Is Free Republic too "Republican?"

Jim Robinson

[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?

[Jim Robinson]

Well, that has already been settled. We're steaming ahead, steady as she goes. And the question was only on label. Was never a question of independence. We are independent of any party. Always will be.

[Buckeroo]

You never answered one of my earlier questions, Jim. Again, what is conservative? What is a republican? While you are at it, what is a democrat? And, what is a liberal?

Now, for the $64,000 dollar question, what is a constitutionalist? Let's see your essay shine and shine and shine.

[Fawnn]

I prefer to support the party that thus far has done or is doing points 1-10 in JR's post #653 than to live in the fantasy world perpetuated by some noisy people here (who seem to crave attention more than they want what is best for our country).

I believe defeating liberalism and socialism are worthy objectives.

As FairOpinion stated earlier in this thread: (paraphrasing) The Republican party is our best hope of moving things *slowly* to the right. (*Slowly* is the operative word, imo; the big government horrors didn't get this way overnight, and like it or not, ranting and tantrums won't disassemble a huge bureaucratic nightmare overnight.)

Distorting facts to serve their purposes (the number of “homeless” caused by Reagan policies), scare tactics ("hurt children"), and downright lies (“I did not have sex with that woman” and “we want to make every vote count”) are the things I associate with the Democratic Party. Anyone doing similar things to push his or her personal agenda, or to claim he or she supports remaining "independent" in a "republic," earns my distain, not my trust.

I haven’t been vocal on FR for long. I have, however, been observing FR for long enough to realize that there are some people whose only objectives seems to be to hijack threads as their ways to get personal attention. In a move similar to how I use my remote control, I usually tune those people out. While “ignore them and they’ll go away” doesn’t work, thank goodness such one-issue or (to use a liberal word: “extremist”) dissenters don’t speak or reflect the majority of this forum.

IOW, Free Republic is working. IMO, there are far, far worse things in this world than being (through direct admission or not) associated with the Republican Party.

[Buckeroo]

---

"I have, however, been observing FR for long enough to realize that there are some people whose only objectives seems to be to hijack threads as their ways to get personal attention. " -- Fawnn

---

Why don't you just call me a terrorist and get a color code match from Tom Ridge judging my thoughts? Afterall, you pay for this freak show like me.

[Dane]

Jim, it is up to you on what you want to call the forum. It's your forum.

I would just like to thank you for starting it.

There is no place better to find out the news of the day and discuss issues.

Way back in 98, the American public was giving a big so what to the Clinton scandals and Hillary was the most admired woman in America. Today 56% of the people think her book is filled with lies. This forum, IMHO, has been a part of that turnaround.

Sure there will always be malcontents and nothing will be ever "pure" enough for them, but look at what has transpired since 2000. Tax cuts, Saddam Hussein is out of power, a partial birth abortion ban will be signed, the US is not lapping at the feet of the UN as the Clinton administartion did(rejection of Kyoto and the International Court) etc. etc.

Slowly but surely, things are turning, IMHO. No one said it was going to be easy or happen overnight, but a lot of things have changed for the better which wouldn't have happened if Gore had won.

[Jim Robinson]

Conservative to me means striving for smaller, less intrusive government (actually constitutionally limited government as defined by our founders) which will lead to less tax (no income tax, no social security tax, no medicare tax), no federal give-aways of any kind, etc. Also will lead to smaller federal government because most of what is now being done by the feds would be returned to the states and or not done at all (ie, returned to the people). Also will mean stronger national defense, because that is job number one for the feds. Also, better defended national sovereignty and fewer and less destructive (to our rights and our national interest) treaties. As a bonus, will lead to and end to abortion, end to homosexualism being forced on our school children and forced down our throats, and without the income tax, end government control over religion, charities, public interest organizations, etc. Conservatives, IMHO, are interested in securing/defending constitutional government, defending and preserving our rights and individual freedoms, and maintaing moral society.

The liberals are just about 100% opposite on all of these principles. In the current environment, 98.8% (just made that up, but I'm sure it's a high number) of the liberals reside in the Democrat Party. Thus, the Democrat Party = liberal. And Liberal = socialist/marxist/etc, thus undesirable to conservatives. May not have always been that way, but that's the way it is now.

Republicans are mostly conservatives of various stripes. Republicans generally strive for less government, less tax, less intrusion, fewer regulations, strong national defense, oppose abortion, oppose the homosexual agenda, oppose feminism, oppose gun-control, etc. Generally supports the Constitution and the rule of law and original intent. The more conservative Republicans do a better job, the moderates less, and the liberal Republicans (mostly in the east) are weenies.

I'm assuming the Constitution Party supports the Constitution. But I've read they may be biased by religion. Not sure if that is true. I'm also thinking they are very few in number and have slim to no chance of being elected anywhere.

[djf]

The substance of government amounts to the police powers of the state. The ability to punish malfeasance and crime, thus to secure the rights and liberties of the people. To a very limited extent, I would say it extends to those things which encompass more than one state, for instance National Weather Service an CDC. And, finally, national defense.

[.30Carbine]

The liberals are seeing their world collapse around them and they are in a panic. God help me, I do love it so.

Nominated for Quote of the Day.

Also for Best Use of a Patton Quote.

[sonjay]

Kyle Williams, in his WorldNetDaily column today, said it well:

when the only goal is to get Republicans in power in an effort to deprive the Democrats of power, they sometimes forget why they wanted change in the first place.

We should keep "Free Republic" as a force that promotes the values of freedom and individual liberty -- not turn it into a force whose sole focus is on defeating Democrats. We might not like what we get in the wake of that defeat.

[MeekOneGOP]

Wow. How did I miss this article until your ping, Unspun ? Thanks.

Here's a ping and an excerpt for anyone else that may have missed this.

Thanks for the post, Jim Robinson !!

Is Free Republic too "Republican?"

Excerpt:

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!'

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[TLBSHOW]

bump

[RJayneJ]

It's funny that you asked because I have been thinking along the lines of forming a FR PAC to re-elect the president. It might be more prudent to leave FR as is and form a PAC that would be separate from the forum. Going straight Republican while there are Libertarians and a scattered number that support the Conservative party could affect our very necessary fund raising. If you think about it we have even supported a few Democrats like Zell Millar and former Governor Casey.

[RJayneJ]

Thanks for the nomination! };^D )

[hoosiermama]

I have conservative democratic friends that will come to FR, because it is conservative. If it were a branch of the republican party, they would not come. Have gotten further with them because I can tell them you were a democrat when you started FR and they see similarities to other conservative. At least one has made a complete switch because of FR and the others are questioning their political affiliation.

Keep it independant. With FR help, our country will eventually officially switch to Convervative vs Liberal instead of Democrat vs Republican! It's helping to define our political views.

[roughrider]

I see you have received no real reply to your question. I don't understand why, as the reply is inherent in the question, viz:

The difference is that the DEMOCRAT is the conservative, and the REPUBLICAN is the liberal.

That does happen from time-to-time in the "REAL WORLD OF POLITICS" that some claim to understand. Sometimes the Democrat is the conservative, and the Republican is the liberal.

[bart99]

I've read about a hundred of the almost 700 posts so far, and I think I'll stop. These posts on this topic themselves are symbolic of the reason I come here. There is a general common perspective here, with allowances for disagreements. There are those that are Republican and those who are not, but are conservative. No one in any politial party can agree with EVERY position any party adopts. There are independents here, seem like enough Democrats and Libertarians come by as well.

Jim, you've provided a learning environment, a 'call to action' environment, a forum for discussion, and with the ability of anyone to simply choose to read or not read topics that do or don't interest them and focus on topics of most concern to them. What a terrific environment you've created.

This IS a conservative forum..... I don't think most would question that....... but I'm not sure most would accept it the same if it were purely an arm of the Republican Party.

So.... as others have, I could ramble on about what I think, what I've experienced here, etc etc..... but, no way people are going to read all 700 (and growing) posts and besides, you simply asked a question. Interesting how a question becomes a discussion on this place *L* That's a terrific thing!! That's how it WORKS here!

My opinion - keep it a Conservative forum, making it more inviting and open to all - and we'll take action when we need to - together as we have, individually as we feel compelled.

The information and thoughts brought to this place and discussed make this a site to be cherished - the actions, and I know many have been taken, is for the readers and contributors to the discussions to determine for themselves Don't narrow the definition of the site. The more we can invite in, the more people might better understand a particular 'reasoning' and 'take up arms' in supporting the general cause of the basic philosophy espoused here. .

Thank you for making this all happen..

and excuse my typos.

B.

[sweetliberty]

I vote, NO. It's good just the way it is. There are some people that will whine no matter what you do. Leave it alone, Jim. As always, if they don't like it, they are free to go somewhere else. We really DON'T want to become the right wing version of the DU!

[roughrider]

"Most people, who aren't political naifs, or purer than thouers knew that Perot wasn't an alternative answer to Bush the elder and Bubba-bentone."

Historical Correction: The Perot movement was not "pure." The Little General attracted a polyglot of both left and right, Republican and Democrat. He convinced his followers of all stripes that he was "on their side." Peroism has nothing to do with any form of philosophical consistency.

Logical correction: Your use of the derogataion "naifs" is the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. You believe that if you relegate your opponents to an inferior class by namecalling right off the bat, you discredit any argument that they may have. All you have done is post an irrelevant statement.

"The simple, historically proven fact is, that third parties do NOTHING but hand an election over to the candidate, the person going fringe, most despises/fears."

Historical Correction: No, that is not an "historical fact." The GOP was a THIRD PARTY that ultimately displaced the Whig Party. They failed to win their first election, but won their SECOND election. Your argument is undoubtedly rooted in the single election of 1992, and is therefore the logical fallacy of arguing from the particular to the universal.

Logical Correction: That it is a "simple proven fact" was a mere assertion on your part. You offer no evidence of your claim that it is "proven," "historical," nor a "fact."

"Politics is not now and never has been about only voting for a candidtae who is THE exemplar of one's ideal and positions. Those who rant & rave about this one and that not being whatever and just how more Conservative , or Liberal one is, doesn't mean that one shouldn't accept the possible ... instead of rejecting, out of hand, what one can get. Those people go through life NEVER being satified and never shall be."

I guess all the arguments that conservatives should "vote Republican so they can hold the feet of the Republicans to the fire" to get them to implement conservative policies is now no longer operative.

"The dog-in-the-manger/ cut of one's nose to spite one's face whingers here, refuse to see reality. They go from thread to thread claiming that they'll stay home or why everyone else should vote for some fringe candidate who, if elected, couldn't give them what they imagine he could. That's just delusional, on their collective part and they need to either wake up, or to forget utterly about politics; a subject they don't understand and never shall."

First you condemn people for staying at home instead of voting for candidates that they have concluded will not support any of the policies they desire to have implemented. Then, you demand that they all just forget about politics completely, which, I assume, would have to include voting. So, which is it? Should they stay at home, or vote? On another reply, you stated that it is the people who want "all or nothing" who want a dictator, yet here you are declaring that those who disagree with your position should simply "forget about politics," and, in essence, be DISENFRANCHISED from the vote and have nothing whatsoever to say about public policy. That sounds like DICTATORSHIP to me.

Politics is not the totality of government. You confuse politics with campaigns and election cycles in this country. Political campaigning is the means through which elected leaders are chosen. Politics isn't even just about voting or political parties. Politics is a branch of PHILOSOPHY. It deals with the nature and purpose of government in human society, and is not just about election campaigns in the United States of America. Election campaigns are just POLITICAL PROCEDURES to chose those who will hold elective office, in this case, in the United States of America. Politics is much, much more than just that, however, I shall not advocate that people who don't know or understand that should just shut up about politics, and refrain from voting at all.

[Godebert]

"Sometimes appeasing on one issue, allows one to make progress on another. And sometimes the Left has it right, all things considered given the values of the society at large, and to oppose to is to lose it all."

Sometimes the left has it right? Are you serious? How about an example.

[DoctorMichael]

What say you, FReepers?

I've stared at this Thread for the last day and a half and started to reply once or twice only to erase the reply. Now we're up to 700-or-so Posts. I knew I was going to go into a long-winded philospophical essay which, in the end, would mean nothing so I've held my opinion until my thoughts gelled. Something set me off................

Last night, at the end of the O'Reilly show, he was interviewing former-Rep. John Kasich. John was Newt's right-hand man in the budget wars of the 90's with the scumbag Clintons, if you remember correctly. IMHO, John should be given a hell of a lot more credit and notoriety for balancing the budget and giving us the surpluses of the late-90s than the HillBillies take credit for.

Anyways......he was more than a little annoyed during the interview over the profligacy of the Congress and Senate in their spending as of late, particularly when it came to both the giveaway of child tax-credits to those NOT paying any taxes(redistribution of wealth) and the soon-to-be-made-into-law giveaway of drugs to be added to the latest Medicare bill.

He was MAD!

So am I!

It's as if the Democrats are in control, or we have Republican-lite in charge. Take your pick.........and THIS goes on with the support of Bush! Whatever happened to fiscal responsibility and belt tightening?

I am REALLY disgusted by these recent actions by our supposed "right-wing extremeist" (Eric Alterman's words, not mine) leaders who have the Presidency, Congress and the Supreme Court under their 'jack boot'. Ha! Give me an 'effin break. Talk about pigs at the trough, buying votes!

Yes, Bush, Cheney, Rummy et al. have done a great job in defending this country during these dangerous times. However, they have really dropped the ball domestically. Between Ted Kennedy writing the Education bill and Bush inviting the fat alcoholic bastard over for popcorn and a movie about how his screwball brothers almost destroyed this country, and that screwball Trent Lott singing harmony with Jeffords (good riddance to both), and Olympia Snow and................

DON'T GET ME STARTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bottomline.........We, and this site, should remain aloof to being co-opted by the Pubbies and applaud when it is appropriate and screaming bloody murder when it is not.

Damn it Jim, I'm a Conservative, NOT a Republican!