Posted on 02/21/2007 6:15:41 AM PST by Jim Robinson
Obviously, the biggest issue for the Democrats in 2008 will be the war. They're betting their entire stake on the hopes that America is fed up with the war dragging on so long, and they're convinced that their big wins in 2006 were due primarily to President Bush's determination to stay the course, versus their own antiwar stance. Hillary is furiously back pedaling trying to distance herself from her own pro war votes as her popularity erodes away and shifts to the up and coming antiwar superstar, Barack "Osama" Obama. And most of the lesser Democrat presidential wannabes are falling all over themselves trying to out coward the front runners. Whomever gets the Democrat nod will be running primarily on the "End the War Now, Bring the Troops Home" ticket.
And, naturally, the Republicans are going to run on the "Fight on to Victory and Secure the Nation" platform. All of the Republican front runners are convinced that they can win on this issue. But, they feel they must pickup some percentage of the Democrat vote and or of the liberal leaning swing vote. So, to varying degrees, the front runners are banking on certain liberal mainstay issues. They're saying they're okay with abortion rights, gay rights, gay unions, gays in the military, gun control, global warming, open borders, illegal alien rights, immigration reform (amnesty), big government entitlement programs or other liberal issues. They seem to be falling all over each other competing for their fair share of the mushy middle vote that may make their day.
So we have one side wrapping up the treasonous antiwar vote (probably around 40% of the total vote) while the other side clearly wraps up the patriotic peace through victory vote (another 40% of the vote). The Democrats will naturally pull in their liberal/socialist base (which is largely the antiwar vote) and the broken glass Republican base will be true to the GOP (their 40% of the vote), although the Christian Right and some of the normally true blue right wing conservatives are growing mighty tired of crawling on bloody stumps looking for scraps.
At any rate, what both sides seem to be ignoring in their fight for the mushy middle may be the 2nd most critical issue of all and an overlooked opportunity for the big win. And that is the fact that half or more of all Americans, regardless of party affiliation, are fed up with illegal aliens flooding into our country through our almost non existent border security. And this during time of war.
The borders must be secured. If the war goes on, an insecure border sets us up for terrorists smuggling in weapons that could kill tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of Americans. Dirty bombs, chemical or biological weapons, etc.
Even if the Democrats are successful with shutting down our Iraq war efforts, the terrorists are not going to stop. In fact, they'll be emboldened. And freed from fighting over there, they're bound to bring their efforts here. They're going to continue hating us and wanting to wipe us off the face of the planet regardless of what the Democrats may do.
We must defend the nation. We must defend our national security. We must seal the borders now. And we must get control over who and what is coming into our country.
Also, Americans are tired of paying the costs of the growing flood of illegals. The costs are measured in terms of lost American jobs, costs of educating their children, health care costs, housing, welfare, gang violence, crime, costs of capturing, prosecuting and incarcerating illegal alien criminals, overcrowding crumbling cities and towns degrading into slums and barrios, failure of the illegals to assimilate or even to learn our language. Press one for English.
If I'm not mistaken, most if not all of the front runners of both parties are either soft on illegal immigration or are outright in favor of wide open borders and awarding constitutional "rights" to illegals if not immediate full citizenship. This is a national disgrace. And if not stopped will lead to an erosion of our national sovereignty and or to disastrous terrorist attacks of historic proportions. Again, our nation and our borders must be secured!
I sincerely doubt that any Democrat candidate is going to run on a platform of securing the borders and I don't recall any of our front running Republicans declaring that they will seal the borders either, so now what?
Are there any Republican candidates out there who will step forward and not only pledge to win the war, but also to place the nation on a secure war footing? Secure the nation? Seal and secure the borders?
I believe that a qualified Republican candidate with a solid conservative track record, including a record of fighting for full national security has a shot of overtaking the current weak (conservatively speaking) front runners and winning the Republican nod. I also believe this candidate will win over the cowardly antiwar, pro illegal immigration, liberal Democrat whether it be Hillary, Osama Obama or whomever.
By the way, why are we so eager to give up on our traditional American conservative values and principles? I don't know about you, but I'm not about to give up fighting for God, country, family, life, liberty and our traditional American heritage. Those who wish to merge with the liberals on these critical American issues are in for a rude awakening.
For those of you who do not understand what traditional American conservatism means, I'll lay out what it means to me. Others may think differently, and this won't be all inclusive, but here are some major points that are important to me:
Traditional American conservatives are not going to deny our God. Are not going to give up our guns (without using them first). We're not going to surrender to the abortionists or to the gay rights agenda. We're not going to cave to global warming pseudo science. We're not going to surrender our national sovereignty to terrorists, illegals, the United Nations or to Democrats! We're not going to surrender to tax and spend liberal Democrats or to tax and spend moderate country club Republicans.
We will not surrender to the progressives, socialists or moderates who wish to shove their big government socialist wealth transfer and or perverted social programs down our throats.
We're going to continue defending the nation, defending our national sovereignty, defending our national security, defending our borders, defending our families, defending our constitution, our liberty and our American way of life.
We stand for and defend the constitutionally separated and limited government as envisioned and set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution by the Founding Fathers.
We're going to defend our rights. Our rights to free speech, free religion, freedom of assembly, due process, private property, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not negotiable.
We're going to fight against the activist court. We're going to fight for judges that interpret the constitution according to the straightforward words and definitions as used at the time of the writing and ratification of the document, ie, the original intent.
We are going to fight for stripping the government of its usurpations and expansions from the limited powers enumerated in the constitution.
We stand for and defend our traditional Judeo-Christian God centered American conservative society and family values system.
We believe we were all created equal by our Creator and are endowed with certain unalienable rights, including the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness, and we intend to defend same.
We believe it is the primary responsibility of the just government empowered by our consent to defend these rights. And that whenever government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
“Principle—particularly moral principle—can never be a weathervane, spinning around this way and that with the shifting winds of expediency.
Moral principle is a compass forever fixed and forever true.”
—Edward R. Lyman
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; and that his justice cannot sleep forever." – Thomas Jefferson
That would be one of the best dishes of crow I've ever eaten. : )
It's NOT about gay rights, it's about giving gays MORE (special) rights than they already have--that's all it is!
Oh, I get it; you forgot the /sarcasm key and my followup barf.
That's nice to hear. I get the impression that a number of the Hunter-can't-win crowd are so enamored of their presumed smarts and ability to prognosticate that they'd feel worse if Hunter were elected President than if Hillary was. Their egos just couldn't take it.
But let me ask you something. Have you been to Hunter's website and seen the videos of him speaking? Not the campaign ads, but the ones where he's delivering a speech before an audience. I see a lot of warmth there that Hillary wouldn't have if she set herself on fire. I think that is going to appeal to people more than you currently realize. Also, he speaks genuinely of his love for this country and what needs to be done to protect it; as opposed to Hillary, who mostly speaks about what she'd do differently if she had to do it over.
Sorry you're so sick of this but I must say that a precise definition of libertarianism has always eluded me. If a true libertarian is opposed to licensing guns, is he also opposed to licensing cars and drivers? Does he oppose laws banning the sale of marijuana? Heroin? How about restrictions on abortion? Restrictions on who can apply for a marriage license? (Or maybe the state shouldn't get involved in marriage at all. Let's allow the Episcopalians and so on to marry anyone they like.)
I'm not a supporter of gun control, but in the context of the chaos that ruled in New York City at the beginning of the 90's it was a defensible plan.
Obviously you feel strongly about this issue. But try to see that I was very relieved when my neighbors were no longer being held up at gunpoint on their way to the subway. (Also, when it was no longer considered foolhardy to sit or sleep where you could be hit by a stray bullet coming through the window.) I considered going around armed in those days, but I'm no John Wayne and the fact is that robbers and drive by shooters normally don't give any warning.
In the next election, I want us to choose a president who will fight the jihadists and protect me from getting blown up by an Al Qaeda bomb. Not just a president who wants to do these things, but one who actually CAN do them. Giuliani is the only guy I trust to do that.
Personally, I wish Giuliani were still married to his frist wife. (Although I'm not still married to my first husband, come to think of it.) I wish he were adamantly opposed to gay marriage in any form. I wish he still had all his hair. I wish a lot of things but I'll settle for saving Western Civilization from Islamofascism.
As for these other litmus test issues, why not concentrate on electing congressmen and state legislators who hold views compatible with your own? On the presidential level, these tests are as destructive to Republicans' fortunes as squabbling about who is more anti-war will (hopefully) be for the Dems.
If only people vote we saw how the last election went and look what happened,people are getting to lazy to vote any more it's the same old story oh let someone else do it for me I have other things to do.
Are you sure you are a Brit? You have been one of the few on this thread with any American political sense.
Regards, Ivan
IMHO, you also have a better overview from across the pond. We sometimes have difficulty seeing the forest because of the trees all around us :-)
Bill Sali's campaign is a model for how conservatives can beat the RINOS, the Democrat Media and Democrats pretending to be "moderate" or even "conservative."
Fair enough. Now another question. If you were any of the Democrat candidates and had to debate just one of the Republican candidates on the topic of the Iraq war/WOT, whom would you LEAST want to face off against, and why?
I know you're not.
As a matter of fact, if you were twice as smart as you think you are, you'd still be a moron...not that there's anything wrong with being special.
Michelle Bachmann in Minnesota was another rock ribbed conservative, and looker I might add, to win.
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.