Reagan was fiercly loyal to the Republicans identifying with every kind of

Reagan was fiercly loyal to the republicans

This preview shows page 6 - 8 out of 13 pages.

-Reagan was fiercly loyal to the Republicans, identifying with every kind of Republican, as well as winning the majority of white mainline protestants, white evangelical protestants, white catholics and other groups-I skipped the note-taking so I could focus on the article, lets discuss it. -computer/technological advancesPAC’s didnt have a limit on how much they could contribute to the National Committee The Economist: From Bill to Howard:- Yet on Saturday the Democratic National Committee is almost certain to elect Screamin' Howard as its new chairman.- Jesse Jackson= “New Democrat” -- The Dean chairmanship shows how little Mr. Clinton actually managed to change his party.- One argument: The first is that the party chairmanship doesn't amount to a hill of beans. FALSE Party chairmen are responsible for running the political machines that increasingly makethe difference between winning and losing elections in a closely divided nation. They also have a chance to become the public face of their party—at least until a presidential nominee emerges. It is hard to imagine that Mr. Dean will keep out of the limelight.- The second argument is that the distance from there to here really isn't all that great. - Thrives on the hard-core activists- Mr. Dean recently summed up his appeal to the party's populists in a single sentence: “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for, but I admire their discipline and their organization.
Image of page 6
- Why didn't the Clinton revolution prove longer-lasting? Some of it is Mr Clinton's own fault: his policy of triangulation inevitably alienated the party's leftists. NYT: For Republicans, Mounting fears of Lasting Split- expressed concern that their party was fracturing over free trade, immigration and Wall Street.- These crowds were full of lunch-bucket conservatives who expressed frustration with the Republican gentry.- “Trump, especially, would split the party. But many will fall in line, seeing no choice.”- “If Trump or Cruz wins the White House, then my side of the party has to re-evaluate who we are, what we stand for, and I’d be willing to do that,” Mr. Graham said. “But if Trump or Cruz loses the presidency, would their supporters re-evaluate their views on immigration and other issues that would grow the party? If they do that, we can come back together. If they don’t, the party probably splits in a permanent way.”- Some political leaders, eyeing the Republican split, are sensing opportunity.The Economist: Chastising the faithfulMichael Howard's Proposals to fix the Tory PartyMr Howard's main proposal was to allow his audience to choose their own leader.WHEN Michael Howard announced that he would stand down as leader of the Conservative Party, he added that he would change the rules for the election of his successor before he went.- First, Tory MPs were indulging in a little collective anger management.- Second, Tory MPs were under the impression that they were going to be subjected to meddling performance reviews and forced to sign a contract promising not to do anything that
Image of page 7
Image of page 8

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture