AHAHAHA. What tripe. Republicans did MOST of the things listed above, in fact: right of blacks and women to vote, civil rights. What stupid lies.
aja
· 1 year ago
Since when did Liberal mean Democrat and Conservative mean Republican? Read more carefully before you spout off like an idiot. Here is the quote in its entirety, which addresses this very issue:
Santos: It's true. Republicans have tried to turn liberal into a bad word. Well, liberals ended slavery in this country. Vinick: A Republican President ended slavery. Santos: Yes, a liberal Republican; what happened to them, Senator? They got run out of your party! What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican Party? I'll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things, every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.
pudge
· 1 year ago
Um.
The quote says these things were "offensive to the Republican Party." It is YOUR QUOTE that makes "conservative" and "Republican" synonymous.
Maybe you should read what you post? And you call ME an idiot?
And further, many of today's "conservatives" -- like me -- would have been "liberal" on a lot of these issues, including Civil Rights, suffrage, and so on. So it is disingenuous. The most active abolitionists in the mid-1800s were what today you would call "far-right Christian conservatives," doing the same thing to abolish slavery that they do today to abolish abortion.
You don't have to think the two things are similar, but THEY do, those "liberals" who helped eliminate slavery, who grew into the Fundamentalist movement in the early 1900s and to the Christian Conservatives of today.
porthos
· 1 year ago
I was going to comment after your incredibly biased and inaccurate description of "conservatism" the other day, but whatever. That's your opinion, you're entitled to it.
But with this post, I'm just left wondering... What?
Civil Rights: One word--Lincoln.
Suffrage: While Wilson gets the rightful credit for being the president to push for legislation to be signed, it was his Republican predecessor Taft who first supported Woman's Suffrage on a national stage. He spoke freely about equal opportunity for woman's education and for voting rights. In part, so they wouldn't have to get married in order to be able to support themselves. Very progressive for the time.
Civil Rights, Part Two: In the House, 79% of Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while Democrats were at 63%. If not for Republicans, an anti-civil-rights-filibuster would never have been broken in the Senate (81% of Republicans voted to break the filibuster, only 65% of Dems did). While there was as Democratic majority in both houses at the time, Republicans supported the legislation at a much greater percentage than Dems and were key to it getting signed into law.
And it was Republican president Eisenhower that both supported Brown vs. the Board of Education AND proposed the first Civil Rights Acts (1957 & 1960), which paved the way for the final 1964 legislation. Oh, and he was the president that sent troops to Arkansas to protect black students as desegregation began.
Medicare, Clean Air Act, and Clean Water Act: Each of these has significant criticism as to their effectiveness, efficiency, and negative consequences. Medicare just might bankrupt the treasury (it hasn't gone away since the 04 elections). Besides, they're nowhere NEAR on par with the importance of of the first two issues. It's almost an insult to Suffrage and Civil Rights to lump them together.
Getting politics, even political quotes, from TV just isn't a good idea.
aja
· 1 year ago
As I said to the guy above, it wasn't a R vs. D, it was liberal versus conservative. I still stand by the original point of... what is so bad about being a liberal? Even the dying breed of liberal republican, which according to history did once exist in our political spectrum, though now when you hear the word liberal it is instantly synonymous in the public's mind as democrat. I firmly believe that there is as much evil in one party as another, that the definition of republican and democrat are used against us in so much as they pit us against each other on every front, and that the better gauge for one's politics is whether they want the government to step in or get out of the way. And were we to ask on each issue, I think the people would be split in their political leanings. More here, less there, etc. I think that the terms "liberal" and "conservative", just like republican and democrat, have been turned into buzz words that defy their original definition. In most issues, I am liberal. In large part due to my liberal republican parents, there are many issues where I am in line with the republican ticket, though I am a registered democrat. I refuse to be cornered as a spendthrift crackpot devoid of morals nor a heartless hick with racist sympathies and a bible on every end table because someone decided to adopt these misconceptions and proliferate them to the masses. The point of the quote wasn't to demonize conservatives, nor to make liberals appear to be without fault, but to address the issue at hand: the terms are no longer relevant to the argument, and due to that loss of meaning using them in politics is an insult to the process.
And I don't get my politics from TV.
porthos
· 1 year ago
I have a different take on the quote. I don't think the point was "...to address the issue at hand: the terms [liberal and conservative] are no longer relevant to the argument, and due to that loss of meaning using them in politics is an insult to the process." I think it's pretty clear its point was the promote liberalism, and the implication to bash "non-liberal" Republicans.
And while it's probably fair to call Lincoln a "moderate", I don't see how one could paint him as a "liberal Republican". Was Clinton a "conservative Democrat"?
In fact, the most "liberal" of Republicans of late have been the neo-cons, who have broken the most with true conservative philosophy. I doubt you're okay with that version of liberal Republicanism (I'm not).
Regardless, the quote is still misleading and confusing at best, and wrong at worst. Lincoln wasn't "liberal" in any political sense of the word. 80% of Republicans supporting the Civil Rights Act doesn't equal "liberal Republicans".
On a side note, I think it's kinda unfair to bash "pudge" for being an idiot, when it was only when you rolled out the full quote that it clarified the liberal/conservative thing. "Liberal" is pretty synonymously used with "Democrat" and "Conservative" with "Republican". The fact that Aaron Sorkin (or whoever wrote that episode) wants to turn that on it's head to make good TV doesn't change the cultural usage.
And I specifically never meant to imply YOU got politics from TV. I have no idea where you do. I do, however, think using quotes to "support" a view from a TV show offer little weight.
pharmakos
· 1 year ago
Damn right.
I miss that show.
Steve Poland
· 1 year ago
You people happened to pull this shit while I'm in a transitional period so I'm going to keep it brief.
Are we really wasting time on political semantics on the eve of one of the most important events of our lifetimes? I abhor labels and parties so what's wetting my political whistle at the moment is that tomorrow we are in danger of leaving ourselves one 72-year-old heartbeat away from lunacy.
That West Wing quotation is way post-Sorkin but here's a paraphrase of what he has to say about our current situation:
"Sarah Palin didn’t say “thanks but no thanks” to the Bridge to Nowhere. She just said “Thanks.” McCain can say that the transcendent issue of our time is the spread of Islamic fanaticism or he can choose a running mate who doesn’t know the Bush doctrine from the Monroe Doctrine, but he can’t do both at the same time and call it patriotic. They have to lie — the truth isn’t their friend right now. McCain decried agents of intolerance then chose a running mate who had to ask if she was allowed to ban books from a public library. It’s not bad enough she thinks the planet Earth was created in six days 6,000 years ago complete with a man, a woman and a talking snake, she wants schools to teach the rest of our kids to deny geology, anthropology, archaeology and common sense too? It’s not bad enough she’s forcing her own daughter into a loveless marriage to a teenage hood, she wants the rest of us to guide our daughters in that direction too? It’s not enough that a woman shouldn’t have the right to choose, it should be the law of the land that she has to carry and deliver her rapist’s baby too? I don’t know whether or not Governor Palin has the tenacity of a pit bull, but I know for sure she’s got the qualifications of one."
All Comments
Santos: It's true. Republicans have tried to turn liberal into a bad word. Well, liberals ended slavery in this country.
Vinick: A Republican President ended slavery.
Santos: Yes, a liberal Republican; what happened to them, Senator? They got run out of your party! What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican Party? I'll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things, every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.
The quote says these things were "offensive to the Republican Party." It is YOUR QUOTE that makes "conservative" and "Republican" synonymous.
Maybe you should read what you post? And you call ME an idiot?
And further, many of today's "conservatives" -- like me -- would have been "liberal" on a lot of these issues, including Civil Rights, suffrage, and so on. So it is disingenuous. The most active abolitionists in the mid-1800s were what today you would call "far-right Christian conservatives," doing the same thing to abolish slavery that they do today to abolish abortion.
You don't have to think the two things are similar, but THEY do, those "liberals" who helped eliminate slavery, who grew into the Fundamentalist movement in the early 1900s and to the Christian Conservatives of today.
But with this post, I'm just left wondering... What?
Civil Rights: One word--Lincoln.
Suffrage: While Wilson gets the rightful credit for being the president to push for legislation to be signed, it was his Republican predecessor Taft who first supported Woman's Suffrage on a national stage. He spoke freely about equal opportunity for woman's education and for voting rights. In part, so they wouldn't have to get married in order to be able to support themselves. Very progressive for the time.
Civil Rights, Part Two: In the House, 79% of Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while Democrats were at 63%. If not for Republicans, an anti-civil-rights-filibuster would never have been broken in the Senate (81% of Republicans voted to break the filibuster, only 65% of Dems did). While there was as Democratic majority in both houses at the time, Republicans supported the legislation at a much greater percentage than Dems and were key to it getting signed into law.
And it was Republican president Eisenhower that both supported Brown vs. the Board of Education AND proposed the first Civil Rights Acts (1957 & 1960), which paved the way for the final 1964 legislation. Oh, and he was the president that sent troops to Arkansas to protect black students as desegregation began.
Medicare, Clean Air Act, and Clean Water Act: Each of these has significant criticism as to their effectiveness, efficiency, and negative consequences. Medicare just might bankrupt the treasury (it hasn't gone away since the 04 elections). Besides, they're nowhere NEAR on par with the importance of of the first two issues. It's almost an insult to Suffrage and Civil Rights to lump them together.
Getting politics, even political quotes, from TV just isn't a good idea.
And I don't get my politics from TV.
And while it's probably fair to call Lincoln a "moderate", I don't see how one could paint him as a "liberal Republican". Was Clinton a "conservative Democrat"?
In fact, the most "liberal" of Republicans of late have been the neo-cons, who have broken the most with true conservative philosophy. I doubt you're okay with that version of liberal Republicanism (I'm not).
Regardless, the quote is still misleading and confusing at best, and wrong at worst. Lincoln wasn't "liberal" in any political sense of the word. 80% of Republicans supporting the Civil Rights Act doesn't equal "liberal Republicans".
On a side note, I think it's kinda unfair to bash "pudge" for being an idiot, when it was only when you rolled out the full quote that it clarified the liberal/conservative thing. "Liberal" is pretty synonymously used with "Democrat" and "Conservative" with "Republican". The fact that Aaron Sorkin (or whoever wrote that episode) wants to turn that on it's head to make good TV doesn't change the cultural usage.
And I specifically never meant to imply YOU got politics from TV. I have no idea where you do. I do, however, think using quotes to "support" a view from a TV show offer little weight.
I miss that show.
Are we really wasting time on political semantics on the eve of one of the most important events of our lifetimes? I abhor labels and parties so what's wetting my political whistle at the moment is that tomorrow we are in danger of leaving ourselves one 72-year-old heartbeat away from lunacy.
That West Wing quotation is way post-Sorkin but here's a paraphrase of what he has to say about our current situation:
"Sarah Palin didn’t say “thanks but no thanks” to the Bridge to Nowhere. She just said “Thanks.” McCain can say that the transcendent issue of our time is the spread of Islamic fanaticism or he can choose a running mate who doesn’t know the Bush doctrine from the Monroe Doctrine, but he can’t do both at the same time and call it patriotic. They have to lie — the truth isn’t their friend right now. McCain decried agents of intolerance then chose a running mate who had to ask if she was allowed to ban books from a public library. It’s not bad enough she thinks the planet Earth was created in six days 6,000 years ago complete with a man, a woman and a talking snake, she wants schools to teach the rest of our kids to deny geology, anthropology, archaeology and common sense too? It’s not bad enough she’s forcing her own daughter into a loveless marriage to a teenage hood, she wants the rest of us to guide our daughters in that direction too? It’s not enough that a woman shouldn’t have the right to choose, it should be the law of the land that she has to carry and deliver her rapist’s baby too? I don’t know whether or not Governor Palin has the tenacity of a pit bull, but I know for sure she’s got the qualifications of one."