Posted on 02/21/2007 6:15:41 AM PST by Jim Robinson
Obviously, the biggest issue for the Democrats in 2008 will be the war. They're betting their entire stake on the hopes that America is fed up with the war dragging on so long, and they're convinced that their big wins in 2006 were due primarily to President Bush's determination to stay the course, versus their own antiwar stance. Hillary is furiously back pedaling trying to distance herself from her own pro war votes as her popularity erodes away and shifts to the up and coming antiwar superstar, Barack "Osama" Obama. And most of the lesser Democrat presidential wannabes are falling all over themselves trying to out coward the front runners. Whomever gets the Democrat nod will be running primarily on the "End the War Now, Bring the Troops Home" ticket.
And, naturally, the Republicans are going to run on the "Fight on to Victory and Secure the Nation" platform. All of the Republican front runners are convinced that they can win on this issue. But, they feel they must pickup some percentage of the Democrat vote and or of the liberal leaning swing vote. So, to varying degrees, the front runners are banking on certain liberal mainstay issues. They're saying they're okay with abortion rights, gay rights, gay unions, gays in the military, gun control, global warming, open borders, illegal alien rights, immigration reform (amnesty), big government entitlement programs or other liberal issues. They seem to be falling all over each other competing for their fair share of the mushy middle vote that may make their day.
So we have one side wrapping up the treasonous antiwar vote (probably around 40% of the total vote) while the other side clearly wraps up the patriotic peace through victory vote (another 40% of the vote). The Democrats will naturally pull in their liberal/socialist base (which is largely the antiwar vote) and the broken glass Republican base will be true to the GOP (their 40% of the vote), although the Christian Right and some of the normally true blue right wing conservatives are growing mighty tired of crawling on bloody stumps looking for scraps.
At any rate, what both sides seem to be ignoring in their fight for the mushy middle may be the 2nd most critical issue of all and an overlooked opportunity for the big win. And that is the fact that half or more of all Americans, regardless of party affiliation, are fed up with illegal aliens flooding into our country through our almost non existent border security. And this during time of war.
The borders must be secured. If the war goes on, an insecure border sets us up for terrorists smuggling in weapons that could kill tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of Americans. Dirty bombs, chemical or biological weapons, etc.
Even if the Democrats are successful with shutting down our Iraq war efforts, the terrorists are not going to stop. In fact, they'll be emboldened. And freed from fighting over there, they're bound to bring their efforts here. They're going to continue hating us and wanting to wipe us off the face of the planet regardless of what the Democrats may do.
We must defend the nation. We must defend our national security. We must seal the borders now. And we must get control over who and what is coming into our country.
Also, Americans are tired of paying the costs of the growing flood of illegals. The costs are measured in terms of lost American jobs, costs of educating their children, health care costs, housing, welfare, gang violence, crime, costs of capturing, prosecuting and incarcerating illegal alien criminals, overcrowding crumbling cities and towns degrading into slums and barrios, failure of the illegals to assimilate or even to learn our language. Press one for English.
If I'm not mistaken, most if not all of the front runners of both parties are either soft on illegal immigration or are outright in favor of wide open borders and awarding constitutional "rights" to illegals if not immediate full citizenship. This is a national disgrace. And if not stopped will lead to an erosion of our national sovereignty and or to disastrous terrorist attacks of historic proportions. Again, our nation and our borders must be secured!
I sincerely doubt that any Democrat candidate is going to run on a platform of securing the borders and I don't recall any of our front running Republicans declaring that they will seal the borders either, so now what?
Are there any Republican candidates out there who will step forward and not only pledge to win the war, but also to place the nation on a secure war footing? Secure the nation? Seal and secure the borders?
I believe that a qualified Republican candidate with a solid conservative track record, including a record of fighting for full national security has a shot of overtaking the current weak (conservatively speaking) front runners and winning the Republican nod. I also believe this candidate will win over the cowardly antiwar, pro illegal immigration, liberal Democrat whether it be Hillary, Osama Obama or whomever.
By the way, why are we so eager to give up on our traditional American conservative values and principles? I don't know about you, but I'm not about to give up fighting for God, country, family, life, liberty and our traditional American heritage. Those who wish to merge with the liberals on these critical American issues are in for a rude awakening.
For those of you who do not understand what traditional American conservatism means, I'll lay out what it means to me. Others may think differently, and this won't be all inclusive, but here are some major points that are important to me:
Traditional American conservatives are not going to deny our God. Are not going to give up our guns (without using them first). We're not going to surrender to the abortionists or to the gay rights agenda. We're not going to cave to global warming pseudo science. We're not going to surrender our national sovereignty to terrorists, illegals, the United Nations or to Democrats! We're not going to surrender to tax and spend liberal Democrats or to tax and spend moderate country club Republicans.
We will not surrender to the progressives, socialists or moderates who wish to shove their big government socialist wealth transfer and or perverted social programs down our throats.
We're going to continue defending the nation, defending our national sovereignty, defending our national security, defending our borders, defending our families, defending our constitution, our liberty and our American way of life.
We stand for and defend the constitutionally separated and limited government as envisioned and set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution by the Founding Fathers.
We're going to defend our rights. Our rights to free speech, free religion, freedom of assembly, due process, private property, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not negotiable.
We're going to fight against the activist court. We're going to fight for judges that interpret the constitution according to the straightforward words and definitions as used at the time of the writing and ratification of the document, ie, the original intent.
We are going to fight for stripping the government of its usurpations and expansions from the limited powers enumerated in the constitution.
We stand for and defend our traditional Judeo-Christian God centered American conservative society and family values system.
We believe we were all created equal by our Creator and are endowed with certain unalienable rights, including the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness, and we intend to defend same.
We believe it is the primary responsibility of the just government empowered by our consent to defend these rights. And that whenever government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
I don't know. I'm a Christian and didn't think harrowup was expressing any bigotry at all. He was pointing out that JR's is not the only vision of liberty out there and that it may not be able to compete with other visions.
| New amnesty push likely in 07 by Bush, Dems |
||
| Posted by Mount Athos On 01/04/2007 7:32:40 AM CST · 14 replies · 209+ views Marietta Daily Journal ^ | Wednesday, January 3 | D.A. King Five years into the war on terror, most Americans desperately hoped 2006 would be "the year" for solutions to the long national nightmare of intentionally unsecured borders and the resulting illegal immigration crisis. For many, the dream was that at a minimum, we would begin to see border security and immigration law enforcement similar to what Mexicans still living in Mexico enjoy. It didn't happen. According to a report released in late 2006 by the House Committee of Homeland Security, up to 10 million people entered the United States illegally and un-inspected last year. Georgia watched as its population of... |
||
It just makes me wonder. Politicians follow their own interests.
Jim,
Would you consider an employment offer starting in January 2009 for a term of 8 years?
I don't think the Republicans will allow a conservative to win their nomination.
Except for gays, women who choose to have an abortion and some poor brown people who need a job.
Not to mention that the RKBA regulations that inhibit you in California and me in NY are City and State laws...not Jim Brady.
IF the 'real' conservatives throw away their vote as is their right, they allow the Rats the ability to appoint communist Supreme Court judges.
Witness yesterday's tobacco decision, a punch in the gut to class action attorneys. This is a conservative victory. The left has made most of its non-conservative advances through the courts, not the Executive.
Voting for candidates is always the lesser of two evils.
I plea to fellow conservatives - do not allow the Rats to win.
The mushy middle knows nothing about ideology, they vote for the 'best man' - which, unfortunately, is usually the better looking candidate (I believe Edwards would have defeated Bush in the last election, but the moonbats went with Lurch).
And I asked harrowup in post #83 to please elaborate on what conservative issues and definitions Jim failed to mention as I'd be curious as to what those are. All I've heard so far is crickets. If one is going to shoot down another's definition of conservatism, then by all means they should be prepared to offer up an alternative. To not do so is to employ the Liberali's tactic of shooting down the conservative opinion or plan without offering up an alternative.
Yes the Contract with America was a great position. It came at such a nice time too... after Clinton buyer's remorse. ;-) So far the election of 2006 has not seemed to show those Republicans they need to move right. Just the opposite, they seem to be moving left. Someone predicted that on this site but nobody listened (no it wasn't me).
Much of the support for "RINO" candidates is due to a lack of other strong candidates who can compete on a national basis. It is not for a more liberal position on an issue per se.
Given a choice of candidates, most would choose one strong on both national/international/constitutional issues and social issues.
So far, the RINO alternatives have a long way to go to demonstrate that they have both the personal and political wherewithal to win against the DEMS on a national basis. Having the right position of the issues is not enough.
I'm still waiting for this candidate to emerge... Otherwise, I'll have to play the best hand that I am dealt.
What Reagan did, and what the next candidate needs to do, is say that yes, there are problems, but we will overcome them - we have an agenda for positive, dramatic change: education? We'll let parents choose their kids schools. Taxes? We'll let you keep your own money. Healthcare? We'll open the market and let capitalism do its work. Immigration needs to be similarly reframed in terms of fairness to those who play by the rules, extending the hope that is America to those who show the greatest willingness to be good citizens. Just saying "throw the illegals out" or "defend the border" will also open the Republican candidate up to charges of xenophobia or worse, racism, by the MSM.
Reagan knew all this.
Ivan
Just like Bush made a mistake in linking border security and a "comprehensive amnesty plan" or whatever he called it, we are doing the same thing.
Border security is the problem we have to solve first.
Harrowup can speak for himself, if he chooses, but I inferred from his original post that he may be drawing a distinction between "conservatism" and "libertarianism" (note the small "l"), and that Americans are supportive of more freedom, but not necessarily more conservatism.
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.