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?
Ping, I mentioned you in the above post.
“This after we had a very good repor with each other on the MELD threads.”
MELDT Threads (lol)...may they rest in peace :) I liked them, and you were always asking good questions btw.
I'm not Chena. I don't know your relationship with Chena or anybody else in here...and it's none of my business.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
I admired you a lot on those threads too.
I can’t answer for them...as to why they dissed JimRob...although we can assume the reasons.
***Then you’re in no position to gauge whether or not they’ve been acting honorably. If you give them a pass on some things but take up their cause on others, you’re being a hypocrite and hiding behind a rock of not knowing why they did certain things. It’s a simple and straightforward assessment of their character — what they did was not honorable.
And yes they’re honorable...and your argument you gave is a non-sequitor.
***Ok, then show how it is. Just because you say it is? Should I take your word on it? Are you some kind of authority on non-sequitors that you could just say that something is one but you don’t have to develop it?
They are honorable to decide to back a candidate that may be able to beat Hillary or somebody else the RATS choose...rather that throw a hissy fit and stay home on election day.
***Oh, then I can expect to see that hypothetical on their website any moment now. They can ask their own members whether they’d support rudy in a 3rd party candidacy (that would surely deal a blow to republicanism and usher in Hildebeast) and whoever answers yes, they’d support him in a 3rd party they can oust those WAkers as dishonorable. But NO, we WILL NOT see such a course of action because the WAkers are NOT honorable.
And tell me how they are supposed to come back here after being told their longevity didn’t count for anything?
***I would take issue with that. Their longevity counted for a great deal, that’s why JimRob put up with them for so long, literally for years. If they pulled those kinda stunts as newbies they would have been zotted within minutes.
Take their money and then show them the door? Is that honorable?
***Absolutely. The converse is completely dishonorable — if JimRob were to take people’s money and change his principles accordingly, then he’s simply being bought.
Is it honorable to pull the stunt jedward did?
***Which stunt was that? If you don’t mind I’d rather take that answer on another thread, perhaps the bugzapper thread where we can hash it out because we’re getting off track here. In the meantime I have a question for you, since it is honor that was introduced by you as the subject in question. Was it honorable for you to go posting on a fluffy American Idol thread rather than take on the task of defending the honor of those WAkers whom you still believe are acting in the best interests of the party?
Love it Jim, but the Rules of Engagement in the War have to change.
We need to unleash our Military to its full potential. We could not have beat Japan or Germany in WWII with the same set of rules of engagement. We need to go all out.
Companies that relocate manufacturing to the third world in order to evade the U.S.A’s labor laws should be held accountable. Exploitation of cheap labor is not what the U.S.A. stands for.
***You sound a lot like the average Duncan Hunter supporter.
Not me. Hillary is a leftist, Giuliani is a statist authoritarian, a trait typical of most leftists who lack common sense.
Would a conservative platform focusing on victory in the war,
Jim, were this a war, we'd have won it already. It's something else and we must adapt an appropriate response.( I suggest fighting terror with terror)
Americans are not happy with illegals taking jobs in an ever growing number of industries.
40 million aborted Americans might have filled these positions. Instead of John and Phillip, we have Juan and Felipe pushing the lawnmower.
If we're going to secure the nation we must secure the borders,
Precisely, one dosen't trade sovereignty for a salad. It's not on the menu.
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.
Aside from 'winning the war' these are excellent points.
Defeating Hillary is a most laudable goal. I'd crawl over broken nuclear waste to vote against her. Yet, I'm hopeful that America still has the brains to get behind a conservative candidate who comprises the common sense ideals- so long neglected- that have landed us in the predicament we find ourselves today.
The left has always been about "power to the state" while camouflaging it in "power to the people".
After the death of Jerry Falwell, Michael Savage lamented that we had few 'moral' leaders left to slay the immoral dragons in our midst. I almost agreed until I remembered our Constitution. It's the real 'dragon slayer'.
Christians and others can only buttress it's intent- that being: the sancity of the individual and the freedoms inherent to those born under it's jurisdiction.
Mankind's suseptibility to socialist dogma is truly depressing. Mankind's failure to recognize it's own mankind is frightening. These things may or may not go hand-in-hand.
Why is it we support major media or the major company polls when it has results that back up our position, yet will scream all day long that they are biased, poor sample size, wrong sample group and so forth when the poll results are less to our liking?
Human nature?
(:
Jim, were this a war, we’d have won it already. It’s something else and we must adapt an appropriate response.( I suggest fighting terror with terror)
***That’s some interesting & thought provoking analysis. I’d like to see your comment on my perspective of what we should do in Iraq:
We should withdraw from Iraq by way of Tehran.
Here’s how I think we should “pull out of Iraq.” Add one more front to the scenario below, which would be a classic amphibious beach landing from the south in Iran, and it becomes a “strategic withdrawal” from Iraq. And I think the guy who would pull it off is Duncan Hunter.
How to Stand Up to Iran
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1808220/posts?page=36#36
Posted by Kevmo to TomasUSMC
On News/Activism 03/28/2007 7:11:08 PM PDT · 36 of 36
Split Iraq up and get out
***The bold military move would be to mobilize FROM Iraq into Iran through Kurdistan and then sweep downward, meeting up with the forces that we pull FROM Afghanistan in a 2-pronged offensive. We would be destroying nuke facilities and building concrete fences along geo-political lines, separating warring tribes physically. At the end, we take our boys into Kurdistan, set up a couple of big military bases and stay awhile. We could invite the French, Swiss, Italians, Mozambiqans, Argentinians, Koreans, whoever is willing to be the police forces for the regions that we move through, and if the area gets too hot for these peacekeeper weenies we send in military units. Basically, it would be learning the lesson of Iraq and applying it.
15 rules for understanding the Middle East
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1774248/posts
Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas — like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. It’s the South vs. the South.
Rule 10: Mideast civil wars end in one of three ways: a) like the U.S. civil war, with one side vanquishing the other; b) like the Cyprus civil war, with a hard partition and a wall dividing the parties; or c) like the Lebanon civil war, with a soft partition under an iron fist (Syria) that keeps everyone in line. Saddam used to be the iron fist in Iraq. Now it is us. If we don’t want to play that role, Iraq’s civil war will end with A or B.
Let’s say my scenario above is what happens. Would that military mobilization qualify as a “withdrawal” from Iraq as well as Afghanistan? Then, when we’re all done and we set up bases in Kurdistan, it wouldn’t really be Iraq, would it? It would be Kurdistan.
.
.
I have posted in the past that I think the key to the strategy in the middle east is to start with an independent Kurdistan. If we engaged Iran in such a manner we might earn back the support of these windvane politicians and wussie voters who don’t mind seeing a quick & victorious fight but hate seeing endless police action battles that don’t secure a country.
I thought it would be cool for us to set up security for the Kurds on their southern border with Iraq, rewarding them for their bravery in defying Saddam Hussein. We put in some military bases there for, say, 20 years as part of the occupation of Iraq in their transition to democracy. We guarantee the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan as long as they don’t engage with Turkey. But that doesn’t say anything about engaging with Iranian Kurdistan. Within those 20 years the Kurds could have a secure and independent nation with expanding borders into Iran. After we close down the US bases, Kurdistan is on her own. But at least Kurdistan would be an independent nation with about half its territory carved out of Persia. If Turkey doesn’t relinquish her claim on Turkish Kurdistan after that, it isn’t our problem, it’s 2 of our allies fighting each other, one for independence and the other for regional primacy. I support democratic independence over a bullying arrogant minority.
The kurds are the closest thing we have to friends in that area. They fought against Saddam (got nerve-gassed), they’re fighting against Iran, they squabble with our so-called ally Turkey (who didn’t allow Americans to operate in the north of Iraq this time around).
It’s time for them to have their own country. They deserve it. They carve Kurdistan out of northern Iraq, northern Iran, and try to achieve some kind of autonomy in eastern Turkey. If Turkey gets angry, we let them know that there are consequences to turning your back on your “friend” when they need you. If the Turks want trouble, they can invade the Iraqi or Persian state of Kurdistan and kill americans to make their point. It wouldn’t be a wise move for them, they’d get their backsides handed to them and have eastern Turkey carved out of their country as a result.
If such an act of betrayal to an ally means they get a thorn in their side, I would be happy with it. It’s time for people who call themselves our allies to put up or shut up. The Kurds have been putting up and deserve to be rewarded with an autonomous and sovereign Kurdistan, borne out of the blood of their own patriots.
Should Turkey decide to make trouble with their Kurdish population, we would stay out of it, other than to guarantee sovereignty in the formerly Iranian and Iraqi portions of Kurdistan. When one of our allies wants to fight another of our allies, it’s a messy situation. If Turkey goes “into the war on Iran’s side” then they ain’t really our allies and that’s the end of that.
I agree that it’s hard on troops and their families. We won the war 4 years ago. This aftermath is the nation builders and peacekeeper weenies realizing that they need to understand things like the “15 rules for understanding the Middle East”
This was the strategic error that GWB committed. It was another brilliant military campaign but the followup should have been 4X as big. All those countries that don’t agree with sending troups to fight a war should have been willing to send in policemen and nurses to set up infrastructure and repair the country.
What do you think we should do with Iraq?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1752311/posts
Posted by Kevmo to Blue Scourge
On News/Activism 12/12/2006 9:17:33 AM PST · 23 of 105
My original contention was that we should have approached the reluctant “allies” like the French to send in Police forces for the occupation after battle, since they were so unwilling to engage in the fighting. It was easy to see that we’d need as many folks in police and nurse’s uniforms as we would in US Army unitorms in order to establish a democracy in the middle east. But, since we didn’t follow that line of approach, we now have a civil war on our hands. If we were to set our sights again on the police/nurse approach, we might still be able to pull this one off. I think we won the war in Iraq; we just haven’t won the peace.
I also think we should simply divide the country. The Kurds deserve their own country, they’ve proven to be good allies. We could work with them to carve out a section of Iraq, set their sights on carving some territory out of Iran, and then when they’re done with that, we can help “negotiate” with our other “allies”, the Turks, to secure Kurdish autonomy in what presently eastern Turkey.
That leaves the Sunnis and Shiites to divide up what’s left. We would occupy the areas between the two warring factions. Also, the UN/US should occupy the oil-producing regions and parcel out the revenue according to whatever plan they come up with. That gives all the sides something to argue about rather than shooting at us.
You are on the right line of thinking. And I don't thing an anti-illegal immigration platform is a loser. The numbers that threaten to overwhelm us are too large to think of in terms of a simple piece of legislation. Immigration 'reform' is currently as much a threat to our nation as terror.
One item you did not have but I would add is reform of our education establishment. The last time I checked the NEA teachers union had something like 1 quarter of all the delegates to the DNC. These are the same people that run Al Gore and Michael Moore 'documentaries' without any balance. Juest so you know, I am holding out for Fred Thompson for now.
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Do you?
It’s a simple and straightforward assessment of their character — what they did was not honorable. And you’re obfuscating, trying to find some place to hide. Note that you let all the rest of the comments in that post stand.
It sounds good to me. But even a Presidential candidate who isn’t conservative on everything can implement conservative polities. So one shouldn’t limit his choices on the basis of a few issues on which the White House really has little say over.
I agree with you. Good ideas. Clear thinking people will see the wisdom of these ideas.
Backing up and taking a look through squinted eyes ... it might turn into a huge internal disagreement, different passionate ideologies ... in the vein of the North vs the South... It didn’t turn out too well last time.
I can guarantee I won’t vote for Rudy in any event. I admire that he took control in the immediate aftermath of 9-11. He did little to prepare NYC for such an event with full knowledge the city had been attacked by terrorists before.
With the way this campaign is playing out numerous conservative Republicans will find themselves having to stand by the party or their own principles. It will be a rather difficult choice, but essentially come down to which is more important, the Republican Party or The United States of America?
BUMP
then WE DESERVE HILLARY!!
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.