[Jim Robinson]

FU, troll!! If you refuse to defend our God-given Liberty, then you are not part of the solution; you are part of the problem!!

You are a freaking coward!! Get the hell OUT!!

[counterpunch]

If you refuse to defend our God-given Liberty, then you are not part of the solution; you are part of the problem!!

I'm all about defending out God-given Liberty.
We all have the same objectives, the only question is how we go about best achieving them.
It is a question of emphasis and how we frame the agenda.
We are most successful when we work from the broadest common ground.
Fiscal conservatism is a sure winner, everytime. And now more than ever in this political climate.
Republicans can achieve anything they want, and with broad popular support, so long as they frame it as limiting the size and scope of government.

There are two arguments for every conservative agenda item.
Both seek to achieve the same results, but one will enjoy more popular support that increases Conservative's power than the other.
The Tea Parties are saying Republicans need to maximize that, and avoid more divisive debates, if they want to be successful long-term.
 

[little jeremiah]

Zotfest here. Have fun, one at least.

[darrellmaurina]

In light of the recent proliferation of anti-Christian and anti-”social issues” posts on Free Republic in the last few months by people attacking Rick Santorum and Santorum supporters, I believe those of us who are Santorum supporters would do well to review these two 2010 threads and the posts by Jim Robinson reiterating his commitment to not tolerating a pro-gay or pro-abortion agenda:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2627138/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2627159/posts

Right now, I believe it's best for those of us who support Santorum to simply realize that people on the other side also have strong feelings, and simply “turn the other cheek” to well-meaning FReepers who sincerely support a different candidate. We've had too many “circular firing squads” already among Republicans. We need to unite behind a conservative agenda to defeat Mitt Romney now and Barack Obama this fall, and vicious attacks back against Newt Gingrich or his supporters don't help those goals any more than similar attacks on Rick Santorum or us.

Long-term, however, this issue is much bigger than whether Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich is the best candidate. The issue is whether we're going to have a conservative movement based on an appreciation for moral values or a European-style secular conservative movement. Newt Gingrich doesn't want a secular conservative movement any more than Rick Santorum does, but as this 2010 thread shows, there are powerful secular conservative forces which want that very badly.

As for me, I've said many times that while I prefer one of the two candidates, I can live with either. If Newt Gingrich is the Republican nominee, I expect to work as hard as I can to convince conservative evangelicals that Gingrich is the only viable alternative to President Obama and that supporting groups like the Constitution Party in November will only help Obama in a Gingrich-Obama race. I will also remind fellow evangelicals that some of the key civil rulers who supported the Reformation were men whose moral lives were far worse than the worst things Gingrich has ever been accused of doing. I have **ALREADY** tried to remind evangelicals that Gingrich has given good reason to believe he is personally repentant, and we ought to accept that at face value since nobody has given any contrary evidence.

I'm guessing that Roman Catholic FReepers will do the same, working to remind Roman Catholic conservatives that Gingrich is a faithful Mass-going Catholic whose marriage has been formally accepted by the Roman Catholic Church, and that he has pledged to defend the Roman Catholic Church against Obama’s health care mandates. While there are many things we will never know publicly, I think the difficulty of getting the Roman Catholic Church to accept the legitimacy of a third marriage is very good evidence of the sincerity of Gingrich's repentance.

Long term, however, I think it has become clear that some of the people who strongly oppose Rick Santorum do so not primarily because they believe Newt Gingrich is a better candidate, but because they oppose the social issues platform which Santorum has made a centerpiece of his political career.

Once this Republican primary campaign is over and we have a Republican nominee, whether it is Gingrich or Santorum (please, God, do **NOT** let it be Romney), something needs to be done to remind people that Free Republic is not supporting a “values free” version of the conservative movement. Newt Gingrich doesn't want a European-style secular conservative political party any more than Rick Santorum does — and Jim Robinson made quite clear in 2010 after the last election where he stands on that issue.

Free Republic is not perfect. Neither is anything else in this sin-filled world, including us or the candidates we support. However, Jim Robinson has repeatedly taken stands that conservative Christians should support.

Not only do we need to respect his rules in his house — private property is pretty important for conservatives — but the fact is that Jim Robinson has stood for biblical and moral truth on the key areas where the modern conservative movement is divided between secular conservatives and social issues conservatives.

Let's give credit where credit is due, follow Jim Robinson's rules, and remember that when things got tough two years ago, Jim Robinson stood on the side of conservative moral values, not for the other type of values-free secular conservatism.