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?

[FairOpinion]

"Keep the "independent" label - and the Republican spirit."

Well said.

[LittleJoe]

The Republicans are a spin-off of the Whigs and other politcal subversive enemies towards our nation

You can take it back even further, Buck.
In the begining we had the Federalists. Jefferson started the Democrat-Republican Party. Washington did not like that, and said so.

After a few years of bickering, kinda like here, they dropped Republican from the name.

The Republicans reformed in 1864 to stop expansion of slavery into the territories.

The parties of those days bear no resemblance to the Democrat and Republican parties of today.

I think guys like Jefferson and Adams would be spinning in their graves if they saw what has happened to the party system they started. I'll bet Washington is laughing like hell at them!

[FairOpinion]

"I just recently registered to vote as a Republican. The GOP is chock full of faults. But rather than abandoning it, I will work from the inside to change it. "

---

May others learn from your example and excellent thought process.

[Consort]

I do realize that the guy [Tom Delay] would commit political suicide if he were to please the likes of me, so I'll give him a break and say he is doing the best job he can given the circumstances.

You, a Conservative, have just described why the Republican Party does not move more to the right. And you reflect the majority opinion of GOP voters. More important, if you are correct, then moving further to the right would put the GOP out of power for a long time.

[Buckeroo]

I see you are a conservative hack, too. Ever read, H. L. Menchkin?

[arete]

As I said, that is exactly how Clinton get elected, by conservatives supporting Perot, instead of Bush.

Bush lost fair and square. Stop already with the blaming of Perot. Neither party (criminal orgainizations) don't want a third party to challenge their iron grip around the throats of the public. You get two so called choices and try to select the lessor evil. Great system.

Richard W.

[Consort]

Intruder alert.

[Uncle Bill]

"I myself am a communist and fairly conservative"

Really?

[betty boop]

JimRob, I hope you will not make the change you have in view. I am a life-long registered Republican, cultural conservative, and rigorous constitutionalist. If you ally FreeRepublic with the Republican Party, then I think you may lose the substance and genius of this wonderful forum, in favor of adopting a mere "party label" -- and that of a party that, often enough these days, doesn't champion the key values that are so dear to your heart, and mine.

Recently I've been complaining that the political Left -- that would be the Dims -- routinely manages to block Republican policy initiatives, even when they are the "out-of-power" party. The fact is, the only way they can do that is because of defections from "our own" party -- by "Republicans" such as (the usual suspects): Chafee, Snow, Collins, McCain, Spector, Grassley, others.

These so-called Republicans so often make common cause with the Kennedys, Byrds, Dodds, Schumers, Feinsteins, et al., of this world. At the drop of a hat. The object and effect of their de facto "collective" compact is to: Stop Bush and all his culturally and constitutionally conservative kind.

Man, that's you and me.

As long as this is the case -- so long as the Republican "label" really doesn't mean anything in terms of disciplined thought or principle or devotion to the Constitution among so many of its own self-identified adherents -- then I think it is extremely ill-advised of you to rededicate FreeRepublic to any purpose larger than conservatism and constitutionalism. Who knows -- God willing, maybe in the long run these "political morons" might learn something from what we do here, under your wonderful auspices and hospitality.

Truly I share your concern for eradicating the Democrat Party from the face of the public landscape. But fairness requires that you also take out their enablers and codependents from our own party. You can't legitimately do that, if they are Republicans, and you are a "Republican" web site.

Just my thoughts FWTW. best wishes, bb.

[FairOpinion]

This way we got the REALLY EVIL Clintons.

I hope the "purist conservatives" are proud of themselves. They certainly taught Bush I a lesson, right? That's what it was about for them, not to look out for what's best for the country, despite protestations to the contrary.

"Watch what they do, not what they say". Some conservatives talk a tough conservative agenda, then they become willing paws, "useful idiots" in the hands of Democrats and end up helping Democrats get and stay in power.

And now apparently these same people object that FR is being too supportive of Republicans, I suppose they don't like that too many Republicans get elected, instead of Democrats?

You can't ignore the results of people's actions.

You drop an apple, regardless of your wishes and fantasies, it's going to fall. You can deny the existence of gravity, but it will still act upon you. You can deny political realities, but they are still realities.

Thank God and Jim Robinson for FR being what it is. If it had or would concenrate on a strict intolerant conservative agenda, putting Republicans in the same category as Democrats, as some people here do, the forum would never have achieved its phenomenal success.

And as I mentioned before, I think that as it evolved to what it is today, FR is a powerful, influential forum, where I think staffers of politicians, conservative writers, as I imagine liberal ones come to lurk to get ideas, information, get a pulse of the "non-liberals".

Narrowing its focus would detract from it, instead of enhancing it.

[Consort]

Stop already with the blaming of Perot.

Are they blaming Perot or are they blaming the Conservatives who voted for Perot instead of for Bush? If the Republicans who abandoned Bush think that 8 divisive years of Bill Clinton and his tax increses were worth it, then we have a serious problem.

[Ford Fairlane]

I see the bush bot / republican party first crowd is out in force

I agree with you, unspun on the pitiful state of the republican party in Illinios

And Jim, dont label the site republican. We serve conservative ideals, not a party. At this point in time, the republican party may be more in line with our views, but it hasn't always been that way, & it probably wont stay that way either

And there are a lot of worthless politicians out there that call themselves republicans simply because thats whose butt was easiest to kiss to get a political career

[Ford Fairlane]

well said - i agree 100%

[Bob J]

Perot's best position may be advisor, not Chief.

[Bob J]

What parts did you disagree with?

[liberalnot]

like you, i am a former democrat. but i grew up with a choice: my father, a dairy farmer, voted republican all of his life. my mother voted democrat. i grew angry at the democrats in the 1970s when the boomer generation completed its radical take over.

radical feminists and secular jews used "multiculturalism" and "diversity" to pretty much eliminate or silence white males, black males, and latin males from the universities and government. feminists eliminated the federal pace test on the grounds that it was "racist" because white males scored too well on this difficult test. the truth of the matter is, as martin gross has written in his book "the medical racket", the upper levels of male intelligence exceed the upper levels of female intelligence. feminism allowed radicals to displace some of the brightest males from med schools. also, this allowed feminists to fill u.s. government upper management track positions with women, especially white and black radicals of the 1970s.

after 70+ years of democrat control of the media and government, finally there is balance. the republicans for the first time since reagan and eisenhower control the presidency and both houses of congress. but power corrupts. just like the democrats grew increasingly corrupt, the republicans can too.

there is danger in thinking in dicotomies: the republicans never were a less-government party, as the politics of the 1890s showed. the republicans spent money like it was water. conversely, the democrats haven't been "for the working man" in decades.

but "the working man" has changed. the working man is now working men and women. the working man's place of employment has changed; gone are the populist farms of the 1800s, gone are most of the blue-collar jobs of the 1890s-1960s, and in their place are mostly low-skilled service employees. neither republicans nor democrats represent clerks, maids, landscapers, fast-food workers, etc. the ugly truth of the matter is, neither party cares about illegal immigration because illegals work many of these jobs. the american professionals with high-skilled service jobs, such as the financial services, banking, lawyering, etc. and upper classes make a lot of money from cheap labor. illegals wash their cars, clean their homes, flip their burgers, and mow their lawns, etc. but the college-trained and upper classes pass the hidden costs of immigration onto the american taxpayers. but the lower-middle and lower class taxpayers do not benefit directly from the tax burden of illegal immigration. some of these taxpayers are just getting by, and indeed, have to compete with illegals for jobs.

the democrats like to pose as the "working man's party", but what a joke! today's democrats are rich trial lawyers, dentists, doctors, silicon valley entrprenuers, hollywood mediasters, public school unionists, tenured university faculty (avg salary $90,000+--pretty good for "socialists"!), auto assemblers (every g.m. employee supports 2 retirees' pensions and health benefits, fomoco is one-to-one. no wonder the american auto industry cannot compete with asia!), police, and fire unions. none of the above fit the traditional definition of a "working person"; they work but are handsomely rewarded with salaries and benefits. and they use their monies to sway the u.s. congress, no matter which party is in power.

the real danger today is that by thinking in black and white, republican and democrat, we ignore that the international corporations manipulate both parties. this is why some things don't change no matter what party controls washington d.c. corporations can live very well with multiculturalism and diversity of american universities--after all, where did these ideas originate but in the corporate boardrooms and the world affairs conferences at american universities and cities? it was a republican that first proposed world government.

paradoxically, when the corporations bought out the small town and city newspapers, 30 years ago, they allowed the university trained feminists and socialists to control their newsrooms. altho' the news and business staffs are separate, the news staffs know damn well what not to investigate. indeed, there is no longer "investigative" reporting. that's why enron, adelphia, world com, qwest, citibank, anderson and anderson, etc. were such a surprise. meanwhile the average investor got screwed and has not returned to the stock market. if the s.e.c. and the news media were doing their true jobs, this stuff would not have happened.

from working in psychology for years, i do not see any benefit for the republican party from the numerous hate abortionists, hate libertarians, hate homosexuals, hate mexicans, hate arabs, threads on this forum. day after day the same threads repeat the same visceral reactions. these threads seem to have increased while serious economic and political threads have decreased.

as much as i dislike the clintons, as least they kept us focused!

[FairOpinion]

" I'd like to see the whining stop."

[Torie]

Riordan was to the left of Davis. You remember the ten dollar minimum wage thingie, and some other fuzzie wuzzie stuff about everything for the children or whatever. Riordan makes me look like a right wing nut, but then he was approaching senility. I mean that seriously. Simon was terribly personally flawed, ignorant of state issues, superficial, and one who had trouble telling the truth. He would have made a terrible governor, and in trying to cut the Davis bloat would have made the GOP seem like the bad guy. Unlike the Feds, state budgets must balance, absent illegal gimmicks that can work for only so long. In any event, a GOP governor would be irrelevant, since it takes a two thirds vote to pass a budget.

Jones was a dull gray competent politician that was honest and inoffensive. He would have blown Davis away, as events unfolded.

[meema]

Thanks for the ping, shelton. I've been meaning to put my 2 cents in here.

JimRob, I love you just the way you are. You don't need to say Republican, even though most of us are of that persuasion. I'm sure the 'Conservative' says it all!
One can be a conservative dem, or libertarian, too. Although if you decide to hoist a Republican Label up there, that would be fine with me too.