Talk:Republican Party (United States)/archives2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 1 My removal 2 Italics or quotation marks 3 New table 4 Culture war 5 Only one ideology? 6 Totally Disputed and Why 7 My removal and rewrite 8 swastika image 9 6-29-05 extensive historical detail added by RJensen 9.1 RJensen's text 10 Tlotz's edits. 11 POV edits 12 Request for comments 13 Ballot symbols 14 Ideology 15 Fascism project 16 Revert of edit by "Lima bean of the north" – majorities 17 NPOV 18 republican party 19 Civil Rights Movment 20 Info box at top of article 21 Lincoln Photo 22 2004 U.S. Election controversy and irregularities 23 2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities - part 2 24 20th century history?? 25 Biased???? 26 NO!!! 27 accurate about 1984? 28 a number of problems surfaced in Ohio 2004

My removal

I've removed the following:

although there are differing views on various issues

because it seemed, essentially, to needlessly soften the statement it follows. Even Lincoln Chafee or Rob Simmons (moderate Northeastern Republicans) would agree that the GOP is the more conservative of the two major parties. Meelar (talk) 17:18, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Italics or quotation marks

the Republican platform headers I think appear best if italicized, is there a rule about this sort of approach? Salazar 21:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style indicates italics for titles of works or when using words as words. I do not think these platform headers qualify as titles of works (if you can show that they are publications under those names, then that's different, but I'm not aware of this being the case). I think quotation marks are the appropriate style here as the remarks are likely quotations from the platform (or of people speaking or writing about the platform). older≠wiser 22:26, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

i like your name, that's how I feel most of the time. Thanks for the pointer to the Manual of Style, that's exactly what I wanted. The relevant part:

Italics are generally used for titles of longer works. Titles of shorter works, such as the following, should be enclosed in quotation marks (""):

   * articles, essays, or papers
   * chapters of a longer work
   * episodes of a television series
   * short poems
   * short stories
   * songs

They "chapters of a longer work", within the Republican platform. So it is correct to have them in quotation marks, not italics as I thought. Salazar 23:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New table

What are peoples thoughts about the new table that was added by 192.139.245.254 and removed by Evercat? (Version with table)

I liked it; it summarized the formation of the party and its current political position. If it was added to all political parties worldwide, it would make comparison easier.--BaronLarf 13:55, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

It had been added to many other parties in several other countries, a table was also added for the Democratic Party. I know the term "conservative" is arguable, but the GOP seems to be consistently conservative these days in most aspects. Fascism is going way too far, as one vandal had written, although some on the left may argue.

Culture war

Culture War was removed as a red link. The article actually exists at Culture war, but I'm not sure if I should add it in myself as it doesn't seem quite directly relevant like Republican National Convention. If someone wants to add it back, it would probably fit better integrated into the narrative of the text than as a 'see also'.--Pharos 06:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Only one ideology?

Why is only one ideology of the party listed? We know that the two major political parties in the united states are "catch all parties" as is stated under the political section of the article on the United States itself. Conservatives are not the only people in the republican party, shouldn't we at least have some of the ideologies of the other factions listed? Such as Libertarianism and Christian Democracy?

It's accurate enough. Listing all of the factions is an exercise in verbosity that doesn't add anything, really. Daniel Quinlan 18:47, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention that true libertarians in the Republican Party are few, far between, and generally conservative in emphasis. Christian Democrats, self-avowed or otherwise, simply don't exist in the United States. RadicalSubversiv E 18:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An entire section of this article says otherwise, the "Factions in the Republican Party" bascially describes the Cristian right as Chritian Democrats. And there are eight listed house representatives as members of the liberty caucus, that many deserve to be mentioned in the ideology section. And considering that libertarianism or government non-involvement in general is what garners many of the western voters.

The factions article, which has always been of dubious accuracy and neutrality, says nothing about Christian Democrats. Also, 8 out of a caucus of 232 (7 of whom vote with the conservative caucus leadership on virtually everything) do not signify a major ideological divide within the party. Finally, please sign your comments. RadicalSubversiv E 19:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Totally Disputed and Why

Compared with the article on the Democratic Party, this article has an entirely different tone. I don't whether this is intentional or not but it makes for a less than useful reference tool for those doing research on the GOP.

The following is a good example of what I mean: Original primary political principles included deregulated free-market capitalism, states' rights, and a strong [[national defense. While these issues are still the stated focus of the party, new issues such as the privatization of Social Security, and opposition to both same-sex marriage and federal funding for abortions have become new priorities for many in the party.

Aside from being very poorly written, it is not true to say that the Republican party's original primary political principles included "deregulated free-market capitalism." Indeed the GOP legislated or supported the creation of many government agencies and under Nixon, as just one example, saw reasonably tough enforcement of securities, anti-trust laws etc. This is just simplistic, and seems written by someone who is an opponent of the Republicans.

States' rights? Perhaps this is considered important now by many Republicans but it was really the Dems who stood for states' rights, particularly in relation to the right of the Southern states to enslave African Americans. So that's wrong too.

Privatization of social security? Hardly a neutral description of Republican policy. Indeed, President Clinton's commission on social security recommended private accounts in addition to the government system. So was he advocating a "privatization" of social security? No.

Opposition to samesex marriage and abortion as the primary political principles of the GOP. Sure they're important issues to many Republicans but they are by no means universally held or primary political principles of any kind.

I wouldn't know where to start with this article, it seems in need of a total re-write by a non-Republican, non-Democrat author with some skill. I hope such a person is out there and can improve this abysmal effort. Lagavulin 19:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your objections to me sound like more of a request for a NPOV article; I don't see any obvious factual errors. I agree with you that there are many npov objections, so I would vote for a {{npov}} tag, but not a {{TotallyDisputed}} tag. --BaronLarf 19:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I'll change the tag, but if anyone really feels the other is necessary, go ahead and change it back. TIMBO (T A L K) 21:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes I have changed it back and should explain why.

It is a factual error to assert that "state's rights" (just one example of many) was a founding principle of the Republican party. In fact, by opposing slavery, they were insisting on federal determination of the issue. I could go on. And on. But what the article needs is a comprehensive re-write from someone without baggage. I'm not qualified to write it, I use Wikipedia regularly but haven't had time to contribute much.

I guess a place to start is to consider what the Republicans stood for initially and compare and contrast with today perhaps. But I doubt they have ever stood for "unregulated free market capitalism", Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and II have all presided over big governments with a lot of regulation of the market. So I just wonder where this stuff comes from and rightly or wrongly it makes me wonder about the intellectual integrity of the whole article.

Lagavulin 23:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well I wish you would go on (and on), because otherwise those problems that you see won't be sorted out. It's been my experience that articles don't get totally rewritten by themselves, but if you raise specific points we could all put our heads together and find sources etc. TIMBO (T A L K) 03:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove the tag. It seems Lagavulin has put these tags in other political articles as well, though without really establishing a dialogue. If you want to change the article in any way, be bold and do it, but just putting in a totally disputed tag and asking for someone to rewrite the article is not appropriate. TIMBO (T A L K) 06:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please don't remove a tag and please don't falsely claim I haven't opened a dialogue about the problems in this or other articles. I don't feel qualified to impose any changes when there are many other experienced editors equipped to do so. But as a regular wikipedia user, I think it is important I make a contribution however small.

Most of what is said to be core Republican belief seems to be no such thing, as I pointed out above. Respond to that, if you wish, or even better improve the article but don't remove the tag and ignore the problem. It won't - and I won't - go away. Lagavulin 21:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed the tag because you were saying, basically, that this article is crap and we need a new one. It doesn't really work that way – if you see a problem, fix it or raise it on the talk page so it can be resolved. Saying that you don't think it's accurate, but you don't feel qualified to fix it, although you'll slap a {{TotallyDisputed}} tag on it, is the wrong thing to do. By all means, be bold and make changes where you see fit, but the tag should be used when the issues can be resolved by the editors involved, not when one editor wants an entirely new article because of nebulously defined issues. TIMBO (T A L K) 21:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the only dispute with the article is over this paragraph

It's original primary political principles were a strong national defense along with libertarian beliefs such as deregulated free-market capitalism, low taxation, the protection of gun rights and smaller government. While these issues are still the stated focus of the party, new issues such as religiosity, Social Security reform and repair, and opposition to both same-sex marriage and abortion have become new priorities for many in the party.

then that should be rewitten. What were and are the prinicals of the Republican Party?--Seanor 18:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have proposed the removal of that paragraph in order to remove the disputed tag.

• It has a misplaced apostrophe
• I doubt the GOP's original principles had anything to do with a strong national defense or libertarianism or deregulated free-market capitalism.
• Yes they probably liked low taxation (like most Democrats) and gun rights and smaller government but are these "primary political principles"? Clearly not, they are just issues.
• "Religiosity" isn't exclusively Republican or universally Republican either.
• Social Security is another issue too, but not the central principle of the GOP
• I agree with the reference to marriage and abortion but again I doubt these are central principles either.

As it stood the best thing I could think of proposing with the paragraph - as it was central to my concerns about the bias in the article and the errors within it - was its removal. Lagavulin 23:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Those concerns seem a bit too ... unsourced. These days religiosity is quite clearly identified with Republicanism, for better or for worse. I think the Social Security issue taps into an ideological segment of Republican thought that's against many New Deal innovations, but I agree with you that it's not necessarily indicative of the Republican party as a whole. (Indeed, many Republican senators are against partial privatization). On the whole, though, I think we really need to come up with some sources - deleting the whole paragraph because of doubts doesn't seem prudent. TIMBO (T A L K) 00:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph is just wrong and has no place in an encyclopedia article. Writing a paragraph that accurately sums up one party's view is certainly beyond me but it doesn't mean that we should accept a highly negative and factually wrong assertion of what they believe in. The religiosity reference is particularly troubling, as it just not true to say the Republicans are dominated by religion or by the religious. Being conservative and religious are very different things as Richard Nixon demonstrated rather powerfully in his scandals. Lagavulin 00:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't really understand your point about Nixon, but I disagree that the paragraph is negative. As for its accuracy, you'll have to come up with some sources if you want to convince anyone. You yourself have admitted you're no Republican party scholar (and neither am I), so I repectfully think that some sort of substantiation is in order. TIMBO (T A L K) 01:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It might be helpful to look at the early history of the GOP. The national party that nominated John C. Frémont in 1856 emphasized "Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Fremont." Though he lost the election, he set forth early stands on important issues like westward expansion, extension of slavery, certain civil liberties, and union activities. Certainly, his support of free distribution of western Federal properties is important, as is his opposition of slavery in the west. When Lincoln was elected 4 years later, abolitionism was in full stride, as were support for tariffs, the distribution of Federal lands for colleges, and larger Federal land division among settlers. These seem to be the views of the early party. There are some negative aspects I haven't included, such as Lincoln's suppression of Habeas Corpus, but only because I doubt one would think that central to the party (as in, it was a response to a perceived problem that is singularly applicable - times of civil discord). I'm open to comments. Rkevins82 04:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Weirdperson11 has been tagging the article with the "totallydisputed" tag. I have removed it for the time being because, while it might be true that aspects of the article's accuracy and neutrality are in question, the user has not shown where. Instead, the user says that disputes are "all over the talk page" in the edit summary. All I could find is this section, from back in April 2005, that specifically mentions that the whole article is totally disputed. Additionally, in controversial situations it is best to avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content. That's why I think until the disputes are indicated clearly on this talk page, the tag should be kept off. --Howrealisreal 21:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

My removal and rewrite

I've removed

It's original primary political principles were a strong national defense along with libertarian beliefs such as deregulated free-market capitalism, low taxation, the protection of gun rights and smaller government. While these issues are still the stated focus of the party, new issues such as religiosity, Social Security reform and repair, and opposition to both same-sex marriage and abortion have become new priorities for many in the party. Meelar (talk) 01:32, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I will now be rewriting something, but this was just inaccurate. The GOP favored high tariffs, for example--the South (and thus Democrats at the time) wanted lower tariffs so they could sell their cotton abroad. Also, "Social Security reform and repair" is hopelessly POV.

Well that's good. I agree about social security. I do think that opposition to gay rights and abortion have indeed become new priorities for the party, as one can see in the 2004 platform (linked to in the article). Perhaps we could get some sources for founding philosophies. TIMBO (T A L K) 01:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sources? What're those, man? This is Wikipedia! (/snark) I'd been planning to read up on GOP history anyway, so this will give me a good excuse, but it won't happen for a few days/weeks. Of course, if someone else gets to it before me, I won't complain, but barring that, expect a decently-researched version of this article by mid-May. Finals and all. Best, Meelar (talk) 01:32, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Why the change for NPOV on "partial privatization of Social Security?" The term seems accurate in the sense that the President's plan that Congress is addressing would be a change to part of the system, including a shift to private accounts invested in the private sector. Maybe just let me know who would object to the term so I can work on rewording. Rkevins82 03:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well even though the President himself has used the term, and long-time proponents have used "privatization" for years, the current Republican party line is "personalization," never privatization. Apparently public support for "personalization" is higher than "privatization." I think personalization just doesn't convey the actual meaning of the proposal; everyone has their own personal Social Security account already. The change would be to privatize part of it so that you could invest in the private sector. I don't know if any real people (i.e. not politicians) would object to "partial privatization," but I say it's worth a shot. TIMBO (T A L K) 18:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

swastika image

I have commented out the swastika image. This is the work of a Anti-NPOV Democrat. Andros 1337 03:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where exactly is the swastika? I can't find it in the current revision or in the history. TIMBO (T A L K) 20:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And to be honest, vandalism could be the work of any opposing political viewpoint such as socialism, anarchism, etc. as well as none at all - just a vandal. Let's not needlessly elevate any animosity here. TIMBO (T A L K) 20:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have used the revert function of the image. I guess the cache hasn't updated properly on my PC. I will now change back to the PNG. Here is Image:Republicanlogo.png. Revision 18:18, 23 Apr 2005 by Enpsychopedia contains the swastika. Andros 1337 20:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

6-29-05 extensive historical detail added by RJensen

I have added extensive historical detail, for which I own the copyright and allow its use by Wikipedia. Richard Jensen

Anything submitted to Wikipedia is also licensed to the public under the GFDL; see Wikipedia:Copyrights for more information. Cheers. --BaronLarf June 29, 2005 19:36 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes. While I appreciate your extensive contribution to Wikipedia, your large insertions of text duplicates existing content in many places and breaks up the historical narrative (it's also important note that this is not the place for a detailed political history of the United States, but only of the GOP). I also have concerns about point-of-view -- the party systems chronology you have laid out is far from universally accepted, especially post-1932. Finally, please learn some of the style and technical practices for editing Wikipedia articles -- in particular, use line breaks only at the end of a paragraph, and title and format section headings appropriately.

I am pasting your inserted text below, and will try to integrate some of it back into the article as appropriate. I encourage others to do the same.

RadicalSubversiv E 29 June 2005 21:20 (UTC)

RJensen's text

The party emerged in 1854-56 out of a political frenzy, in all northern states, revolving around the Slave Power issue. The new party was so named because "republicanism" was the core value of American politics, and it seemed to be mortally threatened by the expanding "slave power." The enemy was not so much the institution of slavery itself, nor the mistreatment of the slaves. Rather it was the political-economic system that controlled the South, exerted disproportionate control over the national government, and threatened to seize power in the new territories. The fight was over allowing the new settlers of Kansas Territory to decide for themselves whether to adopt slavery, or whether to continue the Compromise of 1820 which explicitly forbad slavery there. The new party lost on this issue but in addition to most northern Whigs, it gained support from "Free Soil" northern Democrats who opposed slavery expansion. Only a handful of abolitionists joined. The Republicans adopted most of the modernization programs of the Whigs, favoring banks, tariffs and internal improvements, adding as well a demand for a homestead law that would provide free farms to western settlers. In state after state the Republicans outmaneuvered rival parties (the old Whigs, the prohibitionists, and the Know Nothings), absorbing most of their supporters without accepting their doctrines. The 1856 campaign, with strong pietistic Protestant overtones, was a crusade for "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men, and Fremont!" Fremont was defeated by a sharp countercrusade, warning against fanaticism and the imminent risk of civil war. By the late 1850s the new party dominated every northern state. It controlled enough electoral votes to win, despite its almost complete lack of support below the Mason Dixon line. Leaders like William Seward of New York and Salmon Chase of Ohio were passed over in 1860 because they were a bit too radical in their rhetoric, and their states were safe enough. Abraham Lincoln was more moderate, and had more of an appeal in the closely divided western states of Illinois and Indiana.

The Republicans had not expected secession, and were baffled when seven cotton states broke away and formed their own country. The Lincoln administration, stiffened by the unionist pleas of conservative northern Democrats, rejected both the suggestion of abolitionists that the slaveholders be allowed to depart in peace, and the insistence of Confederates that they had a right to revolution and self governance.

Lincoln proved was brilliantly successful in uniting all the factions of his party to fight for the Union. Most Democrats were likewise supportive until the fall of 1862, when Lincoln added the abolition of slavery as a war goal. All the state Republican parties accepted the antislavery goal except Kentucky. In Congress the party passed major legislation to promote rapid modernization, including a national banking system, high tariffs, a huge national debt, homestead laws, and aid to education and agriculture. How to deal with the ex-Confederates was a major issue; by 1864 "radical" Republicans controlled Congress and demanded more aggressive action against slavery, and more vengeance toward the Confederates. Lincoln held them off just barely. With the end of the Civil War came the upheavals of Reconstruction under Democratic President Andrew Johnson (who had bitter disputes with the Republicans in Congress, who eventually impeached him) and Ulysses S. Grant, a Republican. For a brief period, Republicans assumed control of Southern politics (due especially to the former slaves receiving the vote while it was denied to many whites who had participated in the Confederacy), forcing drastic reforms and frequently giving former slaves positions in government. Reconstruction came to an end with the election of Rutherford B. Hayes through the Compromise of 1877.

Andrew Johnson, proved too eager to reunite the nation, allowing the radicals to seize control of Congress, the party and the Army, and nearly convict Johnson on a close impeachment vote. Grant supported radical reconstruction programs in the South, the 14th Amendment, equal civil and voting rights for the freedmen; most of all he was the hero of the war veterans, who marched to his tune. The party had become so large that factionalism was inevitable; it was hastened by Grant's tolerance of high levels of corruption. The "Liberal Republicans," split off in 1872 on the grounds that it was time to declare the war finished and bring the troops home. The depression of 1873 energized the Democrats. They won control of the House, and formed "Redeemer" coalitions which recaptured control of each southern state, in some cases using threats and violence. The Compromise of 1877 resolved the disputed election of 1876 by giving the White House to the Republicans, and all the southern states to the Democrats. The GOP, as it was now nicknamed, contained into "Stalwart" and "Half-Breed" factions, but policy differences were slight; in 1884, "Mugwunp" reformers split off and helped elect Democrat Grover Cleveland.

In the north the Republican party proved most attractive to men with an ambitious vision of a more richer, more modern, more complex society and economy. The leading modernizers were well-educated men from business, finance, and the professions. Commercial farmers, skilled mechanics, and office clerks largely supported the GOP, while unskilled workers and traditional farmers were solidly Democratic. The moral dimension of the party attracted pietistic Protestants, especially Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and Quakers. By contrast the high church or "liturgical" denominations (Roman Catholics, Mormons, German Lutherans, and Episcopalians) were offended by Republican crusaders who wanted to impose their own moral standards especially through prohibition and control over public schools. Millions of immigrants entered the political system after 1850, and usually started voting within about five years of arrival. The Catholics (Irish, German and Dutch) became Democrats, but the Republicans won majorities among the Protestant British, German, Dutch and Scandinavian newcomers, and among German Jews. After 1890 new, much poorer ethnic groups arrived in large numbers -- especially Italians, Poles, and Yiddish-speaking Jews. For the most part they did not become politically active until the 1920s. After 1876 Southern voting was sui generis, with very few white Republicans, apart from pockets of GOP strength in the Appalachian and Ozark mountain districts. The party remained popular among African Americans, even as segregation minimized their political role. (They were allowed to select delegates to the Republican national convention.)

In 1888 for the first time since 1872, the Republicans controlled the White House and both branches of Congress. New rules of procedure in the House gave the Republican leaders (especially Speaker Thomas Reed) the ability to pass major legislation. New spending bills, such as generous pensions to Civil War veterans, coupled with the new McKinley tariff made the GOP the target of charges of "paternalism." Democrats ridiculed the "Billion Dollar Congress;" Reed shot back, "It's a billion dollar country!" At the grass roots militant pietists overcame the advice of more tolerant professionals to endorse statewide prohibition. In the Midwest reformers declared war on the large German community, trying to shut down their parochial schools as well as their saloons. The Republicans, relying too much on the old-stock pietistic coalition that had always dominated the party's voting base, was badly defeated in the 1890 off-year election, as well as the 1892 presidential contest. Alarmed professionals thereupon reasserted control over the local organizations, leading to a sort of bossism that (after 1900) fueled the outrage of progressives. Meanwhile a severe economic depression struck both rural and urban America in 1893--on Cleveland's watch. Combined with with violent nationwide coal and railway strikes, and the snarling factionalism inside the Democratic party, the upshot was a sweeping victory for the GOP in 1894. The party seemed invincible in 1896, until the Democrats unexpectedly selected William Jennings Bryan. Bryan's hugely popular crusade against the gold, the financiers, the railroads, the industrialists--indeed, against the cities--created a crisis for McKinley and his campaign manager Mark Hanna. Because of civil service reforms, parties could no longer finance themselves internally. Hanna solved that problem by directly obtaining $3.5 million from large corporations threatened by Bryan. For the next century campaign finance would be hotly debated. McKinley promised prosperity for everyone and every group, with no governmental attacks on property or ethnic groups. The business community, factory workers, white collar workers, and commercial farmers responded enthusiastically, and became a major component of the new Republican majority. As turnout soared to the 95 percent level throughout much of the north, Germans and other ethnic groups alarmed by Bryan's pietistic moralism, voted Republican.

Rejuvenated by their triumphs in 1894 and 1896, and by the glamor of a highly popular short war in 1898, the GOP rolled to victory after victory. The party had again grown too large, and factionalism increasingly tore it apart. The break came in 1912 over the issue of progressivism. President William Howard Taft favor conservative reform controlled by the courts; former president Theodore Roosevelt went to the grass roots, attacking Taft, bosses, courts, big business, and the "malefactors of great wealth." Defeated at the convention, Roosevelt bolted, and formed a third party. The vast majority of progressive politicians refused to follow Roosevelt's rash action, for it allowed the conservatives to seize control of the GOP; they kept it for the next 30 years. Roosevelt's quixotic crusade also allowed Democrat Woodrow Wilson to gain the White House with only 40% of the vote. After Wilson's fragile coalition collapsed in 1920, the GOP won three consecutive presidential contests by landslides. Herbert Hoover represented the quintessence of the modernizing engineer, bringing efficiency to government and economy. His poor skills at negotiating with politicians hardly seemed to matter when the economy boomed and Democrats were in disarray. When the Depression hit, his political ineptitude compounded the party's weaknesses. For four decades, whenever Democrats were at a loss for words, they could always ridicule Hoover.

The Great Depression sidelined the GOP for decades. The main causes were a sense of defeatism--the old conservative formulas for prosperity had lost their magic--and the success of the Democrats in building up liberal majorities that depended on labor unions, big city machines, federal relief funds, and the mobilization of Catholics, Jews and African Americans. On the other hand, middle class hostility to new taxes, and fears about a repeat of the First World War, led to a Republican rebound. Franklin Roosevelt's immense popularity gave him four consecutive victories, but by 1938 the GOP was doing quite well in off-year elections when FDR's magic was not at work. In 1948, taxes were high, federal relief had ended and big city machines were collapsing, but the unions were peaking in strength and they helped Harry Truman reassemble FDR's coalition for one last hurrah. 1948 proved to be the high water mark of class polarization in American politics; afterwards the differences narrowed between the middle class and the working class. In 1952 attack issues of Korea, Communism and Corruption gave war hero Dwight Eisenhower a landslide, along with a narrow control of Congress. However the GOP remained a minority party, and was factionalized, with a northeastern liberal element basically favorable to the New Deal welfare state and the policy of containing Communist expansion, versus Midwestern conservatives who bitterly opposed New Deal taxes, regulation, labor unions, and internationalism. Both factions used the issue of anti-communism, and attacked the Democrats for harboring spies and allowing Communist gains in China and Korea. New York governors Tom Dewey and Nelson Rockefeller led the liberal wing, while senators Robert Taft of Ohio and Barry Goldwater of Arizona spoke for the conservatives. Eisenhower represented internationalism in foreign policy, sidetracking the isolationism represented by Taft and Hoover. Richard Nixon was aligned with the eastern liberal GOP; he lost in 1960 because the Democrats had a larger base of loyal supporters, especially Catholics who turned out to support their coreligionist John Kennedy. The defeat of yet another candidate sponsored by the eastern "establishment" opened the way for Goldwater's 1964 crusade against the New Deal and Great Society. Goldwater permanently knocked out the eastern liberals, but in turn his crushing defeat retired many old-line conservatives. Goldwater in 1964 and independent George Wallace in 1968 ripped southern whites and many northern Catholics away from their Democratic roots, at the same time the Democratic commitment to civil rights won over nine-tenths of all African American voters. Lyndon Johnson's Great Society collapsed in the mid 1960s in a frenzy of violence and protest over racial hatreds, Vietnam, generational revolt, crime in the streets, burning inner cities, and runaway government. Nixon seized the moment. As president he largely ignored his party--his 1972 reelection campaign was practically nonpartisan. Even so his self-destruction wreaked havoc in the 1974 election, setting the stage for the Carter interregnum.

Jimmy Carter's presidency crashed in 1980. Foreign affairs were unusually salient, as public opinion saw failure in policy toward the Soviet Union, Iran, and Mideast hostages. Stagflation in the economy meant a combination of high unemployment and high inflation. Most of all there was a sense of drift or, worse, of malaise. The country craved leadership. Ronald Reagan led a political revolution, capitalizing on grievances and mobilizing an entirely new voting bloc in 1980, the religious right. Southern Baptists and other fundamentalists and evangelicals had been voting Democratic since the New Deal, because of their low educational and economic status, and their southern roots. Suddenly they began to react strongly against a perceived national tolerance of immorality (especially abortion and homosexuality), rising crime, and America's apparent rejection of traditional family values. Reagan had vision and leadership qualities that workaholic policy gurus could never understand. Under Reagan history happened--including a massive military buildup, the defeat of the anti-nuclear peace movement, and massive tax cuts. By 1984 inflation had faded away, unemployment eased, profits and fortunes were soaring Social Security had been reformed, and Reagan carried 49 states in winning reelection. Most astonishing of all was Reagan's revival of the Cold War, followed closely by the total collapse of the Soviet Empire. The best issue for the Democrats was the soaring national deficit--long a conservative theme--though their attacks doomed any hopes that they could ever return to the liberal tax and spend policies of yore. For the first time since 1932, the GOP pulled abreast of the Democrats in terms of party identification on the part of voters. Higher income people were more Republican, and still voted, while the lower income groups that had always been the mainstay of the Democratic party increasingly lost interest and simply did not bother to vote. By the 1980s a gender gap was apparent, with men and married women more Republican and single, divorced and professional women more Democratic. Thanks to the religious right, the GOP gained the votes of less-educated moralistic voters. Those gains were largely offset by a tendency toward Democratic positions regarding multiculturalism and tolerance of homosexuality and abortion among holders of college and postgraduate degrees.

George H.W. Bush rode to the White House on Reagan's popularity, and could himself claim smashing victories in the Cold War and the Gulf War. The public was baffled that Bush--so knowledgeable and decisive regarding Kuwait and East Berlin--seemed unconcerned about taxes, deficits and other domestic issues that bothered Americans far more. When independent Ross Perot polled an amazing 19% of the vote in 1992 by crusading against the deficit, Bush was doomed. However the GOP roared back in 1994, gaining control of Congress for the first time since 1952, as well as control of governors' mansions in nearly all of the major states. The rancorous leadership of Speaker Newt Gingrich soured politics in Washington; he was unable to deliver on most of his "Contract with America." Meanwhile, as a party the GOP for the first time had built a national infrastructure, based on its ability to raise hundreds of millions of dollars from political action committees and individual donors. While ideological Republicans in Congress failed in their efforts to remove President Bill Clinton by impeachment, the party did cooperate with the president to sharply reduce welfare spending and end the federal budget deficit. The nomination of George W. Bush in 2000 signalled a turn to the states for leadership, as he became the first incumbent governor to win the GOP nomination since Tom Dewey in 1944 and 1948.

Tlotz's edits.

Since he refuses to make his arguments here, apparently preferring deceptive edit summaries, I've made a section for him. Tlotz seems to advocate four noticable changes to this article's opening paragraphs:

1. Including "the Party of Lincoln" as a name the GOP is referred to in media or common parlance.
2. Removing any mention of moderate, "big tent," or "RINO"-accused Republicans.
3. Removing any mention of the Log Cabin Republicans ("This is an article about the Republican party. If you want to write an article about gay republicans then do it.")
4. Closing the introductory paragraphs with the following sentence: "The Republican Party stands for family values, smaller government and individual responsibility."

Opinions on his proposed edits? Shem^(talk) 01:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

1. It is.

2. original research not appropriate, include as a criticism in appropriate section if you must

3. Tlotz correct

4. This is accurate as to what it stands for. If you have a criticism or believe that it does not truly stand for these or believe that it stands for other things, add it. But no original research.

--Noitall 01:26, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Shem, I am not refusing to do anything. I am just new to this...Didn't know how to use it.. thanks for showing me... I saw the beer bottles in your bio and the three times this year "quitting smoking" quote.. so you probably have bigger problems than me. Anyway this is suppose to be a place to learn... or so I was told... New information that you are not aware of should be welcomed not silenced.

1. Google "Party of Lincoln" "Lincoln Day Banquet". Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Texas, Wisconsin, Kentucky etc. etc. etc. annually hold dozens of Lincoln Day banquets across their states honoring Lincoln and we are always characterized as the "Party of Lincoln" at these events. I have been to dozens of them...

2. Didn't do that.

3. Didn't do that. I did remove the lenghty paragraph that was obviously written by a leftist that editorialized gays in the GOP. The article is about the Republican Party. Not just gay republicans. It is a big tent.

4. Uhhh whats wrong with that.

Noitall... how is Michael Steele? He got several standing ovations when he spoke in Idaho a couple years ago when he was the GOP chair in MD. He is a good man.

I see the term "original research" a lot... what does that mean...

--Tlotz 09:16, July 15, 2005

Original research: An edit should be based on a source (you can use your own words). Theories, speculation, and points of view (POV) are inappropriate. Of course, editors argue about all of these.

Steele: He is making 2006 interesting, which is what I am interested in. There has not been a real Senate race in perhaps half a century. He is a very good speaker. We do not know yet how he will do in a debate, but I would guess he will come off well. --Noitall 03:29, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

---

noitall... thanks... If Steele is anything like he was in Idaho I think he would do well... Well he would do fine in Idaho! Don't know about MD...

Previously you said "original research not appropriate"... what did that mean... ??

--Tlotz 09:38, July 15, 2005

I replaced the chunk of text which mentioned Schwarzenegger's left leanings, Log Cabin, etc. I can't imagine how it's original research to state that the Log Cabin Republicans exist. I added two citations, one of which verifies that Arnold has been accused of being a "RINO". Please do not remove. Rhobite 03:50, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Funny... You don't want your thoughts removed but you have no problem removing mine. I see you are from the peoples republic of MA... and a business "student"... that says it all. Why do DEMS keep defacing the GOP site? Who cares if Arnold has been accused of being a RINO... If I lived in CA I would have voted for him. Also it is not just the Log Cabin Republicans its the laundry list of gay republicans you insist on making a focal point of the article... again this is a story about the party...not gay republicans.... why do DEMS have such a facination with Gay republicans??? Go write a why I hate Republicans story...

--Tlotz 10:05, July 15, 2005

A few responses for Tlotz. First, Wikipedia:No personal attacks. My beliefs are irrelevant, although I'm amused that your accusation comes mere hours after I've been accused of being a "bush fellating moron" in Talk:George W. Bush. Next, please do not remove verifiable information from encyclopedia articles. Removing references - as you did - is frowned upon here at Wikipedia. The Log Cabin Republicans article does no good if you remove all links to it. Please do not add your own slogans to the article - saying that the GOP stands for "family values, smaller government and individual responsibility" is not only POV, it's also meaningless. Many would disagree that the current deficit-spending GOP stands for smaller government. The phrase "smaller government" is actually nowhere to be found in the GOP platform which you linked. Last, please keep in mind the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Excessive reverting can get you blocked from editing. I'm happy to compromise with you here but I will not let you simply remove information which bothers you. Rhobite 04:31, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Having seen Rhobite in action on several articles over a number of months, I, as a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts, will vouch for him on this point. Ideologically, he is much closer to being a Bush-fellating moron than a Democrat. Of course, with defenders like me, he may want his enemies back.  :) JamesMLane 05:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Right back at you. You removed information that bothered you. Your sentence leading into your RHINO link is purely your POV and should be removed and has nothing to do with the "Party". You state: "However, during the administration of President Bush, there has been an increasing emphasis on cultivating deeper loyalty among core social conservatives rather than accommodating certain moderate positions, " is your POV... where is your proof...if anything the appointments of Powell, Condi Rice, Rod Paige, Alberto Gonzalez, Janice Rogers Brown etc. etc. disproves your point... Bush has appointed more minorities than any other President. He made major inroads into the Black and Hispanic communities in 2004 with increased % in both. As far as excessive reverting right back at you again. You need to change your sentence leading into your Rhino link as you have no proof, it is not part of the platform and it is only your editorial POV.

Here is a Republican platform that believes in family values, smaller government and individual responsibility.Idaho GOP Platform "WE ARE REPUBLICANS BECAUSE:We believe the strength of our nation lies with our faith and reliance on God, our Creator, the individual, and the family; and that each person's dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored."

Also Why the facination with Gay republicans and RHINO's anyway... its a very small part of the party.

--Tlotz 11:05, July 15, 2005

Thanks, James. :) Tlotz, what does appointing minorities have to do with anything? The sentence says that Bush has brought together core social conservatives.. what does that have to do with minorities at all? I did link to a Newsmax article which discussed opposition to Arnold Schwarzenegger's candidacy on the basis of his "RINO" status. I understand that you're not familiar with the rules around here yet, but generally speaking, if something is a verifiable fact then it is not an NPOV violation. It is a fact that some Republicans have criticized the more liberal members of their party.. just like some Democrats have criticized politicians like Joseph Lieberman and Zell Miller.

About the Idaho GOP statement you linked: Again, where does that mention small government? I feel like you're trying to put one over on us.. You have now used two non sequiturs: One, saying that Bush has appointed minorities, therefore it is not the case that he is "cultivating deeper loyalty among core social conservatives". Two, saying that the Idaho GOP statement indicates support for small government. Neither conclusion follows from the premises. Rhobite 05:31, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

On some of the points raised above:

1. "Party of Lincoln" is not widely used in the media, but rather is a favored self-description of Republicans, and should be labeled as such.
2. It's not original research or POV to mentioning the divergence of views within the party, including the "RINO" label applied by some Republicans to others. It is POV, however, to assert that any particular fact is "proof" of some disputed point that an editor wants to advance. Wikipedia articles state the facts; that includes reporting the facts about notable opinions but doesn't include telling the reader which opinion is better grounded. We can say that a particular Republican leader or entity has called the party a "big tent". We can also report that the Log Cabin Republicans and the Republicans for Environmental Protection both chose to withhold endorsement of Bush in 2004. My personal opinion is that such facts prove that the "big tent" slogan is pure spin, but my opinion also should not be included in the article.
3. To give a brief mention of the Log Cabin Republicans is not to evince a fascination with them or to give them undue prominence. They are indeed a small part of the party, and accordingly are a small part of the article.
4. There is certainly dispute about whether the Republican Party stands for smaller government. Ask Michael Schiavo. Ask José Padilla, a U.S. citizen; the Bush administration seized him in Chicago and asserted a power to hold him in detention indefinitely, without a trial, without even bringing charges against him. Ask any woman who wants an abortion. Historically, the party has voiced support for smaller government and for emphasizing state power over federal power, but it has significantly departed from these principles in particular cases. Here again, we present the facts without drawing conclusions. (My conclusion is that most Republican leaders are a bunch of shameless hypocrites, but my opinion isn't notable and doesn't merit inclusion.)

Tlotz, you're apparently new here. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a policy that's especially important for people editing on political subjects. JamesMLane 05:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

---

---

Ah Rhobite... parsing words... I love it ....no you said "However, during the administration of President Bush, there has been an increasing emphasis on cultivating deeper loyalty among core social conservatives rather than accommodating certain moderate positions, " Your link to RHINO is fine... your lead up to it is your POV... no proof... in fact it is false.. BUT there is Proof that GW has reached out people who have been disenfranchised by both parties. Besides your sentence leading up to the RHINO statement has absoutely nothing to do with the party... it's about GW... which is as you put it is a non sequitur... also if you take the time to read a couple more paragraphs of the IDGOP platform you will see : "We believe government must practice fiscal responsibility; and that taxpayers shall allow the government only the money necessary to provide appropriate functions. We believe the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations and that the best government is that which governs least." That grasshopper is smaller government.

A couple questions.

1. Are you married?

2. Do you have kids?

3. Have you ever made a payroll or employeed anyone?

4. Paid 100% of the health insurance for over 50 people?

5. Over 30 years of age?

6. In a 50% tax bracket? (fed, state and local combined)

If you answer yes to any one of those questions then you might be able to understand where I am coming from.

--Tlotz 11:55, July 15, 2005

JamesMLane... Spoken like a true attorney... where do I begin...

1. Google "Party of Lincoln" you will see that the media uses the "Party of Lincoln" sufficiently enough.

2. "However, during the administration of President Bush, there has been an increasing emphasis on cultivating deeper loyalty among core social conservatives rather than accommodating certain moderate positions, " is a POV.. the link to RHINO is fine.

3. Just because the Log cabin republicans and Republicans for EP "didn't" endorse Bush doesn't mean that it is not a big tent. While they Chose to not endorse GW they were never excluded from the party and were at the convention in NY. If you want to talk about exclusion one only has to look at how the DEMS excluded Bob Casey in 92.

4 Ask Terri Schiavo... opps you can't we starved her to death.

5 Ask any baby in the womb if they think abortion on demand is a good idea.

6 My opinion is that most DEMS are spineless, self absorbed, baby boomer trustfunders who cannot wait for their parents to die so they can inherit their hard earned money. That DEMS believe in Free Speech...errr until you say something they disagree with... which has been most of this discussion... but my opinion isn't notable and doesn't merit inclusion.

--Tlotz 12:25, July 16, 2005

Tlotz, I hope this doesn't sound condescending, but you're exhibiting a problem that many new editors have, one that gets in the way of their contributing to Wikipedia. The issue that's been raised is that your edits violate the NPOV policy, because they push a particular opinion. Your response is to argue that the opinion you're pushing is the correct one. That's the wrong focus. We aren't here to decide how the courts should have ruled in the Schiavo case, or what the law on reproductive rights should be. There are plenty of other places online to argue those points. We're here to craft a properly encyclopedic description of such controversies. Whether the Republican Party's position on these issues is morally superior to that of the Democrats is irrelevant. The question is how we should describe the Party's positions.

I'd say there's no legitimate dispute about generalizing how members of each major party are more likely to characterize themselves: Republicans as "pro-life" and Democrats as "pro-choice". Of course there are exceptions to both generalizations; for example, Harry Reid, a pro-life Democrat, wasn't exactly excluded by Democrats, who chose him as their Senate leader. Still, as long as we make clear that neither party is monolithic on the issue, the generalization about their comparative positions is undisputed. On the other hand, the generalization that the Republicans stand for smaller government is not undisputed, so we don't assert it as fact, although we can report notable opinions on all sides of the question.

I'm glad to see you acknowledge that your opinion, like mine, doesn't merit inclusion. The consequence is that we don't say that the existence of the Log Cabin Republicans is "proof" that the party is truly a "big tent". We also can't say that Bush 41's religious intolerance ("I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots" [1]) is "proof" that the party is not a big tent. That's just not how NPOV works.

As for "party of Lincoln", I did Google it. It's used by Republicans; when used by neutral media, it's often in quotation marks, indicating that they're reporting Republicans' usage of it. For example, the first hit is from USA Today:

Ken Mehlman, the national party chairman, has been especially aggressive in urging African-Americans to consider a return to the "party of Lincoln." [2]

Many other uses are from critics (Republican and non-Republican) who charge that the party has abandoned the ideals that would make the phrase accurate. ("This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy." (U.S. Representative Christopher Shays, R-CT) [3]; "How did the Party of Lincoln and Liberty transmogrify into the party of Newt Gingrich’s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk?" (In These Times) [4]) By contrast, "Grand Old Party" and, especially, "GOP" are more generally used as neutral descriptive terms. Our article must account for this difference in usage. JamesMLane 09:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

You are quite misguided on many issues:

1. The "party of lincoln" is so pervasive that it more than notable, it is self identifying description. Perhaps even more important, it summarizes the history of the party. Just because some in the media do not use it does not make it not notable or important.

2. Any "big tent" party (and that includes the Democrats) finds individual disagreement on single issues. And at any point in time, many candidates have been called a RINO for not delivering on a special interest issue.

3. Big tent is POV if it only identifies Republicans.

--Noitall 14:58, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

JamesMLane... I hope this doesn't sound condescending, but Like most liberal elites you look at the sliver in another's eye and don't see the log in your own.

1. You brought up Schiavo, not me and it was brought up in this discussion... not in an article. Do you believe in free speech?

2. WHere is your denouncement of "However, during the administration of President Bush, there has been an increasing emphasis on cultivating deeper loyalty among core social conservatives rather than accommodating certain moderate positions, " Clearly someones POV and irrelavent to an article about the Republican party. Oh I forgot its a liberals POV so its ok...

3. "Party of Lincoln" uhhh you are changing the intent like a lawyer. The original complaint is that it is not refered to by the media or commonly used... I have proven that while you may not like how it is used it is in fact used... and used a lot.. It bugs you liberals that Lincoln was a Republican...

4 As for GOP being a neutral descriptive term ROFLMAO... do you really want me to show you some Howard Dean quotes... they are hardly neutral...

5 As for Harry Reid... It was either him or Ted Kennedy! Man they must have held their noses when they picked Reid (also a Mormon).. who BTW has been very weak and ineffective. Republicans have run all over him.

From what I can see The biggest flamethrowers on Wikipedia are liberal, elite, propeller heads who think they are smarter than everyone else... here is the proof... If you look at "Bill Clinton", "Hillary Clinton", and "Howard Dean" clearly polarizing individuals and then look at "George Bush", "Dick Cheney".. what do you see??? On Bush and Cheney there is a big warning hand that says "The neutrality of this article is disputed" If you read the discussions you will see that it is a bunch of liberals trying to interject their "facts" (Like Cheney is a member of the American Nazi party) into the articles. Hill, Bill and Howie have no such problems. Why? Because for the most part Republicans are respectful, polite and not quite so angry. One look at the anger exibited by liberal dems these days is all you need to see. You're an angry bunch.

--Tlotz 9:33, July 16, 2005

Tlotz, you may be right on many of your arguments and statements. You will be most successful in obtaining the consensus of your supporters if you are very specific as to your issues and arguments. I think your "party of Lincoln" argument is strongest. The big tent argument is weaker because NPOV, you can not in fairness say the the Republicans are a big tent and the Democrats are not. If you want to say big tent, you have state something like: From the days of Reagan, many Republicans have promoted a "big tent" policy . . . . Just trying to be helpful. --Noitall 16:00, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

--Noitall Thanks for the advice... I appreciate it... I will keep it in mind... Yes I am still trying to figure all this out, but I am not trying to argue just trying to add to an article, and its very obvious that liberals on Wikipedia only want history to reflect their view. As for big tent I only said that the GOP is a big tent... I did not say the DEM party isn't... but now that you mention it.. the DEM party (as proof of their poor election performances lately) has been hijacked by the radical extreme left visa vis Hillary and Howie Dean. My dad is an 80 years old ex WWII and Korean War US Marine and never voted for a Republican till last year. The DEM party is not the party our parents (or Ronald Reagan) grew up with. As evidenced by their contributions to both the Republican and Dem articles on Wikipedia they are consumed by abortion on demand and gay marriage/rights. I wonder how long this sentence would last on the DEM article...."Even though Bill Clinton signed the "Defense of Marriage act" in 1996 the Dem party is seen as champions of gay rights. Gay democrats include Barney Frank, Melissa Ethridge, blah blah blah"....

Thanks again for your help. --Tlotz 10:33, July 16, 2005

Response to Tlotz:

1. Yes, I believe in free speech, yours and mine. (You should note, however, that Wikipedia limits editors' freedom of speech in ways that would not be permitted to a government entity under the First Amendment.) The point I made was that, from the point of view of Michael Schiavo (and others), the Republican Party's stance on the Schiavo case was an example of the party's preference for bigger government, not smaller government. The issue isn't whether that characterization of the Republican Party is well taken. The issue isn't how the Terri Schiavo case should have been handled. The issue is whether it's NPOV to assert that the party favors smaller government, as if it were an incontestable fact along the lines of saying that Lincoln was elected in 1860. Clearly, it's not an incontestable fact. It would be POV to say "Republicans favor smaller government", just as it would be POV to say "Republicans are a bunch of shameless hypocrites". Therefore, we say neither.

2. It's more difficult to determine how we should describe recent trends in the party's internal power struggle. I haven't denounced the passage you cite. You might also note, however, that I haven't praised it, and that I haven't re-inserted it into the article at any time. Despite these facts, you jump to accuse me of liberal bias. This is a good example of Noitall's advice to you to pay attention to specifics. As for what my position is, I'm still thinking about it. I'll try to give fair consideration to your arguments. It's harder to do so when serious arguments are mixed in with personal attacks and POV pressing; I'm only human. Among sensible editors, what would normally happen on Wikipedia is that consensus language would be reached that conveyed the information Rhobite wants included, but in a way that did not strike you as being POV.

3 and 4. The media regularly use "GOP" as a neutral shorthand for the party. It is also used by detractors, like Dean, and by supporters; note that the RNC itself operates the GOP.com website. In sources like the Associated Press, it's routine to see a statement like "Reid's GOP counterpart, Bill Frist, said...." By contrast, the term "party of Lincoln" simply isn't used in those contexts. It's used in opinion commentaries.

You believe, based on your two days of experience, that the worst offenders against fairness and common sense are the editors who disagree with you. I'm not surprised. Right-wing editors tend to reach that conclusion about left-wing editors, and vice versa. I don't edit articles about the Middle East, but it's my impression that pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian editors tend to blame the editors on the other side for ay unpleaantness. If there were two competing schools of thought about origami, we'd see the same thing.

Response to Noitall:

Your edit message says "this is not the page for anti-war messages". You reverted several edits, only one of which was about the merits of the war, and that one was perfectly NPOV. The party has positions on abortion and on the war. Neither position is held by all Republicans, however. The article listed some pro-choice Republicans. I followed the same pattern by naming an anti-war Republican. I'm restoring that edit and the others. JamesMLane 17:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

JamesMLane you obviously do not believe in free speech as you just took it upon your liberal elitest self to delete everything that I wrote on the Republican Article. You prove my point that liberal elitests believe in free speech errr... until you say something they disagree with. --Tlotz 11:51, July 16, 2005

JamesMLane- Administrator "Pharos" reverted back to my edits "Pharos (Talk) (Reverted edits by 69.177.7.234 to last version by Tlotz)" I guess someone a little higher up the food chain thinks they are ok....Would you anti-republican people please be courteous and leave them alone?? --Tlotz 12:35, July 16, 2005

Tlotz, please read Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. I sent you a message about this. Please only use the talk page to discuss the article itself. Rhobite 18:52, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite: A blanket deletion of everything I wrote on the Republican page without comment, explanation or justification could only lead one to the conclusion that Free speech is being abrogated. Why no chastising of JamesMLane? Especially after an Admin reverted back to my edits??? Hmmmmmmmmm? When you can answer one of the questions above you may understand. I was young once too... (Still am). I am beginning to realize that Wikipedia is where the leftist Academic Elite hang out... too bad... it will be its downfall in the end. --Tlotz 12:35, July 16, 2005

Just as I thought... I added this to the DEM page... very similar to the Log Cabin reference on the GOP page... It was removed within minutes.....no explanation... just smoked... DEMS, what do you have against the Stonewall Democrats?? Free Speech??? "The Democratic party has long been known for their support of gay rights. The Stonewall Democrats are to the Democratic party what the Log Cabin Republicans are to the Republican Party. Even though Bill Clinton signed the "Defense of Marriage act" in 1996 the Democratic party is seen as champions of gay rights. Gay democrats include Barney Frank, Melissa Ethridge and Rosie O'Donnell." --Tlotz 1:15, July 16, 2005

Please stay on the topic of the Republican Party. You can discuss the changes in the Democratic Party article on its talk page. FWIW your addition to that article was not removed, it was rephrased and resectioned. I am sick of your misleading statements and your tired conservative cliches ("academic elite"). Read my lips Tlotz, this is not a debate site. Also, I am an admin too. Admins have no editorial control over the site - our opinion carries no more weight than yours. So please don't defer to someone's judgment simply because they are an admin. Rhobite 19:25, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite... nice deflection... no comment on my blanket deletion.. hmmmmmmmmmm... If you care to read I told Noitall in a previous discussion on this board that if I added those comments to the dem boad they would be removed.... so then it would be appropriate for me to "rephrase and resection" the Rhino and Log Cabin comment on the GOP site... Thanks I will get right on it. this is too easy.. FYI the word Stonewall was removed from the DEM page... You liberals cannot have it both ways... --Tlotz 1:35, July 16, 2005

Again you are being disingenuous. You removed a whole sentence and replaced it with the words "log cabin republicans". Not the same as what Stirling did on the Democratic Party page. I'm done discussing with you, you are unable to have a rational discussion without whining about "you liberals". Simply going to revert your removals of information as much as I can. You can expect an RFC on your conduct soon. Rhobite 19:48, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite, I can understand your frustration with dealing with a new Wiki user who you obviously have many disagreements with. But threatening an RfC is inappropriate and violates Wiki policy. Please focus on educating him on policy and let him modify his edits accordingly. On the substance, he does not need to follow your advice, but he would be advised to follow Wiki policy on the method for making such edits. Please no more threats like that to a new Wiki user. --Noitall 19:52, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

There's no rule against notifying a user that he is going to receive an RFC. Feel free to come to his defense in the RFC. There comes a point when one gets sick of being accused of being against "free speech", a "liberal academic elite", a resident of the "peoples republic of MA", "you liberals", etc. Frankly I don't care that he's a new Wiki user. I showed him the relevant policies.. he chooses to ignore them and continue his pointless personal remarks. Fine. I choose to ignore his (mostly fallacious) arguments and simply revert his edits. Rhobite 20:02, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite... My statement completely disappeared from the DEM page... no discussion... just gone... "Stonewall Democrats" poof... Clinton signing the defense of marriage act in 1996.. poof.... you liberals hate it when logic and common sense take over... "You can expect an RFC on your conduct soon"? So that is how you stifle free speech... nice...... You don't like what I have said so you will take your toys and play somewhere else... ROFLMAO....I know, being 20 is tough. Something you might want to think about... "When I was 20 I thought I had all the answers... when I turned 40 I realized that I didn't even know the questiosn." --Tlotz 1:51, July 16, 2005

Noitall. Like I have said all I am trying to do is contribute. I didn't start this discussion... I didn't attack first... I will defend myself... I can tell you that Rhobite the "business school student" couldn't work third shift at the company I own...

I made an edit to the DEM page that was very similar to the Log Cabin comments on the GOP page and within 5 minutes they were gone... Rhobite says they were "rephrased and "Resectioned"... Bull they were completely wacked... I made a comment about the "Stonewall Democrats" (gay dems) Poof! GOne... Clinton signing the defense of marriage act in 96... Poof! Gone. It is very appearant to me that liberals on Wikipedia are trying to rewrite history and stifle the contributions of thos they disagree with... and I am not willing to let that happen. Any advice on how to work around this would be appreciated... because from where I sit in looks hopeless... --Tlotz 1:51, July 16, 2005

Tlotz, "free speech" in Wikipedia does not mean that you can prevent other people from editing your work ("mercilessly" if they deem it appropriate). Nor is there any requirement that a subsequent editor leave in at least some of what you wrote. I didn't pay attention to whether I was deleting everything you wrote, because if Editor #1 makes some changes, and Editor #2 thinks all the changes are ill-conceived, then Editor #2 may in fact delete them all. The issue isn't whether I deleted everything of yours (I still don't know or care whether I did); the issue is how the article should read. Your assertion that I made my edit "without comment, explanation or justification" is a manifest falsehood. My edit summary was "NPOV per talk; move platform discussion and Lincoln reference to appropriate sections in body of article". Thus the ES provided the explanation for moving some of the material to other locations in the article. With regard to the other changes, the ES referred to the explanations I'd previously given on this talk page ([5], [6]), to which I later added a further comment ([7]).

You've given us some information about yourself -- that you own a company. I ask for information about you that's more important in this context; I ask whether you've read the Wikipedia namespace pages to which you've been referred (Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Three revert rule, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks). You'll be able to do a better job of ensuring that our article on the Republican Party is accurate if you're familiar with those pages.

While I'm alluding to Wikipedia policies, let me add a word to Noitall: As a more experienced user, you should be aware of Wikipedia:Vandalism. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." This edit summary of yours denounces as vandalism (in all caps, yet) an edit that is obviously not vandalism.

As to the specifics, the above discussion is about the Log Cabin Republicans. Despite Tlotz's incessant accusations that the two major parties are being treated differently because of liberal bias, the fact is that the article on the Democratic Party (United States) includes a description of each of the listed factions, giving the reader some idea of the substance of the disagreements within the party, whereas the Republican Party article consigns that information to a daughter article. Of course, there is no requirement that the two parties be treated identically. At any rate, for the moment I'll pass that subject by, while restoring my other edits for the reasons already explained. Tlotz, it's really important that you focus on the question of how the article should read, and leave out the denunciations of other editors. In fact, along with the other policies and guidelines, I'll suggest that you take a look at Wikipedia:Assume good faith. If you'll pardon me for quoting a Democrat, Adlai Stevenson, "Mud thrown is ground lost." JamesMLane 22:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

JamesMLane Thank you for your clarification... Then you should have no problem when I edit a page... Oh.. but you do have a problem with it...! Your quote "the issue is how the article should read." is your self proclaimed "Hostile to the right wing" POV. You have done nothing but further my view that DEMS believe in free speech errr until you say something they disagree with. That is why the once proud democratic party has been reduced being run by The screamer Howard Dean and Hilliary Clinton. You are now the party of zero ideas and obstructionism. Period. -- I have an idea... why don't Dems work on the Dem page and Republicans work on the Republican page...Tlotz 5:12, July 16, 2005

POV edits

So-called experienced editors have no excuse for adding unsourced unspecific edits that say nothing except their own POV interests. If you want to talk about Repubs disagreeing, you must discuss a specific issue and put in context. The most conservative Repub and most liberal Repub still agree about 60% of the time. Shwartzenegger's policies routinely get over 90% of the GOP vote. So, if you want your POV issue in here, you must do it correctly, e.g., "On the issue of civil unions, some Republicans have supported . . . . On this issue, many of the conservative interest groups have accused them of abandoning conservative values . . . " --Noitall 21:45, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Request for comments

I have started a request for comments on Tlotz' personal attacks. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tlotz. Thank you. Rhobite 20:35, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

My first thought that User:Rhobite's actions on that page, this page, and in his many violations of Wiki policies, deserve the initiation of a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rhobite. Rhobite WAS WARNED TWICE about his actions in violation of Wiki policy, but continued to take them. But I realized that 2 wrongs do not make a right. Just because Rhobite violated Wiki policy in his actions does not mean that others should. Thus Rhobite should be recognized for what he is: a Wiki troublemaker. --Noitall 21:57, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Which policy did I violate, and where? I don't believe I've been anything less than completely civil with Tlotz. I have never made a personal comment about him or speculated about his or your bias. Rhobite 22:05, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite Civil? You immediately smoked everything that I wrote about the Republican party and then accused me of "Trying to pull one over on you" regarding the party's stand for smaller government. That is hardly civil for someone with so much "self proclaimed" Wikipedia experience. I will not let two liberals run rough shod over the Republican article. JamesMLane even says in his bio that he is "hostile" to the "right wing" which simply put means he hates Republicans. This mindset should ban him from even commenting on the subject because he clearly has a preconcieved bias... Tlotz 4:58 , July 16, 2005

Ballot symbols

Hi, I would like to start an article on the various ballot symbols used by U.S. political parties in different states. I have never seen a source for these anywhere. I think with the diverse knowledge of Wikipedians, we can compile a comprehensive resource right here. Help out at User:Pharos/List of political party ballot symbols by U.S. state. I've already added a few for New York. Thanks.--Pharos 21:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Ideology

I've removed "centrism" from the list of ideologies. All of the congressional leadership, as well as the President, are quite conservative as that term is understood in the U.S. today. Political science lit suggests that centrism has been declining steadily, and that the two parties are both developing a more coherent, stronger ideology. That might have been an appropriate term for them 30 years ago--nowadays, it's simply inaccurate. Best, Meelar (talk) 15:30, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Now the article has been edited to claim that the Republican Party stands for neoliberalism and even libertarianism. I missed the announcement that invading Iraq and promoting a "culture of life" were now libertarian issues. The predominant ideology in the GOP is US-style conservatism, esp. neoconservatism. Rhobite 07:17, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Well, neoconservatism doesn't have anything to do with a "culture of life". There is some diversity in the party.--Pharos 07:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there's some diversity, but it's clear where the power lies. There are several prominent neocons holding high-level positions in the Bush administration. There's only one significant libertarian Republican officeholder, Ron Paul, who frequently departs from the Party's positions and is only grudgingly tolerated by the Party leadership. (In the past, they've tried more than once to defeat him.) Finally, the Republican Party platform does not endorse any significant libertarian positions that differ from the Party's dominant ideologies (paleoconservatism/neoconservatism/Christian right). (For example, libertarian opposition to the income tax fits comfortably with Republicans' pro-business bent. That doesn't mean that Republicans are libertarians.) Whatever one thinks of the status of libertarianism in the Republican Party today, it's clear that neoconservatism is far more influential. JamesMLane 08:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree--leave the ideology section with cons./neoncons. only. As per JamesMLane. Meelar (talk) 13:40, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

There is clearly a double standard being applied between the two articles, Republican Party (United States) and Democratic Party (United States).

On the former, the terminology used for the "ideology" is the one generally more strongly preferred by the opposition ("neoconservative") than general members of the party. (I do not know any Republicans that would self-identify as neoconservatives.) On the latter, the self-identification of "centrist" has been persistently added, yet "socialist" or other derogatory terms are left off. (In fairness, "liberal" is used both ways, but my beef is with the additions of "centrist" and "neoconservative", specifically). Either both articles need to use terms of self-indentification or neither should. And it is absolutely unacceptable for either article to use opposition terminology.

To put it simply, the liberal party in the US is the Democratic Party. The conservative party in the US is the Republican Party. There are centrists in both parties. Adding "centrist" to the Democrat article is POV (just as adding it here was deemed POV). Adding "neoconservative" to the Republican article is POV (just as adding "socialist" to the Democrat one would be) and well, it's inaccurate/unnecessary too, as neoconservatism is only a subset of conservatism.

As it stands, I think the two articles warrant an NPOV disclaimer, but I will refrain pending further discussion.

Daniel Quinlan 02:12, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I really don't see the need for a template attempting to give parties short ideological labels at all -- I think the best solution is for the articles in question to do a decent job explaining the political coalition each party represents (which, ultimately, is all that American political parties really are). But if we're going to do it...

• There's absolutely no need for "neoconservative", "neoliberal", or "libertarian" to be applied here. All refer to specific groups and/or sets of beliefs which, while certainly existing within the party, do not in any real way define or describe it. (Incidentally, neoconservatives mostly got their start in the Democratic Party, and a few have remained there. And there's unfortunately plenty of support for neoliberal trade policies among Democrats.)

• I don't think "centrism" belongs here either, though the situation is not the same with the Democratic Party. For a variety of reasons, much of the leadership of the Democratic Party, going back about twenty years, has decided to consciously reject traditional liberalism and embrace "third way" centrist politics. Republicans, even the moderates among them, have not sought to do any such thing relative to conservatism. In this sense, adding "centrism" to the Democratic Party article is not necessarily POV, though some variation on "third way" would probably be more accurate.

RadicalSubversiv E 05:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion. It's the Republicans who have moved to the center. If you fail to grasp my point, sorry. Daniel Quinlan 16:05, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what opinion you're referring to. You can't deny that there's been a movement by Democratic leaders to specifically reject liberalism in favor of the "third way" (well, I suppose you could try, but you'd be wrong) -- do you claim that there's some parallell effort vis a vis conservatism among Republicans? RadicalSubversiv E 02:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree; intra-party disputes are much less prominent now then they used to be, say, 5 years ago, let alone 15. But on the larger issue, you're right--we should probably get rid of the "ideology" section of the template. Meelar (talk) 14:06, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Disagree with getting rid of the "ideology" section. It's included in other countries' political parties with no conflict whatsoever; the disputes here over America's parties look strictly partisan, to me. Shem^(talk) 19:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

American political parties are not the same as those in other countries, for a variety of reasons dealt with at Politics of the United States and elsewhere. They do not embrace official ideologies in the same way that Labor, Social Democratic, Christian Democratic, Green, and Liberal parties in other countries do. RadicalSubversiv E 02:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The identification of a 1-word "Ideology" is inherently POV for both sides. First, the identification is relative to where you stand on a particular issue. Second, labeling a 1-word conclusion is by definition POV. Then, bringing in a source just brings you back to square one, and that is labeling the source (having Kennedy call you a conservative, the Dobson report call you a left winger or the New York Times call you a neoconservative is not helpful in identifying. And third, it depends on the issues and times. Currently, the GOP is extremely progressive on Social Security while the Dems are extremely conservative. Bush, the leader of the GOP, is extremely progressive on immigration while a large portion of both GOP and Dems are conservative (know nothings whould have been appropriate at another time or paleoconservative today). Bush and the majority of the GOP are neoconservative in foreign policy but do not identify themselves as such. Kennedy is a radical left winger but does not identify himself as such. Clinton has been a liberal, progressive and conservative depending on the times, job and issue. And, to the extent anyone disagrees with my assertions, you only prove my overall point and that it is all relative and thus by definition unresolvably POV. --Noitall 14:59, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

The GOP is a conservative party, in the same way that the Democratic Party is a liberal one. But it is not only a conservative party. The GOP is a coalition made up of conservatives (that are the growing majority), but also of Libertarians, and moderates (centrists, such as Giuliani). I think reducing the GOP to its conservative part is really biased, especially when we do not reduce the Democratic party to its liberal part. It looks like the GOP is a bunch of close-minded and extremists people, in face of moderates and inclusive democrats (sorry, I'm not an English speakr).--Revas 15:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Your stating that it is a conservative party does not make it so, nor address any of the POV issues I went through above. Paleoconservatives and libertarians think the GOP is liberal on many issues. And I mentioned that many of their policies are accurately considered progressive while the Dems are accurately considered conservative. The only way you label them "conservative" is if you remove all meaning from the word and just sustitute it for "GOP". That is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Noitall 19:39, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm deeply concerned by the "centrism" issue. In particular, given the tremendous overlap between the policies of the GOP and the Dems, it seems to me highly POV to describe exactly one of the two as centrist. Either they both are, or neither is. WMMartin 16:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm the only one, but it doesn't bother me if we just have R=Conservative and D=Liberal. Yes, there is an area of overlap between the parties on some issues, which is similarly reflected in ideological overlap. In this context, while both may be centrist, I don't see that as the central governing philosophy of either. Seriously though, I'm on vacation. Rkevins82 - TALK 16:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I know that it is incredibly fun on Wiki to assign your labels and do your analysis, which can't be wrong since your teacher can't fail you here, and which I am certain is better than any talk show host, but seriously, at some point the POV has to stop and serious Wiki consideration begin. --Noitall 00:27, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

While I haven't posted here yet, I've been following the discussion on the equivalent Dem party page and posting occasionally there. I think the most important thing to do is consider how the two parties identify themselves. Do they consider themselves to contain a centrist branch? Both do; both deserve the label. I agree with WMMartin above: either both should have it, or neither. In the US there is an evenly-split electorate, and it is fairly a matter of common sense that if there is anything definable in the "center" it is split between the two parties, and both deserve the label. Antandrus (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

As I have stated repeatedly, I think the inclusion of simple "ideology" labels in the template for the two major parties is inappropriate to begin wtih. However, if we're going to do it, we need to be both accurate and neutral. The GOP is unquestionably a conservative party -- virtually all of their major figures are self-described conservatives, however moderate some fo them might be. This is not true for liberalism and the Democratic Party -- in fact, most liberals these days reject the term to begin with, favoring progressive. Apparently editorial consensus is now favoring the use of centrism in describing the Democratic Party -- I think "third way" would be more accurate and neutral, but I'm not about to get into an edit war about it. However, I will continue to object strenously to a fundamentally incorrect addition to this article. RadicalSubversiv E

What about Rep: Center-right; Dem: Center-left? ErcWhi

Fascism project

Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism wants to know if the person or group described in this article can be reasonably described as fascist. WikiProject Fascism defines an entity which came to power as "fascist" if it fulfills all the following criteria: exalting the nation, (and in some cases the race, culture, or religion) above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme. stressing loyalty to a single leader. using violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition. engaging in severe economic and social regimentation. engaging in syndicalist corporatism. implementing totalitarian systems. Please comment on this entity's status here or leave commentary on the project's talk page.

(Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages; besides, it's just a talk page]])

I will withhold my own commentary for now and see what happens. See also Talk:Democratic Party (United States)#Fascism project.

See WP:POINT please. And other contributors, please don't reply. Meelar (talk) 03:39, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it seems clear that the Republican Party (United States) fits the definition of fascism. Make a note of it. Dschor 12:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The GOP as fascist? What a quaint conception, something out of the 1930s! 1. The GOP ridicules the national government: "Government is the problem, not the solution" proclaimed Ronald Reagan. Federal bureaucrats are routinely ridiculed by Republicans. 2. Loyalty to a single leader? Bush?? The Republican uproar over his choice of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court shows otherwise. 3. Using violence--like the gangs in Berlin in 1932 who beat up and assassinated their opponents. Americans have not seen party-sponsored political violence in 100 years (I refer to Kentucky in 1900). 4. The Republicans are pledged to reduce regimentation and repeal laws and regulations. Liberals complain all the time about this. 5. Syndicalist? Only two big-business figures are in the cabinet (one is there because he is Hispanic), and none on the Supreme Court. Likewise the recent heads of Federal Reserve have been technical experts not businessmen. 6. Implementing totalitarian systems? The GOP has been tearing them down in Afghanistan and Iraq, and helped kill the Soviet system. It vigorously opposes the ones in North Korea and Cuba (while tolerating the one in China). Richard Jensen Rjensen 04:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The GOP uses nationalism to manufacture consent for policies of a fascist nature. The 'P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act' is a prime example of using nationalism and patriotism as a front for a fascist agenda. Under the GOP, it is clear that government is the problem, and that the solution is to remove the GOP from government. Federal bureaucrats are routinely ignored and ridiculed by the GOP because they insist on accuracy and honesty, both of which Republicans consider to be quaint at best, and terrorist at worst. See the bureaucrats on tax policy, war policy, intelligence, poverty, etc.; the GOP ignores accuracy and honesty because their policies are not compatible with the truth. Loyalty to a single leader, although stipulated as a condition for fascism, is rather antiquated in a time of term limits. The GOP is loyal to fascism, whatever leader espouses it at the moment (Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, etc), and is loyal to each successive figurehead in turn. Harriet Miers' nomination was purely a political stunt, in order to make the confirmation of a truly fascist judge more possible (see Alito). Americans certainly have seen party-sponsored violence, though increasingly the operations of censorship and suppression of dissent have become official functions of the government itself. Assassination has been used less frequently as election fraud has made such messy tasks obsolete. The GOP claims to be in favor of limited government, but in reality the policies of the party increasingly focus on making the government larger and more robust, with enhanced police powers, and extensive regulation of the private lives of citizens. The only regulations they hope to remove are those that involve progressive taxation and environmental protection. The GOP is unquestionably the party of corporations - all the major figures in this administration have extensive business connections, and the Supreme Court nominees have been corporatists. The GOP has been implementing totalitarianism here and abroad, with secret prisons, fraudulent elections, and an illegal war against "them". There is every reason to believe that the GOP is not only fascist, but is gaining the power to remold the United States into a permanently fascist state. These developments deserve to be noted, not suppressed. --Dschor 21:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I can see how the modern Republican Party fits the first three criteria pretty neatly, but the remaining three, I don't see. Kevin baas 20:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Revert of edit by "Lima bean of the north" – majorities

I removed this line added to the 2nd paragraph:

Although Democrats had a majority in the house and senate for a while, the Republican Party currently has majorities in the Senate and the House of Representatives, as well as in governorships and the majority of state legislatures.

True, perhaps, but not accurate enough in its details. I assume that "for a while" means the 30-40 years or whatever it was that the Democrats had a lock on the Congress. Firstly (if it's not already in the article but is salient), it should be presented with a bit more detail than "for a while." Secondly, it may not belong in this particular paragraph. -- Kbh3rd 18:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I've removed the NPOV tag, added by an anon IP who keeps claiming at George W. Bush that he is responsible for x number of murders. No reasons were given for the tag.--Scimitar ^parley 17:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

republican party

<math>[[Media:ithink that this is bullshit and i hate learning about this crap everyday of my little life.i]]</math>

I'm sorry you feel this way. Is there something we can do to help you out? --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Civil Rights Movment

Thanks for fixing that, Rkevins82, I wasn't exactly sure how to word it properly. Sigma 03:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Info box at top of article

Should this include "Party leader: G W Bush"? If so does he go above or below Party Chairman? If not, why not? -- SGBailey 11:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Lincoln Photo

I switched the color photograph of Lincoln that somebody posted earlier today with a black and white - the coloring was just some patches of orange on Lincoln's face that made him seem very, very ill. Plastic Editor Dec. 5 2005

Play nice. No need for that here. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

2004 U.S. Election controversy and irregularities

I wanted to float the idea here, rather than simply insert a reference that may be reverted immediately. It seems appropriate to mention the disputes related to the 2004 election somewhere in this article. The 2000 contest is noted for being a close contest, and some mention is made of exit poll discrepancies, but there is no link to the larger discussion of problems with the 2004 vote. A link to the wikipedia article on the election controversies and irregularities seems to be called for, in light of the potential fallout from these events, and the nature of the discrepancies. --Dschor 13:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The issue is pretty well covered in other articles. This article is about the national GOP and as such was not much involved. So what could be said? How about: "Republicans all over the country watched with fascination as the vote counting in Florida resulted in Bush winning the electoral vote, and the overal electoral college, as Gore failed in a series of state and federal court challenges to change the outcome." Rjensen 14:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the issue is well covered in other articles, but there is no mention of controversy whatsoever in this article - and the GOP was a central player in the events. You may not have noticed that I was talking about the 2004 election. Gore played no part in it, as Kerry was the challenger. Some mention of the controversy ought to be included, as the election of George W Bush to a second term 'becoming the first presidential candidate to win a majority of the popular vote since 1988' is not an accurate NPOV statement. --Dschor 15:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

What sort of statement do you propose? Bush certainly did win a majority of the popular vote in 2004, and was the first person to do so since his father in 1988. Have you seen numbers to the contrary somewhere?? Standard sources like Almanac Am Politics 2006 p 37 has Bush with 50.7% of total pop vote, Kerry with 48.3%. In 2000 it was Bush at 47.8% and Kerry at 48.4% Rjensen 15:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Rjensen, you are discussing the 2000 election, not the 2004 election. The 2004 presidential election was marred with quite a variety of very skewed irregularities in Ohio, among other states, but Ohio especially. In a county in Florida, there's powerful evidence that people in the elections office actually changed the vote on hundreds of ballots (unfortunately the judge rejected the case because it was filed a day late). Not to mention voting machines. Perhaps that might be most appropriate?: The GOP's relation to Diebold and ES&S? After all, it's not often (and for good reasons) that one party owns the vast majority of voting and counting machines - and chooses to use them over cheaper, more reliable systems (such as optical scan), every chance they get. Anycase, read the articles on the 2004 problems. Nothing like this has ever happened in a U.S. presidential election before. (notwithstanding Jim Crow laws - when blacks were struggling for the right to vote - but at that point that right had not been established socially/politically - and what was being done was "legal" insofar as Jim Crow laws were laws) Read the articles and give it some thought. It's tough to decide what to do with an unprecedented circumstance. Kevin baas 19:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Neither of the controversy pages fits. Kevin baas - I know you have been working hard on the controversy pages with others, but they are in serious need of NPOVing. I say this as someone who worked on the Election Protection Project in Akron, Ohio. Rkevins82 19:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Why does neither of the controversy pages fit? As Kevin says, it may be difficult to decide what to do with a unprecedented circumstance. Certainly the two most controversial presidential elections in memory in the United States deserve some mention - particularly given the intimate connections to the GOP. The fact that the official record is questioned by the GAO itself seems to indicate the importance of the situation. I do not think a paragraph needs to be dedicated to the subject, but a link should certainly be included at some point in the article, to maintain a semblance of NPOV. --Dschor 20:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is certainly not unprecedented, even if the charges on the 2000 and 2004 pages are correct. However, the Republican Party was not a major player in the allegations forwarded in the 2000 and 2004 pages. I would recommend that others read those pages before deciding if they should be linked. If they can be seriously NPOVed a draft edit should be discussed here first. Rkevins82 21:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The Republican party was the major player. One might examine the history of Chuck Hagel and ESS, or Diebold's CEO, and the funding that kicks back to the GOP from the government contracts for their machines. The problems with the vote were consistently tied to Republican sources, and even party officials such as Kenneth Blackwell. At every stage of the election process, from redistricting to vote counting, Republicans played a key role. Failing to at least link to the article when discussing the 2004 election seems to overstate the case in favor of one POV. My 2¢. --Dschor 21:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not true that the GOP as a party was a major player. You named individual Republicans who had a tangential connection. This whole issue is a Green Party pet issue (and Libertarians) and belongs on their pages if anywhere. No Green POV allowed on GOP article, please. Rjensen 00:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The assertion that George W Bush and the GOP won an election in 2004 is controversial. This fact should be mentioned in the context of this article. This article should be NPOV, and therefore should include information beyond the party line. What harm would a simple link to the controversy page do to the article as a whole? --Dschor 01:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Because there is no controversy over whether or not Bush won in 2004. Zero. (COngress certified the ballot almost unanimously--the one person who voted no said she did not really believe there was an issue.) What you have is a demand for a recount by Greens who were NOT ON THE BALLOT in Ohio. That proves it was a pure publicity stunt. Let's keep the Green PR stunts off a serious page about the GOP. Our goal at Wickipedia is to provide information about the GOP, not to provide a bandstand for Greens, who attracted far less than 1% of the vote. Rjensen 02:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Information about the GOP includes information about the controversial election of the GOP. Congress having certified the ballot does not mitigate the underlying fraud. The Greens demanded the recount because the Democrats were not willing. Election fraud, vote tampering, unexplained 'glitches' in electronic voting machines and voter suppression are all well documented. I don't think all the details need to be included in the article, I merely suggest a link to the article describing the irregularities to balance the POV regarding the 'majority' of voters being Bush supporters. --Dschor 10:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

POV regarding Bush's majority victory?????: I think it's unanimously agreed that he won a majority be every news source, Congress, both major parties, every academic center. What alternative numbers do you want to present? Let's put one fact on the table. As I say this is a little party that was not even on the ballot that is trying to get publicity. That's a a no-no for Wikipedia-- it's a kind of fraud, a manipulation of readers. Rjensen 11:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not unanimously agreed that Bush won a majority. I am not proposing a link to the Greens, I am proposing a link to a very large archive of information that casts doubt on the assertion that Bush won a majority of the popular vote. There is no attempt to manipulate readers - simply to provide some semblance of NPOV. --Dschor 23:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You need a Tinfoil_hat 24.73.209.54 00:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This article needs a link to 2004 U.S. Election controversy and irregularities. --Dschor 02:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

No it doesn't, the article already links to the 2004 Election, which links to that page. Take your anti-Republican slant elsewhere. PPGMD 02:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The issue is not reserved to the Green Party. It was strongly represented by the Democratic party. The U.S. House Judiciary Committee Democratic staff, for example, was unanamous in their push for an investigation. And if you were watching CSPAN when the certification of Ohio's Electoral votes was contested by members of both the house and senate (To draw attention to the numerous problems), for only the second time in history (the first was not on account of election irregularities), and the ensuing debate - if you stayed to watch (listen to) the phone calls from viewers afterwards, you may have been surprised that most of the callers were Republicans (GOP POV), who, in contrast to their congressional counterparts, supported an investigation. So no, it is not limited to the Green party as you seem to believe. It includes all parties, even the accused, and they certainly can't be accused of being biased via ad hominem circumstantial. And their voices can't be marginalized as small proportion or unrepresentative. In contrast, the numbers are much greater than one would expect given the almost complete lack of mainstream media coverage. The prominence at the time of the subject in alternative media outlets such as the internet is notable in itself.

Regarding "You named individual Republicans who had a tangential connection" - and there are many more to name. But perhaps if they could not be named, you would be more convinced? If "the whole" was involved, are you implying that individuals would not be? How is this possible? If every individual Republican were involved, would you continue to insist that it is in each case a matter of the individual, and does not relate to the party? I find this an absurd piece of logic.

Certainly an uncommonly high number of Republicans were directly involved in matters having a large-scale and immediate effect on the voting process. Such as the Republican owners of ES&S, Diebold, Sieqioa who made large contributions to Republican candidates, selling voting machines which were in many circles already quite notorious, to Republican SOS's or what-have-you, at a higher cost to the state, who purchased them against the will and strong consensus opposition of their informed constituents, and against the concentrated forces of multiple voting protection organizations. At the very least these action were very counter-intuitive, from a secure and reliable election perspective. There were forces acting on many Republicans across the country, that they certainly were not guided by. And it is by no means an isolated incident: these voting machines accounted for a significant percentage of the vote recording and tabulation mechanisms used throughout the country in the 2004 election, and the boards or in certain cases person making the voting technology decisions were very predictable in their individual leanings; republicans prefered at a high rate to use the brothers' equipment, while democrats at a high rate voted agianst it. It was not pathological in practice, it was systemic and widespread. And far from being tangential, again, this had an immediate and marked impact on the election. Kevin baas 21:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Look Kevin, it's pretty simple, until you have some hard facts that show (provable) wrong doing on the part of a particular Republican the link is redundant, you can goto the page in question via the Election 2004 link that is already on this page. PPGMD 21:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

(provable) wrong doing on the part of a particular Republican: Well let's see, there's ohio's coingate scandal, involving only republicans (though i can't name them off, they do have names), there's kenneth blackwell - i don't even know where to start for him, let's just say he's been very lucky very many times that ohio's court is almost all republican. And for congressional elections there's Tom DeLay's shameless gerry-mandering. One look at the new lines on that new map and you'd think whoever drew it was on some serious drugs - I can't imagine more blatant wrong doing. I don't know if I really want to set the criteria for inclusion to the threshold you have suggested - I think a lot of conservatives would be unreceptive to that. Kevin baas 19:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a lamentable tendancy to engage in ideological guilt-by-association linking on Wikipedia. Those of you who think this is some partisan attempt to besmirch the Republican party ought to agree to the link and then go lookup all the voting irregularities caused or suspected to be caused by Democrats over the years, write up an article about it, and link it on the Democrat article. If they raise a stink, you can fight to have both removed. I say include the link on both party web sites. And every other political party in America that had a candidate in this election. There were a dozen on the ballot in Missouri. Bjsiders 21:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Your suggestion is quite reasonable. The 2004 election presents a unique circumstance that is relevant to all political parties. Now the question remains - where in the article should such a link be placed? --Dschor 21:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Not that you need it, but you certainly haven't received an endorsement of the addition. I will also repeat that the accusations surrounding the 2004 election were not unique and I question the possibility and wisdom of detailing each election's alleged improprieties. Are you telling me that you want a 40,000 word article on Kennedy and Daley's alleged electioneering, Johnson's 1948 Senate election theft, and every inmpropriety of questionable accuracy or picayune importance? Rkevins82 22:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Endorsement is not required, but in this case it was requested in order to prevent immediate reversion. An article on election controversies from earlier elections would be most welcome, but the present topic is adding a link to the 2004 election controversy. The accusations are unique in this case, and particularly pertinent. --Dschor 22:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe that you maintain that the 2004 allegations are unique. It doesn't really matter, I suppose. My question relates to the wisdom of including every allegation - there are serious allegations on both sides for every presidential election. Most go nowhere fast. So will we have a "see also" section: 1912 United States Election Irregularities, 1916 United States Election Irregularities, 1920 United States Election Irregularities, 1924 United States Election Irregularities... each of them written without a sembleance of balance? Rkevins82 22:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

If there were any blue links in the above list, they could be included. At present, 2004 U.S. Election controversy and irregularities is unique in that the controversy has been well documented. If you object to the article on NPOV grounds, that is an entirely distinct issue. Perhaps it doesn't really matter to you. A "see also" section is a reasonable suggestion for including this link, although it would be more helpful if it were included near the assertion that Bush won a majority in 2004. --Dschor 23:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

If the "voting irregularities" of the 2004 election are significant enough that they belong in an enyclopedic entry about a political party, then we have two choices. We either link EVERY voting irregularity article that pertains to EVERY political party in EVERY election they've been involved in for consistancy, or we establish a clear standard for what constitutes an irregularity that is irregular enough to justify inclusion. My vote is not to include ANY of them. They are linked from the election pages, and EVERY election page is linked from THIS page. It seems like an utterly unnecessary link; right now you can go right to "2004" under "elections", click the 2004, and there is an entire subseection of that article devoted to the controversy and a link to an entire article additionally devoted to it. I submit that this is sufficient. If no reasonable consensus can be reached to this effect, the two options above are the only sensible courses of action that I see. So here's what we have to figure out. (1) Do we HAVE to include the link? It seems that this won't be dropped until it's agreed to. (2) What standard can we establish that is reasonably objective for justifying the linking of election controversy articles to a political party web site? The two easiest are "never" and "always", and "never" is being fought tooth and nail. "Always" is the most fair and easiest to abide by, but it's a lot of work and our articles are going to be highly polluted with links of questionable relevency. So, since Dschor appeasr to be the primary proponent of inclusion, I would ask him to draft a standard that he feels is reasonable and can be followed objectively by reasonable people. Bjsiders 21:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Quick question, I am a little new to this debate, but is the article really served by having that in here? Is it really germane to the Republican Party (United States)? I can see how it would be relevent in the George W Bush article, but am still a little wary about having it here. I understand the points about Republicans having shares in Diebold or whatever, but what's the point? Is this linked in the Democratic Party (United States) article? Thanks for your help. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The irregularities are significant enough to be noted on the Democratic Party (United States) page. The fact that this controversy is not even mentioned on the Republican Party (United States) page is problematic. However, there is some mention on the page of the 2004 election, including disputed poll numbers - this would be a logical place to link to the controversy, as it is germane to the article's content. There is only one link in this article to the 2004 election, and that is in the table of presidential candidates. The controversy was significant enough to call the election into question, and ought to be mentioned when describing the party that is claiming to have won the election. It is simply a matter of completeness - an article on the Republican Party is not complete without including this link that describes the questions surrounding their election. Nobody is claiming that the Green party was going to win, but the Republican party does claim to have won, and the circumstances are suspicious. Failure to include this information is a disservice to the Wikipedia. --Dschor 19:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The link is on the page where it should be, the page for the particular election that it is about. Putting that link on this page is simply an attempt to enter POV into this article, by someone who is well known for his anti-Republican POV edits. PPGMD 19:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The GOP didn't claim to win the 2004 election. It is established as a fact of Law to HAVE won. The election is not in doubt unless you have a court proceeding that would rescind that finding. Regardless of anyone's PoV, the fact is that this election is certified, and every attempt to decertify it has come up not only empty, but found totally without basis. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

By your criteria, Dominick, the election is in doubt. See Moss v. Bush. 19:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities - part 2

There is already plenty of POV in the article as it stands. Adding a link to the election controversy does not make this an anti-Republican article. There is repeated mention of the election of 2004 in this article, and even a mention of disputed poll numbers - yet no link to further discussion of why those poll numbers are in dispute. This is a place in the article where this link would be helpful to the reader and researcher who wishes to learn more about the Republican Party (United States). NPOV does not mean that the article on an entity should be vetted by that entity. --Dschor 19:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Now that's just a slap to the face of the people that worked on both sides to see that an NPOV article was created for both major parties and a number of the 3rd parties. The only thing POV about this article is that it doesn't hold true to your opinion that the Republican Party is a Facist party, election tampering is seen as one of the steps toward Facism. PPGMD 21:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Election tampering is seen as one of the steps toward Fascism, true. I do not claim that this is not an exceptionally well written article. I do believe that it is lacking a specific link. How would a link to the 2004 election controversy be a POV edit? It would be providing background information, and references for some of the content of the article. I am not asking for a link to a discussion of Fascism in the United States, I am asking for a link to 2004 U.S. Election controversy and irregularities, which is certainly quite pertinent to the discussion of George W Bush and the Republican Party (United States) that are part of this article. Does this link really represent such a huge threat to the NPOV of the article? It seems like a reasonable addition to the article. --Dschor 21:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The Republican Party article as written is NPOV, adding that link is the first snowball taking it down the slope to POV, one step at the time to support your POV agenda. The link gets a better overall treatment in the Election 2004 article. Thus we link to that article, people that want to know more can follow the link to that article. It's pretty simple a number of editors have spoken against it, short of putting it to a formal vote I would say that the consensus for no link to that article. PPGMD 22:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The 2004 Controversy article itself is highly POV. It is full of weasel words-- "it has been alleged that" --without saying who does the alleging. Why does the article keep the weasels secret? Because it's from the Greens and it would be too obvious if every paragraph said, "The Greens charge that...." A link to that POV lowers the quality of THIS article. Rjensen 22:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Rjensen, I have already made it clear in a long 3-para block that it is not from the Greens. It is from people of all political affilliation, quite a diverse array, and to limit it as you would suggest to the Green Party, who played a very small role, would be highly POV and a clear attempt to denigrate the very serious problems. Kevin baas 19:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, dschor, the manner in which you phrase your assertions is a little polarizing and off-putting. I'm having trouble reading your ideas, opinions, and logical support and not gritting my teeth and wanting to disagree just for the sake of disagreeing. You're not offensive or abrasive, but I understand why the die-hard right-wingers in here are fighting you on this. Statements like "but the Republican party does claim to have won" are as loaded as they come, and will draw ire and divert the attention of posters in this discussion away from points germaine to the debate and towards partisan jackassery. And that's not helpful. Nor are the partisan responses from the conservatives in here accusing every Tom and Mary under the sun of launching some kind of stealth attack against in some desperate liberal attempt to brainwash the masses. I re-iterate that we ought to establish a standard under which links to material like this are include-able or not include-able, and until we do that, we can expect bickerfests like this to erupt ad nauseum. Bjsiders 22:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. I think it would be great to establish a standard for including such links. When I see content on the 2004 election that discusses disagreements about polling (see the Future Trends section), but fails to include a link to the most pertinent article on the subject (i.e. 2004 U.S. Election controversy and irregularities ), my wikification instinct kicks in, and I am tempted to add a link immediately. Is there a better source to cite to provide information on questions about exit polls in 2004? As for establishing a standard, I think that the standard is whether the information adds to the usefulness and completeness of the article, and in this case it certainly seems that it would. I welcome more discussion to formulate an objective criterion. This should not be a partisan issue - election irregularities are a problem for any party to an election, because they undermine the legitimacy of the election process itself. --Dschor 22:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

If it were anyone else pushing this addition, I might take it seriously, but the person that is pushing for the link in the article, is a well known pusher of anti-Republican POV, it's gone way beyond assume good faith, his POV fork of Neo-Facism, is basically dead now that he has created an article that pushes his POV (that the Republicans are Facist), no worthwhile attempts to balance it, or to NPOV it. You got to question the motives of someone that is pushing such a contriversal link PPGMD 02:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

PPGMD, I believe that is very poor thinking - I don't believe that thinking in that way leads towards the truth of any matter. Kevin baas 19:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It actually is good thinking because it allows you to filter out the fluff, the user has a history of pushing a POV, that clouds anything that he brings up. Other users are able to set their personal POV aside and work toward a NPOV on the article overall. Take a look at his contributions, with exception of some music articles they have all been along the lines that the Republican Party is Facist. PPGMD 20:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it isn't good thinking. It is fine to pay close attention to editors with a strong political bias, but we shouldn't blindly disregard anything they might have to say. That is POV. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree to an extent. If something is true and I believe it, it's not just my POV, it's a fact. For example, "Man, the Holocaust was terrible." "That's POV!" Uh, no, it's not. How, whether or not the Republican party is Fascist is certainly POV. I have no idea what Dschor's history is with this article, honestly. If the article already contains a reference to polling irregularities, what is the harm in adding a context link in that section? We don't need a huge advertisment CLICK HERE TO SEE HOW THE CORRUPT FASCIST REPUBLICANS DISENFRANCHISED AMERICA to include this link. The amount of discussion taking place about adding one link is vastly disproportionate to the damage it might do to the article's POV, and to how critical the link actually is. The article is none the poorer for its lack, and really, none the worse for its addition. Again, I don't think it's necessary, a link to the election article is more appropriate, which can then link to the controversy. But I fail to see how the article's NPOV is utterly compromised when the very topic that the linked article discusses is already in this article. Bjsiders 18:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to take a look at my contributions if you think that is germane to the discussion, but I have to agree with Lord Voldemort - filtering out my contrbutions based on your own POV is not good thinking. I brought this issue to the talk page as a show of good faith - I could have easily placed the link in the article without requesting comment. From the discussion here, it seems that a link at the noted place in the article would be appropriate, but I will leave that edit to another wikipedian. Thanks for your interest. --Dschor 20:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreeing with Lord Voldemort, eh? Seems now I have support from all over the political spectrum: Republicans for Me. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I've made the following edit: "The 2004 election took place on on November 2, 2004, followed by some controversy regarding the voting results. Bush's opponent never challenged the result, and challenges in Congress received little support from either party." This edit was compiled from various articles on Wikipedia and repeats the information contained therein. I had written an edit with much more detail, but I think a minimalist approach is appropriate; this is not an article about elections, it's about a political party. It seems odd to me that there's this glamor for a reference to the 2004 irregularities but the article never mentions the insanity that surrounded the 2000 elections. I've made this edit in good faith, but I maintain that it's unnecessary and the call for it is motivated by partisanship more than a desire for an intellectually balanced article. Bjsiders 20:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems it is settled then. Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I find the edit reasonable. I think discussing voting machines would be more appropriate than election irregularities, as I said above. In any case, I have a few minor suggested revisions, to improve the accuracy and informativeness of that:

The 2004 election took place on on November 2, 2004, followed by some controversy regarding the voting results. Bush's opponent never publicly challenged the result, and a civil case in Ohio contesting the results was delayed until it became moot.

Kevin baas 21:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The case had no real evidence, just claims based on poll results. It's not note worthy in this context. It was just a political stunt, otherwise he would have filed it much sooner, and would have had the support of at least one of the candidates. PPGMD 21:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with everything that you just said. For example, a civil case should not in theory and cannot in practice involve a candidate. It is not about candidates, it's about voters. But it is no matter, because it is irrelevant to this discussion anyways.

I'd also agree that in the overall context of this article, the additional link to Moss v. Bush is unnecessary. But is it linked to Bush's personal article? It seems like it might have a place there. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we could do without the second sentence? Kevin baas 21:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the phrasing of this section should always be focused on the party, which is the subject of the article, and less on Bush and his opponents. I'd focus it on the fact that there was controversy, neither party strongly supported challenges to the election, and Bush was certified as the victor in December. It includes the information that Dschore wanted, it's short and succinct, factual, and offers a link for those who want to learn more. That really ought to be the end of it. Bjsiders 21:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

20th century history??

Is someone opposed to covering the history of the GOP in the 20th century? I'd say that's what Encyclopedias cover. Rjensen 19:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Biased????

r u guys biased because i saw that the republican party was deranged and selfish..... If so the republicans are dumb and uncomperable

That was just petty vandalism. I'm sure it has already been removed. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

NO!!!

Just wanted you guys to know so that you could change it..... also wondering......

accurate about 1984?

"the latter being a landslide in which Reagan won nearly 59% of the popular vote and carried 49 of the 50 states." - is this accurate? It seems unlikely that he should win 49 of the 50 sates, while those states were only, on average, 59% for him.

All the sources I have found so far indicate that this statement is accurate. It should be noted that Minnesota was that 50th state, and that Washington, D.C. also voted for Mondale. Just goes to show how poorly distributed Democratic voters are. --Dschor 11:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The same thing happened to Bob Dole in 96. Had the Republican voters been distributed more strategically he would have won in a landslide. Bjsiders 15:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, it's worth noting that "only 59%" is a huge portion of the popular vote. Only Lyndon Johnson, I believe, ever got a larger percentage of the popular vote than Reagan got in 1984. Presidents who win landslides in the electoral college still rarely garner a significant majority of the popular vote, and sometimes not even a simple majority of it, nor even a plurality. Bjsiders 15:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks guys, that is an amazing statistic, i think ill do an edit that points out the issue. -utmostevil

Also, Nixon won 49 of the 50 states in 1972. Only lost Massachusetts, home state of the Kennedys who have a connection to the Democratic VP candidate of that year, Sargent Shriver. Not that that had anything to do with it, it is just an interesting aside. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

a number of problems surfaced in Ohio 2004

I thought that the line about the problems with the touch screen voting in 2004 should be followed up with the information that the electoral vote were officially challenged by the members of Congress.I added this part from the Wikipedia entry on Senator Boxer.

Despite the $3.8 billion in funding towards this endeavor, a number of problems surfaced during and after the election. As with the 2000 election.

"On January 6, 2005, Senator Barbara Boxer joined Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio in filing a Cogressional objection to the certification of Ohio's Electoral College votes in the 2004 U.S. presidential election."

Details from sworn testimony of said problems are documented in the House report "Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio"

• House.gov (pdf) - 'Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio: Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff', (prepared at the request of Congrssman John Conyers, January 5, 2005)

We are getting further and further from the national party and deeper and deeper into election 2004. The paragraph was fine, there were no significant challenges to election results. If anyone wants any details they can goto the Election 2004 article thats where it belongs, it might (and I stress the might) also have a place in the election 2004 section on the GWB article, but it has no place in the party article. PPGMD 14:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

REPUBLICAL PARTY -- what a novel idea for an article. Wikipedia should have an article devoted to that subject, shall we say?

Rjensen 14:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)