Posted on 08/04/2006 12:59:47 PM PDT by churchillbuff
Variety reviewer Robert Koehler (formerly of the L.A. Times) recently reviewed a new documentary titled "Mr. Conservative: Goldwater on Goldwater." The main driver behind the project is his granddaughter, C.C. Goldwater, and it's scheduled to air on HBO on September 18. The list of interviewees underlines it's not a big right-wing project: it includes Walter Cronkite, Ted Kennedy, Al Franken, Helen Thomas, James Carville, Bob Schieffer, Andy Rooney, Julian Bond, Ben Bradlee and Sally Quinn, John Dean, and erstwhile Goldwater Girl Hillary Rodham Clinton. A few righties appear (Richard Viguerie, George Will) and some more centrist GOP types do, too (John Warner, Sandra Day O'Connor).
Here's how Koehler sums the film up: "Pic reflects on a contempo religious GOP right wing that would have profoundly alienated Goldwater, who rarely brought God into his politics."
Koehler extolled the film for showing "some of the contradictions of Goldwater, who opposed expansion of civil rights for African-Americans in the '60s and -- as various family anecdotes illustrate -- was tolerant toward gays and lesbians as well as female reproductive rights. (Daughter Joanne tells of her abortion as a young woman, and gay grandson Ty speaks warmly of him.)"
At first, Koehler seems unhappy there's not enough angst toward the religious right: "Even with an impressive roster of journos and political sharpies (including Hillary Clinton, who was a Goldwater Girl in '64 and a devout conservative in her teens), little is made of libertarian Goldwater's differences with the right-wing Christian movement that swept into the GOP in the 1980s. John Dean, whose new book, 'Conservatives Without Conscience,' began as a collaboration with longtime friend Goldwater, articulates best how Goldwater's straight-talking politics was rejected by his Bush-era party."
But he later concludes: "Response to the pic from GOP pundits and opinionmakers will provide a telling indicator of the current political climate. Walter Cronkite overstates the case that the older Goldwater turned liberal, while George Will is more on point, noting that what changed wasn't Goldwater but the GOP's extreme shift toward moralistic conservatism."
It will be interesting to hear if that's exactly how it sounds out of the mouth of Will.
"In his old age, he married a leftist woman who was a Planned Parenthood activist."
She may have been involved with Planned Parenthood, but so was his first wife, Peggy, whom he married in 1934.
See Black Elk's post above.
I saw it, but you posted first, and I was wondering where you got your information. I'm not necessarily discounting it, because I think it would not particularly have bothered him to do so, but I have not heard that before.
He certainly wouldn't be the first member of Congress to do so. :)
It is simply a LIE that Hamilton "was inclined to unlimited central power of the fedgov." Nothing could be further from the truth and any who makes such a claim is either knowingly lying or simply ignorant.
There is NOT ONE piece Hamilton's writing which supports such an absurd LIE. And the governmental form he most admired prior to the Constitution, that of Britain, is in NO WAY an unlimited central government.
Jefferson would be right at home in today's Party of Treason undermining National Security, lying about the opposition, undermining religion, Class Warfare rhetoric etc.
sounds like yet another jealous child ala ronnie reagan.
"-- removing the Bill of Rights might solve the problem --"
You want to allow gov't to infringe upon your rights to life, liberty or property?
How about we insist the BOR's is honored by all levels of gov't, -- rather than being ignored?
You two would actually trust in State & local majorities to protect your fundamental rights?
You mean you actually advocate a federal government that outlaws parents washing their kids' mouths out with soap?
Hype. The feds have no power to so 'outlaw'. -- And, - even though state & local can legislate about such acts, -- they too must operate under Constitutional restraints.
I don't know that "rights" as understood by eighteenth century "enlightenment" types ever existed. I am a Theonomic positivist and a Theocrat, after all.
You reject our Constitutional Republic's form of government?
Why put ZC's beliefs in my mouth?
How does some one who retreads old discredited LIES about Hamilton and swallow whole the Jeffersonian bilge get praised for "intellectual honesty"? He demonstates none.
Because Zionist Conspirator remarked:
"-- removing the Bill of Rights might solve the problem --"
-- And you replied:
Hamilton and Madison both opposed the Bill of Rights and both made arguments similiar to yours. But political expediency led to its being proposed and included. There was no applicability to the states so the damage was limited until the Fourteenth amendment applied them to the states.
You did not oppose ZC's beliefs, and you added your own; -- that the BOR's did not or should not apply to State gov't.
Feel free to explain.
Since the conservative belief is for smaller government I believe that the states should enact their own BoRs and some did. If the electorate in the states cannot be relied upon to protect their own rights we are in deep trouble.
I do not believe that the BoR was necessary and was only adopted as a means of undermining the anti-Federalists' opposition and scare tactics against ratification. And the fact that it did not originally apply to the states is not my "belief".
Why would I disagree with Hamilton and Madison as to its necessity when they are two of the most important political thinkers this nation has ever had?
However, to try and get rid of it today would be folly and easily used against the Right.
-- And you replied:
Hamilton and Madison both opposed the Bill of Rights and both made arguments similiar to yours. But political expediency led to its being proposed and included. There was no applicability to the states so the damage was limited until the Fourteenth amendment applied them to the states.
You did not oppose ZC's beliefs, and you added your own; -- that the BOR's did not or should not apply to State gov't.
Feel free to explain.
Since the conservative belief is for smaller government I believe that the states should enact their own BoRs and some did.
And some, like CA, did not, -- and continue to ignore the 2nd.. Do you approve?
If the electorate in the states cannot be relied upon to protect their own rights we are in deep trouble.
We are in deep trouble because we allow them to ignore our Constitution.
I do not believe that the BoR was necessary and was only adopted as a means of undermining the anti-Federalists' opposition and scare tactics against ratification. And the fact that it did not originally apply to the states is not my "belief".
Many 'states rightists' so believe, as you do. However, the Constitution and ALL of its Amendments were ratified by the States as the Law of the Land, [Art VI] contradicting your belief.
Why would I disagree with Hamilton and Madison as to its necessity.
Madison saw its necessity and vowed to fight for a bill of rights. He informed the Congress on May 4, 1789, that he intended to introduce the topic formally, an did so on June 8.
when they are two of the most important political thinkers this nation has ever had? However, to try and get rid of it today would be folly and easily used against the Right.
I see, -- you don't want to "get rid of it", -- do you prefer state/local gov'ts ignore it?
The presence or absence of a Bill of Rights is not the reason our nation has succeeded and was fairly regularly ignored except when certain causes provoked court cases. Great Britain does not have a BoR and one could hardly argue that it has had less freedom than the US since the ratification.
California until very recently was also no less free than the rest of the nation even w/o a BoR. And its becoming less free is with the federal Constitution in effect.
States are not free to ignore the Constitution. Rhetorical nonsense is not productive.
What was ratified as the BoR was they UNDERSTANDING by the States that it did NOT apply to the States. That UNDERSTANDING was shown to be CORRECT by Marshall's Court.
Madison implimented the UNDERSTANDING the Federalists reached during the ratification process. He argued against it prior to that joining Hamilton. Hamilton also did not fight against the ultimate amendment.
Perhaps you can show everyone where I said something so stupid as that states should IGNORE the BoR? Or any aspect of the Constitution. That was not even a good CHEAP SHOT.
The presence or absence of a Bill of Rights is not the reason our nation has succeeded and was fairly regularly ignored except when certain causes provoked court cases.
There you go, accepting the fact that our rights have been "fairly regularly ignored".
Great Britain does not have a BoR and one could hardly argue that it has had less freedom than the US since the ratification.
Are you free to own a handgun in Great Britain?
California until very recently was also no less free than the rest of the nation even w/o a BoR.
You are accepting CA's 'recent' gun grabs?
And its becoming less free is with the federal Constitution in effect.
The feds are not enforcing the 2nd, anywhere, -- much less in CA.
States are not free to ignore the Constitution. Rhetorical nonsense is not productive.
In effect you accept that they do ignore the 2nd, as per your words just above.
What was ratified as the BoR was they UNDERSTANDING by the States that it did NOT apply to the States.
Article VI says otherwise.
That UNDERSTANDING was shown to be CORRECT by Marshall's Court.
Marshalls 'barron opinion' has always been highly disputed, and was nullified by the 14th.
Madison implimented the UNDERSTANDING the Federalists reached during the ratification process. He argued against it prior to that joining Hamilton. Hamilton also did not fight against the ultimate amendment. Perhaps you can show everyone where I said something so stupid as that states should IGNORE the BoR? Or any aspect of the Constitution. That was not even a good CHEAP SHOT.
I asked you that question.. In effect, you've answered.. - Thanks.
Article VI in no way disputes the fact that the states ratified the BoR with the understanding that it applied ONLY to the federal government. Article VI states that laws passed by the federal government MEANT TO APPLY to the states overrule state laws. The amendments in the BoR did not do that. You are trying to make apples into oranges.
I am not free to own a handgun in Chicago or Britain but that does not mean that the citizens of Britain had any substantially different degree of freedom than we have had in the last two hundred years. Not having everything we would like is not the determining factor here.
California's gun grabs have no bearing on the fact that its history was as free or freer than most other states. Nor is my approval or disapproval at issue except as an attempted cheap shot by you.
Where did you get the idea that YOUR interpretation of the 2d Amendment trumps all courts, legislatures and Congresses? Recognition that the 2d is no more an absolute than the first is not "ignoring" the 2d. In actuality it is YOU who ignore the reason for its existence.
Amendments do not "nullify" court rulings but change the LAW which the rulings affirm.
Article VI says otherwise.
Article VI in no way disputes the fact that the states ratified the BoR with the understanding that it applied ONLY to the federal government.
Article VI says that the Constitution, our supreme law, is MEANT TO APPLY to the states and is meant to overrule state laws; "-- any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding --".
Article VI states that laws passed by the federal government MEANT TO APPLY to the states overrule state laws.
The amendments in the BoR did not do that.
The Amendments clearly are meant to protect the peoples individual rights from infringements, as the 10th indicates by saying; "-- [powers] not prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. --"
You are trying to make apples into oranges. I am not free to own a handgun in Chicago or Britain but that does not mean that the citizens of Britain had any substantially different degree of freedom than we have had in the last two hundred years.
Chicago's infringement is obvious. You defend it by comparing it to English law? -- Mind boggling bradyism.
Not having everything we would like is not the determining factor here.
'We' would like no infringements on the 2nd.
California's gun grabs have no bearing on the fact that its history was as free or freer than most other states.
That history is changed, yet you approve of allowing state/local gov't to ban arms as do CA & Chicago.
Nor is my approval or disapproval at issue except as an attempted cheap shot by you.
No 'cheap shot'. your approval is evident in your own words just above.
Where did you get the idea that YOUR interpretation of the 2d Amendment trumps all courts, legislatures and Congresses?
The words of the 2nd require no "interpretation". -- Except to those who oppose its clear statement.
Recognition that the 2d is no more an absolute than the first is not "ignoring" the 2d.
The rights in both the 1st and 2nd Amendments are inalienable. Sure, reasonable regulations can be written using due process, but 'bans' on arms are not reasonable.
Amendments do not "nullify" court rulings but change the LAW which the rulings affirm.
The 14th Amendment reiterated the Law of the Land and nullified 'barron'.
--- The barron ruling/opinion did not "affirm" the Constitution, -- it flat out ignored Article VI.
You do not understand the Constitution, Article VI nor the Court rulings hence most of your comments are of no value.
Trying to put words into my mouth does not help your attempts at discussion either.
You claimed that poor little Hamilton was without influential FRIENDS. I responded that Washington was his friend and is rumored to have been influential. Of course, you may disagree. Why would you let facts get in the way of your fantasies?
You are right about Bobby Darin and Artificial Flowers. Broken clock...twice a day...
While you were gushing out all that mythology about greatest SecTreas, etc., you somehow forgot Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Was Hamilton your ancestor or something?????
When did Rhode Island ratify???? When did the Constitution come into effect???? When did Washington take office???? Whoooooopsie!!!! That the new regime illegally usurped the power of the old is not sanitized by the fact that the ad hoc 12 states collective did not attack and conquer Rhoode Island.
Apparently you believe with Hamilton that the world should be run, without interference, by those who own most of it.
After twenty years, America grew up.
Then it really matured with the abolition of the corrupt Bank of the United States and reached its powerful status during the period from Jackson's abolition of that execrable aristicrat political slush fund central bank through even the War Between the States and to the even of World War I when the usual gang of suspects created the Federal Reserve and the federal income tax almost simultaneously. If your Treasury god Hamilton had suggested an income tax on working folks in the 1790s the streets would have run blue with the blood of arrogant aristocrats. Lowell Weicker seldom visits even Connecticut any more lest his privilege protecting state income tax antics catch up with him. Weicker was nearly the last Hamilton.
That the Union became (so far) perpetual resulted from force of arms during the late unpleasantness of 1861-1865 and has nothing whatever to do with the text of the constitution particularly as amended by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Since we elected Ronaldus Maximus, it is not your great-great-great-great grandfather's GOP any more. It never will be again. Call it Jacksonian Republicanism. Gladly would I have the GOP run the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners and send Lincoln to that other party which takes their memories in vain.
In Hamilton's time, my preference would be Patrick Henry.
Interesting but tiny universe that you inhabit. How many moons has your sky?
Unable to refute the facts I cite, you simply deny they have 'value'.
Trying to put words into my mouth does not help your attempts at discussion either.
You put your own foot in your own mouth about CA & Chicago gun bans..
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.