A winning conservative platform for 2008?

Opinion | Jim Robinson

[Designer II]

Jim R said:

"Win the war! Secure the nation! Secure the borders! Stop the illegal aliens! Rebuild the military! Deal with growing threats!... Cut government! Cut spending! Cut taxes! Allow the free economy to expand! Return control of states issues to the states! Defend life, liberty, property and individual rights!"

Now that's just crazy talk!

Need to run this past the RNC for "editing".

[Just A Nobody]

Hi sitetest -

Agree and believe we are almost there.

#1 vs #12 is similar to the age old question; which came first, the chicken or the egg?

[The Danger is Near]

As much as I agree with you, I have no knowledge of a candidate like this who has the ability to win a National Presidential Election in 2008.

I think you missed the point. A candidate who adopts that platform will win. Several contenders I know of (Hunter, Tancredo) agree with most if not all of it, and I am sure there are others. Of course, the candidate need to raise money, do well in debates, etc., but THESE ISSUES will win it. A Democrat-lite candidate won't

[TSchmereL]

I don't have much confidence that Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo could win a National Presidential Election in 2008.

[Ladycalif]

"We shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of Nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us."
Patrick Henry

[motzman]

"We're Stickin' To Our Principles!"

"Airbags?"

"Ooops!"

[Ladycalif]

"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. "


PING

[lonewacko_dot_com]

"But all the anti-immigrant talk will sink you. It has already been proven."

Completely false. First, of course, being anti illegal immigration isn't the same as "anti-immigrant".

The problem is that those who support illegal immigration smear those who oppose it using such formulations. They're able to get away with it because those on the other side don't come out swinging against them.

So, when the WaPo says someone is "anti-immigrant", you don't timidly accept that moniker and then go do penance before the NCLR. You explain why you're right and the other side is wrong, and you don't pull punches doing it.

Very few GOP candidates did the "explain" part, assuming that everyone already knew why it was wrong. And, of course, regarding your "proof", ask Gabby Giffords or all the other Dems who co-opted their opponents' positions.

[lonewacko_dot_com]

Based on my lonely travels through the blogosphere commenting on pro-illegal immigration threads, as well as pointing out the flaws in pii articles and editorials, I can assure you that those supporters have almost no real argument whatsoever.

Someone who pointed out all the problems with illegal immigration and/or massive immigration could get a large percentage of the vote. But, once again, they would need to take on the establishment (MSM, Dems, and many in the GOP like Bush and Chris Cannon) and relentlessly work at discrediting them.

[EagleUSA]

It's way past time to call a halt to this nonsense.
-----
Yeah, but tell that to the Mexican Manchurian Candidate in the White House....and a complicit liberal Congress.

[AmericanVictory]

A conservative can win in a very simple and dramatic way, which is easy to figure out if you go over the articles that my colleagues in USD-AV have authored over the years on energy, particularly one by me that was on WND. At present, as foreseen by George Gider in Wealth and Poverty as early as 1981, our governmental machinery, in cooperation with big oil, big ethanol, and to some extent, big auto, has been subsidizing products rather than allowing solutions to come forward since the creation of the DOE by Carter. We can now adopt better fuel for our existing cars that will improve mileage up to 40%, will cost less to make by as much as 25 cents a gallan, will enormously reduce engine wear and reduce major pollutants to negligible amounts. We are begining to produce surface deposits, of which there are enought to, in combination with the better fuel, cut our energy dependence in half within a few short years. Better refining can be implemented domestically to produce surface deposits and make the better fuel with a fraction of the cost and polluting of present refining. Look, however, for the present dance between the large companies mentioned and the large environmental groups (whose principle interest is in taking away your choice and imposing scarcity upon you) and big government to continue. There is at present a consensus among the folks mentioned to speak of "alternative energy" and put forth endless susidies and tax breaks while making sure that the simple solution of giving better fuel and other obvious improvements that would be within the oil industry and benefit the average motorist equal tax breaks and subsidies is not implemented.

There is nothing conservative about the likes of Exxon-Mobil and ADM. Their obstructionism and boondoggling are not helping to win this war; but both do assist the other side.

[.30Carbine]

Anti-immigrant rhetoric is a loser.

ROCHESTER, N.Y., Feb. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --
A recent Harris Poll asked a cross-section of U.S. adults to say how likely they think it is that various possible events would be "a major threat to the United States in the next five years."

* 55 percent of all adults think it is extremely or very likely that a large number of illegal immigrants coming into this country would be a threat!

TABLE 1

LIKELIHOOD THAT 15 POSSIBLE EVENTS WILL BE MAJOR THREAT TO U.S. IN NEXT FIVE YEARS

"There are a number of possible threats that the U.S. might face. How likely do you think the following will be a major threat to the U.S. in the next 5 years?"

Base: All Adults

	Extremely/Very Likely (NET)	Extremely Likely	Very Likely	Likely	Somewhat Likely	Not at All Likely	Not at All Familiar with This
	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
A large number of illegal immigrants come into the country	55	37	18	20	14	7	4
A significant loss of jobs to foreign countries	52	28	23	20	18	8	2
A significant natural disaster destroys large areas of a major city	43	21	22	23	24	8	3
Energy needs significantly exceed energy supplies	40	17	23	23	22	11	5
Significant trade imbalances lead to foreign ownership of the country's debts and property	35	15	20	21	24	12	9
Terrorists launch a number of attacks against airplanes	26	10	16	21	35	15	3
The national government becomes unable to borrow money due to a huge debt load	26	10	16	17	25	26	5
The country is attacked with biological weapons	24	8	16	20	38	15	3
A significant rise in the level of the oceans	23	8	16	21	25	22	8
Major riots by groups within this country	20	8	12	23	33	22	3
A major world war occurs involving most industrialized nations	15	7	7	22	30	29	4
The banking system experiences a major financial collapse	14	6	8	15	24	42	5
A city within the country is attacked with a nuclear weapon	14	3	11	12	35	35	3
A large scale avian flu epidemic	11	3	9	21	34	28	5
A major stock market crash occurs	11	4	6	23	35	24	7

Note: Totals may not add to 100% because of rounding.

TABLE 2

POSSIBLE THREATS SEEN AS EXTREMELY OR VERY LIKELY ― BY PARTY

"There are a number of possible threats that the U.S. might face. How likely do you think the following will be a major threat to the U.S. in the next 5 years?"

Base: All Adults

	Total	Party
		Republican	Democrat	Independent
	%	%	%	%
A large number of illegal immigrants come into the country	55	73	43	57
A significant loss of jobs to foreign countries	52	42	57	54
A significant natural disaster destroys large areas of a major city	43	39	46	45
Energy needs significantly exceed energy supplies	40	32	41	42
Significant trade imbalances lead to foreign ownership of the country's debts and property	35	32	32	44
Terrorists launch a number of attacks against airplanes	26	21	27	31
The national government becomes unable to borrow money due to a huge debt load	26	12	35	25
The country is attacked with biological weapons	24	17	29	24
A significant rise in the level of the oceans	23	11	31	23
Major riots by groups within this country	20	16	23	20
A major world war occurs involving most industrialized nations	15	17	16	12
The banking system experiences a major financial collapse	14	9	14	13
A city within the country is attacked with a nuclear weapon	14	14	14	15
A large scale avian flu epidemic	11	8	15	11
A major stock market crash occurs	11	5	10	17

Methodology:
This Harris Poll (HarrisInteractive) was conducted online within the United States between January 5 and 12, 2007, among 1,508 adults (aged 18 and over).

[Professional Engineer]

Defend life, liberty, property and individual rights!

How does he stand on gun rights? He makes no mention I could find on his official website.

[Pelham]

Looking forward to amnesty, are you?

[Dat Mon]

Good job...sign me on!

I would change one aspect though...Cutting taxes.

We are past the point of cutting taxes...we need to get back to what Bill Archer was talking about in 94...as part of the Contract With America.

We need to significantly REFORM the tax code.

We should do this with the goal of creating wealth, and opportunity, and spurring investment and technological development and innovation here IN THIS COUNTRY... not overseas in India , Asia, and Europe.

This tax reform can be rolled up into a package which stresses these issues from somewhat an economic populist viewpoint (abolish the IRS!)...add a provision to both streamline and open up the Federal acquisitions process (not just consolidate all contracts with a few major players), open up competition, encourage entrepreneurship, and reform corporate welfare.

I hope Im not being too 'nativist'...or 'nationalistic'../s

[blackie]

"How many FReepers actually believe this hogwash?"

Only the Republican In Name Only wussies, Jim!

I like the platform, with a little minor tweaking! :)

[Pelham]

Give us a bigger picture so we can see the Rudy 08 bumper sticker.

[Pelham]

I can think of a lot of Freepers who were banned for expressing those very sentiments. I'll believe this is the policy of FR when those posters return.

[.30Carbine]

The Giuliani campaign is virtually through, unless, maybe, he switches to Democrat registration really soon.

You make a very good point.

Considering his positions - he has a great deal in common with Bill Clinton by his own admission - the only reason Giuliani is running on the Republican primary ticket is because he could never beat Hillary or Obama-Osama on the Dem.

If Giuliani himself knows he can't beat those two in a primary race, why on earth would anyone imagine he could beat either of them in the general election?!

[Spiff]

How does he stand on gun rights? He makes no mention I could find on his official website.

Are you talking about Giuliani? How does he stand on gun rights? Is that what you're asking?