Posted on 05/26/2007 1:49:34 PM PDT by Eurotwit
A few weeks ago – in between Hillary Clinton’s official entry into the presidential race and the first Republican primary debate of the cycle – the fiery online conservative forum Free Republic marked a decade in operation as one of the premier online forums for right-wing political discussion.
It also experienced one of the biggest internal battles to rock the site since the 2000 election of George W. Bush -- a tumultuous campaign year that nearly tore the site apart, as its founder and chief administrator first cleansed commenting ranks of Bush supporters, then, later, rallied to his support.
At the heart of the latest controversy: the fight over the conservative bona fides of Rudy Giuliani.
Over the past few weeks, chaos has reigned in the “Freeper” community as members sympathetic to the former mayor's candidacy claim to have suffered banishment from the site. They were victimized, they say, by a wave of purges designed to weed out any remaining support for the Giuliani campaign on the popular conservative web forum. Another significant chunk of commenters have migrated away from the controversial site over the action, according to a number of former site members and conservative bloggers who have been tracking the situation.
In a plaintive post on the blog “Sweetness & Light,” exiled commenter Steve Gilbert, who says he does not support the former mayor’s campaign, blasted the site’s new “anti-Giuliani, anti-abortion jihad.” Since George W. Bush was elected president, he wrote, “there haven’t been any large scale [Free Republic] purges to speak of – until now.”
The fight began one month ago, when site founder Jim Robinson posted an anti-Giuliani manifesto titled: “Giuliani as the GOP presidential nominee would be a dagger in the heart of the conservative movement.” Then the virtual ax started to swing. Longtime posters to the freewheeling discussion threads, used to serious no-holds-barred web etiquette, were still stunned by the intensity of the anti-Rudy activity; conservative blogs buzzed with the development.
“Jim Robinson has been going on a tear demonizing Rudy Giuliani, because Rudy (agreeing with the vast majority of Americans), is personally opposed to abortions on a moral level…” complained a user on the GOPUSA Web site. “Anyone who posts any support for Giuliani at the site, if it's at all forceful, will be banned.”
(“Normally, we don't allow complaints about other conservative forums,” chided the moderator, but “…because it is being discussed all over the Internet, I'll make an exception.”)
Just a few months ago, Rudy Giuliani placed second in an early Free Republic straw poll; now, his support on the site has been virtually eliminated. “After the ‘April Purge,’ I don't think there are any Rudybots left around here,” noted Free Republic commenter “upchuck” in one recent post. “And if there are, they're not posting pro-Rudy stuff :).”
The forums weren’t the only venue for the Free Republic’s new antagonism toward Mr. Giuliani, which coincided with a wave of comments expressing similar sentiments from other corners of the conservative movement. A few days after Mr. Giuliani’s equivocal Roe v. Wade comments at the Republican presidential debate on May 3, a new “STOP RUDY NOW News & Information Thread” was featured on the site, and a newly-created stand-alone category debuted via a link from the homepage: “The Giuliani Truth File.” (So far this campaign season, Mr. Giuliani is the only candidate – Republican or Democratic – to be singled out for that level of scrutiny from the Free Republic.)
Why Rudy? Why now? Some conservative bloggers and former commenters contacted for their view of the continuing controversy say they believe that site founder Jim Robinson holds ideologically middling Republicans like Mr. Giuliani responsible for the GOP’s congressional loss and current woes. (They asked that their names be kept out of this story for fear of antagonizing the famously frisky site regulars.)
Others claim that the former mayor’s top-tier status is spurring frantic site administrators into action. Finally, one popular theory holds that the Free Republic is secretly hoping for another Clinton presidency that would send its Alexa ratings soaring back to levels it hasn’t experienced since its halcyon days of the Clinton impeachment, when a since-soured relationship with blog pioneer Matt Drudge and overwhelming anti-Clinton sentiment in Republican ranks helped make Free Republic one of the hottest Web sites in the nation. It hasn't recovered that luster since the Bush administration took over.
“It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s an observation,” said one blogger, who describes himself as a half-hearted Mitt Romney supporter. “They’ve still got a brand name that means something, but they’re not what they were in terms of real-world impact. A Hillary presidency would get them there.”
Robinson himself could not be reached for comment, but his original post laid out his case against Mr. Giuliani – a graphics-heavy presentation of some of the former mayor’s most damning moderate quotes in mainstream media venues, along with a color-coded report card tracking his less-than-doctrinaire positions on abortion, immigration, gays and guns.
Robinson, it should be noted, famously blasted George W. Bush’s presidential candidacy back in 2000, before a dramatic late-campaign about-face that saw him emerge as one of the GOP ticket’s biggest supporters. But whether or not Free Republic experiences a similar election-year shift this cycle, the site’s current campaign is spreading a dangerous primary-season meme of Rudy Giuliani as big-city liberal – and turning one of the most influential web forums in conservatism into an exclusive gathering place for those who share that view.
The truth is that patriotism is apolitical and that is the position that conservatives need to be arguing. When we allow ourselves to get dragged into a liberal vs. conservative debate, the objective gets destroyed.
I'm just noting that what you say is true. There has been a sea change in FR, and support for the military and respect for FReeper veterans has declined.
There is an existing post on another thread that demeans a FReeper in Iraq. No one commented on it, even after it was pointed out to the mods.
There was a time when FR would not tolerate disrespect for active military members, particularly when the dispute was simply over which Republicans could be supported over Hillary Clinton in a general election.
That's the operative policy of the "be simple; be happy" people -- who's motto is: "High skool diplomas are over-rated. If WalMart don't sell it, you don't need it."
They are a close relatives of the Purveyors of Unknowledge:
In the history of the world, only a tiny fraction of all the people who ever lived have had the opportunity to ask highly qualified scientists direct questions, and learn from their wisdom. Happily, because of the internet and places like FR, it was possible for people from all walks of life to converse directly with all sorts of scientific experts; wehavehad physicists, microbiologists, mathematicians, astronomers, and chemists, to specify but a few, roaming these threads, and eager to explain what they know and how they know it to virtually anyone willing to ask an intelligent question.But there is another segment of people on these threads who, instead of asking these learned folks intelligent questions and thus expanding their knowledge and understanding, insist instead upon bludgeoning them with their ignorance, and questioning the patriotism, honesty, and intellect of people who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of scientific knowledge.
I submit that such people are not here to learn anything, but are in fact interested in quite the opposite. I submit they are here to interfere with the dissemination of scientific knowledge that they find offensive. They don't want other people to ask the experts questions and learn from them; no, they are here to attack the experts and cast doubt upon their wisdom, in the desperate hope that others will turn away and not listen to them.
IMHO that is why the same people show up over and over again parroting the same refuted diatribes and misinformation, and spewing the same bogus out-of-context quotes designed specifically to disrupt the dissemination of scientific knowledge. That's why the same people show up over and over again misrepresenting what scientific theories and laws are, despite having had it explained to them 1720th time; they are here to instill confusion and spread their ignorance, not to disseminate knowledge.
The experts [who were once] here on these threads ought to be revered and thanked for sharing with us their insights and explanations of the natural world around us; instead scorn is heaped upon them and their knowledge by the belligerently ignorant. I submit that these purveyors of unknowledge should be treated for the intellectual disruptors that they are. They
starestared the best opportunity any of us will ever have to gain more insight and understanding in the eye, andspitspat in the faces of those who offer and have the knowledge to help make that a reality.Behold, I give you the belligerently ignorant, the intellectual Luddites of our time. Know them for the anti-knowledge disruptors they are.
Sadly, the Purveyors of Unknowledge have been very, very effective and chasing away most of the scientists and pro-science posters we one had on FR, to the point where some bedwetting buffoon feels it is safe to denigrate the intellectual contributions to FR of a former scientist, who can no longer post here to defend himself, with scurrillous and gratuitous insults such as: "He contributed nothing of any real worth."
That, in a word, is "pathetic."
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I have a few liberal friends, but even with them I have made it clear that I will not tolerate listening to anyone bash our servicemembers and that includes any attempts to defund them. If they say the war is a sham and the troops should come home now, that’s their opinion, but to insult these brave men and women is unacceptable.
>>The fact that most liberals have chosen to oppose the war on terror and the military does not make it a conservative issue. You and many others have fallen into the trap of believing that anything that is opposed by the left is automatically a conservative position.
The truth is that patriotism is apolitical and that is the position that conservatives need to be arguing. When we allow ourselves to get dragged into a liberal vs. conservative debate, the objective gets destroyed.<<
Wagglebee, since you and I have different opinions reasonably often I just wanted to take a minute to applaud this post.
Damn! It looks like you might be starting to come around!!! :-)
It’s true though; when you look back through America’s history, they ONLY TIMES we have had foreign policy problems was when political infighting got in the way.
.... and a predictor of and advocate of violence against illegal aliens.... That will get most folks banned.
No, one who warns about a terrible national tragedy directly in our path, on this course. A new dirty civil war would be the worst disaster to strike America since the first Civil War, and I for one will do anything I can to spread the alarm.
I am not joining the debate as to whether or not R.A. should have been banned but this is hardly a “Private FReepmail”:
To: T’wit
Actually I meant to say get stuffed you FUCKING MORON.
I know I will be banned, but in all reality I really don’t give a shit with folks like you here.
322 posted on 04/05/2007 7:38:24 AM CDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior and Founding Member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: T’wit
Actually I meant to say get stuffed you FUCKING MORON.
I know I will be banned, but in all reality I really don’t give a shit with folks like you here.
323 posted on 04/05/2007 7:38:25 AM CDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior and Founding Member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Hey Rudy is bringing out his own past not free republic. Every time someone runs for office as long as the Clinton’s are there everything will come out about their past. It just happens , get used to it. If they were tossed off it was probably because if you stated anything wrong with Rudy you would be berated with insults from his supporters. FREE REPUBLIC IS STILL FREE!
What does Terri Schaivo have to do with murdering a young woman?
I don't think you're going to get that toothpaste back in the tube.
I wasn't discussing politics or troop funding. I was discussing the changes at FR that allow Americans serving in Iraq to be maligned and abused on this website, without repercussions.
And, the fact that someone can stand on FR, apparently in the good graces of JR, and argue that national defence is nonpartisan, and that the military is not a conservative issue, indicates a massive overhaul of FR values.
Who is the Wormwood standing beside JR, and what are his real objectives?
Indeed!
I’ve defended the G man many times, and frankly given the current crop and situation, he’s likely the most electable of the bunch against Hillary.
I’ve taken a LOT of heat and been flamed a good bit for my oppinion, but as to date I haven’t been banned for it.
The problem as I see it, is these anti Guliani folks isn’t the fact they don’t like him, but their lunacy that if he wins the primary they won’t back him, which if effective would just mean a Hillary presidency... or even worse and Obama one.
No representative at the Continental Congress liked the Consititution, not a one of them. However they were men of intellect who understood you won’t get everything you want, it doesn’t happen in life. Find something you like in this, and run with it, otherwise this nation will perish from the earth.
I don’t like any candidate fully on either side of the isle, never have. However this I’ll sit at home come election day nonsense is just that..... nonsense. Cutting off your nose to spite your face solves nothing.
Fight the good fight in the primary, but when its over, you back the candidate that has a chance of winning that is the best of whats left.... That’s the real world. Just like Libs want to claim you can be pro troops but anti war.... same nonsense in politics, once the primaries are over, you unite, even if it wasn’t your first choice.
There is no effective 3rd party, that’s just the reality of US politics.
It isn't private any more.
But what bedwetter would run to mommy after receiving a private insult? This is really a change in FR.
At any rate, it hardly compares with accusing an American serving in Iraq with treason because he might vote for a less than perfect Republican over Hillary Clinton.
Again, I have to ask, who is the Wormwood standing beside JR?
I haven't said it is nonpartisan, I said that it should be as should support for the troops.
Why should it be non-partisan? National defence involves planning, long range strategy, short term tactics. It is not a button you push. It is a game like chess, and not all players are equally skilled.
Even if democrats could be assumed to be patriotic, they do not play the game the same way, or with the same level of skill. I mean, assuming that John Kerry is an honest patriot, would you want him as Commander-In-Chief?
Do you really believe that skill, experience and tradition count for nothing in national defence?
At any rate, I am glad you are back and I hope you stay. I have seen a big group of folks get fried here who I believe were real assets (even if they stirred things up and were stupid about how they left). That list includes but is not limited to:
Travis McGheee (!)
Howlin
Peach
Chronic_Loser
Radio Astronomer
Don Oh
Some of these folks were strident, obnoxious, irritable and pugnacious. I am glad to see at least one of them "back in the fold." I think FR would be a better place if being "banned" did not mean consignment to the eternal realms of outer darkness, but maybe meant "purgatory" for a little while, so that you could be cleansed of your sins and return, the penitent and humble poster.
Again. I am glad to see you.
And if we don’t try to make defense non-partisan, we can get screwed in the future. In the lead-up to World War II, the Republicans in Congress refused to believe that we needed to build our military. The result was that in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, we were totally unprepared. That is when the GOP, adopted the policy of “politics stops at the border.” And we have kept it ever since.
You assume that there is some absolutely pure and true kind of defense policy that any honest person can easily see.
The fact is that potential enemies will always look for weaknesses in any position and attack them, and there will always be weaknesses.
What counts in the long run is not the ability to see the future, but the willingness to face up to difficult tasks when things don’t go the way you expected.
Are you saying there is no differences between parties in their willingness to make difficult decisions and accept the consequences? Or in the willingness of the parties to stick to a task and see it through?
NO! I am saying that in an ideal world this would be the case. If you examine the history of America's foreign policy, the successes have always come when all parties presented a united face to the world.
Why should FRiberals who started an anti-FReeper site (and in many cases, it was more than once) ever be allowed back?
As far as RadioAstronomer, he was briefly suspended, allowed back and then became worse than ever.
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.