If 64 Was 08

For those certain Ron Paul is an outlier nut who can't win the GOP nomination and it's all about Giuliani and Romney, Justin Raimondo asks us to remember a time when Barry Goldwater was an outlier nut who couldn't win the GOP nomination and it was all about Rockefeller and, um, Romney.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    I don't mind, I don't mind.

    Trust my fellow Gator to make a Hendrix reference in the weird music hell that is Hit & Run :)

    I think Paul is very similar to Goldwater, and even if he ends up with the same result, there's no doubt that Goldwater helped bolster America's love of limited government, even if that only had marginal effects on the growth of government. Every little bit helps.

  • D. Greene||

    Cue Edward entering and telling everyone this is pointless and Ron Paul can't win.

  • ||

    Let's just hope Bush stays out of Dallas until after the primaries.

  • ||

    And see how great that worked out for both the GOP and limited government!

    Come on, Goldwater got completely, utterly crushed in '64, giving LBJ the majority and momentum he needed to create the Great Society.

  • Edward||

    I'll take Justin Raimondo seriously on Ron Paul when he shows up on the FEC's list of contributors to Paul's campaign.

    D.Greene

    How about the lack of donations to his campaign from big-name Libertarians? Nobody has to tell them he can't win. They prefer that you waste your money.

  • highnumber||

    Edward,

    The Reason staffers are journalists.
    Take that for everything it implies.

  • ||

    Goldwater.

    Gold standard.

    Hmm. Makes sense.

  • matt||

    I'll take Justin Raimondo seriously on Ron Paul when he shows up on the FEC's list of contributors to Paul's campaign.



    Yeah, because people's ideas are only valid if they spend their surplus funds in certain ways.

    Raimondo is, as close as I can tell, a free-lance writer who lives in an area with a VERY high cost of living. Your opinions about how he should spend his money don't invalidate his opinions about who should be president. Your argument is one step removed from Dondero's "only veterans have the right to criticize the war" tactic.

  • robc||

    Edward,

    I cant find any big name GOPers on the list either. Or any big name Dems (not celebs). Most are probably waiting it out, but it is interesting. I looked up McConnell, nope my senator hasnt donated money to ANY GOP candidate (I would have expected a donation to all). By this, I take it you dont think any of them can win.

  • ||

    "there's no doubt that Goldwater helped bolster America's love of limited government"

    LBJ's Great Society helped bolster America's opposition to liberalism. Goldwater ran 4 years too early. He may have won if he ran in 1968.

  • ||

    Edward spends so much time here that I'm quite sure he's one of us..... he just hasn't accepted the truth yet. Soon you will have your own secret decoder ring, young Edward.

  • ||

    Raimondo is an outlier nut if he thinks Ron Paul has a shot at winning the nomination.

  • Joseph||

    Shut the hell up, neo con!

    RON PAUL 2008!

  • ||

    I contributed to Paul a couple of months ago, and I don't show up on the list. For what that's worth.

  • ||

    Raimondo is an outlier nut if he thinks Ron Paul has a shot at winning the nomination.



    You don't vote for someone because you think they're going to win. You vote for them to state your preference.

    The argument that "so-and-so can't win so dont' vote for them" is stupid. Elections aren't a game of roulette. There is no cost to your vote if your candidate doesn't win, and no reward if they do. Ron Paul is a long shot, but since there's no cost to checking his name on the ballot, I might as well put my chips down on that big green double-O.

  • ||

    The biggest argument for Ron Paul having a realistic shot at the nomination would be if the GOP base was making a heavy shift away from support of the "whatever Bush says" Iraq policy. I haven't seen any poll numbers that indicate that the base is at all significantly wavering here. Until that attitude adjustment occurs, Ron Paul has no shot, no matter how good the rest of his credentials are.

  • ||

    Raimondo is an outlier nut if he thinks Ron Paul has a shot at winning the nomination.

    So is Raimondo an outlier on the "nut" distribution, or is Ron Paul an outlier on the "nomination" distribution and Raimondo is just the "outlier nut" that... believes... wait...

    What the hell are you talking about?

  • ||

    I don't recall that George Romney was a big front-runner in 1964. To the best of my recollection, he stayed out of the race and supported Bill Scranton (then governor of Pennsylvania). He was the first to announce his candidacy for the 1968 race, other than perrennial candidate Harold Stassen, but washed out early once he admitted having been brainwashed about Vietnam. (If only his son would admit something similar about Iraq.)

  • ||

    " I haven't seen any poll numbers that indicate that the base is at all significantly wavering here"

    A recent poll showed that over 50% of Republicans in Iowa want us out of Iraq within 6 months. That plus a large turnout in Iowa recently for Ron Paul shows there may be some wavering.

  • ||

    Edward,

    That list is:

    A. Not completely comprehensive
    B. Shows ONLY donations of $200 or more
    C. Doesn't show any contributions other than monetary, such as volunteering, leafleting, etc.

    You'll notice that you IP address has not been blocked.

    That is because Reason believes in free speech, even speech as obtuse and inane as the text you spew like oral diarrhea. Any other political blog would have banned your IP long ago.

    On behalf of my fellow reason brethren, I ask, in return for the respect we pay you, to reciprocate aforementioned respect by trying, even if only occasionally, to not purposefully be a complete and utter douchebag.

    Thank you in advance.

  • Brian Doherty||

    Seamus--Approx this long before the 64 election, in a very different atmosphere for presidential campaigns, the three people who were thought of as the main contenders were Rocky, Romney, and GW---Romney ended up not officially running, though.
    Of course, GW's chances that far ahead were also far better in the standard wisdom than Raimondo implies in the comparison. The book handiest to me discussing this is Lee Edwards's GOLDWATER, pp. 185-89.

  • ||

    On behalf of my fellow reason brethren, I ask, in return for the respect we pay you, to reciprocate aforementioned respect by trying, even if only occasionally, to not purposefully be a complete and utter douchebag.



    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*Deep Breath*HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHaHaHaHaHaHa
    HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa*Breath*hahahahahahahahaha*snort*weeeeee


  • ||

    Let me see if I get this. If people are worried that Ron Paul might be a nut case (me. me. me) then they should find some comfort is the words of Justin Raimondo, one of the few people who makes Ron Paul look absoltuely civilized and mainstream.

    I can't think of an endorsement more appropriate. But who knows, give him time and flip-flop again and condemn Paul, the way he was a few years ago back when Paul was actually more libertarian than he is today.

  • ed||

    Ayn Rand called Romney the Elder "a soft-shelled thing".

  • ||

    kidding,

    you're not supposed to find it comforting, you're not supposed to find it anything. Why do so many commenters think people are wacko because they have different opinions. Nobody here is telling you to like Ron Paul. Some of us just feel he'd be the best choice for president. Take that as you may. You can ask our reasons, which we'll answer and you can judge for yourself. So many people think the presidency is SUPPOSED to be some sort of contest where making one side win is more important than voting for your favored candidate. I hope in future generations, people come to realize its about voicing your opinion, not picking the RIGHT team. Maybe once that is understood, the herd mentality will be much reduced and sane politics will replace the circus we currently have. I don't hold out much hope for that, but I do get tired of being lambasted for voting my conscience.

  • ||

    sane politics will replace the circus we currently have

    To quote mediageek:

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*Deep Breath*HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHaHaHaHaHaHa
    HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa*Breath*hahahahahahahahaha*snort*weeeeee

  • ||

    Here's the big question: have the frontrunners made it impossible to walk back their support for the Iraq War?

    If so, if they cannot come out against staying the course without looking like flip-flopping, poll-reading (blabbetty blabbetty blah blah) when they have to argue in favor of pulling out, then Paul has a change.

  • ||

    taktix,

    I did mention that I don't hold out much hope, so I'm not entirely crazy, right?

  • Gene Berkman||

    Ron Paul has something else in common with Goldwater -the business as usual Republicans did not want to have anything to do with Goldwater, and they don't want to have anything to do with Ron Paul.

    But the Goldwater campaign did lead to a resurgence of conservative activity - the American Conservative Union, the Conservative Book Club and more came out of the ashes of 1964.

    We need to use the Ron Paul campaign to boost the Libertarian Movement across the board, including the Libertarian Party.

  • ||

    I'll take Justin Raimondo seriously on Ron Paul when he shows up on the FEC's list of contributors to Paul's campaign.

    I'll take Edward seriously when...well, I can't think of anything that would make me take him seriously at this point. Perhaps if my brain were removed and replaced with chicken feces.

  • ||

    Ok, Edward: I have $6.15 in my bank account (not counting $1.95 in my "savings" account). How about if I contribute 3 bucks and some change: then I can claim I gave HALF of my fortune to The Cause.

    What is it about "Hit and Run" threads that is so ... [fill in the blank]?

  • Justin Raimondo||

    Uh, yeah, Brian is right: it was Scranton, not Romney. Those RINOS all look alike to me ....

  • MattXIV||

    joe,

    That's actually the core of my possible-but-not-likely scenario where Ron Paul could actually end up in the White House. If all the Repub frontrunners lock themselves into a pro-war stance and things get bad enough in Iraq that support for the war becomes an electability issue, Paul could get the Republican nomination.

    This would actually put him in a relatively strong general election position. His anti-war credentials are better than Clinton and Edwards's and at least as good as Obama's and the Dems will probably have spent a great deal of effort emphasizing the importance of opposition to the Iraq war both to appeal to their base in the primaries and in expectation of facing a pro-war Repub. Clinton in particular would be vulnerable since he can outflank her on the war to demotivate the lefty part of the Dem base (who she isn't very popular with as is) and being able to stoke the the strong anti-Clinton sentiment of the GOP base could compensate for his anti-war position among Republicans.

  • ||

    What gene said.

  • ||

    Mitt Romney is not a front-runner. Isn't he a distant 4th right now?

  • ||

    I'll give Justin this: he is one of the few (only) columnists that is actually willing (aware of) the discussion of his articles on H&R.

  • ||

    Raimondo has his history all wrong.

    George Romney was not a front-runner in 1964.

    Anyhow, the winner of the '64 New Hampshire Republican primary wasn't even a declared candidate, it was a write-in: Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge.

  • ||

    Inkstained Wretch

    Come on, Goldwater got completely, utterly crushed in '64, giving LBJ the majority and momentum he needed to create the Great Society.



    So, you're saying that it would've been just fine if Rockefeller had got the majority and momentum he needed to create his version of the Great Society?* Is that it?

    Because that's about how it would've happened.

    People today have now idea how much of a hankering people had for getting government control harder and better than they had gotten it before in 1964.

    It wasn't really leftwing so much as...well...just about everyone believed that a big centralized government in DC would make us richer and happier than we had ever been. And Goldwater was just pissing all over those ideas.

    *And if you don't believe that's what would have happened just read up on what we got under Nixon four years later. In fact, much of what we consider LBJ's Great Society was signed into law by the "conservative" (is that a laugh, or what?) Richard Nixon.

  • ||

    adamson

    Exactly who were the contenders in '64 is not relevant.

    The fact is that Goldwater faced a GOP establishment that was completely attached to same military adventurism and expansive welfare statism as the Democrats.

  • ||

    Well, the election was before my time, and though I recognize that Goldwater was a much different type of Republican than Rockefeller, how much of an outlier could he have been if the New York Times had this to say about him just over a year before the election.

    NEW ENGLANDERS LIKE GOLDWATER; G.O.P. Leaders Regard Him As Strongest Candidate

    There is strong belief among New England Republicans that Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona is their strongest Presidential candidate. The feeling is almost as high that he will be the man to face President Kennedy in 1964.



  • ||

    Huh-huh. 08 = sqrt(64).

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement