A winning conservative platform for 2008?

Opinion | Jim Robinson

[Syncro]

But THE people are NOT to a place yet where a heavy focus on illegal immigration will motivate them to ignore all other issues to vote.

That's another misrepresentation.

Read the original post again. And notice the other issues.

The spin in your posts is making me dizzy.

[WestVirginiaRebel]

I couldn't have said this any better myself. Social conservatives who think that legislating an agenda is the answer are the ones who are hurting conservatism the most. They say they want strict Constitutional jurists, but they keep expecting the President to nominate judges who agree with their agenda. That's not what being a Supreme Court Justice is all about. It's about interpreting the law, not rewriting it to fit your political views.

Small government, low taxes, strong defense. That is the conservatism that Reagan understood and articulated so brilliantly.

[ozarkgirl]

Mexico would never allow that, we'd have to go after the employers and make it stick.

[snippy_about_it]

Thanks vox_PL. I wish we would fight this war to win the battle, not necessarily the "hearts and minds". All these things Jim list are sensible and necessary but I don't hold out any hope of ever regaining them.

[Earthdweller]

Hunter

[ozarkgirl]

That's funny! Better hang onto that one, we're gonna need it.

[Earthdweller]

Bahahahaha!!!

[ElPatriota]

Yeap! :)

[The Danger is Near]

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

So, are you saying I should vote for a Rino because you lack confidence? If you would analyze the matter you might develop confidence in two things:

1) That a Rino (Rudy) cannot win, thus guaranteeing a liberal victory;

2) That the conservative platform is a winner.

A conservative platform like JimRob's is the standard. From there, it's just a question of finding the right standard bearer.

If you don't think it's Tancredo or Hunter, suggest another conservative, not a Rino who wants to destroy our values.

[Chani]

for later consumption

[dmw]

What do I mean by moral issues? I think it's pretty clear the moral issues we've been talking about here, abortions, gay rights, gun rights, etc. I would also include the kind of judges Rudy would pick because I don't believe Rudy will appoint strict constitutionalist judges just because he says he will.

Rather than saying it in my own words, let me quote Jim Robinson since his comments best answer your question of what I mean by moral issues.

"And I am 100% opposed to removing the pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, or freedom of religion planks from the conservative platform to accommodate a social liberal, even if he does have glittering star power. I oppose giving up on conservative values. I oppose Arnoldizing the presidency. It's not working for California and will not work for America."

And another quote by Jim Robinson that best describes what I mean by moral issues.

"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."

I could have said it in my own words, but I couldn't have said it as good as Jim.

Next question please.

[supercat]

Anti-immigrant rhetoric is a loser. EVERY candidate who ran on the issue got trounced.

How about this for a policy--tell me who would disagree with it: People who attempt to obey the law should be treated better than those who flout it.

Frankly, I don't care whether immigration is easy or difficult, provided that it's made easier for those who try to do things legally than for those who break in.

IMHO, if a candidate would put things in those terms, I think they should get a lot of support.

[Jim Noble]

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.

Yes and yes. Our coalition can unite over that.

But what about when all 50 states legalize abortion?

Are you a revolutionary, or a republican?

That's the question which is hanging us up.

[chasio649]

I'm still waiting....i'm suspicious of that poster...sounds just like some DC spin doctor that we are all sick of....sue me if i'm wrong.

Thanks for the applause by the way :D

[Reagan Man]

>>>>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?

NOT ME, Jim. I don't believe that hogwash for a second.

You created this website for supporting, advancing and promoting the conservative agenda. And to oppose EVERYTHING that has to do with liberalism. In the last few weeks you've seen the level of support FReepers have for the liberal agenda and their outspoken support for the candidacy of Rudy Giuliani for POTUS in 2008.

Why don't you make this issue the basis for the next Free Republic poll question.

That would certainly answer your question. Now wouldn't it?

I posted the other day, that the three main reasons people are supporting Rudy`s candidacy for POTUS were:

1. He is a security expert and tough on terrorism,
2. He isn't John McCain,
3. He can beat Hillary Clinton.

The problem is, Rudy is a social liberal, with at best, questionable credentials on fiscal matters. Rudy is the wrong candidate at the wrong time.

A successful candidacy by Rudy would fracture the GOP into two factions --- social and fiscal conservatives --- and that would hand the White House over to the Democrats in 2009. No doubt about it!

[Coleus]

EVERY candidate who ran on the issue got trounced. >>>

immigration had nothing to do with it. the people sent bush, the repbulicant's and congress a message,they were dissatisfied with the drawn-out war and by "staying the course"

[SierraWasp]

"I think we'd even pull in California."

And I, for one, am SO glad to see you thinking this way once again!!! I think you're completely RIGHT!!!

[Dog Gone]

You have my vote for President.

The only think I'd add to that is FIX SOCIAL SECURITY.

[wny]

I'd like to see Newt run against Obama. The foreign policy debates will be priceless.

[calcowgirl]

Bumptiy Bump! I like the platform!