You're absolutely correct. The Republican Party was formed in 1854 largely as an anti-slavery alternative to the Democrats.
The modern Republicans are the ones who want to keep the "slaves" (i.e. the poor and middle-class) on the figurative plantation in order to subsidize and support the lifestyle and tax-cuts for the super-wealthy who, in turn, bankroll the Republican Party as an instrument of their will.
Of course, the Republicans can't maintain rule by rich men's votes alone; they need millions of votes from the very people whose lives are made precarious and miserable by virtue of the policies the G.O.P. advocates and enacts.
So, what do they do? They extend token tax-cuts to the middle-class in a phony-baloney show of "sharing the prosperity and concern" for Joe Working-stiff and flog "wedge" issues like gay marriage and flag-burning, claiming that the sky's going to fall in if the Republicans aren't there to stop them dead in their tracks.
Then, for the most hostile audience of all -- African-Americans -- whose votes are really, really hard to come by, the Republicans crack open Lincoln's coffin, put the embalmed corpse of Honest Abe up in front of a bunch of Black Baptists like the dead El Cid on his horse, and "remind" them that the Republicans are "the Party of Lincoln."
Well, the Republicans ARE the party of Lincoln...and Cadillac, and Mercedes, BMW, and Hummer. But -- in Abe's words, "Of the People, By the People, and For the People, they are NOT.
2006-07-25 13:33:38
·
answer #1
·
answered by The Sage on the Hudson 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
Liberal ahd a different meaning in the 19th Century than it does now.
While Lincoln was deemed Liberal in his day a lot of his ideals fit the Conservative mold.
Heck Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was more Conservative than Jesse Jackson even if Dr. King was not a full Conservative.
The GOP is still the Party of Lincoln and it is no wonder Black Republicans are better off than Black Democrats (because Black Republicans have applied the principles of George Washington Carver and Booker T. Washington as well as making better application of good points from Dr. King)
2006-07-25 13:29:37
·
answer #2
·
answered by MrCool1978 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think GWB suggested today's Republican party wasn't carrying the torch of Lincoln's GOP by supporting equal rights for all minorities (as Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation sought to establish). I think he said basically that the GOP had failed to take into account the importance of this voting bloc and its contributions to the party and to the republic. He made it a point that the GOP must re-engage the African American community in a positive cooperative way.
I was surprised at what he said, but couldn't really disagree with his take on the historic GOP treatment of the African American vote post WW2. Surprised because GWB really didn't pursue that voting bloc in '00 or '04. His initiation of reconciliation is important in the next two voting cycles, where every vote counts for the GOP. It may be the start of something, or just a lot of hot air, but no doubt the GOP needs to pry votes away from every Democratic base it can to even hope to do okay in the mid terms.
We shall see!
2006-07-25 13:28:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by rohannesian 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The democratic party would not be considered conservative. The entire spectrum is shifting left - There is no right side left on the American political spectrum if you compare it to the mid 1800's
Bush is trying to get re-elected - no one has told him yet that he's limited to 2 terms. Everyone has decided to get in on the joke and not tell him until the next President has to evict him. That will be the biggest shocker since he found out he was supposed to have been in the National Guard.
2006-07-25 13:21:28
·
answer #4
·
answered by jjttkbford 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
For years the GOP ignored the black vote beginning in 1968 with the southen strategy to be party of whites. The GOP of Lincoln would reject Bush and neo Conservatives.
2006-07-26 04:20:21
·
answer #5
·
answered by murraystate69 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
First, he did not compare the two parties...he said the party of Lincoln.....listen and don't try changing the wording to spin things....nice try, but even a conservative could ahve caught that blunder of yours.....
2006-07-25 13:25:45
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I didn't hear the speech and you didn't give any details. The Emancipation Proclamation comes to mind.
2006-07-25 13:20:10
·
answer #7
·
answered by STEVEN F 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
They laughed at Bush, and said they don't trust him. The whole thing is on film.
2006-07-25 13:44:26
·
answer #8
·
answered by Rita B 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ask Ethan, he's trying the same thing..
Just another B.S. spin, trying to take the Liberal's credit..
2006-07-25 13:18:30
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
When Bush was giving that speach I could tell he was lying, it was easy, his lips were moving.
2006-07-25 13:37:04
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋