Nay .... leave as it is ... Anti- leftist,liberal by God; Conservative by nature ... Republican ... by spirit
Posted on 06/13/2003 1:55:59 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Is Free Republic too "Republican?" I've been receiving a lot of complaints lately that FR is not really conservative, it's Republican. Is that a bad thing?
When I started FR (see the wayback machine) I don't think I even used the labels conservative or Republican. But, even though I was a registered Democrat at the time (I registered when I was very young), I was definitely anti-Democrat. And definitely anti-big government, anti-government corruption, anti-government abuse, anti-liberalism, etc. And I still am.
As FR became more and more popular, people started referring to it as a "conservative" web site and so eventually I posted the label to the front page. If it no longer applies, big deal. What's in a label? I'll change it to "Republican" if demand warrants.
I'm still anti-big government, anti-government corruption, anti-Democrat and anti-liberalism. I just happen to believe that in the current political environment we stand a better chance of defeating the left (liberalism/socialism/marxism, etc) by using the Republican Party to defeat the Democrats. The organization is there. The platform is there. The winning candidates are there. The dollars to run winning campaigns are there. The momentum is there. And the vast majority of the conservative voters are there.
Makes perfect sense to me. I want to defeat the left, and I want to do it as quickly as possible. I'll go with the organization that can get the job done.
My current goal is to defeat liberalism by defeating the Democrat Party. If that labels me a Republican, then so be it. If the vast majority of the FReepers want it so, then Free Republic will officially become the newest "Republican wing" of the Republican Party.
Long live Republicanism. Long live the Republic!'
What say you, FReepers?
When I finally registered, after a year and a half of lurking, my first thread called for using the power of "party". That was when you were still very concerned about the background of a Texas Governor talking of running in the primaries.
You ask:
Is Free Republic too "Republican?" I've been receiving a lot of complaints lately that FR is not really conservative, it's Republican. Is that a bad thing?
As one who always advocates using to power of party organization, I would still answer that in many ways it is too Republican in climate. A swift running privateer needs a light hand at the tiller, and in the last year two years, first with defeat of the Dems in sight, and then support of the Nation during a time of threat, that old Navy man in you has come out. The hand on the tiller has been firm, but almost too firm.
If ideology is the mistaken relience on a simplistic, simple, saving formula, and true conservatives adhere to First Principles instead, we will sail the fastest with that simple adherence.
There has been a lack of relience on the weight of opinion of the posters on the site to self-correct those taking the side paths. We know the Captain wants a certain outcome at primary time and at election time, but if the ship is truely sailing for Restoration of the Constitutional Republic, we hope he flies the banner of his candidate on the wheel house alone, and not on the side of the whole ship.
Jim, what makes your site great is not what it can accomplish in elections, primaries, and supporting a sitting President.
Instead, it is COURSE CORRECTION, to keep the nautical analogy afloat. If we want Constitutional virtues, honest government and conservative First Principles to prevail in government there are a lot of times when the Republican party I have actively supported for many years is sorely lacking. In the long view of your original course, we will do the most good as the privateer you originally chartered.
As that Privateer, you need some of the wilder Pirates. Yes, and even some that have walked the plank.
Sail on, great Captain.
To the extent that Republican supporters are allowed to take insulting excesses with Republican detractors here on FR, even if in violation of FR's rules, and even when a fair-handed review of the topic in question would find the Republicans lacking, yes, FreeRepublic is too Republican.
Also, if I started a website that said it was created to prevent the killing of tree frogs, and spent the first couple of years decrying all who killed tree frogs, that would make sense.
But, if I then over the years began supporting companies and people who killed fewer tree frogs than others, I would have turned my back on my original mission statement. I would be being unfaithful to the principles which I once held dear.
Moreover, to claim to be against Government corruption and largesse, and to then back one half of the most corrupt, pork-strewn bunch of anti-Constitutional criminals in this nation's history, and to do so under the banner (guise?) of "conservatism..."?
That's either blatant hypocrisy, profound ignorance, or both.
That the Republicans appear, in this fungal stage of America's conservative decay, to be more "conservative" than the Democrats is just a symptom of the disease that is killing this country, and neither I, nor you, nor FreeRepublic, is doing anythig to stop it.
;-/
Mr. Robinson seems to be seeing what it feels like to be a politician, please all the people all of the time or pick a small group, and watch the name calling begin. He should run for office. The question is what party affliation, as only one of the two party system has a chance in the game so he would have to be a republican proudly of nowadays-but don't cut-off the religious/social right wing or you will loose.
Seriously Mr. Robinson should run in 08 against Hitlery!This would be the only way the Republican name would be first and foremost.If there are no political aspirations for Mr. Robinson, let the REPUBLIC, CONSERVATIVE site carry on to continue exposing the DemocRATS.If someone is so against Bush or any republican, or conservative ideals- they can go make their own party affiliation site.
But turning this into a Bush Republican site, and nixxing even "the word" conservatisim, would elect someone like Hillary. The "engine" is diversive.
Sometimes voting for RINOs yields the same result. Remember Jim Jeffords?
But some content has seemed to be dominated by Neocon internationism. Some of those singing the change-the-world "Internationale" are now posing as Republicans. Clinton's Kosovo bombing (unopposed by 'Republicans') was a clarifying moment.
Currently there is a fault line developing around Bush's Road Map for peace. There are some who threaten to abandon Bush if we veers the ship of state away from their war agenda. In other words people posing as Republicans will ride the Bush horse as long as he responds to their bit.
As a Republican I agree. Uniting under conservativism is much more encompassing and effective, imo. And why would FR want to give anyone more reason to be accused of being a GOP tool?
Dittos. CB^)
Exactly, but the day could soon come (some people say it's already here, but I don't)...
Damn straight. They have to earn my vote.
Let's see....you believe that the GOP is the best alternative at present. A Republican candidate that the people select through the primary/caucus process to run against a Democrat so that the GOP can get and/or keep control of Congress, approve judges, cut taxes, etc.......where does the "earn" come in?
On is from the National Republican Congressional Committee naming me "2002 Republican of the Year" representing Massachusetts...
...and the other is the National Republican Congressional Committee's award, signed by Majority Leader Tom DeLay, naming me as Honorary Co-Chairman of President Bush's Business Advisory Council.
Jim....I think you may have found your new slogan/heading that embraces it all! It sure has my vote!
Once this site was devoted to defending the Constitution of the United States. Now it seems more an unoffical organ of the Republican party.
Here is Texas we have for the first time in 130 years Reublican controled government. And what do we get? Higher taxes, bigger governemnt, hate laws, yada, yada, yada. Yall can have your GOP.
We are independent. We are political. We are Free Thinkers of the first order (so very important).
As the Republican party finds itself being slowly morphed into something that really has nothing to do with it's roots, it is important - nay, imperative - that a strong, loud, persistent voice of conscience exist for the Right, if for no other reason than to shame what is supposed to be our standard bearer into (occasionally?) taking stands it is supposed to take!
Remember back in '78 - '81, when intellectual ferment was what made the Republican Right the place to be? That was an exciting time (at least for me).
FR has the potential to fill that need now, and on a permanent basis. Why sully that perception by allying it with a political party that's been subject to suspect marketing in the past?
Without the impetus of outfits like FR, it is doubtful that the Republican party, let alone America in general, would have a clue about what's supposed to be done today.
No, leave FR just the way it is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
CA....
Jim....I think you may have found your new slogan/heading that embraces it all! It sure has my vote!
Oops...forgot to address this to JRob also. Sorry!
Secondly, were the site to carry a formal party affiliation I should think the Republicans should join FR rather than the other way around. You might have to give them their own forum group, so that internal party matters could be dealt with in "chat" where they belong. But I'd pay big bucks to turn the Viking Kitties loose on some rambling screed by the likes of Jeffords or Whitman or McCain. "Feel the power of ZOT, you miserable tax-hiking slug!" Yeah...you'd love it. You know you would...
As far as driving a stake through the heart of liberalism, I am less optimistic. The dark side of that political movement has been to the fore for half a century by now, and I don't see it changing much: the tendency to mooch, to envy, to covet, and to expropriate the rewards of success in the name of the unsuccessful, and subsequently to steal even that; that dark face is older than America, older than party politics even. It must be addressed on a philosophical and ethical level, not on the level of deciding who gets to run the spigot on the trough. Just as the Democratic party has sold out to that tendency (and I'm afraid that to a very great degree it has - for power the cost is one's soul) we want the Republicans to embrace the tendency toward liberty, free markets, and free minds. But is isn't really natural for any party seeking power to embrace doctrines that ultimately cede it back to the individual. I think that fight will continue as long as we have human beings.
Trent Lott could have finessed Jeffords into not jumping, but he didn't and we all know what resulted. When control of the Senate is at stake, you bend a little to a fellow Republican....for now. It's one of the unspoken reasons why Lott was dumped as Majority Leader.
It could be called...the ZOT Party!
That was my point.
Too bad Jeffords didn't "bend a little" to his fellow Republicans with control of the Senate at stake. But then, was he ever really a "Republican"?
There are conservative Republicans still in office and I believe even at the federal level. However their voices have been drowned out by moderates in the party in the rush to push for massive expansions of the government's power in everything from healthcare to Homeland Security. Is that a Republican ideal? Or Conservative?
My statement still stands. When he, not you, asks for the yeas and naes then we'll address that. I got it.
My current goal is to defeat liberalism by defeating the Democrat Party. If that labels me a Republican, then so be it. If the vast majority of the FReepers want it so, then Free Republic will officially become the newest "Republican wing" of the Republican Party.
Big "R," yes.
Small "r," not nearly enough.
If your goal is to defeat liberalism, and by that I take you to mean the forces of the Left, then more than just the Democrat Party needs to be targeted.
There are far too many Republicans who are no less venal, who will sell out principle and the Constitution, simply to hold power. When the lust for power becomes the function and purpose of a politician, that that person becomes a threat to liberty, whether a Democrat or a Republican.
The notions that the Republicans can do no wrong or that President Bush can do no wrong, when they become the approved credos of Free Republic, lead to an atmosphere where posters who hold such absolutes can do no wrong. This is already occurring far too frequently in this forum. How is knee-jerk support of President Bush any more intellectually honest than knee-jerk criticism of him? "Support" like this is the Siamese twin of the mentality that led Democrats to lock arms with the Clintons during Impeachment, yet it has been nurtured here by an indifference to its danger.
Cults of personality are always wrong, and always fascist, regardless of whether the object of the cultists' devotion is wicked or decent. Yes-men, sycophants, and bootlickers proliferate.
Becoming anyone's "official" wing, in any fashion, is not a wise course. It is a surrender of freedom, independent thought, and ultimately, power. Power corrupts, or so I've heard, and Republicans are not immune to Lord Acton's observation of human nature.
No. Free Republic should not become a wing of the Republican Party.
I vote nope, however I also says thanx for all you've done!
Its not so much the support of the GOP that I am concerned about, its the support of the state or the myth that power does anything but corrupt.
Amen!
If the GOP doesn't enact conservative principles (such as CUTTING spending, REDUCING wealth redistribution, ELIMINATING arbitrary regulation--remember those?), why would I care whether they keep control of Congress?
If they only put forth judges who are palatable to liberals, why would I care whether they're approved?
If they only want tax cuts that provide "refunds" to people who never paid them in the first place, why would I want them passed?
"Earn" comes in when they put conservative principles into practice. The GOP is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
But he was used by the GOP to served an important function — keeping the GOP in control of the Senate. Lott should have made sure the Jeffords continued to be use by the GOP and not by the Democrats. Lott failed.
If you believe that they are the best alternative at present, then they have earned your vote and your support until something better comes along. I'll bet that Bush 41 didn't "earn" your vote, and look what happened.
'Course, lots of them vote Republican, as even a small l libertarian, which I keep thinking I may be, can see that the Republican Party is our best hope at this point. After all, the Republicans are taking us down the road to socialism at a slower pace.
< Insert obligatory "Who do you want, Hillary/Clinton/Gore?" drivel here. >
Assess the situation at the time.
I am having a hard time following your logic. So if Traitor McCain gets the Pubbie nom. in '08 we should vote for Harry Brown and give Hitlery the White House? If McCain were the Republican nominee I'd vote for him over anyone the Dem's are currently running and I think he's a straightup fruitcake as well as a RINO. No other party would have a shot. If you can show me where I espoused a preference for RINO's I'll request the post be deleted.
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.