Republican President disregards international law

[ramseya]

Curse that evil Teddy Roosevelt!

1904 Democratic political cartoon. If you put Bush's face on it, you think Democrats would use it today?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Militarist.JPG

he stomps on the constitution and international law, promotes personal favorites, protects monopolies, is imperialistic and despotic!

[rmsharpe]

Not four more years of that monster!

[SlowwHand]

Monster?

[Riesstiu IV]

Roosevelt was a giant p*ssy. Couldn't even shoot a bear cub.

[snoopy369]

I thought Roosevelt opposed monopolies...

[Ramo]

The Dems ran a right wing Bourbon that year. TR was clearly the major party candidate on the left that election.

[SlowwHand]

The Jack Daniels - Jim Beam ticket.

[ramseya]

Ramo:

what's your point? That doesn't change the fact that the same cries against Bush in 2004 (trampling on the constitution and international law, promoting personal favorites, etc. everything on that cartoon) were used on Roosevelt in 1904!

[Ramo]

My point was that your comparison was ****ed to begin with. There's basically a negative correlation between the parties at the Presidential level between 1904 and 2004. The monopoly thing, as snoopy pointed out, is pretty bizarre given that he was the first President to break up monopolies...

[ramseya]

yeah but FACTS didn't stop the Democrats from positioning Roosevelt as a supporter of monopolies.

[Ramo]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the situation 100 years later. There are events that happen every once and a while called "realignments." You might've heard of them...

[ramseya]

I contend no political "re-alignment" occurred! Geographically, yes. Politically and ideologically, no.

In fact, while the South votes overwhelmingly for Republican presidents from the 1970's on, Democratic party membership in the South continues to exceed Republican membership to this day.

[GePap]

Originally posted by ramseya
I contend no political "re-alignment" occurred! Geographically, yes. Politically and ideologically, no.

In fact, while the South votes overwhelmingly for Republican presidents from the 1970's on, Democratic party membership in the South continues to exceed Republican membership to this day.

And republicans control most of the governorships, state legislatures, and congressional delegations, so obviously that metric doesn't matter.

[ramseya]

GePap:

Let's take the great state of Mississippi, home of Trent Lott!

Yes, the governor and both US senators are Republican, yet of the state's four reps in the House, only one, Chip Pickering is a Republican, while Bennie Thompson, Gene Taylor, and Travis Childers are all Democrats.

The State legislature of Mississippi's lower house has a 75-47 Democratic advantage, while the state senate is 27-25 Democrat.

all facts can be verified at Wikipedia.

Would you like another state?

[ramseya]

How bout 'Bama? Republican governor (though Democratic Lt. Gov) and two Republican senators. Of seven reps, 5 are Republican and 2 are Democrats so Alabama is a pretty Republican state on the national level.

Yet the state legislature is different. The house has a large 62-43 Democratic advantage while the state senate is 22-13 Democratic. Solid majorities in the state legislature for the Dems.