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?
LOL. Thanks, but don't get me started on SS. You'd probably change your mind about that vote.
Do you really think so? I think it fractures it between 1) informed conservatives and 2) liberal Republicans and uninformed conservatives. Those who prefer his stance on issues will vote for him, along with others who vote on likeability or popularity. We know he is not socially conservative but with his stance on guns, global warming, and things like rent control, I don't think he's fiscally conservative at all.
Jim, I don't think you know what you are saying. Why it's almost enough to get you branded a right wing zealot. By some people that claim to be conservatives on this site. :-)
To me, it sounds like common sense.
Thank you.
But I've made it clear who I am NOT going to support.
This election, I want a "full-spectrum" conservative and nothing less...
The breakdown is along the lines of the old Reagan coalition of social and fiscal conservatives, that he created back in the late 1970`s and had been so successful for the GOP over the last 30 years. Check out this great speech Reagan gave to the 4TH Annaul CPAC Convention, Feb 6 2007, called The New Republican party.
Before Reagan came along and joined these two conservative factions, the Rockefeller Republicans ruled the GOP. The Rockefeller wing of the GOP died 30 years ago and Reagan killed it.
I for one, believe that the nomination of another RINO will be the death knell of the Republican party.
Rudy is the worst candidate to ever attempt to run as a Republican in the history of the party. This is a time of shame.
You've nailed it!
It seems to be resurrecting itself. :-(
No.
You always want to cherry-pick those rights you favor at the expense of reason. Until you understand the inherent conflict in your stand over rights you will not appeal to the general public.
Social Security was deeply flawed from the beginning, because it need a constitutional requirement to invest the funds privately. Now it's even worse with promises to illegal aliens, and 44 million of our citizens having been murdered in abortuaries. How would you fix it? Congress will never tie it's own hands.
Jim:
We just had our first-ever Texas Conservative Conference last weekend, assembled to coincide with an NFRA Board meeting - National Federation of Republican Assemblies (q.v.).
Chris Simcox attended and spoke, among many others; the lowlight of the day was the speech by Rep. Ron Paul (R., Ego).
Don't know if he ever actually appeared - I'd think he'd be too ashamed, but I wasn't going to stick around to find out - I'd have had something rude, disruptive and probably obscene to say to him.
You do realize that your goals are so vaguely defined, that every Republican candidate, with the exceptions of Ron Paul and Chuck Hagel, could credibly claim to meet all of them, don't you?
Well, while we wouldn't call it hogwash, at last count the number was in excess of 200.
Do you do a stand-up comedy routine in Vegas?
That is the problem, calcowgirl.
I'm not ready to concede that moderate-centrist-liberal Republicans will take over the GOP and elect Rudy to be the party standard bearer. I think in the year we have before the primaries start, rightwingers will begin to get a clearer picture of Rudy`s liberal record. When all is said and done, I don't believe a lifetime of support for liberal issues and liberal causes will not go unnoticed by most conservatives. Especially social conservatives. In the end, conservatives will reject Rudy.
Well, just looking for an inexpensive way to lock up the repeat offenders. If we deport them and they keep coming back illegally, we'll have to take another step. Feeding and housing them in jails or prisons would be too expensive and the prisons are already overflowing anyway. I'd say turn them over to the local Sheriff, like that no nonsense guy down in Arizona. They can be put up in tents, wear pink underwear, eat beans and tortillas and work to pay for it. When they've served enough time and decide to go home and STAY home, we put them on the bus south.
Of course not!
Why, just look what happened the last time a real Conservative ran for President...
Well, let's see: that was Ronald Reagan, and he got a huge majority...
So maybe there's a flaw in whatever it is you use in place of logic...
As would I, as would many others.
"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."
The problem is that Rudy is a much better fit to run as a Democrat.
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.