Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A winning conservative platform for 2008?
Opinion | Jim Robinson

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:

  1. Win the war!
  2. Secure the nation!
  3. Secure the borders!
  4. Stop the illegal aliens!
  5. Rebuild the military!
  6. Deal with growing threats! Iran, Syria, North Korea, China, (and an increasingly Muslim Russia and Europe?)!
  7. Cut government!
  8. Cut spending!
  9. Cut taxes!
  10. Allow the free economy to expand!
  11. Return control of states issues to the states!
  12. Defend life, liberty, property and individual rights!

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?


TOPICS: Breaking News; Free Republic; US: California; US: Texas; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: adminlectureseries; aliens; amnesty; borders; conservatism; duncanhunter; elections; fredthompson; giuliani; illegalimmigration; immigrantlist; rfr; tancredo; turnrighttosanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 701-717 next last
To: Penner
"IIRC, you once posted that immigration as an issue wasn't that important. What made you change your mind?"

I don't remember the exact question or my exact answer, but a couple two or three years ago, someone asked me something to the effect of please list the Republicans in congress who were doing something about illegal immigration? I admitted that I did not know. It wasn't a hot issue to me at the time and I wasn't following who was doing what about illegals. It has become more of an issue with everyone now, and I truly believe it will be a key issue in the coming election. If a candidate gets it wrong on the war or on national security, including border security, then he/she will have big problems getting the nod in the primary or winning the presidency in the general, IMHO.

And should the wrong man or woman win the presidency, we're all going to pay the consequences. The nation will be secured now, or in January 2009, or after a whole lot of people die unnecessarily. Makes sense to secure the borders as soon as is humanly possible.

301 posted on 02/19/2007 8:19:30 PM PST by Jim Robinson (It's "originalists" not "constructionists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

No, but I was the millionth and first customer at the Star Trek Experience. Does that count for anything? The guy directly in front of me was the millionth customer and got all kinds of stuff. My wife, she's always late for stuff.


302 posted on 02/19/2007 8:30:41 PM PST by Kevmo (The first labor of Huntercles: Defeating the 3-headed RINO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

"Makes sense to secure the borders as soon as is humanly possible."

I admit, it wasn't a big issue for me at one time, either. Most people think it's just Mexicans coming across to get jobs and better their lives.

It is so well known around the world of our extremely porous border and lack of will to solve the problem, that we are getting criminals and terrorists from every country sneaking in here. It is only a matter of time before something catastophic happens.

The crossing of the border illegally has to be treated as an act of war.


303 posted on 02/19/2007 8:33:32 PM PST by upsdriver ((Hunter for Pres/ Ann Coulter Sec, of State))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel

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.
***That's exactly what the supreme court is all about because that's how we got in this mess in the first place. A bunch of activist liberal judges ascended and nearly wrecked our republic. I'd love to see an objective standard but it does not exist when the democrats admitted that they would use abortion views and Catholicism as a litmus test -- because they had nothing else on the nominees. So, it's not a case of "Social conservatives who think that legislating an agenda is the answer", it is the case of socons trying to right some wrongs that have occurred.


304 posted on 02/19/2007 8:36:47 PM PST by Kevmo (The first labor of Huntercles: Defeating the 3-headed RINO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Mobile Vulgus
We had Robert Vasquez run for Congress in the Northern half of Idaho. Hardly any illegals here compared to southern Idaho. And almost none compared to the rest of the nation. He ran on the illegal immigration issue only, wouldn't even talk about any other issue. He came very close to winning.

Bill Sali won and he was very unashamedly pro-life, less government, less spending, no on taxes, free interprise , no homosexual marriage etc.. and support for the Iraq war securing our borders...all of Jims suggestions.

The media trashed him, the Rinos trashed him even in the general, The polls that the media reported had him so low it looked impossible.

He won big! They were reporting total lying polls to affect the election.
305 posted on 02/19/2007 8:48:35 PM PST by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mobile Vulgus
I am telling you now, the way to lose the 2008 presidency is to make it all about immigration.

Who said anything about "All about"?
306 posted on 02/19/2007 8:49:54 PM PST by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Dat Mon
"We need to significantly REFORM the tax code."

Amen

307 posted on 02/19/2007 8:52:22 PM PST by Jim Robinson (It's "originalists" not "constructionists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
[.. What say you? ..]

I say you're right.. exactly accurate..
Who's to enact or try to enact this regime?..

ONE person.. Newt Gingrich.. unless there would be a civil war.. You know.. after Hillary takes office.. and moves 180 degrees off top dead center of this platform..

308 posted on 02/19/2007 8:53:35 PM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericaOne
Sorry, our goals are to advance conservatism. Your guy worked mighty hard to boot one of the most conservative senators we have and turn the majority over to Reid & Co. And that based on a grudge. No thanks. Hope he likes his new senator.
309 posted on 02/19/2007 9:03:55 PM PST by Jim Robinson (It's "originalists" not "constructionists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: TSchmereL
"As much as I agree with you, I have no knowledge of a candidate like this who has the ability to win a National Presidential Election in 2008."

So which of our conservative planks should we remove and replace with socialist planks?

310 posted on 02/19/2007 9:08:49 PM PST by Jim Robinson (It's "originalists" not "constructionists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
"If 20 million illegals suddenly can vote, the conservative movement is finished. We will simply be out numbered. ***That is probably the democrat plan.

First they get sanctuary cities, then free education, then free health care, then driver's licenses, then bank accounts, then home mortgages, then credit cards, then social security. Yup, they'll soon be demanding the vote.

311 posted on 02/19/2007 9:15:21 PM PST by Jim Robinson (It's "originalists" not "constructionists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: mek1959
"The central problem is the HUGE bloated and all powerful federal government."

Amen to that too.

Paraphrasing RR: In this crisis, government IS the problem, not the solution.

312 posted on 02/19/2007 9:24:25 PM PST by Jim Robinson (It's "originalists" not "constructionists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

I was told earlier this evening that it's impossible for a conservative to win the general election against Hillary Clinton.

For what it's worth, and speaking only for myself, I never said that and would never say something so silly. I did ask the name of one. I know Duncan Hunter is very popular ariuynd here (for obvious reasons) but (as it stands now) my mother has a better chance of winning the Whitehouse in 08 the Duncan Hunter...and she's been dead for 10 years.

As it stands now there a two Republican candidates how have a realistic shot at the Whitehouse Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney.


313 posted on 02/19/2007 9:30:32 PM PST by Valin (History takes time. It is not an instant thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonathanmo
"The latest polling in OH puts Hunter at 0%..c'mon... PRESIDENT - OHIO - GOP PRIMARY Rudy Giuliani 30% John McCain 22% Newt Gingrich 11% Mitt Romney 4% Sam Brownback 1% Tommy Thomspon 1% Chuck Hagel 1% Mike Huckabee 1% George Pataki 1% Tom Tancredo 1% Jim Gilmore 0% Duncan Hunter 0%"

And I understand Hillary is out polling ALL of them. Sorry, but I don't care how popular she is, she's much too liberal for me and I will not vote for her.

314 posted on 02/19/2007 9:30:35 PM PST by Jim Robinson (It's "originalists" not "constructionists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: expatguy
"How do you propose we deal with the enemy within?"

Outshout, outvote and send them packing.

315 posted on 02/19/2007 9:33:13 PM PST by Jim Robinson (It's "originalists" not "constructionists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Mobile Vulgus
[.. Wow. I am wounded with your ONLY example. / You are all ostriches. ..]

NO republican will winn in 2008 for the reasons as you say.. Giuliani, McLaim, Romney, Newt anybody.. Hillary will win.. she will.. Most democrats and RINOs are women.. Hillary will play that hand into estrogen paradise.. Aided by Oprah and Ellen DeGeneres.. probably letterman and leno too.. and a thousand others.. in the MsM and MsP.. already linkage is happening there..

America is pretty much brain washed.. and the republican party is fractured.. splintered.. it is a done deed.. Bush did it.. or had a large hand in it happening..

Whats to be done when Hillary is elected is THE TASK.. it WILL happen..
Hanging her socialism around her neck like a millstone is or should be the task at hand.. Newt is the ONLY ONE that can make the case.. That she is the U.S.'s worse nightmare.. He(Newt) could not win in 2008 but he CAN MAKE THE CASE..

I think YOU are the ostrich.. not willing to face the hard questions.. The republican party is fractured like a car window.. What to do?.. Get ready for a fight.. a grass roots fight..

316 posted on 02/19/2007 9:34:37 PM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: dmw
"Third, on the moral issues, gun rights, etc, there are a number of freepers who could care less about these issues, which means they actually prefer a moderate to liberal rEUPUBLICAN over a conservative one. I can't help but wonder too, if a conservative Republican (e.g. Hunter) got nominated would the liberal Rudy supporters vote for the conservative candidate or would they stay home or vote third party? It would be interesting to know where they stand on this."

I'm 100% confident they would vote for the conservative patriot with the big "R:"

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=171;results=1

Contrast that with what will happen if we run a social liberal with a big "R:"

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=172;results=1

317 posted on 02/19/2007 9:40:42 PM PST by Jim Robinson (It's "originalists" not "constructionists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Valin
"As it stands now there a two Republican candidates how have a realistic shot at the Whitehouse Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney."

So which of our cherished hard won liberties should we sacrifice to appease the beast and then huddle in fear praying he doesn't come back for more?

318 posted on 02/19/2007 9:49:55 PM PST by Jim Robinson (It's "originalists" not "constructionists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

FR is far from being a mirror of the American populace.


319 posted on 02/19/2007 9:54:18 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

What makes you think they will be able to take away one or more of our liberties?


320 posted on 02/19/2007 9:56:33 PM PST by Valin (History takes time. It is not an instant thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 701-717 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson