Posted on 08/07/2007 12:04:46 PM PDT by CenTexConfederate
Is 2008 The New 1964? [John Derbyshire]
There's a Pro-Ron-Paul meme going around, to the effect that 2008 is the new 1964; i.e. that on the premise—debatable in itself, of course—that the GOP has no chance of winning the presidency next year, conservatives should run a Goldwater-style insurgency to remind the party we're here & set up some influence for 2012. Bruce Bartlett floated the meme here.
I got a thought-provoking e-mail along similar lines (one of dozens like it I've had on that Paul column) from Ben Novak, who lists himself as "founder of the Americans in Europe for Ron Paul Meet-up Group in Bratislava, Republic of Slovakia." Blimey. Well, here's what Ben says. "Mr Derbyshire—-Recently you wrote an eloquent article titled the 'Ron Paul Temptation ,' about how tempted you were to support him. However, you concluded by fighting off the temptation, writing that '[Ron Paul's] candidacy belongs in the realm of dreams, not practical politics. But, oh, such sweet dreams.' A Ron Paul candidacy does inspire sweet dreams. But, rather than writing Ron Paul off for that reason, I suggest that there are a multitude of reasons why you—and a lot of other Americans—should follow your dream.
(Excerpt) Read more at corner.nationalreview.com ...
There is a Romney in the race again...just like 1964. Deja vu all over again!
The Ron Paul Doctrine: ‘When the going gets tough, the tough ... go home.’
Ron Paul is a wild shrimp by comparison.
I used to find Ron Paul tolerable until his nutty fan base started diaherreaing all over the Internet... now because of them I can’t help but associate him with craziness.
Ron Paul hasn’t a chance with anyone who cares about our national security.
Ron Paul wants to be the new Goldwater?? But Goldwater didn’t go crazy until he was near death.
you—and a lot of other Americans—should follow your dream.....
With the exception of the PDS squad................
Dr. Paul is the only republican in the current field that I can consider supporting.
Except no one in the party listens to Goldwater’s example anymore. I’ve even see so called conservatives on this site label Goldwater a “liberal” because well, as a true conservative, he could no more well tolerate federal intervention on the side of right-wing issues than he could for the intervention on left-wing issues.
That being said, I don’t see 2008 as an offhand loss for the Republicans. The Red-Blue dynamic is not about to break up, unless the Dems do something bold like nominating Biden or Edwards, which seems less and less likely. The truth is, there are 10 states that will decide this election, as it has been since 2000, and we have just as good a shot as we have previously.
Hmmmm.....defeatism from a GOP Presidential candidate. Now wonder most people are saying Ron who?
Maybe by 2012, the GOP will figure out that voters don't like being the world's supercop plus financing the rest of the world with trade imbalances.
So...we should nominate Paul so we can lose and be reminded of what “real” conservatism is?
Right. I guess anyone who supports such a delusional theory likes the idea of President Hillary and Co-President Bill.
Of course the entire theory doesn’t make sense. Goldwater had popular support and was saying things that conservatives agreed with and supported. Paul has the support of 1% of Republicans and holds foreign policy views that Republicans and conservatives vehemently disagree with.
2008 isn’t 1964. 2008 is 2008.
Ron Paul Doctrine: Follow the Constitution
The Constitution’s not a suicide pact.
Well since Ron is doing much better than your guy, I understand your frustration :>)
My guy? I'm supporting Fred Thompson. Who has a hard time seeing Ron Paul in his rear view mirror nowadays.
Well, that fits the whole "pro-surrender" meme to a "T".
yes and leaving the borders wide open, offering amnesty to illegals is so good for our national security.
Yeah, Ron Paul found the penumbra that frees him up to earmark $8 mil in tax dollars to market wild shrimp.
Hello ex-snook, boomers start retiring at the end of the next Presidents first term. The automatic pilot entitlement state will start exploding. If we continue on this crazed path, the dollar will collapse.
Because Goldwater became a liberal in his dotage, that's why.
Goldwater died an abortion-promoting, gay-rights promoting, Sandinista-supporting, UFO conspiracy theorist.
In other words, a left-wing disgrace.
Bingo...
**Ron Paul is a wild shrimp by comparison**
You just made me realize who Ron Paul reminds me of.
Plankton from Spongebob Squarepants.
Yeah, let’s bring back the Great Society under Hillary. That would be just terrific. Unlike the Ron Paul junkies, I have no nostalgia for the 1960’s.
Except for that pesky Article II Commander and Chief crap....
You are right. These political science wonks are wrong. It’s not 1964, that’s so 9/10.
None of the candidates seem to recognize that. Thompson by appointing Spencer Abraham signaled he was 9/10.
Newt seems to get it, but he’s still stuck on “the market” solutions, that is, favoring those who already control the market as opposed to changing the market game.
Ironically it is George Bush II who says some of the most radical and needed things, such as “getting off our addiction to oil” and “turning into the hydrogen economy.” Then he does nothing, or raises the price of corn.
LMAO...I WENT TO COLLEGE!
Yes, it is.
Without it, all bets are off.
“dollar will collapse”
Ummm, the dollar is a piece of paper, AKA fiat money. It really isn’t going to collapse as that would mean it has some downward space.
The question is, is it possible to turn back from the cliff?
I thought you were a Duncan Hunter man. Anyway, Fred Thompson is just a continuation of our current policy.
“Let see, we have federal funds for Shrimp Gumbo, Shrimp jambalaya, Shrimp Scampi, Fried Shrimp, Boiled Shrimp, BBQ Shrimp, shrimp etouffee....”
Goldwater was the father of the Reagan Revolution, but its impetus was the LBJ legacy - escalation in Vietnam and the disastrous programs of the Great Society. Goldwater's loss was a moral victory for conservatism, but it also led to many of the societal problems that bedevil us today.
Choose Ron Paul for a moral victory, and help the Left continue their march towards cultural domination unfettered by a united Right. I'd rather win for real.
Maybe the Spongebob creators can add the Wild Shrimp to the Spongebob cast. Paul can do the voiceover. After all, the Ron Paul demographic is probably pretty close to the Spongebob demo. Ratings will skyrocket. Spongebob can take an antiwar stance (No Blood for Fish Oil!)
How is creating another Islamic Republic with leaders who are highly sympathetic to the ideals of the Ayatollah Khomeini in our national interest?
Hardly. Fred opposed shamnesty, is for border security first, is a committed federalist, and is willing to address the looming entitlement train wreck, unlike most other candidates.
“the GOP has no chance of winning the presidency next year,”
The Dems haven’t elected a president with over 50% of the vote since 1976 and I’m asked to entertain this preposterous idea? Nobody can predict the amount of voters who will come out of the woodwork just to vote against Hillary in ‘08.
IIRC, Goldwater was very strong on national security issues. Perhaps a little TOO strong, more than the people in 1964 could handle, which is why he didn’t win.
Ron Paul is no Barry Goldwater.
People do not oppose him for wanting to follow the constitution. They oppose him because his foreign policy ignores that in 1776 it took quiet a while for the rest of the world to affect the US but in 2007 it takes seconds.
Abortion is not a liberal or conservative issue it is more of a moral/bioethics issue. There are liberals who are pro-life and conservatives who are pro-choice. I personally oppose abortion and if my state legislature decides to ban it that will be the right thing to do. However, I absolutely abhor the idea that a constitutional amendment could be passed which would ban the practice in all 50 states, never mind the wishes of the persons in the individual states.
To me, using a federal law to mandate abortion be illegal everywhere in the country is no different than using a federal law to mandate that civilian firearms ownership will now be illegal. By the way, neither of these ideas will go over well if you attempt them and are likely to spike mass resistance and non-compliance.
I am certainly no fan of Paul, but it is nice to see that there is a candidate in the race who actually stands up for state’s rights, which after all, was the platform of Goldwater in ‘64 and the platform that elected Reagan. It was all about state’s rights, and the idea that Washington should not have a say on the internal affairs of the respective states. It distresses me that there are many people in this country primarily evangelicals, who have carried their love of big government with them as the switched parties and now seek to use big national government in order to force upon the entire country their ideal of society, even though parts of the country clearly don’t want it.
I don’t buy the idea that there is such a thing as big government conservativism, unfortunately, fewer and fewer people agree with me.
Someon is flying over the Cuckoo nest.
Ron Paul comes from the “Neville Chamberlain” wing of conservatism. This is World War 3 folks.
Here is something from ‘64 that we need to hear right now !
Ronald Reagan. A Time For Choosing. (exerpt)
that is the issue of this campaign that makes all of the other problems I have discussed academic, unless we realize that we are in a war that must be won.
Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us that they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy “accommodation.” And they say if we only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer—not an easy answer—but simple.
If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based upon what we know in our hearts is morally right. We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion now in slavery behind the Iron Curtain (OR Radical Islam), “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skin, we are willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Let’s set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace—and you can have it in the next second—surrender.
Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face—that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand—the ultimatum. And what then? When Nikita Khrushchev (Osama or President Tom, take your pick) has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we are retreating under the pressure of the Cold War (War on Terror), and someday when the time comes to deliver the ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he has heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he would rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ‘round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well, it’s a simple answer after all.
You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” There is a point beyond which they must not advance. This is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said that “the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits—not animals.” And he said, “There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.
Hey, let’s not stop with adding Ron Paul to Spongebob as the Wild Shrimp. We can add Brownback as the Feckless Flounder for his immigration trevails. McCain as the Blowhard Blowfish. Guiliani as the Androgynous Angler. And Mitt the Flip as a dolphin that is trying to learn how to turn to the right but having some trouble.
You’re confused. Barry Goldwater never supported LBJs Vietnam adventure. He said declare war and win it, or get out. Ron Paul has already demonstated that he will support and fight a defensive war. Declare war and get congressional approval. Just like Goldwater. Thanks for the reply!
######I’ve even see so called conservatives on this site label Goldwater a “liberal” because well, as a true conservative, he could no more well tolerate federal intervention on the side of right-wing issues than he could for the intervention on left-wing issues.#####
Goldwater supported quite a bit of federal intervention to support leftist policies in his old age. Check out the quote below about 85 year old Goldwater from the Washington Post (full link below):
“This month he signed on as honorary co-chairman of a drive to pass a federal law preventing job discrimination against homosexuals. The effort, dubbed Americans Against Discrimination, is being spearheaded by the Human Rights Campaign Fund, the influential gay lobbying organization.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater072894.htm
Ron Paul is such a loser. Come on man. Ron Paul does not even believe this is a war we must win.
I’m too old for childish insults. If you have a thoughtful reply, I will do the same. Thanks all!
When's the last time anyone won a defensive war?
You have a good point, we can’t afford to lose Europe to Islamo-Fascists.
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.