My undercover evening at a Wesley Clark for President meetup.

Tonight was different than most of my evenings. I've spend many evenings involved in political discussions, but this one was at a (Wesley) Clark for President meetup. I was in the belly of the beast. One non-FReeper friend met me there, but soon left saying that to stay would just be 'too painful.' Perhaps I should have followed him out the door.

But, I didn't. And here, to the best of my recollection is what transpired over the next two hours.

I had heard about the meeting tonight from an announcement in the local paper and since it was close by, I decided that I wanted to see who supports Wesley Clark and why. There was lots of good news for the ABC (anyonebutclark) people. Ranging from poor planning to poor turnout, the meeting in my estimation was less than successful although they were thrilled with the turnout.

The meeting was in the middle of the restaurant - not in a private room - which didn't allow for them showing a video that they brought. They made reservations for 20 people and had 9 people show up including me. This was there 3rd meeting in this area (Pittsburgh Metropolitan) and they were happy to have 9 people. (Sidebar - at our 2 Toomey meetups thus far, we have had 20 & 22 people). The people themselves were very friendly. There was a teacher, 2 lawyers, an HR manager, a retired chemist, and 2 or 3 homemakers among them.

When we introduced ourselves, they all were ecstatic about being able to vote for Clark. I, in the interest of (almost) full disclosure, told them that I wasn't committed to any candidate yet and wanted to see why Clark was their choice. I didn't go into more detail at that point. They were happy to have an opportunity to try to 'convert' me. Little did they know they my agenda was to highjack the meeting and to see if it was possible to convert them.

One man who was pretty serious about the whole thing kept trying to get them to move into talking about the tactics, strategy, and logistics of campaigning. I kept asking questions and moving them away from anything substantial.

They all thought that Clark was extremely intelligent and getting better at his responses. D'uh. He's had a lifetime and two months. Thrilled at doing so well on the Letterman Show, I deflated that balloon by telling that Letterman never asks hard questions.

They talked of the last two debates and were pleased that the 9 dwarves are not attacking each other, but going after Bush. I countered that they haven't distinquished themselves yet either or shown enough difference between them to make a decision. That's why I had such a hard time trying to decide between them .

I was asked if I would vote for Bush if I couldn't find an acceptable democrat or if I would sit out. My reply was that if I found none of them acceptable, I might vote 3rd party. They cringed at that, remembering the 2000 Florida election where Nader cost algore the race. (Except when Bush stole it) When the serious guy told me that sitting out or voting 3rd party was ineffective and tandamount to voting for the incumbent, I replied that my vote was too important to cast for someone or something that I didn't believe in. That warmed the cockles of their heart even if the didn't get me to say that I'd vote for anyone to get rid of Bush.

That was their main focus. I asked who their 2nd choice would be if Clark was no longer in the race. Almost in unison, the answer was ANY ONE just to get rid of Bush. They really hate the man. Many of you know that I have not been his biggest fan, but their hatred is almost pathological in it's intensity.

When they started to attack Bush on Iraq and repeated all of the talking points of the DNC, I couldn't take it any longer. I raised my voice and told them that I voted reluctantly for Bush because I couldn't stand algore and although I wasn't pleased with a lot of Bush's policies, he was, and is right on Iraq and the overseas WoT.

The one lady lawyer started with Bush stealing the election. I stopped her immediately and told her to read up on the Electoral College and she would understand how our system works. Besides, none of the recounts showed algore won. I think that I really took them by surprise, because I was quite adamant.

They started on our soldiers dying for Bush and oil and Halliburton, yada, yada, yada. I responded that the war was just and it was the right thing to do. They shut up pretty quick when I told them (it's true) that my God-child's husband was just killed there last month.

My work was almost done. One couple got up to leave and then everyone did. They never showed the video that they brought. They gave it to me in the hopes of winning me over. I left without blowing my cover. I must be a better actor than I thought.

In conclusion, I doubt that, without lobotomies, there is any hope of converting any of these people. They really believe the democrat crap. I was treated courteously throughout and although I wasn't totally honest with them, I tried not to outright lie either. I am unsure of who gets my vote next November.

One bright spot, when I mentioned Hillary, there was almost a spontaneous expression of hope that she would just go away. As a candidate, they all thought that she had too many negatives and drew the most intense reactions and that she could sink the democrats chances of taking back the White House.

WOT??? You didn't wear your "Hi I'm A Freeper" hat, and the "DISRUPTOR" t-shirt I gave you????

Or the ever-popular "Sore Loserman" t-shirt? LOL!

Good on ya, Badray, for infiltrating their ranks. They would've found me out for sure - probably by the faint scent of Hoppes No. 9 that tends to follow me around. ;-)

The gun issue is, to me, the bright line test of any pol

I support the second amendment but as for allowing free rein to islamic fundamentalists the right to possess guns...NOT!

I have a problem reconciling gun rights for terrorists...you know?

My own personal experience is that the Dems here are rabid Bush haters. I live in AZ, so they (the dems) want McCain to run (surprise, surprise).

I used to get into arguments with the few dems here, now I just listen to the venom in awe. Sometimes, for fun, I bring up Clinton. Most of them shut up immediately. I know that they are still Bill's true believers. There really are only a handful here, but the dems have become more organized since 2000.

I applaud you for going into the belly of the beast, I couldn't do it.

Dane, you need to study the AWB more. It's not about automatic machine guns. In the name of incrementalism, you are being lured into standing on the opposition's ground and using their selling points

I'm not being lured into anything. I am just looking at the modern political reality of 2003. Like I said before Americans believe in firearms ownership, but the AWB ban would also have their support due to the way it is publicized. Arguements of Patrick Henry are going to be heard by deaf ears by 80% of the American population. 80% wins elections, not the 20% who will be receptive to the Patrick Henry arguements.

You may not like it, but that's the way it is. It is to easy to believe your own press on FR, but FR is only one small part of the real world.

My argeument was not about the Patrick Henry statement...that was nothing more than an add on which you then focused upon. My principle statement was about your non-factual statement regarding fully automatic machine guns and linking that to the AWB, which you did not address.

In doing so, whether you like it or not, you are being lured into standing on the opposition's ground, spouting their lies and misrepresentations regarding this issue and negatively effecting the very public sentiment you are clamoring about.

Public sentiment regarding our most basic liberties that is based on a lie is dangerous Dane and should be opposed at all costs.

Fregards.

My principle statement was about your non-factual statement regarding fully automatic machine guns and linking that to the AWB, which you did not address

You know what I meant. People hear Assault Weapons Ban and they think machine guns. Hey that is how the liberals framed the debate. Your job and it is a tough one is to convince people why the AWB is bad and giving a generic arguement of the Founding Fathers is going to right over the head of 80% of the American population. Hey I don't like it either, but thats the way it is.

All I was suggesting is for you to make arguements that can be explained simply in 2003 terms why the AWB is bad. Cursing 80% of the population does no good, but trying to educate them may do some good.

...They all thought that Clark was extremely intelligent and getting better at his responses.

Too funny....

And ol' Wes responded: "Irene, what should I say today?"

I've done these stealth FReepings as well. Call it "opposition research", if you will. It's the only real way to find out what's going on inside a campaign. The sound bites and the photo ops and short video clips with special camera angles don't begin to tell the real truth. 9 people, huh? Sounds like the Carol Moseley-Braun fundraiser we FReeped back in 1998 when the press reported what they were TOLD she raised there but what had to be at least 1/2 that, considering the numbers (or should I say LACK of numbers) in attendance.

This is a service to conservatives (and President Bush and the GOP) that FReepers can be invaluable. By infiltrating the Rats and reporting back their strategies, tactics, talking points and morale levels, that data can be invaluable to candidates and their campaign staff to target their message to exploit the Rat's weaknesses and not spend resources on areas where no amount of money/effort will change their minds.

The only drawback is that we have to associate with the Rats to obtain this intelligence (using the word rather loosely.)

We should be doing this in our own communities as well, as as recruiting new FReepers. Like neighborhood watch, "eyes and ears on the ground" are worth a lot more than an army of analysts in figuring out what is really going on and targeting winning solutions.

Bush is growing the size of government like crazy, he rolled over on education vouchers and privitization, he agreed to the assault on the First Amendment, hasn't said he'll veto a new AWB, put in place steel tariffs, Welfare Farmer subsidies and his "free pill" vote-buying scam.

I don't want any of that crap. Why the hell would I vote for more of it? Don't you have any principles at all, other than "Republicans must rule me and steal/spend my money"?

I don't want any of that crap. Why the hell would I vote for more of it? Don't you have any principles at all, other than "Republicans must rule me and steal/spend my money"?

Oh I do have principles, and one of those principles is that demos are worse than Pubbies.

I also have a principle at looking at and acknowledging modern American political reality in the year 2003.

Another principle of mine is not to cut off my nose to spite my face.

So, what you're saying is "Bigger Stupid Government is fine with me, as long as it's not the democRats doing it to me."

That kind of rationalization for more oppression doesn't work with me.

Almost as pathological as the hatred of Clinton. Key word here: almost. I'm just speaking for myself here, but the conservative mass hatred of Clinton embarrassed me. It drowned out anything that conservatives were trying to say.

So, what you're saying is "Bigger Stupid Government is fine with me, as long as it's not the democRats doing it to me."

That kind of rationalization for more oppression doesn't work with me

Whatever Hank, see anything you want to see, that's your right as an American. I'll just look at the facts and acknowledge that to a vast majority of those who peruse FR, Bush is 1000 times better than Gore and is 1000 times better than the nine dwarves.

No, I take what you say for what you mean. Which is exactly the point.

As to arguing the issue in today's terms, many, many are doing just that, including myself. Those arguements are rooted in the same philosophical grounding put forth by the founders but brought into modern times. Simply stated, it is clear from every demographic and serious study, that armed people are safer than those not armed, and that the attempts to try and undo any of that by tieing registration, control, etc. to the look and feel of a weapon are nothing more than facia for a failed arguemnt.

My point on this thread was simply that by adopting the opposition's tactics (which is exactly what you did) in framing your arguement, you further the misrepresentation. And that is, for the reasons I stated earlier, a very dangerous thing and should be opposed at all costs.

Better. Not 1,000 times better, even in the most hyperbolic sense of campaigning.

And for me, not good enough.

This is the same party that decided it was OldBob Dole's "turn" and nominated that massive-government old fool ("My proudest accomplishments are the ADA and Food Stamps") to knock off a socialist. This is not a principled party.

Bush was lying about his support for "limited government" - this is obvious from his actions; he loves unlimited government. And yet he has the full support of the Republican Party, which is happily supporting every big-spending, Big Stupid Republican Government measure that comes along.

Feh. Screw that.

Uh Jeff, the oppositions tactics on the AWB is the prevailing political popularity. Your grass roots has to counter that and I think the GOA would be better served putting out news releases stating why the AWB is bad, instead of basically saying why the American population is ignorant because they don't know the Federalist papers verbatim, like the GOA members do.

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.