Skip to comments.Will FR embrace socialism to make way for Rudy Giuliani as a Republican presidential candidate?
Posted on 04/21/2007 6:42:25 PM PDT by 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?
I will have to agree with you. We have the primaries for a reason -- to weed out liberals, RINOs, closet socialists and others. But if such a candidate were to survive the primaries and with none but ourselves to blames, we still must stand behind our candidate. If Americans are expected to stand behind a president they did not vote for (in theory at least), then why shouldn't we stand behind a nominee that not all of us supported.
Agreed, the differences between Hillary and Rudy are not great but the prospect of Hillary in the oval office is just unimaginable ! It simply **CAN**NOT** be allowed to happen. I cannot emphasize this enough.
"Do you really expect me to do that?"
Hmmm... I'm goin' way out on a limb here and guessin' that you're not real likely to do that.
That may be, but I damn near fear for my safety if Hillary gets elected.
I agree. And that’s not the only problem.
Most remember in 2000 when Jeffords jumped from the GOP and made Daschle the majority leader by one and Trent Lott the minority leader.
Then in 2002 when the dems lost big and Trent Lott became the majority Leader, Dashle was sitting in that chair in the lonely room the night they lost.
Then Lott was casted out and Frist became the majority leader. In Congress it was Delay and Pelosi.
They knew the names, they knew who Pelosi, Frist, Reid, Daschle, Hastert and Lott were and who they represented.
The difference now is this: Most Americans dont even know the name, the voice or face of the republican minority leader in the senate nor the republican in the house today.
Worse, A surprising number of politcal junkies now cannot name the two republicans in the house and senate.
UNopposed statements from Reid and Pelosi are considered to be “truth” by those who do not pay as much attention as we do. And “truth” is what they will go by when they go to vote in Nov. 2008.
Who in the republican party should be contacted about this problem? Who is responsible?
We need to cut this cancer now before it’s too late in 2008
"Well now, Jim, no, I really don't expect you to do that...Remember, All great change in America begins at the dinner table."
Why would a someone as liberal as Giuliani work to appoint conservatives to the court?
The world is not divided into two monolithic blocks of people labelled “conservative” and “liberal”. It’s a continuum, and Rudy would nominate SC justices further toward the conservative end of the continuum than Hillary would. The last thing we need is SC justices who’ve bought their positions from the Clinton machine, and base their decisions on PC sociobabble like “It takes a village to raise a child”.
Yeah but... isn't that a "vote for Hillary"? That's what I keep reading at this site.
enjoy the thread. I especially like post #56
If our only object was to stop HIllary, why don’t all the republicans simply switch to the democratic party and vote in the primary for John Edwards?
I’ll tell you — because there are more important things in life than “stopping hillary”. Hillary is not the problem, she is the symptom.
I get the impression some people would in fact vote for Obama, Edwards, or Gore if it would stop Hillary.
Of course not. I didn’t support Arnold. But like you, I don’t reside in California and had no say in the matter. I’m just saying that the stakes weren’t nearly as high.
And Arnold did at least posture himself as a “fiscal” conservative with no previous record to prove he was lying.
Rudy doesn’t have the same luxury.
Don’t get overly sanctimonious. Presidents nominate justices to the Supreme Court. THAT is where the conservatism counts more than any other place.
While libs give us Ginsberg and Breyer, psuedo-libs give us Stephens and Souter. There really isn’t that much difference between the four.
Way to go Jim!
I am sick of the “I’ll vote for any Republican” contingent. Electing a RINO just means a slightly slower slide into socialism.
>Unless we subscribe to radically different definitions of “socialism”<
My definition of socialism is suicide.
And I asked you to do a google on “socialist.” I will not join a third party and cause a fracture in the Republican Party. The last time that happened, we got Slick Willy and the Hildebeast. I would consider Fred Thompson IF he ever decides to run, but he’s not my ideal candidate either.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
That person STILL wouldn’t be Rudy McRomney...
You might want to look into Rudy’s appointments record. And I will never ever accept or support or vote for an abortionist, gay rights loving, gun grabbing liberal for president or leader of my party anyway. Rudy is totally unacceptable and is out of the question.
Why are you such a defeatist?
“I dont thing the party has learned the lesson of 2006 yet.”
Neither do I!
That may be. Time will tell. But one would not necessarily come to that conclusion to look at the polls, or read the articles that accompany his various visits to towns and cities across the nation.
The election is a long way off, in a sense. Lots could happen. But conversely, the first debate is just weeks away. And at this moment in time, the race is between Rudy and McCain, with Rudy in front, and Romney also in the mix. That is a fact. And PS - I am one of the conservatives here...and Rudy is far from a socialist. I think it's hyperbole to call him one.
This is why you are my hero.
I agree that a substantial thid party draw would ensure a Hillary presidency. But I disagree that she must be loving the idea of a Rudy nomination -- Rudy couldn't win the FR vote, but he is capable of winning the national vote and defeating Hillary. Hillary is hating that idea. And it would be a very sad chapter in US political history if FR played into Hillary's hands, by drawing off Republican votes from Rudy to an unelectable third party candidate.
You pick the candidate in the primaries that most closely resembles your views. If you think Rudy will be the best President, vote for him. But you are voting for him based on electability you are going to lose every time.
Democrats always pretend to be conservatives to get elected. Remember when the reporter in 2004 tried to get Kerry to admit he was a liberal during the debate? He couldn't do it. The 2004 Democratic Convention was a stage production for fake patriotism. They win by the narrowest margins by convincing the mush in the middle to give them the benefit of the doubt.
What happens when the Republicans start acting and talking like liberals? They lose. Every time we vote for a squishy, quasi-conservative because he's "electable" we get a bigger, more powerful government, and the balance of power between the three branches gets further out of whack.
If the Republicans continue to operate under this "bigger tent" theory, our choices will soon change from Democrat or Republican to Communist or Socialist. If the Democrats didn't shoot themselves in the foot in their eagerness to push us over the edge every time they get in power we would be there already.
Hell no! We ain’t giving up the fight.
“I find it implausible to associate Rudy with the meaning of socialism I learned by my own skin while living under it.”
Precision is not a FR strength. While the rest of America uses words like liberal, conservative and middle of the road, at FR anybody not a social conservative is a socialist.
And up to the post number here, there has not been one single word in this thread about national security, world terror threat.
The site is less and less in touch with reality, because those issues are near the top for voters.
“You might try paying a little attention to some of the conservatives here. I think the chances of Rudy ever getting the nomination or of becoming president are somewhere between slim to none and not a snowballs chance in hell.”
Sweet to the ears. Those country clubbin establishment types are only a vocal minority. They will get their collective (pun intended) azzes kicked in the primaries. The nomination will eventually go to a conservative. But the swift surrender by the hierarchy of the GOP is a battle as important as the nomination. Conservatives need to work to kick them out. Freepers need to join your local GOP Party/Club/Central Committee and start changing things again.
1) “Social Conservative” is a term ACTUALLY used to describe those to whom social issues (anti-abortion, anti-gay, etc) are far more important than any other issues.
2) Ok, so your definition of “socialism” is? (and no, it’s not “anything I disgree with”.)
If the party nominates a candidate that alienates and drives away a significant portion of the base, that’s the fault of the party and the candidate, not the people who choose to vote their conscience.
>Wasn’t even a FReeper in 2000, but supported Alan Keyes & then voted for W.<
Neither was I, but I worked very hard for Pat Buchanan & then voted for W. Alan Keyes wasn’t on the ballot in Washington State. But never again will I compromise my principles to vote for “the lesser of two evils”.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I have thought I have been on a very liberal site during these past few weeks.
No. I would hope not.
Yeah, like Gerald Ford, the last complete Rino president? Remember his nominee? Stevens..He’s still cursing our lives thirty years after Ford left office.
No Rudy. No way.
“In my opinion, everyone is looking at this election backwards. They are all picking their primary candidate based on how they will fare in the general.”
That’s what the dems did in 2004.
Look what that got them.
Cultural Marxism leads ultimately to economic Marxism...
That's not an obvious fact. I think a Thompson vs. Clinton race (for example) could go either way.
Both parties are advocating government control of the means of production?
“My definition of socialism is suicide.” - Not every suicide is a socialist, although some are; and what to do about such socialists as kim, fidel, hillary and the rest? It would be great for the mankind were they to off themselves, but they do not. Thus your definition is erroneous. Even if you expand it into “mass suicide”, it would not be able to stand. Look at all the collectivist places - despite mass murders and general brutality, they survive.