but avoid the second one like the plague?
Is it because on the first one they were proud to call themselves "state-rights" Republicans, but the second one reminded everybody that previously it was the racist conservative Southern Dixiecrat Party who were for "state-rights"?
The northeastern RADICAL / PROGRESSIVE / LIBERAL Republican Party of Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Nelson Rockefeller, on the other hand, used the power of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to free the slaves, protect the environment, break up monopolies, regulate big business, help the American worker, and give equal rights to minorities.
It kind of blows their "we're still the Party of Lincoln eventhough we fly the confederate flag and most of our leadership comes from the South" idea out of the water doesn't it?
2007-07-11
07:23:51
·
8 answers
·
asked by
trovalta_stinks_2
3
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Is the Republican Party for state-rights or centralized federal power?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ale3mzFCt_Z5JRfrlmgOC.3sy6IX?qid=20070711095708AAE2aIu
When did the Republican Party offically become the "state-rights" party?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ai6QgHxA8q8YH9y9ncDsZr_sy6IX?qid=20070711101516AA33x9P
2007-07-11
07:23:59 ·
update #1
I live,
Nelson Rockefeller was a liberal Republican from New York.
2007-07-11
07:30:34 ·
update #2
southernly,
You did not answer the 2nd question because you know it makes cons look bad. I purposely thought of asking these two questions one after the other.
I wanted cons to admit they were state-rights which they promptly did and then ask them how can they be for state rights and claim to be the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt and Nelson Rockefeller when obviously these guys were not.
2007-07-11
09:14:12 ·
update #3