Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A new Democrat

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • paulthefan
    replied
    Originally posted by jazzcyclist
    As this video illustrates, Mr. Goldwater would have clashed with many of today's Republicans.
    Should I list 50 video and speech transcripts that would show that he would have been public enemy number one for today's Democrat party?.. what is your point? Suggesting that he would have been a public Specter is patently absurd, get a grip!

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    As this video illustrates, Mr. Goldwater would have clashed with many of today's Republicans.

    Leave a comment:


  • TrackDaddy
    replied
    Specter's appearing on MTP this morning.

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    Originally posted by Brian
    Good stuff, guys. Fun to read.

    What a forum can and should be.
    And to think, the boss didn't think this thread would make it this far.
    Originally posted by gh
    Keep it within the bounds of dispassionate discussion and we'll let it stand.

    (having said that the over-under for the thread's making it far into tomorrow are..... )

    Leave a comment:


  • dakota
    replied
    "The Need to Roll Back Presidential Power Grabs" by Arlen Specter, an essay from The New York Review of Books, issue of May 14th 2009.

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22656

    Leave a comment:


  • Brian
    replied
    Good stuff, guys. Fun to read.

    What a forum can and should be.

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    Bob Barr weighs in.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... %E2%80%99/

    Leave a comment:


  • paulthefan
    replied
    continuation from my above comments: In short Goldwater was natural and disciplined conservative, a very sharp mind whose core values were that of a civic minded philanthropic small businessman from the southwest. To the extent that the GOP would not accept him today it would be because the GOP had left conservatism and embraced compassionate conservatism, a euphemism for big government liberalism. Nothing at all to do with the relatively powerless small sect of right wingers that have also fragmented away from the GOP.

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    Goldwater also has the distinction of being the only person to ever "fire" a U.S. President when he was chosen by congressional Republicans to give Nixon the resign-or-else ultimatum.

    Leave a comment:


  • paulthefan
    replied
    Originally posted by jazzcyclist
    Originally posted by paulthefan
    not quite, in the 50s and 60s being a hawk was not the compartmentalized philosophy that it is today. Goldwater's conservatism was based in a fairly hard philosophy of human freedom, liberty and personal responsibility. It was not hawkishness in a vacuum, it was first anti-communism. The anticommunism he was in the lead of was a right wing repulsion against statism and govt control of all aspects of human life, economic, education, social, religious etc., He saw/understood the mild socialism of the newdeal in america as part of a larger global move toward restricting freedom and responsibility and understood that these trends in the US were the harbingers of decline in national moral and ultimately national wellbeing.

    By the time he had the luxury of addressing "gay rights" in his 80s I suspect the issues that were critical to him were settled. I will agree that the Goldwater of his late 80s might have had the time for the limelight of media adoration that comes with moderation. But the Goldwater of the early 60s, when he was at his apex would have labeled many forms of moderation as vice.
    I agree 100% with your description of Goldwater, especially the stuff about "human freedom, liberty and personal responsibility". But I think Goldwater defined freedom differently than today's Republican base defines it. He defined freedom basically the same way Ron Paul defines it. How would you compare Paul and Goldwater?
    I think that is a fair analogy, always hard to find perfect analogies but this is reasonable. Just like Goldwater in the 60's, Paul to some degree also represents that shrinking right wing of the country, a marginalized group with old values and a strong national identity. The world order has passed them by just as it did Goldwater. In Goldwater's case it was not until liberalism fully ran its course and had caused its havoc that a Reagan could cobble a broader coalition built on Goldwater's anti-socialist theme, bringing in the traditional catholics, democrats (3rd/4th/5th generation southern euros), giving popular credibility to the Goldwater values. At any rate, the notion that intolerant GOP voters are driving goldwater types out of the gop is completely backwards, the gop is shrinking as traditional catholics (formerly dominated by southern euros, now mostly composed of newer first and second generation hispanics) cycle back to their traditional posture favoring the govt/social spending, welfare, services, open borders. The common ground is now with corporate interests, govt interests and these newer demographics. The globalism and military involvement abroad were not a right wing invention unless you define right wing that way. Rather those interests are heterogeneous from left to right with internationalist minded and multinational minded people on both sides of the aisle. On the GOP side these are what the goldwaterites used to call the rockefeller republicans or country club republicans. This wing of the GOP, once US corporate barrons are now multinational and international in their interests, George Bush was an exemplar. It was that wing that ended GOP power, the complete disolving of Reagan's coalition. The right wing has always had a large isolationist wing, an enduring natural position for no small minority of americans who can tolerate being stigmatized in the coroprate media. The other cause of fall for the GOP is just simple, changing demographics. The country is a different place now as large numbers of immigrants from developing regions of the world create the next wave of 1st and 2nd generation americans. They are natural democrats, similar to the great-grandparents of the catholic southern europeans that Reagan recruited.

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    Originally posted by paulthefan
    not quite, in the 50s and 60s being a hawk was not the compartmentalized philosophy that it is today. Goldwater's conservatism was based in a fairly hard philosophy of human freedom, liberty and personal responsibility. It was not hawkishness in a vacuum, it was first anti-communism. The anticommunism he was in the lead of was a right wing repulsion against statism and govt control of all aspects of human life, economic, education, social, religious etc., He saw/understood the mild socialism of the newdeal in america as part of a larger global move toward restricting freedom and responsibility and understood that these trends in the US were the harbingers of decline in national moral and ultimately national wellbeing.

    By the time he had the luxury of addressing "gay rights" in his 80s I suspect the issues that were critical to him were settled. I will agree that the Goldwater of his late 80s might have had the time for the limelight of media adoration that comes with moderation. But the Goldwater of the early 60s, when he was at his apex would have labeled many forms of moderation as vice.
    I agree 100% with your description of Goldwater, especially the stuff about "human freedom, liberty and personal responsibility". But I think Goldwater defined freedom differently than today's Republican base defines it. He defined freedom basically the same way Ron Paul defines it. How would you compare Paul and Goldwater?

    Leave a comment:


  • paulthefan
    replied
    Originally posted by jazzcyclist
    Originally posted by paulthefan
    Barry Goldwater of the LBJ era would still be to the far right of the GOP today. He would be howling stop stop at a number of social and political trends. Remember he rose out of the southwest against the trends of the New Deal.

    Again you are probably thinking of Everett Dirksen, another great GOP statesman of the 50-60s.
    I think Goldwater was fiercely conservative on fiscal issues and a hawk on foreign policy, but he was liberal on many social issues. He supported gay rights and abortion rights. His wife Peggy founded the Arizona chapter of Planned Parenthood. He eventually regretted his decision not to support civil rights and said that his passionate belief in state's right blinded him to the fact that in large parts of the country, Blacks were being treated as horribly as they were, including being denied the right to vote. I think that if Goldwater was alive today, he would be ostracized the same way Ron Paul is. Do you remember how he was treated by the Republican establishment and FOX News during the 2008 Republican primary?

    not quite, in the 50s and 60s being a hawk was not the compartmentalized philosophy that it is today. Goldwater's conservatism was based in a fairly hard philosophy of human freedom, liberty and personal responsibility. It was not hawkishness in a vacuum, it was first anti-communism. The anticommunism he was in the lead of was a right wing repulsion against statism and govt control of all aspects of human life, economic, education, social, religious etc., He saw/understood the mild socialism of the newdeal in america as part of a larger global move toward restricting freedom and responsibility and understood that these trends in the US were the harbingers of decline in national moral and ultimately national wellbeing.

    By the time he had the luxury of addressing "gay rights" in his 80s I suspect the issues that were critical to him were settled. I will agree that the Goldwater of his late 80s might have had the time for the limelight of media adoration that comes with moderation. But the Goldwater of the early 60s, when he was at his apex would have labeled many forms of moderation as vice.

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    Originally posted by paulthefan
    Barry Goldwater of the LBJ era would still be to the far right of the GOP today. He would be howling stop stop at a number of social and political trends. Remember he rose out of the southwest against the trends of the New Deal.

    Again you are probably thinking of Everett Dirksen, another great GOP statesman of the 50-60s.
    I think Goldwater was fiercely conservative on fiscal issues and a hawk on foreign policy, but he was liberal on many social issues. He supported gay rights and abortion rights. His wife Peggy founded the Arizona chapter of Planned Parenthood. He eventually regretted his decision not to support civil rights and said that his passionate belief in state's right blinded him to the fact that in large parts of the country, Blacks were being treated as horribly as they were, including being denied the right to vote. I think that if Goldwater was alive today, he would be ostracized the same way Ron Paul is. Do you remember how he was treated by the Republican establishment and FOX News during the 2008 Republican primary?

    Leave a comment:


  • paulthefan
    replied
    Barry Goldwater of the LBJ era would still be to the far right of the GOP today. He would be howling stop stop at a number of social and political trends. Remember he rose out of the southwest against the trends of the New Deal.

    Again you are probably thinking of Everett Dirksen, another great GOP statesman of the 50-60s.

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    Originally posted by paulthefan
    Originally posted by jazzcyclist
    Originally posted by gm
    Goldwater did not support the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and he lost the presidential election by one of the largest landslides in history. Hardly someone whose legacy I would want to hang my hat on, and a man I have nothing but distaste for.
    My mentioning of Goldwater had nothing to do with my opinion of him. I only mentioned him because I feel that, like Specter, he would also be ostracized from the Republican Party if he were around today, and he was the de facto leader of the Republican Party when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Bill.
    you might be confusing Barry Goldwater with someone else. I dont think Barry signed the "Civil Rights Bill". He was the far right wing of the GOP.
    :? Huh :?:
    LBJ = Lyndon Baines Johnson

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X