Posted on 02/19/2007 1:14:04 AM PST by Jim Robinson
Edited on 02/19/2007 2:20:11 AM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]
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?
I think we'd even pull in California.
What say you?
"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".
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?
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
I don't have much confidence that Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo could win a National Presidential Election in 2008.
"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
"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
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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 |
How does he stand on gun rights? He makes no mention I could find on his official website.
Looking forward to amnesty, are you?
Only the Republican In Name Only wussies, Jim!
I like the platform, with a little minor tweaking! :)
Give us a bigger picture so we can see the Rudy 08 bumper sticker.
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.
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?!
Are you talking about Giuliani? How does he stand on gun rights? Is that what you're asking?
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.