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?
We will continue the good fight, JimRob. It looks like the best shot may be Fred Thompson. There will never be another Reagan, but he is a good man.
I’ll miss his posts too, but I think the ban is permanent.
So calling attention to you playing the “cheney’s daugher is a lesbian” card is a personal swipe?
Hi, Joe. Given that this forum was largely behind Keyes, I can see that neither of us is worried that they’re freaking out now over Rudy’s national frontrunner status :-)
Time to say goodnight.
At least Giuliani might rely on folks like Ted Olsen to help him make nominations, and most nominees will likely be Republicans, making it more likely that they will be strict constructionists. Hillary! will not.
If (as most of us hope) Fred Thompson enters the race and wins the primary, we ultimately might not need to have this conversation.
One is Thompson and the other is Gingrich.
Hillary interned under Robert Treuhaft and espouses to this day the "tell any lie for power" of radical activist Saul Alinsky.
Hillary is on record as being out to take things from us for her version of the common good, precisely the Marxist from each according to his ability to each according to his greed.
Hillary was complicit in the treasonous sale of U.S. defense secrets for ChiCom campaign cash--and will repeat this treason.
There is no one in either party remotely as dangerous as she.
There is no one in the Republican party in the same universe of treason, treachery and totalitarianism as she.
Self-immolators to the contrary notwithstanding, there is a clear and present danger and it is She Who Has Advertised Her Surrender In the War Against Islamofascism.
Then comes sharia law--as is the spreading trend in pockets of France, England and elsewhere in Europe.
She proudly demands more treasonous negotiations with those who would behead all of us infidels.
A stay-at-home in the coming contest against Hillary and the Seventh-Century Death Cult is a vote for the onset of the New Dark Ages.
There is only one bastion left--Tony Blankley, Mark Steyn, Melanie Phillips and a host of others are sounding the alarm.
To give it up to the party of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi is to bow before the beheaders.
An undervote is an underwriting of the Mission to Damascus--and more grovelling, more abasement, more appeasement.
Socialism? Human Events, John Fund, George Wills, Steve Forbes all find Rudy's fiscal conservatism in NYC nothing short of miraculous.
The Reagan policy was the economic and security counter to the Carteresque malaise. Anything else is revisionism.
Further this deponent sayeth not.
I agree with you about quid.....a good diversity of perspectives is critical for healthy debate, and it’s important to have discourse with people you disagree with, even if it just serves to sharpen and strengthen your own positions.
FWIW, overall, It’s more like California than it is like FR - simple reality.vvv
= = =
We must have an ELECTABLE CONSERVATIVE . . . as close to one as possible.
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."
-George Washington (The REAL George W.)
This is what you get when you support the party instead of ideas.
“I am going to ignore any personal swipes taken at me on this thread. I think I am making myself clear to the specific person I am addressing.”
I don’t know any of us who knows anybody else here well enough to take true personal swipes. Just have fun, Veronica. Smile when you type at your opponents. Especially me.
Your points are well made. One step forward, two steps back is better than annhilation at the hands of Hillary or Obama.
There comes a time when you have to draw a line in the sand. Rudy’s supporters on this board have insinuated that FR only represents the view of a minority of “conservatives”. If our views are in the minority on the subject of Rudy, I think it is only because we are more informed.
What Rudy’s supporters can’t deny is that we are a strong voice in the conservative internet community and we receive a fair share of media coverage outside the internet. I’m all for using that voice to just say NO to Rudy and his liberal views. The Rudy supporters need to hear loud and clear that we just aren’t going to stand here and be run over by them. Conservatives need to see that someone does really believe that we can win with a conservative candidate before the lie that our only choice is Rudy or Hillary is so firmly embedded that it becomes truth.
I see you drawing a line, Jim and I’m standing behind you.
I see from your page that you’re a friend of Bill Wilson. Then you know the main reason why most people fail the program is because they’re not honest with themselves. If you are truly a truth_seeker and are honest with yourself, you will investigate rudy’s actions after the OTHER Islamic terror incidents in NYC. After the Statue of Liberty ordeal, he called for gun control. He supports a sanctuary city for illegal aliens, and it just so happens that several of the 9/11 hijackers were illegal aliens at the time of the attack and would have enjoyed sanctuary in his city. Honestly, really honestly, rudy is not as strong on WOT as other candidates and if that is your main plank, you will look elsewhere.
Unfortunately, if history is a guide.....FR will support whoever the republican party gives us to vote for.
I truly hope this is not the case.....
This all gets back to the same question that I posed earlier. The personal preferences of the owner of this site aside, are pro-Rudy posters to be allowed to post here????
If so - then the anti-Rudy crowd will have to suck it up, debate the issues, defend their candidates of choice and see how it all pans out.
OK, I’ll take your word for it. Just please don’t send me a picture.
“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,”
You need to reread the thread.
“One step forward, two steps back is better than annhilation at the hands of Hillary or Obama.”
FWIW, overall, It's more like California than it is like FR - simple reality.
More donations to FR come from California than any other state.
I'm not here to support anything else.
Socialism is simply antithetical to the republic our Founders established.
Conservatives are tired of being told they support Hillary simply because they don’t support Rudy.
While I’m certain pro-rudy people are tired of things said about them as well, this is a conservative site, and conservatives are getting tired of being attacked by pro-rudy people. One is calling conservative liars, one said we would have the blood of aborted babies on our hands if we didn’t vote for Rudy who supports abortion.
I don’t think the pro-rudy people realise how bizarre that was, seeing a pro-lifer post that we should vote for a pro-abortion candidate or else we’d be responsible for abortion.
It was like hearing someone say they would help load up jews on the train for Auchwitz if they thought getting the train to move quicker might mean fewer people were put on the train.
I won’t - I will not support socialism, and I won’t support anybody that doesn’t strongly support the second amendment.
But as mayor of that city he was going to support liberal policies. For example, no way he wouldn't want federal welfare for illegals, because he had a ton of them living in his city.
Will he become more conservative as he runs for the whole country, not just NYC? I think the only honest answer is he will somewhat, but not on all the issues. Many of them he will stick with just to show that he is consistent. So the best hope is that Thompson overtakes him because most people here don't like McCain and who else is going to do it?
This is how I look at it. If Rudy wins the nomination then we have already lost the election. The general election is then about damage control.
Bump for an excellent anti-Hillary rant!
Well, he’s certainly no George Bush is he?
NO, YOU MUST VOTE FOR A 3RD PARTY CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE OR YOU KEEP THE NATION IN A CONTINUAL SHIFT TO THE LEFT. FACE IT...A VOTE FOR GIULIANI IS A VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT.
That's a crock of crap!!!
I was here in 1999 and most FReepers supported GW Bush. In fact, JimRob bounced many rightwingers who were just here to cause trouble and rightly so.
This time around Jim`s not gonna stand for BS from you Rudy loving Republican leftwingers, who think trashing conservative candidates and promoting liberal candidates is a good thing.
Btw, what happened to ALL your posts promoting Rudy Giuliani for POTUS, and ALL your posts trashing Ronald Reagan? Haven't seen any lately. Maybe you're scared Jim's working on you next. LOL
If elected, I believe he would. After election, the base can be ignored. (FWIW, I think Pres. Bush and the ‘pubs were hurt more on the spending and big gov’t issues than anything else in 2006)
So you think Rudy MIGHT pick a conservative justice because of Ted Olsen?
I can still recall a post-presidency interview with Bush 41, and the topic being Souter. The elder was obviously distraught in his choice and kept saying that his advisors ASSURED him Souter was the only conversative that would pass the confirmation hearings.
That did a lot of good for us, didn’t it?
Smart players will decline the Giuliani Gambit!
I'm with you on not supporting a third party candidate.
Any real conservative candidate who isn't some Hillary put-up and who really wants to win will put his name in the Republican primaries.
Why? Because that's where the conservative voters are.
Ok, we’ll pick an item from my list and let you go for it. Please name the founding fathers you think would go for abortion. How about partial birth abortion? How about taxpayer funded abortion? Do you think the founding fathers would say that abortionism is next to Godliness or would they think it’s a purely evil and barbaric practice? How many founding fathers thought they were writing “A woman’s right to choose abortion” into the constitution? Please name them and provide examples from their quotations and writings on the topic. When did the founding fathers debate abortion rights at the constitutional convention? Which founders were on each side of the debate? Where are the minutes or notes of the debate? Where are the letters, books, etc, written by our founders regarding the big abortion debate?
Please answer these questions, then we’ll tackle the next issue.
If you can't see the difference between the two, nobody will explain it to you.
The comment stands. Up yours.
Unlike the rest of us. LOL
It will be very difficult to win this presidential election cycle with a candidate perceived as "hard conservative".
We _might_ have had that chance, IF we could win exactly the same states that Bush won in 2004. But we can't, because Ohio is going to be a problem. As someone wrote in another thread recently, the Republican party is in deep doo-doo in that state. It may be impossible for ANY Republican presidential candidate of ANY persuasion to capture Ohio in 2008.
There is also a problem with the [formerly] "reliably red" states "turning purple". Cases in point would be:
- New Hampshire: seems like the Democrats have been winning this once-conservative state with increasing frequency lately
- Arizona: didn't they just VOTE DOWN a gay-marriage ban? What the heck is going on there?
- New Mexico: another once-reliable state that is slipping from the Republican grasp.
Hard conservatives aren't guaranteed these states any more, because the states themselves are no longer hard conservative.
On the other hand, there are blue states that Giulianni could actually WIN. Cases in point would be:
- New Jersey: Rudy is doing VERY well there. I think he could take it (even though he probably doesn't have a chance of winning New York across the Hudson; it's just too damned blue to hope Republicans can ever win there again).
- Pennsylvania: Although Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are 'rat cities, the heartland of PA is red. It's a battleground state and Rudy can probably take it easily.
- Florida: Rudy could cut through the purple haze to win there, too.
If we can take NJ, PA, and FL, we can sustain the loss of Ohio and win. But there is only one Republican I can see, capable of winning in New Jersey.
Political fortunes ebb and flow, like the tides. I think it's safe to say that at the moment, the fortunes of the Republican party in general, and of the hard-right in particular, are on the ebb. The war in Iraq is going to be a BIG problem, better not kid ourselves on this. Any candidate we put up is going to have to be perceived by the mushy middle to have "credentials" in regard to "terrorism" (remember that the American public, by and large, still _thinks_ it is supposed to be a "war on terror", regardless of what this struggle REALLY is about). Rudy has those credentials. What does Fred Thompson have?
There's no denying that we took significant losses in 2006. How might the loss of BOTH houses of Congress otherwise be seen?
We cannot afford to lose the Presidency in '08. We have to be pragmatic, shift tactics if necessary, and DO what is necessary to hold that office.
2008 will be a "defensive" election for Republicans. We must hold the line, try to minimize losses in the Congress (even pick up a few seats), and hold the Presidency (which gives us an edge for judicial picks for the next 4 years, in which Stevens and Ginsburg will have to be replaced on the Supreme Court).
Of course, one can stand hard on principles - NO COMPROMISE. And lose.
Or we can be pragmatic, compromise, and win.
Which is better?
Gee - you live a boring life. :)
If Rudy wins the primary, then you must support him.
***Why is that? Is this a GOP website? NO. It’s a conservative one. It’s just me in that voting booth.
If Rudy wins the primary, and you support the democrat or an unelectable 3rd party, then I am out of here and probably more than just me because we love the US, and opposing Rudy after the primary is supporting the destruction of the US as we know it.
***Then Free Republic will be a socon site once again. At least we’ll have that to look forward to. Another good reason not to vote for rudy.
If the Republican party writes off the pro life, pro liberty, pro gun planks, well, lets just say it will lose a great deal of respect, and Im predicting a great deal of support. I can just about guarantee you that Free Republic will become much more anti RINO, anti liberal, anti big government than its ever been. If we are left with no conservative leadership and no conservative majority to worry about maintaining, then I think itll be open season on all RINOs from the top down and there will be a complete overhaul in the works.
148 posted on 02/15/2007 12:13:35 AM PST by Jim Robinson (Electable gave us Gerald Ford and Bob Dole. Voting for the right-wing kook gave us Reagan. ~ A.C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Much agreed. But he's only a somewhat less dangerous globalist.
Shrillerry--HARXIST--would race us into the global government at the speed of light.
Rudy would likely take a train or maybe a bus to get there.
We must do all we can to see Fred Thompson or Hunter be the GOP nominee. No small task, seems to me.
“If elected, I believe he would. After election, the base can be ignored”
Not if Rudy wants to slap around his fellow big spending repubs in congress. He will really need the base then.
I am not so afraid of Hillary that I would believe that I need a liberal to beat a liberal.
I am voting my conscience in the Primary.