Talk:Republican Party (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Republican Party (United States) article.
Portal:United States
 United States Portal
This article is supported by the United States WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3


Contents

[edit] Election box metadata

This article contains some sub-pages that hold metadata about this subject. This metadata is used by the Election box templates to display the color of the party and its name in Election candidate and results tables.

These links provide easy access to this meta data:


[edit] College tuition issue

Please add in the article about the Republican stance on the high tuition fee in American universities, and if they believe in free tuition fee or not, and its contrast with Democratic party. User:Magicalsaumy.

it's not a party issue. GOP tends to oppose tuition increases BUT also cuts funding for state colleges (a contradiction). Rjensen 05:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That's wrong Rjensen. The GOP believes in free market, and would prefer to keep schools privately funded. Free tuition is absolutely not a stance of the GOP.

The GOP believes in higher education since 1854, and actually can take credit for many state universities. But since Reagan started charging tuition in California in 1960s, it's been an issue. There are a few free-tuition schools (like West Point and Annapolis), of which the GOP is very proud--Bush gives talks at the military academies all the time.Rjensen 11:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Ever since the 1960s, the GOP hasn't really believed in free college, because people with no financial investment into college are less likely to take it seriously. When California's community colleges went from effectivly free (somewhere around $10/semester) to charging even a small amount ($10/unit), enrollment dropped, but the quality of the students rose - people came to class more, dropped classes mid-term less, etc. But RJensen is right that "free" hasn't been an issue in most states for a long time. Now they're just haggling over the price. Argyriou (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The GOP Congress and a GOP President signed into law $12.6 billion in cuts this year to student aid. I think that speaks a lot more about their priorities than a party platform.Francisx 09:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
That sounds an awful lot like a talking-point, counselor. Rkevins82 16:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Talking point? Of course it's a talking point. But that doesn't mean it's inaccurate. On July 1, Congress raised the interest rates for federal student loans, from 5.3% to 6.8% (for students) or 8.5% (for parents for the FEFFL program) resulting in a $12.6 billion cut.--Francisx 05:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh my, those nefarious Republicans, raising rates to reflect the secondary credit rate! Rkevins82 07:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
You can argue that changing the law to expressly raise interest rates on student loans was a good thing, but you can't argue that the 109th Congress didn't do it. The Miller-Durbin Bill will almost certainly be one of the first pieces of legislation pushed through the Democratic 110th Congress, which will in part reverse the 2006 rate increase.--Francisx 07:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Are student aid and cheaper tuition equivalent terms? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.187.184.34 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes and no. Most student aid is somewhat targeted, either by academic potential, or by parental income. Cheaper tuition benefits the rich and the dumb equally to the poor and the smart, while student aid does not. Argyriou (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Question are those true cuts in the program? Or did congress limit the growth of the program? I never understood how both parties call limiting the growth of a program they support my an opponent a cut. That being said I never had any issues paying my way to college, even going to a private school that had much higher tuition then the state universities. If you have the grades to goto college in many cases, you also have the grades for many scholarship and grant programs. PPGMD 22:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
They were cuts. As for why a slowdown in growth is often effectively a cut, it's because the value of money is constantly decreasing (see inflation) and also because of the rising population. If you have allocated the same amount of money this year as last year, but this year you're trying to serve a population that's twice as large, buying goods that are twice as expensive, you clearly cannot do anywhere near as much with the money.Francisx 07:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separation of Powers and Federalism

In the Separation of Powers and Federalism section it said that Republicans believe making laws is the responsibility of the "legislative and executive." I deleted the executive part on account that it isn't true. The Republican Party knows that the executive branch's role is and should be limited to the enforcing the law, not making it. If you want to get into semantics; with a party consisting of millions of registered members, so of course there are going to be a few who are ignorant of the Constitution's separation of powers and/or think the President should be allowed to make laws. But the overwhelming majority, (probably 99-99.9%) are staunch federalists. 72.195.159.155 06:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Mike Reason

I wrote it that way, because the President has the power to veto laws, and in practice, is involved in the legislative process. (And part of the executive, the Vice-President, occasionally gets to vote in the Senate.) But I'm not going to bother changing it back - neither way is wrong, just different perspectives. Argyriou (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economic policies neutral?

I wonder about the neutrality of the statement "Republicans strongly supported the welfare reform of 1996, which limited eligibility for welfare and led to many former welfare recipients finding jobs." Is there a reference that can back this statement? Otherwise it sounds biased to me and would need to be revised. Tigeriz 23:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There are tons of references. I've added one to the text. Argyriou (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's grossly biased. It needs to be changed. 69.216.97.240 04:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-biasing this article

Look, no one is ever going to be satisfied with this article (unless they have no political pulse... know anyone like that? I sure don't). However, I believe the majority of this article doesn't do too bad. Its obviously written by a Republican or Conservative-leaning person. There are a few things that should be removed, if only to keep a veil of non-bias:

1. "Working again in bipartisan fashion, the Social Security financial crises were resolved for the next 25 years." This line is simply cannot be true: Either they were resolved, or the crises were delayed. Resolution is a final concept, not a temporary one. Hence: Resolution.

2. Mention of the national debt issues arrising from the Regan Era, and the Iran/Contra scandle (how do you talk about the Contra support and just "forget" that portion of it?) would also be appropriate highlights of the Regan Era.

3. "In March 2003, Bush chose to invade Iraq with a coalition of allied countries after a lengthy diplomatic effort through the United Nations." I think that many people would argue what a "lengthy diplomatic effort" entails... I also think that a majority of people would suggest that this effort was not as lengthy as it should have been. I am not suggesting using a word such as "token" in its place, but I believe this line shows a little too much in the way of "Yay Bush" without much in the way of aknowledging that there was controversy overy some of the claims.

4. "House Majority Leader Tom DeLay came under criminal indictment in Texas, brought about by Democrat Ronnie Earle, for alleged campaign funding abuses, and stepped down as Majority Leader in October 2005 and from his Congressional seat in June 2006." This is the kind of crap that irks most Democrats. There is nothing incorrect with this sentance. However, would it not be JUST as accurate - and possibly less insinuating - if we called him "District Attourney Ronnie Earle"? The fact that Ronnie Earle is a Democrat does less to inform the reader that it does to insinuate some sort of political retrobution. If ANYONE has proof any such action by Ronnie Earle, I implore them to contact the Federal Authorities. Otherwise, this is a useless bit of information wich implies unsubstatiated allegations.

My 2 Cents. Disclaimer: I am an avowed Democrat—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.81.122.66 (talk • contribs) .

In that same vane, statements at the head of the article stating they've won 7 of the last 10 elections, while true, is a biased statement. You could just as easily say they've won 7 of the last 12 or 9 of the last 19. Liquidvelvet 19:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

A few thoughts:
3. This should be explained briefly, with "lengthy" taken out. It doesn't really matter what a majority of people think about how long the diplomatic efforts lasted — only what can be verified.
4. Why not just change it to "Democratic District Attorney Ronnie Earle"? More generally, there are those who question Earle's tactics. Some of those concerns are echoed in Ronnie Earle's wikipedia article. Also, one could look at Byron York's article in National Review and the feature editorial at Opinion Journal. My point here is not that Earle is untrustworthy or a hack, simply that there are allegations in respected publications.Rkevins82 19:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply: (from original poster of this discussion) To number 3. Just taking the "lengthy" out is fine enough, I think. One doesn't need to delve into every move that generated controversy. To number 4. Yeah, I think that Democratic District Attorney Ronnie Earle would be perfectly factual and appropriate. I personally do not think that the National Review or an editorial on the subject should be considered authorities to be qutoed on an allegation of this sort (I would also argue that neither should Slate.com or the Washington Post editorial board). Considering how many allegations are made on a regular basis about political/authority figures, I think that it is only appropriate to include substantiated allegations (the type that get you censured, indicted, impeached, or cause you to step down from a post) but to leave the rest alone. Else we enter into a situation where every rumor, be it big or small, to reach an editorial board is fair game, and most of those are bunk (on both sides).

As far as liquidvelvet's comment, I don't quite see what you are getting at. Suggesting that Ronnie Earle, a democrat, brought about the indictment on Tom Delay is a bit ambiguous. Unless it is someone familiar with the incident, the question comes up: On what authority? Who is this Ronnie Earle, Delay's scorned lover? His dope dealer? To state that the Distric Attorney brought about the indictment informs the reader that Ronnie Earle (a democrat) acting as an officer of the court conducted an investigation, found legal grounds to bring the case before a grand jury, and convinced said jury that an indictement was appropriate. Stating his party affiliation is fine and fair, as one is welcome to infer their own opinions about his private motives, but his authoritative position should also be mentioned to inform the reader about the manner in which Ronnie Earle brough about the indictement.

[edit] Kay Granger

The article on Kay Granger is POV. Please fix it.

[edit] Founders & Founding

First of all, all apologies for the way that I'm editing this page. I feel like a bull in a china shop. Secondly, I'm just completely shocked that the founding of the GOP is conspicuously absent from this article. Exactly who were the founders of the GOP? Finally, I have this suspicion that the original GOP was a) the original liberal party of the United States by being anti-slavery, and b) inspired by, and actually taking their "Republican" name from the revolutionary French Republic.Dlittrell 11:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Jackson, Michigan seems to be the city recognized by the party organization as the founding city of the GOP, and it bills itself as such. However, Ripon, Wisconsin makes this claim as well. LoyolaDude 02:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Every major political party in United States history is a liberal party. It is the only accepted ideology of the land. Everyone who isn't one is considered a crackpot in America. Also, the Republican Party didn't name themselves after the first, latest, or all inbetween, French Republics. Thomas Jefferson founded the Democratic-Republican party. By the time of Andrew Jackson they shortened their name to the Democratic party, although, back when the Democratic-Republican party was first founded, people used to call it the Republican party for short. When the Republican party was founded, they named themselves after said short-hand. Please use cold, hard facts, not suspicions, intuitions, divine revelations, alternate histories from novels, lucid, surreal, or fantastic dreams and/or nightmares, or prophetic visions. -Mike Reason

[edit] G Of The P

"GOP" used to stand for "Government of the People". 67.41.213.180 14:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No, "GOP" means "Grand Old Party." This is about facts not rhetoric. -Mike Reason

I know someone who says so. NOT RESPONDING AFTER THIS. 67.41.213.180 14:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Their website maintains and my political science teacher maintains it's Grand Old Party (actually Grand Ol' Party to be technical). Should stay as is. Novaprospekt 20:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Once and for all, American political parties are not programmatic

European political parties are different from American Political parties. European political parties are programmatic, American Parties (at least the Dems and GOP) are pragmatic, they believe what gets them the most votes. -Mike Reason

[edit] Semi-protected status?

This article gets the most random vandalism from random, non-logged in users of any page in my watchlist. I'm sure this debate has come up before, but would trying to put this on semi-protected status make sense? It seems to me that the loss would be quite minimall, and it would potentially save a lot of people time by not having to check changes and revert. (The Democratic Party page is protected....) Is there a reason this page isn't semi-protected? Mgunn 07:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I put in a request for the admins to semi-protect it... very frustrating trying to do a project at school and see crap like Waldo as the Senate Leader and Howard Stern as the chairman. People need to grow up. Novaprospekt 20:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eliminate Future Trends Section?

While parts are interesting, this section is largely speculative. It is impossible to make this section NPOV or even modestly based on fact because the future has not yet happened and is inherently unpredictable. In my opinion, "Future Trends" should be left to the pundits and should not appear in an encyclopedia. I know people put work into this section, but I think the case is strong for lifting it out. Reactions? Agreement? Any strong objections? Mgunn 07:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

keep. The section does NOT make any predictions. It describes the predictions made by prominent analysts and how they arrived at them. It is indeed encyclopedic as it stands. Rjensen 08:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

who put there leader as howward stern and waldo

Some moron did apparently. I reverted edits and got an admin to protect the page. Novaprospekt 00:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change page to appear similar to Democratic Party page

I think the page should be re-organized to appear similar to the Democratic Party page. This includes changing the Historic Trends into History section with subsections of time periods and not the political systems of the United States. Also, the Ideaological base should be seperated from current stances on issues.Rougher07 21:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why must it look like the Democratic party article? I mean, isn't it part of Conservative values to not have to be exactly like everyone else, and to have one's own thoughts and ideas?)Ninetywazup?

There should be a similiar format with both parties pages not only for research purposes but to eliminate the appearance of bias that wikipedia may have.

It may be that the republican party wants to be different than everybody else but this page is not an official party page so I believe that wikipedia should do the responsible thing and make the formats similiar because when wikipedia puts opposing parties pages in different formats it brings wikipedia's independent focus into question.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.25.174 (talk • contribs).

I say, then, we make the democrat page look like the republicans? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drew1369 (talk • contribs).

[edit] List of references floating out there

Just letting people know that an article called References regarding the United States Republican Party is floating in Wikipedia nowhereland. It's orphaned, as of 2 minutes ago was uncategorized and is not particularly useful. It was spun-off the current article 10 months ago. Probably someone here will know how to deal with it. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 15:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/p/Talk%7ERepublican_Party_%28United_States%29_ed4e.html"