Free Republic does not allow anyone to argue on behalf of the leading candidate for the Republican nomination
I knew that Free Republic is a very tightly controlled website, not allowing, for example, any discussions of race, and not allowing any quotations of yours truly on any subject. Ok, I can live with the fact that because I say that race matters I’m beyond the pale of Free Republic owner Jim Robinson’s right-liberal philosophy. But did you know that another person considered beyond the pale at Free Republic is … Mitt Romney? Mr. Moderate himself? Jim Robinson writes in an e-mail to Politico:
Free Republic is a pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, pro-small government, pro-constitution, pro-liberty site. Governor Romney is none of the above. His record is that of an abortionist, gay rights pushing, gun grabbing, global warming advocating, big government, mandate loving, constitution trampling, flip-flopping liberal progressive with no core values. That and the fact that he is the chief architect and advocate for ObamaCare disqualifies him for any consideration whatsoever on Free Republic as a potential nominee for the presidency….As I’ve said before, FR has never appealed to me and I know very little about it, though it’s apparently a hugely popular site and some VFR readers are regulars there. But the idea that this mainstream conservative site which generally aligns itself with the Republican Party platform would ban any commenter who supports Romney, who just happens to be the leading candidate for the Republican nomination, is flabbergasting. This is especially the case since, as a reader pointed out in the VFR discussion linked above, back in 2008 Robinson banned commenters who were too critical of John McCain. So Robinson regards the famously liberal-leaning, Democrat-loving McCain as sacrosanct, but he prohibits any championing of Romney because Romney is—too liberal. The site sounds like a joke, and I wonder how it maintains its popularity.
Also, FR once banned a commenter for pointing out that Iraq had adopted a sharia constitution, evidently because this news would be seen as harmful to President Bush’s Iraq policy. It’s so funny that this famously rigid and closed site calls itself “Free Republic.”
I am no fan of “Free Republic” or its Charles Johnson clone, Jim Robinson. Robinson banned me from the site some years ago for taking a position that he did not approve of. Apparently, he has banned a lot of people for superficial reasons. Robinson is nothing more than a little bully and “Free Republic” is a joke.James P. writes:
You wrote,LA replies:
In this connection, see my recent entry, “Neocons’ despicable hypocrisy on the question of sharia,” in which I wrote:Jeff W. writes:
I was banned from Free Republic in 2006 for saying that George W. Bush should be impeached for his failure to enforce immigration law. I said that enforcement of immigration law was one of his most important duties.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 01, 2011 11:12 AM | Send