Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Pittsburgh and Western PA Ron Paul 2008 Meetup Group (Pittsburgh, PA) -

Pittsburgh and Western PA Ron Paul 2008 Meetup Group (Pittsburgh, PA) -


Anonymous said...

Dear Mark,

On behalf of the Pittsburgh and Western Pennsylvania Ron Paul
2008 Meetup Group, allow me to invite you to consider joining
our group. We feel that Dr. Paul represents a return to the
conservative values that are so important to many Republicans,
that were the hallmark of the 1994 Republican Revolution and
are common sense solutions. Congressman Paul has a record and
he is proud to run on it. Here are some highlights of his
Congressional Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.

I would never tell someone how to vote, but I strongly
encourage you to check out his message for yourself, by
visiting, looking on YouTube for some of
his speeches, and by talking with others who are interested and

Those of us who feel that Ron Paul represents a great chance to
return to the conservative values that many Republican
candidates seem to have forgotten, are collecting with other
allies behind this candidate, and you are both encouraged and
welcome to join with us, if you decide you would like to do
so. Here is our group:

Thank you very much for your time and your consideration.

Organizer of the Pittsburgh and Western PA Ron Paul 2008 Meetup

Anonymous said...

On 5/22/07, Erasmo Belfiore Jr. wrote:

I basically agree with you that a smaller campaign like this one does not (yet) have the resources to follow-up on every lead. I have some thoughts I submitted to Jesse Benton (Communications Director) and while I'm sure they will take it under advisement, it will take time before we hear from them. In the meantime, I still feel we cannot lose a moment, and must act in a timely fashion. Here is most of the text of the letter, as we need to coolaborate and hammer this out...

Since we basically are organizing a PAC at the grassroots, I think it is imperative to stay coordinated and stay on message. For that to be possible, we will need to be up to date with the latest developments and the "angle of attack" the campaign wants us to take. And frankly, as enthusiastic amateurs, we will need guidance, possibly even on a legal level, that will keep us from making critical mistakes. I know from past experience how vital it is to answer constituents in a manner which is direct and consistent with the candidate's positions. Also, specificity is a concern. If, for example, a constituent wants to know how the congressman, if elected, would deal with a "suitcase nuke" attack, and the specific actions might he take. Or the practical steps involved in preventing terrorism in air travel (such as armed flight crews) which are critical to earning the trust of defense hawks, yet still selling the philosophy of liberty. Basically, a "national defense vision", which would tie into the the six point immigration enforcement plan and sell well with conservatives. Actually, not just conservatives. One of my more liberal friends, and a fair indicator of the changing mood of younger Democrats, was complaining today about dangerous gang members coming across our borders. As a constituent, I cannot stress strongly enough two points: The first is to hammer the border issue in the wake of the bad legislation recently endorsed by party leaders. The talk radio circuit is on fire with it, with a hypocritical Sean Hannity and others having to slam Republicans days after attacking Dr. Paul for saying, in essence, "Take those troops and put 'em on the border where we need 'em." (The digested essence or "vision" of Ron Paul on defense?) The Congressman's opinions, as expressed in numerous interviews, on how to phase out social security, rather than simply end it, would also sell well with younger voters, and should be emphasized. Which brings up the second point, which is that specificity is such an issue because, for too long, Libertarianism has been pigeonholed as a "do nothing" political philosophy. We have to actively debunk the myth that Libertarianism will result in people being instantly thrown off welfare on to the streets or that grandma's checks will stop coming next month if Ron Paul is elected. This means emphasizing a controlled deceleration of spending and entitlements over eight years. When you tie that in with the freedoms and prosperity most liberals would enjoy under Libertarianism, you start to turn them around on the subject. Too much change, too fast, too much scope, scares voters even if they know in their hearts the change is for the better. Politics is hard to sell when it is expressed in vague generalities about the constitution and common sense principals. The media always has an easy time of writing that off as a non-answer. But when it is broken down into applied examples, they, and more importantly voters, begin to accept it more easily. They begin to anticipate, and they learn to apply the whole of the concept to other issues. They become educated. Now, while the candidate has generated a spark, is the time to seize on the opportunity to educate the voter. And all winning campaigns are characterized by an aura, a larger than life image that inspires voter confidence. A metaphor for what the candidate stands for. Reagan had the Western Sheriff appeal. Carter that of the Christian Crusader. Nixon that of the Reconciler. Kennedy that of the Successful Businessman. To me, the more I see of Ron Paul, the more I believe that the metaphor which applies best to him is that of the Southern Sheriff, Ala Andy Taylor. As the campaign builds undeniable momentum, and we start to see Ron smile more, he reminds me more and more of that shows star character. To me it really is a powerful metaphor for the kind of leadership " Dr. No!" would bring to Washington. A man who, unlike "Sheriff Reagan" (who for all his geniality still had a Western gravity and hardness about him), would wear the office lightly and yet still stand up to any infringement of the national security, or honor or the people's liberty....including over-zealous deputies! I feel that we need to start emphasizing the fact that, like Sheriff Taylor, Ron Paul will be a tough but fair leader who will use common sense to diffuse most problems, yet will not be afraid to use force when called for, and will stay out of the private affairs of his citizens.It is therefore critical to make voters understand that what we are talking about is Ron Paul as the "Sheriff Andy Taylor" to the other candidate's "Deputy Barney Fief's." Not that I am suggesting (Giuliani!) we insult anyone with such a direct comparison. One last point, or question really: Is it time to start gunning for Romney, tempting and funny as it would be to do a campaign spot comparing Rudy to Barney Fief?

Erasmo "Jay" Belfiore

Mark Rauterkus said...

Here is another head scratcher from the Newsweek, in part.

In the week of the South Carolina GOP Pres debate came the passing of Rev. Falwell. Terror candidates hit against Ron Paul for his 9/11 explanation. But just prior, they were lauding Rev. Falwell who had said that the 9-11 attacks in NYC and DC was "what we (USA) deserved."

Go figure.