Largely remembered as the year of the electoral massacre of Goldwater by Lyndon Johnson, there is an interesting subplot to the story that played out in 1964. The moderates of the day sat on their hands. Sixteen years later, they had more sense and the electoral math bears out that this wisdom helped make history.Gosh, and guess who that 2012 analogous candidate should be?!? More shilling by TownPaul.com.
1964...Pawlenty=Mondale; Daniels=Dukakis; Gingrich=Goldwater; Romney=Romeny (pro-abortion, pro-Romney care). Wish I could be more optimistic.
Just don’t see the media establishment allowing anyone to seriously challenge The Messiah. They have savaged Palin and now Trump. Even though the new birth certificate looks extremely fake...no one, including Fox and the National Review is going to question it.
They are scared; but of exactly what, I’m not sure.
Looking back on 1964 is a little remote. That year, FDR was a recent memory, like the first Bill Clinton election is now.
Since then, we’ve had Reagan, who got us out of an economic disaster created by Democrats. Swing voters should realize that now.
Good article. As I look back, 1964 was the pivotal election year for our country — it put us on a path to the fiscal insanity we are dealing with today. In your heart, you knew Barry Goldwater was right but it was impossible to overcome the JFK assassination sympathy and LBJ’s lies and distortions (with MSM aid and comfort).
This is a good warning for the current year but perhaps on the other side: to hear Rush and Mark Levin slam the potential candidacies of Mitch Daniels and/or Chris Christie makes me sick. Talk about making the “perfect the enemy of the good”, both of these guys have proven themselves to be very good governors and principled executives with very good arguments and policy prescriptions for the critical economic, budget, entitlement reform problems that dominate today’s crisis situation.
I’m open to others in the running (except for Mitt and Newt, both of whom I believe are completely flawed) but if either Daniels or Christie get in the race, I hope they get a fair hearing and I believe either would be strong against Obama. Then the question might be: will the Tea Party (a group I consider myself aligned with) sit this one out to the detriment of our party and our country?
What timing of ‘The Powers’ behind 0.
The Republicans can’t find anyone to set on their pedestal.
Everything is falling into place for America’s entire takeover
by commies, illegals, muslims, drug lords.
Who will it be—all because we don’t have a sitter for our pedestal.
Glad I probably won’t be here to see who finally wins the war
between those groups.
One thing I’m watching VERY closely is who the media selects as the “GOP frontrunner” and presumptive nominee.
We had better choices than McCain in 2008 but the media annointed him and we were stuck with a pure RINO.
No more.
Can’t agree with much of this. Reagan neither courted nor received the unflinching support of moderate Republicans in 1980. A quick look at one or two of the preConvention debates pretty much tells the story: jabs like those aren’t easily swallowed afterward. The “choice, not an echo” that Reagan so forcefully conveyed finally worked, moderate GOPers notwithstanding. Not one of those so-called GOP moderates put in a quarter of the time touting Reagan that Nixon, all by himself, put in for BG.
Not sure how this translates to 2012 though. Sarah would get little enthusiastic support from party members & regulars; but she’s not just able to talk over the old media but to manipulate the new. On the other hand, she hasn’t yet paid the dues Reagan paid for party support—16 years of Conservative commentary and surrogating, 8 years of fairly high-approval state-administration, and a hard-to-fault *amiability* even among enemies. No one can duplicate those advantages, but if having few enemies—especially in one’s own party—is a plus, the only one I can think of with the same appeal is Paul Ryan. What a ticket they’d make—
Anybody else, and it will be "Goldwater Disaster Redux".
The candidate for 2012, to be successful, faces an unprecedented challenge, both in scope of national urgency, and in the unique appeal of the opposition candidate.
America's crisis is one of leadership and wrongheaded ideas.
To restore individual liberty, opportunity, prosperity and plenty, requires leaders who understand and have a passion for the ideas and principles underlying the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
Further, that leader must have the unique ability to motivate and inspire a diverse population of individuals that the ideas which made America great are the same ideas which can extricate America from its present crisis.
Because of the multiplicity and power of entrenched groups who have censored the ideas from textbooks and much of public discourse, and have created a class of political elites, as well as a dependency class, such a leader must be fearless, authentic, and able to appeal to a broad spectrum of the citizenry.
To defeat the current head of the political elites will require authentic and seasoned leadership skills, as well as superior communications ability.
It can be done, but not with politicians whose understanding of America's founding ideas consists of sound bites and flag pins. Even retread candidates like Gingrich, who have a deeper understanding than others, will be accused of the same tired old charge which, to an important set of voters, may prevent a win.
A proven leader who has no political "baggage" and possesses a real passion and understanding of America's founding ideas could expose the fraudulence of progressive ideas and appeal to a broad set of voters.
The moral philosopher, Adam Smith, in the Year 1775, published his "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations." Isn't it interesting that the following year saw an exceptional group of individuals in America declare a set of ideas which, within a decade set in motion a system of self-government whose "benign" (Madison) influence allowed Smith's ideas to flourish and create a place of opportunity, prosperity, plenty, and freedom where oppressed people from all over the world found refuge for over 200 years?
Only now, after a few decades of so-called "progressive" dominance is that place of freedom and opportunity threatened.
A candidate who can help new generations discover that truth can expose the fraud which is being perpetrated upon them and their posterity.
I don't know where the author of the posted article, David Stokes, got this statement from, but he seems to be dead wrong. IIRC, the "big tent" idea came from the Reagan people, Lee Atwater in particular.
In fact, Reagan would famously invoke his "Eleventh Commandment": "Thou shalt not speak evil about one's fellow Republican."