Bush is back!

Ya know, I think they need to come up with a new name for the so-called modern Republican Party. Whatever this crowd represents, it ain't the principles upon which the party was founded. I mean, Jefferson was a Republican. He's gotta be spinning in his grave at what his party has become - 180 degrees opposite from what it started out to be.Maybe we can make some suggestions:Americans for the Integration of Church and State Party
Americans United for Really Intrusive Government Party
American Fundamentalist Neo-Fascist Party
American Jihadist Party
Crusaders for a Christian World Party
All Your Bases Are Belong to Us or Else Party
Anti-democracy Theocratic Union Party
United Fiscal Irresponsibility PartyAh well, I guess truth-in-advertising laws don't apply to politics. Pity, tho'.Oh, and by the way, I am a Republican a la Jefferson - although without his extreme states-rights baggage. Have been since I joined the Young Republicans at age 16. I also voted for Kerry (for what that was worth).

Weell, not to disagree with Coragyps - usually a fatal experience - but the names are historical, not nicknames. Jefferson's original party, the Democrat Republicans, was formed from a coalition of anti-Federalist (the "other" party of at the time, lead by Hamilton and Adams) groups that thought the idea of a strong central government was tyrannical. It mostly appeared following passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts in the late 18th Century as a relatively cohesive group. The first Democrat-Republican president was Thomas Jefferson, followed by Madison and Monroe. They believed in democracy (hence that sobriquet) and small government (hence the republican part), liberalism, slashing the national debt, eliminating Hamilton's central bank, etc. The party imploded in 1824 - the first election where the electoral college was chosen by popular vote, and the first time the popular vote had been recorded. The name was shortened to Democrat, with most of the opposition (and many former Democrat-Republicans) coalescing around the Whig party (see, we used to have one, too).A new more-or-less modern (pre-Reagan) form of Republican Party appeared around 1854, more or less from a collection of abolitionist groups. Lincoln was their first president. The party held on to power until Wilson and WWI. The latest (neo-neo Republican?) appeared around the time of Ronald Reagan (actually, late '70s) when the power of the up-to-that-point-marginal ultra-religious wing of the party gained ascendency. This faction now utterly controls the platform and party. So it's time to change the name again...edited to add: BTW, Jefferson was demonized by his opponents in that election as "un-Christian", citing his avowed deism as grounds for not allowing him to become president. Plus a change, plus c'est la mme chose. This message has been edited by Quetzal, 11-03-2004 10:14 AM

Hey, that could work. However, the question remains, which one is which?

Jar,I have to disagree, although I applaud the sentiments. The time for Christians to stand up is now past. Just like the time for those of us who are True Republicans (tm) is also, unfortunately, past; in our case, 20 years past. We have simply failed to do what we should have been doing all along - electing moderate Republicans to Congress and fighting to regain control of the party from the fundamentalist neoconservatives. It feels like we weren't paying attention and woke up one morning to learn we had been hijacked. The last brief shining moment of the Grand Old Party came in the early '80s when the remnants of the party managed to pass the first balanced budget ammendment ever.Democrats, IMO, also bear some responsibility for what can only be described as a debacle. Next time, try and find a presidential candidate that is more than a "not-A". It's been accepted political wisdom for generations that you can't win against an incumbent during a time of crisis - real or manufactured - unless the candidate you put forward is absolutely stellar in comparison. Kerry probably wouldn't have been a bad president. However, it certainly isn't clear he would've been a really outstanding one, either. And that's what you all needed to put forward. A vs B rather than A vs not-A. To say I am disappointed with the election results would be an understatement. Unsurprised given the candidate, but disappointed.You now have four years to get your collective acts together. Make your choices carefully. Meanwhile, the five or six of us that remain true to the original Republican Party principles will try and get at least one reasonable old-style conservative elected to something more critical than local dog catcher.

Moose,My recollection from the period is that Bush Sr initiated fairly sweeping Defense cutbacks, supported by both sides of the house. I'm not sure they were particularly directed at intelligence - mostly "peace dividend" (ain't that a load of...) issues from the end of the Cold War. These cutbacks included significant RIFs in the active military divisions, substantial realignment of the reserve and national guard elements, a streamlining/reorganization of combatant and administrative commands, accelerated base closures, elimination or scale-back of major weapons procurement actions and R&D, and even a provision that DARPA could work on "commercializable" projects as well as Defense-related projects. Probably the most sweeping defense reduction since demobilization at the end of WWII.The problem, as usual, is that the US went too far and too deeply and in the absolute wrong direction: cutting combat power vice streamlining existing processes and commands.

Well said, my friend. My emphasis is to show how badly far astray the neocons have gone from what the GOP was founded upon! You forgot to mention creating a self-perpetuating and self-governing federal agency that is deeply intrusive into individuals' lives thereby obliterating any pretense of maintaining the principle of individual liberty. We won't even discuss federal legislation - including constitutional amendments - which also seek to restrict and constrain individual liberty.

Hee hee. I thought that the blatantly anti-gay stance of the GOP platform was going to do that. When the Log Cabin Republicans refused to endorse (only temporarily, unfortunately) Bush, I said to myself "Yeah, that's it. That's the beginning of the end. Just like 1824." Of course, I was wrong - it came down to partisanship and "vote Republican right or wrong" again. I even emailed Patrick Guerriero to congratulate him on the LCR's decision before they more or less reversed themselves. The problem now is even folks like McCain and Schwarzenegger aren't willing or able to openly oppose the neocon majority in the party. It's going to take something really major, and I don't know what that would be.