With the party's San Francisco convention only a month away Senator Goldwater's advantage is formidable.
It has been made more so by the unconscionably long time it took Mr. Scranton and his mentor, former President Eisenhower, to recognize that the Goldwater tide could not be stopped unless the people who stand for progress, instead of reaction, in the G.O.P. had the courage to come out forthrightly against him....
There are now two stand‐up candidates openly hostile to the Arizonan's antiquarianism: Scranton and Rockefeller....
All who believe that the health of our democratic system depends on the maintenance of a strong two‐party system will welcome yesterday's developments as improving the chance that the 1964 Republican standard bearer, whether it be Scranton or someone else, will be a man of moderation, a man who — as the Pennsylvania Governor put it — does not “stand with one foot in the 20th century and the other in the 19th.”...
The nature of his announcement encourages the hope that at last there will be a coalition on platform and candidate of all the forces that want to make the Republicans a party of modernism. They are the majority; the question is how determinedly they will stand together.
१२ जून, २०१४
50 years ago today: Governor William Scranton says he'll run for the GOP presidential nomination, yielding to the proddings of the "Stop Goldwater" movement.
The NYT reports "Scranton Will Run":
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१४ टिप्पण्या:
“Stand with one foot in the 20th century and the other in the 19th.”
That's where they are alright - just as MLK predicted.
Hellofathing,...
The truly interesting thing that happened around this time is Buckley opposing Ayn Rand and the John Birch Society. Thereby blunting the tip of the conservative spear. In my opinion, allowing the progressives to take over the government. I hope he's burning in the hell he believed in.
All who believe that the health of our democratic system depends on the maintenance of a strong two‐party system will welcome yesterday's developments as improving the chance that the 1964 Republican standard bearer...will be a man of moderation
Another one for the annals of Times doublespeak.
A strong 2-party system means a Democratic Party and a sort-of Democratic Party.
It's so weird that the NYT was even more one-sided 50 years ago.
And Hillary was a Goldwater girl, that's weird too.
It is interesting how the parties have evolved through history. In some ways, the world is just different, America is different, our laws are different, so the parties are understandably affected by all those changes.
But some of the changes are more fundamental and enduring. Today's GOP is more Goldwater's party than it is Rockefeller's. Guys like Rockefeller and Nixon would likely be Democrats today, so long as they could "evolve" and purge their few non-left-liberal urges and inclinations. How would Scoop Jackson or even JFK fare in today's Democratic Party?
At least it was an editorial and not a news story.
You can click through to the actual page and read some of the pathetic other editorials. My favorite is the one approving a large increase in pay for federal employees, and a raise for members of Congress from $22,500 to $30,000 a year. The justification was that higher pay would attract and retain better quality men to federal employment, thus raising the quality of government overall.
That worked out nicely, didn't it?
(And yes they said "men.)
I see Crack is studiously avoiding the obvious "islamists standing with both feet in the 7th century" meme of the day.
Well "not" played, crack.
Well "not" played.
I'm sure your islamist pals are quite pleased with you. Perhaps you'll even get a cookie....if the islamists haven't outlawed sugar yet.
Never let it be said I'm ungenerous:
http://www.thekingcenter.org/archive/document/mlk-republican-nomination-barry-goldwater#
Rockefeller Republican has a better ring to it than Scranton Republican.
Romney's dad was also in the Scranton-Rockefeller camp.
Romney Republican has a better ring to it than Rockefeller.
There was a book that discussed the NYT's dishonesty during Goldwater's campaign called, as I recall: "All the News That Fits."
Stand with one foot in the 20th century and the other in the 19th.
The 19th century, when the Republican Party was formed as the political vehicle for abolitionists.
When the 13th Amendment abolished slavery, the 14th guaranteed due process, and the 15th guaranteed the right to vote (all sadly undercut by Democrats in the 19th as well as the 20th and even 21st centuries).
Biggest thing wrong with 19th century Republicans is that they didn't more thoroughly defeat 19th century Democrats.
Crack has moved from disparaging new agers to disparaging white conservatives.
Militant, incessant, racialist whining. Crack, Jackson, Sharpton, Holder. What's the difference and who cares?
Goldwater was a racist, right, Crack? Blah, blah, blah.
BDNYC,
"How would Scoop Jackson ... fare in today's Democratic Party?"
My but I miss him! The answer is... Not At All. He barely fared during the Carter administration.
We used to call the Scranton/Rockefeller Republicans "me-too" Republicans. Note how well they fared (if they even bothered to try) in halting the statist juggernaut in the 1960s. Recently I've heard the term "Vichy Republicans" and that seems pretty apt.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा