Is the Republican party divided?

[angus]

Ah, you're killing me! 

okay, this at least explains quite a lot.

Well, have fun with it.  Life's short.  Make it sweet.

Rock on, William Marcy Tweed. 

[A18]

You weren't alive for Lyndon Johnson?

Carter started deregulation. He was liberal, but better than Johnson.

[angus]

You weren't alive for Lyndon Johnson?

Carter started deregulation. He was liberal, but better than Johnson.

in fact johnson was the president when I (and the alter tweed ego) was born.  But he decided not to run again in November '68 ("I shall not seek, nor will I accept, my party's nomination ...")  I was probably more interested in the female human nipple than the Great Society, at the time.  Probably still am.  Anyway I don't have much recollection of the whole torrid afair.  But yeah, I think Johnson was to the welfare mom what Reagan was to the munitions & pharmaceuticals investor.  So, technically, there were two liberals in the span of my lifetime so far.  I stand corrected.

[dazzleman]

But yeah, I think Johnson was to the welfare mom what Reagan was to the munitions & pharmaceuticals investor.

Dude, that's a great line.  I'm going to use it in my signature.

[angus]

I'm on a fuçking roll, man.  Quoted twice in as many days.  Better make like George Costanza and shut up now before I ruin it. 

Gotta do little building project anyway.  I have secured some polytetrafluoroethylene boards and am making a little slope for my kid lie down on when he gets gassy.  My wife is convinced he has what yuppie doctors call gastroesophageal reflux (GER) syndrome.  So now we have lots of expensive prescription pills and I'm building a ten-degree angle slab to put under his crib mattress.

You know, back in Lyndon Johnson's day, I'm pretty sure the plan was just to let the baby fart himself to asleep.  Worked for me.  Still does.  Ah, times have changed.  Anyway, have a great sunday afternoon.

[CARLHAYDEN]

There has been a lot of talk(well, at least during the campaign last year) that Democrats are too divided on certain key issues. There's the war, for example. There is the theory that we should pull out all together, supported mostly by Dean. There is the idea that we should take a different approach and involve the UN/not take such a hands on approach in forming the new government/whatever a la Kerry. Then, there's all out support for the war from the Democratic side of the house, a position largely held by(can't think of a better example) Zel Miller. While it isn't my intent to create a thread disecting the rights/wrongs of the Democratic party or the war in Iraq, I just wanted to point out this as an example. I'd be willing to concede that, looking back on it, the divisions caused by the war cost the Democratic party dearly last year.

I'm working on a theory. I think the divisions in the Republican party are more serious than that of the Democrats. This is a bit of a serious statement and I realize not everyone will agree, but I hope everyone will at least agree that the divisions are more serious than we're led to believe. What I'd really like to know is what others think. Please, don't post "the GOP is off it's rocker and will fall apart in a few years" or "Republicans have their heads so far up their ass they're never coming out" or even "the GOP has its S-H-I-T together 10X more than the Democrats."

Here's some questions and statements to think about before you post: Why do so many Republicans hate McCain, Romney or Hagel and others can't stand Frist or Santorum? Not many Democrats, for example, loathe the likes of Lieberman, Conrad or Fiengold. Is there a distinct difference between Northeastern Republicans and those from the rest of the country? The GOP still has a presence in the Northeast. There are several Republican Governors and Senators, not to mention Congressmen and state legislatures. The Democratic party, in contrast, is almost dead in the south. A handful of states have Democratic governments overall, but there's only 1 senator from a true southern state if I remember right(Landrieu) and no southern state has a mojority of Democratic congressmen. Is it possible that there is generally a different degree of Republicans overall as opposed to Democrats? I think most Democrats(and most Republicans) see Harry Reid in the same light as someone like Phil Bresden or even(dare I say) Hillary. Kerry even seems to be more accepted among Democrats along with the likes of Barbara Boxer or even Chuck Schumar(sp?). There seem to be polar opposites in the Republican party, however. Allen is not considered to be anything like Romney. Frist is even more different from the two of them. Gulliani? Owens? Lindsey Graham? 3 men with 3 different groups of followers.

I think the concern for Republicans is that it seems as though they are going to have a harder time uniting around 1 person/candidate. Anyone think I'm right or am I just being to general?

Let me cite a few polls which are available online that answer this question. 

1.) Should the 2001 tax cuts be made permanent? (CBS News/New York Times, February 2005)

Party                    Permanent          Allowed to lapse

Republicans           62%                     25%

Democrats             30                        53

2.) Death penalty for murder?  Quinnipiac, December 2004

Party                    For                       Against

Republicans         77%                      16%

Democrats           52                         38

3.) Increase oil & gas production.  Fox?OP April 2004

Party                    For                        Against

Republicans         63%                       26%

Democrats           34                          54

4.) Illegal immigrants allowed to stay CBS News/New York Times  February, 2005

Party                    For                        Against

Republican           27%                       68%

Democrats           37                           59

5.) Gay Marriage vs. Civil Unions

Party                    'Gay Marriage'       Civil Unions

Repuglicans             8%                       37%

Democrats             29                          35

Need more examples?

[A18]

Wow. The parties aren't nearly as polarized on the issues as I thought.

[RJ]

Need more examples?

I'm sure there are examples for either side of the arguement. Question still remains: Why hasn't the Republican majority in the Federal Government resulted in much?

[DanielX]

Need more examples?

I'm sure there are examples for either side of the arguement. Question still remains: Why hasn't the Republican majority in the Federal Government resulted in much?

Because the current leadership of both parties are politicians who do whatever they think buys votes. The only real difference is that Republicans and Democrats pander try to buy slightly different votes.
Big spending sells suprisingly well - you can't leave them seniors without their pills, why not have a new education plan to teach the kids, trick out the troops with tech goodies till they look like RoboCops, save the spotted tree slug, etc etc. Ergo, both parties love to spend taxpayer money.