Posted on 03/01/2007 2:53:19 PM PST by Kevmo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM
Thanks to Nsmje
Please remove thread if this has already posted.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
“We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all.” —Ronald Reagan
“A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.”
— Ronald Reagan, March 1, 1975
“Let us lay to rest, once and for all, the myth of a small group
of ideological purists trying to capture a majority.
Replace it with the reality of a majority trying to assert
its rights against the tyranny of powerful academics, fashionable
left-revolutionaries, some economic illiterates who happen to hold
elective office and the social engineers who dominate the dialogue
and set the format in political and social affairs. If there is any
ideological fanaticism in American political life, it is to be found
among the enemies of freedom on the left or right — those who would
sacrifice principle to theory, those who worship only the god of
political, social and economic abstractions, ignoring the realities of everyday life. They are not conservatives.”
http://reagan2020.us/speeches/The_New_Republican_Party.asp
Rudybots, like all 'bots, are easily pleased...
Nicely played.
It meant something when the correlation between ‘Republican’ and ‘conservative’ was stronger. Types like Ahhhnold and Rooty are just quasi-useful 50%ers in otherwise write-off regions.
Do you remember the big tent GOP that used to win national landslide elections in 49 states?
Yes, New York candidates may run on several different ballot lines, and yes, someone who runs on both the Republican and Democrat lines would be pretty much guaranteed reelection, but I find it very telling that Rudy Giuliani wanted to run on the Democrat line but showed absolutely no interest of running on the Conservative Party line. In fact, the Conservative Party told Rudy that all he had to do to run on its line in the 2000 Senate election against Hillary was to support the ban on partial-birth abortion, and Rudy decided that he’d rather continue to support what even Senator Pat Moynihan (the liberal Democrat he was trying to replace) had called “infanticide.” Thus, Rudy’s statement that he would like to run on the Democrat line is very different from, say, State Senator John Marchi being cross-endorsed by the Democrats, since Senator Marchi was also a proud standard-bearer of the Conservative Party.
remember the big tent GOP
***That makes for a good segway into my anti-opus/supo that talks about why Rudy isn’t a big tent republican.
Will FR embrace socialism to make way for Rudy Giuliani as a Republican presidential candidate?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821435/posts?page=6245#6245
Posted by Kevmo to All
On News/Activism 04/23/2007 8:55:57 PM PDT · 6,245 of 8,936
I’ve been thinking about all these opuses. Yah, I know, the plural of opus is opera. Some of these opera have a melodramatic, soap opera quality to them. On the drive home I was thinking about what I could do to counter the ill will being generated and try to figure out what socons in good standing can say, other than “Good Bye”. The whining, sickening, grating tone of the opera would need to be reversed into a positive, edifying, and hopeful tone. Instead of crying about what is going wrong with Free Republic, it would be a reinforcement about what is going RIGHT with Free Republic.
What should I call such a message? “Opus” is a Latin word for “work”. So I started with looking for a latin word for “play”. I found this well written article for the entymology:: http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/JCGD_Volume_8/Play_Mentation.html The English word “lechery” is the only surviving remnant in English of the Old Germanic root” leik, leikan”, to play. Also striking is the fact that the Latin word for play, ludere, survives in English in”lewd”. Ok, strike that idea. So how about OpusBAR, or OppoOpus, or counter-opus, reverse osmopus, or Nopus, or Opthem or some similar play on words? Well, none of them rang clear. One that I like is to write out Opus backwards: SUPO. And since we see so many opera from freepers like Pukin Dog who leave & return multiple times, we would need to come up with a good plural for the word. Going back to Latin, I came up with Supoii, which would be a person’s second Supo, and Supoiii would be their third, Supoiv their fourth, Supov & Supovi their 5th & 6th respectively, etc. I would encourage other social conservatives to start posting Supo on this thread.
So here’s Kevmo’s first Supo,
Kevmo SUPOI
Free Republic is great! When I signed up 9 years ago, just 2 months after JimRob’s signon date, it seemed like it wasn’t going to be around for very long. It was kinda hokey, and there were a lot of conspiracy theorists, and there was a nervousness in the air about the Clinton’s clamping down on their political adversaries. Even my stupid login name reflected this transient approach to it all. I couldn’t think of what to log on with, and I didn’t want to be Kevin O’Malley because I’d be painting a target on my back, I didn’t want to be audited for my political outspokenness, so that was my login: Don’t Wanna Be Audited. I know, I know, lame. But I noticed that the whole underlying premise for the place was a respect for the constitution, it was pro-life, pro-God, Pro-2nd Amendment, Pro-Lotsa things that I felt kinship with. It was people who thought like me. I felt I was at home in a political sense. There was also this seething anger towards what the Clintons had done to the office of the presidency, and I identified with that. I was impressed that someone like Jim Robinson went to so much trouble and used the gifts God gave him to create an atmosphere where social conservatives could feel comfortable. I haven’t had all that much time to devote to my little hobby here at Free Republic.
Since I signed on I have finished up school, started my career (very late bloomer, long story), bought a house, got involved in local church leadership, watched my 2 kids be born, went to both of my parents’ funerals, and many of the other ups & downs that are normal in life. I got caught in the Free Republic Database Snafu and lost my login for awhile, then couldn’t even remember what the login name was, went into Lurker mode for a time and then signed up again with my real name, Kevin OMalley. I didn’t think much about my login until Joe Six Pack posted this on New Year’s Eve 2004: Disenfranchised Freeper been here 6 years 4 months 3 million hours, 12 days and a leap year http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/1311585/posts. Then when Dan Rather was brought down by Freepers, a low Freeper number became a coveted item and I decided to reclaim my old login. JimRob was very gracious in letting me change my stupid login name to something more like a nickname. “Kevmo” was some kind of musician that a coworker had listened to, he was calling me Kevmo and it kinda stuck so I went with that as my login.
I’m amazed that more than a quarter of a million people have signed up for posting privileges on FR. It has become and will continue to be the premiere news forum on the web, and that is in no small part due to the underlying social conservative principles that drive its founder and others who pour their blood, sweat & tears into this Opus of unselfish love. There’s one freeper whose tag line says something like, when he reads a newspaper he scans down to the bottom to read the comments and that is about where I’m at with my comfort level of FR. It is like reading the paper and then going into a harangue that everyone hears. If you can express yourself at least as good as the average half wit, you might be able to affect the present discourse. It is SO COOL. Thanks, JimRob for doing this. I’ve grown so comfortable with FR that, basically for the last 7 or 8 years, I haven’t even subscribed to a newspaper. I hardly ever watch TV News. But my wife notices that I’m way ahead on the news cycles compared to her friends. She sometimes will ask me about “what that website has to say” about such & such item in the news lately. When I first came home talking about Clinton’s mistress & how all this stuff was an impeachable offense for Clinton, she asked me if that was just some conspiracy theory I heard of and if maybe there were other “normal” people who had heard about it. About a MONTH later, other people started talking about it. Now, I’m usually only about 2 days ahead of the cycle, so everyone else has caught up to Free Republic. But we’re still often at the bleeding edge.
Free Republic is a place where people pray for you, give advice, don’t take nonsense, and help keep your wits sharpened. There appears to have been some folks who are die-hard republicans and signed up with the hopes of changing social conservative viewpoints. That was a mistake because those are bedrock principles, not negotiable checklist items. How can you tell when you’re up against bedrock principles vs. negotiable bargaining chips? When you’re in a discussion and the other side simply walks out or holds their ground & calls them deal killers.
Here’s an analogy to work with. Take a small box and fill it with some rocks. Then add some rice, filling it to the top. Now take all the same stuff, but in a different order. Put in the rice first, then add the rocks. What you’ll find is that if you put in the big stuff first, the small stuff will fit around it. But if you put in the small stuff first, the big stuff won’t have room. The republican tent is the box. The Big issues are the socon issues, to be put in first. The little issues are things that can be accommodated around the bigger stuff. A candidate who tries to focus on the smaller issues first and leave out the bigger issues has no way of getting all of us into the tent. He splits the party. The candidate who gets the big stuff right and as much of the little stuff that will fit, he can fit more into the tent. We’re often amazed at how much rice can keep fitting in. Rudy Giuliani flunks some of the big issues, and on some of the little issues it looks to me like anyone else’s rice would do just as well. All that remains for us to agree on is which are the bedrock principles and which are not. Why would there be so much invective aimed at rudy from the right? Because there are some bedrock principles that he is leaving out. Bad move. I see rudybot postings all the time saying that they would vote for Hunter, and I see socon postings that say they would not vote for rudy. That’s a BIG indicator of a few bedrock principles that are being left outside the tent in order to let in some rice.
Well, I don’t want to rant on for too long. Free Republic is a great place and JimRob will allow dissent as long as it is truth-filled and respectful. People don’t lose their posting privileges just because they support one candidate over another – they lose their privileges over HOW they choose to support that candidate. If I wanted to support my socially conservative candidate, Duncan Hunter, on a social liberal website, it would behoove me to be polite about it, answer the questions posted to me, keep to the truth, and be respectful.
Since we’re on JimRob’s site and it is his private property, we don’t need to quibble about the definition of conservative, we just use his basic definition of social conservative:
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.
If you signed up on Free Republic but aren’t aligned with that definition, you should at least be honest with yourself when you engage in debate. You don’t have to be a socon to post on this socon site. But you should not try to re-define social conservatism for your own purposes. It won’t work.
HOGWASH!
Ronald Reagan operated a CONSERVATIVE tent, not a "big" tent!!!
The term "big tent" didn't come into play until the lead-up to GHW Bush's election in '88.
QUIT TRYING TO REWRITE HISTORY! THIS IS ONE OF THE DISHONEST THINGS THAT RUDYBOTS ARE ALWAYS DOING THAT DRIVES US NUTS!
Another Nail...Bump...
Mr. Giuliani was simply stating that he'd love to have no opponent, not that he'd rather be on that side instead of on the Republican side.
I am not planning to vote for Mr. Giuliani, but to use this against him just demonstrates ignorance of the New York State voting system. It's actually a great system to have, because in many cases, a conservative can have his vote listed as being "Conservative" and not just "Republican" while still voting for the same candidate.
As for it being in "breaking news"...well...only if FR is looking to be behind the times, as this clip is very old news. :-)
Have you forgotten all of the rust belt Democrats who voted for Ronaldus Maximus in 1984?
“Do you remember the big tent GOP that used to win national landslide elections in 49 states?”
I know well how the NYS system works. And Giuliani ran on the "Liberal line" in 1993 & 1997 - not rhetorically, not conceptually, but he went and got approval to run on the line from the New York Liberal Party and its leader, Raymond B. Harding in particular.
So go stick that in your "I'm not voting for Rudy but you're ignorant" pipe and smoke it!
No kidding. Like the first bombing of the NYC Trade Center? What gave you your first clue to the terrorism threat? 911?
See my post #326. The truth is that Rudy wanted to be cross-endorsed by the Democrats but showed absolutely no interest of being cross-endorsed by the Conservative Party. Rudy was re-elected as mayor as the nominee of the Republican Party and the Liberal Party (which for years was controlled by overt socialists, and only endorsed the most liberal of Republicans, such as John Lindsey, Jacob Javitz and Sherry Boehlert), but not of the Conservative Party.
Wow. I’d not watched that before.
Uhmmm..it’s one thing to change your mind on some things over time when you see evidence to persuade you, or when new information causes you to see things differently. This piece however, really leaves me wondering who he was and who he is...or might become.
I say that without malice. I’m just baffled.
According to the polls today, those ‘Reagan Democrats’ are willing to give Rudy a look. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Match-Ups/April%202007/Giulianivs.ObamaThompson20070425.htm
Do you remember the Reagan Revolution? Thought not.
Yes - and since I lived in "the rust belt" - which we in the industrial midwest just called "our proud home" - I can tell you beyond a shadow of doubt that Ronald Reagan got those 'Macomb County' votes by articulating a conservative economic, foreign policy, and social platform.
Comparing Rudy's liberalism to Reagan, then with the gall of saying that it's us conservatives who are forgot the past. Pathetic. Just pathetic.
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.