Posted on 06/30/2007 7:56:53 PM PDT by logician2u
Before the fun begins, let me state that I am well familiar with Bill Moyers' pedigree. I do not intend to respond to any replies intended to change the subject from the Republican Party's problems to the left-wing bias of PBS and its various and assorted luminaries posing as documentarists, interviewers and commentators. Yes, it's a shame there isn't equal representation of conservative views on "public television;" however, you and I know that is not going to happen in this lifetime.
Concentrate, if you can, on the points Mr. Gold makes with regard to where the Republican Party has come, and who brought it there. That, I believe, is the primary topic, and the one he explores in depth in his book, Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How the Neo-Cons and Holy Rollers Destroyed the GOP, which I intend to read just as soon as I get through with my current tome of 600+ pages. (Gold's volume, at least, is somewhat slimmer.)
To tell you a little of my background, I was a Republican loyalist myself for over 30 years, having got my political feet wet on Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign, then working on Ronald Reagan's first California gubernatorial campaign, plus assorted local races which sent some outstanding Republicans to Sacramento and to Washington in the 1960s. My family on my father's side was always Republican, including a great, great-uncle who became a US Senator and ran (unsuccessfully) for Vice President in the late 19th Century.
So what has happened to my party, the one I grew up in? I'm not certain, but I think it was hijacked sometime in the 1990s. That seems to be when everything began going wrong. Blame it on Clinton.
Nixon’s wage and price controls.
Still, the party survived even Nixon and came back strong with Ronald Reagan in 1980.
This time, I'm afraid it's going to be different. There are no Ronald Reagans anywhere in sight.
As soon as any “intellectual” starts yapping about his fear of a theocracy my eyes glaze over.
There is one group of people who want to impose a theocracy , and that’s the Muslims in our midst.. these idiotarians who complain about theocracy never seem to notice this for some bizarre reason.
They’re living in some paranoid never-had-existed past and apparentely have no clue what the world has turned into over the past few decades.
Easily dismissed and ignorable.
It seems like the Imperialization of the President coincides with the availability of TV to the masses.
what’s busted beyond repair in this country is the news media. that you can have this braying ass moyers(I know I’m coming right up to the line you set) talking about the “idealism” of the Kennedys (JFK included) without fear of contradiction shows the distortion of the political climate. To talk about anything else as a problem with the political system is like lamenting a hangnail on a limb that has been torn off and thrown across the street.
Good luck in your future efforts
Would you say that was a cause or an effect? Or mere coincidence?
It was an election night, a presidential off year, perhaps 1990. The very earliest results had trickled in. They were from Georgia and Kentucky, and they were trending Republican.
Moyers came on -- it was about 7:35 p.m., I checked my watch for the historical record -- and he said, "When you see the South voting Republican like this...that's racism."
(A few weeks later I called into the old Larry King overnight radio show and reported this, much as I have here without much comment. King said, "Are ~you~ a racist, sir?.")
There is no possible takedown of the MSM that could be brutal enough to satisfy me.
(Now I am going to read the article.)
The problem with "sound biting" is that it is often done dishonestly, ripping a few words out of context.
But other times, you are able to glimpse the reality only in someone's thoughtless phrase: "We're gonna tell the bigots to just shewtUP!"
Let's keep the sound bites.
Did you happen to notice that Gold, in this interview, decries the "sound bite mentality" that, IMHO, was a large factor contributing to Goldwater's defeat in 1964.
It was bad then. It's worse today. And nearly every candidate plays it for all it's worth.
Bull turkey.
There is no values free public space...certainly not the schools.
The Faith-based thing is simply an effort to reachout to people where they are -- to use whatever means seem to work -- to reach people for legitimate, agreed upon societal purposes. (I say this as someone who has no personal religious impulse whatsoever.)
Gold sounds like a Christy Whitman RINO to me. But he yearns for Goldwater and Moyers encourages that. However, Goldwater lost.
I associate Moyers with LBJ, though he claims Kennedy and Civil Rights. He seems as angry as the netroot people, and I asked an associate why at a recent funeral for a TV man from that crowd. I can only believe that people like him yearn for their idealism because they compromised it to ruthless and venal men like Johnson. A good, decent man like Bush is a rebuke. A rock like Cheney would make the vacillators who lost Vietnam uncomfortable.
this is from Goldwater's speech accepting presidential nomination in ' 64. It almost looks like the fix was in that long ago.
Gold is talking about the religious right and neocons. Memo to Karl Rove: This is equally true of Latino immigrants.
It may have been wishful thinking. South and Central America were being assaulted by Communism back then, and later by drug lords. In 1964, there was not a flood of humanity rushing across the Rio Grande.
That's fine. I put up an anti-Moyers post right out of the box. It is addressed only nominally to you, because you created the thread it happens that way by default. I'll post what I like. It does not need to be legitimated as part of the thread by your responding.
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.