What did Goldwater do wrong?

[mrwiizrd]

Do you know the name of it?

Sorry, been a little tied up for the last few days, here you go:

http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/mrconservative/

[Matt Collins]

Sorry, been a little tied up for the last few days, here you go:

http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/mrconservative/

Awesome. Surprisingly enough I've already had it in my Netflix queue.

[Eric21ND]

Yeah sawing off the east coast liberals comment was made into a pretty striking campaign attack against him.

The Vietnam war/communism boogeyman he went after.

Allowing his political opponents to define him as a racist, since he did not support Civil Rights legislation.

His acceptance speech was something for the ages, it played well in the microcosm of the GOP, but throughout the entire nation it was of questionable stratedgy. Here's his speech in four parts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQlfS5maeHA

By the way you guys should watch, HBO Mr. Conservative: Goldwater on Goldwater
Here's the trailer for it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRq-gelZFgg

[WRellim]

Let's list everything Goldwater did wrong so that we can examine these items so that we don't end up repeating them.

Goldwater ran against a ghost/myth.



Seriously.

Johnson didn't win the election -- and Goldwater didn't really lose the election.

The population was voting for the "hallowed/glorified" memory of the assassinated JFK the "youthful/hopeful" president of the "Camelot" years.

IMHO, it was all based on emotion.


Heck... people still aren't over that ...hence Caroline Kennedy can just waltz into a Senate appointment to universal acclaim. Same with any other Kennedy kid.

[powerofreason]

I had a teacher once who said he didn't win because he made everyone think he was gonna nuke the soviets. Don't know if theres any truth to that.

[LibertyEagle]

The GOP primary race between Taft and Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 was a particularly close and bitterly contested affair that lasted right up to the convention. Once the convention opened, the Eisenhower camp, unsure of its chances of winning fair and square, persuaded the convention to replace pro-Taft delegates from a number of states with pro-Eisenhower delegates, alleging that the Taft camp had unfairly stolen them (echoes of more recent treatment of Ron Paul supporters in several state conventions). In spite of the Taft camp’s angry denials, the convention voted in favor of this so-called “Fair Play” proposal, and Eisenhower, by convention-floor sleight of hand, wrested the nomination from Robert Taft.

Only once in modern times has a candidate in violation of establishment orthodoxy secured the presidential nomination. In 1964, Senator Barry Goldwater, a conservative who did not fit the establishment mold, managed to get the GOP presidential nomination. Comments Quigley, “The capture of the Republican National Party by the extremist elements of the Republican Congressional Party in 1964, and their effort to elect Barry Goldwater to the Presidency with the petty-bourgeois extremists [note the Marxist terminology] alone, was only a temporary aberration on the American political scene.” Indeed, Goldwater soon found not only the Democratic Party but the leadership of his own party working against him. Nelson Rockefeller, a New York governor and leader of the liberal establishment wing of the GOP, helped to sabotage Goldwater’s campaign. The Arizona Senator was smeared as a war-monger, and an infamous anti-Goldwater campaign commercial showed a small child picking a daisy right before an atomic bomb detonated. The implication was that the fiery Goldwater would start a nuclear war, and it helped sink the GOP standard-bearer’s campaign. Barry Goldwater lost the 1964 election to Lyndon Johnson, another big-government liberal who plunged America into the Vietnam War and whose Great Society welfare program of the sixties was surpassed only by the New Deal in scope and cost.

Since the Goldwater campaign, America’s ruling establishment has successfully denied non-housetrained candidates a realistic shot at the presidency. Ronald Reagan talked a good talk, but his pick of arch-insider George Bush as his veep signaled his intention not to rock the boat. As president, Reagan continued to give lip service to limited government, but supported business as usual — bigger government, more favors to special interests, refusal to abolish programs he campaigned against — with his signing pen.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...les-to-oranges

[nodope0695]

A better question would be: What happened to Americans, and when did they start taking freedom for granted?

[Suzu]

Sen. Barry Goldwater wrote in his book With No Apologies: "In my view, the Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power: political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical. All this is to be done in the interest of creating a more peaceful, more productive world community. What the Trilateralists truly intend is the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved. They believe the abundant materialism they propose to create will overwhelm existing differences. As managers and creators of the system they will rule the future."

He was singing a different tune when he ran as the GOP nominee.

[LibertyEagle]

He was singing a different tune when he ran as the GOP nominee.

Huh? He was against these guys back then too. In a MAJOR way.

[scandinaviany3]

My history teacher said that Goldwater said he wished he could saw off the Northeast US and watch it float out to sea or something. (Because it's a liberal area) Ha!

still agree with that starting at Washington DC