Frank Ettin
Administrator
GoSlash27, it's a bad idea to believe your own press releases.
Bob Barr Enters Presidential Race as Libertarian
- Thread starter FireMax
- Start date
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Okay GoSlash27, the statements you quoted are "sound bites" for effect and really don't describe the historical dynamics that led from Goldwater to Reagan. There were many factors and many steps along the way, and none of that means that putting Obama in the White House, and suffering the damage that will do, would necessarily lead to a conservative resurgence.
Among other things, arguably the significant factor to Goldwater's role in, as McCain says, the transformation of , "...the Republican Party from an Eastern elitist organization to the breeding ground for the election of Ronald Reagan." was not the fact that Goldwater lost, but the fact that Goldwater almost won.
I agree that Goldwater is more comparable to Ron Paul. But he was able to influence the evolution of the Republican Party by winning the nomination and almost being President. That's what stimulated the transformation of the Party. And in case you haven't noticed, Ron Paul didn't do that. Goldwater suggested that someone like him can win. Ron Paul suggested that someone like him can not.
Among other things, arguably the significant factor to Goldwater's role in, as McCain says, the transformation of , "...the Republican Party from an Eastern elitist organization to the breeding ground for the election of Ronald Reagan." was not the fact that Goldwater lost, but the fact that Goldwater almost won.
I agree that Goldwater is more comparable to Ron Paul. But he was able to influence the evolution of the Republican Party by winning the nomination and almost being President. That's what stimulated the transformation of the Party. And in case you haven't noticed, Ron Paul didn't do that. Goldwater suggested that someone like him can win. Ron Paul suggested that someone like him can not.
fiddletown,
Disagree. It wasn't his presidential bid that laid the groundwork for Reagan, but the following he built over his entire career (which included Reagan himself).
The campaign was useful for spreading his (at the time) highly controversial message.
And just as this second Paul presidential bid itself has failed, it has also laid the groundwork for the next "Reagan". Who knows... maybe it'll be Winston the Wolf (if he can ever tame his rough edges)
See, Goldwater built up his base over time, whereas Paul jumped out of relative obscurity in a shorter time. The grassroots was the important part, not the presidential bid itself.
So if you define "almost won" as picking up a whole 6 states and 1 out of 3 votes.... I guess my standard of "almost" is a little more stringent than yours.
But we're getting somewhere; you do concede that 1) the realignment did occur and 2)he was pivotal in it.
Disagree. It wasn't his presidential bid that laid the groundwork for Reagan, but the following he built over his entire career (which included Reagan himself).
The campaign was useful for spreading his (at the time) highly controversial message.
And just as this second Paul presidential bid itself has failed, it has also laid the groundwork for the next "Reagan". Who knows... maybe it'll be Winston the Wolf (if he can ever tame his rough edges)
See, Goldwater built up his base over time, whereas Paul jumped out of relative obscurity in a shorter time. The grassroots was the important part, not the presidential bid itself.
So if you define "almost won" as picking up a whole 6 states and 1 out of 3 votes.... I guess my standard of "almost" is a little more stringent than yours.
But we're getting somewhere; you do concede that 1) the realignment did occur and 2)he was pivotal in it.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Hillary has never had a sincere position in her life
WildsheiseverythingAlaska ™
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Actually, we agree on this point, as far as it goes. But I still think that you're drawing some of the wrong conclusions.GoSkash27 said:
Yes Goldwater built his base over time. And he was an astute and adept politician. And the support he was able to build over time led to his nomination and almost election. And that, together with the reputation he built over time, gained him and his views tremendous credibility and respect. He demonstrated that a conservative could generate support. And part of the reason for that was his personality and his consummate skill as a politician.
Alas, we have no one close to that skill or stature, or who has a similar support base or the personal magnetism, to carry a conservative banner now. When Goldwater lost, we had an example of a strong and adept conservative being a viable and serious candidate and with the personal qualities to inspire a very broad segment of the body politic. And we thus also had a standard bearer for a "loyal opposition" to the Kennedy liberalism.
I'm sorry, but we really have no one like that now on the conservative side. There is no one to whom we can point as a true conservative force to stand against the liberal onslaught while we regroup. Neither Ron Paul, nor anyone else who might be properly characterized as a conservative, was able to rally near enough support to be taken seriously, especially by the Democrats, in such a role.
A realignment did occur in the period between Goldwater and Reagan. But the realignment took a long time and didn't last. In part because it was more a function of the unique personalities involved than an evolution of core beliefs amoung the body politic. And the situation today is in no way analogous to the Goldwater to Reagan era.
If Obama wins, there is no one with the stature of a Goldwater, or the success of a Goldwater, to stand against the neo-socialist tide and serve as a rallying point for a conservative resurgence. The neo-socialists will be emboldened and face a Republican Party in disarray. The damage could be far greater than that suffered during the Goldwater to Reagan period.
So in my view, we need to minimize the damage while we seek a vialble conservative force. And to do that, I still think that we are better served by McCain in the White House than Obama.
fiddletown,
I submit that the Republican party is *already* in disarray. Supporting evidence: John McCain is the presumptive Republican nominee. But perhaps I'm wrong. Could you outline just what the Republican party's core beliefs are....?
They never do, do they?
Disagree. For example, these days it's no longer considered "extreme" to point out the evils of Social Security. What changed is the same thing that always changes: They got drunk on their own kool-aid and forgot that they answer to the people rather than the other way around.
Please expand upon this. The parallels look obvious enough to me.
And if McCain wins? Surely you don't see him as the catalyst? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be painting McCain as some sort of bulwark against the liberal agenda. Considering his history, that smacks of building up mud pies to stop the incoming tide.
3 lost races in a row. Dismal polls. No funding to compete. Trashed brand identity.
I submit that the Republican party is *already* in disarray. Supporting evidence: John McCain is the presumptive Republican nominee. But perhaps I'm wrong. Could you outline just what the Republican party's core beliefs are....?
We agree here. The damage will be greater. Regardless of who's in the white house for the next 4 years.
You don't "seek" one. You promote one. But as far as the "damage control", my position is that it's already done.
And I disagree and there we are.
Wildalaska
Moderator
If you are talking about the three congressional races, I submit that shows nothing but the incompetance of republican tactics with crappy candidates against better opponents who most of us here would vote for.
Especially in Louisiana
WildimshockedatthesophisticationoftheelectorateinthatstateAlaska ™
"crappy tactics" as in "yeah I know I suck, but the other guy sucks more"? If so, then I agree.
I don't personally think the Republican party has had one continual brain-fart these last 3 years, when they all of a sudden forgot how to win elections. I think the electorate suddenly doesn't like Republicans. There's a whole lot more empirical evidence to support my position than yours
GoSlashbuthopespringseternal27
PS and no offense, but just because you'd vote for their opponents doesn't mean that "most of us" would.
/ "most of us" didn't like Giuliani either
Wildalaska
Moderator
Really...so in Louisiana you have a well liked, conservative democrat versus a scandal ridden nincompoop Repub with David Duke as a buddy?
You'd vote for him, ja?
And in the Missisippi election, you had big city boy Repub vs a conservative democrat who in the words of a pundit, just "outbubbaed" the opposition.
Study up a bit
WildireiteratemypointAlaska ™
And in New York they had.... what was the term you used? "A good goombah"?
No offense, but I've learned not to take your descriptions at face value
But feel free to relay that info up the chain in the Republican party. I'm sure they'll be relieved to hear that the light at the end of the tunnel isn't an oncoming train. Maybe the last mid-term was just a fluke as well, nicht wahr? And we have nothing to be concerned about this cycle? Please state publicly in this thread that "the Republicans aren't going to get pummeled this election" I'd love to stick that in my sig with proper attribution.
Sorry. I still say that "emperor" dude is nekkid.
GoSlashyouwouldntmakethatdukecrackifyouknewwhatilooklike27
No offense, but I've learned not to take your descriptions at face value
But feel free to relay that info up the chain in the Republican party. I'm sure they'll be relieved to hear that the light at the end of the tunnel isn't an oncoming train. Maybe the last mid-term was just a fluke as well, nicht wahr? And we have nothing to be concerned about this cycle? Please state publicly in this thread that "the Republicans aren't going to get pummeled this election" I'd love to stick that in my sig with proper attribution.
Sorry. I still say that "emperor" dude is nekkid.
GoSlashyouwouldntmakethatdukecrackifyouknewwhatilooklike27
Wildalaska
Moderator
Feel free to research.
WildyouranswerwillbeclearAlaska ™
Frank Ettin
Administrator
GoSlash27, the simple reason that today's situation is no way analogous to the Goldwater era is simply that Goldwater was a winner and Ron Paul is a loser. I thought that I covered that.
Goldwater demonstrated strong conservatism that could win at the polls. He won the nomination and almost won the election. He had a history being able to build a strong and broad power base. Thus he demonstrate the legitimacy (in political terms, vote getting potential) of a conservative view point with the right standard bearer. What has Ron Paul demonstrated? What has he actually accomplished?
And of course the Goldwater to Reagan transformation was a product of the unique personalities involved. First, personality has always been very important politics -- in many ways more important than ideology, at least when it comes to getting elected. That was part of Ron Paul's problem.
In fact, during this period we had the charismatic Goldwater who made conservatism respectable because people liked him. And then we have Reagan, the Great Communicator, who had a strong and board based following as well. And then we had Reagan faced off against the milquetoast Carter who had bollixed up so many things so badly. In fact, it wasn't so much of a realignment as it was a lucky confluence of factors -- the right people being at the right place at the right time.
And no, McCain isn't going to be a catalyst. But he can be a place holder. He will provide some access to conservative influence while perhaps we can find a conservative who can inspire.
Let's face it, this last batch has been a flop. Even if we grant that we like their perspective and beliefs, they were woefully unable to inspire the voters to give them a shot. They did not perform, and we will not realign anything behind non-performers.
Goldwater demonstrated strong conservatism that could win at the polls. He won the nomination and almost won the election. He had a history being able to build a strong and broad power base. Thus he demonstrate the legitimacy (in political terms, vote getting potential) of a conservative view point with the right standard bearer. What has Ron Paul demonstrated? What has he actually accomplished?
And of course the Goldwater to Reagan transformation was a product of the unique personalities involved. First, personality has always been very important politics -- in many ways more important than ideology, at least when it comes to getting elected. That was part of Ron Paul's problem.
In fact, during this period we had the charismatic Goldwater who made conservatism respectable because people liked him. And then we have Reagan, the Great Communicator, who had a strong and board based following as well. And then we had Reagan faced off against the milquetoast Carter who had bollixed up so many things so badly. In fact, it wasn't so much of a realignment as it was a lucky confluence of factors -- the right people being at the right place at the right time.
And no, McCain isn't going to be a catalyst. But he can be a place holder. He will provide some access to conservative influence while perhaps we can find a conservative who can inspire.
Let's face it, this last batch has been a flop. Even if we grant that we like their perspective and beliefs, they were woefully unable to inspire the voters to give them a shot. They did not perform, and we will not realign anything behind non-performers.
WINSTON THE WOLF
Moderator
Frank Ettin
Administrator
So what do you expect, Wintson? You ask the same questions, you'll keep getting the same answers. And the guys in your camp haven't ventured a new idea in months. It's the same balderdash about letting the neo-socialist be President so that things will get so bad there'll be an upwelling of conservative feeling and we'll all be sorry that they were mean to Ron Paul. Nonsense.
Okay, fiddletown, okay, we get it, you like things the way they are, or you are, at least, willing to accept it, in the hope that continuing as we have been, somehow things will get better. I understand, I used to be there. There is no evidence (empirical or otherwise) that this will work. I am ready to try something else. We can always come back to what we have been doing. And if we can't recover from whatever happens, then we don't deserve to. "And the guys in your camp haven't ventured a new idea in months", either.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Okay, just to lighten things up a bit, I saw this posted in another Forum.
fiddletown,
http://www.paulcongress.com/Candidates.html
In addition, some 102,000 organized volunteers who have been busy entrenching themselves in the county party organizations and in many cases wresting control of them.
That's what he's accomplished, and that's the important part. It has nothing to do with "almost winning" (Goldwater did not "almost win". He lost in an epic landslide) Dr. Paul's "Revolution" has already begun the "transformation" of the "Republican party into a breeding ground" for the next standard-bearer.
Unfortunately, the current leadership doesn't want this transformation. The longer they limp along with the status quo ( latin for current mess), the longer it will take for things to get back to normal.
And AFA "new ideas", it seems to me that it's folks like yourself that should be presenting them. We back the "old ideas" like the Republican party representing freedom through strict adherence to the Constitution.
I can't find a link to a single registry for all the Paul supporters running for state and local offices. Here's the Federal ones.
http://www.paulcongress.com/Candidates.html
In addition, some 102,000 organized volunteers who have been busy entrenching themselves in the county party organizations and in many cases wresting control of them.
That's what he's accomplished, and that's the important part. It has nothing to do with "almost winning" (Goldwater did not "almost win". He lost in an epic landslide) Dr. Paul's "Revolution" has already begun the "transformation" of the "Republican party into a breeding ground" for the next standard-bearer.
Unfortunately, the current leadership doesn't want this transformation. The longer they limp along with the status quo ( latin for current mess), the longer it will take for things to get back to normal.
And AFA "new ideas", it seems to me that it's folks like yourself that should be presenting them. We back the "old ideas" like the Republican party representing freedom through strict adherence to the Constitution.