Posted on 04/03/2007 7:24:18 PM PDT by Reaganesque
It is always disappointing to be reminded that there are people in the world who do not like you so much that they are willing to debase themselves and others in order to get their way. We, as conservatives face this from the Left on a day to day basis. But when such action comes from another supposed Conservative, that is truly disappointing.
The posters at DU think nothing of swearing and posting the most filthy, perverted and twisted things about their political rivals. We here at FR are, for the most part, better than that. At least we try to be. Unfortunately, there's always someone who proves that both sides have their ugly side.
I have posted a number of pro-Mitt Romney threads recently as have many others. I discovered this afternoon that several of them have been the victims of childish and down right purile dirty tricks. Now, political dirty tricks are nothing new and nor are they uncommon on either side of the aisle. But some simply cross the line of decency. Such is the case with whomever played their little game of messing with the Keywords on these Pro-Romney threads. Here are four examples:
Romney Tops Republicans in Fundraising
KEYWORDS: ANTICHRIST; CULT; FUNDRAISING; MITTRAPESCHILDREN; ROMNEY; Click to Add Keyword
Why I Think You Should Vote For My Dad
KEYWORDS: 2008; ELECTIONPRESIDENT; ELECTIONS; MITTBEATSHISKIDS; MITTISTHEANTICHRIST; ROMNEY; Click to Add Keyword
Parsing the Polls: Answering the Mormon Question
KEYWORDS: CULT; JOEYSMITHDELUSION; Click to Add Keyword
KEYWORDS: ELECTION; FRED; FREDTHOMPSON; MITTISTHEANTICHRIST; ROMNEY; THOMPSON; VP; Click to Add Keyword
People, campaigning can be a hard and painful thing. You have to have a thick skin to run for office and heaven knows, all candidates take their blows, some more than others. But there is such a thing as decency. And this little prank doesn't just cross that line, it obliterates it.
Disagree with the thread? Fine. Present your arguments. You don't like the candidate? Great. Tell me why and make an attempt at intelligent conversation. That's the way this place is supposed to work. But, resorting to such sophomoric, vulgar and quite frankly bigoted childishness is beneath contempt. If you can't manage a reasonable level of maturity, then there's a whole bunch of like minds over at DU you can have fun with.
Name calling, shouting --
these are un-Freeper-like things.
Why don't you calm down?
You know FA, for someone who says he didn’t like CP, you sure do know a lot about them.
I understand the infighting during a nomination process...and starting so early on...this was bound to happen.
What I fail to see is that some respected Freepers (in my book anyway) don't seem to grasp the ramifications of losing all three branches of government.
Especially when the CIC may be Hillary Clinton...something NOBODY in here should ever want to see.
We either believe fighting the WOT is prudent...or we adopt Bill Clinton's theory that, "We can always kill them tomorrow".
If the shoe fits...
In spite of what the JulieAnnie Apologists think--the conservative base DOES matter. It matters for the energy, enthusiasm, volunteer time and most importantly TURNOUT.
I can only cite my own situation as an example. I worked for Pres Bush in both elections—contributing cash, working the phones, working on election day, taking people to the polls, doing paperwork. If Guiliani is nominated—I will do nothing. In fact, I will do my best to encourage other Republicans to NOT vote for him. I know it’s only a few votes—but I have already convinced a handful of relatives (who normally vote Republican) to NOT vote for a liberal like Rudy. Just citing his GUN GRABBING attitude was enough to turn a few pro-Second Amdt relatives against him. They were not aware of HOW LIBERAL and how anti- gun Guiliani really is.
Very EASY CHOICE ACTUALLY...lol Enjoy your new Party!!
You’ve noticed that too? LOL
Between that and not supporting candidates who are actually in double digits, I think we’ve got someone here who just plays a game.
I don’t get what they don’t get, but given their posts, I’m happy to report that we aren’t on the same wavelength as a lot of those posters, DCPatriot.
Did you read that the Democrats want to stop using the phrase War on Terror and purge it from government literature? It’s on Drudge right now.
Oops - I read Drudge. Am I going to get banned? LOL
You are Example A of proving my point.
Ooooh - you’re going to vote third party.
Why, if I was a whiny boy like so many of the men here, I’d be pinging Jim. LOL
Well one thing is certain. I could understand it if this was not a conservative site.
Rudy is not a conservative. That is the problem. The party is split between two major factions and no one is going to budge.
I will budge some. But support for Rudy is giving it all up.
Almost all of the other declared candidates, including the possible undecided, I could throw support behind.
I think that is compromise.
I'd like to see Hunter on the ticket, to gain experience and name recognition, as well as bring his experience in having been in and in dealing with the military, as well as his conservative stance on other issues.
Strictly on the issues, so far Hunter is my pick.
That does not necessarily take into account all the variables in the calculus of elections, and I will do my best to factor out the wishful thinking on my part.
McCain does not have the appeal, partly because he has crapped thoroughly on the First Amendment in regards to political speech, at the most critical time during election cycles. For me he is a nevermind.
You cannot very well swear to uphold the Constitution when you are an architect of the infringement of such a basic right.
That same sentiment goes for anyone who has supported gun control. Again, a basic Constitutional right infringement.
That pretty much eliminates the MSM front runners for me. Mitt has only garnered some mild derision by just now signing up for a life membership in the NRA, as if he were John Kerry going to 'git himself one of them huntin' licences...' Eleventh hour converts are not fooling anyone, and it reeks of playing by the numbers.
At any rate, we apparently disagree.
It is going to be an interesting election...
Regards,
Smokin' Joe
Actually, this very thread is indicative of a culture that rejects compromise and discourse and rewards dogmatism and ideological purity.
One subset of this forum has delineated themselves as the 'in-group' and another subset of Freepers as the 'out-group'.
DC, quite frankly, a lot will happen between now and the GOP convention, so the hand-wringing is a bit premature.
Until then, this is full-contact politics like we last saw on FR in 1999. I sincerely doubt the various GOP candidates' staffers are gonna comply with Marquis de Queensbury rules if a juicy video clip drilling an opponent falls on their lap. Their only quandry will be whether to make a TV commercial from it or put it on YouTube.
The clintons are playing the Religious Right like a fiddle.
The irony of the clintons manipulating the RR to help to elect hillary clinton must not be lost in this obsession with Rudy.
The real danger to the RR isn't Rudy. It's the clintons.
WHY THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT MUST MOBILIZE AGAINST HILLARY:
CLINTON CONFLATES EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS AND ISLAMO-FASCIST TERRORISTS
AFTERWORD: A Note to the Religious Right
Putting doctrinal purity ahead of making sure a defective and dangerous clinton never again controls this country is pre-clinton thinking.
We no longer have the luxury of time or circumstance to massage our sensibilities, to indulge our indignations.
We will not survive another clinton. (We may yet not survive the first.) .
Some people must be terribly frightened that Mitt Romney will defeat their candidate to consider your posts a threat.
I submit that many of those votes came from conservatives disgusted with the Republican Party's move to the left.
If you want to ACCELERATE the Party's move to the LEFT,,,
JulieAnnie is JUST THE MAN FOR THE JOB!!
P.S. We all know that those votes aren't needed and TURNOUT doesn't matter anymore!...LOL
How tolerant, diverse and inclusive of those filthy liberal animals.
Appreciated (for both of your respective threads).
There are 2 types of Conservatives. Financial and Social. I know of few people who are 100% on both.
THIRTEEN MILLION even....
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.