Lincoln would be a Democrat today.  And we'd be proud to claim him.

Probably Ike too.  Remember that "military-industrial complex" he warned us against?  We're soaking in it. 

And Kennedy would be a Conservative.

[edited]

And the right would *STILL* have gone after him for not being a reactionary. 

.

The Republican Party is fresh out of Lincolns and TR's.  Remember that TR himself left the GOP--or rather, they left him and his Progressive agenda.

One thing I dislike about Republican apologists is that they cannot even get right what makes a Republican a Republican. Republicans had nothing to do with "giving" women the right to vote in this country. They fought it tooth and nail to the bitter end. It was Woodrow Wilson, as President who finally endorsed women's suffrage. The right to vote came in August of 1920, while Wilson was President. Although Theodore Roosevelt utilized women in the dramatic primary and election campaign of 1912 and fought for women's rights, it was the Republican Party that ultimately  abandoned the women's cause and kicked Roosevelt into the Bull Moose Party.

lol. Lincoln and ike would not be dems its would be fundamentally against their beliefs.

Do some investigating on your own.

I'm pretty sure you will come to the same conclusion all those who came before you did. When you talk of real equality, rights, honor, the role of government, political and social issues, you will see the Republican are the "right" for a reason and unlike the Left we will welcome you and accept you. We won't exploit you just so a few people can wield power, we  don't lie to your face to get your vote, we are interested in the best interest of every single person no matter your race color, religion, creed what have you.

Go ahead take a look, do some research, the worst that happens is that you can explain your beliefs past talking point given to you by a party. Or you completely change your beliefs because you realize the truth.

Republicans aren't evil, they are quite the contrary, they are and represent what this great country has always been, a place for everyone to have freedom and liberty. And they are trying to keep it that way.

Am I imagining things, or is there an onslaught of new Republican bloggers who have not the slightest idea of what the Republican Party stands for today? You're describing the pre-Reagan party.

They like to play "let's pretend the Republicans aren't in a death spiral."

What beliefs would that be, BS?  The belief that religion should be separate from politics?  The idea that the environment should be protected ahead of industry?  The belief that the government can have a positive effect on the lives of citizens?

.

Sound like Democratic ideas to me.

adampayne see above, that's all I ask take a look, do some research. The party does in fact fight for women's rights. see the below website. Refer questions to them, I'm sure they would be more than happy to tell you just how the Party helps and fights for women's right. I'm sure they would disagree with your argument and statements. Its actually pretty absurd. Just another glowing example of Republicans being demonized for nothing other than stating what they believe.

Check out the Website

http://www.nfrw.org/ National Federation of Republican Women

"We gave( emphasis mine) women the right to vote, thanks Theodore, "...roflol.You may want to do some of that research you want others to do your very self..gave indeed.

The party does in fact fight *AGAINST* a woman's right to choose, to name just one.  The Republicans just shot down the proposal in Congress which would have protected a woman's right to sue over discrimination even if the company manages to hide it from her long enough.  The Republicans are the ones who kept elderly nuns from voting in Indiana as part of their voter suppression.

.

Re:  Your link.  Ya think the National Federation of *REPUBLICAN* Women might have some bias?

BS wrote, in error, but the emphasis is mine:

"...unlike the Left we will welcome you and accept you. We won't exploit you just so a few people can wield power, we  don't lie to your face to get your vote, we are interested in the best interest of every single person no matter your race color, religion, creed what have you.

Go ahead take a look, do some research, the worst that happens is that you can explain your beliefs past talking point given to you by a party. Or you completely change your beliefs because you realize the truth.

Republicans aren't evil, they are quite the contrary, they are and represent what this great country has always been, a place for everyone to have freedom and liberty."

Except for women, debtors, and slaves. And native Americans. At least, originally.

And today, homosexuals and atheists.

Maybe you need to do some research.

And to answer your question: no, Republicans aren't evil. Some of them--like the one that posted this blog, for instance-- are sadly undereducated, misinformed, ignorant and make statements that are not substantiated by the facts, and regularly are refuted by the facts, but that's okay, because he's always "right."

Do you know where the idea and terminology of "right" and "left" came from, o wise and learned one?

While he's looking *THAT* up, he might check out the role of President Woodrow Wilson (D) in passing the Nineteenth Amendment.   Hell, his *WIFE* was even our first female president for months.

Random, of course the GOP "left" TR; Taft was the incumbent. When is the last time either party abandoned an incumbent attempting re-election?

The GOP took a hard right turn and left TR and his Progressives.    TR was the first American President to call for nationalized health insurance.  His Bull Moose Party run cost Taft the election.

.

But for his fairly racist attitudes (product of his times, maybe?), he'd fit in fairly well with today's Democrats.  He'd likely be to the left of Hillary Clinton, for example.

Isn't it ironic that on the same day the Californian had a chance to showcase their poster child, Kevin McCarthy on the front page of the local section, with the headline "A Soldier Gets His Due, the editors published an editorial written by the NY Times,  Op-Ed columnist Bob Herbert,( Doing the Troops Wrong - New York Times) in which Herbert discusses Sen. Jim Webb's proposal for expanding educational benefits for the men and women who have served in the arms forces since Sept. 11, 2001.

Kevin McCarthy, The Republican, is he evil?

I doubt McCarthy is evil.  That's just his day job.

Yup, TR and Taft split approximately seven million votes, while Wilson garnered six million, which was more than enough. TR was upset about what Taft had done with some of TR's programs, and he let his ego win over what was best for the Republican Party.

I don't know about TR having racist attitudes, but he did think that American citizens should be Americans, and leave any allegiance to the old country in the old country.

He had some interesting things to say about non-white folks and Moslems which would fit right in with the current owners of the Republican brand name, I'll admit.

The Republican party today is the party of women's rights repudiation. The platform calls for the loss of medical privacy, and intrusion of the government into birth control issues that the left still vigorously defends. Republicans advocate abstinence as their guiding principle of sex education, which has failed the nation to the point that we now have a teen population where one in four girls have a sexually transmitted disease. 

Republicans endorse torture as an interrogation tool and have worked to suspend habeus corpus. It is Republicans who defend giant phone monopolies to spy on US citizens, who are now left without legal protection to even the most basic forms of privacy.  Republicans are not  for small government, and have not been since Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980. Republicans are sloganeers of misinformation and deceit, who believe any means is justification for their ends.

Superman (I still think your name is cute), I'm a Republican, and I would vote for you in a heartbeat, but these guys have something of a point.

There is a segment of our party that thinks individual liberty is a bad thing, and they are willing to balloon government as big as it needs to be to impose their will on the nation.

How do we take our party back?  Any ideas?  The Dems keep talking a good game, talking their way into election wins, and then toss it all aside for more of the same old nothing.  But if the Republican Party continues to more resemble Mike Huckabee, who would expand government into every corner of life, I'd almost prefer a Congress that accomplished nothing than a Congress that did actual damage.

Spam code TURMZ

You're right, Pawn. One of my beefs with the Democratic party is that big promises have been made that turn out to be hollow.

We don't have a Senate majority yet, jfrancais.

.

PawnThyself, you could always vote for Paul.  Or Bob-barr.  Huckabee might yet be on the (R) ticket.

If you're saying that McCain might pick Huckabee as his running mate, I would be very surprised.  But if he does, my vote goes elsewhere.

I do think that concerns about his health and longevity in office are justified enough to pay special attention to his choice of running mate.

Superman, does McCain have your phone number? ha ha

http://members.tripod.com/G...

I found this fun reading. 

Not running, got to go.  Thought it was an interesting piece.

Depends on if he wants to go for the fundie vote.  They won't go for the Mormon.

The Republican party of the 19th century was a way different animal than today.

Perhaps a better question is this......

If this administration is Republican, and Republicans are conservative and like small government, and they don't like to waste money........... why are we in record debt after a record surplus, why did Bush create the largest govenment in history, why can't people buy a house, and why has the price of oil gone up 6 fold since this admin took over. And...... why is it okay to spend 10 billion bucks a month on someone else's civil war, building walls between neighborhoods and calling it success, but we can't find the money to build new levees in New Orleans? And why is it okay to get over 4,000 of your kids killed and another 35,000 maimed in order to thump people that did not kill the 2,000 Americans on 911. Conservatives????? George Bush and cronies are anything but.

What they're conserving are their own capital investments.  Everyone else is part of the "you're-on-your-ownership" economy. 

The GOP of today is NOTHING like the GOP of Lincolns time... actually they were called the Whigs.  The Whigs are more in line with the Democrat party of today and the GOP of today are more in line with the Democrat party of that time.  And by the way, Lincoln had EXTREME reservations about freeing the blacks but did so because the Whigs were frightened that the blacks and the poor whites (who were a hair higher than a slave) would get together and pose an economic threat to the elite business owners of the time.   If you want to know the GOP of today, look no further than Nixon (total FAILURE) and Ronald Regean (TOTAL FAILURE) gwb sr (total failure) Ford (another total failure and last but certainly not least, gwb jr... the WORST president in our nations history.

Please, Rick, it's "Democratic Party." 

.

Lincoln ran as a Republican, not a Whig.  [Edit:  for President, I mean, he'd been a Whig previously in Illinois before the party ended.]  Different time, different group.

Adam: Birth control=Abortion Sucking out the brains of the unborn    You damn RIGHT

Sex ED for teens allowing them to get Abortions without Parents and can't get a aspin You Damn Right

Quit teaching it's Right

Torture against a Ememy without a Uniform You Damn Right

Habeus Corpus for Illgeals and no uniform you Damn Right Adam

Monopolies= against Blood sucking Unions

Yes thats a Republican

Ron=Allred

Thanks for reminding us that 50% of the population lies beneath the average intelligence, Ron.

AllRED,  thanks for so succinctly making my point.

Mattloch, the percentage below average is actually *MORE* than 50 percent.  Explains a couple of  recent presidential elections, no?

Truth be told, the Democrat Woodrow Wilson, while he had some virtues, was also a virulent racist. Sadly.

Pawnthyself,

I don't have McCain's phone number sadly but I do have his Kern County Coordinator's' number, (thanks Bakersfield Californian. they printed it),But I got to tell you there is a reason that Huckster didn't get elected. Is because we don't elect eloquent, substance free candidates that favors policies that the majority of Americans do not agree with.

Look JFrancais mentioned earlier, Democrats promise a lot but never deliver. Poor and minority groups have been voting democratic for years, where has it got them? No where, because their policies only ensure poor stay poor and lower society as a whole. They won't admit it but look in a book, I recommend "free to choose" by friedmen. It was one of the first books I really learned from. Unlike the crap they get you to read in liberal classes it will teach you something...

 In fact the only Democratic Presidents I think people really like were Kennedy and Clinton, Kennedy was a Republican and Clinton served during a Republican congress that forced him to do things for the people. Before people say no that's not true do a little research my liberal friends. I could be wrong but Im pretty sure the rest who acted like Dems were crap...carter for example.

Your right and any one else that thinks that our party needs to start acting right. A lot of Repubs I know love bush even though he is not a conservative guy, spending, immigration, to name a few things, there's plenty. But the point is we need to elect men that will do what they say, that serve as an elected official not just are an elected official. Bush has done good things too, although you won't here that from most critics, but the facts are irrefutable. Anyways,

Until we do, until we start acting the way republicans should and have acted, everything I mentioned above, we will not be right, we will not be our party and we help our party to be attacked by guys that have little to no knowledge of whats going on.

That's when you get told things like republicans don't fight for women's rights, Lincoln one of the greatest presidents didn't want to free the slaves and whatever other ridiculous accusations that get made, etc,,,look above for examples, usually I would point to Random Factor but he really is just repeating what he knows to be true and has probably told repeatedly by "educated people". But look at the newest contender for most miss informed, the poster named "Rickworth".

Oh and I think the veep is a consideration for any president regardless of age, whether McCain or anyone else. The veep could be president if anything were to happen. I don't think its an issue. I'm with you on the huckabee thing. It won't be him but if it is, it would be a poor choice. The veep will be some one that delivers McCain a swing state and can help where McCain is perceived to be weak by critics. age and econ....

Shrub also had a Republican congress for six years, BS.  Why didn't *THEY* force him to do things for the people?

McCain's numbers are 202-224-2235; 602-952-2410; 40-897-6289; and 520-670-6334, according to his Senate page. There are a lot of Arizonans hoping he'll become prez...they'd like to get him out of state, a la Texas and Bush. Plus, the Democratic governor will get to appoint a successor. Heh.

How ironic: BS writes, "the facts are irrefutable" and yet, he continues to post nonsense. BS, indeed.

I could be wrong but

Yeah, you are. 

But yes, compared to today, Kennedy would be a "good" Republican.  Nixon, at his best, was a good Democrat (except for his lapses into Republicanism known collectively as "Watergate.")  Clinton was the best Republican president the country's seen for 50 years in terms of the economy--Shrub would've been a much better president if he'd just followed Bill's economic playbook instead of his little black book. 

There is no evil or virtuous political party.  Both have good and bad elements to them.

McCain will not bring about armageddon if he's elected, believe it or not.  Neither will Obama.

Neither man be able to bring about a Rooseveltian type change in America.

Whoever gets elected in 2008 will carry the burden of the last administraton's mistakes.

It will be the nominee in 2012 who will make real change.

That person will be Hillary Clinton.

" In fact the only Democratic Presidents I think people really like were Kennedy and Clinton"...

Well, let's see, there was some guy popularly known as FDR, the only U.S. president elected to four terms. There was Truman, disliked in his time and now recognized as a pretty good president for his day (and whose policies included, harumph, INTEGRATING the military and the beginnings of desegregating schools...credit Eisenhower all you want, but Truman is the president who started it)...Johnson, who was foolish enough to not end an unpopular war, but insured the gains of the civil rights movement would be permanent.

Meanwhile, Reagan, who is still extolled by your party as some kind of wonderful leader, greatly increased the deficit, and signed into law the largest tax increase in history when it was clear HIS policies didn't, you know, actually work.

I certainly never said Republicans never fought for women's rights, but there was more support for it on the left than on the right. Lincoln was also a consummate politician who was frequently "misunderestimated". He said during one of the Lincoln-Douglass debates that he had no intention of freeing slaves. He also did issue the Emancipation Proclamation, which, despite what you say you were taught, didn't free the slaves. It took amending the Constitution to do that, which, you know, involved Congress and the general populace.

And your use of the term "miss informed" is cause for hilarity or sadness. Or both.

Audrey, I'm sorry to tell you that Hillary Clinton will not challenge Obama for the nomination in 2012, just as McCain didn't run against Shrub in 2004.  I wish it were otherwise; I wish she'd run the kind of campaign Obama did and won the nomination, but she came in second.  It was a basic, day-one mistake on her part and it cost her badly.  I hope she does the best job she can for the country in the Senate.

.

Mc894 won't bring about Armageddon because it's a fictitious term.  But neither will he make any headway against global warming, which comes close, and we haven't got the time to waste.  His economic policies--do the same stuff that got us into this mess--are Einstein's definition of insanity.

And attacking Iran, as Shrub and his mini-me protege are itching to do, will double our casualty rate in Iraq, which would be bad enough.

Edwards endorsing Obama today--NBC News.

Random

Sorry to tell you, but Obama won't be the candidate.  She''ll be challenging the incumbent, McCain.

Haven't you been watching the news.  Obama has been taking the traditional liberal blue areas.  Hillary won the traditionally conservative red areas.

The democrat couldn't  beat the republican in 2000 or 2004 because of those pesky red areas.  Chances are, they won't take them in 2008 either.

30% of the voters in yesterdays primary said they would not vote for Obama. 

Sorry Charlie

"Yesterday's primary" was in *WEST VIRGINIA*.  And Obama *STILL* got two thousand more votes than did McCain, who took 76 percent of the Republican vote. 

.

"Traditional liberal blue areas" like Kansas?  Obama's electoral college map looks different from Clinton's, and that's a *GOOD* thing for the party. 

And the republicans would bother to vote, WHY?

You're grasping at straws.

And the Democrats would bother to vote, why?  Obama is the nominee.  I'm glad Clinton got the victory, as she's a valuable part of the Democratic Party.  But the race is over.