Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Barry Goldwater- The Role of Conservatism in (1966)

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- former U.S. Senator (Republican, Arizona) and 1964 Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater, on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1966.

“A clip from William F. Buckley’s 1966 interview with Barry Goldwater on “Firing Line.” 

From Moog Rogue 

What Barry Goldwater was doing in this clip was arguing for the two-party system and saying that Republicans don’t have to be Progressive Democrats or Democratic-light in order to win elections and gain power in America.

In early 1966 after the Republican Party took back-to-back-to-back political beatings in Washington from 1960-64, what Senator Goldwater was saying her sounds rather foolish:

But in 1965, House Republicans elect Representative Gerald Ford to be their leader in the House

1966 House Republicans win 45 seats in the House, with a whole lot of Conservative Republicans in Congress, especially in the House getting elected

Thanks to Richard Nixon, Republicans win The White House back in 1968. not because they sound and talked like Democrats, but because they were Republicans, with even Progressive Republicans sounding and thinking different politically then Progressive Democrats.

So I believe Senator Goldwater was onto something in 1966, even if he was the only Republican who knew what Republicans needed to do to get back into power. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

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

The White House: 'President Obama Speaks on the Economy and Middle-Class Tax Cuts'

Source:The White House- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) speaking in Detroit, Michigan.

"President Obama delivers remarks at the Daimler Detroit Diesel Plant. December 10, 2012."

From The White House 

FRSFreeStatePlus: Washington Times: Opinion: Emily Miller: Conservatives Next Step

MILLER: Conservatives' next step - Washington Times

The next step for Republicans especially in the US Senate, is to recruit real Conservatives, people like Mike Lee. Ron Johnson and Rand Paul, people like Marco Rubio, real limited government Conservatives who were all elected. To the US Senate in 2010 and move away from the religious right, people like Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle. Republican Senate Candidates who cost Senate Republicans four safe winnable Senate seats in 2010 and 2012. And frankly represent why Mitch McConnell will once again be the Senate Minority Leader in the next Congress. Because Senate Republicans not only lost Democratic seats they should've won but they also lost Republican seats. They should've won like in Indiana in 2012 with Richard Mourdock, these Tea Party. Religious/Neoconservatives are costing the Republican Party right now and represent exactly why the GOP Are losing elections that they should be winning

Whatever you think of Senator Jim Demit, he's responsible for recruiting Rand Paul, Ron Johnson, Marco Rubio and Mike Lee. All of these people being real fiscal Conservatives and believers in civil liberties and social freedom, Senator Johnson. I believe from Wisconsin is even pro choice on abortion, now Republicans don't have to be pro choice on abortion. But they also can't be preaching for limited government as it relates to the economy but Big Government. As it relates to peoples civil lives and they need to move away from the religious right and get back to Goldwater/Reagan Conservatism. And truly be a party of limited government, rather then a party of Big Government, when it comes to how. Americans live their own lives and they'll do well in the future.

Commentary: Peter Wehner: 'The Recalibration of Conservatism'

Source:Trinity Forum- writer Peter Wehner.

"Heard from a couple of prominent conservatives yesterday who mentioned to me the pessimism, and even depression, they sense among conservatives throughout the land. That’s understandable, given the results of the 2012 election. Because unlike 2008, this is an election Barack Obama should have lost and that the right fully expected him to lose.

Still, there have been worse wilderness years than what we’re experiencing now. (Retaining control of the House will prove to be an important check on Mr. Obama’s second-term ambitions.) In addition, the loss Republicans experienced can be leveraged to conservatives’ advantage, if we take away the right lessons from the 2012 defeat.

Two individuals who are doing just that are Representative Paul Ryan and Senator Marco Rubio. They spoke earlier this week at the annual dinner of the Jack Kemp Foundation. Both speeches (which can be found here and here) are well worth reading.

The speeches focused on the plight of the poor, the challenges facing the middle class, upward mobility and opportunity, and (especially in the case of Senator Rubio) education. Messrs. Ryan and Rubio offered intelligent defenses of limited government while also acknowledging the important role of government. And they used terms like “compassion,” “the common good,” “civil society,” and “social infrastructure.” Their tone was inclusive, humane, aspirational, and captured the true, and full, spirit of conservatism.

Listen and Subscribe to the Commentary Podcast

What Ryan and Rubio are doing is widening the aperture of the Republican Party and the conservative movement, which in recent years either ignored (in the case of civil society and education) or took aim at (in the case of compassion) issues and concepts that are morally important and politically potent. It isn’t so much that what was being said was wrong, though in some cases (like on immigration) it was; it’s that the vision being offered was constricted. 

The task facing conservatives today is somewhat akin to what Ronald Reagan faced in 1977 with the GOP, Bill Clinton faced in 1992 with the Democratic Party, and Tony Blair faced in 1994 with the Labour Party. In this instance, the Republican Party and conservatism have to remain powerful defenders of liberty and limited government. But they also have to establish themselves in the public imagination as advocates for reform and modernization, of the middle class and social mobility, and of a generous, inclusive vision. There is much more work to be done, and the speeches by Ryan and Rubio were encouraging first steps.

The necessary recalibration of conservatism is under way, and that is something that ought to lift the spirits of conservatives." 

From Commentary Magazine

American Enterprise Institute: 'Conservatism in the 113th Congress: Views from the Republican Study Committee Chairman & Chairman-Elect'

"Post-Event Summary

AEI President Arthur Brooks was joined by Rep. Jim Jordan and Rep. Steve Scalise, chairman and chairman-elect of the Republican Study Committee, respectively, for an event on Tuesday to discuss the challenges and successes of the 112th Congress. Representatives Jordan and Scalise also looked ahead to the potential policy issues of 113th Congress, examining the role that the leading conservative caucus in the House of Representatives will play.

Rep. Jordan began by reflecting on the Republican Study Committee’s (RSC) engagement in the policy battles of the 112th Congress, particularly the super-committee negotiations during summer 2011. Rep. Scalise contended that the House must embrace a “visionary agenda” in the 113th Congress that prioritizes tax reform and curbs entitlement growth as a means of achieving a balanced budget. The representatives agreed that the greatest threat to future generations of Americans is government-led redistributive spending, which, according to Rep. Scalise, stifles individual opportunity.

Among the many other topics discussed by Representatives Jordan and Scalise were the fiscal cliff, sequestration, and immigration reform. Rep. Jordan concluded by emphasizing that the RSC must continue to advocate for the policy proposals that reflect the committee’s fundamental values, because “if we stick with our principles, we will arrive at the right policy.”

–John VerWey

Event Description

Since 1973, the Republican Study Committee (RSC) has been the key membership organization for conservatives in the US House of Representatives. Today, after an election cycle that failed to drastically alter the political landscape, the RSC will continue to influence key policy areas that will define conservatism for years to come.

At this AEI event, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), the current chairman of the Republican Study Committee, and the incoming chairman, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), will share their thoughts on the future of the conservative movement.

If you are unable to attend, we welcome you to watch the event live on this page. Full video will be posted within 24 hours." 

From AEI

C-SPAN: 'BookTV In Depth: Senator Tom Coburn'

Source:C-SPAN- U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (Republican, Oklahoma) on C-SPAN's BookTV.

"Senator Coburn is the author of "Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders into Insiders" (2003); and "The Debt Bomb: A Bold Plan to Stop Washington from Bankrupting America" (2012).

The Senator has also authored many reports that can be read on his website, including "Back in Black" (2011); "Oklahoma Waste Report: Exposing Washington's Wasteful Spending Habits in our Own Backyard" (2011); "Subsidies of the Rich and Famous" (2011); and "Money for Nothing" (2012)." 

From BookTV

The Washington Times: Kyle Scott: 'No New Taxes Without Spending Limits'

Source:The Washington Times- cover photo.

"Between servicing the debt and funding entitlement programs, our government is overburdened by its financial obligations. In the current negotiations over how we can avoid falling off the fiscal cliff, some Republicans have indicated willingness to give in to the Democrats’ demands that taxes be raised in order to meet these obligations. Unless limits are placed on spending levels, however, increasing government revenue will not solve the problem in the long term. Any increase in revenue must be accompanied by a limit on spending.

The growth in government is reflected in its spending, which has steadily increased as a percentage of the nation’s GDP. Whenever the government increases its spending obligations, the taxpayers are asked to give “just a little bit more.” Over time, this “little bit more” ends up being quite a bit more. Unless we put a limit on how much the government can spend, it will keep spending, and taxpayers will continually be asked to give more.

Placing a cap on government spending as a percentage of GDP would accomplish several important goals. First, it would ensure that the growth of government is directly tied to the growth of the private sector. It makes little sense for government services and spending to grow at a time when the private sector is struggling to find its economic footing. When the government seeks to help the economy by spending taxpayer money, the spending guarantees the growth of government and nothing else. Taking money from some and giving it to others in hopes of spurring economic growth is like taking water from one end of the bathtub and dumping it in the other in an effort to raise the overall water level in the tub." 

From The Washington Times