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?
JR: you are correct in that Bush always talked being a compassionate conservative, doing things as a compassionate conservative, etc., but again, and even Rush has spoken of this, Bush is no conservative. Rush said he wasn't even a conservative. I agree with that. At most, I think Bush qualifies as a middle of the road moderate with liberal leanings. If he were not liberal leaning, how do you explain his view on illegals?? His views on making all them legal and granting amnesty is exactly what the left would do. I believe that Bush misled a lot of us with his talk, but no actions concerning conservatism. His big liberal, big government growing spending proved that. Taking out his actions on the WOT, I give Bush a big fat F as president. He has failed his oath of office to defend the USA within in not closing the borders and not stopping the flood of illegals invading the Republic. He is a big government liberal when it comes to throwing money around. And, when was the last president to sit 7 years without ever vetoing anything passed by the Congress?
What do you think of Bush's tax cuts?
Are those the actions of a big-government liberal?
Hmmm?
Bush's tax cuts do not match his spending. Just look at the bloated farm, education bills as examples. You can try to throw out tax cuts to cover all his spending you want, but the record clearly shows how much Bush and the RINOs in Congress GREW the federal government and government spending more than Klinton and the Marxist dimocrats did. Heck, they just sit back and let him do it. They get what they wanted and Bush did it for them. And, he tried to pal up with Swimmer at the same time.
Amen!
George H.W. Bush was "electable," and main-stream, and appealed to that elusive "middle-of-the-road" electorate, and gave GOP voters such heartburn that they simply stayed home in '92 or voted for that hand-grenade-with-ears, Ross Perot.
It's time we stuck with our principals, and the devil take the Eastern Liberals like Romney and Giuliani.
If Romney and Giuliani aspire to the Presidency, let them join their kindred spirits in the Dimocrat Party.
LOL!
Nicely put!
Beautiful. I wish it fit as a tagline.
L
The one-word answer to that question is of course "history."
Examples abound, but I'll give you two recent ones:
1) McCain-Feingold, taking away freedom of speech during the election cycle.
2) The "assault-weapons" ban, taking away the right to buy the very militia-type arms guaranteed in the Second Amendment.
(Memo to an alleged lawyer: Rudy, the Second Amendment is not about "hunting." There is no Constituional right to hunt.)
Some around here'll start calling you a borderbot if you start wanting to shut down the border. Many FROBL are running around here. Of course we borderbots wear that name with honor.
You must not get out in the real world very much. Ivory towers are only good for looking down on people.
Personal liberty is the core of conservatism and the 2nd Amendment is the guaranteer of such.
I have a candidate who lines up with all the planks listed in JimRob's post. Duncan Hunter. No need for a Deus Ex Machina ending to this story, the cavalry (well, Rangers) have arrived.
I was being sarcastic.
***Darn it, forgot to include that there sarcasm tag again.
Obviously, the media will portray Duncan Hunter as a right-wing nut job.
***Then I guess it doesn't help when JimRob called him a "right-wing kook", eh? ;-)
The problem is that millions of Americans will buy it.
Giuliani will get puff pieces. The problem is, it matters. And the result matters.
***Giuliani will get puff pieces until he's the nominee. Then the media turns on him. What we need is a strategy that means we don't have to trust the media to be anything other than what they are, a herd.
Totally agree. He'll get puff pieces until (God forbid) he should get nominated, then they'll tear him a new one, there by opening the door for his opponent. I've said it many times myself.
The media will not turn as hard on Giuliani even after the nomination. The negative press that Duncan Hunter will get will make the media criticism of Giuliani look like puff pieces.
But let me be perfectly clear. I will vote for Duncan Hunter if he is nominated by the Republican Party. I will never argue against nominating a more conservative candidate as long as that person has a good shot at victory in the National Election. The problem is, I don't think Duncan Hunter has a good shot at it in 2008. I might change my mind before the nomination is made, but right now, it does not look that hopeful to me. So, I will not join the trashing of Giuliani.
I've been telling nopardons for years, she is fulla hot air. Yeah, on occasion she posts like a conservative. But most of the time nopardons offers more moderate-centrist viewpoints that border on the leftwing. Lately she has fallen head first into liberalism. Her support of Rudy Giuliani is clearly the icing on the cake.
And the same applies to ALL the other RudyBots on FR. They can support and promote his liberal candidacy all they want. As an American, that is their right. However, they shouldn't try and paint Rudy as a conservative, when he is obviously nothing but a liberal.
Rudy`s boosters took a turn into Liberalville and they'll have to live with that decision. They shouldn't expect serious, life long conservatives to join them in such folly.
bttt
The really sad thing is that the campaign points you listed don't necessarily need to be labeled "conservative" -- they could just as easily be labeled "constitutional" or "traditional American," which ONE WOULD THINK every American would want to get behind and support. But, liberals, RINOs, Kool-Aid drinkers, etc.? Noooo, they wouldn't be caught dead supporting anything that was constitutional in nature!
Keep up the good work.....
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.
To thine own self be true. 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.
LOL! That is hilarious and oh-so true! ;o) Why is it so hard to get people to admit that they are liberals even though everything and everyone they support is liberal? IF they are so ashamed to admit it, they should take a look at what their value system is. A little soul searching would be in order.
We, the US, gave $20.7 billion for fiscal year 2006.
Guess how much we will give for the fiscal year 2007? $23.7 billion.
The media will not turn as hard on Giuliani even after the nomination.
***That's where we see things differently. I don't suppose there's a way to quantify it, so we're stuck with that stupid slogan of "agreeing to disagree". I really do dislike it but I don't see a way to coherently get past these 2 disparate viewpoints.
The negative press that Duncan Hunter will get will make the media criticism of Giuliani look like puff pieces.
***Negative press can be good. The media has a tendency to jump the shark without realizing it. How is it that Proposition 187 was passed in California, severely reducing benefits to illegal aliens? The media was painting supporters as UltraFarRightKooks, and didn't realize that a huge percentage of the voters in this liberal state were fed up with illegals. Once the media is calling normal, middle-class/hardworking American apple-pie voters KOOKs, that's when we win. It's much easier to do that with a candidate like Hunter than with a caricature like Giuliani. Giuliani simply splits the base and would get trounced by Hillary. His candidacy is all but over because he is making zero headway in the base. Expect to see a lot of shrillness coming from rudophiles in the next couple of months.
The problem is, I don't think Duncan Hunter has a good shot at it in 2008.
***That's fine. Watch him and learn. When the Rudybots trash his candidacy it makes lurkers wonder why they spend so much time on someone with "no chance". If they ignore him, he'll just continue to gain ground. It's like Iraqis that were sitting on their tanks in GulfWar1. If they moved, we got 'em; if they stayed still, we eventually got around to targeting 'em. It's only a matter of time and we have air supremacy.
I might change my mind before the nomination is made, but right now, it does not look that hopeful to me. So, I will not join the trashing of Giuliani.
***That's all right. You don't have to trash Giuliani; if he's your candidate, go ahead and support him. But don't expect socons to remove our socon values like yesterday's clothing, especially on this here socon website.
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.