Will The Republican Party Split In Two?

[rdean]

Watching the interesting struggle within the Republican Party to decide on a nominee, and the acidic, highly divisive ideological issues coursing through the political biosphere, I am put in mind of another time when the nation was similarly divided along ideological lines, and when it was the Democratic Party, not the Republicans, that were so torn apart. I'm referring to the lead-up to the 1860 election.

At that time, although the issues were different, the dynamic was similar, in that a minority of the Democrats wanted an uncompromising, ideologically pure approach to the issue of slavery, while the majority (but not a big one) preferred a more moderate approach that would accept some compromise. When it became clear that a united party would nominate the moderate Stephen A. Douglas, the fire-eating Southern Democrats seceded from the party and nominated their own candidate, John C. Breckenridge.

The Democrats, by running two opposing candidates for president, threw the election to Abraham Lincoln, the nominee of the new Republican Party, and set the nation on the road to calamity.

Although the particulars differ, it seems to me that passions within the GOP are running as high today as they were within the Democrats in 1860. Will the Republicans unite behind a single candidate today? Or will the party split in two, as the Dems did on the brink of the Civil War?

The Republican core is old, white, rich men. The core of the Teabirther party is also old, white, rich men. That's why one is leading the other. Their leaders are the same people.

 

[geauxtohell]

It insured exactly the opposite. We can out a far worse nation as a result of the Civil War. Lincoln was a dictator and a tyrant. he showed the way for his successors Stalin and Hitler. Lincoln invented the concentration camp and total war against civilians. The economy of the Southern states was destroyed for 100 years. The Civil War was a disaster for this country.

Only a complete Lincoln sycophant would claim the Civil War was a good thing for this country.

The South started the war and Lincoln ended it. Don't poke the sleeping Dragon and then complain when you are incinerated. At least the Japenese have the common sense to realize that.

Out of those ashes arose the modern superpower that is our nation.

In the long run, the Civil War was good for this country.

The same goes for the Democrat party. That's simply a gratuitous insult.

It wasn't meant as an insult.

 

[Dragon]

Out of those ashes arose the modern superpower that is our nation.

In the long run, the Civil War was good for this country.

The liberation of the slaves and the victory of industrialization were good for the country. If we could have had those without the Civil War, that would have been better.

 

[bripat9643]

It insured exactly the opposite. We can out a far worse nation as a result of the Civil War. Lincoln was a dictator and a tyrant. he showed the way for his successors Stalin and Hitler. Lincoln invented the concentration camp and total war against civilians. The economy of the Southern states was destroyed for 100 years. The Civil War was a disaster for this country.

Only a complete Lincoln sycophant would claim the Civil War was a good thing for this country.

The South started the war and Lincoln ended it.

Absolutely false. Lincoln started the war. He invaded the South.

Don't poke the sleeping Dragon and then complain when you are incinerated. At least the Japenese have the common sense to realize that.

You're simply a bald-faced lying Lincoln sycophant who doesn't give a wit about the actual facts of the matter.

Out of those ashes arose the modern superpower that is our nation.

In the long run, the Civil War was good for this country.

ROFL! what a jackass. 700,000 dead was good for the country? Laying waste to half the entire nation was good for the country? trashing the Constitution and imposing a police state was good for the country? WW I probably never would have occurred if it wasn't for the Civil War.

You have to be morally perverse to believe those are good things.

The same goes for the Democrat party. That's simply a gratuitous insult.

It wasn't meant as an insult.

Sure it was.

 

[Dot Com]

It depends on whether the soc cons have any integrity.

 

[Dragon]

Absolutely false. Lincoln started the war. He invaded the South.

Generally speaking, the side that fired the first shot is considered to have started the war.

 

[JoeB131]

If there is no split, the Tea Party folks are not going get what they want. Romney is the only one that can win the presidency and they don't want him.

Romney can't win the presidency. That's why the MSM and Obama want him.

The only upside is the Media is finally going to expose how crazy Mormons are... which should protect thousands of kids from getting lured into that cult... which will be a good.

 

[Dot Com]

Romney's #'s are steady. Looks like he'll prolly get the nomination
RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

then the soc cons will have to make a choice between integrity and partisan opportunism.

 

[JoeB131]

Romney's #'s are steady. Looks like he'll prolly get the nomination
RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

then the soc cons will have to make a choice between integrity and partisan opportunism.

Actually, they are steadily bad... He's never broken above 25%

And the fact the only "cheering section" he seems to have here are leftists, kind of tells me...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piVnArp9ZE0]ITS A TRAP! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bripat9643]

Absolutely false. Lincoln started the war. He invaded the South.

Generally speaking, the side that fired the first shot is considered to have started the war.

Generally speaking, that's horseshit. Fort Sumter was in the territory of South Carolina. Lincoln refused to vacate it sent federal ships into Carolina waters in an attempt to resupply it. That's an act of war.

If a nation sends warplanes into the airspace of a sovereign nation, it has committed an act of war. if that nation uses missiles to shoot them down, even if the intruding planes haven't fired a shot, they are acting in self-defense. That's international law.

 

[Dot Com]

Romney's #'s are steady. Looks like he'll prolly get the nomination
RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

then the soc cons will have to make a choice between integrity and partisan opportunism.

Actually, they are steadily bad... He's never broken above 25%

And the fact the only "cheering section" he seems to have here are leftists, kind of tells me...

The thing is, everyone elses has gone below 25% Gingrich is next. He's got enough baggage to fill a 727 plus the recently exposed $1.6- $1.8 million he took from Freddie Mac

 

[Dragon]

Fort Sumter was in the territory of South Carolina.

"Congress shall have the power . . . To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"

(Emphasis added.) U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.

Fort Sumter was within the borders of South Carolina, but it was federal territory and belonged to the federal government, by agreement with South Carolina entered into prior to secession, which, even granting that SC had the legal right to secede (which I do not), secession did not abrogate. It was no more a part of South Carolina than Washington DC was part of Virginia or Maryland.

 

[JoeB131]

Romney's #'s are steady. Looks like he'll prolly get the nomination
RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

then the soc cons will have to make a choice between integrity and partisan opportunism.

Actually, they are steadily bad... He's never broken above 25%

And the fact the only "cheering section" he seems to have here are leftists, kind of tells me...

The thing is, everyone elses has gone below 25% Gingrich is next. He's got enough baggage to fill a 727 plus the recently exposed $1.6- $1.8 million he took from Freddie Mac

Whatever, guy. I think you miss the point.

The GOP "Not Romney" caucus has seen people come and go... but the one place they aren't going to is... Romney.

Maybe Newt will peak, and Perry or Cain will get a second look. Or maybe Newt will stay aloft because all the "baggage" as you say is old news.

But the thing is, if you combine the "not Romneys" Newt+Cain+Perry is over 50%, as it was when the Not Romneys were Huckabee+Palin+Trump, none of whom actually ran.

Eventually, the not Romney will pick someone...

In fact, if anything, Romney should be worried. He did very well in the debates in the 2008 cycle as well, but when it got down to the retail politicking, he failed badly. People just don't like the man.

 

[BOBO]

...as can be read about below...

Our History | Libertarian Party

The GOP/Repub party may well split again despite it's five current ideologies...

Republican Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

that are currently recognized. Any future split in the GOP would bound to go in the direction of both 'big government liberalism(totalitarian/statist)', & the other moderate(modern liberalism)... as those of the ideology of 'classical liberalism' have already left the GOP for our Libertarian party.

Watching the interesting struggle within the Republican Party to decide on a nominee, and the acidic, highly divisive ideological issues coursing through the political biosphere, I am put in mind of another time when the nation was similarly divided along ideological lines, and when it was the Democratic Party, not the Republicans, that were so torn apart. I'm referring to the lead-up to the 1860 election.

At that time, although the issues were different, the dynamic was similar, in that a minority of the Democrats wanted an uncompromising, ideologically pure approach to the issue of slavery, while the majority (but not a big one) preferred a more moderate approach that would accept some compromise. When it became clear that a united party would nominate the moderate Stephen A. Douglas, the fire-eating Southern Democrats seceded from the party and nominated their own candidate, John C. Breckenridge.

The Democrats, by running two opposing candidates for president, threw the election to Abraham Lincoln, the nominee of the new Republican Party, and set the nation on the road to calamity.

Although the particulars differ, it seems to me that passions within the GOP are running as high today as they were within the Democrats in 1860. Will the Republicans unite behind a single candidate today? Or will the party split in two, as the Dems did on the brink of the Civil War?

 

[bripat9643]

Fort Sumter was in the territory of South Carolina.

"Congress shall have the power . . . To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"

(Emphasis added.) U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.

Fort Sumter was within the borders of South Carolina, but it was federal territory and belonged to the federal government, by agreement with South Carolina entered into prior to secession, which, even granting that SC had the legal right to secede (which I do not), secession did not abrogate. It was no more a part of South Carolina than Washington DC was part of Virginia or Maryland.

The minute South Carolina seceded from the Union, the federal government had no authority over any property within its borders. That's international law. Your belief that the US government can continue to maintain authority over property within the borders of a sovereign foreign country contrary to its wishes is absolutely hysterical. I'm sure the government of numerous foreign countries with American military bases would beg to differ. Do you also believe that the US government should be able to maintain authority over military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan if the governments of those countries decide they don't want it? I'd love to see you argue that point.

Washington DC is not part of Virginia or Maryland because those states are still part of the union and subject to terms of the Constitution. Furthermore, the gave up control of DC permanently. SC never agreed to any terms which stated that Ft Sumter was no longer part of the state.

 

[bripat9643]

Generally speaking, the side that fired the first shot is considered to have started the war.

Generally speaking, that's horseshit. Fort Sumter was in the territory of South Carolina. Lincoln refused to vacate it sent federal ships into Carolina waters in an attempt to resupply it. That's an act of war.

If a nation sends warplanes into the airspace of a sovereign nation, it has committed an act of war. if that nation uses missiles to shoot them down, even if the intruding planes haven't fired a shot, they are acting in self-defense. That's international law.

God why are you so stupid? Seriously i have to know what went wrong.

In other words, you are unable to dispute what I posted. You didn't even try.

WW I probably never would have occurred if it wasn't for the Civil War.

WWI happened because of European infighting. Civil war had nothing to do with that conflict.

The submarine, the machine gun, the turreted battleship and trench warfare were all invented during the Civil War. The civil war set the model for the trench warfare in Europe.

Without the Civil War, Woodrow Wilson could never have been elected and the US would never have gotten involved in World War I.

 

[Flopper]

If there is no split, the Tea Party folks are not going get what they want. Romney is the only one that can win the presidency and they don't want him.

Romney can't win the presidency. That's why the MSM and Obama want him.

The only upside is the Media is finally going to expose how crazy Mormons are... which should protect thousands of kids from getting lured into that cult... which will be a good.

The Whitehouse is preparing their campaign around a Romney victory. He is going to be the one to beat. The rest of the pack would beat themselves.

 

[JoeB131]

If there is no split, the Tea Party folks are not going get what they want. Romney is the only one that can win the presidency and they don't want him.

Romney can't win the presidency. That's why the MSM and Obama want him.

The only upside is the Media is finally going to expose how crazy Mormons are... which should protect thousands of kids from getting lured into that cult... which will be a good.

The Whitehouse is preparing their campaign around a Romney victory. He is going to be the one to beat. The rest of the pack would beat themselves.

Why, because they say so?

Honestly, I don't believe anything this white house says. When it says it's afraid of Romney, that just tells me that's the guy they want to run against.

Obama has been lying his ass off since he was here in Chicago...