Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Sites | Writers | Advertise | My Orble | Login

Lincoln Was A Republican!

September 5th 2008 01:14
Lincoln
I've heard this page being ripped out of the history books often this election cycle, no doubt in an effort to combat the fact that a person of color is running for President on the Democratic ticket. The truth is that yes, Lincoln was a Republican. In fact, looking back at history Republicans were the progressive party of the United States.


The problem happens when Republicans cross their arms and assume they've won the battle by simply bringing that up. Perhaps they honestly believe the parties did not change lines, but I'm betting more on the fact that they are hoping you don't know that. The republican party of today is barely recognizable to the party that it began as. As the Democrats tossed off the Southern White vote, moving towards a more progressive stance the Republicans were eager to scoop those voters up and make them their own. Which often meant turning back the original party ideals.

100 years ago I probably would have been a Republican, 60 years ago I would have been a Republican, there's little question to that. However we are not living 100 or 60 years ago. We are living now, here, in the current political climate. And because of that we need to look at where the parties stand now, here, as they are today. Looking back in history is a great way to familiarize yourself with the parties and with America. But it is no way to vote today, in America now.

From Wikipedia:


Moderate Republicans of 1940-80

The term Rockefeller Republican was used 1960-80 to designate a faction of the party holding "moderate" views similar to those of the late Nelson Rockefeller, governor of New York from 1959 to 1974 and vice president under President Gerald Ford in 1974-77. Before Rockefeller, Tom Dewey, governor of New York 1942-54 and GOP presidential nominee in 1944 and 1948 was the leader. Dwight Eisenhower reflected many of their views. An important leader in the 1950s was Connecticut Republican Senator Prescott Bush, father and grandfather of presidents of George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush. After Rockefeller left the national stage in 1976, this faction of the party was more often called "moderate Republicans," in contrast to the conservatives who rallied to Ronald Reagan. Historically, Rockefeller Republicans were moderate or liberal on domestic and social policies. They favored New Deal programs, including regulation and welfare. They were very strong supporters of civil rights. They were strongly supported by big business on Wall Street (New York City). In fiscal policy they favored balanced budgets and relatively high tax levels to keep the budget balanced. They sought long-term economic growth through entrepreneurships, not tax cuts. In state politics, they were strong supporters of state colleges and universities, low tuition, and large research budgets. They favored infrastructure improvements, such as highway projects. In foreign policy they were internationalists, and anti-Communists. They felt the best way to counter Communism was sponsoring economic growth (through foreign aid), maintaining a strong military, and keeping close ties to NATO. Geographically their base was the Northeast, from Pennsylvania to Maine. Barry Goldwater crusaded against the Rockefeller Republicans, beating Rockefeller narrowly in the California primary of 1964. That set the stage for a conservative resurgence, based in the South and West, in opposition to the Northeast. Ronald Reagan continued in the same theme, but George H. W. Bush was more closely associated with the moderates.

Realignment: The South becomes Republican

In the century after Reconstruction, the white South identified with the Democratic Party. The Democrats' lock on power was so strong, the region was called the Solid South. The Republicans controlled certain parts of the Appalachian mountains, but they sometimes did compete for statewide office in the border states. Before 1948, the southern Democrats saw their party as the defender of the southern way of life, which included a respect for states' rights and an appreciation for traditional southern values. They repeatedly warned against the aggressive designs of Northern liberals and Republicans, as well as the civil rights activists they denounced as "outside agitators." Thus there was a serious barrier to becoming a Republican.

In 1948 Democrats alienated white Southerners in two ways. The Democratic National Convention adopted a strong civil rights plank, leading to a walkout by Southerners. Two weeks later President Harry Truman signed Executive Order 9981 integrating the armed forces. From 1948 onward, southern whites looked for political accommodation for their views.

By 1964, the Democratic lock on the South was decisively broken. The long-term cause was that the region was becoming more like the rest of the nation and could not long stand apart in terms of racial segregation. Modernization that brought factories, businesses, and cities, and millions of migrants from the North; far more people graduated from high school and college. Meanwhile the cotton and tobacco basis of the traditional South faded away, as former farmers moved to town or commuted to factory jobs. The immediate cause of the political transition involved civil rights. The civil rights movement caused enormous controversy in the white South with many attacking it as a violation of states' rights. When segregation was outlawed by court order and by the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, a die-hard element resisted integration, led by Democratic governors Orval Faubus of Arkansas, Lester Maddox of Georgia, and, especially George Wallace of Alabama. These populist governors appealed to a less-educated, blue-collar electorate that on economic grounds favored the Democratic Party, but opposed segregation. After 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. Integration thus liberated Southern politics, just as Martin Luther King had promised. Meanwhile the newly enfranchised black voters supported Democratic candidates at the 85-90% level.

The South's transition to a Republican stronghold took decades. First the states started voting Republican in presidential elections—the Democrats countered that by nominating Southerners who could carry some states in the region, such as Jimmy Carter in 1976 and 1980, and Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996; however, the strategy did not work with Al Gore in 2000. Then the states began electing Republican senators to fill open seats caused by retirements, and finally governors and state legislatures changed sides. Georgia was the last state to fall, with Sonny Perdue taking the governorship in 2002. Republicans aided the process with redistricting that protected the African American and Hispanic vote (as required by the Civil Rights laws), but split up the remaining white Democrats so that Republicans mostly would win. In 2006 the Supreme Court endorsed nearly all of the gerrymandering engineered by Tom DeLay that swung the Texas Congressional delegation to the GOP in 2004.

In addition to its white middle class base, Republicans attracted strong majorities from the evangelical Christian vote, which had been nonpolitical before 1980. The national Democratic Party's support for liberal social stances such as abortion drove many former Democrats into a Republican Party that was embracing the conservative views on these issues. Conversely, liberal Republicans in the northeast began to join the Democratic Party. In 1969 in The Emerging Republican Majority, Kevin Phillips, argued that support from Southern whites and growth in the Sun Belt, among other factors, was driving an enduring Republican electoral realignment. Today, the South is again solid, but the reliable support is for Republican presidential candidates. Exit polls in 2004 showed that Bush led Kerry by 70-30% among whites, who comprised 71% of the Southern voters. Kerry had a 90-9% lead among the 18% of the voters who were black. One third of the Southerners said they were white evangelicals; they voted for Bush by 80-20%.
76
Vote
Shared on
   


Clintons 4 McCain? Not Likely.

August 27th 2008 11:28
Via Womanist Musings:

Clintons For Mccain
This video is of a group of women claiming to be Clinton supporters who have gone over to McCain. personally, my opinion is that if any of these women were actually Clinton supporters then I've got some ocean front property in Kansas to sell you. The amount of racism and hatred expressed here is absurd and I cannot see how anyone who agrees with Clinton's policies and what she stood for could A) vote for McCain of all people, and B) spread so much blind hatred against another person based on where he went to school. Frankly, the fact that she refused to provide any proof says more than enough to me about the honesty of the group.



My pet theory: This falls along the same line as when Limbaugh told McCain voters in certain states to go ahead and vote for Clinton. The plan was they knew McCain was already going to get the majority of his party's vote, so tossing a few more towards Clinton would help her win the primaries. Not because they liked her better, but because the idea was that they could beat her more easily. With McCain's latest ad trying to woo Clinton supporters this seems like just the kind of stunt they would plan to stir up trouble. Clinton's spokesperson already replied to McCain's ad, and it's words that I think should be taken to all of McCain's attempts.

"Responding to the ad, Clinton spokeswoman Kathleen Strand said the New York senator's "support of Barack Obama is clear. She has said repeatedly that Barack Obama and she share a commitment to changing the direction of the country, getting us out of Iraq, and expanding access to health care. John McCain doesn't. It's interesting how those remarks didn't make it into his ad."

*Update* My Left Wing has more on the woman speaking out in the video above and behind the fake Clinton supporters turned McCain groups. The facts are rather interesting.

According to a Wired article the domain name ClintonsForMcCain.com was registered by the Republican National Committee on May 15. As far as I can tell the site was never activated. On June 4 someone registered the domain name Clintons4McCain listing Washington, D.C. as its address. The registrar was a company called Wild West Domains out of Scottsdale, Arizona. Wild West is a spinoff of GoDaddy. Wild West CFO Michael Zimmerman gave money to John McCain as recently as last year according to opensecrets.org and the Center for Responsive Politics.

Clintons4McCain is not registered with the Federal Election Commission. According to the blog site, Clintons4McCain was founded by Peter Boykin, Cristi Adkins and Anne Franklin. Although the founders claim to be Hillary Clinton supporters, only Franklin has contributed to her campaign. Adkins claims a vague involvement with the Clinton West Virginia campaign, but that is all.
80
Vote
Shared on
   


Does Obama Eat Fetuses?

August 26th 2008 16:29
Obama
The current attack that anti-choicers like to make against Obama is insisting that he created some bill forcing doctors to kill newborn infants if the mother says to. Of course the wording of the attack changes depending on who says it like a political game of phone tag. Some say he created the law, some say he only voted for it, and some say he collects newborn babies for his dinner. Media Matters has been taking on this rumor and writing about the reality of what happened for those who care. Not that I expect the anti-choicers to care about little things such as facts, but it's still nice for the rest of us.

Unfortunately the anti-choicers have enough voices in the media spreading misinformation that they can pull off saying whatever they want. A recent episode of The War Room With Quinn & Rose had a guest host Mike Pintek claiming that Obama "believes so firmly in abortion, he is so radical in his support for abortion and infanticide that he believes that if a woman chooses abortion, she's entitled to a dead body no matter what." Media Matters responded:

As Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, Obama opposed certain bills amending the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 while he was in the Illinois state Senate because he and other opponents of the bills said they would pose a threat to abortion rights and said they were unnecessary because Illinois law already prohibited the conduct supposedly addressed by the bills.

Even right-wing talking heads such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter have claimed that Obama wants to kill babies that have survived abortions. Their claims that Obama is "pro-infantcide" and wants to kill babies has been taken down by reality.

Indeed, as Media Matters noted, when tasked by the Illinois attorney general's office with investigating allegations that fetuses born alive at an Illinois hospital were abandoned without treatment, the Illinois Department of Public Health reportedly said that it was unable to substantiate the allegations but said that if the allegations had proved true, the conduct alleged would have been a violation of then-existing Illinois law. Obama himself has cited specific provisions of the Illinois Compiled Statutes in stating that the "born alive principle was already the law in Illinois."

You can read the full text of the the bill which would have amended the 1975 abortion law.
128
Vote
Shared on
   


Obama Biden
As soon as Obama announced Biden as his VP choice the McCain wheels began turning to put together an ad making it seem that Biden is more of a McCain supporter than an Obama one. it's an interesting strategy, telling people that Obama's own VP doesn't have faith in him to be President. The short, 30 second ad featuring a short clip of a question and answer session Biden was a part of during his own very early presidential run. Though the debate was not dated in the ad giving the subtle impression that Biden's comments are much more recent than they are. And, of course, if Biden says that he has come to know Obama better and feel more secure in his ability it will be played as flipflopping.


[ Click here to read more ]
34
Vote
Shared on
   


How Low Can You Go?

August 19th 2008 11:35
How low can you go?

Well, if you're John Hawkins of RightWingNews the answer is pretty damn low. How about a "Obama only got the job 'cause he's black" ad? Not low enough for you? Well, toss in some "Clinton lost to a black man, because he's a black man, and it's like losing to a child's TV show character from the 70s, so vote for McCain." Via Pandagon, the most offensive ad I've seen yet


[ Click here to read more ]
57
Vote
Shared on
   


Hillary McCain
It seems the old "Hillary supporters are turning to McCain" story is still alive and well. It's one that, frankly, I cannot understand.

An article on Winning Women over at BlogHer discussed how some women are not happy with Obama and many of the sexist tactics that the media played during the campaign. And so the story goes that feeling snubbed and upset these women are turning to Mccain for presidential comfort. Which is a pretty classic example of cutting off your nose to spite your face


[ Click here to read more ]
49
Vote
Shared on
   


Up until a certain age you often cannot expect young children to easily accept fault for things they have done. Most parents know how easily kids will blame someone else, or simply deny that whatever happened actually did happen. For young children often they fully believe that if they just swear it didn't happen then it really will become as if it never existed. It's not that they are being willfully wrong, it's just that they are not yet mature enough to step up. One of the things my oldest son does is focus on one little detail of what I am saying, ignoring everything else, in hopes that if one little thing is wrong then the entire thing must be wrong. A lecture on not jumping on the bed because it will break the bed blows past him with only that I said his sheets were red instead of blue being held. It's not that he don't understand that his jumping will break the bed, it's just that he's not yet mature enough to handle the criticism.

Obama tire gauge
So imagine my shock when I learned that McCain is actually one of my kids. No, really, I think he might be my long lost son. Why? Well even after Obama's speech in Michigan on the energy crisis McCain decided to keep his fingers in his ears, ignoring all the valid points and ideas that Obama has. Instead focusing on a small quote of a speech in Missouri. Never mind that this one suggestion is actually a good one, McCain and his staff have chosen to pick on Obama about tire gauges as being the whole of Obama's plan. Tire gages? John, were you even listening


[ Click here to read more ]
93
Vote
Shared on
   


Where Is The Liberal Bias?

July 28th 2008 10:50
news
I love to watch as reality comes in to bite conservatives in the ass.

There's been a long known whining about "Liberal bias!" that conservatives like to toss around. While they conveniently ignore the reality of media outlets being big businesses and therefore would be shooting themselves in the foot if they held a liberal biases, the constant whining often does a great job of boosting moral. What they are really do is binding together those who think that if they do not have the power to tell everyone else what to do and say then they are somehow being trampled on


[ Click here to read more ]
60
Vote
Shared on
   


pregnant woman
I am frustrated to say that Obama has stuck his foot in his mouth, yet again. This time in response to questions about his opinion on late-term abortion in an interview with Relevant Magazine. When asked to clarify his stance on abortion and late term abortion Obama replied that he was in favor of states restricting late term abortions except for the in cases where health to the mother is a concern.

I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.

[ Click here to read more ]
43
Vote
Shared on
   


Summer Minor's Blogs

I have no other blogs :(
Moderated by Summer Minor
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]