Here's something that's driving me crazy and is being used by the libs to divide us: the Religious Right.
Over and over again I hear erstwhile conservatives complaining that the "religious right" has hijacked the party. But who, what, is this ominous organization? What Draconian laws have they enacted and when do the religious trials begin?
Hail the coming theocracy!
Or not. I believe the whole concept is a bugaboo created by the MSM and the libs as a wedge issue for conservatives. Unfortunately, its working amongst those benighted conservatives that follow the national media. Even here on FR, where one would expect a deeper understanding of conservative principles, we see the divide opening up.
Nothing is more importatnt in the upcoming election than to mend this potential abyss and to reach across the ideological barriers that will prevent us from moving forward.
Towards that end I humbly submit my understanding of what a social conservative believes:
1. R v W is bad law. Its based on a lie. It should should be overturned and abortion law should be returned to the states.
2. Homosexuals should have equal rights under the law. They should not have special rights. Marriage, by definition, can only exist between a man and a woman.
3. Cultural traditions should be honored, or at a minimum not outlawed. The banning of Christmas music and indeed any mention of Christianity in public is an absurd misreading of our constitution.
I think that's it. If the fiscal conservatives here have a difficult time understanding these few positions then we're doooooooomed. But I don't think they will.
Rather than allow the MSM to define us its absolutely necessary that we understand ourselves.
I agree with every one of them. They are 12 steps for victory. I can not improve on them.
I don't.
In fact, the writing is pretty much on the wall. Even here: GOP USA poll
The media-annointed "front runners" lag seriously behind other, more conservative, candidates.
A conservative candidate will get all the Republican votes, except from the most liberal of self-proclaimed 'republicans', a liberal will split the vote between third party candidates and stay at home voters.
I can't see anyone who owns a firearm voting for Hillary, but an anti-gun candidate from the Republicans will guarantee lackluster support for their candidate, and, frankly, a loss.
The pro-life faction of the party will support a candidate who is a conservative, but not someone who is pro-abortion.
People who want something as basic and essential as control of who comes over our borders will not vote for the candidate(s) soft on illegal immigration, no matter who they are.
The group to woo is not those who have no hard and fast single issues, but the groups who do, for they are the ones most likely to stand on principle.
Given the choice, when the time comes I'll choose to stand in front of the throne of the Almighty and say I voted against those who supported killing babies in the womb.
In the meantime, I'll keep my guns, too.
Bump
only one name comes to mind.....Ducan Hunter
The liberal leftists are currently beating us a degree at a time by pushing our party ever so slightly more toward the left so that it becomes more and more evident to true conservatives that regardless of which party's candidate wins, the democrats can privately claim victory while publicly denouncing each GOP victory. The "win at any cost" FReepers are a prime example of those who have fallen into this trap. At this rate, in the not too distant future, conservative-minded citizens will be utterly without a party to represent their interests and beliefs (some would argue that we're close to that stage now).
We must not let this happen! We must stop this blurring of the lines between leftist socialistic-globalist ideology and true American INDEPENDENT conservative ideology. We must make the voters choice as clear and distinctly different as night and day. To do that we must relentlessly communicate those differences and convince the voters that they must choose which political ideology they want to live under.
Taking then your list of conservative issues, I propose that we support a candidate that will communicate this disparity of ideologies and convince them that the conservative way is the only way our nation will continue to remain strong.
CONSERVATIVES
Win the war!
Secure the nation!
Secure the borders!
Stop the illegal aliens! Rebuild the military!
Deal with growing threats!
Cut government!
Cut spending!
Cut taxes!
Allow the free economy to expand!
Return control of states issues to the states!
Defend life, liberty, property and individual rights!
LIBERAL LEFTISM
Appease our enemies and lose.
Leave our nation exposed to threats.
Keep terrorist pathways unobstructed.
Provide illegal alien rights superior to our citizens.
Deconstruct and weaken the military.
Become a U.N. slave nation.
Grow nanny state government.
Expand nanny state spending.
Punitively expand taxation.
Oppressively regulate business.
Central government nannyism.
Lose national identity and citizen independence - assimilate into U.N. global community.
I repeat the charge. We MUST give the voting citizens a CLEAR and DISTINCT choice between two opposing political belief systems. If we lose then the citizens will have spoken and there's nothing else we could have done to change their minds. We will have to deal with the consequences.
BTW, the only candidate I currently see that can fill the conservative shoes we so desperately need, is Duncan Hunter. All others will simply take us further down the path of liberal death by degree. LORD help us and be merciful to us if we lose the election in 2008.
I like the list. I'd say not necessarily in that order, though.
Dear Jim Robinson,
"What say you?"
"12. Defend life, liberty, property and individual rights!"
As long as this includes defense of innocent human life, from conception to natural death, I'm on board.
Although, I think that the defense of human rights, of life, liberty, and property, are the primary functions of government, and thus should be closer to #1 than #12.
sitetest
100% agree. Those who feel that only a moderate to left republican can win the general election should switch parties and join the Democrat party. That seems to be their party of choice anyway.
Thank you Jim! Great points!
bttt
I say, I like what you wrote.
Jim, you wrote, "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. "
I'd like to know why a particular conservative activist who writes and posts exactly as you have posted here has been banned from posting on Free Republic? It is activists just like him that are needed to be a voice for conservatism. I'm requesting that you reinstate Badray back onto this forum.(and any other conservative that has been banned because he/she offended pseudo-conservatives here on FR--many of which are recently converted Dems) Badray is a tireless advocate and activist for all the things listed in your article. He is a fighter. He doesn't just write words on a forum, he is out there in a variety of venues for state and national issues-in Harrisburg and Washington DC; all on of our behalf.
I'm also curious to know something. Should conservatives lose this fight and Giuliani wins the Republican party nomination, are we going to be asked by Free Republic to support him simply because he has an (R) next to his name?
Regards, Boxsford
I read your article and looked for the name of the wonderful Conservative candidate you described. I did not see the name of this candidate.
As much as I agree with you, I have no knowledge of a candidate like this who has the ability to win a National Presidential Election in 2008.
"Win the war! Secure the nation! Secure the borders! Stop the illegal aliens! Rebuild the military! Deal with growing threats!... Cut government! Cut spending! Cut taxes! Allow the free economy to expand! Return control of states issues to the states! Defend life, liberty, property and individual rights!"
Now that's just crazy talk!
Need to run this past the RNC for "editing".
"We shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of Nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us."
Patrick Henry
"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. "
PING
A conservative can win in a very simple and dramatic way, which is easy to figure out if you go over the articles that my colleagues in USD-AV have authored over the years on energy, particularly one by me that was on WND. At present, as foreseen by George Gider in Wealth and Poverty as early as 1981, our governmental machinery, in cooperation with big oil, big ethanol, and to some extent, big auto, has been subsidizing products rather than allowing solutions to come forward since the creation of the DOE by Carter. We can now adopt better fuel for our existing cars that will improve mileage up to 40%, will cost less to make by as much as 25 cents a gallan, will enormously reduce engine wear and reduce major pollutants to negligible amounts. We are begining to produce surface deposits, of which there are enought to, in combination with the better fuel, cut our energy dependence in half within a few short years. Better refining can be implemented domestically to produce surface deposits and make the better fuel with a fraction of the cost and polluting of present refining. Look, however, for the present dance between the large companies mentioned and the large environmental groups (whose principle interest is in taking away your choice and imposing scarcity upon you) and big government to continue. There is at present a consensus among the folks mentioned to speak of "alternative energy" and put forth endless susidies and tax breaks while making sure that the simple solution of giving better fuel and other obvious improvements that would be within the oil industry and benefit the average motorist equal tax breaks and subsidies is not implemented.
There is nothing conservative about the likes of Exxon-Mobil and ADM. Their obstructionism and boondoggling are not helping to win this war; but both do assist the other side.