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?
Somehow, I don't think you are sorry enough. ;O)
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.
***Good point. Well said, worth repeating.
Sad that posting the truth about Reagan is considered anti-Reagan. Ya’ll have hysterics when I remind freepers that Reagan signed an amnesty bill.
That's some serious stuff you're talking there. I supported Arnold, but remember his "Hillary" was a guy named Cruz Bustamonte, a MeCHa racist wingnut liberal; the prospect of Bustamonte as Governor of California during the second Dubya election, was pretty ugly. No matter what the McClintock folks tell you, it was either Cruz or Arnold.
Arnold's still better than Cruz, but that ain't saying much. I just can't respect the intellectual acumen of anybody who buys into minimum wage hikes and global warming environmentalism. Give me a break.
A consolation is that Cruz would have been worse, especially with regard to illegal immigration and racial favoritism.
Arnold "Never Trust an Austrian" Schwarzenegger is only governor of California. But he's all it takes to tell me that Giulini as President of the United States would be a bad risk. Seriously, I think about the opposition, no matter which candidate, Gore, Hillary, Obama?? Edwards? They are all of them as worthless as paper towels and whoever won would become the most loathed president in history. They're frauds and people would find out fast.
Rudy would be worse. He's not a fraud, he's mostly liberal. He'd do what Jim Robinson eloquently describes -- deeply erode the main-message Republican values. They're values that appeal to thousands of Democrats who don't know that they're really Republicans, but they know what they like when the see it. Republicans don't need to go left to win.
“Do you really expect me to do that?”
What do I win?
What conserns me is how many so called conservatives have bought into the baseless idea that only Rudy can win, when in reality, he is the LEAST able to do so. If we run a left wing Republican against a left wing Democrat, the conservatives will not vote, and the Reagan Democrats will vote their own ticket.
Amen! Jim has got the pitchfork and is cleaning out the stables.
I’m the sorriest thing you’ve ever seen. Just ask anyone who’s seen me.
That's the real question isn't it? I asked earlier on this thread so far without an answer: What makes anyone believe Rudy will even go for even one conservative for SCOTUS?
As for myself, I don't think he would go for any conservatives based upon his positions on abortion, gun control, gay marriage, etc. Those positions do not mesh with an "original constuctionist" interpretation of our Constitution.
But I pray not.
No, I don’t and hope you never will..may God grant you and your family strength and courage. Forever a FreeRepublic.
I am sorry but I must admit that I ended up googling it. McConnell was on the tip of my tongue and it wouldn't come to me. I heard of Boehner before but it would have never come to me.
You are right. Good post.
Look again. She’s not here.
I prefer "nothing".
“No More Spam!”
That would pretty much knock out half of the Rudy detactors....plus at least Mia had cool graphics.
To me it looks like all you are doing is hoping Rudy will change from what he has been, a liberal. Heck, I know you have seen the info spiff,narses, flashbunny and others have posted.
Rudy's own words on abortion (taxpayer supported? Yeah, right)
Banning of guns.
Judge picks? Not when he thinks Ginsberg is an honest one.
Border issues? Made New York a sanctuary city for illegals. And so on. (do I really need to mention the homosexual agenda?) Only one issue, the WOT, he would be good on. The rest, he would work with the dims, to destroy this country. Not intentionally. Just with good intentions.
I do not agree with your assessment that the other candidates are certain losers. But at what point do we pick a liberal just so we can come out victorious? If we pick Rudy, then the Republicans will have picked a winning candidate, but it will be the liberals’ candidate that wins.
One fine post Jim. Thank you.
What would you call someone that thinks ILLEGALS have a Constitutional RIGHT to WELFARE?
If not socialist what warped classification do we put that under? Communist perhaps?
As active and large as the board is its still a micropscopic (and unrepresentative) portion of even just the Republican Party, much less the electorate as a whole.
= = =
But more related to our level of motivation in various situations than to our numbers.
We seem to influence quite out of proportion to our numbers
we feel it’s crucial.
Trouble is, we only seem to feel that way when it’s the 11th hour and 59th minute . . . and this election . . . that coiuld well be far too late.
Your seeming willingness to attempt to equate these things to conservatism is just another example of creeping socialism into our society.
No, because GWB supports some form of amnesty for illegal aliens does not make it conservative. And no, Dick Cheney’s undying love for his child does not make the gay agenda conservative. If you think it does, you’ve gone over the edge.
Crime going down and lower taxes in NYC are great, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to accept abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, gun control, asset forfeiture, illegal alien sanctuaries, liberalism, socialism, etc, etc, etc.
If Rudy is nominated I still wouldn't want a democrat president. I think our greatest weakness is the lack of a true conservative majority in Congress. They would block a republican president's liberal indiscretions, just as they blocked Bush on illegals.
No sir. The men and women of FREE REPUBLIC should continue to do what they have always done and come to represent in the Conservative world ... patient and persistent, aerticulate and eloquent, no compromise agitation from within, for all the principles you have stated.
Look for yourself. “Nobody by that name”. He wasn’t just banned or suspended. He was deleted. Same with Mia T.
Honetly, if the founding fathers suddenly showed up today, there would be much they would be proud of and there would probably be much they would be disappointed in. But if I recall, they held many long and spirited debates during the time of the founding documents. I'm quite sure that many walked away very proud of some things and very disappointed in others.
Sp you think he’d side with the dims while trying to clear up the issues I mentioned? That wouldn’t be possible....he’d need the base.
As I recall there was some discussion a few years ago about support for the Republican presidential candidate by FreeRepublic. As I recall the discussion was about whether or not FreeRepublic would become known as a Republican web site instead of a Conservative Web site. Since that time there has been a lot of support for Republican candidates at FreeRepublic, not because they have been so good but because they have been so much better than the alternative even when they were bad.
Undoubtedly, FreeRepublic has drawn some Republicans, in contrast to Conservatives, because of that. Something might need to be done about that. Letting the debate continue among the posters might serve you best, at least for now.
But that does not mean you have to let the name "FreeRepublic" be associated with candidates of whom you disapprove. Instead let it be associated with opposition to candidates of whom you disapprove even more.
Most of the time my vote has not been "for" someone for president.
Most of the time my vote has been "against" someone.
I consider the person in favor of whom I cast my vote to be the lesser of two bad choices.
Sometimes it's a matter of taking a step in the wrong direction as opposed to a leap in the wrong direction.
You don't have to step out in favor of someone of whom you disapprove in order to step out against someone of whom you disapprove even more.
In closing, support for a third party at the national level would be a leap in the wrong direction. It is too likely to lead to another 48% president of the wrong kind. Note that I wrote "at the national level". Support at the lower levels is well indicated. Seems to me most third parties want to go for the top position too soon. They don't have a foundation suitable to make them anything but a spoiler.
Finally, "The Constitution is not a suicide pack." Is FreeRepublic? The answer should be "no". Don't let them get you down, you're doing good. And good luck keeping up with all the responses I expect your post is going to draw.
There are only two people that I can think of that are truly conservative AND HAVE ENOUGH NAME RECOGNITION to fit the bill.
One is Thompson and the other is Gingrich.
The policies of the country are supposed to be determined and expressed in one place: The Congress
The president’s duties are to faithfully enforce and execute the laws of the United States.
If Rudy could get elected and follow that plan, I would have no problem. But over the years, the presidency has been changed and we are drifting from the plan.
Wow....so she is [banned]....my bad.
The two posters I’ve seen banned today were unique cases. One was one of your Rudy buddies, who accidentally or otherwise posted that Fred Thompson had contributed to Hillary Clinton, rather than Van Hilleary. He/she also had tried to link Thompson’s religion to something it wasn’t a short time earlier.
The other fellow, another of my long time nemeses going back to the last century, made the mistake of ticking off the owner of this site when he was trying to make a point. Very bad timing. We are guests in Mr. Robinson’s house.
As for me, if I didn’t have liberal Republicans to argue with, I might get bored and have to do yardwork. My best to you.
I am frankly surprised we haven't heard more from him, but I think he's got his hands full with something else.
Jim, the Rudybots can’t take the truth and arn’t adult enough to take a challenge so many of them are also
at another site, W.A. so they can feed each other’s egos.
Rudy won’t be nominated so I say, enjoy W.A. Rudybots.
LOL. You too, Luke.
However, I cannot in good conscience do anything that would put either Hillary or Obama in the White House. Rudy may support evil ideologies, but I don’t think the man himself is evil. I don’t envision Rudy finding ways to silence the opposition in the way I am certain Hillary and Obama (as the puppet of the far left) will.
Hillary and Obama are pure evil. I believe they are demons. If the choice is between misguided and evil, I’ll go with misguided.
No way. NO WAY would Tom McClintock have beaten Bustamante. I know CA voters.
If you can't see the difference between the two, nobody will explain it to you.
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.