I agree that Bush is behaving in an un-American way.

Paradoxically, I think that, by showing how to use the Internet for fundraising, Howard Dean may have shown us how to elect candidates who will restrict immigration.

Polls show that most citizens support restrictions on immigration. But most people on our side are not in the elite, and have no easy way to make campaign contributions. The Internet can empower them.

I suggest that we find candidates for all offices; especially for President. Ideally they would hold generally central policies. We don’t want candidates who can be dismissed because they are “Green” or “Libertarian” or worse.

Ideally they would hold poll-approved positions on almost all issues. Perhaps slanted to agree more closely with the opinions of the present office-holder… except on immigration. Obviously, their opinion on immigration would be poll-approved… most Americans agree with us.

They would set up a web page with all their positions on the issues; not overemphasizing their immigration positions, but not hiding them either.

Then respond to criticism by constantly reiterating that most Americans agree with their position.

Make a prominant spot on their web page for contributions… download the Dean web page for guidance. It seems plausible that the money will roll in and that they can be elected without the support of the elites.

I disagree with the thrust behind Mr. Hume’s suggestion—that future conservative, pro-borders/anti-immigration candidates “…hold generally central policies” or “perhaps slanted to agree more closely with the present office holder”.

While the concept of using the internet as Dean has so successfully is worth looking into, it is not worth a penny if—as we’ve done so many times in the past—anti-immigration/traditionalist conservatives disguise our real beliefs in order to placate the masses or in some cases, fence-sitting moderates—with the hope that they will join us.

While the numbers game has been against conservatives since time began, the current president and his advisors are really doing our cause a lot of good—by alienating the base and even bringing some fence-sitters to our side. I see real victories in a very bright future as the country is finally “waking up” to the Invasion and all its (awful) consequences.

“Mealy mouthing” our way to the center—and away from our stated and deeply held beliefs—is NOT a course that I want Independent conservatives to take.

I think perhaps Mr Levin has misunderstood my position. I suggest that the candidates hold our positions on immigration.

On other issues they should be central… if possible. This will make them seem less strange. One issue at a time. We need to be single issue candidates to the degree possible. Don’t become distracted by controversial positions on other issues.

Perhaps the misunderstanding arose from my remark that our positions are actually those of the majority of Americans. And thus are actually central. However they are demonized as “nativist”, “mean-spirited”, etc.

Our candidate does not need to placate the masses on immigration. Our position is in accord with the position of the masses.

I think I better understand what Mr. Hume is saying here and I appreciate the clarification and I assume you are referring to abortion, homosexual marriage, etc.

However, I do not agree that “disguising” ourselves—or our future candidate “disguising himself or herself—as moderates (RINOs) on other important issues (abortion? homosexual marriage?) is going to get him/her or the New Party anywhere. To me, it’s trying to be “Sneaky Pete” and that is precisely why we are working to throw the present Administration out—lies, lies and more lies.

I have awlways believed that it is better to show “who” you are and let the chips fall where they may and run with dignity—than to do it with skullduggery. The American people are frankly tired of being lied to.

Mr. Hume concept does not take into account the reaction of conservatives to their Third Party leader running basically as a RINO. They would never accept it. He is basically saying “Let an Arnold lead us to victory, and right after he’s elected, he’ll suddenly change his stripes and become a conservative overnight”. Conservative voters would never let such a thing happen.

My rhetorical skills seem to be lacking; I can’t get my view across, it seems. Let me try from another approach.

Do any of us seriously care what Tom Tancredo’s position is on Iraq or abortion or health care? I suspect that we don’t know. We are just so thankful that he is on our side on the immigration issue.

Tamcredo’s position on these other issues is enough to get him elected. If he had Green or Libertarian or pro-Palestinian positions he probably could not be elected.

Personally, if Ted Kennedy was on our side on the immigration issue, but continued the same on other issues, I would hold my nose and vote for him.

Kennedy can be elected in Massachusetts; but certainly not in Alabama. The same would go for an Alabama politician in Massachusetts.

So I am saying that we want candidates who can be elected, who also hold to our positions on immigration.

Immigration is the most important issue because it is very likely that unless immigration is restricted, most other issues will be moot forever. Other issues can be turned around over the course of decades and centuries, demography cannot be turned around.

Think a bit about the NRA. Do you think that the NRA cares what a politician’s policy is on health care or abortion? Do they care if the politician is Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian? No. We need to find candidates who can get elected who hold our positions on immigration.

My original point was that these candidates can overcome the opposition of the elites by raising money on the internet. We should be able to find such candidates because there are so many people who agree with our position. It is not a radical position from the point of view of the average American citizen. There is no reason to suppose that such candidates will not hold, in general, the middle of the road positions required to be elected.

If they hold more than one “unacceptable to the elite” position, they will be too vulnerable to attacks from the elite media. Then they may have difficulty attracting funds over the internet.

Contra the 1:46 PM posting by Mr. Hume, my goal is to make a limited number of positions mandatory in the Republican Party. I cannot hold out for a candidate who has my position on every single issue, but I can shoot for more than agreement on immigration.

My Republican candidate needs to oppose abortion, oppose illegal immigration and favor reductions in legal immigration, support gun rights and oppose various gun control and registration schemes, oppose redefinition of marriage and family by homosexuals, support freedom of religion, and support freedom of political speech. I will start out with those six issues.

Of the six, most are pretty fixed in the Republican party today. A few Republicans can be found on the wrong side of several issues; John McCain opposing free political speech is one example. The GOP never nominates a pro-abortion or pro-gun-control candidate for President, although different nominees have had different intensities of commitment on the issues.

I will not vote for a candidate who is right on immigration but who is wrong on one of these other issues, for two reasons: (1) They are fundamental issues, and you cannot count on regaining ground later once you lose one of them, and (2) anyone who is on the wrong side of one of these issues is not someone who has any philosophical understanding of conservatism whatsoever, and therefore cannot be trusted to stick to conservative principles in general. I am tired of electing non-conservatives and then being “shocked” to learn that they govern as non-conservatives.

Note that I am leaving off of my list many issues that are VERY important to me, such as reducing the size of government, dismantling the welfare state, deregulating, privatizing, etc. This is a very minimal list, and it should not be hard to find someone on the right side of these issues.

I seem to be full of compliments tonight, and Clark Coleman is deserving of another! He (Mr. Coleman) responded to Mr. Hume precisely as I wanted to, but the words just weren’t there—thank you!

The air is going out of the Bush balloon—I think a lot of us feel that and see that happening. His desperately “defending” his positions—by going on Meet The Press and sending out Rove to belittle Congressional conservatives is doing him absolutely no good. Had my other half and I known he believed in amnesty for illegals and would not fight like heck for a Constitutional Ammendment on Marriage, we would never have voted for him.

It’s going to be a landslide victory for Kerry—I can feel it in the air, yet I do not “gloat” over this. It is a sad waste of power given that he’s had the Senate and House in Republican hands the entire three-plus years.

Alaskan NEA voted Feb 4 to decline federal funding so that they don’t have to follow No Child Left Behind Act. Of course, it’s up to state legislature to decide, but this was the NEA members’ vote: giving up fed funding just so don’t have to follow No Child Left Behind Act. Utah Leg also voting on this (a loss of $170 mil in fed funding).

U-Haul’s holding company expected to emerge from bankruptcy in March.

Two white troopers sued Delaware for race discrimination in promotion, and won $4 Mil.

New law has now gone into effect in New Mexico allowing people over 25 to get concealed-firearm permit.

State trial of Terry Nichols in Oklahoma is upcoming.

Narragansett tribe said its casino will create 6,700 jobs.

Tennessee Governor Bredesen has proposed legislation to give illegal immigrants a certificate for driving. Before this, he had a 72% approval rating. I don’t know about now.

Virginia Leg voting on barring illegal immigrants from state colleges.

West Virginia’s Monroe County School Board voted AGAINST a ban on confed flag in schools.