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?
That's another misrepresentation.
Read the original post again. And notice the other issues.
The spin in your posts is making me dizzy.
Small government, low taxes, strong defense. That is the conservatism that Reagan understood and articulated so brilliantly.
Mexico would never allow that, we'd have to go after the employers and make it stick.
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.
Hunter
That's funny! Better hang onto that one, we're gonna need it.
Bahahahaha!!!
Yeap! :)
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.
for later consumption
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
And I, for one, am SO glad to see you thinking this way once again!!! I think you're completely RIGHT!!!
You have my vote for President.
The only think I'd add to that is FIX SOCIAL SECURITY.
I'd like to see Newt run against Obama. The foreign policy debates will be priceless.
Bumptiy Bump! I like the platform!
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.