Is Free Republic too "Republican?"

Jim Robinson

[stands2reason]

At the risk of being called a Bushie, I shudder to think what a Gore administration would be like.

Bush irks me almost daily. Yet I remember Carter and Clinton, and how much damage they caused the US and support they gave our enemies... God help me, I hope to never see another anti-American president as long as I live.

[Sabertooth]

OK, let's make it a little harder, just for kicks and giggles. A giant grasshopper is the R candidate, Hitlery is the D candidate, anyone you have ever known is the third party candidate. Who do you vote for? Quick, the polls close in five minutes. Who do you vote for?

That's actually easier. Locusts do less harm than RINOs.

To your McCain question, I'd possibly vote for Captain Strawberries, if for no other reason than that he got behind the GOP and campaigned for Bush in 2000. Loyalty isn't to be taken lightly. He's such a loose cannon, though, that I'd wait until election day before deciding to hold my nose and do it.

What I won't do is tell the RNC that they own my vote.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

I'm not surprised. Nuff said.

[Sabertooth]

I voted for Ross Perot ... twice! Happy now? Are we having any fun yet?

No, but I don't blame you for the fact that the GOP ran listless, cowardly campaigns, and I voted for Bush 41 and Dole.

Bush and Dole are to blame for their losses. Blaming Perot or his voters is a cop out.

[myself6]

"Conservatism" is the way to go Jim. While I hate that label because it was given to us by the marxists, it has become the moniker of all that we believe in ( and tied to some things we don’t )

A political party is nothing more than a vehicle for winning elections, it is NOT an ideology or philosophy. If we teach people about the principles of limited government, self reliance, individualism and even collectivism they will come to our side and adopt our values. After that happens they will support the party and individuals that closely match their value system. We do not need to associate ourselves with the official Republican party.

We do need to teach political tactics though. allot of strategery will go in to defeating the socialists. Calculations must be made, risks must be taken to achieve victory. ( to all those who wont vote for an individual that only does 99% of what you want right out of the gate.) Sometimes we will even be required to do things that are morally repugnant to our value system, if it will damage the enemy.

Simply put, we should spread our value system, promote activism and teach political strategery. Lets stay away from entangling alliances but support those who we calculate will advance our cause. (which happens to be most of those in the republican party at this time)

I agree with using an already established party as a hammer against our enemies but I also think we should be actively and aggressively subverting the democratic party from within as well. Tagging us with the name of one of those parties will severely limit our offensive options.

[bmwcyle]

I don't want to see another drug thread but I don't cry to Jim.

[Sabertooth]

Insert the sound of crickets evolving into inter-galactic explorers while my what-ifs are being mulled.

Actually, insert a plate of blueberry pancakes and a couple of cups of coffee.

[Sabertooth]

Baloney. A sinking economy and Ross Perot lost the election on '92.

Zero accountability for the Bushes is not in the GOP's long term best interests.

The economy wasn't sinking in the quarters before the election, though that was the perception. The flatness of the economy prior to that was in part due to the first Gulf War, but also in part to Bush's signing of a tax increase in violation of his "read my lips" promise.

The Perot rebellion got it's jumpstart following the primary run of Buchanan, which demonstrated the erosion of Bush's support from 1988. If a politician pursues strategies that lose voters from one election to the next, then that politician has only the mirror to blame.

[beachn4fun]

Don't lose no sleep over it Jim. First of all, just the fact that Republican and conservative have always gone hand-in-hand makes people THINK that it leans too much to a Republican taste. Was probably a demorat anyway. Second of all, as a Republican, I don't always agree with my party on all things. And, even though I am a conservative, I am not as conservative as some. I think that Free Republic is the right name. Remember what the names mean?

[He Rides A White Horse]

....but I also think we should be actively and aggressively subverting the democratic party from within as well.

They have been subverted. I think it is more a matter of illustrating that fact.

[deport]

No read it earlier.... But I'm only trying to identify who the UN man is that you alluded to but won't name.

[MississippiMan]

That would make us no better than them. We should be capable of critical thinking, and of separating politics from issues.

Hear hear! EXACTLY. If we blindly support those in office as long as they have the right letter after their name, we're no different. I won't do that. I'll praise Bush when he's right and criticize him when he's wrong. That stand is already unwelcome among a large percentage of posters here, because most criticisms of Bush are instantly labeled as whining or bashing. If it becomes officially unwelcome by board policy, then I'm out of here.

We should all take a moment to remember that we're the ones who've preached for years that character matters. Character means we stand for truth and principle, no matter where the chips may fall.

MM

[CyberCowboy777]

Republican is too generic. Conservative is much better.

I vote (R) and (I) and (L). I think our best chance at change now is likely with the Republicans, though I disagree with Bush on a few major issues.

Lets keep it open - a free exchange of conservative Liberty loving ideas - fragmentation issue by issue can be a strength, it hardens the overall resolve and purifies positions issue by issue.

[LibWhacker]

Don't change it, Jim. I think FR has had far more influence on the Republican Party than the other way around. And I hope it remains that way. If we become a kind of official Republican website then we'll really have to toe the line, and there's too much of that already. Dyed in the wool Republican that I am, I can still say that.

I see FR in part as a place where some really wild and wacky and sometimes profound ideas are vetted. And that's good. It's healthy. If those ideas survive the wrath and scrutiny of other Freepers, they just might end up flowing from the pen of a conservative journalist, or the mouth of a Republican Senator.

It's a question of whether you want FR to be a top-down, or a bottom-up website. I prefer the latter. Do we really want super-RINO himself, Trent Lott, calling us and scolding us for something posted on FR? Not me.

IMHO.

[Consort]

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's nice to say, but we don't trade a Bush for a Clinton.

That would be Bush 41, and his whiz bang advisors. Their strategy lost the election of 1992.

No. People who voted for Clinton or Perot and people who did not vote for Bush 41 are the guilty ones. They are responsible for one and possibly two Clinton Presidents. They let ideology cloud their common sense, if they had any common sense.

For politicians to be accountable, we have to hold them accountable. If we don't, they won't.

Like we did with Bush 41? Great, just great.

[ApesForEvolution]

Well said CC777.

[mountainfolk]

Stay independent. Stay free. Although I am a Republican, and far right at that, I can appreciate the value of an independent forum that is not an arm of a political party. Further, the restrictive ramifications of declaring for a particular party have already been noted, and in my opinion makes the subject moot. Thanks for the sounding board, it must be very helpful to the Republican party to read unfiltered comments pro and con.

[Ms. AntiFeminazi]

I vote no.

However, for those who claim that we must "hold the Republicans feet to the fire", I say you are doing more harm than good when you burn their feet rending them, leaving them unable to walk. The dishonesty and deception of your claims of good intentions are exposed as we see the real damage you are doing.

(yes, I spelled rending correctly. Look it up.)

[Fred Mertz]

I take it from your comments we should then be the Republican cheerleading crowd, no? Then Jim should name it RU as that might be more descriptive.

[NYC Republican]

Here's an emphatic YES (obviously)