A winning conservative platform for 2008?

Opinion | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

I was told earlier this evening that it's impossible for a conservative to win the general election against Hillary Clinton. That the socially liberal Rudy Giuliani is the ONLY Republican who can (a) beat Hillary and (b) win the war.

How many FReepers actually believe this hogwash? If we have no faith in our own conservative principles and values why do we call ourselves conservatives? How can we possibly hope to advance our conservative causes if we tuck tail and run when we should be fighting as if our very survival as a free people depends upon it. Because it does.

We cannot advance conservatism by running a social liberal for the office of chief executive. If you want proof, ask Arnie, the socially liberal Republican governor of California. No thanks. You can have him and the socialist horse he rode in on.

We cannot defend life, liberty or nation (see below discussion on securing borders) with a social liberal at the helm.

I'd like to build a winning conservative platform with a dozen or so hard hitting no nonsense points that we can all agree on that would help us focus on our best potential primary nominee and one that can defeat Hillary, et al, in the general.

Here's a starter list and it's open for discussion, cutting, consolidation, expansion and detailing:

1. Win the war!
2. Secure the nation!
3. Secure the borders!
4. Stop the illegal aliens!
5. Rebuild the military!
6. Deal with growing threats! Iran, Syria, North Korea, China, (and an increasingly Muslim Russia and Europe?)!
7. Cut government!
8. Cut spending!
9. Cut taxes!
10. Allow the free economy to expand!
11. Return control of states issues to the states!
12. Defend life, liberty, property and individual rights!

Would a conservative platform focusing on victory in the war, national security, national defense, securing the borders, deporting illegal aliens, sound fiscal policy and defense of life, liberty, property and individual rights be a winner over Hillary's treasonous platform of surrender, weakness, open borders, socialist fiscal policies, "abortion rights," "gay rights," global warming, continued government abuses and subversion of our rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, right to keep and bear arms and private property rights?

Expanding on one issue, for example, I'm pushing for increased border security. I used to be in favor of some sort of temporary worker program, but not one that has a fast track to citizenship. I'm now coming around to the point of view held by the majority of Americans regardless of political party affiliation and that is we MUST secure the borders immediately. It's obvious that this war against Islamic fascism is going to grind on even after we put down the nasty business in Iraq. We must secure the borders against terrorist intrusion and infiltration. We must tightly control ALL immigration to the US.

It's also becoming more and more obvious that Americans are not happy with illegals taking jobs in an ever growing number of industries. They're no longer just doing field labor and or menial low paying tasks. They're creeping up the uskilled labor and union scale, only they're competing unfairly by accepting low wages and under the table payments.

We also need to seal the borders against drug smugglers, weapons smugglers, criminals, terrorists, etc. Catch them, try them and lock them up.

Americans are also tired of footing the bills for illegal alien health care, education, welfare, auto accidents, crime, disease, etc.

It's way past time to call a halt to this nonsense. I say we catch them at the borders and deport them. If we catch them again, place them in a work camp. If they want to work, fine, let them work in a work camp for their keep. Nothing more. And no illegal families or children or anchor babies. If it takes additional laws on the books, fine let's get it done. If it takes a constitutional amendment to stop the anchor babies, let's get the process started.

We should also catch and deport them when they show up at the DMV, voter registration or voting booth, unemployment line, bank, building permit office, welfare department, social security office, hospitals, free clinics, schools, jails, auto accident or traffic stops, etc. If they can't speak English and they don't have valid identification, then we need to hold them or call in the INS.

If we're going to secure the nation we must secure the borders, control immigration and stop pandering to the illegals or their enablers. Employers who willingly and knowingly hire illegals should be punished. If they pay their workers under the table and fail to withhold taxes or social security, they should be dealt with as felons.

So, we win the war, secure the nation, build our defenses, return to a sound fiscal policy, cut spending and taxes, and defend our rights.

How many states would go for this platform as opposed to Hillary's that is exactly opposite?

I think we'd even pull in California.

What say you?

[FreePoster]

Sorry, this is a little to the side, but Schwarzenegger has been better than a RINO. He pushed hard for reform in California. After spending millions of his own money on getting a set of real reform measures on the ballot and promoting them, he got stomped on all of them. The public employee unions spent all of their money, outspent him by 3-to-1 I think, with wall-to-wall attacks on him and his propositions. Losing those probably set us back 20 years in efforts to fix California's problems. I was wondering why of all the wealthy people in the state, he had to fund so much himself. Why does the blame rest on him when he was the only one doing anything? Maybe he wondered the same thing. Since then he's been a RINO.

[hellbender]

"I am telling you now, the way to lose the 2008 presidency is to make it all about immigration."

Nowhere did Jim say to make it "all about immigration." That was just one of many planks in the platform.

You are the one obsessed with this "single issue."

[dmw]

"Numbers one and five won't allow for number eight."

Spoken like a true liberal! By the way, how's the new senator (Jim Webb) you voted in doing for you all in VA?

[wolfcreek]

"You are all ostriches."


I think Jim laid out an outstanding selection of CONSERVATIVE causes that just happen to include *Border Enforcement* IMO, it's one of the most important because if falls under other important issues like, WOT, WOD and overall National Security. These are basic *Conservative Principles* that need to be presented to voters in a complete package.


Your ranting about one particular issue, exposes your lack of allegiance to these principles and this country. THANK YOU, MR. ROBINSON FOR SETTING THE BAR ONCE AGAIN!

[sauropod]

review

[Condor51]

**** Anti-immigrant rhetoric is a loser. EVERY candidate who ran on the issue got trounced. Make anti-immigration a major part of your platform and you are doomed. ****

Hogwash. A nice canard from the Open Border Lobby - but utter hogwash.

The Great Illegal Immigration Myth of '06

I forgot, did I say -- HOGWASH.

[leadpenny]

Well, if it isn't the thread-jumping mental midget from OK.

Worry about your back yard and I'll worry about mine.

[mek1959]

Listen Jim, your passion is laudable and most of your point's are valid. If they could all be implemented, I for one would be very happy. However, we conservative often fall into the trap that the lib's lay for us - arguing for a less "big" government. In my view, absent point 11 of your list, none of the others will happen. The central problem is the HUGE bloated and all powerful federal government. Until a leader is willing to rise up and take on the real problem - an ever expansive central government and really cut it's reach back, nothing will happen. And before I'm falsely accused, I'm not a libertarian!

Conservatives have got to adopt a whole new approach to winning. We can't just be the less "big" government ideology. My gosh, can we really imagine a 3 TRILLION dollar budget being appropriated by the group up there on the "Hill". The power of the Department of Justice, the reach of the IRS, the encumbrance of the Department of Education. How about HUD, HHS spending BILLIONS on programs that promote irresponsible behavior. Never mind Medicare and Medicaid.

Conservatives have got to stop seeing winning as holding the current government structure. Cut, cut and more cut. Return the governance to the people in the individual states where the legislators are your neighbors. I'm not for abolishing the federal government, but an for cutting it WAY back to 10% of our annual GDP from the current 30% or so.

Where's the candidate for this? Big Hunter fan, but not even sure he's on-board for this. Yet, unless we do this, we're headed for a bifurcated country in a decade. The only power the libs have is....government power. They're ideas are bankrupt, so stealing from citizens through compulsory taxes is their only outlet. Right now they're winning.

[Spiff]

Your platform is quite consistant with the Republican Party Platform. Are we asking too much for our Republican nominee to hold positions consistant with that platform? I don't think so.

[jonathanmo]

The latest polling in OH puts Hunter at 0%..c'mon...
PRESIDENT - OHIO - GOP PRIMARY Rudy Giuliani 30% John McCain 22% Newt Gingrich 11% Mitt Romney 4% Sam Brownback 1% Tommy Thomspon 1% Chuck Hagel 1% Mike Huckabee 1% George Pataki 1% Tom Tancredo 1% Jim Gilmore 0% Duncan Hunter 0%

This poll was done January 23-28 among 1305 registered voters, 455 Republicans and 496 Democrats.

[expatguy]

You left one out.

How do you propose we deal with the enemy within?

[Swordfished]

I agree with 1-12, and I think you've put them in the right order. As long as the illegal alien problem exists, we can know that politicians in Washington aren't interested in solving real problems.

[dmw]

"What say you?"

Good post Jim!

What concerns me Jim is exactly as you say, many here seem to think only Rudy can win the election against Hillary. They claim that Rudy may be liberal on a variety of issues but that we should not judge the man by his actions, rather, we should judge him by his words. Some people here say that Rudy had to "act" like a liberal because he was a politician in NYC, and that's how he had to operate, but now that he is running for president we can believe what he SAYS he will do and simply ignore what he's said and done in the past.

Here's how I see it. Many of the Rudy supporters are just downright gullible. They believe whatever comes out of Rudy's mouth and no amount of facts you present to them will change their views.

Second, many Rudy supporters are what they accuse social conservatives of being, "one issue voters". The only thing that matters to them is the WOT. I agree, it's an important issue, but for some reason they think only Rudy is qualified to lead this fight.

Third, on the moral issues, gun rights, etc, there are a number of freepers who could care less about these issues, which means they actually prefer a moderate to liberal rEUPUBLICAN over a conservative one. I can't help but wonder too, if a conservative Republican (e.g. Hunter) got nominated would the liberal Rudy supporters vote for the conservative candidate or would they stay home or vote third party? It would be interesting to know where they stand on this.

One final thought then I need to get ready for work. The Rudy supporters have said numerous times on this forum that the social conservatives are going to be the ones to blame if Hillary gets elected. I really get a kick out of this because once again it shows how gullible these people are. They don't seem to understand that by nominating a liberal Republican they are alienating a huge segment of the population who cannot support a Democrat in Republican clothing. If Rudy does get nominated (I seriously doubt he will), then the only reason Hillary will win is because liberal Republicans nominated a liberal candidate. Why can't they see this?

Gotta go!

[mek1959]

expatguy, you're dead-on. The real battle is indeed a "clash of civilizations"; liberal ideology vs. conservative ideology and there can be no wider a gap. This is going to be a war of ideas instead of the largely economic war of the 1860's. Make no mistake though, it is a war, though not using weapons. Those who are uncomfortable speaking of it in these terms had better get used to another round of "compassionate conservatism" or "less Big Government". Heaven help us if that's how conservatism get defined.

[Colorado Doug]

Make anti-immigration a major part of your platform and you are doomed.

Anti-immigration?? I hate it when the open borders bunch fraudulently call it "anti-immigration" A secure border has nothing to do with anti-immigration. The LEGAL immigration of persons who wish to assimilate and become citizens of the United States works just fine with a secure border. It just makes things more difficult for smugglers, identity thieves, terrorists, racist invaders and other criminals to get in.

[Colorado Doug]

What say you?

I love you

[RetiredArmy]

I agree with you Jim. However, I think many Americans remember Bush as saying he was conservative in the beginnings and that is what they remember, and now they see what we have. Insecure borders, illegals pouring across the borders, making illegals legal by ignoring our own laws, etc. I think a lot of people who are border line conservatives and tip one way or the other, look at this and think, well if he is considered a conservative, then why do I want a conservative. Plus, more and more have their hands stuck out for government freebies, and the Marxists in D.C. are filling those hands. The Global Warming lies, all the other MSM propaganda that they believe in 30-second sound bites. Don't mess up my reality TV, the BIG GAME, pizza night, porno on the Internet, and life is good. That is how far this country has fallen. I am beginning to doubt that the Republic can actually be saved. If 20 million illegals suddenly can vote, the conservative movement is finished. We will simply be out numbered.

[Jim Noble]

Third, on the moral issues, gun rights, etc, there are a number of freepers who could care less about these issues, which means they actually prefer a moderate to liberal rEUPUBLICAN over a conservative one.

What do you mean by "moral issues"?

And if you support a Presidential candidate based upon "moral issues", and he gets elected, what exactly do you want him to do?

I can't tell you what I would do about your "moral issues" candidate until you tell me that.

As far as gun rights go, I am concerned about my hero Rudy's positions and I want to hear more.

[mek1959]

Retire Army - sadly, I agree with you. The culture is so far gone at this point, I'm not sure we can pull back, or for that matter, how it would even happen. I do know that we cannot count on the federal government to do it.

Ideas?

[RetiredArmy]

What was it Thomas Jefferson said? That of course, would get me arrested by the Imperial Marxist Federal Government as an enemy of the state.