Re-defining "Republican"

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 10 2006, 07:05 AM) [snapback]346871[/snapback]</div>

I think Proco might have chosen his terms better. A Republican is simply a member of the Republican party. The distinction to be made is between traditional conservatives, and neo-conservatives. The traditionals tend to favor fiscal responsibility, small government, states rights, and racial discrimination. The neos tend to favor mammoth debt spending, interference in people's private sex lives, and the establishment of evangelical Christianity as a de facto state religion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 10 2006, 02:03 PM) [snapback]347054[/snapback]</div>

Indeed ... poor wording on my part. Thanks, Daniel.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Nov 10 2006, 09:43 AM) [snapback]346990[/snapback]</div>

Would you please document that claim with concrete facts?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Nov 10 2006, 02:48 PM) [snapback]347080[/snapback]</div>

I second that request.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Nov 10 2006, 01:46 PM) [snapback]347040[/snapback]</div>

Yes.

The personal affronts at all levels of politics are totally out of control; it appears to have taken a turn for the worse under the current administration.

Shutting down communication in this way should never be tolerated.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Nov 10 2006, 09:43 AM) [snapback]346990[/snapback]</div>

Are you kidding? Books from authors like Coulter, Savage, and Hannity accuse Democrats of being traitors, terrorists, pedophiles, and worse? Titles like "Godless, The Church of Liberalism," "Treason: Liberal Treachery," The Enemy Within, and "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" The outpouring of vile hatred, bigotry, and sheer intolerance from the right FAR eclipses anything seen from the left.

The worst of the left-leaning sentiment attacks SPECIFIC Republicans for SPECIFIC abuses. The worst of the right-leaning sentiment attacks GENERAL groups for GENERAL reasons...and that's a huge difference. Can you imagine if Micheal Moore had accused ALL Republicans of being traitors? Or if Streisand claimed all Evangelicals were closet homosexuals? Yet its quite understandable if Ann Coulter claims all democrats are traitors, or Michael Savage claims being a Democrat means being mentally deranged?

The Dixie Chicks got death threats just for stating they personally were ashamed of Bush, which is FAR less nasty that what the right-leaning crowd said about Clinton. Death threats! When did ANYONE from the left threaten to kill Ken Starr over his crusade against Clinton??

Its true that Democrats (and indeed, 63% of all Americans) dislike Bush and make no secret of that. But if you think the left-leaning community comes anywhere close to matching the right-leaning community for pure venom, you've been watching too much Fox news.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 10 2006, 12:03 PM) [snapback]347054[/snapback]</div>

No, that would be the democrats. The name Strom Thurmond comes to mind... he didn't switch until after the republican party's character had changed and southerners were favoring the republicans.

Really, neither party's hands are clean on this issue. Both are better but there's still room for improvement.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Nov 10 2006, 01:07 PM) [snapback]347092[/snapback]</div>

There's a good editorial in the Boston Globe from a month or two ago were the author points out how radicallized politics has become. "Why accuse someone of being Hitler when you can go straight to the Dark Lord himself" is a paraphrase. There's no room for compromise when you call your opponent satan or whatever. This is the fault of everyone involved. I hope that we'll start to see some change. I'm rather tired of it. Compromise is what democracy is all about fer chrissakes. Why the hell have we forgotten that? <_< :huh:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Nov 11 2006, 06:58 PM) [snapback]347654[/snapback]</div>

I was not talking about Republicans vs. Democrats. I was talking about traditional conservatives vs. neo-conservatives. Strom Thurmond was a traditional conservative. The neo-conservatives are less preoccupied with race than are the traditional conservatives. Blacks were not allowed in white churches in Strom Thurmond's traditional-conservative South. I suspect a black person would be welcome in Schmika's neo-conservative church, provided he adopted the outward appearance of the white culture.

Note that the Democratic party was formed as an alliance between southern conservatives and northern liberals, so that even as late as the 1968 election, liberal Hubert Humphrey tried to get the Mississippi freedom delegation to settle for 2 or 3 seats, and the all-white racist delegation was accepted and seated by the Democratic party convention.

While neo-conservative policies are profoundly damaging to the poor and to people of color, and while neo-nazis and the like may be allied with neo-conservatives, neo-conservatives are much more willing than are traditional conservatives to allow a few carefully-chosen "Uncle Tom" blacks into their ranks. Witness Collin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, who many neo-cons would vote for if she were nominated by her party for president.

Now that so many traditional-conservative southern Democrats have switched over to the Republican party, I wonder if Rice could carry the South. Have they shed a little of their racism in their neo-conservative make-over?