Comments on: The Goldwater Myth http://www.frumforum.com/the-goldwater-myth Building a conservatism that can win again Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:50:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: DENNIS SANDERS OP-ED: THATS ALL, FOLKS - Hip Hop Republican http://www.frumforum.com/the-goldwater-myth/comment-page-6#comment-87281 DENNIS SANDERS OP-ED: THATS ALL, FOLKS - Hip Hop Republican Mon, 22 Mar 2010 07:10:56 +0000 #comment-87281 [...] make deals with those Democrats.  David Frum had a good piece about a year ago about the so-called “Goldwater myth” that allowed the Dems to spend like crazy and invest in programs that were wasteful.  1994 might [...] [...] make deals with those Democrats.  David Frum had a good piece about a year ago about the so-called “Goldwater myth” that allowed the Dems to spend like crazy and invest in programs that were wasteful.  1994 might [...]

]]> By: That’s All, Folks. | Republicans United. http://www.frumforum.com/the-goldwater-myth/comment-page-6#comment-87234 That’s All, Folks. | Republicans United. Mon, 22 Mar 2010 04:09:03 +0000 #comment-87234 [...] make deals with those Democrats.  David Frum had a good piece about a year ago about the so-called “Goldwater myth” that allowed the Dems to spend like crazy and invest in programs that were wasteful.  1994 might [...] [...] make deals with those Democrats.  David Frum had a good piece about a year ago about the so-called “Goldwater myth” that allowed the Dems to spend like crazy and invest in programs that were wasteful.  1994 might [...]

]]> By: Michael INdy http://www.frumforum.com/the-goldwater-myth/comment-page-6#comment-52955 Michael INdy Tue, 03 Mar 2009 01:59:13 +0000 #comment-52955 The fact that Goldwater's nomination and subsequent campaign helped create a generation of conservatives who in a relatively short time grew from a smallish wing of the Party into the whole Party is no myth. It happened. Nevertheless, the GOP today is a far different animal than the beast that bestrode the land in 1964 and it doesn't profit anyone to ask whether we should repeat the "triumphant" electoral disaster of '64: we can't. It isn't 1964 and the GOP isn't the same. Strip the drama and "myth" busting from Frum's article and what you're left with is the simple question: should the GOP stand on principle and fail miserably or, instead, nominate candidates who might win. Can we not stand on principle AND nominate candidates who might win? Is that not an option? The fact that Goldwater’s nomination and subsequent campaign helped create a generation of conservatives who in a relatively short time grew from a smallish wing of the Party into the whole Party is no myth. It happened. Nevertheless, the GOP today is a far different animal than the beast that bestrode the land in 1964 and it doesn’t profit anyone to ask whether we should repeat the “triumphant” electoral disaster of ‘64: we can’t. It isn’t 1964 and the GOP isn’t the same. Strip the drama and “myth” busting from Frum’s article and what you’re left with is the simple question: should the GOP stand on principle and fail miserably or, instead, nominate candidates who might win. Can we not stand on principle AND nominate candidates who might win? Is that not an option?

]]> By: pomeroo http://www.frumforum.com/the-goldwater-myth/comment-page-5#comment-48114 pomeroo Mon, 02 Mar 2009 20:28:25 +0000 #comment-48114 InTheMiddle12, would you please remove your fingers from your ears? Sorry if that sounds rude, but the court determined that it had divined Terry Schiavo's wishes when, in fact, IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO DO SO. The husband lived with another woman. He had, in other words, A MASSIVE CONFLICT OF INTEREST that should have disqualified his testimony. What part of this is difficult for you? InTheMiddle12, would you please remove your fingers from your ears? Sorry if that sounds rude, but the court determined that it had divined Terry Schiavo’s wishes when, in fact, IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO DO SO.
The husband lived with another woman. He had, in other words, A MASSIVE CONFLICT OF INTEREST that should have disqualified his testimony.
What part of this is difficult for you?

]]> By: jjv http://www.frumforum.com/the-goldwater-myth/comment-page-5#comment-45638 jjv Mon, 02 Mar 2009 19:55:35 +0000 #comment-45638 dhlii-that is precisely the view I hold. I would add but one item. Even if the business cycle brings us an upswing it will not be as high as it would be without this burden on the economy. Second, millions of people will be inured to big government and its services thus changing constituencies. It may be extremely difficult to repeal any of this costly intervention whether it succeeds making the U.S. stronger or not. dhlii-that is precisely the view I hold. I would add but one item. Even if the business cycle brings us an upswing it will not be as high as it would be without this burden on the economy. Second, millions of people will be inured to big government and its services thus changing constituencies. It may be extremely difficult to repeal any of this costly intervention whether it succeeds making the U.S. stronger or not.

]]> By: sinz54 http://www.frumforum.com/the-goldwater-myth/comment-page-5#comment-47150 sinz54 Mon, 02 Mar 2009 19:34:10 +0000 #comment-47150 InTheMiddle12: Unbridled capitalism did not fail. Unbridled capitalism was not what the GOP had been doing for the last 13 or so years. Instead, the GOP had been hard at work at *corporate welfare*: Working with industry lobbyists to craft special legislation aimed at granting special favors to those lobbyists' industries (presumably those industries that would support Republican candidates). And then labeling the corporate welfare "supply-side economics" (which it wasn't) or "deregulation" (which it also wasn't), just to deflect criticism. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act was not "unbridled capitalism." It was a bill specifically aimed at giving Enron a shot in the arm, by exempting energy futures trading from SEC oversight. That bill was co-sponsored by Phil Gramm. (For Gramm's work on their behalf, Enron rewarded him by hiring his wife, Wendy Gramm, for their Board of Directors.) Investing in energy futures was what powered Enron to prominence--till the bubble burst. I am a big believer in free markets. But the idea behind a free market is that the MARKET picks winners and losers, not Republican congressmen. Enron would never have become the huge company that it did, had congressmen not passed that particular piece of corporate welfare for it. If it's necessary for Republican congressmen to craft special legislation aimed at helping a specific industry (or even worse, a specific company), then it's not "capitalism." It's corporate welfare. InTheMiddle12: Unbridled capitalism did not fail. Unbridled capitalism was not what the GOP had been doing for the last 13 or so years. Instead, the GOP had been hard at work at *corporate welfare*: Working with industry lobbyists to craft special legislation aimed at granting special favors to those lobbyists’ industries (presumably those industries that would support Republican candidates). And then labeling the corporate welfare “supply-side economics” (which it wasn’t) or “deregulation” (which it also wasn’t), just to deflect criticism. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act was not “unbridled capitalism.” It was a bill specifically aimed at giving Enron a shot in the arm, by exempting energy futures trading from SEC oversight. That bill was co-sponsored by Phil Gramm. (For Gramm’s work on their behalf, Enron rewarded him by hiring his wife, Wendy Gramm, for their Board of Directors.) Investing in energy futures was what powered Enron to prominence–till the bubble burst. I am a big believer in free markets. But the idea behind a free market is that the MARKET picks winners and losers, not Republican congressmen. Enron would never have become the huge company that it did, had congressmen not passed that particular piece of corporate welfare for it. If it’s necessary for Republican congressmen to craft special legislation aimed at helping a specific industry (or even worse, a specific company), then it’s not “capitalism.” It’s corporate welfare.

]]> By: dhlii http://www.frumforum.com/the-goldwater-myth/comment-page-5#comment-46524 dhlii Mon, 02 Mar 2009 11:59:48 +0000 #comment-46524 I believe this is an important question we are facing. Why do we want to win in 2010 and 2012 ? Because our values and ideology are both correct and work, or because we want political power. If we do not believe in our values, then we are pointless as a party. The Goldwater Myth is irrelevant. The Democrats have not only gambled against historical odds on socialism, but they are preparing to double down on that bet. If they succeed - if they even half succeed, the GOP will be thoroughly discredited for decades. And frankly if they can make socialist nanny government work then conservatism is deservedly dead. If all this is about is which party rules why should anyone care ? Either there is are important ideological differences, either liberal values are unable to deliver good government and a robust economy and conservative ones can or the differences are pointless. I would be happy to support socialist polices - if they worked. If you truly believe that we are now following the wrong path, then maybe by 2010 and certainly by 2012 this democratic gamble will have failed miserably. The GOP defeats in 2006 and 2008 were not caused by the virtue of liberal policies, but by the failures of the GOP. Reagan's election may not have been the results of some Goldwater myth, but it was the direct result of the failure of big government liberalism whether in the form of LBJ, Carter or Nixon. Right now the GOP has a choice. What ideology do we believe works. If we really believe that Obama's return to socialism is going to work, then the GOP should prepare to do as Clinton did in the 90's and offer a GOP socialism lite in 2010 or 2012, and hope the public can be sold on socialism republican style. If we believe in the principles of Reagan (and Thatcher) - the ideological foundation laid by Goldwater. If we really believe that it is was weak adherence to those principles that produced the longest uninterrupted period of prosperity in this countries history, then we need to do EXACTLY what the democrats are doing. Double down on our ideological bet. If we believe in those principles, democrats are intent on demonstrating unequivocally whether the political philosophy of the most liberal wing of their party actually works. Conservatives can do nothing to prevent this. Absent Pres. Obama being photographed in bed literally with Barney Frank, they can do pretty much as they please. The last election cycle was about the incompetence and corruption of eight years of republican rule, as well as an economic disaster that regardless of its exact causes the GOP should have prevented. If we believe in our values, the next cycles are going to be more clearly about ideology than any election cycle in my lifetime. If we are looking for candidates we should not be looking at regions, but at who is the next Reagan. Who can explain our values with the same eloquence that Reagan had. Unless you believe that socialism works, the leanings of the media will be irrelevant. Pres. Obama is being identified with FDR, but unless everything conservatives believe is false, soon enough he is going to look like Hoover and LBJ. I believe this is an important question we are facing. Why do we want to win in 2010 and 2012 ? Because our values and ideology are both correct and work, or because we want political power.
If we do not believe in our values, then we are pointless as a party.

The Goldwater Myth is irrelevant. The Democrats have not only gambled against historical odds on socialism, but they are preparing to double down on that bet. If they succeed – if they even half succeed, the GOP will be thoroughly discredited for decades. And frankly if they can make socialist nanny government work then conservatism is deservedly dead. If all this is about is which party rules why should anyone care ? Either there is are important ideological differences, either liberal values are unable to deliver good government and a robust economy and conservative ones can or the differences are pointless. I would be happy to support socialist polices – if they worked. If you truly believe that we are now following the wrong path, then
maybe by 2010 and certainly by 2012 this democratic gamble will have failed miserably.

The GOP defeats in 2006 and 2008 were not caused by the virtue of liberal policies, but by the failures of the GOP. Reagan’s election may not have been the results of some Goldwater myth, but it was the direct result of the failure of big government liberalism whether in the form
of LBJ, Carter or Nixon. Right now the GOP has a choice. What ideology do we believe works. If we really believe that Obama’s return to socialism is going to work, then the GOP should prepare to do as Clinton did in the 90’s and offer a GOP socialism lite in 2010 or 2012, and hope the public can be sold on socialism republican style. If we believe in the principles of Reagan
(and Thatcher) – the ideological foundation laid by Goldwater. If we really believe that it is was weak adherence to those principles that produced the longest uninterrupted period of prosperity in this countries history, then we need to do EXACTLY what the democrats are doing. Double down on our ideological bet. If we believe in those principles, democrats are intent on demonstrating unequivocally whether the political philosophy of the most liberal wing of their party actually works. Conservatives can do nothing to prevent this. Absent Pres. Obama being photographed in bed literally with Barney Frank, they can do pretty much as they please. The last election cycle was about the incompetence and corruption of eight years of republican rule, as well as an economic disaster that regardless of its exact causes the GOP should have prevented. If we believe in our values, the next cycles are going to be more clearly about ideology than any election cycle in my lifetime. If we are looking for candidates we should not be looking at
regions, but at who is the next Reagan. Who can explain our values with the same eloquence that Reagan had. Unless you believe that socialism works, the leanings of the media will be irrelevant. Pres. Obama is being identified with FDR, but unless everything conservatives believe is false, soon enough he is going to look like Hoover and LBJ.

]]> By: InTheMiddle12 http://www.frumforum.com/the-goldwater-myth/comment-page-5#comment-47138 InTheMiddle12 Mon, 02 Mar 2009 09:17:11 +0000 #comment-47138 pomeroo: It is appropriate for a court to make a decision when it was requested to by the husband, who should have had privacy, was challenged by Ms Schiavo's parents. THe court ruled appropriately, as that is the place where we, as Americans, resolve conflicts, rather than through violence, etc. There was no overreaching at all. The law was upheld. And rightly so, the President's and Congress intervention was viewed as a very very frightening moment for all of those, including me, that treat my privacy as that, privacy. The government intervention was the largest threat unveiled through Terri Schiavo. And rightly so, the vast majority of Americans rejected the intervention and subsequently the party that brought it as another example of a party that was hijacked by right wing crazies. pomeroo: It is appropriate for a court to make a decision when it was requested to by the husband, who should have had privacy, was challenged by Ms Schiavo’s parents. THe court ruled appropriately, as that is the place where we, as Americans, resolve conflicts, rather than through violence, etc. There was no overreaching at all. The law was upheld. And rightly so, the President’s and Congress intervention was viewed as a very very frightening moment for all of those, including me, that treat my privacy as that, privacy. The government intervention was the largest threat unveiled through Terri Schiavo. And rightly so, the vast majority of Americans rejected the intervention and subsequently the party that brought it as another example of a party that was hijacked by right wing crazies.

]]> By: pomeroo http://www.frumforum.com/the-goldwater-myth/comment-page-5#comment-45768 pomeroo Mon, 02 Mar 2009 08:47:44 +0000 #comment-45768 Ottovbvs, you don't seem to process anything I write. One last attempt: A court made a life-and-death determination lacking the necessary information to make it responsibly. As a result, a helpless woman was executed in a grotesque manner. Why can't you grasp the implications of this sort of judicial overreaching? If the government shouldn't try to protect us from such outrages, whose job is it? Ottovbvs, you don’t seem to process anything I write. One last attempt: A court made a life-and-death determination lacking the necessary information to make it responsibly. As a result, a helpless woman was executed in a grotesque manner. Why can’t you grasp the implications of this sort of judicial overreaching? If the government shouldn’t try to protect us from such outrages, whose job is it?

]]> By: InTheMiddle12 http://www.frumforum.com/the-goldwater-myth/comment-page-5#comment-44924 InTheMiddle12 Mon, 02 Mar 2009 02:04:01 +0000 #comment-44924 chekote: Yes, all of this is coming at a terrible price. The price we pay for unbridled greed and having innocent people have to pay. I'm angry too. Angry at the greed, corruption and complete fiscal malfeasance that the GOP wrecked on this country. Why aren't you? chekote: Yes, all of this is coming at a terrible price. The price we pay for unbridled greed and having innocent people have to pay. I’m angry too. Angry at the greed, corruption and complete fiscal malfeasance that the GOP wrecked on this country. Why aren’t you?

]]>