Posted on 12/01/2009 9:49:31 AM PST by TruthHound
I lurk this forum way too much. But it does give me my news fix and some interesting tidbits as well.
I am in here enough to get a good gauge of the political celebs Freepers don't like. That would be pretty much everybody.
I'm kinda sure nobody likes Mitt Romney. And as of 11/6/08, John McCain is a favorite whipping boy. Overall, the bulk of characters who stood on stage in the early GOP debates last year is tainted in some way. Giuliani, the cross-dressing gun-hater. Ron Paul, the anti-war drug-legalizer. Huckabee, the soft-on-crime wingnut. Yada yada...
I'm aligned with much of the criticism of those who supposedly represent the right, but some of the vitriol here astounds me. FOX news is liberal because they called last year's POTUS race too early? Laura Ingram and Michael Medved don't toe the Birther line, so they're libs? Charles Krauthammer is a lib because he's no fan of Sarah Palin?
Up and down the list of righty politicos, I don't think there's a single talking head who has gone unscathed by a thread or two here. I dare say if FR were around in the late 80's, we'd be spewing barbs at our dear anointed Ronald Reagan for his amnesty, government spending and placating of the left.
Right now, our country is being slowly dismantled by the most leftist administration America has ever seen. The balance of power in DC must swing right if we're to have any semblance of capitalism left for our children to enjoy. So with the sakes so high, where do we compromise? I can't think of a single GOP prospect with a snowball's chance of winning that I don't have SOME beef with policy-wise.
We've slowly relegated our law-making to the nanny state, and true constitutional freedom as our forefathers intended AIN'T COMING BACK. All we can do is stem the tide for as long as possible. But virtually every single viable "conservative" candidate we've seen so far is willing to bend to some social relegation to get to the next rung of the political ladder. There ARE NO honest politicians who aren't in the pocket of some lobby with a favor to ask.
We spend a lot of time expounding on why we DON'T like candidates A-Z. Put 'em all in a table with a list of issues and every one will have a checkmark in a column that I don't like.
Who on the horizon (with a realistic chance of winning) can we support for their POSITIVE attributes? I'm not seeing any.
NOOO!! (That IS the Bug-Zapper thread, isn’t it?)
“Go soak your head. I’m just as much a fiscal conservative as I am a social conservative, but if a man betrays his wife and family, he’ll betray the country. Adulterers do not have ‘good characters’, period.”
Excuse me, but that’s horseshit. The time is past when we can afford that kind of non-sequitor thinking, confusing private morals with public responsibility. A man’s marital life says nothing about how well he can lead the country. Jimmy Carter was well-married and made a lousy president. Ditto Obama. By the same token, 9/11 told us all we had to know about Rudy’s courage and leadership—so did his lowering taxes and firing bureaucrats and turning around the most liberal city in America. The rest is irrelevant. We’re electing a president in dangerous times, not a preacher. What we need is somebody tough enough to get the job done and turn the country around, not somebody who meets the standards set up by Dr. Dobson—which was why we ended up losing last time around.
“I have been ‘signed on’ here for over a decade now and missed the bulletin that FR was an ‘activist group’.”
“Free Republic is not a traditional business. We are a political discussion forum and independent grassroots conservative activist group supported by donations from our readers and participants.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/home.htm
Yes, praepos is a Rudy retread, this is her very first post on FR under this new name.
Saturday, November 14, 2009 8:08:46 PM · 70 of 125
praepos to livius
You’re wrong if you think Rudy was just conservative on crime and terrorism. He was a Reaganite through and through—and applied Reaganomics to NYC, putting it in the black for the first time in decades, selling off municipal properties, firing useless bureaucrats, drastically lowering taxes and facing-down the racist shake-down artists.
It’s little known but he had always had pro-life sympathies, though he ran as a pro-choicer in order to get elected in a very blue city. As mayor he raised the level of adoptions and cut the rate of abortions considerably. (He was the opposite of Romney, a man with pro-choice sympathies who suddenly converted to pro-life when he sought the GOP nod.) Rudy had no problem at all promising to nominate strict constructionists—because that’s where he was coming from philosophically—as anyone who worked with him in Reagan’s Justice Department already knew.
Here was a guy who as U.S. Attorney made his bones sending Wall Street billionaires to prison. He sent the heads of the Mafia to prison. He sent corrupt NYC Democratic machine politicians to prison. As Reagan’s Assistant Attorney General he knew the law inside out; he knew how the FBI functioned, how the CIA functioned. He understood the terrorist threat from the beginning—and when the time came on 9/11 to be tested, he was ready.
And when the economy blew up in 2008, he would have been just as ready since he understood how high finance functioned. He would have made Obama look ridiculous in a debate since the Democrat didn’t have a clue. But Rudy never had a chance. Republicans were too hung up on the abortion issue—and too enamored of a primary process that was grossly unfavorable. How was a big city blue state Republican supposed to appeal to farmers and evangelicals? He didn’t stand a chance—even though the polls consistently showed him runing five and six points ahead of Hillary or Obama.
Too many GOP purists dissed the one man who could have made a huge difference for America. I remember how it was—you couldn’t even bring up his name on some conservative sites. Yet he was the one genuine reformer who did more than just make fine speeches. He was a man of action, not a big talker. He was by far our best candidate. Now we look back and think, “If only...”
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies
Fine. You vote for who you want. I will continue to consider morality on my list of requirements for a candidate. I’ve seen how Giuliani handled his most sacred responsiblity, that of being a father.
I can state with confidence that his website will NOT be boosting Giuliani for president.
Oh, and you’re a vitriolic jerk, and I’m leaning toward you being a troll, as well.
NICE find.
*Sniff*
Do you smell ozone?
I’m with you on most of that. I still recall being labeled a “RINO” during the last election season by a couple of “the faithful” of a particular candidate. I was also told I should leave FR because of that, even though they were NOT the owner of the site.
We still have too much of a circular firing squad. There will NEVER be the perfect conservative that will check off all the right boxes for everyone. It would be better if we could all figure out what the right hills are to defend to lesser limits than death, and what hills are worth dying on. I doubt that will ever happen.
We like Jim Robinson, Rush, Mark Levin and Sarah. There prolly are a few more.
That is a most excellent post. No need to apologize for the length! Your points are well taken.
First, I’m a he. Second, I’m not a retread. Third, I’m proud of that post—but I’ve also commented on other threads that had nothing to do with Rudy. That thread was about his potential candidacy for the Senate. If this site was hostile to Rudy in the past, how does this mean we can’t discuss him in the present as a future candidate? Times change. Perspectives change. Many who were against him before now have regrets, given the present disaster. We simply can’t afford the same kind of shallow political thinking. We need to learn from past mistakes—or else we repeat them.
“Oh, and you’re a vitriolic jerk, and I’m leaning toward you being a troll, as well.”
Seems to me the vitriol is coming from you, not me.
Thanks for taking the time to read! A lot of that’s been building up for a bit and I actually feel quite a bit better now that I’ve said it.
“Where did you ever get the idea your fevered imagination has ANY credibility as political analysis? Rudy’s appeal was stricktly regional, and social conservatives (read: religious) have been a target of McCain’s for years.”
You’re right, his appeal was regional—which was precisely why we should have nominated him. There was no way the GOP was going to lose the South or the heartland to Obama. We had the red states in our pocket—so what was the point of nominating someone appealing JUST TO THOSE STATES? We needed somebody to win PA and OH, NJ and CT—not a Huckabee or a McCain. It was stupid thinking—but we’re not called the Stupid Party for nothing.
And the social conservatives made peace with McCain before the primary in SC—where he got 40% of the evangelical vote alone—far more than any other candidate.
You don't even understand what non-sequitor means! It's a hell of a lot longer stretch to say a guy that cheats on his wife will be some paragon of civic virture than it is to infer dishonesty to a spouse indicates general dishonesty.
It seems pretty obvious to me that you are of the stripe that sees no difference between "self-righteous," and more righteous than you!
Well done. It sounds much like something I could have written and I know you must feel better to articulate it!
I do not have the time I used to for FR, but as to my thoughts like that... I suppose they are still building up!
Because this is a conservative activist site and we have already gone through the Rudy question, and we don't need to waste any more time on it.
Why don't you wade through the nationally famous thread by the owner that I posted in post 96 and see if every single thing that you can pose about Giuliani, has already been answered, rather than starting the process all over again when we have better things to discuss.
I’ll put in a good word for my Representative, Blaine Luetkemeyer.
I know what a non-sequitor means—but do you? It means literally, “not following.” In other words your premise is faulty when you say Rudy betrayed his wife and THEREFORE it follows he would betray his country. That’s a ridiculous idea. For one thing, you’d have to know the circumstances of that betrayal. People close to Rudy know about the rough time he had with Hanover—how she sought to undermine him politically and in every other way. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with how he would lead this country.
Ironically, one of the hallmarks of Rudy’s character is his honesty about public issues. To call him dishonest because of his marital problems is ridiculous.
Correction: McCain received 40% of the S.C. primary vote in general. He received a surprisingly high number of evangelical votes—something like 29%—but Huckabee was slightly higher with them. My error.
I really appreciate that coming from you, considering I saw you around quite a bit back during my more active times... (I mean, come on, you’re only two days older than me here ;-) )
I personally just look forward to a time where, at the end of the day, folks can agree to disagree and still be conservatives. There’s a certain energy in the air when we do that and good things begin to happen, much to the chagrin of the left...
Here’s to hoping that those days are soon ahead of us!
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.