Conel Rad: Barry Goldwater- '1964 Campaign Film: Sleaze Montage'

Source:Conel Rad- Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater, at the 1964 GOP National Convention.

"The closing segment of the controversial 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign film, "Choice."

From Conel Rad

Entertaining movie, or an entertaining clip from a movie and in this sense as well as others, during Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign.

This movie, was probably 12-20 years ahead of its time by using short films instead of just campaign ads to broadcast his political message. And bringing in the film industry. My problem with this film is that it sort of contradicts Senator Goldwater’s political message of individual freedom. And suggests that part of the problem with American society is pornography and sex. And that we have too much sexual freedom and perhaps government should do something about it.

And since Senator Goldwater was running for President, perhaps the Federal Government should do something about it. And he mentions that people who are in favor of sexual freedom, do it under the protection of the First Amendment. And that perhaps the First Amendment doesn’t protect Freedom of Expression. Which is course is a big part of what the adult entertainment industry is about, expressing how people feel about sex.

This film would’ve been better suited for a Christian-Right theocratic candidate. Like Pat Robertson or Michele Bachmann or Mike Huckabee or a Rick Santorum.

Someone who believes that part of America’s problems are that our morals have declined and as former U.S. Senate and presidential candidate Alan Keyes said: “The problem with America is that we have a moral crisis and that the Federal Government should try to fix it.” Part of what Mr. Keyes meant about our “moral crisis” was the adult entertainment industry. A movie like this is not for a political candidate who preaches the message of individual liberty and freedom.

Someone whose anti-Big Government and pro-limited government, because individual Liberty is more than just low taxes and regulations and economic freedom. But the freedom for individuals to live their own lives and not for government to try to run their lives for them. Someone who believes that government should be used to protect people from themselves as well as others, is not a big fan of individual liberty. Except when people are living their lives exactly as they want them too.

Entertaining film and worth watching, but I’m disappointed it comes from someone who preaches the message of individual liberty and freedom. This film is better suited for Theocrats not Classical Conservatives which is what Barry Goldwater was and even if he made this film to appeal to Christian Conservatives back then, who weren’t very powerful in American politics yet, then this film was designed to make Senator Goldwater look like something he’s not. Which is a big problem with American politics and still is. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger.

Krazy Kraz: Barry Goldwater 1964 Speech- Freedom vs. Communism

Source: Krazy Kraz- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater, (R, Arizona)

"Many thanks to all librivox and other readers and public speakers." 

From Krazy Kraz

One of the things that I believe America had going for us over Russia in the Cold War was that we essentially had a country united behind freedom. With several variations an ideology’s to achieve exactly how we get there. Liberals who wanted a liberal democracy, conservatives who want a democratic republic, Socialists who wanted a social democracy. Libertarians who wanted to stay true to be a democratic constitutional republic. And we tried to push democracy around the world and also said to these other countries that were sort of on the fringe and could go one way or the other.

That freedom is the best form of government and that you should decide for yourself if you agree. But then figure out what type of democracy you should have on your own. Where in Russia when it was the Soviet Union, people didn’t have a choice. They got authoritarianism in a communist form. Where we had different sources and a variety of ideas we could go to in how best to protect American freedom. Where Russia just had the state to look after its people and govern the entire country.

The Soviet theory being if you give people freedom, they won’t know what to do with it and will become a threat to the state. Not the country exactly, but the State. The people in charged of the people essentially. Where in America we believe at least Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians, that the less freedom the people have, the more powerful the state is meaning the state becomes more powerful and the people have less.

Less freedom for the people to live their own lives. One of the reasons why I believe the Soviet Union collapsed, to go along with its faltering socialist Marxist economy, but also because the people saw through foreign TV and other sources, the freedom that people had in Europe and North America and what they could do with it. Liked what they saw and decided that they wanted a taste of that themselves. And told Moscow, “that you let us have or we’ll go somewhere else and get it.”

Moscow could see the breakup of the Soviet Union essentially coming and let these break away republics take off. Now not all these break aways are perfect examples of democracy. But many these countries now have more freedom than they ever had before. One of the beauty’s of freedom is that its an idea not an ideology. That several different ideology’s share. With a lot of different approaches to achieving and protecting it. And they are all against authoritarianism whatever the form. Whether its communist, theocratic or another type like in a monarchy or something. Freedom maybe the only idea that these different democratic ideology’s have in common. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Conel Rad: The Choice (1964) ‘Decay of American Morality’

Source:Conel Rad- from a 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign film.

"The "Two Americas" segment of the controversial 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign film, "Choice." 

From Conel Rad

There’s a book that was written by Lee Edwards that’s essentially called the 1964 Election a Glorious Defeat for the Conservative Movement. (I’m paraphrasing the title) It came out in 2005 or 2006. I was working at a book store part-time then and being the political junky that I am and not just interested in my politics and people who think like me. 

I saw the book on a table in the store and bought it. I think I still have it somewhere. The premise of it was that even though Senator Barry Goldwater only won something like 40% of the popular vote in that presidential election and won like ten states.

Barry Goldwater inspired Conservative-Libertarians young and from the Baby Boom Generation like Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott and other young Conservatives when. Like John McCain who I believe was in Vietnam when and Alan Simpson and many more. 

All these people who I mentioned by the way served in Congress at least at one level and all served in Congressional Leadership, which gets to my point. All these people consider Barry Goldwater to be a hero at least to some degree and agree with him on a lot of issues. And weren’t involved in politics at least at the Federal level at the time.

And all of these young Conservatives ended up getting involved in politics, running and getting elected to Congress and then serving there for a long time. Senator John McCain obviously is still in Congress and was originally elected to the House in 1982. 

Some might say that Senator Goldwater’s presidential campaign was badly run because of how badly he lost electorally. But I don’t believe that’s the main reason he ran for President at the time. Going into 1964 the chances of any Republican beating Lyndon Johnson weren’t very good. Because of President Kennedy being assassinated and the country pretty much saw President Johnson’s role to carry out President Kennedy’s agenda which he agreed to do. And I believe a lot more successfully as well.

Plus America is still in the Progressive Era of the New Deal and later the Great Society. Which is another reason why the Goldwater Campaign was important for classical conservatism. 

Without the 1964 Goldwater Campaign, Richard Nixon doesn’t become President in 1968 or get reelected in 1972. Ron Reagan doesn’t get elected President in 1980 or reelected in 1984. Senate Republicans don’t win control on the Senate in 1980 for the first time in 28 years and hold it for two more elections after that. Republicans don’t win control of Congress for the first time in 42 years in 1994.

All of these things happened because of Barry Goldwater, who inspired generations of Conservatives to get involved in conservative politics and run for office. At the local, state and federal levels. Despite losing forty states in 1964, Senator Goldwater managed to win states that democrats use to own. Like Alabama and Mississippi and today the Republican Party now owns the Sun Belt and the rest of the Bible Belt. A region that the Democratic Party use to own. Which is a reason why Richard Nixon won some of those States just four years later. Today’s right-winger conservative classical, theocratic and neo, owe a lot of their success to Barry Goldwater. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Nelson Polsby & Newt Gingrich: 'The Grand Ole Party: The Future of The Republican Party'

Source:Hoover Institution- California Berkeley Political Science Professor Nelson Polsby.

"The presidential election of 2000 highlighted the significant demographic divisions between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The strength of the Republicans lies in the South and in the middle of the country. But the voters that carried those regions for George W. Bush, mostly white and Protestant, are shrinking as a proportion of the overall United States population. Are these demographic changes a serious problem for the Republicans? If so, what can they do to bring groups that have traditionally been Democratic—Hispanics, blacks, and Catholics, for example—into the Republican Party?" 

From the Hoover Institution

The Republican Party was as its height of power from 1953-93, when they won 7-11 presidential elections and were competitive in Congress. And even Congress for two years from 1953-55 and held the Senate a total of eight years from 1953-55 and 1981- 87. Some might say the height of the Republican Party was from 1953-2007, 9-15 presidential elections and held Congress for fourteen years and the Senate for eighteen years. 

But I believe the Republican Party started to decline post-Reagan in 1989 and I'll explain that later. Even though they controlled the House from 1995-2007, the Senate from 1995-2001 and 2003 to 2007 and the White House from 2001-2009. Because the base of the Republican Party are Anglo-Saxon-Protestant, rural, male voters. And the Democratic Party essentially owns most of the racial minority groups and the non-Protestant-Christian ethnic groups. 

Also the three largest or 3-4 largest European ethnic Groups in America (German, Irish and Italian) tend to be Democratic as well. The Democratic Party tends to believe in the big tent theory, that if you include as many groups as possible in your party. But you share a common political ideology or political goals and you believe in progress, that gives Democrats the best chance to be competitive across the country. 

And with the current Republican base actually shrinking, for them to be competitive in the future they are going to have to reach out to ethnic and racial minorities, two groups that currently vote overwhelmingly Democratic right now. And they can do that I believe if they go back to the future so to speak, because Asian, African, and Latin-Americans tend to be pro-business and free enterprise which has been Republicans dominant message since the 1930s and 40s. 

This can be done if they were to drop this Christian-Conservative message that they've been on for the past twenty years or so. And trying to use government to tell people how to live their lives. And actually start welcoming new people to their party instead of telling them they are Un-American.

The Republican Party used to be a party that was about classical conservatism, protecting constitutional rights, and individual liberty. Instead of trying to use government to tell people how to live their lives and trying to criminalize things that they don't like just because they don't personally don't like them. And a real free enterprise party that was against things like corporate welfare and cowboy economics. 

This is the politics that brought them back into power in the 1950s and where they stayed in power from 1953-93, except for 61-69 and 77-81. This was when the Republican Party was the Grand Ole Party but the track they are headed down now is becoming the Grand Old Party . With a base that is dying off if they don't expand it.

The Conservative Will: President Ronald Reagan- On Taxes in 1986

Source:The Conservative Will- President Ronald W. Reagan, Oval Office address on tax reform, in 1986.

"President Reagan on taxes." 

From The Conservative Will

A Liberal Democrat could’ve basically given the same speech on tax reform that Ron Reagan a Conservative Republican gave. I mean Jack Kennedy could’ve given the same speech that President Reagan gave, or it would’ve sounded very similar. And he probably gave a similar speech when he pushed for deep tax cuts in the early 1960s. The American tax system is so complicated that accountants hire other accountants to fill out their Federal taxes and tax lawyers hire other tax lawyers to come up with tax loopholes for them. These might sound like jokes, but they’re not far off.

The Federal Government has gotten to the point and this has gone on for at least thirty years if not longer, that if they want Americans to do something that they believe in their “brilliant wisdom”, is in the best interest for the country, they write a tax credit to encourage people to do it. Whether its education for their kids, or giving to charity, or planning for their own retirement. 

And there’s a lot more and it’s not that these causes aren’t worthwhile, because a lot of them are. But they all get written in the tax code, that’s gotten so big, that you now have to be a super weightlifter in order to pick the damn thing up and walk around with it. Actually a lot football players now stay in shape by power-lifting the tax code.

Insomniacs now read the tax code night after night and I should know I’m one of them. It helps them go to sleep and plus reading that book, you never run out of reading material. Because Congress writes a new tax law almost every day. It’s basically the only thing the Senate does now a days besides general speeches. Thats another place that insomniacs go to when they need to get some sleep, the Senate to listen to hours of general speeches. I almost feel sorry for the Senate typist who has to write all these speeches down hours and hours of them. 

The tax code is so big now, that you need a pickup truck or a minivan, without seats to move it around. It is something like 70,000 pages the population of Wilmington, Delaware and don’t ask me how I know that. In summary too much free time.

To be totally serious for a minute, (like totally!) or as serious as I can be and this should only take about a minute and if I run out of time, I’ll ask a Senator to yield to me, the Senator could probably use some water, or catch their breath and now I’ll be serious for real: but seriously what we should do instead is throw out the current tax code. If we can find a trash dump big enough to carry it and will take it and reform our tax code. 

We should move to a tax system that lowers the rates and broadens the base and doesn’t raise taxes on anyone who can’t afford to pay more. And doesn’t raise taxes enough to discourage wealth creation. 

Lower rates on most, individuals and business’s, but throw out all the tax loopholes, or most of them. And give people more freedom to spend their own money that they worked for the way they want to. Instead of Uncle Sam (who’s no ones favorite uncle unless you’re a Socialist) telling us how to spend our own money that we made on our own. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Conel Rad: Ronald Reagan- Time For Choosing (1964)

Source:Conel Rad- Then private citizen Ronald Reagan, speaking in favor of Senator Barry Goldwater for President in 1964. 

"Ronald Reagan delivers his "A Time for Choosing" speech in support of Senator Barry Goldwater in the waning days of the 1964 general election. "The Speech" as it is also known launched Reagan's political career. Two years after this film was broadcast on NBC on October 27, 1964, he was elected governor of California. Contrary to some entries on Wikipedia and elsewhere, Reagan did NOT deliver this speech at the Republican National Convention in San Francisco. He taped it on a soundstage in Hollywood, California." 

From Conel Rad 

I wonder if the RNC Delegates still thought they nominated the right person for President in 1964. Actually, when it came to speaking for classical conservatism, Ron Reagan and Barry Goldwater were probably about equal. Except that Reagan had some better lines and better humor. He was essentially a comedian in Hollywood who could also act a little bit, as well as a comedian as a politician. And wrote most of his material, something good comedians have as an advantage as speakers over non-comedians. They can speak off the top of their head. Reagan also had the ability to put down the opposition with humor, without sounding like a jerk.

Reagan was great at getting people to laugh at themselves and laugh at him intentionally as well. 1964 was the last general election that the Democratic Party owned the South even though they won in a landslide, the White House and Congress. Even with Senator Goldwater's huge defeat, he managed to win some Southern states that the Democratic Party previously owned. 

Goldwater had some success in the South, because he opposed the civil rights legislation of the mid 1960s, on libertarian-constitutional ground. But part of it was also Senator Goldwater and Ron Reagan with their classical conservative message of limited government and more individual freedom. That they took across the country, including in the South. That made the Republican Party competitive all across the country, even in the Northeast and Far West.

This was an era from around 1952 with Dwight Eisenhower, up to 1992 with George H.W. Bush where the Republican Party was truly the Grand Ole Party. That was about limited government and individual freedom. That Eisenhower, Goldwater, Gerry Ford and Reagan communicated so well. And why they won 7-10 presidential elections and became competitive in Congress again. Even holding the Senate for eight years in that time period, which at the time was a huge accomplishment for them. Where in the 70s and 80s they would speak to the Christian-Right but wouldn't give them anything. How times and the Republican Party have changed. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

CBS News: The Early Show- Rebecca Jarvis- Interviewing U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann: 'I Cannot Vote To Raise The Debt Ceiling'

Source:CBS News- U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (Republican, Minnesota) on CBS's The Early Show.

"Rebecca Jarvis talks to Republican presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann about the jobs, the economy and raising the debt ceiling.

Add Rep. Michelle Bachmann who's running for President in case you missed the memo, statement to the clueless list and to the list of reasons why she won't be President of the United States. Every time I hear her speak, I question whether she's qualified." 

From CBS News 

To first talk about what Representative Mchele Bachmann was saying about the budget deficit and national debt being President Barack Obama's: the deficit was already over a trillion-dollars the day President Obama took office two years ago. And the national debt was already over 11 trillion-dollars. He inherited a huge deficit and debt from former President George W. Bush. So unless the United States of America wasn't created until January 2009, it's not credible to say that the deficit and debt are the Obama deficits and debt. 

I'm not talking about legal qualifications here, but Representative Michele Bachmann's judgement. It's a good thing for Minnesota that she's not running for Senate in 2012, but I don't have to make that call which is good for me, because if she did run for Senate next year, she would probably get the Republican nomination for Senate and there are enough ignorant people in Minnesota unfortunately that she would run a strong race in Minnesota as far a getting support. 

Representative Bachmann also represents another reason why U.S. Reps. don't generally do very well when running for President and rarely even get much attention and support, because most of the 435 Representatives, except for some committee leaders and members of leadership, have never even ran statewide let alone been elected statewide, let alone run for national office, they are accustomed to running in a very partisan House districts. And not accustomed to speaking to a broader audience unlike senators, governors, President's and Vice President's have to do in order to get elected and reelected. 

One of the reasons why Reps. get reelected overwhelmingly and why there are so few competitive House races, because they are accustomed to be speaking to people that they basically know will vote for them, instead of speaking to Independents who don't know who'll they vote for and in a lot of cases don't make that decision until Election Day. 

Also Reps. generally lack executive and foreign policy experience two things that President's tend to have before they become President. So what you have with Michele Bachmann is someone who consistently speaks about issues she doesn't understand and doesn't have much experience dealing with. Which unfortunately can be said about a lot of the 435 Representatives in Congress.

As far as the debt ceiling issue goes: everyone in the debt ceiling negotiations all of the Democrats and Republicans, understands that America can't afford to default on our debt, one of the reasons is because of the size of it 14T$ over 90% of our GDP. Our weak economy simply can't afford it right now, we can't afford a worthless dollar. Even House Leader Eric Cantor who's said some strange things recently understands this. 

Which is just one reason why Representative Bachmann is not part of these negotiations, is just a matter of how we do it. A clean debt ceiling without budget cuts and tax hikes. A strict debt ceiling with budget cuts or a more broader debt ceiling package with both steep budget cuts and tax hikes on people who can afford it and closing tax loopholes, that I'm in favor of.