A winning conservative platform for 2008?

Opinion | Jim Robinson

[familyop]

I agree with your points, BTW.

[Just A Nobody]

Right Now, Duncan Hunter and possibly Newt seem to be our only options.
I've volunteered for Duncan's campaign ;-)

As will I!!! Thanks

[Mobile Vulgus]

No YOUR people are fed up (and I am too, by the way). But THE people are NOT to a place yet where a heavy focus on illegal immigration will motivate them to ignore all other issues to vote.

All you guys keep foolishly IGNORING that every candidate who made it an issue -- and EVEN candidates in south western states like Arizona and California-- LOST WITH THE ISSUE!!!

If everyone is so "fed up" why is the issue the kiss of death to a campaign??

[Lurker]

EVERY candidate who ran on the issue got trounced.

Wrong.

L

[Just A Nobody]

EVERY candidate who ran on the issue got trounced.

Factualy incorrect! Tom Tancredo

[Mobile Vulgus]

Wow. I am wounded with your ONLY example.

You are all ostriches.

[Lurker]

Nice try, but how do you explain that NO candidate has won with the issue.

Still wrong.

L

[Lurker]

And you forgot to post this in "Breaking News".

L

[endthematrix]

Get out of the UN and other entangling foreign involvements.

If that "Allow the free economy to expand" platform would allow the United States to unilaterally enter agreements outside of the globalist frameworks we are now in, I'm for it. The "level playing field" mantra is just globalist crap.

[CutePuppy]

What say you?

---

I'd say that liberals / socialists are much better at realizing the value and playing political psy-ops than conservatives... When libs are really in trouble and desperate and need a Hail Mary play they really go out full tilt and crank up psy-ops using their Weapons of Mass Distractions [al-Media], and don't stop unless particular method or story stops working, then move on to something new until they develop story into full-blown "crisis" that demands immediate new taxes and giving up some control to government.

One way they do it is by turning us against each other with phony stories, quaotes, headlines or interpretations of motives or ideas.

Until we can counteract their psy-ops we are not going to win anything at home or in foreign policy. We need people at the top who can go over the heads and noise of the al-Media and explain the ideas and politics to populace in a way that they can understand and get excited about.

[Just A Nobody]

Factualy = Factually Geez...time for bed!

[HarmlessLovableFuzzball]

..it's impossible for a conservative to win the general election against Hillary Clinton..

Hogwash. Conservatism always wins when it is tried. It's a given. (Conservative) candidates lose only when they compromise their principles in a futile attempt to appease liberals, or when they are 'out conservatived' by the other side in an attempt to fool the American people.

I am not surprised you heard that from a supporter of Giuliani. After all, his camp like a few others, is trying to redefine conservatism to fit his position on the issues. Limbaugh already discussed that last week, amidst the hacking and coughing.

[Just A Nobody]

EVERY candidate who ran on the issue got trounced.
I am wounded with your ONLY example

It only takes one to say you are lying.

It is 4:45 AM and I need to sleep. Don't have time for your lies.

[rogue yam]

Hi Jim. Thanks for this thread.

I've been saying all along that the 2008 race represents the best opportunity since 1980 for conservatism. This is because Hillary! has the 'Rat nomination sewn up and yet she is profoundly beatable.

The MSM is in full spin mode: Hillary is moderate, Obama is dreamy, the GOP race is a choice between various RINOs, etc. This is all lies.

Running for President (and being President) is very difficult, and it is easy for the MSM to dismiss Rep. Hunter, Sen Brownback, or whoever, saying that they don't have the "stature" to win. Yet in the MSM's mind this stature is something entirely in their hands to bestow however they wish! Why does Obama suddenly have more stature than Sen. Brownback or Rep. Hunter? He doesn't!

The MSM is attempting to stampede us into settling for one of the three MSM-appointed RINOs (McCain, Rudy, Mitt). And sure, there are important differences among them and at least one or two might not be disastrous. But the idea that these are the only three people who stand a chance against Hillary! is 'Rat propaganda designed to get us to abandon at the get-go any attempt to nominate a true conservative. I say we should not let the leftists psyche us out, but rather we should support a good, solid rock-ribbed conservative now, and if he gets beat when the votes start coming in in the first primaries a year from now , well we can compromise then as necessary.

Our biggest mistake would be to take our true conservatives off the table now and spend the next year choosing from among RINOs. This amounts to negotiating with ourselves and giving the left unforced concessions. Let's not do it!

We don't need to know who our nominee is for another 14-17 months. Let's not get suckered into a quick, poor choice. Instead, let's let Rep. Hunter, Sen. Brownback, Newt Gingrich, and whoever else go around the country presenting themselves and their ideas while we calmly choose from among our candidates on the basis of our true core values.

[Psalm 73]

Great post (as always) - now let's talk names.
I have seen in this thread Duncan Hunter (no national name recognition, other than freepers), and Newt, very possible - brilliant and everyone knows him, but he has a little baggage (not bad by me, though).
Sam Brownback? got name recognition, very conservative - but went wobbly on immigration.
John McCaine? - back on the Pro-Life bandwagon, seems a bit unstable, though.
Romney? - (flip-flopper?) - seems a bit creepy.

Anyway, what say you?

[Lurker]

Instead, let's let Rep. Hunter, Sen. Brownback, Newt Gingrich, and whoever else go around the country presenting themselves and their ideas while we calmly choose from among our candidates on the basis of our true core values.

That's just crazy enough to work.

L

[panaxanax]

Thanks for starting my day on a positive note, Jim. It appears to me that you've pretty much described Duncan Hunter. Maybe I'm wrong, but I do thank you for this thread.

You're right. Why or how can we call ourselves Conservatives and settle for the lesser of two evils by voting someone who is expanding the liberal-socialist agenda. We, as Conservative Americans, must stand our ground and vote with our hearts this time without holding our nose. It is America's only last hope.

Thank you very much.

[Just A Nobody]

Duncan Hunter (no national name recognition, other than freepers)

Not true. People in Ohio are very familiar with him and they are not FReepers. I'm a FReeper and I hardly know Brownbback's name. What I do know of him I don't like ie, immigration.

[Psalm 73]

I would support Duncan Hunter, he believes what I believe.
I know he has been in Congress for a long time - but I am just trying to be realistic about a candidate on the national stage.
Of course we have a whole year to educate the country, but there is the whole media thing to overcome - Newt is news, McCaine is news, etc. - we can't FORCE the national media to pay attention to him like they do Obama.

[4woodenboats]

Wow. I am wounded with your ONLY example.

How bout you list all the POTUS candidates from the 2000 and 2004 elections who lost because they ran on an anti illegal alien (you can put that anti immigrant phrase right back in the NYT newspaper you pulled it out of) platform?

Or, to make it easy, just list all the POTUS candidates that ran on an anti illegal platform, regardless of party?