Classical Values :: No Freepers for Giuliani?

May 14, 2007

No Freepers for Giuliani?

Last night I read an interesting colloquy between Glenn Reynolds and a reader (prompted by a discussion of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasty politics):

Reader Ben Borwick emails: "Almost all polls show Hillary losing to Giuliani so why perpetuate this hype?" But will the Republicans be smart enough to run Rudy?

This depends on who and what "the Republicans" are. (And what is smart.)

Frankly, I don't know, and I can only speak for myself. I admit to being a registered Republican voter, a self described small-l libertarian, a RINO, and a Goldwater liberal. I don't expect my views to carry much weight within the GOP, much less carry the day when it comes time to selecting a candidate. For years -- literally in post after post) -- I have worried that Hillary Clinton will be elected president in large part as a result of Republican collusion, especially because her election is in the interest of certain elements of the GOP's right wing.

As I keep saying, if enough people want something to happen, it will happen.

I'm not much of a Freeper type (I don't comment there and I suspect they'd ban me if I did), but the GOP is a big tent, and the Freepers have always struck me as a tent within a tent. There has always been a great deal of debating going on at Freerepublic.com, and while I don't enjoy debates or reading through endless comments, the Freepers can usually be counted upon to display a variety of views, and they take issue with each other, with commenters from one ideological camp often being countered by those from another.

Maybe I'm not as in touch with Freerepublic as I should be, but I have to admit I was a bit surprised to read reports of massive purges going on, with the proprietor Jim Robinson banning pro-Giuliani commenters.

This has now reached the attention of GOPUSA, in the form of a thread titled "Free Republic : site for one issue extremists only":

Jim Robinson has been going on a tear demonizing Rudy Giuliani, because Rudy (agreeing with the vast majority of Americans), is personally opposed to abortions on a moral level, but does not think that decent people who disagree and have or provide an abortion, should be criminals and sent to prison.

Anyone who posts any support for Giuliani at the site, if it's at all forceful, will be banned.

There's a long essay on the subject by a disgruntled longtime Freeper (and non-Giuliani supporter) Steve Gilbert, and he touches on the collusion aspect:

A conspiracy theorist might even suggest that Free Republic would be far more likely to regain a lot of its former glory and profitability under a Clinton administration than under a Republican administration. And that this could be a motivation in attacking the GOP front-runner and talking about starting a third party -- or just encouraging people to sit the election out in protest.

In any case, I was merely trying to remind people on the current blood-letting thread about Mr. Robinson's previous turnabouts when I was banned. With the turnover at Free Republic, there are fewer and fewer people who remember its roller-coaster history. And fewer still who are willing to face banishment by bringing it up.

I'm not sure that it rises to the level of conspiracy theorizing to wonder whether a particular result (here the election of Hillary Clinton) might be in the interest of a particular web site owner.

Jim Robinson is certainly no friend of Hillary Clinton, and not only will he never support her, I am sure that if she is elected president he will do everything humanly possible to fight her, play as large a role in the VRWC as possible, and probably work towards her impeachment if that ever became an issue. (Yeah, the site's already taken.) It would therefore be ridiculous to argue that Jim Robinson or Freerepublic.com is working consciously for Hillary. Unconscious motivations are another matter, and because they are ultimately unknowable, ascribing them to anyone is simply an exercise in speculation.

But self interest is an entirely different matter, and I don't think it constitutes conspiracy thinking to ask a question along the following lines:

Assume that either Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani will be elected president in 2008. Under which administration would Freerepublic become more popular in terms of hits, links, and web traffic -- Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani?

As to Jim Robinson's arguments against Rudy Giuliani, he has written many. His basic worry seems to be that voting for Giuliani compromises an embrace of socialism, and a betrayal of founding principles as well as GOP principles. In a typical post titled "Will FR embrace socialism to make way for Rudy Giuliani as a Republican presidential candidate?," Robinson makes it clear that the founders "never intended" a lot of things. True. I'm sure they never intended Giuliani. Or Hillary. (Or, for that matter Ronald Reagan, Al Gore, the automobile, the cell phone, or the Internet.) They intended the Constitution as the best way to restrain government, but even that allows people to amend it -- in direct contravention of whatever they intended!

Robinson has also created a special category called "The Giuliani Truth File" which is a collection of posts attacking Giuliani. "The Giuliani Truth File" is listed apart and separate from the rest of the Free Republic News/Activism categories, as follows:

SCOTUS | ProLife | Terrorism | WOT | Korea | PreWarDocs | Aliens | BangList | Taxes | Homosexual Agenda | Corruption | Congress | Bush | Elections | Rally | WalterReed | TalkRadio | CitizensReportonIraq (.pdf file) | Gathering of Eagles | Donate to FR

The Giuliani Truth File - Rudy: In his own words and deeds.

Hmmm...

Not to disparage anyone's editorial style, but shouldn't there maybe be a "Hillary Truth File"?

Just a thought. It might be a handy thing for those who oppose Hillary to have.

MORE: What the heck. I thought I'd make a poll:

MORE: OregonGuy's comment that reading "Goldwater liberal" was a "Rorschach moment" reminded me that I should have provided links, because the term "Goldwater liberal" is by no means a new term here.

The crazy thing about all of this is that while I'm a loathsome liberal to many Freeper types, by Philadelphia standards I'm a member of the far right.

(I'm increasingly unable to explain what appears to be a growing cognitive disconnect. I may need a Rorschach moment.)

UPDATE: Freepers for McCain, anyone? Perhaps this should be the subject of a new post, perhaps not. But Glenn Reynolds can't ignore "The McCain Comeback" by Pajamas Media's Bill Bradley, and neither can I:

On the Republican side, McCain has a much smaller edge than Clinton does on the Democratic side. McCain leads with 19% to Mitt Romney's 15%, Fred Thompson's 13%, Rudy Giuliani's 12%, and Newt Gingrich's 7%. But it's a significant development for McCain, in that Giuliani had been leading in what is now the second-in-the-nation contest.

Last week's American Research Group poll of California Republican primary voters has McCain with a statistical tie with Giuliani. Giuliani has 27% to McCain's 24%. Everyone else trails by at least double digits.

If McCain has a strong showing tomorrow night in South Carolina, where the Republican field will hold their second encounter following the May 3rd California debate, his standing as comeback candidate should be obvious to all.
The name "John McCain" has long been anathema to Freepers. While Giuliani might be the number one anathema right now, Free Republic's own polls show that McCain is actually far more of an anathema -- and has been for far longer, and by a very wide ratio: These are the results of polls taken on Free Republic, a destination that makes even conservatives in the blogosphere blanch. And while a significant chunk say they'd go third party with Rudy (they're Tancredoites, analogous to the Feingold backers on Daily Kos), just look at those McCain numbers. More Freepers would go third party than vote for McCain. Fully a third of Freepers would be willing to back Rudy but not McCain in a general election.

Wow. Just wow.
Of course, that poll was before the purge, but still... By any reasonable Freeper standard, McCain is by far the worse of the two anathemas.

If he's pulling even with Giuliani, I think Freerepublic should be getting to work on "The McCain Truth File" before it's too late.

FWIW, if Hilllary is the Democratic nominee, despite the fact that none of the GOP candidates are perfect I'd have no problem voting for McCain, Guiliani, or Thompson.

But there are no purges underway here, so it's easy for me to say.

UPDATE: My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the link, and welcome all! I do appreciate the comments, as well as the participation in this admittedly unscientific poll.

UPDATE (05/16/07): It's not just the Freepers who feel this way. Influential conservative Richard Viguerie is fit to be tied:
(CNSNews.com) - "If the Republican Party nominates Rudy Giuliani as its candidate for either president or vice president, I will personally work to defeat the GOP ticket in 2008," said conservative leader Richard Viguerie following Tuesday night's debate. "Rudy Giuliani is wrong on all of the social issues, is wrong on the Second Amendment, and is pretty much a blank slate on all other issues of importance to conservatives," Viguerie added. "If the Republican Party nominates him, it is saying to the American people that it has lost all purpose except the raw political desire to hold power. It will be time to put the GOP out of its misery." Viguerie is urging conservatives to withhold support for all of the Republican presidential candidates: "The leading candidates aren't worthy of conservative support, and the few who are truly conservative don't have a realistic chance of getting the nomination," he said.
But could they win?

posted by Eric on 05.14.07 at 10:25 AM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/5017

Comments

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.

OregonGuy · May 14, 2007 10:54 AM

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

Eric Scheie · May 14, 2007 11:03 AM

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

JeremyR · May 14, 2007 04:53 PM

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.

memomachine · May 14, 2007 05:11 PM

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

whackjobbbb · May 14, 2007 05:25 PM

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

anonymous · May 14, 2007 05:29 PM

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.

mbviews · May 14, 2007 05:36 PM

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.

TallDave · May 14, 2007 06:06 PM

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

Terry Kain · May 14, 2007 06:19 PM

I should learn to proof-read:

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

Terry Kain · May 14, 2007 06:25 PM

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

Alan · May 14, 2007 06:51 PM

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.

ajacksonian · May 14, 2007 07:09 PM

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 Murphy · May 14, 2007 09:14 PM

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.

OregonGuy · May 14, 2007 11:41 PM

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.

Daryl Herbert · May 15, 2007 12:58 AM

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.

Frank · May 15, 2007 12:58 AM

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!

Daryl Herbert · May 15, 2007 01:15 AM

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.

BR · May 15, 2007 09:52 AM

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.

memomachine · May 15, 2007 01:11 PM

"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.

Brett · May 16, 2007 08:05 AM

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

bannedfreeper · May 17, 2007 01:26 AM

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.

Guesst · May 29, 2007 06:17 PM