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?
I'm curious, who did he work to defeat?
Virginia has created some pretty good Presidents.
One Virginia President wrote The Constitution, another wrote the Declaration of Independence (Gilmore even graduated from his college).
He began fighting terrorists way back in 1971.
You want to know WHAT doesn't "win converts"? The garbage posted to Rudy and Romney threads!
***I agree. The Rudy garbage in particular. Rudybots have really gone over the edge. What kind of group goes over to a socon website and tries to convince them that their socially liberal candidate is a socon? What on earth possesses them to piss on our backs & tell us it's raining? Basically what it means is that Rudy has gained no traction with socons and his campaign represents a split of the base. He can't win without redefining conservatism in his silly image. No thanks.
Good luck to you, LOL.
You can't stick to the thread's topic, can you? Why is that?
You can't stick to the thread's topic, can you? Why is that?
***It's because I answer your questions.
Jim, you know Badray. It is rather flippant to suggest he would post at DU. Santorum's support for Specter had a lot of us here examine his words vs his voting record more closely. Much like we are doing with Rudy here now. In fact, Badray primarily posted Santorum's record (letting it speak for itself).He was literally verbally attacked for posting a politician's record. It defeats the purpose of this forum to throw off not just Badray but any conservative that speaks the truth about a politician's voting record. It cannot be denied that we all want the same thing- a candidate that hasn't forgotten or will not ignore our Constitution, but that there are different roads to get there. Discussion of those roads should not be quenched by throwing them out of here. So what if it gets a little heated over here? It will never equal Deb's fierce tongue that was so delightfully evil in those beginning FR days.
Badray, Conservative Goddess and others that were banned were not the enemy at FR. Your enemy here at FR mediocrity.
When you work to defeat conservative officeholders and help the democrats take the majority you are an enemy of this forum. Period. If you want to help advance liberals and democrats you might as well do it on DU. You will not be welcome here. End of story and goodnight.
That's a myth put out by the MSM and the pro-illegal-alien lobby.
• 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 This 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
Those are the facts. Those supporting defending the borders did almost twice as well as the other Republicans.
Hear! Hear! Thanks, we needed this post Jim.
Then you'd better go back and listen again. Giuliani has made it very clear -- very recently -- that he thinks the 2nd Amendment is about "hunting." If, on such a simple question, (A) he's wrong and (B) he's sticking to his guns about his "interpretation" of the Constitution..... what makes you think he wouldn't "re-interpret" the rest of the Bill of Rights, were he elected?
That's mighty big of you. Thanks.
But just remember. While you are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.
And the fact is that you're supporting someone who supports the killing of unborn children and wants to force me to pay for it.
Sleep well.
L
Also fine, thanks! (Sorry for the delayed response.)
Thanks!
Bump for the Truth!
Just noticed your tag line. It's excellent! I like your posts on this thread, too.
This is one of the better threads I have seen here lately, (and not just because nopard is getting spanked)
ping for later
What makes me think he won't try to reinterpret the Constitution? A couple of things ease my fears on this.
First, the things one must do to be elected President as a GOP candidate are different than the things one must do to be elected GOP mayor of NY. I know that's totally pragmatic, but it gives me reason to believe Rudy's recent shift to the right.
Second, Rudy recently stated that he likes the kinds of SC judges appointed by Bush. This, coupled with some of his other recent comments, give me some reason to believe he won't be a gun grabber once in office.
I know there's a risk. It's possible he could prove me wrong. But America (and the Congress) is not in a gun grabbing mood these days. It's not really a winning issue.
All in all, these factors (and others related to his positions on the war) lead me to say that if Rudy got the nomination, I'd have to support him against virtually any Democrat. That's just me. And I am a gun owner.
Just to clarify.... I'm not a one-issue voter -- there are a whole boatload of reasons why I don't trust this guy and wouldn't vote for him. The RKBA issue is merely one of them.
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.