Yes, you read the title correctly: I hung out at Free Republic last night. I established an account there over a year ago and while it had been about that long since my last visit, I wandered over there based on diaries about the right's reaction to Mel Martinez.
What I saw was a lot of angst, mainly directed at the Republican party itself. Mixed in was a healthy dose of Dem-bashing, notably illustrated by a post with a picture of the new Democratic Senatorial leadership and a request that Free Republic members caption the photo. Interesting responses - almost amusing.
But I wound up actually posting something over there. I did it with all sincerity and was not intending to kick off a flame war. Follow me and I'll explain.
First, a few things you should know if you haven't figured it out already by reading my posts here. I consider myself a moderate Democrat. What does that really mean? I don't know - not really, at any rate - but that is how I think of myself, more "for the party" than hard left. While I heard and accepted many of the complaints levied here against Dems running in Red states, I was really Dem first, ideology somewhere after that.
Second (like just about everyone here), I am both fascinated and frightened by the 2008 Presidential race. My Dem pick would have been Mark Warner hands-down. Because remember - I'm Dem first and that means winning. We can tinker with ideologies within the party but when it comes to election season, we have to be focused on winning. I thought Mark Warner had the goods. Aside, my new first choice is Al Gore because I'm very much NOT in the Hillary camp for a variety of reasons not germane to this particular diary. Having said that, however, I was mentally playing with the idea of a Hillary Clinton v. (insert Republican here) race. In my laundry-list of inserted Republican names, I came to Rudy Giuliani.
Let me step away for a moment and tell you - my experience of Rudy Giuliani did not exist prior to 9/11. I have seen many thoughtful comments from many respected posters indicating that he was an unsavory Mayor overall. Yet I still find him, intellectually speaking, a compelling figure to contemplate mainly because he's so incredibly socially liberal. In short, my thinking was that a Rudy Giuliani nomination (yes, I'm speculating WAY forward here) would signal a decided shift in Republican ideology and should, at a minimum, be something to which we pay attention over here as we ramp up to the '08 season.
With that as a background, I posted the following at Free Republic:
A Question from a Webb Supporter
[Link to an excerpt from Washington Post article talking about the McCain and Giuliani exploratory committee announcements]
I'm curious. As a Democrat who trends VERY moderate (for example, I'm very pro-enforcement on the immigration issue; reasonably pro-gun, etc.), I'm curious as to how the potential of a Rudy Giuliani running for President is being seen over here.
My personal opinion is that IF (and that's a big if) Giuliani could get the Republican nomination, it would herald a return to a more traditional form of conservatism - pro-law enforcement, fiscally conservative, smaller government etc. without legislating social issues whatsoever.
Speaking only for myself, I can say that I would welcome that - it would be nice to have a CHOICE that didn't involve the hand of the religious right.
I'd appreciate any thoughtful insight from this community.
And just so you know - I would welcome it. That is not to be confused, however, with thinking that this means I would vote for Giuliani.
I seriously wasn't trying to poke them with a sharp stick. I thought I laid out very clearly at the outset the fact that I was a miderate Democrat and Webb supporter who was curious about the "other" side's attitudes about Giuliani.
As it stands right now, the post has 616 comments, and I stayed through them all so as not to commit a drive-by. A few things leapt out at me, some of which you may like and others you won't. In any case, the whole experience was instructive.
Although there were a few notable exceptions, the commentary was largely civil. Again - not everyone did so, but many challenged me and disagreed but did so respectfully.
They hate Rudy Giuliani, generally speaking. They think social issues will be his downfall. Several commented that the very reason that I don't think he's a bad guy is why he will never win the nomination.
The thread went totally off the subject of the original post. It was clear (I assume) that they had a non-FRer in their midst and it was an opportunity to throw a whole SCAD of issues at me for response or refutation.
In line with 3 above, the vast majority of the discussion had to do with why being pro-choice is a wrong, murderous, hateful, repugnant thing to do. You can guess how that discussion went.
To a lesser extent, the war in Iraq as well as economic policy (specifically tax cuts) were other subject areas addressed in the comments.
I was widely accused of being a "plant" who was there to do research for "the left" (although I didn't point this out, if that was my aim, I could have simply lurked and read without posting or commenting - shrug)
I was equally widely accused of being a "liberal" who merely "spouted talking points". Those comments were dismissive of any particular point I had made. Go figure.
One comment in particular indicated that I should have to be a woman who has had a baby to be qualified to comment on when life begins (re: abortion). That was isolated but still strange.
They also hate John McCain but they may hold their nose and support him because he has credentials on fighting Islamic radicalism.
Hopefully you're still with me here. I need to reinforce: I posted not because I wanted to ridicule or poke their community with a sharp stick (we all know how that feels with trolls who post incendiary diaries over here). I was genuinely curious as to the answer to my question and what kind of response I would get.
Now - what I learned.
First, what was said to me in the thread of the post itself is separate and apart from a host of private messages I got from others (they have a PM system). Generally, the PMs I got indicated that, while the person sending the message was pro-choice, that was a losing argument on FR and one best left unaddressed. Essentially, either toe the line or decline to comment. The PMs also lamented those who were instigating personal attacks against me (I was constantly referred to as "it") and espoused the opinion that more respectful diversity in the right-wing blogosphere would be a good thing for everyone.
Second, they eat their own. It's the mirror-image of what I sometimes see here (this is the part you won't like). There was immediately a great deal of discussion about RINOs and much hand-wringing about the direction of the Republican party. Generally speaking, I got the impression that the center is no place to be if you want to post at FR without getting attacked and that the party itself had "learned nothing" and needed to turn harder TO THE RIGHT. The parallels were shocking.
Third, they definitely buy the Republican talking points, notwithstanding the fact that they generally think the party itself doesn't represent them any longer. I saw many quotes of right-leaning figures as to how the tax cuts have created jobs and have been a great thing. I saw many comments about how people shouldn't rely on government to "do it for them". I saw many comments about how Saddam Hussein was a bad guy and what was I saying - that it was ok to leave him there? I was pretty flabbergasted to see that several commenters definitely felt that Al Qadea in Iraq's "endorsement" of a Democratic win prior to the November 7 election meant that Democrats were weak and soft on terror. It didn't seem to resonate at all when I tried to say that it's all propaganda and AII would have spun a Republican OR Democratic OR split vicotry to their own ends. ((sigh))
Fourth, I genuinely believe that there is some level of disarray within the right-wing activist blogophere. We have had ideological disagreements over here, of course. The eternal argument of whether we, as a party, should track to the center vs. farther left springs to mind. For those of you who have been around long enough to remember the tone and recriminations immediately following the 2004 elections (I was still a lurker at the time - you can go here and start reading on November 3, 2004 into the following days if you're curious), it was ugly here. While we may still be wrestling with ideological directions and the future of the Democratic party, we are much happier doing it today with last week's win under our belt. What's going on at FR is reminiscient of what it was like here when we lost miserably.
Finally, let me highlight one comment that came from a poster who treated me with nothing but respect throughout the entire exchange. This poster (who I will leave anonymous) is someone who agreed with me on my core arguments (the executive needs checking and oversight; the tax cuts for the wealthiest and capital gains tax cuts and tax cuts for obscenely profitable corporations should be repealed; the Iraq war is a mess, etc.) with one very hard-stop exception: S/he is pro-life and I am pro-choice. I will not vote for nor support a Dem candidate who intends to change the legal status of abortions in the US (regardless of whether they are personally pro-life) and s/he will not vote for nor support a Repub candidate who does NOT make making abortion illegal a centerpiece of their tenure. The comment I found chilling was this:
Oh but they will, DCBandita, they will.
Hispanics are the decisive pivot and the future of the country. They will be Democrats, economically liberal Democrats. Republicans will scream that they are socialists, even.
They may, or may not, tolerate gays.
But the ONE ISSUE that they're not going to bend to current Democratic liberalism is family values and abortion. They're Catholics before they are Democrats.
The Democrat economic agenda will win in the end.
But the one thing that will be lost on the Democrat agenda is your one issue on which you won't compromise: abortion.
That's the silver lining in the clouds of illegal Hispanic immigration. It's why the Church so strenuously opposes the fence and restricting illegals. Hispanics will make America a majority Democrat, perhaps even Spanish-speaking, social welfare state...that's pro-life.
Did you know that abortion is illegal in EVERY Latin American country except Cuba.
Every one.
Some are starting to tolerate gays. That's a private morals issue. But abortion is life, and Catholics are funny about that life business.
Now we just have to watch this play out over our lifetimes. Demography is destiny. Economic conservatism is dead because of demography. So are abortion rights.
It's just a matter of time.
((shudder)) Food for thought. I don't know that I believe it, but I don't know that I don't, either. And in that alone, I learned something I hadn't previously considered, which made the whole experience worth it.
I've linked the post in the body above - you can check out the comments and my replies. I posted over there as 'DCBandita' (can't remember why I chose that over a year ago). I don't know what it all means or if it means anything, but I wanted to share it with all of you.