Posted on 12/14/2004 1:52:47 PM PST by slowhand520
Hopefully this trend will last
By E&P Staff
Published: December 14, 2004 5:00 PM ET
NEW YORK Even as a new Gallup poll shows that the public values “values” less than November exit polls suggested, another survey from the same outfit released today showed a historic surge in Republican party affiliation.
In Gallup's latest poll this month, those identifying themselves as Republicans jumped to 37% of the public, with Democrats now clearly trailing with 32%.
Democrats have long held more party members than Republicans. During the Clinton years, the bulge was about 5% to 6%. As recently as late-October of this year the Democratic edge was 37% to 34%.
Gallup noted today: “Post-election shifts in partisanship after presidential elections or midterm congressional elections are not routine, but are also not uncommon.”
Another Gallup poll also released today showed that, contrary to many press reports, “values” ranked well behind the war in Iraq, terrorism and the economy as a prime concern of Americans.
If this was posted already sorry.
Current day federalists do not believe the federal government has too little power. Both federalists and anti-federalists believed in limited government. But the federalists wanted a federal government with a limited # of powers. If the anti-federalists had won we would have something much more like the articles of confederation and wouldn't have achieved the success that being a unified country with a single system of commerce provided. We have gone far far beyond the limited powers the federalists granted the federal government in the constitution. The federalist society is a major legal organization that pushes for federal judges who will interpret the constitution in its original limited form. It is not the federalists you should be at war with.
I think many on this forum who believe federalism promotes a government with more federal power or believe that Lincoln did not attack state's rights, limited government, and federalism read this article.
http://jala.press.uiuc.edu/10/benedict.html
I am confused as to your point. I said that anyone who thinks Lincoln didn't ride roughshod over with either stupid or dishonest. That seems to be in agreement with you. Lincoln hurt federalism which is synonymous with limited government and states rights. If you disagree with that let me know, and I will argue my point.
To answer you question point blank... I agree Lincoln rode roughshod over federalism.
You are the one who obviously did not read my comment fully or use reason, as I agreed with you. Lincoln did attack state rights. My comment supported your position.
I agree. The end did not justify the means. But with you I am trying to make a point that you are a basically a federalist. That article goes through a few points of the basic beliefs of federalists and I think you would agree with all of them. I consider myself a federalist. Lincoln attacked federalism. Some argue the end justified the means. I don't agree, that is why I am a federalist. I believe in limited government and states rights as federalists do. I think are opinions are the same we just disagree over the definition of federalism.
Here is the definition of federalism from the webster dictionary:
the distribution of power in an organization (as a government) between a central authority and the constituent units -- compare CENTRALISM
Federalism is a belief in a seperate of powers, while centralism is a belief in a single holder of power.
By that definition I think you would be a federalist. I will concede that the definition may have changed somewhat since the time of the federalists and the anti-federalists.
My mistake.....I forgot you weren't a very deep thinker so I can see why my comments didn't resonate. What you fail to realize is that the Rep.(& Dem.) cheerleaders for the business establishment have created their own new, improved brand of corporate socialism which has been slickly packaged & sold to the gullible public by the usual useful idiots in the media. How does one explain the creation of fedgov programs like AID, OPIC, etc. that've used taxpayer $ to help assist corporations to fire American workers, close US operations and move their mfg. to third world countries?
What term best describes the current immigration mess where companies can now let go American workers making a decent wage and then break federal law by hiring illegals at minimal wages, evade a bunch of payroll taxes all the while knowing some of their new employee's living expenses will be paid for by taxpayer $? Now, I don't know what kind of "catchy" term you may want to apply to these situations but if walks & talks like a duck, I'm sure even you can figure out it just might be a duck.....in other words these policies are at the least socialistic in nature and some would even characterize them as being fascist.
Sorry, you can claim the Rep's are conservative all you want but when I see their sorry track record on immigration, fiscal responsibility, ill conceived trade deals, etc. that's a joke.
You need to study the history of American politics in more depth. Today's Republican Party is *vastly* more conservative and less socialistic than was the Republican Party of 1920 or even 1970.
In 1920, a Republican Governor had already formed a state-owned bank and grain mill to compete against private enterprise, as well as ban citizens from drinking booze. By the 1930's Republicans went along with FDR's plan to ban citizens from owning gold. By the 1940's, our government was *prohibiting* citizens from storing too much meat or chocolate in their kitchen pantries. Forced racial segregation was state and national law. By the 1970's, Republicans had given us the EPA, Affirmative Action, and the registration of all machine guns.
The Republican Party of 1975 would have *never* agreed to President Bush's current demands to privatize Social Security, and they would have gone into open revolt against President Bush's executive order that put half a million or more government jobs up for open bidding by private industry.
Gold is legal for Americans to own again. Segregation is a vestage of the past. There's no more food rationing. We can drink booze again. Women have the right to vote now, and Nixon's wage and price control are long gone. The military draft is gone, too.
Moreover, our modern free trade agreements and policies are a far cry from Socialism.
We've come a long way. You'd have to be uneducated on this subject to see how far the Republican Party has shifted from Socialism to Capitalism and Conservatism.
...That's not to say that the Republican Party is 100% capitalistic or conservative, but rather, is to say that we're much more capitalistic and conservative today than at any point in our past. Our dividends are now almost untaxed. Our income taxes have been cut 3 times in a row in the past 3 years. We've banned Partial Birth Abortion.
That's conservative. That's capitalistic.
It is you who suffers from a complete lack of understanding here. It is apparently your contention that because an attack on States Rights occurred before Lincoln was president, it must follow that Lincoln was an ardent defender of States Rights. I have no quarrel with your position that the Compromise of 1850 was an attack on States Rights. But just because Lincoln had no part of the compromise doesn't mean he believed in States rights either.
Just as John Kerry wasn't in the Senate at the inception of the Social Security Act, doesn't mean he believes any differently that Social Security is a successful government program.
How's that GOP kool-aid, Southack?
That's not my contention at all. I never argued that Lincoln was a staunch supporter of federalism. In fact, I would never be the one to make that claim.
I pointed to The Compromise of 1850 as evidence that an attack on federalism had already occurred some years before Lincoln was elected President. It sounds as if everyone thinks that the attack on federalism began with Lincoln.
I, again, pointed to The Compromise of 1850 to show that that is far from the truth.
Fair enough. But the Compromise you point to didn't involve an invasion of Federal troops. That's my contention. Violations against States' Rights have ensued at various points throughout our history. But it was Lincoln who took it farther than anyone before or since.
How's that fringe-party bridge, troll?
Apples and oranges. A violation is a violation, no matter what degree. If federalism is to be adhered to, then it must be adhered to as a principle above all else.
If it is only adhered to when it suits those who gain by upholding it, it becomes meaningless and hypocrisy.
Not really. Federal troops had been used to supress a rebellion long before Lincoln was even born.
History must not be your strong suit.
The Whiskey Rebellion
George Washington's Proclamation calling
Out The Militia To Occupy the
Western Counties of Pennsylvania
As It Appears In the August 11, 1794 issue of Claypoole's Daily Advertiser
- Angered by an excise tax imposed on whiskey in 1791 by the federal government, farmers in the western counties of Pennsylvania engaged in a series of attacks on excise agents. The tariff effectively eliminated any profit by the farmers from the sale or barter of an important cash crop, and became the lightning rod for a wide variety of grievances by the settlers of the region against the federal government.
- While citizens in the east did not find it difficult to abide by the concept that individual states were "subservient to the country," people west of the mountains were less accepting of decisions made by the central government.
- The rebel farmers continued their attacks, rioting in river towns and roughing up tax collectors until the so-called "insurrection" flared into the open in July of 1794 when a federal marshal was attacked in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Almost at the same time several hundred men attacked the residence of the regional inspector, burning his home, barn and several outbuildings. Pittsburgh was another scene of disorder by enraged mobs.
- On August 7, 1794 President Washington issued a proclamation, calling out the militia and ordering the disaffected westerners to return to their homes. Washington's order mobilized an army of approximately 13,000-- as large as the one that had defeated the British-- under the command of General Harry Lee, the then-Governor of Virginia and father of Robert E. Lee. Washington himself, in a show of presidential authority, set out at the head of the troops to suppress the uprising.
- This was the first use of the Militia Law of 1792 setting a precedent for the use of the militia to "execute the laws of the union, (and) suppress insurrections," asserting the right of the national government to enforce order in one state with troops raised in other states. Even more importantly, it was the first test of power of the new federal government, establishing its primacy in disputes with individual states. In the end, a dozen or so men were arrested, sent to Philadelphia to trial and released after pardons by Washington.
I agree - I always have to keep reminding myself that the Republican governor here in CA is... "not quite as bad" as the other guy. It's not a very satisfying situation.
I like to hope that there are other parts of the country that are not as crazy. Don't know if that's so or not...
Interesting post
The United States is still the land of opportunity. It is not cool to be complaining and whining all the time about everything under the sun. It is cool to get busy and take advantage of the opportunities in this country. Maybe that is why people do not want to be Democrats who are losing elections, they want to be winners.
Way to contradict your own statement from one sentence to the next. First it's apples and oranges. Then, "a violation is a violation." Which is it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.