Oh oh oh oh, Mr. Obama

[Ben Kenobi]

Other way around. John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, and his friends left to form their own party because they had been outmaneuvered in their control for the Democratic-Republican Party.

Why would they oust a sitting president? Jackson left to form his own party, and took out a whole wing of the Dem-Reps, leaving Quincy Adams with the rump, who had taken control from Jackson in 1824.

Somewhat like how the Southern Democrats left for the Republican Party in the late 1960s/early 1970s after they had been outmaneuvered by the pro-civil rights Democrats. Doesn't mean the current Democrats aren't the same party as the Democrats of 1940s and 1950s.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that the Democrats were latecomers to the civil rights party. It's questionable IMO, whether the Great Society promoted by LBJ has been much help to minorities, especially to blacks given the massive increase in family breakdown, and the corresponding increase in poverty in the last 40 years. Also of consideration is the disproportionate numbers of abortions which was a goal for the Margaret Sanger/ Malthusian branch of the Democrat party which was there back in the turn of the century and remains a very vocal component even now. It's unfortunate the Republicans have to deal with some of these clowns who migrated over.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why would they oust a sitting president?

Ask President Tyler and President Fillmore. Who even though they took control as vice presidents ascending after the death of presidents, probably had the same disadvantages as President Quincy Adams being accused of a "corrupt bargain" in the Election of 1824.

Jackson left to form his own party, and took out a whole wing of the Dem-Reps, leaving Quincy Adams with the rump

If Jackson "took out a whole wing of the Dem-Reps, leaving Quincy Adams with the rump", wouldn't that mean that the great majority of the Dem-Reps supported Jackson and only a minority "rump" was with Quincy Adams, and that faction had to form their own party? If Quincy Adams is left with a rump, seems pretty obvious that the Dem-Reps backed Jackson.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ask President Tyler and President Fillmore. Who even though they took control as vice presidents ascending after the death of presidents, probably had the same disadvantages as President Quincy Adams being accused of a "corrupt bargain" in the Election of 1824.

Jackson forming the Democrat party and Quincy Adams forming the National Republicans in '28 seems to me the logical outcome of the collapse of the party earlier with Jackson leaving. Interesting thing of note is that Quincy Adams was an abolitionist, even as the Whigs were not.

If Jackson "took out a whole wing of the Dem-Reps, leaving Quincy Adams with the rump", wouldn't that mean that the great majority of the Dem-Reps supported Jackson and only a minority "rump" was with Quincy Adams, and that faction had to form their own party? If Quincy Adams is left with a rump, seems pretty obvious that the Dem-Reps backed Jackson.

Rump simply means 'greatly reduced from original standing'. If the Dem-Reps clearly backed Jackson, he would have won in '24. They did not, which is why Adams won and the party split.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Rump simply means 'greatly reduced from original standing'.

Not in the dictionary or common usage, but fell free to add to the Kenobictionary

If the Dem-Reps clearly backed Jackson, he would have won in '24.

Because 1828 is exactly the same political situation as 1924

If the Dem-Reps clearly backed Jackson

A definite plurality did (41% of the vote in a 4 man race, 10% above Quincy Adams), and even more went over to his side following the "corrupt bargain" Quincy Adams seemed to make with Clay.

I mean Hell, Quincy Adams' vice president (Calhoun) backed Jackson in 1828 and ran with him. What party split in 1824?

[RGBVideo]

Why is Ben willfully making an idiot out of himself here?

Protectionism and support of domestic industry and industrial self-sufficiency were the original founding themes of the US Republican party (something which the southern cotton producers opposed since it would've hurt their export profits) and it's probably in US high school history lessons, so it's not like he's going to convince anyone here with his "hurp de durp DEMOCRAT PARTY BE EVIL"-disinformation.

[loinburger]

Why is Ben willfully making an idiot out of himself here?

At this point I'm pretty sure that Ben is more troll than idiot.

[Sprayber]

=The Mad Monk;5670155

I think this is it. Being on dial-up means it's an hour before I'm sure.

Well, Imran?

I think this thread is more about calling people morons and retards instead of answering any questions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, if you want me to answer that troll... I guess I can refrain from calling him a moron and ****** when I point out that video was an inspirational video made in January unconnected to Obama's campaign (it was produced and made by Ashton Kutchner and Demi Moore for inaugeration day) and COMPLETELY unconnected to the President's speech.

[Ben Kenobi]

Not in the dictionary or common usage, but fell free to add to the Kenobictionary

Then you might want to look it up.

Because 1828 is exactly the same political situation as 1924

Are you really that dense Imran? Seriously? Do you seriously believe I was referring to 1924?

A definite plurality did (41% of the vote in a 4 man race, 10% above Quincy Adams),

Which is a far cry from 50 percent plus one. If he had attracted that much support, than Calhoun + Adams wouldn't have been enough to take it home.

and even more went over to his side following the "corrupt bargain" Quincy Adams seemed to make with Clay.

That is true. Hence the total collapse of the party and the formation of the Democrat and National Republicans, who were eventually submerged with the whigs a few years later.

I mean Hell, Quincy Adams' vice president (Calhoun) backed Jackson in 1828 and ran with him. What party split in 1824?

Jackson walked out on the party in '24 because of the corrupt bargain. He realised that he needed Calhoun (whom he hated), in order to get the vote count in '28 to take down Adams and Clay. He needed the south, and would not have won without Calhoun.

[Ben Kenobi]

Protectionism and support of domestic industry and industrial self-sufficiency were the original founding themes of the US Republican party (something which the southern cotton producers opposed since it would've hurt their export profits) and it's probably in US high school history lessons, so it's not like he's going to convince anyone here with his "hurp de durp "-disinformation.

The Democrats were just the opposite in demanding tariffs to protect the farmer and the cotton growers. They were not free traders and never have been at any point in their history.

That is the contention and I'm standing by it. I don't think they've provided sufficient evidence to show that the democrats were the supply siders that we are familiar with in the Austrian school.

The Republicans experienced a shift after Teddy Roosevelt with Taft and later Coolidge to shift away from market restrictions. The result were the booms in the roaring 20's. This changed with the advent of the market collapse in '29, which the response of Hoover was to attempt to restore the market intervention and massively raising tariffs. This failed, and brought about the great depression, which was not helped by the increased protectionism and interventionism introduced by FDR which we are still labouring under.

FDR's entire structure is under stress right now for the simple problem of arithematic. You do not have enough younger folks to pay for the pensions and entitlements already set in place. Something is going to have to give over the next ten years, and we are already witnessing the rollback of many of FDR's programs.

[The Mad Monk]

Well I guess I can thank you for being so kind as to not call me a moron and ******, so I will refrain from calling you ignorant and an ******* when I point out that every news story already mentions that it was made in January, but that was never the point, because it was being shown in a school now.

[Imran Siddiqui]

One school in Utah... because of their "Service" theme and the Principal hadn't actually seen it before he put it on. Basically, non-(national)scandal and absolutely NOTHING to do with Obama's speech. And now, I'll call your a moron and a ******.

[The Mad Monk]

How is it that the principal didn't see it? I know that's what she said, but can you see how that would go down?

"Yeah, let's show it to an entire school! See it first? Why would I ever want to see it first?"

Please.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I feel that this Reason.com article on the Republican Party today encapsulates my feelings on this and other issues:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/135901.html

The Hopeless Opposition

As Obama falters, Republicans dither

Michael C. Moynihan | September 4, 2009

Here is Nate Silver, Democratic polling whiz and notoriously clever political prognosticator, issuing a blunt warning to the citizens of Netroots Nation, a yearly gathering of left-wing bloggers, activists, and Howard Zinn-loving killjoys: "I don't think you should feel at all comforted by 2010." Silver, known for his prescience on such matters, suggests that Democrats will hemorrhage support in the next midterm elections, losing anywhere from 20 to 50 seats. According to recent polling data, about 60 percent of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing.

Indeed, Americans loathe Congress with surprising consistency. But make no mistake, this is an Obama issue too. Arriving at the White House with an impressive 70 percent approval rating, barely nine months later the president is struggling to retain the loyalty of half of his constituents. A creature of Chicago, he is well aware that politics ain't beanbag, but the finger-biting, town hall mau-mauing, death panel mania doubtless blindsided the administration. Perhaps it was the media's requited love affair with the "Hope" campaign, or all those young, fresh-faced automatons in blue t-shirts offering platitudes about "change." Something provided Emanuel and Axelrod with a misshapen view of just how much "remaking" of the economy Americans were prepared to allow.

And the mistakes are piling up. Previously the target of fringy websites and the increasingly bizarre Glenn Beck, Obama's "green jobs czar," a crackpot "community activist" called Van Jones, was recently revealed to be a 9/11 truther. A few minutes with Google and one discovers a Jones exegesis on America's love affair with "grey, dirty, suicidal capitalism," and his visit to the World Economic Forum (which he naturally calls the "world exploiters forum"), the "ruling elite's biggest schmoozefest." The hyperventilating over Jones—a loathsome character who should be given a bus ticket back to his hometown of Oakland—is entirely justified, but conservatives would do best not to decide that his presence in the White House speaks to a larger narrative. Sorry guys, but there isn't a communist cabal at the heart of government, a modern Victor Perlo group twisting mustaches and plotting a Maurice Bishop-inspired coup.

The economic policies of this administration, both proposed and implemented, are daft; the expansion of government already undertaken deeply worrying; and all of the health care suggestions tabled by the Democrats will not only balloon budget deficits, but enrage voters both left and right. If the Republican Party hopes to capitalize on this discontent, it risks burying its message in debates over "death panels" and slightly lunatic calls to "slit our wrists [and] be blood brothers" in opposition to government-run health care.

Another recent example of how not to respond to a controversial issue: Next week, President Obama will address American students in a speech which, according to White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, will "tell kids in school to study hard and stay in school." Included in the suggested assignments for teachers was a call to read "books about presidents and Barack Obama" and a call to reflect on "What specific job is [the president] asking me to do?" After a volley of criticism from bloggers and pundits, the language was pulled from the Department of Education website.

The most charitable reading would be that this was a boneheaded mistake from a department bureaucrat, not an early experiment in the pedagogy of Baldur von Schirach. But Republicans were in no mood for charity. Chairman of the Florida Republican Party Jim Greer accused Obama of attempting to “indoctrinate America’s children to his socialist agenda." Oklahoma state senator Steve Russell was equally nuanced: "As far as I am concerned, this is not civics education—it gives the appearance of creating a cult of personality. This is something you'd expect to see in North Korea or in Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

There is a whiff of condescension about all of this; that mouth-foaming stridency is required to convince Americans that the president is unfit to be commander in chief. Unemployment ticks up, Obama's numbers tick down. The administration makes a hash of health care, Obama's numbers tick down. More soldiers die in Afghanistan, where the administration is doubling down, and Obama's numbers tick down. For the opposition party, there is plenty of political opportunity in all of this, but why engage in serious political debate when denunciations of our Baathist-Juche-Stalinoid president will suffice? This might be temporarily effective, it might drive a single news cycle, but at what cost?

If moderates, independents, Reagan Democrats, and libertarians are vital to future Republican electoral successes, party leaders might want to try to control the tone of the debate. The Clinton years are instructive. Despite the Lewinsky affair, the shady dealings of Whitewater, sundry "bimbo eruptions," and countless micro-scandals, Bill Clinton left office with a bafflingly high approval rating. University of Washington professor David Domke investigated the cause of Clinton's resilience and found that "conservative attacks on Clinton and the liberal response, which questioned the motives of Republicans, worked together to intensify public support for the president."

After two years of muckraking anti-Clinton journalism, The American Spectator went from 30,000 subscribers to 300,000. As Clinton proved to be a Teflon president, the mania deepened and the magazine accused Clinton of murder, drug smuggling, and cheating at golf. In the end, its star investigative journalist converted to liberalism, those remaining defected to other conservative publications, the magazine collapsed and was relaunched as a technology publication, and the Clinton administration barreled forward. Glenn Beck might pull 2.5 million viewers a day, WorldNetDaily might be clocking 2 million unique visitors a month—impressive, if slightly frightening, numbers—but they would be advised to remember the Spectator.

Thankfully, some Republicans are cottoning on. In a post on Twitter, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough urged his fellow Republicans to "argue the issues," "avoid the insults," and stop "with the conspiracy theories." Republican strategist Patrick Ruffini asked politely if his party could "have [William F.] Buckley back." Writing at TheNextRight.com, blogger Jon Henke complained recently that "Goldwater and a few Republicans had the integrity and guts to denounce the irresponsible fringe in the fevered swamps of the Right. Today, as far as I can tell, the Republican National Committee works with them."

Extremism in the defense of liberty might not be a vice, but Goldwater's famous comment was not a dog whistle for those who believed fluoridated water was at the heart of a Red Chinese conspiracy (opposing "Soviet imperialism," as he was suggesting, hardly qualified as extremist). As The Washington Post pointed out in 1994, in his later years the former Republican presidential candidate engaged in "frequent denunciations of the religious right and occasional defenses of Bill Clinton," and agitated to allow gays to serve openly in the military.

Ruffini is right that the Republican Party would benefit from another Buckley. But it could also use a leader. How about another Goldwater?

Michael C. Moynihan is a senior editor of Reason

[DinoDoc]

Basically, non-(national)scandal and absolutely NOTHING to do with Obama's speech.

What can you do to help the President, Imran? How will he inspire you?