Can the GOP strip the Presidents party affiliation?

Answer 1

Yes, if they so desired they can strip him of his party affiliation. Of course that just means he would no longer have voting powers to determine policy for the Republican party nor to vote on candidates or select delegates and such. Anyone can say they affiliate themselves with a party but it's different to be a card-carrying member. It is this official status that can be revoked.

Answer 2

Short answer is: no

We have to make a lot of assumptions, here, but, lets pretend the the Republican Party (National) decides that the president is no longer representing the values they believe in.

They can do nothing about the president's office, since he was elected by the people of the country. What they CAN do is pull out any funding they may have made available for his campaigns. Since the president is serving his second term, there is not likely to be any campainging, so this move does nothing for the prez.

It may be a more significan threat if Mr. Buch decided to run for another office, for instance, senator. Without Republican campain funds, he would have to raise money for himself.

Remember this. George Bush could still call himself a Republican. No one can tell him he is not. He just wouldn't get any funding from the party.

How many "Republicans" carry membership cards? Ain't no such thing. You affiliate by stating your affiliation. You do not join anything. It is not like a Communist Party or Nazi Party situation, where you had to join and carry an ID that proves you join to get a job.

Answer 3

Sure they can just like the Democrats did with Zell Miller. And here's how it happens. Liberals hijack the party and shut out the moderates and conservatives. Any one who has the balls to denounce what the liberals are doing gets accused to being a traitor and verbally chastized.

Oh and did I mention they start losing elections because their base has no choice but to vote for the other side. If you doubt what I just said look at the election records from 1994 till today? 1994 Democrats lost BOTH Houses of Congress and haven't taken it back yet. In 2000 Democrats let a nobody from Texas beat their champion. They didn't do any better in 2004, the stupid idiot from Texas beat them again.

I actually hope the Democrats take back at least one of the Houses of Congress. If they don't what are they going to use for a mantra in 2008? They won't have that stupid Texan to complain about because he won't be running. What are they going to run on? Their accomplishments since 1994? They haven't got any. Their goals for the future? They don't have any of those either.

As dismal as the Republicans record is, the Democrats record is worse. Give me some good choices this time. The last ones inhaled.

Answer 4

Not that I'm aware of.

I have heard of a President giving up his party affiliation, though; Teddy Roosevelt left the GOP to form his own party.

And one President, Geroge Washington, had NO party affiliation.

Answer 5

A political party may refuse to support or endorse someone. Whether or not that is justified is always up for interpretation. But the party cannot nullify ones allegiance to that party. Just like someone may take my flag away; but they cannot take away my allegiance/affiliation to that which the flag stands for.

Answer 6

Why would they want to; they are all cut from the same cloth!

Regrettably, only someone as liberal as GW Bush will be able to turn back the hands of time with respect to the wholesale disaster that has been visited on our Republic.

Of course, such a person would have to be ideologically disposed so to do -- and that isn't going to happen. We have passed the tipping point and will descend ultimately into a second "civil war" -- it is now only a matter of time.

Our Second Civil War will be incalculably worse than the first, not merely on account of population increases, population density increases, the distribution of "modern" weapons and the potential for environmental catastrophes: the chief reason it will be worse is because it won't be fought between two organized factions enforcing discipline among their respective ranks -- it will be a mayhem free-for-all.

That such an inevitability is preventable no longer matters: the People WANT to be subject to the whims of a totalitarian dictator, and they won't rest until freedom is eliminated.

If you believe in the ideals of freedom and liberty, you are among the people subscribing to the notion of self-governance; you reject the incursion of the state into personal matters not characterized by actual damage to another person.

If you believe in the ideals of freedom and liberty, you believe also that every institutional government -- however constituted and organized, regardless whether it is by nature secular or ecclesiastical or some other classification -- ought never to have such strength as to present a credible threat against its subjects attempting to overthrow it.

Each person:
1) ought to govern his or her own behavior,
2) ought to live peaceably with every other person,
3) ought by example to lead his or her offspring to care for the less fortunate,
4) ought to freely accept every sexual act predicated on consent, and
5) ought to distinguish between marriage (which is personal to the parties therein), wedding (a ceremonial process having no enforceable meaning whatsoever, that MAY be governed by tradition or institutional regulation, but that also may be entirely the product of the imaginations of the parties thereto), and civil union (whereby is established the legal rights of the parties to their combined estate).

It should be extraordinarily difficult for persons to be joined in civil union, and divorce should be extraordinarily simple.

There should exist discrimination against neither unmarried persons, nor monogamous persons, nor polygamous persons, nor persons in a closed marriage, nor persons in an open marriage -- regardless whether any such marriage is recognized by any institution, and without respect to any institution by which such marriage is recognized.

Acts of God notwithstanding, the right to life should be absolute: there should be neither any elective abortion nor any sentence of death. The law has long recognized that doctors are sometimes forced to make fateful decisions, and has immunized them against liability for injuries and deaths arising from their legitimate performance of triage and/or other competently-performed lifesaving work. Such immunization ought not be changed.

Tort and bankruptcy laws need to be rolled back to where they were in 1999. If we lower the inheritance tax (which Republicans call the "death tax"), we need to confiscate all material wealth and residtribute it equally among the People -- an utterly unworkable proposition, but required in the interest of ethics.

We should have BOTH a minimum wage, AND a cap on combined earnings and benefits that ties the maximum combined earnings and benefits to the minimum combined earnings and benefits: that's the only way to reach an equitable distribution of wealth.

Again: it'll never happen, because the People would rather be slaves than free -- and they will assert their power to ascertain that as many as they are able to dominate are likewise forced under the yoke: they don't want to be free, and they won't allow anyone subject to their influence to be free.

Though they delude themselves with vain imaginations of their freedom, most often pointing to suffrage and the democratic process as their proofs, they merely choose between political and economic overlords: nothing changes in any meaningful and significant way, except for the worse.

The GOP would more likely decorate GW as a hero of the new Reich, than to strip him of his party affiliation.

Answer 7

Why would they want to? Despite what you read on here, Republicans are pretty happy with this President.

Answer 8

We will have the Right.
The far Right.
The ridiculously far Right.
The so far Right that you can't go any further Right.
And the President's new category:

He's so far Right he is now Left.

Answer 9

I see your frustration. 2 options: impeach or wait and vote for a true conservative in 2008.

Answer 10

I don't think so because your party is your choice