Reading "Goldwater liberal" was a Rorschach moment. Now I know why I keep coming back to see what you have to say. You and I are of the same horse. I was not a member of the Reagan revolution, although I did vote for his re-election. I ran the John Anderson campaign in this county, though, and we got 18 percent of the vote. There are a lot of Republicans who keep their heads down today, not wanting to be branded an evangelical. It's time to start speaking up. I want my party back.

Thanks for the comment.

I probably should have linked the "Goldwater liberal" remark, but it's not new here:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2006/03/goldwater_liber_1.html

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2006/07/a_comment_by_jo.html

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2006/07/but_what_about_1.html

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2006/04/which_party_is.html

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2006/05/all_bloggers_ar.html

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2006/06/headed_for_mora.html

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2006/06/a_choice_of_ech.html

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2006/08/push_me_where_i.html

Years ago I got banned from Free Republic for criticizing Bush for keeping Norman Minteta (who seemed to be against letting pilots carry guns on board). The people who run that place brook very little dissention

Hmmmm.

Or, amazingly enough, he might feel very very strongly that Guiliani is not someone that should be elected President by conservatives.

Gosh!

But you must be right. After all every single conservative must have some venal reason for thinking Guiliani is a lying liberal scumbag that shouldn't be put into office by conservatives.

But that would interfere with this idiot meme of yours so ... frolic.

Yeah, the natives in the conservative blogosphere are getting restless. Polipundit long ago became an intellectual wasteland, and now FR is gone. Too bad.

Isn't Jim Robinson a registered Democrat? Or at least he used to be.

A. I give NO (can't emphasize no enough) weight to Pajamas Media polls. Notwithstanding PM's political leanings, PM polls have no consistency with reality-- such as Ron Paul being number 1 for weeks on end. PM polls have many problems to work out.

B. I am more conservative than the author of this post, but I can say that to my opinion, Rudy has much less of a problem with 'the base' then the media likes to hopefully portray. There will be lots of drumbeating by McCain's liberal friends in the media that Rudy is too liberal, etc. That's cause both McCain and the liberal media are afraid of Rudy.

C. With Rudy at least you know what your getting. McCain changes direction every 15 minutes. Also, and this is a BIG point. McCain disagrees with the so-called Republican base by condescending to them in the media. Rudy, on the other hand, has a way of making his points in a more logical fashion. Rudy is leadership.

Although you are correct about Hillary being good for general VRWC site traffic, I also think she is, factually if not by popular perception, the least objectionable of the major Dem candidates. She at least grasps the basic reality of Iraq, whereas the rest of the field seems driven by the antiwar left's delusion we can walk away without an Al Qaeda flags sprouting up over all the Sunni cities in our wake.

Like you, I found FR a bit too extreme and stopped visiting years ago. They're not quite to the level of DU, but they're definitely in the DKos range of selective perception of reality.

Interesting.

I've read freeper myself, but I haven't been aware of their banning certain commenters.

Did Freerepublic give you a reason for banning Mr. Robinson, Eric? Did you ask? (besides

I admit I am skeptical, I'd like to get some corroboration from freeper's side that what they did was as egregious as you say it was. I'll eventually contact them at length to try and get the story later this week. I'm particularly interested in the EXACT comments that were grounds for banning.

To be sure, your own charges against Mr. Robinson would carry far more weight if you didn't limit them to generalaities that had no evidentiary basis, nor any corroboration.

If you can produce detailed comments that were being banned and provide corroboration (The FR proprietor might even acknowledge the banning for the particular statment), you would have the makings of a good case of extremism.

I do not doubt your exasperation over what you think transpired. Nevertheless, "gossip" is too easily spread over the internet. Context is everything. I just want to "verify" before I "believe".

And if you think my concerns are erroneous, that's fine too. These things are as easily dismissed as they are believed over the internet depending on the character involved.

Take care sir.

Regards,

Terry

I should learn to proof-read:

that was "banning 'by' Mr. Robinson" not "banning Mr. Robinson"

;P

I'm pretty sure the Giuliani supporters from FreakRepublic ended up here. And the radical evolution believers ended up here.

Never been much of a frequenter of the FR site, and most of that is for single articles as the commentary has not been impressive, even on the first page...

Beyond that, since I like folks who have actually done what they said they would and stick by it over time, that means anyone who was in the previous Congress or this one, or has been in Congress since 1986 can go take a hike unless they have the annual bills they introduced and got shot down to show they at least *tried* to do something on some National issues of importance. I am left with a vanishingly small field at that point...

One must do more than talk a good game, one must have worked at it and done something. That actually cuts the Congresscritters out, in any event. After that National Security and going after the Enemies of the Nation who have declared themselves as such are about it for issues that interest me, although a 'Chainsaw Al' approach to government would be a really nice thing after that at third. Those three should keep the Nation very busy for the next decade or so, and it would be a good thing to get a start on them soonest.

Hard to find candidates like that on either 'side' or party. Still getting a lot of the 20th century noise that doesn't work, and I am starting to wonder exactly when some folks will get some new scripts updated for this world we are currently in.

I'm pretty sure that I won't live to see the next card-carrying Christian elected President. They had their shot, the results are at best mixed, and it's time for them to let someone else try. No candidate from the social right can win this time. That's assuming that they care about winning, of course.

Kevin,

I think it is very possible that you will see a "card carrying" Christian elected. If the senior Senator from Connecticut decided to run, you might see a "card carrying" Jew elected. Religion, in the main, has always been a strong, unifying context within the American experience.

Most of the world's religions, in my experience, tend to view the administrative realities of day-to-day life as mundane rather than secular. And I think there is an important equivocation between the meaning of these two words. Of course, it could be argued that there are sects among the Hindi, Jewish and Christian faiths for whom literal adherance to the written word are more important, no matter how absurd, than would be a certain, common-sense view of pragmatism. But, such is the essence of life. (Want a religion to invest in as a growth stock? Try the Shakers.)

Although critics of the Church like pointing out the lack of esoteric recreation during the Inquisition, the fact of the matter is that life, as administered within duchy, raion, fief or field was the fruit falls from the tree. Not the other way around. Even Muslims, before Wahabism and Salafism, were more intent on making sure that Joe didn't steal Bill's sheep/camel/goats than that he did, or didn't shave. Or enjoy flying a kite. Or a game of chess.

Being a Christian means certain things to me. I don't think I could truthfully refer to myself as a Christian because I have a hard time accepting the pillars of faith. (Virgin birth, crucifixion, resurrection.) I don't doubt the crucifixion. Romans dug the whole cross thing.

But picking up the cross...this is where I see a lot of "christians" falling down on the job. I have in my life met several Christians. And these are among the most amazing people I have ever met. I worked for Jews while I was going to school and have never forgotten the lessons of how to treat the people who work for you. One of my favorite friends is a Sunni Kurd who never drank beers on Dimer's Night With Free All You Can Eat Tacos! but he never let my being an "infidel" interfere with our friendship. Just as those of my friends (athiest, gnostic,Christian) who never drink from choice--no matter their motives--are still my friends today.

So, I look forward to a card carrying Christian or Jew as President. I think the Bhuddist/Hindu/Mormon? is a little longer shot because we simply don't accept/understand the underpinnings of their beliefs as we do the Christian/Jew as of the same thread as Abraham and Moses. (As an aside, I don't think Harry Reid is helping Mitt Romney here. But Harry is riding a bull named Fu Manchu and hoping to get his eight-seconds.)

I don't think any reasonable man would vote against a Christian just for being a Christian. Or Catholic. And finally, hopefully, a Jew. Hopefully it won't serve to enable another president like Jimmy Carter, though.

Speaking as one who has been banned from FR, it was pretty good when JR didn't try to impose his view. I even went on record as saying so, and that's one reason FR is better than Kos. (The other reason: no socialists except MurrayMom, and only a handful of Israel-haters)

Later I was banned for being a radical evolution believer but I was throwing some elbows. Certainly not as harsh as the name-calling the anti-evos used, but I knew I was pushing it.

FR was always full of kooks and idiots, but it was a big place, and there were also a lot of smart and reasonable people. It's sad to see that JR is trying to be the right-wing Kos. That would be a bad thing even if he was pushing my favorite candidate to the exclusion of the hard right.

I think it's shameful that JR would try to use this election--this one--to redefine what the Republican Party is all about, when this election needs to be about winning the war in Iraq. The RINOs and the hard right need to make a deal on this: if your candidate wins the primary, we're going to support him and vote for him, because the war is the most important issue. If Giuliani wins the primary, JR is going to find his site marginalized because so many of its members will be opposed to working for a GOP victory.

Free Republic was turned into a hate site by its owner years ago. When Lucianne Goldberg and Matt Drudge left, it was probably because of continual ant-gay remarks being posted by right wing nut cases with the apparent encouragement of Jim Robinson.
An article at Salon.com back in 1999 titled: "Free-For-All at Free Republic" by Jeff Stein
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/1999/07/13/free/index.html
quotes Lucianne as follows:
"He's a mean shit," says Goldberg of Robinson, once her partner in exposing Clinton crimes. She launched her own Web site, Lucianne.com, taking "2,000" Freepers with her, she says. "I am not anti-abortion, I am not Y2K either. I'm not a homophobe, I'm not an anti-Semite -- Christ ... I have a Jewish husband ... I have four people who work for me and half of them are gay. I mean, this is ridiculous."

She pretty well says it all: "I'm not a homophobe..." defining the difference between Robinson and her.

There were plenty of us who were not anti-gay while I was there (after 1999), though the anti-gay rhetoric was certainly heavy everywhere. I remember one bi girl poster, but other than that I don't remember any gays. I suppose anyone who admitted to being gay was purged, or they just didn't want to be in FR in the first place.

While I was there, the people who left were for the most part too kooky for FR (it took some effort to get banned), and they drifted to the Liberty Post. I was amazed to find Darwin Central today. That's nothing like LP. FR has lost a lot of quality members since I left!

I like that people are talking about issues, but I think that this election is going to be a very important one. With the senate very divided, and with close margins in the congress, I think the ability of a person to win needs to be a much larger factor in the discussion then I've been seeing. The simple fact is that Guiliani has the best chance of winning of any of the candidates. If he splits the NY city vote, most of northern NY state will go republican, and he could win the NY electoral votes. I don't think there's any way a Dem can win without New York, meaning that a ticket with Guiliani (even as VP) might be a lock on the Presidency.

Hmmmm.

Not a Social Conservative by any measure but as someone who lives in NJ I must say that it'll be a cold day in Hell before I vote for Guiliani.

No chance I'll vote for a pro-gun control guy like Guiliani. Because no matter what he says to your face about how he'll conduct himself, he'll ignore it and do whatever he likes. So when you vote for Guiliani be aware that you're definitely voting in a guy who is *center-left* Republican.

*shrug* but hey. It isn't the first time conservatives have talked themselves into believing a candidate will conduct himself in a way that he obviously will not.

"allows people to amend it -- in direct contravention of whatever they intended!"

I'm not so sure the founders had that it mind, as they considered our rights to pre-exist our government. Thus, the bill of rights is a guarantee, not a grant, and the founders would not have considered the amendment process one by which they could be justly violated.

A right, it has been forgotten, is non-negotiable. Most of our negotiable legislation regards privileges the government is in no way obligated to sustain.

Eric -

A very thoughtful and accurate article. Thank you for posting it.

There are ~530 of us who where recently "purged" at http://www.wideawakes.net

JimRob can ban us, but he cannot silence us.

Open minded conservatives, this is your invitation.
http://www.wideawakes.net

Steve Gilbert's biased version of events doesn't mention his seven year history of operating more than thirty websites and forums devoted to "anti-freeping" as the user "Dung Beetle" and "Rimjob", among dozens of names. His activities stopped only once he realized he could make money blogging against the left rather than against the right.

Jim Robinson has never been a Republican and has never embraced Republican values. He was just pretending for a while.