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?
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 (Trojan) horse he rode in on.
—
Giddyup. :-}
Bump for the right platform!
Yeah, I guess that's the one benefit of stifling dissent.
Bump the BUMP
stifling dissent? Oh come on.. I feel bad a few good folks are no longer here but that was their choice to carry on and spar as they did..
I still scratch my head over why some started so darn early and so darn hard, only to blow a lot of good folks out of the water along with them as the battle intensified.
btw, I’d love to have seen it happen on the California threads long ago where sane folks endured haranguing continually for backing conservative candidates during and since the Recall until the recent departures of a few Progre$$ive shills who sold out hard for aRnie and the Kennedys and their socialist hugging agenda. We see the price for going down that path all too clearly.
Number 1 is going to require re-instituting the draft.
Numbers 7-9 we’ve got no credibility left on.
Things don’t look good with the current batch of candidates. We need new blood and we need it bad.
Otherwise, we’re looking at Democrats taking control in 2008...big time.
And the cycle continues.
This is one of the best times in years for a conservative to win!
Please think about how bad Hillary and Obama really are.
Hillary will bring back all the bad memories of Bill and he will be everywhere come election time. For all practicable purpose she is an incumbent, America is in an anti-incumbent mood after 8 years of Clinton and 8 years of Bush.
Hillary will have a hard time breaking 45% there is a lot of liberal men who will never vote for here. Many Mexican men will not either.
She is a 45% canadate.
Obama is just as bad. He will get the entire black vote but the Mexicans will stay home. Remember the democrat party is the part of racism. Many white people in the dem party will never vote for a black man. They may say they will but they will stay home.
Obama is another 45% canadate or less.
Any republican candidate can win in this environment, why have a moderate?
Someone show me how the dem party will get all the old white racist in the dep party to vote for Obama?
Let’s see the Mexicans for Obama movement.
Don’t forget the Dem house and Senate that will be at 25% approval after the immigration bill is railroaded through.
It is ANTI ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION - not legal immigration. I would like to remind you of all the LIBS who lost especially in the Northeast.
It's unfortunate, but some dissent needs to be stifled if a forum is to work to achieve its stated goals. The new forum, for instance, has a strict policy against promoting third-party candidates and has banned people for doing such. I say all the power to them, as allowing such would dilute the activism they are trying to accomplish. Likewise, FR management decided that supporting Giuliani was not the direction they wanted FR to go in, and acted accordingly.
I like a good flame war as much as anyone, but it was really getting to the point of ridiculousness. I read way too many nasty comments between people on both sides who I considered "FR friends" and could not jump in without offending both parties.
Some of the people that have moved on were folks I grew quite a liking fr, despite disagreeing on some things, and yes, it sucks that I'm not going to be able to communicate with them any more. But I really do think this was for the better. As I mentioned, FR is much more pleasant, and the new forum seems to be having some degree of success, and as far as I can tell, with a few exceptions, people are getting along over there.
I don’t know why it started early and hard, either. I’m not in the Rudy camp, but some of my longtime friends were, and they’re gone now.
Your response to the effect that “payback is a **tch” is probably satisfying on some level, but it doesn’t mask what happened.
You succeeded. The pro-Rudy folks are either gone or cowed into silence. Let’s have a party.
Not true. The Dems who won were also against illegal immigration IIRC. It is a lie that the RNC, the MSM and the WH either believe or perpetuate.
You succeeded. The pro-Rudy folks are either gone or cowed into silence. Let’s have a party.
—
Hardly, there are still some here who harbor moderate tendencies and that’s fine.
A few that left just couldn’t button it up.. all the while playing the same old tunes that castigated and berated those that couldn’t see the logic in following Rudy blindly, just as some asked Rnie be so followed.
A solid conservative would also eschew any tendency to defer to the UN as a governing body.
No need to abolish it, just stop giving the UN creedance in US policy consideration.
I strongly agree with ALL of the 12.
Good job Jim! Lets poll this and send the results to the RNC and several key congressmen.
Nice try. As far back as 1993, California's liberal RINO Govenror was at 11% in the polls. His opponent was leading him by 40% going into the 1994 election. Then he decided to endorse Prop 187 the crackdown on illegal aliens and he ended up trouncing her.
Turning conservative is often the only salvation for unpopular RINO liberals.
They don't come much more liberal than that!!!
..And allow the “Comprehensive Immigration Bill” to pass as proposed... just what will you be left of your country in 10 years? Being against illegal immigration is not being anti-immigrant..let your opponents define the terms and you will have already lost.
"566 posted on 05/21/2007 9:11:41 AM PDT by Texas Federalist"
This is the "stifling of dissent" that will occur with any of the current declared leading candidates with maybe one exception!!!
It's good to see you back defending your point of view. At least you were never abjectly obnoxious!!! Not even close!!!
Not everyone agrees with you or I ... and again .. THAT is what the DNC is banking on
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.