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 think what is meant is: Cut spending outside of the defense sector, of course.
You mean like that bridge to nowhere? Where was it? Alaska?
11. Return control of states issues to the states!
Didn't Bush say he wanted to cut Fed. funding on education?
That's a state issue IMCO.
NOBODY does that better than a Ranger...
Less talk, more action.
Like attacking the treason, security leaks and sedition coming right out of the New York media.
I'm waiting............waiting............
Draft Condi!
http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/schedule.csp
07:30 AM EST
0:30 (est.) LIVE
Call-In
Hunter Presidential Campaign
C-SPAN, Washington Journal
Lewis, Finlay, Correspondent, Copley News Service
Mr. Lewis talks about the career and presidential prospects of Senator Duncan Hunter (R-CA).
Because I lean a little to the libertarian side, I see it a little differently, so let me speak up for the Rudyphiles.
First, what Rudy did in NYC prior to 9/11 (forget about after 8:46AM that morning, lots of politicians could have done that) was profoundly conservative. Liberals don't believe in cleaning up the streets by tracking, finding, and putting away bad guys. They don't even believe in the concept of bad guys. Rudy drove the entire New York Left crazy, all the time, every day. They hated him with a passion. Every other remotely conservative politician in the tri-state area was afraid of pissing those people off. Not Rudy.
Second, there is a difference between social conservatives who want to clean up the sewer that is our popular culture and social life by conversion of hearts and those who want to do it with the power of the Federal government. Ronald Reagan was the former type. Many candidates being flogged by the hate Rudy crowd are of the latter type.
I do not believe that a big government conservative who is running for office for the purpose of achieving social conservative victories through legislation or regulation can ever be elected to national office in this country - as the Hunterites are about to find out.
I think this would be a winning platform. The reason Bush has lost popularity is that he opposes or is inactive on many of these planks.
I just read John Thune is endorsing McCain...
But all the anti-immigrant talk will sink you. It has already been proven. America is not quite mad enough to make anti-immigration a populist issue.
And conservatives alone CANNOT win an election.
It's not just the conservatives who are opposed to illegal immigration. The blue collar workers see the effect that the illegals have on their wages.
Spread the word. No baggage, no wobbly, no unstable bandwagon, no creepy flip-flop.
JimRob Ping!
What new legislation am I asking for? I want to stop new legislation that awards special rights to gays and or that will end up making it a hate crime to speak out against the gay agenda. I'm also supporting appointing judges who will correctly interpret the constitution per original intent and I'm sure eventually they will overturn Roe vs Wade and whatever other decisions that may be blocking a return of the issue of abortion to the states. Let the people decide. Not the feds or the courts. I'm also trying to block new gun control legislation and getting existing unconstitutional law thrown out. Same goes for tossing out McCain-Feingold and other unconstitutional restrictions on free speech/free religion.
Guess I am asking for new legislation tightening up penalties against illegal aliens and their enablers, but we can certainly debate whether they're justified or not.
Thank you for the post. Great message as usual. But the more important question is "What say the American people?"
They are the ones who prefer RINOs over conservatives in the primaries.
They are the ones who fell for the "fake dogs".
They are the ones who gave a pass to the DEMon party on every issue it should have no crediibility over ("culture of corruption", "quagmire", Katrina)
They are the ones "informed" by the DeathScreamMedia and "educated" by Communist indoctrination centers.
Without them, even the second coming of Reagan would not defeat Hitlery.
BUMP
I know some people in California that know Duncan Hunter! AND if he becomes the nominee, EVERYBODY will know Duncan Hunter. I support Hunter.
Come on now, it time to teach what conservatism really means. It's time to stop dancing to the MSN tune. This is OUR show, we get to pick not only the song, but the pitch and tempo. Let's pick a conservative, be it Hunter, Brownback or Newt, or even some unknown-at-this-point contender. It is our duty as the right wing. A bird with two left wings 'don't' fly, and a political system with no choice is just as bad. I won't hold my nose and vote for a RINO.
Let the dems tap dance any way the want. Last time I checked, the Republicans were still OUR party. There will be two candidates in the POTUS race....everyone will know their names by the time they get to the polls. I'm starting to get tired of hearing this argument.
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.