Barry Goldwater Jr. Endorses Ron Paul
Nick Gillespie | November 16, 2007, 11:45am
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA-Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul today gained a public endorsement from Barry M. Goldwater, Jr.
"America is at a crossroads," said Mr. Goldwater. "We have begun to stray from our traditions and must get back to what has made us the greatest nation on earth or we will lose much of the freedom we hold dear. Ron Paul stands above all of the other candidates in his commitment to liberty and to America."
"Leading America is difficult, and I know Ron Paul is the man for the job," he added.
Mr. Goldwater is the son of the late former Republican presidential candidate and Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater, Jr. served in the House of Representatives for six terms with Texas Congressman Paul, and is currently on the Board of Directors of the Goldwater Institute. After representing northern Los Angeles County in Washington, D.C. for 14 years, Mr. Goldwater retired from politics in 1983 to pursue a successful career in business and humanitarian ventures.
"The Ron Paul campaign is exceptionally honored by Mr. Goldwater's endorsement," said Paul campaign manager Lew Moore. "Dr. Paul and Congressman Goldwater fought together in the Congress for the ideals of limited constitutional government that Mr. Goldwater's father so tirelessly advocated. The Goldwaters have left an indelible mark on the Republican Party, and theirs is a legacy which Congressman Paul will certainly inherit as President."
The late Barry M. Goldwater, Sr. sparked the modern conservative movement and was the Republican Party presidential nominee in 1964.
More here.
reason on Barry Sr. here and here.
On Ron Paul here.
joe | November 16, 2007, 2:28pm | #
Rimfax,
Right you are. I was going to correct myself, but got distracted. Stupid work!
I should have written "...and that's when Clinton's budget cuts began," instead of "...the budget cuts."
oldnumberseven,
Actually, it's Republicans like Huckabee who are talking about 'peace with honor.' Hillary Clinton, like every other Democrat running (and Ron Paul) has stated she will end the war.
Which is not to say she will do exactly as Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, or even Bill Richardson recommend. She would likely draw down troop levels more slowly. She would likely have troops in the region carrying out missions like striking terrorist camps (if necessary) or providing a security guarantee to the Kurds (if necessary) - you know, they type of things we were doing in the Middle East prior to Bush's war. And there are certainly cases to be made against either of those residual missions. But they do not represent a continuation of the war, or of the war policy.
Hillary Clinton has also sponsored legislation forbidding the use of taxpayer funds to construct permanent bases in Iraq. That, right there, is the key indicator of the candidates' intentions. Those who support the perpetual occupation of Iraq and a permanent American military presence for the purpose of bringing the region to heel are preparing for an American army to stay there permanently; those who oppose such a policy are opposing those efforts.
Back in 2002, I considered the difference between what we were doing prior to the war and what we were doing there in April 2003 to be pretty darn important. I imagine you did, too. And the hawks? Forget about it - to them, the difference between our policy in November 2002 and our policy in May 2003 was the difference between Chamberlain in 36 and Churchill in 40. Now, they're pretending that going back to something quite a bit like what were doing in November 2002 is indistinguishable from the policies of Dick Cheney and Duncan Hunter.
A lot of hawks are working awfully hard to mislead anti-war folks about the consequence of their vote next November, and they're doing it in an attempt to retain power and keep the war going.
Mark Bahner | November 16, 2007, 9:45pm | #
Heh, heh, heh!
Wonder what the yokel on RedState blog who calls himself the "Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party" says about this?
I can't see, because when RedState blog banned me*, they also disabled my ability to even see their blog.
Mark (Banned on RedState blog and Brad DeLong's blog, for telling inconvenient truths)
P.S. See the hilarious stuff (those of you who haven't been banned) over at, "Apparently, RedState is evil." (They forgot "pathetic, too.")
P.S. I was banned forever for posting these remarks (luckily, I copied them before they disabled my access). See them under the heading, "Yeah, right." (To the yokel's claim that Barry Goldwater Sr. would have "to be restrained if in the same room" as Ron Paul.)
One other thing, if Goldwater was alive, he probably would have to be restrained if in the same room as the dip stick from Texas.
"Yeah, right. Let me introduce you to Barry Goldwater:
The rights that we have under the Constitution covers anything we want to do, as long as its not harmful. I can't see any way in the world that being a gay can cause damage to somebody else.
I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.
In 1996, with Senator Dennis DeConcini, Goldwater endorsed an Arizona initiative to legalize medical marijuana.
P.S. If Barry Goldwater Sr. would have such as problem with Ron Paul as YOU claim, why does Barry Goldwater Jr. get along with Ron Paul so well?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPoFXl97wv4
Could it be that Barry Goldwater Jr. knows more of his father's mind than you do?"
