Talk:Republicrat

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, 7 August 2010 (UTC), see discussion.
speedy keep, 7 August 2010 (UTC), see discussion.

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

Pejorative ?

If "Republicrat" is putatively pejorative, then what is the neutral word? Is it possible that the billions of $ of propaganda spent boosting the major parties and avoiding the idea they are both corrupt and avoiding the word obscures the use of the word both by critics of the duopoly and neutral commentators? The parties could use the word, but the concept embarrasses them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.54.198 (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Use

I'd like to know who first used this term. Was it Nader?

I rather doubt Nader adopted it from Savage, and also doubt that Savage invented it. It's a rather obvious portmanteau construction that could occur to anybody. In fact see this net.politics.theory usenet post from 1985: [1]Schizombie 15:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using this term to describe myself since sometime in the 70's, and I presume that there were very many before me. However my definition (my word, as far as I knew) is quite different from what I read here. Rather than being pejorative and describing how both parties are the same, it was meant to take the best elements of each, IMHO. In my view, it advocates - in order of priority 1) strong defense, 2) fiscally conservative and small government, 3) high personal liberty (socially liberal) without excessive laws and government intrusion, trying to mold society. The founders believed in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", which both the Democrats and Republicans seem to often forget as government creeps more and more into our private lives. Security, Infrastructure and Freedom are basically all I want from government. I'm a Republicrat. I believe that I am not alone, and that a party with these principles could be very popular, gathering the centrist members of both parties. But I'm not a student of government or politics, and I don't know the history and ramifications. I'd welcome suggestions on how to get this viewpoint incorporated into the article. CDBTH3000 (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LibLabCon Redirect?

Amerocentric much? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Republicrat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120311121846/http://articles.cnn.com/2004-08-31/politics/5.questions.king_1_cnn-ups-and-downs-rnc?_s=PM%3AALLPOLITICS to http://articles.cnn.com/2004-08-31/politics/5.questions.king_1_cnn-ups-and-downs-rnc?_s=PM%3AALLPOLITICS

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]