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?
IIRC, you once posted that immigration as an issue wasn't that important. What made you change your mind?
Sounds fine to me. But why have work camps that some future socialist could use to put political opponents into forced labor. Just deport the miserable bastards already.
Deportation hasn't worked all that well. We deport millions per year but they come right back across the border. We need to have some sort of consequence for illegal border crossing. A period of incarceration in a border work camp building border roads and barriers and cleaning up the millions of tons of garbage they've strewn through the border areas (I live on the border) would help immensely and would provide a negative consequence for them. Each time they get caught crossing illegally, their sentence in the border work camp would be lengthened. Eventually, the consequences will become too great and very few will attempt to cross.
As far as I know, Tom Tancredo is still in the house, and he's all over that issue 24-7.
Duncan Hunter.
Giuliani is a known quantity.
Tancredo's immigration caucus fared better than non-caucus members. Nice try, though.
OK, if you think we're all ostriches and you're so big and bad, who do YOU support?
You OBVIOUSLY have the winning platform in mind, so what is your platform?
Well, OK, cut domestic spending big time, so people will rely more on themselves and their friends and family, rather than Big Sugar Daddy Government.
That's so condescending. Most Americans know about the issue and probably have been impacted by it in one way or another. It's just that some of them may put other issues first. Saying they don't understand sound so liberal. Sheesh!
That's the sort of stuff Hillary and Bill Clinton believe. Most people are not dumb. Some have been misled, however.
And you are a brown racist La Raza Reconquista nutcase. Well, that makes about as much sense as what you said about Just A Nobody, anyhow.
I like your whole post (of course!) and appreciate specifically what you say above. If the voters with principles are won to a Conservative candidate, the moderate waffling voters who are proclaiming now we oughta be on their bandwagon "for the sake of the Party" will come aboard ours, and be very welcome! They are wafflers, after all - caring less who they vote for so long as that person with an (R) on the ballot will WIN - or so they say...I do wonder.
I'm seeing on the 'Net that moderate Republican voters are more concerned with "who (they think) can beat Hillary or Obama" than they are concerned over what positions that candidate actually takes on the issues. Such posters don't even consider that the Republican candidate's positions on the issues are what will determine failure or victory. (Shaking head) Did they learn nothing from '06 - the year the Conservative (pro-life) Democrats took the seats of the Moderate (pro-abort) Republicans?
“Right after John Kerry’s loss in 2004, the Democratic Party finally started talking about including pro-life Democrats in the big tent of the Democratic Party. They put their money where their mouths are and assisted pro-life Democrats. Their inclusion helped pro-life Democrats win and played a significant role in handing over control of the US Senate and House. In addition to adding Bob Casey to the Senate, Democrats will see 6 new pro-life Democrats in the House,” said DFLA’s Executive Director Kristen Day.
~Source.
It's ALWAYS Bush's fault! :-)
Lest I forget...
PING!
Apologies to those who have already found this thread under their own motive power.
"What say you?"
I say this is the best written, most profound post I have ever read at FR. I have saved this thread for future reference. If you ever wonder how this website grew to where it is, merely reread what you have just written here.
Ronald Reagan is smiling down upon you.
"
We had a popular Conservative as POTUSA.
Next was a one term moderate.
Next was a two term traitor, who some people think was conservative.
Next was a two term moderate that squeaked by because the democrats nominees were very bad.
Now some people want a far left winger as the Republican nominee that most real democrats can beat because they can run to the right of IT."
You are rapidly becoming one of my very favorite FReepers!
What say you?
Sounds like a plan to this old tired and sickened conservative. Now to figure out how to ween lazy affluent Americans off of their cheap Mexican domestic laborers, the lawn mowers, baby sitters, nannies, gofers and all the other demeaning and low paying jobs. The cycle must be broken at those levels first and work our way up the ladder to the money grubbing greedy corporations who care not one whit about Americans or its sovereignty and what their policies are doing to us all.
"Wow. I am wounded with your ONLY example"
Duncan Hunter
Elton Gallegly
Jon Kyl
How many do you want?
Thanks TSR!
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.