[central_va]

In the wake of yesterdays outstanding performance by the TEA Party candidates, I have posted Barry Goldwater's 1964 speech to inspire some of the younger Freepers who might not know that the Republican party wasn't always so pathetic.

[SunkenCiv]

Delivered at the 1964 Republican National Convention at San Francisco, California

Thanks central_va -- good call, very good call, IMHO; the Goldwater nomination was a short-term disaster for the Pubbies, but clearly the only way LBJ could have been denied the 1964 election would have been another bullet at Dealey Plaza. Goldwater's victory kicked the legs out from under Rockefeller and his me-too rich limosine libs; his speech named LBJ's successor; and most importantly all this led right to the Reagan presidency.

And the 1964 Demwit convention (and the Arab assassin of Robert Kennedy) started in motion the events that led to the Obama presidency.

• Democratic Debacle (1964 convention, repercussions today)

[oyez]

I was 17 then, a time in finding my political path. Barry Goldwater gave me clear direction.

[Texas Fossil]

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!

And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Barry Goldwater -1964

[OneWingedShark]

Sadly too many would say that it is. Too many believe that the Almighty Government has the Authority [and therefore right] to do whatsoever it pleases... and the sad truth is that it can, for all intents and purposes, because “anyone who would DARE to challenge the validity of their authority is a seditious and possibly treasonous bastard!” They justify/rationalize this belief by the ‘obvious’ proof that only a seditious [or treasonous] bastard would challenge the government’s authority. (It’s frankly disgusting; and makes me wonder if we have a sort of societal Stockholm Syndrome in the relationship between the people and the government.

Let me cite, for now, the belief that many hold: that whatever the Supreme Court says is the [Constitutional] law. (This ignores that the constitution sets forth the legislature as the law-making.law-altering body.) Now if we apply our assumption to the Supreme Court than the oath that the Justices take is merely to their own word [because, by the definition in our assumption, the Constitution is whatever they say it is. So then, by that same definition, a DISSENTING opinion [from the court’s ruling] is against the constitution... and therefor they should be relieved from their office as they are violating the “good behavior” expected of judges. Moreover, every decision that the Supreme Court bases on some previous dissension is invalid because [again by our definition] any dissenting opinion is contrary to the Constitution. So, it is observably absurd that “the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says.”

I could say a lot against the other two branches, but their contra-constitutional action are more readily apparent [IMO] to the casual observer.

[Colonel_Flagg]

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

(Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.)

And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Thanks for this post. I often wonder how American history might have been changed if the order of those two sentences had been reversed in Goldwater's speech.