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?
lol, but we need the “loserdopian” and “liberaltarian” crowd for the comic relief. :)
And his invitation for me to leave was encouraging debate? Surely you’re not that dense.
You threw the first punch with your classy “shut up” command.
After reading this I now understand the problem we’re having with our “current” elected leaders.
I like how you think.
That might be somewhat oversimplified and debatable, assuming you are referring to Reagan as the former, and Bush 1 as the latter. Reagan had a chance to reshape the courts for decades to come. SDO was selected while we had a GOP majority. Yes, Kennedy came after 2 conservatives were defeated by a Dem senate. And Scalia has been great.
But the way I see it, is that Reagan got 1 out of 3 right, when he should have gotten at least 2 right, since there is no excuse for SDO. Bush 1 gave us the best justice maybe ever in Clarence Thomas. He also gave us Souter, so, OUCH! But 1 out of 2 is better than 1 out of 3. As for Bush 2 being a 2 term moderate, well, he is so far 2 for 2, giving us a legitimate chance of restoring constitutional sanity.
It does not matter how many elections we win if we allow a social activist court to usurp our self government. So, yes, I am one of those that think that SCOTUS nominations is the primary consideration when determining the label I place on a POTUS.
Don't get me wrong, I loved and admired Reagan. He did things for the judiciary in the lower courts and his staffing that set up our current opportunities (ala Roberts) for reform. I remember crying as a 10 year old boy when he left office.
Also, Reagan and Bush 2 have something in common that makes us all cringe. Amnesty for illegals. It happened then, and it is going to happen again.
I don't think there is enough evidence to call one a conservative, and another a moderate. They are a mixed bag for sure, but no doubt better than the Dem alternatives at any given time.
What would be your natural reaction if I told you to quit whining and leave the forum forever?
“... oh and I forgot to say, you’ll lose EVERY big state with many of the things on that platform. Without big states you lose.”
I’m from Texas and take exception to this. Except for the dope-smoking hippy commune known as Austin, we are as conservative as they come. Nothing in Jim’s list would bother us here. Quite the contrary - Texas only comes into play if you run a liberal Republican.
bump for Walberg, Shuler, Bill Sali, et al.
My husband Quint and I absolutely do not believe it.
Hillary Clinton is just not going to happen. By the time her campaign continues too much longer, she’s going to start losing rating points every time she goes out there on the campaign trail.
Maybe when she gets to about 10 points, she’ll fold her campaign for president.
Terrific post.
Truth is that while there are many WAkers who support Rudy, they'd drop him like a cheap trick if Fred Thompson were to declare.
They just want to do anything to keep Hillary or some other Marxist socialist out of the White House.
...which IMO is very honorable.
Earth to Spiff...they weren't liberals.
That schtick is getting old in here...calling anyone who disagrees with dogma in here liberals.
Cut it out!
The hell he did.
Supporters of Rudy Giuliani are either liberal or stupid. There's no other kind.
So let's agree to not calling them liberals, OK? ;^)
No. Many of the people who were banned or quit the site did so because they possessed a bunch of liberal ideas that were in line with Giuliani's liberal ideas. If someone has liberal views, they're going to be defined as a liberal. Howlin, for instance, was strongly pro-Bush but that didn't make her a conservative. She was for Bush's open border amnesty crap, was a supporter of the gay agenda, and was a pro-abort. That's a liberal. I could give several similar examples of the people who were banned or left. They've take up residence at WA where they've taken their faux conservative masks off and are talking up a liberal storm. A few weeks ago, they called us the "fetus wing" of the Republican Party. Yesterday, they used the term the "Tourrettes Wing". They refer to conservative FReepers as "FRinge" and call the website the "trailer park" site. They are ugly and liberal to the bone. I call them as I see them.
They just want to do anything to keep Hillary or some other Marxist socialist out of the White House. ...which IMO is very honorable.
***If they’re so honorable, why did so many diss JimRob on their way out the door? Why so much invective aimed at social conservatives? If they want to do ANYTHING, why couldn’t they hold their mustard about their disdain for socons when they were enjoying all the benefits of a socon forum? No, I do not see honor there. If they were honorable, we’d be seeing several of them coming back ALREADY, now that rudy has played out his hand and become honest about his liberal positions. Where are those freepers who twisted themselves into pretzels to try to prove that rudy was a conservative? If they were honorable, they’d be back here. If they were honorable, they’d be posting hypotheticals on their own website asking how many rudybots would follow him if he declared a third party candidacy in the event of not receiving the republican nomination.
I'm glad you came around on closing the border. I remember a post of your a while back where you compared fencing off the border to building the Berlin Wall.
You say cut spending and cut government. While I agree, I think a more sophisticated approach to that would be better than across the board cuts we usually see. When a good CEO takes over a conglomerate, he focuses on the core mission and sells of those ventures that do not contribute to that. I would like to see the feds divest themselves of myriad past projects such as AMTRACK, the Post Office, and owner of half of the land in the West. (This is not China where the government owns all of the land.) Pay down the debt with the proceeds. Then, as Zell Miller suggested, move the government bureaucracy offices to states where people need the work. Moving should include reforming and streamlining. Then cut the taxes some more until the only thing in Washington are those working on the constitutionally mandated core mission and accountable for getting it right.
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.