If that's all true, he must be rolling over in his grave these days.

He was rolling before he died. Read the preface of John Dean's new book for details.

Deborah Solomon, of course, will call anybody anything she pleases to get a rise out of her interviewees.

Goldwater clearly had principles--crazy principles, by my thinking, but principles nonetheless. As such, he would have been hounded out of the modern GOP (or the modern Democratic Party, for that matter).

Is Lonelygirl15 real or is she presenting a contrived situation?

Indeed, dj. He was dippy as a bitsy bug, to be sure, but he was motivated by a philosophy that went beyond "Every toy you amass takes one away from the other guy"--which made him a lot more interesting than the current crowd.

Another sign that since 2000 we have been living in the bizrro world.

Being a true conservative citizen rather than a cynical political apparachnick like Our Leaders in Washington, Goldwater would have opposed the Republican Party Plan for Endless War.

This reminds me of Eric Alterman's comment about 'liberal' meaning "not obviously insane".

Note that Goldwater was pushing for the use of nuclear weapons in North Vietnam; which in my book means he's no longer entitled to "American liberal" status regardless of what else he believes (and he wadn't no Upton Sinclair either, that's for damn sure).

It makes sense that people would be easily confused. When John Kerry is flagged as "The Most Liberal Senator" and Bush is portrayed as a "Reaganesque Conservative" it means the labels have pretty much lost all meaning and are only being used for their emotional value.

When discussing conservatism, I distinguish the current crop from what I call 'Goldwater Conservatives', a breed I could live with if only they still existed. The one bedrock principle Goldwater held that I share is that of keeping the gov't out of the lives of the citizenry, which he didn't limit to gun cabinets but extended to the public library, the bedroom and doctor's office. I wouldn't exactly give Barry a Holy Joe Kiss, but I could shake his hand with respect.

"...the straight-talking Sen. Goldwater..."

More straight-talk, eh? Must be something in the water in Arizona.

They have water in Arizona, don't they??

Nowadays conservatism is whatever the loudest right wing blabbermouths say it is.

For that matter, liberalism as well is whatever the loudest right wing blabbermouths say it is, just like John Kerry became whomever the Swift Boat Vets said he was . . .

Hey, this is fun. Let's see if it applies to other issues -- Iran's leadership is whatever Pete Hoekstra says it is (yep) . . . activist judges are whomever Tom DeLay says they are (yep again), the liberal media is whatever Karl Rove says it is (absolutely).

Down with history! Up with expediency!

Grumpy: They have water in Arizona, don't they??

Sure. What they can't buy, they steal.

Saam: Note that Goldwater was pushing for the use of nuclear weapons in North Vietnam; which in my book means he's no longer entitled to "American liberal" status regardless of what else he believes (and he wadn't no Upton Sinclair either, that's for damn sure).

Indeed. He was quite, quite mad on the subject. And yet he had these quaint ideas about the government paying its bills and staying out of the bedroom. Slightly OT, my lifelong Republican mom, who's been clinging to the notion that the old conservative party might just come back (and voting for Dems and Libertarians in the meantime), told someone the other day, "I'm not a Republican anymore. The party of Goldwater is gone forever." It was something to hear.

Goldwater Republicanism (or conservatism) is:
1. Strong on national defense, but with brains behind it. The Weinberger/Powell Doctrine, for example.
2. Fiscally conservative. Don't just spend just to spend, and don't just cut taxes just to cut taxes.
3. Socially libertarian.
4. Deep distrust of religion in politics. Goldwater wanted to kick Falwell's ass.

You know he had a nervous breakdown in '37? Remember "electric shock treatment?" I'm just saying.

Also, what about Goldwater's WWII service record? Sure he served in the Air Corps, but India? And he was assigned to the "Ferry" command? Why am I not suprised. Sure he organized the Arizona National Guard, but it wasn't what you would call the most capable group of soldiers. And that promotion from brigadier General to Major General; What kind of strings were pulled to accomplish that? Many in the ANG say he wasn't an effective general anyway.

And that "extremism in defense of liberty" line, word is he refused to even use it until his running mate, Bill Miller had to convince him it would work. People forget he also said: "We must not see malice in honest differences of opinion"

And get this: Margarte Chase Smith a.k.a. "Moscow Maggie" was one of Goldwater's fellow travellers.

Those who cared to see him for what he was, always knew he was a Liberal!

I'm not comfortable with historical revisionism where there isn't a ton of powerful evidence to justify a shift in opinion. And so I'll stick with the history I already know about Goldwater:

1. When he was in his political prime, he was a frothing rightwinger. He WAS principled, even then, and everyone -- from both parties -- knew it. But he was awfully extreme. He kept talking about using nukes on Vietnam and elsewhere, and that's one of the reasons the famous Johnson "Girl in the Daisies" ad really wasn't over the top at all. And in truth, he held a vast array of positions that were astonishingly neanderthal; he had good things to say about the John Birch Society, for example, and other highly dubious extremist groups.

2. In the years that followed the '64 defeat, he grew in his performance as a Senator, and seemingly mellowed a little. Still, he was remarkably consistent in his general views throughout his lifetime.

3. He was ALWAYS colleagial, and formed strong relationships with his fellow Senators from both parties.

4. As the GOP marched relentlessly to the nutso right, Goldwater was increasingly out of step with them. He did, in fact, oppose them -- increasingly -- on a number of interesting topics, such as gays in the military, and personal privacy versus governmental intrusion.

5. Because of this, he gradually found more and more common ground with his Democratic colleagues. He co-sponsored a LOT of stuff with them, for example. And I've read that Democrats would sometimes quietly run proposed legislation past him for a "conservative's take." If he expressed displeasaure, they may or may not act on it, but they always took it seriously because they trusted him as a genuinely honest broker.

6. By the end of his career in the Senate, he arguably had more genuine friends on the Democratic side than the Republican side. His masterpiece was his reform of the Pentagon. Democrats signed up in droves to co-sponsor or pledge support for the measure. The GOP was very reluctant, and basically only backed him as a going-away gift (this being right before his retirement). Had it not been for Democratic support, it wouldn't have passed.

7. It might be apocryphal, but I've read or been told that at his funeral, there were more Democrats than Republicans, and they were far more emotional about his passing. A reflection not of approval of his positions, but of the human being they'd grown to respect and love.

Out of all of that, I've never heard anyone try to paint him as a liberal in any way, shape, or form ... and, yes, I think he'd be spinning in his grave were he to hear it. He did take an occasional "liberal" position, and he came to love and respect a lot of his liberal colleagues (and vice versa), but it does him a disservice to imply that he was ever himself a "liberal."

Just for the record: Barry Goldwater did not write "Conscience of a Conservative." Brent Bozell did. Also for the record: John F. Kennedy did not write "Profiles in Courage." Ted Sorenson did. And Barry's dad did not strong arm the Pulitzer people into giving his kid a prize. And the Goldwater family (as far as I know) does not give out "Conscience of a Conservative" awards.

"Note that Goldwater was pushing for the use of nuclear weapons in North Vietnam;"

That's actually not true. It was, and remains, a lie, albeit a persistent one.

He was a flat taxer, hence promoted big government Republicanism. Makes him a big government conservative in the mold of Reagan and Bush the Little.

The first bumpersticker I can remember was "AuH20" way back in the day.

This just in: turns out ole "Hairy Goldliberal" had a breakdown in '39 too. He was also known to be good friends with Johnny Walker.

This sort of thing frequently happens when people try to lead such double lives. And wasn't it Goldliberal who gave aid and solace to Ted Kennedy when he fell off the wagon? (Or was that when Ted fell off the bridge?)

In 1964 my parents were the only ones who voted for Goldwater on my block. People wonder why I am an iconoclast. I think it is something learned from my father.

Goldwater was pro-choice. Part of his conservatism was keeping government out of the personal lives of citizens. He was also a pro-military hack who, like many Americans, thought a nuclear bomb can be used to solve political problems.

When Barry began to speak at my HS graduation, I lit up a big fat .... to demonstrate my contempt for his authority. Those were the days.

Moderate,

No, it's not a lie. I used to have a little book, "Goldwater from A to Z." Campaign book from the 1964 election, written by Aurther Frommer (same guy who does all the travel books). I thought it was a remarkably well-done little piece. Paperback, about 115 or so pages, with attractive photos of Goldwater on the front and back covers. It was organized by topic, and comprised of NOTHING except quotes from Goldwater's many speeches, comments on the Senate floor, etc. I'm sorry that I no longer have the book; I've since seen used copies for anywhere from $6 to $20 on the internet.

Anyhow, there were a nice, thick stack of quotes -- all of them Goldwater's own words -- where he made it absolutely crystal clear that he thought we should consider using nuclear weapons in Vietnam. He may have even had some comments there about China as well. I am a liberal admirer of Goldwater -- to me, he truly qualified as the "loyal opposition" -- but those were his own words. If they are a "lie" then it was Goldwater doing the lying.

Roger Keeling:

Excellent tribute. I won't quibble about the nuking North Vietnam bit, as I don't know the true aetiology of that remark.

He *did* say, though, that he'd like to saw off the Northeast and float it out to sea -- which the Johnson people made into an ad almost as effective in exposing (alleged) extremism as the (in)famous Daisy spot.

Truthfully, all this Goldwater hagiography makes me a little uncomfortable. What y'all are really gushing over is a straight-no-chaser atheist Libertarian. You know like ... Ayn Rand.

Now that the collective *shudders* have subsided a little ...

Truthfully, the real Republicans we all as good liberals should be getting nostalgic over are the Rockefeller Republicans. Sure, their leaders were filthy rich -- but they had a true sense of noblesse oblige. They were unparalleled conservationists, for instance. And they fully supported diplomacy and international institutions like the UN -- even as the Goldwaterites were inveighing against them. The Rocky Repubs weren't cranky Europhobes. And -- as we all know -- the whole point of the Goldwaterite movement in the GOP was to take down those effete Northeastern bastids.

Truthfully, there's more in Goldwater's cranky jingoist swagger in the neocons than many of you are caring to admit in this thread. Yes, he *did* grow with age and wisdom, and made common cause with Democrats against the big-gummit social conservative Reaganauts -- mainly because he objected to the Christian Right.

But let's not go overboard here, is all I'm saying ...

Bob

Goldliberal's Senate squeeze, Moscow Maggie once saie:

"I don't want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny -- Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry and Smear."

That's the kind of smear you would expect from card-carrying lefties. And no comment from G-libber while patriotic Republicans were being dragged through the mud.

No wonder they called him "Scary Leadliberal" behind is back.

A genuine conservative actually is "liberal" to an appreciable extent. Why? Because they really don't want the government interfering in many things. Today's Republicans want interference that serves their interests. They will gladly interfere in State laws they don't like, rig regulations to help their donors, meddle in private affairs, etc.

That doesn't mean that "real conservatism" is fine, because of what businesses can still get away with etc., but it sure is better than the garbage we are dealing with now. I always respected Barry, at least, and found CoaC to be a reasonably honest and fair perspective in context.

I am from Arizona, and I am addicted to the Sonoran Desert Adage of "The only thing that changes in America is its history", and thusly, having a considerable history where the late Barry Goldwater is concerned, I have numerous stories to tell. And keep in mind that Rehnquist was his protege and there is a wealth of evidence still buried in a safe deposit box in which Rehnquist did his schtick to insure voter suppression when he was a political operative. I encountered Rehnquist at South Phoenix precinct doing so.

Take for example, Goldwater has no use for Chicanos and Native Americans, excepting at the ballot box. And since I am combo of both Chicano and Yaqui Indian, I find it a hoot that only the Gold Star/Robot picked up on the John Bircher reality of Goldwater. The impeachment of Evan Meachem, as Governor, was also another outgrowth of same.

But despite my version of the opinionati relative to Goldwater, he sat down with Del Webb and crafted the law and local ordinance to establish Sun City--a phenomenal marketing and sales tool targeting only Republican retirees, in order to shift the political dynamic from Democratic to Republican. The dividends of this effort exists today and in which Republican voter registration exceeds 140,000 over the Democrats.

Needless to say, in his last few years of life, he changed his belief in favor of abortion. And after being asked why, he stated succinctly, that he felt that way since he was no longer an elected official. Go figure.

> Sure he served in the Air Corps,
> but India? And he was assigned to the
> "Ferry" command?

The India-Burma-China theatre of WWII gets very little mention in the United States, but if it was the early days the loss rates for the Army Air Corps were tremendous. Loss rates for the ferry operations alone were probably higher than combat missions in Europe. And living conditions weren't so great either, plus the ever-present danger of being overrun by the Japanese (it was quite late in the war before it was certain the Japanese would not launch an invasion of India). So you might want to learn more before criticizing in this area.

Cranky

I don't have any particular knowledge of Goldwater the man, although Jaango's post above fits with what I have heard of AZ politics. But what is scary to me is that Norquist, Scaife, and Rove have succeeded in pulling the "center" that Kevin Drum loves so far to the right that Goldwater might very well qualify as a "liberal" Democrate today.

Cranky

Goldwater is being brought back as popular hero because the nulcear bombs are being prepared for launch, which would have made him proud and may actually bring him back from the dead. It is written he will climb out of a dry well in the Arizona desert when brown or yellow or black people are nuked because they dared defy American authority. This really excites the Republican base in the Southwest.

I will save my admiration comments for Ayn Rand's writing for another time.

Fascinating, Jaango! In particular, had never thought about Del Webb targeting only Republicans...but of course!

Cranky,

Does the nickname "ferry Barry" mean anything?

Sure, he claims his fellow pilots respected him, but have we heard from all of them?

Get the truth at www.thetruthaboutferrybarry.com

Cranky:

Goldwater was an anti-statist Libertarian Republican. No way in hell he'd *ever* qualify as a liberal Democrat today -- even taking into account the wealthy urban neoliberal Dem ideological variant that's solidly pro-business and civil libertarian.

At base Goldwater was way too much of a militarist (not to mention in his Senate days closet racist) to qualify for that club, regardless of how his views may have moderated in his retired years in response to the Christian Right.

Bob

"A flat tax is consistent with government of any size"

Republicans always make this mistake.

The growth of government depends upon whether there is marginal utility gained by shifting private sector expenses to the government. For example, if Wal Mart executives gain 40% return on their investment and pay 30% of net after sales to government, then they are inclined to have the government educate their workers because they only pay 30 cents on the dollar for that, but pay 40 cents on the dollar if they do it themselves. Hence, the Most Kids left behind program becomes law.

It is this same differential rate of return that is motivating some auto executives to promote government health care.

Republicans always lower the cost of government because they all want to use government to provide more services. Dems do the same thing. Flat taxes, in general grow government. The major except is a case like Russia, which was coming out of a major economic collapse.

This is now an economic law, or almost there. Only the Republicans are holding out on accepting this science because they are still angling to grow government. Dems figured this out years ago, which is why payroll taxes are flat.

Government is just another sector of the economy that sells its services to the public. Price theory applies no matter how much we wish it qwere not so. Those who deny this generally are those who want more government.

Roger,

Goldwater did say that nukes could be effective in Vietnam as a theoretical matter...he didn't call for their use.

Moderate-

I had a 1960s retrospective CD with various quotes, one of which was Goldwater advocating nuking the North Vietnamese. Not sure that that's the stuff of "persistent lies" but there you go.

Saam:

We both know that context is everything.

FYI, Wikipedia on the "liberal" Goldwater:

"Goldwater had a controversial record on civil rights. Locally he was a supporter of the Arizona NAACP and was involved in desegregating the Arizona National Guard. As a senator, he was a supporter of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and 1960. However, he opposed the much more comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the grounds that it was an unconstitutional extension of the federal commerce power to private citizens in order to "legislate morality" and restrict the rights of employers. Since conservative Southern Democrats were the main opponents to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and previous civil rights legislation, his opposition to the Act strongly boosted Goldwater's standing among white southerners."

Some other notable Goldwater career milestones:

Goldwater voted against the censure of Joe McCarthy in 1954;

In the 1964 election Goldwater carried only Arizona and five deep-South states;

He led the fight against the ratification of the Panama Canal Treaty in the 1970s;

He joked about lobbing a nuclear bomb into the men's room at the Kremlin.

Characterizing Goldwater as a modern-day liberal only demonstrates how much farther to the right modern-day conservatism has shifted from the Goldwater anti-communist, anti-civil rights era.

Goldwater's libertarianism didn't really appear until the 1980s. Prior to that he was a rabid conservative.

Goldy was a SOCIALIST when it came to the Bureau of Reclamation giving Arizona below-market cost water and hydroelectricity. Of course, Mr. "Schmuck Talk Express" is just as much a socialist, as are GOP senators in all western states.

OTHER than that... Goldy was a libertarian, or quasi-libertarian. He was NO liberal.

And Moderate, Barry DID at least talk about nuking the USSR, if not Vietnam... his quip about "lobbing one in the men's room at the Kremlin is well-known.

Grumpy: They have water in Arizona, don't they??

Yeah, but Barry didn't much partake of it. They say he preferred teh hooch.

Whether Barry was a "liberal" or a "conservative" is a silly little game.

He was fucking smart and used his fucking head, and he could also change his mind on certain issues when presented with new or alternative evidence indicating a previous position was not the wisest approach to problems in the country.

For that capacity he would be driven from todays GOP like a diseased cur.

Matt,

Republicans always make this mistake.

You're the one who is mistaken. Or, rather, totally confused. As I said, a flat tax is consistent with a government of any size. A flat tax of 10% with a $50,000 exemption would fund only a small government. A flat tax of 30% with no exemption would fund a much bigger government.

And your "Wal-Mart executives" scenario is gibberish. You claim:

"if Wal Mart executives gain 40% return on their investment and pay 30% of net after sales to government, then they are inclined to have the government educate their workers because they only pay 30 cents on the dollar for that, but pay 40 cents on the dollar if they do it themselves."

This claim is just nonsensical. How does it follow from a 40% return on investment and a 30% tax rate on an employer that educating workers would cost that employer "30 cents on the dollar" if the government did it but 40 cents if the employer did it himself? There is no logical relationship whatsoever between the tax rate or the rate of return on investment and the cost of providing education.

I think the difference between Goldwater and today's GOP is that Goldwater at least believed in Democracy. The current GOP doesn't.

Goldwater tried to win fair and square, and he lost the same way. The Republicans just want to win and destroy all opposition. An important difference.

Cranky Observer, what really does not get mention in the US is how the Democrats have given their lives for their country amazingly more than Republicans in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and, guess what, Iraq.

Where are the Republicans when the going gets tough?

Goldy was a SOCIALIST when it came to the Bureau of Reclamation giving Arizona below-market cost water and hydroelectricity.

Of course. All politics is local, remember? Goldwater was a "principled" small government conservative except when it came to giant federally-funded water projects for Arizona. You gotta dance with them what brung ya. That's how you get elected.

he'd like to saw off the Northeast and float it out to sea

As a northeasterner, I wish he had! Let the rest of you friggin' yahoos have Little Bush!

But the whole thing is consistent with the Repubs' trotting out FDR and JFK as icons of "how the Democrats used to not be evil." Someone remarked, here or elsewhere, that in 50 years they'll be pointing to Clinton the same way.

As a northeasterner, I wish he had! Let the rest of you friggin' yahoos have Little Bush!

And we could get back to our man-on-dog action in peace!

I think you mean "Bradley [sic]", Kevin. "Bradlee" is the correct spelling, but "Bradley" is (at least now) what's in the E&P article.

And I think I meant "Laura", not "Kevin".

But the whole thing is consistent with the Repubs' trotting out FDR and JFK as icons of "how the Democrats used to not be evil." Someone remarked, here or elsewhere, that in 50 years they'll be pointing to Clinton the same way.

Yeah, the same way Democrats point to Eisenhower/Nixon/Ford, and, increasingly, to Reagan and Bush I as icons of "how the Republicans used to not be evil," even though the Democrats of the time demonized those Republican presidents as much as today's Dems demonize Bush II. Always, there's the need to pretend that one's current opponent is somehow qualitatively different and worse than his predecessors. It wasn't so long ago that Dems were routinely blasting Reagan as a madman who was leading the world to nuclear annihilation. Now, he's on the verge of being inducted into your Hall of The Worthy Opposition, just like Goldwater. It's amazing what the passage of a few years does, isn't it?

This claim is just nonsensical. How does it follow from a 40% return on investment and a 30% tax rate on an employer that educating workers would cost that employer "30 cents on the dollar" if the government did it but 40 cents if the employer did it himself? There is no logical relationship whatsoever between the tax rate or the rate of return on investment and the cost of providing education.

This proves that GOP is an idiot who not only knows nothing about econ, but has never run his own biz. Sheesh, this is elementary shit.

"The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones."

Oh shit, I had it backwards.

rmck1: Truthfully, the real Republicans we all as good liberals should be getting nostalgic over are the Rockefeller Republicans. Sure, their leaders were filthy rich -- but they had a true sense of noblesse oblige.

In that sense, Rockefeller Republicans are like 17th century British aristocracy. Would that we had them again.

Muddy Mo:

"I don't want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny -- Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry and Smear."

But by golly we did, didn't we?

Yeah, the same way Democrats point to Eisenhower/Nixon/Ford, and, increasingly, to Reagan and Bush I as icons of "how the Republicans used to not be evil," even though the Democrats of the time demonized those Republican presidents as much as today's Dems demonize Bush II.

Whoa, I'm not sure about that. I haven't been around long enough to have witnessed most of these personally, but my impression was that they didn't really go after Nixon until Watergate (by which point part of the GOP joined in the fun). I'm not aware of Eisenhower or Ford getting the kind of attacks that Bush does, unless you're counting a small minority of radicals.

Reagan certainly was the target of a lot of abuse, although I doubt it reached these heights. However, it's worth pointing out that with Reagan the antagonism was based on fear of what he might do (e.g. nuke Russia), whereas with Bush, it's based on disgust at what he's already done. Well, I guess there's the deficit in both cases.

I certainly was reading papers when Bush I was president, and I'm certain he never received this sort of treatment. I think liberals generally regarded him as a klutz who couldn't pull the country out of a recession (unfair, I know). The war helped him overall - it ended successfully as far as the public was concerned, with minimal bloodshed, and the only reason his sky-high approval ratings dropped was the economy. None of this sectarian civil war/torture/wiretapping shit.

Finally, the GOP has never been so unashamedly corrupt or religiously conservative as it is now. This is the climax of a long trend that started in the 1970s, and the attacks from the left have been growing in volume at the same time. The Right has been in power long enough to learn to abuse it thoroughly, so it's stupid to view the backlash in isolation.

Oh, and personally, I'll take Goldwater Republicans (like Ron Paul) over Rockefeller Republicans (like Arlen Specter) any day. Goldwater was an extremist in many ways, but I view his type as a necessary counterbalance to the excesses of the Left (and, more recently, most of the Right). Rockefeller Republicans brought us the War on Drugs and overcrowded prisons, and their moderation makes it impossible for them to say no to anything. They're just another bunch of power-mad assholes who think they can legislate us into perfection. At least Goldwater realized this was crazy.

On the other hand, I'm not so sure Goldwater wouldn't be calling for us to nuke Tehran right now.

Bush jaw-dropper: "I'm responsible for the Federal government."

Actual quote, with video.

Say, aren't there two other branches of government? But hey, who's counting!

My father related a personal experience of his during the 60's. He told me that before the '64 election, people would say to him that if he were to vote for Goldwater the war in Vietnam would escalate.

Sure enough, he said. He voted for Goldwater and the war in Vietnam escalated.

mhr >"...not long afterwards LBJ had the US in Vietnam, expanding the forces first put there by John Kennedy..."

Total crapola

The first combat forces from the U.S.A. in Vietnam were ordered there by Dwight D. Eisenhower in the late 1950`s & before that we had a fair number of "advisors" there assisting the "locals" which we had been doing since the French were handed their heads at Dien Bien Phu

L.B.J. increased the combat forces in Vietnam after the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" using the shadow puppets of fear we all have become familiar with in the current case(es) of Hobgoblin Manipulation by the ReThuglicans over 9/11, Iraq, Iran etc

Be sure & get your facts straight before you begin your bloviations at least

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken

Goldwater was a conservative idiot repudiated by the voters. Unfortunately, he looks good in comparison to Bush. This is most likely because Goldwater was not elected president.

It wasn't so long ago that Dems were routinely blasting Reagan as a madman who was leading the world to nuclear annihilation. Now, he's on the verge of being inducted into your Hall of The Worthy Opposition, just like Goldwater.

If it makes you feel any better, I despised Reagan when he was President, and I don't feel any better about him now.

In fact, thinking about it, I wasn't too keen on him when he was the Governor, neither.

And for the trifecta, I didn't think much of his acting.

Nat:

I'll take ol' Senator Sphincter over a fruitcake like Ron Paul any day of the week. While Paul is useful to us for his opposition to the war, the foundation of his ideology is utterly repulsive.

Sure the Rockefeller drug laws absolutely suck -- but they're attributed to a single guy; Rockefeller Republicanism is an ideological cast that often includes Republicans who will stand up for civil liberties. Linc Chafee, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Jim Jeffords (when he was one) have always been my kinda Republicans.

Howard Dean comes out of that tradition, too. If Vermont politics weren't so skewed to the left, he would have likely been a liberal Republican (pro-business, pro-conservation, pro-gun rights, pro-civil liberties) in another state.

Bob

Sure.

It's almost unnoticeable posted here, but it seems appropriate to remember a forgotten instance of Goldwater's genuine conservativism (which is surely a better way to put it than "liberal").

He defended the rules, simply because they were The Rules. He was a guy who was obviously willing to lose BECAUSE the public disagreed with him. We need more of that. There is that famous story about Goldwater going to see JFK in the Oval Office in the summer of '63 to have a few drinks and talk about running against each other in 1964, maybe debate in every state, and JFK greeting him, as the door closed: "you really WANT this fucking job?"

The forgotten story: in 1982 Lowell Weicker was filibustering legislation to allow school prayer. He had enough votes to sustain the filibuster even though proponents, led by Orrin Hatch, had a majority, which naturally bugged 'em. So they concocted a scheme by which, under the Senate rules, they could get an up or down vote on school prayer despite the filibuster.

IIRC, the deal was what's called an amendment tree. Basically, any piece of legislation can only be amended twice -- the legislation itself (including an amendment), than a first and a second degree amendment. If an amendment in the first degree is defeated, that also brings down any amendment offered to IT, that is, if the original amendment is defeated before the second degree amendment is voted on, it brings down the second one, too. (This may seem a bit too insidery, but a few years later this maneuver led directly to Iran-Contra, so skip not.)

Anyway, I think it was Kennedy who offered an amendment to some must-pass bill condemning the tax break to Bob Jones University, thus embarrassing (and annoying) Republicans. So Hatch responded with a school prayer amendment (the first of the second-degree amendments, which thus depended on the Jones amendment); Democrats retaliated with abortion and Republicans finished filling the tree with gun control.

The climax was thus a forced vote on the ruling of the Chair, that this whole thing was against the rules. (This is essentially the same as the "nuclear option" talked about for judges.) Basically, a simple majority could have broken 200 years of precedent and voted to change the Senate rules in the middle of a debate, cuz that was the only way to win. Tempers were up -- it was a bit of a competition on the floor.

It was hardly noticed even at the time, but the old bull stood up, and gave a speech about... well, The Rules. I remember it well (I was a junior aide to a rookie Senator at the time). Goldwater had this magnificent head, he just LOOKED like he belonged on Mount Rushmore, and he put his cane aside when he spoke. He said: 'My friends, I will vote, if we vote, for the rules of the Senate.

'Make no mistake, the interest groups will mark you down for voting against what they want if you vote for the rules here. It will cost you. No one can doubt where I stand on the issues at stake -- but this place will be here long after we are gone, and we have to leave it, intact, for those who come after us. The Senate rules are there for a purpose, and they have served us through world wars, a civil war, through our nation's rise to a superpower, and we shouldn't let ANY short-term gain confuse us about the long-term damage we can do if we forget that we're only here for a short time.

He finished by saying again: 'If we vote, I will vote for the Senate itself.'

I don't suppose it is too much to note that his Republican colleagues were a little ashamed, and they brought down the whole mess, and moved on.

RIP.

The biggest knock on Goldwater as "presidential timber" (as they used to say) is that he was basically a crank. An icon and a leader of other cranks, sure, but he wasn't an intellectual or a saint, and this kind of beatification is just foolish. He'd have been in waaaaay over his head as president. One can be authentic (which he was) and insubstantial (which he was) as well. I think the public sensed that and his gossamer nature was a far bigger cause for his demise at the polls in '64 than his policies or the Daisy ad. He was a lightweight compared to LBJ.

Warren G. Harding--liberal hero???

You've already cried wolf so many times no one takes you seriously any more.

Who's "you"? I'm not a Democrat or part of the Left, and I was a kid in the 80s. I frankly think every president of my lifetime (Carter onwards) has been mediocre at best, and I thought Clinton should have resigned. Actually, you'd have to go back to Eisenhower to find a president I might have actually liked. (Although that little fuckup in Iran in '53 sure has come back to bite us in the ass.)

And I don't think Bush is uniquely terrible; his administration is too incompetent to do the maximum amount of damage. I do, however, think Addington and Yoo belong in jail, and I'm disturbed by the extent to which the current GOP is openly working for the complete destruction of the opposition and the institutionalization of big-government conservatism. They actually brag about it, and people like you think it's all just fun.

Bob--

Ron Paul may have been a bad example; I don't care much for the Rand-worshipping paleolibertarians either (I assume that's the part you find repulsive). There's just not any other example of a libertarian of any stripe left in Congress. (I admire Feingold a great deal, but he's still a big-government Democrat on most stuff.)

The tradition of liberal Republicanism to which you refer is certainly a good one, and in another reality I'd probably be one of those too. Unfortunately, anyone who enables the current GOP leadership is worse than useless in my opinion. The moderates are too ideologically malleable, and they'll sell out and compromise in a heartbeat. I'd like Congress to be a seething, chaotic fight to the death, not a machine for pushing out bloated, destructive legislation. A few extremists here and there would be useful. I'd love for a renegade Republican to start tearing apart Bush and the Congressional leadership, but they're mostly just a bunch of pussies.

Come to think of it, that's one of the things I like about Feingold; he's willing to stick up for The Rules and the rule of law in general, even when it means being a pain in the ass. Too bad he'll never be president.

Of course, your claim of incompetence is itself just another example of your anti-Bush hysteria.

Brilliant!

So there are only two positions available:
1. Bush is not incompetent! Everything is going according to plan!
2. Bush is incompetent. No he's not, that's just your anti-Bush hysteria!

where does your loony-left nonsense like "the GOP has never been so unashamedly corrupt or religiously conservative as it is now" come from?

Hmmm. . . besides reading the actual news, it mostly comes from loony lefties like Reason magazine, Andrew Sullivan, John Cole, Greg Djerejian, William Saletan, Deborah Saunders, and so on. I think Stephen Bainbridge would probably agree with me on the corruption issue, although he's a religious conservative too. I also read TNR regularly, but I'll bet you think they're socialist pussies.

Oh, and I also read a lot of history, and I've been following the Christian Right for a long time now. I don't view them as much of a threat; they're too small a minority. I mostly find them amusing (and very rarely, I'm sympathetic). But they do have considerable influence over the national agenda and GOP politics, and this is a relatively recent phenomenon.

Of course, your claim of incompetence is itself just another example of your anti-Bush hysteria.

Is there any criticism of the president that you would accept as valid? From my perspective, your efforts to defend him on all sides borders on hysteria.

So, you're not a Democrat or part of the left, you're against big government, even of the conservative variety, but you regret that a Democrat Senator who is generally considered to be one of the most liberal and who you yourself characterize as a big-government Democrat will never be president?

Feingold agrees with me on a few issues I really care about, and that's more than I can say for most politicians of either party. He's also been consistently anti-corruption from the beginning, although I disagree with him on campaign finance reform. I'm willing to go with the least obnoxious (to me) major-party candidate, since the Libertarian candidate will obviously be totally batshit insane and get 0.1% of the vote. Besides, I suspect the GOP will keep Congress (or retake it within a few years), and that'll put the breaks on any bloated plans the Democrats might push. If the Democrats keep Congress, I'd be happy with Romney or Hagel.

(My family also knows Feingold personally and respects him a great deal, so I'm also biased.)

Do you have any kind of coherent political beliefs at all?

Yes: limited federal power (especially executive power), less spending, regulated capitalism plus a (true) safety net, individual liberty, secularism, a realist but compassionate foreign policy, strict adherence to the rule of law, minimal social engineering (or social controls), end the War on Drugs, abolish the death penalty, etc. In other words, I'm a soft libertarian (that is, moderate and pragmatist rather than hard-line ideological); "The Road to Serfdom" is my all-time favorite piece of political writing. Like I said above, I'd be a moderate Republican if they still mattered, or even existed.

I'm getting very tired of explaining this to partisans on both sides of the aisle. Is it really so difficult to understand?

GOP,

To cut to the chase of your retorts, professionally, I am a mortgage banker on the commercial side of the ledger, and I know wherefrom I speak. Thus, my "street cred". And need more be said?

However, and perhaps, your history is somewhat deficient with respect to the names of Dave Hall, John F. Long, and several others, and all were active participants and major funders for the many incarnations of the Phoenix 40, from the 1950s onward? Needless to say, but I will, there are now three incarnations of Sun City, in Arizona alone.

As to conspiracy theories, I gave up a long time ago trying to keep up, but I do find one that remains and continues to be quite interesting. This is the cliff dwellings in Northern Arizona and familiarly knows as the Moctezuma Castle. As such, the GOP keeps marketing these federally refurbished and upscale condos to the Democrats. :-)

I've seen this film and highly, highly recommend it.

It is a little strange to hear people like Helen Thomas chuckle, "He looks like a liberal to me!" There are all sorts of journos & pols interviewed stating their opinions (mostly admiration) of Goldwater and, of course, the project was initiated by his granddaughter, whom I saw speak at the screening I attended. She's by no means conservative but openly admires her grandfather.

It's hard to come away from the film, however, without admiring Goldwater's internal coherence and openness. Sure, he was a crank. (And it's one thing to look at the speaker to evaluate what he says, and quite another to look at the rest of the movement that hoisted him onto their collective shoulders and what they represent.) But he certainly seemed to have what people *claim* McCain has: authenticity.

But more importantly, he at least offered some clear tradeoffs. Unlike this current administration, in which everything they touch turns to a distaster. (And to cap it off, we all have to see disasters like Iraq and Katrina unfold, all the while being shrieked at by crazed partisans for being insufficiently patriotic, morally serious, religious, blah blah.)

And for the chiding of liberals for being nostalgic for someone they hated at the time, point taken. But this past 5 years have actually caused at least me (I won't speak for anyone else) to look back with nostalgia at a coherent worldview where you didn't get the worst of both worlds.

Normally, while you may not vote for a Republican, you at least hope that they'd be a bit embarrassed about exploding the deficit. Or that they could figure out how to run a war.

In other words, each side can offer some benefits, and the pushback between the two should achieve the best results. But when, as with our current administration, the Republicans have become a weird Bush-worshipping cult and Democrats have been entirely gelded - all within a poisionous partisan atmosphere - it's not hard to see that we have really lost something.

Anyway - see the movie when it airs on HBO. Worth it no matter where you fall on the political spectrum.

I seriously doubt that any of those individuals would agree with the claim of yours I quoted, but even if they did, it wouldn't mean anything.

It would, at the very least, mean that you're full of shit when you describe all of my views as "loony left". Is that how you characterize anyone you disagree with?

I'd think a libertarian might be capable of a more rational and balanced evaluation.

You're assuming that everyone who looks at the evidence objectively will naturally reach the same conclusion as you, and that anyone who doesn't is a deluded, lunatic far-leftist. I've made what I believe to be a rational and balanced evaluation, and I've decided that Bush isn't evil, or particularly theocratic, or stupid, and he probably really does believe in spreading democracy to the Middle East. I've also decided that he's a terrible administrator, appallingly obstinate, often unprincipled, and has some of the worst advisors and deputies imaginable (especially the lawyers). I've also decided that the Democrats are at the very least incoherent, and possibly clueless. I've come to this conclusion without relying very much on left-wing sources for my news and views; in fact, here and TNR are the only liberal sites I read on a regular basis.

Not that you'll care, but five years ago my gut reaction was to be thankful that the right people were in charge, because I was sure they'd do a quick, clean, efficient job tackling the problem. Even my much more liberal (and lifelong Democrat) mom felt the same way - she assumed that Cheney and Rumsfeld and Powell were the best possible people to be running our foreign policy. Not everyone who has come to despise the Bush administration started from reflexive, mindless leftism. I shouldn't have to explain this over and over again either.

Oh, and as far as Feingold goes: since you missed it the first time, let me restate that Feingold with a Republican Congress would be my preference (gridlock is awesome). In any case, I'm not a single-issue voter, and with the current political sitation I have to pick between candidates I disagree with on the majority of the issues. The Republicans appear to have entirely stopped believing in limited government. Feingold is generally stronger on civil liberties, excepting CFR, and he believes strongly in the rule of law and accountable, ethical government. I don't make much money anyway, so I generally care more about those issues than economic ones. I'd prefer a fiscal conservative/social liberal, but those don't stand a chance in either party.

And since I'm obviously not happy with the current leadership, I'm willing to give the Democrats a chance in the hope that they won't fuck things up as badly, and maybe the GOP will clean house in the interim. If you think this is stupid, suggest something better. I'll probably just end up not voting, because what's the point?

Do you any actual evidence to substantiate that ridiculous claim? ("the GOP has never been so unashamedly corrupt or religiously conservative as it is now").

No, none at all. Everything that's happened in the past 6 years is just the same as it would have been under any other government. And of course, there's nothing at all to suggest that this government, and the party that forms it, ever puts religion (and a certain kind of fundamentalist religion) ahead of science or policy. I certainly haven't seen any of that.

What amuses me about watching Bush apologists is that, no matter what a critic says, they keep asking for more better evidence. If Bush himself came out and confessed that all the criticisms were 100% correct in every detail, you'd still be denying it. You ask for more evidence, but there is literally, absolutely none that you would ever accept as making the point. None.

And in a few years, when the collective judgement of mankind is that W was the worst, most divisive, most destructive president in the history of the known universe, you'll all be nodding your heads, saying "I never supported him, you know. That was someone else. Those bastards"

You who are focusing on specific elements of Goldwater's various platforms are missing the point. The difference between Goldwater and GWB isn't so much economic ideology as character. Would a Goldwater Administration have deliberately issued known lies to the U.N. Security Council, to the American voting public, and to Congress about the "existence" of a secret nuclear program, 500 tons of Sarin gas, mobile anthrax labs, etc., in order to rush us into starting a war of aggression against Iraq? Would Goldwater have punished a former ambassador for writing a newspaper article by revealing the identity of a deep-cover CIA operation disguised as an international private business? Goldwater had some kind of sense of right and wrong, today's gang have none; all they know is what they want.

Seventh-day Adventist • Pork prohibited and meat and fish avoided • Vegetarian diet is encouraged • Alcohol, coffee, and tea prohibited • Diet satisfies practice to "honor and glorify God" We are the only true christian movement, we live by biblical law and follow kosher (like Christ and the earliest christians lead by his brother James,did before us)

Indictment.

You despise men of faith because you despise the word !
You despise the word because you despise your creator !
You depise your creator because he expects you to follow laws and statutes, things that define an individual as man rather than beast !
But you want to lead selfish and degenerate lives,immoral filth that you are , so you have become God haters and you have forfeited your right to be defined as human, you are now mere apes !
Your hearts are black,calloused sores, your eyes are blind ;dark and sordid worm holes !
You are already dead, you know that this is not a life.
Everyday you die,only to wake the next morning and commit the same acts of self-destruction and feel the pain of death upon you again.
For those who wanted to break this vicious cycle,who want to be liberated from the chains of sin that are dragging you deeper into hell with each passing day, who want true life because your sick of what you've seen,go to ;
www.armyofgod.com
www.aryan-nations.org/holyorder/
www.godhatesfags.com
www.thesignsofthetimes.net
www.aryannationsrecords.com
www.forerunner.com
www.amprom.org
www.orange-street-church.org
www.streetpreach.com
www.christiangallery.com
www.moseshands.com
www.aryanyouth.com
www.silverringthing.com
www.kingidentity.com
www.anglo-saxonisrael.com
www.congregationofyhwhnz.org.nz
Google the following;
Richard Kelly Hoskins.
Vigilantes of Christendom.
Phinehas Priesthood.
Christian identity Churches.
Eric Rudolf.
Paul Hill.
The Turner Diaries.
Nauvoo militia.
Read.... ultimate questions by John Blanchard.

To those who are unrepentant, you are handed over to Satan and may the death of a thousand cuts be upon you and hell consume your bodies ! AMEN.

Matt: Dems figured this out years ago, which is why payroll taxes are flat.

annual W-2 income, total FICA + Medicare, percentage of employer's wage (W-2 plus matching FICA + Medicare)

20000, 3060, 14.2%
50000, 7650, 14.2%
80000, 12240, 14.2%
110000, 14350, 12.2%
140000, 15220, 10.3%
170000, 16090, 9.0%
200000, 16960, 8.1%
230000, 17830, 7.5%
260000, 18700, 6.9%
...
1000000, 40160, 3.9%

Does that look flat to you?