« Keyboard Alert | Main | ValetGate »

It's all a Plot by George Bush

While Duncan Black is not busy bashing people for potentially being homosexual, he must be smoking the crack pipe.

Oh jumping jeebus. Check out the White House presidential history page. They've taken to calling Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and John Quincy Adams "Republicans" because, you know, they were members of the Democratic-Republican party, so therefore they're Republicans.

I do need a drink.

Perhaps Ducan could put down the bottle and pick up a book once in a while.

Jefferson's Second Revolution :

The Election Crisis of 1800 and the Triumph of Republicanism

From Publishers Weekly
...The choices in 1800 election could not have been starker: Federalist Adams championed the need for a strong central government that would forge an image of honor and national unity. The Republican Jefferson prized the rights of individuals to criticize their government and viewed the Federalist vision as a dangerous slide into monarchy and a reversal of the Revolution's ideals....

Product Description:
The election of 1800 was a revolution in the modern sense of a radical new beginning, but it was also a revolution in the sense of a return to the point of origin, to the principles of 1776. Federalist incumbent John Adams, and the elitism he represented, faced Republican Thomas Jefferson...

(that's a good book BTW)

Saving that, a good google search would have told him that Jefferson (et al) called themselves Republicans.

He could have learned 10th grade history... but it's more fun to blame everything on a secret Bush Neo-Con Plot.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference It's all a Plot by George Bush:

» SSG Across America linked with Jefferson, et al. - Democrat or Republican?

Comments (30)

That jerk-off don't need no... (Below threshold)
Neal:

That jerk-off don't need no stinkin' books! He knows what Chris Rock said about books.

Well, combining crack and d... (Below threshold)

Well, combining crack and drink can impair one's thought processes.

You have to read the commen... (Below threshold)
Mike:

You have to read the commenters over there, they are hilarious. They get all in a tizzy and then even when the facts are presented to them that 1) that in fact they did call themselves Republicans and 2) that Bush most likely had nothing to do with this and that it was the Clinton administration that set up this history, they still spit their venom towards the president. It speaks volumes of the intellectual honesty on the left and their ability to understand facts, particularly those that contradict their idealogy.

It speaks volumes of the ig... (Below threshold)
Brad:

It speaks volumes of the ignorance of Right wing bloggers that they ignore the fact that the modern Republican Party was founded in July of 1864--and took its name from Jefferson's Democratic- Republican Party. That the Republican party in those days was composed largely of abolitionists--and that this is why the South voted Democrat, until the 1960s when the Democrats became the party of Civil Rights. What the White House wants everyone to think is that George Bush's Republican Party-- which received less than 10% of the black vote in 2004--is of the same ideology as Lincoln's Republicans and Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans. Which, come on folks, it isn't.
"A rose, by any other name...."

And since when did Atrois bash someone for BEING homosexual?

Hey Brad, it was Clinton's ... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Hey Brad, it was Clinton's White House that did that. But don't let that stop you from the Bush bashing!

You just made my post above all the more credible.

But Jefferson (et. al) were... (Below threshold)

But Jefferson (et. al) were members of the party that eventually become the modern Democratic Party, and though it is true that at the time they referred to themselves as "republicans" (as opposed to "federalists," not democrats) to label them as "Republicans" on a website, though technically correct, in a fashion IS misleading.

Calling Jefferson a "Republican" is misleading in the way that pre-unification East Germany was formally known as the "German Democratic Republic" when really democracy was not found in the Communist state.

Republican didn't have the same meaning then that it does now, something that the layperson may not realize.

"...that eventually become ... (Below threshold)

"...that eventually become the modern..."

Sorry, that should be "...became the modern..."

I guess there's a PREVIEW button for a reason!

Thank you, Michael Diaz. T... (Below threshold)
Brad:

Thank you, Michael Diaz. That was my initial point exactly--although I was not as clear (as Mike has pointed out, I was using it as part of my diabolical campaign to bash Bush)

In fact, historians find a ... (Below threshold)
McCain:

In fact, historians find a direct link between the modern Democratic party and the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican party or yore. They came to calling themselves "Republicans", by the way, because "Democrat" had become a term of derision. Some things never change, but I digress.

So despite the direct link between today's Democrats and Jefferson, no modern party has a legitimate claim to the early Democratic-Republican party. They were the party of social freedoms and weak central government, as compared with Adam's Federalists.

And when I say that the Jefferson party was the party of social freedom, that means he "anguished" a little about slavery as he put his slaves to work. Which brings us to the modern Republican party, which was (of course) fathered by Lincoln on an anti-slave and strong central government platform. The Republican party was a clean break from the past.

So sorry, Republicans can't claim Jefferson except using the disengenuous argument of the shortened Democratic-Republican label. I laugh almost as hard when Democrats claim Jefferson. Nay, I will claim Jefferson for myself, the modern Libertarian party.

I agree. Jefferson was more... (Below threshold)

I agree. Jefferson was more of a modern Libertarian than he was a modern Republican or modern Democrat.

Side note, the Federalists were more like modern democrats. They believed in STRONG central government, the government with tons of powers and the states yieding to the government. It is really funny how each party has evolved over the course of history. They call him "republican" because at the time, they considered that republican. To call Lincoln anything other than a Republican is to call him something that he wouldn't have believed in. What does it matter what the parties now espouse? When you talk HISTORY, you have to talk in HISTORY'S TERMS. You don't try and put a "modern spin" on it.

Sheesh people get a grip.

I finally figured out why l... (Below threshold)
Paul:

I finally figured out why liberals don't "get it." They slept thru history class.

Henry, THANK YOU! Al... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Henry, THANK YOU!
All this talk of "well he called himself a Republican but that party became the modern day Democrats so its misleading to call him a Republican", what a bunch of crap! Its like saying a guy who played for the Cleaveland Browns in 1989 is actually a Baltimore Raven, because that team became the Ravens. Bull! You are absolutely right, we are talking about history, so speak in terms of history.

Or to say that Jackie Robin... (Below threshold)

Or to say that Jackie Robinson played for the L.A. Dodgers.

Jackie Robinson played for the BROOKLYN Dodgers.

RE: Brad's post (February 1... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Brad's post (February 11, 2005 12:27 PM)

...ignorance of Right wing bloggers that they ignore the fact that the modern Republican Party was founded in July of 1864--and took its name from Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party.
It's always nice that the "ignorance of Right wing bloggers" is corrected with ignorance.

Ref - "... The name reappeared in the 1850s, when the present-day Republican party was founded. At that time the crucial issue of the extension of slavery into the territories split the Democratic party and the Whig party, and opponents of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 organized the new Republican party. Jackson, Mich., is called the birthplace of the party (July 6, 1854) and Joseph Medill is credited with having suggested its name, but these distinctions are also claimed for other places and other men.

"By 1855 the new party was well launched in the North. Anti-slavery Whigs such as William Seward and Thurlow Weed were dominant in the new grouping, but elements of the Know-Nothing movement, together with the Free-Soil party, abolitionists, and anti-Nebraska Democrats also supplied strength. The party's national organization was perfected at Pittsburgh in Feb., 1856, and its first presidential candidate, John C. Frémont, made a creditable showing against victorious James Buchanan. The party opposed the repeal of the Missouri Compromise and the extension of slavery, denounced the Supreme Court's decision in the Dred Scott Case, and favored the admission of Kansas as a free state.

Fact Check: http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/RepublcnP_OriginsandEarlyYears.asp

That the Republican party in those days was composed largely of abolitionists--and that this is why the South voted Democrat...
I disagree. The South voted Democrat because of the concern of State's Rights versus Federalism. The southerners feared the centrism of authority in a Federalist sytem would supercede the Constitutionally authorized Republic of States to retain more control and relegate limited authority to the Federal level. Abolitionism was, to some degree, a political movement coopted by the more major political entities of the North to unify the Federalists over the State's Rights advocates whose loci of influence was the South. You are implying that the South was exclusively anti-abolition (and the only issue of import bookending the Civil War era) and that that anti-abolition mentality still dominates today... wholly antithetical to the Civil Right's movement. You summarize this with, and I'm paraphrasing, the South voted Democrat because they were NOT abolitionists, hence they were pro-slavery and pro-oppression.

You continue by stating that the South remained pro-oppression (my interpretive word) and pro-Democratic for about a hundred years until, spontaneously, the Democratic Party became advocates of the Civil Rights movement of the 60's. It was then that the South, collectively and seeing the error of their ways, flipped/transitioned and became Republican - the subtext being that Republicans (i.e. Red States of today and Bush's stronghold) were against Civil Rights and for oppression. And we all know that Republicans can't allow that (insert eye roll here).

I hope you'll clarify your statement a bit because these are the undertones and logic I perceive from your abbreviated yet loaded quip.

...George Bush's Republican Party-- which received less than 10% of the black vote in 2004...
Citation please. I've read soft interpretations ranging from 11-17% though hard numbers are hard to come by. I'd be curious to the real stats as would the pundits.

...George Bush's Republican Party ... is of the same ideology as Lincoln's Republicans and Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans. Which, come on folks, it isn't.
Oh, I agree completely. Bush is considerably more receptive to minorities than his predecessors. By the way, how many Cabinet positions were doled out to Blacks, Hispanics, or other persons of color during Jefferson's administration?

And since when did Atrois bash someone for BEING homosexual?
And you have proof of Gannon's (by inference though Atrios may have mentioned others) sexuality? And does Atrios? You are talking about Gannon here, right?

Actually, this focus on what party represents what seems a bit misplaced since all political parties meander here, there, and everywhere to suit the political environment of the time. I'd say that much of what was once considered Democratic is now Republican, and vice-versa. I should think we should focus on what each party believes now and minimize legacies of decades or hundreds of years ago... they are increasingly less relevant since we don't seem to want to follow the Constitution anyway. (Please excuse my knee-jerk opining of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.)

I consider the Democratic P... (Below threshold)

I consider the Democratic Party to have come into being during Andrew Jackson's presidency.

The collapse of the Federalists in the early 1800s left the Dem-Reps as the only viable politifcal force in the country at that time. Since our political system couldn't support a one-party system for any length of time, the idea gotten from history books that the Dem-Reps were pretty much stable and in charge through the presidencies of Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and John Quincy Adams, is pretty much a piece of crap.

The D-R's had fractured along personal lines long before JQA eked out his election at the expense of Andrew Jackson in 1824, and I think it's pretty reasonable to regard the Dem-Rep "party" as a dead letter by then. Jackson's faction is better referred to as "Jacksonians," but the party organization that went forward from the 1830s was called "Democratic" and that's the true origin, IMO, of the Democratic Party.

Other former Dem-Reps who had moved away from Jackson's group formed the Whig Party, so named because they considered Jackson's populism to be in danger of creating a de facto monarchy. That party's collapse in the late 1840s fed directly into the formation of the Republican Party in time for it to field a nominee for President in 1856.

So if we're arguing roots, the Republican Party of today has as much claim on Jefferson as does the Democratic Party of today.

That's about right. And ge... (Below threshold)
McCain:

That's about right. And getting back to the point of this thread, it is quite misleading to refer to these guys as Republicans, any more than referring to them as Democrats. They are of a different time and a different party. Whether or not the White House is being intentionally misleading is anyone's guess.

Brad:that this ... (Below threshold)

Brad:

that this is why the South voted Democrat, until the 1960s when the Democrats became the party of Civil Rights.

Uh, the South was solidly Democratic until 1980 and the Reagan Democrats. Even after that, an apparently centrist Democrat like Clinton can pull Southern votes pretty well. And I'm pretty sure the South's congressional delegation didn't shift to a Republican majority until the '90s.

Robert,The movement ... (Below threshold)
Brad:

Robert,
The movement of Southern white voters away from the Democratic party began in the 60s, and was a direct result of the Civil Rights movement. Nixon played on this when he campaigned in '68 and '72, as did Reagan. Of course it didn't happend overnight, and I didn't intend to imply that the Republican majority shift occurred in the 60s.

Anonymous, thanks for correcting my typo. Again, my question about Gannon refers to blogger Paul's accusation that Atrios bashed Gannon for being homosexual. It's a question about Duncan Black's intent.

Don't confuse Brad with fac... (Below threshold)

Don't confuse Brad with facts. Didn't your mother teach you it's not nice to use a language that not everyone in the conversation understands?

I have to agree with McGehe... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

I have to agree with McGehee on this.

I also find this overall a silly debate.

And I think you can probably make just as much an argument that white southerners fled the dem party, because of its liberal stances on issues outside the civil rights movement, and especially because of the anti war movement, which the democratic party accepted willingly.

White southerners will vote democrat pretty readily, if the candidate is strong on defense (something you can argue was an issue with every democratic nominee that lost the south).

I'm sorry, but equating How... (Below threshold)
John:

I'm sorry, but equating Howard Dean to anything near one of our Found Fathers is utter insanity.

I was beginning to wonder w... (Below threshold)
bill:

I was beginning to wonder when someone would remember the Whigs....thanks Drivel for the in-depth post.

Yes Just Me, it is a silly ... (Below threshold)
McCain:

Yes Just Me, it is a silly debate, spawned by a silly, misleading reference on a White House web site which some are too quick to defend. That doesn't make it "Bush's fault", or even intentional by anyone. It is just as likely (and would just confirm the usual bureaucratic incompetence) to reflect some bureaucrat's utter ignorance of the historical facts.

What do I keep saying about... (Below threshold)

What do I keep saying about talking about history in HISTORY'S TERMS.

Jefferson's Second Revol... (Below threshold)

Jefferson's Second Revolution :

The Election Crisis of 1800 and the Triumph of Republicanism

Yeah, Jefferson and Madison's Democratic Republican party had parted ways with the Federalists (Madison, for example, had been one of the chief Federalists along with Hamilton). But that doesn't make Jefferson a member of a party that was founded in Ripon, Wisconsin a half century later.

I think you put too much emphasis on names; formalism over substance. I suppose you think that the Nazis were socialists, too? Is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea democratic?

HTH.

Cheers,

Hey Brad, it was Clinton... (Below threshold)

Hey Brad, it was Clinton's White House that did that. But don't let that stop you from the Bush bashing!

Cite for this "fact" (and WorldNetDaily) doesn't count)?

Cheers,

Side note, the Federalis... (Below threshold)

Side note, the Federalists were more like modern democrats. They believed in STRONG central government, the government with tons of powers and the states yieding to the government.

Hate to say it, but both parties are interested in "less gummint" when it suits their interests, and "more gummint" when that is the more appealing choice to them. No stong consistency here on either side.

Cheers,

I'm sorry, but equating ... (Below threshold)

I'm sorry, but equating Howard Dean to anything near one of our Found Fathers is utter insanity.

You misspelled "Dubya".

Cheers,

Arne: You failed to includ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Arne: You failed to include proper punctuation, and have done so, all earlier. Also, you aren't accrediting your copy'n'paste italicized content.

No soup for you,
-S-

Absence of a valid cite so ... (Below threshold)

Absence of a valid cite so far noted.

Cheers,




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy