Posted on 09/25/2009 3:19:41 AM PDT by Scanian
A new generation of conservative activists has come forth, and many of the newcomers have never experienced the kind of nastiness to which liberals are inclined, falsely labeling them as racists, even Nazis.
Many of the new activists worry that liberals' smears will be effective. But the old-timers among conservative activists have a message for the newcomers: Don't worry. We've heard these smears throughout our political lives. Even in the old days, the smears rarely worked.
It is, to paraphrase Nathan Detroit in "Guys and Dolls," the oldest established permanent floating crap game in American politics.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Even in the old days, the smears rarely worked.This statement is illogical.
It assumes that leftists had more power "in the old days" than they do now.
That's not true.
In the "old days" the media was liberal. Today it's leftist.
In the "old days", we had Jimmy Carter. Today we have Barry Obama.
So to say that even in the "old days" the smears rarely worked implies that even back then, when things were worse.
But back then things weren't worse.
Things are worse today. Much, much worse.
There is a bigger chance that the smears will "work" today than in the old days.
in the aftermath of the Bush disasterThat is so true. We are living in the aftermath of the Bush disaster. Barry is part of that aftermath.
After the Nixon disaster (and I don't mean Watergate, I mean his propensity to embrace socialism, wage and price controls) we got Jimmy. After the Bush disaster (an even greater exercise in Republican Embrace of Socialism) we got Barry.
If the smears didn't work in the days when liberals had a monopoly on the major media, they certainly won't work today.It's true there's Fox and the internet... but still... I would argue that radicalism in the media is much stronger today than ever before.
Remember, the average reporter in the average media outlet went to a school in which 95% of all his/her professors were leftist radicals. That was not true of the majority of reporters in the 50s and 60s. Maybe the leftists have lost their monopoly in the media, but they still control a huge majority share... and they certainly have a monopoly in the universities.
I still think the writer is wrong to write that the anti-Conservative climate of the 50s and 60s was worse than it is today.
The Smears rarely worked? With all due respect, they’ve been quite effective and only when the nation is actually ‘shocked’ into reality, as in the case of a Carter presidency and now the fascist in the WH, does the effectiveness diminish (somewhat) and people start realizing they’ve been ‘duped’(again). Another way to look at it? It took many, many years of ‘smearing’ behind closed doors, out of the light of the public eye that has produced this most virulent strain of fascism and hatred for all things decent and American.
I also have serious reservations at this moment that there is a candidate out there that can run as a Republican in 2012. It can change and I hope it does.
I’m still amazed at how sharp the attacks were and still are against Palin. Beck gets them too and look how effective he has been against the libs. Those two are bright lights on the horizon.
I think the implication was that(or at least I took it that way) in the “old days,” the Big Smear was a new trick and therefore should have been effective. But it really wasn’t and it still isn’t.
As a Goldwater Kid in ‘64, I can attest that the climate against conservatism was very powerful. Barry G. was depicted as a “nuke ‘em now” warmonger and a “shoot from the hip” provocateur who would have put the country in extreme danger. The Democrats had never seen anyone like him and, as is their tendency, they overreacted horribly.
Its the Republican Party that I worry about more. The democrats are waging a Chicago style war and its to kill not to only win. There is no Republican party here in Illinois for what its worth. The national party has to redefine itself and fight with knives and guns just like Emmanuel and Axelrod.
In 1964 one of my younger sisters was a Goldwater girl. Being a staunch Dem, like my parents, I used to rag her about being part of a campaign to elect a “dangerous” man like Goldwater. Now I’m one of those hard-right conservatives, and she’s a staunch Dem. Weird, eh?
I'll have to disagree about any "Bush disaster" to the conservatives, though. Bush was never a conservative, as his attempt to bridge the waters under the rubric of "compassionate conservatism" showed. I'm a little surprised that anyone really expected him to be given his antecedents in Texas. There was, after all, two decades of water under that bridge between Reagan's first election and Bush's.
On the contrary, conservatives seem to me to be more energized than ever and look to regain an influence within the Republican party that had waned over two decades of compromise in order to run a government. That pattern brought us Bob Dole before it brought us John McCain, and Bush was nowhere in sight at the time. It wasn't Bush, it was the Republican party as a whole, and part of it was the price of success.
I'm also old enough to remember Goldwater being cursed as a disaster for conservatism. In the short term perhaps he was. Not, I think, in the long term. And if the author's piece here serves to open our perspective a little perhaps some of that will become visible.
Listening to Glenn Beck today and his program has been excellent. I hope you are absolutely correct that he has the staying power I just become concerned because you know as well as I, “one aww sh*t wipes out 25 atta-boys”. and he is such a major contributor to shining the light on these cockroaches
We have to stand together and I see some in-fighting occurring between hosts and each (with the exception of Savage imo) contribute invaluable insight and information to us and I don’t want GB diminished because of an ‘ill’ thought out comment or gesture.
Those guys are front line troops. Mistakes will happen but we have to rely on them and their great contributions with their megaphones. Beck is good at this in my opinion. And I also thought that McCain was problematic as a light conservative int he mold of W. At least now we get the full frontal blast of the progressive stuff and they always overshoot.
Yes, indeed.
What is even more weird is the conversion of another Goldwater Girl to the Left—Hillary Rodham.
I won't completely discount Glenn Beck for the Hillary remark.....but it showed bad judgment. a Clinton WH would be doing the same type of damage.......only at a slower pace. And it was just not a ‘sound’ statement to make (again imo)
Like many others, I voted for the McCain ticket because of Sarah Palin. It was the first time in my life that I truly felt I was voting for the lesser of 2 evils but...with that said, A McCain WH would never have been packed with communists/fascists. It probably would have been packed with what we call moderate........but these people Pres &(Czars) in the WH are openly hostile to America and Americans......particularly White Americans and they have absolutely no conscience, even when people strongly vocalize opposition because their main goal is to dismantle the country and it's standing in the world. McCain would have never done this and would have been kept in check by LOUD opposition (imo) AND with Sarah Palin.
Keep the faith.
My understanding is that it only ran once but somehow it was never forgotten.
Goldwater had 2 1/2 strikes against him due to the Kennedy assasination but his candidacy did launch the political career of Ronald Reagan, so it was a worthwhile effort.
Also, Johnson promised to keep us out of Vietnam, didn’t he? Just like Wilson promised to keep us out of WWI.
A Rat and his promises are soon parted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.