Posted on 02/25/2007 2:46:59 PM PST by 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?
Can't use "FRINO," that simply means "anyone who disagrees with me on my one pet issue."
I like "boss" but it has to be said with a smile
Anymore, I just call them 'Republicans.'
If Rudy's the nominee I won't sulk and throw my vote away on a third party, but anybody who is backing "the guy who's sure to win" this early is a media stooge.
If Rudy is the nominee, there will be some few people who will say "I'm staying home" or "I'm going third party." I will be all over those people like stink on a wet dog, They're suckers, and they shouldn't be anywhere near a voting booth.
However, at this point, every conservative should be trying to get a conservative candidate in the White House, and you're right, those of us who are doing so are mocked for it. It's bizarre.
I suppose that's fair. I'll just stick to "pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage, cross-dressing for political support, gun-grabbing New York liberal who happens to support the war on terror."
Did you get that from the guy who called Hannity the other day? Where Hannity just took him seriously and the joke totally flew over his head as he went on and on very seriously?
"I guess if Obama is elected Pres, it'll be an Obamanation."
Why do we have so many people ignoring Reagan's assertion that the gOP only wins when it's conservative? See the "Let them go their own way" speech given at CPAC in March of '75. There's a thread on it somewhere around here, and he gave it after the GOP lost a bunch of seats in Congress because of overspending and corruption. Does that sound familiar? The response of many GOP types was that the answer to this was to move to the left, because people had voted for Dems, so they must want liberalism. Reagan called BS on that and said the GOP would win again when they marched under a banner of bold colors and asserted conservative ideas.
I think you're being unfair tying in some uncertain maybe insecure people who are willing to latch onto the only prospects the Rs have to "liberals".
I thought you were talking about the people who genuinely defend liberal positions regularly on FR (I can think of the pseudonyms, but I won't print them). The people I genuinely confuse with real DU liberals.
I didn't think your headline meant people who would support Guiliani, et al - if they have to.
Here is a link to Reagan's "Let them go their way" CPAC speech delivered after the GOP got pummelled in the mid-term elections (held three months after Nixon resigned).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1735897/posts
I think I made it very clear. There are some people on here who are willing to sacrifice principles because they believe that Rudy is the only one who can win.
However, there is another group on here who are supporting Rudy BECAUSE HIS LIBERAL SOCIAL AGENDA IS TOTALLY CONSISTENT WITH THEIR OWN. And these are who I meant when I said Free Republic liberals.
Eggactly!
What really needs to be discussed and fleshed out is the term Conservative.
IMO, not very many people on this forum actually fit the traditional conservative description. They are mostly a faction that grew and developed over the course of the last ten or so years to combat the raging fruit-bats on the other side. They are largely emotional knee jerking contrarians who see evil under every rock.
IMO, they are not in a position to be defining conservatism, anymore than Al Gore.
It's the unfortunate truth, that this party base is very sick and needs a lot of healing before any further elections can ever be won. While Rudy is not a Conservative in every way, he is conservative enough in ways that count, and probably as conservative as potential winning candidate will be on our side.
It is almost laughable that factions on FR seriously believe that the more socially conservative a candidate is, the more likely he/she will get the nomination, when in fact, it is the exact opposite.
Truth and realism must be taken into account, and these folks have absolutely no connection with reality. None whatsoever. Not a bit.
The diametric opposite of the liberal moonbat and no more relevant.
Agree. Once the bar has been lowered, like it or not, it's lowered for everybody. If Clinton can use interns for humidors, Giuliani and Newt and Whoever can have multiple marriages and divorces.
"As a conservative, I know that conservativism consists of a belief in a strong national defense, fiscal conservativism and social conservativism"
I'm in total agreement with you on 66% of that, and we can probably find some common ground in the other 33%. That's a passing grade. :)
I almost certainly will support another candidate in the primaries.
...makes you a drooling idiot. They act as if Ronald Reagan has risen from the dead and endorsed Rudy. They act as if no one has ever won the presidency without having fantastic name recognition two years before the election. They act as if everyone who doesn't like Rudy is a single issue voter, even though everyone who objects to him has about three or four ideological problems with him minimum.
We sure as heck can do better than that.
To be quite frank, virtually none of the anti-Rudy folks are actually going to sit out the general election or vote third party, and those of us who back Hunter are going to be just as hard on those people as the Rudy backers. Ergo, it's not a serious arguement, especially when you consider what a slaughter a Hunter-Clinton debate series would be. (or Giuliani-Clinton, or Romney-Clinton, or Condi-Clinton, or Gingrich-Clinton...)
That works for me. :-)
From WorldNet Daily, 2003:
"A pair of U.S. senators noted for their avid support of gun control are praising President Bush for his backing of the continuation of a weapons ban the lawmakers pushed through Congress 10 years ago.
"[Sens.] Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., welcomed the announcement that President George W. Bush supports the reauthorization of the 1994 assault-weapons ban, which is set to expire in 2004," says an April 16 statement published on the California Democrat's website.
In a letter to Bush, the senators said, "As the original authors of the assault-weapons ban in the Senate and the House, we strongly believe that military-style assault weapons have no place on America's streets and should be banned.
"In 1994, we fought hard to win passage of the original ban, and shortly after Congress returns from the spring recess we plan to introduce legislation that would reauthorize it," the letter continued.
Feinstein and Schumer were responding to comments attributed to Bush by White House spokesman Scott McClellan. WorldNetDaily reported that McClellan, in responding April 13 to a question posed by Knight Ridder newspaper, said the president "supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law."
I believe President Bush stopped abortions provided by the military, been resistant to stem cell research advances, and has appointed strict constructionist judges, which Rudy has also said he would do)...other than that, with his strong antiabortion stand, what has President Bush done on this issue so central to the conservative adgenda?
Honestly, I am asking.
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.