Kakki wrote: There are a myriad of reasons beyond financial and religious for many.
Yes, I tried to speak to those by my inclusion of some libertarians, and others. I do not consider libertarians concerns to be necessarily financial or religious: I see them as fundamentally different in origin. I'd be happy if you wished to articulate more specific reasons that you know of for identifying with the Republican party. I think were probably reading from the same page on this one. Then I wrote, and Kakki also responded: > But overall, the Republicans have been, and are still, the party of business and of wealth. One need look no farther than its platform and favorite issues to see this, again and again and again. I look at it as a bit more complex than that, but don't have a problem with it being a champion of business. It IS more complex than the Republican Party simply being the champion of wealth and business, as I elaborated in the paragraph that preceded that sentence. But my point is still that, of the two major parties, the Republicans align themselves, and are seen as aligned, much more closely to the concerns of business and the wealthy than do/are the Democrats. I stand by that statement. I dont know that I have a problem with the party being a champion of business, either. Business has legitimate interests, and, in a democracy, the people get to decide which interests to put their votes behind. My only concern, and this applies to EITHER major party, would come if or when it attempted to style itself as something it was not. I see both parties as having been guilty of this in the past decade, although sometimes its difficult to tell the difference between a facelift for political expediency and a genuine change in direction. As for demographics changing, you raise interesting possibilities. I'll have to check out that article. Thanks for providing the link. Mary P.
