Posted on 05/03/2009 12:32:07 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
I'm going to try one more time to explain what FR is all about.
Free Republic is a conservative site. That does not necessarily mean it is a Republican site. In fact there may be many Republicans we don't support and some Republican issues we cannot agree with.
I'll throw in Arlen Specter as a prime example of a Republican we cannot support. Should be obvious to all why not. Should also be just as obvious to all that we cannot support Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, John McCain and his lap dog Lindsay Graham, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, et al.
Some of the issues we cannot support as conservatives even though sometimes initiated by so-called Republicans include TARP, or any kind of government bailout of private enterprise, federal intrusion into free markets, federalized education systems, government provided or controlled health care systems, abortion, gay marriage, amnesty, global warming, gun control, etc.
I guess there is more than one definition of conservatism floating around out there, and this won't be text book, but the one we use involves defending, preserving and protecting our constitution, our unalienable rights, our traditional family values, our American heritage, our nation, our borders and our sovereignty.
We aggressively defend our rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness!
We aggressively defend our rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to keep and bear arms, right to due process, right to equality under the law, right to be governed under the rule of law, right to constitutionally limited government, right to corruption free government, right to self-government and our private property rights, etc.
We also aggressively defend our right to state and local government for all issues not expressly delegated to the central government by the constitution.
We aggressively defend our rights to free markets and our rights to live our lives free of government intrusion, interference, coercion, force, or abuse of any kind.
We aggressively defend our rights to national sovereignty, state sovereignty and individual sovereignty!
And this definition also includes aggressively fighting against all enemies foreign and domestic who may try to deprive us of our rights or sovereignty. This would obviously include all foreign enemies, but also we defend against RINOS, Democrats, liberals, socialists, Marxists, communists, militant feminists or homosexualists, radical environmentalists, etc, etc, etc.
And we expect our elected representatives to also aggressively defend our rights and fight against all enemies foreign and domestic. We do not elect people and send them to DC or our state capitals, etc, to reach across the aisles or to be bipartisan or to negotiate or compromise away our rights. If you're not going to aggressively fight for us, and for our rights, STAY OUT!!
We bow to no king but God!
Our God-given unalienable rights are NOT negotiable!
Do NOT Tread on US!
Thank you very much!
I am not sure what you are talking about...but if you are asking if I chastised people who did not agree with me the answer is no; I simply try to make my case and sway people to see things differently using reason. I have never won anyone over to my way of thinking by chastising them.
I do not know which "MSM line" of which you speak.
To all I have offended using stuff it, deary
I want to apologized I was not aware of its real meaning I thought it was equivalent to the meaning of “put a sock in it!”
I choose that saying because I thought is sounded more endearing not so harsh, little did I know!
You must be referring to THIS:
********************
If any pro-Romney poster ever chastised another pro-Romney poster for bad behaviour, I do not recall seeing it.
It's almost funny that those who have criticized Romney are constantly being charged with being rude to his supporters, yet some of the worst posts have been by Romney fans.
Nope. not if we go back up my post to the part in bold, where I say about the new big tent: "Under it we can put all the one-issue voters who will NOT vote for a candidate who:"
and follow with a list of single-issue positions which Conservative voters feel strongly enough about that a liberal position by a candidate will stop them from voting for them.
The list shows the critical flaws in each of the DemocratMSM picked "Republican front-runners" in the last POTUS primary. You can find at least one issue there on which each of those candidates embraced a liberal stance, which would prevent a number of Conservatives from voting for them, regardless of their stance on the other issues.
"The list goes on, but we do support the empowerment of the individual by getting government off the individual's back, out of their wallet, and keeping the power to secure and defend their own in their hands."is in contrast to the positions I listed, which are unacceptable to Conservatives, either singly or in aggregate.
The more unacceptable positions, the more unacceptable the candidate, and by no means is the list complete. I just tried to hit the high points, but these are most of the issues where a liberal/socialist stance costs votes.
(Note I put in 'cap and trade' as opposed to global warming. The Congress may be able to vote on energy and taxation policy, but they can no more vote to warm or cool the planet than they can repeal the Law of Gravity.)
Each position on that issue is one which people so strongly oppose that they will often NOT vote for a candidate on that stance alone.
Each of those unacceptable positions is anti-Constitutional at some point.
Let's look at the last election, for instance. where were the stoppers?
Rudy: Gays and guns, for starters, enough right there.
McCain: Amnesty for Illegal Aliens and McCain/Feingold (not protecting our borders, anti-free speech). (He would not have done nearly so well if not for Palin on the ticket.)
Mitt: Marriage issues, guns.
Ron Paul: being portrayed as against The War on Terror and the US being a World Policeman in general. Associating him with fringe elements (Stormfront, 9/11 truthers) guaranteed he would not get the nod nor strong support despite positions on many of the issues which were in alignment with statements by the founders. (YMMV)
Which leaves Thompson who waited interminably to decide to run, and then fizzled, and Huckabee and Hunter who were shoved off the podium as much as possible by both the MSM and the anointed "front runners", despite Hunter having a delegate in Wyoming and North Dakota early on.
Hunter imho, was the best candidate on the issues out there.
The whole time we heard braying about "electability" which meant the media darlings, the Democrat/MSM-selected flawed candidates, were given prominence, and the die was cast.
Now, we have the losers, the too-liberal crowd trying to assert (in line with the MSM) that they were not liberal enough, and that the GOP needs to be even more like the Socialists.
It is my opinion that we need to go to the Right, not the Left on the issues, that there needs to be a definite contrast to Socialist policies.
That the individual is never empowered by government, at best their rights are protected thereby, and empowerment comes from being free to conduct themselves as they see fit. That includes fiscal matters, includes private property, personal defense and the responsibilities which accompany that freedom, and it includes the freedom to speak your mind.
The Constitution was written with the aim to delineate clear and concise duties of the Federal Government, a small government which would not intrude into the affairs of the individual lightly, and to protect the rights of citizens against that government by securing them from infringement. So long as it was followed, that is.
The idea to keep most government local, to provide for the redress of grievances against those local and State (and even Federal) governmental authorities, was the foundation of an enduring Republic, designed to secure liberty.
No where was the implication that that freedom was the freedom from responsibility, nor the freedom to do evil, nor the freedom to take a life without just cause, no matter how little that life may have developed, so long as it was developing.
The list of issue positions are antithetical to the very concept of our Republic, and that is why people believe so strongly that they will vote or not vote for a candidate based on a candidate's stance on that issue alone.
Will people vote for someone who is more Conservative than their stance on an issue? I firmly believe they will, given the choice between what they regard as an excessively Conservative stance on some issues versus excessively liberal stances on all the issues.
One third of the electorate will always vote liberal/Socialist. One third will vote for the most Conservative (Constitutionally and/or morally) available option. The other third is in the middle. It is the middle third that needs some choice other than a popularity contest, that needs a reason to back a candidate more substantial than the sound of his/her voice, cheap slogans, or hopeychangs.
The GOP needs to give that choice to the voters, and failing that, needs to go the way of the Whigs so another party can.
Indeed...
That we are ignorant rednecks (more PC than hillbilly)
I have a hard time agreeing in this respect...every time they post their Romney-pimpin' crap it's an opportunity to post the truth.
What I would like to see is tightening up on the number of Romney-pimpin' THREADS that are posted and about 3/4 of them sent into cyberspace at their birth.
There must be a happy medium between free speech on FR and the cynical using of the forum by the Romney campaign to gain free advertising for him.
I ask you this since you are a well read individual, do you know the definition of the word “adamantly”...
Do you think Mitt Romney does?
No, did you ever take any of your fellow Romney supporters aside and say “hey, that doesn’t help our cause”...
I did a few times with my side.
I didn’t know that then. One of the reasons I was changing Parties then was because of the attack on the Second Amendment by Democrats, Philadelphia politicians, especially one Councilman, were really nuts on the issue.
I had also realized that some of the people who had been involved in the Civil Rights struggle were in fact communists and used the issue for their ownpurposes.
Who are the legitimate conservative candidates for Pres. in 2012 right now:
Duncan Hunter
Bobby Jindal
Sarah Palin
Others? What about Huckabee?
LOL...
LDS Members increasingly influential in Washington scene
True, but the uber-liberal also had to overwhelm/convert enough of the Clinton supporters to get in. It worked.
Sure, that was covered up in the uber-liberal MSM, who presented his stance as "mainstream", but those are the same talking heads who present anyone to the Right of Hillary as "extremists".
The middle was mesmerized and caught up in the pep-rally fervor over the 'one', liberal white guilt, and "change".
Even before the election, I was asking people what it was that they wanted so desperately to "change" and often the reply was an epithet, not an answer.
We will never know the extent of voter fraud, but we know they were trying.
In contrast, there was little apparent contrast except Sarah Palin, whom the MSM went to great lengths to attack and degrade (Palin's daughter's boyfriend's mother's sister's cousin busted for ....Story at 7!). Otherwise, McCain's wishywashiness on all but Amnesty for Illegals failed to ignite the popular support someone more Conservative might have.
Regardless of candidate, the MSM will smear them hard and often if they are Conservative, and the work needs to begin at the grass roots level ASAP for a Conservative on the 2012 ticket.
It is the emotionally charged issues which will ignite ferverent support, all the hot-button issues. A "moderate" will only be a guarantee of another Obama term.
Thanks Jim for a very fine post.
Hopefully Mitt “the socialist” Romney will cancel his FR handle “mitt romney” and take his cool-aid drinkers with him.
Palin would be my choice of those....however, it's early and there is a possibility of another one or two surfacing...that IS, if the McCain/Romney/Bush cabal doesn't suck up all the air and campaign money now, as is their goal IMO.
I believe that they and the MSM are in cahoots to keep any conservative that may be electable from gaining a foothold.
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.