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?
The part of my post you did not respond to was:
"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."
In the meantime, I am certainly not joining the trashing of Duncan Hunter either. In fact, I am following Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment: "Thou shalt not criticize a fellow Republican."
I don't believe we can achieve political victory from a position of political weakness. The Republican Party is not perfect and I am not blindly loyal to it. But the alternative is an anathema to everything Conservatives here say that they stand for. To be divided will allow the Democrats to take further political power which is very dangerous at this time.
It is a Conservative concept that "Government is a necessary evil." It naturally follows that an election is a choice between the lesser of two evils. I will not join the trashing of any candidate who can prevent a greater evil from taking control of this country.
What say you?
I say that each of us take a hard look at our conservative beliefs and values. If we are conservatives and want to defeat the Clintons at the ballot box then get behind a conservative candidate such as Duncan Hunter.
Pray for him, donate to him, work for him and vote for him.
A resounding Amen to your post Jim.
I'm coming in very late, but BRAVO! I'm with you 100%.
Hi familyop--how you doing?
And the GOP seems hell-bent this time around on shrinking the distance between the two evils even further.
Why don't you name someone, ANYONE, whom you would throw your support to, in this up coming presidential election?
As to the rest............I shan't lower myself to your level and reply in kind; no matter how many times you try to bait me.
Why are you incapable of sticking to the thread's topic?
Don't worry about it. I'm done with you.
Forgive them Father ......
I've already explained why you have no control over the platform and why neither does the presumptive candidate.
My post have never "indicated" otherwise.
nopardons, I'm here with ya! Haven't read all the posts and replies, but enough to want to simply say again what I've said before: I think Rudy would be a great candidate and a terrific president. There's a big difference between becoming a Republican governor of NY and running for President of the US. I suspect Rudy will move to the right and not just to fool voters. I've heard him speak recently on guns, abortion, judicial appointments etc. and I'm persuaded that he will not push a "socialist agenda" (and even typing that phrase makes me chuckle).
Rudy would be strong on defense and strong on the war--my two top issues right now.
So chin up, NP, there's a lot of us here who agree with you.
You support someone who supports murdering unborn babies.
That 'indicates' otherwise to me.
L
Sounds right to me. And it seems to be true that a good conservative cannot win the next presidential election but that is because there are none running with enough money and stature to get traction.
Apparently, for some, by the time the GOP has a presumptive candidate, which should be a year from now, everyone who supports that person is going to be called every name in the book, because dollars to donuts, said person is NOT going to be who this groups wants it to be.
No, it wasn't.
LOL...........I bet that I "get out" far more than you do.
Lot's of luck with him. LOL
No. You cannot insist on your rights while restricting the rights of others. As long as any candidate expouses such silliness the voters will reject same.
The religious right cannot continue to insist on moral superiority when they are contaminated by the likes of Ralph Reed, Gingrich, DeLay and Abramoff among others thrown out last November.
If conservatives ever want to sit at the table again then they are going to have to learn some manners and be willing to accept portions of their desires.
If conservatives continue to be anti-everything then they will continue to sit on the sidelines.
The Republican Party is not The Conservative Party but it is more conservative than the Democrats. And, you might remember there are still quite a few conservative Democrats who are a hell of a lot lonlier than any liberal Republican.
You would do well to note Jim Noble's fine commentary on the facts of life in the big city:
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.
... Liberals don't do the things he did in NYC. They just don't.
Wait for it, nopardons. By fall 08, the USDA will have to issue warnings to crows because of the number of Freepers coming back to support the GOP nominee, whoever it is.
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.