Will FR embrace socialism to make way for Rudy Giuliani as a Republican presidential candidate?

vanity | April 21, 2007 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

We've got some real challenges facing us. FR was established to fight against government corruption, overstepping, and abuse and to fight for a return to the limited constitutional government as envisioned and set forth by our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and other founding documents.

One of the biggest cases of government corruption, overstepping and abuse that I know of is its disgraceful headlong slide into a socialist hell. Our founders never intended for abortion to be the law of the land. And they never intended the Supreme Court to be a legislative body. They never intended God or religion to be written out of public life. They never intended government to be used to deny God's existence or for government to be used to force sexual perversions onto our society or into our children's education curriculum. They never intend for government to disarm the people. They never intended for government to set up sanctuary cities for illegals. They never intended government to “rule” over the people and or to take their earnings or private property or to deprive them of their constitutional rights to free speech, free religion, private property, due process, etc. They never intended government to seize the private property of private citizens through draconian asset forfeiture laws or laws allowing government to take private property from lawful owners to give to developers. Or to seize wealth and redistribute it to others. Or to provide government forced health insurance or government forced retirement systems.

All of the above are examples of ever expanding socialism and tyranny brought to us by liberals/liberalism.

FR fights against the liberals/Democrats in all of these areas and always will. Now if liberalism infiltrates into the Republican party and Republicans start promoting all this socialist garbage, do you think that I or FR will suddenly stop fighting against it? Do you think I'm going to bow down and accept abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, global warming, illegal alien lawbreakers, gun control, asset forfeiture, socialism, tyranny, totalitarianism, etc, etc, etc, just so some fancy New York liberal lawyer can become president from the Republican party?

Do you really expect me to do that?

[infidel29]

And should he get the nomination anyways do you forfeit your duty and honor and stay home instead of voting, thus clearing the path for a marxist to do all those things to the country with the backing of the congress and the courts?

I still can't fathom the idea of not supporting a candidate who goes the right way half the time over a candidate who does none of the time.

I don't support Rudy, but I'll vote for him if I have to just to keep a true 100% socialist out of the White House. Call me a political prostitute, but I still believe in the America I remember and the democrats will take that away from me.

[GSlob]

Unless we subscribe to radically different definitions of “socialism” [on the basis of my experiences in USSR of accursed memory I would associate it with the leftist collectivism; although the not-so-leftist Nazis also used “socialist” in their name - so it probably needs to be associated with collectivism pure and simple]- so, unless you happen to use some different definition of what ‘socialism”/”socialist” means, I find it implausible to associate Rudy with the meaning of ‘socialism” I learned by my own skin while living under it. His known position on taxation, for example, is diametrically opposite to collectivist levelling/redistribution mantra. Socialism is hillary’s “we are going to take your things away for the common good”. Rudy’s [past] experience with NYC taxes would mark him as anti-socialist, IMHO.

[upchuck]

I am a conservative, proud and loud.

I will be voting for a conservative come Nov, 2008.

Hopefully, that conservative will be from the Republican party and will win the White House.

If the Republicans don’t put up a conservative I can, with clear conscience, vote for, I will still vote for a conservative.

If that means I don't vote for a Republican Party candidate, then so be it. Principles over party, always.

[OldFriend]

The same folks who thought it would be a good idea to punish the President and the republicans in the mid term elections will be bragging about their power when the democrats take over the white house.

After all, it was said that it didn’t matter if the dems took over the senate because both parties were the same anyway.

That logic sure showed our troops and our allies, didn’t it?

That pretense of supporting the troops is no different than the dems insisting ‘they’ support the troops.

[fkabuckeyesrule]

In regards to Guliani I'm reminded of one time Ann Coulter was on Hannity & Colmes and Colmes was running down the list of liberal POV's of Guliani. Coulter responded by essentially saying that "sure but Guliani was the mayor of the soviet union". Perhaps implying Guliani gets some type of pass since he had to be somewhat moderate or liberal to get elected mayor of NYC. (I know in more recent interviews Coulter has said she could not support Guliani since he's in favor of abortion).

I don't know if Guliani is an economic socialist. He might have vetoed some of the spending bills the Bush signed.

The challenge for Guliani is that he is so far left of many of the cultural issues (not just abortion and gay marriage). When things like the murders at Virginia Tech happen (just like Columbine) many more people are concerned with these culture issues. Voters in Republican primaries are especially concerned about these issues and that is Guliani's challenge duiring the primary season.

[ozzymandus]

I intend to vote for the Republican nominee, no matter who. I’m hoping it will be a conservative, but I’ll never vote RAT.

[pookie18]

Wasn't even a FReeper in 2000, but supported Alan Keyes & then voted for W.

[nmh]

“So you prefer Hillary, then?”

LOL! Rudy and McPain are as bad as Hillary.
No backbone will get you MORE socialism, NO gun rights and more moral decline with either Hillary, Rudy or McPain.

“Because that’s the choice you know; a not-so-socially-conserevative Republican or another eight years of the Clintons.”

Some of us won’t settle for another four years of Clintons under another name - Rudy or McPain. Hillary, Rudy, McPain - they’re all the same. They should ALL be running as Democrats. You’re silly threats are boring. You ought to just vote for Hillary and be done with it.

[Jet Jaguar]

I truly hope hillary is the dem candidate.

She will lose. Big.

[GovernmentShrinker]

I have no intention of “embracing” socialism, but I do embrace reality, and will vote for whatever candidates (for all offices) show the least commitment to socialism. I have no idea if that will be Rudy Giuliani, but if I’m facing a ballot that’s offering me a choice between Rudy, Hillary or Obama, and a couple of fringe party candidates who don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning, I won’t hesitate to vote for Rudy. Unfortunately, there are no viable candidates who have a real aversion to socialism, because there is only a small minority of US voters who have a real aversion to socialism. That state of affairs will not be fixed at the voting booths — it needs to be fixed through political education of our fellow citizens, one by one. Only after a great deal more of that is accomplished, will candidates who are committed to rolling back the tide of socialism become potential winners of elections.

I lived in NYC through Rudy’s entire time as Mayor, and believe me, the city was much better off with him as Mayor, than it would have been with any of the other candidates who had any chance of actually getting elected. I don’t like his views on the Second Amendment, illegal aliens, or massive social “welfare” programs, but I won’t express my dislike for those views by voting for somebody who holds even more socialist views on these and other topics, or by handing my vote to a more-socialist-than-Rudy candidate by voting for somebody who has no chance whatsoever of winning.

[Jim Robinson]

Call if collectism if you want. Same thing to me.

[streetpreacher]

When he posted that, I considered if the thought crossed your mind of choking him through the computer monitor.

Looks like you just did.

[Godebert]

"That wasn’t a presidential race."

Thanks for clearing that up. So voting for liberals is ok, unless they run for president. Got it.

[fkabuckeyesrule]

Let me just throw this question out there.

If you disagreed with a canidate on many issues but you were totlly convinced that that person was the best person to confront the Islamofacist. Would you support that person for President?

[Molly K.]

...gun grabbing, pro-abortion AND pro sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants...

[Strategerist]

I was about to ask if there was a single person on this thread that had even the vaguest idea of what the actual definition of “socialism” was.

[Jim Robinson]

You’re delusional. Rudy doesn’t go to the right even 10% of the time.

[calex59]

Well, Jim, since most of your polls show that the majority of us DON’T want Rudy the Rino for president I don’t think you have to worry about us embracing socialism. I sure as he** won’t.

[beancounter13]

...a not-so-socially-conserevative Republican or another eight years of the Clintons.

Doesn't sound so bad to me. I lived through eight years of that hell before. If that is my choice, then I go third party. I will have plenty of time to decide which one.

Personally, I think this country just may have to burn before it gets better: the last American citizens who truly understood the meaning of sacrifice are rapidly departing from this world.

[veronica]

Rudy is running for President. He is a Republican. He has supported Bush unequivocally in the WOT and regards to Iraq. He has been endorsed by some bedrock conservatives, like Ted Olson. Also - Rudy is consistently number one in the polls. He has a record as a fiscal conservative and crime fighter. I certainly respect the fact that you do not personally support Rudy for POTUS. So I guess the question is, do you allow FR, as a forum, to be a platform for those Republicans and Conservatives who do support Rudy, or do you banish them and all discussion of Rudy, excepting anti-Rudy posts? What do you do if he gets the nomination? Does FR become an anti-Rudy site? If it's Hillary vs. Rudy - what happens then at FR??

If FR continues to allow the full slate of candidates to be discussed, and that includes Rudy, then I don't see the point of this thread, and I say that with total respect of the fact that this is your site, and you get to run it as you see fit.