and
women who are risking their lives in the execution of our foreign policy.

I would hope you will take some time to actually read what Congressman Ron Paul
himself has written on the issue of foreign policy and how it relates to both
our military and our economic security. I won't try and convince you that he has
all the answers, but he at least is willing to point out the obvious fact that
our national security is more than military might, it must also rest on a
fundamental economic strength as well.

As I am sure you are aware, we are quite simply bankrupting our economy to
maintain our occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention the expense of
the hundreds of other military bases around the world that we maintain) yet the
very politicians who support this foreign policy keep telling us we will have to
be at war for many more years to come. I fail to comprehend their strategy for
ending the threat of Islamic terrorism when the policies they pursue seem to
create more hatred of America and to breed more radicals willing to fight us. A
foreign policy that truly enhanced our national security would instead
specifically target only those Countries, groups and individuals which actually
were behind the September 11th, 2001 attacks or which are actually planning
future attacks. The idea that we must somehow convert the entire Middle East to
democracy in order to be safe seems to me to be counterproductive at the very
least.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email and for your willingness to be
involved in our political process. Do not hesitate to respond to this email or
call me if you wish to discuss these issues further, but I understand that you
may be very busy and so do not feel obligated to do so either.


Yours In Liberty,

William C Colley

I hope you are planning to run for public office soon, WilliamC!!

 

[Grandson of Liberty]

1. If the mob kills someone in America we don't bomb Italy.

That, my friend, is the greatest line ever!