Talk:Republican Party (United States)

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Shouldn't Arnold Schwarzenegger be in the Moderate section? he is not against abortion or some gun control.

Yes, absolutely. I just moved him there. It was my mistake of putting him in the Fiscal conservatives faction in the first place. But yes, he is widely considered a moderate. He has voted for some pro-environment bills , and he's socially liberal as you have pointed out, which places him within the moderate faction. -- Narc1

Anti-slavery clarification

I think "anti-slavery" should be clarified as the Republican Party was not strictly abolitionist but was formed to oppose the expansion of slavery into the territories. --Daniel C. Boyer 08:44, 1 Aug 2002 (UTC)

Legal status of US political parties

Are US political parties incorporated or chartered organisations? Associations, foundations? What is the legal framework here? --User:194.134.189.73 03:22, 15 Aug 2003 (originally unsigned)

Technically I think they are criminal organizations, and thus have a rather loose and hard to discern internal power structure. --User:142.177.103.79 19:18, 9 Sep 2003 (originally unsigned)

To address a question way back here --

Are US political parties incorporated or chartered organisations? Associations, foundations? What is the legal framework here?

-- this is actually a complicated issue that should be addressed somewhere. american political parties are none of these things. They are informal associations of individuals and organizations. There are "national committees" for both major parties, but it would be inaccurate to describe them as being equivalent to a party organization. Joining or leaving a political party is an extremely informal act and rarely means anything concrete for people who are not elected officials.

That being said, I think that this article on the Republican party still needs extensive work. Portions of it are biased in favor of the party and portions are biased against the party. Need some real neutralization here.

E.g., "beloved" McKinley? Also, the section on the "flip-flopping" of the parties needs work. Anyone who speaks of the relative changes of the parties' positions already knows that the south is a special case through the Civil Rights era (and, after all, this is an article about the Republican party, not the Democratic party). And do we know for a fact that liberal Republicans "died out"? Isn't there a possibility that there are some left? Given that possibility, maybe the language could be moderated. Acsenray 21:10, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Article shortcomings, Israeli issues

OK, this article sucks. First of all, it says nothing about its origins in the Civil War and the controversy over Lincoln, and even how the slogan party of Lincoln gets used in propaganda (any time you want to enslave someone.... invoke Lincoln!). GOP is in fact the legal name I believe, and the term "Republican" is a nickname that may be the legal name of some later state parties.

Is it really right to describe the whole party as "hawkish, pro-Israel, and pro-foreign intervention"? That seems like the Bush Administration and Project for a New American Century but not like John McCain or Olympia Snowe necessarily. It's true that some moderates like Jim Jeffords and Gary Johnson have departed the Republicans recently, so this could be mentioned as evidence of that view of a shift "to the right". Right-wing politics could also be more explicitly mentioned. Contrasts with the United States Democratic Party and Green Party of the United States and Libertarian Party of the United States in structural not ideological terms, would be welcome, as it would show something about the power structure internally.

Also, encouraging every loony Muslim on Earth to join Al Qaeda by stupid invasions and stupid policy blunders and stupid comments is not necessarily a pro-Israel policy, despite what they say. Some believe Republicans who are Fundie Christaligionismists actually want to implement the Book of Revelation which would get most of "Israel" killed off, and the rest converted to (some pseudo off-brand of) Christianity.

Maybe best to avoid the ISrael issue altogether, lest we have to explain Zionist Occupation Government. --User:142.177.103.79 19:18, 9 Sep 2003 (originally unsigned)

Seeing as Democratic Party and Republican Party have actually only a few links to them, unless anyone objects within the next few days, I want to make them redirects to Democratic Party (disambiguation), and Republican Party (disambiguation) respectively (or just move the disambig pages there). I've posted this message at talk pages for both the US Dems and Reps, please continue it at Talk:United States Democratic Party. Comments welcomed... Morwen 00:40, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

Characterizing the party as pro-Israel here would imply that the opposition (Democrats) are pro-Palestine, which is not necessarily the case. The division may hold true for many members, but it seems most politicians are more sympathetic towards Israel. So yes, I agree, leave it out. --User:68.134.168.94 20:41, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) (signature added)

We definitely need a better description of Rockefeller Republicanism, but I'm far too young for it, and can't really explain it...

Help? -Penta 15:31, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Leadership

Speaking of a single "leader" of the Republican or Democratic Party is not simple. Gillespie is the chairman of the Republican National Committee. However, an incumbent president is generally considered the head of his party, and he selects the chair of the RNC ("in-party chair"). An "out-party chair" (i.e., McAuliffe right now) is sometimes considered the head of the Party, but even there it arguably makes more sense to speak the party's congresional leadership, or the current presidential nominee (who typically has the authority to pick a new chair if he so chooses). Really, we need a section here on how the party is structured, including an explanation of all of this. But in the meantime, calling Gillespie the party leader is inaccurate. -- Radicalsubversiv 03:02, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Technically, they are the "leaders" of their respective parties--they control the budgets and so on. In theory, John Kerry could yell until he was blue in the face, and McAuliffe wouldn't have to spend anything (on say, ad campaigns, etc.). In practice, he'd get fired in 5 minutes. So they're leaders, but in a somewhat figurehead way. That's not to say they don't have influence, however, or that they are only figureheads. Meelar 03:07, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Except that the national committee is not interchangeable with "the party." Even from a fundraising and budgetary point of view, the Hill committees (NRSC/NRCC,DSCC,DCCC) raise money and operate independently from the nat'l committee. Mostly, the national committee is responsible for fundraising and spending in coordination with federal campaigns (plus overseeing the nominations process in presidential years) -- overseeing that narrow field of campaign operations hardly you makes you "the leader" of the party. When I find the time, I'm going to work on a United States Political Party Structure article which can be linked to from the articles on both parties. Radicalsubversiv 06:31, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Strom Thurmond factual error

Recent modification to Strom Thurmond's entry in the list of noted Republicans:

• Strom Thurmond (1902-2003), Senator from South Carolina and infamous segregationist while a Democrat

The qualifier is just plain wrong. Even the most apologetic interpretation of Thurmond's voting and rhetoric record has him as a segregationalist into the 1970s, and there's a reasonable case to be made he never repudiated his segregationalist past. I'm removing the qualifier. If someone wants to remove the bit about him being an "infamous segregationalist" as a compromise, that's fine. However, I'm leaving it there because it's a true statement, and it's an important reason why he joined the Republican party. -- RobLa 06:33, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

The qualifier is correct. The entire time Thrumond was a Democrat, he was a segregationist. There is no evidence he continued being one after the 1970s, so for the majority of the time Thurmond was a Republican he can not be classified as being in support of segregation. And the idea that Thurmond moved to the GOP to continue segregation doesn't make sense. In 1964, Republicans in both the house and the senate voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act by a larger margin than did Democrats. In the House, 61% of Democrats voted in favor, vs. 80% of Republicans, while in the Senate it was 69% of Democrats vs. 82% of Republicans. He may have left because he didn't like the treatment he recieved from a president from his own party, but it was not because he thought the GOP would help him bring back the old ways. The statement of his being a segregationist should be removed because it has nothing to do with his party affiliation, but because he was an old white guy from South Carolina. If that statement stays, the entry for Robert Byrd on the Democratic Party of the United States artilce shoule be changed to include infamous segregationist, as it is just as true. Gentgeen 12:34, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Reversion (17 May 2004)

I reverted this because I took it to be politically motivated vandalism. Someone with more knowledge on the subject might want to check up on it. This contributers other edits look a little 'political' to me too but it isn't my area of expertise, so I wouldn't like to evert all their stuff. Monk Bretton 19:16, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Serious NPOVing needed

First, this article is crippled by conservative apologetics. Describing the Republican Party without some appropriate historical reference to both Spanish American War imperialism and post-Civil War state capitalist industrialization is akin to describing the Democratic Party without reference to the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War. Where is the discussion of the runaway corruption during the Grant Presidency? That earnest young conservatives might be embarrassed by such revelations is not surprising, but to exclude them is downright dishonest. Orwellian rewriting of history is a sure indicator of an authoritarian mindset. So, YES, this article really really sucks. Attempts to edit it are efforts to save it and not POV.

Second, with respect to the question of legal organization of U.S. parties, the answer is that they subject to both state and national law. Each state has its own laws governing state party organization and national laws control campaign finance etc. Although the German Constitution (former Basic law) establishes a party-state and assigns specific roles and responsibilities to German poltiical parties, that is not true under the U.S. Constitution or under the "British Constitution" which our British cousins have neglected to commit to a single document. --User:66.20.28.21 16:17, 30 May 2004 (originally unsigned)

I concur. This article is just a little over the top. Puts the GOP into a very bad light. Granted, personally, I would never vote for them, but thereare some serious POV issues here.

If I'm not mistaken, the comment you're "concurring" with (which is six months old) is complaining that the article is biased in favor of the GOP. I'm not saying the article's perfect, but the fact that two different people can read it and see it as biased in opposite directions is probably a good sign of its relative neutrality. RadicalSubversiv E 21:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

McCarthy as an "infamous anti-communist"

How is calling McCarthy an infamous anti-communist a POV statement? Certainly he called himself an anti-communist. And my dictionary defines infamous as "having an exceedingly bad reputation," which McCarthy unquestionably does (see any history textbook), regardless of what any of us think of him. What's the problem here? RadicalSubversiv E 05:58, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

I suppose it's based on the implied link between the two; there's a suggestion that he's infamous because he was an anti-communist, which is inaccurate. MisfitToys 15:27, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Putting Republicans for Kerry back

I guess the person who removed "Republicans for Kerry" didn't read their website, as they are a coalition of registered Republicans (not Dems or liberals, Republicans) trying to draw the party back to its traditional values. They are similar to the Green Elephant, Republicans for Environmental Protection, and the Republican Majority for Choice. One of the feature articles on the website is by a founder of the Oregon Republican Mainstream, who was asked to leave solely because he had chosen not to support Bush this year.

They have a clear stance as Republicans and should not be eliminated, anymore than the Log Cabin Republicans or any other controversial group should. I'm not sure how someone can justify this is more about "Kerry" than about the Republican party - it's about both, just as the term "Goldwater conservative" or the term "Rockefeller Republican" (linked in the article without any problem) are about a figure and the group of Republicans he inspired. Why would they bother identifying as Republicans if their party membership lacked meaning to them? Kerry Republicans are similar to the swing voting Reagan Democrats who have been mentioned in Reagan's article and have a wiki entry of their own. Note also that the term "Reagan Democrats" appears in the *Democratic party* wiki entry, and no one had a problem with it there.

Since this person will no doubt try to remove it again if I put it back in the same spot, I am putting a different link below to note that they are critical of the current GOP leadership. Let's see if that can solve our problem as happily as possible. --Noirdame 05:45, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Since when were socialized health care, revoking tax cuts, etc. "traditional values" of the GOP? That's stated right on the front page. But I digress. I will stand by your revert, but blame their unfortunately named website. You're right, I didn't read it. I apologize for my shortsightedness. I also thought it belonged more with Kerry because after the election, will they still be "Republicans for Kerry?" Will they still be Republicans for Kerry in 2008?

Your mention of "Reagan Democrats" is valid, but I don't see an extlink for Reagan Democrats. I can see there being one back in 1984, but I always thought of extlinks as being a permanent thing, not temporary. But again, you bring up good points. Probably doesn't help, though, that I've actually heard of "Reagan Democrats."

I don't like Bush. But dear lord, why were we given John Kerry as the substitute? I am a registered Republican and I will gladly and unflinchingly vote Badnarik in my state, NC, quite possibly a swing state. A pox upon on all their houses. (I really ought to stop being lazy and change my registration to L)

I like your baseless assumption that I am immune to reason and will "no doubt" try to remove it. Put it back wherever you please. --Golbez 06:45, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would recommend removing the link because Wikipedia is not a link repository. Furthermore, this group is of marginal significance. Kevin Rector 17:27, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

I understand your concern about where this group would be after the election, but by and large these are moderate Republicans who are breaking with the current GOP leadership, including office holders, long time party members and former political appointees. An article called the "Moderate Republican primer" is a main story on the site. Considering the people who have left other GOP organizations (like the Oregon Republican Mainstream founder, and the leader of Republicans Abroad Belgium) to join Republicans for Kerry, this will likely evolve into a more official opposition group - such as WesPac and one of the anti-Nader groups evolved from the Draft Clark campaign. As for my assumption, I never suggested you were immune to reason, but it was snipped while the other link (to another moderate group that is playing a bigger role in the party) was kept. But I appreciate that that disagreement doesn't need to be continued.

Kevin Rector, you may be making a good point - this group (which has several hundred members) may or may not be of marginal significance. The recent coverage of Republicans who are planning to vote against Bush, his low approval rating, and interparty spats indicates a significant minority that is very angry with his administration specifically and the neoconservative wing of the party generally. Can't remember this happening with Bush last time, certainly not with Dole or Reagan. Whatever the outcome of the election, this is the tip of the iceberg in terms of the current schism between the moderate, conservative and neoconservative wings of the party. There's a laudable section detailing the different wings, but not noting that they have been in more conflict during the Bush administration. The emerging Republican majority theory held that the moderate and conservative wings would probably become the new primary parties, marginalizing the Democrats further. Perhaps rather that just links, more details need to be added to the article about these trends and controversies, i.e. the Club for Growth, Republican Main Street, etc. --Noirdame 07:23, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) (originally unsigned)

"Republicans for Kerry" gets some 4,500 Google hits [1], so I think it's safe to say that they deserve at least a cursory mention in the Wikipedia. My suggestion: Republican critics of the GOP (er, isn't that redundant?) or Schisms within the GOP party could be a useful new article. If this schism is even half the iceberg you say it is, it deserves its own article. We shouldn't try to cram an iceberg into the main Republican article. List the factions here, sure. But we should probably devote a separate article to their, um, interactions. • Benc • 12:08, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Seeing that it's a non-insignificant group of republicans — yep, it it should be there. But put in a few sentences to put it into perspective. And don't list it below external links -- the relavant paragraph (which I don't think I'm qualified to write myself) should be part of the article, under a heading of "Dissident republicans". I think "Republican critics of the GOP" is the wrong title. These guys are members of the GOP themselves and they are not critics of the party per se. They do however appear to be at odds with a majority of other fellow party members as regards a number of issues — so much at odds that they are taking the unusual step of supporting the democratic party's candidate on this particular occassion. For this reason, I think "Dissident republicans" would be the best title. Ropers 21:52, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Any link to "Democrats for Kerry" is inherently POV and not encyclopedic. Rex071404 22:47, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I saw this at WP:RFC and thought I would drop by. I am not too hot about this issue, but I thought I'd drop by because it just didn't seem quite encyclopedic. Then again, a lot of things that are not ecyclopedic seem to be creeping in as links at the bottom of articles. Does the article discuss the issue of Republicans for Kerry? Or does the link amount to a spam ad? Tom 15:17, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Page refactoring

I've refactored this talk page so that I could read it thoroughly, subject by subject, before responding to the issue posted on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I organized the threads chronologically, added section headers, re-indented, and added missing signatures and timestamps. I did not change a single word of in any of the comments, however. • Benc • 11:50, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Primary principles

"Today its primary political principles include deregulated free-market capitalism..." ... then why do they subsidize corporations all the time? That's not laissez-faire. How should this be resolved in the article? Kevin Baas | talk 01:13, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

Corporate Subsidies

I don't see anywhere for that in the Republican part platform, and it was added by a clear democrat supporter. Unless he has some neutral source I think it should be removed as it's not NPOV.

Neutral source: [2] - look at the voting records and bill sponsorship. Kevin Baas | talk 00:47, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

This might be a more efficient source: [3] Kevin Baas | talk 00:51, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

It's up to the person that added to defend his sources, provide me links to bills where Republicans provided money (with no expectation of payback) without receiving a service or product in return. I can think of several instances on the top of my head where Democrats sponsored bail outs bills, and the Republicans go along with it.

Now they might overpay for that service or product because auditors increase the cost (USAF auditors cause a 30% in GE aircraft engines on cost+ contracts).

PPGMD

(whine) Because people are too lazy to do clear and open-minded research before they form their hard opinions. (end whine) Here's one: Medicare Act of 2003, (FOX news).

Here's some more:

2002 Energy Bill [4] [5]

Farm Bill (H.R. 2646) [6] [7]

That's just a start. Those bills should be very familiar to people. Although the claims that PPGMD asked me to substantiate can be substantiated, I am not making them. I am making only one claim, which I wrote in the article. Kevin Baas | talk 22:41, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

Your wording makes it sounds like the GOP is the only party that pushes for them, they are used on an equal or greater basis as democrats by the Democrats. *whine* people feel they can edit this articles all they want without asking for proof. The burden of proof for partisan pages like Bush and such is on the editor. Otherwise I could edit the McPeak page and say he was the spawn of Satan (which many in the USAF would probably believe hated as he is), and you must prove me wrong */whine*

I feel that the way that the statement is worded is wrong, I know that the government offers business encouragement to do things the way it wants, but it's used by both parties.

I think that it should be worded: "excepting tax breaks and subsidies, to encourage business to follow their agenda, as used by both parties." or something to that effect.

PPGMD

Firstly, my wording does not suggest that it is only done by the Republicans. Secondly, look at the voting records for those bills, and an unbiased sample of bills in general. Thirdly, watch CSPAN & CSPAN2. Then discuss the empirical facts regarding corporate subsidies, support for / opposition to bills, and republican principles.

Also, stay on topic: this have nothing to do with "business encouragement". Regarding your whine, let me reassure you that people do not feel that they can edit this aricle all they want without asking for proof, and that you could not edit the McPeak page and say he was the spawn of Satan without people reverting it as vandalism. So rest easy, people are worthy of more Good Faith. Kevin Baas | talk 20:48, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)

Church and state

Re: my addition "and interpret the traditional separation of church and state as prohibiting only the official establishment of a state church", and Kevin Baas' comment on revert "have you read the law? it is impossible to interpret it that way. it begins "congress shall make no law..."" If you read the article on separation of church and state in the United States, this subject is covered there; in fact, the law was interpreted precisely that way for about 150 years. Referring to "revoking" the separation is technically meaningless, as separation is a term used in discussing the clause, rather than a term which is actually in the constitution. Stating that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion was long taken to mean that Congress could not establish a state religion - not that the law could not demonstrate or reflect a public respect for religious values/beliefs. (This subject goes toward European issues regarding disestablishmentarianism.) Re: Changing right-wing to morally traditional (as to Judeo-Christian values) - "right-wing" can be somewhat pejorative; the article on that term doesn't discuss religious issues at all, and merely points out that the term is generally used to mean conservative. Little, if anything, is added by the link. MisfitToys 15:43, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Regarding "right-wing" - i don't have any attachment to that phrase/link, and I agree, it's relevancy is questionable, at best. i don't like the use of the word "morally", though, because it's assumed/redundant - you can't have a social body without mores, and it makes it sound like their morality is the morality, and that they are innately "good", i.e., it's subtle pov. how about just "traditional"?

Re: church and state, i would not say the law was interpreted precisely that way, and i don't see anything in the article on separation of church and state to suggest that. Perhaps some people interpreted it that way, but does that constitute the majority view of this faction? that's the question i'm concerned with. I have no problem with it being in there if it indeed represents the majority view. In any case, I think "weakening" should be in there. Kevin Baas | talk

I just saw the recent compromise. I like the new wording of the "traditional Judeo-Christian moral values" part. I would still like the church-state section to be tweaked. I think we should have both interpretations in there, granted that they both represent majority views. Kevin Baas | talk 16:11, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

How about (wiki links bolded): ... and interpret the establishment clause of the First Amendment as prohibiting only the official establishment of a state church, as opposed to the more secularist view that the clause prohibits the government from incorporating religion-based values in the law, so as to effect a strict separation of church and state. MisfitToys 18:05, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

That sounds good. :) Kevin Baas | talk 18:41, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

VANDALISM

THERE IS VANDALISM GOING ON in the article that this page represents. WHILE I SUPPORT John Kerry, I DO NOT SUPPORT VANDALISM BY ANYONE, DEM OR GOP. Rickyrab 03:09, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Andrew Johnson

"upheavals of Reconstruction under Republican presidents Andrew Johnson (though he had bitter disputes with the Republicans in Congress, who eventually impeached him) and Ulysses S. Grant."

Is this factually correct? I have always read that Johnson was a Southern Democrat tolerated by the Republicans because he did not leave the Senate upon secession, and used by Republicans to show their bipartisanship. I have also read that he was less than dedicated to Lincoln's reconstruction.

More or less, yes. Johnson was disliked by both Dems and Republicans. There was a split in the Republican party between the Radical Republicans, who despised Johnson, and moderates, who were willing to work with Johnson. But the Radicals wielded power in the party and had the upper hand. older≠wiser 00:58, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

So then Johnson was not, in fact, a "Republican President". Someone should correct this factual error in the document.

Although Johnson had been a Democrat, he was elected on the Republican Party ticket headed by Lincoln, so he was technically a Republican president. older≠wiser 16:03, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

That's incorrect. Johnson was a Democrat running with a Republican on a "National Union" ticket. This does not make him a Republican anymore than a say, Liberal-New Democrat coalition in Canada would make New Democrats into Liberals. Khanartist 22:50, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Then we need more information about this "National Union" ticket. It is usually reported as being a Republican ticket, but then parties then were not quite the same organizations as what we have today. older≠wiser 23:02, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

It was a ticket designed to attract War Democrats such as Johnson to Lincoln. It was used only in the presidential election.

But the point is that there is no reason to assume that running with a Republican automatically made him a Republican. There is nothing in law or the Constitution to that effect, and none of Johnson's contemporaries considered him a Republican. There's nothing to stop two canddates of different parties to run on the same ticket, either. Khanartist 17:46, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The so-called "National Union" party was simply the Republican Party using a new name to try and attract voters. Your comparison to this being like a "Liberal-New Democrat coalition in Canada" is misleading as it was the Republican Party in all but name only. They simply recruited a Democrat to run as vice-president. The Democratic party ran its own candidate so there was no coalition. So he was in fact elected as a Republican, under the National Union rubric. older≠wiser 14:20, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

So, Johnson was a Democrat who was President, but he was a Republican President? Did this Democrat who was President at least act like a Republican President?

GOP

Is there any explanation for the name Grand Old Party? What is the history of the name? Any possibility of editing the article to explain this. --Tagishsimon

Removals

I removed that fiscal conservatives are in favor of "illegal immigration" and "equal taxation". First of all, illegal immigration--I strongly doubt they actually favor people coming into the country illegally. Meanwhile, their opposition isn't nearly as strong or notable as the paleoconservatives. Better to leave it out. As for the "equal taxation", what does that even mean? I think it's a code word for a flat tax, but I can't be sure, and even if I'm right, there's by no means universal agreement on the need for a flat tax amongst fiscal conservatives. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:43, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Unnecessary factions

I do think the Factions section is bloated by beyond necessity. I'm going to remove "Reagan Republicans" as that alleged faction is spread out and encompasses the Religious Right, neoconservatives, and fiscal conservatives in a Republican union that began during his tenure. In fact, by describing the factions of the Republican party, you are describing the very coalition of conservative and right-wing groups that Reagan brought together. Despite partisan talk, Reagan is not what you would term a classical conservative. He increased defense spending and U.S. involvement overseas - which is ideologically diametrical to the isolationist policies of traditional conservatives. Classical conservatives probably identify more with Goldwater and his fiscal conservatism. Reagan conservatism is what supplanted much of Republican Party's classical conservatism with a more radical branch that intends to implement stark right-wing CHANGES to government and society. --Narc1

"Same-sex marriage" vs. "gay rights"

I reverted it to the earlier phrasing because the Republican position on gay issues go far beyond opposition to same-sex marriage. The Republican Party has consistently opposed virtually all legislative efforts in favor of gay rights almost as long as it has been an issue, whereas the specific focus on same-sex marriage is merely the latest front in these battles. Republicans have and continue to oppose anti-discrimination ordinances, allowing gays to serve in the military, and the providing any form of legal benefits to gay couples (the 2004 GOP platform is very clear on the latter point). I see no evidence that the "gay rights" phrasing is inaccurate, especially next to the far more questionable "militarism" that follows it. RadicalSubversiv E 03:41, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, I think your interpretation is rather POV. The platform, and most prominent Republican politicians support disallowing same-sex marriage, not restriction of gay rights. You may personally think Republicans are trying to limit gay rights, but for a neutral article, I suspect it is more fair to stick to the actual stated positians of the party. - Matt

This is demonstrably not true. Go re-read the platform, which opposes any form of legal benefits for gay couples, and is silent on anti-discrimination legislation, which Republicans have routinely opposed. "Same-sex marriage" is far too specific. RadicalSubversiv E 04:32, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Judging by the actual language of the platform, I think you are still overstating matters. It reads, "We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage." It is possible I'm overlooking something, but calling this blanket opposition to 'gay rights' seems like a far too broad interpretation of the party's stated position. What if we changed the text to something more specific, such as "opposition to instituting same-sex marriage, and several other additional forms of gay rights"?

UPDATE Assuming no one objects to my proposed language within 24 hours or so, I'm going to update it to what I have proposed here.

I continue to object. That platform language was specifically approved so as to oppose to civil unions and similar arrangements (alternatives were proposed -- they were voted down by the platform committee). And still no one has responded to the fact that Republicans have opposed virtually every piece of gay rights legislation in Congress and state legislatures for the last three decades (anti-discrimination legislation in employment and housing, allowing gays to serve in the military, allowing gay couples to adopt children, etc.). RadicalSubversiv E 01:36, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Homosexuals should not have any more rights than normal people do. Period.

Can you be more thorough in explain exactly what it means that they're against "gay rights". I'm don't live in America, and I want to know more about the party, but that phrase doesn't explain the position at all. Is the party against giving gays the right to vote? Against allowing gays drivers licenses? Against gay marriage and any kinds of benefits for two or more gay people associating together? Using the broad phrase "against gay rights" seems like you're suggesting that the Republican party is against giving gays equal rights altogether in all aspects of the society. --65.161.65.104 00:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Immature Vandalism

Please stop. If you disagree with the subject of this page you are welcome to offer a rebuttal. As it is you are acting as an ass.

There's been quite a bit of vandalism in the past few days, on both this and on United States Democratic Party. It won't go away until some time after the election is decided. Should these pages be temporarily protected? George W Bush and John Kerry are. Banks 23:32, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Republican Senatorial Medal of Freedom

Can we have help sorting this out please? Does anyone have a trustworthy list of recipients? Dunc|☺ 17:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ElectGOP.net link

Wikipedia is not a links directory, or a vehicle for personal advertising. The purpose of an external links section in an article like this is to provide links to the relevent key organizations of the GOP -- the RNC, the Main Street Partnership, etc. ElectGOP.net is a non-notable site run by a single individual (I presume the contributor, trying to attract more visitors) -- I see no reason for Wikipedia to link to it. RadicalSubversiv E 19:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This person seems to have added that link to quite a number of GOP-related topics. Khanartist 20:56, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please ban Radicalsubversiv from this topic

Please do not allow this individual (Radicalsubversiv) to sabbotage the viability of the Wikipedia, as well at the good name of the 'Grand Old Party'.

This kind of behavior is a drain on Democracy, and a sure killer of the faithful efforts of contributors. user:weide 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Illegial bombing of Cambodia

I'm no expert on the topic, so under what jurisdiction was it illegial? Thanks.

The bombing attacks, not to mention the boder incursions, by US forces into Cambodia during the Nixon adminstration, were illegal under the jurisdiction of international law. At the time, Cambodia was an officially neutral country. Although the nation did not remain neutral after the deposition of Sihanouk, it is quite cleat that Cambodia was formally neutral during much of the bombing campaign, and thus the bombing campains were illegal. Banks 03:36, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. In light of that, shouldn't we note that the bombings were illegial under international law, since said law is somewhat controvesial?

I don't really think that is neccesary. I don't really see any serious controversy, although I am of course willing to listen. To add some more details to those given in my previous post, the rules surrounding neutrality are defined principally by the Hague Convention V of the Second Peace Convention of the Hague, to which the United States of America is a signatory. This states in Article One: "The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable." Banks 01:22, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm a little fuzzy on the details, but wasn't there an argument that Nixon lacked the authority to bomb Cambodia (as opposed to Vietnam) under the war powers clause/resolution, and hence the bombings were illegal under American law? RadicalSubversiv E 01:00, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I beleive the main point called into question under US law was the legality of Nixon's use of executive privlege to conceal the existence of the bombings from all but his inner circle. I've read that this issue was considered for the Articles of Impeachment, but eventually dropped due to legal ambiguity. I'm not certain as to any arguments regarding the War Powers Act Banks 01:22, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would argue rather the poorly supported term massive versus the term secret [8] which is historically significant. Perhaps it is wiser to avoid jabs at complicated secret foreign policy in an encyclopedia sound bite. The fact that this issue affected Nixon's legacy is the key point here. weide 01:53, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Label "right-wing" appropriate?

Is it really right to have the Republican Party branded as "right-wing" while the U.S. Democratic Party is not branded "left-wing?" It should be edited out to conform with NPOV standards. --rmsharpe Dec 16 2004 10:25PM CST

I'm not sure if I have a particularly strong opinion about the use of the term specifically, but the article should make clear the GOP, taken as a whole, is more ideologically uniform and extreme than the Democrats. The Democrats are not a left party, especially by international standards (and I say this as someone who wishes they were). The GOP definitely is a conservative one, by virtually any standard. NPOV does not mean that we create "balance" between articles where there is none in reality. RadicalSubversiv E 05:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is definitely important to place the GOP on the political spectrum as a part of the article. In the accepted left=liberal right=conservative political spectrum, the GOP is firmly in the right wing, whereas the Democratic Party is significantly more centrist in their views. Understand that I am not speaking solely in terms of american political parties here; I am speaking in terms of political ideals as a whole. Of course the Democrats are "left-wing" compared to the GOP- we only have two effective parties. If viewed more global terms, Radicalsubversiv is precisely correct- the Democrats are moch less left than the Republicans are right. Thus, I don't think it's inappropriate at all to describe the GOP as right-wing - they ARE right wing. Banks 06:53, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)