Here's what he said:
Posted on 03/04/2007 4:46:35 PM PST by johniegrad
Even though we are still almost two years out from the presidential election, it is clear that the candidates are campaigning in earnest. This has led to some acromonious discussions with accusations flying about posters' motives and dedication to the principles of conservatism. While these frank discussions could be healthy for pounding out the details in a primary, some here are indicating their unequivocal refusal to support some candidates if they are nominated after the primaries. Furthermore, valuable posters have discussed their disatisfaction with the website as a forum for discussing conservatism and some have threatened to leave.
Given these observations, I'd like to republish the posting of the website owner from a few years ago.
Statement by the founder of Free Republic:
In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution and against totalitarianism, socialism, tyranny, terrorism, etc., Free Republic stands firmly on the side of right, i.e., the conservative side. Believing that the best defense is a strong offense, we (myself and those whom I'm trying to attract to FR) support the strategy of taking the fight to the enemy as opposed to allowing the enemy the luxury of conducting their attacks on us at home on their terms and on their schedule.
Therefore, we wholeheartedly support the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes on known terrorist states and organizations that are believed to present a clear threat to our freedom or national security. We support our military, our troops and our Commander-in-Chief and we oppose turning control of our government back over to the liberals and socialists who favor appeasement, weakness, and subserviency. We do not believe in surrendering to the terrorists as France, Germany, Russia and Spain have done and as Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton and the Democrats, et al, are proposing.
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.
Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.
We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.
Our God-given liberty and freedoms are not negotiable.
May God bless and protect our men and women in uniform fighting for our freedom and may God continue to bless America.
Jim Robinson
that about sums it up
Is that where you place Barry Goldwater? Just askin'.
Very well stated!
Can we please stop posting a comment just to tell someone to read your tagline. There is a pretty sharp group of folks here and if you have something worth reading, it will be read. Thanks.
That's a good set of questions.
My wife and I voted for Barry Goldwater, and I persuaded my parents (lifelong Democrats) to vote for him.
I knew Goldwater was conservative. I read "Conscience of a Conservative". I didn't even think about his position on your other two questions. Remember that Roe vs Wade was in the future. Abortion was at that time illegal. And the atmosphere concerning "gays" was somewhat different.
I have been a staunch conservative for most of my 80 years. The last Democratic president I voted for was Harry Truman, and that was 1948. I have since voted only for Republicans because the Republicans certainly came closer than the Democrats to my own beliefs.
We are now in the midst of a great and pitched battle as to who will be the next Republican nominee. My concern, for my children, grandkids and great-grandkids is how I can best protect the United States as the great and glorious country it is and has been.
I know, in this election, we are confronted with one Democratic candidate who is essentially communistic in most of her pronouncements. The other candidate seems wet behind his ears with little idea of where he would like to take the country except certainly on a much more liberal path.
I want a Republican candidate who can win this election. That is no copout. So far as I'm concerned, the future existence of the United States is very much at stake. We've got to win this war on Islamofascists, and it appears most of the country has no heart for it. My Gosh!!
Hunter could emerge as our candidate, and I would happily vote for him if that is the case. I have no idea how he would fare in the general election if he gets that far, and I doubt he could beat Hildabeast. Right now, he appears to be a non-starter in the primaries. He is essentially unknown to most of the country. I doubt that he can muster enough money or a loud enough voice to gain much traction.
I am, to put it mildly, lukewarm about John McCain. McCain-Feingold sank him for me.
Romney may be a man of the future. But I doubt that he can win a general election.
And so, I'm pretty much left with Rudy, a man who certainly has some beliefs totally opposite to mine. But he's also a man who appears conservative in areas which I believe to be essential to the survival of the United States:
I believe he will appoint conservative justices.
I believe Rudy will pursue the war on terror with vigor. I think he's just mean and brash enough to trash the "new tone" and get things done in the war.
Rudy appears to be a leader. Gosh only knows, we need somebody following Bush who can lead.
Finally, I think he can hold his own with this spineless congress.
Now, does all this make me a RINO? Or a liberal? I reject the very idea. I've probably voted for a lot more Republican candidates than most of you. And I'm not going to waste time on 3d parties. They're not going anywhere. That's a copout.
Jim, this is my best effort to explain why I am supporting Guiliani. If it's not good enough, well, it's your forum. You've done more than almost anyone I know to advance the cause of conservatism, but on this, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Or to part ways. It's your call.
OK. After everybody reads mine.
Here's what he said:
3,000+ views tell me Freepers are confused as well.
"If you get seventy-five or eighty percent of what you are asking for..."
I love Ronnie and agree with that quote--SO--let's take that from being a platitude to practical application.
We start with 100% -- that's "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." That's what we started with and should intend to preserve and conserve, as Conservatives.
If you lose pro-Life, you're already down to just 66.67% Would Reagan settle for that?
If you lose Liberty by taking such things as Citizen Sovereignty, Freedom of Speech and RKBA (Second Amendment), your're down to 33.33%. Would Reagan settle for that?
The Gipper wouldn't have been pleased with 33%. Those who think what's left after such staggering losses leaves them with any hope of the Pursuit of Happiness are wrong. No, sadly they may be pursuing mere instant gratification--and are risking eventual tyranny.
He was talking about the Governorship of California. He accepted 33% to be President.
Oh no. I bet we're now going to be treated to a selection of positions taken by Reagan, Goldwater, & Buckley which were not stereotypically conservative, esp. "socially conservative." No one is perfectly consistent and coherent all the time. Besides, Buckley is way past his prime, and Goldwater in his prime (I heard him speak) had better things to do that push gay liberation, but at 85, he knew had gay offspring himself. Besides, do you have any idea how prevalent dementia is at that age? It's very common. I don't have time now to look up the %age, but it's shocking.
I have always thought of Free Republic as a Republican site.
Yep, you will...over and over and over and over again....
"By the 1980s, the increasing influence of the Christian Right on the Republican Party so conflicted with Goldwater's libertarian views that he became a vocal opponent of the religious right on issues such as abortion and gay rights. Goldwater concentrated on his Senate duties, especially passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986."
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:gCeM7Djcm8oJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater+goldwater+on+abortion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
So, on gay rights and pro-life issues, Goldwater was definitely not a socon, but no one would deny he was a conservative.
"no one would deny he was a conservative."
I would. He was a Moderate not a conservative by today's standards.
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.
