Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is 2008 The New 1964?
National Review ^ | August 7, 2007 | John Derbyshire

Posted on 08/07/2007 12:04:46 PM PDT by CenTexConfederate

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-147 next last
To: ejonesie22

“Say, That all sounds good, but do you have anything without shrimp in it?” ,.}


51 posted on 08/07/2007 12:42:18 PM PDT by rockrr (Global warming is to science what Islam is to religion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: CenTexConfederate
You’re confused. Barry Goldwater never supported LBJs Vietnam adventure.

Barry Goldwater said to use tactical nuclear weapons. THAT'S what scared people.

He said declare war and win it, or get out.

You have to go there to win it, however.

Ron Paul has already demonstated that he will support and fight a defensive war.

Perhaps, but the problem with Ron Paul is that if he got his way on foreign policy, we'd HAVE to fight a defensive war. On our own soil. Because he wouldn't have the foresight to realise that sometimes, you have to fight pre-emptive wars to keep the bad guys from coming to you on their terms. It's a lesson as old as Thucydides....

Declare war and get congressional approval. Just like Goldwater. Thanks for the reply!

What part of "congressional authorisation for the war" do you think doesn't mean "congressional approval"?

52 posted on 08/07/2007 12:43:40 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Fred Dalton Thompson for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

Do you not see the distinction?? A defensive war is one in which we are attacked. Now we are launching preemptive wars thus junking the very principles of this country.


53 posted on 08/07/2007 12:44:47 PM PDT by CenTexConfederate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
When's the last time anyone won a defensive war?

Hitler turned Germany into a superpower because England and France refused to engage in an offensive war against him. So a war that would have cost a few lives - one to take out Hitler when he was weak - ended up costing 60 million.

Such is the price of avoiding offensive war in the name of some abstract sanctimonious pseudo-morality that is anything but moral.

54 posted on 08/07/2007 12:45:29 PM PDT by dirtboy (Impeach Chertoff and Gonzales. We can't wait until 2009 for them to be gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: CenTexConfederate

Maybe you have forgotten but we were attacked by the enemy.


55 posted on 08/07/2007 12:47:51 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative (Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: CenTexConfederate
A defensive war is one in which we are attacked. Now we are launching preemptive wars thus junking the very principles of this country.

Hmm - we were not attacked in 1848. Or 1898. Or 1918. We were not attacked prior to Vietnam. Or Gulf War I.

We've had plenty of wars that were not in response to immediate attack. What do you think Saddam would be like today if he had been allowed to keep Kuwait and its oil revenues?

56 posted on 08/07/2007 12:48:24 PM PDT by dirtboy (Impeach Chertoff and Gonzales. We can't wait until 2009 for them to be gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

Sure, there should be plenty of cattle down in Paul’s district, just look at all the BS he has at hand....


57 posted on 08/07/2007 12:48:40 PM PDT by ejonesie22 (I am not really a Fred basher, I just play one on Free Republic. THOMPSON 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
“The Constitution’s not a suicide pact.”

Then have Congress declare war.

58 posted on 08/07/2007 12:49:03 PM PDT by FightThePower! (Fight the powers that be!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CenTexConfederate
A defensive war is one in which we are attacked.

What do you call certain events of early September of 2001?

59 posted on 08/07/2007 12:49:23 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative

We weren’t attacked by Iraq. Iraq has never been a threat to the United States. Ron did vote for going after Osama.


60 posted on 08/07/2007 12:50:55 PM PDT by CenTexConfederate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative

We weren’t attacked by Iraq. Iraq has never been a threat to the United States. Ron did vote for going after Osama.


61 posted on 08/07/2007 12:51:07 PM PDT by CenTexConfederate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative

We weren’t attacked by Iraq. Iraq has never been a threat to the United States. Ron did vote for going after Osama.


62 posted on 08/07/2007 12:51:10 PM PDT by CenTexConfederate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: FightThePower!
Then have Congress declare war.

Congress authorized military action against both Afghanistan and Iraq. The Constitution does not specify exactly how war is to be declared, just that Congress do such. And Congress authorized both actions.

63 posted on 08/07/2007 12:53:50 PM PDT by dirtboy (Impeach Chertoff and Gonzales. We can't wait until 2009 for them to be gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: CenTexConfederate

sorry for the spam. My laptop has been acting up!!


64 posted on 08/07/2007 12:53:54 PM PDT by CenTexConfederate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: se_ohio_young_conservative

Fine lets win the war. If you want to fight a war go WWII style and kick the crap out of them. Be willing to kill every last one of them in order to win. Just follow the constitution and have congress declare war.


65 posted on 08/07/2007 12:56:13 PM PDT by FightThePower! (Fight the powers that be!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: AzaleaCity5691
Abortion is not a liberal or conservative issue it is more of a moral/bioethics issue.

If upholding the inalienable right to life that the Founders declared as they asserted our independence isn't part of American conservatism, then the word has absolutely no meaning.

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.

If you abhor the idea of Constitutional amendments, then you abhor the Constitution.

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.

(1)A constitutional amendment is more than a garden variety federal law: it is part of the Constitution.

(2) I assure you that there is a difference between murdering an unborn child and owning a handgun.

(3) Instituting a amendment banning civilian firearm ownership would be the revocation of part of the Bill of Rights: the Constution was ratified on the strength of the Bill of Rights - revoking one of them would indicate a Constitutional crisis.

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.

There was mass resistance and non-compliance when, perfectly constitutionally, Kansas decided to enter the Union as a non-slaveholding state.

That doesn't make it all right to ignore the Constitution.

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.

Perhaps Paul is campaigning on a states' rights platform.

Goldwater and Reagan certainly didn't emphasize this: they campaigned on a platform of lower federal taxes, standing up to international Communism and reaffirming traditional values.

And I'm not sure how you can say that you would abhor an Amendment to the Constitution and yet support states' rights. An Amendment to the Constitution is a deliberate act of the several states of the Union exercising their rights.

Banning murder isn't "big government." Evangelicals routinely vote for candidates who advocate cutting taxes, paring down bureaucracies - especially the public education bureaucracy, and advocating the rights of the several states to determine their priorities.

Evangelicals do not, as a rule, support big government.

66 posted on 08/07/2007 12:56:36 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: CenTexConfederate

The intel at the time showed Iraq to be a threat and to have ties to al-Qaeda. Also, Saddam Hussein was an enemy to America since 1991 and throughout the 1990s. He tried to have President Bush Sr. assassinated. He fired at our pilots and broke international laws. He was a brutal tyrant who committed genocide. Furthermore, he refused to let weapons inspectors into his nation right before the war in 2003.

Now, al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists are making their stand there. Not to mention Iran.

Do we surrender the whole of Iraq to them (like Ron Paul wants) or do we stay there and achieve victory? I believe that is the fundamental question for the 2008 election.


67 posted on 08/07/2007 12:59:25 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative (Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: FightThePower!
Just follow the constitution and have congress declare war

Where does the Constitution specifically say that Congress has to "declare war" for a war to be "legal"?

68 posted on 08/07/2007 1:00:21 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Fred Dalton Thompson for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Where does the Constitution specifically say that Congress has to "declare war" for a war to be "legal"?

It's right next to the part where it says "Ron Paul shall be sole interpreter of this Constitution."

69 posted on 08/07/2007 1:06:22 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio

You make an excellent point. Goldwater brought us Reagan but LBJ, Nixon, and Carter happened first. That was a long sixteen years. I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the slogan “Victory in 2023!”


70 posted on 08/07/2007 1:06:24 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
My guy? I'm supporting Fred Thompson. Who has a hard time seeing Ron Paul in his rear view mirror nowadays.

Now now - go easy on ol' Ronnie. He'll catch up to the rest of the pack one of these days, months, years.
71 posted on 08/07/2007 1:07:48 PM PDT by reagan_fanatic (Stop that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

What I don’t get about the whole “declaration of war” argument coming from the Paulestinians is that Paul himself voted for “authorization for use of military force” rather than a declaration of war right after 9/11.

So...using the Paulestinians’ logic, Paul voted and supported the illegal and unconstitutional war against Afghanistan.


72 posted on 08/07/2007 1:09:04 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative (Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus; West Coast Conservative
To understand the differences between a declaration of war and a congressional authorization of the use of force -- and by the way, the differences are strictly political -- read Fighting Under World War II Rules.
73 posted on 08/07/2007 1:14:17 PM PDT by Publius (A = A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative

Now, now, don’t go upsetting the Paulistas. They’re still having trouble digesting their meal of federally-subsidized wild shrimp.


74 posted on 08/07/2007 1:15:37 PM PDT by dirtboy (Impeach Chertoff and Gonzales. We can't wait until 2009 for them to be gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: CenTexConfederate
hat the GOP has no chance of winning the presidency next year, conservatives should run a Goldwater-style insurgency

So, Paul admits he is in the campaign to try to lose and bring our side down? The problem is that Paul isn't running a Goldwater-style insurgency, he is running a McGovern-style insurgency...

75 posted on 08/07/2007 1:16:00 PM PDT by mnehring (Ron Paul is as much of a Constitutionalist as Fred Phelps is a Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
It's right next to the part where it says "Ron Paul shall be sole interpreter of this Constitution."

What's your address, so I can send you the $29.95 bill for a new keyboard?

76 posted on 08/07/2007 1:17:45 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Fred Dalton Thompson for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Crim
Except for that pesky Article II Commander and Chief crap....

SNAP!

77 posted on 08/07/2007 1:20:04 PM PDT by mnehring (Ron Paul is as much of a Constitutionalist as Fred Phelps is a Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative
So...using the Paulestinians’ logic, Paul voted and supported the illegal and unconstitutional war against Afghanistan.

Don't try arguing with them on this.. the reality is, Paul plays semantic games with the Constitution when it serves his purpose and he knows if people heard what he really thinks (which slips out on occasion) people will think he is nuts.

78 posted on 08/07/2007 1:22:24 PM PDT by mnehring (Ron Paul is as much of a Constitutionalist as Fred Phelps is a Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: CenTexConfederate
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.

If this is going to be the GOP strategy this time, I would rather do it with a Rice-Coulter ticket. Let's see the Dhimmies try to use the "+" is stupid!" campaign now.

79 posted on 08/07/2007 1:23:53 PM PDT by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CenTexConfederate
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.

If this is going to be the GOP strategy this time, I would rather do it with a Rice-Coulter ticket. Let's see the Dhimmies try to use the "REPUBLICAN_CANDIDATE " is stupid!" campaign now.

80 posted on 08/07/2007 1:24:57 PM PDT by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
What's your address, so I can send you the $29.95 bill for a new keyboard?

Too late. I took a Ron Paul Constitutional Law crash course on the internet.

I have drawn up the papers and declared myself a sovereign entity that has seceded from the US government.

I have proceeded to repudiate all international debts, including all my credit cards, your keyboard and the money the library says I owe them for all the graphic novels I borrowed and then lost.

I am currently engaged in a war for my own territorial existence and integrity, because my mom is threatening to kick me out of the basement of her house unless I pay tribute in the form of "rent."

81 posted on 08/07/2007 1:28:51 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Let's help Ron Paul save some money.. He can just reuse these buttons for his campaign.



82 posted on 08/07/2007 1:35:10 PM PDT by mnehring (Ron Paul is as much of a Constitutionalist as Fred Phelps is a Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: se_ohio_young_conservative
From your profile I see you really want to serve. If true, let me recommend the US Army. I spent a year as a Lieutenant in the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Vietnam and retired as a Colonel. Comparing service in the armed forces to service as a staffer in DC or in some government department is like comparing quail shooting to chicken stealing.

FWIW, I'm a Ron Paul supporter.

83 posted on 08/07/2007 1:35:39 PM PDT by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Goldwater was a giant ahead of his time.

But, apparently his younger bride turned his heart to semi-liberalism before his death in 1998.

How the might are fallen.
84 posted on 08/07/2007 1:41:52 PM PDT by no dems (Dear God, how long are you going to let Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd and John Conyers live?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: colorcountry
There is a Romney in the race again...just like 1964. Deja vu all over again!

And, another "Barry". Did you forget Barry Obama? (His full name is BaraCACA Hussein Osama Obama.)
85 posted on 08/07/2007 1:43:18 PM PDT by no dems (Dear God, how long are you going to let Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd and John Conyers live?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CenTexConfederate
1964 or 1928 means getting stuck in a geographical box.

For Goldwater and the Republicans in 1964 it was the Deep South plus the narrowest of wins in Goldwater's home state. For Al Smith and the Democrats in 1928 it means the Deep South, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts.

You can argue that both elections were springboards into what was to come: a Republican Southern strategy or a Democratic Party based in the cities of the Northeast.

Ron Paul 2008 would mean the same sort of box, but it wouldn't be a springboard to any future. Paul's campaign would look like a much feebler version of Bob Dole's, a bridge to the past.

To believe that there's some massive libertarian constituency out there that hasn't voted up until now would be a mistake. Goldwater made a similar error. It wasn't until the Democrats had badly screwed things up that the Republicans could turn things around.

86 posted on 08/07/2007 1:48:37 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiteGuy
Dr. Paul is the only republican in the current field that I can consider supporting.

You and the Truthers. Be careful about the company you keep unless you don't mind being identified with them.

87 posted on 08/07/2007 1:54:08 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

LOL - your respons is moronic, and typical.

go away now!


88 posted on 08/07/2007 1:56:21 PM PDT by WhiteGuy (PAUL2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: no dems

LOL. Baracaca is no Goldwater!


89 posted on 08/07/2007 1:56:33 PM PDT by colorcountry (Silence isn't always golden.....Sometimes it's just yellow!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
"The Constitution’s not a suicide pact."

Yes, it is. Our (so-called) leaders and our military take an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution, not the country. Without the Constitution as the law of the land, we will not have country fit for free men.

90 posted on 08/07/2007 1:57:36 PM PDT by Abcdefg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Find a copy of the Constitution and look at the Legislative powers.


91 posted on 08/07/2007 2:05:00 PM PDT by Abcdefg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative
Doug Feith's office cherry picked the Intel to promote an attack on Iraq. Feith wasn't looking for a reason he was looking for an excuse to attack Iraq. Hussein was on al-Qaeda's hit list and allowed inspectors into Iraq. IMHO, those who promoted this war lied to get us to invade and, regardless of how wrong they've been on every count and how damaging this fool's errand has been and continues to be to the US, will continue to advocate a permanent US presence in Iraq.

In attacking Iraq the US has gone a long way to realizing the forecasts of the experts who, according to Senator Lugar, were unanimous in their forecasts before his committee that Iraq would eventually break into three parts. Only a brain dead neocon wouldn't see that as destabilizing the entire region. Beyond the immediate nightmare Iraq's become we've eliminated the major counterweight to Iran's ambitions. Other costs, beyond those to the US armed forces and the strain on US finances, the Republicans have turned over a significant number of previously safe Congressional seats and control of Congress.

The only silver lining in any of this is that the neocons, Chalabi, the AEI and the Israel First crowd (all of whom I blame to one degree or another for this) have created a scenario which, once we finally remove our ground forces from the ME, will ensure the country doesn't forget - probably for the next fifty years or so - that the US armed forces exist to defend the US and not wander around the ME, a part of the world not worth an American sprained ankle.

92 posted on 08/07/2007 2:09:02 PM PDT by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: CenTexConfederate

All we need is for the RINOs to walk out on the nominee and tacitly support the Dems, just like in 1964. (Including Romney’s daddy. At least Bush Sr. stood by Goldwater.)


93 posted on 08/07/2007 2:11:18 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard

During the 1964 campaign, Fidel Castro threatened to turn off the water at Guantanamo. A reporter asked Barry Goldwater what he would do as President if Castro did that.

“I’d send in the Marines and turn on the water.”

The Goldwater supporters joked after the campaign that “they told me if I voted for Goldwater, we’d get in a war. Well, they were right. I voted for him and we’re in one.”

AuH2O. In your heart, you know he’s right.

Paul is probably closest to Goldwater’s principles domestically, but pretty far from him in terms of foreign policy.


94 posted on 08/07/2007 2:14:47 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: caltrop

What is the “Israel First crowd”?


95 posted on 08/07/2007 2:16:46 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative (Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

True.. we weren’t attacked in 1918.. it was in 1915 when the Lusitania was sunk. As were several ships that were flying the American flag at the time. Then there was 1916 and the Zimmerman telegram, exposing the plot to attack us.Not to mention several incidents of sabotage in the Port of New York and elsewhere. Or don’t those count?


96 posted on 08/07/2007 2:17:54 PM PDT by Mr Inviso
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: WhiteGuy

Ah, so you don’t have a problem being associated with the Truthers. I suspected as much.


97 posted on 08/07/2007 2:18:12 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: AzaleaCity5691
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.

I'm probably the biggtest states' rights, Tenth Amendment person here, but the Constitution requires teh Federal government to protect life. It prohibits the taking of any human life without due process. Since a fetus, even an embryo, is genetically one of us, i.e., human, it is thus protected by the Constitution.

98 posted on 08/07/2007 2:20:06 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: CenTexConfederate

It is the democrats, if they nominate one of the current two front runners, that have no chance of winning. And the chances get even slimmer if the winner of the nomination picks the loser as their running mate. A woman/black, black/woman ticket? I don’t care how it polls, it will never fly in Peoria.


99 posted on 08/07/2007 2:20:25 PM PDT by Phlap (REDNECK@LIBARTS.EDU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AzaleaCity5691
I don’t buy the idea that there is such a thing as big government conservativism

Ther eisn't. There is, however, the pragmatic realization that it has taken many yeas to build this monster and we can't get rid of it overnight. I just wish any of the GOP candidates were committed to moving the ball in our direction, to actually beginning the process of making the Federal government smaller.

100 posted on 08/07/2007 2:22:13 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-147 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson