What Should We Call Free Republic Liberals

Free Republic | 2/25/07 | Wagglebee

[wagglebee]

We all know about "limosine liberals" and "San Francisco liberals" and "east coast liberals" and "Hollywood liberals" and we all say we are against them. So, why is it that we seem to have a new breed of liberalism that is festering on a conservative forum?

By my calculations it is a small number (only about 15%) of FReepers that seem to be supporting a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage, thrice-married (once to his cousing) gun-grabber for the office of President of the United States of America. And I'll be the first to admit that many of them are supporting Giuliani because they think he is the only Republican who can win. However, what about those FReepers who seem totally comfortable with Rudy's liberalism? In her book Treason, Ann Coulter describes in detail how communists infiltrated the Democrat Party and my fear is that decades from now, someone will describe how liberals infiltrated and destroyed conservativism in the name of pragmatism.

We all know that there are liberals here and I'm pretty certain that they aren't going anywhere. As a conservative, I know that conservativism consists of a belief in a strong national defense, fiscal conservativism and social conservativism, so to call these FReepers conservatives in name only (CINOs) would be incorrect because many of these FReepers don't even claim to be social conservatives. So, my question is this:
WHAT SHOULD WE CALL FREE REPUBLIC LIBERALS?

[Chi-townChief]

Lenore Fulani says otherwise.

[flashbunny]

You forgot 2004 and Howard "YEAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH" Dean.

[Congressman Billybob]

You are dead wrong about that. Guiliani has repeatedly, and over many years, stated that he prefers Justices "like Roberts and Alito." Now, do you think that he is so ignorant as not to know the difference between a Ginsburg and a Roberts?

John / Billybob

[Drango]

And President Reagan, God rest his soul, wouldn't issue the 11th Commandment if he were alive today.

I doubt that...There are a lot of paradoxes in politics. The Reagan I knew, was a winner and he fought to build a bigger GOP, not schism it as some here are trying to do.

[Mojave]

You are dead wrong about that. Guiliani has repeatedly, and over many years, stated that he prefers Justices "like Roberts and Alito."

Rudy:

"And what's important to me is to have a very intelligent, very honest, very good lawyer on the court. And [John Roberts] fits that category, in the same way Justice Ginsburg fit that category."

Rudy's a black hole filled with positions like that.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

I don't think the Second Amendment rates as an issue one way or the other for the self-proclaimed "moderates". Most of them don't own a gun and have never fired one. I think they're just indifferent to it.

Abortion-on-demand is the big kahuna for them.

[wagglebee]

Crap! I knew there was another one.

[flashbunny]

damn you and your quoting rudy to make him look bad!!

;)

[Chi-townChief]

Correct - when push came to shove, Ronnie could be a big tent kind of guy.

[Plutarch]

You've provided examples from the Democrats. As you know, the GOP tends to nominate its front runners going into to New Hampshire, which is only TEN months away. The only GOP example you give is 1980, when Ronaldus Maximus was a lot more of a front runner than Jack Anderson.

So you disagree with the Intrade market? That's fine. But what if I agree with its assessment? Isn't that my right as well? It follows that I figure it would be best to pick amongst those candidates with a realistic chance. Do you have a problem with that? Then go ahead, tax your inventiveness to mint a clever name. Ping me when you figure it out.

[penowa]

"Don't give the election to a liberal Democrat because you don't like someone who's not as conservative as you are."

No, give it to a liberal Republican who is not a conservative either. Makes a lot of sense to me. /s

What is it that the people who support Rudy don't seem to be able to get? If a liberal (R) wins or a liberal (D) wins, even Hillary, conservatives LOSE. Yes, you may have a Republican win, but it's a conservative loss and some of us are not devotees of the Republican party; we're just conservatives who happen to vote Republican because that has been the conservative home for the past 25+ yrs.

[do the dhue]

I vote for NORMALphobes.

[Chi-townChief]

Just came across this great photo:

[penowa]

"So, those who wish to discuss the relative merits of candidates who actually have a chance are to be pilloried here with some concocted epithet..."

Well, gee, I guess we can just conclude that conservatives have no dog in this fight and leave the '08 election to the liberals of both major parties to decide. Isn't that exactly what you all are hoping? That conservatives will just stay home?

[bilhosty]

How about urban conservatives! Many of us including myself are not members of Evangelical Church's. Do not live in small towns and as such have no desire to own guns. It seem to me that the small town and southern elements have largely taken over and defined what it means to be conservatives. We naturally feel that the same small town-southern branch of the Conservative movement are plainly allies and agree with 80% of what we believe in and have no desire to associate with liberal nut cakes. But,don't push it!

[redgirlinabluestate]

Here's a compromise. If you want to freep without having to see realistic candidates discussed, maybe FR can set up a special board (like the Smokey Backroom) called Freeputopia where only rah rah posts are allowed about 100% conservative candidates. Would that work for you?

Priceless.

[jonathanmo]

Bush was never the frontrunner in 1980 election. In early 1979, Reagan and Ford were the frontrunners. Bush came on later as Reagan decided to "cruise" a bit and gave Bush the opportunity to close the gap.

Republicans historically do NOT go with longshots. Democrats do. That's the fundamental flaw with your blurb.

[penowa]

"I don't think the Second Amendment rates as an issue one way or the other for the self-proclaimed 'moderates'."

I think most of them are big, blue, city liberals who not only don't give a rip about the 2nd Amendment, but could care less about the Constitution. I believe that most are the very vocal group of pro-choice women who make noise every 4 yrs. about ridding the Republican platform of its pro-life plank. The only reason they consider themselves to be "conservative" is in contrast to the other city dwellers who expect them to fork over the tax money to keep them. They are more conservative than the "takers," but it hardly qualifies them as conservatives.

[Plutarch]

I guess we can just conclude that conservatives have no dog in this fight and leave the '08 election to the liberals of both major parties to decide. Isn't that exactly what you all are hoping? That conservatives will just stay home?

I am not hoping for anything. It isn't me that posted a vanity thread seeking assistance in coming up with some cute insult to hurl at fellow Freepers. I would just like to be able to discuss those candidates who I feel have a reasonable chance without those who can't hack it in a real debate thinking they are achieving something by tossing some newly minted derisive name at me.

[hellinahandcart]

FRibberals. ;D