Last modified on July 19, 2019, at 21:36

Talk:Republican Party

Return to "Republican Party" page.

Contemporary Party

The contemporary Republican Party represents a wide array of interests such as the conservative evangelicals and the economic libertarians. The party has had some internal conflict over attitudes about how governments should run and how large they should be, what the party stands for, and what the party's attitude towards neo-conservatism should be especially in regard to foreign policy. The party is also divided over immigration issues with some members (such as George Bush) favoring workers visas and permits and some other members favoring strict control of immigration and strong action against illegal immigration. Recently, in what is seen as a slight change in policy direction, the Republican Party has taken on several of the tenets of national socialism. " Go Jesus!!!!!

This is getting worse than Wiki.....

--TK 19:45, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

FYI: "Wiki" refers to the type of software used. Conservapedia is a "Wiki". --Hojimachongtalk 19:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

LOL...That's the Trouble with being Ernest. I think people know what I meant. --TK 20:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't we put a "criticism" section in the article, like in the Democratic Party article? Seems to me that would be a fair and balanced approach to the topic.McTavidge 23:36, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

It probably won't matter until someone has reasoned, meaningful criticism to add. Being as this is Conservapedia, a serious criticism isn't extraordinarily likely to come from a serious contributor... you'd have it largely used for vandalism, or the criticisms presented would probably be deleted in short order. Zondergard

Yes, where is the CRITICISM section?? I respect that the editors want to slant the information to the right wherever possible, but the misalignment between the two party pages only makes this site look like a farse.

I suspect these will probably be removed by nervous conservative moderators. Nevertheless, here a few common criticisms the Republican Party:

1) The Republican Party is often jokingly called "pro-pollution" in that they vigorously fight policies on environmental reforms. This is most apparent in the current Global Warming debates. These positions are due in large part to the party's long-standing ties with the energy sector and their lobbyists. The current president and his vice president, for example, are both former oil company executives.

To be fair here: The Clean Air Act(s) were constructed under (mainly) Republican presidents. Ike, (Kennedy/Johnson) Nixon and Bush I.[1] The Clean Water Act under Nixon, passed under Carter,[2], updated under Bush II [3] Crackertalk 12:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

2) The current administration has pushed the national debt to record levels due to excessive spending on its highly contentious war. Such practices go against the GOP's standard positions on big government and high taxes.

  • I would love to provide you with answers, but since you didn't sign your post, I can't very well answer no one. --TK 11:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Why such difference between the articles about the democratic and the republican party?

Let's see, in the article about the democratic party, it says:

"On the other hand, several planks of the Democratic Party's platform - most notably, the party's support for the legality of abortion - are contrary to Catholic teaching."

When talking about some of the democrats being catholic. Why isnt it included here that some republicans think of themselves as catholic, yet the republican party is for the death penalty when the catholic church is against it?

The overall differences between the articles is just laughable.

  • I agree...and it did make me laugh!

Democrats: "Views and Criticism"

Republicans: "Ideology" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plutoisstillaplanet (talk)16:07, 8 April 2008

  • Well, this is the ConservaPedia....its outlook is announced in its name, no? One cannot look at either party without seeing the secular agenda of the Democrat platform, which is certainly, according to hundreds of polls, out-of-step with the majority of Democrats out there. --TK 21:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

New Deal was a success?

That's certainly news to me. Most historical analysis has shown that FDR's policies likely prolonged the Great Depression much longer than it otherwise would have been. Too bad this article is locked so people can't correct the liberal bias in it.--Conservateur 14:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Dude. Are you serious? Liberal bias in this article? You're out of your mind if you think this article is anything other than laughably slanted to the right. GodlessLiberal 12:06, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Out of Date Information

Somebody should change the part about Republicans controlling congress to the present day as that isn't true anymore. GodWarrior 07:21, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Orphan Republican Primary

I think this 2008 Republican Primary should be linked here, fo example "see also" and end of article or something like that. --Aulis Eskola 20:04, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Andrew Johnson

Even though Andrew Johnson was a Southern Democrat, but he and Abraham Lincoln ran the President on the Union platform. I consider him as a Republican President.DLCAUS462 18:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Even though this can a beer in my hand is Milwuakee's Best, I consider it Guinness Stout. Wow. Even though the Volkswagen I drive is a Volkswagon, I consider it a BMW. Geez, liberalism and relativism really does work! RobS 18:32, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Seriously, TARS (Teen Age Republicans) consider Andrew Johnson as a Republican. DLCAUS462 17:21, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

Hey, iwant to, why can i not edit this page when i can edit the democrats?

Supporting Slavery

someone correct me if im wrong, but was the democratic party not the conservative party of the 1860's? and why isnt that mentioned anywhere? user:bushgreatorgreatest 14:27, 22 July 2007

  • If you have the citations and information, feel free to edit it in! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 19:48, 22 July 2007 (EDT)


I think this article should include an idology/criticism section similar to that on the democratic party page since the republican party is not free from criticism either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidan81 (talk)

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Probus1 (talk)

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. 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'--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). Rosalind 16:54, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

Good points. let's count TR in 1904. RJJensen 19:06, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

new history

I wrote the history section and previously posted it to Citizendium. 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. 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. --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 ????RJJensen 20:09, 23 September 2008 (EDT)


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. Concernedchris 10:08, 9 July 2009 (EDT)

I disagree. The paragraph is a good summary of the state of the GOP today. 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. Concernedchris 07:28, 21 July 2009 (EDT)


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? --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. --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. --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. RobS#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. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2016 (EST)


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.RobSCIA 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. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 22:21, 13 April 2017 (EDT)
I think your edit is helpful and an improvement. --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? RobSDeep 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. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:50, 15 February 2019 (EST)