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?
George Bush ... is the major pusher of the illegals becoming legal.
***I think that's a little bit of an exaggeration. GWB is trying to triangulate. He said he believed there was a rational middle ground in this problem. But by aiming for that middle ground, he gave up way too much. It's one of his missteps, which I think are relatively few. If instead, he had gone for a solid fence end-of-story solution, he would have gotten the middle ground he seems to desire. I don't happen to agree with GWB on this issue, I'm more in line with Hunter. But it would have been nice if Bush made the kind of progress he wanted to make. Illegal immigration is becoming a bit of a third rail in American politics.
I am so fatigued of voting for the lesser of two evils almost every four years in early November for the last two years or so, after having earlier voted for a darned good TRUE conservative in the GOP primaries who just went "pffffftttt!".
Really, really, really, really, really tired of it.
/rant off-no solution offered
Well, hopefully, we conservatives will have a hand in it, assuming we support a conservative who supports the conservative planks I outlined above.
No, Jim, but thanks for the answer. That isn't how the platform gets written. Ergo, YOU have absolutely NO say, whatsoever, in the matter and neither does the presumptive candidate.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
L
13. Police the GOP members of Congress and impeach them at the first sign of corruption.
14. Do not cover up for pedophiles just because they have an (R) behind their name.
Your analysis of the Presidents since Carter (thankfully excluded) is spot-on. Sad that many don't recognize 41 and 43 as what they are.
Actually it's exactly how it gets written.
Ergo, YOU have absolutely NO say, whatsoever,
Once again our liberal friend nopardons displays not only her ignorance of the Platform Committee, its rules and procedures, and the workings of the Committee on the Platform, but some shockingly bad manners as well.
and neither does the presumptive candidate.
See the immediate above. Their's no such thing as a 'presumptive' candidate, only presumptious blowhards who think there is.
Once the Candidate is chosen he or she works in concert with the Platform Committee as per the Rules
.
Now please, don't spout off on subjects which you know nothing about.
L
If we conservatives unite behind a conservative who supports the conservative positions outlined above and we get him nominated and he beats the socks off Hillary (which he will) you might be surprised to see the GOP platform looking more and more like a conservative platform. Guarantee you ALL of the planks listed above will be in it.
If we don't nominate a conservative then I guarantee you one or more will be missing or misrepresented.
Of course, if we fail completely and Hillary is elected, then the GOP platform becomes meaningless and moot for a long time.
L
Or as someone else might have once said, "a choice between Socialism NOW or Socialism-on-the-Installment-Plan.
L
No presidential candidate, to date, has ever asked the public to supply him with their written wishes for inclusions.
Ergo, NO, neither you nor Jim, nor any member of FR has any say-so in writing the platform.
Unlike you, I wrote the facts. Your embellishments don't refute what I previously had posted.
I suggest that you look up the word "presumptive". I used it correctly. The platform is written BEFORE the final day of the party convention, at which time the PRESUMPTIVE candidate ACCEPTS THE NOMINATION and becomes the CANDIDATE.
Would you, personally have no glass at all, or a glass that is 1/2 full or empty...depending upon how you look at it?
If for whatever reason than that since 1948, (except 1964, the year of my hero Goldwater), the GOP Presidential Ticket has had either a NIXON, BUSH, or DOLE on it.
For PETE'S Sake, it is time for some VARIETY, not to mention a real conservative at the helm and also hopefully on the second spot of the ticket as well.
If the conservative members of a conservative party select a winning conservative candidate based on a winning conservative platform that the vast majority of said conservative members of said conservative party agree with to a "T," then the platform of said conservative party will contain the winning conservative planks of said winning conservative candidate.
And I'll eat my hat if it turns out otherwise.
Conversely, if a non conservative candidate is selected by the vast majority of the members, then I will guarantee you that at least one or more (and it's probably more) of the conservative planks listed above will be missing or misrepresented.
I do have a bit of a penchant for correct words so you're right. I do prefer it.
does NOT write the platform.......................ALONE.
Never said he did. Do you also suffer from some cognitive comprehension disorder as well as rampant liberalism?
Neither does he have the final word;
I never said he did. See above.
No presidential candidate, to date, has ever asked the public to supply him with their written wishes for inclusions.
True. Also completely irrelevant. The platform is written by the Platform Committee as I indicated previously and documented in the links I thoughtfully provided to you. I see you haven't as of yet actually used them. Perhaps if you took a few minutes away from cheerleading for a pro-infanticide, anti-2nd Amendment northeastern Liberal you might trying popping on over there and actualy reading it.
Ergo,
The word you should be using is 'therefore'.
neither you nor Jim, nor any member of FR has any say-so in writing the platform.
You have no idead whether or not any member of FR is on the Platform Committee. You're simply making an unsupported allegation without any facts. In short, you're talking through your hat.
Unlike you, I wrote the facts
You've done nothing of the sort. I seriously doubt you'd recognize a fact if it walked up to you, introduced itself, and gave you a wedgie.
I suggest that you look up the word "presumptive". I used it correctly.
You used it in a grammatically correct fashion. It was your facts that were incorrect.
And one of your more annoying qualities is your penchant for shouting at people who disagree with you. It does nothing to bolster your position. It does, however, add real credibility to the opinion that you're a flaming jerk.
L
With the good Lord's blessings, I intend to do all in my minuscule human ability to help ensure that that does not happen. Thanks be to God, my conservative cup runneth over.
If your filling it, it is half full.
If you are drinking it, it is half empty.
Right now, I would say the field is half full.
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.