The Candidate (Rudy Giuliani in NH)

The American Spectator ^ | 1/29/2007 | Philip Klein

[jmc813]

I have been told many times that I should leave this place because this is a conservative forum and Rudy is a liberal and if you look on the past Rudy threads you will see it.

Do me a favor. Click on my screenname and check out the "Comments From Fans" section of my freeper page. Freeping becomes a lot more fun when you don't take flamewars too personally and have fun with them.

[garv]

I would like to see what is being called PORN I somehow missed that

The posts were deleted, but several posters other than me commented on it. If you go back to posts 200-250 you'll see a couple missing, those are the porn posts.

[Fierce Allegiance]

Wow, that's classy! /s

[dirtboy]

I think the Rudy boosters WANT these threads to get yanked.

[Peach]

People should go back and read JimRob's vanity before the Nov. elections. This site is founded on conservatism but winning in Iraq, winning the WOT is the most important issue of the hour. Every social conservative's favorite topic is secondary to this war brought to us by Islamofascists. Because if we don't win, nothing else matters.

I remember that as well. Quite clearly, as a matter of fact.

Areafiftyone - I just love that the bashers use unsourced material. We just know it's made them hysterical that Rudy got the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award. LOL

[cgk]

What I find amusing is that this thread is already in the Smokey Backroom... and posts are being yanked. I thought that was the point of moving threads back here - to give the Mods a break from people slamming abuse all day long? ;)

[Dark Skies]

Thx, classy of you to mention it. /s

[ecurbh]

If you go back to posts 200-250 you'll see a couple missing, those are the porn posts.

The only removed posts I see on that page are 265 and 270, and from the responses they appear to have been posted by jla. Are those them?

[dirtboy]

Even the backroom has a few standards. It's pretty telling that their posts are getting yanked back here.

[dirtboy]

We just know it's made them hysterical that Rudy got the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award. LOL

Only you, Peach, could take getting caught on your own misstatement and turn that into a negative against the other side.

Shameless.

[Fierce Allegiance]

Yeah, then the martyrs get their 72 donuts, or abortions, or whatever they are after.

[Fierce Allegiance]

Mods sure liked it! /s

[PhiKapMom]

Areafiftyone and the rest of us want to know where we stand. Are we allowed to post articles and facts about Rudy without being spammed almost immediately with the same crap on thread after thread? Or how about posting a chart that is biased just like the Democrats and MSM do. Don't see a difference when you can take apart an argument in about two minutes with facts.

I want a fair fight in this and will stand up for my candidate but I was called an abortionist the other day because of who I support so your side is just as guilty but no one said anything about those nasty posts and others. I don't stand for name calling and never had from either side. I also don't believe in spamming threads by either side. I do believe in good natured jabbing.

I believe in frank honest discussion where a word isn't taken out of context to mean something else or spun which you personally did to me the other day about the ACLU. I believe in finding sources to back up what I post.

I also believe that America changed after 9-11 with who they will support. When someone says they will vote on principle and doesn't make a difference if they lose, I don't think like that. It makes a difference to me. If I want to use being strong on WOT and national defense as my #1 issue, that's my business as a Conservative and doesn't make me less of a Conservative. No amount of bashing is going to change that I am a Conservative and probably been one a lot longer and worked a lot harder to elect good people then most people on here.

Not to mention I stand by my premise that Conservatives have done a horrible job of grooming someone for national office. We have let the media define us and some of our candidates without fighting back. Some issues have been overplayed and it has defined Conservatives as unbending or won't even consider someone that doesn't meet their wishes 100%. That doesn't win elections nationwide in particular -- doesn't even win statewide elections in most states.

Next time I get compared to Hitler, Stalin, a liberal, RINO, abortionist to name a few, I will call you to the thread and let you explain the difference in what I am called versus alluding to something said about others. I don't go whining to Jim when I am called something -- I may hit abuse when it gets way over the top -- in fact wrote the mod and told him to keep it up about calling us gungrabbing abortionist because I want anyone that reads these threads to see the nastiness of the comment.

[My2Cents]

Well-said, 51. I've been saying for some time now that rather than eviscerate each other and frontrunning candidates, we conservatives should open our eyes and realize that it's not just the Republican Party that is in need of revitalizing its conservative principles, but its conservativism itself that is in need of revitalization.

My mantra over the past few months has been that candidates do not win on ideology alone, but a combination of political principle and personal character and appeal. Goldwater and Reagan were fairly identical in terms of their ideologies, but one lost in one of the most lopsided landslides in American history, and the other won in a landslide. The difference wasn't the message, but the messenger.

It's been oer 17 years since Reagan was president, and over that time there has not been a heir to Reagan's position as the leader of American conservatism. It isn't the principles of conservativism that are bankrupt, but there is a bankruptcy of leadership. Without an obvious national leader to embody the principles of conservatism, conservatism has seemingly come unraveled into its constituent elements -- the gun-owners, the social conservatives, the religious conservatives, the libertarian-conservatives, the paleos, the neos, all splintering and moving to their respective corners, treating each other with suspicion and near-contempt over differences that should be considered minor. In the 1940s and '50s, before the rise of the contemporary conservative movement, conservativism could be characterized as being comprised of intellectuals, the paranoid, and the escentric. Consequently, conservatism never amounted to a majority in the electorate because it was an odd comglomeration of fringe elements. Without the "glue" of Reagan, or a Reagan heir, it's apparent that conservatism in the early 21st Century is dissolving back to its base elements -- intellectuals, the paranoid, and the escentric. We see representatives of these tendencies right here on FR, and especially right here on the Rudy threads.

The bankruptcy or the dirth of leadership within conservatism in America is seen in the fact that probably the most conservative of candidates for '08 -- FR's favorite, Duncan Hunter -- has a level of support among Republicans that's measured as an asterick (*), meaning his support isn't even statistically significant enough to measure. All that may change, of course, through this year as candidates jockey for position with the approach of primary season. But the point is that it is absurd to talk about this "conservative" or that "RINO" when there is no bonafide conservative in the top tier of the GOP race, and the only true conservative ranks with an asterick. That, my FRiends, represents a serious leadership vacuum within conservatism.

I've also mentioned in recent threads that if Rudy or McCain stretch out into a clear lead, and either are the nominee-apparent, FR will likely become an intolerable place to be in the fall of 2008. It's only the end of Jan. '07, and FR is already becoming an intolerable place to be if one is seriously considering supporting McC, Giuliani, or Romney, which is sad, because the path that the FR community seems to be on is a road to the political margins, and irrelevancy. I've posted an article excerpt on these Giuliani threads that appeared in "The American Spectator" last fall, listing aspects of Giuliani's positions on issues like taxation, streamlining of government, welfare reform, law enforcement, judicial appointments, and of course the war on terror, that should attract conservatives' support. Giuliani isn't anyone's idea of a model conservative, but he may turn out sufficiently conservative (especially in a race against Hillary) that he deserves our support. Of course, the naysayers will have none of this. My desire for FreeRepublic is that it will be a place where pragmatism overrules emotional and reckless idealism. Right now, I'm not sure which way FR will go. And I'm pretty much to the point where I'm considering avoiding these threads because participation in discussions about the 2008 nomination race on FR is increasingly becoming pointless at best, and counterproductive at worst.

[Fierce Allegiance]

We just know it's made them hysterical that Rudy got the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award. LOL

So did Gorbachev, and he's not exactly presidential material. You post means little.

[dirtboy]

Areafiftyone and the rest of us want to know where we stand. Are we allowed to post articles and facts about Rudy without being spammed almost immediately with the same crap on thread after thread? Or how about posting a chart that is biased just like the Democrats and MSM do.

A chart that is biased? I have YET to see you refute the chart. And that's the entire problem. YOU DON'T WANT THE TRUTH BEING SPOKEN ABOUT RUDY ON THESE THREADS.

[jmc813]

Most of them are telling us that we should not be posting because Rudy is a liberal and this is a conservative forum.

Can you name some specific freepers or posts in which this is the case? I honestly don't recall seeing anything like that.

[Peach]

Only you, on other Rudy threads, could keep trashing Kerik, as though that will have an impact on how people vote in the presidential election.

And you seem to keep forgetting that a few of Reagans aides were indicted and in deep trouble legally.

Just one:

"The nation's largest Medicare-certified health maintenance organization has reportedly paid more than $350,000 to former aides of President Reagan for lobbying and legal fees."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9B0DE0D9143FF93AA15756C0A961948260

In today's climate, none of you purists would dream of voting for Reagan because he'd been divorced, married a pregnant Nancy, passed amnesty legislation, gave us two liberal Supreme Court Justices, raised taxes 4 times, etc.

Meanwhile, I'm just delighted to know that Reagan trusted Rudy enough to appoint him to a DOJ position and that whomever makes decisions at the Reagan Library knows that Reagan liked Rudy enough to position Rudy's book prominently at the Reagan gift shop and give Rudy the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award. Yeah!!!!

[cgk]

I was called an abortionist the other day because of who I support so your side is just as guilty but no one said anything about those nasty posts and others

I know you aren't directing this to me, but... If I had seen it I certainly would have.