Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Democrat Party -- 1828* - 2006 -- R.I.P.
Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 9 August 2006 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

Posted on 08/09/2006 10:40:08 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob

The Democrat Party died yesterday in Hartford, Connecticut. Present when this venerable institution breathed its last were a minority of the Democrats in the Nutmeg State. The Party was the child of the Republican-Democrat Party, and the Anti-Federalist Party. It leaves no known descendants. However, political parties sometimes spawn children many years after their deaths.

Is that verdict too harsh? The leaders of the Democrat Party in Washington, New York, and elsewhere, are not admitting even to a serious illness. It’s difficult to conduct a proper Irish wake when on-lookers insist on prodding the deceased to sing and dance.

These major political parties have held great power – usually including the Presidency and control of one or both Houses of Congress – only to disappear from the political stage, remembered in history books that no one reads any more: The Federalists, the Anti-Federalists, the Republican-Democrats....

Let’s review. The Democrats hold Jefferson-Jackson Dinners annually, claiming Jefferson as their progenitor. Crack open a history book. Read Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address. He founded the Republican-Democrat Party, which existed only during his two terms as President. Not only was he not a Democrat, he would have run screaming into the night rather than accept the levels of national power and taxation that modern Democrat espouse.

The Whigs, the Union Democrats, and the Liberal Republican Parties are also in the political graveyard, along with lesser-known cousins like the Anti-Masonic Party (held the first national political convention), the Know-Nothings, and the Progressives (the actual party which ran Teddy Roosevelt in 1912).

Since most reporters are grossly ignorant of American political history, they are unaware that political parties have often died, and others were born in their place. Not knowing that, they’re also unaware of the common cause of such political death. It happens when any party gets permanently crosswise from the American people on a critical issue. The Democrat Party has just crossed that divide.

Mind you, I am not making a brief for Joe Lieberman, personally. I liked and respected him when we were classmates at Yale, and when we worked together on The Yale Daily News. I supported him financially when he ran defeated Lowell Weicker for Senate. I lost all respect for Joe when he chose his party over his country, backing away from the Clinton Impeachment. (Because I thought Joe thoroughly honest, I’d written six months prior that I expected him to be the “honest Senator” as Goldwater was concerning President Nixon a quarter century before.)

But, when Joe came to that unique point where he alone could influence American history, for better or worse, Joe chose worse. No, I am not saying that the Democrat Party is dead because it failed to renominate Joe Lieberman for Senate from Connecticut. I’m saying the Party is dead because of who it did nominate, and how, for that slot.

Ned Lamont was the choice of the Connecticut Democrats. He’s a wealthy man who bought his nomination. This is a sad but spreading phenomenon in both parties. One reason I tend to distrust filthy-rich people who buy their way into office – regardless of their politics or party – is that they are disconnected from real life.

For instance, Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey simply forgave a half-million dollar mortgage on a house he bought for a lady friend. Since time immemorial, men have given gifts to women And it is true that Governor Corzine’s one-time bed mate had the additional advantage of being head of a large public service union. Still, anyone who can drop half a million dollars without blinking, for sex, politics, or both, is not living in the same world as I, or almost anyone I know.

Such people simply are not touched by worry about paying taxes, putting up with government regulation, or facing the myriad of real issues of real people. That brings us back to Ned Lamont. A prime mover in putting him into office was MoveOn.org. Rather than describe that outfit, I encourage every reader to go to their website. Read a sample of their policies; decide for yourself whether they are barking mad moonbats. While you’re at it, read up on George Soros, the eminence grise behind MoveOn, and various other financial puppet masters.

On foreign policy, Lamont follows former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, who in turn is Neville Chamberlain in drag. We are in a war. The war will to continue – and perhaps get worse – until America takes the lead worldwide, and does what is necessary to win that war. We can only hope the price for Lamont’s politics will be lower than the 50 million who died for Neville Chamberlain’s politics.

Does this assessment change, if Joe Lieberman gets elected as an “independent” come November? Not in the least. The mere nomination of Lamont shows the cut-and-run Murtha disease has now infected more than half of the Democrat Party. The only remaining questions are, how much time will it take, and how many tens of thousands, or millions of Americans, most of them civilians, will have to die before the Democrat Party as it now exists is actually buried in the history books. Only then can a more honest and competent party take its place – as has happened so often before in American history.

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." —Marcus Aurelius

- 30 -

* Note to editors who might question the 1828 date. In 1824, four candidates ran as “Democrats” including Jackson who placed first without a majority, and John Quincy Adams, who placed second but won in the House of Representatives. There were two other candidates, both “Democrats.” In short, the Democrat Party did not make a nomination in 1824. In 1828, Jackson did become the (first) presidential nominee of the Democratic Party.

- 30 -

About the Author: John Armor is a lawyer specializing in constitutional law, who may again be a candidate for Congress in the 11th District of North Carolina.

- 30 -


TOPICS: US: Connecticut; US: North Carolina
KEYWORDS: antifederalists; antimasonic; clinton; cutandrun; daralislam; democratparty; democrats; dhimmicrats; dnc; election2006; electionpresident; federalists; goldwater; history; joelieberman; joncorzine; knownothings; liberalrepublicans; liberals; lowellwiecker; madelinealbright; marcusaurelius; moveon; nedlamont; nevillechamberlain; nixon; progressives; republicandemocrat; teddyroosevelt; thomasjefferson; uniondemocrats; whigs; yaledailynews
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-96 next last
The subject is both timely and of obvious interest to Freepers. I think most of you will find the logic here to be probable.

John / Billybob

1 posted on 08/09/2006 10:40:12 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

The Kook-Fringe Party has been born. A recent poll showed that a third of Americans think the government had something to do with 9-11, so they have their base.


2 posted on 08/09/2006 10:47:58 AM PDT by GeronL (http://www.mises.org/story/1975 <--no such thing as a fairtax)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
The thing that struck me about Ned Lamont's victory celebration is the vigorous cheers that came when Lamont said that "stay the course" was not good policy. I've never known any nation to so embrace defeat and surrender as such a positive good as that bunch. Even if somebody is against the war, do they have to make the possibility of surrender such a joyful event?

Surely this mindset is way off on the margin.

We're going to quit! We're going to quit! RAH! RAH! RAH!

3 posted on 08/09/2006 10:49:24 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

"Back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his party was taking the party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his party, and he never returned to the day he died, because to this day, the leadership of that party has been taking that party, that honorable party, down the road in the image of the labor socialist party of England."

Ronald Reagan "The Speech" - 1964


4 posted on 08/09/2006 10:51:26 AM PDT by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Sure you don't want to move to Sugarland and run in the 22nd district? /chuckle

Nice article.


5 posted on 08/09/2006 10:53:25 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Democrats - The reason we need term limits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
One reason I tend to distrust filthy-rich people who buy their way into office – regardless of their politics or party – is that they are disconnected from real life.

I like filthy rich people. They are not going to steal my car, murder me, etc. Plus, they or someone in their family probably did something really good to get wealthy in the first place. They also pay about 10 times or more the taxes that I pay, they provide more jobs, etc. Fithy rich is better than the alternative, poor people who are often stupid, and middle class people who know almost nothing about macro issues.

I like GH bush, GW bush, Arnold, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Bill Frist, Pete Dupont, Steve Forbes, Tiger Woods, Charles Barkely, the late John Heinz, Pete DuPont, etc.

The Kennedys I can do without along with the Hollywood rich, but mostly the rich are the cream of our society.

6 posted on 08/09/2006 10:54:37 AM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

I don't like the way the Iraq war is going.

Unfortunately, the muslims have convinced me that they must be defeated, no matter what the cost, no matter what the price (churchill I think referring to the nazis).


7 posted on 08/09/2006 10:56:47 AM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

I guess this makes Bill Clinton a latter-day Whig? He'd probably like to go down in history as the "Last Democrat President."


8 posted on 08/09/2006 11:00:10 AM PDT by Tallguy (The problem with this war is the name... You don't wage war against a tactic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Just a small nit to pick:

"That brings us back to Ned Lamont. A prime mover in putting him into office was MoveOn.org."

Lamont isn't in office yet.

9 posted on 08/09/2006 11:01:56 AM PDT by telebob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

« Gloating Over Democrats’ Self Destruction
Chad Vader, Episode Two »
07.08.06
Who is Ned Lamont?
Politics, Harvard, Left Think, Democrats, 2006 Elections, Joseph Lieberman, Phillips Exeter Academy, Corliss Lamont
line

I knew he was a commie, of course. But not until I read Martin Peretz, in the Wall Street Journal, did I realise that he is an hereditary commie of impeccable red-diaper origins: old money, with Exeter, Harvard, and Stalin as family traditions.

Left-wing Democrats are once again fielding single-issue “peace candidates,” and the one in Connecticut, like several in the 1970s, is a middle-aged patrician, seeking office de haut en bas, and almost entirely because he can. It’s really quite remarkable how someone like Ned Lamont, from the stock of Morgan partner Thomas Lamont and that most high-born American Stalinist, Corliss Lamont, still sends a chill of “having arrived” up the spines of his suburban supporters simply by asking them to support him.

http://neveryetmelted.com/?p=1392

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115490367543028221.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corliss_Lamont

http://neveryetmelted.com/?p=1393


10 posted on 08/09/2006 11:02:02 AM PDT by nothingnew (I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

bttt


11 posted on 08/09/2006 11:04:55 AM PDT by Christian4Bush (The only way to bring a permanent peace is to eliminate the permanent threat. - FReeper Optimist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: staytrue

I think the idea of occupation and rebuilding is the part we're going to have to forget. From now on we simply bomb them back to the stone age. I mean we roll out every heavy bomber in the inventory for Iran, Syria etc


12 posted on 08/09/2006 11:05:31 AM PDT by GeronL (http://www.mises.org/story/1975 <--no such thing as a fairtax)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
A country has to be ready to fight for its vital interests. Maybe I'm being unfair, but these Lamonters seem to think there is no vital interest worth fighting for-except maybe abortion on demand or increased AIDS research $$$.

Patriotic people can differ on the best way to secure vital interests and debate whether we're overextended or underextended- but there is a time when a nation has to take a stand.

13 posted on 08/09/2006 11:14:46 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

.


14 posted on 08/09/2006 11:23:31 AM PDT by Mo1 (Bolton- "No one has explained how you negotiate a ceasefire with terrorists")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
"....Madeline Albright, who in turn is Neville Chamberlain in drag."

Should have added the requisite apologies to Mr. Chamberlain.

15 posted on 08/09/2006 11:27:21 AM PDT by paddles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Nice! Thanks for the researched history lesson and informed opinions.

Bttt

16 posted on 08/09/2006 11:32:51 AM PDT by DoctorMichael (A wall first. A wall now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nothingnew

Unfortunately polls show if the election were held today, Democrats would probably take a majority in the Senate. If you can believe polls. In any case those who are proclaiming the death of the Democrat party are being a tad premature, sad to say.


17 posted on 08/09/2006 11:41:44 AM PDT by TNCMAXQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
I like filthy rich people. They are not going to steal my car, murder me, etc. Plus, they or someone in their family probably did something really good to get wealthy in the first place.

Ken Lay was filthy rich. O. J. Simpson was filthy rich. George Soros is filthy rich.

Shall I continue down the list?

18 posted on 08/09/2006 11:51:13 AM PDT by shekkian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TNCMAXQ
We are not going to lose the senate. We will pick up cantwell's seat and hold Santorum's. There is no way whitey ford will win in Tenn.
The damage the rat has sustained yesterday has yet to really be understood. It will show itself in November.
19 posted on 08/09/2006 12:01:00 PM PDT by jmaroneps37 (John Spencer: Fighting to save America from Hillary Clinton..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob


Democrats: The party of the working man - like Michael Moore, Bono, Steven Spielburg. You know, the poor low class slobs that can never seem to get a break...


20 posted on 08/09/2006 12:01:48 PM PDT by Tzimisce (How Would Mohammed Vote? Hillary for President! www.dndorks.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37; TNCMAXQ

For the most accurate appraisal of the congressional elections in November, I refer you to Michael Barone. He has travelled to and well knows every congressional district in the nation. I heard him say (albeit a couple months ago) that nothing he has observed in his travels supports a democrat majority in either chamber.


21 posted on 08/09/2006 12:14:16 PM PDT by katieanna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TNCMAXQ

"In any case those who are proclaiming the death of the Democrat party are being a tad premature, sad to say."
______________________________

I think the big question is why should the PUBS continue in the majority? What have they accomplished?


22 posted on 08/09/2006 12:16:00 PM PDT by wmfights (Lead, Follow, or Get Out Of The WAY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: shekkian

everyone in my list was a politician or an aspiring politician except for tiger woods.

however, if you pick 100 filthy rich at random and do the same for the middle and lower classes, I will take the filthy rich.

do you know why the media highlights any bad thing a rich person does ? It is because it is unusual and that makes in news.


23 posted on 08/09/2006 12:44:18 PM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: katieanna

Barone is indeed great. When I met him at CPAC a few years ago he recognized my last name and said it was the same name as a former mayor of my city, who served in the 1950s! I told him the mayor was a distant relative. Michael is a walking encyclopedia of political and election knowledge.

He is better than Charlie Cook, who didn't even know about Sen Prescott Bush's electoral record when I asked him about it. Said he wasn't from CT so he wouldn't know about CT elections. I was stunned. I should have told him he was no Michael Barone. ;-)


24 posted on 08/09/2006 12:45:52 PM PDT by TNCMAXQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: staytrue; Congressman Billybob; BillyBoy
I like filthy rich people.

So do I.

Let it be said that Greenwich (Lamont's hometown) voted for Bush twice, as did New Canaan (Ann Coulter's very wealthy hometown), Darien, and Ridgefield.

Meanwhile those "salt of the earth blue collar Democrats" in West Haven, New Britain, New London, Middletown and Meriden continue to vote for the likes of Rose Delauro, Gore, and Kerry. Would be interesting to see how they voted in the primary, however.

25 posted on 08/09/2006 1:29:38 PM PDT by Clemenza (Need new tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: telebob
You are absolutely right. I should have written, that MoveOn is a "prime mover in getting him the nomination."

John / Billybob
26 posted on 08/09/2006 3:11:22 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (Have a look-see. Please get involved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Here here. I couln't agree more. EXCELLENT commentary. :)


27 posted on 08/09/2006 6:18:54 PM PDT by TexasPatriot8 (Irrational is the person who is offended by the mention of a God that he doesn't believe exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TNCMAXQ
In any case those who are proclaiming the death of the Democrat party are being a tad premature, sad to say.

Agree 100% except for the tad part

November may be a disaster for the GOP if Iraq goes badly and gas prices keep rising
28 posted on 08/09/2006 6:25:06 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

BUMP


29 posted on 08/09/2006 6:36:35 PM PDT by Fudd Fan (Fidel - NO MAS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: staytrue

Indeed. Does that entitle them to public office? Certainly not. But should they be hated or despised becase they're rich? Nope. They pay most of the taxes. And that hate is one of the things that is so wrong with this new Libocrat party. Hate the wealthy and spread class envy to create the Socialist States of America. That is what the old dead Democrat party is now and that's all they care about. And I have no doubt they'd gladly see millions of Americans dead and buried by war or disaster if it would get them back in power. I have no doubt at all. They kill their babies with nary a glance, why wouldn't they allow the deaths of grown opposition if it got their power back? Dark and sinister and depressing but I believe there is adequate evidence the past 30 years to back up my belief.


30 posted on 08/09/2006 6:38:45 PM PDT by TexasPatriot8 (Irrational is the person who is offended by the mention of a God that he doesn't believe exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
The Kook-Fringe Party has been born.

Actually the traditional Democrats have invaded the body of the Republican Party and are progressively taking it to the left. They have reassigned the color red to the formerly traditional blue as part of the gradual re-branding.

The new party to be born will be a conservative party on the right. Parties change over time, but people don't. There is a growing need for a conservative party to represent us.

31 posted on 08/09/2006 6:44:21 PM PDT by Reeses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

So, tell me again, why is the Dem party dead? Because Ned Lamont bought his nomination, that makes them crosswise from the American people?


I'd have thought that if there was a chance, it was more because they're moving leftward too quickly and too openly. Not that any of the ordinary guys I know who vote Dem seem to have much awareness of that.

However, I hope your assessment is correct.


32 posted on 08/09/2006 6:45:29 PM PDT by Sam Cree (Don't mix alcopops and ufo's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reeses

How long will we wait for tat to happen? Or should we boot the moderates and let THEM form a new party.


33 posted on 08/09/2006 6:52:49 PM PDT by GeronL (http://www.mises.org/story/1975 <--no such thing as a fairtax)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: uncbob
If Iraq goes badly it's because Muslims have to kill each other and others to feel "right", leaving Iraq won't solve that it would make it worse and spread terrorism even more and destroy a young democracy before it's even out of diapers.

And gas prices wouldn't be so high if we were building more refinaries, which Democrats oppose.

If we were using shale oil technology, which democrats oppose.

If we were building more nuke and clean coal power plants to reduce our need for imported oil, which Democrats oppose.

If we were drilling in ANWR, which would exceed the supply provided by the Prudhoe Bay supply, which Democrats oppose.

If we were using more wind power, like Californias wind farms that sit idle, which would reduce our need for oil for electricity production, and that oil could be added to oil for automobile supply, which Democrats oppose because some blind birds don't see them.

Or if we didn't force the U.S. oil companies to make over 120 DIFFERENT blends of unleaded and diesel gasoline, which adds at least $1.50 to the cost per gallon. The environmental lobby is MOST responsible for the price of gas. State and Federal tax per gallon is .40 to .50 cents per gallon. The average oil company profit per gallon is only about a nickel to a dime PER GALLON, compared ot that $1.50 or more per gallon it costs having to refine, store, transport, and keep seperate all those different blends of gas for different states. Senator Allen is pushing legislation which would eliminate over 100 of those blends from the market, allowing the oil companies to make just some of the cleaner burning ones, which would still operate on all vehicles still on the road today, that would drop the price per gallon by nearly half as soon as it's fully in place because the oil companies will be freed of BILLIONS of dollars per year in extra expense. But Democrats oppose it.

So the high gas prices are 100% the fault of perfectly good common sense enviromentally friendly legislation that the liberal Democrats, even as a minority, are able to block, because of their liberal media lap dogs. If anything, the liberal opposition to any kind of legislation that would incrase supply will be what effects the election. I believe that more Americans know the truth behind who is at fault for gas prices than is ever admitted in the media. It isn't the Republicans. :) That's just my opinion though.

Anytime I hear someone I know who is a Democrat complaining about high gas prices, I tell them we should build nuke and clean coal plants, use wind technology, drill in ANWR, and build more refinaries, and they always say "YEAH! That would help!" And then I tell them to call their Democrats they keep voting for and tell them to quit blocking the legislation that would make that happen.

I totally know what you're saying, but I think the gas price backlash will not be against Republicans, because it's clearly not the Pubs who block legislation that would ease the price and increase supply and decrease demand, and any half way intelligend voter will know that thanks to the blogs, and radio and emails and FOX news. :)

34 posted on 08/09/2006 6:55:01 PM PDT by TexasPatriot8 (Irrational is the person who is offended by the mention of a God that he doesn't believe exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Or should we boot the moderates?

The left usually operate as parasites, hiding within hosts, always taking over something that once was good and sucking it dry. Now that we have them they're near impossible to shake. How many good words, such as liberal itself, have they hijacked and destroyed? How many colors do they hide behind? How many once great nations, businesses, and institutions have gone bankrupt from their selfish exploitation? I'm glad freerepublic zots them however they are relentless and may either take over or shut down this website someday.

35 posted on 08/09/2006 7:25:42 PM PDT by Reeses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: TexasPatriot8
I totally know what you're saying, but I think the gas price backlash will not be against Republicans, because it's clearly not the Pubs who block legislation that would ease the price and increase supply and decrease demand, and any half way intelligent voter will know that thanks to the blogs, and radio and emails and FOX ne

Let's hope cause Hillary is already railing against Big Oil
36 posted on 08/09/2006 7:27:40 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Good post. Bump


37 posted on 08/09/2006 7:29:20 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Cool, now if we only had a conservative party to replace them with.
38 posted on 08/09/2006 8:03:21 PM PDT by Boiling point (When the GOP asks for donations, send them PESOs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

The Democratic Party died in 1968 with the rejection of the New Deal/Great Society. With that rejection, the old Democratic coalition of the mid-20th Century came unglued. What it morphed into was the New Democrat Party, which stands for nothing, but is an amalgamation of amoral relativists, labor goons, crackheads, perverts, power lusters, malcontents, baby-killers, nihilists, appeasers, shiftless "victims", sociopaths, race-baiters, radical atheists, journalists, and other ne'er-do-wells of assorted social pathologies. And it represents about 48% of the electorate.


39 posted on 08/10/2006 10:09:12 AM PDT by My2Cents (A pirate's life for me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reeses; Congressman Billybob; Jim Robinson
"...I'm glad freerepublic zots them however they are relentless and may either take over or shut down this website someday..."

We've been around here long enough to know that the hildabeaste, if elected to POTUS, will definitely crash this beautiful brainchild of Jim Robinson in a heartbeat.

Many of us would also probably be arrested!

Great article, John!...

Hi Jim............FRegards

40 posted on 08/10/2006 12:16:34 PM PDT by gonzo (I'm as confused as a hungry baby in a topless club...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JasonC

Ping.


41 posted on 08/10/2006 12:39:33 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasPatriot8; Reeses
Everyone chooses their occupation or profession based on their ability and desire to satisfy themselves and the people they care about. Most simply take the first job that will pay enough money to keep the respect of their family. Professionals prepare systematically to do something more than that. Journalists go into journalism to be part of a profession which is at the top of the pecking order. First and foremost, journalism promotes the idea that journalism is the most important profession. And that implies pecking at all the other chickens in the barnyard. And so on. In general, anyone who aspires to respect based on doing things, and who is a natural for membership in the Republican Party, is a natural target of journalism.

Who does journalism not peck? Only those who sell out any independence from the idea that journalism is the only thing that matters. Those people, it calls "liberals." Or "progressives." Or whatever high-sounding label they prefer. Which is why people who are rich enough, tend to buy off journalism by taking on journalism's political coloration. Especially, but far from exclusively, those who inherited their money.

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate



42 posted on 08/10/2006 1:05:10 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Ping to my #42.


43 posted on 08/10/2006 1:09:25 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Great analysis Congressman. I agree that Lieberman's party has wandered into the desert without a pillar of smoke or fire to guide them.


44 posted on 08/10/2006 1:12:06 PM PDT by Jimmy Valentine's brother (Crush Islamofacists; see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

When I heard about Lieberman, I thought the Democrats had lost it. To abandon the central part of their party in this time of terrorism is simply insane.


45 posted on 08/10/2006 1:42:10 PM PDT by TheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37

I lile the way you talk--and I like what you say. Harold Ford the junior must go down... too many socialists already in the senate.


46 posted on 08/10/2006 1:50:43 PM PDT by BamaAndy (Heart & Iron--the story of America through an ordinary family. ISBN: 1-4137-5397-3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Don't be too sure that the dim party is finished! The mad-leftists are very powerful and rich. They will stop at nothing to make the USA a communist paradise.


47 posted on 08/10/2006 1:52:28 PM PDT by Leftism is Mentally Deranged (Leftism is the ideology of nihilism, despair, nothingness +death. That why they like islamofascists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
I've never known any nation to so embrace defeat and surrender as such a positive good as that bunch. Even if somebody is against the war, do they have to make the possibility of surrender such a joyful event? Surely this mindset is way off on the margin.

I think you're right. The fringe is taking over the dems - these folks think it's 1965 and the "kids" are all behind them... Ain't no kids - boomers grew up - and more are becoming conservative every day...

48 posted on 08/10/2006 2:01:14 PM PDT by GOPJ (Al Gore - the original "Millions Could Die" kind of guy....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

bump


49 posted on 08/10/2006 5:55:31 PM PDT by prophetic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob; Colonel Kangaroo; cotton1706; Tallguy; jmaroneps37; TNCMAXQ; katieanna; ...
Originally posted by Congressman Billybob:
"The Democrat Party died yesterday in Hartford, Connecticut."

I would agree with you that the current Democrat party is dying - or splitting into two as it did before the late unpleasantness of the War between the States... Then, as now is cannot paper-over or sustain the policy dichotomy of either slavery/anti-slavery or National security/National isolationism. The Lieberman/Lamont contest just highlighted that fundamental divide, however my personal opinion is that it will takes two more Presidential election defeats before that party takes the road blazed by the Federalists.

"These major political parties have held great power – usually including the Presidency and control of one or both Houses of Congress – only to disappear from the political stage, remembered in history books that no one reads any more: The Federalists, the Anti-Federalists, the Republican-Democrats...."



I would differ just a bit on the history of "major" political parties in the history of the United States. By my count there have been five major political parties, with a few more influential minor parties to boot. Still hard to believe that James Monroe was elected to a second term with no opposition.

There have been five major political parties in the history of the United States, the Federalists, the Democratic-Republicans, the Democrats, the Whigs and the Republicans. Each of these major parties has in at least one Congress controlled the House, Senate and Presidency concurrently. This is what has defined them as major parties...



Congress Years_Term President Presidential Party House Majority Party Senate Majority Party The Big Tri-Fecta
1st 1789-1791 Washington No Party Administration Administration *
2nd 1791-1793 Washington No Party Administration Administration *
3rd 1793-1795 Washington No Party Opposition Administration  
4th 1795-1797 Washington No Party Opposition Administration  
5th 1797-1799 Adams(2) Federalist Dem-Reps Federalist  
6th 1799-1801 Adams(2) Federalist Federalist Federalist *
7th 1801-1803 Jefferson Dem-Reps Dem-Reps Dem-Reps *
8th 1803-1805 Jefferson Dem-Reps Dem-Reps Dem-Reps *
9th 1805-1807 Jefferson Dem-Reps Dem-Reps Dem-Reps *
10th 1807-1809 Jefferson Dem-Reps Dem-Reps Dem-Reps *
11th 1809-1811 Madison Dem-Reps Dem-Reps Dem-Reps *
12th 1811-1813 Madison Dem-Reps Dem-Reps Dem-Reps *
13th 1814-1815 Madison Dem-Reps Dem-Reps Dem-Reps *
14th 1815-1817 Madison Dem-Reps Dem-Reps Dem-Reps *
15th 1817-1819 Monroe Dem-Reps Dem-Reps Dem-Reps *
16th 1819-1821 Monroe Dem-Reps Dem-Reps Dem-Reps *
17th 1821-1823 Monroe Dem-Reps Dem-Reps Dem-Reps *
18th 1823-1825 Monroe Dem-Reps Dem-Reps Dem-Reps *
19th 1825-1827 Adams(6) Dem-Reps Dem-Reps Dem-Reps *
20th 1827-1829 Adams(6) Dem-Reps Dem-Reps Dem-Reps *
21st 1829-1831 Jackson Democrat Democrat Democrat *
22nd 1831-1833 Jackson Democrat Democrat Democrat *
23rd 1834-1835 Jackson Democrat Democrat Whig  
24th 1835-1837 Jackson Democrat Democrat Democrat *
25th 1837-1839 Van-Buren Democrat Democrat Democrat *
26th 1839-1841 Van-Buren Democrat Whig Democrat  
27th 1841-1843 Harrison(9)/Tyler Whig Whig Whig *
28th 1843-1845 Tyler Whig Democrat Whig  
29th 1845-1847 Polk Democrat Democrat Democrat *
30th 1847-1849 Polk Democrat Whig Democrat  
31st 1849-1851 Taylor/Filmore Whig Democrat Democrat  
32nd 1851-1853 Filmore Whig Democrat Democrat  
33rd 1853-1855 Pierce Democrat Democrat Democrat *
34th 1855-1857 Pierce Democrat Republican Democrat  
35th 1857-1859 Buchanan Democrat Democrat Democrat *
36th 1859-1861 Buchanan Democrat Republican Democrat  
37th 1861-1863 Lincoln Republican Republican Republican *
38th 1863-1865 Lincoln Republican Republican Republican *
39th 1865-1867 Lincoln/Johnson(17) Republican* Republican Republican *
40th 1867-1869 Johnson(17) Republican* Republican Republican *
41st 1869-1871 Grant Republican Republican Republican *
42nd 1871-1873 Grant Republican Republican Republican *
43rd 1873-1875 Grant Republican Republican Republican *
44th 1875-1877 Grant Republican Democrat Republican  
45th 1877-1879 Hayes Republican Democrat Republican  
46th 1879-1881 Hayes Republican Democrat Republican  
47th 1881-1883 Garfield/Arthur Republican Republican Republican *
48th 1883-1885 Arthur Republican Democrat Republican  
49th 1885-1887 Cleveland(22) Democrat Democrat Republican  
50th 1887-1889 Cleveland(22) Democrat Democrat Republican  
51st 1889-1891 Harrison(23) Republican Republican Republican *
52nd 1891-1893 Harrison(23) Republican Democrat Republican  
53rd 1893-1895 Cleveland(24) Democrat Democrat Republican  
54th 1895-1897 Cleveland(24) Democrat Republican Republican  
55th 1897-1899 McKinley Republican Republican Republican *
56th 1899-1901 McKinley Republican Republican Republican *
57th 1901-1903 McKinley/Roosevelt(26) Republican Republican Republican *
58th 1903-1905 Roosevelt(26) Republican Republican Republican *
59th 1905-1907 Roosevelt(26) Republican Republican Republican *
60th 1907-1909 Roosevelt(26) Republican Republican Republican *
61st 1909-1911 Taft Republican Republican Republican *
62nd 1911-1913 Taft Republican Democrat Republican  
63rd 1913-1915 Wilson Democrat Democrat Republican  
64th 1915-1917 Wilson Democrat Democrat Democrat *
65th 1917-1919 Wilson Democrat Republican Democrat  
66th 1919-1921 Wilson Democrat Republican Republican  
67th 1921-1923 Harding/Coolidge Republican Republican Republican *
68th 1923-1925 Coolidge Republican Republican Republican *
69th 1925-1927 Coolidge Republican Republican Republican *
70th 1927-1929 Coolidge Republican Republican Republican *
71st 1929-1931 Hoover Republican Republican Republican *
72nd 1931-1933 Hoover Republican Republican Republican *
73rd 1933-1935 Roosevelt(32) Democrat Democrat Democrat *
74th 1935-1937 Roosevelt(32) Democrat Democrat Democrat *
75th 1937-1939 Roosevelt(32) Democrat Democrat Democrat *
76th 1939-1941 Roosevelt(32) Democrat Democrat Democrat *
77th 1941-1943 Roosevelt(32) Democrat Democrat Democrat *
78th 1943-1945 Roosevelt(32) Democrat Democrat Democrat *
79th 1945-1947 Roosevelt(32)/Truman Democrat Democrat Democrat *
80th 1947-1949 Truman Democrat Republican Democrat  
81st 1949-1951 Truman Democrat Democrat Democrat *
82nd 1951-1953 Truman Democrat Democrat Democrat *
83rd 1953-1955 Eisenhower Republican Republican Republican *
84th 1955-1957 Eisenhower Republican Democrat Democrat  
85th 1957-1959 Eisenhower Republican Democrat Democrat  
86th 1959-1961 Eisenhower Republican Democrat Democrat  
87th 1961-1963 Kennedy Democrat Democrat Democrat *
88th 1963-1965 Kennedy/Johnson(36) Democrat Democrat Democrat *
89th 1965-1967 Johnson(36) Democrat Democrat Democrat *
90th 1967-1969 Johnson(36) Democrat Democrat Democrat *
91st 1969-1971 Nixon Republican Democrat Democrat  
92nd 1971-1973 Nixon Republican Democrat Democrat  
93rd 1973-1975 Nixon/Ford Republican Democrat Democrat  
94th 1975-1977 Ford Republican Democrat Democrat  
95th 1977-1979 Carter Democrat Democrat Democrat *
96th 1979-1981 Carter Democrat Democrat Democrat *
97th 1981-1983 Reagan Republican Democrat Republican  
98th 1983-1985 Reagan Republican Democrat Republican  
99th 1985-1987 Reagan Republican Democrat Republican  
100th 1987-1989 Reagan Republican Democrat Democrat  
101st 1989-1991 Bush(41) Republican Democrat Democrat  
102nd 1991-1993 Bush(41) Republican Democrat Democrat  
103rd 1993-1995 Clinton Democrat Democrat Democrat *
104th 1995-1997 Clinton Democrat Republican Republican  
105th 1997-1999 Clinton Democrat Republican Republican  
106th 1999-2001 Clinton Democrat Republican Republican  
107th 2001-2003 Bush(43) Republican Republican Rep/Dem */no
108th 2003-2005 Bush(43) Republican Republican Republican *
107th 2005-2007 Bush(43) Republican Republican Republican *



What say you?

dvwjr

50 posted on 08/10/2006 11:28:45 PM PDT by dvwjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-96 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson