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?
Then you haven't hung around this forum very long.
People seem to want to turn conservativism into another liberal "big tent."
Are you purposely being dense? Anyone on whatever side that has frequented this board over the past couple of years can see the so-called "pragmatic conservatives" and how they act. No debate is accepted or tolerated. They try to get people banned.
Suggest you hold up a mirror and look into it.
It is my vote, and I will cast it where I damned well please. The Republican Party would do well to remember that I am only one of a multitude who feel that way.
The suckers I see are the ones being buffaloed into accepting a rip-snorting liberal for a candidate as the "only one who can beat" another rip-snorting liberal.
Not much to gain by that, but if all the urbanoconservatives think that is a winner, so be it. At least you can wash the stink off a wet dog.
I like that one!
If this analogy makes some FReepers uncomfortable, then so be it; however, to languish in a fantasy that conservativism is safe from liberal infiltration is myopically naive.
I agree with DCPatriot: "The conservative extremist wing in here has taken on the persona of [Torquemada]."
As I suggested in my original post this disingenuous talk that your opponents are [insert yer favorite epithet here] only hurts your argument and will not add any allies to Hunter.
I am no Hunter fan; he's position as described by one FReeper as "a fair trader" as opposed to a free trader is enough for me to ignore him. That said, if by some miracle he wins the Republican nomination, I will vote for him.
You're obviously not a fan of Rudy and you're afraid for the nation if he wins. Point taken; if you'd like your position to be seriously considered, I suggest you lighten up with the rhetoric.
Have I got a burkha for you! LOL!
That was a masterful piece of stratergy on Bush's part.
The Republicans in Congress would not touch reauthorization, with few exceptions.
The Dems would not be able to push the deeply flawed law without changing it substantially, to which Bush could have simply said, "this is not the same law" and refused to sign.
IOW, the chances of the same law being passed again and crossing his desk were nil.
That does not mean the statement went over well with gunowners, though. It did not.
Or worse yet, the banding of sheep.
I agree to a point. The Bushbots certainly have not acquitted themselves well over the past couple of years.
How about that rhetoric?
I agree, which is why I support Romney. How do you figure we find an acceptable electable candidate, if you can't even provide an example of anyone we've heard of that would suffice?
;^)
Duncan Hunter.
You might not agree, but let me put it this way: Would you vote for Duncan Hunter over Hillary or Obama?
See how easy that was?
It would be great if a more conservative candidate were to arise in the next six months or so, but where is this ideal candidate supposed to come from? I think the reality is that our choice is going to be one of the three front runners already up there.
I haven't voted whole-heartedly for a Republican presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan. But, given the alternative, I happily pulled the lever for GWH Bush in 88 and 92, Bob Dole (who was at least as liberal then as Giuliani is now) in 96, and GW Bush in 00 and 04. National elections are rarely a pure choice - usually the lesser of two evils. That's just the way it is in America at this moment.
Fiberals.
I consider myself a liberal.
Any takers?
Yeah, I knew months ago that my choices for the GOP nominee were not going to be my ideal candidates. But you go to war with the army that you have.
What a CHILDISH and disrespectful way of relating to people who you don't have the capacity to understand.
Keep it up, you only lose credibility and personal dignity when you do this sort of thing. True character on display for all to see.
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.