Skip to comments.Is 2008 The New 1964?
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 premisedebatable in itself, of coursethat 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 youand a lot of other Americansshould follow your dream.
(Excerpt) Read more at corner.nationalreview.com ...
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.
**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.
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.