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?
Call them something that captions their hysteria.
with rudy, you're going to get closer to 20%, not 50%. The democrats are going to get 80% of what they want.
"They're not on our team, and danged sure not our brothers. Liberals on FReep are disruptors, here to muddy the water and weaken the resolve of conservatives to express our views. I say screw 'em."
Exactly right. This is a fight for the heart and soul of the GOP. Those on the liberal side want to make the GOP indistinguishable from the democrats except for WOT issues.
I don't think you're going to get just 20 percent with Rudy, unless the people computing the percentages are overly weighting the social issues that some folks believe he'll be a zero on. And I think that may very well be the rub here, especially to the folks who consider social conservatism to be the whole of conservatism.
That's real fine, but what does that have to do with nominating a candidate who can win. If I believed Mitt Romney could win, I would support him. But he can't win, and you know it. So'd you'd rather go down in flames for ideological purity and let Hillary Clinton be president. So now instead of a Republican president with some socially liberal positions, you'll have a true leftist believer in the White House who can't wait to ruin the military, appoint ultra-liberal judges, and raise taxes.
Rudy would have to go lightly on the social issues because he knows most Republicans don't support him on that. On the two most important issues, defense and the economy, Rudy is very strong. Don't give the election to a liberal Democrat because you don't like someone who's not as conservative as you are.
Name me one conservative out a hundred that Giuliani appointed to the courts in NYC.
I've only found two who were even Republicans of any stripe, so good luck in that search...
Log cabin Rino's?
You could be on to something here.
i.e. To put it another way, Is there a SINGLE social issue that stands as a dividing marker between us "social conservatives" and the "moderates"? {I'm also betting it's pro-life with pro-2nd Amendment close behind}
With rudy you (and the dems) will get:
- An anti-gun president
- A pro-illegal immigration president
- A president hostile to the first amendment (pro CFR, lost several cases as mayor on 1st amendment grounds)
- A pro roe-v wade president. That's not social, that's constitutional. RVW was an abomination to the BOR from a legal standpoint
What's new that you will get? A gore clone on global warming!
"I do believe there's global warming, yes,'' said Giuliani
....
"But "the overwhelming number of scientists now believe that there is significant human cause,'' he said, adding the debate on the existence of global warming "is almost unnecessary ... because we should be dealing with pollution anyway.''
Of course, you'll get a president that has talked tough on the WOT. I've heard people say he would make a great 'war president', but when pressed for qualifications, they offer none. Perhaps his "one in a million" draft deferment will make him a great 'war president'. Who knows what valuable military insights he learned by being a law clerk instead of serving!
Would it be allowed to call them Liberals .....I was going to say trolls but decided it wasn't nice.
"But he can't win, and you know it."
Have you EVER seen me support romney? Click on my homepage here, for pete's sake.
Rudy and romney hold positions that are repugnant to the conservative base. The most important thing right now is to get out the TRUTH about them, and let them twist on the vine of primary losers.
On a conservative forum, everyone is allowed their opinion without threat. Intellectual curiosity is a hallmark of conservatives.
If I don't agree with you on an issue, you present your case I present mine and we discuss.
If an individual is so warped by groupthink that a mental lock prevents them from considering opinion that runs counter to the consensus of the group, that person is to be pitied and probably should be dumped from the forum as they bring nothing to the table.
...but free open and honest debate is always welcome.
Bush bots?
Ah what the hay... We all have our times of "not niceness"!!
Buchananites.
That's true, but we need to examine why its the case that three liberals are the top three choices. If Republicans said and acted in a manner that they would only vote for conservatives, then there would be no RINOs in the top three. What happens is that the GOP is masters of convincing y'all that the only thing that matters is the next election, and electing the guy with the R next to his name. When you point out that the guy with the R next to his name is a liberal, they say "well yeah, but the primaries are the time to fight for conservatives". Then, when the primaries come along, people like you say "well we have to vote for one of the guys the RNC and the media have been promoting".
It's a losing game for America, and everyone who participates in their game is responsible for it.
To quote the WOPR: "Strange game doctor, it seems the only winning move is not to play".
"Common-sense conservatives"
"Pragmatic conservatives"
"Realistic conservatives".
Maybe I've missed a few....lol Can anyone else remember any of the other efforts of Guiliani-apologists on here to REDEFINE, DIMINISH, DILUTE and OBFUSCATE THE MEANING OF CONSERVATIVE????
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.