Will FR embrace socialism to make way for Rudy Giuliani as a Republican presidential candidate?

vanity | April 21, 2007 | Jim Robinson

[RKBA Democrat]

“We heard that same rant in ‘92. Ross Perot was supposed to change the GOP for good. The third party Perot formed was going to revolutionize American politics, etc,,,,.”

And if Ross Perot hadn’t been such a nutjob, he might have pulled it off. Thankfully, the pressure of the campaign acted as it should: it exposed him for for what he was.

“The country IS AND HAS changed drastically, but not in the way you think. Conservatives are now a very unpopular minority and the for the Democrats, the election in ‘08 is theirs to lose.”

I disagree with you in part. To the extent that conservatism has become unpopular as a political philosophy, it is largely a result of it’s association with the GOP. As for this election being the Democrats to lose, I think you’re probably right. And that is truly amazing: even I didn’t think that the GOP was that inept.

“All this in-fighting and stark division that is strangling the GOP will be the main reason the Democrats take this country into Socialism.”

No. The socialists have simply played their cards very well. They take a long term view of things and never give up the fight. What we have right now from the point of view of electoral politics is a choice between two political parties who offer either socialism or socialism-lite. It’s really a non-choice.

I think you also operate from a faulty premise in that electoral politics is the be all and end all for conservatism. It is not. Frankly, I wish conservatives would take a deep breath and stop being so focused on electoral politics.

[calex59]

I believe you've come to the wrong conclusion regarding the FR poll. I voted for Fred Thompson in this poll but I will vote for whoever is the Republican nominee. Most of us would prefer a conservative candidate but staying home or voting third party is out of the question. No way will I put Hillary in charge of our military. NO WAY!

Nope,I didn't come to the wrong conclusion about this poll or the others on FR. Most FReepers won't vote for Rino Rudy no matter what. I will vote for third party, the constitution party comes to mind, before I vote for Rudy. The thing is this: If Rudy is nominated the Republican party has gone too far left for me and I will never support a left wing candidate and Rudy is all left wing.

He made the trains run on time,so what, so did Hitler and see where that got the Germans. Rudy is not only left wing he is an authoritarian and scoffs at the law when it clashes with his beliefs. Look at his record, he is no better than Hillary, if gets into office the republican party is done for as conservative party. Vote your conscience and I will vote mine. I didn't vote for Rino Arnold and I will not vote for Rino, left wing, communist Rudy.

[Jalapeno]

Funny how this topic is supposed to be about FR, and yet it reflects a Free-Republic-Middle-School pep rally against Rudy-Middle-School.

IMHO, the majority of members here at FR are acting as mouth-foaming moonbats when ever Guliani's name is mentioned. This smells of fear, not rational thought. I see people obsessed with Rudy in their posts, and most much more visceral than they ever are about the issues you have mentioned.

I see very few asking themselves how events got Conservatives into this hole, and offering solutions to get themselves out. Instead their focus is on one guy, propping up another guy no one really cared about until he made an opportunistic speech very early this year. Regardless of which GOP member gets the party's nomination, we will wake up and nothing will be better.

The anger, frustration, and insults directed at Guilianni are misguided in my opinion, and damaging to the issues that are important. Guliani is not the problem, he is the result of a golden opportunity squandered by conservatives and thier leadership over the past decade and a half, possibly since Bush Sr. was elected.

I would blame names such as Gingrich, Delay, Bush, Dole, Buchanan, McCain, regligous leaders such as Robertson, Falwell, even media figures such as Limbaugh, Hannity. But ultimately, the fault lies within the group of people known as "conservatives" and many here on FR. Not just 'leaders'.

To some, probably most, that list of names will invoke some emotional reactions. But in the end every one of those names has failed the cause of Conservatism, as a result of their own selfish pursuits or incompetence. I look at the Contract with America, and really wish that was still the focus of ideals in this country and of those leaders. Somehow we quickly looked somewhere else. I honestly believe it was lost when a many got obsessed with impeachment and the 2000 election.

The failure for leadership is at the national level. On the grass roots level, I believe it is still potentially vibrant. I think there is a stronger faith in Christian/Judeo God in this country now than there probably was in the 60's. And with this faith will rise social conservatism. There is also a greater amount of support for things like the military, and a true support for the missions they are executing, even though through the leadership this execution is muddled and flawed.

But I see little evidence this rising group is well represented on FR.

FR posters definitely believe in not sparing the rod, that is for sure. But sometimes the rod is used too often, and it loses its effectiveness. FR posters also exhibit a my way or highway - 'fu' - rigidity, which does not attract those that only need to be informed about these issues through active debate. Seems FR used to have debate, and was very informing, now it seems FR seems 90% vanity now, all sorts of name calling and personal attacks, and very little convincing substanative debate. When an article is posted, the same FR trolls clutter up the articles before they can be discussed with their obsessions. This does not invite outsiders, and lurkers, who are the hearts and minds that need to be won, to consider alternatives points of view to what is being presented in other forms of media.

Instead of any debate, I see things like one poster insulting another posters candidate, and then as an excuse he covers with "politics is a full contact sport". Obviously serious substance there. All I can say to that is it will not win hearts and minds.

That is just my perspective.

[rbmillerjr]

Oh what a beautiful morning it is. The real spring is here in the Mid-Atlantic and there’s just a little bit of “Morning in America” in the air.

...and aint it just Peachy. For the record, though I don’t like Giuliani, I respected her opinions until her tactics went astray lately. Being a good Republican doesn’t make you a conservative. Hello, this is a conservative website.

[calcowgirl]

The thread has created a couple of “undocumented freepers” already.

Deported aliens?

[CheneyChick]

So that makes it OK to call someone an idiot? Someone needs a timeout, IMHO....

[Cincinatus' Wife]

BRAVO.

[dmw]

” It’s just a shame you have to be the objects of insults and scurrilous attacks only for daring to speak your mind(s).”

And it’s equally shameful, if not more so, that these people continued to hurl insults and scurrilous attacks at conservatives on this forum, even after they were told to stop. Peach was given plenty of warnings by Jim, and her friends, to go to bed and cool off, but no, she continued to hurl insults at Jim, and other conservatives here, including Ronald Reagan. Jim has been extremely patient with these rude people, especially Peach. And what does she do in return? Continue to insult him and practically dare him to shut her down. She got what she deserved—and it was way past due for it.

[RabidBartender]

It is a little less.......smug......here this morning.

:)

[SittinYonder]

FYI

[veronica]

Well, some good conservatives, like Ted Olson, husband of Barbara Olson, who was murdered by Islamofascists on 9-11, AND who was a FReeper, do support Rudy. Who would dare impugn his conservative credentials or his moral authority to support whom he thinks is the best man to be POTUS???

It's nice where I live today too - but, it's pretty much always nice where I live. :))

[Beagle8U]

“If people here truly fear Socialism as much as I do, they should not fear Rudy Giuliani, he is no socialist.”

Rooty IS a socialist. What else would you call someone that says the Constitution guarantees the RIGHT to Government funding of abortion and WELFARE for Illegals?

Do you Prefer Communist or some other classification for him?

[rbmillerjr]

“Ted Olson...Who would dare impugn his conservative credentials or his moral authority to support whom he thinks is the best man to be POTUS.

Is Ted Olson a conservative? He is not a candidate and honestly I don’t know his positions on taxes, abortion, national security. If they align with Giuliani then certainly he is no conservative.

As far as him supporting Giuliani...he can support who he wants and be a fine Republican. His conservative credentials would however be debatable at best and ruined at worst.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Those same Socialists, have complete control of the hearts and minds of the younger generations. We are now seeing the results of that control. Many of them hit voting age in the ‘06 elections. They are one of the reasons why the “Independent/swing” category is now outnumbering Republicans.

They are also one of the most politically active young age groups in history. They are labeled, “The Least Republican Generation”. (they pride themselves as being liberal to moderate) It’s a fact. Take a good look around you and research it for yourself. I used to believe the way you do, until our humiliating and sudden loss in ‘06, I was compelled to investigate why. This is what I learned in that research.

Which is why many of us here still believe that only a moderate candidate from either party can win in ‘08.

[Delphinium]

yhis “social conservative” vs “fiscal conservative” stuff is really getting nutty.

They are trying to redefine conservatism because they know the word "conservative "is important to voters.

[Man50D]

1) “Social Conservative” is a term ACTUALLY used to describe those to whom social issues (anti-abortion, anti-gay, etc) are far more important than any other issues.

That is one interpretation. The problem is ther are other interpretions. Below are some other interpretations/examples provided by Wikipedia:

1. As with matters related to the family, social conservatives do not generally agree among themselves about even these issues. Many social conservatives reach the conclusion that their respect for traditional notions of individual autonomy, limited governmental power, and privacy require them to support a pro-choice policy on abortion (as explained in "Bearing Right" by William Saletan, former U.S. President Bill Clinton and U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton are well-known advocates of this viewpoint.)

2. There is no necessary link between Social and Economic or Fiscal Conservatism. In fact, some Social Conservatives are otherwise apolitical or even left-wing on fiscal issues. For example, Social Conservatives may also support a degree of government intervention in economic life for what they feel is to the benefit of the community, and as such will tend to support the concept of a social market economy to further this aim. This concern for material welfare, like advocacy of traditional mores, will often have a basis in the religion of the Social Conservatives in question. Examples of such Social Conservatives include the Christian Social Union of Bavaria, the Family First and Democratic Labor Party of Australia,the so-called red tory movement in Canada, and possibly the Communitarian movement in the United States.

Note Communitarian has the following meaning:

Communitarianism as a group of related but distinct philosophies began in the late 20th century, opposing radical individualism, and other similar philosophies while advocating phenomena such as civil society. Not necessarily hostile to social liberalism or even social democracy, communitarianism rather has a different emphasis, shifting the focus of interest toward communities and societies and away from the individual. The question of priority, whether on the individual or community, often has the largest impact in the most pressing ethical questions, such as poverty, abortion, multiculturalism, and hate speech.

I'm not saying Wikipedia is the sole source of definitions. I am saying this illustrates the point I have been making that this term along with "moderate Republican" have convoluted meanings. People who espouse this philosophy are trying to pass themselves as true Conservative while willing to embrace at least some socialist views. "Socons" as kevmo states, are faux conservatives. People allowing socialists to pass themselves as conservatives are unknowingly or willingly aiding and abetting the socialists to destroy not only the Conservative values once held by the Republican party but also this country.

Ok, so your definition of “socialism” is?

I refer back to the description of Social Conservative above:

In fact, some Social Conservatives are otherwise apolitical or even left-wing on fiscal issues. For example, Social Conservatives may also support a degree of government intervention in economic life for what they feel is to the benefit of the community, and as such will tend to support the concept of a social market economy to further this aim.

This definition confirms both parties are advocating government control of the means of production.

[do the dhue]

We will clean this all up in the primary. It is my belief that the liberal media is pushing Rudy. Rudy won’t win. He is a media darlling.

If you think Hillary is evil. Rudy aint much better. He would kill the unborn and he can not be trusted to protect the gun. At least with Hillary, you know she is the enemy. Rudy can be the enemy from with in.

If Rudy gets elected as a Republican, maybe I am not in the party that represents what I believe in anymore. I will have to re-evaluate where I stand.

I have a God to thank and think about. I will not abandon those ideals that have been given to me by God, like LIFE. I am not going to abandon my ideal, because of my fear of Hillary. I will not make my decision based off of fear. I will make my decision based on the issues I value most and who I believe will protect those issues.

I think the people running around saying, 'we need Rudy because the media says so', needs to stop and think about the words that just left their mouth. Just relax and think. It is a long way off. We have time to think about this. The media has the wimpy Republicans hyperventilating. Everybody breath now.

Rudy won’t win and Hillary wont win the General. If you put a candidate up there that can champion the values of Conservatism like Ron Reagan did, they will win just as many States as Reagan; but they must convince us that they are the people who can do it and who we can trust to do it.

[StoneColdTaxHater]

Then push Ron Paul in 2008

[KenmcG414]

To accuse Giuliani of being socialist is preposterous. All one has to do is look what Giuliani did in NYC to bring it back to life. Lower taxes,curtailed welfare, cracked down on crime. Mr. Robinson, you neglected to address the foremost issue and that is Islamic terrorism, where they will settle for nothing less than destroying us. How do you propose we win the war on terror??

[Rodney King]

Rodney King you seem to have the same sources, what are they?

I have no such sources, its just that it was irrelevent to my point.