- Have you heard of Henry > Wallace? He was a fairly important Democrat - in > fact, he was Franklin Roosevelt's third Vice > President. He was so far to the left that his > publicly declared choices for Secretary of State and > Secretary of the Treasury were (we now know) paid > Soviet agents. There is _no equivalent Republican > of > equal prominence_. None.
Um exsqueeze me? If you scan the famed traitors of our lifetime, post Vietnam, the Walker Spy Ring and such, every single one of them... that is EVERY single bastard who betrayed this country by selling vital secrets to our enemies... was a lifelong registered republican. Some Democrats were not > actively in favor of the containment of Communism. > Why do you think Arthur Schlesinger and Daniel Aaron > founded Americans for Democratic Action? Why do you > think there was a group of people _called_ Scoop > Jackson Democrats? Those groups existed because > there > were plenty of Democrats who _didn't agree_ with > them > on the importance of fighting the Communists. None of which changes the central fact an iota. FDR got rid of Wallace and replaced him with Truman for those very reasons. NATO, the MArshall plan and all of that were PUSHED BY DEMOCRATS (for the most part, including the leadership) AND WERE OPPOSED BY THE PRINCIPAL REPUBLICAN LEADERS OF THE DAY. Go ahead and toss out all the exceptions you like. This is a general fact. The > proudest stand of the Republican party since the > Civil > War is that it was consistent pretty much through > and > through on the Cold War. The Democratic Party > leadership (with the sad exception of George > McGovern, > I guess) was too. But the Party as a whole clearly > was not to anything near the same degree. I have no idea what this means, but if you are saying what I think, then you are talking about Ike dragging the GOP into reluctant adherence to the Truman and Marshall doctrines. > > Who's proving their point now, Dr. Brin? certainly not you, my friend. Again, the whole grand strategy of containing communism was invented out of whole cloth by Truman and Marshall over vociferous GOP opposition. When Truman trounced Dewey, they decided to try a TR style internationalist and Ike save the party. > > What I'm trying to drive home is that every major > policy success in American history, with the > arguable > exception of the abolition of slavery, was at least > partly, and often exceptionally, bipartisan. Even > most of the early New Deal bills got extensive > Republican support. Given the structure of our > government this is somewhat inevitable. A true if utterly bland statement. But the original topic was IDEAS. Big ideas. And while I rant at liberals for their present paucity of new ideas, I will NOT let goppers try to claim that their utterly reactive and idealess, reactionary party is the leader in ideas. Baloney. I said so and proved it. In fact, one reason the dems have so few new programs and ideas these days is that they have been forced by circumstances to be the party standing for balanced budgets. A "way no fun!" position to be in. > > Do you think Wendell Wilkie would have won the > nomination if large parts of the party didn't agree > with him on an issue that important? There weren't > primaries in those days, you know. They were desperate. And it is a plain fact that most of the party's leadership hated the idea. > > > > - that any large part of the GOP played any role > in > > backing the drives for civil rights, gender rights > > or environmental protection. > > Dr. Brin, it's you, not me, that needs to offer some > evidence. You're making some remarkable claims > about > my ignorance. On that, btw, I challenge you to find > _one_ other person on this list who agrees with you. I leave that to the list. In simple fact, there's no case to be made. ANyone who thinks that ML King got truly substantial republican support, please raise your hand. Anyone thinks that the EPA under Reagan/Bush/Bush was vigorous at its mission (vs rolling over for polluters? Likewise.) what a laugh. The following is unutterably vague and silly. Go look at the votes for against the civil rights act. WHY DO YOU THINK THE SOUTH HAS TOTALLY REVERSED ITS TRADITION TO BECOME THE BASTION OF REPUBLICANISM? Gawd, how silly. I am getting off this. No point. > The statement above is an assertion. It is _not_, > in > fact, backed by anything more concrete than your > opinion. In fact large portions of the GOP did play > significant roles in all three. As I've mentioned - > and you completely ignored - GOP Senators (and > Congressmen, I'm virtually certain) were _more_, not > less, likely to support the crucial Civil Rights > bills > than their Democratic counterparts. Without that > support, none of those bills could have passed, > period. On its face, your earlier claim that the > Republican Party - I don't remember the exact words, > something like vehemently opposed - Civil Rights is > not true. The same with gender rights or > environmental protection. Just because someone > disagrees with you on any of those issues doesn't > mean > that they oppose the issue itself. > > > Instead of actively confronting me with facts, you > > have armwaved generalities and credentials to the > > effect that your college degree is in government > and > > you like Condaleeza Rice, therefore her > (blithering) > > policies must be sagacious. > > I've never met her, actually, although I'd very much > like to, of course. Describing someone's policies > as > blithering when you wave your arms in airy > generalities is not particularly persuasive. If I > took your proposal about Iran's role in the war to > anyone with any foreign policy experience, Dr. Brin, > no offense, but they'd laugh. The government of > Iran > sponsored the Khobar Towers bombing. Do you think > they _like us_? Why would the Mullahs, who are > hanging on to power by the skin of their teeth, help > us in the invasion of Iran, the act by the United > States most likely to strengthen the Iranian > opposition against them? > > > > As long as we are bandying apologies, let me > remind > > you that YOU started making personal remarks aimed > > at > > me before I ever aimed one at you. > > I don't believe that is the case, but will not > debate > it. > > > > Moreover, I am the one who has made peace > gestures. > > As I am doing right now by calling you a feisty > good > > fellow, despite being a clueless arguer! ;-) > > > > db > > I'm sorry that I called your American history very > poor, although it does seem to have gotten my point > across. I studied American history with Bill > Gienapp > (may he rest in peace) - he ain't Rush Limbaugh. > Would you care to cite a serious historical work > that > supports your assertion that the Party of Lincoln > has > contributed little or nothing to American politics? > And I don't mean something written by Gore Vidal or > Noam Chomsky. I am not an historian, but American > political history, at least, I have some background > in. If there is something that makes a plausible > case, I would of course be interested in reading it. > > ===== > Gautam Mukunda > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > "Freedom is not free" > http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. > Try it! > http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ===== . . * Please note. My email address of many years is changing FROM [EMAIL PROTECTED] TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... (Or else use [EMAIL PROTECTED]) _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
