We Can't Win By Focusing on Not Losing!
By JB Williams (12/18/07)
I have but one message for my fellow conservatives. If we focus all of our attention on "not losing" the 2008 election, there is no way we can win the 2008 election.
With academia, the press, the electronic and print media industries, the judicial branch and congress under the full control of American Marxists, is there any New Year’s resolution more vital to America’s future than keeping leftists out of the White House in ’08? Yet if we focus only on “not losing,” we can’t possibly win…
Republican Desperation
Desperation is an ugly thing, especially when you find it among conservatives who were once the brave, once responsible for the land of the free. There is indeed, nothing to fear but fear itself.
In this case, fear of losing the White House to someone like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is causing many Republicans to grasp at any candidate perceived capable of defeating the Democrat nominee, even if that candidate is at best, only marginally better than electing Hillary herself.
There is no more certain road to self-defeat!
It’s no secret that the leftist press is pushing the most socially liberal Republicans, just in case the most despised politician in America, Hillary Clinton, can’t win. A socially liberal Republican is the second best thing, in the minds of leftist media minions.
But allowing the press to force another compassionate conservative down the throats of the Republican Party faithful is the surest way to guarantee a Democrat victory in 2008.
First, the conservative base of the party won’t go along with another lesser of evils candidate this time. In fact, they are so focused on core conservative values that they are actually considering a Baptist Minister from Arkansas who is willing to use the power of the federal government to legislate the nation back out of our current immoral abyss.
Second, even if conservatives did line up behind another social liberal like Rudy Giuliani, and he happened to defeat the Democrat in the general election, the nation would still end up with another liberal in the White House. That can hardly be considered any form of victory for the conservative party, certainly not the kind of victory any real conservative is seeking.
What about the war on terror, and Iraq?
Moderate Republicans claim to support candidates like Rudy or Romney on the single basis that they will fight the war on terror more aggressively than any of the Democrats. Aside from being a myopic single issue statement, it’s probably not even true.
Until she needed to pander to MoveOn.org and Code Pink in her national campaign, Hillary Clinton was one of the most pro-war members of the Senate. Her voting record is as pro-war as any Republican senator and her pro-war anti-Hussein rhetoric predates the Bush administration and the Iraq liberation by years.
Yes, she claims to plan on ending the war when elected, because she has to. But just like any other presidential candidate running in ’08, she can’t live up to that promise.
Reality is this – Only two presidential candidates would actually pull troops out of Iraq any faster than Bush, and neither of these two candidates has any chance of even winning local dog catcher. Democrats have already cut Kookoocinich from their debate stage and as for Ron Paul, the Kookoocinich of the Republican Party, his 15 minutes are about up as well.
So no matter who wins in 2008, America will be in Iraq until we are no longer needed in Iraq. The war on terror will continue until our enemy no longer seeks to harm America or American interests. All the campaign promises in the world won’t change these facts because no American president, Republican or Democrat wants to have another 9/11 on their watch. They can say whatever they want in their campaigns, but doing it is quite different.
One can debate how smart different candidates might fight the war on terror. But frankly, it’s debatable how smart the current administration has fought this war.
Last, it’s also very likely that Bush will pull a good number of troops out of the Iraq theater before November of 2008, completely changing the effect this issue will have on the election anyway.
Bringing the Party together
There is no real “front-runner” in the Republican race yet. Over 60 percent of Republican voters are still looking for a real conservative leader for ’08 and remain uncommitted to any candidate.
Clearly less than enthused about the socially liberal RNC favorites, the conservative core of the party drafted their own candidate in Fred Thompson. Even though Thompson has done very well in the not even debatably lack-luster debates, many are still withholding support until they see him act more like a traditional candidate. Personally, I hope he never acts like a traditional candidate.
The first RNC media creation, Rudy Giuliani, has never been able to garner more than 30 percent support from RNC voters. It’s tough to nominate a candidate that at least 70 percent of the party does not support. Now his numbers look even worse and they are sliding.
As has been pointed out many times, there are three vitally important legs of the Republican platform and if any of the three legs are missing in a candidate, that candidate can not win a general election, no matter how unpopular Democrats are in all those red districts across the country.
The three legs which are key to any Republican victory in ‘08
* Fiscal conservatives are fed up with Bush’s endless deficit spending and they are demanding a fiscal conservative who will not only lower taxes, but cut spending and shrink the size and scope of the federal government as well.
* National Security conservatives are fed up with the open border pro-illegal immigration policies of both the Bush administration and the congress, no matter which party controls it. They want victory in the war on terror, beginning with victory at securing our own borders and ending all talk of any North American Union that threatens American sovereignty.
* Social conservatives are fed up with insane social spending which always follows insane social policies and ill-advised tolerance for all sorts of immoral social standards which actually pose the greatest threat to any moral self-governed society. The founders said it best when they pointed out repeatedly that only a moral people are suited for self-governance. An immoral society must be governed by laws and ruled by an iron fist.
For any Republican candidate to win in 2008, he will have to bring all three of these legs of the Republican Party together. Leave any one of these three out of the voting booth on Election Day and the Republican Party will have been the cause of their own defeat.
Democrats have no candidate worthy of fear
There are only three serious Democrat candidates for 2008, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards.
Contrary to expert political opinions, Hillary Clinton was never going to win in 2008 and here’s why.
Hillary Clinton does not represent the future - she represents the past, and not a very pretty past at that. She has a pro-war record and she’s running in an anti-war party. She and her husband have a laundry list of forgivable but unelectable past corruptions, illegal activities and unethical practices that will haunt her entire campaign. She is the most disliked and distrusted woman in America today and although the nation might enjoy pretending that it is ready to elect a female president, it isn’t going to happen at a time when the nation is under threat of further attack.
Barack Obama is patently unqualified to be scout troop leader and everyone except Oprah Winfrey knows it. So the idea that Barack Hussein Obama can become Commander-in-Chief is almost as insane as Oprah campaigning for him. Oprah herself is better qualified to be President.
John Edwards is a politician whose time has come and gone. His 15 minutes were up when he failed to carry his home state of North Carolina in the 2004 election.
So Republicans are grasping at faux conservatives why again?
Republicans must stop worrying about losing and start focusing on winning!
Any Republican candidate would be better than Clinton or Obama. But can Rudy, McCain, Huckabee or even Romney bring all three Republican groups into the booth on Election Day in order to defeat the left? The voters are saying no…
To lead the country in a more conservative direction; we must nominate and then elect a more conservative leader. It doesn’t matter whether the candidate has an (R) or a (D) or an (I) behind his name. Even Joe Lieberman is ignoring partisanship in his endorsement of John McCain.
What matters is what the candidate stands for and if that candidate does not stand for all Republicans, all three legs of the Republican platform, all conservative values and principles, then his party affiliation is meaningless and he is in for a big disappointment on Election Day.
Only one Republican candidate solidly represents all three fundamental Republican planks and that one candidate is the only candidate drafted by conservative voters. The most powerful conservatives in America are beginning to line up behind that candidate.
Staunch Iowa conservative congressman Steve King, famous for his maverick opposition to illegal immigration, just endorsed Thompson, stumping the political experts who predicted he would endorse Romney.
The writing on the wall is very clear. If Republicans nominate a candidate who does not bring all three conservatives into the voting booth next November, their worse fears will become a reality.
If you didn’t learn this lesson in 2006, you’re about to learn it in 2008.
It’s time for Republicans to unite behind a conservative who is less compassionate towards leftist notions. You wanted a real people’s candidate and the conservative base of the Republican Party went out and drafted one. What are you waiting for?
(Printer friendly version) Email: JB Williams
