Posted on 06/13/2003 1:55:59 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Is Free Republic too "Republican?" I've been receiving a lot of complaints lately that FR is not really conservative, it's Republican. Is that a bad thing?
When I started FR (see the wayback machine) I don't think I even used the labels conservative or Republican. But, even though I was a registered Democrat at the time (I registered when I was very young), I was definitely anti-Democrat. And definitely anti-big government, anti-government corruption, anti-government abuse, anti-liberalism, etc. And I still am.
As FR became more and more popular, people started referring to it as a "conservative" web site and so eventually I posted the label to the front page. If it no longer applies, big deal. What's in a label? I'll change it to "Republican" if demand warrants.
I'm still anti-big government, anti-government corruption, anti-Democrat and anti-liberalism. I just happen to believe that in the current political environment we stand a better chance of defeating the left (liberalism/socialism/marxism, etc) by using the Republican Party to defeat the Democrats. The organization is there. The platform is there. The winning candidates are there. The dollars to run winning campaigns are there. The momentum is there. And the vast majority of the conservative voters are there.
Makes perfect sense to me. I want to defeat the left, and I want to do it as quickly as possible. I'll go with the organization that can get the job done.
My current goal is to defeat liberalism by defeating the Democrat Party. If that labels me a Republican, then so be it. If the vast majority of the FReepers want it so, then Free Republic will officially become the newest "Republican wing" of the Republican Party.
Long live Republicanism. Long live the Republic!'
What say you, FReepers?
I agree with you ..and I figured his management style wasn't too hot. I never knew the details. Thanks...
We did our part. Others did not.Then you need to make sure the Bushes understand what's necessary to keep conservative votes. Either they work for us, or we work for them.
That would be Bush 41, and his whiz bang advisors. Their strategy lost the election of 1992.
For politicians to be accountable, we have to hold them accountable. If we don't, they won't.
Glad your Sabertooth is after those RINOs!
I live in PA and no way I will vote for Greenwood or Specter. The best way to get rid of RINOs is to vote for their opponents and wait a cycle. It is better to lose one cycle than to lose for good.
You've answered for me.
The Republican Party only exists in the United States. If this site appealed only to "Republican" ideals, then you would have no interest from anyone outside the US.
Clearly, the opposite is true, as there are many freepers from around the world. I suggest you have it backwards: conservatism is a state of mind, that currently happens to be best-represented by the US Republican Party. Conservatism is basically a common-sense, assume-respnosibility philosophy that occurs worldwide.
Consider, that most of the people who are members on this site all had different, independent upbringings, eductions, cultures, and even religions - and yet - they still all came to the same common conclusions (conservatism)! That's really amazing! That's true human equality!!
Ha, I can think for myself, thank you - I don't need to check with Mark Racicot to find out who I should support.
BTW - According to Racicot, we should support Specter over Toomey in PA - now THAT'S insanity....
As "conservatives," I believe we discuss ideas. As "Republicans", I believe we discuss strategies.
As "conservatives" we can admire some of Zell Miller's ideas. As "Republicans," we support Olympia Snowe.
I say we are conservatives first and foremost, and as conservatives, we lean hard toward the GOP as the vehicle for change. If a better vehicle comes along, we recalibrate.
Just one guy's opinion.
I think Bush 43 got the message.
What the "diversity" crowd on the left, and, amazingly, many on the right don't get is that there are many different kinds of conservatives. We agree on most issues, but certainly not all.
You make a very good point, but unless we keep the Party powers-that-be in check, they will take us for granted and the Republican platform could easily delete the pro-life, pro-family, and even pro-gun planks.
Power currupts, and absolute power.....
You unintentionally did so when you indicated you would vote for a RINO, no matter what.
Once the politicians are convinced that enough people will do as you suggest, we will get RINOs, no matter what. It's easier to be a RINO, because the media doesn't say quite as many mean things about them.
I've held my nose many times to vote for less than ideal Republicans, but there's no way I'm going to tell the appeasement wing of the GOP to take my vote for granted.
Yup, I voted for Keyes - gotta keep 'em honest.
Incrementalism. Anyone who thinks we could go from Davis to Tancredo in one election in CA is a fool. By electing Riordan (BTW - I voted for Simon) we put someone in place who is at that time palatable to the electorate and will give us some of what we want. If he is popular and does a good job, it softens and the public image of republicans and improves the chances of electing a more conservative candidate next time around. By demanding everything you want all at one time, you will be perceived as extremist and insure that your candidate will lose, leaving a much less desireable person and party in power. It took 40 years for CA to get where it is today and it will probably take 20 to get us out of it. There are no silver bullets and those that believe there are are better left alone, pontificating about their righteousness and away from the planning sessions.
Even now, the "realists" who sought to annoint Dick Riordan thump their chests and say "see, we were right." Yet, if he'd been nominated and elected (hypothetically), we'd see a boom cycle of RINO annointings.
Assumes facts not in evidence. Please explain how one follows the other.
Tell a politician your vote is his entitlement, and he'll step on your face to get to a swing voter.
They'll do that anyway. The only way to change the outcome is to move the political spectrum to the right. When the politician moves to the electoral middle to get votes, he's right where you want him.
On taxes, yes. Not on spending.
Doubt that will cost him in 2004. I'll probably vote for him. Eventually, though, some GOP big spender will lose a lot of votes for their expansion of government, creating a fatter baseline from which the Democrats will take things from bad to worse.
I did nothing whatsoever unintentionally. You and Physicist can read anything you want into my words, however. If you like Physicists 'what if' game you play it. Here's the question: McCain is the R candidate. Any Dem you want is the D candidate. You choose an alternative party candidate if you want. Who do you vote for?
There aren't enough true conservatives to win a presidential election, we need help from the middle voters. If you want this to change, let's work on making more voters conservative.
BTW - You won't do this by electing libs and letting them hog the cameras and soundbites for 4 years. Sometimes you have to take one step back in order to position yourself to take two forward.
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.