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?
Well, I don't know. I seem to remember he made a big deal about being a "compassionate" conservative. And that's one of the things I didn't like about him. I'd much prefer a traditional, hard as nails, no nonsense conservative.
That's a myth the pro-illegal alien lobby started and people swallowed without checking into the truth. The facts are:
• 11.5% of all Republican seats in Congress were lost as Democrats took back control of Congress
• But only 6.7% of the Members of Tancredo's Immigration Reform Caucus lost their seats.
Loss of Election by Republicans Based on Their Immigration-Reduction Grade of That Congress
• 9.6% with an A grade lost
• 25.0% with an F grade lost
• 9.2% with a B grade lost
• 6.4% with a C grade lost
• 9.5% with a D grade lost
Far from it. It comes much closer to being a mirror of right wing conservative America, with enough of the Christian right, veteran and RKBA voters to measure the pulse of how they feel about sacrificing our precious God-given freedoms on the altar of socialist electability.
Who is "they?" And I'm not saying "take away," I'm asking which of our hard won liberties are you willing to GIVE away?
I'm asking which of our hard won liberties are you willing to GIVE away?
None!
Next question.
Bill Sali won ... 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.
***We're onto something here. That's a fantastic story.
Great! Then you're agreeable to fighting for our conservative platform in the primary! I must've misread your original statement above.
Perhaps; perhaps not.
In CA, I thought they pretty much already have the vote with "Motor Voter!"
"based upon "moral issues"," among other conservative principles, values and qualities...
Lead by example and via the bully pulpit for starters. Hire and or appoint only capable men and women of high moral character to government positions. Appoint originalists to the judiciary. Fight for the conservative small government (constitutional) position on all issues. Secure and defend the nation and our national sovereignty. Defend life and liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
Pull in conservative members of congress on his coattails.
Leave the nation in much better shape than it was when he came in.
Long live the Republic!
Then you're agreeable to fighting for our conservative platform in the primary!
Oh absolutly!
In picking some candidate to support I am always reminded of the W F Buckley quote
"I support the rightward most viable candidate."
Viable being the operative word here. And if that means supporting someone who is not pure as the driven snow..well that's what I'll do.
At this point (unlike some) I've only made one decision...there will be frost warnings in hell before I support John McCain..don'T trust never have.
And now my bed is calling and I MUST answer its iiren song
We may have a good sized block of moderates, but most of us are right wingers to some degree. I'd say that probably less than 10% of our members are from left of center. Even so, I like to say we're all conservatives here.
But I still maintain that FR is FR and really not a very good mirror of the REAL WORLD any more than any other such site is a true reflection of the REAL WORLD. It's a picture of some of its membership; "some", because not all members post, note in the FR polls, and some people have multiple nics.
Count on me to vote for whoever will best follow the 12 talking points.
Very thought provoking.
The Dems were convinced this is what Dubya was trying to do... take the shine off FDR's ponzi scheme. That's precisely why they fought him off like the mad dogs that they are!!!
Tell me something... Why should anyone with a pension, or even a good profit sharing or 401(k) even need Socialist Insecurity? In many ways it's used by the Dems just like the pharsical minimum wage... A way to buy votes with money gouged from the self-employed professionals at double the rate paid by employees!!!
Anyways... Back to the subject! My point was... How do you want it fixed? Is that a priority for conservatives???
Now, now. Let's not get all excited and get the blood pressure up. There are lots of moderates on FR. It's not necessarily a bad name.
And I agree with you on that. FR is not a good mirror of the real world. The real world is mean, vile, vicious, nasty and ugly. No, I'm not talking necessarily about John McCain. The vile nasty real world is filled with every kind of godless evil and butchery you can possibly dream of. Liberalism, socialism, feminism, abortionism, homosexualism, atheism, paganism, anarchism, fascism, global baloneyism, tyranny, and totalitarianism, etc, etc, etc.
Thank God for honest to goodness full blooded American traditional right wing conservatism.
Thank God for FReepers!!
Sure it is.
"Moderation in defense of liberty is no virtue." Barry Goldwater.
L
Many terms are misused and abused, on FR; sadly. Some terms are used incorrectly, here, as pejoratives.
I shan't get into the rest of your post, but will, instead, go back to the actual topic of this thread and ask you one very simple question.
Who writes the planks for the GOP plat forum?
And yes, I know the answer to the query.
So true.
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.