Posted on 11/16/2007 8:41:02 AM PST by Sue Bob
Barry M. Goldwater, Jr. endorsed Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul for president.
“America is at a crossroads,” said Mr. Goldwater. “We have begun to stray from our traditions and must get back to what has made us the greatest nation on earth or we will lose much of the freedom we hold dear. Ron Paul stands above all of the other candidates in his commitment to liberty and to America.”
“Leading America is difficult, and I know Ron Paul is the man for the job,” he added.
(Excerpt) Read more at usadaily.com ...
Barry went far left when his senility kicked in.
LLS
Was he senile in 1974? How about 1976?
Very astute post.
Didn’t Goldwater want to nuke Vietnam?
The Reds showed restraint because they knew that it meant their own end. The Islamic terrorist movement shows no such restraint.
Oh yeah.
That "young lion" managed to lose the 1964 election in a 24 point landlside and the utter lack of coattails he possessed managed to give LBJ the airtight majority he needed to push through the entire Great Society.
Lord save the GOP from such "lions."
Probably because he was supposed to be Nancy Jr. when he was born.
All Goldwater ever did was to show Republicans how to get totally p3wned by the Democrats.
Ronald Reagan taught us how to win.
A nice endorsement Ping from one of the Goldwater clan.
Expect more in the coming weeks.
I think that Duncan Hunter is a great person. I got to meet him at the Texas Straw Poll when I approached him to thank him for trying to help Ramos and Compean. He is very gracious—and also very handsome and masculine. :)
I agree with many of his positions. That said, he is too big government for me. The impression I got from his speech is that he believes government is the solution to too many things. He also said many good things prompting me to stand up and clap for him, but my heart belongs to Ron Paul.
I think that Duncan Hunter is treated shamefully at the debates and I hear that he may be excluded from the Iowa debate. I think that stinks!
My argument is that we need a united Republican Party to prevail in 2008 against Bill-ze-Bubba’s wife, and we should do what it takes to build a winning coalition, including avoiding harsh rhetoric against our fellow Republicans. Any of the current Republican candidates would be a much better President than Hillary, who is beholden to her socialist, feminist, and Gore-bot supporters.
Yeah but he set the seeds for Reagan as people realized he was right. Same thing that Paul is doing. He may not win the nomination, but I bet the GOP will be more libertarian as a result.
You should appreciate that Paul is running. He's bringing in new and younger voters into the GOP. The GOP is a dying party, the base has completely shrunk to religious conservatives and those who support the war.
Thought you might want a ping...
Goldwater Sr. always had a libertarian bent. In his day, conservatism meant small government, budget cutting and staunch opposition to communism. Issues like abortion and gay marriage weren't on the radar. He was never a "values" conservative -- in the '80s, he opined to the effect that "every good Christian should kick Jerry Falwell in the ass."
By the 1996 election, when AuH2O endorsed Dole, Dole's opponents decried Goldwater as a liberal. His positions had not changed. He did not leave the GOP -- the GOP left him.
I don't think Goldwater Sr. would agree with Paul on Iraq -- he was an advocate of robust and aggressive pursuit of our overseas enemies, and was no isolationist. Other than that, Paul's platform isn't too different from Goldwater's. I don't mean that as praise nor condemnation; take it for what it's worth.
That is why many of them are no longer posting here.
‘At some point the Goldwaterolatry has to stop.’
I’d say its about run its course. The HBO hit piece on conservatives, disguised as a bio of Goldwater, accelerated it.
None of today's GOP candidates, including Ron Paul, would be fit to have emptied Barry Sr's wastebasket.
Who cares about the presence or absence of a few gays in the military when you consider that Goldwater would likely have done better than any of today's candidates at fighting the current war to win.
I like the way this fellah answered that exact same question, actually:
Like it a whole hell of a lot, actually.
... and, of course: there's that eensy, barely perceptible difference between the respective theoreticals of Prawn Paul and myself, in that one of us is actively campaigning for nomination to the Republican Party ticket as a national candidate, whereas the other one... ummmmmm... ahhhhhhh... not so much, actually.
Had the straw men in Oz all been even remotely as slipshod and slapdash as that last effort of yours, right there: poor Dorothy never would have made it back home to Kansas.
I've read his autobiography, and I'd say he was on the edge all his life.
Devere, I've been saying this for weeks here, but the bashers don't care. Instead of reaching out to libertarians and independents on a few issues, they want to call them names and denigrate them.
The old liberal vs conservative axiom isn't going to cut it next year. There is a huge voting bloc that is sick and tired of both political parties promoting cookie-cutter candidates. Dr. Paul's message of freedom and limited government is appealing to everyone regardless of political affiliations. This nation has serious issues that can't be addressed by candidates pushing for "targeted tax cuts" or Rudy and Mitt fighting over the line-item veto. If the GOP keeps denigrating Paul and his supporters, they're going to lose next year badly, this is why they keep pushing the "Paul will run 3rd party crap" so they'll have a scapegoat.
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.