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?
You're the one who is supporting someone who supports the murder of unborn children.
It's not rude to point out facts.
L
It's a very strange kind of conservative, who would rather have whomever the Dem candidate is to be, elected and who delights in trying to trash anyone and everyone not in complete lockstep with you.
Have you a preference, or are you waiting, with bated breath, for some perfect CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE, writ large, to descend from the skies, deus ex machina, to "save the day"?
And actually, he really doesn't! If you knew political history, you would know that recent history shows that is not accurate to the degree you claim.
Baiting, flaming, lying, personal attacks, and using foul language, even when using an * or other sign instead of a letter are rude; these things also used to be against the rules here.
Repeat it after me:
I, the poster known as [state your screen name] do readily admit that Rudolph W. Giuliani is every bit the social liberal that he himself admits he is, but I, a person who claims to be more conservative than thou, openly, willingly and wholeheartedly embrace and support his liberal positions on abortion, gay unions (also known in mine own conservative circles as "gay marriage"), gun control, open borders, etc, even though it is an act of betrayal to mine own true conservative heart and soul. As all of FReeperdom is my witness, I declare this to be so.
The truth shall ease your pain and grease your slide into the socialist Utopian pits of oblivious darkness.
Go forth, my lass, and kid thy self no more.
Actually he really does. Here's Dame Guliani in his own words:
I've said that I'll uphold a woman's right of choice, that I will fund abortion so that a poor woman is not deprived of a right that others can exercise, and that I would oppose going back to a day in which abortions were illegal.
Now I don't know what things are like on your world, but here on Earth that's pretty unequivocal support for murdering unborn children. And by the way when he says he'll fund abortion he doesn't mean he'll dig out the Guliani family checkbook and cover it himself. He means he'll force, and I do mean force, me to pay for it.
He not only supports it, he said he'd pay for his own daughter to have an abortion. Once again here's Madame Guliani in his own words:
But if the ultimate choice of the woman - my daughter or any other woman - would be that in this particular circumstance [if she had] to have an abortion, I'd support that. I'd give my daughter the money for it.
So we are stuck in a bit of a quandry. Whom are we to believe? We can believe you who says Dame Guliani doesn't support abortion or we can believe Madame Mayors own words on the subject.
Now I hate to be harsh but in short dear lady, you're lying. In fact you're lying your ass off.
So is Rudy for that matter.
L
Personally I don't care if other people kid themselves. That's their right.
But it really chaps my hide when they want to pee down my back and then try to tell me it's raining.
L
Eating popcorn and enjoying this seminal thread....free speech is such a great thing :)
And it has the added side benefit of making it easier to spot idiots.
L
Oops. I missed that on my first pass through your posts. Please tell me which of the planks that I listed above you believe to be changes to the GOP party platform. That would be good to know.
I don't think I'm changing the platform at all. I'm not the one trying to rip out the pro life and liberty or defense of national security, national sovereignty planks. I do believe that would be you, Rudy Giuliani, his accomplices in the press (and the Democrat party) and his supporters whether they claim to be conservative, moderate or full blooming liberal.
Thankyouverymuch.
While "viability" is a good word, a wonderful contemplation, and indeed very important to such things as birth into the mainstream, people choose to define what makes a person viable in ways that deny rational consensus. I believe Mr. Buckley would say the operative word here is "rightward." For example, read this NRO article from Feb. 16, '07, in which William F. Buckley, Jr. slays the "establishmentarian scientific position" and posits an Intelligent Designer - surely in today's conversation one can't get more rightward than that -
So Help Us Darwin. An excerpt:
It seems an ancient controversy, and of course it is. Fifteen minutes after Charles Darwin explained his theory of evolution, his disciplesapostlesruled out any heresy on the subject of the naturalist explanation for human life. Young people are educated to think of the question in the grammar of the Scopes Trial, Clarence Darrow vs. William Jennings Bryan. That trial made for great naturalist theater. Mr. Bryan was not born either to become president or to explain how God could tolerate chicken pox, so Clarence Darrow wiped him into dust.But the contention continued, and has been explored from time to time under heavy lights. My own forensic involvement took place nine years ago as host of Firing Line. The two-hour, nationally televised debate on the topic Resolved: that the evolutionists should acknowledge creation featured seven professors. Four of them took the establishmentarian scientific position. It is, essentially, that not only is naturalism established as verified science, but any interposition into the pictureof inquisitiveness, let alone conviction that there might have been design in the evolution of our worldis excluded.
...But the intelligent liberal community should not impose on anyone a requirement of believing that there is only the single, materialist word on the subject, and that only contempt is merited by those who consent to appear at think tanks composed of men and women prepared to explore ultimate questions, which certainly include the question, Did God have a hand in creating all of this? Including the great messes we live with?
Representing the affirmative that night on television, one debater closed with this: Im taken with the reply of an elderly scientific scholar to an exuberant young skeptic. I find it easier to believe in God than to believe that Hamlet was deduced from the molecular structure of a mutton chop.
He even mentions McCain in the article, as you do in your post. It is significant to me that Newt Gingrich has also weighed in on this topic, clearly taking his stand on what Mr. Buckley refers to as the liberal side of the argument.
I don't have to wonder which candidates Mr. Buckley has already culled from his primary voting prospects.
You're not. Pop on over there and read it for yourself.
L
There is only one candidate in either party who has demonstrated, through prior executive experience, that he is capable of doing most of these things, and in the teeth of hysterical leftist opposition, to boot.
Only one candidate who has left his area of operations in better shape than when he was first elected.
Only one.
I grew up in New York, and my whole family is still there. It's clear that I and others cannot convey here the scale of the profoundly conservative changes that occurred there from 1993-2001, but they were real, they were profound, and most of them endure despite the maladministration of Bloomberg.
I'm going to bow out of the Rudy threads, but suggest that those of you who still have an open mind on this topic not sign on to anti-Rudyism just yet.
Liberals don't do the things he did in NYC. They just don't.
"I *was* a CONSERVATIVE before either of you were."
Key word here being *was*. Is that what you are *now*? Your posts indicate otherwise. Isn't it time to face the reality that you simply are no longer a conservative that you once *was*? As Jim said, "To thine own self be true."
You are talking about "planks." People don't vote for planks. They vote for candidates. The Republican Party does not need to change its planks. However, it does need a candidate who has the ability, the possibility, of winning a National Presidential Election in 2008 for any of the various "planks" to be realized.
I think we are headed towards a disaster in 2008. I want to slow the bleeding in hopes of stopping it later by going with someone who is most likely to succeed even if less conservative. You want to wager big and "double down" on a more conservative lesser known candidate.
The problem with your strategy, is that the card table is completely tilted right now. The cards are stacked against us and, further, the cards are being marked and counted as time goes by.
He is the freshman class president. The Rinos are still mad. This is a outspoken, conservative, VERY principled guy.
As far as I can tell many people(here at FR) generally have lost the ability to determine right from left.. Anyone with hard right credentials many think are wingnuts.. And they ARE coming from a hard left attitude.. If that can happen "HERE" on FR.. What then does the public at large think?..
Public brain washing by the News outlets, MsM and MsP, Hollywood, and federally controlled academia must very great.. Even more extensive than I have believed..
I see the baiting game was played last night. It's pretty clear that every single person who likes or endorses Rudy is a RINO or a liberal. /sarcasm
The people that some freepers are willing to throw under the bus is growing every day. Michael Reagan. Rep. Sessions. Sen. DeMint who said at the GOP meeting yesterday that although he endorses Mitt, he thinks Rudy would make an excellent president. It's a much longer list, but you get the idea.
And you know, in over an hour's speech by Sen. DeMint yesterday about what conservatism means, not one word was said about abortion or guns. He just has got to be a liberal. (can you see me rolling my eyes)
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.