Skip to comments.Is 2008 The New 1964?
Posted on 08/07/2007 12:04:46 PM PDT by CenTexConfederate
click here to read article
You are so very wrong. Even solid long time conservatives see the Iraq war for the disaster it is.
1964 was a special year because of the JFK assassination. LBJ basically ran on a sympathy ticket. It was to be JFK’s “second term”. No way a republican was going to win that year. 1968 would be a good analogy because it is wide open for both parties to win, and we have a lot of debates about where we are going as a society. Further left, or a return to sanity? Don’t forget that the dems were attacked from the RIGHT in their party via Wallace. Now the dems are going harder left than they ever have, and bragging about it. I agree with Paul on about everything but Iraq, but he isn’t going anywhere with mainstream America.
9/11 showed that we can no longer afford to ignore the lunatic fringe in the Middle East. Our own progress has given them the technology to hurt us too much and our petrodollars have given them funding beyond their wildest dreams. They hate us for our success and as lunatics reason won't stop them. Stratigically there are only three choices for us: (1) Lose. This means lose EVERYTHING we value because the opposition won't settle for less than unconditional surrender and won't stop unless someone kills them, which this avoids. (2) Take out all of Islam and send Allah to join the Aztec gods. Although simple to explain this is a BIG task. Heck, even Cortez crossed the Atlantic to fight the unknown rather than to extend the Reconquista across Africa. (3) Take out the hopeless extremists of current Islam and hope and pray that the the quieter masses can be kept passive for now and eventually brought into a modern society. This is hard to explain and sell as strategy and it requires a large dose of faith to accept that it has any chance to work. However, the enormous up front costs of (1) and (2) make it foolhardy to not consider (3) and give it a fair chance. Don't repeat Hitler's mistakes - invade Russia then declare war on US after Pearl Harbor before finishing off Churchill. Try to get the high priority targets first.
The Democrats claim that (1) is cheap. I'd like them to try an experiment in Federalism. Before they impose complete defeat on the rest of this why don't they try it. How about President Limbaugh with 80% hard core conservatives, 10% RHINOs and 10% Democrats in the House and Senate. Leave the left Vermont and Oakland as enclaves for pedagogical reasons. Rush et. al. would be nicer than the lunatics to the losers. He'd just impeach the left's judges and replace them with Scalia clones. Maybe jail a few of the most obnoxious for treason. Bin Laden would behead the liberal judges, along with most of the MSM and Hollywood. After four terms of Limbaugh (David would follow Rush) then we could ask the left if they still favor defeat.
Are you feeling well? Seriously. It's a quote from another FReeper. Take a look at my profile page to see it in context if you are confused.
Democratic Debacle (1964 convention, repercussions today)
America Heritage | July 2004 (cover date) | Joshua Zeitz
Posted on 07/28/2004 12:59:49 AM EDT by SunkenCiv
Ron Paul is NOT Barry Goldwater. Not even close.
Fred Thompson is more a Goldwater than Paul...and Fred’s no Goldwater either.
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.