Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A winning conservative platform for 2008?
Opinion | Jim Robinson

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:

  1. Win the war!
  2. Secure the nation!
  3. Secure the borders!
  4. Stop the illegal aliens!
  5. Rebuild the military!
  6. Deal with growing threats! Iran, Syria, North Korea, China, (and an increasingly Muslim Russia and Europe?)!
  7. Cut government!
  8. Cut spending!
  9. Cut taxes!
  10. Allow the free economy to expand!
  11. Return control of states issues to the states!
  12. Defend life, liberty, property and individual rights!

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?


TOPICS: Breaking News; Free Republic; US: California; US: Texas; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: adminlectureseries; aliens; amnesty; borders; conservatism; duncanhunter; elections; fredthompson; giuliani; illegalimmigration; immigrantlist; rfr; tancredo; turnrighttosanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-717 next last

1 posted on 02/19/2007 1:14:06 AM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

I agree!

We had a popular Conservative as POTUSA.
Next was a one term moderate.
Next was a two term traitor, who some people think was conservative.
Next was a two term moderate that squeaked by because the democrats nominees were very bad.
Now some people want a far left winger as the Republican nominee that most real democrats can beat because they can run to the right of IT.


2 posted on 02/19/2007 1:17:14 AM PST by HuntsvilleTxVeteran (Vote for RINOS, lose and complain by sending a self-abused stomped elephant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

"What say you?"


Jim Robinson for President!!!



Seriously, thank you for a very reasoned and major-item list.


3 posted on 02/19/2007 1:17:43 AM PST by geopyg (Don't wish for peace, pray for Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
How many FReepers actually believe this hogwash?

According to your recent poll only 14.1% of members support Rino Rudy.

Thank you for once again reminding FReepers that your site is intended to be conservative.

4 posted on 02/19/2007 1:19:11 AM PST by ASA Vet (The WOT should have been over on 9/12/01.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Anti-immigrant rhetoric is a loser.

EVERY candidate who ran on the issue got trounced.

Make anti-immigration a major part of your platform and you are doomed.

I am not saying avoid the issue and agree with your goals of strengthening the border, but I am telling you if you make it in ANY way a major focus you lose.


5 posted on 02/19/2007 1:23:05 AM PST by Mobile Vulgus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

I'm with you, Jim. No compromise!


6 posted on 02/19/2007 1:26:05 AM PST by OwenKellogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

... 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.

Smaller govt is fine and so are lower taxes. Win the war is good. 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.


7 posted on 02/19/2007 1:26:32 AM PST by Mobile Vulgus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Loved 1 through 12, sent this post to everybody on my address list. Keep up the good work Jim.


8 posted on 02/19/2007 1:26:42 AM PST by garylmoore (Faith is the assurance of things unseen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Regarding #10: Expand the economy using foreign labor? More NAFTA like treaties?



9 posted on 02/19/2007 1:29:48 AM PST by AZRepublican ("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I was told earlier this evening that it's impossible for a conservative to win the general election against Hillary Clinton

They're out in force, that's for sure.

If we have no faith in our own conservative principles and values why do we call ourselves conservatives?

A fair question that. Why don't you pose it to a few of Madame Gulianis supporters?

How many FReepers actually believe this hogwash?

Far too many. Some of them are becoming more than just a bit tiresome.

That the socially liberal Rudy Giuliani is the ONLY Republican who can (a) beat Hillary and (b) win the war.

Rudy isn't just 'socially liberal'. And he isn't the only one who can beat Hillary. She's essentially unelectable Jim. Nearly 40% of the people who were asked in a recent poll said they wouldn't vote for her under any circumstances.

We cannot advance conservatism by running a social liberal for the office of chief executive.

But but but Jim...he can win! And winning is the mostest importantest thing of all dontchaknow. Those silly principles thingies are like so last year.

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.

I like it but I think we can get it down to less than 10.

1.Win the war!

Nuff said here.

2.Secure the nation!
3.Secure the borders!
4.Stop the illegal aliens!

I think you can roll all this into "Secure The Borders".

5.Rebuild the military!

Yep.

6.Deal with growing threats! Iran, Syria, North Korea, China, (and an increasingly Muslim Russia and Europe?)!

Yep.

7.Cut government!
8.Cut spending!
9.Cut taxes!

Amen, Amen, Amen.

10.Allow the free economy to expand!

There's virtually no chance of any of these four if Rudy is elected. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

11.Return control of states issues to the states!

The 9th and 10th Amendments are dead, Jim. But it's nice to see that someone actually remembers to put flowers on their graves.

12.Defend life, liberty, property and individual rights!

How about 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic'. Maybe they could swear an oath or something when they take office.

L

10 posted on 02/19/2007 1:29:51 AM PST by Lurker (Europeans killed 6 million Jews. As a reward they got 40 million Moslems. Karma's a bitch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mobile Vulgus
Anti-immigrant rhetoric is a loser.

rhet·o·ric –noun
1. (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.


Speaking of rhetoric: The phrase "anti-immigrant"--They are the ones illegally invading OUR country!

11 posted on 02/19/2007 1:30:18 AM PST by joseph20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
"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?
"

...next to none. The Giuliani campaign is virtually through, unless, maybe, he switches to Democrat registration really soon. Almost everyone will know about his political positions.

Calling Giuliani on his many lies
World Net Daily ^ | 19 February 2007 | Joseph Farah

Posted on 02/19/2007 12:01:25 AM PST by Spiff
12 posted on 02/19/2007 1:30:19 AM PST by familyop (Essayons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Good post! I was just telling someone tonight that yours is a "conservative" site.
Thank you for pointing this out once again!

I say we catch them at the borders and deport them.

I say we do not allow them to cross the border in the first place!!!

P.S. DUNCAN HUNTER

13 posted on 02/19/2007 1:31:11 AM PST by Just A Nobody (I - LOVE - my attitude problem! NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

The war will be our downfall....I don't think we can "Win" it....Islam and the Arabs can't or won't embrace what it takes to have a stable country.


14 posted on 02/19/2007 1:31:26 AM PST by Halgr (Once a Marine, always a Marine - Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joseph20

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

Bury your head in the sand all you want.

IT'S A LOSER.


15 posted on 02/19/2007 1:32:22 AM PST by Mobile Vulgus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody

Right Now, Duncan Hunter and possibly Newt seem to be our only options.

I've volunteered for Duncan's campaign ;-)


16 posted on 02/19/2007 1:32:54 AM PST by Halgr (Once a Marine, always a Marine - Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mobile Vulgus
Anti illegal immigration. I think you'd better take a poll and see how many Americans are fed up. How can you possibly win a war against terrorism and crime with wide open borders.

The people of California, one of the most liberal nations in the country, have passed laws to fight illegal immigration and pandering of same. Too bad the liberal courts overruled us. And in a very recent election, the Democrat ran on a pro illegal immigrant platform. The one good thing Arnie did was to oppose that, and he won in a landslide. Don't tell me it won't work. California will go for the platform I posted above. The people are fed up.

17 posted on 02/19/2007 1:34:13 AM PST by Jim Robinson (If the party runs a social liberal for president it's a kick in the teeth to its conservative base.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Excellent post, Jim!

I agree with every point you make. I would, for the sake of brevity, boil them down for soundbite status thusly:

1)strength against Islamic terrorism: win the Iraq war, and clear statement of defense against this menace everywhere
2)impregnable borders: close them, and then deal with illegal immigration, including the US employees
3)oppose abortion, homosexual marriage, stem cell research, assisted suicide: stand firmly with Christian principles - PRO-FAMILY
4)shrink the federal government: especially in education and the myriad other programs

Is there not a Republican candidate who can run successfully on these issues?
18 posted on 02/19/2007 1:34:16 AM PST by jobim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

LOL. nations = states


19 posted on 02/19/2007 1:34:59 AM PST by Jim Robinson (If the party runs a social liberal for president it's a kick in the teeth to its conservative base.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
That the socially liberal Rudy Giuliani is the ONLY Republican

I am not a republican, I am a conservative. I would vote for Zell Miller as a democrat before I'd vote for any of the current media appointed republican front runners.

20 posted on 02/19/2007 1:35:53 AM PST by bad company (I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

I agree with your points, BTW.


21 posted on 02/19/2007 1:35:54 AM PST by familyop (Essayons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

As will I!!! Thanks

22 posted on 02/19/2007 1:37:05 AM PST by Just A Nobody (I - LOVE - my attitude problem! NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
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??

23 posted on 02/19/2007 1:37:09 AM PST by Mobile Vulgus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mobile Vulgus
EVERY candidate who ran on the issue got trounced.

Wrong.

L

24 posted on 02/19/2007 1:37:36 AM PST by Lurker (Europeans killed 6 million Jews. As a reward they got 40 million Moslems. Karma's a bitch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mobile Vulgus
EVERY candidate who ran on the issue got trounced.

Factualy incorrect! Tom Tancredo

25 posted on 02/19/2007 1:38:05 AM PST by Just A Nobody (I - LOVE - my attitude problem! NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody

Wow. I am wounded with your ONLY example.

You are all ostriches.


26 posted on 02/19/2007 1:38:44 AM PST by Mobile Vulgus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

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

Still wrong.

L

27 posted on 02/19/2007 1:38:44 AM PST by Lurker (Europeans killed 6 million Jews. As a reward they got 40 million Moslems. Karma's a bitch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
And you forgot to post this in "Breaking News".

L

28 posted on 02/19/2007 1:39:35 AM PST by Lurker (Europeans killed 6 million Jews. As a reward they got 40 million Moslems. Karma's a bitch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
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.
29 posted on 02/19/2007 1:39:54 AM PST by endthematrix (Both poverty and riches are the offspring of thought.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

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.


30 posted on 02/19/2007 1:40:09 AM PST by CutePuppy (If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody
Factualy = Factually Geez...time for bed!
31 posted on 02/19/2007 1:42:13 AM PST by Just A Nobody (I - LOVE - my attitude problem! NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
..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.

32 posted on 02/19/2007 1:43:03 AM PST by HarmlessLovableFuzzball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mobile Vulgus
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.

33 posted on 02/19/2007 1:44:47 AM PST by Just A Nobody (I - LOVE - my attitude problem! NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
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.
34 posted on 02/19/2007 1:45:12 AM PST by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
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?

35 posted on 02/19/2007 1:47:19 AM PST by Psalm 73 ("Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is the War Room".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam
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

36 posted on 02/19/2007 1:48:29 AM PST by Lurker (Europeans killed 6 million Jews. As a reward they got 40 million Moslems. Karma's a bitch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

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.


37 posted on 02/19/2007 1:49:47 AM PST by panaxanax (Ronald Reagan would vote for Duncan Hunter!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 73
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.

38 posted on 02/19/2007 1:52:02 AM PST by Just A Nobody (I - LOVE - my attitude problem! NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody
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.
39 posted on 02/19/2007 2:01:42 AM PST by Psalm 73 ("Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is the War Room".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Mobile Vulgus
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?

40 posted on 02/19/2007 2:01:58 AM PST by 4woodenboats ("Show me what 100 hours brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GulfBreeze; pissant; Calpernia; jla; doodlelady

GOOD MORNING PING!!!!


41 posted on 02/19/2007 2:03:47 AM PST by panaxanax (Ronald Reagan would vote for Duncan Hunter!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

ping to your list


42 posted on 02/19/2007 2:08:58 AM PST by panaxanax (Ronald Reagan would vote for Duncan Hunter!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

IMO what's missing is an effective slogans that stick it to the democrats.

The democrats are masters of vilifying conservatives as uptight out of touch racists.

Conservative candidates could repeat over and over "the democrats never miss a chance to undercut the economy" also, "the democrats never miss a chance to undermine the job market", "with democrats in power jobs for our young people are disappearing" also "wherever democrats are in power, crime skyrockets" also "wherever democrats are in power, they spend more time blaming others for their own incompetence than solving problems with the republican can do attitude" etc......

The republicans seem unable to answer the vilifying attacks and keep turning the other cheeck, but reps are running out of cheeks.

One of Rudy's greatest strengths is the ability to stick it to the dims IMO.


43 posted on 02/19/2007 2:13:06 AM PST by tkathy (Sectarian violence? Or genocidal racists? Which is a better description of islamists?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody

You are a moron. Tancredo was in one of the safest districts in the country. His campaign makes NO difference in the point that those who ran on the immigrant issue lost.

I am telling you now, the way to lose the 2008 presidency is to make it all about immigration.

But, losing is what you guys want, obviously.


44 posted on 02/19/2007 2:15:16 AM PST by Mobile Vulgus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Mobile Vulgus

Jim's number 4.."Stop the illegal aliens!" Nothing about " anti-immigration"

Are a Mitt or Rudy fan?


45 posted on 02/19/2007 2:15:53 AM PST by tiger-one (The night has a thousand eyes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

I'm in!
We need to copyright the letter "R". If you don't earn it, you don't wear it!


46 posted on 02/19/2007 2:22:51 AM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (BUAIDH NO BAS, JUST SAY NO TO RINO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tkathy

He's pretty good at sticking it to the conservatives too.


47 posted on 02/19/2007 2:23:11 AM PST by Jim Robinson (If the party runs a social liberal for president it's a kick in the teeth to its conservative base.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

While most here agree with you, including me, voters just elected a bunch of dems. The Republican party and a conservative web site pushed for the RINO Arnie during the recall rather than McClintook, who had a strong anti illegal stance. I hope you keep pushing these issues. Thanks for letting us know what your views are.


48 posted on 02/19/2007 2:29:44 AM PST by ca centered
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mobile Vulgus
His campaign makes NO difference in the point that those who ran on the immigrant issue lost.

You're wrong.

Pete Roskam

L

49 posted on 02/19/2007 2:30:04 AM PST by Lurker (Europeans killed 6 million Jews. As a reward they got 40 million Moslems. Karma's a bitch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: tiger-one
No one said anything about making it ALL about immigration.
tiger-one is right, the term illegal aliens must be the terminology used at all times for the American morons to understand. And then he should pound out the stats on the problems illegal aliens create. Which Jim has listed so well. The stats must be told. The MSM only mentions it in passing once in a while. Cover it like Anna Nicholle Smith, know what I mean? LOL.
50 posted on 02/19/2007 2:34:14 AM PST by madconserv (Jesus take the wheel- The time is here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-717 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson