Posted on 11/27/2011 1:19:38 PM PST by JimWayne
“He’s articulate and he tries to think of a conservative version of an idea that will solve a legitimate problem,” Clinton said.
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
During election 2004 the war in Vietnam was oft-dicsussed here, that was a nuisance for some -- I recall one reply stating the hope that the old people would die soon so there would be no more talk about that war.
OK, but Viet Nam was about whose America will survive. Bush v. Kerry was not unlike the 1960s and the survival of our Republic.
IMO the primary today is not unlike the 1964 Goldwater v. international establishment Republicans (Rockefeller Republicans).
I don't know who Goldwater is but Romney and Gingrich are sure looking like Rockefeller and Scranton to me. We Goldwater supporters helped one of his major supporters to become president in 1980. I attended a Reagan primary speech for Goldwater in 1964.
I had forgotten the insulting "Scranton letter" delivered to Goldwater in July 1964 at the San Francisco convention. The Scranton letter lays out what establishment Republicans think of the likes likes of Goldwater -- and Reagan as some appear to be distancing the Party from him.
The whole thing is here
The letter read "[you (Goldwater)] stand for Goldwaterism instead of Rpublicanism . . .Goldwaterism has come to stand for nuclear irresponsibility. . .keeping the name of Eisenhower out of our platform. . .being afraid to forthrightly condemn right-wing extremists. . .refusing to stand for law and order in maintaining racial peace. In short, Goldwaterism has come to stand for a whole crazy-quilt colection fo absurd and dangerous positions that would be soundly repudiated by the American people . . . ."
Scranton suggested that Goldwater should debate him at the convention lest Goldwater was (after months of campaigning!) afraid to "face the nation."
The Rockefeller - Scranton establishment Republicans refused to campaign for the Republican Party ticket if I remember correctly.
Nothing has changed vis-a-vis the Party establishment and everyone else.
Not all acknowledged Republicans are "bad." From a NYTimes Tom Wicker report, July 1964:
Today, [Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen] the Illinois Senator said, "it is the fashion of our critics to sneer at patriotism, to label positions of strength as extremism, to find other nations' points of view right more often than our own."
"Perhaps too long the bugles have sounded 'retreat' in our relations with other lands," he said . . . [T]hrough the sure hand, Barry Goldwater, the grandson of that immigrant frontier peddler, could retrieve" the self-respect of America.
BTW you can no longer get anything out of the Teim (or whatever) web site without punishement of having to have the hardcopy deliverd to your door and paying $30/year for it. You can get a week's access for $4.95 I think. The advantage of paying $257.40/year is you do not have to look at the hardcopy.
Fifty years ago Time was a real news magazine and kind of functioned as the Internet does today to "get the real story."
No more. It's "Obama, Obama! Ummm, ummm, umm! Oh, Gracious God, Thank You So Much! It’s such a blessing to be able to serve you, Mr. President. Thank you for taking time out of your day! Oh, gracious God, thank you so much!" Time is just another part of the state compliant undistinguished media (SCUM).
This is from before having to pay and is what I remember watching the convention and this is how real back-then-news-magazine Time reported it.
"While Everett Dirksen was nominating Barry Goldwater, both Cronkite [CBS] and Huntley [NBC] interspersed their own voices, passing comments and judgments on what Dirksen was saying, not giving the man a chance to deliver his speech as a whole. . . The networks have also to a considerable extent shut out the great [Goldwater] ground-swelling noises of the convention hall. Sound is half the atmosphere there, and it is thick enough to cut, but TV merely cuts it off or down . . . Spending all their time fussing over the latest developments among the sorry pack of obvious also-rans [Rockefeller, Scranton, et al], they made no real attempt to concentrate on the man [Goldwater] who had the nomination sewed up from the start. The TV coverage before the first ballot was largely focused on Scranton."
The spelling errors in the Scranton letter are mine. I had to type in the quotes from a photocopy of a newspaper article.
If Gingrich is smart this is game, set, match. Thank him and say that becauase of you he was able to balance the budget and as president you will work with the republican congress to do the same.
Then kick back and watch the lefts heads explode.
Mitt is the “fat cat” Obama would love to run against.
Me Thinks the Clinton’s want the Obama gone
Still smarting from getting screwed in the dem primary and since Hillary is completely worn out they best they can do is get revenge
Me Thinks the Clinton’s want the Obama gone
Still smarting from getting screwed in the dem primary and since Hillary is completely worn out they best they can do is get revenge
Me Thinks the Clinton’s want the Obama gone
Still smarting from getting screwed in the dem primary and since Hillary is completely worn out they best they can do is get revenge
Newt just does not want bill to tell him to get off the back of the plane. LOL
Remember, Gingrich and Clinton worked together to force through NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO which commenced the transfer of American industry and manufacturing to Red China and other Third-world slave gulags. The current and I might say permanent economic catastrophe we are now experiencing is a direct result of those traitorous trade agreements.
He is saying I will do anything just let me get off the front of the plane.
You pay to read time? I hope not!
No. Grinch’s surge is due to many new young voters thinking that fast talk is cool. They don’t know a thing about the Grinch! They don’t know that he is part of the establishment. Of course they probably don’t even know what the establishment is! They don’t know that he is barely over the acceptable line of being called a Re[publican. He is certainly NO CONSERVATIVE. But then many of those new voters probably don’t even know what a conservative is!
My thumbnail definition: A conservative is one who wants to PRESERVE the things which made our country so great: The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, The Declaration of Independence. The free market, the middle class, and the opportunity to improve ones situation in life.
This is possibly our last chance to vote a true conservative into the White House. And he is NOT Gingrich or Romney. They are both RINOs of the first water!
If big labor likes him, and the media likes him, and Bill Clinton likes him, ask yourself why.
The last time I was there there was no charge to get the article I referenced.
But back in the 1950s and for thirty years yes I paid Time and U.S. News and World Report often. They helped correct the TV network "news" reporting. They were kinda like the Internet is today for that purpose.
But something went wrong about twenty years ago. The last time I looked through a Time there was nothing there. Same for U.S. News and World Report.
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.