A winning conservative platform for 2008?

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:

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?

Thank you for asking, 'What say you?"

I say, I like what you wrote.

Jim, you wrote, "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. "
I'd like to know why a particular conservative activist who writes and posts exactly as you have posted here has been banned from posting on Free Republic? It is activists just like him that are needed to be a voice for conservatism. I'm requesting that you reinstate Badray back onto this forum.(and any other conservative that has been banned because he/she offended pseudo-conservatives here on FR--many of which are recently converted Dems) Badray is a tireless advocate and activist for all the things listed in your article. He is a fighter. He doesn't just write words on a forum, he is out there in a variety of venues for state and national issues-in Harrisburg and Washington DC; all on of our behalf.

I'm also curious to know something. Should conservatives lose this fight and Giuliani wins the Republican party nomination, are we going to be asked by Free Republic to support him simply because he has an (R) next to his name?

Regards, Boxsford

Jim Robinson wrote:
I'm also supporting appointing judges who will correctly interpret the constitution per original intent and I'm sure eventually they will overturn Roe vs Wade and whatever other decisions that may be blocking a return of the issue of abortion to the states. Let the people decide. Not the feds or the courts.

Roe v. Wade will never be overturned in the Supreme Court.
Let me repeat that for emphasis: NEVER.

As no less "conservative" a jurist as John G. Roberts said - during his confirmation hearings, if I recall correctly - Roe v. Wade is "settled law".

Yes, we have seen Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia make noise about tossing Roe. But they enjoy the _luxury_ of making such noises, so long as they KNOW they are in the minority and that their contrary votes have no chance of effecting such a change.

If ever presented with a case where they truly have in their grasp the opportunity to overturn Roe, I predict that even the most conservative justices will gripe, grumble, perhaps even issue separate opinions - but that they will be _concurring_ opinions grudgingly supporting the continued observance of the core principles of Roe. When the chips are down, conservatives will back away from this one.

There are two good reasons why they will do so.

Reason number one is a longstanding legal principle that is one of the fundamental principles of the Court: stare decisis. That is: "stand by that which has been decided". And that's EXACTLY why - in his confirmation hearings - that Justice Roberts referred to Roe as "settled law". Because he is, at heart, a justice, and he recognizes the need to stand by "things decided".

Reason number two is that even the conservative justices realize that to overturn Roe would all-but destroy conservatism in America, by reviving one of the great issues of The Left to be used in the ongoing struggle with The Right.

Conservatives would be grinning ear to ear with the tossing of Roe, but - like the Cheshire Cat - they would find their ranks gradually melting away. Because I contend that there are even a large number of REPUBLICAN women [and men] that - although they may have never needed an abortion personally - feel like something would have been pulled out from under them.

There is also a THIRD reason why Roe will not be overturned, and this is a "Fishrrman original": you haven't heard it mentioned from anyone else, anywhere yet (not even prescient media pundits):
The Left will never permit a case with the potential to overturn Roe to come before a conservative Court that might use such a case to do exactly that.

"Nonsense!", you're thinking. But there is stark precedence for this based on recent Court history.

Recall, if you will, the not-so-long-ago case of schoolteacher Sharon Taxman vs. the town of Piscataway, New Jersey. Ms. Taxman had been denied a job promotion (that went to a black teacher) and had been told explicitly that the _reason_ she was passed over was because she was white.

Taxman filed suit. And the Supreme Court eventually agreed to hear the case, which was scheduled to for oral argument. The facts of the case were cold as ice, and it was recognized widely (on all sides of the political spectrum) that the Supreme Court [even a moderate Court] would use the case to outlaw affirmative action once and for all.

But the Taxman case was never heard.

Knowing that Taxman was certain to win in court, civil rights groups offered her a large sum of cash (about $480,000, if I recall correctly) to "buy her off" and withdraw her petition before the Court. She sold out, took the bait, and withdrew her petition before the Court only days before it was to be heard.

And that is why Affirmative Action continues to exist today as social and governmental policy. The Left knew they could not win if the facts were to be heard in court, so they made sure that the facts would not come before the court.

And so it will go with the abortion issue.

I predict that if an abortion-issue case arose at the grassroots level that had the potential to reach the Supreme Court - particularly a Court packed with conservative justices - that The Left would ultimately "cede the case" at the local or state level, and concurrently do everything in its power to prevent the case from reaching the high court. They would "pull a Taxman" on the abortion issue, even if that meant giving up their control over the issue in a single state, for the time being. Although [at the state level] this might be touted as a "defeat" for The Left, viewed more circumspectly, it would be a strategic victory for them, a la Taxman vs. affirmative action.

Even a conservative Supreme Court, willing to pull the trigger on Roe, is helpless to do so without the "ammunition": that being a court case on which to rule

Part of embracing conservatism is opening one's eyes to reality. Reality isn't always pleasant to look at, but it must be seen clearly and understood. And the harsh "reality" of the abortion issue is that it IS "settled law" in the United States. It will never be overturned - whatever opportunities that once may have existed for doing so were lost soon after the Roe decision by the Court (of course, the ONLY "opportunity" would have been a Constitutional amendment, which is NOT ever going to happen now).

The only _other_ opportunity would, of course, be the Court re-examining Roe and invalidating it, returning the issue to the states. But that won't happen for the reasons I've outlined above.

Some years ago, back before FreeRepublic or even the World Wide Web, there was a poster on AOL named "LizardNC" (he might even be a Freeper today) who very wisely stated:
Reality is what it is. It is not what we believe it to be.

And the reality of abortion in America, is that - like it or not - it is here to stay.

- John

Alright, those who are supportive of Jim's ideas, lets draft some policy here on FR that will be used to implement his ideas:

1. Win the War -
a. A resolution in the Congress. "It is the Sense of the Congress" that.....
b. HR 1 - A bill to appropriate ..... billions of dollars?

2. Secure the Nation -
a. HR 2 - A bill to secure the nation by.....
b. S2 - A bill to direct the Attorney General to....

3. Secure the borders (see #2)

4. Stop Illegal Aliens. (again, see #2)

5. Rebuild the Military -
a. HR 3 - A Bill to appropriate "X" Billions to rebuild the military.
b. HR 4 - A bill to......

5. Deal with growing threats -
a. HR 5 - A bill to authorize the CIA to......
b. HR 6 - A bill to appropriate "X" Billions to......

6. Cut Government Spending
a. HR 6 - A bill to eliminate the National Endowments for the Arts.
b. HR 7 - A bill to eliminate Social Security
c. HR 8 - A bill to eliminate Medicare
d. HR 9 - A bill to eliminate the Department of Education
e. HR 10 - A bill to require federal spending to be no more than 10% of GDP.
f. HR 11 - A bill to eliminate deficit spending except for times of war.
g. HR 12-200 - etc. etc.

7. Cut Taxes
a. HR 201 - A bill to repeal the 16th Amendment
c. HR 202 - A bill to end capital gains taxation.

8. Allow the economy to expand
a. HR 203 - A bill to end the federal government! (Just kidding)
a. HR 203 - A bill to end all entitlement spending

9-12 - Etc. Etc. See how hard it is.

Let's hear your suggestions as to exactly how these are turned in to policy/legislation. I'm supportive of them all, but they're only ideas until there translated into action.

Thoughts?

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.