Talk:Republican Party (United States)/archives3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

What can an encyclopedia article do?

I suggest that when you have this HUGE subject you have to have priorities. Big issues like: Iraq, Patriot Act, immigration, tax cuts, Supreme court nominees, get maybe 1 or two sentences. Ephemeral issues (like voting machines in Ohio) do not make the cut. So what is important: 1. all major elections should be covered. Some Republicans want to minimize mention of losses. No, this has to be NPOV and the article can not minimize the embarrassing stories (like corruption or failed impeachment). 2. The 5 or 10 most important national leaders should be mentioned (that is, Bush, Cheney, DeLay, Frist, Hastert, McCain, Schwarznegger, Romney, Giuliani... maybe one or 2 more). People can click and learn more. 3. The biggest issues should be covered briefly, so that the user can click and get to full coverage. 4. Some mention of the GOP in the states is needed. (For example, GOP has scandals in Ohio and Illinois.) 5. The various factions have to be covered. On the whole the article is quite good--better than the one of the Democrats. It needs more history (look at the holes before 1994) and I plan to work on that some more. Rjensen 19:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, first, I hope you are not referring to me when you say, "Some Republicans want to minimize mention of losses." My edit was NPOV. The Governorships were already held by Democrats. What does this possibly show for the future of the Republicans? Probably very little. More of the status quo? Second, your list of the most powerful Repubs. is not quite accurate, but that's a debate for another time. This article should read more like an encyclopedia entry (novel idea, eh?) instead of a blog. We should try and focus less on current politics. Where is all the history? Cheers. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Reporting the party's CURRENT views on a CURRENT issue belongs in its own article. Bjsiders 20:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not trying to dictate who the top Republicans are, but rather I suggest the article should identify a good number of them. Users can then click on XXX or YYY and read more. Election covereage isn't too good in the article. The GOP spends much of its time fighting elections and so they ought to be better covered (including the losses, and the finances). Rjensen 20:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
By the way re the 2005 elections. In my opinion losing a red state like Virginia is a bad sign, especially for Sen Allen who has presidential hopes. If the GOP loses Virginia in 2008, it loses the election. However Wiki can't be in the business of predicting the future. It can show where the strengths and weaknesses are and maybe longterm demographics. Rjensen 20:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Virginia is a "red state", but not really. Mark Warner, the current governor of VA is a Democrat. So was it really "losing a red state like Virginia"? In the last couple of years, Virginia elected a Democratic governor, and electors for Bush. Maybe VA is more middle-of-the-road than most people think. In the past 8 elections for VA Governor (~30 years) Virginians have elected a governor of the opposite party of the current US President. (Kaine-Bush, Warner-Bush, Gilmore-Clinton, Allen-Clinton, Wilder-Bush Sr., Baliles-Reagan, Robb-Reagan, Dalton-Carter) Maybe VA likes things to be balanced somewhat. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Good points. The GOP has to win states like Virginia. Their candidate was ahead in the polls and blew it, even with Bush's help. So that's a bad sign for GOP.Rjensen 16:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
From what I understand, Kilgore's campign wasn't great, much like Kerry's in 2004. But yes, for a Republican to win the presidency, he or she probably needs to win VA. But that has absolutely nothing to do with how Virginians vote for Governor (as shown above). It's not that bad a sign for the GOP. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Your debate about Virginia voting for Democrats for Governor misses the real point that Democrats in Virginia are not like national Democrats. Former Governor Warner is considered a possible Dem candidate for President in 2008, sure, and Virginia might even vote for him, but he is also probably the most conservative Democrat in the field, and that's what matters in Virginia (I live here). Look at the issues in the Virginia elections. Virginia votes for conservatives--they might be Democrats in Governor's races (even Douglas Wilder was a conservative, and widely criticized for it, since he was a Democrat), but in the past 40 years there hasn't been a Democrat running for President who was conservative by Virginia standards. People interested in national politics should either learn the details about the local issues they're talking about or stop letting wishful thinking dictate their conclusions. 68.48.174.174 15:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The current governor of Massachusetts is a Republican. Would you even hesitate to call MA a blue state? --BlueSoxSWJ 12:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

2008 Polls

Many of the pols are testing the GOP candidates for 2008. They all show pretty much the same thing-- see for example the Pew Poll at http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=261 That is: John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Condoleezza Rice all do well among Republicans AND do well among independents. However the conservative candidates do poorly among independents in the general election. Rjensen 19:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Just needed a source. I didn't really doubt it, but wanted to follow policy. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Although, is Rice really a moderate? McCain and Guiliani are unquestionable, but what evidence is there to put Rice in that category? Just curious. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

December CNN poll shows same results: CNN Rice's foreign policy views are clear. Her domestic policies are vague, but she has said she is pro-choice. Rjensen 19:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Rice is an officer of the executive branch, her job is to promote the President's policies, not her own. Be careful in equating what she says or does as the Secretary of State with her personal policy preferences. Bjsiders 19:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it a little too early to start making articles or edits on the 2008 Elections, I think we should at least wait to see how the voters react during the mid-terms. PPGMD 19:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Here's where we to put early info on the 2008 election: U.S. presidential election, 2008 69.228.230.142 02:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ideological base

I have added more issues both domestic and foreign that seem to characterize the GOP (and added a bit of history as well). I also noted issues where the party seems divided (such as immigration and stem cells). Does this make sense as a summary of the GOP? Rjensen 01:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Not Libertarian at all

The Republican party is not Libertarian or neo-Libertarian at all. It stand for increased government intrusion into citizens affairs via spying on them without FISA court oversight, increased big government spending such as the new prescription drug debacle, increased foreign interventionism, for example in Iraq and possibly Syria and Iran if the neo-conservatives in control continue to have their way. The Republican party does not favor personal liberty to use recreational drugs or purchase medical drugs on the international market and the party favors greater censorship of the airwaves and the internet and increasing the new FBI porn squad. Republican presidents have overseen increased government spending and burgeoning deficits. During Ronald Reagan's term, the Democratic congress approved smaller budgets than Reagan proposed. Middle of the night earmarks have become a plague since Republicans gained control of the house and earmarks in general have tripled since then. Republicans, including Bush, want to introduce so-called intelligent design (which is covert christian creationism) into the schools. They want to introduce biblical symbols into courthouses, furthering government intrusion into freedom of religion and eroding the separation of church and state. The Delay / Boehner / Hastert / Abramoff K-Street Project has given corporate lobbyists and cronies special access to writing legislation and positions of power, which has reduced the power of individuals and increased the corporatist statism. There is no way that the Republican party can truthfully be identified with Libertarianism and it would be false to add that tag to the info box. Hu 12:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Amen to that~ Lilfreakydude

They only affiliate with the GOP on economics, which is merely cronyism by corporate interests. The Libertarian party also is very controversial in its own right and criticisms of it being very rigid and contradictory to its own claim "as the party of principle" can be made.

Regardless, libertarians self-associate with the Republican party far more often than the Democratic party. You suggest more monolithic thought among Republicans than I think is fair. You omit Republicans opposing restrictions on gun ownership, opposing the use of eminient domain to take land from people, opposing confiscatory tax rates, wanting to privatize social security, opposing federalized health care, etc. There's plenty of issues on which they are in line with Libertarian views. And plenty on which they are not. Bjsiders 14:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not true to say the "Republicans believe the private sector and/or the individual are better suited to control their own lives," unless we add the exception about abortion. The GOP in fact opposes abortion and it's necessary to say so. Rjensen 18:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say that. If the article says it, the mention it. Expect Republicans to respond that they believe that abortion involves the killing of another human being, and we don't permit people to murder each other on the grounds that it's their own private matter. My point was that one cannot completely divorce the Republican party from liberterianism. The party is very libertarian on specific issues (and very NOT on others). Just like the Democratic party. Bjsiders 21:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I added to your edits and explained the above more completely. Bjsiders 22:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


Rj, you reverted my explanation. There is nothing "POV" about it, that's what Republicans believe. If I say they believe that the moon is made of green cheese and ice cream is in love with graham crackers, it's not POV if it's true. Your change is unacceptable. I stated clearly and objectively what they believe and why, and I did not say or imply that they're correct, only that it's what they think. I'm reverting my edit and before you change it again I would request ask that you discuss your change here at least, and justify it. Bjsiders 01:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Republican party is a coalition of various factions. As a libertarian Republican, that we aren't dead yet. Also, we're kind of regarded as extreme by the conservatives, so sometimes we'll masquerade as conservatives so that other conservatives won't tune us out and we'll slowly break it to them. I know I'm not the only one that does it but that tactic still might not be widespread. Though the Religious Right may have a temporary advantage, we're still a powerful force within the Republican party. Also for the past 25 years, libertarians and the Religious Right have been in a perpetual but subtle battle for control of the spirit of the party. -Mike Reason

Also, I hate to nitpick people but, just to clarify things: when referring to someone or something affiliated with the Libertarian party, you spell libertarian with a capital "L." When describing a philosophical libertarian you just spell it "libertarian." -Mike Reason

Abortion

I don't think abortion is an exception to the Republican position at all. Republicans, first and foremost believe in States' Rights and overturning Roe v. Wade would return abortion to the states, not outlaw it. There may be some in the party that want the Federal Government or Constitutional ammendment to end abortion but that is not the mainstream Republican view which s simply to overturn Roe v. Wade and return control to the states. Tbeatty 01:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If Republicans believe "first and foremost" in States' Rights, then I'd sure like someone to explain the Justice Department's position in the medical marijuana case. Or, if abortion is supposed to be an example of States' Rights, then why did Congress pass a national "partial birth" abortion ban? I could go on, but I see little evidence that the Republican Party has any intrinsic devotion to States' Rights. WBcoleman 03:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The Republicans at the STATE level support abortion restrictions, and likewise in terms of federal funding. The statement has to cover dozens of positions so arguments are not appropriate here. Rjensen 01:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not one thinks Roe vs Wade was a good court decision is not necessarily a part of whether or not one thinks abortion should be legal. You be pro-choice and think RvW is wrong, and you can be anti-abortion and think RvW is right, although I've yet to meet anybody with the latter opinion. I think the statement as I wrote it is fair and accurate. Abortion would seem to be a highly personal decision, but Republicans tend to NOT support fully individual freedom on the topic due to their belief in the rights of the unborn child. Bjsiders 01:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The section is not the place to deploy arguments--only to say what the GOP issue is on major issues. WHY they take this or that position is certainly an interesting issue, but not for here. Nor is this the place to say WHY they support tax cuts, for example, or why the war in Iraq or why a dozen other topics. Actully the WHY questions are rather complicated--in abortion, taxes, Iraq, etc. (as for the fetus-rights arguement--that is not where the political debate is centered. Rather the issues have to do with notification of parents, waiting times, and partial birth abortions. Rjensen 02:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yet you push a POV that it is not a coherent policy to support abortion and that it is against the tenets of Republicanism. Since republicans don't believe it is contradictory I don't know how you can make this claim. My wording left the controversy of abortion to remain without making any conclusions about the party. I think my wording has less POV than your current wording. Tbeatty 03:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
But Wiki has to get it right. Most Republicans oppose abortion at the state level, and reject individualism to that extent. Rjensen 03:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
And I left that in there. Tbeatty 03:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
THe "individualism" that Republicans protect when they oppose abortion is the belief that the fetus is a person. You may not believe it and therefore it is contradictory to you, but Republicans do believe it and it is consistent with their view on the focus on individual rights. Tbeatty 03:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Do most Republicans support rights of fetus? I doubt it. Evidence please? Have they passed a lot of laws to that effect?? No they have not. The fetus is an individual but not the mother? Keep in mind that polls show a GOP majority for keeping Roe v Wade. They want restrictions. Let's face it, the GOP is NOT individualistic on some issues, and Wiki should simply say so-- it's not exactly a secret. Overturn Roe v Wade: Republicans YES=42% No = 52% p 17 Rjensen 04:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
That is the party plank. That is the basis for opposing Stem Cell research and abortion. Now you are arguing for or against the policy, instead of trying to convey what the party believes. The party believes that the Fetus has rights as a human and that only where the "life" of the mother is at stake is abortion permissable. This is juxtaposed against the "health" of the mother and is at the heart of Republican abortion discussions. But there is no doubt that the rights of the fetus as well as the life of the mother are the tenets of the Republican plank on abortion. The "Born Alive Infants Protection Act" is one of many laws passed. You can see the party platform if you wish. [1] Tbeatty 04:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The GOP mostly opposes abortion--but not in all major states. It's a contested issue inside the party. (Rice & Giuliani, the frontrunners for 2008 support abortion rights, as do most party members, Bush opposes but he has not gotten any legisdlation through.) The point is that the Wiki article should say the GOP usually opposes government intervention except in cases of abortion. Which is what it now says, so what's the problem? This is a one-sentence summary andargumentation pro and con do not belong. Rjensen 04:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
You seem to think that it is a contradicory position. Republicans do not consider it contradictory to support "Right to Life". I have stated the Republican position as it is stated in their Platform plank yet you want to change it into government intervention. The plank treats abortion like it would any other crime and, if anything, republicans are pro-law enforcement. Being pro-law enforcement is also not contradictory to the being small government. You are extending what you believe is a conflict into the Wiki article. Why not let the Party platform speak for itself? What problem with the wording that I have put do you disagree with? Tbeatty 04:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The GOP is split down the midfdle on abortion issues, and I added details to a later section to explain that. Do the Republicans favor less government interference in business? Yes. Do they favor less government interference in personal affairs? no. Maybe we should state it that way. Rjensen 04:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mind the poll although I couldn't find the overall GOP opinion. You are still mixing in your own belief that abortion is about Governemtn interference to a republican. It is not. It would be like saying they favor less government interference in business but more interference when it comes to stopping the personal issue of murder. These are not contradictory to Republicans and your statement seems to make it so. Again, my wording says what the party plank says. My wording says it is controversial. It doesn't make any conclusions about whether it is contradictory or not since that would be NPOV. Tbeatty 04:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Calling abortion "murder" is POV. It is not murder. It has NEVER been murder, even before Roe v Wade. Bush for example supports abortion in certain cases -- is he a murderer too? The Pew poll shows most repblicans (narrowly) support abortion rights. The issue is about various restrictions and there is no proposal federal or state calling it murder. Rjensen 07:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I was illustrating how your conclusion that the Republican position on abortion is not inconsistent with less government. I meant to show murder as a crime, not a "persona issue." To help you understand, imagine this was written about Deomcrats. "Democrats are strong supporters of Education. One notable exception to supporting education is their refusal to allow universal voutures." I hope you would agree that it is not Wikipedia's place to decide that statemeent is inconsistent with what Democrats believe. You are making the same point with almost the exact same wording when you are trying to claim abortion is inconsistent with the Republicans view government.
As for the pew poll, it frames the question as outlawing a women's right to choose in the guise of asking about Roe v. Wade (read the poll question). Republicans overwhelming support restrictions on abortion incuding parental notification and the banning of certain procedures. Those are not controversial positions. In fact, I could say the Democrats are split on the issue of abortion as well and cite the same poll as most Democrats want parental notification but it is not the party position. Your poll is therefore somewhat ambiguous. Tbeatty 14:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we get a source for the claim that Rice supports abortion rights? I am not sure I have ever heard her opinion on the matter, and would like it sourced. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Some links related to a 3/2005 interview of Rice which mentioned abortion: [2] [3] [4] [5] . Jpers36 15:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response! --LV (Dark Mark) 15:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
are the Democrats split on the abortion issue also? yes, and that should appear in their article. Rjensen 16:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
If I choose you're style of wording it would be stated as: "Democrats generally support universal health care with the notable exception of unborn children or the terminally ill." I could also add "Democrats are split as to whether unborn children and the terminally should be afforded health care." It doesn't change the unsubstantiated conclusion that it is contradictory or the injection of a POV. There is no place for a conclusion that the Republican opposition to abortion is incongruent to their other positions on small government, just as the Democrats position on abortion isn't incongruent with their positions. There is no place for it in an encyclopedic description of the party. Tbeatty 17:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Republicans for choice

There should be something in the article which mentions Republicans for choice. There are many pro-choice republicans. There seems to be a overgeneralization that all republicans are pro-life and that is not the case. In fact organizations such as Republicans For Choice, have joined with other Republican groups such as Log Cabin Republicans and the Republican Youth Majority to have the Republican platform amended so that it reflects the diverse opinions on abortion throughout the party. http://www.republicansforchoice.com/keyissues.htm --Tribeca 728 05:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Natural Governing Party

I'm readding the claim that some have made the the Republican Party is "America's natural governing party". It's an observation I have read on blogs and heard on talk radio on numerous occasions. Look, I'm not trying to start some kind of fight with any of my fellow Wikipedians. I'm just saying that this an encylopedia and therefore should have all information on the party, therefore the claim deserves to be mentioned. It's not like its being stated as a fact, just a nickname some have dubbed the party. Besides, it makes sense. Of the past 145 years, a Republican has controlled the White House for nearly 90 years. The level of success the GOP has had is indeed analogous to the success of the Liberal Party of Canada, which is frequently dubbed "Canada's natural governing party". -- HowardDean 21:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

{{POV}} Absolutely ridicolous, no further comment needs to be made here.
Some people call the parties RepubliCons and Demoncrats. By your reasoning, they deserve to be mentioned in the articles? You have to provide an academic source and cite your claims to make sure they fall into WP:V. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like weasel words to me. Olin 21:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
We're an encyclopedia based on hard facts...just the opposite of talk radio. Weasel words are not allowed. So tell us the names of the authoritative figures who call the GOP the "natural governing party"--the last time I saw that term used was 1900. Rjensen 21:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the GOP is a Natural Governing Party. As Howard Dean mentioned that can be applied to a party like the Liberal Party of Canada, simply because they have governed for 95 precent of countries history. The GOP certinally is enjoying a lot of sucess right now, it isn't enough to call it the Natural Governing Party of the United States. Now if somehow the GOP where able to win election after election with the same margins that the Liberal Party in Canada is able to you may have an agrument, but until then I would say the GOP is cannot cliam that right. Even the Liberal Party of Canada may have lost that right, simply because it hasn't had the lengthy governments since Turner was the leader of the party. 12:49 UTC Aman

Common' folks. "Natural" in governing is clearly a POV. Unless you can cite a reliable source that this is widespread knowledge, it can't stay. Olin 16:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

True, and 18 out of 27 is only 2/3. Hardly a wide enough margin to be considered "natural". I'm guessing that, given enough time, the parties (if their still around) will even out. Also, given anytime frame, one can find a lean. Take the 20 years between 1930 to 1950, there all but 2 years were governed by a Dem. Squiggyfm 17:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Voter base

Is there any reference for the claim the GOP voter base among college educated or professionals has slipped?? The last data I have seen shows Democrats carving out the ends (high school dropouts and PhDs in universities) while Republicans had solid command of College and master degree earners. Tbeatty 23:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Kerry won 55% of all post-BA, which is 16% of electorate. Increasingly professionals get post-BA degrees. [6] Rjensen 01:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Come on, this is exactly what I said.
No High School Bush 49% Kerry 50%
High School Bush 52 Kerry 47
Some College Bush 54 Kerry 46
College Degree Bush 52 Kerry 46
Postgrad study Bush 44 Kerry 55
Bush didn't decline in any category from 2000. I don't think you can support the claim that they are losing support from college gradutates. Tbeatty 04:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The trend is not 4 years but 20+ years. (Back in the 1950s Ike won 72% of college educated). Women with over 16 years are massively Democratic and a fast growing group. Plus most college students (even business majors) supported Kerry. and 16+ is a high-turnout and growing group. So this trend is negative for the GOP. Rjensen 05:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Source it then. Otherwise it's your opinion and disputed by the only source you provided. Bush made gains in all categories and leads except for PhDs and High School dropouts. Tbeatty 03:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

ok fair challenge. Father Bush got 50% of MA+ voters in 1988, and Son Bush got only 35% (based on exit polls in both cases). That's a BIG change. For old exits see New York Times Nov 10, 1988 p. 18].. and even older exits are in National Journal Nov 8, 1980 page 1878 Rjensen 03:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The Democrat Leadership Conference (DLC) had a televised (C-SPAN) meeting a week after the election and they stated that only a majority of voters who were high school dropouts and PhD's voted for Kerry. The majority of high school grads, some college, BA Degrees and MA degrees voted for Bush. Bachs 15:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

At some point we all need to figure out that American history and political party history didn't start with Bush v Gore. Bjsiders 18:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

covert cell

Somebody is slipping in a lot of nasty Larouche type thinking about "covert cells" and "cell churches". Please watch out for this nonsense and revert immediately. Rjensen 06:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


Neo-Liberal

Neo-Liberal applies to Republicans much closer than to Democrats according to every poli-sci class I have ever had. The Shively textbook [7] also makes this clear. Keep in mind that political science uses the Euro definitions of liberal and not the American versions.

I checked a half dozen pol sci textbooks and they never use neoliberal to refer to GOP, only to Democrats. So far I have not seen any verifiable references to GOP as neoliberal (except Marxists). Please supply if you have any. Rjensen 07:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I checked EBSCO and found only 10 articles that have both Bush and "neoliberal". 9 were foreign policy. But here's a usage: "Paul Krugman shares, with no serious demur, all the central assumptions of the neoliberal creed that has governed the prime institutions of the world capitalist system for the past generation and driven much of the world deeper; ever deeper, into extreme distress. " by Alexander Cockburn, in Nation; 11/10/2003, Vol. 277 Issue 15, p9 . Rjensen 08:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, we are not talking about Bush being a neoliberal, but the Republican party. Try Google with "Neoliberal Republican" and "Neoliberal Democrat" and report back (ignore the Wikipedia hits). Rkevins82 01:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Let's name some neoliberal Republicans and start there. Rjensen 06:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to spend much time on this. Ronald Reagan is a sort of archetype, as the article on Neoliberalism notes. If Neoliberalism emphasizes '“free” markets and a private sector unencumbered by public concerns or govt regulation, global openness to flow of goods, services and capital to maximize profit opportunities, slow growth to prevent inflation and limit bargaining power of labor: strict limits on fiscal & monetary policies (i.e., anti-Keynesian, anti-Fordist), austerity as response to debt: lower real stds of living to enable repayment of bankers & investors"' (cribbed from http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/merupert/Teaching/what_is_neoliberalism.htm), then many more Republicans than Democrats fit the bill. I note that the article on Neoliberalism on Wikipedia lists Bill Clinton, but remember that Clinton was exceptional. His free-trade policies were a departure for the Democratic Party. However, even Clinton favored increases in government expenditures (and control) for health care and a higher minimum wage. Rkevins82 06:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Most people call reagan a conservative. What's added by calling him a neoliberal? Anyway that was decades ago, and there seem to be no neoliberals that can be named in 2006. GOP no longer has "strict limits" on spending or deficits, or tries to "slow growth". GOP no longer has austerity as response to debt. etc. It's all gone. So let's not call the party neoliberal, OK? Rjensen 06:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The GOP has principles that support free trade, spending limits, lowered deficits, and measured growth. The term is used in conjunction with American Republican economic policies. "Slow growth" is in reference to inflation and unions. That certainly fits the Republican Party. I don't see the reason for your reluctance. Rkevins82 07:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
GOP has party platforms written by the presidential candidates. As for free trade, yes. As for the other points, not these days. Spending limits???? measured growth???? Slow groeth to stop unions and inflation??? Nope not policy in recent years. Your're perhaps thinking of the 1980s. Have you seen the deficit numbers for last 6 years? let's face it, it's an old model designed for Britain in 1980 that just doesn't fit USA in 2006. There seem to be few--perhaps zero--GOP leaders who support these policies today. Rjensen 07:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Neither party is neo-liberal; they're not like the programmatic parties of Europe. If you look at America's partisan history, you'll find that the parties' political agendas are based on what strategy they think will get them the most votes. Then again, the political parties in the United States have lost a lot of power, so maybe the old rules no longer apply. But more importantly, there isn't a strong non-liberal presence in the United States. I mean liberal in the classical sense. You've basically got, liberal conservatives, social liberals, and libertarians. Everyone outside of the liberal arena is basically considered a crackpot. Except for that time around the 1930's when CommunistPartyUSA had gained some influence for a short while. Also, the rise of the fundamentalist christians within the Republican party and the new left forms the base of the Democratic party, especially after all the anti-communists left the Democratic party in the late 70's. And let's face it, things like socialized healthcare go far beyond the left-most borders of social liberalism. I'd say a good percentile of the modern Democratic party are closet social democrats. -Mike Reason

Bibliography neeeded--move History to own page

A serious article needs a serious bibliography because we are cvovering 150+ years of national history with many famous names and events. It averages out to 2-3 booksper presidential term, which is pretty thin. Maybe the best solution is to just have a HISTORY of GOP article, which I have done. Comments? Rjensen 05:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks as though you have changed some of the material in the shift. Is that correct? Rkevins82 05:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I have been adding more historical details and links (and illustrations) to the History article, and abbreviating the history section of the party article. Rjensen 07:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Republican Party

Lets keep the history of the Republican Party with the article about the Republican Party and not separate them. If we must separate them, lets at least have the history article established before it is removed from the page. BCV 07:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

    • The article on the Democratic party is neatly split with a long essay on party history separate from a treatment of the modern party. That works for GOP too. We have two audiences, those who want to know about GOP today, and those who want the pre-1980 history. By separation we can have a much longer article on history, and indeed a longer article on GOP today. Rjensen 08:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

elephant logo with upside down pentagram stars

Does anyone know why the three stars on the elephant are upside down? Linda68.65.73.42 22:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The upside-down star is commonly used in heraldry and flags - political, military, etc. It has no particular meaning as far as I know. The most common association is with the occult, but it's used a-plenty in other contexts. In fact, in the formative years of the United States, there were a ton of variations on the national flags, and many featured upside-down stars. Bjsiders 22:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Critical links

Should we have critical links (the Democratc Party page does not) from non-GOP sources? If so, from what sources (magazines, blogs, opposition parties)? Rkevins82 00:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

furture trends, realingment

Can someone explain why the Republicans have one of these sections and the Democrats do not? I didn't realize that we were in the business of predicting the future and I'm not understanding why we are quoting Democratic pollsters and such. Does anybody honesly believe that they are not going to be affect by their bias? It would be the same thing for the Democrat page if I started to quote Republican pollsters and such and saying that the Democratic party is on it's way downhill. KLRMNKY 10:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It's there because somebody wrote it. If you think the section is biased, suggest some edits. Or add a similar section to the Democratic Party article to "even them up." Bjsiders 18:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
It's in there because Karl Rove has explicitly said he's trying for a realignment. The Dems don't talk that way. Rjensen 18:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest that we remove the section about the Democrat pollsters unless the information that they are supplying can be collaborated by Republican pollsters. Polls can be swayed to say anthing that you want. I can point to polls that show that college goers as well as graduates are trending conservative and Republican. As for the realingment, it wasn't the point of my comment I should've put that in.KLRMNKY 08:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
This is a nonpartisan encyclopeda and draws information from all sources. It's of course POV to reject a source because the authors are Democrats or Republicans. (That would leave Wiki with very few sources!) Is there any editor here who claims to be totally nonpartisan by the way? I doubt it. The evidence about post-BA education and vote depends on nonpartisan exit polls. Rjensen 18:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Business

The claim that "As of 2006...main st. and wall street....supports the GOP." needs verified.

    • Data comes from campaign contributions. Businessmen are more than 2-1 GOP in giving $ (but lawyers are more Democratic). Wall Street = position of Chamber of Commerce and major business lobbyists, as well as 2004 surveys of CEOs. For in-depth analysis see The Financiers of Congressional Elections: Investors, Ideologues, and Intimates by Peter L Francia, et al (2003) [8] Rjensen 18:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont see where it verifies that behavior in the status-quo. I grant in 2004 such was the case, but I have seen nothing that suggests this is still the case.

    • the GOP is still getting more $$ than the Democrats in last year or so--it takes a while to get the official reports compiled, but no one has noticed any big changes in last 2 years. If someone reports that the Dems have caught up among businessmen then we should report that, but no one has reported it. Rjensen 00:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


Should there be a section on membership & structure?

The RNC has various types of memberships with varying duties. Also, how it is structured, from grass-roots to the chairman would also be of interest. I'm asking, because I couldn't find this information and I believe others would like to know as well. --Kimonandreou 14:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur. RNC organizational structures, and manners of action, say as much about the party as history and soundbites. -- User: Oregon Republican League

the major parties do not have membership structures at any level. (Some states have registration by party, but that has to do with who can vote in which primary.) The closest was the open caucus system of the late 18th century, which survives in Iowa.Rjensen 00:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well taken. What I took the previous poster to suggest, was the beneficial nature of adding a section briefly discussing the range of opportunities for "members" to "support" the RNC. Not that these groups would not also accept "support" from nonmembers... but I took the comments to refer to groups like: the Republican Regents, Team 100, RNC Majority Fund, Presidential Victory Team, The President's Club, Republican Eagles... I think I'm missing one... to the Sustaining Member category. -- User: Oregon Republican League 18:00, 15 April 2006 (PST)

info put in wrong article

This content was removed from the democratic party article, because it was about the republican party, not the democratic party:

In the mid 1990s, the Republican Party hired right-wing partisan pollster Frank Luntz to run manipulative focus groups to develop ways of negatively politically frame members of Democratic Party. One result of those focus group tests was the use of the term "Democrat Party" rather than the traditional "Democratic Party." This is deliberately incorrect and was echoed in right-wing media outlets such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.

Kevin Baastalk 20:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The "democrat party" line goes back to 1950s and never caugt on. The POV on Luntz won't be allowed--note the heacy rhetorical baggage. And where is the verification? Rjensen 20:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Open your eyes boy. It's nothing new. The Republican party has lots of "think tanks" and "focus groups" that have nothing to do with policy or philosophy. Kevin Baastalk 21:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
No POV allowed here folks. Rjensen 21:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

GOP opposes Racial Quotas, not affirmative action

The reason given that it must oppose affirmative action because racial quotas are illegal is a fallacy. It would be like saying the GOP is against immigration reform because illegal immigration has been illegal for a long time. --Tbeatty 17:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Major vs. Larger

  • All political parties have equal standing under the law. There is no such thing as a "minor" party. Consequently, there is no such thing as a "major" party. The term larger or largest must be used instead as its clear with that word the comment is about size, not validity. UTC)
  • The Conservative Party "has been significant in influencing the descisions of the New York Republican Party."

Merecat 16:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sanders has no official party affiliation - he is an independent and caucuses with the Democrats. Pundits and scholars are essentially in unanimous agreement that the United States has two major parties, thus the extremely commonly used term "two-party system." - Jersyko·talk 16:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Also see Green Party (United States) which says "has been active as a third party since the 1980s.". Ralph Nader ran as a Green in 2000 and tipped the Florida election, his impct there was indeed "Major". Also, "in 2002, John Eder's election to the Maine State House of Representatives marked the first Green Party state legislator in the United States elected in a regular election." Merecat 16:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Also see Libertarian Party (United States) which states "The Libertarian Party is a United States political party created in 1971. It is the largest third party in the United States, with over 200,000 registered voters and over 600 people in office, including mayors, county executives, county council members, school boards and other local offices."

I contend that by any reasonable defintion, the Libertarians and Greens are major and the use of major in the intro as currently used, is a false statement. Merecat 17:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat 17:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

A reasonable definition of a "major party" is "able to get candidates elected to major political office." By that definition, there are two major parties, since there are only two parties in the House and the Senate. Win some elections, and then you can claim the Green party is major. The fact that the Greens are described as a "third party" is definitive evidence that they're not major--no major party is ever described as a third party. Wikipedia is descriptive, rather than prescriptive: that you want "major" to mean something other than it does doesn't mean you get to change the language on this site. -- FRCP11 17:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What I am saying is that "larger" coveys the required information, without making a value judgement as to the validity or worth of the other parties. The reciprocal of "major" is "minor" and minor infers lack of consequence. I disagree that only those issues which are 1st champioend by Dems and Repubs are of consequence. Political parties are all about the advancement of ideas. To call Dems and Pubbys the only "major" parties is to infer that nothing of merit originates anywhere else. I am opposed to that inference and I feel that "larger" is more NPOV. See my additional comments at: Talk - Democratic Party. Merecat 17:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that this debate is also being waged on the Democratic Party's talk page as well by the same user. - Jersyko·talk 17:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Proof: "Major" is not POV it's standard among politicians, journalists, reference books and scholars. Look for example at a standard academic study: Third Parties in America: Citizen Response to Major Party Failure. (Second Edition, by Steven J. Rosenstone, Roy L. Behr, Edward H. Lazarus 1984). One leading scholar explains "The gap between the second major party and the greatest minor party is enormous and insurmountable" (Party Government: American Government in Action by E. E. Schattschneider 2003). Furthermore it is the usual term by 3rd party candidates themselves. For example Ralph Nader denounces "fluff and bluff surrounding the major-party candidates." in his autobiography Crashing the Party: Taking on the Corporate Government in an Age of Surrender (2002)He also said: "The convergence of our country's two major parties is a widely noted phenomenon"; "When there are major parties with numerous contenders in state primaries, the media pays even less attention to third-party candidates." Finally one 3rd party DID break through---Jesse's Ventura's Reform Party in Minnesota elected him governor. As a political scientist explained, " In 1998, even the state's media felt compelled to honor the Reform Party's legal major-party status with some attention." (Electing Jesse Ventura: A Third-Party Success Story by Jacob Lentz, 2001) Rjensen 17:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

All my further replies regarding this are at the Democratic Party's talk page. Merecat 17:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

In a mispelled word, "Major" is colloquillal, which gives it some precedent for being the prefered word choice in an encyclopedia. Esp. in that green and libertarian are self-described "third-parties". here it is major and third, not major and minor. "Larger might be considered less judgemental, but it should be suffixed by "base". anycase, as much as i dont like a 2-party system, i'm included to support the colloquial, on the grounds that it's colloquial. Kevin Baastalk 22:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Added template

Added the progressivism template for historical reasons as the GOP from 1861-1913 contain progressive elements including Lincoln and Roosevelt (Teddy) and was America's progressive party compared the the Democratic Party of that time that resembles today's Republican Party. --Northmeister 05:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Color

Red did not become the party's color in the 2000 election. The networks alternated which color they gave to each party according to an odd system. In 2000, it just happened that red went to the Republicans, and blue to the Democrats. The media then started to refer to "blue America" to refer to Democratic areas, and "red America" to refer to Republican area. In 2004, the arcane system (the color for the incumbent party switches every four years) meant that the colors of 2000 repeated themselves, although it is possible that those colors would have continued to be used anyway, given the prevalence of the media "red America"/"blue America" narrative. At any rate, even if, in violation of the long-standing TV network tradition, blue and red remain the colors to represent, respectively, the Democratic and Republican Parties in 2008, that certainly does not mean that red or blue is the "color" of the two parties. It is a color used by TV networks on maps. There is nothing on the GOP webpage to indicate that red is the "party color", nor anything on the Democratic one to indicate that blue is the same for them. I think the whole "color" thing ought to be removed from the infobox. john k 22:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

First, the incumbency convention was not universal (for example, ABC used yellow and blue). Second, it was emphasized greatly in the 2000 election. These colors are used more than just in presidential elections. For example, Zogby and WSJ are using these colors for the 2006 Senate elections, still using red for Republicans and blue for Democrats. Andros 1337 18:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you're right that the incumbency convention was not universal, but it was prevalent. And of course, at present the media seems to fairly universally use those colors to represent the parties. But they aren't official party colors, the parties themselves do not acknowledge those colors as their official colors, and there's no reason we should say those colors are the party's colors in the same way we would their animal mascots, which are discussed and acknowledged by the parties themselves. john k 19:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The colors are *not* official, and *are* incumbent/challenger colors. Since they've been in use for decades as the incumbent/challenger I'm removing this sentance. Also: There is no mention of color in the Dem article. JamesBenjamin 23:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact is the red-blue distinction has taken hold in the media and among commentators and magazines. It is unofficial but nonpartisan and widely used. The point of Wiki is to tell users what red and blue mean when the come across one of the 10 million web sites that use these terms: red blue republican democratic states. See Wiki's long discussion at Red state vs. blue state divide. Rjensen 19:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The red-blue code has now been officially endorsed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (one of the main organs of the Democratic party) when it launched its national "Red to Blue Program" in 2006. See [9] Rjensen 20:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Republicans and Federalized Health Care

Socialized, federalized, single-payer, whatever term fits your preference, I don't care what we call it. Do the Republicans actually oppose changes because they think the current system is best or have they simply not liked the alternatives presented so far? I note with some concern that Mitt Romney is a Republican and has recently supported state-subsized health care for all in Mass., with the encouragement of traditionally conservative/libertarian think tanks. Most Republicans seem to like the idea, based on an admittedly small sample that consists of the self-selected handful that I've heard talking about it on TV. Is it fair then to say they oppose any changes to the current system, vs they oppose the changes proposed thus far, with Romney being a notable exception? I'd also like us to cite the fact give about the numbers of uninsured. I don't doubt that it's true, it just needs to be properly sourced. I don't know the "citation needed" tag offhand and I'm in a hurry here, so I just removed it to get some attention brought to it. Sorry! Bjsiders 13:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

source on growing # uninsured (census data) is [10] Everyone is watching the Romney plan. The key to GOP is that MD's and drug companies are key supporters. Rjensen 13:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Is that a fact or an opinion? Is it known that the GOP opposes changes because of contributors? Is this documented and verifiable? The health insurance and pharma industries donate millions to both parties. Contributions to each part were split almost 50/50 throughout the early to mid nineties, and didn't begin to favor Republicans strongly until long after the Clinton plan was kaput. I'd like to see some documentation on this before we assert it as fact. Bjsiders 15:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed the wording to Republicans have generally opposed almost all proposals to change the current ... I think it's a little more neutral and reflects what can be objectively known. It's unquestionable that they've opposed changes to the system. I feel the speculation on why is bouyed only by circumstantial evidence. It'd be like saying that the Democrats oppose private education because of the teacher's union. That can't really be known as a fact. I hope the new wording conveys the situation appropriately, please challenge/discuss if you disagree. Bjsiders 15:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

good point. I added ref to Romney plan in Mass--esp because it will probably be centerpiece of his presidential run. Rjensen 15:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Assuming it works. :) Bjsiders 16:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, then, about the "neutral" wording...but why delete my addition about how the Republicans did not allow the Clinton plan of 1994, which was not single-payer, to come to a floor vote in Congress? I remember at that time when former Texas Senator Phil Gramm said that the Clinton plan was "deader than Elvis" (which I didn't add because I couldn't find a citation; I just remember hearing him say it) --MarshallStack 18:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I explained the wholesale deletion in y original post in this section. Bjsiders 12:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Conservative Bias

The person who wrote this article is obviuosly a strong Republican. They made Republicans sound almost exactly the same as Democrats, even writing Republican views that are Democratic. I'm not saying that I don't agree with Republican views nor Democratic; I'm Libertarian/Centrist, so it's not hard to try not to side with one party. Just wikify it a bit. 24.13.67.143 02:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind being more specific? Where are solely Democratic views passed off as Republican? Are you sure they are exclusive to the Democrats? Thanks. --Mark Neelstin (Dark Mark) 03:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
{{POV}} I also felt there was a strong bias towards the article being more Democratic than Republican in regards to platform and actual events. There is nothing said about Haditha, Al-Zarq, and the results of the gay marriage and immigration bills.

Tom DeLay peer review

Editors of this page may be interested in checking out the peer review of Tom DeLay. Please leave your comments, criticism, and suggestions at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tom DeLay. Thanks, NatusRoma | Talk 23:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Party Stands?

Take a look at the page on the DNC. It has a section for the party's stands on issues. Very nice setup, IMO. I think the same type of setup for the RNC page might be useful, especially for people to understand the parties' views on particular topics. Any thoughts? Dubc0724 20:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, but be alert when doing so. We had some problems with the Dem article. It's one thing for the party to say, "We believe in X" and quite another to demonstrate it in action and leadership. Whether or not a principle or belief has been demonstrated is a matter of incredible contention and debate, and I advocate stating only what the party officially claims as its platform as being its platform, and omitting a point/counterpoint breakdown of whether or not the party "actually" lives by those principles. Otherwise the article will quickly degrade into useless polemics. Bjsiders 20:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. And we don't want these pages to turn into campaign ads. But I think a brief summary of accepted/stated party positions would be a nice fit and would help people understand parties and their differences. Dubc0724 12:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that somebody hit the RNC web site and grab a list of official Republican planks from it. As with any political party there's tremendous variance between and among individual candidates and elected officials, but I think we can enumerate the core princples of the party, at least as they are claimed by the party's own chair. Bjsiders 16:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

good idea —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dubc0724 (talk • contribs).


==Invasion vs Liberation=+ Both terms are factually accurate. Iraq was liberated from Hussein. Afghanistan was liberated from the Taliban. Both actions were also invasions. The term "occupation" is as little dicier. We "occupy" in the sense that we have a military presence there. Do we also "occupy" Germany, Australia, and Okinawa because our military is there? And becauase it engages in training exercises with foreign troops? I don't understand why both "liberation" and "invasion" cannot be used in the context of this discussion. I note that the Democratic Party article exclusively uses the term "invasion." I'm not saying we have to stick to that simply because that article does, but it is worth noting. Bjsiders 16:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say we do occupy those countries having lived in Okinawa personally. There is anti-American sentiment in Okinawa and we are increasingly decreasing our presence there. I disagree that those states are liberated (except from Saddam in Iraq's case), the Taliban still commands a presence as well as Al-Qaeda in both. I would say that they are in transitional period. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.71.169.177 (talk • contribs) .

The U.S. Media is not a singular institution and the offical color is not Red

Go to uselectionatlas.org or many other Internet mapping sites that use blue as the color for the Electoral College. 70.191.174.29 20:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm having some problems with the script for the infobox. 70.191.174.29 21:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF works only to the point where that presumption can be valid. Editing out maintenance notices and/or editing out compromises is in bad faith. If the compromise is not agreed to by consensus, then the maintenance notice must remain until there is consensus on the talk page. 165.91.162.79 19:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous users don't seem to be well informed

Unregistered anonymous users don't deserve much credibility especially when they try to delegitimitize an article by slapping an "accuracy" statement because of issues of this little weight, The fact of the red-blue colors in 2006 is well known and is sourced. Rjensen 19:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Save articles that are semi-protected, anonymous users have as much weight in editing as registered users. And Wikipedia policy states clearly that removing maintenance notice without consensus is vandalism. As it stands right now, you are the only one with objections to the notice. MinorityInAcademia 19:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The anon user hasn't backed up their reasoning for the accuracy tag, Red has become the informal color of the Republican party since the election of 2000, and is quite accurate and the note explains why, it should be removed since the issue has been handled quote correctly. PPGMD 20:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

let me add that red-blue is now officially recognized and used by the Democratic party, as noted in its article. Rjensen 20:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Unless someone comes up with a good reason for it to stay I am going to remove the tag tomorrow. PPGMD 16:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact that the DCCC has a program called the "red to blue program" does not mean that blue is the official color of the Democratic party. john k 18:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the defacto "color" is red. Bjsiders 17:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the footnote explains it just fine. Am I starting to smell consensus? --LV (Dark Mark) 18:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Show me a source where the GOP has officially accepted the colour to be red?Drew1369 19:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Democrats be red? Closer to communism, wouldn't ya say? (And yes, I'm kidding.) Dubc0724 13:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it is the official party color but the color associations certainly are there. Every single news channel here uses red to mark Republican states and blue to mark Democratic states during elections. Vote for.... signs are blue for Democratic candidates and red for Republicans. The color red is everywhere for the Republicans.

The color scheme is unofficial and informal, but is widely recognized by all media and commentators. Partisan supporters now often use the colors for promotional materials and campaign merchandise, and it would be a disservice not to include this information.

Questionable poll results?

At the end of the "Future Trends" section, the following sentence appears:

An April 2006 poll by Rasmussen shows that the Democratic party has a small lead over the GOP among voters, with 37% calling themselves Democrats and 34% self-identifying as Republicans. (Margin of error: +/- 3%)

The difference is within the margin of error... doesn't that essentially invalidate the conclusion (which I bolded)? - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 20:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Argyrious for fixing this. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 15:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No it does not invalidate the results. It means there is a 94% certainty that the lead is at least 3%. (not 95%)Rjensen 15:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The "margin of error" means that there is a 95% chance that among the population as a whole, between 34% and 40% call themselves Democrats, and a separate 95% chance that between 31% and 37% consider themselves Republicans. That's not the same as a what you claim. There's not even 95% confidence for the proposition that a lead exists. See Divergent Polls by Mystery Pollster for an explanation. Argyriou 16:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is this is even in here? One poll from April 2006? Does it have any serious relevence to the article as a whole? Bjsiders 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There has been a very long-standing Democratic advantage in voter self-identification for decades - pretty much as long as opinion polls have been in existence. This advantage has decreased in recent years, and I believe the Democrats had no advantage in voter identification in the 2004 elections for the first time. That's worth mentioning, although it doesn't seem to be a "future trend". It's more like a "past trend," which seems to be coming to its end. john k 16:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
After reading Mystery Pollster on the variability of Party ID, I'm going to remove the poll result. Argyriou 16:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Neo-fascism

Can someone check upon the Neo-fascism#Neo-Fascism and the United States piece. I find the inclusions (starting at the Chomsky bit) all very suspect. Intangible 18:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Stupid, but otherwise fine. These types had similar warnings about Bush 41, Reagan, and Nixon. And Republicans think every Democrat is the next Jimmy Carter or Lyndon Johnson. If those quotes are accurate quotes from well-known pundits and critics, I say let them stand (or fail to) on their own merits. Bjsiders 18:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
For NPOV reasons those Presidents should be referenced along with quotes so users can see that trend for themselves, ATM it's not very NPOV mentioning just GWB.PPGMD 20:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Fictional political party members

For anyone with some spare time, I just created two new categories: Category:Fictional Republicans and Category:Fictional Democrats. I just made them over the last four hours, and I was only able to find around 30-35 for each. They're for fictional members of the two main political parties, so if any of you can contribute some more, it would be appreciated. Thanks! Michael 06:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Opposition viepoint

I think it would be very relevant for an inclusion of what opponents have to say about the party (namely the Democrat party). It would have to be somewhat limited, otherwise the section could grow to excessive lengths. I am adding a similar section to the Democrat Party discussion. --68.176.139.189 04:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

us party template added

I dont know why it wasn't here already --Musaabdulrashid 01:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Come to think of it, this is downright confusing. It apears to me that this article is only availible in english and not catagorized at all. What is going on?--Musaabdulrashid 01:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

How to Revert back from "Neo Fascism?"

User talk:24.65.10.222

this IP Adress recently vandalized the republican party page by erasing "conservatism and American conservatism" in the idelogies field of the summarizing box at the top of the article. The user replaced these ideologies with "neo-fascism" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.27.82.69 (talk • contribs) 7:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking care of it. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The "2000 -" section seems very different to the earlier entries.

This is my first time reading all the way through the article, and I was quite impressed by how professionally much of seems to be written - there's a lot of interesting information about how various policies and ideological shifts have affected the party voter base and so forth. It's almost like a genuine encyclopedic article.

However, the quality (or at least the style) seems to change dramatically when it hits the Bush presidency (the "2000" section). The Reagan entry, for example; gave a good balance between a summary of what was happening in the Reagan administration and what was happening to the party itself - emerging voter bases etc. However, the "2000" entry leans far too heavily towards a little mini-debate over Bush's policies, with some people so desperate to list Hurricane Katrina criticisms that it appears twice: "His administration’s response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster was very unpopular...". Then, only a line or two later: "In September, 2005 Hurricane Katrina destroyed large sections of New Orleans, Louisiana and the Gulf Coast. The Bush Administration's response to this crisis was widely viewed as inadequate." (As a side note, both these entries are POV and/or unsourced). Obviously it's important to talk about George Bush in relation to the fortunes of the party itself, but things are a little out of hand here.

So, does anyone have any suggestions as to what would be useful subjects pertaining to the Republican Party in the "2000 (onwards)" section? Edders 10:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


I completely agree. It seems whenever there is a mention of President Bush on Wikipedia, the partisans have to come in an add their one or two sentences to emphasize their point of view. I guess I should read the Democratic Party entry to see if Clinton is skewered.

The biggest movement within the Republican Party has probably been the move from being a small-government party to being a big-government, socially conservative party. I'm not sure how easy it will be to write about it without being POV, especially as it's not clear that the Party will continue in that direction after the end of the Bush presidency. Argyriou 22:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree. The "2000" section, in its current state, violates NPOV. Perhaps further discussion is necessary to clean up this section. For example, if we are going to include the displeasure of the Bush administration for the Hurricane response, we should also include the fact that the Democrat Mayor and Governor were just as non-responsive. If the liberals do not want to include the Democrat side then the reference to the Hurricane should be removed. Jbarker2 16:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Voter Base: Conservatives and Moderates section

This sentence:

"Liberal Republicans such as Senators Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Arlen Specter and Lincoln Chafee have social views more in line with the Republicans Democratic Party opponents. The term "RINO" -- Republican In Name Only -- has recently come into use to denote liberal Republicans disagreeing with the policies of the majority of the party."

was recently edited to:

"Moderate Republicans such as Senators Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Arlen Specter and Lincoln Chafee have sometimes not been regarded as "loyal" by conservatives who want to remake the party in their own image. The term "RINO" -- Republican In Name Only -- has recently come into use to denote moderate Republicans disagreeing with the policies of the more conservative right wing"

Whilst I see that the editor was trying to eliminate the slight POV bias present, the new version is itself a little messy for two reasons:

1: Referring the Specter etc. as "Moderates" is risky because "moderate" is not a neutral label - many political figures regard themselves or would like to be regarded as "moderate". Perhaps a better label would be 'centrist' - implying simply that they lean torwards more moderate policies rather than that they are actually 'moderates' themselves. Just a thought.

2: To argue that the moderates/centrists in the party are labelled RINOs because they disagree with the "more conservative right wing" is problematic. It implies several things, including that only the 'right wing' of the party attacks RINOs. Whether you agrre with it or it, the most common reason cited by other republicans for their criticism of people like Chafee and Specter is not that they advocate centrist or less conservative policies than others in the party. The reason cited is that RINOs are not Republican at all, and that they are not centrists either - rather, they are liberal democrats who run on a republican ticket. Again, it doesn't matter if you agree with this claim, but it is the usual justification given for RINO-bashing (heh). Edders 09:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact the folks like Specter and Chafee and Snowe are not liberals. They vote pretty much in the middle of the spectrum--liberal/conservative. Specter is 45% conservative in his lifetime votes. Chafee has a lifetime rating of 37% conservative. How do liberals vote? Kennedy at 3% and Kerry at 5%. (according to voting studies by groups by the American Conservatve Union[11]). Now if Lieberman became a Republican, he would indeed be a liberal. As for "moderate" the term is usually sysnonymous with "middle of the road". Rjensen 10:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Mmm...okay but you miss the point slightly. I'm not personally saying any RINOs are liberals, or moderates, or anything. I'm just saying that the current edit misrepresents (unintenionally) the position of those republicans who criticize RINOs. As for the moderate/centrist thing, well, I suppose we could wrangle for ages over the most 'neutral' term so you may as well leave the 'moderate' bit as it is. Edders 12:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Do Republicans criticize RINOs? I don't think so. The RI primary recently proves that Republican party leaders supported Chafee, who won, and outside conservatives opposed him. These outsiders are conservatives indeed, but what makes them Republicans if their main goal is to defeat Republicans? They (Club for Growth esp) go from state to state trying to purge Republicans they dislike. TThe fact that they usually fail indicates that most Republicans (and the entire GOP leadership) reject the anti-RINO outsiders. Rjensen 16:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"Republicans believe"

I think it's extremely suspect to announce that "Republicans believe" such-and-such. First of all, it's the rare thing that Lincoln Chafee and Rick Santorum agree on. And considering that there are, what, about 50,000,000 registered Republicans in the U.S. (?), it was always be incorrect to say, in an unqualified way, that "Republicans believe" something.

Moreoever, a lot of what politicans on both sides claim to "believe" is, in essence, a lie. How many people really think, for instance, that Senate Democrats oppose the FMA because "the issue should be left up to the states"? My supposition is that they oppose the FMA because they think it's discriminatory and mean, and the "up to the states" argument is just a widely palatable excuse for their opposition. Similarly, I imagine there are many Republicans who cut social programs because they think the entire idea of a safety net is bleeding-heart, soft-headed policy; the thing about how "the private sector can make up the difference" is, for those individuals, merely convenient rhetoric and not a belief.

My solution is this: I think somebody (I'll volunteer) should go through the article, and, depending on context, do one of the following: a) replace the word "believe" with "assert," "claim," or "contend"; b) use qualifiers like "many" before "Republicans believe" statements; or c) both--that is, "Republicans believe" would, in certain instances, become "Many Republicans assert."

I won't do anything for a week or so. Let's have a discussion.

--Ike, 20 September 2006

War on Poverty?

It's been suggested that the reference to the War on Poverty in the Kyoto section doesn't truthfully portray GOP beliefs. I, for the record, introduced that phrase into the article, as a replacement for awkward phraseology about "minimizing the reduction of poverty." Discuss. --72.229.133.128 17:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Republicans have never made a big deal about reducing poverty in the world--and in any case that is not what Kyoto is all about. US Senate almost unanimously rejected the treaty--both parties--because it would injure US economy. Rjensen 17:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The phrase War on Poverty normally refers to a series of ill-concieved domestic prorgams, while the GOP's claims re Kyoto seem to be more about making it difficult for poor nations to develop their economies. So I'd suggest removing the "War on Poverty" language. Argyriou 17:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Duly noted. I will remove the offending language. --72.229.133.128 21:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I fixed that and some other small details (like poor links to misleading or useless articles). Rjensen 22:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I've redone the edits to the foreign policy paragraph, because the information there was wrong. The Republican Party wasn't primarily neoconservative in foreign policy until 11 September 2001. Bush ran on an explicitly anti-neoconservative foreign policy in 2000. The complaints about Kyoto are that it will be ineffective, and that it's not just bad for the U.S. economy, but singles out the U.S. for disproportionate burdens.
This time around, I left the stuff about War on Terror, Iraq, and Afghanistan alone, but they're still wrong. The military effort in Afghanistan was not a "neocon" policy, it was a natural response. (And attempting to rebuild afterwards isn't particularly neo-connish, either.) According to the Republican Party, the military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq are part of the War on Terror, not distinct items as implied by the current wording. Argyriou 03:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

GOP

As a non-American visitor to this site I've noticed recently that several pages refer to the Republican Party simply as the GOP and was wondering about the sense of this substitution, how well known is this acronym outside the States? Although I imagine American visitors will be familiar with the term I strongly suspect that others like myself are not and when it isn't linked to this page can cause confusion. If the consensus is that it's obvious enough or I am untypical enough to disregard then I bow to that decision. 81.178.57.22 21:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that GOP is an appropriate acronym, since it's the only one that's used for the Republican Party. However, for the sake of clarity, perhaps the first usage of "GOP" on a page should be wiki-linked to the "Republican Party (United States)" article? --Tim4christ17 talk 22:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
As of right now, the first line of the article reads
“ The Republican Party (often referred to as the GOP, for "Grand Old Party") is one of the two major political organizations in the United States' two party system; its great rival is the Democratic Party. ”
It may be confusing to people who scroll right past that, but it's hard to make it much clearer. Argyriou 23:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that Argyriou but my question was when it comes up on other pages without a link, not on this one. I asked it here because this is the centre for this particular term, sorry for not making that clear. As it is I think Tim4christ17's idea would work from my perspective, but again I'll go with the majority decision. 81.178.57.22 08:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry - I didn't get that you were referring to other articles. In that case, Tim4christ17 is right: either the first use of GOP should have a text explanation or a wikilink to Republican Party (United States). GOP redirects to Republican Party (United States), too, but a direct wikilink [[Republican Party (United States)|GOP]] would be better. Argyriou 16:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion on a sentence for article consistency

Current: Although the GOP has voted for increases in government funding of scientific research, many members actively oppose the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research because it involves the harvesting and destruction of human embryos (which some consider morally equivalent to abortion), while arguing for diverting research money into adult stem cell research, which has had some limited proven successes.


Suggestion: Although the GOP has voted for increases in government funding of scientific research, many members actively oppose the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research because it involves the harvesting and destruction of human embryos (which some consider morally equivalent to abortion), while arguing for diverting research money into adult stem cell research, which has had a number of clinically proven successes.

This suggestion is based upon the Wikipedia article written on "Adult stem cell".

Thanks for your information service.

Center Right

Damn, you in the United States have strange political standards Oo You say the republicans are "Center Right" OO Such a party would be at the far right in Europe.

What is the purpose of this discussion? The United States has absolutely no tendency toward Communism, which is as far left as you can get, nor does it have any tendency toward Dictatorship, which is as far right as you can get; therefore, the entire spectrum is shifted and stretched.

A Dictatorship can be found anywhere on the spectrum. You don't need a political program to be a power-hungry tyrant. I don't think the old 1-dimensional political spectrum is that reliable but if we have to go buy it, the far-right would be fascism. Also, The United States is a (classical) liberal country. It is unclear whether it is a center-left or center-right ideology, the wiki article on liberalism calls it center-left, but like the lady or gentleman who started this little sub-thread, the range of the American Political spectrum is considered far right in Europe. I guess one ideology's position on the left-right spectrum is placed relative to another. -Mike Reason

Why the South is Republican TODAY

There is not mention of segregation in this article, which is the number 1 reason the majority of the south is republican today. before, the south was the land of the "dixiecrats" (southern democrats). LBJ's decision to stick by JFK's civil rights platform handed the south firmly to the republicans who came out against integrating White and Black america. I'm not here to smear the republicans (they do that well enough by themselves), but the above fact is way too important not to mention. I also didn't see a mention on the reason Blacks switch from overwhelmingly supporting the Republicans (party of Lincoln, right?) to the democrats. Any historian worth his or her salt knows exactly why, but its not mentioned here. whoever is responsible for this page should make sure to add this very pertinent info.

Exscuse me, are you Southern, i would not think so, but i am one form Virginia probably the state with some of the most heated intergraiton problems and segregation is not the number one reason. It was a general shift in policy for both parties.

Scott Free 15:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You are responsible for this page Scott. Do it, to it. Just remember to cite sources for anything contriversal. And make it rock solid so there's not a revert war. Good Luck. Noit 18:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Protection

I have unprotected the page. Protection for three weeks is unacceptable, even if it is semi-protection. Protect for short periods, as needed, to mitigate severe vandalism. See the semi-protection policy. Superm401 - Talk 05:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Base of Support

The article fails to mention changing bases in geographical support for the GOP, at least after the 19th century, with a special focus on its current Southern powerbase. The article alludes at times to Nixon's Southern Strategy, etc., but does not speicfically focus on the issue. Would a separate section or set of sections on geographical history be best or should this be incorporated into the existing chronology?Francisx 16:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

A vandal erased the voting data but I restored it an updated it to 2006. The GOP of course depends on voters and we can't leave them out of the article. Rjensen 11:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/p/Talk%7ERepublican_Party_%28United_States%29_archives3_0caf.html"