Changes

I think this article should include an idology/criticism section similar to that on the [[demcratic democratic party]] page since the republican party is not free from criticism either.{{unsigned|Wikidan81}}  == A Question == Why is the Christian Right aligned with the Republican Party? And why do these Christians knock Socialism? Jesus taught ideas close to socialism and would not agree with many Republican policies. {{unsigned|Probus1}}: I'm an Aussie and not sufficiently familiar with the American parties to comment directly on them, but the Bible supports the idea of private property and reward for effort, ideas that socialism is at odds with. Yes, the Bible teaches ideas that are superficially similar to socialism, but as I once saw an atheist (I think it was) writer say, the difference between socialism (or was is communism?) and Christianity is that socialists force everyone to share, whereas the Bible teaches us to share because we love. That is, of course, a very simplistic comparison, but I think that's the key to the answer to your question. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:45, 1 March 2008 (EST)  ==Presidential Dominance==I do not get the following since this President is a Republican 'Grover Cleveland is the only non-incumbent Democrat'--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:35, 23 June 2008 (EDT) From this section: "Of the 11 U.S. presidents to be re-elected (i.e. elected a second time) since the Civil War, 7 were Republicans and only 4 Democrats" A bit nitpicky, but I count only 10 presidents that were re-elected during this time: Grant(R), Cleveland(D), McKinley(R), Wilson(D), FDR(D), Eisenhower(R), Nixon(R), Reagan(R), Clinton(D), and GWB(R), for a total of 6 Republicans and 4 Democrats. Am I missing anyone, or should the number be changed?Also, the section outlines how the circumstances for the democratic Presidents' elections were not "ordinary" except for the election of Cleveland, but the definition of "ordinary circumstance" seems a bit arbitrary in this instance. I believe a more balanced perspective could be achieved by stating how many total elections were "ordinary". Following the general guidelines given here (which leaves out the elections of incumbant presidents), it seems that, besides the Democrats, the elections of Grant, Hayes, Harrison, Harding, Reagan, GWB, and possibly Eisenhower all had circumstances that could qualify as not ordinary. This would put the totals at 6-7 Republicans elected under ordinary circumstances vs. the 1 Democrat (or 2, if Obama's election meets the ordinary circumstances criteria, which I'm not sure about). [[User:Rosalind80|Rosalind]] 16:54, 29 May 2009 (EDT)::Good points. let's count TR in 1904. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:06, 29 May 2009 (EDT)== new history == I wrote the history section and previously posted it to Citizendium. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:28, 18 September 2008 (EDT) ==Government expansion==What FredSteel included was basically correct. For good or bad the Bush Administration did expand the government; the expansion included the Dept of Homeland Security, the federal wiretaps, the Patriot Act, the absorbing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac within the government, etc. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:29, 22 September 2008 (EDT) ==McCain as Head of the Party?== I could see why people would accept this since he's their official candidate, but wouldn't the current leader of the party actually be George W. Bush since he's still the sitting President and commander in chief? Just curious. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:32, 23 September 2008 (EDT)::It's very dramatic the change in power -- Bush is invisible and McCain controls the convention, the agenda, and the Republican National Committee. Bush is still raising money, though. If McCain loses then who is in charge is ????[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:09, 23 September 2008 (EDT) == 2009 == The 2009 paragraph is tat. Just a bunch of random facts that are only notable because they are recent. The relevant facts would be better merged into sections about Republican history in the senate, Republican opinion polls, and possibly into the page on Obama. [[User:Concernedchris|Concernedchris]] 10:08, 9 July 2009 (EDT)::I disagree. The paragraph is a good summary of the state of the GOP today. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:43, 9 July 2009 (EDT):::But the article is meant as an encyclopedia article on the GOP, not a news article. The paragraph in question contains information that is not notable, and the corresponding facts from 1895 wouldn't make it into the article. [[User:Concernedchris|Concernedchris]] 07:28, 21 July 2009 (EDT) ==Non-politicians== I deleted [[Mel Gibson]], as he is not know for holding political office or for anything political. He does have a big mouth, and (like many people) has gotten personal or hateful when ranting at someone. His anti-semitic remarks to a cop who stopped his car, and his use of the n-word on the phone to his girlfriend (wife?) attracted headlines. None of this makes him relevant to an encyclopedia article on Republicans. Maybe an article on gaffes by celebrities? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] ^{[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]} 10:30, 19 July 2010 (EDT) == Reorganization needed for recent history == The history sections of this article after the younger Bush should be reorganized. There are three sections that I speak of: "Trump Era", "Contemporary Party", and "2009". The "2009" section may have to be deleted or drastically reduced in size, as it is very undue the way it is. Also, it comes after the other two sections, which is inappropriate. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:50, 19 November 2016 (EST) :Also, the modern history and "Contemporary Party" will have to be updated to include recent elections, the [[Tea Party Movement]], and the [[Establishment]]/anti-establishment divide. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:53, 19 November 2016 (EST)::By 'establishment', I assume you're referring to the Republican Study Committee. We have articles on the Tea Party, the Bluedogs, the Mainstreeters (RINOs), but not the RSG. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{[[User ptalk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']]} 09:22, 20 November 2016 (EST):::An article for the RSC would be good, but what I mean by saying all this is that we should mention these groups on this article. For example, this article does not mention the Tea Party movement anywhere, and it only mentions the word "establishment" (one of the mentions concerns the 1964 election, and the second mention I recently added). We should let readers know that a large chunk of GOP leadership is not committed to conservative principles. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:28, 20 November 2016 (EST) ==Rocky==I removed the comment that Rockefeller was the leader of liberal Republicans. This article is about the national Republican party. Rockefeller never was elected to any federal office, never served in the US Congress where such a title might be conferred. Rockefeller had a contingent of followers as he served in FDR's administration, but most all held appointed positions. As a leader of "liberal Republicans", a few New York congressman may have identified as such at a time when New York was the most populous state, as a few others in neighboring states. But referring to him as "the leader of liberal Republicans" doesn't hold up outside the New York GOP or New York politics. You could call him "icon of liberal Republicans", or his influence in party conventions controlling the largest delegation, but he never lead a contingent of any legislators in the US Congress.[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 2]]} 21:05, 13 April 2017 (EDT):Calling Rocky the leader of liberal Republicans only applies at convrntions every four years. He never had any direct influence over federal legislation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 2]]} 22:21, 13 April 2017 (EDT) ::I think [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Republican_Party&curid=6460&diff=1331887&oldid=1331862 your edit] is helpful and an improvement. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:19, 13 April 2017 (EDT) == state film star ==The article refers to Reagan as a "state film star," which presumably refers to work he did in Hollywood from 1942-45 with government funds for the war effort. I think this should be removed. Objections? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]} 23:25, 14 February 2019 (EST):This too, written by Prof. Jensen. More [[liberal claptrap]] that on a reading of it, makes no sense. "a die-hard element resisted integration" "but opposed segregation", is what it says. ::''a die-hard element resisted integration, led by Democrat governors Orval Faubus of Arkansas, Lester Maddox of Georgia, and, especially George Wallace of Alabama. These governors appealed to a less-educated, blue-collar electorate that on economic grounds was dependent on the Democrat Party, . After the passage of the Civil Rights Act, most Southerners accepted the integration of most institutions, except public schools. With the old barrier to becoming a Republican removed, traditional Southerners joined the new middle class and the Northern transplants in moving toward the Republican party.'' :Needs a serious reworking. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]} 00:50, 15 February 2019 (EST)