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?

[Just A Nobody]

but there is the whole media thing to overcome -
I overcame them a long time ago...I turned them off and spend NO money on their dead trees.

Newt is news, McCaine is news, etc. -
Only because the ENEMEDIA are making them news.

we can't FORCE the national media to pay attention to him
No we can't, but WE have the power to ignore the ENEMEDIA!

If WE THE PEOPLE do not rise up against our domestic enemies, then we are not worth saving. Frankly, I am tired of hearing what we CAN'T do. I would much rather hear what we CAN do to overcome our "news" masters.

[RockinRight]

Rudy on your issues:

1. Win the war! - Yes
2. Secure the nation! - Maybe
3. Secure the borders! - Probably not
4. Stop the illegal aliens! - Probably not
5. Rebuild the military! - Yes
6. Deal with growing threats! Iran, Syria, North Korea, China, (and an increasingly Muslim Russia and Europe?)! - Yes
7. Cut government! - Probably no worse than W
8. Cut spending! - Probably no worse than W
9. Cut taxes! - Yes
10. Allow the free economy to expand! - Yes
11. Return control of states issues to the states! - Maybe
12. Defend life, liberty, property and individual rights! - No

I maintain that he's at least somewhat better than Hillary, much in the same way that death by lethal injection is better than being dragged to death behind a 1982 Chevy S10 on a dirt road in Inyo County, California...but we can do better.

[mouske]

"When was the last time any of the driveby media - or sleep-in' Fox mentioned anyone but Guliani, and a couple times Mitt Romney? Granted I haven't watched TV in almost a year, but I read it, and no one's talking about Tancredo or Hunter."

Last Saturday evening I actually heard one of the network news anchors mention the name of Duncan Hunter. It was the first time I had heard his name mentioned by the national news networks. They were reporting how candidates were returning to Washington to vote. Maybe Hunter is starting to get their attention.

[mek1959]

Yep. It's pain now or pain later - any way you look at it, there's going to be pain thanks to FDR and Johnson and years of political cowardice from the republican party. Believe me, I know, I was up there when our great minority leader was Bob Michael. Talk about the wilderness! Jim Wright walked all over us - and with his smarmy smile!

It wasn't until Newt showed up did we have any hope and it took him years to help us believe again. Now we've seemed to have slipped right back into the "Michael" days. UGH!

[kabar]

We are heading into a real welfare state with Hillarycare on the horizon. Today, nearly 80% of Americans pay more in Social Security taxes than they do in federal income tax. Along with illegal immigration, I see the entitlement programs being the most pernicious to the long term welfare of this country.

[Paulus Invictus]

Thanks! It's a terrific list that I like very much and one that could well win for a candidate who espouses these policies. How can Freepers help find and support such a candidate?

[servantboy777]

"Allow free economy to expand"

I agree, however I would amend this bullet point with;

>negotiate FAIR trade agreements.

There is no way the U.S. labor force can compete with slave labor.

No way Americans can compete with countries that do not demand proper environmental controls on business.

Americans cannot compete with businesses that pay paltry wages under the guise of increasing the standard of living for foreign workers, yet denying health care, retirement and so forth.

The standard of living for the American worker is rapidly shrinking as corporations freeze wages or cut increases dramatically. Cut contributions to retirements, cut pensions, cut corporate share of health care.

Americans are working more and more overtime to make up for stagnant wages and to make ends meet.

Globalist tout the health of our economy, yet ignore the fact that the fruits of corporate downsizing has yet to hit the American economy.

Baby boomers will be retiring in droves over the next ten years. The impact on retirement monies will reveal it's ugly head.....soon.

As well paying positions left this country beginning in mass around the mid 80's, this displaced many manufacturing workers. A large percentage of these workers dipped into their retirement programs to keep the lights on sorta speak.

This raid on personal savings will leave many without an adequate dollars to keep them during retirement.

As the ravages of aging take their toll on our new senior segment, those left without health insurance and savings will ultimately turn to the federal government for aid.

The projected increase in federal outlays due to entitlements to baby boomer seniors will overwhelm the entitlement budgets, thus creating a new crisis for uncle sugar to deal with.

As our government seems hell bent on running huge deficits both domestic and trade, the additional retirement burden thrown into the mix will indeed get ugly...real quick.

This has been largely hidden from the American public.

No politician wants to talk about increasing your taxes, cutting your benefits...well that would be political suicide.

Well guess what? Get ready, your taxes are fixin to sky rocket. The federal government will have no choice. With the feds already running in the red to the tune of billions, ask yourself, where will they get the money?

With more and more corporations leaving the U.S. due to the so called tax burden....who will provide the needed tax dollars to keep uncle sugar afloat?

uh huh! You guessed it....the good ol middle class once again.

[leadpenny]

You're right, I'm a liberal. I liberally exercised my constitutional right to vote for someone of my choice. You go ahead and worry all you want over that. I couldn't care less what you've done or failed to do.

BTW, who I voted for has nothing to do with this thread.
I guess, for habitual thread-jumpers, that doesn't matter.

[dmw]

I love you too leadpenny. Have a great day!

[Pietro]

Nice post Jim and I agree w/ you.

Here's something that's driving me crazy and is being used by the libs to divide us: the Religious Right.

Over and over again I hear erstwhile conservatives complaining that the "religious right" has hijacked the party. But who, what, is this ominous organization? What Draconian laws have they enacted and when do the religious trials begin?

Hail the coming theocracy!

Or not. I believe the whole concept is a bugaboo created by the MSM and the libs as a wedge issue for conservatives. Unfortunately, its working amongst those benighted conservatives that follow the national media. Even here on FR, where one would expect a deeper understanding of conservative principles, we see the divide opening up.

Nothing is more importatnt in the upcoming election than to mend this potential abyss and to reach across the ideological barriers that will prevent us from moving forward.

Towards that end I humbly submit my understanding of what a social conservative believes:

1. R v W is bad law. Its based on a lie. It should should be overturned and abortion law should be returned to the states.

2. Homosexuals should have equal rights under the law. They should not have special rights. Marriage, by definition, can only exist between a man and a woman.

3. Cultural traditions should be honored, or at a minimum not outlawed. The banning of Christmas music and indeed any mention of Christianity in public is an absurd misreading of our constitution.

I think that's it. If the fiscal conservatives here have a difficult time understanding these few positions then we're doooooooomed. But I don't think they will.

Rather than allow the MSM to define us its absolutely necessary that we understand ourselves.

[mek1959]

Agreed. I'm in health care now and am quite anxious about the future in that regard. In fact, I'm looking for a way out now in light of the changes that are coming.

We really have a mess on our hands and with the ideological chasm between the liberals and conservatives, I don't see an easy way out. We're no better than the libs, in my view, if all we see in this election is access to the helm of this bloated government. We need leaders to stand up and say socialism is just around the corner if we don't cut this behemoth back.

[leadpenny]

I hate you. Get lost.

[Just A Nobody]

You are a moron.

I must say this garbage is getting old!
I DO NOT agree with you, so I am therefore a moron.
You sound like a communist, demonRAT, DU troll.

Mobile Vulgus - Since Mar 14, 2005 - Vociferous and unapologetic

Who says we cannot find common ground?

vociferous
conspicuously and offensively loud; given to vehement outcry;
unapologetic
unwilling to make or express an apology

Disclaimer:
Opinions expressed on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Free Republic or its operators.

Please enjoy our forum, but also please remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, profanity, vulgarity, threats, racial or religious bigotry, or any other materials offensive or otherwise inappropriate for a conservative family audience.

[dmw]

Great post Pietro!

[Big Horn]

I agree with every one of them. They are 12 steps for victory. I can not improve on them.

[mek1959]

Good post Pietro,

I'm part of the religious right, and you are correct about the desire of the libs to drive a wedge - sadly, it's working.

Having said that, how do you imagine that even if the wedge is ended and the conservative party unites on fiscal and moral policy that we change the country in the manner? This is the problem I have with our current condition. How do we really create policy that allows Christmas decorations, or the ending pubic financing of "pisschrist"? Heck, we couldn't even shut down the NEA. How do we end Social Security or Medicare without a REAL riot on our hands? Remember the supposed "government shutdown" in the 90's. The unions took to the streets in support of clinton, and that was just for shutting the government down for a few days? Imagine rolling out the end of public debt to finance on-going operations. Holy cow, there'd be a riot when the checks stopped coming in.

Just rambling now. Any ideas?

[Just A Nobody]

The idea that he or any other conservative doesn't have a chance is just what some others want us to think.

Just exactly right!!! And half of those on this thread are drinking their kool-aid as they scroll through.

[Smokin' Joe]

How many FReepers actually believe this hogwash?

I don't.

In fact, the writing is pretty much on the wall. Even here: GOP USA poll

The media-annointed "front runners" lag seriously behind other, more conservative, candidates.

A conservative candidate will get all the Republican votes, except from the most liberal of self-proclaimed 'republicans', a liberal will split the vote between third party candidates and stay at home voters.

I can't see anyone who owns a firearm voting for Hillary, but an anti-gun candidate from the Republicans will guarantee lackluster support for their candidate, and, frankly, a loss.

The pro-life faction of the party will support a candidate who is a conservative, but not someone who is pro-abortion.

People who want something as basic and essential as control of who comes over our borders will not vote for the candidate(s) soft on illegal immigration, no matter who they are.

The group to woo is not those who have no hard and fast single issues, but the groups who do, for they are the ones most likely to stand on principle.

Given the choice, when the time comes I'll choose to stand in front of the throne of the Almighty and say I voted against those who supported killing babies in the womb.

In the meantime, I'll keep my guns, too.

[Enterprise]

Bump

[Gone_Postal]

only one name comes to mind.....Ducan Hunter