Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Anti-slavery clarification

message: 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)
thread_title: Legal status of US political parties

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Frmaximos, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and Speaker of the House are not party leaders - they are there to serve the Senate and House as a whole.  Indeed, the Speaker is elected by the whole body (both parties vote) and the President Pro Tem is generally an honorary position, for the longest serving member of the majority, though there is an election.  They are certainly important members of their parties, but they do not "lead" the House or Senate party members the same way that Majority Leaders do.Rkevins82 03:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Leadership

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Strom Thurmond factual error

message: 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)
thread_title: Reversion ([[17 May]] [[2004]])

message: 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.     
"reference to the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War"  What the hell does this mean?  Republicans overwhelmingly supported Civil Right legislation.  And being anti-communist they rightfully supported the war against the North Vietnamese agressors.
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)
thread_title: Serious NPOVing needed

message: 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)
thread_title:  Page refactoring 

message: 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)
thread_title: VANDALISM

message: 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)
thread_title:  Immature Vandalism 

message: Can we have help sorting this out please?  Does anyone have a trustworthy list of recipients? Dunc|☺ 17:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Republican Senatorial Medal of Freedom]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: ElectGOP.net link

message: RadicalSubversive -- When I read your comment on your last revision ("rm dubious connection between Grant's policies and those of today (industrial protectionism and Civil War pensions are not exactly modern day GOP cornerstones)"), it would sound like an edit that I agree with.  Those indeed are not modern-day GOP cornerstones. I then looked at what you removed -- a reference that "the GOP became known for its strong advocacy commerce, industry, and veterans' rights continues to this day."   I disagree with this removal.  First, it does not specifically say 'industrial protectionism and Civil War pensions.'  Later on in the article, there are repeated references to the GOP being committed to "business" or entrepreneurial activities.  The GOP has continued to be committed to veterans rights, which include the establishment of the Dept. of Veterans Affairs by Reagan in 1988.
I am, of course, open to debate.  Thanks, Radical, for your watch of vandalism on this article.  --BaronLarf 14:08, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
:The "establishment" of the Department of Veterans Affairs consisted of changing the Veterans Administration (non-Cabinet) to a Department (Cabinet).  Whether any veterans benefited thereby is an open question.  Certainly the GOP's payment of lip service to helping veterans continues to this day.  Whether the actions match the language is, to put it mildly, open to dispute.  See  and  among many other examples. JamesMLane 14:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, I removed only the phrase "continues to this day" (and I don't think it was a reversion). Secondly, I did so not because of a particular dispute over what the GOP stands for today, but because of a concern that it simplifies and misrepresents history, in implying that the GOP adopted certain policies under Grant which then continued indefinitely. "commerce, industry, and veterans' rights" meant certain things in Grant's day, which they largely don't mean now. We can argue over wheter, for example, over the GOP's support for commerce and industry, but its current policies are not those of Grant, and there is no real historical continuity, as we've had at least two party realignments since. RadicalSubversiv E 05:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History of GOP