Can the Right Unite? (FreeRepublic.com is mentioned here!)

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | June 10, 2K2 | Michael P. Tremoglie

[rdb3]

Can the Right Unite? For America's sake, I hope so.

I did a search and could not find this article under the title "Can the Right Unite?"

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

Excellent post and article. Thanks.

[rdb3]

INCOMING!

[rdb3]

Let's just hope this can serve as a wake-up call to us that coordinating and disseminating our message is paramount.

[StockAyatollah]

True conservatives/libertarians are anti-collectivist. So its amazing that they forms groups at all let alone unite these groups. Liberals on the other hand will do anything necessary to consolidate their power. Such as when NOW looked the other way at Klinton's rape and harassment victims.

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

True. We need an alternative to Hillary's database.....the left's central nervous system in this country now.

[Willie Green]

It seems that there should be some kind of punishment for people who begin essays with the word "INDUBITABLY".

[mhking]

Excellent article! Unfortunately we are preaching to the choir with much of this (at least outside of your "friend" the other day). The larger questions is how we get to more of the people from among the unwashed masses who only think of us as being on the fringe, and convince them that it is not only good, but necessary to take an active interest in what is happening.

[stainlessbanner]

Thanks for the ping, good friend! Let us unite, brothers-in-arms to take back our republic!

[weikel]

I don't think the right can unite the "social conservatives" have their own big government agenda while the Rockwell/Raimondo faction of the libertarians is annoying and stupid foreign policy wise( hmmm maybe I should call the social conservatives, Raimondo, and Rockwell the axis of evil). They may be able to unite on certain things but these groups will never be able to cooperate for any length of time.

[ex-snook]

"Can the Right Unite? For America's sake, I hope so. "

LOL. Me too if 'right' means conservative-right rather than Neo-con-right. As of the last election, it is only .5% of the voters. It has a long way to go.

[stainlessbanner]

The liberal news forums need to read this article, but I feel so gross after I visit a liberal news-site!

[WIMom]

      

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com

[rdb3]

LOL. Me too if 'right' means conservative-right rather than Neo-con-right.

Then you really don't want a united Right. You want your view of the Right and that's it.

But that's your choice.

[rdb3]

True conservatives/libertarians are anti-collectivist.

True. But the uncoerced, voluntary decision(s) of various factions of the Right does not equate with "collectivist" thinking. Some most certainly would agree that it does, but that is not true.

[ex-snook]

"Then you really don't want a united Right. You want your view of the Right and that's it. "

Yep, you outed me. I want a conservative-right without the fifth-column Whitman-Greenwood RINOs or Kristol-McCain Neo-cons.

[swheats]

Thanks for the ping. Good article to show where our strengths are. C-Span might be undiluted news, but they have a serious left-leaning focus in their programming most of the time.

[mafree]

Thanks for the flag.

I sometimes wonder if the right can unite- it seems too easy to bash each other over 1-2 issues when there are so many more out there. Same thing happens on the left, but the effect isn't as bad because, IMO, folx in the middle seem to choose the left over the right. I think most moderates and undecideds are more scared of the right than they are of the left, which is why disunity on the right hurts conservative candidates more than disunity on the left hurts liberal candidates.

[Egregious Philbin]

Doesn't this article ignore the rift between the Democrats and the Green Party?

[billybudd]

There will never be unity between libertarians and "social conservatives" because the first group is not willing to compromise freedom for political ends, while the second is more than willing to do so. For "social conservatives", if it's immoral, demented, or disgusting (according to their personal view, of course) it ought to be banned. Just look at the "virtual kiddie porn" issue and see if there will ever be any agreement between these two branches of conservatism.