Talk:Republican Party (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Republican Party (United States) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Portal:United States
 United States Portal
This article is within the scope of 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.
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.)
This article or section needs additional references or sources to improve its verifiability. It may be using the words or ideas of other publications in its text, without citing the source(s) of the information.
Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations. This article has been tagged since March 2007. (help)

Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3


Contents

[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)
Should this be updated to include something about signing statements? Ryan 21:36, 31 January 2007 (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)

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see the bias. Republicans strongly supported welfare reform--true. Welfare reform limited the length of eligibility--also factual. Many former welfare recipients did move into the workforce--a fact touted by President Clinton and Republican Congressional leaders. Is the "led to" the source of claims of bias? MJFiorello 02:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's dense, this article was written by right-leaning people because they are the only ones who would want to write about it. You wouldn't catch me writing about the democratic party because I don't know enough about them, [I know enough not to want to vote for them - sorry for that] but it stands to reason that followers know more about things. Of course followers are also biased, which is also a problem but in my view less of a problem than would occur from the bias from, in this case, anti-republicans. It's politics, there's never going to be a non-partisan view (unless you read The Economist... - no shame in blatantly advertising the best magazine in the world...) so let's accept that it's gonna be the better of two evils keeping republicans writing about republicans and democrats writing about democrats, with both scrutinising the other as much as is possible. ____alexxxth 14th feb 2234GMT 2007 -no, I do not have anything better to do on Valentines Day.

[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.

Addition: (from BrooksofSheffield) Under ideology it says the party is made up of death stars, elephants and fat white guys. I'd hardly consider that to be non-biased.

[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

The Republican Party was founded, not by Jefferson, but by those who wished to destroy the Slave power. Slavery was an issue, the Democrats were founded with the desire to expand slavery throughout the country. They were the ones who wished to invade Mexico so they could extend slavery. The similarity in name to the old D/Rs is only that. The Republicans certainly did name themselves after the French parties, which is where the red flag comes from. Where do you think it comes from? It comes from the Socialist movement, all parties outside of the USA named "Republican" in some sense have red flags and are Socialist identified. The "Red states/Blue states' comes from the fact that the Republicans were Socialist, Karl Marx was a huge supporter, and the Democrats were "Blue-Blooded" pro-slavery aristocrats. Union General Joseph Weydermeyer, who was active during the Civil War, was an active REPUBLICAN and good friend of Karl Marx. There was also a Chartist newspaper in UK called The RED Republican. Unfortunately, the Republican party sold out sometime after the war to the slavers and allowed "Redemption." You know, "State's Rights," and all that sort of thing. JBDay 04:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[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)

It is widely thought that GOP always stood for "Grand Old Party" but it actually first stood for(in 1875) "Gallant Old Party."

Whatever the origins, GOP is an advertising slogan now. It does not represent a neutral point of view. I suggest all uses of the term in this article be quoted, or changed to "Republican." 207.166.220.174 21:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the term GOP is widely accepted by the style manuals for newspapers and magazines. Thus the Associated Press Stylebook (2003) p. 108 says "GOP is acceptable as a second-reference synonym for Republican Party." Rjensen 22:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Is the stylebook relevant? It may be accepted practice among mainstream media, but mainstream media is not necessarily the best example to follow. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3533643957232437789&hl=en 64.229.30.2 04:52, 23 February 2007 (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

That's interesting...without "winner takes all" there is less pressure to reach out to wider voter base?Triggtay 09:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[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)

I wanted to read in to the article, and suprise suprise some badbwoy has edited it! It would be nice to have this article have some type of protection.

[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)

Someone also put the Natzi Party's symbol in for the elephant at the top of the page. This has been reverted also.Mathteacher1729 19:22, 6 February 2007 (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?
Only if those individual thoughts and ideas involve killing, torturing, or bombing something. Accuriser198557
The articles used to be even more different, but I did some formatting changes weeks ago to get them to be similar. I initially renamed Historical trends as History, but changed it back as I had not decided for certain what to do about that at the time. For the history I wanted to showcase past Republican Speakers and Presidents, but the space for adding any more pictures is limited. In general, I don't oppose your ideas for improvement of the article but it's not something I'll personally implement on the article. Settler 06:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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 Drew 01:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Ninetywazup? 17:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[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)

[edit] Republican party and economic libertarianism

In general Republicans favor lower taxes, deregulation, free markets, smaller government, devolution of power to states, and so on. While far from fully embracing libertarianism, on the economic front, they are SUBSTANTIALLY closer to the idea than democrats. The statement "The Republican party is more ... economically libertarian" when compared with the Democrats is manifestly obvious. I can start rattling off even more things were Republicans are more economically libertarian than Democrats: health savings accounts, private accounts for Social Security, school vouchers, voucherizing Medicaid..... this isn't even a debatable statement.Mgunn 22:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

For contrasting points, check out Barbara Ehrenreich's "Confessions of a Recovering Statist," consider the current administration's fiscal record, or the fact that Democrats recently ran and won on issues of fiscal responsibility. Areas where the Democrats are more libertarian than Republicans include: use of subsidies to protected industries (oil, farming, ...), taxation of the lowest classes, nearly all social policies (like sexual and reproductive freedom, the majority of free speech and other individual rights issues, excepting gun control), and immigration policies. The long list of policies where the Republicans fail as libertarians make it far from "manifestly obvious" that they are *more* libertarian than Democrats. Thomas B 22:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The most compelling counterpoint I can make is through Wooldridge's excellent "The Right Nation," which is cited as a reference in this article before I even showed up. The Right Nation's basic thesis is that, while the rise of libertarianism in the Republican party was important a few decades back, almost every K-Street and Goldwateresque Republican idea has become drowned out by Evangelists and pro-military nationalists.Thomas B 23:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The statement is not that Republican party is economically libertarian, the statement that it is more economically libertarian. Make a side by side comparison:
  • Free trade: Democrats mostly oppose, Republicans mostly favor
  • Tax cuts: Democrats want them rolled back, Republicans want them extended
  • Immigration (you have a point on this one ), but the President is on the more libertarian side and also its less of a purely economic issue.
  • School vouchers: Democrats universally oppose, republicans favor
  • Social Security private accounts: Republicans favor, Democrats disfavor with the possible exception of add on accounts (accounts funded by tax increases)
  • minimum wage increaes: democrats favor, republicans oppose
  • Earned income tax credit (similar, but different from more libertarian negative income tax), put in by Republican Congress in 1920s, revived by President Ford etc..[1]
Furthermore, the idea that Democrats oppose farm subsidies is ludicrously comical. A key plank behind the early progressive movement and New Deal was to raise the price of farm products through government intervention. (Some of this eventually ended up in the supreme court with Wickard v. Filburn). In the 1990s, Republicans under Gingrich tried to cut back but were opposed by the Democrats and Clinton.[2]
Robert Byrd (D) has helped anti-dumping legislation that is just a huge subsidy/protectionism racket that is about 180 degrees from economic libertarianism. I'm not arguing that Republicans are economically libertarian... but Republicans are manifestly more economically libertarian than Democrats. I'm not saying a lot of the social conservative big government stuff is economically libertarian... but on a relative basis, the answer is clear Mgunn 23:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Another list:
Isolationism - Republicans are more in favor of this anti-libertarian position
Oil Subsidies - Republicans are more in favor
Farm Subsidies - Democrats have historically supported (may or may not currently on a case by case basis), Republicans especially in the midwest and south currently overwhelmingly support (minus Gingrich)
Military Subsidies - " "
Globalization of ports: Republicans oppose (see Dubai port scandal)
We can just have a race to see who can come up with more libertarian or non-libertarian examples on either side, but that's fruitless. There are clearly some libertarian streaks and non-libertarian streaks in each party. You think the issues where Republicans are more libertarian are more typical and important than the counterexamples, but that's an unsupportable value judgment.
The only way to solve this is through the use of sources, like my nod to The Right Nation. Thomas B 00:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Your argument is entirely incorrect. In what sense are Republicans for Isolationism???? Huh? Military spending is a foreign policy issue and not generally considerred economics. On the Dubai port deal, you'll remember that the Democrats were overwhelmingly against the deal. Stop trying to engage in political advocacy and citing Barbara Ehrenreich on what Republicans think. Mgunn 00:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
In the order I read them:
a) Republicans support isolationism in regards to foreign control of industry and immigration policy.
b) All government spending is relevant to economics, especially something as massive as critical as the Military-Industrial Complex.
c) I'm citing Ehrenreich on what Democrats think, which is relevant to the comparative statement "more libertarian." I'm actually citing Wooldridge and Mickelthwait on what Republicans think, which should carry some weight, as they specifically researched that topic and produced a reputable and neutral work on the subject. Compared to your citations (no citations), I find mine more persuasive.
d) The Dubai port scandal was used as an example of Republican anti-libertarianism.
e) It's odd you see political advocacy in my comments: I'm not a Democrat, nor do I vote Democratic, nor do I support Democratic policies. Thomas B 03:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The above is all more or less irrelevant to this discussion. The only important question is about the encyclopedaic merits of an uncited and disputed claim. Mind that I didn't replace "more libertarian" with "less libertarian," because I'm not arguing that point, I'm just arguing against your suggestion that it is "manifestly obvious" to all who even consider it.Thomas B 03:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Intro

the intro doesn't make sense it says 7 of the 10 and 18 of the 28 sinse then when is then? is this a typo? vandalism? mya stupido?

Komaknacon 03:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's just very sloppy prose. The sentences are:
Since 1856, Republicans have won 23 of the 38 presidential elections in which they have contested, including 7 of the last 10; eighteen of the twenty-eight U.S. Presidents since then have been Republicans.
What this is trying to say, ineffectively, is that since 1856, there have been 38 presidential elections and Republicans have won 23 of them (However, that is only a total of 28 presidents in all— 2 termers and such— of which 18 have been Republican... 18 of 23). They have also won 7 of the last 10 presidential elections. Make any sense? It probably needs a rewrite for clarity. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why 10 is used as a cut-off. 7 of 10 is a 70% success rate. 5 of the last 7 elections have been won by Republicans which is a 71% success rate. Since 1856, the success rate is about 61%. The whole "7 of 10" seems pretty random to me. Settler 23:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] center-right versus far-right

The Republican Party is a center-right party, by American and world standards, being much less "right-wing" than many fringe parties in North America and Europe, and much less interested in promoting a plutocracy or other undemocratic forms of government than many governing parties around the world.

Further, it has been the consensus of editors to this page, at least those without their own POV axes to grind, that the party description box should read "center-right", not "far right". Argyriou (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Instead of splitting hairs let's call it "right wing". A key characteristic of american politics is that due too the two party system, members of the major parties ascribe to a wide spectrum of political beliefs--Republicans may be center-right, far-right, up/down right, whatever. Triggtay 05:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The US Republican party could hardly be considered center-right. The Tories in Canada and the UK are an example of a center-right government. If you research the Tory party platforms in those two countries, it will be easy to establish that the GOP is far more right wing than most other conservative parties. Even the Tories in the UK oppose the Iraq war, support civil unions for all (including gays) et al. Hell the Democratic Party in the US could be considered 'conservative' in most European countries. I know it's not a European country, but look at the 'Liberal' party in Australia, which itself is self described as conservative. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Center-right seems fine to me. It is neither liberal nor conservative, though it tends more toward conservativism. Comparing it internationally is in some ways inappropriate. The United States is (obviously) different from European, Asian, and African countries. The politics of the U.S. Republican Party make the most sense in direct reference to the circumstances of the United States, historically, culturally, and economically. For instance, gun control is an issue in the United States because of the laws and history regarding gun ownership here. In much of Europe, gun control isn't even a political issue. How can they be compared on similar issues when the circumstances are what drive the politics? Rkevins 20:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On ideology and political spectrum

While on the subject, what are people's thoughts on the word ideology being used interchangeably with a party's particular place on the political spectrum? A while ago "Discuss whether Centrism deserves to be in the 'Ideology' section," was added to the To-do list on the talk page of the Democratic Party article and it's probably a legit topic of discussion on improving any political party article. Settler 06:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, no. Ideology has a meaning, and that is not it. Whether any political party in a democracy is well enough defined to have one ideology is another question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, currently it is being used that way on political party infoboxes. It's somewhat irked me since I've been here but it was never a priority to do anything about it. Certainly not without first soliciting the opinions of others in advance. Settler 07:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
What we really want is to change the word ideology to match the entry, rather than trying to describe the Republicans in an info-box. Alignment? Position? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voter base

I changed "unenthusiastic about gay rights" to "hostile to gay rights." The GOP in platform and floor votes has opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, adoption by gay couples, gay marriage and the inclusion of "sexual orientation" to federal hate crimes laws. Rhetorically, GOP leaders have ranged from veiled "family values" appeals to comparing gay people to kleptomaniacs, alcoholics, and pedophiles. Given these facts, "unenthusiastic" is euphemistic, even deceptive. MJFiorello 00:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism

I do not apreciate a life size pic of bush staring at me when i click a link, i tried to revert it but its still there Joevsimp 23:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

never mind got rid of it now, i thought this page was protected?


I think it was a result of the last user reverting the vandalism that had been done. Looks like the thumbnail might have gotten messed up during that process.

The vandalism was initially introduced with an edit entitled "Spelling corrections" which did nothing of the sort. Vandalism was introduced again with the comment, "Reverted Vandalism." The shocking moral? Comments do not neccesarily conform to the content of the edit. -- Mgunn 06:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This page may be in desperate need of protection again. I don't know if it's because of the upcoming State of the Union address today or what but the vandalism spree needs to put down for a while. Settler 14:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I need help deciding which links to remove among the section that I named "Other" a while back. Which are important parts of the Republican Party's organization and which are not?

We should be keeping official external links and not have the article act as a directory for groups and websites not mentioned within the context of the article or are not really important. Wikipedia:External links Settler 06:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Take them all out and let people make the case for putting them back? none of these looks earthshattering (even the Pachyderm Clubs). Although the ones there now are probably the least bad. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third Citation

Crane (2004)

Who's the author? Fephisto 03:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

From the references section: "Crane, Michael. The Political Junkie Handbook: The Definitive Reference Books on Politics (2004)" Settler 03:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article intro

This article needs a very brief historical/ideological summary in the lead based on the article's contents. I've attempted on several occasions to write one but it comes out rather unsatisfactory, so I'd like someone else to make an attempt. I still might eventually finish writing one that's good enough but I can't guarantee it. Settler 00:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Symbols and name

Wikipedia needs to clarify why the three stars on the GOP logo have been inverted. We need to address this in the proper area of Wikipedia. Those who choose to remove facts and details due to their ignorance and or political bias are ignorant.


The three stars on the GOP logo are inverted five-pointed stars recently rotated to be pointing down for reasons yet to be determined some year in the beginning of the 21st century, rather than the position shown on the American Flag. If the colinear edges of the inverted five-pointed stars are joined together a pentagram is produced, a symbol of mystical and magical significance. A probable reason for the change is due to the influence of The Star and Crescent of Kappa Sigma. ΚΣ (Kappa Sigma) is an international fraternity that has produced many alumni, including four senators, eight congressmen, seven governors, and a deputy prime minister.Flsaisalie 02:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Flsaisalie 16:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Provide attribution in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines if it's being challenged. I have no opinion on the matter yet. Settler 16:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that this is all speculative, original research, and in many ways violates WP:BLP (by inferring that certain Republicans have some kind of satanic or other ties). --Ali'i 17:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The rotation change was made for a reason and Wikipedia is where one should go to find that reason. Please do not just ignore the issue. Flsaisalie 17:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh... what? Wikipedia isn't for guessing at the reason for things. Unless you can provide an actual source, it fails to merit inclusion. "One can go elsewhere to find a speculative reason." Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Wikipedia is not the sole place where people should go to find the reason. If it is the sole place this information turns up, that's a big problem and it fails to meet the guidelines. Settler 17:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Perfect please standby. It will turn up and when it does we will post it instead of ignoring the issue. Flsaisalie 17:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've run my own little searches, and found no reliable sources that link the Republican logo with Kappa Sigma or any invented pentagram theory. I eagerly await your results. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
In the meantime people should read up on Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia:Fringe theories, and other related guidelines. It's particularly at its most importance in debates on information that may be regarded as controversial by some people. Settler 17:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


The logo takes on the look of the Flag of the United States and out of respect for the Flag of the United States the Union shall never be displayed upside down. US Code Title 4 Section 8(a).

[edit] 'Far-right'

Apparently, someone has changed the political position in the infobox to "right-wing/far-right". While there is definitely a very right-wing faction of the Republican Party, I think that generalizing the entire party's political position as "far-right" is rather inaccurate, not to mention non-NPOV. I'm no Republican myself, but wouldn't just "Right-wing" be a better categorization?

I can see that this has been brought up before on this discussion page, too, but it doesn't seem like anything was decided. ObeliskBJM 21:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There has been some discussion on the talk page of Democratic Party (United States), and editors there seem to have reached a consensus that the Democratic Party is centrist, rather than centre-left. With that shift, I am wondering if this party should be shifted to simply "right." I am not completely convinced that it should, as the party is rather diverse. The Republican Party of Bush is pretty firmly "right," while that of others such as Guiliani is more like centre-right. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 07:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
That is not true, I have contributed significantly to the discussion on that talk page and there is no consensus about the Democratic Party being labeled "centrist".--Jersey Devil 11:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I did not see the above discussion. Perhaps we could add "right" to the list, also keeping "centre-right?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cielomobile (talk • contribs) 18:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
I would personally agree with Cielomobile about the Democrats' political centrism, though I understand that there exists an opposing view as well. Since the Republican Party covers such a broad political spectrum, though, I think that identifying it as both "center-right" and "right-wing" is a good compromise. The Democratic Party page does something similar, after all, identifying the party's position as both "centrist" and "center-left". 20:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC) ObeliskBJM

[edit] more vandalism

can someone fix the logo so it's the elephant again? i removed what was there before, which was a nazi flag, but i couldnt find the original image. people shouldnt vandalise.

[edit] Leader

Intro: "The current President of the United States (2001-present), George W. Bush, is the leader of this party."

I don't believe either the Democrats or the Republicans have an official leader, do they? An unofficial leader perhaps (e.g. Speaker of the House of Representatives, President) and a Chairman, but not a leader as such. Correct me if I'm wrong. Dr Gangrene 22:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] help with Global warming article

Please help us with the Global warming article. there is currently a small number of editors who are continually refusing to allow any dissenting views. thanks. --Sm8900 13:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Promotional original research

Since I may be up against the Wikipedia:3RR, other editors should remove the (as currently written) blatant non-sourced advertising paragraph and undue weight given to a name without a Wiki biography (phew!) from the 2008 nomination section that two accounts are inserting. Thank you. Settler 00:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reworking the scope of the leading paragraph

The lead-in section for this article seems odd compared to other political party articles. It consists only of a 'victory brag' about presidential victories, while giving minimal coverage of the current state of the party, and a rather erroneous statement that the President is the leader of the party (technically, the head of the RNC is the head of the party; The President is simply the highest ranking public official in the party's ranks.)

Other party descriptions - see Democratic Party (United States) and Conservative Party (UK) for examples - describe the party, leave leadership issues to the infobox or a later part of the article, briefly describe the party's current status (again, handled it detail later in the article) and then gives a brief overview of the party's historical foundations. Which seems a much more informative way of going about it.

I propose rewriting the leading section to match this model, introducing the Republican Party, describing its current position in federal and state government, and having an brief overview of the party's evolution from the Party of Lincoln into the pro-business party that emerged in the 1920s and further into its current iteration.--Primal Chaos 03:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea to me. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 17:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Immigration under international policy?

Wouldn't domestic opposition to domestic immigration be a domestic issue, not an international one? It's currently listed under international policy.--Primal Chaos 17:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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